Nena and I watched Survival of the Dead this week. This is the latest in George Romero's Night of the Living Dead series of movies. They've always been hit-or-miss in quality, and this one is about as far from the bull's-eye as Romero's zombie films get.
This is nowhere near as bad as Abraham Lincoln vs Zombies, of course, but it's nowhere near as good as Land of the Dead, either. The acting is spottier than in most of his movies, the writing isn't nearly as tight, and there are some serious continuity problems with its predecessors. Upon reflection, maybe it's not far above ALvZ, after all.
Most offensive, perhaps, is the tendency of characters who have been dealing with zombies for an extended period of time or have applicable training or both (and who therefore have no excuse) to do incredibly stupid things that get them bitten or completely torn to bits by zombies.
Another offense that occurs with annoying frequency is the sudden appearance of zombies from nowhere. It's not like they're stealthy, and there's usually no place they could have been hiding, but they still manage to end up standing right behind someone without warning in scene after scene. A couple of still-alive guys manage to do the same thing to one of the lead characters at one point, as well... on horseback... in the open... in broad daylight.
Yet another peeve is the FX department obviously straining to find innovative new ways to destroy zombies. We don't need a new effect for every dead zombie, guys, just whacking them in the head is okay.
It has a decent premise, but the execution is sub-par, even for zombie movies. I'd say this is at least a five-beer zombie movie (the number being the number of beers needed to make it tolerable).
Friday, September 14, 2012
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
September 11, 2001
I was on my way to work and listening to the news on the radio. A plane had crashed into the World Trade Center, and it was a terrible accident. Then a second plane hit the other tower, and it wasn't an accident anymore.
Tuesday, September 04, 2012
Spices That Heal
I saw this picture going around on Facebook recently, and it struck me as one of those "don't believe everything you hear" types of claims. Herbs and spices certainly can have health benefits, of course; many modern medicines are derived from such things. On the other hand, it should be possible to find supporting evidence for claims like these pretty easily.
A little web browsing doesn't find much supporting evidence.
Cumin: Unsurprisingly, Organic Facts supports the claim that cumin helps prevent cancer, although it doesn't cite any studies. Sources that I consider less biased, like LiveStrong.com and WebMD, don't mention cancer prevention as potential benefits.
Ginger: Studies referenced by the University of Maryland Medical Center show that ginger is more effective than a placebo at reducing nausea. It's not as effective as medications, but it also has fewer side effects.
Thyme: There doesn't seem to be any conclusive evidence for thyme helping treat coughing. Some preliminary studies suggest it may be helpful, but there's nothing solid.
Rosemary: I remember Gingko being the big herbal solution to memory problems a few years ago. It turned out to be nothing. Similarly, I don't even find mention of memory benefits being connected to rosemary on the internet. It's best recommendation is for treating hair loss.
Nutmeg: Several sites mention studies showing that nutmeg helps to reduce blood pressure, but I've yet to find one that gives a reference that says who conducted such a study, where it was done, or when it was done.
Basil: My search did not produce any support for claims that basil helps to reduce the severity or duration of colds, although it apparently does contain an assortment of vitamins and minerals.
Clove: I don't think Organic Facts is an unbiased source, but even they don't list relief of arthritis pain as a benefit of cloves.
Cinnamon: Studies have been conducted on the effects of cinnamon on blood sugar, but they have not yielded anything conclusive: some show a benefit, others don't.
Tumeric: Tumeric is apparently being studied for possible medicinal value, but there doesn't seem to be anything reliable about reducing inflammation.
Garlic: Studies on the effects of garlic on "bad" cholesterol are, so far, inconclusive.
I use every one of these herbs and spices frequently, but not for any supposed medicinal properties. Some of the claims made in the "RawForBeauty" image have some support, but even that tends to be tenuous. Enjoy herbs and spices for the enjoyment they can add to your meals, but don't get them expecting any particular health benefit unless reliable studies have been done to show that those benefits are real.
A little web browsing doesn't find much supporting evidence.
Cumin: Unsurprisingly, Organic Facts supports the claim that cumin helps prevent cancer, although it doesn't cite any studies. Sources that I consider less biased, like LiveStrong.com and WebMD, don't mention cancer prevention as potential benefits.
Ginger: Studies referenced by the University of Maryland Medical Center show that ginger is more effective than a placebo at reducing nausea. It's not as effective as medications, but it also has fewer side effects.
Thyme: There doesn't seem to be any conclusive evidence for thyme helping treat coughing. Some preliminary studies suggest it may be helpful, but there's nothing solid.
Rosemary: I remember Gingko being the big herbal solution to memory problems a few years ago. It turned out to be nothing. Similarly, I don't even find mention of memory benefits being connected to rosemary on the internet. It's best recommendation is for treating hair loss.
Nutmeg: Several sites mention studies showing that nutmeg helps to reduce blood pressure, but I've yet to find one that gives a reference that says who conducted such a study, where it was done, or when it was done.
Basil: My search did not produce any support for claims that basil helps to reduce the severity or duration of colds, although it apparently does contain an assortment of vitamins and minerals.
Clove: I don't think Organic Facts is an unbiased source, but even they don't list relief of arthritis pain as a benefit of cloves.
Cinnamon: Studies have been conducted on the effects of cinnamon on blood sugar, but they have not yielded anything conclusive: some show a benefit, others don't.
Tumeric: Tumeric is apparently being studied for possible medicinal value, but there doesn't seem to be anything reliable about reducing inflammation.
Garlic: Studies on the effects of garlic on "bad" cholesterol are, so far, inconclusive.
I use every one of these herbs and spices frequently, but not for any supposed medicinal properties. Some of the claims made in the "RawForBeauty" image have some support, but even that tends to be tenuous. Enjoy herbs and spices for the enjoyment they can add to your meals, but don't get them expecting any particular health benefit unless reliable studies have been done to show that those benefits are real.
Labels:
skeptic
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Bad Movie: Abraham Lincoln vs Zombies
This movie is typical of the B-grade stuff produced by The Asylum studios and aired as Syfy Original Movies. As you might guess, it's a cheap rip-off of Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter.
Without delving too much into the details, Abe survives a zombie outbreak in his home community as a child and goes on to become President of the United States. When a secret mission to control a Confederate fort fails, and the sole survivor reports walking dead cannibals blowing the whole thing, Abe decides to personally lead a unit of Secret Service men to contain the infection.
An assortment of 19th Century personalites whom Abe never met in real life make appearances, and -- to spoil something that doesn't deserve special protection -- his conversations with them all produce sound bites that end up going into the Gettysburg Address.
The story concludes with an act of astronomical stupidity that was foreshadowed greatly.
You will be appalled by the abuse of history, predictable script, wooden acting, and cheap effects. Not recommended for sober movie watchers.
Special mention for the following:
Without delving too much into the details, Abe survives a zombie outbreak in his home community as a child and goes on to become President of the United States. When a secret mission to control a Confederate fort fails, and the sole survivor reports walking dead cannibals blowing the whole thing, Abe decides to personally lead a unit of Secret Service men to contain the infection.
An assortment of 19th Century personalites whom Abe never met in real life make appearances, and -- to spoil something that doesn't deserve special protection -- his conversations with them all produce sound bites that end up going into the Gettysburg Address.
The story concludes with an act of astronomical stupidity that was foreshadowed greatly.
You will be appalled by the abuse of history, predictable script, wooden acting, and cheap effects. Not recommended for sober movie watchers.
Special mention for the following:
- Zombies sleep standing up.
- Hopefully the background checks for the Secret Service are better today.
- Farm implements are awesome tools for fighting zombies.
Friday, August 10, 2012
Jury Duty
I got picked for jury duty along about the beginning of August. Lucky me, I was seated on a jury the first day I was required to be present. Note that, in my county, I'm on call for two months. I check with the county clerk to see if I need to be present on any given morning; there are multiple jury panels, they tell us which panels need to report on any given day. Panels get called up for jury selection, and jurors who aren't seated can go to work or home or wherever they normally go during the day. Jury selection will typically eat up all morning, even if you don't get picked.
So I got seated on my first reporting day for a criminal trial. It was a multi-count indictment.
Basically, a man was charged with going to the home of his ex-wife and their children and shooting his way in with the intent to at least threaten and possibly harm one or all of them. He was also accused of shooting the family dog while there. The ex-wife, daughters, and a house guest hid in the bathroom when he arrived and started shooting the door until the lock broke. They said they saw him walk by the bathroom door (which was ajar), and then heard him moving into the far part of the house. At that point, they ran out the back door to a neighbor's house.
The eldest daughter had been on the phone to 911 since he first arrived at the house and started knocking on the door, claiming to be a sherriff's deputy. No one was fooled by that, and they went into hiding before he started shooting his way in.
He apparently gave up and left the house, heading back to his car, because a deputy sheriff intercepted him on the way to the car. He was detained and then arrested. The family was told they could return to the house. While gathering things they needed to spend the night at a friend's house, they found the dog shot.
The district attorney provided ample evidence that the man had gone to the house with a gun and performed the various acts described. The defense didn't make any serious attempt to challenge that evidence. The defense case hinged primarily on whether he performed these acts "intentionally or knowingly".
The suspect had a history of substance abuse, although he had been through clean periods in his life. He had, reportedly, been clean for about nine years before going to a clinic and being prescribed anti-depressants. The medications, according to the defense, were strongly contra-indicated for someone with his medical (alcohol and drug abuse) history, and they triggered a substance abuse relapse. Consequently, they argued, he was not in control of his actions at the time of the events of the case.
The instructions that the judge gives the jury after closing arguments are ironically simple. A charge has a number of elements. If all of the elements have been shown by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury must find the defendant guilty of that charge. If any of the elements has not been shown beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury must find the defendant innocent.
That the defendant was there and did the alleged things was never in doubt. Whether he did these things knowingly or with intent was the question.
To do these things, he had to get a rifle (which he identified to the deputies who arrested him as belonging to his "girlfriend"), load it, put it in a car (along with a box of additional ammunition), drive from another county to his ex-wife's home, park down the street, walk to the house, lie about his identity when knocking, very systematically shoot around the dead-bolt lock until it failed, and then kick the door open, enter and wander through the house looking for inhabitants, shoot the dog (which showed no evidence of hostility), leave the house, abandon the rifle in a ditch, and then head toward his car to leave.
He never actually saw his ex-wife or any other person at the house, so the defense did ask whether he could be "intending" to assault someone he never actually saw, but do you really drive to someone's house from another county with a gun "intending" not to find them at home?
No. He had a plan (if not necessarily a good one) to go to his ex-wife's house to threaten or harm her. If you put a shot of whiskey in front of him and told him not to drink it, I might excuse him for giving in to temptation, but what he did went far beyond what his addiction might compel him to do.
So a man is probably going to prison (the jury is excused before sentencing, I don't know exactly what penalty he will get), in part because of me.
Not a good day, really. A lot of things went terribly wrong for a family. I hope they recover from it.
So I got seated on my first reporting day for a criminal trial. It was a multi-count indictment.
- Aggravated Burglary: Using a firearm in the commission of a felony in a residence.
- Aggravated Assault: Using a firearm in an assault, which is harming someone or causing someone to be in fear of imminent harm.
- Aggravated Domestic Assault (3 counts): Using a firearm in a domestic assault, which is an assault where the victim is a family member.
- Aggravated Animal Cruelty: Causing needless harm to a companion animal.
Basically, a man was charged with going to the home of his ex-wife and their children and shooting his way in with the intent to at least threaten and possibly harm one or all of them. He was also accused of shooting the family dog while there. The ex-wife, daughters, and a house guest hid in the bathroom when he arrived and started shooting the door until the lock broke. They said they saw him walk by the bathroom door (which was ajar), and then heard him moving into the far part of the house. At that point, they ran out the back door to a neighbor's house.
The eldest daughter had been on the phone to 911 since he first arrived at the house and started knocking on the door, claiming to be a sherriff's deputy. No one was fooled by that, and they went into hiding before he started shooting his way in.
He apparently gave up and left the house, heading back to his car, because a deputy sheriff intercepted him on the way to the car. He was detained and then arrested. The family was told they could return to the house. While gathering things they needed to spend the night at a friend's house, they found the dog shot.
The district attorney provided ample evidence that the man had gone to the house with a gun and performed the various acts described. The defense didn't make any serious attempt to challenge that evidence. The defense case hinged primarily on whether he performed these acts "intentionally or knowingly".
The suspect had a history of substance abuse, although he had been through clean periods in his life. He had, reportedly, been clean for about nine years before going to a clinic and being prescribed anti-depressants. The medications, according to the defense, were strongly contra-indicated for someone with his medical (alcohol and drug abuse) history, and they triggered a substance abuse relapse. Consequently, they argued, he was not in control of his actions at the time of the events of the case.
The instructions that the judge gives the jury after closing arguments are ironically simple. A charge has a number of elements. If all of the elements have been shown by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury must find the defendant guilty of that charge. If any of the elements has not been shown beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury must find the defendant innocent.
That the defendant was there and did the alleged things was never in doubt. Whether he did these things knowingly or with intent was the question.
To do these things, he had to get a rifle (which he identified to the deputies who arrested him as belonging to his "girlfriend"), load it, put it in a car (along with a box of additional ammunition), drive from another county to his ex-wife's home, park down the street, walk to the house, lie about his identity when knocking, very systematically shoot around the dead-bolt lock until it failed, and then kick the door open, enter and wander through the house looking for inhabitants, shoot the dog (which showed no evidence of hostility), leave the house, abandon the rifle in a ditch, and then head toward his car to leave.
He never actually saw his ex-wife or any other person at the house, so the defense did ask whether he could be "intending" to assault someone he never actually saw, but do you really drive to someone's house from another county with a gun "intending" not to find them at home?
No. He had a plan (if not necessarily a good one) to go to his ex-wife's house to threaten or harm her. If you put a shot of whiskey in front of him and told him not to drink it, I might excuse him for giving in to temptation, but what he did went far beyond what his addiction might compel him to do.
So a man is probably going to prison (the jury is excused before sentencing, I don't know exactly what penalty he will get), in part because of me.
Not a good day, really. A lot of things went terribly wrong for a family. I hope they recover from it.
Labels:
government
Tuesday, August 07, 2012
More Like a BS Extractor
I saw one of the most absurd infomercials I've ever seen while having breakfast this morning. It was for something called the "NutriBullet", which was described as "not a blender, not a juicer, but a Superfood Nutrition Extractor".
Sadly, it was painfully obvious that this device is just a Magic Bullet being sold under a different brand name (update: and apparently with a more powerful motor). Sadder still is that some people will probably buy the hype and pay $120 for one of these things. Ordering the Magic Bullet from a TV ad is bad enough at $100. I actually have a Magic Bullet, and it's quite useful, but I think I only paid about $50 for it at an outlet store.
But the BS content of the sales pitch was astounding.
And the glowing testimonials about how the NutriBullet changed people's lives! Really? You didn't change your diet in any other way or start any kind of exercise program? You only added one "NutriBlast" a day to your diet and nothing else?
My eyes almost rolled out of my head.
At least it inspired me to get off my butt and write a blog entry.
Sadly, it was painfully obvious that this device is just a Magic Bullet being sold under a different brand name (update: and apparently with a more powerful motor). Sadder still is that some people will probably buy the hype and pay $120 for one of these things. Ordering the Magic Bullet from a TV ad is bad enough at $100. I actually have a Magic Bullet, and it's quite useful, but I think I only paid about $50 for it at an outlet store.
But the BS content of the sales pitch was astounding.
"Unlike everyday juicers and blenders, the NutriBullet completely breaks down ingredients in to their most nutricious, most absorptive state."Atrocious spelling aside, any decent blender or food processor will do that if you use it correctly: the NutriBullet is not doing anything that special.
And the glowing testimonials about how the NutriBullet changed people's lives! Really? You didn't change your diet in any other way or start any kind of exercise program? You only added one "NutriBlast" a day to your diet and nothing else?
My eyes almost rolled out of my head.
At least it inspired me to get off my butt and write a blog entry.
Labels:
skeptic
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Politics: Tax Policy
It looks like tax policy is shaping up to be a big issue this election year (which is rather typical, really), so I figured that I might as well address it. I’m long overdue for posting something around here, anyway.
I’m fiscally conservative in the sense that I don’t think the government has any business spending money that it doesn’t have. The US has been borrowing like crazy since the 1980’s, only running a surplus briefly during the late 90’s before going back to deficit spending after 2000. Based on that spending pattern, you can see why I don’t really consider the Republican party to be a bastion of fiscal responsibility.
I’m not particularly in favor of “soaking the rich” to fund the government. I do think everyone should be helping pay for the services we expect of the government. I think everyone should have basically the same tax rate, so there should be no need for a “millionaire surtax” or the like. If we’re going to have an income tax (and I don’t see that changing), we should have an income tax. I don’t care whether you get your income from a salary, selling widgets, collecting interest, or playing stocks; no matter where your money comes from, it should be taxed at the same rate.
On the other hand, I don’t see the sense in trying to get tax money from people who don’t have any to spare. Our current tax system recognizes that there are certain basic living expenses that should be deducted from your income before your tax is calculated.
So my idea of a fair tax is one where everyone’s income is taxed at the same rate, and everyone gets the same cost of living deduction. I don’t necessarily know what that should be, other than it should be the least amount you can reasonably expect to live on; it may even have to vary somewhat by location (although if you have more than one residence, you only get one cost-of-living deduction, for the lower of the two locations). Note that this means the effective tax rate for a low-income person will be less than the effective tax rate for a high-income person.
If you have a domestic partner (who can get “married” is another post), then you can effectively combine your two deductions, so you don’t take a big tax hit if one of you is a stay-at-home parent. I'm not sure how I feel about additional deductions for the children.
And that’s all: one tax rate for everyone, one deduction for everyone. What the rate should be and how much the deduction should be would both need to be determined based on the needs of the nation and what the people will accept; the main restriction being that the revenue should be enough to pay for all the services plus bring down the national debt. Both the rate and the deduction can be easily adjusted by Congress, if necessary.
Labels:
government
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Live Mammoth?
There's a new viral video making the rounds.
Is it a live mammoth? Is it a bear in some odd activity that makes it look that way?
How about it's a complete hoax? The fact that the focus is crappy and stays crappy is something of a giveaway. Looks to me like some footage of an elephant slapped together with some footage of a river. Unprofessionally.
There are some arguments for it being a grizzly bear with a fish hanging out of its mouth. That's not entirely out of the question, but still puts us in hoax territory, as it's surely shown out of focus on purpose.
Try harder next time, guys.
Is it a live mammoth? Is it a bear in some odd activity that makes it look that way?
How about it's a complete hoax? The fact that the focus is crappy and stays crappy is something of a giveaway. Looks to me like some footage of an elephant slapped together with some footage of a river. Unprofessionally.
There are some arguments for it being a grizzly bear with a fish hanging out of its mouth. That's not entirely out of the question, but still puts us in hoax territory, as it's surely shown out of focus on purpose.
Try harder next time, guys.
Labels:
skeptic
Monday, January 30, 2012
A Nigerian Rental Scam?
Oh, look! Interesting material for a skepticism post!
While I can’t say that I’m surprised, this is a scam that I had not previously heard about. Some friends of mine recently bought a house. While they were doing some remodeling one day, they got a peculiar visit.
I’m curious where the scammer got the picture of their house. Perhaps the scammers are cruising real estate listings for likely targets; those would have pictures and other information about the house for use in fake ads, and some of them – at least – won’t actually have anyone living there to warn the marks.
V sent an email to the address provided on Craigslist to see if she would get a reply from the scammer. It actually didn’t take long for this reply to come:
V looked up the phone number provided: it’s literally a Nigerian number. Way to boost the national stereotype, dude! In the response, the scammer also asked for a litany of personal information and a $500 deposit, so this one qualifies for both advance fee fraud and identity theft.
So, if you’re looking for rental property on Craigslist or some other open sales site, you should be a little bit wary. Certainly don’t go giving away your social security number or a big deposit to someone in a distant country who you’ve never seen (and never will).
While I can’t say that I’m surprised, this is a scam that I had not previously heard about. Some friends of mine recently bought a house. While they were doing some remodeling one day, they got a peculiar visit.
While we were working at the new house today a couple showed up asking about renting it. When we said it's not for rent they asked, "why do you have it listed on Craigslist?" We looked. It is, including a picture and accurate description of the house. The cops told us that this is a popular new scam. People are pretending to rent houses they don't own and collecting deposits.
I’m curious where the scammer got the picture of their house. Perhaps the scammers are cruising real estate listings for likely targets; those would have pictures and other information about the house for use in fake ads, and some of them – at least – won’t actually have anyone living there to warn the marks.
V sent an email to the address provided on Craigslist to see if she would get a reply from the scammer. It actually didn’t take long for this reply to come:
"we were transferred to West Africa and we will be away for 5 years or more and this is why we are actually renting out the house,so if you are interested and will take good care of our house then we will be ready to accept you as our future tenant and family friend. If you really impress me by taking good care of our house then you will be allowed to stay as long as you wish okay."
V looked up the phone number provided: it’s literally a Nigerian number. Way to boost the national stereotype, dude! In the response, the scammer also asked for a litany of personal information and a $500 deposit, so this one qualifies for both advance fee fraud and identity theft.
So, if you’re looking for rental property on Craigslist or some other open sales site, you should be a little bit wary. Certainly don’t go giving away your social security number or a big deposit to someone in a distant country who you’ve never seen (and never will).
Labels:
skeptic
Monday, January 23, 2012
Zoo Run Run
On Saturday, I completed a 5K run around the Nashville Zoo in a little under 38 minutes. My goal was 36, so I'm a little disappointed.
Also, running in 37-degree weather SUCKS. Why couldn't it have been up in the 50s, like it was on Friday and Sunday?
Also, running in 37-degree weather SUCKS. Why couldn't it have been up in the 50s, like it was on Friday and Sunday?
Labels:
life
Thursday, January 19, 2012
More ZombieFit
We did the ZombieFit workout of the day for 1/16 this morning. Including warm-up, that includes:
Zoo Run for me on Saturday. Come on out! Share my pain!
- Running 1/4 mile
- 75 push-ups
- 75 squats
- 45 crunches
- 45 burpees (oh, how I loathe the burpees!)
- 30 jumping jacks
- 300 meters of sprints (which is guesstimated at three laps around the gym)
Zoo Run for me on Saturday. Come on out! Share my pain!
Labels:
life
Monday, January 16, 2012
Politics: Healthcare
Given what the Republican candidates have been saying about “Obamacare”, I figure now is as good a time to vent some ideas regarding how Americans, as a society, view health care and how the costs should be paid.
On one hand – we’ll call it the right hand – you have the conservative/libertarian notion that paying for health care is an “individual responsibility”. This is the “private sector” system where people with health issues (be they diseases or injuries) pay the provider (doctor, nurse, hospital, clinic, or whatever) for whatever they need to make them healthy, or at least keep them going.
On the other hand – which we’ll call the left – you have the liberal/socialist notion that health care is a right, and everyone (via taxation) pays into a national system that provides everyone with the health care services that they require.
Those are the extremes, of course. What we have now is somewhere in between, as purchasing insurance is something of a compromise between the right hand and the left hand. We’re not completely averse to a “socialized” medical system. After all, a health insurance company can only charge a “reasonable” premium if there are plenty of healthy people on the rolls paying premiums without getting many medical services. They need to have lots of people who are paying more than they cost in health expenses to cover those who are paying less than they cost, especially if they want to make a profit. That’s why insurance companies lobbied for that clause in “Obamacare” that requires everyone to buy some kind of health insurance.
But I want to consider another way of looking at healthcare. Just for a moment, let’s look at health care the way we look at police protection and fire protection.
If you look at them from the “right hand” perspective, then police protection is a service that has a cost, as is fire protection. If you call 911 to get a response to a burglary or a fire, the dispatcher will ask you how you plan to pay for the police car or fire truck that will be sent to your home. In the extreme-right scenario, they won’t come at all unless you assure them that you can and will pay them.
From the “left hand” perspective, the police department and fire department are government services, and the salaries of the officers and the costs of their equipment are paid for by everyone’s taxes. Surprisingly, that sounds an awful lot like what us capitalists already expect.
If you look at health care the same way, then doctors are government employees with salaries (good ones, I should think, given the many years of education they need), and the machines, hospitals, medicines, and so forth are government expenses paid for by taxes. Sounds terrible!
Except for the fact that no one has to pay insurance premiums or copays or doctor bills.
“But health care under a single-payer system will be inferior and rationed!”
I guess that depends on whether we’re all willing to pay enough into the system to still have top-level health care.
I expect to get lots of feedback on why both scenarios suck, but I bet that most of it will be conservative/libertarian “why socialized medicine sucks” posts. It will be interesting to see if they have objections that I haven’t considered.
On one hand – we’ll call it the right hand – you have the conservative/libertarian notion that paying for health care is an “individual responsibility”. This is the “private sector” system where people with health issues (be they diseases or injuries) pay the provider (doctor, nurse, hospital, clinic, or whatever) for whatever they need to make them healthy, or at least keep them going.
On the other hand – which we’ll call the left – you have the liberal/socialist notion that health care is a right, and everyone (via taxation) pays into a national system that provides everyone with the health care services that they require.
Those are the extremes, of course. What we have now is somewhere in between, as purchasing insurance is something of a compromise between the right hand and the left hand. We’re not completely averse to a “socialized” medical system. After all, a health insurance company can only charge a “reasonable” premium if there are plenty of healthy people on the rolls paying premiums without getting many medical services. They need to have lots of people who are paying more than they cost in health expenses to cover those who are paying less than they cost, especially if they want to make a profit. That’s why insurance companies lobbied for that clause in “Obamacare” that requires everyone to buy some kind of health insurance.
But I want to consider another way of looking at healthcare. Just for a moment, let’s look at health care the way we look at police protection and fire protection.
If you look at them from the “right hand” perspective, then police protection is a service that has a cost, as is fire protection. If you call 911 to get a response to a burglary or a fire, the dispatcher will ask you how you plan to pay for the police car or fire truck that will be sent to your home. In the extreme-right scenario, they won’t come at all unless you assure them that you can and will pay them.
From the “left hand” perspective, the police department and fire department are government services, and the salaries of the officers and the costs of their equipment are paid for by everyone’s taxes. Surprisingly, that sounds an awful lot like what us capitalists already expect.
If you look at health care the same way, then doctors are government employees with salaries (good ones, I should think, given the many years of education they need), and the machines, hospitals, medicines, and so forth are government expenses paid for by taxes. Sounds terrible!
Except for the fact that no one has to pay insurance premiums or copays or doctor bills.
“But health care under a single-payer system will be inferior and rationed!”
I guess that depends on whether we’re all willing to pay enough into the system to still have top-level health care.
I expect to get lots of feedback on why both scenarios suck, but I bet that most of it will be conservative/libertarian “why socialized medicine sucks” posts. It will be interesting to see if they have objections that I haven’t considered.
Labels:
government
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Two Miles in 22 Minutes
Surprisingly, the fact that I haven't actually gone on a two mile run in over a month has not drastically reduced my time.
Labels:
life
Monday, January 09, 2012
ZombieFit Morning
Did the ZombieFit Workout of the Day for 1/7/2012 this morning. After the warm-up (which I did slightly wrong, I only ran the 100m sprint once instead of all three times), I did the main workout at the "avancée" level: 100 push-ups, 140 air squats, 180 jumping jacks -- broken out into 20 sets.
Not feeling as worn out as I expected, even throwing in 20 crunches onto the end of each cycle for the last three. Maybe I should have done the "traceur" level routine.
Not feeling as worn out as I expected, even throwing in 20 crunches onto the end of each cycle for the last three. Maybe I should have done the "traceur" level routine.
Labels:
life
Sunday, January 08, 2012
Dollar Coins
This may be old news, but the issue of the Presidential dollar coins that are piling up in government warehouses just keeps bugging me, so I'm finally going to clear the air on it.
The government keeps trying over and over again to introduce dollar coins into the currency system, the reason being that the useful life of a coin is vastly longer than the useful life of a paper bill, so changing from paper dollars to coins would be a long term savings for the treasury department.
The problem is that coins are different. People don't really like changing the way they do things, so there is inevitable resistance. The Susan B. Anthony dollar didn't see widespread use, nor the Sacajawea dollar, nor the Presidential dollar coins.
And the reason that these coins aren't catching on is simple. The idiots in the government keep printing paper dollar bills. Get a clue, guys! If you want to make a switch from bills to coins, make the switch. Stop printing the bills and start taking them out of circulation. People will adapt, even if they're resistant at first.
Of course, I happen to like the things, so no one will appreciate my opinion.
The government keeps trying over and over again to introduce dollar coins into the currency system, the reason being that the useful life of a coin is vastly longer than the useful life of a paper bill, so changing from paper dollars to coins would be a long term savings for the treasury department.
The problem is that coins are different. People don't really like changing the way they do things, so there is inevitable resistance. The Susan B. Anthony dollar didn't see widespread use, nor the Sacajawea dollar, nor the Presidential dollar coins.
And the reason that these coins aren't catching on is simple. The idiots in the government keep printing paper dollar bills. Get a clue, guys! If you want to make a switch from bills to coins, make the switch. Stop printing the bills and start taking them out of circulation. People will adapt, even if they're resistant at first.
Of course, I happen to like the things, so no one will appreciate my opinion.
Labels:
government
Sunday, December 18, 2011
Weary - In a Good Way
Nena and I continue to look for ways to keep exercise interesting. We were going to do the ZombieFit Workout of the Day today, but someone at ZombieFit apparently forgot to pay the webhost, so the site was down. Nena found an alternate crossfit exercise for us to do today, though.
So today we did 100 pull-ups (assisted, in sets of 20), 150 kettle-bell swings (in 5 sets), and 200 rope skips (without an actual jump rope, in 5 sets, of course).
And then, because I felt like I needed it, I suggested we do some crunches, as well. Three sets of 30, and I put extra weights on the crunch tables at the gym for the second and third set.
I'm betting I feel that tomorrow.
So today we did 100 pull-ups (assisted, in sets of 20), 150 kettle-bell swings (in 5 sets), and 200 rope skips (without an actual jump rope, in 5 sets, of course).
And then, because I felt like I needed it, I suggested we do some crunches, as well. Three sets of 30, and I put extra weights on the crunch tables at the gym for the second and third set.
I'm betting I feel that tomorrow.
Labels:
life
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Mango Chicken Curry with Rice and Lentils
I’m way overdue for a blog update, so I’ll ease myself back into writing with a simple recipe. This one came about when I discovered canned mango slices at a closeout store.
While the rice and lentils cook, add a little olive oil to a frying pan and cook the chicken over medium heat. When the chicken is done, roughly dice the mangos and add them to the pan with the remaining curry spice.
When the rice and lentils are done, add them to the frying pan with the chicken and mangos. Stir together on low heat for a few minutes.
- 1 can of mango slices
- ½ cup brown basmati rice
- ½ cup red lentils
- 3-4 chicken tenderloins
- Curry spice (2 tbsp cumin, ½ tsp turmeric, ½ tsp cardamom, 2 tsp chili powder)
- Cayenne pepper (optional)
- Rum (optional)
- Water
- Olive oil
- Salt and pepper to taste
While the rice and lentils cook, add a little olive oil to a frying pan and cook the chicken over medium heat. When the chicken is done, roughly dice the mangos and add them to the pan with the remaining curry spice.
When the rice and lentils are done, add them to the frying pan with the chicken and mangos. Stir together on low heat for a few minutes.
Labels:
food
Monday, October 31, 2011
Wanna See Something Really Scary?
Wait for it...
And, of course, Halloween itself gets an extra video...
And, of course, Halloween itself gets an extra video...
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Not So Fair
This seems a bit contradictory.
Seriously? You're overwhelmingly concerned about your appearance, so you cast a spell to make yourself ugly? Did you even check to make sure it wasn't permanent?
Seriously? You're overwhelmingly concerned about your appearance, so you cast a spell to make yourself ugly? Did you even check to make sure it wasn't permanent?
Saturday, October 29, 2011
Friday, October 28, 2011
Magneto Plays Rough
He can do so much damage with so few resources.
Thursday, October 27, 2011
The Crate
Scenes from the original Creepshow, which is a magnificent horror comedy.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Maleficent
You have to wonder if all the trouble could have been avoided just by sending the invitation. She might have refused to attend out of contrariness.
Monday, October 24, 2011
Vampire's Kiss
Very hot, but maybe a little too kinky for me.
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Angel of Death
Gabriel has the annoying habit of keeping people alive when he needs them. Mostly because he doesn't understand modern technology.
Saturday, October 22, 2011
No Capes!
Quite possibly the best sequence in the movie. But the movie is so full of WIN! that it's hard to be sure.
Friday, October 21, 2011
The Changeling (1980)
Showing this at an all-nighter when I was a teenager earned me some fingernails in my shoulder. Totally worth it!
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Voyager Nightmares
Poor, Harry... most embarrassing nightmare scenario EVER.
I can't really even call this scary. Voyager just fails at that.
Found a bonus for today.
I can't really even call this scary. Voyager just fails at that.
Found a bonus for today.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Super Battle
I'm not generally a DC comics guy, but this music video using the DC Online trailer is pretty cool.
Seems like the villains always win in trailers.
Labels:
Halloween
Monday, October 17, 2011
Stalker
A pretty good short film.
Be sure to go to youtube and compliment the filmakers.
Labels:
Halloween
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Saturn 3
I barely remember how this movie went, but the "monster" is creepy enough.
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Dragonslayer
A pretty good monster movie for its time.
Friday, October 14, 2011
Maximillian
When I was a kid, Maximillian creeped me out.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Captain America (sort of)
This one talks to me a bit. Because, yeah... it's not at all clear why he had to go down with that plane.
Bonus for today!
Bonus for today!
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Oh, Cyrano!
Yeah, this is silly. But there are some costumes involved. It was time for something lighter.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Shatwow!
Yes, it really is Garrett Wang.
That's Harry Kim from Star Trek: Voyager, if your geek-fu is weak.
Monday, October 10, 2011
Sunday, October 09, 2011
Kirk Fu
Not that the Kirk Fu is helping much in this situation...
Saturday, October 08, 2011
A Message from the Prince of Darkness
Back in the day, this movie creeped me out.
Friday, October 07, 2011
Thursday, October 06, 2011
Akira: Evolution
Scenes from Akira (in no particular order) made into a music video.
Wednesday, October 05, 2011
The Thing
There's nothing it won't do to escape.
Why not a double dose?
Tuesday, October 04, 2011
On the Subject of Daleks
Good advice!
It also says "Panic!"
It also says "Panic!"
Monday, October 03, 2011
Sunday, October 02, 2011
Alien
One of the classic gruesome moments of horror cinema.
Saturday, October 01, 2011
Vincent
Let the Halloween video extravaganza begin, starting with a recitation by the master...
Labels:
Halloween
Thursday, September 29, 2011
October Approaches
Two more days until the third annual Halloween video marathon begins here at the Saga.
Labels:
Halloween
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Saturday, September 10, 2011
Fundamentalist Hurricane Exploitation
On September 7, Jim Ellif published an article in the Worldview Times titled “Do Hurricanes Just Happen?” I’ve seen a few links to this little jewel of fundamentalist ghoulishness lately. Yes, it’s time for a fundamentalist to exploit natural disasters.
So I bet you’ve gathered by now that this attitude toward natural disasters aggravates me. I think the following quote from the Babylon 5 episode “A Late Delivery from Avalon” sums up my attitude toward natural disasters.
God is at work doing His perfect will, even during hurricane season. These spinning engines of destruction originate from Him as Ruler (first cause), through nature (second cause), all for His purposes. Though God owes us no explanation, one or all of the following possible objectives may help us understand "why" God decrees such fear-producing events:The beauty of these “explanations”, of course, is that they provide an excuse for any horror visited upon anyone, meaning that they really explain nothing.
1. God is recognized as powerful and not to be trifled with. God often asserted that cataclysmic events were done to display His power to men. (Exodus 9:14-16; 14:31)I’d like to see ministers try to use this explanation with a grieving family. “You shouldn’t feel bad about your family member’s death. They died so God could show off.”
2. Society is warned of the greatest calamity, eternal judgment. A physical disaster is nothing compared with eternal damnation. A hurricane is an announcement: "If you don't repent, worse than this is coming." (Luke 13:1-5)Jim believes God uses hurricanes in much the same way that mundane tyrants use guns and artillery.
3. Some people are deservedly punished for their rebellion. The Bible states that "the wrath of God is revealed [lit. is being revealed] from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men . . ." (Romans 1:18). That means now. Hurricanes are just one of the ways that might happen. (Psalm 7:11-13)When God smites a massive geographical area, there may be someone in there who actually deserves it. Maybe.
4. Some true believers are tested or disciplined and made stronger in their faith. The same storm that judges a non-believing man may be the crucible of testing and/or chastisement for a true Christian, and will toughen and purify him for the future. (James 1:2-3; Hebrews 12:5-11)If God’s holy engine of destruction smashes through the homes of devout believers and crushes churches, it’s just a test of their faith.
5. Believers may be taken to heaven; and some enemies of God may be removed from the earth. This is a reality that is hard to accept, but nonetheless true. The Bible says that our days are ordained by God even before one of them is lived (Psalm 139:16). He also promises that many rebellious people will face a calamitous end. (Psalm 73:18-19)It really doesn’t matter who God kills with his storms, anyway. He brought you into this world; he can take you out at his whim.
6. The godly are given an opportunity to love sacrificially. Because of the nature of the true believer, you will always find Christians among those on the scene helping to relieve the distress. (1 John 3:17; Galatians 6:10) Their love may point many to Christ.And disasters always provide Christians an opportunity to look good. Pay no attention to those heathens and non-believers who are also doing their best to help out.
So I bet you’ve gathered by now that this attitude toward natural disasters aggravates me. I think the following quote from the Babylon 5 episode “A Late Delivery from Avalon” sums up my attitude toward natural disasters.
I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, 'wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them?' So now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe.
Saturday, September 03, 2011
Livin' It Up at Dragon*Con
Thought I'd put in a quick post about how things are going at Dragon*Con. I'm having a lot of fun with the Skeptic Track during the day and dance parties by night (although the Zombie Prom turned out to be really lame, especially for the wait time).
Labels:
Dragon*Con
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Binary Fundamentalism
This clip from one of Ken Ham's talks really says everything that needs to be said about Young Earth Creationism.
Ken is trapped in an all-or-nothing mentality. If the Bible's claims about biological origins are false, then it's claims about souls and the afterlife must also be false. In order for him to believe that he will go to Heaven when he dies, he must also believe that the Earth is just several thousand years old and biological evolution is impossible. Ken wants to believe he's going to Heaven, so decades of study by hundreds or thousands of scientists with mountains of evidence must all be dismissed with a wave of his hand.
For him, there is no compromise, no middle ground, no other resolution. His mind is made up; don't waste his time with the evidence.
Ken is trapped in an all-or-nothing mentality. If the Bible's claims about biological origins are false, then it's claims about souls and the afterlife must also be false. In order for him to believe that he will go to Heaven when he dies, he must also believe that the Earth is just several thousand years old and biological evolution is impossible. Ken wants to believe he's going to Heaven, so decades of study by hundreds or thousands of scientists with mountains of evidence must all be dismissed with a wave of his hand.
For him, there is no compromise, no middle ground, no other resolution. His mind is made up; don't waste his time with the evidence.
Labels:
culture
Tuesday, August 02, 2011
Politics: Deficit Reduction
Well, the stooges in Washington are patting themselves on the back for averting the crisis that never should have been a threat if they'd been doing their jobs, so maybe they can get around to some real work, now.
I can sympathize with the deficit hawks, since I too think that Congress (which really controls the purse strings) has been living like a kid with daddy's credit card for far too long, and a string of Presidents have been letting them get away with it. Adding services and lowering taxes look good for you at election time, but it racks up debt like crazy, and before someone accuses me of being a wacky conservative tea-bagger, I blame Ronald Reagan for this mess. He was the one who made it okay to raise the budget while lowering taxes and keep it up year after year. He thought he'd be able to cut back the entitlement programs like the modern tea partiers, but he was never able to pull it off. Good luck, ya mooks.
Anyway, I see a series of things that need to happen now.
Basically, if you don't have the guts to cut the budget (and I really don't think they do), at least have the guts to raise enough money to cover it.
I can sympathize with the deficit hawks, since I too think that Congress (which really controls the purse strings) has been living like a kid with daddy's credit card for far too long, and a string of Presidents have been letting them get away with it. Adding services and lowering taxes look good for you at election time, but it racks up debt like crazy, and before someone accuses me of being a wacky conservative tea-bagger, I blame Ronald Reagan for this mess. He was the one who made it okay to raise the budget while lowering taxes and keep it up year after year. He thought he'd be able to cut back the entitlement programs like the modern tea partiers, but he was never able to pull it off. Good luck, ya mooks.
Anyway, I see a series of things that need to happen now.
- Set a binding rule (with like a 2/3rds majority needed to break it or something else atrocious) that there can be no new spending programs and no expansion of existing programs as long as we're carrying a debt. That means that existing programs can't offer new services or reduce the qualifications to be enrolled.
- Go through the various Federal programs, especially the big entitlement programs, and decide how much needs to be spent on them. Cut if you think the country will tolerate it, make each one as efficient as possible, vote, and move to the next one.
- Determine how much all of that is going to cost.
- Revise and simplify the tax system, creating a revenue stream sufficient to pay for everything, plus enough extra to actually start paying down the debt.
- When the economy recovers, keep the tax rates the same. Don't squander good times by cutting back the revenue stream; work on the debt hardest when you're in the best position to do so!
Basically, if you don't have the guts to cut the budget (and I really don't think they do), at least have the guts to raise enough money to cover it.
Labels:
government
Thursday, July 28, 2011
It's the Evidence, Stupid!
Since I'm obviously slacking on providing my own content, I'll promote someone else's.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Have At You, You Pansies!
We managed to get in another D&D session last night, and a new player finally managed to attend (he’s been trying for weeks). Introducing new characters to a campaign in progress is always a challenge, but the circumstances affect just how much of a challenge. Earlier in the campaign, for instance, while the party was still in a major city, I could have introduced the new character, Bowman, quite easily. Alas, the party has now journeyed far from civilization, eliminating the option of having Bowman forced onto the party by an intimidating crime boss.
When we left off, the party had split, with Nerogon, Sylvia, and Lucretia going back to camp to get the wagon (and Machaon and Reya) while Lainis stayed in the kobold keep to watch over the loot. This seemed as good a time as any to throw Bowman into the mix. A few hours had passed, and Bowman came by the keep, noticing that the door (which had always been closed on prior sightings) was standing open. Taking the hint, he went in to investigate.
Naturally, this began a series of sneak checks and listen checks as Bowman carefully prowled through the keep and Lainis tried to figure out who was sneaking around in there (aided by her faithful wolf companion, Cazhmere). It is inevitable in such situations that the players will turn the paranoia of their characters up to eleven, pushing the encounter to the brink of open combat. I’m surprised that Darths & Droids hasn’t dedicated a strip to such situations yet.
I arranged for the rest of the party to conveniently return to the castle at that point, and after a bit more suspicious bickering (and a few hints of “find a way to get along so the adventure can proceed”), they agreed to work together and continue the quest. It’s convenient that Brother Machaon, in his perpetually inebriated state, has no qualms about telling anyone and everyone they meet about the quest. Machaon even showed Bowman his map and asked for directions.
Bowman didn’t provide any directions, but Lainis was able to find the path with her kick-ass Survival skill, which led the party toward the old shrine of Dionysus where the Goblet was last reported to be. Getting close to the place marked on the map, they heard sounds of clacking wood from ahead.
Nerogon volunteered to go ahead and try talking to whatever was making the sound. Lainis and Bowman sneaked up behind him to provide cover if he got into trouble. Lucy and Sylvia were only a little farther back.
I suppose I might mention at this point that Reya’s player was not able to attend. In such situations, the character of the non-present player tends to find something to do that keeps them out of the combat area, like staying with the wagon while the rest of the group goes ahead to see what danger lurks. This is a convenient solution for the DM, especially when there isn’t a copy of the missing player’s character sheet handy.
Back on topic, Nerogon walked ahead and came within sight of the shrine, which was pretty obviously abandoned and overgrown with vines. The field before it was somewhat trampled down, however, and there was a wooden post standing in the field. The clacking had stopped as Nerogon approached, and now there was a small, green-skinned person watching Nerogon approach and leaning on a wooden sword that was covered in wicked-looking thorns (this little critter is a Thorn from the Monster Manual III, if you’re interested).
Some verbal sparring ensued. The Thorn asked Nerogon’s business; Nerogon explained a need to get into the shrine; the Thorn said “no way”; Nerogon said it was the object of his quest; the Thorn said “too bad”. Basically “none shall pass”. Lucy and Sylvia approached during the conversation, and Lucy finally interrupted by saying they should just kill him. Cue the fight scene.
A Thorn may not look like much, but they actually have 6 hit dice, a high attack bonus, and an impressive armor class of 19. Coupled with his tendency to say “the green knights always triumph” and “only a flesh wound” on the rare occasions that he was hit, he was pretty darned annoying. Despite his bravado, however, he was not invulnerable, and he was soon surrounded by Nerogon, Lucy, Lainis, and Cazhmere in a configuration that allowed all of them to get a flanking bonus. With the additional bonus from Sylvia’s bard song, the Thorn’s supply of 31 hit points dwindled with surprising speed. When he finally succumbed to the persistent pummeling, Lucy finished him off with extreme prejudice.
With the guardian dispatched, the looting could commence. The Thorn himself only had his armor and weapons, so the group started searching the shrine. The main room had an algae-fied pool and a statue of Dionysus himself. A room off to the left proved to be a library, but they found nothing left of value. A room on the other side, however, turned out to be a winery that had been well maintained and was obviously in use, as there were two large tubs of fermenting berries. A knowledge check from Sylvia determined that the berries came from an assassin vine, indicating that the wine being made would be wildly expensive. A glance through an outside door of this room revealed a trellised assassin vine growing next to the shrine, and the group decided that messing with it would probably be unwise. A trapdoor in the room lead down to a wine cellar, where Lucy found a couple of interesting trinkets.
Behind the statue in the main room of the shrine were doors leading to bed chambers. All of the furniture was in poor condition, and most of it ended up in fragments as the party broke things up looking for hidden treasure. Nerogon found a scroll hidden in a bed post that provided a clue to where the Goblet had been sent from the shrine.
When we left off, the party had split, with Nerogon, Sylvia, and Lucretia going back to camp to get the wagon (and Machaon and Reya) while Lainis stayed in the kobold keep to watch over the loot. This seemed as good a time as any to throw Bowman into the mix. A few hours had passed, and Bowman came by the keep, noticing that the door (which had always been closed on prior sightings) was standing open. Taking the hint, he went in to investigate.
Naturally, this began a series of sneak checks and listen checks as Bowman carefully prowled through the keep and Lainis tried to figure out who was sneaking around in there (aided by her faithful wolf companion, Cazhmere). It is inevitable in such situations that the players will turn the paranoia of their characters up to eleven, pushing the encounter to the brink of open combat. I’m surprised that Darths & Droids hasn’t dedicated a strip to such situations yet.
I arranged for the rest of the party to conveniently return to the castle at that point, and after a bit more suspicious bickering (and a few hints of “find a way to get along so the adventure can proceed”), they agreed to work together and continue the quest. It’s convenient that Brother Machaon, in his perpetually inebriated state, has no qualms about telling anyone and everyone they meet about the quest. Machaon even showed Bowman his map and asked for directions.
Bowman didn’t provide any directions, but Lainis was able to find the path with her kick-ass Survival skill, which led the party toward the old shrine of Dionysus where the Goblet was last reported to be. Getting close to the place marked on the map, they heard sounds of clacking wood from ahead.
Nerogon volunteered to go ahead and try talking to whatever was making the sound. Lainis and Bowman sneaked up behind him to provide cover if he got into trouble. Lucy and Sylvia were only a little farther back.
I suppose I might mention at this point that Reya’s player was not able to attend. In such situations, the character of the non-present player tends to find something to do that keeps them out of the combat area, like staying with the wagon while the rest of the group goes ahead to see what danger lurks. This is a convenient solution for the DM, especially when there isn’t a copy of the missing player’s character sheet handy.
Back on topic, Nerogon walked ahead and came within sight of the shrine, which was pretty obviously abandoned and overgrown with vines. The field before it was somewhat trampled down, however, and there was a wooden post standing in the field. The clacking had stopped as Nerogon approached, and now there was a small, green-skinned person watching Nerogon approach and leaning on a wooden sword that was covered in wicked-looking thorns (this little critter is a Thorn from the Monster Manual III, if you’re interested).
Some verbal sparring ensued. The Thorn asked Nerogon’s business; Nerogon explained a need to get into the shrine; the Thorn said “no way”; Nerogon said it was the object of his quest; the Thorn said “too bad”. Basically “none shall pass”. Lucy and Sylvia approached during the conversation, and Lucy finally interrupted by saying they should just kill him. Cue the fight scene.
A Thorn may not look like much, but they actually have 6 hit dice, a high attack bonus, and an impressive armor class of 19. Coupled with his tendency to say “the green knights always triumph” and “only a flesh wound” on the rare occasions that he was hit, he was pretty darned annoying. Despite his bravado, however, he was not invulnerable, and he was soon surrounded by Nerogon, Lucy, Lainis, and Cazhmere in a configuration that allowed all of them to get a flanking bonus. With the additional bonus from Sylvia’s bard song, the Thorn’s supply of 31 hit points dwindled with surprising speed. When he finally succumbed to the persistent pummeling, Lucy finished him off with extreme prejudice.
With the guardian dispatched, the looting could commence. The Thorn himself only had his armor and weapons, so the group started searching the shrine. The main room had an algae-fied pool and a statue of Dionysus himself. A room off to the left proved to be a library, but they found nothing left of value. A room on the other side, however, turned out to be a winery that had been well maintained and was obviously in use, as there were two large tubs of fermenting berries. A knowledge check from Sylvia determined that the berries came from an assassin vine, indicating that the wine being made would be wildly expensive. A glance through an outside door of this room revealed a trellised assassin vine growing next to the shrine, and the group decided that messing with it would probably be unwise. A trapdoor in the room lead down to a wine cellar, where Lucy found a couple of interesting trinkets.
Behind the statue in the main room of the shrine were doors leading to bed chambers. All of the furniture was in poor condition, and most of it ended up in fragments as the party broke things up looking for hidden treasure. Nerogon found a scroll hidden in a bed post that provided a clue to where the Goblet had been sent from the shrine.
Friday, July 01, 2011
Take That Frenchy!
Time for an overdue post about last week’s D&D game.
In the aftermath of the kobold raid, Sylvia, Lainis, Lucy, and Nerogon decided to return to the keep where they had originally been taunted to confront the kobolds there, figuring it was the source of the attack. Reya stayed behind to guard the group's wagon and pack animals and to guard Machaon, who had used up his spell casting with an extra round of healings to get the others into fighting shape.
Seeing no signs of kobold activity from a distance, the group moved up the keep gate, which was still barred from the inside. After some difficulty getting started, Lucy climbed the wall, where she came under fire from kobolds inside the keep’s tower. Lucy quickly tied a rope to the battlements for the rest of the party then ran along the battlements to the tower, where she was too close for the kobolds inside to shoot at her through the arrow slits. Nerogon climbed the rope to the battlements and started getting shot at as well. He jumped down to the courtyard and unbarred the gate for Lainis and Cazhmere. Sylvia began a bard song from safely outside the keep’s walls
Lainis went to the courtyard door of the tower, which she found also to be barred from the inside. Nerogon got back up on the battlements, while Lucy started taking fire from a kobold on top of the tower. She put an arrow through his head when he leaned over to shoot at her again. Nerogon sprinted to her side, and the two found a door into the tower that was merely locked, not barred. Lucy made short work of that, and they were soon in combat with two kobolds, who didn’t stand up to them for very long.
Lucy started down the stairs to open the door to the courtyard and tripped over a chain that had been rigged there. Lying on the landing, she was attacked by a dire weasel. Nerogon grabbed it and she wriggled free, heading down to let Lainis into the tower. Lainis, Cazhmere, and Lucy managed to kill it before it mauled Nerogon too badly.
A rock tossed down the remaining stairs to down from the tower floor revealed that there was still a kobold down there when it fired a crossbow bolt at the noise. Cazhmere charged down the stairs to deal with the kobold, triggering a nasty swinging blade. Fortunately, the kobolds had set it to swing a bit higher than a kobold’s head, so it missed Cazhmere completely. The wolf caught a crossbow bolt on the way in, but he made short work of the kobold. The party set about looting the stash of ill-gotten booty that the kobolds kept in the cellar.
For good measure, the Lainis decided to check the stable in the courtyard to see if it had any threats lurking within. Opening the door and walking inside, she kicked a tripwire that dropped a swinging block of stone into her. Fortunately there were no other threats to take advantage of her.
Lainis and Cazhmere stayed in the keep to guard the loot until Lucy, Sylvia, and Nerogon could return with the wagon to collect it.
In the aftermath of the kobold raid, Sylvia, Lainis, Lucy, and Nerogon decided to return to the keep where they had originally been taunted to confront the kobolds there, figuring it was the source of the attack. Reya stayed behind to guard the group's wagon and pack animals and to guard Machaon, who had used up his spell casting with an extra round of healings to get the others into fighting shape.
Seeing no signs of kobold activity from a distance, the group moved up the keep gate, which was still barred from the inside. After some difficulty getting started, Lucy climbed the wall, where she came under fire from kobolds inside the keep’s tower. Lucy quickly tied a rope to the battlements for the rest of the party then ran along the battlements to the tower, where she was too close for the kobolds inside to shoot at her through the arrow slits. Nerogon climbed the rope to the battlements and started getting shot at as well. He jumped down to the courtyard and unbarred the gate for Lainis and Cazhmere. Sylvia began a bard song from safely outside the keep’s walls
Lainis went to the courtyard door of the tower, which she found also to be barred from the inside. Nerogon got back up on the battlements, while Lucy started taking fire from a kobold on top of the tower. She put an arrow through his head when he leaned over to shoot at her again. Nerogon sprinted to her side, and the two found a door into the tower that was merely locked, not barred. Lucy made short work of that, and they were soon in combat with two kobolds, who didn’t stand up to them for very long.
Lucy started down the stairs to open the door to the courtyard and tripped over a chain that had been rigged there. Lying on the landing, she was attacked by a dire weasel. Nerogon grabbed it and she wriggled free, heading down to let Lainis into the tower. Lainis, Cazhmere, and Lucy managed to kill it before it mauled Nerogon too badly.
A rock tossed down the remaining stairs to down from the tower floor revealed that there was still a kobold down there when it fired a crossbow bolt at the noise. Cazhmere charged down the stairs to deal with the kobold, triggering a nasty swinging blade. Fortunately, the kobolds had set it to swing a bit higher than a kobold’s head, so it missed Cazhmere completely. The wolf caught a crossbow bolt on the way in, but he made short work of the kobold. The party set about looting the stash of ill-gotten booty that the kobolds kept in the cellar.
For good measure, the Lainis decided to check the stable in the courtyard to see if it had any threats lurking within. Opening the door and walking inside, she kicked a tripwire that dropped a swinging block of stone into her. Fortunately there were no other threats to take advantage of her.
Lainis and Cazhmere stayed in the keep to guard the loot until Lucy, Sylvia, and Nerogon could return with the wagon to collect it.
Labels:
games
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Marriage Making News Again
This time, the state of New York is trying to pass a bill to legalize same-sex marriages.
I may have mentioned this before, but I think they’re approaching this issue in the wrong way.
For starters, the definition of marriage isn’t as universal as social conservatives would like you to think, which raises problems beyond just same-sex marriage. For instance, if we make the one-man/one-woman marriage the legal standard, what happens to immigrants from countries where plural marriage is legal? A man with two wives and six children (all done very legally in his country of origin) immigrates to the United States (also legally): is he still married to both of his wives? There are even religious sub-cultures in the US that aren’t opposed to plural marriage: at least in private; they may publicly disavow it because of the majority opinion.
There are also issues of free speech and freedom of religion to consider. If a same-sex couple goes to a church, synagogue, temple, or other religious institution and takes the appropriate vows, there’s nothing that the government can do to stop them from calling their relationship a “marriage,” no matter how many common legal privileges it chooses to deny them. The Constitution won’t allow the government to keep the church from performing the ceremony, and it also protects their right to describe the relationship as they choose.
So I think the government should get out of the “marriage” business entirely: they really have no interest in anything but “civil unions,” and I think there are valid reasons to limit those to simple contracts between just two people: the tax code, for instance, would get even messier if a union could consist of any number of husbands and wives.
So the solution is simple. The government should stop trying to define “marriage” and just define what rights and responsibilities are attached to a “civil union” contract, without restricting who can enter such a contract beyond “two consenting adults.”
I may have mentioned this before, but I think they’re approaching this issue in the wrong way.
For starters, the definition of marriage isn’t as universal as social conservatives would like you to think, which raises problems beyond just same-sex marriage. For instance, if we make the one-man/one-woman marriage the legal standard, what happens to immigrants from countries where plural marriage is legal? A man with two wives and six children (all done very legally in his country of origin) immigrates to the United States (also legally): is he still married to both of his wives? There are even religious sub-cultures in the US that aren’t opposed to plural marriage: at least in private; they may publicly disavow it because of the majority opinion.
There are also issues of free speech and freedom of religion to consider. If a same-sex couple goes to a church, synagogue, temple, or other religious institution and takes the appropriate vows, there’s nothing that the government can do to stop them from calling their relationship a “marriage,” no matter how many common legal privileges it chooses to deny them. The Constitution won’t allow the government to keep the church from performing the ceremony, and it also protects their right to describe the relationship as they choose.
So I think the government should get out of the “marriage” business entirely: they really have no interest in anything but “civil unions,” and I think there are valid reasons to limit those to simple contracts between just two people: the tax code, for instance, would get even messier if a union could consist of any number of husbands and wives.
So the solution is simple. The government should stop trying to define “marriage” and just define what rights and responsibilities are attached to a “civil union” contract, without restricting who can enter such a contract beyond “two consenting adults.”
Labels:
culture,
government
Friday, June 10, 2011
Another D&D Session: Night Raid
This session marks the introduction of new party member Reya (sp?), a rather wild huntress who spotted the party making camp and decided that approaching them and seeking to join them might be safer than sleeping alone in a kobold-infested part of the forest. Although she hoped to approach the camp quietly and get a sense of the sort of people there before introducing herself, she prematurely announced her presence by stepping on a dry branch, creating a loud snap that no one missed. However, as she presented no threat and the party druid’s animal companion, Cazhmere, liked her, she was accepted with little difficulty.
Her concerns about kobolds were soon proven valid when a band of kobolds attacked the camp in the middle of the night. The attack came during Lainis the druid’s watch. She heard the initial rustling and woke Cazhmere, sending the wolf to see what was out there. This resulted in a loud yelp from Cazhmere as the approaching kobolds started shooting crossbow bolts into the camp.
The twanging and yelping woke Lucy, Nerogon, and Machaon. Lainis sent Cazhmere to attack one of the kobolds, but a giant weasel accompanying them intercepted the wolf, bit, and refused to let go. Nerogon cast light on a tree near the attackers, illuminating them. Lucy rushed forward to attack the weasel, but missed it. Lainis whacked it with her staff, and Cazhmere bit back in retaliation. Machaon woke Sylvia. One of the kobolds cast a spell (which Nerogon recognized as shield), and the others continued to shower the party with crossbow bolts, injuring Lainis and Lucy.
Sylvia started an inspirational song, while Machaon woke Reya. Nerogon healed some of the wounds Cazhmere had sustained. Lainis whacked the weasel again, while Lucy inflicted grievous harm on a kobold, and Reya rushed to join in the fighting. Sylvia’s song was interrupted by a magic missile from the kobold sorcerer. Cazhmere’s life or death struggle with the weasel continued. The rain of crossbow bolts slowed as more kobolds became involved in close combats.
Cazhmere took ability damage from blood loss as the weasel maintained its death grip, but the wolf finally ended the struggle by ripping out the weasel's throat. Lainis cast shillelagh on her staff to improve its smiting mojo. Nerogon, Lucy, and Reya engaged kobolds with varying degrees of success. Lainis was jabbed by a kobold as she rushed to engage the sorcerer, and Machaon healed Sylvia’s wounds.
The tide of battle had clearly shifted, and kobolds began to fall beneath the blows of the party. Lucy flanked a kobold and impaled it, Cazhmere tore up another, Nerogon smashed one down, and Lainis broke through the sorcerer’s shield spell to crack his skull. A moment later, it was all over but the looting.
I expect this to mark something of a turning point for the campaign, as Reya’s player brings a great deal of gaming experience to the group.
Her concerns about kobolds were soon proven valid when a band of kobolds attacked the camp in the middle of the night. The attack came during Lainis the druid’s watch. She heard the initial rustling and woke Cazhmere, sending the wolf to see what was out there. This resulted in a loud yelp from Cazhmere as the approaching kobolds started shooting crossbow bolts into the camp.
The twanging and yelping woke Lucy, Nerogon, and Machaon. Lainis sent Cazhmere to attack one of the kobolds, but a giant weasel accompanying them intercepted the wolf, bit, and refused to let go. Nerogon cast light on a tree near the attackers, illuminating them. Lucy rushed forward to attack the weasel, but missed it. Lainis whacked it with her staff, and Cazhmere bit back in retaliation. Machaon woke Sylvia. One of the kobolds cast a spell (which Nerogon recognized as shield), and the others continued to shower the party with crossbow bolts, injuring Lainis and Lucy.
Sylvia started an inspirational song, while Machaon woke Reya. Nerogon healed some of the wounds Cazhmere had sustained. Lainis whacked the weasel again, while Lucy inflicted grievous harm on a kobold, and Reya rushed to join in the fighting. Sylvia’s song was interrupted by a magic missile from the kobold sorcerer. Cazhmere’s life or death struggle with the weasel continued. The rain of crossbow bolts slowed as more kobolds became involved in close combats.
Cazhmere took ability damage from blood loss as the weasel maintained its death grip, but the wolf finally ended the struggle by ripping out the weasel's throat. Lainis cast shillelagh on her staff to improve its smiting mojo. Nerogon, Lucy, and Reya engaged kobolds with varying degrees of success. Lainis was jabbed by a kobold as she rushed to engage the sorcerer, and Machaon healed Sylvia’s wounds.
The tide of battle had clearly shifted, and kobolds began to fall beneath the blows of the party. Lucy flanked a kobold and impaled it, Cazhmere tore up another, Nerogon smashed one down, and Lainis broke through the sorcerer’s shield spell to crack his skull. A moment later, it was all over but the looting.
I expect this to mark something of a turning point for the campaign, as Reya’s player brings a great deal of gaming experience to the group.
Labels:
games
Wednesday, June 08, 2011
Creationist Absurdity
I can't decide if this is serious or a joke.

Surely even creationists notice that they have to pee a few times a day.

Surely even creationists notice that they have to pee a few times a day.
Sunday, June 05, 2011
X-Men: First Class
I'm not going to try to spoil this for anyone, but I'm not going to make much effort to avoid spoilers, either, so read at your own risk.
Overall Impression: Worth seeing. It definitely beats X-Men III: The Last Stand, but I don't think it beats X-Men or X2: X-Men United.
It's hard to have an opinion on how this ended, but to go into that now would be jumping the gun a bit. For starters, let me say that this is another origin story. It goes back as far as the 1940's, where we see some formative events in the lives of Professor X, Mystique, and Magneto. The scenes around Magneto mirror and then expand upon what we learned about him in the first X-Men movie.
Let me take a moment here to note that whoever wrote the screenplay for X-Men: First Class has a serious crush on Magneto.
I'm a little disappointed with the character choices for the villains in this movie. The Hellfire Club is a pretty well established villain group in X-Men comics (from my 80's and 90's based recollections), and I don't think that this movie has done it justice. Yes, Shaw is a decent Big Bad, but I don't think he resembles his comics incarnation very much in either powers or motivation. Emma Frost is practically a Big Bad in her own right, so she shouldn't be playing second fiddle so much, and what's with the "turning to diamond" thing? (Update: Apparently that's an additional power she picked up in the comics sometime after I stopped reading regularly.) The henchmen seem to be clones of Nightcrawler and Storm, and I have no idea where the idea for the dragonfly lady originated.
Unsurprisingly, the "first class" X-Men line-up doesn't much resemble the original Marvel comics line-up. They seem to be trying to have a movie continuity that's separate from comics continuity, so the absence of Ice Man is understandable, but about the only X-Man recognizable from early comics is Banshee, and I'm not sure how they plan to resolve the little issue of Havoc and Cyclops being twin brothers (in the comics) when they've apparently made Havoc a generation older in the movies (Correction: They're apparently not twins; Cyclops is older.).
So, not much attempt at direct continuity with the comics. Fair enough.
Was it necessary to make Professor X a naive ignoramous? To the point of being an arrogant ass? By the end, it's kind of hard to sympathize with him or his ideology. He wants mutants to be able to integrate peacefully with the rest of humanity, but his own research (for his PhD dissertation) claims that such a peace is impossible. And the human governments of the movie bear out his research by being paranoid ass-hats who try to kill the people who just saved their butts.
So we're left pretty completely sympathizing with Magneto's position: kill the humans before they kill the mutants. Would it have been that hard to have at least a few human voices on the mutant side at the end?
Kind of a broken message, if you ask me.
Overall Impression: Worth seeing. It definitely beats X-Men III: The Last Stand, but I don't think it beats X-Men or X2: X-Men United.
It's hard to have an opinion on how this ended, but to go into that now would be jumping the gun a bit. For starters, let me say that this is another origin story. It goes back as far as the 1940's, where we see some formative events in the lives of Professor X, Mystique, and Magneto. The scenes around Magneto mirror and then expand upon what we learned about him in the first X-Men movie.
Let me take a moment here to note that whoever wrote the screenplay for X-Men: First Class has a serious crush on Magneto.
I'm a little disappointed with the character choices for the villains in this movie. The Hellfire Club is a pretty well established villain group in X-Men comics (from my 80's and 90's based recollections), and I don't think that this movie has done it justice. Yes, Shaw is a decent Big Bad, but I don't think he resembles his comics incarnation very much in either powers or motivation. Emma Frost is practically a Big Bad in her own right, so she shouldn't be playing second fiddle so much, and what's with the "turning to diamond" thing? (Update: Apparently that's an additional power she picked up in the comics sometime after I stopped reading regularly.) The henchmen seem to be clones of Nightcrawler and Storm, and I have no idea where the idea for the dragonfly lady originated.
Unsurprisingly, the "first class" X-Men line-up doesn't much resemble the original Marvel comics line-up. They seem to be trying to have a movie continuity that's separate from comics continuity, so the absence of Ice Man is understandable, but about the only X-Man recognizable from early comics is Banshee, and I'm not sure how they plan to resolve the little issue of Havoc and Cyclops being twin brothers (in the comics) when they've apparently made Havoc a generation older in the movies (Correction: They're apparently not twins; Cyclops is older.).
So, not much attempt at direct continuity with the comics. Fair enough.
Was it necessary to make Professor X a naive ignoramous? To the point of being an arrogant ass? By the end, it's kind of hard to sympathize with him or his ideology. He wants mutants to be able to integrate peacefully with the rest of humanity, but his own research (for his PhD dissertation) claims that such a peace is impossible. And the human governments of the movie bear out his research by being paranoid ass-hats who try to kill the people who just saved their butts.
So we're left pretty completely sympathizing with Magneto's position: kill the humans before they kill the mutants. Would it have been that hard to have at least a few human voices on the mutant side at the end?
Kind of a broken message, if you ask me.
Labels:
movies
Thursday, June 02, 2011
Mermaid Hoax
This video seems to be going a little bit viral on YouTube.
The narrator says he doesn't care whether you believe his claim that it's a mermaid or not. Good, because I don't. I think it's a hoax.
I'm convinced it's not a mermaid, because a mermaid is not something that fits into the evolutionary tree anywhere. Branches of that tree don't merge back together with branches from another limb, so a species that's half fish (or even half porpoise) and half primate just doesn't happen. My guess is that we've got footage of someone swimming in a costume tail composited with generic underwater footage, but I'll leave the details of how it was done to people with more expertise in video effects.
I invite all the creationists out there to go to the Great Barrier Reef to try to collect more evidence, though, as the discovery of a mermaid would be a big win for them, since evolution couldn't explain it.
Update: Does anything from the following movie clip look familiar?
The narrator says he doesn't care whether you believe his claim that it's a mermaid or not. Good, because I don't. I think it's a hoax.
I'm convinced it's not a mermaid, because a mermaid is not something that fits into the evolutionary tree anywhere. Branches of that tree don't merge back together with branches from another limb, so a species that's half fish (or even half porpoise) and half primate just doesn't happen. My guess is that we've got footage of someone swimming in a costume tail composited with generic underwater footage, but I'll leave the details of how it was done to people with more expertise in video effects.
I invite all the creationists out there to go to the Great Barrier Reef to try to collect more evidence, though, as the discovery of a mermaid would be a big win for them, since evolution couldn't explain it.
Update: Does anything from the following movie clip look familiar?
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
The Concept of Managed Care
I was listening to talk radio on my way home this evening, as I occasionally do to keep awake, and I heard Phil Valentine discussing the ever-present issue of healthcare. He was dissing the very concept of managed care.
The gist of his argument went something like this: "Joe Blow needs procedure X. Either Joe or the insurance company he pays (or the government entity that subsidizes his health care, although that's un-American) needs to pay for procedure X that Joe needs. The Guvmint shouldn't give Joe's healthcare providers a fixed amount of money to cover his healthcare needs and certainly shouldn't have the ability to say, 'Joe, the cost of your procedure exceeds the limit the Guvmint set, so we're cutting you off.'" All this was in response to a statement from some Democrat who thought it a reasonable idea that the "Guvmint" should offer a provider a fixed amount to cover a patient's health expenses for a period of time (like a year).
Phil apparently isn't even trying to understand the concept of managed care. I happen to work (indirectly) for a "Payer" that makes contracts with managed care organizations (MCOs), so I have an idea what he's missing.
The principle of managed care is to keep the "enrollees" or "patients" of the managed care system healthy. The MCO enters into a binding contract to pay for a patient's medical needs for the duration of the contract. That's an important point: the MCO must pay for all medical procedures that the patient needs.
The Payer in this system gives the MCO a certain amount of money for the patient for a specific period of time, usually a year. The amount can vary, depending on the patient's age and any pre-existing conditions of the patient (such as diabetes or just age), but the MCO gets this amount regardless of the actual cost of procedures that the patient needs during that period of time. Note that, due to the contract, the MCO must pay for the patient's medical needs, even if the cost exceeds the amount paid by the Payer.
Obviously the MCO will lose money if the cost of a given patient's care exceeds the amount it receives from the Payer. This means that the MCO has an economic incentive to keep the patient healthy. This is how a managed care system uses the free-market forces that Phil adores so much to control costs. The MCO wants to enter the contract to get that "money per patient payout" from the Payer (the "Guvmint" in this case), but the MCO doesn't want to pay for expensive medical procedures for a patient, like a hospitalization. If the MCO can keep the cost of a given patient's care below the annual payment from the Payer, it makes a profit. If it can keep the overall cost of patient medical expenses below the overall payment for all patients, it makes an overall profit on its contracts.
Consequently, it's in the financial interest of the MCO to monitor patients and address any potential health problems as early as possible, before they develop into serious problems that require an expensive hospital stay. That is how managed care systems that provide fixed amounts of money for patients save money for the Payer.
Compare this to a Fee For Service (FFS) system, such as Phil proposes, in which the Payer picks up the bill for every procedure a patient needs. In an FFS system, the incentive for the provider is to maximize the number of billable services for the patient. If the patient has a developing condition that could be treated cheaply if treated early, the provider actually has a financial incentive to wait until the condition becomes more serious, so they can charge the Payer for more procedures and more expensive procedures to treat it.
I hope it’s clear now why an MCO system is at least potentially more economical for the Payer than an FFS system. Certainly there are potential abuse issues in an MCO system (such as disputes over whether a particular procedure is “needed” for a particular patient and arguments over what the annual payment for a given patient should be), but the underlying principle of an MCO system is to encourage providers to keep patients as healthy as possible, so they don’t need expensive procedures. Whatever it is, it ain't "evil socialism."
The gist of his argument went something like this: "Joe Blow needs procedure X. Either Joe or the insurance company he pays (or the government entity that subsidizes his health care, although that's un-American) needs to pay for procedure X that Joe needs. The Guvmint shouldn't give Joe's healthcare providers a fixed amount of money to cover his healthcare needs and certainly shouldn't have the ability to say, 'Joe, the cost of your procedure exceeds the limit the Guvmint set, so we're cutting you off.'" All this was in response to a statement from some Democrat who thought it a reasonable idea that the "Guvmint" should offer a provider a fixed amount to cover a patient's health expenses for a period of time (like a year).
Phil apparently isn't even trying to understand the concept of managed care. I happen to work (indirectly) for a "Payer" that makes contracts with managed care organizations (MCOs), so I have an idea what he's missing.
The principle of managed care is to keep the "enrollees" or "patients" of the managed care system healthy. The MCO enters into a binding contract to pay for a patient's medical needs for the duration of the contract. That's an important point: the MCO must pay for all medical procedures that the patient needs.
The Payer in this system gives the MCO a certain amount of money for the patient for a specific period of time, usually a year. The amount can vary, depending on the patient's age and any pre-existing conditions of the patient (such as diabetes or just age), but the MCO gets this amount regardless of the actual cost of procedures that the patient needs during that period of time. Note that, due to the contract, the MCO must pay for the patient's medical needs, even if the cost exceeds the amount paid by the Payer.
Obviously the MCO will lose money if the cost of a given patient's care exceeds the amount it receives from the Payer. This means that the MCO has an economic incentive to keep the patient healthy. This is how a managed care system uses the free-market forces that Phil adores so much to control costs. The MCO wants to enter the contract to get that "money per patient payout" from the Payer (the "Guvmint" in this case), but the MCO doesn't want to pay for expensive medical procedures for a patient, like a hospitalization. If the MCO can keep the cost of a given patient's care below the annual payment from the Payer, it makes a profit. If it can keep the overall cost of patient medical expenses below the overall payment for all patients, it makes an overall profit on its contracts.
Consequently, it's in the financial interest of the MCO to monitor patients and address any potential health problems as early as possible, before they develop into serious problems that require an expensive hospital stay. That is how managed care systems that provide fixed amounts of money for patients save money for the Payer.
Compare this to a Fee For Service (FFS) system, such as Phil proposes, in which the Payer picks up the bill for every procedure a patient needs. In an FFS system, the incentive for the provider is to maximize the number of billable services for the patient. If the patient has a developing condition that could be treated cheaply if treated early, the provider actually has a financial incentive to wait until the condition becomes more serious, so they can charge the Payer for more procedures and more expensive procedures to treat it.
I hope it’s clear now why an MCO system is at least potentially more economical for the Payer than an FFS system. Certainly there are potential abuse issues in an MCO system (such as disputes over whether a particular procedure is “needed” for a particular patient and arguments over what the annual payment for a given patient should be), but the underlying principle of an MCO system is to encourage providers to keep patients as healthy as possible, so they don’t need expensive procedures. Whatever it is, it ain't "evil socialism."
Labels:
government
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
D&D Resumes
Long time, no post. I've been sadly inactive in SCA things, but at least I have a new D&D game going to provide some blog fodder.
I’ve had six sessions with my new D&D group, now. They’re on a quest inspired by Monty Python and the Holy Grail to recover a goblet sacred to Dionysus. So far, they’ve dealt with snarky guards, a body collector, and taunting kobolds.
My players are not an extremely experienced group, as shown by little things they don’t do. For instance, they defeated an evil priest and his undead minions (a big fight that earned them a lot of experience points) and looted the bodies, but they didn’t look around for where the priest was sleeping. Note to players: your adversaries don’t necessarily carry all of their valuables on them at all times. Too late to go back for them now, though; that’s another important lesson. If you don’t find the loot, someone else soon will.
They also don’t map. I’m surprised that it hasn’t occurred to at least one member of the group (the one who has the most gaming experience) that they really ought to keep some kind of map of where they’ve been. So far, they’ve relied on the druid’s animal companion to lead them out of mazes by following their scent trail.
But I’m sure at least one member of the group will read this and consider it.
Remember: Being genre savvy typically works in your favor in my campaign.
I’ve had six sessions with my new D&D group, now. They’re on a quest inspired by Monty Python and the Holy Grail to recover a goblet sacred to Dionysus. So far, they’ve dealt with snarky guards, a body collector, and taunting kobolds.
My players are not an extremely experienced group, as shown by little things they don’t do. For instance, they defeated an evil priest and his undead minions (a big fight that earned them a lot of experience points) and looted the bodies, but they didn’t look around for where the priest was sleeping. Note to players: your adversaries don’t necessarily carry all of their valuables on them at all times. Too late to go back for them now, though; that’s another important lesson. If you don’t find the loot, someone else soon will.
They also don’t map. I’m surprised that it hasn’t occurred to at least one member of the group (the one who has the most gaming experience) that they really ought to keep some kind of map of where they’ve been. So far, they’ve relied on the druid’s animal companion to lead them out of mazes by following their scent trail.
But I’m sure at least one member of the group will read this and consider it.
Remember: Being genre savvy typically works in your favor in my campaign.
Labels:
games
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Medieval Weapons Technique
This is just cool stuff. Around 1:19, you see why the period masters considered quarterstaff technique to be the core of all polearm technique.
Tuesday, March 08, 2011
The Resistance
Julia's band at the YEAH Rock Block show case in Murfreesboro, TN, on February 27, 2011.
And again on March 4, 2011.
And again on March 4, 2011.
Labels:
music
Monday, February 28, 2011
Another “Evolution Requires Faith” Claim
Observed in a wall post and responses on Facebook. We’ll call the creationist CW.
Berkley has a nice website on the subject, if you care to read it. The short of it, though, is that we don’t need faith to see that bird wings evolved. We don’t know everything about how it occurred, but we do have the intermediate forms (despite the denials of creationists), and we continue to learn more as we discover more fossils.
I’d love to know where she got this notion that “non-creationist microbiologists” are refuting evolution based on DNA. DNA is one of the great pieces of supporting evidence in favor of evolution, and unique variations in every living being are expected and in fact necessary for evolution to work. Sure it’s a “new creature”, but it’s not so different that it’s no longer the same species. It takes many generations for populations of creatures to diverge that much.
And of course Evolution is a theory. Learn what “theory” means to a scientist! It’s an explanation for a set of observations that is consistent with the evidence. A theory makes predictions that can be tested, and its predictions are consistent with reality.
A creationist friend of CW chimed into the thread to help defend it. We’ll call the friend HP.
Of course, if they actually learned the Theory of Evolution instead of listening to creationist sound-bites, they might realize that it’s accurate, and they wouldn’t want that! I expect that's why creationists routinely ignore attempts to actually teach them something about evolutionary biology.
CW: “I was thinking about DNA and genes and how every feature of every creature has its own genetic code. I wonder what evolutionist would say whether or not there is a DNA code a genetic code for the in between species, such as. the code for a wing and a leg are different: what does the "in-between" leg look like? Is the code muddied? How is THAT a step in the direction of evolving perfection?! Silly evolutionists: your version takes more faith to believe in than MINE does!”Some friends of mine made an effort to explain, but the author wasn’t really listening. The answer to the question is not so simple, since there are many steps between a leg and a wing. Bird wings developed from the forelimbs of dinosaurs (specifically dromaeosaurs), and there are many known species of dinosaur that were essentially bipedal, leaving their forelimbs free to evolve toward other tasks. The “in-betweens” either look like a leg (or arm) with some wing-like characteristics, or like a wing with some lingering arm-like characteristics.
Berkley has a nice website on the subject, if you care to read it. The short of it, though, is that we don’t need faith to see that bird wings evolved. We don’t know everything about how it occurred, but we do have the intermediate forms (despite the denials of creationists), and we continue to learn more as we discover more fossils.
CW: “Humans are composed of the same material as is found in the soil. Man was made from soil. All creatures were created by the same artist so the same ingredients and style are present in all created things (C, G, T, A) and resemble each other According to non-creationist microbiologists, DNA itself dies not support the theory of evolution because each creature is made if a unique set of DNA. If u change the code, it's a new creature not an altered old one. Still a theory as of yet. There is more faith than evidence present in the belief of evolution. Didn't care fir those authors really. I like da Bible. :0"Is it really any surprise that life on Earth is composed of elements that are common on the surface of the Earth? From an evolutionary standpoint, it's exactly what you should expect.
I’d love to know where she got this notion that “non-creationist microbiologists” are refuting evolution based on DNA. DNA is one of the great pieces of supporting evidence in favor of evolution, and unique variations in every living being are expected and in fact necessary for evolution to work. Sure it’s a “new creature”, but it’s not so different that it’s no longer the same species. It takes many generations for populations of creatures to diverge that much.
And of course Evolution is a theory. Learn what “theory” means to a scientist! It’s an explanation for a set of observations that is consistent with the evidence. A theory makes predictions that can be tested, and its predictions are consistent with reality.
A creationist friend of CW chimed into the thread to help defend it. We’ll call the friend HP.
HP: “There have never been any transitional fossils discovered. There is also overwhelming proof that an ‘inbetween’ species could not survive as it evolved into another species.”HP is another creationist who apparently only reads creationist publications for information about biology. There are plenty of transitional fossils, showing that “in-between” species survive just fine. There are millions of “in-between” species alive right now; thousands of years in the future, their descendants will be different species.
HP: “Charles Darwin was just a man with a theory. He was not all knowing and was like Job in the Bible and spoke of things that he knew not of. And God would ask these men the same things he asked Job..."where were you when I put the stars in the sky? Where were you when I..." (Paraphrase:)”Charles Darwin never claimed to know everything, and he was far from alone in his observations about life on Earth. His distinction was being the first to publish his findings.
CW: “That is my FAVORITE PASSAGE OF SCRIPTURE!!! "Brace yourself boy ... who do you think you ARE?" My paraphrase of course; God is much more kind than I am there. :) An in-between feather or eye or flipper just wouldn't be practical ... there isn't any way a half formed hand/wing would be superior to what was already there. And, again, it would become a new creature due to that whole pairing thing going on with the GCTA pairs ..."If only CW and HP could see the irony of their comments. They’re the ones making claims about subjects they don’t understand, because it’s clear that they don’t understand the theory they’re attacking.
Of course, if they actually learned the Theory of Evolution instead of listening to creationist sound-bites, they might realize that it’s accurate, and they wouldn’t want that! I expect that's why creationists routinely ignore attempts to actually teach them something about evolutionary biology.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
"Intelligent" Design
Apparently it requires making a nerve ten feet longer than it needs to be.
Richard Dawkins Demonstrates Laryngeal Nerve of the Giraffe
Uploaded by blindwatcher. - Discover more science and tech videos.
Richard Dawkins Demonstrates Laryngeal Nerve of the Giraffe
Uploaded by blindwatcher. - Discover more science and tech videos.
Labels:
science
Wednesday, February 09, 2011
Simple Caribbean Chicken Curry
I made a batch of this over the weekend, and I got a request to post the recipe, so here we go.
- Open a can of pineapple chunks and drain the juice into a measuring cup.
- Combine the juice with water to make two cups and put it in a small pot.
- Add curry spice (adjust as you see fit).
- 1/4 tsp tumeric
- 1/4 tsp cardamom
- 1 tsp cumin
- 1 tsp ginger
- 1/2 tsp chili powder
- Add a cup of brown rice, bring to a boil, turn heat to low, cover, and leave to simmer 20 minutes.
- Put one or two chicken breasts in a 375-degree oven for the same time.
- Take the chicken from the oven and cut it into bite-sized pieces, add it to the rice pot.
- Add about a cup of black beans (roughly half a can) to the pot.
- Stir, cover, and let simmer another 10-15 minutes.
Labels:
food
Saturday, February 05, 2011
Bill O' Reilly Reasoning
This was just too good to pass up.
Besides being just plain silly, O'Reilly's argument is also a classic example of "moving the goalposts".
Besides being just plain silly, O'Reilly's argument is also a classic example of "moving the goalposts".
Friday, February 04, 2011
Gabby's Burgers and Fries
I actually had my lunch with me yesterday when I went to work, but my colleague Andrea was in a special mood. She was craving Gabby's Burgers and Fries, and she asked if I wanted to join the group. I am so glad I did.
Gabby's is a little hole-in-the-wall burger joint on a corner across the street from the Nashville Sounds baseball field.
The absolute worst thing I can say about them is that they're a little free with the salt on the fries. The grass-fed beef they use, however, more than makes up for such a minor excess. Those are the most awesome burgers ever.
Gabby's is a little hole-in-the-wall burger joint on a corner across the street from the Nashville Sounds baseball field.
![]() | ![]() |
![]() | ![]() |
The absolute worst thing I can say about them is that they're a little free with the salt on the fries. The grass-fed beef they use, however, more than makes up for such a minor excess. Those are the most awesome burgers ever.
Labels:
food
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Black Bean Minestrone
From the “easy to throw it together” series...
In a medium pot, combine…
In a medium pot, combine…
- One can of diced tomatoes
- One can of beef broth
- A cup or so of black beans
- A diced onion (sauteed)
- About a cup of whole wheat pasta (shells)
- Dried oregano (however much suits you)
- Dried basil (the same)
- About a tablespoon of prepared garlic (maybe less if it’s fresh-minced)
- Black pepper
- A splash of fish sauce
- A splash of balsamic vinegar
Labels:
food
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
A New Firefly Criticism
Back-to-back posts! I'm on a roll!
In an article I recently found on the internet, the author complains that in the cult TV series Firefly, the relationship between Captain Malcolm Reynolds and his second-in-command, Zoe Washburn, is “yucky” because of an unfortunate connotation of some of the show's Civil War references.
At a glance, that’s not much of a stretch. Both the Union and the Alliance consist of older “states” with greater wealth and more firmly established industrial bases, while both the Confederacy and the Independents are relatively new “states” with more agricultural economies. Furthermore, the Independents' primary complaint seems to be onerous control by a central authority, which was at least the public reason for the defection of the Confederate states.
The author uses this reasoning to conclude that Zoe is a former slave of Mal’s, now free, but still following him out of some sense of misguided loyalty.
The problem with this reasoning is what we know about the actual institution of slavery in Firefly, which is still legal and practiced on the core worlds of the Alliance, but not so much on the marginally pacified border worlds that used to be Independents. In Firefly, the victorious “Union” is the defender of slavery, not the defeated “Confederacy”.
It’s impossible to cast Zoe in the role of freed slave still following “massa” (as the author puts it) when there’s really no indication that Zoe was ever anyone’s slave. It’s not even clear that there’s racial selection involved in the Alliance’s designation of slaves: we hear slaves discussed a few times, but we never actually saw any to see if they have any physical characteristics in common.
Update: In "Jaynestown", we see a colony where a population of "mudders" are described as indentured servants (a tiny step above outright slavery) working for the Alliance governor, and they were mostly (if not entirely, I wasn't paying that much attention) white.
This doesn’t mean race and racism aren’t factors in Firefly. Most of the wealthy aristocrats we see on the core worlds of the Alliance are lily white, with the major exceptions being government agents hired to do the Alliance’s dirty work. The lower class “Independents”, on the other hand, have more of a racial mix. A major flaw in the show, as I’ve noted before, is the conspicuous shortage of characters of Asian descent, particularly in a setting where Chinese phrases are frequently bandied about.
So, once again, we have a social criticism of Firefly that doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.
In an article I recently found on the internet, the author complains that in the cult TV series Firefly, the relationship between Captain Malcolm Reynolds and his second-in-command, Zoe Washburn, is “yucky” because of an unfortunate connotation of some of the show's Civil War references.
The problem with using the Civil War as a subtext is that Joss Whedon’s ancestors weren’t slaves. So he seriously thinks that in Zoe, Mal’s second-in-command and only surviving member of his unit, he’s done a subversive little trick. She’s black! She’s a she! She can fight so good! She’s a soldier just like Mal, etc, etc.The problem with this whole line of reasoning is that it assumes that the Independent faction in Firefly’s civil war corresponds to the Confederacy in the American Civil War, while the Firefly Alliance corresponds to the Union.
Mr. Whedon must have fallen asleep during the part in class where they discussed how some slaves stayed with their masters even after emancipation.
At a glance, that’s not much of a stretch. Both the Union and the Alliance consist of older “states” with greater wealth and more firmly established industrial bases, while both the Confederacy and the Independents are relatively new “states” with more agricultural economies. Furthermore, the Independents' primary complaint seems to be onerous control by a central authority, which was at least the public reason for the defection of the Confederate states.
The author uses this reasoning to conclude that Zoe is a former slave of Mal’s, now free, but still following him out of some sense of misguided loyalty.
The problem with this reasoning is what we know about the actual institution of slavery in Firefly, which is still legal and practiced on the core worlds of the Alliance, but not so much on the marginally pacified border worlds that used to be Independents. In Firefly, the victorious “Union” is the defender of slavery, not the defeated “Confederacy”.
It’s impossible to cast Zoe in the role of freed slave still following “massa” (as the author puts it) when there’s really no indication that Zoe was ever anyone’s slave. It’s not even clear that there’s racial selection involved in the Alliance’s designation of slaves: we hear slaves discussed a few times, but we never actually saw any to see if they have any physical characteristics in common.
Update: In "Jaynestown", we see a colony where a population of "mudders" are described as indentured servants (a tiny step above outright slavery) working for the Alliance governor, and they were mostly (if not entirely, I wasn't paying that much attention) white.
This doesn’t mean race and racism aren’t factors in Firefly. Most of the wealthy aristocrats we see on the core worlds of the Alliance are lily white, with the major exceptions being government agents hired to do the Alliance’s dirty work. The lower class “Independents”, on the other hand, have more of a racial mix. A major flaw in the show, as I’ve noted before, is the conspicuous shortage of characters of Asian descent, particularly in a setting where Chinese phrases are frequently bandied about.
So, once again, we have a social criticism of Firefly that doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.
Labels:
Firefly
Platinum Fuel Saver and its Spokesperson
Real content for a change... imagine that.
As I may have mentioned before, I spend some time listening to talk radio. In particular, I listen to the Michael Savage show when driving home in the evening because it’s more effective at keeping me alert than classical music, and I don’t particularly like the other music stations around here.
If you’re not familiar with Michael Savage, he’s a conservative shock-jock who broadcasts from San Francisco, CA. I like to think I can judge the integrity of a talk show host by the kind of products he advertises, particularly if he’s the spokesperson in the ads.
Michael has been advertising something called a Platinum Fuel Saver recently. The makers claim that a car with this device installed will use 22% less fuel. According to them, it increases the amount of fuel actually burned in the engine from 68% to 90%. Michael basically repeats these claims in the ads that he has recorded for them.
Alas, Consumer Reports tested this device, and they found that it has no effect at all on a car’s fuel efficiency: you basically spend $250 for nothing (more if you do some of the unscheduled maintenance on your car that the device maker recommends).
If a host repeats claims about a product on his show that don’t stand up to independent testing, should we trust him on any other claims that he makes?
As I may have mentioned before, I spend some time listening to talk radio. In particular, I listen to the Michael Savage show when driving home in the evening because it’s more effective at keeping me alert than classical music, and I don’t particularly like the other music stations around here.
If you’re not familiar with Michael Savage, he’s a conservative shock-jock who broadcasts from San Francisco, CA. I like to think I can judge the integrity of a talk show host by the kind of products he advertises, particularly if he’s the spokesperson in the ads.
Michael has been advertising something called a Platinum Fuel Saver recently. The makers claim that a car with this device installed will use 22% less fuel. According to them, it increases the amount of fuel actually burned in the engine from 68% to 90%. Michael basically repeats these claims in the ads that he has recorded for them.
Alas, Consumer Reports tested this device, and they found that it has no effect at all on a car’s fuel efficiency: you basically spend $250 for nothing (more if you do some of the unscheduled maintenance on your car that the device maker recommends).
If a host repeats claims about a product on his show that don’t stand up to independent testing, should we trust him on any other claims that he makes?
Monday, December 13, 2010
March of Cambreadth (Babylon 5)
It's been way too long since I posted anything, but another gratuitous video can help fill the void.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Friday, November 05, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)














