Explosive Expressions

The public option. Surely you've heard of this concept before. After all, it's being blasted all over the mainstream media. But do you know what it is? What exactly is everyone screaming about?

Well, simply put, the public option is a government run healthcare option. O. P. T. I. O. N. There is no requirement that you choose to use government healthcare, at least, not with the current proposal. However, there is a clause in the current healthcare proposal that requires healthcare of some kind.

The public option was voted down yesterday, though. This is a massive disappointment to me, even though I have no interest in participating in it. This may sound a little odd, so let me explain why I'm disappointed and what I think will end up happening if we don't get a public option.

First off, having a public option would force healthcare providers to start competing for business. If there's a free alternative, then the for-pay options need to have better benefits. For that reason in particular, I believe the public option should be a bare-bones option, allowing only minimal coverage. Given that, most people would probably prefer to have something better, but it still provides something for those that cannot afford anything else.

But if there is no public option, there is really no incentive for insurance companies to lower costs. Sure, the government can regulate the industry, but there is always a way around regulations. For instance, the government can prevent insurance companies from turning away people with pre-existing conditions, but you can be sure there will be a loophole somewhere that will allow the insurance company to make that person pay dearly for service. There will be virtually no way to stop them from raking in profits on the backs of those of us with coverage.

And this brings up another issue. If the mandatory coverage portion of the proposal is passed, then we have millions of people who need to get coverage, or will end up being fined. This is great news for insurance companies as they'll have all sorts of new customers. But how do those people pay for coverage? Well, the current proposal mentioned subsidies for health coverage. In other words, the government will help those people pay for coverage. You know, kinda like Welfare. Welfare is great, right? Works perfectly, never abused. And it doesn't cost the taxpayer anything, right? Yeah, if only..

The public option is extremely important. How important? Well, you can always judge the importance of something by how hard people fight for and against it. If the public option wasn't a big deal, would the insurance companies be fighting it so hard? Why would republicans be decrying it as socialism? Why would people call it government-run healthcare and immediately mark it as bad when Medicare has been running well for years?

So, I'm a bit disappointed that the public option has been shot down, thus far. I suppose it's possible it will make it back into the bill, but I'm not going to hold my breath. Corporate America has been influencing policy for years and I don't expect that to change. After all, greed runs everything, doesn't it?

This week, leaders from around the world are meeting in New York to attend the U.N. Security Council. There's all sorts of talk about climate change, nuclear weapons, and other such topics. But what I've found interesting, thus far, is an interview that Newsweek had with the current Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

If you've been following the news in the past few months, or even reading my blog, you'll know that Iran has been the source of some rather appalling news. With riots, human rights violations, and more, Iran hasn't been a very pleasant place.

Putting aside the current state of Iran, though, read through the article I mentioned above. Put aside your pre-conceived notion of who Ahmadinejad is. Put aside the vitriol spouted about him in the media. Read what he had to say, and think about it for a few minutes.

Now that you're done, let's look a little closer at what he's saying. Seriously, because I think what's being said here is a bit more than the standard "He's EVIL!" stuff you see in the media. Not that I'm arguing that point, but still, there is some food for thought here.

Let's start with the Holocaust stuff. The popular media marks him as a Holocaust denier, but if you read what he actually says, I believe there's more to it than that simplistic label. When asked why he would say there was no Holocaust, here's how he responded:

What I am saying is extremely clear. It is an academic approach to a crucial subject and also one based on humanitarian considerations. What I am saying here is that in past history many events have happened, and in World War II many crimes were committed. Over 60 million people were killed and even more were displaced. So we have several specific questions with regard to the events of World War II, and I believe we cannot find the answers to these questions through the propaganda that is promoted by the media. In the end, the questions need convincing answers.

Ok, so far so good. So he's admitting that people died and were displaced. He does seem to be equating historical information to propaganda, but that's not so very wrong. After all, the winners generally get to write the history books, so equating it to propaganda isn't so terribly wrong. But let's move on, shall we? He mentioned some questions...

The first question that I have to try and understand is why in the midst of all that happened in World War II, the Holocaust is emphasized more than any other [event]?

Holy. Shit. Wow.. umm.. That's one hell of a question. Think about it for a minute. Millions of people died during World War II. Why is the Holocaust emphasized so much? There are a lot of valid answers to this, but it's still a damn good question. And his follow-ups are even better.

The second question is why do Western politicians focus on this issue so much? The third question is how does that event connect with issues that we see around us in the world today? Was this a historical event that happened in isolation without impacting the present conditions?

These are some thought provoking questions. On the one hand, I believe the reason this is brought up so much is that we need to learn from mistakes and do our best to ensure that such atrocities don't occur again. On the other hand, it does get used a lot as an excuse for this or that. It is a historical event, though I'm not sure it has a direct effect on present conditions. Sure, it happened, it was an atrocity, and a lot of people lost their lives, but would the world be that much different today if it did not happen? Very hard to say, either way. Good food for thought, though.

The next question we should ask ourselves is if the event did take place, where did it happen, who were the perpetrators, what was the role of the Palestinian people? What crime have they committed to deserve what they have received as a result? Why exactly should the Palestinian people be victimized? Are you aware that over 5 million Palestinians have been displaced and have had refugee status? What role did they play in the Holocaust? Why is the Holocaust used as a pretext to occupy the land of other people? Why should the Palestinian people give their lives up for it? You are probably aware that there have been embargoes on the people of Gaza.

And now we get to the real meat of this issue. Remember, we're talking about Iran here, home to palestinians. When we talk about Israel, the Holocaust is sure to come up. After all, the Holocaust was a deliberate attack on Jews, and it is argued that the formation of Israel is a direct result of the Holocaust. I believe this is what Ahmadinejad is getting at. Basically, the nation of Israel was formed as a home for the Jewish people. The problem is, it was created at the expense of the Palestinian people. Whether you agree or not, there were a lot of people displaced by that decision.

Now, add in the Holocaust to that. It is believed that the existence of the Holocaust resulted in a lot of empathy votes when the U.N. voted on the Palestine Partition Plan. For better or worse, we ended up with Israel and a lot of really pissed off Palestinians. The holocaust was not caused by the Palestinians, but it seems they are being made to pay for it. Or, at least, that's what popular culture leads us to believe. There are those that disagree, of course.

He follows up with more, though you can read that for yourself.

After tackling the holocaust, Ahmadinejad is asked about the recent presidential election. During that election there was both protesting and rioting. Many believe that large numbers of protesters were unjustly arrested and have been mistreated ever since. These human-rights violations are apparently going to be discussed in Geneva in the near future and the interviewer asks if the president is prepared to talk about them. Interestingly enough, Ahmadinejad seems to deflect the question by asking how many people are imprisoned in the USA. He goes on to state the following:

Do you know the number of prisoners here in the United States? I will give you an answer; if you please, bear with me. You don't expect me to give you the answer you are expecting. You have 3.6 million prisoners in the United States. Why are they in your prisons? Some of them are electrocuted. Why? Exactly why? There is a law here that deals with such matters. Could we say it is a bad thing? Could we address exactly why 3.6 million people are in prison? If nobody has violated the law, there is no reason for them to go to prison. Once the law is violated, then they could end up in prison.

What is interesting about this is how he tries to gloss over his countries actions by pointing out how difficult it is to make sure that every person in jail is supposed to be there. He then goes on to compare his countries judicial system to the system in the USA. He states that there are five stages to a court trial and that four of them are reviews of the case. Somehow this is to prove that they are much more diligent in Iran and will absolutely uphold the rights of the person being held.

He then goes on to state that other issues such as Guantanamo Bay, world security and disarmament, the economy, and more will be discussed in Geneva. He then rails on Europe and the rights violations that occur there. He states that merely discussing the Holocaust ends up with scientists and academics being imprisoned. But at no point does he mention that he is willing to discuss what happened most recently in his country. It's interesting how he can spin a conversation and evade answering questions.

At this point the interview turns towards nuclear power, enriching uranium, and other nuclear-related topics. Personally, I'm not sure I trust his true intentions and I believe the U.N. needs to proceed with caution. He does, however, raise a number of good questions about procedure and legalities with respect to global nuclear law. I think those matters need to be looked into, but I'm of the opinion that the entire story isn't being told.

I definitely don't think Ahmadinejad has the best interests of his people at heart, and I would love to see him lose his presidency to someone who will fight for the people. That said, I think we need to tread carefully as he is a well-spoken, well-educated individual and I think he can be very, very dangerous.

Last night marked a few firsts for me.. First time to an IMAX theater, first time I've been able to go on a date with my wife in quite some time, and first time I've helped to break a Guinness world record. Well, the world record isn't confirmed yet, but I expect it will be with something like 400+ theaters in the US and 63+ countries around the world showing The Age of Stupid, simultaneously, it should be easy enough to smash the record.

Oh, what's The Age of Stupid, you ask? Well, it's a damn good thing you're reading this blog post because that's what I plan on talking about! The Age of Stupid is a drama-documentary-animation hybrid from director Franny Armstrong and Producer Lizzie Gillett. The film is set about 45 years in the future, after climate change has ravaged the world. It is a combination of short documentary clips, some nifty animation, and actual news footage from current and past events. All together it presents a pretty decent look at where we, the human race, may be headed if we don't head off climate change in the very near future.

Climate change is one of those hot topics that lots of people talk about, even more have an opinion on, and a source of much debate. Personally, the effects of climate change, manmade or not, are pretty obvious. Hotter summers, rapid changes of season, melting ice caps, etc. These are all signs of a changing climate, change which could be extremely detrimental to all inhabitants of earth. Unfortunately, there are also those that believe that climate change is nothing more than a big hoax.

So let's talk a little bit about climate change. Climate change is a natural occurring phenomenon. Whether you believe in the Bible, or in Evolution, climate change still exists. For those that are religious and reject evolution, there's Noah's great flood. That's some serious climate change right there, though one could possibly argue that it wasn't a natural event. And for those that believe in Evolution, there's the Ice Age, continental drift, and more.

So climates change over time. However, if you look at the world today, and look at the world a scarce 50 years ago, you'll see that there has been quite a bit of climate change in a very short period. Interestingly enough, it seems that much of this change seems to have come about as we, humans, evolved and developed new technologies. I'm not a scientist, and I don't claim to be one, but it's hard to believe that glaciers that have existed for thousands of years have suddenly decided to melt, rapidly, just about the time we start polluting the hell out of the earth. You can argue all you want about correlation and causation, but just look around a bit. Hurricanes have been getting increasingly stronger, there is a rise in tornado activity, and more. It's hard for me to believe that mass logging of forests, significant rises in CO2 emissions, and the general strip mining of the planet has no effect.

Changing our lifestyle to be more "green" isn't all that difficult. In fact, it makes good economic sense in many instances. Let's take a look at some easy ways to handle "going green" and save money.

Bottled water is a great place to start. First of all, bottled water isn't necessarily "better" than tap water. In most cases, bottled water is tap water. You're paying good money for the convenience of picking up a bottle (that you had to stop at the store to get) rather than filling it with water from the tap. And if you're that concerned about "bad" tap water, just get a filtration system. Filtration systems can cost you anywhere from a few bucks to a few thousand bucks, depending on what you want/need. For myself and my family, we opted for a whole-house filtration system that cost us a few thousand up front. Since installation, all the unit costs me is a bag of salt every month or so. That's runs me about $30 a year. Compare that to buying water in a bottle. I use about 2-3 bottles of water a day, just for myself, which would cost me roughly $3 a day. That's over $1000 a year, just for bottled water. Plus, I'm already paying for the water the city feeds to my house. So, having installed the filtration system about 9 years ago, I have already paid for the filtration system twice over! On top of that, think of all the plastic bottles I haven't used. 9 years, 3 a day, that's about 10,000 plastic bottles. Unbelievable when you sit and think about it.

What else can you do that's both economically feasible, and eco-friendly? How about hot water? Well, we use hot water every day for a variety of tasks such as washing dishes and clothes, taking baths and showers, and even heating our house. Traditional water heaters store heated water in a tank, ensuring the temperature stays steady throughout the day, whether you use it or not. This is great as it means instant hot water (minus the time it takes to get from the tank to your faucet), whenever you need it. Right? Well, sort of. While it does mean instant hot water, there's only so much to go around. It's very easy to use up all of the water in the tank and have to wait for more to be produced. Plus, heating that water all day and night, even when its not needed, is a waste of resources and money.

We recently switched to a tankless hot water heater. The general idea is to heat the water, only when we need it. There's still a delay before the hot water gets to you, and it's a little bit longer of a delay, but the water gets and stays hot until I turn off the tap. And when I'm not using hot water, there's nothing heating it, so it costs me nothing. The initial install cost is a few thousand to get one installed, but these units pay for themselves in no time. Add to that something like the Chilipepper hot water pump and you can even stop wasting the cold water already in the pipes while you wait for the hot water to get to you.

There are even more ways to save. Moving from grid electric to solar electric can save you a ton of money in the long run. Simple solar installations will significantly reduce the amount of electricity you use from the local grid, reducing your monthly electric bill. More advanced installations can completely remove your reliance on the electrical grid and may even result in the electric company having to pay you for the electricity you feed to them! Solar is, however, a heavier investment up front, so it's not for everyone.

Overall, there are many, many ways to reduce your carbon footprint and become a better eco-citizen. As part of the Age of Stupidity premiere, a new campaign was mentioned. In a nutshell, this campaign aims to cut individual carbon emissions by 10% in 10 months. It's a pretty ambitious campaign, but definitely obtainable. They have a 10-point checklist on their site to show you how you can start reducing your footprint. Those steps are as follows:

1. Fly less, holiday more
2. Save 10% on heating
3. Save 10% on electricity
4. Drive less
5. Eat better
6. Buy good stuff
7. Dump less
8. Don't waste food...
9. ... or water
10. Feel happier

Sure, it's built for marketing, but these are still great ideas. In fact, I outlined numbers 2 and 3 above. And my solutions are far more radical than the ones they suggest. If you want it simple, follow their solution. Turn off the heat in areas you don't need it and insulate your house better. To save electric, just turn off stuff you're not using! That plug in the wall to charge your phone? Yeah, it uses electric, even when you don't have the phone plugged into it! Simple things can make a huge difference.

So, can you drop your carbon footprint? Are you willing to do your part? Do you need more convincing?