I have begun research for an editorial that I hope to complete in the next few weeks. (I am new to writing editorials so the process is slow and painful, but productive) My intention is to parallel the rise of cost of healthcare (in GDP) to the rise of cost of the personal computer (in GDP). My main argument is that the cost of healthcare has increased in the last 40-50 years because the quality of care has increase along with it; the same can be said for PC's.
Anyway, my first wave of research was to show that even the last few years have shown a dramatic increase in the quality of medicine. I found a list of the world's top selling drugs from Forbes.com and found when they were patented (assuming that this was close to their market release date). Some of the top drugs today are lipitor, zyrtec, plavix, nexium, etc... and of the top ten, nine were patented within the last 15 years. That is amazing to think about.
This means that a decade and a half ago, the best selling (and by association the most effective at improving quality/quantity of life) drugs had not been discovered yet.
My motivation for writing this article was a comment that my grandmother used to make: "isn't it terrible that some people can't afford prescription drugs." She, herself, requires an incredible amount of expensive drugs for various health issues. It would be much more terrible if the drugs didn't exist at all.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Back in action...
Hey all,
I have decided to get back into blogging for the sake of writing. I feel that it will help me formulate ideas and improve my writing ability. These were some of the original reasons that I started this blog - I just need to get back in the right mindset.
That being said, today I am going to keep the entry short. I hope to post something more substantial tomorrow.
I do need to blame/thank Thrutch for prodding me back into this.
I have decided to get back into blogging for the sake of writing. I feel that it will help me formulate ideas and improve my writing ability. These were some of the original reasons that I started this blog - I just need to get back in the right mindset.
That being said, today I am going to keep the entry short. I hope to post something more substantial tomorrow.
I do need to blame/thank Thrutch for prodding me back into this.
Monday, August 31, 2009
How to discredit science...
Here is a disappointing post from my major news source the CSM. This article is a great example of how legitimate science becomes poisoned in the public eye.
By grouping human-caused-global-warming deniers and creationists together the author has pushed real scientists into the same category as right-wing religionists. This is a great example of how the media can take opposition to a morally wrong idea and flip them to become the bad guys.
The first step that occurs is blurring the lines between terms used. A great example of this is how "man-made-global-warming" (something that can be proven incorrect) was shortened to "global warming" (something that could possibly be proven wrong) and now it's just "climate change" (something that is obvious to anyone who has lived more than a few years). By changing the terms to something more public friendly, they have sugar coated their pill.
Another good example of this that is still surprising to me is how willing people accept socialist ideas. My grandfather fought in WWII against Nazi's who were socialists; now it is in vogue to spout redistribution and equal care for all. Still one more example is how the White House (who is particularly guilty of this) has changed words to be more public friendly; like "socialized medicine" to "universal healthcare" to "single-payer plan". What the hell is "single-payer", it's going to be "millions-of-payers".
The second step is to give the opposition a bad name. A great way to do this is to find some connection between them and some other radical group (a common platform or some members that belong to both), then write articles lumping them together. The above article does just that. Another example of this is how atheists and communists somehow became the same in the 60's and 70's.
The final step is to re-wire the public's mind. This is particularly easy now that they are softened to your morally wrong ideas and have lumped the good ideas in with obvious crazies. If you spread this over a generation or two you will have a complete and incontestable reverse of policy: individualism into collectivism, capitalism into socialism, "humans require changing their environment to survive" into "humans destroy their environment".
This is a big problem and I believe is one of the key reasons that the US is slipping into collectivism, socialism, and environmentalism. Fighting this disease of bad ideas as it rears its head is a requirement to hang on to what freedom we have. It was encouraging to read the comments after the article, most were against the author completely.
---TK
By grouping human-caused-global-warming deniers and creationists together the author has pushed real scientists into the same category as right-wing religionists. This is a great example of how the media can take opposition to a morally wrong idea and flip them to become the bad guys.
The first step that occurs is blurring the lines between terms used. A great example of this is how "man-made-global-warming" (something that can be proven incorrect) was shortened to "global warming" (something that could possibly be proven wrong) and now it's just "climate change" (something that is obvious to anyone who has lived more than a few years). By changing the terms to something more public friendly, they have sugar coated their pill.
Another good example of this that is still surprising to me is how willing people accept socialist ideas. My grandfather fought in WWII against Nazi's who were socialists; now it is in vogue to spout redistribution and equal care for all. Still one more example is how the White House (who is particularly guilty of this) has changed words to be more public friendly; like "socialized medicine" to "universal healthcare" to "single-payer plan". What the hell is "single-payer", it's going to be "millions-of-payers".
The second step is to give the opposition a bad name. A great way to do this is to find some connection between them and some other radical group (a common platform or some members that belong to both), then write articles lumping them together. The above article does just that. Another example of this is how atheists and communists somehow became the same in the 60's and 70's.
The final step is to re-wire the public's mind. This is particularly easy now that they are softened to your morally wrong ideas and have lumped the good ideas in with obvious crazies. If you spread this over a generation or two you will have a complete and incontestable reverse of policy: individualism into collectivism, capitalism into socialism, "humans require changing their environment to survive" into "humans destroy their environment".
This is a big problem and I believe is one of the key reasons that the US is slipping into collectivism, socialism, and environmentalism. Fighting this disease of bad ideas as it rears its head is a requirement to hang on to what freedom we have. It was encouraging to read the comments after the article, most were against the author completely.
---TK
Friday, August 7, 2009
White House "Thought Police"
Here is a scary post from the White House Blog encouraging 1984 style "Thought Police". I submitted them the e-mail posted below. Beware, I will proudly turn you in.
I encourage others to do similar things. If we loose freedom of speech it's a short time to resort to force.
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing to perform my patriotic duty and inform you some negative ideas that I have come across in regards to Health Care. Because this is a much debated issue at the moment I have had many conversations and e-mail exchanges with individuals and am pleased to say that I have shown true believers that ObamaCare is a terrible plan that will lead to a decline of the medical profession worldwide and will eventually shorten the lifespan of people everywhere. I also feel obligated to tell you that I am going to continue to have these discussions and you have given me renewed enthusiasm and means to win over those still sitting on the fence.
By asking people to turn in their neighbors for suspicious conversations or e-mails you have proven that you are intimidated and are resorting to "thought police" type tactics (see "1984", Nazi Germany, or Communist Russia). I was concerned that the lasting legacy of your administration was going to be a slip into socialism that will be reversed later on, but it has turned out to be something much greater. I encourage you to continue on your current course of action because it will only embolden the people to see that socialism and your force tactics against free speech are linked by definition.
Your great blog post alerting the public to act as "thought police" has made it incredibly easy for me prove to people that you are an enemy to the Bill of Rights and free speech. For this, I thank you.
In conclusion, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights guarantees freedom to individuals and rights to ACTIONS (like casual conversations and e-mails) NOT to goods and services that are provided by others (like medical care). The founding fathers knew that if you guaranteed goods and services then you are enslaving those who would be required to provide them (i.e. doctors, pharmaceutical companies, etc...). By granting freedoms to act, they made it possible for each individual to live according to their own lives and NOT at the mercy of others. This is why America became a super power and the greatest nation in the history of Earth. If you want to fix health care, get government out of the way. Dissolve any legislation or governing powers (FDA) involved with the medical field and all the "problems" with medicine (rising costs, etc...) will dissolve shortly after.
---TK
Biomedical Engineering PhD Student
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Movies and indoctrination....
Last night I was attending a showing of an old movie called "Born Yesterday". This is something that happens every week in Grant Park and my girlfriend and I enjoy going out and having a cheap date under the Chicago skyline while watching famous classic movies (most movies now days are junk).
To those who are not familiar with the plot of "Born Yesterday" I will give a brief summary: a bully of a racketeering businessman and his ex-chorus girl "fiance" go to Washington DC so that the businessman and his lawyer can bribe and lobby Congressman for legislation to ensure scrap metal prices (his business) for years to come. When they get there, he realizes that his "fiance" is lacking in social abilities and overall intelligence so he hires a newspaper writer to educate her and to teach her to act properly. The writer begins by showing her the city and its sights while explaining about the history of the US and the principles it was founded on.
I won't spoil the ending of the movie for those who haven't seen it, but I was really surprised at how mixed-up the ideas were that were presented. It would have been a great opportunity for the real principles to be presented to a wide audience and it would have slid itself nicely into the script without altering any of the plot. However, what was presented was a jumbled view of what it means to be American and what our country stands for.
For example, there were a few scenes that focused on the founding fathers and the Bill of Rights. The main characters see the museums and monuments and discuss what it means for man to be born free and to be granted rights in our constitution. But then in another scene the writer is explaining a poem that he wrote and how he would rather be a simple, ignorant peasant than to of been Napoleon. I realize that Napoleon didn't adhere to many Objectivist standards and was by most measures a conqueror and tyrant, but as in the context of the movie the writer was promoting a simple life with simple pleasures ("the autumn sun kissing the grapes red") as opposed to striving for greatness.
The protagonists of the story are obviously the writer (one who has intelligence) and the fiance (his eager student). The antagonist is the mob-style bully of a businessman who is the polar opposite of the writer. A character who rose to the top of the scrap metal industry not with intelligent savvy decisions but with bare knuckles and intimidation. Several times in the movie the writer describes the antagonist as selfish fascist. Being selfish doesn't lead to fascism. Fascism is bred from collectivism/nationalism (the opposite of selfishness) where a dictator assumes power and governs all aspects of the nation (industry, law, etc...) with an iron fist. The writer was probably referring to the mob-boss' brute force way of handling problems but that has nothing to do with being selfish. It would be the same as calling him a magenta fascist (it just gives magenta a bad image).
Later on, the main character states that his (the mob-bully's) existence is proof that the democratic system is flawed and it won't be good again until his kind is rooted out and legislation is enacted to prevent them from surfacing again! (cue enthusiastic clapping from red-blooded Americans) This part echos a little bit to close to the Bernie Madoff story of recent news. It is very obvious that the antagonist is NOT acting in accordance with many laws, but the writer mentions more regulations for preventative measures. Bribery and coercion are against the law and the main character thinks that a few more regulations will stop people from doing them? I can't imagine what regulations or laws would be set in place to stop bribery and coercion. It would be the equivalent of imposing a dusk curfew to stop muggings. Further, his statement that his kind is what is wrong with democracy reminds me of religions' stance that man is inherently bad because he is born. Democracy is not flawed or wrong, the existence of people breaking laws is simply proof that some people want to break laws. They have that choice and will be required to answer for their actions when they are caught.
Overall this movie simply used the word "selfish" as slanderously as possible. I suppose I had higher expectations for movies made in 1950 but this is what Rand had to put up with. It just further emphasizes how long ago the "selfish = bad" indoctrination began. It was particularly potent in this instance because the bad guy and his lawyer were so obviously self-destructive which is not being self-ISH at all.
Side Note: I enjoy it when I am having a conversation with someone and something gets said like, "I don't care if I'm being selfish, I've earned it". I always answer that remark with, "But it's not bad to be selfish, it is both essential to human existence and GOOD! Just think of how you feel when you do something for yourself that you have earned. Saying that selfishness if bad is like saying sex is bad." (This usually works because I know my 20-30 yr. old audience enjoys sex). My reward quickly comes when the entire audience of the group looks at me like I reaffirmed something that they have always known but have been afraid to say. It's great.
I guess the real disappointment is in how this story could have been told to show exactly what I have been writing about. The main character could have pointed out to the attractive young student why the mob-boss is not actually selfish, but self-destructive and how America has laws against the kinds of actions he is doing. He also could have taught her that force over reason does lead to fascism and that individual rights permit one to become selfish and to strive for greatness. The movie could have played out the same but with a much more positive and coherent message. Oh well.
--TK
To those who are not familiar with the plot of "Born Yesterday" I will give a brief summary: a bully of a racketeering businessman and his ex-chorus girl "fiance" go to Washington DC so that the businessman and his lawyer can bribe and lobby Congressman for legislation to ensure scrap metal prices (his business) for years to come. When they get there, he realizes that his "fiance" is lacking in social abilities and overall intelligence so he hires a newspaper writer to educate her and to teach her to act properly. The writer begins by showing her the city and its sights while explaining about the history of the US and the principles it was founded on.
I won't spoil the ending of the movie for those who haven't seen it, but I was really surprised at how mixed-up the ideas were that were presented. It would have been a great opportunity for the real principles to be presented to a wide audience and it would have slid itself nicely into the script without altering any of the plot. However, what was presented was a jumbled view of what it means to be American and what our country stands for.
For example, there were a few scenes that focused on the founding fathers and the Bill of Rights. The main characters see the museums and monuments and discuss what it means for man to be born free and to be granted rights in our constitution. But then in another scene the writer is explaining a poem that he wrote and how he would rather be a simple, ignorant peasant than to of been Napoleon. I realize that Napoleon didn't adhere to many Objectivist standards and was by most measures a conqueror and tyrant, but as in the context of the movie the writer was promoting a simple life with simple pleasures ("the autumn sun kissing the grapes red") as opposed to striving for greatness.
The protagonists of the story are obviously the writer (one who has intelligence) and the fiance (his eager student). The antagonist is the mob-style bully of a businessman who is the polar opposite of the writer. A character who rose to the top of the scrap metal industry not with intelligent savvy decisions but with bare knuckles and intimidation. Several times in the movie the writer describes the antagonist as selfish fascist. Being selfish doesn't lead to fascism. Fascism is bred from collectivism/nationalism (the opposite of selfishness) where a dictator assumes power and governs all aspects of the nation (industry, law, etc...) with an iron fist. The writer was probably referring to the mob-boss' brute force way of handling problems but that has nothing to do with being selfish. It would be the same as calling him a magenta fascist (it just gives magenta a bad image).
Later on, the main character states that his (the mob-bully's) existence is proof that the democratic system is flawed and it won't be good again until his kind is rooted out and legislation is enacted to prevent them from surfacing again! (cue enthusiastic clapping from red-blooded Americans) This part echos a little bit to close to the Bernie Madoff story of recent news. It is very obvious that the antagonist is NOT acting in accordance with many laws, but the writer mentions more regulations for preventative measures. Bribery and coercion are against the law and the main character thinks that a few more regulations will stop people from doing them? I can't imagine what regulations or laws would be set in place to stop bribery and coercion. It would be the equivalent of imposing a dusk curfew to stop muggings. Further, his statement that his kind is what is wrong with democracy reminds me of religions' stance that man is inherently bad because he is born. Democracy is not flawed or wrong, the existence of people breaking laws is simply proof that some people want to break laws. They have that choice and will be required to answer for their actions when they are caught.
Overall this movie simply used the word "selfish" as slanderously as possible. I suppose I had higher expectations for movies made in 1950 but this is what Rand had to put up with. It just further emphasizes how long ago the "selfish = bad" indoctrination began. It was particularly potent in this instance because the bad guy and his lawyer were so obviously self-destructive which is not being self-ISH at all.
Side Note: I enjoy it when I am having a conversation with someone and something gets said like, "I don't care if I'm being selfish, I've earned it". I always answer that remark with, "But it's not bad to be selfish, it is both essential to human existence and GOOD! Just think of how you feel when you do something for yourself that you have earned. Saying that selfishness if bad is like saying sex is bad." (This usually works because I know my 20-30 yr. old audience enjoys sex). My reward quickly comes when the entire audience of the group looks at me like I reaffirmed something that they have always known but have been afraid to say. It's great.
I guess the real disappointment is in how this story could have been told to show exactly what I have been writing about. The main character could have pointed out to the attractive young student why the mob-boss is not actually selfish, but self-destructive and how America has laws against the kinds of actions he is doing. He also could have taught her that force over reason does lead to fascism and that individual rights permit one to become selfish and to strive for greatness. The movie could have played out the same but with a much more positive and coherent message. Oh well.
--TK
Friday, July 24, 2009
Encouraging Conversations....
One of my goals by posting on this blog was to help me form my Objectivist ideas so that I could discuss them with other people and reason them to become rational. My previous attempts at this found mixed results. I found that my ideas were jumbled and my techniques were often too aggressive. In the past few months my ideas have settled into more organized areas of my brain and my approach techniques have become more open and passive.
Because of this, I recently had a great conversation with a co-worker who started off by mentioning Obama's speech on Universal Health Care (UHC) and what I thought about it. Passively I said, "Well, I try to not pay attention to stuff like that." They asked why and I began to tell them that I thought it was a really bad idea.
As our conversation continued, it became clear to me that they started out on the side of being for UHC but they realized that they really hadn't thought through all of the pros and cons. I did a good job of presenting the Objectivist case while they automatically assumed the role opposite of me in order to probe deeper into my own reasoning. I used personal examples and improvised analogies to aid my side and drive the point home. At the end of two and a half hours of pleasant conversation I had successfully flipped my co-worker against UHC and planted the seeds of future Objectivist ideas. It was a crushing victory that left both of us in a good mood.
One of my favorite things that they said after more than an hour of conversation: "Well, if UHC is so bad, why is Obama pushing it?" This wasn't asked to question UHC (which I had already won over), but to question Obama himself. It was fantastic. Whoo-hoo!
But it didn't stop with UHC... I used that as a launching ramp to explain how other government organizations are bad and used the FDA as my segway (I know...an easy one, but I'm new at this). After a bit longer I had shown them how the FDA is an entity that was formed "to protect the public" but actually does exactly the opposite by getting in the way and preventing many treatments from reaching people that would willingly pay for and use them despite the risks (I have a great story about a family member for that one).
In the end, I had shown this person that the government needs to get out of the way of the free market and that is what it was meant to do when founded. I also showed that most of our troubles now are caused by the government growing and controlling more and more. It was an encouraging conversation that has given me much needed positivity to continue on in my path of spreading Objectivism.
When we left to go home afterwards we parted as much closer friends and I know that they spent last night with new ideas swirling in their head. It works, everyone keep up the good job.
--TK
Because of this, I recently had a great conversation with a co-worker who started off by mentioning Obama's speech on Universal Health Care (UHC) and what I thought about it. Passively I said, "Well, I try to not pay attention to stuff like that." They asked why and I began to tell them that I thought it was a really bad idea.
As our conversation continued, it became clear to me that they started out on the side of being for UHC but they realized that they really hadn't thought through all of the pros and cons. I did a good job of presenting the Objectivist case while they automatically assumed the role opposite of me in order to probe deeper into my own reasoning. I used personal examples and improvised analogies to aid my side and drive the point home. At the end of two and a half hours of pleasant conversation I had successfully flipped my co-worker against UHC and planted the seeds of future Objectivist ideas. It was a crushing victory that left both of us in a good mood.
One of my favorite things that they said after more than an hour of conversation: "Well, if UHC is so bad, why is Obama pushing it?" This wasn't asked to question UHC (which I had already won over), but to question Obama himself. It was fantastic. Whoo-hoo!
But it didn't stop with UHC... I used that as a launching ramp to explain how other government organizations are bad and used the FDA as my segway (I know...an easy one, but I'm new at this). After a bit longer I had shown them how the FDA is an entity that was formed "to protect the public" but actually does exactly the opposite by getting in the way and preventing many treatments from reaching people that would willingly pay for and use them despite the risks (I have a great story about a family member for that one).
In the end, I had shown this person that the government needs to get out of the way of the free market and that is what it was meant to do when founded. I also showed that most of our troubles now are caused by the government growing and controlling more and more. It was an encouraging conversation that has given me much needed positivity to continue on in my path of spreading Objectivism.
When we left to go home afterwards we parted as much closer friends and I know that they spent last night with new ideas swirling in their head. It works, everyone keep up the good job.
--TK
Friday, July 17, 2009
Another Great Article...
Here is another good OpEd posted on CSM. This type of thinking needs to permeate to all other facets of American life. Good work Mr. Fleenor.
Highlight excerpt:
Highlight excerpt:
Everyone should have the opportunity to go to college, but fairness demands that students themselves – not taxpayers collectively – pay their way. Because a college degree boosts future earnings so dramatically, the best way for students without wealth to pay for college is to draw on their future earnings with loans.
Often private institutions will serve this purpose, but to ensure loan availability for any willing student, government may have to provide loan guarantees. But those loans should be made at market interest rates. Properly implemented, such a plan would eliminate the transfer of wealth from those who do not go to college to those who do.
Read it all here.
--TK
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
