Wow… Just… Wow…
Wow…
Just…
And before you watch it, a word of warning. You’re not allowed to not watch it. Once you start, you have to watch the whole thing, end to end.
Wow.
Just…
Wow…
via Blogebrity
It’s that time of year again.
Every summer it seems like I fall into the same trap and a hiatus is all that solves it. Therefore, here we go.
I will be posting the daily links (the list that posts overnight) each day, but for a week or two, I need to catch up on other things in the real world, so no posting to this blog is planned (note the word planned). I may still write, but it won’t be much.
I’ll be back in a bit, and don’t worry… This isn’t going to be like two years ago when my “return” involved killing the blog all together, it’s just that something has to give and this is the most expendable thing I have going on in my life at the moment (no offense to my readers, of course).
Take care, and see you in a few weeks, better than before!
Nobel Peace Prize winner Betty Williams apologized Thursday for saying she could kill President Bush, remarks that drew scorn from Bush loyalists and shook up the International Women’s Peace Conference in Dallas.
“My feelings now and again get way ahead of me,” Ms. Williams said. “I couldn’t kill anybody, but I must confess that I’m extremely angry with the Bush administration and what they have done. To say that was wrong.”
Conference organizers immediately sought to distance themselves from her speech Wednesday night, but it brought a swift rejoinder from the White House, dominated some radio talk shows and drew a flurry of hateful e-mails to attendees.
Questioned about her speech Thursday morning, Ms. Williams initially denied making the comment but reversed course after organizers confirmed the quote.
In a speech before 1,000 people Wednesday, Ms. Williams said that violence is a choice and the push for peace takes hard work and commitment.
“Right now, I could kill George Bush,” she said. “No, I don’t mean that. How could you nonviolently kill somebody? I would love to be able to do that.” As she made her point, she chuckled and some members of the audience laughed.
Doesn’t surprise me. Yasser Arafat won the damn thing too.
It wasn’t the first time Ms. Williams has spoken critically of Mr. Bush. Last July, she made an almost identical comment about wanting to “kill George Bush” to a group of schoolchildren in Brisbane, Australia. She said her point was that it is hard to be nonviolent when there are so many atrocities in the world.
Ms. Williams said Thursday that the focus on her comments about Mr. Bush was a distraction from her more important message about peace.
“I’m just really passionate about my work. Sometimes it’s ‘open mouth, insert foot,’ ” she said. “I’ll spend the rest of the day saying I’m sorry to everybody.”
Your words are a distraction from your message? That’s a good one. I have to remember that.
Technorati Tags: nobel peace prize, hypocrite
President George W. Bush has insisted America can still win the war in Iraq, despite a bleak picture of progress in the war-wracked nation painted by a White House report.
As Bush tried to quell a Republican revolt and thwart rising Democratic demands to bring troops home, he argued there were still grounds for optimism, especially in the area of security.
‘I believe we can succeed in Iraq, and I know we must,’ Bush said at a press conference, ruling out any troop withdrawals based on souring public opinion on the war.
He said a pull-back before commanders recommended it was safe would be ‘dangerous’ for the Middle East and mean handing over Iraq to Al-Qaeda.
Yep. Stay the course.
The report found the Baghdad government had made satisfactory progress towards only eight of 18 benchmarks on political, security and military goals, set by the US Congress. Progress has been ’satisfactory’ on another eight benchmarks with uncertain results on two more.
The assessment revealed that efforts by Iraq to get its armed forces operating independently of US units — a key goal of the administration’s hopes to eventually cut US troop numbers, had made ‘unsatisfactory progress.’
Stay the course.
It found the Baghdad government has made ‘unsatisfactory’ progress on legislation explicitly endorsed by Washington as central to efforts to quiet sectarian violence.
There was more optimism on the situation in some regions, like Anbar province, where it echoed recent US statements that local tribal leaders had turned sharply against members of Al-Qaeda.
A senior US official, on condition of anonymity styled the interim report as merely a snapshot of the early stages of the operation announced in January.
‘The report came out as you would expect an interim report to come out, with security indicators leading and political lagging behind,’ the official said.
Security and political lagging behind what?
Seriously… This is why we need to think our Iraq strategy. Quickly. Setting up a self-defending government is the priority, not the after effect. If we can’t get that going and if the Iraqis are still there not trying to take the reigns of their own country, why the hell are we still there expecting it to happen?
Oh right.
Stay the course.
Which we were never actually about, according to the President.
Update: Call off the dogs folks. I should clarify. I’m not talking about specific people in this post. More about the concepts as Smorty and its first batch of bloggers seem to put them out there:
1. It is not the same as an ad in your sidebar which is separated from your content. PERIOD.
2. It is unethical to have a paid link in a post and not disclose it for the world to see. PERIOD.
3. Referring to point 1, I find the rationale that this is the same as a link block in your sidebar dumb, not the people saying it. PERIOD.
4. I think the whole process is completely unethical and Smorty is getting away with what PayPerPost was crucified and almost run out of business for as far as disclosure and ethics. In fact, I think Smorty is worse because they actually advise against doing negative posts.To anyone I’ve offended, I’m sorry. If you think Smorty is a good thing and you can make a quick buck using them, go right ahead, but you should consider separating your Smorty posts out in some way so that people know what’s paid content and what’s your content. When I see a whole assload of posts extolling the virtues of a service in the same way, I see it as nothing more than linkspamming and search engine result bumping..
Though it’s never been actually written in any law, there is an understood separation of church and state in the United States of America. We don’t have Priests running the government, and we don’t have politicians running churches. It’s just the way it is. In publishing, there’s a similar church - state issue, and it’s usually between advertising and editorial content. Advertising is a separate department and should have no influence on editorial content whatsoever.
Recently, however, we’re seeing a change in that. Services are springing up like moles in a wack-a-mole game offering to pay bloggers for doing their linkspamming for them. Not content with spamming comments sections with ads for various erection enhancing drugs, they’ve now resorted to buying bloggers off to mention their links inside a post.
The first to offer such a service was PayPerPost. You’re paid per post for taking an “opportunity,” you write about a topic, and once your post is approved you make some coin. Originally, in full sleazy linkspamming fashion, PayPerPost didn’t require disclosure. It was optional to tell readers that you were being paid for writing on a topic or product; the presumption of course being that you could just slap it into your content, “forget” to mention that you’re being paid to write it, and call it a day. Money made, link spammed, and everyone is happy.
Luckily for the blogosphere, people like Jason Calacanis jumped all over this sleaze and helped create a backlash of people who saw this for exactly what it was: linkspamming.
Since then, of course, PayPerPost has began requiring participants to disclose that they’re being scummy linkspammers, but the bad taste and poor ethics of the company tarnished their reputation in a profound way that they may never recover from, and you know what? Good. I hope they do go out of business.
Then the folks that do ad buys for this site decided that they too would try their hands at the paid content model also with a venture called ReviewMe. You’re paid to write reviews of products or services and you must disclose the fact that the post is a paid post. I’m not particularly thrilled with this model either, as people do have a habit to write favorable reviews when paid. I for one do all reviews with review samples requested from the manufacturer or products I’ve purchased myself. In that way, I feel no obligation in any way to be “kind” to the company that makes the product or service I’m reviewing.
To their credit, ReviewMe did learn from PayPerPost’s mistake and required disclosure from day one.
Smorty, on the other hand, is infinitely more sleazy.
Smorty has a word limit on posts that you write and insert a paid link into. Your post must be between 150-400 words. You’re encouraged to post multiple versions of the same post to different blogs because that will earn you more money. One of my favorite parts of Smorty is this in the rules section:
You do not have to necessarily endorse the advertiser’s website products or services, just mention them in your blog. It is entirely your opinion to post, however, please keep in mind that the advertiser has the opportunity to dispute each individual post based only on our terms. If your post fits within Smorty’s terms then Smorty administrators will still approve your post so you get paid.
In other words, beware of the pissed of advertisers. They go a step further, of course, in their FAQ, advising you not to write something negative at all:
What are the rules of writing an opinion article?
Please refer to our blogger rules page for all rules, however here are a few points* Each opinion must be unique and especially written for that campaign and must be relevant to the campaign subject.
* We advise you not to write negative opinions as these are more commonly disputed.
* Each post must include the anchor text with a direct link to the advertisers page provided.
* Each post must include only one (1) outbound link which must be the campaign owners provided URL.
* Posts should be a minimum of 150 words and not exceed 400 words
The funniest part of Smorty, for me, was doing some digging on the company and its procedures. Aside from a metric assload of posts announcing that the blog owner had sold out to linkspammers, I’ve yet to see any kind of disclosure on any blogs that work the program. I’ve seen a lot of similar links, though. In fact, just about every post that announced the blogger had joined Smorty had some variation of the search engine baiting text that appears on each page of Smorty’s website:
Advertise on blogs, the best online advertising method of all. Blog advertising builds quality relevant inbound links to increase search engine rankings. Make money from blogging, get paid to blog weekly. Get paid for blogging your opinions by writing articles.
Another funny aspect to Smorty, and I reckon PPP also, is how people try to wrench those links into their post. Typical Smorty posts looked something like this:
I was walking to the store the other day and I passed a BURGER KING, crossed the street, and walked into a grocery store.
Seriously. They’re that bad.
I’ve seen a lot of the same justifications / rationalizations for using Smorty, the main one being the absolutely ludicrous argument that doing sponsored linkspamming is no different than accepting text ads or banner ads on your site. No one can possibly be dumb enough to actually believe that. I’ll accept that people are just justifying a deal that’s somewhat shady as enough for me to not pursue that angle any further, but let me just say this. If you think throwing content onto your blog is the same as running a clearly marked ad in your sidebar, you seriously need to evaluate your content better.
People have every right to make money however they want on their blogs. I won’t fault anyone who can’t do this entirely as a hobby. Hell, I was always dead against running ads, but now run 2 or 3 links a month that I clearly define as sponsors in my upper right corner. I don’t write about sponsors. I don’t necessarily use their services (and if I do, I don’t pimp them), and I don’t let the fact that they’re sponsors reflect on my opinion on them.
I also don’t give them ink in my content. PERIOD.
To anyone thinking that this expands your horizons of blogging, seriously, you need to get a grip. You can expand your blogging horizons by flipping through a Sears catalog if that floats your boat, but don’t hand me a line about how writing about something you have no interest in just so you can place an irrelevant link in the middle is somehow making you a better blogger with wider appeal.
I’d just ask the people doing this crap one thing. If you saw comments that had some weird text surrounding a link for no exam life insurance, getting paid while blogging, or some other obscure and silly sales pitch, would you unspam it?
If you’re honest with yourself, you already know the answer.
If this isn’t a prototypical example of liberal bias, I don’t know what is. Here’s the headline and the first part.
WASHINGTON, July 10 — Former Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona told a Congressional panel Tuesday that top Bush administration officials repeatedly tried to weaken or suppress important public health reports because of political considerations.
The administration, Dr. Carmona said, would not allow him to speak or issue reports about stem cells, emergency contraception, sex education, or prison, mental and global health issues. Top officials delayed for years and tried to “water down” a landmark report on secondhand smoke, he said. Released last year, the report concluded that even brief exposure to cigarette smoke could cause immediate harm.
Dr. Carmona said he was ordered to mention President Bush three times on every page of his speeches. He also said he was asked to make speeches to support Republican political candidates and to attend political briefings.
And administration officials even discouraged him from attending the Special Olympics because, he said, of that charitable organization’s longtime ties to a “prominent family” that he refused to name.
“I was specifically told by a senior person, ‘Why would you want to help those people?’ ” Dr. Carmona said.
The Special Olympics is one of the nation’s premier charitable organizations to benefit disabled people, and the Kennedys have long been deeply involved in it.
When asked after the hearing if that “prominent family” was the Kennedys, Dr. Carmona responded, “You said it. I didn’t.”
It would appear that Bush is playing politics with the public’s health! ZOMG !!!!1111!!1!one!
Yet, when you read the rest of the article, you realize that despite the fact that the Times breathlessly reported that part as if it were a major affront to the nation, he wouldn’t by any means be the first. Despite the fact that well over half of the story contained complaints about Bush, we have this gem.
Dr. Carmona testified under oath at a hearing before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee headed by Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California. The topic was strengthening the office of the surgeon general. Dr. C. Everett Koop, surgeon general in the Reagan administration, and Dr. David Satcher, surgeon general during the Clinton administration and the first year of the administration of George W. Bush, also testified.
Each complained about political interference and the declining status of the office. Dr. Satcher said that the Clinton administration discouraged him from issuing a report showing that needle-exchange programs were effective in reducing disease. He released the report anyway.
Dr. Koop, said he had been discouraged by top officials in the Reagan administration from discussing the AIDS crisis. He did so anyway.
All three men urged major changes in the way the surgeon general is chosen and the way the office is financed.
Interesting to note, of course is the absence of Joycelyn Elders. One would have to wonder if she was meant to not give a speech on spanking the monkey and gave it anyway. But I digress.
The story gives a lot of ink to Bush and Carmona but not a whole lot to Koop or Satcher. Why is that?
Oh right… Because that doesn’t make George W. Bush look bad and if we talk about the history in any detail, we’d realize that it isn’t new or unique to W.
And we certainly can’t have that. Not in the New York Times, dammit!
Oh yeah… CourtTV is dead. It has ceased to be. Or it least it will.
Four months after alerting media buyers that a re-branding was in store for Court TV, Turner executives on Wednesday officially announced that the network’s new moniker will be truTV, effective January 1.
As part of the re-branding initiative, the network will also be given a new look and an updated logo and will expand its lineup of original programming. According to Steve Koonin, president of Turner Entertainment Networks, and Marc Juris, the network’s general manager, the name change is meant to reflect the non-fiction themes that run through truTV’s trial coverage, as well as its prime-time roster of series such as Forensic Files and Haunting Evidence.
“[Our] success … can be attributed in a big way to the fact that we have built strong brands that resonate with viewers,” said Koonin. “With this new name, truTV joins its sister networks TNT, TBS and TCM [Turner Classic Movies] in establishing itself a solid, identifiable brand, paving the way for continued growth.”
24 hours of COPS reruns? Oh it’s tru, I tell you. It’s so tru.
I guess they stopped being primarily about the courts a long time ago, so this isn’t really a surprise, but damn if that isn’t an awful name.
via LR
The New York State Restaurant Association is not pleased with the New York City Board of Health. A fight has been raging for weeks since the city announced plans to have all restaurants whose nutritional info has been calculated to place it on their menus.
Subway complied voluntarily, presumably because they have nothing to hide. Dunkin’ Donuts, in a feeble attempt to prove how altering their menu to include calories could never possibly work submitted what could only be called the ultimate half-assed effort to the BOH. Here’s what they sent in, saying if calories were added their menu would be unreadable:
Wow. That is pretty unreadable, huh? Except, of course, that it’s because they made it that way intentionally to try and prove a point. The Board of Health wasn’t buying this half-assed crap and instead decided to demonstrate what could be done if you actually wanted to make the change:
Amazing. They made the font bigger, killed all the empty space, and changed the color for the calorie info so it doesn’t interfere with the numbers in the price.
Now why couldn’t Dunkin’ Donuts do that? My guess is that they could’ve, but are resisting simply because it would prove just how awful and calorie-ridden their delicious donuts really are. I’m a huge fan of their donuts (although their coffee is so awful it should be banned for human consumption) but seeing their nutritional info in front of me might actually be a wakeup call when deciding.
Who knows.
Either way, I can truthfully say that companies with nothing to hide (ie: Subway) are going to do well here, and companies trying desperately to hide (ie: Dunkin’ Donuts) are going to appear to be hiding something.
via Consumerist
Scott Adams muses on what your perception model is. Are you a rounder or an accumulator?
ROUNDERS: This group rounds things off. A problem that’s a two on a scale of one to ten gets rounded to zero. If a rounder has five problems that are all about a two on a scale of one to ten, he’ll tell you he has no problems.
ACCUMULATORS: Accumulators add up all the little problems until they equal one big problem. If an accumulator has five problems that are each a two on a scale of one to ten, that feels like having one problem that’s a ten.
Rounders are generally happy, because they perceive their lives to be mostly problem-free. Accumulators are often miserable because “nothing is going right.”
Readers of this blog will recognize this as closely related to the 80-20 rule about a job well done. Rounders are pleased with a job that’s 80% right because that rounds to 100%. Accumulators take the 20% that’s wrong and add it to the other things that are wrong and suddenly their world is falling apart.
Well, my wife and I had this discussion. I am 100% a rounder. She is 100% an accumulator. Neither of us have any gray area. Makes for interesting discussion when she yells at me for not taking something seriously.
Where do you fall on that scale?
The most recent blur around these here interwebs is that Sprint cut off legitimate paying customers because, well, they stopped legitimately paying.
Consumerist had a conversation with a Sprint insider and here’s what he/she had to say about the issue:
CONSUMERIST: How frequently did someone have to call to get terminated for calling customer service too much?
SPRINT INSIDER: 90 times in a 6 month period was the standard I think.
CONSUMERIST: Were they calling about the same service problem?
SPRINT INSIDER: These were the customers that had nothing to do but call us every single day demanding credit. And they were getting it because customer care was getting exhausted from arguing with them. So a nickel at a time these customers were collecting literally thousands of dollars in credit balances.
We were targeting people that were just outright defrauding the company. These customers will probably eventually force their future service providers to take similar action if they do not change their ways.
CONSUMERIST: One reader said he got canceled because he kept calling you because you were charging him for text messages he shouldn’t have been charged for.
SPRINT INSIDER: I can’t really get into specifics on an account, BUT… I will re-direct to what I mentioned earlier…These customers were for the most part literally defrauding our company. Not just a courtesy credit or two… We’re talking customers that haven’t made a payment since 2005 and still have active service. Customers who were getting better deals than our own employees get for their own personal accounts. These weren’t the customer care horror stories we’ve heard where a billing issue drags on for 8 months. This was just unrealistic amounts of credits and at the end of the year we were LITERALLY paying these customers to use our service.
Sorry, but that’s just wrong. I have two things to add to this.
1. Last summer, during my AOL-induced fame, many people told me I should’ve just kept taking their retention offers time and time again to get free service, so I’m sure this was happening in some if not all of the cases of Sprint terminating customers.
2. A long time ago, I was a frequenter of alt.cellular.sprintpcs and this was going on quite regularly. I railed against it then, and I still think it’s wrong today. Here’s what I posted way back on January 27th of 2002…
I’m not saying Sprint should not have retention deals, but all of a sudden I notice everyone is “cancelling” or at least saying they are to get a better deal out of Sprint PCS. People bitch about service and cost, and everything else, but they spend tons of time trying to “beat the man.” It’s a little disheartening, at best, to see this going on in the scale it’s going on at in the group.
Why?
Well, frankly, if everyone is wondering why plan prices are up, but features are being trimmed (FIMF, 8pm nights) just look at how much Sprint’s shelling out for retention groupies who weren’t cancelling anyway! One guy on this group said in the same message he was unhappy with the call capacity issues, and took a retention deal for another 150 minutes added to his plan! Are you kidding me?
I’m not the moral police, but it’s people like this who make people who pay their bill every month and do things the right way have to pay more for no real reason. It would probably be in Sprint’s best interest to do what they did to me. Let me cancel and disappear. 8 months down the road, they sent me a post card to come back and made a great deal as far as rebates went so I took it. I was really cancelling, at least, and they got me back with a retention style deal. If Sprint PCS just told all these “potential cancellers” to fuck off and cancel anyway, I’m sure most of them would change their mind.
Just my two cents
Your results may vary.
I’d bet quite a bit of cashola that most of the people who got cut off, seeing as this is what the “insider” claims, were doing similar style deals. If you want to see why I believe this was happening, just read the responses in that thread. I was ripped into numerous times and saw numerous specious explanations, justifications, and rationalizations.
I hope they were all in the lot of people who got their comeuppance.
Wolf Blitzer had Michael Moore on The Situation Room to talk about “Sicko,” the must-see documentary of the year as far as I’m concerned. To some extent, Moore’s flick comes off as hyperbolic and exaggerated, but there’s more than a small part of it that’s true. Of course, you’d have to watch it and not dismiss it as a Michael Moore documentary to understand that.
CNN Chief Medical Reporter Dr. Sanjay Gupta jumped all over the movie in a four minute hit piece before they even let the man speak. Here’s the interview.
Of course, after four minutes of smacking him around, Moore is informed that he can’t have all the time he needs to respond, and could give a “few headlines.”
Are you shitting me?
Moore took the time to refute the entire hit piece that preceded his interview.
DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN: “(Moore says) the United States slipped to number 37 in the world’s health care systems. It’s true. … Moore brings a group of patients, including 9/11 workers, to Cuba and marvels at their free treatment and quality of care. But hold on - that WHO list puts Cuba’s health care system even lower than the United States, coming in at #39.”
THE TRUTH:
* “But hold on?” ‘SiCKO’ clearly shows the WHO list, with the United States at number #37, and Cuba at #39. Right up on the screen in big five-foot letters. It’s even in the trailer! CNN should have its reporter see his eye doctor. The movie isn’t hiding from this fact. Just the opposite:
CNN hid the facts on CubaBut ‘SiCKO’ has the facts right up front* The fact that the healthcare system in an impoverished nation crippled by our decades-old blockade (including medical supplies and drugs) ranks so closely to ours is more an indictment of the American system than the Cuban system.
* Although Cuba ranks lower overall than the United States, it still has a lower infant mortality rate and longer life span. (see below)
* And unlike the United States, Cuba offers healthcare to absolutely everyone. In an independent Gallup poll conducted in Cuba, “a near unanimous 96 percent of respondents say that health care in Cuba is accessible to everyone.” (”Cubans Show Little Satisfaction with Opportunities and Individual Freedom Rare Independent Survey Finds Large Majorities Are Still Proud of Island’s Health Care and Education,” January 10, 2007.
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brlatinamericara/
300.php?nid=&id=&pnt=300&lb=brla)CNN: “Moore asserts that the American health care system spends $7,000 per person on health. Cuba spends $25 dollars per person. Not true. But not too far off. The United States spends $6,096 per person, versus $229 per person in Cuba.”
THE TRUTH:
* According to our own government – the Department of Health and Human Services’ National Health Expenditures Projections – the United States will spend $7,092 per capita on health in 2006 and $7,498 in 2007. (Department of Health and Human Services Center for Medicare and Medicaid Expenditures, National Health Expenditures Projections 2006-2016. http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/proj2006.pdf.
* As for Cuba – Dr. Gupta and CNN need to watch ‘SiCKO’ first before commenting on it. ‘SiCKO’ says Cuba spends $251 per person on health care, not $25, as Gupta reports. And the BBC reports that Cuba’s per capita health expenditure is… $251! (Keeping Cuba Healthy, BBC, Aug. 1 2006. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/5232628.stm ) This is confirmed by the United Nations Human Development Report, 2006. Yup, Cuba spends $251 per person on health care. (http://hdr.undp.org/hdr2006/statistics/indicators/52.html). As Gupta points out, the World Health Organization does calculate Cuba’s per capita health expenditure at $229 per person. We chose to use the UN numbers, a minor difference - and $229 is a lot closer to $251 than $25.
CNN: In fact, Americans live just a little bit longer than Cubans on average.
THE TRUTH:
* Just the opposite. The 2006 United Nations Human Development Report’s human development index states the life expectancy in the United States is 77.5 years. It is 77.6 years in Cuba. (Human Development Report 2006, United Nations Development Programme, 2006 at 283. http://hdr.undp.org/hdr2006/pdfs/report/HDR06-complete.pdf)
CNN: The United States ranks highest in patient satisfaction.
THE TRUTH:
* True, but even when the WHO took patient satisfaction into account in its comprehensive review of the world’s health systems, we still came in at #37. (”World Health Organization Assesses The World’s Health Systems,” Press Release, WHO/44, June 21, 2000. http://www.who.int/inf-pr-2000/en/pr2000-44.html ).
* Patients may be satisfied in America, but not everyone gets to be a patient. 47 million are uninsured and are rarely patients - until it’s too late. In the rest of the Western world, everyone and anyone can be a patient because everyone is covered. (And don’t face exclusions for pre-existing conditions, co-pays, deductibles, and costly monthly premiums).
* It’s not that other countries are unhappy with their health care – for example, “70 to 80 percent of Canadians find their waiting times acceptable.” (”Access to health care services in Canada, Waiting times for specialized services (January to December 2005),” Statistics Canada, http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/82-575-XIE/82-575-XIE2006002.htm )
CNN: Americans have shorter wait times than everyone but Germans when seeking non-emergency elective procedures, like hip replacement, cataract surgery, or knee repair.
THE TRUTH:
* This isn’t the whole truth. CNN pulled out a statistic about elective procedures. Of the six countries surveyed in that study (United States, Canada, New Zealand, UK, Germany, Australia) only Canada had longer waiting times than America for sick adults waiting to schedule a doctor’s appointment for a medical problem. 81% of patients in New Zealand got a same or next-day appointment for a non-routine visit, 71% in Britain, 69% in Germany, 66% in Australia, 47% in the U.S., and 36% in Canada. (The Doc’s in, but It’ll be AWhile. Catherine Arnst, Business Week. June 22, 2007 http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jun2007/
tc20070621_716260_page_2.htm)* “Gerard Anderson, a Johns Hopkins health policy professor who has spent his career examining the world’s healthcare, said there are delays, but not as many as conservatives state. In Canada, the United Kingdom and France, ‘three percent of hospital discharges had delays in treatment,’ Anderson told The Miami Herald. ‘That’s a relatively small number, and they’re all elective surgeries, such as hip and knee replacement.’ (John Dorschner, “‘SiCKO’ film is set to spark debate; Reformers are gearing up for ‘Sicko,’ the first major movie to examine America’s often maligned healthcare system,” Miami Herald, June 29, 2007.)
* One way America is able to achieve decent waiting times is that it leaves 47 million people out of the health care system entirely, unlike any other Western country. When you remove 47 million people from the line, your wait should be shorter. So why is the U.S. second to last in wait times?
* And there are even more Americans who keep themselves out of the system because of cost - in the United States, 24 percent of the population did not get medical care due to cost. That number is 5 percent in Canada, and 3 percent in the UK. (Inequities in Health Care: A Five-Country Survey. Robert Blendon et al, Health Affairs. Exhibit 5. http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/21/3/182)
CNN: (PAUL KECKLEY-Deloitte Health Care Analyst): “The concept that care is free in France, in Canada, in Cuba - and it’s not. Those citizens pay for health services out of taxes. As a proportion of their household income, it’s a significant number … (GUPTA): It’s true that the French pay higher taxes, and so does nearly every country ahead of the United States on that list.”
THE TRUTH:
* ‘SiCKO’ never claims that health care is provided absolutely for free in other countries, without tax contributions from citizens. Former MP Tony Benn reads from the NHS founding pamphlet, which explicitly states that “this is not a charity. You are paying for it mainly as taxpayers.” ‘SiCKO’ also acknowledges that the French are “drowning in taxes.” Comparatively, many Americans are drowning in insurance premiums, deductibles, co-pays and medical debt and the resulting threat of bankruptcy – half of all bankruptcies in the United States are triggered by medical bills. (Medical Bills Make up Half of Bankruptcies. Feb. 2005, MSNBC. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6895896/)
CNN: “But even higher taxes don’t guarantee the coverage everyone wants … (KECKLEY): 15 to 20 percent of the population will purchase services outside the system of care run by the government.”
THE TRUTH:
* It’s not clear what country Keckley is referring to. In the United Kingdom, only 11.5 percent of the population has supplementary insurance, but it doesn’t take the place of NHS insurance. Nobody in France buys insurance that replaces government insurance either, although a substantial amount buys some form of complimentary insurance. ( Private health insurance and access to health care in the European Union. Spring 2004. http://www.euro.who.int/document/Obs/EuroObserver6_1.pdf)
CNN: “But no matter how much Moore fudged the facts, and he did fudge some facts…”
* This is libel. There is not a single fact that is “fudged” in the film. No one has proven a single fact in the film wrong. We expect CNN to correct their mistakes on the air and to apologize to their viewers.
Whether or not you agree with Moore, the facts that he’s accused of playing fast and loose with are presented clearly for you to read and decide for yourself. As with every single critic of this movie, I have to wonder if Gupta actually saw it and if he did saw it, if he actually paid attention. Frankly, Gupta makes claims that the movie said X or Y, but it clearly didn’t and he clearly either didn’t see it or didn’t pay attention if he did.
Plain and simple.
Kudos to Michael Moore for producing a brilliant movie (which, by the way, may have its flaws, but you should still see it because if it doesn’t make you think, there’s something wrong with you) and for making Wolf Blitzer look like he had no idea what he was talking about.
I’d really love to ask Sanjay Gupta if he actually saw the movie.
Oh, and incidentally, Gupta did kind of apologize sort of kind of, the next day:
And here’s Michael Moore on Larry King Live.
Technorati Tags: michael moore, wolf blitzer, cnn
Consumer Reports is unimpressed with the voice quality of the iPhone.
In voice-quality tests, the iPhone’s performance has been undistinguished at best. Quality when listening to a call was fair. Calls from the iPhone heard on another phone were good in quality. By comparison, among the AT&T-compatible smartphones in our current Ratings (available to ConsumerReports.org subscribers), only the Palm Treo 680 scored that low in voice quality. The best-sounding AT&T-compatible phones, the Samsung BlackJack and Cingular 3125, scored good and very good respectively in listening and talking modes. And all those phones cost $100 to $200, compared with the $499 and $599 price tags for the iPhone.
I’ll go beyond the fact that they don’t even disclose what their testing measures are (methinks they were somewhat subjective based on some guy making and receiving calls) and just say that Wirelessinfo.com, who has equipment specifically designed to check the audio quality of phones scientifically (not subjectively) is probably in a better position to comment on the voice quality of the iPhone. Here’s their review of the voice quality of Apple’s new phone:
The iPhone performed exceptionally well in this test; the frequency curve of the phone was right between the limits, only coming close to them at a couple of points. This means that people talking to you over the phone will sound clear and bright, with well-balanced sound that should accurately represent what they sound like in person.
This compares extremely well to other phones. The iPhone scores higher on this test than all of the five comparison phones, and only one phone that we have tested so far (the BlackBerry Curve) scored higher. Whatever Apple is doing with the small speaker inside the iPhone, they are doing it right.
That’s quite a far departure from “undistinguished” and there’s plenty of scientific backing for their claims. Of course, Consumer Reports probably never even had one in their hands to begin with as evidenced by this absolutely asinine line:
Other ways in which the iPhone could use a little more polish as a phone: It has no voice-activated dialing and offers no easy way to access frequently called numbers
Proof positive that they didn’t even have one in hand to test at the time. If they did, they’d notice that in the lower left corner of the screen, there’s a button marked FAVORITES. I wonder what this guy thought those were?
Of course, there’s plenty of FUD about the iPhone out there from this review that says the Treo is a better phone (and that’s probably why so many people I knew who bought the iPhone switched from… TREOS!) all the way around and that the Palm OS (surely you remember Palm OS?) is more user-friendly than the iPhone, to this tub of tripe that claims that instead of buying your iPhone, you should invest in a 401k (no, I’m not shitting you; apparently the iPhone is the only purchase you’ll make this year and you’d be better off investing it in something like a 401k or an $800 Windows Mobile device).
The iPhone is not without its issues. I’ve discussed them on Information Salad with Ryan Block just this past Friday. It’s not perfect. In fact, it’s got a long way to go. That being said, for everyone bitching about the fanboyism of anyone who dares say it’s a great device, there’s a publication like Consumer Reports or the Street or even the formerly relevant Joshua Quittner who’s returning his iPhone (not not buying one, returning one) because it doesn’t have a removable battery and because his Treo is great and there’s no Flash support on the iPhone (as John Gruber points out, is there Flash support on the Treo?). He even says the plans are too expensive ($59.99 with unlimited data, rollover minutes, 200 txt messages and 5000 night and weekend minutes is apparently more expensive than Verizon’s $80 equivalent).
If anyone who likes the iPhone is a fanboy, what does it make those who consistently beat on it?
From the New York Daily News:
On Oct. 11, 2002, the Senate gave President Bush authority to use force against Iraq. Nearly five years later, it is time for Congress to say enough is enough.
The American people have waited long enough for progress in Iraq. They have waited long enough for the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future. Today, more than 150,000 members of our armed forces are caught in a civil war. According to the Pentagon, overall levels of violence in Iraq have not decreased since the surge began. The last three months have been the deadliest period for American troops since the start of the war. It is time for the waiting to end and for our troops to start to come home.
That is why we propose to end the authorization for the war in Iraq. The civil war we have on our hands in Iraq is not our fight and it is not the fight Congress authorized. Iraq is at war with itself and American troops are caught in the middle.
We sure are, and it’s a fight we simply can’t win. Using the justification that us leaving would be disastrous to stay indefinitely is specious and silly. We’re in the middle of a bunch of savages killing each other in front of people too lazy to protect themselves because, well, we’ll do it for them!
And don’t get all pissy with me for calling the psychos who blow themselves up at a market killing 100 people savages. If you don’t think they’re savages you’re just as fucked up as they are.
At a recent Senate hearing, Defense Secretary Robert Gates was asked if the 2002 authorization still applies to Iraq. His response was surprisingly candid: “I don’t know.” Four years into the conflict in Iraq, longer than American involvement in World War II, after years of White House misjudgment and miscalculation, as our troops fight and die in the midst of an Iraqi civil war, the answer could not be clearer.
Whether you agree with the war (I do) or not, you cannot argue that this war has been managed correctly. We’re stuck, with no exit plan, in a country where the people can’t seem to handle freedom and instead take to blowing each other up because they think Allah should be spelled differently. You’ll pardon my callousness, but these are not people I care to send any more Americans to Arlington Cemetery over.
The 2008 defense authorization bill is now before the U.S. Senate. This legislation presents a vital opportunity for Congress to step up and force the President to change course in Iraq. Amending the bill to deauthorize the war would do exactly that. We intend to lead that effort.
If the Bush administration believes that the current war, as it is being executed, is critical to America’s future, then it should make the case and let the people decide. Explain to the public why our young men and women should be sent into the middle of a fight between religious factions. Explain why we should continue to devote $10 billion each month to this fight.
Again, whether or not you agree with the war, this is a pretty common-sense point. If the war is critical, sell it to the american people. 4 years later, give us some hard verifiable facts that show we aren’t just throwing money into a blackhole we can never escape from. Hell, if the President hits the mics the way he did for the shamnesty bill a few weeks ago, we’ll get a much better picture of what’s going on and what the game plan is. Instead, we get the “don’t worry, it’s working” bullshit we’ve been hearing.
It’s no surprise that immigration stole the headlines for a few weeks, and now the fairness doctrine is threatening to do the same. In the midst of a war, we seem to find the President and the supporters of the war in Congress picking other fights instead of winning the one we’re in.
It’s unacceptable and it’s an affront to the men and women serving in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Prior to the vote on the original authorization of force in 2002, we worked to limit that authority to one year. Unfortunately, the amendment failed — a fact rendered all the more distressing in hindsight.
You both didn’t work hard enough, Senators. End of story.
By deauthorizing the original use-of-force resolution this year, we would put a stop to the President’s failed strategy and require him to articulate a new policy that takes into account the desires of the American people, the reality in Iraq and the recommendations of military experts.
The American people deserve to know how the President intends to judge the results of our ongoing efforts in Iraq and what strategy he proposes to bring the occupation to an end.
That sentence in boldface is, quite simply, what the American people are hungering for right now. What constitutes a victory in Iraq? At what point can we safely pull out, or are we at the point now where any questioning of when we’re pulling out becomes an argument over how anyone saying we aren’t going to win in a civil war / pissing contest between Shi’a and Sunnis is somehow defeatist?
Let’s see the game plan. What’s the measuring stick? What tangible measurements are we going to make of the Iraqi government and security forces that will allow us to say they’re ready for us to leave? I find it hard to believe that this plan has even been discussed in Washington.
We don’t need all the details, but how about starting by showing us there is a plan to begin with. I’d be happy with just that little.
Our men and women in uniform toppled the dictator. There were no weapons of mass destruction. Iraq has established a parliament and elected a president and a prime minister. Yet our troops remain in Iraq and our President remains unmoved by any arguments to change course.
Not bad for a guy who’s never been about “change the course.”
As Bush admitted in his State of the Union address in January, “This is not the fight we entered in Iraq.” We could not agree more. This is not the fight Congress authorized, Mr. President. If you want to continue to wage this fight, come to Congress and make your case. Otherwise, bring our troops home.
Well said.
– Powered By Stuffr! –
