I wrote the following in 2004 for a comedic website called OrangePlatypus.
Okay, let me start off by saying this is coming out about three months in advance. I'm giving this disclaimer in advance as well -- please do not send me poorly-written e-mails containing a defense of Kevin Costner, various swear words and the spelling skills of a crippled and blind child from Pakistan.
If you're like me then you think Kevin Costner is a dolt. He writes and directs the gayest movies since Xena started taking testosterone. Now, you may have seen the previews in your local movie theater for this movie. If you have, you can join me in filing a class action lawsuit against Touchstone Pictures to get them to pay for the years of psychological agony this simple 5 minute preview will cause.
Anyhow, Kevin Costner, who has made the crappiest of movies lately (including the trashy Sci-Fi drink your own piss to survive movie, Waterworld, the Sixth Sense rip-off Dragonfly, the embarassing Non-Fiction/Historical movie Thirteen Days, and the apocalyptic "wish I'd never have wasted my time watching this movie" The Postman) decided he'd continue on his string with a Western movie about gay cowboys eating pudding.
I'm warning you right now, do not go see this movie. Kevin, in his attempt to ressurrect his days from "Dances With Wolves" decided to do another "historical" movie set in the old west. Did I mention Robert Duvall is in this too? Playing second fiddle to Kevin Costner? The out of shape Kevin? The slightly old Kevin? Like a Frenchman's armpit is smelly, Kevin is out of shape. Like Elton John is gay, Kevin is old.
The latest piece of crap Kevin has decideded to push out is called "Open Range." This movie is about, and I quote from their website, "four men living together in the Wild West band together." This entire movies is about defending their cattle. These four go on an absolute rampage and the writing has never been worse. For example, when Kevin talks to Annette Benning (his girlfriend in the movie) about leaving, he says "men are going to get killed here Sue. And I'm gonna do the killin'."
This brings up another issue. The WTO. Kevin obviously sent all this writing to China and just signed his name on it so as he could spend more money and time on the special effects... like making him presentable in public. While a laudable goal, absolutely impossible.
And who's fault is it that Kevin's career blows chunks more than my ex-girlfriend's excursion into porn? Peter Pan. Yes, that's right. An imaginary Disney character who flies around to Never-Neverland, abducting children and playing with pirates. Kevin says, "if I've been guilty of anything, it's not wanting to grow up. It's what we call the Peter Pan syndrome. It's just sad really." Yes Kevin, "we" call it the Peter Pan syndrome. Wait... no... I call it the "washed-up actor drags on his career with shitty films because he's to egotistical to have good stars, good writers and good directors" syndrome. Although... you are right about one thing, it is sad. Really.
Monday, June 13, 2011
Sunday, April 17, 2011
The Falling Man and Ethics
Like the other things we have been writing on, the photograph of the Falling Man and the Esquire story could be seen as unethical -- though not maliciously so. There are several obvious arguments that could be made against taking the photograph, and publicizing it. There are three main arguments that I will supply. The reporting was extreme, the death was gruesome, and it did not provide for the greater good.
Firstly, I remember staying up and watching the towers falling hundreds of times over the few months afterwards, with the 24/7 news cycle of the media constantly and seeing over and over the Falling Man photograph and other similar ones. This level of reporting was literally unprecidented. It was proven to cause PTSD in people who watched these events unfold time and time again. This breaks the principle of the Golden Mean.
Secondly, Kantian ethics and the Golden Rule were broken. This photograph publicizes an individual's gruesome death. I would not want my own death publicized in this way, and my final seconds being shown to billions of people. Beyond that, it could easly harm the family and families of other 9/11 victims wondering if that was their family member.
Thirdly, it breaks J. S. Mill's idea of Utilitarianism. This photo causes more harm than good, as the photograph is scarred in people's memory. It's a very dramatic and very memorable photograph, and not for it's good qualities -- for, as described in the article, the terrible (and depressing) ones.
This is someone's life, someone's death, captured in a lens in a split second. Further, it summarizes all that down to 10 kilobytes of rgb pixels on the screen of my computer or television -- and that in and of itself is also a lie.
Firstly, I remember staying up and watching the towers falling hundreds of times over the few months afterwards, with the 24/7 news cycle of the media constantly and seeing over and over the Falling Man photograph and other similar ones. This level of reporting was literally unprecidented. It was proven to cause PTSD in people who watched these events unfold time and time again. This breaks the principle of the Golden Mean.
Secondly, Kantian ethics and the Golden Rule were broken. This photograph publicizes an individual's gruesome death. I would not want my own death publicized in this way, and my final seconds being shown to billions of people. Beyond that, it could easly harm the family and families of other 9/11 victims wondering if that was their family member.
Thirdly, it breaks J. S. Mill's idea of Utilitarianism. This photo causes more harm than good, as the photograph is scarred in people's memory. It's a very dramatic and very memorable photograph, and not for it's good qualities -- for, as described in the article, the terrible (and depressing) ones.
This is someone's life, someone's death, captured in a lens in a split second. Further, it summarizes all that down to 10 kilobytes of rgb pixels on the screen of my computer or television -- and that in and of itself is also a lie.
Missing White Girl Syndrome and Ethics
Missing White Girl Syndrome, such as the Kaylee Anthony and Elizabeth Smart stories, is a terrible subject in our lives today. It provides several obvious unethical boundaries that become crossed every time a story appears on the news. The main ones are the extremes defied in the Golden Mean principle, the Kantian dilemma of treating others how you would wish to be treated, and J. S. Mill's ethical quandry about the greater good.
Firstly, it defies the Golden Mean - people see these stories, every year, all the time reaching an extreme. They're on every news channel, every newspaper, every website. A negative consequence is, therefore, they become desensitized to smaller news stories about missing people. Further, most news stories are reported on with far fewer resources than what is dedicated to these.
Secondly, it defies Kantian ethics, as they do not apply the same attention to all missing people's cases. They could not possibly provide the same coverage for all, however, as these stories are covered on the 24/7 news cycles, and all we would ever see would be constant reporting about missing people.
Thirdly, it defies Utilitarianism and John Stewart Mill's ethics, as it scares people into being afraid of groups of people -- such as villainizing people of races that are different than those of the person being subject to the problem. There was a great South Park episode in regards to this, where eventually it got to the point that the children wound up being segregated from their own parents because the news reported that parents are the people most likely to kidnap their own children.
This is a serious problem in our media environment. The lack of ethics on these Missing White Girl cases is something that needs to be addressed.
Firstly, it defies the Golden Mean - people see these stories, every year, all the time reaching an extreme. They're on every news channel, every newspaper, every website. A negative consequence is, therefore, they become desensitized to smaller news stories about missing people. Further, most news stories are reported on with far fewer resources than what is dedicated to these.
Secondly, it defies Kantian ethics, as they do not apply the same attention to all missing people's cases. They could not possibly provide the same coverage for all, however, as these stories are covered on the 24/7 news cycles, and all we would ever see would be constant reporting about missing people.
Thirdly, it defies Utilitarianism and John Stewart Mill's ethics, as it scares people into being afraid of groups of people -- such as villainizing people of races that are different than those of the person being subject to the problem. There was a great South Park episode in regards to this, where eventually it got to the point that the children wound up being segregated from their own parents because the news reported that parents are the people most likely to kidnap their own children.
This is a serious problem in our media environment. The lack of ethics on these Missing White Girl cases is something that needs to be addressed.
Tiger Woods Animation and Ethics
Ethics in journalism is obviously not being considered when looking at the Tiger Woods animation from the Asian news. Based on three basic principles of Ethics, we see that it was a mistake, though not malicious in nature.
Firstly, the animation was inaccurate. It obviously takes artistic liberties in the drawings, and looks almost comical when speaking to a real situation affecting two people's lives. Further, it relies on second hand information, rather than firsthand reports -- which was likely unaccurate looking back on the events.
Secondly, it is not supported by the Kantian ethics. It was not being entirely truthful -- it is being reported as news, yet who knows if that's how she was swinging the golf club? Who knows how Tiger Woods was driving his car, the look on his face when he got in, or what they were doing leading up to that? The animators certainly don't.
Finally, it is not supported by Utilitarianism ethics as it causes more harm than good. It is not necessary to take time of reporters and utilize resources reporting on the Tiger Wood's incident, as it was not to improve domestic relations -- it was simply presented as an entertainment piece. If it were utilized to present a perspective on domestic violence, that would be one thing. It was not.
All in all, the animation was not helpful and not ethical in even the most minimal way. It should have never been done. It should not continue unless it can provide at least some usefulness that can be supported.
Firstly, the animation was inaccurate. It obviously takes artistic liberties in the drawings, and looks almost comical when speaking to a real situation affecting two people's lives. Further, it relies on second hand information, rather than firsthand reports -- which was likely unaccurate looking back on the events.
Secondly, it is not supported by the Kantian ethics. It was not being entirely truthful -- it is being reported as news, yet who knows if that's how she was swinging the golf club? Who knows how Tiger Woods was driving his car, the look on his face when he got in, or what they were doing leading up to that? The animators certainly don't.
Finally, it is not supported by Utilitarianism ethics as it causes more harm than good. It is not necessary to take time of reporters and utilize resources reporting on the Tiger Wood's incident, as it was not to improve domestic relations -- it was simply presented as an entertainment piece. If it were utilized to present a perspective on domestic violence, that would be one thing. It was not.
All in all, the animation was not helpful and not ethical in even the most minimal way. It should have never been done. It should not continue unless it can provide at least some usefulness that can be supported.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Public Health Policy Problems
Strictly by the statistics, the greatest problems we face as a society are cancer, heart disease, diabetes, asthema and other chronic diseases. These diseases not only have a great personal cost, but societally, there is a greater cost. According to the CDC, more than two-thirds of deaths in the United States already occur due to these (partially) preventable problems and most of the costs of health care come from these chronic diseases as well.
Beyond these immediate threats, the societal costs are great. We are currently embroiled in a political stalemate and expanding deficits due, partly, to excessive healthcare spending. If the costs continue expanding, our society will have to make truly hard choices -- whether to end various government services, such as welfare, infrastructure spending and education or paying for chronic disease health care costs. These problems which could easily be reduced by better willpower from citizens -- through exercising, eliminating tanning, less driving and better diet -- and taking preventive care seriously.
Additional problems include problems such as birth defects and reproductive health problems, medical malpractice and prescription mistakes, and oral health problems. As for the first ones, birth defects are increasing, but reproductive health problems such as premature birth are decreasing, especially with the newest announcements from the DMC and NIH regarding hormone treatments. Medical malpractice and prescription mistakes could be fixed with the advent of better Electronic Medical Records. Oral health problems are on the rise with more and more Medicaid patients losing their dental insurance. These problems, however, are not as large as the problems with chronic diseases.
Beyond these immediate threats, the societal costs are great. We are currently embroiled in a political stalemate and expanding deficits due, partly, to excessive healthcare spending. If the costs continue expanding, our society will have to make truly hard choices -- whether to end various government services, such as welfare, infrastructure spending and education or paying for chronic disease health care costs. These problems which could easily be reduced by better willpower from citizens -- through exercising, eliminating tanning, less driving and better diet -- and taking preventive care seriously.
Additional problems include problems such as birth defects and reproductive health problems, medical malpractice and prescription mistakes, and oral health problems. As for the first ones, birth defects are increasing, but reproductive health problems such as premature birth are decreasing, especially with the newest announcements from the DMC and NIH regarding hormone treatments. Medical malpractice and prescription mistakes could be fixed with the advent of better Electronic Medical Records. Oral health problems are on the rise with more and more Medicaid patients losing their dental insurance. These problems, however, are not as large as the problems with chronic diseases.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
The New York Times's Website
Online media is a key aspect of all journalism in today's world. Newspapers, magazines, radio and television all participate in the online media environment, and contribute, particularly well, in their own aspect of journalism. The New York Times has a pivotal role in the world of journalism, breaking many news stories and having full-time journalists reporting on key events occurring around the world, 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
The news items reported on The New York Times' website are fresh, important and have a sense of urgency about them. The New York Times is updated dozens of times every day, and their counter at the top, "Last Update: 8:04 PM ET," is encouraging. Top news stories are breaking often, and they are on top of that. The front page of NYTimes.com is dynamically updated, and while keeping the same format as their newsprint edition, demonstrates their devotion to the immediacy of the news.
The site, when you first visit it, focuses you on the top and center story; much like their newsprint edition. While you can customize your content, focusing on Global editions, or changing your Feed options to load into your Facebook site or follow on your Twitter feed, it still will keep you up to date quickly and efficiently. The way their site is laid out and how they have their articles written, the news is up front and easy to read. You can get a "taste" of the article, and click through to view the rest of what you want -- if that's what you're looking for. This allows the stories to be more in-depth. The length of the stories can be significant, but due to the ability to select the stories you're most interested in and the structure of the stories having used the inverted pyramid, you don't necessarily need to read them all completely.
The stories are broken into paragraphs within these pages, with pages typically a consistant length (I'm sure they have a written policy, though I'm not sure what it is) and typically 2 - 3 pages per article. They do make use of bullet points, though only in articles which benefit from their use -- they are not used to shorten the way information is communicated through cutting down stories into bullet points. Unlike other sites, however, they do not break them down into chucks, with subheadings relating to certain aspects of stories.
Information is presented, not only in a visual and verbal way, but also in more advanced multimedia presentations. Their front page typically mirrors the print edition with the lead photo for the lead story at the top center, right below the banner. However, a significant difference is that streaming video is available for many articles on their website. It is provided via the Macromedia Flash technology, which is a standard available on most PCs and Macs, as well as Android portable devices and some iPhones (though not the iPad). The information supplied is primarily by professionals, no iReporters or YouTube submissions, so the quality is verifiable. The fonts for articles are customizable, as well, to allow for the visually impaired, and the site is ADA compliant, allowing for text readers to present the news to people who are completely blind (or just like the sound of the metallic voice).
All in all, the site is very thorough. News is reported consistantly and edited with the same style throughout. It is very up to date and informative, while not being overly burdensome or too lengthy. External connectivity is extensive, and use of techology is evident (this isn't your grandmother's New York Times), though their goal is obviously not to send you to other sites. This is a news organization for the twenty-first century.
The news items reported on The New York Times' website are fresh, important and have a sense of urgency about them. The New York Times is updated dozens of times every day, and their counter at the top, "Last Update: 8:04 PM ET," is encouraging. Top news stories are breaking often, and they are on top of that. The front page of NYTimes.com is dynamically updated, and while keeping the same format as their newsprint edition, demonstrates their devotion to the immediacy of the news.
The site, when you first visit it, focuses you on the top and center story; much like their newsprint edition. While you can customize your content, focusing on Global editions, or changing your Feed options to load into your Facebook site or follow on your Twitter feed, it still will keep you up to date quickly and efficiently. The way their site is laid out and how they have their articles written, the news is up front and easy to read. You can get a "taste" of the article, and click through to view the rest of what you want -- if that's what you're looking for. This allows the stories to be more in-depth. The length of the stories can be significant, but due to the ability to select the stories you're most interested in and the structure of the stories having used the inverted pyramid, you don't necessarily need to read them all completely.
The stories are broken into paragraphs within these pages, with pages typically a consistant length (I'm sure they have a written policy, though I'm not sure what it is) and typically 2 - 3 pages per article. They do make use of bullet points, though only in articles which benefit from their use -- they are not used to shorten the way information is communicated through cutting down stories into bullet points. Unlike other sites, however, they do not break them down into chucks, with subheadings relating to certain aspects of stories.
Information is presented, not only in a visual and verbal way, but also in more advanced multimedia presentations. Their front page typically mirrors the print edition with the lead photo for the lead story at the top center, right below the banner. However, a significant difference is that streaming video is available for many articles on their website. It is provided via the Macromedia Flash technology, which is a standard available on most PCs and Macs, as well as Android portable devices and some iPhones (though not the iPad). The information supplied is primarily by professionals, no iReporters or YouTube submissions, so the quality is verifiable. The fonts for articles are customizable, as well, to allow for the visually impaired, and the site is ADA compliant, allowing for text readers to present the news to people who are completely blind (or just like the sound of the metallic voice).
All in all, the site is very thorough. News is reported consistantly and edited with the same style throughout. It is very up to date and informative, while not being overly burdensome or too lengthy. External connectivity is extensive, and use of techology is evident (this isn't your grandmother's New York Times), though their goal is obviously not to send you to other sites. This is a news organization for the twenty-first century.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Privatization of Teaching Hospitals
Some medical centers may be considering selling their teaching hospitals to for-profit chains of healthcare providers. This could have either a positive or negative impact on the overall healthcare market. The possible consequences could be catastrophic or could be a solution to some of our serious, endemic problems with our medical industry.
The positive prospects are numerous; it could result in a greater quantity of doctors being brought in for patient care, a McDonaldsization (if you will) of the medical residency programs. For-profits have a greater incentive and ability to get more H1B work visas for medical residents (the lower cost alternative to full-fledged physicians). This will result in the likelihood of the doctor staying on with the organization after completion of residency and additional doctors in the system, and building up a vertical integration of training for medical professionals. The for-profit mission of this type of activity incentivizes more physicians, and should (with enough market competition) result in lower pricing.
The negative prospects are also numerous; without enough market competition, it could result in increased costs to patients, with the residents charging a market rate more equivalent to full-fledged physicians, further straining an already weak economy. They could also reduce the research mission of the organization, due to long-term costs associated with research as a whole. Not-for-profits and educational institutions have a greater advantage in this field because their goal is not to result in profit making from the research itself, but to fund itself through tuition and fees, and grants.
I cannot see service being affected by the change of the formula from educational institution or not-for-profit to for-profit institution; the political ramifications of doing such a thing, at least in the short-term, would be harmful. If there was reduction in service, it would likely be a greater refusal to take cases that may be overly costly. The political fallout of taking such a position would be negative to the bottom line of the company as well, and they would likely know this. Over the long term, a shift to lower standard of care is likely, but not likely in the near term.
As you can see, there are arguments on both sides of this, and the most likely outcome is negative. It should be stated that the mission of the medical industry should not be to make a profit; it should be to care for patients, regardless of amount of money made. Therefore, the for-profit model, unless it is likely to provide better outcomes for society as a whole – and in this case it is not – should not be utilized. There are more efficient ways to result in greater gains.
The positive prospects are numerous; it could result in a greater quantity of doctors being brought in for patient care, a McDonaldsization (if you will) of the medical residency programs. For-profits have a greater incentive and ability to get more H1B work visas for medical residents (the lower cost alternative to full-fledged physicians). This will result in the likelihood of the doctor staying on with the organization after completion of residency and additional doctors in the system, and building up a vertical integration of training for medical professionals. The for-profit mission of this type of activity incentivizes more physicians, and should (with enough market competition) result in lower pricing.
The negative prospects are also numerous; without enough market competition, it could result in increased costs to patients, with the residents charging a market rate more equivalent to full-fledged physicians, further straining an already weak economy. They could also reduce the research mission of the organization, due to long-term costs associated with research as a whole. Not-for-profits and educational institutions have a greater advantage in this field because their goal is not to result in profit making from the research itself, but to fund itself through tuition and fees, and grants.
I cannot see service being affected by the change of the formula from educational institution or not-for-profit to for-profit institution; the political ramifications of doing such a thing, at least in the short-term, would be harmful. If there was reduction in service, it would likely be a greater refusal to take cases that may be overly costly. The political fallout of taking such a position would be negative to the bottom line of the company as well, and they would likely know this. Over the long term, a shift to lower standard of care is likely, but not likely in the near term.
As you can see, there are arguments on both sides of this, and the most likely outcome is negative. It should be stated that the mission of the medical industry should not be to make a profit; it should be to care for patients, regardless of amount of money made. Therefore, the for-profit model, unless it is likely to provide better outcomes for society as a whole – and in this case it is not – should not be utilized. There are more efficient ways to result in greater gains.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)