BBC Blog Network

User Profile

tpapp157

Listed below are comments made by tpapp157 between Wednesday, 24th June 2009 and Thursday, 19th November 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Britain: Putting the bite on the States 02:54am on 19 Nov 2009 First an foremost. The best vampire movie since the turn of the century is the Swedish made Let The Right One In. That movie really mixes up the genre in a way it hasn't been since the eighties. Not too mention that it is very creepy. I highly suggest checking it out if you haven't seen it. Top notch.

Oh the British. The British are really the only Europeans that Americans feel they understand and that's largely because British culture serves as something of a bridge between American culture and European culture. It's unsurprising that we have closer ties with Britain than with any other European country and the sort of loyalty in our political relationship is a huge relief when the rest of the world snubs us off.

In general, British actors are not usually villains in American movies. Generally they fill a sort of sidekick role that provides some much needed diversity to largely single-minded American heroes. You can look at a movie like Ocean's Eleven that had a single token British man. He played a very intelligent, technical, and cultured role compared to the rest of the American which erred on the side of swindlers that got by more on their talent and ease of character than any real intellect. Of course to put down any sort of speculation, the British character could never accomplish what the American hero can because they lack the ingenuity, charisma, audacity, and personal drive.

When the British do play villains they play a villain that is strong and intelligent. The sort of villain that you respect. Darth Vader, for example, if he had a nationality, would be British. A far cry from the Russian megalomaniac scoundrel, Middle eastern fanatical terrorist, or super-rich corrupt Chinese businessman.

More hip renditions of the British show them as swanky, cheeky, and rather amoral. See a movie like Trainspotting or Snatch for examples. The portrayal is a sort of dirty European that attracts Americans in a sort of care-free badboy way. Europe is an old dirty place that has been around long enough to become accustomed to some of its darker aspects. Unlike American badboys that always have a big heart and good intentions underneath their rough exterior, British badboys tend to be much more opportunistic and Machiavellian.

Finally, the British must always have bad teeth, speak nearly unintelligibly, and can probably recite Shakespeare at will.

Much more interesting than American portrayals of the British which haven't changed all that significantly over the years are British portrayals of themselves. British self-image has changed drastically over the past half century and your cinema has evolved right along with it. The high empire days of the sixties well encapsulated in movies like the original Italian Job or The Ruling Class showed a proud and strong Britain with a dry but farcical sense of humor and deep respect for the ruling aristocracy (that came off often as hilariously absurd irreverence). Today's British cinema still maintains all of these aspects but they are much more tempered and cynical.

British humor is one Britain's finest contributions to modern global culture over the last century. It pokes fun at the absurdity of aristocracy and civility but always with the utmost respect. It tends to be dry yet completely off the wall. The legendary Flying Circus and its modern incarnation in Little Britain are shining examples of British humor at its best. All of British cultural export (from movies to tv shows to music) is rife with this laughing cynical societal critique. Unlike British humor that generally targets the aristocracy, American humor targets the base common man. American humor therefore tends to be more crude, forward and boisterous. There's nothing wrong with that but it is a nice change of pace to experience a humor that takes a little more effort and insight to appreciate. The Ruling Class for example has more references to classical literature, British history, and contemporary (for the time) British culture as the basis for its jokes than I could even begin to list and all of them cleverly concealed in metaphorical satire and witty dialogue.
Spotting a red flag 06:00am on 10 Nov 2009 Perhaps when some of your muslim journalist colleagues contacts a radical muslim cleric (regardless of the reason) that should raise some red flags? Or would that infringe on your profession and be an intolerable affront to journalistic prestige and the freedom of the press?

Things like this happen. To seriously question the FBI's capabilities and judgment in saying that the messages were in line with the man's work is to invite a staggering degree of government censorship over professional academics. It's best to avoid trying to force the blame and leave it with the killer where it belongs.
Where is Obama? 9:12pm on 29 Jun 2009 Interesting article but the methods that it proposes are simply impossible. You would never be able to force bills like the ones that the author wants through congress.
Republicans' lack of leaders 5:02pm on 25 Jun 2009 Romney is an old dog with absolutely no new tricks. He failed last time for that reason and if he decides to run again then he'll fail again. It's not he'll suddenly magically become appealing and in touch with the people in the next three years.

Jindal is still too young. Watching his response to the state of the union was excruciatingly painful. I hadn't seen a public address that poor in quite a while. Jindal has about eight or twelve years to step up his game and learn to stop patronizing the people and then maybe he'll have a chance. Otherwise he'll just be forgotten.

Huckabee is a nice guy but as a religious fundamentalist he has a very small base of support. The vast majority of Americans thankfully recoil at the thought of having such a blatantly theocratic man as president. The fact that he did so well in the primaries is more of a testament to the lack of quality in his competition than to his own qualities.

I will not grace Palin with a serious response.

What the Republicans need is a bloodletting. They need to cut the bloat from their party like Limbaugh if they want to have any hope of moving their party to a more responsive and respectable stature. Limbaugh is just a giant unmovable lump that's stuck in the eighties and holding the party back. I was very impressed when Steele spoke out against Limbaugh but unfortunately (and unsurprisingly) he then rescinded his comments which shows just how much Limbaugh personally hinders the healthy growth of the party by mindlessly lambasting anyone who has a more moderate view than he does. The Republicans just can't hope to be seriously competitive in the new century when they're still carrying around baggage from the 1900's.
Big week for healthcare 10:45pm on 24 Jun 2009 Well it seems as if Sanford turned up in Argentina. The entire time his party thought he was hiking the Appalachian trail and his family had no idea where he was. And on his return from Argentina he admits to having an affair for the past year. It's almost funny. You just can't make stuff like this up.

Speaking from Atlanta and watching Sanford from relatively close range, most people have known he was a moron for a while. No one took the talk about a potential presidential run seriously. Could you imagine that man as president? Good thing he won't even have a chance now. Scratch another Republican.
Big week for healthcare 6:38pm on 24 Jun 2009 #27
In reference to #22. You misread his sentence. He meant guaranteed health care regardless of personal wealth or place of residence. Not guaranteed health care, wealth, and place of residence.

#25
Chronophobe makes a very good point. Alot of the arguing over healthcare happens over the details like treatment availability and wait times and industry innovation. The fact is, however, that there's absolutely no way to prove one way or the other in what ways a government plan would improve or degrade healthcare. There's simply no way. So we can argue all year long about these details but no one can win that argument. In essence those who don't want healthcare reform can win because they can effectively filibuster the government plan by channeling the arguments to areas that are purely conjecture and ungrounded. If the debate can take place in the realm of national duty then suddenly everything changes.

For example. I could argue that my house is no danger of being attacked by terrorists or being invaded by a foreign country. So why should I personally have to pay for a military? Maybe only those people who are in danger of being attacked or invaded should have to pay for the army because they're the only ones that need it. Of course if you actually asked that question then most people would think you were a fool but at some point someone made the decision that it is a national duty that every citizen should support the national defense. Is it, then, the duty of the government (and each citizen by proxy) to support the health and wellbeing of every citizen? Or should only those who need treatment have to pay for it.

The question becomes not which method is better (which is an impossible question to ask anyway) but whether or not it's the government's responsibility on a fundamental level. The government is tasked with promoting the general welfare by the Constitution. Does a government healthcare plan fall under that? This is the question people should be asking and debating.
Big week for healthcare 6:06pm on 24 Jun 2009 #23
The preamble does list "promote the general welfare" as the fourth reason for establishing the Constitution.

Everyone needs to calm down over Obama. He's only five months into his presidency (that's 5 out of 48 or not even 1/8th) and still has plenty of time with a majority in congress. Just because he hasn't introduced some amazing foolproof and perfect healthcare plan doesn't mean that he doesn't have people working on one or that he's going back on his campaign promises. The fact that he's still talking about it (and maintaining this issue as a primary national debate) means that he still intends on doing something about it. It's the things that he's not talking about like social security or immigration that he's not planning on doing anything about. Keep your expectations reasonable but don't let up on the pressure.
Big week for healthcare 5:13pm on 24 Jun 2009 @chronophobe
The argument made in the article is that public health insurance would stifle innovation because it would deem new treatments/medicines as too expensive for the benefit they provide and not support them. So as a company, what is the incentive to dump huge amounts of money into developing a new drug if the health system won't support it? It is a very legitimate argument.

What the article fails to take into account is that private health care also prescreens new treatments according to their benefit/cost ratio and frequently denies access to treatments deemed "experimental" (in other words: too expensive). I don't really see a difference between one organization or another both doing the same exact thing. What the article also fails to take into account is that the driving force behind where a company does its medical research and testing is experimental law. The US has relatively lax medical testing laws compared to European governments. It's no surprise then that companies would rather do their medical R&D in a country where testing permits are quicker, easier, and cheaper to get. Many of the benefits that the article attributes to private insurance have little or nothing to do with who provides the insurance and much more to do with the fact that the US government takes a very pro-business stance in terms of deregulation and tax incentives.
Big week for healthcare 3:31pm on 24 Jun 2009 @Young-Mr-Grace
As far as I know, no major health insurer in the US has ever gone bankrupt so I don't think that anyone knows what would happen. Certainly no one wants to think about such a scenario. If you consider the recent financial crisis, no one thought it was possible for such large banks to go under so quickly but when they did the government had to make up rules on the spot. I imagine much the same would happen if a 'health crisis' occurred. The government would have to step in and arbitrate because as you point out, a large portion of patients would not be able to transfer to another company easily or at all and I would guess that the majority would see a price increase as a result.

More to the point, I think that the point people are missing is that under private health insurance a company makes more profit when it provides less coverage. Therefore, a private company has a very powerful incentive to deny patients access to medical treatments because it means they'll make more money. It is a fundamentally flawed system. Private companies should ideally have incentives to provide more treatment, not less. This reason is why a public system is immediately better. After all, the US government is the largest non-profit organization in the world. I'd rather pay my money to the government where I know that that money will come back around to me in some way than pay my money to a private company where most of it will just go to lining some billionaire CEO's pocket while I still have to pay my deductible.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

tpapp157