Judging by hypocritical standards

While most people disapprove of the initial outlook of the A Christmas Carol character Ebenezer Scrooge (in the 2009 film, the attitude was intended to make people both shake their heads and laugh at his extremism), I would say most people actually share it, at least to some degree. They work for their own interests and feel others should do as well. They can have sympathy for those they get to know but some feel that the "undeserving" poor (those who can work but don't, or waste the money they do make) don't deserve to be helped (which makes sense, as actions should have consequences) and even people who feel the majority of the poor are not undeserving of help put themselves first and do little to personally help them as they still remain abstract. Given that time is limited, putting self first and not knowing how the poor are (and so assuming the worst or close to it to justify oneself) is understandable but people who do this should admit that those are their decisions and not condemn those who decide likewise or are the ones not afraid to admit it.

When we talked about my idea that most people are similar to Scrooge, my mother said she was not and my father admitted most people are similar but to a lesser degree.

Degrees should indeed be considered, but the problem is that people are often only too willing to be overly favorable towards themselves and condemnatory of others and some use the idea of degrees to try to argue that their share of the trait is so small it's really nonexistent; this is a violation of the idea that one should seek and accept truths.

Scrooge's attitude that the poor should die quickly to "decrease the surplus population" is harshly stated, yet many don't have alternatives to what should be done when a region or globe does have a surplus population. Social services come through extracted personal income, decreasing people's choice of what to do with what they make, and may only delay, if not enlarge, the proplems.

Philosopher Garrett Harding (in the essay "Lifeboat Ethics") made the argument that selfishness is preferable to generosity, especially at the international level, as the more aid is given to hungry, populous countries, the more the global population will expand until the globe isn't able to feed everyone, as when a lifeboat tips over from having too many passengers and everyone drowns.

As a sidenote to films and audiences making judgments (without reflection on the person who judges), Vegas Vacation has the daughter character dancing while in a covering red dress; he father is nonetheless appalled and takes her away. The daughter instantly change her mind, saying she doesn't know what came over her, even though she seemed to very much like and want to perform the activity earlier. These types of sudden changes of opinions, in order to avoid showing conflict and challenging the audience, are usually unconvincing and hence bad writing, though they may, by not showing conflict and not challenging the audience, enhance commercial appeal and possibility. The father has lecherous moments which are considered acceptable; this nonjudgmental attitude may make males sympathize with him, and his hypocritical condemnation of his daughter for providing such feelings to others makes him sympathetic to those who claim to not be lecherous, or at least only lecherous within reason. Unfortunately, a lax standard for self and a harsh one for others is often considered to be just, appropriate and reasonable.

Confidence and Despair

One of the ways people attempt to increase their sense of security is the "blaming the victim" approach. In order to believe that the world is just, people decide that those who have been harmed/victimized did some action that caused their own victimization; therefore the people who behave in wise and moral actions have nothing to fear as they won't make the mistakes that lead to victimization.

The approach is perhaps incorrectly named as most people who believe this way don't only blame the victim, but attribute them some responsibility, perhaps the decisive share, but with the majority of the responsibility going to the victimizer or the situation.

This method may be self-defeating as, when believers are victimized, they may blame themselves. However, they may be more lenient with themselves or they may have in fact been partly to blame and the self-blame can lead to better behavior.

While "blaming-the-victim" has a negative connotation, I believe the belief in a just world, with its implied corollary about those who are treated unjustly, is widely shared in the world. It would probably be hard to live with the perception that the world or are systems are not necessarily just, that injustice does occur frequently, that are statuses may not be just and so are not intrinsically permanent.

While I believe in freedom and the ability to pursue happiness, I also feel that humans have an obligation to try to learn and acknowledge the truth (this obligation is not something that should be legislated, as in many matters truth is subjective); while it may cause some discomfort, it is an important aspect to appreciating and preserving freedom and happiness.

The entertainment media has an interest in persuading people that we do live in a just world (so we feel justified in focusing on ourselves and not improving it), but sometimes entertainment products take so much for granted that their messages are laughable if not infuriating.

In the 2003 comedy Bruce Almighty, Jim Carrey's Bruce Nolan complains that God is doing a bad job at running the universe, particularly with regards to him but also in general. God (Morgan Freeman) gives him his powers so he can go on vacation and the film sets out to show why it wouldn't be good for an ordinary human being to have divine powers.

Or not, though most viewers probably agreed with the film's viewpoint. There are strong questions about whether Bruce, a light-news reporter, is really ordinary. He's unusually well-off by global standards (given that many people are forced to live on a few dollars a day), which you would think the deity would be more concerned. While the film was chiefly intended for "Western" audiences, a deity as a character practically demands a wider focus, which this film chose to exclude.

The film almost touches on the point that, because Bruce is materially comfortable, he wants more. But as his position is considered average, it's really a false critique of all humanity. Powered-Bruce creates marijuana in the van of a rival reporter (which is considered to be funny, though laughing at someone for what is not his fault is questionable) while a grower of the plant would probably use his power to legalize the product, creating a benefit for all sellers, buyers and people in general as police forces could spend their time working against interpersonal harm. A prisoner deprived of liberty for having condemned views would probably gain liberty and only a little more.

On being scolded for his selfish acts, Bruce takes a lazy approach to benevolence-he approves the requests all people make in prayer. This leads to too many people winning the lottery, getting a low amount, and rioting.

Rather than use his power to pacify the people or at least heal the injured and repair the damage, Bruce despairs at the first time his power caused problems, the first sign that people have flaws. This is considered a good sign of humility rather than evidence of a lack of imagination and perseverance.

Bruce also faces personal problems as his girlfriend Grace (Jennifer Aniston) believes he was too close to another woman and is too selfish in general. While it's been some time since I saw the film, if I recall correctly the other woman incident was not Bruce's fault but merely the choice of the other woman coupled with bad timing. Bruce could have argued that it wasn't his fault or that it shouldn't matter, or simply accepted that his true self and Grace weren't a good pair, but instead he laments that he can't persuade her to love her; he doesn't consider moving on.

God says he has the same problem in being unable to force people to love him without violating their free will, but this comparison only works if you consider the world to be just, if you consider that people have only unjust or petty grievances against God.

If, on the other hand, you think that Bruce's misuse of power and quitting at the first sign of trouble (the latter of which is considered good and proper humility) is no sign of failure for the human race and that it is unwise to give up ultimate power over a few troubles, you could well do a better job than either of the film's characters.

The best part of the film is that Carrey and Freeman's characters both have, at least at times, a rather malevolent sense of humor. Freeman's God claiming that Bruce only won a fight with a girl is in touch with the misogynistic attitudes that some attribute to the ultimate creator/ruler.

The end of the film's trailer (Bruce, in a high position against a dark power, exclaiming "My will be done!") suggested that, after comical beginnings, the protagonist would be horribly corrupted. While I've learned in the years since I watched the trailer that trailers are sometimes deceptive, what was promised would probably make a much better film than what was released. That a better film was suggested makes Bruce's quitting at minor troubles that much more disappointing and artificial.

Given that the world is so troubled, to present quitting after minor troubles as the good action seems to be a refusal to acknowledge the really bad problems the people of the world face, so that we can think that the world as it is is just, or at least the best it could possibly be.

An accusation of evil

This news story from September 7 features quotes from former Alaska Governor and Vice Presidential Republican nominee Sarah Palin complaining of something she considers evil.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/09/07/palin-calls-news-org-heartless-and-selfish/

Despite her claim that the image should be "sacred," we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that death is a part of life. In his article "Ideals of Human Excellence and Preserving the Natural Environment," Thomas E. Hill, Jr. argued that refusing to accept aspects of ourselves, including similarities to animals, can lead to troublesome and troubled attitudes, originating from their lack of humility and honesty.

Palin, as many politicians do of other acts, condemned the act as selfish. The "problem" with using selfishness as a measure of good and evil is that almost everyone acts selfishly. To condemn some for a common fault is hypocritical and leads to self-righteousness rather than self-improvement.

In explaining the action of the Associated Press in a way that declared she knew what its motivation was (a very morally dangerous thing to do as, obviously, no one can exactly know motivation aside from the actor, and external acts can have varying explanations and motivations), "exploit[ing] the tragic death of a true American hero," her emotional description tries to set the act as simple, wrong and thus deserving of condemnation.

Relying on emotion is a poor moral measurement as just about anything can be described in a way that makes it emotionally appealing (or at least necessary) or repulsive. Emotions also depend very much on what another person brings with him or her and so are not likely to convince those that feel previously feel differently. Convincing the previously-ignorant, especially with emotional terms, is neither difficult nor admirable, and the persuasion is (as the person could subsequently read an equally-bad or better argument from the other point of view) likely to be short-lived compared to a less-emotional or partisan argument. Trying to reinforce the already-convinced through simplistic methods doesn't deepen understanding but causes debaters to be more firmly placed in their weak positions.

The news media should inform, and inform as accurately, in a manner intended to make audiences understand, as possible. Showing that conflict areas involve deaths, and allowing viewers to see death, a part of military conflict, fits with this mandate. The idea that news products should never be disquieting or disturbing (and they too-often do self-censor) contributes to false understanding of reality, hampering citizen's ability, right and duty to make informed decisions in their self-governance.

Dying in service to your country and the people who placed you in that situation is hardly a private act. While the wishes of grieving family members deserve some consideration, it should hardly be the only consideration because in the real world important considerations frequently come into conflict.

Palin also declares that the fallen soldier was a hero, yet heroism involves both actions and motivations. We don't know Joshua Bernard's motivation nor all of his actions. I believe that in something as morally complex as military service, intention has to matter as do external conditions. There exists the possibility that a nation is in the wrong. While someone who has examined matters and come to the conclusion that the nation is in the right deserves to be respected (again, posting of truth is not disrespect) even if people disagree, there's no obligation to call the person a hero if you feel the actions were, regardless of intention, resulted in bad ends.

Of course, the idea that a soldier is always morally commendable simply because he fights for your nation is one of the worst types of bias and that mindset perpetuates warfare.

Given that an alternative interpretation of the AP's action was to inform readers, that death is part of life and the news and doesn't have to be seen as dehumanizing, to calling it evil goes dangerously close to the traditional definition of evil as being something that one doesn't like, from which point there can be no objectivity. The act doesn't fit my definition of evil as the photographer and decision-makers would likely consent to the idea of having their deaths reported on, especially (with a picture) if the death was of an unusual sort and especially if the citizens of a nation, through their actions, bore responsibility for it. Unless they wouldn't consent to it being done to them, they are not hypocritical and given that it's known that soldiers and wars will receive press coverage, hence soldiers aren't in a position of total privacy, let alone in the battlefield, the treatment was not dehumanizing. Rather, accuracy to the truth can, and in my view should, be viewed as a great form of respect paid to people's decisions.

Evil

Evil consists of dehumanizing others and/or hypocrisy.

Doing things to others you wouldn't want done to you, which breaks my view of morality, clearly would have to be based on one of the aforementioned factors. Unless you genuinely have no concern for yourself (and most thieves, rapists and killers try to avoid getting caught, indicating that they do have self-concern), in doing badly to others you make the others inferior rather than trying to be fair in putting yourself in their place and viewing their feelings and value as important as yours.

The goodness and flaw of the United States

The goodness of the United States lies in its freedom. From appreciated freedom comes diversity of views and actions and people can choose what they feel is best and most pleasant. There can also be some consensus, of whatever strength and duration the people want it to be.

The United States' biggest flaw comes from intolerance, prejudice and insecurity (which is perhaps a major contributer to the other two negative qualities). There is still too little appreciation for freedom and diversity and too much desire for conformity.

Entrenchment and resistance to the status quo

In his September 9, 2009 speech to Congress, President Barack Obama bluntly declared, "our health care system is placing an unsustainable burden on taxpayers. When health care costs grow at the rate they have, it puts greater pressure on programs like Medicare and Medicaid. If we do nothing to slow these skyrocketing costs, we will eventually be spending more on Medicare and Medicaid than every other government program combined. Put simply, our health care problem is our deficit problem."

This statement reflects Obama's celebration of the active government mentality of many of his supporters and his attempt to entrench that viewpoint in the public. When faced with what he considers an unsustainable situation for the taxpayers, rather than reduce what taxpayers pay he feels that it can't be that the government has asked too much and given too much to taxpayers but that the whole system is wrong.

At least in its ideal form, the pricing feature of capitalism results from the differing desires of makers, sellers and consumers interacting, each with an interest to themselves, so that the final price, based on what people are willing to hold on to or give up of their interests compared with those of others. That the participants voluntarily participate and believe that they benefit from the interaction are big parts of what make the price legitimate.

However, Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democratic Representative from California, don't believe in the legitimacy of capitalistic pricing. Rather, they want the national government to help some at the expense of others. As Pelosi said July 31, she wants legislation to switch the leverage to the consumer, having caps on payment but not on service.

Obama also declared that the "irresponsible behavior" of individuals and businesses who choose not to buy health insurance "costs all the rest of us money" and that without everyone doing their part, many sought reforms "just can't be achieved."

In order to save society money it feels it has to give but would rather not, he'll require individuals make purchases. Saving money, especially the people's tax money, is a good thing but when it requires restricting rights and making demands, the results suggest that the initial premise that the money has to be spent, the specific result has to be achieved are faulty. Making sure a political idea works is a worse reason to restrict freedom.

Obama quoted a letter from the late Senator Ted Kennedy, who claimed the matter was "above all a moral issue; at stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country."

While some Democrats, including Obama, think that public health care can be achieved without raising taxes, others think tax raises to pay for current and added spending are appropriate but that taxes should only be raised for the very rich; Obama has said he won't increase taxes for the bottom 95% of Americans, conspicuously not talking about what could be done to the top 5%.

The idea that liberal politicians demand sacrifice by some for a program that will help others, that they and their supporters support forcing some to act charitably but aren't willing to voluntarily contribute as much on their own, does indeed reveal a troubling immorality of the public.

Unfortunately, Republicans, sticking to bad traditions, are unwilling to challenge Medicare or Medicaid. Without this challenge, Democrats have an advantage in the public debate, easily able to argue that the government already subsidizes the elderly and poor and that paying for all, particularly when that involves manipulating price, could lower the prices overall. The lack of directness of Republicans about what should be cut is a big reason for their lack of credibility and the acceptance of big, active government.

Democrats arguing for cheaper products is a hard approach to defeat, particularly if Republicans aren't willing to challenge the idea that the product should be cheap and socially provided (indeed, most of them want to lower prices by lowering the prices of doctors' malpractice insurance, throwing away respect for the legitimacy of how capitalism determines prices).

But while the current struggle for the preservation of economic rights is bleak, bits of hope emerge. Michele Bachmann, Republican Representative from Minnesota said August 18 that citizens need to let liberal Congresspeople know that "under no circumstance will I give the government control over my body and my health care decisions."

Some websites noted that the statement reflects a pro-choice perspective, an odd and opportunistic tactic for a conservative Republican to use (and indeed Bachmann supports legislating her views of when life starts), I think it reflects a deep truth: while government control can seem very appealing when it's used against people you don't like for a cause you do, it's unjust in itself and incredibly dangerous as it can be applied to you. Moral and personal autonomy resides in the individual person. Governmental controls should be as limited as possible in order to continue.

If people commit to this ideal, we may develop a more sincere appreciation of freedom but this will be very difficult when we accept governmental controls over more and more aspects of the economy.

Humor and respect

Most humor is based on showing some disrespect to someone or something. Unless we want to make all humor only about things or animals and never about people, we should accept that people can be disrespected for a joke; in fact, for innovation, surprise and greater enjoyment, the line into offensiveness probably has to be pushed farther and farther so that people don't get stalely familiar and uninterested. However, not all instances of disrespect are instances of hate. Of course, the emotional reality depends in large part on a person's perspective. It's therefore important to voice your perspective and not let one side pretends it's the only one.

Methods of moral decision-making

In the film El Crimen del Padre Amaro a woman comically describes one of her thought-action combinations to a priest and asks him, "¿Es pecado?"
Moral dilemmas occur in our lives but I think it's a mistake to just ask someone and accept his judgment. Each person's views are shaped by his or experiences and there's no reason to assume someone is morally superior to you. I'd even say accepting ethics from on down is in a sense an abdication of the better method.
The better method is to investigate the moral dimensions of the matter on your own, considering a variety of perspectives. You shouldn't think you're morally superior to others but rather try to view the situation apart from yourself. However, this is just one idea; self-interest is no crime and self-regard is actually important. In the end, after examining different perspectives, you can be secure that you know what's best for you as you have the most experience in being you.
Acceptance of uncertainty is fine, if in a certain issue different perspectives seem equally persuasive neutrality is fine, although you shouldn't give up examining perspectives as yours may change before you know it.
In some minor/personal matters, following instinct is a fine idea, but even what those matters are are influenced by individual perspective.

Interpretations and reactions to fiction

I recently watched the film Risky Business. Some critics felt that it glorified the main character's actions, which they considered unethical, while others responded that it was a satirical criticism of those values.
This is a good example of how preexisting values effect interpretation of events. I don't know what the intention was, but my interpretation was that the main character Joel underwent a lot of positive growth. Regardless of how you feel about things, honesty about yourself and about how you see the world is a good thing. Without it you're doomed to hypocrisy and self-conflict and inner self-degradation.
Some say he exploited his workers and yet I'd say he was just facilitating interaction between customers and workers; there is an ambiguous line that the workers worked until they were exhausted, but I interpreted, I think accurately, that this was willing (over)exertion. A lot of money was made in an unconventional fashion; everyone, true to the ideal of capitalism, participated in the venture because they felt it was in their best interests to do so.

I also read The Princess Diaries Volume IV. While better than the third book, this book also felt like it was going slowly and repetitively to take up space; protagonist Mia's low self-esteem was trying. Mia also seemed to display a serious problem in distinguishing fact from fiction. She acknowledges that she used to like clowns but after reading a horror novel had an aversion to them, somewhat acknowledging that this fear was unreasonable but clinging to it. She also seriously believes that certain clothes bring good luck.
In an observation that's clearly an opinion, she thinks that getting into an accident is better than boredom. Of course, the grass is always greener on the other side ...
After reading Jane Eyre, she adopts some of the title character's styles despite initially considering them to be mean, because of the resolution.
And yet the resolution could well have been very different. I would argue that chance is a large part of life, and authors have a responsibility to emphasize how easily other results could occur.

I also remember a previous book where Mia dismisses The Scarlet Letter because she dislikes the characters, considers them and their society to be boring. I personally considered the characters and their reactions to their society in the novel to be very interesting; not all the characters were admirable, but they were understandable. To dismiss a work for Mia's reasons is, I think, wrongheaded; authors don't necessarily approve of their characters or settings, in fact some are very critical. It is possible, although difficult, to create interest, commentary and reader reaction from boredom and oppression. Mia thought the characters were so boring the novel should have ended before it did, but Puritan rule did last for a long time. The proper response to disliking a setting is to analyze why there is this dislike and how things could be different-in the fictional world and in the all-too-flawed (but improvable) real world.

Three good values of economic conservativism

1. Government should not do too much, and what it does do, it should do efficiently.
2. People should not be dependent on the government.
3. People earn or are given wealth; the government doesn't have the right to take and redistribute it.

Profit

Looking at Wikipedia over the past few days, I was impressed at how Milton Hershey and Ted Turner were able to make money through creating types of products and were willing to give a good deal back through charity, the latter especially also enjoying his wealth and status. I do think that charity is optional but commendable.

Then on the other hand there's Ralph Reed; after years of working to enact conservative Christian principles into law, he privately wrote to Jack Abramoff in 1998 "now that I’m done with the electoral politics, I need to start humping in corporate accounts!"

He also liked and wanted money; a fine, fairly standard trait, but one that in this context, contrasted with how much he felt others should be constrained by Christian doctrines (the love of money is condemned in Christianity), illuminates sad hypocrisy.

Sacrifice and morality depend on having a choice so the dread and prohibition of vice relies on a fundamentally disrespectful view of mankind, that we must be safeguarded and controlled.

When people are motivated to compete in a market driven by makers, sellers and consumers, the most people can win in the most just manner.

On the other hand, when people make demands for sacrifices, they typically only mean of others, as is seen by the support for the idea of the government reducing health care prices. These supporters through their actions demand that health care providers make less for the betterment of the group while they themselves likely, understandably, focus mostly on improving their own conditions even though they could do less to improve the conditions of the lesser-off and the whole group. Making demands for others that you won't meet yourself is immoral, especially when the demand is to be put into binding law, that's an even higher form of hypocrisy than just a discrepancy between pronouncements and personal life.

Ideas of truth

When a relativist says that there is no absolute truth, a common, attempting-to-be-humorous refrain from non-relativists is that by implication, the relativist's claim isn't true.

Well congratulations to those who make that reply. But the reply just shows how different the perspectives are.

A true relativist would openly admit that relativism isn't eternally or unquestionably true. He or she would admit that the views he or she has is just his or her understanding of the world based on observations.

I would say that the idea of absolute truth doesn't make sense based on my observation that humans create all understandings.

Present and past in fiction

I've read the first three volumes in Meg Cabot's The Princess Diaries series. The first was very good but the next two get much less intense. There's a serious continuity issue. The first book, published in 2000 and taking place in the beginning of a school year, implied that Hillary Clinton was running the country as president (hence, taking place in fall 2000). The second book, taking place shortly after the first, nonetheless referred to George W. Bush having run for president, hence taking place in October 2001. This attempt to always have the story in the present just makes the books less realistic; particularly troubling is the lie that in the fall Iran bombed Afghanistan when in fact Iraq attempted to invade Iran in September 1980 and was supported by the U.S. for years.
The first book seemed like reasonable observation of teenagers of 2000, but with the ignoring of the 9/11 attacks and the subsequent bombing of Afghanistan, the illusions of American nobility and national and student harmony is only a lie.

A more prominent fictional series that remains in the present is the television series The Simpsons. While it can be entertaining and make good points, I think denying the passage of time in-series prevents true artistic greatness. The point of a series is to see how events change the characters, so having them remain so similar means that the full potential hasn't been reached, in fact may reflect a fear of change and having to write the characters in a different way.
Going to the past, many praised the film The Dark Knight for not giving the Joker a concrete backstory or origin, liking the idea that he was just an embodiment of evil and chaos. But to me that seems like another denial of reality; it's a comforting fantasy that there are good guys and bad guys and that the bad guys aren't worth taking the time to understand, that bad guys sprout out of nowhere with no justification.
I think not defining the villains more, but making them supernatural is what makes most slasher movies lackluster-Freddy Krueger is so obviously fantasy that he's acceptable, but Michael Myers and Jason Voorhees seem to be mortal, yet aren't, so what's the point of the good guys trying to kill them if that's impossible, if escape is pretty much hopeless? On the other hand, I liked that in the Scream movies the killer was human and fallible but believably skilled (well, the third movie went into the immortality aspect and lost some credibility).

Tone and text

On August 2nd, I watched the Houston Shakespeare Festival's production of Twelfth Night. As with some of Shakespeare's other speedy developments, Olivia falls in love with Cesario (actually a disguised Viola) in one meeting. While I don't know the author's intentions, the play implicitly mocks the idea of two women loving each other, with Viola claiming it's simply impossible and hopeless. The mood of the production wasn't homophobic, showing that delivery certainly has an impact on message, but it can only do so much to change the original.

More recently I watched the film Wild Wild West. I thought Will Smith and Kevin Kline had good charisma and did fine comedy work, although their characters' relationship wasn't very developed. I also liked the fantasy tone of roughly the first half. The rest was a bit overtaken by action. This film had some jibes at homosexuality but not in a mean way (unlike Planes, Trains & Automobiles), aside from one moment-when Smith's Jim West sees a picture of lesbians and dismisses it as, "White folks."

The right to selfishness

Much of what we hear is about citizens' duties, the so-called common interest, improving efficiency, making systems work.
Yet nations are composed of people, and persons are human beings before being a citizen.
It's a basic human right to choose one's own values and, correspondingly, to live according to those values as long as they don't violate a just law (in causing concrete and illegitimate harm to others).
While selfishness may be distasteful (if, given this attitude, oddly prevalent), it's certainly an attitude that people can choose and should be able to choose, and in a sense it's important given that those who call for pulling together for the "common good" usually have bad motives, and even someone who calls for this for good reason sets a precedent for a more nefarious character to exploit the same sentiment later on for bad reasons.

Socialism, democracy and the Constitution

Many consider the charge that President Obama and the Congressional Democrats are moving the country in a socialist direction to be petty nonsense.
I'd define socialism as "government involvement with the economy with the goal of evening out wealth and well-being."
By this definition, Obama and many Congressional Democrats, as well as many Republicans do meet the qualifications to be described by the term, as seen in their conditional assistance to financial and auto companies, as well as Democratic attempts to force insurance companies to cover everyone or have the government run the health care system.
While capitalism can have failures that impact a lot of people, at least those people chose to be associated with the organization that failed. Tying up all of the economy together in communism would leave the whole national system at risk.
The government controlling people through communism or socialism is unsettling, but a mild form would be nearly as bad-the government providing health care without making health demands (which it shouldn't do) would just result in wasted money, as many people right now don't place a high value in health now (I'm not perfect myself), let alone with the financial burdens of ill health are removed. Guarantees to the people without demanding responsibility seems wasteful and unproductive; since the American people dislike waste and politicians love to control people, demands would likely be forthcoming ...
Some say that we can have socialistic programs without getting the bad side effects. But the Medicaid and Medicare systems are a major part of the budget and expected to grow, and form part of the justification for government-provided health care system. Who knows what universal health care might be used to justify next?
The funds for government-provided health care would likely come from the rich without benefitting them as much. The typical defense of taxes against the claim that it's robbery is that everyone pays and everyone receives benefits. But if the amount that some pay and others receive is too unequal, the defense seems unconvincing.
Some try to legitimize a move to socialism and unequal taxation & receiving of government simply by saying that it's the result of the democratic process. But democracies are not infallible, and, for instance, 60 people putting a burden on to 20 or 5 so that they can benefit isn't really decision-making by the people, but one faction gaining at the expense of a smaller one.
A far better system is limited democracy, that recognizes that people have rights, including to their own beliefs and property, regardless of what others think or want. Recognizing the dangers of democracy and putting safeguards to prevent them is important, as the First Amendment prevents Congress from establishing religion or prohibiting its free exercise, or abridging the freedom of speech or assembly. If Congress or the government was the represented people doing the public will, there'd be no reason to put limits to their power, but since majorities can be unjust, a limited democracy is necessary.

When so-called feminism is counter to equality

Some proof to my idea that this situation can occur. From Rachel Lehmann-Haupt's recent Newsweek article "Why I Froze My Eggs"

Dr. Eleanora Porcu said that women shouldn't accept a "mentality of efficiency" but rather having "demonstrated that we are able to do everything like men," "we have to do the second revolution, which is not to become dependent on a technology that involves surgical intervention. We have to be free to be pregnant when we are fertile and young."

From Lehmann-Haupt-"companies and society need to better adapt to the needs of working mothers."

So it seems that the "second revolution" would be towards unequal, special treatment, with those who choose not to have children having to pay the price to accommodate those who do.

Katy Perry and precursors

In Katy Perry's "You're So Gay," she complains about a boyfriend who feels unhappy & likes complaining songs that ask for realness and asks him to be more real.
Also hypocritical is how in "Hot 'n Cold" she complains that a guy is indecisive while in "I Kissed a Girl" she did it just to try and liked it but doesn't want to have any of the consequences of her boyfriend finding out. Looks like she thinks girls shouldn't be too real with their romantic partners.
While these inconsistencies are annoying, it's worthwhile to look at precedents.
Her message and attitude reminds me of Keira Knightley and Avril Lavigne.
More specifically,
-Her experimentation in IKaG does seem to follow Paul McCartney's (in "Yesterday") lament that "Yesterday Love was such an easy game to play" in "Yesterday"
-Her claim of objectivity "You're wrong when its right" in HnC can be compared to The Beatles' demand for a one-way stand-down in "We Can Work It Out"
As more people hear this sort of thinking applied to men, they may realize it's bad generally (or, conversely, that impulsiveness is good for everyone). But I think most fans don't consider the attitudes bad.
Quality of art isn't synonymous with message, but the latter should be considered. The mean-spirited and self-contradictory nature of the song sink YSG, the repetitivity and simplicity sink IKaG (especially coupled with how much it sounds like a knockoff of Gary Glitter's "Rock and Roll"), while the beats make HnC somewhat entertaining, but it's been overplayed (as have some songs from other artists). Perhaps if YSG was played to a similar extent, there'd be more realization of the down-putting aspects of the singer.

Spider-Man joke

Norman Osborn drove the women of New York mad with his performance enhancers.

Defining feminism

The best definition of feminism is the belief that men and women should have equal rights in society.
Some issues, however, might be claimed to be feminist although they go beyond the aforementioned goal, and this can cause confusion and resentment.
Paid maternity leave may advance the interests of some women, and some men if paternity leave is available, but at the expense of those men and women who aren't parents; indeed, there seems to be injustice in having employers pay for time off. There also is injustice in allowing women but not men to decide not to become parents (there is talk of childrens' rights being higher than those of male parents' but abortion and adoption both establish parental choice as higher), or in having understanding for violent solutions to problems solely when it is performed by women. All of these seem to set women (mothers in the first instance) as higher and deserving of better treatment than others. Another problematic case is the acceptance of a future draft for men but not women, which sends the message that the lives and wills of men are not as important.
As such, these issues go against the issue of equality and such goals as being able to vote, hold property, have autonomy over oneself and not be discriminated against. and should be labeled as preferentialism. While they may call themselves feminists, those goals are not equality.
Others claim to be feminists even though they oppose autonomy on the behalf of the individual because their ideal of femininity is different and, they believe, higher than the behavior that exists in the present. This denigrates the individual as subservient to a particular ideology, rejecting the right of the person to choose his or her own way.
Equality is worth supporting, while preference breeds resentment, and spreads further injustice and inconsideration.

Judging entertainment

In his 1999 special "Never Scared," Chris Rock claimed that "if your daughter is a stripper," you've failed as a parent, that his "only job in life is to keep [his daughter] off the pole."
Rock's own method of entertainment, however, relies on edgy material to gain and stimulate an audience, just as strippers do.
He might allege that his type of entertainment is acceptable because it has intellectual content and offers messages. But not all comics do that, let alone all workers. Work is essentially the satisfying of wants and demands, and especially in the entertainment field it can bring happiness to many. There are far worse values and ends that people could come to.
In the same special Rock also said, "I'm not getting down on strippers. Somebody's got to do it. Somebody has to do the job that they do - entertaining married men. You're wife will do you, but she won't entertain you".
So the customers' motivations are OK, therefore the profession as a whole is fine, just not the individual workers? Because if you consider the father a failure and end result to be such a terrible failure, then you also look down on the particular workers.
Rock's contradictory attitudes seem to come from having contempt for males' desires (which he only accepts as he thinks they're also inevitable), or a belief that his child is different from all the other ones. This sort of bias can lead to having unrealistic expectations for the child or teaching him or her a version of morality that you don't actually agree with. Regardless, bias and hypocrisy do lead to arrogance, believing that you and your circle are superior and everyone else does not deserve full respect or consideration.
Of course, Rock could have been speaking primarily in jest. His attitude still reflects and spreads contempt for people who work to please a demand.
Another man who takes serious issues and devalues them for his betterment is Stephen Colbert. He recently spoofed the outrage over bonus payments to AIG executives (real news sources have also focused on Charles Grassley's remark as a way to discredit the angry sentiment). Some things deserve anger. My father said that Colbert and Jon Stewart are just comedy, but when they mock, criticize and devalue passion without having any alternatives of their own, they hurt democracy, sending the message that we should just do what the leaders say, or at least leave the decision-making to other people behind closed doors (trying to engage the citizenry, now that's terrible!); sadly, some people don't look beyond those shows.
An article on Stewart's impact
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/22/AR2006062201474.html
In 2004 Stewart criticized Crossfire as partisan; this accusation is usually issued because the speaker wants his goals (which he or she thinks are the right, sensible ones) to pass without troublesome opposition.

Enter?

Why didn't George W. Bush move to Houston? His father's there!