Someone's been listening to my thoughts. Leverage's season finale answered questions and made right their badly put evil-insurance company scheme.
So it really was the CEO who was an evil little prick. He came in and made the illegal mandate that all claims be denied at all times. ILLEGAL. Then, when Nate's son was seriously ill and Nate+wife had exhausted all monies and put their house in hock, the CEO personally refused to help out the family. Thus, Nate had gone through all options before coming to beg the company for help. In which case, the company would not be remiss in helping out.
Ok, so I can still watch Leverage without getting mad about the subplot. This is good.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Sunday, February 22, 2009
What's wrong with a little BS?
I like Timothy Hutton. He's a good actor. His work on the Nero Wolfe mysteries series was pretty good and somehow managed to save the books from being tossed into the heap like the works of Erle Stanley Gardner.
So now he has Leverage. A show that's pretty ok. Sure, it's "take from the big bad rich and give to the saintly poor," a cliche if ever there was one, but it's not bad. A couple of the episodes have been awful, but on the whole, the first season's had a good run. The characters are interesting and quirky, and the plots have some good twists (though I'm never surprised, unfortunately).
The one thing that bothers me? The one thing that's ruining my enjoyment of the show?
Nate and his sorry background plot. Here's the gas: Nate (played by Hutton) was an insurance investigator working for some big fancy-schmancy insurance company. He was the good guy who ran around and caught thieves and swindlers. Pretty good at it too, he was. Then, his son fell ill with cancer. The evil insurance company denied an experimental treatment, causing the son to die a presumably horrible death.
Now, here's the rub. The show makes it seem like the insurance company can deny treatment. This is not true. Insurance companies can deny PAYMENT for a treatment that is not covered under their policy. Leverage pins Nate's son's death on the CEO of the big bad insurance company. In reality, Nate is responsible for the death, since he COULD have taken out a loan to pay for this treatment himself. There was no one preventing the ACTUAL TREATMENT from occuring, as long as it was paid for by someone. The insurance company denied PAYMENT, so Nate should have come up with the money on his own. Hospitals will not deny necessary treatment and will actually find ways for families to pay for such treatment.
Also, CEOs of insruance companies do not make decisions of approval or denial. Leverage makes it seem like the CEO went out of his way just to screw Nate over.
Yeah, right.
So now he has Leverage. A show that's pretty ok. Sure, it's "take from the big bad rich and give to the saintly poor," a cliche if ever there was one, but it's not bad. A couple of the episodes have been awful, but on the whole, the first season's had a good run. The characters are interesting and quirky, and the plots have some good twists (though I'm never surprised, unfortunately).
The one thing that bothers me? The one thing that's ruining my enjoyment of the show?
Nate and his sorry background plot. Here's the gas: Nate (played by Hutton) was an insurance investigator working for some big fancy-schmancy insurance company. He was the good guy who ran around and caught thieves and swindlers. Pretty good at it too, he was. Then, his son fell ill with cancer. The evil insurance company denied an experimental treatment, causing the son to die a presumably horrible death.
Now, here's the rub. The show makes it seem like the insurance company can deny treatment. This is not true. Insurance companies can deny PAYMENT for a treatment that is not covered under their policy. Leverage pins Nate's son's death on the CEO of the big bad insurance company. In reality, Nate is responsible for the death, since he COULD have taken out a loan to pay for this treatment himself. There was no one preventing the ACTUAL TREATMENT from occuring, as long as it was paid for by someone. The insurance company denied PAYMENT, so Nate should have come up with the money on his own. Hospitals will not deny necessary treatment and will actually find ways for families to pay for such treatment.
Also, CEOs of insruance companies do not make decisions of approval or denial. Leverage makes it seem like the CEO went out of his way just to screw Nate over.
Yeah, right.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Depressing fact
The last year upped my use of profanity by a lot.
Repeat: A LOT.
I can't find words to describe certain things without appropriate non-profane descriptors.
Side note: esurance and "earth hour" can kiss my... wait, please don't.
Repeat: A LOT.
I can't find words to describe certain things without appropriate non-profane descriptors.
Side note: esurance and "earth hour" can kiss my... wait, please don't.
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Voting
The idea of keeping track of a master list of registered voters in either party borders on my "not ok" side, as I have a strong opinion on privacy - whether or not I vote is of no concern to anyone but myself. I'd be pretty pissed if McCain's campaign called me up and asked if I'd voted yet.
Monday, November 03, 2008
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Hide in your bunker!
Received my copy of Fallout 3 yesterday. It's like Oblivion, but set in a futuristic nuclear devastated America.
Good times.
Not sure how I feel about the Enclave, since it's obvious they're the "bad" guys, but they're the remnants of American government? I'll have to find out more before I decide. But still, the one "conversation" I've had with an NPC about the Enclave seemed to be a basically cultish look at Americans. There was no middle option. Only extremes of "total, unthinking loyalty to a government" and "civil disobedience is the best!" I don't like being forced to hold a specific opinion that the game company decided for me. Even if it is about a fake America. I still feel patriotic, even if it's in a game.
The president (dead? don't know, but the Enclave is broadcasting what sounds like old broadcasts from the president at the time) sounds pretty cracked. Funny... he and the overseer of Vault 101 remind me of certain politicians. Not that I'll mention any names.
Personally, the Children of Atom look pretty evil to me. Anyone worshiping an atom bomb seems a bit cracked.
I really prefer playing this game to watching the news right now. There's no way anyone can change my mind and I've already voted. So I'll just pass the time until the 4th. G-d help us all.
Last note: Damn those F***ing Fire Ants!
Good times.
Not sure how I feel about the Enclave, since it's obvious they're the "bad" guys, but they're the remnants of American government? I'll have to find out more before I decide. But still, the one "conversation" I've had with an NPC about the Enclave seemed to be a basically cultish look at Americans. There was no middle option. Only extremes of "total, unthinking loyalty to a government" and "civil disobedience is the best!" I don't like being forced to hold a specific opinion that the game company decided for me. Even if it is about a fake America. I still feel patriotic, even if it's in a game.
The president (dead? don't know, but the Enclave is broadcasting what sounds like old broadcasts from the president at the time) sounds pretty cracked. Funny... he and the overseer of Vault 101 remind me of certain politicians. Not that I'll mention any names.
Personally, the Children of Atom look pretty evil to me. Anyone worshiping an atom bomb seems a bit cracked.
I really prefer playing this game to watching the news right now. There's no way anyone can change my mind and I've already voted. So I'll just pass the time until the 4th. G-d help us all.
Last note: Damn those F***ing Fire Ants!
SFCA JROTC
Oh.
Watching the news. Previously, I'd heard about the plans in SF to get rid of the JROTC program. Now they want to replace it with an ethnic studies course?!!
Background: Apparently, a lot of kids take JROTC to fulfill a phys ed requirement, which has been taken away by the school board. Thus, enrollment in the program has dropped, leaving the kids who take it for other reasons in the ditch.
Why replace a phys ed course with some ethnic studies course? I don't get it, either! Just another chance to push agendas.
Video Here
Watching the news. Previously, I'd heard about the plans in SF to get rid of the JROTC program. Now they want to replace it with an ethnic studies course?!!
Background: Apparently, a lot of kids take JROTC to fulfill a phys ed requirement, which has been taken away by the school board. Thus, enrollment in the program has dropped, leaving the kids who take it for other reasons in the ditch.
Why replace a phys ed course with some ethnic studies course? I don't get it, either! Just another chance to push agendas.
Video Here
Monday, October 27, 2008
Monday, May 23, 2005
Duplicitous Behavior.
Not much of a surprise here.
Is it just me or does the media elite continually act like schoolyard children more and more everyday?
Is it just me or does the media elite continually act like schoolyard children more and more everyday?
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
The Cultural Shift
RE: Crushing Kids
I'm sorry, but I see nothing wrong in 8-year old kids holding hands and exchanging gifts. Let innocence be. I think that the article's whole approach is wrong. What a way to wreck a child's life early on. This basically tells the children that girls and boys cannot be friends. It sounds to me like there's an overreaction and some dirty minds on the adults' parts. They seem to immediately leap to the conclusion that the children are about to jump into sex.
Maybe the adults, including the author of the article, should reevaluate themselves before they start talking to their kids.
I'm sorry, but I see nothing wrong in 8-year old kids holding hands and exchanging gifts. Let innocence be. I think that the article's whole approach is wrong. What a way to wreck a child's life early on. This basically tells the children that girls and boys cannot be friends. It sounds to me like there's an overreaction and some dirty minds on the adults' parts. They seem to immediately leap to the conclusion that the children are about to jump into sex.
Maybe the adults, including the author of the article, should reevaluate themselves before they start talking to their kids.
Monday, April 18, 2005
Friday, April 01, 2005
On Archiving a Comment
Over at The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler, I wrote the following response to this:
"...like now the armies of the culture of death are going to come in and kill all the disabled people of the world. It's not like that."and decided it would be good to archive it here:
It isn't? I guess I see things differently. I look at this and see that unless something is done, the future is a very ill place. Now that the courts can be used to rid people of their adult "burdens" (after all, it's now legal to get rid of "child burdens" and has been for years) what's to stop them from classifying other groups of people as "inhuman" or undeserving of life? I don't want my "level of humanity," my Right to life (it's a right, not a privilege), decided by anyone, especially not these pro-death advocates popping up everywhere (including here). If someone today decided that I was less than human and took away my right to life, it would be murder. If someone locked me away into a closet and let me starve and die of dehydration, it would be murder. Yet, doing the same thing to a woman who's considered an invalid is "mercy." Mercy. I wonder what torture is then, to those who believe this treatment is a mercy.Will they start leading people into buildings and "allowing them to die" just because they cause "undue stress" on society? The beginning has started to happen and this mentality has spread like a plague into all reaches of society. We haven't even begun the battle. In fact, we've been sitting idly by, letting the corruption corrode at the very principles and morals upon which this country was built. I only hope that it isn't too late to stop the damage and repair the torn fabric of this society. This is a true struggle, crossing all borders. The only question that needs to be answered is this: Are you on the side of life or death?
Draw the line and let it stand. We'll see who comes out at the end.
Thursday, March 31, 2005
On the failure of humanity
I'm tired and saddened and that's all.
Where do we go from here? The sanctity of life is gone and all we are left with is nothing. At any moment we could be classified as non-human and therefore subject to termination. I can only hope that something is done to rectify the current state of affairs.
Where do we go from here? The sanctity of life is gone and all we are left with is nothing. At any moment we could be classified as non-human and therefore subject to termination. I can only hope that something is done to rectify the current state of affairs.
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
....
I have seen Soylent Green and have no wish to live in that world.
(read the whole thing and make note of the section on social security)
(read the whole thing and make note of the section on social security)
Monday, March 21, 2005
On Advancement of Technology
Is this not just so awesome and frightening at the same time?
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/biz/archives/2005/03/20/2003247076
On the one hand, I'm all for new uses of technology involving the body. This could lead to (I'm hoping) personal computers that are more along the lines of what I've been dreaming about for ten years. On the other hand, using the body for technology seems a little frightening. I mean, what next, Doctors Frankenstein?
Personally, the excitement outweighs the fear right now.
Though, it is not expressed in the article how one controls the flow of information. What if you want to shake hands, but not share information? Do both people have to have similar devices on their persons to share information? Could this be used for some sort of personal touch based telepathy?
The possibilites boggle and inspire!
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/biz/archives/2005/03/20/2003247076
On the one hand, I'm all for new uses of technology involving the body. This could lead to (I'm hoping) personal computers that are more along the lines of what I've been dreaming about for ten years. On the other hand, using the body for technology seems a little frightening. I mean, what next, Doctors Frankenstein?
Personally, the excitement outweighs the fear right now.
Though, it is not expressed in the article how one controls the flow of information. What if you want to shake hands, but not share information? Do both people have to have similar devices on their persons to share information? Could this be used for some sort of personal touch based telepathy?
The possibilites boggle and inspire!
On .... the downfall of morality
The Schiavo case is coming to a point now and thus is sparking much more attention from the media. Personally, I have been following this story for about five years now. It seems to me that the people who wish to help the husband legally commit murder are missing the whole point. From what I have gathered, there is a preponderance of evidence that suggests at the very least, a need for the case to reviewed by a different judge (how about one who is not so greatly slanted towards the will of the husband?). This, in my mind, is not about religion, and should not be about political beliefs. However, it seems that the media and Democrats are pushing the issue into a political divide.
So here's my thought: If they want to divide the country, they couldn't pick a better issue to show their beliefs. Since no one seems to take notice of the children murdered by these people (yes, I said "murdered" - don't get me started on abortion. I'm all for choice - let the children choose their own fates.), I thought that maybe, just maybe, they would take notice of a grown woman's plight. However, these people instead unveil their true purpose: murder. There is no sanctity (oh, no! A religious term!) of life for these people. Ever since I heard of this case I have wanted to write a living will. My parents visited a lawyer the other day and discussed living wills - the lawyer basically told my mother that she would feel nothing if they removed the feeding tube. What would he know? It seems like he was just spouting the nonsense that the media is feeding the general population.
From personal experience, I know what it's like to starve and go without fluids for several days (most I could stand was three days surviving on just a little bread and sips of water). It is not pleasant and I cannot imagine anyone going through that for two weeks. Sure, you might slip into a coma eventually, after your body has suffered through more pain than it can bear. The again, don't just believe me. There's a woman who managed to live through the horrifying experience of having her feeding tube removed. This woman was in a worse state than Schiavo, dependent on a ventilator, not just the feeding tube. (http://www.worldmagblog.com/blog/archives/013318.html)
One thing that I find so hard to believe is the common statement that she (Schiavo) must be suffering in her current state, so it would be a mercy to kill her. What a callous statement. Does that mean that all who suffer should be killed? Apparently so. Look at the parents who use pre-birth screening tests to determine if a child will be born with defects. If a child has defects, some potentially life-threatening, these parents, usually on advice of their physician, will strike first, killing without giving the child a chance to survive.
I find it hard to reconcile my own thoughts with those who would support the legalization of murder.
Here's a good site (liberals, no less..):
http://liberalsforterri.blogspot.com/
So here's my thought: If they want to divide the country, they couldn't pick a better issue to show their beliefs. Since no one seems to take notice of the children murdered by these people (yes, I said "murdered" - don't get me started on abortion. I'm all for choice - let the children choose their own fates.), I thought that maybe, just maybe, they would take notice of a grown woman's plight. However, these people instead unveil their true purpose: murder. There is no sanctity (oh, no! A religious term!) of life for these people. Ever since I heard of this case I have wanted to write a living will. My parents visited a lawyer the other day and discussed living wills - the lawyer basically told my mother that she would feel nothing if they removed the feeding tube. What would he know? It seems like he was just spouting the nonsense that the media is feeding the general population.
From personal experience, I know what it's like to starve and go without fluids for several days (most I could stand was three days surviving on just a little bread and sips of water). It is not pleasant and I cannot imagine anyone going through that for two weeks. Sure, you might slip into a coma eventually, after your body has suffered through more pain than it can bear. The again, don't just believe me. There's a woman who managed to live through the horrifying experience of having her feeding tube removed. This woman was in a worse state than Schiavo, dependent on a ventilator, not just the feeding tube. (http://www.worldmagblog.com/blog/archives/013318.html)
One thing that I find so hard to believe is the common statement that she (Schiavo) must be suffering in her current state, so it would be a mercy to kill her. What a callous statement. Does that mean that all who suffer should be killed? Apparently so. Look at the parents who use pre-birth screening tests to determine if a child will be born with defects. If a child has defects, some potentially life-threatening, these parents, usually on advice of their physician, will strike first, killing without giving the child a chance to survive.
I find it hard to reconcile my own thoughts with those who would support the legalization of murder.
Here's a good site (liberals, no less..):
http://liberalsforterri.blogspot.com/
Thursday, March 17, 2005
On Heinlein's Job: A Comedy of Justice
Last night, I finished "Job: A Comedy of Justice" by Robert Heinlein. It started off well, but then it went to pieces. The problem is, whereas I think that Heinlein was trying to spark some kind of intellectual debate on spirituality, he failed by jumbling everything together. I wonder why "Starship Troopers" was considered controversial, but "Job" was not. Heinlein basically states that G-d is petty and cruel whereas Satan/Lucifer is kind and rather likeable - an argument I've heard before, old hat. Towards the end, everything falls apart, losing any sense. At one point, I couldn't decipher who was talking to whom. Never have I read a book that made it so futile to read, that made me feel so empty after finishing it. It seems to me that Heinlein was trying to get faith straight in his mind, but didn't suceed. Sure, I thought a bit after reading the book, but nothing came of it.
I'm more annoyed than anything, having wasted my time reading this book. Usually, I like confusing writings because they spark some kind of need to untangle the goings on, but "Job" was just confusion with little purpose. Or is it that I resist the purpose to the point of being unable to accept the author's argument (accept, not agree). I don't know; I'm confused, muddled, and thouroughly annoyed at Heinlein. I will, however, have some faith and try to read another of his books in the future in hopes of finding another gem like "Starship Troopers" or "The Door into Summer".
I'm more annoyed than anything, having wasted my time reading this book. Usually, I like confusing writings because they spark some kind of need to untangle the goings on, but "Job" was just confusion with little purpose. Or is it that I resist the purpose to the point of being unable to accept the author's argument (accept, not agree). I don't know; I'm confused, muddled, and thouroughly annoyed at Heinlein. I will, however, have some faith and try to read another of his books in the future in hopes of finding another gem like "Starship Troopers" or "The Door into Summer".
Wednesday, March 16, 2005
No words...
Can truly describe my love for Robert A. Heinlein's writing. The first book I read by RAH was "The Door into Summer" closely followed by "The Puppet Masters." I haven't had a chance to read all of his books yet, but I've amassed a small collection during my short life. One RAH novel that I've always wanted to read (for about ten years now, I think) but never got a chance to is "Starship Troopers." Now, I know there was a movie and an animated series with the same name, but they weren't strictly "Starship Troopers" material. Based on, yes, but not that exact story. (Like in the animated series and the movie (I think... I've only seen bits), there were women in combat alonside the men. I don't think there were women in the MI in the book). I'm getting ahead of myself. I finally got to read "Starship Troopers." It seems impossible to describe just how much this book grabbed me. The story, though short, is filled with more lessons than a year in school. My thought is that this book should be required reading for all children, the younger the better. Bedtime story time should be all about this book.
I have never had greater pride and honour for a character. To me, Heinlein captured the essence of what it means to be a citizen. This story was not really an action adventure novel, but a look at philosophy and the nature of being human, of being a part of a society.
I have never had greater pride and honour for a character. To me, Heinlein captured the essence of what it means to be a citizen. This story was not really an action adventure novel, but a look at philosophy and the nature of being human, of being a part of a society.
Monday, March 07, 2005
On Books
I finally made it to the bookstore. I was only able to get three novels and two manga (obligatory, since I'm collecting the two series that I bought installments from). The novels I bought were: Neil Gaiman's Stardust, Heinlein's Job, and Heinlein's Starship Troopers. Each is a book I've been wanting to read for a long time, if not years. Heinlein's Job has been haunting me ever since I read umm... one of Heinlein's books and saw the ad for Job. That must have been about ten years ago. Starship Troopers always looked interesting, but I never wanted to read it until I saw some discussion on it recently. Of course, being a Gaiman fan since I was about nine, when I read the snippet of Stardust in the back of Smoke and Mirrors (or was it American Gods?), I had to get the book. It's been at least a year since then and I finally got the book. Really, I was looking for Coraline, which I'd picked up back when it was still a hardcover. However, since I think it's been moved to the children's section (on the second floor of the store), I decided to pick up the only Gaiman book on the shelf that I hadn't read. (My first brush with Gaiman's novels was either Neverwhere or Good Omens... most likely it was Good Omens. I don't know, my memory timeline is a bit rusty. Of course, when I found out that Gaiman was also the author of my beloved Sandman series (without which I would not be reading comics/manga/manwha today), I was doubly excited. Neverwhere is still one of my favorite reads and I must confess to owning the miniseries on dvd (and think it quite dull, actually).
Anyway, so I read, no, I devoured Stardust first. Finished at about one or two in the morning, having started at about ten or eleven at night. Wonderfully done, with a great ending. It's a shame there wasn't more and it's a shame that I had basically outlined the entire book in my head during the first section. Is it that Gaiman's predictable or that I'm just good at figuring out what's going to happen?
So, next up is one of the Heinleins. I haven't quite figured which one to read yet. Depends on what my mood is tonight. Of course, if I don't finish it tonight, I won't finish it tomorrow. The reason being that tomorrow I should receive a wonderful little piece of technology and if that is the case, all of my attention will be on that for a while.
While I was at the bookstore, I browsed the Stephen Kings and the William Gibsons. I saw books from each that I wanted to get. Almost bought The Tommyknockers, but due to limiting my budget (still need to save some money for Best Buy), I had to put it down. There was a wonderful book on King's universe, but it was too much and I decided that I'd rather read his entire library and try to figure it all out first. On the Gibson side, the collection was quite lacking and there were only two books that I had not read. However, they were in the format I most detest, that of paperback that is taller than normal paperbacks. Of course, they charge twice as much for these paperbacks. Last time I ordered a book from King's Dark Tower series (The Drawing of the Three) from Amazon.com, I ordered in paperback and got one of those tall ones with illustrations. It didn't help that the illustrations were some of the ugliest I'd ever seen. That and the font was larger and took up more space on the page. I like my books unblemished. However, the last three of the series I received in Hardcover as a gift and I love them to death, so I'll buy the books I have in paperback in Hardcover, just so they display better. Normally, I like books that are easy to carry around.
So, I didn't get any Gibson or King, even though I wanted to. In all my browsing, I completely forgot that one of my goals was to buy some Nero Wolfe and Poirot. I suppose that this means a special trip out to the mystery book shop out past the mall.
Well, I certaintly feel more alive now that I've gotten some books.
Anyway, so I read, no, I devoured Stardust first. Finished at about one or two in the morning, having started at about ten or eleven at night. Wonderfully done, with a great ending. It's a shame there wasn't more and it's a shame that I had basically outlined the entire book in my head during the first section. Is it that Gaiman's predictable or that I'm just good at figuring out what's going to happen?
So, next up is one of the Heinleins. I haven't quite figured which one to read yet. Depends on what my mood is tonight. Of course, if I don't finish it tonight, I won't finish it tomorrow. The reason being that tomorrow I should receive a wonderful little piece of technology and if that is the case, all of my attention will be on that for a while.
While I was at the bookstore, I browsed the Stephen Kings and the William Gibsons. I saw books from each that I wanted to get. Almost bought The Tommyknockers, but due to limiting my budget (still need to save some money for Best Buy), I had to put it down. There was a wonderful book on King's universe, but it was too much and I decided that I'd rather read his entire library and try to figure it all out first. On the Gibson side, the collection was quite lacking and there were only two books that I had not read. However, they were in the format I most detest, that of paperback that is taller than normal paperbacks. Of course, they charge twice as much for these paperbacks. Last time I ordered a book from King's Dark Tower series (The Drawing of the Three) from Amazon.com, I ordered in paperback and got one of those tall ones with illustrations. It didn't help that the illustrations were some of the ugliest I'd ever seen. That and the font was larger and took up more space on the page. I like my books unblemished. However, the last three of the series I received in Hardcover as a gift and I love them to death, so I'll buy the books I have in paperback in Hardcover, just so they display better. Normally, I like books that are easy to carry around.
So, I didn't get any Gibson or King, even though I wanted to. In all my browsing, I completely forgot that one of my goals was to buy some Nero Wolfe and Poirot. I suppose that this means a special trip out to the mystery book shop out past the mall.
Well, I certaintly feel more alive now that I've gotten some books.