Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
About Varied / Hobbyist Member Don't Blame MeMale/United States Groups :icondapoliticalforumclub: DAPoliticalForumClub
Politics, Skull Chatter, Inc.
Recent Activity
Deviant for 5 Years
Needs Premium Membership
Statistics 1,827 Deviations 18,741 Comments 181,293 Pageviews

Newest Deviations

Random Favourites


Hollywood Reporter


A while ago, film and media critic Bob “Moviebob” Chipman was let go from his position at The Escapist. Depending on your general feelings towards him, you either feel sorry for him or you’re glad that "the giant tub of feminazi lard" finally got the boot.

Personally, while I’ve never cared for his political opinions—and in many cases, really never cared for his political opinions—I do admire his insight in and extensive (almost encyclopedic) knowledge of film, gaming, and media in general. (It’s just a pity that he’s never applied his critical thinking skills to politics.)

Recently, he started a new film review series, Really That Good, where he examines classic beloved movie and reveals just why, as the name suggests, they’re really that good.

His first entry, which he released earlier today, is on Ghostbusters, wherein he elucidates on the movie’s overall theme about how just a little bit of courage and knowledge combined is powerful enough to overcome even the biggest and scariest of monsters:


The world of Ghostbusters is a world where big cosmic horrors are omnipresent but always just out of sight, where that creeping feeling of dread of an otherwise unfamiliar house, or something off about the benign zaniness of a hotel hallway at night, or the unsettling staleness of an old library are evidence of lurking malevolent horrors, where that rustling in the bushes at night really is something evil out to get you, and that creepy stranger is more than just creepy, where something really is going bump in the night, hiding under the bed, lurking in the shadows, and yes, where there is a monster in the closet.

But if they scare you, you're likely to be told that it's all in your head, or not really all that scary, or that you should get over it, which in turn is going to make you feel not only frightened, but alone. To children, that world is also known as the real world day-to-day. Kids don't need to make much of a logical leap to understand a movie where people live at the mercy of seemingly malevolent forces beyond their understanding or control. Most of them feel like they are already living like that day-in and day-out; but in the Ghostbusters world, there is something that can checkmate all that scary stuff: you.

The subtext that underlines and empowers the narrative of Ghostbusters is science and technology overcoming superstition and the supernatural, but the practical surface text is monsters and ghosts being overcome by cool gadgets--and not cool gadgets powered by the same indeterminate scary stuff that the bad guys are made of, or cool gadgets that are rare and hard to find, or cool gadgets that only certain special people can use--it's made unmistakably clear that the Ghostbusters thought up, made, and maintain the proton packs, traps, PKE meters, and containment units themselves, and that is all important for understanding the power of this power fantasy.

The unique powerful fantasy idea at the heart of Ghostbusters isn't that ghosts and monsters and demons and things that go bump-in-the-night are real, and it also isn't that they can simply be busted, it's that with the right equipment and a little bit of know-how, you can bust them...[and that] appeal to the mindset of kids is far more potent, more obvious, and more powerful. With cleverness and determination, you can take control of what scares you, assert your power of what lurks in the dark, and beat back the things that frighten you, and that core idea make Spengler, Stantz, Venkman, and Zeddemore more than just movie heroes, it makes them the spirit animals of every kid who ever set a trap for the monster under their bed or even stayed awake trying to catch a glimpse of the Tooth Fairy.

Journal History

deviantID

BlameThe1st's Profile Picture
BlameThe1st
Don't Blame Me
Artist | Hobbyist | Varied
United States
ABOUT ME:

I'm a Libertarian. Christian. Brony.

I believe in Life, Liberty, and Ponies!

I recognize no sovereign but God. No king but Jesus. No princess but Celestia.

I'm Anti-State. Anti-War. Pro-Market. Pro-Christian. And Pro-Pony.

I'm a graduate in English, and a minor in journalism.

This blog contains my opinions on news, politics, and life in general.

As an American citizen, I'm entitled to my First Amendment rights, and I'm not afraid to use them.

Don’t like my opinion? Don’t blame me. Blame the 1st!


MY OTHER SITES:

BLOG
DEVIANTART
YOUTUBE
IMGUR
PHOTOBUCKET
DAILYMOTION


NOTABLE QUOTABLES:

"Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage."
- Galatians 5:1

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."
- Galatians 5:28

"Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof."
- Leviticus 25:10

"In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me:
As He died to make men holy, let us live to make men free;
His truth is marching on."

-The Battle Hymn of the Republic

"Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God."
- Benjamin Franklin

"We recognize no sovereign but God, and no king but Jesus!"
-John Adams

"I Have Sworn Upon the Altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
- Thomas Jefferson

Activity


Libertarian Healthcare System: Switzerland by BlameThe1st
Libertarian Healthcare System: Switzerland
One of the most frequently-made arguments in favor of socialized medicine is that it saves money, relative to the American system. And it is true that Europeans et al. spend less per-capita, and as a percentage of GDP, than we do.

But the pro-socialism argument has a glaring weakness: it ignores the two most significant examples of market-oriented universal coverage in the developed world, Switzerland and Singapore, where state health spending is far lower than it is in other industrialized nations. Neither Switzerland nor Singapore could be described as libertarian utopias--both systems contain aspects that conservatives wouldn't like--but they provide powerful examples of how market-oriented health care systems are more cost-efficient than socialized ones.

I've described Switzerland as having the world's best health-care system. In Switzerland, there are no government-run insurance plans, no "public options." Instead, the Swiss get subsidies, much like "premium support" proposals for Medicare reform or the PPACA exchanges, from which Swiss citizens buy health care from private insurers. The subsidies are scaled up or down based on income: poorer people get large subsidies; middle-income earners get small subsidies; upper-income earners get nothing.

The OECD puts Switzerland high on the league tables in terms of government health spending, but that is due to a statistical anomaly. Switzerland has an individual mandate; the OECD defines state health expenditures to include insurance premiums that the government requires individuals to pay, even if that spending is on private insurance. That is a debatable approach from the OECD, because the spending goes directly to the insurers, without the government as a redistributor. If you adjust for this anomaly, Swiss state health spending is $1,281 per person (which accounts for the taxpayer-financed premium support subsidies). I've listed both figures in the chart.

The premium support system allows the Swiss to shop for their own insurance plans, which gives them the opportunity to shop for value--something that almost no Americans do. As a result, about half of the Swiss have consumer-driven health plans, combining high-deductible insurance with health savings accounts for routine expenditures....

How could something like this come about in the United States? One could imagine a scenario in which Medicare was converted into the premium-support model, such as one of the Paul Ryan plans, with far more aggressive means-testing such that upper-income seniors would no longer be eligible for the program. In addition, the tax exclusion for employer-sponsored health insurance is phased out. The resultant savings could be used to offer subsidized private insurance to lower-income individuals, as a replacement for Medicaid. Obamacare's exchanges, though seriously flawed in their implementation, have some similarities to this approach. As these programs converge, we could have something that starts to look a lot like Switzerland...

My message to conservatives is: wake up. America's health care system has many qualities, but it is far more socialized than you think, and we can learn from the experience of other countries to make it better. My message to liberals is: if universal coverage is your goal, the possibility for bipartisan compromise exists, if you're open to considering market-oriented approaches like those in Switzerland...Let's put our heads together.


- "The Myth of the Free-Market American Health Care System", Megan McArdle (The Atlantic).
Loading...

Hollywood Reporter


A while ago, film and media critic Bob “Moviebob” Chipman was let go from his position at The Escapist. Depending on your general feelings towards him, you either feel sorry for him or you’re glad that "the giant tub of feminazi lard" finally got the boot.

Personally, while I’ve never cared for his political opinions—and in many cases, really never cared for his political opinions—I do admire his insight in and extensive (almost encyclopedic) knowledge of film, gaming, and media in general. (It’s just a pity that he’s never applied his critical thinking skills to politics.)

Recently, he started a new film review series, Really That Good, where he examines classic beloved movie and reveals just why, as the name suggests, they’re really that good.

His first entry, which he released earlier today, is on Ghostbusters, wherein he elucidates on the movie’s overall theme about how just a little bit of courage and knowledge combined is powerful enough to overcome even the biggest and scariest of monsters:


The world of Ghostbusters is a world where big cosmic horrors are omnipresent but always just out of sight, where that creeping feeling of dread of an otherwise unfamiliar house, or something off about the benign zaniness of a hotel hallway at night, or the unsettling staleness of an old library are evidence of lurking malevolent horrors, where that rustling in the bushes at night really is something evil out to get you, and that creepy stranger is more than just creepy, where something really is going bump in the night, hiding under the bed, lurking in the shadows, and yes, where there is a monster in the closet.

But if they scare you, you're likely to be told that it's all in your head, or not really all that scary, or that you should get over it, which in turn is going to make you feel not only frightened, but alone. To children, that world is also known as the real world day-to-day. Kids don't need to make much of a logical leap to understand a movie where people live at the mercy of seemingly malevolent forces beyond their understanding or control. Most of them feel like they are already living like that day-in and day-out; but in the Ghostbusters world, there is something that can checkmate all that scary stuff: you.

The subtext that underlines and empowers the narrative of Ghostbusters is science and technology overcoming superstition and the supernatural, but the practical surface text is monsters and ghosts being overcome by cool gadgets--and not cool gadgets powered by the same indeterminate scary stuff that the bad guys are made of, or cool gadgets that are rare and hard to find, or cool gadgets that only certain special people can use--it's made unmistakably clear that the Ghostbusters thought up, made, and maintain the proton packs, traps, PKE meters, and containment units themselves, and that is all important for understanding the power of this power fantasy.

The unique powerful fantasy idea at the heart of Ghostbusters isn't that ghosts and monsters and demons and things that go bump-in-the-night are real, and it also isn't that they can simply be busted, it's that with the right equipment and a little bit of know-how, you can bust them...[and that] appeal to the mindset of kids is far more potent, more obvious, and more powerful. With cleverness and determination, you can take control of what scares you, assert your power of what lurks in the dark, and beat back the things that frighten you, and that core idea make Spengler, Stantz, Venkman, and Zeddemore more than just movie heroes, it makes them the spirit animals of every kid who ever set a trap for the monster under their bed or even stayed awake trying to catch a glimpse of the Tooth Fairy.

Locker Dome


By now, I’m sure most of you are well aware about the UVA rape case. For those of you who are not, here’s the summary:

A few months ago, the Rolling Stone published an article about how a college girl (referred to as “Jackie”) was allegedly gang raped by seven men at a UVA frat party. I say allegedly because it was later revealed that the story had several discrepancies, and as such, the Rolling Stone, showcasing journalistic integrity, retracted it. The story was further investigated by the police, who recently announced that they could not find enough substantial evidence to support it.

You’d think that would be the end of the story, right? There’s no evidence to support it; therefore, it didn't happen. Does this mean that it absolutely never happened? Well, there’s a slight possibility that future evidence will be revealed to prove that it did, but until then, we can safely assume that it did not.

Sadly, the feminists who’ve been covering and following this story have not been as rational. Even with overwhelming evidence showing that this rape probably didn't happen, they still insist that it did and have been accusing anyone who thinks otherwise of being “rape apologists” who support “rape culture”—a concept that even the nation's largest anti-sexual assault organization, RAINN, denies.

The feminist anti-rape hysteria has even spawned the embarrassing hashtag #IStandWithJackie, where internet feminists voice their support of Jackie’s story even in spite of all the evidence against it.

The Amazing Atheist and Thunderf00t have both recently made videos about this topic, and they did such an exceptional job that there’s really no need for me to further add my two cents.

Instead, I want to address a video by one of those delusional feminists who insists on “Standing With Jackie.” That feminist is none other than Laci Green, a contributor to MTV News—and further proof that MTV has died the way of the dinosaurs.

No less than five seconds into her video and she instigates face palms with the most loaded bad faith question:


Here’s a little question: why does everyone think that victims of rape are making it up?
Sigh.

You know, I really hate talking about rape. It’s a very sensitive subject that always handled the most insensitively. And I always feels as though I’m arguing on the wrong side: because unless you fully support hanging a man from the highest tree simply because one woman (or even one man) pointed at him and accused him of rape, feminists will label you a "rape apologist."

And I’d really hate to address this video, because it’s quite clear that Laci is arguing from bad faith, and thus has no interest in acknowledging any answer to her question that’s more loaded that a loaded potato at TGIFriday’s.

But, in the sake of free inquiry and open dialogue, I’ll bite the bullet.

Here’s the answer that I left on her video:
No, Laci, we do not believe that victims of rape are always making it up. We only believe they are making it up—and here is the important part—when there is no evidence to support their claims.

Yes, I know we should give rape victims—any victims of any crime—the benefit of the doubt, but we should also apply scrutiny to their claims and investigate them to make sure that they truly hold water.

For example, with the recent UVA rape story, there was no evidence to support the alleged victim’s story. After Rolling Stone published its article, it was later revealed that most of the events and details in the story were either wrong or did not happen, so the magazine did what any self-respecting journalistic publication would do and retracted the story. Then the police further investigated the story, and arrived to the conclusion that there was no evidence to support it. Now is it still possible that the woman was still raped? Yes. But right now, there is no evidence to corroborate her claims, so we have to assume it did not happen.

Does this mean all rape victims are lying? No. When there is evidence to support their claims, that is when we know they are telling the truth. This was the case with the Steubenville rape case. There was more than enough evidence to prove that the girl was raped, and thus the men who raped her were convicted of the crime. There is no doubt that her rape happened, because there was enough evidence to corroborate her story.

Now, if for some chance, new evidence would come along to prove that the UVA rapes really did occur, people would be more than willing to change their minds and believe it. Feminists, on the other hand, are more than willing to “Stand With Jackie”, even after all the evidence concludes that the rape did not happen. That is the main difference between people like me and feminists like yourself: we are more than willing to change our minds when new evidence arises.
You can't say I didn't try, though you're free to wonder why I even bothered.

Blip


Have you ever seen a prison flick like The Condemned or Death Race where prisoners are made to compete in to-the-death games where the victor is promised his freedom? Well, it seems as though one San Francisco prison was secretly hosting such games, though without all the Hollywood romanticization:
San Francisco’s public defender called on Thursday for an independent investigation into the Sheriff’s Department after accusations that four deputies forced prisoners to engage in “gladiator-style fights” for their own amusement.

Jeff Adachi, the public defender, said at a news conference that the deputies forced the smallest prisoner, Rico Palikiko Garcia, who weighs 150 pounds, to fight the largest prisoner, Stanly Harris, who weighs 350 pounds.

They also “appeared to delight” in taunting Mr. Harris with jokes about his weight, the public defender’s office said in a statement, and forced him to participate in “boot camp-style exercises.”

“It was a sadistic pleasure,” Mr. Adachi said in a telephone interview. “This was like something right out of ‘Game of Thrones.’ ”

The prisoners were told they would be rewarded with a hamburger if they won, but would be sprayed with Mace, severely beaten and transferred to dangerous housing quarters if they refused to fight at all, he said. Both men were injured in the fights but were told they would be beaten if they sought medical attention.
Give movies like Death Race some credit. At least in those scenarios, the prisoners volunteered to participate in those games, and they had the reward of their potential freedom as an incentive. Here, the prisoners were forced to fight each other, and their only incentive was a lousy cheeseburger. (Is prison food really that bad that a hamburger is reward enough for getting bloodied up and beaten to a pulp?)

I wouldn’t be so bothered by this if it weren’t for the fact that America’s incarceration rates have been increasing (along with prison recidivism rates), despite violent crime rates experiencing an opposite decline—in other words, despite less crime being committed, more people are being locked up.

Meanwhile, in Norway, after its crime rate began declining, the country began shutting down its prisons. Their crime rate goes down, and their prisons get shut down. Our crime rate goes down, and our prisons find excuses to continue locking people up. Remind me again why “Murica is #1”?
Libertarian Pension System: Chile by BlameThe1st
Libertarian Pension System: Chile
May Day — socialists’ paean to class warfare — evokes memories of Soviet tanks in Red Square and leftist radicals rioting. But Chile celebrates the actual empowerment of workers.

May 1 marks the 30 years since Chile became the first nation to privatize its social security system. By turning workers into investors, the move solved an entitlement crisis much like the one America faces today.

“I like symbols, so I chose May Day as the birth date of Chile’s ‘ownership society’ that allowed every worker to become a small capitalist,” wrote Jose Pinera, former secretary of labor and social security and the architect of this pension revolution. He is now a senior fellow at the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C.

What he designed has succeeded beyond all expectations. Yet Congress remains reluctant to adopt anything like it, despite efforts by Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush to partially privatize an American system.

Instead of paying a 12.4% Social Security tax as we do here, Chilean workers must pay in 10% of their wages (they can send up to 20%) to one of several conservatively managed and regulated pension funds. From the accumulated savings, they get a life annuity or make programmed withdrawals (inheriting any funds left over).

Over the last three decades these accounts have averaged annual returns of 9.23% above inflation. By contrast, U.S. Social Security pays a 1% to 2% (theoretical) return, and even less for new workers.

History shows that pension funds prudently invested in a diversified portfolio appreciate significantly over long periods of consistent saving. In 1981, the Dow industrials stood at 900; today, despite three market crashes, it’s nearly 13,000.

In 2005, New York Times reporter John Tierney worked out his own Social Security contributions on the Chilean model and found that his privatized pension would have been $53,000 a year plus a one-time payout of $223,000. The same contributions paid into Social Security would have paid him $18,000.

The system is doable here, but does require citizen education and political resolve.

First, implicit debts must be made explicit, which most politicians abhor.

Chile decided to compensate workers for money already paid into the system, through “recognition bonds.” It financed this via bonds, partial diversions of existing pension taxes, sales of state assets and spending cuts.

Its road was made even easier as economic growth from a system that encourages work, saving and responsibility filled government coffers with new streams of tax revenue.

In the U.S., Social Security already is in bad shape. It’s already paying out more in benefits than it gets in payroll tax revenue.

Politicians for decades have raided excess workers’ contributions intended to cover baby boomer retirees. They left IOUs, giving the program the right to other government revenue. But that means the Treasury has to issue even more debt.

Those political raids can’t happen in Chile — private accounts are legal property, a right Pinera embedded firmly into the 1980 constitution.

As for Social Security, even the IOUs are projected to run out in 2037. If nothing is done, payouts will have to be slashed 22%.

Private accounts could generate better returns to help offset likely benefit cuts.

Thirty countries have adopted a Chilean-style system.

Yet U.S. reform efforts have been timid. Rep. Paul Ryan’s “Road Map” called for creating personal retirement accounts with one-third of Social Security funds. But his 10-year House budget did not explicitly address the retirement program.

Given what’s at stake, it’s surprising that there is no bold proposal to “take the bull by the horns,” as Pinera put it, and reform Social Security completely on the Chile model. Missing this is missing a big one.


- "Chile’s Private Social Security System Turns 30", Monica Showalter (Investors Business Daily).
Loading...

AdCast - Ads from the Community

Comments


Add a Comment:
 
:icon1fireycat:
1fireycat Featured By Owner 1 day ago  Student Artist
Does the name "Mariotehplumber" ring any bells? 

1.) fireydude.tumblr.com/post/1147…

2.) fireydude.tumblr.com/post/1147…
Reply
:iconblamethe1st:
BlameThe1st Featured By Owner 1 day ago  Hobbyist General Artist
"Okay, imma rant about freaking sonic and why new freaking sonic is not as freaking good as freaking old sonic!"

Yeah, it's hard not to know who this guy is. He's nothing but a troll, so don't feed him.
Reply
:icon1fireycat:
1fireycat Featured By Owner 1 day ago  Student Artist
Even if he's badmouthing a friend of mine? 
Reply
:iconblamethe1st:
BlameThe1st Featured By Owner 1 day ago  Hobbyist General Artist
I don't know. You can't really deal with trolls. It only adds fuel to the fire.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconkolton8:
Kolton8 Featured By Owner Edited 2 days ago
Watched, go ukip my friend
Reply
:iconblamethe1st:
BlameThe1st Featured By Owner 2 days ago  Hobbyist General Artist
I see you also like another 'kip! ;)
Reply
:iconkolton8:
Kolton8 Featured By Owner 1 day ago
yep, It's high time the British People Got out of the E.U. along with Poland, Greece, Italy, etc.
Reply
:iconalphazion:
alphazion Featured By Owner 4 days ago
This won't surprise you at all, given the P&T Bullshit! ep to the same effect but intelligencesquaredus.org/deba…
Reply
:iconblamethe1st:
BlameThe1st Featured By Owner 4 days ago  Hobbyist General Artist
Next you'll tell me that the sky is blue.
Reply
:iconmakeacandidbroadcast:
*points finger at :iconblamethe1st: dressed as the Nostalgia Critic* CRITIIIIIIC!
Reply
Add a Comment: