Sandy

Sorry I am late as usual but i was shooting all day yesterday the spent the night in Atlantic City and drove back to NYC straight to editorial to cut the spot to air on Saturday. Thats correct Saturday. Its the new world of film making. I spent the last 30 years doing stuff that took a month to two months to bid test, retest, send up the creative food chain then the account department, then the big shots, then the business department, then they fuckin test in in Columbus and the the client and guess what, the idea is already old and tired. Sounds efficient, kinda like the Congress. Anyway this was about Climate change and its effect of the WORLD. The effect may be why we are having all these storms and natural disasters. Even if no one is sure we need to look into it just in fucking case it IS. HELLO . We spent a good part of the day on the Jersey Shore. It was hard to believe. It looked like a war zone and I know what that looks like. It is sad and it sucks. People lost their homes . I mean gone. A pile of wood chips . Blocks and blocks. were do you begin to start over. We can’t forget these people and there towns. I spoke to some and they are tired but not broken. Send a buck to whomever is helping and go spend some money at the beach on the Shore. its the least you can do. You think you had a bad day well think again.  Thats right Im being a little soft today WELL EAT ME.

This entry was posted in General Ranting. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Sandy

  1. Jason Weinman says:

    A 2011 study by the Reason Foundation shows that there has been a 98% decline in weather related deaths since the 1920’s, so even if the marginal man made climate change is responsible for other forms of extreme weather (which the evidence doesn’t really support), it still seems worth it.

    http://reason.org/news/show/no-more-energy-subsidies

    Also, the reason that Jersey hasn’t been able to recover from Sandy is Chris Christie’s hands on approach to “disaster relief.” Price and wage controls are the biggest culprits, but government allocation of funds is also counterproductive. The Feds have also played no small part in contributing to the disaster and preventing the recovery.

    http://www.economicfreedom.org/2012/08/30/hurricane-isaac-and-economic-freedom-do-free-markets-help-in-disaster-recovery/

    • Paul says:

      Okay, so, this is what my dad asked me to post as his reply because he forgot how to do it himself. So if you end up bombarding me personally with your rebuttals and endless weblinks because of what he wrote, Jason, I swear I will slap you in the face. Here goes, copy and pasted from an email from Tommy Moon:

      “First off Ron Paul there are less deaths because of better warning systems and evacuation plans as well as better trained first responders and the 911 emergency units. Which by the way are government funded personnel which you want to cut back. Second your an idiot.”

  2. Jason says:

    I’m sure those programs have saved the occasional life, but I suspect that the better part of the difference, by a wide margin, is market driven improvements in things like HVAC, engineering, communications, media, transportation, and so on. The evidence also indicates that private alternatives to government disaster relief and emergency services would save additional marginal lives. Also, fossil fuels (and most of the things that fossil fuels are used for) are government funded, and the alternatives have to overcome high barriers of entry because of government intervention. I’ve heard that fossil fuels are a pretty substantial component of man made climate change. Second, why do you hate freedom?

    • tommooneyfilms says:

      I don’t hate freedom in fact I fought for it . Define freedom. Is it no regulations on safe food water air . No regulations on Wall street air travel. Just let human nature take care of itself. Sounds dangerous.

      • Jason Weinman says:

        Freedom is the absense of coercion. Who owns my body? I presume that I do. So the government ought not force me to treat it a certain way. The regulations that you’re referring to drive up prices, and have not been shown to have any role in improving food safety (as opposed to market forces). The FDA plays a similar role in driving up the cost of life saving medicines, and especially the cost of life saving medical research. Also, the government forces me to pay for unhealthful products like High Fructose Corn syrup whether I want to or not, which is both unfree and dangerous. Regulation of Wall St. is a joke. The best case scenario is that the government sees slack in one sector as a general glut, and responds with a general inflation that benefits the rich (finance guys) at the expense of the poor and misdirects resources, slowing growth. The worse case, but more likely, is that Wall St. cronies pay for political priviledge. Deregulation of the airlines in the early 70’s was an unqualified success–putting air travel in reach of the masses for the first time. I imagine that privatization of the FAA and TSA would be similiarly successful, yes.

        I think an unchecked “human nature” describes the state of things when bureaucrats and government officials (who are human beings, after all) can dictate policy by fiat. The process of creative destruction that free markets provides is the only system which makes cooperation more profitable than coercion, and presents the only mechanism for growth and technological, economic, and social advancement.

        • tommooneyfilms says:

          I can’t get past the first fuckin sentence. Who owns my body. Talk to all the woman who have their bodies inder the control of insane old fucking born again social conservstive mideval butt heads like Rick fucing I forgot Perry. You we’re done before you begun. You want it both ways. Give woman freedom of choice. BAM.

  3. Jason says:

    Abortion has nothing to do with “women’s rights.” The abortion question is simply when you define the beginning of human life. To religious folks, including Rick Perry, life begins at conception. So it’s not a question of a “woman’s right to choose,” it’s a question of a woman’s right to commit murder. What about the baby’s rights?

    Now it happens that I think that any line is gonna be pretty arbitrary, and 24ish weeks or viability seems totally reasonable to me. It’s one of the few areas that I think current law has exactly right.

    It’s not easy to get me to defend conservatives or political positions that I oppose, but your general hostility to opppsing viewpoints, and especially your mischaracterization (and misunderstanding) of those views is the central problem in US politics.

    • tommooneyfilms says:

      Eat me

    • tommooneyfilms says:

      I guess only you know what’s best for a woman dealing with a very difficult and personal decission. Why is this a goverment issue and not a religious issue if you have a religion. It seems if somone doesn’t agree with your ideas of what is goverment purpose you get all bent out of shape and push. If I recall it was you who replied to my initial post with an agressive retort full your facts. Read your response and see where the hostility begind. And I’m sure pregnant woman are impressed that you fell 24 weeks is fair.Come on my friend get a sense if humor. Big Brother ain’t watchin The banks and facebook are. I do love your mind and passion . Have a drink and put on John Stewart

      • Jason says:

        Killing other human beings is not a woman’s very difficult and personal decision.

        I’m as strong an advocate of abortion as you will find in this country. I believe a woman should have the choice to terminate a pregnancy at any time, and for any reason before viability. No questions asked, no “counseling,” no parental consent, no paternal “rights,” no exception. But it would be entirely disingenuous for me to make abortion a “woman’s rights” issue. The only question that the abortion issue turns on is “when does human life begin?”

        Almost no one in the United States (and probably very few people outside of it) believes that life does not begin until the moment of birth. Science doesn’t provide us with a satisfactory answer, because the question is semantic. Current law in the US recognizes human life at the point of viability, which is generally recognized as 24 weeks. No country in the world has legal abortion beyond this term, as far as I’m aware. It’s an arbitrary standard, but it’s one that makes sense.

        The religious perspective is that life begins at conception. Almost no one in the US (or elsewhere) has as little regard for religious perspectives and faiths as I do. However, this particular viewpoint is no less arbitrary than the viewpoint that life begins at viability, and is no less scientifically sound. If I believed that life began at conception, I would absolutely support legislation banning abortion, and it would not be hypocritical for me to do so if I truly believe that government has no role except to prevent people from harming others.

        I do strongly believe that the proper role of government is strictly to prevent people from harming others. In particular, I don’t feel that the government should be used to initiate violence. I am not willing to force people to live their lives as I see fit, and I’m not willing to allow them to force me to live as they see fit. That is to say, I don’t pay taxes voluntarily, I don’t refrain from trade voluntarily, I don’t refrain from putting the substances into my body that I want to voluntarily, and so on. When you advocate schemes like government support for disaster victims, you’re putting a claim on my labor. You’re also calling for an armed group to commit violence because you think that you can do a better job than markets at allocating resources.

        There was nothing agressive about my initial retort, or any of my subsequent replies. Your initial post implied that there is opposition to climate change research, which is not really true, and which is rooted in the belief (which has come through in each of your posts) that your political opponents are evil.

        I think John Stewart is among the progenitors of this myth, which is pretty much the most hostile thing I would ever say (and certainly the most awful thing I believe) about any of my political opponents.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s