Librarian's Rant

Sorry, folks, but I've had to turn off the Comments function for a bit to ward off some online casino spammers. Bloody bastard spammers!

I'll let you know when it's back on.

Okay, I was deeply amused by this review by Roger Ebert of the movie Constantine--a movie I never had any intention of seeing, but Ebert's review gave me a laugh. An excerpt:

There is a priest in the film, the alcoholic Father Hennessy (Pruitt Taylor Vince), whose name, I guess, is product placement. Strange that there is a priest, since that opens the door to Catholicism and therefore to the news that Constantine is not doomed unless he wages a lifelong war against demons, but need merely go to confession; three Our Fathers, three Hail Marys, and he's outta there. Strange, that movies about Satan always require Catholics. You never see your Presbyterians or Episcopalians hurling down demons.

The forces of hell manifest themselves in many ways. One victim is eaten by flies. A young girl is possessed by a devil, and Constantine shouts, "I need a mirror! Now! At least three feet high!" He can capture the demon in the mirror and throw it out the window, see, although you wonder why supernatural beings would have such low-tech security holes.

Reeves has a deliberately morose energy level in the movie, as befits one who has seen hell, walks among half-demons, and is dying. He keeps on smoking. Eventually he confronts Satan (Peter Stormare), who wears a white suit. (Satan to tailor: "I want a suit just like God's.") Oh, and the plot also involves the Spear of Destiny, which is the spear that killed Christ, and which has been missing since World War II, which seems to open a window to the possibility of Nazi villains, but no. [emphasis mine]

Thanks, Alison, for the chuckle.

According to this calculator from Senate Democrats [bias noted], under the Bush plan for privatization, I'll make $5326 less per year than under traditional Social Security. And that's with a decent, if modest annual income (I used 50K, which might even have been a high 'average', as they don't clearly explain if that's an average over a lifetime of work, or what).

I notice Greenspan this week gave tacit approval to the privatization scheme, assuming the money was 'well-managed'. Um, yeah, well anyone with a brain knows that BushCo. already has in mind which of their financial services cronies will get the 'job' of managing our monies! Probably the same ones who manipulated the stock market to hurt small investors. Whatever...

I agree that Social Security in its current form is not an efficient or long-term stable system. But I can't imagine that privatization, which as it is currently described would increase the possibility for loss, is the answer. Or at least not the whole answer. Those who have disposable income already have private retirement accounts (not enough, granted, as we're not a country of savers, but still). Despite the calculator above, Social Security is not for me--I'm educated, white, and relatively well-off despite my choice to work in public service. Social Security is (IMO) a social contract that says I won't let my fellow countrymen and women starve when they get old and/or disabled.

And why is no one paying attention to the fact that Medicare is in much worse shape, and will fail much sooner, than Social Security?? Oh, right, cuz BushCo already 'took care of that' with their little drug card deal. Um, NO!