Heather over at the book blog Book Obsessed has posted a mini-review of Under the Amoral Bridge in front of the guest blog post I've written for her. Head on over to Book Obsessed and read The Genesis of Inspiration. I talk about some of the influences that first led me to write, ranging from my mother to cheesy B-movies and role-playing games. Heather is also giving away a copy of Under the Amoral Bridge, so don't miss out on your chance to win a free copy. And don't forget that from now until Dec. 1st, you can get 25% off the paperback or ebook version of the novel - click here for details. I'd like to thank Heather for the kind words about the book, and for the promotion.

Labels: Cyberpunk, Literature, Science-Fiction

   Read more!

Thanksgiving is coming up and that means it's time for all you responsible bastards to start doing your Christmas shopping early, unlike me who waits until the last minute to do anything. What better gift to give than my thrilling debut cyberpunk novel, Under the Amoral Bridge? From now until Dec. 1st, I'm offering two discount codes, both for 25% off this fantastic read. For the paperback version, go to the CreateSpace store link and use the coupon code HC86CZSY to get the book for $9 + shipping (regular price $12). If you'd prefer the Ebook version, it's available in a ton of Ebook formats on Smashwords.com. Use the coupon code RS46Q to get the Ebook for $6 (regular price $8). I wish I could offer the book on Amazon or the Kindle store with similar coupons, but they do not offer such options at this time. If you're looking for a gift for that science-fiction fan on your list, or if you are a sci-fi fan yourself, you'll love this book! Let's move some paper, people!

Labels: Cyberpunk, Entertainment, Literature, Science-Fiction

   Read more!

There are times when I marvel at the movie-making business. After watching Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, this is one of those days, only the marveling is a reaction of pure horror and unadulterated confusion. I must inform you right up front that I entered this movie expecting to hate it. Not only did I hate the first Transformers movie, I have been extremely critical of Michael Bay's directorial style, if one can call man-crushing fellatio of U.S. military gear and copious, irrational explosions a "style." But as bad as Bay's previous films like Armageddon and the first Transformers movies are, they cannot hold a candle to the gob-smacking incompetence displayed in this edition of the franchise. What I marvel at the most, however, is how this movie ever got made.

Film studio producers and executives are nothing if not good businessmen. Michael Bay, for all his glaring flaws, is box office gold. The first Transformers grossed over $300 million in America alone, for a production budget of half that. With that in mind, I can understand why a studio would give him $200 million to make a sequel. What I cannot understand is how any of these good businessmen could look at what passes for this movie's script and think there is anything like a worthwhile project in it. The movie is an absolute mess, and not in the normal Michael Bay wants to blow up everything sort of way. No, this movie flails from one scene to the next without any sense of rhyme or reason, with no one coherent story to tie all its disparate elements together. There are the retarded premature fetuses of story ideas here, but none are ever developed enough to make up a 30-minute TV episode on public access, much less to make up a 2 1/2 hour movie.

There's the story of Sam Witwicky, the worst-named character in movie history outside of pornography, and his impossibly hot vapid girlfriend, played by Shia LeBouef and Megan Fox respectively. Sam goes off to college and his parents suffer empty nest syndrome, eat pot brownies and vacation in France, where we assume they are abducted by evil robots since they show up later in Egypt in the clutches of an evil bulldozer robot. We never actually see them be abducted. There's the story of Sam and Mikayla, who are in a committed relationship but refuse to say "I love you" to each other before the other says it first. Sam has a transforming robot car in his garage, but he can't take the robot to college. Sam gets flashing visions from a shard of the All-Spark Cube from the first movie that he never noticed was stuck to the shirt he wore during the climactic battle of the last movie. Sam's college roommate runs a web site dedicated to exposing the truth about the alien robots that the U.S. government is hiding. For some unfathomable reason, the Decepticons send a robot disguised as a slut to tempt Sam into a kiss with a metal tentacle tongue. The Autobots and the U.S. military have teamed up to gangfuck Decepticons that are still hiding on the planet. Some Decepticons steal one thing to resurrect Megatron, who then joins some other more powerful Decepticon to get some revenge on the planet Earth by blowing up the sun. Other Autobots and Decepticons have been on Earth for years and they are hidden in plain sight somehow. And there's a key in some hidden temple that really isn't hidden because we've seen this same temple in tons of movies, a key that powers the sun-eating machine buried beneath the pyramids of Giza but has never been discovered despite all the excavations done on the site.

And on and on and on. Story kernel after story kernel pile one on top of the other at breakneck speed with no rhyme or reason. Despite being over 2 1/2 hours long, I think there might have been three or four complete sentences total. Dialogue was at an all time low. Most characters just screamed sentence fragments over each other, and when a cogent thought was presented, it was then repeated over and over again. I got the impression of gaggles of chattering monkeys howling at each other while larger metallic gorillas tossed exploding shitballs at them. Everything explodes in this movie. EVERYTHING. Shit is constantly blowing up for no reason other than someone or something waved a gun at it. I am reminded of Danny McBride's pyrotechnic character from Tropic Thunder amped up on crystal meth and Rock Star mixed with vodka. As a matter of fact, this is who I picture for the dialogue writer.

You'll notice I've said very little about the robots. That's because the robots are so rarely featured. That's right, in a movie about giant robots battling each other, I'd estimate they get about 25-35% of the screen time. When they do manage to fit in between explosions, most of them are indistinguishable from each other and anonymous. I still can't tell the difference between Megatron or Starscream when they aren't speaking. Only five of the Autobots stand out at all: Optimus Prime, Bumblebee, Ironhide, and the twins. Dear God, the twins, Mudflap and the other one. I'm sure you've heard about them by now, the racist stereotype Autobots who talk in hip hop slang. They are incredibly irritating. You could not have used more insulting dialogue if you had painted them in Al Jolson blackface. This is not a Jar-Jar sounds like a Jamaican type of stereotype, this is a full-blown thug life pantomime. I have named them the Thugobots, because that's what they sound like. Then there is the leg-humping, Joe Pesci Gangstacon, who farts fire - don't ask me why a robot farts. The final robotic insult comes when we are treated to the sight of Devestator's testicles in the form of two clanging wrecking balls. Why? Seriously, why was this considered a good idea? It paints the image in my mind of old man balls swinging from behind and that is hardly the image I want in my head.

But my final criticism is for the camera work. Even if the plot had been tight, the idiotic touches like Thugobots and robot testicles had been removed, the camera work is blatantly amateurish. The camera never rests. It is constantly moving, swinging around the characters in twirling 360 degree circles, images of characters running is accompanied by the camera moving in perpendicular directions. It's as if the director has no confidence in his director of photography's compositions or the story's impact, he feels the need to move the camera to add tension. All it does is make watching this shitfest even more tedious than it already is.

And yet, it has made over $400 million domestically. Michael Bay could not have made this movie any worse if he tried (though I hope he doesn't take that as a challenge). Uwe Boll would have done a better job with this movie. It has no redeeming qualities whatsoever, and I cannot fathom the degree to which one must quiet their logic centers in order to enjoy this movie. But there you go. If American audiences weren't completely stupid before, this movie should finish off their intellect for good. I cannot in good conscience recommend this movie to anyone. I believe this is the movie they showed Malcolm McDowell's character in A Clockwork Orange to burn out the violent parts of his brain. You have been warned. Watch at your own peril, preferably drunk with a crew of ranting movie talkers shouting at the screen. It's the only way this could be an enjoyable experience.

Labels: Media Corruption, Movies

   Read more!

For the last couple of weeks, I've been hinting at some big news in the Bridge Chronicles universe, and now I can finally announce it. Under the Amoral Bridge, the first novel in the Bridge Chronicles series, is being published! Thanks to the great group over at CreateSpace.com, I am self-publishing a physical copy of that first novel. Available now at the Create Space Estore, it will be available at Amazon.com within two weeks. The cost is $12 for a really nice, trade paperback edition. Not only is it the entire first novel exactly as it appeared on the Bridge Chronicles blog, but it includes a Bridge short story that has never been published before. This story, Feeding Autonomy, will only be available in this print edition.

Please buy my book. No, really... buy the book. I'm begging you.

Ok, with the whoring done, let me just explain how this process works. This book will be a print-on-demand book. Both CreateSpace and Amazon will take their cut (a percentage of the price + per-page fee + per book fee) and I get the difference. I get about 50% more off a purchase from the CreateSpace store than from Amazon, which I will attribute to Amazon's discount. Naturally, I'd prefer you buy from CreateSpace (and yes, they offer international sales as well as U.S.) because I make more money, but so long as you buy the book, I get paid. Did I mention I like getting paid? If you do purchase the book, no matter the channel, I ask that you post a review on Amazon.com. Note, I didn't say a positive review. Please be honest, I can take the criticisms - bonus points if you dog the novel in a funny or entertaining way. At this early stage of my career, any press is good press if it gets my name out there to the book-buying public. The worst feedback a writer can get is no feedback at all. Our massive egos are so fragile that we constantly require acknowledgment that someone read our work, even if the reader hated it.

Keep an eye on the Bridge Chronicles blog for more updates, including the upcoming listing on Amazon. Those interested in following my other pursuits can always follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/HaemishM. Thank you for your support of my literary efforts and I hope you enjoy the title.

Labels: Literature, Science-Fiction

   Read more!

The healthcare debate in the U.S. has been THE hot topic of the summer of 2009. My Twitter posts have been hammering on that particular drum like a shaggy Muppet. It's time to step back and logically examine the motivations of four of the current players in the upside-down craziness we call our for-profit healthcare system in this country, if for no other reason than to figure out why they act as they do. The four players are care providers (doctors and hospitals), insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and the patients, and each wants something slightly different from the healthcare system. It is these different desires that are at odds with each other, and that opposition is contributing to the declining quality of healthcare in our country.

In a for-profit system, three of the four players compete for the attentions of the fourth and most important player, the patient. The patient is the ultimate source of profit for those three players, though not always in the most direct manner. The patient's motivations are easy enough to decipher, because we all share them. No matter if you are rich or poor, male or female, no matter what race or creed, religion or sexual preference, you access the healthcare system for one reason only: you want to be healthy. That's it, you want to be healthy. Unfortunately, the for-profit system has added a qualifier to that desire. Everyone wants to be healthy, and will do everything within their means in order to achieve that health. The for-profit system restricts that health based on the financial means of the patient. Everyone wants to be healthy, but no one wants to go bankrupt doing it. After all, if your cancer is cured but you lose your home and can't afford to feed yourself, the cure is akin to burning the grass to mow your lawn. Yes, your grass is indeed controlled, but it looks like the aftermath of Hiroshima and smells like gasoline. People want their health so they can enjoy their life as it is, not so they can move into a van down by the river. I'm sure most patients could care less who treats them so long as the end result is health without financial ruin.

The other three players have entirely different motivations, and it becomes most apparent when you consider what type of patient these players desire the most. Care providers, such as hospitals and doctors, are paid based on the services they render, whether that be an MRI, 20 minutes in consultation with a patient, an X-Ray, a surgery, or a hospital stay. Their most profitable patient is likely someone who is just sick enough to need plenty of care but not terminally ill. This ideal patient is also someone with the financial means to pay every time services are rendered, whether they pay directly or through an insurance provider. Healthy patients are no good to them because they don't need that many services. Poor people can't pay, so in addition to the costs of providing care and the time they take away from patients who can pay, poor people cost more because the provider often has to pay for collection agencies to extract as much money as they can from the non-paying clients.

Pharmaceutical companies want patients that are very similar to a hospital's ideal patient. As long as you're just sick enough to need constant medication but not sick enough that the medication is only delaying the inevitable, you are manna from heaven if you have the means to pay. In addition, if you need help for a condition that doesn't threaten your life like impotence, you are even better. No one NEEDS Viagra - it could go away tomorrow and the patients who use it wouldn't die. These drugs are very similar in my mind to things like alcohol or tobacco without the deadly side effects. Get the patient hooked on the euphoric feeling the drug provides, and they will keep coming back so long as they can pay. But people who can't pay for even the basics of care without significant hardship? Like care providers, pharma doesn't want them either.

Insurance companies, however, want a completely different type of patient. Their ideal patient isn't a patient at all, it's a healthy customer with the financial means to pay premiums. Premiums are revenue, revenue leads to profit. But the minute a patient needs to use the insurance product, they are a drain on the insurance company's revenue. Paying claims is a loss. The most profitable patient is the one that never uses the service.

With that in mind, it becomes obvious that providers and pharma are at odds with the insurance companies. Hospitals and pharma need patients that use their services, but insurance companies need patients who do not need those services. When those services are used by patients, it is in the best interests of the insurance companies that the prices for each service are as low as possible, while the care provider and the pharmaceutical companies want to charge as much as the market will allow. The patient wants to be healed with minimal financial loss and minimal interference.

How do you reconcile such conflicting desires? As a matter of policy, which desire should the government pay most attention to when discussing reforms? Is it the care providers, who want patients to use as many of their services as possible? Is it the pharmas, who want patients to use as many drugs as possible? Is it the insurance companies, who generate huge profits from not providing their services? Or is it the patient, the people part of the whole "We the people" form of government?

Government policy must put the needs of the whole community first in a system founded on the principles in the U.S. Constitution. All four of the players in this drama have financial motivations as a component of their desires. Is it more important for hospitals to make a profit than for insurance companies? Since hospitals provide the care that saves patients' lives, I would lean towards the hospitals. Should pharmaceutical companies be more important than hospitals? They are likely to be co-equal if not slightly less important than the hospital itself. In all this, insurance companies are the least important - after all, their function is that of a facilitator of payment. While their function can certainly ease the burden of the sick, are we any better off for having a third party extract a fee for shuffling paperwork instead of dealing with direct payment for services rendered?

But what should become readily apparent in all of this is that none of these entities exist, none of their profits are possible without the patient. If no one gets sick, the providers do not get paid. If no one needs to pay for treatment, insurance companies have no function. If all the patients die off, no one gets paid. The source of all the profit in the system is ultimately the patient. And since every single last one of us will be a patient at some point in our life, the patient IS the most important element in the entire healthcare system. Government policy must absolutely center on the patient, and the patient's desire for health without financial hardship must absolutely take precedence over any other desire.

There may well be room for profit in a patient-centric system. We can argue over the amount of that profit, or the recipient, as there are valid arguments to be made on all sides. But those arguments must never, ever forget that without caring for the patient, there can be no profit.

Labels: Health Care, Politics

   Read more!

There will be much ink and many pixels spent dissecting the new Stephen Sommers' movie based on the G.I. Joe property. I'm entirely sure there will be many criticisms leveled at this movie because of the silly plot, over-the-top action or cheesiness. And the nerdrage will be strong from G.I. Joe purists who are offended by the changes to the characters that differ from the '80's cartoon. If you are in either camp, you should probably not even bother seeing this movie, because not only do you hate fun, but you are predestined to hate this movie. I feel your pain: my hatred of the Transformers movies starts with the dizzyingly overcomplicated robot design and ends with Michael Bay-splosions. For the rest of the world, me included, G.I. Joe is a fun, cheesy thrill ride, the absolute definition of meeting expectations.

I claim that this movie meets expectations because it does just that - it is exactly the kind of movie one should expect to see from a movie based on an '80's cartoon series that was designed to sell militaristic toys. While the G.I. Joe team has gone from an American team to an international N.A.T.O.-backed organization, the essence remains the same. This is the best of the best military unit that uses the coolest high-tech gadgets to fight "the bad guys" in secret wherever they appear. The plot is by the numbers: cartoony villains dream up an elaborate plot involving a highly sophisticated weapon system stolen from the forces of freedom and used for evil. Along the way there are personal vendettas (Snake Eyes and Storm Shadow, the Baroness and Duke), romantic tensions (Ripcord and Snake-Eyes both vie for Scarlett's affections), hot babes kicking ass, samurai swords flashing, explody things explodifying, jets and tanks and jeeps and snowmobiles and hovercraft and exo-suits and all kinds of shit going on all over the screen. It is a great big, CGI-infused spectacle movie and the plot makes about as much sense as an episode of the cartoon did. I will give the writers some credit though - there is a twist in the tail of the overarching bad guy plot that was executed with a certain degree of subtlety that I did not expect.

The movie is far from perfect. The CGI is inconsistent, particularly in the beginning where some very routine CGI shots look horribly mismatched to the scene. Some of the cheesy lines from the original cartoon ("Yo! JOE!" and "Knowing is half the battle!") come across with deliberate cheesiness, mostly as service to the fans. But most of the gripes are minor. The movie is what it was meant to be, a popcorn flick chock full of Saturday morning pulpy goodness. It is what I expected it to be - fun. The movie ends wide open for a sequel, and I for one would welcome it. I give this movie 7 out of 10. It won't win any awards, but it is worth a watch unless you hate fun.

Labels: Movies

   Read more!

After some interesting Twitter discussions about healthcare reform last week, I began to think about the conservative right position against universal/socialized/single-payer/public-option healthcare in America. Since the Republican party has so inextricably linked itself with the increasingly odious politically evangelical Christian movement in order to win elections, I'm rather insulted at the hostile reaction our Republican political establishment has shown towards any option that doesn't allow private insurance companies to bankrupt ordinary Americans with high premiums and denial of coverage on financial grounds. No one in favor of some form of public option for healthcare is under any illusion that the program won't be costly. I personally feel that it should likely be expected to cost the country a metric fuckton. If there was ever a government program for which deficit spending is a necessary evil, it's providing healthcare to every citizen regardless of ability to pay. Better to lose a dollar saving a life than to spend fifty cents taking a life in war. But the argument I'm so often hearing against healthcare is the "I shouldn't have to pay so some lazy bastard without a job can get healthcare."

Let's cut the bullshit. For the record, you are already paying for the lazy bastard without a job to get care at the emergency room. The law does not allow emergency rooms to refuse care to anyone. When that "lazy bastard" gets care at the ER, he does so on the hospital's dime if he cannot pay. The hospital passes that loss off to the people who can pay - if you have health insurance, that's you and your insurance company. You pay higher costs at the hospital, the insurance company charges you a higher premium, and healthcare costs continue to balloon well past the normal rate of inflation. Of course, just calling that person who can't pay a "lazy bastard" assumes that the ER isn't the only healthcare outlet for the working poor, who often can't take afford to take time off of work to visit a doctor during banker's hours.

But continue to call anyone who receives any kind of government aid a "lazy bastard" if that's what helps you sleep at night knowing you are condemning working mothers with three kids as shiftless drains on society. Forget the fact that not only do you receive government benefits for paying insurance premiums (it cuts down on your taxable income - so in effect, it's a tax credit) but your employer does as well (who also gets deductions for providing health insurance). We can quibble about the amount of benefit you receive in comparison, but don't act like you aren't sucking at a government teat just a wee bit.

The most galling part about hearing someone who claims to be a Christian criticizing a universal program as forcing them to pay for "lazy bastards" is how dissociated that attitude is from the teachings of Jesus Christ. Now, I'm no Christian - I find organized religion odious. Nor am I a Biblical scholar, but having grown up with Baptist and Assembly of God teaching, as well as having done my own reading, I can safely say that your attitude would make baby Jesus weep.

Jesus did a lot of healing in his short time as wandering prophet. He healed lepers, cripples, whores, the poor - you know, pretty much every shitheel he could find. If you believe the stories, he even cured a zombie (or created one - we don't know if Lazarus developed a taste for brains). I don't ever remember Jesus asking for a co-pay, or checking for an insurance card. He didn't even moralize about your life choices, or refuse to help someone who might have been gay, or had an abortion, or didn't vote Republican. He didn't ask if you were crippled from birth and therefore might not be eligible for MessiahCare™. Perhaps the disciples forgot to mention Jesus easy payment terms, or the fact that he took checks, debit or credit cards for service. No, Jesus healed the sick with nothing more than a few words about his father and a helpful life lesson. Maybe he asked for a loaf of bread or a fish for his posse, but even then, he was the original Discover card - give one fish, get five back in his handy Fish Back™ program.

If Republicans/Conservatives want to claim they are Christians and that our nation is a Christian one, founded on Christian values, it's time to put up or shut the fuck up. Jesus didn't charge a co-pay. Of course, neither the government nor healthcare professionals are Jesus; they can't practice medicine without some costs. Jesus had no drug costs, his time was free and his materials were divine. But the philosophy is what's important here. Jesus wanted to heal the sick, regardless of whether they were "lazy bastards" or working members of society, whether they were moral followers or the dregs of immorality. The government may not be Jesus, but they damn sure should aspire to one of the basic tenets of the founding of America: every citizen has the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," all of which is difficult when one has to choose between crippling bankruptcy or crippling sickness.

It's almost like the political establishment expects everyone to get their healthcare from this guy.

Labels: Corporate Corruption, Government Corruption, Government Idiots, Health Care, Politics, Religious Corruption

   Read more!