If only people were allowed to carry their guns wherever they felt like it, spree shootings would never happen, gun free zone detractors whine in typical adolescent fashion. It continually amazes me that the core of their argument about this and many other issues revolves around the same basic emotion: I wanna do what I wanna do when I wanna do it and if I don't get my way, bad things will happen. See?!! Told ya!! Fuck you, dad!! (stomp stomp stomp...SLAM!)
Setting aside this perpetual, childish outburst, the assertion that spree shootings are more lethal because they are in gun free zones is patently false. The idea that we can somehow get into the mind of these people and (ahem) reason that they pick these places so they can have the largest body count is one of the finest examples of projection and confirmation bias I have ever witnessed. You would think that they were presenting a conclusion to an argument without having any facts to support it. That couldn't possibly be true!
When Cookie Thornton shot up Kirkwood City Hall, he began his spree by shooting a police officer, taking his gun, and then heading inside to continue his path of destruction. The fact that there were guns in the building had no effect on Thornton's mindset. He went in anyway. Thornton, by the way, was yet another individual with a pathological hatred for government. Jared Loughner walked in to a parking lot that was not a gun free zone and had no compunction about shooting up the joint. People were allowed to carry arms around that area and that certainly didn't stop him. Chris Kyle was a Navy SEAL and heavily armed and trained, when he was shot, along with his friend Chad Littlefield, at a gun range (see: not gun free) by Eddie Ray Routh.
And armed security was present at Columbine when Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold went on their rampage, killing 12 people.
So, this notion that getting rid of gun free zones will somehow be a panacea is ludicrous. The above are just a few examples. Whether guns are present or not present has no bearing on whether or not people go on shooting sprees. It's simply another in a nauseating series of proclamations by children who are trying to get their own way.
Friday, February 08, 2013
Best Picture: Beasts of The Southern Wild
Beasts of the Southern Wild is an extraordinary film. It tells the story of a father and his daughter who are part of a community that lives off the grid down in the Bayou near New Oreleans. When a storm floods their little island, their already impoverished life becomes even worse.
I found myself sitting in judgement of these people throughout the film and, quite frankly, didn't like the things I was feeling. Hush Puppy, the main character of the story, is treated horribly by her father and the mandated reporter in me wanted to haul his ass to jail. Yet the entire community seemed to function perfectly well on their own, albeit in squalor. When a relief organization comes in to bring them medical aid and shelter, they react strongly against the assistance. It is a fascinating thing to watch as they reflect on how it's the outside world, not them, that are trapped.
In many ways, this film is a testament to libertarianism and, if you can stand the miserable living conditions, freedom is indeed a beautiful thing.
I found myself sitting in judgement of these people throughout the film and, quite frankly, didn't like the things I was feeling. Hush Puppy, the main character of the story, is treated horribly by her father and the mandated reporter in me wanted to haul his ass to jail. Yet the entire community seemed to function perfectly well on their own, albeit in squalor. When a relief organization comes in to bring them medical aid and shelter, they react strongly against the assistance. It is a fascinating thing to watch as they reflect on how it's the outside world, not them, that are trapped.
In many ways, this film is a testament to libertarianism and, if you can stand the miserable living conditions, freedom is indeed a beautiful thing.
Thursday, February 07, 2013
Hand Grenade Man
The Tick was a superhero comic first published in the early Nineties. The Tick was a parody of Superman, Batman, Hulk, Spiderman, the Fantastic Four, the Punisher and the rest of four-color universe — and it was published in black and white. The Tick was turned into a half-hour Saturday morning cartoon on Fox for three seasons.
In one issue Tick and his sidekick Arthur go to New York where superheroes are hanging on every wall, lamp post and flag pole. They're packed so tight they have to reserve street patrol times by the hour and schedule their next colossal confrontation with the gigantic tentacled blob Thrakkorzog and his army of gelatin zombies a week in advance.
Tick and Arthur encounter the Mighty Agrippa, Roman God of the Aqueduct, who invites them to the Comet Club, the exclusive superhero hangout. While Arthur is sent down to the sidekick's lounge, Tick meets superheroes like Skateboard Viking, Four-Legged Man, Fishboy, the Ant and Hand Grenade Man.
Tick asks what Hand Grenade Man's super powers are. "Super powers? Bah! Who needs 'em? I've got a hand grenade! ... You'd be surprised how much you can accomplish when people know you've got one."
Which brings us to Jimmy Lee Dykes, the man who killed a bus driver, kidnapped a boy and held the child for almost a week. Dykes was shot dead after the FBI's elite Hostage Rescue Team, a "counterterrorism tactical team," threw a flashbang into his bunker and briefly exchanged gunfire.
Dykes was a real Hand Grenade Man. Everyone knew he was going to explode some day. He pointed his gun at kids coming near his land. He patrolled his property at night with a long gun and a flashlight. He beat a neighbor's dog with pipe. He piled dirt in the road to create a speed bump, and when someone messed it up he started shooting at them. That precipitated a court appearance. And that's when Dykes pulled the pin.
Dykes apparently harbored anti-government, anti-police views. His neighbors found him to be increasingly paranoid and violent, frequently brandishing weapons. Before the incident Dykes gave a neighbor his manifesto, but authorities have yet to release it so we don't yet fully know what his deal was.
But the mild reaction of law enforcement to Dykes shooting at a woman and her child was proof of his paranoia. They simply scheduled a court date and left him at large. It makes you wonder: if Dykes had been black or Muslim would the police have been so accommodating?
Here was a man who was obviously a danger to himself and others, someone who had made terroristic threats, yet the authorities went out of their way to allow him to exercise his Second Amendment rights even after he'd abused them.
Jimmy Lee Dykes was the poster geezer for the NRA. He is the kind of guy we all think of when we conjure up the term gun nut: a grizzled, paranoid isolationist who's constantly ranting about the government and is on the verge of exploding.
Dykes is exactly the kind of guy that the NRA caters to and riles up with their apocalyptic visions of home invasions and arming themselves for the imminent collapse of society. They propagate the myth that an AR-15 is some kind of super power that will fend off drone strikes and Abrams tanks when the government attacks, or protect them from disease and starvation in the desolate landscape of Armageddon.
If it turns out that Dykes' manifesto is a rehash of NRA propaganda, how will they respond? Will they own up to their part in this act of domestic terrorism? Because the guy was a terrorist, no different than any Al Qaeda or Red Army terrorist. He was also crazy, like all terrorists and people who use violence against innocents to push their agendas.
Or will the Hand Grenade Men in the NRA blame his neighbors, the local police, liberals and society at large for threatening to take away his toys and driving him over the edge?
My money's on the latter.
In one issue Tick and his sidekick Arthur go to New York where superheroes are hanging on every wall, lamp post and flag pole. They're packed so tight they have to reserve street patrol times by the hour and schedule their next colossal confrontation with the gigantic tentacled blob Thrakkorzog and his army of gelatin zombies a week in advance.
Tick and Arthur encounter the Mighty Agrippa, Roman God of the Aqueduct, who invites them to the Comet Club, the exclusive superhero hangout. While Arthur is sent down to the sidekick's lounge, Tick meets superheroes like Skateboard Viking, Four-Legged Man, Fishboy, the Ant and Hand Grenade Man.
Tick asks what Hand Grenade Man's super powers are. "Super powers? Bah! Who needs 'em? I've got a hand grenade! ... You'd be surprised how much you can accomplish when people know you've got one."
Which brings us to Jimmy Lee Dykes, the man who killed a bus driver, kidnapped a boy and held the child for almost a week. Dykes was shot dead after the FBI's elite Hostage Rescue Team, a "counterterrorism tactical team," threw a flashbang into his bunker and briefly exchanged gunfire.
Dykes was a real Hand Grenade Man. Everyone knew he was going to explode some day. He pointed his gun at kids coming near his land. He patrolled his property at night with a long gun and a flashlight. He beat a neighbor's dog with pipe. He piled dirt in the road to create a speed bump, and when someone messed it up he started shooting at them. That precipitated a court appearance. And that's when Dykes pulled the pin.
Dykes apparently harbored anti-government, anti-police views. His neighbors found him to be increasingly paranoid and violent, frequently brandishing weapons. Before the incident Dykes gave a neighbor his manifesto, but authorities have yet to release it so we don't yet fully know what his deal was.
But the mild reaction of law enforcement to Dykes shooting at a woman and her child was proof of his paranoia. They simply scheduled a court date and left him at large. It makes you wonder: if Dykes had been black or Muslim would the police have been so accommodating?
Here was a man who was obviously a danger to himself and others, someone who had made terroristic threats, yet the authorities went out of their way to allow him to exercise his Second Amendment rights even after he'd abused them.
Jimmy Lee Dykes was the poster geezer for the NRA. He is the kind of guy we all think of when we conjure up the term gun nut: a grizzled, paranoid isolationist who's constantly ranting about the government and is on the verge of exploding.
Dykes is exactly the kind of guy that the NRA caters to and riles up with their apocalyptic visions of home invasions and arming themselves for the imminent collapse of society. They propagate the myth that an AR-15 is some kind of super power that will fend off drone strikes and Abrams tanks when the government attacks, or protect them from disease and starvation in the desolate landscape of Armageddon.
If it turns out that Dykes' manifesto is a rehash of NRA propaganda, how will they respond? Will they own up to their part in this act of domestic terrorism? Because the guy was a terrorist, no different than any Al Qaeda or Red Army terrorist. He was also crazy, like all terrorists and people who use violence against innocents to push their agendas.
Or will the Hand Grenade Men in the NRA blame his neighbors, the local police, liberals and society at large for threatening to take away his toys and driving him over the edge?
My money's on the latter.
No One Killed The Electric Car This Time
Here's some more good news that has flown under the radar.
A green secret: It was the year plug-in car sales accelerated
Plug-in vehicles like the Chevrolet Volt, Toyota Prius PHV, and all-electric Nissan Leaf are on pace for combined sales of about 50,000 by year-end – far ahead of what hybrid sales were at the same stage of market development – and a 280 percent jump in sales over 2011, according to data from Baum & Associates, an auto industry research firm. Next year will bring 33 models from a dozen companies.
When you consider how much of a pummeling the electric car takes every day, this is truly fantastic. This will have an impact on the climate, no doubt, and that's despite the notion that we are trading one form of polluting for another. Electric power is coming from more diverse sources than ever before these days so any less carbon emissions in the atmosphere is a net gain.
A green secret: It was the year plug-in car sales accelerated
Plug-in vehicles like the Chevrolet Volt, Toyota Prius PHV, and all-electric Nissan Leaf are on pace for combined sales of about 50,000 by year-end – far ahead of what hybrid sales were at the same stage of market development – and a 280 percent jump in sales over 2011, according to data from Baum & Associates, an auto industry research firm. Next year will bring 33 models from a dozen companies.
When you consider how much of a pummeling the electric car takes every day, this is truly fantastic. This will have an impact on the climate, no doubt, and that's despite the notion that we are trading one form of polluting for another. Electric power is coming from more diverse sources than ever before these days so any less carbon emissions in the atmosphere is a net gain.
Wednesday, February 06, 2013
My Dream Realized
Remember how often I fantasize about people on the Right going off to form their own country? Well, Glenn Beck is now making that dream a reality!
Well, follks, what are your waiting fer? Just think of it...you could leave all of us commie fascist takers behind and have your own little paradise. Everything would work out perfectly. I just know it!
Well, follks, what are your waiting fer? Just think of it...you could leave all of us commie fascist takers behind and have your own little paradise. Everything would work out perfectly. I just know it!
Relief is Spelled C-O-U-L-T-E-R
Universal background check means universal registration. Universal registration means universal confiscation, universal extermination. That’s how it goes in history.
Well, shit. I was a little concerned that we wouldn't get anywhere on refining our gun laws but now I know for certain that we will. Hell, we might even get an assault weapons ban if we see more stuff like this!
I'm beginning to see a pattern that has developed over the last four years...the Right says something loony tunes, America reacts with revulsion and....good things happen:)
Well, shit. I was a little concerned that we wouldn't get anywhere on refining our gun laws but now I know for certain that we will. Hell, we might even get an assault weapons ban if we see more stuff like this!
I'm beginning to see a pattern that has developed over the last four years...the Right says something loony tunes, America reacts with revulsion and....good things happen:)
Tuesday, February 05, 2013
Epistemic Closure Summary
I forgot to put this piece up by Bruce Bartlett last year but it's obviously still relevant. Bartlett used to work for Ronald Reagan as his chief economic adviser and has since sworn off of supply side economics as well as admitted how he wrong he was on many things. I wonder if this will ever be the case for some of my regulars here...
He makes several good points in this column, among them are these:
Until that moment I had not realized how closed the right-wing mind had become. Even assuming that my friends’ view of the Times’ philosophy was correct, which it most certainly was not, why would they not want to know what their enemy was thinking? This was my first exposure to what has been called “epistemic closure” among conservatives—living in their own bubble where nonsensical ideas circulate with no contradiction.
Contradiction is treason!
Among the interesting reactions to my book is that I was banned from Fox News. My publicist was told that orders had come down from on high that it was to receive no publicity whatsoever, not even attacks. Whoever gave that order was smart; attacks from the right would have sold books. Being ignored was poison for sales. I later learned that the order to ignore me extended throughout Rupert Murdoch’s empire.
That's because you were disobeying their will...oops, VILL!
The final line for me to cross in complete alienation from the right was my recognition that Obama is not a leftist. In fact, he’s barely a liberal—and only because the political spectrum has moved so far to the right that moderate Republicans from the past are now considered hardcore leftists by right-wing standards today. Viewed in historical context, I see Obama as actually being on the center-right.
Huh. Now who has also said that before?
So here we are, post-election 2012. All the stupidity and closed-mindedness that right-wingers have displayed over the last 10 years has come back to haunt them. It is now widely understood that the nation may be center-left after all, not center-right as conservatives thought. Overwhelming losses by Republicans to all the nation’s nonwhite voters have created a Democratic coalition that will govern the nation for the foreseeable future.
But they don't care, Bruce. As long as the win the argument and/or make money off of rubes.
At least a few conservatives now recognize that Republicans suffer for epistemic closure. They were genuinely shocked at Romney’s loss because they ignored every poll not produced by a right-wing pollster such as Rasmussen or approved by right-wing pundits such as the perpetually wrong Dick Morris. Living in the Fox News cocoon, most Republicans had no clue that they were losing or that their ideas were both stupid and politically unpopular.
They still don't have a clue as is evidenced by my comments section. Of course, none of this could be their fault, right!?
I am disinclined to think that Republicans are yet ready for a serious questioning of their philosophy or strategy. They comfort themselves with the fact that they held the House (due to gerrymandering) and think that just improving their get-out-the-vote system and throwing a few bones to the Latino community will fix their problem. There appears to be no recognition that their defects are far, far deeper and will require serious introspection and rethinking of how Republicans can win going forward. The alternative is permanent loss of the White House and probably the Senate as well, which means they can only temporarily block Democratic initiatives and never advance their own.
Yet they still believe...
He makes several good points in this column, among them are these:
Until that moment I had not realized how closed the right-wing mind had become. Even assuming that my friends’ view of the Times’ philosophy was correct, which it most certainly was not, why would they not want to know what their enemy was thinking? This was my first exposure to what has been called “epistemic closure” among conservatives—living in their own bubble where nonsensical ideas circulate with no contradiction.
Contradiction is treason!
Among the interesting reactions to my book is that I was banned from Fox News. My publicist was told that orders had come down from on high that it was to receive no publicity whatsoever, not even attacks. Whoever gave that order was smart; attacks from the right would have sold books. Being ignored was poison for sales. I later learned that the order to ignore me extended throughout Rupert Murdoch’s empire.
That's because you were disobeying their will...oops, VILL!
The final line for me to cross in complete alienation from the right was my recognition that Obama is not a leftist. In fact, he’s barely a liberal—and only because the political spectrum has moved so far to the right that moderate Republicans from the past are now considered hardcore leftists by right-wing standards today. Viewed in historical context, I see Obama as actually being on the center-right.
Huh. Now who has also said that before?
So here we are, post-election 2012. All the stupidity and closed-mindedness that right-wingers have displayed over the last 10 years has come back to haunt them. It is now widely understood that the nation may be center-left after all, not center-right as conservatives thought. Overwhelming losses by Republicans to all the nation’s nonwhite voters have created a Democratic coalition that will govern the nation for the foreseeable future.
But they don't care, Bruce. As long as the win the argument and/or make money off of rubes.
At least a few conservatives now recognize that Republicans suffer for epistemic closure. They were genuinely shocked at Romney’s loss because they ignored every poll not produced by a right-wing pollster such as Rasmussen or approved by right-wing pundits such as the perpetually wrong Dick Morris. Living in the Fox News cocoon, most Republicans had no clue that they were losing or that their ideas were both stupid and politically unpopular.
They still don't have a clue as is evidenced by my comments section. Of course, none of this could be their fault, right!?
I am disinclined to think that Republicans are yet ready for a serious questioning of their philosophy or strategy. They comfort themselves with the fact that they held the House (due to gerrymandering) and think that just improving their get-out-the-vote system and throwing a few bones to the Latino community will fix their problem. There appears to be no recognition that their defects are far, far deeper and will require serious introspection and rethinking of how Republicans can win going forward. The alternative is permanent loss of the White House and probably the Senate as well, which means they can only temporarily block Democratic initiatives and never advance their own.
Yet they still believe...
Spelling Issues
I especially like the second photo and the woman behind the sign. Sort of reminds me of (ahem) something...:)
Monday, February 04, 2013
They Want A Mailing List
A nice summation of what happens when you allow hucksters to run your political party. As I have been saying, they don't want to win elections anymore. As Bill says below, if they are Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, or Bill Whittle, they just want a mailing list. Sadly, if they are your average voter, they just want to "win" arguments and flock all to willingly to these mailing lists.
Oh, and good Lord, was the montage of the same exact book being sold over and over again fucking hilarious! I wonder how much longer they will fall for it...
Oh, and good Lord, was the montage of the same exact book being sold over and over again fucking hilarious! I wonder how much longer they will fall for it...
A Very Stale Conflict
The recent conflict over the nature of social studies curriculum is tired, old and very, very stale. Yes, we know that the liberals can't stand the fact that America has actually done a whole lot of wonderful things in including the spread of free market economics around the world which has clearly raised prosperity in such remote corners that it's likely world hunger will be eliminated within 50 years. Or that our military has ensured this freedom across the globe and saved countless lives from a whole host of threats, both human and natural. And we know that conservatives are literally foaming at the mouth even at the mere hint of America being at fault for anything in its 200+ year history. Whenever anything bad happened (slavery, coup in Iran, Vietnam, Iraq II), it was no one's fault. Shitty things just happen sometimes and if you blame America, well, you're a fucking commie!
What both sides in this debate completely fail to realize is that they are having the wrong argument and are wasting an enormous amount of time. The discussion shouldn't be about content. It should be about rigor. The same level of attention that is applied to math and reading should be applied to social studies. That includes high stakes testing with severe repercussions for those districts who fail to achieve the basic standards set out by the state in history and civics.
I'd wager that none of these people has been in a classroom in the last decade because the simple fact is that young people don't give a shit about civics or history. Without the priority placed on it by the state, why the fuck should they care? Our education department, as well as others across the nation, is hammering it into them that math and reading are more important than any other subject. Certainly, they are important but when many of the kids I get into class don't know who the vice president is or how a bill is passed or that there are even three branches of government, that should be a strong indicator for change.
The first thing that needs to happen is that the conclusion of 9th grade should bring with it a basic civics and history exam to be taken by all students. By that time, they should have taken both a US History and a government class so they should have the knowledge. The data we could glean from such exams could be an excellent metric for the pedagogy of today's social studies teachers. It's long been my belief (and the data would likely bear this out) that social studies teachers skate by on doing the minimal amount of work. They don't have a fire under their arses that really needs to be there if we are actually going to get young people to have enduring understandings about history and civics. We have enough to compete with anyway with all the other social influences in kids' lives.
By the time they get to me, I see the results. They don't remember much of what they have learned and had instructors that spent a lot of time showing movies or going on field trips. I'm really sick and tired of people living the stereotype of the social studies teacher being just a slight jump up from the gym teacher. Hell, I'm tired of people living the gym teacher stereotype as well. I'd say that they have done a pretty poor job as well when you consider how rotund our nation's children have become although I know it's not entirely their fault.
So, let's forget this stupid debate about the content of social studies and what political view needs to be studied and focus on the fundamental goal: mastery of basic civics and history. We've gone far too long with young people not understanding the history of our government, how it functions, and the people that have been and are involved making decisions that affect all of our lives. Connections need to be made to their daily lives and the importance of what happens in government and in history must be illustrated in new and exciting ways for each and every student.
It's time for social studies to be taken much more seriously.
What both sides in this debate completely fail to realize is that they are having the wrong argument and are wasting an enormous amount of time. The discussion shouldn't be about content. It should be about rigor. The same level of attention that is applied to math and reading should be applied to social studies. That includes high stakes testing with severe repercussions for those districts who fail to achieve the basic standards set out by the state in history and civics.
I'd wager that none of these people has been in a classroom in the last decade because the simple fact is that young people don't give a shit about civics or history. Without the priority placed on it by the state, why the fuck should they care? Our education department, as well as others across the nation, is hammering it into them that math and reading are more important than any other subject. Certainly, they are important but when many of the kids I get into class don't know who the vice president is or how a bill is passed or that there are even three branches of government, that should be a strong indicator for change.
The first thing that needs to happen is that the conclusion of 9th grade should bring with it a basic civics and history exam to be taken by all students. By that time, they should have taken both a US History and a government class so they should have the knowledge. The data we could glean from such exams could be an excellent metric for the pedagogy of today's social studies teachers. It's long been my belief (and the data would likely bear this out) that social studies teachers skate by on doing the minimal amount of work. They don't have a fire under their arses that really needs to be there if we are actually going to get young people to have enduring understandings about history and civics. We have enough to compete with anyway with all the other social influences in kids' lives.
By the time they get to me, I see the results. They don't remember much of what they have learned and had instructors that spent a lot of time showing movies or going on field trips. I'm really sick and tired of people living the stereotype of the social studies teacher being just a slight jump up from the gym teacher. Hell, I'm tired of people living the gym teacher stereotype as well. I'd say that they have done a pretty poor job as well when you consider how rotund our nation's children have become although I know it's not entirely their fault.
So, let's forget this stupid debate about the content of social studies and what political view needs to be studied and focus on the fundamental goal: mastery of basic civics and history. We've gone far too long with young people not understanding the history of our government, how it functions, and the people that have been and are involved making decisions that affect all of our lives. Connections need to be made to their daily lives and the importance of what happens in government and in history must be illustrated in new and exciting ways for each and every student.
It's time for social studies to be taken much more seriously.
Sunday, February 03, 2013
Now, Maybe?
FORMER SEAL, 'AMERICAN SNIPER' CHRIS KYLE KILLED AT TEXAS GUN RANGE
So, can we perhaps now refine our nation's gun laws so that mentally ill people (especially those with PTSD) don't have access to guns?
So, can we perhaps now refine our nation's gun laws so that mentally ill people (especially those with PTSD) don't have access to guns?
Saturday, February 02, 2013
Dow Up, Fox Down, Hillary on the Mark!
Yesterday, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at its highest level since May of 2008, topping out over that magic 14,000 mark at 14,009.79. Nasdaq climbed to its highest level since December of 2000. And the S&P 500 finished at a six month high after seeing gains of almost 7 percent this year.
Huh. I guess the president isn't destroying the economy after all:)
Meanwhile, while our economy continues to improve, the ratings at Fox News continue to plummet. Coincidence? I think not. You can only say so many things that are so completely false for so long, you know, before people say, "Hey, they don't know what the fuck they are talking about!" Those people being in that magic 25-54 demographic group. Apparently, viewers are going to Rachel Maddow and Piers Morgan (thanks, Alex Jones!) and away from Sean Hannity and Greta van Susteren.
I think Hillary Clinton summed it up best when she said, in her last interview:
There are some people in politics and in the press who can't be confused by the facts. They just will not live in an evidence-based world. And that's regrettable. It's regrettable for our political system and for the people who serve our government in very dangerous, difficult circumstances.
She was talking about the Benghazi attack but it obviously applies to pretty much everything the Right does these days. Don't like the facts? Make up your own! And then personally attack anyone who questions their love of larping.
Because that's just what they are doing!!
Huh. I guess the president isn't destroying the economy after all:)
Meanwhile, while our economy continues to improve, the ratings at Fox News continue to plummet. Coincidence? I think not. You can only say so many things that are so completely false for so long, you know, before people say, "Hey, they don't know what the fuck they are talking about!" Those people being in that magic 25-54 demographic group. Apparently, viewers are going to Rachel Maddow and Piers Morgan (thanks, Alex Jones!) and away from Sean Hannity and Greta van Susteren.
I think Hillary Clinton summed it up best when she said, in her last interview:
There are some people in politics and in the press who can't be confused by the facts. They just will not live in an evidence-based world. And that's regrettable. It's regrettable for our political system and for the people who serve our government in very dangerous, difficult circumstances.
She was talking about the Benghazi attack but it obviously applies to pretty much everything the Right does these days. Don't like the facts? Make up your own! And then personally attack anyone who questions their love of larping.
Because that's just what they are doing!!
Friday, February 01, 2013
Trotter Testimony
Here's some video to go along with Nikto's post below. I love how she uses all too familiar framing techniques and Newspeak to redirect from completely disproving her own point.
False Courage from a Gun Barrel
In her testimony before Congress attorney Gayle Trotter said that the story of Sarah McKinley "proves" that women need AR-15 assault rifles. McKinley used a gun to fend off two attackers breaking into her home. Trotter lied by implication in her testimony: McKinley used a shotgun, not an assault rifle, which as one senator pointed out would continue to be completely legal under the proposed law.
Trotter then went on to say:
Young women are speaking out as to why AR-15 weapons are their weapon of choice. The guns are accurate. They have good handling. They’re light. They’re easy for women to hold.
And most importantly, their appearance. An assault weapon in the hands of a young woman defending her babies in her home becomes a defense weapon, and the peace of mind that a woman has as she’s facing three, four, five violent attackers, intruders in her home, with her children screaming in the background, the peace of mind that she has knowing that she has a scary-looking gun gives her more courage when she’s fighting hardened, violent criminals.Liquor is often called courage in a bottle, and often as not just gets you killed. The courage that comes from a gun barrel is just as deceptive.
Trotter's moving story of a widow defending her home from crazed druggies quickly moves into outright fantasy. If a woman's home is truly under siege by a gang of five hardened, violent criminals, they've probably bought AR-15s themselves at gun shows or through straw buyers, because the NRA has made that so convenient for criminals. If they don't have the cash to buy guns, they can steal guns from houses posted "Protected by Smith & Wesson" while the owners are off at work.
Now think how hard it will be for that lone woman wielding an AR-15 with screaming kids clutching her knees to keep out five guys with AR-15s, or even 17-shot Glocks or pump-action shotguns. Like medieval armies storming a castle with siege towers, battering rams, catapults and trebuchettes, the five marauders won't all line up outside her front door and wait to be shot. They'll attack from multiple directions simultaneously, breaking down the front door and smashing in windows, while one surreptiously jimmies the lock on the back door and sneaks in behind her in all that racket.
The truth is, if you're alone and five guys really want to get into your typical house, they're going to get in. The only things that will keep them out is strong bars on the doors and windows and a call to 911.
The NRA keeps yapping about slow 911 response times and being able to defend ourselves if civil society breaks down. If the 911 response is slow, that's the problem we should fix. If there's danger of looting after a tornado, then we need to make sure that FEMA and the National Guard have enough funding to get boots on the ground yesterday. But around the country the right is cutting the state and local taxes — starving the beast — that police departments and first responders depend on, and they want to eliminate FEMA outright.
The right seems to be itching for society to collapse, pushing fantastical "what if" scenarios, building gated communities and bunkers and amassing massive gun hoards.
Instead we should strengthen our civil institutions, make sure that our first responders are well-funded, end the foolish war on drugs that creates those hardened criminals, improve education and eliminate the poverty that drives people into crime in the first place.
An Example of Why The Libertarian Fantasy is Just That
The recent tragedy at the Santa Maria nightclub in Brazil serves as a stark reminder of what would actually happen if the world were run by libertarians.
There was no fire alarm, no sprinklers, no fire escape. In violation of state safety codes, fire extinguishers were not spaced every 1,500 square feet, and there was only one exit.
So, regulations were lax or nonexistent. And I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked, that the owners of KISS didn't simply just follow them of their own accord. Packing an extra thousand people in over fire code is bad but the free market will sort all of that out, right?
Brazil has a democratic republic with the states, the municipalities and the federal districts sharing a balance of power. In this case, fire and health codes fall under the authority of the state level government (state, not federal? Hmm...:)). Clearly, they failed but it's also quite apparent that there is a need to do their fucking job in the first place.
Yet this is exactly the ideal set forth by the less government crowd. Regulations suck. People don't need a government telling them what they can or can't do with their private business. They can handle it on their own. Private enterprise can police itself. If only they were left well enough alone, things would turn out...
Well, like this did...
There was no fire alarm, no sprinklers, no fire escape. In violation of state safety codes, fire extinguishers were not spaced every 1,500 square feet, and there was only one exit.
So, regulations were lax or nonexistent. And I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked, that the owners of KISS didn't simply just follow them of their own accord. Packing an extra thousand people in over fire code is bad but the free market will sort all of that out, right?
Brazil has a democratic republic with the states, the municipalities and the federal districts sharing a balance of power. In this case, fire and health codes fall under the authority of the state level government (state, not federal? Hmm...:)). Clearly, they failed but it's also quite apparent that there is a need to do their fucking job in the first place.
Yet this is exactly the ideal set forth by the less government crowd. Regulations suck. People don't need a government telling them what they can or can't do with their private business. They can handle it on their own. Private enterprise can police itself. If only they were left well enough alone, things would turn out...
Well, like this did...
Thursday, January 31, 2013
Unbelievable
Here's another example of why the gun laws in this country need to be refined. So what if he's an old man. This is a classic case of someone who should not own a gun.
Part of me thinks, though, that this is what the gun folks want. That way they can point to the violence and say, "See? People need to defend themselves against this sort of thing." The more shootings, the merrier, eh? Maybe they think that Abad should have had a gun and then he could have shot back.
Oh, no, wait, that wouldn't do. He was Latino.
Part of me thinks, though, that this is what the gun folks want. That way they can point to the violence and say, "See? People need to defend themselves against this sort of thing." The more shootings, the merrier, eh? Maybe they think that Abad should have had a gun and then he could have shot back.
Oh, no, wait, that wouldn't do. He was Latino.
Ah, That Explains It
With the standoff down in rural Alabama entering its second day, we now know a little more about the suspect who shot a school bus driver and took a kid hostage. His name is Jimmie Lee Dykes, age 65.
Neighbors describe Dykes as being "anti-government" and said he was "a long time concern" in the community, WSFA.com reported. Court records show he was due in court Wednesday morning to face menacing charges, according to the station.
Gee, I'm shocked. I wonder if he was a regular reader of Kevin Baker's site. Of course, this is a great example of the study that I put up from the other day as to the danger that this type of person, whether acting alone or with others, presents to the public. Where are the left wing radicals that shoot bus drivers and take kids hostages?
And this is yet another example of why the current system we have regarding guns needs to be refined.
Neighbors describe Dykes as being "anti-government" and said he was "a long time concern" in the community, WSFA.com reported. Court records show he was due in court Wednesday morning to face menacing charges, according to the station.
Gee, I'm shocked. I wonder if he was a regular reader of Kevin Baker's site. Of course, this is a great example of the study that I put up from the other day as to the danger that this type of person, whether acting alone or with others, presents to the public. Where are the left wing radicals that shoot bus drivers and take kids hostages?
And this is yet another example of why the current system we have regarding guns needs to be refined.
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Working Out Just Fine
Let's see...
Grades too low, so St. Paul dad pulls AK-47, charges say
Authorities: NM teen accused of killing family put rifles in van, planned Wal-Mart shootout
Gunman in Ala. bus shooting holds boy hostage in bunker
And breaking just a few hours ago...
3 shot at Phoenix office building
And these are just highlights of the last week.
Yes, I see it now. Our gun laws are sufficient and seem to be working out just fine. In fact, we need less regulation and more guns in light of these events. That'll solve the problem, George Orwell.
What was I thinking?
Grades too low, so St. Paul dad pulls AK-47, charges say
Authorities: NM teen accused of killing family put rifles in van, planned Wal-Mart shootout
Gunman in Ala. bus shooting holds boy hostage in bunker
And breaking just a few hours ago...
3 shot at Phoenix office building
And these are just highlights of the last week.
Yes, I see it now. Our gun laws are sufficient and seem to be working out just fine. In fact, we need less regulation and more guns in light of these events. That'll solve the problem, George Orwell.
What was I thinking?
The Clock is Ticking
On Monday, the president met with law enforcement officials from the five communities where there have been mass shootings. One of those communities was mine where seven people died in a workplace shooting at Accent Signage, in Minneapolis, last September.
The man seated to the right of the president in this photo is Hennepin County Sheriff Rich Stanek. Sheriff Stanek was elected sheriff in 2006 and again in 2010. I voted for him both times as he is a fantastic example of a leader who recognizes that thinking outside of the box is vital in pursuing solutions to the very serious problems our communities face today.
Oh, and Rich Stanek is a Republican.
Sheriff Stanek's point to the president was this. "Gun control alone will not solve the complex problem of guns and extreme violence. We have an access problem. Individuals with severe mental illness should never have access to guns.
This is from his piece in the Star and Tribune a two weeks ago.
Federal law already prohibits high-risk individuals from buying guns -- persons determined by a court to be "mentally ill and dangerous," felons, drug addicts, fugitives, illegal aliens, dishonorably discharged soldiers, those who have renounced U.S. citizenship, and domestic abusers all are disqualified from gun ownership.
The National Criminal Instant Background Check System (NICS) assists law enforcement in identifying the disqualified. Trouble is, the system is woefully underdeveloped. A majority of relevant records have never been included in NICS; millions of names are missing from the federal database.
Since then, Congress passed the NICS Improvement Amendments Act to improve development and management of the NICS Index. But state participation still is voluntary, and only 12 states actively have engaged in an effort to submit mental-illness records.
Step One: Make state participation mandatory. This would have broad bipartisan support and have an immediate impact on gun violence. But how much of an impact and is it enough?
But even if we updated the NICS Index with every relevant record (and we should make every effort to do so), it still would not be enough. For a mentally ill person to become disqualified for gun ownership, there must first have been an act of violence, or an arrest leading to the extreme measure of a court hearing and decision. In my view, this is far too late to provide meaningful care and treatment to those in need.
Multiple studies show a strong link between untreated mental illness and an increased risk of committing violent acts (when properly treated, even the severely mentally ill pose no greater threat than do those in the general population). The parents of Andrew Engeldinger, the suspected killer at Accent Signage in Minneapolis last summer, said they tried to push their son to seek treatment for paranoia and delusions, but he was an adult and refused help.
This is the crux of the problem. If someone is an adult, we can't force them to seek care. As Stanek goes on to explain, we have an epidemic of mental illness in this country that has reached biblical proportions. Other countries have plenty of guns but they don't go around shooting each other at the rates that we do. Why?
It's not enough to say, "Well, it's our culture." Other countries have access to the same films and video games that we do. It's more than that and once you get into the details, the central cause that emerges is mental health.
We need a real strategy to address this unmet need for forensic psychiatric care and to prevent those with untreated mental illness from committing acts of violence. This must become a public-safety priority as well as a public-health priority.
More than anything, we must encourage individuals facing mental-health issues to seek treatment. We must "make it OK" for our family, friends and colleagues to seek treatment.
Exactly. And this would be why I will support Rich Stanek as long as he continues to run for office. We need more Rich Staneks around the country to embrace this mentality.
Yesterday.
Oh, and Rich Stanek is a Republican.
Sheriff Stanek's point to the president was this. "Gun control alone will not solve the complex problem of guns and extreme violence. We have an access problem. Individuals with severe mental illness should never have access to guns.
This is from his piece in the Star and Tribune a two weeks ago.
Federal law already prohibits high-risk individuals from buying guns -- persons determined by a court to be "mentally ill and dangerous," felons, drug addicts, fugitives, illegal aliens, dishonorably discharged soldiers, those who have renounced U.S. citizenship, and domestic abusers all are disqualified from gun ownership.
The National Criminal Instant Background Check System (NICS) assists law enforcement in identifying the disqualified. Trouble is, the system is woefully underdeveloped. A majority of relevant records have never been included in NICS; millions of names are missing from the federal database.
Since then, Congress passed the NICS Improvement Amendments Act to improve development and management of the NICS Index. But state participation still is voluntary, and only 12 states actively have engaged in an effort to submit mental-illness records.
Step One: Make state participation mandatory. This would have broad bipartisan support and have an immediate impact on gun violence. But how much of an impact and is it enough?
But even if we updated the NICS Index with every relevant record (and we should make every effort to do so), it still would not be enough. For a mentally ill person to become disqualified for gun ownership, there must first have been an act of violence, or an arrest leading to the extreme measure of a court hearing and decision. In my view, this is far too late to provide meaningful care and treatment to those in need.
Multiple studies show a strong link between untreated mental illness and an increased risk of committing violent acts (when properly treated, even the severely mentally ill pose no greater threat than do those in the general population). The parents of Andrew Engeldinger, the suspected killer at Accent Signage in Minneapolis last summer, said they tried to push their son to seek treatment for paranoia and delusions, but he was an adult and refused help.
This is the crux of the problem. If someone is an adult, we can't force them to seek care. As Stanek goes on to explain, we have an epidemic of mental illness in this country that has reached biblical proportions. Other countries have plenty of guns but they don't go around shooting each other at the rates that we do. Why?
It's not enough to say, "Well, it's our culture." Other countries have access to the same films and video games that we do. It's more than that and once you get into the details, the central cause that emerges is mental health.
We need a real strategy to address this unmet need for forensic psychiatric care and to prevent those with untreated mental illness from committing acts of violence. This must become a public-safety priority as well as a public-health priority.
More than anything, we must encourage individuals facing mental-health issues to seek treatment. We must "make it OK" for our family, friends and colleagues to seek treatment.
Exactly. And this would be why I will support Rich Stanek as long as he continues to run for office. We need more Rich Staneks around the country to embrace this mentality.
Yesterday.
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Cumulative Risk and Complacency
Jared Diamond, a professor of geography at UCLA, has an interesting essay about our comprehension of risk in the New York Times.
His thesis is that in our society we become inured to everyday risks that are more likely to hurt us and overemphasize risks that are extremely unlikely. We're more afraid of events that we can't control — extremely low-probability occurrences such as crazed gunmen, terrorist attacks and plane crashes — than we are of much higher probability events that we can control, such as falling in the shower, dying in a car accident, lung cancer, heart disease and diabetes.
My mother-in-law recently broke her hip crossing the street (falling can be fatal in the elderly), so his point about falls hits close to home:
Life expectancy for a healthy American man of my age is about 90. (That’s not to be confused with American male life expectancy at birth, only about 78.) If I’m to achieve my statistical quota of 15 more years of life, that means about 15 times 365, or 5,475, more showers. But if I were so careless that my risk of slipping in the shower each time were as high as 1 in 1,000, I’d die or become crippled about five times before reaching my life expectancy. I have to reduce my risk of shower accidents to much, much less than 1 in 5,475.This logic applies to all sorts of events in our lives besides showering: driving, chopping wood, cleaning the gutters, cutting tree branches, and so on. I know three guys, one of whom nearly died, who have suffered extremely serious injuries either falling off a roof or getting hit by heavy tree branches.
This means that you're more likely to get hurt performing a small-risk mundane task repetitively that lulls you into a sense of complacency and carelessness. Like carrying a gun everywhere you go.
If, for example, there's a 1 in 10,000 chance that you'll accidentally shoot yourself or someone else each day you carry a gun, over a ten-year period the chance grows to 30% (1 - [1 - 0.0001] ^ 3650), and 52% over 20 years.
What determines that basic chance? Basically, how smart and careful you are. Consider the Kansas man who accidentally shot his wife at dinner in a steakhouse when he reached into his pocket. Why was there a round in the chamber? Why wasn't the safety on?
If the NRA has its way, we will have far more to fear from getting shot at dinner by poorly trained gun owners scratching themselves than we do from nutcases like James Holmes shooting up movie theaters.
People who love guns like to think they make them safer, but they actually become a menace to everyone around them. But most of all, you endanger yourself: you're much more likely to commit suicide or accidentally discharge the weapon and hit yourself or a family member than you are to stop a gunman. And even if you do encounter a gunman, the very act of pulling a gun puts you at greater risk.
Consider the case of Dan McKown, who was carrying a legal concealed weapon in 2005 when a shots rang out at a Tacoma Mall in Washington state:
Gun drawn, McKown scanned for the shooter. But the gunshots stopped. Unsure what had happened, McKown tucked his pistol back under his coat — just as the shooter walked right in front of him.
"So anyway, I'm standing there like Napoleon Bonaparte, with his hand, you know, in his jacket," he recalls. "So I said, 'Young man, I think you need to put your weapon down.' "McKown made himself a target and got himself shot. He may have also prevented further bloodshed, because after that the shooter holed up in a store with hostages.
That moment of vulnerability gave the other guy just enough time to shoot McKown. The bullet hit his spine, and he found himself unable to aim his own gun.
"I prayed the most un-Christian prayer of my life, which was: 'God, please let me shoot this guy before he kills somebody else.' Because I was sure I was dead," McKown says. "Then he hit me again, again, again. And he spun me like a pinwheel."
Arguably the right thing to do in that case was to take cover, keep the gun out until the shooter's location was established, and then plug him in the back without warning. The problem is that McKown had no badge or police uniform, and any cop or other person with a concealed weapon coming onto the scene should follow that same advice and unknowingly shoot a "good guy" with a gun.
Which brings us to the real point: untrained amateurs should not be walking around with loaded guns in their purses, pockets or waistbands, like Plaxico Burress or the idiot who shot himself in the penis. If you're going to be armed with concealed weapons in public, you should be required to follow the same training and safety standards as law enforcement professionals. That doesn't mean some hokey two-hour training course. That means dozens of hours of training, drills, target practice, tests and live-fire simulations. And anyone caught with a gun in his pants should have a mandatory three-month stint in the workhouse.
The Second Amendment does, after all, speak of a well-regulated militia.
Even West Point?
I've been taken to the mat many times on here for talking too much about conservatives. So has Nikto. Both of us have said many times that the far right in this country, which more or less dominates the GOP, is dangerous and should be taken more seriously. Now the premier military academy in the school agrees with both of us.
In a report entitled, "Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far-Right," author Arie Perliger discusses the rise in attacks (since 2007) by people aligned with far right groups. He centers his paper on three key questions.
(1) What are the main current characteristics of the violence produced by the far right?
(2) What type of far-right groups are more prone than others to engage in violence? How are characteristics of particular far-right groups correlated with their tendency to engage in violence?
(3) What are the social and political factors associated with the level of far-right violence? Are there political or social conditions that foster or discourage violence?
Good questions to start and he does an excellent job of identifying the three key elements of the far right: a racist/white supremacy movement, an anti-federalist movement and a fundamentalist movement.
There's quite a bit to pour over so I'm just going to highlight some points that I thought were interesting and encourage everyone else to read the whole thing.
If there is one ideological doctrine about which there is almost full consensus regarding its importance for understanding the far-right worldview, it is that of nationalism.
Yep. This is where I get my valid comparison to Nazis. I realize this ruffles many feathers here but no one can deny that the Right are more nationalistic than the left. After all, the left hate America, right? So how can they be Nazis?
More specifically...
In the context of the far-right worldview, nationalism takes an extreme form of full convergence between one polity or territory and one ethnic or national collective. Two elements are required for the fulfillment of this version of the nationalist doctrine. The first is that of internal homogenization, i.e., the aspiration that all residents or citizens of the polity will share the same national origin and ethnic characteristics. The second is the element of external exclusiveness, the aspiration that all individuals belonging to a specific national or ethnic group will reside in the homeland.
It's always puzzled me that the Right can't see how collectivist they act on a daily basis. Everyone has to think like they do otherwise they are not pure. We've seen this with the GOP primaries in the last two elections.
So how is this manifested?
The first includes concepts that complement the rationale of internal homogenization throughxenophobia, racism and exclusionism. Xenophobia involves behaviors and sentiments derived from fear, hate and hostility towards groups which are perceived as alien or strange, including people with alternative sexual preferences, styles of living and behavior; racism refers to the same sentiments, but based on racial grounds, such as belief in the national and moral significance of natural and hereditary differences between races, and the conviction that certain races are superior to others.
Finally, exclusionism is the practical manifestation of these sentiments on the communal or state level. Practically, outsiders are excluded from specific spheres of the social, economic and political arena, such as the labor market, the educational system and residential areas.
I don't think there is a better summation of the GOP today.
In a report entitled, "Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far-Right," author Arie Perliger discusses the rise in attacks (since 2007) by people aligned with far right groups. He centers his paper on three key questions.
(1) What are the main current characteristics of the violence produced by the far right?
(2) What type of far-right groups are more prone than others to engage in violence? How are characteristics of particular far-right groups correlated with their tendency to engage in violence?
(3) What are the social and political factors associated with the level of far-right violence? Are there political or social conditions that foster or discourage violence?
Good questions to start and he does an excellent job of identifying the three key elements of the far right: a racist/white supremacy movement, an anti-federalist movement and a fundamentalist movement.
There's quite a bit to pour over so I'm just going to highlight some points that I thought were interesting and encourage everyone else to read the whole thing.
If there is one ideological doctrine about which there is almost full consensus regarding its importance for understanding the far-right worldview, it is that of nationalism.
Yep. This is where I get my valid comparison to Nazis. I realize this ruffles many feathers here but no one can deny that the Right are more nationalistic than the left. After all, the left hate America, right? So how can they be Nazis?
More specifically...
In the context of the far-right worldview, nationalism takes an extreme form of full convergence between one polity or territory and one ethnic or national collective. Two elements are required for the fulfillment of this version of the nationalist doctrine. The first is that of internal homogenization, i.e., the aspiration that all residents or citizens of the polity will share the same national origin and ethnic characteristics. The second is the element of external exclusiveness, the aspiration that all individuals belonging to a specific national or ethnic group will reside in the homeland.
It's always puzzled me that the Right can't see how collectivist they act on a daily basis. Everyone has to think like they do otherwise they are not pure. We've seen this with the GOP primaries in the last two elections.
So how is this manifested?
The first includes concepts that complement the rationale of internal homogenization throughxenophobia, racism and exclusionism. Xenophobia involves behaviors and sentiments derived from fear, hate and hostility towards groups which are perceived as alien or strange, including people with alternative sexual preferences, styles of living and behavior; racism refers to the same sentiments, but based on racial grounds, such as belief in the national and moral significance of natural and hereditary differences between races, and the conviction that certain races are superior to others.
Finally, exclusionism is the practical manifestation of these sentiments on the communal or state level. Practically, outsiders are excluded from specific spheres of the social, economic and political arena, such as the labor market, the educational system and residential areas.
I don't think there is a better summation of the GOP today.
Monday, January 28, 2013
Whither Sarah...
We don't hear much from Sarah "she scares the 'hell' out of Markadelphia" Palin these days. Every few weeks, she'll pop up, say something predictable and boring, and then retreat to her Alaskan bunker to wait out the "coming apocalypse."
But the recent news that her and Fox News have parted ways has left a whole lot of sour grapes in her mouth which have translated into some..ahem... interesting remarks. First of all, she's calling for a "larger audience." But wait, I though Fox News had the largest audience of the news networks. What happened? Oh yes...the election last year. Of course, this comment could just be her way of covering herself for being ousted at Fox. But I think it's more than that. The GOP does need a larger audience but in order to do that, they are going to have to change and, thus far, they are refusing to do that.
She also called for "more truth telling in the media" which made me laugh so hard I think I broke a rib. Considering that most the words out of her mouth are complete lies, maybe she should start with herself. The real money quote, though, was this.
“I encourage others to step out in faith, jump out of the comfort zone, and broaden our reach as believers in American exceptionalism,” she told the conservative news site in a short Q&A. “That means broadening our audience. I’m taking my own advice here as I free up opportunities to share more broadly the message of the beauty of freedom and the imperative of defending our republic and restoring this most exceptional nation.”
“We can't just preach to the choir,” she said. “The message of liberty and true hope must be understood by a larger audience.”
Yes, please, by all means DO broaden your audience. I have encouraged many of conservative friends and commenters here and on Kevin's site to leave the bubble and stop preaching to the choir. As of yet, they have declined. So, maybe Sarah can be the trailblazer!
I'm looking forward to her explaining how our country needs to be "restored" considering we have the largest economy and the most wealth of any other nation on the planet. I'd like to hear how we can better defend our republic when are armed forces are already larger than the next 20 countries combined. This doesn't even include America's soft power in the world with products like the iPhone. I think her message of "restoration" is going to be a wonderful juxtaposition to our impending energy independence in the next decade.
And I'd really like to hear her try to convince the American people that Democrats don't believe in American exceptionalism. It's a lie that hasn't worked in the last four elections.
So, please, Sarah, do take your message of liberty and true hope outside of the bubble. My question for you and any others that follow suit is this
What are you going to do when reality smacks you upside the head?
But the recent news that her and Fox News have parted ways has left a whole lot of sour grapes in her mouth which have translated into some..ahem... interesting remarks. First of all, she's calling for a "larger audience." But wait, I though Fox News had the largest audience of the news networks. What happened? Oh yes...the election last year. Of course, this comment could just be her way of covering herself for being ousted at Fox. But I think it's more than that. The GOP does need a larger audience but in order to do that, they are going to have to change and, thus far, they are refusing to do that.
She also called for "more truth telling in the media" which made me laugh so hard I think I broke a rib. Considering that most the words out of her mouth are complete lies, maybe she should start with herself. The real money quote, though, was this.
“I encourage others to step out in faith, jump out of the comfort zone, and broaden our reach as believers in American exceptionalism,” she told the conservative news site in a short Q&A. “That means broadening our audience. I’m taking my own advice here as I free up opportunities to share more broadly the message of the beauty of freedom and the imperative of defending our republic and restoring this most exceptional nation.”
“We can't just preach to the choir,” she said. “The message of liberty and true hope must be understood by a larger audience.”
Yes, please, by all means DO broaden your audience. I have encouraged many of conservative friends and commenters here and on Kevin's site to leave the bubble and stop preaching to the choir. As of yet, they have declined. So, maybe Sarah can be the trailblazer!
I'm looking forward to her explaining how our country needs to be "restored" considering we have the largest economy and the most wealth of any other nation on the planet. I'd like to hear how we can better defend our republic when are armed forces are already larger than the next 20 countries combined. This doesn't even include America's soft power in the world with products like the iPhone. I think her message of "restoration" is going to be a wonderful juxtaposition to our impending energy independence in the next decade.
And I'd really like to hear her try to convince the American people that Democrats don't believe in American exceptionalism. It's a lie that hasn't worked in the last four elections.
So, please, Sarah, do take your message of liberty and true hope outside of the bubble. My question for you and any others that follow suit is this
What are you going to do when reality smacks you upside the head?
Now This Is Embarrassing...
PLYMOUTH, Minn. (WCCO) — Plymouth Police say a man is in the hospital after he accidentally shot himself inside a Rainbow Foods Sunday afternoon.Plymouth is a quiet suburb of Minneapolis. There is something ... unstable about a person who thinks they need a gun to go to Rainbow on a Sunday afternoon.
The shooting occurred inside the bathroom of the grocery store, which is located at 4190 Vinewood Ln. N. at 4:26 p.m.
The man suffered a non-life threatening injury to his lower leg.
Police are not sure how the gun discharged. There is no indication that this is anything other than an accident.
No one else was injured.
Police say the man has a conceal and carry permit.
Though I have to admit that there is another possibility: maybe he uses his pistol to get off instead of Playboy centerfolds and couldn't wait till he got home. That would make this incident about mental health instead of guns.
Guns in the hands of incompetent people are a public health menace and should be treated as such. One man's right to play vigilante ends when he presents a danger to the public. This guy's permit should be revoked and he should made the object of ridicule by competent gun owners everywhere.
Instead of minimizing and excusing such incidents the NRA should get on the stick and demand higher standards for gun ownership.
The Good News Keeps Rolling In
For all the talk about how broken our health care system is, the world as a whole is actually doing much better than in the past. Some examples.
- Dr. Benn singles out Rwanda as an example of stunning progress: More than 90 percent of eligible Rwandans were receiving ART by the end of October. "This is fantastic ... historical. That is beyond our expectations from a couple of years ago," Benn says.
- Kazakhstan is the site of another moment of global public health progress this year. In March, it was certified malaria-free by the World Health Organization, joining only four other malaria-endemic countries with that designation.
- Nigeria heads the pack of 17 countries poised to eliminate malaria. Their antimalaria agenda includes a $50 million bed-net program, underwritten by The Global Fund, which hopes the country will offer two bed nets per household.
- The Republic of the Congo, meanwhile, has made massive strides in combating maternal mortality. The number of women dying in childbirth dropped 60 percent between 2010 and 2011, from 740 deaths per 100,000 live births to 300 deaths.
There are many more examples like this happening around the world and the best part about all of it is that it is happening exponentially. Juxtapose this with the sharp reduction in extreme poverty and it's clear that we are heading in something more than the "right direction."
Honestly, it's becoming more and more apparent every day that we are heading towards that Star Trek vision of the future and it's largely due to the leadership of the United States.
Sunday, January 27, 2013
No Liberal War on Science
A new charge has been leveled in the ongoing media campaign of false equivalences between conservatives and liberals. A piece by Michael Shermer, the resident skeptic in Scientific American, claims that there's a liberal war on science.
The conservative war on science has been well established: they don't believe evolution is real, they don't believe global warming is real, they have crazy ideas that women can't be impregnated by rapists unless they want to or God wills it. More to the point, they have passed laws to prevent the teaching of evolution, deny the facts of sea level rise and other effects of global warming and campaigned for office on a platform to take away the rights of women who have been raped, justifying it with bogus science.
Shermer's charges against liberals start with "41% of Democrats are young Earth creationists and 19% doubt Earth is getting warmer." This line of reasoning is fraught with error. Saying "I'm right because a poll said so" is a very weak start to an argument.
First, this is a voluntary poll: a self-selected sampling of people. Self-selected because many people just hang up on pollsters, or don't even bother to answer their phones. Only certain kinds of people are willing to endure the tedium of responding to a bunch of inane questions: some would call them pleasers. Even though anonymous, telling someone that you don't believe in the Bible's creation myth is tantamount to admitting you're an atheist. People who take the time to answer polls obviously place importance on what others think about them, and may be more likely to give the "right" answer to please the questioner, skewing the results. Furthermore, bias is inherent in socially sensitive surveys and their results simply cannot be trusted without knowing the specific questions asked: you can word a survey to get any result you want.
Second, being a Democrat does not mean you're a liberal. The majority of Democrats have moderate views. Many Democrats are conservatives and vote Democratic for purely partisan or tribal reasons (east-coast Irish Catholics and Jews, or example), or refusing to ever vote for Republicans because they perpetuate racism against blacks and Latinos. The Democrats who hold conservative religious beliefs are by definition religious conservatives and not liberals. Citing these statistics equates "Democrat" to "liberal," making the statement misleading and meaningless.
Third, holding a "liberal" or "conservative" view on one issue says nothing about what you believe on another issue. Conservatives have been pushing the false conservative/liberal dichotomy because they think it gives them traction. Dick Cheney believes that gays should be allowed to marry, but that doesn't make him a liberal. Indeed, many people believe the conservative view on gay marriage, drug use, contraception and abortion is that employers and the government shouldn't be telling people what to do in their private lives.
Fourth, owning a belief does not require that you work to foist that belief on others or sabotage others who hold contrary beliefs (the "war" part of the equation). In other words, having an opinion does not require that you be intolerant and oppress those with different opinions. If you believe the earth was created in a 24-hour day, but your faith is strong enough that believe your kids will be able to make the right decision after learning about evolution in school, you are not engaged in a war on science. If you think the earth's climate is not getting warmer, but you accept kids learning the facts about climate change, fuel efficiency standards, compact fluorescent light bulbs, and electricity generated by wind turbines, you're not engaging in war against science. The campaigns against evolution and climate science are led almost exclusively by Republican politicians and religious zealots.
The meat of the complaint against liberals is that they have declared "Armageddon" on science because the most extreme ones oppose things such as nuclear power, hydroelectric dams, wind turbines, genetically-modified organisms, etc. Again, more false equivalences. It's like saying that all Republicans are racist because former Ku Klux Klan member David Duke is a Republican (though like many southern conservatives, he was previously a Democrat).
First, people opposed to these technologies don't claim that the science behind them is a hoax. They believe that these technologies -- particular applications of science -- are dangerous, inappropriate, ineffective or not worth the tradeoffs.
In particular, people who oppose nuclear power don't believe nuclear fission is a hoax. They believe that the current state of nuclear technology is not safe. Our nuclear power plants are nearing the end of their safe lifespans and we have nowhere safe to store the highly toxic radioactive waste. It's sitting in spent fuel pools or dry casks sitting outside nuclear reactors across the country, waiting for a tsunami or earthquake like the one that hit Fukushima Daiichi in Japan. And we're still creating 2,000 tons of nuclear waste a year, with no permanent safe place to store it. Oh, and what if terrorists get hold of that waste just sitting around in those dry casks?
However, if a national storage facility with safe and permanent storage is created, or technology is developed that eliminates these problems (fusion, for example), I and probably most Democrats will cease to oppose the expanded use of nuclear power. And I and most Democrats have no problems with properly sited wind turbines and hydroelectric dams, or even natural gas fracking as long as it's done without contaminating groundwater or causing earthquakes and environmental disasters disposing of fracking fluids.
Second, the number of "liberals" who consider wildlife more important than humans and therefore oppose wind, solar and hydro energy technologies is vanishingly tiny. The vast majority of Democrats are fine with the technologies that the strawman liberals oppose. By comparison, the Republican party is entirely controlled and financed by people pushing anti-evolution, anti-global warming, anti-gay marriage, anti-women's reproductive rights agendas. To win a primary every Republican now has to toe the line on all these issues, or be crushed by ads from those vested interests.
In the end, the Republican war on science has nothing at all to do with science. It all comes down to money: keeping oil company profits and donations from religious zealots and other vested interests flowing. Since they cannot win the argument on the basis of science, they have chosen to incite anger and cast doubt over the cost of alternative solutions and the science itself, because conservatives respond more to uncertainty and fear.
At least that's what the scientists say.
The conservative war on science has been well established: they don't believe evolution is real, they don't believe global warming is real, they have crazy ideas that women can't be impregnated by rapists unless they want to or God wills it. More to the point, they have passed laws to prevent the teaching of evolution, deny the facts of sea level rise and other effects of global warming and campaigned for office on a platform to take away the rights of women who have been raped, justifying it with bogus science.
Shermer's charges against liberals start with "41% of Democrats are young Earth creationists and 19% doubt Earth is getting warmer." This line of reasoning is fraught with error. Saying "I'm right because a poll said so" is a very weak start to an argument.
First, this is a voluntary poll: a self-selected sampling of people. Self-selected because many people just hang up on pollsters, or don't even bother to answer their phones. Only certain kinds of people are willing to endure the tedium of responding to a bunch of inane questions: some would call them pleasers. Even though anonymous, telling someone that you don't believe in the Bible's creation myth is tantamount to admitting you're an atheist. People who take the time to answer polls obviously place importance on what others think about them, and may be more likely to give the "right" answer to please the questioner, skewing the results. Furthermore, bias is inherent in socially sensitive surveys and their results simply cannot be trusted without knowing the specific questions asked: you can word a survey to get any result you want.
Second, being a Democrat does not mean you're a liberal. The majority of Democrats have moderate views. Many Democrats are conservatives and vote Democratic for purely partisan or tribal reasons (east-coast Irish Catholics and Jews, or example), or refusing to ever vote for Republicans because they perpetuate racism against blacks and Latinos. The Democrats who hold conservative religious beliefs are by definition religious conservatives and not liberals. Citing these statistics equates "Democrat" to "liberal," making the statement misleading and meaningless.
Third, holding a "liberal" or "conservative" view on one issue says nothing about what you believe on another issue. Conservatives have been pushing the false conservative/liberal dichotomy because they think it gives them traction. Dick Cheney believes that gays should be allowed to marry, but that doesn't make him a liberal. Indeed, many people believe the conservative view on gay marriage, drug use, contraception and abortion is that employers and the government shouldn't be telling people what to do in their private lives.
Fourth, owning a belief does not require that you work to foist that belief on others or sabotage others who hold contrary beliefs (the "war" part of the equation). In other words, having an opinion does not require that you be intolerant and oppress those with different opinions. If you believe the earth was created in a 24-hour day, but your faith is strong enough that believe your kids will be able to make the right decision after learning about evolution in school, you are not engaged in a war on science. If you think the earth's climate is not getting warmer, but you accept kids learning the facts about climate change, fuel efficiency standards, compact fluorescent light bulbs, and electricity generated by wind turbines, you're not engaging in war against science. The campaigns against evolution and climate science are led almost exclusively by Republican politicians and religious zealots.
The meat of the complaint against liberals is that they have declared "Armageddon" on science because the most extreme ones oppose things such as nuclear power, hydroelectric dams, wind turbines, genetically-modified organisms, etc. Again, more false equivalences. It's like saying that all Republicans are racist because former Ku Klux Klan member David Duke is a Republican (though like many southern conservatives, he was previously a Democrat).
First, people opposed to these technologies don't claim that the science behind them is a hoax. They believe that these technologies -- particular applications of science -- are dangerous, inappropriate, ineffective or not worth the tradeoffs.
In particular, people who oppose nuclear power don't believe nuclear fission is a hoax. They believe that the current state of nuclear technology is not safe. Our nuclear power plants are nearing the end of their safe lifespans and we have nowhere safe to store the highly toxic radioactive waste. It's sitting in spent fuel pools or dry casks sitting outside nuclear reactors across the country, waiting for a tsunami or earthquake like the one that hit Fukushima Daiichi in Japan. And we're still creating 2,000 tons of nuclear waste a year, with no permanent safe place to store it. Oh, and what if terrorists get hold of that waste just sitting around in those dry casks?
However, if a national storage facility with safe and permanent storage is created, or technology is developed that eliminates these problems (fusion, for example), I and probably most Democrats will cease to oppose the expanded use of nuclear power. And I and most Democrats have no problems with properly sited wind turbines and hydroelectric dams, or even natural gas fracking as long as it's done without contaminating groundwater or causing earthquakes and environmental disasters disposing of fracking fluids.
Second, the number of "liberals" who consider wildlife more important than humans and therefore oppose wind, solar and hydro energy technologies is vanishingly tiny. The vast majority of Democrats are fine with the technologies that the strawman liberals oppose. By comparison, the Republican party is entirely controlled and financed by people pushing anti-evolution, anti-global warming, anti-gay marriage, anti-women's reproductive rights agendas. To win a primary every Republican now has to toe the line on all these issues, or be crushed by ads from those vested interests.
In the end, the Republican war on science has nothing at all to do with science. It all comes down to money: keeping oil company profits and donations from religious zealots and other vested interests flowing. Since they cannot win the argument on the basis of science, they have chosen to incite anger and cast doubt over the cost of alternative solutions and the science itself, because conservatives respond more to uncertainty and fear.
At least that's what the scientists say.
That Strange Yet Familiar Feeling
Deja vu. We've all experienced its mystery and I've always wondered if the phenomenon is related to the possibility that our minds could function outside of linear time. Are we remembering things that happened in the past? Or is it the future? As a recent piece by Amy Reichelt notes, the explanation is much simpler and less nerdy.
Many researchers propose that the phenomenon is a memory-based experience and assume the memory centres of the brain are responsible for it.
The medial temporal lobes are vital for the retention of long-term memories of events and facts. Certain regions of the medial temporal lobes are important in the detection of familiarity, or recognition, as opposed to the detailed recollection of specific events. It has been proposed that familiarity detection depends on rhinal cortex function, whereas detailed recollection is linked to the hippocampus.
The randomness of déjà vu experiences in healthy individuals makes it difficult to study in an empirical manner. Any such research is reliant on self-reporting from the people involved.
This touches on something far greater than a routine phenomenon. In so many ways, we are computers. The bio-hardware in our minds act as hard drives and when we experience events that we may have experienced before, the memory stick engages and we remember. But perhaps the recollection is fuzzy and we can't quite place where or when it was. Imagine for a moment that we could have access to all of it whenever we wanted and in stark clarity.
With recent gains in technology and the ever present smart phone in the hands of nearly everyone, the merging of biology and hardware seems inevitable. This may mean that those memories could be accessed quickly for retrieval making the deja vu phenomenon a thing of the past. We'd know why we are experiencing that feeling that we've done something before. We'd also have clear and uncut access to everything we'd ever experienced. Reliving a long memory with a lost loved one...think about that for a minute.
Wouldn't that be amazing?
Many researchers propose that the phenomenon is a memory-based experience and assume the memory centres of the brain are responsible for it.
The medial temporal lobes are vital for the retention of long-term memories of events and facts. Certain regions of the medial temporal lobes are important in the detection of familiarity, or recognition, as opposed to the detailed recollection of specific events. It has been proposed that familiarity detection depends on rhinal cortex function, whereas detailed recollection is linked to the hippocampus.
The randomness of déjà vu experiences in healthy individuals makes it difficult to study in an empirical manner. Any such research is reliant on self-reporting from the people involved.
This touches on something far greater than a routine phenomenon. In so many ways, we are computers. The bio-hardware in our minds act as hard drives and when we experience events that we may have experienced before, the memory stick engages and we remember. But perhaps the recollection is fuzzy and we can't quite place where or when it was. Imagine for a moment that we could have access to all of it whenever we wanted and in stark clarity.
With recent gains in technology and the ever present smart phone in the hands of nearly everyone, the merging of biology and hardware seems inevitable. This may mean that those memories could be accessed quickly for retrieval making the deja vu phenomenon a thing of the past. We'd know why we are experiencing that feeling that we've done something before. We'd also have clear and uncut access to everything we'd ever experienced. Reliving a long memory with a lost loved one...think about that for a minute.
Wouldn't that be amazing?
Saturday, January 26, 2013
Bubble Translated!
Let's put the following headline
President Obama pushes to fill ATF's top spot
through The Bubble Translator, shall we?
(processing....processing...processing)
Ah, yes...here it is...
Ex-Ghetto Organizer, Current Negro Named Head of Federal Gun Grabbing Department
President Obama pushes to fill ATF's top spot
through The Bubble Translator, shall we?
(processing....processing...processing)
Ah, yes...here it is...
Ex-Ghetto Organizer, Current Negro Named Head of Federal Gun Grabbing Department
Big Babies
To give you an idea just how childish the Right are these days, take a look at these numbers.
And these numbers...
And now, take a look at this...
So, they support all the policies that President Obama has presented but if his name is attached to it, then they hate them. Yep, that's just about right.
And they wonder why the American people voted to keep the adults in charge...
And these numbers...
And now, take a look at this...
So, they support all the policies that President Obama has presented but if his name is attached to it, then they hate them. Yep, that's just about right.
And they wonder why the American people voted to keep the adults in charge...
Friday, January 25, 2013
At Least It Was A Woman This Time
I think as the rest of the country moves on without them we are going to see increasingly erratic behavior from conservatives. With this, they have taken "Do it again, only harder" to a whole new level.
New Mexico GOP Repesentative Cathrynn Brown has introduced a bill in the State’s House of Representatives that would prohibit women who have been raped from obtaining an abortion—or face a sentence of up to three years in prison as punishment for committing the offending act. The legal theory behind the proposed legislation? Tampering with evidence of a crime…seriously.
Part of me has to wonder if these people are secret Democratic plants that will the left win election after election. The alternative is that they really are this disgusting and, if that's the case, they can never be allowed to be in charge of anything significant. People that are this mentally unbalanced should simply retire quietly to Shady Meadows, be given their soup, and left alone to spout their insanity.
No wonder Bobby Jindal is calling Republicans the stupid party.
New Mexico GOP Repesentative Cathrynn Brown has introduced a bill in the State’s House of Representatives that would prohibit women who have been raped from obtaining an abortion—or face a sentence of up to three years in prison as punishment for committing the offending act. The legal theory behind the proposed legislation? Tampering with evidence of a crime…seriously.
Part of me has to wonder if these people are secret Democratic plants that will the left win election after election. The alternative is that they really are this disgusting and, if that's the case, they can never be allowed to be in charge of anything significant. People that are this mentally unbalanced should simply retire quietly to Shady Meadows, be given their soup, and left alone to spout their insanity.
No wonder Bobby Jindal is calling Republicans the stupid party.
Thursday, January 24, 2013
Musings and Perceptions
I went to the club to work out on Monday and ran in to my ol' buddies Reverend Ed and Doctor Sean. They couldn't wait to start screaming at me about liberals and how they are going to destroy our country. They repeated, verbatim, many of the same arguments I see in comments on here. In fact, Reverend Ed used the same style as well as theme that my regulars here deploy (e.g. a weasel question framed in such a way that the only response is a "win" for them).
For example, Ed asked me, "Where in the Constitution does it say anything about abortion?" When I informed him that I don't answer weasel questions, he huffed and puffed and said that I couldn't answer because that would mean I would be proved wrong and Roe v Wade should be overturned. I then explained to him that if he really wanted to reduced abortions in this country, he'd stop talking about the evils of fornication and and start educating people on family planning and making more emotionally intelligent decisions with their lives. In essence, work together to reduce unwanted pregnancies and take away the demand.
Sadly, he did not agree and I realized, like everything else with the Right, they don't want to actually solve problems. They just want to argue about them, "win" said argument, and implement policy in EXACTLY the way they dictate, never wavering or compromising in any way. Of course, this is never going to happen with the abortion issue. That topic, like gay marriage and climate change, has evolved to the point where it is no longer an issue. Guns aren't far behind.
This was evident when I asked each of them about the election and why conservatives lost. "People are stupid" they both replied. "Any reflection on your own party or perhaps some things that you might want to change? Immigration policy, perhaps?"
"Nope. Nothing."
"So, do it again, only harder?" I asked, chuckling to myself of course.
"Yep."
I then asked them if they cared if they lost election after election as it's pretty clear that the country is moving on without them.
"Nope."
As long as they are ideologically pure, continue to see compromise as a weakness, are unmoved by facts, intolerant of dissent, and are undeterred by new information, all is well in wingnut land, I guess. I told them they should find some more old white guys with 2 dollar haircuts to talk about rape some more. That seemed to work out well for them last year:)
Pastor Ed informed me that he would be home schooling his child. I applauded him for taking such a proactive effort in his child's life. He then went on to say that the reasons why he was doing it were: he wants to teach his child Hebrew and Greek so he can know what the Bible really says (out of the bubble translation: so he can win the argument by claiming superiority over those who don't know Greek and Hebrew and thus say that HIS interpretation of the Bible is the RIGHT one); he wants to teach him logic (out of the bubble translation: so he can sound intelligent while lying in order to win the argument and claim superiority); he wants to teach him science (out of the bubble translation: so he can learn how evolution and climate change are myths perpetrated by liberals who are striving to achieve world domination); and, of course, civics, meaning an "accurate" interpretation of the Constitution. I almost laughed out loud at the science remark but politeness go the better of me.
Before Ed left to go home, I noticed how every time I countered what he said, he would go and try to find someone else to back him up. The other patrons at the gym would usually laugh or shrug and say they didn't want to get involved. Like my regulars here, he couldn't stand alone and discuss a particular issue. Bullies always need a gang, I suppose.
After Ed left, the best part of my time there occurred. Doctor Sean's son was hanging out with us off and on as he had the day off as well. After a long mouth foam and stomp off that included many topics, among them how bullshit it was that Martin Luther King day is a national holiday (and people think he's prejudiced...go figure!), how we are going to become like Greece (an oldie but a goodie:)), how China was going to overtake the world, and how Barack Obama is a communist, Doctor Sean's son, a freshmen in high school, turned to me and said,
"I'm sorry."
I smiled and saw in him what I see in my students: the future. More specifically, progress. Sean's son recognized how his old man was not really well in the head, politically speaking, and felt rather embarrassed. Obviously, somewhere along the line, he had some good teachers. Of course, Sean sends all four of his kids to a prestigious private school in the area which, according to him, is really, really liberal. When I asked him why, if he and his wife were so conservative, they send their children there, he shrugged and said, "It's the best school in the Twin Cities."
Hmm...perhaps the only way to cut through that ideological blockage is the perceptual framework of "status." Cool...
For example, Ed asked me, "Where in the Constitution does it say anything about abortion?" When I informed him that I don't answer weasel questions, he huffed and puffed and said that I couldn't answer because that would mean I would be proved wrong and Roe v Wade should be overturned. I then explained to him that if he really wanted to reduced abortions in this country, he'd stop talking about the evils of fornication and and start educating people on family planning and making more emotionally intelligent decisions with their lives. In essence, work together to reduce unwanted pregnancies and take away the demand.
Sadly, he did not agree and I realized, like everything else with the Right, they don't want to actually solve problems. They just want to argue about them, "win" said argument, and implement policy in EXACTLY the way they dictate, never wavering or compromising in any way. Of course, this is never going to happen with the abortion issue. That topic, like gay marriage and climate change, has evolved to the point where it is no longer an issue. Guns aren't far behind.
This was evident when I asked each of them about the election and why conservatives lost. "People are stupid" they both replied. "Any reflection on your own party or perhaps some things that you might want to change? Immigration policy, perhaps?"
"Nope. Nothing."
"So, do it again, only harder?" I asked, chuckling to myself of course.
"Yep."
I then asked them if they cared if they lost election after election as it's pretty clear that the country is moving on without them.
"Nope."
As long as they are ideologically pure, continue to see compromise as a weakness, are unmoved by facts, intolerant of dissent, and are undeterred by new information, all is well in wingnut land, I guess. I told them they should find some more old white guys with 2 dollar haircuts to talk about rape some more. That seemed to work out well for them last year:)
Pastor Ed informed me that he would be home schooling his child. I applauded him for taking such a proactive effort in his child's life. He then went on to say that the reasons why he was doing it were: he wants to teach his child Hebrew and Greek so he can know what the Bible really says (out of the bubble translation: so he can win the argument by claiming superiority over those who don't know Greek and Hebrew and thus say that HIS interpretation of the Bible is the RIGHT one); he wants to teach him logic (out of the bubble translation: so he can sound intelligent while lying in order to win the argument and claim superiority); he wants to teach him science (out of the bubble translation: so he can learn how evolution and climate change are myths perpetrated by liberals who are striving to achieve world domination); and, of course, civics, meaning an "accurate" interpretation of the Constitution. I almost laughed out loud at the science remark but politeness go the better of me.
Before Ed left to go home, I noticed how every time I countered what he said, he would go and try to find someone else to back him up. The other patrons at the gym would usually laugh or shrug and say they didn't want to get involved. Like my regulars here, he couldn't stand alone and discuss a particular issue. Bullies always need a gang, I suppose.
After Ed left, the best part of my time there occurred. Doctor Sean's son was hanging out with us off and on as he had the day off as well. After a long mouth foam and stomp off that included many topics, among them how bullshit it was that Martin Luther King day is a national holiday (and people think he's prejudiced...go figure!), how we are going to become like Greece (an oldie but a goodie:)), how China was going to overtake the world, and how Barack Obama is a communist, Doctor Sean's son, a freshmen in high school, turned to me and said,
"I'm sorry."
I smiled and saw in him what I see in my students: the future. More specifically, progress. Sean's son recognized how his old man was not really well in the head, politically speaking, and felt rather embarrassed. Obviously, somewhere along the line, he had some good teachers. Of course, Sean sends all four of his kids to a prestigious private school in the area which, according to him, is really, really liberal. When I asked him why, if he and his wife were so conservative, they send their children there, he shrugged and said, "It's the best school in the Twin Cities."
Hmm...perhaps the only way to cut through that ideological blockage is the perceptual framework of "status." Cool...
Staking the Vampire?
Is Texas putting a stake in the heart of the vampire that is sucking the life blood out of education? The Texas House, in the state where George W. Bush's No Child Left Behind education program was born, has eliminated all funding for standardized testing in the 2014-2015 draft budget.
Standardized testing in Texas has become a bloodthirsty monster that devours children's lives:
We're out of Iraq, we're getting out of Afghanistan and we're slowly pulling out of the Bush recession. The days of No Child Left Behind appear to be numbered. It may take years, but there's hope that we will eventually undo the "legacy" of eight years of George W. Bush.
Next on the agenda: cutting off the head of the zombie in Bush's Medicare Part D that prohibits the government from negotiating with drug companies: Medicare often pays almost double what the Department of Veterans Affairs does for some drugs, like Lipitor.
Standardized testing in Texas has become a bloodthirsty monster that devours children's lives:
Texas schools and students are strongly impacted by the testing schedule; during the 180-day school year, high school students now spend up to 45 days taking various standardized exams.Yes, you read that right: Texas students spend 25% of their days in school taking standardized tests. Knowing how important these tests are for funding and teacher compensation, it's likely that much of the rest of the school year is spent in preparation for these tests. How do they have time to learn anything real?
We're out of Iraq, we're getting out of Afghanistan and we're slowly pulling out of the Bush recession. The days of No Child Left Behind appear to be numbered. It may take years, but there's hope that we will eventually undo the "legacy" of eight years of George W. Bush.
Next on the agenda: cutting off the head of the zombie in Bush's Medicare Part D that prohibits the government from negotiating with drug companies: Medicare often pays almost double what the Department of Veterans Affairs does for some drugs, like Lipitor.
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Colbert Channels the Boiling Pit of Sewage
The last minute of this hilarious clip from Colbert is truly a gem. The boiling pit of sewage!
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| Obama's Inauguration & Class Warfare | ||||
| ||||
Yes, where was the hopelessness, dammit!? If you aren't talking about America's impending doom, then you must be a commie!
Can It Get More Ironic?
Last Saturday, on "Gun Appreciation Day," Nehemiah Griego, a 15-year-old boy, murdered his parents and three siblings. At 1:00 AM he went into his parents' closet and got a .22 rifle, which he used to kill his mother. He shot his nine-year-old brother and his five- and two-year-old sisters in the head. Then he waited until his father Greg came home, whereupon Nehemiah ambushed and killed him.
The house has a sign outside saying: "Protected by Smith & Wesson Security Services."
Nehemiah texted a picture of his dead mother to his 12-year-old girlfriend, loaded up the family van with an arsenal of rifles and shotguns, then spent the day with the girl. He contemplated murdering her parents as well as going to Walmart and shooting the place up and dying in an exchange of gunfire with the police. Somehow he got sidetracked and went to the church where has father was a pastor. After initially saying his family had died in a car accident, 911 was called and he eventually confessed to the murders.
If this had been a weekday this might have been Sandy Hook all over again.
Comments from the right are typical: reader responses on the New York Daily News site blame secular society for the breakdown of the family. The kid's dad was a pastor and a chaplain. Then they start talking about demonic possession. Seriously. Then it's violent video games. Then it's his father's violent past: he was a former gang member with an arrest record a mile long.
Comments from the left aren't much more charitable: this is the predictable outcome for people who glorify guns and violence. We should just let these nuts have their guns and natural selection will take its course as they all kill each other.
Me, I still have questions.
Why are there so many incompetent nitwits who store guns where their kids have easy access to them? Why does a former gang member with a long arrest record have an arsenal of weapons in his closet? Why are so many parents oblivious to fact that they're raising murderous little monsters? Is is really wise to give impulsive teenagers training and access to weapons of mass murder? Why didn't Pastor Griego learn a damned thing from Sandy Hook? How many other Nehemiahs are out there with stupid and complacent parents?
Maybe we should start treating stupid gun owners as a public health hazard, like people infected with turberculosis.
Smart gun owners should get after all the idiots who can't control their own weapons. They should demand action from their own numbers to rein in problems of their own making.
The house has a sign outside saying: "Protected by Smith & Wesson Security Services."
Nehemiah texted a picture of his dead mother to his 12-year-old girlfriend, loaded up the family van with an arsenal of rifles and shotguns, then spent the day with the girl. He contemplated murdering her parents as well as going to Walmart and shooting the place up and dying in an exchange of gunfire with the police. Somehow he got sidetracked and went to the church where has father was a pastor. After initially saying his family had died in a car accident, 911 was called and he eventually confessed to the murders.
If this had been a weekday this might have been Sandy Hook all over again.
Comments from the right are typical: reader responses on the New York Daily News site blame secular society for the breakdown of the family. The kid's dad was a pastor and a chaplain. Then they start talking about demonic possession. Seriously. Then it's violent video games. Then it's his father's violent past: he was a former gang member with an arrest record a mile long.
Comments from the left aren't much more charitable: this is the predictable outcome for people who glorify guns and violence. We should just let these nuts have their guns and natural selection will take its course as they all kill each other.
Me, I still have questions.
Why are there so many incompetent nitwits who store guns where their kids have easy access to them? Why does a former gang member with a long arrest record have an arsenal of weapons in his closet? Why are so many parents oblivious to fact that they're raising murderous little monsters? Is is really wise to give impulsive teenagers training and access to weapons of mass murder? Why didn't Pastor Griego learn a damned thing from Sandy Hook? How many other Nehemiahs are out there with stupid and complacent parents?
Maybe we should start treating stupid gun owners as a public health hazard, like people infected with turberculosis.
Smart gun owners should get after all the idiots who can't control their own weapons. They should demand action from their own numbers to rein in problems of their own making.
Don't Fuck With Hilz
I can't think of a better example of the nature of the GOP these days. They don't want to solve problems. They just want to argue and "win"...something.
It's obvious to me at this point that the reason why the Right is so touchy about this is they want people to forget about that movie trailer. The last thing they need is more bad PR that shows them to be...well...what they are:) Moreover, they simply can't stand the fact that the Obama administration has done a better job on international security than they have. They have been "proved wrong." Heavens! So, it's the classic redirect and lying which result in it somehow being all Obama's fault.
Unfortunately for Ron Johnson, he found out the hard way what happens when you fuck with Hilz.
It's obvious to me at this point that the reason why the Right is so touchy about this is they want people to forget about that movie trailer. The last thing they need is more bad PR that shows them to be...well...what they are:) Moreover, they simply can't stand the fact that the Obama administration has done a better job on international security than they have. They have been "proved wrong." Heavens! So, it's the classic redirect and lying which result in it somehow being all Obama's fault.
Unfortunately for Ron Johnson, he found out the hard way what happens when you fuck with Hilz.
Compare and Contrast
I find the different reactions to tragedies like Columbine and Sandy Hook to be fascinating and, well, quite revealing. On the one hand we have the Sandy Hook Promise which talks of supporting families and making communities safer through education. We also have Rachel's Challenge which took the writings of the first victim of Columbine and turned them into a nation wide movement based on love and hope.
On the other hand, we have this:
Men armed with rifles walk through Portland to 'educate'
and this:
The guy in the photo above went into a JC Penny's with his gun to go shopping and prove a point, I guess.
I imagine the world that the people behind the Sandy Hook Promise and Rachel's Challenge are trying to live in. Then I imagine the world that the ass hats in Portland and Riverdale want to live in. It seems pretty clear to me which one is the better choice.
That would be the one that does not look like the NBC television show Revolution.
What the fuck is wrong with these people? Rather than carry around their guns on a chest thumping parade, they should be...you know...out maybe helping people?
I think about how this culture created a person like Eric Harris, who walked up to Rachel Scott as she was eating her lunch outside Columbine, and shot her multiple times in the head, toros, arm, and legs and then I take in all the ugliness from the gun community, the idiots above being prime examples, that we've seen in the last few weeks since Sandy Hook (some of it here in comments) and I'm led to an inescapable conclusion.
They created this problem and they should never EVER be put in charge of anything.
On the other hand, we have this:
Men armed with rifles walk through Portland to 'educate'
and this:
The guy in the photo above went into a JC Penny's with his gun to go shopping and prove a point, I guess.
I imagine the world that the people behind the Sandy Hook Promise and Rachel's Challenge are trying to live in. Then I imagine the world that the ass hats in Portland and Riverdale want to live in. It seems pretty clear to me which one is the better choice.
That would be the one that does not look like the NBC television show Revolution.
What the fuck is wrong with these people? Rather than carry around their guns on a chest thumping parade, they should be...you know...out maybe helping people?
I think about how this culture created a person like Eric Harris, who walked up to Rachel Scott as she was eating her lunch outside Columbine, and shot her multiple times in the head, toros, arm, and legs and then I take in all the ugliness from the gun community, the idiots above being prime examples, that we've seen in the last few weeks since Sandy Hook (some of it here in comments) and I'm led to an inescapable conclusion.
They created this problem and they should never EVER be put in charge of anything.
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Incompetents and Crazies
Last week an armed security guard hired in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook shootings forgot his gun in the bathroom of a Kindergarten through eighth grade charter school in Michigan. The gun was unloaded, and was quickly found. The guy was a retired weapons instructor.
Not long ago I was wondering if it really made sense to hire armed geezers with slow reflexes, lousy vision and bad hearing to protect our schools. I now have to add "forgetful" to the list of belittling descriptors.
Yeah, I know. Accidents happen. No harm, no foul. But a lot of accidents seem to happen with guns. Last Saturday was "Gun Appreciation Day," and five people were accidentally shot at gun shows in three different states. That same day a guy in a Texas Walmart shot himself when a gun in his pocket went off, a six-year-old Ohio girl shot herself in the face with her dad's gun, a 14-year-old Georgia boy shot his brother with his mom's gun, and on and on and on.
At this point gun advocates point out that a lot of people die in car accidents as well. It's true. We've got a stretch of freeway near our house that's constantly clogged with traffic and there are always accidents. But if the NRA ran the Department of Transportation their solution would be raise the speed limit and put more cars with bigger engines on the freeway.
The fact is, we have taken significant steps to make cars safer over the years. We require licensing of all drivers and all cars. We require seat belts, air bags and crumple zones in new cars. We put up stoplights, reconstruct intersections to make them safer, erect collapsible barriers on the roads to lessen the impact when accidents do occur.
The result is that per-capita traffic deaths have been declining for years, but gun deaths have been going up, though they've stabilized somewhat in recent years because of a general decline in violence. Gun suicides have continued to climb, however.
The simple truth is, the more people that have guns, the more accidents there will be. To prevent that we need to use technology to make guns less accident prone and to prevent them from being fired if dropped or when kids get hold of them. We also have to keep loaded weapons out of places where they just don't belong, like Walmart, bars, schools, colleges and churches.
And we have to keep them out of the hands of people who just shouldn't have them. People like Christian Philip Oberender.
Oberender murdered his mother with a shotgun in 1995, when he was 14. He got out a while back, and he was just arrested for amassing an illegal arsenal of weapons, including an AK-47, a Desert Eagle and a Thompson submachine gun.
Now, this guy is a real wackjob. In a letter to his dead mother he wrote:
I think about killing all the time. Why god do I feel like this? The monster want to hurt people. Guns are too fast. The monster want it to be slow and painful. There is so much pain in my heart and soul. Me want other to feel it.How did he get these weapons? He applied for a gun permit, but swapped his first and middle names on the application. Recent changes in Minnesota law require all gun permits to be automatically granted within seven days. Police just don't have the time to investigate all applications in that amount of time.
It's only random chance that Oberender was caught before he copycatted Sandy Hook, which he'd mentioned on his Facebook page along with a picture of his guns. Sheriff Jim Olson spotted Oberender's name on a shift report. Olson happened to be the detective who caught the Oberender murder case 18 years ago.
The NRA has been working diligently for decades to gut gun licensing laws, making it trivial for criminals, crazies and terrorists to get hold of military grade weapons and making it hard for law enforcement to catch them. Our gun permitting process needs to completely revamped. It needs to be nationwide, and include criminal and mental health history, fingerprints, photos, face recognition and previous gun and ammo purchases. This will allow police to quickly investigate gun permit applications in the time frame dictated by the NRA's desires for instant gratification.
If the NRA is going to insist on a right to buy guns on demand, the rest of us have the right to keep them out of the hands of crazies, criminals and incompetents.
Good Words
I'm not much for presidential inaugurations. They bore me, quiet frankly. I find them to be about as exciting as such things as the Macy's Day parade hence the dearth of comments about yesterday's pomp and (snooze) circumstance.
I did enjoy the president's speech, though, and it's going to be interesting to look back and see if he accomplishes what he has set out to do. I found this quote from my local paper to be a perfect summation.
Simply amazing: an inaugural address that referred to Seneca Falls, Selma, and Stonewall. Justice Sotomayor swearing in the vice president. A gay inaugural poet. The beautiful first family. All these images and more paint the picture of America today, and where it's moving-the path to progress.
Progress, indeed. I talked about this yesterday in reference to Dr. King but we really have come a long way.
And we should be proud.
I did enjoy the president's speech, though, and it's going to be interesting to look back and see if he accomplishes what he has set out to do. I found this quote from my local paper to be a perfect summation.
Simply amazing: an inaugural address that referred to Seneca Falls, Selma, and Stonewall. Justice Sotomayor swearing in the vice president. A gay inaugural poet. The beautiful first family. All these images and more paint the picture of America today, and where it's moving-the path to progress.
Progress, indeed. I talked about this yesterday in reference to Dr. King but we really have come a long way.
And we should be proud.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)