Recently, I have realized that my non belief in Republican Jesus is too simple a way to characterize my distaste for the beliefs of most conservative Christians. Over the last couple of weeks, I've thought about how to expand my critique of their child like view of the Bible and have come to the conclusion that they start from a point of a very limited God.
For them, it's all about being naughty and hoping that the authority will forgive them. They are incredibly vain in assuming that we, as human beings, are the most important things in God's universe (especially our sexual habits which I will never understand as the Bible rarely talks about sex). One of my recent posts shows that if look at the percentage of time man has been on the earth as a part of the age of the earth...well...we really aren't all that important. Now, I know the Bible says we are but that was written by men so, honestly, would we expect anything less than such vanity?
Compare the small percentage of time man has been on the earth to to the age of the universe and we seem even less significant which is astounding. This general theme is explored in the wonderful Terrence Malick film entitled The Tree of Life. If you haven't seen this film, I highly recommend it. Here is the trailer.
All of this makes me ask the question...how significant are we to God? Given how long the universe has been around...how big it is...how it's very likely that there is plenty of life out there we have not yet discovered...how long the earth has been around...how big it is...how there is life on this planet we have not yet discovered...where do we fit in? God obviously has a wide variety and high number of other things with which to handle. Of course, it's God so H/She can deal with it:)
Generally speaking, starting with faith is good idea. My faith tells me that the most important thing we can do is love one another as we would want to be loved. We can care for each other and help out the poor and the sick, individually and collectively, privately or publicly. Doing His works and greater than these...
We don't do a very good job with the Golden Rule these days but we are better than we used to be. In some ways, we are ready to take the next step in human evolution and that's just what I think God wants us to do. We are very close to technology extending life indefinitely. Think of what it's like to be a parent. You want your children to do better than you did in every aspect of life (money, friendship, love, school, career). God wants the same thing for us. Science is indeed a part of God's creation so we need to take that as far as we can. Why limit ourselves/ Again, doing His works and greater than these...
I think our culture is on the cusp of a shift. It's time to shrug off thousand year old perceptions of God and not be content with having such a simple approach to our creator. The people that believe in Republican Jesus have a hostile fear of progress in just about every aspect of our society and that needs to left behind in history's dustbin along with the heavenly sphere, flat earth, and leech bleed believers.
We are clearly a small part of God's vision and we need to imagine how we, his children, might grow to a bigger role. Again, isn't what all parents want of their offspring?
Sunday, September 15, 2013
Saturday, September 14, 2013
Still Stagnate
Emmanuel Saez from UC Berkeley has released his latest report on inequality and it reminds me that I need to finish off my last three installments of Joseph Stiglitz. I'll have Part Eight up sometime next week, perfectly timed as well as the title of that chapter is "The Battle of the Budget."
Saez's latest report has quite a bit of useful information, including...
Top 1% incomes grew by 31.4% while bottom 99% incomes grew only by 0.4% from 2009 to 2012. Hence, the top 1% captured 95% of the income gains in the first three years of the recovery. From 2009 to 2010, top 1% grew fast and then stagnated from 2010 to 2011. Bottom 99% stagnated both from 2009 to 2010 and from 2010 to 2011. In 2012, top 1% incomes increased sharply by 19.6% while bottom 99% incomes grew only by 1.0%.
So, what does all this mean?
Top 1% incomes are close to full recovery while bottom 99% incomes have hardly started to recover.
Shocking, I know:)
Saez notes that after the Great Depression, there were policy changes that reduced this income concentration. Today, however, there have been none. Again, I'm shocked.
On page seven, the data shows that during the Clinton administration, the wealthy did quite well, increasing their income by 98 percent! Yet, so did the 99 percent, who saw their income increase by 20 percent. Now, take a look at the Bush Years. It's apparent that the policy changes under his administration favored the wealthy and even then, underperfomed compared to Bill Clinton. The collapse of 2008 seems to have permanently stagnated the income of 99 percent of Americans.
We simply can't have an economy like this. Two thirds of our economy is consumer spending and there just aren't enough people spending. They don't have any extra money.
So, what do we do now? Well, any policy changes are going to be nearly impossible to pass with the Republicans hell bent on the president failing. They certainly don't want any successes on his watch as that would really drive home the contrast between the utter failure of George W. Bush and any potential gains under Barack Obama. In fact, our economy is doing mildly better and that's just about all they can tolerate as they still have to have something negative to caterwaul about.
In some ways, I hope that we elect a moderate Republican so he or she can do all the things that Barack Obama was not allowed to do because of adolescent temper tantrums.
Saez's latest report has quite a bit of useful information, including...
Top 1% incomes grew by 31.4% while bottom 99% incomes grew only by 0.4% from 2009 to 2012. Hence, the top 1% captured 95% of the income gains in the first three years of the recovery. From 2009 to 2010, top 1% grew fast and then stagnated from 2010 to 2011. Bottom 99% stagnated both from 2009 to 2010 and from 2010 to 2011. In 2012, top 1% incomes increased sharply by 19.6% while bottom 99% incomes grew only by 1.0%.
So, what does all this mean?
Top 1% incomes are close to full recovery while bottom 99% incomes have hardly started to recover.
Shocking, I know:)
Saez notes that after the Great Depression, there were policy changes that reduced this income concentration. Today, however, there have been none. Again, I'm shocked.
On page seven, the data shows that during the Clinton administration, the wealthy did quite well, increasing their income by 98 percent! Yet, so did the 99 percent, who saw their income increase by 20 percent. Now, take a look at the Bush Years. It's apparent that the policy changes under his administration favored the wealthy and even then, underperfomed compared to Bill Clinton. The collapse of 2008 seems to have permanently stagnated the income of 99 percent of Americans.
We simply can't have an economy like this. Two thirds of our economy is consumer spending and there just aren't enough people spending. They don't have any extra money.
So, what do we do now? Well, any policy changes are going to be nearly impossible to pass with the Republicans hell bent on the president failing. They certainly don't want any successes on his watch as that would really drive home the contrast between the utter failure of George W. Bush and any potential gains under Barack Obama. In fact, our economy is doing mildly better and that's just about all they can tolerate as they still have to have something negative to caterwaul about.
In some ways, I hope that we elect a moderate Republican so he or she can do all the things that Barack Obama was not allowed to do because of adolescent temper tantrums.
Are Our Kids too Fat to Defend Our Country?
How do you get conservatives to express concern for the health and well-being of our kids? Appeal to their fear and selfishness, according to a study at the University of Minnesota.
Obesity is a serious problem in this country. But conservatives don't think the government should do anything about it, even though rampant obesity drives up Medicaid and Medicare costs, sends paupers in diabetic shock to hospital emergency rooms (which the rest of us pay for), costs employers billions of hours in lost productivity, clogs doctors' waiting rooms with people whose medical problems all boil down to being too fat, and fills the aisles of Walmart with slow, waddling oafs who are so wide you can't get by them.
Conservatives tend to blame kids and parents for childhood obesity. They don't hold fast-food, soda and snack manufacturers responsible -- even though these companies are pushers for the gateway drugs to morbid obesity. Conservatives in general don't think the government should address the problem at all. But the study found that there is a way to change conservatives' minds: point out that obesity in children will severely hamper our military readiness.
So, conservatives don't give a damn about American children or blacks unless they need them to save their bacon, or protect oil company interests in the Middle East.
I don't usually give a lot of credence to studies like this. But years of mouthing from conservative "thought leaders" convinces me it's true. Rush Limbaugh dismissively derides Michelle Obama's efforts to encourage children to exercise and eat better. Sarah Palin screams bloody murder when it's suggested that kids shouldn't be eating cookies in the classroom. All conservatives bitch endlessly about the "nanny state" when states pass laws that ban candy and soda machines in schools, and prevent companies like McDonalds and Pizza Hut from setting up shop on school campuses.
As I'm sure that "big fat idiot" Rush Limbaugh knows from personal experience, being fat has less to do with willpower and more to do with biology. Our bodies are specifically built to store fat in times of plenty in preparation for times of famine. This propensity to store fat saved our ancestors but is killing us.
Yes, we should be responsible for what we stick in our own mouths. But most people -- especially the poor, who are generally more obese than the wealthy -- are at the mercy of the giant companies that control our food supply. They produce what's most profitable for them, not what's best for the health of the American people, giving the poor no choice about what they eat.
Obesity is a serious problem in this country. But conservatives don't think the government should do anything about it, even though rampant obesity drives up Medicaid and Medicare costs, sends paupers in diabetic shock to hospital emergency rooms (which the rest of us pay for), costs employers billions of hours in lost productivity, clogs doctors' waiting rooms with people whose medical problems all boil down to being too fat, and fills the aisles of Walmart with slow, waddling oafs who are so wide you can't get by them.
Conservatives tend to blame kids and parents for childhood obesity. They don't hold fast-food, soda and snack manufacturers responsible -- even though these companies are pushers for the gateway drugs to morbid obesity. Conservatives in general don't think the government should address the problem at all. But the study found that there is a way to change conservatives' minds: point out that obesity in children will severely hamper our military readiness.
Our data [suggest] that a message linking a problem traditionally considered under the domain of public health to national defense has the potential to shift public opinion among conservatives. This message was likely effective because of its novelty, and also because it tapped into values beyond those — such as equality and social responsibility — that are typically associated with public health.What exactly are those values? Conservatives like to pretend they embrace patriotism and love of freedom. But it's now revealed that fear and selfishness drive them. They're afraid that if our kids are too fat to serve in the military, they won't be able to interpose themselves between us and all them A-rab terrorists. (It's also interesting to note that more blacks serve proportionately in the Army -- 21% of soldiers are African American, while blacks constitute only 12.4% of the general population. Why? It's one of the few ways out of endemic poverty.).
So, conservatives don't give a damn about American children or blacks unless they need them to save their bacon, or protect oil company interests in the Middle East.
I don't usually give a lot of credence to studies like this. But years of mouthing from conservative "thought leaders" convinces me it's true. Rush Limbaugh dismissively derides Michelle Obama's efforts to encourage children to exercise and eat better. Sarah Palin screams bloody murder when it's suggested that kids shouldn't be eating cookies in the classroom. All conservatives bitch endlessly about the "nanny state" when states pass laws that ban candy and soda machines in schools, and prevent companies like McDonalds and Pizza Hut from setting up shop on school campuses.
As I'm sure that "big fat idiot" Rush Limbaugh knows from personal experience, being fat has less to do with willpower and more to do with biology. Our bodies are specifically built to store fat in times of plenty in preparation for times of famine. This propensity to store fat saved our ancestors but is killing us.
Yes, we should be responsible for what we stick in our own mouths. But most people -- especially the poor, who are generally more obese than the wealthy -- are at the mercy of the giant companies that control our food supply. They produce what's most profitable for them, not what's best for the health of the American people, giving the poor no choice about what they eat.
Good Words
“If I could conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded, that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution.”
~George Washington (letter to the United Baptist Chamber of Virginia, May 1789)
Friday, September 13, 2013
Hmm...
Yesterday I put up a post about how I'm only going to engage in comments if people have something new, interesting and not adolescent to contribute. The posts with the most hits since then? The ones with no comments.
In addition, our hit rate for the site overall seems to have doubled as well with very few people reading the comments section of the posts since then. My post about the comments section got the least amount of hits and the renewable energy and soldier posts got the most.
Best blogging decision I ever made...
In addition, our hit rate for the site overall seems to have doubled as well with very few people reading the comments section of the posts since then. My post about the comments section got the least amount of hits and the renewable energy and soldier posts got the most.
Best blogging decision I ever made...
Voices in My Head
Evidence the illogic, hypocrisy, and coercion of the state's secular "neutrality." Western democracies continue to head towards demanding ultimate allegiance to the state. Any who refuse will be eventually treated as the enemies of peace and unity--(Reverend Jim, Facebook friend).
Man, we still have a long way to go in this country...
Man, we still have a long way to go in this country...
China Caves
The excuse "China does whatever it wants in terms of carbon emissions so why can't we?" can no longer be used.
The plan, released by the State Council, China’s cabinet, filled in a broad outline that the government had issued this year. It represents the most concrete response yet by the Communist Party and the government to growing criticism over allowing the country’s air, soil and water to degrade to abysmal levels because of corruption and unchecked economic growth.
It's only a matter of time now before the rest of the world realizes how bad climate change due to carbon emissions is for economic stability.
The plan, released by the State Council, China’s cabinet, filled in a broad outline that the government had issued this year. It represents the most concrete response yet by the Communist Party and the government to growing criticism over allowing the country’s air, soil and water to degrade to abysmal levels because of corruption and unchecked economic growth.
It's only a matter of time now before the rest of the world realizes how bad climate change due to carbon emissions is for economic stability.
Amen, Soldier
Check out the soldier that comes in to this video at about the 5 minute mark. A true hero...
Thursday, September 12, 2013
Making Natural Gas out of Thin Air
Mark's post about the people of Boulder challenging Xcel Energy's power generation monopoly and replacing coal with with renewables and natural gas finally prodded me into writing a post I'd had on the back burner for a while.
Here's the question: What if you could use wind power to literally generate natural gas out of thin air?
People in the energy industry invariably criticize "tree-huggers" as naive about the vagaries of power generation. Renewable energy sources are too unreliable, the old argument goes. What do you do when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine? You have to keep power generation and consumption balanced or the grid collapses. Often, they claim, sun and wind generate too much electricity when you don't need it, and since you can't store it it just goes to waste.
First off, the excess power argument is flat wrong with solar. Solar generates the most power when we need it the most: at peak load times during the heat of the day. Solar is perfect for places like the American West, which get a lot of sun and use massive amounts of air conditioning.
Wind power -- and hydro for that matter -- do generate a lot of electricity during off-peak hours, and in places like the Dakotas that are distant from major population centers.
The question is how to store that energy for later use. If you could save it for later and use it for load balancing, the argument against wind completely falls apart.
Battery technology isn't up to snuff: too expensive and too small-scale. So there have been grand suggestions to use the excess electricity to compress air into vast underground caverns or pump water uphill into reservoirs, which could be used to turn turbines to generate electricity later. These solutions take a lot of space and have negative environmental and safety considerations.
But there's something else you can do with electricity: make hydrogen. A company in Germany is building a pilot plant to do exactly this. Their plan to pump hydrogen into natural gas pipelines seems a bit odd, but the basic idea is quite interesting.
Hydrogen can be produced by electrolysis, which uses electricity to separate the hydrogen and oxygen in water. This hydrogen could simply be burned against to make electricity (producing water), or to power fuel cells. These fuel cells can be used to generate electricity directly (which is what NASA did on the Space Shuttle Apollo moon missions), or they could be used to power cars that run on fuel cells (remember that song and dance from the George W. Bush days?). The International Space Station also uses electrolysis to generate oxygen (they vent the excess hydrogen into space).
One problem with hydrogen is that there isn't a lot of infrastructure for storing, transporting and distributing it. However, we do have a lot of infrastructure for natural gas (methane). So we could take this one step further, and produce methane.
Using what's called the Sabatier process hydrogen (H2) and carbon dioxide (CO2) can be combined to produce methane and water:
Here's the question: What if you could use wind power to literally generate natural gas out of thin air?
People in the energy industry invariably criticize "tree-huggers" as naive about the vagaries of power generation. Renewable energy sources are too unreliable, the old argument goes. What do you do when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine? You have to keep power generation and consumption balanced or the grid collapses. Often, they claim, sun and wind generate too much electricity when you don't need it, and since you can't store it it just goes to waste.
First off, the excess power argument is flat wrong with solar. Solar generates the most power when we need it the most: at peak load times during the heat of the day. Solar is perfect for places like the American West, which get a lot of sun and use massive amounts of air conditioning.
Wind power -- and hydro for that matter -- do generate a lot of electricity during off-peak hours, and in places like the Dakotas that are distant from major population centers.
The question is how to store that energy for later use. If you could save it for later and use it for load balancing, the argument against wind completely falls apart.
Battery technology isn't up to snuff: too expensive and too small-scale. So there have been grand suggestions to use the excess electricity to compress air into vast underground caverns or pump water uphill into reservoirs, which could be used to turn turbines to generate electricity later. These solutions take a lot of space and have negative environmental and safety considerations.
But there's something else you can do with electricity: make hydrogen. A company in Germany is building a pilot plant to do exactly this. Their plan to pump hydrogen into natural gas pipelines seems a bit odd, but the basic idea is quite interesting.
Hydrogen can be produced by electrolysis, which uses electricity to separate the hydrogen and oxygen in water. This hydrogen could simply be burned against to make electricity (producing water), or to power fuel cells. These fuel cells can be used to generate electricity directly (which is what NASA did on the Space Shuttle Apollo moon missions), or they could be used to power cars that run on fuel cells (remember that song and dance from the George W. Bush days?). The International Space Station also uses electrolysis to generate oxygen (they vent the excess hydrogen into space).
One problem with hydrogen is that there isn't a lot of infrastructure for storing, transporting and distributing it. However, we do have a lot of infrastructure for natural gas (methane). So we could take this one step further, and produce methane.
Using what's called the Sabatier process hydrogen (H2) and carbon dioxide (CO2) can be combined to produce methane and water:
CO2 + 4H2 → CH4 + 2H2O
NASA is looking at using this reaction in the International Space Station to make a more closed life support system that recycles the CO2 that astronauts exhale into water, and to make propellant for the return from a Mars mission.
Though NASA's space applications sound distant, these processes aren't fancy pie-in-the-sky physics pushing the boundaries of engineering like thermonuclear fusion. They're basic, centuries-old chemistry that mirror the natural processes of respiration, photosynthesis and bacterial decay. This kind of power generation would give us the ability to balance loads as well as produce fuels for cooking and transportation, all with zero carbon footprint.
There's a certain amount of inefficiency generating natural gas this way. But even so, it's still more efficient than blasting off mountaintops to expose coal seams, using millions of gallons of oil to mine the coal, then millions more gallons of oil to restore the mountaintops, then millions more gallons of oil to ship the coal across country to run power plants that belch out CO2, carcinogenic particulates, sulfur dioxide and mercury.
When their backs are against the wall, climate change skeptics always retreat with, "Well, if the climate really is warming, we'll just adapt. Humans are amazingly inventive when pressed."
I agree, we are inventive. But isn't it better to adapt before the emergency becomes dire, resources become scarce, floods and droughts become endemic, Miami and New York are inundated, famine becomes widespread, and wars over dwindling energy resources suck up our the time, energy and money?
Though NASA's space applications sound distant, these processes aren't fancy pie-in-the-sky physics pushing the boundaries of engineering like thermonuclear fusion. They're basic, centuries-old chemistry that mirror the natural processes of respiration, photosynthesis and bacterial decay. This kind of power generation would give us the ability to balance loads as well as produce fuels for cooking and transportation, all with zero carbon footprint.
There's a certain amount of inefficiency generating natural gas this way. But even so, it's still more efficient than blasting off mountaintops to expose coal seams, using millions of gallons of oil to mine the coal, then millions more gallons of oil to restore the mountaintops, then millions more gallons of oil to ship the coal across country to run power plants that belch out CO2, carcinogenic particulates, sulfur dioxide and mercury.
When their backs are against the wall, climate change skeptics always retreat with, "Well, if the climate really is warming, we'll just adapt. Humans are amazingly inventive when pressed."
I agree, we are inventive. But isn't it better to adapt before the emergency becomes dire, resources become scarce, floods and droughts become endemic, Miami and New York are inundated, famine becomes widespread, and wars over dwindling energy resources suck up our the time, energy and money?
The Case Against Attacking Syria in Two and a Half Words
It's getting rather irritating for Americans to be lectured by despots and dictators. Earlier this week Bashar al-Assad appeared on American television telling us why invading Syria was bad. Now Vladimir Putin published an editorial in The New York Times saying the same thing.
These two tyrants have a point that can be summarized in two and a half words: George W. Bush.
George W. Bush blew all our credibility when he invaded Iraq based on the lie that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Since then no one -- not even the American people -- will trust any American president when he claims that we must attack a murderous thug who has been gassing his own people.
Republicans have been claiming that Obama weakened the presidency by going to Congress to ask permission to retaliate militarily against Syria for using Sarin gas. Why is it weakness to obey the Constitution, which specifies that only Congress has the power to go to war? The truth is, Bush destroyed America's moral high ground when he fabricated evidence about Saddam's WMDs and lied about Iraq's involvement in 9/11.
Since then Obama has been saddled with Bush's wars, Bush's domestic spying programs, Bush's torture, Bush's Guantanamo, Bush's indefinite detentions, and so on. As Republicans keep telling us, once a federal program is entrenched, it's all but impossible to get rid of it. To wit: President Obama tried to close Guantanamo, but Congress stopped him cold.
No matter what his personal convictions, the president becomes a prisoner of precedent and his predecessors' pecadilloes.
Bush's blunders have now made it all but impossible for us to get an international consensus for action against Syria. Our closest allies were burned (Britain in particular) over and over by Bush and Cheney's machinations, and no one else trusts a word we say.
We actually did this right once upon a time. When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in August 1990, George H. W. Bush got overwhelming international cooperation to oust him. By February 1991 Saddam's military was destroyed and he was ejected from Kuwait. It's ironic that that president's son and his secretary of defense learned absolutely nothing from this great success.
Conservatives like to say they'd rather be feared than liked. Now that the Bush's misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan have burned out the American military, we're neither feared nor liked.
These two tyrants have a point that can be summarized in two and a half words: George W. Bush.
George W. Bush blew all our credibility when he invaded Iraq based on the lie that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Since then no one -- not even the American people -- will trust any American president when he claims that we must attack a murderous thug who has been gassing his own people.
Republicans have been claiming that Obama weakened the presidency by going to Congress to ask permission to retaliate militarily against Syria for using Sarin gas. Why is it weakness to obey the Constitution, which specifies that only Congress has the power to go to war? The truth is, Bush destroyed America's moral high ground when he fabricated evidence about Saddam's WMDs and lied about Iraq's involvement in 9/11.
Since then Obama has been saddled with Bush's wars, Bush's domestic spying programs, Bush's torture, Bush's Guantanamo, Bush's indefinite detentions, and so on. As Republicans keep telling us, once a federal program is entrenched, it's all but impossible to get rid of it. To wit: President Obama tried to close Guantanamo, but Congress stopped him cold.
No matter what his personal convictions, the president becomes a prisoner of precedent and his predecessors' pecadilloes.
Bush's blunders have now made it all but impossible for us to get an international consensus for action against Syria. Our closest allies were burned (Britain in particular) over and over by Bush and Cheney's machinations, and no one else trusts a word we say.
We actually did this right once upon a time. When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in August 1990, George H. W. Bush got overwhelming international cooperation to oust him. By February 1991 Saddam's military was destroyed and he was ejected from Kuwait. It's ironic that that president's son and his secretary of defense learned absolutely nothing from this great success.
Conservatives like to say they'd rather be feared than liked. Now that the Bush's misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan have burned out the American military, we're neither feared nor liked.
The Future of Renewable Energy
It's going to be interesting to see what happens in Boulder over the next few years. Something else that struck me about this video. Isn't the action of these residents, in no small way, a rally against big government? They are assuming local control of their power and shunning the government sponsored monopoly. Perhaps this is a way we could find some common ground in the renewable energy debate.
Time For A Change
This time of year brings with it reflection and a desire for change. When I started this blog eight years ago (after four years of it being an email list started on the day after the 9/11 attacks), September has always been when I have felt the most like shifting gears and trying something new. This year it's clear that the comments section is what is most in need of change.
One of the first things they tell you when you start your own blog is to engage in the comments section. With only 150-200 regular readers, it makes sense that most don't comment, given that only a few people comment on much larger hit sites. I've always tried to spur discussion but I've noticed that the posts that get the most hits are the ones without the long comments threads. This is largely due to the fact that the same 3-5 people leave comments. All of them are migrants from a right wing gun blog (the one that I was recently asked to leave by vote) and they...well...they are complete dicks. There's just no sugar coating it anymore. I've tried to be fair over the years with them but they play a never ending childish and dishonest game that has left me completely disgusted.
I've decided after a few long threads in the last couple of weeks that it is a waste of time to engage these people any longer. If anyone has been reading these threads (and my stat counter shows that it's the same 6 people, btw), it's painfully obvious that nearly all of their comments are ridiculously adolescent and employ troll tactics that would not be allowed on most message boards and blogs. Their primary goal is to insult, scream, mouth foam, and denigrate anyone who doesn't agree with them. When the facts don't, it's instant rage that would dwarf a teenage temper tantrum. I get the fact that they see blogs as a place they can "win" because their ideology certainly isn't winning in the real world (see: outside of the bubble) but their willful ignorance, granite intransigence, and moonbattery has gotten so bad lately that I have realized it's utterly pointless to have discussions with them. In so many ways, this is the very definition of the Right today.
Their comments range from dick to asshole to 12 year old bully to psychotic mouth foamer unmoved by facts and undeterred by new information. They are so insecure that they have to stick together (despite obvious disagreements) for fear of losing the purity of MARKWRONG, MARKLOSE, never once questioning each other and having any sort of real debate with multiple sides. Odd, considering they bemoan collectives. Yet they are the ones that buy into the myth (again, 12 year old bully) that more people against one means a "win."
More frustrating (and highly immature) is their refusal to accept that they are the ones at fault combined with their insistence that I am actually the problem. Honestly, it's like I'm talking to my seventh graders in every discussion now. One need only look at the comments after this post to illustrate this point. There will be cries of "chicken" and links to Brave Sir Robin videos as well as long paragraphs which essentially amount to "No, You are!" It's the same shit over and over again and I am terribly bored with it.
Now, I'll always allow comments to be open and will continue to allow people to post their views (minus spam, of course) but I'm pretty much done with leaving comments unless I see some change. I'd rather spend my time writing posts then put up with the crap from these 3-5 individuals. Another reason for this change is that whenever a long comments thread develops, my hit count for that post goes down. People just aren't interested in hearing what these asshats have to say. I don't blame them and I'd rather have more people read my blog.
I understand now why Nikto rarely comments. He has always told me in the past that it's a waste of time. Indeed. I love a good debate and have certainly grown from a few of these discussions but now it's time to move on. And maybe the comments section will as well. Maybe some new commenters will start leaving comments. Maybe these 3-5 commenters will change and leave something new and interesting in which case I will respond. I sadly doubt that will happen, of course, given their hostile fear of progress and total lack of people skills. Obviously, they don't get along well in the real world and that's why they spend so much time posting here.
Without me around, I'll admit that it will be mildly amusing to watch them yell at air, kind of like the guy on the street you see pushing a shopping cart, listening to his short wave radio and screaming about communism.
Isn't that where they came from anyway?
One of the first things they tell you when you start your own blog is to engage in the comments section. With only 150-200 regular readers, it makes sense that most don't comment, given that only a few people comment on much larger hit sites. I've always tried to spur discussion but I've noticed that the posts that get the most hits are the ones without the long comments threads. This is largely due to the fact that the same 3-5 people leave comments. All of them are migrants from a right wing gun blog (the one that I was recently asked to leave by vote) and they...well...they are complete dicks. There's just no sugar coating it anymore. I've tried to be fair over the years with them but they play a never ending childish and dishonest game that has left me completely disgusted.
I've decided after a few long threads in the last couple of weeks that it is a waste of time to engage these people any longer. If anyone has been reading these threads (and my stat counter shows that it's the same 6 people, btw), it's painfully obvious that nearly all of their comments are ridiculously adolescent and employ troll tactics that would not be allowed on most message boards and blogs. Their primary goal is to insult, scream, mouth foam, and denigrate anyone who doesn't agree with them. When the facts don't, it's instant rage that would dwarf a teenage temper tantrum. I get the fact that they see blogs as a place they can "win" because their ideology certainly isn't winning in the real world (see: outside of the bubble) but their willful ignorance, granite intransigence, and moonbattery has gotten so bad lately that I have realized it's utterly pointless to have discussions with them. In so many ways, this is the very definition of the Right today.
Their comments range from dick to asshole to 12 year old bully to psychotic mouth foamer unmoved by facts and undeterred by new information. They are so insecure that they have to stick together (despite obvious disagreements) for fear of losing the purity of MARKWRONG, MARKLOSE, never once questioning each other and having any sort of real debate with multiple sides. Odd, considering they bemoan collectives. Yet they are the ones that buy into the myth (again, 12 year old bully) that more people against one means a "win."
More frustrating (and highly immature) is their refusal to accept that they are the ones at fault combined with their insistence that I am actually the problem. Honestly, it's like I'm talking to my seventh graders in every discussion now. One need only look at the comments after this post to illustrate this point. There will be cries of "chicken" and links to Brave Sir Robin videos as well as long paragraphs which essentially amount to "No, You are!" It's the same shit over and over again and I am terribly bored with it.
I understand now why Nikto rarely comments. He has always told me in the past that it's a waste of time. Indeed. I love a good debate and have certainly grown from a few of these discussions but now it's time to move on. And maybe the comments section will as well. Maybe some new commenters will start leaving comments. Maybe these 3-5 commenters will change and leave something new and interesting in which case I will respond. I sadly doubt that will happen, of course, given their hostile fear of progress and total lack of people skills. Obviously, they don't get along well in the real world and that's why they spend so much time posting here.
Without me around, I'll admit that it will be mildly amusing to watch them yell at air, kind of like the guy on the street you see pushing a shopping cart, listening to his short wave radio and screaming about communism.
Isn't that where they came from anyway?
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
12 Years
I've gone back and forth between putting something up on this 9/11 anniversary and not putting something up. There's something contrived and shallow marking this day simply because of ceremony. It should be from the heart, right? Not out of some sort of civic obligation. The people that died that day deserve more than just going through the motions. And I'm certainly not going to stop talking about the issues that are important to this country because of what religious extremists did to our country 12 years ago especially considering that we have our own religious extremists to deal with at home (hence, the post previous to this one).
The film below changed my mind about putting up a post about the 9/11 attacks. Like many Americans, the jumpers out of the World Trade Center have always haunted me. Who were they? What was their story? Would I have done the same thing? That is the subject matter of this 71 minute documentary which I highly recommend watching today.
It's an excellent tribute.
UPDATE:
The video above has been taken down from YouTube for copyright infringement. For more information on this film, click here.
The film below changed my mind about putting up a post about the 9/11 attacks. Like many Americans, the jumpers out of the World Trade Center have always haunted me. Who were they? What was their story? Would I have done the same thing? That is the subject matter of this 71 minute documentary which I highly recommend watching today.
It's an excellent tribute.
UPDATE:
The video above has been taken down from YouTube for copyright infringement. For more information on this film, click here.
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
Making The Case
I thought the president made a compelling case tonight in why strikes against Syria might be necessary. Since it appears that Assad is caving, we might not have to act after all. My big takeaway from the speech is how this president is adamant about protecting children. Whether it's domestic policies aimed at curbing gun violence or protecting Syrian children from future chemical weapons attacks, he is firmly on the side of the children.
It will be interesting to see what happens in the coming days. Will Syria give up their chemical weapons and put them under UN control?
It will be interesting to see what happens in the coming days. Will Syria give up their chemical weapons and put them under UN control?
Change Up
It looks like there is a distinct possibility that a strike against Syria may be delayed or even not happen at all. A conversation between the president and Vladimir Putin at last week's G20 meeting sparked a Russian overture to the Syrians to allow their chemical weapons to be placed under UN control or possibly destroyed all together. Taken with a grain of salt, this is good news.
Assuming they allow such a thing to happen, this would head off an attack by the US and might actually start the country back towards stability once again. If the UN is allowed in for this purpose, it might be able to spread its influence around the country and be able to be our eyes and ears on the ground in Syria. We can monitor what Assad is up to and gauge our response accordingly.
This also gets Congress off the hook from having to make a very tough vote. Now they can back to the business of being silly about the budget, health care, and immigration.
Assuming they allow such a thing to happen, this would head off an attack by the US and might actually start the country back towards stability once again. If the UN is allowed in for this purpose, it might be able to spread its influence around the country and be able to be our eyes and ears on the ground in Syria. We can monitor what Assad is up to and gauge our response accordingly.
This also gets Congress off the hook from having to make a very tough vote. Now they can back to the business of being silly about the budget, health care, and immigration.
Monday, September 09, 2013
George Zimmerman Back in the News Again. And Again. And Again...
Since being acquitted of murdering Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman has not kept a low profile.
He visited a gun factory, was stopped for speeding in Florida and Texas, and was sued for divorce by his wife of six years. Shellie Zimmerman recently pleaded guilty to perjury for lying about the PayPal account that held money people sent Zimmerman.
Now Zimmerman has apparently punched his father-in-law in the nose and threatened his wife with a gun:
Zimmerman appears to be a violent and arrogant man, who has learned how to manipulate the system, perhaps due to his close association with the law (his father is a judge). He has proved that he can literally get away with murder.
Is Zimmerman arrogant enough to think he's so clever that he can pull the same trick again, or will he simply self-destruct in a very public and messy way? The real question is how many other innocent victims he'll take with him.
Does it really make sense for guys like this to be able to run around with guns at will?
He visited a gun factory, was stopped for speeding in Florida and Texas, and was sued for divorce by his wife of six years. Shellie Zimmerman recently pleaded guilty to perjury for lying about the PayPal account that held money people sent Zimmerman.
Now Zimmerman has apparently punched his father-in-law in the nose and threatened his wife with a gun:
Shellie Zimmerman, who has filed for divorce, initially told a 911 dispatcher that her husband had his hand on his gun as he sat in his car outside the home she was at with her father. She said she was scared because she wasn't sure what Zimmerman was capable of doing. But hours later she changed her story and said she never saw a firearm, said Lake Mary Police Chief Steve Bracknell.I think Shellie Zimmerman knows exactly George Zimmerman is capable of, and that's why she changed her story -- she doesn't want to get him too riled up. It's ironic that of the two of them, she is the only one to pay a price for the killing of Trayvon Martin: she is on probation and community service; Zimmerman got off scot-free.
Zimmerman appears to be a violent and arrogant man, who has learned how to manipulate the system, perhaps due to his close association with the law (his father is a judge). He has proved that he can literally get away with murder.
Is Zimmerman arrogant enough to think he's so clever that he can pull the same trick again, or will he simply self-destruct in a very public and messy way? The real question is how many other innocent victims he'll take with him.
Does it really make sense for guys like this to be able to run around with guns at will?
Back In Session
Congress comes back this week from summer vacation with a veritable schmidt load of items on their agenda. First up is whether or not to strike Syria. As of right now, support looks pretty thin in the House. Shocking, that the House GOP would use any means to fuck over the president. My oh my how the hawks have become doves...
Of course, the president is getting much support on the left either so his address to the nation better be a home run tomorrow night otherwise he won't get the vote. Contrary to the media hysterics, if he loses the vote, this will not be the end of his presidency. Congress did not support FDR during the 1930s regarding Hitler's march across Europe. Congress did not support President Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. Anyone remember who those people were?
The budget is probably the next item on the list to tackle and we are already hearing signs of playing chicken again with the debt limit. It seems we will have a large group of people that don't understand that it's money we have already spent. Worse, far too many still haven't grasped the concept of the difference between individual debt and government debt. I'm sure we'll be hearing the anti-spending old ladies out in full force over the next few weeks.
Immigration is likely to take a back seat which is really a drag as reform could solve many of our other economic problems. I was impressed with Marco Rubio and his fellow Senators for coming up with a great bill to address this issue. Unfortunately, it has now come to the short wave radio listening Civil War reinactors in the House so that means it's going nowhere.
Oh, and doesn't the ACA roll out on October 1?
This is going to be one exciting fall!
Of course, the president is getting much support on the left either so his address to the nation better be a home run tomorrow night otherwise he won't get the vote. Contrary to the media hysterics, if he loses the vote, this will not be the end of his presidency. Congress did not support FDR during the 1930s regarding Hitler's march across Europe. Congress did not support President Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. Anyone remember who those people were?
The budget is probably the next item on the list to tackle and we are already hearing signs of playing chicken again with the debt limit. It seems we will have a large group of people that don't understand that it's money we have already spent. Worse, far too many still haven't grasped the concept of the difference between individual debt and government debt. I'm sure we'll be hearing the anti-spending old ladies out in full force over the next few weeks.
Immigration is likely to take a back seat which is really a drag as reform could solve many of our other economic problems. I was impressed with Marco Rubio and his fellow Senators for coming up with a great bill to address this issue. Unfortunately, it has now come to the short wave radio listening Civil War reinactors in the House so that means it's going nowhere.
Oh, and doesn't the ACA roll out on October 1?
This is going to be one exciting fall!
Sunday, September 08, 2013
Saturday, September 07, 2013
Friday, September 06, 2013
Climate Change Update
There have been several interesting pieces about climate change over the last few weeks. The first is the draft summary of the next United Nations report on climate change which states with a higher level of certainty the effects that human beings are having on the rise global temperature. They also address the adolescent "n'yah n'yah" of the recent slowdown of warming which is interesting.
NASA has a nice list up of why climate change is settled science, thus torpedoing the notion that there is conflict not consensus in the scientific community.
And Time magazine put a piece last month about why more people aren't acting on climate change even though more people accept that the earth is warming.
For some, the answer lies in cognitive science. Daniel Gilbert, a professor of psychology at Harvard, has written about why our inability to deal with climate change is due in part to the way our mind is wired. Gilbert describes four key reasons ranging from the fact that global warming doesn’t take a human form — making it difficult for us to think of it as an enemy — to our brains’ failure to accurately perceive gradual change as opposed to rapid shifts. Climate change has occurred slowly enough for our minds to normalize it, which is precisely what makes it a deadly threat, as Gilbert writes, “because it fails to trip the brain’s alarm, leaving us soundly asleep in a burning bed.”
Recalling our times as cavemen, most people don't act until they are on fire. Essentially, it needs to be personal.
NASA has a nice list up of why climate change is settled science, thus torpedoing the notion that there is conflict not consensus in the scientific community.
And Time magazine put a piece last month about why more people aren't acting on climate change even though more people accept that the earth is warming.
For some, the answer lies in cognitive science. Daniel Gilbert, a professor of psychology at Harvard, has written about why our inability to deal with climate change is due in part to the way our mind is wired. Gilbert describes four key reasons ranging from the fact that global warming doesn’t take a human form — making it difficult for us to think of it as an enemy — to our brains’ failure to accurately perceive gradual change as opposed to rapid shifts. Climate change has occurred slowly enough for our minds to normalize it, which is precisely what makes it a deadly threat, as Gilbert writes, “because it fails to trip the brain’s alarm, leaving us soundly asleep in a burning bed.”
Recalling our times as cavemen, most people don't act until they are on fire. Essentially, it needs to be personal.
Thursday, September 05, 2013
Hey Kids...Want Some Candy?
It's hard for me to imagine the gun community being even bigger dicks than they are but this idea really sucks.
The group is working on educational pamphlets in advance of the event. Reed said some gun owners may pass out candy to neighbor kids.
I wonder how many people are actually going to turn out and, if they do, what happens if there is some sort of accident? And how can we tell if they are "good guys?" It seems to me that some "bad guys" might try to take advantage of this...
Well, anyway, there goes the small amount of concern that I had that the bloviating gun rights folks would be taken seriously for a significant amount of time. Maybe they should hand out the candy from tinted vans...
The group is working on educational pamphlets in advance of the event. Reed said some gun owners may pass out candy to neighbor kids.
I wonder how many people are actually going to turn out and, if they do, what happens if there is some sort of accident? And how can we tell if they are "good guys?" It seems to me that some "bad guys" might try to take advantage of this...
Well, anyway, there goes the small amount of concern that I had that the bloviating gun rights folks would be taken seriously for a significant amount of time. Maybe they should hand out the candy from tinted vans...
The Syria Explanation
The president did a great job yesterday explaining why we need to attack Syria and why it's not really his ass on the line. Check out the video below. My only gripe with it is he used the word "unpack" in reference to an idea which is bullshit seminar speak.
Wednesday, September 04, 2013
Tuesday, September 03, 2013
Finally
I'm happy to report that someone got the memo on the need for a real fucking news station as opposed to three we have now that can't resist bright shiny objects like Miley Cyrus. Al Jazeera America is simply fantastic.
I waited a few weeks since it launched to see if they could resist the paparazzi like stories we see on the other three networks and they have. In addition, they pick an issue on focus on it for a considerable amount of time. The show, "Inside Story," recently focused on climate change and to my complete delight, they did not play the Cult of Both Sides and focused on the actual science.
No doubt AJA will lead to several bowels being blown by those on the Right who just can't help themselves in predicting the coming End Times. Clearly, those who will engage in this haven't even watched the station. I was struck by how many average Americans participate in the discussions. These people come from all walks of political ideology and don't necessarily look great on TV which I think is totally fucking mega.
To see where you can watch Al Jazeera America, click here and enter your zip in the upper right hand corner.
I waited a few weeks since it launched to see if they could resist the paparazzi like stories we see on the other three networks and they have. In addition, they pick an issue on focus on it for a considerable amount of time. The show, "Inside Story," recently focused on climate change and to my complete delight, they did not play the Cult of Both Sides and focused on the actual science.
No doubt AJA will lead to several bowels being blown by those on the Right who just can't help themselves in predicting the coming End Times. Clearly, those who will engage in this haven't even watched the station. I was struck by how many average Americans participate in the discussions. These people come from all walks of political ideology and don't necessarily look great on TV which I think is totally fucking mega.
To see where you can watch Al Jazeera America, click here and enter your zip in the upper right hand corner.
The Only One
It appears that I am the only one who thinks that the president asking Congress for permission to bomb Syria makes him stronger, not weaker. That's true even if Congress turns him down.
Consider what would happen if that was the scenario as it was in the UK. Congress, not the president, would be blamed if we allowed the use of chemical weapons to go without an appropriate response. This would be a similar situation to World War II where President Roosevelt lobbied hard to get the United States involved in the war only to be rebuffed continually by Congress and their isolationist ways.
Granted, Bashar Asssad is no Adolph Hitler but ignoring his actions would have massive repercussions in the region. Iran would feel emboldened as would the various terrorists networks that both they and Syria support. In short, it's far too late to do nothing.
And the president knows this. But he wants to do this the right way and that's why Congress needs to be in the decision making process. They need to see the evidence over the next week (as will the world) of Sarin gas use in Syria. Once this happens, much of the hand wringing and fretting that we see in the "liberal" media is going to go away.
Honestly, I think Assad's days are numbered.
Consider what would happen if that was the scenario as it was in the UK. Congress, not the president, would be blamed if we allowed the use of chemical weapons to go without an appropriate response. This would be a similar situation to World War II where President Roosevelt lobbied hard to get the United States involved in the war only to be rebuffed continually by Congress and their isolationist ways.
Granted, Bashar Asssad is no Adolph Hitler but ignoring his actions would have massive repercussions in the region. Iran would feel emboldened as would the various terrorists networks that both they and Syria support. In short, it's far too late to do nothing.
And the president knows this. But he wants to do this the right way and that's why Congress needs to be in the decision making process. They need to see the evidence over the next week (as will the world) of Sarin gas use in Syria. Once this happens, much of the hand wringing and fretting that we see in the "liberal" media is going to go away.
Honestly, I think Assad's days are numbered.
Monday, September 02, 2013
250 K?
On this Labor Day, I thought it appropriate to check in on how Governor Scott "250,000 jobs" Walker is doing on his promise. We need look no further than Walker Job-O-Meter over at Politifact. Apparently that promise is now a goal, not necessarily a reality. He's also been lying about some other job related matters but what do the numbers actually say?
It looks like is about a third of the way there with 84,000 jobs added. This graphic shows it's been real up and down this year...sort of like that national picture.
Now, if this were President Obama, these numbers would be horrible. But since it's Scott Walker, well, what a great job he is doing, eh!?
It looks like is about a third of the way there with 84,000 jobs added. This graphic shows it's been real up and down this year...sort of like that national picture.
Now, if this were President Obama, these numbers would be horrible. But since it's Scott Walker, well, what a great job he is doing, eh!?
Sunday, September 01, 2013
Great Quotes
Addicting Info has a great list of quotes from our founding fathers that don't really seem to jibe with the whole not really sort of but really yes please theocracy conservatives want for our country. Among them...
"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. It is error alone that needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.” ~Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Horatio Spofford, 1814
I think I might need to highlight a quote a week from this page.
"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. It is error alone that needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.” ~Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Horatio Spofford, 1814
I think I might need to highlight a quote a week from this page.
Saturday, August 31, 2013
Friday, August 30, 2013
Which Car is Outselling The Rest?
That would be the Tesla.
In the first half of 2013, Tesla captured 0.6 percent of the total light-duty vehicle market in the state—more than Buick, Fiat, Land Rover, Lincoln, or Mitsubishi. And looking only at June, the latest month for which figures are available, Tesla also topped Cadillac, Chrysler, and Porsche. That’s especially impressive when you consider that those brands are selling multiple different cars, whereas the Model S is the only Tesla vehicle in production.
I was told there was no market for this sort of vehicle. Huh.
In the first half of 2013, Tesla captured 0.6 percent of the total light-duty vehicle market in the state—more than Buick, Fiat, Land Rover, Lincoln, or Mitsubishi. And looking only at June, the latest month for which figures are available, Tesla also topped Cadillac, Chrysler, and Porsche. That’s especially impressive when you consider that those brands are selling multiple different cars, whereas the Model S is the only Tesla vehicle in production.
I was told there was no market for this sort of vehicle. Huh.
The Arrogance of Ignorance
There they go again. Todd Rokita, an Indiana Republican, recently said that humans can't possibly change the climate of the entire planet:
“I think it’s arrogant that we think as people that we can somehow change the climate of the whole earth when science is telling us that there’s a cycle to all this,” he said. “And that cycle was occurring before the industrial revolution and I suspect will occur way into the future.”This is like saying that something the size of ant couldn't possibly tear down a house. Ants are just too small! Termites, however, can easily destroy houses.
It is not arrogant to think that humans can change the climate. It is the height of ignorance to think that we can do anything we damn well please without affecting the future of our of grandchildren.
The fact is, humans have been changing local climates for thousands of years. When you chop or burn down trees and convert forests to croplands, you change the climate.
You can see this for yourself: just take a bike ride down a trail in Minnesota on a hot day. When you're pedaling along a trail shaded by trees the air is cool and damp. When you leave the shade and enter a grassy area -- or a wheat field -- the air is dry and the temperature jumps several degrees. This is because forests cool the earth, and help to retain water locally instead of sending it all back into the air. Trees may even make it rain.
The effect is even greater when you replace trees with cities. This produces an effect called the "urban heat island." Areas denuded of foliage and covered with concrete and asphalt retain heat and and don't retain water, changing the local climate. Climate change deniers are well aware of this: they count on it to attempt to discredit historical climate data (which scientists have accounted for in their calculations).
Farmers in Brazil and Indonesia have been burning and chopping down the great rain forests for decades, turning lush, damp forests into dry fields. Haitians scavenging for wood to burn have chopped down all the trees on their side of the island. The American West has been hit hard by wildfires, and thousands of square miles have been burned in the last few years. This has changed the local climates, making them drier.
If you change enough local climates through deforestation and urbanization, pretty soon the continental and global climates change.
There are seven billion people on earth. Yes, there have been natural climate cycles in the past. But there have never been seven billion people before. The land area of the earth is 149 million square kilometers, or 58 million square miles. That gives us a population density of 121 people per square mile across the entire planet. By comparison, Macau has 73,000 people per square mile, India has 954, China has 365, Nicaragua has 120, the United States has 84, Alaska has 1.2. This means that, if we put our minds to it, we could easily chop or burn down all the forests in the world even with tools as primitive as stone axes. Which would drastically alter the global climate. And if you consider what would happen if we detonated all our nuclear weapons at once, it's clear that humanity has more than enough power to change the climate of the planet.
Over the past 200 years we have been digging up oil, gas and coal which were formed by the remains of forests and plants over millions and billions of years. Not only are we burning the forests of today and putting their carbon into the atmosphere, but by burning fossil fuels we are putting the carbon of millions of years of forest and plant growth into the atmosphere, all in the blink of an eye on the geological scale. It's like burning all the forests that ever existed all at once.
That is something that has never happened on earth before, so any talk of science's "natural cycles" goes completely out the window.
To think that that the activities of seven billion people can't change the climate is both arrogant and ignorant. So the question is: are we going to be termites, gnawing at the foundations of the world's climate until it comes crashing down upon us? Or are we going to be good shepherds of this earth?
Thursday, August 29, 2013
A Real Head Scratcher
Fox News had a story on air recently in which they wondered why the beaches in our country are eroding. As Media Matters notes, that's a real head scratcher!
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
Forfeit These Services!
Samuel Warde has a nice variation on the anti-socialist pledge up over at Liberals Unite. Here are a few of my favorites...
Want to visit another country? Don’t bother unless you know a way around the border stop which is patrolled by the government and don’t forget you no longer can get a passport any more.
You need to worry about clean air or water once the commie EPA is shut down.
You no longer have to be bothered with paved roads, highways, interstate freeways or public bridges.
It's almost as if they don't understand how the real world works from the comfort of the basement of their parents home.
Want to visit another country? Don’t bother unless you know a way around the border stop which is patrolled by the government and don’t forget you no longer can get a passport any more.
You need to worry about clean air or water once the commie EPA is shut down.
You no longer have to be bothered with paved roads, highways, interstate freeways or public bridges.
It's almost as if they don't understand how the real world works from the comfort of the basement of their parents home.
Coming Clean
I was quite heartened to see that the CIA has now admitted that it played a significant role in the coup in Iran in 1953. This event, more than any other, was the spark that lit the flame of hatred for the United States in Iran. Backing the Shah, who murdered his own citizens regularly and often on a mere whim, was a giant mistake.
Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq was the democratically elected leader and we had him overthrown simply because he nationalized Iran's oil. So what? It was their fucking country to do with whatever they desired. Iran wasn't a problem before the CIA, BP and MI-6 fucked everything up.
Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq was the democratically elected leader and we had him overthrown simply because he nationalized Iran's oil. So what? It was their fucking country to do with whatever they desired. Iran wasn't a problem before the CIA, BP and MI-6 fucked everything up.
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
Fuck You
I actually had some sympathy for George Zimmerman throughout his whole ordeal and thought of him simply as a wannabe moron who should have never gotten out of the car. Most of my disgust over the shooting of Trayvon Martin lied not with him but with his mouth foaming supporters in the gun community who finally got to thump their chests and shout, "Hoo-RA!" as they turned Zimmerman into the victim standing his ground.
Yet after the recent revelation that Mr. Zimmerman visited Kal Tec, the gun manufacturer that made the gun he used to kill Martin, he can fuck right off. Any concern I have for his safety and future life as a result of the verdict is gone. He could have simply led a quiet life and tired to stay out of the spotlight. Yet if he is going to now be a gun celebrity and preen, he bears full responsibility for anything that happens to him.
Fuck you, douchebag.
Yet after the recent revelation that Mr. Zimmerman visited Kal Tec, the gun manufacturer that made the gun he used to kill Martin, he can fuck right off. Any concern I have for his safety and future life as a result of the verdict is gone. He could have simply led a quiet life and tired to stay out of the spotlight. Yet if he is going to now be a gun celebrity and preen, he bears full responsibility for anything that happens to him.
Fuck you, douchebag.
The End Game
With the United States on the verge of bombing Syria after it has been discovered that the Assad government used chemical weapons against the rebels, I have to wonder...what is the end game in Syria?
No doubt the use of such weapons is thoroughly disgusting on just about every level but it shouldn't be news that President Assad is a despicable man. Equally as awful are the rebels who like to videotape people's hearts being cut out and eaten by resistance soldiers. These are the people we want to help out?
I suppose I understand the concept of a surgical strike the sends a message but it won't accomplish anything. The civil war there will continue and it's going to be a giant cluster fuck just as it is in Egypt with various groups vying violently for power. In the final analysis, there is very little we can to stabilize Syria let alone the region.
No doubt the use of such weapons is thoroughly disgusting on just about every level but it shouldn't be news that President Assad is a despicable man. Equally as awful are the rebels who like to videotape people's hearts being cut out and eaten by resistance soldiers. These are the people we want to help out?
I suppose I understand the concept of a surgical strike the sends a message but it won't accomplish anything. The civil war there will continue and it's going to be a giant cluster fuck just as it is in Egypt with various groups vying violently for power. In the final analysis, there is very little we can to stabilize Syria let alone the region.
Monday, August 26, 2013
Sunday, August 25, 2013
Saturday, August 24, 2013
Retraction
The other day I posted this photo thinking that it was a real Michele Bachmann quote. It was actually from a Bachmann parody page so it isn't something she actually said. My mistake.
Speaking of photo mistakes, I'm still waiting for an admission of error from Kevin Baker and his merry band of American Taliban members on this photo.
I won't hold my breath.
Speaking of photo mistakes, I'm still waiting for an admission of error from Kevin Baker and his merry band of American Taliban members on this photo.
I won't hold my breath.
Friday, August 23, 2013
Ripped Off!
So, this was discovered recently...
Scandal: 'Double Stuf' Oreos Don't Actually Contain Double the Stuff
After weighing 10 Double Stuf cookies both with and without their chocolate wafers, the class plugged the numbers into mathematical equations and came up with the horrifying truth: Double Stuf Oreos were only 1.86 times larger than regular Oreos.
Say it ain't so!
But kudos to an excellent instructional method:)
Scandal: 'Double Stuf' Oreos Don't Actually Contain Double the Stuff
After weighing 10 Double Stuf cookies both with and without their chocolate wafers, the class plugged the numbers into mathematical equations and came up with the horrifying truth: Double Stuf Oreos were only 1.86 times larger than regular Oreos.
Say it ain't so!
But kudos to an excellent instructional method:)
Thursday, August 22, 2013
Good Words
Republicans do have a debate problem. Debates often expose their candidates as outside the mainstream on issues like climate change and evolution and contraception and immigration and rape and safety net programs. The reason for that is that many Republican candidates are outside the mainstream on issues like climate change and evolution and contraception and immigration and rape and safety net programs.
It looks like Republicans are trying to hide something. But the debates are not the party’s problem. The party is the party’s problem.
The above was taken from a Bill Schneider piece at Reuters and I couldn't agree with it more. The whole Reince Priebus meltdown over the Hillary Clinton movies and documentaries really illustrates just how worried the GOP is about their future prospects for president. After talking with many of my conservative friends, they don't seem too really care about the White House anyway.
Yet the message is clear: moderate or lose. And I actually think that's true even for the House in 2014. You have to have an alternate plan to what you are bitching about. A 12 year old boy temper tantrum is not a plan.
It looks like Republicans are trying to hide something. But the debates are not the party’s problem. The party is the party’s problem.
The above was taken from a Bill Schneider piece at Reuters and I couldn't agree with it more. The whole Reince Priebus meltdown over the Hillary Clinton movies and documentaries really illustrates just how worried the GOP is about their future prospects for president. After talking with many of my conservative friends, they don't seem too really care about the White House anyway.
Yet the message is clear: moderate or lose. And I actually think that's true even for the House in 2014. You have to have an alternate plan to what you are bitching about. A 12 year old boy temper tantrum is not a plan.
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
The One With The Happy Ending
It started off as an all too familiar event. A young white male with a history of mental health problems gets into a school and threatens to shoot it up. Convicted felon Michael Brandon Hill (who somehow managed to get a gun...how?) skirted past security at Discovery Learning Academy in Decateur, Georgia and held two staff hostage.
But one of the staff, school bookeeper Antoinette Tuff, talked him down and he surrendered to police. The story of how she did this is detailed in the above link. More importantly, however, is that she did this without a gun of her own in a gun free zone. This incident really drives home the point of how this is all about mental health and not guns. What happens to young white men that they get to this point? Why is it always the same profile, save a few outliers?
This is at the heart of the school shooting issue. We need to figure out the profile for these guys just like we would a serial killer or habitual thief. More intelligence means better crime prevention and (thank God) leaving the very unhelpful gun ass hats out of the equation.
But one of the staff, school bookeeper Antoinette Tuff, talked him down and he surrendered to police. The story of how she did this is detailed in the above link. More importantly, however, is that she did this without a gun of her own in a gun free zone. This incident really drives home the point of how this is all about mental health and not guns. What happens to young white men that they get to this point? Why is it always the same profile, save a few outliers?
This is at the heart of the school shooting issue. We need to figure out the profile for these guys just like we would a serial killer or habitual thief. More intelligence means better crime prevention and (thank God) leaving the very unhelpful gun ass hats out of the equation.
Tuesday, August 20, 2013
Another Cult Member Exits Stage Left!
Clint Murphy has left The Cult, ladies and gentlemen. And it took a bout with testicular cancer to spur him into reflection. Of course, this comes after Newt Gingrich, who last week said that Republicans had "zero" ideas for a replacement to the Affordable Care Act.
“I will bet you, for most of you, you go home in the next two weeks when your members of Congress are home, and you look them in the eye and you say, ‘What is your positive replacement for Obamacare?’ They will have zero answer,” Gingrich told the Boston crowd, said a report from CNN. Gingrich said the party has a “very deep problem” with a culture that promotes negativity. “We are caught up right now in a culture, and you see it every single day, where as long as we are negative and as long as we are vicious and as long as we can tear down our opponent, we don’t have to learn anything. And so we don’t,” Gingrich said, according to video of the event from MSNBC.
Gee, Newt, I've been saying that for...oh...I don't know how many years now...
Mr. Murphy had much more to say. His Facebook post on Obamacare last week, addressed to his Republican friends, was something of a surprise:
“When you say you’re against it, you’re saying that you don’t want people like me to have health insurance.” Murphy would like to call himself a Republican, but has been too dismayed by his party’s cavalier attitude toward the health care debate. “We have people treating government like a Broadway play, like it’s some sort of entertainment,” he said. So call Murphy an independent.
Obamacare isn’t perfect, the former political spear-carrier said. “But to even improve it, to make something work, you’ve got to participate in the process. [Republicans] are not even participating in the process.”
They do a fine job of entertaining all too willing masses and a downright crappy job of participating in the process. Kind of like...oh, I don't know...a lazy adolescent who has problems with this parents?
“I will bet you, for most of you, you go home in the next two weeks when your members of Congress are home, and you look them in the eye and you say, ‘What is your positive replacement for Obamacare?’ They will have zero answer,” Gingrich told the Boston crowd, said a report from CNN. Gingrich said the party has a “very deep problem” with a culture that promotes negativity. “We are caught up right now in a culture, and you see it every single day, where as long as we are negative and as long as we are vicious and as long as we can tear down our opponent, we don’t have to learn anything. And so we don’t,” Gingrich said, according to video of the event from MSNBC.
Gee, Newt, I've been saying that for...oh...I don't know how many years now...
Mr. Murphy had much more to say. His Facebook post on Obamacare last week, addressed to his Republican friends, was something of a surprise:
“When you say you’re against it, you’re saying that you don’t want people like me to have health insurance.” Murphy would like to call himself a Republican, but has been too dismayed by his party’s cavalier attitude toward the health care debate. “We have people treating government like a Broadway play, like it’s some sort of entertainment,” he said. So call Murphy an independent.
Obamacare isn’t perfect, the former political spear-carrier said. “But to even improve it, to make something work, you’ve got to participate in the process. [Republicans] are not even participating in the process.”
They do a fine job of entertaining all too willing masses and a downright crappy job of participating in the process. Kind of like...oh, I don't know...a lazy adolescent who has problems with this parents?
Monday, August 19, 2013
Breaking News: Rafael ("Ted") Cruz Releases Birth Certificate
Remember all the hoo hah about President Obama's birth certificate, and that he couldn't be president because some nuts on the right insisted he was born in Kenya, even though every single iota of physical evidence, from birth certificates issued by the state of Hawaii to birth notices in the newspaper indicated that Obama was an American born in America?
Now Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican and Tea Party darling, has been forced to release his birth certificate. And the document not only proves that he was born in a foreign country, but also that his father was from Cuba (and, incidentally, he fought alongside Fidel Castro in the revolution)! Incredibly, Cruz also continues to hold dual citizenship in Canada and the United States. Where do his real loyalties lie? Is he secretly beholden to the queen of England?
Cruz's mother happens to be American, but that meant nothing to the millions of birthers out there who insisted that Obama couldn't be an American even if his mother was. As it turns out, Cruz is even less American than the president.
The other piece of important information that we learned from this birth certificate is that Cruz's real name is Rafael. So, all you birthers out there, listen up: you have derisively called Obama "Barry" for years. It is now your duty to harangue Cruz with your every breath, calling him "Rafi" and "Rafaelito" at every opportunity.
On a serious note, this does not disqualify Cruz from being president. But it's patently ridiculous that nitwits like Orly Taitz have kept the birth certificate brouhaha alive for years. The craziest thing about her is that she was -- I kid you not -- born in the Soviet Republic of Moldavia!
Which gives her absolutely zero standing for questioning just how "real" an American the president or Cruz or any other US citizen is.
Now Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican and Tea Party darling, has been forced to release his birth certificate. And the document not only proves that he was born in a foreign country, but also that his father was from Cuba (and, incidentally, he fought alongside Fidel Castro in the revolution)! Incredibly, Cruz also continues to hold dual citizenship in Canada and the United States. Where do his real loyalties lie? Is he secretly beholden to the queen of England?
The other piece of important information that we learned from this birth certificate is that Cruz's real name is Rafael. So, all you birthers out there, listen up: you have derisively called Obama "Barry" for years. It is now your duty to harangue Cruz with your every breath, calling him "Rafi" and "Rafaelito" at every opportunity.
On a serious note, this does not disqualify Cruz from being president. But it's patently ridiculous that nitwits like Orly Taitz have kept the birth certificate brouhaha alive for years. The craziest thing about her is that she was -- I kid you not -- born in the Soviet Republic of Moldavia!
Which gives her absolutely zero standing for questioning just how "real" an American the president or Cruz or any other US citizen is.
Compromise: the Dirty Word
Mark's post about conservative attitudes contained the following:
"Compromise is the filthiest word in their language..."
I had been contemplating that idea recently. The word "compromise" has two main definitions:
I would further hypothesize that this reflects your underlying worldview. Liberals and moderates believe that through compromise that everyone can win. Conservatives seem to think that life is a zero-sum game and that they can win only if their enemies lose: there's no such thing as a reasonable accommodation, and anything less than total victory is betrayal of everything that is good and holy.
This way of thinking is flawed. Compromise is an essential part of life.
Without compromise it would be impossible for any business to be conducted: companies would be eternally at war with their employees, customers and suppliers. Marriage would be a living hell: husbands and wives would be constantly bickering about sex, money, TV, what's for dinner, etc. No children would ever reach adulthood: parents would strangle them out of frustration because they refuse to obey their every command. Disagreements among neighbors would quickly degenerate into armed mayhem and murder. Organized religion could not exist: no parishioner accepts verbatim everything that their priest or minister says. (Some would say this describes life in red states to a T.)
So why should the basic business of running our nation be conducted any different than running a company or enjoying a harmonious family life?
The underlying premise of this country is that we're all in this together. If we all work together we can make this a better place. But it seems that conservatives reject that very concept and want to divide the country up into factions that are constantly at odds.
The problem, as we've seen with conservatives constantly bickering among themselves over who's more conservative than who, is that no one will ever be ideologically pure enough. Conservative groups demanding purity will splinter into tinier and tinier factions, and will fight amongst themselves as much as they fight Democrats. Tea Party "primarying" of the more reasonable get-'er-done Republicans is direct evidence of this disintegration.
The more conservatives bicker, delay, sabotage and run out the clock until the 2014 election, the less likely swing voters are to cast ballots for the obstructionists and nut jobs. And given how narrowly the Republicans have gerrymandered themselves into control of the House of Representatives, that could spell oblivion for the Republican Party.
"Compromise is the filthiest word in their language..."
I had been contemplating that idea recently. The word "compromise" has two main definitions:
1) settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessionsand
2) a concession to something derogatory or prejudicial (a compromise of principles)I would hypothesize that moderates and liberals believe that the primary meaning is 1) and conservatives believe that the only meaning is 2).
I would further hypothesize that this reflects your underlying worldview. Liberals and moderates believe that through compromise that everyone can win. Conservatives seem to think that life is a zero-sum game and that they can win only if their enemies lose: there's no such thing as a reasonable accommodation, and anything less than total victory is betrayal of everything that is good and holy.
This way of thinking is flawed. Compromise is an essential part of life.
Without compromise it would be impossible for any business to be conducted: companies would be eternally at war with their employees, customers and suppliers. Marriage would be a living hell: husbands and wives would be constantly bickering about sex, money, TV, what's for dinner, etc. No children would ever reach adulthood: parents would strangle them out of frustration because they refuse to obey their every command. Disagreements among neighbors would quickly degenerate into armed mayhem and murder. Organized religion could not exist: no parishioner accepts verbatim everything that their priest or minister says. (Some would say this describes life in red states to a T.)
So why should the basic business of running our nation be conducted any different than running a company or enjoying a harmonious family life?
The underlying premise of this country is that we're all in this together. If we all work together we can make this a better place. But it seems that conservatives reject that very concept and want to divide the country up into factions that are constantly at odds.
The problem, as we've seen with conservatives constantly bickering among themselves over who's more conservative than who, is that no one will ever be ideologically pure enough. Conservative groups demanding purity will splinter into tinier and tinier factions, and will fight amongst themselves as much as they fight Democrats. Tea Party "primarying" of the more reasonable get-'er-done Republicans is direct evidence of this disintegration.
The more conservatives bicker, delay, sabotage and run out the clock until the 2014 election, the less likely swing voters are to cast ballots for the obstructionists and nut jobs. And given how narrowly the Republicans have gerrymandered themselves into control of the House of Representatives, that could spell oblivion for the Republican Party.
Hometown Epiphanies
I just got back from a visit to the town where I grew up in Wisconsin. My mom still lives there and has since we moved there from Missouri in 1973. Forty years...wow...where did the time go?
I spent most of the weekend with my hometown buddies and, as is usually the case, had a political discussion with my childhood chum named Paul. I love Paul like a brother and have known him since we were both kids but he is, without a doubt, the poster child for the Tea Party. He is loud, quick tempered, weighs 300 pounds, has a pathological distrust and hatred of the federal government, and lives with his mother.
I mention the last bit because someone somewhere needs to commission a study on conservatives regarding the following hypothesis: the political emotion of your modern day conservative is fueled by unresolved issues from adolescence stemming from a fundamental breakdown in their relationship with one or both parents. This, in turn, leads to massively irrational behavior that quite frankly helps to exacerbate the problems we have in this country largely by the blunt force of inaction but also by them being...well...assholes.
I've been talking about this for awhile but as I sat and listened to Paul's mouth foaming about the federal government "worming its way into every aspect of our lives" and our country falling apart (any day now), several ideas coalesced for me. I started to think about all the people I know who are conservative and, as I have stated previously, all behave, in many ways, like they are 12-14 years old. This is especially true when they talk about politics. It's one long adolescent temper tantrum and stomp down the hallway because "they don't wanna!" Since I now have a teenager in the house, it's all very familiar.
But I knew all this before so quickly moving on from that, I realized how many of the conservatives I know (as well as many that I don't know personally) clearly have very serious mommy and daddy issues. I started to count how many still lived at home with the parents and went over the list with my wife in the car on the way back to Minnesota. She laughed as the number got higher and higher. It didn't matter what age they were...far too many did.
Science tells me, however, that this is merely anecdotal, hence the reason why a study needs to be undertaken. Unlike my colleagues on the right, I'm not going to fall prey to the logical fallacies of hasty generalizations or misleading vividness. At this point, it is merely an observation. Consider how the ensuing study and results would be fascinating. They could ask for volunteers from the comments section of The Smallest Minority (I wonder how many of them live at home with their parents) or my own comments section:)
So, the mommy and daddy stuff lead me to the idea that your modern day conservative is very insecure about themselves and their lives. They are probably pissed off about their perceived lack of control in their lives (I say perceived because no one is forcing them to live at home with their parents) and the federal government is the perfect whipping boy with which they can spew all their unresolved life issues upon. Suddenly, everything is the government's fault, not their own. Ironically, they scream about victim culture when they themselves behave in the same way. Further, they have not come to terms with the fact that they are not in control of everything that happens to them and, like your average adolescent, don't take too kindly to being told that there are rules that we have to follow in society if it's going to be a decent place to live.
People like Paul also bring new meaning to the word stubborn. Compromise is the filthiest word in their language and when they don't wanna, they really don't wanna! In fact, Paul told me that he, along with the rest of his fellow Tea Partiers in Wisconsin, don't care if they ever win the White House again. They more or less have a lock on the House and will do everything they can to keep it that way. This jibes with what I have asserted previously. They don't care about winning elections as long as they remain pure.
In many ways, the whole conversation with him made me quite sad because a very key assertion of mine was finally confirmed. Conservatives are so afraid of irrelevance that they are now hysterical. We went down the list of all of the problems we have in this country and his answer to every one was basically do nothing. Clearly, he was frightened of any sort of success by Democrats and other liberal types as massive demonization went on throughout the entire conversation. Doing anything meant the apocalypse.
What a way to view the world...
I spent most of the weekend with my hometown buddies and, as is usually the case, had a political discussion with my childhood chum named Paul. I love Paul like a brother and have known him since we were both kids but he is, without a doubt, the poster child for the Tea Party. He is loud, quick tempered, weighs 300 pounds, has a pathological distrust and hatred of the federal government, and lives with his mother.
I mention the last bit because someone somewhere needs to commission a study on conservatives regarding the following hypothesis: the political emotion of your modern day conservative is fueled by unresolved issues from adolescence stemming from a fundamental breakdown in their relationship with one or both parents. This, in turn, leads to massively irrational behavior that quite frankly helps to exacerbate the problems we have in this country largely by the blunt force of inaction but also by them being...well...assholes.
I've been talking about this for awhile but as I sat and listened to Paul's mouth foaming about the federal government "worming its way into every aspect of our lives" and our country falling apart (any day now), several ideas coalesced for me. I started to think about all the people I know who are conservative and, as I have stated previously, all behave, in many ways, like they are 12-14 years old. This is especially true when they talk about politics. It's one long adolescent temper tantrum and stomp down the hallway because "they don't wanna!" Since I now have a teenager in the house, it's all very familiar.
But I knew all this before so quickly moving on from that, I realized how many of the conservatives I know (as well as many that I don't know personally) clearly have very serious mommy and daddy issues. I started to count how many still lived at home with the parents and went over the list with my wife in the car on the way back to Minnesota. She laughed as the number got higher and higher. It didn't matter what age they were...far too many did.
Science tells me, however, that this is merely anecdotal, hence the reason why a study needs to be undertaken. Unlike my colleagues on the right, I'm not going to fall prey to the logical fallacies of hasty generalizations or misleading vividness. At this point, it is merely an observation. Consider how the ensuing study and results would be fascinating. They could ask for volunteers from the comments section of The Smallest Minority (I wonder how many of them live at home with their parents) or my own comments section:)
So, the mommy and daddy stuff lead me to the idea that your modern day conservative is very insecure about themselves and their lives. They are probably pissed off about their perceived lack of control in their lives (I say perceived because no one is forcing them to live at home with their parents) and the federal government is the perfect whipping boy with which they can spew all their unresolved life issues upon. Suddenly, everything is the government's fault, not their own. Ironically, they scream about victim culture when they themselves behave in the same way. Further, they have not come to terms with the fact that they are not in control of everything that happens to them and, like your average adolescent, don't take too kindly to being told that there are rules that we have to follow in society if it's going to be a decent place to live.
People like Paul also bring new meaning to the word stubborn. Compromise is the filthiest word in their language and when they don't wanna, they really don't wanna! In fact, Paul told me that he, along with the rest of his fellow Tea Partiers in Wisconsin, don't care if they ever win the White House again. They more or less have a lock on the House and will do everything they can to keep it that way. This jibes with what I have asserted previously. They don't care about winning elections as long as they remain pure.
In many ways, the whole conversation with him made me quite sad because a very key assertion of mine was finally confirmed. Conservatives are so afraid of irrelevance that they are now hysterical. We went down the list of all of the problems we have in this country and his answer to every one was basically do nothing. Clearly, he was frightened of any sort of success by Democrats and other liberal types as massive demonization went on throughout the entire conversation. Doing anything meant the apocalypse.
What a way to view the world...
Sunday, August 18, 2013
Proved Wrong-Again!
Hmm...perhaps I generalize too much about the South. Stories like this give me a tremendous amount of hope. And, for the second time this week, Colbert made me laugh my ass off!
Saturday, August 17, 2013
The Future Is Getting Closer...
A company in New Zealand is getting closer to making a real-life jetpack. The future is almost here!The Martin Jetpack isn't really a jetpack. It's basically a one-passenger hovercraft. It has no tail rotor, which makes it much safer than helicopters, which often crash when the tail rotor strikes trees and power lines.
The jetpack sounds like a giant weed whip. It's made of carbon fiber and uses a two-liter two-stroke gasoline engine. It has payload capacity of 100 kg, range of 19 miles, maximum speed of 40 knots and a running time of half an hour. It should be able to reach altitudes of more than mile.
Originally targeted at the leisure market, they're trying to sell it for other applications such as firefighting and military reconnaissance (that is, to organizations that have enough money to pay for it). The design incorporates features that make it safer to fly than other VTOL craft like helicopters. It will hover in place if the pilot provides no input. It has a roll cage and a quick-deploying parachute, which you can see in the video of one of their remote-controlled test flights. Even with the parachute, if you lose power at altitudes too low for proper deployment you'll be in for serious hurt.
Martin's goal is to make a recreational jetpack available for about $100K. But if all you're interested in is getting off the ground, there are other options available at a much lower price. Several companies offer jetpacks that are connected by a hose to a jet ski for less than $10K (hardware modification of your jet ski is required):
It ain't rocket science, but it looks like a lot of fun!
The first iteration of the Martin Jetpack is unlikely to be practical for anything other than recreation: unmanned drones will be better for aerial reconnaissance. Air search and rescue in rugged areas that can't afford a full-fledged helicopter and pilot would seem an obvious fit, but range and flight time are extremely limited. It doesn't have enough payload capacity for a pilot, a passenger and equipment. But it could get a paramedic to an injured person on a mountain faster than anything else.
Immediate practicality is beside the point. The Wright brother's first plane was made from bicycle parts and only flew for a few seconds. In just 60 years the X-15 was flying on the edge of space. The engineers at Martin are making this sort of technology cheaper, safer and more accessible to non-pilots.
As long as we keep dreaming and pushing, anything might become possible.
Giving Me Hope
The Times has an amazing piece about John Lewis up this week that everyone should read. It's very refreshing to see how far we have come since he walked across Edmund Pettus Bridge on Bloody Sunday. It also gave me a great deal of hope to see that Eric Cantor took the walk across the bridge with Congressmen Lewis this year with his college age son in tow.
These are the kinds of stories we need in this day and age.
Friday, August 16, 2013
So Cool!
This story is so fucking cool!
In 2012, the owner finally revealed the site's location after swearing Raines to secrecy. Raines then did his own dive and discovered a primeval Cypress swamp in pristine condition. The forest had become an artificial reef, attracting fish, crustaceans, sea anemones and other underwater life burrowing between the roots of dislodged stumps.
The forest contains trees so well-preserved that when they are cut, they still smell like fresh Cypress sap, Raines said. Imagine what we are going to learn in the coming years of what life was like in this part of the world 50,000 years ago!
In 2012, the owner finally revealed the site's location after swearing Raines to secrecy. Raines then did his own dive and discovered a primeval Cypress swamp in pristine condition. The forest had become an artificial reef, attracting fish, crustaceans, sea anemones and other underwater life burrowing between the roots of dislodged stumps.
The forest contains trees so well-preserved that when they are cut, they still smell like fresh Cypress sap, Raines said. Imagine what we are going to learn in the coming years of what life was like in this part of the world 50,000 years ago!
Thursday, August 15, 2013
Using Democracy to Subvert It
The greatest strength of democracy is also its greatest weakness: leaders derive their power from the will of the people. But if the majority of the people don't believe in democracy, they will elect people who believe likewise, and the institutions of democracy will be used to destroy it.
We can see this playing out in Egypt today. The country is going through violent convulsions now because the two main contestants -- the military and the Muslim Brotherhood -- don't believe in democracy. Though elected democratically, Morsi declared himself above the courts and pushed through a lop-sided constitution. In Egypt the military and the Muslim Brotherhood believe they deserve to rule and will do anything to gain power, and damn the rest of the country, democracy and the rule of law.
Sadly, the same dynamic is playing out here in the United States in states controlled by the Republican Party. In response to a lawsuit over their 2011 redistricting plan Republicans responded:
DOJ's accusations of racial discrimination are baseless. In 2011, both houses of the Texas Legislature were controlled by large Republican majorities, and their redistricting decisions were designed to increase the Republican Party's electoral prospects at the expense of the Democrats. . . . The redistricting decisions of which DOJ complains were motivated by partisan rather than racial considerations, and the plaintiffs and DOJ have zero evidence to prove the contrary.In other words, they think it's fine to subvert democracy as long as the motivation is partisan political gain and not racism. But the main reason Republicans are so desperate to make these changes is to solidify their political position ahead of the upcoming demographic shift: the number of white voters in these states is in decline, and without this sort of trickery Republicans will be out of power because they'll soon be in the racial minority.
And it's just not true that the Department of Justice has "zero evidence" that the motivations behind the passage of these laws is racist. Republicans have screwed up and publicly admitted that they don't want blacks to vote because they won't vote Republican:
“I’m going to be real honest with you, the Republican Party doesn’t want black people to vote if they’re going to vote 9-to-1 for Democrats,” Ken Emanuelson said.Republicans are treading on thin ice. In many states, such as Ohio, they have gerrymandered large Congressional and legislative majorities by packing all Democrats (and often blacks and Hispanics) into a few overwhelmingly Democratic districts and given themselves small majorities in the rest of the state.
When the voters in the middle grow tired of this naked power grab even a small shift among swing voters could result in Republican being completely locked out of power. Natural growth and migration patterns could result in Texas becoming Democratic in the next four to eight years, just in time for the next redistricting after the 2020 census.
This may already be happening in some states: after Republicans gained control of both houses in Minnesota in 2010 they circumvented the normal legislative process and pushed controversial voter ID and anti-gay marriage constitutional amendments. This caused a severe backlash and Democrats swept to large majorities in the House and Senate in 2012. A few months later gay marriage was made law.
With their complete contempt for fairness, democracy, compromise and cooperation all these Republican machinations may ultimately backfire on them. And then they'll be the ones demanding protections for minorities.
Just Imagine
Imagine for a just a moment that the president took a vacation to a foreign land with a Hollywood type. Add in high unemployment and a taxpayer cost of 3.5 million dollars. What would the Right say?
Well, they said nothing when Ronald Reagan did it.
So they probably would say nothing now if Barack Obama did it, right?
Take note of how admirably the media portrayed Reagan as well.
Well, they said nothing when Ronald Reagan did it.
So they probably would say nothing now if Barack Obama did it, right?
Take note of how admirably the media portrayed Reagan as well.
York Channels Moi
Byron York has a piece up that could have well been written by me. When a Fox News contributor and author of the The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy writes something like this...
Even with lower ratings these days, the American people like the Republicans even less. That's because their party is made up of far right paranoids who have no plan to improve the country and would rather behave like juveniles. One need only read the comments section of this blog to see exactly what I am talking about.
So what should the Right do?
What that should tell the GOP is that Republican candidates don’t need to tell voters what a bad job the president is doing. They already know that, and besides, Obama won’t be on the ballot in 2014. What GOP candidates need to do is convince voters that they would do a better job than Democrats.
And if they don't?
If they don’t — if Republicans stick to being an opposition party on the attack rather than the alternative party offering an agenda — then Obama’s much-discussed dream of retaking the House in 2014 might come true, despite all the odds. And that would be a nightmare for Republicans.
What I like about this scenario is that it is a win-win for Democrats. If the Republicans continue with their adolescent behavior, they lose more seats in the House, if not the chamber itself all together. You can pretty much kiss any hopes of retaking the Senate either. If they actually change and compromise on issues like immigration and the budget, then our country is better off for it. They will likely win more elections but it will be because they came to their senses.
I'm hoping it's the latter. We have very serious problems in this country and really no time for temper tantrums from little boys.
Behind the scenes — in whispered asides, not for public consumption — some Republicans are now worried that keeping the House is not such a done deal after all. They look back to two elections, 1998 and 2006, in which Republicans seriously underperformed expectations, and they wonder if 2014 might be a little like those two unhappy years.
...it's time to for the Right to start shitting themselves. Why?
GOP strategists look at the president’s job approval rating on the economy and see an opportunity. A recent Quinnipiac poll, for example, found that 54 percent of those surveyed do not approve of Obama’s handling of the economy. Yet when the pollsters asked who respondents trusted to do a better job with economic issues — Obama or Republicans in Congress — respondents chose Obama, 45 percent to 39 percent. Lots of other polls have shown similar results. Voters don’t approve of the way Obama is handling the economy. Yet they prefer him over Republicans.
...it's time to for the Right to start shitting themselves. Why?
GOP strategists look at the president’s job approval rating on the economy and see an opportunity. A recent Quinnipiac poll, for example, found that 54 percent of those surveyed do not approve of Obama’s handling of the economy. Yet when the pollsters asked who respondents trusted to do a better job with economic issues — Obama or Republicans in Congress — respondents chose Obama, 45 percent to 39 percent. Lots of other polls have shown similar results. Voters don’t approve of the way Obama is handling the economy. Yet they prefer him over Republicans.
Even with lower ratings these days, the American people like the Republicans even less. That's because their party is made up of far right paranoids who have no plan to improve the country and would rather behave like juveniles. One need only read the comments section of this blog to see exactly what I am talking about.
So what should the Right do?
What that should tell the GOP is that Republican candidates don’t need to tell voters what a bad job the president is doing. They already know that, and besides, Obama won’t be on the ballot in 2014. What GOP candidates need to do is convince voters that they would do a better job than Democrats.
And if they don't?
If they don’t — if Republicans stick to being an opposition party on the attack rather than the alternative party offering an agenda — then Obama’s much-discussed dream of retaking the House in 2014 might come true, despite all the odds. And that would be a nightmare for Republicans.
What I like about this scenario is that it is a win-win for Democrats. If the Republicans continue with their adolescent behavior, they lose more seats in the House, if not the chamber itself all together. You can pretty much kiss any hopes of retaking the Senate either. If they actually change and compromise on issues like immigration and the budget, then our country is better off for it. They will likely win more elections but it will be because they came to their senses.
I'm hoping it's the latter. We have very serious problems in this country and really no time for temper tantrums from little boys.
Wednesday, August 14, 2013
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
Makes Perfect Sense To Me
After this story, I'm pretty embarrassed by the state in which I was born.
Perry Beam, who was among the spectators and has called attention to the act, told the Associated Press that "everybody screamed" and "just went wild” over the rodeo show. "It was at that point I began to feel a sense of fear. It was that level of enthusiasm," said Beam, a Higginsville resident.
Ah, the dark heart of American populism. My buddy Reverend Jim remarked this was "just as bad as when the bloody Bushitler posters went up." Really? I don't recall clowns play hitting the big lips of W as they did with the Obama mask at this rodeo.
Of course, it all makes perfect sense considering that now that it's town hall season (see: old white people yellin' and all afeared of blackie!) the birth certificate had to come up again.
Farenthold’s declaration came after a woman, who cannot be seen on the video, presents a folder to Farenthold that she says contains proof that Obama’s birth certificate was faked. “I’ll take a look at it,” Farenthold said. “I’ll tell you on the whole birth certificate issue … I think unfortunately the horse is already out of the barn on this.The original Congress when his eligibility came up should have looked into this and it didn’t. I’m not sure how we fix it.” The unidentified woman continued to press, saying “do we allow a president, if he has committed a felony, do we allow him to go unpunished?”
I wonder if any of these creeps are going to question the fact that Ted Cruz was born in Canada. Nah, he's got an R next to his name so he's alright!
Perry Beam, who was among the spectators and has called attention to the act, told the Associated Press that "everybody screamed" and "just went wild” over the rodeo show. "It was at that point I began to feel a sense of fear. It was that level of enthusiasm," said Beam, a Higginsville resident.
Ah, the dark heart of American populism. My buddy Reverend Jim remarked this was "just as bad as when the bloody Bushitler posters went up." Really? I don't recall clowns play hitting the big lips of W as they did with the Obama mask at this rodeo.
Of course, it all makes perfect sense considering that now that it's town hall season (see: old white people yellin' and all afeared of blackie!) the birth certificate had to come up again.
Farenthold’s declaration came after a woman, who cannot be seen on the video, presents a folder to Farenthold that she says contains proof that Obama’s birth certificate was faked. “I’ll take a look at it,” Farenthold said. “I’ll tell you on the whole birth certificate issue … I think unfortunately the horse is already out of the barn on this.The original Congress when his eligibility came up should have looked into this and it didn’t. I’m not sure how we fix it.” The unidentified woman continued to press, saying “do we allow a president, if he has committed a felony, do we allow him to go unpunished?”
I wonder if any of these creeps are going to question the fact that Ted Cruz was born in Canada. Nah, he's got an R next to his name so he's alright!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)