Discovery!

I have been searching for awhile now for a way to address the often prejudiced and sometimes racist attitudes towards the president without provoking the usual shrill and hysterical reaction from the Right. I have now found such a way.

First of all, was that really the cover of the National Review? Yes it was.  Talk about a dog whistle! Chait is dead on right with his analysis in this piece. Here are some my favorite bits...

It is bizarre to ascribe haughtiness and a lack of a capacity for embarrassment to a president whose most recent notable public appearance was a profusely and even flamboyantly contrite press conference spent repeatedly confessing to “fumbles” and “mistakes.” Why would Hillyer believe such a factually bizarre thing? One answer is that, by the evidence of this column, Hillyer believes all sorts of factually bizarre things. But most African-Americans, and many liberal whites, would read Hillyer’s rant as the cultural heir to Northup’s overseer: a southern white reactionary enraged that a calm, dignified, educated black man has failed to prostrate himself.

But are Hillyer and other conservatives really that bad?

Before plunging further into a poisonously defensive racial debate, I should note that I feel certain Hillyer opposes slavery and legal segregation, and highly confident he abhors racial discrimination, and believes in his heart full economic and social equality for African-Americans would be a blessing. (More than two decades ago, Hillyer worked against the candidacy of David Duke.) His feeling of offense at Obama’s putative haughtiness (“chin jutting out”) might be a long-ago-imbibed white southern upbringing bubbling to the surface, but more likely a flailing partisan rage that could just as easily have been directed at a white Democrat.

You can accept the most benign account of his thought process – and I do – while still being struck by the simple fact that Hillyer finds nothing uncomfortable at all about wrapping himself in a racist trope. He is either unaware of the freighted connotation of calling a black man uppity, or he doesn’t care. In the absence of a racial slur or an explicitly bigoted attack, no racial alarm bells sound in his brain.

So, they are just ignorant and don't want to reflect and change. Shocking...

Of course, this part of a larger problem.

The broad social structure of white supremacy is not a part of the working conservative definition of racism. Conservatives see racism as a series of discrete acts of overt oppression. After slavery had disappeared, but before legal segregation had, conservatives considered it preposterous to claim that blacks suffered any systematic disadvantage in American life. 

Hence the recent racism is over tweet.  They simply can't out of the black-white mindset. If racism isn't over, then the blacks and liberal whites must be continually crying wolf and trying to get free hand outs or something.

Pay close attention to how the president is criticized by the Right. The framework for the criticism is exactly how Chait describes it.

Oh, Are They?

Large Companies Prepared to Pay Price on Carbon

From the article...

The development is a striking departure from conservative orthodoxy and a reflection of growing divisions between the Republican Party and its business supporters. A new report by the environmental data company CDP has found that at least 29 companies, some with close ties to Republicans, including ExxonMobil, Walmart and American Electric Power, are incorporating a price on carbon into their long-term financial plans. Both supporters and opponents of action to fight global warming say the development is significant because businesses that chart a financial course to make money in a carbon-constrained future could be more inclined to support policies that address climate change. 

As I have stated previously, eventually the private firms of this nation will accept the facts. 

Completely Inconsolable

I've had some rather lengthy discussions with my conservative friends of late that have led me to the same conclusion as Jamelle Bouie: No matter the facts, the GOP is committed to the message that Obamacare has failed.

The Republican complaints of two months ago were purely opportunistic. For them, it just doesn’t matter if Healthcare.gov is working, since Obamacare is destined to fail, reality be damned! At most, the broken website was useful fodder for attacks on the administration. Now that it’s made progress, the GOP will revert to its usual declarations that the Affordable Care Act is a hopeless disaster. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of Americans have gained access to health insurance thanks to the Medicaid expansion or the exchanges, and many more will join their ranks as the deadline for coverage approaches. 

They are completely inconsolable and it seems they want to stay that way. 

Where's Her Apology?

Martin Bashir has resigned from MSNBC after taking Sarah Palin to the mat over her ridiculously awful comparison our debt to slavery. Not only was she insensitive but she demonstrated (once again) that she is sorely lacking in an understanding of our debt. On his Nov. 15 broadcast, Bashir called Palin "a world class idiot" because she made a comparison to slavery while discussing U.S. debt to China. The host then read an excerpt from the diary of a former plantation manager who wrote of forcing one slave to "S-H-I-T" in another slave's mouth, and said "if anyone truly qualified for a dose of [such] discipline... then she would be the outstanding candidate." He has since apologized for the remarks and now tendered his resignation from the network.

What I'm wondering is where is Sarah Palin's apology? Does she get to play with different rules?

Yes. Yes, she does.

In fact, so do all conservatives. They get to act like jack wagons because...well...they are. And their base eats it all up. But liberals don't get to act that way because they are the adults in the political arena, hence Bashir's resignation. If the Fox News personalities were held to the same standard, there would be no one working at the network.

Honestly, it's pretty fucking unfair if you ask me. It's almost like we simply have accepted that it's OK for conservatives like Sarah Palin to say offensive things. They get a pass and liberals don't. 

Great Deal of Hope

I think I have overreacted a tad to the somewhat glacial pace of guns and mental health legislation. Take a look at this.

The simple fact there are many deep red states answering the president's call gives me a great deal of hope. States are doing their own thing and that's just fine with me. Considering the Gun Cult is also a big supporter of states' rights, it seems to me they can't do anything about it. That really gives me a great deal of hope:)

What if there is a way to fix all this stuff and not change the lives of the Gun Cult? I think it may already be happening and it's just a little under the radar.

The Idolatry of Money: Not Just Bad for the Soul

Pope Francis raised a lot of conservative hackles with his latest epistle, Evangelii Gaudium. He has been called a Marxist by the likes of Rush Limbaugh. Here's an excerpt:

No to the new idolatry of money

55. One cause of this situation is found in our relationship with money, since we calmly accept its dominion over ourselves and our societies. The current financial crisis can make us overlook the fact that it originated in a profound human crisis: the denial of the primacy of the human person! We have created new idols. The worship of the ancient golden calf (cf. Ex 32:1-35) has returned in a new and ruthless guise in the idolatry of money and the dictatorship of an impersonal economy lacking a truly human purpose. The worldwide crisis affecting finance and the economy lays bare their imbalances and, above all, their lack of real concern for human beings; man is reduced to one of his needs alone: consumption.

This relentless pursuit of profit isn't just bad for our souls, it's also bad for our social, economic and physical well-being.  And it could well mean the end of modern medicine (see below).

The crash of 2008 was due to the laser-like focus on profit and personal gain, without regard to the broader consequences for future profits and the stability of the world's financial system. But this disease goes far beyond the financial sector.

Self-Destructive Profit Seeking in the Energy Sector
The relentless pursuit of profit is especially prevalent in the energy sector. In the United States there has been a mad rush to exploit the technology of hydraulic fracturing, causing contamination of aquifers, proper disposal of fracking waste, and even a precipitous and unsustainable drop in the price of natural gas: In 2012 the CEO of Exxon, Rex Tillerson, said, "We are all losing our shirts today."

That mindset spills into other areas. Minnesota and Wisconsin have been hit by a mad rush for sand mining (sand is needed for the fracking process). Developers wanted to tear up small towns along the Mississippi River for the sand. There was a lot of resistance as residents of these towns feared for their health: breathing the fine dust from sand mines can cause serious diseases like silicosis.

Some people didn't wait and got in on the sand rush, when it was selling for $200 a ton. Now, however, the price has plummeted, and they're selling it as cow bedding at $3.25 a ton. And companies are still clamoring to dig up those towns for their sand.

Profit Over Health
Focusing on profit rather than the common good is bad for our health. The food industry uses chemistry to make their products as addictive as possible, cramming more and more irresistible burgers, fries, chips and soda down our throats, causing an epidemic of obesity and diabetes and heart disease.

The meat and poultry industry directly feeds their animals antibiotics because it increases weight gain, increasing profit. Bacteria develop resistance to these antibiotics because of this overuse, causing flesh-eating superbugs for which there is no treatment. The same thing happens when doctors prescribe antibiotics for acne, or sore throats caused by viruses, or when patients don't take the full course of an antibiotic treatment for strep (or, worse, tuberculosis).

Antibiotic resistance would seem to be a new target for drug company profits. Alas, companies aren't interested because they can't milk them forever: you take antibiotics for a couple of days and then you're cured.

Focus on Cash Cows
Pharmaceutical companies would rather sell drugs for chronic conditions like diabetes and hypertension, which they can get a monopoly on for 20 years. They want to make drugs that cost their customers $10,000 or $20,000 a year for the rest of their lives (which most of us don't pay directly because of health insurance). All too often these new drugs aren't any better than the old drugs; they have a lot of new side effects that the drug companies just try to sweep under the rug.

And there's a lot of evidence that many of the drugs taken for chronic conditions are overused and provide only marginally better outcomes. Most patients would see more far more improvement by reducing stress, exercising, eating right and getting enough sleep. And they should just avoid foods that cause heartburn and allergic reactions instead of taking drugs for the symptoms.

But instead Big Pharma pushes for more blockbusters for chronic disease, and ignores mundane antibiotics to pursue the holy grail of profit. The problem is that when antibiotics become useless, medicine as we know it we know it will end, drastically reducing the need for all the drugs Big Pharma is cashing in on now.

Think about it: any kind of surgery requires antibiotics as a prophylactic measure. Even now the most common complication of surgery is infection. Without antibiotics any invasive medical procedure entails significant risk of death. Diabetics, heart attack victims and cancer patients will die from infections in huge numbers: they won't be taking those patented drugs for 20 years. Drug companies need antibiotics to maintain a large pool of customers for their other drugs.

The End of Modern Medicine?
Without antibiotics kidney, heart, liver and lung transplants are impossible. Many cancer treatments that suppress the immune system are impossible. Abdominal surgery is impossible. Dialysis is impossible because the port becomes infected. Artificial heart valve, knee and hip replacements become impossible. Cosmetic surgery would be insanely risky. Lasik and cataract surgery become far too dangerous, risking blindness and death from infection.

Most people would forgo any kind of  elective surgery. We would rather suffer from agonizing neuropathies, torn ACLs, cataracts, retinal detachments (causing blindness) and crippling orthopedic problems for the rest of our lives than risk death from infection. Amputations for what are now minor infections would be commonplace. Battlefield wounds, which have become amazingly survivable with the advent of antibiotics, would once again be frequently fatal.

Death rates from car accidents, falls, food poisoning, child birth, caesarean sections, skin infections, pneumonia, etc., would skyrocket, killing from 1% to 9% to as many as 30% of patients.

It takes years to develop new antibiotics, and because of the way we do things, bacteria quickly develop resistance to new ones much faster than they used to. We need stop putting antibiotics in animal feed, and stop prescribing them for every whining brat and pimple-faced teenager who visits the doctor's office. And someone's got to step up and start developing new antibiotics now, because it takes years. If it ain't the drug companies, it's going to have to be universities and non-profit institutions funded by the government. That means we've got to stop whining about how high taxes are.

The total focus on profit without regard for the common good has to end. It's bad for our souls, it's bad for our environment, it's bad for our health and it's bad for our future.

Back To The Drawing Board

Midwest and national manufacturing grew in November, reports say.

From the article...

Factories making machinery, metal parts, furniture and other long-lasting goods saw product orders jump in November, which helped boost hiring across the manufacturing sector, according to two closely watched reports released Monday.

So, when people buy more things, the companies that make those things hire more people. Huh. I thought companies hired more people when they got tax cuts and demand had nothing to do with it. Apparently, I have been misinformed.

And growth is widespread?

For the nation, the Institute for Supply Management reported growth across several industries, including plastics, rubber, textiles, furniture, paper, metals, transportation equipment, computers and printing. In addition, U.S. manufacturing jobs grew, creating “the highest reading since April 2012,” said Bradley Holcomb, chairman of the Institute’s Manufacturing Business Survey Committee. Fifteen out of 18 manufacturing sectors grew, giving hope that the worst of the lackluster recovery is behind the nation.

And the cost of health care is seen as decreasing?

Over the next few years, the government is expected to spend billions of dollars less than originally projected on the law, analysts said, with both the Medicaid expansion and the subsidies for private insurance plans ending up less expensive than anticipated.

And now even the web site is working better? Sheesh!

Ah well, I guess it's back to the drawing board (and deep into the bubble) for the apocalypcists!

Good Words

"The world as we have created it is a process of our thinking. It cannot be changed without changing our thinking" (Albert Einstein)

Black Friday Meltdown

Here's a great example of a gripe that liberals have that I just don't get.



This is evidence of the "End Times?" Like my colleagues on the right, emotions are causing memory loss. I can think of...oh, I don't know...EIGHT ZILLION examples in history where we have been much worse off than today. The Civil War comes to mind as does the Spanish flu epidemic. Compare the deaths of hundreds of thousands to some excited shoppers. And you really think this show our country is on the downswing? If anything, it shows that free markets really do work!

Sadly, it shows that the far left and the far right have so much in common that they start to sound like each other after awhile. Their irrational fear, anger and hate has to be validated and this line of thought always ends with THE APOCALYPSE.

Look out!

Good Words

"There is a natural human tendency to believe that any major development, no matter how long before an election, will be the last important influence on said election. This theory is fine in the last days before an election, but with almost a year to go, it is pretty unlikely that the national political situation will suddenly become static for well over 300 days." (Charlie Cook)

Anyone that tells you they know for certain what the outcome of the 2014 election is going to be is simply engaging in wishful thinking...

The Hunger Games Effect

Gun advocates often talk about the positive effects of instructing kids in the use of firearms. It provides many teachable moments, including close attention to safety, dedication to discipline, self-control and self-reliance. Hunting with rifles gives you a chance to get outdoors in the fresh air, bond with family and friends, maintain a connection to traditions from the past, and so on.

But all of that is doubly true for archery.

I got to thinking about this after seeing a story at Minnesota Public Radio about the huge boom in archery among girls since the Hunger Games books and movies have become so popular. The heroine of the Hunger Games is Katniss Everdeen, famous for using a bow. Bows (albeit crossbows) have also been appearing in recent TV shows, including Revolution and The Walking Dead.

Colorado Parks and Wildlife is also taking advantage of the opening of The Hunger Games: Catching Fire:

To further promote participation in archery, Colorado Parks and Wildlife is advertising its archery programs during the movie’s premier. The static, 15-second advertisement depicts a female archer along with the slogan: "Get in the game – explore your passion for archery."

Appearing in select Colorado theaters Nov. 15-28, the ad also includes a QR code and link, which sends movie audiences to a resource webpage. The webpage features CPW's archery programs, an interactive map of shooting ranges, videos and a summary of partnering organizations that offer archery or bowhunting programs in Colorado.

When I was a kid my dad sometimes hunted deer during the bow season. In some states the bow season is a lot longer, so bow hunters get more opportunities. A bow always seemed more sporting than a rifle to me; a rifle hunter is more of a sniper than a sportsman. A bowman also has to be pretty damn good: if your first shot misses, you're not likely to get a second one. And because arrows aren't as cheap as bullets, bow hunters are less likely to shoot at any random motion in the woods.

In many ways bow hunting is safer than rifle hunting. Since the inherent range of a bow is much shorter than a rifle, and wind and foliage affect the flight of arrow more than a bullet, you have to be a lot closer to your target. That means you're more likely to be able to clearly see your target and less likely to shoot something other than a deer. The maximum range of an arrow is much shorter than a bullet, so your misses are also much less likely to hit innocent bystanders. It's nearly impossible to accidentally shoot yourself or a friend because you aren't tramping through the woods with a loaded weapon: you only nock the arrow when your target is in sight. Rifle hunting accidents are tragically common [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8]. The most likely injury bow hunters suffer is probably falling from a tree stand.

A bow doesn't destroy your hearing either.

A lot of hunters use both bows and rifles. Some people ask which is better. Rifle hunting is easier and faster. But the main difference is the relationship between the hunter and nature: bow hunting is more like fishing. It's quiet, placid, idyllic, contemplative: the forest is filled with natural sounds; bow hunters strike in silence.

Rifles are intrusive and loud. When my wife owned a horse she hated riding during rifle season because of the constant barrage of rifle fire. The noise unnerved her mount, making him skittish. And she was always afraid of some nitwit mistaking her gray gelding for a deer (which happens distressingly frequently), or getting hit by stray shot from half a mile away (which also happens: 1, 2).

Sure, rifle hunting requires skill, and I don't think it's wrong: we've killed so many wolves that a hunting season is necessary to keep the deer population in check. The other men in my family do it all the time. But bow hunting seems like another magnitude of difficulty greater, a much better test of your skills than pointing and pulling a trigger at a range of two or three hundred yards. I can see the attraction of bow hunting: killing the animal isn't the real goal, the act of the hunt is what matters.

It makes me wonder how much of the rugged woodsman talk that some gun advocates spout is bluster to cover the fact that they just like things that go boom.

The Entertainer Makes No Sense

It's been awhile since we heard from entertainer Rush Limbaugh. Yeah, I know there is still a group of frightened old men that listen to him every day but what I'm talking about is Rush saying something profoundly moronic with the purpose of getting noticed outside of the bubble. The media then proceeds to act "outraged" at what he said in order to bring in some viewers from inside the bubble. It's a win for him and a win for the "liberal" media.

His latest remark (The Pope is a Marxist) makes no sense to me, though. The Catholic Church can do whatever it wants with its money and mission. If they want to help feed the poor and heal the sick through the redistribution of their wealth, shouldn't they be left alone to do so? If the worry is that the Pope will somehow convince the leaders of the world to adopt Marxism as their government framework, that's just plain silly given how globalization is already out of the bag. There are free markets everywhere and prosperity is rising all over the world so, in some ways, the Pope is just wrong.

Perhaps Rush simply doesn't understand what Marxism is or, more likely, has no clue whatsoever that Jesus Christ espoused in the Bible. Material wealth mattered not to Christ and he encouraged people to help those less fortunate through the church. Being strong in spirit and believing in God where far more important to Jesus. That was the whole part about not being able to worship God and money at the same time. In fact, the Bible vilifies the wealthy and insists that the true path to God lies in serving the poor and healing the sick.

So what the fuck is Rush talking about?

Another Member of the 1% As Mythbuster

Henry Blodget is co-founder, CEO and Editor-In Chief of Business Insider, one of the fastest-growing business and tech news sites in the world. Business Insider's investors include Institutional Venture Partners, RRE Ventures, and Bezos Expeditions. The site has 25+ million visitors a month. A former top-ranked Wall Street analyst, Henry is also the host of Yahoo Daily Ticker, a digital video show viewed by several million people a month.

His recent piece on his site explains exactly why rich people don't create jobs, echoing Nick Hanauer who is mentioned in the article. Healthy economic systems nurture job growth. This photo shows just how unhealthy our economy is right now.

The bottom 90 percent (the blue color in the graph) are customers and if their wealth is stagnate, our economy doesn't work the way it should.

The company's customers buy the company's products. This, in turn, channels money to the company and allows the the company to hire employees to produce, sell, and service those products. If the company's customers and potential customers go broke, the demand for the company's products will collapse. And the company's jobs will disappear, regardless of what the entrepreneurs or investors do.

Now, again, entrepreneurs are an important part of the company-creation process. And so are investors, who risk capital in the hope of earning returns. But, ultimately, whether a new company continues growing and creates self-sustaining jobs is a function of the company's customers' ability and willingness to pay for the company's products, not the entrepreneur or the investor capital. Suggesting that "rich entrepreneurs and investors" create the jobs, therefore, Hanauer observes, is like suggesting that squirrels create evolution.

Wealthy people like Mr. Blodget are realizing that they need to actively support change otherwise there won't an economy in which they can enjoy their riches.

Calling Iran's Bluff on Nuclear Power

A lot of pundits have been trumpeting nuclear power as the solution to our climate change woes, despite the ongoing nuclear catastrophe at Fukushima. Politico has an article that explains the reason why it's hard: nuclear waste.

The United States has no long-term nuclear waste storage facility. There was supposed to be one at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, but that has been torpedoed by locals who don't want the nation's nuclear waste in their backyard. Who can blame them? No one else is stepping up, including states like Georgia, where the first two new nuclear power plants in over 30 years are under construction.

Nuclear plants have been storing the waste in pools in their reactors or in "dry casks" on-site, risking a Fukushima-type disaster in hundreds of locations across the United States. However, they're still paying a fee on nuclear power that was supposed to finance the storage facility, which was supposed to have opened 15 years ago. It didn't, and probably never will, so the utilities are suing the DOE.

The cost of having no storage facility is listed variously at $38 billion, $50 billion or $65 billion, depending on who you listen to and when you're talking about. The federal government has been spending a couple of billion dollars a year to settle claims with utilities.

The problem is that we will never have one single safe place to store nuclear waste. No state will ever allow it. Some geniuses have tried to create "temporary" radioactive waste storage sites on poverty-stricken Indian reservations to get around Congress and state legislatures, taking advantage of tribal sovereignty. But this failed when the Department of the Interior denied the company, Private Fuel Storage, a right of way to transport radioactive waste.

Talk of more American nukes is going on at the same time that conservatives in the United States and the prime minister of Israel are actively calling for military action against Iran to kill its nuclear program. Those same people are blasting the Obama administration's attempts to negotiate a peaceful resolution.

Iran claims it has no intention of developing nuclear weapons; they say they simply need nuclear power to generate electricity. They currently use a lot of oil for power generation, but that really hurts their trade balance because they can't sell the oil they burn to produce electricity. But when Iran finally gets their nuclear power plants up and running, who's going to take the radioactive waste they produce? We certainly can't let Iran keep it. And we don't want it either. Where's it gonna go?

Iran is a sunny and mountainous country. That means it's a prime candidate for solar and wind power. Some countries want to encourage this: the EU doesn't impose sanctions on renewable energy equipment destined for Iran, according to an article in the Wall Street Journal. Iran also has good potential for geothermal power generation.

Conservatives in the United States have been actively sabotaging development of solar and wind power in the US, while touting the benefits of nuclear power. These same conservatives are ready to go to war with Iran to stop them from opening nuclear reactors like the ones we're building in Georgia. Because they know Iran's real intent is to build a nuclear bomb -- which I admit may be true.

So we should call Iran's nuclear bluff: let's start a Manhattan Project for renewable energy to help countries like Iran develop their solar, wind and geothermal potential, as well as storage systems for the power generated by intermittent renewable sources. Then they'll have no legitimate reason to refine uranium for nuclear power plants, which could also be used in nuclear weapons.

Coincidentally, we can use those same renewable energy systems in the United States, where sun and wind are plentiful in many parts of the country. If we lead by example we'll also have a much better chance of convincing Iran of our noble intentions.

As the developing world slowly rises out of poverty they're going to need electricity. Countries like China and India are already killing their own citizens with noxious clouds of smoke from coal-fired power plants (it's gotten so bad they're even banning barbecue grills). In the near future, more developing nations are going to start competing with us for oil and natural gas. If we set the nuclear precedent with Iran, they'll also want uranium, with all the attendant doom that engenders.

No matter how much we frack, there simply isn't enough oil and gas in the ground to satisfy the demand as the most populous countries in the world come to expect the energy-dense standard of living we enjoy in the United States.

Renewable energy isn't just good for our environment: it could ratchet down international tension and reduce the chance of war. Most third-world countries have abundant local renewable energy resources, including geothermal, OTEC, solar and wind power, and maybe even hydrogen production. By developing these energy sources, we will reduce global demand for oil and gas, reducing the possibility of war (and incidentally leaving us with more oil and gas).

The war in Iraq cost us a trillion dollars, and will continue to cost us billions in the future as we deal with the medical and psychological wounds inflicted on veterans. Invading Iran would cost just as much, if not more since it has twice the population of Iraq. Even if we delude ourselves into limiting the attack to an American-backed Israeli "tactical" strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, it's hard to believe Iran's surrogates would not initiate a campaign of terrorist attacks against Western targets across the world. Which we would eventually have to respond to with force on the level of Afghanistan or Iraq.

We should be working to give Iran what it needs, not what it wants. They need renewable energy, not nuclear power. We should be spending a few hundred billion dollars over the next few years on renewable energy research, which we could then sell to Iran and other third-world countries, ultimately recouping our investment.

Most wars are over resources -- land, minerals, water and energy. Japan bombed Pearl Harbor because the United States had embargoed Japan's oil supply, and they wanted to capture oil resources in the Dutch East Indies.

Investing in renewable energy sources and intermittent energy storage will save us trillions of dollars in military expenditures over the long haul. And that's not even considering the savings from preventing the inevitable wars that will result from widespread starvation, drought and flooding brought on by climate change. Which will be a whole lot less likely if start developing renewable energy resources before the oil runs out.

Anti Woman Myths

Here's a very well researched piece on how many anti-woman myths are still around today. A great example...

During the Dark Ages, and ever since then, women were considered property: They were defined by their relationships to men (flipping the ancient matrilineal code on its head). Their father, husband or even brother could make demands of her and she was bound to obey. Most marriages were arranged, even in the lower classes. A wife had no separate legal status apart from her being married to her husband. Women, with few exceptions, could not participate in public life, politics or the justice system (unless she was the accused). A woman was pretty much expected to stay at home, keep house and have kids. Especially the latter, as the interpretation of Genesis 3:16 (and other parts of that book) was that women were compelled to have as many children as they could, even at the cost of her or the children’s welfare. This is still the way some men feel.

Any time I hear dire predictions about 2014, I usually refer people to stuff like this. It's very hard for the nutballs to hide on women's issues.

Greek V Hebrew

I'm not sure how this article ended up in my "To Post" file but it is an interesting exposition on the Greek versus the Hebrew view of man rooted in justification by faith alone. I don't agree with everything contained in the piece but it's a worth a full and studied read as he offers excellent historical and spiritual insight to the classical world collision with the dawn of Christianity. The conclusion?

The Greek view is that "God" can be known only by the flight of the soul from the world and history; the Hebrew view is that God can be known because he invades history to meet men in historical experience.

Very interesting.

My favorite line is this...

The unifying element in New Testament theology is the fact of the divine visitation of men in the person and mission of Jesus Christ; diversity exists in the progressive unfolding of the meaning of this divine visitation and in the various ways the one revelatory, redeeming event is capable of being interpreted.

Various ways indeed:)

Then What?

Brian Beutler reveals a very interesting conundrum for right wing extremists in his latest piece over at Salon.com. When Healthcare.gov actually starts working, GOP will have to choose between politics or their constituents' health. With the bugs being ironed out at healthcare.gov, Beutler points out what the future holds.

A working site that can service nearly a million people a day destroys that excuse. Some conservative groups have been craven and reckless enough to actively discourage people from enrolling in Affordable Care Act coverage. Elected Republicans have generally used their influence more subtly, by drawing attention to the hassles and supposed dangers of using Healthcare.gov. Manipulation vs. direct appeal. They’ve also maligned an administrative solution President Obama devised that will allow carriers in some states to reissue canceled policies.

But the real fix for 70 percent (or so) of people whose policies have been canceled is to get new, subsidized coverage through exchanges, or to enroll in Medicaid. Once Healthcare.gov is working at high capacity, they’ll owe people with canceled coverage more than just the play-acting they’ve offered for the past month. Democrats will be helping these people find such coverage. Will Republicans?

No, they won't. And that's why I say we should take Reince Preibus's advice: Stamp the ACA right to our foreheads and run proudly on it in 2014. That's exactly what I would do if I was up for reelection next year.

More Regulation, Less Gun Deaths

Boston Children's Hospital and JAMA Internal Medicine recently conducted a study that shows that there is an association between more regulations and less gun deaths in states in terms of mortality rate per 100,000 people. Here is their map with fatalities over a four year period.

Take a look at the states that have the weakest legislative strength and then compare to the mortality rates. This is for overall as well as for suicides and homicides individually. See a pattern? Policymic.com offers an excellent summary of the study if you don't want to wade through all the data from the link above.

Of course, further studies are needed to clarify the cause and effect relationship between these two variables but there is a connection which is not what the Gun Cult would have us believe.

Minnesota Wins!

If you want a good barometer on how what sort of government policies work the best, compare the states of Minnesota and Wisconsin. That's what this recent piece in the New York Times did and the results speak for themselves. In 2010, voters in each state chose a specific path to improve their economic conditions. Minnesotans chose Democrats to run their state and Wisconsin chose Republicans. Minnesota's unemployment rate was at 6.7 percent and Wisconsin's was at 7.1 percent.

As the article notes, a month after Mr. Walker’s inauguration in January 2011, he catapulted himself to the front ranks of national conservative leaders with attacks on the collective bargaining rights of Civil Service unions and sharp reductions in taxes and spending. Once Mr. Dayton teamed up with a Democratic Legislature in 2012, Minnesota adopted some of the most progressive policies in the country.Minnesota raised taxes by $2.1 billion, the largest increase in recent state history. Democrats introduced the fourth highest income tax bracket in the country and targeted the top 1 percent of earners to pay 62 percent of the new taxes, according to the Department of Revenue.

The result?

Today, Minnesota is essentially at full employment at 4.8 percent while Wisconsin's unemployment rate stands at 6.5 percent. Wisconsin lags behind Minnesota in job creation and economic growth. Wisconsin ranks 34th for job growth. According to Forbes’s annual list of best states for business, Wisconsin continues to rank in the bottom half. Along with California, Minnesota is the fifth fastest growing state economy, with private-sector job growth exceeding pre-recession levels. Forbes rates Minnesota as the eighth best state for business.

So, why is it working in Minnesota?

Higher taxes and economic growth in Minnesota have attracted a surprisingly broad coalition. Businesses complain about taxes, but many cheered Mr. Dayton’s investments in the Mayo Clinic, the new Vikings stadium, the Mall of America and 3M headquarters. The lion’s share of Minnesota’s new tax revenue was sunk into human capital. While the state’s Constitution required that half of the new revenue balance the budget in 2013, Mr. Dayton invested 71 percent of the remaining funds in K-12 schools and higher education as well as a pair of firsts: all-day kindergarten and wider access to early childhood education. Minnesota was one of the few states that raised education spending under the cloud of the Great Recession.

Why is not working in Wisconsin?

Mr. Walker’s strategy limited Wisconsin’s ability to invest in infrastructure that would have catalyzed private-sector expansion, and he cut state funding of K-12 schools by more than 15 percent. Per student, this was the seventh sharpest decline in the country.

I'm pretty optimistic about the state in which I grew up, however. The numbers speak for themselves and, if the Democrats put up a good candidate, Walker will be gone and left to pursue his dreams of 2016.

Perfect After Yesterday

Thankful For Social Media

What am I thankful for today? Social media. Why?

Remember back about 20 years ago when cigarettes were generally accepted? Many of my friends smoked and, while people knew it was bad for them, they still did it without much of a social stigma.

But now there is a pretty big stigma and people that smoke are generally thought of as white trash and really pretty dumb. Sure, there were laws passed on cigarettes and higher taxes but the pushing out of normality regarding cigarettes was generally a cultural shift. Everyone goes outside, even in their own homes, to smoke. People that smoked were generally older and some of them died. Younger people either quite or didn't pick up the habit. In short, we grew out of it. And that's exactly what's going to happen in the next twenty years with guns.

In fact, with social media like Facebook and Twitter, it's going to happen much sooner. We are going to grow out of Gun Cult thinking and into a more rational approach to the (very much limited) 2nd amendment. The recent revelations about Adam Lanza show that we don't have a choice. The annual culling of our citizens is going to stop and it will be because of the new media.

Thanks, new media!

Good Words

Just as the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” sets a clear limit in order to safeguard the value of human life, today we also have to say “thou shalt not” to an economy of exclusion and inequality. Such an economy kills. How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points? This is a case of exclusion. Can we continue to stand by when food is thrown away while people are starving? This is a case of inequality. Today everything comes under the laws of competition and the survival of the fittest, where the powerful feed upon the powerless. As a consequence, masses of people find themselves excluded and marginalized: without work, without possibilities, without any means of escape.

Human beings are themselves considered consumer goods to be used and then discarded. We have created a “disposable” culture which is now spreading. It is no longer simply about exploitation and oppression, but something new. Exclusion ultimately has to do with what it means to be a part of the society in which we live; those excluded are no longer society’s underside or its fringes or its disenfranchised – they are no longer even a part of it. The excluded are not the “exploited” but the outcast, the “leftovers”. (Pope Francis, EVANGELII GAUDIUM, November 2013)

Perfect for Thanksgiving Day. Not so perfect if you are conservative. Cue the ad hom and other assorted logical fallacies.

So That's What Happened To James O'Keefe

I haven't heard much lately from James O'Keefe these days except the begging for money to continue his "truth seeking" and here's why. Boy, conservatives really pick some winners with which to hitch their wagons! The rape barn story has been out for awhile but this is the first I've heard of it. Seems like a similar MO to the CNN dildo boat story.

I'm looking forward to his next big expose!

That Old Time Corporate Religion

The United States Supreme Court has decided to hear two cases about corporations who don't want to pay for their employees' birth control:

The lead plaintiff before the court is Hobby Lobby, a chain of more than 500 arts and crafts stores with more than 13,000 employees. The owners are conservative Christians who object to some forms of birth control and contend that the mandate thus abridges their religious rights in violation of both the Constitution and federal law.

Their argument is basically that corporations are people and have religious rights. The entire argument is specious: can the corporation go to church? Take communion? Be baptized? Get married? Have souls? Go to heaven?

The idea that a corporation is a person is sheer nonsense. Corporations are legal fictions that exist only on paper. People are born, not incorporated in Delaware. If you're a believer, you believe that God created you. Corporations are completely secular creations of government, granted their existence by an act of Congress. Corporations aren't even in the Constitution. They certainly aren't in the Bible.

Unlike people, corporations can be bought and sold, which means that Hobby Lobby's "deeply held religious beliefs" could go completely out the window if the owners decided to sell the business or died in a car accident. The sheer ridiculousness of corporate religion becomes apparent when you consider publicly held corporations like Exxon or GM.

The purpose of corporate entities is to allow individuals to evade personal legal and financial responsibility for the actions of the corporation, on the theory that they can take financial risks that will benefit the economy at large while protecting their families' future. For example, corporations can declare bankruptcy and that fact will not appear on the personal credit reports of the corporate officers who made the decisions that caused the bankruptcy.

The provisions of the ACA apply to the corporation, not to the owners of Hobby Lobby. Those provisions may violate the religious beliefs of the owners, but they are not the corporation: it is an entity independent of them, which they can sell and divest themselves of any responsibility. If Hobby Lobby is claiming  that the corporation is just an extension of themselves, then their business is not a corporation, but rather a partnership. In other words, they have willfully made incorrect corporate filings.

So, if the owners of Hobby Lobby want the legal and financial shield against personal liability that incorporation provides, they need to accept all the secular responsibilities that running a legal entity created by government entails. Otherwise, they should acknowledge that they're just a partnership and accept full personal responsibility for all legal and financial liabilities of the company.

Corporations should not even have the legal standing to make the argument about the free exercise of religion. The Supreme Court should rule that if Hobby Lobby doesn't want to pay for birth control coverage, it should reorganize as a partnership and file another lawsuit.

Stopping there would just kick the can down the road, though. The Supreme Court should also decide that companies -- partnerships or corporations -- can't pick and choose what laws they obey based on the prejudices of their owners. Today, Hobby Lobby doesn't want to pay for birth control coverage. Tomorrow, a Jew or Hindu won't want to cover drugs that contain stearic acid (made from pig or cow fat), or Jehovah's Witness won't want to cover blood transfusions, or a Christian Scientist won't want to cover any medical care.

If Hobby Lobby prevails in the Supreme Court, what's next? Will they come back and argue that they have the right to fire employees who use birth control, because they don't want their money (the wages they pay employees) to be used to violate their religious beliefs? Will they then claim that they can only hire Christians, because they don't want their money to pay for synagogues and mosques?

We already settled these questions of employment law decades ago. The argument over the birth control mandate is just another variation on the same theme of hiring blacks and Jews, with the ultimate goal of overturning those laws and going back to the bad old days when employers could force employees to do anything they wanted.

The Zimmerman Arsenal

Seminole County deputies have found quite the gun collection in George Zimmerman's home: five guns and more than 100 rounds of ammunition. The guns included the high-capacity, high-tech 12-gauge shotgun that he used to threaten his girlfriend, according to her statement. The also found a semi-automatic assault rifle and three handguns.

I wonder what he was preparing for?

Voices In My Head

Crystal Clear

The release of the report on Adam Lanza inexplicably finds that there is no answer to the question of why he committed mass murder at Sandy Hook Elementary School. The media has jumped on board with this line of thought, scratching their heads like the fucking apes they are in wonder at just where things went wrong when it is so completely obvious.

Adam Lanza is a textbook example of what happens when the adolescent power fantasy perpetuated by the Gun Cult and conservatives in general goes very, very dark.

We start with his mother, a "live free or die type" who sought no mental health help for her son. She brought him up in an environment that encouraged anti-government and anti-social behavior, allowing him to stay locked in his room with black garbage bags on the windows and communicated to him only via email. She allowed him access to guns despite the fact that he wrote a book in 5th grade about children being slaughtered and a son shooting his mother in the head. In fact, she was planning on buying him a gun for Christmas last year! Add in the obsession with violent video games and the fact that he was bullied and one can see the perfect cocktail for spree shooting mixed all too well.

There may not have been a criminal motive in the strictest of terms found in this case but it's very clear why it happened. Nancy Lanza was a horrible parent who bought into the myths of the Gun Cult and modern day conservatism. Guns are our God given right and mental health problems should just be ignored and repressed as all that business is just a bunch of liberal, touchy feely nonsense. Young men should be allowed to stomp down the hallway, lock themselves in their room and be rebellious towards all authority!!

It completely astounds me just how fucking stupid Nancy Lanza was in all of this. How many more parents are there like her out there? What kind of a parent doesn't notice the red flag of her son keeping a ledger on all the mass shootings in America? And worshiping Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold? Well, as long as her 2nd amendment rights were protected and our country was saved from the gun grabbers. At least she understood what "infringed" meant!

We Are A Nation Of Laws

Breaking News from ABC | Thanksgiving Recipes

Hey, waitamintue! I though he was ramming laws down our throats like Stalin and Hitler! Who the fuck is this guy?!?

The Conservative Who Wants to Raise the Minimum Wage

The former publisher of The American Conservative, Ron Unz, is leading an effort to increase the minimum wage in California to $10 in 2015 and then to $12 in 2016. From an article in The New York Times:

Using what he sees as conservative principles to advocate a policy long championed by the left, Mr. Unz argues that significantly raising the minimum wage would help curb government spending on social services, strengthen the economy and make more jobs attractive to American-born workers.

“There are so many very low-wage workers, and we pay for huge social welfare programs for them,” he said in an interview. “This would save something on the order of tens of billions of dollars. Doesn’t it make more sense for employers to pay their workers than the government?”

Stories about employees of companies like McDonalds and Walmart needing foodstamps, Medicaid and food shelf donations to survive have become commonplace.

Unz isn't some namby-pamby RINO. He led the effort to banish bilingual education in California and ran to the right of Gov. Pete Wilson during his challenge for the gubernatorial nomination in 1994.

If your business model requires that you pay your employees so little that they either starve or go on foodstamps, then your company is on the government dole.

Other companies manage to pay the people who do the actual work a living wage. They're still profitable. They just have a slightly smaller margin than the heirs to the Walton family fortune feel is their God-given due.

Yep

Don't Isolate It

MinnPost had a great piece recently on the achievement gap which pointed out the obvious problem in tackling it-don't isolate it.

Before I am accused of opposition to solving the achievement gap or opposing all forms of educational reform, let me say that I am only pointing out that to solve the achievement gap we need to admit that it is part of a larger struggle against racism that dramatically impacts our educational systems, our employment picture, our health care system, and our public safety institutions.

The latter is particularly true. Black people are more likely to be convicted of a crime and our prisons have an insanely high rate of blacks residing in them.

If we are going to tackle this problem efficiently, we can't just look at the achievement gap as an education problem. It's a societal problem which means the path to a solution is how we handle the interlocking complexities of prejudice and racism.

Government Investment Pays Off

Cracking open my Sunday newspaper yesterday, the front page brought me this story about the benefits of government investment. The city government basically paid people to live in Osakis and guess what happened? The town is thriving. Government investment works and our economy would be in much better shape if we took the model of these small town in Minnesota and employed it on a larger scale.

Oh, wait. We can't. Hitler and Stalin...I forgot!

The Deal

The United States has negotiated a treaty with Iran regarding its nuclear program. These are elements of the deal reached Sunday between Iran on one side and Britain, China, France, Russia, the United States and Germany on the other, according to a fact sheet issued by the White House. The initial agreement will be valid for six months.

URANIUM ENRICHMENT.  Iran is allowed to continue enriching uranium to a level of 5 per cent, but will stop enriching at higher levels. Uranium enriched to higher levels will be diluted in order to prevent its use in nuclear weapons. Stocks of lower-enriched uranium will be immediately converted into material that makes it more difficult to turn into weapons material. Enrichment plants will not be expanded, and no new plants will be built.

ARAK REACTOR.  Construction will stop at the Arak reactor, which is of concern because it would produce plutonium as a side product. Work on making fuel for the reactor will stop Iran will not build a reprocessing facility, so that no plutonium can be separated from the reactor's spent fuel and can thus not be used for a nuclear warhead.

INSPECTIONS.  Inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency will get access to additional sites in order to monitor implementation of the agreement. Iran will grant daily access to its uranium-enrichment sites.

SANCTIONS.  The six powers will not impose new sanctions. Embargoes will be suspended for the sectors of precious metals, car production, petrochemical exports. The group of six will also allow purchases of Iranian oil at low levels. Tuition fees by Iranian students abroad will be unfrozen. The six nations will improve Iran's access to imports of food and medicines.

Based on these terms, it's pretty clear how desperate the Iranians were to rejoin the world economy. From a financial standpoint, they are really in a bad way and had no choice. As I have said many times, the most powerful weapons the world has are democracies and free markets. There's just too much money to be made.

Obviously, this would have not happened if Iran had not just elected a new leader,President Hassan Rouhani. And, while this isn't cause to run out and declare warming trend between our two countries, it is an important first step towards normalization. Kudos to John Kerry and his team for getting the job done on this one!

Math Doesn't Lie

The main goal of the Affordable Care Act was to reduce the growth of health care costs and guess what? It's doing just that.

Take a look at the chart below.

According to the report, the overall inflation rate for medical goods and services is at historic lows. The link above also has some very interesting information about readmission rates.

The conclusion?

The majority of experts now believe Obamacare is at least partly responsible for the slowdown. They think it is encouraging permanent, structural changes in medical care—the kind that will generate more and more savings over time. The slowdown's effects are largely invisible. They take the form of premium and tax increases that people will never have to pay. But the effects seem very real—and, if so, they constitute a bona fide policy success, the kind that even many experts once doubted was possible. It may not show up in the polls. But it will show up in people's wallets. 

And this would be exactly why Democrats should take Reince Priebus's advice and stamp Obamacare right to their forehead. 

Good Words

But this word of the Lord came to me: 'You have shed much blood and have fought many wars. You are not to build a house for my Name, because you have shed much blood on the earth in my sight. (1 Chronicles 22:8)

They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore. (Isaiah 2:4)

For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. (Isaiah 9:6)

The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them. The cow will feed with the bear, their young will lie down together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox. The infant will play near the hole of the cobra, and the young child put his hand into the viper's nest. They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain, for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea. (Isaiah 11:6-9)

You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. (Matt. 5:38-39)

Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. (Matt. 5:43-48, Luke 6:27-28)

Put your sword back in its place...for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. (Matt. 26:52) 

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. (Matt. 5:9)

For God is not a God of disorder but of peace, as in all the other churches. (1 Corinthians 14:33)

Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. (1 John 4:7-8)

So we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. (1 John 4:16)

No Doubt!

What Is The Second Amendment Coming To When North Dakota Nazi Guy Can’t Even Terrorize His Neighbors With Guns?

I, for one, am outraged. What part of infringed don't they understand?!!?

Growing Up

Dennis Prager's recent piece over at RealClearPolitics.com is a perfect example of the total lack of reflection by conservatives. Filled with the usual straw men, ad hominem and misleading vividness fallacies, Prager is stumped!

Virtually every institution outside the home has been captured by people with left-wing values: specifically the media (television and movies) and the schools (first the universities and now high schools). In the 1960s and 1970s, American parents were blindsided. Their children came home from college with values that thoroughly opposed those of their parents.

And then they come home, often after only year at college, a different person, values-wise, from the one the naive parent so proudly said goodbye. 

Naive, yes, but not in the way he thinks. I wonder if Mr. Prager and the conservative parents he has elected himself champion of every consider that they might be...oh, I don't know....WRONG?!? Nah, that can't be it. All that fancy book learning at schools is all lies and liberal deceit! How dare they actually veer off script and speak the truth backed up facts.

Maybe something should be done about those teachers...hmm...I'm sure we can look to history for some ideas:)

45 Times

Take a look at the image below.

For those of you who understand math, it's pretty obvious just how bad GOP obstruction has been under President Obama. 45 filibusters? Really? What a bunch of babies...

That's why Democrats don't really care about the hysteria over the so called nuclear option. The American people can clearly see where the problem lies. Besides, it's not like the Republicans are going to win the White House or the Senate with far right candidates who are going to nominate psychos. If a Republican ever does win the White House again, it will be a moderate and the Democrats, as this chart shows us, will act as they always do...like adults.

No Camelot Without Avalon

I was six years old when John F. Kennedy was assassinated. My only personal memories of it are being disappointed that Saturday morning cartoons were preempted, and the interminable dismal gray funeral procession broadcast on black-and-white TV.

My appreciation for Kennedy grew when I learned that he was the one who launched the Apollo program to put men on the moon: I was extremely interested in the space program as a child. It was ironic that the man Kennedy beat in the 1960 election, Richard Nixon, was the president who spoke to the Apollo 11 astronauts on the moon, and the president whose signature is on the plaque on the lunar module's descent stage, which now stands on the Sea of Tranquility, and should still be there in a million years.

It's hard not to compare the legacies of those two men: Kennedy was cut down in his prime after averting nuclear apocalypse, a president who aimed for the stars, transformed civil rights from a legal issue to a moral one, and implored us to ask what we can do for our country. Nixon won election in 1968 by promising to extract us from the war in Vietnam, but instead escalated it. He committed crimes and coverups in a reelection campaign he was already winning handily, disgracing himself and wounding the country all over again, almost as badly as Oswald did in 1963.

I have never been one to idolize political leaders, or sports figures, or scientists, or writers, or religious figures. I owe that to Richard Nixon, who resigned when I was 16. The Watergate scandal showed unambiguously that the president of the United States was just an ordinary man: as mean-spirited, bigoted, selfish and profane as any stevedore. Yet even Nixon accomplished some great things -- the EPA, détente with the USSR, and normalizing relations with China.

And so I've never been able to idolize Kennedy. In the years since his death we've found out that he was a womanizer, had terrible physical ailments, and relied on a battery of drugs to get through pain, disease and depression. He weathered political scandals, such as the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban Missile Crisis, that motivated his political enemies to distribute a "Wanted for Treason" poster in Dallas just before the assassination. Some even say the moonshot was just a political ploy, a sop for LBJ's Texas.

Yet there's no doubt that the image of the Kennedy family in the White House had a profound effect on the American psyche: after centuries of geezers we had a handsome young president with a pretty wife and cute kids. The country seemed new and fresh and full of hope again. We were a vigorous young nation fighting a world full of crusty, fat old commies. And then it was all smashed in a horrible way, and the country's heart broke.

It was only after Kennedy's death that the "Camelot" comparison was drawn. In an interview for Life magazine, Jackie Kennedy said, “There will be great presidents again, but there will never be another Camelot.”

That article solidified the nostalgic notion in the public mind that the Kennedy administration was a special, magical time. But the very idea that there are great kings and great presidents is the source of many of our problems.

Because there is no magic. There are no great men. There are only flawed men who accomplish great things. And only with the help of countless others. When we idolize and fawn over those who inspire us -- politicians, rock stars, actors -- it gives them delusions of grandeur, allowing them to excuse their pecadilloes and setting them up for an even greater fall.

If Kennedy had not been borne to Avalon he wouldn't be viewed with the same reverence he is today. His problems would have eventually caught up with him, and the most important accomplishment of his administration -- the Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- might not have even passed without Johnson using the hammer of the assassination to convince enough Southern Democrats to vote for it.

If you think that sounds cynical and hopeless, you miss the point. The marvelous thing about humanity is that we can still accomplish great things, despite our flaws.

If we actually needed perfection and great men, then our situation would be truly hopeless.

Thoughts On JFK

John Fitzgerald Kennedy was my favorite president. That doesn't mean he was the best president (that honor falls to Abraham Lincoln) but he appealed to me more than all the others. He appealed to many people and that's likely why he was killed fifty years ago today.

The concept of the New Frontier still resonates today. We are a nation that moves forward and categorically refuses to be sedimentary. That's what President Kennedy represented when he took office in 1961. He made mistakes during his 1,000 days but his vision led to improvements in civil rights, stronger economic growth and landed a man on the moon. Any notion of foreign policy naivete was wiped away during thirteen days in October of 1962. In so many ways, he exhibited the core of the word leader.

I realize that a lot of this is rooted in romanticism. Yet our country changed 50 years ago today and it took a darker path. Had President Kennedy lived, our history would have been brighter. It's just that simple. Vietnam would have been completely different. We may have even not been involved at all which means millions would be alive today. The turbulence of the 1960s would have played out much differently with a more capable leader like JFK. Lyndon Johnson was the worst president this nation has ever seen (largely because of Vietnam) and Richard Nixon was mentally unbalanced as well as a criminal. Eight years of JFK would not have been perfect, obviously, but far brighter than the black veil cast over our country from the end of 1963 to 1970.

It doesn't really matter who killed President Kennedy although the answer is quite obvious. He represented a clear threat to those who had much to gain from war and unrest (the mob, the military-industrial complex, Texas elites) and he had to be taken out. The simple facts of that day in Dallas a half a century ago illustrate that there was more than one shooter in Dealey Plaza. From a pure ballistics and evidence point of view, this is apparent to anyone familiar with violent crime scenes but, again, it doesn't really matter. We lost a chunk of history that could have been remembered as our golden years, shining brightly like Camelot of old.

Through all the din of today's anniversary, let's not forget our dying king...

Yep

Harry Goes Nuclear!

Well, ol' Harry went and done did it. With the exception of Supreme Court nominees, executive and judicial nominees need a simple majority in the Senate to be confirmed. Considering the adolescent behavior of Republicans, I'd say Harry actually waited longer than I thought he would. If the Democrats were ever in the minority (and they won't be as long as the GOP runs farther and farther right), I'd say the same thing. In fact, I think the Democrats will be better off for this as they actually want to govern as opposed to taking their ball and going home. Elections have consequences and acting like a baby and throwing a tantrum because you don't like the president, desperately want him to fail, and feel that he doesn't deserve the job doesn't mean you get to grind the government down to non function.

Your petty games in this area (and soon others) are now over.

No More Politico Feed

On the right side of the site you will notice that I have taken down the Politico Feed and replaced it with RealClear Politics for the time being. Politico has become more and more tabloid-y lately and thus more loathsome. I don't really care about the Cheney family feud, for example. They also seem to be the leaders in OCH (ObamaCare Hyperventilating) so BUH BYE!

Want To See Where Our Tax Dollars Go?

Check this fantastic site with amazing graphics. You can go to full screen and then examine each slide for details. Granted, the information is a few years old in terms of dollar amounts but how the money is spent and where is generally the same.

So, my question for you folks who proselytize on spending...where would make the cuts?

New Form of Life Discovered on Space Probe!

When probes are sent into space they are carefully sterilized in "clean rooms" to avoid contaminating other planets. Scientists have discovered a new form of bacteria in two different clean rooms, one at NASA's Kennedy Space Center and one at the European Space Agency's launch site in South America.

The weird thing is that this bug has only been found in clean rooms: it was the only thing left alive after the chambers were swabbed with alcohol and hydrogen peroxide and heated to temperatures high enough to kill any living thing. The bacteria is called Tersicoccus Phoenicis, from tersi, the Latin word for clean and Phoenix, the name of the first space probe the bug was found on. It's so different from other organisms that it's a new genus, not just a new species.

The PROTECT experiment conducted on the International Space Station found that other bacterial spores mounted on the outside of the station for a year and half survived exposure to vacuum, temperature extremes and UV and cosmic radiation. Previous claims of streptococcus mitis found by the Apollo 12 astronauts on the Surveyor 3 probe after three years on the moon are in doubt because the camera the bacteria were found on was stored in a nonsterile bag.

This news comes at the same time as the results of a 25-year-long experiment involving bacterial evolution. After 50,000 generations, Dr. Richard Lenski of Michigan State University found that the E. coli never stopped evolving. His hypothesis was that they would hit some peak level of fitness and never advance. But that hasn't happened: over the years they have increased their reproductive efficiency. The original population doubled in population in an hour. After 50,000 generations they double in 40 minutes. The scientists calculate that in a million years they would reduce that time to 20 minutes (because of the limited environment they're unlikely to evolve in any spectacular fashion).

This means that it is quite possible that we will one day find life on Mars, because -- despite our best efforts -- it arrived on one of our probes. But it also means that bacteria could survive the rigors of space, and be transmitted to other worlds without human intervention. Material thrown into space by large meteor strikes could land on other planets, and the bacteria could potentially survive, and just keep on evolving to prosper in their new environment.

This also means that life could have originally come to earth from another planet, or even another solar system. This theory, known as panspermia, has been the basis of many science fiction stories, from The Body Snatchers, to The Andromeda Strain, to Star Trek: The Next Generation to Prometheus.

We don't know exactly how life got started. But once it gets going, it is incredibly stubborn, always evolving and always surviving no matter what the universe throws at it.

Good Words

The most common fallacy of journalism, and one of the most common fallacies of the human brain in general, is the assumption that whatever is happening at the moment will continue to happen forever. That has been the implicit assumption of the hyperventilating coverage of the miserable Obamacare rollout. (Jonathan Chait, New York Magazine Online).

A great companion piece to the Begala post from ealier today and one which has inspired a new tag-"Hyperventilating Media."

Of course, this is more than just a fallacy of journalism as Chait aptly notes. It is indeed a fallacy of the human brain that plays perfectly into the adolescent taunting of the Right. Fallacy is their bedrock after all so Democrats need to remember this and simply be patient. Long term, nearly all of the items on the Democratic wish list will end up as the law of the land as reality will dictate necessity.

And it will be with the help of Republicans!

Who's the Boss?

Last week a study published by Gallup found that 35% of Americans preferred a male boss, 23% preferred a female boss, and 41% had no preference. Articles -- and the authors of the study itself -- have been touting this as "more Americans would rather work for a male boss."

Which is inaccurate: more Americans have no preference. The study found that 51% of men had no preference (vs. 29% male boss), and 40% of women preferred a male boss (vs. 32% no preference). Democrats were evenly split male 33%/female 33%/no preference 34%, while Republicans are split male 40%/female 16%/no preference 42% (reinforcing the Republican War on Women motif). Finally, people who currently have a female boss were almost twice as likely to prefer a female boss (32%) than someone who has a male boss (17%).

I'm one of the majority of men who have no preference. I worked in software for many years, and only had one female boss, and she was more of a lateral supervisor, the programmer among us who "manned up" and took responsibility for herding the cats (most technical people are more interested in doing the actual work than moving up the corporate chain -- you get paid enough not to need promotions to make enough money). In software, however, you have a lot groups working together on larger projects. Many of the bosses of the other groups I worked with were women. So, though I didn't have many women bosses, I worked with enough to have no preference.

My wife, who worked in integrated circuit design and manufacture, started out as an engineer and moved into management after several years. She never had a female boss, but she was one of the very few in the companies she worked for. My wife's most salient observation about corporate management is how utterly dishonest the men at the top are (they were all men). Only "team players" (those who lie, cheat and tell management what they want to hear) get ahead.

Now, I'm always skeptical about surveys, but this survey has been showing slowly evolving results for 50 years so I have no real reason to distrust it. Starting in the early '90s "no preference" took over from "male boss:"

The question is why anyone would prefer one gender over another. I can think of several: 

• People who think women shouldn't be in the workplace at all, and should be at home tending the children.
• People who generally perceive women as incompetent or emotionally unfit for the job (a conservative woman friend once insisted that a woman cannot be president).
• People who think women aren't "tough enough."
• People who think that a man/woman should be boss in order to give the right impression to outsiders.
• People who want to be told what to do may feel more comfortable with a more dictatorial management style, which is socially more acceptable for men to adopt ("bossy" women always get put down).
• People who have had a personality conflict with a female/male boss in the past.
• People who believe that a female/male boss won't be fair with them or won't understand them. 
• People who believe they can more easily manipulate a man or woman to get what they want.
• People who feel they would be in some kind of competition with a boss of a certain gender.
• People who are afraid of a romantic or sexual situation developing with a boss of a certain gender.
• People who believe that women should have greater responsibility in business, and want a female boss to promote equality.
• People with jobs that specifically cater to or consist of one gender or another and believe that a man/woman would not be able to properly perform. For example, the manager of a women's wear department, or the boss of an all-male construction crew.

Some of these are reasonable concerns, some are downright sexist, and some are social engineering. But some sexist reasons were true at one time: before women had engineering degrees they would make terrible engineering managers. Even the social engineering is becoming necessary: women are becoming the primary breadwinners in many families, and their children (and husbands!) need them to become bosses to make more money.

But times change. Women are getting college degrees at a faster clip than men, and women are coming back from job losses after the last recession faster than men.

It's also true that different jobs need different kinds of bosses because you have different kinds of employees and different work environments. In technical fields you have a lot of hard-working, self-motivated, highly-educated people. In minimum-wage retail jobs you have a lot of discouraged, uneducated or unmotivated employees. In high-pressure sales departments you have a bunch of hard-driving cut-throat salesmen. In construction you have a lot of rambunctious, often hard-drinking and physical rowdies.

So it may be the case that, at this point in time, women are better suited to be bosses in some industries than others. Women often have better social skills than men, and may better as bosses who need good facilitation and listening skills. Men are often more monomaniacal than women, and may be better bosses in professions that require extremely focused management styles. In occupations where an intimidating physical presence is helpful, burly male bosses have an advantage. We shouldn't have workplaces like that, but reality is sometimes uncooperative.

The question has always been whether sex-based tendencies are are simply a matter of upbringing and social indoctrination, or a genetic and physical difference between the sexes. But it's obvious now that both men and women can have any of the skills and personality traits required of a boss: the only question is how people to react to them.

In the end, what matters is whether you can do the job: every person should be judged on their own merits, not other people's prejudices.