'Tis The Season

It's the holidays and that means it's time to give back to those less fortunate than ourselves. With this spirit in mind, I thought I would answer all of the questions that a commenter (Not My Name) has been asking this year and give not only him a Christmas present but the four people that read his comments a gift as well. I've already answered many of them in posts or comments previously but he seems like he needs the attention and is lacking something pretty significant in his social life to spend as much time as he has writing in my comments section. So I thought one post with all my answers would be a great way to lift him out of his depression.

Question: Is the Constitution law? 

The context of this question was the 2nd amendment and I have already answered it pretty thoroughly. Yet there is a more concise way to answer...

Answer: Yes, the perfectly legal to amend and continually open to interpretation, as evidenced by 200+ years of tort, United States Constitution is law.

Question: Why would an uninsured person going to the ER cause insurance rates to go up?

Answer: Because they often can't pay and due to the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), a law signed by Ronald Reagan and a bipartisan Congress, every person must be cared for regardless of their financial situation. The story of Sharon Ford was a primary driver behind this law. Note the pro life tone to what transpired and consider this recent post of mine. As the link notes, taxpayers pick up the cost via public dollars or raised rates that stem from cash strapped hospitals picking up the tab.

Here NMN assumes that he has led me down a path that will show me that the government is the problem. Yet this same government stepped in to pass this law so we could save lives. Would NMN get rid of this law and let unborn babies like Sharon Ford's child die? I suppose only he can answer that but a reversal of this law would save taxpayers money so I guess he has a real puzzler on his hands. Maybe he should consult the Bible. On second thought, maybe not, as we can see from the next two questions.

Question: Faith in what? 

Answer: Your faith in Jesus and God. It's very, very weak. That's why you need others to believe exactly as you do lest you be tempted to stray from Republican Jesus. You claim to be a "rugged individualist" yet positively can't stand the fact that someone might think differently than you not just with your religious faith but your political faith as well. Like the communists and socialists you decry, you want everyone to believe exactly as you do otherwise you condemn them. You also make the mistake of having faith in conservative political leaders and ideologies. Faith is reserved for spiritual matters not for issues like the economy or health care. Even here your faith is weak as well. I'm not responsible for your insecurities. You are. And Jesus is very clear about people that judge and cast the first stone.

One other note on this question. NMN has refused, despite repeated queries, to outright reject the various sects of Christianity that don't conform exactly to his warped version of it. He's certainly rejected my Christian beliefs. I wonder why he hasn't rejected the Unitarian Church, for example. Or the peace churches.

Primary Question: Authors of words have a meaning they intend to communicate, and that meaning is the only valid "interpretation" of any writing. Do you agree or disagree? 

Related Questions: What makes you think God is UNABLE to do what mere humans can do—get someone to write what they want written? So you're claiming that the Jeremiah 31:33-34 prophecy has already come to pass? That every single person in the world sees and accepts Yahweh as his/her God, even Juris Imprudent? That there is no disagreement about God because we all know Him directly?   

Answer: As a writer myself, I say no to the primary question because maybe someone else can dream up something even more wonderful than I intended. Being a reflective person, I welcome it, of course:) Perhaps I could inspire someone to a higher meaning, right?  The other day in class I was offering a critique of John Maynard Keynes and a student raised his hand and said, "It seems that you are saying that Keynes' theories are too psychologically based." I hadn't actually said that but he took what I was saying and brought it to a higher level. It was magnificent. But really, it depends on the author. Bob Dylan would say yes. John Lennon would say no. NMN also seems to be lacking here in his understanding of the use of metaphor. Perhaps he doesn't understand symbolism either.

Anyway, the context of this question and the related ones is the Bible and the author's intent. As with all of his Bible, legal, constitutional, and morality related questions, NMN assumes he is the authority on the author's intent and proceeds (as always) with great hubris. He recently intimated that he is a more valid interpreter of the Bible than the pope. Wow, he's smart!

So, the question he lacks the courage to ask is "Am I the authority on Biblical interpretation, constitutional interpretation, and morality in terms of spiritual and civic law?" Or, more briefly, "Do I know what God is thinking?" The answer is no (and it's no for me as well) because he continually makes false assumptions based on emotions and a completely instransigent ideology. The failure is not with the authors but with NMN himself because he misinterprets, either purposefully, through ignorance or both, the author's intent. And, as I have mentioned far too many times, he also purposefully misinterprets what I say and turns my writings into gotcha questions (so, how long have you been beating your wife?) in order to go for the win and show off for the TSM people that read his comments. Does he know any other way? Thus far, the answer is no.

Primary Question: Do you think it's okay to punish a child for the parent's crime?

Answer: No, but I wish it were OK to punish parents for children's crimes. There would be a lot less gun deaths and spree shootings if that were the case. Perhaps parents would think twice about having guns in the house with their mentally ill child if their asses were on the line.

The background to this question is abortion and NMN falsely assumes (more on false assumptions aka lying below) that the moment of inception equals a child. It does not. Science (remember facts, evidence and logic?) shows us that there is not a fetus until the 10th week of development. The link above has detailed images of development and people can judge for themselves as to what constitutes a "child." For me that's towards the end of the first trimester which is why I have no problem with a federal ban on abortion extended to include the 2nd trimester. I'd even consider going back earlier with a ban when brain, heart and lung functions are more fully developed. A question that NMN or other pro life folks need to answer...is something human if it has no heart?

Of course, there is no such thing as compromise in NMN's world. Even I have to consider that my views may be wrong. Can the child survive outside of the womb? When? What of the mother's rights? Is her body now a ward of the state? This is a gray area because it's not as cut and dried as human-not human. And the Right doesn't do well at all with gray areas. It's not a person at every stage of neonatal development and even when it is in my view, should the fetus really be granted 14th amendment rights? Consider as well that the same argument against banning guns (only criminals will have guns) applies here. Only criminals will provide abortions and there will have to be funds for enforcement and personnel assigned to police it. Who is going to pay for it? Imagine what happened during Prohibition with liquor happening with abortion in terms of crime. Witness what is happening now with drugs. It would be a nightmare. NMN, like many on the Right, don't really think before they bloviate about nearly all of the issues facing our country today. Recall this as well. 

If we left behind the rock solid stubbornness of both sides in the abortion debate, we might actually be able to solve this problem. Abortion is not birth control and it should be harder to obtain. Single woman in their 20s are the group that need to be targeted as they have the most abortions. At a certain stage (earlier than what is legal now), they should not be allowed to have an abortion unless their life is threatened. If they are raped or a victim of incest, they should use the day after pill or terminate in the first couple of weeks. Family planning and sex education need to be improved. People have to behave more responsibly when it comes to sex. Overall, there needs to be societal shift so demand for abortion is reduced it not all together eliminated. As with most issues, the Right can't help but focus on supply when they should be focusing on demand. Get rid of the demand and you get rid of abortion.

Primary Question: Is "false" equal to "truth"?

Related Questions: Even Joe Biden admits that the administration's gun control actions won't stop the shootings. So why do those things? Since the leaders of the Democrat's effort to implement universal background checks say that "any bill without a records provision would be as toothless as an honor system", do you still assert that "[n]o one is talking about universal registration" and/or that it can be implemented without registration?

Answer: No, false does not equal truth and NMN does an excellent job of illustrating this given the content of the primary question and the related questions. Honestly, all of his questions are, in one way or another, based on false assumptions about the issues of the day or, in this case, me and what I am asserting. With me, that's part and parcel to his childish games.

The context of this specific line of query (along with all of the other gun questions he asks) is based on the false assumption and an inconsolable paranoia that the federal government is out to get our guns. For NMN, any changes to gun laws will result in tyranny. Our system of checks and balances make this highly unlikely. Consider how difficult it is to pass something as simple as a budget let alone a new law on the regulation of guns. A tyranny assumes swift and decisive action not government by sedimentation which is what we have now. He pulls half truths, spins, or simply lies with this category of questions.

Joe Biden's comment is quite different than what NMN has described and essentially (and hilariously) asks, "Why even have laws?" In fact, this very question is at the root of conservative whining. Like the adolescent that simply can't take the rules of the house, conservatives grouse about having to follow rules they don't like. New rules are the worst, man! They suck, and like, the Right doesn't want to do them and stuff. Of course, the rest of the adults in our country recognize that as our society evolves, problems arise and sometimes need to be addressed with (gasp!) new laws. Pretending that a problem doesn't exist or will magically go away (the conservative go to thinking these days) doesn't work.

The background check question is a half truth at best and based on opinions and heresay, not the actual law or an evidence based argument. The Manchin-Toomey bill is available here for review and a Google search (unaided by someone as biased as me:)) will show the full story on his related questions. And why can't we figure out a way to improve gun safety while honoring the 2nd amendment? We are the greatest nation on the planet, aren't we? I find it amusing that someone such as NMN decries those who "hate America" yet appears to be doing just that. Clearly the thinks very little of the leaders of this country and the people in it but that's the adolescent problem with authority again. Equally as amusing is the fact that NMN spends a lot of time and energy debunking things that Democrats say, accusing them of being incompetent liars, but on the issue of universal background checks, they are now suddenly "telling the truth." Wow...it's a Christmas miracle!!

Will NMN accept this gift in the spirit of the season and be gracious? Will his obsession with me continue? Or something else? Or will he reject my gift, take it back, psychotically keep asking the questions over and over again, circle jerk for juris, GD, 6Kings and Larry, and pretend that I never answered the questions? Honestly, it doesn't really matter.

Because in the final analysis we will never, ever see the kind of our nation he claims he wants. The trajectory of our country is evolving to fit the age of globalization and leaving behind backwards, hateful, and ignorant thinking. NMN's comments and questions are great examples of the fear that only comes with the realization that old ideologies are quickly becoming irrelevant.

Anecdata

Remember all those Obamacare horror stories? Not looking so bad now.

Oh, really? Why? Well, read the piece. But how did this happen?

The failure of the exchanges created an information vacuum as far as Obamacare successes went; in rushed the individual stories of those who claimed to have been hurt by the changes to the market. It didn't matter that these stories are, even without enrollment numbers from the exchanges, demonstrably unrepresentative! 

In steps...anecdata!

Statisticians dismiss the practice of using personal stories to argue about an objective reality as "anecdata", but it might be more accurate to call the "Obamacare horror stories" that have taken over social media "urban legends". There are urban legends about a lot of things – from spiders in hairdos to red velvet cake. Some are funny, some feature a satisfying come-uppance, but folklorists agree that the stickiest of them, the ones that last for generations and resist debunking are the ones that live off ignorance and feed off fear. As one researcher put it: "It's a lack of information coupled with these fears that tends to give rise to new legends. When demand exceeds supply, people will fill in the gaps with their own information … they'll just make it up."

I can't think of a better description of the conservative media ecosystem at the moment. 

Neither can I.  I quite enjoyed the torpedoeing of some of the more prominent "horror" stories. 

Careful What You Wish For

This recent piece from the Christian Science Monitor illustrates the pitfalls of requiring a photo ID to vote.

As Wisconsin implements its law, it is opening a window into why a photo ID can be so difficult for the elderly to obtain. But it is also highlighting what some activists are calling a "war against the Greatest Generation" as federal and state budget cuts fall disproportionately on the elderly. Whether it is the government shutdown making it harder to obtain veteran's benefits or cuts to food stamps or state welfare programs, many in the Greatest Generation feel that they are now being left in the cold. 

So, they might end up alienating their own base? Wow. That's rilly smart!  Well, folks like Genevieve Kujawski can rest assured that Democrats will protect their right to vote even if it is against them. 

A Very Overheated Religious War

The situation in the Central African Republic is simply terrible. Roving gangs of Christian extremists in the capital of Bangui have been targeting Muslim neighborhoods and wantonly killing people in the name of their God for retribution against Muslims gangs that have done the same. I'm not sure what God they worship but it certainly isn't the Christian one. Thou shall not kill, remember?

French troops are arriving in the coming days to hopefully keep the peace. They are also sending air support to hopefully quell any future uprisings. AP is reporting that the French are reluctantly going in which strikes me as complete bullshit as they are partly responsible for the situation on the ground. The CAR has never gotten over the Scramble for Africa. French meddling in the region created the power struggles that we see today. So, this is largely blowback from colonization over a century ago.

It's going to take a lot more than 1200 troops to stop what is now clearly genocide. The United Nations needs to have a robust and permanent presence there and the French need to invest far more resources (especially financial) than they are now. It's very quickly becoming too late and far too many people have died.

3.6 Percent

The United States Economy grew at the much faster pace of 3.6 percent in the third quarter than originally thought. Second quarter growth was also revised upward to 2.5 percent. The reasons for this growth include private inventory investment, personal consumption expenditures, exports, and state and local government spending.

Very welcome news indeed!

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.