I got an email recently with this link in it.
Jesus’ message is clear—it is impossible for anyone to be saved on his own merits. Since wealth was seen as proof of God’s approval, it was commonly taught by the rabbis that rich people were blessed by God and were, therefore, the most likely candidates for heaven. Jesus destroyed that notion, and along with it, the idea that anyone can earn eternal life. The disciples had the appropriate response to this startling statement. They were utterly amazed and asked, “Who then can be saved?” in the next verse. If the wealthy among them, which included the super-spiritual Pharisees and scribes, were unworthy of heaven, what hope was there for a poor man?
Jesus’ answer is the basis of the gospel: "With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God" (Matthew 19:26). Men are saved through God’s gifts of grace, mercy, and faith (Ephesians 2:8-9). Nothing we do earns salvation for us. It is the poor in spirit who inherit the kingdom of God (Matthew 5:3), those who recognize their spiritual poverty and their utter inability to do anything to justify themselves to a holy God. The rich man so often is blind to his spiritual poverty because he is proud of his accomplishments and has contented himself with his wealth. He is as likely to humble himself before God as a camel is to crawl through the eye of a needle.
Very well written.
Sunday, May 25, 2014
Saturday, May 24, 2014
Friday, May 23, 2014
What Would A Libertarian Do?
The recent 30 year natural gas deal between Russia and China has me wondering....what would a libertarian president do about this? Given their isolationist tendencies, they would likely do nothing and let the free market do what it will.
But is that effective in the age of globalization? And does it leave the United States more vulnerable from the standpoint of economic competition (i.e. the new "world war")?
But is that effective in the age of globalization? And does it leave the United States more vulnerable from the standpoint of economic competition (i.e. the new "world war")?
The Tenor of 2014
In some ways, the GOP primaries this week in Georgia and Kentucky have crystallized the tenor of the fall elections. It might seem on the surface that the so called "establishment" candidates have won or, in the case of Georgia, are involved in a runoff. There have been more than a few articles proclaiming that the Tea Party lost.
Yet the platforms of these victorious candidates sound just like the Tea Party. Mitch McConnell is essentially running against Barack Obama (see: Obama Mental Meltdown Syndrome), not Alison Grimes, a mistake which I think will cost him the election. That and the fact that Ms. Grimes is...um...a really good candidate.
If I were Senator McConnell, I'd spend less time obsessing about the president and more time talking his plans and how he will execute them. Does he really want the president to kick his ass a third time?
Down in Georgia, things just got a whole lot brighter for Michelle Nunn. Jack Kingston and David Perdue are now in a runoff so they get to spend the next nine weeks fighting each other while Ms. Nunn builds up her war chest. It's still going to be tough for her but again, both of these establishment candidates are sounding awfully Tea Partyish.
That suits me just fine. I think the GOP should go as far right as the want to go. It's just going to help out the Democrats this year and keep the Right out of the White House in 2016.
Yet the platforms of these victorious candidates sound just like the Tea Party. Mitch McConnell is essentially running against Barack Obama (see: Obama Mental Meltdown Syndrome), not Alison Grimes, a mistake which I think will cost him the election. That and the fact that Ms. Grimes is...um...a really good candidate.
If I were Senator McConnell, I'd spend less time obsessing about the president and more time talking his plans and how he will execute them. Does he really want the president to kick his ass a third time?
Down in Georgia, things just got a whole lot brighter for Michelle Nunn. Jack Kingston and David Perdue are now in a runoff so they get to spend the next nine weeks fighting each other while Ms. Nunn builds up her war chest. It's still going to be tough for her but again, both of these establishment candidates are sounding awfully Tea Partyish.
That suits me just fine. I think the GOP should go as far right as the want to go. It's just going to help out the Democrats this year and keep the Right out of the White House in 2016.
Thursday, May 22, 2014
Moral Ominvores
The question of how similar animals are to humans comes up frequently. People on the right think that animals are just our property and we can do anything we like to them. Animal rights people put them on a pedestal, elevating them above people because they're somehow purer and nobler than we callow humans.
A writer to the New York Times recently said:
We’ve known since Darwin that other animals are more like humans than they are unlike us. They are made of flesh, blood and bone, just as we are, and physiologically, they feel pain in the same way and to the same degree.This video of a wild mouse running on a wheel, apparently for fun, is what the writer was talking about. Anyone who has a pet or has worked with animals closely knows that animals have emotions and a certain coarse intelligence.
More and more, we are also learning that they have the same range of emotions and needs, including the need to play, a fact accentuated by the research showing that some mice enjoy running on wheels (“Mice Run for Fun, Not Just Work, Research Shows,” news article, May 21).
As your article rightly notes, each animal is an individual, just as each human is an individual; some will enjoy the wheel, others won’t. As we grow in our understanding of other animals, it is only a matter of time before we stop using them in experiments, for food and for human amusement.
I can agree with the writer up to a point. We're not that different from animals. But his conclusion is just plain wrong. Entire animal species use other animals for food: carnivores such as cats, canines, sharks, bears and so on cannot survive without killing and eating other animals. Cats "play" with their food; whether this is for entertainment or experimentation I cannot venture a guess.
Why should humans be held to a different standard than other animals when it comes to our own survival? Dogs clearly have the capacity to feel empathy for other creatures, yet they must kill in order to survive. We are no different.
If it is a moral imperative to stop killing animals for food, is it not incumbent upon us to prevent other animals from killing? Wouldn't that mean the end of all carnivore species? Clearly it would be immoral to exterminate all carnivores, but we would have to do so to prevent killing. So we must allow carnivores to act according to their nature. By that logic we must allow other humans who consider themselves carnivores to act according to their nature, within the limits of ethics and morality.
Humans do not need to eat other animals to survive; we could find other sources of protein. But we have evolved to be omnivores, and there is nothing inherently immoral about being an omnivore or carnivore.
However, killing and torturing animals solely for pleasure is clearly immoral. People who do this are psychopaths, and they frequently move on to humans. it is in our best interests to prevent sadistic killers from using animals as their training subjects.
Warehousing chickens, pigs and cattle in factory farms is tantamount to torture; these practices should be curtailed not just because they're immoral, but because they create breeding grounds for diseases that will infect humans (SARS and swine flu, for example), and are one of the main causes of antibiotic resistant bacteria that may soon bring an end to modern medicine.
It is in our best interests to make sure our food and dairy animals are fed, housed and butchered in clean and humane circumstances.
So, yes, we need to remember that animals are creatures that live and breathe and have feelings. But we are omnivores just like bears are, and as long as we treat our prey ethically and humanely, we have nothing to be ashamed of.
What Is The Voynich Manuscript?
For many years, the Voynich Manuscript has befuddled historians and linguists alike. Discovered in 1912, this book is a collection of writings and illustrations that has everyone guessing what it means. A recent story from BBC details the history of this fascinating work and just how difficult it has been to decode. A wide range of theories persist...everything from the secret of life to time traveling aliens from the future.
So what exactly is it?
So what exactly is it?
Wednesday, May 21, 2014
Taxpayers Should Foot The Bill
I've been mildly surprised although not entirely shocked that conservatives have not really taken President Obama to the mat over just how FUBAR the VA Hospital situation has become. The president campaigned on making improvement to veteran's care and things have gotten worse. We had these same problems during the Bush Administration and it seems that nothing has been done to improve them.
Yet, if you think about it for a minute, it makes sense that the GOP are tepid in their criticism of the president. They know that if they go full on Benghazi or Obamacare mad, it will bite them in the ass. Why? Because the main reason why the VA is so screwed up is Iraq and they don't want to open up the can of worms when they can see the Senate in their sights. Afghanistan (our longest war) is also a big factor. I think conservatives are also having a difficult time in balancing the "everything for the troops" ideology with the "cut spending now!" meme so they aren't really making as much of a fuss.
But they should. These are our troops so let's keep our eye on the ball people. This is not about "failure of government" or adolescent glee (see: inferiority complex, insecurity, envy of success) at the president doing a bad job with this issue. It's about fixing the problem and making sure the troops are well cared for in our society. They volunteered to put their life on the line for us so they deserve the best care, indeed the best life, that money can buy. Both President Obama and President Bush have done a terrible job in handling Veteran's Affairs. This needs to change...yesterday. I don't want to see any more fucking stories about a veteran getting poor care, not being adequately treated for PTSD or other mental issues, or living in poverty.
Their quality of life should be much higher and taxpayers should foot the bill.
Yet, if you think about it for a minute, it makes sense that the GOP are tepid in their criticism of the president. They know that if they go full on Benghazi or Obamacare mad, it will bite them in the ass. Why? Because the main reason why the VA is so screwed up is Iraq and they don't want to open up the can of worms when they can see the Senate in their sights. Afghanistan (our longest war) is also a big factor. I think conservatives are also having a difficult time in balancing the "everything for the troops" ideology with the "cut spending now!" meme so they aren't really making as much of a fuss.
But they should. These are our troops so let's keep our eye on the ball people. This is not about "failure of government" or adolescent glee (see: inferiority complex, insecurity, envy of success) at the president doing a bad job with this issue. It's about fixing the problem and making sure the troops are well cared for in our society. They volunteered to put their life on the line for us so they deserve the best care, indeed the best life, that money can buy. Both President Obama and President Bush have done a terrible job in handling Veteran's Affairs. This needs to change...yesterday. I don't want to see any more fucking stories about a veteran getting poor care, not being adequately treated for PTSD or other mental issues, or living in poverty.
Their quality of life should be much higher and taxpayers should foot the bill.
Meet Your Conservative Movement
By request, I am putting up this link again.
MEET YOUR CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT
This is my personal favorite from that collection of fear, hate, and anger. Good thing racism is over!
MEET YOUR CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT
This is my personal favorite from that collection of fear, hate, and anger. Good thing racism is over!
Tuesday, May 20, 2014
Good Words
But that’s not the debate that’s taking place right now. The debate we’re having right now is about, what, Benghazi? Obamacare? And it becomes this endless loop. It’s not serious. It’s not speaking to the real concerns that people have.
We’ve got one party in Congress right now that has been captured by ideologues whose core premise is ‘no’ — who fundamentally believe that the problem is government.
The GOP’s main task is to figure out how can they make people sufficiently cynical, sufficiently angry, sufficiently suspicious that they can win the next election.
--President Barack Obama, May 19, 2014
The GOP’s main task is to figure out how can they make people sufficiently cynical, sufficiently angry, sufficiently suspicious that they can win the next election.
--President Barack Obama, May 19, 2014
A Global Model For Equity
Conservatives in this country live inside of a bubble but we, as Americans, live inside one as well. I lived in Europe for a year and it honestly help me break out of the United States bubble. We have far too many notions in this country (way too many dictated by the Right) that simply aren't true. For example, democratic socialism is viewed largely with disdain. Certainly, I have my problems with it but it's not communism/Marxism/boiling pit of sewage as we are nauseatingly warned day after day by the right wing bubble.
This myth is more or less destroyed by this recent piece in the Christian Science Monitor. Let's start off with this graphic.
What kind of a life does this mean for Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Finland and Sweden?
They get comprehensive pensions, unemployment insurance, and universal health care. Losing a job, while professionally defeating, doesn’t turn into financial demise. Nor does a long-term illness. The welfare state means free university education and heavily subsidized all-day preschools. Public spending on day care and early education in the Nordic countries averages 1.4 percent of gross domestic product; it is less than 0.4 percent in the US, for example. The result is a robust middle class. All five Nordic nations rank in the top 10 most equal countries globally, according to the OECD. (The US, by comparison, sits at 31, just above Turkey and Mexico.)
How does this happen?
The earned income tax burden for a family of four with a single wage earner in Sweden is close to 38 percent, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), compared with the United States at 20.3 percent (and 38 percent in Finland, 31 percent in Norway, and 28 percent in Denmark).
So, higher taxes and everyone benefits. But does this mean that the wealthy are soaked?
There are, of course, variations in incomes in Sweden, and there is the opportunity to become wealthy – for example, Stefan Persson, chairman of H&M, is listed by Forbes as the 16th richest person in the world. A doctor might earn twice as much as a teacher and pay more taxes, but is ultimately wealthier than the teacher.
Nope. Are corporations flourishing?
All the creative output flourishing here tests assumptions about the ability of capitalism to thrive under big government. Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, and Iceland, with a collective 26 million inhabitants, don’t just produce successful companies. They have a creative capacity that transcends language and cultural barriers to fascinate, humor, and entertain global markets. Think Ylvis, the Norwegian comedy duo and their viral YouTube hit “What Does the Fox Say?” Or “Nordic Noir” crime fiction like Denmark’s TV series “The Killing,” and the Swedish Stieg Larsson book and movie franchise that started with “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.” Or Icelandic singer-songwriter Björk.
And these countries have pioneered public policies, the effects of which – if not the tax burden – are the envy of the common man worldwide: from universal preschool and paternity leave to vocational training schools and voucher programs for private schools.
Yep.
In looking at this article, I have to wonder what all hysteria is about in this country when we talk about "big" government. Why can't this work here? The answers to this question seem to be rooted in fear of the unknown and that timeless fault of purely selfish greed. There is a prevailing sense in this country that's what mine is mine and fuck you if you try to take the fruits of my hard earned labors. Setting aside the idea that they are even hard earned in the first place, what kind of a country do these people want to live in? One with gated communities where the most successful businesses are either dollar stores or luxury good suppliers? Or one as described in this piece?
The first step we need to take is to torpedo the idea that governmental structures that we see in Nordic countries could never work here. Why? It pisses me off that we're getting our ass kicked in the quality of life department by the likes of Sweden, Iceland, and Finland. We can do much, much better. Of course, getting past this step requires that we stop listening to the right and deprogram the willful ignorants inside of the cult bubble.
This is the raison d'etre of this site.
This myth is more or less destroyed by this recent piece in the Christian Science Monitor. Let's start off with this graphic.
What kind of a life does this mean for Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Finland and Sweden?
They get comprehensive pensions, unemployment insurance, and universal health care. Losing a job, while professionally defeating, doesn’t turn into financial demise. Nor does a long-term illness. The welfare state means free university education and heavily subsidized all-day preschools. Public spending on day care and early education in the Nordic countries averages 1.4 percent of gross domestic product; it is less than 0.4 percent in the US, for example. The result is a robust middle class. All five Nordic nations rank in the top 10 most equal countries globally, according to the OECD. (The US, by comparison, sits at 31, just above Turkey and Mexico.)
How does this happen?
The earned income tax burden for a family of four with a single wage earner in Sweden is close to 38 percent, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), compared with the United States at 20.3 percent (and 38 percent in Finland, 31 percent in Norway, and 28 percent in Denmark).
So, higher taxes and everyone benefits. But does this mean that the wealthy are soaked?
There are, of course, variations in incomes in Sweden, and there is the opportunity to become wealthy – for example, Stefan Persson, chairman of H&M, is listed by Forbes as the 16th richest person in the world. A doctor might earn twice as much as a teacher and pay more taxes, but is ultimately wealthier than the teacher.
Nope. Are corporations flourishing?
All the creative output flourishing here tests assumptions about the ability of capitalism to thrive under big government. Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, and Iceland, with a collective 26 million inhabitants, don’t just produce successful companies. They have a creative capacity that transcends language and cultural barriers to fascinate, humor, and entertain global markets. Think Ylvis, the Norwegian comedy duo and their viral YouTube hit “What Does the Fox Say?” Or “Nordic Noir” crime fiction like Denmark’s TV series “The Killing,” and the Swedish Stieg Larsson book and movie franchise that started with “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.” Or Icelandic singer-songwriter Björk.
And these countries have pioneered public policies, the effects of which – if not the tax burden – are the envy of the common man worldwide: from universal preschool and paternity leave to vocational training schools and voucher programs for private schools.
Yep.
In looking at this article, I have to wonder what all hysteria is about in this country when we talk about "big" government. Why can't this work here? The answers to this question seem to be rooted in fear of the unknown and that timeless fault of purely selfish greed. There is a prevailing sense in this country that's what mine is mine and fuck you if you try to take the fruits of my hard earned labors. Setting aside the idea that they are even hard earned in the first place, what kind of a country do these people want to live in? One with gated communities where the most successful businesses are either dollar stores or luxury good suppliers? Or one as described in this piece?
The first step we need to take is to torpedo the idea that governmental structures that we see in Nordic countries could never work here. Why? It pisses me off that we're getting our ass kicked in the quality of life department by the likes of Sweden, Iceland, and Finland. We can do much, much better. Of course, getting past this step requires that we stop listening to the right and deprogram the willful ignorants inside of the cult bubble.
This is the raison d'etre of this site.
Monday, May 19, 2014
Impeach Barack Obama
I put up a clip from last week's Real Time below but the final new rule is really the best part of that show. The GOP talks a good game about Benghazi but they don't have the sack to impeach the president. That tells me that the hearings that are starting today serve no other purpose aside from this.
Sunday, May 18, 2014
Atari Game Dump
The BBC recently reported on an Atari game dump long since rumored to be a myth. The 14 year old me would be so happy. Free games!!
Saturday, May 17, 2014
Minimum Wage=$25 An Hour?
Is Switzerland poised to have a minimum wage of $25 an hour? It will be interesting to find out. If they do, we could finally see exactly how much of an effect raising the minimum wage would have on unemployment and inflation. Could the effect turn out to be negligible because wage increases lead to a rise in aggregate demand that exceeds layoffs? Thus negating any layoffs and/or inflation?
Regardless, the article notes how much of an effect discussions of raising the minimum wage are having.
Supporters have something to show whether it passes or not: Some large companies such as clothing retailer H&M and supermarket chain Lidl have already agreed to raise their wages to the proposed minimum.
The same thing is happening here and will likely increase as the wealthy of the United States are realizing just how much of a destabilizing effect inequality has on our country.
Regardless, the article notes how much of an effect discussions of raising the minimum wage are having.
Supporters have something to show whether it passes or not: Some large companies such as clothing retailer H&M and supermarket chain Lidl have already agreed to raise their wages to the proposed minimum.
The same thing is happening here and will likely increase as the wealthy of the United States are realizing just how much of a destabilizing effect inequality has on our country.
Friday, May 16, 2014
Thursday, May 15, 2014
Good Words
Bill Maher on Benghazi and impeachment...
It is a phony thing. It's been a phony thing from the beginning. I mean, it's a tragedy but not everything bad that happens in the world is Obama's fault. Of course, that is always their template for everything is to work backwards from everything Obama's evil, Obama's a socialist, Obama's a screw-up. Somehow he is simultaneously an evil genius and also completely incompetent and just terrible dumb. So, it depends on what day it is. It's funny.
At the end of our show this week, our little editorial is about we're egging Republicans on to impeach him, because I think that would be very good for Obama, if they would go ahead and impeach him. And I would like to challenge the Republicans. If Benghazi is as awful as they say it is then isn't it your obligation to impeach him? And that would be great, because that would fire up the left wing base. So I'd like to see the impeachment go forward. I’d like to see them put their money where their mouth is.
It is a phony thing. It's been a phony thing from the beginning. I mean, it's a tragedy but not everything bad that happens in the world is Obama's fault. Of course, that is always their template for everything is to work backwards from everything Obama's evil, Obama's a socialist, Obama's a screw-up. Somehow he is simultaneously an evil genius and also completely incompetent and just terrible dumb. So, it depends on what day it is. It's funny.
At the end of our show this week, our little editorial is about we're egging Republicans on to impeach him, because I think that would be very good for Obama, if they would go ahead and impeach him. And I would like to challenge the Republicans. If Benghazi is as awful as they say it is then isn't it your obligation to impeach him? And that would be great, because that would fire up the left wing base. So I'd like to see the impeachment go forward. I’d like to see them put their money where their mouth is.
The Size of the Wave
Larry Sabato has an interesting piece up about the 2014 Election. Checkout his two graphics.
I largely agree with his metric. I'd say that South Dakota, West Virginia and Montana are pretty much out of reach. He makes an interesting case for West Virginia and Montana staying blue but we have to be realistic.
I rank Mary Landrieu as being more in danger than Pryor. The latest polls show Pryor up fairly high and I think he is going to hold on. Tom Cotton is a flawed candidate and people really love Pryor. I think Begich will hold on as well. Hagan is a giant ? in North Carolina.
So, my early prognostication after delving in to Sabato's work and adding in my analysis is that the Republicans will pick up South Dakota, West Virginia, Montana, Louisiana, and probably North Carolina. Yet they will lose Kentucky, leaving the Senate at 51-49. Take this prediction with a boulder of salt and realize that it's just an exercise in folly at this point, done purely for the fun of me being political nerd.
Of course, the teacher nerd in me would love it if the Senate ended up tied 50-50. Think of the civics lessons it would produce!! Cue Joe Biden...:)
I largely agree with his metric. I'd say that South Dakota, West Virginia and Montana are pretty much out of reach. He makes an interesting case for West Virginia and Montana staying blue but we have to be realistic.
I rank Mary Landrieu as being more in danger than Pryor. The latest polls show Pryor up fairly high and I think he is going to hold on. Tom Cotton is a flawed candidate and people really love Pryor. I think Begich will hold on as well. Hagan is a giant ? in North Carolina.
So, my early prognostication after delving in to Sabato's work and adding in my analysis is that the Republicans will pick up South Dakota, West Virginia, Montana, Louisiana, and probably North Carolina. Yet they will lose Kentucky, leaving the Senate at 51-49. Take this prediction with a boulder of salt and realize that it's just an exercise in folly at this point, done purely for the fun of me being political nerd.
Of course, the teacher nerd in me would love it if the Senate ended up tied 50-50. Think of the civics lessons it would produce!! Cue Joe Biden...:)
Wednesday, May 14, 2014
Grist For Its Fantasy Mill
Richard Cohen has most brilliantly summed up the confusion over why Republicans simply can't let go of Benghazi.
I feel about the GOP as I do about the religion of others: I don't get it. I know feelings can be strong and reason plays little part in it -- faith is faith, after all -- and this is the way I see the GOP snits about the IRS and, more pertinently, Benghazi. What are these people talking about?
Four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, died in the 2012 attack in Benghazi, Libya -- two from mortar fire, and Stevens and another man from smoke inhalation. These deaths are a serious matter for which bureaucratic blame has already been assessed. No one can possibly think the Obama administration knew the attack was coming and let it happen. There is no proof of that. Similarly, no one can still think the White House put the brakes on a rescue attempt by the U.S. military. Again, there is no proof of that.
So what is Benghazi? Beats me, I am tempted to say. But I recognize it as a transparent Republican attempt to provide the party's base with grist for its fantasy mill.
Fantasy mill, indeed. Man, they really do love this stuff, don't they?
Is it possible the Obama administration fudged the nature of the attack, refusing to apply the term "terrorist"? Yes, of course. Did the White House spinmeisters put their hands all over it? Could be. But is any of this so momentous that it has required 13 public hearings and now a select House committee that will delve and delve feverishly ... for what?
I am not sure if this rancorous partisanship is something new in American history or just the same old, same old. But I know that what I am seeing looks both petty and mean. House Speaker John Boehner talks about Benghazi with synthetic solemnity. Fox News dissects it, parsing White House talking points with the ferocious intensity of a hunting dog pointing at some prey. Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi. It will show ... It will prove ... It will expose ... What? What the hell are you talking about?
Indeed, what?
I feel about the GOP as I do about the religion of others: I don't get it. I know feelings can be strong and reason plays little part in it -- faith is faith, after all -- and this is the way I see the GOP snits about the IRS and, more pertinently, Benghazi. What are these people talking about?
Four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, died in the 2012 attack in Benghazi, Libya -- two from mortar fire, and Stevens and another man from smoke inhalation. These deaths are a serious matter for which bureaucratic blame has already been assessed. No one can possibly think the Obama administration knew the attack was coming and let it happen. There is no proof of that. Similarly, no one can still think the White House put the brakes on a rescue attempt by the U.S. military. Again, there is no proof of that.
So what is Benghazi? Beats me, I am tempted to say. But I recognize it as a transparent Republican attempt to provide the party's base with grist for its fantasy mill.
Fantasy mill, indeed. Man, they really do love this stuff, don't they?
Is it possible the Obama administration fudged the nature of the attack, refusing to apply the term "terrorist"? Yes, of course. Did the White House spinmeisters put their hands all over it? Could be. But is any of this so momentous that it has required 13 public hearings and now a select House committee that will delve and delve feverishly ... for what?
I am not sure if this rancorous partisanship is something new in American history or just the same old, same old. But I know that what I am seeing looks both petty and mean. House Speaker John Boehner talks about Benghazi with synthetic solemnity. Fox News dissects it, parsing White House talking points with the ferocious intensity of a hunting dog pointing at some prey. Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi. It will show ... It will prove ... It will expose ... What? What the hell are you talking about?
Indeed, what?
Tuesday, May 13, 2014
Don't Even Bother With 2016
Check out this remark from US Chamber of Commerce President Thomas Donohue.
He's right. The GOP shouldn't even bother putting up a candidate in 2016 if they don't pass immigration reform. So why aren't they doing it now? Wouldn't it help cement their chances in 2014? Of course the reason is that old, angry white people in the GOP primaries don't like wetbacks so no reform until after 2014. This speaks to a larger issue.
Right now, our elderly population is enormous given the glut of baby boomers. Most of these folks are Reagan seniors and tend to vote Republican. They are mostly white and tend to be reliable voters. They look at how the United States is changing and becoming less white as those that are younger than them grow in numbers. So, it's a whole bunch of old whites versus a growing number of non whites. No wonder they are so afraid.
This is a big reason why we have all the problems we have with no solutions. It's not necessarily a left-right thing. It's a baby boomer thing. All of their problems with race, economics, politics, science and society negatively color the day and prohibit real solutions. To be quite frank, as their numbers dwindle over the next 20 years, many of these issues won't be issues anymore and I think we are going to be cut loose from their bullshit shackles and be able to truly progress as a nation.
He's right. The GOP shouldn't even bother putting up a candidate in 2016 if they don't pass immigration reform. So why aren't they doing it now? Wouldn't it help cement their chances in 2014? Of course the reason is that old, angry white people in the GOP primaries don't like wetbacks so no reform until after 2014. This speaks to a larger issue.
Right now, our elderly population is enormous given the glut of baby boomers. Most of these folks are Reagan seniors and tend to vote Republican. They are mostly white and tend to be reliable voters. They look at how the United States is changing and becoming less white as those that are younger than them grow in numbers. So, it's a whole bunch of old whites versus a growing number of non whites. No wonder they are so afraid.
This is a big reason why we have all the problems we have with no solutions. It's not necessarily a left-right thing. It's a baby boomer thing. All of their problems with race, economics, politics, science and society negatively color the day and prohibit real solutions. To be quite frank, as their numbers dwindle over the next 20 years, many of these issues won't be issues anymore and I think we are going to be cut loose from their bullshit shackles and be able to truly progress as a nation.
Monday, May 12, 2014
The Latest On Cliven Bundy
We haven't heard much from the Cliven Bundy standoff of late so I thought I would point out a few recent headlines. First we have this:
Cliven Bundy standoff: Locals want armed militia out, lawmaker says
I don't blame them. Amusing that people from out of state (what happened to state's rights?) are there to support Bundy.
We also have this:
One month later, Cliven Bundy, militia, residents face an uneasy coexistence
Here's an idea, federal government. Go and arrest Clive Bundy. He broke the law and has the bizarre idea (seemingly rooted in communism) that the land he grazes his cattle on is everyone's land. If anyone shoots at you, shoot back because that's what known as an armed insurrection. Honestly, I don't think they will because at their very heart, they are a bunch of fucking cowards who like to play guns.
Cliven Bundy standoff: Locals want armed militia out, lawmaker says
I don't blame them. Amusing that people from out of state (what happened to state's rights?) are there to support Bundy.
We also have this:
One month later, Cliven Bundy, militia, residents face an uneasy coexistence
Here's an idea, federal government. Go and arrest Clive Bundy. He broke the law and has the bizarre idea (seemingly rooted in communism) that the land he grazes his cattle on is everyone's land. If anyone shoots at you, shoot back because that's what known as an armed insurrection. Honestly, I don't think they will because at their very heart, they are a bunch of fucking cowards who like to play guns.
Sunday, May 11, 2014
Rand Paul Goes Rogue (Again)
In case you are keeping score, Rand Paul has said that Texas will turn blue, the GOP needs to undergo a significant transformation, there must be immigration reform, and there is institutional racism. This week, he said
Everybody’s gone completely crazy on this voter ID thing, I think it’s wrong for Republicans to go too crazy on this issue because it’s offending people.
No shit. And it's about time someone had the courage to be this blunt with the Republicans because they really are being assholes about it. Paul is sounding exactly like a candidate running for a national election in 2016 and someone who is well aware that the Republicans can't win unless they broaden their base.
That doesn't mean we give up on what we believe in, but it means we have to be a more welcoming party. We have to welcome people of all races. We need to welcome people of all classes – business class, working class … We need a more diverse party. We need a party that looks like America.
That's right. The question is...will they change?
Everybody’s gone completely crazy on this voter ID thing, I think it’s wrong for Republicans to go too crazy on this issue because it’s offending people.
No shit. And it's about time someone had the courage to be this blunt with the Republicans because they really are being assholes about it. Paul is sounding exactly like a candidate running for a national election in 2016 and someone who is well aware that the Republicans can't win unless they broaden their base.
That doesn't mean we give up on what we believe in, but it means we have to be a more welcoming party. We have to welcome people of all races. We need to welcome people of all classes – business class, working class … We need a more diverse party. We need a party that looks like America.
That's right. The question is...will they change?
The Navy Comes Through
Our government does more good things than people want to give them credit for which gets pretty frustrating for me. Here's a great example:
US Navy Cracks New Renewable Energy Technology To Turn Seawater Into Fuel, Allowing Ships To Stay At Sea Longer.
The development of a liquid hydrocarbon fuel could one day relieve the military’s dependence on oil-based fuels and is being heralded as a “game changer” because it could allow military ships to develop their own fuel and stay operational 100 percent of the time, rather than having to refuel at sea. The new fuel is initially expected to cost around $3 to $6 per gallon, according to the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, which has already flown a model aircraft on it.
Amazing!
Consider that this same technology will be put out to the private sector at some point as well. That would completely change the face of energy on the planet. Countries like our own have access to abundant seawater which means we would be a powerhouse. Juxtapose that with out ability to innovate and that second American century is looking crystal clear.
US Navy Cracks New Renewable Energy Technology To Turn Seawater Into Fuel, Allowing Ships To Stay At Sea Longer.
The development of a liquid hydrocarbon fuel could one day relieve the military’s dependence on oil-based fuels and is being heralded as a “game changer” because it could allow military ships to develop their own fuel and stay operational 100 percent of the time, rather than having to refuel at sea. The new fuel is initially expected to cost around $3 to $6 per gallon, according to the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, which has already flown a model aircraft on it.
Amazing!
Consider that this same technology will be put out to the private sector at some point as well. That would completely change the face of energy on the planet. Countries like our own have access to abundant seawater which means we would be a powerhouse. Juxtapose that with out ability to innovate and that second American century is looking crystal clear.
Saturday, May 10, 2014
Friday, May 09, 2014
Mitt Romney: "Raise the Minimum Wage."
I, for instance, as you know, part company with many of the conservatives in my party on the issue of the minimum wage. I think we ought to raise it, because frankly, our party is all about more jobs and better pay, and I think communicating that is important to us
--Mitt Romney, May 9, 2012
Wow.
--Mitt Romney, May 9, 2012
Wow.
Fundraising Off Of Benghazi
Republicans say they want to get to the bottom of what really happened after the Benghazi attack on September 12, 2012 but what they really want to do is fundraise off the tragedy. Check out this line from the NRSC, for example.
Americans deserve the truth about Benghazi and it's clear Democrats will not give it to them. Donate today and elect a Republican Senate majority.
The NRCC is doing it as well.
So, let's see...the lives of the four Americans killed matter as much as the next campaign donation. Got it. Given that Republicans are behind the Democrats in fundraising, it's now quite clear what this latest in a serious of hearings about Benghazi is really all about.
And I'm still trying to figure out what law was broken by the Obama administration.
Americans deserve the truth about Benghazi and it's clear Democrats will not give it to them. Donate today and elect a Republican Senate majority.
The NRCC is doing it as well.
So, let's see...the lives of the four Americans killed matter as much as the next campaign donation. Got it. Given that Republicans are behind the Democrats in fundraising, it's now quite clear what this latest in a serious of hearings about Benghazi is really all about.
And I'm still trying to figure out what law was broken by the Obama administration.
Advocating Armed Insurrection
Take a look at the latest ad from Iowa GOP Senatorial hopeful, Joni Ernst.
Wow, these folks really want to rise up and shoot the president! (see: armed insurrection advocacy).
Wow, these folks really want to rise up and shoot the president! (see: armed insurrection advocacy).
The Continuing Saga of Adolescents
Check out Sean Davis's piece on the recent National Climate Assessment. A fine and illustrative example of adolescent behavior in many, many ways. Why are there people that actually take these people seriously?
Thursday, May 08, 2014
The Future Is Now
Climate change has always seemed like seem distant science fictional disaster that will happen in the distant future. Well, the future is now. It is 2014, after all.
The National Climate Assessment released Tuesday reports that climate change is already affecting the United States, as well as the rest of the world. It is being manifested not only by rising temperatures across most, though not all, the country (sixty degrees in Alaska in January), but also by increasingly heavy rains (in Florida), deadlier tornadoes that occur earlier in the season, heavier snowfalls (like last winter's, due in part to more water vapor in the atmosphere from reduced arctic ice), flooding in many parts of the country, rising sea levels (hitting Florida again), severe drought in California, the West and parts of Texas, and so on.
Some Minnesota counties have even been declared both flood and drought disaster areas in the same year: last year we got hammered by torrential downpours in the spring, but then it didn't rain for the rest of the summer.
Climate change doesn't just affect the weather: stronger storms are destroying billions of dollars of property and killing more people every year, and higher temperatures are causing more sickness and death due to heatstroke, insect-borne diseases, and asthma.
The response to these events from the right is typical: first they deny that it's happening, then they claim these events are part of the natural cycle, then they claim that humans have nothing to do with it, then they say that increased temperatures and carbon dioxide levels will be somehow "good" for us, then they say it would be too costly to act. Then they say that we'll just adapt if it happens. Well, it's happening. Now.
The Heartland Institute is typical, claiming that higher CO2 levels from burning coal and oil make plants grow faster. This is true by itself, however higher temperatures will decrease crop yields, as well as evaporate water from the soil faster, causing more drought and decreasing yields far more than higher CO2 levels will increase them. The final nail in the coffin is that crops grown in high CO2 levels are less nutritious.
All of these problems are due to our burning fossil fuels faster than the earth's systems can reabsorb the CO2 produced. Yet only 40% of Americans believe that climate change is a serious threat. That low number is due mostly to conservatives, who doubt it for solely economic reasons. Even though dealing with climate change now will save us trillions of dollars even in the short to medium term.
Reducing our dependence on fossil fuels would also reduce the real-world power of bad actors like Putin in Russia, the Wahabis of Saudi Arabia, the ayatollahs in Iran, the nut-jobs in Venezuela, and the Koch brothers in the US, who are trying to buy every election in the country (even going after a zoo in Ohio).
Stanford's decision to divest its endowment from coal companies is a good first step. Coal is the worst source of energy, dirty and deadly at every phase (just ask China, with its mining disasters and pollution problems). We should be phasing out every coal-fired power plant on earth.
Higher CO2 levels are raising sea levels, increasing temperatures and flooding, and causing more powerful storms. Our quest for more oil and gas is even causing earthquakes. Yet many conservatives call climate change a "hoax," at the same time blithely blaming natural disasters on gay pride parades and abortion.
The writing is on the wall: climate change is real, and is happening right now. Luckily, we currently have the money and resources to make the transition away from fossil fuels. But if we wait until the effects of climate change get really bad, we'll be too busy digging out from the latest flood, hurricane, tornado or mudslide, or fighting wars caused by drought, famine and resource shortages.
Yes, we can adapt to future climate change. The future is now. So now is the time to do something about it.
The National Climate Assessment released Tuesday reports that climate change is already affecting the United States, as well as the rest of the world. It is being manifested not only by rising temperatures across most, though not all, the country (sixty degrees in Alaska in January), but also by increasingly heavy rains (in Florida), deadlier tornadoes that occur earlier in the season, heavier snowfalls (like last winter's, due in part to more water vapor in the atmosphere from reduced arctic ice), flooding in many parts of the country, rising sea levels (hitting Florida again), severe drought in California, the West and parts of Texas, and so on.
Some Minnesota counties have even been declared both flood and drought disaster areas in the same year: last year we got hammered by torrential downpours in the spring, but then it didn't rain for the rest of the summer.
Climate change doesn't just affect the weather: stronger storms are destroying billions of dollars of property and killing more people every year, and higher temperatures are causing more sickness and death due to heatstroke, insect-borne diseases, and asthma.
The response to these events from the right is typical: first they deny that it's happening, then they claim these events are part of the natural cycle, then they claim that humans have nothing to do with it, then they say that increased temperatures and carbon dioxide levels will be somehow "good" for us, then they say it would be too costly to act. Then they say that we'll just adapt if it happens. Well, it's happening. Now.
The Heartland Institute is typical, claiming that higher CO2 levels from burning coal and oil make plants grow faster. This is true by itself, however higher temperatures will decrease crop yields, as well as evaporate water from the soil faster, causing more drought and decreasing yields far more than higher CO2 levels will increase them. The final nail in the coffin is that crops grown in high CO2 levels are less nutritious.
All of these problems are due to our burning fossil fuels faster than the earth's systems can reabsorb the CO2 produced. Yet only 40% of Americans believe that climate change is a serious threat. That low number is due mostly to conservatives, who doubt it for solely economic reasons. Even though dealing with climate change now will save us trillions of dollars even in the short to medium term.
Reducing our dependence on fossil fuels would also reduce the real-world power of bad actors like Putin in Russia, the Wahabis of Saudi Arabia, the ayatollahs in Iran, the nut-jobs in Venezuela, and the Koch brothers in the US, who are trying to buy every election in the country (even going after a zoo in Ohio).
Stanford's decision to divest its endowment from coal companies is a good first step. Coal is the worst source of energy, dirty and deadly at every phase (just ask China, with its mining disasters and pollution problems). We should be phasing out every coal-fired power plant on earth.
Higher CO2 levels are raising sea levels, increasing temperatures and flooding, and causing more powerful storms. Our quest for more oil and gas is even causing earthquakes. Yet many conservatives call climate change a "hoax," at the same time blithely blaming natural disasters on gay pride parades and abortion.
The writing is on the wall: climate change is real, and is happening right now. Luckily, we currently have the money and resources to make the transition away from fossil fuels. But if we wait until the effects of climate change get really bad, we'll be too busy digging out from the latest flood, hurricane, tornado or mudslide, or fighting wars caused by drought, famine and resource shortages.
Yes, we can adapt to future climate change. The future is now. So now is the time to do something about it.
Wednesday, May 07, 2014
Just who is Anti-Keystone?
The Wall Street Journal has a piece up about the opposition to the Keystone pipeline and how it really isn't as left-right as you would think. Politico echoed this as well.
Ranchers and native tribes that oppose the pipeline formed the Cowboys and Indians Alliance, putting a non-traditional face on the anti-Keystone movement that has spanned the president’s time in office. Their goal — like that of their environmentalist counterparts — is to persuade Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry to determine that the pipeline from Canada would go against the national interest.
The ranchers — or “cowboys” — are concerned not just about protecting sensitive aquifers near the pipeline, but also about their land rights, several said at the protest. “I’m here to support the neighbors to the north that don’t want the pipeline across their land,” said Julia Trigg Crawford, a Texas rancher who rode in on horseback. She didn’t have so much luck with her own land.
Part of the Oklahoma-to-Texas southern leg of Keystone XL, which has already been built, runs through Crawford’s ranch land on the Red River. “Basically they came in and said a foreign corporation building a for-profit pipeline had more of a right to my land than I did,” Crawford said. The land can be used for grazing, but she can’t build a house or drive across it, she said. Crawford received a check for $10,395 two years ago but has never cashed it, she said.
For some conservatives, it's about property rights and federal government intrusion which I find interesting because they do have an argument. I wonder why so many conservatives who champion private property and rights love the Pipeline as much as they do.
Ranchers and native tribes that oppose the pipeline formed the Cowboys and Indians Alliance, putting a non-traditional face on the anti-Keystone movement that has spanned the president’s time in office. Their goal — like that of their environmentalist counterparts — is to persuade Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry to determine that the pipeline from Canada would go against the national interest.
The ranchers — or “cowboys” — are concerned not just about protecting sensitive aquifers near the pipeline, but also about their land rights, several said at the protest. “I’m here to support the neighbors to the north that don’t want the pipeline across their land,” said Julia Trigg Crawford, a Texas rancher who rode in on horseback. She didn’t have so much luck with her own land.
Part of the Oklahoma-to-Texas southern leg of Keystone XL, which has already been built, runs through Crawford’s ranch land on the Red River. “Basically they came in and said a foreign corporation building a for-profit pipeline had more of a right to my land than I did,” Crawford said. The land can be used for grazing, but she can’t build a house or drive across it, she said. Crawford received a check for $10,395 two years ago but has never cashed it, she said.
For some conservatives, it's about property rights and federal government intrusion which I find interesting because they do have an argument. I wonder why so many conservatives who champion private property and rights love the Pipeline as much as they do.
Tuesday, May 06, 2014
Monday, May 05, 2014
The Challenge of the 2014 Elections
Take a look at this graphic.
It's from a brilliant analysis of exactly what the Democrats need to do in order to win the 2014 elections. Sasha Issenberg illustrates the numbers and demographics behind presidential year elections and mid term elections, boiling it down to a simple question: Can the Democrats mobilize the "unreliable" voters to succeed in the 2014 election? If they can, they hold the Senate and part of me is thinking that all the hysteria right now over SHELLACKING PART TWO is simply a fear tactic to mobilize the troops.
Another interesting part of the article is this.
Add it all up, and the Democrats’ midterm conundrum comes to look like an actuarial one. “If twenty years ago, you said the midterm electorate is older, I would have said, ‘Yahoo! Glad to hear it,’ ” says Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster. “But now the Roosevelt seniors are dead and the Reagan seniors are voting.” Increasingly, those older voters are backing the same side: In 2000, Al Gore won the youngest and eldest bands of the electorate by slight margins; in 2012, the over-50 vote broke for Mitt Romney by 12 points.
There are also simply more of those older voters overall. Since Obama’s first appearance on a presidential ballot, the population of Americans over the age of 55 has increased by nearly 13 million. By 2022, it will have increased by another nine million. People tend to grow more conservative as they age, but as a cohort, Generation X—whose oldest members will soon reach their fifties—is appreciably more conservative than the Millennials who follow them. “When the Millennials are fifty-five, they’re going to vote more Democratic,” Lake says, not exactly cautioning patience. “That’s thirty years away.”
This ties in to what I have been saying about how much the electorate is going to change over the next 20-30 years. Imagine what will happen when we have "Obama seniors" and the Reagan seniors are gone.
It's from a brilliant analysis of exactly what the Democrats need to do in order to win the 2014 elections. Sasha Issenberg illustrates the numbers and demographics behind presidential year elections and mid term elections, boiling it down to a simple question: Can the Democrats mobilize the "unreliable" voters to succeed in the 2014 election? If they can, they hold the Senate and part of me is thinking that all the hysteria right now over SHELLACKING PART TWO is simply a fear tactic to mobilize the troops.
Another interesting part of the article is this.
Add it all up, and the Democrats’ midterm conundrum comes to look like an actuarial one. “If twenty years ago, you said the midterm electorate is older, I would have said, ‘Yahoo! Glad to hear it,’ ” says Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster. “But now the Roosevelt seniors are dead and the Reagan seniors are voting.” Increasingly, those older voters are backing the same side: In 2000, Al Gore won the youngest and eldest bands of the electorate by slight margins; in 2012, the over-50 vote broke for Mitt Romney by 12 points.
There are also simply more of those older voters overall. Since Obama’s first appearance on a presidential ballot, the population of Americans over the age of 55 has increased by nearly 13 million. By 2022, it will have increased by another nine million. People tend to grow more conservative as they age, but as a cohort, Generation X—whose oldest members will soon reach their fifties—is appreciably more conservative than the Millennials who follow them. “When the Millennials are fifty-five, they’re going to vote more Democratic,” Lake says, not exactly cautioning patience. “That’s thirty years away.”
This ties in to what I have been saying about how much the electorate is going to change over the next 20-30 years. Imagine what will happen when we have "Obama seniors" and the Reagan seniors are gone.
Sunday, May 04, 2014
The Columbine Effect
My home state is reeling this week over the revelations that John David LaDue was planning a Columbine-like school attack. LaDue is yet another teenage male with mental health issues that turned to plans of violence. Today's Strib had this as the front page story.
'Columbine effect': Alarm is rising over copycats
It's a very disturbing yet accurate piece over a phenomenon that has evolved in culture since the Columbine shooting. The piece echoes many of the things I have written about on here about young men in culture. As more is revealed about LaDue, I'm sure we will see that he had most if not all of what I have been calling the magic cocktail (mental health issues, feelings of persecution and lack of attention, taking SSRIs, easy access to weapons, played violent video games, poor parental involvement, lack of community support and/or involvement).
What is very clear from this piece is that the Columbine Effect is part of our culture now and it won't be going away anytime soon. So, what should do about it? The piece has some very general suggestions but this has become a very complex problem. It's no longer as simple as "gun problem" or a "mental health problem." It's an American Culture problem that has to be addressed in a very complex way because it evolved in a complex way.
In many ways, it's become like a puzzle with some easy answers and some difficult ones which contain solutions that will be a big lift. Getting people to stop being lazy and engage young men takes a lot of energy. I know I sound cynical but I don't think most Americans have it in them. I base this on my own experience with parents so I do admit to bias. Changing our antiquated gun laws would help but, honestly, that's a small piece of the puzzle.
This has to be a cultural shift and it will obviously take a lot of time. So, where do we start?
'Columbine effect': Alarm is rising over copycats
It's a very disturbing yet accurate piece over a phenomenon that has evolved in culture since the Columbine shooting. The piece echoes many of the things I have written about on here about young men in culture. As more is revealed about LaDue, I'm sure we will see that he had most if not all of what I have been calling the magic cocktail (mental health issues, feelings of persecution and lack of attention, taking SSRIs, easy access to weapons, played violent video games, poor parental involvement, lack of community support and/or involvement).
What is very clear from this piece is that the Columbine Effect is part of our culture now and it won't be going away anytime soon. So, what should do about it? The piece has some very general suggestions but this has become a very complex problem. It's no longer as simple as "gun problem" or a "mental health problem." It's an American Culture problem that has to be addressed in a very complex way because it evolved in a complex way.
In many ways, it's become like a puzzle with some easy answers and some difficult ones which contain solutions that will be a big lift. Getting people to stop being lazy and engage young men takes a lot of energy. I know I sound cynical but I don't think most Americans have it in them. I base this on my own experience with parents so I do admit to bias. Changing our antiquated gun laws would help but, honestly, that's a small piece of the puzzle.
This has to be a cultural shift and it will obviously take a lot of time. So, where do we start?
Saturday, May 03, 2014
More Tampering With The Free Market By The Gun Cult
Man, the Gun Cult really doesn't like the free market...
Threats against Maryland gun dealer raise doubts about future of smart guns
The latest skirmish over the nation’s first smart gun, marked this week by death threats against a Maryland gun dealer who wanted to sell the weapon, has raised doubts about its future and prompted some gun-control advocates to back away from legislative efforts to mandate the technology. Engage Armament, a Rockville gun shop, endured an outpouring of vitriol from gun rights activists who fear the technology will be used to curtail their Second Amendment rights by limiting the kinds of guns they can buy in the future.
What kind of vitriol?
Somebody told one of Raymond’s workers that the store, Engage Armament, wouldn’t be selling the gun because there wouldn’t be a store — it will burn down. At another point, Raymond picked up the phone and said, “Hi, this is Andy. How can I help you?” The caller said, “You’re the guys selling the smart gun?” Raymond tried to reason with him. But the caller said, “You’re gonna get what’s coming to you (expletive).”
Cool. I guess he had to sleep in his store because he worried his private property would be damaged.
What a mentally balanced group of people...
Threats against Maryland gun dealer raise doubts about future of smart guns
The latest skirmish over the nation’s first smart gun, marked this week by death threats against a Maryland gun dealer who wanted to sell the weapon, has raised doubts about its future and prompted some gun-control advocates to back away from legislative efforts to mandate the technology. Engage Armament, a Rockville gun shop, endured an outpouring of vitriol from gun rights activists who fear the technology will be used to curtail their Second Amendment rights by limiting the kinds of guns they can buy in the future.
What kind of vitriol?
Somebody told one of Raymond’s workers that the store, Engage Armament, wouldn’t be selling the gun because there wouldn’t be a store — it will burn down. At another point, Raymond picked up the phone and said, “Hi, this is Andy. How can I help you?” The caller said, “You’re the guys selling the smart gun?” Raymond tried to reason with him. But the caller said, “You’re gonna get what’s coming to you (expletive).”
Cool. I guess he had to sleep in his store because he worried his private property would be damaged.
What a mentally balanced group of people...
Friday, May 02, 2014
Good Words (I ♥ Quora Edition)
From one of my Quora questions...
I can't speak to the conservative pundits who I don't listen to or follow, but I can say a few things about conservative forums I've trolled. The typical commenter has a very different POV, informed by an entirely different set of 'facts'. If I can make some gross generalizations about their worldview:
Well, that pretty much sums up Kevin Baker, every single one of his commenters, and the right wing blogsphere! I wonder if they will ever realize this is exactly how they are and change...
I have to admit as well that I appreciate the wider audience.
I can't speak to the conservative pundits who I don't listen to or follow, but I can say a few things about conservative forums I've trolled. The typical commenter has a very different POV, informed by an entirely different set of 'facts'. If I can make some gross generalizations about their worldview:
- the world they live in is a scary, scary place filled with monsters they are constantly being beseiged by: the federal government, lazy brown people who commit crimes and appropriate their hard earned tax dollars, liberal bureaucracy, liberal media trying to brainwash them
- the world is full of sinister conspiracies--malevolent, omniscient forces are always at work in the world and target them specifically
- they are amongst a band of surviving 'real Americans' that still uphold 'traditional values' in contrast to the sinful, frivolous, un-American populace
- news and events are local--they have little interest in international affairs or global perspectives on American issues
- America is the best, the greatest, and is exceptional in every way--that specialness is constantly being threatened from within by liberal elements who are sabotaging this ideal and trying to make the country more like the rest
- you must agree entirely with all of the stated beliefs of their conservative agenda, or you are a dangerous, free-thinking liberal--it's very binary
- if you are hold progressive positions, or don't identify with reactionary paranoid extremism, you are immediately presumed to be lazy, non-taxpaying, of dubious virtue and poorly educated.
Well, that pretty much sums up Kevin Baker, every single one of his commenters, and the right wing blogsphere! I wonder if they will ever realize this is exactly how they are and change...
I have to admit as well that I appreciate the wider audience.
Thursday, May 01, 2014
The NRA Conference=Incredibly Disturbing
As Jon Stewart notes below, this year's NRA conference was incredibly disturbing.
We've officially moved beyond the stomp down the hallway and into advocacy of armed insurrection.
But, hey, if you want to feel lighthearted about it, play a drinking game in which each time appeal to fear is used in a speech, you have to drink.
You'll be drunk in less than five minutes.
We've officially moved beyond the stomp down the hallway and into advocacy of armed insurrection.
But, hey, if you want to feel lighthearted about it, play a drinking game in which each time appeal to fear is used in a speech, you have to drink.
You'll be drunk in less than five minutes.
Cancelling The Cancelled Plan Meme
Here's an interesting study on how the whole cancelled plan meme isn't quite the boiling pit of sewage they made it out to be. Here are its main findings.
First, this market was characterized by high turnover: Only 42 percent of people with nongroup coverage at the outset of the study period retained that coverage after twelve months. Second, 80 percent of people experiencing coverage changes acquired other insurance within a year, most commonly from an employer. Third, turnover varied across groups, with stable coverage more common for whites and self-employed people than for other groups. Turnover was particularly high among adults ages 19–35, with only 21 percent of young adults retaining continuous nongroup coverage for two years. Given estimates from 2012 that 10.8 million people were covered in this market, these results suggest that 6.2 million people leave nongroup coverage annually.
What does it mean?
This suggests that the nongroup market was characterized by frequent disruptions in coverage before the ACA and that the effects of the recent cancellations are not necessarily out of the norm. These results can serve as a useful pre-ACA baseline with which to evaluate the law’s long-term impact on the stability of nongroup coverage.
The president should still be criticized for making it sound like the ACA would fix all of this but the fact is that without the ACA, if you liked your insurance, you wouldn't have gotten to keep it anyway.
First, this market was characterized by high turnover: Only 42 percent of people with nongroup coverage at the outset of the study period retained that coverage after twelve months. Second, 80 percent of people experiencing coverage changes acquired other insurance within a year, most commonly from an employer. Third, turnover varied across groups, with stable coverage more common for whites and self-employed people than for other groups. Turnover was particularly high among adults ages 19–35, with only 21 percent of young adults retaining continuous nongroup coverage for two years. Given estimates from 2012 that 10.8 million people were covered in this market, these results suggest that 6.2 million people leave nongroup coverage annually.
What does it mean?
This suggests that the nongroup market was characterized by frequent disruptions in coverage before the ACA and that the effects of the recent cancellations are not necessarily out of the norm. These results can serve as a useful pre-ACA baseline with which to evaluate the law’s long-term impact on the stability of nongroup coverage.
The president should still be criticized for making it sound like the ACA would fix all of this but the fact is that without the ACA, if you liked your insurance, you wouldn't have gotten to keep it anyway.
Wednesday, April 30, 2014
A Real Life Episode of "Fargo"
Fargo is a 1996 movie by the Coen brothers about a series of senseless murders in northern Minnesota. Fargo also a series running on the FX cable channel about a different series of senseless murders in northern Minnesota.
A real life episode of Fargo just played out in Little Falls, 30 miles south of Brainerd, where the events of both Fargos took place.
On Thanksgiving Day, 2012, Byron Smith, a former State department security specialist, shot and killed two teenagers who had broken into his home (from the Star Tribune):
After repeated break-ins to his home in the months leading up to that day, Smith had prepared his home with recording devices and himself with guns, he later told authorities. He was in his favorite basement reading chair with a paperback that day, he said, when he heard someone rattle the door handles to his house and saw a shadow through a picture window.Yesterday the 65-year-old Smith was found guilty of premeditated murder and sentenced to life in prison. It took the jury only three hours to find him guilty.
The Morrison County jury heard glass break, movement, then two shots as Brady groaned “Oh.” Smith responded with another gunshot, saying, “you’re dead.”
Almost immediately after Brady was shot, rustling of the tarp was heard, then a dragging sound, then heavy breathing. Smith had moved Brady’s body to a workshop in his basement to keep blood from staining the basement carpet, he later told authorities.
The audio continued with the sound of a gun reloading, then more deep breaths and the sound of footsteps — first getting fainter and then becoming louder again. A few minutes later, in a quiet, low voice, a female mumbled “Nick.”
Soon, there was another booming gunshot and the sound of Kifer falling down the stairs. Smith quickly said, “Oh, sorry about that.”
“Oh, my god!,” Kifer said, and screamed.
“You’re dying,” Smith responded amid more gunshots. “Bitch.”
After more heavy breathing and a dragging sound, Smith said “bitch” once more. Jurors heard more movement, and the crack of a gun.
How is this case different from the Trayvon Martin murder? Well, it was tried in Minnesota, so the murderer didn't have NRA-authored laws to hide behind. The victims were popular white kids. And Smith had carefully recorded the murders, apparently thinking it would exonerate him.
In his defense, Smith said he was deathly afraid of another break-in, because burglars had previously stolen his shotgun (and why wasn't it locked in a gun safe to prevent that?). Byron Smith was a trained security expert. Guarding facilities had been his job. It's just not credible that this kind of man was shaking in his boots, a-feared for his life. He thought these kids were vermin and he wanted their blood.
The victims were tweaked-out idiots who were so stupid they didn't even think to run away when they heard gunshots in house they're breaking into. They were addicted to prescription meds and committed several burglaries to get them (nice job, big pharma!).
But the penalty for B&E isn't death. There are hundred ways Smith could have dealt with the break-in that didn't involve killing these two nitwits. His murder plot was extremely risky. He exposed himself to a great deal of danger. Why didn't he lock the basement door and call the police when he heard the breaking glass? What if his pistol had jammed and the kids actually did have the stolen shotgun? Smith either knew they were no threat or was so bent on retribution that he didn't care.
But after shooting two teenagers with disabling wounds, Smith administered kill shots to both of them. He had planned to do this the entire time, even putting out a tarp on his basement floor to collect the blood.
Just as creepy and cold-blooded as Billy Bob Thornton's character on Fargo.
What's incredible is how many people think these murders were justified. The last time I looked, a non-scientific poll on the Star Tribune website had 41% of respondents disagreeing with the jury's verdict. Are they not familiar with exactly how blood-thirsty and deranged Smith's actions were, or do they really think you can kill people like that?
Just the other day, a Montana man set a trap with a purse as "bait" in a garage, and killed a 17-year-old exchange student from Germany, being careful to aim high with his shotgun to avoid hitting his car. Creepy...
You don't automatically lose all your rights just because you're on someone else's property, invited or not. If Smith had instead raped Haile after wounding her instead of capping her in her head, how many people would think it was justified? Exactly nobody. Why do so many people blithely accept killing her, people who almost certainly classify themselves as "pro-life?"
This is the dark place that the gun-mad NRA mindset leads to. Their constant state of paranoia turns every shadow on the street and every thump in the night into a threat that must be met with deadly force, not just to stop them, but to hunt them down and kill them like vermin.
Hey, Look! Sarah Palin Needs Some Attention
At the recent NRA gathering, Sarah Palin said "Waterboarding is how we baptize terrorists." So all conservatives need to thump their chests and holler, "Hoo-Ra!" and all liberals need to get super outraged and pay a lot of attention to her.
Ready?
Go!
Oh, and freedom died too...
Ready?
Go!
Oh, and freedom died too...
Tuesday, April 29, 2014
So Much For The Free Market
I thought conservatives were all about the free market. I guess they aren't.
Armatix said it had an agreement with the Oak Tree Gun Club, a large gun range and retailer about 20 minutes north of Los Angeles, to sell its iP1 pistol, which can be fired only after the owner enters a five-digit PIN into a watch that transmits a signal to the gun. The gun, which retails for about $1,800, disables itself if it is more than 10 inches from the watch. But once Oak Tree’s owner, James Mitchell, went public in The Washington Post saying the iP1 “could revolutionize the gun industry,” Second Amendment activists went into overdrive, flooding social media with threats to boycott the club. They took to Calguns.net, a forum for gun owners, and called for vigilante-style investigations of Ms. Padilla and Armatix.
Ms. Padilla is also receiving threats of violence as well. They simply can't allow technology like this to be available for sale to the general public. Imagine what would happen...gun SAFETY and RESPONSIBILITY. Gadzooks!
So much for allowing the free market to work itself out...
Armatix said it had an agreement with the Oak Tree Gun Club, a large gun range and retailer about 20 minutes north of Los Angeles, to sell its iP1 pistol, which can be fired only after the owner enters a five-digit PIN into a watch that transmits a signal to the gun. The gun, which retails for about $1,800, disables itself if it is more than 10 inches from the watch. But once Oak Tree’s owner, James Mitchell, went public in The Washington Post saying the iP1 “could revolutionize the gun industry,” Second Amendment activists went into overdrive, flooding social media with threats to boycott the club. They took to Calguns.net, a forum for gun owners, and called for vigilante-style investigations of Ms. Padilla and Armatix.
Ms. Padilla is also receiving threats of violence as well. They simply can't allow technology like this to be available for sale to the general public. Imagine what would happen...gun SAFETY and RESPONSIBILITY. Gadzooks!
So much for allowing the free market to work itself out...
So Much For Government Force
It really sucks that the Cliven Bundy kerfuffle has now all become about race. What it should be about is a deadbeat receiving a government handout who thinks, as a communist would ironically, that land belongs to everyone. I thought conservatives were all about property rights...
But what really perplexes me about all of this is how the government, which I have been told many, many times will come with guns and force citizens to pay taxes if they haven not, has given up for the time being. Obviously, they don't want another Waco and with all the attention on Bundy, as well as the militia guys frothing at the mouth to fire their guns, any sort of forceful action would still look bad even given how much of an asshole Bundy has shown himself to be.
I guess the government really isn't in the "force" business after all and apparently is a lot weaker than we think.
But what really perplexes me about all of this is how the government, which I have been told many, many times will come with guns and force citizens to pay taxes if they haven not, has given up for the time being. Obviously, they don't want another Waco and with all the attention on Bundy, as well as the militia guys frothing at the mouth to fire their guns, any sort of forceful action would still look bad even given how much of an asshole Bundy has shown himself to be.
I guess the government really isn't in the "force" business after all and apparently is a lot weaker than we think.
Monday, April 28, 2014
A Real Johnnycab?
That ride didn't turn out so well, but Eric Jaffe's ride in one of Google self-driving cars was a lot better.
Google has been testing its self-driving cars on California freeways for years. Now they're moving to city streets, which are orders of magnitude more complicated. That's because so many things share regular streets: bicycles, pedestrians, jaywalkers, delivery trucks backing up, garbage trucks stopping suddenly, buses constantly weaving in and out of traffic, right-turn-on-red, cats, dogs, walk signals, crossing guards, potholes, patches of ice, red-light runners and left-turn-lane jumpers -- it's crazy out there.
Jaffe's story is highly complimentary to Google's system, even though the first rule of self-driving cars is to not compliment the self-driving car. However, the test driver had to intervene twice during the ride: once when some traffic cones appeared on the road and the computer stupidly couldn't figure out what to do, and again when a truck appeared out of nowhere and the computer didn't appear to respond to the impending collision fast enough (though the Google team said later that the machine would have stopped in plenty of time). Jaffe was favorably impressed. It is an impressive system.
But I'm much more skeptical about the practicality. One of the most difficult problems in artificial intelligence has been computer vision. Though the software is getting better at recognizing its surroundings, Google's system is completely dependent on extremely intricate maps and GPS. (Though, truth be told, a lot of people are now equally helpless without their GPSs.)
But what happens when conditions on the road don't match the map (say, because of road construction or an accident), or when the computer can't get a GPS signal? The machine is highly dependent on a laser array on the car's roof to make a 3D map of its surroundings. Does that laser system work in rain, in fog, or snow? Can the machine see brake lights through the windows of the car ahead and know that means traffic is stopping?
The article mentions that they're working on getting the software to recognize people standing behind poles. Working with incomplete data is something that humans are good at; if I see the bottom of the rim of a bicycle tire under a truck I know there's a biker up ahead. Can Google's hardware recognize those kinds of details, and can their programmers code that kind of knowledge into the software? On the other hand, if the car perceives everything as a potentially deadly situation, it will never go anywhere.
One of the arguments for self-driving cars is that they should be better at obeying traffic laws: they should obey the speed limit and yield the right of way (as long as they can reliably detect other cars). The software shouldn't get impatient and pull into a lane of fast-moving traffic from a parking spot.
But the technical aspects are probably the least of Google's problems in making self-driving cars a reality. I predict that legal and liability issues will be the biggest stumbling block. If a self-driving car runs down a child chasing a ball into the street, whose fault is it?
One could argue that a cautious driver, seeing children playing next to a street, would slow down to 5 mph and shift out of the right-most lane, and on a narrow street perhaps even move into the oncoming traffic lane to ensure that there would be enough time to avoid any darting children.
What if Google's algorithm doesn't include that specific scenario? Were the programmers negligent? Could the car company and Google be sued for the child's death, and could the programmers be held criminally and financially liable for this oversight? And if the self-driving car was programmed perfectly to follow all the laws and take all the precautions, would there be any humans who would want to be chauffeurred by such a slow and timid vehicle?
Jaffe says that 90% of car accidents are due to human error. Self-driving cars, the argument goes, will eliminate human error and make the roads much safer. Except that's completely false. Humans will write the software and build the hardware that control the car. Yes, those humans will take a lot of time and do a lot of testing to make that software and hardware as reliable as possible. But, as we know from all the bugs we find in the software in our computers and mobile phones and cars and microwave ovens, that human-designed software and hardware is far from perfect. Will that software be open-source, available for everyone to examine?
To make it worse, these cars will almost certainly have black boxes that will record every piece of data recording during the trip, allowing the entire country to second-guess every traffic accident these cars are involved with. Let's say a baseball rolled out from between two parked cars. Any decent driver would immediately slam on the breaks, assuming a child would be chasing it. Will Google's software do the same? If it doesn't, and a child is run down by a car that doesn't know what a baseball is, what kind of liability will Google and the car company have?
Of course, people make these kinds of driving errors and kill themselves and others all the time (at a rate of 33,000 each year). At this point the car companies (and Google) can just shrug and say, "human error."
In fact, the biggest legal protection that car manufacturers have is that 90% human error rate: they can almost always blame accidents on the driver. But when we have self-driving cars, these companies will be legally exposed to everything that happens on the road.
Airplanes have autopilot systems, but they're typically used in very controlled circumstances, in clear skies when the aircraft is at cruising altitude. Autopilots can land and take off, but typically human pilots are in control at critical junctures. But even in those cases, airports are tightly run by air traffic controllers. Planes have several pairs of eyes watching them at all times. Google is proposing that no one will be watching any of the cars on the road, except some hardware and software.
Admittedly, driving on a freeway is a lot like flying an aircraft on autopilot in open skies. I can see how Google's system could be made to work on a sunny freeway with light traffic. City streets, however, are completely different. At any point something totally random can happen. Such streets are far more unpredictable than an airport runway, and there's no air traffic controller monitoring all the comings and goings.
I can see technically how Google's system could be made to work. I would even grant that it could be made to work if only cars were on the street, because most car-on-car collisions at city-street speeds are very survivable with the seat belts and air bags found in today's cars. It would be even safer if the vehicles were operated in their own zones, say on monorail tracks suspended above the streets.
But when you have a mix of cars, pedestrians, children, bicycles, buses, and massive trucks on surface streets, I find it hard to believe that any company's lawyers would allow them to relinquish the "human error" they can now blame for almost all car accidents. Everything will be the company's fault, even accidents caused by weather, because the car should have "known" it was going too fast for the conditions.
I'm not sure if Google's programmers realize it, but people are going to want the software to incorporate Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics. They're going to expect these robot cars to make moral and ethical judgments about what to do in an emergency. Suppose your car is tooling down the road, and an old man steps right in front of your car. There's barely enough time to swerve, but on the right is a sidewalk restaurant packed with bearded hipsters drinking lattes, and on the left is a school bus filled with adorable children into which you would run into head-on.
How will the car decide who will live and who will die? Run down the geezer because he has the fewest years left (and based on his ratty clothing is least likely to have a good lawyer)? Front-end the bus, assuming that its greater mass will protect the children and the car's airbag will miraculously save you? Or plow through the restaurant, because, well, bearded hipsters drinking lattes.
I'm afraid Google's vision of Johnnycabs ferrying us around the city is going to be crushed by those meanies in Legal.
Photo #1=Bad, Photo #2=Good
Remember this photo?
This was the "evidence" the Right trotted out in 2008 that the New Black Panthers were bad guys engaged in voter intimidation. So, BAD, right?
Yet the photo below, taken at Cliven Bundy's ranch, which shows one of the militia guys ready to shoot someone is GOOD.
So, just to recap...Photo #1=BAD....Photo #2=GOOD. Got it.
Oh, and no racism. That's over in 'merica.
This was the "evidence" the Right trotted out in 2008 that the New Black Panthers were bad guys engaged in voter intimidation. So, BAD, right?
Yet the photo below, taken at Cliven Bundy's ranch, which shows one of the militia guys ready to shoot someone is GOOD.
So, just to recap...Photo #1=BAD....Photo #2=GOOD. Got it.
Oh, and no racism. That's over in 'merica.
Who Is Ben Carson?
Politico has a piece up about Dr. Ben Carson, the latest conservative darling who is fast becoming as revered as Thomas Sowell inside the bubble. I'm always amused when the Right flocks to people like this.
In October, Carson made headlines again when he said that the Affordable Care Act’s framework of mandates, insurance exchanges and federal subsidies amounted to “the worst thing that has happened in this nation since slavery.” He meant the comparison literally. “It is slavery in a way,” Carson, who is African American, went on, “because it is making all of us subservient to the government, and it was never about health care. It was about control.”
First of all, who gives a shit if he is black? He's still a moron. Buying regulated private insurance is the same thing as human bondage? Really?
I don't see the GOP learning anything from 2012 which means the Democrats are going to keep winning elections.
In October, Carson made headlines again when he said that the Affordable Care Act’s framework of mandates, insurance exchanges and federal subsidies amounted to “the worst thing that has happened in this nation since slavery.” He meant the comparison literally. “It is slavery in a way,” Carson, who is African American, went on, “because it is making all of us subservient to the government, and it was never about health care. It was about control.”
First of all, who gives a shit if he is black? He's still a moron. Buying regulated private insurance is the same thing as human bondage? Really?
I don't see the GOP learning anything from 2012 which means the Democrats are going to keep winning elections.
Sunday, April 27, 2014
Here We Go Again...
First Nevada rancher and federal government denier Cliven Bundy declaims what he "knows" about "the Negro." Now Donald Sterling, a rich guy who owns a basketball team, tells his girlfriend not to show up with black guys at his games, or post photos of her with Magic Johnson (Magic Johnson!) on the Internet.
How can anyone possibly claim that we are "over" racism in this country?
In an interview with the San Jose Mercury News Clippers center Jermaine O'Neal said:
"It's just strange that he would say those things and feel that way when you have a team that is predominantly African-American, a coach who's African-American, a staff that's African-American, basically."No, it's not strange at all if this Sterling guy thinks he owns the black guys on his team. Like the slave owners of old, he doesn't appear to have problems with blacks working for him, picking his cotton, and toting his bales. He says he doesn't even mind if they service his girlfriend:
"It bothers me a lot that you want to broadcast that you’re associating with black people," he is heard saying. "Do you have to?"
Stiviano says that all she did was take a picture with someone she admires. "I think the fact that you admire [Magic] -- I've known him well, and he should be admired," Sterling replies. "And I'm just saying that it's too bad you can't admire him privately. And during your ENTIRE FUCKING LIFE, your whole life, admire him -- bring him here, feed him, fuck him, I don't care. You can do anything. But don't put him on an Instagram for the world to see so they have to call me. And don't bring him to my games. OK?"To be fair, I suppose any man would hate getting phone calls when his girlfriend posts pictures of her with a guy people assume she's cheating with. But Sterling goes out of his way to mention that it bothers him she's associating with black people. Would he care if she posted pictures of herself with Larry Bird?
The thing is, I am perfectly willing to believe that Sterling has tried his entire life to get over this kind of racism. I'm sure he says (and believes) he's not a racist, citing as proof the fact that he works closely with blacks, hires blacks, gives blacks positions of responsibility in his organization, has a girlfriend who's part African American, and so on.
But this episode shows again what I've long maintained: most of us are just recovering racists. Saying "I'm not a racist" is, for way too many people, simply not true. It's more accurate to say, "I don't want to be racist, but my dad was and some of it rubbed off on me," or "I have racist impulses but do everything in my power to ignore them. I'm only human."
Many whites believe that racism is what Hitler and his followers preached against the Jews, or what the Ku Klux Klan was doing when they lynched blacks. That's not racism, that's genocide and murder motivated by racism. Real racism is much more subtle.
Racism, and sexism, and homophobia, creep into decisions about who your friends are, who executives promote, who store owners watch on surveillance cameras, who cops frisk on the street.
Racism is a normal human impulse: we tend to distrust the unfamiliar. We are pattern-recognizing creatures, and we immediately form opinions about groups based on what our parents and friends (members of our "tribe") say about those groups, or on observations of one or two individuals from another "tribe." This stood us in good stead when we were cavemen fighting with other tribes over basic resources needed to survive.
But that time is long gone. We will not starve or even be inconvenienced in the slightest if we give a few paltry foodstamps to underprivileged black and Latino families.
But why do so many Americans begrudge a few hundred bucks a month for the poor, and just shrug when multimillionaires like Donald Sterling get billions in tax breaks?
A Curious Find
I had this link in my religion "to post" file and have no idea why. Perhaps it had something to do with people thinking that Paul is near to the same level as Jesus. A curious read nonetheless, especially the last line...
Considering how the quote in all its variants has been used primarily to ridicule the backwardness of unnamed Christians (a farmer, a pious deacon, and so forth) wary of new approaches to the Bible, I highly doubt Ma Ferguson ever said it — or if she did, she probably would have said it in self-effacing jest. My guess is that this was a free-floating bit of preacher humor that unfairly got attached to Ma Ferguson, much as Winston Churchill attracts various apocryphal witticisms.
Considering how the quote in all its variants has been used primarily to ridicule the backwardness of unnamed Christians (a farmer, a pious deacon, and so forth) wary of new approaches to the Bible, I highly doubt Ma Ferguson ever said it — or if she did, she probably would have said it in self-effacing jest. My guess is that this was a free-floating bit of preacher humor that unfairly got attached to Ma Ferguson, much as Winston Churchill attracts various apocryphal witticisms.
Saturday, April 26, 2014
I'm On Quora
Thanks to Kevin Baker, I have discovered the wonder and greatness that is Quora. Here is my page if any readers are interested. Thus far, I have enjoyed all the comments and discussions my questions have generated. They are a great mix of a variety of points of view. My only gripe is that you really have to spend time to drill down and see all the comments that each comment and/or question generates. There is a lot of threading that goes off on multiple tangents and it can be hard to keep track.
Of course, it's also nice to see the right wing blog mentality challenged so regularly and effectively. Not surprisingly, facts, logic, evidence and reason just bounce off the bubble. I encourage my five regular conservative commenters to join in and see how they fare against a much a larger group of people than is found here:)
Of course, it's also nice to see the right wing blog mentality challenged so regularly and effectively. Not surprisingly, facts, logic, evidence and reason just bounce off the bubble. I encourage my five regular conservative commenters to join in and see how they fare against a much a larger group of people than is found here:)
Gun Making Up For Small Penis In Georgia
Looks like the new Georgia gun law is working out about like I expected...
Parents at a Forysth County park abruptly stopped a children's baseball game after growing suspicions of the behavior of a man carrying a gun in a waist holster Tuesday night. "He's just walking around [saying] 'See my gun? Look, I got a gun and there's nothing you can do about it.' He knew he was frightening people. He knew exactly what he was doing," said parent Karen Rabb.
Park users flooded 911 with 22 calls about the man. Forysth County deputies questioned the man, and found that he had a permit for the handgun. Authorities said since the man made no verbal threats or gestures, they could neither arrest him nor ask him to leave the park. Another parent questioned what point the man was trying to prove.
"Why would anyone be walking around a public park, with a lot of children and parents and people here playing baseball, and he's walking around with a gun?"
Uh, because they are fucking insecure assholes who have control issues? Just a wild guess:)
Parents at a Forysth County park abruptly stopped a children's baseball game after growing suspicions of the behavior of a man carrying a gun in a waist holster Tuesday night. "He's just walking around [saying] 'See my gun? Look, I got a gun and there's nothing you can do about it.' He knew he was frightening people. He knew exactly what he was doing," said parent Karen Rabb.
Park users flooded 911 with 22 calls about the man. Forysth County deputies questioned the man, and found that he had a permit for the handgun. Authorities said since the man made no verbal threats or gestures, they could neither arrest him nor ask him to leave the park. Another parent questioned what point the man was trying to prove.
"Why would anyone be walking around a public park, with a lot of children and parents and people here playing baseball, and he's walking around with a gun?"
Uh, because they are fucking insecure assholes who have control issues? Just a wild guess:)
"I'm Not a Racist"
After getting caught saying racist things, Cliven Bundy had to go and say it in an interview on CNN:
It's amazing how frequently racists say, "I'm not a racist." Of course, they don't think they're racist because they don't understand what racism is. They make judgments about an individual based on the color of the person's skin or ethnicity or sexual orientation, or other factors that are completely out of the individual's control. They can't understand why everyone doesn't see the world exactly the same way they because it's so obvious to them, especially when they see black folks sitting on the porch. White people never sit on the porch. I mean, what are are porches made for, after all?
As with alcoholism, the first step in dealing with your racism problem is to admit that you have it. Of course Cliven Bundy is a racist. Most people are, to some degree. Racists are the first to see racism in other people. They're constantly complaining that it's blacks who are the real racists. But somehow they are completely blind to their own racism, because they don't perceive it as racism: they think their prejudices are how the world really is. They just know that all blacks are lazy, all Jews are money grubbers, all Arabs are violent terrorists, and on and on.
I'll be the first to admit to having my own prejudices, racial and otherwise, but I recognize them and try not to let them influence my judgment. I try to see every person as an individual and not an "other" indistinguishable from every "other" who has the same skin color or accent. If you don't realize that you have these prejudices, you'll never know when you're succumbing to them.
Racists and bigots frequently complain that liberals or blacks or gays are themselves bigoted and intolerant when they denounce homophobic and racist speech, or conservative attempts to enforce religious dictates on everyone, or political activities that undermine the rights of others (like when the CEO of Mozilla was ousted when it was revealed he donated to Prop 8 in California). Yes, you are free to speak your mind in this country; the rest of us are equally free to tell you to shut your racist homophobic yap. There are social consequences for being a jerk; dressing it up as your religion or god-given right of free speech doesn't make it any less offensive.
But there's a major difference here: reacting to the speech and behavior of specific individuals is not the same as choosing to offend others with racism and bigotry aimed at entire groups of people who have no choice about being a member of that group. Racists and bigots are offended by the very existence of minority groups and are often not shy about saying it because they just know they're right.
Being a member of a wacko church or the Tea Party or a communist is a choice. Being black is not. Though it's still slightly controversial, it's now completely obvious that being gay is also not a choice.
So, railing against neolithic conservatives or idiot liberals or stupid Catholic cardinals or shrill NAACP members or Wahabi Muslims is fine, because those people choose to be those things, though lumping all people who voluntarily belong to the same group is still a little short-sighted.
But pontificating about what you know about "the Negro" is racist, plain and simple. Just take your lumps, Cliven, and shut your yap.
Oh. And don't forget to pay your grazing fees, like all the other ranchers.
Chris Cuomo: Are you a racist?
Cliven Bundy: No, I'm not a racist. But I did wonder that. Let me tell you something. I thought about this this morning quite a bit.It's like Richard Nixon proclaiming, "I am not a crook. I thought about this morning quite a bit, and even asked my attorney general and co-conspirator about it, and we decided that I'm not a crook."
It's amazing how frequently racists say, "I'm not a racist." Of course, they don't think they're racist because they don't understand what racism is. They make judgments about an individual based on the color of the person's skin or ethnicity or sexual orientation, or other factors that are completely out of the individual's control. They can't understand why everyone doesn't see the world exactly the same way they because it's so obvious to them, especially when they see black folks sitting on the porch. White people never sit on the porch. I mean, what are are porches made for, after all?
As with alcoholism, the first step in dealing with your racism problem is to admit that you have it. Of course Cliven Bundy is a racist. Most people are, to some degree. Racists are the first to see racism in other people. They're constantly complaining that it's blacks who are the real racists. But somehow they are completely blind to their own racism, because they don't perceive it as racism: they think their prejudices are how the world really is. They just know that all blacks are lazy, all Jews are money grubbers, all Arabs are violent terrorists, and on and on.
I'll be the first to admit to having my own prejudices, racial and otherwise, but I recognize them and try not to let them influence my judgment. I try to see every person as an individual and not an "other" indistinguishable from every "other" who has the same skin color or accent. If you don't realize that you have these prejudices, you'll never know when you're succumbing to them.
Racists and bigots frequently complain that liberals or blacks or gays are themselves bigoted and intolerant when they denounce homophobic and racist speech, or conservative attempts to enforce religious dictates on everyone, or political activities that undermine the rights of others (like when the CEO of Mozilla was ousted when it was revealed he donated to Prop 8 in California). Yes, you are free to speak your mind in this country; the rest of us are equally free to tell you to shut your racist homophobic yap. There are social consequences for being a jerk; dressing it up as your religion or god-given right of free speech doesn't make it any less offensive.
But there's a major difference here: reacting to the speech and behavior of specific individuals is not the same as choosing to offend others with racism and bigotry aimed at entire groups of people who have no choice about being a member of that group. Racists and bigots are offended by the very existence of minority groups and are often not shy about saying it because they just know they're right.
Being a member of a wacko church or the Tea Party or a communist is a choice. Being black is not. Though it's still slightly controversial, it's now completely obvious that being gay is also not a choice.
So, railing against neolithic conservatives or idiot liberals or stupid Catholic cardinals or shrill NAACP members or Wahabi Muslims is fine, because those people choose to be those things, though lumping all people who voluntarily belong to the same group is still a little short-sighted.
But pontificating about what you know about "the Negro" is racist, plain and simple. Just take your lumps, Cliven, and shut your yap.
Oh. And don't forget to pay your grazing fees, like all the other ranchers.
How Much Should We Spend on the Illusion of Safety?
Since 9/11 we've spent a trillion dollars on homeland security. We make everyone take off their shoes and buy special three ounce bottles of shampoo to get through airport security, where people wait hours at the checkpoints. Yet a Somali teenager can just hop a fence, hide in the wheel well of a jet plane and fly to Hawaii.
Apparently, it is trivial to walk on to the tarmac and plant a bomb on a plane's landing gear. Apparently, anyone can walk up to a chemical tank, punch a whole in it and poison a river (check it out on Google Earth). Apparently, anyone can put an obstacle on a train track, cause a derailment and a major fire. Apparently, anyone can walk into a fertilizer plant, start a fire and destroy several city blocks. Apparently, anyone can buy a gun, go to a school and shoot dozens of kids. Apparently, anyone can intentionally wipe out on a freeway during a snowstorm and hurt dozens of people.
These incidents weren't acts of terrorism, per se. But all of them could be. There's an infinite number of ways to cause deadly mayhem. We spend billions trying to prevent terrorists from repeating the same old tricks on airplanes, while totally ignoring equally deadly threats that we know exist but have completely ignored because terrorists haven't tried them yet.
Is all this homeland security stuff just a CYA exercise for government officials and a trillion dollar payout to the security industrial complex for a false sense of safety? Are we just pasting a happy face over an insoluble, intractable problem and pretending we're actually able to do something about it?
Or is the threat of terrorism really that much less than the security industrial complex wants us to think?
Apparently, it is trivial to walk on to the tarmac and plant a bomb on a plane's landing gear. Apparently, anyone can walk up to a chemical tank, punch a whole in it and poison a river (check it out on Google Earth). Apparently, anyone can put an obstacle on a train track, cause a derailment and a major fire. Apparently, anyone can walk into a fertilizer plant, start a fire and destroy several city blocks. Apparently, anyone can buy a gun, go to a school and shoot dozens of kids. Apparently, anyone can intentionally wipe out on a freeway during a snowstorm and hurt dozens of people.
These incidents weren't acts of terrorism, per se. But all of them could be. There's an infinite number of ways to cause deadly mayhem. We spend billions trying to prevent terrorists from repeating the same old tricks on airplanes, while totally ignoring equally deadly threats that we know exist but have completely ignored because terrorists haven't tried them yet.
Is all this homeland security stuff just a CYA exercise for government officials and a trillion dollar payout to the security industrial complex for a false sense of safety? Are we just pasting a happy face over an insoluble, intractable problem and pretending we're actually able to do something about it?
Or is the threat of terrorism really that much less than the security industrial complex wants us to think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)