President Barack Obama is the first president since Dwight David Eisenhower to win 51 percent of the popular vote...twice!
Final tally?
65.9 million votes -51.1% of the vote for the president
60.9 million votes-47.2% of the vote for Mitt Romney
The response from the Right?
He bribed them with gifts!
He stole votes!
The polls were skewed!
He's a socialist!
He's a gun grabber!
He wasn't born here!
He was trained in a madrassa!
(all of which really worked out well for them didn't it?)
Thursday, January 03, 2013
Seeing the End?
I've been trying to figure out exactly WTF the House Republicans have been thinking these last few days and I got nothing. I like John Boehner and, in many ways, actually feel sorry for him. He has to deal with around 75 adolescent males every day (enough to make any parent or teacher cry!) in his caucus so cutting him some slack seems like the right thing to do.
But this latest game with the aid for Hurricane Sandy victims shows just how fucked up the Right is these days. They are run by a group of people who see any sort of government spending (except defense) as the equivalent of raping children. I guess the general welfare clause also does not apply to people whose homes were lost to natural disaster. Why should we have to pay for their loss? They just need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, stop spooning off the government, and get to work, by gum!
Boehner finally gave in after New Jersey Governor Chris Christie unleashed holy hell and a vote in the House will now be scheduled on Friday. Honestly, though, this is a larger issue that we are going to see play out in the coming months and it really only has one conclusion: more Democratic victories and a likely retaking of the House in 2014.
In what has to be the finest example of "Doing it again, only harder," GOP leaders have already indicated that they are going to play chicken with the debt ceiling again. It worked so well last time so why not try it again? With all the good economic news (more on that tomorrow), it makes perfect sense to try to ruin any chances of improvement. After all, they have been rooting for America to fail since the president took office in their never ending quest to not be proven wrong and win the argument. Who gives a shit if the economy continues to sputter?
The Right has also indicated that, in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook tragedy, that: a) more people being armed is the answer (see: 1984, George Orwell) and b) we can't really do anything anyway because we are free and freedom means impotence. So, a far right stance on guns will be taken with no possibility for even a reasonable discussion or alternative solutions, We are talking about a choice between our freedom or burning in hell under a totalitarian regime. The stakes have never been higher, folks!!
Even with immigration, the Right remains steadfast. They don't have time for the details. It's "Fuck you, get out!" They don't seem to mind that, if they continue down this path, possibly in 2016 (2020 is more likely), Texas will turn blue and the Republican Party as we know it will have gone the way of the Whigs.
I think the head of the conservative organization Club For Growth, Chris Chocola, summed up the thinking on the Right (and the "voices in my head") when he said, of the debt, "The numbers-at some point it's got to catch up or else we are all going to die." Look out, folks! We have to stop government before they inflict any more evil on the world!!! AHHHH!!!!
I guess the Right didn't learn anything from the election last November and their possible end is becoming more and more clearer every day. Politically, that's great for me but my concern is how many Americans they are going to drag down with them in their teenage male stomp down the hallway.
But this latest game with the aid for Hurricane Sandy victims shows just how fucked up the Right is these days. They are run by a group of people who see any sort of government spending (except defense) as the equivalent of raping children. I guess the general welfare clause also does not apply to people whose homes were lost to natural disaster. Why should we have to pay for their loss? They just need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, stop spooning off the government, and get to work, by gum!
Boehner finally gave in after New Jersey Governor Chris Christie unleashed holy hell and a vote in the House will now be scheduled on Friday. Honestly, though, this is a larger issue that we are going to see play out in the coming months and it really only has one conclusion: more Democratic victories and a likely retaking of the House in 2014.
In what has to be the finest example of "Doing it again, only harder," GOP leaders have already indicated that they are going to play chicken with the debt ceiling again. It worked so well last time so why not try it again? With all the good economic news (more on that tomorrow), it makes perfect sense to try to ruin any chances of improvement. After all, they have been rooting for America to fail since the president took office in their never ending quest to not be proven wrong and win the argument. Who gives a shit if the economy continues to sputter?
The Right has also indicated that, in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook tragedy, that: a) more people being armed is the answer (see: 1984, George Orwell) and b) we can't really do anything anyway because we are free and freedom means impotence. So, a far right stance on guns will be taken with no possibility for even a reasonable discussion or alternative solutions, We are talking about a choice between our freedom or burning in hell under a totalitarian regime. The stakes have never been higher, folks!!
Even with immigration, the Right remains steadfast. They don't have time for the details. It's "Fuck you, get out!" They don't seem to mind that, if they continue down this path, possibly in 2016 (2020 is more likely), Texas will turn blue and the Republican Party as we know it will have gone the way of the Whigs.
I think the head of the conservative organization Club For Growth, Chris Chocola, summed up the thinking on the Right (and the "voices in my head") when he said, of the debt, "The numbers-at some point it's got to catch up or else we are all going to die." Look out, folks! We have to stop government before they inflict any more evil on the world!!! AHHHH!!!!
I guess the Right didn't learn anything from the election last November and their possible end is becoming more and more clearer every day. Politically, that's great for me but my concern is how many Americans they are going to drag down with them in their teenage male stomp down the hallway.
Wednesday, January 02, 2013
In Less Than Seven Minutes
It only took Rhode Island teacher Steven Round less than seven minutes to sum up perfectly many of the things that are wrong with our education system today. Sadly, there are far too many school districts that are like this. Thankfully, both mine and my children's district are not.
His points below illustrate several things. First, trying to have a one size fits all approach to teaching children is an epic fail. If districts are going to chuck Carol Ann Tomlinson by the roadside these days, children are going to lose. Second, we are creating a nation of test takers, not learners and students with enduring understandings. As Mr. Round says in this video, they have no clue what the real world is like. Third, this lack of real world experience is compounded further by budget cuts which means no field trips. Far too many districts suffer these consequences.
This, of course leads to a larger problem which is a decided lack of socialization time for many schoolchildren of all ages. Having a conversation with fellow students on a regular basis is a very key element to development. Without it, another avenue of real world experience is lost.
Given how so many school districts operate like this one (see: mini-fiefdoms) I fear that Mr. Round is only the first of many abrupt departures.
His points below illustrate several things. First, trying to have a one size fits all approach to teaching children is an epic fail. If districts are going to chuck Carol Ann Tomlinson by the roadside these days, children are going to lose. Second, we are creating a nation of test takers, not learners and students with enduring understandings. As Mr. Round says in this video, they have no clue what the real world is like. Third, this lack of real world experience is compounded further by budget cuts which means no field trips. Far too many districts suffer these consequences.
This, of course leads to a larger problem which is a decided lack of socialization time for many schoolchildren of all ages. Having a conversation with fellow students on a regular basis is a very key element to development. Without it, another avenue of real world experience is lost.
Given how so many school districts operate like this one (see: mini-fiefdoms) I fear that Mr. Round is only the first of many abrupt departures.
All Calories are Not Created Equal
A study in the Journal of the American Medical Association reports that the brain reacts differently to fructose than it does to glucose (via USA Today):
For the study, scientists used magnetic resonance imaging, or MRI, scans to track blood flow in the brain in 20 young, normal-weight people before and after they had drinks containing glucose or fructose in two sessions several weeks apart.That means the two sugars have different biological effects on the body. Even though they may contain the same number of calories, someone consuming products made with high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) instead of glucose (regular sugar) may wind up eating more and gaining more weight.
Scans showed that drinking glucose "turns off or suppresses the activity of areas of the brain that are critical for reward and desire for food," said one study leader, Yale University endocrinologist Robert Sherwin. With fructose, "we don't see those changes," he said. "As a result, the desire to eat continues — it isn't turned off."
This is not the first such finding. Many studies have found that artificial sweeteners also fail to trip the satiety switch. That means nearly all soft drinks, even diet sodas that contain zero calories, may contribute to weight gain by failing to trip the mechanisms that tell us to stop feeding our faces.
But fructose is the sugar that's in fruit. Does that mean fruit's bad for you? No.
An apple has 116 calories, 31 grams of carbohydrates, 5 grams of fiber (20% of your daily recommended value), vitamin C and trace amounts of vitamin A, iron and calcium. A 12-ounce Coke has 140 calories, 39 grams of carbohydrates, 50 mg sodium and phosphoric acid, which is linked to bone loss. The apple provides nutritional value, which Coke does not, as well as fiber that provides a satiety mechanism.
According to a Gallup poll from last year, the average person who drinks soda consumes 2.6 glasses a day (48% of Americans said they consumed soda, and 7% said they drank four or more glasses per day). It's hard to find anyone who eats 2.6 apples a day, even though doctors tell us we should eat five to thirteen servings of fruits and vegetables daily. The average American eats just three total servings of fruits and vegetables.
Last year everyone went ballistic when New York banned sugared soft drink sizes greater than 16 ounces. I've always been baffled that anyone could down 16 ounces of soda at a sitting, much less 20 or 32. But these scientific findings, if duplicated, may indicate a tangible reason: people don't feel sated when they drink HFCS- and aspartame-sweetened beverages, so they drink and eat more.
Maybe we haven't become gluttons because we're weak-willed: maybe it's the biochemistry of the highly-engineered stuff coming out of food industry labs. HFCS is in everything, from chips to cereal to soda to ice cream to Sarah Lee cakes. Which makes you wonder: is the food and beverage industry aware of this effect? Are they engineering products to make us eat more, the way cigarette companies intentionally engineered their products to make them more addictive? HFCS was originally used because it was cheaper due to sugar import restrictions, but is there a darker reason for using it?
The food industry has been trying to rehabilitate HFCS's image for years. They lobbied the FDA to call it "corn sugar" to get away from its bad rep, an initiative that was ultimately denied. The industry's attempt at subterfuge, reminiscent of the tobacco industry, calls into question their motives.
This debate recalls the revolt against New Coke when it came out in 1985: everyone hated it. Some people went to Mexico to get Old Coke, which was still made with cane sugar. After three months Coke relented and introduced Classic Coke. But it wasn't quite the same: it was made with HFCS instead of cane sugar. Was Classic Coke just a Trojan horse for HFCS?
On the plus side, the study's findings suggest an alternative that we may actually enjoy. Instead of drinking gallons of "diet" or high-fructose soda, perhaps we would eat fewer calories overall if we indulged in one glass of truly classic Coke made with cane sugar, or one rich, dark chocolate bar made with real sugar, or one ice cream cone made with real cream and real sugar. And who can eat anything more after two bites of real cheesecake?
Tuesday, January 01, 2013
Resolutions
In many ways, 2012 was a great year for this site. Blogger has made it very simple to bring in widgets and links to allow for more connectivity to outside resources and related sites. We saw more page views and comments than ever before in our seven year history. We also have a core following of about 200 readers and that suits me just fine. I've always wanted to be the digital equivalent of a small town newspaper and now it is safe to say that we fit that description perfectly. And it's been great to have a fellow contributor to take the daily load of posts off...thanks Nikto!
This does not mean, however, that we should rest on our laurels here at Markadelphia. I've been thinking that this site needs some changes, content wise, and so I've come up with a few resolutions for 2013.
1. More World News.
Last in line has quietly chided me over the past few months about how this site used to be more focused on international events. Well, he's right. Those topics have fallen by the wayside and it's time to bring them back (especially now that the election is over). At least once a week (and likely more than that), there will be a post commenting on world news. Will it be the latest on the strife in the Central African Republic? Or how about China's PMI forecast? Who knows? Whatever strikes my fancy, I guess, but it's going to be regular occurrence that will likely be a welcome break from political talk. Speaking of which...
2. Pop Culture.
Most of the readers of this site don't know that I am a massive fan of pop culture...music and film, in particular. In addition to the weekly world news post, there will be one that comments on pop culture. I do one at the end of the year but there just has to be more. My passion for this is simply too great to ignore it further and, again, talking about politics all the time can get rather tedious. I will probably throw in some sports posts here and there as well.
3. Education.
I have far too few posts about education which is odd considering that I am teacher. Part of the reason for this was to keep a degree of privacy in my life. Yet, I find that there are some experiences in my classrooms that I should write about and as long as they are done in the broader context of the issues facing education, I think I can maintain that public/private balance. So, expect more posts about the state of education in our country and the world (starting tomorrow with a video sent to me by last in line...him again!). These will likely have a more personal tone as well.
4. Science
Many of you may not know this but Nikto is a classically trained scientist. He's thrown out a few posts here and there with different scientific themes which have given me the idea to make this a more regular occurrence. Expect more posts that focus on innovation and science in the world today. Yes, that's right, Nikto, I'm volunteering you:)
These four resolutions can be summed up simply by noting that there is going to be more of a mix of content with less politics. That doesn't mean that my quest to destroy the right wing bubble is at an end. Far from it! I just feel the need to stretch myself out more with some different content which makes me look forward to 2013 with a large amount of gusto and zeal!
This does not mean, however, that we should rest on our laurels here at Markadelphia. I've been thinking that this site needs some changes, content wise, and so I've come up with a few resolutions for 2013.
1. More World News.
Last in line has quietly chided me over the past few months about how this site used to be more focused on international events. Well, he's right. Those topics have fallen by the wayside and it's time to bring them back (especially now that the election is over). At least once a week (and likely more than that), there will be a post commenting on world news. Will it be the latest on the strife in the Central African Republic? Or how about China's PMI forecast? Who knows? Whatever strikes my fancy, I guess, but it's going to be regular occurrence that will likely be a welcome break from political talk. Speaking of which...
2. Pop Culture.
Most of the readers of this site don't know that I am a massive fan of pop culture...music and film, in particular. In addition to the weekly world news post, there will be one that comments on pop culture. I do one at the end of the year but there just has to be more. My passion for this is simply too great to ignore it further and, again, talking about politics all the time can get rather tedious. I will probably throw in some sports posts here and there as well.
3. Education.
I have far too few posts about education which is odd considering that I am teacher. Part of the reason for this was to keep a degree of privacy in my life. Yet, I find that there are some experiences in my classrooms that I should write about and as long as they are done in the broader context of the issues facing education, I think I can maintain that public/private balance. So, expect more posts about the state of education in our country and the world (starting tomorrow with a video sent to me by last in line...him again!). These will likely have a more personal tone as well.
4. Science
Many of you may not know this but Nikto is a classically trained scientist. He's thrown out a few posts here and there with different scientific themes which have given me the idea to make this a more regular occurrence. Expect more posts that focus on innovation and science in the world today. Yes, that's right, Nikto, I'm volunteering you:)
These four resolutions can be summed up simply by noting that there is going to be more of a mix of content with less politics. That doesn't mean that my quest to destroy the right wing bubble is at an end. Far from it! I just feel the need to stretch myself out more with some different content which makes me look forward to 2013 with a large amount of gusto and zeal!
Monday, December 31, 2012
Best Album, Best Track of 2012
The Best Album of 2012 is Paul Weller's Sonik Kicks. I make no bones about being a Brit Rock obsessive but this record goes far beyond that. With his latest release, Weller continues to explore a multitude of musical styles ranging from Kraut Rock to Chill Out Trance Dubs. There are several nods to his old, Mod days in the Jam as well as acoustic pastorals that would go along wonderfully with a Monet painting.
The track of the year is from this album. "A Study In Blue," featuring his wife, Hannah, is a beautiful, haunting and trippy piece of music that has pretty much been the soundtrack to my year. Check it out and play it loud as you head this evening for NYE festivities!
The track of the year is from this album. "A Study In Blue," featuring his wife, Hannah, is a beautiful, haunting and trippy piece of music that has pretty much been the soundtrack to my year. Check it out and play it loud as you head this evening for NYE festivities!
Best TV Show of 2012
The best TV show of 2012 is HBO's Boardwalk Empire. Season 3 was absolutely wonderful and hit on all cylinders with 100 percent power. The acting, the writing, and directing were all impeccable this year and each week was like watching a mini film to be quite honest.
Steve Buscemi continues to be one of the most underrated actors of our time. Bobby Cannavale's Gyp Rosetti was truly one of the most frightening characters to every grace the small screen. And, like the previous two seasons, the historical context stayed true to the times. Prohibition was a horribly violent time and showed the folly of trying to outlaw alcohol.
Here's one of the trailers for Season 3.
Steve Buscemi continues to be one of the most underrated actors of our time. Bobby Cannavale's Gyp Rosetti was truly one of the most frightening characters to every grace the small screen. And, like the previous two seasons, the historical context stayed true to the times. Prohibition was a horribly violent time and showed the folly of trying to outlaw alcohol.
Here's one of the trailers for Season 3.
Sunday, December 30, 2012
Best Film of 2012
It's that time of year again for Best Ofs and first up is Best Film. This year, it wasn't even contest.
Wes Anderson's Moonrise Kingdom is the best coming of age story put on celluloid since Rob Reiner's Stand By Me. It tells the story of two young teenagers in the mid 1960s who decide to run away and have an adventure. Their parents, his scout troop, social services, and the law (in the form of the completely hilarious Bruce Willis) pursue them.
Anderson's perception of life has always resonated with me. All of his films are gems, in my opinion, but this one seems a level above that. If you've never seen any of his films, I recommend picking them all up and checking them out. Start with this one.
Wes Anderson's Moonrise Kingdom is the best coming of age story put on celluloid since Rob Reiner's Stand By Me. It tells the story of two young teenagers in the mid 1960s who decide to run away and have an adventure. Their parents, his scout troop, social services, and the law (in the form of the completely hilarious Bruce Willis) pursue them.
Anderson's perception of life has always resonated with me. All of his films are gems, in my opinion, but this one seems a level above that. If you've never seen any of his films, I recommend picking them all up and checking them out. Start with this one.
Saturday, December 29, 2012
Happily Going Over The Cliff
It's been amusing in a sort of horrifying way to watch Congress try to come up with some sort of plan to avert the tax rate rise and spending cuts that are going to occur on January 1, 2013. I don't think I've ever seen a Republican leader admit that he was powerless as Speaker Boehner did last week. "It's now up to the president and Harry Reid," he said. Unbelievable.
But that's what happens when you have a caucus that is comprised of juveniles who are eternally stomping down the hallway and slamming their doors at what they perceive to be their dad. They're perfectly happy to crash the car in order to sate their adolescent power fantasies. They'd rather cut of their nose despite their faces.
And that's just what is going to happen. If no deal is reached by Tuesday (and it looks doubtful), January 2nd is going to be a barn burner at the New York Stock Exchange. At that point, the GOP will be fucked. If they deal now, they are going to get something for those upper income folks. If they wait, however, the only bill they are going to see is one that makes the tax cuts permanent for those making under 250K and they will have no choice but to sign it as the market drops 500-1000 points.
They're also going to get bloody ears (and possibly more) in terms of the spending cuts and will likely have to give in on those as well. Much of their constituency is old people who love Medicare and Social Security. Any sort of cuts will be viewed with much animosity. This doesn't even take into account the defense cuts which, in my view, if they happen, will basically mean the end of the Tea Party. Democrats learned a long time ago that you don't fuck with defense contractors.
So, this begs the question, do the Republicans want to be the Whigs of the 21st century? Given their intransigent stance on immigration (along with the rest of all of this), I think they do. Bottom line: they need to change. If they don't, Texas will turn blue in 2016 or 2020 and that will be it for them.
But that's what happens when you have a caucus that is comprised of juveniles who are eternally stomping down the hallway and slamming their doors at what they perceive to be their dad. They're perfectly happy to crash the car in order to sate their adolescent power fantasies. They'd rather cut of their nose despite their faces.
And that's just what is going to happen. If no deal is reached by Tuesday (and it looks doubtful), January 2nd is going to be a barn burner at the New York Stock Exchange. At that point, the GOP will be fucked. If they deal now, they are going to get something for those upper income folks. If they wait, however, the only bill they are going to see is one that makes the tax cuts permanent for those making under 250K and they will have no choice but to sign it as the market drops 500-1000 points.
They're also going to get bloody ears (and possibly more) in terms of the spending cuts and will likely have to give in on those as well. Much of their constituency is old people who love Medicare and Social Security. Any sort of cuts will be viewed with much animosity. This doesn't even take into account the defense cuts which, in my view, if they happen, will basically mean the end of the Tea Party. Democrats learned a long time ago that you don't fuck with defense contractors.
So, this begs the question, do the Republicans want to be the Whigs of the 21st century? Given their intransigent stance on immigration (along with the rest of all of this), I think they do. Bottom line: they need to change. If they don't, Texas will turn blue in 2016 or 2020 and that will be it for them.
Friday, December 28, 2012
A Real-Life Test of the NRA School Proposal
Three police officers were shot in a New Jersey police station by a domestic abuse suspect who somehow got a gun. The suspect was killed. One officer suffered abdominal wounds below his bullet proof vest, while the other two were grazed. All are expected to recover.
Yes, another senseless tragedy caused by a nutjob combined with a tragic screw-up.
But this incident shows how flawed the NRA's "more guns" idea is. A police station is the best-case scenario for the "protective" nature of guns. Everyone there is a trained professional. They know exactly who the bad guy is. Yet somehow he got a gun and shot three cops.
This is not the first time this has happened: it happened in Michigan in 2011, again in Michigan this November, in Virginia in 2006, and so on. Then there are the accidental shootings at police stations (Huntington Beach this July). And then there are the "freak accidents," like the woman was accidentally killed in Detroit when she hugged an off-duty cop.
We know with certainty that more guns in schools will result in some number of additional deaths each year due to accidental shootings and guns being wrested away from guards. The question is: will the deaths caused by the presence of armed guards outnumber the deaths that might be saved from mass shootings?
The NRA would like us to just write those accidental deaths and injuries off as collateral damage, the same way we write off Afghan children killed by drones. Considering how rare school shootings actually are, starting a big program of volunteer armed guards would likely increase the number of deaths in schools.
But the fact is, even in the best-case scenario, an armed guard can't prevent anyone from ever being shot: the hope is that the guard will cut the carnage short by taking the shooter out after he's opened fire. It's the same rationale for banning large-capacity magazines and "assault" rifles: you can't completely stop the killing, but you can minimize it. The problem with the armed guard solution is the bad guys always get a preemptive first strike on the guard, and if it's successful you've just provided the shooter with additional firepower.
Putting real cops in schools isn't necessarily a bad idea, but it's very expensive and it's not a foolproof deterrent, as we saw in Columbine. If even a station full of armed cops can't protect themselves with guns, how can one retired NRA volunteer with a gun protect a whole school filled with kids? Especially if the shooter takes a first-grader hostage and uses her as a human shield while blasting away at the armed guard with a Bushmaster and a 100-round magazine?
The problem is not stopping crazy guys from shooting up schools. It's stopping crazy guys from getting guns in the first place.
Yes, another senseless tragedy caused by a nutjob combined with a tragic screw-up.
But this incident shows how flawed the NRA's "more guns" idea is. A police station is the best-case scenario for the "protective" nature of guns. Everyone there is a trained professional. They know exactly who the bad guy is. Yet somehow he got a gun and shot three cops.
This is not the first time this has happened: it happened in Michigan in 2011, again in Michigan this November, in Virginia in 2006, and so on. Then there are the accidental shootings at police stations (Huntington Beach this July). And then there are the "freak accidents," like the woman was accidentally killed in Detroit when she hugged an off-duty cop.
We know with certainty that more guns in schools will result in some number of additional deaths each year due to accidental shootings and guns being wrested away from guards. The question is: will the deaths caused by the presence of armed guards outnumber the deaths that might be saved from mass shootings?
The NRA would like us to just write those accidental deaths and injuries off as collateral damage, the same way we write off Afghan children killed by drones. Considering how rare school shootings actually are, starting a big program of volunteer armed guards would likely increase the number of deaths in schools.
But the fact is, even in the best-case scenario, an armed guard can't prevent anyone from ever being shot: the hope is that the guard will cut the carnage short by taking the shooter out after he's opened fire. It's the same rationale for banning large-capacity magazines and "assault" rifles: you can't completely stop the killing, but you can minimize it. The problem with the armed guard solution is the bad guys always get a preemptive first strike on the guard, and if it's successful you've just provided the shooter with additional firepower.
Putting real cops in schools isn't necessarily a bad idea, but it's very expensive and it's not a foolproof deterrent, as we saw in Columbine. If even a station full of armed cops can't protect themselves with guns, how can one retired NRA volunteer with a gun protect a whole school filled with kids? Especially if the shooter takes a first-grader hostage and uses her as a human shield while blasting away at the armed guard with a Bushmaster and a 100-round magazine?
The problem is not stopping crazy guys from shooting up schools. It's stopping crazy guys from getting guns in the first place.
Thursday, December 27, 2012
Still With The Deafness of Tone
It's been almost two week since the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut and the Right is continuing merrily along with their complete deafness of tone. They just don't get it. This one is different and, like the last election, they're are going to learn yet another hard lesson. Even Frank Luntz thinks so.
“The public wants guns out of the schools, not in the schools,” Luntz said on CBS’s “This Morning.” “And they are not asking for a security official or someone else. I don’t think the NRA is listening. I don’t think they understand most Americans would protect the Second Amendment rights and yet agree with the idea that not every human being should own a gun, not every gun should be available at anytime, anywhere, for anyone. At gun shows, you should not be able to buy something there without any kind of check whatsoever.”
That's right. There are plenty of people that should not own guns. I think this incident (as well as the rest of them this year) illustrate that if you increase the number of people carrying weapons, you are going to increase the chances of irresponsible gun ownership. It shouldn't simply be that people who have criminal records should not own guns. Many people with mental illness or people who live folks who have mental disabilities should not own guns either.
I don't think the gun rights folks (and many others on the Right) realize how Orwellian they sound. The irony is hilarious when you consider how much they rip the left for doublespeak. The answer to gun violence is...MORE GUNS, damnit!!
War is Peace...
What the Right really wants is to (ahem) do it again only harder. They are using this as an opportunity to see if they can gain any ground on what they view as "Slaughter Zones" (AKA Gun Free Zones). They want to be able to carry their guns wherever they want, including schools. It's a chest thumping, juvenile maneuver which serves to further their "fuck you, dad/stomp down the hallway/bedroom door slam" agenda of being pissed off at rules they don't like. Never mind the rest of us.
The only guns I want in schools are the ones carried by police officers (yet another group the Right sneer at as not "having any real training" which is basically code for insecurity and envy). Schools are public property which means that the public gets to decide what goes on in our schools. With private property, gun owners can kindly go fuck themselves if they want to beef about gun free zones. The health club I go to, for example, has a few malcontents who bitch about not being able to bring their guns in when they lift weights (how would that work, exactly?). Perhaps they should choose another place to go rather than gripe.
Doubling down is what they do lately, though, and it continues to cost them elections. This won't be any different. They underestimate the president and worse, the public, who has a growing distaste for some guns, as Mr. Luntz notices above. He's a right wing pollster so if he's saying it, they are in big fucking trouble. And it won't be because (cue high pitched shrieking) Barack Obama is going to be a "gun grabber." Actually, they're not really in "trouble" either...only the way they see it...the world (gasp!) changing and that simply won't do.
In fact, I pretty much guarantee that three things are going to come out of all of this. First, people will get to keep the guns they own (if they choose not to sell them back to the federal government, that is, for a very good price:)). Second, plenty of guns will be available for people to use to defend themselves.
And third, the Right is going to be a mouth foaming pile of apoplexis.
“The public wants guns out of the schools, not in the schools,” Luntz said on CBS’s “This Morning.” “And they are not asking for a security official or someone else. I don’t think the NRA is listening. I don’t think they understand most Americans would protect the Second Amendment rights and yet agree with the idea that not every human being should own a gun, not every gun should be available at anytime, anywhere, for anyone. At gun shows, you should not be able to buy something there without any kind of check whatsoever.”
That's right. There are plenty of people that should not own guns. I think this incident (as well as the rest of them this year) illustrate that if you increase the number of people carrying weapons, you are going to increase the chances of irresponsible gun ownership. It shouldn't simply be that people who have criminal records should not own guns. Many people with mental illness or people who live folks who have mental disabilities should not own guns either.
I don't think the gun rights folks (and many others on the Right) realize how Orwellian they sound. The irony is hilarious when you consider how much they rip the left for doublespeak. The answer to gun violence is...MORE GUNS, damnit!!
War is Peace...
What the Right really wants is to (ahem) do it again only harder. They are using this as an opportunity to see if they can gain any ground on what they view as "Slaughter Zones" (AKA Gun Free Zones). They want to be able to carry their guns wherever they want, including schools. It's a chest thumping, juvenile maneuver which serves to further their "fuck you, dad/stomp down the hallway/bedroom door slam" agenda of being pissed off at rules they don't like. Never mind the rest of us.
The only guns I want in schools are the ones carried by police officers (yet another group the Right sneer at as not "having any real training" which is basically code for insecurity and envy). Schools are public property which means that the public gets to decide what goes on in our schools. With private property, gun owners can kindly go fuck themselves if they want to beef about gun free zones. The health club I go to, for example, has a few malcontents who bitch about not being able to bring their guns in when they lift weights (how would that work, exactly?). Perhaps they should choose another place to go rather than gripe.
Doubling down is what they do lately, though, and it continues to cost them elections. This won't be any different. They underestimate the president and worse, the public, who has a growing distaste for some guns, as Mr. Luntz notices above. He's a right wing pollster so if he's saying it, they are in big fucking trouble. And it won't be because (cue high pitched shrieking) Barack Obama is going to be a "gun grabber." Actually, they're not really in "trouble" either...only the way they see it...the world (gasp!) changing and that simply won't do.
In fact, I pretty much guarantee that three things are going to come out of all of this. First, people will get to keep the guns they own (if they choose not to sell them back to the federal government, that is, for a very good price:)). Second, plenty of guns will be available for people to use to defend themselves.
And third, the Right is going to be a mouth foaming pile of apoplexis.
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
Gun Privacy vs. Neighbor's Right to Know
The Journal News, a newspaper in White Plains, New York, published a map of people licensed to own guns in surrounding counties. This has raised a firestorm of protest from conservatives, claiming variously that these people's privacy had been violated (these licenses are a matter of public record), that it would encourage criminals to target gun owners, or alternately to encourage thieves to target homes that are "unprotected" by guns.
The article accompanying the map begins:
In May, Richard V. Wilson approached a female neighbor on the street and shot her in the back of the head, a crime that stunned their quiet Katonah neighborhood.On Christmas Eve William Spengler set fire to his house, killed his sister, set fire to the rest of the neighborhood, then ambushed the firemen who came to douse the blaze, killing two and wounding two others. Spengler was an ex-con who killed his grandmother in 1980. He used a Bushmaster rifle to kill the firemen, like the one Adam Lanza used. It's not yet known how he got the weapon: did he get it at a gun show? From a friend? Through a straw buyer? Or by breaking into a nearby house?
What was equally shocking for some was the revelation that the mentally disturbed 77-year-old man had amassed a cache of weapons — including two unregistered handguns and a large amount of ammunition — without any neighbors knowing.
I understand why gun owners don't want their names published in the paper. Neither do pedophiles. But guns in the home represent a real risk to society, both from the gun owners themselves or as a form of attractive nuisance for thieves and children
It's not unreasonable for parents to want to know if their children are playing with kids who might have guns at home, or if neighbors like Richard Wilson represent a potential risk to their children.
Hundreds of kids die each year from accidental shootings. Hundreds of kids also die in swimming pool and trampoline accidents. Parents should know if their kids' friends have pools and trampolines. Why not guns?
That newspaper didn't tell potential burglars anything they didn't already know. Thieves casing a neighborhood can read the "gang signs" that mark gun owners: American flags, large dogs of breeds used for hunting, No Trespassing and No Solicitation signs, political bumper stickers and signs for Tea Party and conservative causes, "Protected by Smith & Wesson" bumper stickers and signs (yeah, some people are that dumb), four-door pickup trucks and Hummers, gun racks in the pickups, etc.
Some gun owners envision themselves as defending the Alamo, and think they will be able to fend off the criminals storming their house in a blaze of gunfire. This is misguided: burglars want to break in while you're gone and your cash, jewelry and guns are just waiting there to be stolen.
Therefore, most burglaries are committed when victims are at work, and nearly all occur when the burglars think you're away. Most thieves are unarmed and avoid conflict. More than 50% of burglaries occur within two miles of the burglar's home. Most are smash and grabs, in and out in 12 minutes or less. Many burglars have already been in your house for some other purpose (that may be why Nancy Lanza didn't let people in).
The NRA recommends people use concealed lock boxes or gun safes, as well as trigger locks or cable locks and that guns be stored unloaded. They should demand these recommendations be given the force of law.
Just as importantly, gun owners should have home security systems or a dog. These are better deterrents than a gun. Burglars are much less likely to rob houses without security systems and barking dogs. And even if you do have a gun for "protection," you still need the dog or the alarm to wake you up. The gun is worse than useless if you're asleep when the intruder takes it from your nightstand.
Gun rights advocates should want to be seen as the people who stop crazy old coots from shooting their neighbors in the head, not the wackos who make it possible.
Tuesday, December 25, 2012
Happy Christmas!!
I've always looked at the celebration of Christmas Day with inquisitive fascination. Why do we honor the birth of Jesus Christ when it's likely he was born in March? In fact, the reason why we celebrate the nativity on December 25th stems from an effort by 4th Century Christians to make their religion more prominent.
These early believers saw the pagan festivities associated with Mithraism as a threat to their fledgling movement and so they switched the birthday of Christ to be on the same day as the birthday of the Invincible Sun God, Natalis Solis Invincti. The Christians of this time were already emboldened by the Roman Emperor Constantine's edict of 313 CE which allowed them to practice their faith so plans were made to supplant Mithraism with Christianity.
They did this by focusing on the festive nature of the sun god cult worship and essentially making it their own. A Christian mass was developed complete with prayers and ceremony-all in the hopes of luring Mithraists away from their religion to Christianity. In short, it was a PR campaign and it worked.
The irony here (for all your scriptural literalists out there) is that the celebration of Jesus' birthday isn't "pure." It's based on pagan ritual and, in the centuries since that time, is a day that has gone through many other twists and turns. Puritans here in America had outlawed any celebration of Christmas until finally losing out on June 26, 1870 when Christmas became a national holiday. Christmas trees were considered pagan and also forbidden until the late 17th century. Santa himself began as an amalgamation (partially pagan) of St. Nicholas, the Bishop of Myra (modern-day Turkey), the Norse god, Woden, and the Celtic Holly King and ended up being the creation of a modern day cartoonist (Thomas Nash) for Harper's Weekly in 1860.
So, as we begin to drift off today from an overdose of tryptophan, let's remember that this is not a rigid holiday and is, as it has always been, free loose, and open to interpretation:)
These early believers saw the pagan festivities associated with Mithraism as a threat to their fledgling movement and so they switched the birthday of Christ to be on the same day as the birthday of the Invincible Sun God, Natalis Solis Invincti. The Christians of this time were already emboldened by the Roman Emperor Constantine's edict of 313 CE which allowed them to practice their faith so plans were made to supplant Mithraism with Christianity.
They did this by focusing on the festive nature of the sun god cult worship and essentially making it their own. A Christian mass was developed complete with prayers and ceremony-all in the hopes of luring Mithraists away from their religion to Christianity. In short, it was a PR campaign and it worked.
The irony here (for all your scriptural literalists out there) is that the celebration of Jesus' birthday isn't "pure." It's based on pagan ritual and, in the centuries since that time, is a day that has gone through many other twists and turns. Puritans here in America had outlawed any celebration of Christmas until finally losing out on June 26, 1870 when Christmas became a national holiday. Christmas trees were considered pagan and also forbidden until the late 17th century. Santa himself began as an amalgamation (partially pagan) of St. Nicholas, the Bishop of Myra (modern-day Turkey), the Norse god, Woden, and the Celtic Holly King and ended up being the creation of a modern day cartoonist (Thomas Nash) for Harper's Weekly in 1860.
So, as we begin to drift off today from an overdose of tryptophan, let's remember that this is not a rigid holiday and is, as it has always been, free loose, and open to interpretation:)
Monday, December 24, 2012
One Christmas was so much like another, in those years around the sea-town corner now and out of all sound except the distant speaking of the voices I sometimes hear a moment before sleep, that I can never remember whether it snowed for six days and six nights when I was twelve or whether it snowed for twelve days and twelve nights when I was six....
(from "A Child's Christmas in Wales by Dylan Thomas)
(from "A Child's Christmas in Wales by Dylan Thomas)
Sunday, December 23, 2012
Did You Survive the Most Recent Apocalypse?
Did you get your "I Survived the Apocalypse!" T-shirt yet? December 21st was supposed to be the end of the world, according to a dim-witted interpretation of the Mayan calendar. The reality is that the end of the previous baktun of the Mayan calender was no different from the end of December on our calendar, or the end of the fiscal year, or the end of the 20th century, or the end of the second millennium.
We saw plenty of crazies predicting doom on December 31, 1999 (though, technically, the third millennium didn't start until Jan. 1, 2001). There were the typical fire-and-brimstone second-coming loonies, but there were also plenty of technological Y2K doomsayers. And more recently there was Harold Camping, who took two swings at the Apocalypse piñata in 2011, spending more than $100 million promoting his end-of-the-world predictions. And we're all still here.
What is it about a calendar rolling over like an odometer that turns out the crazies?
Historically prophets have cast catastrophic events like hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, wars, plagues and droughts as presentiments of the end times, or punishments for our wickedness. Pat Robertson predicted a Gay Days weekend at Disney World would bring a hurricane down on Orlando. Instead Hurricane Bonnie hit Virginia Beach, where Robertson's 700 club originates. James Dobson blamed the Newtown shooting on gay marriage. Did I miss the story about Adam Lanza's girlfriend dumping him and marrying a lesbian?
Climate scientists have long predicted that stronger hurricanes, prolonged drought punctuated by huge deluges, the spread of tropical diseases like West Nile virus and dengue fever — events that we're experiencing right now — would be the result of global warming caused by human-generated carbon dioxide emissions. Many on the Christian Right reject these data-driven observations and computer-modeled predictions out of hand. Yet at exactly the same time they cite these events as evidence of our moral failings, portraying them as God's retribution for our disobedience.
Climate scientists are missing the boat. To gain broader acceptance they need to recast their climate forecasts as apocalyptic prophecies of doom caused by God's ire over the seven deadly sins we are committing:
In the case of Sandy there's an obvious cause and effect, and in Newtown there's an "I told you so." God might move in mysterious ways, but if he wants us to get the message, he should be a little more direct, rather than relying on preachers in expensive suits asking for handouts on TV. What's even more incredible is that there are people who would willingly worship a god who wrought a terrifying bloody death upon innocent children who had absolutely nothing to do with the perceived violation of his laws. I just don't remember hearing that any of those kids were gay or married.
Climate change deniers insist scientists are just saying this stuff to get grant money. Just as skeptics insist Harold Camping predicted the end of the world just to get donations from frightened old ladies. Maybe the religious right doesn't believe climate scientists' predictions because they're suffering from a nasty case of psychological projection.
Hmm. What is that odd, rodent-like odor?
We saw plenty of crazies predicting doom on December 31, 1999 (though, technically, the third millennium didn't start until Jan. 1, 2001). There were the typical fire-and-brimstone second-coming loonies, but there were also plenty of technological Y2K doomsayers. And more recently there was Harold Camping, who took two swings at the Apocalypse piñata in 2011, spending more than $100 million promoting his end-of-the-world predictions. And we're all still here.
What is it about a calendar rolling over like an odometer that turns out the crazies?
Historically prophets have cast catastrophic events like hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, wars, plagues and droughts as presentiments of the end times, or punishments for our wickedness. Pat Robertson predicted a Gay Days weekend at Disney World would bring a hurricane down on Orlando. Instead Hurricane Bonnie hit Virginia Beach, where Robertson's 700 club originates. James Dobson blamed the Newtown shooting on gay marriage. Did I miss the story about Adam Lanza's girlfriend dumping him and marrying a lesbian?
Climate scientists have long predicted that stronger hurricanes, prolonged drought punctuated by huge deluges, the spread of tropical diseases like West Nile virus and dengue fever — events that we're experiencing right now — would be the result of global warming caused by human-generated carbon dioxide emissions. Many on the Christian Right reject these data-driven observations and computer-modeled predictions out of hand. Yet at exactly the same time they cite these events as evidence of our moral failings, portraying them as God's retribution for our disobedience.
Climate scientists are missing the boat. To gain broader acceptance they need to recast their climate forecasts as apocalyptic prophecies of doom caused by God's ire over the seven deadly sins we are committing:
- Greed: skyrocketing oil-company profits
- Pride: Americans who proudly drive gas-wasting Hummers to flaunt their wealth
- Sloth: people who are too lazy to walk to the corner store contribute to global warming
- Wrath: the refusal of irate Republican members of the House to renew wind power tax credits
- Lust: the rape of the earth by oil wells and coal mines
- Envy: the consumer culture that causes us to compete with the Joneses by buying ever-greater quantities of immediately disposable things that require oil, gas and coal to produce and transport
- Gluttony: the epidemic of diabetes and other obesity-related diseases resulting from our consumption of high-fructose corn syrup produced on gigantic monoculture corporate farms that use billions of gallons of oil for fuel and fertilizer, as well as damage the environment and our own genetic code with pesticides and herbicides
In the case of Sandy there's an obvious cause and effect, and in Newtown there's an "I told you so." God might move in mysterious ways, but if he wants us to get the message, he should be a little more direct, rather than relying on preachers in expensive suits asking for handouts on TV. What's even more incredible is that there are people who would willingly worship a god who wrought a terrifying bloody death upon innocent children who had absolutely nothing to do with the perceived violation of his laws. I just don't remember hearing that any of those kids were gay or married.
Climate change deniers insist scientists are just saying this stuff to get grant money. Just as skeptics insist Harold Camping predicted the end of the world just to get donations from frightened old ladies. Maybe the religious right doesn't believe climate scientists' predictions because they're suffering from a nasty case of psychological projection.
Hmm. What is that odd, rodent-like odor?
Son of the Gun
The New Yorker ran a story in April of this year about guns in America (Maureen Dowd sent me that way). It contained the following revelation about David Michael Keene, the son of NRA president David Keene:
It seems the people closest to David Keene lack a certain self control.
Did David Keene commit these crimes? No. Is he guilty by association? No. But fathers have to wonder if they bear some responsibility for their sons' actions. Was Keene a bad parent, as many think Nancy Lanza was? Might he have imparted to his son a self-entitled attitude about not taking crap from anyone, backed up by a belligerent arrogance that comes from packing heat?
The NRA president is a Daily Show punchline. If there had been no gun in the younger Keene's BMW his life would not have been ruined. Keene's own son was sent to jail for exactly the kind of senseless crime gun control advocates say easy access to guns promotes. The NRA's president's son is Exhibit A against everything they stand for.
What's astounding is that Keene can experience this and so utterly miss the point. It's not just his kid who would have paid the price had his aim been truer: the guy he almost shot would have paid a much higher price.
Twenty-six victims paid the ultimate price for Adam Lanza's crimes, and hundreds of parents, relatives and friends who paid a price in grief that David Keene seems incapable of feeling.
In 2002, Keene’s son David Michael Keene was driving on the George Washington Memorial Parkway when, in a road-rage incident, he fired a handgun at another motorist. He was sentenced to ten years in prison for “using, brandishing, and discharging a firearm in a crime of violence.” I asked Keene if this private tragedy had left him uncertain about what the N.R.A. had wrought. He said no: “You break the law, you pay the price.”Keene used to run the American Conservative Union (which organizes CPAC), where his 21-year-old son worked as the online communications director at the time of the shooting. Keene was featured in another news story two years ago when $400,000 was embezzled from the ACU. The culprit? His ex-wife, Diana Hubbard Carr. She pleaded guilty to mail fraud in 2011.
It seems the people closest to David Keene lack a certain self control.
Did David Keene commit these crimes? No. Is he guilty by association? No. But fathers have to wonder if they bear some responsibility for their sons' actions. Was Keene a bad parent, as many think Nancy Lanza was? Might he have imparted to his son a self-entitled attitude about not taking crap from anyone, backed up by a belligerent arrogance that comes from packing heat?
The NRA president is a Daily Show punchline. If there had been no gun in the younger Keene's BMW his life would not have been ruined. Keene's own son was sent to jail for exactly the kind of senseless crime gun control advocates say easy access to guns promotes. The NRA's president's son is Exhibit A against everything they stand for.
What's astounding is that Keene can experience this and so utterly miss the point. It's not just his kid who would have paid the price had his aim been truer: the guy he almost shot would have paid a much higher price.
Twenty-six victims paid the ultimate price for Adam Lanza's crimes, and hundreds of parents, relatives and friends who paid a price in grief that David Keene seems incapable of feeling.
Saturday, December 22, 2012
The Police State
The NRA press conference yesterday was a perfect example of how out of touch the Right is these days. "Only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun."
Really?
I'll set the aside the Jack Bauer fantasy here that the gun rights folks seem to think can be replicated in reality and focus on the word mentioned twice in this quote: gun. Why does it have to be a gun? There are plenty of other ways to disable intruders that school, mall and movie theater staff could use. Using a taser is one option although that could prove difficult. A more obvious solution is to stash some tear gas or something similar and simply throw it down the hallway and knockout the intruder. You might end up knocking out some staff or students but the intruder would be disabled.
Think of that would have worked in this situation. The principal would hear the commotion and grab the gas canister that they have stored in the room they were in. She throws it out in the hallway and Lanza passes out. At least then, we would have known why he was going on a rampage.
Honestly, this is a more realistic solution. I don't think the Right realizes how juvenile they sound when they start talking about arming everyone. More importantly, it strikes me as odd that they want armed security personnel everywhere. Isn't that the same thing as a police state (something they are vehemently opposed to)?
But this is what I mean when I say they are closet fascists. In so many ways, that's what the NRA and their supporters are all about. Do they even realize it?
Really?
I'll set the aside the Jack Bauer fantasy here that the gun rights folks seem to think can be replicated in reality and focus on the word mentioned twice in this quote: gun. Why does it have to be a gun? There are plenty of other ways to disable intruders that school, mall and movie theater staff could use. Using a taser is one option although that could prove difficult. A more obvious solution is to stash some tear gas or something similar and simply throw it down the hallway and knockout the intruder. You might end up knocking out some staff or students but the intruder would be disabled.
Think of that would have worked in this situation. The principal would hear the commotion and grab the gas canister that they have stored in the room they were in. She throws it out in the hallway and Lanza passes out. At least then, we would have known why he was going on a rampage.
Honestly, this is a more realistic solution. I don't think the Right realizes how juvenile they sound when they start talking about arming everyone. More importantly, it strikes me as odd that they want armed security personnel everywhere. Isn't that the same thing as a police state (something they are vehemently opposed to)?
But this is what I mean when I say they are closet fascists. In so many ways, that's what the NRA and their supporters are all about. Do they even realize it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)