Another Greek Lesson

Conservatives like to point to Greece as an example of what will happen to us unless we follow their strong medicine and drastically reduce spending. But so far their predictions have failed. We haven't slashed, and our economy is doing better than countries that have.

Many economists, Paul Krugman among them, believe that the U.S. economy would be doing much better now if Obama had been able to implement the stronger stimulus he originally proposed. Instead the GOP blocked much of Obama's plan, apparently to sabotage the recovery to make him a one-term president.

But there are other lessons we can learn from Greece: tax evasion is rampant, and they have a tax collection shortfall that runs into tens of billions of euros. The major scandal in Greece now is the Lagarde List, a list of wealthy Greeks who have hidden their wealth in Swiss bank accounts. Additional tax collections are half what they were expected to be and investigations of off-shore tax evaders was derailed by George Papaconstantinou, who took the list with him when he resigned, and then removed his friends from the list before handing it over to his successor, Evangelos Venizelos, who also appears to be shielding his pals.

A magazine publisher, Kostas Vaxevanis, published the list and was prosecuted by the Greek government for "invasion of privacy." His article about his persecution by the Greek government was recently published in The New York Times. After the publication of the list two men suspected to be on it were found dead, apparently suicides.

Conservatives in the United States keep saying we have a spending problem, and we do to some extent. But the United States has a huge tax collection problem that dwarfs Greece's. Many people and corporations are still not paying their fair share. People like Mitt Romney pay less than 15% in taxes, using off-shore accounts and other tricks only the wealth can use to hide their wealth. Corporations like GE pay less than zero in taxes, and companies like Apple and Reebok squirrel away all their profits overseas using gimmicky licensing payments.

I say it's time Paul Ryan to keep the promise he made during the election. For every dollar of spending cuts to non-military programs they should eliminate a dollar of tax loopholes that only giant corporations and guys like Mitt Romney can take advantage of.

Uh Oh

Looks like the rats are leaving the sinking ship. I guess they got tired of all the wrong information put out there on a daily basis.

What amazes me most about this is how the Right really hates losers. Everything is about winning for them and, if you don't, they have no time for you at all.

Sour, sour grapes...

Dedicated, with love and affection, to Kevin and his merry band of commenters who can't seem to shake their obsession with yours truly!!

Why, Again?

Suppose you are in a darkened room with 20 armed people and you. You are the only one not armed.

Who gets shot first?
Who survives?

Think about it for a minute.

Have it yet?

The 20 armed men likely get shot first.
You survive.

Why?

The 20 armed men aren't worried about the unarmed man because he doesn't have a gun. They are more worried about the men with guns because they represent a threat. So, they go after each other.

But you...you are trying to get out of the way of the 20 armed men and survive. So, your first reaction is to hide, move, dodge and stay out of the way of the gunfire. You might get shot by accident but not intentionally because they are shooting at each other to eliminate the higher threat.

In short, your goal is to survive.

They all shoot each other until there are 2 or 3 left and then they really aren't worried about you but the last couple armed people. You escape. You live. You survive.

And you aren't armed.

So, how does arming everyone make people safer?

Business As Usual?

Remember back after the Columbine shooting when the NRA showed up in Denver and thumped their chests?

Yeah, not gonna happen this time....

Some gun shows canceling after Conn. mass shooting.

Further...

Some of the most popular guns will be missing from next weekend's gun show in Saratoga Springs, N.Y., after show organizers agreed to bar the display and sale of AR-15 military-style semiautomatic weapons and their large-clip magazines.

Huh. I thought it was going to be business as usual if not more so after Sandy Hook.

A Collection of Voices In My Head

I've heard so many "voices in my head" of late. What are they saying these days?

“The numbers — at some point it’s got to catch up or else we’re all going to die,” said Chris Chocola, head of the anti-tax Club for Growth.

Cue the boiling pit of sewage!

Obama you stupid sand nigger get off my tv. Your just making the families hurt and miss their kids more and I want to watch football 

The above is one tweet of many. Make sure you read all of the comments from the non-Republican, non-racists.

And what happens when you hug the president and you are a registered Republican?

But the attention wasn't all positive. Van Duzer, a registered Republican, had voted for Obama in the last election and said he did again in November. That brought out the worst in anti-Obama zealots, who called in bomb threats, sent him hate mail with death threats, and brought out a level of vitriol Van Duzer said he had never witnessed. Some tried to organize a boycott of his restaurant and bombarded Yelp!, the restaurant review website, with thousands of one-star reviews from first-time visitors to the site.

It must be the left wing media's fault! Where's Katie Couric?!??

Low Capacity

A few weeks back, I had a very long discussion with the folks over at TSM about the Sandy Hook tragedy and what is likely going to be a sea change in the way guns are viewed in this country. Mixed in with the chest thumping, mouth foaming, jingoism and adolescent bullying was this comment.

I think there needs to be a sound philosophical reasoning for establishing a clear, rational category of weapons that are off limits. Maybe it's the wide area destructiveness and indiscriminate standard I mentioned earlier. Or maybe it could something to the effect that if it's something which not even most governments can control, then no individual can own it. Another possibility could be the category of weapons you would not use when fighting a defensive war on your own soil.

I couldn't possibly agree more. Of course, the gun rights folks don't even want to have that discussion as they hit over boil in about a second and begin to descend into paranoid rants about the 2nd amendment. What are they really afraid of?

It's not losing the right to bear arms. People are always going to have that right with a variety of guns and other weapons from which to choose. And it can't be that they think that our government is suddenly going to become fascist and/or communist and they will then need those arms to defend themselves against tyranny....well, maybe that is it a little bit:) Perhaps it's simply that they like their toys and they don't want to give them up.

Honestly, though, I think the real reason why they don't want to have the discussion about what weapons are OK and which ones aren't is that it leads to the necessity of coming up with a solution to gun violence in this country. To begin with, they don't want a solution because the violence enables them to continue to justify themselves and their ideology. This is why you rarely hear them talk about violence going down across the nation. If they ain't a comin', then why do they require so many armaments? (Note: this is similar to why they don't want to talk about good economic news or the realities of climate change...they would no longer be able to justify their imperial edicts and bloviating ideology).

There is a bigger and more obvious reason why they don't want have the solution discussion: they don't have one. That's exactly what was on display when Wayne LaPierre did his broken record of a press conference two weeks ago. For a group that champions high capacity guns, they are decidedly low capacity on real world solutions. It's more guns and fuck you, don't take away my gun. That's it. That's all they have.

The singular most amazing point about this is the colossal level of impotence of which Nikto spoke recently. One would think that with such a tenacity for defense that they could come up with something better than the same ol' same ol' but alas, this is not the case. Press them on the issue and that's when the personal attacks, bullying and Spanish Inquisition begin which all further illustrate their total failure at addressing this problem (this is similar to how they approach other issues as well so it's really no surprise).

The sad news for them is that, after Sandy Hook, we are now going to have this discussion. Even though violence in the country is going down overall, this tragedy has changed the landscape due to the nature of the crime. One simply can't look at numbers and say, "Well, less people died from school shootings so let's not worry about it." The quality of the crime matters and we know in all these cases how it happens.

Guns are only a part of this. After we reason which weapons are off limits and which aren't, then we need to look at the safety issue. The profile for these shooters are essentially the same...young, male, mental and emotional issues, taking medications, lack of parental cohesion...so is there a way to screen for this in future gun purchases? Perhaps not on a government level but, similar to car insurance where there are higher risk groups for accidents, there could be higher risk groups for owning guns. If you are in this group and want to own a gun, requiring a certain type of insurance might be a solution. This is the type of conversation that needs to happen.

Much to the apoplectic chagrin of the gun rights folks, they are going to have to come up with something more than what they have now. Significantly more. Or they will take themselves out of the debate and risk losing more than just their Bushmasters. So, let's start with this quote above. What are the categories? How should they be divided? Why would some people perceive some weapons as defensive and not others?

Since Ike

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?)

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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?

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!

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.