I guess we have to be reminded every few years just how fucking psycho the gun community is in this country. Good Lord...
There will be no wavering!! There will be only vigilance!!! Any sort of thinking or wavering that is against our vill...sorry...will calls for immediate retribution. Anyone who writes this...
I don’t think requiring 16 hours of training to qualify for a concealed carry permit is infringement But that’s just me.
Or this...
The fact is, all constitutional rights are regulated, always have been, and need to be.
Or this...
I’ve seen too many examples of unsafe behavior on too many shooting ranges to believe otherwise. And we’ve all read too many accounts of legally armed individuals dealing with the consequences of not being properly trained or prepared when confronted with a bad situation.
is a fucking pinko commie faggot who needs to be liquidated. Robert Farago summed it up best.
Anyone who says ‘I believe in the Second Amendment but—’ does not believe in the Second Amendment. They are not friends, they are not frenemies, they are enemies of The People of the Gun.
The People of the Gun, huh? Yeah, I''m quaking in my boots (see: there will be no revolution as long as men have titties) Here's Wonkette's take.
Translation: You fuckers scare even us, but we still want your money, so fuck “a healthy exchange of ideas”: Metcalf is history. Please keep buying our magazine, please?
Not that the fondlers are satisfied — now many are calling for Bequette to resign for having allowed the piece to run in the first place.
Update: And as of this afternoon, Guns & Ammo editor Jim Bequette has resigned as well. Business Insider reports that while the magazine had been due to get a new editor January 1, Bequette “announced he would expedite the process and resign immediately.”
Because of an editorial suggesting the utterly unthinkable, tyranny-promoting notion that people who own guns should be trained to use them safely. Welcome to America in 2013.
I don't share her fear of the gun people. Honestly, they are a bunch of cowards. The first people to squirt in their pants and hand over their guns to some sort of authority will be them. The reason why they bitch so much about authority is because they themselves are authoritarians who want a return to the aristocracy of the Antebellum South and are obviously self-loathing.
As I have said many times, when an incident occurs that will affect them personally due to their complete ignorance of how irresponsible people are in this country, then they will change. In the meantime, I do find it heartening that they continue to alienate more and more people who are on their side.
Thursday, November 07, 2013
Democracy and the Catholic Church
The Catholic Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis has been having its own sex scandal, in which various priests were caught soliciting boys in bookstores, storing child porn on their computers, having sex with underage parishioners, and so on, with the church hierarchy keeping it all covered up and paying off the perpetrators with extra cash. Several church officials have now resigned.
This was all revealed when a canon lawyer, a brave woman named Jennifer Haselberger, told Minnesota Public Radio when she found evidence of a priest who apparently possessed child porn and internal memos discussing whether police should be notified. Archbishop John Nienstedt explained in a memo to the Vatican why he decided not to tell the cops: he was afraid of getting sued and going to jail.
Now some wealthy donors are going to hit the archdiocese where it really hurts: the pocketbook. The archdiocese is launching a $160 million capital campaign, and some wealthy Catholic donors have said they will not contribute unless Nienstedt resigns. One quote in particular from a Nienstedt defender caught my attention:
And Catholics have been voting with the feet for centuries. That's how the Protestant Churches, and the Anglican Church, the Orthodox Churches, and all the other sects of the Christian Church were formed. It's called schism, and it often happens because of basic disagreements on doctrine and accusations of heresy. But it happens for political and social reasons as well.
Many Catholics are unhappy with the Church hierarchy. They view the bishops as arrogant and disconnected from the realities of everyday life, more concerned with covering up scandals than preventing them in the first place. The bishops yap dogmatically about birth control and abortion when they have no idea how hard it is to raise a family.
The ranks of the priesthood are being decimated, in large part because of the ban on married priests. Celibacy is not a scriptural requirement; priests could marry for a thousand years, and even today married Anglican priests joining the Catholic Church remain married. Celibacy is an antiquated relic of the Middle Ages enacted to prevent clergy from using Church money to create their own hereditary fiefdoms. Though the most public church sex scandals involve children, removing the marriage ban would also prevent many smaller-scale scandals involving priests who've simply fallen in love with consenting adult women.
Priests are also voting with their feet, and leaving their priesthood to marry. The priest who officiated at my wedding had to quit when he married a nun. A local political activist in my city did the same.
Why, many wonder, should priests be banned from the Church's most basic holy sacrament, the union of a man and a woman? In their arguments against gay marriage the archbishops claim that union to be the bedrock of society, yet they have no personal knowledge of it.
Women are tired of the way nuns are treated, and many resent the fact that women are not allowed to be priests. Many Christian churches allow women pastors these days, in particular the Anglican Church, which split off because of a political tiff when the Vatican was slow to grant Henry VIII an annulment from Catherine of Aragon. Catherine was too old to give him the son he desperately desired. Ironically, the son he strove so hard for died at age 15, and Henry was ultimately succeeded by his daughter, Elizabeth, who ruled for more than 40 years: she and Queen Victoria were arguably the two best monarchs to rule England. The fact that Pope Benedict cleared the way for married Anglican priests to join the Church shows how close the two Churches really are.
Many straight Catholics are unhappy with the way the Church treats gays: Nienstedt spent hundreds of thousands of dollars of Church money to amend the Minnesota constitution to ban gay marriage, an attempt that failed in 2012. Considering how many priests are gay (estimates run as high as 60%), and how the marriage ban discourages straight priests, it is evident that the Church's dogmas are seriously out of balance with reality.
Francis, the new pope, has said many things that give people hope (he even had a girlfriend before he entered the priesthood). The Church often takes decades and even centuries to change, but just one ex cathedra pronouncement could completely alter the Church's trajectory. The ban on women priests is a dogma, but the marriage ban is a regulation and therefore subject to papal decree.
If straight Catholics opt out of the priesthood in large numbers, gays may quietly assume control of archdioceses around the world. Is it only a matter of time before the majority of the Roman curia is gay?
A Third Vatican Council composed of a majority of gay bishops could decide pretty much anything: the Catholic Church isn't a democracy, after all.
This was all revealed when a canon lawyer, a brave woman named Jennifer Haselberger, told Minnesota Public Radio when she found evidence of a priest who apparently possessed child porn and internal memos discussing whether police should be notified. Archbishop John Nienstedt explained in a memo to the Vatican why he decided not to tell the cops: he was afraid of getting sued and going to jail.
It is unclear whether civil criminal action remains a possibility. The independent investigator hired to look into this matter concluded that 'many of the homosexual pornographic images viewed by this investigator and the computer analyst could be considered borderline illegal, because of the youthful looking images', but the decision of my predecessor was not to report the discovery of the images or the images themselves to law enforcement. My staff has expressed concern that the fact the CD-ROMs containing the images remain in the cleric's personnel file could expose the Archdiocese, as well as myself, to criminal prosecution. These factors also suggest that a penal trial, conducted in this Archdiocese or elsewhere in the United States, is to be avoided.This doesn't sound like a shepherd ministering to the souls in his congregation. It sounds like the CEO of an oil company shifting blame to his predecessor and staging a coverup after a massive oil spill. Many Minnesota Catholics are justifiably upset and have called for Nienstedt's resignation.
Now some wealthy donors are going to hit the archdiocese where it really hurts: the pocketbook. The archdiocese is launching a $160 million capital campaign, and some wealthy Catholic donors have said they will not contribute unless Nienstedt resigns. One quote in particular from a Nienstedt defender caught my attention:
To those calling for Nienstedt to be tossed out, Derus warned: “The Catholic Church is not a democracy. We don’t get to vote on this or that.”It's true that the Catholic Church is not a democracy. But lay Catholics do get a vote: they vote with their dollars. And with their feet.
And Catholics have been voting with the feet for centuries. That's how the Protestant Churches, and the Anglican Church, the Orthodox Churches, and all the other sects of the Christian Church were formed. It's called schism, and it often happens because of basic disagreements on doctrine and accusations of heresy. But it happens for political and social reasons as well.
Many Catholics are unhappy with the Church hierarchy. They view the bishops as arrogant and disconnected from the realities of everyday life, more concerned with covering up scandals than preventing them in the first place. The bishops yap dogmatically about birth control and abortion when they have no idea how hard it is to raise a family.
The ranks of the priesthood are being decimated, in large part because of the ban on married priests. Celibacy is not a scriptural requirement; priests could marry for a thousand years, and even today married Anglican priests joining the Catholic Church remain married. Celibacy is an antiquated relic of the Middle Ages enacted to prevent clergy from using Church money to create their own hereditary fiefdoms. Though the most public church sex scandals involve children, removing the marriage ban would also prevent many smaller-scale scandals involving priests who've simply fallen in love with consenting adult women.
Priests are also voting with their feet, and leaving their priesthood to marry. The priest who officiated at my wedding had to quit when he married a nun. A local political activist in my city did the same.
Why, many wonder, should priests be banned from the Church's most basic holy sacrament, the union of a man and a woman? In their arguments against gay marriage the archbishops claim that union to be the bedrock of society, yet they have no personal knowledge of it.
Women are tired of the way nuns are treated, and many resent the fact that women are not allowed to be priests. Many Christian churches allow women pastors these days, in particular the Anglican Church, which split off because of a political tiff when the Vatican was slow to grant Henry VIII an annulment from Catherine of Aragon. Catherine was too old to give him the son he desperately desired. Ironically, the son he strove so hard for died at age 15, and Henry was ultimately succeeded by his daughter, Elizabeth, who ruled for more than 40 years: she and Queen Victoria were arguably the two best monarchs to rule England. The fact that Pope Benedict cleared the way for married Anglican priests to join the Church shows how close the two Churches really are.
Many straight Catholics are unhappy with the way the Church treats gays: Nienstedt spent hundreds of thousands of dollars of Church money to amend the Minnesota constitution to ban gay marriage, an attempt that failed in 2012. Considering how many priests are gay (estimates run as high as 60%), and how the marriage ban discourages straight priests, it is evident that the Church's dogmas are seriously out of balance with reality.
Francis, the new pope, has said many things that give people hope (he even had a girlfriend before he entered the priesthood). The Church often takes decades and even centuries to change, but just one ex cathedra pronouncement could completely alter the Church's trajectory. The ban on women priests is a dogma, but the marriage ban is a regulation and therefore subject to papal decree.
If straight Catholics opt out of the priesthood in large numbers, gays may quietly assume control of archdioceses around the world. Is it only a matter of time before the majority of the Roman curia is gay?
A Third Vatican Council composed of a majority of gay bishops could decide pretty much anything: the Catholic Church isn't a democracy, after all.
Mailbag!
I haven't done a mailbag in a while so here a few emails I had recently
Candace from Missouri writes
What happened to all those world news stories you promised? I would like to see more of them. As a long time reader of your site, I miss the days when the majority of your posts talked about international politics.
Point taken. It has been too long since I talked about other countries. I will endeavor to do so more often!
Bryan from Idaho writes
I'd like to comment but don't want to go through the trouble or give up my privacy to register a name under google or open id. Is there anyone I can still comment openly? The people you have commenting now are real dicks and need to be taken down a notch.
Sorry, Bryan, but I got spammed too much and set up the requirement to register to comment. I'm not going to change that even though it means I have lost some liberal commenters as a result. And you are wasting your time with the individuals of whom you speak. They thrive on attention, adolescent insults and "battle" in comments sections. I allow open comments which means I have picked up some trolls. Oh well. You should take comfort in the fact that their writings do a great job of illustrating my points for me:) Speaking of my commenters...
Izzie from Illinois writes...
I don't want to engage him in comments as my mother told me to never talk to crazy people but do you suppose Not My Name is sitting in some facility somewhere? I think he uses his free time on the computer to post here.
Actually, Izzie, I think NMN is two people. One is an ultra religious fellow and the other is Unix Jedi from TSM which is why he might seem like he has a split personality. Even if that's not true, you have to remember that any mental problems he might have are likely a result of childhood problems and possibly bullying in school so try to have a little sympathy. People who are abused often abuse others because that's what they know. Their desire for constant attention (through adolescent taunts) is pretty apparent.
In fact, I think that's a great explanation for the behavior of many on the Right as I have said previously. They clearly have had trouble with their parents in their lives and were likely ostracized in school. Years of emotional abuse invariably ends in social disabilities and comments sections of blogs.
Geoff from Kansas writes...
Nikto is a better writer than you and I enjoy his posts more than yours.
No doubt, Nikto is a great writer but better? Maybe. I will say that his posts get more hits than mine and his piece on sleep and football was the most popular one in October.
That's it for this mailbag. Keep those emails coming, folks!!
Candace from Missouri writes
What happened to all those world news stories you promised? I would like to see more of them. As a long time reader of your site, I miss the days when the majority of your posts talked about international politics.
Point taken. It has been too long since I talked about other countries. I will endeavor to do so more often!
Bryan from Idaho writes
I'd like to comment but don't want to go through the trouble or give up my privacy to register a name under google or open id. Is there anyone I can still comment openly? The people you have commenting now are real dicks and need to be taken down a notch.
Sorry, Bryan, but I got spammed too much and set up the requirement to register to comment. I'm not going to change that even though it means I have lost some liberal commenters as a result. And you are wasting your time with the individuals of whom you speak. They thrive on attention, adolescent insults and "battle" in comments sections. I allow open comments which means I have picked up some trolls. Oh well. You should take comfort in the fact that their writings do a great job of illustrating my points for me:) Speaking of my commenters...
Izzie from Illinois writes...
I don't want to engage him in comments as my mother told me to never talk to crazy people but do you suppose Not My Name is sitting in some facility somewhere? I think he uses his free time on the computer to post here.
Actually, Izzie, I think NMN is two people. One is an ultra religious fellow and the other is Unix Jedi from TSM which is why he might seem like he has a split personality. Even if that's not true, you have to remember that any mental problems he might have are likely a result of childhood problems and possibly bullying in school so try to have a little sympathy. People who are abused often abuse others because that's what they know. Their desire for constant attention (through adolescent taunts) is pretty apparent.
In fact, I think that's a great explanation for the behavior of many on the Right as I have said previously. They clearly have had trouble with their parents in their lives and were likely ostracized in school. Years of emotional abuse invariably ends in social disabilities and comments sections of blogs.
Geoff from Kansas writes...
Nikto is a better writer than you and I enjoy his posts more than yours.
No doubt, Nikto is a great writer but better? Maybe. I will say that his posts get more hits than mine and his piece on sleep and football was the most popular one in October.
That's it for this mailbag. Keep those emails coming, folks!!
Randian Family Values
Mark's quote from Elementary about Ayn Rand seemed apropos after I stumbled across an article from a couple of years back about how Objectivism ruined one woman's childhood. In it Alyssa Bereznak describes how Ayn Rand turned her father into a heartless monster.
Discussion of Rand's philosophy of Objectivism always centers around titans of industry and brilliant self-made composers and scientists. But it completely ignores the realities of everyday life; in particular, marriage and children.
If altruism is fundamentally fatal and unutterably evil, marriage is out of the question. First, the vows: love someone as you love yourself? Impossible. A betrayal of logic and reason and the basic principles of Objectivism.
From the other point of view, who would marry someone whose only goal in life is to satisfy themselves? Who would marry a person who views you only as a means for their own pleasure, a maid and employee? Answer: only another objectivist who had something to gain from the association, or a drooling fool blinded by your brilliance and willing to become your slave. Really, only a person beneath contempt, who had no real initiative of their own, would be content to merely bask in the glory of a great objectivist demigod, instead of striking out on their own path to greatness.
Since there can be no love -- I mean, foolish romantic sentimentality -- why get married at all? Just form a corporation and avoid the inevitable legal morass of divorce when the spouse can no longer one's sexual needs. (This sexual satire from about Rand the New Yorker is hilarious.)
And children? What fool would ever have children? Rand once dismissed a classmate as meaningless because the girl thought her mother was the important thing in her life (which is undeniably true for most children).
Children are a terribly inefficient investment: it takes a decade a two before you can get any useful work out of them. And then there's no guarantee they'll ever actually do anything for you after spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on their upbringing: if they've been paying attention to your objectivist rants, their only goal in life should be to get you to kick off as soon as possible so they can inherit your vast industrial empire so they can use it to springboard to an even vaster industrial empire. That means there's the very tangible risk of them hurrying you along to your grave...
Rand understood the worthlessness of children and the mortal danger of allowing someone to be your heir -- she had no kids. But mysteriously she remained married to the same man for fifty years, until his death. Of course, she went after for him only for his looks, though she apparently came to love him in her fashion (they had an open marriage). She had a long-standing extramarital affair with Nathaniel Branden, who with his wife operated an institute to promote Objectivism.
Realistically, this kind of amoral and licentious behavior is the only rational outcome of the Objectivist philosophy. Love and loyalty are useless, self-destructive sentiments. Yet this woman is practically deified by the likes of Paul Ryan and Rand Paul.
The most disgusting part of Bereznak's story was when her father asked Alyssa -- then a sophomore in high school -- to petition to be emancipated so that he could stop paying child support. He would then hire her at his law office and charge her rent.
Great family values.
Discussion of Rand's philosophy of Objectivism always centers around titans of industry and brilliant self-made composers and scientists. But it completely ignores the realities of everyday life; in particular, marriage and children.
If altruism is fundamentally fatal and unutterably evil, marriage is out of the question. First, the vows: love someone as you love yourself? Impossible. A betrayal of logic and reason and the basic principles of Objectivism.
From the other point of view, who would marry someone whose only goal in life is to satisfy themselves? Who would marry a person who views you only as a means for their own pleasure, a maid and employee? Answer: only another objectivist who had something to gain from the association, or a drooling fool blinded by your brilliance and willing to become your slave. Really, only a person beneath contempt, who had no real initiative of their own, would be content to merely bask in the glory of a great objectivist demigod, instead of striking out on their own path to greatness.
Since there can be no love -- I mean, foolish romantic sentimentality -- why get married at all? Just form a corporation and avoid the inevitable legal morass of divorce when the spouse can no longer one's sexual needs. (This sexual satire from about Rand the New Yorker is hilarious.)
And children? What fool would ever have children? Rand once dismissed a classmate as meaningless because the girl thought her mother was the important thing in her life (which is undeniably true for most children).
Children are a terribly inefficient investment: it takes a decade a two before you can get any useful work out of them. And then there's no guarantee they'll ever actually do anything for you after spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on their upbringing: if they've been paying attention to your objectivist rants, their only goal in life should be to get you to kick off as soon as possible so they can inherit your vast industrial empire so they can use it to springboard to an even vaster industrial empire. That means there's the very tangible risk of them hurrying you along to your grave...
Rand understood the worthlessness of children and the mortal danger of allowing someone to be your heir -- she had no kids. But mysteriously she remained married to the same man for fifty years, until his death. Of course, she went after for him only for his looks, though she apparently came to love him in her fashion (they had an open marriage). She had a long-standing extramarital affair with Nathaniel Branden, who with his wife operated an institute to promote Objectivism.
Realistically, this kind of amoral and licentious behavior is the only rational outcome of the Objectivist philosophy. Love and loyalty are useless, self-destructive sentiments. Yet this woman is practically deified by the likes of Paul Ryan and Rand Paul.
The most disgusting part of Bereznak's story was when her father asked Alyssa -- then a sophomore in high school -- to petition to be emancipated so that he could stop paying child support. He would then hire her at his law office and charge her rent.
Great family values.
Wednesday, November 06, 2013
The Real Gateway Drugs
Rob Ford, the conservative mayor of Toronto, has been making news for months now as reports of a video showing him smoking crack have circulated. Now he has admitted it's true.
“You asked me a question back in May and you can repeat that question,” Mr. Ford told a crush of journalists, photographers and camera operators. “Yes, I have smoked crack cocaine. But no, do I, am I an addict? No. Have I tried it? Probably in one of my drunken stupors, probably approximately about a year ago.”What's astonishing is how casually this man -- who echoes conservative American talking points as he rails against the government gravy train, AIDS prevention and bike lanes -- admits to "drunken stupors." This is par for the course in North American society, where we have draconian laws against cocaine and heroin, but think nothing of how millions of Americans and Canadians drink enough on a daily basis to cause brain damage.
People use "I was drunk" as an excuse for everything, as a sort of badge of honor. Getting totally trashed by drinking 21 shots on your 21st birthday is a rite of passage. But that's often enough alcohol to kill you. There are 900 cases of alcohol poisoning in the US each week, mostly in the college-age population. And they're still coming up with newer, faster ways to get drunk, from stylish vaportinis to disgusting butt-chugging.
But being drunk is not a mitigating factor. You're responsible for anything you do while drunk if you voluntarily drank yourself stupid. And stupid is the right word.
Two-thirds of violent crimes against intimates are under the influence of alcohol, and 40% of all violent crimes are committed under the influence. Fifty percent of acquaintance rapes involve alcohol. Millions of families are destroyed by alcohol abuse. In 2005, 75,000 people died from alcohol, mostly from car accidents and diseases like cirrhosis and cancer. According to the CDC, alcohol use costs America $223.5 billion a year.
I don't drink, and I've never done drugs. I think alcohol and recreational drugs are a scourge on society, along with gambling, football, NASCAR and pro wrestling. In my less charitable moments I dismiss people who use booze and drugs as mopes and dopes. But I also think the war on drugs is a total waste of money: prohibition failed in the 1930s, and today's illicit drug prohibition is an abject failure. The swillers of scotch and chuggers of beer who keep fighting to keep marijuana illegal are complete hypocrites.
The knock against marijuana is that it's the "gateway drug" that leads to cocaine, heroin and certain death. But as Rob Ford's case shows, alcohol is the real gateway drug: it's easily accessible and its consumption is widely and wildly encouraged -- it's a $400 billion industry. And it's not the only gateway drug: we have dozens now.
Parents are feeding mind-altering drugs like ritalin to their kids under the guise of helping them with attention deficit disorder, but often they just don't like dealing with rambunctious kids. Ritalin is chemically similar to cocaine (it's been considered as "methadone for cocaine addiction"), and in sufficiently high doses is just as addictive. People are becoming addicted to opioid painkillers like oxycodone by the millions, and when doctors cut them off many turn to heroin. Rush Limbaugh circumvented banking regulations to get cash to pay for his oxycodone addiction, which may have cost him his hearing.
Some states have legalized marijuana, but the federal government is still wasting billions of dollars fighting a war against a drug that for all practical purposes is impossible to overdose on. One college kid died from drinking 24 shots in two hours: but Amanda Bynes reportedly smoked 10 joints an hour (surely not a world record) before getting tossed in jail after she tossed a bong out her window. But that's nowhere near the toxicity of alcohol: a deadly dose of THC requires smoking 15,000 joints in 20 minutes. Nicotine is far more toxic: Igor Stravinsky almost died of nicotine poisoning while working on Petrushka; the nicotine in two cigarettes could kill an adult if directly absorbed.
I'm not saying we should hand out drugs like candy. Cocaine should be controlled because of the risks of heart attack, stroke, and high blood pressure. Heroin is extremely addictive (and causes constipation!), but it's an opioid just like Vicodin and Oxycontin which are legal and handed out liberally by doctors for the most minor complaints. Most of the problems with heroin abuse (hepatitis and HIV from needle sharing, poisoning from street drugs cut with crap, etc.) are due to the unsanitary practices of broke and strung-out addicts and its illegality. Crystal meth is bad news all around, but because it's so easy to make and it's illegal, it means quick cash and a top TV series. If better drugs were available, no one would risk using meth and getting meth mouth.
But there's still resistance to decriminalization and legalization because politicians are afraid of looking soft on drugs. House Republicans, always fond of the drug war because it funnels so much money into the pockets of for-profit prison corporations who contribute millions to Republican candidates, are desperate to balance the budget. (They also apparently like to drink on the House floor.)
To show their budgetary desperation and determination House Republicans voted to cut $40 billion in food stamps over the next 10 years. But the federal government spends $15 billion every year on the war on drugs, much of that to stop marijuana. States spend an additional $25 billion. We spend hundreds of billions on prisons, which are mostly filled with minor drug offenders.
If we legalized marijuana and decriminalized drug use, we could save tens of billions of dollars in enforcement efforts annually, clear out our prisons, and reduce the number of burglaries and muggings committed by addicts desperate for the cash to buy their next fix. We could cut the legs off the drug cartels in Latin America, which would eliminate the thousands of murderous criminals Joe Arpaio says are bringing drugs north and taking guns south across the border every day.
People use illicit drugs for all kinds of reasons, but the underlying factor is that drugs fill some void in their brain chemistry. We have tacitly acknowledged this biological fact with our wholesale adoption of drugs like ritalin, Cymbalta, Abilify, Zoloft, Prozac, Paxil, and so on, to treat the tiniest symptoms of inattention, depression and social anxiety. And we have alcohol ever-present to give us the liquid courage to beat our wives and rape our dates.
In a country where giant pharmaceutical companies push dope during the nightly news and beer companies glorify drunken behavior during football games, it is preposterous that the DEA is still raiding legal medical marijuana dispensaries for cancer patients.
My solution? Most drugs and alcohol should be legal, though discouraged -- glamorous advertising should be banned. They should be treated like the dirty little industry they are. They should be taxed according to how much their damage costs society. That should be enough to discourage casual use but not enough to encourage criminal activity to circumvent those taxes. Distribution of drugs that cause direct mental or physical damage (incapacitatingly addictive, very high toxicity, damaging to DNA, etc.) should remain illegal, but usage should not be criminal: the users are the victims, not the perpetrators.
So, let us take the first of twelve steps. Repeat after me:
My name is America and I am an alcoholic. And a drug addict. And denying reality.
In The Black
Perhaps I was too hasty in poo-pooing comparisons of our nation's economy to an individual's economy. Certainly, there are plenty of differences that are largely ignored by the Right but there are some similarities that were illustrated quite well over at The Pragmatic Capitalist. The first piece, "The US Government is not $16 Trillion dollars in the hole," points out the obvious.
The IER estimates that total fossil fuel resources owned by the Federal government are valued at over $150 trillion alone. These assets alone are FIFTY FIVE times the amount stated in the CNBC report. But that only scratches the surface. I haven’t even looked into the huge amount of federally owned land and buildings that would surely amount into the hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars. There’s also the gold resources. And there’s the trillions of dollars in its own liabilities that it owns via the Fed and Social Security funds.
Just like an ordinary person who owns land, oil, a profitable business and other assets like gold, the US government also has a gigantic pile of assets that make us far into the black. And that's with all the future Social Security and Medicare liabilities (around $60-7$0 trillion). As PragCap show us, we are not going bankrupt and the people who claim this are simply lying because of their pathological hatred of the US government and their inability to admit fault. Their obsession with spending is essentially holding us back from economic growth and one was to wonder if this is the whole point. They want our country to fail so they can win the argument.
Of course there are still differences which the second link illustrates quite well.
The constraint for the government is different from that of a household or business who can really “run out of money”. The US government’s constraint is not that it will run out of funds, but that it could supply too much liquidity to the private sector thereby causing inflation. So the US government’s real constraint is inflation and not solvency. This is a vastly different issue than the one the US media usually harps on with regards to the budget deficit and the US government’s ability to “afford” its spending.
The USA has an institutional arrangement in which it is a contingent currency issuer. That is, while the Treasury is an operational currency user (meaning it must always have funds in its account at the Fed before it can spend those funds) it has the extraordinary power to tax and issue risk free bonds that the public will always desire to hold so long as inflation is not extraordinarily high. In addition, even in a worst case scenario, the US Treasury can always rely on the Federal Reserve to supply the funds necessary to fund its spending. Therefore, the US government can be thought of as a contingent currency issuer who can issue the funds to spend. This makes it very different from a household.
The US Treasury is a currency user, but the government as a whole can be seen as a contingent currency issuer by institutional design because of this implicit funding guarantee. So the key here is that there’s no solvency constraint as in, “running out of money”. Greece doesn’t have this arrangement. In fact, since the ECB is essentially a foreign central bank there is a real solvency constraint. So banks and private investors have become hesitant to buy Greek bonds because of this flawed institutional arrangement and the lack of an implicit guarantee. It’s apples and oranges compared to the USA.
Once again, not like Greece. Not going bankrupt. Not overspending. Not running out of money. Plenty of assets.
IN THE BLACK.
The IER estimates that total fossil fuel resources owned by the Federal government are valued at over $150 trillion alone. These assets alone are FIFTY FIVE times the amount stated in the CNBC report. But that only scratches the surface. I haven’t even looked into the huge amount of federally owned land and buildings that would surely amount into the hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars. There’s also the gold resources. And there’s the trillions of dollars in its own liabilities that it owns via the Fed and Social Security funds.
Just like an ordinary person who owns land, oil, a profitable business and other assets like gold, the US government also has a gigantic pile of assets that make us far into the black. And that's with all the future Social Security and Medicare liabilities (around $60-7$0 trillion). As PragCap show us, we are not going bankrupt and the people who claim this are simply lying because of their pathological hatred of the US government and their inability to admit fault. Their obsession with spending is essentially holding us back from economic growth and one was to wonder if this is the whole point. They want our country to fail so they can win the argument.
Of course there are still differences which the second link illustrates quite well.
The constraint for the government is different from that of a household or business who can really “run out of money”. The US government’s constraint is not that it will run out of funds, but that it could supply too much liquidity to the private sector thereby causing inflation. So the US government’s real constraint is inflation and not solvency. This is a vastly different issue than the one the US media usually harps on with regards to the budget deficit and the US government’s ability to “afford” its spending.
The USA has an institutional arrangement in which it is a contingent currency issuer. That is, while the Treasury is an operational currency user (meaning it must always have funds in its account at the Fed before it can spend those funds) it has the extraordinary power to tax and issue risk free bonds that the public will always desire to hold so long as inflation is not extraordinarily high. In addition, even in a worst case scenario, the US Treasury can always rely on the Federal Reserve to supply the funds necessary to fund its spending. Therefore, the US government can be thought of as a contingent currency issuer who can issue the funds to spend. This makes it very different from a household.
The US Treasury is a currency user, but the government as a whole can be seen as a contingent currency issuer by institutional design because of this implicit funding guarantee. So the key here is that there’s no solvency constraint as in, “running out of money”. Greece doesn’t have this arrangement. In fact, since the ECB is essentially a foreign central bank there is a real solvency constraint. So banks and private investors have become hesitant to buy Greek bonds because of this flawed institutional arrangement and the lack of an implicit guarantee. It’s apples and oranges compared to the USA.
Once again, not like Greece. Not going bankrupt. Not overspending. Not running out of money. Plenty of assets.
IN THE BLACK.
Other Shoe=Dropped
I was wondering when the other shoe would drop in terms of the hysteria over "If you like your insurance, you get to keep it." It looks like it has.
"If you're an insurance company, you're trying to hang onto the consumers you have at the highest price you can get them," Laura Etherton, a health policy analyst at the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, told TPM. "You can take advantage of the confusion about what people get to have now. It's a new world. It's disappointing that insurance companies are sending confusing letters to consumers to take advantage of that confusion. The reality is that this could do real harm."
It never ceases to amaze me how folks like Mika Brzezenski get sucked in to the faux outrage. Why are they so insecure? Ah well, I used to be like that so maybe she will learn and become like Juan Williams over at Fox someday.
You should be blaming your insurance company because they have not been providing you with coverage that meets the minimum basic standards for health care. Let me put it more bluntly: your insurance companies have been taking advantage of you and the Affordable Care Act puts in place consumer protection and tells them to stop abusing people. The government did not “force” insurance companies to cancel their own substandard policies.The insurance companies chose to do that rather than do what is right and bring the policies up to code. This would be like saying the government “forces” chemical companies to dispose of toxic waste safely rather than dumping it in the river.
People should be angry that their insurance companies were not paying for these humane, common sense benefits all along. It baffles me that people are directing their anger at the ACA which rights these terrible wrongs.
There's nothing baffling about it. Our country is filled with adolescents who have problem with authority figures and would never think to blame insurance companies because they are filled with wealthy people who, by their very nature, are perfect and should be worshiped. Just blame the government...it's easy!!
So, what does happen to those people whose policies are "cancelled?"
Yeah, you'll have to excuse me if I don't fall for their bullshit again.
"If you're an insurance company, you're trying to hang onto the consumers you have at the highest price you can get them," Laura Etherton, a health policy analyst at the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, told TPM. "You can take advantage of the confusion about what people get to have now. It's a new world. It's disappointing that insurance companies are sending confusing letters to consumers to take advantage of that confusion. The reality is that this could do real harm."
It never ceases to amaze me how folks like Mika Brzezenski get sucked in to the faux outrage. Why are they so insecure? Ah well, I used to be like that so maybe she will learn and become like Juan Williams over at Fox someday.
You should be blaming your insurance company because they have not been providing you with coverage that meets the minimum basic standards for health care. Let me put it more bluntly: your insurance companies have been taking advantage of you and the Affordable Care Act puts in place consumer protection and tells them to stop abusing people. The government did not “force” insurance companies to cancel their own substandard policies.The insurance companies chose to do that rather than do what is right and bring the policies up to code. This would be like saying the government “forces” chemical companies to dispose of toxic waste safely rather than dumping it in the river.
People should be angry that their insurance companies were not paying for these humane, common sense benefits all along. It baffles me that people are directing their anger at the ACA which rights these terrible wrongs.
There's nothing baffling about it. Our country is filled with adolescents who have problem with authority figures and would never think to blame insurance companies because they are filled with wealthy people who, by their very nature, are perfect and should be worshiped. Just blame the government...it's easy!!
So, what does happen to those people whose policies are "cancelled?"
Yeah, you'll have to excuse me if I don't fall for their bullshit again.
Tuesday, November 05, 2013
Good Words
“I said this to the RNC last summer. I’m in this to win, because if you don’t win, you can’t govern. If you can’t govern, you can’t move the country, the state, the city — whatever you’re running for — in the direction it needs to be moved in. I think we’ve had too many people [in the Republican Party] who’ve become less interested in winning an election and more interested in winning an argument.”---Governor Chris Christie, November 4, 2013
Does Governor Christie read my blog?:)
Congratulations, Governor, on your victory tonight. And congrats to Governor Elect Terry McAuliffe as well.
Does Governor Christie read my blog?:)
Congratulations, Governor, on your victory tonight. And congrats to Governor Elect Terry McAuliffe as well.
Election Day
I've had a few emails with requests to talk about today's election. I had planned on putting something anyway to encourage people to vote in off years like this so that's up first.
GO VOTE.
Turnout is so low in the odd years but these elections are where local issues (see: things that really affect your life) are of paramount importance. School Boards, City Council, Mayoral races...all of these matter so your vote counts and more so than usual because of the low turnout.
As far as Virginia and New Jersey goes, it looks like Terry McAuliffe will beat Ken Cuccinelli and Chris Christie will beat Barbara Buono so no surprises really in either of those states. If McAullife does win, the GOP can say goodbye to Virginia which pretty much puts national elections out of reach. Unless, of course, they nominate Christie which would make 2016 more competitive. What to do...what to do...pick a guy who can win a national election (and who would be good president, in my view) but isn't "pure" or pick someone like Cruz, who fulfills their porn fantasies and will win exactly five states and maybe not even his home state if Hilary runs.
Decisions decisions...
GO VOTE.
Turnout is so low in the odd years but these elections are where local issues (see: things that really affect your life) are of paramount importance. School Boards, City Council, Mayoral races...all of these matter so your vote counts and more so than usual because of the low turnout.
As far as Virginia and New Jersey goes, it looks like Terry McAuliffe will beat Ken Cuccinelli and Chris Christie will beat Barbara Buono so no surprises really in either of those states. If McAullife does win, the GOP can say goodbye to Virginia which pretty much puts national elections out of reach. Unless, of course, they nominate Christie which would make 2016 more competitive. What to do...what to do...pick a guy who can win a national election (and who would be good president, in my view) but isn't "pure" or pick someone like Cruz, who fulfills their porn fantasies and will win exactly five states and maybe not even his home state if Hilary runs.
Decisions decisions...
Hmm..
Yesterday on "Morning Joe," Zeke Emmanuel said that anyone who had an insurance policy in place before March 23rd, 2010 and has since not had any alterations to that plan, got to keep it. Is this true?
Monday, November 04, 2013
Good Words
"Philosopher-in-Chief for the intellectually bankrupt." ---Jonny Lee Miller as Sherlock Holmes on the CBS drama, "Elementary" (Season 2, Episode 3, "We Are Everyone.") on the subject of Ayn Rand.
Show Him This
There are many myths about our nation's debt and most our being pushed by the Right. "We can't keep spending like this!" they whine incessantly or "sooner or later, the money will run out!!" Strange, really, because they act as though we don't control our own money supply nor have any revenue. The simple fact is we have both. We have collect just under 6 trillion dollars in revenue and enjoy a 17 trillion dollar economy.
But talking about the economy in a simplistic way is what the Right does, not the rest of us who understand the complexities of monetary policy. The truth is, as Lawrence Summers puts it, the debt isn't that big of a deal.
More fundamental is this: Current and future budget deficits are now a second-order problem relative to other, more pressing issues facing the U.S. economy. Projections that there is a major deficit problem are highly uncertain. And policies that indirectly address deficit issues by focusing on growth are sounder in economic terms and more plausible in political terms than the long-term budget deals much of the policy community is obsessed with.
The latest Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projection is that the federal deficit will fall to 2 percent of GDP by 2015 and that a decade from now the debt-to-GDP ratio will be below its current level of 75 percent. While the CBO projects that under current law the debt-to-GDP ratio will rise over the longer term, the rise is not large relative to the scale of the U.S. economy. It would be offset by an increase in revenue or a decrease in spending of 0.8 percent of GDP for the next 25 years and 1.7 percent of GDP for the next 75 years.
Here is our budget deficit over the last five years.
There is no doubt we are heading in the right direction. And, as I have explained many times, we have been in debt pretty much since we have started as a country. Take a look below.
Certainly, we have been in far worse spots and predictions of 100 percent debt to GDP in the last few years have not materialized. Right now we stand at just over 70 percent debt to GDP which is entirely manageable. In fact, there are perils in the philosophy of austerity as Eduardo Porter pointed out recently that illustrate the cost-benefit analysis of taking on some more debt and getting paid off in the long run with more growth and thus, less debt.
A recent analysis by the research firm Macroeconomic Advisers estimated that cuts to discretionary government spending — roughly everything the government spends money on except for Social Security and Medicare — trimmed growth by seven-tenths of a percentage point a year since 2010, and cost some 1.2 million jobs. The costs are mounting across the Atlantic, too, despite the contentment in London and Berlin.
A study by an economist from the European Commission published this month concluded that spending cuts put in place by governments from Greece to Germany since 2011 had stalled the economic turnaround of the entire euro area. A host of economic analyses over the last three years by researchers from different corners of the world — including Roberto Perotti at Milan’s Bocconi University, Alan Taylor and Òscar Jordá at the University of California, Davis and researchers at the I.M.F. — have concluded almost invariably that budget cutting in a depressed economy is counterproductive.
By cutting teachers or raising taxes, reducing government transfers or trimming public purchases of goods and services, austerity shrinks the economy in the short term, often more than it shrinks the burden of public debt.
Exactly right. This is why we have the anemic growth that we have right now. I suspect that many in the business wing of the GOP know this and they just want Obama to fail so they bloviate about cutting taxes and bring guys like Arthur Laffer back into the mix.
I think that Simon Wren-Lewis, a professor of economics at Oxford University, has it right. Arguing that the tiny amount of economic growth Britain has recently achieved after a years-long downturn proved austerity to be the right policy is tantamount to saying that global warming skeptics had “won the climate change argument because of recent heavy snow.” Of course, they argue that as well!
So, when your weird uncle, who, at the age of 40-60 something, still has a problem with authority, starts spouting off at the upcoming holiday gatherings about the deficit, the debt, and how it's "math," show him the information in this post and have him explain his understanding of these facts. And then read him this.
If even half the energy that has been devoted over the past five years to “budget deals” were devoted instead to “growth strategies,” we could enjoy sounder government finances and a restoration of the power of the American example. At a time when the majority of the United States thinks that it is moving in the wrong direction, and family incomes have been stagnant, a reduction in political fighting is not enough. We have to start focusing on the issues that actually are most important.
Drop me an email or put up a comment and let me know what he says:)
But talking about the economy in a simplistic way is what the Right does, not the rest of us who understand the complexities of monetary policy. The truth is, as Lawrence Summers puts it, the debt isn't that big of a deal.
More fundamental is this: Current and future budget deficits are now a second-order problem relative to other, more pressing issues facing the U.S. economy. Projections that there is a major deficit problem are highly uncertain. And policies that indirectly address deficit issues by focusing on growth are sounder in economic terms and more plausible in political terms than the long-term budget deals much of the policy community is obsessed with.
The latest Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projection is that the federal deficit will fall to 2 percent of GDP by 2015 and that a decade from now the debt-to-GDP ratio will be below its current level of 75 percent. While the CBO projects that under current law the debt-to-GDP ratio will rise over the longer term, the rise is not large relative to the scale of the U.S. economy. It would be offset by an increase in revenue or a decrease in spending of 0.8 percent of GDP for the next 25 years and 1.7 percent of GDP for the next 75 years.
Here is our budget deficit over the last five years.
There is no doubt we are heading in the right direction. And, as I have explained many times, we have been in debt pretty much since we have started as a country. Take a look below.
Certainly, we have been in far worse spots and predictions of 100 percent debt to GDP in the last few years have not materialized. Right now we stand at just over 70 percent debt to GDP which is entirely manageable. In fact, there are perils in the philosophy of austerity as Eduardo Porter pointed out recently that illustrate the cost-benefit analysis of taking on some more debt and getting paid off in the long run with more growth and thus, less debt.
A recent analysis by the research firm Macroeconomic Advisers estimated that cuts to discretionary government spending — roughly everything the government spends money on except for Social Security and Medicare — trimmed growth by seven-tenths of a percentage point a year since 2010, and cost some 1.2 million jobs. The costs are mounting across the Atlantic, too, despite the contentment in London and Berlin.
A study by an economist from the European Commission published this month concluded that spending cuts put in place by governments from Greece to Germany since 2011 had stalled the economic turnaround of the entire euro area. A host of economic analyses over the last three years by researchers from different corners of the world — including Roberto Perotti at Milan’s Bocconi University, Alan Taylor and Òscar Jordá at the University of California, Davis and researchers at the I.M.F. — have concluded almost invariably that budget cutting in a depressed economy is counterproductive.
By cutting teachers or raising taxes, reducing government transfers or trimming public purchases of goods and services, austerity shrinks the economy in the short term, often more than it shrinks the burden of public debt.
Exactly right. This is why we have the anemic growth that we have right now. I suspect that many in the business wing of the GOP know this and they just want Obama to fail so they bloviate about cutting taxes and bring guys like Arthur Laffer back into the mix.
I think that Simon Wren-Lewis, a professor of economics at Oxford University, has it right. Arguing that the tiny amount of economic growth Britain has recently achieved after a years-long downturn proved austerity to be the right policy is tantamount to saying that global warming skeptics had “won the climate change argument because of recent heavy snow.” Of course, they argue that as well!
So, when your weird uncle, who, at the age of 40-60 something, still has a problem with authority, starts spouting off at the upcoming holiday gatherings about the deficit, the debt, and how it's "math," show him the information in this post and have him explain his understanding of these facts. And then read him this.
If even half the energy that has been devoted over the past five years to “budget deals” were devoted instead to “growth strategies,” we could enjoy sounder government finances and a restoration of the power of the American example. At a time when the majority of the United States thinks that it is moving in the wrong direction, and family incomes have been stagnant, a reduction in political fighting is not enough. We have to start focusing on the issues that actually are most important.
Drop me an email or put up a comment and let me know what he says:)
.jpg)
Sunday, November 03, 2013
All Too Familiar
From a story on the LAX shooter, Paul Ciancia...
In a part of the letter, addressing T.S.A. employees, he wrote that he wanted to “instill fear in your traitorous minds.”
“It was very hard for them,” said Amanda Lawson, 21, a waitress in the Broadway Diner in Pennsville, who graduated from Pennsville Memorial High School in 2010 with Mr. Ciancia’s brother. She described both brothers as “awkward.” “They had some depression issues, and they both got obsessive,” she said on Saturday.
But he had apparently turned against the government, and it seemed clear that Mr. Ciancia knew he was putting himself in a suicidal situation by marching with an assault weapon and 100 rounds of ammunition into the third-busiest airport in the country, officials said. He also sent a text message to his brother that left the family alarmed. He seemed to have a specific grudge against the T.S.A.; his handwritten note singled out the agency as a symbol of what was wrong with the government, mentioning by name the former head of homeland security, Janet Napolitano, according to a federal official. Bystanders said the gunman had appeared to be targeting T.S.A. agents in particular.
Obsessive, depression and turning against the government...sounds like TSM commenters to me! Ah well, at least his second amendment rights were protected.
In a part of the letter, addressing T.S.A. employees, he wrote that he wanted to “instill fear in your traitorous minds.”
“It was very hard for them,” said Amanda Lawson, 21, a waitress in the Broadway Diner in Pennsville, who graduated from Pennsville Memorial High School in 2010 with Mr. Ciancia’s brother. She described both brothers as “awkward.” “They had some depression issues, and they both got obsessive,” she said on Saturday.
But he had apparently turned against the government, and it seemed clear that Mr. Ciancia knew he was putting himself in a suicidal situation by marching with an assault weapon and 100 rounds of ammunition into the third-busiest airport in the country, officials said. He also sent a text message to his brother that left the family alarmed. He seemed to have a specific grudge against the T.S.A.; his handwritten note singled out the agency as a symbol of what was wrong with the government, mentioning by name the former head of homeland security, Janet Napolitano, according to a federal official. Bystanders said the gunman had appeared to be targeting T.S.A. agents in particular.
Obsessive, depression and turning against the government...sounds like TSM commenters to me! Ah well, at least his second amendment rights were protected.
Opening Minds
Reverend Jim directed me to this truly magnificent piece over at christianitytoday.com.
Yet in many ways, a version of that conversation is taking place today in the West. There are those who side with Paley against Darwin: Life is designed, and therefore did not evolve. There are those who side with Darwin against Paley: Life evolved, and therefore is not designed. There are some for whom Darwin rules out Milton: Animals and humans have always died, so there was no Eden, no Adam, no Eve, and no fall. Then there are those for whom Milton rules out Darwin: Yes, there was, so no, they haven't.
Still others agree with Darwin and Paley, but not Milton: Evolution is designed by God, but a literal fall never happened. Some even agree with Darwin and Milton but not Paley: Evolution happened, and a literal fall happened, but the design argument is just a God-of-the-gaps thing, and we shouldn't use it. And many proponents of each view get rather angry with people who hold a different one. It's all very confusing.
To make a complicated situation worse, there is a tiny minority of oddballs who think all three of them were essentially right, and who believe in the fall of Adam and Eve, the argument from design, and Darwinian evolution. Oddballs like me.
Is this an indication that some minds are opening? I hope so!
Yet in many ways, a version of that conversation is taking place today in the West. There are those who side with Paley against Darwin: Life is designed, and therefore did not evolve. There are those who side with Darwin against Paley: Life evolved, and therefore is not designed. There are some for whom Darwin rules out Milton: Animals and humans have always died, so there was no Eden, no Adam, no Eve, and no fall. Then there are those for whom Milton rules out Darwin: Yes, there was, so no, they haven't.
Still others agree with Darwin and Paley, but not Milton: Evolution is designed by God, but a literal fall never happened. Some even agree with Darwin and Milton but not Paley: Evolution happened, and a literal fall happened, but the design argument is just a God-of-the-gaps thing, and we shouldn't use it. And many proponents of each view get rather angry with people who hold a different one. It's all very confusing.
To make a complicated situation worse, there is a tiny minority of oddballs who think all three of them were essentially right, and who believe in the fall of Adam and Eve, the argument from design, and Darwinian evolution. Oddballs like me.
Is this an indication that some minds are opening? I hope so!
Great Words
"Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you" - Jesus Christ (Luke 17:21).
What does that mean to you?
What does that mean to you?
Saturday, November 02, 2013
Good Words
"I simply cannot stand with a Party where its most extreme element promote hate and division amongst people. Nothing about my platform has, nor will it change. The government shutdown was simply the straw that broke the camels back. I guess being an American just isn’t good enough anymore… I refuse to be part of an extremist movement in the GOP that only appears to thrive on fear and hate mongering of anyone and everyone who doesn’t walk their line.” (Jason Thigpen, Congressional Candidate for North Carolina's 3rd District).
According to Charlie Cook, this is an R+10 district so he will likely not defeat Walter B. Jones Jr. Nevertheless, he will pull moderate voters his way if he ends up being the nominee for the Democrats. We do have to start somewhere in that state and what better place in a deep red district. And it flies in the face of conservative "logic," right? I thought everyone was running away from the president and the Democrats. What happened?!!?
According to Charlie Cook, this is an R+10 district so he will likely not defeat Walter B. Jones Jr. Nevertheless, he will pull moderate voters his way if he ends up being the nominee for the Democrats. We do have to start somewhere in that state and what better place in a deep red district. And it flies in the face of conservative "logic," right? I thought everyone was running away from the president and the Democrats. What happened?!!?
Yawn
I'm with Joan Walsh on the latest "hyperventilating," as she puts it, about how incompetent the president is at doing his job. The people that are attempting to stoke this are the same ones that hate him anyway so for me it's a giant snoozefest. Remember how wrong they were about Benghazi and the IRS? Yeah, I think I'll resist my liberal urge to try to be sympathetic to them and reflective and simple ignore it.
In a few weeks, they'll be on to something else.
But what I will do is point out a few interesting pieces on the subject of the ACA. The first one is by Jason Linkins over at HuffPO which really puts a fine tooth comb to the "If you like your health insurance, you get to keep it" line that has elicited so much adolescent bloviation that it's hard for me to keep track of it all.
The other part of the sentence that's sitting there trying to be all razzle-dazzle instead of attaching itself to its simple meaning is the word "like." A lot of people like their health insurance plans for different reasons, but one primary reason so many people "like" their plan is that they like the low, low price of the premium. Of course, as they say, "You get what you pay for," and the insurance market is no different. There are many insurance plans with eminently likeable costs that are not so likeable once you start using the plan. Some cheap plans offer only high-deductible catastrophic coverage. Other cheap plans have lifetime caps on coverage -- which means that if you suffer a major injury or illness that requires long-term or very costly medical care, your insurance company is eventually going to hit the cap and leave you holding the bag and facing the prospect of disastrous debt.
One of the biggest mistakes the Obama administration made was to not educate the public on just how crappy their plans were. Take note of the Jonathan Chait link in the piece as well and read it. Both Linkins and Chait summarize my thoughts quite on this latest "outrage."
Of course, the problem here is really the individual market and that's explained quite well in this graphic from the Times. As I have stated previously, most of the country isn't going to care about this because it doesn't affect them. By the time the dust settles from these recent issues, everyone is going to be much better off. Here's a look at three people's experiences with the health care changes coming out of the individual market which I think is a fair and accurate assessment.
All of this has made me think again of a common misconception that has been perpetuated by the Right. They quite erroneously believe that the people that support the president view him as the perfect savior. We don't. They do this because when he makes mistakes they can gleefully exclaim, "Gotcha!" and then assert that EVERYTHING is then flawed about the president and his policies. This mindset isn't really all that surprising as that's how they actually are with their ideology. They are never wrong and to admit error means they have completely lost (also completely ridiculous). In addition, they can't stand the fact that he has succeeded at anything (they did the same thing with Bill Clinton) because they have nothing other than bloviation to offer.
So, again, we're back to where we always end up: adolescent behavior. The health care market is incredibly complex and the first guy through the wall that tries to fix our problems (President Obama) is going to get bloody through his own mistakes, those of others, and the unbelievably high level of out and out lying by his opponents. Give him credit for at least being bold enough to tackle this very difficult issue and help solve a long running problem. Rather than pile on as the Right is doing right now, they could be helpful.
As they continue with their n'yah n'ayhs, keep that in mind:)
But what I will do is point out a few interesting pieces on the subject of the ACA. The first one is by Jason Linkins over at HuffPO which really puts a fine tooth comb to the "If you like your health insurance, you get to keep it" line that has elicited so much adolescent bloviation that it's hard for me to keep track of it all.
The other part of the sentence that's sitting there trying to be all razzle-dazzle instead of attaching itself to its simple meaning is the word "like." A lot of people like their health insurance plans for different reasons, but one primary reason so many people "like" their plan is that they like the low, low price of the premium. Of course, as they say, "You get what you pay for," and the insurance market is no different. There are many insurance plans with eminently likeable costs that are not so likeable once you start using the plan. Some cheap plans offer only high-deductible catastrophic coverage. Other cheap plans have lifetime caps on coverage -- which means that if you suffer a major injury or illness that requires long-term or very costly medical care, your insurance company is eventually going to hit the cap and leave you holding the bag and facing the prospect of disastrous debt.
One of the biggest mistakes the Obama administration made was to not educate the public on just how crappy their plans were. Take note of the Jonathan Chait link in the piece as well and read it. Both Linkins and Chait summarize my thoughts quite on this latest "outrage."
Of course, the problem here is really the individual market and that's explained quite well in this graphic from the Times. As I have stated previously, most of the country isn't going to care about this because it doesn't affect them. By the time the dust settles from these recent issues, everyone is going to be much better off. Here's a look at three people's experiences with the health care changes coming out of the individual market which I think is a fair and accurate assessment.
All of this has made me think again of a common misconception that has been perpetuated by the Right. They quite erroneously believe that the people that support the president view him as the perfect savior. We don't. They do this because when he makes mistakes they can gleefully exclaim, "Gotcha!" and then assert that EVERYTHING is then flawed about the president and his policies. This mindset isn't really all that surprising as that's how they actually are with their ideology. They are never wrong and to admit error means they have completely lost (also completely ridiculous). In addition, they can't stand the fact that he has succeeded at anything (they did the same thing with Bill Clinton) because they have nothing other than bloviation to offer.
So, again, we're back to where we always end up: adolescent behavior. The health care market is incredibly complex and the first guy through the wall that tries to fix our problems (President Obama) is going to get bloody through his own mistakes, those of others, and the unbelievably high level of out and out lying by his opponents. Give him credit for at least being bold enough to tackle this very difficult issue and help solve a long running problem. Rather than pile on as the Right is doing right now, they could be helpful.
As they continue with their n'yah n'ayhs, keep that in mind:)
Friday, November 01, 2013
All Is Well!
23-year-old Paul Ciancia walked into the LA Airport this afternoon with his assault rifle and started shooting TSA agents before he himself was shot and taken into custody. Clearly mentally ill, Ciancia didn't stop to think that there are plenty of armed personnel all over the airport.
Weird. That's not what the right wing bloggers tell me. In fact, they post moonbat shit like this. Ah well, as long as nobody infringed on Ciancia's 2nd Amendment rights, all is well!
Weird. That's not what the right wing bloggers tell me. In fact, they post moonbat shit like this. Ah well, as long as nobody infringed on Ciancia's 2nd Amendment rights, all is well!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)