Thursday, December 19, 2013
Once Again, The Adolescents
Dean Obeidallah put up a great piece after I had put up my take on the Phil Robertson flap. Much better points than I made...
Attention conservatives: you have the right to hate any group you want. Blacks, gays, Muslims, Jews, other sects of Christians, whoever you like. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has noted numerous times that the First Amendment guarantees “freedom of thought” in addition to freedoms such as religion and expression. Consequently, you can think as many hateful thoughts as you choose.
But here’s the thing: if you voice those hateful views publicly, you will be held accountable. That’s called personal responsibility. You would think people on the right would be familiar with that concept since they idolize Ronald Reagan, who famously said, “It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.”
And words as well. But adolescents don't get this reality.
More good things...
The First Amendment does not provide you immunity. It simply means that the government can’t prevent you from expressing yourself. But once you say something, you will be called to answer for it. This is the same reason Alec Baldwin was fired last month from his MSNBC show for making gay slurs. (Despite claims from the right, Alec Baldwin was indeed criticized publicly by GLADD for his comments.) And it’s the same reason Martin Bashir was pushed out at MSNBC for his horrible comments about Sarah Palin.
Interesting to read of Palin's reaction...
Never one to miss a chance for publicity, Sarah Palin posted on Facebook: “Free speech is an endangered species. Those ‘intolerants’ hatin’ and taking on the Duck Dynasty patriarch for voicing his personal opinion are taking on all of us.” (Only Palin could claim that a person who has just voiced intolerant comments like Robertson is being attacked by “intolerants.”) Of course, when Martin Bashir made despicable comments about Palin, she didn’t defend him by saying, “Free speech is an endangered species.” Nope, instead she slammed Bashir’s comments as being “vile” and “evil.” And officials at Palin’s political action committee demanded that MSNBC punish Bashir.
Again, adolescent...will they ever grow up?
I would like an answer to Obeidallah's question about the Right and their obsession with other people's anuses. Anyone?
Attention conservatives: you have the right to hate any group you want. Blacks, gays, Muslims, Jews, other sects of Christians, whoever you like. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has noted numerous times that the First Amendment guarantees “freedom of thought” in addition to freedoms such as religion and expression. Consequently, you can think as many hateful thoughts as you choose.
But here’s the thing: if you voice those hateful views publicly, you will be held accountable. That’s called personal responsibility. You would think people on the right would be familiar with that concept since they idolize Ronald Reagan, who famously said, “It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.”
And words as well. But adolescents don't get this reality.
More good things...
The First Amendment does not provide you immunity. It simply means that the government can’t prevent you from expressing yourself. But once you say something, you will be called to answer for it. This is the same reason Alec Baldwin was fired last month from his MSNBC show for making gay slurs. (Despite claims from the right, Alec Baldwin was indeed criticized publicly by GLADD for his comments.) And it’s the same reason Martin Bashir was pushed out at MSNBC for his horrible comments about Sarah Palin.
Interesting to read of Palin's reaction...
Never one to miss a chance for publicity, Sarah Palin posted on Facebook: “Free speech is an endangered species. Those ‘intolerants’ hatin’ and taking on the Duck Dynasty patriarch for voicing his personal opinion are taking on all of us.” (Only Palin could claim that a person who has just voiced intolerant comments like Robertson is being attacked by “intolerants.”) Of course, when Martin Bashir made despicable comments about Palin, she didn’t defend him by saying, “Free speech is an endangered species.” Nope, instead she slammed Bashir’s comments as being “vile” and “evil.” And officials at Palin’s political action committee demanded that MSNBC punish Bashir.
Again, adolescent...will they ever grow up?
I would like an answer to Obeidallah's question about the Right and their obsession with other people's anuses. Anyone?
Sowell A Go Go
If you are having a discussion with a conservative these days (at least the ones that think they are intelligent), it won't be too long before the name of Thomas Sowell comes up. I've never done a post about Sowell so this is way past due. He certainly has the credentials of a brilliant man and is highly regarded in the community of higher education but there are key problems with his core philosophy which I will illustrate below.
Dr. Sowell is an American economist, social theorist, political philosopher and author. Currently he is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution out at Stanford University. His book, A Conflict of Visions, is the work most frequently noted by conservatives as to why there is so much conflict between liberals and conservatives. To hear them proselytize about it, one would think it has as much regard as The Bible or Atlas Shrugged. Sowell's text defines two competing visions of political thought. They are summed up nicely in this table.
There is also this excellent summation.
The Unconstrained Vision
Sowell argues that the unconstrained vision relies heavily on the belief that human nature is essentially good. Those with an unconstrained vision distrust decentralized processes and are impatient with large institutions and systemic processes that constrain human action. They believe there is an ideal solution to every problem, and that compromise is never acceptable. Collateral damage is merely the price of moving forward on the road to perfection. Sowell often refers to them as "the self anointed." Ultimately they believe that man is morally perfectible. Because of this, they believe that there exist some people who are further along the path of moral development, have overcome self-interest and are immune to the influence of power and therefore can act as surrogate decision-makers for the rest of society.
The Constrained Vision
Sowell argues that the constrained vision relies heavily on belief that human nature is essentially unchanging and that man is naturally inherently self-interested, regardless of the best intentions. Those with a constrained vision prefer the systematic processes of the rule of law and experience of tradition. Compromise is essential because there are no ideal solutions, only trade-offs. Those with a constrained vision favor solid empirical evidence and time-tested structures and processes over intervention and personal experience. Ultimately, the constrained vision demands checks and balances and refuses to accept that all people could put aside their innate self-interest.
Conservatives continually assert that they are in the constrained vision column whereas liberals are in the unconstrained vision camp. Sowell himself has always been quick to point out that labels should not be applied or equated to his vision. Yet, I have to wonder...why would he set up such a dichotomy in the first place if that was not his intent? Couldn't he have saved a lot of time by simple saying "Liberals are stupidly naive and conservatives are intelligently grounded in reality?"
Our nation unfortunately has to live with Sowell's sort of hubris and bloviation every day (at least for the next seven years or so:)). Being the author of this preposterous ideology, Sowell is, of course, the most responsible. I say preposterous because, as a black man in the United States, it was the unconstrained vision that allowed him to become who he is today. Someone with Sowell's constrained vision would have ignored the injustices of civil rights and likely even slavery, dismissing them as the flawed nature of man and, oh well, there's nothing to be done about it. The constrained vision sees itself as grounded in reality yet how can equality be achieved without freedom of choice?
The biggest flaw, however, in Sowell's philosophy is that he rejects John Locke (in so many ways the original father of our country) stating that humans are naturally prone to error, are selfish and will never change. Locke believed (as do I), that people are born with the inherent right of freedom, liberty and property. From that point, the tabla rasa is filled in with an individual's unique nature and the environment in which they are socialized (both nature and nurture). Not every person is exactly the same, as Sowell posits.
The correlary between conservatives and the constrained vision is really a giant pile of crap. Their vision is so ridiculously unconstrained it's laughable. They have a utopian fantasy of the free market that solves all problems and in which people magically behave themselves without regulation. Further, they don't rely on empirical evidence on the major issues of the day. If they did, they would not have built The Church of the Climate Skeptic or be ass hats about gun violence. They are extremely loathe to compromise as is evidenced by the latest budget negotiations. Ironically and in many ways, they are the ones who are naive about human nature, thinking that the less laws there are, the better!
In contrast, I look at the unconstrained vision and don't really see much of myself at all and, again, see conservatives. Human nature is certainly malleable (we are in a constant state of evolution, after all) but not perfectible. And who gets to define who is the "strongest" and "most capable?" And what is the metric for this? One look at our leaders in Washington will illustrate that many are not the strongest or most capable. That could be a good thing or a bad thing depending on how you want to look at it. There is plenty of human action that is motivated by selflessness and sincerity. I am assured by many of my conservative colleagues that this is at the core of their ideology. This is especially true of Christians, right?
Not every bad thing has an explanation (poverty, war, crime) and sometimes it is best to simply try and manage the complexities. Of course, this doesn't mean that all bad things are a giant question mark (again...why have laws?...conservatives seems to always ask these days). I don't see market economies catering to a particular interest and don't think that most of them should be tailored to serve the public interest. Some of them, like health care for example, need to have more government regulation due to the inefficiencies that arise based on fundamental economics. The free market does work out in markets where there is more elasticity and many buyers and sellers.
In looking at these competing visions, one has to wonder if Sowell really thinks these things or if he is simply trying to make money in the willfully ignorant market of true believers. I think conservatives like to use him to make themselves seem smarter than they actually are. Perhaps they should take an honest look at the competing visions and reflect a little while on where they truly fall in terms of the characteristics. Then we can leave Thomas Sowell behind and engage instead in less restrictive thinking.
Dr. Sowell is an American economist, social theorist, political philosopher and author. Currently he is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution out at Stanford University. His book, A Conflict of Visions, is the work most frequently noted by conservatives as to why there is so much conflict between liberals and conservatives. To hear them proselytize about it, one would think it has as much regard as The Bible or Atlas Shrugged. Sowell's text defines two competing visions of political thought. They are summed up nicely in this table.
There is also this excellent summation.
The Unconstrained Vision
Sowell argues that the unconstrained vision relies heavily on the belief that human nature is essentially good. Those with an unconstrained vision distrust decentralized processes and are impatient with large institutions and systemic processes that constrain human action. They believe there is an ideal solution to every problem, and that compromise is never acceptable. Collateral damage is merely the price of moving forward on the road to perfection. Sowell often refers to them as "the self anointed." Ultimately they believe that man is morally perfectible. Because of this, they believe that there exist some people who are further along the path of moral development, have overcome self-interest and are immune to the influence of power and therefore can act as surrogate decision-makers for the rest of society.
The Constrained Vision
Sowell argues that the constrained vision relies heavily on belief that human nature is essentially unchanging and that man is naturally inherently self-interested, regardless of the best intentions. Those with a constrained vision prefer the systematic processes of the rule of law and experience of tradition. Compromise is essential because there are no ideal solutions, only trade-offs. Those with a constrained vision favor solid empirical evidence and time-tested structures and processes over intervention and personal experience. Ultimately, the constrained vision demands checks and balances and refuses to accept that all people could put aside their innate self-interest.
Conservatives continually assert that they are in the constrained vision column whereas liberals are in the unconstrained vision camp. Sowell himself has always been quick to point out that labels should not be applied or equated to his vision. Yet, I have to wonder...why would he set up such a dichotomy in the first place if that was not his intent? Couldn't he have saved a lot of time by simple saying "Liberals are stupidly naive and conservatives are intelligently grounded in reality?"
Our nation unfortunately has to live with Sowell's sort of hubris and bloviation every day (at least for the next seven years or so:)). Being the author of this preposterous ideology, Sowell is, of course, the most responsible. I say preposterous because, as a black man in the United States, it was the unconstrained vision that allowed him to become who he is today. Someone with Sowell's constrained vision would have ignored the injustices of civil rights and likely even slavery, dismissing them as the flawed nature of man and, oh well, there's nothing to be done about it. The constrained vision sees itself as grounded in reality yet how can equality be achieved without freedom of choice?
The biggest flaw, however, in Sowell's philosophy is that he rejects John Locke (in so many ways the original father of our country) stating that humans are naturally prone to error, are selfish and will never change. Locke believed (as do I), that people are born with the inherent right of freedom, liberty and property. From that point, the tabla rasa is filled in with an individual's unique nature and the environment in which they are socialized (both nature and nurture). Not every person is exactly the same, as Sowell posits.
The correlary between conservatives and the constrained vision is really a giant pile of crap. Their vision is so ridiculously unconstrained it's laughable. They have a utopian fantasy of the free market that solves all problems and in which people magically behave themselves without regulation. Further, they don't rely on empirical evidence on the major issues of the day. If they did, they would not have built The Church of the Climate Skeptic or be ass hats about gun violence. They are extremely loathe to compromise as is evidenced by the latest budget negotiations. Ironically and in many ways, they are the ones who are naive about human nature, thinking that the less laws there are, the better!
In contrast, I look at the unconstrained vision and don't really see much of myself at all and, again, see conservatives. Human nature is certainly malleable (we are in a constant state of evolution, after all) but not perfectible. And who gets to define who is the "strongest" and "most capable?" And what is the metric for this? One look at our leaders in Washington will illustrate that many are not the strongest or most capable. That could be a good thing or a bad thing depending on how you want to look at it. There is plenty of human action that is motivated by selflessness and sincerity. I am assured by many of my conservative colleagues that this is at the core of their ideology. This is especially true of Christians, right?
Not every bad thing has an explanation (poverty, war, crime) and sometimes it is best to simply try and manage the complexities. Of course, this doesn't mean that all bad things are a giant question mark (again...why have laws?...conservatives seems to always ask these days). I don't see market economies catering to a particular interest and don't think that most of them should be tailored to serve the public interest. Some of them, like health care for example, need to have more government regulation due to the inefficiencies that arise based on fundamental economics. The free market does work out in markets where there is more elasticity and many buyers and sellers.
In looking at these competing visions, one has to wonder if Sowell really thinks these things or if he is simply trying to make money in the willfully ignorant market of true believers. I think conservatives like to use him to make themselves seem smarter than they actually are. Perhaps they should take an honest look at the competing visions and reflect a little while on where they truly fall in terms of the characteristics. Then we can leave Thomas Sowell behind and engage instead in less restrictive thinking.
Grounded Duck
I knew it wouldn't be long before one of the stars of A&E's Duck Dynasty spouted off some redneck bullshit about the gays. One of the show's stars, Phil Robertson, apparently didn't get the memo that we live in a tolerant society now and recognize that the Bible is wrong about some things, including homosexuality.
In an interview with GQ, Robertson said. "It seems like, to me, a vagina - as a man - would be more desirable than a man's anus. That's just me. I'm just thinking: There's more there! She's got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I'm saying? But hey, sin: It's not logical, my man. It's just not logical." Asked what, in his mind, is sinful, Robertson replied: "Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men."
Right, because having sex with an animal is the same as two consenting adults...sheesh. A&E has suspended Robertson indefinitely as a result of these comments.
As expected, the right wing media industrial complex has rushed to his defense, citing "freedom of speech." The conundrum for them, however, is that corporations (see: Worship Immediately, no assembly required) are private entities and are free to hire and fire people based on their views. Now, if they suspended Robertson because he was white or heterosexual, then they might have cause for complaint. Or if they refused to provide him with service because he was a man, then we'd definitely have a civil rights violation on our hands. As it stands now, thought, the cries of freedom being taken away are full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
I wonder if Robertson believes that women should be subservient to men as this directive is mentioned far more often than homsexuality...
In an interview with GQ, Robertson said. "It seems like, to me, a vagina - as a man - would be more desirable than a man's anus. That's just me. I'm just thinking: There's more there! She's got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I'm saying? But hey, sin: It's not logical, my man. It's just not logical." Asked what, in his mind, is sinful, Robertson replied: "Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men."
Right, because having sex with an animal is the same as two consenting adults...sheesh. A&E has suspended Robertson indefinitely as a result of these comments.
As expected, the right wing media industrial complex has rushed to his defense, citing "freedom of speech." The conundrum for them, however, is that corporations (see: Worship Immediately, no assembly required) are private entities and are free to hire and fire people based on their views. Now, if they suspended Robertson because he was white or heterosexual, then they might have cause for complaint. Or if they refused to provide him with service because he was a man, then we'd definitely have a civil rights violation on our hands. As it stands now, thought, the cries of freedom being taken away are full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
I wonder if Robertson believes that women should be subservient to men as this directive is mentioned far more often than homsexuality...
What Do Women Want?
According to this book, it's SEX. And they are very hungry for it!! In what would make a great stocking stuffer this year, author Daniel Bergner writes about how our view of women is all backwards.
Bergner, and the leading sex researchers he interviews, argue that women’s sexuality is not the rational, civilized and balancing force it’s so often made out to be — that it is base, animalistic and ravenous, everything we’ve told ourselves about male sexuality. As one researcher tells Bergner of all the restrictions put on female sexuality: “Those barriers are a testament to the power of the drive itself. It’s a pretty incredible testament. Because the drive must be so strong to override all of that.”
“Women’s desire — its inherent range and innate power — is an underestimated and constrained force, even in our times, when all can seem so sexually inundated, so far beyond restriction,” he writes. “Despite the notions our culture continues to imbue, this force is not, for the most part, sparked or sustained by emotional intimacy and safety.” In fact, he argues, “one of our most comforting assumptions, soothing perhaps above all to men but clung to by both sexes, that female eros is much better made for monogamy than the male libido, is scarcely more than a fairy tale.”
I agree and my first hand experience tells me that this is certainly the case. Our society needs to throw our preconceived and male centered views of sexuality out the window. 2000+ years is more than enough, thank you very much!
Bergner, and the leading sex researchers he interviews, argue that women’s sexuality is not the rational, civilized and balancing force it’s so often made out to be — that it is base, animalistic and ravenous, everything we’ve told ourselves about male sexuality. As one researcher tells Bergner of all the restrictions put on female sexuality: “Those barriers are a testament to the power of the drive itself. It’s a pretty incredible testament. Because the drive must be so strong to override all of that.”
“Women’s desire — its inherent range and innate power — is an underestimated and constrained force, even in our times, when all can seem so sexually inundated, so far beyond restriction,” he writes. “Despite the notions our culture continues to imbue, this force is not, for the most part, sparked or sustained by emotional intimacy and safety.” In fact, he argues, “one of our most comforting assumptions, soothing perhaps above all to men but clung to by both sexes, that female eros is much better made for monogamy than the male libido, is scarcely more than a fairy tale.”
I agree and my first hand experience tells me that this is certainly the case. Our society needs to throw our preconceived and male centered views of sexuality out the window. 2000+ years is more than enough, thank you very much!
Wednesday, December 18, 2013
Russia Applying the Lessons of Capitalism
A couple of weeks ago my wife noticed that a grocery store that sells
organic food was selling orange juice for $5.99, while Cub (a store
that usually has lower prices) was selling exactly the same thing for
$7.99. I wondered if the dreaded orange juice price increase that has been predicted for the last year or so had kicked in.
But the other night she went to Cub and found that same orange juice "on sale" for $5.99, $2.00 off the "regular" price. So the price increase was only made so that they could have a sale. This is now standard practice for all retailers, especially around the holidays, when bargain-hungry shoppers snap up anything that promises big savings, even if those savings are total lies.
It has been more than 20 years since communism collapsed in the Soviet Union, and the unbreakable union -- союз нерушимый are literally the first two words of the Soviet-era anthem -- splintered into 15 different countries. The Russians have adopted capitalism with total abandon, and they've been spending billions of dollars on foreign real estate, primarily to convert their ill-gotten gains into tangible assets that the notoriously fickle Russian government can't touch. This has annoyed to no end people in places like New York, London and Paris, who hate how Russian billionaires have jacked up real estate prices while paying nothing in taxes.
Now there's some other real estate that the Russians want: Ukraine.
Ukraine has been undergoing massive protests while the country has been debating whether to join the European Union or side with Russia. The EU has made Ukrainian membership contingent on cleaning up their act: no more political prisoners. In particular, the EU demanded the release of Yulia Timoshenko, the former prime minister who was jailed on trumped-up charges of embezzlement in a natural gas deal made with Russian company Gazprom.
Russia has been jerking Ukraine around over natural gas prices for years, cutting them off completely in the middle of winter in 2006. But now Vladimir Putin, the former communist KGB official, has totally embraced the capitalist spirit: like American retailers on Black Friday, Putin is offering Ukraine a Christmas sale on natural gas, plus $15 billion worth of holiday cheer. All for the low, low price of renouncing their freedom and submitting to the Russian yoke once more.
Why does Russia want Ukraine? The country has some natural resources. Ukraine was called the "bread basket" of the Soviet Union. Some of it is pride: Russia has lost its empire, and the influence and economic power that goes with empires, and they want it back. They're setting up their own customs union, and they don't want to lose Ukraine to the EU.
Some of it is history: Kiev was the original capital of Kievan Rus', the original Slavic state founded by the Viking Rurik. Some of it is family: there are many ethnic Russians still living in Ukraine. About a sixth of Ukrainians are Russia, and another sixth are Ukrainians who speak Russian. This Washington Post article describes the ethnic split.
After independence, ethnic Russians lost their lock on political control of Ukraine. Power has been shifting back and forth between ethnic Ukrainians and ethnic Russians. That split between ethnic Ukrainians who wish to remain independent of Russian hegemony and ethnic or cultural Russians who want the security of big brother standing behind them is the basic source of the current fight.
And ethnic Ukrainians have good reason to fear Russia: the Kremlin doesn't mind getting its hand dirty. Viktor Yushchenko, the leader of the Orange Revolution, was the victim of an apparent assassination attempt during an election in 2004. He was poisoned by dioxin that left him disfigured but alive. He managed to beat his Kremlin-backed opponent.
Ethnic Russian Ukrainians are making a deal with the devil: instead of opting for a free and fair country run by the rule of law, with equal protections for all, they're opting for an oligarchy backed by naked Russian power. Some day the Russians will be busy with their own problems, and ethnic Russian Ukrainians will find themselves outnumbered two-to-one by angry ethnic Ukrainians unfettered by the niceties of EU human rights policies.
I suppose Putin using capitalist tricks to ensnare Ukraine is better than a tank invasion or assassination. But I'm guessing this is just posturing during the delicate time before the Winter Olympics in Sochi. I'm afraid the former KGB man will revert to form once the Olympic torch has gone out.
But the other night she went to Cub and found that same orange juice "on sale" for $5.99, $2.00 off the "regular" price. So the price increase was only made so that they could have a sale. This is now standard practice for all retailers, especially around the holidays, when bargain-hungry shoppers snap up anything that promises big savings, even if those savings are total lies.
It has been more than 20 years since communism collapsed in the Soviet Union, and the unbreakable union -- союз нерушимый are literally the first two words of the Soviet-era anthem -- splintered into 15 different countries. The Russians have adopted capitalism with total abandon, and they've been spending billions of dollars on foreign real estate, primarily to convert their ill-gotten gains into tangible assets that the notoriously fickle Russian government can't touch. This has annoyed to no end people in places like New York, London and Paris, who hate how Russian billionaires have jacked up real estate prices while paying nothing in taxes.
Now there's some other real estate that the Russians want: Ukraine.
Ukraine has been undergoing massive protests while the country has been debating whether to join the European Union or side with Russia. The EU has made Ukrainian membership contingent on cleaning up their act: no more political prisoners. In particular, the EU demanded the release of Yulia Timoshenko, the former prime minister who was jailed on trumped-up charges of embezzlement in a natural gas deal made with Russian company Gazprom.
Russia has been jerking Ukraine around over natural gas prices for years, cutting them off completely in the middle of winter in 2006. But now Vladimir Putin, the former communist KGB official, has totally embraced the capitalist spirit: like American retailers on Black Friday, Putin is offering Ukraine a Christmas sale on natural gas, plus $15 billion worth of holiday cheer. All for the low, low price of renouncing their freedom and submitting to the Russian yoke once more.
Why does Russia want Ukraine? The country has some natural resources. Ukraine was called the "bread basket" of the Soviet Union. Some of it is pride: Russia has lost its empire, and the influence and economic power that goes with empires, and they want it back. They're setting up their own customs union, and they don't want to lose Ukraine to the EU.
Some of it is history: Kiev was the original capital of Kievan Rus', the original Slavic state founded by the Viking Rurik. Some of it is family: there are many ethnic Russians still living in Ukraine. About a sixth of Ukrainians are Russia, and another sixth are Ukrainians who speak Russian. This Washington Post article describes the ethnic split.
After independence, ethnic Russians lost their lock on political control of Ukraine. Power has been shifting back and forth between ethnic Ukrainians and ethnic Russians. That split between ethnic Ukrainians who wish to remain independent of Russian hegemony and ethnic or cultural Russians who want the security of big brother standing behind them is the basic source of the current fight.
 |
| Viktor Yushchenko: before and after poisoning |
Ethnic Russian Ukrainians are making a deal with the devil: instead of opting for a free and fair country run by the rule of law, with equal protections for all, they're opting for an oligarchy backed by naked Russian power. Some day the Russians will be busy with their own problems, and ethnic Russian Ukrainians will find themselves outnumbered two-to-one by angry ethnic Ukrainians unfettered by the niceties of EU human rights policies.
I suppose Putin using capitalist tricks to ensnare Ukraine is better than a tank invasion or assassination. But I'm guessing this is just posturing during the delicate time before the Winter Olympics in Sochi. I'm afraid the former KGB man will revert to form once the Olympic torch has gone out.
Too Cool
I'm a big fan of old things...living history, if you will. So, when I saw the interior of this house for sale I was completely blown away. Talk about a time capsule!
I've always romanticized the 1940s all out of proportion but this is just too fucking cool...
I've always romanticized the 1940s all out of proportion but this is just too fucking cool...
How Does A Flipped Classroom Work?
Many teachers already do something quite similar to this in one way or another. I do it all the time and it works quite well.
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
An Excellent Summation
I can't think of a better summation of the gun community in everything they do.
A whole lot of money for an ideological fraud!
A whole lot of money for an ideological fraud!
Cheer Up
Without the continued promises of looming apocalypse, the Right wouldn't have much to talk about these days. "Tough history coming" is what Kevin Baker calls it. A recent cartoon he posted illustrates this mentality perfectly. But reality says otherwise.
All in all, many economists now see economic growth climbing to a solid 3% next year, a significant improvement from the 2% average annual pace that the economy has been stuck on for the last 4 1/2 years. An acceleration to 3% would probably push up U.S. job growth to 250,000 a month on average, from a monthly average of 190,000 over the last 12 months, Kleinhenz said. At that pace, the nation would recover all the jobs lost in the recession by the end of 2014. And it would push down the jobless rate closer to the 5.5% to 6% range that some now see as the potential long-term unemployment rate.
My home state is certainly feeling this reality as well.
With an improving job market and overall economy, families are once again splurging on big-ticket recreational items, spending $3,000 or more on snowmobiles and ATVs made just for kids. The trend is being thoroughly enjoyed in Minnesota, home to two of the nation’s largest recreational vehicle makers and some of the snowiest turf in the country.
One wonders how long this charade of impending doom will hold. Certainly, there will be an ample supply of frightened old baby boomers for the next couple of decades but how many of them will give into their irrational emotions and fear when the facts say otherwise?
So, given these economic indicators, this recent piece by Edward Carr is my message today to Kevin and the other members of the apocalyptic cult masquerading as conservatives: cheer up.
American fears about the future are also distorted. Nobody doubts the significance of China’s economic rise, but economic prosperity does not automatically translate into geopolitical power. If China wanted to challenge America, it would not only have to sustain its stellar growth for a long time but also to transform its capacity to project power abroad.
Similarly, although countries like India, Brazil and South Africa will want to get on in the world, they also have a stake in the system that America has created. It is unsafe to extrapolate trends into a distant future when America loses its supremacy, not least because rising prosperity will change those other countries beyond recognition. Moreover, until the others eventually catch up, America will remain the global superpower. Could it not turn that position to its advantage?
It is time to cheer up. The world America faces today may seem cussed and intractable, but the world America looked forward to shaping after the fall of the Soviet Union was never as pliant and welcoming as it imagined. And America’s strengths are as impressive as ever. On every measure of power it remains dominant. With a revived foreign-policy agenda, Mr Obama could begin to put the misadventure of Iraq behind him. With creative and energetic diplomacy, he has scope to get plenty done. With more effort to build coalitions and work with allies, American power can once again be decisive. But this can happen only if Americans rediscover the will to lead.
So, why don't people like Kevin have the will to lead anymore? I think the answer is the same response as to why they continually insists that we are heading towards doom.
Because they are afraid that the ideology they vilify is working.
All in all, many economists now see economic growth climbing to a solid 3% next year, a significant improvement from the 2% average annual pace that the economy has been stuck on for the last 4 1/2 years. An acceleration to 3% would probably push up U.S. job growth to 250,000 a month on average, from a monthly average of 190,000 over the last 12 months, Kleinhenz said. At that pace, the nation would recover all the jobs lost in the recession by the end of 2014. And it would push down the jobless rate closer to the 5.5% to 6% range that some now see as the potential long-term unemployment rate.
My home state is certainly feeling this reality as well.
With an improving job market and overall economy, families are once again splurging on big-ticket recreational items, spending $3,000 or more on snowmobiles and ATVs made just for kids. The trend is being thoroughly enjoyed in Minnesota, home to two of the nation’s largest recreational vehicle makers and some of the snowiest turf in the country.
One wonders how long this charade of impending doom will hold. Certainly, there will be an ample supply of frightened old baby boomers for the next couple of decades but how many of them will give into their irrational emotions and fear when the facts say otherwise?
So, given these economic indicators, this recent piece by Edward Carr is my message today to Kevin and the other members of the apocalyptic cult masquerading as conservatives: cheer up.
American fears about the future are also distorted. Nobody doubts the significance of China’s economic rise, but economic prosperity does not automatically translate into geopolitical power. If China wanted to challenge America, it would not only have to sustain its stellar growth for a long time but also to transform its capacity to project power abroad.
Similarly, although countries like India, Brazil and South Africa will want to get on in the world, they also have a stake in the system that America has created. It is unsafe to extrapolate trends into a distant future when America loses its supremacy, not least because rising prosperity will change those other countries beyond recognition. Moreover, until the others eventually catch up, America will remain the global superpower. Could it not turn that position to its advantage?
It is time to cheer up. The world America faces today may seem cussed and intractable, but the world America looked forward to shaping after the fall of the Soviet Union was never as pliant and welcoming as it imagined. And America’s strengths are as impressive as ever. On every measure of power it remains dominant. With a revived foreign-policy agenda, Mr Obama could begin to put the misadventure of Iraq behind him. With creative and energetic diplomacy, he has scope to get plenty done. With more effort to build coalitions and work with allies, American power can once again be decisive. But this can happen only if Americans rediscover the will to lead.
So, why don't people like Kevin have the will to lead anymore? I think the answer is the same response as to why they continually insists that we are heading towards doom.
Because they are afraid that the ideology they vilify is working.
Monday, December 16, 2013
A Tale of Two Governors
Now that the hysterical hyperventilation over the Affordable Care Act has passed, we are starting to hear about the more positive ways in which the law is being implemented. It's very interesting to note how two red states, Nevada and Kentucky, have chosen to tackle the rollout.
As noted in this piece, Governor Sandoval (R-Nevada), is all in.
Sandoval is the only Republican governor whose state is both running its own health insurance exchange this year and expanding its Medicaid program under the health law. He’s arguably doing more to put the Democrats’ signature law into place than any other Republican.
Why?
“I opposed the Affordable Care Act from its inception,” he wrote in an email. But he’s a former federal judge and in his view, once the Supreme Court upheld the legislation, “the Affordable Care Act became the law of the land.”
Apparently, his constituents appreciate his adult behavior.
Even after sticking his neck out on Obamacare — which few others in his party would consider amid fear of a conservative backlash — Sandoval is overwhelmingly popular in Nevada. State lawmakers backed his Obamacare approach on a bipartisan basis, and he’s cruising toward reelection next year with no formidable opponent in sight.
Huh. So, moderating and actually accomplishing the business of government works. So does "stamping Obamacare to his forehead." Whoda thunk it? Well, considering the ACA was a Republican idea in the first place...
Governor Steve Beshear, a Democrat in the (not much longer now) red state of Kentucky has also fully embraced the ACA.
The way Beshear tells it, “this” is enrolling 69,000 Kentuckians in newly available health coverage programs, a number that has grown steadily and that the Democrat expects to “surge” in the final weeks of the year. As the only governor of a Southern state who has both set up a state insurance exchange and green-lighted an expansion of the Medicaid program, Beshear represents a painfully rare bright spot in the landscape of Obamacare implementation. The state exchange, dubbed Kynect, has been a model of smooth enrollment compared to the federal government’s version, and has absorbed 550,000 web visitors and 180,000 phone inquiries so far.
Hoo boy...so much for the boiling pit of sewage. Governor Beshear has even been calling out folks like Mitch McConnell on all the lying over the ACA.
“I have a U.S. senator who keeps saying Kentuckians don’t want this,” Beshear said. “Well, the facts don’t prove that out. There’s about 550,000 on our website right now who want it — and some 65,000 to 69,000 that have signed up. So Kentuckians do want it.”
"I want to publicly invite our entire federal delegation to come back to Kentucky as [Democratic Rep.] John Yarmuth does all the time and come over to our center, our nerve center where we’re running this program and see for yourself what is going on,” said Beshear. “When you see that, I think you’ll quit saying this will not work and Kentuckians don’t want it.”
Governor Beshear also notes that the issue of the ACA is going to come back and haunt McConnell in his already tough reelection battle next year. I agree. In fact, I'm going to predict right now that McConnell loses that race because the far right in Kentucky is pissed off at him and won't turn out. Heck, he might not even make it out of the primary. Alison Lundergan Grimes is a very popular, moderate Democrat currently serving as Secretary of State for Kentucky. She will pull GOP voters to her side, given the Kentuckian embrace of the ACA.
Republican governors and Democrats in southern red states embracing the Affordable Care Act? All this bipartisanship makes me warm and fuzzy. I wonder how it makes the Tea Party feel these days...:)
As noted in this piece, Governor Sandoval (R-Nevada), is all in.
Sandoval is the only Republican governor whose state is both running its own health insurance exchange this year and expanding its Medicaid program under the health law. He’s arguably doing more to put the Democrats’ signature law into place than any other Republican.
Why?
“I opposed the Affordable Care Act from its inception,” he wrote in an email. But he’s a former federal judge and in his view, once the Supreme Court upheld the legislation, “the Affordable Care Act became the law of the land.”
Apparently, his constituents appreciate his adult behavior.
Even after sticking his neck out on Obamacare — which few others in his party would consider amid fear of a conservative backlash — Sandoval is overwhelmingly popular in Nevada. State lawmakers backed his Obamacare approach on a bipartisan basis, and he’s cruising toward reelection next year with no formidable opponent in sight.
Huh. So, moderating and actually accomplishing the business of government works. So does "stamping Obamacare to his forehead." Whoda thunk it? Well, considering the ACA was a Republican idea in the first place...
Governor Steve Beshear, a Democrat in the (not much longer now) red state of Kentucky has also fully embraced the ACA.
The way Beshear tells it, “this” is enrolling 69,000 Kentuckians in newly available health coverage programs, a number that has grown steadily and that the Democrat expects to “surge” in the final weeks of the year. As the only governor of a Southern state who has both set up a state insurance exchange and green-lighted an expansion of the Medicaid program, Beshear represents a painfully rare bright spot in the landscape of Obamacare implementation. The state exchange, dubbed Kynect, has been a model of smooth enrollment compared to the federal government’s version, and has absorbed 550,000 web visitors and 180,000 phone inquiries so far.
Hoo boy...so much for the boiling pit of sewage. Governor Beshear has even been calling out folks like Mitch McConnell on all the lying over the ACA.
“I have a U.S. senator who keeps saying Kentuckians don’t want this,” Beshear said. “Well, the facts don’t prove that out. There’s about 550,000 on our website right now who want it — and some 65,000 to 69,000 that have signed up. So Kentuckians do want it.”
"I want to publicly invite our entire federal delegation to come back to Kentucky as [Democratic Rep.] John Yarmuth does all the time and come over to our center, our nerve center where we’re running this program and see for yourself what is going on,” said Beshear. “When you see that, I think you’ll quit saying this will not work and Kentuckians don’t want it.”
Governor Beshear also notes that the issue of the ACA is going to come back and haunt McConnell in his already tough reelection battle next year. I agree. In fact, I'm going to predict right now that McConnell loses that race because the far right in Kentucky is pissed off at him and won't turn out. Heck, he might not even make it out of the primary. Alison Lundergan Grimes is a very popular, moderate Democrat currently serving as Secretary of State for Kentucky. She will pull GOP voters to her side, given the Kentuckian embrace of the ACA.
Republican governors and Democrats in southern red states embracing the Affordable Care Act? All this bipartisanship makes me warm and fuzzy. I wonder how it makes the Tea Party feel these days...:)
Sunday, December 15, 2013
Good Words
“We have become used to the suffering of others. Has any one of us wept for these persons who were on the boat? For the young mothers carrying their babies? For these men who were looking for a means of supporting their families? We are a society which has forgotten how to weep, how to experience compassion… the church is with you in the search for a more dignified life for you and your families.”
~Pope Francis, taking up the plight of immigrants and the poor, July 2013
Saturday, December 14, 2013
It's Cool Now
A year after the Sandy Hook massacre and we haven't progressed at all. In fact, we've gone backwards in some ways. School shootings happen about once a month now and I have to wonder just how much of this is the media's fault. Every time there is a shooting, it's instantaneous, wall to wall coverage as we saw yesterday with yet another shooting in Colorado. If there was less coverage, or none at all, would there be less school shootings?
Somewhere along the way in these last two decades, it became alright to walk into a school with a gun and start shooting. Heck, it's cool, right? Because it's on TV and everyone gets excited about it. For those mentally ill individuals, this is their chance to have people finally attention to them. And they think it's socially acceptable because of the regularity with which it happens. Worse, people seem to be OK with it and that is just terribly disturbing. The only good thing (if you can call it good) that has come out of Newtown is the gun community has shown what truly ugly people they are. Their response to this tragedy was so profoundly disgusting that, in many ways, they are going to deeply regret their words and actions. As I have stated previously, it's only a matter of time.
The Christian Science Monitor has a series of articles up that are very worthwhile reading. In addition to political analysis, they offer some great perspectives on where we are culturally that need attention. Here's an example...
• One in three people in the US knows someone who has been shot.
• On average, 32 Americans are murdered with guns every day, and 140 are treated for a gun assault in an emergency room.
• Every day on average, 51 people kill themselves with a firearm, and 45 people are shot or killed in an accident with a gun.
• The US firearm homicide rate is 20 times higher than the combined rates of 22 countries that are our peers in wealth and population.
• Although guns can and have been used successfully in self-defense in the home, a gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used to injure or kill in a domestic homicide, suicide, or unintentional shooting than to be used in self-defense.
For our country as great as ours, this is simply piss poor. And it obviously goes way beyond guns. Why are we such violent culture? It's not simply one reason and I think once we get a handle on the complexities of this answer, we can define the various reasons and implement solutions.
I think we should start with why it's cool now to shoot up schools.
Somewhere along the way in these last two decades, it became alright to walk into a school with a gun and start shooting. Heck, it's cool, right? Because it's on TV and everyone gets excited about it. For those mentally ill individuals, this is their chance to have people finally attention to them. And they think it's socially acceptable because of the regularity with which it happens. Worse, people seem to be OK with it and that is just terribly disturbing. The only good thing (if you can call it good) that has come out of Newtown is the gun community has shown what truly ugly people they are. Their response to this tragedy was so profoundly disgusting that, in many ways, they are going to deeply regret their words and actions. As I have stated previously, it's only a matter of time.
The Christian Science Monitor has a series of articles up that are very worthwhile reading. In addition to political analysis, they offer some great perspectives on where we are culturally that need attention. Here's an example...
• One in three people in the US knows someone who has been shot.
• On average, 32 Americans are murdered with guns every day, and 140 are treated for a gun assault in an emergency room.
• Every day on average, 51 people kill themselves with a firearm, and 45 people are shot or killed in an accident with a gun.
• The US firearm homicide rate is 20 times higher than the combined rates of 22 countries that are our peers in wealth and population.
• Although guns can and have been used successfully in self-defense in the home, a gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used to injure or kill in a domestic homicide, suicide, or unintentional shooting than to be used in self-defense.
For our country as great as ours, this is simply piss poor. And it obviously goes way beyond guns. Why are we such violent culture? It's not simply one reason and I think once we get a handle on the complexities of this answer, we can define the various reasons and implement solutions.
I think we should start with why it's cool now to shoot up schools.
Who is John Galt?
Or, in this case, Jon Gault?
Well, he is a man who is very grateful for the Affordable Care Act.
Some nights, when Jon Gault felt his worst, he wondered if he would live long enough to see his 17-year-old son go to college or to walk his daughter, now 8, down the aisle.
Although many have reported problems with the federal HealthCare.gov site, Gault says Washington’s site was surprisingly easy to navigate and he was quickly approved. The price came as a pleasant surprise also. Thanks to federal subsidies, Gault will not have to pay for his coverage.
“I went from being denied health insurance several years ago to actually having it now,” Gault says.
“It’s kind of nice.”Many of his Republican friends have dismissed his newfound hope, and he has stopped trying to argue with them. They are not seeing the bigger picture, he says. It’s not about how much it will cost; it’s about those it will help. Everyone will benefit at least indirectly, because people they love and care about will benefit.
As for him, he says he no longer has to choose between providing for his family or taking care of himself.
Oh, the sweet, sweet irony!
Well, he is a man who is very grateful for the Affordable Care Act.
Some nights, when Jon Gault felt his worst, he wondered if he would live long enough to see his 17-year-old son go to college or to walk his daughter, now 8, down the aisle.
Although many have reported problems with the federal HealthCare.gov site, Gault says Washington’s site was surprisingly easy to navigate and he was quickly approved. The price came as a pleasant surprise also. Thanks to federal subsidies, Gault will not have to pay for his coverage.
“I went from being denied health insurance several years ago to actually having it now,” Gault says.
“It’s kind of nice.”Many of his Republican friends have dismissed his newfound hope, and he has stopped trying to argue with them. They are not seeing the bigger picture, he says. It’s not about how much it will cost; it’s about those it will help. Everyone will benefit at least indirectly, because people they love and care about will benefit.
As for him, he says he no longer has to choose between providing for his family or taking care of himself.
Oh, the sweet, sweet irony!
Friday, December 13, 2013
Growing Up
It appears as though some Republicans are finally growing up. Check out what Paul Ryan had to say recently.
As a conservative, I deal with the situation as it exists. I deal with the way things are, not necessarily the way I want them to be. I’ve passed three budgets in a row that reflect my priorities and my principles and everything I wanted to accomplish. We’re in divided government. I realize I’m not going to get that.
Ryan took to the House floor yesterday and noted that "elections have consequences." Wow! There goes his Obama-hatin' card!!
John Boehner has also chimed in, wondering just exactly the Tea Party is trying to accomplish. "Are you KIDDING me?" was his question and the response is quite simple.
When your throw your lot in with adolescents, you get temper tantrums.
As a conservative, I deal with the situation as it exists. I deal with the way things are, not necessarily the way I want them to be. I’ve passed three budgets in a row that reflect my priorities and my principles and everything I wanted to accomplish. We’re in divided government. I realize I’m not going to get that.
Ryan took to the House floor yesterday and noted that "elections have consequences." Wow! There goes his Obama-hatin' card!!
John Boehner has also chimed in, wondering just exactly the Tea Party is trying to accomplish. "Are you KIDDING me?" was his question and the response is quite simple.
When your throw your lot in with adolescents, you get temper tantrums.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)