I'm still trying to figure out why the Tea Baggers and other malcontent conservatives are pissed off about Thad winning the runoff in Mississippi. Democrats can vote in primary elections. It's the law. Why are the being all whiny about it? Don't the Republicans want to expand their base? What better way to do so than by illustrating to African American voters in the state that Thad Cochran considers their interests as well.
It will never cease to amaze me how conservatives continue to do everything in their power to contract their voting base.
Friday, June 27, 2014
Thursday, June 26, 2014
Getting Blood Out of a Stone
When you give money to a charity, you expect that they'll spend it on the things they promised to. Right?
So when people gave the American Red Cross $300 million for Hurricane Sandy relief, you would expect that the organization would be quite proud to show how well they did for their donors. Right?
Wrong.
ProPublica tried to find out the details of how the Red Cross spent the money it received for Hurricane Sandy. But getting the information from the Red Cross is like getting blood out of a stone:
When a tax-exempt public charity starts spouting corporate-speak about trade secrets, competitors and business models, they seem to be hiding something.
But what? By all accounts, the Red Cross is doing a pretty decent job of turning donations into help for people in need (91% of every dollar raised goes to humanitarian services). They post the IRS form with the salary of CEO Gail McGovern ($628,386 in 2013). That's not excessive, even though some Internet nitwits pretend it is, and the five other corporate officers listed also have reasonable salaries.
There are a lot of unscrupulous charities out there that do a lot worse job than the Red Cross. The Red Cross is out there on the front lines whenever there's a disaster, so it's pretty obvious they're actually doing something.
Other charities, not so much. There are a zillion charities for veterans, children (foreign and domestic), animal shelters, wildlife, medical research, and so on. But you can never really tell that they're actually doing anything with your money: we'll always have homeless vets, cancer, heart disease, too many pregnant cats running around loose and endangered species. Lots of these charities are completely phony. Most of them spend far more on fund raising than the cause they're supposed to be helping.
The Red Cross is different. They're always around, always helping people when they need it most. But because we trust and depend on them, they really need to be up front about what they do with the money we give them. Because if they're not doing their jobs right, people are going to die.
All charities should be held to that same standard. If the Red Cross is afraid to divulge their "business model" because they believe that the weaselly worthless charities will start poaching Red Cross donors, then we need to strengthen the laws for charitable giving to stop the scum from ripping us off.
So when people gave the American Red Cross $300 million for Hurricane Sandy relief, you would expect that the organization would be quite proud to show how well they did for their donors. Right?
Wrong.
ProPublica tried to find out the details of how the Red Cross spent the money it received for Hurricane Sandy. But getting the information from the Red Cross is like getting blood out of a stone:
If those details were disclosed, "the American Red Cross would suffer competitive harm because its competitors would be able to mimic the American Red Cross's business model for an increased competitive advantage," [Gabrielle] Levin [counsel for the Red Cross from the law firm Gibson Dunn] wrote.People give the Red Cross their very blood for free, a donation which carries significant risk of personal bodily harm, and they turn around and sell it to hospitals for a hefty fee. And they're whining about trade secrets? People give you blood and money. What's the big secret?
When a tax-exempt public charity starts spouting corporate-speak about trade secrets, competitors and business models, they seem to be hiding something.
But what? By all accounts, the Red Cross is doing a pretty decent job of turning donations into help for people in need (91% of every dollar raised goes to humanitarian services). They post the IRS form with the salary of CEO Gail McGovern ($628,386 in 2013). That's not excessive, even though some Internet nitwits pretend it is, and the five other corporate officers listed also have reasonable salaries.
There are a lot of unscrupulous charities out there that do a lot worse job than the Red Cross. The Red Cross is out there on the front lines whenever there's a disaster, so it's pretty obvious they're actually doing something.
Other charities, not so much. There are a zillion charities for veterans, children (foreign and domestic), animal shelters, wildlife, medical research, and so on. But you can never really tell that they're actually doing anything with your money: we'll always have homeless vets, cancer, heart disease, too many pregnant cats running around loose and endangered species. Lots of these charities are completely phony. Most of them spend far more on fund raising than the cause they're supposed to be helping.
The Red Cross is different. They're always around, always helping people when they need it most. But because we trust and depend on them, they really need to be up front about what they do with the money we give them. Because if they're not doing their jobs right, people are going to die.
All charities should be held to that same standard. If the Red Cross is afraid to divulge their "business model" because they believe that the weaselly worthless charities will start poaching Red Cross donors, then we need to strengthen the laws for charitable giving to stop the scum from ripping us off.
A Frivolous Lawsuit?
Conservatives like to whine and shriek about frivolous lawsuits right up until the point when they actually start one themselves.
House Speaker John Boehner confirmed Wednesday that he intends to sue President Obama in the long-running dispute between the administration and congressional Republicans over the scope of the administration's executive authority to enforce laws.
"I am," Boehner told reporters, when asked if he was going to initiate a lawsuit. "The Constitution makes it clear that a president's job is to faithfully execute the laws. In my view, the president has not faithfully executed the laws." Boehner added: "Congress has its job to do and so does the president. And when there's conflicts like this between the legislative branch and the administrative branch, it's in my view our responsibility to stand up for this institution in which we serve."
I wonder how much this is going to cost the taxpayers.
House Speaker John Boehner confirmed Wednesday that he intends to sue President Obama in the long-running dispute between the administration and congressional Republicans over the scope of the administration's executive authority to enforce laws.
"I am," Boehner told reporters, when asked if he was going to initiate a lawsuit. "The Constitution makes it clear that a president's job is to faithfully execute the laws. In my view, the president has not faithfully executed the laws." Boehner added: "Congress has its job to do and so does the president. And when there's conflicts like this between the legislative branch and the administrative branch, it's in my view our responsibility to stand up for this institution in which we serve."
I wonder how much this is going to cost the taxpayers.
Wednesday, June 25, 2014
When Every Quarter Is a Bad Quarter
The Commerce Department says that US economy contracted 2.9% in the first quarter, mostly due to bad winter weather. To be sure, there were lots of other factors:
But the largest single factor was the weather. Recently a group of economic and public figures from across the political spectrum released a report called Risky Business that details the economic effects of climate change. These include former Republican Treasury secretaries Hank Paulson and George Shultz.
Climate is just another word for long-term weather. Climate change will usher in bad weather every quarter: rising sea levels, more flash flooding, more torrential rains in some areas while other areas suffer perpetual drought, more powerful storm surges and tornadoes, and larger snowfalls. In states like Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia and Louisiana it will be too hot and humid to work outside without risk of heat stroke. In other words, when we're not digging out from snowstorms, mudslides, tornadoes, and floods, it will be too damn hot to get any work done. Productivity will go into the crapper.
The report states that some areas may benefit from a milder climate, like Minnesota and North Dakota. Hey, two out of 50 states ain't bad.
The latest revisions reflect a weaker pace of healthcare spending than previously assumed, which caused a downgrading of the consumer spending estimate.and
[Orders for durable goods] were dragged down by weak demand for transportation, machinery, computers and electronic products; electrical equipment, appliances and components; as well as a 31.4 percent plunge in defense capital goods orders.and
Other drags to first-quarter growth included a slow pace of restocking by businesses, a sharp drop in investment on non-residential structures such as gas drilling and weak government spending on defense.So, when people save money on healthcare and the government cuts spending, the economy suffers. No wonder economics is called the dismal science: even things that are supposed to good are bad.
But the largest single factor was the weather. Recently a group of economic and public figures from across the political spectrum released a report called Risky Business that details the economic effects of climate change. These include former Republican Treasury secretaries Hank Paulson and George Shultz.
Climate is just another word for long-term weather. Climate change will usher in bad weather every quarter: rising sea levels, more flash flooding, more torrential rains in some areas while other areas suffer perpetual drought, more powerful storm surges and tornadoes, and larger snowfalls. In states like Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia and Louisiana it will be too hot and humid to work outside without risk of heat stroke. In other words, when we're not digging out from snowstorms, mudslides, tornadoes, and floods, it will be too damn hot to get any work done. Productivity will go into the crapper.
The report states that some areas may benefit from a milder climate, like Minnesota and North Dakota. Hey, two out of 50 states ain't bad.
Wrong About Scott Walker
I didn't think there was much to the "Scott Walker is a criminal" stuff that has been floating around these last few years but it looks like that story might have a bit more to it. It's not surprising that Scott Walker says that the probe is all over. Far from it.
The scope of the criminal scheme under investigation "is expansive," Schmitz wrote. "It includes criminal violations of multiple elections laws, including violations of Filing a False Campaign Report or Statement and Conspiracy to File a False Campaign Report or Statement."
Well, I guess I was wrong again:)
The scope of the criminal scheme under investigation "is expansive," Schmitz wrote. "It includes criminal violations of multiple elections laws, including violations of Filing a False Campaign Report or Statement and Conspiracy to File a False Campaign Report or Statement."
Well, I guess I was wrong again:)
Tuesday, June 24, 2014
Revenge of the Nerds?
A recent study found that "popular" kids aren't as successful at real life as they are at impressing their classmates:
Sure, drunken frat boys with rich daddies can still get into Harvard and Skull and Bones, and they can get high-paying jobs through their connections. But if you look at the list of the richest people in the United States, you see it's basically divided into two parts: the self-made techies (Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, Larry Page, Jeff Bezos, Sergey Brin, Mark Zuckerberg) and the guys who got handed everything from daddy (the Kochs and the Waltons) with the occasional odd ducks like Warren Buffett and Sheldon Adelson.
The rise in popularity of video games (including computerized versions of D&D, a nerds-only activity at one point), films like Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit, Star Trek, Star Wars, Gravity, the entire Marvel canon, and the worldwide acceptance of and total dependence on the Internet have completely changed the face of entertainment, commerce and social interaction in ways that only nerdy science fiction writers and fans had contemplated thirty years ago.
And then there's this hoverbike, a sort of rev. 0.0 of Luke Skywalker's landspeeder or Anakin's airspeeder. What could be a surer sign that the future is here and that the nerds have won?
Yet, despite all that technological progress, I just know that the cool kids will still go out and get themselves killed drinking and shooting womp rats.
At 13, they were viewed by classmates with envy, admiration and not a little awe. The girls wore makeup, had boyfriends and went to parties held by older students. The boys boasted about sneaking beers on a Saturday night and swiping condoms from the local convenience store.As technology has become more important to success in the workplace, kids who studied in school, applied themselves and went to college are making more money.
They were cool. They were good-looking. They were so not you.
Whatever happened to them?
“The fast-track kids didn’t turn out O.K.,” said Joseph P. Allen, a psychology professor at the University of Virginia. He is the lead author of a new study, published this month in the journal Child Development, that followed these risk-taking, socially precocious cool kids for a decade. In high school, their social status often plummeted, the study showed, and they began struggling in many ways.
Sure, drunken frat boys with rich daddies can still get into Harvard and Skull and Bones, and they can get high-paying jobs through their connections. But if you look at the list of the richest people in the United States, you see it's basically divided into two parts: the self-made techies (Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, Larry Page, Jeff Bezos, Sergey Brin, Mark Zuckerberg) and the guys who got handed everything from daddy (the Kochs and the Waltons) with the occasional odd ducks like Warren Buffett and Sheldon Adelson.
The rise in popularity of video games (including computerized versions of D&D, a nerds-only activity at one point), films like Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit, Star Trek, Star Wars, Gravity, the entire Marvel canon, and the worldwide acceptance of and total dependence on the Internet have completely changed the face of entertainment, commerce and social interaction in ways that only nerdy science fiction writers and fans had contemplated thirty years ago.
And then there's this hoverbike, a sort of rev. 0.0 of Luke Skywalker's landspeeder or Anakin's airspeeder. What could be a surer sign that the future is here and that the nerds have won?
Yet, despite all that technological progress, I just know that the cool kids will still go out and get themselves killed drinking and shooting womp rats.
Can You Spot The Racism In this Photo?
Update: A couple of comments failed to note this.
Racism isn't like a smelly fart. It doesn't always have to be that apparent.
Monday, June 23, 2014
The Gaseous Form of Manure
During the recent Senate hearing on climate change, Republicans once again trotted out one of their stupidest talking points: the notion that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.
"I would say CO2 is a different kettle of fish," said [Senator Jeff] Sessions [(R-Ala)]. "It's plant food. It's not a pollutant in any normal definition."Cow manure is also plant food. But you don't want it flowing freely through the streets or tainting your drinking water.
Carbon dioxide is lung excrement. It is a waste product of all animal life as well as the combustion of fossil fuels.
In other words, all that hot air Senator Sessions is spewing about climate change is almost literally the gaseous form of bullshit.
We can withstand carbon dioxide in small quantities, but it is deadly at higher concentrations. At 100,000 ppm (10%) it is deadly. Carbon dioxide poisoning -- CO2 retention -- is the direct cause of death by suffocation. It kills submariners and divers whose equipment fails.
If you put a plastic bag over your head the carbon dioxide pollution your lungs produce will kill you in short order. It's really that simple.
When people commit suicide in their automobiles or die accidentally from faulty venting of natural gas or propane heaters, the carbon monoxide (CO) from incomplete combustion kills them first (because CO binds to hemoglobin). But the carbon dioxide would also get the job done; it just takes a little longer.
Finally, plants need to respire oxygen in the absence of sunlight to drive their life processes, just like we do, and at that time they exhale carbon dioxide, just like we do. That means plants -- just like humans -- will die if the concentration of CO2 gets too high.
Carbon dioxide is therefore the very definition of a pollutant, though like many pollutants it is harmless in sufficiently small quantities. And since even oxygen is toxic at sufficiently high concentrations, Sessions' notions about "plant food" are idiotic from the get-go: it's all about proper concentrations.
Burning so much oil, gas and coal puts CO2 into the atmosphere far faster than plants and other natural processes can possibly remove it. That excess CO2 has been building now for 150 years, and it's heating the earth by entrapping the sun's warmth on the surface, instead of radiating that heat back into space in the infrared.
The earth is packed with life because it is has balanced systems, like the carbon cycle and the water cycle. Humans are knocking those cycles out of kilter on a massive scale: there are seven billion of us now.
We have doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere over the course of several decades by burning gigatons of oil, gas and coal that had been buried over a billion years. At the same time we've deforested millions of square miles of forests that can no longer cleanse that "plant food" from the atmosphere because we're burning those all down too.
So, let me summarize in a folksy way that Mr. Sessions will understand: if you put too much manure on your petunias you'll kill them. And if we put too much CO2 into the atmosphere we'll kill the plants -- and ourselves.
Score A Big One For Breitbart
You won't find me praising breitbart.com very much on here but kudos to them for this series of photos showing undocumented workers in a holding facility about to be deported.
Pretty shocking, eh?
Now imagine, millions of people herded onto trains and sent out of our country because they broke a law that no longer works. Many would likely die hence the reason why I assert that it would be one of the greatest humanitarian crises the world has ever seen. Hell, we already have a massive problem with displaced people. If we did what the right wanted, we'd be making a horrible problem even more FUBAR. If we are truly a Christian nation, this is not the way to proceed.
Our current immigration laws do not work. It is time to change them. We can start with Marco Rubio's bill.
Pretty shocking, eh?
Now imagine, millions of people herded onto trains and sent out of our country because they broke a law that no longer works. Many would likely die hence the reason why I assert that it would be one of the greatest humanitarian crises the world has ever seen. Hell, we already have a massive problem with displaced people. If we did what the right wanted, we'd be making a horrible problem even more FUBAR. If we are truly a Christian nation, this is not the way to proceed.
Our current immigration laws do not work. It is time to change them. We can start with Marco Rubio's bill.
Advocating Armed Insurrection Again
The Right just can't stay away from the catnip of armed insurrection, can they?
“I can sense right now a rebellion brewing amongst these United States,” Jindal said, “where people are ready for a hostile takeover of Washington, D.C., to preserve the American dream for our children and grandchildren.” The governor said there was a “silent war” on religious liberty being fought in the U.S. — a country that he said was built on that liberty.
“I am tired of the left. They say they’re for tolerance, they say they respect diversity. The reality is this: They respect everybody unless you happen to disagree with them,” he said. “The left is trying to silence us and I’m tired of it. I won’t take it anymore.”
Actually, Bobby, what we won't take is attempts by conservatives to convert our nation into a Christian version of Sharia Law. Go peddle your DARVO elsewhere.
“I can sense right now a rebellion brewing amongst these United States,” Jindal said, “where people are ready for a hostile takeover of Washington, D.C., to preserve the American dream for our children and grandchildren.” The governor said there was a “silent war” on religious liberty being fought in the U.S. — a country that he said was built on that liberty.
“I am tired of the left. They say they’re for tolerance, they say they respect diversity. The reality is this: They respect everybody unless you happen to disagree with them,” he said. “The left is trying to silence us and I’m tired of it. I won’t take it anymore.”
Actually, Bobby, what we won't take is attempts by conservatives to convert our nation into a Christian version of Sharia Law. Go peddle your DARVO elsewhere.
The Gun Cult's Worst Enemy is Themselves
Ana Marie Cox has an excellent piece up about how the Gun Cult is beginning to realize that they might end up causing their own undoing. I find it highly amusing that the open carry psychos are actually causing the very bans they are trying to eliminate. But isn't this always the case with the conservative (ahem, adolescent) mindset? They act impulsively and with much hubris. They also are under the very mistaken impression that a majority of people support them.
They don't.
They don't.
Sunday, June 22, 2014
Saturday, June 21, 2014
The Benghazi Ringleader
The capture of Ahmed Abu Khattala in connection with the Benghazi attack is certain to send the Republicans into a state of anaphylactic shock. According to the New York Times...
On the day of the attack, Islamists in Cairo had staged a demonstration outside the United States Embassy there to protest an American-made online video mocking Islam, and the protest culminated in a breach of the embassy’s walls — images that flashed through news coverage around the Arab world.
As the attack in Benghazi was unfolding a few hours later, Mr. Abu Khattala told fellow Islamist fighters and others that the assault was retaliation for the same insulting video, according to people who heard him.
Of course, it's likely a lot more complicated than that as we already know. Yet, that's not even the worst part for those conservatives still clinging to the Benghazi Frisbee like dogs that won't let go.
Barack Obama just caught another Islamic extremist.
On the day of the attack, Islamists in Cairo had staged a demonstration outside the United States Embassy there to protest an American-made online video mocking Islam, and the protest culminated in a breach of the embassy’s walls — images that flashed through news coverage around the Arab world.
As the attack in Benghazi was unfolding a few hours later, Mr. Abu Khattala told fellow Islamist fighters and others that the assault was retaliation for the same insulting video, according to people who heard him.
Of course, it's likely a lot more complicated than that as we already know. Yet, that's not even the worst part for those conservatives still clinging to the Benghazi Frisbee like dogs that won't let go.
Barack Obama just caught another Islamic extremist.
Friday, June 20, 2014
And Just When You Thought the Pope Was Becoming Reasonable...
In no uncertain terms, the pope is against drugs:
But the prohibition against drugs introduces other problems that are several orders of magnitude greater: criminal gangs slaughter each other, the police and innocent bystanders. Law enforcement expends massive sums of money and resources to deter behavior that does no harm to the vast majority of people who engage in it, including most law enforcement officials at some point in their lives. Prisons are filled to bursting with people who were just looking for a buzz when they went in, but emerge hardened criminals when they come out.
In the United States alcohol and tobacco use cost society more than illicit drugs do: $185 billion and $193 billion, compared to the $181 billion drugs cost by this estimate.
The pope's tirade against drugs is rather hypocritical. The pope uses alcohol on a regular basis for religious purposes. Freakily, the pope even believes he can personally turn alcohol into his god's blood, through the miracle of Transubstantiation. What were they on when they thought that up?.
But alcohol is a huge problem worldwide. It kills millions of people annually through cirrhosis of the liver, heart disease, and stroke, as well as by impairing people's judgment, causing death and destruction through vehicle and heavy machinery accidents, and battery and murder in booze-fueled drunken rages.
For that reason, alcohol is banned in many countries. It was even banned in the United States for a dozen years (and still is in some counties). But Prohibition failed miserably, becoming itself an engine of death and destruction worse than alcohol abuse itself. By any measure, the prohibition against drugs is failing just as miserably.
Some drugs, including tobacco, cannabis and peyote, are used in certain religions, apparently without harm. I don't endorse alcohol or drug use. But as with alcohol, it's clear that some drugs can be used by some people, sparingly and without risk of addiction or bodily harm.
Furthermore, it's clear that many of the drugs prescribed for medical purposes are as potentially addictive and harmful as alcohol or marijuana, based on the problems we've had with oxycodone and ADHD drugs.
So, if the pope and Christians worldwide can be trusted to use alcohol responsibly, why can't people of other persuasions be granted the same rights for their drug of choice? This would eliminate a lot of crime, reduce law enforcement spending, lower prison populations, and it probably wouldn't even increase the number of drug addicts by a significant amount. Finally, it would make it easier for addicts to get treatment, because they don't have to hide what they've done for fear of ostracism and criminal charges.
I personally think drugs, tobacco and alcohol are a stupid waste of time and money and a senseless risk to body and mind. But I don't think I should be able to impose my will on everyone. Truly destructive and hopelessly addictive drugs should be illegal. But as long as people taking relatively harmless drugs keep their filthy habits to themselves and don't hurt anyone else, it's really none of my business.
But I suppose the pope can't be expected to have such a reasoned attitude, since his job description demands he tell everyone everywhere what to do all the time.
[...] Francis said, providing addicts with drugs offered only "a veiled means of surrendering to the phenomenon."As with most opponents of drugs, he's misstating the problem. The problem with drugs is not that they are being used, but that some people get addicted.
"Let me state this in the clearest terms possible," he said. "The problem of drug use is not solved with drugs!"
But the prohibition against drugs introduces other problems that are several orders of magnitude greater: criminal gangs slaughter each other, the police and innocent bystanders. Law enforcement expends massive sums of money and resources to deter behavior that does no harm to the vast majority of people who engage in it, including most law enforcement officials at some point in their lives. Prisons are filled to bursting with people who were just looking for a buzz when they went in, but emerge hardened criminals when they come out.
In the United States alcohol and tobacco use cost society more than illicit drugs do: $185 billion and $193 billion, compared to the $181 billion drugs cost by this estimate.
The pope's tirade against drugs is rather hypocritical. The pope uses alcohol on a regular basis for religious purposes. Freakily, the pope even believes he can personally turn alcohol into his god's blood, through the miracle of Transubstantiation. What were they on when they thought that up?.
But alcohol is a huge problem worldwide. It kills millions of people annually through cirrhosis of the liver, heart disease, and stroke, as well as by impairing people's judgment, causing death and destruction through vehicle and heavy machinery accidents, and battery and murder in booze-fueled drunken rages.
For that reason, alcohol is banned in many countries. It was even banned in the United States for a dozen years (and still is in some counties). But Prohibition failed miserably, becoming itself an engine of death and destruction worse than alcohol abuse itself. By any measure, the prohibition against drugs is failing just as miserably.
Some drugs, including tobacco, cannabis and peyote, are used in certain religions, apparently without harm. I don't endorse alcohol or drug use. But as with alcohol, it's clear that some drugs can be used by some people, sparingly and without risk of addiction or bodily harm.
Furthermore, it's clear that many of the drugs prescribed for medical purposes are as potentially addictive and harmful as alcohol or marijuana, based on the problems we've had with oxycodone and ADHD drugs.
So, if the pope and Christians worldwide can be trusted to use alcohol responsibly, why can't people of other persuasions be granted the same rights for their drug of choice? This would eliminate a lot of crime, reduce law enforcement spending, lower prison populations, and it probably wouldn't even increase the number of drug addicts by a significant amount. Finally, it would make it easier for addicts to get treatment, because they don't have to hide what they've done for fear of ostracism and criminal charges.
I personally think drugs, tobacco and alcohol are a stupid waste of time and money and a senseless risk to body and mind. But I don't think I should be able to impose my will on everyone. Truly destructive and hopelessly addictive drugs should be illegal. But as long as people taking relatively harmless drugs keep their filthy habits to themselves and don't hurt anyone else, it's really none of my business.
But I suppose the pope can't be expected to have such a reasoned attitude, since his job description demands he tell everyone everywhere what to do all the time.
Thursday, June 19, 2014
Gun Cult Dealt Setback
The Supreme Court dealt the Gun Cult a blow this week with the decision on Abramski v. United States. The court ruled 5-4 and affirmed the lower court's decision that regardless of whether the actual buyer could have purchased the gun, a person who buys a gun on someone else’s behalf while falsely claiming that it is for himself makes a material misrepresentation punishable under 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6), which prohibits knowingly making false statements “with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of a sale of a gun.”
In a nutshell, no more straw purchases.
SCOTUS Blog has a great breakdown of the decision with this great pull quote.
Although Congress in recent years has been unable or unwilling to pass new gun-control laws, the elaborate scheme of background checking that was at issue in Monday’s ruling remains fully in force. The decision in Abramski v. United States almost certainly will make that scheme work more reliably to track the movement of guns across the U.S.
“No piece of information is more important under federal law ,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the majority, ”than the identity of a gun’s purchaser — the person who acquires a gun as a result of a transaction with a licensed dealer.” Answering a form that asks about the actual purchase, Kagan added, “is fundamental to the lawfulness of a gun sale.” A sale cannot even occur unless the true buyer is correctly identified, and is at the counter seeking to buy a weapon, the opinion noted.
Why this was legal before today is illustrative of the idiocy of the Gun Cult. Worse, it shows the level of dishonesty to which they will sink when they say they are "responsible" gun owners. What kind of responsible person would support this sort of activity? They claim to want increased law enforcement and crackdowns on criminals but straw purchases essentially gives the bad guys a blank check.
Oh well, that shit is over now and the Supreme Court finally got something right.
In a nutshell, no more straw purchases.
SCOTUS Blog has a great breakdown of the decision with this great pull quote.
Although Congress in recent years has been unable or unwilling to pass new gun-control laws, the elaborate scheme of background checking that was at issue in Monday’s ruling remains fully in force. The decision in Abramski v. United States almost certainly will make that scheme work more reliably to track the movement of guns across the U.S.
“No piece of information is more important under federal law ,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the majority, ”than the identity of a gun’s purchaser — the person who acquires a gun as a result of a transaction with a licensed dealer.” Answering a form that asks about the actual purchase, Kagan added, “is fundamental to the lawfulness of a gun sale.” A sale cannot even occur unless the true buyer is correctly identified, and is at the counter seeking to buy a weapon, the opinion noted.
Why this was legal before today is illustrative of the idiocy of the Gun Cult. Worse, it shows the level of dishonesty to which they will sink when they say they are "responsible" gun owners. What kind of responsible person would support this sort of activity? They claim to want increased law enforcement and crackdowns on criminals but straw purchases essentially gives the bad guys a blank check.
Oh well, that shit is over now and the Supreme Court finally got something right.
This Photo=Bowels Blown
Two scientists and the president hanging out. I can just hear the insecure and most definitely suffering from inferiority complex conservatives' blood pressure rising and the anaphylactic shock taking hold with a dash of Joan Collins thrown in...
Liars!! LIARS!!!!
Wednesday, June 18, 2014
Glenn Beck Admits the Right Was Wrong on Iraq
Miracle of miracles, Glenn Beck has admitted that the right was wrong: he says the people who opposed the invasion of Iraq were right.
They want to enforce their religion, their morality and their worldview on everyone in the country. They believe their religious leaders should be able to dictate the most intimate details of everyone's lives, even in the privacy of their bedrooms. They believe that their version of religion is the only correct version, that god is on their side, that he guides their every move and that this justifies and blesses everything they do.
They do not believe in justice for all, they believe in vengeance. They do not believe that everyone is created equal, they believe they are superior to those who are not just like them. They believe that women are less than men, that women should marry who they're told to marry (and certainly not other women), that women should only wear the clothes "that keep them safe," that women should behave a certain way to avoid giving men the wrong idea.
They think there's nothing wrong with preventing others from exercising their basic rights, such as women controlling their own bodies and deciding what hormones to take, letting women decide for themselves whether or how to delay having children. They have no problem using intimidation and other means to prevent their opponents from voting.
They don't believe in negotiating with their opponents to reach an accommodation that will satisfy most of what each side wants: they want everything their way and want to deny their opponents even the smallest victory. They view the tiniest compromise as a total betrayal of their core beliefs that will result in total destruction of their faith.
These bad actors don't believe that the whole country should work together in order for everyone to succeed. They separate everyone into us and them. They believe that themselves to be the only real defenders of their country, and that there are too many of those people -- people who are not just like them -- who are destroying it.
They believe that violence and the force of arms are a legitimate and immediate recourse against anyone whom they view as a threat.
Oh, wait a second. Were we talking about obstacles to democracy in Iraq or the conservative American political machine?
A democracy only works if there's give and take, if people negotiate in good faith to come to an agreement that lets everyone get some of what they want and need. Democracy fails when too many people insist on having everything their way and refusing to work together, demonizing opponents, constantly lobbing bombs (physical and verbal) at their opponents, constantly trying to gain the upper hand and gain control of everything, and then rig the system so that they can maintain that hold on power, by hook or by crook, forever.
By watching how Iraq is falling apart, we might learn a thing or two about how to make Americans work better together.
“[Liberals] said we couldn’t force freedom on people,” Beck said at the start of his Tuesday radio show. “Let me lead with my mistakes. You were right. Liberals, you were right, we shouldn’t have.”
“In spite of the things I felt at the time when we went into war, liberals said, ‘We shouldn’t get involved, we shouldn’t nation-build and there was no indication the people of Iraq had the will to be free,’” Beck said. “I thought that was insulting at the time. Everybody wants to be free.”Though Beck understands now that the right was wrong, he still doesn't seem to get why the right was wrong. The problem isn't that you "can't force freedom on people." The problem is that you can't invade a country and force people to be reasonable, fair and considerate. Too many people -- though not all by far -- are selfish and tribal. These bad actors say they want freedom, but they want it only for themselves. Freedom and power for their own religion and their own leaders to do whatever they want, while denying certain freedoms to their enemies.
On Tuesday, Beck admitted, “You cannot force democracy on the Iraqis or anybody else, it doesn’t work. They don’t understand it or even really want it.”
They want to enforce their religion, their morality and their worldview on everyone in the country. They believe their religious leaders should be able to dictate the most intimate details of everyone's lives, even in the privacy of their bedrooms. They believe that their version of religion is the only correct version, that god is on their side, that he guides their every move and that this justifies and blesses everything they do.
They do not believe in justice for all, they believe in vengeance. They do not believe that everyone is created equal, they believe they are superior to those who are not just like them. They believe that women are less than men, that women should marry who they're told to marry (and certainly not other women), that women should only wear the clothes "that keep them safe," that women should behave a certain way to avoid giving men the wrong idea.
They think there's nothing wrong with preventing others from exercising their basic rights, such as women controlling their own bodies and deciding what hormones to take, letting women decide for themselves whether or how to delay having children. They have no problem using intimidation and other means to prevent their opponents from voting.
They don't believe in negotiating with their opponents to reach an accommodation that will satisfy most of what each side wants: they want everything their way and want to deny their opponents even the smallest victory. They view the tiniest compromise as a total betrayal of their core beliefs that will result in total destruction of their faith.
These bad actors don't believe that the whole country should work together in order for everyone to succeed. They separate everyone into us and them. They believe that themselves to be the only real defenders of their country, and that there are too many of those people -- people who are not just like them -- who are destroying it.
They believe that violence and the force of arms are a legitimate and immediate recourse against anyone whom they view as a threat.
Oh, wait a second. Were we talking about obstacles to democracy in Iraq or the conservative American political machine?
A democracy only works if there's give and take, if people negotiate in good faith to come to an agreement that lets everyone get some of what they want and need. Democracy fails when too many people insist on having everything their way and refusing to work together, demonizing opponents, constantly lobbing bombs (physical and verbal) at their opponents, constantly trying to gain the upper hand and gain control of everything, and then rig the system so that they can maintain that hold on power, by hook or by crook, forever.
By watching how Iraq is falling apart, we might learn a thing or two about how to make Americans work better together.
Tuesday, June 17, 2014
The Benghazi Litmus Test
How can you tell if a Republican has gone off the deep end? Try this litmus test...
If you are a Republican who feels Benghazi was a tragic and regrettable incident involving violence against an American diplomatic mission abroad that was essentially the same as the numerous incidents of violence against American diplomatic missions that took place under the George W. Bush administration, then ... cool. We can (probably) have a rational conversation.
If you are a Republican who feels Benghazi was a deliberate betrayal of America by the dastardly Barack Hussein Obama who gleefully cackled and rubbed his hands as brave Americans died because he knowingly refused to save them, then ... you are a f***ing RWNJ and we have nothing further to discuss.
Which one are you?
If you are a Republican who feels Benghazi was a tragic and regrettable incident involving violence against an American diplomatic mission abroad that was essentially the same as the numerous incidents of violence against American diplomatic missions that took place under the George W. Bush administration, then ... cool. We can (probably) have a rational conversation.
If you are a Republican who feels Benghazi was a deliberate betrayal of America by the dastardly Barack Hussein Obama who gleefully cackled and rubbed his hands as brave Americans died because he knowingly refused to save them, then ... you are a f***ing RWNJ and we have nothing further to discuss.
Which one are you?
Most Excellent Words
From an answer to a question on Quora...
The gun rights community isn't the only community in which one might find hostility directed towards those who, by some measure, are a member of that community but do not tow the party line. I'd suspect some gay Republicans feel like they're not tolerated; perhaps an animal rights advocate might get some flack for not being a vegetarian; someone who identifies as a progressive might find themselves unwelcome among others because they like guns.
Having said all of the above, I'll throw it out there that...
At the same time, I...
Well said!
The gun rights community isn't the only community in which one might find hostility directed towards those who, by some measure, are a member of that community but do not tow the party line. I'd suspect some gay Republicans feel like they're not tolerated; perhaps an animal rights advocate might get some flack for not being a vegetarian; someone who identifies as a progressive might find themselves unwelcome among others because they like guns.
Having said all of the above, I'll throw it out there that...
- I do believe responsible citizens can own guns.
- I own guns, and enjoy them for sport (as well as appreciate the technology that often goes in to them).
- I enjoy spending time at the range and genuinely find many firearms quite neat (not to trivialize them for what they are and are capable of doing).
- I do see parallels in overzealous attempts to curb 2nd amendment rights with such attempts to curb 1st amendment rights and other constitutional rights.
At the same time, I...
- Find many among the "We need guns to defend against an oppressive government!!" types to be more of a threat to all of our collective safety and freedom than any government will ever be.
- Quite firmly believe that our own country's history post-Revolution shows us these self-styled militia types are more likely to be the ones marching alongside the "jackbooted thugs" of an oppressive regime to persecute fellow citizens, rather than standing up for overall freedom.
- Think there are some completely absurd weapons out there, and it is likewise absurd they're so often easy to acquire.
- Am thoroughly disgusted by the leadership and tactics of the NRA's lobbying and political arms (though, beyond the usual indoctrination that takes place when among them, can appreciate the organization's efforts on gun-safety and training fronts).
Well said!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)