Voices In My Head (Social Media Edition)

I recently engaged some Cult members on social media regarding the president's recent remarks on the Crusades at Friday's prayer breakfast. I realized as soon as he made them that bowels would be blown to such a great degree inside the bubble that, from the outside, it would have a decidedly deep brown hue. Sure enough, I was correct. Among the comments in a recent thread...

-We don't need our president focusing on things that happened during the Crusades. We need a president to focus on the threats that face our country today. Obama's remarks at the Prayer Breakfast were a joke.

-Our president is a joke

-...his remarks were so far out of the realm of what is happening that you wonder who the hell wrote that! You have a country of 6 million people (Jordan) taking the lead on the most dangerous situation affecting the whole world. Where is the "Most powerful man in the world"? Hosting illegal aliens. That calls for a big WOW!!!!

-Everything he says is a joke if it wasnt for the terrorists back then, there wouldn't have been any crusades!!

-I want a real president , a real American president ! One that says this is going to be one nation under God ! I want to hear a president with the balls to say , this is America this is how we do it here , and you knew this on the ride over . So if you don't like our customs and way of life go home . If interest on a loan offends you don't borrow money . If the pledge of allegiance offends you go home . It's not the "in god we trust" that really offends them . It's the first sentence . I pledge allegiance to the United States of America , would only offend someone that immigrated to the USA that doesn't plan allegiance ! Why would allegiance be such an insult to a person who technically wanted to be in the USA ? You answer that one yourself.

-He is a MOSLEM POS

When people opine about the United States declining, these comments (from six different people) are the exact reason why.

President Grandma

While the Republicans fill up their clown car with another round of presidential candidates (exception: Jeb Bush) for the 2016 election, ready to spout wacky, ideological nonsense (copyright: Barack Obama), Hillary Clinton calmly waits to announce her candidacy. She will have virtually no opposition from the Democrats and is running far ahead of all GOP Candidates (exception, again, Jeb Bush) in the early polls.

She is certainly not a done deal for the White House and will likely make some gaffes along the way in addition to being hit hard by oppo research. Yet most of this will wash away and it won't be merely be because she is a woman and will draw many women to vote for her. It will be due to one inescapable fact.

She is going to be President Grandma.

And the hate, fear and anger brigade on the Right won't be able to get any traction against her like they did with Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Sure, they'll still have the die hard members of the Cult that will be believe anything they say but a good chunk of the cranky, old white people will take severe umbrage against attacking someone's grandmother. In many ways, this negates any discussion of Ms. Clinton's age.

This is an appeal that goes to the very heart of Americana. The image of "grandma" keeping us all safe and warm is inherently universal. Grandma is the one that bakes you cookies, tucks you in, and showers you with love and affection every time she sees you. Even some of the cranky, old white men that hate Barack Obama will be swayed by future President Grandma.

So, my message to Ms. Clinton and her people is simple: every single thing that you do after you announce your candidacy should be geared around President Grandma. Speaking events, townhalls, debates, social media communiques...all of it! Don't fret about getting the young vote. They like grandmas too, remember! Think about the voting bloc you can create...women, old white people, young people, all the non white people who continue to be alienated by the Right...they will all come home to President Grandma!

Who Has The Most Anxiety?

At first glance, the Supreme Court's looming decision in the King V Burwell case will cause the president and the Democrats the most anxiety. If SCOTUS decides that the subsidies do not apply to the states that do not have their own exchanges and are being run by the federal government, millions will lose coverage.

Yet, if I were a conservative, I would think for a moment before I began to thump my chest in victory over the president. This recent piece from AP details how Republicans have quite a bit to lose as well from such a decision.

RED STATES IN THE PATH

Insurance losses would be concentrated in Republican-led states, which have resisted "Obamacare." Florida, Texas, North Carolina, Georgia, Michigan, and New Jersey are among those with the most to lose. Residents of blue states that are running their own markets would continue to receive benefits.

"It is not simply a function of law or ideology; there are practical impacts on high numbers of people," said Republican Mike Leavitt, a former federal health secretary now heading a health care consulting firm.

Because the health law's 2015 sign-up season is still under way, it's unclear how many millions of people could become uninsured. Two independent studies estimate around 8 million. Not all the 37 states where the federal government is currently running insurance markets would be affected equally. Some have made progress setting up their own exchanges.

Imagine you are a Republican governor of one of these states and suddenly millions of your constituents lose their coverage. Certainly, there would be some people that would blame the president but there would be plenty that would blame you.

That's why I predict, in what will be most amusing irony, Republican governors will end up putting together their own exchanges should the court rule against the president. Eventually, every state will and should have their own exchange. This way the federal government can be kept out of it to a greater degree and conservatives can claim some sort of victory. 

What's the Harm from a Measly Vaccination?

I had measles when I was kid. It was no big deal. I had chicken pox too. I even had pneumonia once. I lived.

I also had vaccinations for polio, tetanus,  diphtheria, some kind of hepatitis, and the flu. I lived through all those, too. And I haven't gotten the flu since I started getting the vaccine, for 10 or 15 years now.

Jenny McCarthy juggling breast implants

So what's the big deal about getting vaccinated? Why are Republicans like Chris Christie and Rand Paul joining Playboy model Jenny McCarthy saying that parents should be able to opt out of getting their kids vaccinated? Why do think they that parents should have the freedom to let their kids become Typhoid Mary?

It's interesting, considering how much conservatives blather about freedom, that the two states that have no exemptions for vaccinating school kids are Mississippi and North Carolina.

So why is it a problem when kids don't get vaccinated? Measles isn't all that deadly, and neither is chicken pox. And anyway, if my kids get shots, and the neighbor kids don't, my kids will be immune. Won't just the kids with idiots for parents be the ones that get sick and die? Isn't this just another case of evolution in action?

Nope. Not that simple.

Are parents who don't get their kids vaccinated baby killers?

First, not everyone can be vaccinated. Some people have compromised immune systems or allergies to vaccine components. There are minimum ages for most vaccines, typically two months for polio, pertussis, tetanus and the like, six months for the flu, and 12-15 months for diseases like mumps, chicken pox, measles, and so on. Wouldn't that make parents who don't get their kids vaccinated baby killers?

Second, the more people who get a disease, the more likely it is to mutate, and the more likely it is to develop strains that vaccines don't protect against. This is one reason why the flu vaccine is so hit and miss.

More to the point, for the selfish, parents who don't vaccinate their older kids are gambling with the lives of younger siblings. They're betting that enough other kids at school are getting vaccinated so that their kids won't get sick and bring the disease home to their baby sister or brother who is much more likely to die from it.

Sure, there are risks with vaccines. But those risks are far lower than the risks parents take every day as they ferry their kids around in cars to and from day care and school and play dates and birthday parties and soccer practice.

The reason everyone who can be vaccinated should be vaccinated is herd immunity. This means that if enough of the population is vaccinated, even people who aren't immunized are extremely unlikely to get a disease because it will be so rare. But when lots of people aren't vaccinated, there is no herd immunity and a disease like measles will spread like wildfire.

Jenny McCarthy blames vaccines for her son's autism. Isn't all that crap she's been sticking in her body for decades just as likely a cause?

This another example of the tragedy of the commons, where the selfish actions of a few harm the many.

But what about kids getting autism from vaccines? This was all a lie, based on falsified research by a British doctor. There's more evidence that having an older father is linked to autism and even stronger evidence that exposure to pesticides, which are usually neurotoxins, cause autism.

But the debate has been muddied by the untrustworthiness of pharmaceutical companies. They've demonstrated time and again that they're interested in profit, not public health. For decades vaccines were commonly preserved with thimerosal, which is organic mercury, a known neurotoxin. The toxic effects of organic mercury have been known since the 1950s, yet pharmaceutical companies are still putting thimerosal in vaccines for adults and in products like contact lens solutions. This is just stupid laziness and greed, and it undercuts the entire argument for vaccines.

Mercury is known to cause many types of neurological deficits, from cerebral palsy, to Mad Hatter syndrome, to birth defects. It's why thimerosal is banned from childhood vaccines, most American dentists don't use mercury amalgam fillings, and the EPA requires mercury scrubbers on coal plants and municipal incinerators.

What this last example shows is how unreliable "market based" solutions are in the real world. The harm caused by mercury pollution from burning coal doesn't show up when you turn on your light switch. It shows up in fish and seafood. A housewife has no way to know that turning on her dishwasher exposes her to organic mercury in the fish her husband catches in a nearby lake. Even if she does make the connection, she has no alternative: power companies are monopolies. All she can do is stop eating fish and seafood, making fishermen the innocent victims of power utilities that burn coal.

And when you have a state like Mississippi that requires children be vaccinated, the pharmaceutical companies that have the monopoly on vaccines are not constrained by any kind of market pressures. In fact, Congress passed a law in 1988 that shields vaccine makers from lawsuits, upheld by the Supreme Court in 2011.

But the fact is, for the vast majority of diseases, there is no simple cause and effect. In the case of autism, there are hundreds of genetic and environmental contributing factors. When celebrities like Jenny McCarthy stand up and blame vaccines for her son's autism, people looking for an easy answer join her chorus and boycott vaccines, to the detriment of us all.

But seriously, how can you trust the medical judgment of someone like Jenny McCarthy? This woman was a habitual drug abuser, has had numerous breast implant and other cosmetic surgeries and repeated botox treatments.

Isn't it just as likely that all the crap she's been sticking in her body for decades caused her son's autism?

The Mindset of The Gun Cult

Check out Kory Watkins, the leader of Open Carry Tarrant County in Texas.




Punishable by death, you say? Hmmm...remind me again how these guys are NOT like Islamic extremists.

Wow

House votes - again - to repeal Obamacare

This latest vote marked the 67th time the House has voted to entirely repeal, defund or change some provisions of President Barack Obama's signature health care law. Republican aides emphasize that 10 changes to the law have been signed into law by the President.

I am reminded of the following quote...

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result.

Are White Republicans More Racist Than White Democrats? (Part Eleven)

Here's a poll conducted recently by the Washington Post and AP regarding implicit racism between Democrats and Republicans.

Certainly, this shows a problem with implicit racism in both parties yet when two thirds are showing a problem (nearly 10 points ahead of the Democrats) that is more significant. Again, this isn't surprising considering that the bulk of the GOP base is in the South.

There is also this Pew Poll which mirrors the GSS data regarding interracial marriage.

Note the uptick again right around the time the president got elected.

So, what exactly is implicit racism? Well, take the survey and find out! Here were my results.

Your Result Your data suggest a slight automatic preference for European American compared to African American.

This comes as no surprise to me whatsoever. I'm curious as to how my five commenters would do on this survey...if they even agree to submit to it. That first screen will likely send them into fits of paranoia:)

How Federal Spending Lifts Economies

Check out the recent study done by the Washington Center For Equitable Growth. If the United States makes more of an investment increasing our students' science and math scores, the dividends would be enormous.

The important thing to note here is that the increase in GDP means an increase in government revenue which means the investment in such programs would more than pay off, based on their study.

This study clearly illustrates the power that federal spending has to lift economies. There simply aren't any other entities out there that have this kind of muscle. One would think that the anti-spending crowd would want to make more money, right?:)

And Cue Up Rush Limbaugh...

Almost as if on cue after Mark's post about the worst president ever, Rush Limbaugh said this:

The best president in my mind, the gentleman president of all time, is George W. Bush ... he conducted himself as professionally and proficiently as possible.

Let's just look at one aspect of the Bush presidency, the most expensive (coming in at over a trillion dollars) and the most destructive blunder (over five thousand American dead, and hundreds of thousands of American wounded vets): the war in Iraq.

Bush told us that Iraq was behind 9/11 and that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. He got this information from a source named "Curveball," an Iraqi defector who wanted asylum in Germany. The German intelligence service told Bush that Curveball was lying.

Ahmed Chalabi provided the Bush administration with similar intelligence. He was a special guest of Laura Bush at the 2004 presidential inaugural. He was also an Iranian spy: he gave Iran information about codes that US intelligence had broken.

Yes, all the neocons in the Bush administration were fooled into invading Iraq based on lies from an agent of Iran, the country the same people are now telling us is a terrible threat to the entire world, and especially Israel.

Bush was either duped by Iranian spies or was lying about Iraqi WMDs.

Either the Bush administration knew these sources were lying, or they were duped by them. It's hard to believe the Bush administration was really that incredibly stupid, so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they were lying.

Before the Iraq invasion vice president Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld paraded before cable news cameras telling us it would be a cakewalk. The war would last just six days, or six weeks, or six months at the most. During that time I wrote many times about previous American invasions of other countries that had been successful: they all required us to stay there for 50 to 100 years: Japan, Germany, South Korea, the Philippines. When you invade a country, you basically have to stay there forever to make it stick -- it's the "You break it, you bought it" theory of invasion. You can't just go in, beat up the bad guys, take their oil, then leave and expect it to be stable, functioning democracy. But that was the lie that Bush sold us.

Bush never understood the "You break, you bought it" theory of invasion.

Bush told us the war would pay for itself: we would take Iraqi oil to pay for it. After more than 10 years, we have spent more than a trillion dollars on Iraq. Most of it was in fighting the war, but hundreds of billions went into building and rebuilding and re-rebuilding infrastructure that was bombed over and over again. Tens of billions went into cash that was flown into the country by the planeload as bribes to warlords to fight on our side. A lot of that cash never made it to the warlords, it went into the pockets of mercenaries ("security contractors" in Bush speak) who stole it. And it will continue to cost us billions every year, for decades, as we continue to pay the medical costs of the tens of thousands veterans who were mangled for life.

Bush installed a sectarian Shiite government in Iraq, which is essentially a puppet of Iran. The Shiites immediately began to persecute the minority Sunnis in retribution for the decades of persecution that Saddam had visited upon them. This opened the door for ISIS to invade the majority Sunni areas in Iraq near the Syrian border, threatening the very existence of the Iraqi government and raising the possibility of a terrorist takeover of the entire country.

All because George W. Bush had to overturn the applecart in Iraq, either because he had daddy issues or because his oil exec cronies wanted the Iraqi oil (which the Chinese got, by the way).

Now, the reason for going over all this ancient history is not just to cast aspersions on Bush, but to illustrate why Rush Limbaugh is wrong. One presumes that Limbaugh admires Bush because he made tough decisions and imposed the American stamp of power on the world.

But that was a failure: today Iraq is a total mess. Americans have no influence over the Iraqi government -- that was lost while Bush was still president. In 2008 Bush signed the status of forces agreement that pulled Americans out of Iraq in 2011 -- not Obama.

Worse, the aftermath of the Iraq War spilled over into Syria and destabilized that country. Most of the ISIS terrorists were radicalized and recruited in the prisons of Iraq during Bush's reign of terror (remember Abu Ghraib?).

The lesson of the war in Iraq is that you can't believe anything that anyone over there tells you: Curveball and Chalabi were liars with their own agendas. You can't trust that any of your "allies" in the region will help you: they won't, they're only using you for their own purposes.

Yet, even with this experience behind us, people like John McCain were instantly ready to back ISIS terrorists when the Syrian civil war started -- he even posed in pictures with them. And this isn't just me saying this, it's Rand Paul too.

Did McCain know these guys were ISIS terrorists? Of course not. He wouldn't willingly deal with these people. But that's the point. McCain was duped just like Bush was. We're damned lucky that he never became president. John McCain also wanted to fight in Libya. And Georgia. And Crimea. For a man who lived through a terrible war, this man has learned absolutely nothing about war.

Getting back to Limbaugh's statement, his characterization of Bush as "professional and proficient" is as laughable as it is ironic. Nothing about the Iraq War, Bush's singular "achievement," was professional or proficient. Everything about it, from conception to execution to termination was terribly bungled.

Bush started a war that couldn't be won and made America weaker.

Bellicose bumpkins like Rush Limbaugh think George Bush was a good president because Bush ran roughshod over foreigners and blustered about American power. But in the end those displays of naked aggression backfired. Bush started a war that couldn't be won and made America weaker. And much poorer. And killed a lot of good men and women.

There is simply no question that the United States is far better off after six years of Obama than after eight years of Bush, by any conceivable objective measure. More to the point: our worst problems came from Bush's conscious decisions to invade Iraq and let banks go crazy with mortgage derivatives.

And Obama's biggest mistake? Trying to get all Americans access to medical care.

Which for conservatives like Rush Limbaugh is beyond the pale!

A Very Busy and Informative CBO

So, the Congressional Budget Office has been busy of late. First up, we have this...

CBO: Deficit to shrink to lowest level of Obama presidency 

In a report released Monday, CBO says the deficit will be $468 billion for the budget year that ends in September. That's slightly less than last year's $483 billion deficit.

Of course, the Cult is still going to believe whatever is reported inside of their highly emotional and irrational bubble. Maybe a picture might help.

\

















(note: the above graphic does not include the revised and even lower figures just released by the CBO).

We also have this from the CBO...

Budget Office Lowers Its Estimate on Federal Spending for Health Care


With the latest revision, the budget office has now reduced its 10-year estimate for spending by Medicare, Medicaid and other health programs by $1.23 trillion starting in 2010, the year the health care law took effect. By 2039, the savings would amount to $250 billion a year today, or about 1.5 percent of the economy.

And the bubble continues to contract...:)

The Fizzle of Gunmageddon

Once Again, “Gunmageddon” Fizzles At Colorado Capitol - 

"After all the promises of vengeance against Democrats after the 2013 gun bill brouhaha, and the subsequent recall elections, it's obvious today that the gun issue did not result in the sweeping success for Republicans that Dudley Brown predicted. During a powerful Republican wave election that had everything to do with national political storylines and little to do with Colorado, Republicans took one chamber of the state legislature by a single seat–just like they did in the last Republican wave year. But they did not take full control of the legislature, and they did not elect a governor who will do their bidding. And for good measure, both Democratic seats lost in the 2013 recalls were retaken by wide margins–one of them by the former state director of the much-reviled Mayors Against Illegal Guns"

Yet another chest thumping prediction by the Gun Cult that didn't pan out...shocking...

The President's Long Game Works Again

Russia’s sovereign credit rating downgraded to junk

The 2016 Budget

President Obama released his 2016 budget yesterday and, in just about every way, it represents everything the Democrats stand for and everything the Republicans stand against. Here is a breakdown of some of the highlights. In my view, it's the best budget he has put out since he became president. This one jumped out at me right away...

-Provides Tuition-Free Community College for Responsible Students. The President's America's College Promise proposal creates new federal-state partnerships to provide two years of free community college to responsible students, while promoting key reforms to improve the quality of community college offerings to ensure that they are a gateway to a career or four-year degree. If all states participate, an estimated 9 million students could benefit from this proposal.

A big reason why our country was so successful after World War II is the GI Bill. This echoes that legislation and is a great example of middle class economics. An investment in these students now will pay dividends in our economy's future.


Other highlights...

—Spending of $4.0 trillion and receipts of $3.5 trillion would combine for a $474 trillion deficit. For the budget year that ended Sept. 30, the actual deficit was $483 billion. That was a marked improvement from the $1 trillion-plus deficits during Obama's first years in office, when the country was struggling to emerge from a deep recession. 

—A six-year, $478 billion public works program would pay for highway, bridge and transit upgrades. About $238 billion would come from a one-time, 14 percent mandatory tax on the up to $2 trillion in estimated U.S. corporate earnings that have accumulated overseas. That rate is significantly lower than the current top corporate rate of 35 percent. The top corporate rate for U.S. earnings would drop to 28 percent; foreign profits would be taxed at 19 percent, with companies getting a credit for foreign taxes paid. The remaining $240 billion would come from the federal Highway Trust Fund, which is financed with a gasoline tax.

 —The capital gains rate on couples making more than $500,000 per year would increase from 24.2 percent to 28 percent. Obama wants to require estates to pay capital gains taxes on securities at the time they are inherited. He is trying to impose a 0.07 percent fee on the roughly 100 U.S. financial companies with assets of more than $50 billion. 

 —Obama would take the $320 billion that those tax increases would generate over 10 years and funnel them into low- and middle-class tax breaks. His ideas: a credit of up to $500 for two-income families, a boost in the child care tax credit to up to $3,000 for each of up to two children under age 5, and overhauling breaks that help pay for college. 

 —Painful, automatic cuts to the Pentagon and domestic agencies would be eased, with a 7 percent increase in annual appropriations. For 2016, Obama wants a $38 billion increase for the Pentagon. All told, agency budgets would go up $362 billion over the next six years above caps mandated by automatic spending cuts. 
.
The one that jumps out at me here is the alteration in corporate tax code and foreign profits. Corporations that are keeping their profits abroad should be taxed more and given the incentive, through a lower overall rate, to come back home.

The president has finally gotten smarter on dealing with the GOP. Start with a proposal that is firmly on the left side of the field (at least by today's standards:)) and force the Republicans to compromise on a more moderate approach. Don't begin with a compromise that results in something in the middle on the right side of the field.

President Obama...Yesterday and Today

And the numbers have improved even more since September of 2014. One would think that people would be more grateful but when you are so immature that you can't take the success of an ideology that you despise, it follows naturally that adolescent behavior is the result.

Good Words

From a question on Quora...

This question sounds a bit like it was written by a teenage girl living in an upper-middle-class suburb who declares that she just had the Worst. Day. Ever. just because she didn't make the cheerleading squad and has a lot of homework that night.

An excellent summation of the maturity level of the president's critics.

Businesses Fighting Climate Change

The course to combat climate change has changed significantly in recent days. Polls show most Americans view at as both a threat and man made. This piece from today's New York Times shows just how serious the private sector is taking this issue.

Mr. Page is not a typical environmental activist. He says he doesn’t know — or particularly care — whether human activity causes climate change. He doesn’t give much serious thought to apocalyptic predictions of unbearably hot summers and endless storms. But over the last nine months, he has lobbied members of Congress and urged farmers to take climate change seriously. He says that over the next 50 years, if nothing is done, crop yields in many states will most likely fall, the costs of cooling chicken farms will rise and floods will more frequently swamp the railroads that transport food in the United States. He wants American agribusiness to be ready.

As I have stated many times previously, when companies like Cargill have their bottom line threatened, we will change our attitude about climate change.

Check out the link to their report. 

The Dangers of Straw Purchases

New information has come to light in the New Hope police shooting last Monday night. It turns out that Raymond Kmetz bought his guns online and then sent a straw buyer to the FFL to pick them up. 

A 42-year-old man from Golden Valley who was an acquaintance of Kmetz picked up the guns, Stanek said. A background check was done on him. Documentation for the gun transfer shows the names of both Kmetz and the alleged straw buyer. Troy Buchholz, owner of the gun shop, said in a phone interview Friday night that he questioned the buyer about why Kmetz’s name was on the K-Bid auction form. 

The buyer told him he had used that name to protect his privacy online. Buchholz ran a background check on the straw buyer, which came back with no problems. On the form, the buyer checked a box that said he was buying the guns for himself. He was alone, didn’t appear to have been coerced into buying the guns and paid for them, Buchholz said. Everything appeared legal.

This is the exact kind of bullshit that would have been prevented had Manchin-Toomey been made into law. A review of the bill shows that the new regulations of this bill put tighter controls on this type of transaction. Beginning on page 19 of the bill, the new law expands background checks to include gun shows and internet sales. Page 24, lines 4-22 would certainly have given Buchholz the regulation he would have needed to refuse the sale.

Of course, focusing on this one example for proving or disproving the effectiveness of new gun regulations misses a larger point. The questions that should be considered is this: would Manchin-Toomey (or some other set of new regulations on Americans who want guns) have prevented one or more of the deaths or injuries we have seen in the last year as a result of irresponsible Americans with guns?

If the answer is yes (and it obviously is), what exactly is the cost of the "sacrifice" that the Gun Cult claims will be the result? Is it human lives?

Evidence of Adolescence

Hey, check out the car parked next to me at the club today...

Obama emblem that says "Douche" instead of Obama...something about hand guns...a sticker that says "I'm not a racist, I hate Biden too"...and a little boy peeing on the word "Obama."

Was this person 12 years old?

He also had some sort of emblem that said something about the 2nd amendment being homeland security since 1789 next to an American flag on his bumper. Wow...

The Tide Has Turned On Climate Change

Check out this headline...

Most Republicans Say They Back Climate Action, Poll Finds

Oh snap. What are the members of the Church of the Climate Skeptic going to do now?

In a finding that could have implications for the 2016 presidential campaign, the poll also found that two-thirds of Americans said they were more likely to vote for political candidates who campaign on fighting climate change. They were less likely to vote for candidates who questioned or denied the science that determined that humans caused global warming.  

Among Republicans, 48 percent say they are more likely to vote for a candidate who supports fighting climate change, a result that Jon A. Krosnick, a professor of political science at Stanford University and an author of the survey, called “the most powerful finding” in the poll. Many Republican candidates question the science of climate change or do not publicly address the issue.

Holy shee-it! It's going to be most amusing to watch the GOP candidates in 2016 fall all over themselves in trying to address this. Here's my advice (and the real reason why this poll shows a shift). Focus on how much more money is going to be lost by corporations if climate change isn't addressed. Juxtapose this with how much money can be made in the emerging renewable energy market.

The almighty dollar always wins the day and that, my dear readers, is a good thing!

The Idiot’s Guide To Gun Storage

I'm not a huge fan of Wonkette, mostly because she reminds me too much of the right wing blogs that contain a lot of wacky, ideological nonsense. But her recent piece on just how irresponsible Americans are with guns is right on the mark.

In other words, you can literally misplace your 9mm pistol in the waistband of your one-year-old’s diaper (please don’t!), and most jurisdictions in this country won’t bring criminal child neglect or endangerment charges. Which is exactly what the founders intended. 

On this issue, we need to see more stuff like this. This is the only language the Gun Cult understands. Anything less is like bringing a knife to a gun fight (pun intended).

And, if you think the stories related in this piece are anectdata, think again. We have over 200 children under the age of 18 killed or injured and accidental shootings outnumbering defensive use by 54 incidents already in 2015 with next to nothing being done about it in terms of gun safety.

The responsibility for next to nothing being done lies solely at the feet of the gun lobby and the cult that believes everything they say. Shedding a light on this simple fact, as Wonkette does in her gun violence pieces, is completely supported by this site.