The pile on of Brian Williams over the last couple of days is pretty ironic when you consider that Fox News and other right wing media outlets are gleefully dancing about lies told about Iraq. Actually, ironic isn't the word for it.
Hypocritical, pathetic, and disgusting are more like it.
Tuesday, February 10, 2015
"It's Just Made Up"
From Ronald Reagan's chief economist...
As for the idea that cutting regulations will lead to significant job growth, Bartlett said in an interview, "It's just nonsense. It's just made up." Government and industry studies support his view.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics, which tracks companies' reasons for large layoffs, found that 1,119 layoffs were attributed to government regulations in the first half of this year, while 144,746 were attributed to poor "business demand."
I think things being just made up are a cornerstone of conservative economic theory.
As for the idea that cutting regulations will lead to significant job growth, Bartlett said in an interview, "It's just nonsense. It's just made up." Government and industry studies support his view.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics, which tracks companies' reasons for large layoffs, found that 1,119 layoffs were attributed to government regulations in the first half of this year, while 144,746 were attributed to poor "business demand."
I think things being just made up are a cornerstone of conservative economic theory.
Good Words
I got a message on Quora from someone who has recently been engaging Kevin Baker in a discussion.
This Kevin Baker guy can be difficult to take! :) My goal in my discussions with him is to have fun, to improve my skills making arguments, and to learn. I absolutely agree his arguments are largely semantic (he seems quite satisfied to zero in on minor discrepancies to "prove" his point), and his need for sharing his "wins" on his site frankly makes me a bit sad. I've commented on that site as well as here, and he (along with his followers) aren't shy about making personal attacks or snide remarks.
Sound familiar?:)
I wonder if Kevin will take anything from this and, perhaps, change.
This Kevin Baker guy can be difficult to take! :) My goal in my discussions with him is to have fun, to improve my skills making arguments, and to learn. I absolutely agree his arguments are largely semantic (he seems quite satisfied to zero in on minor discrepancies to "prove" his point), and his need for sharing his "wins" on his site frankly makes me a bit sad. I've commented on that site as well as here, and he (along with his followers) aren't shy about making personal attacks or snide remarks.
Sound familiar?:)
I wonder if Kevin will take anything from this and, perhaps, change.
Monday, February 09, 2015
Again with the False Equivalences on Science
With the measles scare and the question of vaccinations in the air, making false equivalences between the left on the right is again in vogue.
Fred Hiatt at the Washington Post has a column doing it with regard to science. This time his bugaboo is that in poll of scientists and the general populace, the right disagrees with scientists on most everything, while the left disagrees with scientists about vaccinations and eating genetically modified organisms (GMO foods).
First off, GMO foods are not about science. They're about corporate profits. More on this later.
A more specific example is climate change. Everyone over the age of 50 knows without a doubt that the climate is changing. So when conservatives say they don't believe in global warming, they're really saying A) I don't care because I'll be dead by the time it really starts to matter, B) I hate liberals and their stupid causes, C) Who gives a damn about polar bears?, D) It will cost too much to do anything about it, E) I don't want to give up my riding lawn mower and my Hummer for a bunch of tree huggers, and F) I'm afraid I'll lose my job when the Koch brothers pick up their ball and go home if they don't get what they want. Since they can't say all that on the poll, they just say they don't believe in climate change.
The scientists, however, will answer that GMO safety question honestly. Because, well, they're scientists. "Yeah, eating Bt corn is probably safe; i.e., it will probably not give you a heart attack tomorrow or a brain tumor next month."
Then the scientists would hasten to add (unless employed by Monsanto), "GMO crops like Bt and glyphosate-resistant corn engender a vast industrial-agricultural complex that creates many risks with the excessive use of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers, all of which contribute to bee die-offs, mutated wildlife, algal blooms in lakes and streams, Parkinson's, autism, and the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico. Oh, and I wouldn't be surprised if eating Bt corn contributed to the obesity epidemic or the alarming spread of food allergies. More unbiased research is needed to answer that."
That "But" will never get on a poll because polls aren't intended to give detailed results. They are, almost always, paid for by someone who wants a particular result to prove the point they want to prove.
Most genetically modified crops are not engineered to make them more nutritious. They have genes inserted in them to make them poisonous to insects (Bt corn), or resistant to herbicides (Roundup Ready Corn).
In other words, the ag giants want to sell GMO crops so they can sell more Roundup and atrazine, as well as lock farmers into buying seed from them every year.
It took decades for scientists to realize that DDT was bad for humans. We haven't been eating Bt corn long enough to have enough data to know with absolute certainty that it's completely safe. The people doing the research on the safety of GMO foods are paid by the companies that produce them. Companies are known to cherry pick their data (mostly by burying studies that disagree with what they want). It's therefore not unreasonable to be scientifically skeptical about their findings.
The herbicides used on GMO crops are known to cause developmental problems in animals (atrazine is notorious for what it does to frogs) and human fetuses. The pesticides used in agriculture are toxic not only to insects, but also to humans, even in relatively small doses. They are neurotoxins known to cause diseases like Parkinson's.
Neonicotinoid pesticides are implicated as at least a partial cause of Colony Collapse Disorder, the condition that is killing bees across the world. Bees are essential to many types of agriculture, such as apples, apricots, almonds, all kinds of vegetables like cucumbers and watermelon, cotton, alfalfa, even okra. Is it wise to risk all those other crops so that some farmers can spray Imidacloprid indiscriminately?
When farmers buy GMO seeds from corporations like Monsanto, they are forbidden to use that crop as seed the next year. They must buy more seed from Monsanto. They can be sued even if they accidentally plant some seed they didn't pay for. This is a huge expense, and it means more money is being transferred from the pockets of farmers into the coffers of big business.
To exacerbate the problem, weeds frequently develop resistance to herbicides on their own. Even worse, the genes inserted into GMO crops are sometimes transferred to weeds, making them resistant to the herbicide and defeating the entire purpose of GMO crops.
This is happening more and more frequently. Within the next few years most of the orange trees in Florida will be affected by citrus blight. The price of orange juice is projected to go way up. In the next few years chocolate prices will go up due to a combination of demand, drought (caused in part by higher temperatures due to global warming) and disease (witch's brew and frosty pod).
So, in the future, when some form of corn rust mutates and infects GMO crops, it will be carried by insects across the country. It will infect a huge fraction of the corn in the country, because there only a couple of companies selling seeds. Because the corn crop will be a monoculture, all from the same seed produced by one or two companies, all the plants will be infected.
This isn't idle speculation. It's something that will happen if we continue to plant a monoculture of corn. And because it can take years to develop new GMO crops, we could have famine that lasts for years because everyone foolishly planted the identical crop world-wide and there isn't enough genetic diversity in the seed banks to find a plant that is immune to the plague.
The problem with GMO crops isn't the science. The problem is with the corporations that use the science to make products without regard to the negative effects that product causes, which may extend far beyond the product itself (such as GMO crops that encourage overuse of fertilizers which winds up killing all the shrimp off the coast of Louisiana).
Which is incredibly short-sighted. Clearly the population cannot grow unbounded. There are seven billion people in the world. GMO crops may be enough to support nine billion. But about 12? Or 15? Or 20?
Clearly the world survive just fine if there are only seven or five or three billion people on it. But at some point everything will collapse if we continue to increase the population, depending on a scientific infrastructure that requires monoculture crops and the massive use of toxic herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers that we know will fail at some point.
Fred Hiatt at the Washington Post has a column doing it with regard to science. This time his bugaboo is that in poll of scientists and the general populace, the right disagrees with scientists on most everything, while the left disagrees with scientists about vaccinations and eating genetically modified organisms (GMO foods).
First off, GMO foods are not about science. They're about corporate profits. More on this later.
Concern over GMOs isn't just about eating them. It's about the host of other problems the GMO-based agricultural-industrial complex engenders.
Second, the poll results don't represent what the pollsters say they do. When an average person answers a poll question they don't respond to the actual wording -- they're giving their overall reaction to the subject. A question like, "Are GMO foods safe to eat?" will be answered instead as if the poll asked "Do you think GMO foods are good?" The average person has heard a litany of reasons (monocultures, genetic contamination, toxic pesticides and herbicides, agribusiness crushing the family farm) about why they're bad, but can't enumerate them on a poll because polls don't allow for nuance. So they just vote GMO foods off the island.A more specific example is climate change. Everyone over the age of 50 knows without a doubt that the climate is changing. So when conservatives say they don't believe in global warming, they're really saying A) I don't care because I'll be dead by the time it really starts to matter, B) I hate liberals and their stupid causes, C) Who gives a damn about polar bears?, D) It will cost too much to do anything about it, E) I don't want to give up my riding lawn mower and my Hummer for a bunch of tree huggers, and F) I'm afraid I'll lose my job when the Koch brothers pick up their ball and go home if they don't get what they want. Since they can't say all that on the poll, they just say they don't believe in climate change.
The scientists, however, will answer that GMO safety question honestly. Because, well, they're scientists. "Yeah, eating Bt corn is probably safe; i.e., it will probably not give you a heart attack tomorrow or a brain tumor next month."
Then the scientists would hasten to add (unless employed by Monsanto), "GMO crops like Bt and glyphosate-resistant corn engender a vast industrial-agricultural complex that creates many risks with the excessive use of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers, all of which contribute to bee die-offs, mutated wildlife, algal blooms in lakes and streams, Parkinson's, autism, and the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico. Oh, and I wouldn't be surprised if eating Bt corn contributed to the obesity epidemic or the alarming spread of food allergies. More unbiased research is needed to answer that."
That "But" will never get on a poll because polls aren't intended to give detailed results. They are, almost always, paid for by someone who wants a particular result to prove the point they want to prove.
The real question is whether the positive aspects of raising GMO crops outweigh the negative aspects.
The fact is, the science says that GMO foods have many negative aspects. These bad qualities are rooted in real science, not silly prejudice. The real question is whether the tradeoffs between the positive and negative aspects of GMO crops make them safe and sustainable on the whole. Monsanto doesn't care about the overall picture, they just care about their bottom line.Most genetically modified crops are not engineered to make them more nutritious. They have genes inserted in them to make them poisonous to insects (Bt corn), or resistant to herbicides (Roundup Ready Corn).
In other words, the ag giants want to sell GMO crops so they can sell more Roundup and atrazine, as well as lock farmers into buying seed from them every year.
It took decades for scientists to realize that DDT was bad for humans. We haven't been eating Bt corn long enough to have enough data to know with absolute certainty that it's completely safe. The people doing the research on the safety of GMO foods are paid by the companies that produce them. Companies are known to cherry pick their data (mostly by burying studies that disagree with what they want). It's therefore not unreasonable to be scientifically skeptical about their findings.
Monsanto sells GMO corn so they can sell more Roundup and create a seed monopoly.
Furthermore, there are serious problems with industrialized agriculture, and GMO crops allow these bad practices to be used ever more widely. In particular, the overuse of chemicals on crops.The herbicides used on GMO crops are known to cause developmental problems in animals (atrazine is notorious for what it does to frogs) and human fetuses. The pesticides used in agriculture are toxic not only to insects, but also to humans, even in relatively small doses. They are neurotoxins known to cause diseases like Parkinson's.
Neonicotinoid pesticides are implicated as at least a partial cause of Colony Collapse Disorder, the condition that is killing bees across the world. Bees are essential to many types of agriculture, such as apples, apricots, almonds, all kinds of vegetables like cucumbers and watermelon, cotton, alfalfa, even okra. Is it wise to risk all those other crops so that some farmers can spray Imidacloprid indiscriminately?
When farmers buy GMO seeds from corporations like Monsanto, they are forbidden to use that crop as seed the next year. They must buy more seed from Monsanto. They can be sued even if they accidentally plant some seed they didn't pay for. This is a huge expense, and it means more money is being transferred from the pockets of farmers into the coffers of big business.
To exacerbate the problem, weeds frequently develop resistance to herbicides on their own. Even worse, the genes inserted into GMO crops are sometimes transferred to weeds, making them resistant to the herbicide and defeating the entire purpose of GMO crops.
Monoculture GMO crops represent a huge gamble that will likely result in a massive crop die-off one day.
Furthermore, when farmers across the country -- and the world -- all plant the exact same crop, we wind up with a genetically identical monoculture. When a disease or pest attacks the entire crop can be wiped out.This is happening more and more frequently. Within the next few years most of the orange trees in Florida will be affected by citrus blight. The price of orange juice is projected to go way up. In the next few years chocolate prices will go up due to a combination of demand, drought (caused in part by higher temperatures due to global warming) and disease (witch's brew and frosty pod).
So, in the future, when some form of corn rust mutates and infects GMO crops, it will be carried by insects across the country. It will infect a huge fraction of the corn in the country, because there only a couple of companies selling seeds. Because the corn crop will be a monoculture, all from the same seed produced by one or two companies, all the plants will be infected.
This isn't idle speculation. It's something that will happen if we continue to plant a monoculture of corn. And because it can take years to develop new GMO crops, we could have famine that lasts for years because everyone foolishly planted the identical crop world-wide and there isn't enough genetic diversity in the seed banks to find a plant that is immune to the plague.
The problem with GMO crops isn't the science. The problem is with the corporations that use the science to make products without regard to the negative effects that product causes, which may extend far beyond the product itself (such as GMO crops that encourage overuse of fertilizers which winds up killing all the shrimp off the coast of Louisiana).
GMO crops are really an argument for letting the world's population grow without bounds.
In the end, Hiatt's defense of GMO crops doesn't rest on the science. It rests on the assumption that the world's population is going to continue to grow unabated, and unless we use GMO crops to increase yields we will have mass starvation.Which is incredibly short-sighted. Clearly the population cannot grow unbounded. There are seven billion people in the world. GMO crops may be enough to support nine billion. But about 12? Or 15? Or 20?
Clearly the world survive just fine if there are only seven or five or three billion people on it. But at some point everything will collapse if we continue to increase the population, depending on a scientific infrastructure that requires monoculture crops and the massive use of toxic herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers that we know will fail at some point.
Science Should Never Yield To Freedom of Expression
Some Good Words...
A “view” differs significantly from a “view necessarily informed by evidence.” The problem with many climate-change naysayers is that they present their views as facts where they are not accountable to the evidence. They avoid having to address expert review. They dodge the systematic technical criticism that is essential to establishing scientific claims as trustworthy.
In this case, they have failed to persuade the scientific community. Instead, they appeal directly to nonexpert citizens with shards of evidence or emotional pleas, trying to short-circuit the process of validation.
It's always about the short circuiting, isn't it? Why?
I think it comes back to that insecurity/inferiority complex thing again. They just can't stand the fact that there are leaders in our country that are smarter and more successful than they are. So, let's tear them down...somehow...someway...
Pretty fucking sad.
A “view” differs significantly from a “view necessarily informed by evidence.” The problem with many climate-change naysayers is that they present their views as facts where they are not accountable to the evidence. They avoid having to address expert review. They dodge the systematic technical criticism that is essential to establishing scientific claims as trustworthy.
In this case, they have failed to persuade the scientific community. Instead, they appeal directly to nonexpert citizens with shards of evidence or emotional pleas, trying to short-circuit the process of validation.
It's always about the short circuiting, isn't it? Why?
I think it comes back to that insecurity/inferiority complex thing again. They just can't stand the fact that there are leaders in our country that are smarter and more successful than they are. So, let's tear them down...somehow...someway...
Pretty fucking sad.
Sunday, February 08, 2015
Shovel To The Head!
I just pulled this from a comment on that same social media thread from the other day...
I think it hit the nail on the head with a hammer ! I doubt they got diaper head ladin at all . This guy is not for America . You think because he forced a bullshit health care bill that he is god . Socialism is for a ignorant populace that can't manage themselves . The world war 2 generation showed us how it was done . That was a generally good generation of people that saw the greatest growth in any country in history . They went to the moon , built cars , bridges , highways , railroads, phone systems , cable TV , airlines , power plants . Anyone want to see what a liberal socialist take over looks like you tube the ruins of Detroit .
Wow...
I think it hit the nail on the head with a hammer ! I doubt they got diaper head ladin at all . This guy is not for America . You think because he forced a bullshit health care bill that he is god . Socialism is for a ignorant populace that can't manage themselves . The world war 2 generation showed us how it was done . That was a generally good generation of people that saw the greatest growth in any country in history . They went to the moon , built cars , bridges , highways , railroads, phone systems , cable TV , airlines , power plants . Anyone want to see what a liberal socialist take over looks like you tube the ruins of Detroit .
Wow...
Honoring Humble Beginnings
While I was mopping the kitchen floor today I contemplated my humble beginnings. My dad was blue collar all the way: variously a short-order cook, a window cleaner, a janitor and a bus driver. When he had his own janitorial business I would sometimes help him with the lighter work, dusting doors and woodwork in new houses. When I was in high school I worked for a time cleaning apartments for the elderly -- mostly mopping floors.
That reminded of how frequently conservatives tout their "humble beginnings." At the 2012 Republican National Convention they talked about it constantly: from Ann Romney, to Paul Ryan, to Chris Christie, to Condoleeza Rice, they all had stories about their "humble beginnings."
Throughout the nomination process Rick Santorum constantly bragged about his grandfather Pietro being an immigrant coal miner. Of course, neither Rick nor his father were coal miners -- Santorum had to go back two generations to dig up his "humble beginnings."
These conservatives always talk about honoring those humble beginnings, about how that kind of work "builds character."
But you gotta ask: how does our society really honor someone? By waxing poetic for a couple of hours at a political convention? By taking off our hats for veterans at a football game? No.
That's how we honor our sports "heroes." That's how we honor captains of industry. That's how we honor doctors and judges and attorneys and politicians. We pay them lots of money.
Why is it that the teachers and the janitors and the window cleaners and the maids and the miners and the cooks and the waiters and the cops and the soldiers and the farmers and the meat packers -- the people who actually do all the work to make this country function -- get paid peanuts, while the people who caused all of our major problems -- politicians, CEOs, hedge fund managers, bankers, stock market traders -- get paid the big bucks?
Look at this way: if all the CEOs died tomorrow, the country wouldn't skip a beat. If all the farmers died, we'd all starve. It's not an arbitrary comparison, because their numbers are roughly equal: according to Forbes, there are 1.7 million CEOs in the United States and about 1.9 million farmers and agricultural workers.
And even worse: through the miracle of the capital gains tax cuts passed under George W. Bush, the people who do the least work get taxed at the lowest rate. That's how Romney paid only a 14% tax rate while doing nothing but running for president.
Why is it that the people who do 99% of the work to make this country function have only 65% of the country's wealth?
When conservatives tout their humble beginnings, they're really just puffing up their own egos. They're bragging, "Look how much better I am than my grandfather, how successful I am. I got where I am because I'm better than they are. Better than you."
If men like Santorum really honored their grandfathers, they'd be demanding that men like Pietro be paid more, work under safer conditions, and be guaranteed decent health care when they were injured on the job.
Why are the people voting for these guys suckered into believing them?
That reminded of how frequently conservatives tout their "humble beginnings." At the 2012 Republican National Convention they talked about it constantly: from Ann Romney, to Paul Ryan, to Chris Christie, to Condoleeza Rice, they all had stories about their "humble beginnings."
Throughout the nomination process Rick Santorum constantly bragged about his grandfather Pietro being an immigrant coal miner. Of course, neither Rick nor his father were coal miners -- Santorum had to go back two generations to dig up his "humble beginnings."
These conservatives always talk about honoring those humble beginnings, about how that kind of work "builds character."
But you gotta ask: how does our society really honor someone? By waxing poetic for a couple of hours at a political convention? By taking off our hats for veterans at a football game? No.
The best way to honor someone is to pay them more money.
The best way to honor someone is to pay them more money. Enough money so they and their kids don't have to suffer through the indignities of poverty.That's how we honor our sports "heroes." That's how we honor captains of industry. That's how we honor doctors and judges and attorneys and politicians. We pay them lots of money.
Why is it that the teachers and the janitors and the window cleaners and the maids and the miners and the cooks and the waiters and the cops and the soldiers and the farmers and the meat packers -- the people who actually do all the work to make this country function -- get paid peanuts, while the people who caused all of our major problems -- politicians, CEOs, hedge fund managers, bankers, stock market traders -- get paid the big bucks?
Look at this way: if all the CEOs died tomorrow, the country wouldn't skip a beat. If all the farmers died, we'd all starve. It's not an arbitrary comparison, because their numbers are roughly equal: according to Forbes, there are 1.7 million CEOs in the United States and about 1.9 million farmers and agricultural workers.
And even worse: through the miracle of the capital gains tax cuts passed under George W. Bush, the people who do the least work get taxed at the lowest rate. That's how Romney paid only a 14% tax rate while doing nothing but running for president.
Why is it that the people who do 99% of the work to make this country function have only 65% of the country's wealth?
Based on their policies, conservatives resent and despise their humble beginnings.
Based on their policies, conservatives don't honor their humble beginnings. They resent and despise them. They want to make anyone who hasn't "bettered themselves" -- like they did -- suffer for their laziness and lack of initiative.When conservatives tout their humble beginnings, they're really just puffing up their own egos. They're bragging, "Look how much better I am than my grandfather, how successful I am. I got where I am because I'm better than they are. Better than you."
If men like Santorum really honored their grandfathers, they'd be demanding that men like Pietro be paid more, work under safer conditions, and be guaranteed decent health care when they were injured on the job.
Why are the people voting for these guys suckered into believing them?
Waving Buh Bye To Austerity
It's not surprising that Europe is finally ejecting austerity from the capsule and moving on to an economic policy rooted in reality as opposed to unicorn, fairy land.
The ECB’s new stimulus “should strengthen demand, increase capacity utilization and support money and credit growth,” Mr. Draghi said. He rejected any criticism that the vast expansion of the ECB’s easy-money policies would stoke inflation down the road, noting that inflation has stayed very low even after several interest-rate cuts and abundant ECB loans to banks. “There must be a statute of limitations for those who say there will be inflation,” he said.
Yeah, that was passed by a long time ago...
Equally not surprising is the recent vote in Greece firmly against austerity.
Greece currently has public debt equivalent to 177 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP). Its unemployment rate stands near 25 percent overall, and more than half of young adults have no jobs and few prospects. The austerity measures have gutted many of the country's most vital social programs. The economy has shrunk by more than 23 percent since the 2008 global financial crisis, a contraction comparable to the U.S. economy's during the Great Depression.
Austerity in times of economic contraction doesn't work. It never has. The only question that remains is when this shift in policy produces results, will the pathological haters of government finally admit fault?
The ECB’s new stimulus “should strengthen demand, increase capacity utilization and support money and credit growth,” Mr. Draghi said. He rejected any criticism that the vast expansion of the ECB’s easy-money policies would stoke inflation down the road, noting that inflation has stayed very low even after several interest-rate cuts and abundant ECB loans to banks. “There must be a statute of limitations for those who say there will be inflation,” he said.
Yeah, that was passed by a long time ago...
Equally not surprising is the recent vote in Greece firmly against austerity.
Greece currently has public debt equivalent to 177 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP). Its unemployment rate stands near 25 percent overall, and more than half of young adults have no jobs and few prospects. The austerity measures have gutted many of the country's most vital social programs. The economy has shrunk by more than 23 percent since the 2008 global financial crisis, a contraction comparable to the U.S. economy's during the Great Depression.
Austerity in times of economic contraction doesn't work. It never has. The only question that remains is when this shift in policy produces results, will the pathological haters of government finally admit fault?
Saturday, February 07, 2015
Red State Whining
I've put this map up before but I've had a few requests via email to put it up again. The states in red represent who gets the most government handouts and the states in blue represent who gets the least. Ironic that the states that bitch the most about the federal government get the most money. Regardless of their whining, as a resident of the state of Minnesota, I'm happy that more of my share of tax dollars help people out in these states. Why?
Because I'm a grown up:)
Because I'm a grown up:)
More Economic Good News
The Labor Department said on Friday that employers added a seasonally adjusted 257,000 jobs in January, but even more significant was a revision of earlier estimates showing an additional gain of 147,000 jobs in November and December. Since Nov. 1, employers have hired more than one million new workers, the best performance over a three-month period since 1997. More jobs were created in 2014 as a whole than in any year since 1999.
Obama's "destruction" of the United States continues...the clever fiendishness of his evil plot is brilliant!
Meanwhile, Republicans are trying to figure out how to respond:)
Obama's "destruction" of the United States continues...the clever fiendishness of his evil plot is brilliant!
Meanwhile, Republicans are trying to figure out how to respond:)
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.
-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.
Friday, February 06, 2015
President Grandma
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!
Thursday, February 05, 2015
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, February 04, 2015
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 |
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.
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.
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:)
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:)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)