As I predicted, conservatives are only interested in the Hillary email kerfuffle as it relates to Benghazi. Like a dog that just won't let go of that Frisbee, they are laser focused in on the emails that pertain to the thing they still think they can "get" Obama on and win (see: still with the sour grapes that he got bin Laden and Bush didn't).
At first, I couldn't figure out why they haven't been more vocal about these emails but this piece on Politico explains it quite well. They know that their emails are next. In fact, I predict that every candidate who currently holds public office is going to have to release all their emails to the public. Further, their silence calls attention to the fact that it was the New York Fucking Times that broke this story. So, I guess the whole "liberal media" narrative has been blown to shit...again.
The media does deserve some criticism, though, because we are likely going to have to hear about this shit for the next 20 months along with a bunch of bullshit stories about the rest of the candidates. Wouldn't it be nice if we looked at how each candidate might, y'know, address the myriad of challenges our nation faces?
Thursday, March 05, 2015
Wednesday, March 04, 2015
Hillary's Emails
Yesterday's revelation that Hillary Clinton used her personal email while Secretary of State seems like no big deal to me. John Kerry is the first Secretary of State to actually use the government email. Condeleeza Rice didn't use email and Colin Powell used his personal email. This all has the smell of government silliness.
But it should matter to Hillary Clinton because, once again, she's seen as hiding something. Handing over 55,000 emails is nice but now we will have every fat ass blogger with man titties howling about secrecy and Benghazi again because she didn't hand over all of them. I see a lot of tone deafness within her almost launched campaign and she needs to tighten up that shit most ricky tick.
The air of inevitability thing is what did her in during the 2008 campaign. That's why I think it would behoove the Democrats to put up some serious challengers to her so she can stay on her game. If she somehow manages to end up tanking, at least they will have some other players in the mix. Right now their other star (Elizabeth Warren) has repeatedly said she is not running. Let's see some new faces like Joaquín or Julian Castro. What about Maggie Hassan? Or my own Amy Klobuchar?
Hillary needs to get kicked in the ass a bit if she's going to earn it.
But it should matter to Hillary Clinton because, once again, she's seen as hiding something. Handing over 55,000 emails is nice but now we will have every fat ass blogger with man titties howling about secrecy and Benghazi again because she didn't hand over all of them. I see a lot of tone deafness within her almost launched campaign and she needs to tighten up that shit most ricky tick.
The air of inevitability thing is what did her in during the 2008 campaign. That's why I think it would behoove the Democrats to put up some serious challengers to her so she can stay on her game. If she somehow manages to end up tanking, at least they will have some other players in the mix. Right now their other star (Elizabeth Warren) has repeatedly said she is not running. Let's see some new faces like Joaquín or Julian Castro. What about Maggie Hassan? Or my own Amy Klobuchar?
Hillary needs to get kicked in the ass a bit if she's going to earn it.
Tuesday, March 03, 2015
Standing in King V Burwell
Two recent stories in the Wall Street Journal (here and here) raise significant queries as to whether or not the people bringing suit against the ACA have standing to even do so.
Legal experts say the fact that Mr. King could avoid paying the penalty for lacking insurance by enrolling in VA coverage undermines his legal right to bring the case, known as “standing.” The wife of a second plaintiff has described her husband on social media as being a Vietnam veteran. The government previously questioned the standing of a third plaintiff on the grounds that her income may exempt her from paying the penalty for lacking insurance, but a lower court didn’t address the issue.
So, why did they bring about this suit?
Mr. King said his challenge to the law is “not about me,” but rather an effort he undertook for his family and others to bring down the health law.
Ah, so he suffers from Obama Mental Meltdown Syndrome....always a sound reason to go to the Supreme Court.
Worse, we are still stuck on the "not letting him win no matter what!!" mentality.
Legal experts say the fact that Mr. King could avoid paying the penalty for lacking insurance by enrolling in VA coverage undermines his legal right to bring the case, known as “standing.” The wife of a second plaintiff has described her husband on social media as being a Vietnam veteran. The government previously questioned the standing of a third plaintiff on the grounds that her income may exempt her from paying the penalty for lacking insurance, but a lower court didn’t address the issue.
So, why did they bring about this suit?
Mr. King said his challenge to the law is “not about me,” but rather an effort he undertook for his family and others to bring down the health law.
Ah, so he suffers from Obama Mental Meltdown Syndrome....always a sound reason to go to the Supreme Court.
Worse, we are still stuck on the "not letting him win no matter what!!" mentality.
Monday, March 02, 2015
House Republicans to Host Sharia Law Foreign Leader
Lots of Republicans think the United States is a Christian nation, and that Congress and state legislatures should make it official. Yet Republicans in Congress are asking the leader of a foreign country that recognizes Muslim Sharia Law to lecture Americans about moral imperatives.
They criticize President Obama because he frames the war against the so-called Islamic State as an action against criminals and terrorists. Obama refuses to give into the terrorists' narrative that they somehow represent Islam, and that Islam and Christianity are somehow at war. The president believes that if the United States is perceived as embarking on another Crusade in the Middle East, as Republicans appear to fervently desire by their pious declarations, then other Muslims will feel that the US is waging a war against them as well.
Anti-Islamic rhetoric has reached a fevered pitch in many parts of the United States since 2001. Republican-controlled legislatures have debated or passed laws that prohibit "Sharia" law, or recognizing any form of "foreign" law. They believe that only "Christian" law should apply in the United States.
In Israel Judaism is the official state religion. Religious law governs family matters. That means that in order for a Jewish woman to get a divorce, she has to get her husband's permission, even if she's an atheist Russian emigree who's never set foot in a synagogue. Some women have been forced to wait for decades to get a divorce, held hostage by husbands who are free to take up with other women and have children who will be recognized as Jews by the rabbinate.
However, Israel has a very large Muslim population, and a sizable Christian one. That means that Israel also recognizes Sharia courts:
Yeah, there are complex historical reasons for this. But it just shows how foolish the idea is that a democracy should have an official state religion, especially Christianity. Because there's no such monolithic thing called "Christianity" -- or Judaism or Islam, for that matter, which demonstrates what a farce the Israeli situation is.
The theocracies in Iran and Saudi Arabia illustrate the evils of official state religions run amok, and even Britain has several dark pages in its history when the State wielded religious power to murder its political opponents.
Religious laws governing marriage and family are all over the map in Christianity: most protestant faiths allow divorce, Catholicism bans it, and when it started, Mormonism allowed polygamy, and some adherents still claim it does.
Think of the utter chaos trying to enforce several hundred religious courts in this country over issues of marriage, divorce and child custody and especially inheritance, considering how frequently Americans marry people of other faiths, and how Americans can simply change faiths by walking across the street.
Despite the popular claim to the contrary, morality can, is and should be legislated. By Americans, for all Americans who alive right and here and now. Not by decree of some self-styled foreign oracle who's been dead for centuries, for a tiny sliver of Americans who think they know better than everyone else.
The irony is that our modern secular moral code is stronger and more just than so-called morality of the Bible, which condoned, promoted and even glorified genocide, vengeful murders, ritual human sacrifice, polygamy and slavery.
They criticize President Obama because he frames the war against the so-called Islamic State as an action against criminals and terrorists. Obama refuses to give into the terrorists' narrative that they somehow represent Islam, and that Islam and Christianity are somehow at war. The president believes that if the United States is perceived as embarking on another Crusade in the Middle East, as Republicans appear to fervently desire by their pious declarations, then other Muslims will feel that the US is waging a war against them as well.
Anti-Islamic rhetoric has reached a fevered pitch in many parts of the United States since 2001. Republican-controlled legislatures have debated or passed laws that prohibit "Sharia" law, or recognizing any form of "foreign" law. They believe that only "Christian" law should apply in the United States.
Common law, the basis of American law, predates Christianity.
However, the Christian part of the bible, the New Testament, doesn't establish any laws: it's just the story of Jesus, plus some dire predictions about hellfire and damnation. The part of the Bible that contains actual laws is the Torah, also known as the Old Testament. This set of laws, known as Mosaic Law, is not Christian, it's Jewish law, and is expanded upon by the Talmud. American law is based on British common law, which existed before Christianity.In Israel Judaism is the official state religion. Religious law governs family matters. That means that in order for a Jewish woman to get a divorce, she has to get her husband's permission, even if she's an atheist Russian emigree who's never set foot in a synagogue. Some women have been forced to wait for decades to get a divorce, held hostage by husbands who are free to take up with other women and have children who will be recognized as Jews by the rabbinate.
However, Israel has a very large Muslim population, and a sizable Christian one. That means that Israel also recognizes Sharia courts:
The jurisdiction of the Sharia CourtsRepublicans invited Bibi Netanyahu, a foreign leader, to come scare Americans with stories of Muslim bogeymen, when his own country allows Sharia Courts dictate the most basic rights of Israeli citizens to marry, divorce, have children and inherit property.
Under the Palestine Order in Council 1922-1947, the Sharia Courts were given jurisdiction to adjudicate the following matters in accordance with the Sharia Courts Procedure Law for the year 1333 E:
- Marriages - Proof of marriage, annulment of marriage, ratification of marriage, bride prices and dowries.
- Divorce - Proof of divorce, arbitration, separation and dissolution of marriage.
- Maintenance - Wife, son, father and grandfather.
- Legal capacity and guardianship.
- Custody of children - visitation and accommodation arrangements.
- Inheritance.
Yeah, there are complex historical reasons for this. But it just shows how foolish the idea is that a democracy should have an official state religion, especially Christianity. Because there's no such monolithic thing called "Christianity" -- or Judaism or Islam, for that matter, which demonstrates what a farce the Israeli situation is.
The theocracies in Iran and Saudi Arabia illustrate the evils of official state religions run amok, and even Britain has several dark pages in its history when the State wielded religious power to murder its political opponents.
Religious laws governing marriage and family are all over the map in Christianity: most protestant faiths allow divorce, Catholicism bans it, and when it started, Mormonism allowed polygamy, and some adherents still claim it does.
Think of the utter chaos trying to enforce several hundred religious courts in this country over issues of marriage, divorce and child custody and especially inheritance, considering how frequently Americans marry people of other faiths, and how Americans can simply change faiths by walking across the street.
Our modern secular moral code is stronger than so-called biblical morality.
And an official state religion is unnecessary. Morality has nothing to do with religion -- it's just a set of rules established to govern social interaction. Morality is merely informed by religion and philosophy, not dictated by them.Despite the popular claim to the contrary, morality can, is and should be legislated. By Americans, for all Americans who alive right and here and now. Not by decree of some self-styled foreign oracle who's been dead for centuries, for a tiny sliver of Americans who think they know better than everyone else.
The irony is that our modern secular moral code is stronger and more just than so-called morality of the Bible, which condoned, promoted and even glorified genocide, vengeful murders, ritual human sacrifice, polygamy and slavery.
The Gun Cult Completely Dismantled
I love how Jefferies takes apart every single argument made by members of the Gun Cult. He's right...there really is only one valid argument to have a gun...because they like them. The rest are all bullshit.
Of course, that's not the best part, though. The comparison of slavery to gun rights is so fucking spot on that I found myself laughing out loud. Not surprising that it's the descendants of the same people who bitched about their right to own slaves being taken away that are now screaming, "Don't take away my guns!!!!"
Sunday, March 01, 2015
Saturday, February 28, 2015
We Are Spock
I was nine years old when Star Trek first aired in 1966. I don't remember when I started watching, but at one point my parents let me stay up late on Friday nights to see it. And I remember watching the last episode, the terrible "Turnabout Intruder," in 1969. I watched the show endlessly in reruns in the 1970s.
I'd always been interested in the space program. My uncle worked for Lockheed in California as a materials scientist and some of his work wound up in the Apollo spacecraft. He was a voracious reader of science fiction, and I aspired to be like him.
So when Star Trek came out, it wasn't surprising that Spock became my favorite character. One Halloween I used nose putty to make pointed ears. I shaved off half my eyebrows and my mom drew upswept eyebrows on my forehead with eyeliner. I sewed gold braid on the sleeves of a pale blue sweatshirt. I even bear a passing physical resemblance to Leonard Nimoy.
Like Spock, I strive to eschew irrationality and violence. But also like Spock, I have flashes of temper and sentimentality. But Spock is just a character in a show. He's a fiction.
As such, the fictional character and the men who play him -- Nimoy and Zachary Quinto -- are not heroes. They should not be adulated and admired just for doing a highly-paid and relatively risk-free job. Their on-screen exploits are entertaining, and maybe even inspiring and touching. There's nothing wrong with letting them know that we like their work. But the actors are not the characters.
That's the Spock in me talking.
For many years I had a peripheral connection to science fiction fandom. I attended dozens of conventions, including five or six Worldcons in places like Miami, Phoenix, Boston and Chicago. But I've never attended any Star Trek or Star Wars conventions.
Leonard Nimoy was not Spock: he just played him on TV.
Why? Those show-specific cons promote the whole cult of personality, which I find repellant (I know, another Spock-like reaction). It embarrasses me that so many fans seem incapable of distinguishing the character from the actor. Leonard Nimoy was not Spock: he just played him on TV. When fans drill Harrison Ford about the minutiae of plot points in Star Wars and how they connect to the 23,000 Star Wars novels and he rolls his eyes and tries to explain for the six millionth time that he's not Han Solo and he has no idea what the producers are planning, I roll my eyes with him.Nimoy was similarly peeved, so much so that he wrote an autobiography entitled I Am Not Spock, published in 1975. I never read it because, well, I'm not a fanboy.
The real brains behind Spock were Gene Roddenberry, the creator of the series, and the dozens of screen writers who worked on the scripts. Spock is the creation of a hive mind that pulled Nimoy's strings. They too were just regular guys doing a job, with a full complement of human frailties and failings: they weren't Spock either.
But in 1995 Nimoy published I Am Spock. I never read that either, not being a fanboy, so I must rely on Wikipedia for this insight:
Nimoy had much input into how Spock would act in certain situations, and conversely, Nimoy's contemplation of how Spock acted gave him cause to think about things in a way that he never would have thought if he had not portrayed the character. As such, in this autobiography Nimoy maintains that in some meaningful sense he has merged with Spock while at the same time maintaining the distance between fact and fiction.Those of us who watched him play the character also think about things differently. Anyone who adopts an ethos of logic tempered by compassion, the promotion of the common good, the belief that the future can be better, and an eternal search for the truth, is Spock in a meaningful sense.
Not many television shows have philosophical underpinnings, but Star Trek does in all its incarnations. And Spock embodied them all in a single character.
Leonard Nimoy has died. May Spock live long and prosper.
And There Goes Scott Walker's Candidacy...
The National Review’s Jim Geraghty...
…it is insulting to the protesters, a group I take no pleasure in defending. The protesters in Wisconsin, so furiously angry over Walker’s reforms and disruptive to the procedures of passing laws, earned plenty of legitimate criticism. But they’re not ISIS. They’re not beheading innocent people. They’re Americans, and as much as we may find their ideas, worldview, and perspective spectacularly wrongheaded, they don’t deserve to be compared to murderous terrorists.
When you lose the National Review...
The 12 Year Olds In The House
Yesterday's actions in Congress, specifically the House of Representatives, regarding DHS funding illustrate most clearly the maturity level of Republicans. They would rather have an adolescent temper tantrum than fund a department whose very reason for being is to protect our country from terrorists attacks.
In addition to seeing how 12 year olds behave while they are in charge, it also puts to bed which party really cares about national defense. Any comments about how Barack Obama is weak or leading from behind now ring completely hollow. What a pathetic joke these people are. Is there anyone out there who is still taking them seriously?
Put them in charge of Congress and this is what happens. Perhaps people who actually give a shit about what the federal government does should be in charge come the next election.
In addition to seeing how 12 year olds behave while they are in charge, it also puts to bed which party really cares about national defense. Any comments about how Barack Obama is weak or leading from behind now ring completely hollow. What a pathetic joke these people are. Is there anyone out there who is still taking them seriously?
Put them in charge of Congress and this is what happens. Perhaps people who actually give a shit about what the federal government does should be in charge come the next election.
Friday, February 27, 2015
The Mentality of the Climate Denier
Does this guy even understand fundamental concepts of science?
I thought we were done with this shit 500 years ago with Copernicus. Ah well....
Conservatives Have A Long Way To Go
A recent PPP poll shows that conservatives really have a long way to go in terms of...oh...I don't know...joining the rest of us past the 15th century!
Q16 (Republicans) Do you believe in evolution or not?
Believe in evolution 37%
Do not believe in evolution 49%
Not sure 13%
Uh...not a matter of belief, folks, it's settled science (see: true, whether you believe it or not). Speaking of which...
Q15 (Republicans) Do you believe in global warming or not?
Believe in global warming 25%
Do not believe in global warming 66%
Not sure 10%
Also, settle science.
So, with nearly half of conservatives not believing in evolution and more than half not believing in global warming, it becomes obvious that this is the party about IRRATIONAL BELIEF, not logic, facts, and evidence. If you look at where they stand on all of the issues of the day, it's really all belief.
Supply Side Economics? Proven to be a failed model and recanted by the people that came up with it (Bruce Bartlett and David Stockman). Still believe? Yep
Guns protect me and my family? Proven to be more likely that an accident is more likely in homes with firearms. Still believe? Yep
Immigrants-self deport! Shown to be completely unfeasible given the number of undocumented workers and how integral they are to our economy. Still believe? Get the fuck out, crime breakers!!
It's no wonder that so many conservatives are very religious. They have tied up all of their beliefs into one, gigantic, epistemically closed ball of intransigence.
And there is nothing more dangerous than ideologues. Why? This...
Q17 (Republicans) Would you support or oppose establishing Christianity as the national religion?
57% Support establishing Christianity as the national religion
30% Oppose establishing Christianity as the national religion
13% Not sure
Q16 (Republicans) Do you believe in evolution or not?
Believe in evolution 37%
Do not believe in evolution 49%
Not sure 13%
Uh...not a matter of belief, folks, it's settled science (see: true, whether you believe it or not). Speaking of which...
Q15 (Republicans) Do you believe in global warming or not?
Believe in global warming 25%
Do not believe in global warming 66%
Not sure 10%
Also, settle science.
So, with nearly half of conservatives not believing in evolution and more than half not believing in global warming, it becomes obvious that this is the party about IRRATIONAL BELIEF, not logic, facts, and evidence. If you look at where they stand on all of the issues of the day, it's really all belief.
Supply Side Economics? Proven to be a failed model and recanted by the people that came up with it (Bruce Bartlett and David Stockman). Still believe? Yep
Guns protect me and my family? Proven to be more likely that an accident is more likely in homes with firearms. Still believe? Yep
Immigrants-self deport! Shown to be completely unfeasible given the number of undocumented workers and how integral they are to our economy. Still believe? Get the fuck out, crime breakers!!
It's no wonder that so many conservatives are very religious. They have tied up all of their beliefs into one, gigantic, epistemically closed ball of intransigence.
And there is nothing more dangerous than ideologues. Why? This...
Q17 (Republicans) Would you support or oppose establishing Christianity as the national religion?
57% Support establishing Christianity as the national religion
30% Oppose establishing Christianity as the national religion
13% Not sure
Thursday, February 26, 2015
How To Govern An Economy
Minnesota got another shout out for having a great economy despite the "destruction" that raising taxes, increasing the minimum wage, and increasing government spending brings with it.
Between 2011 and 2015, Gov. Dayton added 172,000 new jobs to Minnesota's economy -- that's 165,800 more jobs in Dayton's first term than Pawlenty added in both of his terms combined. Even though Minnesota's top income tax rate is the 4th-highest in the country, it has the 5th-lowest unemployment rate in the country at 3.6 percent. According to 2012-2013 U.S. census figures, Minnesotans had a median income that was $10,000 larger than the U.S. average, and their median income is still $8,000 more than the U.S. average today.
Take note that the predictions from Republicans were completely wrong.
I wonder if they'll get the message in Wisconsin...
Between 2011 and 2015, Gov. Dayton added 172,000 new jobs to Minnesota's economy -- that's 165,800 more jobs in Dayton's first term than Pawlenty added in both of his terms combined. Even though Minnesota's top income tax rate is the 4th-highest in the country, it has the 5th-lowest unemployment rate in the country at 3.6 percent. According to 2012-2013 U.S. census figures, Minnesotans had a median income that was $10,000 larger than the U.S. average, and their median income is still $8,000 more than the U.S. average today.
Take note that the predictions from Republicans were completely wrong.
I wonder if they'll get the message in Wisconsin...
Wednesday, February 25, 2015
Keystone Should Happen, But Only If America Benefits
President Obama has vetoed the Keystone pipeline bill, but it won't be the last we hear of it. I think that eventually he will sign some kind of bill. But it should be one that benefits Americans, not foreign oil companies. In the original House bill, the particularly nasty crude coming through the pipeline would have been exempt from the oil spill tax!
The current method of transporting oil via trains is unacceptable because of the constant derailings and explosions of oil cars (now forecast at 10 a year). A pipeline is much safer in principle: it has fewer moving parts, it's out of the way under ground (or can be), it's not as prone to collisions, and so on.
The problem is that pipelines have a history of poor maintenance and there's a tendency to route them through areas that are the cheapest for the pipeline company, disregarding local ecological concerns and property owners' rights.
Giant corporations always spin off the subsidiaries that build such risky and large projects as separate companies so that they can declare bankruptcy when it blows up figuratively in their faces, and literally in American backyards. All too often these companies leave the local people and local and federal governments holding the bag for their disasters.
It's even worse in this case because the company building the pipeline is foreign, which means the guys responsible aren't even Americans and don't give a damn if an oil spill in the Ogallala Aquifer poisons all the wells in Nebraska, Oklahoma, Kansas and north Texas. They're treating the American Great Plains like it's some third world country where they can do anything they damn well please.
The real question isn't whether the pipeline should be built, but where and how to build it to be safe enough. We also have to ensure that the company that builds it will be held responsible for the damage it will inevitably cause when it leaks. Because it will leak, and they know it. The people responsible for it shouldn't just be able to skate away and not pay for the destruction they will have wrought.
It's not clear that the people building the pipeline really understand how corrosive this Canadian crude is. It's not clear that they're willing to spend the money necessary to build an adequate pipeline and will monitor and repair it adequately for next 20 years. And then pay to have it decommissioned 30 years from now when the tar sands and the Bakken oil field are depleted, and we've got a thousand miles of filthy, leaky pipeline cutting through the middle of the country.
If some foreign company wants to pump a zillion barrels of oil in a pipeline through the heart of America to the Gulf of Mexico so that it can be shipped off to China, then the United States should be profiting from that.
Will this foreign company be paying American taxes? Or will it siphon off all profits to some Cayman Islands bank account, putting all the risk on American property owners and taxpayers while keeping all the profit?
If we're going to be building something like this through America, then Americans should benefit.
The current method of transporting oil via trains is unacceptable because of the constant derailings and explosions of oil cars (now forecast at 10 a year). A pipeline is much safer in principle: it has fewer moving parts, it's out of the way under ground (or can be), it's not as prone to collisions, and so on.
The problem is that pipelines have a history of poor maintenance and there's a tendency to route them through areas that are the cheapest for the pipeline company, disregarding local ecological concerns and property owners' rights.
Giant corporations always spin off the subsidiaries that build such risky and large projects as separate companies so that they can declare bankruptcy when it blows up figuratively in their faces, and literally in American backyards. All too often these companies leave the local people and local and federal governments holding the bag for their disasters.
It's even worse in this case because the company building the pipeline is foreign, which means the guys responsible aren't even Americans and don't give a damn if an oil spill in the Ogallala Aquifer poisons all the wells in Nebraska, Oklahoma, Kansas and north Texas. They're treating the American Great Plains like it's some third world country where they can do anything they damn well please.
The real question isn't whether the pipeline should be built, but where and how to build it to be safe enough. We also have to ensure that the company that builds it will be held responsible for the damage it will inevitably cause when it leaks. Because it will leak, and they know it. The people responsible for it shouldn't just be able to skate away and not pay for the destruction they will have wrought.
It's not clear that the people building the pipeline really understand how corrosive this Canadian crude is. It's not clear that they're willing to spend the money necessary to build an adequate pipeline and will monitor and repair it adequately for next 20 years. And then pay to have it decommissioned 30 years from now when the tar sands and the Bakken oil field are depleted, and we've got a thousand miles of filthy, leaky pipeline cutting through the middle of the country.
If some foreign company wants to pump a zillion barrels of oil in a pipeline through the heart of America to the Gulf of Mexico so that it can be shipped off to China, then the United States should be profiting from that.
Will this foreign company be paying American taxes? Or will it siphon off all profits to some Cayman Islands bank account, putting all the risk on American property owners and taxpayers while keeping all the profit?
If we're going to be building something like this through America, then Americans should benefit.
The President Goes 3 for 3
The President had a good day yesterday. He vetoed the Keystone Pipleline legislation, put the GOP in a corner on DHS funding, and got Republicans to cave on net neutrality.
The Keystone Pipeline has pretty much become joke so it's really not a big deal that he vetoed the bill. The issue is largely symbolic now yet I still question the value of the project. It will only create temporary jobs in a market that is really not doing very well right now. The DHS funding battle perplexes me as well. The president's immigration action is on hold pending court action so the GOP doesn't have to fight about it in Congress. They should be putting their energy into the court battle. Why put the people at DHS out of a job?
The net neutrality action is the big one out of this bunch. The internet should be regulated like a utility and the idea that the various providers should be allowed to slow down speeds or offer fast lanes for certain customers would eventually end up eroding consumer surplus. The internet is indeed a public good and should be governed as such.
The Keystone Pipeline has pretty much become joke so it's really not a big deal that he vetoed the bill. The issue is largely symbolic now yet I still question the value of the project. It will only create temporary jobs in a market that is really not doing very well right now. The DHS funding battle perplexes me as well. The president's immigration action is on hold pending court action so the GOP doesn't have to fight about it in Congress. They should be putting their energy into the court battle. Why put the people at DHS out of a job?
The net neutrality action is the big one out of this bunch. The internet should be regulated like a utility and the idea that the various providers should be allowed to slow down speeds or offer fast lanes for certain customers would eventually end up eroding consumer surplus. The internet is indeed a public good and should be governed as such.
Tuesday, February 24, 2015
Our Violent Nation
We hear an awful lot these days about how the violent crime rate has dropped in this country. Yet, in looking at the numbers, the "drop" is really from an insanely high number to just a high number. Our murder rate is higher than nearly all other developed countries. So, what is it about culture that makes it such a violent place?
I'm sure it has to do with a combination of several phenomena but what are those key ingredients? I think the numbers in my first link illustrate that we haven't really done a very good job identifying our addressing what these key ingredients are that make us so violent. Obviously, there have been multitude of studies but perhaps it's time to erase the entire board and start over.
I'm sure it has to do with a combination of several phenomena but what are those key ingredients? I think the numbers in my first link illustrate that we haven't really done a very good job identifying our addressing what these key ingredients are that make us so violent. Obviously, there have been multitude of studies but perhaps it's time to erase the entire board and start over.
Monday, February 23, 2015
On Love of Country
Rudy Giuliani has been drawing attention for saying that President Obama doesn't love America:
So Obama doesn't love America because he doesn't love Rudy Giuliani, Scott Walker, and the Wall Street fat cats who are vetting Republican presidential candidates to see which one will march to their tune? Is there anything substantial for Giuliani's claims?
But Giuliani is clearly being hypocritical here. He and Scott Walker and the fat cats in the room clearly don't love the president. The clearly don't love liberals, they clearly don't love people demanding everyone be paid a living wage and the people demanding Wall Street bankers be held responsible for the economic catastrophe they caused in 2009.
Does it even make any sense to talk about loving a country? It's clear you can love your spouse, your children, and your pets. You might even be able to love the mountains, skiing, poker, history, porn, mathematics, science, religion, god, your AK-47, and any number of singular things.
Clearly, you can't. You can only love a subset of those things. And when people like Rudy Giuliani say they love America, what they really mean is that they love themselves and the people who are like them, and the policies that promote the things they want to happen.
Conservatives claim to love the Constitution and the Founding Fathers, yet they selectively pick and choose a very limited and specific subset of history and law that bolsters only their beliefs. They minimize, ignore and deny everything that doesn't comport with their extremely limited and self-serving view of history and law.
These days it's common to hear people on both the left and the right say things like, "I love America, but I hate what it's become." I.e., I don't like the changes the other guy is making.
I don't trust people who boast loudly and proudly that they are patriots who love their country. Being a patriot is like being a hero: it's not a title you can bestow upon yourself, it's an honor that is bestowed upon you by others for your selfless actions. "He was a patriot," is something that only someone else can say about you after you're dead.
What Rudy Giuliani is really saying, "I love the great country of America, so I'm great too. Obama doesn't think America is great, so he's not great." This is the rhetoric and mindset of a five-year-old.
People like Obama don't run around chanting "USA! USA!" constantly because it's phony boastful jingoism that means nothing. This country has a lot of problems (something which Giuliani readily admits), but chief among those problems is the attitude of the Republican Party that they can spend the entire eight years of the Obama administration torpedoing Obama at every stage, constantly threatening government default, sabotaging foreign policy with the Adoration of the Netanyahu, without harming the fabric of this country.
In modern history Democrats have never displayed such unanimous and unalloyed animus against Republican presidents (even as ones as incompetent as George W. Bush, whom Democrats supported even as he railroaded us into war in Iraq) as Republicans have displayed against Obama. You have to go back to the Civil War, when southern Democrats reviled Lincoln like the devil. But of course, that's misleading, because all the southern Democrats have now joined the Republican Party and all the Lincoln Republicans have become Democrats.
Even during the Watergate hearings, Democrats displayed far more decorum toward Richard Nixon, a paranoid thug who had to resign in disgrace for his criminal activities, than Republicans have displayed toward Obama. A president whose greatest crime in their minds -- as witnessed by the Republican legal and legislative agenda -- is a law expanding health care for the American people.
If Republicans really love America, they should prove it by working with the president to make this country a better place, rather than sitting back and incessantly sniping.
“I do not believe, and I know this is a horrible thing to say, but I do not believe that the president loves America,” Giuliani said during the dinner at the 21 Club, a former Prohibition-era speakeasy in midtown Manhattan. “He doesn’t love you. And he doesn’t love me. He wasn’t brought up the way you were brought up and I was brought up through love of this country."Po' Wudy... The pwesident doesn't wub him.
So Obama doesn't love America because he doesn't love Rudy Giuliani, Scott Walker, and the Wall Street fat cats who are vetting Republican presidential candidates to see which one will march to their tune? Is there anything substantial for Giuliani's claims?
Giuliani continued by saying that “with all our flaws we’re the most exceptional country in the world. I’m looking for a presidential candidate who can express that, do that and carry it out.”In other words, Giuliani believes that Obama doesn't think we're special.
But Giuliani is clearly being hypocritical here. He and Scott Walker and the fat cats in the room clearly don't love the president. The clearly don't love liberals, they clearly don't love people demanding everyone be paid a living wage and the people demanding Wall Street bankers be held responsible for the economic catastrophe they caused in 2009.
Does it even make any sense to talk about loving a country? It's clear you can love your spouse, your children, and your pets. You might even be able to love the mountains, skiing, poker, history, porn, mathematics, science, religion, god, your AK-47, and any number of singular things.
How can you love an amorphous collection of 300 million individuals?
But how can you love something that is an amorphous collection of more than 300 million individuals, and a myriad of ethnicities, religions, political parties, businesses, local governments, and a hodge-podge of inconsistent laws and regulations, and its evil history of slavery and lynchings?Clearly, you can't. You can only love a subset of those things. And when people like Rudy Giuliani say they love America, what they really mean is that they love themselves and the people who are like them, and the policies that promote the things they want to happen.
Conservatives claim to love the Constitution and the Founding Fathers, yet they selectively pick and choose a very limited and specific subset of history and law that bolsters only their beliefs. They minimize, ignore and deny everything that doesn't comport with their extremely limited and self-serving view of history and law.
These days it's common to hear people on both the left and the right say things like, "I love America, but I hate what it's become." I.e., I don't like the changes the other guy is making.
Lectern pounders like Giuliani don't love America, they love the sound of their own voices.
The only people who truly love this country are geeky poets who wax rhapsodically about the contradictions and conflicts inherent in a democracy, people who can accept everyone for who they are despite their warts. People who wish the best for everyone in the country despite their ethnicity, economic status, and political leanings. Lectern pounders like Giuliani don't love America, they love the sound of their own voices.I don't trust people who boast loudly and proudly that they are patriots who love their country. Being a patriot is like being a hero: it's not a title you can bestow upon yourself, it's an honor that is bestowed upon you by others for your selfless actions. "He was a patriot," is something that only someone else can say about you after you're dead.
"He was a patriot," is something that only someone else can say about you after you're dead.
People who claim to be country-loving patriots are just puffing up their own importance by attaching themselves like leeches to the simplistic concept that is what they want America to be, not what America the real country actually is.What Rudy Giuliani is really saying, "I love the great country of America, so I'm great too. Obama doesn't think America is great, so he's not great." This is the rhetoric and mindset of a five-year-old.
People like Obama don't run around chanting "USA! USA!" constantly because it's phony boastful jingoism that means nothing. This country has a lot of problems (something which Giuliani readily admits), but chief among those problems is the attitude of the Republican Party that they can spend the entire eight years of the Obama administration torpedoing Obama at every stage, constantly threatening government default, sabotaging foreign policy with the Adoration of the Netanyahu, without harming the fabric of this country.
In modern history Democrats have never displayed such unanimous and unalloyed animus against Republican presidents (even as ones as incompetent as George W. Bush, whom Democrats supported even as he railroaded us into war in Iraq) as Republicans have displayed against Obama. You have to go back to the Civil War, when southern Democrats reviled Lincoln like the devil. But of course, that's misleading, because all the southern Democrats have now joined the Republican Party and all the Lincoln Republicans have become Democrats.
Even during the Watergate hearings, Democrats displayed far more decorum toward Richard Nixon, a paranoid thug who had to resign in disgrace for his criminal activities, than Republicans have displayed toward Obama. A president whose greatest crime in their minds -- as witnessed by the Republican legal and legislative agenda -- is a law expanding health care for the American people.
If Republicans really love America, they should prove it by working with the president to make this country a better place, rather than sitting back and incessantly sniping.
This Gun Toting T Shirt Comes With A Warning
Don't reach for the fake gun on your T-shirt...wow, really? How about not buying the fucking thing in the first place!!
I will admit that, given the advent of social media, the whole open carry thing is now being spread far and wide. This can only result in good things:)
I'm afraid there's still one thing I don't understand, though, If I walk into a Chipotle or department store and I see a dude with a gun slung over his back, how do I know he's not a "bad" guy? What if there are several people with open carry guns? How do I know if they are "good" or "bad?"
If guns are allowed in schools and universities and there is a shooting, how can I tell who the "good" guys are and who the "bad" guys are?
Comments Will Now Be Moderated
After careful consideration, I've decided to start moderating comments. The biggest turn off for new readers that find my site is that comments aren't controlled. I have learned, via email on the feedback form, that people don't want to bother with a site where they are going to be harassed by other commenters. They don't feel safe, given the nature of comments on this site, so here are our new policies.
Comments that refute points or ideas presented in the posts or by other commenters are just fine. Criticisms about groups of people (liberals are all blah blah blah...conservatives are all blah blah blah) are also acceptable. Criticism about public figures are fine (Barack Obama is a Kenyan Muslim! John Boehner is a corporate shill!) as well. Personal remarks about posters or other commenters that take the form of insults, childish baiting, answering questions with questions or arguments about arguments will not be allowed. Here are a couple of examples...
Types of comments that will be allowed:
Huh, I guess if you pick individual items, he has some bright spots. Of course, additional parts of the equation:Worst 8 year Run for EconomyOrWithout Texas, US is net negative jobsOrBig Unemployment liesStock market by many accounts is in bubble territory. Economic competitiveness is getting worse.
The underlying economic factors are all weak. US debt will have doubled by the time Obama leaves office. Lower Gas prices (lately) and Shale Oil drilling have provided massive benefits for the US that prop up the economic condition.There are bright spots but there always are, even in a recession. I hope things are turning for the better but lots of warning signs look ominous
or
Gun 'Cult' Ideology: RULE 1 ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED RULE 2 NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING YOU ARE NOT PREPARED TO DESTROY RULE 3 KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER TIL YOUR SIGHTS ARE ON THE TARGET RULE 4 BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET Always treat all firearms as if they were loaded. Never allow the muzzle of any firearm to point at anything you are not willing to destroy. Never put your finger near the trigger until you are ready to fire. Do not depend on any mechanical device for safety! Always be sure of your target, and what is behind and in front of it.
So, despite you claiming this is 'gun cult' stuff - the actual 'gun cult' ideology specifically forbids it. How many ideological rules of the 'gun cult' were violated for this to happen?
Note that both comments are counterpoints to ideas presented in a post and in no way focus on a poster or a commenter. They are defending their viewpoints which is perfectly acceptable.
Here are some examples of the type of posts that will be deleted from now on. They are all from the same thread.
What drugs are you fucking on?
God only knows what sort of mass murderer an enraged Nikto-anus would turn into if he actually had one of the Evil Instruments of Doom (tm) in his possession.
You want to play games, you leave me no choice but to treat you like the idiot you are acting like.
Because you are an idiot, you are wrong that this would have changed a thing.
So, clearly these are personal insults. Here's an example of singling out a poster or commenter with childish baiting that would lead into an argument about an argument.
I don't have any problems with guns, per se, if they are in the hands of professionally trained people like Army rangers or police officers. -Markadelphia
I have stated repeatedly that I have no problem with trained police or private security being in school buildings-Markadelphia
Guess not.
My hope is that comments will now become an area of more serious discussion and an exchange of more intelligent ideas and thoughts. Perhaps we can finally attract some new commenters now that there is some sort of structure.
Comments that refute points or ideas presented in the posts or by other commenters are just fine. Criticisms about groups of people (liberals are all blah blah blah...conservatives are all blah blah blah) are also acceptable. Criticism about public figures are fine (Barack Obama is a Kenyan Muslim! John Boehner is a corporate shill!) as well. Personal remarks about posters or other commenters that take the form of insults, childish baiting, answering questions with questions or arguments about arguments will not be allowed. Here are a couple of examples...
Types of comments that will be allowed:
Huh, I guess if you pick individual items, he has some bright spots. Of course, additional parts of the equation:Worst 8 year Run for EconomyOrWithout Texas, US is net negative jobsOrBig Unemployment liesStock market by many accounts is in bubble territory. Economic competitiveness is getting worse.
The underlying economic factors are all weak. US debt will have doubled by the time Obama leaves office. Lower Gas prices (lately) and Shale Oil drilling have provided massive benefits for the US that prop up the economic condition.There are bright spots but there always are, even in a recession. I hope things are turning for the better but lots of warning signs look ominous
or
Gun 'Cult' Ideology: RULE 1 ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED RULE 2 NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING YOU ARE NOT PREPARED TO DESTROY RULE 3 KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER TIL YOUR SIGHTS ARE ON THE TARGET RULE 4 BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET Always treat all firearms as if they were loaded. Never allow the muzzle of any firearm to point at anything you are not willing to destroy. Never put your finger near the trigger until you are ready to fire. Do not depend on any mechanical device for safety! Always be sure of your target, and what is behind and in front of it.
So, despite you claiming this is 'gun cult' stuff - the actual 'gun cult' ideology specifically forbids it. How many ideological rules of the 'gun cult' were violated for this to happen?
Note that both comments are counterpoints to ideas presented in a post and in no way focus on a poster or a commenter. They are defending their viewpoints which is perfectly acceptable.
Here are some examples of the type of posts that will be deleted from now on. They are all from the same thread.
What drugs are you fucking on?
God only knows what sort of mass murderer an enraged Nikto-anus would turn into if he actually had one of the Evil Instruments of Doom (tm) in his possession.
You want to play games, you leave me no choice but to treat you like the idiot you are acting like.
Because you are an idiot, you are wrong that this would have changed a thing.
So, clearly these are personal insults. Here's an example of singling out a poster or commenter with childish baiting that would lead into an argument about an argument.
I don't have any problems with guns, per se, if they are in the hands of professionally trained people like Army rangers or police officers. -Markadelphia
I have stated repeatedly that I have no problem with trained police or private security being in school buildings-Markadelphia
Guess not.
My hope is that comments will now become an area of more serious discussion and an exchange of more intelligent ideas and thoughts. Perhaps we can finally attract some new commenters now that there is some sort of structure.
Sunday, February 22, 2015
Another False Meme About Guns
Apparently, there is a meme moving around the inter webs that states that George Washington said the following words...
"When government takes away citizens’ right to bear arms it becomes citizens’ duty to take away government’s right to govern."
As Politifact accurately notes, there is no evidence that he ever said these words. Now, what Washington did say was this...
"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined." (State of the Union address on Jan. 8, 1790)
Further...
The academic consensus is that Washington was referring to a trained militia to defend the new nation, rather than anticipating citizens seeking to head off perceived governmental tyranny. Ron Chernow, whose Washington: A Life won the 2011 Pulitzer Prize for biography, told PolitiFact Texas that Washington was "talking about national defense policy, not individuals arming themselves, and the need for national self-sufficiency in creating military supplies."
Some post-Revolutionary lawmakers did expect citizens to own firearms, but Washington does not appear to have been among them, experts said. "The idea of resistance to tyranny being dependent on a nation of gun-wielding individuals acting at their own behest or even on local initiative would have been anathema to Washington," Lengel told PolitiFact Texas. "Indeed, during the (Revolutionary) war he very frequently lamented the crimes carried out by armed civilians or undisciplined militia against their unarmed neighbors. The solution to these crimes, as he understood it, was to increase the power of the government and the army to prevent and punish them -- not to put more guns in the hands of civilians."
Most interesting...
"When government takes away citizens’ right to bear arms it becomes citizens’ duty to take away government’s right to govern."
As Politifact accurately notes, there is no evidence that he ever said these words. Now, what Washington did say was this...
"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined." (State of the Union address on Jan. 8, 1790)
Further...
The academic consensus is that Washington was referring to a trained militia to defend the new nation, rather than anticipating citizens seeking to head off perceived governmental tyranny. Ron Chernow, whose Washington: A Life won the 2011 Pulitzer Prize for biography, told PolitiFact Texas that Washington was "talking about national defense policy, not individuals arming themselves, and the need for national self-sufficiency in creating military supplies."
Some post-Revolutionary lawmakers did expect citizens to own firearms, but Washington does not appear to have been among them, experts said. "The idea of resistance to tyranny being dependent on a nation of gun-wielding individuals acting at their own behest or even on local initiative would have been anathema to Washington," Lengel told PolitiFact Texas. "Indeed, during the (Revolutionary) war he very frequently lamented the crimes carried out by armed civilians or undisciplined militia against their unarmed neighbors. The solution to these crimes, as he understood it, was to increase the power of the government and the army to prevent and punish them -- not to put more guns in the hands of civilians."
Most interesting...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)