Great...

Bend man shot by wife's gun improving

A Bend woman was cited on assault and reckless endangering charges Thursday after a loaded .22-caliber Derringer pistol fell out of her pocket during a visit to McDonald’s and it fired, striking her husband in the abdomen police said. He remained hospitalized Friday, but had improved to fair condition.

And the answer is...MORE GUNS!!!

Amen

Oh Really?

I have been saving a lot of posts about guns and a recent discussion in comments has led me to the decision to put them all up over the course of the next few days. It's going to be a deluge, folks, so get ready!

First up is this little statistic.

You know, Judy, the reality is -- and it's a terrible reality -- since Robert Kennedy died in the Ambassador Hotel on June 4, 1968, more Americans have died from gunfire than died in … all the wars of this country's history, from the Revolutionary through the Civil War, World War I, World War II, in those 43 years. ... I mean, guns are a problem. And I think they still have to be confronted.

Is Shields correct?

Total Number of Americans killed in all of our wars: 1,171,177

Total Number of Americans killed by firearms since 1968: 1,384,171

My question is this...how many more bodies from gun deaths do we need to have to achieve the significance that this image has garnered?

Ryan's lies

Here is a link to get the facts straight about Paul Ryan's budget. I feel its important for folks who comment on this to read this. 

Too Controversial?

Nick Hanauer has come up again in some various conversation I have had and I remembered that I wanted to put his TED talk (repressed for a while because it was deemed "too controversial") up here for all to see. Since when is income inequality controversial?

It's also nice to see the complete destruction, soundly and succinctly backed up with evidence, of the Right's vision of how the economy works. I guess the rich aren't job creators after all.

This Would Be Why

Here is a great reason why we need to have universal background checks.

She was denied a permit to purchase a weapon by her hometown police department in Eden Valley, south of St. Cloud, because background checks turned up a history of violating restraining orders. She went on an Internet site and arranged for the private purchase of a 9-millimeter handgun and ammunition. 

The sale required no background check. 

On Feb. 12, 2012, she went to the home of an ex-boyfriend, Bret Struck, in Brooklyn Center, whom she had stalked for eight years. She killed him, firing every round that came with the gun, and is now in prison for 40 years.

The law did what is was supposed to do but it wasn't enough. Who sold her this gun? More importantly, the answer from the gun rights folks is, "Oh, well. Better that than an American Hitler taking over in my fevered, paranoid fantasies." Remember Jon Stewart?

Their paranoid fear of a possible dystopic future prevents us from addressing our actual dystopic present.

No Outboard Motor!

We certainly shouldn't take lightly the threat from North Korea of late but I can't help but chuckle at this photo.

This is Kim Jong Un inspecting an army unit in their preparations for war...in the Pleistocene? I love how all those guys are pushing the boat.

And I think this photo should replace this one as what results from communism.

Still Going on about Legitimate Rape

In an article in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, Phil Gingrey, a Republican member of the House, repudiated himself on two fronts: women's reproduction and magazine size limits.

Gingrey made national headlines when he tried to justify what Todd Akin said about "legitimate" rape a couple of months ago. At that time Gingrey agreed with Akin that there's some kind of magical defense against conception after rape. Now Gingrey, who's co-chair of the GOP Doctors Caucus, says:

“Whereas Todd said the panic would cause a body to shut down and prevent ovulation, more recent data suggests just the opposite is probably true,” the physician-congressman said. Adrenaline is more likely to spur ovulation, he said.

“So you learn,” Gingrey said.

Unfortunately, Gingrey didn't learn much. Even now he's still talking about "legitimate" rape:

Rape is rape. If it’s rape, it’s legitimate. I certainly regret very much weighing in on that issue, which was something that was already pretty much roundly condemned and criticized. I felt so badly about it, because my profession is treating women.  

There is no context in which the adjective "legitimate" should ever be applied to the word "rape." Legitimate means "conforming to the law or rules." Since rape is illegal and immoral it can never be legitimate.  There can be legitimate claims of rape (as opposed to consensual sex that was later falsely claimed to be rape), but rape itself can never be legitimate.

Apparently, however, in the conservative mindset, just as there is justifiable murder there is justifiable — legitimate — rape. The phrase "legitimate rape" — ever-present in their minds? — just trips off their tongues.

Gingrey feels badly not because of what he said, but because saying it could hurt his chances of winning Saxby Chambliss's Senate seat next year. This is obvious from his other self-repudiation: endorsing the idea of listening to someone discuss magazine size limits.

In the uproar after Newtown Gingrey fell victim to common sense and said that he would be "willing to listen to the possibility” of imposing limits on magazine clips that now hold as many as 100 rounds. Now he says:

"I have come to the conclusion that [limiting clip capacity] clearly would be a mistake — that it would not solve the problem,” he said.

I agree that it would not solve the problem. It would merely reduce the carnage. Instead of shooting 58 people, Aurora shooter James Holmes might have only shot 29. Instead of killing 12 people he might have killed only six.

We accept partial solutions in other areas. All the intrusions of airport security checks, limiting shampoo bottle sizes, making us take off our shoes, and so on, will not completely solve the problem of terrorist attacks. We are spending literally hundreds of billions of dollars annually and inconveniencing millions of people on a daily basis to prevent an attack that killed one-tenth the number of people killed each year by guns. If terrorists were so intent on attacking us they'd simply adopt other tactics, such as attacks on railroads, road-side bombs and, yes, mass shootings with assault weapons loaded with 100-round magazines that the terrorists bought at gun shows without background checks.

All of us are forced to surrender our personal privacy every time we board a plane to reduce the likelihood of terrorist attacks that occur once every few years, yet gun owners can't be bothered to switch magazines more frequently while target shooting to help reduce the carnage of mass shootings at schools and malls that happen almost monthly?

The juxtaposition of these two issues illustrates how weird the conservative thought process is. The whole issue of "legitimate rape" came up because "pro-life" conservatives want to outlaw abortion in all contexts — even rape. Yet they want to keep weapons of mass murder in the hands of madmen who use those weapons to mow down those same innocent children who were saved from abortion.

Got Any Stories?

In the last 15 years, the juvenile detention rate has fallen 41 percent. A staggering drop, to be sure, but why? A recent article in my favorite news magazine sheds light on this welcome shift.

• A shift in thinking about the best ways to handle young people who break the law. 
• A sustained period of decreasing juvenile crime. 
• Fiscal pressures on state governments that have many people – including conservatives who, in the past, espoused tough-on-crime policies – clamoring for less-expensive alternatives to mass incarceration.

I'd say the reason for the second bullet point is the spread of smart phones and video games. And the third reason seems perfectly understandable given the belt tightening that has gone on at the state level. But the first one is the reason that intrigues me the most. Why? Because any time there is a shift in thinking on an issue, the situation invariably improves.

In my local community, I've seen this shift in action. A few years ago, we had some trouble with Somali youths. The police engaged the community rather than cracking skulls and created some programs geared towards their culture. They also created some community events specifically for younger immigrants to get excited about how much it is to live in America. These involved athletic events and, yes, a video game swap. The result? No more Somali youth problem.

I'd bet there are stories like this around the country. Got any?

Head in the sand

2012 was the warmest year on record, and out of 33,700 scientist, only 34 say humans are not the cause of global warming. It appears to me that all hands should be on deck, yet what are we really doing about it? The constant bitching in Washington DC about the budget and other foolish things have put our most pressing issue to the back-pages. I also think most citizens don't want to face reality. What a racket.

Gun Myth #10

Myth #10: We don't need more gun laws—we just need to enforce the ones we have.

Fact-check: Weak laws and loopholes backed by the gun lobby make it easier to get guns illegally.

• Around 40% of all legal gun sales involve private sellers and don't require background checks. 40% of prison inmates who used guns in their crimes got them this way.

• An investigation found 62% of online gun sellers were willing to sell to buyers who said they couldn't pass a background check.

• 20% of licensed California gun dealers agreed to sell handguns to researchers posing as illegal "straw" buyers.

• The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives has not had a permanent director for 6 years, due to an NRA-backed requirement that the Senate approve nominees.

This last myth is the most damning of all. It illustrates, beyond a shadow of a doubt, how completely full of shit they are when they say they want to "enforce existing laws." To put it simply, they don't and they're lying.

In looking back at all these myths, one has to wonder where they get the ass to behave in this fashion. With the number of households owning guns shrinking by the year, you would think they would be a little more humble and a lot more helpful. Doing the usual stomp down the hallway followed by the door slam and 'Fuck you, dad, I can do whatever I want" adolescent tantrum stands in direct opposition to solutions.

A Stronger Government AND Letting the Banks Fail?

Get The Facts First, Please

Even though the organization  is gone, nothing is sure to whip up that perfect stew of anger, hatred, paranoia like ACORN. Like the Soviet Union, the Right just can't seem to let go of it. The mere mention of it generates red faces and white foam in a matter of seconds. They just need to have those enemies out there...somewhere...

I've contended for years now that the videos James O'Keefe released didn't tell the whole story. Now, the man behind those videos himself has admitted that they did not (article courtesy of juris imprudent)

O’Keefe also acknowledges that at the time the video was publicized, he was unaware of Vera’s claims that he contacted the authorities after the unusual visit by the couple.

So, all that anaphylaxis was for nothing. ACORN employee Juan Carols Vera did contact the police after all.  O'Keefe also had to fork over $100,000 in damages to Vera as he did not consent to be videotaped. Oh, and guess what else?

An attorney general’s report found that the video was selectively edited. For instance, video showing O’Keefe and Giles dressed as a pimp and hooker was later edited into the video, when they were not dressed that way when speaking to Vera.

I realize that the Right lives for shit like this but perhaps in the future they might want to get all the facts before they start bustin' loads of jiz all over the internet.

Funnier still, they take down of ACORN did absolutely nothing in accomplishing the Right's goal...inner city (see: black) voter suppression. In fact, it actually galvanized the urban vote who, once again, turned out in record numbers for Democrats.

Hmm...I wonder why...:)

Gun Myth #9

Myth #9: More and more Americans are becoming gun owners.

Fact-check: More guns are being sold, but they're owned by a shrinking portion of the population.

• About 50% of Americans said they had a gun in their homes in 1973. Today, about 45% say they do. Overall, 35% of Americans personally own a gun.

• Around 80% of gun owners are men. On average they own 7.9 guns each.

Mississippi

As we celebrate Women on this "International Women's Day" we still need to acknowledge the injustice that's being done in the State of Mississippi to Women's rights. The state is fighting very hard to implement TRAP (Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers) laws to close its only remaining abortion clinic. This type of behavior is a systematic destruction to a federal law that is been in place for over 40 years to protect women and their choice. Mississippi, your behavior is a racket. 

Anti-Spending Anaphylactoids

As we get closer to the Easter holidays, you might want to prepare yourself for that crazy uncle at your family gathering who will likely be foaming at the mouth about federal spending. A good article to show him is this one. The fact is, folks, that when the government spends less money, it has a real world impact.

These reductions, economists say, act as a drag on the economy. Former park employees, clerks, and firefighters such as Lykins are buying only the necessities. Cities are deferring road work, which means contractors aren't hiring people to pour concrete. By far, the largest impact is on school systems, which are laying off teachers, counselors, and janitors.

With the sequester kicking in last Friday, this sort of thing is now going to happening on a national scale. The anti-spending anaphylactoids seem to be operating under the assumption that federal spending occurs in a void filled with evil, darkness and nothing else. Never mind the fact that while all the spending is going on there is revenue coming in and a 15 trillion dollar economy out there that creates the need for government services.

When you cut these services, people like Brian Lykins are affected. "A lot of the private sector depends on the public sector," says Chris Hoene, director of research and innovation at the National League of Cities in Washington. "There are estimates that for every $3 spent at the municipal level, there is $1 in new private-sector activity."

The sooner we accept the fact that government spending is essential to our economy and, more importantly, that as our economy grows, our spending must grow as well, the better position we will be in to finally tackle our long term, economic concerns.

Gun Myth #8

Myth #8: "Vicious, violent video games" deserve more blame than guns.

Fact-check: So said NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre after Newtown. So what's up with Japan?

Per capita spending on video games: $44 (United States) $55 ( Japan )

Civilian firearms per 100 people: 88 (United States) 0.6 ( Japan )

Gun homicides in 2008: 11,030 (United States) 11( Japan )

(Sources: PricewaterhouseCoopers, Small Arms Survey (PDF), UN Office on Drugs and Crime)

They Came and Got His Guns

Well, it has happened. The government came and got an NRA member's guns. Twice.

An NRA official in New York has been banned from owning guns after pleading guilty to harassment charges:

Richard D’Alauro, the NRA’s field representative for the city and its suburbs, is forbidden from owning guns under an order of protection stemming from a confrontation with his wife in their Long Island home, the Daily News has learned.

Suffolk County authorities filed misdemeanor charges of assault and endangering the welfare of a child and a noncriminal charge of harassment as a result of the domestic dustup, which occurred at 1:55 a.m. on Sept. 1, 2010, records show.

He'll be able to get all his guns back in October. I'm guessing he pleaded guilty to non-criminal harassment to avoid losing at trial, which would have resulted in more serious restrictions on gun ownership. What kind of a guy is D'Alauro?

In an interview, Maribeth D’Alauro — who has multiple sclerosis and walks with a cane — declined to detail the confrontation with her former husband, but she said that assault “is an accurate description.”

She said she suffered from “years of domestic violence” but was “too afraid to ever call the police on him."  "I’m finally able to talk about things I wasn’t able to talk about,” she said.

She called her ex-husband a “bully” who acted at home with the same confrontational behavior that NRA leaders use in politics. “They are cut from the same cloth,” she said.

This exposes the real motivation for gun ownership for many. We all know who they are: guys like D'Alauro. These people don't need guns to protect themselves, but to bully others and prop up their sagging self image. It's exactly the same reason gangbangers pack heat; it's the only way they can get the respect they think they deserve. This same attitude sent David Michael Keene, the son of NRA president David Keene, to jail for a shooting during a road rage incident.

When the NRA claims anecdotally that "millions of protective uses of guns go unreported each year," what they're actually referring to is the use of guns to bully others. They don't see it that way at all, because in their self-centered universe they can never be guilty of bullying, harassment and intimidation. In their minds brandishing a gun isn't a threat, it's a natural extension of their freedom of expression, a form of constitutionally protected free speech.

But this mindset is the main reason why, as Mark recently noted, women who live in homes with guns are seven times more likely to be killed by their abusers.

Oh Bill

In this clip you will find Bill O'Reilly and Alan Colmes in a heated exchange. We see Alan Colmes give Bill O'Reilly a couple entitlement programs (Medicare and Medicaid) President Obama is willing to cut yet Bill O'Reilly tells his audience that he has not named one. These are the type of lies the right wing folks buy in to. It is really sad that this is the America we live in. What the hell is happening to logic, reason, honesty, dignity, respect, acceptance, and truth?

A Thousand Ton Weight

The death of Hugo Chavez reminded me that I had to discuss this wonderful piece by Larry Diamond. He discusses how the myth that Global South countries are not "read for democracy" and how that should be dispensed with immediately. In many ways, the last few years of Chavez's life are a testament to this. He lost a considerable amount of control over Venezuela and his long term vision for the future of the country came under intense scrutiny.

The fact is that Chavez was no great hero or visionary. He simply rode the wave of oil wealth and made people believe that his way was the best way for Venezuela. Globalization has proved him to be massively wrong. The once robust economy has returned to where it was 50 years ago, other industries in the country have suffered, and they are currently running a 15 percent deficit of GDP. With so much government control, their economy simply cannot compete in the world. Other dictators like Fidel Castro have recognized this as well.

Even though Diamond wrote his piece primarily focusing on other areas of the world, the same paradigm applies to Middle America and South America.

The lower- and middle-income democracies that did come through the last two decades intact have shown that authoritarianism confers no intrinsic developmental advantage. For every Singapore-style authoritarian economic “miracle,” there have been many more instances of implosion or stagnation—as in Zaire, Zimbabwe, North Korea, and (until recently) Burma— resulting from predatory authoritarian rule.

Right. In fact, the assertion that tyranny and dictatorships are "just around the corner" in many parts of the world is also a myth.

While it remains true that democracy is more sustainable at higher levels of development, an unprecedented number of poor countries adopted democratic forms of government during the 1980s and ’90s, and many of them have sustained democracy for well over a decade. These include several African countries, such as Ghana, Benin, and Senegal, and one of the poorest Asian countries, Bangladesh. Other very poor countries, such as East Timor, Sierra Leone, and Liberia, are now using the political institutions of democracy as they rebuild their economies and states after civil war. Although the world has been in a mild democratic recession since about 2006, with reversals concentrated disproportionately in low-income and lower-middle-income states, a significant number of democracies in these income categories continue to function.

Yes, they do because democracy is the best system to fit in with this era of globalization. And countries aren't the only ones that have embraced it.

Further refuting the skeptics, democracy has taken root or at least been embraced by every major cultural group, not just the societies of the West with their Protestant traditions. Most Catholic countries are now democracies, and very stable ones at that. Democracy has thrived in a Hindu state, Buddhist states, and a Jewish state. And many predominantly Muslim countries, such as Turkey, Bangladesh, Senegal, and Indonesia, have by now had significant and mainly positive experience with democracy.

Diamond also discusses Hugo Chavez towards the end of the piece.

Despite the persistence of authoritarianism under Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, and the authoritarian tendencies of left-wing populist presidents in Bolivia, Ecuador, and Nicaragua, the bigger story in Latin America has been democratic resilience and deepening. Chile and Uruguay have become stable liberal democracies, Brazil has made dramatic democratic and economic progress, and even once chronically unstable Peru has seen three successive democratically elected presidents deliver brisk economic growth with declining poverty rates. In fact, Latin America is the only region of the world where income inequality has decreased in the last decade.

To me, the death of Hugo Chavez is symbolic of a much larger sea change. The time of dictators and authoritarian rule is drawing to a close. Countries like North Korea and Iran will not exist as they do now in a decade. The prosperity that has resulted from globalization is going to squash them like a thousand ton weight.

Hmm...

Gun advocates split with NRA on background checks

For example, the founder of the pro-gun Second Amendment Foundation tentatively backed a proposed compromise bill in Washington state last month that would expand checks while limiting state firearms record-keeping. 

In addition, the head of the nation’s largest police union, which was allied with the NRA in a major legislative battle in the past, has joined the movement for expanded background checks.

Finally, some sane people that recognize that federal law already prohibits a national registry so universal background checks will not lead immediately to an "in the bubble" Germany, 1933.

Gun Myth #7

Myth #7: Guns make women safer.

Fact-check: In 2010, nearly 6 times more women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners than murdered by male strangers.

• A woman's chances of being killed by her abuser increase more than 7 times if he has access to a gun.

• One study found that women in states with higher gun ownership rates were 4.9 times more likely to be murdered by a gun than women in states with lower gun ownership rates.

On Siglitz: Part Six

The sixth chapter of Joseph Stiglitz's The Price of Inequality is called, "1984 is Upon Us." In this section, Stiglitz details how many of the wealthy in this country try to frame the discussion in a way that benefits their interests, realizing that, in democracy, they cannot simply impose their rules on others. He posits that, in one way or another, they have to "co-opt" the rest of society to advance their agenda. They do this using their own, more subtle version of "newspeak."

An example of this can be seen in how our society responds to the word "socialism."

In American parlance, "socialism" is akin to communism , and communism is the ideology we battled for sixty years, triumphing only in 1989 with the fall of the Berlin Wall. Hence labeling anything as socialism is the kiss of death. Medicare is a single payer system-the government pays the bill, but the individual gets to choose the provider. Most of the elderly love Medicare. But many are convinced that government can't provide services efficiently that they believe that Medicare must be private.

Hence the famous "Keep your government hands off my Medicare" line. The irony here, aside from the obvious, is just how much socialism there is in this country that hasn't delivered the promised tyranny we now daily from the Right and, in fact, has been enormously beneficial to our country. Even famed "unbridled capitalist" Adam Smith wrote, in The Wealth of Nations, that the sovereign has

The duty of erecting and maintaining certain public works and certain public institutions which it can never be for the interest of any individual, or small number of individuals, to erect and maintain; because the profit could never repay the expense to any individual or small number of individuals, though it may frequently do much more than repay it to a greater society.

Here, Smith champions elements of socialism and states that they are essential to any successful society. They have certainly worked out very well for us as we are the greatest nation this world has ever seen.

So, the dichotomy here is very frustrating given how the framing of American parlance operates. When we start discussing economics and the high level of inequality we have in this country, we see it again. As Stiglitz notes

Mainstream economics assumes that individuals have well defined preferences and fully rational expectations and perceptions. Individuals know what they want. But in this respect, traditional economics is wrong. If it were true, there would be little need for advertising. Corporations use recent advances in psychology and economics that extend our understanding and preferences and beliefs can be shaped to induce people to buy their products. 

Exactly right. One of the major problems I have with the whole "people act in their own enlightened self interest" meme is that..well...people don't. They are often foolish, emotionally unintelligent, and behave poorly, even engaging in criminal activity. That's why "leaving it all up to the free market to sort out" doesn't work given that the powerful people who run many of these markets can be characterized as all the above.

More importantly, people who don't really know what they want and aren't rational can be easily manipulated. Because of this simple fact, Stiglitz notes that most Americans have no earthly idea how much inequality there is in this country. They believe there is less economic inequality than there is, they underestimate its adverse economic effects, and they overestimate the costs of taking action.

In a recent study respondents on average thought that the top fifth of the population had just short of 60 percent of the wealth, when in truth that group holds approximately 85 percent of the wealth. Interestingly, respondents described an ideal wealth distribution as one in which the top 20 percent hold just over 30 percent of the wealth. Americans recognize that some inequality is inevitable, and perhaps even desirable if one is to provide incentives; but the level of inequality in American society is well beyond that level.

I've brought up this study before but I think it should be revisited given the context of Stiglitz's argument. People don't have any idea just how much the wealthy have in this country. Of course, any discussion about it results in Orwellian screeches and howls from the Right about "Marxism" and "class warfare." Yet this sort of wealth concentration at the top is exactly where liberal economic theory was born. Men like Adam Smith and Samuel Stiles bemoaned the hoarding of wealth by the aristocracy through mercantilism and other protectionist practices. In many ways, Stiglitz has argued the same thing in previous chapters by pointing out the endless cycle of rent seeking, incompetent government action and government inaction. Regardless of the times or the mechanism, the wealthy are continuing to do what they always do: consolidate power.

Now, this is usually the point when people ask, "how much inequality is bad and how much is good?" Well, before we do that, we have to get back to the perception problem.

Not only do Americans misperceive the level of inequality; they underestimate the changes that have been going on. Only 42 percent of Americans believe that inequality has increased in the past ten years, when in fact the increase has been tectonic. Misperceptions are evident, too, in views about social mobility. Several studies (here, here, and here) confirmed that perceptions of social mobility are overly optimistic.

So, we need to solve the problem of awareness first before we can detail any sort of serious metric regarding acceptable or unacceptable levels of inequality. That means we have to combat the 1984ish messaging we see every day from the 1 percent.

After we've done that, the best place to start is the most commonly used measure of inequality: the Gini-coefficient. There is also the Theil index, which has more sub group and sub region development, the Decile dispersion ratio, and the Share of income/consumption of the poorest x%. All of these metrics should be used in tandem for a more accurate analysis.

In taking a look at where we are today, it's obvious that we really do have some very serious perception problems.

Bear in mind, these figures are only through 2010, the last time the Census Bureau did their estimate. Two years ago we were at 46.9 which means we are very close to that .5 tipping point where we quite literally have a country of haves and have-nots. The study from above shows that Americans want our country to be more like Sweden. That's not surprising, given that there Gini coefficient is .23, nearly half of what our's is today.

Stiglitz has much more to say in this chapter regarding perceptions in terms of market behavior, fairness, and a whole host of other issues like the public view on estate taxes and bank recapitalization. It's quite a bit of information to absorb so I chose to focus on the more general theme of the chapter-the perception of inequality. For the finer points, as always, I recommend reading the book and the sources contained at the end of each section, some of which I have listed here.

So, the facts show that it's a more subtle version of newspeak, isn't it? It's not quite war is peace (although the Right's view on guns is certainly close to that) but it's still just as contradictory. The people of this country need to know just how much inequality there is and, as Stiglitz noted in previous chapters, the detrimental effects it is inflicting on our country.

Yay, I'm Wrong!

It's always a pleasure to note when my cynicism about red states is proved to be wrong. Interestingly,  this video shows how many different ways I can be wrong!

And I love the guy who mentions judging and Jesus to the "bigot."

 

Gun Myth #6

Myth #6: Carrying a gun for self-defense makes you safer.

Fact-check: In 2011, nearly 10 times more people were shot and killed in arguments than by civilians trying to stop a crime.

• In one survey, nearly 1% of Americans reported using guns to defend themselves or their property. However, a closer look at their claims found that more than 50% involved using guns in an aggressive manner, such as escalating an argument.

• A Philadelphia study found that the odds of an assault victim being shot were 4.5 times greater if he carried a gun. His odds of being killed were 4.2 times greater.

Daily Reminder

I need to remind myself more often that patience is all that is required when it comes to nearly all of the issues I gripe about on here. In the final analysis, reason always prevails.

For example, Oklahoma rejected SB 758 just a few days ago. This bill would have required teachers to address "controversies" like evolution and climate change.

In Arizona, SB 1213 didn't even make it out of committee. This bill would have allowed teachers to present creationism as a "balance" to evolution as well as right wing blogs in juxtaposition with the National Academy of Science.

And in Indiana, the Hoosiers rejected extremism again (remember Richard Murdock?) when HB 1283 died in the House. Check out the language in this bill.

“To help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the strengths and weaknesses of conclusions and theories being presented in a course being taught by the teacher.”

Funny, because they do that anyway. That's why evolution is settled science.

Of course, even if any of these bills had passed, it's not likely that any teacher would have used this leeway. While some of my colleagues are conservative, they haven't completely abandoned reason. They might believe in smaller government or have a different view of the Constitution but none of them would ever teach creationism in a fucking science class.

It's comforting to know that even in these deep red states, people can still be rational.

Gun Myth #5

Myth #5: Keeping a gun at home makes you safer. 

Fact-check: Owning a gun has been linked to higher risks of homicide, suicide, and accidental death by gun. 

• For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.

 • 43% of homes with guns and kids have at least one unlocked firearm. 

• In one experiment, one third of 8-to-12-year-old boys who found a handgun pulled the trigger.

Good Question

Will Wall Street spurn GOP in 2014?

I say they will and it's because the Republican Party draws a good chunk of its numbers from people who are certifiably insane. When they money goes away, so will the crazy.

Gun Myth #4

Myth #4: More good guys with guns can stop rampaging bad guys.

Fact-check: Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 30 years: 0 

• Chances that a shooting at an ER involves guns taken from guards: 1 in 5

A Profile in Courage

The media tends to love talking about conservative activists like James O'Keefe, Bill Whittle or Erick Erickson  but they never really talk about the liberal ones like Zack Kopplin. Man, is he making life hell for the creationists down in Lousiana.

Encouraged by Barbara Forrest, a philosophy professor at Southeastern Louisiana University — and a staunch critic of intelligent design and the Discovery Institute — Kopplin decided to write a letter that could be signed by Nobel laureate scientists in support of the repeal. To that end, he contacted Sir Harry Kroto, a British chemist who shared the 1996 Nobel Prize in Chemistry with Robert Curl and Richard Smalley. Kroto helped him to draft the letter — one that has now been signed by 78 Nobel laureates.

I can't figure out why creationists and intelligent design folks aren't content with teaching their stuff in church. They can talk about how Jesus rode dinosaurs or whatever they want in there. Kopplin had gone after the voucher program as well.

School vouchers, he argues, unconstitutionally fund the teaching of creationism because many of the schools in these programs are private fundamentalist religious schools who are teaching creationism. "These schools have every right to teach whatever they want — no matter how much I disagree with it — as long as they are fully private," he says. "But when they take public money through vouchers, these schools need to be accountable to the public in the same way that public schools are and they must abide by the same rules."

Those rules being a strict adherence to the scientific method. There is nothing scientific about creationism.

"Creationism is not science, and shouldn't be in a public school science class — it's that simple," he says. "Often though, creationists do not, or are unwilling, to recognize this." Science, he argues, is observable, naturalistic, testable, falsifiable, and expandable — everything that creationism is not. But what also drives Kopplin is the inherent danger he sees in teaching creationism. 

"Creationism confuses students about the nature of science," he says. "If students don't understand the scientific method, and are taught that creationism is science, they will not be prepared to do work in genuine fields, especially not the biological sciences. We are hurting the chances of our students having jobs in science, and making discoveries that will change the world."

"We don't just deny evolution," he says, "We are denying climate change and vaccines and other mainstream science. I'm calling for a Second Giant Leap to change the perception of science in the world."

In the final analysis, this is really the crux of the problem. In an age of globalization. we can't afford a bunch of religious nonsense to interfere with our economic growth and security. Young men like Zack Kopplin give me a lot of hope that intelligence is alive and well in young people in the deep south and the time to put this assinine, anti science garbage behind us is yesterday.

Honestly, I thought we already did that in the Age of Enlightenment but I guess we still have a few stragglers:)

Gun Myth #3

Myth #3: An armed society is a polite society. 

Fact-check: Drivers who carry guns are 44% more likely than unarmed drivers to make obscene gestures at other motorists, and 77% more likely to follow them aggressively.

 • Among Texans convicted of serious crimes, those with concealed-handgun licenses were sentenced for threatening someone with a firearm 4.8 times more than those without. 

• In states with Stand Your Ground and other laws making it easier to shoot in self-defense, those policies have been linked to a 7 to 10% increase in homicides.

How Long?

Man, here is some really fucked up paranoid shit... a United Nations-driven conspiracy to harness private property through rezoning and planned-use ordinances passed by local governments.

I wonder how long it will be before this now becomes mainstream on the Right, if it isn't already.

 

Gun Myth #2

Continuing on with the gun myths...

Myth #2: Guns don't kill people—people kill people. Fact-check: People with more guns tend to kill more people—with guns. The states with the highest gun ownership rates have a gun murder rate 114% higher than those with the lowest gun ownership rates. Also, gun death rates tend to be higher in states with higher rates of gun ownership. Gun death rates are generally lower in states with restrictions such as assault-weapons bans or safe-storage requirements.

Sources: Pediatrics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Estimated Number of Guns Owned