While I thought Keith and Bill didn't do the greatest acting job, this was truly amazing. It's exactly what it's like talking to the right these days.
Saturday, September 17, 2011
Friday, September 16, 2011
Powerful Words
A while back, one of my colleagues had this chart in his class. I got one and put it up in mine and it has made a ton of difference in the writing skills of nearly all the students I come into contact with on a daily basis. Several other instructors have this up in their rooms now as well.One of my central goals has always been to push students past the basic knowledge and comprehension level of learning and into analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. It's small tools like this that direct students towards this goal in a more efficient manner.
Thursday, September 15, 2011
The Last Resort
A key point that needs to be made in as president attempts to get his jobs bill passed is that federal government spending is spending of the last resort. This idea will bounce off most of the right these days. Sane people (such as myself) can't hope to pry the base's irrational fear from their cold, dead minds.
But it needs to be said anyway and I'm happy that former Labor Secretary Robert Reich said it in a recent piece in my local paper. In fact, he said a great deal of things which made complete sense. Of course, this means that nearly everyone on the right will hate it immediately.
Let's take a look at a few of Reich's comments.
Tax cuts, we know, don't have a huge multiplier effect because people in times of economic stress tend to use tax cuts to pay off debt or to save, rather than to spend.
Hence the reason why tax cuts really don't work most of the time.
The main motivation for businesses to hire is customers. Consumer spending is 70 percent of the economy. If consumers are holding back because they are under water with their mortgages and they are worried about losing their jobs, they don't have the cash to spend.If you've got the private sector, businesses and consumers, unwilling to spend, where do you look? Government is the spender of last resort. ... If government can't do it, we are not going to have a recovery.
Exactly. So, it's not the panic mongering myth of "uncertainty." Businesses simply don't have customers and most of these potential customers have less and less money to spend. This is why I state continually that less people having more money is a very bad thing for the overall health of our economy. Sooner or later, the greed at the top will be their own undoing and ours as well.
We are losing ground [to other countries] on education. We're losing ground on labor unions. And we have a politics that has been quite regressive, favoring privatization and deregulation. ...The only way out of this is not only a sufficiently high stimulus, but also addressing inequality through stronger education, stronger labor unions and tax reform.
I agree with everything here except the high stimulus. I think he underestimates the effect that short term debt to GDP will have in relation to our standing in the world.
But here's the best part
This isn't a zero-sum game. A lot of wealthy people are beginning to understand that they would do better with a smaller percentage of a rapidly growing economy than with a big chunk of an economy that's dead in the water.
Yep. And his mention of the zero sum game idea made me grin from ear to ear.
But it needs to be said anyway and I'm happy that former Labor Secretary Robert Reich said it in a recent piece in my local paper. In fact, he said a great deal of things which made complete sense. Of course, this means that nearly everyone on the right will hate it immediately.
Let's take a look at a few of Reich's comments.
Tax cuts, we know, don't have a huge multiplier effect because people in times of economic stress tend to use tax cuts to pay off debt or to save, rather than to spend.
Hence the reason why tax cuts really don't work most of the time.
The main motivation for businesses to hire is customers. Consumer spending is 70 percent of the economy. If consumers are holding back because they are under water with their mortgages and they are worried about losing their jobs, they don't have the cash to spend.If you've got the private sector, businesses and consumers, unwilling to spend, where do you look? Government is the spender of last resort. ... If government can't do it, we are not going to have a recovery.
Exactly. So, it's not the panic mongering myth of "uncertainty." Businesses simply don't have customers and most of these potential customers have less and less money to spend. This is why I state continually that less people having more money is a very bad thing for the overall health of our economy. Sooner or later, the greed at the top will be their own undoing and ours as well.
We are losing ground [to other countries] on education. We're losing ground on labor unions. And we have a politics that has been quite regressive, favoring privatization and deregulation. ...The only way out of this is not only a sufficiently high stimulus, but also addressing inequality through stronger education, stronger labor unions and tax reform.
I agree with everything here except the high stimulus. I think he underestimates the effect that short term debt to GDP will have in relation to our standing in the world.
But here's the best part
This isn't a zero-sum game. A lot of wealthy people are beginning to understand that they would do better with a smaller percentage of a rapidly growing economy than with a big chunk of an economy that's dead in the water.
Yep. And his mention of the zero sum game idea made me grin from ear to ear.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
The Regulation Rap
Everyone knows the Republicans have no intention of passing any of Obama's jobs proposals. To do so would improve the economy and put people back to work, and that's something the Republicans just can't abide.
But in response, like some third-rate rapper, all the Republicans can do is repeat the same line over and over, even though it doesn't rhyme with anything: "slash regulations." This is a completely disingenuous proposal, a delaying tactic calculated to kick the can down to the road till the next election and accomplish nothing other than to keep the economy in the doldrums and make Obama look bad.
Exactly what regulations do they want to eliminate? FAA regulations for what things people can carry on planes, or spacing restrictions on how closely planes can follow each other landing? USDA regulations on slaughterhouses and dairies that prevent E. coli infections? FDA regulations on food safety and drugs? Consumer Product Safety Commission regulations on the materials that can be used in kids' toys? NHTSA standards for brakes and collision worthiness? EPA regulations on lead, mercury and sulfur in automobile exhaust and power plant emissions, which cause brain damage in children and acid rain that was on the verge of killing all life in northern lakes and forests 30 years ago? SEC regulations on the banks and corporations who just screwed us over in the financial meltdown with their irresponsible lending and investment practices? Regulations that limit the number of people you can cram aboard an airplane, ferry or bus?
Many regulations aren't even within the purview of the federal government. Building codes, zoning ordinances and land use covenants impede small businesses far more often than federal regulations, and those are governed by states, counties and municipalities. The federal government can't eliminate those regulations unless they usurp local control. Which I thought was bad.
Are there some harmful regulations? Sure. I'm all for revising regulations that have become useless or cumbersome. But it will literally take years to review, make new proposals, open them up for public comment and then revise the regulatory system. Any savings and increased employment wouldn't happen for several years, and it's doubtful that the net gain in employment would be significant (jobs would be lost -- regulators who are no longer needed will be on the job market competing with everyone else). But that suits the Republicans: they don't want to see any improvement in the economy for at least a year and a half.
At this point Republicans will argue that market forces will take the place of regulation. The problem is that market forces -- if they work at all -- are slow, retroactive and punitive. In the meantime, you just wind up with a lot of dead, maimed and sickened people who would otherwise be living and healthy if we had a modicum of sensible proactive regulations.
The Republicans have a three-pronged approach that would actually make individual consumers powerless against big companies, which belies their anti-regulatory fervor: 1) eliminate regulations, 2) eliminate the ability of consumers to sue companies in civil court with "tort reform" and class action suits, and 3) eliminate the government's ability to regulate mergers and prevent monopolies. Together, these three Republican tenets completely undermine the ability of market forces to reign companies in.
Without regulations, making bad products is not illegal. If you die in a car accident because the car doesn't have air bags or crumple zones, it's not the car manufacturer's fault. It's your fault for having the accident or buying the wrong car. If the brakes fail it's not the manufacturer's fault, it's yours because were driving too fast, braked too hard, drove through water, or didn't maintain them properly. If lots of people die in similar accidents, you can't band together to sue the companies for making faulty products because of tort reform and the elimination of class action lawsuits. And since there's no limit on how large companies can get, eventually there will only be one or two car companies. You won't be able to buy a car somewhere else. Your choice will be to own a car or not own a car. And since the oil companies and car companies have destroyed our rail system and Republicans work tirelessly every day to defund public transit, that choice comes down to no choice at all.
In particularly egregious cases where the publicity could adversely affect the company, they will be able to buy the silence of victims or their relatives, or if the victims have some spine the companies will be able spend unlimited amounts of money to discredit or otherwise sue their victims into silence.
In the worst case, the company can just declare bankruptcy. All the principals can just walk away with their personal fortunes intact. They would even be able to buy the assets of the bankrupt company for pennies on the dollar, and do exactly the same thing again under a new name.
Market forces only work when there's a market; they do not function when there's a monopoly. The logical outcome of Republican policies would be total domination of the American economy by market-segmented monopolies owned by foreign conglomerates. These interlocking monopolies will include media outlets, which means bad publicity -- the last remaining check against corporate abuses in the Republican Utopia -- can be prevented by another head of the giant multinational corporate hydra.
Our government doesn't make regulations just for the hell of it. Regulations forbid the use of lead in gasoline and paint because it causes brain damage in children and developing fetuses. Regulations limit emissions from power plants because polluted air kills people with asthma, and causes lung disease in otherwise healthy people. Car safety standards -- regulations -- save people's lives by reducing the forces in collisions on passengers.
If Republicans are really pro-life, they can't categorically condemn all regulations, because regulations have saved literally millions of lives.
And Republicans really aren't against all regulation: they want to regulate who you marry, how you can divorce, whether you have an abortion, how you talk to your doctor, who you have sex with, what kind of birth control you can use, what kinds of drugs you take, who can move into this country, who you can hire, and on and on. They claim to want us to take personal responsibility for our own actions, but do everything they can to allow corporations to avoid responsibility for their actions. They want to regulate our personal and social behavior -- our individual liberties -- but want corporations to be free to do anything they want. All they're really doing is carrying out the agendas of their various campaign contributors with no real ideology other than what their "think tanks" can cobble together as a bunch of talking points.
This mantra of "less regulation" is just a smokescreen, a lie carefully concocted to make it seem like Republicans are for personal freedom and responsibility, when all they're really doing is delaying serious action for making Americans' lives better.
But in response, like some third-rate rapper, all the Republicans can do is repeat the same line over and over, even though it doesn't rhyme with anything: "slash regulations." This is a completely disingenuous proposal, a delaying tactic calculated to kick the can down to the road till the next election and accomplish nothing other than to keep the economy in the doldrums and make Obama look bad.
Exactly what regulations do they want to eliminate? FAA regulations for what things people can carry on planes, or spacing restrictions on how closely planes can follow each other landing? USDA regulations on slaughterhouses and dairies that prevent E. coli infections? FDA regulations on food safety and drugs? Consumer Product Safety Commission regulations on the materials that can be used in kids' toys? NHTSA standards for brakes and collision worthiness? EPA regulations on lead, mercury and sulfur in automobile exhaust and power plant emissions, which cause brain damage in children and acid rain that was on the verge of killing all life in northern lakes and forests 30 years ago? SEC regulations on the banks and corporations who just screwed us over in the financial meltdown with their irresponsible lending and investment practices? Regulations that limit the number of people you can cram aboard an airplane, ferry or bus?
Many regulations aren't even within the purview of the federal government. Building codes, zoning ordinances and land use covenants impede small businesses far more often than federal regulations, and those are governed by states, counties and municipalities. The federal government can't eliminate those regulations unless they usurp local control. Which I thought was bad.
Are there some harmful regulations? Sure. I'm all for revising regulations that have become useless or cumbersome. But it will literally take years to review, make new proposals, open them up for public comment and then revise the regulatory system. Any savings and increased employment wouldn't happen for several years, and it's doubtful that the net gain in employment would be significant (jobs would be lost -- regulators who are no longer needed will be on the job market competing with everyone else). But that suits the Republicans: they don't want to see any improvement in the economy for at least a year and a half.
At this point Republicans will argue that market forces will take the place of regulation. The problem is that market forces -- if they work at all -- are slow, retroactive and punitive. In the meantime, you just wind up with a lot of dead, maimed and sickened people who would otherwise be living and healthy if we had a modicum of sensible proactive regulations.
The Republicans have a three-pronged approach that would actually make individual consumers powerless against big companies, which belies their anti-regulatory fervor: 1) eliminate regulations, 2) eliminate the ability of consumers to sue companies in civil court with "tort reform" and class action suits, and 3) eliminate the government's ability to regulate mergers and prevent monopolies. Together, these three Republican tenets completely undermine the ability of market forces to reign companies in.
Without regulations, making bad products is not illegal. If you die in a car accident because the car doesn't have air bags or crumple zones, it's not the car manufacturer's fault. It's your fault for having the accident or buying the wrong car. If the brakes fail it's not the manufacturer's fault, it's yours because were driving too fast, braked too hard, drove through water, or didn't maintain them properly. If lots of people die in similar accidents, you can't band together to sue the companies for making faulty products because of tort reform and the elimination of class action lawsuits. And since there's no limit on how large companies can get, eventually there will only be one or two car companies. You won't be able to buy a car somewhere else. Your choice will be to own a car or not own a car. And since the oil companies and car companies have destroyed our rail system and Republicans work tirelessly every day to defund public transit, that choice comes down to no choice at all.
In particularly egregious cases where the publicity could adversely affect the company, they will be able to buy the silence of victims or their relatives, or if the victims have some spine the companies will be able spend unlimited amounts of money to discredit or otherwise sue their victims into silence.
In the worst case, the company can just declare bankruptcy. All the principals can just walk away with their personal fortunes intact. They would even be able to buy the assets of the bankrupt company for pennies on the dollar, and do exactly the same thing again under a new name.
Market forces only work when there's a market; they do not function when there's a monopoly. The logical outcome of Republican policies would be total domination of the American economy by market-segmented monopolies owned by foreign conglomerates. These interlocking monopolies will include media outlets, which means bad publicity -- the last remaining check against corporate abuses in the Republican Utopia -- can be prevented by another head of the giant multinational corporate hydra.
Our government doesn't make regulations just for the hell of it. Regulations forbid the use of lead in gasoline and paint because it causes brain damage in children and developing fetuses. Regulations limit emissions from power plants because polluted air kills people with asthma, and causes lung disease in otherwise healthy people. Car safety standards -- regulations -- save people's lives by reducing the forces in collisions on passengers.
If Republicans are really pro-life, they can't categorically condemn all regulations, because regulations have saved literally millions of lives.
And Republicans really aren't against all regulation: they want to regulate who you marry, how you can divorce, whether you have an abortion, how you talk to your doctor, who you have sex with, what kind of birth control you can use, what kinds of drugs you take, who can move into this country, who you can hire, and on and on. They claim to want us to take personal responsibility for our own actions, but do everything they can to allow corporations to avoid responsibility for their actions. They want to regulate our personal and social behavior -- our individual liberties -- but want corporations to be free to do anything they want. All they're really doing is carrying out the agendas of their various campaign contributors with no real ideology other than what their "think tanks" can cobble together as a bunch of talking points.
This mantra of "less regulation" is just a smokescreen, a lie carefully concocted to make it seem like Republicans are for personal freedom and responsibility, when all they're really doing is delaying serious action for making Americans' lives better.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
The Insider
A while back, Nikto put up a post questioning his chiding of me when I had referred to the current form of the GOP as a cult. I had decided before that to end the use of the word "cult" in reference to right wingers. I have to admit that this has been difficult what with the shoe fitting and all. Opinion pieces by Richard Cohen are flattering but still are just that-opinions.
But now that Mike Lofgren (left), a GOP Congressional Staffer who focused on budget and national security issues for 28 years, has released his Manzi-like analysis of the right, it seems that my initial assertions have been fully validated. To say that his piece is brilliant is the understatement of the political season. He sums up everything I have been saying for years on this blog.
It should have been evident to clear-eyed observers that the Republican Party is becoming less and less like a traditional political party in a representative democracy and becoming more like an apocalyptic cult, or one of the intensely ideological authoritarian parties of 20th century Europe.
Gee, I wonder which country he is referring to?:) Lofgren's piece goes beyond what I said because he saw all of this for himself. In other words, he is a primary source. which means we have now gone past folks like Cohen and me and we are now starting to hear first hand experiences.
A couple of years ago, a Republican committee staff director told me candidly (and proudly) what the method was to all this obstruction and disruption. Should Republicans succeed in obstructing the Senate from doing its job, it would further lower Congress's generic favorability rating among the American people. By sabotaging the reputation of an institution of government, the party that is programmatically against government would come out the relative winner.
A deeply cynical tactic, to be sure, but a psychologically insightful one that plays on the weaknesses both of the voting public and the news media. There are tens of millions of low-information voters who hardly know which party controls which branch of government, let alone which party is pursuing a particular legislative tactic. These voters' confusion over who did what allows them to form the conclusion that "they are all crooks," and that "government is no good," further leading them to think, "a plague on both your houses" and "the parties are like two kids in a school yard." This ill-informed public cynicism, in its turn, further intensifies the long-term decline in public trust in government that has been taking place since the early 1960s - a distrust that has been stoked by Republican rhetoric at every turn ("Government is the problem," declared Ronald Reagan in 1980).
I'd say "Mission Accomplished" on this front. Congress's approval rating stands at 11 percent. He goes on to state the obvious (the Tea Party is "filled with lunatics") and reveal a sad truth (the GOP used a routine debt ceiling vote to create“an entirely artificial fiscal crisis.”) Of course, the GOP aren't his only targets.
The main reason the Democrats' health care bill will be a budget buster once it fully phases in is the Democrats' rank capitulation to corporate interests - no single-payer system, in order to mollify the insurers; and no negotiation of drug prices, a craven surrender to Big Pharma. The Democrats have their share of machine politicians, careerists, corporate bagmen, egomaniacs and kooks.
I'd go along with most of that. The problem with the health care bill was the corporations and the Democrats horse shit way of packaging it. Lofgren has a great line about this as well.
Above all, they do not understand language. Their initiatives are posed in impenetrable policy-speak: the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The what? - can anyone even remember it? No wonder the pejorative "Obamacare" won out. Contrast that with the Republicans' Patriot Act. You're a patriot, aren't you? Does anyone at the GED level have a clue what a Stimulus Bill is supposed to be? Why didn't the White House call it the Jobs Bill and keep pounding on that theme?
Hmm...I think someone listened on that last one:)
It's important to note that Lofgren recognizes the contrast here.
But both parties are not rotten in quite the same way. To those millions of Americans who have finally begun paying attention to politics and watched with exasperation the tragicomedy of the debt ceiling extension, it may have come as a shock that the Republican Party is so full of lunatics. To be sure, the party, like any political party on earth, has always had its share of crackpots, like Robert K. Dornan or William E. Dannemeyer. But the crackpot outliers of two decades ago have become the vital center today: Steve King, Michele Bachman (now a leading presidential candidate as well), Paul Broun, Patrick McHenry, Virginia Foxx, Louie Gohmert, Allen West. The Congressional directory now reads like a casebook of lunacy.
Lofgren's piece is lengthy so that's certainly enough for now. I'll be taking pieces of it over the next few weeks and throwing it out in smaller posts with commentary because it's just that amazing.
Not only do I feel validated about my previous thoughts regarding conservatives but my inkling to go back to referring to the right as a Cult has mostly vanished. After all, we've got insiders like Mike Lofgren out there now.
I wonder how many more will start popping up as the election gets closer and the prospect of putting one of these "lunatics" in the White House gets closer to reality.
It should have been evident to clear-eyed observers that the Republican Party is becoming less and less like a traditional political party in a representative democracy and becoming more like an apocalyptic cult, or one of the intensely ideological authoritarian parties of 20th century Europe.
Gee, I wonder which country he is referring to?:) Lofgren's piece goes beyond what I said because he saw all of this for himself. In other words, he is a primary source. which means we have now gone past folks like Cohen and me and we are now starting to hear first hand experiences.
A couple of years ago, a Republican committee staff director told me candidly (and proudly) what the method was to all this obstruction and disruption. Should Republicans succeed in obstructing the Senate from doing its job, it would further lower Congress's generic favorability rating among the American people. By sabotaging the reputation of an institution of government, the party that is programmatically against government would come out the relative winner.
A deeply cynical tactic, to be sure, but a psychologically insightful one that plays on the weaknesses both of the voting public and the news media. There are tens of millions of low-information voters who hardly know which party controls which branch of government, let alone which party is pursuing a particular legislative tactic. These voters' confusion over who did what allows them to form the conclusion that "they are all crooks," and that "government is no good," further leading them to think, "a plague on both your houses" and "the parties are like two kids in a school yard." This ill-informed public cynicism, in its turn, further intensifies the long-term decline in public trust in government that has been taking place since the early 1960s - a distrust that has been stoked by Republican rhetoric at every turn ("Government is the problem," declared Ronald Reagan in 1980).
I'd say "Mission Accomplished" on this front. Congress's approval rating stands at 11 percent. He goes on to state the obvious (the Tea Party is "filled with lunatics") and reveal a sad truth (the GOP used a routine debt ceiling vote to create“an entirely artificial fiscal crisis.”) Of course, the GOP aren't his only targets.
The main reason the Democrats' health care bill will be a budget buster once it fully phases in is the Democrats' rank capitulation to corporate interests - no single-payer system, in order to mollify the insurers; and no negotiation of drug prices, a craven surrender to Big Pharma. The Democrats have their share of machine politicians, careerists, corporate bagmen, egomaniacs and kooks.
I'd go along with most of that. The problem with the health care bill was the corporations and the Democrats horse shit way of packaging it. Lofgren has a great line about this as well.
Above all, they do not understand language. Their initiatives are posed in impenetrable policy-speak: the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The what? - can anyone even remember it? No wonder the pejorative "Obamacare" won out. Contrast that with the Republicans' Patriot Act. You're a patriot, aren't you? Does anyone at the GED level have a clue what a Stimulus Bill is supposed to be? Why didn't the White House call it the Jobs Bill and keep pounding on that theme?
Hmm...I think someone listened on that last one:)
It's important to note that Lofgren recognizes the contrast here.
But both parties are not rotten in quite the same way. To those millions of Americans who have finally begun paying attention to politics and watched with exasperation the tragicomedy of the debt ceiling extension, it may have come as a shock that the Republican Party is so full of lunatics. To be sure, the party, like any political party on earth, has always had its share of crackpots, like Robert K. Dornan or William E. Dannemeyer. But the crackpot outliers of two decades ago have become the vital center today: Steve King, Michele Bachman (now a leading presidential candidate as well), Paul Broun, Patrick McHenry, Virginia Foxx, Louie Gohmert, Allen West. The Congressional directory now reads like a casebook of lunacy.
Lofgren's piece is lengthy so that's certainly enough for now. I'll be taking pieces of it over the next few weeks and throwing it out in smaller posts with commentary because it's just that amazing.
Not only do I feel validated about my previous thoughts regarding conservatives but my inkling to go back to referring to the right as a Cult has mostly vanished. After all, we've got insiders like Mike Lofgren out there now.
I wonder how many more will start popping up as the election gets closer and the prospect of putting one of these "lunatics" in the White House gets closer to reality.
Monday, September 12, 2011
Cheering Voices In My Head
Listen for the cheering at about the one minute mark after Wolf asks his follow up question.
Must be a whole bunch of voices in my head!
Must be a whole bunch of voices in my head!
Dollars and Cents and 9/11
In 2001 37,862 people died in car accidents in the United States. In 2001 16,037 people were murdered. In 2001 30,622 people committed suicide. In 2001 millions of people died from heart disease, cancer, kidney disease, liver disease and so on. In 2001 2,996 people died in the 9/11 attacks.
As a result of those attacks we have spent about a trillion dollars on increased "homeland security" either directly on government expenditures, or indirectly on increased costs to business and the public for airport security and other measures. We have spent a trillion dollars on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and will likely spend trillions more "stabilizing" post-war Iraq and Afghanistan, and caring for the veterans wounded in those wars. More than 6,000 American soldiers have died in Iraq and Afghanistan, and more than 50,000 have been seriously wounded, many maimed for life.
Has the money, blood and tears we spent in the ten years since 9/11 yielded benefits in national security and lives saved commensurate with the costs? Slate has been running a series of articles about this, and the answer seems to be a definite "no." To justify the amount of money we're spending on security we'd have to prevent 1,667 Times Square-style attacks every year.
Certainly, some of the security measures taken since 9/11 have made us safer. But does anyone seriously believe taking our shoes off before getting on an airplane makes us safer? The shoe bomber failed. The underwear bomber failed, so why are 6 oz. cans of shaving cream forbidden on planes? Flight 93 showed why we don't need sky marshals -- after 9/11 we're all sky marshals.
There's been a lot of talk about the existential threat of radical Islamic terrorism. But the reality is that Al Qaeda cannot mount any kind of serious threat to the existence of the United States. Even if in the worst case they managed to obtain and detonate a nuclear device. Yes, they can hurt people, thousands of people, but they can never destroy this country. There aren't enough of them and we're too big and too strong. To put it in easily understood terms, anyone who really thinks Al Qaeda could possibly threaten our very existence is a coward and a wimp and hates America.
Yes, we need to take security measures. But we just can't afford to buy every expensive X-ray machine that's being hawked at the government. Even though the risk of cancer from those machines is very low, the increased cancer rate in the employees who run them will probably be greater than the number of deaths from terrorist acts prevented.
We accept all kinds of risks on a daily basis without a second thought. In mere seconds the Fort Hood shooter and Jared Loughner killed and wounded dozens of people with guns almost anyone can buy almost anywhere. But having guns everywhere is a risk we're willing to accept. Ten times more people die in car accidents every year than died in 9/11, but people still think nothing of speeding 10 or 20 miles over the limit, we still allow people to drink and drive, we still give 16-year-olds licenses, and many jurisdictions still have speed limits that far exceed the average person's ability reaction time, especially considering how many of us talk on cell phones while driving.
The chance of the average American dying from a radical Islamic terrorist attack is 0.000000285 per year (1 in 3.5 million), or essentially zero. And people who live in rural Alabama or Iowa or Arizona or really anywhere but large cities have, for all practical purposes, zero chance of being killed by Islamic terrorists.
Why are we so willing to spend trillions of dollars to prevent the potential loss of a few thousand lives to terrorism, but dead set against spending that same amount on a single-payer health care plan for the entire country? A plan that would have saved literally millions of actual American lives over the last 10 years? The money we're spending on security and the wars and their aftermath would do more to wipe out the debt problem than the work product of the debt supercommittee. Even modest increases in
The truth is, it's not about saving lives. It's about revenge. We will go to any lengths to frustrate Al Qaeda's plans, because we want to deny them the satisfaction of beating us. There's no easily identified villain involved in car accidents, or suicide, or heart disease, or cancer. Even though we know exactly what causes them -- alcohol and drug consumption, distracted and speeding drivers, poor diet -- we are still totally complacent about them even though they will cause us far more harm than Al Qaeda ever could.
As a result of those attacks we have spent about a trillion dollars on increased "homeland security" either directly on government expenditures, or indirectly on increased costs to business and the public for airport security and other measures. We have spent a trillion dollars on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and will likely spend trillions more "stabilizing" post-war Iraq and Afghanistan, and caring for the veterans wounded in those wars. More than 6,000 American soldiers have died in Iraq and Afghanistan, and more than 50,000 have been seriously wounded, many maimed for life.
Has the money, blood and tears we spent in the ten years since 9/11 yielded benefits in national security and lives saved commensurate with the costs? Slate has been running a series of articles about this, and the answer seems to be a definite "no." To justify the amount of money we're spending on security we'd have to prevent 1,667 Times Square-style attacks every year.
Certainly, some of the security measures taken since 9/11 have made us safer. But does anyone seriously believe taking our shoes off before getting on an airplane makes us safer? The shoe bomber failed. The underwear bomber failed, so why are 6 oz. cans of shaving cream forbidden on planes? Flight 93 showed why we don't need sky marshals -- after 9/11 we're all sky marshals.
There's been a lot of talk about the existential threat of radical Islamic terrorism. But the reality is that Al Qaeda cannot mount any kind of serious threat to the existence of the United States. Even if in the worst case they managed to obtain and detonate a nuclear device. Yes, they can hurt people, thousands of people, but they can never destroy this country. There aren't enough of them and we're too big and too strong. To put it in easily understood terms, anyone who really thinks Al Qaeda could possibly threaten our very existence is a coward and a wimp and hates America.
Yes, we need to take security measures. But we just can't afford to buy every expensive X-ray machine that's being hawked at the government. Even though the risk of cancer from those machines is very low, the increased cancer rate in the employees who run them will probably be greater than the number of deaths from terrorist acts prevented.
We accept all kinds of risks on a daily basis without a second thought. In mere seconds the Fort Hood shooter and Jared Loughner killed and wounded dozens of people with guns almost anyone can buy almost anywhere. But having guns everywhere is a risk we're willing to accept. Ten times more people die in car accidents every year than died in 9/11, but people still think nothing of speeding 10 or 20 miles over the limit, we still allow people to drink and drive, we still give 16-year-olds licenses, and many jurisdictions still have speed limits that far exceed the average person's ability reaction time, especially considering how many of us talk on cell phones while driving.
The chance of the average American dying from a radical Islamic terrorist attack is 0.000000285 per year (1 in 3.5 million), or essentially zero. And people who live in rural Alabama or Iowa or Arizona or really anywhere but large cities have, for all practical purposes, zero chance of being killed by Islamic terrorists.
Why are we so willing to spend trillions of dollars to prevent the potential loss of a few thousand lives to terrorism, but dead set against spending that same amount on a single-payer health care plan for the entire country? A plan that would have saved literally millions of actual American lives over the last 10 years? The money we're spending on security and the wars and their aftermath would do more to wipe out the debt problem than the work product of the debt supercommittee. Even modest increases in
The truth is, it's not about saving lives. It's about revenge. We will go to any lengths to frustrate Al Qaeda's plans, because we want to deny them the satisfaction of beating us. There's no easily identified villain involved in car accidents, or suicide, or heart disease, or cancer. Even though we know exactly what causes them -- alcohol and drug consumption, distracted and speeding drivers, poor diet -- we are still totally complacent about them even though they will cause us far more harm than Al Qaeda ever could.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Ten
Ten years ago today this forum started in email form. It became an outlet for my immediate and very justifiable anger over the September 11th attacks. A few years later, my friend Phil set up this site to continue the long discussions over what transpired that day.
Over the years, the site has obviously changed. The focus back then was on foreign policy. These days, it's mostly about politics. Part of me regrets the change but another part of me is happy that it happened. In many ways, I think I needed to put the horror of that day behind me and that's a big reason why I shifted to more political rants. I suppose in some ways it's avoidance and denial. Even as I watch the anniversary shows that have been on of late, it all seems so unreal.
The jumpers...I'll never forget the jumpers...
And I think that all of us who remember that day so well can't help but imagine planes flying into buildings nearly every time we see a simple jet flying over head in the bright blue sky.
The loss of life on that day is still too overwhelming for me to comprehend. When I stop and think about it, I can't help but cry in thinking about the people who will never see their loved ones again. My tears turn to frustration when I try to explain to the young people whom I see every day and who were very young at the time of the attacks just how awful that day was...only to get back reactions of indifference.
During those first few months after 9-11, I was so filled with anger and hate that I lost a lot my rationality. I watched quite a bit of Fox News and listened to the local right wing radio station (AM 1280) nearly every day. I argued vociferously with a poster and friend of mine named Charlie that we should invade Iraq because Saddam Hussein was an immediate threat. My bigotry towards Muslims was seemingly infinite and it wouldn't be shocking to hear me back then say that they were essentially animals.
After several months, I looked at what I had become and hated it. I lost touch with my ideological roots and realized, through personal experience, how easy it was for the right to enlist foot soldiers with their propaganda. In many ways, the 9-11 attacks were a boon for the cottage industry that is conservatism today. With such a large audience willing to spend their hard earned money on anger, hate and fear, who can blame them for wanting to make millions? And they do...
So, I spent some time doing some serious reflection, much of which was played out in the early days of this site. I got back in touch with my convictions and let a lot of the narrow views that I had towards Islam, for example, fall away. Throughout this time, I came to a very clear realization.
We can't fight extremism with extremism. As with nearly everything else they propose, the right in this country are under the impression that we have to become religious extremists to fight religious extremism. In fact, it's the opposite. We have to use our reason and logic to prevail. In other words, our intelligence. In particular, we have to recognize that our military might alone will never work. In fact, we have a much more powerful tool that we are using that has been far more effective: our soft power.
Earlier this year, I got an iPhone 4. A few days after I bought it, I was fiddling around with it during an exam at school. Three Muslim women, dressed in the customary garb, approached my desk. For a moment, I imagind how puckered your garden variety conservative's butt hole would become. I chuckled as it would have been my butt hole 8-10 years ago! I assumed they all wanted to go to the bathroom (the question a teacher gets asked more than anything else) but that wasn't it.
"Um...we wanted to know...is that the iPhone 4?" one asked.
"Yes," I responded.
"Ooo! Can we check it out?" another giggled. All of their eyes lit up.
And there it was. America's soft power on brilliant display.
We will always prevail in our struggle against the people who attacked us 9-11 and it is largely due to our economic might. The lure of open markets and free trade is much more powerful than the call to return to 12th century Islam. The children of the people who may have supported the 9-11 attacks have already succumbed to free market ideals and the prosperity that comes with the liberal global market place.
To put it simply, they want to drink a Coke, eat a Big Mac, and geek out on their iPhones.
The hirabis know that this is our most powerful weapon. This is why they targeted the World Trade Center-a world financial landmark. They knew that once this sort of ideal takes hold, it's impossible to reverse. There's no going back from the benefits of freedom and the hirabis know that they lose that battle every single time. Their only hope right now for any sort of victory is that the extremists in our own culture--and you know who I am talking about--give them red meat to feed to their own version of the base with the hopes of growing its population.
Let's not give them gifts and continue to focus on the most effective strategies that deter extremism. I've worked very hard to overcome my biases towards Islam and would be a liar if I said I am completely over them. It's pretty easy, though, and doesn't require any effort. We share the same ideals as they do...as everyone who cherishes freedom does. After all, one of the most common sayings among Muslims (something I use to greet all of my Islamic students) is "As-Salamu Alaykum."
Peace be upon you.
Over the years, the site has obviously changed. The focus back then was on foreign policy. These days, it's mostly about politics. Part of me regrets the change but another part of me is happy that it happened. In many ways, I think I needed to put the horror of that day behind me and that's a big reason why I shifted to more political rants. I suppose in some ways it's avoidance and denial. Even as I watch the anniversary shows that have been on of late, it all seems so unreal.
The jumpers...I'll never forget the jumpers...
And I think that all of us who remember that day so well can't help but imagine planes flying into buildings nearly every time we see a simple jet flying over head in the bright blue sky.
The loss of life on that day is still too overwhelming for me to comprehend. When I stop and think about it, I can't help but cry in thinking about the people who will never see their loved ones again. My tears turn to frustration when I try to explain to the young people whom I see every day and who were very young at the time of the attacks just how awful that day was...only to get back reactions of indifference.
During those first few months after 9-11, I was so filled with anger and hate that I lost a lot my rationality. I watched quite a bit of Fox News and listened to the local right wing radio station (AM 1280) nearly every day. I argued vociferously with a poster and friend of mine named Charlie that we should invade Iraq because Saddam Hussein was an immediate threat. My bigotry towards Muslims was seemingly infinite and it wouldn't be shocking to hear me back then say that they were essentially animals.
After several months, I looked at what I had become and hated it. I lost touch with my ideological roots and realized, through personal experience, how easy it was for the right to enlist foot soldiers with their propaganda. In many ways, the 9-11 attacks were a boon for the cottage industry that is conservatism today. With such a large audience willing to spend their hard earned money on anger, hate and fear, who can blame them for wanting to make millions? And they do...
So, I spent some time doing some serious reflection, much of which was played out in the early days of this site. I got back in touch with my convictions and let a lot of the narrow views that I had towards Islam, for example, fall away. Throughout this time, I came to a very clear realization.
We can't fight extremism with extremism. As with nearly everything else they propose, the right in this country are under the impression that we have to become religious extremists to fight religious extremism. In fact, it's the opposite. We have to use our reason and logic to prevail. In other words, our intelligence. In particular, we have to recognize that our military might alone will never work. In fact, we have a much more powerful tool that we are using that has been far more effective: our soft power.
Earlier this year, I got an iPhone 4. A few days after I bought it, I was fiddling around with it during an exam at school. Three Muslim women, dressed in the customary garb, approached my desk. For a moment, I imagind how puckered your garden variety conservative's butt hole would become. I chuckled as it would have been my butt hole 8-10 years ago! I assumed they all wanted to go to the bathroom (the question a teacher gets asked more than anything else) but that wasn't it.
"Um...we wanted to know...is that the iPhone 4?" one asked.
"Yes," I responded.
"Ooo! Can we check it out?" another giggled. All of their eyes lit up.
And there it was. America's soft power on brilliant display.
We will always prevail in our struggle against the people who attacked us 9-11 and it is largely due to our economic might. The lure of open markets and free trade is much more powerful than the call to return to 12th century Islam. The children of the people who may have supported the 9-11 attacks have already succumbed to free market ideals and the prosperity that comes with the liberal global market place.
To put it simply, they want to drink a Coke, eat a Big Mac, and geek out on their iPhones.
The hirabis know that this is our most powerful weapon. This is why they targeted the World Trade Center-a world financial landmark. They knew that once this sort of ideal takes hold, it's impossible to reverse. There's no going back from the benefits of freedom and the hirabis know that they lose that battle every single time. Their only hope right now for any sort of victory is that the extremists in our own culture--and you know who I am talking about--give them red meat to feed to their own version of the base with the hopes of growing its population.
Let's not give them gifts and continue to focus on the most effective strategies that deter extremism. I've worked very hard to overcome my biases towards Islam and would be a liar if I said I am completely over them. It's pretty easy, though, and doesn't require any effort. We share the same ideals as they do...as everyone who cherishes freedom does. After all, one of the most common sayings among Muslims (something I use to greet all of my Islamic students) is "As-Salamu Alaykum."
Peace be upon you.
Friday, September 09, 2011
Great Speech But...
The president reset the table last night with his jobs speech before both houses of Congress. Here are my thoughts:
First, we all knew he would give a good speech. That's one of his strengths. But the tone was stronger than usual...more forceful...basically he's not fucking around and I like that. This was evident as we watched the color slowly drain out of GOP faces.
Second, he's got details. Here is the fact sheet to peruse. Next week, he is sending the bill to Congress and the week after he is submitting his own deficit reduction plan for the Debt Committee to consider. Included in that will be how this is going to be paid for and it will be deficit neutral which will mean more cuts.
Some items that jump out at me from the fact sheet:
Reforms and regulatory reductions to help entrepreneurs and small businesses access capital.
As Manzi said, we are over regulated in some areas and under regulated in others.
Modernizing at least 35,000 public schools across the country,supporting new science labs, Internet-ready classrooms and renovations at schools across the country, in rural and urban areas.
If we are going to seriously compete in the world's labor force, we are going to have to do this and more. Other countries are surpassing us in this area and it needs to change.
A $4,000 tax credit to employers for hiring long-term unemployed workers.
Hallelujah! Nor hiring someone because they have been unemployed for a long time is ridiculous.
Obviously, we are going to see more details in the coming weeks but so far this is an impressive list.
Third, finally a piece of legislation with a simple name...The American Jobs Act. No one remembers the health care bill's name-they just know it as "Obamacare." They will remember this one.
Fourth, it's a win-win politically. If Congress passes the bill or some elements of it, he wins. If they don't, he is seen as giving effort to solve the jobs problem and Congress is seen as an impediment. With their poll numbers even further in the toilet, they can ill afford to be seen as obstructionist. The GOP, in particular, better try to salvage something after the debt crisis debacle. They received very poor marks from the American people on that one as well as the business community. As soon as the Tea Party becomes a liability for business (which they may have already), say buh-bye to them.
Finally, last night is yet another example of how the president and many Democrats actually have substance behind their proposed solutions. Most of the GOP have neither substance nor solutions. All they have is the ability to show you how to be afraid of something and who is responsible for it.
First, we all knew he would give a good speech. That's one of his strengths. But the tone was stronger than usual...more forceful...basically he's not fucking around and I like that. This was evident as we watched the color slowly drain out of GOP faces.
Second, he's got details. Here is the fact sheet to peruse. Next week, he is sending the bill to Congress and the week after he is submitting his own deficit reduction plan for the Debt Committee to consider. Included in that will be how this is going to be paid for and it will be deficit neutral which will mean more cuts.
Some items that jump out at me from the fact sheet:
Reforms and regulatory reductions to help entrepreneurs and small businesses access capital.
As Manzi said, we are over regulated in some areas and under regulated in others.
Modernizing at least 35,000 public schools across the country,supporting new science labs, Internet-ready classrooms and renovations at schools across the country, in rural and urban areas.
If we are going to seriously compete in the world's labor force, we are going to have to do this and more. Other countries are surpassing us in this area and it needs to change.
A $4,000 tax credit to employers for hiring long-term unemployed workers.
Hallelujah! Nor hiring someone because they have been unemployed for a long time is ridiculous.
Obviously, we are going to see more details in the coming weeks but so far this is an impressive list.
Third, finally a piece of legislation with a simple name...The American Jobs Act. No one remembers the health care bill's name-they just know it as "Obamacare." They will remember this one.
Fourth, it's a win-win politically. If Congress passes the bill or some elements of it, he wins. If they don't, he is seen as giving effort to solve the jobs problem and Congress is seen as an impediment. With their poll numbers even further in the toilet, they can ill afford to be seen as obstructionist. The GOP, in particular, better try to salvage something after the debt crisis debacle. They received very poor marks from the American people on that one as well as the business community. As soon as the Tea Party becomes a liability for business (which they may have already), say buh-bye to them.
Finally, last night is yet another example of how the president and many Democrats actually have substance behind their proposed solutions. Most of the GOP have neither substance nor solutions. All they have is the ability to show you how to be afraid of something and who is responsible for it.
Thursday, September 08, 2011
GOP Debate Post Mortem
I think the most telling moment in last nights GOP at the Reagan Library came here.
Cheering that people were executed. I can't think of a more accurate summation of the conservative movement today...
Given this sort of behavior it's not surprising that the candidates (with the exception of Jon Huntstman) took facts and chucked them out the window. Both AP and Politfact have broken done their ridiculously devoid of fact statements.
Here are a couple of my favorites.
PERRY: On global warming, "The science is not settled on this. The idea that we would put Americans' economy at jeopardy based on scientific theory that's not settled yet, to me, is just, is nonsense. ... Find out what the science truly is before you start putting the American economy in jeopardy."
THE FACTS: The scientific consensus on climate change is about as settled as any major scientific issue can be. Perry's opinion runs counter to the view of an overwhelming majority of scientists that pollution released from the burning of fossil fuels is heating up the planet. The National Academy of Sciences, in an investigation requested by Congress, concluded last year: "Climate change is occurring, is very likely caused primarily by human activities, and poses significant risks to humans and the environment."
National Academy Schamational Academy...the right wing blogs say otherwise...it's a plot by the left to steal the fruits of my labor, damnit!
And who could forget this old classic...right up there with "Obama's A Socialist!"
PEERY: Social Security is indeed a Ponzi Scheme.
THE FACTS (via Mitchell Zuckoff, author of "Ponzi's Scheme,"): "First, in the case of Social Security, no one is being misled. Social Security is exactly what it claims to be: A mandatory transfer payment system under which current workers are taxed on their incomes to pay benefits, with no promises of huge returns.
"Second, A Ponzi scheme is unsustainable because the number of potential investors is eventually exhausted. That's when the last people to participate are out of luck; the music stops and there's nowhere to sit. It's true that Social Security faces a huge burden — and a significant, long-term financing problem — in light of retiring Baby Boomers...But Social Security can be, and has been, tweaked and modified to reflect changes in the size of the taxpaying workforce and the number of beneficiaries. It would take great political will, but the government could change benefit formulas or take other steps, like increasing taxes, to keep the system from failing."
"Third, Social Security is morally the polar opposite of a Ponzi scheme... At the height of the Great Depression, our society (see "Social") resolved to create a safety net (see "Security") in the form of a social insurance policy that would pay modest benefits to retirees, the disabled and the survivors of deceased workers.By design, that means a certain amount of wealth transfer, with richer workers subsidizing poorer ones.That might rankle, but it's not fraud... None of this is to suggest that Social Security is a perfect system or that there aren't sizeable problems facing the incoming administration and Congress. But it's not a Ponzi scheme. And Ponzi himself, who died in a hospital charity ward with only enough money for his burial, would never have recognized it as his own."
So, to recap, applause for death, no facts...sounds about right for the right.
Overall, here are my thoughts on each candidate in attendance in order of whom I thought did the best.
Jon Huntsman: Languishing down in single digits, Huntsman has no hope of winning the nomination with the GOP being as far right as it is. It's too bad because he's one of the last good conservatives out there and his comments last night were very honest and poignant.
Mitt Romney: For once, the ol' Mittster looked very comfortable. His command was excellent, he went toe to toe with Perry and struck a a stark contrast with him intelligence wise, and actually had a few things to say that weren't all that bad.
Ron Paul: Ever eternal and infinite, Paul said all his usual stuff and could spoil Perry's chances in states where he has big following by sucking away votes from the Texas Governor. This will benefit Romney.
Rick Perry: I guess you could say he did well in the red meat department but his doubling down on Social Security is going to hurt him with seniors.
Cain, Santorum, Gingrich:Who cares? But they still did better than...
Michele Bachmann:Sad, but I think last night was the end of the Shelley experiment. The Spring romance with her is over and many of her supporters have gone to Perry. Does this mean Palin will get into the race?
Hmmm...what if she runs as an independent?
Cheering that people were executed. I can't think of a more accurate summation of the conservative movement today...
Given this sort of behavior it's not surprising that the candidates (with the exception of Jon Huntstman) took facts and chucked them out the window. Both AP and Politfact have broken done their ridiculously devoid of fact statements.
Here are a couple of my favorites.
PERRY: On global warming, "The science is not settled on this. The idea that we would put Americans' economy at jeopardy based on scientific theory that's not settled yet, to me, is just, is nonsense. ... Find out what the science truly is before you start putting the American economy in jeopardy."
THE FACTS: The scientific consensus on climate change is about as settled as any major scientific issue can be. Perry's opinion runs counter to the view of an overwhelming majority of scientists that pollution released from the burning of fossil fuels is heating up the planet. The National Academy of Sciences, in an investigation requested by Congress, concluded last year: "Climate change is occurring, is very likely caused primarily by human activities, and poses significant risks to humans and the environment."
National Academy Schamational Academy...the right wing blogs say otherwise...it's a plot by the left to steal the fruits of my labor, damnit!
And who could forget this old classic...right up there with "Obama's A Socialist!"
PEERY: Social Security is indeed a Ponzi Scheme.
THE FACTS (via Mitchell Zuckoff, author of "Ponzi's Scheme,"): "First, in the case of Social Security, no one is being misled. Social Security is exactly what it claims to be: A mandatory transfer payment system under which current workers are taxed on their incomes to pay benefits, with no promises of huge returns.
"Second, A Ponzi scheme is unsustainable because the number of potential investors is eventually exhausted. That's when the last people to participate are out of luck; the music stops and there's nowhere to sit. It's true that Social Security faces a huge burden — and a significant, long-term financing problem — in light of retiring Baby Boomers...But Social Security can be, and has been, tweaked and modified to reflect changes in the size of the taxpaying workforce and the number of beneficiaries. It would take great political will, but the government could change benefit formulas or take other steps, like increasing taxes, to keep the system from failing."
"Third, Social Security is morally the polar opposite of a Ponzi scheme... At the height of the Great Depression, our society (see "Social") resolved to create a safety net (see "Security") in the form of a social insurance policy that would pay modest benefits to retirees, the disabled and the survivors of deceased workers.By design, that means a certain amount of wealth transfer, with richer workers subsidizing poorer ones.That might rankle, but it's not fraud... None of this is to suggest that Social Security is a perfect system or that there aren't sizeable problems facing the incoming administration and Congress. But it's not a Ponzi scheme. And Ponzi himself, who died in a hospital charity ward with only enough money for his burial, would never have recognized it as his own."
So, to recap, applause for death, no facts...sounds about right for the right.
Overall, here are my thoughts on each candidate in attendance in order of whom I thought did the best.
Jon Huntsman: Languishing down in single digits, Huntsman has no hope of winning the nomination with the GOP being as far right as it is. It's too bad because he's one of the last good conservatives out there and his comments last night were very honest and poignant.
Mitt Romney: For once, the ol' Mittster looked very comfortable. His command was excellent, he went toe to toe with Perry and struck a a stark contrast with him intelligence wise, and actually had a few things to say that weren't all that bad.
Ron Paul: Ever eternal and infinite, Paul said all his usual stuff and could spoil Perry's chances in states where he has big following by sucking away votes from the Texas Governor. This will benefit Romney.
Rick Perry: I guess you could say he did well in the red meat department but his doubling down on Social Security is going to hurt him with seniors.
Cain, Santorum, Gingrich:Who cares? But they still did better than...
Michele Bachmann:Sad, but I think last night was the end of the Shelley experiment. The Spring romance with her is over and many of her supporters have gone to Perry. Does this mean Palin will get into the race?
Hmmm...what if she runs as an independent?
Wednesday, September 07, 2011
God Messes with Texas
Every time calamity strikes, religious zealots are quick to proclaim that this is God punishing us for some imagined slight. Last week it was Michele Bachmann, who joked (or did she?) that God had sent the earthquake and the hurricane to Washington as a message.
Jerry Falwell claimed 9/11 happened because pagans and abortionists had turned America into a secular society. Pat Robertson has been particularly profligate with God's curses, claiming in 1998 that God would smite Orlando for being soft on gays, and that the earthquake in Haiti was God's punishment for a pact they made with the devil to escape from slavery centuries ago. But then Hurricane Bonnie hammered Robertson's compound in Virginia Beach in 1998. I guess God doesn't like false prophets.
Jerry Falwell claimed 9/11 happened because pagans and abortionists had turned America into a secular society. Pat Robertson has been particularly profligate with God's curses, claiming in 1998 that God would smite Orlando for being soft on gays, and that the earthquake in Haiti was God's punishment for a pact they made with the devil to escape from slavery centuries ago. But then Hurricane Bonnie hammered Robertson's compound in Virginia Beach in 1998. I guess God doesn't like false prophets.
The right has been curiously silent about the heat, drought and wildfires ravaging Texas. Much of Texas has been suffering through 100+ degree temperatures for almost three straight months. Isn't it obvious why?
The Republican Party has controlled Texas for years. They have made it a paradise for oil companies and big business. Few environmental regulations, low wages, no health insurance, lax workplace safety regulation enforcement (especially at oil refineries), plenty of corporate welfare.
Yet God has cursed Texas with a Biblical plague of fire and brimstone. Looking at some of the pictures coming from Bastrop you would think Texas is Hell on Earth.
I mean, if there is a God, and He's picking punishments that fit the offense, it's not particularly ironic to hit Washington with a minor earthquake or a low-end hurricane to punish bickering politicians. You'd expect a plague of laryngitis or flatulence or satyriasis.
But subjecting Texas -- the state that exemplifies the Big Oil, climate-change-is-a-liberal-lie mentality -- to 110-degree temperatures on a daily basis for months on end seems like a fitting punishment.
Sad to say, God isn't behind the drought and the heat wave. But we do know who is: human contributions to climate change are making a bad situation worse. We've already had 10 multibillion dollar weather disasters this year, and the hurricane season still has three or four months to go -- and we're already halfway through the named storm alphabet.
Will Bachmann play the God card in the debate tonight? Will she claim that God is punishing Rick Perry for his poor environmental record, his coddling of Big Oil, his dismissal of human-caused climate change? Or will she just admit that Texas is starting to choke and burn in their own waste products?
The Republican Party has controlled Texas for years. They have made it a paradise for oil companies and big business. Few environmental regulations, low wages, no health insurance, lax workplace safety regulation enforcement (especially at oil refineries), plenty of corporate welfare.
Yet God has cursed Texas with a Biblical plague of fire and brimstone. Looking at some of the pictures coming from Bastrop you would think Texas is Hell on Earth.
I mean, if there is a God, and He's picking punishments that fit the offense, it's not particularly ironic to hit Washington with a minor earthquake or a low-end hurricane to punish bickering politicians. You'd expect a plague of laryngitis or flatulence or satyriasis.
But subjecting Texas -- the state that exemplifies the Big Oil, climate-change-is-a-liberal-lie mentality -- to 110-degree temperatures on a daily basis for months on end seems like a fitting punishment.
Sad to say, God isn't behind the drought and the heat wave. But we do know who is: human contributions to climate change are making a bad situation worse. We've already had 10 multibillion dollar weather disasters this year, and the hurricane season still has three or four months to go -- and we're already halfway through the named storm alphabet.
Will Bachmann play the God card in the debate tonight? Will she claim that God is punishing Rick Perry for his poor environmental record, his coddling of Big Oil, his dismissal of human-caused climate change? Or will she just admit that Texas is starting to choke and burn in their own waste products?
Are You Going To Help Them?
If you want to find out what the world would look like if the Koch Brothers ran it, take a look at income and wealth inequality right now and double it. Hell, triple it. After you have done that, explain to me how things are going to be better when our economy is two thirds consumer spending. If more people have less money and less people have more money, it's going to get worse because the consumer base is going to be so small.
The Kochs realize that they now have a fairly large audience that they can hoodwink into doing their bidding. They also realize President Obama and the Democrats (as well as a few Republicans) are a very large obstacle standing in their way. So what do they do? Compare Barack Obama to Saddam Hussein.
This is an audio recording of Charles Koch rallying his troops last June at their retreat last June. I find it very interesting that all of the things the Kochs do are highly secretive and rarely on display for the press. What are they hiding? To me, it's obvious.
Like the mob, they want to bust the joint out-the joint being America. They don't give a shit about the country or most of its people. They care about accumulating wealth and power. Period. More of it continually would be better. They are pathological in their pursuit of this and are clearly approaching the point in which they will do anything to further this goal.
Are you going to help them?
The Kochs realize that they now have a fairly large audience that they can hoodwink into doing their bidding. They also realize President Obama and the Democrats (as well as a few Republicans) are a very large obstacle standing in their way. So what do they do? Compare Barack Obama to Saddam Hussein.
This is an audio recording of Charles Koch rallying his troops last June at their retreat last June. I find it very interesting that all of the things the Kochs do are highly secretive and rarely on display for the press. What are they hiding? To me, it's obvious.
Like the mob, they want to bust the joint out-the joint being America. They don't give a shit about the country or most of its people. They care about accumulating wealth and power. Period. More of it continually would be better. They are pathological in their pursuit of this and are clearly approaching the point in which they will do anything to further this goal.
Are you going to help them?
Tuesday, September 06, 2011
Back To School
As students across my state head back to school today, I was very heartened by a recent conversation with my gym buddy, Edward. Recall that Edward is an evangelical minister and is just about as right wing as you can be.
As were lifting he turned to me and asked what was involved in becoming a teacher. I told him and then asked why he was interested. He said he was thinking of becoming one at either the secondary level or college. He'd like to have another job in addition to the ministry that he runs and, with his wife's business struggling right now, he thought it might be a good field to look into for some stability. Of course, I told him that the high pay and exotic travelling were a big plus:)
Even though he and I differ on our ideological views, I was pretty amped that we was interested. Quite honestly, we need all the help we can get. I know that wherever he ends up, he is going to push his religious beliefs but I don't really care. Yes, he believes in Republican Jesus but at least he has convictions. So many people today don't. Maybe a few kids will be inspired and motivated by him to actually give a shit about something other than fucking X Box or their smart phone and go out into the world and be productive. And this is what led us to a point of mutual agreement that made me happy on this, the first day of school.
Parents suck.
Actually, they don't just suck. The majority of them are doing a fucking horrible job. He sees it every Sunday in church and I see it every day in school. All of us see it when we go to Target or Wal Mart. In fact, Edward said, "Liberal and progressive ideals are not the problem in schools. Parents are the problem in schools and in places like my church." He then went on to tell me a series of stories of incidents he has seen over the years at church which echo what I see every day in school. They ranged from a complete inability to discipline to encouraging children to misbehave.
The main avenue of socialization of children is parents. For a wide variety of reasons, they have ceded this authority to people outside of their home. People like me and Edward are ill equipped to handle the individual needs of so many children. So, they end up being socialized by their friends and the corporate owned media. I don't know about any of you other parents out there but I wouldn't trust the socialization of a styrofoam cup with several of my children's friends. To begin with, none of them have basic manners. Their social skills suck and most seem to care only about sports. And many of them are socialized by corporations as well so everything is geared around the incentive of materialism. Even at grade school age, they have smart phones and watch endless hours of TV. Why?
Because their parents are too busy, either with work or simply being selfish and lazy, to hang out with them and do something. To put it simply, parents don't raise their children anymore. Parents don't fucking parent. They can't be bothered to do it so it's left up to people like me and Edward. Unfortunately, this leads to both of us (especially me) getting the blame when a child isn't doing well. Geez, you'd think I could easily socialize 100+ kids a day and turn them ALL into winners. What a lazy ass I am! With parents, it's always someone else's fault...never their own.
This is largely what our culture has become, though, so I guess I shouldn't be shocked. We are a nation filled with people who completely fail when it comes to reflection. It's easier to blame someone else or come up with wild eyed conspiracy theories on why our schools have these problems. Pointing the finger at the parents simply isn't done.
Even if we could point the finger at them, what then? We can't force parents to do a better job. Can we? If so, how?
As were lifting he turned to me and asked what was involved in becoming a teacher. I told him and then asked why he was interested. He said he was thinking of becoming one at either the secondary level or college. He'd like to have another job in addition to the ministry that he runs and, with his wife's business struggling right now, he thought it might be a good field to look into for some stability. Of course, I told him that the high pay and exotic travelling were a big plus:)
Even though he and I differ on our ideological views, I was pretty amped that we was interested. Quite honestly, we need all the help we can get. I know that wherever he ends up, he is going to push his religious beliefs but I don't really care. Yes, he believes in Republican Jesus but at least he has convictions. So many people today don't. Maybe a few kids will be inspired and motivated by him to actually give a shit about something other than fucking X Box or their smart phone and go out into the world and be productive. And this is what led us to a point of mutual agreement that made me happy on this, the first day of school.
Parents suck.
Actually, they don't just suck. The majority of them are doing a fucking horrible job. He sees it every Sunday in church and I see it every day in school. All of us see it when we go to Target or Wal Mart. In fact, Edward said, "Liberal and progressive ideals are not the problem in schools. Parents are the problem in schools and in places like my church." He then went on to tell me a series of stories of incidents he has seen over the years at church which echo what I see every day in school. They ranged from a complete inability to discipline to encouraging children to misbehave.
The main avenue of socialization of children is parents. For a wide variety of reasons, they have ceded this authority to people outside of their home. People like me and Edward are ill equipped to handle the individual needs of so many children. So, they end up being socialized by their friends and the corporate owned media. I don't know about any of you other parents out there but I wouldn't trust the socialization of a styrofoam cup with several of my children's friends. To begin with, none of them have basic manners. Their social skills suck and most seem to care only about sports. And many of them are socialized by corporations as well so everything is geared around the incentive of materialism. Even at grade school age, they have smart phones and watch endless hours of TV. Why?
Because their parents are too busy, either with work or simply being selfish and lazy, to hang out with them and do something. To put it simply, parents don't raise their children anymore. Parents don't fucking parent. They can't be bothered to do it so it's left up to people like me and Edward. Unfortunately, this leads to both of us (especially me) getting the blame when a child isn't doing well. Geez, you'd think I could easily socialize 100+ kids a day and turn them ALL into winners. What a lazy ass I am! With parents, it's always someone else's fault...never their own.
This is largely what our culture has become, though, so I guess I shouldn't be shocked. We are a nation filled with people who completely fail when it comes to reflection. It's easier to blame someone else or come up with wild eyed conspiracy theories on why our schools have these problems. Pointing the finger at the parents simply isn't done.
Even if we could point the finger at them, what then? We can't force parents to do a better job. Can we? If so, how?
Monday, September 05, 2011
Where We Are
We used to be a nation that makes things. Now we are a nation that makes things up.
---Arianna Huffington, 30 Aug 2011.
No shit, A-Train. I can't think of a more perfect message for Labor Day.
---Arianna Huffington, 30 Aug 2011.
No shit, A-Train. I can't think of a more perfect message for Labor Day.
Sunday, September 04, 2011
Hallelujah and Polarity
The regret is — the Republican candidates out in the field are not calling for a dramatic new direction of — Father help me, but i agree with Dr. Jeffrey Sachs. The United States — the United States is in virtual headlong retreat from the world. We’re coming out of all these places. We are bankrupt as a nation. We cannot balance our budget.
The great blunder was made by George W. Bush when he had the whole country and the world behind him and he went up to Congress and declared ‘now we’re going after an axis of evil; Iraq, Iran and North Korea.’ We are plunging into that part of the world instead of fighting al-Qaeda and handling it the way he should have. As a consequence of that, I think he broke the Republican party and frankly, he broke the United States as a superpower. We are a diminishing superpower today and there is no doubt China is a rising one.
Praise Jesus! Finally, an admittance of how we got here.No doubt about it...Al Gore would have been a better president and we would not as fucked as we are now.
The great blunder was made by George W. Bush when he had the whole country and the world behind him and he went up to Congress and declared ‘now we’re going after an axis of evil; Iraq, Iran and North Korea.’ We are plunging into that part of the world instead of fighting al-Qaeda and handling it the way he should have. As a consequence of that, I think he broke the Republican party and frankly, he broke the United States as a superpower. We are a diminishing superpower today and there is no doubt China is a rising one.
Praise Jesus! Finally, an admittance of how we got here.No doubt about it...Al Gore would have been a better president and we would not as fucked as we are now.
Saturday, September 03, 2011
2011: A Space Junkyard
Space is a vast and empty void, right? Like the earth itself, it is so outrageously immense that we could never possibly affect it in any material way, right? Well, we've already managed to fill it full of junk after only sixty years.
In the long run the very thin atmosphere in LEO will eventually bring down most of the debris, as it brought down Skylab in 1979 (controllers changed the orientation to aim it, but it didn't land exactly where they wanted it to). But we'll probably have to take some action before then, as we put more and more things into orbit.
Yes, there is so much junk in space now that astronauts on the space station recently had to take shelter when a piece of debris came within 1,000 or so feet. And this isn't an isolated incident. They had to do this in 2009 as well. Also in 2009 Iridium 33, one of the Iridium Constellation satellites, collided with Kosmos 2251, a defunct Russian satellite. (Iridium is a planet-wide network of 66 satellites in polar orbits used for satellite phones and pagers.)
What is all this junk? Some of it is old satellites, like Kosmos 2251. The Russians were notorious for launching lots of satellites with extremely short lifetimes, and they rarely bothered to deorbit them, something which NASA usually does to avoid this problem. Some of the junk is stuff that was dropped off manned spacecraft. Some of it is from intentionally destroyed satellites -- like the one the Chinese killed with an anti-satellite weapon in 2007.
But half the junk is debris from accidents like the Iridium-Kosmos collision. Which means that in the near term (10-20 years) the problem is going to get worse. Each time there's another collision there'll be that more much junk created, creating a cascade effect of more and more debris, causing more and more collisions.
Why is this stuff so dangerous? Orbital velocity in LEO (low-earth orbit) is about 17,000 miles an hour. A lot of satellites orbit in the same direction, a more-or-less equatorial orbit. But some satellites -- like Iridium and American spy satellites -- are in polar orbits so that they can, over time, communicate with or spy on any point on earth. When a polar satellite hits an equatorial satellite the amount of kinetic energy is huge. When the debris from that collision hits something else, it's still going 17,000 mph, and even a small bolt going that fast can totally destroy a satellite or the solar panels that power it.
In the long run the very thin atmosphere in LEO will eventually bring down most of the debris, as it brought down Skylab in 1979 (controllers changed the orientation to aim it, but it didn't land exactly where they wanted it to). But we'll probably have to take some action before then, as we put more and more things into orbit.
Many satellites have thrusters to correct their orbits (remember Jack Bauer always asking Chloe to reposition spy satellites for him?). Those thrusters could be used to deorbit the satellites. The problem is that their fuel is finite: the choice is between using the fuel for a longer useful lifetime for the satellite or for sending it to a fiery death in the atmosphere to eliminate the chance of collision.
The thing about this "pollution" in space is that it doesn't really hurt space or the planet earth at all. But it can hurt us. If our weather satellites are taken out by random junk, our ability to track hurricanes can be severely degraded, and people could die because they didn't get sufficient warning.
In a way, space junk is like global warming: the seemingly small increase of CO2 in the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels poses no direct threat to the planet, and it won't even kill all humankind. Directly. But it will cause the temperature to rise several degrees, which will cause polar ice to melt, which will cause the seas to rise several feet. That's a trivial increase in sea level in the grand scheme of things, but it so happens that most of our major cities will be flooded. It will disrupt billions of lives, and cost trillions of dollars as we have to either move or protect major cities with dikes as they do in the Netherlands. And that's not even considering the disruptions temperature changes will wreak on farming, water supplies and the lives lost in wars caused by those disruptions.
There always consequences when we throw things away, whether it's old car batteries and computers in the landfill, junker satellites in orbit, antibiotics and birth control pills down the toilet, the exhaust from our cars or the smoke and ash from our coal-fired power plants.
We used to think we could just throw crap away and never see it again. But now there are so many of us, and we create so much trash, that all our waste products eventually just come back around and hit us upside the head like one of those satellites.
Friday, September 02, 2011
Deep In The Heart of Texas
We've heard quite a bit lately from the latest GOP primary presidential candidate, Governor of Texas Rick Perry, about how he is a "job creator." He points to his state of Texas as being an example of what he can do for the entire country. He champions himself as being a less spending, less government and less tax sort of fellow and, by gum, that's just what he is going to do with the federal government if the American people give him a chance.
The problem with all of this is...well...it's not really true.
Take a look at this graphic.
Take note of the bright blue state of Texas. That indicates that Texas is spending at an amount greater than 3% above FY08 levels. How very interesting. Compare them to the other states that are spending less, many of which are not doing as well as Texas. Of course, this all comes with some good news for states in general.
So, Governor Perry doesn't really spend less as he say he does and likely recognizes the benefits of government spending. But what about his other claims?
Factcheck recently released an excellent piece that outlines a series of additional facts as to why Texas is doing so well. It's true that Texas has added a great deal of jobs recently but they have also been doing so since 1970. In other words, that's normal for them. It's really a no brainer when you think about it given that they do have some of that there black gold down those parts.
Throw in jobs being added in the natural gas sector as well as all of those government jobs I have mentioned previously and it makes sense that Texas is the nation's leader in job creation. Yet, this creation of jobs hasn't kept pace with the influx of people an unemployment has risen to 8.4 percent in the last two years. This happened while the national rate was dropping. And Texas, along with Mississippi, has the largest percentage of hourly workers at or below the minimum wage. The lone star state also has the highest percentage of people without health care (26%).
In addition, Texas didn't experience the housing bust as other states did because of...wait for it...government restrictions on loans! What's that you say? The government interfering in the free market to improve a market outcome? Yes. Yes they did. And it benefited the citizens of Texas and their economy.
Finally, while Texans don't pay a personal income tax, they still pay above the national average in sales tax with local municipalities able to add on to that amount. Property taxes (collected at the local level) are among the highest in the nation.
So, Governor Perry's claims make no sense whatsoever when you consider these facts. He talks a good talk game about less spending, less government, and less taxes because he knows that plays well to the true believers. But the reality shows that he is doing what is necessary to govern.
The problem with all of this is...well...it's not really true.
Take a look at this graphic.
So, Governor Perry doesn't really spend less as he say he does and likely recognizes the benefits of government spending. But what about his other claims?
Factcheck recently released an excellent piece that outlines a series of additional facts as to why Texas is doing so well. It's true that Texas has added a great deal of jobs recently but they have also been doing so since 1970. In other words, that's normal for them. It's really a no brainer when you think about it given that they do have some of that there black gold down those parts.
Throw in jobs being added in the natural gas sector as well as all of those government jobs I have mentioned previously and it makes sense that Texas is the nation's leader in job creation. Yet, this creation of jobs hasn't kept pace with the influx of people an unemployment has risen to 8.4 percent in the last two years. This happened while the national rate was dropping. And Texas, along with Mississippi, has the largest percentage of hourly workers at or below the minimum wage. The lone star state also has the highest percentage of people without health care (26%).
In addition, Texas didn't experience the housing bust as other states did because of...wait for it...government restrictions on loans! What's that you say? The government interfering in the free market to improve a market outcome? Yes. Yes they did. And it benefited the citizens of Texas and their economy.
Finally, while Texans don't pay a personal income tax, they still pay above the national average in sales tax with local municipalities able to add on to that amount. Property taxes (collected at the local level) are among the highest in the nation.
So, Governor Perry's claims make no sense whatsoever when you consider these facts. He talks a good talk game about less spending, less government, and less taxes because he knows that plays well to the true believers. But the reality shows that he is doing what is necessary to govern.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)