Wednesday, March 14, 2012
The Evolution of Princesses
It's springtime, and we all know what that means: the beginning of the blockbuster movie season. Last weekend Disney's John Carter opened, with many critics predicting its doom, pointing out that the viewing public has not been kind to movies about Mars. Speculation was rife that the movie—about a Civil War vet who goes to Mars—would bomb terribly. As it turns out, it wasn't a total dud; it did fairly well overseas so it may break even in the long haul. But prospects for a sequel—apparently the only criterion for success in movies—are bleak.
I liked the film. Over the years I've come to like historical dramas like Rome and The Tudors, alternative histories and retro-future Victorian steampunk settings. But I can see that for some John Carter might lack a certain pizzazz; it's more or less true to the understated tone of the Victorian era, and the characters don't have the same edgy sarcastic wit we've come to expect in summer blockbusters, even characters in the Victorian era like the Sherlock Holmes of Robert Downey Jr. The deserts of Mars feel more like Roman Egypt than Tatooine, especially with the casting of Rome's Ciaran Hinds and James Purefoy.
John Carter is based on Edgar Rice Burroughs' first Barsoom novel, A Princess of Mars. 2012 is the hundredth anniversary of its publication in serialized form in The All-Story, with the title Under the Moons of Mars. It was republished as a novel in 1917. (It's available for free at Project Gutenberg in HTML and e-book formats.)
Burrough's novels paved the way for the Tarzan movies and Buck Rogers serials in the thirties, which were the templates for modern blockbusters like Star Wars and Raiders of the Lost Arc. Jules Verne and H.G. Wells preceded Burroughs, but their work was somewhat abstract, while Burroughs's pulp fiction was full of rip-roaring swashbuckling adventure. And naked ladies.
Though I've read science fiction for more than forty years, I hadn't read any Burroughs until two years ago. My tastes tended more toward "hard science fiction" and writers like Asimov, Benford, Clarke, Heinlein, Niven, Varley, Zelazny, and so on. In my younger days Burroughs' Victorian writing style didn't attract me, and the social attitudes on race and gender expressed in his work, typical of his era, turned me off. Though I'm sure many of his contemporaries found his ideas outrageously radical and far too sympathetic to "primitives."
Making a movie from a book entails a great deal of condensation and restructuring. A two-hour film simply doesn't have the time to delve into subplots, or develop characters to the same extent a novel can. Many characters have to be axed, or their functions must be combined into a single character. Often the conventions of a novel don't translate well into film.
Thus, many aspects of Burroughs' novel were changed: the mode of Carter's translation to Mars was altered to suit modern technological sensibilities; a new major character was added (pulled from a subsequent book in the series); even the characters' attire was altered—if filmed as originally written, the movie would have drawn an NC-17 rating. Did I mention naked ladies?
But perhaps the biggest change of all was the character of Dejah Thoris. As described in the novel, "She was as destitute of clothes as the green Martians who accompanied her; indeed, save for her highly wrought ornaments she was entirely naked, nor could any apparel have enhanced the beauty of her perfect and symmetrical figure." Symmetrical?
Burroughs' Dejah Thoris was the typical damsel in distress. When they first met, she was depicted as the haughty, condescending daughter of a nobleman, though somehow even this endeared her to Carter.
John Carter's Dejah Thoris is thoroughly modern, recast in the mold of Princess Leia. She's the Martian scientist on the verge of a technological breakthrough that would save her planet, only to be sabotaged by the villains. She's a top-notch sword fighter, wears more armor than Carter and could probably whoop him in a fair fight (his great Earthly strength is a major plot point). She's a scholar who can read ancient languages. When she's ultimately forced into cheesecake mode, she disdains it.
Even the underlying theme of the novel and the motivation for Carter and Dejah Thoris to meet—the deteriorating Martian biosphere—is discarded. Instead they are brought together when she flees a forced marriage to the villain who threatens to enslave all Mars.
In short, the changes with Dejah Thoris directly reflect the changed role of women in society a century after the novel was published. Today many top scientists, CEOs and politicians are women. Women serve in the military alongside men, and in workplaces everywhere else. Since 2000 women have outnumbered men in college 57-43%. Women still have not attained true equality, though the college numbers indicate that women will eventually to catch up.
Yet a hundred years after Under the Moons of Mars was published we still have politicians like Rick Santorum whose attitudes toward women seem to be even more antiquated than Edgar Rice Burroughs'. Santorum rails against birth control and abortion and women in the military; he seems intent on returning women to the chattel status that John Carter's Dejah Thoris fled. Women are not dainty, fragile princesses who must be coddled and simultaneously blamed for inciting men to lust.
Whether or not John Carter enjoys box office success, it's another clear reflection that in popular culture and among the young the issue of women's equality and their right to decide their own fate has been decided. And that's not just Hollywood propaganda. Women outnumber men in the voting age population, and they may well decide the election this fall.
It's just a matter of time until people like Santorum, Rush Limbaugh, the pope and the ayatollahs give up the ghost and give women their due.
I liked the film. Over the years I've come to like historical dramas like Rome and The Tudors, alternative histories and retro-future Victorian steampunk settings. But I can see that for some John Carter might lack a certain pizzazz; it's more or less true to the understated tone of the Victorian era, and the characters don't have the same edgy sarcastic wit we've come to expect in summer blockbusters, even characters in the Victorian era like the Sherlock Holmes of Robert Downey Jr. The deserts of Mars feel more like Roman Egypt than Tatooine, especially with the casting of Rome's Ciaran Hinds and James Purefoy.
John Carter is based on Edgar Rice Burroughs' first Barsoom novel, A Princess of Mars. 2012 is the hundredth anniversary of its publication in serialized form in The All-Story, with the title Under the Moons of Mars. It was republished as a novel in 1917. (It's available for free at Project Gutenberg in HTML and e-book formats.)
Burrough's novels paved the way for the Tarzan movies and Buck Rogers serials in the thirties, which were the templates for modern blockbusters like Star Wars and Raiders of the Lost Arc. Jules Verne and H.G. Wells preceded Burroughs, but their work was somewhat abstract, while Burroughs's pulp fiction was full of rip-roaring swashbuckling adventure. And naked ladies.
Though I've read science fiction for more than forty years, I hadn't read any Burroughs until two years ago. My tastes tended more toward "hard science fiction" and writers like Asimov, Benford, Clarke, Heinlein, Niven, Varley, Zelazny, and so on. In my younger days Burroughs' Victorian writing style didn't attract me, and the social attitudes on race and gender expressed in his work, typical of his era, turned me off. Though I'm sure many of his contemporaries found his ideas outrageously radical and far too sympathetic to "primitives."
Making a movie from a book entails a great deal of condensation and restructuring. A two-hour film simply doesn't have the time to delve into subplots, or develop characters to the same extent a novel can. Many characters have to be axed, or their functions must be combined into a single character. Often the conventions of a novel don't translate well into film.
Thus, many aspects of Burroughs' novel were changed: the mode of Carter's translation to Mars was altered to suit modern technological sensibilities; a new major character was added (pulled from a subsequent book in the series); even the characters' attire was altered—if filmed as originally written, the movie would have drawn an NC-17 rating. Did I mention naked ladies?
But perhaps the biggest change of all was the character of Dejah Thoris. As described in the novel, "She was as destitute of clothes as the green Martians who accompanied her; indeed, save for her highly wrought ornaments she was entirely naked, nor could any apparel have enhanced the beauty of her perfect and symmetrical figure." Symmetrical?
Burroughs' Dejah Thoris was the typical damsel in distress. When they first met, she was depicted as the haughty, condescending daughter of a nobleman, though somehow even this endeared her to Carter.
John Carter's Dejah Thoris is thoroughly modern, recast in the mold of Princess Leia. She's the Martian scientist on the verge of a technological breakthrough that would save her planet, only to be sabotaged by the villains. She's a top-notch sword fighter, wears more armor than Carter and could probably whoop him in a fair fight (his great Earthly strength is a major plot point). She's a scholar who can read ancient languages. When she's ultimately forced into cheesecake mode, she disdains it.
Even the underlying theme of the novel and the motivation for Carter and Dejah Thoris to meet—the deteriorating Martian biosphere—is discarded. Instead they are brought together when she flees a forced marriage to the villain who threatens to enslave all Mars.
In short, the changes with Dejah Thoris directly reflect the changed role of women in society a century after the novel was published. Today many top scientists, CEOs and politicians are women. Women serve in the military alongside men, and in workplaces everywhere else. Since 2000 women have outnumbered men in college 57-43%. Women still have not attained true equality, though the college numbers indicate that women will eventually to catch up.
Yet a hundred years after Under the Moons of Mars was published we still have politicians like Rick Santorum whose attitudes toward women seem to be even more antiquated than Edgar Rice Burroughs'. Santorum rails against birth control and abortion and women in the military; he seems intent on returning women to the chattel status that John Carter's Dejah Thoris fled. Women are not dainty, fragile princesses who must be coddled and simultaneously blamed for inciting men to lust.
Whether or not John Carter enjoys box office success, it's another clear reflection that in popular culture and among the young the issue of women's equality and their right to decide their own fate has been decided. And that's not just Hollywood propaganda. Women outnumber men in the voting age population, and they may well decide the election this fall.
It's just a matter of time until people like Santorum, Rush Limbaugh, the pope and the ayatollahs give up the ghost and give women their due.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
So...this happened today...
Nasdaq Closes Above 3000
First time since December of 2000. But what about the Dow?
13177.68, which is a gain of 218 points-its highest level since May 2008.
Yeah, Obama's a socialist who's destroying free enterprise and creating an air of uncertainty, alright...somebody stop him...Quick!
First time since December of 2000. But what about the Dow?
13177.68, which is a gain of 218 points-its highest level since May 2008.
Yeah, Obama's a socialist who's destroying free enterprise and creating an air of uncertainty, alright...somebody stop him...Quick!
Faces of Change: Emily's Health Care Story
And this would be how it works and why it is beneficial to our country...
A Bookend
A nice bookend to my post below is this recent article.
The report by six federal agencies was released Monday on the first anniversary of a speech by President Obama in which he pledged to reduce U.S. dependence on oil imports by one-third in about a decade. According to the study, the United States reduced net imports of crude oil last year by 10 percent, or 1 million barrels a day. The United States now imports 45 percent of its petroleum, down from 57 percent in 2008, and is on track to meet Obama's long-term goal, the administration maintains.
How have we accomplished this?
Imports have fallen, in part, because domestic oil and gas production has increased in recent years. U.S. crude oil production increased by an estimated 120,000 barrels a day last year from 2010, the report says. Current production, about 5.6 million barrels a day, is the highest since 2003.
So, most of the caterwauling about "Drill Baby Drill" is (as always) patently false. We already are.
And prices have gone up...gee, what a shock...
The report by six federal agencies was released Monday on the first anniversary of a speech by President Obama in which he pledged to reduce U.S. dependence on oil imports by one-third in about a decade. According to the study, the United States reduced net imports of crude oil last year by 10 percent, or 1 million barrels a day. The United States now imports 45 percent of its petroleum, down from 57 percent in 2008, and is on track to meet Obama's long-term goal, the administration maintains.
How have we accomplished this?
Imports have fallen, in part, because domestic oil and gas production has increased in recent years. U.S. crude oil production increased by an estimated 120,000 barrels a day last year from 2010, the report says. Current production, about 5.6 million barrels a day, is the highest since 2003.
So, most of the caterwauling about "Drill Baby Drill" is (as always) patently false. We already are.
And prices have gone up...gee, what a shock...
The Usual Suspects
I've pretty much had it with people blaming the president for high gas prices. First of all, he can't really control what happens in the Middle East, a major factor in the price hike. Second, drilling more oil here simply means that more oil will get sold to China and India, not us. US imports of oil have declined from 11 billion barrels a day in 2009 to 8 billion barrels a day at the end of 2011. Simply put, we aren't using as much. Remember that we are a net fuel exporter now for the first time in decades and that simple fact still hasn't changed the price of a gallon of gas.
Add in the fact that the number of rigs in U.S. oil fields has more than quadrupled in the past three years to 1,272, according to the Baker Hughes rig count. Including those in natural gas fields, the United States now has more rigs at work than the entire rest of the world and guess what? Prices are still high.
Why?
As Dennis Kelleher points out below, a big reason is the speculators...as always....
That graphic says it all...In 2002, 89 percent of crude oil training was commercial with 11 percent non-commercial. Now crude oil trading is 63 percent non-commercial and 37 percent commercial. What was the price of a barrel of oil in 2002?
$31.
Now?
$106.
Obviously, there are other factors to consider but this is the one that isn't talked about much because these are the same fucking people that got us into trouble in the collapse of 2008.
Add in the fact that the number of rigs in U.S. oil fields has more than quadrupled in the past three years to 1,272, according to the Baker Hughes rig count. Including those in natural gas fields, the United States now has more rigs at work than the entire rest of the world and guess what? Prices are still high.
Why?
As Dennis Kelleher points out below, a big reason is the speculators...as always....
$31.
Now?
$106.
Obviously, there are other factors to consider but this is the one that isn't talked about much because these are the same fucking people that got us into trouble in the collapse of 2008.
Monday, March 12, 2012
Steve Jobs: Visionary, Imitator or Roadblock to Innovation?
Since Steve Jobs' death there have been many paeans to his genius, with many books and movies dedicated to his memory. There's no doubt that he accomplished a great deal, but his true genius wasn't so much as a technologist, but as a marketeer.
Not so long ago people laughed at the very idea of a tablet computer. Who would want one? It's too big compared to a cell phone, it doesn't have a keyboard so it's inferior to a laptop, it doesn't have enough processing horsepower to do "real" work, etc., etc.
But when Steve Jobs "invented" the iPad everything changed. Just the other week everyone was breathlessly awaiting the arrival of the third incarnation of the iPad. But did Steve Jobs and Apple really invent the tablet computer? Nope. Not even close.
It's an issue because Apple is suing other tablet manufacturers like Samsung for patent infringement. Apple is claiming that the Samsung device is a copy of the iPad, in part because it has round corners. Sorry, Apple, but you didn't invent round corners, or even the iPad's form-factor. Take a look at this video from Star Trek: The Next Generation's season 6 (circa 1992): Picard is holding what looks suspiciously like an iPad. The device is actually called a PADD (Personal Access Display Device). And Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey has another iPad precursor as well.
An article in the New York Times about Roger Fidler, a former Knight-Ridder think tank honcho, describes how Fidler designed an electronic newspaper in 1994. Fidler's group made a video in 1994 depicting how such a tablet computer would work. It pretty much looks like an iPad, only with a bigger screen and a stylus for input. Because Fidler's group worked for newspaper, they had no hardware or software development infrastructure so their ideas went nowhere. Except, it turns out, to Apple, who happened to be right next door.
Bill Gates had been pushing tablet computers for more than a decade, and everyone just laughed at him. We've seen those tablets running versions of Windows on futuristic TV shows like 24, though real people never seemed to own them. But in reality, ruggedized tablets with touch screens have been use in warehouses for many years to read RFID tags and maintain inventories. In the beginning everyone also laughed at Gates for pushing CDs as a computer storage medium.
The Amazon Kindle came out years before the iPad, and it had pretty decent success considering its limitations. It showed Jobs that the market was there for a table if it could be small and powerful enough: Jobs knew he could eat Jeff Bezos' lunch if he could make a general-purpose tablet that wasn't limited to reading e-books.
Apple has made a lot of cool stuff. But almost everything that makes the iPad possible was invented by someone else. Does Apple hold all the patents on Gorilla Glass? High-resolution LCD displays? Capacitive multi-touch screens? Low-power microelectronics? Flash memory? High-density batteries? Nope. Almost every piece of hardware in the iPad was invented by someone else. And the software is a clear evolution of everything that has gone before. Apple takes other people's work, puts it in a nice clean package and has it assembled by FoxConn in China. In fact, most of the patents Apple holds are on design and software, patents that the US Patent and Trademark office would have flatly rejected thirty years ago. And many of Apple's patents are either based on prior art (such as Fidler's work), or are blatantly obvious and therefore not patentable.
The iPad isn't the first idea that Jobs borrowed from someone else. Touch screens were in use for general computing at the University of Illinois in the early 1970s. Apple didn't make the first personal computer; the Altair 8800 and IBM 5100 came years before. The graphical user interface and the mouse, made popular on the Macintosh, were invented by Xeroc PARC. The Macintosh's key innovation was to make the hardware as cheap as possible while charging a premium price. The iPod was not the first MP3 player; it was introduced in 2001, four or five years after the first portable digital music players came out. Apple has enjoyed great success with the iPhone, but didn't invent the cell phone, or the touch-screen cell phone, or even the smart phone. Apple's OS X is based on BSD and UNIX, an operating system developed by Bell Labs in the 1970s, because the original Mac OS was pitifully inadequate for real multitasking.
Jobs wasn't a font of new ideas. He was good at recognizing the potential of technology, synthesizing disparate elements and refining the technology, then convincing people it was fabulous and getting them to pay top dollar for it. Apple was also unafraid to throw out bad or outdated products and ideas. They've often dropped entire hardware and software product lines to suit their needs, switching processors and operating systems on Apple products at least four times (from the 6502 in the Apple ][, to the 68000 in the Lisa and Mac, to the PowerPC, and finally the Intel platform). Microsoft Windows has been running on the Intel platform since its inception, and can still run MSDOS programs written more than 25 years ago. That has left Windows with a lot of clunky legacy code.
With its patent lawsuits—and similar lawsuits by other patent trolls—Apple has been working to stifle innovation and prevent exactly the type of synthesis and refinement that Jobs practiced his entire life. In effect, Apple's rationale for suing Samsung over the Galaxy tablet amounts to "we stole the idea fair and square."
I would venture to say that Apple's primary product is not its hardware, but an air of preening, smug superiority, as evidenced by the John Hodgman/Justin Long Mac/PC ads and the "If you don't have an iPad, well, you don't have an iPad" ad campaign.
It is rather sad and ironic that the 2011 Jobs would have done everything in his power to crush the 1976 Jobs and prevent him from ever getting a start.
Not so long ago people laughed at the very idea of a tablet computer. Who would want one? It's too big compared to a cell phone, it doesn't have a keyboard so it's inferior to a laptop, it doesn't have enough processing horsepower to do "real" work, etc., etc.
But when Steve Jobs "invented" the iPad everything changed. Just the other week everyone was breathlessly awaiting the arrival of the third incarnation of the iPad. But did Steve Jobs and Apple really invent the tablet computer? Nope. Not even close.
It's an issue because Apple is suing other tablet manufacturers like Samsung for patent infringement. Apple is claiming that the Samsung device is a copy of the iPad, in part because it has round corners. Sorry, Apple, but you didn't invent round corners, or even the iPad's form-factor. Take a look at this video from Star Trek: The Next Generation's season 6 (circa 1992): Picard is holding what looks suspiciously like an iPad. The device is actually called a PADD (Personal Access Display Device). And Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey has another iPad precursor as well.
An article in the New York Times about Roger Fidler, a former Knight-Ridder think tank honcho, describes how Fidler designed an electronic newspaper in 1994. Fidler's group made a video in 1994 depicting how such a tablet computer would work. It pretty much looks like an iPad, only with a bigger screen and a stylus for input. Because Fidler's group worked for newspaper, they had no hardware or software development infrastructure so their ideas went nowhere. Except, it turns out, to Apple, who happened to be right next door.
Bill Gates had been pushing tablet computers for more than a decade, and everyone just laughed at him. We've seen those tablets running versions of Windows on futuristic TV shows like 24, though real people never seemed to own them. But in reality, ruggedized tablets with touch screens have been use in warehouses for many years to read RFID tags and maintain inventories. In the beginning everyone also laughed at Gates for pushing CDs as a computer storage medium.
The Amazon Kindle came out years before the iPad, and it had pretty decent success considering its limitations. It showed Jobs that the market was there for a table if it could be small and powerful enough: Jobs knew he could eat Jeff Bezos' lunch if he could make a general-purpose tablet that wasn't limited to reading e-books.
Apple has made a lot of cool stuff. But almost everything that makes the iPad possible was invented by someone else. Does Apple hold all the patents on Gorilla Glass? High-resolution LCD displays? Capacitive multi-touch screens? Low-power microelectronics? Flash memory? High-density batteries? Nope. Almost every piece of hardware in the iPad was invented by someone else. And the software is a clear evolution of everything that has gone before. Apple takes other people's work, puts it in a nice clean package and has it assembled by FoxConn in China. In fact, most of the patents Apple holds are on design and software, patents that the US Patent and Trademark office would have flatly rejected thirty years ago. And many of Apple's patents are either based on prior art (such as Fidler's work), or are blatantly obvious and therefore not patentable.
The iPad isn't the first idea that Jobs borrowed from someone else. Touch screens were in use for general computing at the University of Illinois in the early 1970s. Apple didn't make the first personal computer; the Altair 8800 and IBM 5100 came years before. The graphical user interface and the mouse, made popular on the Macintosh, were invented by Xeroc PARC. The Macintosh's key innovation was to make the hardware as cheap as possible while charging a premium price. The iPod was not the first MP3 player; it was introduced in 2001, four or five years after the first portable digital music players came out. Apple has enjoyed great success with the iPhone, but didn't invent the cell phone, or the touch-screen cell phone, or even the smart phone. Apple's OS X is based on BSD and UNIX, an operating system developed by Bell Labs in the 1970s, because the original Mac OS was pitifully inadequate for real multitasking.
Jobs wasn't a font of new ideas. He was good at recognizing the potential of technology, synthesizing disparate elements and refining the technology, then convincing people it was fabulous and getting them to pay top dollar for it. Apple was also unafraid to throw out bad or outdated products and ideas. They've often dropped entire hardware and software product lines to suit their needs, switching processors and operating systems on Apple products at least four times (from the 6502 in the Apple ][, to the 68000 in the Lisa and Mac, to the PowerPC, and finally the Intel platform). Microsoft Windows has been running on the Intel platform since its inception, and can still run MSDOS programs written more than 25 years ago. That has left Windows with a lot of clunky legacy code.
With its patent lawsuits—and similar lawsuits by other patent trolls—Apple has been working to stifle innovation and prevent exactly the type of synthesis and refinement that Jobs practiced his entire life. In effect, Apple's rationale for suing Samsung over the Galaxy tablet amounts to "we stole the idea fair and square."
I would venture to say that Apple's primary product is not its hardware, but an air of preening, smug superiority, as evidenced by the John Hodgman/Justin Long Mac/PC ads and the "If you don't have an iPad, well, you don't have an iPad" ad campaign.
It is rather sad and ironic that the 2011 Jobs would have done everything in his power to crush the 1976 Jobs and prevent him from ever getting a start.
Sunday, March 11, 2012
If you want people to respect your ideas, get better ideas.
Every so often, Kirk Cameron pops up from the "Where are they now?" category and makes derogatory comments about homosexuals. He did this again recently, calling homosexuality "unnatural and detrimental to civilization." With the RushSlut Flap in full swing, he got a little extra attention and, as most right wingers do, played the victim card in the EXACT same way in they bitch about and foam at the mouth.
Ironic that the "underpinning of Western civilization for 2,000 years" also includes the fear, anger, hate, and ignorance of a male dominated religious and moral system but let's set that aside for a moment and focus on the free speech side of his comment because I get the same rip about tolerance.John Scalzi sums it up quite well.
To put it another way: The First Amendment guarantees a right to speech. It does not guarantee a right to respect. As I am fond of saying, if you want people to respect your ideas, get better ideas.
Amen.
If you are going to run your mouth and be an intolerant d bag, then don't whine about a word sack of hammers busting you across the chops, bitch.
Tolerance of intolerance is cowardice.
I should be able to express moral views on social issues, especially those that have been the underpinning of Western civilization for 2,000 years — without being slandered, accused of hate speech, and told from those who preach ‘tolerance’ that I need to either bend my beliefs to their moral standards or be silent when I’m in the public square.
Ironic that the "underpinning of Western civilization for 2,000 years" also includes the fear, anger, hate, and ignorance of a male dominated religious and moral system but let's set that aside for a moment and focus on the free speech side of his comment because I get the same rip about tolerance.John Scalzi sums it up quite well.
Well, Kirk Cameron, here’s the thing. You are correct when you say you should be able to express your moral views on social issues, and as a staunch defender of the First Amendment, I will defend to the death your right to say whatever ridiculous, ignorant and bigoted thing that has been fermenting in that cracked clay pot you call a brain pan. But the First Amendment also means that when you say such things, other people have the a right to mock you and the silly, stupid words that have dribbled out of your skull through that word hole above your chin. If you call someone “unnatural,” they might call you an “asshole.” That’s the deal.
To put it another way: The First Amendment guarantees a right to speech. It does not guarantee a right to respect. As I am fond of saying, if you want people to respect your ideas, get better ideas.
Amen.
If you are going to run your mouth and be an intolerant d bag, then don't whine about a word sack of hammers busting you across the chops, bitch.
Tolerance of intolerance is cowardice.
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Not In Their Best Interests
A recent piece by Alexandra Pelosi (daughter of Nancy) doesn't really do much to relieve my somewhat permanent state of confusion as to why people in deep red states go against their best interest and vote Republican. In fact, she sort of makes me more perplexed.
Seriously, WTF???
It gets worse.
In a state that wants to repeal "Obamacare," Mississippi leads the nation in a number of health care problems. It has the highest rate of heart disease and the second highest rate of diabetes in the country. Mississippi's cardiovascular disease mortality rate is the highest in the nation. Some counties in Mississippi rank among third world countries when it comes to life expectancy-they have the shortest life expectancies in the nation and many Mississippi residents suffer from a lack of health care access (some counties don't even have hospitals). It is ironic that the states suing to prevent the implementation of the Affordable Care Act are the ones whose residents need it most. Still, Republicans poll best in places where healthcare is worst.
And yet they are so stubborn as to refuse the solutions that would certainly help them.
Here's another bit of irony.
So, the state whose policies are dominated by Republican politics has positively horrid statistics when it comes to education. Could it be that there are reasons other than the communist takeover of our schools that are more significant?
Ms. Pelosi offers this video as an explanation as to why the state continues to vote Republican.
Wow.
Dominated by conservative politicians, Mississippi has the lowest tax burden in the nation but ranks fourth in per capita federal aid. Mississippi is also a leader of the GOP effort to gut Medicaid but ranks first in the percentage of its Medicaid program that is funded by federal matching funds.
Seriously, WTF???
It gets worse.
In a state that wants to repeal "Obamacare," Mississippi leads the nation in a number of health care problems. It has the highest rate of heart disease and the second highest rate of diabetes in the country. Mississippi's cardiovascular disease mortality rate is the highest in the nation. Some counties in Mississippi rank among third world countries when it comes to life expectancy-they have the shortest life expectancies in the nation and many Mississippi residents suffer from a lack of health care access (some counties don't even have hospitals). It is ironic that the states suing to prevent the implementation of the Affordable Care Act are the ones whose residents need it most. Still, Republicans poll best in places where healthcare is worst.
And yet they are so stubborn as to refuse the solutions that would certainly help them.
Here's another bit of irony.
When it comes to education, adults in Mississippi have the highest rate of low literacy in the nation. On the National Assessment of Adult Literacy conducted by the U.S. Department of Education, 30 percent of adults scored "Level 1" (less than fifth-grade reading and comprehension skills). In 2011, only 21 percent of Mississippi eighth graders scored proficient in reading and 19 percent scored at least proficient in math.
So, the state whose policies are dominated by Republican politics has positively horrid statistics when it comes to education. Could it be that there are reasons other than the communist takeover of our schools that are more significant?
Ms. Pelosi offers this video as an explanation as to why the state continues to vote Republican.
Wow.
Friday, March 09, 2012
Energy Notes
An article published in today's Minneapolis paper illustrates the point I made yesterday about the Keystone XL pipeline:
As gasoline prices soar on the coasts, less expensive crude oil from Canada and North Dakota is easing the pain for Minnesotans.
The average pump price in the state, running this week around $3.60 per gallon for regular, remains 75 cents behind California, where gas has been over $4 for weeks. It's the biggest price gap between the two states since 2009, according to data from AAA.Once the pipeline is in, that Canadian oil will head to the Gulf of Mexico and from there to Asia. Which means that the people in the Midwest who have the pipeline running through their land—which will inevitably leak and foul their land and water—will get the "benefit" of paying higher gas prices.
In other energy news investigators in Ohio have determined that recent earthquakes there were in fact caused by injecting wastewater from fracking (hydraulic fracturing) into the ground. As the article notes, it's long been known that humans can cause earthquakes:
They point to recent earthquakes in the magnitude 3 and 4 range — not big enough to cause much damage, but big enough to be felt — in Arkansas, Texas, California, England, Germany and Switzerland. And in the 1960s, two Denver quakes in the 5.0 range were traced to deep injection of wastewater.Which isn't to say that we should stop all fracking. We just need to do it better. In particular, wastewater injection should be banned. Instead, the water should be decontaminated and returned to the environment safely. Yes, that'll make the gas more expensive. But shouldn't the people who make a mess be required to clean it up? Drillers should not be allowed to pass the problem on to others in the form of earthquake damage and poisons in lakes, streams and water tables that cause death and disease in humans and animals alike.
Whither Uncertainty....
Remember all that talk last year of uncertainty and how the president's policies were muddying the economy?
Yeah, that's pretty much gone to the same place as all those folks who rushed out to buy guns and ammunition after the president won in 2008.
With the Dow at nearly 13,000 and 227, 000 jobs added in the month of February (marking the 17th straight month of job gains), the uncertainty narrative has now been shown to complete hogwash. Of course, this hasn't stopped the right from doing their darnedest to show how "awful" of a job the president is doing. According to Mitt Romney, he's "destroying free enterprise!" How is that possible with the Dow at more than one and a half times what it was when he took office?
A colleague of mine recently got back from a tour of Google and, while he couldn't exactly disclose the things he saw, he assured me that what they are doing out there is so ridiculously innovative that he actually swooned (yes, he is a giant tech geek). So, again, if Barack Obama is a socialist bent on destroying innovation, how is Google able to do what it's doing?
All of this raises an interesting question. What sort of tack will the eventual GOP nominee take without sounding like they are rooting against America?
Yeah, that's pretty much gone to the same place as all those folks who rushed out to buy guns and ammunition after the president won in 2008.
With the Dow at nearly 13,000 and 227, 000 jobs added in the month of February (marking the 17th straight month of job gains), the uncertainty narrative has now been shown to complete hogwash. Of course, this hasn't stopped the right from doing their darnedest to show how "awful" of a job the president is doing. According to Mitt Romney, he's "destroying free enterprise!" How is that possible with the Dow at more than one and a half times what it was when he took office?
A colleague of mine recently got back from a tour of Google and, while he couldn't exactly disclose the things he saw, he assured me that what they are doing out there is so ridiculously innovative that he actually swooned (yes, he is a giant tech geek). So, again, if Barack Obama is a socialist bent on destroying innovation, how is Google able to do what it's doing?
All of this raises an interesting question. What sort of tack will the eventual GOP nominee take without sounding like they are rooting against America?
Thursday, March 08, 2012
Who's Really Pushing for Higher Gas Prices?
Republican candidates for president are making their quadrennial squawk about gas prices again. Their line is that President Obama wants high gas prices to "wean" us off oil. As the president asked in a press conference, does it really make sense for him to want prices to go up during an election? Or is it really the Republicans who are forcing gas prices higher by pushing for two more wars in the Middle East?
The fact is, domestic oil and gas production is the highest it's been in ten years. Obama has opened up more off-shore oil production, even after the disaster in the Gulf showed how bad it can be. The president was also on track to approve the Keystone XL pipeline after its route was corrected, but Republicans forced a showdown simply to make him look bad. Even after it's approved, it'll be years before any oil comes through, and most of that oil is heading straight for China. The Canadian company building Keystone XL wants an international market for its oil; it's not happy with the current state of affairs: it's stuck selling its crude to the Midwestern US for lower prices.
The price of gas goes up when there's low supply, high demand or uncertainty about oil producers. We've got a good supply and demand is moderate. Concern over supply is the main cause of high gas prices today.
Why are people concerned? The threat of war in the Middle East. Everyone's worried Iran is building the bomb. Iran has threatened to block the Straits of Hormuz. All the Republicans at AIPAC were egging Israel on to preemptively bomb Iran, and bragging about how many aircraft carriers they would send to the Persian Gulf. John McCain and other Republicans are demanding we immediately bomb Syria.
If anyone wants the price of gas to go up, it's Republican politicians and their backers in the oil business. They profit both ways: it makes Obama look bad, and it puts billions more dollars in their coffers. Every time gas prices hit a peak due to concerns in the Middle East, oil companies post record profits without having to pump a single barrel more. It makes you wonder if they donate money to Republicans specifically to have them beat the drums of war to drive up gas prices.
You'd think that Republicans would have learned their lessons from the war in Iraq and their dealings with North Korea. A war with Iran would make Bush's disaster in Iraq look like a cakewalk. The more bellicose we are toward Iran the more urgently they feel they need that nuclear deterrent. And higher gas prices are the main fallout in the meantime.
By using foreign policy in the Middle East as a political football to unseat the president Republican candidates are harming the long- and short-term interests of the United States. And they show how utterly unqualified they are to run this country.
The fact is, domestic oil and gas production is the highest it's been in ten years. Obama has opened up more off-shore oil production, even after the disaster in the Gulf showed how bad it can be. The president was also on track to approve the Keystone XL pipeline after its route was corrected, but Republicans forced a showdown simply to make him look bad. Even after it's approved, it'll be years before any oil comes through, and most of that oil is heading straight for China. The Canadian company building Keystone XL wants an international market for its oil; it's not happy with the current state of affairs: it's stuck selling its crude to the Midwestern US for lower prices.
The price of gas goes up when there's low supply, high demand or uncertainty about oil producers. We've got a good supply and demand is moderate. Concern over supply is the main cause of high gas prices today.
Why are people concerned? The threat of war in the Middle East. Everyone's worried Iran is building the bomb. Iran has threatened to block the Straits of Hormuz. All the Republicans at AIPAC were egging Israel on to preemptively bomb Iran, and bragging about how many aircraft carriers they would send to the Persian Gulf. John McCain and other Republicans are demanding we immediately bomb Syria.
If anyone wants the price of gas to go up, it's Republican politicians and their backers in the oil business. They profit both ways: it makes Obama look bad, and it puts billions more dollars in their coffers. Every time gas prices hit a peak due to concerns in the Middle East, oil companies post record profits without having to pump a single barrel more. It makes you wonder if they donate money to Republicans specifically to have them beat the drums of war to drive up gas prices.
You'd think that Republicans would have learned their lessons from the war in Iraq and their dealings with North Korea. A war with Iran would make Bush's disaster in Iraq look like a cakewalk. The more bellicose we are toward Iran the more urgently they feel they need that nuclear deterrent. And higher gas prices are the main fallout in the meantime.
By using foreign policy in the Middle East as a political football to unseat the president Republican candidates are harming the long- and short-term interests of the United States. And they show how utterly unqualified they are to run this country.
Wednesday, March 07, 2012
Super Tuesday Post Mortem
Well, Mittens hasn't sewn it all up after all, folks. As I predicted, the waters are even muddier.
The problem is the southern, deep red voter. They just don't like or trust Romney. First, he's a Mormon and I don't think they like that at all. Second, and most important, they don't think he's a "real" conservative. Honestly, I don't think he is either. He's saying the things that he imagines a conservative would say but he doesn't really believe them.
That's why Rick Santorum is hanging around. He believes the things he says which I suppose in some ways makes him more frightening. Isn't it interesting that he has been outspent a zillion to one and yet Romney still can't put him away? I guess having all the money in the world doesn't really mean anything.
Newt Gingrich's speech last night should be time capsuled and remembered for being a fine example when someone is wondering in the future about the psychological makeup of right wing bloggers and commenters (see: Titanic Hubris). Good Lord...
And why is Ron Paul still in the race? He hasn't won a state yet and his message isn't really resonating with voters.
The next few contests are going to be a drag for Romney. Kansas is this Saturday. Alabama, Mississippi, and Missouri are all next week. If Santorum wins them all, what then?
The problem is the southern, deep red voter. They just don't like or trust Romney. First, he's a Mormon and I don't think they like that at all. Second, and most important, they don't think he's a "real" conservative. Honestly, I don't think he is either. He's saying the things that he imagines a conservative would say but he doesn't really believe them.
That's why Rick Santorum is hanging around. He believes the things he says which I suppose in some ways makes him more frightening. Isn't it interesting that he has been outspent a zillion to one and yet Romney still can't put him away? I guess having all the money in the world doesn't really mean anything.
Newt Gingrich's speech last night should be time capsuled and remembered for being a fine example when someone is wondering in the future about the psychological makeup of right wing bloggers and commenters (see: Titanic Hubris). Good Lord...
And why is Ron Paul still in the race? He hasn't won a state yet and his message isn't really resonating with voters.
The next few contests are going to be a drag for Romney. Kansas is this Saturday. Alabama, Mississippi, and Missouri are all next week. If Santorum wins them all, what then?
Tuesday, March 06, 2012
It Always Takes A Few Dead Bodies
I'm happy to report that Anoka-Hennepin schools have reversed their awful bullying policy and now allow homosexuality to be talked about openly by resolving the pending litigation and civil rights issues. I'm not at all happy that, as is usually the case, it took dead bodies to effect any sort of change.
I may be in a different district than Anoka-Hennepin but when I became a teacher, the well being of all children became my responsibility. Those kids, just like the ones I teach, were my kids. I will always feel that loss every single day for the rest of my life. Anyone who seeks to undermine the well being of a student anywhere near my back yard is going to get me up their fucking ass morning, noon, and night until they back off and keep their views to themselves.
How it took this long is a fine example of what happens when we allow bigots and ignorant homophobes to set policy. More often than not, they simply don't think and this is the kind of bullshit that happens. People who take that extra step into action (based on their ignorant bias) should be immediately held legally accountable for their actions. Honestly, they should be put in fucking prison for civil rights violations and not one of those country club jails...FEDERAL pound me in the ass prison.
It worked in the 60s and it would damn well work now.
I may be in a different district than Anoka-Hennepin but when I became a teacher, the well being of all children became my responsibility. Those kids, just like the ones I teach, were my kids. I will always feel that loss every single day for the rest of my life. Anyone who seeks to undermine the well being of a student anywhere near my back yard is going to get me up their fucking ass morning, noon, and night until they back off and keep their views to themselves.
How it took this long is a fine example of what happens when we allow bigots and ignorant homophobes to set policy. More often than not, they simply don't think and this is the kind of bullshit that happens. People who take that extra step into action (based on their ignorant bias) should be immediately held legally accountable for their actions. Honestly, they should be put in fucking prison for civil rights violations and not one of those country club jails...FEDERAL pound me in the ass prison.
It worked in the 60s and it would damn well work now.
Monday, March 05, 2012
Super Tuesday Predictions and Prognostications
Tomorrow, GOP voters will go to the polls in Alaska, Idaho, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Vermont, and Virginia in what has become known as Super Tuesday. The current delegate count stands at 173 for Romney, 74 for Santorum, 37 for Paul, and 33 for Gingrich. 1144 delegates are needed to secure the nomination.
From the simple standpoint of math, Super Tuesday won't get any of the candidate even halfway to 1144. But decisive victories in many key states would mean that the air of inevitability would certainly be around said candidate. There's only one problem with this possible outcome.
It ain't gonna happen. In fact, the clear as mud GOP nominating contest will reach a new level of brown after Tuesday night. In looking at the states listed above, one can easily see Santorum winning 2 or 3 of them like Tennessee, Oklahoma, and/or North Dakota. Gingrich is going to win Georgia. Ron Paul could win Alaska. Romney will win Massachusetts, Vermont and Virginia. To me, it looks like everything is going to be split.
Ohio is the one to watch tomorrow night. Both Romney and Santorum are in a statistical tie there and the race could go either way. Yet even if Santorum wins the popular vote, he still may have to split delegates with Romney which will add to the mud.
So, regardless of the outcome, the primary season is going to drag on. And, with many Midwestern and Southern states like Kansas, Missouri, and Mississippi on the calendar, Super Tuesday victories for Romney won't mean much at all.
From the simple standpoint of math, Super Tuesday won't get any of the candidate even halfway to 1144. But decisive victories in many key states would mean that the air of inevitability would certainly be around said candidate. There's only one problem with this possible outcome.
It ain't gonna happen. In fact, the clear as mud GOP nominating contest will reach a new level of brown after Tuesday night. In looking at the states listed above, one can easily see Santorum winning 2 or 3 of them like Tennessee, Oklahoma, and/or North Dakota. Gingrich is going to win Georgia. Ron Paul could win Alaska. Romney will win Massachusetts, Vermont and Virginia. To me, it looks like everything is going to be split.
Ohio is the one to watch tomorrow night. Both Romney and Santorum are in a statistical tie there and the race could go either way. Yet even if Santorum wins the popular vote, he still may have to split delegates with Romney which will add to the mud.
So, regardless of the outcome, the primary season is going to drag on. And, with many Midwestern and Southern states like Kansas, Missouri, and Mississippi on the calendar, Super Tuesday victories for Romney won't mean much at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)