The president announced his plans today for addressing the issue of gun violence. Flanked by children who wrote in to the president concerned about their safety and with family members of the victims of the Newtown tragedy in the audience, he released this.
I'll get into what I think about his four main action items for Congress in a minute but let's talk about the 23 executive orders that he issued today. They are:
1. Issue a presidential memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.
3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
4. Direct the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.
6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
8. "Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
9. Issue a presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.
11. Nominate an ATF director.
12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.
13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.
14. Issue a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.
15. Direct the attorney general to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.
16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.
18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.
20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.
22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.
Holy crap...this shit just got real. The media is largely ignoring this list and saying that the stuff with the serious teeth need Congressional approval. I disagree. If we started with this list, we'd start to make a dent, particularly with the issue of mental health. I think we are going to see a serious improvement in how view and handle mental health in this country by the end of the president's second term. That is a very, very good thing.
The other items strengthen existing laws already on the books (something the gun lobby has been calling for) so you wouldn't think they would complain but they are (natch!). Oh well. They can gripe all they want but the rest of us are moving on without them.
As for the the big ticket items, here's what I'd do. Put items 1, 3 and 4 in one bill and dare the House GOP to vote against it. All three of these items have the support of 80-90 percent of Americans. Background checks are common for all sorts of things, not just guns. We can increase school safety in a number of ways, included police officers or armed security. Increasing access to mental health services is universally supported.
Item #2 is pointless. Banning guns or ammunition won't do anything. He would have been better suited here to adopt Israel's gun registration and training process. We can't restrict the guns but we can increase the rigor involved in who gets to carry one. Remember, it's not the guns, it's the people and there are many that should not have guns. Some of this will be solved with the increase background checks to that is a good thing.
Today was a giant step forward and the president put it back to us to get it done. He admitted that he can't do this alone so are we going to help him?
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
HP Blunders On
After years of scandals HP announced that its sophomore CEO will receive a $15 million salary after the company lost $13 billion for fiscal 2012 and shares have lost half their value, falling from $26.61 to $13.85. Who is that CEO? Meg Whitman of eBay fame, the same woman who spent $160 million in a failed bid for governor of California against Jerry Brown.
The details of her compensation:
For the second year in a row, she will receive just $1 in salary. She will also receive a $1.7 million bonus and about $220,000 worth of perks, almost all of that related to use of company airplanes.
The bulk of her pay, though, is tied to the company's performance. She is to receive $7 million in stock awards and $6.4 million in option awards. Options are the right to buy shares in the future at the price they're trading at when the options are granted, so they're worth something only if the shares go up.She sounds so noble, taking only $1 in salary, doesn't she? That $1.7 million will just barely cover her incidental expenses like panty hose and chewing gum, and the stock and options are just one big gamble, right?
But it's all a scam to avoid paying taxes. Only the $1 dollar and the bonus will be taxed at the new 39.6% rate. The vast majority of her income will be taxed at the new 20% capital gains tax rate (up from the 15% rate) when she sells the stock, as well as allowing her to completely avoid any Social Security and Medicare taxes on that income.
It's crazy that CEOs like Whitman can do such a terrible job and yet make so much money while paying almost nothing in taxes. And this is after the tax deal that Republicans fought so bitterly: it really puts the lie to the idea that the president is waging class warfare.
My predictions: to make the stock price go up Whitman will fire tens of thousands employees to convince Wall Street analysts that she's a tough leader. Then she'll announce negotiations with an Asian firm (probably Chinese) to sell HP's PC business to make the stock will go up again. Then Whitman will cash in big time with another fabulous golden parachute, and pay next to nothing in taxes on the windfall.
Why do I think this? It's happened before, when IBM sold its PC division to Lenovo in 2004. According to the former CEO, IBM chose Lenovo over other suitors such as Dell to curry favor with the Chinese government.
Even though HP is ostensibly an American company, the components in their computers are all manufactured in China or Asia. It boggles the mind that American capitalists have handed over the manufacture of all our computer and Internet infrastructure to Communist China, the very people who are most likely to engage in cyberwarfare against us.
It's not how Marx thought it would go down, but capitalism is ultimately dooming itself through its own greed.
Who Will Take The Promise?
Later this morning, President Obama will deliver his plans on gun violence. I'll be putting up a post this afternoon on what was said. In the meantime, I've got something on my mind regarding the subject of guns.
The relatives of the victims of the Sandy Hook domestic terrorist attack have spent the last several weeks grieving and trying to figure out what to do with the massive hole in their life.
This is an excellent start. But that's all it is...a start.
I look at the questions on this list and then I think about the gun lobby and their supporters. The inevitable and quickly realized conclusion is that these questions will be received in a manner similar to Alex Jones' mouth foam on Piers Morgan last week. When I think of this likely reaction and then think about the people running out to buy the same gun that killed all those children, it's clear that more is going to have to be done.
The people that are running the Sandy Hook Promise and other organizations like it need to understand that the gun lobby are a bunch of greedy fucking scumbags. And the only way to deal with greedy fucking scumbags is hit them where it hurts: their money. In fact, the people trying to do something about the FUBAR that are our nation's gun laws already start with an advantage: they don't give a shit about money. Their end goal is protection and safety, not profit. They are motivated by the love of other people who they never EVER want to see go through what they are going through now.
So, we have to start with the dissemination of a simple fact. Groups like the NRA and other gun rights groups don't give a shit about "freedom from tyranny." That's the line they feed to sate the paranoids (and man, do they lap it up). They want to sell guns and they play hardball to make sure they are going to get to keep doing it. They've already made millions off of the bullet ridden bodies of 6 and 7 year olds and they want the gravy train to keep running smoothly. So, hardball statements like this need to be repeated over an over again.
They make money off of dead children, black presidents, fear, and paranoia.
If they don't like hearing this, they can fuck right off. They are the ones that set the tone for this debate so they deserve to get it back tenfold.
Now, many on the left make the error of thinking the next step means bans on guns or high capacity magazines. This is a giant mistake and plays right into their hands....feeding their paranoid delusions and pathological hatred of government. Instead, what they need to do (in addition to the things I listed recently) is start showing photos of dead children who have been murdered with military grade weapons. Go on talk shows, the news, the internet...wherever...and show what a dystopic present looks like. People don't really know how bad it is and they need something visual to truly understand how awful these weapons are and what they can do. The problem with most American is that they are shielded from the realities of the world due to "good taste." Well, the gun lobby doesn't have good taste so it's time to take that advantage away. This is a street fight, not the debate club.
Some of the victims families may balk at this or even think I'm way out of line. Obviously, this is something they really need to think through. Do they really want to win this? If so, it's time to break the cocoon of good manners and let reality smack people upside the head. With a cocoon in place, the gun folks are able to create an imaginary villain on which they can project a paranoid fear. What the public needs to see is the results of the actual problem and that's going to require some tough stuff.
If some brave family decides to do this, an image will be in our minds that will never go away. None of us can forget the sight of the planes hitting the towers or the people jumping from the World Trade Center's top floors. We weren't coddled then and, since this is really is domestic terrorism, we shouldn't be coddled now. Put up one photo and start running ads and this shit is over and done with in a fucking week. Publish a list of all the Congressional representatives that support Joe Shitkicker being able to have his own private arsenal "just in case" we become monarchy again. Play the video of Alex Jones right next to the photo. Put up quotes from gun blogs along with it as well.
In terms of gun deaths, we certainly have plenty of examples to make great visuals don't we? We will likely have more as this process plays out. Let's show people just exactly what the fuck happens when someone gets shot with a Bushmaster and other weapons like it. People need to be so sickened by what military grade guns can do that they won't want to buy them anymore. Demand will fall off, companies that make money selling weapons that ordinary people shouldn't own...of off fear and dead bodies...will change their business model or go bust, and the free market will sort it all out. Unless they are trained and regularly checked out, make the people that own these weapons about as socially acceptable as child molesters.
If they families of the Sandy Hook victims or any other past shooting spree truly want something done, this is where they have to go. I liken it to the highly graphic drunk driving videos produced by MADD. It has to be that in your face and it absolutely has to be from a private, non governmental source. Having the government put this stuff out will only feed that imaginary demon the gun lobby and their supporters have created. Let's give America something real to be afraid of for a change.
That's the promise I want to see people make.
The relatives of the victims of the Sandy Hook domestic terrorist attack have spent the last several weeks grieving and trying to figure out what to do with the massive hole in their life.
This is an excellent start. But that's all it is...a start.
I look at the questions on this list and then I think about the gun lobby and their supporters. The inevitable and quickly realized conclusion is that these questions will be received in a manner similar to Alex Jones' mouth foam on Piers Morgan last week. When I think of this likely reaction and then think about the people running out to buy the same gun that killed all those children, it's clear that more is going to have to be done.
The people that are running the Sandy Hook Promise and other organizations like it need to understand that the gun lobby are a bunch of greedy fucking scumbags. And the only way to deal with greedy fucking scumbags is hit them where it hurts: their money. In fact, the people trying to do something about the FUBAR that are our nation's gun laws already start with an advantage: they don't give a shit about money. Their end goal is protection and safety, not profit. They are motivated by the love of other people who they never EVER want to see go through what they are going through now.
So, we have to start with the dissemination of a simple fact. Groups like the NRA and other gun rights groups don't give a shit about "freedom from tyranny." That's the line they feed to sate the paranoids (and man, do they lap it up). They want to sell guns and they play hardball to make sure they are going to get to keep doing it. They've already made millions off of the bullet ridden bodies of 6 and 7 year olds and they want the gravy train to keep running smoothly. So, hardball statements like this need to be repeated over an over again.
They make money off of dead children, black presidents, fear, and paranoia.
If they don't like hearing this, they can fuck right off. They are the ones that set the tone for this debate so they deserve to get it back tenfold.
Now, many on the left make the error of thinking the next step means bans on guns or high capacity magazines. This is a giant mistake and plays right into their hands....feeding their paranoid delusions and pathological hatred of government. Instead, what they need to do (in addition to the things I listed recently) is start showing photos of dead children who have been murdered with military grade weapons. Go on talk shows, the news, the internet...wherever...and show what a dystopic present looks like. People don't really know how bad it is and they need something visual to truly understand how awful these weapons are and what they can do. The problem with most American is that they are shielded from the realities of the world due to "good taste." Well, the gun lobby doesn't have good taste so it's time to take that advantage away. This is a street fight, not the debate club.
Some of the victims families may balk at this or even think I'm way out of line. Obviously, this is something they really need to think through. Do they really want to win this? If so, it's time to break the cocoon of good manners and let reality smack people upside the head. With a cocoon in place, the gun folks are able to create an imaginary villain on which they can project a paranoid fear. What the public needs to see is the results of the actual problem and that's going to require some tough stuff.
If some brave family decides to do this, an image will be in our minds that will never go away. None of us can forget the sight of the planes hitting the towers or the people jumping from the World Trade Center's top floors. We weren't coddled then and, since this is really is domestic terrorism, we shouldn't be coddled now. Put up one photo and start running ads and this shit is over and done with in a fucking week. Publish a list of all the Congressional representatives that support Joe Shitkicker being able to have his own private arsenal "just in case" we become monarchy again. Play the video of Alex Jones right next to the photo. Put up quotes from gun blogs along with it as well.
In terms of gun deaths, we certainly have plenty of examples to make great visuals don't we? We will likely have more as this process plays out. Let's show people just exactly what the fuck happens when someone gets shot with a Bushmaster and other weapons like it. People need to be so sickened by what military grade guns can do that they won't want to buy them anymore. Demand will fall off, companies that make money selling weapons that ordinary people shouldn't own...of off fear and dead bodies...will change their business model or go bust, and the free market will sort it all out. Unless they are trained and regularly checked out, make the people that own these weapons about as socially acceptable as child molesters.
If they families of the Sandy Hook victims or any other past shooting spree truly want something done, this is where they have to go. I liken it to the highly graphic drunk driving videos produced by MADD. It has to be that in your face and it absolutely has to be from a private, non governmental source. Having the government put this stuff out will only feed that imaginary demon the gun lobby and their supporters have created. Let's give America something real to be afraid of for a change.
That's the promise I want to see people make.
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
As Always, Reality Fails Them
I've been holding my tongue and keyboard on the whole "Hitler took away people's guns" hysteria to see if people would realize that it is, in fact, pure fiction. Guess what? They just did.
Unfortunately for LaPierre et al., the notion that Hitler confiscated everyone’s guns is mostly bogus.
The 1938 law signed by Hitler that LaPierre mentions in his book basically does the opposite of what he says it did. “The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition,” Harcourt wrote. Meanwhile, many more categories of people, including Nazi party members, were exempted from gun ownership regulations altogether, while the legal age of purchase was lowered from 20 to 18, and permit lengths were extended from one year to three years.
This would be a great example of why I don't really want to waste much of my time anymore having discussions with people who make up their own history.
Oh, and Stalin?
“As for Stalin,” Bartov continued, “the very idea of either gun control or the freedom to bear arms would have been absurd to him. His regime used violence on a vast scale, provided arms to thugs of all descriptions, and stripped not guns but any human image from those it declared to be its enemies. And then, when it needed them, as in WWII, it took millions of men out of the Gulags, trained and armed them and sent them to fight Hitler, only to send back the few survivors into the camps if they uttered any criticism of the regime.”
So, when that crazy uncle of yours at the next dinner starts pulling the conversation into the Land of Moonbat, kindly remind everyone of what actually happened.
And suggest that someone take your uncle to see a mental health professional.
Unfortunately for LaPierre et al., the notion that Hitler confiscated everyone’s guns is mostly bogus.
The 1938 law signed by Hitler that LaPierre mentions in his book basically does the opposite of what he says it did. “The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition,” Harcourt wrote. Meanwhile, many more categories of people, including Nazi party members, were exempted from gun ownership regulations altogether, while the legal age of purchase was lowered from 20 to 18, and permit lengths were extended from one year to three years.
This would be a great example of why I don't really want to waste much of my time anymore having discussions with people who make up their own history.
Oh, and Stalin?
“As for Stalin,” Bartov continued, “the very idea of either gun control or the freedom to bear arms would have been absurd to him. His regime used violence on a vast scale, provided arms to thugs of all descriptions, and stripped not guns but any human image from those it declared to be its enemies. And then, when it needed them, as in WWII, it took millions of men out of the Gulags, trained and armed them and sent them to fight Hitler, only to send back the few survivors into the camps if they uttered any criticism of the regime.”
So, when that crazy uncle of yours at the next dinner starts pulling the conversation into the Land of Moonbat, kindly remind everyone of what actually happened.
And suggest that someone take your uncle to see a mental health professional.
Best Picture: Zero Dark Thirty
It's Oscar season so I thought I'd sprinkle in some posts over the next few weeks until the ceremony with my thoughts on the Best Picture nominees. First up, is the most recent film I saw Zero Dark Thirty.
The film tells the story of how Osama bin Laden was ultimately found and killed. Kathryn Bigelow (The Hurt Locker, Point Break) brings a gritty realism to the lens and the film often feels like a police procedural. As with The Hurt Locker, long periods of quiet analysis are abruptly interrupted with shocking and very graphic violence. In many ways, it's two films. The first two hours are the intelligence work that went into finding him (laced with various terrorist attacks over the years) and the 40 minutes are the raid on the compound. The last section was my favorite part. The actors playing the SEAL guys were fantastic and the raid itself was positively gripping.
Here's Official Trailer #2
Of the in the films nominated, it's definitely in the top three and I highly recommend seeing it. Like Lincoln, it is an historical piece and one for the first decade of the 21st century that ends with death of one of the planet's deadliest human beings.
The controversy around the film was predictable. First, it was too political and the Right didn't want it released before the election so as to help the president. So, the studio caved and released it in December. Then the Right loved it when they saw all the torture scenes and blew loads in their shorts. That's when the left got pissed and said that it advocated torture. My take on it was it stayed pretty neutral. There were people in the film that supported torture and thought it worked and people that didn't. Ultimately, it was a relaxing meal and being nice that got the initial guy to talk. This jibes with what my grandfather did during World War II when he interrogated Japanese in the Pacific. They got their best information when they gave them food and shelter. There have also been some moaning about intelligence leaks from the Right but the information in the film is all public knowledge.
If you are heading out to see this year's noms, put this one at the top of your list!
The film tells the story of how Osama bin Laden was ultimately found and killed. Kathryn Bigelow (The Hurt Locker, Point Break) brings a gritty realism to the lens and the film often feels like a police procedural. As with The Hurt Locker, long periods of quiet analysis are abruptly interrupted with shocking and very graphic violence. In many ways, it's two films. The first two hours are the intelligence work that went into finding him (laced with various terrorist attacks over the years) and the 40 minutes are the raid on the compound. The last section was my favorite part. The actors playing the SEAL guys were fantastic and the raid itself was positively gripping.
Here's Official Trailer #2
Of the in the films nominated, it's definitely in the top three and I highly recommend seeing it. Like Lincoln, it is an historical piece and one for the first decade of the 21st century that ends with death of one of the planet's deadliest human beings.
The controversy around the film was predictable. First, it was too political and the Right didn't want it released before the election so as to help the president. So, the studio caved and released it in December. Then the Right loved it when they saw all the torture scenes and blew loads in their shorts. That's when the left got pissed and said that it advocated torture. My take on it was it stayed pretty neutral. There were people in the film that supported torture and thought it worked and people that didn't. Ultimately, it was a relaxing meal and being nice that got the initial guy to talk. This jibes with what my grandfather did during World War II when he interrogated Japanese in the Pacific. They got their best information when they gave them food and shelter. There have also been some moaning about intelligence leaks from the Right but the information in the film is all public knowledge.
If you are heading out to see this year's noms, put this one at the top of your list!
Monday, January 14, 2013
I Guess I Am Ignorant
Huh. I had no idea that the ATF can't require gun dealers to conduct an inventory to account for lost or stolen guns. Or that there were bills that refuse to put mentally disturbed individuals on do not buy lists. Or that there are laws exempting gun makers from any kind of accountability for their product.
I guess I am ignorant.
But the best line?
Their paranoid fear of a possible dystopic future prevents us from addressing our actual dystopic present.
To me, this is the crux of the problem and once we deal with this, everything else will come more easily. I also think it's important to note his reaction after the series of clips that end with Alex Jones's rant on Piers Morgan. That's how the majority of the people in this country react when confronted with "in the bubble" thinking.
The Airpocalypse is Nigh
Contrary to the wildest expectations when Nixon met with Mao Zedong in 1972, China has become a capitalist Utopia. It has become the world's fastest growing economy and will likely become the biggest economy in the near future. China produces 70% of the world's iron and steel and half the cement. It is the world's factory.
But this development has a price: Beijing is currently socked by a deadly smog. The pollution levels are 25 times higher than the levels considered safe in the United States. They're calling it the "Airpocalypse."
People wear Darth Vader masks when they venture on to the streets. The hospitals are packed with people suffering from respiratory distress. The government is shutting down building sites and factories, and is taking a third of official cars off the road.
We heard a lot about China's pollution problems leading up to the 2008 Oympics. It hasn't gotten any better. They have added millions of new cars since then. They opened thousands of new factories and constructed hundreds of coal-fired powerplants.
The US embassy in Beijing has angered the Chinese government by setting up a Twitter feed with data from a pollution monitor on the the roof. Their instrument shows the pollution index level at 755, on a scale of 0 to a "maximum" of 500.
Beijing is not stewing in smog alone. Last week Tehran was socked by an inversion, as the same sort of calm, cold winter weather settled over Iran's capital. Their pollution levels are exacerbated by the economic sanctions imposed on them by the UN for their nuclear program; they've taken to burning low-quality gasoline that they've refined themselves. Even though Iran is an oil exporter, they import refined fuels. They have a passable argument for why they need nuclear power.
We don't have problems like this in the United States anymore because of an organization called the Environmental Protection Agency. Yes, that same organization that is on all Republicans' short list of government agencies to eliminate. Because we used to have problems just like this.
In November 1939 St. Louis was hit by an inversion that cloaked the city in smog. Streetlights were turned on during the day and cars had to use their headlights. As in Beijing, the cause was the burning of low-quality coal. In 1948 a deadly smog enveloped Donora, Pennsylvania, killing 20 people. The Great Smog hit London in 1952, causing 6,000 deaths. The LA and New York skylines used to be a filthy brown: now they actually have blue skies.
Burning low-cost, low-quality fuels has dire consequences on human health, wildlife, forests, livestock, and agricultural production due to sulfur dioxide and particulate pollution, mercury poisoning and acid rain, all which impose significant economic costs.
One man's freedom to burn whatever the hell he wants to power his factory or fuel his trucks should not impinge on the right of another man's children to breathe: the lungs of children who breathe polluted air are permanently damaged, and they will suffer from asthma their entire lives.
The price of fuels should reflect all their costs, including the environmental effects of their extraction and the aftereffects of their pollutants in the environment. If those costs were included in the price of natural gas, oil and coal, renewable energy sources such as wind and solar would be cost competitive, and there would be a huge incentive to develop new sources. Since fossil fuels are used in many non-energy-producing industrial processes and products, not burning them for energy would stabilize our industrial base into the distant future.
Climate change isn't the only reason we should pursue non-polluting energy sources: it's better for our health as well.
But this development has a price: Beijing is currently socked by a deadly smog. The pollution levels are 25 times higher than the levels considered safe in the United States. They're calling it the "Airpocalypse."
People wear Darth Vader masks when they venture on to the streets. The hospitals are packed with people suffering from respiratory distress. The government is shutting down building sites and factories, and is taking a third of official cars off the road.
We heard a lot about China's pollution problems leading up to the 2008 Oympics. It hasn't gotten any better. They have added millions of new cars since then. They opened thousands of new factories and constructed hundreds of coal-fired powerplants.
The US embassy in Beijing has angered the Chinese government by setting up a Twitter feed with data from a pollution monitor on the the roof. Their instrument shows the pollution index level at 755, on a scale of 0 to a "maximum" of 500.
Beijing is not stewing in smog alone. Last week Tehran was socked by an inversion, as the same sort of calm, cold winter weather settled over Iran's capital. Their pollution levels are exacerbated by the economic sanctions imposed on them by the UN for their nuclear program; they've taken to burning low-quality gasoline that they've refined themselves. Even though Iran is an oil exporter, they import refined fuels. They have a passable argument for why they need nuclear power.
We don't have problems like this in the United States anymore because of an organization called the Environmental Protection Agency. Yes, that same organization that is on all Republicans' short list of government agencies to eliminate. Because we used to have problems just like this.
In November 1939 St. Louis was hit by an inversion that cloaked the city in smog. Streetlights were turned on during the day and cars had to use their headlights. As in Beijing, the cause was the burning of low-quality coal. In 1948 a deadly smog enveloped Donora, Pennsylvania, killing 20 people. The Great Smog hit London in 1952, causing 6,000 deaths. The LA and New York skylines used to be a filthy brown: now they actually have blue skies.
Burning low-cost, low-quality fuels has dire consequences on human health, wildlife, forests, livestock, and agricultural production due to sulfur dioxide and particulate pollution, mercury poisoning and acid rain, all which impose significant economic costs.
One man's freedom to burn whatever the hell he wants to power his factory or fuel his trucks should not impinge on the right of another man's children to breathe: the lungs of children who breathe polluted air are permanently damaged, and they will suffer from asthma their entire lives.
The price of fuels should reflect all their costs, including the environmental effects of their extraction and the aftereffects of their pollutants in the environment. If those costs were included in the price of natural gas, oil and coal, renewable energy sources such as wind and solar would be cost competitive, and there would be a huge incentive to develop new sources. Since fossil fuels are used in many non-energy-producing industrial processes and products, not burning them for energy would stabilize our industrial base into the distant future.
Climate change isn't the only reason we should pursue non-polluting energy sources: it's better for our health as well.
Where Have I Heard That Before?
I always love it when Colin Powell talks
"There's also a dark vein of intolerance in some parts of the party," Powell said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "What do I mean by that? What I mean by that is they still sort of look down on minorities."
Yes, let's file that under NO SHIT.
"When I see a former governor say that the president is 'shuckin' and jivin'.' That's a racial-era slave term," Powell said, referring to former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin using the term to describe Obama's response to the attacks in Libya.
Powell also pointed to former New Hampshire Gov. John Sununu, who was an aggressive surrogate for Mitt Romney, for calling Obama "lazy" after the first debate during the campaign. "He didn't say he was slow, he was tired, he didn't do well; he said he was 'lazy,'"
Powell said "Now, it may not mean anything to most Americans, but to those of us who are African Americans, the second word is "shiftless," and then there's a third word that goes along with it."
I think they do this to more or less rile up their base and keep interest alive. Nevertheless, Powell is right. Upon hearing many of these things, the black people I know wince, drop their heads, roll their eyes and wonder when will people ever learn? Interestingly, some of them are Republicans!
Powell's advice for the future of the GOP?
"I think what the Republican Party needs to do now is take a very hard look at itself and understand that the country has changed. The country is changing demographically. And if the Republican Party does not change along with that demographic, they're going to be in trouble."
Now, where have I heard that before?
"There's also a dark vein of intolerance in some parts of the party," Powell said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "What do I mean by that? What I mean by that is they still sort of look down on minorities."
Yes, let's file that under NO SHIT.
"When I see a former governor say that the president is 'shuckin' and jivin'.' That's a racial-era slave term," Powell said, referring to former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin using the term to describe Obama's response to the attacks in Libya.
Powell also pointed to former New Hampshire Gov. John Sununu, who was an aggressive surrogate for Mitt Romney, for calling Obama "lazy" after the first debate during the campaign. "He didn't say he was slow, he was tired, he didn't do well; he said he was 'lazy,'"
Powell said "Now, it may not mean anything to most Americans, but to those of us who are African Americans, the second word is "shiftless," and then there's a third word that goes along with it."
I think they do this to more or less rile up their base and keep interest alive. Nevertheless, Powell is right. Upon hearing many of these things, the black people I know wince, drop their heads, roll their eyes and wonder when will people ever learn? Interestingly, some of them are Republicans!
Powell's advice for the future of the GOP?
"I think what the Republican Party needs to do now is take a very hard look at itself and understand that the country has changed. The country is changing demographically. And if the Republican Party does not change along with that demographic, they're going to be in trouble."
Now, where have I heard that before?
Sunday, January 13, 2013
They Just Can't Resist Rape
In case anyone was wondering, the Republican Party is not done talking about rape.
First, I would be remiss in my duties if I did not remind everyone that this is not , in fact, an Onion headline. It's very real. Apparently, yet another old, white man with a two dollar haircut (Georgia Rep Phil Gingrey) felt the need to clarify a few things about Todd Akin.
“We tell infertile couples all the time that are having trouble conceiving because of the woman not ovulating, ‘Just relax. Drink a glass of wine. And don’t be so tense and uptight because all that adrenaline can cause you not to ovulate,’” Gingrey said.He also said that Akin’s definition of a “non-legitimate rape” could be “a scared-to-death 15-year-old that becomes impregnated by her boyfriend and then has to tell her parents.”
See, this is what happens when you believe in Republican Jesus, folks, and allow men, over the last 2,000 years, to be in charge of your sexuality. You get the American Taliban.
This was the icing on the cake...
And it may have added new urgency to a training program that’s already being launched by an anti-abortion group — the Susan B. Anthony list — to keep candidates and lawmakers from continually making the same kind of comments that may have helped ruin Republicans’ chances of winning the Senate.
A "training" program? (sniff sniff). Sounds like a re-education camp to me. Don't do it, old white men with two dollar haircuts!! Stay true to your core beliefs!!! They's a comin'!!!!
But seriously, they have to have a training program? BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!
GOP looks for ways to stop the rape comments
First, I would be remiss in my duties if I did not remind everyone that this is not , in fact, an Onion headline. It's very real. Apparently, yet another old, white man with a two dollar haircut (Georgia Rep Phil Gingrey) felt the need to clarify a few things about Todd Akin.
“We tell infertile couples all the time that are having trouble conceiving because of the woman not ovulating, ‘Just relax. Drink a glass of wine. And don’t be so tense and uptight because all that adrenaline can cause you not to ovulate,’” Gingrey said.He also said that Akin’s definition of a “non-legitimate rape” could be “a scared-to-death 15-year-old that becomes impregnated by her boyfriend and then has to tell her parents.”
See, this is what happens when you believe in Republican Jesus, folks, and allow men, over the last 2,000 years, to be in charge of your sexuality. You get the American Taliban.
This was the icing on the cake...
And it may have added new urgency to a training program that’s already being launched by an anti-abortion group — the Susan B. Anthony list — to keep candidates and lawmakers from continually making the same kind of comments that may have helped ruin Republicans’ chances of winning the Senate.
A "training" program? (sniff sniff). Sounds like a re-education camp to me. Don't do it, old white men with two dollar haircuts!! Stay true to your core beliefs!!! They's a comin'!!!!
But seriously, they have to have a training program? BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!
Saturday, January 12, 2013
Both To Change
With a few days until the release of Vice President Biden's committee recommendations regarding gun violence, I thought we should take a look at the 2nd Amendment and talk about its intent and purpose. There's likely going to be a whole bunch of mouth foaming, chest thumping and downright moonbat nuttery after Tuesday so let's examine the center piece of the right to bear arms. After that, I will offer my recommendations for the path I think we should pursue regarding gun safety.
Here is the 2nd Amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Let's talk about the first part ("a well regulated militia"). Alexander Hamilton explains the meaning of this part of the 2nd Amendment quite well in Federalist Paper #29.
This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by congress."
"If a well regulated militia be the most natural defence of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security...confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority...(and) reserving to the states...the authority of training the militia"
This first part of the 2nd Amendment establishes the intention to repel invasion, suppress insurrection, and locally enforce the law. Essentially, what Hamilton is describing here is the National Guard, the modern day equivalent of a militia system. He is very careful to point out, however, that the national authority has the power over this organization, not the states themselves. After all, it is the federal government, not the states, that are responsible for providing national security. He concludes this paper by dismissing concerns about tyranny (let's remember that for a little later).
The next part of the 2nd Amendment talks about the right of the people to keep and bear arms and how that shall not be infringed. Some Constitutional scholars have taken this to mean as part of the militia but not as an individual. I disagree. It's clearly the individual and it doesn't matter whether or not they are in the military. This would be the part of the amendment that says that people (as a collective or individuals) have a right to defend themselves. Exactly what they are defending themselves against is where the problems begin.
The chief complaint about the Right is that they must have access to whatever they deem necessary to defend themselves. This includes the weapons of war that a soldier would use. In looking at Hamilton's explanation of the 2nd Amendment above, it's clear that he (and the founding fathers) did not want clusters of mini armies around the United States. He wanted a national army to preside over the local militia and provide the people with basic defense. The key word here is basic.
Justice Antonin Scalia, in writing the majority for DC v Heller, said
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. ... For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues.(54)
Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our [majority] opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. (54-55)
We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. [Precedent says] that the sorts of weapons protected were those 'in common use at the time' [the Second Amendment was approved]. ... We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons. (55)
Scalia reiterated this point on Fox News last summer.
Scalia said exceptions to gun rights were recognized when the Second Amendment was written, including a tort that prohibited people from carrying a “really horrible weapon just to scare people like a head ax or something.”
Here we see a conservative justice leaving the door wide open for a qualitative analysis of the 2nd Amendment.
With violent crime on the decline, I often wonder why the gun rights folks would be so worried about domestic types of violence that they require the modern day equivalent of a head ax. Why do they need multiple guns and ones with magazines that hold 30 bullets or more if there are less people, not more, that are victims of violent crime? The scenarios they come up with as possibilities are so unlikely that I honestly have to laugh. I mean, they don't all live in Compton or Cabrini Green!
So, we all know now (thanks to Alex Jones' mouth foam on steroids the other day) the real reason why they want their own arsenals: it's because they think our government is tyrannical. They view Democrats and the president as illegitimate holders of office who are just waiting (any day now...) to institute a totalitarian regime and send us all to re-education camps. Many like Kevin Baker think it's going on right now and their guns are the only things that are preventing a "full" takeover. In short, Barack Obama is King George and 1776 will commence again.
Here's a little hint for them: if the federal government was really the fascist regime they say it is, they'd be hog tied right now, sans guns, and being forced fed, Clockwork Orange style, Karl Marx and gay porn. Because the simple fact is, folks, the government has much bigger and far more numerous weapons than your average gun rights person. Remember, our armed forces have more firepower than the next twenty countries combined.
And many on the Right know this because they support the funding of this every day.
Thus, we come to the ultimate irony that is the gun lobby. They scream loud and hard about tyrannical governments but they shout with equal force about how defense spending is rock solid Constitutional. So, in essence, they are supporting (with gusto) the same "tyrannical government" they fear will come some day to take their guns away...fueling it more and more every year with sophisticated weapons. In essence, they are empowering their "enemies" so their position makes no sense to me.
Now, to be fair, there are a growing number of libertarians (a few who post here like juris) who would like to see the defense department gutted. Many of my present and former students who are of a libertarian bend (there are quite a number of them, btw) want the same thing. At least they aren't hypocrites but they are wrong about the government. Tyranny is not going to happen here for a number of reasons. Our government is not a monolith. We have a brilliant system of checks and balances that will not allow a situation that would require insurrection. This lack of true central power is evident as DC is filled with a whole host of mini power bases who all struggle with one another on a daily basis. The end result is that not much gets done. If anything, the government is sedimentary which is a different kind of danger and one which we feel the consequences of every day. Of course, this is why shootings like Sandy Hook and Aurora have taken place.
So, I'm pleased to see that the plan that the Biden Group is going to release is going to be comprehensive recommendations that bring together all of the elements that are needed to lessen the possibility of this happening again while, at the same time, maintaining the right to bear arms. It's not going to simply be a matter of limiting the type of weapon or having a military grade classification of some weapons. It's going to mean background checks on every single gun purchase in America. No more loopholes for gun shows or internet sales. It's going to mean regular safety checks and mental health exams as well as demonstrating need to own certain types of weapons. Now that we know the profile of these shooters, we can make every effort to ensure that people like Adam Lanza never be allowed to have guns. This is where the mental health element comes in and, folks, it has to be taken seriously with a national effort to remove the stigma of having and seeking treatment for these sorts of problems.
With all of this in mind, here are my action items that would enable us as a nation to take giant steps towards solving this problem.
1. Vastly improve mental health in this country from a federal level all the way down to a community level. Launch a multi-pronged campaign to remove the stigma of talking about this and aggressively encourage young men who fit this profile to seek out help.
2. Universal background checks for every single person buying a gun at any time. Background checks are common in just about everything these days (getting a job, apt, buying a house or car) so there should be no problem requiring everyone to do this. No more gun show or internet loopholes. Private sales are also included here. Stiff penalties for those who break this law.
3. Classify weapons like the Bushmaster as military grade and require those who wish to own it to go through more rigorous screening. This system should be modeled after the Israel paradigm. This will likely cause mouth foaming on the part of gun rights folks. This is when their paranoia, laziness, irresponsibility and insecurity need to be exposed. Their nervousness about showing their moonbat too much in public is evidence enough that they know they are in the very small minority on this one. In short, we need more national interviews with folks like Alex Jones:)
4. A national tracking system for the movement and sale of guns. Few on the right whine about this when it comes to tracking Muslims or how much Sudafed people buy. This can help law enforcement catch criminals in a more timely fashion.
5. Armed police officers in every school. This is already true of many high schools but this should extend to junior high and grade schools as well. Funding, of course, is lacking in this department along with man power so it may have to be, at least at the outset, that increased patrols serve the need for the time being.
6. Make gun trafficking, giving a gun to a minor, and having a gun near or in a school a felony. In short, zero tolerance.
7. Step up prosecution of criminals who try to buy guns and crack down hard on rogue gun dealers.
8. Have regular gun buy back events and offer large amounts of cash for weapons that are military grade and clips above 10 bullets.
Obviously, this is not an all-encompassing list but it's a start. Note the absence of a two items:
1. An assault weapons ban or a ban on high ammunition clips. One of these or both will likely be in Biden's proposal on Tuesday. Not only is not a good idea politically but it won't have any sort of measurable effect other than piss people off who can marginalized and exposed for their nuttery in other ways. It's important to note, as I have above, that such a ban would not be unconstitutional, as Justice Scalia explained above. Further, the notion that all guns (rifles, shotguns, handguns) are going to be taken away after Newton is silly. It's not going to happen.
2. Banning gun free zones. The only people that should have guns in schools are police or trained security personnel. Allowing teachers, staff, or an Alex Jones type parent to carry a gun into a school is not a good idea. My reason for this is that I simply don't trust people. As I always say, it's not the guns, it's the people, specifically Americans. They suck with guns and have proven themselves to be massively irresponsible with them.
At the end of the day, I don't think that all of these ideas are perfect nor will they entirely solve the problem. That's the caricature that the Right uses to paint the left and then when things don't fall together so neatly (as they often do in life), they can play the adolescent blame game and capitalize on people's ignorance and fear. They have nothing themselves and it's far easier to be a critic than actually have the balls to put something forward.
The items on my list are meant to be a beginning down a path that will likely be a long process. Guns are not the reason why our society suffers so much violence. It's the people and our culture.
It's time for both to change.
Here is the 2nd Amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Let's talk about the first part ("a well regulated militia"). Alexander Hamilton explains the meaning of this part of the 2nd Amendment quite well in Federalist Paper #29.
This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by congress."
"If a well regulated militia be the most natural defence of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security...confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority...(and) reserving to the states...the authority of training the militia"
This first part of the 2nd Amendment establishes the intention to repel invasion, suppress insurrection, and locally enforce the law. Essentially, what Hamilton is describing here is the National Guard, the modern day equivalent of a militia system. He is very careful to point out, however, that the national authority has the power over this organization, not the states themselves. After all, it is the federal government, not the states, that are responsible for providing national security. He concludes this paper by dismissing concerns about tyranny (let's remember that for a little later).
The next part of the 2nd Amendment talks about the right of the people to keep and bear arms and how that shall not be infringed. Some Constitutional scholars have taken this to mean as part of the militia but not as an individual. I disagree. It's clearly the individual and it doesn't matter whether or not they are in the military. This would be the part of the amendment that says that people (as a collective or individuals) have a right to defend themselves. Exactly what they are defending themselves against is where the problems begin.
The chief complaint about the Right is that they must have access to whatever they deem necessary to defend themselves. This includes the weapons of war that a soldier would use. In looking at Hamilton's explanation of the 2nd Amendment above, it's clear that he (and the founding fathers) did not want clusters of mini armies around the United States. He wanted a national army to preside over the local militia and provide the people with basic defense. The key word here is basic.
Justice Antonin Scalia, in writing the majority for DC v Heller, said
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. ... For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues.(54)
Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our [majority] opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. (54-55)
We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. [Precedent says] that the sorts of weapons protected were those 'in common use at the time' [the Second Amendment was approved]. ... We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons. (55)
Scalia reiterated this point on Fox News last summer.
Scalia said exceptions to gun rights were recognized when the Second Amendment was written, including a tort that prohibited people from carrying a “really horrible weapon just to scare people like a head ax or something.”
Here we see a conservative justice leaving the door wide open for a qualitative analysis of the 2nd Amendment.
With violent crime on the decline, I often wonder why the gun rights folks would be so worried about domestic types of violence that they require the modern day equivalent of a head ax. Why do they need multiple guns and ones with magazines that hold 30 bullets or more if there are less people, not more, that are victims of violent crime? The scenarios they come up with as possibilities are so unlikely that I honestly have to laugh. I mean, they don't all live in Compton or Cabrini Green!
So, we all know now (thanks to Alex Jones' mouth foam on steroids the other day) the real reason why they want their own arsenals: it's because they think our government is tyrannical. They view Democrats and the president as illegitimate holders of office who are just waiting (any day now...) to institute a totalitarian regime and send us all to re-education camps. Many like Kevin Baker think it's going on right now and their guns are the only things that are preventing a "full" takeover. In short, Barack Obama is King George and 1776 will commence again.
Here's a little hint for them: if the federal government was really the fascist regime they say it is, they'd be hog tied right now, sans guns, and being forced fed, Clockwork Orange style, Karl Marx and gay porn. Because the simple fact is, folks, the government has much bigger and far more numerous weapons than your average gun rights person. Remember, our armed forces have more firepower than the next twenty countries combined.
And many on the Right know this because they support the funding of this every day.
Thus, we come to the ultimate irony that is the gun lobby. They scream loud and hard about tyrannical governments but they shout with equal force about how defense spending is rock solid Constitutional. So, in essence, they are supporting (with gusto) the same "tyrannical government" they fear will come some day to take their guns away...fueling it more and more every year with sophisticated weapons. In essence, they are empowering their "enemies" so their position makes no sense to me.
Now, to be fair, there are a growing number of libertarians (a few who post here like juris) who would like to see the defense department gutted. Many of my present and former students who are of a libertarian bend (there are quite a number of them, btw) want the same thing. At least they aren't hypocrites but they are wrong about the government. Tyranny is not going to happen here for a number of reasons. Our government is not a monolith. We have a brilliant system of checks and balances that will not allow a situation that would require insurrection. This lack of true central power is evident as DC is filled with a whole host of mini power bases who all struggle with one another on a daily basis. The end result is that not much gets done. If anything, the government is sedimentary which is a different kind of danger and one which we feel the consequences of every day. Of course, this is why shootings like Sandy Hook and Aurora have taken place.
So, I'm pleased to see that the plan that the Biden Group is going to release is going to be comprehensive recommendations that bring together all of the elements that are needed to lessen the possibility of this happening again while, at the same time, maintaining the right to bear arms. It's not going to simply be a matter of limiting the type of weapon or having a military grade classification of some weapons. It's going to mean background checks on every single gun purchase in America. No more loopholes for gun shows or internet sales. It's going to mean regular safety checks and mental health exams as well as demonstrating need to own certain types of weapons. Now that we know the profile of these shooters, we can make every effort to ensure that people like Adam Lanza never be allowed to have guns. This is where the mental health element comes in and, folks, it has to be taken seriously with a national effort to remove the stigma of having and seeking treatment for these sorts of problems.
With all of this in mind, here are my action items that would enable us as a nation to take giant steps towards solving this problem.
1. Vastly improve mental health in this country from a federal level all the way down to a community level. Launch a multi-pronged campaign to remove the stigma of talking about this and aggressively encourage young men who fit this profile to seek out help.
2. Universal background checks for every single person buying a gun at any time. Background checks are common in just about everything these days (getting a job, apt, buying a house or car) so there should be no problem requiring everyone to do this. No more gun show or internet loopholes. Private sales are also included here. Stiff penalties for those who break this law.
3. Classify weapons like the Bushmaster as military grade and require those who wish to own it to go through more rigorous screening. This system should be modeled after the Israel paradigm. This will likely cause mouth foaming on the part of gun rights folks. This is when their paranoia, laziness, irresponsibility and insecurity need to be exposed. Their nervousness about showing their moonbat too much in public is evidence enough that they know they are in the very small minority on this one. In short, we need more national interviews with folks like Alex Jones:)
4. A national tracking system for the movement and sale of guns. Few on the right whine about this when it comes to tracking Muslims or how much Sudafed people buy. This can help law enforcement catch criminals in a more timely fashion.
5. Armed police officers in every school. This is already true of many high schools but this should extend to junior high and grade schools as well. Funding, of course, is lacking in this department along with man power so it may have to be, at least at the outset, that increased patrols serve the need for the time being.
6. Make gun trafficking, giving a gun to a minor, and having a gun near or in a school a felony. In short, zero tolerance.
7. Step up prosecution of criminals who try to buy guns and crack down hard on rogue gun dealers.
8. Have regular gun buy back events and offer large amounts of cash for weapons that are military grade and clips above 10 bullets.
Obviously, this is not an all-encompassing list but it's a start. Note the absence of a two items:
1. An assault weapons ban or a ban on high ammunition clips. One of these or both will likely be in Biden's proposal on Tuesday. Not only is not a good idea politically but it won't have any sort of measurable effect other than piss people off who can marginalized and exposed for their nuttery in other ways. It's important to note, as I have above, that such a ban would not be unconstitutional, as Justice Scalia explained above. Further, the notion that all guns (rifles, shotguns, handguns) are going to be taken away after Newton is silly. It's not going to happen.
2. Banning gun free zones. The only people that should have guns in schools are police or trained security personnel. Allowing teachers, staff, or an Alex Jones type parent to carry a gun into a school is not a good idea. My reason for this is that I simply don't trust people. As I always say, it's not the guns, it's the people, specifically Americans. They suck with guns and have proven themselves to be massively irresponsible with them.
At the end of the day, I don't think that all of these ideas are perfect nor will they entirely solve the problem. That's the caricature that the Right uses to paint the left and then when things don't fall together so neatly (as they often do in life), they can play the adolescent blame game and capitalize on people's ignorance and fear. They have nothing themselves and it's far easier to be a critic than actually have the balls to put something forward.
The items on my list are meant to be a beginning down a path that will likely be a long process. Guns are not the reason why our society suffers so much violence. It's the people and our culture.
It's time for both to change.
Friday, January 11, 2013
Happy!
Get used to a new word for 2013: reshoring.
Conventional wisdom says that American jobs are flying like crazy over to China. But a recent piece in the Christian Science Monitor says otherwise.
There's no official tally of the number of jobs returning, but Harry Moser, director of the Reshoring Initiative, which aims to bring manufacturing jobs back to the United States, estimates that 50,000 jobs have returned in the past three years. He bases his estimate on a close read of the media and on reports his organization receives. If that number is accurate, reshoring would account for 12 percent of the manufacturing jobs the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports returned to the American economy since 2010.
The Boston Consulting Group, a global management consulting firm, in a September report projected that returned manufacturing could bring 5 million new jobs by 2020 and add $90 billion in US exports to the economy.
Wow.
Why is this happening?
Rising wages in China, unpredictable supply-chain problems, oil prices, and the risk of intellectual property theft are making manufacturers more wary of producing overseas, analysts say.
That's the beauty of the free market, in this case the labor market. Eventually, workers start to demand more money and everything evens out as the labor market adjusts in its growth. But this isn't even the best part.
It's not just that it's getting more expensive to produce overseas. It's also getting cheaper to produce back at home. "It's the shale gas revolution," says Kevin Swift, chief economist and managing director of the American Chemistry Council. "There are low-cost, abundant sources of energy [here] now." Mr. Swift says that's a game changer for his industry: "We were being written off as being noncompetitive. It's completely changed. There's significant investment on the books ... 50 [planned] projects valued at over $40 billion."
Yes, indeed. Things are looking up for our country and it makes me quite happy!
Conventional wisdom says that American jobs are flying like crazy over to China. But a recent piece in the Christian Science Monitor says otherwise.
There's no official tally of the number of jobs returning, but Harry Moser, director of the Reshoring Initiative, which aims to bring manufacturing jobs back to the United States, estimates that 50,000 jobs have returned in the past three years. He bases his estimate on a close read of the media and on reports his organization receives. If that number is accurate, reshoring would account for 12 percent of the manufacturing jobs the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports returned to the American economy since 2010.
The Boston Consulting Group, a global management consulting firm, in a September report projected that returned manufacturing could bring 5 million new jobs by 2020 and add $90 billion in US exports to the economy.
Wow.
Why is this happening?
Rising wages in China, unpredictable supply-chain problems, oil prices, and the risk of intellectual property theft are making manufacturers more wary of producing overseas, analysts say.
That's the beauty of the free market, in this case the labor market. Eventually, workers start to demand more money and everything evens out as the labor market adjusts in its growth. But this isn't even the best part.
It's not just that it's getting more expensive to produce overseas. It's also getting cheaper to produce back at home. "It's the shale gas revolution," says Kevin Swift, chief economist and managing director of the American Chemistry Council. "There are low-cost, abundant sources of energy [here] now." Mr. Swift says that's a game changer for his industry: "We were being written off as being noncompetitive. It's completely changed. There's significant investment on the books ... 50 [planned] projects valued at over $40 billion."
Yes, indeed. Things are looking up for our country and it makes me quite happy!
Affirmative
There are so many things with which I agree in Mark McKinnon's recent piece over at the Daily Beast I don't even know where to begin. Let's start with his central question.
My question to Republican gun enthusiasts is: How would anything being proposed in any way impact what you do now with your guns? Or, is it that you are just hostage to the NRA talking points?
Hostage, indeed. I find the griping that goes on about the left exploiting the media after Newton to be a steaming pile of shit considering the amount of money being made off of the bullet ridden bodies of little children by the NRA and gun manufacturers. Hell, they're bragging about it!. The point seems to be lost on the gun rights folks the goal of sensible people is not to make money but to actually solve the problems we face with violence in our culture.
Thankfully, the American public knows this and that's why there have been 400,000 people that have joined Mayors Against Illegal Guns since Newton. Their main goal is to simply have a common sense plan to deal with these never ending shooting sprees. This, as McKinnon notes, is better than no plan or being against everything proposed by Democrats and moderate Republicans.
As a Republican, I think it’s yet another instance where the party, by refusing to recognize reality, is going to end up looking like the “stupid party” that fails to adapt and evolve to changing circumstances in our society.
Unless the GOP comes out with a proactive plan that has some appearance of responding to recent events, then it continues to play defense and digs deeper the hole it has been digging for itself in recent years. On issues where the physics are moving irrevocably forward, like immigration, gay rights, and guns, the Republican Party continues to look backward. And backward is a sure path toward irrelevance.
As I have been saying all along...anyone out there ready to listen yet?
My question to Republican gun enthusiasts is: How would anything being proposed in any way impact what you do now with your guns? Or, is it that you are just hostage to the NRA talking points?
Hostage, indeed. I find the griping that goes on about the left exploiting the media after Newton to be a steaming pile of shit considering the amount of money being made off of the bullet ridden bodies of little children by the NRA and gun manufacturers. Hell, they're bragging about it!. The point seems to be lost on the gun rights folks the goal of sensible people is not to make money but to actually solve the problems we face with violence in our culture.
Thankfully, the American public knows this and that's why there have been 400,000 people that have joined Mayors Against Illegal Guns since Newton. Their main goal is to simply have a common sense plan to deal with these never ending shooting sprees. This, as McKinnon notes, is better than no plan or being against everything proposed by Democrats and moderate Republicans.
As a Republican, I think it’s yet another instance where the party, by refusing to recognize reality, is going to end up looking like the “stupid party” that fails to adapt and evolve to changing circumstances in our society.
Unless the GOP comes out with a proactive plan that has some appearance of responding to recent events, then it continues to play defense and digs deeper the hole it has been digging for itself in recent years. On issues where the physics are moving irrevocably forward, like immigration, gay rights, and guns, the Republican Party continues to look backward. And backward is a sure path toward irrelevance.
As I have been saying all along...anyone out there ready to listen yet?
Thursday, January 10, 2013
Insanity or Greed?
Gun control advocates like to portray the NRA as madmen, but like the old saw about malice and incompetence, never attribute to insanity that which can be explained by greed.
Exhibit A is Wayne LaPierre's insistence that everyone would be safer if everyone was carrying guns. Yeah, and gun manufacturers would sell a hell of a lot more guns.
Exhibit B is the gun industry's push for accessorization. Not only do they want to sell us lots and lots of guns of every shape and size, but they want to sell us large capacity magazines, laser sights and noise suppressors (silencers).
These three "accessories" are a mass-murderer's dream. We've already seen the effect of large-capacity magazines in numerous shootings across the country. Laser sights will make it even easier to maximize lethality, removing much of the skill required to aim a weapon at a target's most vulnerable locations. Simply point and shoot.
Silencers will allow the mass murderer to escape detection longer, allowing for a larger body count. With a silencer a shooter like Adam Lanza could take out the security guards the NRA wants posted at any school without anyone realizing it. How many more classrooms would he have gone through if no one could hear the report of his rifle?
None of these accessories should be freely available. The NRA's own argument for ubiquitous guns is that the mere presence of a weapon prevents violence. Brandishing a 6-shot .38 Special has as much deterrence value as a 17-shot Glock. Hunters don't need large-capacity magazines because their targets are either dead or have fled after the first couple of shots. The NRA says that silencers are needed to preserve hearing, but a lifetime supply of ear plugs is much cheaper (silencers do not eliminate all sound; sharp-eared game can still hear suppressed gunfire).
This kind of weaponry, combined with the ballistic armor and helmets that James Holmes bought off the Internet, allow mass murderers, criminals and terrorists to freely outfit themselves like police SWAT teams and KGB assassins. I'm constantly tempted to say it's madness, but it's just greed.
Through the NRA pretends to represent grass-roots gun owners, the NRA receives millions of dollars a year in donations and kickbacks from gun manufacturers. Even worse, gun manufacturers who make rifles like those used in Aurora and Sandy Hook have received more than $19 million in subsidies from states in the last five years. Including Michael Bloomberg's own New York state.
As Mark noted the other day, the greed motive may now be used against the NRA: Walmart, the country's largest firearms dealer, may be getting behind closing the loophole that allows people to avoid the background check by buying from private dealers.
The gun industry is funding the NRA in the same way that the tobacco industry funded "smoker's rights" groups, belittling medical research that linked lung cancer to smoking. The fossil fuel industry has spent millions of dollars to promote skepticism of climate change and fighting pollution controls that reduce the lung disease caused by burning fossil fuels. The Tea Party is another such "astroturf" organization, funded by the likes of the billionaire Koch brothers.
Whenever entrenched monied interests find themselves held accountable for the problems they cause, they always turn to a phony grass-roots proxy like the NRA to dress up their money pipeline as some inalienable right and rouse the rabble.
So, while the people at the NRA might seem like they're crazy, we should follow Deepthroat's advice and follow the money.
Exhibit A is Wayne LaPierre's insistence that everyone would be safer if everyone was carrying guns. Yeah, and gun manufacturers would sell a hell of a lot more guns.
Exhibit B is the gun industry's push for accessorization. Not only do they want to sell us lots and lots of guns of every shape and size, but they want to sell us large capacity magazines, laser sights and noise suppressors (silencers).
These three "accessories" are a mass-murderer's dream. We've already seen the effect of large-capacity magazines in numerous shootings across the country. Laser sights will make it even easier to maximize lethality, removing much of the skill required to aim a weapon at a target's most vulnerable locations. Simply point and shoot.
Silencers will allow the mass murderer to escape detection longer, allowing for a larger body count. With a silencer a shooter like Adam Lanza could take out the security guards the NRA wants posted at any school without anyone realizing it. How many more classrooms would he have gone through if no one could hear the report of his rifle?
None of these accessories should be freely available. The NRA's own argument for ubiquitous guns is that the mere presence of a weapon prevents violence. Brandishing a 6-shot .38 Special has as much deterrence value as a 17-shot Glock. Hunters don't need large-capacity magazines because their targets are either dead or have fled after the first couple of shots. The NRA says that silencers are needed to preserve hearing, but a lifetime supply of ear plugs is much cheaper (silencers do not eliminate all sound; sharp-eared game can still hear suppressed gunfire).
This kind of weaponry, combined with the ballistic armor and helmets that James Holmes bought off the Internet, allow mass murderers, criminals and terrorists to freely outfit themselves like police SWAT teams and KGB assassins. I'm constantly tempted to say it's madness, but it's just greed.
Through the NRA pretends to represent grass-roots gun owners, the NRA receives millions of dollars a year in donations and kickbacks from gun manufacturers. Even worse, gun manufacturers who make rifles like those used in Aurora and Sandy Hook have received more than $19 million in subsidies from states in the last five years. Including Michael Bloomberg's own New York state.
As Mark noted the other day, the greed motive may now be used against the NRA: Walmart, the country's largest firearms dealer, may be getting behind closing the loophole that allows people to avoid the background check by buying from private dealers.
The gun industry is funding the NRA in the same way that the tobacco industry funded "smoker's rights" groups, belittling medical research that linked lung cancer to smoking. The fossil fuel industry has spent millions of dollars to promote skepticism of climate change and fighting pollution controls that reduce the lung disease caused by burning fossil fuels. The Tea Party is another such "astroturf" organization, funded by the likes of the billionaire Koch brothers.
Whenever entrenched monied interests find themselves held accountable for the problems they cause, they always turn to a phony grass-roots proxy like the NRA to dress up their money pipeline as some inalienable right and rouse the rabble.
So, while the people at the NRA might seem like they're crazy, we should follow Deepthroat's advice and follow the money.
R.I.P. The Right Wing Blogger
It amuses me to no end when my oh so enlightened right wing friends refer to the Drudge Report as "simply a page of links to news stories."
Really?
This was the front page of the Drudge Report yesterday. As soon as Hitler comes up, that's when you know which side is losing.
And take a look at this recent poll from Rasmussen Polling (a right leaning poll). Just 8 percent say they are members of the Tea Party with 49 percent of voters saying they have an unfavorable view of the movement. I recall being assured as recent as last year that The Tea Party movement would always be around, eternally robust and ever a beacon of conservatism. It seems to me that the American people are plumb tired of the crazy and would rather listen to people that live in the real world.
Of course, this speaks to a much larger issue. Right around a decade ago, the blogsphere really began to burst to life. Political hacks from all ends of the spectrum started their own sites. The Right took particular advantage of this and, in the 2004 election, were part of the reason George W. Bush won reelection. After issuing imperial edicts that John Kerry was a French war criminal, the American people, still timid from 9-11, bought all their lies.
But the two years after that election were illustrative of what happens when you vote with emotion and belief as opposed to thought. And, in 2006, the Democrats took over both houses in Congress. In 2008, they saw more gains and America elected Barack Obama president. It appeared that the influence of the right wing blogger was a flash in the pan.
The 2010 election showed us that they did have a death rattle left in them. The House swept back to the GOP based on irrational fears over health care and over reaching government intrusion. Even in that election, though, the Right blew it, running very conservative candidates in the Senate and reaching too far. By all rights, they should have taken back the Senate as well because if you take a look at the House victories from that year, not all were hard core Tea Partiers. Some were merely moderates elected by a center right public who thought the president had gone too far. These same voters certainly did not want the far right either and so, the GOP didn't take the Senate. Since the Right's main conviction is their vanity, they saw 2010 as a great victory and continued to push more and more crazy ideas in the 2012 election, pulling political philosophies from far right web sites and incorporating them into their main platform.
It didn't work. The president easily won reelection, the Democrats gained two seats in the Senate, adding more progressive candidates like Elizabeth Warren and Tammy Baldwin, and the House saw a net of seven seats for the party of the donkey. Add in the recent astronomical polling numbers for New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and the message the American people are sending is clear: moderate or else.
All of this leads us to the conclusion that the right wing blogger, and any influence they may have had over public policy, is essentially dead. Sure, they'll still have their followers similar to the old short wave radio days and they'll be trotted out on talk shows here and there but, for the most part, the days of them having any sort of substantial effect on policy are over. We're going to see this with the debates on guns, the budget, immigration and climate change over the next few months. Either they can moderate or be left out of the conversation. If the trends in the last few elections are any indication, it may even be worse for the Right in general. I suppose they didn't have much of a choice after 2008 to hitch their wagon to the star located in the Moonbat Quadrant. Now, they are paying the consequences.
I wonder just how many times Hitler and Stalin are going to come up in the next month...
Really?
This was the front page of the Drudge Report yesterday. As soon as Hitler comes up, that's when you know which side is losing.
And take a look at this recent poll from Rasmussen Polling (a right leaning poll). Just 8 percent say they are members of the Tea Party with 49 percent of voters saying they have an unfavorable view of the movement. I recall being assured as recent as last year that The Tea Party movement would always be around, eternally robust and ever a beacon of conservatism. It seems to me that the American people are plumb tired of the crazy and would rather listen to people that live in the real world.
Of course, this speaks to a much larger issue. Right around a decade ago, the blogsphere really began to burst to life. Political hacks from all ends of the spectrum started their own sites. The Right took particular advantage of this and, in the 2004 election, were part of the reason George W. Bush won reelection. After issuing imperial edicts that John Kerry was a French war criminal, the American people, still timid from 9-11, bought all their lies.
But the two years after that election were illustrative of what happens when you vote with emotion and belief as opposed to thought. And, in 2006, the Democrats took over both houses in Congress. In 2008, they saw more gains and America elected Barack Obama president. It appeared that the influence of the right wing blogger was a flash in the pan.
The 2010 election showed us that they did have a death rattle left in them. The House swept back to the GOP based on irrational fears over health care and over reaching government intrusion. Even in that election, though, the Right blew it, running very conservative candidates in the Senate and reaching too far. By all rights, they should have taken back the Senate as well because if you take a look at the House victories from that year, not all were hard core Tea Partiers. Some were merely moderates elected by a center right public who thought the president had gone too far. These same voters certainly did not want the far right either and so, the GOP didn't take the Senate. Since the Right's main conviction is their vanity, they saw 2010 as a great victory and continued to push more and more crazy ideas in the 2012 election, pulling political philosophies from far right web sites and incorporating them into their main platform.
It didn't work. The president easily won reelection, the Democrats gained two seats in the Senate, adding more progressive candidates like Elizabeth Warren and Tammy Baldwin, and the House saw a net of seven seats for the party of the donkey. Add in the recent astronomical polling numbers for New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and the message the American people are sending is clear: moderate or else.
All of this leads us to the conclusion that the right wing blogger, and any influence they may have had over public policy, is essentially dead. Sure, they'll still have their followers similar to the old short wave radio days and they'll be trotted out on talk shows here and there but, for the most part, the days of them having any sort of substantial effect on policy are over. We're going to see this with the debates on guns, the budget, immigration and climate change over the next few months. Either they can moderate or be left out of the conversation. If the trends in the last few elections are any indication, it may even be worse for the Right in general. I suppose they didn't have much of a choice after 2008 to hitch their wagon to the star located in the Moonbat Quadrant. Now, they are paying the consequences.
I wonder just how many times Hitler and Stalin are going to come up in the next month...
Wednesday, January 09, 2013
The Supreme Court Takes Another Shot at Privacy
The Supreme Court is hearing arguments today in a case where a cop forced a suspected drunk driver to have blood drawn. The case was thrown out by the judge because the cop didn't get a warrant. There was no accident or assault, the driver was simply speeding: 56 in 45 mph zone.
Now, getting that warrant had never been a problem before. A judge is on call at all times and warrants were previously obtained within half an hour. The state highway patrolman involved, Mark Winder, had read an opinion from the state prosecutor that a warrant was unnecessary, an opinion that was in direct contradiction to an opinion from the county attorney and the state police legal advisory. In any case the blood test was unnecessary, as the suspect's refusal of the breathalyzer test could be used as evidence of guilt at trial.
This case should have ended there: the patrolman acted against the advice of his employer, the state police. He should have been reprimanded, but instead the case has been appealed all the way to the US Supreme Court.
Incredibly, the Obama administration is siding with Missouri on this. Their argument, that time is of the essence because the alcohol will dissipate over time, is simply not credible. It's just like arguing that warrants shouldn't be required for searching a drug-dealer's house because he might sell the drugs before the warrant is issued. If time is so critical, it is incumbent upon the state to do its job quickly, not to force the suspect to abandon his rights because the state can't get its act together. With modern technology a warrant can be requested and issued within minutes.
This isn't just an overreaching cop invading a man's privacy, like searching a car and finding marijuana. Drawing blood is a medical procedure that is not without risk: you can suffer collapsed veins, blood clots and staph infections. It's unlikely you'll suffer injury or death, but it's not impossible.
We shouldn't trash the idea of presumed innocence and risk people's health because cops and prosecutors are too lazy to do their jobs.
Now, getting that warrant had never been a problem before. A judge is on call at all times and warrants were previously obtained within half an hour. The state highway patrolman involved, Mark Winder, had read an opinion from the state prosecutor that a warrant was unnecessary, an opinion that was in direct contradiction to an opinion from the county attorney and the state police legal advisory. In any case the blood test was unnecessary, as the suspect's refusal of the breathalyzer test could be used as evidence of guilt at trial.
This case should have ended there: the patrolman acted against the advice of his employer, the state police. He should have been reprimanded, but instead the case has been appealed all the way to the US Supreme Court.
Incredibly, the Obama administration is siding with Missouri on this. Their argument, that time is of the essence because the alcohol will dissipate over time, is simply not credible. It's just like arguing that warrants shouldn't be required for searching a drug-dealer's house because he might sell the drugs before the warrant is issued. If time is so critical, it is incumbent upon the state to do its job quickly, not to force the suspect to abandon his rights because the state can't get its act together. With modern technology a warrant can be requested and issued within minutes.
This isn't just an overreaching cop invading a man's privacy, like searching a car and finding marijuana. Drawing blood is a medical procedure that is not without risk: you can suffer collapsed veins, blood clots and staph infections. It's unlikely you'll suffer injury or death, but it's not impossible.
We shouldn't trash the idea of presumed innocence and risk people's health because cops and prosecutors are too lazy to do their jobs.
Actually Having Ideas
I can almost here the mouth foam oozing out of the mouth of the gun rights folks after this little ditty.
A working group led by Vice President Biden is seriously considering measures backed by key law enforcement leaders that would require universal background checks for firearm buyers, track the movement and sale of weapons through a national database, strengthen mental health checks, and stiffen penalties for carrying guns near schools or giving them to minors, the sources said.
Of course, that's not even the best part.
To sell such changes, the White House is developing strategies to work around the National Rifle Association that one source said could include rallying support from Wal-Mart and other gun retailers for measures that would benefit their businesses. White House aides have also been in regular contact with advisers to New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg (I), an outspoken gun-control advocate who could emerge as a powerful surrogate for the Obama administration’s agenda.
One potential strategy would be to win support for specific measures from interest groups that are normally aligned with the NRA, according to one person who works closely with the administration on gun-related issues and who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the issue’s sensitivity. For instance, this person suggested, Wal-Mart and other major gun retailers may have an incentive to support closing a loophole that allows people to bypass background checks if they purchase firearms at gun shows or through other types of private sales. That could result in more people buying guns in retail stores.
Now, when we say Michael Bloomberg, we really mean Lord Voldemort. Let's just get that out of the way first:)
What I find very interesting about this particular idea is how the support for this could be shored up through places like Wal Mart and Dick's Sporting Goods. As I have said previously, the best way to solve the gun side of this is the money. Already we've seen some gun shows and retail outlets not carrying guns like the Bushmaster. If that loophole is closed and it results in more sales at retail operations, then you get the buy in from the business community.
But, really, the best part of all these ideas is that they actually have them as opposed to the gun lobby. Moreover, they are looking at this from a variety of angles and are going to pursue many different avenues that don't have anything to do with guns. The mental health aspect of this issue is one such example. Had Adam Lanza (along with all of these other spree shooters) had better access to mental health care, things may have turned out differently.
I get the real sense the gun lobby better come up with something better than what they have now or risk being shut out of the process and clearly seen as part of the problem...which, for now, they are. They've been the "Big Daddies" for quite some time now and I think they are a little too comfortable. They won't be after this...
A working group led by Vice President Biden is seriously considering measures backed by key law enforcement leaders that would require universal background checks for firearm buyers, track the movement and sale of weapons through a national database, strengthen mental health checks, and stiffen penalties for carrying guns near schools or giving them to minors, the sources said.
Of course, that's not even the best part.
To sell such changes, the White House is developing strategies to work around the National Rifle Association that one source said could include rallying support from Wal-Mart and other gun retailers for measures that would benefit their businesses. White House aides have also been in regular contact with advisers to New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg (I), an outspoken gun-control advocate who could emerge as a powerful surrogate for the Obama administration’s agenda.
One potential strategy would be to win support for specific measures from interest groups that are normally aligned with the NRA, according to one person who works closely with the administration on gun-related issues and who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the issue’s sensitivity. For instance, this person suggested, Wal-Mart and other major gun retailers may have an incentive to support closing a loophole that allows people to bypass background checks if they purchase firearms at gun shows or through other types of private sales. That could result in more people buying guns in retail stores.
Now, when we say Michael Bloomberg, we really mean Lord Voldemort. Let's just get that out of the way first:)
What I find very interesting about this particular idea is how the support for this could be shored up through places like Wal Mart and Dick's Sporting Goods. As I have said previously, the best way to solve the gun side of this is the money. Already we've seen some gun shows and retail outlets not carrying guns like the Bushmaster. If that loophole is closed and it results in more sales at retail operations, then you get the buy in from the business community.
But, really, the best part of all these ideas is that they actually have them as opposed to the gun lobby. Moreover, they are looking at this from a variety of angles and are going to pursue many different avenues that don't have anything to do with guns. The mental health aspect of this issue is one such example. Had Adam Lanza (along with all of these other spree shooters) had better access to mental health care, things may have turned out differently.
I get the real sense the gun lobby better come up with something better than what they have now or risk being shut out of the process and clearly seen as part of the problem...which, for now, they are. They've been the "Big Daddies" for quite some time now and I think they are a little too comfortable. They won't be after this...
Tuesday, January 08, 2013
A Gift That Will Keep On Giving
I can't think of a better example of the gun lobby's position than Alex Jones. Heck, I can't think of a better example of some of my commenters and how they talk to me than Alex Jones. Man oh man, he hit all the points (verbatim!:)) that I hear all the time on here. It's almost as if they are reading from some sort of script...
It's people like this make me ashamed of my country. Here's person #1 that should not own guns under any new gun laws and he has 50. For what, exactly?
Man, did he do the gun control folks a favor with this interview. Who's sensible now, asshole?
It's people like this make me ashamed of my country. Here's person #1 that should not own guns under any new gun laws and he has 50. For what, exactly?
Man, did he do the gun control folks a favor with this interview. Who's sensible now, asshole?
Planet Earth
For all of my crabbing on here, the world is actually getting to be a much better place in which to live. There's a lot of good news out there and if are diligent, you can find it. The best place to start is The Christian Science Monitor as they are usually very unbiased and shy away from sensation. The last issue, for example, had a plethora of good news and I'm going to be highlighting some of their stories over the next week or so. This, by the way, keeps my promise to put up more world news content as well:)
The first one that caught my eye was this story on poverty. I had to read it twice before I believed that it was real. Extreme poverty in the world has been...cut by half?!?
In fact, the rate of decline in extreme poverty everywhere in the world has more than doubled in the past decade, Ravallion says. That's after adjusting for China, whose sheer size makes it an outlier.
Simply amazing.
Now, the article does go on to say that there is still a great deal of poverty in the world but we are heading in the right direction. With the changes seen in China (as noted in the article), the direction we are heading as a world is very, very positive. In fact, I think the prediction that Bono made a year or two ago is going to come true: within 50 years, there will be no more hunger on this planet. Barring some unforeseen catastrophe, there will be no going back to "Live Aid" days. (Note: this includes climate change, incidentally, which is actually quite "foreseen" and will be eventually dealt with in an appropriate fashion).
So, why has this happened? Well, mainly, it's because of us. Our country has spread prosperity around the world in the form of liberal economic theory. Communism is gone and capitalism and free markets are spreading everywhere. If countries don't want to be a part of this (and there aren't many left out there), they will find themselves on the outside. Our new world certainly is not perfect and we have had some growing pains but the increased prosperity has no other explanation. Everyone on the planet wants an iPhone.
And, as the countries of the world begin to need less aid, we are going to see greater wealth in the Global North countries. In fact, my children will likely live in a time where there will be no delineation between the Global North and the Global South.
It's simply going to be Planet Earth.
The first one that caught my eye was this story on poverty. I had to read it twice before I believed that it was real. Extreme poverty in the world has been...cut by half?!?
In fact, the rate of decline in extreme poverty everywhere in the world has more than doubled in the past decade, Ravallion says. That's after adjusting for China, whose sheer size makes it an outlier.
Simply amazing.
Now, the article does go on to say that there is still a great deal of poverty in the world but we are heading in the right direction. With the changes seen in China (as noted in the article), the direction we are heading as a world is very, very positive. In fact, I think the prediction that Bono made a year or two ago is going to come true: within 50 years, there will be no more hunger on this planet. Barring some unforeseen catastrophe, there will be no going back to "Live Aid" days. (Note: this includes climate change, incidentally, which is actually quite "foreseen" and will be eventually dealt with in an appropriate fashion).
So, why has this happened? Well, mainly, it's because of us. Our country has spread prosperity around the world in the form of liberal economic theory. Communism is gone and capitalism and free markets are spreading everywhere. If countries don't want to be a part of this (and there aren't many left out there), they will find themselves on the outside. Our new world certainly is not perfect and we have had some growing pains but the increased prosperity has no other explanation. Everyone on the planet wants an iPhone.
And, as the countries of the world begin to need less aid, we are going to see greater wealth in the Global North countries. In fact, my children will likely live in a time where there will be no delineation between the Global North and the Global South.
It's simply going to be Planet Earth.
Monday, January 07, 2013
Another Greek Lesson
Conservatives like to point to Greece as an example of what will happen to us unless we follow their strong medicine and drastically reduce spending. But so far their predictions have failed. We haven't slashed, and our economy is doing better than countries that have.
Many economists, Paul Krugman among them, believe that the U.S. economy would be doing much better now if Obama had been able to implement the stronger stimulus he originally proposed. Instead the GOP blocked much of Obama's plan, apparently to sabotage the recovery to make him a one-term president.
But there are other lessons we can learn from Greece: tax evasion is rampant, and they have a tax collection shortfall that runs into tens of billions of euros. The major scandal in Greece now is the Lagarde List, a list of wealthy Greeks who have hidden their wealth in Swiss bank accounts. Additional tax collections are half what they were expected to be and investigations of off-shore tax evaders was derailed by George Papaconstantinou, who took the list with him when he resigned, and then removed his friends from the list before handing it over to his successor, Evangelos Venizelos, who also appears to be shielding his pals.
A magazine publisher, Kostas Vaxevanis, published the list and was prosecuted by the Greek government for "invasion of privacy." His article about his persecution by the Greek government was recently published in The New York Times. After the publication of the list two men suspected to be on it were found dead, apparently suicides.
Conservatives in the United States keep saying we have a spending problem, and we do to some extent. But the United States has a huge tax collection problem that dwarfs Greece's. Many people and corporations are still not paying their fair share. People like Mitt Romney pay less than 15% in taxes, using off-shore accounts and other tricks only the wealth can use to hide their wealth. Corporations like GE pay less than zero in taxes, and companies like Apple and Reebok squirrel away all their profits overseas using gimmicky licensing payments.
I say it's time Paul Ryan to keep the promise he made during the election. For every dollar of spending cuts to non-military programs they should eliminate a dollar of tax loopholes that only giant corporations and guys like Mitt Romney can take advantage of.
Many economists, Paul Krugman among them, believe that the U.S. economy would be doing much better now if Obama had been able to implement the stronger stimulus he originally proposed. Instead the GOP blocked much of Obama's plan, apparently to sabotage the recovery to make him a one-term president.
But there are other lessons we can learn from Greece: tax evasion is rampant, and they have a tax collection shortfall that runs into tens of billions of euros. The major scandal in Greece now is the Lagarde List, a list of wealthy Greeks who have hidden their wealth in Swiss bank accounts. Additional tax collections are half what they were expected to be and investigations of off-shore tax evaders was derailed by George Papaconstantinou, who took the list with him when he resigned, and then removed his friends from the list before handing it over to his successor, Evangelos Venizelos, who also appears to be shielding his pals.
A magazine publisher, Kostas Vaxevanis, published the list and was prosecuted by the Greek government for "invasion of privacy." His article about his persecution by the Greek government was recently published in The New York Times. After the publication of the list two men suspected to be on it were found dead, apparently suicides.
Conservatives in the United States keep saying we have a spending problem, and we do to some extent. But the United States has a huge tax collection problem that dwarfs Greece's. Many people and corporations are still not paying their fair share. People like Mitt Romney pay less than 15% in taxes, using off-shore accounts and other tricks only the wealth can use to hide their wealth. Corporations like GE pay less than zero in taxes, and companies like Apple and Reebok squirrel away all their profits overseas using gimmicky licensing payments.
I say it's time Paul Ryan to keep the promise he made during the election. For every dollar of spending cuts to non-military programs they should eliminate a dollar of tax loopholes that only giant corporations and guys like Mitt Romney can take advantage of.
Uh Oh
Looks like the rats are leaving the sinking ship. I guess they got tired of all the wrong information put out there on a daily basis.
What amazes me most about this is how the Right really hates losers. Everything is about winning for them and, if you don't, they have no time for you at all.
Sour, sour grapes...
What amazes me most about this is how the Right really hates losers. Everything is about winning for them and, if you don't, they have no time for you at all.
Sour, sour grapes...
Sunday, January 06, 2013
Why, Again?
Suppose you are in a darkened room with 20 armed people and you. You are the only one not armed.
Who gets shot first?
Who survives?
Think about it for a minute.
Have it yet?
The 20 armed men likely get shot first.
You survive.
Why?
The 20 armed men aren't worried about the unarmed man because he doesn't have a gun. They are more worried about the men with guns because they represent a threat. So, they go after each other.
But you...you are trying to get out of the way of the 20 armed men and survive. So, your first reaction is to hide, move, dodge and stay out of the way of the gunfire. You might get shot by accident but not intentionally because they are shooting at each other to eliminate the higher threat.
In short, your goal is to survive.
They all shoot each other until there are 2 or 3 left and then they really aren't worried about you but the last couple armed people. You escape. You live. You survive.
And you aren't armed.
So, how does arming everyone make people safer?
Who gets shot first?
Who survives?
Think about it for a minute.
Have it yet?
The 20 armed men likely get shot first.
You survive.
Why?
The 20 armed men aren't worried about the unarmed man because he doesn't have a gun. They are more worried about the men with guns because they represent a threat. So, they go after each other.
But you...you are trying to get out of the way of the 20 armed men and survive. So, your first reaction is to hide, move, dodge and stay out of the way of the gunfire. You might get shot by accident but not intentionally because they are shooting at each other to eliminate the higher threat.
In short, your goal is to survive.
They all shoot each other until there are 2 or 3 left and then they really aren't worried about you but the last couple armed people. You escape. You live. You survive.
And you aren't armed.
So, how does arming everyone make people safer?
Saturday, January 05, 2013
Business As Usual?
Remember back after the Columbine shooting when the NRA showed up in Denver and thumped their chests?
Yeah, not gonna happen this time....
Some gun shows canceling after Conn. mass shooting.
Further...
Some of the most popular guns will be missing from next weekend's gun show in Saratoga Springs, N.Y., after show organizers agreed to bar the display and sale of AR-15 military-style semiautomatic weapons and their large-clip magazines.
Huh. I thought it was going to be business as usual if not more so after Sandy Hook.
Yeah, not gonna happen this time....
Some gun shows canceling after Conn. mass shooting.
Further...
Some of the most popular guns will be missing from next weekend's gun show in Saratoga Springs, N.Y., after show organizers agreed to bar the display and sale of AR-15 military-style semiautomatic weapons and their large-clip magazines.
Huh. I thought it was going to be business as usual if not more so after Sandy Hook.
A Collection of Voices In My Head
I've heard so many "voices in my head" of late. What are they saying these days?
“The numbers — at some point it’s got to catch up or else we’re all going to die,” said Chris Chocola, head of the anti-tax Club for Growth.
Cue the boiling pit of sewage!
Obama you stupid sand nigger get off my tv. Your just making the families hurt and miss their kids more and I want to watch football
The above is one tweet of many. Make sure you read all of the comments from the non-Republican, non-racists.
And what happens when you hug the president and you are a registered Republican?
But the attention wasn't all positive. Van Duzer, a registered Republican, had voted for Obama in the last election and said he did again in November. That brought out the worst in anti-Obama zealots, who called in bomb threats, sent him hate mail with death threats, and brought out a level of vitriol Van Duzer said he had never witnessed. Some tried to organize a boycott of his restaurant and bombarded Yelp!, the restaurant review website, with thousands of one-star reviews from first-time visitors to the site.
It must be the left wing media's fault! Where's Katie Couric?!??
“The numbers — at some point it’s got to catch up or else we’re all going to die,” said Chris Chocola, head of the anti-tax Club for Growth.
Cue the boiling pit of sewage!
Obama you stupid sand nigger get off my tv. Your just making the families hurt and miss their kids more and I want to watch football
The above is one tweet of many. Make sure you read all of the comments from the non-Republican, non-racists.
And what happens when you hug the president and you are a registered Republican?
But the attention wasn't all positive. Van Duzer, a registered Republican, had voted for Obama in the last election and said he did again in November. That brought out the worst in anti-Obama zealots, who called in bomb threats, sent him hate mail with death threats, and brought out a level of vitriol Van Duzer said he had never witnessed. Some tried to organize a boycott of his restaurant and bombarded Yelp!, the restaurant review website, with thousands of one-star reviews from first-time visitors to the site.
It must be the left wing media's fault! Where's Katie Couric?!??
Friday, January 04, 2013
Low Capacity
A few weeks back, I had a very long discussion with the folks over at TSM about the Sandy Hook tragedy and what is likely going to be a sea change in the way guns are viewed in this country. Mixed in with the chest thumping, mouth foaming, jingoism and adolescent bullying was this comment.
I think there needs to be a sound philosophical reasoning for establishing a clear, rational category of weapons that are off limits. Maybe it's the wide area destructiveness and indiscriminate standard I mentioned earlier. Or maybe it could something to the effect that if it's something which not even most governments can control, then no individual can own it. Another possibility could be the category of weapons you would not use when fighting a defensive war on your own soil.
I couldn't possibly agree more. Of course, the gun rights folks don't even want to have that discussion as they hit over boil in about a second and begin to descend into paranoid rants about the 2nd amendment. What are they really afraid of?
It's not losing the right to bear arms. People are always going to have that right with a variety of guns and other weapons from which to choose. And it can't be that they think that our government is suddenly going to become fascist and/or communist and they will then need those arms to defend themselves against tyranny....well, maybe that is it a little bit:) Perhaps it's simply that they like their toys and they don't want to give them up.
Honestly, though, I think the real reason why they don't want to have the discussion about what weapons are OK and which ones aren't is that it leads to the necessity of coming up with a solution to gun violence in this country. To begin with, they don't want a solution because the violence enables them to continue to justify themselves and their ideology. This is why you rarely hear them talk about violence going down across the nation. If they ain't a comin', then why do they require so many armaments? (Note: this is similar to why they don't want to talk about good economic news or the realities of climate change...they would no longer be able to justify their imperial edicts and bloviating ideology).
There is a bigger and more obvious reason why they don't want have the solution discussion: they don't have one. That's exactly what was on display when Wayne LaPierre did his broken record of a press conference two weeks ago. For a group that champions high capacity guns, they are decidedly low capacity on real world solutions. It's more guns and fuck you, don't take away my gun. That's it. That's all they have.
The singular most amazing point about this is the colossal level of impotence of which Nikto spoke recently. One would think that with such a tenacity for defense that they could come up with something better than the same ol' same ol' but alas, this is not the case. Press them on the issue and that's when the personal attacks, bullying and Spanish Inquisition begin which all further illustrate their total failure at addressing this problem (this is similar to how they approach other issues as well so it's really no surprise).
The sad news for them is that, after Sandy Hook, we are now going to have this discussion. Even though violence in the country is going down overall, this tragedy has changed the landscape due to the nature of the crime. One simply can't look at numbers and say, "Well, less people died from school shootings so let's not worry about it." The quality of the crime matters and we know in all these cases how it happens.
Guns are only a part of this. After we reason which weapons are off limits and which aren't, then we need to look at the safety issue. The profile for these shooters are essentially the same...young, male, mental and emotional issues, taking medications, lack of parental cohesion...so is there a way to screen for this in future gun purchases? Perhaps not on a government level but, similar to car insurance where there are higher risk groups for accidents, there could be higher risk groups for owning guns. If you are in this group and want to own a gun, requiring a certain type of insurance might be a solution. This is the type of conversation that needs to happen.
Much to the apoplectic chagrin of the gun rights folks, they are going to have to come up with something more than what they have now. Significantly more. Or they will take themselves out of the debate and risk losing more than just their Bushmasters. So, let's start with this quote above. What are the categories? How should they be divided? Why would some people perceive some weapons as defensive and not others?
I think there needs to be a sound philosophical reasoning for establishing a clear, rational category of weapons that are off limits. Maybe it's the wide area destructiveness and indiscriminate standard I mentioned earlier. Or maybe it could something to the effect that if it's something which not even most governments can control, then no individual can own it. Another possibility could be the category of weapons you would not use when fighting a defensive war on your own soil.
I couldn't possibly agree more. Of course, the gun rights folks don't even want to have that discussion as they hit over boil in about a second and begin to descend into paranoid rants about the 2nd amendment. What are they really afraid of?
It's not losing the right to bear arms. People are always going to have that right with a variety of guns and other weapons from which to choose. And it can't be that they think that our government is suddenly going to become fascist and/or communist and they will then need those arms to defend themselves against tyranny....well, maybe that is it a little bit:) Perhaps it's simply that they like their toys and they don't want to give them up.
Honestly, though, I think the real reason why they don't want to have the discussion about what weapons are OK and which ones aren't is that it leads to the necessity of coming up with a solution to gun violence in this country. To begin with, they don't want a solution because the violence enables them to continue to justify themselves and their ideology. This is why you rarely hear them talk about violence going down across the nation. If they ain't a comin', then why do they require so many armaments? (Note: this is similar to why they don't want to talk about good economic news or the realities of climate change...they would no longer be able to justify their imperial edicts and bloviating ideology).
There is a bigger and more obvious reason why they don't want have the solution discussion: they don't have one. That's exactly what was on display when Wayne LaPierre did his broken record of a press conference two weeks ago. For a group that champions high capacity guns, they are decidedly low capacity on real world solutions. It's more guns and fuck you, don't take away my gun. That's it. That's all they have.
The singular most amazing point about this is the colossal level of impotence of which Nikto spoke recently. One would think that with such a tenacity for defense that they could come up with something better than the same ol' same ol' but alas, this is not the case. Press them on the issue and that's when the personal attacks, bullying and Spanish Inquisition begin which all further illustrate their total failure at addressing this problem (this is similar to how they approach other issues as well so it's really no surprise).
The sad news for them is that, after Sandy Hook, we are now going to have this discussion. Even though violence in the country is going down overall, this tragedy has changed the landscape due to the nature of the crime. One simply can't look at numbers and say, "Well, less people died from school shootings so let's not worry about it." The quality of the crime matters and we know in all these cases how it happens.
Guns are only a part of this. After we reason which weapons are off limits and which aren't, then we need to look at the safety issue. The profile for these shooters are essentially the same...young, male, mental and emotional issues, taking medications, lack of parental cohesion...so is there a way to screen for this in future gun purchases? Perhaps not on a government level but, similar to car insurance where there are higher risk groups for accidents, there could be higher risk groups for owning guns. If you are in this group and want to own a gun, requiring a certain type of insurance might be a solution. This is the type of conversation that needs to happen.
Much to the apoplectic chagrin of the gun rights folks, they are going to have to come up with something more than what they have now. Significantly more. Or they will take themselves out of the debate and risk losing more than just their Bushmasters. So, let's start with this quote above. What are the categories? How should they be divided? Why would some people perceive some weapons as defensive and not others?
Thursday, January 03, 2013
Since Ike
President Barack Obama is the first president since Dwight David Eisenhower to win 51 percent of the popular vote...twice!
Final tally?
65.9 million votes -51.1% of the vote for the president
60.9 million votes-47.2% of the vote for Mitt Romney
The response from the Right?
He bribed them with gifts!
He stole votes!
The polls were skewed!
He's a socialist!
He's a gun grabber!
He wasn't born here!
He was trained in a madrassa!
(all of which really worked out well for them didn't it?)
Final tally?
65.9 million votes -51.1% of the vote for the president
60.9 million votes-47.2% of the vote for Mitt Romney
The response from the Right?
He bribed them with gifts!
He stole votes!
The polls were skewed!
He's a socialist!
He's a gun grabber!
He wasn't born here!
He was trained in a madrassa!
(all of which really worked out well for them didn't it?)
Seeing the End?
I've been trying to figure out exactly WTF the House Republicans have been thinking these last few days and I got nothing. I like John Boehner and, in many ways, actually feel sorry for him. He has to deal with around 75 adolescent males every day (enough to make any parent or teacher cry!) in his caucus so cutting him some slack seems like the right thing to do.
But this latest game with the aid for Hurricane Sandy victims shows just how fucked up the Right is these days. They are run by a group of people who see any sort of government spending (except defense) as the equivalent of raping children. I guess the general welfare clause also does not apply to people whose homes were lost to natural disaster. Why should we have to pay for their loss? They just need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, stop spooning off the government, and get to work, by gum!
Boehner finally gave in after New Jersey Governor Chris Christie unleashed holy hell and a vote in the House will now be scheduled on Friday. Honestly, though, this is a larger issue that we are going to see play out in the coming months and it really only has one conclusion: more Democratic victories and a likely retaking of the House in 2014.
In what has to be the finest example of "Doing it again, only harder," GOP leaders have already indicated that they are going to play chicken with the debt ceiling again. It worked so well last time so why not try it again? With all the good economic news (more on that tomorrow), it makes perfect sense to try to ruin any chances of improvement. After all, they have been rooting for America to fail since the president took office in their never ending quest to not be proven wrong and win the argument. Who gives a shit if the economy continues to sputter?
The Right has also indicated that, in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook tragedy, that: a) more people being armed is the answer (see: 1984, George Orwell) and b) we can't really do anything anyway because we are free and freedom means impotence. So, a far right stance on guns will be taken with no possibility for even a reasonable discussion or alternative solutions, We are talking about a choice between our freedom or burning in hell under a totalitarian regime. The stakes have never been higher, folks!!
Even with immigration, the Right remains steadfast. They don't have time for the details. It's "Fuck you, get out!" They don't seem to mind that, if they continue down this path, possibly in 2016 (2020 is more likely), Texas will turn blue and the Republican Party as we know it will have gone the way of the Whigs.
I think the head of the conservative organization Club For Growth, Chris Chocola, summed up the thinking on the Right (and the "voices in my head") when he said, of the debt, "The numbers-at some point it's got to catch up or else we are all going to die." Look out, folks! We have to stop government before they inflict any more evil on the world!!! AHHHH!!!!
I guess the Right didn't learn anything from the election last November and their possible end is becoming more and more clearer every day. Politically, that's great for me but my concern is how many Americans they are going to drag down with them in their teenage male stomp down the hallway.
But this latest game with the aid for Hurricane Sandy victims shows just how fucked up the Right is these days. They are run by a group of people who see any sort of government spending (except defense) as the equivalent of raping children. I guess the general welfare clause also does not apply to people whose homes were lost to natural disaster. Why should we have to pay for their loss? They just need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, stop spooning off the government, and get to work, by gum!
Boehner finally gave in after New Jersey Governor Chris Christie unleashed holy hell and a vote in the House will now be scheduled on Friday. Honestly, though, this is a larger issue that we are going to see play out in the coming months and it really only has one conclusion: more Democratic victories and a likely retaking of the House in 2014.
In what has to be the finest example of "Doing it again, only harder," GOP leaders have already indicated that they are going to play chicken with the debt ceiling again. It worked so well last time so why not try it again? With all the good economic news (more on that tomorrow), it makes perfect sense to try to ruin any chances of improvement. After all, they have been rooting for America to fail since the president took office in their never ending quest to not be proven wrong and win the argument. Who gives a shit if the economy continues to sputter?
The Right has also indicated that, in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook tragedy, that: a) more people being armed is the answer (see: 1984, George Orwell) and b) we can't really do anything anyway because we are free and freedom means impotence. So, a far right stance on guns will be taken with no possibility for even a reasonable discussion or alternative solutions, We are talking about a choice between our freedom or burning in hell under a totalitarian regime. The stakes have never been higher, folks!!
Even with immigration, the Right remains steadfast. They don't have time for the details. It's "Fuck you, get out!" They don't seem to mind that, if they continue down this path, possibly in 2016 (2020 is more likely), Texas will turn blue and the Republican Party as we know it will have gone the way of the Whigs.
I think the head of the conservative organization Club For Growth, Chris Chocola, summed up the thinking on the Right (and the "voices in my head") when he said, of the debt, "The numbers-at some point it's got to catch up or else we are all going to die." Look out, folks! We have to stop government before they inflict any more evil on the world!!! AHHHH!!!!
I guess the Right didn't learn anything from the election last November and their possible end is becoming more and more clearer every day. Politically, that's great for me but my concern is how many Americans they are going to drag down with them in their teenage male stomp down the hallway.
Wednesday, January 02, 2013
In Less Than Seven Minutes
It only took Rhode Island teacher Steven Round less than seven minutes to sum up perfectly many of the things that are wrong with our education system today. Sadly, there are far too many school districts that are like this. Thankfully, both mine and my children's district are not.
His points below illustrate several things. First, trying to have a one size fits all approach to teaching children is an epic fail. If districts are going to chuck Carol Ann Tomlinson by the roadside these days, children are going to lose. Second, we are creating a nation of test takers, not learners and students with enduring understandings. As Mr. Round says in this video, they have no clue what the real world is like. Third, this lack of real world experience is compounded further by budget cuts which means no field trips. Far too many districts suffer these consequences.
This, of course leads to a larger problem which is a decided lack of socialization time for many schoolchildren of all ages. Having a conversation with fellow students on a regular basis is a very key element to development. Without it, another avenue of real world experience is lost.
Given how so many school districts operate like this one (see: mini-fiefdoms) I fear that Mr. Round is only the first of many abrupt departures.
His points below illustrate several things. First, trying to have a one size fits all approach to teaching children is an epic fail. If districts are going to chuck Carol Ann Tomlinson by the roadside these days, children are going to lose. Second, we are creating a nation of test takers, not learners and students with enduring understandings. As Mr. Round says in this video, they have no clue what the real world is like. Third, this lack of real world experience is compounded further by budget cuts which means no field trips. Far too many districts suffer these consequences.
This, of course leads to a larger problem which is a decided lack of socialization time for many schoolchildren of all ages. Having a conversation with fellow students on a regular basis is a very key element to development. Without it, another avenue of real world experience is lost.
Given how so many school districts operate like this one (see: mini-fiefdoms) I fear that Mr. Round is only the first of many abrupt departures.
All Calories are Not Created Equal
A study in the Journal of the American Medical Association reports that the brain reacts differently to fructose than it does to glucose (via USA Today):
For the study, scientists used magnetic resonance imaging, or MRI, scans to track blood flow in the brain in 20 young, normal-weight people before and after they had drinks containing glucose or fructose in two sessions several weeks apart.That means the two sugars have different biological effects on the body. Even though they may contain the same number of calories, someone consuming products made with high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) instead of glucose (regular sugar) may wind up eating more and gaining more weight.
Scans showed that drinking glucose "turns off or suppresses the activity of areas of the brain that are critical for reward and desire for food," said one study leader, Yale University endocrinologist Robert Sherwin. With fructose, "we don't see those changes," he said. "As a result, the desire to eat continues — it isn't turned off."
This is not the first such finding. Many studies have found that artificial sweeteners also fail to trip the satiety switch. That means nearly all soft drinks, even diet sodas that contain zero calories, may contribute to weight gain by failing to trip the mechanisms that tell us to stop feeding our faces.
But fructose is the sugar that's in fruit. Does that mean fruit's bad for you? No.
An apple has 116 calories, 31 grams of carbohydrates, 5 grams of fiber (20% of your daily recommended value), vitamin C and trace amounts of vitamin A, iron and calcium. A 12-ounce Coke has 140 calories, 39 grams of carbohydrates, 50 mg sodium and phosphoric acid, which is linked to bone loss. The apple provides nutritional value, which Coke does not, as well as fiber that provides a satiety mechanism.
According to a Gallup poll from last year, the average person who drinks soda consumes 2.6 glasses a day (48% of Americans said they consumed soda, and 7% said they drank four or more glasses per day). It's hard to find anyone who eats 2.6 apples a day, even though doctors tell us we should eat five to thirteen servings of fruits and vegetables daily. The average American eats just three total servings of fruits and vegetables.
Last year everyone went ballistic when New York banned sugared soft drink sizes greater than 16 ounces. I've always been baffled that anyone could down 16 ounces of soda at a sitting, much less 20 or 32. But these scientific findings, if duplicated, may indicate a tangible reason: people don't feel sated when they drink HFCS- and aspartame-sweetened beverages, so they drink and eat more.
Maybe we haven't become gluttons because we're weak-willed: maybe it's the biochemistry of the highly-engineered stuff coming out of food industry labs. HFCS is in everything, from chips to cereal to soda to ice cream to Sarah Lee cakes. Which makes you wonder: is the food and beverage industry aware of this effect? Are they engineering products to make us eat more, the way cigarette companies intentionally engineered their products to make them more addictive? HFCS was originally used because it was cheaper due to sugar import restrictions, but is there a darker reason for using it?
The food industry has been trying to rehabilitate HFCS's image for years. They lobbied the FDA to call it "corn sugar" to get away from its bad rep, an initiative that was ultimately denied. The industry's attempt at subterfuge, reminiscent of the tobacco industry, calls into question their motives.
This debate recalls the revolt against New Coke when it came out in 1985: everyone hated it. Some people went to Mexico to get Old Coke, which was still made with cane sugar. After three months Coke relented and introduced Classic Coke. But it wasn't quite the same: it was made with HFCS instead of cane sugar. Was Classic Coke just a Trojan horse for HFCS?
On the plus side, the study's findings suggest an alternative that we may actually enjoy. Instead of drinking gallons of "diet" or high-fructose soda, perhaps we would eat fewer calories overall if we indulged in one glass of truly classic Coke made with cane sugar, or one rich, dark chocolate bar made with real sugar, or one ice cream cone made with real cream and real sugar. And who can eat anything more after two bites of real cheesecake?
Tuesday, January 01, 2013
Resolutions
In many ways, 2012 was a great year for this site. Blogger has made it very simple to bring in widgets and links to allow for more connectivity to outside resources and related sites. We saw more page views and comments than ever before in our seven year history. We also have a core following of about 200 readers and that suits me just fine. I've always wanted to be the digital equivalent of a small town newspaper and now it is safe to say that we fit that description perfectly. And it's been great to have a fellow contributor to take the daily load of posts off...thanks Nikto!
This does not mean, however, that we should rest on our laurels here at Markadelphia. I've been thinking that this site needs some changes, content wise, and so I've come up with a few resolutions for 2013.
1. More World News.
Last in line has quietly chided me over the past few months about how this site used to be more focused on international events. Well, he's right. Those topics have fallen by the wayside and it's time to bring them back (especially now that the election is over). At least once a week (and likely more than that), there will be a post commenting on world news. Will it be the latest on the strife in the Central African Republic? Or how about China's PMI forecast? Who knows? Whatever strikes my fancy, I guess, but it's going to be regular occurrence that will likely be a welcome break from political talk. Speaking of which...
2. Pop Culture.
Most of the readers of this site don't know that I am a massive fan of pop culture...music and film, in particular. In addition to the weekly world news post, there will be one that comments on pop culture. I do one at the end of the year but there just has to be more. My passion for this is simply too great to ignore it further and, again, talking about politics all the time can get rather tedious. I will probably throw in some sports posts here and there as well.
3. Education.
I have far too few posts about education which is odd considering that I am teacher. Part of the reason for this was to keep a degree of privacy in my life. Yet, I find that there are some experiences in my classrooms that I should write about and as long as they are done in the broader context of the issues facing education, I think I can maintain that public/private balance. So, expect more posts about the state of education in our country and the world (starting tomorrow with a video sent to me by last in line...him again!). These will likely have a more personal tone as well.
4. Science
Many of you may not know this but Nikto is a classically trained scientist. He's thrown out a few posts here and there with different scientific themes which have given me the idea to make this a more regular occurrence. Expect more posts that focus on innovation and science in the world today. Yes, that's right, Nikto, I'm volunteering you:)
These four resolutions can be summed up simply by noting that there is going to be more of a mix of content with less politics. That doesn't mean that my quest to destroy the right wing bubble is at an end. Far from it! I just feel the need to stretch myself out more with some different content which makes me look forward to 2013 with a large amount of gusto and zeal!
This does not mean, however, that we should rest on our laurels here at Markadelphia. I've been thinking that this site needs some changes, content wise, and so I've come up with a few resolutions for 2013.
1. More World News.
Last in line has quietly chided me over the past few months about how this site used to be more focused on international events. Well, he's right. Those topics have fallen by the wayside and it's time to bring them back (especially now that the election is over). At least once a week (and likely more than that), there will be a post commenting on world news. Will it be the latest on the strife in the Central African Republic? Or how about China's PMI forecast? Who knows? Whatever strikes my fancy, I guess, but it's going to be regular occurrence that will likely be a welcome break from political talk. Speaking of which...
2. Pop Culture.
Most of the readers of this site don't know that I am a massive fan of pop culture...music and film, in particular. In addition to the weekly world news post, there will be one that comments on pop culture. I do one at the end of the year but there just has to be more. My passion for this is simply too great to ignore it further and, again, talking about politics all the time can get rather tedious. I will probably throw in some sports posts here and there as well.
3. Education.
I have far too few posts about education which is odd considering that I am teacher. Part of the reason for this was to keep a degree of privacy in my life. Yet, I find that there are some experiences in my classrooms that I should write about and as long as they are done in the broader context of the issues facing education, I think I can maintain that public/private balance. So, expect more posts about the state of education in our country and the world (starting tomorrow with a video sent to me by last in line...him again!). These will likely have a more personal tone as well.
4. Science
Many of you may not know this but Nikto is a classically trained scientist. He's thrown out a few posts here and there with different scientific themes which have given me the idea to make this a more regular occurrence. Expect more posts that focus on innovation and science in the world today. Yes, that's right, Nikto, I'm volunteering you:)
These four resolutions can be summed up simply by noting that there is going to be more of a mix of content with less politics. That doesn't mean that my quest to destroy the right wing bubble is at an end. Far from it! I just feel the need to stretch myself out more with some different content which makes me look forward to 2013 with a large amount of gusto and zeal!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)