Thursday, January 31, 2013
Unbelievable
Here's another example of why the gun laws in this country need to be refined. So what if he's an old man. This is a classic case of someone who should not own a gun.
Part of me thinks, though, that this is what the gun folks want. That way they can point to the violence and say, "See? People need to defend themselves against this sort of thing." The more shootings, the merrier, eh? Maybe they think that Abad should have had a gun and then he could have shot back.
Oh, no, wait, that wouldn't do. He was Latino.
Part of me thinks, though, that this is what the gun folks want. That way they can point to the violence and say, "See? People need to defend themselves against this sort of thing." The more shootings, the merrier, eh? Maybe they think that Abad should have had a gun and then he could have shot back.
Oh, no, wait, that wouldn't do. He was Latino.
Ah, That Explains It
With the standoff down in rural Alabama entering its second day, we now know a little more about the suspect who shot a school bus driver and took a kid hostage. His name is Jimmie Lee Dykes, age 65.
Neighbors describe Dykes as being "anti-government" and said he was "a long time concern" in the community, WSFA.com reported. Court records show he was due in court Wednesday morning to face menacing charges, according to the station.
Gee, I'm shocked. I wonder if he was a regular reader of Kevin Baker's site. Of course, this is a great example of the study that I put up from the other day as to the danger that this type of person, whether acting alone or with others, presents to the public. Where are the left wing radicals that shoot bus drivers and take kids hostages?
And this is yet another example of why the current system we have regarding guns needs to be refined.
Neighbors describe Dykes as being "anti-government" and said he was "a long time concern" in the community, WSFA.com reported. Court records show he was due in court Wednesday morning to face menacing charges, according to the station.
Gee, I'm shocked. I wonder if he was a regular reader of Kevin Baker's site. Of course, this is a great example of the study that I put up from the other day as to the danger that this type of person, whether acting alone or with others, presents to the public. Where are the left wing radicals that shoot bus drivers and take kids hostages?
And this is yet another example of why the current system we have regarding guns needs to be refined.
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Working Out Just Fine
Let's see...
Grades too low, so St. Paul dad pulls AK-47, charges say
Authorities: NM teen accused of killing family put rifles in van, planned Wal-Mart shootout
Gunman in Ala. bus shooting holds boy hostage in bunker
And breaking just a few hours ago...
3 shot at Phoenix office building
And these are just highlights of the last week.
Yes, I see it now. Our gun laws are sufficient and seem to be working out just fine. In fact, we need less regulation and more guns in light of these events. That'll solve the problem, George Orwell.
What was I thinking?
Grades too low, so St. Paul dad pulls AK-47, charges say
Authorities: NM teen accused of killing family put rifles in van, planned Wal-Mart shootout
Gunman in Ala. bus shooting holds boy hostage in bunker
And breaking just a few hours ago...
3 shot at Phoenix office building
And these are just highlights of the last week.
Yes, I see it now. Our gun laws are sufficient and seem to be working out just fine. In fact, we need less regulation and more guns in light of these events. That'll solve the problem, George Orwell.
What was I thinking?
The Clock is Ticking
On Monday, the president met with law enforcement officials from the five communities where there have been mass shootings. One of those communities was mine where seven people died in a workplace shooting at Accent Signage, in Minneapolis, last September.
The man seated to the right of the president in this photo is Hennepin County Sheriff Rich Stanek. Sheriff Stanek was elected sheriff in 2006 and again in 2010. I voted for him both times as he is a fantastic example of a leader who recognizes that thinking outside of the box is vital in pursuing solutions to the very serious problems our communities face today.
Oh, and Rich Stanek is a Republican.
Sheriff Stanek's point to the president was this. "Gun control alone will not solve the complex problem of guns and extreme violence. We have an access problem. Individuals with severe mental illness should never have access to guns.
This is from his piece in the Star and Tribune a two weeks ago.
Federal law already prohibits high-risk individuals from buying guns -- persons determined by a court to be "mentally ill and dangerous," felons, drug addicts, fugitives, illegal aliens, dishonorably discharged soldiers, those who have renounced U.S. citizenship, and domestic abusers all are disqualified from gun ownership.
The National Criminal Instant Background Check System (NICS) assists law enforcement in identifying the disqualified. Trouble is, the system is woefully underdeveloped. A majority of relevant records have never been included in NICS; millions of names are missing from the federal database.
Since then, Congress passed the NICS Improvement Amendments Act to improve development and management of the NICS Index. But state participation still is voluntary, and only 12 states actively have engaged in an effort to submit mental-illness records.
Step One: Make state participation mandatory. This would have broad bipartisan support and have an immediate impact on gun violence. But how much of an impact and is it enough?
But even if we updated the NICS Index with every relevant record (and we should make every effort to do so), it still would not be enough. For a mentally ill person to become disqualified for gun ownership, there must first have been an act of violence, or an arrest leading to the extreme measure of a court hearing and decision. In my view, this is far too late to provide meaningful care and treatment to those in need.
Multiple studies show a strong link between untreated mental illness and an increased risk of committing violent acts (when properly treated, even the severely mentally ill pose no greater threat than do those in the general population). The parents of Andrew Engeldinger, the suspected killer at Accent Signage in Minneapolis last summer, said they tried to push their son to seek treatment for paranoia and delusions, but he was an adult and refused help.
This is the crux of the problem. If someone is an adult, we can't force them to seek care. As Stanek goes on to explain, we have an epidemic of mental illness in this country that has reached biblical proportions. Other countries have plenty of guns but they don't go around shooting each other at the rates that we do. Why?
It's not enough to say, "Well, it's our culture." Other countries have access to the same films and video games that we do. It's more than that and once you get into the details, the central cause that emerges is mental health.
We need a real strategy to address this unmet need for forensic psychiatric care and to prevent those with untreated mental illness from committing acts of violence. This must become a public-safety priority as well as a public-health priority.
More than anything, we must encourage individuals facing mental-health issues to seek treatment. We must "make it OK" for our family, friends and colleagues to seek treatment.
Exactly. And this would be why I will support Rich Stanek as long as he continues to run for office. We need more Rich Staneks around the country to embrace this mentality.
Yesterday.
Oh, and Rich Stanek is a Republican.
Sheriff Stanek's point to the president was this. "Gun control alone will not solve the complex problem of guns and extreme violence. We have an access problem. Individuals with severe mental illness should never have access to guns.
This is from his piece in the Star and Tribune a two weeks ago.
Federal law already prohibits high-risk individuals from buying guns -- persons determined by a court to be "mentally ill and dangerous," felons, drug addicts, fugitives, illegal aliens, dishonorably discharged soldiers, those who have renounced U.S. citizenship, and domestic abusers all are disqualified from gun ownership.
The National Criminal Instant Background Check System (NICS) assists law enforcement in identifying the disqualified. Trouble is, the system is woefully underdeveloped. A majority of relevant records have never been included in NICS; millions of names are missing from the federal database.
Since then, Congress passed the NICS Improvement Amendments Act to improve development and management of the NICS Index. But state participation still is voluntary, and only 12 states actively have engaged in an effort to submit mental-illness records.
Step One: Make state participation mandatory. This would have broad bipartisan support and have an immediate impact on gun violence. But how much of an impact and is it enough?
But even if we updated the NICS Index with every relevant record (and we should make every effort to do so), it still would not be enough. For a mentally ill person to become disqualified for gun ownership, there must first have been an act of violence, or an arrest leading to the extreme measure of a court hearing and decision. In my view, this is far too late to provide meaningful care and treatment to those in need.
Multiple studies show a strong link between untreated mental illness and an increased risk of committing violent acts (when properly treated, even the severely mentally ill pose no greater threat than do those in the general population). The parents of Andrew Engeldinger, the suspected killer at Accent Signage in Minneapolis last summer, said they tried to push their son to seek treatment for paranoia and delusions, but he was an adult and refused help.
This is the crux of the problem. If someone is an adult, we can't force them to seek care. As Stanek goes on to explain, we have an epidemic of mental illness in this country that has reached biblical proportions. Other countries have plenty of guns but they don't go around shooting each other at the rates that we do. Why?
It's not enough to say, "Well, it's our culture." Other countries have access to the same films and video games that we do. It's more than that and once you get into the details, the central cause that emerges is mental health.
We need a real strategy to address this unmet need for forensic psychiatric care and to prevent those with untreated mental illness from committing acts of violence. This must become a public-safety priority as well as a public-health priority.
More than anything, we must encourage individuals facing mental-health issues to seek treatment. We must "make it OK" for our family, friends and colleagues to seek treatment.
Exactly. And this would be why I will support Rich Stanek as long as he continues to run for office. We need more Rich Staneks around the country to embrace this mentality.
Yesterday.
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Cumulative Risk and Complacency
Jared Diamond, a professor of geography at UCLA, has an interesting essay about our comprehension of risk in the New York Times.
His thesis is that in our society we become inured to everyday risks that are more likely to hurt us and overemphasize risks that are extremely unlikely. We're more afraid of events that we can't control — extremely low-probability occurrences such as crazed gunmen, terrorist attacks and plane crashes — than we are of much higher probability events that we can control, such as falling in the shower, dying in a car accident, lung cancer, heart disease and diabetes.
My mother-in-law recently broke her hip crossing the street (falling can be fatal in the elderly), so his point about falls hits close to home:
Life expectancy for a healthy American man of my age is about 90. (That’s not to be confused with American male life expectancy at birth, only about 78.) If I’m to achieve my statistical quota of 15 more years of life, that means about 15 times 365, or 5,475, more showers. But if I were so careless that my risk of slipping in the shower each time were as high as 1 in 1,000, I’d die or become crippled about five times before reaching my life expectancy. I have to reduce my risk of shower accidents to much, much less than 1 in 5,475.This logic applies to all sorts of events in our lives besides showering: driving, chopping wood, cleaning the gutters, cutting tree branches, and so on. I know three guys, one of whom nearly died, who have suffered extremely serious injuries either falling off a roof or getting hit by heavy tree branches.
This means that you're more likely to get hurt performing a small-risk mundane task repetitively that lulls you into a sense of complacency and carelessness. Like carrying a gun everywhere you go.
If, for example, there's a 1 in 10,000 chance that you'll accidentally shoot yourself or someone else each day you carry a gun, over a ten-year period the chance grows to 30% (1 - [1 - 0.0001] ^ 3650), and 52% over 20 years.
What determines that basic chance? Basically, how smart and careful you are. Consider the Kansas man who accidentally shot his wife at dinner in a steakhouse when he reached into his pocket. Why was there a round in the chamber? Why wasn't the safety on?
If the NRA has its way, we will have far more to fear from getting shot at dinner by poorly trained gun owners scratching themselves than we do from nutcases like James Holmes shooting up movie theaters.
People who love guns like to think they make them safer, but they actually become a menace to everyone around them. But most of all, you endanger yourself: you're much more likely to commit suicide or accidentally discharge the weapon and hit yourself or a family member than you are to stop a gunman. And even if you do encounter a gunman, the very act of pulling a gun puts you at greater risk.
Consider the case of Dan McKown, who was carrying a legal concealed weapon in 2005 when a shots rang out at a Tacoma Mall in Washington state:
Gun drawn, McKown scanned for the shooter. But the gunshots stopped. Unsure what had happened, McKown tucked his pistol back under his coat — just as the shooter walked right in front of him.
"So anyway, I'm standing there like Napoleon Bonaparte, with his hand, you know, in his jacket," he recalls. "So I said, 'Young man, I think you need to put your weapon down.' "McKown made himself a target and got himself shot. He may have also prevented further bloodshed, because after that the shooter holed up in a store with hostages.
That moment of vulnerability gave the other guy just enough time to shoot McKown. The bullet hit his spine, and he found himself unable to aim his own gun.
"I prayed the most un-Christian prayer of my life, which was: 'God, please let me shoot this guy before he kills somebody else.' Because I was sure I was dead," McKown says. "Then he hit me again, again, again. And he spun me like a pinwheel."
Arguably the right thing to do in that case was to take cover, keep the gun out until the shooter's location was established, and then plug him in the back without warning. The problem is that McKown had no badge or police uniform, and any cop or other person with a concealed weapon coming onto the scene should follow that same advice and unknowingly shoot a "good guy" with a gun.
Which brings us to the real point: untrained amateurs should not be walking around with loaded guns in their purses, pockets or waistbands, like Plaxico Burress or the idiot who shot himself in the penis. If you're going to be armed with concealed weapons in public, you should be required to follow the same training and safety standards as law enforcement professionals. That doesn't mean some hokey two-hour training course. That means dozens of hours of training, drills, target practice, tests and live-fire simulations. And anyone caught with a gun in his pants should have a mandatory three-month stint in the workhouse.
The Second Amendment does, after all, speak of a well-regulated militia.
Even West Point?
I've been taken to the mat many times on here for talking too much about conservatives. So has Nikto. Both of us have said many times that the far right in this country, which more or less dominates the GOP, is dangerous and should be taken more seriously. Now the premier military academy in the school agrees with both of us.
In a report entitled, "Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far-Right," author Arie Perliger discusses the rise in attacks (since 2007) by people aligned with far right groups. He centers his paper on three key questions.
(1) What are the main current characteristics of the violence produced by the far right?
(2) What type of far-right groups are more prone than others to engage in violence? How are characteristics of particular far-right groups correlated with their tendency to engage in violence?
(3) What are the social and political factors associated with the level of far-right violence? Are there political or social conditions that foster or discourage violence?
Good questions to start and he does an excellent job of identifying the three key elements of the far right: a racist/white supremacy movement, an anti-federalist movement and a fundamentalist movement.
There's quite a bit to pour over so I'm just going to highlight some points that I thought were interesting and encourage everyone else to read the whole thing.
If there is one ideological doctrine about which there is almost full consensus regarding its importance for understanding the far-right worldview, it is that of nationalism.
Yep. This is where I get my valid comparison to Nazis. I realize this ruffles many feathers here but no one can deny that the Right are more nationalistic than the left. After all, the left hate America, right? So how can they be Nazis?
More specifically...
In the context of the far-right worldview, nationalism takes an extreme form of full convergence between one polity or territory and one ethnic or national collective. Two elements are required for the fulfillment of this version of the nationalist doctrine. The first is that of internal homogenization, i.e., the aspiration that all residents or citizens of the polity will share the same national origin and ethnic characteristics. The second is the element of external exclusiveness, the aspiration that all individuals belonging to a specific national or ethnic group will reside in the homeland.
It's always puzzled me that the Right can't see how collectivist they act on a daily basis. Everyone has to think like they do otherwise they are not pure. We've seen this with the GOP primaries in the last two elections.
So how is this manifested?
The first includes concepts that complement the rationale of internal homogenization throughxenophobia, racism and exclusionism. Xenophobia involves behaviors and sentiments derived from fear, hate and hostility towards groups which are perceived as alien or strange, including people with alternative sexual preferences, styles of living and behavior; racism refers to the same sentiments, but based on racial grounds, such as belief in the national and moral significance of natural and hereditary differences between races, and the conviction that certain races are superior to others.
Finally, exclusionism is the practical manifestation of these sentiments on the communal or state level. Practically, outsiders are excluded from specific spheres of the social, economic and political arena, such as the labor market, the educational system and residential areas.
I don't think there is a better summation of the GOP today.
In a report entitled, "Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far-Right," author Arie Perliger discusses the rise in attacks (since 2007) by people aligned with far right groups. He centers his paper on three key questions.
(1) What are the main current characteristics of the violence produced by the far right?
(2) What type of far-right groups are more prone than others to engage in violence? How are characteristics of particular far-right groups correlated with their tendency to engage in violence?
(3) What are the social and political factors associated with the level of far-right violence? Are there political or social conditions that foster or discourage violence?
Good questions to start and he does an excellent job of identifying the three key elements of the far right: a racist/white supremacy movement, an anti-federalist movement and a fundamentalist movement.
There's quite a bit to pour over so I'm just going to highlight some points that I thought were interesting and encourage everyone else to read the whole thing.
If there is one ideological doctrine about which there is almost full consensus regarding its importance for understanding the far-right worldview, it is that of nationalism.
Yep. This is where I get my valid comparison to Nazis. I realize this ruffles many feathers here but no one can deny that the Right are more nationalistic than the left. After all, the left hate America, right? So how can they be Nazis?
More specifically...
In the context of the far-right worldview, nationalism takes an extreme form of full convergence between one polity or territory and one ethnic or national collective. Two elements are required for the fulfillment of this version of the nationalist doctrine. The first is that of internal homogenization, i.e., the aspiration that all residents or citizens of the polity will share the same national origin and ethnic characteristics. The second is the element of external exclusiveness, the aspiration that all individuals belonging to a specific national or ethnic group will reside in the homeland.
It's always puzzled me that the Right can't see how collectivist they act on a daily basis. Everyone has to think like they do otherwise they are not pure. We've seen this with the GOP primaries in the last two elections.
So how is this manifested?
The first includes concepts that complement the rationale of internal homogenization throughxenophobia, racism and exclusionism. Xenophobia involves behaviors and sentiments derived from fear, hate and hostility towards groups which are perceived as alien or strange, including people with alternative sexual preferences, styles of living and behavior; racism refers to the same sentiments, but based on racial grounds, such as belief in the national and moral significance of natural and hereditary differences between races, and the conviction that certain races are superior to others.
Finally, exclusionism is the practical manifestation of these sentiments on the communal or state level. Practically, outsiders are excluded from specific spheres of the social, economic and political arena, such as the labor market, the educational system and residential areas.
I don't think there is a better summation of the GOP today.
Monday, January 28, 2013
Whither Sarah...
We don't hear much from Sarah "she scares the 'hell' out of Markadelphia" Palin these days. Every few weeks, she'll pop up, say something predictable and boring, and then retreat to her Alaskan bunker to wait out the "coming apocalypse."
But the recent news that her and Fox News have parted ways has left a whole lot of sour grapes in her mouth which have translated into some..ahem... interesting remarks. First of all, she's calling for a "larger audience." But wait, I though Fox News had the largest audience of the news networks. What happened? Oh yes...the election last year. Of course, this comment could just be her way of covering herself for being ousted at Fox. But I think it's more than that. The GOP does need a larger audience but in order to do that, they are going to have to change and, thus far, they are refusing to do that.
She also called for "more truth telling in the media" which made me laugh so hard I think I broke a rib. Considering that most the words out of her mouth are complete lies, maybe she should start with herself. The real money quote, though, was this.
“I encourage others to step out in faith, jump out of the comfort zone, and broaden our reach as believers in American exceptionalism,” she told the conservative news site in a short Q&A. “That means broadening our audience. I’m taking my own advice here as I free up opportunities to share more broadly the message of the beauty of freedom and the imperative of defending our republic and restoring this most exceptional nation.”
“We can't just preach to the choir,” she said. “The message of liberty and true hope must be understood by a larger audience.”
Yes, please, by all means DO broaden your audience. I have encouraged many of conservative friends and commenters here and on Kevin's site to leave the bubble and stop preaching to the choir. As of yet, they have declined. So, maybe Sarah can be the trailblazer!
I'm looking forward to her explaining how our country needs to be "restored" considering we have the largest economy and the most wealth of any other nation on the planet. I'd like to hear how we can better defend our republic when are armed forces are already larger than the next 20 countries combined. This doesn't even include America's soft power in the world with products like the iPhone. I think her message of "restoration" is going to be a wonderful juxtaposition to our impending energy independence in the next decade.
And I'd really like to hear her try to convince the American people that Democrats don't believe in American exceptionalism. It's a lie that hasn't worked in the last four elections.
So, please, Sarah, do take your message of liberty and true hope outside of the bubble. My question for you and any others that follow suit is this
What are you going to do when reality smacks you upside the head?
But the recent news that her and Fox News have parted ways has left a whole lot of sour grapes in her mouth which have translated into some..ahem... interesting remarks. First of all, she's calling for a "larger audience." But wait, I though Fox News had the largest audience of the news networks. What happened? Oh yes...the election last year. Of course, this comment could just be her way of covering herself for being ousted at Fox. But I think it's more than that. The GOP does need a larger audience but in order to do that, they are going to have to change and, thus far, they are refusing to do that.
She also called for "more truth telling in the media" which made me laugh so hard I think I broke a rib. Considering that most the words out of her mouth are complete lies, maybe she should start with herself. The real money quote, though, was this.
“I encourage others to step out in faith, jump out of the comfort zone, and broaden our reach as believers in American exceptionalism,” she told the conservative news site in a short Q&A. “That means broadening our audience. I’m taking my own advice here as I free up opportunities to share more broadly the message of the beauty of freedom and the imperative of defending our republic and restoring this most exceptional nation.”
“We can't just preach to the choir,” she said. “The message of liberty and true hope must be understood by a larger audience.”
Yes, please, by all means DO broaden your audience. I have encouraged many of conservative friends and commenters here and on Kevin's site to leave the bubble and stop preaching to the choir. As of yet, they have declined. So, maybe Sarah can be the trailblazer!
I'm looking forward to her explaining how our country needs to be "restored" considering we have the largest economy and the most wealth of any other nation on the planet. I'd like to hear how we can better defend our republic when are armed forces are already larger than the next 20 countries combined. This doesn't even include America's soft power in the world with products like the iPhone. I think her message of "restoration" is going to be a wonderful juxtaposition to our impending energy independence in the next decade.
And I'd really like to hear her try to convince the American people that Democrats don't believe in American exceptionalism. It's a lie that hasn't worked in the last four elections.
So, please, Sarah, do take your message of liberty and true hope outside of the bubble. My question for you and any others that follow suit is this
What are you going to do when reality smacks you upside the head?
Now This Is Embarrassing...
PLYMOUTH, Minn. (WCCO) — Plymouth Police say a man is in the hospital after he accidentally shot himself inside a Rainbow Foods Sunday afternoon.Plymouth is a quiet suburb of Minneapolis. There is something ... unstable about a person who thinks they need a gun to go to Rainbow on a Sunday afternoon.
The shooting occurred inside the bathroom of the grocery store, which is located at 4190 Vinewood Ln. N. at 4:26 p.m.
The man suffered a non-life threatening injury to his lower leg.
Police are not sure how the gun discharged. There is no indication that this is anything other than an accident.
No one else was injured.
Police say the man has a conceal and carry permit.
Though I have to admit that there is another possibility: maybe he uses his pistol to get off instead of Playboy centerfolds and couldn't wait till he got home. That would make this incident about mental health instead of guns.
Guns in the hands of incompetent people are a public health menace and should be treated as such. One man's right to play vigilante ends when he presents a danger to the public. This guy's permit should be revoked and he should made the object of ridicule by competent gun owners everywhere.
Instead of minimizing and excusing such incidents the NRA should get on the stick and demand higher standards for gun ownership.
The Good News Keeps Rolling In
For all the talk about how broken our health care system is, the world as a whole is actually doing much better than in the past. Some examples.
- Dr. Benn singles out Rwanda as an example of stunning progress: More than 90 percent of eligible Rwandans were receiving ART by the end of October. "This is fantastic ... historical. That is beyond our expectations from a couple of years ago," Benn says.
- Kazakhstan is the site of another moment of global public health progress this year. In March, it was certified malaria-free by the World Health Organization, joining only four other malaria-endemic countries with that designation.
- Nigeria heads the pack of 17 countries poised to eliminate malaria. Their antimalaria agenda includes a $50 million bed-net program, underwritten by The Global Fund, which hopes the country will offer two bed nets per household.
- The Republic of the Congo, meanwhile, has made massive strides in combating maternal mortality. The number of women dying in childbirth dropped 60 percent between 2010 and 2011, from 740 deaths per 100,000 live births to 300 deaths.
There are many more examples like this happening around the world and the best part about all of it is that it is happening exponentially. Juxtapose this with the sharp reduction in extreme poverty and it's clear that we are heading in something more than the "right direction."
Honestly, it's becoming more and more apparent every day that we are heading towards that Star Trek vision of the future and it's largely due to the leadership of the United States.
Sunday, January 27, 2013
No Liberal War on Science
A new charge has been leveled in the ongoing media campaign of false equivalences between conservatives and liberals. A piece by Michael Shermer, the resident skeptic in Scientific American, claims that there's a liberal war on science.
The conservative war on science has been well established: they don't believe evolution is real, they don't believe global warming is real, they have crazy ideas that women can't be impregnated by rapists unless they want to or God wills it. More to the point, they have passed laws to prevent the teaching of evolution, deny the facts of sea level rise and other effects of global warming and campaigned for office on a platform to take away the rights of women who have been raped, justifying it with bogus science.
Shermer's charges against liberals start with "41% of Democrats are young Earth creationists and 19% doubt Earth is getting warmer." This line of reasoning is fraught with error. Saying "I'm right because a poll said so" is a very weak start to an argument.
First, this is a voluntary poll: a self-selected sampling of people. Self-selected because many people just hang up on pollsters, or don't even bother to answer their phones. Only certain kinds of people are willing to endure the tedium of responding to a bunch of inane questions: some would call them pleasers. Even though anonymous, telling someone that you don't believe in the Bible's creation myth is tantamount to admitting you're an atheist. People who take the time to answer polls obviously place importance on what others think about them, and may be more likely to give the "right" answer to please the questioner, skewing the results. Furthermore, bias is inherent in socially sensitive surveys and their results simply cannot be trusted without knowing the specific questions asked: you can word a survey to get any result you want.
Second, being a Democrat does not mean you're a liberal. The majority of Democrats have moderate views. Many Democrats are conservatives and vote Democratic for purely partisan or tribal reasons (east-coast Irish Catholics and Jews, or example), or refusing to ever vote for Republicans because they perpetuate racism against blacks and Latinos. The Democrats who hold conservative religious beliefs are by definition religious conservatives and not liberals. Citing these statistics equates "Democrat" to "liberal," making the statement misleading and meaningless.
Third, holding a "liberal" or "conservative" view on one issue says nothing about what you believe on another issue. Conservatives have been pushing the false conservative/liberal dichotomy because they think it gives them traction. Dick Cheney believes that gays should be allowed to marry, but that doesn't make him a liberal. Indeed, many people believe the conservative view on gay marriage, drug use, contraception and abortion is that employers and the government shouldn't be telling people what to do in their private lives.
Fourth, owning a belief does not require that you work to foist that belief on others or sabotage others who hold contrary beliefs (the "war" part of the equation). In other words, having an opinion does not require that you be intolerant and oppress those with different opinions. If you believe the earth was created in a 24-hour day, but your faith is strong enough that believe your kids will be able to make the right decision after learning about evolution in school, you are not engaged in a war on science. If you think the earth's climate is not getting warmer, but you accept kids learning the facts about climate change, fuel efficiency standards, compact fluorescent light bulbs, and electricity generated by wind turbines, you're not engaging in war against science. The campaigns against evolution and climate science are led almost exclusively by Republican politicians and religious zealots.
The meat of the complaint against liberals is that they have declared "Armageddon" on science because the most extreme ones oppose things such as nuclear power, hydroelectric dams, wind turbines, genetically-modified organisms, etc. Again, more false equivalences. It's like saying that all Republicans are racist because former Ku Klux Klan member David Duke is a Republican (though like many southern conservatives, he was previously a Democrat).
First, people opposed to these technologies don't claim that the science behind them is a hoax. They believe that these technologies -- particular applications of science -- are dangerous, inappropriate, ineffective or not worth the tradeoffs.
In particular, people who oppose nuclear power don't believe nuclear fission is a hoax. They believe that the current state of nuclear technology is not safe. Our nuclear power plants are nearing the end of their safe lifespans and we have nowhere safe to store the highly toxic radioactive waste. It's sitting in spent fuel pools or dry casks sitting outside nuclear reactors across the country, waiting for a tsunami or earthquake like the one that hit Fukushima Daiichi in Japan. And we're still creating 2,000 tons of nuclear waste a year, with no permanent safe place to store it. Oh, and what if terrorists get hold of that waste just sitting around in those dry casks?
However, if a national storage facility with safe and permanent storage is created, or technology is developed that eliminates these problems (fusion, for example), I and probably most Democrats will cease to oppose the expanded use of nuclear power. And I and most Democrats have no problems with properly sited wind turbines and hydroelectric dams, or even natural gas fracking as long as it's done without contaminating groundwater or causing earthquakes and environmental disasters disposing of fracking fluids.
Second, the number of "liberals" who consider wildlife more important than humans and therefore oppose wind, solar and hydro energy technologies is vanishingly tiny. The vast majority of Democrats are fine with the technologies that the strawman liberals oppose. By comparison, the Republican party is entirely controlled and financed by people pushing anti-evolution, anti-global warming, anti-gay marriage, anti-women's reproductive rights agendas. To win a primary every Republican now has to toe the line on all these issues, or be crushed by ads from those vested interests.
In the end, the Republican war on science has nothing at all to do with science. It all comes down to money: keeping oil company profits and donations from religious zealots and other vested interests flowing. Since they cannot win the argument on the basis of science, they have chosen to incite anger and cast doubt over the cost of alternative solutions and the science itself, because conservatives respond more to uncertainty and fear.
At least that's what the scientists say.
The conservative war on science has been well established: they don't believe evolution is real, they don't believe global warming is real, they have crazy ideas that women can't be impregnated by rapists unless they want to or God wills it. More to the point, they have passed laws to prevent the teaching of evolution, deny the facts of sea level rise and other effects of global warming and campaigned for office on a platform to take away the rights of women who have been raped, justifying it with bogus science.
Shermer's charges against liberals start with "41% of Democrats are young Earth creationists and 19% doubt Earth is getting warmer." This line of reasoning is fraught with error. Saying "I'm right because a poll said so" is a very weak start to an argument.
First, this is a voluntary poll: a self-selected sampling of people. Self-selected because many people just hang up on pollsters, or don't even bother to answer their phones. Only certain kinds of people are willing to endure the tedium of responding to a bunch of inane questions: some would call them pleasers. Even though anonymous, telling someone that you don't believe in the Bible's creation myth is tantamount to admitting you're an atheist. People who take the time to answer polls obviously place importance on what others think about them, and may be more likely to give the "right" answer to please the questioner, skewing the results. Furthermore, bias is inherent in socially sensitive surveys and their results simply cannot be trusted without knowing the specific questions asked: you can word a survey to get any result you want.
Second, being a Democrat does not mean you're a liberal. The majority of Democrats have moderate views. Many Democrats are conservatives and vote Democratic for purely partisan or tribal reasons (east-coast Irish Catholics and Jews, or example), or refusing to ever vote for Republicans because they perpetuate racism against blacks and Latinos. The Democrats who hold conservative religious beliefs are by definition religious conservatives and not liberals. Citing these statistics equates "Democrat" to "liberal," making the statement misleading and meaningless.
Third, holding a "liberal" or "conservative" view on one issue says nothing about what you believe on another issue. Conservatives have been pushing the false conservative/liberal dichotomy because they think it gives them traction. Dick Cheney believes that gays should be allowed to marry, but that doesn't make him a liberal. Indeed, many people believe the conservative view on gay marriage, drug use, contraception and abortion is that employers and the government shouldn't be telling people what to do in their private lives.
Fourth, owning a belief does not require that you work to foist that belief on others or sabotage others who hold contrary beliefs (the "war" part of the equation). In other words, having an opinion does not require that you be intolerant and oppress those with different opinions. If you believe the earth was created in a 24-hour day, but your faith is strong enough that believe your kids will be able to make the right decision after learning about evolution in school, you are not engaged in a war on science. If you think the earth's climate is not getting warmer, but you accept kids learning the facts about climate change, fuel efficiency standards, compact fluorescent light bulbs, and electricity generated by wind turbines, you're not engaging in war against science. The campaigns against evolution and climate science are led almost exclusively by Republican politicians and religious zealots.
The meat of the complaint against liberals is that they have declared "Armageddon" on science because the most extreme ones oppose things such as nuclear power, hydroelectric dams, wind turbines, genetically-modified organisms, etc. Again, more false equivalences. It's like saying that all Republicans are racist because former Ku Klux Klan member David Duke is a Republican (though like many southern conservatives, he was previously a Democrat).
First, people opposed to these technologies don't claim that the science behind them is a hoax. They believe that these technologies -- particular applications of science -- are dangerous, inappropriate, ineffective or not worth the tradeoffs.
In particular, people who oppose nuclear power don't believe nuclear fission is a hoax. They believe that the current state of nuclear technology is not safe. Our nuclear power plants are nearing the end of their safe lifespans and we have nowhere safe to store the highly toxic radioactive waste. It's sitting in spent fuel pools or dry casks sitting outside nuclear reactors across the country, waiting for a tsunami or earthquake like the one that hit Fukushima Daiichi in Japan. And we're still creating 2,000 tons of nuclear waste a year, with no permanent safe place to store it. Oh, and what if terrorists get hold of that waste just sitting around in those dry casks?
However, if a national storage facility with safe and permanent storage is created, or technology is developed that eliminates these problems (fusion, for example), I and probably most Democrats will cease to oppose the expanded use of nuclear power. And I and most Democrats have no problems with properly sited wind turbines and hydroelectric dams, or even natural gas fracking as long as it's done without contaminating groundwater or causing earthquakes and environmental disasters disposing of fracking fluids.
Second, the number of "liberals" who consider wildlife more important than humans and therefore oppose wind, solar and hydro energy technologies is vanishingly tiny. The vast majority of Democrats are fine with the technologies that the strawman liberals oppose. By comparison, the Republican party is entirely controlled and financed by people pushing anti-evolution, anti-global warming, anti-gay marriage, anti-women's reproductive rights agendas. To win a primary every Republican now has to toe the line on all these issues, or be crushed by ads from those vested interests.
In the end, the Republican war on science has nothing at all to do with science. It all comes down to money: keeping oil company profits and donations from religious zealots and other vested interests flowing. Since they cannot win the argument on the basis of science, they have chosen to incite anger and cast doubt over the cost of alternative solutions and the science itself, because conservatives respond more to uncertainty and fear.
At least that's what the scientists say.
That Strange Yet Familiar Feeling
Deja vu. We've all experienced its mystery and I've always wondered if the phenomenon is related to the possibility that our minds could function outside of linear time. Are we remembering things that happened in the past? Or is it the future? As a recent piece by Amy Reichelt notes, the explanation is much simpler and less nerdy.
Many researchers propose that the phenomenon is a memory-based experience and assume the memory centres of the brain are responsible for it.
The medial temporal lobes are vital for the retention of long-term memories of events and facts. Certain regions of the medial temporal lobes are important in the detection of familiarity, or recognition, as opposed to the detailed recollection of specific events. It has been proposed that familiarity detection depends on rhinal cortex function, whereas detailed recollection is linked to the hippocampus.
The randomness of déjà vu experiences in healthy individuals makes it difficult to study in an empirical manner. Any such research is reliant on self-reporting from the people involved.
This touches on something far greater than a routine phenomenon. In so many ways, we are computers. The bio-hardware in our minds act as hard drives and when we experience events that we may have experienced before, the memory stick engages and we remember. But perhaps the recollection is fuzzy and we can't quite place where or when it was. Imagine for a moment that we could have access to all of it whenever we wanted and in stark clarity.
With recent gains in technology and the ever present smart phone in the hands of nearly everyone, the merging of biology and hardware seems inevitable. This may mean that those memories could be accessed quickly for retrieval making the deja vu phenomenon a thing of the past. We'd know why we are experiencing that feeling that we've done something before. We'd also have clear and uncut access to everything we'd ever experienced. Reliving a long memory with a lost loved one...think about that for a minute.
Wouldn't that be amazing?
Many researchers propose that the phenomenon is a memory-based experience and assume the memory centres of the brain are responsible for it.
The medial temporal lobes are vital for the retention of long-term memories of events and facts. Certain regions of the medial temporal lobes are important in the detection of familiarity, or recognition, as opposed to the detailed recollection of specific events. It has been proposed that familiarity detection depends on rhinal cortex function, whereas detailed recollection is linked to the hippocampus.
The randomness of déjà vu experiences in healthy individuals makes it difficult to study in an empirical manner. Any such research is reliant on self-reporting from the people involved.
This touches on something far greater than a routine phenomenon. In so many ways, we are computers. The bio-hardware in our minds act as hard drives and when we experience events that we may have experienced before, the memory stick engages and we remember. But perhaps the recollection is fuzzy and we can't quite place where or when it was. Imagine for a moment that we could have access to all of it whenever we wanted and in stark clarity.
With recent gains in technology and the ever present smart phone in the hands of nearly everyone, the merging of biology and hardware seems inevitable. This may mean that those memories could be accessed quickly for retrieval making the deja vu phenomenon a thing of the past. We'd know why we are experiencing that feeling that we've done something before. We'd also have clear and uncut access to everything we'd ever experienced. Reliving a long memory with a lost loved one...think about that for a minute.
Wouldn't that be amazing?
Saturday, January 26, 2013
Bubble Translated!
Let's put the following headline
President Obama pushes to fill ATF's top spot
through The Bubble Translator, shall we?
(processing....processing...processing)
Ah, yes...here it is...
Ex-Ghetto Organizer, Current Negro Named Head of Federal Gun Grabbing Department
President Obama pushes to fill ATF's top spot
through The Bubble Translator, shall we?
(processing....processing...processing)
Ah, yes...here it is...
Ex-Ghetto Organizer, Current Negro Named Head of Federal Gun Grabbing Department
Big Babies
To give you an idea just how childish the Right are these days, take a look at these numbers.
And these numbers...
And now, take a look at this...
So, they support all the policies that President Obama has presented but if his name is attached to it, then they hate them. Yep, that's just about right.
And they wonder why the American people voted to keep the adults in charge...
And these numbers...
And now, take a look at this...
So, they support all the policies that President Obama has presented but if his name is attached to it, then they hate them. Yep, that's just about right.
And they wonder why the American people voted to keep the adults in charge...
Friday, January 25, 2013
At Least It Was A Woman This Time
I think as the rest of the country moves on without them we are going to see increasingly erratic behavior from conservatives. With this, they have taken "Do it again, only harder" to a whole new level.
New Mexico GOP Repesentative Cathrynn Brown has introduced a bill in the State’s House of Representatives that would prohibit women who have been raped from obtaining an abortion—or face a sentence of up to three years in prison as punishment for committing the offending act. The legal theory behind the proposed legislation? Tampering with evidence of a crime…seriously.
Part of me has to wonder if these people are secret Democratic plants that will the left win election after election. The alternative is that they really are this disgusting and, if that's the case, they can never be allowed to be in charge of anything significant. People that are this mentally unbalanced should simply retire quietly to Shady Meadows, be given their soup, and left alone to spout their insanity.
No wonder Bobby Jindal is calling Republicans the stupid party.
New Mexico GOP Repesentative Cathrynn Brown has introduced a bill in the State’s House of Representatives that would prohibit women who have been raped from obtaining an abortion—or face a sentence of up to three years in prison as punishment for committing the offending act. The legal theory behind the proposed legislation? Tampering with evidence of a crime…seriously.
Part of me has to wonder if these people are secret Democratic plants that will the left win election after election. The alternative is that they really are this disgusting and, if that's the case, they can never be allowed to be in charge of anything significant. People that are this mentally unbalanced should simply retire quietly to Shady Meadows, be given their soup, and left alone to spout their insanity.
No wonder Bobby Jindal is calling Republicans the stupid party.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)