It's always a pleasure to note when my cynicism about red states is proved to be wrong. Interestingly, this video shows how many different ways I can be wrong!
And I love the guy who mentions judging and Jesus to the "bigot."
Monday, March 04, 2013
Sunday, March 03, 2013
Gun Myth #6
Myth #6: Carrying a gun for self-defense makes you safer.
Fact-check: In 2011, nearly 10 times more people were shot and killed in arguments than by civilians trying to stop a crime.
• In one survey, nearly 1% of Americans reported using guns to defend themselves or their property. However, a closer look at their claims found that more than 50% involved using guns in an aggressive manner, such as escalating an argument.
• A Philadelphia study found that the odds of an assault victim being shot were 4.5 times greater if he carried a gun. His odds of being killed were 4.2 times greater.
Fact-check: In 2011, nearly 10 times more people were shot and killed in arguments than by civilians trying to stop a crime.
• In one survey, nearly 1% of Americans reported using guns to defend themselves or their property. However, a closer look at their claims found that more than 50% involved using guns in an aggressive manner, such as escalating an argument.
• A Philadelphia study found that the odds of an assault victim being shot were 4.5 times greater if he carried a gun. His odds of being killed were 4.2 times greater.
Daily Reminder
I need to remind myself more often that patience is all that is required when it comes to nearly all of the issues I gripe about on here. In the final analysis, reason always prevails.
For example, Oklahoma rejected SB 758 just a few days ago. This bill would have required teachers to address "controversies" like evolution and climate change.
In Arizona, SB 1213 didn't even make it out of committee. This bill would have allowed teachers to present creationism as a "balance" to evolution as well as right wing blogs in juxtaposition with the National Academy of Science.
And in Indiana, the Hoosiers rejected extremism again (remember Richard Murdock?) when HB 1283 died in the House. Check out the language in this bill.
“To help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the strengths and weaknesses of conclusions and theories being presented in a course being taught by the teacher.”
Funny, because they do that anyway. That's why evolution is settled science.
Of course, even if any of these bills had passed, it's not likely that any teacher would have used this leeway. While some of my colleagues are conservative, they haven't completely abandoned reason. They might believe in smaller government or have a different view of the Constitution but none of them would ever teach creationism in a fucking science class.
It's comforting to know that even in these deep red states, people can still be rational.
For example, Oklahoma rejected SB 758 just a few days ago. This bill would have required teachers to address "controversies" like evolution and climate change.
In Arizona, SB 1213 didn't even make it out of committee. This bill would have allowed teachers to present creationism as a "balance" to evolution as well as right wing blogs in juxtaposition with the National Academy of Science.
And in Indiana, the Hoosiers rejected extremism again (remember Richard Murdock?) when HB 1283 died in the House. Check out the language in this bill.
“To help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the strengths and weaknesses of conclusions and theories being presented in a course being taught by the teacher.”
Funny, because they do that anyway. That's why evolution is settled science.
Of course, even if any of these bills had passed, it's not likely that any teacher would have used this leeway. While some of my colleagues are conservative, they haven't completely abandoned reason. They might believe in smaller government or have a different view of the Constitution but none of them would ever teach creationism in a fucking science class.
It's comforting to know that even in these deep red states, people can still be rational.
Saturday, March 02, 2013
Gun Myth #5
Myth #5: Keeping a gun at home makes you safer.
Fact-check: Owning a gun has been linked to higher risks of homicide, suicide, and accidental death by gun.
• For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.
• 43% of homes with guns and kids have at least one unlocked firearm.
• In one experiment, one third of 8-to-12-year-old boys who found a handgun pulled the trigger.
Fact-check: Owning a gun has been linked to higher risks of homicide, suicide, and accidental death by gun.
• For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.
• 43% of homes with guns and kids have at least one unlocked firearm.
• In one experiment, one third of 8-to-12-year-old boys who found a handgun pulled the trigger.
Friday, March 01, 2013
Good Question
Will Wall Street spurn GOP in 2014?
I say they will and it's because the Republican Party draws a good chunk of its numbers from people who are certifiably insane. When they money goes away, so will the crazy.
I say they will and it's because the Republican Party draws a good chunk of its numbers from people who are certifiably insane. When they money goes away, so will the crazy.
Gun Myth #4
Thursday, February 28, 2013
A Profile in Courage
The media tends to love talking about conservative activists like James O'Keefe, Bill Whittle or Erick Erickson but they never really talk about the liberal ones like Zack Kopplin. Man, is he making life hell for the creationists down in Lousiana.
Encouraged by Barbara Forrest, a philosophy professor at Southeastern Louisiana University — and a staunch critic of intelligent design and the Discovery Institute — Kopplin decided to write a letter that could be signed by Nobel laureate scientists in support of the repeal. To that end, he contacted Sir Harry Kroto, a British chemist who shared the 1996 Nobel Prize in Chemistry with Robert Curl and Richard Smalley. Kroto helped him to draft the letter — one that has now been signed by 78 Nobel laureates.
I can't figure out why creationists and intelligent design folks aren't content with teaching their stuff in church. They can talk about how Jesus rode dinosaurs or whatever they want in there. Kopplin had gone after the voucher program as well.
School vouchers, he argues, unconstitutionally fund the teaching of creationism because many of the schools in these programs are private fundamentalist religious schools who are teaching creationism. "These schools have every right to teach whatever they want — no matter how much I disagree with it — as long as they are fully private," he says. "But when they take public money through vouchers, these schools need to be accountable to the public in the same way that public schools are and they must abide by the same rules."
Those rules being a strict adherence to the scientific method. There is nothing scientific about creationism.
"Creationism is not science, and shouldn't be in a public school science class — it's that simple," he says. "Often though, creationists do not, or are unwilling, to recognize this." Science, he argues, is observable, naturalistic, testable, falsifiable, and expandable — everything that creationism is not. But what also drives Kopplin is the inherent danger he sees in teaching creationism.
"Creationism confuses students about the nature of science," he says. "If students don't understand the scientific method, and are taught that creationism is science, they will not be prepared to do work in genuine fields, especially not the biological sciences. We are hurting the chances of our students having jobs in science, and making discoveries that will change the world."
"We don't just deny evolution," he says, "We are denying climate change and vaccines and other mainstream science. I'm calling for a Second Giant Leap to change the perception of science in the world."
In the final analysis, this is really the crux of the problem. In an age of globalization. we can't afford a bunch of religious nonsense to interfere with our economic growth and security. Young men like Zack Kopplin give me a lot of hope that intelligence is alive and well in young people in the deep south and the time to put this assinine, anti science garbage behind us is yesterday.
Honestly, I thought we already did that in the Age of Enlightenment but I guess we still have a few stragglers:)
Encouraged by Barbara Forrest, a philosophy professor at Southeastern Louisiana University — and a staunch critic of intelligent design and the Discovery Institute — Kopplin decided to write a letter that could be signed by Nobel laureate scientists in support of the repeal. To that end, he contacted Sir Harry Kroto, a British chemist who shared the 1996 Nobel Prize in Chemistry with Robert Curl and Richard Smalley. Kroto helped him to draft the letter — one that has now been signed by 78 Nobel laureates.
I can't figure out why creationists and intelligent design folks aren't content with teaching their stuff in church. They can talk about how Jesus rode dinosaurs or whatever they want in there. Kopplin had gone after the voucher program as well.
School vouchers, he argues, unconstitutionally fund the teaching of creationism because many of the schools in these programs are private fundamentalist religious schools who are teaching creationism. "These schools have every right to teach whatever they want — no matter how much I disagree with it — as long as they are fully private," he says. "But when they take public money through vouchers, these schools need to be accountable to the public in the same way that public schools are and they must abide by the same rules."
Those rules being a strict adherence to the scientific method. There is nothing scientific about creationism.
"Creationism is not science, and shouldn't be in a public school science class — it's that simple," he says. "Often though, creationists do not, or are unwilling, to recognize this." Science, he argues, is observable, naturalistic, testable, falsifiable, and expandable — everything that creationism is not. But what also drives Kopplin is the inherent danger he sees in teaching creationism.
"Creationism confuses students about the nature of science," he says. "If students don't understand the scientific method, and are taught that creationism is science, they will not be prepared to do work in genuine fields, especially not the biological sciences. We are hurting the chances of our students having jobs in science, and making discoveries that will change the world."
"We don't just deny evolution," he says, "We are denying climate change and vaccines and other mainstream science. I'm calling for a Second Giant Leap to change the perception of science in the world."
In the final analysis, this is really the crux of the problem. In an age of globalization. we can't afford a bunch of religious nonsense to interfere with our economic growth and security. Young men like Zack Kopplin give me a lot of hope that intelligence is alive and well in young people in the deep south and the time to put this assinine, anti science garbage behind us is yesterday.
Honestly, I thought we already did that in the Age of Enlightenment but I guess we still have a few stragglers:)
Gun Myth #3
Myth #3: An armed society is a polite society.
Fact-check: Drivers who carry guns are 44% more likely than unarmed drivers to make obscene gestures at other motorists, and 77% more likely to follow them aggressively.
• Among Texans convicted of serious crimes, those with concealed-handgun licenses were sentenced for threatening someone with a firearm 4.8 times more than those without.
• In states with Stand Your Ground and other laws making it easier to shoot in self-defense, those policies have been linked to a 7 to 10% increase in homicides.
Fact-check: Drivers who carry guns are 44% more likely than unarmed drivers to make obscene gestures at other motorists, and 77% more likely to follow them aggressively.
• Among Texans convicted of serious crimes, those with concealed-handgun licenses were sentenced for threatening someone with a firearm 4.8 times more than those without.
• In states with Stand Your Ground and other laws making it easier to shoot in self-defense, those policies have been linked to a 7 to 10% increase in homicides.
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
How Long?
Man, here is some really fucked up paranoid shit... a United Nations-driven conspiracy to harness private property through rezoning and planned-use ordinances passed by local governments.
I wonder how long it will be before this now becomes mainstream on the Right, if it isn't already.
I wonder how long it will be before this now becomes mainstream on the Right, if it isn't already.
Gun Myth #2
Continuing on with the gun myths...
Myth #2: Guns don't kill people—people kill people. Fact-check: People with more guns tend to kill more people—with guns. The states with the highest gun ownership rates have a gun murder rate 114% higher than those with the lowest gun ownership rates. Also, gun death rates tend to be higher in states with higher rates of gun ownership. Gun death rates are generally lower in states with restrictions such as assault-weapons bans or safe-storage requirements.
Sources: Pediatrics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Myth #2: Guns don't kill people—people kill people. Fact-check: People with more guns tend to kill more people—with guns. The states with the highest gun ownership rates have a gun murder rate 114% higher than those with the lowest gun ownership rates. Also, gun death rates tend to be higher in states with higher rates of gun ownership. Gun death rates are generally lower in states with restrictions such as assault-weapons bans or safe-storage requirements.
Sources: Pediatrics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Robbing Peter to Teach Paul
There's a kid, call him Thomas, that costs a Minnesota school district $100,000 a year to educate. That's twice what it costs to go to Harvard. This kid is so violent that he has to be driven to school in his own personal bus, attended by an aide during the ride, and then he has to tutored by a teacher one-on-one, often assisted by another aide. And he needs a special classroom, all to himself, with a swing in it because he goes nuts if things are too still.
Special ed kids cost the states a ton of money. Because the laws mandate kids get the education they deserve, but don't give the schools enough funding to provide it, that means the money to teach special ed kids reduces the amount of money for other kids. That means schools have to fire tutors for kids who are less disabled but could do well with instruction in small groups, who would then have much higher chances of making it than the $100K kid. It also means increased class sizes for regular kids, perhaps making it less likely that they'll get into the college of their choice. That means librarians have to be fired. That means, frankly, that the majority of kids will suffer so that a tiny minority of kids like Thomas will a receive an education that will almost certainly fail to prepare them for anything resembling a normal and productive life.
Then there are charter schools, the darlings of the right. They often have special purposes (science, art, etc.) and receive special dispensations, so they often expel kids that cause trouble or aren't performing. This has been a problem around the country, including Washington D.C. and Minneapolis. Many of these charter schools are a haven from the mayhem that rules in many public schools, which have become dumping grounds for problem kids. That's great for the kids who can get into the charters. But again, it benefits a few kids at the expense of the majority.
It's good that we try to give kids like Thomas who got a bum deal some help. But at some point we have to perform some triage. Special ed is crushing many school districts. Between 2001 and 2011, the number of Minnesota kids with autism spectrum disorders rose from 3,800 to 15,000. We're turning our schools into psychiatric care facilities, and it's just plain wrong.
Who's to blame? Liberals, for insisting that all kids get the education they need? Or conservatives, by making it harder for women to have access to birth control and abortion, and insisting that women on welfare get a job so they can't stay home and take care of their kids themselves? How much do the barriers conservatives erect for women's reproductive services increase the number of special-needs kids who suffer from fetal alcohol syndrome, drug addiction at birth, and severe birth defects?
The right is constantly hacking away at school budgets, interfering with the way schools are run, insisting on standardized tests that make schools facing massive challenges waste even more time teaching kids to pass the stupid tests, and No Child Left Behind constantly threatening to shut down these schools because so many of the kids dumped there by the charters are too hungry or too poor or too afflicted by ADHD and autism to pass those standardized tests.
And now they want to divert billions of dollars from real education by turning all our schools into armed camps to protect them from a few crazed gunmen who have easy access to guns because the NRA doesn't want to be burdened by universal background checks or magazine size limits.
Forcing one crack-addicted woman to bear a child that she doesn't want can wind up costing the welfare and education system literally millions of dollars over the child's school-age years, and then, when that kid "graduates" he'll go on public assistance and cost millions of dollars more.
I'm not suggesting some eugenics program to clean up the human race. I'm suggesting that the right get off its high horse and stop interfering with people's most intimate decisions, let women have unimpeded access to birth control and abortion, stop trying to stifle the free speech rights of doctors advising their patients of all their options, and let women decide the most responsible course for themselves and their families.
We should make sure that all pregnant women have access to prenatal health care, especially in the early stages, to prevent birth defects and other developmental disorders that cost so much later in life. That means money for women's health clinics like Planned Parenthood, who lost funding in Oklahoma for nutritional programs for pregnant women because of politics.
We should have preschool programs that identify and help kids with problems early on, perhaps saving millions of dollars in the long run.
Once kids are born we all have a moral obligation to help them. It's crazy to force a woman to bear a child and then throw them out on the street when she can't support the kid she never wanted.
All too often the right's ideological social dogmas run completely counter to their ideological budgetary dogmas. If we got rid of all the dogma we'd earn a lot more karma.
Special ed kids cost the states a ton of money. Because the laws mandate kids get the education they deserve, but don't give the schools enough funding to provide it, that means the money to teach special ed kids reduces the amount of money for other kids. That means schools have to fire tutors for kids who are less disabled but could do well with instruction in small groups, who would then have much higher chances of making it than the $100K kid. It also means increased class sizes for regular kids, perhaps making it less likely that they'll get into the college of their choice. That means librarians have to be fired. That means, frankly, that the majority of kids will suffer so that a tiny minority of kids like Thomas will a receive an education that will almost certainly fail to prepare them for anything resembling a normal and productive life.
Then there are charter schools, the darlings of the right. They often have special purposes (science, art, etc.) and receive special dispensations, so they often expel kids that cause trouble or aren't performing. This has been a problem around the country, including Washington D.C. and Minneapolis. Many of these charter schools are a haven from the mayhem that rules in many public schools, which have become dumping grounds for problem kids. That's great for the kids who can get into the charters. But again, it benefits a few kids at the expense of the majority.
It's good that we try to give kids like Thomas who got a bum deal some help. But at some point we have to perform some triage. Special ed is crushing many school districts. Between 2001 and 2011, the number of Minnesota kids with autism spectrum disorders rose from 3,800 to 15,000. We're turning our schools into psychiatric care facilities, and it's just plain wrong.
Who's to blame? Liberals, for insisting that all kids get the education they need? Or conservatives, by making it harder for women to have access to birth control and abortion, and insisting that women on welfare get a job so they can't stay home and take care of their kids themselves? How much do the barriers conservatives erect for women's reproductive services increase the number of special-needs kids who suffer from fetal alcohol syndrome, drug addiction at birth, and severe birth defects?
The right is constantly hacking away at school budgets, interfering with the way schools are run, insisting on standardized tests that make schools facing massive challenges waste even more time teaching kids to pass the stupid tests, and No Child Left Behind constantly threatening to shut down these schools because so many of the kids dumped there by the charters are too hungry or too poor or too afflicted by ADHD and autism to pass those standardized tests.
And now they want to divert billions of dollars from real education by turning all our schools into armed camps to protect them from a few crazed gunmen who have easy access to guns because the NRA doesn't want to be burdened by universal background checks or magazine size limits.
Forcing one crack-addicted woman to bear a child that she doesn't want can wind up costing the welfare and education system literally millions of dollars over the child's school-age years, and then, when that kid "graduates" he'll go on public assistance and cost millions of dollars more.
I'm not suggesting some eugenics program to clean up the human race. I'm suggesting that the right get off its high horse and stop interfering with people's most intimate decisions, let women have unimpeded access to birth control and abortion, stop trying to stifle the free speech rights of doctors advising their patients of all their options, and let women decide the most responsible course for themselves and their families.
We should make sure that all pregnant women have access to prenatal health care, especially in the early stages, to prevent birth defects and other developmental disorders that cost so much later in life. That means money for women's health clinics like Planned Parenthood, who lost funding in Oklahoma for nutritional programs for pregnant women because of politics.
We should have preschool programs that identify and help kids with problems early on, perhaps saving millions of dollars in the long run.
Once kids are born we all have a moral obligation to help them. It's crazy to force a woman to bear a child and then throw them out on the street when she can't support the kid she never wanted.
All too often the right's ideological social dogmas run completely counter to their ideological budgetary dogmas. If we got rid of all the dogma we'd earn a lot more karma.
Gun Myth #1
Mother Jones recently put a list of gun myths that I'm going to spend the next few days highlighting. Before we get started, we should all remember the scientific method, critical thinking, and the definition of genetic fallacy:)
First up is that ol' chestnut "they's a comin' to git muh gun."
Myth #1: They're coming for your guns. Fact-check: No one knows the exact number of guns in America, but it's clear there's no practical way to round them all up (never mind that no one in Washington is proposing this). Yet if you fantasize about rifle-toting citizens facing down the government, you'll rest easy knowing that America's roughly 80 million gun owners already have the feds and cops outgunned by a factor of around 79 to 1. (Sources: Congressional Research Service, Small Arms Survey)
There isn't any feasible way to seize the guns that people own. I'd say it's nearly impossible given the numbers. So, when your strange uncle starts making strange comments about the government as Easter, just say, "79 to 1."
First up is that ol' chestnut "they's a comin' to git muh gun."
Myth #1: They're coming for your guns. Fact-check: No one knows the exact number of guns in America, but it's clear there's no practical way to round them all up (never mind that no one in Washington is proposing this). Yet if you fantasize about rifle-toting citizens facing down the government, you'll rest easy knowing that America's roughly 80 million gun owners already have the feds and cops outgunned by a factor of around 79 to 1. (Sources: Congressional Research Service, Small Arms Survey)
There isn't any feasible way to seize the guns that people own. I'd say it's nearly impossible given the numbers. So, when your strange uncle starts making strange comments about the government as Easter, just say, "79 to 1."
Monday, February 25, 2013
WAR
Two questions,
If war is natural, why are there hundreds of suicides amongst our military returning from the battle field?
Do you think our military really fights for the interest of its citizens or the corporate interest that gain monetary profit from war?
Consider this source and this source when answering the questions.
If war is natural, why are there hundreds of suicides amongst our military returning from the battle field?
Do you think our military really fights for the interest of its citizens or the corporate interest that gain monetary profit from war?
Consider this source and this source when answering the questions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)