Even though the organization is gone, nothing is sure to whip up that perfect stew of anger, hatred, paranoia like ACORN. Like the Soviet Union, the Right just can't seem to let go of it. The mere mention of it generates red faces and white foam in a matter of seconds. They just need to have those enemies out there...somewhere...
I've contended for years now that the videos James O'Keefe released didn't tell the whole story. Now, the man behind those videos himself has admitted that they did not (article courtesy of juris imprudent)
O’Keefe also acknowledges that at the time the video was publicized, he was unaware of Vera’s claims that he contacted the authorities after the unusual visit by the couple.
So, all that anaphylaxis was for nothing. ACORN employee Juan Carols Vera did contact the police after all. O'Keefe also had to fork over $100,000 in damages to Vera as he did not consent to be videotaped. Oh, and guess what else?
An attorney general’s report found that the video was selectively edited. For instance, video showing O’Keefe and Giles dressed as a pimp and hooker was later edited into the video, when they were not dressed that way when speaking to Vera.
I realize that the Right lives for shit like this but perhaps in the future they might want to get all the facts before they start bustin' loads of jiz all over the internet.
Funnier still, they take down of ACORN did absolutely nothing in accomplishing the Right's goal...inner city (see: black) voter suppression. In fact, it actually galvanized the urban vote who, once again, turned out in record numbers for Democrats.
Hmm...I wonder why...:)
Saturday, March 09, 2013
Gun Myth #9
Myth #9: More and more Americans are becoming gun owners.
Fact-check: More guns are being sold, but they're owned by a shrinking portion of the population.
• About 50% of Americans said they had a gun in their homes in 1973. Today, about 45% say they do. Overall, 35% of Americans personally own a gun.
• Around 80% of gun owners are men. On average they own 7.9 guns each.
Fact-check: More guns are being sold, but they're owned by a shrinking portion of the population.
• About 50% of Americans said they had a gun in their homes in 1973. Today, about 45% say they do. Overall, 35% of Americans personally own a gun.
• Around 80% of gun owners are men. On average they own 7.9 guns each.
Friday, March 08, 2013
Mississippi
As we celebrate Women on this "International Women's Day" we still need to acknowledge the injustice that's being done in the State of Mississippi to Women's rights. The state is fighting very hard to implement TRAP (Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers) laws to close its only remaining abortion clinic. This type of behavior is a systematic destruction to a federal law that is been in place for over 40 years to protect women and their choice. Mississippi, your behavior is a racket.
Anti-Spending Anaphylactoids
As we get closer to the Easter holidays, you might want to prepare yourself for that crazy uncle at your family gathering who will likely be foaming at the mouth about federal spending. A good article to show him is this one. The fact is, folks, that when the government spends less money, it has a real world impact.
These reductions, economists say, act as a drag on the economy. Former park employees, clerks, and firefighters such as Lykins are buying only the necessities. Cities are deferring road work, which means contractors aren't hiring people to pour concrete. By far, the largest impact is on school systems, which are laying off teachers, counselors, and janitors.
With the sequester kicking in last Friday, this sort of thing is now going to happening on a national scale. The anti-spending anaphylactoids seem to be operating under the assumption that federal spending occurs in a void filled with evil, darkness and nothing else. Never mind the fact that while all the spending is going on there is revenue coming in and a 15 trillion dollar economy out there that creates the need for government services.
When you cut these services, people like Brian Lykins are affected. "A lot of the private sector depends on the public sector," says Chris Hoene, director of research and innovation at the National League of Cities in Washington. "There are estimates that for every $3 spent at the municipal level, there is $1 in new private-sector activity."
The sooner we accept the fact that government spending is essential to our economy and, more importantly, that as our economy grows, our spending must grow as well, the better position we will be in to finally tackle our long term, economic concerns.
These reductions, economists say, act as a drag on the economy. Former park employees, clerks, and firefighters such as Lykins are buying only the necessities. Cities are deferring road work, which means contractors aren't hiring people to pour concrete. By far, the largest impact is on school systems, which are laying off teachers, counselors, and janitors.
With the sequester kicking in last Friday, this sort of thing is now going to happening on a national scale. The anti-spending anaphylactoids seem to be operating under the assumption that federal spending occurs in a void filled with evil, darkness and nothing else. Never mind the fact that while all the spending is going on there is revenue coming in and a 15 trillion dollar economy out there that creates the need for government services.
When you cut these services, people like Brian Lykins are affected. "A lot of the private sector depends on the public sector," says Chris Hoene, director of research and innovation at the National League of Cities in Washington. "There are estimates that for every $3 spent at the municipal level, there is $1 in new private-sector activity."
The sooner we accept the fact that government spending is essential to our economy and, more importantly, that as our economy grows, our spending must grow as well, the better position we will be in to finally tackle our long term, economic concerns.
Thursday, March 07, 2013
Gun Myth #8
Myth #8: "Vicious, violent video games" deserve more blame than guns.
Fact-check: So said NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre after Newtown. So what's up with Japan?
Per capita spending on video games: $44 (United States) $55 ( Japan )
Civilian firearms per 100 people: 88 (United States) 0.6 ( Japan )
Gun homicides in 2008: 11,030 (United States) 11( Japan )
(Sources: PricewaterhouseCoopers, Small Arms Survey (PDF), UN Office on Drugs and Crime)
Fact-check: So said NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre after Newtown. So what's up with Japan?
Per capita spending on video games: $44 (United States) $55 ( Japan )
Civilian firearms per 100 people: 88 (United States) 0.6 ( Japan )
Gun homicides in 2008: 11,030 (United States) 11( Japan )
(Sources: PricewaterhouseCoopers, Small Arms Survey (PDF), UN Office on Drugs and Crime)
They Came and Got His Guns
Well, it has happened. The government came and got an NRA member's guns. Twice.
An NRA official in New York has been banned from owning guns after pleading guilty to harassment charges:
An NRA official in New York has been banned from owning guns after pleading guilty to harassment charges:
Richard D’Alauro, the NRA’s field representative for the city and its suburbs, is forbidden from owning guns under an order of protection stemming from a confrontation with his wife in their Long Island home, the Daily News has learned.He'll be able to get all his guns back in October. I'm guessing he pleaded guilty to non-criminal harassment to avoid losing at trial, which would have resulted in more serious restrictions on gun ownership. What kind of a guy is D'Alauro?
Suffolk County authorities filed misdemeanor charges of assault and endangering the welfare of a child and a noncriminal charge of harassment as a result of the domestic dustup, which occurred at 1:55 a.m. on Sept. 1, 2010, records show.
In an interview, Maribeth D’Alauro — who has multiple sclerosis and walks with a cane — declined to detail the confrontation with her former husband, but she said that assault “is an accurate description.”This exposes the real motivation for gun ownership for many. We all know who they are: guys like D'Alauro. These people don't need guns to protect themselves, but to bully others and prop up their sagging self image. It's exactly the same reason gangbangers pack heat; it's the only way they can get the respect they think they deserve. This same attitude sent David Michael Keene, the son of NRA president David Keene, to jail for a shooting during a road rage incident.
She said she suffered from “years of domestic violence” but was “too afraid to ever call the police on him." "I’m finally able to talk about things I wasn’t able to talk about,” she said.
She called her ex-husband a “bully” who acted at home with the same confrontational behavior that NRA leaders use in politics. “They are cut from the same cloth,” she said.
When the NRA claims anecdotally that "millions of protective uses of guns go unreported each year," what they're actually referring to is the use of guns to bully others. They don't see it that way at all, because in their self-centered universe they can never be guilty of bullying, harassment and intimidation. In their minds brandishing a gun isn't a threat, it's a natural extension of their freedom of expression, a form of constitutionally protected free speech.
But this mindset is the main reason why, as Mark recently noted, women who live in homes with guns are seven times more likely to be killed by their abusers.
Oh Bill
In this clip you will find Bill O'Reilly and Alan Colmes in a heated exchange. We see Alan Colmes give Bill O'Reilly a couple entitlement programs (Medicare and Medicaid) President Obama is willing to cut yet Bill O'Reilly tells his audience that he has not named one. These are the type of lies the right wing folks buy in to. It is really sad that this is the America we live in. What the hell is happening to logic, reason, honesty, dignity, respect, acceptance, and truth?
Wednesday, March 06, 2013
A Thousand Ton Weight
The death of Hugo Chavez reminded me that I had to discuss this wonderful piece by Larry Diamond. He discusses how the myth that Global South countries are not "read for democracy" and how that should be dispensed with immediately. In many ways, the last few years of Chavez's life are a testament to this. He lost a considerable amount of control over Venezuela and his long term vision for the future of the country came under intense scrutiny.
The fact is that Chavez was no great hero or visionary. He simply rode the wave of oil wealth and made people believe that his way was the best way for Venezuela. Globalization has proved him to be massively wrong. The once robust economy has returned to where it was 50 years ago, other industries in the country have suffered, and they are currently running a 15 percent deficit of GDP. With so much government control, their economy simply cannot compete in the world. Other dictators like Fidel Castro have recognized this as well.
Even though Diamond wrote his piece primarily focusing on other areas of the world, the same paradigm applies to Middle America and South America.
The lower- and middle-income democracies that did come through the last two decades intact have shown that authoritarianism confers no intrinsic developmental advantage. For every Singapore-style authoritarian economic “miracle,” there have been many more instances of implosion or stagnation—as in Zaire, Zimbabwe, North Korea, and (until recently) Burma— resulting from predatory authoritarian rule.
Right. In fact, the assertion that tyranny and dictatorships are "just around the corner" in many parts of the world is also a myth.
While it remains true that democracy is more sustainable at higher levels of development, an unprecedented number of poor countries adopted democratic forms of government during the 1980s and ’90s, and many of them have sustained democracy for well over a decade. These include several African countries, such as Ghana, Benin, and Senegal, and one of the poorest Asian countries, Bangladesh. Other very poor countries, such as East Timor, Sierra Leone, and Liberia, are now using the political institutions of democracy as they rebuild their economies and states after civil war. Although the world has been in a mild democratic recession since about 2006, with reversals concentrated disproportionately in low-income and lower-middle-income states, a significant number of democracies in these income categories continue to function.
Yes, they do because democracy is the best system to fit in with this era of globalization. And countries aren't the only ones that have embraced it.
Further refuting the skeptics, democracy has taken root or at least been embraced by every major cultural group, not just the societies of the West with their Protestant traditions. Most Catholic countries are now democracies, and very stable ones at that. Democracy has thrived in a Hindu state, Buddhist states, and a Jewish state. And many predominantly Muslim countries, such as Turkey, Bangladesh, Senegal, and Indonesia, have by now had significant and mainly positive experience with democracy.
Diamond also discusses Hugo Chavez towards the end of the piece.
Despite the persistence of authoritarianism under Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, and the authoritarian tendencies of left-wing populist presidents in Bolivia, Ecuador, and Nicaragua, the bigger story in Latin America has been democratic resilience and deepening. Chile and Uruguay have become stable liberal democracies, Brazil has made dramatic democratic and economic progress, and even once chronically unstable Peru has seen three successive democratically elected presidents deliver brisk economic growth with declining poverty rates. In fact, Latin America is the only region of the world where income inequality has decreased in the last decade.
To me, the death of Hugo Chavez is symbolic of a much larger sea change. The time of dictators and authoritarian rule is drawing to a close. Countries like North Korea and Iran will not exist as they do now in a decade. The prosperity that has resulted from globalization is going to squash them like a thousand ton weight.
The fact is that Chavez was no great hero or visionary. He simply rode the wave of oil wealth and made people believe that his way was the best way for Venezuela. Globalization has proved him to be massively wrong. The once robust economy has returned to where it was 50 years ago, other industries in the country have suffered, and they are currently running a 15 percent deficit of GDP. With so much government control, their economy simply cannot compete in the world. Other dictators like Fidel Castro have recognized this as well.
Even though Diamond wrote his piece primarily focusing on other areas of the world, the same paradigm applies to Middle America and South America.
The lower- and middle-income democracies that did come through the last two decades intact have shown that authoritarianism confers no intrinsic developmental advantage. For every Singapore-style authoritarian economic “miracle,” there have been many more instances of implosion or stagnation—as in Zaire, Zimbabwe, North Korea, and (until recently) Burma— resulting from predatory authoritarian rule.
Right. In fact, the assertion that tyranny and dictatorships are "just around the corner" in many parts of the world is also a myth.
While it remains true that democracy is more sustainable at higher levels of development, an unprecedented number of poor countries adopted democratic forms of government during the 1980s and ’90s, and many of them have sustained democracy for well over a decade. These include several African countries, such as Ghana, Benin, and Senegal, and one of the poorest Asian countries, Bangladesh. Other very poor countries, such as East Timor, Sierra Leone, and Liberia, are now using the political institutions of democracy as they rebuild their economies and states after civil war. Although the world has been in a mild democratic recession since about 2006, with reversals concentrated disproportionately in low-income and lower-middle-income states, a significant number of democracies in these income categories continue to function.
Yes, they do because democracy is the best system to fit in with this era of globalization. And countries aren't the only ones that have embraced it.
Further refuting the skeptics, democracy has taken root or at least been embraced by every major cultural group, not just the societies of the West with their Protestant traditions. Most Catholic countries are now democracies, and very stable ones at that. Democracy has thrived in a Hindu state, Buddhist states, and a Jewish state. And many predominantly Muslim countries, such as Turkey, Bangladesh, Senegal, and Indonesia, have by now had significant and mainly positive experience with democracy.
Diamond also discusses Hugo Chavez towards the end of the piece.
Despite the persistence of authoritarianism under Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, and the authoritarian tendencies of left-wing populist presidents in Bolivia, Ecuador, and Nicaragua, the bigger story in Latin America has been democratic resilience and deepening. Chile and Uruguay have become stable liberal democracies, Brazil has made dramatic democratic and economic progress, and even once chronically unstable Peru has seen three successive democratically elected presidents deliver brisk economic growth with declining poverty rates. In fact, Latin America is the only region of the world where income inequality has decreased in the last decade.
To me, the death of Hugo Chavez is symbolic of a much larger sea change. The time of dictators and authoritarian rule is drawing to a close. Countries like North Korea and Iran will not exist as they do now in a decade. The prosperity that has resulted from globalization is going to squash them like a thousand ton weight.
Hmm...
Gun advocates split with NRA on background checks
For example, the founder of the pro-gun Second Amendment Foundation tentatively backed a proposed compromise bill in Washington state last month that would expand checks while limiting state firearms record-keeping.
In addition, the head of the nation’s largest police union, which was allied with the NRA in a major legislative battle in the past, has joined the movement for expanded background checks.
Finally, some sane people that recognize that federal law already prohibits a national registry so universal background checks will not lead immediately to an "in the bubble" Germany, 1933.
For example, the founder of the pro-gun Second Amendment Foundation tentatively backed a proposed compromise bill in Washington state last month that would expand checks while limiting state firearms record-keeping.
In addition, the head of the nation’s largest police union, which was allied with the NRA in a major legislative battle in the past, has joined the movement for expanded background checks.
Finally, some sane people that recognize that federal law already prohibits a national registry so universal background checks will not lead immediately to an "in the bubble" Germany, 1933.
Tuesday, March 05, 2013
Gun Myth #7
Myth #7: Guns make women safer.
Fact-check: In 2010, nearly 6 times more women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners than murdered by male strangers.
• A woman's chances of being killed by her abuser increase more than 7 times if he has access to a gun.
• One study found that women in states with higher gun ownership rates were 4.9 times more likely to be murdered by a gun than women in states with lower gun ownership rates.
Fact-check: In 2010, nearly 6 times more women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners than murdered by male strangers.
• A woman's chances of being killed by her abuser increase more than 7 times if he has access to a gun.
• One study found that women in states with higher gun ownership rates were 4.9 times more likely to be murdered by a gun than women in states with lower gun ownership rates.
Monday, March 04, 2013
On Siglitz: Part Six
The sixth chapter of Joseph Stiglitz's The Price of Inequality is called, "1984 is Upon Us." In this section, Stiglitz details how many of the wealthy in this country try to frame the discussion in a way that benefits their interests, realizing that, in democracy, they cannot simply impose their rules on others. He posits that, in one way or another, they have to "co-opt" the rest of society to advance their agenda. They do this using their own, more subtle version of "newspeak."
An example of this can be seen in how our society responds to the word "socialism."
In American parlance, "socialism" is akin to communism , and communism is the ideology we battled for sixty years, triumphing only in 1989 with the fall of the Berlin Wall. Hence labeling anything as socialism is the kiss of death. Medicare is a single payer system-the government pays the bill, but the individual gets to choose the provider. Most of the elderly love Medicare. But many are convinced that government can't provide services efficiently that they believe that Medicare must be private.
Hence the famous "Keep your government hands off my Medicare" line. The irony here, aside from the obvious, is just how much socialism there is in this country that hasn't delivered the promised tyranny we now daily from the Right and, in fact, has been enormously beneficial to our country. Even famed "unbridled capitalist" Adam Smith wrote, in The Wealth of Nations, that the sovereign has
The duty of erecting and maintaining certain public works and certain public institutions which it can never be for the interest of any individual, or small number of individuals, to erect and maintain; because the profit could never repay the expense to any individual or small number of individuals, though it may frequently do much more than repay it to a greater society.
Here, Smith champions elements of socialism and states that they are essential to any successful society. They have certainly worked out very well for us as we are the greatest nation this world has ever seen.
So, the dichotomy here is very frustrating given how the framing of American parlance operates. When we start discussing economics and the high level of inequality we have in this country, we see it again. As Stiglitz notes
Mainstream economics assumes that individuals have well defined preferences and fully rational expectations and perceptions. Individuals know what they want. But in this respect, traditional economics is wrong. If it were true, there would be little need for advertising. Corporations use recent advances in psychology and economics that extend our understanding and preferences and beliefs can be shaped to induce people to buy their products.
Exactly right. One of the major problems I have with the whole "people act in their own enlightened self interest" meme is that..well...people don't. They are often foolish, emotionally unintelligent, and behave poorly, even engaging in criminal activity. That's why "leaving it all up to the free market to sort out" doesn't work given that the powerful people who run many of these markets can be characterized as all the above.
More importantly, people who don't really know what they want and aren't rational can be easily manipulated. Because of this simple fact, Stiglitz notes that most Americans have no earthly idea how much inequality there is in this country. They believe there is less economic inequality than there is, they underestimate its adverse economic effects, and they overestimate the costs of taking action.
In a recent study respondents on average thought that the top fifth of the population had just short of 60 percent of the wealth, when in truth that group holds approximately 85 percent of the wealth. Interestingly, respondents described an ideal wealth distribution as one in which the top 20 percent hold just over 30 percent of the wealth. Americans recognize that some inequality is inevitable, and perhaps even desirable if one is to provide incentives; but the level of inequality in American society is well beyond that level.
I've brought up this study before but I think it should be revisited given the context of Stiglitz's argument. People don't have any idea just how much the wealthy have in this country. Of course, any discussion about it results in Orwellian screeches and howls from the Right about "Marxism" and "class warfare." Yet this sort of wealth concentration at the top is exactly where liberal economic theory was born. Men like Adam Smith and Samuel Stiles bemoaned the hoarding of wealth by the aristocracy through mercantilism and other protectionist practices. In many ways, Stiglitz has argued the same thing in previous chapters by pointing out the endless cycle of rent seeking, incompetent government action and government inaction. Regardless of the times or the mechanism, the wealthy are continuing to do what they always do: consolidate power.
Now, this is usually the point when people ask, "how much inequality is bad and how much is good?" Well, before we do that, we have to get back to the perception problem.
Not only do Americans misperceive the level of inequality; they underestimate the changes that have been going on. Only 42 percent of Americans believe that inequality has increased in the past ten years, when in fact the increase has been tectonic. Misperceptions are evident, too, in views about social mobility. Several studies (here, here, and here) confirmed that perceptions of social mobility are overly optimistic.
So, we need to solve the problem of awareness first before we can detail any sort of serious metric regarding acceptable or unacceptable levels of inequality. That means we have to combat the 1984ish messaging we see every day from the 1 percent.
After we've done that, the best place to start is the most commonly used measure of inequality: the Gini-coefficient. There is also the Theil index, which has more sub group and sub region development, the Decile dispersion ratio, and the Share of income/consumption of the poorest x%. All of these metrics should be used in tandem for a more accurate analysis.
In taking a look at where we are today, it's obvious that we really do have some very serious perception problems.
Bear in mind, these figures are only through 2010, the last time the Census Bureau did their estimate. Two years ago we were at 46.9 which means we are very close to that .5 tipping point where we quite literally have a country of haves and have-nots. The study from above shows that Americans want our country to be more like Sweden. That's not surprising, given that there Gini coefficient is .23, nearly half of what our's is today.
Stiglitz has much more to say in this chapter regarding perceptions in terms of market behavior, fairness, and a whole host of other issues like the public view on estate taxes and bank recapitalization. It's quite a bit of information to absorb so I chose to focus on the more general theme of the chapter-the perception of inequality. For the finer points, as always, I recommend reading the book and the sources contained at the end of each section, some of which I have listed here.
So, the facts show that it's a more subtle version of newspeak, isn't it? It's not quite war is peace (although the Right's view on guns is certainly close to that) but it's still just as contradictory. The people of this country need to know just how much inequality there is and, as Stiglitz noted in previous chapters, the detrimental effects it is inflicting on our country.
An example of this can be seen in how our society responds to the word "socialism."
In American parlance, "socialism" is akin to communism , and communism is the ideology we battled for sixty years, triumphing only in 1989 with the fall of the Berlin Wall. Hence labeling anything as socialism is the kiss of death. Medicare is a single payer system-the government pays the bill, but the individual gets to choose the provider. Most of the elderly love Medicare. But many are convinced that government can't provide services efficiently that they believe that Medicare must be private.
Hence the famous "Keep your government hands off my Medicare" line. The irony here, aside from the obvious, is just how much socialism there is in this country that hasn't delivered the promised tyranny we now daily from the Right and, in fact, has been enormously beneficial to our country. Even famed "unbridled capitalist" Adam Smith wrote, in The Wealth of Nations, that the sovereign has
The duty of erecting and maintaining certain public works and certain public institutions which it can never be for the interest of any individual, or small number of individuals, to erect and maintain; because the profit could never repay the expense to any individual or small number of individuals, though it may frequently do much more than repay it to a greater society.
Here, Smith champions elements of socialism and states that they are essential to any successful society. They have certainly worked out very well for us as we are the greatest nation this world has ever seen.
So, the dichotomy here is very frustrating given how the framing of American parlance operates. When we start discussing economics and the high level of inequality we have in this country, we see it again. As Stiglitz notes
Mainstream economics assumes that individuals have well defined preferences and fully rational expectations and perceptions. Individuals know what they want. But in this respect, traditional economics is wrong. If it were true, there would be little need for advertising. Corporations use recent advances in psychology and economics that extend our understanding and preferences and beliefs can be shaped to induce people to buy their products.
Exactly right. One of the major problems I have with the whole "people act in their own enlightened self interest" meme is that..well...people don't. They are often foolish, emotionally unintelligent, and behave poorly, even engaging in criminal activity. That's why "leaving it all up to the free market to sort out" doesn't work given that the powerful people who run many of these markets can be characterized as all the above.
More importantly, people who don't really know what they want and aren't rational can be easily manipulated. Because of this simple fact, Stiglitz notes that most Americans have no earthly idea how much inequality there is in this country. They believe there is less economic inequality than there is, they underestimate its adverse economic effects, and they overestimate the costs of taking action.
In a recent study respondents on average thought that the top fifth of the population had just short of 60 percent of the wealth, when in truth that group holds approximately 85 percent of the wealth. Interestingly, respondents described an ideal wealth distribution as one in which the top 20 percent hold just over 30 percent of the wealth. Americans recognize that some inequality is inevitable, and perhaps even desirable if one is to provide incentives; but the level of inequality in American society is well beyond that level.
I've brought up this study before but I think it should be revisited given the context of Stiglitz's argument. People don't have any idea just how much the wealthy have in this country. Of course, any discussion about it results in Orwellian screeches and howls from the Right about "Marxism" and "class warfare." Yet this sort of wealth concentration at the top is exactly where liberal economic theory was born. Men like Adam Smith and Samuel Stiles bemoaned the hoarding of wealth by the aristocracy through mercantilism and other protectionist practices. In many ways, Stiglitz has argued the same thing in previous chapters by pointing out the endless cycle of rent seeking, incompetent government action and government inaction. Regardless of the times or the mechanism, the wealthy are continuing to do what they always do: consolidate power.
Now, this is usually the point when people ask, "how much inequality is bad and how much is good?" Well, before we do that, we have to get back to the perception problem.
Not only do Americans misperceive the level of inequality; they underestimate the changes that have been going on. Only 42 percent of Americans believe that inequality has increased in the past ten years, when in fact the increase has been tectonic. Misperceptions are evident, too, in views about social mobility. Several studies (here, here, and here) confirmed that perceptions of social mobility are overly optimistic.
So, we need to solve the problem of awareness first before we can detail any sort of serious metric regarding acceptable or unacceptable levels of inequality. That means we have to combat the 1984ish messaging we see every day from the 1 percent.
After we've done that, the best place to start is the most commonly used measure of inequality: the Gini-coefficient. There is also the Theil index, which has more sub group and sub region development, the Decile dispersion ratio, and the Share of income/consumption of the poorest x%. All of these metrics should be used in tandem for a more accurate analysis.
In taking a look at where we are today, it's obvious that we really do have some very serious perception problems.
Bear in mind, these figures are only through 2010, the last time the Census Bureau did their estimate. Two years ago we were at 46.9 which means we are very close to that .5 tipping point where we quite literally have a country of haves and have-nots. The study from above shows that Americans want our country to be more like Sweden. That's not surprising, given that there Gini coefficient is .23, nearly half of what our's is today.
Stiglitz has much more to say in this chapter regarding perceptions in terms of market behavior, fairness, and a whole host of other issues like the public view on estate taxes and bank recapitalization. It's quite a bit of information to absorb so I chose to focus on the more general theme of the chapter-the perception of inequality. For the finer points, as always, I recommend reading the book and the sources contained at the end of each section, some of which I have listed here.
So, the facts show that it's a more subtle version of newspeak, isn't it? It's not quite war is peace (although the Right's view on guns is certainly close to that) but it's still just as contradictory. The people of this country need to know just how much inequality there is and, as Stiglitz noted in previous chapters, the detrimental effects it is inflicting on our country.
Yay, I'm Wrong!
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."
And I love the guy who mentions judging and Jesus to the "bigot."
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.
Their Own Worst Enemies
The Republican Party's biggest opponent is no longer the Democrats — it's the Republican Party.
One of the more notable rifts is between Karl Rove and the Tea Party Patriots. After Rove announced that he was going to make sure that candidates like Todd Akin would never happen again, the Patriots sent out an email portraying Rove as a Nazi (yeah, he does bear a passing resemblance to Heinrich Himmler if you put a mustache on him...). Newt Gingrich has entered the fray on the Tea Party side, because, well, who else would have him? Bobby Jindal made waves in January when he said that the Republicans had to stop being the stupid party.
Now the National Organization for Marriage is going after Branden Peterson, a Minnesota state senator, for cosponsoring a same-sex marriage bill.
“Republicans like Branden Petersen don’t realize that not only is voting to redefine marriage a terrible policy, it is also a career-ending vote for a Republican,” said Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage. “NOM will do everything in our power to defeat any Republican who votes in favor of same-sex marriage.”This constant drive for ideological purity at any cost will be the death of the Republican Party long before the demographic shifts coming in the next decades. With gay marriage, the writing is on the wall: it's over, it's a done deal. Even Dick Cheney is just waiting for the dead-enders' last gasp.
The reason the Republican Party has a majority in the House of Representatives is that they have gerrymandered several states that Democrats win in presidential elections, such as Ohio and Pennsylvania, and have concentrated all the Democrats in just a few districts, giving them 70, 80 and 90% majorities. Meanwhile, the Republican districts in those states have much smaller majorities, on the order of maybe 55 to 60%.
If the Tea Party succeeds in driving the Republicans further to the right, they're going to alienate suburban Republicans who have grown weary of the bickering over gay marriage, abortion, contraception, immigration reform and universal background checks for gun purchases. The small Republican majorities in those suburban districts could flip at any time. A relatively small exodus of well-to-do Democrats moving from the city to the suburbs, and continued population growth in the Sunbelt could flip even more districts from R to D in solid red states.
If the economy continues to improve and the internecine war between the Tea Party and old-guard Republicans continues, their numbers in the House could collapse as early as 2015 as the gerrymandering backfires.
And I don't like that at all, because when I first started out I was a Republican: the Democrats had a lock on everything in Minnesota, and it wasn't pretty. They had to get beat a bunch of times to straighten them out, and a repetition of that scenario nationwide won't be good for anyone.
The Republican Party needs to get its act together and start acting like a real political party, instead of a fanatical religion or a bunch of rabid British football hooligans.
Impressive
I saw two stories recently that are indicative of the kinds of steps that we need to take regarding gun safety. The first comes from Castle Rock, Colorado where policemen are now doing all their arrest reports and paperwork in school parking lots.
"The kids get to see us in a new light. We're not showing up after something bad has happened," said Sgt. Chris O'Neal of the Douglas County Sheriff's Department south of Denver. O'Neal spoke while filling out paperwork outside Fox Creek Elementary School — one of six schools he visits daily.
Every local community should adopt this standard at a minimum or, if possible, follow the lead of the Jordan, Minnesota police department and simply move all of their offices into the schools. Our school already has police officers with fully functional offices and I honestly hope this is the direction we are heading.
In the final analysis, this problem is going to be solved at the local level. The federal government can only do so much and it's up to local communities to follow the example of Castle Rock and Jordan.
"The kids get to see us in a new light. We're not showing up after something bad has happened," said Sgt. Chris O'Neal of the Douglas County Sheriff's Department south of Denver. O'Neal spoke while filling out paperwork outside Fox Creek Elementary School — one of six schools he visits daily.
Every local community should adopt this standard at a minimum or, if possible, follow the lead of the Jordan, Minnesota police department and simply move all of their offices into the schools. Our school already has police officers with fully functional offices and I honestly hope this is the direction we are heading.
In the final analysis, this problem is going to be solved at the local level. The federal government can only do so much and it's up to local communities to follow the example of Castle Rock and Jordan.
Sunday, February 24, 2013
Good Words
No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. (Adam Smith, 1776)
It's always amused me when conservatives bring up Adam Smith and point to him as the King of Unbridled Capitalism. As is usually the case, they miss the complexity.
Smith was firmly grounded in reality and recognized the dangers of special interests. He concluded that employers "always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages above their actual rate" and sometimes entered "into particular combinations to sink the wages even below this rate." He also condemned the deadening effects of division of labor and that's why he called for government intervention to raise workers' living standards.
So, while he was indeed the father of economic liberalism, he was decidedly not the cold-hearted capitalist that the Right will have you believe he was.
It's always amused me when conservatives bring up Adam Smith and point to him as the King of Unbridled Capitalism. As is usually the case, they miss the complexity.
Smith was firmly grounded in reality and recognized the dangers of special interests. He concluded that employers "always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages above their actual rate" and sometimes entered "into particular combinations to sink the wages even below this rate." He also condemned the deadening effects of division of labor and that's why he called for government intervention to raise workers' living standards.
So, while he was indeed the father of economic liberalism, he was decidedly not the cold-hearted capitalist that the Right will have you believe he was.
Saturday, February 23, 2013
Let It Happen
There are a whole lot of folks that are worried these days about the sequester. The cuts that are going to happen, they say, are going to be damaging to our country and Congress must reach a deal by March 1st. I say let it all happen.
In fact, let's see how our county does for a while when federal spending is significantly cut as it will be next Friday. We should operate with these new spending levels for at least six months to illustrate exactly what it means to make the cuts that the Right perpetually whines and cries over. It's a big opportunity for the Ayn Rand worshipers out there to strut their stuff.
Let's see how a 16 trillion dollar economy does with minimal services. Have at it, people!
In fact, let's see how our county does for a while when federal spending is significantly cut as it will be next Friday. We should operate with these new spending levels for at least six months to illustrate exactly what it means to make the cuts that the Right perpetually whines and cries over. It's a big opportunity for the Ayn Rand worshipers out there to strut their stuff.
Let's see how a 16 trillion dollar economy does with minimal services. Have at it, people!
Best Picture: Lincoln
The last of the nine Best Pictures nominees is Steven Spielberg's Lincoln. To put it simply, it is a film made specifically for a 9th grade civics class. Contrary to what you might expect, this is not a bio pic. It is a story about how the 13th Amendment passed the House of Representatives in January of 1865....the actual way it passed, not the sanitized, history book version.
My only complaint of the film (similar to my beef with Django Unchained) is that it should have ended 20 minutes before it did. There is a fantastic moment when President Lincoln puts on his hat and walks off down the hallway of the White House residence to go to the theater. His butler watches him go and....the film goes on. We see his son's reaction to the news of his father being shot and a massive historical inaccuracy when they lay him out on the bed at the Petersen House and he fits in the frame! No doubt, Hollywood needs to learn how to end a film.
Yet, the performances of dazzling. Of course, Daniel Day Lewis is amazing but we expect that from him, right? The true diamond in the rough in this picture is Tommy Lee Jones as Thaddeus Stevens. A remarkable portrayal, to be sure, but interestingly accurate. Stevens was a true intellect with a sharp wit, relying on both to carry through whatever legislation he supported. It is worth the price of admission just for his performance.
My only complaint of the film (similar to my beef with Django Unchained) is that it should have ended 20 minutes before it did. There is a fantastic moment when President Lincoln puts on his hat and walks off down the hallway of the White House residence to go to the theater. His butler watches him go and....the film goes on. We see his son's reaction to the news of his father being shot and a massive historical inaccuracy when they lay him out on the bed at the Petersen House and he fits in the frame! No doubt, Hollywood needs to learn how to end a film.
Yet, the performances of dazzling. Of course, Daniel Day Lewis is amazing but we expect that from him, right? The true diamond in the rough in this picture is Tommy Lee Jones as Thaddeus Stevens. A remarkable portrayal, to be sure, but interestingly accurate. Stevens was a true intellect with a sharp wit, relying on both to carry through whatever legislation he supported. It is worth the price of admission just for his performance.
Friday, February 22, 2013
Best Picture: Argo
Even thought I knew exactly what was going to happen in Ben Afleck's Argo, I was still on the edge of my seat for the entire two hours. The film is positively riveting as it relates the story of how a few people from the American consulate in Iran in 1979 made it to safety in the home of the Canadian ambassador. Yes, the film does take some liberties with events as they happened but this is a work of fiction, after all, based on real events.
I've enjoyed watching Ben Afleck's career trajectory over the years. The Town saw some real growth after Good Will Hunting and Argo shows he continues to mature.
I've enjoyed watching Ben Afleck's career trajectory over the years. The Town saw some real growth after Good Will Hunting and Argo shows he continues to mature.
O.J. II: the Pistorius Edition
The shooting of Reeva Steenkamp by Oscar Pistorius on Valentine's Day is garnering world-wide attention, and it's no wonder: it pushes every button.
First, there's the "modern miracle" button. The author of nearly every story I've ever read about this case feels duty-bound to mention that Pistorious is a double-amputee Olympian. The fact that he uses modern technology to accomplish what most of us do on a daily basis is no longer newsworthy. It would be like mentioning in every story about Nicole Simpson's murder that O.J. Simpson was severely near-sighted and only able to play professional football because of technologically advanced hydrophilic contact lenses. (I don't know if Simpson wore contacts -- it's just a hypothetical.)
Speaking of O.J., this is the Simpson case all over again. Renowned athlete kills girlfriend. Incompetent police detectives botch initial stages of investigation. Fortunately we'll be spared a jury trial that makes a nation scream about nullification and berate black jurors -- South Africa does not have jury trials for criminal cases.
Next button: prosecutorial overreach. It is preposterous for prosecutors to claim that the murder was premeditated because Pistorius walked seven meters with a gun. The evidence presented at the initial hearing supports manslaughter or second-degree murder at best (domestic argument turns into murder). The reason they jacked up the charges is because they wanted to deny Pistorius bail, for fear that he'll flee the country (which is not an unreasonable fear -- his job takes him out of the country constantly, and the guy can run really fast). Now, if it turns that Pistorius told the workman who left the ladder leaning against his bathroom window to knock off work early, providing a rationale for why he would be shooting blindly into the bathroom, then the case for premeditation gets a whole lot better. But as long as Pistorius has to surrender his passport and running blades, his ability to flee should be sufficiently reduced.
Next button: scary black dude. Pistorius says he mistook his blonde white girlfriend for a scary black dude -- a scary black dude that he never saw. It's not clear what Steenkamp was doing in the bathroom that set Pistorius off. Was she taking a huge steaming dump that made the whole house smell like a Soweto slum? Did she pass gas with such amazing volume that made Pistorius believe only a huge home intruder could have possibly made such a trumpeting blast?
Next button: shoot first, ask questions later. This is the inherent problem with guns in the home, and it happens all the time. Last December a Minnesota a pastor shot his granddaughter out on the patio. He has since been charged with intentional discharge of a firearm and endangering safety. I don't know if South Africa has a such a law, but shooting blindly into a bathroom door without making any attempt at all to find out who is in there is a reckless and dangerous act, worthy of a charge of criminally negligent involuntary manslaughter at a minimum. Pistorius claims he thought someone might have been in the bathroom because a workman left a ladder leaning against the house. This is like killing a pedestrian while roaring down a residential street at 100 miles an hour because you thought you heard a car chasing you, and you saw one parked alongside the road a mile back.
Next button: destruction of forensic evidence. Pistorius claims he shot Steenkamp through the door without his prosthetic legs. The prosecution says Pistorius put on the prosthetics first and then fired. Forensic examination of the door should provide some evidence along these lines: one assumes that Pistorius is somewhat taller in prosthetics. So, did he break the door apart to hide that fact? Maybe things are different in South Africa, but in every American home I've been in, bathroom doors can be unlocked from the outside with a safety pin or paper clip. Did he really need a cricket bat to break down the door? Pistorius also picked Steenkamp up and carried her downstairs "to render assistance." Was that after he took the time to put on his prosthetics? After he called for an ambulance, ignoring the two iPhones in the bathroom and two Blackberries in the bedroom? The last thing I'd want to do is carry an injured person around -- the most important thing to do is stop the bleeding and get paramedics on the scene ASAP. Isn't the bathroom where you keep bandages, gauze pads and tape that you'd use to stop the bleeding?
Next button: incessant weeping. Man, is Pistorius a crybaby. Every story about Pistorius' hearing mentions how he is constantly bawling. Right after he shot Steenkamp Pistorius whimpered on the phone. He wailed at press conferences. He wept during the hearings. I suppose it's better than looking like a stone-faced sociopath, but come on. He's supposed to be a tough guy who overcame such adversity, a swaggering macho gun nut who had applied for six more gun licenses three weeks before shooting Steenkamp (his first application, five years ago, was rejected). Is the crying all an act, or is this guy really that emotionally unbalanced and overwrought, maybe strung out on steroids or some other kind of drugs? Doesn't it seem quite possible that such an emotional person would snap and shoot his girlfriend? Is his excessive emotionalism why his application for a gun license was initially denied? (It requires three character references, including a neighbor and a relative.)
At this point it's impossible to know for sure whether Pistorius is lying or telling the truth. If he's lying, is he a self-promoting celebrity stone-cold killer and cynical manipulator, or a hot-head who just can't stop bawling? If he's telling the truth, is he a puling coward or a hair-trigger menace to society?
In the end Oscar Pistorius is the perfect cautionary tale against the all-guns all-the-time mindset of the NRA.
First, there's the "modern miracle" button. The author of nearly every story I've ever read about this case feels duty-bound to mention that Pistorious is a double-amputee Olympian. The fact that he uses modern technology to accomplish what most of us do on a daily basis is no longer newsworthy. It would be like mentioning in every story about Nicole Simpson's murder that O.J. Simpson was severely near-sighted and only able to play professional football because of technologically advanced hydrophilic contact lenses. (I don't know if Simpson wore contacts -- it's just a hypothetical.)
Speaking of O.J., this is the Simpson case all over again. Renowned athlete kills girlfriend. Incompetent police detectives botch initial stages of investigation. Fortunately we'll be spared a jury trial that makes a nation scream about nullification and berate black jurors -- South Africa does not have jury trials for criminal cases.
Next button: prosecutorial overreach. It is preposterous for prosecutors to claim that the murder was premeditated because Pistorius walked seven meters with a gun. The evidence presented at the initial hearing supports manslaughter or second-degree murder at best (domestic argument turns into murder). The reason they jacked up the charges is because they wanted to deny Pistorius bail, for fear that he'll flee the country (which is not an unreasonable fear -- his job takes him out of the country constantly, and the guy can run really fast). Now, if it turns that Pistorius told the workman who left the ladder leaning against his bathroom window to knock off work early, providing a rationale for why he would be shooting blindly into the bathroom, then the case for premeditation gets a whole lot better. But as long as Pistorius has to surrender his passport and running blades, his ability to flee should be sufficiently reduced.
Next button: scary black dude. Pistorius says he mistook his blonde white girlfriend for a scary black dude -- a scary black dude that he never saw. It's not clear what Steenkamp was doing in the bathroom that set Pistorius off. Was she taking a huge steaming dump that made the whole house smell like a Soweto slum? Did she pass gas with such amazing volume that made Pistorius believe only a huge home intruder could have possibly made such a trumpeting blast?
Next button: shoot first, ask questions later. This is the inherent problem with guns in the home, and it happens all the time. Last December a Minnesota a pastor shot his granddaughter out on the patio. He has since been charged with intentional discharge of a firearm and endangering safety. I don't know if South Africa has a such a law, but shooting blindly into a bathroom door without making any attempt at all to find out who is in there is a reckless and dangerous act, worthy of a charge of criminally negligent involuntary manslaughter at a minimum. Pistorius claims he thought someone might have been in the bathroom because a workman left a ladder leaning against the house. This is like killing a pedestrian while roaring down a residential street at 100 miles an hour because you thought you heard a car chasing you, and you saw one parked alongside the road a mile back.
Next button: destruction of forensic evidence. Pistorius claims he shot Steenkamp through the door without his prosthetic legs. The prosecution says Pistorius put on the prosthetics first and then fired. Forensic examination of the door should provide some evidence along these lines: one assumes that Pistorius is somewhat taller in prosthetics. So, did he break the door apart to hide that fact? Maybe things are different in South Africa, but in every American home I've been in, bathroom doors can be unlocked from the outside with a safety pin or paper clip. Did he really need a cricket bat to break down the door? Pistorius also picked Steenkamp up and carried her downstairs "to render assistance." Was that after he took the time to put on his prosthetics? After he called for an ambulance, ignoring the two iPhones in the bathroom and two Blackberries in the bedroom? The last thing I'd want to do is carry an injured person around -- the most important thing to do is stop the bleeding and get paramedics on the scene ASAP. Isn't the bathroom where you keep bandages, gauze pads and tape that you'd use to stop the bleeding?
Next button: incessant weeping. Man, is Pistorius a crybaby. Every story about Pistorius' hearing mentions how he is constantly bawling. Right after he shot Steenkamp Pistorius whimpered on the phone. He wailed at press conferences. He wept during the hearings. I suppose it's better than looking like a stone-faced sociopath, but come on. He's supposed to be a tough guy who overcame such adversity, a swaggering macho gun nut who had applied for six more gun licenses three weeks before shooting Steenkamp (his first application, five years ago, was rejected). Is the crying all an act, or is this guy really that emotionally unbalanced and overwrought, maybe strung out on steroids or some other kind of drugs? Doesn't it seem quite possible that such an emotional person would snap and shoot his girlfriend? Is his excessive emotionalism why his application for a gun license was initially denied? (It requires three character references, including a neighbor and a relative.)
At this point it's impossible to know for sure whether Pistorius is lying or telling the truth. If he's lying, is he a self-promoting celebrity stone-cold killer and cynical manipulator, or a hot-head who just can't stop bawling? If he's telling the truth, is he a puling coward or a hair-trigger menace to society?
In the end Oscar Pistorius is the perfect cautionary tale against the all-guns all-the-time mindset of the NRA.
Chuck Hagel, An Honorable Republican
Chuck Hagel’s Record: Myths and Facts
Myth # 1: Senator Hagel is not supportive of Israel
Fact: Senator Hagel is a strong supporter of Israel, and he has worked throughout his career to strengthen Israel’s security and the U.S.-Israel relationship. Hagel’s support has been well documented in his Senate floor speeches, opinion pieces, interviews, public speeches and 2008 book.
In January 2013, Danny Ayalon, the Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister and former Israeli Ambassador to the United States, told a meeting of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations that, “I know Hagel personally. When I was ambassador in Washington, we had many meetings. I cannot say that we agreed on everything, but he was a decent and fair interlocutor and you can reason with him. I think he believes in the relationship, in the natural partnership between Israel and the United States.”
As a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Hagel voted consistently to support Israel – including voting to provide nearly $40 billion in military and security assistance over the 12 years he served in the Senate.
In his 2008 book, Hagel wrote that “there will always be a special and historic bond with Israel exemplified by our continued commitment to Israel’s defense.” Hagel also wrote that there can be no compromise on Israel’s identity as a Jewish state.
He has said the United States is committed to Israel’s security, that Israel has an “undeniable” right to defend itself against aggression, and that the security of its borders is non-negotiable.
He has strongly supported a two-state solution and has opposed any unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state.
Myth #2: Senator Hagel is soft on Iran
Facts: Senator Hagel is committed to President Obama’s goal of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. He believes that all options must be on the table – including military options – to achieve that goal. Hagel strongly supports the unprecedented sanctions the international community has imposed on Iran under the leadership of the Obama administration –the toughest sanctions ever put on the regime.
In September 2012, Senator Hagel wrote in a joint op-ed with Admiral William Fallon, Congressman Lee Hamilton, Ambassador Thomas Pickering and General Anthony Zinni that, “Our position is fully consistent with the policy of presidents for more than a decade of keeping all options on the table, including the use of military force, thereby increasing pressure on Iran while working toward a political solution.”
Myth # 1: Senator Hagel is not supportive of Israel
Fact: Senator Hagel is a strong supporter of Israel, and he has worked throughout his career to strengthen Israel’s security and the U.S.-Israel relationship. Hagel’s support has been well documented in his Senate floor speeches, opinion pieces, interviews, public speeches and 2008 book.
In January 2013, Danny Ayalon, the Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister and former Israeli Ambassador to the United States, told a meeting of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations that, “I know Hagel personally. When I was ambassador in Washington, we had many meetings. I cannot say that we agreed on everything, but he was a decent and fair interlocutor and you can reason with him. I think he believes in the relationship, in the natural partnership between Israel and the United States.”
As a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Hagel voted consistently to support Israel – including voting to provide nearly $40 billion in military and security assistance over the 12 years he served in the Senate.
In his 2008 book, Hagel wrote that “there will always be a special and historic bond with Israel exemplified by our continued commitment to Israel’s defense.” Hagel also wrote that there can be no compromise on Israel’s identity as a Jewish state.
He has said the United States is committed to Israel’s security, that Israel has an “undeniable” right to defend itself against aggression, and that the security of its borders is non-negotiable.
He has strongly supported a two-state solution and has opposed any unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state.
Myth #2: Senator Hagel is soft on Iran
Facts: Senator Hagel is committed to President Obama’s goal of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. He believes that all options must be on the table – including military options – to achieve that goal. Hagel strongly supports the unprecedented sanctions the international community has imposed on Iran under the leadership of the Obama administration –the toughest sanctions ever put on the regime.
In September 2012, Senator Hagel wrote in a joint op-ed with Admiral William Fallon, Congressman Lee Hamilton, Ambassador Thomas Pickering and General Anthony Zinni that, “Our position is fully consistent with the policy of presidents for more than a decade of keeping all options on the table, including the use of military force, thereby increasing pressure on Iran while working toward a political solution.”
Hagel recently called on the United States to “keep ratcheting up sanctions” on Iran to further increase pressure, while keeping the military option on the table.
While in the Senate, Hagel supported tough sanctions on Iran through the Iran Missile Proliferation Sanctions Act of 1997, the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000, and the Iran Freedom Support Act of 2006. These measures punished entities that assist Iran in developing or acquiring nuclear, biological, chemical weapons, or ballistic missiles.
Hagel is clear-eyed about the Iranian government’s destabilizing activities in the region. He has said that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism and that it provides material support to the terrorist groups Hezbollah and Hamas.
He also co-sponsored legislation in the Senate condemning Iran’s arrest of members of its Jewish community and called for their release.
Myth # 3: Senator Hagel has been soft on Hezbollah and Hamas
Facts: Senator Hagel has been clear that Hezbollah and Hamas are terrorist organizations that
pose a threat to Israel, the stability of the Middle East, and the United States.
Hagel has condemned Iran’s support of the terrorist group Hezbollah and has said that Hezbollah poses a direct threat to Israel, Lebanon, and to peace in the Middle East.
Hagel co-sponsored resolutions in the Senate calling on Hamas to recognize Israel’s right to exist.
He also co-sponsored the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006, which urged the international community to withhold support from Hamas until it agreed to recognize Israel, renounce violence, disarm and accept prior agreements. The lead sponsor of that legislation was Senator Mitch McConnell, and other co-sponsors included Senators Harry Reid and Joe Biden.
As an active member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Senator Hagel helped bolster U.S. counterterrorism efforts in the Middle East.
Myth #4: Senator Hagel opposes LGBT rights
Facts: Like many leaders of his generation, Senator Hagel’s views on LGBT issues have evolved over the past two decades. He has clearly stated that he is fully supportive of gay and lesbian men and women serving openly in the United States military, and he is committed to a full implementation of the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell at the Department of Defense.
Michael Guest, an openly gay career Foreign Service officer who served as ambassador to Romania from 2001 to 2004 and worked with Hagel, said, “He was true to his word. And if Hagel says he would fully implement the repeal of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ I take him at his word.”
While in the Senate, Hagel supported tough sanctions on Iran through the Iran Missile Proliferation Sanctions Act of 1997, the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000, and the Iran Freedom Support Act of 2006. These measures punished entities that assist Iran in developing or acquiring nuclear, biological, chemical weapons, or ballistic missiles.
Hagel is clear-eyed about the Iranian government’s destabilizing activities in the region. He has said that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism and that it provides material support to the terrorist groups Hezbollah and Hamas.
He also co-sponsored legislation in the Senate condemning Iran’s arrest of members of its Jewish community and called for their release.
Myth # 3: Senator Hagel has been soft on Hezbollah and Hamas
Facts: Senator Hagel has been clear that Hezbollah and Hamas are terrorist organizations that
pose a threat to Israel, the stability of the Middle East, and the United States.
Hagel has condemned Iran’s support of the terrorist group Hezbollah and has said that Hezbollah poses a direct threat to Israel, Lebanon, and to peace in the Middle East.
Hagel co-sponsored resolutions in the Senate calling on Hamas to recognize Israel’s right to exist.
He also co-sponsored the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006, which urged the international community to withhold support from Hamas until it agreed to recognize Israel, renounce violence, disarm and accept prior agreements. The lead sponsor of that legislation was Senator Mitch McConnell, and other co-sponsors included Senators Harry Reid and Joe Biden.
As an active member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Senator Hagel helped bolster U.S. counterterrorism efforts in the Middle East.
Myth #4: Senator Hagel opposes LGBT rights
Facts: Like many leaders of his generation, Senator Hagel’s views on LGBT issues have evolved over the past two decades. He has clearly stated that he is fully supportive of gay and lesbian men and women serving openly in the United States military, and he is committed to a full implementation of the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell at the Department of Defense.
Michael Guest, an openly gay career Foreign Service officer who served as ambassador to Romania from 2001 to 2004 and worked with Hagel, said, “He was true to his word. And if Hagel says he would fully implement the repeal of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ I take him at his word.”
Senator Hagel said he was wrong and apologized to former Ambassador James Hormel and to the LGBT community for comments he made in the 1990s. Hagel said, “My comments 14 years ago in 1998 were insensitive. They do not reflect my views or the totality of my public record, and I apologize to Ambassador Hormel and any LGBT Americans who may question my commitment to their civil rights. I am fully supportive of ‘open service’ and committed to LGBT military families.”
In response, Ambassador Hormel said, “Senator Hagel’s apology is significant – I can’t remember a time when a potential presidential nominee apologized for anything. While the timing appears self-serving, the words themselves are unequivocal –they are a clear apology. Since 1998, fourteen years have passed, and public attitudes have shifted – perhaps Senator Hagel has progressed with the times, too. His action affords new stature to the LGBT constituency, whose members still are treated as second class citizens in innumerable ways. Senator Hagel stated in his remarks that he was willing to support open military service and LGBT military families. If that is a commitment to treat LGBT service members and their families like everybody else, I would support his nomination.”
Human Rights Campaign’s President Chad Griffin said, “Senator Hagel’s apology and his statement of support for LGBT equality is appreciated and shows just how far as a country we have come when a conservative former Senator from Nebraska can have a change of heart on LGBT issues. Our community continues to add allies to our ranks and we’re proud that Senator Hagel is one of them.”
Myth #5: Senator Hagel would weaken our nuclear deterrent
Facts: Senator Hagel believes it is in the interest of the United States and mankind to work towards a world free of nuclear weapons – a goal that is squarely in line with the vision President Obama outlined in his 2009 speech in Prague. At the same time, Senator Hagel has always believed that as long as nuclear threats exist, the United States must maintain a strong and ready nuclear arsenal.
In his 2008 book, Hagel wrote that “the world would be far more secure if no one had nuclear weapons, or, at the very least, no new nations joined the nuclear club. We must work closely with our allies and world institutions to make every effort to ensure that this club does not grow.”
As a Senator from Nebraska, where headquarters of U.S. Strategic Command is located, he developed a keen understanding of the critical importance of fielding a safe, secure, and effective nuclear deterrent.
Hagel joined President Obama in strongly supporting Senate ratification of the New START Treaty, which had the unanimous support of America’s military leadership and was endorsed by six former secretaries of state, five former secretaries of defense, and three former national security advisers – both Republicans and Democrats.
In a 2010 Washington Post op-ed, Hagel, along with former Secretaries of State George Shultz and Madeleine Albright and Senator Gary Hart, argued that New START“strengthens international efforts to prevent nuclear terrorism, and it opens the door to progress on further critical nonproliferation efforts, such as reducing Russian tactical nuclear weapons.”
In response, Ambassador Hormel said, “Senator Hagel’s apology is significant – I can’t remember a time when a potential presidential nominee apologized for anything. While the timing appears self-serving, the words themselves are unequivocal –they are a clear apology. Since 1998, fourteen years have passed, and public attitudes have shifted – perhaps Senator Hagel has progressed with the times, too. His action affords new stature to the LGBT constituency, whose members still are treated as second class citizens in innumerable ways. Senator Hagel stated in his remarks that he was willing to support open military service and LGBT military families. If that is a commitment to treat LGBT service members and their families like everybody else, I would support his nomination.”
Human Rights Campaign’s President Chad Griffin said, “Senator Hagel’s apology and his statement of support for LGBT equality is appreciated and shows just how far as a country we have come when a conservative former Senator from Nebraska can have a change of heart on LGBT issues. Our community continues to add allies to our ranks and we’re proud that Senator Hagel is one of them.”
Myth #5: Senator Hagel would weaken our nuclear deterrent
Facts: Senator Hagel believes it is in the interest of the United States and mankind to work towards a world free of nuclear weapons – a goal that is squarely in line with the vision President Obama outlined in his 2009 speech in Prague. At the same time, Senator Hagel has always believed that as long as nuclear threats exist, the United States must maintain a strong and ready nuclear arsenal.
In his 2008 book, Hagel wrote that “the world would be far more secure if no one had nuclear weapons, or, at the very least, no new nations joined the nuclear club. We must work closely with our allies and world institutions to make every effort to ensure that this club does not grow.”
As a Senator from Nebraska, where headquarters of U.S. Strategic Command is located, he developed a keen understanding of the critical importance of fielding a safe, secure, and effective nuclear deterrent.
Hagel joined President Obama in strongly supporting Senate ratification of the New START Treaty, which had the unanimous support of America’s military leadership and was endorsed by six former secretaries of state, five former secretaries of defense, and three former national security advisers – both Republicans and Democrats.
In a 2010 Washington Post op-ed, Hagel, along with former Secretaries of State George Shultz and Madeleine Albright and Senator Gary Hart, argued that New START“strengthens international efforts to prevent nuclear terrorism, and it opens the door to progress on further critical nonproliferation efforts, such as reducing Russian tactical nuclear weapons.”
Hagel understands the complexities of nuclear security issues. He served on the Secretary of Energy’s Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future co-chaired by General Brent Scowcroft and Congressman Lee Hamilton.
Myth #6: Senator Hagel would gut the defense budget
Facts: Senator Hagel has always believed that we should never take any steps that would weaken America’s national security,and he strongly opposes the automatic, across-the-board defense cuts that would be imposed under sequestration. His entire career has been predicated on the belief that the security of this nation is the government’s highest priority.
Senator Hagel consistently voted for increases in the defense budget and the size of the armed forces in order to meet the demands of the post-9/11 conflicts.
Like Secretaries of Defense Panetta and Gates, Hagel believes that the Department of Defense must do its part to help the nation address its deficit problem, while at the same time maintaining our military as the strongest fighting force in the world.
In a 2011 interview, Senator Hagel said that the Pentagon needed to reduce excess spending and look at itself critically and strategically – which is exactly the process the Department undertook in developing the new defense strategy, announced by President Obama with the full support of the civilian and military leadership at the Pentagon in January 2012.
Myth #7: Senator Hagel lacks management experience
Facts: Senator Hagel has extensive government, corporate and non-profit experience that has
prepared him well to be Secretary of Defense and to lead a large and complex organization.
He served in the United States Army in 1967 and 1968, volunteering for service in Vietnam in 1968.
In the Reagan administration, Hagel was the number two official in the federal government’s second largest agency when he served as Deputy Administrator of the Veterans Administration – helping to lead and manage 250,000 VA employees.
Hagel co-founded Vanguard Cellular Systems, which became a publicly traded company and was one of the largest independent cellular systems in the country.
Hagel served as President and CEO of the World United Service Organizations (USO), which supports military service members and military families worldwide, and led two nonprofit organizations as President and CEO of the Private Sector Council and Chairman of the Atlantic Council
Myth #6: Senator Hagel would gut the defense budget
Facts: Senator Hagel has always believed that we should never take any steps that would weaken America’s national security,and he strongly opposes the automatic, across-the-board defense cuts that would be imposed under sequestration. His entire career has been predicated on the belief that the security of this nation is the government’s highest priority.
Senator Hagel consistently voted for increases in the defense budget and the size of the armed forces in order to meet the demands of the post-9/11 conflicts.
Like Secretaries of Defense Panetta and Gates, Hagel believes that the Department of Defense must do its part to help the nation address its deficit problem, while at the same time maintaining our military as the strongest fighting force in the world.
In a 2011 interview, Senator Hagel said that the Pentagon needed to reduce excess spending and look at itself critically and strategically – which is exactly the process the Department undertook in developing the new defense strategy, announced by President Obama with the full support of the civilian and military leadership at the Pentagon in January 2012.
Myth #7: Senator Hagel lacks management experience
Facts: Senator Hagel has extensive government, corporate and non-profit experience that has
prepared him well to be Secretary of Defense and to lead a large and complex organization.
He served in the United States Army in 1967 and 1968, volunteering for service in Vietnam in 1968.
In the Reagan administration, Hagel was the number two official in the federal government’s second largest agency when he served as Deputy Administrator of the Veterans Administration – helping to lead and manage 250,000 VA employees.
Hagel co-founded Vanguard Cellular Systems, which became a publicly traded company and was one of the largest independent cellular systems in the country.
Hagel served as President and CEO of the World United Service Organizations (USO), which supports military service members and military families worldwide, and led two nonprofit organizations as President and CEO of the Private Sector Council and Chairman of the Atlantic Council
Additional business, nonprofit and government management positions include serving as Co-Chair of President Obama’s Intelligence Advisory Board; Chairman of the U.S. Vietnam War Commemoration Advisory Committee; Chief Operating Officer of the 1990 Economic Summit of Industrialized Nations (G-7 Summit) in Houston, Texas; Manager of Government Affairs for Firestone Tire and Rubber Company; and President of an Omaha investment bank.
Good Words
I think the idea of background checks across the board, I'm not opposed to them. I disagree with people who say that this is going to be the first step to gun registration, which leads to gun confiscation.
---(Republican Representative Joe Heck from Nevada)
And the tide continues to turn...
---(Republican Representative Joe Heck from Nevada)
And the tide continues to turn...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)