Friday, April 12, 2013
His Biggest Worry?
One would think that Admiral Samuel J. Locklear III would have his hands full with the likes of North Korea and Chinese computer attacks but his attention is on a far greater concern.
Locklear , in an interview at a Cambridge hotel Friday after he met with scholars at Harvard and Tufts universities, said significant upheaval related to the warming planet “is probably the most likely thing that is going to happen . . . that will cripple the security environment, probably more likely than the other scenarios we all often talk about.’’
“People are surprised sometimes,” he added, describing the reaction to his assessment. “You have the real potential here in the not-too-distant future of nations displaced by rising sea level. Certainly weather patterns are more severe than they have been in the past. We are on super typhoon 27 or 28 this year in the Western Pacific. The average is about 17.
Well, you can add him to the list of American leaders who are trying to take away our freedom through a secret plot to control the world economy through renewable energy.
Locklear , in an interview at a Cambridge hotel Friday after he met with scholars at Harvard and Tufts universities, said significant upheaval related to the warming planet “is probably the most likely thing that is going to happen . . . that will cripple the security environment, probably more likely than the other scenarios we all often talk about.’’
“People are surprised sometimes,” he added, describing the reaction to his assessment. “You have the real potential here in the not-too-distant future of nations displaced by rising sea level. Certainly weather patterns are more severe than they have been in the past. We are on super typhoon 27 or 28 this year in the Western Pacific. The average is about 17.
Well, you can add him to the list of American leaders who are trying to take away our freedom through a secret plot to control the world economy through renewable energy.
Thursday, April 11, 2013
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
A Deal On Guns
Sens. Joe Manchin and Pat Toomey have released the details on a gun bill which I believe goes a long way to addressing the very serious problems we have with our nation's gun laws. It also addresses the concerns of the Right regarding universal registration.
The Manchin-Toomey proposal would require background checks for sales at gun shows and online, but it will exempt personal transfers from such checks.
That eliminates the problem of being able to tell whether or not to tell if someone did a background check when a family member sells his gun to another family member. This would also be true if someone sells their gun to a neighbor or a friend. In all of these cases, knowing the person you are selling the gun to makes it a littler easier to live without a background check. My hope is that responsible gun owners won't engage in personal transfers if they think that they buyer, even if known to them, is mentally unstable. If they do anyway, well, the responsibility lies with them.
It also calls for the creation of a “commission on mass violence” that will study the sources of, and ways to prevent, the mass shootings that have plagued the country over the last decade.
Definitely needed. The core of this should be our mental health as a nation. The first question at the first meeting should be why are we such a violent culture? Substantive answers on this question with thorough analysis leading to direct action could work to reduce the demand for guns and, thus, eliminate the need for bans and other regulation.
For those worried about a national registry...
When a sale occurs, the buyer and seller would meet at a federally licensed dealer, who would conduct the check. The dealer — not the government — would keep control of the sales record, as has been the process for the last four decades.
So, the gun dealers keep the records and, if there is a crime committed, the police can inquire with them.
Schumer negotiated several changes to the initial Manchin-Toomey proposal, including striking language from the agreement allowing concealed permit holders to carry their weapons in other states, and limiting Internet sales to five guns per year. He also worked to make sure there is a 72-hour window for performing background checks except for gun-show sales, which will be cleared in 48 hours initially.
These are all good things that needed to happen long ago.
So, all commercial sales of guns without a background check will be considered a felony. If this law passes, it's going to prevent gun violence and make it harder for criminals and unstable people to acquire guns.
The Manchin-Toomey proposal would require background checks for sales at gun shows and online, but it will exempt personal transfers from such checks.
That eliminates the problem of being able to tell whether or not to tell if someone did a background check when a family member sells his gun to another family member. This would also be true if someone sells their gun to a neighbor or a friend. In all of these cases, knowing the person you are selling the gun to makes it a littler easier to live without a background check. My hope is that responsible gun owners won't engage in personal transfers if they think that they buyer, even if known to them, is mentally unstable. If they do anyway, well, the responsibility lies with them.
It also calls for the creation of a “commission on mass violence” that will study the sources of, and ways to prevent, the mass shootings that have plagued the country over the last decade.
Definitely needed. The core of this should be our mental health as a nation. The first question at the first meeting should be why are we such a violent culture? Substantive answers on this question with thorough analysis leading to direct action could work to reduce the demand for guns and, thus, eliminate the need for bans and other regulation.
For those worried about a national registry...
When a sale occurs, the buyer and seller would meet at a federally licensed dealer, who would conduct the check. The dealer — not the government — would keep control of the sales record, as has been the process for the last four decades.
So, the gun dealers keep the records and, if there is a crime committed, the police can inquire with them.
Schumer negotiated several changes to the initial Manchin-Toomey proposal, including striking language from the agreement allowing concealed permit holders to carry their weapons in other states, and limiting Internet sales to five guns per year. He also worked to make sure there is a 72-hour window for performing background checks except for gun-show sales, which will be cleared in 48 hours initially.
These are all good things that needed to happen long ago.
So, all commercial sales of guns without a background check will be considered a felony. If this law passes, it's going to prevent gun violence and make it harder for criminals and unstable people to acquire guns.
Tuesday, April 09, 2013
More Cypresses and Fewer Newtowns
Every time there's a shooting at a school or a college campus and 10
or 20 people die, the NRA tells us that the problem isn't guns, it's
crazy people. Or video games. Or mean moms. They'll trot out statistics that say that hammers kill more people than shotguns or rifles.
Of course, that's a total load of horse hockey, and here are the numbers they cite, for murders in 2011:
It is a statistic that is totally misleading. Guns kill 67% of all murder victims, and hammer-like objects kill only 3.9%.
Note that explosives killed only 12 people, yet we have far greater government oversight of the sale of dynamite and fertilizer than we do of guns. (That's due, in part, to that self-proclaimed patriot Timothy McVeigh, a man who sounded all the same notes the NRA is sounding today.)
Which brings us to the atrocity of the day. a kid in Cypress, Texas went nuts and stabbed people at a Texas community college Tuesday. At least 12 people are in the hospital, and two are still in critical condition.
So far, no one has died. But if this kid had had a gun, we know from long and bitter experience that there would be a much higher body count. Because guns are so much better at killing people than knives. Or hammers.
Better gun control laws will simply give us more Cypresses and fewer Newtowns.
No reasonable person thinks that proposed legislation for background checks, smaller magazine capacities and assault rifle bans will stop all killing. We're not saying no one can have guns. We're just trying to reduce the number of guns in the hands of nut jobs, terrorists and criminals, knowing that it will only reduce the carnage, not eliminate it altogether.
But that's still a worthwhile goal: we spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year on medical research, hospitals, fire departments, and police departments, trying to reduce the number of people who die, but knowing full well that we won't be able to save everyone. If background checks on all gun purchases will cut down the eight thousand gun deaths each year by one thousand or two thousand or three thousand, it's well worth it.
And it's not just the loss of life. Reduced carnage will also save billions of dollars each year in lost wages, hospital costs, orphans going on Social Security, funeral expenses, expensive death penalty trials, endless lawyers' fees on appeals, prison guard salaries, and so on.
In the Sixties and Seventies conservatives warned that losing Vietnam would mean total world domination by communism and the destruction of freedom. Conservatives are now warning that background checks on gun purchases will lead to a communist takeover of our government and the destruction of freedom.
The slippery slopes and domino theories about gun laws and freedom are just the conservatives crying wolf about Vietnam all over again. The same people who had a vested interest in continuing the carnage in southeast Asia (gun manufacturers and their NRA shills), have the same vested interest in continuing the carnage in our streets and schools today.
Of course, that's a total load of horse hockey, and here are the numbers they cite, for murders in 2011:
- Shotguns: 356
- Rifles: 323
- Handguns: 6,220
- Other guns: 1,684
- Knives: 1,694
- All forms of blunt objects, including hammers, golf clubs, tire irons, Academy Award trophies, pool cues, candle sticks, lead pipes and so on: 496
- Explosives: 12
- Total firearms: 8,583
- Total murders: 12,664
It is a statistic that is totally misleading. Guns kill 67% of all murder victims, and hammer-like objects kill only 3.9%.
Note that explosives killed only 12 people, yet we have far greater government oversight of the sale of dynamite and fertilizer than we do of guns. (That's due, in part, to that self-proclaimed patriot Timothy McVeigh, a man who sounded all the same notes the NRA is sounding today.)
Which brings us to the atrocity of the day. a kid in Cypress, Texas went nuts and stabbed people at a Texas community college Tuesday. At least 12 people are in the hospital, and two are still in critical condition.
So far, no one has died. But if this kid had had a gun, we know from long and bitter experience that there would be a much higher body count. Because guns are so much better at killing people than knives. Or hammers.
Better gun control laws will simply give us more Cypresses and fewer Newtowns.
No reasonable person thinks that proposed legislation for background checks, smaller magazine capacities and assault rifle bans will stop all killing. We're not saying no one can have guns. We're just trying to reduce the number of guns in the hands of nut jobs, terrorists and criminals, knowing that it will only reduce the carnage, not eliminate it altogether.
But that's still a worthwhile goal: we spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year on medical research, hospitals, fire departments, and police departments, trying to reduce the number of people who die, but knowing full well that we won't be able to save everyone. If background checks on all gun purchases will cut down the eight thousand gun deaths each year by one thousand or two thousand or three thousand, it's well worth it.
And it's not just the loss of life. Reduced carnage will also save billions of dollars each year in lost wages, hospital costs, orphans going on Social Security, funeral expenses, expensive death penalty trials, endless lawyers' fees on appeals, prison guard salaries, and so on.
In the Sixties and Seventies conservatives warned that losing Vietnam would mean total world domination by communism and the destruction of freedom. Conservatives are now warning that background checks on gun purchases will lead to a communist takeover of our government and the destruction of freedom.
The slippery slopes and domino theories about gun laws and freedom are just the conservatives crying wolf about Vietnam all over again. The same people who had a vested interest in continuing the carnage in southeast Asia (gun manufacturers and their NRA shills), have the same vested interest in continuing the carnage in our streets and schools today.
What Are You Going To Do?
For those of you who are against any changes in current gun laws, I'd urge you to pay close to attention to the woman who introduces the president in this video. Her name is Nicole Hockley and she is the mother of one of the victims of the Sandy Hook shooting.
Take a good look at her face as she introduces the president. This is a woman with very deep sadness that is going to be with her for the rest of her life. Do you really want to be the person that tells her that we can't change the gun laws in this country because of some paranoid fantasy you are having?
She is not going to stop. She will never give up. That's what mothers do who lose their children. It's what fathers do as well. They are not going to go away unless you compromise on background checks and gun trafficking. Worse, if there is another shooting and nothing significant has changed, the number of people that support families like the Hockelys will mushroom and stand to lose significantly more than what your ginned up fears created by paid clowns have created.
With this speech, it's also time to stop looking at the president as having some sort of secret agenda to disarm the country. That's a giant load of paranoid bullshit that is not going to happen. I realize this will likely fall on bubble ears but he's simply trying to prevent more criminals from acquiring guns. You, on the other hand, are doing the opposite.
So, it's time for your come to Jesus moment. What are you going to do?
The Future Looks Fantastic
Remember Zach Kopplin? Well, home boy just made the big time by being a guest on Bill Maher last Friday and he as fantastic. In fact, he reminded me of many of my ex-students who are now around his age. Zach Kopplin is a young man who gives me a great deal of hope for the future of this country and is a stellar example of how smart the young generation is today despite popular misconceptions.
Check out this clip which someone in the bubble put up on YouTube in the hopes that would expose Kopplin as an atheist but it ended up exposing (ahem) something else...
Check out this clip which someone in the bubble put up on YouTube in the hopes that would expose Kopplin as an atheist but it ended up exposing (ahem) something else...
Monday, April 08, 2013
It's About Time
Props to Governor Malloy for calling LaPierre exactly what he is: a clown that is paid by circus owners. Moreover, people like LaPierre and their supporters are loud bullies that only understand this type of language.
Being cordial is the same thing as appeasement which ends with all too predictable circumstances.
And That's the End of the Whole Ayn Rand Business...
Hands down, the best and most accurate summation of Ayn Rand I have ever seen.
Sunday, April 07, 2013
Republicans Make Reporting the Truth a Crime
ALEC is at it again. The American Legislative Exchange Council, a front for Big Oil, factory farms, prison corporations and their Republican shills, is ramming through another set of laws in state legislatures that will make reporting the truth a crime.
This time they're criminalizing the documentation of animal cruelty on video. Even when that cruelty is quite frequently a crime in and of itself. ALEC and Republicans in state legislatures are trying to -- and in some states already have -- make it illegal to record crimes such as the following:
Video shot in 2011 showed workers dripping caustic chemicals onto the horses’ ankles and clasping metal chains onto the injured tissue. This illegal and excruciating technique, known as “soring,” forces the horse to thrust its front legs forward after every painful step to exaggerate the distinctive high-stepping gait favored by breeders. The video also showed a worker hitting a horse in the head with a large piece of wood.The Humane Society turned the video over to federal prosecutors and the perpetrators of this crime plead guilty within a week.
These laws would also make it a crime for legitimate employees to record crimes they observe, criminalizing whistleblowing. Finally, ALEC is trying to brand groups who investigate animal cruelty -- like the Humane Society -- as terrorists:
One of the group’s model bills, “The Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act,” prohibits filming or taking pictures on livestock farms to “defame the facility or its owner.” Violators would be placed on a “terrorist registry.”Factory farms are afraid that they'll lose business when these videos go public, as one of McDonald's egg suppliers did when a video showed chickens living in cages surrounded by the carcasses of dead birds.
Are some of the videos selectively edited and inflammatory? Certainly. But unlike the videos made by Republican operative James O'Keefe, who destroyed ACORN by falsely portraying ACORN helping a pimp evade taxes, factory farms really do these things. It's true that many of the practices that look terrible are actually the best practices and are completely legal.
But, as one ag lobbyist pointed out, surgery on humans is particularly gruesome. Why then isn't ALEC passing laws that make it illegal to film open-heart or plastic surgery? Patients might forgo necessary treatment when they see a man's chest cracked open for heart surgery, and plastic surgeons might lose business when people see a woman's face literally stretched and pulled up over her forehead! And nothing is more disgusting than watching a doctor casually vacuum out some fat dude's gut with liposuction.
As I've written here before, factory farms can be a force for good if they clean up their act. Animals raised for food are not pets, and farm animals cannot receive the love and attention we lavish upon our cats and dogs. But if factory farms catch heat because they burn the beaks off chicks, so be it. Some people might be disgusted and swear off eating meat forever. But 99 out of 100 will go to McDonalds the next day and buy some Chicken McNuggets.
These laws are unconstitutional because they blatantly violate freedom of speech and freedom of the press. They make it illegal for undercover reporters to do their jobs and employees to document crimes committed by their employers.
For years Republicans like O'Keefe have been promulgating lies nonstop, but now they're passing laws to make it illegal for people to report the truth. They're calling people who are trying to stop violence terrorists. But I guess I shouldn't be surprised: it's been 1984 for almost thirty years now...
The new United States
Here is a wonderful short that sums up what the United States looks like in 2013. Enjoy!
The Bible?
Like many Christians in America, I tuned in to watch the History Channel's epic mini-series, The Bible. After a few minutes into the first episode, I realized how naive I was in thinking that it would be even mildly intelligent. I mean, Noah was Scottish, for pete's sake!
They made a small effort to make the characters...ahem...browner...but really, the main ones were white with Jesus looking like the usual seventh member of the Allman Brothers Band. Worse, the devil was black and looked like...well...
Can we ever get to the point in this country where being a Christian means taking an honest look at the historical times of the Bible and chucking all the western myths that go along with it? I'd like to see some scholarly and intelligent depictions as well ass analyses of the stories of the Bible rather than the those like this series from the History Channel which are made for someone with the maturity of a second grader.
They made a small effort to make the characters...ahem...browner...but really, the main ones were white with Jesus looking like the usual seventh member of the Allman Brothers Band. Worse, the devil was black and looked like...well...
Can we ever get to the point in this country where being a Christian means taking an honest look at the historical times of the Bible and chucking all the western myths that go along with it? I'd like to see some scholarly and intelligent depictions as well ass analyses of the stories of the Bible rather than the those like this series from the History Channel which are made for someone with the maturity of a second grader.
Saturday, April 06, 2013
File Under: Who the FUCK Cares?
If there is one thing that really drives me nuts about liberals, it's their PC bullshit. I haven't had to put up with much of it of late because my various circles are all very laid back. Occasionally, though, if I'm over at the U for some reason, I'll make a comment about porn and the people there will be up my ass with a tweezers in less than a second.
"Don't you know that porn subjugates women?" they ask.
"Considering that women are the primary owners now of the porn industry, I'd say that's incorrect," I reply. I then add in examples from all the women I know that love porn and then the mouth foaming really begins. Fortunately, this is really the most I have to deal with it and that suits me just fine....that is, until, last week.
What a giant pile of horse manure. More importantly, who the FUCK cares? He called one of his long time friends good looking. Well, guess what? She is good looking. And so is he. In fact, she's fucking hot!! How's that, jack wagons? She is a fantastic ass and is very shagable, to channel my inner Austin Powers. But I guess we aren't allowed to say or even think such things because that leads to the raping and subjugation of women.
Who are these "critics" that forced him to apologize? If anyone knows, I'd appreciate a link so I can give them a piece of my mind. The extent to which things get exaggerated in this country boggles my mind. I thought we had come out of our repression about sex and were a much more open society where you can say things like, "Hey, she's a dime!"
More importantly, given all the misery in the world, don't we need all the compliments and positivity we can get?
"Don't you know that porn subjugates women?" they ask.
"Considering that women are the primary owners now of the porn industry, I'd say that's incorrect," I reply. I then add in examples from all the women I know that love porn and then the mouth foaming really begins. Fortunately, this is really the most I have to deal with it and that suits me just fine....that is, until, last week.
What a giant pile of horse manure. More importantly, who the FUCK cares? He called one of his long time friends good looking. Well, guess what? She is good looking. And so is he. In fact, she's fucking hot!! How's that, jack wagons? She is a fantastic ass and is very shagable, to channel my inner Austin Powers. But I guess we aren't allowed to say or even think such things because that leads to the raping and subjugation of women.
Who are these "critics" that forced him to apologize? If anyone knows, I'd appreciate a link so I can give them a piece of my mind. The extent to which things get exaggerated in this country boggles my mind. I thought we had come out of our repression about sex and were a much more open society where you can say things like, "Hey, she's a dime!"
More importantly, given all the misery in the world, don't we need all the compliments and positivity we can get?
Why, Again?
So, it seems that Rand Paul is gaining some cohorts to filibuster any new gun law that comes up in the Senate. What is he afraid of? I thought that getting some Democrats on board with any bill was going to be tough. Further, I thought that polls about gun safety don't matter and most of the public knows that all gun bills are secret plots to send law abiding citizens to re-education camps. He should be completely relaxed and simply allow and up or down vote, right?
Hmmm.....
Hmmm.....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)