Contributors

Monday, April 22, 2013

The Tsarnaevs: Islamic Warriors or Losers?

There's been a lot talk about whether Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (I'm not going continue the charade of calling him a "suspect") should be read his Miranda rights. It's almost a moot point: he's not going to be doing much talking because he was shot in the throat and may never speak again.

There's been a lot of talk about designating him an enemy combatant. This is crazy on the face of it, since he's an American citizen.

There's even been a suggestion, from one of the right's most brilliant luminaries, Donald Trump, of torturing Tsarnaev.

All of these things presume that Tsarnaev is a terrorist, and it's not at all clear that he is. Philip Mudd, a former CIA Deputy Director, said Sunday on Fox News that Tsarnaev should be charged as a murderer. Mudd thinks, as I wrote last Friday, that the marathon bombing was more like Columbine and not 9/11.

Who is Philip Mudd? Some liberal Obama appointee? Well, Obama did try to appoint him to a high position in the Department in Homeland Security in 2009. But Mudd withdrew after questions about his involvement in waterboarding terrorist suspects:
Mr. Mudd, who joined the C.I.A. in 1985 and served tours in the Near East and South Asia, is considered one of the government’s top experts on Al Qaeda.

“He’s not just an ops guy,” said Frank Cilluffo, director of the Homeland Security Policy Institute at George Washington University. “He’s probing. He asks questions. And he’s open-minded, and I don’t see that every day with this community.”

Several Republican lawmakers expressed anger over Mr. Mudd’s withdrawal. Senator Christopher S. Bond of Missouri said the nomination had become “the latest political casualty of a terror-fighting program no one in Congress objected to until it became politically risky.”
Thus, Mudd is not inclined to be soft on terror.

We don't yet know for sure that aren't any foreign terrorist connections in this case. Further investigation is obviously in order.  But the last thing we want is for our government to automatically treat people like terrorists. Because when we as a nation start treating members of a group as terrorists, other members of that group feel threatened and may become terrorists themselves to protest the injustice of that persecution.

History should be our guide: the invasion of Iraq was a recruiting bonanza for Al Qaeda. Let's not turn what may be a lone act of frustration by two young alienated guys by turning them into martyrs.

Ruslan Tsarni, the Tsarnaevs' uncle, was close enough to know them well, but distant enough not to think they were innocent angels like their parents did. What does he think motivated them?
Being losers, hatred to those who were able to settle themselves; these are the only reasons I can imagine of. Anything else, anything else to do with religion, with Islam – it’s a fraud, it’s a fake.
If we charge the Tsarnaevs as terrorists and enemies of the state we grant them status and renown as soldiers of Islam and martyrs. If we charge them with criminal murder we brand them as murderous losers.

If we want to discourage copycats the choice seems obvious.

Going Forward

It's hard to imagine where the gun safety movement is going to go from here. I've heard many people say to me, "If 20 dead elementary school children doesn't change our nation's gun laws, what will?" I certainly can sympathize with this sentiment.

What has to happen now is out of the box thinking. As I have said previously, bringing a knife to a gun fight never works and the families of the victims of the various shootings that showed up in DC these last two weeks didn't even bring that. They don't understand the nature of what stands in their way. Essentially, it is two distinct groups of people

First you have the gun lobby and the gun manufacturers. They don't give a shit about the 2nd amendment or possible futures in which an American Hitler or Stalin takes over. They care about one thing: money. Their livelihood is being threatened and they are going to do anything to prevent from happening. These people are fucking scumbags who peddle fear and death and they should be exposed as such. Think about how much money they have made since the president took office. Think about how much money has been made since Newtown. So many gun owners rushed to their local gun store because of a fear that ended up being nothing. They have their sheep and they know how to manipulate them.

The second group of people are the paranoid pyschotics that do think Democrats, proggressives and any to the left of the one yard line on the right side of the field is coming to get their guns and send them to re-education camps. These are the same people who sneer at frightened children who write to the president because they are scared, only to be later derisively called props. Or taunt the families of the victims and say things like, "But it must be for the children.." In so many ways, these people are actually worse than the gun lobby and gun manufacturers. The good news is that most of these people are over the age of 40 so time will do its thing in some respects.

Now,there is no earthly way to reach the second group. They are fucking gone into a never, never world of plots and fantasies so profoundly fictitious that it leaves me...even me...completely speechless. So, the attention should be on the first group. And that means one thing. We have to go after the money. The question is...how do we do that?

One idea I had recently was to go in the opposite direction. Rather than try and ban certain types of guns or limit ammo clips, why not simply give away free guns? The federal government could offer free weapons to any citizen who would pass a background check and go through the appropriate training and regular mental health checks. That would also really piss off the anti government spending crowd as they are usually the same demographic as the pro gun crowd. And, to get around the issue of buying the guns from the gun manufacturers, the government could just make their own guns. There are probably plenty of people who could use the work. Heck, that would solve the unemployment problem!

The other idea I had was a PR campaign based on what happened with smoking. If you start to pull together all the various groups that are adversely affected by gun violence, you could really start to change public opinion. These days, smoking is really looked upon like a giant fart that just hangs in the air and won't go away. Lock a bunch of ad guys in a room for a couple of weeks and there is no doubt in my mind that they could eviscerate the gun lobby. You could put together ads with the audio being comprised of the usual rhetoric from the pro gun folks and the video showing shootings, the aftermath, and victims families. The public needs to see this contrast.

Both of these ideas may seem out there but that's what it's going to take. Of course, there is something else that I haven't mentioned because it's not so much of an idea as it is a prediction, which would make both of my ideas moot. If you take a look at how change happens in this country, it only occurs when the right people are adversely affected by whatever issue is on the hot seat. Gay rights, for example, wasn't important until enough parents had children that came out and then that was pretty much fucking that. When it becomes personal, that's when the real change happens.

Right now, there is someone out there..or several someones...that sooner or later is going to be adversely affected by gun violence. I don't who they are or where they live but I do know that they will start a wave that will finally end all this nonsense. This person will likely be someone who arises out of the "pro-gun" crowd and will initially be labeled a "traitor." This same person or people will understand that you don't bring less than a knife or less to a gun fight. They'll know exactly what to do and they will fucking bury the NRA, the rest of the gun lobby, and the pro gun crowd up to their necks.

He or she won't take away their guns nor will they change the second amendment in any way. They will simply expose the anger, hatred, fear, and paranoia for all to see. And then we can finally put a serious dent in the already declining world of violent crime.

Sunday, April 21, 2013

They Have More Money

Interesting piece over at the Atlantic about who gives more to charity...the wealthy or the poor. The answer is surprising.

One of the most surprising, and perhaps confounding, facts of charity in America is that the people who can least afford to give are the ones who donate the greatest percentage of their income. In 2011, the wealthiest Americans—those with earnings in the top 20 percent—contributed on average 1.3 percent of their income to charity. By comparison, Americans at the base of the income pyramid—those in the bottom 20 percent—donated 3.2 percent of their income. The relative generosity of lower-income Americans is accentuated by the fact that, unlike middle-class and wealthy donors, most of them cannot take advantage of the charitable tax deduction, because they do not itemize deductions on their income-tax returns.

While it's true and quite obvious that the wealthy give a larger dollar amount, the do not give as much percentage wise, as the less fortunate. Add in the fact that the poorer folks don't get a tax deduction and it seems even more generous. But why?

However, some experts have speculated that the wealthy may be less generous—that the personal drive to accumulate wealth may be inconsistent with the idea of communal support. Last year, Paul Piff, a psychologist at UC Berkeley, published research that correlated wealth with an increase in unethical behavior: “While having money doesn’t necessarily make anybody anything,” Piff later told New York magazine, “the rich are way more likely to prioritize their own self-interests above the interests of other people.” 

They are, he continued, “more likely to exhibit characteristics that we would stereotypically associate with, say, assholes.” Colorful statements aside, Piff’s research on the giving habits of different social classes—while not directly refuting the asshole theory—suggests that other, more complex factors are at work. In a series of controlled experiments, lower-income people and people who identified themselves as being on a relatively low social rung were consistently more generous with limited goods than upper-class participants were. Notably, though, when both groups were exposed to a sympathy-eliciting video on child poverty, the compassion of the wealthier group began to rise, and the groups’ willingness to help others became almost identical.

Hmm...perhaps the wealthy are out of touch?

I think that people that have less money give more because they know what it's like to be poor. Perhaps they didn't have a lot of money in recent memory and can completely relate to the hardship. And the wealthy don't give as much because...well...that's why they are wealthy.

They have more money.


Saturday, April 20, 2013


And So It Begins...

Adolphus Busch IV Resigns From NRA

It disturbs me greatly to see this rigid new direction of the NRA. As a starting point, one only has to ask why the NRA reversed its original position on background checks. Was it not the NRA position to support background checks when Mr. LaPierre himself stated in 1999 that NRA saw checks as “reasonable”? Furthermore, I fail to see how the NRA can disregard the overwhelming will of its members who see background checks as reasonable. In fact, according to a Johns Hopkins University study, 74% say they support background checks.

One only has to look at the makeup of the 75-member board of directors, dominated by manufacturing interests, to confirm my point. The NRA appears to have evolved into the lobby for gun and ammunition manufacturers rather than gun owners.

I'm quite proud of the family who has given so much to the state in which I was born. I'm thinking it's just the beginning. The aftermath of the Senate's vote has been quite pointed. As I have said, this does indeed sting, short term but long term? Say goodbye to the gun lobby...

Friday, April 19, 2013

Was Boston Really Terrorism or Just Another Columbine?

With the news that bombings in Boston were committed by guys that had been living in this country for 10 years, people are worried about a wave of "homegrown terrorism." They're wondering what we can do to combat this.

I have a suggestion: stop beating up innocent people.

After numerous false news reports that variously identified "a dark-skinned man," a Saudi, a guy from Nepal, a Moroccan, etc., as suspects in the bombing, there have been several revenge attacks against people who have nothing at all to do with the atrocity: a Bangladeshi network engineer, a woman doctor from Syria, and so on.

This is nothing new. When people are angry they vent their rage against innocent people who vaguely resemble someone they hate. For centuries these sorts of attacks were common against minorities including blacks, Catholics, Irishmen, Hungarians, gays, and especially after 9/11, Muslims.

Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev came to the United States as refugees about that time. How did the intolerance and violence towards innocent Muslims did affect their attitudes about America?

The marathon bombings always seemed like an amateur affair, more like the mass shootings at Newtown, Aurora, and Columbine than a masterminded plot like 9/11. Tamerlan seems to have been alienated from American society. He reportedly said, "I don’t have a single American friend, I don’t understand them." If the Tsarnaevs felt bullied and hated the same way that Dylan Klebold and Adam Lanza felt, Boston may be exactly the same as Columbine and Newtown.

We don't yet know exactly why the Tsarnaevs detonated those bombs. There's simply no excuse for killing innocent people at a marathon. Just like there's no excuse for a man to assault a random Muslim woman on the street.

If you want to stop crimes like the Boston bombing, you have to understand what motivated the perpetrators. Random hatred and mistreatment of Muslims in America may or may not have been the trigger for Tamerlan and Dzhokhar. But anyone who feels oppressed by society could have the same reaction, including gay teenagers, home-schooled Christians, gun owners, you name it.

As we've seen time and again, your ethnicity and political and religious leanings have no real bearing on whether you'll commit atrocities like Boston. Abortion- and lesbian-hater Eric Rudolph was responsible for the bombing at the Atlanta Olympics. Timothy McVeigh's attack in Oklahoma City killed far more people than the Tsarnaevs, and he called himself a true American Patriot.

All that's needed for mass murder is a righteous belief that violence is the appropriate response to a perceived affront. The rest is just details.

Dzhokhar's Joke

People are wondering what motivated Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to commit the atrocity in Boston. His page on the Russian-language social networking site vk.com (short for "v kontakte," or "in contact") is still up as of this writing. It looks fairly normal, with links to a couple of generic pages about Chechnya.

His worldview is listed as "Islam" and his personal priority is listed as "career and money."  Not exactly a terrorist manifesto, is it?

There is one thing that may shed some light on his mindset, a joke he posted on March 19:
В школе задают загадку..Едет
автомобиль. В нем сидят – дагестанец,
чеченец и ингуш.
Вопрос – кто ведет машину ?
Мага отвечает: - Полиция.
Translated into English:
In school they posed a riddle: A car is going along. In it sit a guy from Dagestan, one from Chechnya and one from Ingushetia [regions of Russia that have been torn by insurrection and repression].
Question: who's driving the car?
Maga answers: The police.

Well, I Didn't See That One Coming

It looks like the two bombers of the Boston Marathon were Chechen rebels? Wow, I didn't see that one coming. One of them is dead and the other one is still at large of this post.

His Finest Hour

Everyone keeps talking about how the defeat of the Manchin-Toomey gun bill is the greatest loss the president has experienced and how awful it is. I disagree. In fact, I think it has been his finest hour. Watch his entire speech below from yesterday.



I don't think I have ever been prouder of the man. People are going to remember these words and, when juxtaposed with the 46 Senators that voted against Manchin-Toomey, the American people are going to remember the contrast.

Thursday, April 18, 2013

One of the 2.5 Million?

A cop in DeKalb County Atlanta was charged with aggravated assault after pulling a gun on some kids waiting in a drive-thru at McDonalds.

Does the NRA count that as one of the 2.5 million defensive uses of guns they say happen every year?

Three New "Habitable" Planets Found?

Astronomers have found three new planets that are the most similar to earth so far. The scientists used NASA's Kepler spacecraft to observe variations in star brightness to find the planets. No question, this is a great discovery. But reading the popular press, you'd think they'd found little green men peering back at us with big, sad eyes.

The New York Times article is typical, with the headline "2 Good Places to Live, 1,200 Light-Years Away." That's a colossal overstatement, much like their claim that Mars is "habitable."

Mars is in the habitable zone, to be sure, but it's not habitable in any real sense. It is far too cold and the atmosphere too thin and lacking oxygen for a person to survive without wearing a space suit. Crops will not grow except in hermetically sealed green houses. So far there's no trace of any form of life on the surface. Bacteria could likely be persuaded to live there in the soil fairly easily as they do in Antarctica. And, yes, humans could colonize Mars and perhaps thrive there. But it would be little different from living on the moon

The two parent stars, Kepler 62 and Kepler 69, are more than a thousand light years away. Kepler 62-e is on the inner edge of the habitable zone, and is 60 percent larger than earth. Kepler 62-f is only 40 percent larger than earth, and is at the outside edge of the habitable zone. A third planet, 1.7 times the size of earth, was found in the habitable zone of Kepler 69, a star almost identical to the sun. But those are the only things we know about the planets: we don't know if they're made of rock or gas. And we don't know what the atmospheres consist of.

Just being in the habitable zone doesn't make a planet habitable: the diagram on the right shows that Venus and Mars are both well inside the habitable zone of the solar system, but Mars is far too cold and Venus is far too hot for human habitation.

Why? The atmospheres: Mars was too small to hold on to its atmosphere for very long; what oxygen remained combined with carbon or other elements. It's only got a wispy envelope of carbon dioxide.

Venus, a bit smaller than earth, has a very thick atmosphere of carbon dioxide and clouds of sulfuric acid. The temperature on the surface of Venus is almost 900 degrees Fahrenheit. The atmospheric pressure is 92 times greater than earth's at sea level. It's the greenhouse effect gone mad: the same thing would happen to earth if we pumped enough CO2 into the air.

Finally, the only reason that earth is habitable in the sense that people can live here is that it has an oxygen-nitrogen atmosphere. But such an atmosphere is impossible without bacteria and plant life that constantly produce the free oxygen required for animal life. Without those simpler forms of life, the reactive oxygen would oxidize everything around it. The entire earth would rust and perhaps wind up looking like Mars. So these planets we're finding out in the galaxy wouldn't be truly habitable for humans unless something is constantly replenishing atmospheric oxygen -- something we'd probably call life.

There's no question that this is a very cool discovery: it shows that earth-sized planets are common around stars like the sun at the distance necessary for the right temperature for human habitation. But it's way too early to claim they're "habitable" without any knowledge of the planets' compositions and the constituents of their atmospheres.

Beautiful

What Is Wrong with South Carolina Republican Voters?

Blindsided by news that Sanford’s ex-wife has accused him of trespassing and concluding he has no plausible path to victory, the National Republican Congressional Committee has decided not to spend more money on Sanford’s behalf ahead of the May 7 special election.
Sanford has been a big story since he began his recent comeback. When a seat opened up in the House of Representatives due to the resignation of Jim DeMint, Sanford decided to run, even though everyone thought his political career was over. He beat 16 other Republicans in primaries to win the right to face Democrat Elizabeth Colbert Busch, Stephen Colbert's sister.

Sanford became infamous when he disappeared from South Carolina in 2009, telling aides that he was going to hike the Appalachian Trail. He was actually visiting his mistress in Argentina. A reporter caught him getting off the plane at the Atlanta airport.

To make matters worse, Sanford later gave tearful and sappy interviews about "finding his soul mate." He was accused of using state money to visit his mistress, and he returned funds to the state he'd spent visiting her in 2008. The South Carolina legislature wrestled with impeaching him, but finally decided against it. His divorce from his wife Jenny was finalized in 2010. He left office in 2011.

When the South Carolina House seat opened up, Sanford had the gall to ask his wife to run his campaign for him, saying,“I could pay you this time." His latest problems arose when his ex-wife caught him trespassing in her house. His excuse? He couldn't bear the thought of his son watching the Super Bowl alone.

Sanford has the worst case of serial idiocy I've ever seen. This guy is a liar, a cheat, a thief, a fool and a jerk. And the most incredible thing is that Republican primary voters chose him over 16 other Republicans!

Were those voters totally oblivious to the stench emanating from Sanford for the last four years? Or did they just not care? What kind of people would vote for a man like Sanford? He has violated every institution that Republicans claim to cherish: honesty, faithfulness, holy matrimony, careful stewardship of public funds, and on and on.

Yes, it's true, forgiveness is a Christian virtue. But just because you forgive someone doesn't mean you should put him in Congress.

Who is the "Adult" Party, again?







































The photo above was put on Mitch McConnell's Facebook page right after Manchin-Toomey was defeated.  I think I'm going to enjoy watching Senator McConnell lose next fall to Alison Lundergan Grimes. Moreover,  it's going to be even more fun to watch Kentucky turn blue when Hillary wins there:)

Wednesday, April 17, 2013

Next Week's School Shooting Victims Thank Senate For Failing To Pass Gun Bill

WASHINGTON—Following the Senate’s rejection of a bipartisan amendment to expand background checks for gun buyers, the young victims of next week’s school shooting emphatically thanked members of Congress today for failing to pass more comprehensive gun control legislation. “Great job, guys,” said 14-year-old Jacob Miller, one of nine junior high school students who will be shot next week by a mentally ill gunman wielding a legally acquired assault rifle that was purchased at a gun show. “My classmates and I are really proud of you for cowering to the NRA and caring more about politics than my friends and I getting shot and killed. It totally makes sense. You’re the best.” The soon-to-be massacred teenager added that his parents, Caroline and Pete Miller, also wanted to extend their heartfelt congratulations to the Senate.

Retired Cop Shoots Self in School

A retired police officer accidentally shot himself when he dropped his gun inside a Des Plaines school while attending his grandson's Boy Scout troop meeting.
He wasn't an official "good guy with a gun", but incidents like this show that the NRA's plan for preventing school shootings by "bad guys with guns" will instead result in many more accidental shootings by incompetent and clumsy "good guys with guns."

Considering that the bad guys will always have the drop on the good guys, the net number of dead kids is only going to go up.

54-46

The Manchin-Toomey Gun bill has failed by a vote of 54 to 46. Let the hand wringing and recriminations begin!

As I have said previously, this would be a great example of "losing the argument" but still managing to be right. Gun safety advocates should take heart that there are several things to be positive about after the vote today. Regardless of what happens from this point forward, it's going to work out for the best, with likely sacrifices along the way, unfortunately.

Newtown struck a very deep wound in the heart of America. My hope is that, even without new laws, there won't be another shooting on this scale, at least in the near term. People are going to start taking more of an interest in their local, young men who fit the same profile as Adam Lanza and be more aware of allowing them to have guns and play 'Call of Duty" for hours and hours. Perhaps I'm being naive but I've certainly seen it in my neck of the woods and I hope it lasts.

Yet, the regular, every day gun violence will still continue and now we have 46 senators on record as not even supporting expanded background checks. When something like this happens, it usually brings out the worst in people and we have certainly seen that from these senators and the gun rights lobby. It's a short term victory for them with long term ruin on the horizon. America is not with them on this one and they are going to pay a very steep penalty in 2014 and 2016. There will likely be many gun deaths between now and the next election and voters are not going to be happy about it. The chance for the president to revisit this issue again in 2015 is there.

And, if there is another Newtown or something like it, the next gun bill will make the gun lobby wish they had gone along with this one so they could at least look like they were trying to solve the problem. Another Newtown or Aurora means more people added to the gun safety lobby and that means you can say hello again to an assault weapons ban and ammo clip limitations with far more support than there is today.

I hope it doesn't come to that and we can, at least, turn our attention away from guns and towards mental health and how much parents really and truly are sucking right now. In the final analysis, that's why these shooting sprees happen. Parents are fucking morons and let their mentally ill children have guns. Of course, fixing this doesn't do much to the every day violence that occurs from guns and isn't much comfort to those who have lost loved ones in this manner. Maybe this will be the kick in the ass the federal government needs to start putting away more people who fail background checks.

Defense Contractor Signs Big Green Energy Contract with China

The Wall Street Journal reports that Lockheed Martin has signed a contract to build a 10-megawatt power plant for a luxury resort on the Chinese island of Hainan. The plant will use "ocean thermal energy conversion" technology, or OTEC:
The OTEC process uses warm tropical waters to power a steam-driven turbine. Cold water is pumped from the depths of the sea to condense the steam back into liquid.

Closed-system plants like the one Lockheed plans to build use a liquid such as ammonia that has a low boiling point to create the steam.

Warmer surface waters pass by a heat exchanger, causing the ammonia in the closed system to boil and create the steam that drives the turbine. Cold deep-sea water is pumped by another heat exchanger to condense the ammonia back to a liquid.
Similar technology is used in ground-source (also called geothermal) heat pumps for many large buildings and some homes in the United States. These systems use temperature differentials to transfer heat into the earth during the summer for air conditioning, and to transfer heat from the earth into buildings during the winter. Such temperature control systems are expensive to install, because they typically require sinking hundreds of feet of pipe into the ground, but because they are so efficient they're cheaper in the long run. They also produce less pollution compared to burning natural gas directly or by electric heating.

Republicans like John McCain have criticized the Defense Department for green initiatives, but since the US military is the largest consumer of oil in the entire world, defense planners have to be out in front on energy issues since it's vital to national security.

So it's good to see a company like Lockheed Martin, best known for aerospace and defense business, leading the way on technology that could reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. It would be nice not to be forced to invade a Middle Eastern country every time some nutjob threatens to stop the flow of oil out of there.

A Suspect?

CNN is reporting that they have video of a dark skinned male placing a bag at the site of the second bombing. He is considered a suspect in the Boston Marathon Bombing.

On Their Way Out The Door

I've watched with amusement over the media's obsession with the word "terror" and how the president didn't use it right away. Fox News, in particular, saw their opening and started attacking the president for being "weak on terror" and proceeded to overuse the word throughout their broadcasts since the bombing in Boston on Monday.

Well, 'ol Sean Hannity was the leader of the pack. I can only stomach him for a couple of minutes but he used the word at least a dozen times in the span that I viewed. My advice to him is to be careful what he wishes for...he might get it. Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss speculated that this bombing seems like the work of a domestic agent. Rick DesLauriers, the special agent in charge of the FBI's Boston office and head of this investigation, is asking for people who might have heard someone talking about April 15th (tax day) or if they heard someone practicing with bomb making materials. That also says home grown terrorist and we all know what kind that could be.

If it does turn out that this was an anti-government, right wing type, check out how fast Fox and the rest of the right wing media walk back the use of the word "terror" and play make believe that the bomber wasn't really a conservative. They'll be falling all over themselves on the way out the door.

Tuesday, April 16, 2013

Emerging Details

AP News is reporting that the bombs used yesterday in Boston were pressure cooker bombs similar to those used in Afghanistan, India, Nepal and Pakistan, according to a July 2010 joint FBI and Homeland Security intelligence report. Also, one of the three devices used in the May 2010 Times Square attempted bombing was a pressure cooker, the intelligence report said. The group responsible for that attempted attack, the Pakistani Taliban, has denied responsibility for the bombing yesterday.

So, no real details on who was behind this yet but one thing is really starting to sink in: you have to be pretty dumb in this day and age to try to pull of something like this incognito. In addition to the traffic and security cameras, the number of people with recording devices is astronomical. Who needs Big Brother when you have people documenting everything themselves?

Good Words

I've been searching for the words after yesterday's bombing in Boston and just didn't seem to really have any. I still don't.

But these words from Patton Oswalt's Facebook page were very inspiring.

You watch the videos of the carnage and there are people running TOWARDS the destruction to help out.When you spot violence, or bigotry, or intolerance or fear or just garden-variety misogyny, hatred or ignorance, just look it in the eye and think, "The good outnumber you, and we always will."

Monday, April 15, 2013

What is this Bitcoin Nonsense?

In the Internet age there's always something to buzz about. Bitcoin is the latest craze: the virtual currency has been dominating the news recently. It was trading as high as $266 and then fell to as low as $54 last Friday when Mt. Gox, the Japanese bitcoin exchange, was hit by a cyberattack and stopped trading. The Winklevoss twins (of Facebook fame) were calculated to have lost tens of millions of dollars on paper.

What is bitcoin? An artificial currency that is backed by no government and is not tied to any real-world commodity such as gold. Bitcoins are fabricated out of thin air, in pretty much the same fashion as "gold" is in online roleplaying games like World of  Warcraft. Instead of slaying electronic orcs or chipping away at virtual rock outcroppings, bitcoins are created by running computers through complex algorithms to "mine" bitcoins which can then be sold on exchanges.

But that play money doesn't come cheaply: it's estimated that the current production of bitcoins uses $147,000 of electricity a day (enough to power 31,000 homes) just to crank out 25 new bitcoins every 10 minutes. But don't worry, it won't go on forever; in the year 2140 the maximum number will be reached, a total of 21 million.

Supporters of bitcoin decry governments that just print fiat money, claiming this destroys the economy by causing massive inflation. But the bitcoin "miners" are doing exactly what they're accusing government of: making money out of thin air. Many libertarians are calling for a return to the gold standard, but with the recent crash in the price of gold to $1,400/oz (down almost 30%  since 2011) you have to wonder if it's such a stable commodity.

The fact is, the supply of gold is always going up, just like the supply of dollars -- it's just slower. In fact, once we develop the technology for asteroid mining, the price of any precious metal could drop through the basement if we snagged an asteroid with a particularly rich vein. The total amount of gold in the world is amazingly small: a mere 171,300 tons, which would make a cube 60 feet on a side, the size of two adjacent volleyball courts.

So why would anyone use bitcoins? Because it's theoretically untraceable. People like bitcoin because they can buy things over the Internet without any records. It's the perfect medium for paying for prostitutes, laundering drug money, buying illegal weapons, and so on.

That also means bitcoins are easily stolen: if anyone gets hold of yours, it's gone for good. Stories about hackers stealing bitcoins are rampant. That's why the Winklevoss twins supposedly have put their bitcoins on flash drives they've stored in safe deposit boxes in three different cities. All in all, it's not a very safe or useful currency.

The value of any currency depends solely on the trust society has in the institution that backs it. The US government backs the dollar. The EU backs the euro. Precious metals are backed by exchanges that buy and sell them, though gold and copper also have an intrinsic value because they are essential components of every piece technology we use today, and some people still feel gold has an intrinsic value as jewelry.

But the only backers of bitcoin are other bitcoin users. And if those users are primarily criminals, hackers and the Winklevii, how much trust can you possibly put in bitcoin?

The guy who invented bitcoin, Satoshi Nakamoto, doesn't even exist.  He's just a pseudonym for one or more programmers of unknown nationality who posted on Internet forums. So there isn't even a "founder" who will back bitcoin.

Still, I bet the guy who paid 10,000 bitcoins for two pizzas is kicking himself now.

He Is Saying Things That Need To Said

There are so many things to love about Peter Brown Hoffmeister's recent piece that was banned from the Huffington Post that I don't even know where to start. He is saying things that need to be said and forcing us to confront a very deep fissure in our culture. In many ways, he speaks to the heart of the problem with young men in this country and how a few of them end up going on shooting sprees.

He should know. He was one of those young men and he made it out and became mentor and teacher himself. Correctly, he identifies the ingredients that get these young men to the point of shooting people and it's not just the guns.

Now I am not anti-video game crusader Jack Thompson. I’m not suggesting that everyone who plays a video game will act out that video game in reality. But I am saying that it is very dangerous to allow troubled, angry, teenage boys access to killing practice, even if that access is only virtual killing practice. The military uses video games to train soldiers to kill, yet we don’t consider “Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3″ training for addicted teenage players? A high school boy who plays that game 30 hours per week isn’t training to kill somebody?

Now combine that with a mom who buys into the whole "live free or die" horse hockey and decides to allow their son access to a large quantity of weaponry and you have a disaster. Why is that the parents of these shooters never have their feet held to the fire? In the final analysis, it's primarily their responsibility. Nancy Lanza was a complete and total failure as a parent and her incompetence resulted in the deaths of 26 people.   There are thousands more like her out there and they truly, truly suck. They need to stop sucking. Yesterday.

Where are the parents in this situation or others like this one?

I was walking behind two teenage boys in the hall at my high school the other day and I heard one talking about slitting someone’s throat. He said, “I just came up behind him, pulled out my knife so quietly and cut his throat.” The other boy said, “Yeah, then I killed everyone else in less than, like, 10 seconds. Just slaughtered them.” 

I looked at these two boys: Tall and awkward. Unathletic. I knew that they weren’t tied-in socially, that they both struggled in classes and with peers. Yet they were capable of incredible and sudden violence on screen. Together, they could slit throats and shoot everyone. I asked one of them later, and he said that he played Call of Duty “an average of 40 hours per week, at least.” 

Is this what we want angry, adolescent boys to do? Do we want to give them this practice? Do we want them to glorify violent actions, to brag about violence in the school’s hallways? Or even worse, given the perfect equation of frustration + opportunity + practice, do we want them to do as Weise, Roberts, and Lanza did, and act out these fantasies in real life? Do we want them to yell, “I am the shooter” as they enter a crowded mall – as Roberts did? Or dress like video-game shooters – as Lanza and Roberts were – before heading into a murder spree?

When I was an awkward teenager, all I thought about was sex. All my friends were the same. We smoked pot, listened to music and were obsessed with progressing around the bases in terms of carnal escapades. That is definitely not the case today. Sex is very verboten subject with teenagers and they are much less sexual active than they were in my generation. There are drugs, of course, but they are viewed so negatively by our culture that the deviance takes on a truly ugly hue for the kids that do them...even marijuana. I can't help but think that if some of these kids just smoked some pot and made out with their girlfriends or boyfriends, they might be more at peace.

Hoffmeister closes the piece with a direct appeal to parents. I agree with it completely and I will close with it as well.

Get kids outside. Take them out and let them wander around in the woods. Let them canoe across a lake. Let them backpack through a mountain range. Give them a map and compass assignment. Give frustrated youth an opportunity to challenge themselves in the natural world. Have you ever heard of a school shooter who’s hobbies are kayaking, rock climbing, and fly-fishing? If that seems absurd – and it does seem absurd to me – we might be onto something. I don’t think that those hobbies can create a school shooter. There’s just something abut the natural world that defuses anger. I know this because the outdoors helped saved my life. An outdoor diversion program for troubled teens started the process when I was sixteen. Camping and hiking and climbing helped me mature further as a nineteen and twenty year old. And now, as the director of a high school outdoor program, one of my student leaders said recently that “the outdoor program saves lives.” That’s not me. That’s nature. Kids need the outdoors. Help the young people. Get them outside.

Amen.























Wow. Stacey Campfield is really a douche...

Sunday, April 14, 2013



Giving Me Pause

It's Sunday and I find myself this morning not being a very good Christian. Repeated more than any other command in the Bible, we are supposed to love thy neighbor. After reading this, I have to admit I'm finding it very hard to love Karl Denninger, one of the chief founders of the Tea Party Movement. Here's what Mr. Denninger had to say about Francine Wheeler, the mother of Newtown shooting victim, Ben Wheeler

Listen up, you incompetent and defective sack of meat -- your son is dead because you are unfit to be parents. You sat silently by while your state and our nation erected signs telling people who are criminally insane where they can find the maximum number of defenseless people to murder. You are personally, jointly and severably responsible for the consequences. You are unfit to possess a uterus and your husband is unfit to possess testicles.

Every time I think the Right can't get any lower, they somehow manage to find a subbasement. I suppose I could rip into him for being so despicable but it's obvious that this man is terribly unhappy. As I have said previously, conservatives don't do well with children.

They also seem to have a significant problem with denial, specifically DARVO.

You, Mrs. Wheeler, having willingly and intentionally refused to take responsibility for your acts of omission and commission that led to your son being murdered by a madman now have the audacity to stand in front of the nation and demand that everyone else give up their children to murderous goons as well. Go to Hell Mr. and Mrs. Wheeler and take your state and its alleged laws with you.

That's right, Karl. It's not Adam Lanza's fault that he killed all those kids. Nor is it his mother's fault. It's the fault of the parents of the victims. So much for individual responsibility.

The ugly is really coming out with this issue and I've realized that it's the case with others as well. When confronted with unpleasant truths about these situations, the Right categorically refuses to reflect and, sadly, digs in deeper. With the gun issue, liars and gun grabbers are everywhere with civil war imminent. Useful idiots like me are foolish because we don't operate in a state of full panic mode about the federal government 24/7.

The insecurity of these folks is so monumental that we are likely to see even worse behavior than Mr. Denninger's latest mouth foam. The threat they perceive isn't there but it's so very real to them that it makes me wonder just how bad they will get. I'm still leaning towards them all being big, cowardly babies but this latest attack certainly gives me a great deal of pause.

Like Colonel Potter said about Colonel Flagg, "I think someone mixed some locoweed into his feed."

Saturday, April 13, 2013


For The Children

Lately, it's become obvious that the Right doesn't do well with children. One would think that they would considering that they claim to want kids to become educated about civics and history. The problem, of course, is what they really want is for children is to be brainwashed with their horribly misguided and flawed ideology. And when children see the mistakes of this ideology (remember, they are smarter than we might think;)), they tend to move in a more sane direction.

Seeing those young eyes staring them in the face is a stark fucking reminder of just how much these issues affect the lives of children across the country. It completely torpedoes the Right's fact free zone and drives them insane. So, for example, when the Right sees frightened kids writing letters to the president asking about school safety after Sandy Hook and standing with him at a speech, they irrationally lash out, behaving like adolescent bullies. Accusations of children being used as "human shields" or "props" began to fly along with the customary bemoan about how it's all "for the children." Well, guess what?

It is. 

Since these policies will have a profound affect on their future as well, I think it' fantastic that kids are involved, even at a young age, and regardless of their political stripe. That's why it's always important to treat them respect and not berate them, or their parents, when they try to become involved. The fact that I have to remind certain people of this gives you an idea about the level of mentality we are dealing with here.

Case in point is Tennessee State Senator Stacey Campfield. Mr. Campfield thought it might be a good idea to tie welfare benefits to grades so he put together Tennessee Senate Bill 132. Shocking that a child, who would be directly affected by this, got involved. Take a look at what happened.

 

After this protest, the bill was thankfully withdrawn but this incident is an excellent example of why the Right doesn't like to leave their bubble very much. They know that their views are truly deplorable and quite unacceptable to ...well...humans. It makes complete sense that their "courage" to say these sorts of things doesn't extend much past the comments sections of blogs.

Nonetheless, I extend a challenge to all the Stacey Campfields of the world, many of whom are located in the right wing blogsphere. Come out of your safe, little worlds and say more things in public like this to children. You need a wider audience. The 2014 elections are just around the corner and we'd like to take back the House!

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.

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.

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:
  • 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
Because the FBI statistics don't separate out the numbers, there's no way to know how many murders were committed with just hammers, though it's obviously less than shotguns or rifles. But the NRA phrases things in the most misleading way possible, implying that hammers kill more people than shotguns and rifles, and by extension, all guns.

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...



Interesting

What is it with gun nuts and bad luck?

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

Way to go USA

What type of country do you want to live in? 

Oh Really?

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.

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?

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.....

To Hike or Not To Hike

There have been lot of rumblings of late regarding the minimum wage. The president has suggested that it be raised to $9 per hour. Elizabeth Warren has been a staunch champion lately on this issue has been summarily raked over the coals by the usual collection of mouth foamers with the same bullshit argument that claims they know something about economics and that liberals know nothing. Well, here are the facts, based on the simple economics they claim to grasp so easily.

If the minimum wage is set below the market equilibrium, it will have no effect on the efficiency of the market. Even though the government has set a price floor, the market is bearing a higher price so it doesn't matter. Yet, if the price floor is set above the market equilibrium, unemployment will occur because employers would be induced to higher fewer workers, given the higher cost they must now pay their employees. More people would enter the labor market and jobs would be scarcer.

So, the question becomes...where is the market equilibrium? Well, with so many different markets out there in this country, it would depend on which market you are talking about and that's why the mouth foamers can get away with painting with such a broad and dishonest brush. If there is to be a minimum wage increase, then there should be a series of studies that examine the market equilibrium for those markets most affected my the hike. I would think the service industry and the retail industry would be good places to start.

Friday, April 05, 2013


State By State

With the signing yesterday in Connecticut of the nation's most comprehensive gun law, it's become obvious that the issue of gun safety and the drive to reduce violence related to guns is going to occur on a state by state basis. Connecticut now joins Colorado and New York in tough enforcement on assault weapons, magazine size and background checks. In addition, beefed up security provisions at schools were also included in the bill.

The feet dragging and hand wringing at the federal level seems less important now since the states are getting the job done without them. Certainly, there will be states that have more relaxed laws and some that have more restrictive laws. This presents us with a unique situation in which we can now compare which laws are effective in reducing violence and which ones are not by comparing the states.

With this Connecticut law, we now have a "Day One" from which to work and measure the effectiveness of a truly robust gun safety law. It will be interesting to see how it plays out, particularly in terms of the cherry picking that is likely to start occurring any second now:)

Thursday, April 04, 2013

19 Years Later

Say the word "Rwanda" and the first thought that comes into your head after that is usually genocide. But recent gains in health care in the tiny African country are so staggering that I'm hoping the first thought will now be of a more healthy nation.

19 years later, however, Rwanda is on pace to become the only country in sub-Saharan Africa to meet all of its health-related Millennium Development Goals, and the tiny pocket of Central Africa has posted some of the world’s most staggering health gains in the past decade, outpacing nations that spend far more per capita on healthcare.

In the past decade, deaths from HIV have fallen 78 percent – the single largest decline in the world during that time frame – while tuberculosis mortality has dropped 77 percent, the most significant decrease in Africa. 


Between 1994 and 2012, they wrote, the country’s life expectancy climbed from 28 years to 56 and the percentage of the population living in poverty dropped from 77.8 percent to 44.9 percent. 

Amazing! But how did this happen?

The government took the aid that was pouring in and put it directly into social programs and enacted universal health care for the small nation. In addition to the numbers of above, the chances today that a child in Rwanda will die by the age of five has fallen 70 percent.

These are all truly remarkable accomplishments that demonstrate how real results can be achieved very easily within a generation if government corruption is kept to a minimum and level headed leaders are put in charge. The rest of the countries in Africa should follow this model and bring their nations into the increasingly prosperous global marketplace.

Life?

Ever since I can remember, I have always wondered if there was ever life on Mars. Being the closest planet to us, I guess I have just assumed that perhaps at one time it did. Now it looks as though that was the case.

CheMin and SAM identified some of the key chemical ingredients for life in this dust, including sulfur, nitrogen, hydrogen, oxygen, phosphorus and carbon, researchers said. Intriguingly, the mix also suggested a possible energy source for indigenous Martian life, if any ever existed in the area. "The range of chemical ingredients we have identified in the sample is impressive, and it suggests pairings such as sulfates and sulfides that indicate a possible chemical energy source for micro-organisms," Paul Mahaffy, SAM principal investigator at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., said in a statement.

So, not just the possibility of life but also an energy source for that life. Stunning! I'm hoping that as more tests are done we will learn exactly what kind of life existed on Mars. And perhaps there will be more discoveries as Curiosity continues her mission?

Wednesday, April 03, 2013

Texas Murder Shoots Holes in NRA School Gun Plan

At the same time speculation is rife over whether white supremacists were killing prosecutors in Texas, the NRA has announced its plan to reduce gun violence in schools. Of course, the NRA's plan is to put more guns in schools, in the hands of people whose main job is teaching kids. Just like the main job of Mike MacLelland, the Dallas-area prosecutor who was murdered Sunday, is prosecuting murderers, pimps and thieves. MacLelland had started carrying a gun to work because another prosecutor had been killed.

So, we'll ask the Sarah Palin question, with absolutely no disrespect for the brave victims in Texas: how's that gunny-savey thing workin' out for ya?

In July 2012, MacLelland won a life sentence against an Aryan Brotherhood enforcer. MacLelland then indicted 34 Aryan Brotherhood members in November (the US attorney in the racketeering case has just withdrawn in fear of his life). On Jan. 31, Mark Hasse, another Kaufamn County prosecutor, was gunned down. MacLelland believed the Aryan Brotherhood could have been responsible, and started carrying a gun. Police had been stationed outside MacLelland's home for weeks, but the protection ended recently. I don't knock MacLelland for carrying; I probably would have done the same thing. What else is there to do, other than run like a coward? But carrying a gun is simply not effective protection when patient, determined assassins are after you.

Futher fueling the possible white supremacist connection was the murder of the chief of Colorado prisons on Mar. 19, and the subsequent shootout in Texas, when the killer, Evan Ebel, was stopped and killed by police two days later near Dallas.

We don't know if the Aryan Brotherhood, a white prison gang involved with prostitution and drug running and apparently run by men currently in jail, has anything to do with the Texas killings. Many are saying these actions don't fit their profile. And today another person of interest was identified in the case, a former local official who lost his job in a corruption probe.

What the slaying of Mike MacLelland does tell us is that guns can't protect you. The bad guys can always bide their time, hide in the shadows, snipe you from 200 yards away, wait until you're otherwise distracted, and then gun you down like a dog. They're not going to schedule a shoot-out with you on Main Street at High Noon and settle things like real men.

By demanding people be able to get guns without background checks, buy laser sights, bulletproof vests and infinite amounts of ammo online, the NRA is allowing bad guys like the Aryan Brotherhood, Mexican drug cartels, domestic and foreign terrorists, and crazies like James Holmes to arm themselves to the teeth.

The idea that a good guy with a gun is the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a delusion.  Because the bad guy with a gun usually believes with all his heart that he's the good guy. And the fact is, the good guy can easily turn into the bad guy after one too many drinks, getting cut off by some idiot on the freeway, suffering a bad divorce or age-related dementia, or mistaking a cellphone for a gun.

Which is why the NRA plan will increase the number of children killed by guns in schools, due to weapons dropped in bathrooms (which appears to happen all the time), weapons left in desks where children can take them, good guys suddenly snapping for the reasons listed above, or disturbed kids bashing the good guy in the back of the head with a chair and taking the gun. And if an Adam Lanza does break into the school, clad in Kevlar and sporting an assault rifle with a thiry- or hundred-round clip, the good guy with the gun is probably the first guy to get shot.

The murders of Mike MacLelland and Mark Hasse were well-planned and executed. Much the way the assaults at Columbine, Aurora and Newtown were well-planned. When bad guys have time to plan and have access to massive firepower and protective gear it's impossible to prevent them from killing. The only way to stop them is to prevent them getting the weapons in the first place.

More guns equals more death, as has been well-documented in suicide and domestic violence statistics. The math really is that simple.

How To Torpedo A Weasel Question

Yeah, not really a good idea to fuck with the son of a teacher.

,

Tuesday, April 02, 2013

What Kind of A Culture?

What kind of a culture produces a person who had all of this weaponry? Ours, I guess. Why? More importantly, if we are a Christian nation, how does any of this fit in with a philosophy grounded in peace?

What Would He Say?

The Christian Science Monitor had a cover story a couple of weeks back titled, "What Would Mao Say?" that was most illuminating. The first three paragraphs say it all.

Yang Youwei owns a slaughterhouse, holds a big chunk of shares in a nearby coal mine, sits on the coal mine board, and runs the company that sells the mine's production. He drives a black Rolls-Royce. He walks like a capitalist; he talks like a capitalist. He is easily the richest man in this small village 300 miles south of Beijing. And he is also Yangjiaxiang's top communist, secretary of the local party. 

Welcome to the paradoxical world of today's Chinese Communist Party.

Modern day China is an excellent illustration of why there is virtually no chance of the world ever seeing a truly totalitarian government ever again. Sure, we still have our stragglers like North Korea and Iran as well as failed states in Africa and the Middle East but these are obvious outliers. If want to be in the global marketplace, you have to adapt and that means embracing capitalism, unfettered trade, and free markets. If not, you are going to be on the outside and much less prosperous. This is why I chuckle and shake my head when I hear the Right blow bowel after bowel about the looming threat of communism. It failed. And even a country like China, with all its military might and government control, can't stop it.

Mao would be outraged and likely confounded, as the article notes, to see how terribly wrong he was in his vision for China. What would he say?

He would be speechless.

Monday, April 01, 2013

Hallelujah!

I was very heartened to see this recent piece in the Atlantic about how our culture has finally shifted away from the "bumbling dad" stereotype. In many ways, we had become like the sex kittens and brain dead secretaries of the 1960s and 1970s.

I remember the old days, when the only media dad was a bumbling dad, flummoxed by diapers, mystified by breakfast cereals, as incompetent at managing a household as his wife was hyper-efficient. In sitcoms, and in the commercials that aired during sitcoms, Dad was comic relief; everyone knew that power in the home (economic power, especially) resided with Mom.

I have been lamenting this for years. It's such a stereotype, not simply of dads, but of all men that feeds the malaise that is the Michael Jordan Generation.

Now, though, it seems like things have changed.

Now, however, the marketers have realized their error, and dads—involved, caring, competent dads like me—are coming to the foreground. We see them with their daughters in car commercials, and with their daughters in other car commercials, and sometimes they even use Google! And not just to, you know, Google stuff. At last, we fathers have been recognized as an important demographic deserving of the attention of America's most creative capitalists.

The car commercial that comes to my mind is the one where the dad is telling his daughter, who is shown at age 6 or so, not to text while she drives. Suddenly, she is no longer 6 but 16. That's how dads really are...like Cliff Huxtable....not Benny Hill.

I really hope things stay this way. Men are not baboons who exist only to eat, watch sports and sleep on the couch while the wife does everything that requires competence.