Sunday, June 30, 2013
Saturday, June 29, 2013
The Next Generation?
The recent report that students leaving high school today aren't doing much better than they did in the 1970s seems like bad news at first glance. Dive into it a little deeper, however, and we see this.
The news was brighter for younger students and for blacks and Hispanics, who had the greatest gain in reading and math scores since the 1970s, according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress, commonly referred to as the Nation’s Report Card. “In some ways, the findings are full of hope. Today’s children ages 9 and 13 are scoring better overall than students at those ages in the early ’70s,” said Brent Houston, principal of the Shawnee Middle School in Oklahoma and a member of the National Assessment Governing Board, which administers the tests.
Does this mean the achievement is closing? Possibly. A big part of the reason for this is the Common Core program started by the states, not the federal government, although it does have the full support of President Obama. The key thrust of the CC standards is to develop students' critical thinking skills and not simply test their short term memories. This leads to what we call in the biz "enduring understandings" and the best instructors know how to achieve this goal.
It's going to be very exciting and interesting to watch how our test scores rise over the next decade due to the changes being made now in our education system. It's about time!
The news was brighter for younger students and for blacks and Hispanics, who had the greatest gain in reading and math scores since the 1970s, according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress, commonly referred to as the Nation’s Report Card. “In some ways, the findings are full of hope. Today’s children ages 9 and 13 are scoring better overall than students at those ages in the early ’70s,” said Brent Houston, principal of the Shawnee Middle School in Oklahoma and a member of the National Assessment Governing Board, which administers the tests.
Does this mean the achievement is closing? Possibly. A big part of the reason for this is the Common Core program started by the states, not the federal government, although it does have the full support of President Obama. The key thrust of the CC standards is to develop students' critical thinking skills and not simply test their short term memories. This leads to what we call in the biz "enduring understandings" and the best instructors know how to achieve this goal.
It's going to be very exciting and interesting to watch how our test scores rise over the next decade due to the changes being made now in our education system. It's about time!
Friday, June 28, 2013
Do Big Brothers Make You Gay?
I read this article on Slate that mentions a study that found that fraternal birth order influences the likelihood of being gay:
The irony is that families who belong to religions that encourage large families -- Catholics and Mormons -- are more likely to produce gay younger brothers.
Perhaps this is why so many Catholic priests are gay (from an article in the Washington Times):
But it must be frustrating for these groups -- the more they do what "they're supposed to do" (have big families) the more negative feedback they get (bearing gay sons). Is it God's will? Karma? Or just biology?
In men, sexual orientation correlates with an individual’s number of older brothers, each additional older brother increasing the odds of homosexuality by approximately 33%. It has been hypothesized that this fraternal birth order effect reflects the progressive immunization of some mothers to Y-linked minor histocompatibility antigens (H-Y antigens) by each succeeding male fetus and the concomitantly increasing effects of such maternal immunization on the future sexual orientation of each succeeding male fetus.I knew that the presence of certain environmental hormones in the womb could influence fetal brain development that produced gays and lesbians, but this was the first I'd seen of the birth order correlation. If true, the more older brothers you have the more likely it is you'll be gay.
The irony is that families who belong to religions that encourage large families -- Catholics and Mormons -- are more likely to produce gay younger brothers.
Perhaps this is why so many Catholic priests are gay (from an article in the Washington Times):
Based on his 17 years in the priesthood, [Rev. James Haley] estimates that 60 percent of the Diocese of Arlington’s 127 diocesan priests are homosexuals, which is high compared with national estimates of 30 percent to 50 percent from other authorities on the priesthood.I guess this worked out for medieval Europe with its laws of primogeniture, which allowed only the firstborn son to inherit, leaving the younger sons with no options except to join the Church.
But it must be frustrating for these groups -- the more they do what "they're supposed to do" (have big families) the more negative feedback they get (bearing gay sons). Is it God's will? Karma? Or just biology?
Thursday, June 27, 2013
Private Contractor Charged Government for Security Clearance Checks it Never Performed
The government contractor that did background checks for security clearances of people like Edward Snowden didn't actually do them half the time. They just lied:
After conducting an initial background check of a candidate for employment, USIS was required to perform a second review to make sure no important details had been missed. From 2008 through 2011, USIS allegedly skipped this second review in up to 50 percent of the cases. But it conveyed to federal officials that these reviews had, in fact, been performed.I'm so glad we're privatizing all our military and security infrastructure. It costs twice as much and they do only half the work. It's so efficient!
The shortcut made it appear that USIS was more efficient than it actually was and may have triggered incentive awards for the company, the people briefed on the matter said. Investigators, who have briefed lawmakers on the allegations, think the strategy may have originated with senior executives, the people said.
This is the problem with using people whose only motive is profit to do critical work. Apparently there's no room for honor, loyalty and patriotism when it comes to the bottom line.
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Voting Rights Act Redux
My initial take on the Supreme Court decision yesterday to nullify sections 4 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act is not quite as outraged as my fellow Democratic and progressive colleagues. It's obvious that this was to be expected given the make up of the court but is it really as bad as they say it's going to be? Possibly but I have my doubts and the main reason why I do is the last election.
All of the gymnastics the Right did in 2012 simply resulted in a more concerted effort to get the non white vote out. It worked. They voted in record numbers in 2012. Changing demographics in the states affected by the SCOTUS decision means that there will be very little the state houses can do to suppress votes. The court is right to note that times have indeed changed and, although discrimination still exists, I just don't see any way they are going to get away with it.
And, if I can be extremely political here, the only states that matter for right now out of those nine affected the most by the changes are Florida and Virginia. The other states are going to be red for just a little bit longer, I suspect, with the exception, perhaps, of Texas. But the Lone Star state is a great example of those changing demographics. So is Florida, actually, as we saw people wait in line for seven hours to make sure they had the chance to vote.
People are resilient and will adapt to any bullshit the Right tries to pull with voting. It's happened before and it will happen again.
All of the gymnastics the Right did in 2012 simply resulted in a more concerted effort to get the non white vote out. It worked. They voted in record numbers in 2012. Changing demographics in the states affected by the SCOTUS decision means that there will be very little the state houses can do to suppress votes. The court is right to note that times have indeed changed and, although discrimination still exists, I just don't see any way they are going to get away with it.
And, if I can be extremely political here, the only states that matter for right now out of those nine affected the most by the changes are Florida and Virginia. The other states are going to be red for just a little bit longer, I suspect, with the exception, perhaps, of Texas. But the Lone Star state is a great example of those changing demographics. So is Florida, actually, as we saw people wait in line for seven hours to make sure they had the chance to vote.
People are resilient and will adapt to any bullshit the Right tries to pull with voting. It's happened before and it will happen again.
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
We're Number On.....oh...wait a minute...Number Twenty Seven!
Conservatives like to sing about how wealthy our middle class is compared to the rest of the world. After all, look at how everyone has flat screens, X Boxes and cel phones? Never mind the fact that all of that is really cheap shit made in China and in no way a measure of wealth (see: it's not the year 1982 anymore where the family with the cool hi-fi set up is king)
The reality is our middle class isn't number one. In fact, we are number 27.
This opulence is supposed to trickle down to the rest of us, improving the lives of everyday Americans. At least that's what free-market cheerleaders repeatedly promise us. Unfortunately, it's a lie, one of the biggest ever perpetrated on the American people. Our middle class is falling further and further behind in comparison to the rest of the world.
So how do we compare to other countries?
Pretty craptacular if you ask me. Australia is number one? Even with their strict gun laws? I'm surprised that the middle class is doing so well considering that we have all been told by those "in the know" that gun bans lead to totalitarianism. Where is the suffering under communism that was promised?
So how is all of this measured?
Wealth is measured by the total sum of all our assets (homes, bank accounts, stocks, bonds etc.) minus our liabilities (outstanding loans and other debts). It the best indicator we have for individual and family prosperity. The most telling comparative measurement is median wealth (per adult).
Just north of $38,000. Like I said, pathetic.
Of course, any sort of discussion about addressing this problem jumps immediately to a mouth foaming rant about communism and merrily we go on avoiding how, in some very key ways, we are falling behind the rest of the world.
As a country, we can't go on with a government that represents only the wealthy citizens. While this article presents nothing new (Stiglitz says much of it in his book), all of its bullet points are truly depressing and make me sick. When is it going to end?
More importantly, which party is going to have the guts to change the system we have now?
The reality is our middle class isn't number one. In fact, we are number 27.
This opulence is supposed to trickle down to the rest of us, improving the lives of everyday Americans. At least that's what free-market cheerleaders repeatedly promise us. Unfortunately, it's a lie, one of the biggest ever perpetrated on the American people. Our middle class is falling further and further behind in comparison to the rest of the world.
So how do we compare to other countries?
Pretty craptacular if you ask me. Australia is number one? Even with their strict gun laws? I'm surprised that the middle class is doing so well considering that we have all been told by those "in the know" that gun bans lead to totalitarianism. Where is the suffering under communism that was promised?
So how is all of this measured?
Wealth is measured by the total sum of all our assets (homes, bank accounts, stocks, bonds etc.) minus our liabilities (outstanding loans and other debts). It the best indicator we have for individual and family prosperity. The most telling comparative measurement is median wealth (per adult).
Just north of $38,000. Like I said, pathetic.
Of course, any sort of discussion about addressing this problem jumps immediately to a mouth foaming rant about communism and merrily we go on avoiding how, in some very key ways, we are falling behind the rest of the world.
As a country, we can't go on with a government that represents only the wealthy citizens. While this article presents nothing new (Stiglitz says much of it in his book), all of its bullet points are truly depressing and make me sick. When is it going to end?
More importantly, which party is going to have the guts to change the system we have now?
Monday, June 24, 2013
End of the Phony IRS Scandal?
Well, the IRS "scandal" turned out to be phony. It was apparently what I thought it was: some IRS agents taking shortcuts to determine which political organizations seeking tax-exempt status should receive additional scrutiny. In particular, ones that seemed to be overtly political -- or commercial -- and not "social welfare" organizations.
They demanded more information from groups of all stripes: medical marijuana advocates, groups advocating the president's health care law; interestingly, "occupied territory advocacy" groups received the most scrutiny of all. Most telling to me is the following:
But groups with no political inclinations were also examined. “Open source software” organizations seeking nonprofit status “are usually for-profit business or for-profit support technicians of the software,” a lookout list warns. “If you see a case, elevate it to your manager.”I'm in software, and I know how these open-source software companies work: they let the broader community of software developers write all their code for them -- for free -- and then they turn around and sell their own version of it (with support) for real money. (These are usually systems like Linux.) In essence, these companies are lining their pockets with the labor of volunteers who nobly donate their own time -- lots of it -- to the cause of open-source software.
In short, the IRS agents were looking for scammers: political scammers on the right looking to offer tax deductions to their billionaire donors for political action, political scammers on the left looking to leverage their smaller donor pool with tax-exempt status, as well as corporate scammers just looking to get the rest of us to pay for their lobbying expenses.
The real scandal here is not the IRS took these shortcuts: can you really blame these IRS agents for using keywords to identify the organizations that are most likely to try cheating the government? They're just trying to do their jobs efficiently. Seriously, isn't that what we'd expect the IRS to do in the first place?
No, the real scandal is that the Treasury inspector general omitted the salient fact that the IRS was looking into all groups seeking questionable tax-exempt status, and was not singling out conservative groups.
Perhaps we could get the NSA to look into the inspector general's cellphone, email and Internet usage to determine who gave him those instructions...
Maybe Old-Fashioned Government Bureaucrats Aren't So Bad After All...
From the South China Morning Post:
Boy, those new-fangled private security contractors like Booz Allen sure do a bang-up job on protecting American secrets. So much better than those fuddy-duddy government employees who stay on the job for life, in order to make sure they keep their government pensions. Which happen to be much less than what Booz Allen pays Snowden and their ilk...
Snowden sought Booz Allen job to gather evidence on NSA surveillance
Fugitive whistle-blower reveals for first time he took job at US government contractor with the sole aim of collecting proof of spying activities
Boy, those new-fangled private security contractors like Booz Allen sure do a bang-up job on protecting American secrets. So much better than those fuddy-duddy government employees who stay on the job for life, in order to make sure they keep their government pensions. Which happen to be much less than what Booz Allen pays Snowden and their ilk...
On Stiglitz: Part Seven
The next chapter in Joseph Stiglitz's The Price of Inequality is titled "Justice For All? How Inequality Is Eroding The Rule Of Law?" Even though it is the shortest chapter of the ten in the text, it takes sharp aim at how our justice system has helped to further inequality in this country. The rule of law is supposed to protect the weak against the powerful yet in today's society, if someone is suing a corporation, we have all been conditioned to view that person as "gold digger" and the corporation as a "victim" (This simple fact is covered extensively in the stunning film Hot Coffee).
As Stiglitz notes,
As the old poem goes, "No man is an island." In any society what one person does may hurt, or benefit, others. Economists refer to these effects as externalities. When those who injure others don't have to bear the full consequences of their actions, they will have inadequate incentives not to injure them, and to take precautions to avoid risks of injury.
The Right has a real cognitive dissonance problem with the sentiment above. They want to live in a society where everyone is a "rugged individualist" yet still want all the trappings of a modernism. They can't accept the fact that in any sort of society one person's actions has a direct effect on another's life. and that's with or without government interference.
Stiglitz writes that one of the big reasons why American corporations have been so successful in the last 30 years is they have been able to avoid the consequences of their actions by rigging the game in their favor. This has never been more true than in the financial sector, specifically the banks. There were no real consequences for the predatory lending and fraud committed by the banks in the run up the financial crisis of 2008. Stiglitz notes that some states like Georgia tried to enact laws that would have stopped this sort of behavior in the first place.They were repaid by Standard and Poor's threatening them to not rate any of their mortgages. This would be the same Standard and Poor's who downgraded the US credit rating. This would also be the same S & P labelled "A" what turned out to be "F" rated mortgages. So, any attempt to stop predatory lending by government entities was met with (ahem) corporate force.
Stiglitz goes on to discuss how bankruptcy law has also become massively corrupted in a similar way. He touches on the student loan problem and how banks seem intent trapping young people into impossible situations with insurmountable, lifelong debt. This helps to cement the inequality in this country.
Stigliiz then turns to the mortgage crisis that was the driving force behind the 2008 economic crisis. In a nutshell, he asserts that "rule of law" was tested in this country and the results clearly showed that there was no justice for all. In fact, there was justice for very few people in the financial sector.
The banks wanted a speedier and less costly way of transferring, so they created their own system called MERS but like so much of what the banks had done in the gold rush days, it proved to be a deficient system, without safeguards, and amounted to an end run around a legal system designed to protect debtors.
So, the banks unilaterally decided to rewrite property law. When the crisis hit, they were supposed to be able to prove how much they actually owed. They couldn't and it was largely because there was no oversight to make sure they did. It didn't really matter to them anyway. There was so much money flying all over the place that they knew the government would have no choice but to bail them out. What were they going to do? Let the economy collapse?
Worse, Stiglitz points out that if corporations were indeed people, they should have been prosecuted for fraud as they were unable to prove that there financial records were valid. There still has not been any significant pursuit, by the government, towards foreclosure fraud. This is a complete and total failure by the US government, specifically Eric Holder. It's amusing how much people on the right bitch about him for the phantom things he's done but not the main thing that he has neglected to do. Recall that the DOJ prosecuted over one thousand cases in the S & L scandal in the early 1990s.
Stigliz notes a Wall Street Journal piece which also uncovered discrimination on the basis of income regarding the foreclosure process. On average, it took banks two years and two months to foreclose on mortgages over one million dollars, six months longer than on those under one hundred thousand dollars. Banks were bending over backwards to accommodate bigger debtors and their team of lawyers that were the best money could buy. The little guy had none of this, of course, and worse, considering just how much the law had been eroded.
We've come to a point in our society where the government does more to protect the interests of corporations and less to protect the rights of individuals. People in Congress are being paid large quantities of money to look the other way and allow the private sector, especially the financial sector, massive leeway in their business. We don't need a "bigger" government. What we need are elected officials who can quickly recognize factors such as externalities and market power in the private sector and intervene quickly to prevent another crisis such as the one we had in 2008. A good place to start is the financial sector and we have, at least, taken steps down that path with the Dodd-Frank bill.
The people who are elected to Congress have to understand that they are performing a public service. They aren't the extended legal staff of the various corporations in the United States.
As Stiglitz notes,
As the old poem goes, "No man is an island." In any society what one person does may hurt, or benefit, others. Economists refer to these effects as externalities. When those who injure others don't have to bear the full consequences of their actions, they will have inadequate incentives not to injure them, and to take precautions to avoid risks of injury.
The Right has a real cognitive dissonance problem with the sentiment above. They want to live in a society where everyone is a "rugged individualist" yet still want all the trappings of a modernism. They can't accept the fact that in any sort of society one person's actions has a direct effect on another's life. and that's with or without government interference.
Stiglitz writes that one of the big reasons why American corporations have been so successful in the last 30 years is they have been able to avoid the consequences of their actions by rigging the game in their favor. This has never been more true than in the financial sector, specifically the banks. There were no real consequences for the predatory lending and fraud committed by the banks in the run up the financial crisis of 2008. Stiglitz notes that some states like Georgia tried to enact laws that would have stopped this sort of behavior in the first place.They were repaid by Standard and Poor's threatening them to not rate any of their mortgages. This would be the same Standard and Poor's who downgraded the US credit rating. This would also be the same S & P labelled "A" what turned out to be "F" rated mortgages. So, any attempt to stop predatory lending by government entities was met with (ahem) corporate force.
Stiglitz goes on to discuss how bankruptcy law has also become massively corrupted in a similar way. He touches on the student loan problem and how banks seem intent trapping young people into impossible situations with insurmountable, lifelong debt. This helps to cement the inequality in this country.
Stigliiz then turns to the mortgage crisis that was the driving force behind the 2008 economic crisis. In a nutshell, he asserts that "rule of law" was tested in this country and the results clearly showed that there was no justice for all. In fact, there was justice for very few people in the financial sector.
The banks wanted a speedier and less costly way of transferring, so they created their own system called MERS but like so much of what the banks had done in the gold rush days, it proved to be a deficient system, without safeguards, and amounted to an end run around a legal system designed to protect debtors.
So, the banks unilaterally decided to rewrite property law. When the crisis hit, they were supposed to be able to prove how much they actually owed. They couldn't and it was largely because there was no oversight to make sure they did. It didn't really matter to them anyway. There was so much money flying all over the place that they knew the government would have no choice but to bail them out. What were they going to do? Let the economy collapse?
Worse, Stiglitz points out that if corporations were indeed people, they should have been prosecuted for fraud as they were unable to prove that there financial records were valid. There still has not been any significant pursuit, by the government, towards foreclosure fraud. This is a complete and total failure by the US government, specifically Eric Holder. It's amusing how much people on the right bitch about him for the phantom things he's done but not the main thing that he has neglected to do. Recall that the DOJ prosecuted over one thousand cases in the S & L scandal in the early 1990s.
Stigliz notes a Wall Street Journal piece which also uncovered discrimination on the basis of income regarding the foreclosure process. On average, it took banks two years and two months to foreclose on mortgages over one million dollars, six months longer than on those under one hundred thousand dollars. Banks were bending over backwards to accommodate bigger debtors and their team of lawyers that were the best money could buy. The little guy had none of this, of course, and worse, considering just how much the law had been eroded.
We've come to a point in our society where the government does more to protect the interests of corporations and less to protect the rights of individuals. People in Congress are being paid large quantities of money to look the other way and allow the private sector, especially the financial sector, massive leeway in their business. We don't need a "bigger" government. What we need are elected officials who can quickly recognize factors such as externalities and market power in the private sector and intervene quickly to prevent another crisis such as the one we had in 2008. A good place to start is the financial sector and we have, at least, taken steps down that path with the Dodd-Frank bill.
The people who are elected to Congress have to understand that they are performing a public service. They aren't the extended legal staff of the various corporations in the United States.
Who Are The Five?
Politico has a story up about how Vice President Joe Biden is saying that there are five senators who now want to change their vote on Manchin-Toomey. He didn't name who they were and I have to admit some skepticism about this but he is right that approval ratings have dropped for the 45 senators who voted against this bill.
There must be something to the story because look who is nervous. Then again, they are always nervous so it could be nothing.
Or could it?:)
(Man, it's fun to fuck with paranoids!)
There must be something to the story because look who is nervous. Then again, they are always nervous so it could be nothing.
Or could it?:)
(Man, it's fun to fuck with paranoids!)
Sunday, June 23, 2013
No War At All
Spend some time talking to Christian conservatives and they'll tell you the same thing all the time. They are oppressed and their rights are being infringed. They want to pray in school, damnit! And the gubmint won't let them. The only problem with this protestation is that it bears no semblance to reality.
"We've gone from virtual silence about religion in the curriculum and virtually no student religious expression in many schools," says Charles Haynes, a scholar at the First Amendment Center and head of the Religious Freedom Education Project in Washington, D.C., "to today, when social studies and other standards are fairly generous to religion, and students are expressing their faiths in many different ways in many public schools, if not most."
Yep. I see it all the time in my district and my children's school district. Kids take time out of their day to pray wherever and whenever they need to do so. Staff and administration make accommodations. And it's not just individual faith expressions that are more commonplace.
Schools are increasingly including Christianity, Buddhism, Sikhism, Islam, and, in some cases, the Bible in their curricula because of concern over Americans' religious illiteracy. (A 2007 study found that only 10 percent of American teens could name the five major religions.)
History of Religion is common class that students can take for a history credit. A few of my colleagues have taught it over the years and it has always seen high registration.
The important thing to remember there is that while schools can't foster religious beliefs, still must allow students to religiously express themselves as they see fit. In short, there is no "War on Christians." It has endlessly amused me that those who bemoan the victim card play it so much, creating a reality that simply does not exist.
"We've gone from virtual silence about religion in the curriculum and virtually no student religious expression in many schools," says Charles Haynes, a scholar at the First Amendment Center and head of the Religious Freedom Education Project in Washington, D.C., "to today, when social studies and other standards are fairly generous to religion, and students are expressing their faiths in many different ways in many public schools, if not most."
Yep. I see it all the time in my district and my children's school district. Kids take time out of their day to pray wherever and whenever they need to do so. Staff and administration make accommodations. And it's not just individual faith expressions that are more commonplace.
Schools are increasingly including Christianity, Buddhism, Sikhism, Islam, and, in some cases, the Bible in their curricula because of concern over Americans' religious illiteracy. (A 2007 study found that only 10 percent of American teens could name the five major religions.)
History of Religion is common class that students can take for a history credit. A few of my colleagues have taught it over the years and it has always seen high registration.
The important thing to remember there is that while schools can't foster religious beliefs, still must allow students to religiously express themselves as they see fit. In short, there is no "War on Christians." It has endlessly amused me that those who bemoan the victim card play it so much, creating a reality that simply does not exist.
Saturday, June 22, 2013
Beware!
The best weapon to stop them Moose-lems? A radiation death beam.
The FBI has arrested two local men for allegedly plotting to use a radiation emitting device to silently kill their targets.According to the United States Department of Justice, 49-year-old Glendon Scott Crawford of Galway and 54-year-old Eric Feight of Hudson have been charged with conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists.
The arrests come after a 14-month long undercover investigation that was prompted when authorities received information back in April 2012 that Crawford had approached local Jewish organizations seeking out individuals who could help him build a machine that could be used against anyone he perceived as enemies of Israel.
The Department of Justice says Crawford, a General Electric maintenance worker, and Feight were looking to build a "mobile, remotely operated, radiation emitting device capable of killing targeted individuals silently with lethal doses of X-ray radiation." Investigators say this type of technology could have been used against people without them knowing that they had absorbed lethal doses of radiation until days later when the harmful effects from the exposure surfaced.
The clever fiendishness of their evil plot was brilliant! If it wasn't for those damn PC, multi-culti killjoys, we would all be safer now!
The FBI has arrested two local men for allegedly plotting to use a radiation emitting device to silently kill their targets.According to the United States Department of Justice, 49-year-old Glendon Scott Crawford of Galway and 54-year-old Eric Feight of Hudson have been charged with conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists.
The arrests come after a 14-month long undercover investigation that was prompted when authorities received information back in April 2012 that Crawford had approached local Jewish organizations seeking out individuals who could help him build a machine that could be used against anyone he perceived as enemies of Israel.
The Department of Justice says Crawford, a General Electric maintenance worker, and Feight were looking to build a "mobile, remotely operated, radiation emitting device capable of killing targeted individuals silently with lethal doses of X-ray radiation." Investigators say this type of technology could have been used against people without them knowing that they had absorbed lethal doses of radiation until days later when the harmful effects from the exposure surfaced.
The clever fiendishness of their evil plot was brilliant! If it wasn't for those damn PC, multi-culti killjoys, we would all be safer now!
Well, That's Nice
Apparently, the gun community has a difficult time keeping track of the their guns. The nation’s gun dealers lost 190,342 firearms last year, including pistols, silencers and machine guns, contributing to the flow of illegal weapons that put guns in the hands of felons, gang members and drug dealer. The fives states that are the worst offenders are Texas, Georgia, Florida, California, and North Carolina. Not surprising, really.
So, let's see if I have this correct. The gun community doesn't want any new guns laws because they are worried their rights will be infringed yet, at the same time, they are completely inept at keeping track of the weapons in their care. Responsible gun owners, my ass.
So, let's see if I have this correct. The gun community doesn't want any new guns laws because they are worried their rights will be infringed yet, at the same time, they are completely inept at keeping track of the weapons in their care. Responsible gun owners, my ass.
Friday, June 21, 2013
Thursday, June 20, 2013
Upgrade
S&P Upgrades U.S. Credit Outlook to ‘Stable’
Now S&P projects U.S. general government deficit plus non-deficit borrowing requirements to dip to about 6% of gross domestic product in 2013, down from 7% in 2012, and to less than 4% in 2015. The ratings firm also sees net general government debt as a share of GDP staying “broadly stable” for the next few years at about 84%, allowing policymakers “some additional time to take steps to address pent-up age-related spending pressures.
All over the country conservatives are face palming...what does a feller have to do to get a failed economy so they can justify their Obamaphobia?
Now S&P projects U.S. general government deficit plus non-deficit borrowing requirements to dip to about 6% of gross domestic product in 2013, down from 7% in 2012, and to less than 4% in 2015. The ratings firm also sees net general government debt as a share of GDP staying “broadly stable” for the next few years at about 84%, allowing policymakers “some additional time to take steps to address pent-up age-related spending pressures.
All over the country conservatives are face palming...what does a feller have to do to get a failed economy so they can justify their Obamaphobia?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)