No Doubt!

What Is The Second Amendment Coming To When North Dakota Nazi Guy Can’t Even Terrorize His Neighbors With Guns?

I, for one, am outraged. What part of infringed don't they understand?!!?

Growing Up

Dennis Prager's recent piece over at RealClearPolitics.com is a perfect example of the total lack of reflection by conservatives. Filled with the usual straw men, ad hominem and misleading vividness fallacies, Prager is stumped!

Virtually every institution outside the home has been captured by people with left-wing values: specifically the media (television and movies) and the schools (first the universities and now high schools). In the 1960s and 1970s, American parents were blindsided. Their children came home from college with values that thoroughly opposed those of their parents.

And then they come home, often after only year at college, a different person, values-wise, from the one the naive parent so proudly said goodbye. 

Naive, yes, but not in the way he thinks. I wonder if Mr. Prager and the conservative parents he has elected himself champion of every consider that they might be...oh, I don't know....WRONG?!? Nah, that can't be it. All that fancy book learning at schools is all lies and liberal deceit! How dare they actually veer off script and speak the truth backed up facts.

Maybe something should be done about those teachers...hmm...I'm sure we can look to history for some ideas:)

45 Times

Take a look at the image below.

For those of you who understand math, it's pretty obvious just how bad GOP obstruction has been under President Obama. 45 filibusters? Really? What a bunch of babies...

That's why Democrats don't really care about the hysteria over the so called nuclear option. The American people can clearly see where the problem lies. Besides, it's not like the Republicans are going to win the White House or the Senate with far right candidates who are going to nominate psychos. If a Republican ever does win the White House again, it will be a moderate and the Democrats, as this chart shows us, will act as they always do...like adults.

No Camelot Without Avalon

I was six years old when John F. Kennedy was assassinated. My only personal memories of it are being disappointed that Saturday morning cartoons were preempted, and the interminable dismal gray funeral procession broadcast on black-and-white TV.

My appreciation for Kennedy grew when I learned that he was the one who launched the Apollo program to put men on the moon: I was extremely interested in the space program as a child. It was ironic that the man Kennedy beat in the 1960 election, Richard Nixon, was the president who spoke to the Apollo 11 astronauts on the moon, and the president whose signature is on the plaque on the lunar module's descent stage, which now stands on the Sea of Tranquility, and should still be there in a million years.

It's hard not to compare the legacies of those two men: Kennedy was cut down in his prime after averting nuclear apocalypse, a president who aimed for the stars, transformed civil rights from a legal issue to a moral one, and implored us to ask what we can do for our country. Nixon won election in 1968 by promising to extract us from the war in Vietnam, but instead escalated it. He committed crimes and coverups in a reelection campaign he was already winning handily, disgracing himself and wounding the country all over again, almost as badly as Oswald did in 1963.

I have never been one to idolize political leaders, or sports figures, or scientists, or writers, or religious figures. I owe that to Richard Nixon, who resigned when I was 16. The Watergate scandal showed unambiguously that the president of the United States was just an ordinary man: as mean-spirited, bigoted, selfish and profane as any stevedore. Yet even Nixon accomplished some great things -- the EPA, détente with the USSR, and normalizing relations with China.

And so I've never been able to idolize Kennedy. In the years since his death we've found out that he was a womanizer, had terrible physical ailments, and relied on a battery of drugs to get through pain, disease and depression. He weathered political scandals, such as the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban Missile Crisis, that motivated his political enemies to distribute a "Wanted for Treason" poster in Dallas just before the assassination. Some even say the moonshot was just a political ploy, a sop for LBJ's Texas.

Yet there's no doubt that the image of the Kennedy family in the White House had a profound effect on the American psyche: after centuries of geezers we had a handsome young president with a pretty wife and cute kids. The country seemed new and fresh and full of hope again. We were a vigorous young nation fighting a world full of crusty, fat old commies. And then it was all smashed in a horrible way, and the country's heart broke.

It was only after Kennedy's death that the "Camelot" comparison was drawn. In an interview for Life magazine, Jackie Kennedy said, “There will be great presidents again, but there will never be another Camelot.”

That article solidified the nostalgic notion in the public mind that the Kennedy administration was a special, magical time. But the very idea that there are great kings and great presidents is the source of many of our problems.

Because there is no magic. There are no great men. There are only flawed men who accomplish great things. And only with the help of countless others. When we idolize and fawn over those who inspire us -- politicians, rock stars, actors -- it gives them delusions of grandeur, allowing them to excuse their pecadilloes and setting them up for an even greater fall.

If Kennedy had not been borne to Avalon he wouldn't be viewed with the same reverence he is today. His problems would have eventually caught up with him, and the most important accomplishment of his administration -- the Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- might not have even passed without Johnson using the hammer of the assassination to convince enough Southern Democrats to vote for it.

If you think that sounds cynical and hopeless, you miss the point. The marvelous thing about humanity is that we can still accomplish great things, despite our flaws.

If we actually needed perfection and great men, then our situation would be truly hopeless.

Thoughts On JFK

John Fitzgerald Kennedy was my favorite president. That doesn't mean he was the best president (that honor falls to Abraham Lincoln) but he appealed to me more than all the others. He appealed to many people and that's likely why he was killed fifty years ago today.

The concept of the New Frontier still resonates today. We are a nation that moves forward and categorically refuses to be sedimentary. That's what President Kennedy represented when he took office in 1961. He made mistakes during his 1,000 days but his vision led to improvements in civil rights, stronger economic growth and landed a man on the moon. Any notion of foreign policy naivete was wiped away during thirteen days in October of 1962. In so many ways, he exhibited the core of the word leader.

I realize that a lot of this is rooted in romanticism. Yet our country changed 50 years ago today and it took a darker path. Had President Kennedy lived, our history would have been brighter. It's just that simple. Vietnam would have been completely different. We may have even not been involved at all which means millions would be alive today. The turbulence of the 1960s would have played out much differently with a more capable leader like JFK. Lyndon Johnson was the worst president this nation has ever seen (largely because of Vietnam) and Richard Nixon was mentally unbalanced as well as a criminal. Eight years of JFK would not have been perfect, obviously, but far brighter than the black veil cast over our country from the end of 1963 to 1970.

It doesn't really matter who killed President Kennedy although the answer is quite obvious. He represented a clear threat to those who had much to gain from war and unrest (the mob, the military-industrial complex, Texas elites) and he had to be taken out. The simple facts of that day in Dallas a half a century ago illustrate that there was more than one shooter in Dealey Plaza. From a pure ballistics and evidence point of view, this is apparent to anyone familiar with violent crime scenes but, again, it doesn't really matter. We lost a chunk of history that could have been remembered as our golden years, shining brightly like Camelot of old.

Through all the din of today's anniversary, let's not forget our dying king...

Yep

Harry Goes Nuclear!

Well, ol' Harry went and done did it. With the exception of Supreme Court nominees, executive and judicial nominees need a simple majority in the Senate to be confirmed. Considering the adolescent behavior of Republicans, I'd say Harry actually waited longer than I thought he would. If the Democrats were ever in the minority (and they won't be as long as the GOP runs farther and farther right), I'd say the same thing. In fact, I think the Democrats will be better off for this as they actually want to govern as opposed to taking their ball and going home. Elections have consequences and acting like a baby and throwing a tantrum because you don't like the president, desperately want him to fail, and feel that he doesn't deserve the job doesn't mean you get to grind the government down to non function.

Your petty games in this area (and soon others) are now over.

No More Politico Feed

On the right side of the site you will notice that I have taken down the Politico Feed and replaced it with RealClear Politics for the time being. Politico has become more and more tabloid-y lately and thus more loathsome. I don't really care about the Cheney family feud, for example. They also seem to be the leaders in OCH (ObamaCare Hyperventilating) so BUH BYE!

Want To See Where Our Tax Dollars Go?

Check this fantastic site with amazing graphics. You can go to full screen and then examine each slide for details. Granted, the information is a few years old in terms of dollar amounts but how the money is spent and where is generally the same.

So, my question for you folks who proselytize on spending...where would make the cuts?

New Form of Life Discovered on Space Probe!

When probes are sent into space they are carefully sterilized in "clean rooms" to avoid contaminating other planets. Scientists have discovered a new form of bacteria in two different clean rooms, one at NASA's Kennedy Space Center and one at the European Space Agency's launch site in South America.

The weird thing is that this bug has only been found in clean rooms: it was the only thing left alive after the chambers were swabbed with alcohol and hydrogen peroxide and heated to temperatures high enough to kill any living thing. The bacteria is called Tersicoccus Phoenicis, from tersi, the Latin word for clean and Phoenix, the name of the first space probe the bug was found on. It's so different from other organisms that it's a new genus, not just a new species.

The PROTECT experiment conducted on the International Space Station found that other bacterial spores mounted on the outside of the station for a year and half survived exposure to vacuum, temperature extremes and UV and cosmic radiation. Previous claims of streptococcus mitis found by the Apollo 12 astronauts on the Surveyor 3 probe after three years on the moon are in doubt because the camera the bacteria were found on was stored in a nonsterile bag.

This news comes at the same time as the results of a 25-year-long experiment involving bacterial evolution. After 50,000 generations, Dr. Richard Lenski of Michigan State University found that the E. coli never stopped evolving. His hypothesis was that they would hit some peak level of fitness and never advance. But that hasn't happened: over the years they have increased their reproductive efficiency. The original population doubled in population in an hour. After 50,000 generations they double in 40 minutes. The scientists calculate that in a million years they would reduce that time to 20 minutes (because of the limited environment they're unlikely to evolve in any spectacular fashion).

This means that it is quite possible that we will one day find life on Mars, because -- despite our best efforts -- it arrived on one of our probes. But it also means that bacteria could survive the rigors of space, and be transmitted to other worlds without human intervention. Material thrown into space by large meteor strikes could land on other planets, and the bacteria could potentially survive, and just keep on evolving to prosper in their new environment.

This also means that life could have originally come to earth from another planet, or even another solar system. This theory, known as panspermia, has been the basis of many science fiction stories, from The Body Snatchers, to The Andromeda Strain, to Star Trek: The Next Generation to Prometheus.

We don't know exactly how life got started. But once it gets going, it is incredibly stubborn, always evolving and always surviving no matter what the universe throws at it.

Good Words

The most common fallacy of journalism, and one of the most common fallacies of the human brain in general, is the assumption that whatever is happening at the moment will continue to happen forever. That has been the implicit assumption of the hyperventilating coverage of the miserable Obamacare rollout. (Jonathan Chait, New York Magazine Online).

A great companion piece to the Begala post from ealier today and one which has inspired a new tag-"Hyperventilating Media."

Of course, this is more than just a fallacy of journalism as Chait aptly notes. It is indeed a fallacy of the human brain that plays perfectly into the adolescent taunting of the Right. Fallacy is their bedrock after all so Democrats need to remember this and simply be patient. Long term, nearly all of the items on the Democratic wish list will end up as the law of the land as reality will dictate necessity.

And it will be with the help of Republicans!

Who's the Boss?

Last week a study published by Gallup found that 35% of Americans preferred a male boss, 23% preferred a female boss, and 41% had no preference. Articles -- and the authors of the study itself -- have been touting this as "more Americans would rather work for a male boss."

Which is inaccurate: more Americans have no preference. The study found that 51% of men had no preference (vs. 29% male boss), and 40% of women preferred a male boss (vs. 32% no preference). Democrats were evenly split male 33%/female 33%/no preference 34%, while Republicans are split male 40%/female 16%/no preference 42% (reinforcing the Republican War on Women motif). Finally, people who currently have a female boss were almost twice as likely to prefer a female boss (32%) than someone who has a male boss (17%).

I'm one of the majority of men who have no preference. I worked in software for many years, and only had one female boss, and she was more of a lateral supervisor, the programmer among us who "manned up" and took responsibility for herding the cats (most technical people are more interested in doing the actual work than moving up the corporate chain -- you get paid enough not to need promotions to make enough money). In software, however, you have a lot groups working together on larger projects. Many of the bosses of the other groups I worked with were women. So, though I didn't have many women bosses, I worked with enough to have no preference.

My wife, who worked in integrated circuit design and manufacture, started out as an engineer and moved into management after several years. She never had a female boss, but she was one of the very few in the companies she worked for. My wife's most salient observation about corporate management is how utterly dishonest the men at the top are (they were all men). Only "team players" (those who lie, cheat and tell management what they want to hear) get ahead.

Now, I'm always skeptical about surveys, but this survey has been showing slowly evolving results for 50 years so I have no real reason to distrust it. Starting in the early '90s "no preference" took over from "male boss:"

The question is why anyone would prefer one gender over another. I can think of several: 

• People who think women shouldn't be in the workplace at all, and should be at home tending the children.
• People who generally perceive women as incompetent or emotionally unfit for the job (a conservative woman friend once insisted that a woman cannot be president).
• People who think women aren't "tough enough."
• People who think that a man/woman should be boss in order to give the right impression to outsiders.
• People who want to be told what to do may feel more comfortable with a more dictatorial management style, which is socially more acceptable for men to adopt ("bossy" women always get put down).
• People who have had a personality conflict with a female/male boss in the past.
• People who believe that a female/male boss won't be fair with them or won't understand them. 
• People who believe they can more easily manipulate a man or woman to get what they want.
• People who feel they would be in some kind of competition with a boss of a certain gender.
• People who are afraid of a romantic or sexual situation developing with a boss of a certain gender.
• People who believe that women should have greater responsibility in business, and want a female boss to promote equality.
• People with jobs that specifically cater to or consist of one gender or another and believe that a man/woman would not be able to properly perform. For example, the manager of a women's wear department, or the boss of an all-male construction crew.

Some of these are reasonable concerns, some are downright sexist, and some are social engineering. But some sexist reasons were true at one time: before women had engineering degrees they would make terrible engineering managers. Even the social engineering is becoming necessary: women are becoming the primary breadwinners in many families, and their children (and husbands!) need them to become bosses to make more money.

But times change. Women are getting college degrees at a faster clip than men, and women are coming back from job losses after the last recession faster than men.

It's also true that different jobs need different kinds of bosses because you have different kinds of employees and different work environments. In technical fields you have a lot of hard-working, self-motivated, highly-educated people. In minimum-wage retail jobs you have a lot of discouraged, uneducated or unmotivated employees. In high-pressure sales departments you have a bunch of hard-driving cut-throat salesmen. In construction you have a lot of rambunctious, often hard-drinking and physical rowdies.

So it may be the case that, at this point in time, women are better suited to be bosses in some industries than others. Women often have better social skills than men, and may better as bosses who need good facilitation and listening skills. Men are often more monomaniacal than women, and may be better bosses in professions that require extremely focused management styles. In occupations where an intimidating physical presence is helpful, burly male bosses have an advantage. We shouldn't have workplaces like that, but reality is sometimes uncooperative.

The question has always been whether sex-based tendencies are are simply a matter of upbringing and social indoctrination, or a genetic and physical difference between the sexes. But it's obvious now that both men and women can have any of the skills and personality traits required of a boss: the only question is how people to react to them.

In the end, what matters is whether you can do the job: every person should be judged on their own merits, not other people's prejudices.

Mailbag!

I've had a few emails lately that need sharing First up is Jeff from Pennsylvania...

Hey Mark, more science pieces, please! The United States is on the cutting edge of scientific research in the world and I think you should showcase some of the latest inventions.

You are absolutely right, Jeff. I will endeavor to do so.

Marie from Utah...

How about some more posts about women's issues? You used to write about more of them back when you blog first started.

Did I? I guess it's hard for me to write on some of those subjects because I'm not a woman but I do see the need to touch on those topics more often. Most of my friends are women and they do say that I am all dude with the heart and soul of a woman!

Owen from Minnesota (hey, that's my hometown!),

My biggest complaint about your site is that you talk too much about politics. I have your blog on my RSS and I don't even bother if it's a political post. A big part of the reason for that are the comments. You should really moderate them and lay down some rules. The people that post here all the time are personally very insulting to you. That would not be allowed on a respectable site.

Well, this isn't a respectable site so if you have a problem with it, don't read it. As I have said many times, their comments serve a purpose, the core of which is a fantastic illustration of what conservatives are all about these days. By letting them say whatever they want, it's much easier to win elections:) Speaking of my commenters...

Suzie from Oregon...

Hey Mark, do you really use people's real names and states? Not My Name has a point about privacy. Don't use my real name if you post this. Just call me Suzie from Oregon.

I think you answered your own question, Suzie. And half the time I can't really tell what someone's name is from their email so I make one up and add the state based on my site tracking stats.

That's all for Mailbag this time, folks. Drop me a line in the form to the right of this post if you want to have your voice heard in a way other than comments.

Dudes, Paul Says Take A Chill Pill

Paul Begala's recent piece on the Affordable Care Act woes is very sound advice. He also takes a certain group of people to the mat who are very deserving.

Yet despite the bed-wetting from Beltway Chicken Littles, the President's problems are eminently fixable. The Affordable Care Act isn't collapsing. The Obama presidency isn't imploding. And the ninnies making those sweeping and stupid predictions will one day look like the Washington pundit who boldly declared of the Clinton presidency, "This week we can talk about 'Is the presidency over?' " He asked that question 11 days after Bill Clinton's inaugural. His first inaugural. Clinton's presidency was not over for another 2,911 days.

And look where President Clinton is now...hallowed in the ranks with Reagan, Lincoln and Roosevelt.

So, take a chill pill, folks and feel free to "stamp Obamacare to your forehead" as Reince Priebus suggests. In the long run, it's going to work out quite well. The party that tried to fix health care and ran into some snags will be viewed more favorably than the party that had nothing and against everything.

CBS and Benghazi

I've gotten more than a few emails wondering what I thought about the CBS News-Benghazi hullabaloo so I guess I better comment about it. My reluctance stems from a now core belief not to feed the insanity inside the right wing bubble. Give them a shining example of how lying about Benghazi is rampant and they will...continue to lie about Benghazi. Why? Because they are adolescents.

Besides, I think Bill Maher did a much better job of summing it all up than I ever could.

“He told a story about Benghazi and the night the s—- went down that was very damning to Obama. And of course, Fox News and the National Review and all the right-wing outlets said, ‘Hey! You gotta watch this!’” Maher said. Maher read a tweet from the National Review’s Jonah Goldberg that said the segment “corroborates” with Fox News’s reporting. “It sure does, ‘cause it turned out to be total bulls—-!” Maher said Maher then asked why there haven’t been retractions from the conservative media who promoted the interview, after it turned out to be a false account.

It will never cease to amaze me how people get sucked into this crap purely based on their emotions and pathological hatred of the president and anyone to the left of the 1 yard line on the right side of the field.

Hitchin' Your Wagon To Georgie's Star

Well, it looks like George Zimmerman has been arrested again and charged with aggravated felony assault. He lost his temper at his girlfriend, Samantha Scheibe, and pointed a shotgun at her. This comes as no surprise to those of us who live outside of the bubble of douche and will likely not move anyone who lives inside of it. Heck, she probably deserved it! Let's please make sure that Georgie gets to carry as many guns as he wants because he clearly is being responsible with them!!

I do hope, though, that at least a few folks might reflect and realize that hitchin' their wagon to his star wasn't the best idea. In fact, the whole incident demonstrates that all one really has to do with these sorts of incidents, issues and debates is be patient. Eventually, the "win" of the moment will be revealed for the paper fortress that it is.