Discarding Childish Garments

On this Memorial Day I happened to visit the Jefferson Memorial. One of the panels says:

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

In other word: it's a Constitution, not a strait jacket.

Nino and Clarence, take note.

Thanks, Pop

Jesus and Hyperbole

I got an email recently with this link in it.

Jesus’ message is clear—it is impossible for anyone to be saved on his own merits. Since wealth was seen as proof of God’s approval, it was commonly taught by the rabbis that rich people were blessed by God and were, therefore, the most likely candidates for heaven. Jesus destroyed that notion, and along with it, the idea that anyone can earn eternal life. The disciples had the appropriate response to this startling statement. They were utterly amazed and asked, “Who then can be saved?” in the next verse. If the wealthy among them, which included the super-spiritual Pharisees and scribes, were unworthy of heaven, what hope was there for a poor man? 

Jesus’ answer is the basis of the gospel: "With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God" (Matthew 19:26). Men are saved through God’s gifts of grace, mercy, and faith (Ephesians 2:8-9). Nothing we do earns salvation for us. It is the poor in spirit who inherit the kingdom of God (Matthew 5:3), those who recognize their spiritual poverty and their utter inability to do anything to justify themselves to a holy God. The rich man so often is blind to his spiritual poverty because he is proud of his accomplishments and has contented himself with his wealth. He is as likely to humble himself before God as a camel is to crawl through the eye of a needle. 

Very well written.

Trust

What Would A Libertarian Do?

The recent 30 year natural gas deal between Russia and China has me wondering....what would a libertarian president do about this? Given their isolationist tendencies, they would likely do nothing and let the free market do what it will.

But is that effective in the age of globalization? And does it leave the United States more vulnerable from the standpoint of economic competition (i.e. the new "world war")?

The Tenor of 2014

In some ways, the GOP primaries this week in Georgia and Kentucky have crystallized the tenor of the fall elections. It might seem on the surface that the so called "establishment" candidates have won or, in the case of Georgia, are involved in a runoff. There have been more than a few articles proclaiming that the Tea Party lost.

Yet the platforms of these victorious candidates sound just like the Tea Party. Mitch McConnell is essentially running against Barack Obama (see: Obama Mental Meltdown Syndrome), not Alison Grimes, a mistake which I think will cost him the election. That and the fact that Ms. Grimes is...um...a really good candidate.



If I were Senator McConnell, I'd spend less time obsessing about the president and more time talking his plans and how he will execute them. Does he really want the president to kick his ass a third time?

Down in Georgia, things just got a whole lot brighter for Michelle Nunn. Jack Kingston and David Perdue are now in a runoff so they get to spend the next nine weeks fighting each other while Ms. Nunn builds up her war chest. It's still going to be tough for her but again, both of these establishment candidates are sounding awfully Tea Partyish.

That suits me just fine. I think the GOP should go as far right as the want to go. It's just going to help out the Democrats this year and keep the Right out of the White House in 2016.

Long Weekends

Moral Ominvores

The question of how similar animals are to humans comes up frequently. People on the right think that animals are just our property and we can do anything we like to them. Animal rights people put them on a pedestal, elevating them above people because they're somehow purer and nobler than we callow humans.

A writer to the New York Times recently said:

We’ve known since Darwin that other animals are more like humans than they are unlike us. They are made of flesh, blood and bone, just as we are, and physiologically, they feel pain in the same way and to the same degree.

More and more, we are also learning that they have the same range of emotions and needs, including the need to play, a fact accentuated by the research showing that some mice enjoy running on wheels (“Mice Run for Fun, Not Just Work, Research Shows,” news article, May 21).

As your article rightly notes, each animal is an individual, just as each human is an individual; some will enjoy the wheel, others won’t. As we grow in our understanding of other animals, it is only a matter of time before we stop using them in experiments, for food and for human amusement.

This video of a wild mouse running on a wheel, apparently for fun, is what the writer was talking about. Anyone who has a pet or has worked with animals closely knows that animals have emotions and a certain coarse intelligence.

I can agree with the writer up to a point. We're not that different from animals. But his conclusion is just plain wrong. Entire animal species use other animals for food: carnivores such as cats, canines, sharks, bears and so on cannot survive without killing and eating other animals. Cats "play" with their food; whether this is for entertainment or experimentation I cannot venture a guess.

Why should humans be held to a different standard than other animals when it comes to our own survival? Dogs clearly have the capacity to feel empathy for other creatures, yet they must kill in order to survive. We are no different.

If it is a moral imperative to stop killing animals for food, is it not incumbent upon us to prevent other animals from killing? Wouldn't that mean the end of all carnivore species? Clearly it would be immoral to exterminate all carnivores, but we would have to do so to prevent killing. So we must allow carnivores to act according to their nature. By that logic we must allow other humans who consider themselves carnivores to act according to their nature, within the limits of ethics and morality.

Humans do not need to eat other animals to survive; we could find other sources of protein. But we have evolved to be omnivores, and there is nothing inherently immoral about being an omnivore or carnivore.

However, killing and torturing animals solely for pleasure is clearly immoral. People who do this are psychopaths, and they frequently move on to humans. it is in our best interests to prevent sadistic killers from using animals as their training subjects.

Warehousing chickens, pigs and cattle in factory farms is tantamount to torture; these practices should be curtailed not just because they're immoral, but because they create breeding grounds for diseases that will infect humans (SARS and swine flu, for example), and are one of the main causes of antibiotic resistant bacteria that may soon bring an end to modern medicine.

It is in our best interests to make sure our food and dairy animals are fed, housed and butchered in clean and humane circumstances.

So, yes, we need to remember that animals are creatures that live and breathe and have feelings. But we are omnivores just like bears are, and as long as we treat our prey ethically and humanely, we have nothing to be ashamed of.

What Is The Voynich Manuscript?

For many years, the Voynich Manuscript has befuddled historians and linguists alike. Discovered in 1912, this book is a collection of writings and illustrations that has everyone guessing what it means. A recent story from BBC details the history of this fascinating work and just how difficult it has been to decode. A wide range of theories persist...everything from the secret of life to time traveling aliens from the future.

So what exactly is it?

Taxpayers Should Foot The Bill

I've been mildly surprised although not entirely shocked that conservatives have not really taken President Obama to the mat over just how FUBAR the VA Hospital situation has become. The president campaigned on making improvement to veteran's care and things have gotten worse. We had these same problems during the Bush Administration and it seems that nothing has been done to improve them.

Yet, if you think about it for a minute, it makes sense that the GOP are tepid in their criticism of the president. They know that if they go full on Benghazi or Obamacare mad, it will bite them in the ass. Why? Because the main reason why the VA is so screwed up is Iraq and they don't want to open up the can of worms when they can see the Senate in their sights. Afghanistan (our longest war) is also a big factor. I think conservatives are also having a difficult time in balancing the "everything for the troops" ideology with the "cut spending now!" meme so they aren't really making as much of a fuss.

But they should. These are our troops so let's keep our eye on the ball people. This is not about "failure of government" or adolescent glee (see: inferiority complex, insecurity, envy of success) at the president doing a bad job with this issue. It's about fixing the problem and making sure the troops are well cared for in our society. They volunteered to put their life on the line for us so they deserve the best care, indeed the best life, that money can buy. Both President Obama and President Bush have done a terrible job in handling Veteran's Affairs. This needs to change...yesterday. I don't want to see any more fucking stories about a veteran getting poor care, not being adequately treated for PTSD or other mental issues, or living in poverty.

Their quality of life should be much higher and taxpayers should foot the bill.

Meet Your Conservative Movement

By request, I am putting up this link again.

MEET YOUR CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT

This is my personal favorite from that collection of fear, hate, and anger. Good thing racism is over!

Good Words

But that’s not the debate that’s taking place right now. The debate we’re having right now is about, what, Benghazi? Obamacare? And it becomes this endless loop. It’s not serious. It’s not speaking to the real concerns that people have. We’ve got one party in Congress right now that has been captured by ideologues whose core premise is ‘no’ — who fundamentally believe that the problem is government. 

The GOP’s main task is to figure out how can they make people sufficiently cynical, sufficiently angry, sufficiently suspicious that they can win the next election.

--President Barack Obama, May 19, 2014 

A Global Model For Equity

Conservatives in this country live inside of a bubble but we, as Americans, live inside one as well. I lived in Europe for a year and it honestly help me break out of the United States bubble. We have far too many notions in this country (way too many dictated by the Right) that simply aren't true. For example, democratic socialism is viewed largely with disdain. Certainly, I have my problems with it but it's not communism/Marxism/boiling pit of sewage as we are nauseatingly warned day after day by the right wing bubble.

This myth is more or less destroyed by this recent piece in the Christian Science Monitor. Let's start off with this graphic.

What kind of a life does this mean for Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Finland and Sweden?

They get comprehensive pensions, unemployment insurance, and universal health care. Losing a job, while professionally defeating, doesn’t turn into financial demise. Nor does a long-term illness. The welfare state means free university education and heavily subsidized all-day preschools. Public spending on day care and early education in the Nordic countries averages 1.4 percent of gross domestic product; it is less than 0.4 percent in the US, for example. The result is a robust middle class. All five Nordic nations rank in the top 10 most equal countries globally, according to the OECD. (The US, by comparison, sits at 31, just above Turkey and Mexico.) 

How does this happen? 

The earned income tax burden for a family of four with a single wage earner in Sweden is close to 38 percent, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), compared with the United States at 20.3 percent (and 38 percent in Finland, 31 percent in Norway, and 28 percent in Denmark). 

So, higher taxes and everyone benefits. But does this mean that the wealthy are soaked?

There are, of course, variations in incomes in Sweden, and there is the opportunity to become wealthy – for example, Stefan Persson, chairman of H&M, is listed by Forbes as the 16th richest person in the world. A doctor might earn twice as much as a teacher and pay more taxes, but is ultimately wealthier than the teacher.

Nope. Are corporations flourishing?

All the creative output flourishing here tests assumptions about the ability of capitalism to thrive under big government. Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, and Iceland, with a collective 26 million inhabitants, don’t just produce successful companies. They have a creative capacity that transcends language and cultural barriers to fascinate, humor, and entertain global markets. Think Ylvis, the Norwegian comedy duo and their viral YouTube hit “What Does the Fox Say?” Or “Nordic Noir” crime fiction like Denmark’s TV series “The Killing,” and the Swedish Stieg Larsson book and movie franchise that started with “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.” Or Icelandic singer-songwriter Björk. 

And these countries have pioneered public policies, the effects of which – if not the tax burden – are the envy of the common man worldwide: from universal preschool and paternity leave to vocational training schools and voucher programs for private schools. 

Yep.

In looking at this article, I have to wonder what all hysteria is about in this country when we talk about "big" government. Why can't this work here? The answers to this question seem to be rooted in fear of the unknown and that timeless fault of purely selfish greed. There is a prevailing sense in this country that's what mine is mine and fuck you if you try to take the fruits of my hard earned labors. Setting aside the idea that they are even hard earned in the first place, what kind of a country do these people want to live in? One with gated communities where the most successful businesses are either dollar stores or luxury good suppliers? Or one as described in this piece?

The first step we need to take is to torpedo the idea that governmental structures that we see in Nordic countries could never work here. Why? It pisses me off that we're getting our ass kicked in the quality of life department by the likes of Sweden, Iceland, and Finland. We can do much, much better.  Of course, getting past this step requires that we stop listening to the right and deprogram the willful ignorants inside of the cult bubble.

This is the raison d'etre of this site. 

So How Can We Tell Those Good Guys With Guns From The Bad Guys With Guns Again?

Impeach Barack Obama

I put up a clip from last week's Real Time below but the final new rule is really the best part of that show. The GOP talks a good game about Benghazi but they don't have the sack to impeach the president. That tells me that the hearings that are starting today serve no other purpose aside from this.

Why Were Conservatives Okay With Government Up Until Five Years Ago?

Atari Game Dump

The BBC recently reported on an Atari game dump long since rumored to be a myth. The 14 year old me would be so happy. Free games!!

Where Is The Conservative Outrage Over This?

Minimum Wage=$25 An Hour?

Is Switzerland poised to have a minimum wage of $25  an hour? It will be interesting to find out. If they do, we could finally see exactly how much of an effect raising the minimum wage would have on unemployment and inflation. Could the effect turn out to be negligible because wage increases lead to a rise in aggregate demand that exceeds layoffs? Thus negating any layoffs and/or inflation?

Regardless, the article notes how much of an effect discussions of raising the minimum wage are having.

Supporters have something to show whether it passes or not: Some large companies such as clothing retailer H&M and supermarket chain Lidl have already agreed to raise their wages to the proposed minimum.

The same thing is happening here and will likely increase as the wealthy of the United States are realizing just how much of a destabilizing effect inequality has on our country.

How The Gun Cult Deals With "Gun Grabbers"

And that's only the beginning...