Here's a great analysis of the Bowe Bergdahl story from one of my questions on Quora.
I've been debating this with a friend in the military. From what we know now he does not deserve it. But it was the right thing to do. Lets break it down.
1. Leave no man behind. It is not leave no man behind except for people who have yet to be tried for desertion. While it looks like he does not deserve to benefit from this policy, the problem is that once the Commander in Chief starts making exemptions, it becomes a slippery slope.
2. Prisoner exchange. Warring parties have been doing this for a long time. Israel releases hundreds, even over a thousand prisoners, for one Israeli soldier.
3. No negotiation with terrorists. He was classified as a prisoner of war, not a civilian hostage. No negotiation with terrorists? So we never negotiate with the Taliban? What about a peace treaty? What about Iran, who sponsors terrorism? No negotiation with them? We negotiate with our enemies not our friends.
4. The released prisoners will be fighting us. Of course they will. And in most other exchanges, we might put the soldier back into the armed forces. That is the nature of prisoner exchanges. Its part of the deal.
5. He was a deserter. Yes, it looks like it. He deserves to be held to account for this upon his return. But, he first needs to be returned and then tried.
6. He was a traitor. I have yet to see any evidence that he took up arms against the US or collaborated with the enemy.
7. He caused the death of six others. If found to be the case after his trial, I expect the punishment to take that into account.
8. Failure to notify Congress. At issue, but the executive branch should be held accountable. If this were a war hero, nobody would be complaining under these circumstances.
9. Glorification. Neither Obama nor Hagel heaped any praise upon him. Rice did exercise poor judgment in her words. All the attention he got is a double edged sword. I think he is going to become the subject of scorn and seen as the undeserving beneficiary of a longstanding policy.
Pretty much hits on all the points quite well!
Tuesday, June 03, 2014
Pro Life My Ass
Bodies of 800 babies, long-dead, found in septic tank at former Irish home for unwed mothers.
More than five decades after the Home was closed and destroyed — where a housing development and children’s playground now stands — what happened to nearly 800 of those abandoned children has now emerged: Their bodies were piled into a massive septic tank sitting in the back of the structure and forgotten, with neither gravestones nor coffins.
“The bones are still there,” local historian Catherine Corless, who uncovered the origins of the mass grave in a batch of never-before-released documents, told The Washington Post in a phone interview. “The children who died in the Home, this was them.”
More than five decades after the Home was closed and destroyed — where a housing development and children’s playground now stands — what happened to nearly 800 of those abandoned children has now emerged: Their bodies were piled into a massive septic tank sitting in the back of the structure and forgotten, with neither gravestones nor coffins.
“The bones are still there,” local historian Catherine Corless, who uncovered the origins of the mass grave in a batch of never-before-released documents, told The Washington Post in a phone interview. “The children who died in the Home, this was them.”
Monday, June 02, 2014
The Amnesia of the Right
Apparently Ted Cruz is suffering from an acute case of amnesia. He blew a bowel on television last weekend over the Bowe Bergdahl prisoner exchange saying, "U.S. policy has changed, now we make deals with terrorists."
Doesn't he remember that conservative hero Ronald Reagan traded arms for hostages?
Thankfully, Politifact is there to sort it all out. I'll add in that Israel does this sort of thing all the time and we don't see Republicans ripping into them, now do we?
Doesn't he remember that conservative hero Ronald Reagan traded arms for hostages?
Thankfully, Politifact is there to sort it all out. I'll add in that Israel does this sort of thing all the time and we don't see Republicans ripping into them, now do we?
Sunday, June 01, 2014
A "Scientific" Climate Skeptic
I recently visited my sister- and brother-in-law in Washington, DC. They both worked for government agencies for decades, and have both retired, though they're contracting back to the departments they retired from.
He's a climate-change skeptic. He has a background in physics, math and languages, and worked as a technical analyst for 40 years. He believes that increases in carbon dioxide concentrations will not cause global warming. His "proof" is that there was a large increase in global temperatures between 1970 and 1998 (which was the hottest year on record), and since then the increases in atmospheric temperatures have been "almost" flat even though CO2 levels have increased almost 10% (from about 367 ppm in 1998 to around 400 ppm today).
When he "proves" this to me he uses Google to summon up charts of CO2 levels that show that CO2 has continued to rise at "dramatic" rates, and then he summons charts of atmospheric temperature that show only a slight increase. When he eyeballs the charts he is convinced the very wobbly curve of mean global temperature is completely flat. When I eyeball it, I see a slight rise (which is upheld in the actual data).
According to him, CO2 doesn't cause global warming because the rate of change has gone down since 1998 while CO2 levels have gone up! This is the commonest trick of skeptics -- they repeat over and over that the rate of change going down! Whenever someone talks about the rate of change instead of the actual change be very wary. They're probably trying to slip something past you.
The fact is, mean global temperatures are still going up, albeit more slowly since before 1998. Hotter is still hotter, even if it's getting hotter more slowly. Thirteen of the 14 warmest years on record have occurred since 2000. It's 2014. You do the math.
If you mention the "97% of climate scientists" who agree that global warming is anthropogenic, he lays into you with a canned story about how that number was arrived at by some cartoonist who reviewed climate papers and tossed out those that didn't state a conclusion about anthropogenic climate change. The thing is, that's not how scientists work. The point of most papers is not to prove or disprove global warming, but to provide data about some aspect of the physical world. In papers about tree rings, or CO2 levels in ice cores, or arctic sea ice coverage the personal opinion of the author about global warming is not germane: only the data matters. So you would expect the vast majority of papers reporting climate measurements to not venture an opinion about anthropogenic climate change.
Just like you wouldn't expect the nurse who takes your temperature and blood pressure at the doctor's office to offer an opinion about whether you'll die of a heart attack. It's more complicated than just one measurement.
The 97% consensus conclusion has been arrived at by at least three different papers, which are cited on a NASA page on climate change consensus. They were published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Eos Transactions of the American Geophysical Union and Science, not the comics page of the New York Daily News. One of the papers actually surveyed climate scientists [Doran], and found that 97.2% of actively publishing climatologists said yes, "human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures."
Then my brother-in-law delivers his "gotcha" question. "Do you believe that the increased concentration of CO2 will make the concentration of other gases go down?" Well, yes, but so what? I ask. The sheer quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere is going up. With more CO2, more infrared photons reflected from the earth's surface will be absorbed by CO2 and heat the atmosphere instead of radiating into space, because there are more CO2 molecules to absorb it. The relatively lower concentration of other gases won't lessen that effect. When I say this he has no real response, apparently ignoring the physical reality of the greenhouse effect.
Even though he thinks he has given this a great deal of thought, when I ask him directly what physical mechanism will prevent that larger number of CO2 molecules from absorbing a larger number of reflected infrared photons, he has no answer.
Though the relative concentration of gases in the atmosphere is apparently the capstone of his argument against anthropogenic CO2 greenhouse warming, he seems to have simply stopped there. He apparently has not tried to determine what that effect might be. Here's some analysis:
The most basic result of fossil fuel combustion is that each molecule of CO2 produced removes one free molecule of O2 (oxygen) from the atmosphere. The reactions for burning natural gas and isooctane (one of the components of gasoline; other components are similar) are:
CH4 + 2 O2 → CO2 + 2 H2O + heat
2 C8H18 + 25 O2 → 16 CO2 + 18 H2O + heat
That is, burning fossil fuels creates two greenhouse gases (CO2 and H2O), warms the atmosphere directly by releasing heat from the chemical reaction, and directly reduces the amount of free molecular oxygen in the atmosphere. Burning fossil fuels does not simply change the relative concentrations of gases because we're adding more CO2. It destroys free oxygen and creates carbon dioxide, locking the oxygen up in CO2 molecules until something else uses energy to separate the carbon and oxygen molecules -- say, a leaf struck by sunlight using photosynthesis to convert CO2 and water into glucose and oxygen. This is why CO2 stays in the atmosphere for a long time -- it takes energy to take it out of the atmosphere and store it in the form of plant material.
Water vapor in climate models is the wild card -- it's very difficult to ascertain whether the greenhouse warming effects of the water vapor will be greater than the cooling effects of clouds and potential snowfalls. Climatologists are always careful to note this.
My brother-in-law doesn't mention the actual chemical reactions of fossil fuel combustion at all. The only thing he will say is that there's no proof that more CO2 will cause the temperature of the earth to rise. He says this even though he admits that CO2 and water vapor are greenhouse gases, and that the greenhouse effect is real and is in fact what makes earth habitable at all (mostly due to water vapor). Without the greenhouse effect, we know from second quarter physics that the temperature of the earth would be less than zero degrees (255 Kelvins). Venus and Mars, which have mostly carbon dioxide atmospheres, are also warmed by CO2's greenhouse effect (the temperature on Venus -- 850 F -- is hot enough to melt lead and zinc: pennies dropped on a Venusian sidewalk would melt).
So, he insists that I accept the existence of some unstated process that will neutralize the greenhouse effect of CO2 when the relative concentrations of atmospheric gases are changed because of the introduction of more CO2 and the elimination of an equivalent amount of molecular oxygen. And he thinks that I'm being unscientific because I won't accept the existence of that mysterious, unknown and unstated effect.
In any case, CO2 and water vapor are not the only things we put into the atmosphere. For decades the chlorofluorocarbons we used for refrigeration escaped unnoticed into the atmosphere. When we discovered that it was creating a hole in the ozone layer (causing increased UV exposure and ultimately more skin cancer) the governments of the world agreed to cut down on CFC production, and switch to other gases.
The thing is, CFCs are powerful greenhouse gases that do not occur naturally and last a very long time. The CFC protocol has been successful, and CFC concentrations have declined by more than 10% since 1992. Raw concentrations of CFCs are much lower than CO2, but their global warming potential is 10,000 times greater than CO2's. Is it mere coincidence that the fastest increase in mean global temperatures occurred while CFC concentrations increased? Has some of the slower temperature increase since 1998 been due to falling concentrations of CFCs?
Since 1998 China has overtaken the United States as the largest emitter of CO2. Most of China's emissions are from coal-fired power plants. At the same time the United States has been using much less coal, and more natural gas. Burning coal puts aerosols in the atmosphere that block sunlight and make the earth cooler. This has caused "global dimming." Injecting aerosols such as sulfur dioxide, hydrogen sulfide or carbonyl sulfide into the stratosphere has even been suggested as a "geoengineering" solution to global warming.
In other words, we may not be seeing temperatures rise as fast since 1998 because China is putting so much crap in the air that it's blocking sunlight and slowing the temperature increase that higher CO2 levels would cause. It's also killing millions in China.
We also fly a lot of airplanes, and those planes emit CO2 and water vapor, forming contrails in the stratosphere. Like clouds, contrails reflect sunlight and infrared, which has the effect of lowering the temperature at the earth's surface during the day and increasing it at night:
The near-total shutdown of civil air traffic during the three days following the September 11, 2001 attacks afforded a unique opportunity in which to observe the climate of the United States absent from the effect of contrails. During this period, an increase in diurnal temperature variation of over 1 °C (1.8 °F) was observed in some parts of the U.S., i.e. aircraft contrails may have been raising nighttime temperatures and/or lowering daytime temperatures by much more than previously thought.In recent years the arctic ice cap has receded drastically during the summer, leaving more deep blue sea exposed to sunlight, causing more evaporation and more water vapor in the atmosphere. More water vapor may mean more clouds, which may increase the earth's albedo (reflectivity), which may cool it.
Indeed, the old argument against global warming was that there was some "natural" mechanism that would keep temperatures stable and that water vapor, clouds and snowfalls would prevent a runaway greenhouse effect. Which is true to an extent; no one thinks that earth will turn into another Venus any time soon. But it's completely within the realm of possibility that earth will return to the state it was in during the Cretaceous period, with much higher mean global temperatures and sea levels 20 meters or more higher than now.
Which is exactly what climate scientists are concerned about: they're not saying we're entering some strange new world that has never been; they're saying that we're causing in 100 or so years something that would have taken millions of years to happen naturally. We're creating conditions that once existed on the planet that will not be conducive to raising crops adapted to our current climate. They're saying that that billions of people will be at risk of death or being displaced when rising sea levels make hurricanes more destructive to coastal areas and flood major cities like Miami and New York. All of which will cost trillions of dollars.
Furthermore, the temperature of the atmosphere is not the only thing that matters. Ocean temperatures have continued to rise, as well as sea levels (due to both expansion and glacier melt), since 1998. Deep ocean temperatures have risen; it may well be that atmospheric temperatures are rising more slowly and ocean temperatures are rising more quickly. Since water has greater thermal inertia, and there's so much more ocean than atmosphere, even tiny increases in ocean temperatures could hide planetary warming if all you do is stare myopically at mean global air temperatures.
The thing is, the sea doesn't have to boil to cause problems. Coral reefs are very sensitive to temperature changes, and higher CO2 levels have increased the acidity of the ocean, which is literally eating away the shells of certain sea creatures and causing coral bleaching. Which means significant changes in ocean ecologies, potentially leading to a collapse of our fishing industries.
In his arguments my brother-in-law doesn't concern himself with these practical, real-world effects of climate change. The only thing he zeroes in on is atmospheric temperature increases due to anthropogenic CO2. He cares not one whit for any of the other aspects of climate change, instead demanding proof that higher CO2 levels will increase atmospheric temperatures.
He complains about how CO2 levels obtained from ice cores 10,000 years old are "smeared" because of migrations of bubbles in the ice. There might be, he says, huge spikes of CO2 like the ones we're encountering now, but we just can't see them because they're averaged out. This might be true, but it's mostly irrelevant. The average is in fact what matters, and there was nothing during those periods creating the massive infusions of CO2 that we know we are creating now. As long as we burn fossil fuels at our current rates, the CO2 levels will continue to rise and stay at those high levels for decades and centuries, even after we stop spewing CO2. There is no dispute that we are responsible for almost doubling CO2 levels since 1750; the only thing climate skeptics can dispute is whether that increase will have serious consequences.
He also completely ignores forms of climate change that have nothing to do with burning fossil fuels. We have deforested vast areas of the planet: in the Amazon hundreds of thousands of square kilometers have been burned and turned to crop production, mostly soy beans and sugar cane. Burning trees not only puts CO2 and particulates like soot into the atmosphere, it also changes the local climate. Trees keep soil temperatures cooler and reduce water loss due to evaporation. There's also evidence that trees actually induce rainfall; replacing them with crops actually reduces the amount of rain the land receives. In the American Midwest millions of acres of oak savannas and prairies have been converted into cropland since the 1800s. That changed the climate, exacerbated the drought and caused the Dustbowl of the 1930s.
But my brother-in-law brushes off all these other things. He simply insists that there's no proof that CO2 is increasing global temperatures, and ignores everything else.
So, I have to ask myself why my brother-in-law would become a climate skeptic. He is a very smart guy. He knows it, and he revels in making sure everyone else knows it. He says that he hates fossil fuels. He says he used to accept anthropogenic global warming but when he "looked into it," he found the arguments against it convincing.
But I'm not convinced of the genesis of this belief. He appears to be viscerally disgusted by people who accept anthropogenic global warming "almost like a religion," without understanding any of the science behind it. I can certainly understand why someone would dislike people accepting unsubstantiated dogmas as truths.
But there's more to it than that. He has an underlying personality tic that leads him to want to intellectually trump everyone he meets. He is a contrarian not just about global warming, but about everything. This, rather than the science, seems to be the true root of his skepticism of climate change.
He has a devilish little smile when he relates stories of how he confounds the annoying drones who are responsible for quizzing him for the routine security clearance for his government job. The smile also appears when he describes how he has consistently failed his polygraphs, and his interrogators insist must be hiding something (I'm sure he's not; he's just yanking their chains). It appears when he describes the inadequacies of the man who used to direct the musical group he's a member of. And he has that same devilish smile when he talks about climate change. Some would call that smile arrogant or supercilious. Some would call it a sneer, rather than a smile. I simply find his anecdotes entertaining. Most of the time.
When I realized that, I finally understood why he has no explanation to back his thesis of increaseing CO2 concentrations and the greenhouse effect; a large part of his skepticism is due to his quirky contrarian personality, which has only been amplified as he has entered cranky old codgerdom (a process with which I am personally familiar: my codgerdom manifests itself as a dogged refusal to let people get away with bogus arguments).
Non-scientific motivations are common among climate skeptics. For some it's economic: they think it would damage the economy (or their personal wealth) if we reduced CO2 emissions. For some it's resignation: they think it's politically impossible to do anything to stop it, so we shouldn't even try. For some it's spite: they reflexively oppose anything their enemies hold to be true, regardless of its scientific or moral validity, or even if they themselves believed it at some point in the not-so-distant past. For some it's apathy: they'll be dead, so why should they inconvenience themselves to save other people's grandkids? For some it's incomprehension: they have no idea what those guys are talking about, so they're just going to ignore it.
From the science it's obvious that the issue of climate change is extremely complex. There are many variables, and we're doing all sorts of things that will affect climate, some increasing and others decreasing mean global temperatures. Neither I nor my brother-in-law are trained climate scientists, though we have comparable levels of education in the sciences. But neither of us knows enough real climate science to make any kind of definitive judgment about the scientific evidence. Both of us must rely on others to provide and interpret the data. He chooses to rely on climate skeptics who have pecuniary interests in the status quo, spend millions of dollars trying to discredit climate scientists with campaigns that include hacking the email accounts of scientists, inundating West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Ohio with billboards touting "clean" coal and denigrating wind and solar power, and spreading innuendo and rumor across the Internet. I choose to rely on real climate scientists who make the actual measurements, create physical and mathematical climate models, write complex computer simulations that are verified against historical data, and publish in refereed scientific journals.
It's always a good idea to reexamine your data, revisit your analysis and make sure that you haven't fallen prey to group think. I do not think that's what my brother-in-law has done. He posits that the basic physical properties of carbon dioxide will change based on the relative concentrations of other gases. I think that's incorrect; CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and we're putting a hell of a lot of it into the atmosphere. Unless we're also putting stuff into the atmosphere that's lowering temperatures or doing something else that creates a cooling effect, increasing CO2 levels will increase temperatures. It's simple physics.
Ultimately, global warming is not the only reason to stop burning fossil fuels. Getting them out of the ground is dangerous and dirty (extracting them kills miners, poisons our lakes, rivers, and aquifers, and causes earthquakes). Burning them fills our air, land, lakes and rivers with disease-causing gases, particulates and toxic waste. And there's only a limited quantity of fossil fuels; once they're gone, they're all gone. No matter how many arctic wilderness areas we drill-baby-drill, the supply of fossil fuel is finite. Ultimately we will have to turn to other energy sources.
With all the other problems that burning fossil fuels cause, the conservative thing to do is wean ourselves off them while we still have the energy and financial resources to make the transition safe and easy. If we put off the switch until all the oil and gas are gone, we're guaranteeing ourselves a very dismal future as all the countries of the world fight over the few remaining patches of oil under the north pole and the deep ocean floors.
If moving away from fossil fuels is too difficult for us now, imagine how much more difficult it will be when we have to deal with drought, floods, food shortages, disease, sea level rise, and mass migrations of people from coastal areas.
Amen
And any religion that professes to be concerned about the souls of men and is not concerned about the slums that cripple the souls—the economic conditions that stagnate the soul and the city governments that may damn the soul—is a dry, dead, do-nothing religion in need of new blood.
(Dr. Martin Luther King, 27 August 1967)
(Dr. Martin Luther King, 27 August 1967)
Saturday, May 31, 2014
If The Jews, Then Why Not The Blacks?
Consider what sort of a reception a person might get if they were to proclaim that all that Holocaust stuff should be left in the past. Anti-Semitism? Pshaw! That's just a bunch of race baiting!! I think said person would be instantly taken down by just about everyone across the political spectrum.
So, why isn't this the case with the issue of race and African Americans in the United States? Any sort of claim of racism is heavily scrutinized and often vilified, especially by the right. Why?
So, why isn't this the case with the issue of race and African Americans in the United States? Any sort of claim of racism is heavily scrutinized and often vilified, especially by the right. Why?
Friday, May 30, 2014
We're Stupid!
Climate deniers have been dealt some very serious blows of late as they see their bizarre reality bubble contracting very quickly. So what should they do? Well, I guess this...
Republicans on climate science: Don't ask us
"I'm not qualified..."
"I'm not a scientist..."
"We are not experts..."
Yeah, no shit, Sherlocks. Tell us something we don't know.
So, if this is the case, how can any of them claim that it's a hoax? More importantly, will this mean that right wing bloggers and commenters will also use ignorance as a defense? :)
Republicans on climate science: Don't ask us
"I'm not qualified..."
"I'm not a scientist..."
"We are not experts..."
Yeah, no shit, Sherlocks. Tell us something we don't know.
So, if this is the case, how can any of them claim that it's a hoax? More importantly, will this mean that right wing bloggers and commenters will also use ignorance as a defense? :)
What Could Possibly Go Wrong?
Oklahoma City gun range cafe given liquor license
Wilshire Gun Range, a 40,000-square-foot facility with 24 firearm lanes, 10 archery lanes and a full bar, will be able to serve drinks after The Oklahoma City Council approved the state's first ever liquor license to a gun range.
What could possibly go wrong?
Wilshire Gun Range, a 40,000-square-foot facility with 24 firearm lanes, 10 archery lanes and a full bar, will be able to serve drinks after The Oklahoma City Council approved the state's first ever liquor license to a gun range.
What could possibly go wrong?
Thursday, May 29, 2014
Wednesday, May 28, 2014
The Best Quote On Guns In Human History
From an answer on Quora...
There is little doubt that armed teachers could have possibly saved lives in the Newtown shooting.
There is also little doubt in my mind that widespread arming of teachers would at some point result in an accidental shooting of a child, access to a firearm by a child, and a tragic deliberate shooting of an innocent adult due to a misunderstanding or overreaction.
The fundamental problem with most positions on firearm legislation is that they are myopic. The average gun advocate is a responsible, law abiding person with legitimate and justifiable arguments for people like them to possess firearms, and they are no danger to themselves or others. Yet they fail to understand that not everyone is like them. Not everyone can handle the responsibility of a firearm. When the law supports their right to bear arms, it also supports the rights of almost every other citizen to bear arms; many of whom are not responsible enough to do so safely.
As a former soldier I have been trained in the use of a number of firearms from pistols to machine guns. I teach my son and daughter to use an archery bow, and I impress upon them the gravity and responsibility of wielding a deadly weapon. I owned a hunting rifle and later a hunting shotgun, which were surrendered in the Australian buyback following the Port Arthur massacre. There are times, especially in the dead of night, when I wonder how I would defend my family against an armed intruder and I miss having that shotgun - after all, criminals still have access to guns in this country. But I understand that for me to have the right to own firearms for home defence, my neighbour and millions of my fellow citizens must also have that right. I know that most of those people have not had my training and do not have my respect for weapons, and on balance I feel safer with them not having them. And that's just the stable, law abiding ones.
On balance, I feel that arming teachers would cause more harm, when viewed on a national scale, than good. Rather than a knee jerk reaction to militarise schools, I believe that the US would be better served by reviewing firearm laws to make the ownership of guns a revokable privilege rather than a universal right; by putting in place restrictions on automatic firearms and large capacity magazines; by verifying the character, mental state and training of gun purchasers; by licensing guns to owners and making unlicensed transfers a felony; by improving their mental health services and by ending the glorification of gun violence and perpetrators in the news media.
Well balanced...thoughtful...intelligent...and, most importantly, highly illustrative of the complexities of the gun issue.
There is little doubt that armed teachers could have possibly saved lives in the Newtown shooting.
There is also little doubt in my mind that widespread arming of teachers would at some point result in an accidental shooting of a child, access to a firearm by a child, and a tragic deliberate shooting of an innocent adult due to a misunderstanding or overreaction.
The fundamental problem with most positions on firearm legislation is that they are myopic. The average gun advocate is a responsible, law abiding person with legitimate and justifiable arguments for people like them to possess firearms, and they are no danger to themselves or others. Yet they fail to understand that not everyone is like them. Not everyone can handle the responsibility of a firearm. When the law supports their right to bear arms, it also supports the rights of almost every other citizen to bear arms; many of whom are not responsible enough to do so safely.
As a former soldier I have been trained in the use of a number of firearms from pistols to machine guns. I teach my son and daughter to use an archery bow, and I impress upon them the gravity and responsibility of wielding a deadly weapon. I owned a hunting rifle and later a hunting shotgun, which were surrendered in the Australian buyback following the Port Arthur massacre. There are times, especially in the dead of night, when I wonder how I would defend my family against an armed intruder and I miss having that shotgun - after all, criminals still have access to guns in this country. But I understand that for me to have the right to own firearms for home defence, my neighbour and millions of my fellow citizens must also have that right. I know that most of those people have not had my training and do not have my respect for weapons, and on balance I feel safer with them not having them. And that's just the stable, law abiding ones.
On balance, I feel that arming teachers would cause more harm, when viewed on a national scale, than good. Rather than a knee jerk reaction to militarise schools, I believe that the US would be better served by reviewing firearm laws to make the ownership of guns a revokable privilege rather than a universal right; by putting in place restrictions on automatic firearms and large capacity magazines; by verifying the character, mental state and training of gun purchasers; by licensing guns to owners and making unlicensed transfers a felony; by improving their mental health services and by ending the glorification of gun violence and perpetrators in the news media.
Well balanced...thoughtful...intelligent...and, most importantly, highly illustrative of the complexities of the gun issue.
Tuesday, May 27, 2014
Looking Tough
Michelle Nunn, the Democratic Candidate for Senate in Georgia, is leading both Jack Kingston and David Perdue in the polls with Kingston being the weaker of the two candidates. Recall that the race in Kentucky is very tight as well so the notion that this is going to be a Republican wave isn't really accurate. If the GOP picks up South Dakota and West Virginia (which they likely will) but loses Georgia and Kentucky, I don't think they can win back control of the Senate. They'd have to win 6 of the other 7 "tossup" seats in order to take the Senate.
And some of those tossups aren't really tossups with Iowa, Michigan and Colorado likely going to stay blue. Even with North Carolina, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Alaska going red, it still wouldn't be enough. No doubt, this is going to be a very tough election for both Democrats and Republicans.
And some of those tossups aren't really tossups with Iowa, Michigan and Colorado likely going to stay blue. Even with North Carolina, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Alaska going red, it still wouldn't be enough. No doubt, this is going to be a very tough election for both Democrats and Republicans.
Monday, May 26, 2014
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.
Sunday, May 25, 2014
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.
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.
Saturday, May 24, 2014
Friday, May 23, 2014
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")?
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.
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.
Thursday, May 22, 2014
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.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.
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.
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?
So what exactly is it?
Wednesday, May 21, 2014
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.
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!
MEET YOUR CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT
This is my personal favorite from that collection of fear, hate, and anger. Good thing racism is over!
Tuesday, May 20, 2014
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
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.
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.
Monday, May 19, 2014
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.
Sunday, May 18, 2014
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!!
Saturday, May 17, 2014
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.
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.
Friday, May 16, 2014
Thursday, May 15, 2014
Good Words
Bill Maher on Benghazi and impeachment...
It is a phony thing. It's been a phony thing from the beginning. I mean, it's a tragedy but not everything bad that happens in the world is Obama's fault. Of course, that is always their template for everything is to work backwards from everything Obama's evil, Obama's a socialist, Obama's a screw-up. Somehow he is simultaneously an evil genius and also completely incompetent and just terrible dumb. So, it depends on what day it is. It's funny.
At the end of our show this week, our little editorial is about we're egging Republicans on to impeach him, because I think that would be very good for Obama, if they would go ahead and impeach him. And I would like to challenge the Republicans. If Benghazi is as awful as they say it is then isn't it your obligation to impeach him? And that would be great, because that would fire up the left wing base. So I'd like to see the impeachment go forward. I’d like to see them put their money where their mouth is.
It is a phony thing. It's been a phony thing from the beginning. I mean, it's a tragedy but not everything bad that happens in the world is Obama's fault. Of course, that is always their template for everything is to work backwards from everything Obama's evil, Obama's a socialist, Obama's a screw-up. Somehow he is simultaneously an evil genius and also completely incompetent and just terrible dumb. So, it depends on what day it is. It's funny.
At the end of our show this week, our little editorial is about we're egging Republicans on to impeach him, because I think that would be very good for Obama, if they would go ahead and impeach him. And I would like to challenge the Republicans. If Benghazi is as awful as they say it is then isn't it your obligation to impeach him? And that would be great, because that would fire up the left wing base. So I'd like to see the impeachment go forward. I’d like to see them put their money where their mouth is.
The Size of the Wave
Larry Sabato has an interesting piece up about the 2014 Election. Checkout his two graphics.
I largely agree with his metric. I'd say that South Dakota, West Virginia and Montana are pretty much out of reach. He makes an interesting case for West Virginia and Montana staying blue but we have to be realistic.
I rank Mary Landrieu as being more in danger than Pryor. The latest polls show Pryor up fairly high and I think he is going to hold on. Tom Cotton is a flawed candidate and people really love Pryor. I think Begich will hold on as well. Hagan is a giant ? in North Carolina.
So, my early prognostication after delving in to Sabato's work and adding in my analysis is that the Republicans will pick up South Dakota, West Virginia, Montana, Louisiana, and probably North Carolina. Yet they will lose Kentucky, leaving the Senate at 51-49. Take this prediction with a boulder of salt and realize that it's just an exercise in folly at this point, done purely for the fun of me being political nerd.
Of course, the teacher nerd in me would love it if the Senate ended up tied 50-50. Think of the civics lessons it would produce!! Cue Joe Biden...:)
I largely agree with his metric. I'd say that South Dakota, West Virginia and Montana are pretty much out of reach. He makes an interesting case for West Virginia and Montana staying blue but we have to be realistic.
I rank Mary Landrieu as being more in danger than Pryor. The latest polls show Pryor up fairly high and I think he is going to hold on. Tom Cotton is a flawed candidate and people really love Pryor. I think Begich will hold on as well. Hagan is a giant ? in North Carolina.
So, my early prognostication after delving in to Sabato's work and adding in my analysis is that the Republicans will pick up South Dakota, West Virginia, Montana, Louisiana, and probably North Carolina. Yet they will lose Kentucky, leaving the Senate at 51-49. Take this prediction with a boulder of salt and realize that it's just an exercise in folly at this point, done purely for the fun of me being political nerd.
Of course, the teacher nerd in me would love it if the Senate ended up tied 50-50. Think of the civics lessons it would produce!! Cue Joe Biden...:)
Wednesday, May 14, 2014
Grist For Its Fantasy Mill
Richard Cohen has most brilliantly summed up the confusion over why Republicans simply can't let go of Benghazi.
I feel about the GOP as I do about the religion of others: I don't get it. I know feelings can be strong and reason plays little part in it -- faith is faith, after all -- and this is the way I see the GOP snits about the IRS and, more pertinently, Benghazi. What are these people talking about?
Four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, died in the 2012 attack in Benghazi, Libya -- two from mortar fire, and Stevens and another man from smoke inhalation. These deaths are a serious matter for which bureaucratic blame has already been assessed. No one can possibly think the Obama administration knew the attack was coming and let it happen. There is no proof of that. Similarly, no one can still think the White House put the brakes on a rescue attempt by the U.S. military. Again, there is no proof of that.
So what is Benghazi? Beats me, I am tempted to say. But I recognize it as a transparent Republican attempt to provide the party's base with grist for its fantasy mill.
Fantasy mill, indeed. Man, they really do love this stuff, don't they?
Is it possible the Obama administration fudged the nature of the attack, refusing to apply the term "terrorist"? Yes, of course. Did the White House spinmeisters put their hands all over it? Could be. But is any of this so momentous that it has required 13 public hearings and now a select House committee that will delve and delve feverishly ... for what?
I am not sure if this rancorous partisanship is something new in American history or just the same old, same old. But I know that what I am seeing looks both petty and mean. House Speaker John Boehner talks about Benghazi with synthetic solemnity. Fox News dissects it, parsing White House talking points with the ferocious intensity of a hunting dog pointing at some prey. Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi. It will show ... It will prove ... It will expose ... What? What the hell are you talking about?
Indeed, what?
I feel about the GOP as I do about the religion of others: I don't get it. I know feelings can be strong and reason plays little part in it -- faith is faith, after all -- and this is the way I see the GOP snits about the IRS and, more pertinently, Benghazi. What are these people talking about?
Four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, died in the 2012 attack in Benghazi, Libya -- two from mortar fire, and Stevens and another man from smoke inhalation. These deaths are a serious matter for which bureaucratic blame has already been assessed. No one can possibly think the Obama administration knew the attack was coming and let it happen. There is no proof of that. Similarly, no one can still think the White House put the brakes on a rescue attempt by the U.S. military. Again, there is no proof of that.
So what is Benghazi? Beats me, I am tempted to say. But I recognize it as a transparent Republican attempt to provide the party's base with grist for its fantasy mill.
Fantasy mill, indeed. Man, they really do love this stuff, don't they?
Is it possible the Obama administration fudged the nature of the attack, refusing to apply the term "terrorist"? Yes, of course. Did the White House spinmeisters put their hands all over it? Could be. But is any of this so momentous that it has required 13 public hearings and now a select House committee that will delve and delve feverishly ... for what?
I am not sure if this rancorous partisanship is something new in American history or just the same old, same old. But I know that what I am seeing looks both petty and mean. House Speaker John Boehner talks about Benghazi with synthetic solemnity. Fox News dissects it, parsing White House talking points with the ferocious intensity of a hunting dog pointing at some prey. Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi. It will show ... It will prove ... It will expose ... What? What the hell are you talking about?
Indeed, what?
Tuesday, May 13, 2014
Don't Even Bother With 2016
Check out this remark from US Chamber of Commerce President Thomas Donohue.
He's right. The GOP shouldn't even bother putting up a candidate in 2016 if they don't pass immigration reform. So why aren't they doing it now? Wouldn't it help cement their chances in 2014? Of course the reason is that old, angry white people in the GOP primaries don't like wetbacks so no reform until after 2014. This speaks to a larger issue.
Right now, our elderly population is enormous given the glut of baby boomers. Most of these folks are Reagan seniors and tend to vote Republican. They are mostly white and tend to be reliable voters. They look at how the United States is changing and becoming less white as those that are younger than them grow in numbers. So, it's a whole bunch of old whites versus a growing number of non whites. No wonder they are so afraid.
This is a big reason why we have all the problems we have with no solutions. It's not necessarily a left-right thing. It's a baby boomer thing. All of their problems with race, economics, politics, science and society negatively color the day and prohibit real solutions. To be quite frank, as their numbers dwindle over the next 20 years, many of these issues won't be issues anymore and I think we are going to be cut loose from their bullshit shackles and be able to truly progress as a nation.
He's right. The GOP shouldn't even bother putting up a candidate in 2016 if they don't pass immigration reform. So why aren't they doing it now? Wouldn't it help cement their chances in 2014? Of course the reason is that old, angry white people in the GOP primaries don't like wetbacks so no reform until after 2014. This speaks to a larger issue.
Right now, our elderly population is enormous given the glut of baby boomers. Most of these folks are Reagan seniors and tend to vote Republican. They are mostly white and tend to be reliable voters. They look at how the United States is changing and becoming less white as those that are younger than them grow in numbers. So, it's a whole bunch of old whites versus a growing number of non whites. No wonder they are so afraid.
This is a big reason why we have all the problems we have with no solutions. It's not necessarily a left-right thing. It's a baby boomer thing. All of their problems with race, economics, politics, science and society negatively color the day and prohibit real solutions. To be quite frank, as their numbers dwindle over the next 20 years, many of these issues won't be issues anymore and I think we are going to be cut loose from their bullshit shackles and be able to truly progress as a nation.
Monday, May 12, 2014
The Latest On Cliven Bundy
We haven't heard much from the Cliven Bundy standoff of late so I thought I would point out a few recent headlines. First we have this:
Cliven Bundy standoff: Locals want armed militia out, lawmaker says
I don't blame them. Amusing that people from out of state (what happened to state's rights?) are there to support Bundy.
We also have this:
One month later, Cliven Bundy, militia, residents face an uneasy coexistence
Here's an idea, federal government. Go and arrest Clive Bundy. He broke the law and has the bizarre idea (seemingly rooted in communism) that the land he grazes his cattle on is everyone's land. If anyone shoots at you, shoot back because that's what known as an armed insurrection. Honestly, I don't think they will because at their very heart, they are a bunch of fucking cowards who like to play guns.
Cliven Bundy standoff: Locals want armed militia out, lawmaker says
I don't blame them. Amusing that people from out of state (what happened to state's rights?) are there to support Bundy.
We also have this:
One month later, Cliven Bundy, militia, residents face an uneasy coexistence
Here's an idea, federal government. Go and arrest Clive Bundy. He broke the law and has the bizarre idea (seemingly rooted in communism) that the land he grazes his cattle on is everyone's land. If anyone shoots at you, shoot back because that's what known as an armed insurrection. Honestly, I don't think they will because at their very heart, they are a bunch of fucking cowards who like to play guns.
Sunday, May 11, 2014
Rand Paul Goes Rogue (Again)
In case you are keeping score, Rand Paul has said that Texas will turn blue, the GOP needs to undergo a significant transformation, there must be immigration reform, and there is institutional racism. This week, he said
Everybody’s gone completely crazy on this voter ID thing, I think it’s wrong for Republicans to go too crazy on this issue because it’s offending people.
No shit. And it's about time someone had the courage to be this blunt with the Republicans because they really are being assholes about it. Paul is sounding exactly like a candidate running for a national election in 2016 and someone who is well aware that the Republicans can't win unless they broaden their base.
That doesn't mean we give up on what we believe in, but it means we have to be a more welcoming party. We have to welcome people of all races. We need to welcome people of all classes – business class, working class … We need a more diverse party. We need a party that looks like America.
That's right. The question is...will they change?
Everybody’s gone completely crazy on this voter ID thing, I think it’s wrong for Republicans to go too crazy on this issue because it’s offending people.
No shit. And it's about time someone had the courage to be this blunt with the Republicans because they really are being assholes about it. Paul is sounding exactly like a candidate running for a national election in 2016 and someone who is well aware that the Republicans can't win unless they broaden their base.
That doesn't mean we give up on what we believe in, but it means we have to be a more welcoming party. We have to welcome people of all races. We need to welcome people of all classes – business class, working class … We need a more diverse party. We need a party that looks like America.
That's right. The question is...will they change?
The Navy Comes Through
Our government does more good things than people want to give them credit for which gets pretty frustrating for me. Here's a great example:
US Navy Cracks New Renewable Energy Technology To Turn Seawater Into Fuel, Allowing Ships To Stay At Sea Longer.
The development of a liquid hydrocarbon fuel could one day relieve the military’s dependence on oil-based fuels and is being heralded as a “game changer” because it could allow military ships to develop their own fuel and stay operational 100 percent of the time, rather than having to refuel at sea. The new fuel is initially expected to cost around $3 to $6 per gallon, according to the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, which has already flown a model aircraft on it.
Amazing!
Consider that this same technology will be put out to the private sector at some point as well. That would completely change the face of energy on the planet. Countries like our own have access to abundant seawater which means we would be a powerhouse. Juxtapose that with out ability to innovate and that second American century is looking crystal clear.
US Navy Cracks New Renewable Energy Technology To Turn Seawater Into Fuel, Allowing Ships To Stay At Sea Longer.
The development of a liquid hydrocarbon fuel could one day relieve the military’s dependence on oil-based fuels and is being heralded as a “game changer” because it could allow military ships to develop their own fuel and stay operational 100 percent of the time, rather than having to refuel at sea. The new fuel is initially expected to cost around $3 to $6 per gallon, according to the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, which has already flown a model aircraft on it.
Amazing!
Consider that this same technology will be put out to the private sector at some point as well. That would completely change the face of energy on the planet. Countries like our own have access to abundant seawater which means we would be a powerhouse. Juxtapose that with out ability to innovate and that second American century is looking crystal clear.
Saturday, May 10, 2014
Friday, May 09, 2014
Mitt Romney: "Raise the Minimum Wage."
I, for instance, as you know, part company with many of the conservatives in my party on the issue of the minimum wage. I think we ought to raise it, because frankly, our party is all about more jobs and better pay, and I think communicating that is important to us
--Mitt Romney, May 9, 2012
Wow.
--Mitt Romney, May 9, 2012
Wow.
Fundraising Off Of Benghazi
Republicans say they want to get to the bottom of what really happened after the Benghazi attack on September 12, 2012 but what they really want to do is fundraise off the tragedy. Check out this line from the NRSC, for example.
Americans deserve the truth about Benghazi and it's clear Democrats will not give it to them. Donate today and elect a Republican Senate majority.
The NRCC is doing it as well.
So, let's see...the lives of the four Americans killed matter as much as the next campaign donation. Got it. Given that Republicans are behind the Democrats in fundraising, it's now quite clear what this latest in a serious of hearings about Benghazi is really all about.
And I'm still trying to figure out what law was broken by the Obama administration.
Americans deserve the truth about Benghazi and it's clear Democrats will not give it to them. Donate today and elect a Republican Senate majority.
The NRCC is doing it as well.
So, let's see...the lives of the four Americans killed matter as much as the next campaign donation. Got it. Given that Republicans are behind the Democrats in fundraising, it's now quite clear what this latest in a serious of hearings about Benghazi is really all about.
And I'm still trying to figure out what law was broken by the Obama administration.
Advocating Armed Insurrection
Take a look at the latest ad from Iowa GOP Senatorial hopeful, Joni Ernst.
Wow, these folks really want to rise up and shoot the president! (see: armed insurrection advocacy).
Wow, these folks really want to rise up and shoot the president! (see: armed insurrection advocacy).
The Continuing Saga of Adolescents
Check out Sean Davis's piece on the recent National Climate Assessment. A fine and illustrative example of adolescent behavior in many, many ways. Why are there people that actually take these people seriously?
Thursday, May 08, 2014
The Future Is Now
Climate change has always seemed like seem distant science fictional disaster that will happen in the distant future. Well, the future is now. It is 2014, after all.
The National Climate Assessment released Tuesday reports that climate change is already affecting the United States, as well as the rest of the world. It is being manifested not only by rising temperatures across most, though not all, the country (sixty degrees in Alaska in January), but also by increasingly heavy rains (in Florida), deadlier tornadoes that occur earlier in the season, heavier snowfalls (like last winter's, due in part to more water vapor in the atmosphere from reduced arctic ice), flooding in many parts of the country, rising sea levels (hitting Florida again), severe drought in California, the West and parts of Texas, and so on.
Some Minnesota counties have even been declared both flood and drought disaster areas in the same year: last year we got hammered by torrential downpours in the spring, but then it didn't rain for the rest of the summer.
Climate change doesn't just affect the weather: stronger storms are destroying billions of dollars of property and killing more people every year, and higher temperatures are causing more sickness and death due to heatstroke, insect-borne diseases, and asthma.
The response to these events from the right is typical: first they deny that it's happening, then they claim these events are part of the natural cycle, then they claim that humans have nothing to do with it, then they say that increased temperatures and carbon dioxide levels will be somehow "good" for us, then they say it would be too costly to act. Then they say that we'll just adapt if it happens. Well, it's happening. Now.
The Heartland Institute is typical, claiming that higher CO2 levels from burning coal and oil make plants grow faster. This is true by itself, however higher temperatures will decrease crop yields, as well as evaporate water from the soil faster, causing more drought and decreasing yields far more than higher CO2 levels will increase them. The final nail in the coffin is that crops grown in high CO2 levels are less nutritious.
All of these problems are due to our burning fossil fuels faster than the earth's systems can reabsorb the CO2 produced. Yet only 40% of Americans believe that climate change is a serious threat. That low number is due mostly to conservatives, who doubt it for solely economic reasons. Even though dealing with climate change now will save us trillions of dollars even in the short to medium term.
Reducing our dependence on fossil fuels would also reduce the real-world power of bad actors like Putin in Russia, the Wahabis of Saudi Arabia, the ayatollahs in Iran, the nut-jobs in Venezuela, and the Koch brothers in the US, who are trying to buy every election in the country (even going after a zoo in Ohio).
Stanford's decision to divest its endowment from coal companies is a good first step. Coal is the worst source of energy, dirty and deadly at every phase (just ask China, with its mining disasters and pollution problems). We should be phasing out every coal-fired power plant on earth.
Higher CO2 levels are raising sea levels, increasing temperatures and flooding, and causing more powerful storms. Our quest for more oil and gas is even causing earthquakes. Yet many conservatives call climate change a "hoax," at the same time blithely blaming natural disasters on gay pride parades and abortion.
The writing is on the wall: climate change is real, and is happening right now. Luckily, we currently have the money and resources to make the transition away from fossil fuels. But if we wait until the effects of climate change get really bad, we'll be too busy digging out from the latest flood, hurricane, tornado or mudslide, or fighting wars caused by drought, famine and resource shortages.
Yes, we can adapt to future climate change. The future is now. So now is the time to do something about it.
The National Climate Assessment released Tuesday reports that climate change is already affecting the United States, as well as the rest of the world. It is being manifested not only by rising temperatures across most, though not all, the country (sixty degrees in Alaska in January), but also by increasingly heavy rains (in Florida), deadlier tornadoes that occur earlier in the season, heavier snowfalls (like last winter's, due in part to more water vapor in the atmosphere from reduced arctic ice), flooding in many parts of the country, rising sea levels (hitting Florida again), severe drought in California, the West and parts of Texas, and so on.
Some Minnesota counties have even been declared both flood and drought disaster areas in the same year: last year we got hammered by torrential downpours in the spring, but then it didn't rain for the rest of the summer.
Climate change doesn't just affect the weather: stronger storms are destroying billions of dollars of property and killing more people every year, and higher temperatures are causing more sickness and death due to heatstroke, insect-borne diseases, and asthma.
The response to these events from the right is typical: first they deny that it's happening, then they claim these events are part of the natural cycle, then they claim that humans have nothing to do with it, then they say that increased temperatures and carbon dioxide levels will be somehow "good" for us, then they say it would be too costly to act. Then they say that we'll just adapt if it happens. Well, it's happening. Now.
The Heartland Institute is typical, claiming that higher CO2 levels from burning coal and oil make plants grow faster. This is true by itself, however higher temperatures will decrease crop yields, as well as evaporate water from the soil faster, causing more drought and decreasing yields far more than higher CO2 levels will increase them. The final nail in the coffin is that crops grown in high CO2 levels are less nutritious.
All of these problems are due to our burning fossil fuels faster than the earth's systems can reabsorb the CO2 produced. Yet only 40% of Americans believe that climate change is a serious threat. That low number is due mostly to conservatives, who doubt it for solely economic reasons. Even though dealing with climate change now will save us trillions of dollars even in the short to medium term.
Reducing our dependence on fossil fuels would also reduce the real-world power of bad actors like Putin in Russia, the Wahabis of Saudi Arabia, the ayatollahs in Iran, the nut-jobs in Venezuela, and the Koch brothers in the US, who are trying to buy every election in the country (even going after a zoo in Ohio).
Stanford's decision to divest its endowment from coal companies is a good first step. Coal is the worst source of energy, dirty and deadly at every phase (just ask China, with its mining disasters and pollution problems). We should be phasing out every coal-fired power plant on earth.
Higher CO2 levels are raising sea levels, increasing temperatures and flooding, and causing more powerful storms. Our quest for more oil and gas is even causing earthquakes. Yet many conservatives call climate change a "hoax," at the same time blithely blaming natural disasters on gay pride parades and abortion.
The writing is on the wall: climate change is real, and is happening right now. Luckily, we currently have the money and resources to make the transition away from fossil fuels. But if we wait until the effects of climate change get really bad, we'll be too busy digging out from the latest flood, hurricane, tornado or mudslide, or fighting wars caused by drought, famine and resource shortages.
Yes, we can adapt to future climate change. The future is now. So now is the time to do something about it.
Wednesday, May 07, 2014
Just who is Anti-Keystone?
The Wall Street Journal has a piece up about the opposition to the Keystone pipeline and how it really isn't as left-right as you would think. Politico echoed this as well.
Ranchers and native tribes that oppose the pipeline formed the Cowboys and Indians Alliance, putting a non-traditional face on the anti-Keystone movement that has spanned the president’s time in office. Their goal — like that of their environmentalist counterparts — is to persuade Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry to determine that the pipeline from Canada would go against the national interest.
The ranchers — or “cowboys” — are concerned not just about protecting sensitive aquifers near the pipeline, but also about their land rights, several said at the protest. “I’m here to support the neighbors to the north that don’t want the pipeline across their land,” said Julia Trigg Crawford, a Texas rancher who rode in on horseback. She didn’t have so much luck with her own land.
Part of the Oklahoma-to-Texas southern leg of Keystone XL, which has already been built, runs through Crawford’s ranch land on the Red River. “Basically they came in and said a foreign corporation building a for-profit pipeline had more of a right to my land than I did,” Crawford said. The land can be used for grazing, but she can’t build a house or drive across it, she said. Crawford received a check for $10,395 two years ago but has never cashed it, she said.
For some conservatives, it's about property rights and federal government intrusion which I find interesting because they do have an argument. I wonder why so many conservatives who champion private property and rights love the Pipeline as much as they do.
Ranchers and native tribes that oppose the pipeline formed the Cowboys and Indians Alliance, putting a non-traditional face on the anti-Keystone movement that has spanned the president’s time in office. Their goal — like that of their environmentalist counterparts — is to persuade Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry to determine that the pipeline from Canada would go against the national interest.
The ranchers — or “cowboys” — are concerned not just about protecting sensitive aquifers near the pipeline, but also about their land rights, several said at the protest. “I’m here to support the neighbors to the north that don’t want the pipeline across their land,” said Julia Trigg Crawford, a Texas rancher who rode in on horseback. She didn’t have so much luck with her own land.
Part of the Oklahoma-to-Texas southern leg of Keystone XL, which has already been built, runs through Crawford’s ranch land on the Red River. “Basically they came in and said a foreign corporation building a for-profit pipeline had more of a right to my land than I did,” Crawford said. The land can be used for grazing, but she can’t build a house or drive across it, she said. Crawford received a check for $10,395 two years ago but has never cashed it, she said.
For some conservatives, it's about property rights and federal government intrusion which I find interesting because they do have an argument. I wonder why so many conservatives who champion private property and rights love the Pipeline as much as they do.
Tuesday, May 06, 2014
Monday, May 05, 2014
The Challenge of the 2014 Elections
Take a look at this graphic.
It's from a brilliant analysis of exactly what the Democrats need to do in order to win the 2014 elections. Sasha Issenberg illustrates the numbers and demographics behind presidential year elections and mid term elections, boiling it down to a simple question: Can the Democrats mobilize the "unreliable" voters to succeed in the 2014 election? If they can, they hold the Senate and part of me is thinking that all the hysteria right now over SHELLACKING PART TWO is simply a fear tactic to mobilize the troops.
Another interesting part of the article is this.
Add it all up, and the Democrats’ midterm conundrum comes to look like an actuarial one. “If twenty years ago, you said the midterm electorate is older, I would have said, ‘Yahoo! Glad to hear it,’ ” says Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster. “But now the Roosevelt seniors are dead and the Reagan seniors are voting.” Increasingly, those older voters are backing the same side: In 2000, Al Gore won the youngest and eldest bands of the electorate by slight margins; in 2012, the over-50 vote broke for Mitt Romney by 12 points.
There are also simply more of those older voters overall. Since Obama’s first appearance on a presidential ballot, the population of Americans over the age of 55 has increased by nearly 13 million. By 2022, it will have increased by another nine million. People tend to grow more conservative as they age, but as a cohort, Generation X—whose oldest members will soon reach their fifties—is appreciably more conservative than the Millennials who follow them. “When the Millennials are fifty-five, they’re going to vote more Democratic,” Lake says, not exactly cautioning patience. “That’s thirty years away.”
This ties in to what I have been saying about how much the electorate is going to change over the next 20-30 years. Imagine what will happen when we have "Obama seniors" and the Reagan seniors are gone.
It's from a brilliant analysis of exactly what the Democrats need to do in order to win the 2014 elections. Sasha Issenberg illustrates the numbers and demographics behind presidential year elections and mid term elections, boiling it down to a simple question: Can the Democrats mobilize the "unreliable" voters to succeed in the 2014 election? If they can, they hold the Senate and part of me is thinking that all the hysteria right now over SHELLACKING PART TWO is simply a fear tactic to mobilize the troops.
Another interesting part of the article is this.
Add it all up, and the Democrats’ midterm conundrum comes to look like an actuarial one. “If twenty years ago, you said the midterm electorate is older, I would have said, ‘Yahoo! Glad to hear it,’ ” says Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster. “But now the Roosevelt seniors are dead and the Reagan seniors are voting.” Increasingly, those older voters are backing the same side: In 2000, Al Gore won the youngest and eldest bands of the electorate by slight margins; in 2012, the over-50 vote broke for Mitt Romney by 12 points.
There are also simply more of those older voters overall. Since Obama’s first appearance on a presidential ballot, the population of Americans over the age of 55 has increased by nearly 13 million. By 2022, it will have increased by another nine million. People tend to grow more conservative as they age, but as a cohort, Generation X—whose oldest members will soon reach their fifties—is appreciably more conservative than the Millennials who follow them. “When the Millennials are fifty-five, they’re going to vote more Democratic,” Lake says, not exactly cautioning patience. “That’s thirty years away.”
This ties in to what I have been saying about how much the electorate is going to change over the next 20-30 years. Imagine what will happen when we have "Obama seniors" and the Reagan seniors are gone.
Sunday, May 04, 2014
The Columbine Effect
My home state is reeling this week over the revelations that John David LaDue was planning a Columbine-like school attack. LaDue is yet another teenage male with mental health issues that turned to plans of violence. Today's Strib had this as the front page story.
'Columbine effect': Alarm is rising over copycats
It's a very disturbing yet accurate piece over a phenomenon that has evolved in culture since the Columbine shooting. The piece echoes many of the things I have written about on here about young men in culture. As more is revealed about LaDue, I'm sure we will see that he had most if not all of what I have been calling the magic cocktail (mental health issues, feelings of persecution and lack of attention, taking SSRIs, easy access to weapons, played violent video games, poor parental involvement, lack of community support and/or involvement).
What is very clear from this piece is that the Columbine Effect is part of our culture now and it won't be going away anytime soon. So, what should do about it? The piece has some very general suggestions but this has become a very complex problem. It's no longer as simple as "gun problem" or a "mental health problem." It's an American Culture problem that has to be addressed in a very complex way because it evolved in a complex way.
In many ways, it's become like a puzzle with some easy answers and some difficult ones which contain solutions that will be a big lift. Getting people to stop being lazy and engage young men takes a lot of energy. I know I sound cynical but I don't think most Americans have it in them. I base this on my own experience with parents so I do admit to bias. Changing our antiquated gun laws would help but, honestly, that's a small piece of the puzzle.
This has to be a cultural shift and it will obviously take a lot of time. So, where do we start?
'Columbine effect': Alarm is rising over copycats
It's a very disturbing yet accurate piece over a phenomenon that has evolved in culture since the Columbine shooting. The piece echoes many of the things I have written about on here about young men in culture. As more is revealed about LaDue, I'm sure we will see that he had most if not all of what I have been calling the magic cocktail (mental health issues, feelings of persecution and lack of attention, taking SSRIs, easy access to weapons, played violent video games, poor parental involvement, lack of community support and/or involvement).
What is very clear from this piece is that the Columbine Effect is part of our culture now and it won't be going away anytime soon. So, what should do about it? The piece has some very general suggestions but this has become a very complex problem. It's no longer as simple as "gun problem" or a "mental health problem." It's an American Culture problem that has to be addressed in a very complex way because it evolved in a complex way.
In many ways, it's become like a puzzle with some easy answers and some difficult ones which contain solutions that will be a big lift. Getting people to stop being lazy and engage young men takes a lot of energy. I know I sound cynical but I don't think most Americans have it in them. I base this on my own experience with parents so I do admit to bias. Changing our antiquated gun laws would help but, honestly, that's a small piece of the puzzle.
This has to be a cultural shift and it will obviously take a lot of time. So, where do we start?
Saturday, May 03, 2014
More Tampering With The Free Market By The Gun Cult
Man, the Gun Cult really doesn't like the free market...
Threats against Maryland gun dealer raise doubts about future of smart guns
The latest skirmish over the nation’s first smart gun, marked this week by death threats against a Maryland gun dealer who wanted to sell the weapon, has raised doubts about its future and prompted some gun-control advocates to back away from legislative efforts to mandate the technology. Engage Armament, a Rockville gun shop, endured an outpouring of vitriol from gun rights activists who fear the technology will be used to curtail their Second Amendment rights by limiting the kinds of guns they can buy in the future.
What kind of vitriol?
Somebody told one of Raymond’s workers that the store, Engage Armament, wouldn’t be selling the gun because there wouldn’t be a store — it will burn down. At another point, Raymond picked up the phone and said, “Hi, this is Andy. How can I help you?” The caller said, “You’re the guys selling the smart gun?” Raymond tried to reason with him. But the caller said, “You’re gonna get what’s coming to you (expletive).”
Cool. I guess he had to sleep in his store because he worried his private property would be damaged.
What a mentally balanced group of people...
Threats against Maryland gun dealer raise doubts about future of smart guns
The latest skirmish over the nation’s first smart gun, marked this week by death threats against a Maryland gun dealer who wanted to sell the weapon, has raised doubts about its future and prompted some gun-control advocates to back away from legislative efforts to mandate the technology. Engage Armament, a Rockville gun shop, endured an outpouring of vitriol from gun rights activists who fear the technology will be used to curtail their Second Amendment rights by limiting the kinds of guns they can buy in the future.
What kind of vitriol?
Somebody told one of Raymond’s workers that the store, Engage Armament, wouldn’t be selling the gun because there wouldn’t be a store — it will burn down. At another point, Raymond picked up the phone and said, “Hi, this is Andy. How can I help you?” The caller said, “You’re the guys selling the smart gun?” Raymond tried to reason with him. But the caller said, “You’re gonna get what’s coming to you (expletive).”
Cool. I guess he had to sleep in his store because he worried his private property would be damaged.
What a mentally balanced group of people...
Friday, May 02, 2014
Good Words (I ♥ Quora Edition)
From one of my Quora questions...
I can't speak to the conservative pundits who I don't listen to or follow, but I can say a few things about conservative forums I've trolled. The typical commenter has a very different POV, informed by an entirely different set of 'facts'. If I can make some gross generalizations about their worldview:
Well, that pretty much sums up Kevin Baker, every single one of his commenters, and the right wing blogsphere! I wonder if they will ever realize this is exactly how they are and change...
I have to admit as well that I appreciate the wider audience.
I can't speak to the conservative pundits who I don't listen to or follow, but I can say a few things about conservative forums I've trolled. The typical commenter has a very different POV, informed by an entirely different set of 'facts'. If I can make some gross generalizations about their worldview:
- the world they live in is a scary, scary place filled with monsters they are constantly being beseiged by: the federal government, lazy brown people who commit crimes and appropriate their hard earned tax dollars, liberal bureaucracy, liberal media trying to brainwash them
- the world is full of sinister conspiracies--malevolent, omniscient forces are always at work in the world and target them specifically
- they are amongst a band of surviving 'real Americans' that still uphold 'traditional values' in contrast to the sinful, frivolous, un-American populace
- news and events are local--they have little interest in international affairs or global perspectives on American issues
- America is the best, the greatest, and is exceptional in every way--that specialness is constantly being threatened from within by liberal elements who are sabotaging this ideal and trying to make the country more like the rest
- you must agree entirely with all of the stated beliefs of their conservative agenda, or you are a dangerous, free-thinking liberal--it's very binary
- if you are hold progressive positions, or don't identify with reactionary paranoid extremism, you are immediately presumed to be lazy, non-taxpaying, of dubious virtue and poorly educated.
Well, that pretty much sums up Kevin Baker, every single one of his commenters, and the right wing blogsphere! I wonder if they will ever realize this is exactly how they are and change...
I have to admit as well that I appreciate the wider audience.
Thursday, May 01, 2014
The NRA Conference=Incredibly Disturbing
As Jon Stewart notes below, this year's NRA conference was incredibly disturbing.
We've officially moved beyond the stomp down the hallway and into advocacy of armed insurrection.
But, hey, if you want to feel lighthearted about it, play a drinking game in which each time appeal to fear is used in a speech, you have to drink.
You'll be drunk in less than five minutes.
We've officially moved beyond the stomp down the hallway and into advocacy of armed insurrection.
But, hey, if you want to feel lighthearted about it, play a drinking game in which each time appeal to fear is used in a speech, you have to drink.
You'll be drunk in less than five minutes.
Cancelling The Cancelled Plan Meme
Here's an interesting study on how the whole cancelled plan meme isn't quite the boiling pit of sewage they made it out to be. Here are its main findings.
First, this market was characterized by high turnover: Only 42 percent of people with nongroup coverage at the outset of the study period retained that coverage after twelve months. Second, 80 percent of people experiencing coverage changes acquired other insurance within a year, most commonly from an employer. Third, turnover varied across groups, with stable coverage more common for whites and self-employed people than for other groups. Turnover was particularly high among adults ages 19–35, with only 21 percent of young adults retaining continuous nongroup coverage for two years. Given estimates from 2012 that 10.8 million people were covered in this market, these results suggest that 6.2 million people leave nongroup coverage annually.
What does it mean?
This suggests that the nongroup market was characterized by frequent disruptions in coverage before the ACA and that the effects of the recent cancellations are not necessarily out of the norm. These results can serve as a useful pre-ACA baseline with which to evaluate the law’s long-term impact on the stability of nongroup coverage.
The president should still be criticized for making it sound like the ACA would fix all of this but the fact is that without the ACA, if you liked your insurance, you wouldn't have gotten to keep it anyway.
First, this market was characterized by high turnover: Only 42 percent of people with nongroup coverage at the outset of the study period retained that coverage after twelve months. Second, 80 percent of people experiencing coverage changes acquired other insurance within a year, most commonly from an employer. Third, turnover varied across groups, with stable coverage more common for whites and self-employed people than for other groups. Turnover was particularly high among adults ages 19–35, with only 21 percent of young adults retaining continuous nongroup coverage for two years. Given estimates from 2012 that 10.8 million people were covered in this market, these results suggest that 6.2 million people leave nongroup coverage annually.
What does it mean?
This suggests that the nongroup market was characterized by frequent disruptions in coverage before the ACA and that the effects of the recent cancellations are not necessarily out of the norm. These results can serve as a useful pre-ACA baseline with which to evaluate the law’s long-term impact on the stability of nongroup coverage.
The president should still be criticized for making it sound like the ACA would fix all of this but the fact is that without the ACA, if you liked your insurance, you wouldn't have gotten to keep it anyway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)