Score A Big One For Breitbart

You won't find me praising breitbart.com very much on here but kudos to them for this series of photos showing undocumented workers in a holding facility about to be deported.

Pretty shocking, eh?

Now imagine, millions of people herded onto trains and sent out of our country because they broke a law that no longer works. Many would likely die hence the reason why I assert that it would be one of the greatest humanitarian crises the world has ever seen. Hell, we already have a massive problem with displaced people. If we did what the right wanted, we'd be making a horrible problem even more FUBAR. If we are truly a Christian nation, this is not the way to proceed.

Our current immigration laws do not work. It is time to change them. We can start with Marco Rubio's bill. 

Advocating Armed Insurrection Again

The Right just can't stay away from the catnip of armed insurrection, can they?

“I can sense right now a rebellion brewing amongst these United States,” Jindal said, “where people are ready for a hostile takeover of Washington, D.C., to preserve the American dream for our children and grandchildren.” The governor said there was a “silent war” on religious liberty being fought in the U.S. — a country that he said was built on that liberty. 

“I am tired of the left. They say they’re for tolerance, they say they respect diversity. The reality is this: They respect everybody unless you happen to disagree with them,” he said. “The left is trying to silence us and I’m tired of it. I won’t take it anymore.”

Actually, Bobby, what we won't take is attempts by conservatives to convert our nation into a Christian version of Sharia Law. Go peddle your DARVO elsewhere.

The Gun Cult's Worst Enemy is Themselves

Ana Marie Cox has an excellent piece up about how the Gun Cult is beginning to realize that they might end up causing their own undoing. I find it highly amusing that the open carry psychos are actually causing the very bans they are trying to eliminate. But isn't this always the case with the conservative (ahem, adolescent) mindset? They act impulsively and with much hubris. They also are under the very mistaken impression that a majority of people support them.

They don't. 

Would Jesus Discriminate?

The Benghazi Ringleader

The capture of Ahmed Abu Khattala in connection with the Benghazi attack is certain to send the Republicans into a state of anaphylactic shock. According to the New York Times...

On the day of the attack, Islamists in Cairo had staged a demonstration outside the United States Embassy there to protest an American-made online video mocking Islam, and the protest culminated in a breach of the embassy’s walls — images that flashed through news coverage around the Arab world. 

As the attack in Benghazi was unfolding a few hours later, Mr. Abu Khattala told fellow Islamist fighters and others that the assault was retaliation for the same insulting video, according to people who heard him.

Of course, it's likely a lot more complicated than that as we already know. Yet, that's not even the worst part for those conservatives still clinging to the Benghazi Frisbee like dogs that won't let go.

Barack Obama just caught another Islamic extremist.

And Just When You Thought the Pope Was Becoming Reasonable...

In no uncertain terms, the pope is against drugs:

[...] Francis said, providing addicts with drugs offered only "a veiled means of surrendering to the phenomenon."

"Let me state this in the clearest terms possible," he said. "The problem of drug use is not solved with drugs!"

As with most opponents of drugs, he's misstating the problem. The problem with drugs is not that they are being used, but that some people get addicted.

But the prohibition against drugs introduces other problems that are several orders of magnitude greater: criminal gangs slaughter each other, the police and innocent bystanders. Law enforcement expends massive sums of money and resources to deter behavior that does no harm to the vast majority of people who engage in it, including most law enforcement officials at some point in their lives. Prisons are filled to bursting with people who were just looking for a buzz when they went in, but emerge hardened criminals when they come out.

In the United States alcohol and tobacco use cost society more than illicit drugs do: $185 billion and $193 billion, compared to the $181 billion drugs cost by this estimate.

The pope's tirade against drugs is rather hypocritical. The pope uses alcohol on a regular basis for religious purposes. Freakily, the pope even believes he can personally turn alcohol into his god's blood, through the miracle of Transubstantiation. What were they on when they thought that up?.

But alcohol is a huge problem worldwide. It kills millions of people annually through cirrhosis of the liver, heart disease, and stroke, as well as by impairing people's judgment, causing death and destruction through vehicle and heavy machinery accidents, and battery and murder in booze-fueled drunken rages.

For that reason, alcohol is banned in many countries. It was even banned in the United States for a dozen years (and still is in some counties). But Prohibition failed miserably, becoming itself an engine of death and destruction worse than alcohol abuse itself. By any measure, the prohibition against drugs is failing just as miserably.

Some drugs, including tobacco, cannabis and peyote, are used in certain religions, apparently without harm. I don't endorse alcohol or drug use. But as with alcohol, it's clear that some drugs can be used by some people, sparingly and without risk of addiction or bodily harm.

Furthermore, it's clear that many of the drugs prescribed for medical purposes are as potentially addictive and harmful as alcohol or marijuana, based on the problems we've had with oxycodone and ADHD drugs.

So, if the pope and Christians worldwide can be trusted to use alcohol responsibly, why can't people of other persuasions be granted the same rights for their drug of choice? This would eliminate a lot of crime, reduce law enforcement spending, lower prison populations, and it probably wouldn't even increase the number of drug addicts by a significant amount. Finally, it would make it easier for addicts to get treatment, because they don't have to hide what they've done for fear of ostracism and criminal charges.

I personally think drugs, tobacco and alcohol are a stupid waste of time and money and a senseless risk to body and mind. But I don't think I should be able to impose my will on everyone. Truly destructive and hopelessly addictive drugs should be illegal. But as long as people taking relatively harmless drugs keep their filthy habits to themselves and don't hurt anyone else, it's really none of my business.

But I suppose the pope can't be expected to have such a reasoned attitude, since his job description demands he tell everyone everywhere what to do all the time.

The Boiling of Immigration Reform

Gun Cult Dealt Setback

The Supreme Court dealt the Gun Cult a blow this week with the decision on Abramski v. United States. The court ruled 5-4 and affirmed the lower court's decision that regardless of whether the actual buyer could have purchased the gun, a person who buys a gun on someone else’s behalf while falsely claiming that it is for himself makes a material misrepresentation punishable under 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6), which prohibits knowingly making false statements “with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of a sale of a gun.”

In a nutshell, no more straw purchases.

SCOTUS Blog has a great breakdown of the decision with this great pull quote.

Although Congress in recent years has been unable or unwilling to pass new gun-control laws, the elaborate scheme of background checking that was at issue in Monday’s ruling remains fully in force. The decision in Abramski v. United States almost certainly will make that scheme work more reliably to track the movement of guns across the U.S.

“No piece of information is more important under federal law ,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the majority, ”than the identity of a gun’s purchaser — the person who acquires a gun as a result of a transaction with a licensed dealer.” Answering a form that asks about the actual purchase, Kagan added, “is fundamental to the lawfulness of a gun sale.” A sale cannot even occur unless the true buyer is correctly identified, and is at the counter seeking to buy a weapon, the opinion noted.

Why this was legal before today is illustrative of the idiocy of the Gun Cult. Worse, it shows the level of dishonesty to which they will sink when they say they are "responsible" gun owners. What kind of responsible person would support this sort of activity? They claim to want increased law enforcement and crackdowns on criminals but straw purchases essentially gives the bad guys a blank check.

Oh well, that shit is over now and the Supreme Court finally got something right.

This Photo=Bowels Blown

Two scientists and the president hanging out. I can just hear the insecure and most definitely suffering from inferiority complex conservatives' blood pressure rising and the anaphylactic shock taking hold with a dash of Joan Collins thrown in...

Liars!! LIARS!!!!

Glenn Beck Admits the Right Was Wrong on Iraq

Miracle of miracles, Glenn Beck has admitted that the right was wrong: he says the people who opposed the invasion of Iraq were right.

“[Liberals] said we couldn’t force freedom on people,” Beck said at the start of his Tuesday radio show. “Let me lead with my mistakes. You were right. Liberals, you were right, we shouldn’t have.”

“In spite of the things I felt at the time when we went into war, liberals said, ‘We shouldn’t get involved, we shouldn’t nation-build and there was no indication the people of Iraq had the will to be free,’” Beck said. “I thought that was insulting at the time. Everybody wants to be free.”

On Tuesday, Beck admitted, “You cannot force democracy on the Iraqis or anybody else, it doesn’t work. They don’t understand it or even really want it.”

Though Beck understands now that the right was wrong, he still doesn't seem to get why the right was wrong. The problem isn't that you "can't force freedom on people." The problem is that you can't invade a country and force people to be reasonable, fair and considerate. Too many people -- though not all by far -- are selfish and tribal. These bad actors say they want freedom, but they want it only for themselves. Freedom and power for their own religion and their own leaders to do whatever they want, while denying certain freedoms to their enemies.

They want to enforce their religion, their morality and their worldview on everyone in the country. They believe their religious leaders should be able to dictate the most intimate details of everyone's lives, even in the privacy of their bedrooms. They believe that their version of religion is the only correct version, that god is on their side, that he guides their every move and that this justifies and blesses everything they do.

They do not believe in justice for all, they believe in vengeance. They do not believe that everyone is created equal, they believe they are superior to those who are not just like them. They believe that women are less than men, that women should marry who they're told to marry (and certainly not other women), that women should only wear the clothes "that keep them safe," that women should behave a certain way to avoid giving men the wrong idea.

They think there's nothing wrong with preventing others from exercising their basic rights, such as women controlling their own bodies and deciding what hormones to take, letting women decide for themselves whether or how to delay having children. They have no problem using intimidation and other means to prevent their opponents from voting.

They don't believe in negotiating with their opponents to reach an accommodation that will satisfy most of what each side wants: they want everything their way and want to deny their opponents even the smallest victory. They view the tiniest compromise as a total betrayal of their core beliefs that will result in total destruction of their faith.

These bad actors don't believe that the whole country should work together in order for everyone to succeed. They separate everyone into us and them. They believe that themselves to be the only real defenders of their country, and that there are too many of those people -- people who are not just like them -- who are destroying it.

They believe that violence and the force of arms are a legitimate and immediate recourse against anyone whom they view as a threat.

Oh, wait a second. Were we talking about obstacles to democracy in Iraq or the conservative American political machine?

A democracy only works if there's give and take, if people negotiate in good faith to come to an agreement that lets everyone get some of what they want and need. Democracy fails when too many people insist on having everything their way and refusing to work together, demonizing opponents, constantly lobbing bombs (physical and verbal) at their opponents, constantly trying to gain the upper hand and gain control of everything, and then rig the system so that they can maintain that hold on power, by hook or by crook, forever.

By watching how Iraq is falling apart, we might learn a thing or two about how to make Americans work better together.

The Benghazi Litmus Test

How can you tell if a Republican has gone off the deep end? Try this litmus test...

If you are a Republican who feels Benghazi was a tragic and regrettable incident involving violence against an American diplomatic mission abroad that was essentially the same as the numerous incidents of violence against American diplomatic missions that took place under the George W. Bush administration, then ... cool. We can (probably) have a rational conversation.

If you are a Republican who feels Benghazi was a deliberate betrayal of America by the dastardly Barack Hussein Obama who gleefully cackled and rubbed his hands as brave Americans died because he knowingly refused to save them, then ... you are a f***ing RWNJ and we have nothing further to discuss.

Which one are you?

Most Excellent Words

From an answer to a question on Quora...

The gun rights community isn't the only community in which one might find hostility directed towards those who, by some measure, are a member of that community but do not tow the party line. I'd suspect some gay Republicans feel like they're not tolerated; perhaps an animal rights advocate might get some flack for not being a vegetarian; someone who identifies as a progressive might find themselves unwelcome among others because they like guns.

Having said all of the above, I'll throw it out there that...

• I do believe responsible citizens can own guns.
• I own guns, and enjoy them for sport (as well as appreciate the technology that often goes in to them).
• I enjoy spending time at the range and genuinely find many firearms quite neat (not to trivialize them for what they are and are capable of doing).
• I do see parallels in overzealous attempts to curb 2nd amendment rights with such attempts to curb 1st amendment rights and other constitutional rights.

At the same time, I...

• Find many among the "We need guns to defend against an oppressive government!!" types to be more of a threat to all of our collective safety and freedom than any government will ever be.
• Quite firmly believe that our own country's history post-Revolution shows us these self-styled militia types are more likely to be the ones marching alongside the "jackbooted thugs" of an oppressive regime to persecute fellow citizens, rather than standing up for overall freedom.
• Think there are some completely absurd weapons out there, and it is likewise absurd they're so often easy to acquire.
• Am thoroughly disgusted by the leadership and tactics of the NRA's lobbying and political arms (though, beyond the usual indoctrination that takes place when among them, can appreciate the organization's efforts on gun-safety and training fronts).

Well said!

If You Have No Exit Strategy Don't Enter

The media is full of Republicans blaming President Obama for the current mess in Iraq. Articles like this one in the New York Times paint Bush as being prescient, saying that leaving Iraq prematurely would have dire consequences.

Yet in 2003 George W. Bush and his cronies said that the invasion of Iraq would be a cakewalk, a brief brilliant burst of glory. We would emerge victorious in six days, or six weeks, or six months at most (remember the Mission Accomplished banner?). But when Bush left office in 2009 our forces had been fighting there for almost six years and more than 5,000 Americans had died there.

Bush's lies were not just about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, or his involvement with 9/11. The real lie was that we could successfully invade and pacify Iraq in a short time, for a minimal investment (they said the invasion would pay for itself), with no help from the rest of the world.

Yes, we invaded and occupied Germany and Japan, turning them into upstanding world citizens and allies. Those countries were united and coherent to begin with, but it still required a huge cost and a permanent military presence for the last 70 years. We've had troops in South Korea for 60 years keeping North Korea at bay.

Iraq is fractured by centuries-old ethnic and religious differences held in check only by ruthless tyrants like Saddam. Yet Bush went into Iraq on the pretext that we'd be done in a matter weeks or months at most.

Bush never developed an exit strategy for Iraq because there is no exit strategy: we would have to maintain troops in Iraq for the next century keeping the Sunni, Shiite and Kurd populations of Iraq from killing each other.

Because they've already been at it for centuries. How many American lives and trillions of dollars would we have had to sacrifice before the Iraqis realized the futility of their age-old hatreds and make peace with each other?

To make it worse, as long as we had troops in Iraq, there would there would be an endless stream of outsider incursions engineered to cause problems for us: Al Qaeda proxies funded by Saudi Wahabis, Hezbollah proxies funded by Iran, Taliban proxies funded by Pakistan, Sadrist proxies funded by Russia.

We could win World War II because Germany and Japan attacked us. We could chase them back home and destroy their war machines. But the we can't win the civil war between Shiites and the Sunnis in Iraq. It's not our fight. You can't invade a country and make them act reasonably.

The best you can do is pick one side and help them destroy the other. So do we help the majority Shiites led by the corrupt Iranian puppet prime minister Nouri al-Maliki who has been tormenting minority Sunnis since Bush installed him in 2007? Or do we help the Sunnis, who tormented the Shiites under Saddam's rule, and most recently stood by and let ISIS commandos overrun Mosul and slaughter thousands of Iraqi soldiers execution-style? Or do we just let the country fall apart and help the Kurds establish their own nation and keep all the oil, letting the Sunnis and Shiites wallow in perpetual poverty and war?

When all of the options are bad, does it make any sense to risk American lives and spend trillions more dollars on wars that will only make us more enemies and put our troops in the crosshairs of every terrorist in the Middle East?

The Bodyguard Blanket

Well, I guess it's come to this...





I can hear the Gun Cult shrieking like old ladies now..."If we could only have anyone carry a gun in a school, then kids wouldn't need the Bodyguard Blanket."

Or maybe if our society could be arsed to leave behind a troglodytic perception of mental health, guns, and violence, then we wouldn't need the fucking Bodyguard Blanket

I Guess You Can Find Jesus Anywhere

Can Parenting Be Taught?

The biggest problem in education today is the parents. Period. I've written about this before and now it seems that a trend is emerging in education discussions. We need to start teaching people how to be better parents and this recent cover story from the Christian Science Monitor illustrates just how we can.

The stakes are high. Parental improvement might seem like a national pastime these days, given the unprecedented volume of advice books, blogs, and lectures coming at moms and dads across all demographics. But for lower-income women like those in this classroom, and others like them across the country, improved parenting skills can not only increase a family’s happiness, it can also dramatically improve a child’s long-term educational achievement, lower the chances of juvenile delinquency, improve health measures, and reduce poverty, according to a growing coalition of child-development experts and scientists.

Further, we instructors do not have the time to teach students basic manners and respect for elders. We don't have enough time to hit the standards in a school year as it is. I'm really sick and tired of having students look at me with that quizzical expression when I tell them to do something. It's as if they have never heard an adult tell them what to do. Over the years, a greater percentage of students are showing up to junior high without the foggiest idea of how to behave. Far too many parents have done a very poor job raising them.

Of course, this is a big reason why I am a big supporter of the president.

President Obama’s Affordable Care Act allocated $1.5 billion for the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program to expand parent home visitation initiatives, such as the Nurse-Family Partnership, which pairs registered nurses with pregnant, at-risk women. School systems across the country are collaborating with programs such as Families First to expand their parent education classes.

It seems like a small amount but ECFE is absolutely vital if we are going to turn this tide around. And it can't all be done federally as the CSM article notes.

Local governments are also getting involved, coming up with their own ways to try to improve parenting. (Providence, R.I., for instance, recently launched the Providence Talks program to “close the 30-million-word gap,” a reference to the difference in the number of words spoken to a baby with lower-income parents by the age of 4 compared to a child with higher-income parents – a difference shown to have long-term educational repercussions.)

All of us at the community level need to work together to be better parents. The rest of the CSM piece details how we can do that. So, let's get started!

Daily US Gun Deaths

The Eric Cantor Pooping

My oh my has there been one massive shitting of the bed over the loss Eric Cantor experienced on Tuesday night to Tea Party Challenger David Brat. Some of the diarrhea..

"It's about amnesty in immigration!"

"The Tea Party is back"

"He was too much of a Washington insider so the conservative masses voted him out!"

And my personal favorite...

"This signifies a conservative tsunami this fall!"

Well, here are my thoughts in order of the pooping. First, we already have amnesty in terms of illegal immigration. That's the result of doing nothing. We're aren't going to deport 11 million people and be the cause of one of the worst humanitarian crises the world has ever seen. Further, the poster child for "evil amnesty" is Lindsey Graham who handily won his primary so this comment makes no sense.

Second, the Tea Party never left. Their ideology is now the ideology of the "mainstream" candidates. No conservative today can win without being far right because of the nature of their base which basically means they are digging themselves into a deeper hole for national elections. 2014 may end up being bad for Democrats but 2016 is going to be a fucking disaster for Republicans. Imagine, Hillary Clinton and both houses of Congress controlled by the Democrats.

And we haven't seen David Brat yet on the national stage. I doubt the Democratic challenger can beat him in VA-7 but if he goes Akin or Murdock, say goodbye to that seat.

Third, conservative masses...yes, all 36,000 to 28,000 people at 10 percent voter turnout...8,000 votes...some mass indeed! All this says to me is that a lot of people couldn't be arsed to show up. There's also the fact that this was an open primary which means there could have been some Democrats in their voting as well:)

Finally, it warms my heart when the right gets over eager and shit. We've seen this before only to have it followed by stubborn disbelief (Karl Rove, Ohio, 2012 Election). I realize this is the last chance for the 12 year old boys to "beat" Barack Obama but they are going to put themselves right out of business jumping the gun with this kind of talk. Don't they realize how hard organizations like the OFA and other Democratic groups are going to be working to get the vote out? They vastly underestimated the president and his election operation before and look what happened.

Honestly, I am very happy to see Eric Cantor being shown the door. He's an asshole and a giant metaphor for all of the bullshit the president and the Democrats have to put up with every day. And I want far right candidates running in all elections this year. It just helps out the moderate Democrats. Perhaps all of this is over analysis, though. Don't both men look the same?

How To Tell The Difference Between An Open Carry Patriot And A Deranged Killer

Now I get the Oreos from the other day. Nope, no racism here. Please move along...

Move Over, Walmart. The Internet Is Here

Amazon.com has been making news for the last month with its open war against Hachette, a New York publisher, over e-book prices. In the process Amazon has earned the wrath of many writers, including Steven Colbert, whose books are published by Hachette:

"I am not just mad at Amazon. I am mad Prime," he said, punning Amazon's premium service.

When Amazon.com started out 20 years ago, it was great little revolutionary startup. It used the power of the Internet to deliver products customers wanted without having to leave their homes, or fill their mailboxes with tons of catalogs that just wind up in recycling bins, or have to deal with corporate behemoths like Barnes & Noble and Walmart.

But along the way Amazon.com became one of the big bad companies that it rebelled against. In the process it put a lot of small and large bookstores (including Borders, a major chain), out of business. Amazon now sells pretty much anything you can think of, including books, music, videos (streaming and on disc), computer equipment, hardware, even major applicances.

Money that was once spent at local bookstores, record stores, video stores, hardware stores and  computer stores is now going off to Seattle.

Amazon doesn't just sell physical products. It provides server farms for other companies with Amazon Web Services. Netflix uses AWS to deliver streaming video, even though Amazon is a direct competitor with Amazon Instant Video. Amazon also snatched up a major news outlet with the Washington Post.

Amazon doesn't just sell its own products. Like eBay, it acts as a front-end to thousands of small bookstores and merchants. When you look for certain products you're offered several sources, with Amazon's items listed first, and other suppliers listed with their prices. To compete with Amazon, those small suppliers have to offer substantially lower prices. Of course, Amazon gets a cut if you buy from those other sellers, reducing their profit margin even further. Amazon's "referral fee" runs from 6% to 25% (it's 15% for most things), depending on the product category, plus a one-dollar fee per item (sellers can buy a subscription to waive the item fee).

Amazon will tell you that they're helping independent bookstores and merchants by giving them an easy way to sell used books and specialty products. But are those businesses thriving, or simply dying a long, slow death?

Other Internet companies have been following Amazon's lead in diverse realms. Uber's car service has a lot of taxi drivers worried. Driving a cab is not very profitable, and cabbies often make less than minimum wage considering all the idle time, fuel costs, fees and cab leases:

“Poverty among the drivers in Chicago is just palpable, worse than elsewhere,” Ms. Desai said. “Most drivers work 60 to 70 hours a week and earn below the minimum wage, and that’s sad because Chicago is the second-largest taxi market in the United States. Drivers have been suffering in such deep poverty, and that’s been compounded by the threat of the ride-sharing companies.”

Uber often runs afoul of local taxi regulations. The company defends its ride-share service by saying it's more convenient, faster, and provides an opportunity for more people to profit. It may seem like a great deal to Uber drivers now. But they're completely dependent on Uber. Like Amazon, Uber gets a cut of every ride. That money used to stay in the local community is now going off to San Francisco.

In the long run, how good a deal will Uber drivers get? Uber sets the rates and takes a 20% cut. Over time Uber can afford to reduce rates because they get a slice of millions of small transactions. How long will it take for Uber drivers to wind up in the same position as cabbies are today? Also, most  Uber drivers are not dedicated to driving. How reliable will the service be in the long run if their drivers are a bunch of amateurs only doing it because they have a spare hour?

As more people rely on the Internet, advertising gravitates there. Every time you do a Google search for a restaurant Google gets paid for popping up ads for local eateries. That's money that used to be spent on advertising in local phone books, newspapers and television stations. And it's not just ads in Google. When you visit the website of a local news outlet, the advertising is being provided by an Internet company that pays the operator of the site a pittance for each click or view.

The Internet is a two-edged sword: it has allowed startups like Amazon, Google, eBay and PayPal to become hugely successful competitors against monoliths like Walmart and Visa/Mastercard. At the same time, after only a few years these Internet giants are savaging local businesses in the same way it took decades for Walmart to do.

But Internet companies are even worse for local economies than Walmart because they hire no local employees. They contribute almost nothing to the local economy, other than the delivery service that drops off your package (which is another corporate behemoth like FedEx or UPS, or the Post Office).

People once thought the Internet would empower the little guy, but it may not be shaping up that way. Instead of increasing local control, is the Internet centralizing resources, money and power in the hands of fewer and fewer companies?

In the near future it's likely that the very infrastructure of the Internet itself will be an unregulated monopoly owned by a just a couple of humongous conglomerates, such as Comcast, who are intent on dictating what content you can get. But that's a topic for another day.