Nick Hanauer has done it again. His recent open memo to his fellow zillionaires is exceptional. Here are a few great pulls...
At the same time that people like you and me are thriving beyond the dreams of any plutocrats in history, the rest of the country—the 99.99 percent—is lagging far behind. The divide between the haves and have-nots is getting worse really, really fast. In 1980, the top 1 percent controlled about 8 percent of U.S. national income. The bottom 50 percent shared about 18 percent. Today the top 1 percent share about 20 percent; the bottom 50 percent, just 12 percent.
But the problem isn’t that we have inequality. Some inequality is intrinsic to any high-functioning capitalist economy. The problem is that inequality is at historically high levels and getting worse every day. Our country is rapidly becoming less a capitalist society and more a feudal society. Unless our policies change dramatically, the middle class will disappear, and we will be back to late 18th-century France. Before the revolution.
And so I have a message for my fellow filthy rich, for all of us who live in our gated bubble worlds: Wake up, people. It won’t last.
Of course, it's not just his fellow zillionaires that need to wake up. It's the 30 percent or so of voters who still buy into supply side economics. These are the people who believe that our nation is divided into two parts: the haves and the soon to haves. It's also no coincidence that these same people would like to see a return to the Antebellum South and its aristocratic framework. That's why the are fighting so hard to maintain the status quo. As Hanauer notes, however, it never works.
If we don’t do something to fix the glaring inequities in this economy, the pitchforks are going to come for us. No society can sustain this kind of rising inequality. In fact, there is no example in human history where wealth accumulated like this and the pitchforks didn’t eventually come out. You show me a highly unequal society, and I will show you a police state. Or an uprising. There are no counterexamples. None. It’s not if, it’s when.
When, indeed. I challenge anyone to find an historical example that refutes Hanauer.
The most ironic thing about rising inequality is how completely unnecessary and self-defeating it is. If we do something about it, if we adjust our policies in the way that, say, Franklin D. Roosevelt did during the Great Depression—so that we help the 99 percent and preempt the revolutionaries and crazies, the ones with the pitchforks—that will be the best thing possible for us rich folks, too. It’s not just that we’ll escape with our lives; it’s that we’ll most certainly get even richer.
This is where the whole issue of hubris comes into play. Conservatives just don't want to admit that liberal policies will make wealthy people wealthier. They ignore how a minimum wage hike will give people more money to spend in the economy which will, in turn, lead to more hiring and more wealthy for the wealthy. It's as if the word "demand" has been excised from their brain stems.
I wanted to try to change the conversation with ideas—by advancing what my co-author, Eric Liu, and I call “middle-out” economics. It’s the long-overdue rebuttal to the trickle-down economics worldview that has become economic orthodoxy across party lines—and has so screwed the American middle class and our economy generally.
Middle-out economics rejects the old misconception that an economy is a perfectly efficient, mechanistic system and embraces the much more accurate idea of an economy as a complex ecosystem made up of real people who are dependent on one another.
Which is why the fundamental law of capitalism must be: If workers have more money, businesses have more customers. Which makes middle-class consumers, not rich businesspeople like us, the true job creators. Which means a thriving middle class is the source of American prosperity, not a consequence of it. The middle class creates us rich people, not the other way around.
Exactly right and props to him for coining middle out economics. It's exactly the kind of focus we need on demand.
So, Hanauer asserts that we need to dramatically raise the minimum wage.
The standard response in the minimum-wage debate, made by Republicans and their business backers and plenty of Democrats as well, is that raising the minimum wage costs jobs. Businesses will have to lay off workers. This argument reflects the orthodox economics that most people had in college. If you took Econ 101, then you literally were taught that if wages go up, employment must go down. The law of supply and demand and all that. That’s why you’ve got John Boehner and other Republicans in Congress insisting that if you price employment higher, you get less of it. Really?
Because here’s an odd thing. During the past three decades, compensation for CEOs grew 127 times faster than it did for workers. Since 1950, the CEO-to-worker pay ratio has increased 1,000 percent, and that is not a typo. CEOs used to earn 30 times the median wage; now they rake in 500 times. Yet no company I know of has eliminated its senior managers, or outsourced them to China or automated their jobs. Instead, we now have more CEOs and senior executives than ever before. So, too, for financial services workers and technology workers. These folks earn multiples of the median wage, yet we somehow have more and more of them.
Fucking. Brilliant.
Next, Hanauer turns to the size of government and, again, makes a brilliant point.
I’d ask my Republican friends to get real about reducing the size of government. Yes, yes and yes, you guys are all correct: The federal government is too big in some ways. But no way can you cut government substantially, not the way things are now. Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush each had eight years to do it, and they failed miserably.
Republicans and Democrats in Congress can’t shrink government with wishful thinking. The only way to slash government for real is to go back to basic economic principles: You have to reduce the demand for government. If people are getting $15 an hour or more, they don’t need food stamps. They don’t need rent assistance. They don’t need you and me to pay for their medical care. If the consumer middle class is back, buying and shopping, then it stands to reason you won’t need as large a welfare state. And at the same time, revenues from payroll and sales taxes would rise, reducing the deficit.
This may seem hard to grasp for those individuals who have a pathological hatred of the federal government but we can make laws that actually reduce the size and influence of our national governing body.
Hanauer closes with an argument I have made many times.
Capitalism, when well managed, is the greatest social technology ever invented to create prosperity in human societies. But capitalism left unchecked tends toward concentration and collapse. It can be managed either to benefit the few in the near term or the many in the long term. The work of democracies is to bend it to the latter. That is why investments in the middle class work. And tax breaks for rich people like us don’t. Balancing the power of workers and billionaires by raising the minimum wage isn’t bad for capitalism. It’s an indispensable tool smart capitalists use to make capitalism stable and sustainable.
Amen. Let's get started!!
Saturday, July 05, 2014
Details of the Latest Jobs Report
An even brighter spot in June's jobs report is that fewer Americans are giving up on the job search because they are discouraged by their prospects. Adam Belz notes the fine print.
The fine print of Thursday’s cheery U.S. jobs report revealed that the number of people who are not looking for a job because they don’t think they can find one has fallen by 351,000 in the past 12 months.
Those who aren’t actively looking for a job don’t count as unemployed in government labor statistics. As the unemployment rate has fallen, a common concern has been that the number misrepresents the reality of the job market, because the ranks of discouraged workers rose as high as 1.3 million in 2010. That figure has fallen to 676,000.
Thursday’s numbers, which show the ranks of discouraged workers falling by 21,000 in June and declining steadily over the past year, indicate that retirement — not a weak job market — is increasingly the biggest reason people are leaving the workforce.
Very good news indeed!
The fine print of Thursday’s cheery U.S. jobs report revealed that the number of people who are not looking for a job because they don’t think they can find one has fallen by 351,000 in the past 12 months.
Those who aren’t actively looking for a job don’t count as unemployed in government labor statistics. As the unemployment rate has fallen, a common concern has been that the number misrepresents the reality of the job market, because the ranks of discouraged workers rose as high as 1.3 million in 2010. That figure has fallen to 676,000.
Thursday’s numbers, which show the ranks of discouraged workers falling by 21,000 in June and declining steadily over the past year, indicate that retirement — not a weak job market — is increasingly the biggest reason people are leaving the workforce.
Very good news indeed!
Friday, July 04, 2014
Give Us Your Tired, Poor, and Hungry (unless they are brown women and children in which case...FUCK OFF!)
Happy Birthday, America. Sorry you still have to deal with people like this...
When the three busloads of immigrant mothers and children rolled into town for processing at a Border Patrol station this week, they were met by protesters carrying American flags and signs proclaiming “return to sender” as they screamed “go home” and chanted “U.S.A.” Fearing for the safety of the migrants and federal officers, immigration officials decided to reroute the buses to San Diego, an hour south.
After a Border Patrol official explained that more buses would probably arrive in Murrieta in the coming weeks as part of an attempt to relieve processing centers near the Texas border, one man took to the microphone and demanded to know: “Why do we have to put them on a bus to Murrieta? Why can’t we just transport them on a bus to Tijuana?”
The crowd responded with thunderous applause.
I'm feeling pretty ashamed of some of my fellow Americans today. These are children who fleeing violence in Honduras and other Central American nations and this is what they get? Anger and hate? What would Jesus Christ think of this? Christian nation my ass.
The one thing that gives me hope, though, is Steve Schmidt's prediction contained in the video below. It starts at the 4 minute mark.
Take note, Republicans. Keep up the hate and intolerance and you will end up like the California Republican party.
A regional party with zero fucking power.
When the three busloads of immigrant mothers and children rolled into town for processing at a Border Patrol station this week, they were met by protesters carrying American flags and signs proclaiming “return to sender” as they screamed “go home” and chanted “U.S.A.” Fearing for the safety of the migrants and federal officers, immigration officials decided to reroute the buses to San Diego, an hour south.
After a Border Patrol official explained that more buses would probably arrive in Murrieta in the coming weeks as part of an attempt to relieve processing centers near the Texas border, one man took to the microphone and demanded to know: “Why do we have to put them on a bus to Murrieta? Why can’t we just transport them on a bus to Tijuana?”
The crowd responded with thunderous applause.
I'm feeling pretty ashamed of some of my fellow Americans today. These are children who fleeing violence in Honduras and other Central American nations and this is what they get? Anger and hate? What would Jesus Christ think of this? Christian nation my ass.
The one thing that gives me hope, though, is Steve Schmidt's prediction contained in the video below. It starts at the 4 minute mark.
Take note, Republicans. Keep up the hate and intolerance and you will end up like the California Republican party.
A regional party with zero fucking power.
Thursday, July 03, 2014
How We'll Adapt to Climate Change
For years many conservatives have been denying climate change even exists, and when they finally break down and admit it does, they say it'll cost too much to do anything about it and, as Rex Tillerson of ExxonMobil (and Putin buddy) says, we'll find some way to adapt.
What form will adaptation take? Let's look at an example. The American Southwest has been hammered by drought for years, a condition that has been worsened by higher temperatures due to climate change. We're already beginning to see the fallout across the country:
[Minnesota-based] Dakota Premium Foods said Wednesday that it will temporarily cease production at its South St. Paul beef processing plant due to “extremely short cattle supply.”
The shutdown is effective immediately and will idle 300 workers. Dakota Premium said it does not know how long the plant will remain closed.
The U.S. beef processing industry has wrestled for the past two years with a shortage of cattle, due primarily to drought conditions in the Southwest. As drought burned out pasture lands, ranchers greatly cut back on their herds.A recent report on climate change (Risky Business) from businessmen and former Secretaries of the Treasury, both Republicans and Democrats, outlined many of the economic woes climate change will wreak.
“We regret that the current limited cattle supplies, the smallest numbers since the early 1950s, [have] forced us to make this very difficult decision,” Dan Mehesan, president of Dakota parent American Foods Group’s fresh meat division, said in a statement.
It won't be long before cattle production will become impossible in many parts of the Southwest because the rivers are drying up (due to lack of snowpack in the Rockies) and the aquifers are running dry (due to excessive pumping to irrigate crops, water golf courses in Phoenix and Tucson and run the fountains in Las Vegas). A single beef animal requires 2,000-7,000 gallons of water a year (more the hotter it gets). Putting them in expensive air-conditioned barns won't help; hay shortages have plagued ranchers for years now.
How will we adapt? Ranchers will declare bankruptcy. The price of beef will go up. Meat packers will go out of business. Americans will eat fewer hamburgers. Some cattle ranching will move to areas that are currently productive farmland, but which will become more arid and become fit only for pastureland. The communities in the stricken areas will become ghost towns. Agricultural production and American exports will decline.
So, even if cattle production is eventually relocated elsewhere, the economic disruption and dislocation will figure in the hundreds of billions of dollars, and the human misery caused is incalculable.
But it's not just cattle ranching that will be affected. California's Central Valley has been stricken by the same drought. That's an even greater problem:
[California's] $45bn (£26bn) farming industry produces almost half the fruits, vegetables and nuts grown in the US, and to do that it uses 80 per cent of California’s water. Almonds alone account for 10 per cent of the state’s water use – not surprising, given that California produces 80 per cent of the world’s almonds.And it isn't just California. The plains states are also suffering from a years-long drought. In other words, the United States is losing the most productive farmland in the world.
Adapting to climate change will mean millions of people will lose their jobs and millions of acres of land will become unproductive deserts. The people affected will have to look for work in other states, mainly the north, because the South and Southwest will become unbearably and dangerously hot in the summer.
The "adaptation" that wealthy oil executives and their conservative apologists speak so blithely about will leave millions Americans out of work, forced to abandon their homes for other states, falling into bankruptcy and poverty.
Wouldn't it make more sense for us to adapt by having Mr. Tillerson's company help pay for the damage that his company's product is causing?
And that's why we need a carbon tax and/or a cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions. It's a far more efficient way for us to adapt than throwing every other sector of the economy out of whack and rendering our most productive farmlands infertile.
Kindly Do Not Bring Your Guns
Target Corporation has kindly asked the Gun Cult to leave their guns outside their stores.
Target's interim CEO, John Mulligan, in a memo posted on the chain's website Wednesday, said: "This is a complicated issue, but it boils down to a simple belief: Bringing firearms to Target creates an environment that is at odds with the family-friendly shopping and work experience we strive to create."
It's not a ban but they are asking nicely which makes Mulligan a very brilliant man. Not only is he saying no open carry but he's also asking even concealed carry to keep their guns out of the store. So, if gun humpers still do it, how will that make them look?
As I have stated previously, the biggest threat to the Gun Cult is themselves. They seem to be undoing their years of progress by acting like sex starved adolescents with their firearms. All gun safety folks need to do right now is sit back and let them self destruct:)
Target's interim CEO, John Mulligan, in a memo posted on the chain's website Wednesday, said: "This is a complicated issue, but it boils down to a simple belief: Bringing firearms to Target creates an environment that is at odds with the family-friendly shopping and work experience we strive to create."
It's not a ban but they are asking nicely which makes Mulligan a very brilliant man. Not only is he saying no open carry but he's also asking even concealed carry to keep their guns out of the store. So, if gun humpers still do it, how will that make them look?
As I have stated previously, the biggest threat to the Gun Cult is themselves. They seem to be undoing their years of progress by acting like sex starved adolescents with their firearms. All gun safety folks need to do right now is sit back and let them self destruct:)
Unemployment Rate Drops
U.S. employment growth jumped in June and the jobless rate closed in on a six-year low, decisive evidence the economy was moving forward at a brisk clip after a surprisingly big slump at the start of the year.
Nonfarm payrolls increased by 288,000 jobs last month and the unemployment rate fell to 6.1 percent, its lowest level since September 2008, the Labor Department said on Thursday. Data for April and May were revised to show a total of 29,000 more jobs created than previously reported.
This marks the 5th straight month of 200K+ job growth which is great news for the US Economy. Of course, this is not so great for the Republicans who have now officially lost the economy as a campaign issue in the fall. If the economy is the #1 issue in the fall election and it's going in the right direction, why would they want to vote an incumbent out of office?
This marks the 5th straight month of 200K+ job growth which is great news for the US Economy. Of course, this is not so great for the Republicans who have now officially lost the economy as a campaign issue in the fall. If the economy is the #1 issue in the fall election and it's going in the right direction, why would they want to vote an incumbent out of office?
Wednesday, July 02, 2014
Still Loving Quora
After just over two months on Quora, I have to report that I am really having a blast! If you haven't gotten on yet, I urge you to do so. There is such a great variety of people with different views on Quora that I honestly feel right at home. I've struck up some great online friendships.
And I can't believe the traffic. Take a look at how many people read and upvoted one of my answers. Wow! It's also kind of funny to note how sometimes a quick answer (like this one or this one ) generates a lot of views and upvotes. I wish that I could get some more traffic here but I think people tend to flock where there is more population and that's just not here in my little online, small town newspaper. Although, Nikto's last few posts have gotten double what we normally get on daily pieces so that's pretty cool.
And I've more or less confirmed what I thought about TSM commenters out in the real world...they are pretty much cowards. They never ask questions of their own, rarely answer and seem to only upvote or offer a comment here or there. It makes sense because they know how batshit their ideology is outside of the bubble and their insecurity simply won't allow any sort of negativity. Oh well, at least they are mildly self aware:)
Even the downvotes and negative reactions to some of my questions haven't really bothered me. There is just such a nice balance there that is more representative of reality. What comes next promised to be most exciting!
And I can't believe the traffic. Take a look at how many people read and upvoted one of my answers. Wow! It's also kind of funny to note how sometimes a quick answer (like this one or this one ) generates a lot of views and upvotes. I wish that I could get some more traffic here but I think people tend to flock where there is more population and that's just not here in my little online, small town newspaper. Although, Nikto's last few posts have gotten double what we normally get on daily pieces so that's pretty cool.
And I've more or less confirmed what I thought about TSM commenters out in the real world...they are pretty much cowards. They never ask questions of their own, rarely answer and seem to only upvote or offer a comment here or there. It makes sense because they know how batshit their ideology is outside of the bubble and their insecurity simply won't allow any sort of negativity. Oh well, at least they are mildly self aware:)
Even the downvotes and negative reactions to some of my questions haven't really bothered me. There is just such a nice balance there that is more representative of reality. What comes next promised to be most exciting!
Tuesday, July 01, 2014
Why All the Red-State Pill Popping?
Opioid painkiller abuse is a serious problem in this country. High profile cases include actor Philip Seymour Hoffman, who died of a heroin overdose earlier this year after getting hooked on prescription painkillers, and Rush Limbaugh, whose hearing loss may have been caused by oxycontin abuse.
[T]he rates were much higher in some southern states. In Alabama, which led the country, there were 143 painkiller prescriptions for every 100 people in 2012. There were 11 other states where each adult, on average, got a least one painkiller prescription that year, including Tennessee, West Virginia and Kentucky.These excessively high prescription rates contribute directly to higher death rates by overdose in those states. Florida changed their regulations to combat an epidemic of oxycodone overdoses with great success:
CDC Director Dr. Thomas Frieden told reporters that officials don't think the high rates of prescribing in some states are because people living there have more pain. "This is an epidemic that was largely caused by improper prescribing practices," he said during a media briefing.
Between 2010 and 2012, annual overdose deaths in Florida dropped 16.7 percent, from 3,201 to 2,666. And deaths from oxycodone, the generic name of the ingredient in many brand-name opioid painkillers, fell by more than half, according to an analysis published in MMWR.Why are the conservative states so ready to pop addictive painkillers? There's some research that finds conservatives to be driven more by fear, something that seems to be borne out by the attitudes so many conservatives espouse when they insist they have to carry guns everywhere they go. Does all that fear also make conservatives more afraid of pain?
Are southern doctors letting drug companies use them to bilk insurance and Medicaid out of billions of dollars to hook patients on addictive drugs? Are patients just getting prescriptions so they can turn around and sell the pills on the black market?
I don't know. All I can say for sure is that if the numbers were reversed, conservatives would be telling us how liberals are wimpy nancy-boys, how blue-state welfare policies encourage prescription drug abuse and Obamacare is leading to moral decline by giving them heroin-light instead of making them tough it out.
What I do know from personal experience is that these drugs are extremely dangerous. Some years ago I contracted pneumonia, though I didn't know it because I had no problems breathing: the main symptom was an incredibly bad headache that prevented me from sleeping.
When they finally prescribed the right antibiotic, they also gave me a prescription for Percocet (oxycodone and acetaminophen) so that I could sleep. I took one tablet. But as soon as I would start to fall asleep I would stop breathing. I had to force myself to stay awake and breathe until the drug wore off.
I cannot understand why people put this crap into their systems just for the hell of it...
Monday, June 30, 2014
Supreme Court Okays Corporate Interference in Personal Lives
The Supreme Court decided in favor of Hobby Lobby's claim that paying for birth control violated "the company's" freedom of religion.
This is wrong on two counts.
First, corporations are not human beings and cannot have religions. Corporations do not attend church. They cannot be excommunicated. They cannot be married. They cannot partake of holy sacraments or receive communion. They cannot be baptized. They cannot vote. They cannot go to prison.
Corporations are legal entities created by government. They exist to prevent the owners from being held personally liable for corporate debts and actions. If Hobby Lobby goes bankrupt, the company's creditors cannot go after the owners' personal assets to recoup debts. The CEO is not culpable for crimes committed by other employees.
That means that the owners of Hobby Lobby are not personally responsible for actions that corporation takes that are required by law. The owners and officers of the company are not the company, unless they are a sole proprietorship that is is not protected by the liability limitations that Hobby Lobby's incorporation provides.
Thus, if Hobby Lobby wants to force their religious beliefs on their employees, they can't hide behind the shield of corporate law that the government provides them. The Supreme Court should have allowed this only if they dissolved the corporate entity the Hobby Lobby owners hide behind.
Second, the company's argument against providing coverage was this:
The companies objected to some of the methods, saying they are tantamount to abortion because they can prevent embryos from implanting in the womb. Providing insurance coverage for those forms of contraception would, the companies said, make them complicit in the practice.They're saying that their religion prevents them from giving money to person A, who will give that money to person B to provide contraception to person C.
Then why is is acceptable for them to money directly to person C who will spend it on contraception?
What happens when Hobby Lobby finds out that one of their employees is spending that money on forbidden contraceptives? Or when they find out that an employee has had an abortion? Based on their victory in the Supreme Court today, won't they feel emboldened to fire that employee, because the employee is using their money to make them complicit in the practice? How can the government force them to pay people who violate their core beliefs?
How long before other "family-owned" corporations come crawling out of the woodwork saying that they can't hire Hindus because it would make complicit in paganism, or Jews because it would make them complicit in the death of Jesus, or women because their religion preaches that women should stay in the home, or gays because -- well, gays!
In the final analysis the Hobby Lobby case is not about corporate freedom of religion. It's about employers thinking they have the right to control the private lives of the people who work for them.
In particular:
[Hobby Lobby] said they had no objection to other forms of contraception, including condoms, diaphragms, sponges, several kinds of birth control pills and sterilization surgery.That means Hobby Lobby thinks corporations have the right to tell an employee the only method of birth control they will accept is sterilization, if they couch their reasons in appropriately mystical terms.
That should give even the most die-hard conservative reason to doubt the wisdom of this decision.
Sunday, June 29, 2014
NPR Plays The Cult of Both Sides
Last Friday, the president spoke in my hometown and NPR in Minnesota aired a post speech analysis. At about the 12 minute mark, Keith Downy, chair of the Minnesota Republican party joins the conversation and, thus, any criticism of NPR being liberal goes directly out of the fucking window. For the next few minutes, Downy spins the usual yarn about how the free market can just sort itself out. If we had only left the government out of it in 2008, all would be well with our economy today.
What fucking planet are these people living on?
Worse, he's being terribly dishonest because he would have done the exact same thing the president did. I'd like Mr. Downy or any other free market fundamentalist to point to real world evidence of their theory. Show me a recession that was that bad and then show me how doing nothing worked out.
Of course the real treat of the segment was Andy from Sioux Falls, a small business owner fed up with federal taxes, who comes in at around 14 minutes into the segment. After hearing his remarks, I have to question whether or not this man was an actual small business owner or whether he was a Tea Party troll calling in to wax Ayn Rand. No business owner (large, medium, or small) turns down making more money because they are worried about paying federal taxes. What a ludicrous bunch of nonsense! After Downy's ad hom on the woman the president met with to discuss local economic concerns, I was left to wonder how NPR let themselves get into such a position.
When will the "liberal" media stop playing the cult of both sides? Sometimes there is only one side to a story. Supply side economics doesn't work. Even the guys that came up with it (David Stockman, Bruce Bartlett) have admitted they were wrong. You can't simply ignore aggregate demand and pretend it doesn't exist. The problem with our economy today is that there are not enough people buying things so businesses don't hire people. There isn't enough population at the top to support our economy.
The middle class is the engine that drives our economy and when they have more money, our economy will improve.
What fucking planet are these people living on?
Worse, he's being terribly dishonest because he would have done the exact same thing the president did. I'd like Mr. Downy or any other free market fundamentalist to point to real world evidence of their theory. Show me a recession that was that bad and then show me how doing nothing worked out.
Of course the real treat of the segment was Andy from Sioux Falls, a small business owner fed up with federal taxes, who comes in at around 14 minutes into the segment. After hearing his remarks, I have to question whether or not this man was an actual small business owner or whether he was a Tea Party troll calling in to wax Ayn Rand. No business owner (large, medium, or small) turns down making more money because they are worried about paying federal taxes. What a ludicrous bunch of nonsense! After Downy's ad hom on the woman the president met with to discuss local economic concerns, I was left to wonder how NPR let themselves get into such a position.
When will the "liberal" media stop playing the cult of both sides? Sometimes there is only one side to a story. Supply side economics doesn't work. Even the guys that came up with it (David Stockman, Bruce Bartlett) have admitted they were wrong. You can't simply ignore aggregate demand and pretend it doesn't exist. The problem with our economy today is that there are not enough people buying things so businesses don't hire people. There isn't enough population at the top to support our economy.
The middle class is the engine that drives our economy and when they have more money, our economy will improve.
Saturday, June 28, 2014
Free Speech and Clinic Safety
Noah Feldman from Bloomberg breaks down the recent SCOTUS decision which allows anti-abortion activists inside the buffer zones that clinics have created in front of their buildings for safety. He notes that a first glance might reveal a big victory for abortion foes. Yet, a closer examination reveals much more.
The crucial element in the opinion — the element that got the liberals on board and enraged the conservatives — is that Roberts said the law was neutral with respect to the content of speech as well as the viewpoint of the speakers. That conclusion protected the possibility of other laws protecting women seeking abortions that pay more attention to what Roberts said was missing here, namely proof that the law was narrowly tailored.
What would be a real world example?
Consider a law banning sound trucks blaring on your street at night. It would probably be constitutional, because the government has a significant interest in citizens’ sleep, and there would be plenty of other times for sound trucks to operate, leaving ample alternatives for communication. It is this standard that Roberts applied to the buffer zone — and that will therefore be applied to other, similar buffer laws in the future.
Essentially, the details of the ruling give fair warning to abortion foes who may be emboldened to shout or threaten clinic patrons. The constitutionality of a ban or a buffer zone is still there because (surprise!) the freedom of speech is not unlimited.
The crucial element in the opinion — the element that got the liberals on board and enraged the conservatives — is that Roberts said the law was neutral with respect to the content of speech as well as the viewpoint of the speakers. That conclusion protected the possibility of other laws protecting women seeking abortions that pay more attention to what Roberts said was missing here, namely proof that the law was narrowly tailored.
What would be a real world example?
Consider a law banning sound trucks blaring on your street at night. It would probably be constitutional, because the government has a significant interest in citizens’ sleep, and there would be plenty of other times for sound trucks to operate, leaving ample alternatives for communication. It is this standard that Roberts applied to the buffer zone — and that will therefore be applied to other, similar buffer laws in the future.
Essentially, the details of the ruling give fair warning to abortion foes who may be emboldened to shout or threaten clinic patrons. The constitutionality of a ban or a buffer zone is still there because (surprise!) the freedom of speech is not unlimited.
Friday, June 27, 2014
Democrats Counting Cash
On behalf of all Democrats and liberals, I would like to personally thank John Boehner and all Republicans everywhere for helping out with our fundraising yesterday. The DCCC has the best day it's had this year with a cool half mil coming into the coffer. Thanks dudes!
Perhaps continued attacks on the president will also increase voter turnout in the midterms and he can kick their ass a third time:)
Perhaps continued attacks on the president will also increase voter turnout in the midterms and he can kick their ass a third time:)
The Thad Tizzy
I'm still trying to figure out why the Tea Baggers and other malcontent conservatives are pissed off about Thad winning the runoff in Mississippi. Democrats can vote in primary elections. It's the law. Why are the being all whiny about it? Don't the Republicans want to expand their base? What better way to do so than by illustrating to African American voters in the state that Thad Cochran considers their interests as well.
It will never cease to amaze me how conservatives continue to do everything in their power to contract their voting base.
It will never cease to amaze me how conservatives continue to do everything in their power to contract their voting base.
Thursday, June 26, 2014
Getting Blood Out of a Stone
When you give money to a charity, you expect that they'll spend it on the things they promised to. Right?
So when people gave the American Red Cross $300 million for Hurricane Sandy relief, you would expect that the organization would be quite proud to show how well they did for their donors. Right?
Wrong.
ProPublica tried to find out the details of how the Red Cross spent the money it received for Hurricane Sandy. But getting the information from the Red Cross is like getting blood out of a stone:
When a tax-exempt public charity starts spouting corporate-speak about trade secrets, competitors and business models, they seem to be hiding something.
But what? By all accounts, the Red Cross is doing a pretty decent job of turning donations into help for people in need (91% of every dollar raised goes to humanitarian services). They post the IRS form with the salary of CEO Gail McGovern ($628,386 in 2013). That's not excessive, even though some Internet nitwits pretend it is, and the five other corporate officers listed also have reasonable salaries.
There are a lot of unscrupulous charities out there that do a lot worse job than the Red Cross. The Red Cross is out there on the front lines whenever there's a disaster, so it's pretty obvious they're actually doing something.
Other charities, not so much. There are a zillion charities for veterans, children (foreign and domestic), animal shelters, wildlife, medical research, and so on. But you can never really tell that they're actually doing anything with your money: we'll always have homeless vets, cancer, heart disease, too many pregnant cats running around loose and endangered species. Lots of these charities are completely phony. Most of them spend far more on fund raising than the cause they're supposed to be helping.
The Red Cross is different. They're always around, always helping people when they need it most. But because we trust and depend on them, they really need to be up front about what they do with the money we give them. Because if they're not doing their jobs right, people are going to die.
All charities should be held to that same standard. If the Red Cross is afraid to divulge their "business model" because they believe that the weaselly worthless charities will start poaching Red Cross donors, then we need to strengthen the laws for charitable giving to stop the scum from ripping us off.
So when people gave the American Red Cross $300 million for Hurricane Sandy relief, you would expect that the organization would be quite proud to show how well they did for their donors. Right?
Wrong.
ProPublica tried to find out the details of how the Red Cross spent the money it received for Hurricane Sandy. But getting the information from the Red Cross is like getting blood out of a stone:
If those details were disclosed, "the American Red Cross would suffer competitive harm because its competitors would be able to mimic the American Red Cross's business model for an increased competitive advantage," [Gabrielle] Levin [counsel for the Red Cross from the law firm Gibson Dunn] wrote.People give the Red Cross their very blood for free, a donation which carries significant risk of personal bodily harm, and they turn around and sell it to hospitals for a hefty fee. And they're whining about trade secrets? People give you blood and money. What's the big secret?
When a tax-exempt public charity starts spouting corporate-speak about trade secrets, competitors and business models, they seem to be hiding something.
But what? By all accounts, the Red Cross is doing a pretty decent job of turning donations into help for people in need (91% of every dollar raised goes to humanitarian services). They post the IRS form with the salary of CEO Gail McGovern ($628,386 in 2013). That's not excessive, even though some Internet nitwits pretend it is, and the five other corporate officers listed also have reasonable salaries.
There are a lot of unscrupulous charities out there that do a lot worse job than the Red Cross. The Red Cross is out there on the front lines whenever there's a disaster, so it's pretty obvious they're actually doing something.
Other charities, not so much. There are a zillion charities for veterans, children (foreign and domestic), animal shelters, wildlife, medical research, and so on. But you can never really tell that they're actually doing anything with your money: we'll always have homeless vets, cancer, heart disease, too many pregnant cats running around loose and endangered species. Lots of these charities are completely phony. Most of them spend far more on fund raising than the cause they're supposed to be helping.
The Red Cross is different. They're always around, always helping people when they need it most. But because we trust and depend on them, they really need to be up front about what they do with the money we give them. Because if they're not doing their jobs right, people are going to die.
All charities should be held to that same standard. If the Red Cross is afraid to divulge their "business model" because they believe that the weaselly worthless charities will start poaching Red Cross donors, then we need to strengthen the laws for charitable giving to stop the scum from ripping us off.
A Frivolous Lawsuit?
Conservatives like to whine and shriek about frivolous lawsuits right up until the point when they actually start one themselves.
House Speaker John Boehner confirmed Wednesday that he intends to sue President Obama in the long-running dispute between the administration and congressional Republicans over the scope of the administration's executive authority to enforce laws.
"I am," Boehner told reporters, when asked if he was going to initiate a lawsuit. "The Constitution makes it clear that a president's job is to faithfully execute the laws. In my view, the president has not faithfully executed the laws." Boehner added: "Congress has its job to do and so does the president. And when there's conflicts like this between the legislative branch and the administrative branch, it's in my view our responsibility to stand up for this institution in which we serve."
I wonder how much this is going to cost the taxpayers.
House Speaker John Boehner confirmed Wednesday that he intends to sue President Obama in the long-running dispute between the administration and congressional Republicans over the scope of the administration's executive authority to enforce laws.
"I am," Boehner told reporters, when asked if he was going to initiate a lawsuit. "The Constitution makes it clear that a president's job is to faithfully execute the laws. In my view, the president has not faithfully executed the laws." Boehner added: "Congress has its job to do and so does the president. And when there's conflicts like this between the legislative branch and the administrative branch, it's in my view our responsibility to stand up for this institution in which we serve."
I wonder how much this is going to cost the taxpayers.
Wednesday, June 25, 2014
When Every Quarter Is a Bad Quarter
The Commerce Department says that US economy contracted 2.9% in the first quarter, mostly due to bad winter weather. To be sure, there were lots of other factors:
But the largest single factor was the weather. Recently a group of economic and public figures from across the political spectrum released a report called Risky Business that details the economic effects of climate change. These include former Republican Treasury secretaries Hank Paulson and George Shultz.
Climate is just another word for long-term weather. Climate change will usher in bad weather every quarter: rising sea levels, more flash flooding, more torrential rains in some areas while other areas suffer perpetual drought, more powerful storm surges and tornadoes, and larger snowfalls. In states like Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia and Louisiana it will be too hot and humid to work outside without risk of heat stroke. In other words, when we're not digging out from snowstorms, mudslides, tornadoes, and floods, it will be too damn hot to get any work done. Productivity will go into the crapper.
The report states that some areas may benefit from a milder climate, like Minnesota and North Dakota. Hey, two out of 50 states ain't bad.
The latest revisions reflect a weaker pace of healthcare spending than previously assumed, which caused a downgrading of the consumer spending estimate.and
[Orders for durable goods] were dragged down by weak demand for transportation, machinery, computers and electronic products; electrical equipment, appliances and components; as well as a 31.4 percent plunge in defense capital goods orders.and
Other drags to first-quarter growth included a slow pace of restocking by businesses, a sharp drop in investment on non-residential structures such as gas drilling and weak government spending on defense.So, when people save money on healthcare and the government cuts spending, the economy suffers. No wonder economics is called the dismal science: even things that are supposed to good are bad.
But the largest single factor was the weather. Recently a group of economic and public figures from across the political spectrum released a report called Risky Business that details the economic effects of climate change. These include former Republican Treasury secretaries Hank Paulson and George Shultz.
Climate is just another word for long-term weather. Climate change will usher in bad weather every quarter: rising sea levels, more flash flooding, more torrential rains in some areas while other areas suffer perpetual drought, more powerful storm surges and tornadoes, and larger snowfalls. In states like Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia and Louisiana it will be too hot and humid to work outside without risk of heat stroke. In other words, when we're not digging out from snowstorms, mudslides, tornadoes, and floods, it will be too damn hot to get any work done. Productivity will go into the crapper.
The report states that some areas may benefit from a milder climate, like Minnesota and North Dakota. Hey, two out of 50 states ain't bad.
Wrong About Scott Walker
I didn't think there was much to the "Scott Walker is a criminal" stuff that has been floating around these last few years but it looks like that story might have a bit more to it. It's not surprising that Scott Walker says that the probe is all over. Far from it.
The scope of the criminal scheme under investigation "is expansive," Schmitz wrote. "It includes criminal violations of multiple elections laws, including violations of Filing a False Campaign Report or Statement and Conspiracy to File a False Campaign Report or Statement."
Well, I guess I was wrong again:)
The scope of the criminal scheme under investigation "is expansive," Schmitz wrote. "It includes criminal violations of multiple elections laws, including violations of Filing a False Campaign Report or Statement and Conspiracy to File a False Campaign Report or Statement."
Well, I guess I was wrong again:)
Tuesday, June 24, 2014
Revenge of the Nerds?
A recent study found that "popular" kids aren't as successful at real life as they are at impressing their classmates:
Sure, drunken frat boys with rich daddies can still get into Harvard and Skull and Bones, and they can get high-paying jobs through their connections. But if you look at the list of the richest people in the United States, you see it's basically divided into two parts: the self-made techies (Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, Larry Page, Jeff Bezos, Sergey Brin, Mark Zuckerberg) and the guys who got handed everything from daddy (the Kochs and the Waltons) with the occasional odd ducks like Warren Buffett and Sheldon Adelson.
The rise in popularity of video games (including computerized versions of D&D, a nerds-only activity at one point), films like Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit, Star Trek, Star Wars, Gravity, the entire Marvel canon, and the worldwide acceptance of and total dependence on the Internet have completely changed the face of entertainment, commerce and social interaction in ways that only nerdy science fiction writers and fans had contemplated thirty years ago.
And then there's this hoverbike, a sort of rev. 0.0 of Luke Skywalker's landspeeder or Anakin's airspeeder. What could be a surer sign that the future is here and that the nerds have won?
Yet, despite all that technological progress, I just know that the cool kids will still go out and get themselves killed drinking and shooting womp rats.
At 13, they were viewed by classmates with envy, admiration and not a little awe. The girls wore makeup, had boyfriends and went to parties held by older students. The boys boasted about sneaking beers on a Saturday night and swiping condoms from the local convenience store.As technology has become more important to success in the workplace, kids who studied in school, applied themselves and went to college are making more money.
They were cool. They were good-looking. They were so not you.
Whatever happened to them?
“The fast-track kids didn’t turn out O.K.,” said Joseph P. Allen, a psychology professor at the University of Virginia. He is the lead author of a new study, published this month in the journal Child Development, that followed these risk-taking, socially precocious cool kids for a decade. In high school, their social status often plummeted, the study showed, and they began struggling in many ways.
Sure, drunken frat boys with rich daddies can still get into Harvard and Skull and Bones, and they can get high-paying jobs through their connections. But if you look at the list of the richest people in the United States, you see it's basically divided into two parts: the self-made techies (Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, Larry Page, Jeff Bezos, Sergey Brin, Mark Zuckerberg) and the guys who got handed everything from daddy (the Kochs and the Waltons) with the occasional odd ducks like Warren Buffett and Sheldon Adelson.
The rise in popularity of video games (including computerized versions of D&D, a nerds-only activity at one point), films like Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit, Star Trek, Star Wars, Gravity, the entire Marvel canon, and the worldwide acceptance of and total dependence on the Internet have completely changed the face of entertainment, commerce and social interaction in ways that only nerdy science fiction writers and fans had contemplated thirty years ago.
And then there's this hoverbike, a sort of rev. 0.0 of Luke Skywalker's landspeeder or Anakin's airspeeder. What could be a surer sign that the future is here and that the nerds have won?
Yet, despite all that technological progress, I just know that the cool kids will still go out and get themselves killed drinking and shooting womp rats.
Can You Spot The Racism In this Photo?
Update: A couple of comments failed to note this.
Racism isn't like a smelly fart. It doesn't always have to be that apparent.
Monday, June 23, 2014
The Gaseous Form of Manure
During the recent Senate hearing on climate change, Republicans once again trotted out one of their stupidest talking points: the notion that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.
"I would say CO2 is a different kettle of fish," said [Senator Jeff] Sessions [(R-Ala)]. "It's plant food. It's not a pollutant in any normal definition."Cow manure is also plant food. But you don't want it flowing freely through the streets or tainting your drinking water.
Carbon dioxide is lung excrement. It is a waste product of all animal life as well as the combustion of fossil fuels.
In other words, all that hot air Senator Sessions is spewing about climate change is almost literally the gaseous form of bullshit.
We can withstand carbon dioxide in small quantities, but it is deadly at higher concentrations. At 100,000 ppm (10%) it is deadly. Carbon dioxide poisoning -- CO2 retention -- is the direct cause of death by suffocation. It kills submariners and divers whose equipment fails.
If you put a plastic bag over your head the carbon dioxide pollution your lungs produce will kill you in short order. It's really that simple.
When people commit suicide in their automobiles or die accidentally from faulty venting of natural gas or propane heaters, the carbon monoxide (CO) from incomplete combustion kills them first (because CO binds to hemoglobin). But the carbon dioxide would also get the job done; it just takes a little longer.
Finally, plants need to respire oxygen in the absence of sunlight to drive their life processes, just like we do, and at that time they exhale carbon dioxide, just like we do. That means plants -- just like humans -- will die if the concentration of CO2 gets too high.
Carbon dioxide is therefore the very definition of a pollutant, though like many pollutants it is harmless in sufficiently small quantities. And since even oxygen is toxic at sufficiently high concentrations, Sessions' notions about "plant food" are idiotic from the get-go: it's all about proper concentrations.
Burning so much oil, gas and coal puts CO2 into the atmosphere far faster than plants and other natural processes can possibly remove it. That excess CO2 has been building now for 150 years, and it's heating the earth by entrapping the sun's warmth on the surface, instead of radiating that heat back into space in the infrared.
The earth is packed with life because it is has balanced systems, like the carbon cycle and the water cycle. Humans are knocking those cycles out of kilter on a massive scale: there are seven billion of us now.
We have doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere over the course of several decades by burning gigatons of oil, gas and coal that had been buried over a billion years. At the same time we've deforested millions of square miles of forests that can no longer cleanse that "plant food" from the atmosphere because we're burning those all down too.
So, let me summarize in a folksy way that Mr. Sessions will understand: if you put too much manure on your petunias you'll kill them. And if we put too much CO2 into the atmosphere we'll kill the plants -- and ourselves.
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.
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.
“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.
They don't.
Sunday, June 22, 2014
Saturday, June 21, 2014
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.
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.
Friday, June 20, 2014
And Just When You Thought the Pope Was Becoming Reasonable...
In no uncertain terms, the pope is against drugs:
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.
[...] Francis said, providing addicts with drugs offered only "a veiled means of surrendering to the phenomenon."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.
"Let me state this in the clearest terms possible," he said. "The problem of drug use is not solved with drugs!"
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.
Thursday, June 19, 2014
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.
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!!!!
Wednesday, June 18, 2014
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.
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.
“[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.”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.
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.”
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.
Tuesday, June 17, 2014
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?
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...
At the same time, I...
Well said!
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!
Monday, June 16, 2014
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?
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 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
Sunday, June 15, 2014
Saturday, June 14, 2014
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!
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!
Friday, June 13, 2014
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?
"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?
Thursday, June 12, 2014
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.
Wednesday, June 11, 2014
Palling Around with Putin
While Republicans have been blasting Obama's "failure" and "weakness" in Ukraine, executives at the giant oil companies have been palling around with Putin and his cronies. On the right are pictures of BP's David Campbell shaking hands with Igor Sechin, one of the Russian officials hit by US economic sanctions, and Ben van Beurden, chief executive of Shell.
And it's not just the foreign oil companies. Neil W. Duffin, an executive for Exxon Mobil, signed a deal with Sechin last month. Exxon has been working hard to sabotage America's efforts to economically isolate Russia for its slow-motion invasion of Ukraine:
Mr. Tillerson, Exxon’s chief executive, told reporters last week in Dallas that the company was making its skepticism about sanctions clear to the United States government. “Our views are being heard at the highest levels,” he said.How can we trust giant energy conglomerates like Exxon Mobil when they cut deals with tyrants like Putin, undermining American foreign policy? How can we believe for an instant that these companies have the best interests at heart for the United States, its land and its people when they tell us that fracking doesn't poison our water, that drilling in the Gulf of Mexico is completely safe, and that carbon dioxide doesn't cause global warming?
“There has been no impact on any of our business activities in Russia to this point, nor has there been any discernible impact on the relationship” with Rosneft, he added.
Hey Gun Cult, Wake Up!
I'm still thinking about this quote from yesterday...
While I don't believe a majority, or even significant chunk, of anti-government, pro-Second Amendment types are violence-prone and comparable to this delusional husband and wife, I can't help but think much of their rhetoric encourages certain [already] unstable people to act out violently.
Nancy Lanza proved this to be absolutely true.
Consider this quote as well from a recent Quora discussion.
They seem to think we all look at them as "good guys with guns". I don't feel safer when I see a random dude carrying an assault rifle in public. I feel like they are essentially the same as the people they pretend they are protecting us from. Like they are a mass shooting waiting to happen.
Indeed.
So here's the mess that makes zero sense when you look at all of it. The Gun Cult asserts they need all their guns to protect themselves from a possible (in their minds...super likely and any day now!!) tyrannical government that will oppress them. Yet they take no responsibility for the myriad of people that subscribe to this ideology (see: brainwashing) who are mentally unstable and are causing exactly the violent society they claim to not want to have.
Further, the open carry idiots that parade around with guns honestly leave one to wonder...is this person going to start shooting? How can you tell if they are or aren't? Consider that the guy with concealed carry who got shot in the Jerad and Amanda Miller rampage didn't even know that there was more than one shooter which shows just how much a a lie the "good guy with a gun" meme truly is.
Listening to anything gun activists say these days is completely nuts. Their analysis of this issue is so fucking bad that I have to wonder why there are still some people who believe them.
While I don't believe a majority, or even significant chunk, of anti-government, pro-Second Amendment types are violence-prone and comparable to this delusional husband and wife, I can't help but think much of their rhetoric encourages certain [already] unstable people to act out violently.
Nancy Lanza proved this to be absolutely true.
Consider this quote as well from a recent Quora discussion.
They seem to think we all look at them as "good guys with guns". I don't feel safer when I see a random dude carrying an assault rifle in public. I feel like they are essentially the same as the people they pretend they are protecting us from. Like they are a mass shooting waiting to happen.
Indeed.
So here's the mess that makes zero sense when you look at all of it. The Gun Cult asserts they need all their guns to protect themselves from a possible (in their minds...super likely and any day now!!) tyrannical government that will oppress them. Yet they take no responsibility for the myriad of people that subscribe to this ideology (see: brainwashing) who are mentally unstable and are causing exactly the violent society they claim to not want to have.
Further, the open carry idiots that parade around with guns honestly leave one to wonder...is this person going to start shooting? How can you tell if they are or aren't? Consider that the guy with concealed carry who got shot in the Jerad and Amanda Miller rampage didn't even know that there was more than one shooter which shows just how much a a lie the "good guy with a gun" meme truly is.
Listening to anything gun activists say these days is completely nuts. Their analysis of this issue is so fucking bad that I have to wonder why there are still some people who believe them.
Tuesday, June 10, 2014
Cooking the Books to Get Their Bonuses
There's been a lot of noise about the problem with vets getting appointments at VA hospitals. So here are some numbers for the VA hospitals in Minnesota, where I live:
There were similar findings in the audit for California: wait times were mostly in line with what I see in private practice. Note that some of the problem San Diego VA clinics are are operated by private contractors.
The map on this page shows the distribution of wait times across the country. There are basically 12 or 13 clinics in the country out of maybe a hundred that have long wait times; most of the country is experiencing wait times comparable to private medical practice.
So it seems like the problem at the VA isn't endemic. There are certain facilities where administrators are are committing fraud because they don't have the resources to meet the demand, but they still want to make their numbers so they can get their bonuses. These bonuses may well be the source of the problem:
The average wait time for a patient seeking primary care for the first time is 28 days at the Minneapolis VA Medical Center and its outpatient clinics and 25 days for the St. Cloud system, the data show. But the waits are much shorter for established patients who are already in the VA system -- three days for Minneapolis and two days for St. Cloud. Nationwide, the longest average wait for new patients seeking primary care is 145 days in Honolulu.The Minnesota times are typical for what I experience when I make appointments to see a doctor with my private insurance. If I want to see a specialist for the first time I have to wait two or three months. But if I'm already an established patient, it only takes a few days, just like it does for vets. There's no catastrophe occurring in Minnesota.
Waits for new patients seeking specialty care are longer -- 50 days for new patients for the Minneapolis system and 47 days for St. Cloud's, compared with four days for established patients to see specialists for Minneapolis and five for St. Cloud. The longest average wait for new patients nationwide is 145 days in Harlingen, Texas.
There were similar findings in the audit for California: wait times were mostly in line with what I see in private practice. Note that some of the problem San Diego VA clinics are are operated by private contractors.
The map on this page shows the distribution of wait times across the country. There are basically 12 or 13 clinics in the country out of maybe a hundred that have long wait times; most of the country is experiencing wait times comparable to private medical practice.
So it seems like the problem at the VA isn't endemic. There are certain facilities where administrators are are committing fraud because they don't have the resources to meet the demand, but they still want to make their numbers so they can get their bonuses. These bonuses may well be the source of the problem:
According to congressional reports and VA employees, medical-center staffs nationwide were pressured to reduce waits even as backlogs grew. A carrot-and-stick approach provided cash bonuses and advancement to successful managers, but performance downgrades for failures.
In the words of whistle-blowers, that emphasis created incentives to "cook the books."So, it's not really a question of a generally incompetent government medical system, but the corrupting influence of money: instead of rocking the boat by complaining to upper management about resource shortages, managers lied to make sure they got their bonuses.
Yet Another Shooting
Well, we have had yet another school shooting. The president's words say it best...
"Our levels of gun violence are off the charts. There's no advanced, developed country on Earth that would put up with this," President Barack Obama said in Washington in response to a question about gun violence.
He said the nation should be ashamed of its inability to get tougher gun restrictions through Congress in the aftermath of mass shootings that he said have become commonplace in America. Most members of Congress are "terrified" of the National Rifle Association, the President said, adding that nothing will change until public opinion demands it.
"The country has to do some soul searching about this. This is becoming the norm, and we take it for granted, in ways that as a parent are terrifying to me," Obama said.
Yet we are putting up with it. Why?
Because the hysterical old ladies also known as the Gun Cult won't grow the fuck up.
"Our levels of gun violence are off the charts. There's no advanced, developed country on Earth that would put up with this," President Barack Obama said in Washington in response to a question about gun violence.
He said the nation should be ashamed of its inability to get tougher gun restrictions through Congress in the aftermath of mass shootings that he said have become commonplace in America. Most members of Congress are "terrified" of the National Rifle Association, the President said, adding that nothing will change until public opinion demands it.
"The country has to do some soul searching about this. This is becoming the norm, and we take it for granted, in ways that as a parent are terrifying to me," Obama said.
Yet we are putting up with it. Why?
Because the hysterical old ladies also known as the Gun Cult won't grow the fuck up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)