Every year thousands of kids get the wrong dose of medicine in the United States. Some of them are made sicker, some of them don't get better or stay sick longer, and some of them die. Why?
The United States uses an arcane and outdated measurement system. The English system is used for some things, but the metric system for other things. Science and medicine use the metric system, the United States military uses the metric system, most manufactured products use the metric system, including cars, bicycles, computers, etc., but plumbing and carpentry supplies are still manufactured to English specifications. This means that Americans have to own two sets of tools, and are constantly wondering which set they need. Our speed limits and maps all still use English.
The same problem exists in medicine. The dosages for liquid medications are sometimes prescribed in milliliters, but most frequently in teaspoons or tablespoons. Pharmacists can mix up teaspoons and tablespoons because the
abbreviations are so similar (tsp. and tbsp.) and physician's scribbles
are often difficult to decipher. Even if it's written correctly, anyone who's ever done any baking knows how easy it is to mix up teaspoons and tablespoons, which can result in dangerously wrong dosages.
To make things worse, parents often use a regular teaspoon that you eat cereal with instead of an actual measuring teaspoon. They just eyeball half a teaspoon instead of finding an actual half-teaspoon measuring spoon. Because children have such low body mass, and some medicines are so powerful, an overdose can have serious consequences, resulting in injury and even death.
To fix this many professional associations are recommending all liquid medicines be administered in milliliters (mL). Whenever you get a prescription for liquid medicines you would get a small measurement cup with markings in mL. A study recently found that parents dosing in mL made far fewer mistakes.
Dealing with multiple measurement systems causes errors. The Mars Climate Orbiter was lost because one subcontractor provided data in pound force seconds instead of newton seconds. In the United States patient weights are recorded on scales that read in pounds, but dosages for medications are typically calculated in milliliters per kilogram of body weight, which means doctors have to convert your body weight into metric and then convert the calculated dose back into English.
None of this makes any sense. Nearly every product you buy in the store is marked in both English and metric, since manufacturers want to be able to export without having to repackage goods for different markets.
Even more idiotically, there are multiple English systems in common usage. Ships and aircraft still use "nautical miles,"
which are 800 feet longer than "statute miles." There are U.S. gallons
and imperial gallons. There are regular feet and "survey feet." And then
there's the profusion of different units: chains, rods, acres, fathoms, yards, fluid ounces,
dry ounces, pints, quarts, cups, gallons, BTUs, blah, blah, blah.
We should just dump all that crap. Most everyone in the United States is already familiar with the metric system anyway: we buy cars with 2-liter engines, 9-millimeter pistols, and two-liter bottles of soda.
The metric system is so much easier to use. If you pick up a 16-millimeter wrench and it's just a little too big for the bolt you're tightening, the 15-millimeter wrench is the obvious choice. But if the 5/8" wrench is too big, do you pick up the 3/4", the 1/2", or the 9/16"?
If you want to increase a recipe by a quarter and you need 1 1/2 cups of sugar, and you can still remember how to multiply fractions from middle school, bully for you! But you wind up with 5/4 x 3/2 = 15/8 of a cup. What a pain to measure. You can convert to decimal to avoid fractions, but how do you measure 1.875 cups? With metric, 300 grams of sugar is easily converted: 300 x 1.25 = 375 grams. Things like flour are better measured by weight instead of volume anyway, because of settling. Adding linear measurements is just as much fun: how long is 12 3/4" plus 3 1/8" plus 2 5/16"? Wouldn't you rather add 12.75, 3.13 and 2.31?
"But what about football?" someone in the crowd yells. "We can't change yards to meters and ruin our glorious tradition! You can't have a first down at the 45.72 meter line!"
Amazingly, soccer has solved this problem: the field (or pitch, as the Brits are wont to say) is still measured in yards. For example, the centre circle is 10 yards from the centre spot and the rules provide a metric equivalent (9.15 meters). So, even if you drive 20 kilometers to a football game, you can still sit in your reserved seats on the 50-yard-line.
Sports like basketball and volleyball have updated some of the measurements. Internationally the basketball court is 28 x15 meters, but the rim is still 10 feet (3.05 m). The volleyball court is 10 m on a side (29' 6"), but the net is still 7' 11 5/8". That's 2.43 meters, in case you're wondering.
Because fractions are used in English measurements, it can be confusing to notate and interpret measurements on computers (like, for example, 7' 11 5/8"), making it easy for errors and misunderstandings to creep in. Plus, I've never had a calculator that adds fractions, but they all add metric just fine.
We should just bite the 9-mm bullet and switch to metric.
Tuesday, July 15, 2014
Monday, July 14, 2014
The Rats That Coulda-Woulda-Shoulda
Have you ever come home to find your dog with his head hung low, looking guilty, only to find that he chewed up your slippers? Or heard about a cat that adopted a baby squirrel? Or a dog that saved a kitten in a ravine and nursed it? Or the rabbit that pined away after her sister died?
Many people dismiss outright the idea that animals can have emotions at all, much less display altruism: it's a dog-eat-dog world, after all. Animals are slaves to instinct, and attempts to anthropomorphize their behavior is misguided. These folks admit that animals can feel fear and rage, but more complex emotions, such guilt, jealousy, envy, love and regret are beyond their ken.
But evidence is building that animals do in fact have emotions, very similar to humans. A study conducted at the University of Minnesota has tested this. The experiment was structured to determine whether rats could feel regret:
“What we found is that when a rat makes a mistake of its own agency, then the rat is able to recognize that mistake, and it thinks about the thing it should have done,” said A. David Redish, a neuroscience professor at the University of Minnesota.Researchers thought that rats looked like they were feeling regret during another experiment, so they constructed a study to test it. They discovered that not only do rats look like they have regrets, the rats are actually thinking about what they should have done.
The experiment involved making rats decide whether to wait for their favorite food, or eschew the wait for instant gratification. The researchers measured brain activity in the rat that indicated memory of the preferred food.
Of course, it has to be this way. In order to learn, animals have to be able to make mental associations like this.
When a pet bounces up and down excitedly to see you come home, or sulks after getting yelled at, it's clear the animal is experiencing genuine emotions that are no different from human ones. You don't see that kind of behavior in insects or lower animals, though even lizards and turtles can recognize individual humans and prefer their company: it might not be love, but what can you expect from a cold-blooded animal?
It's a fair question to ask whether these are "real" emotions, or just brain chemistry associated with the learning process. Mammalian brains release endorphins that result in pleasure, and adrenalin is involved with the fear response. Oxytocin (the "love" hormone) is present in mammals and works the same way as it does in humans.
But it's also a fair question to ask whether that same mechanistic biology that operates in human really makes us substantially different from other mammals. Psychopaths lack basic human emotions such as empathy, regret and remorse. They're often described as animals who have no souls.
Our legal system concurs with this judgment: people who express no remorse for their crimes are often given longer sentences, or even sentenced to death for their lack of empathy.
Which makes you wonder: is the cat who saved a little boy from a dog attack more human than Ted Bundy?
No Thanks, Gun Humpers
Not only that but I think I speak for many Americans when I say that these idiots are the last fucking people I want "defending my rights." I'd rather have them defend against early onset diabetes and seriously consider salads.
Sunday, July 13, 2014
Saturday, July 12, 2014
ACA Update
We've seen a flurry of news regarding the Affordable Care Act recently with the most hilarious being that 74% of Republicans of newly insured Republicans like their plan. We also have the graphic below from Gallup.
So, the uninsured rate is now the lowest it's ever been since Gallup started polling six years ago.
Of course, it can't all be good news. House Speaker John Boehner recently stated that the impetus behind suing President Obama is his delaying of the employer mandate in the ACA. The ACA...hmm...that would be the law that House Republicans have tried to repeal how many times now?
Also worthy of note...zombie lies about the ACA that still aren't true
No one will sign up
People won't pay the premiums
Young people haven't signed up
Death panels
It will ruin our economy
We will all be thrown into a boiling pit of sewage
Seems to me like that bubble is contracting just a wee bit more than they would like:)
So, the uninsured rate is now the lowest it's ever been since Gallup started polling six years ago.
Of course, it can't all be good news. House Speaker John Boehner recently stated that the impetus behind suing President Obama is his delaying of the employer mandate in the ACA. The ACA...hmm...that would be the law that House Republicans have tried to repeal how many times now?
Also worthy of note...zombie lies about the ACA that still aren't true
No one will sign up
People won't pay the premiums
Young people haven't signed up
Death panels
It will ruin our economy
We will all be thrown into a boiling pit of sewage
Seems to me like that bubble is contracting just a wee bit more than they would like:)
Zombie Lies!
Bill Maher has done it again. Check out the video below, specifically the last new rule which starts about two minutes in...
How much longer will people believe the Zombie lies?
How much longer will people believe the Zombie lies?
Friday, July 11, 2014
Do What They Say, Not What They Do...
The standard line from conservatives is that government should meet its obligations and live within its means. Take, for example, this section of the web page for Minnesota state senator Sean Nienow (emphasis added):
Fiscal responsibility with the tax payers money is a high priority for Senator Nienow. The same common sense money management used by families and businesses is also necessary with the state budget. Senator Nienow is committed to being thoughtful, prudent and disciplined with your tax dollars to ensure the state meets its obligations, provides appropriate help to those in need, and fosters a vibrant economic climate for Minnesota business.This self-proclaimed "fiscally conservative Republican" has just filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. He owes the government almost a million bucks for a small business loan he took out in 2009 that he started to default on within 18 months. He has been screwing over his business associates now for years.
While yapping Republican dog whistles on his web page, Nienow hypocritically took my tax dollars in the form of an SBA loan, blew it on some imprudent scheme and is now skipping out on his obligations.
Now we can understand why Republicans are so bad at running government: they use the same wishful thinking, trickle-down, self-dealing, weaselly financial management in government that they use in their personal lives.
What was Nienow's business? A "free online summer camp referral service." What the hell was the SBA thinking when they gave him a loan for over half a million bucks? Oh, wait. The loan was issued in January, 2009, just as George W. Bush was leaving office. Now I get it... The rats were cleaning out the cookie jar.
Among the assets that Senator Nienow wants to be exempted from bankruptcy proceedings are his home, four guns, a broken boat and a Nintendo Gamecube system (!).
Minnesota had been having serious budget troubles under Republican governor Tim Pawlenty for eight years. But since a Democrat was elected governor and both houses of the legislature went Democratic in 2012, Minnesota's state budget has been turned around. Democrats passed a tax relief bill earlier this year, undoing some of the tax increases that were no longer needed (Democrats shrank the government!). The unemployment rate has dropped significantly, to one of the lowest in the nation. In some sectors of the Minnesota economy (IT) there is essentially zero unemployment.
Republicans have been aching for years to turn Minnesota into a cold Alabama by hacking the state government to bits, cutting income taxes and services to the bone while maxing out sales taxes and fees that hurt low-income folks.
But Minnesotans have turned many of these ideologues and charlatans out of office. There's still at least one more to go. Sadly, I doubt Senator Nienow will do the right thing and resign. He seems to need that $31K salary and $100 per-diem he gets for working in the legislature.
Is it unseemly to take such glee in Nienow's personal calamity? Yes. But his fellow Republicans take every chance they can to attack immigrants, teachers, and minimum-wage workers who have been suffering for years with lousy working condition, stagnant wages and a sleep-walking economy. Why should we exhibit compassion for these compassionless people who exult in the misery of the poorest among us? The only way they seem to be able to empathize with the less fortunate is to have misfortune befall them.
Nienow isn't up for reelection until 2016. Here's hoping his constituents have good memories.
The President Lets It Rip
I've waited a long time to see the Barack Obama we saw yesterday in Austin, Texas, and holy crap did he deliver. Take a look...
Quite possibly the most accurate summation of the intransigence he faces from the Republicans in Congress.
Quite possibly the most accurate summation of the intransigence he faces from the Republicans in Congress.
Thursday, July 10, 2014
Wednesday, July 09, 2014
How A TSM Commenter Fairs Outside of the Bubble
From a gun question on Quora...
You're selectively integrating information and stimuli that reinforces this bizarre victim mentality that fosters a paranoia void of context and logic. Simply put, you're searching for and finding the information that allows you to continue doing what you want to do.
Similar to a child, you want what you want, in this case a gun or many guns, and you will unconsciously seek out biased information, or incomplete information, to reinforce this desire. In fact, your immediate, conditioned response will be to do exactly that as you formulate a response to this comment. You're not even reading this, your mind is instantly attaching to the information you've inundated yourself with, information that screams at you, while these words I write are but a whisper. Before I spoke, your conditioned response was guaranteed.
But, the path to enlightenment, however shrouded in the darkness of the controlled mind, is not lost. You can remove the fears and biases that keep you hidden. You can overcome the conditioned response. You can grow and metamorphasize and unfurl. But first you must understand that you know nothing. First you must admit that you know nothing. Only then can your journey begin.
A gun humper admitting they know nothing? With their level of insecurity? I wouldn't hold your breath.
Time for ol' Matt to head back into the bubble where he want be shouted at with all that negativity and truth and stuff...
You're selectively integrating information and stimuli that reinforces this bizarre victim mentality that fosters a paranoia void of context and logic. Simply put, you're searching for and finding the information that allows you to continue doing what you want to do.
Similar to a child, you want what you want, in this case a gun or many guns, and you will unconsciously seek out biased information, or incomplete information, to reinforce this desire. In fact, your immediate, conditioned response will be to do exactly that as you formulate a response to this comment. You're not even reading this, your mind is instantly attaching to the information you've inundated yourself with, information that screams at you, while these words I write are but a whisper. Before I spoke, your conditioned response was guaranteed.
But, the path to enlightenment, however shrouded in the darkness of the controlled mind, is not lost. You can remove the fears and biases that keep you hidden. You can overcome the conditioned response. You can grow and metamorphasize and unfurl. But first you must understand that you know nothing. First you must admit that you know nothing. Only then can your journey begin.
A gun humper admitting they know nothing? With their level of insecurity? I wouldn't hold your breath.
Time for ol' Matt to head back into the bubble where he want be shouted at with all that negativity and truth and stuff...
Compassionate Conservatism
The current situation at our borders that involves unaccompanied children crossing our border has its roots in two US laws passed under George W. Bush. The first is the Homeland Security Act of 2002 which transferred the power to care for these individuals from INS to ORR (the Office of in the Department of Health and Human Services). So, it became an issue of public health as opposed to immigration.
The second law was the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 which was passed to combat human trafficking. The New York Times has a great piece on this legislation that honestly makes conservative criticism and calls to boot children out look, at best, silly and worst, inhumane. I would imagine that very few conservatives realized that these laws were passed under Republican administrations and were passed with good reason.
Many of these children are in great distress and if we are to be the beacon of liberty and freedom in the world, we must help them. This was indeed the compassionate conservatism of George W Bush seen also in his direct aid to Africa which honestly shifted disease and lifespan on that continent to considerably high degree.
Perhaps it is this compassion that has the conservatives of today apoplectic. They shriek about how "it's the law" and that illegals should deported immediately but the law as it stands today says something much different than their howls and imperial declarations. Perhaps the next time they open their mouths and accuse someone of only following the law when it suits them, they should stop and go look in the mirror.
More importantly, they should recognize that the problem of immigration is the deepest shade of gray of pretty much all of the issues we face today. Their simplistic and xenophobic solution needs to be ejected from the capsule (along with the adolescent insecurity of wanting the other side to always lose) and replaced with reality based initiatives that actually solve the problem. Of course, that's being kind in even saying that they have a solution because it's all still just empty criticism.
I wonder if we will ever see a return to compassionate conservatism.
The second law was the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 which was passed to combat human trafficking. The New York Times has a great piece on this legislation that honestly makes conservative criticism and calls to boot children out look, at best, silly and worst, inhumane. I would imagine that very few conservatives realized that these laws were passed under Republican administrations and were passed with good reason.
Many of these children are in great distress and if we are to be the beacon of liberty and freedom in the world, we must help them. This was indeed the compassionate conservatism of George W Bush seen also in his direct aid to Africa which honestly shifted disease and lifespan on that continent to considerably high degree.
Perhaps it is this compassion that has the conservatives of today apoplectic. They shriek about how "it's the law" and that illegals should deported immediately but the law as it stands today says something much different than their howls and imperial declarations. Perhaps the next time they open their mouths and accuse someone of only following the law when it suits them, they should stop and go look in the mirror.
More importantly, they should recognize that the problem of immigration is the deepest shade of gray of pretty much all of the issues we face today. Their simplistic and xenophobic solution needs to be ejected from the capsule (along with the adolescent insecurity of wanting the other side to always lose) and replaced with reality based initiatives that actually solve the problem. Of course, that's being kind in even saying that they have a solution because it's all still just empty criticism.
I wonder if we will ever see a return to compassionate conservatism.
Tuesday, July 08, 2014
Autism and the False Equivalence of Science Denial
In recent years autism has been on the rise. There have been a lot of explanations: overdiagnosis, vaccines, the age of the father, the age of the mother, pesticides, etc., etc.
More and more, it's looking like pesticides are the problem.
It's clear that autism is linked to something in the environment. The rate of autism in Somalia is low, but Somali immigrants to the United States have an even higher rate of autism than white Americans. Some have tried to blame it on vaccines, which started in the 1990s when a British researcher published a fraudulent article linking vaccines to autism. At that time it made a certain amount of sense, because thimerosal was used as a preservative (it contains mercury, a known neurotoxin).
It's not just the young that who are affected by pesticides. There are strong links between pesticides and Parkinson's disease: people exposed to pesticides have a 70% higher incidence of the disease.
When conservatives get slammed for being anti-science with their stands on climate change and evolution, the false-equivalencers insist that liberals are just as anti-science with their opposition to vaccines, pesticides, herbicides and genetically-modified (GMO) crops.
But the charge doesn't stand up. Even the most virulent and well-known anti-vaccine celebrity, Jenny McCarthy, insists (at least most of the time) that she's not against vaccines: she's against bad vaccines. When vaccines contained thimerosal there was very good reason to demand they be changed: it's toxic, especially for developing brains. That's why vaccines for children no longer contain mercury.
(For the record, everyone should be vaccinated. It's essential for "herd immunity," and the risk of death or other dire consequences from actually contracting these diseases is much higher than getting vaccinated.)
Pesticides and herbicides, on the other hand, are powerful poisons, extremely toxic and often lethal to humans in even relatively small doses. This is a scientific fact, not some liberal talking point. Although plant, insect and human biology are vastly different, many of the same underlying processes are identical -- all life shares the same basic DNA, cells utilize many of the same basic proteins.
Since we know pesticides and herbicides are toxic, the only question is what level of exposure is safe for humans? And that depends on many things: fetuses are extremely sensitive to environmental insults; even the tiniest dose of a hormone or chemical at the wrong point in development can screw up brain development, causing autism or a host of other birth defects. Different people have different genetics, live in different places, eat different things. For example, it could be that the Somali genetic makeup is much more susceptible to neurotoxins, or they eat a diet which has higher levels of pesticides.
Similarly, much of the opposition to GMO crops is that the genetic modification makes the plants immune to pesticides like Roundup, which allows farmers to more of these toxins, which means that people will get more of them in their food. Furthermore, these modified genes are spreading to weeds, which then pick up Roundup resistance. Half of all US farms now have glyphosate-resistant weeds. Other engineered genetic traits could be spread to other plants; it's debatable whether we have spent enough time and conducted enough research to ensure that these are completely harmless.
These are real problems that real scientists acknowledge; opposing GMO crops because of these problems is not unscientific: it might ignore the economic realities of farming, putting the well-being of children ahead of the profits of multinational corporations like ConAgra and Cargill, but it doesn't deny basic science.
So, when a conservative insists that climate change is hoax, and evolution is the work of the devil, it is nothing like liberals who prefer organic food. Liberals who oppose herbicides don't think they come from the pit of hell, they think that the EPA's maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) of glyphosate in food and drinking water is far too high, especially for developing fetuses.
Why don't liberals trust the EPA's numbers on these toxins? For pretty much the same reason that conservatives don't like the regulations the EPA places on the companies that make these poisons. Government agencies don't set these numbers in a vacuum. They are pressured by politicians, lobbyists, manufacturers and farmers to make contaminant levels as high as possible. Many of these numbers were set during Republican administrations, when political interference in regulatory agencies was inherent to the "get the government off my back" ideology.
But even absent political interference, setting these values is very tricky. Since they can't experiment on living human beings, they can't really know what safe levels are. Using animal studies and other research, the EPA tries to pick levels that should be harmless for most people. But they know full well that some individuals will become one of those unfortunate statistics that is harmed by these poisons, either because their individual genetic makeup is particularly vulnerable to the toxins, or because the toxins will be concentrated in some individuals due to diet, habit or accident.
Is it unreasonable for someone to want to avoid having their children or spouse become one of those unfortunate statistics?
More and more, it's looking like pesticides are the problem.
The study by the University of California, Davis, MIND Institute found mothers exposed to organophosphates had a two-thirds increased risk of having a child with autism. And the risk was strongest when exposures occurred during the second and third trimesters of pregnancies, the research showed.It makes a lot of sense. Many pesticides are neurotoxins, just like chemical warfare agents. Certain pesticides (neonicotinoids) have been banned in Europe because of their contribution to the colony collapse disorder that has been devastating bee populations across the world. The nerve toxins make it difficult for bees to find their way back to the hive, which makes the other problems the hives face that much worse.
It's clear that autism is linked to something in the environment. The rate of autism in Somalia is low, but Somali immigrants to the United States have an even higher rate of autism than white Americans. Some have tried to blame it on vaccines, which started in the 1990s when a British researcher published a fraudulent article linking vaccines to autism. At that time it made a certain amount of sense, because thimerosal was used as a preservative (it contains mercury, a known neurotoxin).
It's not just the young that who are affected by pesticides. There are strong links between pesticides and Parkinson's disease: people exposed to pesticides have a 70% higher incidence of the disease.
When conservatives get slammed for being anti-science with their stands on climate change and evolution, the false-equivalencers insist that liberals are just as anti-science with their opposition to vaccines, pesticides, herbicides and genetically-modified (GMO) crops.
But the charge doesn't stand up. Even the most virulent and well-known anti-vaccine celebrity, Jenny McCarthy, insists (at least most of the time) that she's not against vaccines: she's against bad vaccines. When vaccines contained thimerosal there was very good reason to demand they be changed: it's toxic, especially for developing brains. That's why vaccines for children no longer contain mercury.
(For the record, everyone should be vaccinated. It's essential for "herd immunity," and the risk of death or other dire consequences from actually contracting these diseases is much higher than getting vaccinated.)
Pesticides and herbicides, on the other hand, are powerful poisons, extremely toxic and often lethal to humans in even relatively small doses. This is a scientific fact, not some liberal talking point. Although plant, insect and human biology are vastly different, many of the same underlying processes are identical -- all life shares the same basic DNA, cells utilize many of the same basic proteins.
Since we know pesticides and herbicides are toxic, the only question is what level of exposure is safe for humans? And that depends on many things: fetuses are extremely sensitive to environmental insults; even the tiniest dose of a hormone or chemical at the wrong point in development can screw up brain development, causing autism or a host of other birth defects. Different people have different genetics, live in different places, eat different things. For example, it could be that the Somali genetic makeup is much more susceptible to neurotoxins, or they eat a diet which has higher levels of pesticides.
Similarly, much of the opposition to GMO crops is that the genetic modification makes the plants immune to pesticides like Roundup, which allows farmers to more of these toxins, which means that people will get more of them in their food. Furthermore, these modified genes are spreading to weeds, which then pick up Roundup resistance. Half of all US farms now have glyphosate-resistant weeds. Other engineered genetic traits could be spread to other plants; it's debatable whether we have spent enough time and conducted enough research to ensure that these are completely harmless.
These are real problems that real scientists acknowledge; opposing GMO crops because of these problems is not unscientific: it might ignore the economic realities of farming, putting the well-being of children ahead of the profits of multinational corporations like ConAgra and Cargill, but it doesn't deny basic science.
So, when a conservative insists that climate change is hoax, and evolution is the work of the devil, it is nothing like liberals who prefer organic food. Liberals who oppose herbicides don't think they come from the pit of hell, they think that the EPA's maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) of glyphosate in food and drinking water is far too high, especially for developing fetuses.
Why don't liberals trust the EPA's numbers on these toxins? For pretty much the same reason that conservatives don't like the regulations the EPA places on the companies that make these poisons. Government agencies don't set these numbers in a vacuum. They are pressured by politicians, lobbyists, manufacturers and farmers to make contaminant levels as high as possible. Many of these numbers were set during Republican administrations, when political interference in regulatory agencies was inherent to the "get the government off my back" ideology.
But even absent political interference, setting these values is very tricky. Since they can't experiment on living human beings, they can't really know what safe levels are. Using animal studies and other research, the EPA tries to pick levels that should be harmless for most people. But they know full well that some individuals will become one of those unfortunate statistics that is harmed by these poisons, either because their individual genetic makeup is particularly vulnerable to the toxins, or because the toxins will be concentrated in some individuals due to diet, habit or accident.
Is it unreasonable for someone to want to avoid having their children or spouse become one of those unfortunate statistics?
Again, With The Adolescent Behavior
Man, you really have to love conservatives these days.
"The feeling around here is that everyone who drives a small car is a liberal," a roller named Ryan told Vocativ. "I rolled coal on a Prius once just because they were tailing me."
Weigel spoke to a seller of coal rolling customization equipment who described why some drivers see spewing smoke as a political protest.
"I run into a lot of people that really don’t like Obama at all," the salesperson said. "If he’s into the environment, if he’s into this or that, we’re not. I hear a lot of that. To get a single stack on my truck—that’s my way of giving them the finger. You want clean air and a tiny carbon footprint? Well, screw you."
As I have been saying, 12 year old boys...
"The feeling around here is that everyone who drives a small car is a liberal," a roller named Ryan told Vocativ. "I rolled coal on a Prius once just because they were tailing me."
Weigel spoke to a seller of coal rolling customization equipment who described why some drivers see spewing smoke as a political protest.
"I run into a lot of people that really don’t like Obama at all," the salesperson said. "If he’s into the environment, if he’s into this or that, we’re not. I hear a lot of that. To get a single stack on my truck—that’s my way of giving them the finger. You want clean air and a tiny carbon footprint? Well, screw you."
As I have been saying, 12 year old boys...
Monday, July 07, 2014
Good Words
From one of my recent Quora questions...
I'm sure they would tell you that there is nothing in the Constitution that says they have to grow up. It's their right to be as childish as they want for as long as they want. We just need to learn to live with it.
No shit.
I'm sure they would tell you that there is nothing in the Constitution that says they have to grow up. It's their right to be as childish as they want for as long as they want. We just need to learn to live with it.
No shit.
Sunday, July 06, 2014
Republicans Should Close For Repairs
I missed this interview with Bob Dole but recently discovered it on Quora. It's a year later and he's still 100 percent right.
Saturday, July 05, 2014
The Hypocrisy of Hobby Lobby
In what has to be a textbook definition of hypocrisy, Hobby Lobby invests money in the very companies they take exception to for religious reasons.
Hobby Lobby's founders have made it clear that any abortion and certain contraceptives are unacceptable in their eyes, yet the company's 401(k) plan has millions of dollars invested in funds that own the companies that make birth control methods including Plan B, the so-called "morning after" drug. Like many companies, Hobby Lobby offers its employees a 401(k) plan.
Over 13,000 past and present employees have taken advantage of that plan, according to the latest documents filed with the Department of Labor. Employees have the option to put their retirement dollars -- and the money that Hobby Lobby contributes on their behalf -- into over a dozen different mutual funds.
At least eight of those funds have been invested in companies that produce contraceptives such as Teva Pharmaceutical (TEVA), Bayer (BAYRY), and Pfizer (PFE), according to a CNNMoney analysis. Teva makes Plan B. At least one fund also held Forest Laboratories, which makes a drug that is used to induce abortions.
Clearly, their reluctance to pay for women's birth control was not motivated by religious objections. It was motivated by financial objections.
They were simply being cheap.
Hobby Lobby's founders have made it clear that any abortion and certain contraceptives are unacceptable in their eyes, yet the company's 401(k) plan has millions of dollars invested in funds that own the companies that make birth control methods including Plan B, the so-called "morning after" drug. Like many companies, Hobby Lobby offers its employees a 401(k) plan.
Over 13,000 past and present employees have taken advantage of that plan, according to the latest documents filed with the Department of Labor. Employees have the option to put their retirement dollars -- and the money that Hobby Lobby contributes on their behalf -- into over a dozen different mutual funds.
At least eight of those funds have been invested in companies that produce contraceptives such as Teva Pharmaceutical (TEVA), Bayer (BAYRY), and Pfizer (PFE), according to a CNNMoney analysis. Teva makes Plan B. At least one fund also held Forest Laboratories, which makes a drug that is used to induce abortions.
Clearly, their reluctance to pay for women's birth control was not motivated by religious objections. It was motivated by financial objections.
They were simply being cheap.
Billionaire Once Again Warns The One Percent
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!!
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!!
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)