Thanks, Obama

Check out the video.

The Collected Wisdom of Pat Robertson

Montana Says No to Fashion Police, or Sharia Law Defeated in Montana

A lot of people consider yoga pants to be a crime of fashion. David Moore, a Republican lawmaker in Missoula wants to make wearing them a crime punishable by five years in prison. Thankfully, Moore's law was tabled unanimously by the House Judiciary Committee.

According to the Billings Gazette:

The proposal would expand indecent exposure law to include any nipple exposure, including men’s [emphasis added], and any garment that “gives the appearance or simulates” a person’s buttocks, genitals, pelvic area or female nipple.

Yes, to show how egalitarian he is, Moore would turn men who don't wear shirts into criminals. Would they also wind up on the sex offender list?

Moore literally wants to create fashion police.

Under current Montana law persons convicted of indecent exposure three times can be sentenced to life in prison. Ergo, wearing yoga pants three times could make you lifer. Though to be fair, Moore did want to reduce the maximum penalty five years in jail and a fine of $5,000 as an enticement to get more lawmakers to vote for it.

But how would such a law be enforced? Indecency is in the eye of the beholder, after all:

Moore said he wouldn’t have a problem with people being arrested for wearing provocative clothing but that he’d trust law enforcement officials to use their discretion. He couldn’t be sure whether police would act on that provision or if Montana residents would challenge it.

In other words, Moore literally wants to create fashion police. He wants to give individual cops license to harass attractive women with threats of being prosecuted for indecent exposure based on their choice of garments. Yep, no way this law could possibly be abused.

I can just imagine how traffic stops would play out in Montana: "Ma'am, I was checking you out, and I noticed that you have nipples and buttocks. That's a crime punishable by five years in prison and a $5,000 fine. But there's a way you can avoid all that drama..."

"Ma'am, I noticed that you have nipples and buttocks. That's a crime punishable by five years in prison."

In the end it wouldn't just be yoga pants. It would be any tight clothing, such as bikinis, or even clothing that rested against the body without constricting it, such as a light cotton blouse, or a sweater. Yes, this upstanding conservative American wants to criminalize women for getting cold and wearing skinny jeans.

The essence of his proposal is that women should be required by law to wear loose clothing. Exactly how is this different from the Taliban and the ayatollahs in Iran who force women to wear hijabs and chadors?

What caused this guy to want to outlaw yoga pants? Well, there was a nude bike ride that made him mad. In other words, one group of people offended him, so now he wants to punish a completely different group -- mostly women -- who have absolutely nothing to do with the first group.

Why are conservatives so hung up on women's bodies in the first place? What are they so afraid of? Are they incapable of controlling their lust? Do they hate women so much they can't stand seeing what they really are?

If Moore doesn't want to be bothered by yoga pants he should stop staring at women's crotches.

It's not like there's some deep dark secret. Everyone knows what human bodies look like -- we all have one. Anyone with an Internet connection can see everything that yoga pants cover up, in much greater detail and in living color.

The answer is really quite simple: if Moore doesn't want to be bothered by the clothes women wear, he shouldn't go to the gym and stare at their crotches and chests when they're in yoga class.

And they keep telling us the war on women is over...

Weather Vs. Climate

The good thing about science is that it's true whether you believe it or not...

The Gun Toting Atheist

Hmm...

Charged with three counts of first-degree murder is Craig Stephen Hicks, 46, who has described himself as a “gun toting” atheist. Neighbors said Wednesday that he always seemed angry and confrontational. His ex-wife said he was obsessed with the shooting-rampage movie “Falling Down” and showed “no compassion at all” for other people.

Falling Down, for those of you who have not seen it, is old white man's porn. Michael Douglas plays a man who just can't take it anymore and goes on a shooting spree across Los Angeles. Here's the trailer.




I wonder how many other members of the Gun Cult get a boner when they watch this film.

Yet They Still Went To The Gun Range

The Eddie Ray Routh trial is underway and information is starting to come out about that day at the gun range.

Shortly before he was shot to death by a troubled former Marine at a Texas gun range, legendary Navy SEAL sniper Chris Kyle texted a buddy, "This dude is straight-up nuts," a defense attorney told jurors Wednesday. 

A lawyer for Eddie Ray Routh said in opening statements of the man's murder trial that Routh's insanity was so evident that Kyle and his friend Chad Littlefield exchanged texts expressing alarm as the three rode together in February 2013 to a Texas shooting range. "He's (sitting) right behind me, watch my six," Littlefield texted back, using a military reference for watching one's back.

Yet they still went to the gun range. Why?

Because being a member of the fucking Gun Cult makes you that fucking stupid.

Responsible gun owners my ass!

The Answer to the Most Pressing Question of the Day

Conservatives are now presented with a dilemma: in the wake of the murder of three Muslim college students in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, should they support the killer, who was a middle-aged white guy simply exercising his right to Second Amendment solutions? Or should they support the victims, who were kind-hearted Muslim dental students that volunteered to help the homeless, and were brutally gunned down by a fanatical atheist?

Speculation is rife about why Craig avowed atheist Stephen Hicks killed a Muslim newlywed couple and their 19-year-old Muslim female friend: was it a hate crime, or just an angry white guy mad about a parking spot?

Well, the answer is staring us in the face: he killed them because he had a gun. No gun, no murder.

Guns are a powerful mind-altering drug like PCP. They represent sheer naked power, power that corrupts quickly and absolutely.

If you put a gun in the hands of the most coldly rational atheist or the gentlest Christian they quickly become raging maniacs.

In so many murders and suicides the gun itself is the motivating factor. Without the weapon and the ability to kill someone as easily as turning off a light switch, thousands of people in this country would not have to die needlessly every year.

Ending A Deeply Flawed Ideology

My mom told me a story about her sister recently that disturbed me profoundly. My aunt has always been a little crazy and has gotten worse since my uncle died 3 years ago. He was staunchly conservative (save for being pro choice) and considered himself a southern gentlemen. He had a very aristocratic nature about him which made sense since he lived in Southern Illinois. My aunt still lives there and most of the people in her town are very conservative as well.

They lived in the house that belonged to my uncle's mother, oddly residing upstairs in the servant's quarters while she was alive. When my uncle's mother died five years ago, they took over the rest of the house. In all the time they lived there, no one else in the family was ever invited over for holiday gatherings or even a short visit. It was very strange. My uncle kept a very tight rein on my aunt and didn't allow her to do many things because he was very traditional. He wouldn't even let her pack a car! I think this had an effect on her over the years and made her mental issues even worse.

I used to get into all sorts of political debates with my uncle. He loved President Bush and hated Barack Obama with all of his heart. The absolute nonsense that used to come out of his mouth was ridiculous. But until he died, I had no idea just how far gone he was, ideologically speaking. As she has been helping my aunt clean out the house, my mother has discovered, much to her horror, that my uncle and my aunt were doomsday preppers.

In the last few months, my mom has found hundreds of canned goods, boxes of food, and many rounds of ammunition. She has also found many guns, including one that was kept loaded by the bedside. My aunt recently showed my mother this and, much to her horror, began twirling it around to "show off her skills." Thankfully, my mom moved out of the room quickly and then had my other uncle come over to the house and take all of the guns out of there.

My aunt is an example of someone who should never be allowed to have a gun. I'm not even sure if she has a license to have one. After my mom told me this story, I understood with much clarity how there are so many accidents with guns ever year. Of course, banning guns isn't going to solve anything. What I'm calling for is the ideology that is at the root of this problem to go away.

Forever.

Time will take care of some of this for our society. When the old white men die off, I think the fevered dreams about totalitarian governments and playing apocalypse will fall away somewhat. In the meantime, I want to see the people of this country reject the idea that having a gun in your house protects you. You don't need to keep a loaded gun by your bed. No one is coming to get you. The statistics show that you are much more likely to hurt yourself, a member of your family, have a member of your family hurt themselves or others, or have it taken away from you if someone does come in to your home. Honestly, people should be more worried about their diet then home invaders. Americans should also worry less about protecting themselves against the government. If the federal government wanted to dominate us with weapons, they could do it easily.

Leave the fear behind, folks, and let's start focusing on actual threats out there like climate change and health issues.

(So Many) Good Words

From a recent question on Quora...I find it childish for people to persist saying " it's just a tool." No, it's a weapon. I find it childish to walk around in a Starbucks or a chipotle with a long armed rifle slung on your back and act like you're it doing it be threatening.

I find it childish to bring ted nugent to a state of the union address when he talks about threatening the president and secretary of state. I find it childish to pretend that a gun is not a weapon, and mock people for being histrionic or irrational for not liking it or feeling nervous because they don't know you and don't know if you're a " good responsible gun owner" or a showboat with an itchy trigger finger. I may have to accept the level of cray-cray on guns in this country ( it hasn't always been like this is my lifetime) but I do not have to like it.

Bigotry against gun owners. Maybe one day I will get to where I get this concept as you do, that being a gun owner is somehow akin to a religion, disability, ethnicity or gender. But I'm nowhere near at that point. As I see it, gun owners in America have so much going for them: a 2d amendment, lots of money, lots of elected officials in their corner. 

To think of myself as a bigot because I have a negative response to the amount of guns that are in this country, and the not-so-rare irreverent attitudes I see ( definition : mine) of people to who own them is hard to swallow. You have the law on your side. You even have numbers in your side. I wasn't aware that gun owners across America were experiencing employment discrimination, or bullying, or social isolation. Owning a gun is owning a possession. If it were a samurai sword, I'd likely think the same thing. Weapons are not a part of your body. You can be welcome places that your gun is not.

Sing it, sister!

Riker Sits Down

Lies About Iraq

The pile on of Brian Williams over the last couple of days is pretty ironic when you consider that Fox News and other right wing media outlets are gleefully dancing about lies told about Iraq. Actually, ironic isn't the word for it.

Hypocritical, pathetic, and disgusting are more like it.

"It's Just Made Up"

From Ronald Reagan's chief economist...

As for the idea that cutting regulations will lead to significant job growth, Bartlett said in an interview, "It's just nonsense. It's just made up." Government and industry studies support his view.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics, which tracks companies' reasons for large layoffs, found that 1,119 layoffs were attributed to government regulations in the first half of this year, while 144,746 were attributed to poor "business demand."

I think things being just made up are a cornerstone of conservative economic theory.

Good Words

I got a message on Quora from someone who has recently been engaging Kevin Baker in a discussion.

This Kevin Baker guy can be difficult to take! :) My goal in my discussions with him is to have fun, to improve my skills making arguments, and to learn. I absolutely agree his arguments are largely semantic (he seems quite satisfied to zero in on minor discrepancies to "prove" his point), and his need for sharing his "wins" on his site frankly makes me a bit sad. I've commented on that site as well as here, and he (along with his followers) aren't shy about making personal attacks or snide remarks.

Sound familiar?:)

I wonder if Kevin will take anything from this and, perhaps, change.

Again with the False Equivalences on Science

With the measles scare and the question of vaccinations in the air, making false equivalences between the left on the right is again in vogue.

Fred Hiatt at the Washington Post has a column doing it with regard to science. This time his bugaboo is that in poll of scientists and the general populace, the right disagrees with scientists on most everything, while the left disagrees with scientists about vaccinations and eating genetically modified organisms (GMO foods).

First off, GMO foods are not about science. They're about corporate profits. More on this later.

Concern over GMOs isn't just about eating them. It's about the host of other problems the GMO-based agricultural-industrial complex engenders.

Second, the poll results don't represent what the pollsters say they do. When an average person answers a poll question they don't respond to the actual wording -- they're giving their overall reaction to the subject. A question like, "Are GMO foods safe to eat?" will be answered instead as if the poll asked "Do you think GMO foods are good?" The average person has heard a litany of reasons (monocultures, genetic contamination, toxic pesticides and herbicides, agribusiness crushing the family farm) about why they're bad, but can't enumerate them on a poll because polls don't allow for nuance. So they just vote GMO foods off the island.

A more specific example is climate change. Everyone over the age of 50 knows without a doubt that the climate is changing. So when conservatives say they don't believe in global warming, they're really saying A) I don't care because I'll be dead by the time it really starts to matter, B) I hate liberals and their stupid causes, C) Who gives a damn about polar bears?, D) It will cost too much to do anything about it, E) I don't want to give up my riding lawn mower and my Hummer for a bunch of tree huggers, and F) I'm afraid I'll lose my job when the Koch brothers pick up their ball and go home if they don't get what they want. Since they can't say all that on the poll, they just say they don't believe in climate change.

The scientists, however, will answer that GMO safety question honestly. Because, well, they're scientists. "Yeah, eating Bt corn is probably safe; i.e., it will probably not give you a heart attack tomorrow or a brain tumor next month."

Then the scientists would hasten to add (unless employed by Monsanto), "GMO crops like Bt and glyphosate-resistant corn engender a vast industrial-agricultural complex that creates many risks with the excessive use of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers, all of which contribute to bee die-offs, mutated wildlife, algal blooms in lakes and streams, Parkinson's, autism, and the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico. Oh, and I wouldn't be surprised if eating Bt corn contributed to the obesity epidemic or the alarming spread of food allergies. More unbiased research is needed to answer that."

That "But" will never get on a poll because polls aren't intended to give detailed results. They are, almost always, paid for by someone who wants a particular result to prove the point they want to prove.

The real question is whether the positive aspects of raising GMO crops outweigh the negative aspects.

The fact is, the science says that GMO foods have many negative aspects. These bad qualities are rooted in real science, not silly prejudice. The real question is whether the tradeoffs between the positive and negative aspects of GMO crops make them safe and sustainable on the whole. Monsanto doesn't care about the overall picture, they just care about their bottom line.

Most genetically modified crops are not engineered to make them more nutritious. They have genes inserted in them to make them poisonous to insects (Bt corn), or resistant to herbicides (Roundup Ready Corn).

In other words, the ag giants want to sell GMO crops so they can sell more Roundup and atrazine, as well as lock farmers into buying seed from them every year.

It took decades for scientists to realize that DDT was bad for humans. We haven't been eating Bt corn long enough to have enough data to know with absolute certainty that it's completely safe. The people doing the research on the safety of GMO foods are paid by the companies that produce them. Companies are known to cherry pick their data (mostly by burying studies that disagree with what they want). It's therefore not unreasonable to be scientifically skeptical about their findings.

Monsanto sells GMO corn so they can sell more Roundup and create a seed monopoly.

Furthermore, there are serious problems with industrialized agriculture, and GMO crops allow these bad practices to be used ever more widely.  In particular, the overuse of chemicals on crops.

The herbicides used on GMO crops are known to cause developmental problems in animals (atrazine is notorious for what it does to frogs) and human fetuses. The pesticides used in agriculture are toxic not only to insects, but also to humans, even in relatively small doses. They are neurotoxins known to cause diseases like Parkinson's.

Neonicotinoid pesticides are implicated as at least a partial cause of Colony Collapse Disorder, the condition that is killing bees across the world. Bees are essential to many types of agriculture, such as apples, apricots, almonds, all kinds of vegetables like cucumbers and watermelon, cotton, alfalfa, even okra. Is it wise to risk all those other crops so that some farmers can spray Imidacloprid indiscriminately?

When farmers buy GMO seeds from corporations like Monsanto, they are forbidden to use that crop as seed the next year. They must buy more seed from Monsanto. They can be sued even if they accidentally plant some seed they didn't pay for. This is a huge expense, and it means more money is being transferred from the pockets of farmers into the coffers of big business.

To exacerbate the problem, weeds frequently develop resistance to herbicides on their own. Even worse, the genes inserted into GMO crops are sometimes transferred to weeds, making them resistant to the herbicide and defeating the entire purpose of GMO crops.

Monoculture GMO crops represent a huge gamble that will likely result in a massive crop die-off one day.

Furthermore, when farmers across the country -- and the world -- all plant the exact same crop, we wind up with a genetically identical monoculture. When a disease or pest attacks the entire crop can be wiped out.

This is happening more and more frequently. Within the next few years most of the orange trees in Florida will be affected by citrus blight. The price of orange juice is projected to go way up. In the next few years chocolate prices will go up due to a combination of demand, drought (caused in part by higher temperatures due to global warming) and disease (witch's brew and frosty pod).

So, in the future, when some form of corn rust mutates and infects GMO crops, it will be carried by insects across the country. It will infect a huge fraction of the corn in the country, because there only a couple of companies selling seeds. Because the corn crop will be a monoculture, all from the same seed produced by one or two companies, all the plants will be infected.

This isn't idle speculation. It's something that will happen if we continue to plant a monoculture of corn. And because it can take years to develop new GMO crops, we could have famine that lasts for years because everyone foolishly planted the identical crop world-wide and there isn't enough genetic diversity in the seed banks to find a plant that is immune to the plague.

The problem with GMO crops isn't the science. The problem is with the corporations that use the science to make products without regard to the negative effects that product causes, which may extend far beyond the product itself (such as GMO crops that encourage overuse of fertilizers which winds up killing all the shrimp off the coast of Louisiana).

GMO crops are really an argument for letting the world's population grow without bounds.

In the end, Hiatt's defense of GMO crops doesn't rest on the science. It rests on the assumption that the world's population is going to continue to grow unabated, and unless we use GMO crops to increase yields we will have mass starvation.

Which is incredibly short-sighted. Clearly the population cannot grow unbounded. There are seven billion people in the world. GMO crops may be enough to support nine billion. But about 12? Or 15? Or 20?

Clearly the world survive just fine if there are only seven or five or three billion people on it. But at some point everything will collapse if we continue to increase the population, depending on a scientific infrastructure that requires monoculture crops and the massive use of toxic herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers that we know will fail at some point.

Science Should Never Yield To Freedom of Expression

Some Good Words...

A “view” differs significantly from a “view necessarily informed by evidence.” The problem with many climate-change naysayers is that they present their views as facts where they are not accountable to the evidence. They avoid having to address expert review. They dodge the systematic technical criticism that is essential to establishing scientific claims as trustworthy. 

In this case, they have failed to persuade the scientific community. Instead, they appeal directly to nonexpert citizens with shards of evidence or emotional pleas, trying to short-circuit the process of validation.

It's always about the short circuiting, isn't it? Why?

I think it comes back to that insecurity/inferiority complex thing again. They just can't stand the fact that there are leaders in our country that are smarter and more successful than they are. So, let's tear them down...somehow...someway...

Pretty fucking sad.

Obamacare Vs. The Affordable Care Act

Shovel To The Head!

I just pulled this from a comment on that same social media thread from the other day...

I think it hit the nail on the head with a hammer ! I doubt they got diaper head ladin at all . This guy is not for America . You think because he forced a bullshit health care bill that he is god . Socialism is for a ignorant populace that can't manage themselves . The world war 2 generation showed us how it was done . That was a generally good generation of people that saw the greatest growth in any country in history . They went to the moon , built cars , bridges , highways , railroads, phone systems , cable TV , airlines , power plants . Anyone want to see what a liberal socialist take over looks like you tube the ruins of Detroit .

Wow...

Honoring Humble Beginnings

While I was mopping the kitchen floor today I contemplated my humble beginnings. My dad was blue collar all the way: variously a short-order cook, a window cleaner, a janitor and a bus driver.  When he had his own janitorial business I would sometimes help him with the lighter work, dusting doors and woodwork in new houses. When I was in high school I worked for a time cleaning apartments for the elderly -- mostly mopping floors.

That reminded of how frequently conservatives tout their "humble beginnings." At the 2012 Republican National Convention they talked about it constantly: from Ann Romney, to Paul Ryan, to Chris Christie, to Condoleeza Rice, they all had stories about their "humble beginnings."

Throughout the nomination process Rick Santorum constantly bragged about his grandfather Pietro being an immigrant coal miner. Of course, neither Rick nor his father were coal miners -- Santorum had to go back two generations to dig up his "humble beginnings."

These conservatives always talk about honoring those humble beginnings, about how that kind of work "builds character."

But you gotta ask: how does our society really honor someone? By waxing poetic for a couple of hours at a political convention? By taking off our hats for veterans at a football game? No.

The best way to honor someone is to pay them more money.

The best way to honor someone is to pay them more money. Enough money so they and their kids don't have to suffer through the indignities of poverty.

That's how we honor our sports "heroes." That's how we honor captains of industry. That's how we honor doctors and judges and attorneys and politicians. We pay them lots of money.

Why is it that the teachers and the janitors and the window cleaners and the maids and the miners and the cooks and the waiters and the cops and the soldiers and the farmers and the meat packers -- the people who actually do all the work to make this country function -- get paid peanuts, while the people who caused all of our major problems -- politicians, CEOs, hedge fund managers, bankers, stock market traders -- get paid the big bucks?

Look at this way: if all the CEOs died tomorrow, the country wouldn't skip a beat. If all the farmers died, we'd all starve. It's not an arbitrary comparison, because their numbers are roughly equal: according to Forbes, there are 1.7 million CEOs in the United States and about 1.9 million farmers and agricultural workers.

And even worse: through the miracle of the capital gains tax cuts passed under George W. Bush, the people who do the least work get taxed at the lowest rate. That's how Romney paid only a 14% tax rate while doing nothing but running for president.

Why is it that the people who do 99% of the work to make this country function have only 65% of the country's wealth?

Based on their policies, conservatives resent and despise their humble beginnings.

Based on their policies, conservatives don't honor their humble beginnings. They resent and despise them. They want to make anyone who hasn't "bettered themselves" -- like they did -- suffer for their laziness and lack of initiative.

When conservatives tout their humble beginnings, they're really just puffing up their own egos. They're bragging, "Look how much better I am than my grandfather, how successful I am. I got where I am because I'm better than they are. Better than you."

If men like Santorum really honored their grandfathers, they'd be demanding that men like Pietro be paid more, work under safer conditions, and be guaranteed decent health care when they were injured on the job.

Why are the people voting for these guys suckered into believing them?

Waving Buh Bye To Austerity

It's not surprising that Europe is finally ejecting austerity from the capsule and moving on to an economic policy rooted in reality as opposed to unicorn, fairy land.

The ECB’s new stimulus “should strengthen demand, increase capacity utilization and support money and credit growth,” Mr. Draghi said. He rejected any criticism that the vast expansion of the ECB’s easy-money policies would stoke inflation down the road, noting that inflation has stayed very low even after several interest-rate cuts and abundant ECB loans to banks. “There must be a statute of limitations for those who say there will be inflation,” he said.

Yeah, that was passed by a long time ago...

Equally not surprising is the recent vote in Greece firmly against austerity.

Greece currently has public debt equivalent to 177 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP). Its unemployment rate stands near 25 percent overall, and more than half of young adults have no jobs and few prospects. The austerity measures have gutted many of the country's most vital social programs. The economy has shrunk by more than 23 percent since the 2008 global financial crisis, a contraction comparable to the U.S. economy's during the Great Depression.

Austerity in times of economic contraction doesn't work. It never has. The only question that remains is when this shift in policy produces results, will the pathological haters of government finally admit fault?

Red State Whining

I've put this map up before but I've had a few requests via email to put it up again. The states in red represent who gets the most government handouts and the states in blue represent who gets the least. Ironic that the states that bitch the most about the federal government get the most money. Regardless of their whining, as a resident of the state of Minnesota, I'm happy that more of my share of tax dollars help people out in these states. Why?

Because I'm a grown up:)