Saturday, May 02, 2015
Friday, May 01, 2015
The Personal Computer Revolution and Personal Energy Independence
Tesla has been testing these power systems in companies like Walmart and Cargill, and a pilot project in 300 California homes.
Most homes with rooftop solar panels feed their electricity back into the grid, and then draw power from the grid when it's dark. But with Tesla's Powerwall battery system, all that excess solar power can be stored in your garage. It can supplement your household power when the grid is overloaded, or recharge your electric car, or allow you to go off the grid completely. This could be very bad for electric utilities, especially in sunny southern climes.
For months Hawaiian Electric (HECO) had been stonewalling customers who wanted to install solar panels on their houses. HECO complained that the grid isn't up to the task, and that it just isn't economical to change it. Since HECO doesn't control the output of home solar panels, they said, they couldn't predict how much power they will produce. That makes it very hard to balance the various sources of power, which could destabilize the grid. This is a completely valid concern, but this mindset may ultimately doom utilities like HECO.
Why are Republicans propping up government-sanctioned monopolies?
A great many utility monopolies have been making the same claims. A
lot of states
make it very difficult to install rooftop solar. Curiously, these
states are mostly in the south, where photovoltaics could generate
a lot of power. These states are generally controlled by
Republican majorities, who are in turn controlled by the
Koch brothers, who with their legislative arm ALEC have been
fighting solar power tooth and nail. This seems contradictory to the basic Republican ideology of independence and self-reliance. Why are Republicans propping up government-sanctioned monopolies?Though they had been delaying since last October, recently Hawaiian Electric approved all the rooftop solar applications on Maui and Hawaii, and is working to remove the backlog on Oahu. Why?
Maybe Hawaiian regulators turned up the heat after citizens who invested in solar panels complained. Maybe HECO resolved their technical issues. Or maybe HECO saw the writing on the wall, and realized that if they didn't hook these customers up, they might lose them completely.
Hawaii is really the perfect place for people to go off the grid. It's warm and sunny, but not too hot, so it doesn't need as much energy for heating and cooling as the rest of the country does. Hawaii has to import all its oil, coal and natural gas across the ocean, making it much more expensive: electric rates in Hawaii are about two and a half times higher than the US national average. That means rooftop solar is already much cheaper in Hawaii than fossil fuel-generated power.
The technologies that made the Internet and mobile revolutions possible are doing the same for power generation.
But now the same technology that made the Internet revolution possible is starting another revolution in power
generation. Solar cells are essentially the same as the computer
chips that go into our computers and cell phones. Production
efficiencies have now made photovoltaic cells as cheap as any
other kind of chips. That has made power from rooftop solar is almost as cheap as power from coal and natural gas, and it's only getting cheaper.Similarly, high-density lithium ion batteries developed for the mobile phones and tablets have revolutionized battery technologies, making electric cars and home power storage technologies possible.
Going off the grid isn't limited to tropical paradises. Buildings designed to the Passive House standard use almost no energy for heating and cooling. They are super-insulated and airtight and use heat exchangers in their ventilation systems to minimize energy use. The Passivhaus standard was developed in Germany -- almost all of which is further north than the Canadian border -- and is applicable anywhere in the United States. Germany also generates almost 7% of its electricity from solar, producing power even when it's cloudy. About the same amount of power is generated by wind turbines.
The fossil fuel industry likes to paint wind and solar as being "unpredictable" and "unreliable" sources of energy. But as we've seen in the past, oil prices are extremely unpredictable and supplies are unreliable, subject to wild swings. The availability and price of oil and gas fluctuate based on turmoil in the Middle East, closures of refineries, ports and rail lines (due to strikes, maintenance and explosions), or the whims of terrorists and tyrants in Libya, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Russia and Iran.
Instead of fighting wind and solar, power utilities like HECO should be working closely with companies like Tesla and SolarCity to free themselves from the vagaries and manipulations of the international energy markets. They should be working with homes and businesses to install rooftop solar so that they can integrate those systems into the grid more reliably.
Because, although they have no idea what the price of fossil fuel will be in two weeks or two months or two years, they know exactly what time the sun is going to rise, every day.
Thursday, April 30, 2015
The Republican Brain Part Two: Liberal Denial and A New Framework
A few weeks ago, I was talking with a guy I know from the club the other day about the military. He served in Vietnam and we always like to discuss history as we pump iron. I mentioned to him that the Pentagon these days has their eyes on the larger threat of climate change and the implications it presents for destabilization around the world.
He instantly became enraged and began to caterwaul about how it was all made up, a hoax etc....the usual response that comes from a plethora of right wing propaganda. I tried to explain to him that the science was solid but he would have none of it. I walked away in frustration, as I invariably do when I try to let facts pierce the bubble, and wondered what I could have said differently to change his mind. Since that time, I have been reading Chris Mooney's book, The Republican Brain and, as the rest of the introduction shows us, I failed to recognize key traits of the conservative brain,.
In short, I was a liberal in denial.
As seen in my first post about Mooney's book, the distribution of falsehoods is not equal or symmetrical across the political spectrum. As Mooney puts it, "It's not that liberals are never wrong or biased...it's that political wrongness is clustered among Republicans, conservatives, and especially Tea Partiers." Worse,
Insanity has been defined as doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome and that's precisely where our country stands now with regard to conservative denial of reality.
Sadly, we have been trained to "equivocate" by the media and, indeed, our culture at large. In order for us to move forward, non conservatives have to end this behavior immediately. Why?
The cost of this assault on reality is dramatic. Many of these falsehoods affect lives and have had-or will have-world changing consequences. And more dangerous than any of them is the utter erosion of a shared sense of what's true-which they both generate and perpetuate.
No doubt. The falsehoods regarding guns, detailed on this site, are directly responsible for thousands of deaths from gun violence every year. What are some other patently wrong ideas? Here are a few from pages 4-5 of the book.
1. The Affordable Care Act-government takeover, death panels, increase federal budget deficit, cut Medicare benefits, subsidize abortions, health care for illegal immigrants.
2. Abortion increases risk of breast cancer and mental disorders
3. The Iraq War-Saddam had WMDs.
4. Economics-Tax cuts increase government revenue
5. Science-Climate change is a hoax, evolution not accepted by 43 percent of conservatives
As Bill Maher would put it, these are all Zombie Lies. They keep coming back...again and again, and as they do, Mooney warns...
Errors and misconceptions like these can have momentous consequences. They can ruin lives, economies, countries, and planets. And today, it is clearly conservatives-much more than liberals-who reject what is true about war and peace, health and safety, history and money, science and government.
In other words, political conservatives have placed themselves in direct conflict with modern scientific knowledge, which shows beyond serious question that global warming is real and caused by humans, and evolution is real and the cause of humans. If you don't expect either claim, you cannot possibly understand the world or our place in it.
Now that we have established that this is the case with today's conservative, we have to understand why the believe what they do. This is the road map to where Mooney will be going with the rest of the book. Half of the explanation lies with what Mooney calls the environmental reason or the "nurture" aspect of conservative development. In a nutshell, the GOP did what it had to do to get ahead. They embraced the religious right and corporate interests that directly conflict with the obvious solutions to the list above. Conservative culture arose out of these interests and this is how they are weened as they develop.
Further, they reacted to the 1960s counter culture movement in classic fashion, deriding "too much change, too much pushing of equality, and too many attacks on traditional values-all occurring too fast." If you put baby in a corner, a right wing authoritarian emerges:)
Of course, this doesn't account for the psychological side of the equation which is the other half of the explanation for why conservatives believe as they do. The conservative platform offers a solution to this way too fast change that hits people on a deeply psychological level. As Mooney puts it, "it's something certain in a changing world; wanting to preserve one's own ways in uncertain times, and one's one group in the face of difference." Ideology is, after all, deeply personal and emotional so, naturally, it's directly tied to psychology.
I've written about this many times. This need arises from fear as one ages. Personal, physical failings stoke the fires of blame for the outside world. This, in turn, leads to that adolescent behavior and a desire to live life like we used to "back in the day." I always chuckle about this when some of my conservative friends wax nostalgic about eating what they want, not wearing a helmet, and being gone all day playing when they were kids. This is a direct response to fear of getting old and dying. There's a reason we don't do these things anymore....because we have progressed and evolved to live a higher quality of life!
Mooney then explains how this path will not be one of reductionism (conservatives are like this because their psychology...blah blah blah). The path will be one of determinism, encompassing all of the aspects that human beings deal with on a daily basis in their interactions with an emphasis on psychological reactions. This path must explore all the variables that lead to why conservatives are more closed, fixed and certain in their views and why liberals tend to be more open, flexible, curious and nuanced. On page 12, he issues the following warning...
[Conservatives]...won't like hearing that they're often wrong and dogmatic about it, so they may dogmatically resist this conclusion. They may also try to turn the tables and pretend liberals are the close minded ones, ignoring volumes of science in the process.
Turn the tables? Conservatives? Nah....:)
With the foundation now more or less set, the core reason for that path we are about to take is then revealed by Mooney. Regarding liberals,
On the one hand, we're absolutely outraged by partisan misinformation. Lies about death panels. Obama is a Muslim. Climate change denial. Debt ceiling denial. These things drive us crazy, in large part because we can't comprehend how such intellectual abominations could possibly exist. I can't tell you how many times I've heard a fellow liberal say, "I can't believe the Republicans are so stupid they can believe X!"
And not only are we enraged by lies and misinformation; we want to refute them-to argue, argue, argue about why we are right and Republicans are wrong. Indeed, we often act as though right wing misinformation's defeat is nigh, if we could just make people wise and more educated (just like us) and get them the medicine that is correct information.
In this, we both underestimate conservatives, and we fail to understand them.
Stunning. Remind you of anyone?:)
These passages led me to serious reflection. Eventually, the facts will win but how long will that take simply because liberals are in denial about the nature/nurture of conservatives? How many more people will suffer simply because liberals are stuck thinking that facts alone will change things..that we fail to note "how people work," as Mooney puts it? I've started down this path somewhat, I suppose, when I talk about gun violence. The Gun Cult won't change until they are personally affected very deeply by tragedy. But this isn't enough.
So what are the basics of how conservatives work?
So it's not that Schlafly, or other conservatives are stupid or can't make an argument. Rather, the problem is that when Schafly makes an argument, it's hard to believe that it has anything to do with real intellectual give and take. He's not arguing out of an openness to changing his mind. He's arguing to reaffirm what he already thinks (his "faith"), to defend the authorities he trusts, and to bolster the beliefs of his compatriots, his tribe, his team.
This paragraph pretty much sums up every blog discussion with conservative commenters for fucking ever!! This is exactly the motivation behind conservatives' arguments and why they behave and think the way they do. This is how they work. By denying this reality, liberals are helping to perpetuate the erosion of country. We must understand this is the place from where they define themselves.
We need a new strategy and the rest of Mooney's book details such a new strategy. I'm looking forward to the answers that he's going to offer because, while I'm please with the progress we have made since the president took office, we obviously have a much longer way to go. We can get there if we have a deeper understanding of how the conservative really operates and functions.
He instantly became enraged and began to caterwaul about how it was all made up, a hoax etc....the usual response that comes from a plethora of right wing propaganda. I tried to explain to him that the science was solid but he would have none of it. I walked away in frustration, as I invariably do when I try to let facts pierce the bubble, and wondered what I could have said differently to change his mind. Since that time, I have been reading Chris Mooney's book, The Republican Brain and, as the rest of the introduction shows us, I failed to recognize key traits of the conservative brain,.
In short, I was a liberal in denial.
As seen in my first post about Mooney's book, the distribution of falsehoods is not equal or symmetrical across the political spectrum. As Mooney puts it, "It's not that liberals are never wrong or biased...it's that political wrongness is clustered among Republicans, conservatives, and especially Tea Partiers." Worse,
Insanity has been defined as doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome and that's precisely where our country stands now with regard to conservative denial of reality.
Sadly, we have been trained to "equivocate" by the media and, indeed, our culture at large. In order for us to move forward, non conservatives have to end this behavior immediately. Why?
The cost of this assault on reality is dramatic. Many of these falsehoods affect lives and have had-or will have-world changing consequences. And more dangerous than any of them is the utter erosion of a shared sense of what's true-which they both generate and perpetuate.
No doubt. The falsehoods regarding guns, detailed on this site, are directly responsible for thousands of deaths from gun violence every year. What are some other patently wrong ideas? Here are a few from pages 4-5 of the book.
1. The Affordable Care Act-government takeover, death panels, increase federal budget deficit, cut Medicare benefits, subsidize abortions, health care for illegal immigrants.
2. Abortion increases risk of breast cancer and mental disorders
3. The Iraq War-Saddam had WMDs.
4. Economics-Tax cuts increase government revenue
5. Science-Climate change is a hoax, evolution not accepted by 43 percent of conservatives
As Bill Maher would put it, these are all Zombie Lies. They keep coming back...again and again, and as they do, Mooney warns...
Errors and misconceptions like these can have momentous consequences. They can ruin lives, economies, countries, and planets. And today, it is clearly conservatives-much more than liberals-who reject what is true about war and peace, health and safety, history and money, science and government.
In other words, political conservatives have placed themselves in direct conflict with modern scientific knowledge, which shows beyond serious question that global warming is real and caused by humans, and evolution is real and the cause of humans. If you don't expect either claim, you cannot possibly understand the world or our place in it.
Now that we have established that this is the case with today's conservative, we have to understand why the believe what they do. This is the road map to where Mooney will be going with the rest of the book. Half of the explanation lies with what Mooney calls the environmental reason or the "nurture" aspect of conservative development. In a nutshell, the GOP did what it had to do to get ahead. They embraced the religious right and corporate interests that directly conflict with the obvious solutions to the list above. Conservative culture arose out of these interests and this is how they are weened as they develop.
Further, they reacted to the 1960s counter culture movement in classic fashion, deriding "too much change, too much pushing of equality, and too many attacks on traditional values-all occurring too fast." If you put baby in a corner, a right wing authoritarian emerges:)
Of course, this doesn't account for the psychological side of the equation which is the other half of the explanation for why conservatives believe as they do. The conservative platform offers a solution to this way too fast change that hits people on a deeply psychological level. As Mooney puts it, "it's something certain in a changing world; wanting to preserve one's own ways in uncertain times, and one's one group in the face of difference." Ideology is, after all, deeply personal and emotional so, naturally, it's directly tied to psychology.
I've written about this many times. This need arises from fear as one ages. Personal, physical failings stoke the fires of blame for the outside world. This, in turn, leads to that adolescent behavior and a desire to live life like we used to "back in the day." I always chuckle about this when some of my conservative friends wax nostalgic about eating what they want, not wearing a helmet, and being gone all day playing when they were kids. This is a direct response to fear of getting old and dying. There's a reason we don't do these things anymore....because we have progressed and evolved to live a higher quality of life!
Mooney then explains how this path will not be one of reductionism (conservatives are like this because their psychology...blah blah blah). The path will be one of determinism, encompassing all of the aspects that human beings deal with on a daily basis in their interactions with an emphasis on psychological reactions. This path must explore all the variables that lead to why conservatives are more closed, fixed and certain in their views and why liberals tend to be more open, flexible, curious and nuanced. On page 12, he issues the following warning...
[Conservatives]...won't like hearing that they're often wrong and dogmatic about it, so they may dogmatically resist this conclusion. They may also try to turn the tables and pretend liberals are the close minded ones, ignoring volumes of science in the process.
Turn the tables? Conservatives? Nah....:)
With the foundation now more or less set, the core reason for that path we are about to take is then revealed by Mooney. Regarding liberals,
On the one hand, we're absolutely outraged by partisan misinformation. Lies about death panels. Obama is a Muslim. Climate change denial. Debt ceiling denial. These things drive us crazy, in large part because we can't comprehend how such intellectual abominations could possibly exist. I can't tell you how many times I've heard a fellow liberal say, "I can't believe the Republicans are so stupid they can believe X!"
And not only are we enraged by lies and misinformation; we want to refute them-to argue, argue, argue about why we are right and Republicans are wrong. Indeed, we often act as though right wing misinformation's defeat is nigh, if we could just make people wise and more educated (just like us) and get them the medicine that is correct information.
In this, we both underestimate conservatives, and we fail to understand them.
Stunning. Remind you of anyone?:)
These passages led me to serious reflection. Eventually, the facts will win but how long will that take simply because liberals are in denial about the nature/nurture of conservatives? How many more people will suffer simply because liberals are stuck thinking that facts alone will change things..that we fail to note "how people work," as Mooney puts it? I've started down this path somewhat, I suppose, when I talk about gun violence. The Gun Cult won't change until they are personally affected very deeply by tragedy. But this isn't enough.
So what are the basics of how conservatives work?
So it's not that Schlafly, or other conservatives are stupid or can't make an argument. Rather, the problem is that when Schafly makes an argument, it's hard to believe that it has anything to do with real intellectual give and take. He's not arguing out of an openness to changing his mind. He's arguing to reaffirm what he already thinks (his "faith"), to defend the authorities he trusts, and to bolster the beliefs of his compatriots, his tribe, his team.
This paragraph pretty much sums up every blog discussion with conservative commenters for fucking ever!! This is exactly the motivation behind conservatives' arguments and why they behave and think the way they do. This is how they work. By denying this reality, liberals are helping to perpetuate the erosion of country. We must understand this is the place from where they define themselves.
We need a new strategy and the rest of Mooney's book details such a new strategy. I'm looking forward to the answers that he's going to offer because, while I'm please with the progress we have made since the president took office, we obviously have a much longer way to go. We can get there if we have a deeper understanding of how the conservative really operates and functions.
Wednesday, April 29, 2015
Audi Makes Diesel out of Thin Air (and Water)
German automobile giant Audi has a pilot program to produce diesel from carbon dioxide pulled out of the air, combining it with hydrogen electrolyzed from water with electricity from wind turbines. According to Audi's website:
Production of Audi e‑diesel involves various steps: First, water heated up to form steam is broken down into hydrogen and oxygen by means of high-temperature electrolysis. This process, involving a temperature in excess of 800 degrees Celsius, is more efficient than conventional techniques because of heat recovery, for example. Another special feature of high-temperature electrolysis is that it can be used dynamically, to stabilize the grid when production of green power peaks.Audi also has a pilot plant that produces "e-gas," creating methane (natural gas) with a similar process. Natural gas can be used to power vehicles, heat homes, cook food, etc.
In two further steps, the hydrogen reacts with the CO2 in synthesis reactors, again under pressure and at high temperature. The reaction product is a liquid made from long‑chain hydrocarbon compounds, known as blue crude. The efficiency of the overall process – from renewable power to liquid hydrocarbon – is very high at around 70 percent. Similarly to a fossil crude oil, blue crude can be refined to yield the end product Audi e‑diesel. This synthetic fuel is free from sulfur and aromatic hydrocarbons, and its high cetane number means it is readily ignitable. As lab tests conducted at Audi have shown, it is suitable for admixing with fossil diesel or, prospectively, for use as a fuel in its own right.
The "blue crude" idea is kind of cool, as it would allow existing vehicles to be powered by carbon-neutral fuel. But it's limited: when we start cleaning up our act and reducing carbon emissions, over time the level of CO2 will drop as the carbon dioxide is sequestered in animals, plants, the earth and the ocean.
As mentioned on the Audi website, this would allow load balancing of the grid: when wind and solar are making more electricity than is being consumed, the excess can be diverted to hydrogen production, which can then be stored. That hydrogen could be used to power fuel cells to generate electricity when wind and solar are offline, or to power vehicles.
Storage of excess energy from wind and solar has always been a major criticism of the technologies. And conservatives don't have to worry: these "green" energy production techniques will still piss off environmentalists. Solar and wind farms will kill some birds and displace some endangered species, and large-scale electrolysis will have to use ocean water, which means there will be briny waste that kill some fish.
We will still be the undisputed rulers of the earth, wielding the power of life and death: it'll just be a little more life and a little less death.
Everybody wins!
The "Liberal" Media v The City of Baltimore
While the (ahem) liberal media continues to show images of crazy niggers looting the city of Baltimore, I thought I would share some other images.
And these images are where on MSNBC?
And these images are where on MSNBC?
Tuesday, April 28, 2015
Portrait of A Right Wing Blogger
This is who you are arguing with, folks.
Feel some pity for them as they were likely picked on a lot in their lives (hence the gun humping) but, really and truly, don't waste your time.
Feel some pity for them as they were likely picked on a lot in their lives (hence the gun humping) but, really and truly, don't waste your time.
Monday, April 27, 2015
A Breathing Democrat
In the coming presidential election in 2016, the Democrats need only nominate a breathing human and they will likely win. Here's why:
In looking at the electoral map, the Democrats essentially have 246 EVs baked in the cake.
Take a look:
California-55
New York-29
Illinois-20
Pennsylvania-20
Michigan-16
Washington-12
Minnesota-10
Wisconsin-10
Oregon-7
Maine-4
Vermont-3
Mass-11
Rhode Island-4
New Hampshire-4
Connecticut-7
New Jersey-14
Delaware-3
Maryland-10
Hawaii-4
DC-3
One could also throw in Iowa with its 6 EVs as its only gone GOP in 1984 and 2004 but let's just leave that as a tossup. Some might argue Wisconsin is a tossup but let's remember that they have been blue since 1984, including voting for Dukakis in 1988!
So, the Democrats only have to run a breathing human and they will win these states. Webb or O'Malley would win all of these states. Sanders would likely win them as well, especially if the GOP nominates a REAL CONSERVATIVE as they promise to do in 2016. With a base of 242, that only leaves 28 EVs so the Democrats could pick up Florida and be done. Or they could snag Ohio and a couple of western states and do the same thing. Their path to the White House can take many forms.
The GOP candidate, on the other hand, starts with a much smaller base, 206 EVs. To get to 270, they have to run the table in nearly all of the swing states and hold the ever changing North Carolina. 64 EVs is a steep climb and if they really do nominate a far right candidate, they simply won't get any of the swing states. The independents won't go for them.
Now, if it is indeed going to be Hillary, then you can start ticking off Ohio and a couple of the western states like Colorado and New Mexico. Even if she runs a weak campaign and is continually hounded by scandal, she will still eek out a win. Of course, that's assuming that conservative leaning women/moderate women don't really vote for her. If they do, well...it could be 1988 except of the Dems, all over again.
In looking at the electoral map, the Democrats essentially have 246 EVs baked in the cake.
Take a look:
California-55
New York-29
Illinois-20
Pennsylvania-20
Michigan-16
Washington-12
Minnesota-10
Wisconsin-10
Oregon-7
Maine-4
Vermont-3
Mass-11
Rhode Island-4
New Hampshire-4
Connecticut-7
New Jersey-14
Delaware-3
Maryland-10
Hawaii-4
DC-3
One could also throw in Iowa with its 6 EVs as its only gone GOP in 1984 and 2004 but let's just leave that as a tossup. Some might argue Wisconsin is a tossup but let's remember that they have been blue since 1984, including voting for Dukakis in 1988!
So, the Democrats only have to run a breathing human and they will win these states. Webb or O'Malley would win all of these states. Sanders would likely win them as well, especially if the GOP nominates a REAL CONSERVATIVE as they promise to do in 2016. With a base of 242, that only leaves 28 EVs so the Democrats could pick up Florida and be done. Or they could snag Ohio and a couple of western states and do the same thing. Their path to the White House can take many forms.
The GOP candidate, on the other hand, starts with a much smaller base, 206 EVs. To get to 270, they have to run the table in nearly all of the swing states and hold the ever changing North Carolina. 64 EVs is a steep climb and if they really do nominate a far right candidate, they simply won't get any of the swing states. The independents won't go for them.
Now, if it is indeed going to be Hillary, then you can start ticking off Ohio and a couple of the western states like Colorado and New Mexico. Even if she runs a weak campaign and is continually hounded by scandal, she will still eek out a win. Of course, that's assuming that conservative leaning women/moderate women don't really vote for her. If they do, well...it could be 1988 except of the Dems, all over again.
Sunday, April 26, 2015
Mainstreaming McVeigh
A great piece from Josh Horwitz about how the Gun Cult has mainstreamed Timothy McVeigh's ideas.
When Timothy McVeigh bombed the Murrah Building, he was wearing a t-shirt he purchased at a gun show. It had a picture of President Abraham Lincoln on the front with the words "SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS [THUS ALWAYS TO TYRANTS]." ... It's remarkable to think that, 20 years after we buried 168 Americans in a horrific act of terrorism, we are hearing the same exact perverse philosophy being promoted by Republican candidates running for the office of President of the United States.
Do they even understand what they are fomenting?
When Timothy McVeigh bombed the Murrah Building, he was wearing a t-shirt he purchased at a gun show. It had a picture of President Abraham Lincoln on the front with the words "SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS [THUS ALWAYS TO TYRANTS]." ... It's remarkable to think that, 20 years after we buried 168 Americans in a horrific act of terrorism, we are hearing the same exact perverse philosophy being promoted by Republican candidates running for the office of President of the United States.
Do they even understand what they are fomenting?
Saturday, April 25, 2015
Scientific Consensus On Guns
In addition to their being a scientific consensus on climate change, there is also one on guns.
So, for example, one survey asked whether having a gun in the home increased the risk of suicide. An overwhelming share of the 150 people who responded, 84%, said yes.
I also found widespread confidence that a gun in the home increases the risk that a woman living in the home will be a victim of homicide (72% agree, 11% disagree) and that a gun in the home makes it a more dangerous place to be (64%) rather than a safer place (5%). There is consensus that guns are not used in self-defense far more often than they are used in crime (73% vs. 8%) and that the change to more permissive gun carrying laws has not reduced crime rates (62% vs. 9%). Finally, there is consensus that strong gun laws reduce homicide (71% vs. 12%).
Yep.
So, for example, one survey asked whether having a gun in the home increased the risk of suicide. An overwhelming share of the 150 people who responded, 84%, said yes.
I also found widespread confidence that a gun in the home increases the risk that a woman living in the home will be a victim of homicide (72% agree, 11% disagree) and that a gun in the home makes it a more dangerous place to be (64%) rather than a safer place (5%). There is consensus that guns are not used in self-defense far more often than they are used in crime (73% vs. 8%) and that the change to more permissive gun carrying laws has not reduced crime rates (62% vs. 9%). Finally, there is consensus that strong gun laws reduce homicide (71% vs. 12%).
Yep.
Giving Guns To Criminals
It looks like a new "gun rights" bill in Missouri would end up allowing the following convicted felons to still obtain a gun.
Huh.
- Attempted Rape in the First Degree (when no injury results)
- Attempted Forcible Rape in the First Degree (when no injury results)
- Deviate Sexual Assault
- Sexual Assault/ Rape in the Second Degree
- Statutory Rape in the First Degree (unless victim under 12)
- Statutory Rape in the Second Degree
- Abusing an Individual through Forced Labor
- Trafficking for the Purpose of Slavery, Involuntary Servitude, Peonage, or Forced Labor
- Trafficking for the Purposes of Sexual Exploitation
- Sexual Trafficking of a Child
- Voluntary Manslaughter
- Involuntary Manslaughter
- Assault in the Second Degree (unless a special victim)
- Assault in the Third Degree
- Domestic Assault in the Second Degree
- Domestic Assault in the Third Degree
- Assault while on School Property
- Assault of a Law Enforcement Officer in the Second Degree § 565.082
- Felonious Restraint
- Child Abduction
- Invasion of Privacy in the First Degree
- Infanticide
- Promoting Prostitution in the First Degree
- Promoting Prostitution in the Second Degree
- Promoting Prostitution in the Third Degree
- Promoting Travel for Prostitution
- Robbery in the Second Degree
- Arson in the Second Degree
- Knowingly Burning or Exploding
- Causing Catastrophe
- Use or Possession of Metal Penetrating Bullet During the Commission of a Crime
- Sexual Exploitation of a Minor
- Promoting Child Pornography in the First Degree
- Promoting Child Pornography in the Second Degree
- Possession of Child Pornography
- Repeated Cross Burning
- Rioting
- Promoting a Civil Disorder in the First Degree
- Making a Terrorist Threat
- Killing or Disabling a Police Animal
- Trafficking Drugs in the First Degree
- Treason
- Supporting Terrorism
Huh.
GOP Supporting the Affordable Care Act?
From Hot Air via Talking Points Memo...(say what?!!)
Senate GOP leadership wants to restore federal ObamaCare subsidies through 2017 if SCOTUS strikes them down
Heavy majorities, including a majority of Republicans, want the subsidies restored if the White House loses in Halbig, an ominous sign for the congressional GOP. In theory, voter anger could be so intense that both chambers of Congress will end up back under Democratic control, ensuring that the subsidies will be restored anyway.
Just as I predicted.
And now even Hot Air is admitting what the rest of us already knew: the ACA is gaining popularity because it's effective and working.
It looks like it may not matter much how SCOTUS rules on King v Burwell in June.
Senate GOP leadership wants to restore federal ObamaCare subsidies through 2017 if SCOTUS strikes them down
Heavy majorities, including a majority of Republicans, want the subsidies restored if the White House loses in Halbig, an ominous sign for the congressional GOP. In theory, voter anger could be so intense that both chambers of Congress will end up back under Democratic control, ensuring that the subsidies will be restored anyway.
Just as I predicted.
And now even Hot Air is admitting what the rest of us already knew: the ACA is gaining popularity because it's effective and working.
It looks like it may not matter much how SCOTUS rules on King v Burwell in June.
Friday, April 24, 2015
The Truly Dismal Science
There are a lot of cop shows on TV. There have been four versions of Law & Order (vanilla, SVU, LA, Criminal Intent and UK). There've been four versions of CSI (vanilla, New York, Miami and Cyber). There've been three versions of NCIS (vanilla, Los Angeles and New Orleans), which completely baffles me: why is the Navy so riddled with crime, and anyway, doesn't the Posse Comitatus Act prevent NCIS officers from messing around in civilian cases? (Turns out, it does.)
According to an analysis on Details.com, 42% of all the characters on American television are cops (including FBI agents, forensic analysts, medical examiners, secret agents). And that's not even counting vigilantes like the Arrow and the Winchester brothers who fight superhuman and supernatural threats.
Now, I'm not going to bemoan the fact that so much of our entertainment is focused on crime, or that average American children see 16,000 murders by the time they're 18, or that seeing this endless parade of death and destruction gives us a warped view of the world, making us think things are far more dangerous than they really are.
For example, child abductions by strangers are much rarer than you'd think based on TV shows. Most kids are taken by relatives:
Only a tiny minority of kidnapped children are taken by strangers. Between 1990 and 1995 the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children handled only 515 stranger abductions, 3.1 percent of its caseload. A 2000 report by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Programs reported that more than 3/4 of kidnappings were committed by family members or acquaintances of the child. The study also found that children abducted by strangers were harmed less frequently than those taken by acquaintances.But perhaps the most misleading aspect of TV cop shows is the accuracy of forensic analysis. Crime scene investigators (CSIs) are wrong a heck of a lot more than the TV shows make you think.
Admittedly, I've always been skeptical of how quickly and easily the guys on CSI identify which implement was was used to hack someone up based on tool marks. Or whether it was this or that suspect based on teeth marks. Or matching hair samples or bullets in a microscope, just by eyeballing it.
FBI forensic hair examiners gave flawed testimony in 95% of the cases examined.
It turns out that my skepticism was warranted. As reported by the Washington Post, an FBI investigation of 268 cases determined that the forensic hair testimony in 257 of those cases was flawed, or an error rate of more than 95%. Worse, 32 of those were death penalty cases. In one of them they matched human hair to a dog.
The cop shows like to emphasize that crime scene analysis is Science!. But that's a mischaracterization of what's really going on. CSIs are technicians who use scientific tools like microscopes, DNA analysis and mass spectrometers to gather information about crime scene evidence, which they then interpret.
They need technical training to make sure that they properly prepare samples for analysis, avoid cross-contamination and understand the limitations of their measurements.
But that doesn't make the real task they perform "science," any more than using a pH tester makes the guy who installed your water softener a scientist, or your accountant an electronic engineer because he uses a calculator.
Crime scene analysis is an interpretive art, not a science.
Analyzing the data from testing of crime scene evidence is an interpretive art, not science. Scientists run statistical analyses on large samples of data. They conduct experiments over and over again, or verify the results of other scientists' experiments. They formulate new theories based on mathematical models of matter and the universe, and then predict results of experiments before they do them. They control as many variables at once and then vary them one at a time to make sure they're really measuring what they they think they're measuring.The guys at Mythbusters are more like scientists than crime scene analysts.
And that's not CSIs' fault. They have to decide who committed a crime based on one or two tiny bits of evidence. Their samples are frequently contaminated by victims and paramedics. They can't reproduce results by getting the criminal to commit the crime multiple times. Their job is intrinsically difficult, made more so by the demands of the justice system and the expectations of victims.
The scientific method can be utilized to determine the accuracy of the methods CSIs employ -- experiments and statistical analyses can be run on the performance of these experts. But that's only marginally useful: molecules and atoms and photons follow the laws of chemistry and physics, and always behave the same way under the same conditions.
Human beings don't: they get distracted, bored, tired. Their vision gets blurry from lack of sleep and dirty contacts. They go through divorces. They're influenced by the detectives in the case, or the brutality of the crime. They have large backlogs of cases and are in a hurry to catch up. From the results of the FBI's analysis of hair forensics, it's clear that these factors have as much influence on crime scene analysis as any underlying science.
If crime scene analysis is a science, it -- rather than economics -- is truly the dismal science.
Free Trade=Jobs and Growth
The president's trade agenda is going to face opposition...from the Democrats. In point of fact, they are the ones this time around that are ignoring reality and behaving illogically while the Republicans support the president's policy. The trade agreement proposed by the president would increase exports, insource jobs and take away foreign countries ability to demand that goods be built on their soil. Thus, more manufacturing could return home.
Further, it would allow our country more say in the rules of trade in Asia, as opposed to China and Japan. This agreement also allows the president to fast track trade pacts without Congress rewriting the legislation to the point of insanity. The legislative branch can only vote up or down. Given its dysfunction, it would be a very good thing to give the president this power.
We can't return to the age of protectionism, folks. It was this kind of behavior that was the direct cause of war. Breton Woods set us on a path to change all that. We need to continue all policies that promote free trade and leave the ghost of mercantilism behind.
Further, it would allow our country more say in the rules of trade in Asia, as opposed to China and Japan. This agreement also allows the president to fast track trade pacts without Congress rewriting the legislation to the point of insanity. The legislative branch can only vote up or down. Given its dysfunction, it would be a very good thing to give the president this power.
We can't return to the age of protectionism, folks. It was this kind of behavior that was the direct cause of war. Breton Woods set us on a path to change all that. We need to continue all policies that promote free trade and leave the ghost of mercantilism behind.
Thursday, April 23, 2015
Amazing Words
A response on Quora regarding Wayne LaPierre's speech at the NRA convention this year.
Fear, fear, and more fear. Keep the boogeyman alive, lurking in the shadows, ready to jump out and snatch our children, our guns, and our freedom. It rallies the base and keeps the donations coming.
To paraphrase Mr. LaPierre, all around the country people tell him they have never been more worried about their country. They "feel" like their freedoms are slipping away, and lie awake at night worrying about their families, their children, and the future.
What a miserable existence they must have, and all unwarranted.
To quote directly from his speech:
"In a nation in which, almost everywhere you look, in profoundly troubling ways, freedom has been diminished. Our right to gather, our right to speak, our financial freedom, our right to care for our families as we see fit, our religious freedom, our right to privacy - all of it in decline."
What the hell is he talking about?
Our right to peacefully gather is still safe. Does he not remember the March for Life in Washington in January? Or the Occupy movement?
Our right to speak? What? What was he doing at the NRA convention? Isn't Fox News and MSNBC still on the air? Can he name one newspaper the government has shut down? Aren't birthers still challenging President Obama's citizenship?
Our financial freedom? Sure, the economy took a dive in 2008. People lost their jobs and suffered economically. Banks and corporations suffered, though many got immediate government assistance. Some regulations have been restored to about what they were in the mid 1990s, when the economy was booming. There is bickering about raising taxes, like there has been over the last century. But can he name one instance where the government has seized assets of an individual or company without cause? Or one instance where the government without cause specifically restricted the ability of an individual or company to do business? No, laws and regulations are equally applied.
Our right to care for our families as we see fit? Can he name one instance where the federal government interfered with what a law-abiding family did in their own home as far as what they taught their children, chose for their diet, what media they watched, what entertainment they chose, or dictated what places they went, or what church they intended? If a family uses any public service, such as the schools, what family has been forced to live under rules that did not apply to everyone else?
Our religious freedom? Can he name one church, synagogue, or mosque that has been shut down? Or one instance where a government official walked into a place or worship and told the minister, priest, rabbi, or imam they could not express what they believed (as long as they did not illegally advocate violence against others)? Certain conservative groups have tried to prevent the building of new mosques, but not the government.
Can Mr. LaPierre name one instance where Christians or those of any other religion have been denied the right to peacefully assemble or express their views? Did he miss the following events where they did so?
Again, as far as religious freedom, can he name one instance where a church or individual has been told they could not display a nativity scene or other religious symbol on private property?
There are those who feel the government should favor and support their religion above others in government-funded institutions, and these issues are being sorted out in court as they always have been. However, as far as direct government restrictions upon individuals or places of worship, there is not one instance where a US citizen has been prohibited free exercise of religion while in their home, place of worship, or in a lawful public assembly.
Now, on our right to privacy, I agree that both liberals and conservatives have questioned the provisions of the Patriot Act and Executive Orders issued under both President Bush and President Obama. That will be sorted out by the courts and Congress, as is appropriate.
The rest of it is the usual rhetoric, and by usual I mean baseles and inaccurate, to create enough fear to rally the base into a frenzy and oppose anything linked to a Democratic initiative or President Obama. And of course, to keep financial donations to the NRA coming so the NRA can save us from all this peril.
Does anyone wonder why US politics and culture are polarized?
And as far as the Second Amendment right to bear arms, The ten-year ban on assault rifles that started in 1994 expired in 2004. Legislation was proposed in 2013 to basically renew the ban, but it failed to pass. If it had passed it would have banned the sale of assault weapons but would not have affected the ones already owned. President Obama's Executive Orders concerning the purchase of firearms merely clarified existing regulations or brought them to levels that previously existed.
As far as gun laws passed by state legislatures after the shooting at Sandy Hook, about two thirds of those laws loosened restrictions on firearms.
Like it or not, the right to buy and own firearms in the United States has not changed in any significant way during the administration of President Obama. Some may see that as a failure, others as success, but that is the reality of the situation.
One of the finest comments I have ever read. I hope it will change some minds.
Fear, fear, and more fear. Keep the boogeyman alive, lurking in the shadows, ready to jump out and snatch our children, our guns, and our freedom. It rallies the base and keeps the donations coming.
To paraphrase Mr. LaPierre, all around the country people tell him they have never been more worried about their country. They "feel" like their freedoms are slipping away, and lie awake at night worrying about their families, their children, and the future.
What a miserable existence they must have, and all unwarranted.
To quote directly from his speech:
"In a nation in which, almost everywhere you look, in profoundly troubling ways, freedom has been diminished. Our right to gather, our right to speak, our financial freedom, our right to care for our families as we see fit, our religious freedom, our right to privacy - all of it in decline."
What the hell is he talking about?
Our right to peacefully gather is still safe. Does he not remember the March for Life in Washington in January? Or the Occupy movement?
Our right to speak? What? What was he doing at the NRA convention? Isn't Fox News and MSNBC still on the air? Can he name one newspaper the government has shut down? Aren't birthers still challenging President Obama's citizenship?
Our financial freedom? Sure, the economy took a dive in 2008. People lost their jobs and suffered economically. Banks and corporations suffered, though many got immediate government assistance. Some regulations have been restored to about what they were in the mid 1990s, when the economy was booming. There is bickering about raising taxes, like there has been over the last century. But can he name one instance where the government has seized assets of an individual or company without cause? Or one instance where the government without cause specifically restricted the ability of an individual or company to do business? No, laws and regulations are equally applied.
Our right to care for our families as we see fit? Can he name one instance where the federal government interfered with what a law-abiding family did in their own home as far as what they taught their children, chose for their diet, what media they watched, what entertainment they chose, or dictated what places they went, or what church they intended? If a family uses any public service, such as the schools, what family has been forced to live under rules that did not apply to everyone else?
Our religious freedom? Can he name one church, synagogue, or mosque that has been shut down? Or one instance where a government official walked into a place or worship and told the minister, priest, rabbi, or imam they could not express what they believed (as long as they did not illegally advocate violence against others)? Certain conservative groups have tried to prevent the building of new mosques, but not the government.
Can Mr. LaPierre name one instance where Christians or those of any other religion have been denied the right to peacefully assemble or express their views? Did he miss the following events where they did so?
Again, as far as religious freedom, can he name one instance where a church or individual has been told they could not display a nativity scene or other religious symbol on private property?
There are those who feel the government should favor and support their religion above others in government-funded institutions, and these issues are being sorted out in court as they always have been. However, as far as direct government restrictions upon individuals or places of worship, there is not one instance where a US citizen has been prohibited free exercise of religion while in their home, place of worship, or in a lawful public assembly.
Now, on our right to privacy, I agree that both liberals and conservatives have questioned the provisions of the Patriot Act and Executive Orders issued under both President Bush and President Obama. That will be sorted out by the courts and Congress, as is appropriate.
The rest of it is the usual rhetoric, and by usual I mean baseles and inaccurate, to create enough fear to rally the base into a frenzy and oppose anything linked to a Democratic initiative or President Obama. And of course, to keep financial donations to the NRA coming so the NRA can save us from all this peril.
Does anyone wonder why US politics and culture are polarized?
And as far as the Second Amendment right to bear arms, The ten-year ban on assault rifles that started in 1994 expired in 2004. Legislation was proposed in 2013 to basically renew the ban, but it failed to pass. If it had passed it would have banned the sale of assault weapons but would not have affected the ones already owned. President Obama's Executive Orders concerning the purchase of firearms merely clarified existing regulations or brought them to levels that previously existed.
As far as gun laws passed by state legislatures after the shooting at Sandy Hook, about two thirds of those laws loosened restrictions on firearms.
Like it or not, the right to buy and own firearms in the United States has not changed in any significant way during the administration of President Obama. Some may see that as a failure, others as success, but that is the reality of the situation.
One of the finest comments I have ever read. I hope it will change some minds.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)