Now that gay marriage is the law of the land, people keep bringing up that red herring: polygamy.
Conservatives kept telling us that if we allowed gay marriage, next there would be polygamy, then people would start marrying horses and blowup dolls.
When the gay marriage debate started conservatives trotted out the idea that the only purpose of marriage was to have children. Children are necessary for the good of society. Since couples of the same sex can't procreate, the logic went, they shouldn't be allowed to marry.
Yet there are millions of opposite-sex couples who cannot have children, due to infertility. Those husbands and wives adopted children, or used sperm or egg donors, or engaged surrogate mothers. Gay couples can do these same things. In this technological age, biology is not destiny. And we've never stopped heterosexual couples past their childbearing years from marrying, so it makes no sense to deny gays and lesbians the same basic right.
The basic moral argument for gay marriage is that every person should have the same right to marry the person they love. Singular.
When conservatives tried to dredge up reasons for why gay marriage was bad, the only reason they could deduce, other than they didn't like it, was that it was harmful for the children. Why? Because conservatives would mistreat the children of gay couples.
Yes, their actual rationale for denying gay marriage was, "You can't get married because our children will harass your children."
Unlike gay marriage, polygamy has several detrimental social and biological effects.
The primary problem is that of hoarding of women. If a small number of men have a large number of wives, that means a large number of men have no wives. The consequences of this imbalance would be severe: it would force straight men into gay or polyandrous marriages. (Or be made into eunuchs so that they could manage the harems of the wealthy?)
Every extra wife a polygamous man hoards steals another straight man's right to happiness by denying him a family. (Gay marriage doesn't have this problem, as the ratio of gay men to lesbians appears to be close to one.)
If you believe -- as many conservatives do -- that being gay is a choice, polygamy could potentially force some men into gay relationships and marriage because they cannot find wives.
If you look at polygamous societies (Islam and Mormon cults like Warren Jeffs'), you find other social harms. Polygamy demeans the role of women: rich men would arrange to be married to younger women and girls. This would encourage the treatment of women as broodmares; some husbands would force them to selectively bear daughters after they get their first-born son to sell wives to other polygamous men. As the men age they go after younger and younger girls, marrying twelve- and thirteen-year-olds.
Wealthy men would pay large "dowries" to parents of attractive young girls to stock their large harems. These would create what amounts to a sex slave market for underage girls. There would be an Uber-like app for parents looking to sell their daughters.
That leaves a large number of men without any outlet for sexual tension. In the United States men would never stand for having no access to heterosexual sex, so polygamy would force the legalization of prostitution.
There are historical antecedents that show a large population of men who cannot marry causes major social upheaval.
This has occurred more than once in China. During the Qing dynasty in the 19th century a famine caused widespread female infanticide. The Chinese considered daughters less valuable than sons because girls wouldn't carry on the family name, or support their aged parents. Over time that resulted in more than a quarter of young men being unable to find wives.
This was particularly short-sighted. They failed to realize that when large numbers of parents killed girl babies, there would be no women for their sons to marry. And the result was the same: their sons could not carry on the family name.
But that wasn't the only problem. These wifeless men (called "bare branches") formed militias and raised havoc, ultimately bringing down the Qing dynasty.
China is making the same mistake again today, with many parents having aborted female fetuses or abandoning girl babies in the cold to die due to the strict one-child policy. By 2020 it's estimated that there will be almost 4% more men than women in China. That's 30 million men who won't be able to marry. (Some of them are seeking wives from other countries, like Korea, but that just spreads the problem across the world.)
Already, in the areas of China where the male-to-female ratio is the most lopsided there is considerably greater violence, alcoholism, drug addiction, gambling, as well as kidnapping and trafficking of women.
We had the same sort of problems in the United States in the Wild West, when there were far more men than women in the new territories.
So, too many men is obviously bad. What about polyandry?
The idea that women with multiple husbands would somehow make up for men with multiple wives is ludicrous: the simple facts of biology make that impossible. One woman just cannot bear children for several husbands; it's just too hard on women (the sheer creepiness of the Duggar baby factory should dispel any notion that this is desirable). And I seriously doubt any significant percentage of American men would ever voluntarily submit to being one of several husbands. The male ego is too fragile -- they would go without rather than submit to such an embarrassment.
There are also practical, biological and economic arguments against polygamy. It would increase inbreeding: more and more children would have the same fathers. This would reduce the gene pool in general and the Y chromosome in particular. Society would be more prone to genetic diseases and in general less genetically diverse, which leads to greater susceptibility to disease.
Political and economic power would become even more unequal as polygamous dynasties passed power from father to son.
Then there are legal ramifications for divorce and inheritance. Wherever polygamy reigns women are treated as chattel. Clearly that won't stand in America. But what happens in a modern society like ours when a wealthy man marries 20 women and the wives disagree with the husband on how to manage their affairs? He can't just have his way because he's the man, not in this day and age. Majority vote? The wives will win every argument. What man would put up with that?
Oh, you say, a prenuptial agreement would solve these problems. No. Typically polygamous marriages are arranged by parents. Parents aiming to make money off their daughters will sign the girls to unfair prenups and sell them off at age 16 or 18 to some rich guy. These things will wind up in court 10 years later when the wife wants a divorce and take "her" children with her. But in a polygamous family where all the children are raised by half a dozen wives as if they were their own, which children are hers? Two-way custody battles are already a nightmare. Imagine what a six-way custody battle would be like.
Biology makes polygamy inherently asymmetric, and therefore inherently unfair. (Some would argue that it also makes heterosexual marriage unfair, but sometimes you have to yield to biology.)
Marriage between two spouses has demonstrable societal goods: married people -- whether gay or straight -- are more economically stable and responsible. Married people live longer and are in better health. Married people provide a better environment in which to raise children. Unmarried couples living together have many of the same benefits, but these unions tend to be less stable.
Having extra wives around to care for children in a polygamous marriage is touted as a benefit. But is that really true? Two-spouse marriages are frequently stressed by jealousies, inequitable distribution of labor, disputes over sex, expenses and child-rearing techniques. Imagine what a mess it becomes if you have four or five wives bickering with themselves and their husband over these same things. How will the older wives feel when the husband wants to get another young new wife, who they know will get all the attention and have all the fun while they are stuck taking care of the kids and cleaning the house.
The only women women who would submit to such conditions would have been up in polygamous households and brainwashed from birth into thinking that they have to defer to the husband in all things and that his word is law. But if polygamy went mainstream, that wouldn't fly in this country.
The attraction of polygamy is the idea of a man having all these women at his beck and call. Practical American polygamy wouldn't work that way. It would be more businesslike and practical, and that defeats the entire purpose, which is to stroke the ego of the polygamist male. Most women wouldn't stand for it, and the men who wanted polygamy wouldn't stand for a fairer version of it that America would allow.
Because total subjugation of women to the will of a man is the entire point of polygamy. It is sexual slavery. And we just don't cotton to that anymore.
If people want to live together in their own freaky version of polyamory, they can do that. But they don't need the blessing of the government to do it.
Tuesday, July 21, 2015
Racism From The Cradle To The Grave
Here's a very sad and eye opening piece about the Texas county where Sandra Bland was found dead in a jail cell.
“This is the most racist county in the state of Texas which is probably one of the most racist states in the country,” said DeWayne Charleston, a former Waller County judge who in 2007 ordered a black funeral home to handle the burial of an unidentified white woman, sparking controversy when activists claimed that other officials intervened to stop a white person being buried next to black corpses. A federal lawsuit alleging that the county seat of Hempstead neglected historically black cemeteries while maintaining white ones was settled in 2004, resulting in the city committing more resources to their upkeep.
“You’ve got racism from the cradle to the grave,” Charleston said.
So, what are we going to do about it?
“This is the most racist county in the state of Texas which is probably one of the most racist states in the country,” said DeWayne Charleston, a former Waller County judge who in 2007 ordered a black funeral home to handle the burial of an unidentified white woman, sparking controversy when activists claimed that other officials intervened to stop a white person being buried next to black corpses. A federal lawsuit alleging that the county seat of Hempstead neglected historically black cemeteries while maintaining white ones was settled in 2004, resulting in the city committing more resources to their upkeep.
“You’ve got racism from the cradle to the grave,” Charleston said.
So, what are we going to do about it?
Monday, July 20, 2015
Sunday, July 19, 2015
Why Carrying A Gun Accomplishes Nothing
From a recent question of mine on Quora...
Bo Schembechler, storied football coach of the University of Michigan was once asked why he ran such a conservative offence rarely throwing the football. His answer was, when you throw the football there are three possible outcomes, two of them are bad. Now this story may be apocryphal but the point is that when assessing options it wise to understand the odds you are up against.
The notion that more guns in the hands of good people as a general solution to gun violence is crazy in this context. First of all the odds that one will ever get in a situation where having a gun has even the most remote possibility of being useful while you are out in public (let alone saving your life) is spectacularly slim.
The first rule is, if a place is so dangerous that you feel you need a gun, then it's not safe to be there even with a gun. People carrying a gun tend to feel as if the gun the gun will protect them. Further, most gun crime is criminal against criminal or between two people who know each other. In the first situation "good guys" don't have to worry. Sure you could get caught in the crossfire but your gun won't help you against a random stay round. In the second scenario you are dealing with a friend, family member, acquaintance where you won't really feel threatened until things turn seriously bad. In the overwhelming majority of these situation you are in them because you have failed to extricate yourself from it before things got out of hand. The psychology of domestic violence is only exacerbated by the presence of firearms; firearms are almost never the solution. As all things with guns you can point out the few and rare situations where someone defend themselves successfully from a domestic violence situation but these are not the norm and only serve as the rare exception that proves the rule.
But let's say you find yourself alone, at night, in a bad part of town (this is your first mistake by the way) and all of a sudden you are confronted with a bad guy holding a gun. Here is where the good guy with a gun logic gets turned on it's head. A good guy with a gun is pretty useless if he or she can't shoot. One of the most egregious troupe of films is that one shot from a gun stops an assailant cold. It won't, unless you are a point blank range it's pretty difficult to get off a shot that will stop someone allowing them to shoot back. Most people who carry don't spend an awful lot of time at the range and even fewer have actually shot someone. It very difficult to understand how your emotions will not serve you well when you find yourself in an actual life threatening situation. It is almost inconceivable that, without intense training, most people will do anything other than soil themselves when confronted with an actual life threatening situation. The assailant is probably a sociopath and cares not for you life, or his for that matter. Maybe he or she is a drug addict and is high right now. The point is here are all the things that can go wrong for the "Good Guy"
But let's say you carry a gun all the time and come accross a crime in progress. This is where you can be the hero right? Well first of all carrying a gun is a staggering commitment. Right off the bat let's all hope you actually know how to shoot. I will admit that most people who do this are committed people who follow safe shooting procedures, and sped at least some time at the shooting range. You have to have your gun with you at all times wearing clothes that will conceal the gun. Remember when we talked about the likelihood of being the victim of an armed assailant? Well just randomly coming across a crime in progress is makes the first scenario look like a daily occurrence in comparison. Not bloody likely.
But lets say you do come across a crime in progress, it does happen. Again your heart is pounding, you have to think quickly and clearly (yes I trust the random untrained guy on the street to get this right) but in addition to all the possibilities in the first scenario here are some additional things that could go wrong when coming across a crime in progress (say a hold up):
Once again do not misunderstand me, I am completely aware that people can, and do, stop crime with their guns. My argument is that those cases, though they seem to happen pretty regularly, when you break it down on an incident per 1000 basis it's just not all that common; not close to anything like common . Further when you take into consideration whether or not they actually saved a life, even rarer still. Criminals are every bit as stupid as everyone else. Most of the time they are just as untrained as the guy who carries a gun, but rarely, if ever, actually spends time at the gun range. The Media loves to glorify these accounts due to the obvious heroics of the people involved (which is why you can find a lot of stories like this which make it seem like it's happening all the time in the aggregate) but on careful reading of these accounts you find some similar threads:
The point of all of this is that whatever the solution to gun crime in america is, it's definitely, most assuredly not putting more guns in the hands of untrained citizens who have no background in dealing with high stress situations with dangerous tools that they are ill prepared to wield safely and accurately. Google Gun went off at gun safety demonstration.
I believe, and current 2nd amendment jurisprudence backs this up, that states have the right to set the terms and conditions under which a person can legally carry a firearm in public. And that those conditions should be strengthened not relaxed as the current trend seems to be. Guns may not be the problem per se, but I'm pretty sure they aren't the solution are not the solution. And the idea that founding fathers thought that strolling around target with a loaded AR-15 slung around your back is an appropriate expression of your 2nd amendment right is just off the scale crackers.
People ask me if I think gun control (whatever that means) is the answer. I think that is a complex question given the penetration of firearms in this country. But here are a few things I do know:
And my comment...
Fantastic points! They really align with objective reality. Unfortunately, reality is not where gun rights folks live. A tremendously insecure lot, the gun gives them the illusion power they so desperately need. This fantasy continues as they all believe they can be Jack Bauer or John McLean, saving themselves or others in an active shooting situation.
But when you break it down so logically as you have here, their illusion shatters
Bo Schembechler, storied football coach of the University of Michigan was once asked why he ran such a conservative offence rarely throwing the football. His answer was, when you throw the football there are three possible outcomes, two of them are bad. Now this story may be apocryphal but the point is that when assessing options it wise to understand the odds you are up against.
The notion that more guns in the hands of good people as a general solution to gun violence is crazy in this context. First of all the odds that one will ever get in a situation where having a gun has even the most remote possibility of being useful while you are out in public (let alone saving your life) is spectacularly slim.
The first rule is, if a place is so dangerous that you feel you need a gun, then it's not safe to be there even with a gun. People carrying a gun tend to feel as if the gun the gun will protect them. Further, most gun crime is criminal against criminal or between two people who know each other. In the first situation "good guys" don't have to worry. Sure you could get caught in the crossfire but your gun won't help you against a random stay round. In the second scenario you are dealing with a friend, family member, acquaintance where you won't really feel threatened until things turn seriously bad. In the overwhelming majority of these situation you are in them because you have failed to extricate yourself from it before things got out of hand. The psychology of domestic violence is only exacerbated by the presence of firearms; firearms are almost never the solution. As all things with guns you can point out the few and rare situations where someone defend themselves successfully from a domestic violence situation but these are not the norm and only serve as the rare exception that proves the rule.
But let's say you find yourself alone, at night, in a bad part of town (this is your first mistake by the way) and all of a sudden you are confronted with a bad guy holding a gun. Here is where the good guy with a gun logic gets turned on it's head. A good guy with a gun is pretty useless if he or she can't shoot. One of the most egregious troupe of films is that one shot from a gun stops an assailant cold. It won't, unless you are a point blank range it's pretty difficult to get off a shot that will stop someone allowing them to shoot back. Most people who carry don't spend an awful lot of time at the range and even fewer have actually shot someone. It very difficult to understand how your emotions will not serve you well when you find yourself in an actual life threatening situation. It is almost inconceivable that, without intense training, most people will do anything other than soil themselves when confronted with an actual life threatening situation. The assailant is probably a sociopath and cares not for you life, or his for that matter. Maybe he or she is a drug addict and is high right now. The point is here are all the things that can go wrong for the "Good Guy"
- You could shoot and miss, and you get shot
- You could shoot and not bring the perp down, and they shoot you back
- you could shoot, miss and kill someone else
- Someone else with a gun could come along and mistake you for the bad guy and shot you
- The perp could take your gun away from you and shoot you with it
But let's say you carry a gun all the time and come accross a crime in progress. This is where you can be the hero right? Well first of all carrying a gun is a staggering commitment. Right off the bat let's all hope you actually know how to shoot. I will admit that most people who do this are committed people who follow safe shooting procedures, and sped at least some time at the shooting range. You have to have your gun with you at all times wearing clothes that will conceal the gun. Remember when we talked about the likelihood of being the victim of an armed assailant? Well just randomly coming across a crime in progress is makes the first scenario look like a daily occurrence in comparison. Not bloody likely.
But lets say you do come across a crime in progress, it does happen. Again your heart is pounding, you have to think quickly and clearly (yes I trust the random untrained guy on the street to get this right) but in addition to all the possibilities in the first scenario here are some additional things that could go wrong when coming across a crime in progress (say a hold up):
- You shoot the wrong person (maybe a guy who works there came out of the back)
- Much more likely to shoot an innocent bystander
- You don't know if there isn't another shooter you can see and you get shot (this has happened recently).
Once again do not misunderstand me, I am completely aware that people can, and do, stop crime with their guns. My argument is that those cases, though they seem to happen pretty regularly, when you break it down on an incident per 1000 basis it's just not all that common; not close to anything like common . Further when you take into consideration whether or not they actually saved a life, even rarer still. Criminals are every bit as stupid as everyone else. Most of the time they are just as untrained as the guy who carries a gun, but rarely, if ever, actually spends time at the gun range. The Media loves to glorify these accounts due to the obvious heroics of the people involved (which is why you can find a lot of stories like this which make it seem like it's happening all the time in the aggregate) but on careful reading of these accounts you find some similar threads:
- Involvement of active duty or ex military or law enforcement
- Shooting at fleeing assailants
- Shooting at unarmed assailants (or at least those without a gun)
- And the fact that they are very very rare in the overall scheme of things
- or mistakenly innocent people which are almost never reported in the media (but in fairness these cases are pretty rare too)
The point of all of this is that whatever the solution to gun crime in america is, it's definitely, most assuredly not putting more guns in the hands of untrained citizens who have no background in dealing with high stress situations with dangerous tools that they are ill prepared to wield safely and accurately. Google Gun went off at gun safety demonstration.
I believe, and current 2nd amendment jurisprudence backs this up, that states have the right to set the terms and conditions under which a person can legally carry a firearm in public. And that those conditions should be strengthened not relaxed as the current trend seems to be. Guns may not be the problem per se, but I'm pretty sure they aren't the solution are not the solution. And the idea that founding fathers thought that strolling around target with a loaded AR-15 slung around your back is an appropriate expression of your 2nd amendment right is just off the scale crackers.
People ask me if I think gun control (whatever that means) is the answer. I think that is a complex question given the penetration of firearms in this country. But here are a few things I do know:
- If you look at all of the mass shootings going back to the 1966 clock tower shooting at U of T, not one of them has been perpetrated with a very heavily regulated fully automatic weapon. Not one and that God.
- The best defense against being the victim of crime is Situational Awareness is Everything. This one thing will cut your chances of being a victim in half or more.
- We simply cannot not and should not accept a world where carrying a gun is the solution to crime. That is the mindset of surrender
And my comment...
Fantastic points! They really align with objective reality. Unfortunately, reality is not where gun rights folks live. A tremendously insecure lot, the gun gives them the illusion power they so desperately need. This fantasy continues as they all believe they can be Jack Bauer or John McLean, saving themselves or others in an active shooting situation.
But when you break it down so logically as you have here, their illusion shatters
Good Words
Donald Trump, finally a candidate whose hair gets more attention than mine. But there’s nothing funny about the hate he is spewing at immigrants and families — and now the insults he has directed at a genuine war hero, Sen. John McCain.
It’s shameful, and so is the fact that it took so long for his fellow Republican candidates to start standing up to him. The sad truth is if you look at many of their policies, it can be hard to tell the difference. (---Hillary Clinton, at a recent Democratic Dinner in Arkansas)
Indeed. And that's because they are essentially adolescents.
It’s shameful, and so is the fact that it took so long for his fellow Republican candidates to start standing up to him. The sad truth is if you look at many of their policies, it can be hard to tell the difference. (---Hillary Clinton, at a recent Democratic Dinner in Arkansas)
Indeed. And that's because they are essentially adolescents.
Saturday, July 18, 2015
Trump's Bridge Too Far?
Okay, Republicans. Is your infantile fascination with Donald Trump over yet?
On Saturday Trump said of John McCain:
And Donald Trump, in particular, has absolutely no right to criticize McCain's war record: Trump got four college deferments and a "medical" deferment, like all rich white boys in the Sixties all did (I'm talking about you, Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney and all the rest of those chickenhawks).
Trump is a total dick, the worst kind of vile New York street thug. He claims to have the bestest, most fabulous business acumen, yet he was forced to declare bankruptcy four times, screwing creditors and investors in his casino and real estate scams out of millions of dollars.
Trump is a rich (though not as rich as he says) narcissist who doesn't give two craps about anyone but himself. He threw all Mexicans under the bus because he thinks that will make the racist base of the Republican party swoon over him. Now he does the same to John McCain for stating the obvious about Trump's pretend presidential campaign.
Exactly who does Trump think this criticism of McCain is going to impress? He gets the lead in the national polls and the first thing he does is turn the campaign into a kindergarten name-calling contest. And McCain isn't even running against him.
Trump is either the biggest dick on the national stage, or he's trolling the Republican Party to see how far he can sink them in order to give the White House and Senate to the Democrats.
Actually, it's probably both.
On Saturday Trump said of John McCain:
“He’s not a war hero. He’s a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.”John McCain isn't my favorite guy. He's egotistical, selfish, self-centered and constantly blustering about attacking any country that looks at the United States sideways. But you can't criticize his war record.
And Donald Trump, in particular, has absolutely no right to criticize McCain's war record: Trump got four college deferments and a "medical" deferment, like all rich white boys in the Sixties all did (I'm talking about you, Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney and all the rest of those chickenhawks).
Trump is a total dick, the worst kind of vile New York street thug. He claims to have the bestest, most fabulous business acumen, yet he was forced to declare bankruptcy four times, screwing creditors and investors in his casino and real estate scams out of millions of dollars.
Trump is a rich (though not as rich as he says) narcissist who doesn't give two craps about anyone but himself. He threw all Mexicans under the bus because he thinks that will make the racist base of the Republican party swoon over him. Now he does the same to John McCain for stating the obvious about Trump's pretend presidential campaign.
Exactly who does Trump think this criticism of McCain is going to impress? He gets the lead in the national polls and the first thing he does is turn the campaign into a kindergarten name-calling contest. And McCain isn't even running against him.
Trump is either the biggest dick on the national stage, or he's trolling the Republican Party to see how far he can sink them in order to give the White House and Senate to the Democrats.
Actually, it's probably both.
The Most Consequential President in US History
Vox has a great piece up regarding the president and his now very consequential place in US History.
Obama has reestablished productive diplomacy as the central task of a progressive foreign policy, and as a viable alternative approach to dealing with countries the GOP foreign policy establishment would rather bomb. He established a viable alternative to the liberal hawks that dominated Democratic thinking during the Bush years, and held positions of influence on Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign. And he developed a cadre of aides who can carry on that legacy to future Democratic administrations, and keep a tradition of dovishness alive.
History tends to more prominently note those presidents who achieve great diplomatic goals. Cuba is opening for business as well. Add in that the president has literally saved people's lives with health care reform and, more or less, saved the economy, and the GOP's worse fears have come true.
Barack Obama is a massive success.
Obama has reestablished productive diplomacy as the central task of a progressive foreign policy, and as a viable alternative approach to dealing with countries the GOP foreign policy establishment would rather bomb. He established a viable alternative to the liberal hawks that dominated Democratic thinking during the Bush years, and held positions of influence on Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign. And he developed a cadre of aides who can carry on that legacy to future Democratic administrations, and keep a tradition of dovishness alive.
History tends to more prominently note those presidents who achieve great diplomatic goals. Cuba is opening for business as well. Add in that the president has literally saved people's lives with health care reform and, more or less, saved the economy, and the GOP's worse fears have come true.
Barack Obama is a massive success.
Friday, July 17, 2015
Still #1!!!
Donald Trump is still #1 in the GOP nomination according to yet another poll, this time from Fox News. He is most definitely resonating with the GOP base and sucking away support from the likes of Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Chris Christie. In fact, he's really made this a three horse race now and defined an elite tier (himself, Bush, and Walker).
Even more interesting is that he's not really spending any money and getting all sorts of free press. I guess I'm wondering (still) if the average conservative voter realizes that this type of candidate has virtually no chance of winning the presidency. It's fun to hang out in the clubhouse where mouths foam and bowels are blown but anger, hate and fear don't play very well with the general election voter, especially the folks that make up the demographic of his pet cause-immigration:)
Even more interesting is that he's not really spending any money and getting all sorts of free press. I guess I'm wondering (still) if the average conservative voter realizes that this type of candidate has virtually no chance of winning the presidency. It's fun to hang out in the clubhouse where mouths foam and bowels are blown but anger, hate and fear don't play very well with the general election voter, especially the folks that make up the demographic of his pet cause-immigration:)
Thursday, July 16, 2015
So, NOW It's Terror
I guess when a guy named Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez goes on a shooting spree, it's terror. When thousands of other Americans do it, we have either shrugs, oh wells, or fucking crickets. Check out the headline on Fox News
TERROR STRIKES CHATTANOOGA
Kuwaiti-born gunman opens fire on Tenn. military centers, kills 4 Marines
And Drudge...
MUHAMMAD SHOOTS UP MARINES IN TENNESSEE; 4 DEAD'MOTIVATED BY ISLAM'
And any of the other right wing sites...
Sense a pattern yet?
Oh, and were there guns at either of the military facilities? Y'know...the whole gun free zone dealio...
If conservatives are serious about stopping guys like Abdulazeez from shooting people, maybe we should refine our gun laws. Once again, another example of someone who not have been allowed to own a gun had we passed Manchin Toomey.
TERROR STRIKES CHATTANOOGA
Kuwaiti-born gunman opens fire on Tenn. military centers, kills 4 Marines
And Drudge...
MUHAMMAD SHOOTS UP MARINES IN TENNESSEE; 4 DEAD'MOTIVATED BY ISLAM'
And any of the other right wing sites...
Sense a pattern yet?
Oh, and were there guns at either of the military facilities? Y'know...the whole gun free zone dealio...
If conservatives are serious about stopping guys like Abdulazeez from shooting people, maybe we should refine our gun laws. Once again, another example of someone who not have been allowed to own a gun had we passed Manchin Toomey.
San Francisco Dude Kicks Fox News' Ass
Check out this story...
He didn’t want to answer the questions because he knew Fox News was not going to make a good faith effort to cover the issue. He didn’t want to just duck his head and hide, because he knew how that looked on TV. So he addressed Fox News directly: “Fox News is not real news. And you’re not a real reporter.” This short clip has made Wiener a hero in his city. The response in San Francisco has been “overwhelmingly and enthusiastically positive. People are thrilled. There is such a deep seated frustration with Fox News and the fringe it represents,” Wiener said, saying he’d also received messages of support from around the country.
And, not surprisingly...
Response from Fox News fans has been less positive. His social media feed has been flooded with “really extreme fringe hateful” posts. His office voicemail is also filled to capacity.
Again, force is the only language these people understand...
He didn’t want to answer the questions because he knew Fox News was not going to make a good faith effort to cover the issue. He didn’t want to just duck his head and hide, because he knew how that looked on TV. So he addressed Fox News directly: “Fox News is not real news. And you’re not a real reporter.” This short clip has made Wiener a hero in his city. The response in San Francisco has been “overwhelmingly and enthusiastically positive. People are thrilled. There is such a deep seated frustration with Fox News and the fringe it represents,” Wiener said, saying he’d also received messages of support from around the country.
And, not surprisingly...
Response from Fox News fans has been less positive. His social media feed has been flooded with “really extreme fringe hateful” posts. His office voicemail is also filled to capacity.
Again, force is the only language these people understand...
Wednesday, July 15, 2015
Another Shooting At A Gun Range
So, we've had the Chris Kyle shooting...the little girl with the Uzi accidentally kill her instructor...and now this.
Shooting of Firearms Trainer by NYC Woman Exposes Gun Range Loophole
Not only does this continue to illustrate that the "gun free zone" assertion is an ever growing pile of shit, this incident could have been avoided and a life saved had we passed Manchin Toomey.
Shooting of Firearms Trainer by NYC Woman Exposes Gun Range Loophole
Not only does this continue to illustrate that the "gun free zone" assertion is an ever growing pile of shit, this incident could have been avoided and a life saved had we passed Manchin Toomey.
Another Study Torpedoes Defensive Gun Use
A recent study published in The Journal of Preventative Medicine offers new support for the argument that owning a gun does not make you safer. The study, led by David Hemenway, Ph.D., of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, examines data from the National Crime Victimization Survey — an annual survey of 90,000 households — and shows not only that so-called “defensive gun use” (DGU) rarely protects a person from harm, but also that such incidents are much more rare than gun advocates claim.
Contrary to what many gun advocates argue, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) data reveals that having a gun provides no statistically significant benefit to a would-be victim during a criminal confrontation. The study found that in incidents where a victim used a gun in self-defense, the likelihood of suffering an injury was 10.9 percent. Had the victim taken no action at all, the risk of injury was virtually identical: 11 percent. Having a gun also didn’t reduce the likelihood of losing property: 38.5 percent of those who used a gun in self-defense had property taken from them, compared to 34.9 percent of victims who used another type of weapon, such as a knife or baseball bat.
What’s more, the study found that while the likelihood of injury after brandishing a firearm was reduced to 4.1 percent, the injury rate after those defensive gun uses was similar to using any other weapon (5.3 percent), and was still greater than if the person had run away or hid (2.4 percent) or called the police (2.2 percent).
Contrary to what many gun advocates argue, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) data reveals that having a gun provides no statistically significant benefit to a would-be victim during a criminal confrontation. The study found that in incidents where a victim used a gun in self-defense, the likelihood of suffering an injury was 10.9 percent. Had the victim taken no action at all, the risk of injury was virtually identical: 11 percent. Having a gun also didn’t reduce the likelihood of losing property: 38.5 percent of those who used a gun in self-defense had property taken from them, compared to 34.9 percent of victims who used another type of weapon, such as a knife or baseball bat.
What’s more, the study found that while the likelihood of injury after brandishing a firearm was reduced to 4.1 percent, the injury rate after those defensive gun uses was similar to using any other weapon (5.3 percent), and was still greater than if the person had run away or hid (2.4 percent) or called the police (2.2 percent).
Trump is #1
Donald Trump is leading the GOP nomination race?
BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH!!!!!
I guess we know where the GOP is these days...where I've always said it's been:)
BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH!!!!!
I guess we know where the GOP is these days...where I've always said it's been:)
Obama As Nixon?
As conservatives foam at the mouth about appeasement, the recent agreement with Iran (full text available here) reads less like appeasement and more like Nixon's pivot to China. The president himself has channeled Ronald Reagan using Gip's "Trust but verify" line but the comparisons to China are closer to objective reality.
China was a pretty awful country on a number of levels when Nixon went to China and already had a small cache of nuclear weapons. Nixon gambled that bringing China into the world economic community would tame their more militaristic intentions. He was right. Making money in a global economy based on capitalism using tends to chill people out. This is exactly what President Obama thinks will happen with Iran.
With sanctions set to fall apart anyway, this was the best route to take even though it isn't a perfect deal. Iran will not get a nuclear weapon in the next decade. Take note of how criticism of the deal is now centered on Iran being able to fund terrorism not get a nuclear weapon. That speaks volumes...
China was a pretty awful country on a number of levels when Nixon went to China and already had a small cache of nuclear weapons. Nixon gambled that bringing China into the world economic community would tame their more militaristic intentions. He was right. Making money in a global economy based on capitalism using tends to chill people out. This is exactly what President Obama thinks will happen with Iran.
With sanctions set to fall apart anyway, this was the best route to take even though it isn't a perfect deal. Iran will not get a nuclear weapon in the next decade. Take note of how criticism of the deal is now centered on Iran being able to fund terrorism not get a nuclear weapon. That speaks volumes...
Tuesday, July 14, 2015
Jeb! Wants Us to Work!
Last week Jeb! Bush said that Americans need to work more hours to get our economy to grow at 4%.
He doesn't seem to get that Americans are already working some of the longest hours among the world's advanced economies. In Europe most governments mandate four to six weeks of vacation a year, plus numerous official holidays, plus sick leave, plus paid family leave, and so on. Most full-time American workers get a maximum of two weeks of vacation, plus whatever sick leave and family leave policy your company deigns to give you.
If you have a part-time McJob you get a lousy salary and nothing else. These workers want to work more hours, but they can't because their employers don't want to give them full-time employees benefits. Clearly, Jeb! cannot be talking about these people.
He must therefore be talking about exempt employees, the full-time employees who are office workers, managers, engineers, programmers, accountants, etc. Exempt means exempt from overtime. Which means if they work more hours they get absolutely nothing for it.
All the extra effort of American employees have put in over the decade and a half isn't showing up in their paychecks. But it's showing up on their employer's bottom line. And their employers aren't sharing. So why should the average working stiff work harder?
Something similar is true at the other end of the economic spectrum. The tax rate tables show why:
I've highlighted the tax bracket of the average American family. If you're doing real work, you pay taxes at 15% rate. If you get your income from tax-free bonds, long-term capital gains and qualified dividends (i.e., you've got a big pile of money) you pay zero federal tax.
The tax cuts passed during the Bush administration were made to benefit the idle rich. The system screws people who do actual work for the benefit of trust fund babies, hedge fund managers, stock market jockeys and layabouts.
These preferential tax rates can have a huge affect on how much people work.
By age 45 or 50, intelligent, married professionals in the medical, legal, engineering and management fields can quit the salary rate race and have sufficient investment income to live comfortably without paying any federal taxes.
These people are usually considered our most productive citizens, and the tax system provides every incentive for them to quit their jobs outright.
Our tax system penalizes labor, giving preferential treatment to capital. If Jeb! wants middle class Americans to work harder, they should get a bigger piece of the pie for their efforts.
As it stands, all the income gains over the last 15 years have gone to the top 1%, and Republicans have cut their taxes in half, by using various scams to convert their salaries to long-term capital gains (e.g., getting paid in stock instead of a salary).
So why should regular Americans knock themselves out to make the rich even richer?
He doesn't seem to get that Americans are already working some of the longest hours among the world's advanced economies. In Europe most governments mandate four to six weeks of vacation a year, plus numerous official holidays, plus sick leave, plus paid family leave, and so on. Most full-time American workers get a maximum of two weeks of vacation, plus whatever sick leave and family leave policy your company deigns to give you.
If you have a part-time McJob you get a lousy salary and nothing else. These workers want to work more hours, but they can't because their employers don't want to give them full-time employees benefits. Clearly, Jeb! cannot be talking about these people.
He must therefore be talking about exempt employees, the full-time employees who are office workers, managers, engineers, programmers, accountants, etc. Exempt means exempt from overtime. Which means if they work more hours they get absolutely nothing for it.
Since 2000 average Americans are working 25% harder for no more money.
So the question is, what incentive do Americans have to work even harder? From 2000 to 2012 the wages of real working Americans did not go up, while productivity (the thing Jeb! wants us to crank up), increased from a relative base of 100 in 2000 to 124.9 in 2012.All the extra effort of American employees have put in over the decade and a half isn't showing up in their paychecks. But it's showing up on their employer's bottom line. And their employers aren't sharing. So why should the average working stiff work harder?
Something similar is true at the other end of the economic spectrum. The tax rate tables show why:
| Tax rate ordinary income | Single | Tax rate on capital gains | |
| over | to | ||
| 10.00% | $0.00 | $9,225.00 | 0.00% |
| 15.00% | $9,225.00 | $37,450.00 | 0.00% |
| 25.00% | $37,450.00 | $90,750.00 | 15.00% |
| 28.00% | $90,750.00 | $189,300.00 | 15.00% |
| 33.00% | $189,300.00 | $411,500.00 | 15.00% |
| 35.00% | $411,500.00 | $413,200.00 | 15.00% |
| 39.60% | $413,200.00 | 20.00% | |
| Married filing jointly / Qualifying widow or widower |
|||
| over | to | ||
| 10.00% | $0.00 | $18,450.00 | 0.00% |
| 15.00% | $18,450.00 | $74,900.00 | 0.00% |
| 25.00% | $74,900.00 | $151,200.00 | 15.00% |
| 28.00% | $151,200.00 | $230,450.00 | 15.00% |
| 33.00% | $230,450.00 | $411,500.00 | 15.00% |
| 35.00% | $411,500.00 | $464,850.00 | 15.00% |
| 39.60% | $464,850.00 | 20.00% | |
I've highlighted the tax bracket of the average American family. If you're doing real work, you pay taxes at 15% rate. If you get your income from tax-free bonds, long-term capital gains and qualified dividends (i.e., you've got a big pile of money) you pay zero federal tax.
The tax cuts passed during the Bush administration were made to benefit the idle rich. The system screws people who do actual work for the benefit of trust fund babies, hedge fund managers, stock market jockeys and layabouts.
These preferential tax rates can have a huge affect on how much people work.
By age 45 or 50, intelligent, married professionals in the medical, legal, engineering and management fields can quit the salary rate race and have sufficient investment income to live comfortably without paying any federal taxes.
These people are usually considered our most productive citizens, and the tax system provides every incentive for them to quit their jobs outright.
Our tax system penalizes labor, giving preferential treatment to capital. If Jeb! wants middle class Americans to work harder, they should get a bigger piece of the pie for their efforts.
As it stands, all the income gains over the last 15 years have gone to the top 1%, and Republicans have cut their taxes in half, by using various scams to convert their salaries to long-term capital gains (e.g., getting paid in stock instead of a salary).
So why should regular Americans knock themselves out to make the rich even richer?
Predictable Responses
Now that an agreement has been reached with Iran regarding its nuclear technology, bowels are being blown all over conservative land. The race to see who can denounce it best is on! The responses have been all too predictable and I have to wonder if people are even paying attention to what conservatives are saying anymore. It's always the same "Obama succeeded again so we have to act like 8 year olds" response. I mean, have they even read the agreement yet? How can they denounce it?
I haven't had the time to read through it yet so I don't have an opinion either way but I am interested to see what their alternative is to the pact. Will it be a bitch fest with nothing at all to replace it...AGAIN?
I haven't had the time to read through it yet so I don't have an opinion either way but I am interested to see what their alternative is to the pact. Will it be a bitch fest with nothing at all to replace it...AGAIN?
Monday, July 13, 2015
The False Flag Candidate?
Donald Trump is leading the Republican presidential race in many national polls. He's doing this by espousing the most cliched Republican memes, becoming the very caricature of a conservative that Democrats love to ridicule.
Many are speculating that Trump will drag the Republican Party into such a deep, dark hole that they'll never be able to crawl out of it. The consensus is that Trump can never be president; far too many Republicans despise the man.
The question is, why is Trump doing this?
Unquestionably because he's a greedy narcissist who thrives on attention. In that way he's the same as the other 20 Republicans running for the nomination.
But Trump's "campaign" is costing him real money. He doesn't have billionaires like the Koch brothers pumping money into his Super PAC. Many of his business deals have been sunk because of his comments. If he's as brilliant as he tells us he is, he must have some ulterior motive.
Trump's right-wing credentials are called into question by conservatives who are capable of remembering anything that happened before the last Indy 500:
“I truly, honestly, and with all my heart and mind think Donald Trump’s most ardent supporters are making a yuuuuuuge mistake. I think they are being conned and played,” Jonah Goldberg, the author of Liberal Fascism, wrote. “I feel like a guy whose brother is being taken advantage of by a grifter. I’m watching helplessly as the con artist congratulates him for taking out a third mortgage.”They cite his Ivy Leauge and Manhattan background, his previous support for abortion, immigration, assault weapons bans, government health care, as well as his backing of Democratic politicians.
Other National Review writers concurred. “Donald Trump has been a conservative for about ten minutes,” Jim Geraghty wrote.
Sometimes, as people age they become more conservative -- whether that's due to the wisdom of age, an inability to adapt to the new realities of a changing society, or atherosclerosis is still open to debate. So maybe Trump is sincere in his racism and intolerance.
On the other hand, there's speculation that Trump is running a false-flag campaign: he's pretending to run for president to sabotage the rest of the Republican field with his outlandish stances.
If so, Trump wouldn't be the first to fool conservatives. Comedian Stephen Colbert is famous for duping conservative viewers with his parody of conservative talking heads like Bill O'Reilly.
I guess we'll find out if Trump is punking Republicans when he announces his running mate:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)