I find it most interesting that everyone seems to be focusing on national polls (of registered voters no less..pee-yew) and not on the state by state polls. National polls don't really matter. It's the individual state polls that matter. And anyone that thinks this race is tightening ought to take a look at what Arizona and Georgia look like.
Here are some other notes about polls...
Nate Silver went on a pretty hilarious Twitter rant about polls in May. And a great mea culpa from Silve as well.
Speaking of 538, here's some great insight on the whole Trump supporters are in the closet meme.
Saturday, May 21, 2016
Thursday, May 19, 2016
Wednesday, May 18, 2016
Tuesday, May 17, 2016
The Greatest Answer Ever On Quora
The question asked was...
Is it true that there are some "no-brainer" gun control laws that should be passed?
And the answer was this...
I own guns. I like guns. I can conceal carry (though may or may not). I enjoy hitting up the range and shootin' 'em. I do believe there exists a right to gun ownership in this country.
But I also think the ease with which one can acquire massive amounts of military-grade lethality in this country is flat-out stupid, and don't believe there's anything in the Bill of Rights that entitles me to purchase and own a .50 caliber sniper rifle loaded up with armor-piercing rounds.
Slippery slope be damned, there does exist such a thing as reasonable gun control legislation, just as there exist some very unreasonable guns.
For shits and giggles I went down to my local gun store the other day to see what they were up to as I expected there was some amusement to be had there post-Newtown. Indeed, there was.
While I was there, I literally witness shop staff taking the price tags off of AR-15s and other semi-automatic assault rifles, replacing them with significantly marked-up prices. Ammo shelves were empty, save for the odd box of cheap range ammo. Walls that had, a few weeks ago, been covered inch-to-inch by every imaginable type of assault rifle lay bare - people had come in and bought out every damn thing they could, certain they had to do so before the government swooped in to snatch up their right to do so. You'd think the zombie apocalypse had begun (especially since all the anti-zombie explosive rounds had been among the first to sell-out). At most, you might have found an antique rifle to buy. Oh... and that actual .50 caliber sniper rifle that was selling for $15,000 and had been on the shelf for about a year? Someone finally bought it just the other day.
I'm sorry, but while I don't doubt there are plenty of reasonable gun owners who genuinely enjoy the things for recreational purposes or even for what they represent technologically (as I like to consider myself to be), there are also some batshit crazy paranoid types far too eager to treat guns as the end all be all, along with some shamelessly opportunistic types giddy at the prospect of making money off the aforementioned crazies (the shop staff and owner, with whom I have rapport, admitted being near giddy each time a mass shooting takes place - they don't fear legislation because they know attempts at it usually fall apart, plenty of loopholes are left in place, and they sell out of every damn thing in the store no matter how much they mark it all up each time people freak out [such as after Obama first got elected, after Obama got reelected, after Aurora, after Newtown, etc]).
And I'll eagerly go on record saying that, when I went to take my classes to get my concealed carry permits, the overriding reason I ended up feeling like I wanted a concealed carry permit is because those other people in the class were going to have one. While I primarily wanted them to make going to the range or out to the desert to shoot an easier affair, most everyone else there expressed genuinely feeling like they needed to conceal carry before the United Nations took away any opportunity to do so or Obama himself came kicking in their doors to take away their guns (and wives and children, I suppose).
As much as some would like to say "the left" or the Feinsteins and Obamas are dictating the gun control debate and set to trash the Bill of Rights, the fact of the matter is the types of people I've described above, as well as the more sophisticated types taking advantage of the people I've described above, have actually been the ones dictating the gun control debate, passing the legislation at the federal and local level, and ensuring there's no shortage of truly devastating and lethal weaponry available and just about anyone can get their hands on the stuff.
Check out this guy:
This weapon doesn't seem like something anyone could carry around with them wherever they went. What if I told you, though, I could have it under my jacket in line behind you at Starbucks? A few seats down from you at the movies? In the car next to you at a stoplight? Walking alongside you at the mall? It's a Sig Sauer P556 "pistol" - yes, it's considered a pistol. One can carry it concealed (though it is almost 2ft long) as they would a pistol. Yet one can also use a 30-round magazine with 5.56 NATO rifle rounds and fire off those rounds as quickly as they can pull that trigger with that thing.
The average person would not look at that thing and consider it a pistol, much less suspect it's the type of weapon anyone would be allowed to "conceal carry" at will in public, but thanks to the ways laws are written and manufacturers work with those laws it is.
It's easier for me to go buy a .50 caliber sniper rifle than over the counter allergy medication; with a few easily-acquired attachments and accessories (that require absolutely nothing but money to buy) I can turn just about any semi-automatic assault weapon available (and there are tons available) in to one capable of firing at near fully-automatic rates; the only limit to how many rounds of ammunition I can acquire is how many I can afford, and I can feed those rounds in to weapons with belts and drums and high-capacity magazines that enable me to fire off dozens and even hundreds of rounds before having to reload.
I can assure you the licensing process that allows me to carry multiple concealed weapons - such as the "assault pistol" in the photo - in most every state is less stringent than getting a drivers license and easier than getting a license to cut hair. And if I simply want to own assault weapons without attempting to conceal-carry them, there's really no licensing process at all. None at all.
Sure, there's a 2nd Amendment. Sure, there are practical reasons to own guns. But to deny the absurdity behind how easily anyone can get guns and what types of guns they can get is irrational; to suggest no reasonable attempts at limitation and regulation exist is also irrational. Existing laws are already insufficient and far too lax, and at the same time manufacturers are able to circumvent them so effectively they might as well not exist; pro-gun legislators and the gun-lobby have purposefully ensured states and municipalities either can't pass laws, or can't effectively enforce whatever laws they do manage to pass.
Again, I don't doubt reasonable gun owners exist and, again, I hope to consider myself one of those people. At the same time, however, after many years circulating among gun owners and participating in that culture and network, I simply have to admit I've spent a fair amount of time surrounded by people I'd consider to be fairly irrational when it comes to gun laws and those people and the lobbies representing them have had a far greater impact on existing laws in place than anyone attempting to restrict ownership or what is available for ownership.
The vast majority of weapons available today were designed to kill people. Their express purpose is to facilitate and enable the effective and efficient killing of people. Sure, there's the odd hunting rifle or shotgun round that kicks ass at bringing down ducks, but the measure of most any semi-automatic and fully-automatic weapon and round is how effective it is as "stopping", "neutralizing" and killing a person. You won't ever hear the folks snatching up weapons down at the gun store touting a particular brand's ability to effectively put holes in paper targets or fly down range with true aim. They sell that "double tap" ammunition (that actually fires two projectiles per cartridge) for your handgun so that single shot can put two bullets in a person; they sell "The Judge" - a revolver that fires out shotgun rounds - so one can still yield extreme force and lethality with as small a weapon as possible; they sell those high-capacity magazines so you can blast off round after round in rapid succession in the hopes you take out the bad guy, despite however bad your aim might be. These weapons' and accessories' designs, techniques, methods and technologies were borne and perfected on battlefields for use between armies, and just about anyone can easily employ them on the streets here at home.
Existing gun laws are not only inadequate, but absurd; existing gun laws are not only failing to protect, but just about facilitating obscene amounts of violence as pro-gun lobbies go out of their way to ensure each contains loopholes and workarounds that render them obsolete; existing gun laws are not taking weapons off the streets but rather encouraging manufacturers and retailers to find creative ways to enable just about anyone with sufficient money (which often isn't even that much) and a pulse to posses killing power and destructive ability beyond anything the authors of the Constitution could have ever imagined. And when some point to the failure of existing gun laws to effectively curb violence, don't let them convince you it's because gun laws stand no hope of ever accomplishing anything. Allow yourself to consider the possibility that existing gun laws haven't done enough to this point because gun proponents have ensured they can't be effectively implemented, people can easily avoid any jurisdictional enforcement they don't like, manufacturers can easily work around whatever laws that might exist, and concerted efforts are made by groups like the NRA to make any legislation impotent as they then point to that impotence as a reason to not have the laws in the first place.
It's high time the militia gets well-regulated, and we acknowledge there are absurd degrees of firepower beyond easily accessible to everyone.
Number One answer in the question.
Over 62,000 views.
Over 1,000 upvotes.
Fuck you, Gun Cult. Your trolling and swarming will not stop the majority of the people in this country that want to live in a safer place. As Mr. Dunlap noted, we are on to you.
And we will never stop until you are completely fucking neutered.
Is it true that there are some "no-brainer" gun control laws that should be passed?
And the answer was this...
I own guns. I like guns. I can conceal carry (though may or may not). I enjoy hitting up the range and shootin' 'em. I do believe there exists a right to gun ownership in this country.
But I also think the ease with which one can acquire massive amounts of military-grade lethality in this country is flat-out stupid, and don't believe there's anything in the Bill of Rights that entitles me to purchase and own a .50 caliber sniper rifle loaded up with armor-piercing rounds.
Slippery slope be damned, there does exist such a thing as reasonable gun control legislation, just as there exist some very unreasonable guns.
For shits and giggles I went down to my local gun store the other day to see what they were up to as I expected there was some amusement to be had there post-Newtown. Indeed, there was.
While I was there, I literally witness shop staff taking the price tags off of AR-15s and other semi-automatic assault rifles, replacing them with significantly marked-up prices. Ammo shelves were empty, save for the odd box of cheap range ammo. Walls that had, a few weeks ago, been covered inch-to-inch by every imaginable type of assault rifle lay bare - people had come in and bought out every damn thing they could, certain they had to do so before the government swooped in to snatch up their right to do so. You'd think the zombie apocalypse had begun (especially since all the anti-zombie explosive rounds had been among the first to sell-out). At most, you might have found an antique rifle to buy. Oh... and that actual .50 caliber sniper rifle that was selling for $15,000 and had been on the shelf for about a year? Someone finally bought it just the other day.
I'm sorry, but while I don't doubt there are plenty of reasonable gun owners who genuinely enjoy the things for recreational purposes or even for what they represent technologically (as I like to consider myself to be), there are also some batshit crazy paranoid types far too eager to treat guns as the end all be all, along with some shamelessly opportunistic types giddy at the prospect of making money off the aforementioned crazies (the shop staff and owner, with whom I have rapport, admitted being near giddy each time a mass shooting takes place - they don't fear legislation because they know attempts at it usually fall apart, plenty of loopholes are left in place, and they sell out of every damn thing in the store no matter how much they mark it all up each time people freak out [such as after Obama first got elected, after Obama got reelected, after Aurora, after Newtown, etc]).
And I'll eagerly go on record saying that, when I went to take my classes to get my concealed carry permits, the overriding reason I ended up feeling like I wanted a concealed carry permit is because those other people in the class were going to have one. While I primarily wanted them to make going to the range or out to the desert to shoot an easier affair, most everyone else there expressed genuinely feeling like they needed to conceal carry before the United Nations took away any opportunity to do so or Obama himself came kicking in their doors to take away their guns (and wives and children, I suppose).
As much as some would like to say "the left" or the Feinsteins and Obamas are dictating the gun control debate and set to trash the Bill of Rights, the fact of the matter is the types of people I've described above, as well as the more sophisticated types taking advantage of the people I've described above, have actually been the ones dictating the gun control debate, passing the legislation at the federal and local level, and ensuring there's no shortage of truly devastating and lethal weaponry available and just about anyone can get their hands on the stuff.
Check out this guy:
This weapon doesn't seem like something anyone could carry around with them wherever they went. What if I told you, though, I could have it under my jacket in line behind you at Starbucks? A few seats down from you at the movies? In the car next to you at a stoplight? Walking alongside you at the mall? It's a Sig Sauer P556 "pistol" - yes, it's considered a pistol. One can carry it concealed (though it is almost 2ft long) as they would a pistol. Yet one can also use a 30-round magazine with 5.56 NATO rifle rounds and fire off those rounds as quickly as they can pull that trigger with that thing.
The average person would not look at that thing and consider it a pistol, much less suspect it's the type of weapon anyone would be allowed to "conceal carry" at will in public, but thanks to the ways laws are written and manufacturers work with those laws it is.
It's easier for me to go buy a .50 caliber sniper rifle than over the counter allergy medication; with a few easily-acquired attachments and accessories (that require absolutely nothing but money to buy) I can turn just about any semi-automatic assault weapon available (and there are tons available) in to one capable of firing at near fully-automatic rates; the only limit to how many rounds of ammunition I can acquire is how many I can afford, and I can feed those rounds in to weapons with belts and drums and high-capacity magazines that enable me to fire off dozens and even hundreds of rounds before having to reload.
I can assure you the licensing process that allows me to carry multiple concealed weapons - such as the "assault pistol" in the photo - in most every state is less stringent than getting a drivers license and easier than getting a license to cut hair. And if I simply want to own assault weapons without attempting to conceal-carry them, there's really no licensing process at all. None at all.
Sure, there's a 2nd Amendment. Sure, there are practical reasons to own guns. But to deny the absurdity behind how easily anyone can get guns and what types of guns they can get is irrational; to suggest no reasonable attempts at limitation and regulation exist is also irrational. Existing laws are already insufficient and far too lax, and at the same time manufacturers are able to circumvent them so effectively they might as well not exist; pro-gun legislators and the gun-lobby have purposefully ensured states and municipalities either can't pass laws, or can't effectively enforce whatever laws they do manage to pass.
Again, I don't doubt reasonable gun owners exist and, again, I hope to consider myself one of those people. At the same time, however, after many years circulating among gun owners and participating in that culture and network, I simply have to admit I've spent a fair amount of time surrounded by people I'd consider to be fairly irrational when it comes to gun laws and those people and the lobbies representing them have had a far greater impact on existing laws in place than anyone attempting to restrict ownership or what is available for ownership.
The vast majority of weapons available today were designed to kill people. Their express purpose is to facilitate and enable the effective and efficient killing of people. Sure, there's the odd hunting rifle or shotgun round that kicks ass at bringing down ducks, but the measure of most any semi-automatic and fully-automatic weapon and round is how effective it is as "stopping", "neutralizing" and killing a person. You won't ever hear the folks snatching up weapons down at the gun store touting a particular brand's ability to effectively put holes in paper targets or fly down range with true aim. They sell that "double tap" ammunition (that actually fires two projectiles per cartridge) for your handgun so that single shot can put two bullets in a person; they sell "The Judge" - a revolver that fires out shotgun rounds - so one can still yield extreme force and lethality with as small a weapon as possible; they sell those high-capacity magazines so you can blast off round after round in rapid succession in the hopes you take out the bad guy, despite however bad your aim might be. These weapons' and accessories' designs, techniques, methods and technologies were borne and perfected on battlefields for use between armies, and just about anyone can easily employ them on the streets here at home.
Existing gun laws are not only inadequate, but absurd; existing gun laws are not only failing to protect, but just about facilitating obscene amounts of violence as pro-gun lobbies go out of their way to ensure each contains loopholes and workarounds that render them obsolete; existing gun laws are not taking weapons off the streets but rather encouraging manufacturers and retailers to find creative ways to enable just about anyone with sufficient money (which often isn't even that much) and a pulse to posses killing power and destructive ability beyond anything the authors of the Constitution could have ever imagined. And when some point to the failure of existing gun laws to effectively curb violence, don't let them convince you it's because gun laws stand no hope of ever accomplishing anything. Allow yourself to consider the possibility that existing gun laws haven't done enough to this point because gun proponents have ensured they can't be effectively implemented, people can easily avoid any jurisdictional enforcement they don't like, manufacturers can easily work around whatever laws that might exist, and concerted efforts are made by groups like the NRA to make any legislation impotent as they then point to that impotence as a reason to not have the laws in the first place.
It's high time the militia gets well-regulated, and we acknowledge there are absurd degrees of firepower beyond easily accessible to everyone.
Number One answer in the question.
Over 62,000 views.
Over 1,000 upvotes.
Fuck you, Gun Cult. Your trolling and swarming will not stop the majority of the people in this country that want to live in a safer place. As Mr. Dunlap noted, we are on to you.
And we will never stop until you are completely fucking neutered.
Monday, May 16, 2016
About That Debt...
Paul Krugman's recent piece on where Trump gets his support is sheer brilliance. The part I especially enjoyed was this.
The Trump solution would, among other things, deprive the world economy of its most crucial safe asset, U.S. debt, at a time when safe assets are already in short supply.
Right. US debt is still one of the safest assets in the world despite what foams out of the mouth of the old lady debt hystericals.
And I'm still waiting for those debt collectors to come a callin' by the by...:) (he said, wondering the people who caterwaul about our debt even understand who owns it).
The Trump solution would, among other things, deprive the world economy of its most crucial safe asset, U.S. debt, at a time when safe assets are already in short supply.
Right. US debt is still one of the safest assets in the world despite what foams out of the mouth of the old lady debt hystericals.
And I'm still waiting for those debt collectors to come a callin' by the by...:) (he said, wondering the people who caterwaul about our debt even understand who owns it).
Sunday, May 15, 2016
When Did Optimism Become Uncool?
Good question. Given reality, it makes no sense.
Job growth has been strong for five years, with unemployment now below where it was for most of the 1990s, a period some extol as the “good old days.” The American economy is No. 1 by a huge margin, larger than Nos. 2 and 3 (China and Japan) combined. Americans are seven times as productive, per capita, as Chinese citizens. The dollar is the currency the world craves — which means other countries perceive America’s long-term prospects as very good.
Pollution, discrimination, crime and most diseases are in an extended decline; living standards, longevity and education levels continue to rise. The American military is not only the world’s strongest, it is the strongest ever. The United States leads the world in science and engineering, in business innovation, in every aspect of creativity, including the arts. Terrorism is a serious concern, but in the last 15 years, even taking into account Sept. 11, an American is five times more likely to be hit by lightning than to be killed by a terrorist.
Even with all of my concern about gun violence, I still think we, as a planet, are in a far better place than we have EVER been. The rest of the article speaks to many of the reasons why and also delves into the specific facts about behind the pessimism. Very much worth the read.
Job growth has been strong for five years, with unemployment now below where it was for most of the 1990s, a period some extol as the “good old days.” The American economy is No. 1 by a huge margin, larger than Nos. 2 and 3 (China and Japan) combined. Americans are seven times as productive, per capita, as Chinese citizens. The dollar is the currency the world craves — which means other countries perceive America’s long-term prospects as very good.
Pollution, discrimination, crime and most diseases are in an extended decline; living standards, longevity and education levels continue to rise. The American military is not only the world’s strongest, it is the strongest ever. The United States leads the world in science and engineering, in business innovation, in every aspect of creativity, including the arts. Terrorism is a serious concern, but in the last 15 years, even taking into account Sept. 11, an American is five times more likely to be hit by lightning than to be killed by a terrorist.
Even with all of my concern about gun violence, I still think we, as a planet, are in a far better place than we have EVER been. The rest of the article speaks to many of the reasons why and also delves into the specific facts about behind the pessimism. Very much worth the read.
Saturday, May 14, 2016
Friday, May 13, 2016
Thursday, May 12, 2016
Still Not Over 2004
Liberals are classic hand wringers and Donald Trump winning the GOP nomination has only made it worse. Thankfully, we have Michael A. Cohen to calm everyone down.
Four years ago, Mitt Romney lost the presidency by 5 million votes. So for a Republican to win in 2016, the party nominee has to find a way to increase the number of GOP voters. The problem for Trump is that he’s moving in the opposite direction. Take for example, Hispanic voters. In 2012, Romney lost them 71-27 percent. Trump today has an 81 percent unfavorability rating among Hispanics. Among African-Americans it is 91 percent. Considering that nonwhite voters made up 28 percent of the electorate in 2012 — and could be an even higher percentage this year — that means Trump starts the campaign at a huge, nearly insurmountable disadvantage.
There's also this line of thought...a very fallacious line of thought...that goes something like this: No one thought Trump could win the nomination and he did. So, that means that if no one thinks he will win the presidency, he will win the presidency.
Somewhere Chris Mooney is massively rolling his eyes...:)
Four years ago, Mitt Romney lost the presidency by 5 million votes. So for a Republican to win in 2016, the party nominee has to find a way to increase the number of GOP voters. The problem for Trump is that he’s moving in the opposite direction. Take for example, Hispanic voters. In 2012, Romney lost them 71-27 percent. Trump today has an 81 percent unfavorability rating among Hispanics. Among African-Americans it is 91 percent. Considering that nonwhite voters made up 28 percent of the electorate in 2012 — and could be an even higher percentage this year — that means Trump starts the campaign at a huge, nearly insurmountable disadvantage.
There's also this line of thought...a very fallacious line of thought...that goes something like this: No one thought Trump could win the nomination and he did. So, that means that if no one thinks he will win the presidency, he will win the presidency.
Somewhere Chris Mooney is massively rolling his eyes...:)
Wednesday, May 11, 2016
Pants Pooped!
So, Quinninpac released a poll that showed Hillary Clinton only one point ahead of Trump in Florida and Pennsylvania and four points behind in Ohio. The media and pretty much everyone else has spent the entire day yesterday pooping their pants over the fact that Donald Trump might actually win this thing.
Except that he won't.
In many ways, this poll is a good thing for Hillary Clinton and the voting public in general. If she wants to truly kick his ass, she is going to have to take the angry, old white male vote (see also: the only people really supporting Trump) seriously. A poll like this shows if she fucks around and doesn't start working on her negatives, it could be closer than everyone would like. It also puts the fear of God into people and will motivate even more of them to vote.
Of course, looking at one poll (of registered, not likely voters) is a big mistake. The average of all of the polls gives a better indication of where the race is really at. The Florida polls shows Clinton up by four points. Ohio average has her up three points. Pennsylvania average has her up seven. With the latter, Trump has never led in any of the polls so he really has no chance there.
Keep watching the averages. they aren't really moving that much and that's a good sign for Hillary Clinton.
Except that he won't.
In many ways, this poll is a good thing for Hillary Clinton and the voting public in general. If she wants to truly kick his ass, she is going to have to take the angry, old white male vote (see also: the only people really supporting Trump) seriously. A poll like this shows if she fucks around and doesn't start working on her negatives, it could be closer than everyone would like. It also puts the fear of God into people and will motivate even more of them to vote.
Of course, looking at one poll (of registered, not likely voters) is a big mistake. The average of all of the polls gives a better indication of where the race is really at. The Florida polls shows Clinton up by four points. Ohio average has her up three points. Pennsylvania average has her up seven. With the latter, Trump has never led in any of the polls so he really has no chance there.
Keep watching the averages. they aren't really moving that much and that's a good sign for Hillary Clinton.
Tuesday, May 10, 2016
The Trump Flip Flops Begin
Donald Trump is going to start flip flopping like a frog on a skillet as he pivots before the general election, but today we'll focus on the thing that Trump said completely differentiated him from every other candidate in history: he is really rich.
Remember how Trump said that he would self-fund his campaign, and he wouldn't owe other billionaires anything?
Guess what? He lied!
Donald J. Trump took steps to appropriate much of the Republican National Committee’s financial and political infrastructure for his presidential campaign on Monday, amid signs that he and the party would lag dangerously behind the Democrats in raising money for the general election.He's pretending that he has to do it because the Democrats would win if he didn't. The reality is that he's doing it to cash in. He is going to make money running for president. How is this possible?
Donald Trump hasn't actually spent any money on his campaign. He has been lending it money. Now there's a huge difference: by lending money to his campaign, he can have the campaign repay the loans at a later time, with interest.
Furthermore, a huge amount of his campaign expenditures are paid to Trump owned companies (like his airplane). Trump companies have been charging his campaign to fly him around the company, bringing him home every night to sleep in New York instead of in hotels on the campaign trail. Trump's campaign is paying him for office space in Trump Tower, for meals in his restaurants, etc. Trump's companies' services are much more expensive than other companies' because they're so "luxurious."
When other people start donating money to the Trump campaign (and some suckers have already been doing it!), Trump can use that money to repay the loans he made to the campaign, with interest. Trump will profit handsomely off the nitwits who swallowed his lies about self-funding.
Also remember how Trump said that candidates like Ted Cruz and Hillary Clinton are beholden to Wall Street because of their close relationships with Goldman Sachs and other banks? Trump just announced who his main fund-raiser is: Steven Mnuchin, who formerly worked at Goldman Sachs and at a firm funded by George Soros. Like Trump, Mnuchin donated to Clinton. And Mnuchin says he has been a personal friend of Trump for 15 years.
So, contrary to everything Trump promised, he's getting into bed with Republican billionaires like Sheldon Adelson who contribute to the Republican Party and who just endorsed Trump, and with Wall Street moneymen.
Oh, but he has to in order to beat Hillary, you say? Well, then, how is he any different than any other politician? It was clear from the beginning that Trump would never be able spend the hundreds of billions of dollars required to run for president (he's actually not very rich -- he's only like the 122nd richest person in America, between two other trust-fund babies you've never head of).
Trump has been conning voters for months about self-funding, knowing full well that in the general election he'd start using other people's money to run, and pay himself back all his loans at a profitable interest rate. That's just smart business, right?
This leads us into Trump's taxes. Trump says that he can't release his taxes because his taxes since 2009 are being audited (he's been audited every year since 2002). Trump hasn't released anything about his taxes at all, and when he does people will be outraged.
My guess is that Trump doesn't pay much in taxes. I'm betting that the vast majority of his personal living expenses are being paid for by the company (since he does business in his own home), so I'm guessing he personally pays nothing for food, rent, travel, entertainment, TVs, cars, furniture, etc., because those are all "business expenses."
Furthermore, I'm betting those phony "business expenses" are used to reduce his company's tax burden. Which means the American taxpayers are footing the bill for Donald Trump's lavish lifestyle.
Finally, I'm guessing that Trump does not pay himself much of a salary. Instead, I'm betting that the majority of his income is paid to him in forms that are counted as capital gains. Which means stock rewards, qualified dividends and other rich-man gimmicks that regular human beings can't take advantage of.
Being rich was supposed to the thing that made Donald Trump a legit candidate. But it turns out it's all just a scam to make Trump richer.
The Man Baby
Of course, Trump is merely an extension of the right wing blog commenter mentality. They are all man babies.
Monday, May 09, 2016
Sunday, May 08, 2016
The Trump Speech We Will Never Hear
Reprinted in its entirety from here.
Thank you. I am almost humbled by the HUGE support you’ve shown for my campaign. Tremendous support. Tremendous. As I said when I announced my candidacy, I entered this to win, and I knew I would.
Why? Because from states and towns large and small, from one end of the country to the other, my message has resonated. I’ve tapped into a deep-seated anger that until now only bubbled up around the edges of peoples’ lives. But thanks to my campaign, this blinding rage has exploded into full view for everyone to see.
And this is why I, Donald J. Trump, now announce, before all of my loyal delegates and millions of supporters … that I must decline your nomination.
Because, in fact, my campaign hasn’t been about tapping into those emotions. It’s been about exposing the ability of someone like me — a media-savvy celebrity billionaire — to exploit them, playing on your fear and resentment by disseminating lies and fabrications, by demonizing minorities of all kinds, by appealing to your lowest instincts, and by leveraging peoples’ innate desire to blame and to follow without questioning or critical thinking.
I confess that from the start we plotted my candidacy as an experiment. We meticulously scheduled each and every gaffe, insult, slur, confrontation, complaint, mistake and outlandish tweet to build upon the last. The goal was to test just how far a seemingly unhinged, uninformed, incurious, intellectually lazy, yet supremely confident candidate could go.
Honestly, we never thought we’d make it this far. Third place, maybe — folding our tent after Super Tuesday was our best guess. And yet, we kept creating believers, and from Little Marco to Lyin’ Ted, our competition kept rolling over. The more irrational I got, the higher my poll numbers soared. So with the help of an all-too-often compliant, sensation-driven media, I kept it going. And here we are.
In other words, my campaign has been one HUGE scam. Only, unlike my university and my steaks, this one aimed to prove a bigger point.
How did this happen? Is it because America is always losing? Is it because Obama hates America? Is it because we need to take our country back?
No. It’s because too many Americans are ignorant. I mean, too many Americans choose to ignore facts, because the lies and myths that oppose those facts make them feel better. They ignore facts like:
• Planned Parenthood access reduces the number of abortions in America.
• Our economy isn’t a disaster.
• The Affordable Care Act, while not perfect, is helping millions of people.
• President Obama was born in Hawaii, and I never had evidence otherwise.
• America is still the wealthiest country on the planet.
• Global warming is caused by human activity.
• We can’t build a wall and have Mexico pay for it.
• We can’t ban all Muslims from entering the country, and
• I have no idea what “until someone figures this whole thing out” means.
Now, I implore you, my supporters, to look in the mirror and ask yourselves: What other big decisions do you make in life that are driven by anger? Who do you allow your kids to blame for their problems? What name-calling bully have you ever held up to your kids as a role model?
Fortunately, another thing my candidacy has shown me is that, with this platform, I have the opportunity to do some good. So before I leave I would like to announce three things:
First, I will be donating all the contributions to my campaign to public school systems across the country — for better materials, smaller classes and more teachers. Ignorance isn’t bliss. And teaching and learning shouldn’t be so hard.
Second, I want to sincerely apologize to Michelle Fields, Carly Fiorina, Megyn Kelly, Heidi Cruz, Rosie O’Donnell and any other women I’ve personally insulted or belittled. My behavior toward you was unbecoming of a grown man.
Third, I am asking my delegates to draft and support Sen. Susan Collins as our party’s nominee. She is the most decent, humble, reasonable and intelligent Republican woman I’ve ever met. She’ll make a great president.
It’s been a scary but revealing ride. You owe yourselves someone better than me — someone truly tremendous. Now go make me proud.
Thank you.
No Mass Exodus
I live in a state that has high taxes and government spending. In 2013, our Democratic governor raised taxes on the wealthy and increased spending even more. Despite predictions that this sort of policy would result in a poor economy, Minnesota is doing quite well. Our unemployment rate is 3.7% which basically means if you aren't working, you don't want to have a job. We have a state surplus of over $1 billion dollars. Our GDP is $255 billion dollars.
Today, our state discovered that Republican predictions of a mass exodus of higher taxes on the wealthy have not come to pass.
Critics predicted that the ultra-affluent would flee after Gov. Mark Dayton secured 2013 passage of a new income tax tier of 9.85 percent on individuals who make more than $156,000 a year. But the latest data show that the number of people who filed tax returns with over $1 million in income grew by 15.3 percent in the year after the tax passed, while the new top tier of taxpayers grew by 6 percent.
Grew, you say? Hmm...maybe people like having a better place to send their kids to school and nice roads to drive on.
Let's compare my state to Wisconsin, where Scott Walker has enacted the exact opposite policies of Governor Dayton. The Wisconsin unemployment rate is 4.4%. They have a budget shortfall of $1.8 billion dollars which has forced cuts to the University of Wisconsin system to comply with the balanced budget law. Their GDP is $230 billion dollars. Wisconsin ranks among the top states people are leaving.
I wonder why...:)
Today, our state discovered that Republican predictions of a mass exodus of higher taxes on the wealthy have not come to pass.
Critics predicted that the ultra-affluent would flee after Gov. Mark Dayton secured 2013 passage of a new income tax tier of 9.85 percent on individuals who make more than $156,000 a year. But the latest data show that the number of people who filed tax returns with over $1 million in income grew by 15.3 percent in the year after the tax passed, while the new top tier of taxpayers grew by 6 percent.
Grew, you say? Hmm...maybe people like having a better place to send their kids to school and nice roads to drive on.
Let's compare my state to Wisconsin, where Scott Walker has enacted the exact opposite policies of Governor Dayton. The Wisconsin unemployment rate is 4.4%. They have a budget shortfall of $1.8 billion dollars which has forced cuts to the University of Wisconsin system to comply with the balanced budget law. Their GDP is $230 billion dollars. Wisconsin ranks among the top states people are leaving.
I wonder why...:)
Saturday, May 07, 2016
BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Republicans consider Clinton over Trump
Meet the Republicans Who Say They’ll Vote for Hillary Clinton
Clinton set to assemble ‘Republicans for Hillary’ to lure Trump skeptics
Laura Bush hints she would rather vote for Hillary Clinton than Donald Trump
I can't wait to see the first polls of the swing states for Clinton v Trump:)
Meet the Republicans Who Say They’ll Vote for Hillary Clinton
Clinton set to assemble ‘Republicans for Hillary’ to lure Trump skeptics
Laura Bush hints she would rather vote for Hillary Clinton than Donald Trump
I can't wait to see the first polls of the swing states for Clinton v Trump:)
Thursday, May 05, 2016
Paul Ryan to Donald Trump: Nope
Paul Ryan is just not ready to back Donald Trump. Hilarious. I can't remember a time when a Speaker of the House immediately came out against the nominee in their own party. Does anyone out there think the GOP is in any way stable right now?
Wow.
Wow.
Wednesday, May 04, 2016
Rough Justice for the Alberta Tar Sands
While Donald Trump is still claiming that global warming is a hoax, Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada is being evacuated due to a massive forest fire:
Tens of thousands of people have fled north and south.Note the "32 C" temperature reading: that's 90 degrees Fahrenheit, on May 4th, in Alberta, Canada, which is really far north, at 57 degrees latitude. It's just another indication that global warming is really happening, and burning fossil fuels -- like those extracted from the tar sands right there in Alberta -- is causing the northern latitudes to heat up very quickly.
Fuelled by soaring temperatures that hit 32 C and tinder-dry forest, the fire broached the city limits and by 6:20 p.m. a mandatory evacuation order was issued for the entire city.
“Today has been a devastating day. We have had explosive fire conditions on the landscape brought on by extremely high temperatures” and low relative humidity, Bernie Schmitte, wildfire manager at Alberta Agriculture and Forestry, said Tuesday night during a news conference.
“The fire is still out of control,” Schmitte said. “We have been challenged on many fronts as the fire came through the community. It has entered the community and it has gone through the community.”
Officials have accounted for about 53,000 people, including 17,000 people north of the city, 8,000 in Anzac, 9,000 in Lac La Biche, and 18,000 in Edmonton. Fort McMurray has population of 83,000. “This is not an exact science,” one official said when asked about the discrepancy.
There's a sort of rough justice here: the oil extracted from the tar sands is some of the dirtiest there is (it's the crap they wanted to pipe into the US through the Keystone XL pipeline). The area has been hammered economically in recent months because of the low price of oil.
If you're superstitious or religious, you might be inclined to blame this on an angry mother earth, karma, or divine retribution. In reality, it's simple, straightforward and very predictable atmospheric physics.
Like the climate refugees being forced out of their homes in Louisiana due to rising sea levels, the people Fort McMurray are losing their homes to our insatiable thirst for oil.
The Fallout From Indiana
With Donald Trump's resounding victory in yesterday's Indiana primary, the general election has officially taken shape. Ted Cruz is out. Kasich has zero chance of getting anywhere even in a contested convention. Ladies and gentlemen...
Donald Trump is the GOP nominee for president.
I can't think of a better example of the GOP today. Donald Trump is angry, hateful, willfully ignorant, adolescent, racist, bigoted, and highly unintelligent. He is the most unqualified candidate in the history of presidential elections and he's been fueled by voters who mirror his completely false perception of reality. Conservatives are getting exactly what they want.
He also represents proof positive of one of my running theories. Conservatives want someone who is massively authoritarian because they loves themselves an aristocratic structure where the non whites know their place. Trump was so popular in the South because he reminds folks of the plantation owner lording over his minions and expecting tribute from the "less-thans."
Even though Bernie Sanders won last night in Indiana, Hillary Clinton will still win the Democratic nomination. So it's going to be Clinton v Trump. I'm looking forward to the slew of polls likely to come out in the next few weeks that show just how much Trump is going to get his ass kicked. Worse for Republicans are the down ticket candidates who now have to run way from Trump if they are in a toss up race.
With Trump at the top of the GOP ticket, the Republicans can wave buh-bye to the Senate.
Will the GOP learn its lesson? I doubt it. They will likely stomp their feet and whine about not nominating a "real" conservative. They'll heap blame on Trump but it's really the voters that are the problem. Their base is so fractured largely due to the Tea Party who seemingly morphed into Trump supporters.
The only issue faced by the Democrats is replicating what will likely be massive turnout in the fall in the off year elections. Why can't Democrats vote in the years that matter? This is why the GOP has taken over state house and local governments. When 35-40 percent of voters turnout in the midterms, that means only old, white people are voting. Translation: GOP victories.
In advance of what will surely be ear to ear smiles from fresh polls, here, once again, is my map for the fall election.
And I think I'm being generous to Trump!
Donald Trump is the GOP nominee for president.
I can't think of a better example of the GOP today. Donald Trump is angry, hateful, willfully ignorant, adolescent, racist, bigoted, and highly unintelligent. He is the most unqualified candidate in the history of presidential elections and he's been fueled by voters who mirror his completely false perception of reality. Conservatives are getting exactly what they want.
He also represents proof positive of one of my running theories. Conservatives want someone who is massively authoritarian because they loves themselves an aristocratic structure where the non whites know their place. Trump was so popular in the South because he reminds folks of the plantation owner lording over his minions and expecting tribute from the "less-thans."
Even though Bernie Sanders won last night in Indiana, Hillary Clinton will still win the Democratic nomination. So it's going to be Clinton v Trump. I'm looking forward to the slew of polls likely to come out in the next few weeks that show just how much Trump is going to get his ass kicked. Worse for Republicans are the down ticket candidates who now have to run way from Trump if they are in a toss up race.
With Trump at the top of the GOP ticket, the Republicans can wave buh-bye to the Senate.
Will the GOP learn its lesson? I doubt it. They will likely stomp their feet and whine about not nominating a "real" conservative. They'll heap blame on Trump but it's really the voters that are the problem. Their base is so fractured largely due to the Tea Party who seemingly morphed into Trump supporters.
The only issue faced by the Democrats is replicating what will likely be massive turnout in the fall in the off year elections. Why can't Democrats vote in the years that matter? This is why the GOP has taken over state house and local governments. When 35-40 percent of voters turnout in the midterms, that means only old, white people are voting. Translation: GOP victories.
In advance of what will surely be ear to ear smiles from fresh polls, here, once again, is my map for the fall election.
And I think I'm being generous to Trump!
Monday, May 02, 2016
Sunday, May 01, 2016
How Overt Racism Can Be A Good Thing
Jeneee Desmond-Harris has a great piece up over at the times on how the overt racism of Trump supporters is actually a good thing. She begins by relating how discussions of race invariably begin.
Last March, I reported on the Department of Justice’s findings that the police and municipal courts in Ferguson, Mo., had consistently violated the constitutional rights of the city’s black residents. The article included a summary of the abuse of power investigators uncovered, as well as the content of public officials’ emails. (One example: a photo of a bare-chested group of dancing women, apparently in Africa, captioned “Michelle Obama’s High School Reunion.”)
Simply for presenting the investigation’s findings and the cops’ and court officials’ revealing words, I received a barrage of angry messages asking why I had to “make everything about race.”
Ah, yes...classic...but this brings up a great point.
One thing has been made very clear to me: Many people resent being confronted with information about how racism still shapes — and sometimes, ruins — life in this country.
They resent it because they don't want to take the responsibility for it...just like teenagers.
After a great summation of the Trump rallies over the last few months, we get to this. Mr. Trump and his supporters serve another function, too: They expose the falsehood of the seductive myth that with time and increased diversity, racism will inevitably evaporate.
It won't. It's an ongoing challenge. And this is why the overt racism of Trump and his supporters is a good thing. It's illustrating the folly of easy fixes and adolescent denial.
Last March, I reported on the Department of Justice’s findings that the police and municipal courts in Ferguson, Mo., had consistently violated the constitutional rights of the city’s black residents. The article included a summary of the abuse of power investigators uncovered, as well as the content of public officials’ emails. (One example: a photo of a bare-chested group of dancing women, apparently in Africa, captioned “Michelle Obama’s High School Reunion.”)
Simply for presenting the investigation’s findings and the cops’ and court officials’ revealing words, I received a barrage of angry messages asking why I had to “make everything about race.”
Ah, yes...classic...but this brings up a great point.
One thing has been made very clear to me: Many people resent being confronted with information about how racism still shapes — and sometimes, ruins — life in this country.
They resent it because they don't want to take the responsibility for it...just like teenagers.
After a great summation of the Trump rallies over the last few months, we get to this. Mr. Trump and his supporters serve another function, too: They expose the falsehood of the seductive myth that with time and increased diversity, racism will inevitably evaporate.
It won't. It's an ongoing challenge. And this is why the overt racism of Trump and his supporters is a good thing. It's illustrating the folly of easy fixes and adolescent denial.
Saturday, April 30, 2016
The Not So Known Reason Why Trump Will Be Decimated
Hillary Clinton is pivoting to the general election and solidifying her operations in battleground states. It make sense because she is the likely nominee. But why isn't Donald Trump doing this? It has some folks perplexed.
"The sooner you can get up and running the better," said Dan Pfeiffer, who advised President Barack Obama. "On the Republican side, Trump has not built anything resembling the sort of field operation it takes to win."
If he doesn't have an y field operation in battleground states, he's going to lose even more badly than I thought. Meanwhile, Clinton campaign employees are heading to battleground states across the country, among them Ohio, Florida and Colorado. Democrats are also eyeing the possibility of making a run at traditionally Republican-leaning states such as Georgia, North Carolina and Arizona, calculating that Trump's penchant for controversy could put minority and female voters in play.
Georgia is in play? Wow.
"The sooner you can get up and running the better," said Dan Pfeiffer, who advised President Barack Obama. "On the Republican side, Trump has not built anything resembling the sort of field operation it takes to win."
If he doesn't have an y field operation in battleground states, he's going to lose even more badly than I thought. Meanwhile, Clinton campaign employees are heading to battleground states across the country, among them Ohio, Florida and Colorado. Democrats are also eyeing the possibility of making a run at traditionally Republican-leaning states such as Georgia, North Carolina and Arizona, calculating that Trump's penchant for controversy could put minority and female voters in play.
Georgia is in play? Wow.
Friday, April 29, 2016
Get Ready For An Ass Kicking
Insiders: Clinton would crush Trump in November
From the Republican insiders...
“There is positively no way for Trump to win in Pennsylvania,” said a Republican from that state.
“Trump cannot and will not carry Ohio,” a Republican from that state insisted. “He will do well in Appalachia and in the Mahoning Valley but he will get killed in the rest of the state. The danger for the GOP is losing Rob Portman which is a very real possibility under this match-up.”
Added a Florida Republican, who like all participants was granted anonymity in order to speak freely, “Trump is grinding the GOP to a stub. He couldn't find enough xenophobic, angry white Floridians to beat Hillary in Florida if he tried.”
Wow. Here's my map of what it will all look like.
And I'm actually being generous to Trump because he's polling behind her in Utah for fuck's sake!
The GOP is finally getting exactly what they deserve. When you spend the better part of two decades training their constituents to believe wacky, ideological nonsense (see also: lies), you get Donald Trump as your front runner.
From the Republican insiders...
“There is positively no way for Trump to win in Pennsylvania,” said a Republican from that state.
“Trump cannot and will not carry Ohio,” a Republican from that state insisted. “He will do well in Appalachia and in the Mahoning Valley but he will get killed in the rest of the state. The danger for the GOP is losing Rob Portman which is a very real possibility under this match-up.”
Added a Florida Republican, who like all participants was granted anonymity in order to speak freely, “Trump is grinding the GOP to a stub. He couldn't find enough xenophobic, angry white Floridians to beat Hillary in Florida if he tried.”
Wow. Here's my map of what it will all look like.
Click the map to create your own at And I'm actually being generous to Trump because he's polling behind her in Utah for fuck's sake!
The GOP is finally getting exactly what they deserve. When you spend the better part of two decades training their constituents to believe wacky, ideological nonsense (see also: lies), you get Donald Trump as your front runner.
Ah, The Bubble...
Pentagon rips Benghazi Committee over 'speculation'
The Pentagon is pushing back against the House Benghazi Committee, saying its repeated requests for documents and interviews are straining the department's resources — and, to make matters worse, many of the queries are speculative or hypothetical.
Hedger also complained that Defense Department interviewees “have been asked repeatedly to speculate or engage in discussing on the record hypotheticals.”
Sort of like a right wing blog commenting section, maybe? Man, those people live in their own fucking reality.
And now they are purposefully undermining the resources of our military.
The Pentagon is pushing back against the House Benghazi Committee, saying its repeated requests for documents and interviews are straining the department's resources — and, to make matters worse, many of the queries are speculative or hypothetical.
Hedger also complained that Defense Department interviewees “have been asked repeatedly to speculate or engage in discussing on the record hypotheticals.”
Sort of like a right wing blog commenting section, maybe? Man, those people live in their own fucking reality.
And now they are purposefully undermining the resources of our military.
Thursday, April 28, 2016
Up Close with a Member of the Gun Cult
My daughter has been taking her driver's ed classes so she can get her permit and then (sigh, gasp) be a legal driver in the state of Minnesota. She's been going to the local driver's ed school a few short blocks from our house.
After the first class, she came home to inform us that the teacher, who also owns the school, took every opportunity he had to tell the class how he was very conservative, owned many guns, and didn't like people who weren't white. My wife and I decided long ago that our children should be exposed to people like this as often as possible so it will help them later in life. Sheltering is invariably a bad thing as the world can be a pretty awful place and young people need to know how to deal with folks like this.
But last night, she came home and told us that the instructor was bragging about their conceal carry permit. When another student said that she thought all guns should be outlawed, the instructor pulled out a knife and said, "Here's a way you can threaten someone without a gun." He then proceeded to point it at her.
Needless to say, I notified the police and hopefully this asshat will be put in his place. What is it exactly about the Gun Cult that they feel the need to threaten people all the time? Are they that insecure about life?
It's tempting to take this as just an isolated incident but this example is the direct result of a culture that cock rides guns. People like this jag off are part of the every growing pile off fallout in a society where guns are worshiped as objects of empowerment.
It has to stop.
After the first class, she came home to inform us that the teacher, who also owns the school, took every opportunity he had to tell the class how he was very conservative, owned many guns, and didn't like people who weren't white. My wife and I decided long ago that our children should be exposed to people like this as often as possible so it will help them later in life. Sheltering is invariably a bad thing as the world can be a pretty awful place and young people need to know how to deal with folks like this.
But last night, she came home and told us that the instructor was bragging about their conceal carry permit. When another student said that she thought all guns should be outlawed, the instructor pulled out a knife and said, "Here's a way you can threaten someone without a gun." He then proceeded to point it at her.
Needless to say, I notified the police and hopefully this asshat will be put in his place. What is it exactly about the Gun Cult that they feel the need to threaten people all the time? Are they that insecure about life?
It's tempting to take this as just an isolated incident but this example is the direct result of a culture that cock rides guns. People like this jag off are part of the every growing pile off fallout in a society where guns are worshiped as objects of empowerment.
It has to stop.
Wednesday, April 27, 2016
Tuesday, April 26, 2016
Trump V Clinton
I think we have to say that it's likely to be Trump v Clinton at this point. The GOP has to be shitting themselves.
Monday, April 25, 2016
Charles Koch: Clinton Might Make Better President
In a sign that this election has really gone off the rails, Charles Koch recently said that Hillary Clinton might make a better president than the eventual GOP nominee. It makes sense if you think about it. None of the current GOP candidates meet the Koch standard. Kasich is too liberal. Trump is too aristocratic and authoritarian. Ted Cruz is giant asshole.
The Hilz response?
The Hilz response?
Not interested in endorsements from people who deny climate science and try to make it harder for people to vote. https://t.co/TWN4zYhMBh— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) April 24, 2016
Sunday, April 24, 2016
Playing A Role?
Is Donald Trump playing a role? Multiple reports suggest that he is, according to his campaign manager Paul Manafort. As soon as the general election begins, he will shift to more palatable stances to attract moderate voters. Take a listen
I wonder how all this will work out...y'know, the whole Mexicans as rapists, banning Muslims thing:)
I wonder how all this will work out...y'know, the whole Mexicans as rapists, banning Muslims thing:)
Friday, April 22, 2016
Thursday, April 21, 2016
Turning the Lens on the Gun Culture
I have noticed a trend occurring of late that I find most heartening. Researchers are turning their lens towards gun violence and gun culture. There are many reasons why they are doing this but the recent news that UT researcher Haril Shapira is going to examine gun culture and the future of American democracy is extremely interesting.
Shapira’s work investigates what drives people to join gun-owning communities and what this means for democracy. The communities, Shapira observes, not only shape and transform individuals drawn to gun culture but also society at large.
“We are seeing individuals taking on the roles of government when it comes to self-defense and issues of enforcement of the law,” Shapira said. “What might this mean for democracy and democratic institutions? What does an armed society hold for the future of America’s democracy?”
Indeed.
I'm not sure what his research questions will be or even what form his research will take but I'm hoping he gets into the issue of empowerment. I've been asking friends of mine who are gun owners why exactly they own them and one thing I've noticed about nearly all of them is they have something in their lives that makes them feel insecure and weak. Whether they have some sort of long term health issue or have been bullied in their lives, having a gun makes them feel better.
I can't wait for Professor Shapira's book to be released.
Shapira’s work investigates what drives people to join gun-owning communities and what this means for democracy. The communities, Shapira observes, not only shape and transform individuals drawn to gun culture but also society at large.
“We are seeing individuals taking on the roles of government when it comes to self-defense and issues of enforcement of the law,” Shapira said. “What might this mean for democracy and democratic institutions? What does an armed society hold for the future of America’s democracy?”
Indeed.
I'm not sure what his research questions will be or even what form his research will take but I'm hoping he gets into the issue of empowerment. I've been asking friends of mine who are gun owners why exactly they own them and one thing I've noticed about nearly all of them is they have something in their lives that makes them feel insecure and weak. Whether they have some sort of long term health issue or have been bullied in their lives, having a gun makes them feel better.
I can't wait for Professor Shapira's book to be released.
Wednesday, April 20, 2016
UnitedHealth Can't Compete
Obamacare is back in the news today, after UnitedHealth Group announced that it's getting out of insurance exchanges in many states.
Opponents of the health care exchange will point to this as a major failure. However, this isn't a failure of Obamacare, it's a failure of UnitedHealth's business model.
UnitedHealth is not a health care provider. It's a useless, money-sucking middleman. It grew to be the country's biggest health insurance provider with a very inefficient business model. This consists of insurance company A taking money from employer B to pay health care provider C to provide health care for employee D who works for employer B.
This is inherently inefficient. There are four parties involved in a transaction that should be conducted solely between health care provider C and patient D. Every time you add another party to a transaction the costs go up: everyone has to take their cut.
UnitedHealth doesn't make money by providing health care, it makes money by denying it. They are gambling that they'll be able to charge corporations for more health care than their employees will use.
They can do this because their customer is the employer, and not the employee actually receiving the health care. That means they can provide a much lower level of service than they can for customers who directly pay for their health care. They do this by denying coverage.
That's how health insurance companies make money: they insure healthy people, then they make using health care a hassle, hoping that patients will just cave when coverage is denied and pay for it themselves, or not bother to see the doctor at all.
UnitedHealth is a very profitable company, but it is a leech on the system. It can only be profitable by charging people for health care they don't use. Since they do not provide health care, they are incapable of effecting changes in the system itself to make it more efficient: all they can do is demand providers charge less, but since providers have a monopoly on health care, middlemen insurance companies have no real leverage.
But UnitedHealth has found that its business model can't stand up to competition on the exchanges. They're too inefficient. Companies that actually provide health care -- not the middlemen -- are the only ones that can really bring down the price of health care.
The American model for health care makes no sense. Health care is as essential to modern American life as food, clothing and shelter. Employers don't feed, or clothe or house us. Why should they pay for our health care?
Every American should pay for their own health care and employers should get out of the health insurance business altogether. They should give their employees raises equal to what they spend on health care.
This would level the playing field for American companies, who have to compete with foreign companies who aren't saddled with that burden. The same thing goes for cities, counties, states and the federal government.
The incentives in the health care system are completely skewed. Until the people who actually use it are the ones paying for it, and the people making money from it are the ones who provide it, the cost cost of health care in America will continue to spiral out of control.
Opponents of the health care exchange will point to this as a major failure. However, this isn't a failure of Obamacare, it's a failure of UnitedHealth's business model.
UnitedHealth is not a health care provider. It's a useless, money-sucking middleman. It grew to be the country's biggest health insurance provider with a very inefficient business model. This consists of insurance company A taking money from employer B to pay health care provider C to provide health care for employee D who works for employer B.
This is inherently inefficient. There are four parties involved in a transaction that should be conducted solely between health care provider C and patient D. Every time you add another party to a transaction the costs go up: everyone has to take their cut.
UnitedHealth doesn't make money by providing health care, it makes money by denying it. They are gambling that they'll be able to charge corporations for more health care than their employees will use.
They can do this because their customer is the employer, and not the employee actually receiving the health care. That means they can provide a much lower level of service than they can for customers who directly pay for their health care. They do this by denying coverage.
That's how health insurance companies make money: they insure healthy people, then they make using health care a hassle, hoping that patients will just cave when coverage is denied and pay for it themselves, or not bother to see the doctor at all.
UnitedHealth is a very profitable company, but it is a leech on the system. It can only be profitable by charging people for health care they don't use. Since they do not provide health care, they are incapable of effecting changes in the system itself to make it more efficient: all they can do is demand providers charge less, but since providers have a monopoly on health care, middlemen insurance companies have no real leverage.
But UnitedHealth has found that its business model can't stand up to competition on the exchanges. They're too inefficient. Companies that actually provide health care -- not the middlemen -- are the only ones that can really bring down the price of health care.
The American model for health care makes no sense. Health care is as essential to modern American life as food, clothing and shelter. Employers don't feed, or clothe or house us. Why should they pay for our health care?
Every American should pay for their own health care and employers should get out of the health insurance business altogether. They should give their employees raises equal to what they spend on health care.
This would level the playing field for American companies, who have to compete with foreign companies who aren't saddled with that burden. The same thing goes for cities, counties, states and the federal government.
The incentives in the health care system are completely skewed. Until the people who actually use it are the ones paying for it, and the people making money from it are the ones who provide it, the cost cost of health care in America will continue to spiral out of control.
Tuesday, April 19, 2016
Empire State Predictions
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton will win their respective primaries today but the question is by how much.
For the Republicans, 95 are at stake. I think Trump will win at least 50 of them with Kasich getting around 30 and Cruz 15. Cruz didn't do himself any favors with his "New York values" comment. For the Democrats, 247 are at stake and I think Hillary will get just over half of them plus most of the superdelegates. Bernie will come away with a pretty good share of the delegates even though he will lose.
For the Republicans, 95 are at stake. I think Trump will win at least 50 of them with Kasich getting around 30 and Cruz 15. Cruz didn't do himself any favors with his "New York values" comment. For the Democrats, 247 are at stake and I think Hillary will get just over half of them plus most of the superdelegates. Bernie will come away with a pretty good share of the delegates even though he will lose.
Monday, April 18, 2016
April Come She Will
April is usually a time of hope as Spring is about to arrive. People around the country are welcoming the warmer weather and the chance to sit outside in shirt sleeves watching a baseball game. But for many teachers, it's a really crappy time of the year as school districts decide who to cut and who to displace.
Of course, it's not entirely the district's fault. Teachers's unions make contracts that protect the most senior of staff regardless of how good or bad their performance. The reasoning behind this is solid given market economics. If the districts were allowed to cut whomever they wanted, all of the higher salaried staff would go every ten years or so to save money. Newer and inexperienced staff would flood the schools all in the name of penny pinching. Quality of education would severely drop as these new staff members would be challenged with a whole host of issues like classroom management, lesson planning, and relationship building.
Yet the issue of poor performance by veteran teachers persists and there needs to be significant changes to the way they are evaluated. First, they should not be evaluated as they are now by their fellow teachers who take a couple of years off to do Q-Comp (teacher observations). Outside and unbiased evaluators should be hired by each district to carry out these observations. Second, poor performers should not be passed along simply because they are senior. There should be significant consequences if they are not doing their jobs effectively including termination. Third, teachers that have been in the game for twenty years should shift out of the classroom and into a mentoring role for new teachers. With massive numbers retiring in the next ten years due to the baby boomer generation heading off to pasture, there will be a teacher shortage in this country. Many states, like Hawaii for example, are already experiencing this. New teachers need the guidance of their elders.
Take it from someone who has sadly experienced this too many times. Experience doesn't always mean quality. This does not mean that we should jump on the right wing douche bag bandwagon and vilify all unions for ever and ever amen. But we do have to change the way the system currently works because it protects too many poor quality teachers.
Of course, it's not entirely the district's fault. Teachers's unions make contracts that protect the most senior of staff regardless of how good or bad their performance. The reasoning behind this is solid given market economics. If the districts were allowed to cut whomever they wanted, all of the higher salaried staff would go every ten years or so to save money. Newer and inexperienced staff would flood the schools all in the name of penny pinching. Quality of education would severely drop as these new staff members would be challenged with a whole host of issues like classroom management, lesson planning, and relationship building.
Yet the issue of poor performance by veteran teachers persists and there needs to be significant changes to the way they are evaluated. First, they should not be evaluated as they are now by their fellow teachers who take a couple of years off to do Q-Comp (teacher observations). Outside and unbiased evaluators should be hired by each district to carry out these observations. Second, poor performers should not be passed along simply because they are senior. There should be significant consequences if they are not doing their jobs effectively including termination. Third, teachers that have been in the game for twenty years should shift out of the classroom and into a mentoring role for new teachers. With massive numbers retiring in the next ten years due to the baby boomer generation heading off to pasture, there will be a teacher shortage in this country. Many states, like Hawaii for example, are already experiencing this. New teachers need the guidance of their elders.
Take it from someone who has sadly experienced this too many times. Experience doesn't always mean quality. This does not mean that we should jump on the right wing douche bag bandwagon and vilify all unions for ever and ever amen. But we do have to change the way the system currently works because it protects too many poor quality teachers.
Sunday, April 17, 2016
Saturday, April 16, 2016
Speaking Is Difficult
The filmmaker promises to keep adding his work. He will certainly have plenty of material with which to work.
Friday, April 15, 2016
Thursday, April 14, 2016
The County Needs To Hear From You.
This is why I heart the Hilz...
“You are the mothers of the children who are dying in the streets,” Mrs. Clinton told the group, Ms. McBath recalled. “You have a lot of power individually,” she said. “But collectively, you need to come together. The country needs to hear from you.”
“You are the mothers of the children who are dying in the streets,” Mrs. Clinton told the group, Ms. McBath recalled. “You have a lot of power individually,” she said. “But collectively, you need to come together. The country needs to hear from you.”
Wednesday, April 13, 2016
What's Behind the Revolt Against Global Integration?
Here's a great piece from the post on globalization and why, despite the evidence, people are revolting against it. The evidence?
This broad program of global integration has been more successful than could reasonably have been hoped. We have not had a war between major powers. Global standards of living have risen faster than at any point in history. And material progress has coincided with even more rapid progress in combating hunger, empowering women, promoting literacy and extending life. A world that will have more smartphones than adults within a few years is a world in which more is possible for more people than ever before.
Sadly, far too many people on my side of the aisle can't accept this.
This broad program of global integration has been more successful than could reasonably have been hoped. We have not had a war between major powers. Global standards of living have risen faster than at any point in history. And material progress has coincided with even more rapid progress in combating hunger, empowering women, promoting literacy and extending life. A world that will have more smartphones than adults within a few years is a world in which more is possible for more people than ever before.
Sadly, far too many people on my side of the aisle can't accept this.
Tuesday, April 12, 2016
Monday, April 11, 2016
Sunday, April 10, 2016
Hearting Thomas Perez (and the federal government)
The video below is a shining example of many things, primarily the reason why I heart the federal government. Thomas Perez is our Secretary of Labor and, boy oh boy, is he a character. His ruminations on the Republicans, our economy, and the people of this nation are illuminating, hilarious and insightful.
Take it away, Thomas. It's mic dropping time!!
Take it away, Thomas. It's mic dropping time!!
Saturday, April 09, 2016
Trump and Sanders: the Carpetbaggers
It turns out that Donald Trump's campaign may fall apart because he's a political novice, hired bad consultants, and doesn't know how the caucus and delegate systems work.
Trump will whine that this is unfair, that it's insider politics conducted in smoke-filled rooms. Hey, Donny boy: politics ain't bean bag.
But it raises a bigger question: who controls a political party? The voters who show up at the polls? The elected officials who serve? Or the political operatives and "hacks" who invest their time, sweat and tears, spending thousands of hours a year, year in and year out, working to advance the party and its members? This last group makes up a lot of the delegates who go to conventions. They care about more than just one presidential race.
After contributing zero time, money or effort to Republicans for sixty-eight years, Donald Trump decided that he could stage a hostile takeover of the Republican Party. Understandably, Republican party operatives who have dedicated their entire lives to the party want nothing to do with Trump.
It's not just because his ideas are stupid, he's a selfish boor, he's insulted party icons, he's ripped the bandaid of Republican lies off the Iraq war, and he's reinforced the idea that Republicans are racist, women-hating dicks.
No, a huge part of it is that Trump hasn't paid his dues, put in the time, or supported Republican candidates in any serious manner. Unlike Romney, who contributed millions to local Republican office holders in the 2012 cycle, Trump has done nothing for other Republicans, focusing solely on himself (big surprise).
Donald Trump is a New York carpetbagger come to steal the Republican Party away from the people who built it.
Bernie Sanders is doing the same thing: he's not a Democrat, he just plays one in the Senate. Unlike Clinton, who has helped raise millions of dollars for Democrats on the local, state and national levels, Sanders has done absolutely nothing to help Democrats.
And without electing several dozen more Democrats to the House and Senate, Sanders would be completely incapable of accomplishing any of his grandiose goals if he were elected. If the composition of the House and Senate remain unchanged, Sanders would be a lame duck president for his entire term.
The Bernie Bros and Trumpists want to destroy the party establishments and get rid of the deadwood "insiders." But someone has to do all the work: raise campaign cash, coddle donors, recruit new candidates to run for office so that voters have someone to vote for, organize caucuses and primaries so that people can actually vote, and keep the lights on. Without insiders political parties collapse.
A lot of people who voted for Obama are angry that he didn't accomplish everything he set out to do. Many are Sanders supporters now. But the reason Obama's momentum collapsed was that Ted Kennedy died, leaving Obama vulnerable to never-ending Republican filibusters in the Senate. Then those people didn't show up at the polls in 2010 and 2014 to elect Democrats.
That allowed Republicans to gain control of the Senate and the House, and a lot of statehouses, which allowed them to control redistricting and impose hundreds of new restrictions on voting across the country to suppress Democratic turnout. Republicans in Congress decided they would just run out the clock on Obama's term, and block everything they could.
Voters can't just show up every four years and expect to get what they want. They need to vote in every primary and general election, without fail. That's why cranky old white men run everything -- they volunteer for the grunt work of running the party and they get their peeps to show up to vote in every damned election, no matter how "insignificant."
Trump will whine that this is unfair, that it's insider politics conducted in smoke-filled rooms. Hey, Donny boy: politics ain't bean bag.
But it raises a bigger question: who controls a political party? The voters who show up at the polls? The elected officials who serve? Or the political operatives and "hacks" who invest their time, sweat and tears, spending thousands of hours a year, year in and year out, working to advance the party and its members? This last group makes up a lot of the delegates who go to conventions. They care about more than just one presidential race.
After contributing zero time, money or effort to Republicans for sixty-eight years, Donald Trump decided that he could stage a hostile takeover of the Republican Party. Understandably, Republican party operatives who have dedicated their entire lives to the party want nothing to do with Trump.
It's not just because his ideas are stupid, he's a selfish boor, he's insulted party icons, he's ripped the bandaid of Republican lies off the Iraq war, and he's reinforced the idea that Republicans are racist, women-hating dicks.
No, a huge part of it is that Trump hasn't paid his dues, put in the time, or supported Republican candidates in any serious manner. Unlike Romney, who contributed millions to local Republican office holders in the 2012 cycle, Trump has done nothing for other Republicans, focusing solely on himself (big surprise).
Donald Trump is a New York carpetbagger come to steal the Republican Party away from the people who built it.
Bernie Sanders is doing the same thing: he's not a Democrat, he just plays one in the Senate. Unlike Clinton, who has helped raise millions of dollars for Democrats on the local, state and national levels, Sanders has done absolutely nothing to help Democrats.
And without electing several dozen more Democrats to the House and Senate, Sanders would be completely incapable of accomplishing any of his grandiose goals if he were elected. If the composition of the House and Senate remain unchanged, Sanders would be a lame duck president for his entire term.
The Bernie Bros and Trumpists want to destroy the party establishments and get rid of the deadwood "insiders." But someone has to do all the work: raise campaign cash, coddle donors, recruit new candidates to run for office so that voters have someone to vote for, organize caucuses and primaries so that people can actually vote, and keep the lights on. Without insiders political parties collapse.
A lot of people who voted for Obama are angry that he didn't accomplish everything he set out to do. Many are Sanders supporters now. But the reason Obama's momentum collapsed was that Ted Kennedy died, leaving Obama vulnerable to never-ending Republican filibusters in the Senate. Then those people didn't show up at the polls in 2010 and 2014 to elect Democrats.
That allowed Republicans to gain control of the Senate and the House, and a lot of statehouses, which allowed them to control redistricting and impose hundreds of new restrictions on voting across the country to suppress Democratic turnout. Republicans in Congress decided they would just run out the clock on Obama's term, and block everything they could.
Voters can't just show up every four years and expect to get what they want. They need to vote in every primary and general election, without fail. That's why cranky old white men run everything -- they volunteer for the grunt work of running the party and they get their peeps to show up to vote in every damned election, no matter how "insignificant."
Thursday, April 07, 2016
Wednesday, April 06, 2016
Tuesday, April 05, 2016
Wisconsin Predictions
They haven't called Wisconsin yet so I am predicting a Cruz and Sanders victory.
Monday, April 04, 2016
Watching His South Fall
Issac J. Bailey's recent piece over at Politico is both stunning and gut wrenching. He most astutely identifies why Donald Trump is so popular in the South.
The Republican South so far has rallied behind Donald Trump, a northerner without any of the grassroots evangelical credibility that is supposed to bind conservatives here—a candidate whose main appeal, in fact, has been coded appeals to the same hatred that drove Roof to pick up a gun.
The exact same hatred.
Make no mistake, Trump’s embrace by millions of people in my region isn’t solely about economic angst. It is also about the kind of pent-up fear—made up of barely submerged racism and profound ignorance—that a reader in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, expressed to me shortly after Barack Obama’s election: “I think he’s gonna enslave us,” he said. “Look what we done to ya’ll.”
Fear, indeed.
Read the whole piece. It's most illuminating.
The Republican South so far has rallied behind Donald Trump, a northerner without any of the grassroots evangelical credibility that is supposed to bind conservatives here—a candidate whose main appeal, in fact, has been coded appeals to the same hatred that drove Roof to pick up a gun.
The exact same hatred.
Make no mistake, Trump’s embrace by millions of people in my region isn’t solely about economic angst. It is also about the kind of pent-up fear—made up of barely submerged racism and profound ignorance—that a reader in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, expressed to me shortly after Barack Obama’s election: “I think he’s gonna enslave us,” he said. “Look what we done to ya’ll.”
Fear, indeed.
Read the whole piece. It's most illuminating.
Sunday, April 03, 2016
Whites Still Not Getting It
Nicholas Kristof has returned to his "White's Not Getting It" series and it's a corker. He begins with a simple quiz.
A) Whites and blacks were hired at similar rates. B) Blacks had a modest edge because of affirmative action. C) Whites were twice as likely to get callbacks.
Much of the conservative base would like choose B or even A. But the answer is C.
Worse, a black applicant with a clean criminal record did no better than a white applicant who was said to have just been released from 18 months in prison. There's more.
In one study, researchers sent thousands of résumés to employers with openings, randomly using some stereotypically black names (like Jamal) and others that were more likely to belong to whites (like Brendan). A white name increased the likelihood of a callback by 50 percent. Likewise, in Canada researchers found that emails from stereotypically black names seeking apartments are less likely to get responses from landlords. And in U.S. experiments, when blacks and whites go in person to rent or buy properties, blacks are shown fewer options.
Until we reconcile the fact that the fallout from the institution of slavery is still having a massively detrimental effect on the fabric of our society, we can't even begin to address the issues that black people face every day.
A) Whites and blacks were hired at similar rates. B) Blacks had a modest edge because of affirmative action. C) Whites were twice as likely to get callbacks.
Much of the conservative base would like choose B or even A. But the answer is C.
Worse, a black applicant with a clean criminal record did no better than a white applicant who was said to have just been released from 18 months in prison. There's more.
In one study, researchers sent thousands of résumés to employers with openings, randomly using some stereotypically black names (like Jamal) and others that were more likely to belong to whites (like Brendan). A white name increased the likelihood of a callback by 50 percent. Likewise, in Canada researchers found that emails from stereotypically black names seeking apartments are less likely to get responses from landlords. And in U.S. experiments, when blacks and whites go in person to rent or buy properties, blacks are shown fewer options.
Until we reconcile the fact that the fallout from the institution of slavery is still having a massively detrimental effect on the fabric of our society, we can't even begin to address the issues that black people face every day.
Saturday, April 02, 2016
Friday, April 01, 2016
Why Hillary Won't Be Indicted and Shouldn't Be
Richard O. Lempert offers an excellent summation of the faux scandal that is the Hillary Clinton email kerfuffle. It's the most honest and objective piece I have seen out there thus far. Here are some key points.
It is unclear whether classified information conveyed in an email message would be considered a document or materials subject to removal. Moreover, with respect to information in messages sent to Clinton, it would be hard to see her as having “knowingly” removed anything, and the same is arguably true of information in messages that she originated. If, however, she were sent attachments that were classified and kept them on her server, this law might apply.
And if they did?
But even if this section did apply, a prosecutor would face difficulties. Heads of agencies have considerable authority with respect to classified information, including authority to approve some exceptions to rules regarding how classified information should be handled and authority to declassify material their agency has classified. It would also be hard to show that Clinton intended to retain any information sent to her if her usual response was to forward the information to another, and if she then deleted the material from her inbox, whether or not it was deleted from her computer.
Some of that classified information includes information that was published in the New York Times and then retroactively classified recently.
This is a very thorough article that addresses the fact of the law. This is in direct opposition to what the media is reporting on a daily basis. I wonder why...
It is unclear whether classified information conveyed in an email message would be considered a document or materials subject to removal. Moreover, with respect to information in messages sent to Clinton, it would be hard to see her as having “knowingly” removed anything, and the same is arguably true of information in messages that she originated. If, however, she were sent attachments that were classified and kept them on her server, this law might apply.
And if they did?
But even if this section did apply, a prosecutor would face difficulties. Heads of agencies have considerable authority with respect to classified information, including authority to approve some exceptions to rules regarding how classified information should be handled and authority to declassify material their agency has classified. It would also be hard to show that Clinton intended to retain any information sent to her if her usual response was to forward the information to another, and if she then deleted the material from her inbox, whether or not it was deleted from her computer.
Some of that classified information includes information that was published in the New York Times and then retroactively classified recently.
This is a very thorough article that addresses the fact of the law. This is in direct opposition to what the media is reporting on a daily basis. I wonder why...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)