As it looks increasingly likely that Bernie Sanders is going to get the nomination for the Democratic Ticket, conservatives are in full-on meltdown mode over the prospect of a democratic socialist for president. The problem is that their rage has got them so blinded as to what it all means that all they can see is gulags, re-education camps, and the end of all this holy about America. Holy crap, are they in need of some therapy!
The first thing they need to realize is their hate, anger, and fear at democratic socialism has nothing to do with what they erroneously believe is going to happen when Bernie wins. Like most emotional adolescents, they have worked with themselves up into such a lather that they actually believe that Bernie Sanders, a Jew, is going to start gulags and destroy us all with central planning. What they are actually upset about is being shown to be ideologically wrong and soon, coming to a theater near you, irrelevant. They REALLY hate losing arguments and this will, no doubt, be the ultimate loss.
Of course, even if they are shown to be ideologically wrong, the age of Trump has shown us that pretending to be right is their only answer. How did this come to pass? Well, Trump has become a vessel for all their hatred, anger and fear at all of the things and people they don't like, starting with liberals, elites and smart people trying to accomplish good things for the country. That last bit really sends them into a fit because they take their feelings of inadequacy, insecurity, and inferiority and somehow transform that into Hitler, Stalin and death camps.
I suppose it is a death in a way...a death of hysterical nonsense and a birth of actual solutions to real problems. Sanders won't get all of the things he wants when he is elected but at least someone will be in there to put together a government that is more representative of what the people of this nation want.
In the final analysis, it's their own fault. They threw their lot in with a mentally unstable criminal who was hilariously and easily able to con them into fervently believing cultish beliefs. They will blame everyone but themselves and Trump when they lose both the presidency and the Senate. So, now we are left with a good chunk of our population who simply will not accept facts and reality.
What are we going to do with them?
Wednesday, February 19, 2020
Tuesday, February 18, 2020
Blunting Troll Suppression
Hey Russian trolls and other right wing bloggers/commenters, the African American community is on to you. They get that you purposefully discouraged voter turnout in 2016 and they are ready for you this year. And they have the backing of local city councils, as the link notes.
Regardless of who the candidate is, black turnout is going to be at an all time high.
Regardless of who the candidate is, black turnout is going to be at an all time high.
Monday, February 17, 2020
Sunday, February 16, 2020
Mandatory Vasectomies
Alabama State Rep. Rolanda Hollis has come up with a wonderful way to blunt abortion bills: make the male body responsible too. If a woman's womb is going to be the ward of the state (see also: The Handmaid's Tale), then so should a man's testicles. Ms. Hollis has put forth a bill calling for men to get state sponsored vasectomies after their third child or their 50th birthday...whatever comes first. The howls of derision from the pro life crowd in the comments and tweets made me ROTFALMFAO.
Male reproductive rights must be protected at any cost!
But not female reproductive rights...
This whole kerfuffle has made me reflect, though. What if men were held as responsible as women for pregnancies? And why don't you ever hear anything about that from the pro life crowd?
Male reproductive rights must be protected at any cost!
But not female reproductive rights...
This whole kerfuffle has made me reflect, though. What if men were held as responsible as women for pregnancies? And why don't you ever hear anything about that from the pro life crowd?
Saturday, February 15, 2020
Comments Are Fully Open
Given our plethora of new readers from Reddit, Quora, Twitter, and other locales, we have decided to open up comments without moderation. Too many people have complained that they don't like having to wait to see what they wrote published and that it takes too long to go through the filter.
I've also decided to allow comments of any kind as this is an election year and it's going to get ugly anyway. Anyone previously banned from posting here is welcome to post again. I challenge those individuals (mostly from Kevin Baker's blog) to make their assertions without personal attacks on me. If they do, so be it, but it pretty much proves that they have nothing of substance to offer and zero convictions.
We will delete any spammy things like product ads or sex stuff. Also, any sort of doxing is a big no-no. People have the right to privacy. My associates in the police department (two of which are fans of this blog and Trump supporters, go figure) regularly monitor my traffic and will be all over anyone who doxxes.
With that, comment away!
I've also decided to allow comments of any kind as this is an election year and it's going to get ugly anyway. Anyone previously banned from posting here is welcome to post again. I challenge those individuals (mostly from Kevin Baker's blog) to make their assertions without personal attacks on me. If they do, so be it, but it pretty much proves that they have nothing of substance to offer and zero convictions.
We will delete any spammy things like product ads or sex stuff. Also, any sort of doxing is a big no-no. People have the right to privacy. My associates in the police department (two of which are fans of this blog and Trump supporters, go figure) regularly monitor my traffic and will be all over anyone who doxxes.
With that, comment away!
The Meme Heard 'Round The World
This morning, I posted this meme on Reddit.
And my karma points exploded. The best comment?
They know. These aren't stupid people, well I guess they are but you know what I'm saying. They would rather be on a sinking ship with an inept captain than admit that they were wrong.
Indeed. Hubris and ego are big problems with the right. I'm certain that some of them really believe that socialism in any form is evil. But most just want to "win" and be "right."
The cognitive dissonance that is going to occur if Bernie is the nominee and wins is going to cause some of these folks to go fucking batshit. They are going to whip themselves up into such a lather that we may have to hold them down as their lives improve. It sort of reminds me of a little kid who doesn't want to take his medicine.
Do these assholes honestly think that people don't travel outside of the country anymore?
And my karma points exploded. The best comment?
They know. These aren't stupid people, well I guess they are but you know what I'm saying. They would rather be on a sinking ship with an inept captain than admit that they were wrong.
Indeed. Hubris and ego are big problems with the right. I'm certain that some of them really believe that socialism in any form is evil. But most just want to "win" and be "right."
The cognitive dissonance that is going to occur if Bernie is the nominee and wins is going to cause some of these folks to go fucking batshit. They are going to whip themselves up into such a lather that we may have to hold them down as their lives improve. It sort of reminds me of a little kid who doesn't want to take his medicine.
Do these assholes honestly think that people don't travel outside of the country anymore?
Friday, February 14, 2020
The Chest Thumping, Insecure Nonsense of Kevin Baker and His Merry Band of Authoritarians
The Democrats are a near lock to win the electoral college in 2020. How do we know this? Look no further than Rachel "the Doc" Bitcofer.
A recent piece in Politico has elevated her to national recognition and I highly recommend following her on Twitter as well as examining her model for 2020. Bitecofer saw some basic facts in the election of 2016 and was able to correctly predict the outcome of the 2018 election down to the seat. She also predicted Virginia in 2019. Those facts say that for the first time in history, Republicans lost the white, male, college educated voted in 2016. Trump's path to the White House, as she puts it, "which was the political equivalent of getting dealt a Royal Flush in poker, is probably not replicable in 2020 with an agitated Democratic electorate."
There is no such thing as a "swing" voter anymore. Not in this age of hyper-partisan politics. It's all about turnout and any of the top candidates in the Democratic field are going to destroy Trump.
So, when I read the chest thumping, insecure nonsense of Kevin Baker, quoting a likely Russian trollbot, I just shook my head. Projection. Again. Some things never change.
Because the shock is going to be entirely on his side of the aisle when he can't seem to fathom, the day after the election, how Trump lost. And so badly. Likely, he, along with other Trump supporters, will blame the media and the elites and others they are all jealous of but in the final analysis, it's going to come down to the simple fact that there are more of us that are going to vote than there are Trump voters.
Bernie has a fucking army. Young people will turn out for him by the millions. Mayor Pete will turn out moderates and a whole new generation of voters. Amy Klobuchar will pull the Democrats who voted for Trump back into the fold. Bloomberg, even if he isn't the nominee, will spend billions to defeat Trump. Kevin, do you not understand what you are up against?
Kevin et al, I would suggest seeking therapy for your issues with people that are successful, intelligent, accomplished and do things to help people (i.e Democrats and the few Republicans left who aren't Trumpified). You guys have built an entire political ideology around petty insecurity, irrational jealousy, feelings of inferiority and inadequacies, and childish bullying. Your party is fucking done. You just don’t see it yet.
Moreover, your party has become an authoritarian cult and you are cheering it on. History has not been kind to leaders and supporters of such endeavors. I’d recommend changing your tune fairly quickly if you don’t want your life to be miserable.
And I'd recommend following the Doc on Twitter. I realize the cognitive dissonance might be too much for you but it will ease pain of what's coming. It will also help you remember that happened in 2018 and 2019.
A recent piece in Politico has elevated her to national recognition and I highly recommend following her on Twitter as well as examining her model for 2020. Bitecofer saw some basic facts in the election of 2016 and was able to correctly predict the outcome of the 2018 election down to the seat. She also predicted Virginia in 2019. Those facts say that for the first time in history, Republicans lost the white, male, college educated voted in 2016. Trump's path to the White House, as she puts it, "which was the political equivalent of getting dealt a Royal Flush in poker, is probably not replicable in 2020 with an agitated Democratic electorate."
There is no such thing as a "swing" voter anymore. Not in this age of hyper-partisan politics. It's all about turnout and any of the top candidates in the Democratic field are going to destroy Trump.
So, when I read the chest thumping, insecure nonsense of Kevin Baker, quoting a likely Russian trollbot, I just shook my head. Projection. Again. Some things never change.
Because the shock is going to be entirely on his side of the aisle when he can't seem to fathom, the day after the election, how Trump lost. And so badly. Likely, he, along with other Trump supporters, will blame the media and the elites and others they are all jealous of but in the final analysis, it's going to come down to the simple fact that there are more of us that are going to vote than there are Trump voters.
Bernie has a fucking army. Young people will turn out for him by the millions. Mayor Pete will turn out moderates and a whole new generation of voters. Amy Klobuchar will pull the Democrats who voted for Trump back into the fold. Bloomberg, even if he isn't the nominee, will spend billions to defeat Trump. Kevin, do you not understand what you are up against?
Kevin et al, I would suggest seeking therapy for your issues with people that are successful, intelligent, accomplished and do things to help people (i.e Democrats and the few Republicans left who aren't Trumpified). You guys have built an entire political ideology around petty insecurity, irrational jealousy, feelings of inferiority and inadequacies, and childish bullying. Your party is fucking done. You just don’t see it yet.
Moreover, your party has become an authoritarian cult and you are cheering it on. History has not been kind to leaders and supporters of such endeavors. I’d recommend changing your tune fairly quickly if you don’t want your life to be miserable.
And I'd recommend following the Doc on Twitter. I realize the cognitive dissonance might be too much for you but it will ease pain of what's coming. It will also help you remember that happened in 2018 and 2019.
Wednesday, February 12, 2020
What's the Real Reason Parasite Could Win?
There have been dozens of stories in the news about Parasite being the first non-English language film to win the best picture Oscar. Few believed it could win because of an insurmountable hurdle: it's in Korean with subtitles.
I haven't seen this movie, or any of the other nominees for that matter, so I can't comment on the artistic content. But I can address the issue of subtitles.
This prejudice against subtitles has always baffled me. People complain that subtitles and closed captions are bad because they take your eyes away from the action, or the surprise is "spoiled" because the text appears before the actor speaks the words.
I turn on closed captions in English language shows all the time. My hearing is slightly damaged, but I don't want to expose myself to loud sounds because they'll just damage my hearing further. So when there's a background noise, like the dishwasher running, I turn on captions.
And on the completely altruistic side, I turn them on when my wife is sleeping.
Then there are production problems in some shows: sometimes the music or sound effects drown out the dialog and it's impossible to tell what the actors are saying. Sometimes the actors have accents that are difficult to understand -- usually English actors with regional accents in BBC shows.
This prejudice against subtitles gets a little ridiculous. My dad has severe hearing loss but refuses to wear hearing aids. He watches TV with headphones turned up to 11, but won't turn on closed captioning. Which is required by the FCC for people just like him.
(I do have one complaint about closed captioning, however: it's often riddled with errors. They seem to use automatic voice recognition on a lot of shows, and the text produced is often missing words, or misunderstands what was actually said.)
Then there are shows that make creative use of subtitles. The first series I noticed doing this was Heroes, which featured long conversations between two Japanese characters. The subtitles were often deployed inventively in different locations around the screen, almost like speech bubbles in comic books.
In the case of non-English language films, some people say they prefer dubbing in English because subtitles are too "distracting." But for me, the mismatch between the words on the audio track and the actors' mouths is far more irritating (like the infamous Godzilla dubs). Frequently the intonation or emotional content of the English language track doesn't match the scene, or is over the top, or the voice actor they chose just doesn't fit the character. Sometimes the English dubbing or translation sounds so stupid that it completely ruins the scene.
In short, I would much rather see the film as the original writer, director, and actor intended it to be seen, without interference from another writer, another director, and another voice actor, all of whom were hired by the studio in what always seems to be a rush job.
There have been many suppositions as to why a film with subtitles was finally able to win an Oscar: it's the Netflix effect (they have a lot of popular non-English shows with subtitles), or the FCC's closed captioning mandate.
Admittedly, there is a downside to subtitles: they don't help slow readers, dyslexics or the illiterate. I wouldn't want to stigmatize people who don't like subtitles, but it's true that captions require a certain facility with the written word.
But I think a large part of it is that the voters in the Academy are like average Americans who are just getting older and harder of hearing, and like me are using closed captioning every day.
I haven't seen this movie, or any of the other nominees for that matter, so I can't comment on the artistic content. But I can address the issue of subtitles.
This prejudice against subtitles has always baffled me. People complain that subtitles and closed captions are bad because they take your eyes away from the action, or the surprise is "spoiled" because the text appears before the actor speaks the words.
I turn on closed captions in English language shows all the time. My hearing is slightly damaged, but I don't want to expose myself to loud sounds because they'll just damage my hearing further. So when there's a background noise, like the dishwasher running, I turn on captions.
And on the completely altruistic side, I turn them on when my wife is sleeping.
Then there are production problems in some shows: sometimes the music or sound effects drown out the dialog and it's impossible to tell what the actors are saying. Sometimes the actors have accents that are difficult to understand -- usually English actors with regional accents in BBC shows.
This prejudice against subtitles gets a little ridiculous. My dad has severe hearing loss but refuses to wear hearing aids. He watches TV with headphones turned up to 11, but won't turn on closed captioning. Which is required by the FCC for people just like him.
(I do have one complaint about closed captioning, however: it's often riddled with errors. They seem to use automatic voice recognition on a lot of shows, and the text produced is often missing words, or misunderstands what was actually said.)
Then there are shows that make creative use of subtitles. The first series I noticed doing this was Heroes, which featured long conversations between two Japanese characters. The subtitles were often deployed inventively in different locations around the screen, almost like speech bubbles in comic books.
In the case of non-English language films, some people say they prefer dubbing in English because subtitles are too "distracting." But for me, the mismatch between the words on the audio track and the actors' mouths is far more irritating (like the infamous Godzilla dubs). Frequently the intonation or emotional content of the English language track doesn't match the scene, or is over the top, or the voice actor they chose just doesn't fit the character. Sometimes the English dubbing or translation sounds so stupid that it completely ruins the scene.
In short, I would much rather see the film as the original writer, director, and actor intended it to be seen, without interference from another writer, another director, and another voice actor, all of whom were hired by the studio in what always seems to be a rush job.
There have been many suppositions as to why a film with subtitles was finally able to win an Oscar: it's the Netflix effect (they have a lot of popular non-English shows with subtitles), or the FCC's closed captioning mandate.
Admittedly, there is a downside to subtitles: they don't help slow readers, dyslexics or the illiterate. I wouldn't want to stigmatize people who don't like subtitles, but it's true that captions require a certain facility with the written word.
But I think a large part of it is that the voters in the Academy are like average Americans who are just getting older and harder of hearing, and like me are using closed captioning every day.
Sunday, February 09, 2020
Saturday, February 08, 2020
The Best Campaign Ad of 2020
Run it over and over again the swing states. The guy is not mentally fit for office.
Friday, February 07, 2020
How To Win A News Cycle
The Age of Donald Trump has brought many lessons to politicians and pundits all across America. One such lesson is how to win a news cycle. Trump does this very well. He knows that if he does something obnoxious, people will either praise him or condemn him. As long as they are talking about him and he is in the news-ALL of the news-it doesn't matter what he did.
Nancy Pelosi has learned this lesson very well. She knew the cameras were on her when she tore up Trump's SOTU speech. Now, everyone is talking about that and not his speech. Fox News has been wall to wall on the Great Pelosi Shredding and their dear leader is nowhere to be found. Even Kevin Baker had to put up a post about it.
More importantly, it seems all right wing news and information outlets do these days is troll liberals (and Mitt Romney now that he grew a pair of balls and chose country over party). I was watching Fox News the other night when I was on the treadmill at the gym and all they did was show clips from CNN and MSNBC. Free air time? Really?
It seems to me that conservatives should put forth their own ideas and convictions...oh wait...sorry...I can't type anymore because I'm ROTF and LMFAO. Conservatives have no ideas anymore and have only one conviction.
Trolling liberals.
What the fuck do you guys even stand for?
Nancy Pelosi has learned this lesson very well. She knew the cameras were on her when she tore up Trump's SOTU speech. Now, everyone is talking about that and not his speech. Fox News has been wall to wall on the Great Pelosi Shredding and their dear leader is nowhere to be found. Even Kevin Baker had to put up a post about it.
More importantly, it seems all right wing news and information outlets do these days is troll liberals (and Mitt Romney now that he grew a pair of balls and chose country over party). I was watching Fox News the other night when I was on the treadmill at the gym and all they did was show clips from CNN and MSNBC. Free air time? Really?
It seems to me that conservatives should put forth their own ideas and convictions...oh wait...sorry...I can't type anymore because I'm ROTF and LMFAO. Conservatives have no ideas anymore and have only one conviction.
Trolling liberals.
What the fuck do you guys even stand for?
Wednesday, February 05, 2020
The Trump Cult Doesn't Get It
The Trump Cult has one very big tell when it comes to the general election and it's their fall back position on everything.
Trolling.
They think they have liberals pegged as naive about Trump's chances in the general election. They assume that because we all thought Trump would lose in 2016 (as did Trump himself and most conservatives) that our predictions of him getting his ass kicked in the fall by any of the top candidates is the same naivete. It's not and here's why.
Trump barely won in 2016 by roughly 80, 000 votes in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. He squeaked by. The Cult will have you believe that it was some sort of mammoth victory for them but, just like the "millions" that showed up for Trump's inauguration, it's pure fantasy.
Further, The Cult has to have the twice Obama voter go for Trump again this November or it ain't gonna happen. That one really causes some cognitive dissonance for them. They don't get that 2016 was a "fuck you" election and if anyone other than Hillary was the nominee, Trump would be running his own streaming service now and fleecing them for $8.99 a month. 2020 is going to be a different sort of election and not a repeat of 2016.
Any of the top contenders can wipe the floor up with Trump given his how detrimental his words and actions are to those twice Obama voters. They are sick of his bullshit and they will vote for Biden, Mayor Pete, Bernie or Warren. Honestly, they really only need a few votes in the Rust Belt and that's it. All of those candidates bring large constituencies with them and they are going to turn out to vote against Trump.
They did it in 2018. They did it in 2019 in red states. They will do it again this year.
Trolling.
They think they have liberals pegged as naive about Trump's chances in the general election. They assume that because we all thought Trump would lose in 2016 (as did Trump himself and most conservatives) that our predictions of him getting his ass kicked in the fall by any of the top candidates is the same naivete. It's not and here's why.
Trump barely won in 2016 by roughly 80, 000 votes in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. He squeaked by. The Cult will have you believe that it was some sort of mammoth victory for them but, just like the "millions" that showed up for Trump's inauguration, it's pure fantasy.
Further, The Cult has to have the twice Obama voter go for Trump again this November or it ain't gonna happen. That one really causes some cognitive dissonance for them. They don't get that 2016 was a "fuck you" election and if anyone other than Hillary was the nominee, Trump would be running his own streaming service now and fleecing them for $8.99 a month. 2020 is going to be a different sort of election and not a repeat of 2016.
Any of the top contenders can wipe the floor up with Trump given his how detrimental his words and actions are to those twice Obama voters. They are sick of his bullshit and they will vote for Biden, Mayor Pete, Bernie or Warren. Honestly, they really only need a few votes in the Rust Belt and that's it. All of those candidates bring large constituencies with them and they are going to turn out to vote against Trump.
They did it in 2018. They did it in 2019 in red states. They will do it again this year.
Tuesday, February 04, 2020
The Very Predictable Iowa Caucus Disaster
Twenty years ago George Bush won the presidency by a single vote on the Supreme Court. Florida had botched the election by using punch cards in the polling booth, requiring voters to poke holes in a card, a card that was easily misaligned. The Court stopped a recount in Florida that would have almost certainly resulted in Al Gore winning the presidency.
It was clear then that there's only one valid way to register votes: on bubble sheets that can be quickly counted by mark-sense readers, or by humans if the machines aren't working, and to audit the machine-read results.
But companies saw a way to make a lot of cash: they sold the idea of using computers at the polls to a lot of states. This was a horrible idea, for dozens of reasons, but the main reason is this: elections only happen every year or two.
These computers are expensive and only get used for one or two days a year (or two weeks, in states that now allow early voting). The software is non-trivial and is only used once every couple of years, is difficult to test under actual conditions, and needs to be modified upon every use. Maintaining the hardware and operating system is a gargantuan job. All those computers are easy targets for hacking, so operational security is difficult at best, and impossible at worst. Worse, in every election since then there have thousands of complaints that the voting machines incorrectly count votes: touchscreens that registered a vote for a Republican when the voter selected a Democrat.
And all this is supposed to happen on city and county budgets, which are constantly hamstrung for cash, especially compared to things that happen on a daily basis, like fixing potholes and paying cops' and firefighters' salaries.
The last presidential election was severely disrupted by Russian hacking, and Donald Trump won because of that hacking.
So what moron decided they should write an app to register votes at the Iowa caucuses? What were they thinking? "Hey, let's give the Russians another chance to hack the election!"
To avoid that, they thought they could keep the app a big secret, and release it just before the caucuses to prevent said Russian hacking. What were they thinking? "Let's have an app that no one's ever seen and that's never been tested under life-like conditions decide who the next Democratic nominee is!"
To be fair, Iowa did have voters fill out presidential preference cards, so they should have a paper backup. But these are all administered in chaotic settings like high-schools gyms and cafeterias, usually by elderly people, so just how reliable is this system?
Then there's the problem with caucuses in the first place. Minnesota, where I live, used to have them for selecting the president, and in 2016 they were a disaster. Everyone wanted to go, and because everyone had to be there at exactly the same time, there wasn't even enough street capacity to accommodate all the cars going to the caucus: I sat in traffic in the same spot for 20 minutes until I finally I gave up and parked several blocks away.
Also, only certain kinds of people attend caucuses: party apparatchiks and driven, single-issue partisans. People just interested in selecting the candidate most likely to win are discouraged from coming.
For all these reasons, caucuses should be dropped in favor of presidential primaries that are run with the same rigor as general elections (rigor that should be improved with bubble-sheet voting). The selection of the next president should not be entrusted to party hacks and rabid pro- or con-abortion partisans browbeating their neighbors at caucus.
Minnesota has adopted such a presidential primary system, and all states should do so.
Republicans are having a field day with the Democrats' botched Iowa caucus. But the Republicans have completely abandoned democracy -- in Minnesota they completely prevented other candidates from running in the Republican primary, so Trump will be the only name on the Republican ballot -- just like the good old Soviet Union.
Minnesota will still have party caucuses to decide other issues and let candidates for local offices talk directly to the voters, but Minnesota Republicans refuse to announce where their caucuses will be, because they don't want anyone coming they don't control to bitch about Trump.
Finally, the idea that Iowa and New Hampshire should always get first shot at selecting the president is utterly bogus: those states do not represent the country in any meaningful way, and they should not get this outsized advantage that results from the extra attention that candidates pay them. There should be six to eight "Super Tuesdays" during primary season, and states should rotate among those every two years.
It was clear then that there's only one valid way to register votes: on bubble sheets that can be quickly counted by mark-sense readers, or by humans if the machines aren't working, and to audit the machine-read results.
But companies saw a way to make a lot of cash: they sold the idea of using computers at the polls to a lot of states. This was a horrible idea, for dozens of reasons, but the main reason is this: elections only happen every year or two.
These computers are expensive and only get used for one or two days a year (or two weeks, in states that now allow early voting). The software is non-trivial and is only used once every couple of years, is difficult to test under actual conditions, and needs to be modified upon every use. Maintaining the hardware and operating system is a gargantuan job. All those computers are easy targets for hacking, so operational security is difficult at best, and impossible at worst. Worse, in every election since then there have thousands of complaints that the voting machines incorrectly count votes: touchscreens that registered a vote for a Republican when the voter selected a Democrat.
And all this is supposed to happen on city and county budgets, which are constantly hamstrung for cash, especially compared to things that happen on a daily basis, like fixing potholes and paying cops' and firefighters' salaries.
The last presidential election was severely disrupted by Russian hacking, and Donald Trump won because of that hacking.
So what moron decided they should write an app to register votes at the Iowa caucuses? What were they thinking? "Hey, let's give the Russians another chance to hack the election!"
To avoid that, they thought they could keep the app a big secret, and release it just before the caucuses to prevent said Russian hacking. What were they thinking? "Let's have an app that no one's ever seen and that's never been tested under life-like conditions decide who the next Democratic nominee is!"
To be fair, Iowa did have voters fill out presidential preference cards, so they should have a paper backup. But these are all administered in chaotic settings like high-schools gyms and cafeterias, usually by elderly people, so just how reliable is this system?
Then there's the problem with caucuses in the first place. Minnesota, where I live, used to have them for selecting the president, and in 2016 they were a disaster. Everyone wanted to go, and because everyone had to be there at exactly the same time, there wasn't even enough street capacity to accommodate all the cars going to the caucus: I sat in traffic in the same spot for 20 minutes until I finally I gave up and parked several blocks away.
Also, only certain kinds of people attend caucuses: party apparatchiks and driven, single-issue partisans. People just interested in selecting the candidate most likely to win are discouraged from coming.
For all these reasons, caucuses should be dropped in favor of presidential primaries that are run with the same rigor as general elections (rigor that should be improved with bubble-sheet voting). The selection of the next president should not be entrusted to party hacks and rabid pro- or con-abortion partisans browbeating their neighbors at caucus.
Minnesota has adopted such a presidential primary system, and all states should do so.
Republicans are having a field day with the Democrats' botched Iowa caucus. But the Republicans have completely abandoned democracy -- in Minnesota they completely prevented other candidates from running in the Republican primary, so Trump will be the only name on the Republican ballot -- just like the good old Soviet Union.
Minnesota will still have party caucuses to decide other issues and let candidates for local offices talk directly to the voters, but Minnesota Republicans refuse to announce where their caucuses will be, because they don't want anyone coming they don't control to bitch about Trump.
Finally, the idea that Iowa and New Hampshire should always get first shot at selecting the president is utterly bogus: those states do not represent the country in any meaningful way, and they should not get this outsized advantage that results from the extra attention that candidates pay them. There should be six to eight "Super Tuesdays" during primary season, and states should rotate among those every two years.
Saturday, February 01, 2020
Friday, January 31, 2020
A Projection of Cognitive Dissonance
Supporters of Donald Trump love to engage in projection. They accuse the rest of the country of doing the very thing they do. In the case of a recent comment by Kevin Baker, high priest in the Church of the Climate Denier, he illustrates how this works.
So, still delusional. I'm not sure what's going to happen to him when the cognitive dissonance strikes in November. He may vapor-lock. But I doubt it. His mastery of rationalization is remarkable, really.
This was in response to a recent post in which I stated the following.
The House was lost and will stay that way because of Trump. In fact, you guys are going to lose more seats there and the Senate as well. Heck, you’ve already lost state houses and governorships because you have hitched your wagon to a buffoon.
Let's take a look at a few key facts.
-The 2018 election flipped the US House back to the Democrats. This was an off year election and voter turnout approached 50%. They netted 40 seats and now have a 35 seat majority.
-Democrats flipped seven governorships in 2018. They flipped one in 2019 (Kentucky) and held on to another one in a deep red state (Louisiana).
-Democrats saw a net gain of five legislative chambers.So, Democrats had a net gain of five state government triplexes and Republicans had a net reduction of four triplexes. Democrats had a net gain of 308 state legislative seats and Republicans had a net loss 296 seats.
-Virginia is now entirely controlled by the Democrats who ran on gun safety. They are poised to pass sweeping new gun laws that are anathema to gun rights activists like Kevin.
Why did all of this happen? Two words.
Donald Trump.
His support was poison in all of these elections. People are tired of him and largely view him as yet another politician who breaks his promises. Remember the promise to drain the swamp? His recent actions with Ukraine, hiding his taxes, rolling back EPA standards, locking up children and generally acting like a king are all quite swampy.
It doesn't matter who the nominee is. Any of them are going to kick his ass in the fall. Of course, this assumes he will make it that far. I think there is a good chance he won't. I see him quitting, having health issues, or completely losing his shit when his tax returns are released in June of this year.
So, Kevin, why are YOU rationalizing the 2018 and 2019 elections? What's going to happen to YOU in the fall when cognitive dissonance strikes? After all, your Republican brain has been scientifically proven to have the most problems with cognitive dissonance.
As always, I welcome a debate with you on any online platform if you ever decide to come out of your safe space.
So, still delusional. I'm not sure what's going to happen to him when the cognitive dissonance strikes in November. He may vapor-lock. But I doubt it. His mastery of rationalization is remarkable, really.
This was in response to a recent post in which I stated the following.
The House was lost and will stay that way because of Trump. In fact, you guys are going to lose more seats there and the Senate as well. Heck, you’ve already lost state houses and governorships because you have hitched your wagon to a buffoon.
Let's take a look at a few key facts.
-The 2018 election flipped the US House back to the Democrats. This was an off year election and voter turnout approached 50%. They netted 40 seats and now have a 35 seat majority.
-Democrats flipped seven governorships in 2018. They flipped one in 2019 (Kentucky) and held on to another one in a deep red state (Louisiana).
-Democrats saw a net gain of five legislative chambers.So, Democrats had a net gain of five state government triplexes and Republicans had a net reduction of four triplexes. Democrats had a net gain of 308 state legislative seats and Republicans had a net loss 296 seats.
-Virginia is now entirely controlled by the Democrats who ran on gun safety. They are poised to pass sweeping new gun laws that are anathema to gun rights activists like Kevin.
Why did all of this happen? Two words.
Donald Trump.
His support was poison in all of these elections. People are tired of him and largely view him as yet another politician who breaks his promises. Remember the promise to drain the swamp? His recent actions with Ukraine, hiding his taxes, rolling back EPA standards, locking up children and generally acting like a king are all quite swampy.
It doesn't matter who the nominee is. Any of them are going to kick his ass in the fall. Of course, this assumes he will make it that far. I think there is a good chance he won't. I see him quitting, having health issues, or completely losing his shit when his tax returns are released in June of this year.
So, Kevin, why are YOU rationalizing the 2018 and 2019 elections? What's going to happen to YOU in the fall when cognitive dissonance strikes? After all, your Republican brain has been scientifically proven to have the most problems with cognitive dissonance.
As always, I welcome a debate with you on any online platform if you ever decide to come out of your safe space.
Thursday, January 30, 2020
Reason #524 Why Trump Should Be Impeached
Donald Trump was impeached because he tried to blackmail the president of Ukraine into phonying up some dirt on Joe Biden and his son, but that's not the only reason Trump should be removed from office.
His argument against impeachment has boiled down to this: removing him as president would be a national security risk.
The fact is, Trump is the nation's biggest security risk. Within a few months of assuming the presidency he had the Russians over to the Oval Office and blabbed a bunch of classified information, exposing an Israeli intelligence source.
He regularly has phone calls with dictators like Duterte of the Philippines and Erdogan of Turkey, stupidly blabbing confidential information in an attempt to impress them with his power. He discusses national security issues with international leaders in public at Mar a Lago, the same place where a Chinese spy was caught bugging the place.
And he is constantly being recorded by people he's working with, including Lev Parnas, the guy was helping Trump to extort the Ukrainians, Michael Cohen, his former lawyer and fixer, and Omarosa, who apparently was hired because Trump thought that would get him cred with African-Americans. The Daily Show has a humorous compendium of these security breaches, starting here at 9:46.
The secret recording that started this all was the one on the bus where he bragged about grabbing pussy. That impulse to brag and puff himself up is a disastrous character flaw in a president privy to the nation's most important secrets.
What isn't the CIA telling Trump, because they know he'll run off and call Putin to brag?
This man is the most incompetent person to ever hold the presidency. He cannot be trusted to keep his mouth shut about anything. Whether this is due to senility or an overweening urge to constantly try to impress people about how important he is, it doesn't matter.
This clown has got to go.
His argument against impeachment has boiled down to this: removing him as president would be a national security risk.
The fact is, Trump is the nation's biggest security risk. Within a few months of assuming the presidency he had the Russians over to the Oval Office and blabbed a bunch of classified information, exposing an Israeli intelligence source.
He regularly has phone calls with dictators like Duterte of the Philippines and Erdogan of Turkey, stupidly blabbing confidential information in an attempt to impress them with his power. He discusses national security issues with international leaders in public at Mar a Lago, the same place where a Chinese spy was caught bugging the place.
And he is constantly being recorded by people he's working with, including Lev Parnas, the guy was helping Trump to extort the Ukrainians, Michael Cohen, his former lawyer and fixer, and Omarosa, who apparently was hired because Trump thought that would get him cred with African-Americans. The Daily Show has a humorous compendium of these security breaches, starting here at 9:46.
The secret recording that started this all was the one on the bus where he bragged about grabbing pussy. That impulse to brag and puff himself up is a disastrous character flaw in a president privy to the nation's most important secrets.
What isn't the CIA telling Trump, because they know he'll run off and call Putin to brag?
This man is the most incompetent person to ever hold the presidency. He cannot be trusted to keep his mouth shut about anything. Whether this is due to senility or an overweening urge to constantly try to impress people about how important he is, it doesn't matter.
This clown has got to go.
Wednesday, January 29, 2020
Climate Change Denier Won’t Leave Safe Space
In looking at the comments of his now disproven post regarding climate change, Kevin Baker is still incapable of leaving his safe space to face actual scientists who make fact based arguments. I get that he has a personal issue with me but to shut out reality that much and be so afraid to actually engage someone...anyone...who even has a rudimentary knowledge of science tells me that doesn’t really believe what he is saying and just peddling propaganda at this point. Speaking of which...
1. McConnell doesn’t have the votes to deny witnesses. Ain’t over yet, bub.
2. Assuming Trump makes it the election (doubtful for many reasons), he’s going to get his ass kicked by any of the top nominees.
3. The House was lost and will stay that way because of Trump. In fact, you guys are going to lose more seats there and the Senate as well. Heck, you’ve already lost state houses and governorships because you have hitched your wagon to a buffoon.
Dude, you are going to be in for a tough year if you keep defaulting to troll...
1. McConnell doesn’t have the votes to deny witnesses. Ain’t over yet, bub.
2. Assuming Trump makes it the election (doubtful for many reasons), he’s going to get his ass kicked by any of the top nominees.
3. The House was lost and will stay that way because of Trump. In fact, you guys are going to lose more seats there and the Senate as well. Heck, you’ve already lost state houses and governorships because you have hitched your wagon to a buffoon.
Dude, you are going to be in for a tough year if you keep defaulting to troll...
Tuesday, January 28, 2020
The President Is A Coward
The president of the United States is a coward. A fucking coward.
I never thought I would say this about a person in that office but it’s true of Donald Trump. He and his fellow toadies in the GOP know that witnesses mean the truth will be impossible to ignore. Nixon may have been cowardly but at least he had the sack to resign.
I feel a great deal of pity for the people that still support him. They’ve traded the dignity of the office for a few extra bucks, judges who vote with liberals nearly half the time, and glee at trolling liberals.
Pathetic...
I feel a great deal of pity for the people that still support him. They’ve traded the dignity of the office for a few extra bucks, judges who vote with liberals nearly half the time, and glee at trolling liberals.
Pathetic...
Monday, January 27, 2020
Climate Change Denier Pwned
As promised, I will be challenging Kevin Baker on his AGW denial. His most recent post puts forth four assertions. Here are each of them completely destroyed, one by one.
"Actual proof isn't necessary because by the time we have it it will be too late to fix"
This is several variations of nonsensical arguments, the taxonomy of which can be found here. The links are filled with mountains of evidence detailing all the proof that is necessary. For example, take a look at this link, "there is no empirical evidence." Click on the intermediate tab (you too, Kevin. You are a scientist, after all, right? You should be able to understand the language) and see the actual proof.
"The only solution is central planning by a world government run by our intellectual superiors."
This has been said by no one in the scientific community. It's a made-up crazy Internet lie put forth by people that have deep psychological issues with authority. Every time I ask for evidence of this, I get mouth foaming, anger, links that lead to looney web sites, and accusations of naivete.
People that accept the science of climate change want the public and private sector to work together to shift our energy usage to renewables. Carbon taxes would be a start. After that, it's up to the private sector. What Kevin hilariously ignores is that it's already happening. Sorry, buddy, but you don't get to play totalitarian fantasy games today:(
"People who oppose this are "deniers" who should be shut up at any cost"
False. And there really aren't many credentialed deniers out there, despite this other myth.
"There are too many people anyway, and a mass die-off would be good for the planet."
And the evidence of this is...where? In your ass? People say all sorts of crazy things on the internet, Kevin. You of all people should not believe everything you read on there:)
"the glaciers in Glacier National Park that were supposed to be gone this year are still running strong."
Wow, this is just a big fucking lie.
In 2017, the USGS published a time series analysis of the glacier margins of the named glaciers of Glacier National Park . The areas measured are from 1966, 1998, 2005 and 2015/2016, marking approximately 50 years of change in glacier area. Scientists used aerial photography and satellite imagery to measure the perimeters of the glaciers in late summer when seasonal snow had melted to reveal the extent of the glacial ice. The data table shows that all glaciers have been reduced in area since 1966 with some glaciers having been reduced by as much as 85% by 2015. The average area reduction over the approximately 50-year period is 39%. Currently, only 26 glaciers are larger than 0.1 square kilometers (25 acres) which is used as a guideline for deciding if bodies of ice are large enough to be considered glaciers.
Seriously, what the fuck is the matter with you? When you read facts like this, does your head get all splodey and stuff?
"Michael Mann lost his defamation lawsuit because he still wouldn't release the raw data he used to produce his infamous "hockey stick" global temperature graph."
I've searched all over for this "loss" and the only thing I found was this. And this. From the second link...
Stay tuned to see whether the trial court ultimately agrees. This case began in 2012, and is unlikely to conclude any time soon.
Again, WTF are you talking about, Kevin?
Regarding the hockey stick nonsense, click here.
While many continue to fixate on Mann's early work on proxy records, the science of paleoclimatology has moved on. Since 1999, there have been many independent reconstructions of past temperatures, using a variety of proxy data and a number of different methodologies. All find the same result - that the last few decades are the hottest in the last 500 to 2000 years (depending on how far back the reconstruction goes).
Raw data is here. So, that's another lie torpedoed.
Kevin, you are going to have to do much better than these weak assertions. That was too easy!
"Actual proof isn't necessary because by the time we have it it will be too late to fix"
This is several variations of nonsensical arguments, the taxonomy of which can be found here. The links are filled with mountains of evidence detailing all the proof that is necessary. For example, take a look at this link, "there is no empirical evidence." Click on the intermediate tab (you too, Kevin. You are a scientist, after all, right? You should be able to understand the language) and see the actual proof.
"The only solution is central planning by a world government run by our intellectual superiors."
This has been said by no one in the scientific community. It's a made-up crazy Internet lie put forth by people that have deep psychological issues with authority. Every time I ask for evidence of this, I get mouth foaming, anger, links that lead to looney web sites, and accusations of naivete.
People that accept the science of climate change want the public and private sector to work together to shift our energy usage to renewables. Carbon taxes would be a start. After that, it's up to the private sector. What Kevin hilariously ignores is that it's already happening. Sorry, buddy, but you don't get to play totalitarian fantasy games today:(
"People who oppose this are "deniers" who should be shut up at any cost"
False. And there really aren't many credentialed deniers out there, despite this other myth.
"There are too many people anyway, and a mass die-off would be good for the planet."
And the evidence of this is...where? In your ass? People say all sorts of crazy things on the internet, Kevin. You of all people should not believe everything you read on there:)
"the glaciers in Glacier National Park that were supposed to be gone this year are still running strong."
Wow, this is just a big fucking lie.
In 2017, the USGS published a time series analysis of the glacier margins of the named glaciers of Glacier National Park . The areas measured are from 1966, 1998, 2005 and 2015/2016, marking approximately 50 years of change in glacier area. Scientists used aerial photography and satellite imagery to measure the perimeters of the glaciers in late summer when seasonal snow had melted to reveal the extent of the glacial ice. The data table shows that all glaciers have been reduced in area since 1966 with some glaciers having been reduced by as much as 85% by 2015. The average area reduction over the approximately 50-year period is 39%. Currently, only 26 glaciers are larger than 0.1 square kilometers (25 acres) which is used as a guideline for deciding if bodies of ice are large enough to be considered glaciers.
Seriously, what the fuck is the matter with you? When you read facts like this, does your head get all splodey and stuff?
"Michael Mann lost his defamation lawsuit because he still wouldn't release the raw data he used to produce his infamous "hockey stick" global temperature graph."
I've searched all over for this "loss" and the only thing I found was this. And this. From the second link...
Stay tuned to see whether the trial court ultimately agrees. This case began in 2012, and is unlikely to conclude any time soon.
Again, WTF are you talking about, Kevin?
Regarding the hockey stick nonsense, click here.
While many continue to fixate on Mann's early work on proxy records, the science of paleoclimatology has moved on. Since 1999, there have been many independent reconstructions of past temperatures, using a variety of proxy data and a number of different methodologies. All find the same result - that the last few decades are the hottest in the last 500 to 2000 years (depending on how far back the reconstruction goes).
Raw data is here. So, that's another lie torpedoed.
Kevin, you are going to have to do much better than these weak assertions. That was too easy!
Sunday, January 26, 2020
Climate Change Challenge Rejected For Safe Space
I recently challenged science denier Kevin Baker to a debate on climate change. He commented on the challenge with his usual personal remarks (not allowed on this blog so it was not published) and declined the invitation. He also linked to a straw man argument that he and his commenters created about me that is 11 years old.
His comment made me reflect on the time I got voted off the blog (by one vote). In the voting post, a commenter remarked how they wanted Kevin's blog to be a place where they could retreat from the outside world (of facts) and just be free (of reality) or something like that. I've thought about that comment for a while and it always cracks me up. Even right-wingers need their safe spaces!
Kevin clearly needs such a safe space from the science of climate change but there is really no hiding from it. Climate deniers can make up whatever nonsense they want but it's all been refuted by the science. So, every time Kevin lies about climate change, I will be responding here and here on Reddit. I will use facts and peer-reviewed evidence to show that his assertions are completely wrong. He has an open invitation to respond but I don't think he will. As with many subjects, he engages with reasonable people outside his blog, doesn't like what he hears, and then retreats to his own blog to get back pats. Where is his mettle?
Sadly, he has allowed his personal emotions about liberals cloud his judgement and transform his views into an incoherent and paranoid mess. Worse, he is basically giving the middle finger to his own children and grandchildren who are going to have to live in a world with the number one threat (as identified by the Department of Defense) ignored due to adolescent feelings about authority.
The bottom line is that I'm going to call him on his bullshit about climate change whether he shows up to defend himself or not. He is welcome at any time to discover who understands the logic and reason of science and can defend it.
His comment made me reflect on the time I got voted off the blog (by one vote). In the voting post, a commenter remarked how they wanted Kevin's blog to be a place where they could retreat from the outside world (of facts) and just be free (of reality) or something like that. I've thought about that comment for a while and it always cracks me up. Even right-wingers need their safe spaces!
Kevin clearly needs such a safe space from the science of climate change but there is really no hiding from it. Climate deniers can make up whatever nonsense they want but it's all been refuted by the science. So, every time Kevin lies about climate change, I will be responding here and here on Reddit. I will use facts and peer-reviewed evidence to show that his assertions are completely wrong. He has an open invitation to respond but I don't think he will. As with many subjects, he engages with reasonable people outside his blog, doesn't like what he hears, and then retreats to his own blog to get back pats. Where is his mettle?
Sadly, he has allowed his personal emotions about liberals cloud his judgement and transform his views into an incoherent and paranoid mess. Worse, he is basically giving the middle finger to his own children and grandchildren who are going to have to live in a world with the number one threat (as identified by the Department of Defense) ignored due to adolescent feelings about authority.
The bottom line is that I'm going to call him on his bullshit about climate change whether he shows up to defend himself or not. He is welcome at any time to discover who understands the logic and reason of science and can defend it.
Saturday, January 25, 2020
Monday, January 20, 2020
Monday, January 13, 2020
Climate Change: There IS No Debate
For anyone who's over 40, there's simply no debate about climate change. It's happening, and it's completely obvious that it's happening from your own personal experience.
And I'm not talking about how things were in the good old days, when I was a kid and I had to walk uphill to school both ways. This is just since 1990.
I've been playing volleyball for more than 30 years. I play both indoors and out, and I've also been attending University of Minnesota volleyball matches.
When I started, the outdoor volleyball season started in May and ended in September or October. Now we regularly play from April to November, and several years we've been able to play from early March until early December. I usually stop playing outdoors in November not because it's too cold, but because the sun is so low I can't see the ball when it's served from south side of the court.
The women's NCAA volleyball season runs from August through December. When we started attending matches we had to drive through snow storms to get to half the matches. In the past 10 or 15 years there's barely any snow on the ground during the last two matches.
Since milder winters are perceived as a "good thing," a lot of people rationalize that climate change is not so bad and pretend it isn't happening. But just last week a flock of tornadoes killed people across the south. Tornadoes in Louisiana and Alabama in January! And this is becoming a regular thing. Come on, people, this is not normal!
My personal experience jibes with what scientists have been telling us: spring is arriving almost a month earlier, screwing up all sorts of natural cycles. The melting permafrost in Alaska and Russia is destroying entire towns because the very ground they're built on is melting because of global warming.
There's no debate about climate change. It's happening, right here, right now, and it's having drastic effects on our infrastructure, plants, animals, and human beings.
Anyone who says different is just lying.
But that's par for the Republican course.
And I'm not talking about how things were in the good old days, when I was a kid and I had to walk uphill to school both ways. This is just since 1990.
I've been playing volleyball for more than 30 years. I play both indoors and out, and I've also been attending University of Minnesota volleyball matches.
When I started, the outdoor volleyball season started in May and ended in September or October. Now we regularly play from April to November, and several years we've been able to play from early March until early December. I usually stop playing outdoors in November not because it's too cold, but because the sun is so low I can't see the ball when it's served from south side of the court.
The women's NCAA volleyball season runs from August through December. When we started attending matches we had to drive through snow storms to get to half the matches. In the past 10 or 15 years there's barely any snow on the ground during the last two matches.
Since milder winters are perceived as a "good thing," a lot of people rationalize that climate change is not so bad and pretend it isn't happening. But just last week a flock of tornadoes killed people across the south. Tornadoes in Louisiana and Alabama in January! And this is becoming a regular thing. Come on, people, this is not normal!
My personal experience jibes with what scientists have been telling us: spring is arriving almost a month earlier, screwing up all sorts of natural cycles. The melting permafrost in Alaska and Russia is destroying entire towns because the very ground they're built on is melting because of global warming.
There's no debate about climate change. It's happening, right here, right now, and it's having drastic effects on our infrastructure, plants, animals, and human beings.
Anyone who says different is just lying.
But that's par for the Republican course.
Sunday, January 12, 2020
Climate Science Debate Challenge
The Church of the Climate Denier has a high priest and his name is Kevin Baker. It's hard for me to understand how someone who is an engineer and clearly understands how science works is so completely irrational about the science of climate change. Clearly, his emotions about liberals and "elites" have turned him into a person who embraces nonsense and ignores the peer-reviewed evidence.
As a result of his delusions, I am formally issuing a challenge to him and any of the commenters on his site to bring their assertions about climate change to this thread on Reddit. There I will debate the science of climate change and refute any points brought by anyone. I will use actual science to back up my assertions and expect Kevin and anyone else to do the same.
Now, I realize that Kevin and his merry band like to live in a bubble of self-referential confirmation. The outside world (aka reality, facts) can be a scary place. So, if no one shows up, fair enough. I get why people need to be coddled and I certainly don't want to trigger anyone so they have to go to their safe space (his blog).
Yet I felt I had to say something as a person of science. The out and out lying has to end. And the world needs to understand what they are up to...
As a result of his delusions, I am formally issuing a challenge to him and any of the commenters on his site to bring their assertions about climate change to this thread on Reddit. There I will debate the science of climate change and refute any points brought by anyone. I will use actual science to back up my assertions and expect Kevin and anyone else to do the same.
Now, I realize that Kevin and his merry band like to live in a bubble of self-referential confirmation. The outside world (aka reality, facts) can be a scary place. So, if no one shows up, fair enough. I get why people need to be coddled and I certainly don't want to trigger anyone so they have to go to their safe space (his blog).
Yet I felt I had to say something as a person of science. The out and out lying has to end. And the world needs to understand what they are up to...
Saturday, January 11, 2020
The Second Amendment is About Groups of People, Not Individuals
The second amendment to the US Constitution reads:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Let's note that the word "Militia" is plural and it's capitalized. Why? At the time the second amendment was written, the British had a standing army the likes the world had never seen, at least not since the era of the Roman Empire. Standing armies weren't a thing. In fact, they were quite frightening to people because that meant an OCCUPYING AND CONQUERING FORCE.
So, it makes sense that the colonists would want a defense ("being necessary to the security of a free State) against that, hence a Militia, or their own standing army. The fact that it's capitalized means it's an organized force of many people defending the US government.
The latter half of the amendment also has a plural word. "People." Not "person." Not "individual." People, as in a group. This is about a group of people organized in defense of the State in a Militia. And they need to be well regulated which meant, in 17th-century language, well trained.
Before we move forward to modern times, let's take a look at some historical context. Colonists were required to purchase their own guns in case they had to report for duty in the militia. States could not afford to buy any sort of arms. Each state had its own version on the right to bear arms. James Madison, who wrote the second amendment, used these as a guide as he was composing the national version. Here are some examples of the state versions.
Virginia
The people have a right to keep and bear arms;… a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the Civil power.
New York
That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State.
Pennsylvania
The people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”
It's quite clear that Madison, in writing the second amendment, was thinking about militias standing in defense against standing armies. Considering that both he and Jefferson banned guns on the campus of the University of Virginia, they were clearly not talking about an individual right to own a gun. A person could own a gun while serving in a militia.
One need only look at the third amendment to the US Constitution for further context.
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Again, we see the fear of standing armies. People look at this amendment today and don't really think much of it, assuming it's out of date and no longer applicable. But this was a big deal for the colonists who wanted to keep the standing, British army at bay.
It's crystal clear that as we look at the second amendment in our modern era, the original intent was based on being armed WHILE SERVING IN A MILITIA. Ironic, considering that the people that foam at the mouth the most about "original intent" are completely ignoring it here.
We now have our own standing army. It defends us quite well. And if for some reason, it became a tool of a tyrannical government, there is very little that a few handguns or even an AR-15 could do. They have drones. Discussion over. I will add that I see the more likely scenario of our armed forces splintering in which case, again, the need for ordinary citizens to have firearms is still not necessary and causes more harm than good.
Imagine if tens of thousands of people died from Islamic terrorism every year. Or ecoli from lettuce. A national emergency would have been declared long ago and action would have been taken. The religious belief that has metastasized around the second amendment must be eradicated. The United States loses 80 citizens a day to gun violence because of a small minority of our citizens'irrational fervor about guns. They consistently lie about the historical context of the right to bear arms and use fear to propagate unnecessary insecurity.
Fight their lies with this truth.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Let's note that the word "Militia" is plural and it's capitalized. Why? At the time the second amendment was written, the British had a standing army the likes the world had never seen, at least not since the era of the Roman Empire. Standing armies weren't a thing. In fact, they were quite frightening to people because that meant an OCCUPYING AND CONQUERING FORCE.
So, it makes sense that the colonists would want a defense ("being necessary to the security of a free State) against that, hence a Militia, or their own standing army. The fact that it's capitalized means it's an organized force of many people defending the US government.
The latter half of the amendment also has a plural word. "People." Not "person." Not "individual." People, as in a group. This is about a group of people organized in defense of the State in a Militia. And they need to be well regulated which meant, in 17th-century language, well trained.
Before we move forward to modern times, let's take a look at some historical context. Colonists were required to purchase their own guns in case they had to report for duty in the militia. States could not afford to buy any sort of arms. Each state had its own version on the right to bear arms. James Madison, who wrote the second amendment, used these as a guide as he was composing the national version. Here are some examples of the state versions.
Virginia
The people have a right to keep and bear arms;… a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the Civil power.
New York
That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State.
Pennsylvania
The people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”
It's quite clear that Madison, in writing the second amendment, was thinking about militias standing in defense against standing armies. Considering that both he and Jefferson banned guns on the campus of the University of Virginia, they were clearly not talking about an individual right to own a gun. A person could own a gun while serving in a militia.
One need only look at the third amendment to the US Constitution for further context.
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Again, we see the fear of standing armies. People look at this amendment today and don't really think much of it, assuming it's out of date and no longer applicable. But this was a big deal for the colonists who wanted to keep the standing, British army at bay.
It's crystal clear that as we look at the second amendment in our modern era, the original intent was based on being armed WHILE SERVING IN A MILITIA. Ironic, considering that the people that foam at the mouth the most about "original intent" are completely ignoring it here.
We now have our own standing army. It defends us quite well. And if for some reason, it became a tool of a tyrannical government, there is very little that a few handguns or even an AR-15 could do. They have drones. Discussion over. I will add that I see the more likely scenario of our armed forces splintering in which case, again, the need for ordinary citizens to have firearms is still not necessary and causes more harm than good.
Imagine if tens of thousands of people died from Islamic terrorism every year. Or ecoli from lettuce. A national emergency would have been declared long ago and action would have been taken. The religious belief that has metastasized around the second amendment must be eradicated. The United States loses 80 citizens a day to gun violence because of a small minority of our citizens'irrational fervor about guns. They consistently lie about the historical context of the right to bear arms and use fear to propagate unnecessary insecurity.
Fight their lies with this truth.
Wednesday, January 08, 2020
Saturday, January 04, 2020
The Best Writer On Quora
The best writer on Quora is Lee Thé. With 22 million views on his content, his reach is unparalleled and his influence is enormous. The best part about all of this is he is completely dedicated to destroying the Trump cult. His answers in the politics section are concise and perfect in their accuracy. Responding to the question, have Trump’s tax cuts failed the average American, Mr. Thé wrote,
Like all Republican tax cut laws since Reagan, regardless of who they help or harm in the short run, they’re massive and unfunded. The Republican politicians tell the people taxes are bad, tax cuts are good. They never tell mention what the taxes pay for. They never mention the economic chaos that ensues when the deficit has to be paid for. The strategic goal of massive, unfunded tax cuts is the elimination of the social safety net. The excuse is the deficit created by the tax cuts. The justification is equating the social safety net with socialism (oh the horror), and equating that with Soviet communism.
The devil is in the details. According to Politifact.com’s analysis, “every income group pays less in taxes in 2019, but the benefits flow disproportionately to wealthier taxpayers. And by 2027, every income group below $75,000 will see a tax increase, while only those income ranges above $75,000 will still see a cut.”
Bait…and switch.
Trump’s supporters have been tricked into selling their birthright for a mess of pottage
Mic drop.
Mic drop.
Wednesday, January 01, 2020
Tuesday, December 31, 2019
A Special Thanks
Nikto and I would like to thank everyone for reading our little small-town blog in 2019. We started off a few years ago with just a handful of readers and now, thanks to exposure on Twitter, Quora, Medium and Reddit, we average between 500 and 1000 readers every day.
2020 is going to be a crazy year in terms of politics. A sitting president will be running for reelection after being impeached and having a Senate trial. Will he make it through the year? Or will they find him emotionally exhausted and jibbering to himself with his thumbs on his Twitter feed? We can't wait to find out!!
2020 is going to be a crazy year in terms of politics. A sitting president will be running for reelection after being impeached and having a Senate trial. Will he make it through the year? Or will they find him emotionally exhausted and jibbering to himself with his thumbs on his Twitter feed? We can't wait to find out!!
Monday, December 30, 2019
"Conservative" SCOTUS Judges Vote With Liberals Nearly Half of the Time
Take a look at this graphic.
See, now what I can't figure out is why conservatives are so hell-bent on Kavanaugh. He is more liberal than Roberts! In fact, when you really look at the cases, 7 of the 9 judges barely move into the red area at all. Where is all that originalism I keep hearing about all the time?
I submit that they don't really care how the people they support vote. They just want them to be "conservative" whatever the fuck that means. It's pure tribalism.
See, now what I can't figure out is why conservatives are so hell-bent on Kavanaugh. He is more liberal than Roberts! In fact, when you really look at the cases, 7 of the 9 judges barely move into the red area at all. Where is all that originalism I keep hearing about all the time?
I submit that they don't really care how the people they support vote. They just want them to be "conservative" whatever the fuck that means. It's pure tribalism.
Sunday, December 29, 2019
Saturday, December 28, 2019
Friday, December 27, 2019
Monday, December 23, 2019
Deprogramming The Cult
There is a new poll out that shows the highest number of Americans that want Trump impeached and removed from office that we have seen thus far. 51% of those who responded want him out while 43% do not want him out. The more interesting numbers show that 54% show that the Senate should call additional witnesses who were blocked from coming to testify by Trump himself.
Further and far more significant, 46% of American strongly disapproves of the job Trump is doing while only 27% strongly approve. That tells me that Trump is fucked in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan.
Something else of note is Trump's numbers among independents. 48% approve of the articles of impeachment while only 41% disapprove.
Taken all together, we are beginning to see how much trouble Trump is in if 51 senators vote to hear from Bolton, Mulvaney and Pompeo. I think several other senators want to flip as well given the reality of their political lives if they don't. Susan Collins and Corey Gardner are already likely to not make it. Joni Ernst and Martha McSally are also in trouble. Even Mitt Romney might be the man of integrity he is and vote for more witnesses and, ultimately, removal.
And then we have this...
Further and far more significant, 46% of American strongly disapproves of the job Trump is doing while only 27% strongly approve. That tells me that Trump is fucked in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan.
Something else of note is Trump's numbers among independents. 48% approve of the articles of impeachment while only 41% disapprove.
Taken all together, we are beginning to see how much trouble Trump is in if 51 senators vote to hear from Bolton, Mulvaney and Pompeo. I think several other senators want to flip as well given the reality of their political lives if they don't. Susan Collins and Corey Gardner are already likely to not make it. Joni Ernst and Martha McSally are also in trouble. Even Mitt Romney might be the man of integrity he is and vote for more witnesses and, ultimately, removal.
And then we have this...
Sunday, December 15, 2019
Living in Two Worlds
Check out the list of issues that are on voters' minds and how they rank their importance? Could we be any different?
Conservatives, seriously, your top priorities are
1. Don't impeach Trump
2. Don't ban guns
3. No slavery reparations
4. Build a Wall
Compare this to liberals.
1. Don't separate immigrant children
2. Impeach Trump
3. No ban on abortion
4. Don't build a wall
The party of "fuck you, keep away" compared to the party of compassion and law. Good grief...
Conservatives, seriously, your top priorities are
1. Don't impeach Trump
2. Don't ban guns
3. No slavery reparations
4. Build a Wall
Compare this to liberals.
1. Don't separate immigrant children
2. Impeach Trump
3. No ban on abortion
4. Don't build a wall
The party of "fuck you, keep away" compared to the party of compassion and law. Good grief...
Saturday, December 14, 2019
Trump Costing US Billions of Dollars
The future of energy is renewable. Period. Donald Trump and the rest of the AGW deniers are costing the US billions of dollars in the race of this emerging market.
The withdrawal could lock U.S. businesses out of a huge portion of the rapidly growing global market, already worth an estimated $164 billion, that seeks to put an economic price on the greenhouse gases warming the planet — a potential economic loss causing concern among American-based companies such as the food and candy maker Mars.
...the push to reduce the world’s carbon pollution is also creating major economic opportunities. Those include trading systems, already present in parts of Europe and the U.S., in which companies essentially buy and sell the right to pollute — a setup that gives polluters an economic incentive to cut back while generating new income for businesses that help clean the atmosphere.
Yep, it's that fucking bad. And guess which countries are filling up that market and making money?
The withdrawal could lock U.S. businesses out of a huge portion of the rapidly growing global market, already worth an estimated $164 billion, that seeks to put an economic price on the greenhouse gases warming the planet — a potential economic loss causing concern among American-based companies such as the food and candy maker Mars.
...the push to reduce the world’s carbon pollution is also creating major economic opportunities. Those include trading systems, already present in parts of Europe and the U.S., in which companies essentially buy and sell the right to pollute — a setup that gives polluters an economic incentive to cut back while generating new income for businesses that help clean the atmosphere.
Yep, it's that fucking bad. And guess which countries are filling up that market and making money?
Friday, December 13, 2019
Thursday, December 12, 2019
How To Intellectually Dominate Someone Who Says, "We are a republic, not a democracy."
Ever been in an online discussion about politics, majorities and minorities, and someone (usually a libertarian) will say something like, "We are a republic, not a democracy," to sound all smart and stuff? Well, Ryan McMaken has a solution for you! He tells you what they are really saying...
"I don't like your idea, and since it involves aspects that are democratic or majoritarian, I'll invoke the republic-not-a-democracy claim to discredit your idea."
or
"A majority of the population appears to support this idea, so I will invoke the republic-not-a-democracy claim to illustrate that the majority should be ignored."
and then he proceeds to tell you how to get them to STFU. Enjoy the entire piece. It's simply wonderful.
"I don't like your idea, and since it involves aspects that are democratic or majoritarian, I'll invoke the republic-not-a-democracy claim to discredit your idea."
or
"A majority of the population appears to support this idea, so I will invoke the republic-not-a-democracy claim to illustrate that the majority should be ignored."
and then he proceeds to tell you how to get them to STFU. Enjoy the entire piece. It's simply wonderful.
Wednesday, December 11, 2019
The Cult of Both Sides Pwned
“The phrases “they’re all the same” or “everybody does it” are thrown around loosely in order to deflect criticism of indefensible behavior. And yes, of course, I’m referring to President Donald Trump. Some of my Republican friends try to excuse or rationalize Trump’s dishonesty, vulgarity and immorality by saying all politicians do it. They are guilty of employing false equivalency.
If I’m a murderer and you drive over the speed limit, you wouldn’t claim we’re the same since we both broke the law. Similarly, it is not accurate or fair to equate a serial liar — a cheating, philandering, bribing narcissist — with the exaggeration and occasional dishonesty of traditional politicians. Trump is in a league of his own, bereft of decency, unique in his level of depravity. Equating him with other politicians is not only false, it is dangerous.”
---RYAN PULKRABEK, MINNEAPOLIS
If I’m a murderer and you drive over the speed limit, you wouldn’t claim we’re the same since we both broke the law. Similarly, it is not accurate or fair to equate a serial liar — a cheating, philandering, bribing narcissist — with the exaggeration and occasional dishonesty of traditional politicians. Trump is in a league of his own, bereft of decency, unique in his level of depravity. Equating him with other politicians is not only false, it is dangerous.”
---RYAN PULKRABEK, MINNEAPOLIS
Tuesday, December 10, 2019
Trump Admits He Is Totally Full of Shit
Finally, Donald Trump has opened his big fat yap about something you'd think he'd know everything about: excrement. The man is so full of bullshit, you'd think he'd start turning orange. (Um, wait a second...)
But it turns out that he doesn't know shit about shit. Last week the Oracle of Mar a Lago had this to say:
The reason there are rules mandating low-flow toilets and shower heads is that water shortages are rampant in many parts of the country, particularly in the Southwest, California and Montana. There's a thing called "senior water rights," which means that if you build a new house, the guy who owns the old farm up the river has the right to stop you from watering your lawn. Or even flushing your toilet, if the previous owner of the land didn't use water for that. It's really a bogus law, but it's endemic out west.
Even in places where there's plenty of rainfall, the deep underground aquifers that supply many suburbs (like mine) with drinking water are being completely drained, and those aquifers literally take millennia to replenish.
The average person urinates six to eight times a day. Defecation rates are more variable, ranging from three times a day to three times a week. Since people urinate between two and 14 times as often as they defecate, water usage should be optimized for urination.
You don't need much water to flush urine: the 1.6 gallons used in low-flow toilets is way more than enough. Frequent bowel movements are also likely to have lower stool volume, and require less flushing. Yeah, some bowel movements might require two, three or four flushes (but 15? Gimme a break!), using three to six gallons.
But so what? Instead of wasting the five to seven gallons of water that old-style toilets used every time you take a leak, just flush the number of times needed. If the "average" person urinates six or seven times more frequently than defecating, they're using only 10 gallons of water a day with a low-flow toilet, as opposed to 30 to 40 gallons as was the case with older toilets. Does it really make any sense to for every American needlessly flush 15,000 gallons of water down the toilet every year to satisfy Donald Trump? That would be four and a half trillion gallons of water!
In some countries toilets have two flush modes: one that uses a small amount of water and another that uses more. But why bother with that gimmick when you can just flush again if needed? One improvement in toilet design that's clearly necessary is a way to make the porcelain slicker, so that excrement and stains just don't stick. We definitely need to make toilets easier to clean, now that Trump is kicking all his undocumented maids out of the country: heaven forbid he'd have to clean his own bathroom!
Come on, Republicans. Don't you long for the days when a president didn't say something completely stupid and make a fool out of himself five, six, seven, ten times a day? Trump is making it so easy for the guys on late night TV to ridicule him. Just impeach him and save yourselves the embarrassment of having to defend his every stupid tweet and utterance...
By the way, it was a Republican, George H. W. Bush, who signed the original 1992 law mandating the 1.6 gallons per flush standard. Not all Republicans are horrible wastrels.
But it turns out that he doesn't know shit about shit. Last week the Oracle of Mar a Lago had this to say:
“We have a situation where we’re looking very strongly at sinks and showers and other elements of bathrooms, where you turn the faucet on — in areas where there’s tremendous amounts of water, where the water rushes out to sea because you could never handle it — you turn on the faucet, you don’t get any water,” [geeze, this guy is so inarticulate and incoherent] he said Friday at a White House meeting about small businesses and reducing red tape.When Donald Trump says "people," he means Donald Trump. Apparently the notorious germophobe is totally full of shit, and needs to flush the toilet 15 times every time he takes a dump.
Mr. Trump also noted that “people are flushing toilets 10 times, 15 times as opposed to once” and that “they end up using more water,” according to a transcript of the discussion.
The reason there are rules mandating low-flow toilets and shower heads is that water shortages are rampant in many parts of the country, particularly in the Southwest, California and Montana. There's a thing called "senior water rights," which means that if you build a new house, the guy who owns the old farm up the river has the right to stop you from watering your lawn. Or even flushing your toilet, if the previous owner of the land didn't use water for that. It's really a bogus law, but it's endemic out west.
Even in places where there's plenty of rainfall, the deep underground aquifers that supply many suburbs (like mine) with drinking water are being completely drained, and those aquifers literally take millennia to replenish.
The average person urinates six to eight times a day. Defecation rates are more variable, ranging from three times a day to three times a week. Since people urinate between two and 14 times as often as they defecate, water usage should be optimized for urination.
You don't need much water to flush urine: the 1.6 gallons used in low-flow toilets is way more than enough. Frequent bowel movements are also likely to have lower stool volume, and require less flushing. Yeah, some bowel movements might require two, three or four flushes (but 15? Gimme a break!), using three to six gallons.
But so what? Instead of wasting the five to seven gallons of water that old-style toilets used every time you take a leak, just flush the number of times needed. If the "average" person urinates six or seven times more frequently than defecating, they're using only 10 gallons of water a day with a low-flow toilet, as opposed to 30 to 40 gallons as was the case with older toilets. Does it really make any sense to for every American needlessly flush 15,000 gallons of water down the toilet every year to satisfy Donald Trump? That would be four and a half trillion gallons of water!
In some countries toilets have two flush modes: one that uses a small amount of water and another that uses more. But why bother with that gimmick when you can just flush again if needed? One improvement in toilet design that's clearly necessary is a way to make the porcelain slicker, so that excrement and stains just don't stick. We definitely need to make toilets easier to clean, now that Trump is kicking all his undocumented maids out of the country: heaven forbid he'd have to clean his own bathroom!
Come on, Republicans. Don't you long for the days when a president didn't say something completely stupid and make a fool out of himself five, six, seven, ten times a day? Trump is making it so easy for the guys on late night TV to ridicule him. Just impeach him and save yourselves the embarrassment of having to defend his every stupid tweet and utterance...
By the way, it was a Republican, George H. W. Bush, who signed the original 1992 law mandating the 1.6 gallons per flush standard. Not all Republicans are horrible wastrels.
The Russification of the GOP
Ronald Brownstein from the Atlantic has a great piece up about the Republican Party. Essentially, conservatives have become stooges for Putin and his propaganda. Clearly, they view their fellow Americans (in this case, Democrats) as a greater threat than Russia, who is still trying to undermine our global hegemony.
As I have been saying for years now, conservatives are traitors. Time to put on trial and sent to federal pound me in the ass prison.
As I have been saying for years now, conservatives are traitors. Time to put on trial and sent to federal pound me in the ass prison.
Monday, December 09, 2019
Best Sales Quarter in Years For Gun Grabbers, Dick's Sporting Goods
Remember when Dick's Sporting Goods decided to stop carrying assault rifles and high capacity magazines? The NRA and their mouth-foaming supporters tried to put them out of business. Well, they just had their best sales quarter in years.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Sunday, December 08, 2019
Crickets From The Right On The Naval Base Shooting
Why in the actual fuck is a Saudi Air Force guy training at a Naval base on US soil? I mean, I get that Trump loves the Saudis but I figured even an idiot like him would remember that 14 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi. Saudis and our airplanes aren't a good idea. Not at all.
It was nice to see, though, how easily he could obtain a firearm. Terrorists who want to attack our country need look no further than gun rights supporters for help in killing Americans. Yet another reason why those assholes should be Gitmo'd.
It was nice to see, though, how easily he could obtain a firearm. Terrorists who want to attack our country need look no further than gun rights supporters for help in killing Americans. Yet another reason why those assholes should be Gitmo'd.
Saturday, December 07, 2019
Monday, December 02, 2019
Using Your Religion Against You
When I was a kid in the 1960s my mom was a Jehovah's Witness. She had been recruited by a woman going door-to-door for the Watch Tower Society. My dad didn't like it, for some good reasons (Witnesses are opposed to blood transfusions and discourage interaction with non-Witnesses), and for some bad ones (they condemn certain sex acts that my mom didn't want to do in the first place -- and yeah, it's weird that my mom told me that when I was a kid).
My dad went to the church closest to his real estate office and sought advice. The pastor told him that the Bible says the wife must obey the husband. My father battered my mother with this argument endlessly: "But the Bible says!" he would intone, even though he didn't believe in God or the Bible. Eventually she relented and quit the Witnesses.
The Jehovah's Witnesses are a cult, and it's a good thing my mom got away. The Watch Tower Society is infamous for predicting the end of the world is nigh. They predicted some form of Armageddon would come in 1878, 1881, 1914, 1918, 1925 and 1975. My mom was caught up by the Witnesses in the late Sixties and early Seventies, when they were pushing the "World-Wide Jubilee."
We didn't go to church, but before joining the Witnesses my mom sent us kids to an evangelical "Good News Club" at a neighbor's house, where we sang songs, did crafts, had treats and studied the Bible.
But the most important Bible lesson came from my father, who didn't believe in the Bible at all: he showed me that the entire purpose of religion is control. My father controlled my mother by using her own beliefs against her. The same way religion has been used to control people since time immemorial. It's not an opiate, as Marx would have it, as much as a yoke to keep the people pulling the ruler's plow.
Religion has always been a favorite tool of dictators for keeping the population in line: today in Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Iran with Islam, Russia with the Orthodox Church. In the past, Chinese emperors with Confucianism, Japan with Shinto (which deifies the emperor), Medieval Europe with Christianity, which stipulated that kings ruled by divine right.
Tyrants had a fling with Communism in the 20th century, but it just doesn't work. True communism states that everyone is equal, that the working man has dignity, that everyone should have a voice in the operation of the commune. That's a hard sell when everyone on the Central Committee is a rich fat cat and your kids don't have shoes or food.
Religion, on the other hand, is extremely hierarchical. It preaches that you should suffer in silence and mindlessly obey those at the top, rendering unto Caesar, etc. The Bible is full of stories about kings who commit vile acts of murder and slavery, yet still enjoy God's support.
And this is where we get to the point: religious conservatives are all in for Donald Trump, even though he is the most corrupt, immoral, mendacious, sclerotic, vengeful, petty, cruel, greedy, hate-filled, immature, boastful, blustering, narcissistic, irreligious, gluttonous, racist, sexist, back-stabbing, money-laundering, mobbed-up, emolument-soaked, pussy-grabber/president this country has ever seen.
Oh, sure, religious conservatives pretend to deny Trump is all these things. But everyone knows what kind of scumbag he is. And yet his religious supporters don't care. "He's the modern King David," they intone, as though a Biblical analogy for sinfulness excuses all crimes.
“God uses imperfect people through history. King David wasn’t perfect,” Rick Perry said, before relating that he’d told the president that he embodies “God’s plan for the people who rule and judge over us on this planet in our government.”But as Eliot Cohen points out in his article in The Atlantic, Trump is no King David. For all his faults, David was a man of God, even though he was consumed by his other passions. He felt guilt and remorse. He repented and confessed. And he could actually read and write poetry!
Trump is utterly without conscience. He will not admit error, much less repent, confess or ask God for forgiveness. He does not or cannot read. His only use for religion is use it to control his supporters. He is bent on revenge and the accumulation of wealth (usually at the same time). He lies incessantly, without surcease, to sow chaos and confusion and hatred.
Trump supporters often claim that they hate liberals because liberals think they're so much smarter than conservatives. It's not so much that liberals think conservatives are stupid, it's that Trump plays them for fools (constantly telling lies that are demonstrably false and committing dozens of clearly unethical, immoral and illegal acts), and they go along with it. Some Trump supporters might be naive or misled or truly stupid, but that means the rest are complicit in Trump's perfidy. Which is far worse than being merely stupid.
And besides, it's Trump who is constantly telling us how much smarter he is than everyone else, when clearly he knows nothing about anything, especially religion (Two Corinthians, anyone?).
The David analogy plays right into this. Trump supporters claim he is an imperfect vessel of God's will, like King David. But his followers are being played for fools again, because they have forgotten (or never knew, as I didn't) what David's ultimate fate was:
As Cohen sums it up:
Nor does God (or man, for that matter) simply disregard David’s sins or dismiss them as peccadilloes that might perhaps merit private punishment but no public reaction. David lusted after Bathsheba, the wife of one of his soldiers, the Book of Samuel relates. He arranged to have her husband, Uriah the Hittite, placed in the front of a desperate attack. He died, and the king carried off the widow. Not quite murder, perhaps, but a foul and tricky deed.
In the next chapter, Nathan the prophet stormed into the royal palace, and told the startled David a story about a rich man who has stolen a poor man’s ewe. When David expressed indignation at the villain of the tale, Nathan thundered at him, “You are the man!” And then followed David’s doom, intoned in the name of the God of Israel:
“And so now, the sword shall not swerve from your house evermore, seeing as you have despised Me and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife.” Thus says the Lord, “I am about to raise up evil against you from your own house, and I will take your wives before your eyes and give them to your fellow man, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun. For you did it in secret but I will do this thing before all Israel and before the sun.”
David confessed and repented, but the doom came nonetheless. His son Absalom revolted against him, he was chased from his throne (which he recovered after much hardship); he was humiliated by his inferiors; and he ends his days in the midst of another son’s revolt, decrepit and apparently impotent. David’s sin was not only a private sin, and it did not receive a merely private punishment. Nor did he alone suffer: His humiliation included a revolt that turned his kingdom upside down, and led to waves of political murders even after his death. Apparently, the Ancient of Days was not willing to let bygones be bygones.Conservatives: please, please, please don't let Trump use your own religion to lead you away from what you know is the righteous path. Because he is not one of you. He is just using you to escape prosecution for decades of tax evasion and money laundering for the Russian mob.
In the end, Trump's reign will be just as disastrous as David's.
Sunday, December 01, 2019
Saturday, November 30, 2019
Tuesday, November 26, 2019
Whither TV?
Recently Disney debuted its Disney+ streaming service, which launched a plethora of stories in the press about "streaming wars," like this one.
As someone who has always hated the way Comcast operates (lousy service and constantly jacking up prices), I'm glad to see these new options.
Streaming services are either supposed to sound the death knell for cable and broadcast TV, or start a bloody massacre among streamers like Netflix, Disney+, HBO Now, Apple TV and Amazon as they spend billions of dollars on new programming to attract customers.
Many are afraid that quirkier cable channels like AMC (home to hit shows like Madmen, The Walking Dead, Breaking Bad, etc.) and BBC America (home to Orphan Black and Killing Eve) will go away when people cut the cord.
But I'm not so sure that's the case. Streaming services like YouTube TV, Hulu + Live TV and Sling Orange + Blue offer those same channels and most live local channels for much less than Comcast. These streaming services also provide video on-demand (VOD) for shows previously broadcast on these channels. VOD doesn't allow skipping commercials, which should make advertisers happy.
There's a lot of hand-wringing that streaming services will force people to choose which shows they watch because they can't afford to subscribe to all the streaming services. Some people are even saying that this new paradigm will cost people more than the Comcast model did, because they'll have to pay for five or six or ten different services, at $7 to $15 bucks a pop.
But that's hard to believe: Comcast bundles are usually more than $100 a month. With services like YouTube TV, HBO Now, Disney+ and Netflix, you can get significantly more TV for less money.
And if you're concerned about cash flow, remember that you don't need to subscribe to streaming services on an ongoing basis. You can pick them up and drop them as new content appears and you finish watching it.
Want to see the new Watchmen or His Dark Materials but don't feel $15 a month is worth it? Subscribe when there's a month left in the season, binge the previous episodes and everything else you like in the catalog, watch the final few episodes in real time, and then let the sub lapse. Or use the free trial (usually a week) to binge-watch the whole season at once. These services are always eager for subscribers, and will frequently offer you another free week within a few months.
Yes, it's true, if you want to be one of the cool kids and be up on every show, it will cost you a lot of money (and time!). These big companies count on laziness, impatience and peer pressure to fill their coffers.
Will there be a streaming service massacre? Maybe. Will there be further consolidation, along the lines of the Disney/ABC/Marvel/Fox mergers? Probably. But the market for these entertainments is world-wide, and even if people only subscribe a few months out of the year, we're still talking hundreds of billions of dollars a year.
I see a place for all these streaming services, the cable channels, local TV channels, and content providers who actually make the shows we want to watch. What I don't see is a place for giant corporations like Comcast who use their monopoly power to overcharge customers physically tied to their cables.
And as long as Disney+ doesn't try to become the next Comcast, more power to them.
As someone who has always hated the way Comcast operates (lousy service and constantly jacking up prices), I'm glad to see these new options.
Streaming services are either supposed to sound the death knell for cable and broadcast TV, or start a bloody massacre among streamers like Netflix, Disney+, HBO Now, Apple TV and Amazon as they spend billions of dollars on new programming to attract customers.
Many are afraid that quirkier cable channels like AMC (home to hit shows like Madmen, The Walking Dead, Breaking Bad, etc.) and BBC America (home to Orphan Black and Killing Eve) will go away when people cut the cord.
But I'm not so sure that's the case. Streaming services like YouTube TV, Hulu + Live TV and Sling Orange + Blue offer those same channels and most live local channels for much less than Comcast. These streaming services also provide video on-demand (VOD) for shows previously broadcast on these channels. VOD doesn't allow skipping commercials, which should make advertisers happy.
There's a lot of hand-wringing that streaming services will force people to choose which shows they watch because they can't afford to subscribe to all the streaming services. Some people are even saying that this new paradigm will cost people more than the Comcast model did, because they'll have to pay for five or six or ten different services, at $7 to $15 bucks a pop.
But that's hard to believe: Comcast bundles are usually more than $100 a month. With services like YouTube TV, HBO Now, Disney+ and Netflix, you can get significantly more TV for less money.
And if you're concerned about cash flow, remember that you don't need to subscribe to streaming services on an ongoing basis. You can pick them up and drop them as new content appears and you finish watching it.
Want to see the new Watchmen or His Dark Materials but don't feel $15 a month is worth it? Subscribe when there's a month left in the season, binge the previous episodes and everything else you like in the catalog, watch the final few episodes in real time, and then let the sub lapse. Or use the free trial (usually a week) to binge-watch the whole season at once. These services are always eager for subscribers, and will frequently offer you another free week within a few months.
Yes, it's true, if you want to be one of the cool kids and be up on every show, it will cost you a lot of money (and time!). These big companies count on laziness, impatience and peer pressure to fill their coffers.
Will there be a streaming service massacre? Maybe. Will there be further consolidation, along the lines of the Disney/ABC/Marvel/Fox mergers? Probably. But the market for these entertainments is world-wide, and even if people only subscribe a few months out of the year, we're still talking hundreds of billions of dollars a year.
I see a place for all these streaming services, the cable channels, local TV channels, and content providers who actually make the shows we want to watch. What I don't see is a place for giant corporations like Comcast who use their monopoly power to overcharge customers physically tied to their cables.
And as long as Disney+ doesn't try to become the next Comcast, more power to them.
Sunday, November 24, 2019
Bloomberg? No. Just No.
Mike Bloomberg, former Republican mayor of New York and billionaire owner of a major news organization, announced that he is running for the Democratic nomination for president.
There are a ton of reasons why Bloomberg shouldn't be running for the Democratic nomination.
1) He's too old. At 77, he's the same age as Joe Biden, who also shouldn't be running because he's too old. There's a better than 4% chance he'll be dead before inauguration day, and a better than 1 in 4 chance he'll die before the end of his first term.
2) He has a horrendous conflict of interest. Bloomberg News has announced that it will not investigate Bloomberg during the campaign, nor will it investigate his Democratic opponents. But it will still publish stories about his opponents from "credible journalistic institutions."
This is pure bull. Bloomberg flunkies can still print flattering stories about him from the New York Times, and ignore the unflattering ones, and vice versa for the other Democratic candidates.
And what happens if Bloomberg wins the nomination? Will Bloomberg News stop researching stories about his Republican opponent, Donald Trump? To be fair, they'd have to stop printing stories about the presidential race, international diplomacy and the economy because those topics involve Trump.
The only way to avoid a conflict of interest is for Bloomberg to sell his company, which is which Trump should have done.
Trump's conflicts of interest constantly undermine his every decision. Did he pull troops out of Syria because it was best for the United States (which it clearly wasn't, for dozens of reasons), or did he pull out because Turkish President Tayyip Recep Erdogan threatened two Trump hotels in Istanbul? And, as it turned out, Trump didn't actually pull the troops out of Syria, he just moved them to oil fields, allowing Turkey to invade and kill and capture hundreds of Kurdish fighters who had stood by the United States in Iraq and Syria for decades.
Basically, every international, national and economic news story involves the president at some level. Bloomberg News would have to cease publication to avoid a conflict of interest if Bloomberg won.
3) We don't need another billionaire running for president. Yeah, Bloomberg would be better than Trump. Pretty much anyone would be. The problem with billionaires is that they are terrible at dealing with human beings. They are used to buying everything they want and bulldozing through people with their money instead of working with them.
Trump's wealth is the core of why he is such a horrible president and person.
4) Bloomberg's flip-flopping from Democrat, to Republican, to independent, then back to Democrat, is fishy. As is the way he got the New York mayor's office two-term limit removed so he could serve a third term.
5) The only one who wants Bloomberg to be president is Bloomberg. No Democrats want him. His racist stop-and-frisk policy in New York (which he recently characterized as a mistake, and for which he apologized) alienated a large segment of the Democratic party, including blacks, Hispanics, and anyone who isn't a racist.
Yeah, Bloomberg has done some good work on gun policy. But he would serve this nation far better continuing that project than injecting yet another wild card into a Democratic field that already has too many candidates.
The 2016 Republican field had too many candidates, and look how that turned out. If Bloomberg does win the Democratic nomination, Republicans will (hypocritically) claim he bought it. And Russia will use Bloomberg's stop-and-frisk disaster on Facebook and Twitter to even more successfully convince blacks and Hispanics to stay home as they did in 2016.
If Bloomberg wants what's best for this country, he should let the primary process play itself out and let the American people choose the Democratic nominee by popular vote, then help level the playing field during the general election by making contributions to counter the Republican PACs funded by corrupt billionaires like Sheldon Adelson.
He can keep his interest in Bloomberg News, and the organization can continue the important work of reporting the truth, countering the lies spewed by the Russians and Fox News, which has become just another propaganda outlet for Vladimir Putin and his puppets, which now include Donald Trump and nearly the entire Republican Party.
There are a ton of reasons why Bloomberg shouldn't be running for the Democratic nomination.
1) He's too old. At 77, he's the same age as Joe Biden, who also shouldn't be running because he's too old. There's a better than 4% chance he'll be dead before inauguration day, and a better than 1 in 4 chance he'll die before the end of his first term.
2) He has a horrendous conflict of interest. Bloomberg News has announced that it will not investigate Bloomberg during the campaign, nor will it investigate his Democratic opponents. But it will still publish stories about his opponents from "credible journalistic institutions."
This is pure bull. Bloomberg flunkies can still print flattering stories about him from the New York Times, and ignore the unflattering ones, and vice versa for the other Democratic candidates.
And what happens if Bloomberg wins the nomination? Will Bloomberg News stop researching stories about his Republican opponent, Donald Trump? To be fair, they'd have to stop printing stories about the presidential race, international diplomacy and the economy because those topics involve Trump.
The only way to avoid a conflict of interest is for Bloomberg to sell his company, which is which Trump should have done.
Trump's conflicts of interest constantly undermine his every decision. Did he pull troops out of Syria because it was best for the United States (which it clearly wasn't, for dozens of reasons), or did he pull out because Turkish President Tayyip Recep Erdogan threatened two Trump hotels in Istanbul? And, as it turned out, Trump didn't actually pull the troops out of Syria, he just moved them to oil fields, allowing Turkey to invade and kill and capture hundreds of Kurdish fighters who had stood by the United States in Iraq and Syria for decades.
Basically, every international, national and economic news story involves the president at some level. Bloomberg News would have to cease publication to avoid a conflict of interest if Bloomberg won.
3) We don't need another billionaire running for president. Yeah, Bloomberg would be better than Trump. Pretty much anyone would be. The problem with billionaires is that they are terrible at dealing with human beings. They are used to buying everything they want and bulldozing through people with their money instead of working with them.
Trump's wealth is the core of why he is such a horrible president and person.
4) Bloomberg's flip-flopping from Democrat, to Republican, to independent, then back to Democrat, is fishy. As is the way he got the New York mayor's office two-term limit removed so he could serve a third term.
5) The only one who wants Bloomberg to be president is Bloomberg. No Democrats want him. His racist stop-and-frisk policy in New York (which he recently characterized as a mistake, and for which he apologized) alienated a large segment of the Democratic party, including blacks, Hispanics, and anyone who isn't a racist.
Yeah, Bloomberg has done some good work on gun policy. But he would serve this nation far better continuing that project than injecting yet another wild card into a Democratic field that already has too many candidates.
The 2016 Republican field had too many candidates, and look how that turned out. If Bloomberg does win the Democratic nomination, Republicans will (hypocritically) claim he bought it. And Russia will use Bloomberg's stop-and-frisk disaster on Facebook and Twitter to even more successfully convince blacks and Hispanics to stay home as they did in 2016.
If Bloomberg wants what's best for this country, he should let the primary process play itself out and let the American people choose the Democratic nominee by popular vote, then help level the playing field during the general election by making contributions to counter the Republican PACs funded by corrupt billionaires like Sheldon Adelson.
He can keep his interest in Bloomberg News, and the organization can continue the important work of reporting the truth, countering the lies spewed by the Russians and Fox News, which has become just another propaganda outlet for Vladimir Putin and his puppets, which now include Donald Trump and nearly the entire Republican Party.
Saturday, November 23, 2019
Sunday, November 17, 2019
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)