Contributors

Tuesday, December 17, 2013

An Excellent Summation

I can't think of a better summation of the gun community in everything they do.

A whole lot of money for an ideological fraud!

Cheer Up

Without the continued promises of looming apocalypse, the Right wouldn't have much to talk about these days. "Tough history coming" is what Kevin Baker calls it. A recent cartoon he posted illustrates this mentality perfectly. But reality says otherwise.

All in all, many economists now see economic growth climbing to a solid 3% next year, a significant improvement from the 2% average annual pace that the economy has been stuck on for the last 4 1/2 years. An acceleration to 3% would probably push up U.S. job growth to 250,000 a month on average, from a monthly average of 190,000 over the last 12 months, Kleinhenz said. At that pace, the nation would recover all the jobs lost in the recession by the end of 2014. And it would push down the jobless rate closer to the 5.5% to 6% range that some now see as the potential long-term unemployment rate. 

My home state is certainly feeling this reality as well.

With an improving job market and overall economy, families are once again splurging on big-ticket recreational items, spending $3,000 or more on snowmobiles and ATVs made just for kids. The trend is being thoroughly enjoyed in Minnesota, home to two of the nation’s largest recreational vehicle makers and some of the snowiest turf in the country.

One wonders how long this charade of impending doom will hold. Certainly, there will be an ample supply of frightened old baby boomers for the next couple of decades but how many of them will give into their irrational emotions and fear when the facts say otherwise?

So, given these economic indicators, this recent piece by Edward Carr is my message today to Kevin and the other members of the apocalyptic cult masquerading as conservatives: cheer up.

American fears about the future are also distorted. Nobody doubts the significance of China’s economic rise, but economic prosperity does not automatically translate into geopolitical power. If China wanted to challenge America, it would not only have to sustain its stellar growth for a long time but also to transform its capacity to project power abroad.

Similarly, although countries like India, Brazil and South Africa will want to get on in the world, they also have a stake in the system that America has created. It is unsafe to extrapolate trends into a distant future when America loses its supremacy, not least because rising prosperity will change those other countries beyond recognition. Moreover, until the others eventually catch up, America will remain the global superpower. Could it not turn that position to its advantage?

It is time to cheer up. The world America faces today may seem cussed and intractable, but the world America looked forward to shaping after the fall of the Soviet Union was never as pliant and welcoming as it imagined. And America’s strengths are as impressive as ever. On every measure of power it remains dominant. With a revived foreign-policy agenda, Mr Obama could begin to put the misadventure of Iraq behind him. With creative and energetic diplomacy, he has scope to get plenty done. With more effort to build coalitions and work with allies, American power can once again be decisive. But this can happen only if Americans rediscover the will to lead.

So, why don't people like Kevin have the will to lead anymore? I think the answer is the same response as to why they continually insists that we are heading towards doom.

Because they are afraid that the ideology they vilify is working.

Monday, December 16, 2013


A Tale of Two Governors

Now that the hysterical hyperventilation over the Affordable Care Act has passed, we are starting to hear about the more positive ways in which the law is being implemented. It's very interesting to note how two red states, Nevada and Kentucky, have chosen to tackle the rollout.

As noted in this piece, Governor Sandoval (R-Nevada), is all in.

Sandoval is the only Republican governor whose state is both running its own health insurance exchange this year and expanding its Medicaid program under the health law. He’s arguably doing more to put the Democrats’ signature law into place than any other Republican.

Why?

“I opposed the Affordable Care Act from its inception,” he wrote in an email. But he’s a former federal judge and in his view, once the Supreme Court upheld the legislation, “the Affordable Care Act became the law of the land.” 

Apparently, his constituents appreciate his adult behavior.

Even after sticking his neck out on Obamacare — which few others in his party would consider amid fear of a conservative backlash — Sandoval is overwhelmingly popular in Nevada. State lawmakers backed his Obamacare approach on a bipartisan basis, and he’s cruising toward reelection next year with no formidable opponent in sight. 

Huh. So, moderating and actually accomplishing the business of government works. So does "stamping Obamacare to his forehead." Whoda thunk it? Well, considering the ACA was a Republican idea in the first place...

Governor Steve Beshear, a Democrat in the (not much longer now) red state of Kentucky has also fully embraced the ACA.

The way Beshear tells it, “this” is enrolling 69,000 Kentuckians in newly available health coverage programs, a number that has grown steadily and that the Democrat expects to “surge” in the final weeks of the year. As the only governor of a Southern state who has both set up a state insurance exchange and green-lighted an expansion of the Medicaid program, Beshear represents a painfully rare bright spot in the landscape of Obamacare implementation. The state exchange, dubbed Kynect, has been a model of smooth enrollment compared to the federal government’s version, and has absorbed 550,000 web visitors and 180,000 phone inquiries so far. 

Hoo boy...so much for the boiling pit of sewage. Governor Beshear has even been calling out folks like Mitch McConnell on all the lying over the ACA.

“I have a U.S. senator who keeps saying Kentuckians don’t want this,” Beshear said. “Well, the facts don’t prove that out. There’s about 550,000 on our website right now who want it — and some 65,000 to 69,000 that have signed up. So Kentuckians do want it.” 

"I want to publicly invite our entire federal delegation to come back to Kentucky as [Democratic Rep.] John Yarmuth does all the time and come over to our center, our nerve center where we’re running this program and see for yourself what is going on,” said Beshear. “When you see that, I think you’ll quit saying this will not work and Kentuckians don’t want it.”

Governor Beshear also notes that the issue of the ACA is going to come back and haunt McConnell in his already tough reelection battle next year. I agree. In fact, I'm going to predict right now that McConnell loses that race because the far right in Kentucky is pissed off at him and won't turn out. Heck, he might not even make it out of the primary. Alison Lundergan Grimes is a very popular, moderate Democrat currently serving as Secretary of State for Kentucky. She will pull GOP voters to her side, given the Kentuckian embrace of the ACA.

Republican governors and Democrats in southern red states embracing the Affordable Care Act? All this bipartisanship makes me warm and fuzzy. I wonder how it makes the Tea Party feel these days...:)

Sunday, December 15, 2013

























I don't think the man on the right could ever be accepted as our savior by those who believe in Republican Jesus.

Good Words

“We have become used to the suffering of others. Has any one of us wept for these persons who were on the boat? For the young mothers carrying their babies? For these men who were looking for a means of supporting their families? We are a society which has forgotten how to weep, how to experience compassion… the church is with you in the search for a more dignified life for you and your families.” ~Pope Francis, taking up the plight of immigrants and the poor, July 2013

Saturday, December 14, 2013

It's Cool Now

A year after the Sandy Hook massacre and we haven't progressed at all. In fact, we've gone backwards in some ways. School shootings happen about once a month now and I have to wonder just how much of this is the media's fault. Every time there is a shooting, it's instantaneous, wall to wall coverage as we saw yesterday with yet another shooting in Colorado. If there was less coverage, or none at all, would there be less school shootings?

Somewhere along the way in these last two decades, it became alright to walk into a school with a gun and start shooting. Heck, it's cool, right? Because it's on TV and everyone gets excited about it. For those mentally ill individuals, this is their chance to have people finally attention to them. And they think it's socially acceptable because of the regularity with which it happens. Worse, people seem to be OK with it and that is just terribly disturbing. The only good thing (if you can call it good) that has come out of Newtown is the gun community has shown what truly ugly people they are. Their response to this tragedy was so profoundly disgusting that, in many ways, they are going to deeply regret their words and actions. As I have stated previously, it's only a matter of time.

The Christian Science Monitor has a series of articles up that are very worthwhile reading. In addition to political analysis, they offer some great perspectives on where we are culturally that need attention. Here's an example...

• One in three people in the US knows someone who has been shot.

• On average, 32 Americans are murdered with guns every day, and 140 are treated for a gun assault in an emergency room. 

• Every day on average, 51 people kill themselves with a firearm, and 45 people are shot or killed in an accident with a gun. 

• The US firearm homicide rate is 20 times higher than the combined rates of 22 countries that are our peers in wealth and population. 

• Although guns can and have been used successfully in self-defense in the home, a gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used to injure or kill in a domestic homicide, suicide, or unintentional shooting than to be used in self-defense.

For our country as great as ours, this is simply piss poor. And it obviously goes way beyond guns. Why are we such violent culture? It's not simply one reason and I think once we get a handle on the complexities of this answer, we can define the various reasons and implement solutions.

I think we should start with why it's cool now to shoot up schools.

Who is John Galt?

Or, in this case, Jon Gault? 

Well, he is a man who is very grateful for the Affordable Care Act.

Some nights, when Jon Gault felt his worst, he wondered if he would live long enough to see his 17-year-old son go to college or to walk his daughter, now 8, down the aisle.

Although many have reported problems with the federal HealthCare.gov site, Gault says Washington’s site was surprisingly easy to navigate and he was quickly approved. The price came as a pleasant surprise also. Thanks to federal subsidies, Gault will not have to pay for his coverage.

“I went from being denied health insurance several years ago to actually having it now,” Gault says. 

“It’s kind of nice.”Many of his Republican friends have dismissed his newfound hope, and he has stopped trying to argue with them. They are not seeing the bigger picture, he says. It’s not about how much it will cost; it’s about those it will help. Everyone will benefit at least indirectly, because people they love and care about will benefit. 

As for him, he says he no longer has to choose between providing for his family or taking care of himself. 

Oh, the sweet, sweet irony!

Friday, December 13, 2013

Growing Up

It appears as though some Republicans are finally growing up. Check out what Paul Ryan had to say recently.

As a conservative, I deal with the situation as it exists. I deal with the way things are, not necessarily the way I want them to be. I’ve passed three budgets in a row that reflect my priorities and my principles and everything I wanted to accomplish. We’re in divided government. I realize I’m not going to get that.

Ryan took to the House floor yesterday and noted that "elections have consequences." Wow! There goes his Obama-hatin' card!!

John Boehner has also chimed in, wondering just exactly the Tea Party is trying to accomplish. "Are you KIDDING me?" was his question and the response is quite simple.

When your throw your lot in with adolescents, you get temper tantrums.

Good Words

“In ideologies there is not Jesus: in his tenderness, his love, his meekness. And ideologies are rigid, always. Of every sign: rigid. And when a Christian becomes a disciple of the ideology, he has lost the faith: he is no longer a disciple of Jesus, he is a disciple of this attitude of thought… For this reason Jesus said to them: ‘You have taken away the key of knowledge.’ The knowledge of Jesus is transformed into an ideological and also moralistic knowledge, because these close the door with many requirements. The faith becomes ideology and ideology frightens, ideology chases away the people, distances, distances the people and distances of the Church of the people. But it is a serious illness, this of ideological Christians. It is an illness, but it is not new, eh?” ~Pope Francis, (October 2013)

Hmm...sounds most familiar...

Thursday, December 12, 2013

The Adolescent

I've written previously about the modern day conservative as adolescent but this last week has certainly crystallized this theory and so a new tag is born, "The Adolescent." Once again, I was defriended by a conservative on Facebook. Reverend Jim said sayonara to Markadelphia after long exchanges over health care and race issues. Apparently, he and his wife (my first girlfriend) have had trouble signing up for health insurance on the federal exchange and blame me for it. They were in the individual market and were absolutely apoplectic about what the federal government was "making" them do.

Of course, the act of defriending itself is adolescent and, oddly, senior citizen-y (which is sort of the same thing when you think about it). Doesn't Reverend Jim know that you can delete someone from your news feed still remain friends? Man, working the computer machine is tough! Ah well, at least the bubble's integrity can remain intact. Thank goodness! Odder still, its that they tagged me in their health care rants, calling me a "box of turds" and "an idiot" for supporting the president and a political class that "lords over them, forcing them to live in servitude." The more I responded with the facts, the worse they got. Granted, the missus, who is still friends me with me on FB, has infinite leeway with me because she was the first love of my life but did they honestly want me to not respond? Again, adolescent:)

There were so many irrational and hysterical comments in those threads that it was hard for me to keep track but the one thing that struck me about all of them was how decidedly un-Christian they were. They were so self absorbed with their frustration with the web site, did they ever stop to think about these people? They are bitching about a buggy web site and the people in this link had nothing except life threatening illnesses. When Reverend Jim and the missus finally found out that they qualified for subsidies and would actually save money, suddenly they were happy. My oh my, how the emotions swing with teenagers! All talk of people "spooning off of the American taxpayer" went out the window as they finally happily got signed up.

This selfishness, aside from being un-Christian, is yet another strong indicator of a brain and higher reasoning not fully developed-just like an adolescent). They don't think rationally at all. Reverend Jim bemoans liberals that take offense at everything yet thinks conservatives that take offense at everything are justified. He vilifies our self esteem culture and the fairness for all attitude that goes along with it yet rips me when I say conservatives are far worse than liberals and...(not shockingly) gets massively offended himself. Again, the world revolves around them and only them.

It reminds me a great deal of the conversations I've had over the years with teenagers who take great umbrage with the fact that our society has rules and sometimes they aren't fair. As adults, one would think conservatives would have learned this by now but, as I have stated previously, something must have happened to them in their childhood to have so much trouble with authority. Because these sorts of conversations, with both adolescents and the modern day conservative, invariable end with an outburst followed by a stomp down the hallway, a door slam, and yelling about how I "think I'm so smart" and I'm always "talking down to them" like they are a child.

Well, perhaps they should stop acting like one:)

Oh. My. God.



Jesus was white? Wow...

Time's Man of the Year: "Fake" Christian

Well, Time magazine went and done did it. They named Pope Francis the Man of the Year. As the image below aptly notes, Republican Jesus believers don't much like the new pontiff and his "socialist" ways (see: helping the poor, healing the sick, championing equality aka what Jesus actually taught) so this has got to be a real ass chap for them. The world is moving away from the hatred, anger and fear.

Oh well.



Wednesday, December 11, 2013

Great News!

Two great things have happened in the last 24 hours. We have thankfully returned to a core tenet of Glass Steagal and enacted the so called Volcker Rule which prohibits banks from using customer money to trade for their own gain. I can't understate how integral this is to bringing stability to our economy and, by extension, the world economy.

And we have a deal that looks like it will pass by houses of Congress and fund the government through 2015. Republicans saw what happened when the shut down the government recently and realized it was time to put the short wave radio crowd back in the garage. They were facing disaster in the 2014 elections and now, with the help of the poor rollout of the ACA, they are doing much better. While there will likely be some return to idiocy, electorally speaking, over the next few months, GOP leaders can see a path to holding ground in the House and maybe picking up some seats in the Senate. Of course, things look pretty bad for them in 2016 as 24 Republicans look to hold on to their seats while only 10 Democrats do the same. But who knows what could happen in 3 years?

So, great times, folks in terms of our economic path. It's going to be interesting to see how our economy does now that both of these issues are out of the way. GDP is up, unemployment is down, and consumer confidence, heading into the final stretch of the holiday season, is at a five month high.

Great News!

Responsible Gun Owners?

3-Year-Old Fatally Shot Near Broad Ripple Park After Gun Fell Off Counter

A neighbor to the family said "I've known they had guns; they've carried them in public on their side, they've got permits for them and I just thought they always were a little bit more responsible than that." 

I guess not.

Tuesday, December 10, 2013

Just Wait For It


Spy vs. Spy: Elf vs. Orc

Not content with monitoring domestic phone calls, email, Internet searches, and porn habits, during the Bush administration the NSA decided to spy on people playing World of Warcraft. The New York Times reports the latest embarrassment from the Edward Snowden document dump:
Not limiting their activities to the earthly realm, American and British spies have infiltrated the fantasy worlds of World of Warcraft and Second Life, conducting surveillance and scooping up data in the online games played by millions of people across the globe, according to newly disclosed classified documents.
Fearing that terrorist or criminal networks could use the games to communicate secretly, move money or plot attacks, the documents show, intelligence operatives have entered terrain populated by digital avatars that include elves, gnomes and supermodels.
This is silly. Anyone who plays these games knows that there's no privacy. The companies running them are constantly on the watch for suspicious activity, because of rampant theft of game accounts, credit cards and in-game items and virtual currency. The companies log all communications, and monitor all activities to determine the best way to make money off their players.

There were so many NSA and GCHQ (British SIGINT) guys doing this that they had to develop protocols to avoid spying on each other.

This is another sign of the excessive amount of time and money we are wasting on supposed security threats. The bosses at the NSA are either completely stupid or ridiculously naive if they can't see that their employees were just looking for an excuse to play games at work.

No wonder Edward Snowden could just waltz in and steal them blind.

Citizens of the World

The recent cover story in the Christian Science Monitor illustrates just how much the world is changing. Retirees in this country are leaving the Unite States for Latin America in their golden years. Why? Their money lasts longer there with cheaper goods and more affordable health care.

The exodus south is being driven by a confluence of factors. The baby boom generation – the largest in history – is reaching retirement age, and millions are looking for places to spend the next phase of their lives. As the most educated, well-traveled, and adventurous generation in history, many of these boomers are deciding to retire outside the country – including in Latin America. They're also looking for places that will allow them to stretch their 401(k)s after they lost a lot of money in the last stock market collapse. With the US economy remaining so tentative, and health-care costs so aggressive, retirees want to live where they can afford greens fees and where a trip to the emergency room won't bankrupt them. 

It really helps to live in countries where the opposition party isn't trying to actively sabotage your health care system.

The bigger view of all of this, though, is how people are moving to consider themselves citizens of the world and not citizens of a particular country. I was particularly stuck by the story of James Cummiskey, the 20 year marine veteran who now owns his own coffee exporting business in Columbia. In the age of globalization, business can be conducted virtually anywhere so it makes sense to live in a country where you can make your dollars last longer.

As the article indicates, it isn't just Latin America. American retirees are moving all over the world. Perhaps that should tell us something about our current standard of living.

Monday, December 09, 2013


Why Do Those Charities Want Your Old T-Shirts?

We still have a landline phone, and 19 out of 20 calls are either 1) a scam for ripping off the elderly with a "free" health monitor that will cost them thousands of dollars, or 2) a notification that a truck from some charity or other will be in the neighborhood to collect old clothing.

I might be weird, but I wear my old clothing until it's worn out. I wear t-shirts until they get holes in the armpits, sweatshirts till the cuffs are frayed, and jeans till they get holes in the seat. Then I turn them into rags and use them to dust and clean my bike chain. Anyway, who could possibly want my old t-shirts?

Now I know who: people in Africa. From a story on NPR:
Jeff Steinberg had a maroon and white lacrosse jersey that he wore for years. It said "Denver Lacrosse" on the front and had his number, 5, on the back.

Then, one day, he cleaned out his closet and took the shirt to a Goodwill store in Miami. He figured that was the end of it. But some months after that, Steinberg found himself in Sierra Leone for work. He was walking down the street, and he saw a guy selling ice cream and cold drinks, wearing a Denver Lacrosse jersey.
Our old t-shirts are being packed into container ships, exported to Kenya where they sell for 15 cents. Often they are cut, resized (all those XL and XXL shirts are way too big for Africans), washed, ironed, tailored, and ultimately resold for a couple of bucks.

Over the years I've noticed on the news that people in other countries wear American t-shirts a lot. Why, I wondered, are so many Africans fans of the Chicago Bulls and the New England Patriots?

It turns out they're not. These countries are so desperately poor compared to us that they have entire industries based on the stuff that we just toss out.

I guess it's great that this stuff is being recycled. It's a lot more benign than the nasty recycling of electronics, in which circuit boards are sent to third-world countries and burned to recover precious metals, exposing the workers -- frequently children -- to highly toxic fumes.

But it really puts into perspective how wealthy the average American is compared to the average Kenyan.

And then you realize that there are some Americans who are almost as badly off as those Kenyans, who get their pick of our castoffs before we ship them off to Kenya. And they work for Walmart and McDonalds.

The Metric of Success

A commenter recently asked what my metric for success was in terms of the Affordable Care Act. I've answered this question many times in posts and comments and one need only click here to peruse my answers over the last couple of years. In fact, I recently highlighted one such quantification that bounced off the bubble into outer space. Oh well.

Yet, unlike my conservative colleagues, I strive to be reflective. So, it is in that spirit that we start today with a new tag called "health care success." Today, I will highlight two main metrics of quantitative success that will be integral in judging the effectiveness of the ACA. As the numbers start to come in showing increased enrollment in health care insurance, we will be able to see the number of people insured in this country rise. Right now we stand at 84.6 percent insured. So, the first metric of success is to get as many of that 15.4 percent uninsured to have coverage. If we can have a total of 95 percent of the nation covered with health insurance by 2016, I'd say it was successful. That's about three quarters of that 15 percent or 30 million people. We may not be able to know this for certain until the next census (2020) but I think there will be plenty of data by the next presidential election to give us a clearer picture.

But what about that last five percent? Well, that's where my second metric comes into play. Those that don't get insurance will have to pay a fee which will offset the costs of the program. Will that fee and all the newly insured people be able to achieve the overall goal of the ACA in reducing the amount of money we spend on health care? Currently we each spend $8,233 per year and the U.S. health care costs now eat up 17.6 percent of GDP.  How does that compare with other countries?












































Terrible. Just terrible. This is why we had to have health care reform. Obviously, the goal here is to control growth, as I noted the other day, and the ACA is already doing that. Now we have to look at the goal numbers in terms of dollars spent per person and our GDP (adjusted for inflation, of course). A minor success would be for us to spend $8,232 per person-1 dollar less than we are now. A major one would be for us to spend as much as Norway does at $5,388 per person. I'm going to set the goal of $6,700 dollars per person which falls right in between as my measure of success. With GDP, a minor success would be to get it to 16 percent. A major success would be 11.5 percent, putting us right in the middle of many European countries. I'll set the goal here at 14 percent of GDP. \

Of course, quantifying health care success is only one piece of the puzzle. What about quality of care? We could meet these goals but what if the care level falls? In the coming months, I'll be discussing other metrics that will indicate success in terms of our new health care law. Look for the tag "health care success!"

Sunday, December 08, 2013


Parroting Atheists

It seems that some Christian conservatives aren't the only ones that think Jesus would have carried an AR-15. I guess atheists do as well.  You know that you are in trouble as a devout Christian when you are parroting atheist talking points.

As I have mentioned previously, the "but to bring a sword" has to be looked at in context. Here is the rest of the quote.

For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.

So, the word "sword" is a metaphor for conflict between familial relations over the new word of Christ.

Here's another great explanation of the meaning and context of the verse. 

Saturday, December 07, 2013


'Tis The Season

It's the holidays and that means it's time to give back to those less fortunate than ourselves. With this spirit in mind, I thought I would answer all of the questions that a commenter (Not My Name) has been asking this year and give not only him a Christmas present but the four people that read his comments a gift as well. I've already answered many of them in posts or comments previously but he seems like he needs the attention and is lacking something pretty significant in his social life to spend as much time as he has writing in my comments section. So I thought one post with all my answers would be a great way to lift him out of his depression.

Question: Is the Constitution law? 

The context of this question was the 2nd amendment and I have already answered it pretty thoroughly. Yet there is a more concise way to answer...

Answer: Yes, the perfectly legal to amend and continually open to interpretation, as evidenced by 200+ years of tort, United States Constitution is law.

Question: Why would an uninsured person going to the ER cause insurance rates to go up?

Answer: Because they often can't pay and due to the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), a law signed by Ronald Reagan and a bipartisan Congress, every person must be cared for regardless of their financial situation. The story of Sharon Ford was a primary driver behind this law. Note the pro life tone to what transpired and consider this recent post of mine. As the link notes, taxpayers pick up the cost via public dollars or raised rates that stem from cash strapped hospitals picking up the tab.

Here NMN assumes that he has led me down a path that will show me that the government is the problem. Yet this same government stepped in to pass this law so we could save lives. Would NMN get rid of this law and let unborn babies like Sharon Ford's child die? I suppose only he can answer that but a reversal of this law would save taxpayers money so I guess he has a real puzzler on his hands. Maybe he should consult the Bible. On second thought, maybe not, as we can see from the next two questions.

Question: Faith in what? 

Answer: Your faith in Jesus and God. It's very, very weak. That's why you need others to believe exactly as you do lest you be tempted to stray from Republican Jesus. You claim to be a "rugged individualist" yet positively can't stand the fact that someone might think differently than you not just with your religious faith but your political faith as well. Like the communists and socialists you decry, you want everyone to believe exactly as you do otherwise you condemn them. You also make the mistake of having faith in conservative political leaders and ideologies. Faith is reserved for spiritual matters not for issues like the economy or health care. Even here your faith is weak as well. I'm not responsible for your insecurities. You are. And Jesus is very clear about people that judge and cast the first stone.

One other note on this question. NMN has refused, despite repeated queries, to outright reject the various sects of Christianity that don't conform exactly to his warped version of it. He's certainly rejected my Christian beliefs. I wonder why he hasn't rejected the Unitarian Church, for example. Or the peace churches.

Primary Question: Authors of words have a meaning they intend to communicate, and that meaning is the only valid "interpretation" of any writing. Do you agree or disagree? 

Related Questions: What makes you think God is UNABLE to do what mere humans can do—get someone to write what they want written? So you're claiming that the Jeremiah 31:33-34 prophecy has already come to pass? That every single person in the world sees and accepts Yahweh as his/her God, even Juris Imprudent? That there is no disagreement about God because we all know Him directly?   

Answer: As a writer myself, I say no to the primary question because maybe someone else can dream up something even more wonderful than I intended. Being a reflective person, I welcome it, of course:) Perhaps I could inspire someone to a higher meaning, right?  The other day in class I was offering a critique of John Maynard Keynes and a student raised his hand and said, "It seems that you are saying that Keynes' theories are too psychologically based." I hadn't actually said that but he took what I was saying and brought it to a higher level. It was magnificent. But really, it depends on the author. Bob Dylan would say yes. John Lennon would say no. NMN also seems to be lacking here in his understanding of the use of metaphor. Perhaps he doesn't understand symbolism either.

Anyway, the context of this question and the related ones is the Bible and the author's intent. As with all of his Bible, legal, constitutional, and morality related questions, NMN assumes he is the authority on the author's intent and proceeds (as always) with great hubris. He recently intimated that he is a more valid interpreter of the Bible than the pope. Wow, he's smart!

So, the question he lacks the courage to ask is "Am I the authority on Biblical interpretation, constitutional interpretation, and morality in terms of spiritual and civic law?" Or, more briefly, "Do I know what God is thinking?" The answer is no (and it's no for me as well) because he continually makes false assumptions based on emotions and a completely instransigent ideology. The failure is not with the authors but with NMN himself because he misinterprets, either purposefully, through ignorance or both, the author's intent. And, as I have mentioned far too many times, he also purposefully misinterprets what I say and turns my writings into gotcha questions (so, how long have you been beating your wife?) in order to go for the win and show off for the TSM people that read his comments. Does he know any other way? Thus far, the answer is no.

Primary Question: Do you think it's okay to punish a child for the parent's crime?

Answer: No, but I wish it were OK to punish parents for children's crimes. There would be a lot less gun deaths and spree shootings if that were the case. Perhaps parents would think twice about having guns in the house with their mentally ill child if their asses were on the line.

The background to this question is abortion and NMN falsely assumes (more on false assumptions aka lying below) that the moment of inception equals a child. It does not. Science (remember facts, evidence and logic?) shows us that there is not a fetus until the 10th week of development. The link above has detailed images of development and people can judge for themselves as to what constitutes a "child." For me that's towards the end of the first trimester which is why I have no problem with a federal ban on abortion extended to include the 2nd trimester. I'd even consider going back earlier with a ban when brain, heart and lung functions are more fully developed. A question that NMN or other pro life folks need to answer...is something human if it has no heart?

Of course, there is no such thing as compromise in NMN's world. Even I have to consider that my views may be wrong. Can the child survive outside of the womb? When? What of the mother's rights? Is her body now a ward of the state? This is a gray area because it's not as cut and dried as human-not human. And the Right doesn't do well at all with gray areas. It's not a person at every stage of neonatal development and even when it is in my view, should the fetus really be granted 14th amendment rights? Consider as well that the same argument against banning guns (only criminals will have guns) applies here. Only criminals will provide abortions and there will have to be funds for enforcement and personnel assigned to police it. Who is going to pay for it? Imagine what happened during Prohibition with liquor happening with abortion in terms of crime. Witness what is happening now with drugs. It would be a nightmare. NMN, like many on the Right, don't really think before they bloviate about nearly all of the issues facing our country today. Recall this as well. 

If we left behind the rock solid stubbornness of both sides in the abortion debate, we might actually be able to solve this problem. Abortion is not birth control and it should be harder to obtain. Single woman in their 20s are the group that need to be targeted as they have the most abortions. At a certain stage (earlier than what is legal now), they should not be allowed to have an abortion unless their life is threatened. If they are raped or a victim of incest, they should use the day after pill or terminate in the first couple of weeks. Family planning and sex education need to be improved. People have to behave more responsibly when it comes to sex. Overall, there needs to be societal shift so demand for abortion is reduced it not all together eliminated. As with most issues, the Right can't help but focus on supply when they should be focusing on demand. Get rid of the demand and you get rid of abortion.

Primary Question: Is "false" equal to "truth"?

Related Questions: Even Joe Biden admits that the administration's gun control actions won't stop the shootings. So why do those things? Since the leaders of the Democrat's effort to implement universal background checks say that "any bill without a records provision would be as toothless as an honor system", do you still assert that "[n]o one is talking about universal registration" and/or that it can be implemented without registration?

Answer: No, false does not equal truth and NMN does an excellent job of illustrating this given the content of the primary question and the related questions. Honestly, all of his questions are, in one way or another, based on false assumptions about the issues of the day or, in this case, me and what I am asserting. With me, that's part and parcel to his childish games.

The context of this specific line of query (along with all of the other gun questions he asks) is based on the false assumption and an inconsolable paranoia that the federal government is out to get our guns. For NMN, any changes to gun laws will result in tyranny. Our system of checks and balances make this highly unlikely. Consider how difficult it is to pass something as simple as a budget let alone a new law on the regulation of guns. A tyranny assumes swift and decisive action not government by sedimentation which is what we have now. He pulls half truths, spins, or simply lies with this category of questions.

Joe Biden's comment is quite different than what NMN has described and essentially (and hilariously) asks, "Why even have laws?" In fact, this very question is at the root of conservative whining. Like the adolescent that simply can't take the rules of the house, conservatives grouse about having to follow rules they don't like. New rules are the worst, man! They suck, and like, the Right doesn't want to do them and stuff. Of course, the rest of the adults in our country recognize that as our society evolves, problems arise and sometimes need to be addressed with (gasp!) new laws. Pretending that a problem doesn't exist or will magically go away (the conservative go to thinking these days) doesn't work.

The background check question is a half truth at best and based on opinions and heresay, not the actual law or an evidence based argument. The Manchin-Toomey bill is available here for review and a Google search (unaided by someone as biased as me:)) will show the full story on his related questions. And why can't we figure out a way to improve gun safety while honoring the 2nd amendment? We are the greatest nation on the planet, aren't we? I find it amusing that someone such as NMN decries those who "hate America" yet appears to be doing just that. Clearly the thinks very little of the leaders of this country and the people in it but that's the adolescent problem with authority again. Equally as amusing is the fact that NMN spends a lot of time and energy debunking things that Democrats say, accusing them of being incompetent liars, but on the issue of universal background checks, they are now suddenly "telling the truth." Wow...it's a Christmas miracle!!

Will NMN accept this gift in the spirit of the season and be gracious? Will his obsession with me continue? Or something else? Or will he reject my gift, take it back, psychotically keep asking the questions over and over again, circle jerk for juris, GD, 6Kings and Larry, and pretend that I never answered the questions? Honestly, it doesn't really matter.

Because in the final analysis we will never, ever see the kind of our nation he claims he wants. The trajectory of our country is evolving to fit the age of globalization and leaving behind backwards, hateful, and ignorant thinking. NMN's comments and questions are great examples of the fear that only comes with the realization that old ideologies are quickly becoming irrelevant.

Anecdata

Remember all those Obamacare horror stories? Not looking so bad now.

Oh, really? Why? Well, read the piece. But how did this happen?

The failure of the exchanges created an information vacuum as far as Obamacare successes went; in rushed the individual stories of those who claimed to have been hurt by the changes to the market. It didn't matter that these stories are, even without enrollment numbers from the exchanges, demonstrably unrepresentative! 

In steps...anecdata!

Statisticians dismiss the practice of using personal stories to argue about an objective reality as "anecdata", but it might be more accurate to call the "Obamacare horror stories" that have taken over social media "urban legends". There are urban legends about a lot of things – from spiders in hairdos to red velvet cake. Some are funny, some feature a satisfying come-uppance, but folklorists agree that the stickiest of them, the ones that last for generations and resist debunking are the ones that live off ignorance and feed off fear. As one researcher put it: "It's a lack of information coupled with these fears that tends to give rise to new legends. When demand exceeds supply, people will fill in the gaps with their own information … they'll just make it up."

I can't think of a better description of the conservative media ecosystem at the moment. 

Neither can I.  I quite enjoyed the torpedoeing of some of the more prominent "horror" stories. 

Friday, December 06, 2013

Careful What You Wish For

This recent piece from the Christian Science Monitor illustrates the pitfalls of requiring a photo ID to vote.

As Wisconsin implements its law, it is opening a window into why a photo ID can be so difficult for the elderly to obtain. But it is also highlighting what some activists are calling a "war against the Greatest Generation" as federal and state budget cuts fall disproportionately on the elderly. Whether it is the government shutdown making it harder to obtain veteran's benefits or cuts to food stamps or state welfare programs, many in the Greatest Generation feel that they are now being left in the cold. 

So, they might end up alienating their own base? Wow. That's rilly smart!  Well, folks like Genevieve Kujawski can rest assured that Democrats will protect their right to vote even if it is against them. 

A Very Overheated Religious War

The situation in the Central African Republic is simply terrible. Roving gangs of Christian extremists in the capital of Bangui have been targeting Muslim neighborhoods and wantonly killing people in the name of their God for retribution against Muslims gangs that have done the same. I'm not sure what God they worship but it certainly isn't the Christian one. Thou shall not kill, remember?

French troops are arriving in the coming days to hopefully keep the peace. They are also sending air support to hopefully quell any future uprisings. AP is reporting that the French are reluctantly going in which strikes me as complete bullshit as they are partly responsible for the situation on the ground. The CAR has never gotten over the Scramble for Africa. French meddling in the region created the power struggles that we see today. So, this is largely blowback from colonization over a century ago.

It's going to take a lot more than 1200 troops to stop what is now clearly genocide. The United Nations needs to have a robust and permanent presence there and the French need to invest far more resources (especially financial) than they are now. It's very quickly becoming too late and far too many people have died.

3.6 Percent

The United States Economy grew at the much faster pace of 3.6 percent in the third quarter than originally thought. Second quarter growth was also revised upward to 2.5 percent. The reasons for this growth include private inventory investment, personal consumption expenditures, exports, and state and local government spending.

Very welcome news indeed!

Discovery!

I have been searching for awhile now for a way to address the often prejudiced and sometimes racist attitudes towards the president without provoking the usual shrill and hysterical reaction from the Right. I have now found such a way.

First of all, was that really the cover of the National Review? Yes it was.  Talk about a dog whistle! Chait is dead on right with his analysis in this piece. Here are some my favorite bits...

It is bizarre to ascribe haughtiness and a lack of a capacity for embarrassment to a president whose most recent notable public appearance was a profusely and even flamboyantly contrite press conference spent repeatedly confessing to “fumbles” and “mistakes.” Why would Hillyer believe such a factually bizarre thing? One answer is that, by the evidence of this column, Hillyer believes all sorts of factually bizarre things. But most African-Americans, and many liberal whites, would read Hillyer’s rant as the cultural heir to Northup’s overseer: a southern white reactionary enraged that a calm, dignified, educated black man has failed to prostrate himself.

But are Hillyer and other conservatives really that bad?

Before plunging further into a poisonously defensive racial debate, I should note that I feel certain Hillyer opposes slavery and legal segregation, and highly confident he abhors racial discrimination, and believes in his heart full economic and social equality for African-Americans would be a blessing. (More than two decades ago, Hillyer worked against the candidacy of David Duke.) His feeling of offense at Obama’s putative haughtiness (“chin jutting out”) might be a long-ago-imbibed white southern upbringing bubbling to the surface, but more likely a flailing partisan rage that could just as easily have been directed at a white Democrat.

You can accept the most benign account of his thought process – and I do – while still being struck by the simple fact that Hillyer finds nothing uncomfortable at all about wrapping himself in a racist trope. He is either unaware of the freighted connotation of calling a black man uppity, or he doesn’t care. In the absence of a racial slur or an explicitly bigoted attack, no racial alarm bells sound in his brain.

So, they are just ignorant and don't want to reflect and change. Shocking...

Of course, this part of a larger problem.

The broad social structure of white supremacy is not a part of the working conservative definition of racism. Conservatives see racism as a series of discrete acts of overt oppression. After slavery had disappeared, but before legal segregation had, conservatives considered it preposterous to claim that blacks suffered any systematic disadvantage in American life. 

Hence the recent racism is over tweet.  They simply can't out of the black-white mindset. If racism isn't over, then the blacks and liberal whites must be continually crying wolf and trying to get free hand outs or something.

Pay close attention to how the president is criticized by the Right. The framework for the criticism is exactly how Chait describes it.

Thursday, December 05, 2013

Oh, Are They?

Large Companies Prepared to Pay Price on Carbon

From the article...

The development is a striking departure from conservative orthodoxy and a reflection of growing divisions between the Republican Party and its business supporters. A new report by the environmental data company CDP has found that at least 29 companies, some with close ties to Republicans, including ExxonMobil, Walmart and American Electric Power, are incorporating a price on carbon into their long-term financial plans. Both supporters and opponents of action to fight global warming say the development is significant because businesses that chart a financial course to make money in a carbon-constrained future could be more inclined to support policies that address climate change. 

As I have stated previously, eventually the private firms of this nation will accept the facts. 

Completely Inconsolable

I've had some rather lengthy discussions with my conservative friends of late that have led me to the same conclusion as Jamelle Bouie: No matter the facts, the GOP is committed to the message that Obamacare has failed.

The Republican complaints of two months ago were purely opportunistic. For them, it just doesn’t matter if Healthcare.gov is working, since Obamacare is destined to fail, reality be damned! At most, the broken website was useful fodder for attacks on the administration. Now that it’s made progress, the GOP will revert to its usual declarations that the Affordable Care Act is a hopeless disaster. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of Americans have gained access to health insurance thanks to the Medicaid expansion or the exchanges, and many more will join their ranks as the deadline for coverage approaches. 

They are completely inconsolable and it seems they want to stay that way. 

Where's Her Apology?

Martin Bashir has resigned from MSNBC after taking Sarah Palin to the mat over her ridiculously awful comparison our debt to slavery. Not only was she insensitive but she demonstrated (once again) that she is sorely lacking in an understanding of our debt. On his Nov. 15 broadcast, Bashir called Palin "a world class idiot" because she made a comparison to slavery while discussing U.S. debt to China. The host then read an excerpt from the diary of a former plantation manager who wrote of forcing one slave to "S-H-I-T" in another slave's mouth, and said "if anyone truly qualified for a dose of [such] discipline... then she would be the outstanding candidate." He has since apologized for the remarks and now tendered his resignation from the network.

What I'm wondering is where is Sarah Palin's apology? Does she get to play with different rules?

Yes. Yes, she does.

In fact, so do all conservatives. They get to act like jack wagons because...well...they are. And their base eats it all up. But liberals don't get to act that way because they are the adults in the political arena, hence Bashir's resignation. If the Fox News personalities were held to the same standard, there would be no one working at the network.

Honestly, it's pretty fucking unfair if you ask me. It's almost like we simply have accepted that it's OK for conservatives like Sarah Palin to say offensive things. They get a pass and liberals don't. 

Great Deal of Hope

I think I have overreacted a tad to the somewhat glacial pace of guns and mental health legislation. Take a look at this.

The simple fact there are many deep red states answering the president's call gives me a great deal of hope. States are doing their own thing and that's just fine with me. Considering the Gun Cult is also a big supporter of states' rights, it seems to me they can't do anything about it. That really gives me a great deal of hope:)

What if there is a way to fix all this stuff and not change the lives of the Gun Cult? I think it may already be happening and it's just a little under the radar.

Wednesday, December 04, 2013

The Idolatry of Money: Not Just Bad for the Soul

Pope Francis raised a lot of conservative hackles with his latest epistle, Evangelii Gaudium. He has been called a Marxist by the likes of Rush Limbaugh. Here's an excerpt:
No to the new idolatry of money

55. One cause of this situation is found in our relationship with money, since we calmly accept its dominion over ourselves and our societies. The current financial crisis can make us overlook the fact that it originated in a profound human crisis: the denial of the primacy of the human person! We have created new idols. The worship of the ancient golden calf (cf. Ex 32:1-35) has returned in a new and ruthless guise in the idolatry of money and the dictatorship of an impersonal economy lacking a truly human purpose. The worldwide crisis affecting finance and the economy lays bare their imbalances and, above all, their lack of real concern for human beings; man is reduced to one of his needs alone: consumption.
This relentless pursuit of profit isn't just bad for our souls, it's also bad for our social, economic and physical well-being.  And it could well mean the end of modern medicine (see below).

The crash of 2008 was due to the laser-like focus on profit and personal gain, without regard to the broader consequences for future profits and the stability of the world's financial system. But this disease goes far beyond the financial sector.

Self-Destructive Profit Seeking in the Energy Sector
The relentless pursuit of profit is especially prevalent in the energy sector. In the United States there has been a mad rush to exploit the technology of hydraulic fracturing, causing contamination of aquifers, proper disposal of fracking waste, and even a precipitous and unsustainable drop in the price of natural gas: In 2012 the CEO of Exxon, Rex Tillerson, said, "We are all losing our shirts today."

That mindset spills into other areas. Minnesota and Wisconsin have been hit by a mad rush for sand mining (sand is needed for the fracking process). Developers wanted to tear up small towns along the Mississippi River for the sand. There was a lot of resistance as residents of these towns feared for their health: breathing the fine dust from sand mines can cause serious diseases like silicosis.

Some people didn't wait and got in on the sand rush, when it was selling for $200 a ton. Now, however, the price has plummeted, and they're selling it as cow bedding at $3.25 a ton. And companies are still clamoring to dig up those towns for their sand.

Profit Over Health
Focusing on profit rather than the common good is bad for our health. The food industry uses chemistry to make their products as addictive as possible, cramming more and more irresistible burgers, fries, chips and soda down our throats, causing an epidemic of obesity and diabetes and heart disease.

The meat and poultry industry directly feeds their animals antibiotics because it increases weight gain, increasing profit. Bacteria develop resistance to these antibiotics because of this overuse, causing flesh-eating superbugs for which there is no treatment. The same thing happens when doctors prescribe antibiotics for acne, or sore throats caused by viruses, or when patients don't take the full course of an antibiotic treatment for strep (or, worse, tuberculosis).

Antibiotic resistance would seem to be a new target for drug company profits. Alas, companies aren't interested because they can't milk them forever: you take antibiotics for a couple of days and then you're cured.

Focus on Cash Cows
Pharmaceutical companies would rather sell drugs for chronic conditions like diabetes and hypertension, which they can get a monopoly on for 20 years. They want to make drugs that cost their customers $10,000 or $20,000 a year for the rest of their lives (which most of us don't pay directly because of health insurance). All too often these new drugs aren't any better than the old drugs; they have a lot of new side effects that the drug companies just try to sweep under the rug.

And there's a lot of evidence that many of the drugs taken for chronic conditions are overused and provide only marginally better outcomes. Most patients would see more far more improvement by reducing stress, exercising, eating right and getting enough sleep. And they should just avoid foods that cause heartburn and allergic reactions instead of taking drugs for the symptoms.

But instead Big Pharma pushes for more blockbusters for chronic disease, and ignores mundane antibiotics to pursue the holy grail of profit. The problem is that when antibiotics become useless, medicine as we know it we know it will end, drastically reducing the need for all the drugs Big Pharma is cashing in on now.

Think about it: any kind of surgery requires antibiotics as a prophylactic measure. Even now the most common complication of surgery is infection. Without antibiotics any invasive medical procedure entails significant risk of death. Diabetics, heart attack victims and cancer patients will die from infections in huge numbers: they won't be taking those patented drugs for 20 years. Drug companies need antibiotics to maintain a large pool of customers for their other drugs.

The End of Modern Medicine?
Without antibiotics kidney, heart, liver and lung transplants are impossible. Many cancer treatments that suppress the immune system are impossible. Abdominal surgery is impossible. Dialysis is impossible because the port becomes infected. Artificial heart valve, knee and hip replacements become impossible. Cosmetic surgery would be insanely risky. Lasik and cataract surgery become far too dangerous, risking blindness and death from infection.

Most people would forgo any kind of  elective surgery. We would rather suffer from agonizing neuropathies, torn ACLs, cataracts, retinal detachments (causing blindness) and crippling orthopedic problems for the rest of our lives than risk death from infection. Amputations for what are now minor infections would be commonplace. Battlefield wounds, which have become amazingly survivable with the advent of antibiotics, would once again be frequently fatal.

Death rates from car accidents, falls, food poisoning, child birth, caesarean sections, skin infections, pneumonia, etc., would skyrocket, killing from 1% to 9% to as many as 30% of patients.

It takes years to develop new antibiotics, and because of the way we do things, bacteria quickly develop resistance to new ones much faster than they used to. We need stop putting antibiotics in animal feed, and stop prescribing them for every whining brat and pimple-faced teenager who visits the doctor's office. And someone's got to step up and start developing new antibiotics now, because it takes years. If it ain't the drug companies, it's going to have to be universities and non-profit institutions funded by the government. That means we've got to stop whining about how high taxes are.

The total focus on profit without regard for the common good has to end. It's bad for our souls, it's bad for our environment, it's bad for our health and it's bad for our future.

Back To The Drawing Board

Midwest and national manufacturing grew in November, reports say.

From the article...

Factories making machinery, metal parts, furniture and other long-lasting goods saw product orders jump in November, which helped boost hiring across the manufacturing sector, according to two closely watched reports released Monday.

So, when people buy more things, the companies that make those things hire more people. Huh. I thought companies hired more people when they got tax cuts and demand had nothing to do with it. Apparently, I have been misinformed.

And growth is widespread?

For the nation, the Institute for Supply Management reported growth across several industries, including plastics, rubber, textiles, furniture, paper, metals, transportation equipment, computers and printing. In addition, U.S. manufacturing jobs grew, creating “the highest reading since April 2012,” said Bradley Holcomb, chairman of the Institute’s Manufacturing Business Survey Committee. Fifteen out of 18 manufacturing sectors grew, giving hope that the worst of the lackluster recovery is behind the nation.

And the cost of health care is seen as decreasing?

Over the next few years, the government is expected to spend billions of dollars less than originally projected on the law, analysts said, with both the Medicaid expansion and the subsidies for private insurance plans ending up less expensive than anticipated.

And now even the web site is working better? Sheesh!

Ah well, I guess it's back to the drawing board (and deep into the bubble) for the apocalypcists!

Good Words

"The world as we have created it is a process of our thinking. It cannot be changed without changing our thinking" (Albert Einstein)

Tuesday, December 03, 2013

Black Friday Meltdown

Here's a great example of a gripe that liberals have that I just don't get.



This is evidence of the "End Times?" Like my colleagues on the right, emotions are causing memory loss. I can think of...oh, I don't know...EIGHT ZILLION examples in history where we have been much worse off than today. The Civil War comes to mind as does the Spanish flu epidemic. Compare the deaths of hundreds of thousands to some excited shoppers. And you really think this show our country is on the downswing? If anything, it shows that free markets really do work!

Sadly, it shows that the far left and the far right have so much in common that they start to sound like each other after awhile. Their irrational fear, anger and hate has to be validated and this line of thought always ends with THE APOCALYPSE.

Look out!

Good Words

"There is a natural human tendency to believe that any major development, no matter how long before an election, will be the last important influence on said election. This theory is fine in the last days before an election, but with almost a year to go, it is pretty unlikely that the national political situation will suddenly become static for well over 300 days." (Charlie Cook)

Anyone that tells you they know for certain what the outcome of the 2014 election is going to be is simply engaging in wishful thinking...

Monday, December 02, 2013

The Hunger Games Effect

Gun advocates often talk about the positive effects of instructing kids in the use of firearms. It provides many teachable moments, including close attention to safety, dedication to discipline, self-control and self-reliance. Hunting with rifles gives you a chance to get outdoors in the fresh air, bond with family and friends, maintain a connection to traditions from the past, and so on.

But all of that is doubly true for archery.

I got to thinking about this after seeing a story at Minnesota Public Radio about the huge boom in archery among girls since the Hunger Games books and movies have become so popular. The heroine of the Hunger Games is Katniss Everdeen, famous for using a bow. Bows (albeit crossbows) have also been appearing in recent TV shows, including Revolution and The Walking Dead.

Colorado Parks and Wildlife is also taking advantage of the opening of The Hunger Games: Catching Fire:
To further promote participation in archery, Colorado Parks and Wildlife is advertising its archery programs during the movie’s premier. The static, 15-second advertisement depicts a female archer along with the slogan: "Get in the game – explore your passion for archery."

Appearing in select Colorado theaters Nov. 15-28, the ad also includes a QR code and link, which sends movie audiences to a resource webpage. The webpage features CPW's archery programs, an interactive map of shooting ranges, videos and a summary of partnering organizations that offer archery or bowhunting programs in Colorado.
When I was a kid my dad sometimes hunted deer during the bow season. In some states the bow season is a lot longer, so bow hunters get more opportunities. A bow always seemed more sporting than a rifle to me; a rifle hunter is more of a sniper than a sportsman. A bowman also has to be pretty damn good: if your first shot misses, you're not likely to get a second one. And because arrows aren't as cheap as bullets, bow hunters are less likely to shoot at any random motion in the woods.

In many ways bow hunting is safer than rifle hunting. Since the inherent range of a bow is much shorter than a rifle, and wind and foliage affect the flight of arrow more than a bullet, you have to be a lot closer to your target. That means you're more likely to be able to clearly see your target and less likely to shoot something other than a deer. The maximum range of an arrow is much shorter than a bullet, so your misses are also much less likely to hit innocent bystanders. It's nearly impossible to accidentally shoot yourself or a friend because you aren't tramping through the woods with a loaded weapon: you only nock the arrow when your target is in sight. Rifle hunting accidents are tragically common [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8]. The most likely injury bow hunters suffer is probably falling from a tree stand.

A bow doesn't destroy your hearing either.

A lot of hunters use both bows and rifles. Some people ask which is better. Rifle hunting is easier and faster. But the main difference is the relationship between the hunter and nature: bow hunting is more like fishing. It's quiet, placid, idyllic, contemplative: the forest is filled with natural sounds; bow hunters strike in silence.

Rifles are intrusive and loud. When my wife owned a horse she hated riding during rifle season because of the constant barrage of rifle fire. The noise unnerved her mount, making him skittish. And she was always afraid of some nitwit mistaking her gray gelding for a deer (which happens distressingly frequently), or getting hit by stray shot from half a mile away (which also happens: 1, 2).

Sure, rifle hunting requires skill, and I don't think it's wrong: we've killed so many wolves that a hunting season is necessary to keep the deer population in check. The other men in my family do it all the time. But bow hunting seems like another magnitude of difficulty greater, a much better test of your skills than pointing and pulling a trigger at a range of two or three hundred yards. I can see the attraction of bow hunting: killing the animal isn't the real goal, the act of the hunt is what matters.

It makes me wonder how much of the rugged woodsman talk that some gun advocates spout is bluster to cover the fact that they just like things that go boom.

The Entertainer Makes No Sense

It's been awhile since we heard from entertainer Rush Limbaugh. Yeah, I know there is still a group of frightened old men that listen to him every day but what I'm talking about is Rush saying something profoundly moronic with the purpose of getting noticed outside of the bubble. The media then proceeds to act "outraged" at what he said in order to bring in some viewers from inside the bubble. It's a win for him and a win for the "liberal" media.

His latest remark (The Pope is a Marxist) makes no sense to me, though. The Catholic Church can do whatever it wants with its money and mission. If they want to help feed the poor and heal the sick through the redistribution of their wealth, shouldn't they be left alone to do so? If the worry is that the Pope will somehow convince the leaders of the world to adopt Marxism as their government framework, that's just plain silly given how globalization is already out of the bag. There are free markets everywhere and prosperity is rising all over the world so, in some ways, the Pope is just wrong.

Perhaps Rush simply doesn't understand what Marxism is or, more likely, has no clue whatsoever that Jesus Christ espoused in the Bible. Material wealth mattered not to Christ and he encouraged people to help those less fortunate through the church. Being strong in spirit and believing in God where far more important to Jesus. That was the whole part about not being able to worship God and money at the same time. In fact, the Bible vilifies the wealthy and insists that the true path to God lies in serving the poor and healing the sick.

So what the fuck is Rush talking about?

Another Member of the 1% As Mythbuster

Henry Blodget is co-founder, CEO and Editor-In Chief of Business Insider, one of the fastest-growing business and tech news sites in the world. Business Insider's investors include Institutional Venture Partners, RRE Ventures, and Bezos Expeditions. The site has 25+ million visitors a month. A former top-ranked Wall Street analyst, Henry is also the host of Yahoo Daily Ticker, a digital video show viewed by several million people a month.

His recent piece on his site explains exactly why rich people don't create jobs, echoing Nick Hanauer who is mentioned in the article. Healthy economic systems nurture job growth. This photo shows just how unhealthy our economy is right now.

























The bottom 90 percent (the blue color in the graph) are customers and if their wealth is stagnate, our economy doesn't work the way it should.

The company's customers buy the company's products. This, in turn, channels money to the company and allows the the company to hire employees to produce, sell, and service those products. If the company's customers and potential customers go broke, the demand for the company's products will collapse. And the company's jobs will disappear, regardless of what the entrepreneurs or investors do.

Now, again, entrepreneurs are an important part of the company-creation process. And so are investors, who risk capital in the hope of earning returns. But, ultimately, whether a new company continues growing and creates self-sustaining jobs is a function of the company's customers' ability and willingness to pay for the company's products, not the entrepreneur or the investor capital. Suggesting that "rich entrepreneurs and investors" create the jobs, therefore, Hanauer observes, is like suggesting that squirrels create evolution.

Wealthy people like Mr. Blodget are realizing that they need to actively support change otherwise there won't an economy in which they can enjoy their riches.

Sunday, December 01, 2013

Calling Iran's Bluff on Nuclear Power

A lot of pundits have been trumpeting nuclear power as the solution to our climate change woes, despite the ongoing nuclear catastrophe at Fukushima. Politico has an article that explains the reason why it's hard: nuclear waste.

The United States has no long-term nuclear waste storage facility. There was supposed to be one at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, but that has been torpedoed by locals who don't want the nation's nuclear waste in their backyard. Who can blame them? No one else is stepping up, including states like Georgia, where the first two new nuclear power plants in over 30 years are under construction.

Nuclear plants have been storing the waste in pools in their reactors or in "dry casks" on-site, risking a Fukushima-type disaster in hundreds of locations across the United States. However, they're still paying a fee on nuclear power that was supposed to finance the storage facility, which was supposed to have opened 15 years ago. It didn't, and probably never will, so the utilities are suing the DOE.

The cost of having no storage facility is listed variously at $38 billion, $50 billion or $65 billion, depending on who you listen to and when you're talking about. The federal government has been spending a couple of billion dollars a year to settle claims with utilities.

The problem is that we will never have one single safe place to store nuclear waste. No state will ever allow it. Some geniuses have tried to create "temporary" radioactive waste storage sites on poverty-stricken Indian reservations to get around Congress and state legislatures, taking advantage of tribal sovereignty. But this failed when the Department of the Interior denied the company, Private Fuel Storage, a right of way to transport radioactive waste.

Talk of more American nukes is going on at the same time that conservatives in the United States and the prime minister of Israel are actively calling for military action against Iran to kill its nuclear program. Those same people are blasting the Obama administration's attempts to negotiate a peaceful resolution.

Iran claims it has no intention of developing nuclear weapons; they say they simply need nuclear power to generate electricity. They currently use a lot of oil for power generation, but that really hurts their trade balance because they can't sell the oil they burn to produce electricity. But when Iran finally gets their nuclear power plants up and running, who's going to take the radioactive waste they produce? We certainly can't let Iran keep it. And we don't want it either. Where's it gonna go?

Iran is a sunny and mountainous country. That means it's a prime candidate for solar and wind power. Some countries want to encourage this: the EU doesn't impose sanctions on renewable energy equipment destined for Iran, according to an article in the Wall Street Journal. Iran also has good potential for geothermal power generation.

Conservatives in the United States have been actively sabotaging development of solar and wind power in the US, while touting the benefits of nuclear power. These same conservatives are ready to go to war with Iran to stop them from opening nuclear reactors like the ones we're building in Georgia. Because they know Iran's real intent is to build a nuclear bomb -- which I admit may be true.

So we should call Iran's nuclear bluff: let's start a Manhattan Project for renewable energy to help countries like Iran develop their solar, wind and geothermal potential, as well as storage systems for the power generated by intermittent renewable sources. Then they'll have no legitimate reason to refine uranium for nuclear power plants, which could also be used in nuclear weapons.

Coincidentally, we can use those same renewable energy systems in the United States, where sun and wind are plentiful in many parts of the country. If we lead by example we'll also have a much better chance of convincing Iran of our noble intentions.

As the developing world slowly rises out of poverty they're going to need electricity. Countries like China and India are already killing their own citizens with noxious clouds of smoke from coal-fired power plants (it's gotten so bad they're even banning barbecue grills). In the near future, more developing nations are going to start competing with us for oil and natural gas. If we set the nuclear precedent with Iran, they'll also want uranium, with all the attendant doom that engenders.

No matter how much we frack, there simply isn't enough oil and gas in the ground to satisfy the demand as the most populous countries in the world come to expect the energy-dense standard of living we enjoy in the United States.

Renewable energy isn't just good for our environment: it could ratchet down international tension and reduce the chance of war. Most third-world countries have abundant local renewable energy resources, including geothermal, OTEC, solar and wind power, and maybe even hydrogen production. By developing these energy sources, we will reduce global demand for oil and gas, reducing the possibility of war (and incidentally leaving us with more oil and gas).

The war in Iraq cost us a trillion dollars, and will continue to cost us billions in the future as we deal with the medical and psychological wounds inflicted on veterans. Invading Iran would cost just as much, if not more since it has twice the population of Iraq. Even if we delude ourselves into limiting the attack to an American-backed Israeli "tactical" strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, it's hard to believe Iran's surrogates would not initiate a campaign of terrorist attacks against Western targets across the world. Which we would eventually have to respond to with force on the level of Afghanistan or Iraq.

We should be working to give Iran what it needs, not what it wants. They need renewable energy, not nuclear power. We should be spending a few hundred billion dollars over the next few years on renewable energy research, which we could then sell to Iran and other third-world countries, ultimately recouping our investment.

Most wars are over resources -- land, minerals, water and energy. Japan bombed Pearl Harbor because the United States had embargoed Japan's oil supply, and they wanted to capture oil resources in the Dutch East Indies.

Investing in renewable energy sources and intermittent energy storage will save us trillions of dollars in military expenditures over the long haul. And that's not even considering the savings from preventing the inevitable wars that will result from widespread starvation, drought and flooding brought on by climate change. Which will be a whole lot less likely if start developing renewable energy resources before the oil runs out.