The Platform of the Texas Republican Party. You couldn’t make this stuff up. Some highlights (with the occasional commentary):
Protection from Extreme Environmentalists – We strongly oppose all efforts of the extreme environmental groups that stymie legitimate business interests. We strongly oppose those efforts that attempt to use the environmental causes to purposefully disrupt and stop those interests within the oil and gas industry. We strongly support the immediate repeal of the Endangered Species Act. We strongly oppose the listing of the dune sage brush lizard either as a threatened or an endangered species. We believe the Environmental Protection Agency should be abolished.
Sure, them there kind hearted, environmentally concerned big business types are looking out for our welfare.
Free Speech for the Clergy - We urge amendment of the Internal Revenue Code to allow a religious organization to address issues without fear of losing its tax-exempt status. We call for repeal of requirements that religious organizations send the government any personal information about their contributors.
If you want to be political, then you shouldn't be tax exempt. The same rules need to apply to everyone. The clergy doesn't warrent any special treatment.
Government Regulation of Religious Institutions - The state should have no power over licensing or training of clergy. The State should withdraw all imposed regulations.
They have regulations about that in Texas? I never heard of any in New Jersey.
Empowering Local Entities Concerning Religious Meetings - We support the right of local entities to determine their own policies regarding religious clubs and meetings on all properties owned by the same without interference.
Another attempt to get around the first amendment.
Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) - We oppose this act through which the federal government would coerce religious business owners and employees to violate their own beliefs and principles by affirming what they consider to be sinful and sexually immoral behavior.
I'm the boss so my ethics are going to be your ethics or else. What happened to all that freedom of religion concern? I guess you're only concerned when your beliefs are affected.
Remedies to Activist Judiciary - We call Congress and the President to use their constitutional powers to restrain activist judges. We urge Congress to adopt the Judicial Conduct Act of 2005 and remove judges who abuse their authority. Further, we urge Congress to withhold Supreme Court jurisdiction in cases involving abortion, religious freedom, and the Bill of Rights.
Imagine what they would say if we didn’t have a right wing SCOTUS!? Do you suppose these guys have ever heard of the "seperation of powers?" Isn't it amazing that they only support the Constitution when they can twist it enough to make it look like it supports their position.
Voter Rights Act – We urge that the Voter Rights Act of 1965 codified and updated in 1973 be repealed and not reauthorized.
One has to wonder why? They don't say. It couldn't have anything to do with black folks being able to vote could it?
Campaign Finance Reform - We urge immediate repeal of the McCain-Feingold Act.
Have to make sure that only the rich can obtain political office.
Enforcing the Platform - Every Republican is responsible for implementing this platform. Party candidates should indicate their positions on platform planks before their acceptance on the ticket and such information should be available on the Party website.
You VILL support der Party position or you VILL regret it! Seig Heil!
Filibuster – We support return to the traditional Filibuster in the U.S. Senate.
Just like in them good old segregation days. The "traditional Filibuster" probably did more to delay civil rights in this country than any other single entity.
Religious Symbols - We oppose any governmental action to restrict, prohibit, or remove public display of the Decalogue or other religious symbols.
But what about the "seperation of church and state" you say? We're getting to that in a bit so be patient.
Pledge of Allegiance - We support adoption of the Pledge Protection Act. We also urge that the National Motto “In God We Trust” and National Anthem be protected from legislative and judicial attack.
WTF does that even mean? How do you protect things from legislative and judicial attack? Appoint a dictator?
Flag Desecration - Any form of desecration of the American Flag is an act of disregard for our nation and its people and penalties should be established for such.
Except that the SCOTUS has already declared this as an act of free speech in Texas v. Johnson 1989, and that would trump any law. You would need either a constitutional amendment or the overturning of the existing SCOTUS decision.
Symbols of American Heritage - We call upon governmental entities to protect all symbols of our American heritage from being altered in any way.
In any way? Does that include making sure every color is exactly the right shade and every detail exactly the right size?
Confederate Widows Plaque - We call for restoration of plaques honoring the Confederate Widow’s Pension Fund contribution that were illegally removed from the Texas Supreme Court building.
*Sigh*
Marriage and Divorce - We believe in the sanctity of marriage and that the integrity of this institution should be protected at all levels of government. We urge the Legislature to rescind no-fault divorce laws. We support Covenant Marriage.
A desperate attempt to improve the lousy divorce rate in Texas? Actually, to be fair, the divorce rate in Texas in 2009 was 3.3 per 1,000 population which was actually a shade under the national average of 3.4. The rate in an equivalent Northeast state such as New York is 2.6 but people tend to get married later in the Northeast which reduces the divorce rate.
Family Values ― We support the affirmation of traditional Judeo-Christian family values and oppose the continued assault on those values.
I see they didn’t bother to DEFINE those values though so you can just fill in whatever you want. An old propaganda trick. Since you fill in the blanks, you’re almost guaranteed to agree with the statement.
Supporting Motherhood ― We strongly support women who choose to devote their lives to their families and raising their children. We recognize their sacrifice and deplore the liberal assault on the family.
What about Apple Pie? Of course the fact that the “liberal” states have much lower divorce rates, crime rates and teenage pregnancy rates is irrelevant.
Homosexuality ― We affirm that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society and contributes to the breakdown of the family unit. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans.
Well, at least they didn't define being gay as a choice. That's progress of a sort I suppose.
Right To Life - All innocent human life must be respected and safeguarded from fertilization to natural death; therefore, the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed.
Regardless of the situation? No real surprise here. The problem of course is they continue to overlook that the solution to abortion is the elimination of unwanted pregnancies which means making comprehensive sex education and contraception universally available.
Morning After Pill - We oppose sale and use of the dangerous “Morning After Pill.”
See what I nmean? At least they didn't go after the "Morning Before Pills."
UN Treaty on the Rights of the Child ― We unequivocally oppose the United States Senate’s ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
I'm not going down this road here. I may dedicate a different post to this one.
Classroom Discipline –We recommend that local school boards and classroom teachers be given more authority to deal with disciplinary problems. Corporal punishment is effective and legal in Texas.
As applied by parents. If I were a teacher, I wouldn't even THINK about hitting a child. If a teacher ever hit one of my kids I would have keel hauled them.
Controversial Theories – We support objective teaching and equal treatment of all sides of scientific theories. We believe theories such as life origins and environmental change should be taught as challengeable scientific theories subject to change as new data is produced. Teachers and students should be able to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these theories openly and without fear of retribution or discrimination of any kind.
Another dishonest attempt to get religious ideas into the science classroom.
(I’m NOT making the next one up. It’s REALLY in there.)
Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.
Isn’t that sort of the whole idea of education, challenging fixed beliefs?I mean, why would we want children that can actually THINK?
Sex Education – We recognize parental responsibility and authority regarding sex education. We believe that parents must be given an opportunity to review the material prior to giving their consent. We oppose any sex education other than abstinence until marriage.
See previous comments about teenage pregnancy rates and eliminating abortions. At last count Texas ranked 47th with a teenage pregancy rate of 88 per 1,000. Only Arizona (89), Nevada (90) and New Mexico (93) were worse. The National Average was 70. This is in the face of repeated statistics that demonstrate that "abstinence only" education doesn't work and what's required is a comprehensive sex education approach. It's perfectly ok to emphesize abstinence because, in the final analysis, it is still the only foolproof contraceptive method but that shouldn't be all there is.
Parental School Choice – We encourage the Governor and the Texas Legislature to enact child-centered school funding options which fund the student, not schools or districts, to allow maximum freedom of choice in public, private, or parochial education for all children.
Another dishonest approach toward funding religious schools with tax dollars.
Religious Freedom in Public Schools – We urge school administrators and officials to inform Texas school students specifically of their First Amendment rights to pray and engage in religious speech, individually or in groups, on school property without government interference. We urge the Legislature to end censorship of discussion of religion in our founding documents and encourage discussing those documents.
Well, at least they didn’t call for the return of organized school prayer (not yet anyway).
Safeguarding Our Religious Liberties – We affirm that the public acknowledgement of God is undeniable in our history and is vital to our freedom, prosperity and strength. We pledge our influence toward a return to the original intent of the First Amendment and toward dispelling the myth of separation of church and state.
I told you we'd get to the "seperation of church and state." At least they're honest about it. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison would probably like a word with these people.
We support the principles regarding the public economy as stated in the Republican Party Platform of 1932…
1932!? They blew right by Ronald Reagan and went all the way back to Herbert Hoover! In other words, on the economic front, the Republicans haven't learned anything in the last 80 years!
Workers’ Compensation – We urge the Legislature to resist making Workers’ Compensation mandatory for all Texas employers.
So what if people get hurt on the job? Worker's Compensation is actually a good deal for both sides since it protects the employer from getting their asses sued for negligence.
Minimum Wage – We believe the Minimum Wage Law should be repealed.
How about we get rid of them there Communist child labor laws while we're at it but, whatever you do, don't you touch them government guarantees for long term corporate investments. That there is necessary for our Capitalist way of life.
United Nations – We support the withdrawal of the United States from the United Nations and the removal of U.N. headquarters from U.S. soil.
Oh great, can you imagine the U.N. without adult supervision?
International Organizations – We support U.S. withdrawal from the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization and the World Bank.
Can you spell I-S-O-L-A-T-I-O-N-I-S-M? I see the yearning for 1932 extends beyond economics.
There were a lot more that I simply don't agree with but wouldn't consider over the top. There were also a surprising number that I agreed with which is sort of interesting. If we could start with the things we agree on, we could at least make some progress while we're working on the things we disagree on.
I find it utterly appalling that a major political party in the 21st century can take these positions. The Zeitgeist never stands still. If it's not progressing, then it's regressing to the oppressions of the past. This is why we can never be complacent. The forces of darkness never rest and have to be fought whenever and wherever they're encountered. The sad part about it is, these people probably consider themselves patriots.
Monday, July 09, 2012
Afghan Woman’s Execution
A video obtained by Reuter’s allegedly shows a woman being executed for adultery at close range via shots from an automatic rifle. The execution was carried out in front of a crowd of approximately 150 men who cheer the event praising the “mujahideen,” a name the Taliban use for themselves. This reportedly happened in Shinwari, about an hour outside of Kabul.
Needless to say the Afghani government condemns the atrocity in the strongest terms. Lucky for them such a priceless piece of propaganda materialized during a major donor’s summit in Tokyo where $16 billion in development aid was pledged over the next four years.
The Taliban has denied any involvement.
This story bothers me. It’s just a bit too pat. If you wanted the perfect argument for the need for financial support it’s hard to come up with a better one than this. I smell a rat.
I mean think about it. It’s about the grossest violation of women’s rights you could come up with and we all know that’s a real issue in conservative Islamic countries. How scary is it that most people accept this video at face value and, to be honest, I wouldn’t be overly shocked if it turned out to be true.
Then we have the “cheering crowd” that, luckily, pinned the vile deed on the Taliban. This is sort of like the broken watch that identifies the time of the murder. And, luck of luck, there just happened to be someone with a video camera that was allowed to capture the whole thing for posterity. How many video cameras do you figure there are in Afghanistan?
Look, if you allow something to be videotaped then it’s usually because you think what you’re doing is right. Yet the Taliban have denied they’re responsible. Did they have a change of heart? They don’t strike me as the sort of folks that allow themselves to be swayed by popular opinion.
Maybe I’m just getting too cynical in my old age but I don’t like the feel of this one. I haven't seen the video. Perhaps if I did I wouldn't have any doubts, but I can't shake the "government hoax" feeling on this one. Then again, it wouldn't be very easy to keep 150 conspirators quiet either so perhaps I'm being overly suspicious.
Needless to say the Afghani government condemns the atrocity in the strongest terms. Lucky for them such a priceless piece of propaganda materialized during a major donor’s summit in Tokyo where $16 billion in development aid was pledged over the next four years.
The Taliban has denied any involvement.
This story bothers me. It’s just a bit too pat. If you wanted the perfect argument for the need for financial support it’s hard to come up with a better one than this. I smell a rat.
I mean think about it. It’s about the grossest violation of women’s rights you could come up with and we all know that’s a real issue in conservative Islamic countries. How scary is it that most people accept this video at face value and, to be honest, I wouldn’t be overly shocked if it turned out to be true.
Then we have the “cheering crowd” that, luckily, pinned the vile deed on the Taliban. This is sort of like the broken watch that identifies the time of the murder. And, luck of luck, there just happened to be someone with a video camera that was allowed to capture the whole thing for posterity. How many video cameras do you figure there are in Afghanistan?
Look, if you allow something to be videotaped then it’s usually because you think what you’re doing is right. Yet the Taliban have denied they’re responsible. Did they have a change of heart? They don’t strike me as the sort of folks that allow themselves to be swayed by popular opinion.
Maybe I’m just getting too cynical in my old age but I don’t like the feel of this one. I haven't seen the video. Perhaps if I did I wouldn't have any doubts, but I can't shake the "government hoax" feeling on this one. Then again, it wouldn't be very easy to keep 150 conspirators quiet either so perhaps I'm being overly suspicious.
Money, the Key to Politics
Apparently, the new golden rule is he who has the gold gets elected. To say the Obama camp is concerned about Mitt Romney’s ability to attract donation dollars would be a severe understatement.
My latest e-mail from Robby Mook takes the grim approach. “I won't mince words: If Mitt and his SuperPAC backers can bury us under a wave of corporate special interest cash right now, we will lose in November.”
Now I know exactly what you’re thinking. You’re thinking “who the hell is Robby Mook?” Yeah, that was sort of my reaction.
Robby Mook is the executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and I suppose he is tasked with attempting to win back the House of Representatives. I figure he has two chances, slim and none.
But that’s not the point. The point is Will Rodgers bit of wisdom. “I don’t belong to any organized political party, I’m a Democrat.”
I’m no expert, but I sort of have this impression that the problem with the Democrats is their fund raising is so chaotic. This are the e-mail requests I’ve gotten in just the last couple of days.
Robby Mook 7/8/12 – This is the grim message from the House Democrats.
Joe Biden 7/7/12 – Obama/Biden of course crying about Romney’s $100 million
Stephanie Cutter 7/7/12 – The Truth Team? I don’t even know who the hell the Truth Team is but apparently they support Obama.
Bob Menendez 7/6/12 – New Jersey Senate.
Convention Host Committee 7/6/12 – Buy convention stuff.
Jim Messina 7/6/12 – Obama/Biden also crying about the $100 million.
Diane Doukas – 7/6/12 – This is a good one. An invitation to a Westchester Brunch with Michelle Obama with tickets at $1,500, $5,000 and $25,000.
Joe Biden 7/5/12 – Obama/Biden, win a chance to come “hang out” whatever that means.
Kirsten Gillibrand 7/4/12 – New York Senate. This actually isn’t a request for money. It’s simply a Happy July 4th message. The problem of course is it got buried with all the donation requests so I figured it was one of them. I’m still a bit confused as to why I’m on her mailing list.
Nancy Pelosi 7/3/12 – Crowing about a fundraising record after the SCOTUS upheld the health care law. This is sort of out of sync with the rest of the panicky e-mails. Probably went out before Romney’s numbers came in but it makes you wonder how much of a fund raising issue there really is.
Jim Messina – 7/3/12 – A coupon code for the Obama store that I didn’t take advantage of.
Alan Grayson 7/3/12 – He’s running for congress in Florida. Why the hell he is sending me stuff is even a bigger mystery than why Gillibrand is sending me stuff.
Julianna Smoot 7/1/12 – An Obama shirt offer but it’s a really ugly shirt and, besides, I’d have to be gay to even think about wearing it. It’s seriously aimed at the under 30 female set.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz 7/1/12 – This one is from the Democratic National Committee. That reminds me, I don’t even know if I’ve paid my DNC dues for this year?
And this is just the e-mail. It doesn’t count the snail mail solicitations nor the phone call I got from the Democratic governors committee. That was a good one. I originally said “NO” since there is no governor’s race in New Jersey but they wheedled me out of $50 anyway.
I get so many of these things that the tendency is to just freeze and respond to none of them. I suspect the Democrats would do better to organize their fund raising rather than having such a free for all. I should talk, I don’t keep track myself. Ok, from now on I’m logging all donations.
My latest e-mail from Robby Mook takes the grim approach. “I won't mince words: If Mitt and his SuperPAC backers can bury us under a wave of corporate special interest cash right now, we will lose in November.”
Now I know exactly what you’re thinking. You’re thinking “who the hell is Robby Mook?” Yeah, that was sort of my reaction.
Robby Mook is the executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and I suppose he is tasked with attempting to win back the House of Representatives. I figure he has two chances, slim and none.
But that’s not the point. The point is Will Rodgers bit of wisdom. “I don’t belong to any organized political party, I’m a Democrat.”
I’m no expert, but I sort of have this impression that the problem with the Democrats is their fund raising is so chaotic. This are the e-mail requests I’ve gotten in just the last couple of days.
Robby Mook 7/8/12 – This is the grim message from the House Democrats.
Joe Biden 7/7/12 – Obama/Biden of course crying about Romney’s $100 million
Stephanie Cutter 7/7/12 – The Truth Team? I don’t even know who the hell the Truth Team is but apparently they support Obama.
Bob Menendez 7/6/12 – New Jersey Senate.
Convention Host Committee 7/6/12 – Buy convention stuff.
Jim Messina 7/6/12 – Obama/Biden also crying about the $100 million.
Diane Doukas – 7/6/12 – This is a good one. An invitation to a Westchester Brunch with Michelle Obama with tickets at $1,500, $5,000 and $25,000.
Joe Biden 7/5/12 – Obama/Biden, win a chance to come “hang out” whatever that means.
Kirsten Gillibrand 7/4/12 – New York Senate. This actually isn’t a request for money. It’s simply a Happy July 4th message. The problem of course is it got buried with all the donation requests so I figured it was one of them. I’m still a bit confused as to why I’m on her mailing list.
Nancy Pelosi 7/3/12 – Crowing about a fundraising record after the SCOTUS upheld the health care law. This is sort of out of sync with the rest of the panicky e-mails. Probably went out before Romney’s numbers came in but it makes you wonder how much of a fund raising issue there really is.
Jim Messina – 7/3/12 – A coupon code for the Obama store that I didn’t take advantage of.
Alan Grayson 7/3/12 – He’s running for congress in Florida. Why the hell he is sending me stuff is even a bigger mystery than why Gillibrand is sending me stuff.
Julianna Smoot 7/1/12 – An Obama shirt offer but it’s a really ugly shirt and, besides, I’d have to be gay to even think about wearing it. It’s seriously aimed at the under 30 female set.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz 7/1/12 – This one is from the Democratic National Committee. That reminds me, I don’t even know if I’ve paid my DNC dues for this year?
And this is just the e-mail. It doesn’t count the snail mail solicitations nor the phone call I got from the Democratic governors committee. That was a good one. I originally said “NO” since there is no governor’s race in New Jersey but they wheedled me out of $50 anyway.
I get so many of these things that the tendency is to just freeze and respond to none of them. I suspect the Democrats would do better to organize their fund raising rather than having such a free for all. I should talk, I don’t keep track myself. Ok, from now on I’m logging all donations.
Friday, June 29, 2012
And the Health Care War Continues
The immediate reaction of the Republicans to the upholding of the Affordable Health Care Act by the Supreme Court was a vow to repeal it.
Romney makes vague references to replacing it but doesn’t say with what but most Republicans simply talk about repeal.
The “victory” in the Supreme Court may well turn out to be pyrrhic in nature. The “victory” in the Supreme Court could well cost the Democrats the Senate. Almost two-thirds of Americans, including a large number of people that would significantly benefit from the act, oppose the law.
Why?
It has been my experience, communicating with people on the Internet, that most simply do not understand what the law does. The right wing propaganda machine has been very effective in painting the law to be something it’s not.
It’s actually a pretty good law.
- It allows children to stay on their parents health care until age 26
- It allows people with pre-existing conditions to get health care
- It subsidizes the cost of health care for those that can’t afford it
- It establishes “insurance exchanges” where people can shop for insurance
When the Republicans tell you it will increase federal spending, they neglect to tell you that spending is offset by new revenue through excise taxes upon the so-called Cadillac health plans that many corporate executives have access to and by expanding the number of people supporting the health care system through the individual mandate.
The CBO estimated that repealing the plan would have added $119 billion to the federal budget deficit through 2019 while keeping the law is expected to slightly reduce the deficit. You don’t hear the Republicans telling you that do you? What I don’t understand is why the Democrats aren’t telling you that.
Could it be better? Absolutely it could be better and some of the criticism is certainly justified. But rather than get into that, I’d like to go back to a basic question.
Do we, as a nation, believe that universal health care is a good thing?
How can anyone answer no to that question? If you do answer no, then there’s nothing else to talk about and we can agree to disagree.
If you answer yes, then all that’s left is to figure out a way to accomplish universal health care without breaking the bank.
The Democrats actually used a Republican model for the health care law. It was based upon a coverage plan endorsed by Richard Nixon in the 1970s and touted by Republicans in the 1990s.
But that’s all sort of irrelevant if you don’t believe universal health care is a good thing.
Look, I get the point of not wanting to fund someone else’s health care with the dollars you worked for. You’d much rather spend them on a spiffy new iPAD. So would I, but I also understand a thing called “for the common good.”
Law firms have Pro Bono programs; doctors and nurses donate time to clinics; millions volunteer their time for charity work and everyone else, hopefully, contributes what they can when they can. So most of us understand the concept of “for the common good.”
So what’s the problem?
The problem is the difference between voluntarily supporting the “common good” and having government force you to support the “common good.” A lot of people just don’t like being told what to do with what they rightfully consider their own money.
I can understand that position.
However, I also know that the story being pitched to you by the right wing demagogues is more than a tad inaccurate.
The picture of the hard working middle class supporting shiftless lazy welfare recipients is, well, to put it bluntly, total horseshit. Are there people abusing the system? Absolutely. My mother-in-law used to work for the Welfare Department in New York City and she would tell the story of the mother bringing in her daughter, who had just turned 18, to open her own welfare account. And they arrived in a taxi cab no less.
This story, and there are many others, will get anyone all bent out of shape and abuses like this need to be addressed. But the overwhelming majority of people receiving assistance aren’t cheating.
Most are working their asses off, sometimes even at multiple jobs, but just can’t make ends meet in a society where the real annual wage for 80% of the population has been essentially stagnant for the past 30 years.
While the real income (in other words adjusted for inflation) of the bottom 80% of American wage earners has increased by 19% over the past 30 years, the real income of the top 20% has increased by 88%, the top 5% by 245% and the top 1% by a whopping 345%.
Please explain to me how this is right, fair or even rational?
In contrast, in the 30 years prior to that, the real income for the lowest income quintile rose by 99.5%, the 2nd quintile by 95.4%, the 3rd quintile by 107.9% and the 4th quintile by 109.9%. At the tippy top of the income scale, the minimum income to be in the top 5% rose by 103.4%.
In other words, everyone did pretty well. No wonder so many people remember those as the good old days of economic prosperity. It wasn’t so much that there was more prosperity, the prosperity was simply shared more evenly.
It is this vast divergence in wealth distribution, this concentration of wealth into the hands of a few that is causing economic hardships for a lot of people. A lot of hard working people. Now don’t give me any crap about Capitalism vs. Socialism, there wasn’t a more Capitalist place in the world than the United States in the 1950s through the 1970s yet the increased wealth was distributed across all income classes pretty much evenly at least by percentage.
Here’s something to think about. In 1958, the maximum federal income tax rate, for married filing jointly, was 91% for income over $400,000. That would be the equivalent of $3.2 million in 2012 dollars. The maximum tax rate in 2012 is 35% for income over $388,000.
The simple fact is that the low marginal tax rate makes unbridled greed worth the effort.
So where are you? If your household income is less than $20,000, you’re in the bottom quintile. If it’s less than $38,043 you’re in the 2nd quintile. If it’s less than $61,735 you’re in the 3rd quintile and if it’s less than $100,065 you’re in the 2nd quintile. So you need to have a household income of over $100,000 to be benefiting from the income disparity. To be in the top 5%, who are really doing well, your household income would have to exceed $180,810.
Now for the fun part. I think that most people would agree that the South is the most conservative region, followed by the Midwest, then the West and the Northeast would be the most liberal region.
So obviously the South must have the highest income and the Northeast the lowest right? The South would be protecting it’s hard earned dollars from those lazy shiftless Northeast liberals right?
The mean income in the South is $63,311 and the median income is $45,492. The mean income in the Midwest is $64,056 and the median income is $48,445. The mean income in the West is $72,367 and the median income is $53,142. The mean income in the Northeast is $74,569 and the median income is $53,383.
Democracy ceases to be a viable system when the electorate is incapable of understanding what is in its own best interest.
Romney makes vague references to replacing it but doesn’t say with what but most Republicans simply talk about repeal.
The “victory” in the Supreme Court may well turn out to be pyrrhic in nature. The “victory” in the Supreme Court could well cost the Democrats the Senate. Almost two-thirds of Americans, including a large number of people that would significantly benefit from the act, oppose the law.
Why?
It has been my experience, communicating with people on the Internet, that most simply do not understand what the law does. The right wing propaganda machine has been very effective in painting the law to be something it’s not.
It’s actually a pretty good law.
- It allows children to stay on their parents health care until age 26
- It allows people with pre-existing conditions to get health care
- It subsidizes the cost of health care for those that can’t afford it
- It establishes “insurance exchanges” where people can shop for insurance
When the Republicans tell you it will increase federal spending, they neglect to tell you that spending is offset by new revenue through excise taxes upon the so-called Cadillac health plans that many corporate executives have access to and by expanding the number of people supporting the health care system through the individual mandate.
The CBO estimated that repealing the plan would have added $119 billion to the federal budget deficit through 2019 while keeping the law is expected to slightly reduce the deficit. You don’t hear the Republicans telling you that do you? What I don’t understand is why the Democrats aren’t telling you that.
Could it be better? Absolutely it could be better and some of the criticism is certainly justified. But rather than get into that, I’d like to go back to a basic question.
Do we, as a nation, believe that universal health care is a good thing?
How can anyone answer no to that question? If you do answer no, then there’s nothing else to talk about and we can agree to disagree.
If you answer yes, then all that’s left is to figure out a way to accomplish universal health care without breaking the bank.
The Democrats actually used a Republican model for the health care law. It was based upon a coverage plan endorsed by Richard Nixon in the 1970s and touted by Republicans in the 1990s.
But that’s all sort of irrelevant if you don’t believe universal health care is a good thing.
Look, I get the point of not wanting to fund someone else’s health care with the dollars you worked for. You’d much rather spend them on a spiffy new iPAD. So would I, but I also understand a thing called “for the common good.”
Law firms have Pro Bono programs; doctors and nurses donate time to clinics; millions volunteer their time for charity work and everyone else, hopefully, contributes what they can when they can. So most of us understand the concept of “for the common good.”
So what’s the problem?
The problem is the difference between voluntarily supporting the “common good” and having government force you to support the “common good.” A lot of people just don’t like being told what to do with what they rightfully consider their own money.
I can understand that position.
However, I also know that the story being pitched to you by the right wing demagogues is more than a tad inaccurate.
The picture of the hard working middle class supporting shiftless lazy welfare recipients is, well, to put it bluntly, total horseshit. Are there people abusing the system? Absolutely. My mother-in-law used to work for the Welfare Department in New York City and she would tell the story of the mother bringing in her daughter, who had just turned 18, to open her own welfare account. And they arrived in a taxi cab no less.
This story, and there are many others, will get anyone all bent out of shape and abuses like this need to be addressed. But the overwhelming majority of people receiving assistance aren’t cheating.
Most are working their asses off, sometimes even at multiple jobs, but just can’t make ends meet in a society where the real annual wage for 80% of the population has been essentially stagnant for the past 30 years.
While the real income (in other words adjusted for inflation) of the bottom 80% of American wage earners has increased by 19% over the past 30 years, the real income of the top 20% has increased by 88%, the top 5% by 245% and the top 1% by a whopping 345%.
Please explain to me how this is right, fair or even rational?
In contrast, in the 30 years prior to that, the real income for the lowest income quintile rose by 99.5%, the 2nd quintile by 95.4%, the 3rd quintile by 107.9% and the 4th quintile by 109.9%. At the tippy top of the income scale, the minimum income to be in the top 5% rose by 103.4%.
In other words, everyone did pretty well. No wonder so many people remember those as the good old days of economic prosperity. It wasn’t so much that there was more prosperity, the prosperity was simply shared more evenly.
It is this vast divergence in wealth distribution, this concentration of wealth into the hands of a few that is causing economic hardships for a lot of people. A lot of hard working people. Now don’t give me any crap about Capitalism vs. Socialism, there wasn’t a more Capitalist place in the world than the United States in the 1950s through the 1970s yet the increased wealth was distributed across all income classes pretty much evenly at least by percentage.
Here’s something to think about. In 1958, the maximum federal income tax rate, for married filing jointly, was 91% for income over $400,000. That would be the equivalent of $3.2 million in 2012 dollars. The maximum tax rate in 2012 is 35% for income over $388,000.
The simple fact is that the low marginal tax rate makes unbridled greed worth the effort.
So where are you? If your household income is less than $20,000, you’re in the bottom quintile. If it’s less than $38,043 you’re in the 2nd quintile. If it’s less than $61,735 you’re in the 3rd quintile and if it’s less than $100,065 you’re in the 2nd quintile. So you need to have a household income of over $100,000 to be benefiting from the income disparity. To be in the top 5%, who are really doing well, your household income would have to exceed $180,810.
Now for the fun part. I think that most people would agree that the South is the most conservative region, followed by the Midwest, then the West and the Northeast would be the most liberal region.
So obviously the South must have the highest income and the Northeast the lowest right? The South would be protecting it’s hard earned dollars from those lazy shiftless Northeast liberals right?
The mean income in the South is $63,311 and the median income is $45,492. The mean income in the Midwest is $64,056 and the median income is $48,445. The mean income in the West is $72,367 and the median income is $53,142. The mean income in the Northeast is $74,569 and the median income is $53,383.
Democracy ceases to be a viable system when the electorate is incapable of understanding what is in its own best interest.
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Obama is the Man if Aliens Invade
An overwhelming 65% of Americans polled said that President Obama would be better able to handle an alien invasion than Mitt Romney.
Ok, so it’s an intellectually ridiculous question, but one has to consider the underlying emotional psychology.
This means that Americans have more confidence in Obama in the event of an unknown crisis. In other words, when the phone rings at 3 AM in the White House, they want Obama to be answering the phone and not Romney. So why the hell would you vote for Romney?
This also means that, at an emotional level, Americans feel that they would rather trust Obama with their well being than Romney. So why the hell would you vote for Romney?
Finally, it means that when the chips are down, Americans feel they can rely more on Obama to take decisive action than Romney. So why the hell would you vote for Romney?
Think about it.
Ok, so it’s an intellectually ridiculous question, but one has to consider the underlying emotional psychology.
This means that Americans have more confidence in Obama in the event of an unknown crisis. In other words, when the phone rings at 3 AM in the White House, they want Obama to be answering the phone and not Romney. So why the hell would you vote for Romney?
This also means that, at an emotional level, Americans feel that they would rather trust Obama with their well being than Romney. So why the hell would you vote for Romney?
Finally, it means that when the chips are down, Americans feel they can rely more on Obama to take decisive action than Romney. So why the hell would you vote for Romney?
Think about it.
Supreme Court Upholds Individual Mandate
Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition! The Supreme Court of the United States has upheld the Individual Mandate of the Health Care Law as a tax.
Chief Justice John Roberts joined the liberal wing of the court in the 5-4 decision.
I suppose Roberts lost the coin toss and had to be the sacrificial lamb. Either that or he was the only conservative justice with enough courage to do what was right.
The Health Care Law is the right thing to do for the country. It doesn’t go far enough, but it’s a step in the right direction. The Individual Mandate is economically necessary to insure adequate funding. It’s the old “Free Rider” problem. But even I have to admit that congressional authority on that point is very, very iffy.
Hats off to Chief Justice Roberts. Too bad he couldn’t have gotten something closer to a unanimous decision.
Chief Justice John Roberts joined the liberal wing of the court in the 5-4 decision.
I suppose Roberts lost the coin toss and had to be the sacrificial lamb. Either that or he was the only conservative justice with enough courage to do what was right.
The Health Care Law is the right thing to do for the country. It doesn’t go far enough, but it’s a step in the right direction. The Individual Mandate is economically necessary to insure adequate funding. It’s the old “Free Rider” problem. But even I have to admit that congressional authority on that point is very, very iffy.
Hats off to Chief Justice Roberts. Too bad he couldn’t have gotten something closer to a unanimous decision.
Exxon CEO says Fears are Overblown
Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson went on record yesterday as saying that the burning of fossil fuels is warming the planet but, not to worry, we’ll adapt.
Well, so much for all those right wings demagogues and Fox News telling us that Global Warming was a hoax. To my mind Tillerson’s statement essentially acknowledges that the right wing was, at best, wrong (so what else is new) and, at worst, lying through their teeth which wouldn’t surprise me one bit.
However let’s move on to the “we’ll adapt” part.
Tillerson addressed three different issues, climate change, oil and gas drilling pollution and energy dependence. According to Tillerson, Exxon has got us covered. Tillerson blamed concerns on a “math” and “science” illiterate public, a “lazy media” and advocacy groups that “manufacture fear.”
Some opinions from the CEO with commentary.
We’ll adapt to climate change. It’s an engineering problem and there will be an engineering solution.
Yeah, but that could be a hell of an expensive solution. Better might be to take steps to try and PREVENT significant climate change rather than having to adapt after the fact. He is right that’s it’s an engineering problem and will require an engineering solution. The big question is should we be pro-active or re-active? In general, pro-active solutions are less expensive and avoid a lot of pain.
Climate change models can’t accurately predict the impact of climate change and we’ll be able to adapt as changes occur.
A lot depends here upon what you mean by “predict.” Can it provide a precise measure? Probably not, but it can give you a good idea of the directions things are heading. I suspect that we ignore climate models at our peril.
Also, “we’ll be able to adapt as changes occur” sounds terribly re-active and could lead to lots of pain along the way.
While drilling for oil and gas will always contain risks, those risks are worth taking.
I suppose that depends upon the risks. Tillerson claims the risks are small, not life threatening nor long lasting. This sounds to me kind of subjective but I’m willing to put the data on the table and have the experts from both sides discuss it. I suspect that if you're in the path of the risk, you might have a different opinion about whether it's "worth taking."
Advocacy groups have alarmed a public that doesn’t understand drilling practices, math, science or engineering.
I have to agree with this statement. The question however is whether that alarm is justified? Again, let’s get all the data on the table and come to a conclusion based upon the evidence rather than political opinion.
“Lazy” journalists produce stories that scare the public without investigating the claims of advocacy groups.
I agree again. Journalists in this country have abdicated their responsibility to educate the public. It is journalism’s responsibility to investigate claims rather than simply report them. On the other hand, when journalists DO investigate and report that climate change is real and something to be concerned about, all we hear from the right and previous Exxon CEOs is charges of “Liberal Bias.” Now apparently Mr. Tillerson is admitting the media had a “Liberal Bias” because truth and reality had a “Liberal Bias.”
There is a distinction between energy security and energy dependence.
True, but the question is whether “energy dependence” is a major factor in “energy security.” I sort of find it hard to believe that it’s not.
Since oil is globally priced so a disruption in the Middle East, even if the U.S. only used North American oil, would increase gas prices and hurt the U.S. economy.
So, as long as the Middle East supply is secure, “drill, baby drill” is a load of horseshit? I have to admit that this surprises me more than a little. I have to believe that not depending upon foreign oil would provide a much more stable energy environment which in turn would help stabilize the economy. Are you seriously saying it doesn’t matter?
I think what Tillerson had to say is very important and could have far reaching consequences. The next to the last thing we want to do is over react to the situation and end up with a damaged economy as the result. However that’s better than not reacting to a potential civilization threatening issue until it’s too late and ending up on the list of nature’s extinct creatures.
Well, so much for all those right wings demagogues and Fox News telling us that Global Warming was a hoax. To my mind Tillerson’s statement essentially acknowledges that the right wing was, at best, wrong (so what else is new) and, at worst, lying through their teeth which wouldn’t surprise me one bit.
However let’s move on to the “we’ll adapt” part.
Tillerson addressed three different issues, climate change, oil and gas drilling pollution and energy dependence. According to Tillerson, Exxon has got us covered. Tillerson blamed concerns on a “math” and “science” illiterate public, a “lazy media” and advocacy groups that “manufacture fear.”
Some opinions from the CEO with commentary.
We’ll adapt to climate change. It’s an engineering problem and there will be an engineering solution.
Yeah, but that could be a hell of an expensive solution. Better might be to take steps to try and PREVENT significant climate change rather than having to adapt after the fact. He is right that’s it’s an engineering problem and will require an engineering solution. The big question is should we be pro-active or re-active? In general, pro-active solutions are less expensive and avoid a lot of pain.
Climate change models can’t accurately predict the impact of climate change and we’ll be able to adapt as changes occur.
A lot depends here upon what you mean by “predict.” Can it provide a precise measure? Probably not, but it can give you a good idea of the directions things are heading. I suspect that we ignore climate models at our peril.
Also, “we’ll be able to adapt as changes occur” sounds terribly re-active and could lead to lots of pain along the way.
While drilling for oil and gas will always contain risks, those risks are worth taking.
I suppose that depends upon the risks. Tillerson claims the risks are small, not life threatening nor long lasting. This sounds to me kind of subjective but I’m willing to put the data on the table and have the experts from both sides discuss it. I suspect that if you're in the path of the risk, you might have a different opinion about whether it's "worth taking."
Advocacy groups have alarmed a public that doesn’t understand drilling practices, math, science or engineering.
I have to agree with this statement. The question however is whether that alarm is justified? Again, let’s get all the data on the table and come to a conclusion based upon the evidence rather than political opinion.
“Lazy” journalists produce stories that scare the public without investigating the claims of advocacy groups.
I agree again. Journalists in this country have abdicated their responsibility to educate the public. It is journalism’s responsibility to investigate claims rather than simply report them. On the other hand, when journalists DO investigate and report that climate change is real and something to be concerned about, all we hear from the right and previous Exxon CEOs is charges of “Liberal Bias.” Now apparently Mr. Tillerson is admitting the media had a “Liberal Bias” because truth and reality had a “Liberal Bias.”
There is a distinction between energy security and energy dependence.
True, but the question is whether “energy dependence” is a major factor in “energy security.” I sort of find it hard to believe that it’s not.
Since oil is globally priced so a disruption in the Middle East, even if the U.S. only used North American oil, would increase gas prices and hurt the U.S. economy.
So, as long as the Middle East supply is secure, “drill, baby drill” is a load of horseshit? I have to admit that this surprises me more than a little. I have to believe that not depending upon foreign oil would provide a much more stable energy environment which in turn would help stabilize the economy. Are you seriously saying it doesn’t matter?
I think what Tillerson had to say is very important and could have far reaching consequences. The next to the last thing we want to do is over react to the situation and end up with a damaged economy as the result. However that’s better than not reacting to a potential civilization threatening issue until it’s too late and ending up on the list of nature’s extinct creatures.
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Rainbow Oreo
Kraft food made its position known by posting a Rainbow Oreo on its Facebook page with the caption "Proudly Support Love!"
A Kraft spokesman was quoted as saying “As a company, Kraft Foods has a proud history of celebrating diversity and inclusiveness. We feel the OREO ad is a fun reflection of our values.”
The posting predictably brought out the wingnuts in addition to over 170,000 "likes." ABC news quoted one disgruntled poster as commenting (errors left in place) “Disgusted with oreos. Being gay is an abmonitation in GOd’s eyes i wont be buying them anymore.”
That's six grammatical and spelling errors in about a line of text. That gives you a pretty good idea of the intellectual capacity of the poster. He probably can't afford Oreos anyway.
I say good for Kraft. I'd go buy a package or two of Oreos if they weren't so damn fattening.
A Kraft spokesman was quoted as saying “As a company, Kraft Foods has a proud history of celebrating diversity and inclusiveness. We feel the OREO ad is a fun reflection of our values.”
The posting predictably brought out the wingnuts in addition to over 170,000 "likes." ABC news quoted one disgruntled poster as commenting (errors left in place) “Disgusted with oreos. Being gay is an abmonitation in GOd’s eyes i wont be buying them anymore.”
That's six grammatical and spelling errors in about a line of text. That gives you a pretty good idea of the intellectual capacity of the poster. He probably can't afford Oreos anyway.
I say good for Kraft. I'd go buy a package or two of Oreos if they weren't so damn fattening.
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
Nessie and Evolution
In case you didn’t know it, the Loch Ness Monster disproves evolution.
At least that appears to be the argument from the Accelerated Christian Education (ACE) “science” textbook that is being used at the Eternity Christian Academy in Westlake Louisiana. A school that will be receiving government tax dollars under the voucher program established by Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal.
Carl Sagan used to say that while everyone is entitled to their own opinion, people are not entitled to their own facts. This no longer seems to be the case among conservatives in general and fundamentalist Christians in particular.
Here’s what the ACE text has to say about Nessie, with commentary.
“Are dinosaurs alive today? Scientists are becoming more convinced of their existence.”
Really? What scientists? Please cite any article in any peer reviewed science journal that makes such a claim.
“Have you heard of the ‘Loch Ness Monster’ in Scotland? ‘Nessie,’ for short has been recorded on sonar from a small submarine, described by eyewitnesses, and photographed by others. Nessie appears to be a plesiosaur.”
Actually, Nessie appears to be a figment of the imagination. There is no viable evidence that Nessie even exists.
“Could a fish have developed into a dinosaur? As astonishing as it may seem, many evolutionists theorize that fish evolved into amphibians and amphibians into reptiles.”
Probably because that’s where the genetic, morphological and fossil evidence appears to point. Notice the implication that this idea is an unsubstantiated “theory” rather than a conclusion based upon evidence. Notice also the misuse of the term “theory” implying a guess or unfounded speculation.
“This gradual change from fish to reptiles has no scientific basis.”
Real scientists apparently disagree with you. Allow me to introduce you to Tiktaalik, a creature halfway between a primitive fish and a tetrapod. The mixture led one of Tiktaalik’s discoverers to label it a “fishapod.”
“No transitional fossils have been or ever will be discovered because God created each type of fish, amphibian, and reptile as separate, unique animals. Any similarities that exist among them are due to the fact that one Master Craftsmen fashioned them all.”
See “Tiktaalik” reference above. The simple fact is that hundreds of transitional fossils exist especially above the species level. To say that no transitional fossils have ever been discovered is a flat out lie. Yes I said lie because this claim has been debunked so many times I find it impossible to accept that none of the editors of the text were aware of that.
Here are some other “highlights” from the ACE science text.
- Science Proves Homosexuality is a Learned Behavior
- The Second Law of Thermodynamics Disproves Evolution
- Humans and Dinosaurs Co-Existed
- Evolution Has Been Disproved
- A Japanese Whaling Boat Found a Dinosaur
- Solar Fusion is a Myth
What the f**k is wrong with these people?
The competitors of ACE are A Beka and Bob Jones University press textbooks. They also tout Youth Earth Creationism and reject evolution. Here are some other doozies reportedly in A Beka and Bob Jones texts.
- Only ten percent of Africans can read or write, because Christian mission schools have been shut down by communists.
- “the [Ku Klux] Klan in some areas of the country the country tried to be a means of reform, fighting the decline in morality and using the symbol of the cross… In some communities it achieved a certain respectability as it worked with politicians.”
- “God used the ‘Trail of Tears’ to bring many Indians to Christ.”
- It “cannot be shown scientifically that that man-made pollutants will one day drastically reduce the depth of the atmosphere’s ozone layer.”
- “God has provided certain ‘checks and balances’ in creation to prevent many of the global upsets that have been predicted by environmentalists.”
- the Great Depression was exaggerated by propagandists, including John Steinbeck, to advance a socialist agenda.
- “Unions have always been plagued by socialists and anarchists who use laborers to destroy the free-enterprise system that hardworking Americans have created.”
- Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential win was due to an imaginary economic crisis created by the media.
- “The greatest struggle of all time, the Battle of Armageddon, will occur in the Middle East when Christ returns to set up his kingdom on earth.”
They can't even get what the Bible says right. Revelations 16:16 - Then they gathered the kings together to the place that in Hebrew is called Armageddon. Armageddon is a transliteration of the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew "Har Meghid·dohn" which means the Mountain of Meggido. It's where the anti-Christ's army is assembled and not where the battle is fought.
These are also typically the texts used by Christian home schoolers. Hundreds of thousands of children are essentially being taught utter rubbish and we’re going to have deal with them as voters down the road. If we don’t do something about this, this country is going to be screwed.
At least that appears to be the argument from the Accelerated Christian Education (ACE) “science” textbook that is being used at the Eternity Christian Academy in Westlake Louisiana. A school that will be receiving government tax dollars under the voucher program established by Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal.
Carl Sagan used to say that while everyone is entitled to their own opinion, people are not entitled to their own facts. This no longer seems to be the case among conservatives in general and fundamentalist Christians in particular.
Here’s what the ACE text has to say about Nessie, with commentary.
“Are dinosaurs alive today? Scientists are becoming more convinced of their existence.”
Really? What scientists? Please cite any article in any peer reviewed science journal that makes such a claim.
“Have you heard of the ‘Loch Ness Monster’ in Scotland? ‘Nessie,’ for short has been recorded on sonar from a small submarine, described by eyewitnesses, and photographed by others. Nessie appears to be a plesiosaur.”
Actually, Nessie appears to be a figment of the imagination. There is no viable evidence that Nessie even exists.
“Could a fish have developed into a dinosaur? As astonishing as it may seem, many evolutionists theorize that fish evolved into amphibians and amphibians into reptiles.”
Probably because that’s where the genetic, morphological and fossil evidence appears to point. Notice the implication that this idea is an unsubstantiated “theory” rather than a conclusion based upon evidence. Notice also the misuse of the term “theory” implying a guess or unfounded speculation.
“This gradual change from fish to reptiles has no scientific basis.”
Real scientists apparently disagree with you. Allow me to introduce you to Tiktaalik, a creature halfway between a primitive fish and a tetrapod. The mixture led one of Tiktaalik’s discoverers to label it a “fishapod.”
“No transitional fossils have been or ever will be discovered because God created each type of fish, amphibian, and reptile as separate, unique animals. Any similarities that exist among them are due to the fact that one Master Craftsmen fashioned them all.”
See “Tiktaalik” reference above. The simple fact is that hundreds of transitional fossils exist especially above the species level. To say that no transitional fossils have ever been discovered is a flat out lie. Yes I said lie because this claim has been debunked so many times I find it impossible to accept that none of the editors of the text were aware of that.
Here are some other “highlights” from the ACE science text.
- Science Proves Homosexuality is a Learned Behavior
- The Second Law of Thermodynamics Disproves Evolution
- Humans and Dinosaurs Co-Existed
- Evolution Has Been Disproved
- A Japanese Whaling Boat Found a Dinosaur
- Solar Fusion is a Myth
What the f**k is wrong with these people?
The competitors of ACE are A Beka and Bob Jones University press textbooks. They also tout Youth Earth Creationism and reject evolution. Here are some other doozies reportedly in A Beka and Bob Jones texts.
- Only ten percent of Africans can read or write, because Christian mission schools have been shut down by communists.
- “the [Ku Klux] Klan in some areas of the country the country tried to be a means of reform, fighting the decline in morality and using the symbol of the cross… In some communities it achieved a certain respectability as it worked with politicians.”
- “God used the ‘Trail of Tears’ to bring many Indians to Christ.”
- It “cannot be shown scientifically that that man-made pollutants will one day drastically reduce the depth of the atmosphere’s ozone layer.”
- “God has provided certain ‘checks and balances’ in creation to prevent many of the global upsets that have been predicted by environmentalists.”
- the Great Depression was exaggerated by propagandists, including John Steinbeck, to advance a socialist agenda.
- “Unions have always been plagued by socialists and anarchists who use laborers to destroy the free-enterprise system that hardworking Americans have created.”
- Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential win was due to an imaginary economic crisis created by the media.
- “The greatest struggle of all time, the Battle of Armageddon, will occur in the Middle East when Christ returns to set up his kingdom on earth.”
They can't even get what the Bible says right. Revelations 16:16 - Then they gathered the kings together to the place that in Hebrew is called Armageddon. Armageddon is a transliteration of the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew "Har Meghid·dohn" which means the Mountain of Meggido. It's where the anti-Christ's army is assembled and not where the battle is fought.
These are also typically the texts used by Christian home schoolers. Hundreds of thousands of children are essentially being taught utter rubbish and we’re going to have deal with them as voters down the road. If we don’t do something about this, this country is going to be screwed.
Little Leaguer Sued
A woman in Manchester County N.J. is suing a 13 year old for $150,000 over an incident at a Little League game two years ago. According to the story the woman was sitting at a picnic table when an errant throw from the nearby bullpen hit her in the face.
The key allegation was that the youngster was “engaging in inappropriate physical and/or sporting activity.” I believe this claims that the youngster, a catcher warming up a pitcher, engaged in activity beyond simply throwing the ball back to the pitcher. How they’re going to demonstrate that should be interesting. The husband is also suing for the loss of his wife’s services (*ahem*).
I find the comments on these kind of stories more illuminating than the story. We have a unanimous verdict here that this is a frivolous lawsuit and that the woman and her husband should be run out of town on a rail after being tarred and feathered.
I hate to be the voice of reason (as it seems I'm always in the tiny minority) but while this sounds like a ridiculous lawsuit, and it may well be, it may not be as well. First of all, everyone appears to be assuming that the couple were spectators at the game but there is nothing in the story to justify that assumption. It could be they were simply sitting at a picnic table near the field and not paying attention to the game. If that's the case, then getting hit by an errant throw is bit more understandable. The hubby’s count appears to be a standard ploy when the wife is hurt. When my daughter was sued a few years ago due to a minor fender bender in which a woman claimed her neck was injured they threw in this count as well.
As for the delay, it could be that they weren’t looking to sue anyone until the medical bills started piling up. I don’t know what their insurance situation is and neither do any of the people leaving comments.
They’re also all overlooking the “intentional” claim. Even the dad says “if his son was horsing around” he would feel differently. Kids “horsing around” at Little League is not unheard of.
So, while this sounds like the kind of case that should get tossed, I think I will reserve judgment because I don’t know all the facts. If it turns out, as ludicrous as it may sound, that there is justification for the lawsuit, I’m betting it will be covered by their homeowners insurance and get settled out of court. Which of course means all the rest of us will take a little hit on our homeowners insurance (*sigh*).
The key point here is that so many people are coming to a hard conclusion without knowing all the facts. I seem to encounter this more and more. Maybe it was always this way, but it seems to me that’s not so. The big problem of course is that once people arrive at a conclusion, it can be very difficult to budge them away from that conclusion regardless of how unwarranted that conclusion was in the first place.
The key allegation was that the youngster was “engaging in inappropriate physical and/or sporting activity.” I believe this claims that the youngster, a catcher warming up a pitcher, engaged in activity beyond simply throwing the ball back to the pitcher. How they’re going to demonstrate that should be interesting. The husband is also suing for the loss of his wife’s services (*ahem*).
I find the comments on these kind of stories more illuminating than the story. We have a unanimous verdict here that this is a frivolous lawsuit and that the woman and her husband should be run out of town on a rail after being tarred and feathered.
I hate to be the voice of reason (as it seems I'm always in the tiny minority) but while this sounds like a ridiculous lawsuit, and it may well be, it may not be as well. First of all, everyone appears to be assuming that the couple were spectators at the game but there is nothing in the story to justify that assumption. It could be they were simply sitting at a picnic table near the field and not paying attention to the game. If that's the case, then getting hit by an errant throw is bit more understandable. The hubby’s count appears to be a standard ploy when the wife is hurt. When my daughter was sued a few years ago due to a minor fender bender in which a woman claimed her neck was injured they threw in this count as well.
As for the delay, it could be that they weren’t looking to sue anyone until the medical bills started piling up. I don’t know what their insurance situation is and neither do any of the people leaving comments.
They’re also all overlooking the “intentional” claim. Even the dad says “if his son was horsing around” he would feel differently. Kids “horsing around” at Little League is not unheard of.
So, while this sounds like the kind of case that should get tossed, I think I will reserve judgment because I don’t know all the facts. If it turns out, as ludicrous as it may sound, that there is justification for the lawsuit, I’m betting it will be covered by their homeowners insurance and get settled out of court. Which of course means all the rest of us will take a little hit on our homeowners insurance (*sigh*).
The key point here is that so many people are coming to a hard conclusion without knowing all the facts. I seem to encounter this more and more. Maybe it was always this way, but it seems to me that’s not so. The big problem of course is that once people arrive at a conclusion, it can be very difficult to budge them away from that conclusion regardless of how unwarranted that conclusion was in the first place.
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Bloomberg’s Large Soda Ban
Mayor Bloomberg of New York is trying to ban large sodas in an attempt to rein in the obesity epidemic being experienced by the city and the rest of the country.
Reading the New York Times article about the initiative is utterly surreal.
The poorest city borough, the Bronx, has a whopping 70% of its residents listed as obese or overweight and it was from the Bronx that the Times got its quotes.
The argument is whether community programs and education should be the weapons against obesity rather than attempting to legislate what people can and cannot access to eat and drink. Simple logic says that, based upon the quotes, voluntary stuff isn’t going to work.
I realize that it’s unfashionable to make fun of people who demonstrate their stupidity, but there comes a time when it almost becomes necessary.
Let’s start with the lady that claims to never have heard of previous anti-obesity efforts. She’s 5’2” and weighs 200 lbs. That’s a BMI of 36.6 which is obese class II.
Then there’s the guy, at 5’9” and 210 lbs. for a BMI of 31.0, and his wife, who’s also obese, who claim that nothing has worked. He swears that they have sworn off fried foods, attended health fairs, used coupons for a farmers markets and walked in a park for exercise in the past year but he didn’t lose any weight and she gained 20 lbs.
After that we get the lady that says she’s “trying to lose 40 pounds,” but said a ban would no more help her stick to her diet than the calorie counts posted on menus, another anti-obesity measure that city leaders hoped would lead consumers to make healthier decisions. She still orders her Big Macs.
Here’s a suggestion for you, stop ordering Big Macs. As a matter of fact, skip Mickey D’s altogether for a while.
But my favorite was the woman that said “If I eat cheeseburgers and fries, I’m going to get dehydrated and that little cup is not enough.”
How about, don’t eat cheeseburgers and fries?
Look, I’m not a health nut, and I do realize it can be hard to stay in shape, but it’s hard to pay income tax as well. These people are clearly incapable of getting their weight under control without help and that has a negative impact on all of us. Obesity causes preventable illnesses like diabetes and high blood pressure that tax an already overburdened health care system.
You can’t legislate their menu or activities but you can make unhealthy options less available and healthy ones more available. I agree with Bloomberg’s initiative.
By the way, if you’re wondering, I’m 6’1” and I weigh 190 lbs. for a BMI of 25.1, so I’m on the border of normal vs. overweight.
Reading the New York Times article about the initiative is utterly surreal.
The poorest city borough, the Bronx, has a whopping 70% of its residents listed as obese or overweight and it was from the Bronx that the Times got its quotes.
The argument is whether community programs and education should be the weapons against obesity rather than attempting to legislate what people can and cannot access to eat and drink. Simple logic says that, based upon the quotes, voluntary stuff isn’t going to work.
I realize that it’s unfashionable to make fun of people who demonstrate their stupidity, but there comes a time when it almost becomes necessary.
Let’s start with the lady that claims to never have heard of previous anti-obesity efforts. She’s 5’2” and weighs 200 lbs. That’s a BMI of 36.6 which is obese class II.
Then there’s the guy, at 5’9” and 210 lbs. for a BMI of 31.0, and his wife, who’s also obese, who claim that nothing has worked. He swears that they have sworn off fried foods, attended health fairs, used coupons for a farmers markets and walked in a park for exercise in the past year but he didn’t lose any weight and she gained 20 lbs.
After that we get the lady that says she’s “trying to lose 40 pounds,” but said a ban would no more help her stick to her diet than the calorie counts posted on menus, another anti-obesity measure that city leaders hoped would lead consumers to make healthier decisions. She still orders her Big Macs.
Here’s a suggestion for you, stop ordering Big Macs. As a matter of fact, skip Mickey D’s altogether for a while.
But my favorite was the woman that said “If I eat cheeseburgers and fries, I’m going to get dehydrated and that little cup is not enough.”
How about, don’t eat cheeseburgers and fries?
Look, I’m not a health nut, and I do realize it can be hard to stay in shape, but it’s hard to pay income tax as well. These people are clearly incapable of getting their weight under control without help and that has a negative impact on all of us. Obesity causes preventable illnesses like diabetes and high blood pressure that tax an already overburdened health care system.
You can’t legislate their menu or activities but you can make unhealthy options less available and healthy ones more available. I agree with Bloomberg’s initiative.
By the way, if you’re wondering, I’m 6’1” and I weigh 190 lbs. for a BMI of 25.1, so I’m on the border of normal vs. overweight.
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Concerns about November
If Obama is trying to throw the election, he’s doing a pretty good job of it.
He’s starting to really get me pissed off. No matter how dysfunctional congress may appear to be, ruling about things like immigration law through executive fiat doesn’t strike me as justified.
I happen to support the DREAM act. I believe that people brought here as children and are Americans in all aspects of the name except technically, should be given a fast track to citizenship if they meet certain criteria. Now we can fight over the criteria.
I don’t have a problem with the criteria in the presidential order which requires that the individual have been brought here before they were 16, is under the age of 30, has lived in the U.S. for at least 5 consecutive years, has graduated high school or served in the military and has a “minimal” criminal record where “minimal” is defined as no felony convictions, no “significant” misdemeanors and no multiple misdemeanors. Although one has to wonder what the definition “significant misdemeanor” might be.
I just don’t think it’s up to the president to create new law by executive decree and that is essentially what this is. The last time I checked the constitution there was no “dictator” provision. The job of the president is to enforce the law and not create it.
If the Republicans didn’t have their heads so far up their asses… Bah, and that’s why Obama knows he can get away with it. The Democratic Left Wing base, of which I am an upstanding member, is sort of trapped. What’s our alternative?
People that call themselves moderates aren’t as limited. We could easily end up with President Romney. Now if Mitt wasn’t mortgaged up to this eyebrows to the radical right that might not be such a bad thing. Unfortunately he is and that concerns me. On the other hand, if this is the way King Barack operates when he has a election coming up, what’s he going to be like after winning a second term?
He’s starting to really get me pissed off. No matter how dysfunctional congress may appear to be, ruling about things like immigration law through executive fiat doesn’t strike me as justified.
I happen to support the DREAM act. I believe that people brought here as children and are Americans in all aspects of the name except technically, should be given a fast track to citizenship if they meet certain criteria. Now we can fight over the criteria.
I don’t have a problem with the criteria in the presidential order which requires that the individual have been brought here before they were 16, is under the age of 30, has lived in the U.S. for at least 5 consecutive years, has graduated high school or served in the military and has a “minimal” criminal record where “minimal” is defined as no felony convictions, no “significant” misdemeanors and no multiple misdemeanors. Although one has to wonder what the definition “significant misdemeanor” might be.
I just don’t think it’s up to the president to create new law by executive decree and that is essentially what this is. The last time I checked the constitution there was no “dictator” provision. The job of the president is to enforce the law and not create it.
If the Republicans didn’t have their heads so far up their asses… Bah, and that’s why Obama knows he can get away with it. The Democratic Left Wing base, of which I am an upstanding member, is sort of trapped. What’s our alternative?
People that call themselves moderates aren’t as limited. We could easily end up with President Romney. Now if Mitt wasn’t mortgaged up to this eyebrows to the radical right that might not be such a bad thing. Unfortunately he is and that concerns me. On the other hand, if this is the way King Barack operates when he has a election coming up, what’s he going to be like after winning a second term?
Hebrew National not Kosher?
I admit I’m a cynic. But even cynics like me have certain things they accept as true with limited or no evidence, and certain people they have faith in.
I always had faith in Hebrew National. I BELIEVED that they believed they answered to a “higher authority” despite my lack of belief in that authority. So imagine my dismay when I read that consumers have sued ConAgra foods claiming that hot dogs and other products sold under its Hebrew National brand were in fact not kosher.
Oh the shame of it all!
Ok, I rarely eat hot dogs because my youngest daughter won’t touch them after reading a story about some of the less than appetizing stuff that gets into them. Me, I’m not that picky since I know just about all foods have that kind of stuff in them. Still, on the rare occasions that we indulge, we always get Hebrew National because we always figured the quality was a step or two above other brands.
I feel betrayed. Another of my childhood truths appears to be on the verge of collapsing.
According to the lawsuit, a supplier for ConAgra, AER Services Inc., didn’t adhere to the stringent standards required to label meat kosher, ignored employee complaints and even threatened retaliation against those employees.
Sounds like another example of the workforce wanting to do the right thing while management focuses on the short term benefit of skimping. I say short term because if AER loses their contract with ConAgra they’ll probably be hurting big time.
AER apparently is not a party to the lawsuit which sets up an easy out for ConAgra; they can simply promise to dump AER if the charges appear to be true.
Of course AER says that the allegations against them are utterly false.
We shall see what we shall see here. It wouldn’t be the first time a disgruntled employee made up stuff about their employer either. Still, certain people and companies are supposed to stay up on their pedestal and the Hebrew National brand is one of those. When they fall off a cry of dismay is appropriate.
I always had faith in Hebrew National. I BELIEVED that they believed they answered to a “higher authority” despite my lack of belief in that authority. So imagine my dismay when I read that consumers have sued ConAgra foods claiming that hot dogs and other products sold under its Hebrew National brand were in fact not kosher.
Oh the shame of it all!
Ok, I rarely eat hot dogs because my youngest daughter won’t touch them after reading a story about some of the less than appetizing stuff that gets into them. Me, I’m not that picky since I know just about all foods have that kind of stuff in them. Still, on the rare occasions that we indulge, we always get Hebrew National because we always figured the quality was a step or two above other brands.
I feel betrayed. Another of my childhood truths appears to be on the verge of collapsing.
According to the lawsuit, a supplier for ConAgra, AER Services Inc., didn’t adhere to the stringent standards required to label meat kosher, ignored employee complaints and even threatened retaliation against those employees.
Sounds like another example of the workforce wanting to do the right thing while management focuses on the short term benefit of skimping. I say short term because if AER loses their contract with ConAgra they’ll probably be hurting big time.
AER apparently is not a party to the lawsuit which sets up an easy out for ConAgra; they can simply promise to dump AER if the charges appear to be true.
Of course AER says that the allegations against them are utterly false.
We shall see what we shall see here. It wouldn’t be the first time a disgruntled employee made up stuff about their employer either. Still, certain people and companies are supposed to stay up on their pedestal and the Hebrew National brand is one of those. When they fall off a cry of dismay is appropriate.
Thursday, June 14, 2012
Pacquiao and Bradley
Leave it up to boxing to generate controversy.
I used to be a boxing fan, but I sort of lost interest about 10 years ago. I can’t remember the last time I actually watched a live fight on TV and I’ve never been to a boxing match. Still, I’m pretty familiar with the basics and with the somewhat sordid history of the game.
Timothy Bradley was not supposed to beat Manny Pacquiao. The fight was supposed to be a minor stopover on the way to a Manny Pacquiao vs. Floyd Mayweather Jr. fight. That may still happen but now that big payday has at least been delayed until Pacquiao settles some unfinished business with Bradley.
Pacquiao was supposed to make short work of Bradley but Bradley just didn’t co-operate, or, perhaps more accurately, the judges didn’t co-operate and Bradley won a split decision. Two judges scored the fight 115-113 for Bradley and the other scored it 115-113 for Pacquiao. Most of the press and the HBO commentators seem to have had the fight for Pacquiao by margins as high as 119-109.
So was Manny robbed? I doubt it. Even the judge that scored in favor of Pacquiao had it very close and boxing is a very subjective thing. If judges do their job right, they score round by round without considering the overall result.
Unfortunately, at least one of the judges, Cynthia Ross, has been here before and has a list of controversial decisions. The fact that she is apparently, based upon her Facebook page, bisexual, just confuses the issue given Manny’s recent comments on Gay Marriage.
The other judge that scored for Bradley, Duane Ford, is 74 years old but appears to have pretty much a spotless record and, based upon recent comments, appears comfortable with his decision.
I didn’t see the fight so I can’t comment on the scoring. Besides, I never claimed to be capable of judging a boxing match. If HBO puts it on On-Demand, I might watch it to see what all the hulabaloo is about but I’ve already been a bit tainted.
The bottom line is, given the subjectivity of the scoring, going to the judges is always a bit of a risk and it’s just about a crap shoot in a close fight.
So my personal opinion is it was just one of those things and all this screaming about investigations is a waste of time. Even if the WBO reviews the fight, watching on video tape is not the same thing as being there surrounded by the smells and sounds. We notice thousands of little things in person that don’t transfer to the video tape.
Let the decision stand and move on to the rematch. Maybe that will give enough time to set up the fight with Mayweather.
As I understand it, the big issue with Pacquiao vs. Mayweather is Manny wants a 50-50 split and Mayweather is insisting he should get the Lion’s share of the gate. I can solve that one, sign a contract that ties the split to who wins the fight.
I used to be a boxing fan, but I sort of lost interest about 10 years ago. I can’t remember the last time I actually watched a live fight on TV and I’ve never been to a boxing match. Still, I’m pretty familiar with the basics and with the somewhat sordid history of the game.
Timothy Bradley was not supposed to beat Manny Pacquiao. The fight was supposed to be a minor stopover on the way to a Manny Pacquiao vs. Floyd Mayweather Jr. fight. That may still happen but now that big payday has at least been delayed until Pacquiao settles some unfinished business with Bradley.
Pacquiao was supposed to make short work of Bradley but Bradley just didn’t co-operate, or, perhaps more accurately, the judges didn’t co-operate and Bradley won a split decision. Two judges scored the fight 115-113 for Bradley and the other scored it 115-113 for Pacquiao. Most of the press and the HBO commentators seem to have had the fight for Pacquiao by margins as high as 119-109.
So was Manny robbed? I doubt it. Even the judge that scored in favor of Pacquiao had it very close and boxing is a very subjective thing. If judges do their job right, they score round by round without considering the overall result.
Unfortunately, at least one of the judges, Cynthia Ross, has been here before and has a list of controversial decisions. The fact that she is apparently, based upon her Facebook page, bisexual, just confuses the issue given Manny’s recent comments on Gay Marriage.
The other judge that scored for Bradley, Duane Ford, is 74 years old but appears to have pretty much a spotless record and, based upon recent comments, appears comfortable with his decision.
I didn’t see the fight so I can’t comment on the scoring. Besides, I never claimed to be capable of judging a boxing match. If HBO puts it on On-Demand, I might watch it to see what all the hulabaloo is about but I’ve already been a bit tainted.
The bottom line is, given the subjectivity of the scoring, going to the judges is always a bit of a risk and it’s just about a crap shoot in a close fight.
So my personal opinion is it was just one of those things and all this screaming about investigations is a waste of time. Even if the WBO reviews the fight, watching on video tape is not the same thing as being there surrounded by the smells and sounds. We notice thousands of little things in person that don’t transfer to the video tape.
Let the decision stand and move on to the rematch. Maybe that will give enough time to set up the fight with Mayweather.
As I understand it, the big issue with Pacquiao vs. Mayweather is Manny wants a 50-50 split and Mayweather is insisting he should get the Lion’s share of the gate. I can solve that one, sign a contract that ties the split to who wins the fight.
Thursday, June 07, 2012
Now for the General Election
Now that Romney is, pretty much, the official nominee, we can get on with the general election.
Things have tightened considerable, as expected, and Romney actually out raised Obama in May. I suspect things will stay at pretty much a dead heat until close to the election. Hopefully Obama will make mincemeat out of Romney in the debates, but you never know.
Like many people I’m disappointed in Obama. I had so many high hopes and most of them ended up crushed on the floor of congress. I had to learn all over again that while the Republicans are competent but dishonest, the Democrats are honest but incompetent.
Like Will Rodgers used to say, I don’t belong to any organized political party, I’m a Democrat.
So would I vote for Romney? Not a snow ball’s chance in hell.
If he was a Democrat I might think about it but I can’t vote for the representative of a party that has people like Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachmann in places of influence and that has again nominated Roy Moore for Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court.
To say that the Republican Party, or at least certain wings of the Republican Party, are stepping all over traditional American principles would be an understatement. And they call themselves Patriots.
Let’s talk about Roy Moore for a second. This is the yo-yo that, while Chief Justice, erected a stone monument with the Ten Commandments on it at the Alabama Supreme Court. When a federal judge ordered it removed since it violated the U.S. Constitution, Moore refused and was subsequently removed from office.
After two abortive attempts at governor, Moore has again won the Republican nomination for Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. The Alabama Republican Party says “The Alabama Republican Party stands firmly behind Judge Roy Moore to serve as the next Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court.”
In the meantime “Judge” Moore and his Foundation for Moral Law are defending an Alabama Town that wants to use a Bible verse on its welcoming signs.
Moore says he doesn’t regret what he did because the federal judge had no right to tell him to remove the monument and the federal judge had “violated not only our Constitution but the case law of the United States Supreme Court which says our religious freedom comes from God.”
How the f--k did this bozo get through law school? Please cite WHERE in the Constitution or SCOTUS case law that it says our “religious freedom comes from God.”
The Anniston Star editorial board has argued that a candidate for the position of Chief Justice should not “promote his own particular brand of religion and tie it to questionable constitutional interpretations.”
I agree with that, but apparently the morons that live in Alabama don’t have a problem with Moore’s “brand of religion” or “questionable constitutional interpretations.”
How can you vote for a party that nominates such a man for such a position of responsibility?
Things have tightened considerable, as expected, and Romney actually out raised Obama in May. I suspect things will stay at pretty much a dead heat until close to the election. Hopefully Obama will make mincemeat out of Romney in the debates, but you never know.
Like many people I’m disappointed in Obama. I had so many high hopes and most of them ended up crushed on the floor of congress. I had to learn all over again that while the Republicans are competent but dishonest, the Democrats are honest but incompetent.
Like Will Rodgers used to say, I don’t belong to any organized political party, I’m a Democrat.
So would I vote for Romney? Not a snow ball’s chance in hell.
If he was a Democrat I might think about it but I can’t vote for the representative of a party that has people like Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachmann in places of influence and that has again nominated Roy Moore for Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court.
To say that the Republican Party, or at least certain wings of the Republican Party, are stepping all over traditional American principles would be an understatement. And they call themselves Patriots.
Let’s talk about Roy Moore for a second. This is the yo-yo that, while Chief Justice, erected a stone monument with the Ten Commandments on it at the Alabama Supreme Court. When a federal judge ordered it removed since it violated the U.S. Constitution, Moore refused and was subsequently removed from office.
After two abortive attempts at governor, Moore has again won the Republican nomination for Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. The Alabama Republican Party says “The Alabama Republican Party stands firmly behind Judge Roy Moore to serve as the next Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court.”
In the meantime “Judge” Moore and his Foundation for Moral Law are defending an Alabama Town that wants to use a Bible verse on its welcoming signs.
Moore says he doesn’t regret what he did because the federal judge had no right to tell him to remove the monument and the federal judge had “violated not only our Constitution but the case law of the United States Supreme Court which says our religious freedom comes from God.”
How the f--k did this bozo get through law school? Please cite WHERE in the Constitution or SCOTUS case law that it says our “religious freedom comes from God.”
The Anniston Star editorial board has argued that a candidate for the position of Chief Justice should not “promote his own particular brand of religion and tie it to questionable constitutional interpretations.”
I agree with that, but apparently the morons that live in Alabama don’t have a problem with Moore’s “brand of religion” or “questionable constitutional interpretations.”
How can you vote for a party that nominates such a man for such a position of responsibility?
The CNN/ORC Poll on Gay Marriage
A new poll commissioned by CNN and conducted by ORC International provides additional evidence that American opinion on Gay Marriage has swung to the “In Favor” position.
In a poll of 1,009 adults, 756 via landline and 253 via cell phone, CNN/ORC found 54% in favor of recognizing gay marriages as valid and 42% opposed. This is a swing of 10 points since 2008 when 44% were in favor and 53% opposed.
More interesting is the breakdown by age group. Those in the 18-34 age group were in favor by 73%-24% and those in the 35-49 age group were in favor 55%-43%. Those in the 50-64 age group were slightly opposed 50%-46% and those 65 or over were strongly opposed 62%-34%. It’s unfortunate that older Americans are more likely to vote.
Education appears to matter as well. Those with a college degree were in favor by 60%-37%. Those with no college were opposed 50%-47%.
As for political affiliation, no surprise there, Democrats were in favor 70%-28%, Independents were in favor 60%-37% and Republicans were opposed 72%-23%. And they wonder why Democrats and Republicans can’t work together.
As for region of the country, the West was most in favor 65%-32%, followed by the Northeast 63%-32%, then the Midwest 50%-47%. Only the South was opposed (duh, ya think?) 52%-44%.
Urban and suburban dwellers were in favor by an almost identical 58%-39% and 57%-39% respectively. Rural dwellers were opposed by 56%-40%.
Another question I found interesting was whether someone thought sexual orientation can be changed. Even groups opposed seem to be coming around to the realization that sexual orientation is fixed and that’s the first step to acceptance.
So how come Gay Marriage can’t win at the polls?
Part of that is probably that the people most likely to vote are also those mostly likely to be opposed. Most votes have also taken place in more conservative states.
Maine may be the first state to approve Gay Marriage by popular vote this fall. It’s going to be close despite recent polls showing 58%-40% in favor because the anti-gay marriage crowd hasn’t started its dirty tricks campaign yet. Oregon and Maryland may also have votes trying to repeal the Gay Marriage laws passed by the legislatures. These are not traditionally conservative states so we shall see.
I believe (hope?) that’s once the people of a single state stand up and say “AYE,” the floodgates will open because it will be hard for other Americans not to follow. When that happens one of the last bastions of overt discrimination will topple and that will deal a severe blow to religion.
That blow won’t be fatal of course but hopefully it will further weaken an already teetering Catholic Church and drive folks, especially young folks, away from fundamentalist sects.
In a poll of 1,009 adults, 756 via landline and 253 via cell phone, CNN/ORC found 54% in favor of recognizing gay marriages as valid and 42% opposed. This is a swing of 10 points since 2008 when 44% were in favor and 53% opposed.
More interesting is the breakdown by age group. Those in the 18-34 age group were in favor by 73%-24% and those in the 35-49 age group were in favor 55%-43%. Those in the 50-64 age group were slightly opposed 50%-46% and those 65 or over were strongly opposed 62%-34%. It’s unfortunate that older Americans are more likely to vote.
Education appears to matter as well. Those with a college degree were in favor by 60%-37%. Those with no college were opposed 50%-47%.
As for political affiliation, no surprise there, Democrats were in favor 70%-28%, Independents were in favor 60%-37% and Republicans were opposed 72%-23%. And they wonder why Democrats and Republicans can’t work together.
As for region of the country, the West was most in favor 65%-32%, followed by the Northeast 63%-32%, then the Midwest 50%-47%. Only the South was opposed (duh, ya think?) 52%-44%.
Urban and suburban dwellers were in favor by an almost identical 58%-39% and 57%-39% respectively. Rural dwellers were opposed by 56%-40%.
Another question I found interesting was whether someone thought sexual orientation can be changed. Even groups opposed seem to be coming around to the realization that sexual orientation is fixed and that’s the first step to acceptance.
So how come Gay Marriage can’t win at the polls?
Part of that is probably that the people most likely to vote are also those mostly likely to be opposed. Most votes have also taken place in more conservative states.
Maine may be the first state to approve Gay Marriage by popular vote this fall. It’s going to be close despite recent polls showing 58%-40% in favor because the anti-gay marriage crowd hasn’t started its dirty tricks campaign yet. Oregon and Maryland may also have votes trying to repeal the Gay Marriage laws passed by the legislatures. These are not traditionally conservative states so we shall see.
I believe (hope?) that’s once the people of a single state stand up and say “AYE,” the floodgates will open because it will be hard for other Americans not to follow. When that happens one of the last bastions of overt discrimination will topple and that will deal a severe blow to religion.
That blow won’t be fatal of course but hopefully it will further weaken an already teetering Catholic Church and drive folks, especially young folks, away from fundamentalist sects.
Friday, June 01, 2012
Victory: The Triumphant Gay Revolution by Linda Hirshman
Ms. Hirshman’s book apparently declares 2011 the year of victory for the gay rights movement. The book further appears to declare that the reason for the victory was the LGBT adoption of the moral high ground. In other words, homosexuality should not simply be tolerated, but homosexuality is normal and good.
Personally I think Ms. Hirshman is declaring victory a bit too soon. It’s sort of like George Bush’s declaration of mission accomplished in Iraq.
While a don’t doubt that victory is inevitable, I wouldn’t say it’s been achieved quite yet. Hirshman’s book does raise an interesting question for those of us that support the movement though. Do we actually accept homosexuality as normal or are we just tolerating it?
To my surprise I realized that I’m not sure. As a pure heterosexual attraction to your own sex puzzles me and, I have to admit, there is a definite “yuck factor” associated with homosexual acts. I suppose homosexuals feel the same way about heterosexual acts.
So does that mean I merely tolerate rather than accept? I honestly don’t know.
Personally I think Ms. Hirshman is declaring victory a bit too soon. It’s sort of like George Bush’s declaration of mission accomplished in Iraq.
While a don’t doubt that victory is inevitable, I wouldn’t say it’s been achieved quite yet. Hirshman’s book does raise an interesting question for those of us that support the movement though. Do we actually accept homosexuality as normal or are we just tolerating it?
To my surprise I realized that I’m not sure. As a pure heterosexual attraction to your own sex puzzles me and, I have to admit, there is a definite “yuck factor” associated with homosexual acts. I suppose homosexuals feel the same way about heterosexual acts.
So does that mean I merely tolerate rather than accept? I honestly don’t know.
Friday, May 25, 2012
Pediculus humanus humanus
What the hell is a Pediculus humanus humanus you ask? It’s a body louse. Body lice are similar to head lice except instead of attaching their eggs to hair, they attach them to clothing.
Now, let’s go back to the Garden of Eden when God created all living creatures which, I would assume, included body lice. What clothing did he intend them to attach themselves to? Adam and Eve walked around au naturale remember?
Did God make a view adjustments after he kicked Adam and his lady out of the Garden?
We know that body lice and head lice are derived from the same species because under laboratory conditions they interbreed. But outside the laboratory they occupy two different habitats and do not interbreed. Based upon the degree of genetic difference, the two sub-species appear to have separated about 100,000 years ago. The changes are far too extensive to have occurred in the short time since the mythical flood.
Welcome to Evolution in action.
Now, let’s go back to the Garden of Eden when God created all living creatures which, I would assume, included body lice. What clothing did he intend them to attach themselves to? Adam and Eve walked around au naturale remember?
Did God make a view adjustments after he kicked Adam and his lady out of the Garden?
We know that body lice and head lice are derived from the same species because under laboratory conditions they interbreed. But outside the laboratory they occupy two different habitats and do not interbreed. Based upon the degree of genetic difference, the two sub-species appear to have separated about 100,000 years ago. The changes are far too extensive to have occurred in the short time since the mythical flood.
Welcome to Evolution in action.
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Manny Pacquiao vs. Obama
Boxing champ Manny Pacquiao doesn’t care for President Obama’s views on same sex marriage.
According to Pacquiao "God only expects man and woman to be together and to be legally married, only if they so are in love with each other.”
Well I’m glad to see Manny knows God so well.
Pacquiao also said America should be the model of morality for other countries to emulate.
I say to that bull. I’m tired of being the “model” for everyone else. We’ll take care of our house and you guys worry about yours. I think you’ve been hit in the head a few too many times Manny.
Read the United States Constitution and especially the 14th Amendment if you want to really understand the issue. It’s the simple concept of the rule of law and law isn’t the same thing as morality.
The law is an agreement between civilized men. Morality is simply someone’s opinion.
According to Pacquiao "God only expects man and woman to be together and to be legally married, only if they so are in love with each other.”
Well I’m glad to see Manny knows God so well.
Pacquiao also said America should be the model of morality for other countries to emulate.
I say to that bull. I’m tired of being the “model” for everyone else. We’ll take care of our house and you guys worry about yours. I think you’ve been hit in the head a few too many times Manny.
Read the United States Constitution and especially the 14th Amendment if you want to really understand the issue. It’s the simple concept of the rule of law and law isn’t the same thing as morality.
The law is an agreement between civilized men. Morality is simply someone’s opinion.
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Pew Research Economic Mobility Project
Pew Research has just released its finding on economic mobility in the United States. This is the reality between the idea of the so-called American Dream.
Why does a man who is making $50,000 a year vote Republican? Well, that’s a complex question with a lot of factors to be considered but, based upon a number of psychological profiles, somewhere in his mind he believes that someday he could be in the top 1% and he needs to protect that future wealth.
So, it would stand to reason that the states showing the best upward mobility would be the conservative states right?
Wrong.
Again the country defies rationality. Just like the Blue States have a net negative tax flow while the Red States have a positive tax flow (in other words the Blue States are supporting the Red States), the states with the best upward mobility are the Blue States of the Northeast and those with the worst are the Red States of the South.
The ranking is based upon the three indicators of Absolute Upward Mobility, Relative Upward Mobility and Relative Downward Mobility. States were placed in groups depending upon how well they compared to the national average.
The top group outperformed the national average in all three indicators and the second group outperformed the national average in two of the indicators.
On the other end of the scale was the bottom group which performed worse in all three indicators and the next to the bottom group which performed worse in two of the indicators. In many states there was no statistical difference between their performance and the national average.
The top group consisted of New York, New Jersey and Maryland. They’re followed by Connecticut. Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Utah (Utah?) in the second group.
At the bottom were Louisiana, Oklahoma and South Carolina followed by Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina and Texas.
Keep on voting Republican you dumb rednecks and you’ll spend your whole as white trash just like the rich folks like it.
Why does a man who is making $50,000 a year vote Republican? Well, that’s a complex question with a lot of factors to be considered but, based upon a number of psychological profiles, somewhere in his mind he believes that someday he could be in the top 1% and he needs to protect that future wealth.
So, it would stand to reason that the states showing the best upward mobility would be the conservative states right?
Wrong.
Again the country defies rationality. Just like the Blue States have a net negative tax flow while the Red States have a positive tax flow (in other words the Blue States are supporting the Red States), the states with the best upward mobility are the Blue States of the Northeast and those with the worst are the Red States of the South.
The ranking is based upon the three indicators of Absolute Upward Mobility, Relative Upward Mobility and Relative Downward Mobility. States were placed in groups depending upon how well they compared to the national average.
The top group outperformed the national average in all three indicators and the second group outperformed the national average in two of the indicators.
On the other end of the scale was the bottom group which performed worse in all three indicators and the next to the bottom group which performed worse in two of the indicators. In many states there was no statistical difference between their performance and the national average.
The top group consisted of New York, New Jersey and Maryland. They’re followed by Connecticut. Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Utah (Utah?) in the second group.
At the bottom were Louisiana, Oklahoma and South Carolina followed by Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina and Texas.
Keep on voting Republican you dumb rednecks and you’ll spend your whole as white trash just like the rich folks like it.
Obama and Same Sex Marriage
Barack Obama, in an ABC news interview, has declared himself in favor of same sex marriage. This is a reversal of his 2008 position.
Obama says the change was the result of an evolution in his thinking. He said that originally he thought that Civil Unions would be sufficient but that now he recognizes that they are not.
Well, it’s about time Ollie. Better late than never I suppose.
Is this a politically good move? I honestly don’t know. But the way I figure it, if you’re going to go down, you might as well go down swinging.
The point is that, politically expedient or not, it’s the right thing to do especially given the overwhelming approval of an anti-gay marriage amendment in North Carolina on Tuesday. Holding the Democratic convention there isn’t looking like such a great idea at the moment.
So the battle continues.
Obama says the change was the result of an evolution in his thinking. He said that originally he thought that Civil Unions would be sufficient but that now he recognizes that they are not.
Well, it’s about time Ollie. Better late than never I suppose.
Is this a politically good move? I honestly don’t know. But the way I figure it, if you’re going to go down, you might as well go down swinging.
The point is that, politically expedient or not, it’s the right thing to do especially given the overwhelming approval of an anti-gay marriage amendment in North Carolina on Tuesday. Holding the Democratic convention there isn’t looking like such a great idea at the moment.
So the battle continues.
Tuesday, May 08, 2012
42% of Americans Could be Obese by 2030
Yeah, and the Chicago Cubs could win a World Series by then too.
Ok, obesity in the U.S. is a problem, but how do you decide what’s going to happen in 20 years? Current estimates say that about 34% of Americans are obese, that is they have a Body Mass Index (BMI) of 30 or greater, and about 5% are morbidly obese, they have a BMI of 40 or greater.
The report, from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, based upon a number of factors, believes the rate could become 42% obese and 11% morbidly obese by 2030. The problem, aside from ascetics, are the additional health issues associated with being severely overweight and the pressure those issues would bring on an already overtaxed and costly health care system.
I also saw another article claiming safety concerns. Apparently regulations for airline seats and seat belts and automobile seat belts are way out of date and are left over from when the average weight was 20 lbs less than today.
Great, that means in heavy turbulence, the severely overweight gentleman three rows back could become a lethal missile. Do I really need to be worried about this sort of stuff?
Getting back to the obesity rates, I got a bit curious and got out my handy BMI calculator. I’m currently 6’1” and 192 lbs. That gives me a BMI of 25.3. Since 25 is the limit, that means I’m slightly overweight. This is down from a record high of 210 lbs, a BMI of 27.7, last September so I understand how easy it can be to balloon up if you’re not careful.
Still, to get to obese, I would have to weigh 228 lbs and, to get to morbidly obese, a whopping 304 lbs. I’d have to really let myself go so I guarantee you I won’t ever be in one of those two categories.
I do understand however how easy it can be to put on the pounds. I hit my high after a week at the Jersey Shore enjoying breakfast and dinner buffets. It seems like restaurant meals get larger and larger and snacks tastier and tastier and more accessible.
I like cookies and potato chips but I rarely eat cookies and potato chips. I eats nuts and string cheese instead. Ok, occasionally I’ll get myself a bag of Lay’s Baked Ruffles or Jalapeno Jack Sun Chips or, if I’m really bad, a bag of Lay’s Kettle Chips, but I feel guilty for days afterwards.
It’s hard, but you have to fight.
Seriously, I feel much better at 200 lbs or less. Can I get below 189 where I’d have to get for a BMI of under 25? Probably not, but I’m happy if I can stay around 195 lbs.
Being 63 doesn’t help and sitting at a computer all day doesn’t help either. My metabolism tends to be on siesta most of the day. Hitting the gym 5-6 times a week should help although I’ve seen some arguments that exercise doesn’t really help in weight control. I find that hard to believe.
So what’s the point (other than giving myself a bit of a pat on the back)? I’m not sure. But like most problems, first we have to get comfortable talking about it.
Ok, obesity in the U.S. is a problem, but how do you decide what’s going to happen in 20 years? Current estimates say that about 34% of Americans are obese, that is they have a Body Mass Index (BMI) of 30 or greater, and about 5% are morbidly obese, they have a BMI of 40 or greater.
The report, from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, based upon a number of factors, believes the rate could become 42% obese and 11% morbidly obese by 2030. The problem, aside from ascetics, are the additional health issues associated with being severely overweight and the pressure those issues would bring on an already overtaxed and costly health care system.
I also saw another article claiming safety concerns. Apparently regulations for airline seats and seat belts and automobile seat belts are way out of date and are left over from when the average weight was 20 lbs less than today.
Great, that means in heavy turbulence, the severely overweight gentleman three rows back could become a lethal missile. Do I really need to be worried about this sort of stuff?
Getting back to the obesity rates, I got a bit curious and got out my handy BMI calculator. I’m currently 6’1” and 192 lbs. That gives me a BMI of 25.3. Since 25 is the limit, that means I’m slightly overweight. This is down from a record high of 210 lbs, a BMI of 27.7, last September so I understand how easy it can be to balloon up if you’re not careful.
Still, to get to obese, I would have to weigh 228 lbs and, to get to morbidly obese, a whopping 304 lbs. I’d have to really let myself go so I guarantee you I won’t ever be in one of those two categories.
I do understand however how easy it can be to put on the pounds. I hit my high after a week at the Jersey Shore enjoying breakfast and dinner buffets. It seems like restaurant meals get larger and larger and snacks tastier and tastier and more accessible.
I like cookies and potato chips but I rarely eat cookies and potato chips. I eats nuts and string cheese instead. Ok, occasionally I’ll get myself a bag of Lay’s Baked Ruffles or Jalapeno Jack Sun Chips or, if I’m really bad, a bag of Lay’s Kettle Chips, but I feel guilty for days afterwards.
It’s hard, but you have to fight.
Seriously, I feel much better at 200 lbs or less. Can I get below 189 where I’d have to get for a BMI of under 25? Probably not, but I’m happy if I can stay around 195 lbs.
Being 63 doesn’t help and sitting at a computer all day doesn’t help either. My metabolism tends to be on siesta most of the day. Hitting the gym 5-6 times a week should help although I’ve seen some arguments that exercise doesn’t really help in weight control. I find that hard to believe.
So what’s the point (other than giving myself a bit of a pat on the back)? I’m not sure. But like most problems, first we have to get comfortable talking about it.
In my Inbox
Every once in a while I like to capture the contents of my Inbox. I do it randomly but when it’s not that overloaded. Here’s the haul for Tuesday Morning, May 8th, 2012.
Broadway.com – An advertisement for “Rock of Ages.” I go to Broadway shows with some regularity but I’m not interested in “Rock of Ages.” My wife and daughter did mention something about going a while back. Maybe I’ll forward it to them.
Jeremy Kennedy – An e-mail with an embedded video campaigning against Amendment One to be voted on in North Carolina today. While I oppose Amendment One, since I live in New Jersey there’s not much more I can do about it.
Congressional Budget Office – According to the CBO, the federal deficit was $721 billion for the first seven months of fiscal 2012 (can you spell red ink?). Believe it or not that’s an improvement of $149 billion over 2011.
Physicsworld.com – An announcement for an upcoming webinar about Modular Raman spectroscopy. I think I’ll pass since I haven’t the faintest idea what that is.
Sears Home Services – A repair appointment confirmation. My washing machine is acting up.
Amazon.com – An advertisement about flowers for Mother’s Day.
Jeremy Kennedy – An appeal to vote today against Amendment One which might be frowned upon by the authorities given that I don’t live in North Carolina. From what I understand this Amendment is most likely going to pass indicating that we still have a ways to go in this country when it comes to gay rights.
NFL Newsletter – Desperately looking for stories in the post NFL Draft pre-pre-season time frame.
Eat This Not That – An article about the eight scariest restaurant meals which ETNT calls “dietary axe murderers in disguise.” All of these meals are over 2,000 calories with the worst offender, the Cheesecake Factories Bistro Shrimp Pasta, weighing in at a staggering 2,730 calories with 78 grams of saturated fat. To put this in perspective, my maximum daily calorie intake (at 6’1,” 192 lbs, since I go to the gym 5 times a week) is around 2,500 calories and my maximum saturated fat intake is around 27 grams. So this meal is more than a full days worth of calories and almost three full days worth of saturated fat.
Bob Menendez – The senator from New Jersey is complaining about the Republican’s not wanting to renew the “Paycheck Fairness Act” which Bob calls a “reasonable update to a bill passed in 1963.” The problem of course is it’s not 1963 and any semblance of “reasonable” has long ago left the Republican Party. Still, I wonder what he means by “update?”
New Republic – An article about the failure of Europe to successfully cope with the current large scale Muslim immigration. I have to wonder if any western country could handle this. Let’s face it, lower class Muslims don’t fit well into western democracies and probably never will. They refuse assimilation and western society can’t allow their fanatical religious viewpoints. It’s a marriage made in hell. I’m glad we don’t have that problem here. Mexicans are easy compared to Muslims.
Expedia.com – Advertisement.
BerganPAC – Advertisement.
Kirsten Gillibrand – The senator from New York also complaining about the Republicans and the “Paycheck Fairness Act.” I must be on some sort of “Democratic Party Central List.”
As I was typing, these came in.
SodaHead Sports – Do I forgive Metta World Peace? Not I don’t. AKA John Artest is a hoodlum on the court and needs to be reined in.
Broadway Direct – An advertisement for “Ghost” which my daughter could have gotten free tickets to but it was a Wednesday night so I passed. Too much of a hassle to schlep downtown on a Wednesday.
Ok, so that’s the lot. Not terribly exciting perhaps but it keeps me in touch with what’s going on and who wants me to do what.
Broadway.com – An advertisement for “Rock of Ages.” I go to Broadway shows with some regularity but I’m not interested in “Rock of Ages.” My wife and daughter did mention something about going a while back. Maybe I’ll forward it to them.
Jeremy Kennedy – An e-mail with an embedded video campaigning against Amendment One to be voted on in North Carolina today. While I oppose Amendment One, since I live in New Jersey there’s not much more I can do about it.
Congressional Budget Office – According to the CBO, the federal deficit was $721 billion for the first seven months of fiscal 2012 (can you spell red ink?). Believe it or not that’s an improvement of $149 billion over 2011.
Physicsworld.com – An announcement for an upcoming webinar about Modular Raman spectroscopy. I think I’ll pass since I haven’t the faintest idea what that is.
Sears Home Services – A repair appointment confirmation. My washing machine is acting up.
Amazon.com – An advertisement about flowers for Mother’s Day.
Jeremy Kennedy – An appeal to vote today against Amendment One which might be frowned upon by the authorities given that I don’t live in North Carolina. From what I understand this Amendment is most likely going to pass indicating that we still have a ways to go in this country when it comes to gay rights.
NFL Newsletter – Desperately looking for stories in the post NFL Draft pre-pre-season time frame.
Eat This Not That – An article about the eight scariest restaurant meals which ETNT calls “dietary axe murderers in disguise.” All of these meals are over 2,000 calories with the worst offender, the Cheesecake Factories Bistro Shrimp Pasta, weighing in at a staggering 2,730 calories with 78 grams of saturated fat. To put this in perspective, my maximum daily calorie intake (at 6’1,” 192 lbs, since I go to the gym 5 times a week) is around 2,500 calories and my maximum saturated fat intake is around 27 grams. So this meal is more than a full days worth of calories and almost three full days worth of saturated fat.
Bob Menendez – The senator from New Jersey is complaining about the Republican’s not wanting to renew the “Paycheck Fairness Act” which Bob calls a “reasonable update to a bill passed in 1963.” The problem of course is it’s not 1963 and any semblance of “reasonable” has long ago left the Republican Party. Still, I wonder what he means by “update?”
New Republic – An article about the failure of Europe to successfully cope with the current large scale Muslim immigration. I have to wonder if any western country could handle this. Let’s face it, lower class Muslims don’t fit well into western democracies and probably never will. They refuse assimilation and western society can’t allow their fanatical religious viewpoints. It’s a marriage made in hell. I’m glad we don’t have that problem here. Mexicans are easy compared to Muslims.
Expedia.com – Advertisement.
BerganPAC – Advertisement.
Kirsten Gillibrand – The senator from New York also complaining about the Republicans and the “Paycheck Fairness Act.” I must be on some sort of “Democratic Party Central List.”
As I was typing, these came in.
SodaHead Sports – Do I forgive Metta World Peace? Not I don’t. AKA John Artest is a hoodlum on the court and needs to be reined in.
Broadway Direct – An advertisement for “Ghost” which my daughter could have gotten free tickets to but it was a Wednesday night so I passed. Too much of a hassle to schlep downtown on a Wednesday.
Ok, so that’s the lot. Not terribly exciting perhaps but it keeps me in touch with what’s going on and who wants me to do what.
Friday, May 04, 2012
The Second Coming
Once again I was reading about the prophetic end of the world as envisioned by some Christians.
It’s the Late, Great Planet Earth all over again. As tensions rise in the middle east, the oft fleeced flock begins to dream of the arrival of the Son of Man to judge the sheep and the goats.
*Yawn.* Excuse me, but don’t these folks ever get it?
This is a form of what I call the “Vindication Fantasy.” A form of fantasy where an authority figure, parent, boss, king, shows up, vindicates your actions or beliefs and raises you up above your rivals.
Let me make it simple. It’s not going to happen. Jesus is not coming back. A mushroom cloud turning Jerusalem into debris is just going to turn Jerusalem into debris and kill a lot of innocent people.
Revelations is a load of gibberish laid down by a delusional Greek on the Island of Patmos. Either he was chewing on some really good stuff or a growing brain tumor was causing increasingly chaotic hallucinations.
None of it is real and none of it is going to happen.
The earth, at least as a rock in space, will most likely survive for about another 5 billion years until the sun exhausts its supply of hydrogen, expands into a red giant and engulfs the inner planets.
But not to worry. It’s highly unlikely anyone will be around to witness the event.
While the life expectancy of the sun and earth may be in the billions of years, the life expectancy of the human species, unless we can figure out a way to travel between the stars, is at best in the thousands of years and quite possible in the hundreds of years.
99.9% of all species that have ever existed are extinct. It’s unlikely we’ll manage to escape that fate. We may achieve the distinction of being the only species that contributed to its own demise, but in the eternal darkness to follow, there won’t be anyone that will care.
It’s the Late, Great Planet Earth all over again. As tensions rise in the middle east, the oft fleeced flock begins to dream of the arrival of the Son of Man to judge the sheep and the goats.
*Yawn.* Excuse me, but don’t these folks ever get it?
This is a form of what I call the “Vindication Fantasy.” A form of fantasy where an authority figure, parent, boss, king, shows up, vindicates your actions or beliefs and raises you up above your rivals.
Let me make it simple. It’s not going to happen. Jesus is not coming back. A mushroom cloud turning Jerusalem into debris is just going to turn Jerusalem into debris and kill a lot of innocent people.
Revelations is a load of gibberish laid down by a delusional Greek on the Island of Patmos. Either he was chewing on some really good stuff or a growing brain tumor was causing increasingly chaotic hallucinations.
None of it is real and none of it is going to happen.
The earth, at least as a rock in space, will most likely survive for about another 5 billion years until the sun exhausts its supply of hydrogen, expands into a red giant and engulfs the inner planets.
But not to worry. It’s highly unlikely anyone will be around to witness the event.
While the life expectancy of the sun and earth may be in the billions of years, the life expectancy of the human species, unless we can figure out a way to travel between the stars, is at best in the thousands of years and quite possible in the hundreds of years.
99.9% of all species that have ever existed are extinct. It’s unlikely we’ll manage to escape that fate. We may achieve the distinction of being the only species that contributed to its own demise, but in the eternal darkness to follow, there won’t be anyone that will care.
Thursday, May 03, 2012
Well, it’s May
Yes, it’s May. I’m not quite sure where April went, but it’s definitely May.
I think I’m becoming partially immune to the idiocy I see every day in the headlines. I’m becoming jaded. Instead of a healthy dose of indignation, these days I find myself more likely to shrug and say something like “yeah, no real surprise there.”
Just a few things.
John Edwards, who I thought at one time might make a reasonable Presidential candidate, is on trial for what amounts to misappropriation of funds. Yes, innocent until proven guilty, but using campaign funds to support a mistress is something someone shouldn’t even be accused of.
The DEA “forgot” about a suspect and left him, a university student, alone in a cell for four days.
Ann “we’re just plain folks” Romney, apparently wears $1,000 blouses.
Mitt Romney hired a gay foreign affairs consultant and then caved in to the howls of indignation from the Religious Right and had him resign.
Another study has come out that demonstrates that abstinence only education doesn’t work. Despite a drop in teen pregnancy in the country, states with “abstinence only” sex education still have the highest teen pregnancy rates. The ink wasn’t even dry on the report before Right Wing idiots were saying on talk radio that “all the data” supports “abstinence only” education whatever the hell that means.
A woman in New Jersey was arrested for taking her 4 year-old daughter to a tanning salon.
“Octomom” has filed for bankruptcy citing almost $1,000,000 in debt. Who in his right mind would extend her significant credit?
At a high school journalism lecture, Ted Savage, founder of the “It gets better” movement, managed to get a group of students to walk out when he challenged the moral issues in the bible. He then called the act of walking out “pansy-assed.”
Barack Obama keeps reminding everyone that “he” killed Osama Bin Laden. No Barack, a Navy Seal killed Bin Laden. You were watching at a safe distance in a comfortable conference room.
The NFL Draft is over. The Colts took Andrew Luck, the Redskins Robert Griffin III and the Giants, picking 32nd, got a running back from Virginia Tech named David Wilson. I was at MetLife Stadium during the first rounds of the draft and got to see the Lombardi Trophy.
Roger Clemens is on trial for perjury over his use of performance enhancing drugs.
And, saddest of all, Junior Seau has apparently committed suicide. Seau is the eighth player from the Chargers lone Super Bowl team in 1994 to have died.
I think I’m becoming partially immune to the idiocy I see every day in the headlines. I’m becoming jaded. Instead of a healthy dose of indignation, these days I find myself more likely to shrug and say something like “yeah, no real surprise there.”
Just a few things.
John Edwards, who I thought at one time might make a reasonable Presidential candidate, is on trial for what amounts to misappropriation of funds. Yes, innocent until proven guilty, but using campaign funds to support a mistress is something someone shouldn’t even be accused of.
The DEA “forgot” about a suspect and left him, a university student, alone in a cell for four days.
Ann “we’re just plain folks” Romney, apparently wears $1,000 blouses.
Mitt Romney hired a gay foreign affairs consultant and then caved in to the howls of indignation from the Religious Right and had him resign.
Another study has come out that demonstrates that abstinence only education doesn’t work. Despite a drop in teen pregnancy in the country, states with “abstinence only” sex education still have the highest teen pregnancy rates. The ink wasn’t even dry on the report before Right Wing idiots were saying on talk radio that “all the data” supports “abstinence only” education whatever the hell that means.
A woman in New Jersey was arrested for taking her 4 year-old daughter to a tanning salon.
“Octomom” has filed for bankruptcy citing almost $1,000,000 in debt. Who in his right mind would extend her significant credit?
At a high school journalism lecture, Ted Savage, founder of the “It gets better” movement, managed to get a group of students to walk out when he challenged the moral issues in the bible. He then called the act of walking out “pansy-assed.”
Barack Obama keeps reminding everyone that “he” killed Osama Bin Laden. No Barack, a Navy Seal killed Bin Laden. You were watching at a safe distance in a comfortable conference room.
The NFL Draft is over. The Colts took Andrew Luck, the Redskins Robert Griffin III and the Giants, picking 32nd, got a running back from Virginia Tech named David Wilson. I was at MetLife Stadium during the first rounds of the draft and got to see the Lombardi Trophy.
Roger Clemens is on trial for perjury over his use of performance enhancing drugs.
And, saddest of all, Junior Seau has apparently committed suicide. Seau is the eighth player from the Chargers lone Super Bowl team in 1994 to have died.
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Freedom of Speech
I am more than a little concerned about the tendency to immediately demand sanctions on people because they say something you don’t like.
Both the Left and the Right think it’s OK to demand people get fired for speaking their mind just because what they say isn’t what some group wants to hear.
The last time I looked, Freedom of Speech was still in the Constitution. That means the freedom to express unpopular, sexist, homophobic, anti-capitalism and even racist opinions. We can criticize people for saying that sort of stuff but we can’t punish them by throwing them in jail OR getting them fired from their jobs.
Now this is different from violating rules. If there’s a company policy that says no political buttons or no political posters on your office walls and you ignore that despite requests to comply, then get ready to pack your bags. But you shouldn’t be disciplined for something you say outside of work on your own time.
This also doesn’t include boycotts. If a company engages in a public policy that you disagree with, or does stuff you find offensive, then you are within your rights to shun their products and try to convince others to shun their products. That is a version of Free Speech.
No organization or company is exempt from criticism and that includes religions. Islam will never be compatible with Western Democracy as long as it teaches that criticism of Islam is a crime. At least for the moment, you cannot be both an obedient Muslim and a patriotic American. Luckily most Muslims ignore the more barbaric tenets of their religion in the same way that Christians ignore the ugly parts of theirs.
Even if you are championing a righteous cause, squelching the freedom of others to express different viewpoints violates the very core of what a democracy is supposed to stand for.
Both the Left and the Right think it’s OK to demand people get fired for speaking their mind just because what they say isn’t what some group wants to hear.
The last time I looked, Freedom of Speech was still in the Constitution. That means the freedom to express unpopular, sexist, homophobic, anti-capitalism and even racist opinions. We can criticize people for saying that sort of stuff but we can’t punish them by throwing them in jail OR getting them fired from their jobs.
Now this is different from violating rules. If there’s a company policy that says no political buttons or no political posters on your office walls and you ignore that despite requests to comply, then get ready to pack your bags. But you shouldn’t be disciplined for something you say outside of work on your own time.
This also doesn’t include boycotts. If a company engages in a public policy that you disagree with, or does stuff you find offensive, then you are within your rights to shun their products and try to convince others to shun their products. That is a version of Free Speech.
No organization or company is exempt from criticism and that includes religions. Islam will never be compatible with Western Democracy as long as it teaches that criticism of Islam is a crime. At least for the moment, you cannot be both an obedient Muslim and a patriotic American. Luckily most Muslims ignore the more barbaric tenets of their religion in the same way that Christians ignore the ugly parts of theirs.
Even if you are championing a righteous cause, squelching the freedom of others to express different viewpoints violates the very core of what a democracy is supposed to stand for.
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
If I wanted America to Fail
The group Free Market America released the anti-environmental video “If I wanted America to Fail” on Earth Day. The video is a concentration of right wing arguments starting with coal is good, drilling for oil anywhere is good, environmental regulations are bad, ANY regulations are bad and don’t worry Capitalism will take care of you.
You need to notice a few important things about this video. It presents no facts; it makes no arguments. It relies upon assertion, accusation and innuendo while not backing up with facts or data anything it presents. It argues from consequences and attempts to frighten you while not providing any evidence that what it says is correct or that there is reason for concern. It appeals to emotion and not reason or logic. It presents points that are known to be false and items that are the result of simple human error as some sort of nefarious conspiracy. In other words, it's a load of crap.
It also strongly implies that if you don’t agree with it, you’re somehow disloyal or a traitor of some kind. It presents the opposition as a conspiracy rather than just well meaning people who happen to be wrong.
The video doesn’t surprise me. It’s about what I expect from the right wing. However I continue to be amazed at the number of people, based upon the comments, that are taken in by this sort of nonsense. You learn nothing by watching this film for four minutes about anything.
You need to notice a few important things about this video. It presents no facts; it makes no arguments. It relies upon assertion, accusation and innuendo while not backing up with facts or data anything it presents. It argues from consequences and attempts to frighten you while not providing any evidence that what it says is correct or that there is reason for concern. It appeals to emotion and not reason or logic. It presents points that are known to be false and items that are the result of simple human error as some sort of nefarious conspiracy. In other words, it's a load of crap.
It also strongly implies that if you don’t agree with it, you’re somehow disloyal or a traitor of some kind. It presents the opposition as a conspiracy rather than just well meaning people who happen to be wrong.
The video doesn’t surprise me. It’s about what I expect from the right wing. However I continue to be amazed at the number of people, based upon the comments, that are taken in by this sort of nonsense. You learn nothing by watching this film for four minutes about anything.
Monday, April 16, 2012
Tebow Booed at Yankee Stadium
Tim Tebow was at the Yankee game the other day and, when shown on the big board, was roundly booed by the crowd despite wearing a Yankees cap!
I have five possible explanations for this.
#1 – These are baseball fans who are sick and tired of football overshadowing their favorite sport.
#2 – They were mostly Giants fans who would have booed any Jet no matter who he was.
#3 – Mark Sanchez is a lot more popular in New York than anyone is willing to admit.
#4 – They’re all just sick and tiring of hearing about Tebow.
#5 – This is the Bronx Zoo we’re talking about. Since when do they need a reason to boo someone?
I had to stop and think what would have been my reaction. I think, based mostly on #2, I would have joined in the booing as well but it would have been good natured rather than mean. Hey, booing the other team is all part of the fun.
I have five possible explanations for this.
#1 – These are baseball fans who are sick and tired of football overshadowing their favorite sport.
#2 – They were mostly Giants fans who would have booed any Jet no matter who he was.
#3 – Mark Sanchez is a lot more popular in New York than anyone is willing to admit.
#4 – They’re all just sick and tiring of hearing about Tebow.
#5 – This is the Bronx Zoo we’re talking about. Since when do they need a reason to boo someone?
I had to stop and think what would have been my reaction. I think, based mostly on #2, I would have joined in the booing as well but it would have been good natured rather than mean. Hey, booing the other team is all part of the fun.
Thursday, April 12, 2012
George Zimmerman Charged
As expected a Florida state attorney yesterday announced that George Zimmerman would be arrested and charged in the shooting of Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman has been charged with Second Degree Murder.
I heard it in passing at the gym yesterday and my immediate reaction was that they’ve charged him with something they’re not going to be able to prove. I would have thought Voluntary Manslaughter would have been more appropriate.
Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion." Voluntary manslaughter is commonly defined as an intentional killing in which the offender had no prior intent to kill, such as a killing that occurs in the "heat of passion."
It’s going to be especially tough in Florida because there SEcond Degree Murder requires acting with a “depraved mind showing no regard for human life.”
That’s going to be really hard to prove especially since that doesn’t seem to have been the case. Manslaughter in Florida is defined as “Committing an act that was neither excusable, nor justified that resulted in the death of another person.”
That sounds much more to the point. If Zimmerman was defending himself as allowed under the “stand your ground” statute then the act was justified. If not, then he’s guilty of Manslaughter but not necessarily murder. Second Degree Murder sounds like the wrong charge.
This sounds like political horse pucky. Yes they’re going to arrest and charge him but with a crime he probably won’t get convicted of.
Can the jury acquit him of Second Degree Murder but convict him of the lesser charge of Manslaughter? I suppose, but that just adds to the complexity of the case doesn’t it? I see a plea bargain coming.
I heard it in passing at the gym yesterday and my immediate reaction was that they’ve charged him with something they’re not going to be able to prove. I would have thought Voluntary Manslaughter would have been more appropriate.
Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion." Voluntary manslaughter is commonly defined as an intentional killing in which the offender had no prior intent to kill, such as a killing that occurs in the "heat of passion."
It’s going to be especially tough in Florida because there SEcond Degree Murder requires acting with a “depraved mind showing no regard for human life.”
That’s going to be really hard to prove especially since that doesn’t seem to have been the case. Manslaughter in Florida is defined as “Committing an act that was neither excusable, nor justified that resulted in the death of another person.”
That sounds much more to the point. If Zimmerman was defending himself as allowed under the “stand your ground” statute then the act was justified. If not, then he’s guilty of Manslaughter but not necessarily murder. Second Degree Murder sounds like the wrong charge.
This sounds like political horse pucky. Yes they’re going to arrest and charge him but with a crime he probably won’t get convicted of.
Can the jury acquit him of Second Degree Murder but convict him of the lesser charge of Manslaughter? I suppose, but that just adds to the complexity of the case doesn’t it? I see a plea bargain coming.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Rick Santorum suspends Campaign
Rick Santorum has announced that, given his daughter's illness, he has suspended his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination and conceded to Mitt Romney.
This is good news.
The fact that Santorum managed to get this far given that his head is wedged up his rear end on so many issues speaks ill for the future of the Republic. But at least he got no further.
Now on to the main event!
If the election were today I would vote for Obama although I'm not happy with his apparent lack of a strategy to address the serious financial issues facing the country. I could be convinced to go otherwise IF someone managed to put such a plan on the table AND could convince me it wouldn't cost turning the social progress clock back 100 years.
This is good news.
The fact that Santorum managed to get this far given that his head is wedged up his rear end on so many issues speaks ill for the future of the Republic. But at least he got no further.
Now on to the main event!
If the election were today I would vote for Obama although I'm not happy with his apparent lack of a strategy to address the serious financial issues facing the country. I could be convinced to go otherwise IF someone managed to put such a plan on the table AND could convince me it wouldn't cost turning the social progress clock back 100 years.
Sanchez or Tebow?
According to a Quinnipiac poll, New Yorkers say, by an overwhelming majority, Mark Sanchez. 43% overall, 61% of football fans and 66% of Jets fans say Sanchez should start. Only 16%, 17% and 19% respectively say Tebow should start.
I agree. Sanchez is the better choice. At least for the moment.
I agree. Sanchez is the better choice. At least for the moment.
Luck or RG III?
With draft day rapidly approaching it’s a sure thing that Andrew Luck from Stanford and Robert Griffin III from Baylor will go 1-2. The question is who will be 1 and who will 2?
The Colts have the first pick and most people seem to think they’ll pick Luck but some rumblings out of Indianapolis have suggested that may not be a sure thing. The Redskins traded for the #2 pick with the clear intention of drafting RG III but if the Colts cross everyone up, I’m sure they’ll be thrilled to get Luck instead.
These are the kind of decisions that can break a GM. Think back to how many sure fire QB picks turned into complete busts. Let’s remember the last time there were two sure fire franchise QB picks. The Colts got Peyton Manning and the Chargers got Ryan Leaf.
So, if I were the Colts, who would I pick?
I think I would take RG III. He just strikes me as the kind of guy that will adapt better and have more impact sooner.
Of course that would be hell of a risk by the Colt’s GM in going against the conventional wisdom but I wouldn’t be surprised. I'll be at MetLife Stadium on April 26th for the draft party when it happens. Should be interesting.
The Colts have the first pick and most people seem to think they’ll pick Luck but some rumblings out of Indianapolis have suggested that may not be a sure thing. The Redskins traded for the #2 pick with the clear intention of drafting RG III but if the Colts cross everyone up, I’m sure they’ll be thrilled to get Luck instead.
These are the kind of decisions that can break a GM. Think back to how many sure fire QB picks turned into complete busts. Let’s remember the last time there were two sure fire franchise QB picks. The Colts got Peyton Manning and the Chargers got Ryan Leaf.
So, if I were the Colts, who would I pick?
I think I would take RG III. He just strikes me as the kind of guy that will adapt better and have more impact sooner.
Of course that would be hell of a risk by the Colt’s GM in going against the conventional wisdom but I wouldn’t be surprised. I'll be at MetLife Stadium on April 26th for the draft party when it happens. Should be interesting.
Monday, April 09, 2012
Death Penalty Update
I stopped doing these because they tend to depress me. My last death penalty post was in September of 2011 shortly before the execution of Troy Davis in Georgia.
The big news is that Connecticut is poised to abolish the death penalty despite polls that claim 62% of the population think that would be a mistake. The State Senate passed the bill on April 5; the House is expected to follow and the governor is expected to sign the measure. However the legislation is not retroactive and would not affect the eleven men currently on death row. Connecticut has only executed one person since the Supreme Court reinstituted the death penalty in 1976 and that was what is known as a “volunteer,” someone who foregoes the full appeals process.
Connecticut would be the fifth state in five years to abolish the death penalty joining New Jersey, New Mexico, Illinois and New York. It would leave only New Hampshire and Pennsylvania in the Northeast Region with the death penalty. New Hampshire hasn’t executed anyone under its current statute and Pennsylvania has executed three, all volunteers.
There were a total of 43 executions in 2011, down from 46 in 2010. Of the 43, 31 (72%) were in the South and 13 (30%) were in Texas. There have been 12 executions so far in 2012, 10 (83%) of which have been in the South and 4 (33%) of which have been in Texas.
Since 1976 there have been 1289 execution. 1058 (82%) have been in the South; 150 (12%) have been in the Midwest; 77 (6%) have been in the West and 4 (0.3%) have been in the Northeast. 481 (37%) of the executions have been in Texas. Nine of the ten states with the most executions are in the South. The tenth state is Ohio, in 8th place with 46 (3.6%).
So, have the murder rates in the four states that have eliminated the death penalty sky rocketed? Nope, there hasn’t been any significant change. If anything they’ve gone down as part of the general trend of the murder rate going down.
The big news is that Connecticut is poised to abolish the death penalty despite polls that claim 62% of the population think that would be a mistake. The State Senate passed the bill on April 5; the House is expected to follow and the governor is expected to sign the measure. However the legislation is not retroactive and would not affect the eleven men currently on death row. Connecticut has only executed one person since the Supreme Court reinstituted the death penalty in 1976 and that was what is known as a “volunteer,” someone who foregoes the full appeals process.
Connecticut would be the fifth state in five years to abolish the death penalty joining New Jersey, New Mexico, Illinois and New York. It would leave only New Hampshire and Pennsylvania in the Northeast Region with the death penalty. New Hampshire hasn’t executed anyone under its current statute and Pennsylvania has executed three, all volunteers.
There were a total of 43 executions in 2011, down from 46 in 2010. Of the 43, 31 (72%) were in the South and 13 (30%) were in Texas. There have been 12 executions so far in 2012, 10 (83%) of which have been in the South and 4 (33%) of which have been in Texas.
Since 1976 there have been 1289 execution. 1058 (82%) have been in the South; 150 (12%) have been in the Midwest; 77 (6%) have been in the West and 4 (0.3%) have been in the Northeast. 481 (37%) of the executions have been in Texas. Nine of the ten states with the most executions are in the South. The tenth state is Ohio, in 8th place with 46 (3.6%).
So, have the murder rates in the four states that have eliminated the death penalty sky rocketed? Nope, there hasn’t been any significant change. If anything they’ve gone down as part of the general trend of the murder rate going down.
Thursday, April 05, 2012
The Death of Darwinian Evolution
The collapse of Darwinian Evolution may well be on the horizon.
No, I haven’t suddenly embraced Creationism and I’m being more than a little overly dramatic, but the science of Epigenetics may well cause us to rethink a lot of our current ideas about evolution.
Jean-Baptiste Lamarcke (1744-1829) had hypothesized that animals could pass on traits they had acquired during their lifetime to their descendents. This idea for an evolutionary mechanism was abandoned when Darwin proposed Natural Selection. Now however scientists are taking another look at Lamarcke due to what is known as Epigenetics.
Epigenetics deals with how strongly, or weakly, genes express themselves due to environmental factors through what are known as “epigenetic marks.” These differences in gene expression appear to be controlled by the cellular material, the “epigenome,” that sits on top of the genome.
Environmental factors such as diet, stress and prenatal nutrition appear to be able to impact the epigenetic marks and turn genes on, turn them off, and adapt how strongly they assert themselves. Even more interestingly, it appears these marks can leave an imprint on genes that can be passed to succeeding generations at least temporarily.
This is pretty wild stuff. It means that adaptation to severe environmental changes, which would be a form of stress, could occur within a generation and the adaptation could be passed on to succeeding generations as long as the environmental change persisted and perhaps even longer.
This would also explain many of the observed differences in identical twins despite the fact that they have the exact same DNA.
This adaptation occurs without changing the gene so no mutation is required. The question of course becomes can these epigenetic adaptations become permanent or can they guide or influence genetic changes to match the epigenetic adaptation as a sort of directed evolution?
This could reduce the time scale of evolutionary change from millions of years to a few generations and allow rapid adaptation to a rapidly changing environment.
Of course, before we get carried away here, there is as yet no evidence that epigenetic adaptations can be permanent or can direct genetic change. But that sure would resolve some issues with how some life managed to survive rapid environmental change.
I can hear the creationists now saying how epigenetics allowed the emergence of the millions of individual species from the “Kinds” that were loaded on the Ark and, interestingly enough, that would be a better argument than the super evolution they claim at the moment.
Epigenetic adaptation lines up better with Punctuated Equilibrium than Phyletic Gradualism so, possibly, two points for Gould and Eldridge.
Of course Natural Selection doesn’t go away, it simply gets another new partner to help strengthen the Theory of Evolution.
No, I haven’t suddenly embraced Creationism and I’m being more than a little overly dramatic, but the science of Epigenetics may well cause us to rethink a lot of our current ideas about evolution.
Jean-Baptiste Lamarcke (1744-1829) had hypothesized that animals could pass on traits they had acquired during their lifetime to their descendents. This idea for an evolutionary mechanism was abandoned when Darwin proposed Natural Selection. Now however scientists are taking another look at Lamarcke due to what is known as Epigenetics.
Epigenetics deals with how strongly, or weakly, genes express themselves due to environmental factors through what are known as “epigenetic marks.” These differences in gene expression appear to be controlled by the cellular material, the “epigenome,” that sits on top of the genome.
Environmental factors such as diet, stress and prenatal nutrition appear to be able to impact the epigenetic marks and turn genes on, turn them off, and adapt how strongly they assert themselves. Even more interestingly, it appears these marks can leave an imprint on genes that can be passed to succeeding generations at least temporarily.
This is pretty wild stuff. It means that adaptation to severe environmental changes, which would be a form of stress, could occur within a generation and the adaptation could be passed on to succeeding generations as long as the environmental change persisted and perhaps even longer.
This would also explain many of the observed differences in identical twins despite the fact that they have the exact same DNA.
This adaptation occurs without changing the gene so no mutation is required. The question of course becomes can these epigenetic adaptations become permanent or can they guide or influence genetic changes to match the epigenetic adaptation as a sort of directed evolution?
This could reduce the time scale of evolutionary change from millions of years to a few generations and allow rapid adaptation to a rapidly changing environment.
Of course, before we get carried away here, there is as yet no evidence that epigenetic adaptations can be permanent or can direct genetic change. But that sure would resolve some issues with how some life managed to survive rapid environmental change.
I can hear the creationists now saying how epigenetics allowed the emergence of the millions of individual species from the “Kinds” that were loaded on the Ark and, interestingly enough, that would be a better argument than the super evolution they claim at the moment.
Epigenetic adaptation lines up better with Punctuated Equilibrium than Phyletic Gradualism so, possibly, two points for Gould and Eldridge.
Of course Natural Selection doesn’t go away, it simply gets another new partner to help strengthen the Theory of Evolution.
Two for the Road
The Right never seems to tire of coming up with new and increasingly sneaky ways to accomplish their objectives without a frontal assault.
The latest are laws in Tennessee and Mississippi dealing with evolution and abortion.
In Tennessee the governor is ready to sign a bill that protects teachers that allow students to criticize scientific theories. Read that allows the bashing of evolution and global warming in the classroom while nodding stupidly. The sponsor of the bill claims it’s not religiously based. Aside from the fact that I’m not stupid enough to buy that one, and neither is the ACLU or NCSE, what then is the purpose?
In Mississippi, hospitals tend to not extend admission privileges to doctors that perform abortions so the Mississippi legislation thinks it’s a great idea to require doctors that perform abortions to have admission privileges at as local hospital. Can you say Catch-22 fast three times?
The sole remaining abortion clinic in Mississippi says that it may be forced to close if the bill passes although it may challenge the law first in court. Fat chance with that one.
That means that women in Mississippi that want an abortion either need to travel to another state or they have to do it the old fashioned way along with all the risks that entails.
After a while you just get tired of the sheer arrogance of ignorant people.
The latest are laws in Tennessee and Mississippi dealing with evolution and abortion.
In Tennessee the governor is ready to sign a bill that protects teachers that allow students to criticize scientific theories. Read that allows the bashing of evolution and global warming in the classroom while nodding stupidly. The sponsor of the bill claims it’s not religiously based. Aside from the fact that I’m not stupid enough to buy that one, and neither is the ACLU or NCSE, what then is the purpose?
In Mississippi, hospitals tend to not extend admission privileges to doctors that perform abortions so the Mississippi legislation thinks it’s a great idea to require doctors that perform abortions to have admission privileges at as local hospital. Can you say Catch-22 fast three times?
The sole remaining abortion clinic in Mississippi says that it may be forced to close if the bill passes although it may challenge the law first in court. Fat chance with that one.
That means that women in Mississippi that want an abortion either need to travel to another state or they have to do it the old fashioned way along with all the risks that entails.
After a while you just get tired of the sheer arrogance of ignorant people.
Friday, March 30, 2012
Just the Facts Please
In the one thing the whole Trayvon Martin story has made crystal clear is how quickly misinformation can spread in the Information Age and once it’s out there, it’s almost impossible to eradicate.
There are two types of misinformation. There are honest errors and there are flat out lies and I’ve seen both. Part of the problem is people are too willing to accept information at face value. That’s especially true if the information supports a preconceived notion or opinion.
We seriously need to get back to being a lot more careful about insuring information is accurate before we publish it. And that’s goes quadruple for the news media including radio, television, print and internet.
Another problem I see more and more are sensational headlines that don’t come close to accurately reflecting the contents of the story. Some of these are harmless but others aren’t and they leave readers that just see the headline with the completely wrong impression.
The headline crap is especially an issue on-line. Yahoo is one of the worst offenders but MSN and others aren’t far behind.
People are making important decisions based upon totally bogus data. We need to remain skeptical and if what you're reading proves you were right all along, then you better be especially skeptical.
There are two types of misinformation. There are honest errors and there are flat out lies and I’ve seen both. Part of the problem is people are too willing to accept information at face value. That’s especially true if the information supports a preconceived notion or opinion.
We seriously need to get back to being a lot more careful about insuring information is accurate before we publish it. And that’s goes quadruple for the news media including radio, television, print and internet.
Another problem I see more and more are sensational headlines that don’t come close to accurately reflecting the contents of the story. Some of these are harmless but others aren’t and they leave readers that just see the headline with the completely wrong impression.
The headline crap is especially an issue on-line. Yahoo is one of the worst offenders but MSN and others aren’t far behind.
People are making important decisions based upon totally bogus data. We need to remain skeptical and if what you're reading proves you were right all along, then you better be especially skeptical.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
The Health Care Law
The SCOTUS has begun hearing oral arguments on the Obama Health Care Law.
There are two primary issues. The first issue is whether congress had the right to expand Medicaid, a joint Federal and State venture, and then condition Federal funding based upon state participation? States challenging the law say this is a form of coercion.
The second issue, and perhaps the more critical one or at least the one that has people jumping up and down, is whether the Federal government has the right to mandate that everyone buy health insurance?
The first issue is a big problem for states already strapped for cash and facing growing budget deficits.
The second issue raises the question if the Federal government can force you to buy health insurance, what else can it force you to buy? Savings bonds? A GM or Ford car rather than a Toyota?
The reason for the mandate to buy insurance is the Free Rider Problem. Given the new regulations about not denying health insurance due to pre-existing conditions, what is to prevent people from not purchasing health insurance until they actually need it? If you don’t have everyone contributing to the system, it becomes unsustainable.
If you remove the individual mandate the whole thing doesn’t work.
This isn’t a great law, but it does address some serious shortfalls in health care and attempts to do so while reining in health care costs. Notice I say “attempts;” the jury is still out on whether it will actually succeed and, to be honest, it’s not looking like it’s going to be all that effective in that regard. If you remove the individual mandate, it’s going to be a disaster.
I’ve found that most people don’t really understand what the Health Care Law is all about. It’s primary focus is to make health care insurance, and thus health care, available to the 30 million or so Americans that don’t have it today. It also reforms some current health insurance practices such as not denying insurance due to pre-existing conditions as previously mentioned, extending coverage for children until a later age and eliminating maximum coverage amounts.
I never believed it wasn’t going to cause a rise in premiums. How can you get more without paying more? Still, I thought overall, although it wasn’t perfect, it was a good start and I still do.
I don’t need it. As a matter of fact I was assuming it would cost me money. But I find it amazing the number of people who are violently opposed to it despite most of them not having a clue what it says. I’m amazed by how many people think it’s a health plan that everyone is going to be forced to use. This is the news media again failing in its mandate to inform the electorate.
As for the SCOTUS, I can’t imagine the conservative court majority allowing this law to continue on unscathed. Forget the law and forget the Constitution, politics and political philosophy demand that the finding on both issues will be that congress exceeded its authority and the law is unconstitutional. After that it doesn’t matter about the remaining provisions, without the individual mandate, the thing becomes unsustainable anyway.
So the number of Americans without health insurance will continue to raise, health care in the U.S. except for the well off will continue to degrade, health care costs will continue to rise and the republic will continue its slide into third world mediocrity.
The sad thing is that a lot of the people yelling the loudest against the Health Care Law are among those that will suffer the most when it’s gone.
There are two primary issues. The first issue is whether congress had the right to expand Medicaid, a joint Federal and State venture, and then condition Federal funding based upon state participation? States challenging the law say this is a form of coercion.
The second issue, and perhaps the more critical one or at least the one that has people jumping up and down, is whether the Federal government has the right to mandate that everyone buy health insurance?
The first issue is a big problem for states already strapped for cash and facing growing budget deficits.
The second issue raises the question if the Federal government can force you to buy health insurance, what else can it force you to buy? Savings bonds? A GM or Ford car rather than a Toyota?
The reason for the mandate to buy insurance is the Free Rider Problem. Given the new regulations about not denying health insurance due to pre-existing conditions, what is to prevent people from not purchasing health insurance until they actually need it? If you don’t have everyone contributing to the system, it becomes unsustainable.
If you remove the individual mandate the whole thing doesn’t work.
This isn’t a great law, but it does address some serious shortfalls in health care and attempts to do so while reining in health care costs. Notice I say “attempts;” the jury is still out on whether it will actually succeed and, to be honest, it’s not looking like it’s going to be all that effective in that regard. If you remove the individual mandate, it’s going to be a disaster.
I’ve found that most people don’t really understand what the Health Care Law is all about. It’s primary focus is to make health care insurance, and thus health care, available to the 30 million or so Americans that don’t have it today. It also reforms some current health insurance practices such as not denying insurance due to pre-existing conditions as previously mentioned, extending coverage for children until a later age and eliminating maximum coverage amounts.
I never believed it wasn’t going to cause a rise in premiums. How can you get more without paying more? Still, I thought overall, although it wasn’t perfect, it was a good start and I still do.
I don’t need it. As a matter of fact I was assuming it would cost me money. But I find it amazing the number of people who are violently opposed to it despite most of them not having a clue what it says. I’m amazed by how many people think it’s a health plan that everyone is going to be forced to use. This is the news media again failing in its mandate to inform the electorate.
As for the SCOTUS, I can’t imagine the conservative court majority allowing this law to continue on unscathed. Forget the law and forget the Constitution, politics and political philosophy demand that the finding on both issues will be that congress exceeded its authority and the law is unconstitutional. After that it doesn’t matter about the remaining provisions, without the individual mandate, the thing becomes unsustainable anyway.
So the number of Americans without health insurance will continue to raise, health care in the U.S. except for the well off will continue to degrade, health care costs will continue to rise and the republic will continue its slide into third world mediocrity.
The sad thing is that a lot of the people yelling the loudest against the Health Care Law are among those that will suffer the most when it’s gone.
The Trayvon Martin Shooting
I’ve been sort of watching the Trayvon Martin case from the sidelines.
My initial impression was a black teenager named Trayvon Martin was challenged and gunned down by an over reaching neighborhood watch member named George Zimmerman.
The initial information was that Zimmerman, after making a call to 911, tracked Martin despite being told by the 911 operator to back off and let a patrol car which was on the way handle the situation. Exactly how things deteriorated into violence wasn’t all that clear. The initial impression given by the reports was that Martin took a “dim view” of Zimmerman tracking him and Zimmerman opened fire. Note that the definition of “dim view” was always a tad hazy.
In any event, Zimmerman struck me as a potential poster child for gun restrictions. Sort of a “would you want this idiot to have a gun” kind of approach.
As additional information leaks out, it’s beginning to look as if “dim view” may have been a physical confrontation with Martin decking Zimmerman and proceeding to bag his head on the sidewalk. Zimmerman then shot Martin in self defense or so the story goes. Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” statute might well allow for deadly force in such a situation.
In the meantime Martin’s mother is trade marking phrases with Trayvon in them such as “Justice for Trayvon” and “I am Trayvon.” Perhaps I’m naïve, but one would think that would about the last thing on her mind. I’m starting to get a bad feeling about this one.
I think I will reserve judgment until I have more information.
My initial impression was a black teenager named Trayvon Martin was challenged and gunned down by an over reaching neighborhood watch member named George Zimmerman.
The initial information was that Zimmerman, after making a call to 911, tracked Martin despite being told by the 911 operator to back off and let a patrol car which was on the way handle the situation. Exactly how things deteriorated into violence wasn’t all that clear. The initial impression given by the reports was that Martin took a “dim view” of Zimmerman tracking him and Zimmerman opened fire. Note that the definition of “dim view” was always a tad hazy.
In any event, Zimmerman struck me as a potential poster child for gun restrictions. Sort of a “would you want this idiot to have a gun” kind of approach.
As additional information leaks out, it’s beginning to look as if “dim view” may have been a physical confrontation with Martin decking Zimmerman and proceeding to bag his head on the sidewalk. Zimmerman then shot Martin in self defense or so the story goes. Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” statute might well allow for deadly force in such a situation.
In the meantime Martin’s mother is trade marking phrases with Trayvon in them such as “Justice for Trayvon” and “I am Trayvon.” Perhaps I’m naïve, but one would think that would about the last thing on her mind. I’m starting to get a bad feeling about this one.
I think I will reserve judgment until I have more information.
Friday, March 23, 2012
The 2012 Presidential Election
As I’ve said before, Romney will win the Republican nomination.
To some extent that is a vindication of democracy and provides hope that the Republican party still has a few marbles left.
If the election were held today, Obama would probably win. Obama will also probably win in November ASSUMING that things do not spin out of control either in the economic or international arenas.
Are there possibilities for that? You bet there are. I still think the economy is a lot more fragile than it looks especially with gas prices continuing to spiral upward. Romney almost has to base his campaign on the economy and, if it begins to look like prosperity is ahead, he’s going to look awfully silly doing it.
While not precisely an economic issue per se, the fate of the Health Care Law could have an impact as well. If the SCOTUS declares all or a large part of the law unconstitutional, it would give Romney another bone to chew. It’s always difficult to predict the SCOTUS but I can’t believe the conservative majority is going to let the Health Care Law through unscathed. The only question is how bloody is it going to get?
On the international side the potential problem is the Israel and Iran tug of words.
I don’t believe that Israel is in any danger from Iran even if Iran manages to develop nukes. What I don’t know is what the Israeli’s think. I know what they say, but what do they really think? I suspect they’re smart enough to know that, at least for the moment, there’s no danger. So what I expect is a lot of talk and hand wringing designed to keep the aid and donations flowing but no military action.
The bottom line is there is a pretty good chance Obama wins. Congress is harder to gauge but the Dems could well hold onto the Senate. Even if the GOP manages to take the senate, but loses the White House, there will be a good deal of soul searching in the GOP.
If we were talking about only the rational GOP business faction, the result of that soul searching would be a shift toward the center because it would have been the center that beat them.
Unfortunately, the other factions of the Republican Party are far from rational and facts mean little or nothing to them. A swing to the extreme right for 2016 would not be impossible. Couple that with the Democrats penchant for nominating lack luster candidates and we could be facing a perfect storm of political catastrophe where someone like a Santorum or a Bachmann might actually have a chance to win.
Of course if Romney wins, that might pull the GOP into the 21st Century but I wouldn't count on it.
I wonder if Hillary Clinton, since she’s going to resign as Secretary of State, is going to run? That would certainly prevent the Dems from nominating a lack luster candidate and watching the Religious Right foaming at even the thought of a Clinton presidency would be incredibly amusing.
To some extent that is a vindication of democracy and provides hope that the Republican party still has a few marbles left.
If the election were held today, Obama would probably win. Obama will also probably win in November ASSUMING that things do not spin out of control either in the economic or international arenas.
Are there possibilities for that? You bet there are. I still think the economy is a lot more fragile than it looks especially with gas prices continuing to spiral upward. Romney almost has to base his campaign on the economy and, if it begins to look like prosperity is ahead, he’s going to look awfully silly doing it.
While not precisely an economic issue per se, the fate of the Health Care Law could have an impact as well. If the SCOTUS declares all or a large part of the law unconstitutional, it would give Romney another bone to chew. It’s always difficult to predict the SCOTUS but I can’t believe the conservative majority is going to let the Health Care Law through unscathed. The only question is how bloody is it going to get?
On the international side the potential problem is the Israel and Iran tug of words.
I don’t believe that Israel is in any danger from Iran even if Iran manages to develop nukes. What I don’t know is what the Israeli’s think. I know what they say, but what do they really think? I suspect they’re smart enough to know that, at least for the moment, there’s no danger. So what I expect is a lot of talk and hand wringing designed to keep the aid and donations flowing but no military action.
The bottom line is there is a pretty good chance Obama wins. Congress is harder to gauge but the Dems could well hold onto the Senate. Even if the GOP manages to take the senate, but loses the White House, there will be a good deal of soul searching in the GOP.
If we were talking about only the rational GOP business faction, the result of that soul searching would be a shift toward the center because it would have been the center that beat them.
Unfortunately, the other factions of the Republican Party are far from rational and facts mean little or nothing to them. A swing to the extreme right for 2016 would not be impossible. Couple that with the Democrats penchant for nominating lack luster candidates and we could be facing a perfect storm of political catastrophe where someone like a Santorum or a Bachmann might actually have a chance to win.
Of course if Romney wins, that might pull the GOP into the 21st Century but I wouldn't count on it.
I wonder if Hillary Clinton, since she’s going to resign as Secretary of State, is going to run? That would certainly prevent the Dems from nominating a lack luster candidate and watching the Religious Right foaming at even the thought of a Clinton presidency would be incredibly amusing.
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Tebow and the Jets
Well, after a minor hiccup last night, it’s official, Tebow is now a Jet and already the media blitz is beginning.
First there’s the report that the Jets want Tebow to live in New Jersey and avoid New York City which they’re afraid he might not be prepared for. I wouldn’t worry about it. Tim’s a big boy. He crosses the street all by himself and everything.
Then again, I can see certain influences in the city looking upon Tim as a challenge. Corrupting him would be like winning some sort of faux trophy.
The sports media figure Tim’s going to be prominent in the Wildcat formation and provide some value in pushing Mark Sanchez. I believe I said something about Tebow and the Wildcat for the Giants two years ago.
Actually, the Giants might turn out to be one of the biggest beneficiaries of the Tebow trade to the Jets. The Giants are a team that likes to fly under the radar. The less media focus the better is their philosophy and that’s not an easy thing to achieve when you’re the current Super Bowl Champs.
But with the media going all gaga over Tebow and the Jets, that will give the Giants the kind of breathing room and peace and quiet that they like. They’ll need it while they’re trying to figure out how to put together a team to compete in what looks to be a four team slug fest in the NFC East next year after losing so many free agents.
First there’s the report that the Jets want Tebow to live in New Jersey and avoid New York City which they’re afraid he might not be prepared for. I wouldn’t worry about it. Tim’s a big boy. He crosses the street all by himself and everything.
Then again, I can see certain influences in the city looking upon Tim as a challenge. Corrupting him would be like winning some sort of faux trophy.
The sports media figure Tim’s going to be prominent in the Wildcat formation and provide some value in pushing Mark Sanchez. I believe I said something about Tebow and the Wildcat for the Giants two years ago.
Actually, the Giants might turn out to be one of the biggest beneficiaries of the Tebow trade to the Jets. The Giants are a team that likes to fly under the radar. The less media focus the better is their philosophy and that’s not an easy thing to achieve when you’re the current Super Bowl Champs.
But with the media going all gaga over Tebow and the Jets, that will give the Giants the kind of breathing room and peace and quiet that they like. They’ll need it while they’re trying to figure out how to put together a team to compete in what looks to be a four team slug fest in the NFC East next year after losing so many free agents.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
