For What It's Worth

Disappointment

2012-01-07T22:22:00.000-07:00

It's not people that disappoint me. My disappointment is in my expectations of them.

Stage III Terminal Case of Life

2012-01-06T06:55:00.002-07:00

The way I see it, life is divided into four stages. In the first stage, when we're very young, we are taken with how amazing it everything is. We constantly discover and explore new things and there is a joy of living that is unmatched by anything.

As we grow a little older, we enter a second stage. In that stage of life, we hold onto the illusion that we have the means to control the events of our life and the people who inhabit our corner of the world. The down side of this is that, as we focus on all of our efforts to control outcomes, we miss out on many of the small and beautiful things that are right in front of us. They invented the phrase, "stop and smell the roses", for just this reason. Sadly, the control we imagine we have is an illusion and, even when our plans come together the way we thought we wanted them to, our gains almost always fall far short of what we imagined they would be. Our lives are filled with frustration and conflicting feelings.

In the third stage of life, we begin to recognize that controlling the people and events in our lives are an illusion and that we simply don't have the power to do that. If we have power at all, it is the ability to control how we react to the events and people we encounter in our lives. This is where I find myself. Stage III terminal case of life.

In recognizing that we can only control how we react, we also start to realize that it is important to store up as many wonderful memories as we can for that final Stage IV, when all that's left to us is to savor the memories we made as they fade, one by one. A time when we recall the smell of a rose or the wonderful shape of an orchid and we smile inwardly for having stopped to experience them.

In the end, we regret most the things we didn't do.

Three Observations Worth Pondering

2011-10-19T09:38:00.000-07:00

Beloved children’s author Lemony Snicket has visited the Occupy Wall Street protest and wrote up a list of observations that will hopefully chill those within the executive suites looking down upon Zuccotti Park. Here are three of those observations:

Historically, a story about people inside impressive buildings ignoring or even taunting people standing outside shouting at them turns out to be a story with an unhappy ending.
There may not be a reason to share your cake. It is, after all, yours. You probably baked it yourself, in an oven of your own construction with ingredients you harvested yourself. It may be possible to keep your entire cake while explaining to any nearby hungry people just how reasonable you are.
Nobody wants to fall into a safety net, because it means the structure in which they’ve been living is in a state of collapse and they have no choice but to tumble downwards. However, it beats the alternative.

From Wonkette.

"Vote Republican" by Roy Zimmerman

2011-10-18T07:13:00.000-07:00

... or watch the video on YouTube.

Best book review ... ever.

2011-10-17T10:39:00.000-07:00

“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves Orcs.”

Read more on The Bonddad Blog.

Occupy Wall Street?

2011-10-05T12:29:00.001-07:00

People ask, “What is it about.” Most simply put, it’s about inequity.

Let me outline a thought. The world has always had an extremely wealthy class. It has also always had the poor. Since The Enlightenment (17th-18th centuries) the thing that has changed has been the rise of the middle class. My thought is this: The middle class acts as a buffer between wealth and power on one hand and the peasants with torches and pitch forks on the other hand. The middle class offers hope to the poor in terms of the possibility of upward mobility; it also offers a consumer base that supports the very wealthy. A strong middle class is essential to both peace and prosperity.

In recent history, since the market crash in 2008, those hurt most have been the middle class. The poor were suffering to begin with and when you have nothing to begin with how much can you possibly lose? The wealthy haven’t suffered; virtually 100% of the income growth over the last 20 years has gone to the top 10% of our population … leaving nothing for the other 90%. Those most hurt have been the middle class. Pensions have been cut. Retirement “nest eggs” embodied in home ownership and retirement mutual funds have lost their value. The American Dream, an ideal of the middle class, has been destroyed.

Extraneous thought: "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." (Anatole France, from The Red Lily, 1894)

Suddenly, the American middle class is confronted by the prospect of sleeping under bridges, begging in the streets and stealing bread - issues with which the poor have had to contend from time immemorial and the very rich have never had to consider.

This inequity coupled with the threat of the withdrawal of community support (like modifications to Social Security benefits and Medicare benefits, the threat of higher taxes for the middle class and lower taxes for “job creators” who aren’t creating any jobs) is, I believe, the prime motivator for the OWS movement. It is the expression of concern for the overall direction which is leading to greater inequity at the continued expense of the middle class.

The Magic of Reality by Richard Dawkins, Illustrated by Dave McKean

2011-09-09T09:56:00.000-07:00

... Or watch the video on YouTube after the click.

The List

2011-09-04T11:29:00.001-07:00

Let's make lists of names of people who disagree with us ... just like tyrants and dictators throughout history have done ... and let's call it "The Christian National Registry of Atheists."

(or view on YouTube)

Then we can make lists of Muslims. And when we've finished that, we can make lists of the names of Jews ... and trade union members ... and other "enemies of the state". Because lists are how we keep track of things ... and people.

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."
~ Sinclair Lewis (attributed)

Goodbye to All That: Reflections of a GOP Operative Who Left the Cult

2011-09-04T09:27:00.000-07:00

"It should have been evident to clear-eyed observers that the Republican Party is becoming less and less like a traditional political party in a representative democracy and becoming more like an apocalyptic cult, or one of the intensely ideological authoritarian parties of 20th century Europe. This trend has several implications, none of them pleasant."

Read the rest on TruthOut.org.

When I was in college in the 1960s I took a couple Political Science courses dealing with American political extremism. The link above is to one of the best articles I've read on the subject since then. If you're at all interested in what's happening in American politics today, I believe this is a MUST READ article and I recommend it very highly.

The Case for Wasteful (Government) Spending

2011-09-01T08:50:00.001-07:00

Government waste is like the weather. Everyone talks about it but no one really does anything about it. I suspect that no one does anything about it because what constitutes wasteful government spending is such a subjective thing. Just as the old saying goes, one man’s trash is another man’s treasure, so it is that one man’s wasteful spending is another man’s necessary investment. As with so many things, the definition depends on your point of view.

This is not to say that government spending couldn’t be done more effectively or efficiently or that it isn’t possible to get more bang for the buck. Without doubt, our government could certainly get more bang for the buck in many cases.

But let’s examine a concrete instance. Let’s take Medicare Part D as a starting point. It was enacted as part of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) and went into effect on January 1, 2006. (I’ll leave it to you, the reader, to figure out who controlled Congress in 2003.)

By the design of the program, the federal government, by law, is not permitted to negotiate prices of drugs with the drug companies, as other federal agencies do in other programs. The Department of Veterans Affairs, which is allowed to negotiate drug prices and establish a formulary, pays 58% less for drugs, on average, than Medicare Part D. For example, Medicare pays $785 for a year's supply of Lipitor (atorvastatin), while the Veterans Administration (VA) pays $520.

From the point of view of the tax payer, the difference between what the drug companies are charging the government Medicare program and what they charge the VA could easily be defined as wasteful spending. However, from the point of view of the drug companies who lobbied for the provision and the congressional legislators who supported the measure, it’s extremely important to protect the profitability of the drug companies. So, whether or not Medicare spending $265 more than the VA for the same medication is wasteful is a function of which side your on … the tax payers’ side or on the side of corporations.

That spending difference was enacted into law and, because it is the law passed by Congress, no one in the administration of Medicare can do anything about it without breaking the law. However, those in the administration of the Medicare program certainly get the blame for being inefficient and ineffective and wasteful.

The $4 billion worth of medical-related fraud the feds recaptured in 2010 is presumably a fraction of the taxpayer-subsidized scams that the pharma and health care providers got away with. The Top Ten Federal False Claims Act settlements in 2010 involved health care, with pharmaceutical company fraud accounting for eight.

Was the $4 billion a waste of taxpayer’s money? Most people would agree that it was. However, the obvious solution to some is to cut the Medicare program with the consequence that fewer government employees are available to investigate false claims … because it’s paying government employees that’s the wasteful spending?

But there’s a even bigger point. When talking about wasteful spending people seem to argue from the point of view that what they consider wasteful spending is basically putting money into a rocket ship and blasting it off into outer space. The fact of the matter is that even “wasteful” spending is money that, through the government purchases of goods and services, gets circulated throughout the economy. The money that isn’t captured as corporate profits (think $600 toilet seats) goes to pay people to manufacture those products or perform those services.

All systems have waste. Waste cannot be eliminated. At best, it can be controlled.

When we talk about wasteful spending in government, it might be a good idea to ask “compared to what?” For example, the internal combustion engine that powers your car has an efficiency rating on the order of 18% to 20%. That means that between 18% and 20% of the energy released from .the burning of fuel in the engine is used to propel the car down the road. The remaining 80% of the energy is released as heat and is dissipated into the atmosphere, accomplishing nothing. By contrast, Medicare a government program, considered by some to be very inefficient, provides a decent standard of health care for approximately 45 million Americans with only a 3% administrative cost (that could be analogous to the useless heat from your car engine) while 97% of its funds go to directly to individual health care (excluding fraud as mentioned above, of course).

But that’s not comparing apples to apples. So lets compare the Medicare 3% administrative cost to the 15% to 20% administrative cost associated with private health care providers. Incidentally, you can add corporate wasteful spending on top of that (interminable staff meetings that accomplish nothing, for example, because someone has to pay all those employees who attend for their time).

The take away from all of this is that government waste is subjective. It is a favorite hobby horse ridden by those who oppose anything that resembles a government program … while they neglect to mention that they were the ones who created the waste.

The Modern Tea Party: An Error of Historical Analogy

2011-08-30T09:45:00.002-07:00

Over the last several years I have often marveled at the lack of knowledge and understanding of history that is afoot among self proclaimed patriots dressed in 18th Century costumes claiming to be the rightful heirs to the Founding Fathers of this country.

The original Tea Party was held in Boston Harbor in protest of a tax on tea imported from England. The battle cry was “No Taxation Without Representation”. Parliament in Great Britain unilaterally passed the tax to be levied on colonists living in the American colonies in order to mitigate the costs of a British army sent to America to defend the colonies from the French during the French and Indian War. The British colonists in America resented the tax on the grounds that it was imposed on them while they had no elected representatives in Parliament. They were simply not allowed to vote.

In it’s current incarnation, the Tea Party has currently had all the representation they voted for. “No Taxation Without Representation” does not apply.

As for being the legitimate heirs to the Founding Fathers, they forget that it was the Founding Fathers who drew up a Constitution that established a relatively strong Federal government while reserving some rights for the states (and through the Bill of Rights; the first ten amendments to that Constitution) protected citizens from the power of the central government as well as from the powers of the various states.

In my opinion, the modern Tea Party has little in common with the original Tea Party nor do they have any understanding of what the Founding Fathers intended. However, I do believe that there is a more accurate historical analogy that could be applied.

The current Tea Party is opposed to the duly elected government of the United States. John Wilkes Booth was also opposed to the duly elected government of the United States. The Tea Party of today are strong advocates of states rights, the primary motivation of the Confederacy during the American civil war. John Wilkes Booth, as a strong southern sympathizer, also believed that states rights were more important than a central government. The modern Tea Party believes secession is a valid option for a state within the Union. John Wilkes Booth shared that opinion. There is ample evidence that today’s Tea Party are, at the very least, latent racists. In his strong support of slavery of black people in the south, John Wilkes Booth was a blatant racist. Today’s Tea Party believe it is appropriate to resort to Second Amendment remedies if they don’t get their way in legislation. Again, John Wilkes Booth shared that opinion and took his case to the logical conclusion.

Making the case that today’s Tea Party is somehow related to the original Boston Tea Party patriots and the Founding Fathers is a stretch and requires too many qualifiers. Making the case that the modern Tea Party is more analogous to John Wilkes Booth and his band of conspirators that assassinated Abraham Lincoln at the end of the American Civil War requires far less in terms of intellectual gymnastics.

A Basic Math Lesson

2011-08-20T10:15:00.003-07:00

"The GDP equation has four variables (long-time readers, please be kind. I'm talking to Washington here and they are stupid): C (consumer spending) + I (gross private investment) + X (net exports) + G (government spending). Right now, the consumer is OK but not great, investment is fair, but not great and the US is a net importer, so that subtracts from growth. That leaves government spending."

My comment: An economy is value (money) in motion. If the private industry is not spending (it's deleveraging or paying down debt), consumer spending is off (joblessness tends to do that) and we're a net importer (see the trade deficit), what do you suppose will happen to the economy if government spending is put on an austerity basis with draconian cuts in spending?

Cutting government spending slows the movement of value. Government spending (even wasteful spending) is not putting money in a rocket ship and blasting it into outer space. Government spending contributes to moving value (money) within the economy.

If you're sorta liberal, if you're a rational conservative, if your opinions are formed by facts, then read the article. If you're a Tea Potty supporter, don't bother. We already know that facts don't matter to you and that anything longer than a bumper sticker is too long for your ADD to navigate.

Deficits, Debts and Taxes

2011-08-11T09:20:00.003-07:00

The deficit, which has everyone freaked out, is running about 10% of GDP. The people who are freaking out seem to forget that in 1942, government spending created a deficit on the order of 30% of GDP in the ramp up for our full and active participation in WWII. (The Debt in 1942 was about 120% of GDP while current Debt is about 110%.) In 1943, government spending was not significantly lower (as a percentage of GDP) than in 1942.

People like to say that WWII got us out of the Depression, and it did ... but it wasn't Hitlers spending that did the trick ... it was our government spending that fired up our ship yards; it was our government spending that converted The American Seating Company in Grand Rapids, MI from making folding chairs and cast iron theater seat frames to making B-17 bombers. Our government spending paid (through military orders) for companies to hire hundreds of thousands of people - nay! millions of people - who in turn bought groceries, shoes and clothing from local merchants causing them to hire more clerical help, causing the merchants to place more orders with their suppliers which caused their suppliers to hire more workers to produce more goods ... because there was demand. I wonder how a Balanced Budget Amendment would have worked out for us if it had been passed in 1941. How's your German? Japanese?

By 1946, at the end of the war, the deficit that had been running at 25-30% of GDP reversed and became a surplus - because government spending at previous levels was no longer necessary and GDP had increased astronomically. We became a manufacturing powerhouse and an export giant in a world where all of our competitors had been devestated. The deficit had moved to surplus in the space of less than a year. Eisenhower used that surplus to initiate the Interstate Highway System in the early 1950s. He used to people's money to do something for the common good, something that benefited individuals and corporations and still does to this day. (Incidentally, one of the specifications of the Interstate Highway System was that it could double as landing space for military aircraft in the event the threat from the USSR came home to visit us. Ever wonder why those Interstate lanes are separated from each other as much as they are throughout the country?)

I find it interesting to hear so many so-called Conservatives long for those simpler, idyllic days of the 1950s and 1960s when there was full employment and dad made enough money from his job that he could buy an affordable house while mom stayed home and took care of their 2.3 kids. They long for those wonderful days when inflation was less than 3% and there was a job for anyone that wanted one.

I find myself asking, why are they so reluctant to support a tax structure that made those days possible?

The Donner Party

2011-08-07T09:48:00.000-07:00

Quote of the day

2011-07-29T08:20:00.000-07:00

""In the United States, doing good has come to be, like patriotism, a favorite device of persons with something to sell."

~ H. L. Menckin

Christian Terrorism

2011-07-28T15:23:00.001-07:00

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Insulting Religion

2011-07-22T11:39:00.001-07:00

Pat Condell, a favorite of mine, weighs in on offering religion as much respect as religion affords those who don't believe.

No more respect, but certainly no less respect.

Tea Party Logic

2011-07-21T07:56:00.003-07:00

It seems to me that there are some in Congress who think you should stop making the mortgage payments (or paying the rent) if you feel your wife and kids are spending too much on food and health care.

Antiscientists are leading America down a dangerous road

2011-07-18T15:04:00.000-07:00

Today's GOP antiscience fervor is somewhat new for America. The last time it got close was about a century ago, when the Democrats went antiscience under the leadership of anti-evolution campaigner William Jennings Bryan. Back then, the Republicans were the party of science, reason, finance, environmentalism and progressivism.

But even then, things weren't as virulent as they are now, because the push was coming mostly from Southern social and religious conservatives, while today those conservatives are joined by the vested interests and deep pockets of big business. This is driving almost all of the new GOP freshmen lawmakers to take positions that are vehemently anti-climate science, pro-creationism, pro-abstinence only education, and seeking to personally vilify, harrass and attack scientists for their own political gain.

This has never been a successful strategy, and today's GOP should abandon it. Americans should support Republican candidates that are pro-science. Nations that have strayed too far down the path of placing ideology ahead of science have come out losers, both economically and in terms of global power. Consider these examples from history, that are eerily echoed in today's antiscience politics:

Read the rest on Neorenaissance ...

Be a Budget Hero!

2011-07-16T13:44:00.000-07:00

Think you might do better than President Barack Obama and congressional leaders in picking and choosing what government spending to cut — or taxes to raise — to stave off a debt showdown that could wreck the economy? A new computer game gives you, too, the chance to play "Budget Hero."

"Budget Hero 2.0" is an update of an original version that came out in 2008. It shows players just how difficult it might be to carry out their grand policy objectives — universal health care, extending the Bush tax cuts or ending foreign aid — and still keep the government from either becoming irrelevant, or going broke.

Read more at SFGate ...

Define "American"

2011-06-23T09:22:00.002-07:00

Jon Stewart demonstrates FOX's reliability

2011-06-22T08:43:00.000-07:00

... or is the re-lie-ability?

The Daily Show - Fox News False Statements
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Author offers evolutionary explanation for religion

2011-06-19T07:13:00.001-07:00

"When it comes to religion, we tend to talk about what we believe rather than why we believe it. In his new book "Why We Believe in God(s): A Concise Guide to the Science of Faith," J. Anderson Thomson, a Virginia psychiatrist, offers a scientific answer to the why question.

"He argues that religion, created by our ancestors, played a key role in human evolution but that will "wither away." Thomson answered questions in an email interview."

The article concludes:

"Since the Scopes trial in 1925, there have been about 20 cases, including two before the U. S. Supreme Court, over the teaching of evolution, creationism and intelligent design. Science always won. There will ultimately be a case about teaching the evolutionary psychology of religion in public schools. If the past is prologue, the religious right will object and litigate. Science will prevail again because victory goes to the side with the heavy artillery. Science has the big guns – evidence.

It is no longer a question of whether religion shall wither away, just when."

Read the rest in the Statesman ...

In a somewhat related item, today's Quote of the Day from Frantz Fanon is: "Fervor is the weapon of choice for the impotent."

Questioning Some Economic Assumptions

2011-05-12T10:10:00.000-07:00

Let me see if I have this right. I could be wrong, so feel free to correct me.

For thirty years you believed Republicans when they said deficits don't matter. While they were promoting this idea, you were happy with the tax cuts they made, believing that "starving the beast" was a good thing because Republicans told you it was.

Now you've changed your tune and you believe that deficits do matter but hasn't occurred to you that they lied to you for thirty years about deficits. Deficits do matter and they told you they didn't.

In the meantime, they've cut taxes - i.e. revenue - and made up the difference by borrowing so that the government could maintain it's obligations to it's people. Even though they've cut revenue income and replaced it with borrowed funds that must be repaid, you now believe them when they tell you that we have a spending crisis and not a revenue crisis?

Beyond that, when it comes to creating jobs you believe Republicans when they tell you that further tax cuts (additional reductions in revenue forcing more borrowing) will somehow create jobs. Yet the numbers are pretty clear. During the Clinton administration (eight years), more jobs were created than during the Reagan administration (eight years), the Bush I administration (four years) and the Bush II administration (eight years) ... combined! But, in spite of the numbers, you believe them.

When Republicans tell you that "tax credits" are a good thing you believe them because you believe anything that reduces taxes for anyone must be a good thing ... and because that's what Republicans have been telling you for years. They don't bother to mention that even though "tax credits" may reduce taxes for some, they leave a gap in tax revenue that must be made up for either by additional borrowing or higher taxes for others.

For years Republicans have told you that government is inefficient and you believe them ... in spite of the fact that Medicare (a government administered program) delivers excellent health care for 41.61 million people with only a 3% overhead while private insurance companies require more the 15% to provide service that's not as good. Paying 5x for the same or inferior service doesn't seem like the epitome of efficiency. (Ask anyone who's paid for their own insurance for any period of time before qualifying for Medicare which of the two they prefer.) Keep in mind that for the most part Medicare delivers services to people who are 65+; people who tend to need more health care services, while private insurance companies a.) serve a younger demographic who tend to need less health care overall, b.) have eliminated people with preexisting conditions (i.e., people who actually need health care) and retain people who don't need health care and c.) limit coverage with it gets too expensive - making the disparity even more striking.

Every system has waste but when Republicans talk about waste, they only talk about it in terms of government waste, without comparison to anything else ... but you believe them when they say government is wasteful. It is. But compared to what?

10 Republican Lies About the Bush Tax Cuts

2011-05-11T09:40:00.000-07:00

So it's come down to this. On Saturday, David Stockman, the legendary Reagan budget chief who presided over the Gipper's supply-side tax cuts, announced that the "debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts." The next day, the former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan, who famously helped sell the 2001 Bush tax cuts to Congress, declared them simply "disastrous."

Sadly, Stockman and Greenspan are just about the only voices in the Republican Party speaking the truth about the fiscal devastation wrought by the expiring Bush tax cuts. After all, the national debt tripled under Ronald Reagan, only to double again during the tenure of George W. Bush. And as it turns out, the Bush tax cut windfall for the wealthy accounted for almost half the budget deficits during his presidency and, if made permanent, would contribute more to the U.S. budget deficit than the Obama stimulus, the TARP program, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and revenue lost to the recession - combined. Of course, you'd never know it listening to the leaders of GOP.

Read up on the 10 Lies here ...

Why We Believe in God(s): A Concise Guide to the Science of Faith

2011-05-09T08:38:00.000-07:00

Why We Believe in God(s): A Concise Guide to the Science of Faith -- Dr. Andy Thomson from Kurt Volkan on Vimeo.

An Open Apology to an Ayn Rand Fan

2011-05-08T23:12:00.001-07:00

I'm sorry you've taken what I've said as an attack on your intellect. I admit that my interpersonal skills are flawed but I honestly though I was giving your opinions all the respect they are due. After all, you offered a tightly reasoned argument (in the form of an urban legend written by someone else that you didn't credit) and concluded "Socialism doesn't work."

I attempted to question your logic by offering a counter example of a situation in which capitalism didn't work (18th and early 19th century fire companies*) followed by a text book recitation of why it's a logical error to extract a general principle from a single, specific instance: effectively, if a saw fails at pounding nails does that mean it fails as a tool?

You quickly, succinctly and eloquently refuted my argument - well, not really refuted it. To refute it would involve pointing out where my error was. What you did say was, "I don't buy it."

Now, given that the example of fire companies that I gave is historically accurate and the recitation I provided demonstrating that it's a logical error to draw a general conclusion from a single instance parallels every textbook on the subject of logic, I can only conclude that what you're not buying is logic itself and that you have developed a means of analysis superior to logic. I'll take your word for it. Unfortunately, my intellect is saddled with the constraints of logic which render me incapable of "free thinking". I now recognize that logic is a handicap like the blinders worn by slavish draft horses that prevent them from looking at anything that isn't directly in front of them.

I admit that I made a grave error in neglecting to point out that the socialism practiced by the successful constitutional democracies of Europe (and Japan) is not quite the same socialism that was practiced by the totalitarian Soviet Union - which history indeed tells us failed - so you were right about history! Well, you were sorta right... if you assume the the socialism of the successful countries of Europe was the same as the Soviet socialism... but, heck, the Soviet Union did actually have "Socialist" in their name and that should be enough to settle the matter! (Of course, the National Socialist German Workers Party [NAZI] had socialist in their name, too, yet they were rabidly anti-Communist. History tells us that socialists were among the first people they sent to the camps .... but that's another story altogether.)

In the meantime, we'll just have to wait a bit for history to prove that the now successful countries of Europe will fail as a result of their misguided implementations of what I believe you would define as socialist ideas throughout their economies. But from my read of what you'd written, it's obvious that history will vindicate your position and that the now successful countries of Europe (and Japan) will eventually fail.

Far from questioning your intellect, I admire it! History shows us that single minded, blind dedication to an idea often triumphs over mere logic. That's why I recommended that you establish an economics consultancy in order to save the countries of Europe (and Japan) from their inevitable failure. I would not presume to do so myself because my knowledge of economics (hampered as it is by the restrictions of logic) is incomplete and obviously inadequate. But you, on the other hand - unhampered by logic and in possession of the truth that history shows us - that socialism doesn't work - have far more to offer than I would.

So, bottom line, I most sincerely apologize if you took what I have written as questioning your intellect. I hope that you will accept my apology in the spirit in which it's offered.

*Late 18th and early 19th century for-profit fire companies did, in the spirit of totally unrestricted , unregulated free enterprise, evolved a business model that would be admired by Mafia dons running down and dirty protection rackets in the early and mid-20th century - as in "pay up or we'll burn yer f&%king house down."

Who Really Won This Round?

2011-05-05T13:12:00.001-07:00

The question that troubles me is who is going to have the last laugh?

In his first taped statement following the 9/11 attack, bed Linen outlined his strategy. His objective, he said, was to bankrupt America. His plan was to do something very dramatic (9/11) to which we'd have to react. He succeeded. He anticipated that we would over react. We did. We put an army in the field at great cost. Bed Linen must have been rolling with laughter when we invaded Iraq and opened a second war in a place that would be significantly more expensive to field an army that Afghanistan. That it had nothing to do with him and his 9/11 attack on us was frosting on the cake. A standing army in somebody else's country generally pi$$es of the people of that country (not to mention all of their friends). The invasion of Iraq a.) divided all those who supported us in our actions in Afghanistan to that point; b.) united our enemies in the Arab world and c.) provided an unimaginably fantastic recruiting tool for al Qaeda and their franchises throughout the world.

Now, with a war cost estimated by some to be on the order of $3T (economist Joseph Stiglitz [1],) including external war fighting, internal security and off budget, "emergency" funding .. we are finding that we are close to bankruptcy. Mission accomplished?

Bed Linen had a template and a proof of concept already in hand. The Soviet Union was tied up in Afghanistan for a decade and, as much as some of us like to think that Reagan telling Gorby to "tear down that wall" did the trick - it was Afghanistan that was the straw on the camels back that broke the Soviet Union. Their economy simply couldn't sustain an arms race with us and a never ending war in Afghanistan. One or the other, maybe ... but not both.

While we played checkers for the better part of a decade, bed Linen was playing chess. He's dead ... but we're close to bankrupt and running around like chickens with our heads cut off, trying to figure a way out of a dilemma we've created for ourselves by sending armies to do what a team of SEALS supported by good "police work" could have accomplished in the first place.

We got him! Yes!

But I don't think there's much to celebrate if, in the end, he accomplishes his mission anyway.

Random thoughts on bin Laden

2011-05-03T08:30:00.000-07:00

"I've never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure."
— Mark Twain

OBAMA: "I made killing or capturing Bin Laden our top priority"
GOP: "NO Gay Marriage" (because their so tough on terrorism)

Some are suggesting that Bush get substantial credit for tracking down bin Laden. Perhaps they have a point. After all, Bush made thorough search of all the places that Osama bin Laden probably wouldn't be... like Iraq, for example. Then, Bush having ruled out all the places bin Laden wasn't, Barack Obama only had to focus on the places in which bin Laden probably was. The process of elimination is a well regarded forensic tool and, seeing that there were more places in which bin Laden wasn't, the argument could be made that Bush did the lion's share of the work.

Facing the Unknowable

2011-04-21T08:54:00.005-07:00

A fundamentalist, Christian acquaintance of mine sent me a note with a link to an article describing the worship services of the Pentecostal Church in rather derogatory terms. The subject line on his note was, "There's certainly whackos in my world too...lol".

Perhaps I was incorrect in assuming that he was trying to point out that we were both somehow on the same side or maybe that he was more rational than some other people (and therefore somehow superior).

I was a little taken aback. We've known each other for more than a decade. I'm familiar with his fundamentalism and he knows I have a rather dim view of organized religions in general. It took me two days to collect my thoughts and respond. The following is my response:

In the war over who's imaginary friend is more real, the actions of the Pentecostals look no more strange to me than the dresses the Popes wear or Aztecs imagining that ripping the living hearts out of their virgin daughters in the hope it would bring rain or 21st century people looking to the pronouncements of desert dwellers from 2,000 years ago, who herded sheep and goats for a living and thought the earth was flat, for predictions about our near future.

The holders of each of those belief sets embraces his beliefs equally seriously and equally sincerely. Each believes with equal conviction that they have a handle on the absolute truth. For any of them to imagine that their beliefs are somehow superior to another's is an act of simple hubris, allowing one believer to feel the smugness of holding themselves apart a from their brothers and looking looking down on them.

They all get an equal level of respect from me, and frankly, less respect than it might be for the reason stated above.

It seems to me that, when facing the humanly unknowable, one should be more humble and consider: "What if I'm wrong?"

Ayn Rand set the standard

2011-04-18T10:22:00.003-07:00

I've been doing some research, looking for the one place on the planet where those who live their lives by the values expressed by Ayn Rand would feel most at home. Given that the United States with all its taxes and regulations and it's nanny-welfare state is obviously a highly uncomfortable environment for them, I've had to broaden my horizons and look elsewhere. But first, the criteria for the ideal state:

1.) Government so small that it can be drown in a bathtub.
2.) An environment that is "business friendly", that is to say one that is unencumbered by regulations or restrictions on business.
3.) Possessing a society that encourages "free enterprise", allowing for the minimum investment of capital to provide opportunities for maximum profit.
4.) Minimized or absence of income, corporate, capital gains or death taxation which would allow those who earn the opportunity to keep what they earn without suffering the forced redistribution of wealth by government bureaucracies.

As uncomfortable as it is to live in the taxed, restricted and regulated conditions found in the USA, I had to rule out a list of countries that were significantly more taxed, regulated and restricted. This list included virtually all of the countries of Europe (as well as Canada). Though the countries of Europe are said to enjoy a high standard of living and rank high on virtually every index measuring quality of life, they are virtually all "socialist" countries that tax their citizens without mercy to support their nanny-welfare state programs of universal health care and/or universal education. It is obvious, even with the most cursory examinations that the people of these countries have been deluded by a liberal press into believing that life is good - not realizing that life could be so much better if they would only adopt the principals outlined by Ann Rand in her novels, "Atlas Shrugged" and "Fountainhead".

Most of the countries of South and Central America are burdened with "socialized medicine". Besides, Banana Republics have a bad habit of nationalizing things.

China must be ruled out as well. Though China offers a "business friendly" atmosphere, with few restrictions or regulations and minimal concerns about business impacts on the overall environment, their centralized government can change policy on a dime and nationalize the fruits of an entrepreneur's labors over night. China also mandates through it's laws that their government be part owner in any business franchise originating outside the country. This usurpation of ownership by the government and the uncertainty of tomorrow's business policy is an anathema to honest free enterprise.

Many of the other countries of Southeast and South Asia fall in the category of totalitarian dictatorships. These must be ruled out as possibilities, too. Tax policy and other restrictions and regulations imposed on business span the spectrum from capricious and unpredictable to draconian and rapacious.

This applies equally to the countries of the Middle East, where successful businesses are family business and, in many cases, only one family (the ruling family) is allowed to have a successful business larger than a push cart.

After ruling out most of the countries on the planet as being hostile to the Ian Rand approach - either for their tax policy, the size and strength of their government or their nanny-welfare approach to their people - I believe I have isolated one country that provides an ideal Randian environment. Well, perhaps not ideal, but certainly more idea than all the others and it meets all of the criteria that I've listed above.

In this singular country one may, with a minimal investment, band together with several other investors and launch a free enterprise venture which, if successful, holds the potential for an extremely high ROI (Return On Investment). The successful venture will not be limited by government interference through either regulation or taxation - the government is, in fact, small enough to drown in a bathtub! The government of this country provides no burdening, tax supported public services, providing an atmosphere where real individual responsibility can flourish.

This Randian paradise offers a mild climate and uncounted miles of un-zoned beach front property just waiting to be developed without pesky environmental restriction - a perfect place for Atlas to Shrug to his heart's content, away from the pesky proletariat that is always threatening to unionize and agitate for handouts they've not worked for. Here, the entrepreneur is not burdened by demands for five day work weeks or overtime pay by those he employs. No more paid vacations for the worker bees! Here, true to the Randian Ideal, success provides its rewards in full measure and, as they should, those who fail fall by the wayside.

In an act of good faith and brotherhood, I herewith offer to coordinate the relocation - of ANY who long for this level of freedom, who want their personal responsibility to shine in this Fountainhead Paradise - to this Randian Nervanah - Somalia.

The Ducabores Explain Economics

2011-04-06T11:04:00.000-07:00

My father once told me a story about the Ducabores, a tribe in the wilds of Siberia. It seems that a rare species of potent psychotropic mushroom grew in their region and, when ever some of the mushrooms were found, it was cause for great celebration. On the evening of the find, the women brewed a strong tea from the mushrooms. However, because the mushrooms were very rare, only the headmen of the tribe (the leaders and wealthiest) could have the tea. The good news was that the tea lost only a little of it's potency as it passed through the body so, the lesser of the tribe waited for the inevitable, cups in hand near the tribal latrine. When the headmen came to relieve themselves, the precious, golden liquid was captured in the waiting cups so that all in the tribe could share in the good times.

When ever I hear someone use the term "trickle down economics", this image leaps to mind.

Governing with Republicans - Bill Maher

2011-03-19T17:20:00.000-07:00

MAHER: New Rule – Fantasies are for sex, not public policy. When you go down the list of useless distractions that make up the Republican Party agenda; public unions and Sharia law, anchor babies and a mosque at ground zero, ACORN and National Public Radio, the war on Christmas, the New Black Panthers, Planned Parenthood, Michelle Obama’s war on desserts…

…you realize that one reason nothing gets done in America is that one of the political parties puts so much more into fantasy problems. Governing this country with Republicans is like rooming with a meth addict.

You want to address real life problems like when the rent is due and they’re saying “How can you even think of that stuff when there’s police scanner voices coming out of the air conditioning unit?”

(source)

Tax Incentives Might Not Work the Way You Think They Do

2011-03-16T11:16:00.000-07:00

Ya know ... I've been wondering. Why do these "business friendly" folks think for a minute that low taxes are particularly good for business. They aren't.

As an investor (I've got a couple bucks on the table), if taxes are low, I'm encouraged to speculate ... follow a run up, then take profits at the high point because low taxes means there's no significant tax penalty for taking my profits out of the company.

On the other hand, if taxes are high, the incentive is to leave my profits on the table, invested in the company because, if I take the profits I get hit with high taxes on the income (increase in stock price). As long as I leave my money invested in the company it can grow with the company and suffer no tax penalty ... and it can grow infinitely as long as I don't trade, taking the money out of the company I invested in.

There are implications that go further. Companies can't count on my investment for expansion, which in turn would mean jobs. If they maximize profits on a quarterly basis, they can be assured I'll be there .... for the short term ... but not for the long haul. Higher taxes gives me incentive to keep my money in place ... giving them a resource they can count on ... which allows them to grow the business (rather than playing games with the books to satisfy short term speculation). Lower taxes give me incentive to keep my money on the move.

One of the most productive times in history was the period following the Second World War (1945 to Reagan) ... businesses expanded, we had a steel industry, we had a textile industry and we exported more than we imported. We made money hand over fist ... and taxes on income at the high end were between 70% and 90%. An investment was an investment in the classical sense of the term. It stayed put. Now, with lower taxes, so-called investment moves in and out of companies like the tides. At high tide a company cannot imagine expansion or hiring because they know that low tide is coming.

I'm sure I'm not the only person on the planet who's aware of this. Personally, it doesn't matter to me whether the taxes are higher or lower - you play the game by the rules and, be assured, all rules have good sides and bad sides ... changing the tax rules only shifts the strategy, not necessarily the outcome.

A Short Bit About Creationism

2011-03-04T10:38:00.000-07:00

... or catch the video on YouTube ...

Becasue Life isn't a Factory ...

2011-02-17T09:08:00.000-07:00

or catch the video on YouTube ...

The absurdity of contemporary “free thinking” -or- things aren’t always what we say they are

2011-01-28T08:55:00.001-07:00

I have recently encountered several people in the media, in discussions on the web and in person who label themselves as “free thinkers”.

Traditionally “freethought” or “free thinking” had a meaning. Wikipedia tells us that “Freethought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds that opinions should be formed on the basis of science, logic, and reason, and should not be influenced by authority, tradition, or any dogma.

It’s ironic that the term “traditionally” might be appropriate when refering to a definition of “freethought”. Perhaps “historically” would rest more easily on the ears? But I think there’s a case for it’s use. In western thought the idea of “freethought” has its origins in the period of The Enlightenment with thinkers like Voltaire in Europe and in the new world, Jefferson and Adams, who rejected the ideas of the past, specifically ideas like the divine right of kings and formulated the ideas of self determination to replace them. In a conservative society predicated on a hierarchy of aristocrats, clergy and commoners with traditions that had a place for everyone and kept everyone in their place, they imagined a world in which “all men are created equal” and where ideas survived on the basis of their merit rather than the presumed pedigree or inherited power of their proponent. They were the liberals of their time, embracing change to the extent that they actively mapped out how it could happen. They placed themselves in direct opposition to those who fought to maintain the status quo.

There are those among us now who consider themselves “free thinkers.” I don’t claim that status for myself. I only claim to be a thinker at best. It seems to me that to add a modifier to anything generally limits it. For example, if I use the word “apple”, one could anticipate that the picture balloons that appear in the heads of our readers could range from “red apple” to “yellow apple” to “candied apple” and “caramel apple”. If I modify the word “apple” to read “Granny Smith apple”, how many of those picture balloons instantly pop, replaced by a totally different image of a “green apple”? The word “apple” has been modified (and limited) by the words “Granny Smith”. I believe now the same principle functions when we modify “thought” to “freethought”.

We are told that things evolve over time. Is it possible that historical free thinking has evolved into something we might not recognize by reading the “traditional” definition of the term?

So, lets ask ourselves (if we are capable of questioning ourselves and our assumptions), just what is the meaning of “free thinking” these days? Is it freedom from something? Or is it the freedom to do something?

Perhaps it is the freedom from something. Is it the freedom from the culture in which we were raised? I don’t think that’s possible. The background of our culture, brought to us by our parents and by our religion (or lack of religious belief) or by our education all provide our tools for thought and the measures by which we judge our thoughts and the ideas of others.

As an example of how one can go terribly wrong by ignoring their cultural background, I offer a statement made by Kathleen Parker, a Caucasian, conservative, newspaper columnist and TV opinion show host, retained presumably for her ability to “think freely”; to analyze how things are in reality and to comment accordingly in order to provide perspective to her readers.

In a recent column dealing with racial issues Parker said, “I don’ t see things through a racial filter.” This blithely ignores the fact that we are all of one race or another. Her presumption here is that only people of races other than hers see things through a racial filter and that somehow, presumably because she’s white, she does not. I’m sure that, without realizing it, Ms. Parker called into question the validity of any opinion she had on the topic of race with such a statement. The fact of the matter is that Ms. Parker most certainly sees things through a racial filter … the filter that is part and parcel of being a Caucasian and, more specifically, a Caucasian in America. As much as Ms. Parker imagines her thinking is “free”, in this case free of prejudice … the reality does not pass even the most casual examination.

Does being a “free thinker” mean that we have freed our imagination to think about anything in any way that we can imagine? Does it mean that we are free to imagine our own facts. Or does it mean that, because we have freed our imagination, we are free to pick our facts and ignore that facts that don’t fit with what we imagine to be true? It would be contrary to the historical definition of “freethought” but evidence suggests that selective reality is perfectly consistent with contemporary interpretations of the term

Does “free thinking” mean the freedom from preconceived notions? Perhaps it does, but that is true only if we continually question our assumptions and our sense of being right. If we do not continually question what we believe and consider the possibility that we might be wrong then we run the risk of going a long way down the proverbial garden path. If we cannot admit to ourselves that our opinions might be wrong, it becomes doubly difficult for us when someone else provides evidence that we are, in fact, wrong. If we do not continually question what we believe, we run the risk of painting ourselves into a corner.

In a 2006 interview, Chalmers Johnson, author of “Blowback”, a long time CIA consultant and historian of the post-cold war era defended himself against the assertion that he had changed his position from the time when he was considered the consummate “cold warrior”. “When I get new information, I change my position.” he said. “What do you do?”

If the primary objective of thought is to find truth, then the process must be to gather the evidence and allow the evidence available to determine our conclusions. To pursue a conclusion by seeking only evidence that supports our opinion while ignoring the evidence that does not only serves to promote an agenda but at best it can only provide a half truth. Beyond that, if the evidence we have can be demonstrated to be false, we must remove it from our consideration and recalculate all of our conclusions that depend on it. All evidence must be tested for truth.

Or perhaps the contemporary term “free thinker” is simply used by some as a self serving means to distinguish themselves from others who are merely “thinkers”, implying that somehow “free thought” is of a better quality than just plain old thought. But that begs a question. How is “free thinking” better than “thinking”? What is it about “free thinking” that provides a greater guard against logical fallacies, the dread faulty premise and preconceived notions? What quality does “free thinking” possess that is a defense against prejudice and bigotry, doctrine and dogma? What is it about modifying that idea of “thinker” that liberates thought rather than restricts it?

It's presumptuous to adopt an appellation that has historically referred to giants of liberal though while promoting conservative agendas. To label ourselves “free thinking” while cutting and pasting conservative orthodoxy, foisting it on our readers as our own thinking, is to create an oxymoron on par with a “giant shrimp”. And when we betray the title by abandoning the evidence and the rules of logic by being dogmatic and doctrinaire, we render “freethought” the punchline of a joke that we wear on our sleeves.

Or to summarize, using a quote from “The Princess Bride”; “That word you used? I don’t think it means what you think it means.”

(If anyone is interested in precedents for this particular abuse of language; using a word for a thing that is in total conflict with the reality of the thing, I would recommend Googling the Orwellian term “newspeak”.)

Christopher Hitchens: "All Of Life Is A Wager"

2011-01-25T08:57:00.000-07:00

... or catch the video on YouTube.

In my opinion, few people have a greater understanding of life than Christopher Hitchens.

About Religion

2011-01-15T21:12:00.002-07:00

A Holiday Message from Mark Twain

2010-12-24T11:17:00.000-07:00

Man is really the most interesting jackass there is. It’s his idea, ya see, that the deity sits up nights to admire him. He’s the creator’s pet!

Now, ya may wonder why.

Well, because of his intellect!

Man is the reasoning animal! … Such is the claim … though I do think that’s open to dispute.

Well, I’ve been studying this reasoning animal for years now and I find the results humiliating!

For example: I experimented with a cat and a dog, taught ‘em to be friends and I put ‘em in a cage. I introduced a rabbit. In an hour, they were friends. Then I added a fox, a goose, a squirrel, some doves … a kangaroo … and finally I added a monkey. They lived together in peace!

Next, I caught an Irish Catholic … and put him in a cage … and as soon as he seemed tame I added a Presbyterian … And then a Turk from Constantinople, a Methodist from the wilds of Arkansas, a Buddhist from China and finally … a Salvation Army Colonel.

Why, when I come back, there wasn’t a specimen left alive … these reasoning animals had disagreed on a theological detail and carried the matter to a higher court! Because ... ya see ... man is also the religious animal. He’s the ONLY ONE that’s got the true religion!! Several of ‘em.

He loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat if his theology isn’t straight!

He’s made a grave yard of the globe in tryin’ his honest best to smooth his brother’s path to happiness and heaven …

The other animals have no religion, you know. Gonna be left out. I wonder why? Seems questionable taste.

New census shows Texas will get 4 new seats in the US congress.

2010-12-21T11:12:00.000-07:00

Fortunately, (or unfortunately) Texas doesn't lack a$$es for 'em.

"Two civil rights organizations are seeking a federal review of public school education in Texas, accusing state school administrators of violating federal civil rights laws after curriculum changes approved earlier this year by the Texas Board of Education.

The request to the U.S. Department of Education made by the Texas NAACP and Texas League of United Latin American Citizens on Monday contended that the curriculum changes passed in May "were made with the intention to discriminate" and would have a "stigmatizing impact" on African-American and Latino students.

More...

FoxNews - Hazardous To Your Intelligence

2010-12-16T22:17:00.000-07:00

Voters Say Election Full of Misleading and False Information
Poll Also Finds Voters Were Misinformed on Key Issues

Following the first election since the Supreme Court has struck down limits on election-related advertising, a new poll finds that 9 in 10 voters said that in the 2010 election they encountered information they believed was misleading or false, with 56% saying this occurred frequently. Fifty-four percent said that it had been more frequent than usual, while just three percent said it was less frequent than usual, according to the poll conducted by WorldPublicOpinion.org, based at the University of Maryland, and Knowledge Networks.

Equally significant, the poll found strong evidence that voters were substantially misinformed on many of the key issues of the campaign. Such misinformation was correlated with how people voted and their exposure to various news

Voters' misinformation included beliefs at odds with the conclusions of government agencies, generally regarded as non-partisan, consisting of professional economists and scientists.

• Though the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) concluded that the stimulus legislation has saved or created 2.0-5.2 million jobs, only 8% of voters thought most economists who had studied it concluded that the stimulus legislation had created or saved several million jobs. Most (68%) believed that economists estimate that it only created or saved a few jobs and 20% even believed that it resulted in job losses.
• Though the CBO concluded that the health reform law would reduce the budget deficit, 53% of voters thought most economists have concluded that health reform will increase the deficit.
• Though the Department of Commerce says that the US economy began to recover from recession in the third quarter of 2009 and has continued to grow since then, only 44% of voters thought the economy is starting to recover, while 55% thought the economy is still getting worse.
• Though the National Academy of Sciences has concluded that climate change is occurring, 45% of voters thought most scientists think climate change is not occurring (12%) or that scientists are evenly divided (33%).

Other key points of misinformation among voters were:

• 40% of voters believed incorrectly that the TARP legislation was initiated under Barack Obama, rather than George Bush
• 31% believed it was proven true that the US Chamber of Commerce spent large amounts of money it had raised from foreign sources to support Republican candidates
• 54% believed that there were no tax cuts in the stimulus legislation
• 86% assumed their taxes had gone up (38%) or stayed the same (48%), while only 10% were aware that their taxes had gone down since 2009
• 53% thought that the bailout of GM and Chrysler occurred only under Obama, though it was initiated under Bush

Further along in the report:

Those who watched Fox News almost daily were significantly more likely than those who never watched it to believe that most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (12 points more likely), most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points), the economy is getting worse (26 points), most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points), the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points), their own income taxes have gone up (14 points), the auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points), when TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points) and that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points). The effect was also not simply a function of partisan bias, as people who voted Democratic and watched Fox News were also more likely to have such misinformation than those who did not watch it--though by a lesser margin than those who voted Republican.

In short, a steady diet of Fox News is hazardous to your intelligence.

(Source)

Stewart Lee on Creationism and Richard Dawkins

2010-11-29T11:25:00.004-07:00

Retinking One's Values

2010-11-15T10:42:00.001-07:00

Over the weekend there was a Neo-Nazi rally in Phoenix in support of Arizon'a SB1070.

When you find that your values are shared by Neo-Nazis ... wouldn't that be a clue that maybe you should start to rethink your values?

or catch the video on Huffington Post after the click ...

Ten Centuries in Five Minutes

2010-11-14T22:05:00.000-07:00

We like to think that borders are sable things ... things that we can count on. Perhaps they're a little more fluid than we imagine.

Or catch the video on YouTube after the click ...

Jon Stewart's Comments Concluding "The Rally to Restore Sanity"

2010-10-30T22:46:00.001-07:00

I can't control what people think this was. I can only tell you my intentions. This was not a rally to ridicule people of faith. Or people of activism or to look down our noses at the heartland or passionate argument or to suggest that times are not difficult and that we have nothing to fear. They are and we do. But we live now in hard times, not end times. And we can have animus and not be enemies.

Unfortunately, one of our main tools in delineating the two broke. The country's 24-hour politico pundit panic conflict-onator did not cause our problems, but its existence makes solving them that much harder. The press can hold its magnifying glass up to our problems and illuminate problems heretofore unseen, or it can use its magnifying glass to light ants on fire, and then perhaps host a week of shows on the sudden, unexpected dangerous-flaming-ant epidemic. If we amplify everything, we hear nothing.

There are terrorists and racists and Stalinists and theocrats, but those are titles that must be earned. You must have the resume. Not being able to distinguish between real racists and tea partiers, or real bigots and Juan Williams and Rich Sanchez is an insult -- not only to those people, but to the racists themselves, who have put forth the exhausting effort it takes to hate. Just as the inability to distinguish between terrorists and Muslims makes us less safe, not more.

The press is our immune system. If it overreacts to everything we eventually get sicker. And perhaps eczema. Yet, with that being said, I feel good. Strangely, calmly good, because the image of Americans that is reflected back to us by our political and media process is false. It is us through a funhouse mirror, and not the good kind that makes you slim and taller -- but the kind where you have a giant forehead and an ass like a pumpkin and one eyeball.

So, why would we work together? Why would you reach across the aisle to a pumpkin assed forehead eyeball monster? If the picture of us were true, our inability to solve problems would actually be quite sane and reasonable. Why would you work with Marxists actively subverting our Constitution or racists and homophobes who see no one’s humanity but their own? We hear every damn day about how fragile our country is -- on the brink of catastrophe -- torn by polarizing hate and how it’s a shame that we can’t work together to get things done, but the truth is we do. We work together to get things done every damn day. The only place we don't is here or on cable TV. Americans don't live here or on cable TV. Where we live our values and principles form the foundation that sustains us while we get things done, not the barriers that prevent us from getting things done.

Most Americans don't live their lives solely as Democrats or Republicans or conservatives or liberals. Most Americans live their lives that our just a little bit late for something they have to do. Often it’s something they do not want to do, but they do it. Impossible things get done every day that are only made possible by the little, reasonable compromises.

(With footage of lanes of slow-moving traffic playing on screens behind him, Stewart went on to build a metaphor based on the traffic merger at the Lincoln Tunnel between New York and New Jersey.)

These cars -- that’s a school teacher who thinks taxes are too high…there’s a mom with two kids who can’t think about anything else...another car, the lady’s in the NRA. She loves Oprah…An investment banker, gay, also likes Oprah…a Latino carpenter…a fundamentalist vacuum salesman…a Mormon Jay Z fan…But this is us. Everyone of the cars that you see is filled with individuals of strong belief and principles they hold dear -- often principles and beliefs in direct opposition to their fellow travelers.

And yet these millions of cars must somehow find a way to squeeze one by one into a mile-long, 30-foot wide tunnel carved underneath a mighty river…And they do it. Concession by concession. You go. Then I’ll go. You go, then I’ll go. You go, then I’ll go -- oh my god, is that an NRA sticker on your car, an Obama sticker on your car? Well, that’s OK. You go and then I’ll go…"Sure, at some point there will be a selfish jerk who zips up the shoulder and cuts in at the last minute. But that individual is rare and he is scorned, and he is not hired as an analyst.

Because we know instinctively as a people that if we are to get through the darkness and back into the light we have to work together and the truth is, there will always be darkness. And sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel isn’t the promised land. Sometimes it’s just New Jersey. But we do it anyway, together.

If you want to know why I’m here and what I want from you I can only assure you this: you have already given it to me. You’re presence was what I wanted. Sanity will always be and has always been in the eye of the beholder. To see you here today and the kind of people that you are has restored mine. Thank you.

Mosque in Manhattan

2010-08-30T12:02:00.000-07:00

Anyone who knows me knows I have no particular love for Islam. It ranks right up there with Catholicism, Evangelical Christianity and any other organized magical thinking you can list as far as I'm concerned. However, I do have a fondness for facts.

From Huffington Post:

"The 'Ground Zero mosque' is a genuine proposal," Brooker notes, "but it's slightly less provocative than its critics' nickname makes it sound. For one thing, it's not at Ground Zero. Also, it isn't a mosque."

Brooker goes on to note, correctly, that the project is a "cultural centre" with a "basketball court," whose purpose is to "improve interfaith relations."

And, to repeat, it's not at Ground Zero!

Perhaps spatial reality functions differently on the other side of the Atlantic, but here in London, something that is "two minutes' walk and round a corner" from something else isn't actually "in" the same place at all. I once had a poo in a pub about two minutes' walk from Buckingham Palace. I was not subsequently arrested and charged with crapping directly onto the Queen's pillow. That's how "distance" works in Britain. It's also how distance works in America, of course, but some people are currently pretending it doesn't, for daft political ends.

Read the rest from Charlie Brooker at Huffington Post after the click.

Numberplay: Rare Coincidences Are Very Common!

2010-07-22T07:06:00.001-07:00

By PRADEEP MUTALIK (New York Times)

“Wow!” “Amazing!” “Unbelievable!” “What are the chances of that?” Most, if not all of you, have uttered words like this at some time in your life. The paradoxical title of today’s Numberplay, then, is true: rare coincidences are really common.

Why should this be? After all, rare should be rare, shouldn’t it? People who are prone to magical thinking seize on such commonly experienced rare coincidences and ascribe cosmic significance to them, invoking Divine Providence or Pre-arranged Destiny or Synchronicity or some other favored pseudoscientific explanation. But if these coincidences are so common as to happen to everyone, then how significant can they be? It’s like that pearl of wisdom that I first heard from a treasured friend, The Talking Moose, on an old Mac computer over 20 years ago: “Remember that you are a unique individual — just like everyone else.”

Read the rest in the New York Times after the click.

The Best in Art Images

2010-07-17T12:21:00.022-07:00

You can now find my photography on FineArtAmerica along with some of the best armature and professional photographers around!

You can find some of my work on the following pages:
desert photos
dancers photos
window photos
anasazi photos
new mexico photos
arizona photos
architecture photos
national parks photos
pueblo photos
tucson photos
pow wow photos
midway photos
street scene photos
canyon de chelly photos
hot rod photos
hot rod framed prints
tucson framed prints
desert framed prints
cactus framed prints
pow wow framed prints
southwest art
southwest framed prints

Just Another Picture Show

2010-07-11T14:44:00.000-07:00

Just Another Picture Show by Joe Kozlowski - Photographer | Make Your Own Book

What if you're wrong?

2010-05-29T10:08:00.002-07:00

... or watch the video on YouTube after the click.

Theology

2010-05-26T13:13:00.001-07:00

... or catch the video on YouTube after the click.

This can't end well

2010-05-23T09:24:00.008-07:00

The USA has five percent of the world population:

... and two percent of the global oil reserves.

On a per capita basis, the people of the USA use 66.3 barrels of oil each annually versus and average of about 10.6 for everyone else on the planet. In gallons, that's 2,784.6 gallons per person versus 445.2. (Based on 42 gallons per barrel.)

The question is, how long can this be sustained until it becomes a point of serious contention?

... and for those folks who imagine we can somehow "Drill, Baby, Drill" our way out of this ... perhaps you can show me how the numbers work in your plan.

(Statistics based on Wolfram database queries.)

Why Ethnic Studies is Good For All Americans, Including White Folks

2010-05-19T11:32:00.001-07:00

Some opponents of ethnic studies say that it teaches our children to resent government and America's history. Nothing could be further from the truth. That's like saying you inherently trust a sleazy used car salesman more than a reputable dealer. Who are you going to want to do business with? The guy who tells you that the clearly imperfect and slightly dented car has never been in an accident and runs like new? Or the guy who says, "Yeah, there have been a few bumps here and there but the mechanic tuned her up and she's got a lot of miles still to go."

By the same token, President Obama isn't weakening America when he acknowledges our less-than-perfect past -- he is being honest and modeling for the world a new kind of diplomacy where the motivation isn't the size of your missile silo but the desire to be part of the world community and global economy rather than left by the side of the road. Our President knows that, in an increasingly complex world in which American might alone can no longer govern, we will have more influence through being liked than being feared.

... read the rest of Sally Kohn's piece on HuffPo.

D.C. Douglas, Former Geico Voice Actor, Fires Back At FreedomWorks

2010-05-17T06:36:00.001-07:00

... or watch the video on YouTube after the click.

WTF?

2010-05-05T22:20:00.001-07:00

Click here, go there ...

The Baloney Detection Kit

2010-05-04T09:59:00.001-07:00

or watch the video on YouTube after the click.

On Teaching the "Controversy"

2010-05-04T09:50:00.001-07:00

or watch the video on YouTube after the click.

Drill, Baby, Drill has a cost ...

2010-04-29T15:03:00.005-07:00

... but how do we put that cost into perspective?

The oil rig spill in the Gulf of Mexico has been compared to the Exxon Valdez disaster in Prince William Sound in Alaska in 1989 which dumped 10.8 million gallons of oil into an enclosed area. Though it makes an easy sound bite, I don't think it's a good comparison on several levals.

Prince William Sound is an area enclosed by islands and about 15,000 square miles in area. The Gulf of Mexico comprises an area of roughly 615,000 square miles or more than 40 times larger and flushed by the Gulf Stream providing a global scale.

In trying to find a better comparison it occurred to me that the oil from torpedoed tankers in the gulf of Mexico during the Second World War might provide some insight.

During the period from December 7, 1941 to May 8, 1945 (VE Day), 1,244 days, I found the following:

Ships torpedoed in The Gulf of Mexico - total of 46, of which 27 were oil tankers.

Based on the average oil tanker of the period having a capacity of 16,613 long tons (2,240 pounds per long ton) and a gallon of oil weighing about 7 pounds ---

That means during that 1,244 day period roughly 143,536,320 gallons of crude oil were dumped into the Gulf or about 115,383 gallons per day, to wash up on Gulf shore beaches. (More if you consider the fuel load on the other merchant ships sunk during that period... but not that much more.)

The current oil spill has, according to the news, has an output of about 5,000 barrels per day. Multiply that times 55 gallons per barrel and you get 225k gallons per day versus the 115.3k brought by all out, unrestricted submarine warfare.

Is it bad? It's probably worst that you think.

Guns v. Butter 2010

2010-04-23T06:50:00.003-07:00

See if you can identify the bleeding heart liberal who said this:

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children."

Noam Chomsky? Michael Moore? Bernie Sanders?

Nope, it was that unrepentant lefty, five-star general Dwight Eisenhower, in 1953, just a few months after taking office -- a time when the economy was booming and unemployment was 2.7 percent.

Read more about our priorities and how they work against us on Huffington Post after the click ...

A Point of Information

2010-04-23T06:33:00.001-07:00

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

South Park Death Threats

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Political Humor

Tea Party

or catch the video on Comedy Central after the click ...

The Improbability Pump

2010-04-22T21:08:00.003-07:00

Imagine for a moment that a large proportion of Americans -- let's say half -- rejected the "germ theory" of infectious disease. Maladies like swine flu, malaria and AIDS aren't caused by micro-organisms, they claim, but by the displeasure of gods, whom they propitiate by praying, consulting shamans and sacrificing goats. Now, you'd surely find this a national disgrace, for those people would be utterly, unequivocally wrong. Although it's called germ theory, the idea that infections are spread by small creatures is also a fact, supported by mountains of evidence. You don't get malaria unless you carry a specific protozoan parasite. We know how it causes the disease, and we see that when you kill it with drugs, the disease goes away. How, we'd ask, could people ignore all this evidence in favor of baseless superstition?

But that's fiction, right? Well, not entirely, for it applies precisely to another "theory" that is also a fact: the theory of evolution.

Read the rest by Jerry A. Coyne in The Nation after the click ...

Religious persecution

2010-04-15T10:15:00.001-07:00

Controversial atheist billboard severely damaged

Local St. Augustine news reporters received word from Northeast Florida Coalition of Reason who told Historic City News that one of their controversial billboards on US-1 that displays an atheist message has suffered major damage from apparent vandalism.

The billboard is located 5.7 miles north of SR-16 and visible to southbound traffic on the west side of US-1. The sign reads, “Don’t Believe in God? You Are Not Alone”.

The message immediately raised controversy in St. Johns County when it first appeared on March 29th. Now those behind that message believe vandalism may have been involved.

Read the rest of this example of religious persecution after the click

The dangers of magical thinking

2010-04-12T23:08:00.002-07:00

Vaccine-autism claims, "Frankenfood" bans, the herbal cure craze: All point to the public's growing fear (and, often, outright denial) of science and reason, says Michael Specter. He warns the trend spells disaster for human progress.

or catch the video on YouTube after the click ...

Just a thought ...

2010-04-11T13:05:00.001-07:00

"You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do."
-- Anne Lamott

The Old Mission

2010-04-08T11:16:00.007-07:00

Daughter visiting so we're spending time as tourists, doing some sight seeing.

Mission St. Xavier del Bac - 1783

The scaffolding is finally gone and the mission looks like the mission again!

Father Kino

Looking up to Heaven

Inside looking out.

On Religion

2010-04-08T10:19:00.001-07:00

Or catch the video on YouTube after the click ...

Glen Beck Attacks!

2010-04-06T15:52:00.001-07:00

Sky and Cactus

2010-03-22T17:42:00.001-07:00

4th Avenue Street Fair, Tucson, AZ

2010-03-21T09:49:00.004-07:00

Twice a year - in December and in March - the merchant association on 4th Avenue in Tucson holds a street fair. For three days, literally thousands (maybe 10s of thousands) of people descend on 4th Avenue, not far from the University of Arizona campus, to patronize more than a mile of vendors there.

The Fourth Avenue Street Fair - more than a mile of craftsmen.

The Ukulele Player - singer of 1920's rag time tunes.

Pigs Fly

Roof Line with Awnings

My take on the Street Fair? It's more like a Renaissance Fair than any Renaissance Fair I've ever been to ... and far more authentic!

Mark Twain ... with tongue firmly in cheek

2010-03-21T09:44:00.001-07:00

"In the space of one hundred and seventy-six years the Lower Mississippi has shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles.

"Therefore ... in the Old Oolitic Silurian Period the Lower Mississippi River was upward of one million three hundred thousand miles long... seven hundred and forty-two years from now the Lower Mississippi will be only a mile and three-quarters long... There is something fascinating about science.

"One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact."

On Sunday, Will GOP be on Wrong Side of History ... Again?

2010-03-19T11:27:00.002-07:00

Mark Green on Huffington Post

Republicans warn Democrats about the political downside if Obama-Pelosi win Sunday's vote on Health Care. Actually, it's the GOP that's in a lose-lose -- either the Democrats earn due credit for change or the public will blame the GOP for opposing major social breakthroughs as it so often has.

It's happening again, and for much the same reasons. At the brink of a major social advance, the GOP is standing at the doorway of history shouting STOP! Let the free market status quo continue to screw things up, is in effect the message. Whatever the short-term headlines and polls -- and probably a third of America will buy whatever anti-government rhetoric if offered -- there's a long-term cost to a party that's been so consistently on the wrong side of reform and reality.

Apparently there's a reason the GOP constantly has to refer back 150 years as "the party of Lincoln" given its track record since.

... read the rest on Huffington Post after the click.

This too shall pass

2010-03-13T10:01:00.002-07:00

or catch the video here after the click, of course!

Glenn Beck Logic ... perfect

2010-03-06T14:29:00.001-07:00

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The New Commandments

2010-03-05T22:15:00.001-07:00

Christopher Hitchens

The Ten Commandments were set in stone, but it may be time for a re-chisel. With all due humility, the author takes on the job, pruning the ethically dubious, challenging the impossible, and rectifying some serious omissions.

Find out about the new commandments in Vanity Fair after the click

Why liberals cannot win arguments with conservatives

2010-02-21T03:46:00.002-07:00

Not an easy read. It'll take a few minutes but it illustrates the differences in thought process between liberal mind sets and conservative mind sets.

Read the article on Huffington Post after the click.

The Tea Party isn't a movement ... it's a cult.

2010-02-20T08:45:00.003-07:00

"In a recent poll almost ninety percent of Tea Baggers said that they thought taxes had either gone up or stayed the same under Obama. Only two percent thought they went down. But the reality is taxes have gone down for ninety five percent of working families taxes went down.

"Think about that. Only two percent of the people in a "movement" about taxes named after a tax revolt have the slightest idea what's going on ... with taxes."

Or watch the video on Crooks and Liars after the click.

Modern Mythology

2010-02-13T13:36:00.003-07:00

Modern Mythology: Fiscal Responsibility and Job Creation on Prezi

This post is a re-do of a previous post but in a more digest-able format. If you'd like to use this presentation, you can link to it here. I'll add to the presentation over time as I find or develop charts and graphs that highlight some of the myths we hear about economics and economic theory.

Sara Palin's Hand

2010-02-11T11:40:00.001-07:00

Stimulus Response

2010-02-10T17:55:00.003-07:00

Some time this year, we taxpayers will again receive another 'Economic Stimulus' payment.

Q. What is an 'Economic Stimulus' payment?
A. It is money that the federal government will send to taxpayers.

Q. Where will the government get this money?
A. From taxpayers.

Q. So the government is giving me back my own money?
A. Only a smidgen of it.

Q. What is the purpose of this payment?
A. To purchase high-definition TV sets, thus stimulating the economy.

Q. But isn't that stimulating the economy of China?
A. Shut up.

How to spend your stimulus check wisely:

If you spend it at Wal-Mart, the money will go to China or Sri Lanka.

If you spend it on gasoline, your money will go to the Arabs.

If you purchase a computer, it will go to India, Taiwan or China.

If you purchase fruit and vegetables, it will go to Mexico, Honduras and Guatemala.

If you buy an efficient car, it will go to Japan or Korea.

If you purchase useless stuff, it will go to Taiwan.

If you pay off your credit cards or buy stock, it will go to managers' bonuses and they will hide it offshore.

Instead, keep the money in America by patronizing American businesses that still operate in the U.S.:

Buying stuff at yard sales, or

Going to ball games, or

Spending it on prostitutes, or

Beer, or

Tattoos.

SO: Go to a ball game with a tattooed prostitute that you pick up at a yard sale, and drink beer all day.

(No need to thank me, I'm just glad to be of help.)

(Thanks, MH, for passing this one along to me.)

Getting ready for ITEX 2010 - Las Vegas, Mar 3-4.

2010-02-09T10:02:00.000-07:00

Document Solutions Daily on Prezi

Jobs Lost - Bush v. Obama Administrations

2010-02-05T13:12:00.001-07:00

The chart speaks for itself.

The Misdirected Anger of the Tea Party

2010-01-28T23:13:00.004-07:00

or The Myth of Conservative Republican Fiscal Responsibility

There are all kinds of things that I hear on the political front that, frankly, I get tired of hearing. When I get tired enough of a mantra, I get the itch to start looking up things that will either substantiate or refute the rhetoric.

One of the things that has troubled me has been the assertion that Conservative Republicans are "fiscally responsible" while Liberal Democrats only want to "tax and spend". Its a mantra that's repeated often but, rarely is any proof offered in the discussion. I thought I'd look up the numbers. Numbers are great. They have sources that we can all refer to so that we're all singing from the same sheet, so to speak.

It struck me that the mounting National Debt (as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product) might be a good measure of overall fiscal responsibility. If we're being responsible, then logically the National Debt %GDP should be decreasing during a given administration. On the other hand, if we're being irresponsible that number should be on the rise ... that is to say, as it goes down, we're living more within our means. If it is increasing, we are borrowing and mortgaging the future of the country and of future generations. So, who has done their part to see that we're at least trying to live within our means and who has been on a spending spree?

Conventional wisdom would have it that Republican administrations, being fiscally responsible, would be the administrations that reduced our collective indebtedness while Democrats, who we all KNOW only want to "tax and spend" would be the ones who are increasing our overall debt.

The surprise is that the numbers don't support that proposition.

The graph below outlines which administrations lowered the national Debt as a percentage of GDP and which increased it relative to the previous administration. The Blue columns represent Democrat (sic) administrations between the end of World War Two (1945) and 2009. The Red columns represent Republican administrations.

The pattern becomes clear when you draw a picture of it! Every single Democrat (sic) administration since the Second World War has managed to decrease the National Debt as a percent of GDP while every Republican administration since Nixon's second term (1973-1977) has managed to raise our level of indebtedness - not just by a little - in most cases by a lot - while at the same time telling us they know how to manage money! Sort of like pissing on your head and telling you that its only raining out!

Now, the Tea Party is angry ... and they have every cause to be angry. We're in deep du-du and there's no easy way out. They're angry about the state of our indebtedness. They're angry that they have to pay taxes (though the ones who seem most angry seem to be the ones who pay the least). They're angry at Democrats because they've been told, ever since Reagan, that Democrats "tax and spend" ... and they're gullible enough to believe it without checking the numbers. They're angry with government because they've been told, ever since Reagan, that "government isn't the solution. Government is the problem!" And they've believed it ... without bothering to check the facts.

If they looked at the facts ... where the national financial problems originated ... they would be taring and feathering Republicans instead of inviting them to their rallys. If anyone is responsible for the current debt situation (touted by Republicans as something on the order of $100,000 per household, at this point) its Republicans! Their ideas about "free enterprise" ... which, as a result of their ideas of deregulation is really a free-for-all bordering on piracy have almost sunk our banking industry and have driven the nation into a deep recession.

Then they say that they know how to create jobs. So, I looked at the numbers ... because it seemed to me that when people are unemployed cutting their taxes dose nothing to put food on their tables. I looked at the Jobs Created numbers to see who, historically, might have a better idea of how to create jobs ... because the only way out of this mess is for us to earn our way out ... and the only way to earn our way out is if people - real, everyday people - have jobs.

Again, the Blue columns represent Democrat (sic) administrations while the Red columns represent Republican administrations. You spend a little time studying the chart and figuring out who might have a better idea about creating jobs, how to do it and what it takes! I won't even bother to give you a hint.

The State of the Union will be a little different this year ...

2010-01-26T06:03:00.001-07:00

... or watch the video on HuffPo after the click.

Problem of evil and religion's double standard

2010-01-25T09:15:00.002-07:00

Daniel C. Dennett in The Washington Post

"One of the striking differences between modern, "organized" religion and tribal or folk religions--religions without seminaries and theologians and official books--is that in tribal religions they have no double standard! They thank their gods for the good stuff that happens and blame them for the bad. The idea that God is a worthy recipient of our gratitude for the blessings of life but should not be held accountable for the disasters is a transparently disingenuous innovation of the theologians. And of course it doesn't work all that well. The Problem of Evil, capital letters and all, is the central enigma confronting theists. There is no solution. Isn't that obvious? All the holy texts and interpretations that contrive ways of getting around the problem read like the fine print in a fraudulent contract--and for the same reason: they are desperate attempts to conceal the implications of the double standard they have invented."

Read more in The Washington Post after the click ...

A Fault Is Not a Sin

2010-01-18T05:20:00.001-07:00

It's idiotic to blame anything other than geology for the Haitian earthquake.

On Nov. 1, 1755—the feast of All Saint's Day—a terrifying combination of earthquake and tsunami shattered the Portuguese capital city of Lisbon. Numerous major churches were destroyed and many devout worshippers along with them. This cataclysmic event was a spur to two great enterprises: the European Enlightenment and the development of seismology. Voltaire and Jean-Jacques Rousseau were only some of those who reasoned that no thinkable deity could have desired or ordained the obliteration of Catholic Lisbon, while other thinkers—Immanuel Kant among them—began to inquire into the possible natural causes of such events.

Today, we can clearly identify the "fault" that runs under the Atlantic Ocean and still puts Portugal and other countries at risk, and it took only a few more generations before there was a workable theory of continental drift. We live on a cooling planet with a volcanic interior that is insecurely coated with a thin crust of grinding tectonic plates. Earthquakes and tsunamis are to be expected and can even to some degree be anticipated. It's idiotic to ask whose fault it is. The Earth's thin shell was quaking and cracking millions of years before human sinners evolved, and it will still be wrenched and convulsed long after we are gone. These geological dislocations have no human-behavioral cause. The believers should relax; no educated person is going to ask their numerous gods "why" such disasters occur. A fault is not the same as a sin.

More on Slate after the click.

Experts Concerned About Backward Jesus Fishes

2010-01-17T15:33:00.003-07:00

Experts on Christianity have become increasingly alarmed about reversed car Jesus fishes, an accidental plague threatening the very ideals the fish represent. Thousands of Americans choose to put the famous fishes on their cars to express their Christian beliefs, but many fail to attach them in the proper, left-facing manner.

“This common mistake is a hazard to us all,” said Rev. Billy Graham, a world-renowned preacher. “Thousands are inadvertently displaying a symbol of Satanism on their cars.”

The backward, right-pointing fishes are thought to encourage evil among the owners of the plaques and those who view them in traffic. Perhaps the most frightening point is that most of those with backward fishes don't even realize they are Satanists, nor that they are infecting the country with anti-Christian symbolism.

... read it all after the click.

(spacial thinks to MM for passing this one along)

I Am Woman, Hear Me Roar

2010-01-15T17:44:00.005-07:00

While the C-5 was turning over its engines, a female crewman gave the G.I.s on board the usual information regarding seat belts, emergency exits, etc.

Finally, she said, 'Now sit back and enjoy your trip while your captain, Judith Campbell, and crew take you safely to Afghanistan '

An old MSgt. sitting in the eighth row thought to himself, 'Did I hear her right? Is the captain a woman'

When the attendant came by he said 'Did I understand you right? Is the captain a woman?'

'Yes,'! said the attendant, 'In fact, this entire crew is female.'

'My God,' he said, 'I wish I had two double scotch and sodas. I don't know what to think with only women up there in the cockpit.'

'That's another thing, Sergeant,' said the crew member, 'We no longer call it the cockpit ... it's the box office.'

Quote of the day:

'Whatever you give a woman, she will make greater. If you give her sperm, she'll give you a baby. If you give her a house, she'll give you a home. If you give her groceries, she'll give you a meal. If you give her a smile, she'll give you her heart. She multiplies and enlarges what is given to her. So, if you give her any crap, be ready to receive a ton of shit.'

(With special thanks to mh for sending this one along.)

More: Why Republicans Can't Govern (Part III)

2010-01-15T13:37:00.003-07:00

from The Washington Post

So, let's review a little history:

The day the Bush administration took over from President Bill Clinton in 2001, America enjoyed a $236 billion budget surplus -- with a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion. When the Bush administration left office, it handed President Obama a $1.3 trillion deficit -- and projected shortfalls of $8 trillion for the next decade. During eight years in office, the Bush administration passed two major tax cuts skewed to the wealthiest Americans, enacted a costly Medicare prescription-drug benefit and waged two wars, without paying for any of it.

To put the breathtaking scope of this irresponsibility in perspective, the Bush administration's swing from surpluses to deficits added more debt in its eight years than all the previous administrations in the history of our republic combined. And its spending spree is the unwelcome gift that keeps on giving: Going forward, these unpaid-for policies will continue to add trillions to our deficit.

This fiscal irresponsibility -- and a laissez-faire attitude toward the excesses of the financial industry -- helped create the conditions for the deepest economic catastrophe since the Great Depression. Economists across the political spectrum agreed that to deal with this crisis and avoid a second Great Depression, the government had to make significant investments to keep our economy going and shore up our financial system.

(emphasis added)

Read the full piece in The Washington Post after the click ...

Haiti, a brief history

2010-01-14T22:03:00.014-07:00

When I was living in upstate NY in the 70s, I owned a frame shop and gallery. One of my customers was a former USAID worker - her husband was a former Haitian consulate officer. They beat it out of Haiti a couple hours before Papa Doc's thugs, the Tonton Macoutes, arrived at their home in Haiti with submachine guns and burned it to the ground.

One of the few possessions she she was able to bring from Haiti was a pane of glass from one of the windows in their home that her husband had engraved with an original poem he'd written for her.

My friend, Eva, through her contacts in Haiti, brought paintings by Haitian folk artists into the US. We framed them, she showed them and, when they sold, she sent the profits back to Haiti. She grew and sold the most beautiful shallots in her garden in the hills of upstate New York, too - those profits went back to Haiti as well.

When the people Haiti prevailed in the only successful slave revolt in history, they were forced to pay reparations to France for their independence. The reparations were draconian and, eventually Haiti began to default on payments. A number of countries came to the rescue ... with high interest loans, high enough that for a time Haiti was making loan payments equal to fully 80% of the nations GDP.

And then there were François "Papa Doc" Duvalier and his son, Jean-Claude "Baby Doc" Duvalier, Haiti's "Presidents for Life" who raped what was left of the nations treasures and killed it's people with impunity ... kept in power by their secret police, the Tonton Macoutes. But they were vigorously anti-communist, a factor that, in the time of Castro, allowed American foreign policy to turn a blind eye to the plight of the Haitian people.

From Wikipedia:

In December 1990, the former priest Jean-Bertrand Aristide won the election by more than two thirds of the vote. His mandate began on 7 February 1991. In August 1991, Jean-Bertrand Aristide's government faced a non-confidence vote within the Haitian Chamber of Deputies and Senate. Eighty three voted against him, while only 11 members voted in support of Aristide's government. Following a coup d'etat in September 1991, President Aristide was flown into exile. In accordance with Article 149 of Haiti's Constitution of 1987, Supreme Court Justice Joseph Nerette was named Provisional President and elections were called for December 1991. These were blocked by the international community and the resulting chaos extended into 1994.

In 1994, Haitian General Raoul Cédras asked former U.S. President Jimmy Carter to help avoid a U.S. military invasion of Haiti. President Carter relayed this information to President Clinton, who asked Carter, in his role as founder of The Carter Center, to undertake a mission to Haiti with Senator Sam Nunn, D-GA, and former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Colin Powell. The team successfully negotiated the departure of Haiti's military leaders and the peaceful entry of U.S. forces under Operation Uphold Democracy, paving the way for the restoration of Jean-Bertrand Aristide as president. Aristide left the presidency in 1995.

In the over two centuries of Haiti's independence there has hardly been a day the country hasn't been subjected to the international or domestic plunder of its resources. The current crisis is only the latest and most visible disaster in their history.

For a more detailed history of Haiti between 1990 and the present, click here.

From American foreign policy point of view, Haiti has only two small problems. 1.) The people are black and 2.) they don't have any oil. From that policy standpoint, if they could only overcome those two small problems, we'd be more than happy to be supportive in normal times. But, until then ....

My friend Eva and her husband passed away many years ago, but I will always remember them, the paintings .... and the shallots.

Allen Grayson (D-FL) sums it up nicely

2010-01-13T22:11:00.002-07:00

(from the floor of the House - responding to Rudy Gu911iani's memory lapse stating that there were no terrorist attacks during the Bush administration.)

And I realized that I was witnessing the birth of a new form of political discourse from the right wing in this country: The Exception. The Exceptional Exception -- the exception that proves the rule or disproves the rule, as the case may be.

So in the future I'm expecting that we'll hear from the right wing the claim that no cities drowned under the Bush administration -- except for New Orleans. And that there were no wars that were started by mistake under the Bush administration -- except for the war in Iraq. And that the Bush administration added nothing to the federal debt -- except for a half-trillion dollars, which works out to $15,000 for every man, woman and child in this country. And that they respected all of our constitutional rights as Americans -- except when they didn't.

I think we'll hear Republicans claim that the Bush administration managed the economy quite well -- except when they brought it to the brink of national bankruptcy. In fact, they'll claim that the Bush-Cheney administration was a complete success, except for the fact that it was an abject failure -- an abject failure.

In fact, what we learned in Washington for eight years is that the reason why Republicans hate government so much is because they're so bad at it.

Guantanamo guard reunited with ex-inmates

2010-01-13T15:35:00.001-07:00

Why would a former Guantanamo Bay prison guard track down two of his former captives - two British men - and agree to fly to London to meet them?

"You look different without a cap."

"You look different without the jump suits."

With those words, an extraordinary reunion gets under way.

... catch the video from BBC after the click.

Religious no longer a protected class

2010-01-12T12:36:00.001-07:00

Q: Is there widespread media bias against Christianity? Against evangelicals such as Brit Hume and Sarah Palin? Against public figures who speak openly and directly about their faith? Against people who believe as you do?

... find the answer in The Washington Post after the click.

The Bull and the Bull Fighter

2010-01-11T10:52:00.005-07:00

The "war on terrorism" is a significant example of the effectiveness of asymmetrical strategies; the "David and Goliath Effect". Like toreadors, waving a cape at a raging bull in the bull ring, al-Qaeda fields a single operative with explosives in his underwear at the cost of a plane ticket and we spend a billion dollars installing scanning machines in airports all over the country.

Al-Qaeda abandons Afghanistan for the tribal regions of Pakistan leaving us to spend billions of dollars fighting the Taliban who's goals don't extend beyond the national boundaries of Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda's cost is next to nothing but the cost to us is immeasurable.

A large military presence in a foreign country only serves to inflame indigenous resentments. Our presence in Iraq and in Afghanistan is a recruiting tool that al-Qaeda could only imagine in their wildest dreams and, over the better part of the last decade, they've learned how to push the right buttons to keep things going.

They don't need to "win". They only need to keep us chasing our tails to achieve their goal of driving us to bankruptcy. For them to merely survive is the big win for them.

We cannot "win" as long as we continue trying to "fight terrorism" on their terms ... as long as we pursue al-Qaeda as if it were a military entity by putting our military force into the field we are playing to their strengths. Like the art of jujitsu, they are using our sheer weight against us. They count on our macho bravodo that dictates, once committed, we cannot back away. Like a bull in a bull ring, we cannot stop chasing the illusive capes.

One Year in 120 Seconds

2010-01-09T07:51:00.002-07:00

... or catch this amazing video on YouTube after the click ...

The Way the Wind Blows

2010-01-02T22:24:00.001-07:00

New Years Pow Wow, Rialto Park, Tucson, AZ

I Love the Smell of Blasphemy in the Morning

2010-01-01T07:04:00.003-07:00

Atheist Ireland Publishes 25 Blasphemous Quotes

From today, 1 January 2010, the new Irish blasphemy law becomes operational, and we begin our campaign to have it repealed. Blasphemy is now a crime punishable by a €25,000 fine. The new law defines blasphemy as publishing or uttering matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby intentionally causing outrage among a substantial number of adherents of that religion, with some defences permitted.

This new law is both silly and dangerous. It is silly because medieval religious laws have no place in a modern secular republic, where the criminal law should protect people and not ideas. And it is dangerous because it incentives religious outrage, and because Islamic States led by Pakistan are already using the wording of this Irish law to promote new blasphemy laws at UN level.

We believe in the golden rule: that we have a right to be treated justly, and that we have a responsibility to treat other people justly. Blasphemy laws are unjust: they silence people in order to protect ideas. In a civilised society, people have a right to to express and to hear ideas about religion even if other people find those ideas to be outrageous.

Publication of 25 blasphemous quotes

In this context we now publish a list of 25 blasphemous quotes, which have previously been published by or uttered by or attributed to Jesus Christ, Muhammad, Mark Twain, Tom Lehrer, Randy Newman, James Kirkup, Monty Python, Rev Ian Paisley, Conor Cruise O’Brien, Frank Zappa, Salman Rushdie, Bjork, Amanda Donohoe, George Carlin, Paul Woodfull, Jerry Springer the Opera, Tim Minchin, Richard Dawkins, Pope Benedict XVI, Christopher Hitchens, PZ Myers, Ian O’Doherty, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor and Dermot Ahern.

... get your dose of blasphemy after the click!

This is how conservatives are made

2009-12-31T14:51:00.003-07:00

by Ellis Weiner on Huffington Post

The Corner, as my fellow intellectual masochists know, is the daily blog of the formerly-relevant National Review. Like the Jewish resorts in the Catskills--once the site of so much vitality and schpritzaturra, now mostly mouldering ruins in appalling states of neglect--this is where you go to wander around in a haze of alternating depression and morbid fascination.

Two days ago we had a fine opportunity to undergo the latter. Here, in its entirety, is the apercu of John J. Miller--conservative, writer, and proud father:

'They Just Took My Money' [John J. Miller]

That's what my 8-year-old son said about the sales tax on the ride home from Borders a few minutes ago. He had a $10 gift card from Christmas, bought a Clone Wars book for $7.99, looked at the receipt, and wondered why he still didn't have a full $2.01 on it.

This is how conservatives are made.

Truer words were never inputted. This is indeed how conservatives are made, and this is how they come off the assembly line: whiny with victimization, pissy about money, and in full possession of an eight-year-old's understanding of the real world.

... read the rest on Huffington Post after the click!

Rowing

2009-12-30T05:18:00.000-07:00

Bertrand Russell on God (1959)

2009-12-28T15:10:00.001-07:00

... or watch the video on YouTube after the click.