tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-85953886369598361892024-03-13T10:47:50.446-04:00Just Another Internet GuyJustAnotherInternetGuyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06366125906633398760noreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595388636959836189.post-64062688253458673752015-09-02T11:36:00.000-04:002015-09-02T11:36:16.463-04:00If There is No Ferguson Effect, Then There Must Also Be No Problem With Police BrutalityPolice across the country are pointing to various assaults on police as "The Ferguson Effect". Naturally, Black Lives matter activists and various sympathetic "journalists" are angry about this and calling it racism and whatever. Which is hilariously ironic.<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Black Lives Matter is based on stringing together unrelated instances of police violence, in different jurisdictions with widely different police departments and policing policies, and claiming there is a pattern of racism. The only thing these instances have in common are that the person killed was black. But the Michael Brown and Vonderrit Myers shootings were justifiable. The former was found justified after a justice department probe. The latter was justified because Myers had a gun and was shooting at a police officer.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Others, such as Eric Garner and Tamir Rice were tragic mistakes, but not intentional murder. Freddie Gray may actually be the result of brutality, but the officer most responsible for his death (the driver, who is charged with murder) is black, so this defeats the "racist" narrative. Strangely, the one incident that appears to be definitely murder, the shooting of Walter Scott, is mentioned less often than these others.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
These incidents really only have one thing in common; they resulted in the death of a black person. All of the other facts and circumstances are widely disparate. But a significant number of uninformed citizens are willing to believe that this tenuous string of purely anecdotal, context-free evidence proves that there is prevalent police racism in America. Well, if that's true, then it must mean that the "Ferguson Effect" is a real thing.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
We now have similar anecdotes of police attacks and other violence since Ferguson. Police report more murders in Ferguson and Baltimore. Two officers are murdered in New York. A deputy is shot in the back and killed in Texas. And last, but most telling, an Alabama cop is pistol whipped with his own gun. He claims he hesitated precisely because of the national attention on police violence (This is what "Ferguson Effect" means), allowing the perp to have the advantage. These are not the whole story. But activist journalists such as Ta-Nehisi Coates and the clown car that is Salon.com would have us believe that these are not a pattern; that they are unrelated incidents. This, despite the fact that they are more than willing to connect the dots between every black person killed by a police officer, regardless of differing facts and circumstances.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The evidence supporting the "epidemic of police brutality" and the evidence supporting "the Ferguson Effect" is the same. Meaning, the evidence is anecdotal, incomplete, and unencumbered by context or nuance. So, Black Lives Matter activists and their supporters have to make up their minds. Either the police brutality coverage is overblown, or there is in fact a "Ferguson Effect". They can't have it both ways. If their movement continues to have this sort of cognitive dissonance and blatant hypocrisy, they will lose all credibility.</div>
JustAnotherInternetGuyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06366125906633398760noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595388636959836189.post-65396707656286226252015-09-01T15:36:00.005-04:002015-09-01T15:39:20.216-04:00Horowitz Called Idris Elba "Too Street" and Then Wussed Out.In an interview with the <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/event/article-3212827/James-Bond-new-book-Trigger-Mortis-written-Anthony-Horowitz-wanted-life.html">Daily Mail</a> James Bond novelist Anthony Horowitz call Idris Elba "too street" for the role. Outrage trolls called down the wrath of almighty Twitter, which immediately exploded with random accusations of racism. Because "street" can only mean "black.". It couldn't possibly mean that some of Elba's roles are a little scruffy (See: <a href="http://www.bbcamerica.com/luther/">Luther</a>), so maybe he doesn't have the polished image a James Bond would need.<br />
<br />
Of course, these accusations all became questionable the second it came to light that Anthony Horowitz said it wasn't a race thing. He even gave an example of a black actor (<a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0504412/">Adrian Lester</a>) who he thought would make a suitable Bond. And he did this in the same interview, before the Twitter explosion.<br />
<br />
No matter. Having already married themselves to the narrative that this was a racist comment, overwrought activists went into denial mode. The fact that he said it wasn't "a colour thing" meant that it absolutely was. Their rationale? If it wasn't about race, he wouldn't have gone out of his way to say that it wasn't. This is something only possible with liberal logic. What actually happened is that Horowitz said it wasn't "a colour thing" to alleviate the concerns of an over-sensitive media ready to turn any random adjective into a "code word" or "microaggression". Ironically, it had the opposite effect.<br />
<br />
Others attempted to explain away the Lester reference. Perennial racebaiter <a href="https://twitter.com/tanehisicoates/status/638696576651788288">Ta-Nehisi Coates</a> claimed it was "not an out", because Sony wasn't considering him. The obvious answer to this is: So what? Horowitz was asked <i>his </i>opinion. What Sony thought is irrelevant. The fact that Horowitz could name a black actor who wasn't too street is <i>exactly </i>an out.<br />
<br />
Personally, I don't think Elba is "too street". If he wasn't too street to play a <a href="http://www.imdb.com/media/rm220903424/ch0150888">Norse God</a>, he can handle Bond. Actors can polish up a scruffy image for a role if they need to. Remember how scruffy actor <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000148/">Harrison Ford</a> once cleaned up and played the <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118571/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_23">President of the United States</a>? It's been done before. Horowitz might have been a bit elitist (the Bond image is a sort of high-falutin', tweed-wearing, upper-crusty type. I.E. the opposite of street.), but that's not inherently racist.<br />
<br />
The outrage police quickly scared Anthony Horowitz into submission. Liberal knees jerked right into Horowitz's balls. So he apologized profusely and caved to the PC overlords. Maybe he should have had some backbone, like the fictional character he writes about. Instead, this is yet another example of political correctness run amok.JustAnotherInternetGuyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06366125906633398760noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595388636959836189.post-61568104029693320002015-08-17T13:02:00.000-04:002015-08-17T13:04:41.456-04:00Slut-Shaming the Republicans Over the Fox News DebateIn the new political paradigm, where candidates receive questions from moderators, Facebook, Twitter, or just get <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ajWs3z8rs0">yelled at by annoying ass activists</a>, a new pattern has emerged. The entire debate can be blamed on the candidates and their party. At least, that's what the Democrat reaction to the Republican debates on Fox News suggests. <a href="https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/629488409728393216">Bernie Sanders slams them for not discussing climate change or income inequality</a>. Jennifer Granholm slams them on Real Time with Bill Maher for never discussing the middle class. They seem absolutely stunned that the content was entirely controlled by the moderators of the debate and not the candidates.<br />
<br />
This is effectively victim blaming. Slut shaming. Fox News asked them questions on particular topics, and it's somehow the candidates fault for encouraging Megyn Kelly and Bret Baier and Chris Wallace and Random People On Facebook Who Sent In Questions. Democrats are implying that Republicans should have known better than to let the reporters control their own debate, and instead should have spent the whole time pontificating on social justice.<br />
<br />
It's not clear how we can blame candidates for the content. Candidates can't just say no to questions. If they don't answer, it makes them look worse. Unless it's <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzU-bDf5_14">Newt Gingrich being asked about his personal life</a>. The only way they could possibly be responsible is if they picked the questions themselves. That would defeat the purpose of the debate.<br />
<br />
Not every news outlet will cover every topic. Each outlet has their own preferences, their own audience, their own biases. Go on Fox and get asked about God and guns. Go on MSNBC and get asked about the merits of wealth redistribution (as long as the wealth being redistributed comes businessmen and not from actors or musicians or athletes) and "white supremacy". Go on MTV and get asked about boxers or briefs.<br />
<br />
So it's a mystery why anyone would complain when the Republican candidates have not been discussing what the Democrats want them to. If your preferred topic wasn't discussed, it just means you're watching the wrong news channel. It's not the candidate's fault for answering what's asked. It's your fault for being too lazy to use the remote.<br />
<br />
I suppose any Republicans who are annoyed by this could take comfort in the fact that the tables will be turned after the Democrat debate. If the Democrats fail to address Republican concerns, I fully expect the press and politicians and activists to let them have it. Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and the others must be heavily criticized for these things they have no control over. After all, that's what happens with Republicans. Failure to do so would mean the media does not care about real justice.JustAnotherInternetGuyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06366125906633398760noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595388636959836189.post-3483299121372282562015-08-14T13:27:00.000-04:002015-08-14T13:27:15.667-04:00Castro Owes Cubans MillionsIn the Cuban <strike>newspaper</strike> propaganda rag, <i>Granma</i>, Cuban dictator Fidel Castro <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/fidel-castro-us-owe-us-millions-133858731.html">hilariously insisted that the U.S. owes Cuba<i> </i>money</a>. This, because of a years long trade embargo from when Castro decided to join the ranks of communist aggressors back in the Cold War. It's not the first time Castro and his pals have blamed the embargo for struggles in Cuba. But they always neglect to mention that Cuba is perfectly capable of trading with everyone else. The United States is about 20% of the global economy. That means Cuba still had access to the other 80%.<br />
<br />
Cubans still drive cars from the fifties. Nobody stopped them from importing cars. Americans do that all the time. Restrictions on real estate sales (You need a license to live in Havana) restrict the mobility of the population. A mobile labor force is critical to a modern economy, and restricting where people can live reduces their mobility and hurts an economy. They've also had to deal with food rationing and lack of transportation, although this was alleviated with the addition of more <i>private </i>markets and <i>private </i>taxis. Thus, the only small successes they had came from capitalism. Castro Cuba's lack of freedom destroyed the economy, not inability to trade with America. <br />
<br />
The greatest evidence of this is the fantastic success of Cuban-Americans. Cuban-Americans started as refugees, but formed a thriving community in South Florida. Their descendants have found success that exceeds the average American. Cubans living in a free society perform brilliantly. Cubans living under the repressive Castro regime struggle. The conclusion is obvious; responsibility for Cuba's failure rests with Castro, not with America.<br />
<br />
It is typical of third world douchebag dictators to attempt to redirect blame to external actors. They run their economies into the ground and blame U/S "imperialism" to cover for their own ineptitude. For Americans, this is both amusing and infuriating. The amusing part is that the "wise grandfather" of Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales had a little temper tantrum and lashed out at us rather than admit his own mistakes. The infuriating part is that we know there are still left-wing ignoramuses who will believe him.<br />
<br />
The real reason Cubans have suffered is that they are reaping what Fidel Castro sowed. Although there were minor capitalist reforms, the system remains communist, which has always resulted in disaster. Cuba has suffered because of communism, not because of the embargo. The only reason Castro's policies didn't lead to ruin sooner was "sugar daddy" nations like the U.S.S.R. and Venezuela who kept him afloat. But these nations suffered because of their leftist policies, and now those wells have dried up. Cuba is in desperate straits because Fidel ran it into the ground. If anyone owes the Cubans, it's him. Perhaps he should turn over all of his accumulated wealth, which is <a href="http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/2006-05-04-castro_x.htm">almost a billion dollars</a>. <br />
<br />
I don't really expect Castro to turn over his money. I don't expect him to change his mind and accept that capitalism was always the wave of the future, not communism as his pal Kruschev thought. Castro has entered his "crazy old man off his meds" phase. It's annoying to hear someone spewing old communist canards, even while enjoying a lavish lifestyle that communists are supposed to hate. But I take comfort in the fact that eventually he'll die of natural causes the same way his ideology did. JustAnotherInternetGuyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06366125906633398760noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595388636959836189.post-54660134908438954772015-08-13T14:16:00.000-04:002015-08-13T14:16:46.039-04:00Campaigns Based On Lies Never SucceedWe learned in 2012 that basing a slogan on a lie is a bad idea. When Barack Obama said "You didn't build that" he was referring to the fact that government builds roads and bridges and infrastructure, not businesses. He was explaining that government creates an environment of safety, stability, and predictability, all of which encourages entrepreneurship. Supporting infrastructure, defense, and law enforcement are just a few of the ways that government does this.<br />
<br />
So, when the Romney campaign seized on the "You didn't build that!" sound bite and adopted the "We Built It" slogan, I knew it was a mistake. Even though the campaign was pushing the idea that private business, not public policy, is the primary driver behind the economy (a true statement), the slogan was willfully ignoring the real meaning of the president's statement. Jon Stewart famously skewered Fox and Friends for it's <a href="http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/zvsr93/democalypse-2012---do-we-look-stupid--don-t-answer-that-edition---grammatical-gaffes">edited version of the speech</a>. The entire thing was based on a lie.<br />
<br />
Romney's campaign suffered for that, and deserved to suffer. By deciding that the president had committed a huge gaffe and shown himself to be a statist, planned economics, Marxist douche (which really isn't what happened), the campaign, the party, and the right wing seriously damaged their own credibility. It made them look unprincipled and partisan; willing to push any narrative that appeared to hurt their opposition, regardless of facts.<br />
<br />
In August of 2015, #BlackLivesMatter is making the exact same mistake. Just a couple of days ago. there was a parade in memory of Michael Brown. Activists are remembering Michael Brown as a "victim of police violence." He was actually a "robbery suspect who was shot while resisting arrest." Despite this, the "Hands Up, Don't Shoot" slogan (based on something that never happened), is still popular. All of this despite the fact that the Justice Department cleared Michael Brown's shooter, Darren Wilson. All of this despite the fact that the independent medical examination ordered by the Brown family lawyer does not support the narrative.<br />
<br />
This is not the only falsehood upheld by the movement. Activist Deray McKesson claimed that Vonderrit Myers, another black youth shot by police, did not fire at police. There is <a href="http://www.stltoday.com/vonderrit-myers-police-report/pdf_cc6d9792-bace-537a-ac09-19e24e1a9a8b.html">overwhelming evidence</a> showing that Vonderrit Myers did shoot at the officer who killed him. McKesson also bizarrely <a href="http://www.mediaite.com/online/deray-refuses-to-say-police-shootings-justified-when-suspect-shoots-first/">refused to say when lethal force was justified</a>. Other activists, including Mark Lamont Hill, have been pushing the "Every 28 Hours" narrative. Hill claimed that an unarmed black man was killed by cops every 28 hours. This was <a href="http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/aug/26/marc-lamont-hill/unarmed-black-person-shot-every-28-hours-says-ma/">thoroughly debunked by Politifact</a>.<br />
<br />
Now, there is a valid point to some of what is said by the #BlackLivesMatter movement, the same way that the "You Didn't Build That" people had a point. The former is a movement formed primarily because black people are more likely to encounter police, (frequently with negative results) and mechanisms that hold police accountable seem inadequate. The latter was a reminder to the more statist/collectivist amongst us that the best way humanity has found to produce opportunity for ordinary people is through free markets. But in both examples, activists willfully repeated false statements, robbing themselves of credibility and distracting from the true message they were trying to get across.<br />
<br />
If the #BlackLivesMatter movement wishes to gain broader acceptance, they must acknowledge where they've gone wrong. They must acknowledge, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2015/03/16/lesson-learned-from-the-shooting-of-michael-brown/">as Jonathan Capehart did</a>, that Darren Wilson was innocent. They must acknowledge that Michael Brown is not a hero or a victim, but a suspect shot during an arrest. They must acknowledge that some of these shootings of black men were justified and certain others (like Eric Garner) were tragic mistakes, and not acts of racist brutality. They should direct their focus on incidents <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKQqgVlk0NQ">that actually appear to be murder</a>. <br />
<br />
As the Romney campaign learned, failure to acknowledge facts and building a movement on lies ultimately fails. If #BlackLivesMatter activists want meaningful reform, they must stop pushing false narratives. They must not assume that every officer involved shooting is murder, but instead carefully review each case. If their grievances are not based on facts, they are not legitimate grievances, and there will be no reason to take the movement seriously.JustAnotherInternetGuyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06366125906633398760noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595388636959836189.post-24588586236550731722015-07-31T14:34:00.000-04:002015-07-31T14:34:00.661-04:00Because of Planned Parenthood, Liberals Obviously Like HalliburtonThe Center for Medical Progress has been <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSI8qkDPz1CZj1u9I8Wbcg">dropping videos right and left</a> showing some seriously disturbing statements by Planned Parenthood employees. So disturbing that <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/hillary-clinton-comes-out-in-defense-of-planned-parenthood-120554.html">left-wing politicians</a>, <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/30/scarlett-johansson-stands-with-planned-parenthood-amid-organ-harvest-backlash/">actors</a>, <a href="http://www.mediaite.com/online/sarah-silverman-would-be-insane-not-to-use-fetal-tissue-for-research/">comedians</a>, and <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/29/planned-parenthood-judge-blocks-pro-life-group-rel/">judges</a> are circling the wagons. <br />
<br />
Planned Parenthood's chief isn't bothering responding; she'd rather smear. First, she resorted to the old "highly edited video" dodge, implying that the fact that a producer might have removed extraneous material from a video (something all producers do) is evidence of wrongdoing. Of course, the complete videos were released, neatly defeating the claim that the intent was to deceive. Then she broadly attacked the Center for Medical Progress, who produced the video, claiming it has "no credibility". This was merely an assertion; she didn't provide anything substantive to support it. Refusing to respond to questions and accusations is typical for her; <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/372236/planned-parenthood-president-when-life-begins-not-really-relevant-abortion-debate">she's ducked key questions in the past</a>. <br />
<br />
The most common statement by others on the left is that they "support women's health blahblahblah." Apparently, Planned Parenthood is the sole provider of women's health. This seems odd to me, because claims by the president that Planned Parenthood provided mammograms to women were <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-tonight-show-remark-planned-parenthood-provides-mammograms/2012/10/26/c07f331e-1f16-11e2-9cd5-b55c38388962_blog.html">shown to be false</a>. But that many left wing politicians and actors and comedians couldn't <i>possibly </i>be wrong. Therefore, it makes perfect sense to conflate the existence of Planned Parenthood with availability of women's healthcare.<br />
<br />
This is why the left must obviously love Halliburton. Oftentimes, Halliburton received government contracts because it was believed that the service being purchased was <i>only</i> available from Halliburton. Kind of like the belief that women's health is <i>only</i> available from Planned Parenthood. So, when many of Halliburton's practices were questioned, the left was obviously okay with this. Halliburton was supporting the troops in Iraq and various other things, therefore being against Halliburton clearly is the same as being against the troops. The same way being against Planned Parenthood must obviously be the same as being against women's health. Right?<br />
<br />
If only there were a few places that offered the services Planned Parenthood actually does offer. Things like STD screenings, cancer screenings, and pregnancy tests. Places like, every doctor's office. Or, for some of those things, a CVS or a Walgreen's. Then we wouldn't be stuck with Planned Parenthood if we found out they were breaking the law. In this scenario, we could defund Planned Parenthood if we caught them breaking the law and give those funds to other women's health providers.<br />
<br />
Sadly, Planned Parenthood is <i>clearly</i> the only women's health option available. It must be. Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren are insisting that attacks on Planned Parenthood are attacks on women's health, so they <i>absolutely have </i>to be the only provider. The only plausible explanation for the left's defense of Planned Parenthood is a lack of options. They must believe that even if Planned Parenthood is breaking a million laws, shutting off government funds would kill women's health. Not a single investigation can be tolerated, unless it's <a href="http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article28666714.html">investigating the Center for Medical Progress</a>.<br />
<br />
Ten years or so ago there were claims that Halliburton was a unique provider. Ending the contract would have hurt the troops, and <i>apparently</i> there was no alternative. Because to not do so would have hurt the troops. Giving the contract to someone else wasn't an option. Investigations into law breaking would just be hurtful. At least, that's what we were told. Therefore, I predict Hillary Clinton will come out in support of future Halliburton contracts. For the same reason she supports funding Planned Parenthood. Because to do otherwise would be hypocritical.JustAnotherInternetGuyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06366125906633398760noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595388636959836189.post-48414568778305463842015-07-31T11:01:00.001-04:002015-07-31T11:01:38.643-04:00Know The Code: "Cowardly" Does Not Mean What You Think It MeansThe Twitterverse is all atwitter (too easy, I know) about the death of Cecil the Lion. Some-Dentist-From-Some-Place is being <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/30/us/cecil-the-lion-walter-palmer.html?_r=0">accused of murder</a>, is being <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/29/mia-farrow-tweets-address-of-walter-palmer-dentist/">doxxed by celebrities</a>, and <a href="http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/594647/Cecil-the-lion-death-threats-American-dentist">threatened with death</a>. And it seems like he's being called a "coward" by both <a href="http://www.mediaite.com/online/glenn-beck-so-very-wrong-for-attacking-kimmel-on-cecil-killing-heres-why/">right-wing guys</a>, <a href="http://www.peta.org/blog/cecils-death-prompts-call-to-ban-trophy-hunt-imports-to-u-s/">left-wing guys</a>, and <a href="http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/dont-forget-that-killing-a-lion-is-the-most-cowardly-thing-y#.dfrmK8VzJ">internet dweebs</a>. Which is yet another abuse of the word "coward."<br />
<br />
Here's what coward means, courtesy of <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/">these guys</a>:<br />
<br />
<h1 style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: none; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: #223645; display: inline; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 34px; font-weight: normal; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 7px 0px 0px;">
coward</h1>
<div class="hw-attribute-container" id="hw-attribute-0" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; margin: 10px 0px 5px; padding: 0px;">
<div class="social_media_container" style="clear: both; float: right; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div class="tw-share-button" style="display: inline-block; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: top;">
<iframe allowtransparency="true" class="twitter-share-button twitter-tweet-button twitter-share-button twitter-count-none" data-twttr-rendered="true" frameborder="0" id="twitter-widget-0" scrolling="no" src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets/tweet_button.bd0320cab493e168513c7173184c1d5c.en.html#_=1438349247424&count=none&dnt=false&id=twitter-widget-0&lang=en&original_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.merriam-webster.com%2Fdictionary%2Fcoward&size=m&text=This%20is%20the%20definition%20of%20coward&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.merriam-webster.com%2Fdictionary%2Fcoward&via=MerriamWebster" style="height: 20px; position: static; visibility: visible; width: 56px;" title="Twitter Tweet Button"></iframe></div>
</div>
<span class="main-fl" style="color: #757575; display: inline-block; font-size: 14px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><em>noun</em></span> <span class="hw-syllables" style="border-left-color: rgb(218, 218, 218); border-left-style: solid; border-left-width: 1px; color: #757575; display: inline-block; font-size: 14px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 5px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 10px;">cow<span class="middot">·</span>ard</span> <span class="pr" style="border-left-color: rgb(218, 218, 218); border-left-style: solid; border-left-width: 1px; color: #757575; display: inline-block; font-size: 14px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 5px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 10px;">\<span class="unicode" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: none; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; font-family: 'lucida sans unicode'; font-size: 0.9em; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">ˈ</span>ka<span class="unicode" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: none; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; font-family: 'lucida sans unicode'; font-size: 0.9em; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">u̇</span>(-ə)rd\</span></div>
<div class="ld_on_collegiate" style="background-color: #f1f1f1; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; margin: 20px 0px 0px; padding: 20px;">
<div class="bottom_entry" style="font-size: 0.875em; line-height: 1.375em; padding: 0px;">
: someone who is too afraid to do what is right or expected : someone who is not at all brave or courageous</div>
</div>
<br />
The use of "cowardly" is fairly common in the media. The first time I heard it used in my life, it was used to describe terror attacks. And those typically are cowardly. Attacking unarmed, innocent people doesn't take courage. Attacking armed and dangerous people does. Even attacking soldiers can be cowardly under the right circumstances. When Nidal Hassan went on a shooting spree at Fort Hood, he was attacking unarmed people, not soldiers who were armed and ready. Therefore, it was cowardly<br />
<br />
Mass shooters are cowardly too. Whether it's a movie theater, a college, or an elementary school, someone who feels the urge to blaze away at unarmed people is a giant wuss. This is probably why these chumps usually off themselves; they're too afraid to face justice after murdering dozens of people.<br />
<br />
But occasionally, "cowardly" is used to describe people who aren't cowardly. This is frequently used to describe ISIS and the Taliban, even when it's not appropriate. When ISIS attacks the Syrian military or the Taliban attack the Pakistani army, they <i>aren't </i>being cowardly. When they <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/03/isis-burns-jordanian-pilot-alive.html">light helpless prisoners on fire</a> or <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/10/world/asia/teen-school-activist-malala-yousafzai-survives-hit-by-pakistani-taliban.html">shoot little girls in the face</a>, <i>that's </i>cowardly. Also, Chris Kyle may have been a sniper, but he was still in a combat zone and constantly under fire. So he and other snipers are <i>not</i> cowardly, no matter what <a href="https://www.facebook.com/mmflint/posts/10152557712861857">Michael Moore</a> thinks. Unless the sniper is attacking an unarmed person, like the DC sniper or James Earl Ray.<br />
<br />
Stalking a wild animal doesn't count as cowardly. Sure, you're sneaking around, but that's because if the animal is alerted to you it may turn on you. Just like a sniper in a combat zone, sneaking is necessary to stay alive. By the way, this is how big cats hunt too; using stealth. And despite what some say, lions are more than happy to come after you. I've seen it first hand.<br />
<br />
On my last trip to Africa, I went on a short safari. The preserve, like most zoos, had to keep the lions separate from the other animals to prevent them from eating the other animals. The fenced in lion area was a square mile or so in size. As we walked up to the fence around the lion area, one of the teenage girls in our group stuck her fingers through the fence and began teasing a bored looking lion. The lion very quickly reacted and leapt at the fence. She very nearly lost fingers. Another touristy type person wanted to take a picture with a lion behind him. The second he turned his back, the lion charged the fence. The fence held, but we learned not to turn our backs on them.<br />
<br />
So, if there's no fence and a lion gets pissed off, he will waste your sorry ass and eat you. Sometimes he'll kill you for no reason at all, like what happened to <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/01/africa/south-africa-lion-attack/">this poor girl</a>. This is why stalking a lion is not at all cowardly. Hunting is not cowardly, unless you plan to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey_shoot">shoot animals when they're helpless</a>. What the dentist did was bad, but not cowardly. <br />
<br />
So it's time to stop abusing the word cowardly. Cowardly means what Webster's says it means. We shouldn't let it become code for "stuff that I don't like." PETA provides a perfect example of how not to use the word by describing all hunting as cowardly. That's crap. Hunting isn't necessarily courageous, but it's not cowardly. Terrorism is cowardly. Killing innocents is cowardly. Running away from a fight is cowardly. Abandoning your family is cowardly. Lots of things are cowardly. Some putz shooting an endangered animal is <i>not </i>cowardly. The fact that we don't like it is no excuse for sloppiness and intellectual laziness. <br />
<br />
Let's save the "coward" designation for those who deserve it. Like Zimbabwe's cowardly dictator who sends goon squads to intimidate opponents and voters, and ordered at least one <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/19/mugabe-zimbabwe-gukurahundi-massacre-matabeleland">cowardly slaughter.</a> He's too chickenshit to compete in a real election and sends soldiers to attack civilians. Which is why we <i>don't</i> extradite the dentist. We should shun Robert Mugabe's true cowardice. We should not send one of our citizens, no matter what he's done, to face the twisted justice of an actual coward.JustAnotherInternetGuyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06366125906633398760noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595388636959836189.post-75345345694450508992015-07-09T12:47:00.001-04:002015-07-09T12:47:56.769-04:00If You're a Conservative, the Left Will Knock the Black Off YouNormally, I'm a little leery any time somebody tells me about "white privilege". Many of the benefits associated with white privilege are benefits that any rich person has, regardless of race. But I can confirm one form of white privilege that exists. I can remain white no matter what my political opinions are.<br />
<br />
Non-white people can lose their race by not marching in lock step with the "progressive" left. Recently, Bobby Jindal was slammed for <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/from-piyush-to-bobby-how-does-jindal-feel-about-his-familys-past/2015/06/22/7d45a3da-18ec-11e5-ab92-c75ae6ab94b5_story.html?tid=sm_tw">not being a real Indian anymore</a>. Apparently, he doesn't immerse himself in Indian culture the way he should and he became a (gasp) Christian. A non-white person who exercises freedom of choice and religion is transformed into a white person.<br />
<br />
But I've also shaken off most of my ancestors' practices. Unlike my ancestors, I do not eat <a href="http://www.britannica.com/topic/haggis">haggis</a> or regularly attend a Presbyterian church or cleave people's heads off with giant swords. Nor do I (or will I) EVER play the bagpipes. And yet I'm still so white that I turn red after standing in the Florida sun for more than 0.62 microseconds. My exercise of my inalienable rights has not compromised my ethnicity or race in any way.<br />
<br />
Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio both get the business about not being real Hispanics. At least one reporter was so convinced that Ted Cruz had been de-Hispanicked (for lack of a better word), that he felt the urge to ask a barrage of questions designed to <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/mark-halperin-blasted-for-ted-cruz-interview-2015-5">verify his Cuban-cred</a>. Rubio gets similar jazz, but less, because most of his critics still can't get over the fact that he <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BP1z0MiAvx0">occasionally gets thirsty</a>.<br />
<br />
But fewer people get hammered harder than black conservatives. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/19/opinion/the-puzzle-of-black-republicans.html?_r=0">Tim Scott</a>, <a href="http://www.westernjournalism.com/mia-love-faces-criticism-liberals-call-traitor-race/">Mia Love</a>, <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/03/09/rutgers-rage-against-rice-why-do-liberals-have-so-much-hate-for-black.html">Condeleeza Rice</a>, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/04/30/black-congressman-stands-by-comment-that-clarence-thomas-is-an-uncle-tom/">Clarence Thomas</a>, and <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/10/15/belafonte.powell/">Colin Powell</a> have been tokenized, Uncle-Tommed or unblackened or otherwise maligned. Except Colin Powell was <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/29/colin-powell-can-support-obama-because-he-s-black.html">reblackened</a> once he said supportive things of Barack Obama. Which proves my point. Toeing the progressive line is the only way to hold on to a racial identity.<br />
<br />
I can do whatever I want and my race doesn't change. But an Asian or Hispanic person who doesn't go along with the majority of other Asians or Hispanics is suddenly no longer Asian or Hispanic. And if a black person dares to adopt conservative values, the left will knock the black off of them.JustAnotherInternetGuyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06366125906633398760noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595388636959836189.post-8104323127546791462015-07-08T12:25:00.000-04:002015-07-08T12:27:14.178-04:00The Presidential Campaign Is Just a Game of F*ck, Marry, KillAny fellow slacker who visits <a href="http://www.buzzfeed.com/">Buzzfeed</a> and other cyberloafing websites (usually when we should be working) knows the game of F*ck (Yeah, I'm G-rated), Marry, Kill. Given a list of three people (men or women, whatever your preference), you decide who would you f*ck, who would you marry, and who would you kill. With "Kill" being loosely defined as "Person You Are Least Likely to Marry or F*ck". This is <i>exactly</i> what the 2016 presidential campaign is like in these early stages.<br />
<br />
Since Donald Trump, who is seriously loony, entered the race, he's become the second most popular candidate. Bernie Sanders, who should be the fringiest of fringe candidates, has double digit numbers. How is it that these political whack-jobs could be polling so well? The answer is that Republicans and Democrats want to have crazy animal sex with them.<br />
<br />
The Donald is pounding the drums on illegal immigration and better border security, and Bernie is spewing the "social justice" (read: class warfare) talking points. Both are easy applause lines for their respective bases. Eventually, we'll realize that immigration is a bit too complicated and nuanced for someone like the Donald and we'll remember that policies like Bernie's have led places like Venezuela, Greece, and the USSR to economic ruin. But for now, the emotional response that fiery rhetoric on immigration and class warfare produces in the party bases is going to make us all horny as hell.<br />
<br />
Granted, it seems strange to say that someone wants to f*ck the Donald. Normal people, like his ex-wives, just want to f*ck his money. And the thought of banging Bernie Sanders is a little creepy after reading his <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/06/01/so-you-might-not-want-to-read-bernie-sanderss-43-year-old-sex-column/">bizarro sex column</a> from the seventies. But the more sensible candidates just aren't as exciting. <br />
<br />
This won't last, though. In 2012, almost every Republican candidate briefly jumped into the top tier. But this meant the candidate was in "F*ck" status, not "Marry" status. Republicans had a one night stand with Ron Paul and felt so guilty the morning after they <a href="http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/12645-rnc-disenfranchises-delegates-rigs-rules-to-nominate-romney">wouldn't let him into the convention</a>. They screwed Rick Perry so hard he had <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uvmKnFY4uk">memory lapses</a>. Things got so nasty with Rick Santorum that "Santorum" is <a href="http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=santorum&defid=942955">now a sex term</a>.<br />
<br />
Republicans wanted to f*ck all of them at one point or another. Except I think they killed Jon Huntsman. I haven't heard from him in ages. Maybe he was executed for that <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQjoA9S7h4Q">horrible, painful to watch Nirvana joke</a> during the debates. But once they were done sleeping around, Republicans settled on Mitt Romney, because he was easily the most marriageable of the candidates. <br />
<br />
I expect a similar whirlwind romance with the candidates this time around, starting with Bernie and the Donald. But like your typical fling, it won't last. For a few weeks, months, or maybe even a year or so, we'll be tagging Bernie and the Donald until our legs don't work. But the Democrats will marry Hillary and Republicans will marry one of the more sensible Republican candidates. <br />
<br />
I expect Bernie and the Donald will both eventually go from "F*ck" status to "Kill" status. Maybe not <i>literally</i> kill, but once they're out of our system, we'll wish they were dead. Once their time is over, Bernie and the Donald will be the sex partners we regret and wish never happened. We'll settle for someone more sensible and try not to feel too guilty for straying with some wild and crazy person who blew through town one weekend.JustAnotherInternetGuyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06366125906633398760noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595388636959836189.post-10423270529747747932013-08-26T22:37:00.000-04:002013-08-26T22:37:03.402-04:00"Just In Case" HealthcareAbout three weeks ago, I was on my way home from a lengthy bike ride. Prior to that day, my beat up old bike had been out of action. A piece had fallen off on a previous bike ride two years ago, and I've had so many other priorities (Read: was procrastinating like a crazy person) that I'd only just fixed it the day before this ride. A friend of mine asked me to go for a "quick ride", which apparently was her way of saying "a twenty mile endurance test, dodging traffic and weaving in and out of tourists.".<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Anyway, as I neared my house, I made a slow left turn onto a side street. I heard a little "clang" (Or was it a "ping"? Could have been a "clunk". Whatever), and suddenly the front wheel locked up. I discovered later that the bike lock popped loose and got jammed in the spokes. At the time, I really didn't care because I was far too busy flying over the handle bars. I managed to get my right foot down, but I couldn't keep my balance. My knee came down hard, but I still kept going. I tried to break my fall with a roll and came down on my right shoulder. There was a sickening little "pop" sound.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
My friend was naturally a tad concerned. She said "Are you all right?" I said, "Yeah, I'm fine, just give me a second.". At least, that's what I tried to say. It probably came out like "NnnAarghMmm!" or words to that effect. She came over with a look of horror on her face, because my arm was hanging at an odd angle. I couldn't lift it. She tentatively tried to touch it. I could see her turning green. Then she burst out laughing. "I can't believe you wiped out!". I have strange friends.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
We eventually called another friend to help us with the bikes and give me a ride to the hospital. My arm was in pain, but I have to admit that wasn't what was on my mind. I knew that my emergency room copay was $300. I could handle that, but it was still a decent chunk of change. I don't like spending money that I don't have to. Unless I'm spending it on frivolous things.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I walked into the emergency room hunched over to the right. This was the only way I could stand without pain shooting up my arm. This earned me a few odd looks, since the way I was walking resembled Igor, Dr. Frankenstein's assistant. Still, I was a little confused by the looks. This was an emergency room. Shouldn't they be used to people coming in a little banged up?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I was ushered into a room and instructed to lie down on a gurney. While I waited, the nurse took the normal vitals. Then she asked me if I wanted to watch TV, and pulled down a TV attached to an arm next to the gurney. It had all the cable channels, or so she told me. I couldn't reach the channel changer, because my right arm was dislocated. The nurse had already vanished by this point. So I had to watch the channel it was on, which (of course) was one of those asinine shopping channels.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
After about twenty minutes of watching second string actors try to sell me useless crap, the nurse came back and dragged me to the radiology department. After hobbling there, standing up straight for ten minutes (which is surprisingly painful with a dislocated shoulder), then hobbling back, I collapsed back into the gurney.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The nurse promptly hooked me up to a monitor. Because there's always a risk of heart attack when your arm is out of it's socket, apparently. She put an IV in me, then took some blood. "We probably won't need this, but's it's good to take some, just in case, " she assured me. Then she brought over an oxygen tank and put that little nose tubey thingy in my nose. Normally, this is the type of thing 90 year-olds with emphysema have. I asked why this was necessary. "Just a precaution," was the answer.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Finally, the doctor came in with a physician's assistant who was there to make there were no complications from the anesthesia. First, they gave me some painkiller (which was <i>nice</i>), then a bit later some anesthesia. It wasn't the kind that makes you unconscious, just the kind that makes you woozy and causes short term memory loss. The next thing I remember, my arm was back in, and the doctor was trying to sell me drugs. He suggested some double strength ibuprofen and another, stronger drug if the pain got bad. I told him to save the strong stuff. I didn't need to get hooked on Oxycodone because of a bike accident.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The doctor told me to check in with my regular doctor and an orthopedic surgeon. I saw my regular doctor three days later. He said to keep my arm in a sling for five weeks and charged me thirty bucks for an office visit. I saw the surgeon three days after that. He said to keep my arm in a sling for five weeks and charged me thirty bucks for an office visit.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
A few days ago, I finally got the hospital bill. My $300 co-pay was charged to my credit card. But the total cost was not quite $3,000. And that's the moral of this ignoble and slightly goofy chapter of my life. I think I've figured out why healthcare is so damned expensive. About...well...an undisclosed number of years ago, I broke my other arm. It was in a splint overnight, then the next morning I was put under while the doctors set it. They took no blood. Apart from the time in the operating room, there was no heart monitor or oxygen tank. They only did what was necessary.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The reason my bill is so outrageous is this "just in case" healthcare. Whenever I hear a doctor or nurse say "just in case" or "just a precaution" I hear "so I don't get sued by some two-bit shyster". The oxygen, the monitors, the blood work, the extra physician's assistant, the extra painkiller, the two post-op visits, these all appear to be medical butt-covering. Some people say healthcare is expensive because of overpaid doctors, but this looked like the expenses were incurred to prevent overpaid personal injury lawyers from preying on the overpaid doctors.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
All I needed was an x-ray, a sedative, and someone to jam my arm back into place. All this other crap is excessive. Even the TV. That's nice, but I don't want to pay for it. Especially if I'm stuck watching HSN. So let's stop having every procedure and test known to man. The chances of me croaking due to lack of oxygen when I have a dislocated shoulder are probably less than my chances of winning the lottery. I'll risk it. I'll even sign a consent to keep the lawyers away. $3,000 is ridiculous. I normally don't spend that much money on anything that doesn't come with air conditioning. And I know I don't need to spend that much to have some doc slap my shoulder back into place. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Naturally, I don't pay all of that, but now I know why the health insurance that employer's provide costs so much. I think doctor's are smart enough to know which complications are likely and unlikely. They can discuss this with patients, weigh the risks, and come to a decision. Instead, they're doing anything and everything to prevent even highly unlikely scenarios. I think if the lawyers backed off and let the doctors and patients use their judgment, healthcare costs wouldn't be so ridiculous. <br />
<br />
The sling came off today, and now I can look forward to several weeks of physical therapy. Naturally, each visit will set me back a little bit. My arm feels fine. I probably don't need it, said the doc, but I should do it "just in case". Hopefully, the PT place will be staffed by young, single women. That might make it worth the extra expense.</div>
JustAnotherInternetGuyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06366125906633398760noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595388636959836189.post-55369467615570851962013-08-22T22:26:00.001-04:002013-08-22T22:26:17.725-04:00Bradley is Chelsea, Upon Pain of DeathThe Bradley Manning case just got weirder today. Because apparently he (she?) is now Chelsea Manning. He had been diagnosed with gender identity disorder back in Some Year I Don't Care To Spend Time Looking Up and admitted to a counselor that he wanted to be a woman in 2009, well before he started dumping classified documents. Suddenly, old and new media blew up with stories about Bradley. Or Chelsea. Or whatever.<br />
<br />
There was much speculation and debate. Why did he wait until just now, if he thought about becoming a woman four years ago? Is it because women don't serve in Leavenworth, only men? Do taxpayers have to pay for his hormone treatment, (If his lawyer gets his way, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/08/22/manning-wants-hormone-therapy-in-prison-will-it-happen/">we will</a>) and should we have to? In response to these questions, the PC Gestapo launched into action. Merely asking these questions was bigotry. Also, anyone failing to refer to "her" as "she" was immediately dubbed Hatey McRacist. Members of the press who failed to comply were decried by <a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/08/22/media_willfully_misgender_chelsea_manning/">lib/progs</a>.<br />
<br />
I, like many people, don't care what he does with his junk. I don't care to know anything about his various personal habits. He can take all of the hormones he wants, but we shouldn't have to pay for it. Nor should he be able to use this to dodge Fort Leavenworth. What I'm amazed by is just how upset the lib/progs of the world are that we haven't all decided to say "she" or "her".<br />
<br />
Failing to adhere to the canons of sensitivity is apparently a crime against humanity. Lib/progs finger wag and lecture about transgender rights and say that Manning claims to be a she, therefore she is. This sounds surprisingly similar to someone screaming that "the science is settled!" The science isn't settled. Psychology is still more art than science, meaning there is a lot of judgment involved. Issues such as transgender are not based solely on empirical evidence, but also on the opinions of various psychologists.<br />
<br />
There is even such a thing as "transgender regret." This is where someone undergoes sex change therapy, and then has second thoughts. Don Ennis, a producer at ABC, is a recent example. He went through the therapy, and changed his name to "Dawn". Recently, he told the world he wants to be Don again. Apparently, to mention that there might be this sort of regret is hateful to Manning supporters. I think some dude regretting this seems like an entirely plausible reaction. Especially if he went the whole way (Ennis didn't, apparently) and lopped off his unit.<br />
<br />
No one I've spoken to (Read: gotten into a shouting match/twitter war) with on the left cares that don't care what Manning does to himself. Failing to accept everything and use the right pronouns makes me automatically hateful and homophobic and blah blah blah. Not that I'm bothered by this. Recent experience with the extreme left suggests that when one calls me a bigot, it doesn't mean I am a bigot. It just means they've run out of intelligent things to say. But what does annoy me slightly is that it's fairly clear that lib/progs assume that their way is the only way, despite the fact that there's still plenty of unsettled science. We must call Manning "her" or "she". Bradley is now Chelsea. Any who fail to accede to the wishes of the lib/progs does so on pain of death.JustAnotherInternetGuyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06366125906633398760noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595388636959836189.post-17858907082223662792013-08-21T23:32:00.000-04:002013-08-21T23:32:06.039-04:00Tale of Three LeakersBradley Manning was sentenced to 35 years today. Supporters think he's a principled whistleblower being oppressed. Detractors say he's a miserable traitor and think he got off light. Based on the convictions, he's not technically a traitor, but he's certainly not principled either. This verdict actually makes sense, because Manning went too far. He deserves the time he'll get, as will Edward Snowden, the NSA leaker, if we ever get our hands on him. There's a way to leak in a principled and responsible way. It's happened before.<br />
<br />
Manning's supporters frequently liken him to Daniel Ellsberg, the leaker of the Pentagon Papers. Ellsberg has been public in his support for Manning. But Ellsberg's story differs from Manning's in a few key aspects. The short version of the Daniel Ellsberg story is that he found top secret documents that appeared to show that the Vietnam War was started under false pretenses and that the military no longer believed the war winnable. Unable to accomplish anything through channels, he attempted to leak it to several senators, and ultimately leaked it to the New York Times. He was tried for espionage, but cleared.<br />
<br />
Ellsberg is generally remembered as a heroic figure. He took a stand against a war he was convinced was wrong, and did not like the fact that we were still prosecuting the war after we thought it unwinnable. His goal throughout the process was to stop the war. Regardless if someone agrees or disagrees, he remained focused on this objective and everything he did was to bring it about. So at the very least this shows it was a principled fight for him. He didn't veer off course.<br />
<br />
Bradley Manning was also on trial because he leaked documents. Documents that were merely secret, not top secret like the Pentagon Papers. He was also disillusioned with lengthy wars we had become involved in. <span style="-webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875);"> </span>Initially, he only leaked video that showed American airstrikes that appeared to be at the very least careless, and possibly criminal. The video shows an American gunship firing on a group of men in a war zone. The men are not running or doing anything overtly aggressive, but this is not necessarily relevant in a war. In a war zone, a soldier does not have to wait for an identified enemy to be an immediate threat to open fire. The only problem is, at least some of the men weren't enemies.<br />
<br />
Two of the men were reporters of Al Jazheera. They were carrying cameras that the pilots mistakenly identified as rocket launchers. The gunship firing on the men was a mistake. This is a tragedy, but also the sort of mistake that happens in the fog of war. However, the gunship also fired on a minivan that came up to assist the wounded. There was no clear evidence that the occupants were enemies. Later, the gunship fires on a building because the pilots claimed they saw enemies enter. This was a civilian building, and God only knows who else was in there. This video alone was a worthwhile leak. If Manning had stopped there, he'd probably be okay.<br />
<br />
But he didn't. He later released a critical installation list, some information involving a flap in Iceland, and tons of diplomatic cables. Most of this information had nothing to do with Iraq or Afghanistan. The release of these documents could not be expected to affect these wars. Unlike Ellsberg, who released documents with the sole intent of ending a war, Manning just dumped everything he had to Wikileaks. This suggests that his intent was not really to end the wars (because these documents were unrelated), but merely to harm and embarrass the United States. That's why he's been sentenced to 35 years.<br />
<br />
This explains why NSA leaker Edward Snowden went from Superhero Leaker to International Man of Douchebaggery within a fairly short span of time. He also is no Daniel Ellsberg. When he first leaked, plenty of conservatives, liberals, and libertarians hailed him as a hero. Now, they sort of...don't.<br />
<br />
The information he initially leaked seemed to be something that showed the government clearly violating the fourth amendment. I can think of few more principled stands than standing up for the Constitution. That's how people from all over the political spectrum were able to support him. He could have been the next Daniel Ellsberg. But instead, he'll just be the next Bradley Manning.<br />
<br />
Not long after his initial leak, he decided to leak the fact that the US and UK spied on a G20 (or G8 or G-whatever) meeting. Then he decided to leak that we were hacking the Chinese. The fact that we spy on other countries is <i>not</i> a revelation. They do it to us too. Spying may be an inherently shady business, but in a world with dangerous and unpredictable countries and shifting loyalties, it's necessary for our survival. Revealing specifics of our spying damages our ability to do so. This is what moved Snowden into Manning territory. None of this is related to the initial fourth amendment concerns. This can only hurt the United States. He either intended this or didn't care, both of which are enough to convict someone in a court of law.<br />
<div>
<br />
Both Manning and Snowden seem to think that revealing everything makes the world a better place. This mindset is common amongst many young activists, particularly the Anonymous/Occupy types. They seem to believe that if everyone knows everything, the world will be a better place. This is naive utopianism. These absurdist and foolhardy ideas demonstrate a severe lack of understanding about how the world works; a lack of understanding that is common in these circles. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
For example, King of Leaky Net Nerds, Darling of Nutball Radicals, and Wikileaks founder Julian Assange actually claimed he saw no irony that Snowden was hob-nobbing with China and Russia. Two countries who are not known for their respect of personal privacy, free speech, and so forth. This sort of willful ignorance is common among those who occupy the hackivist bubble.<br />
<br />
Maybe this only happened because Manning and Snowden are young and foolish. Maybe they got bamboozled by members of the press who wanted a scoop. An older person might be sophisticated enough to know that intelligence gathering and operating in secret are frequently necessary, because many world governments do not lead free countries and are <i>not</i> trustworthy. But being a naive kid doesn't grant absolution. Stupidity is not an excuse.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Daniel Ellsberg walks free. Manning will go to jail. And Snowden will too, if we ever catch him. A real leaker stays focused on principle. Manning and Snowden revealed everything they knew, even things that were unrelated to their supposed goals of ending war or protecting the constitution. Had they stopped with their initial leaks, they'd probably go free, and maybe be remembered as heroes. Now they'll just be remembered as small, ignoble men who could have acted on principle, but just acted to hurt the country they swore to protect.</div>
</div>
JustAnotherInternetGuyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06366125906633398760noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595388636959836189.post-22049687503077126632013-08-20T00:00:00.000-04:002013-08-20T00:00:26.422-04:00Why AMPAC'S Million Muslim March is Actually a Great IdeaLots of really loud yelling broke out on various cable news shows last week. Not that that's unusual, but last week's subject of controversy was the Million Muslim March organized by AMPAC (American Muslim Political Action Committee) and planned for the twelfth anniversary of the September 11 attacks. AMPAC is apparently chock full of Truthers and Anti-Semites. A fringe, nut group. In other words, they're like the Muslim equivalent of Occupy or Anonymous.<br />
<br />
Conservatives are outraged. I'm sure plenty of others are outraged too, but conservatives are less restrained by the shackles of political correctness, so they can be louder and get away with it. And I understand the outrage. But if AMPAC actually pulled this off, it would truly be fantastic. No, really. I realize this seems like madness (and most of the things I post on my blog are), but what I'm referring to is one of the silver linings of hate speech.<br />
<br />
One adage that is often repeated in free speech arguments is that the first amendment doesn't protect speech we like, it protects speech we don't like. I don't know who said that. I also don't care, and don't feel like looking up. But this is why even hateful ideas like the ones spewed forth by AMPAC nuts are protected. And as infuriating as that can be, it is also comforting. Because the advantage of letting extremists spew nonsense is that they marginalize themselves. Silencing or censoring a nut can actually give him credibility, as he can claim he's being oppressed. But if a nut is allowed to shout his wacky theories, people start seeing him for the loon that he is. Nutty people ultimately will self destruct (See: Alex Jones), as long as we just let them.<br />
<br />
It's important to keep in mind that the rest of us need to help nuts marginalize themselves. The onus is on the sane among us to identify them, call them out when spout their lunacy, and expose their nuttiness to the world. Since the number of people voicing opinions is ever increasing, we need convenient ways to identify the stupid and the screwy. This way we can summarily ignore them. <br />
<br />
There are several ways to identify nut groups already. For example, any protester in America who burns the American flag can be dismissed as irrelevant. Flag burners exercise their right to free speech by burning the symbol of their free speech. This is probably not someone inclined to think things through rationally. Also, anyone wearing a Guy Fawkes mask can be discounted. Unless they were in "<i>V for Vendetta</i>." Those people were just doing a job. Guy Fawkes mask aficionados are frequently Occupiers and Anonymous members, two groups with more than their fair share of Truthers, False Flaggers, Anarchists, and Neo-Marxists. None of these ideas is worth the time it takes to write this paragraph.<br />
<br />
Like these two examples, the AMPAC march is a convenient mechanism for crazy identification. Anyone who shows up will be someone we can assume isn't worth including in a rational debate. An attendee will not be the type of Muslim we should take seriously or expect any reasoned debate from. Once we've identified them, we can disregard them and spend our time talking to those Muslims that aren't crazy. And despite what some anti-Muslim extremists say, non-crazy Muslims do exist. All someone needs to do is go have a beer in Turkey to see what I'm talking about.<br />
<br />
A loon who spews hateful nonsense is offensive, but is also a labor saving device. My making themselves readily identifiable, crazy people help the rest of us. Those of us with brains and sanity can figure out who's not worth talking to. Separating non-crazy Muslims from the crazy is worthwhile. Non-Crazy Muslims want these nuts marginalized, because extremists make other Muslims look bad.<br />
<br />
Sadly, though, the latest reports suggest that the turnout might be slightly less than a million (more like several dozen). All of the outrage may have put a damper on the entire affair. This isn't a good thing, I think. I'd rather have all of the nutjobs out in the open. Once I know who they are, I can make sure I don't waste my time on them.JustAnotherInternetGuyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06366125906633398760noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595388636959836189.post-33871653047539551422013-06-26T22:54:00.000-04:002013-06-27T15:25:11.752-04:00The Argument is Settled, Provided You Agree With MeOver the course of two days, SCOTUS has rendered controversial rulings on the Voting Rights Act and gay marriage. Two serious issues that inflame passions on both sides. Decisions which could echo through history. And the reaction to these extremely weighty cases has been...absolutely hilarious. <br>
<br>
When section four of the Voting Rights Act was ruled unconstitutional, the reaction from the left was unsurprisingly indignant. Melissa Harris-Perry of MSNBC bemoaned her "loss of citizenship". Chris Hayes, also of MSNBC, was "physically enraged" by the act of "judicial activism. Apparently, the rights of minorities to vote has been completely obliterated. Well, not quite.<br>
<br>
Section one of the voting rights act makes voter discrimination illegal. It's still illegal. Section five makes certain areas with a history of racism clear any changes in voting procedures with the federal government. Section four identified <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/section-five-voting-rights-act-map/">which states</a> (as well as a few random counties and so forth) are subject to this. The original formula was to apply this scrutiny to any area that used a "test or device" (i.e. literacy test) and whether half of eligible citizens were voting, or at least registered. As of November 1st, 1964. This was updated in 1968 and 1972, but not since then. So under VRA as it was before the ruling, a state, county, or township that had a literacy test or not enough registered voters in 1972 had to clear any changes in voting policy with the feds. Even forty years later. The South has changed ever so slightly since then. Jim Crow is long gone. <br>
<br>
Huffington Post's Howard Fineman snarkily noted that anyone who thought the South had improved significantly should spend some time there. Thus evincing that he hasn't spent any time here recently. Or that if he has, he's stayed within one of the few liberal bubbles in the South. A more sensible response came from liberal Fox News contributor Bob Beckel, who noted that there are still a few remote counties that have these problems. And he's right. That's why they're "remote". We make our racists live all the way back in the woods now. And if one of these jurisdictions did have voting irregularities, it's highly unlikely it would sway a vote. In most of these places, the voter turnout could be five people, and that would be an 83% turnout.<br>
<br>
SCOTUS lacks the power to rewrite the law, only Congress does. So instead of leaving an obsolete law in place, they chunked it and forced Congress to finally update it. Not too unreasonable, if the last update to the formula was in <i>1972</i>. 50 years ago, Congress passed a law that prevented inappropriate tests related to voting, and updated it in 1968 and 1972. And this was a great thing. Now these jurisdictions are subject to a test that is forty years out of date. But when SCOTUS threw out <i>this</i> inappropriate test, it was <i>not </i>a great thing. I guess inappropriate tests are only okay when they have pre-approval from MSNBC.<br>
<br>
Fast forward one day, and the same people are singing the praises of the overturn of the Defense of Marriage Act. And the reaction from the left is <i>exactly the opposite.</i> No cries of judicial activism here. Rachel Maddow spiked the football and said "This is now decided as a nation. The argument is won." Because apparently SCOTUS had spoken and SCOTUS is always right. Oh, wait.<br>
<br>
Obviously, there's going to be (and already has been) push back from conservatives on this. (Personal opinion on DOMA: vast indifference, like most things). But according to the left it's now The Settled Law of the Land. Which is why these reactions are leaving me in stitches. "Settled law" is a contradiction in terms. All laws are subject to constant revision. To use another controversial example, abortion was legalized after Roe v. Wade. But recent advances in neo-natal care make third term babies far more viable. They used to be just fetuses with only a small chance to live, but now this viability suggests that they are living beings with rights in the third term. Thus, Roe v. Wade is not "settled". As time passes and society evolves, old rulings may become obsolete and thus may require updating for our current environment. This is also true for DOMA and the VRA.<br>
<br>
That's why I roll on the floor when I hear spew like this from the punditocracy. Nothing is settled. Congress will (eventually, maybe) update the VRA. States will pass new laws regarding gay marriage. The law, even the Constitution, is a constant work in process. So a vote against VRA is not the end of the world and a vote against DOMA does not settle the argument. It just advances the argument. A little. The stupendous level of ignorance from the chattering class is what has my sides splitting. An argument is only settled when SCOTUS rules in their favor. How could this be funny? Well, I only laugh to keep from crying.JustAnotherInternetGuyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06366125906633398760noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595388636959836189.post-89976376768407572002013-05-02T22:10:00.000-04:002013-05-03T14:23:09.480-04:00The Greatest Conspiracy Ever!Given the amount of time I spend goofing around on the Internet and social media (which is what I do when I <i>should </i>be working), it's only a matter of time until I start bumping into the loonier side of cyberspace. Every nutty conspiracy theory there is is out on the web. I've been inundated with this kind of crazy for hours every day, except for the moments where my boss walks by my desk and I have to pretend I'm working. And I finally noticed a common pattern.<br />
<br />
All of these conspiracy theories were created by communists. Commies. Oh, yes. That is the only explanation that makes sense. All of the greatest conspiracy theories are obviously created by communists. The faking of the moon landing, aliens at Area 51, the assassination of JFK, the various Rothschild, Illuminati, New World Order conspiracies, and the worst, 9/11 truther conspiracies, are all created by communists to advance a communist agenda.<br />
<br />
They do this because the truth makes communists look bad. The moon landing was an early indication that American capitalism would blow right past Soviet communism. Communists thought they had the edge in the space race, but suddenly America was back in the game. When America successfully completed the first moon landing, communists couldn't let people believe that capitalism was actually superior. So they invented the myth that the moon landing was faked. A pack of communist lies that claimed the moon landing was a pack of capitalist lies. Irony, anyone?<br />
<br />
The aliens at Area 51 is a similar example. Area 51 is a real place. It's a part of Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada. The truth is that there was (and probably still is) Air Force research being conducted at Area 51. Crazy, mad scientist, ARPA/DARPA stuff. American enterprise was rapidly making Soviet communism obsolete. The Soviets couldn't let the world believe that the innovations that we made were the product of capitalism. So they cobbled together a half-assed theory that we were actually stealing the ideas from aliens. Damn Commies. Couldn't handle the fact that we were just way more innovative than them.<br />
<br />
This isn't the only thing they thought we stole. All of Illuminati, New World Order, Rothschild conspiracies have a similar theme. A shadowy cabal of businessmen, bankers, and whatever controls the entire world's wealth. America is apparently controlled by a few families, like the Rockefellers. Uh-huh. One look at the <a href="http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/">Forbes 400 </a>disproves this. 70% of the 400 wealthiest Americans are self made billionaires. Many are household names on the list, such as Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Charles Schwab, George Lucas, and Donald Trump just to name a few. There is a Rockefeller on the list. He's tied for 151. Less than the five I just mentioned. How can a few families control all of the wealth, when so many self made billionaires are richer than one of the supposed conspirators? The answer is simple. Commies. They can't handle the fact that capitalism allows people to thrive and be successful in a single lifetime. So they claim that some rich people must have stolen it. The old "behind every great fortune is a great crime" canard.<br />
<br />
The last conspiracy led to another goofball theory that was apparently manufactured by the Politburo. When faced with happy people enjoying the fruits of capitalism, communists swung into damage control mode. Western society is "decadent" according to the commies of the world. This was raw denial on the part of the USSR. The commies couldn't admit that things were just better here. They didn't want people to look around at the bread lines and start dreaming of a life in America. So instead, they pushed the idea that we were weakening ourselves. Slowly poisoning ourselves with debauchery. We stole all the money and were living frivolously. Anything to prevent the people living under communism from seeing the obvious truth: communism was a failure waiting to happen.<br />
<br />
The JFK assassination theories are a little different. They're a deflection of guilt. The guy who actually killed JFK, Lee Harvey Oswald, was a member of the communist party. The party couldn't have people believing that a communist murdered the American president. So the commies acted like it was a shadowy conspiracy, a convoluted, Byzantine intrigue produced by American capitalism. Anything to avoid having people realize that the actual murderer was just another naive chump duped by communism.<br />
<br />
The 9/11 truther conspiracies are a product of the even more naive neo-communists. Communism rightly became extinct. It's political Darwinism; the unfit system perished and the fittest system survived and thrived. But a few leftover douches from the 60's occasionally con some young people into pushing the various quaint and archaic notions of communism. We see this today with Anonymous and the Occupy movement. And it should come as no surprise that plenty of these nuts are in love with the 9/11 Truth idea. Youtube is full of the Truthers at Occupy rallies and Anonymopes demanding an investigation of the 9/11 "false flag" attack. <br />
<br />
For the commies, it was absolutely critical that the United States not appear in any way sympathetic after 9/11. The neo-commies would have us believe that 9/11 was a giant conspiracy by the corrupt shadowy cabals that rule the United States and stole the world's wealth devised it as an elaborate power grab. Of course, they <i>already</i> control the world's wealth, according to various other communist theories. So I'm not sure how much power they could grab for. That is irrelevant, though, since logic and reason are not things Occupunks and Anonymopes concern themselves with. America overreached when it responded to 9/11. The simple explanations are that this was political opportunism or, far more likely, a natural reaction that came from fear. But if the world believed that, it would disrupt the commie narrative that capitalism is evil. So they threw together a theory about planned demolitions.<br />
<br />
There it is. The one <em>true</em> conspiracy. Communists invent all other conspiracy theories to advance their discredited ideology. All of their conspiracy theories about capitalism and the New World Order are actually an elaborate conspiracy to install a communist New World Order. Of course now that I think about it, does it make sense to assume there is an conspiracy every time I hear something that doesn't fit what I believe? Could this belief that communists are behind everything be the product of paranoia; another Red Scare? Maybe these conspiracy theories exist because there are lots of disaffected nuts in the world who jump on every screwy theory, especially the Anti-American ones, that they can find. That's a much simpler explanation. Nah, screw it. Occam's Razor is for pussies. Commies are behind everything. Damn commies.JustAnotherInternetGuyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06366125906633398760noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595388636959836189.post-24799426128007142952013-04-26T00:44:00.000-04:002013-04-26T12:07:26.902-04:00Every State Needs Two Senators Because I Like Maple SyrupLast week, I saw Bill Maher repeat one of his frequent pet peeves. He dislikes the fact that even states with tiny populations have the same number of senators as huge ones like California. This is an outgrowth of the filibuster debate. Because so many of those tiny population states are red states, they can prevent Democrats from moving legislation through the Senate. Never mind the fact that it wasn't too long ago that Republicans had a majority, but not a super majority, and were clamoring for filibuster reform. He wants proportional representation in the Senate. But he assumes that the only thing of value that a state has is the people there. Some of the tiny population states provide valuable resources that the larger states could not live without.<br />
<br />
One of the most critical resources provided to me by a small state is maple syrup. One cannot have pancakes without maple syrup. I may live in the South and have ready access to cane syrup, but that's only good for biscuits. In order to have proper pancakes, one must have maple syrup. And butter. And bacon on the side. Butter and bacon are readily available in the South, but not maple syrup.<br />
<br />
The only place to get good maple syrup is Vermont. Vermont's population is approximately 600,000. In Manhattan, there are probably zip codes that have more people than that. Vermont has one senator for every 300,000 people and California has one senator for every 19 million. But Vermont is equally critical to the national well being. Only Vermont can can provide the critical resource that transforms simple fried batter into decadent breakfast bliss.<br />
<br />
Utter chaos would result if larger states had more votes than little states like Vermont. The large states would call all of the shots. A small state like Vermont would have no power and just be forced to supply the large states with its precious tree sap/liquid gold. Vermont would be little more than a colony supplying syrup. Big states could push through regulations requiring higher quantities at lower prices. Now I find it unlikely that Vermont would revolt, but there is the "Ah, screw it" effect that results from being under-appreciated. Smarty pants people call this civil disobedience. Because of big state mandates on supply and price, Vermont maple syrup producers would simply not bother creating the same quality of syrup. Instead of high quality liquid breakfast orgasm sauce, we'd have the cheap, runny stuff. Suddenly, breakfast would be ruined. Making me even grouchier in the morning.<br />
<br />
At that point, innocent pancake eaters would be forced to search for alternatives. Some of my Whole Foodsy, Fresh Markety food snob friends like to put agave nectar on their pancakes. But if we all did this, there would be fewer agave plants available to make Agave Ambrosia. Also known as tequila. This would cause brawls in the streets. Kind of like the brawls we see when people <i>drink</i> tequila, but worse because the combatants would be sober enough to hit their targets.<br />
<br />
There is one other option, but it's problematic. Nobody likes to obtain resources from countries with questionable moral character. But if Vermont has been beaten down so hard by big state bullies that syrup producers can't produce the good stuff, we would have no choice. We would have to turn to the most evil and hideous nation the planet Earth has ever known. Canada. I mean seriously, no decent country would produce beer that nasty. And don't get me started about <i>hockey </i>(shudder).<br />
<br />
This is all about principle for me. I'm not a small state guy. The states I grew up in are Virginia and Georgia, the 12th and 8th most populous states. I live in Florida, the 4th most populous state. I'm taking this stand for the greater good. Preserving the availability of high quality maple syrup (and various other lesser resources provided by small states, like grain and meat and timber and minerals) can only be done if small states have equal representation in the Senate. Two Vermont senators could could face down the big state bullies and prevent any oppressive regulations, because a big state would also only have two senators.<br />
<br />
Weakening small states in the Senate would reduce breakfast quality nationwide, or empower rogue nations who seek to destroy us by making us dependent on their syrup. The only way to preserve our breakfast independence is to ensure that the makeup of the Senate remains as our founding fathers intended. Ultimately, it's about justice. Pancake justice. And waffles, too, I guess. Nah, to hell with that. I hate Belgians.JustAnotherInternetGuyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06366125906633398760noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595388636959836189.post-26082444596865446622013-03-27T00:34:00.000-04:002013-03-27T09:53:28.474-04:00The IRS Star Trek Video: You're Just Doing It WrongThe latest government waste outrage is the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxU6n4pAnrU">IRS Star Trek parody video</a>. The government spent $60,000 on this and another training video based on Gilligan's Island. People are up in arms over the perceived waste of money. But making a training video wasn't necessarily a waste. The IRS just made one that was lousy and taught nothing of value. I'm not really against making more entertaining training videos, as long as they actually train people to do something.<br />
<br />
I've been forced to sit through various training videos made by the various companies I've worked for over the years. Usually, the typical corporate training video starts with 2nd rate graphics and a corporate logo, with cheesy elevator music playing in the background. Then a narration about whatever blah-blah corporate policy the video is about starts. The voice talent is usually a person with a voice that's both sonorous and soporific, like someone who works for NPR. Right off the bat, this video starts to sound like cheap propaganda. It's groan inducing, eye roll inducing, and cringe inducing. I've seen these on everything from "good corporate ethics" to "how to lift heavy things.". But whatever the subject matter is, no matter how valuable, the message is lost because the watchers stop taking it seriously almost immediately.<br />
<br />
Granted, the watchers stopped taking the IRS video seriously almost immediately, as well. But not because it used a goofy story to get the point across. When done right, the entertainment approach can be very effective. It's not the first time the government has used the slightly silly for training. In World War II, Walt Disney famously produced many training cartoons for soldiers, such as <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rODm7HF5lFU">this one</a>. Okay, it's actually Canadian, but there are plenty of others that were made for the US. They're just much more difficult to find on YouTube, apparently. This sort of video would have been effective at both keeping the recruits' attention (many of them were <em>very </em>young, and probably had the attention span of young people) and actually training them.<br />
<br />
I'm wondering if the military still does this. Looney Tunes was always way better than Disney. Some of them would make great training videos. <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiDzE5JZUnlavhY5ceFW08PJnW3qHEoH4u29dYaIVi28l1a7BJ6bnxKGpMl9_RHTATduJUdrcx34YtwH6ChdaUxHa2nIKC6klKI_tiLi83TAKpY7pb5pig1ERBT9XSJBxWuwbaVnkxv_FTG/s1600/images.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="149" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiDzE5JZUnlavhY5ceFW08PJnW3qHEoH4u29dYaIVi28l1a7BJ6bnxKGpMl9_RHTATduJUdrcx34YtwH6ChdaUxHa2nIKC6klKI_tiLi83TAKpY7pb5pig1ERBT9XSJBxWuwbaVnkxv_FTG/s200/images.jpg" width="200" /></a></div><br />
Wile E Coyote would be extremely effective at training explosive ordnance disposal personnel on how <em>not</em> to handle explosives.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEslpR5ny5Gqj4dPNhyphenhyphenfnFGATaraZjV9B5ZBNzvmCt8T4FqBvrIgHOrjLBP-i5qc6bRKjgDxfjfBUJ2rD7ysoKsGZj1NkTm-v21oq1dy7tOs7A9Jzag7sn9d7hRzPnEk9UVm620CdxyqiM/s1600/images3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEslpR5ny5Gqj4dPNhyphenhyphenfnFGATaraZjV9B5ZBNzvmCt8T4FqBvrIgHOrjLBP-i5qc6bRKjgDxfjfBUJ2rD7ysoKsGZj1NkTm-v21oq1dy7tOs7A9Jzag7sn9d7hRzPnEk9UVm620CdxyqiM/s1600/images3.jpg" /></a></div><br />
And he would also be effective at teaching them why one should properly pack a parachute. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrHzjhlgLH5F06YfDyUa73XVutnvgTLQP0-9DjcKjHw-WsiZ8hwENptboTXWOrPBBI8qLKFssSPExXJKcU0olDIFQWjDo5NOunUSXZRIKCThGySEI6LtW6YQnhClXRgpBE92zPBx3G7hq6/s1600/aHyNHMV3lqf2fywt4km6EWH5o1_500.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="229" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrHzjhlgLH5F06YfDyUa73XVutnvgTLQP0-9DjcKjHw-WsiZ8hwENptboTXWOrPBBI8qLKFssSPExXJKcU0olDIFQWjDo5NOunUSXZRIKCThGySEI6LtW6YQnhClXRgpBE92zPBx3G7hq6/s320/aHyNHMV3lqf2fywt4km6EWH5o1_500.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />
Elmer Fudd could train infantrymen on the value of checking the flanks so that rabbits or Taliban or whatever don't sneak up on them. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqGMsPh0NBUOq1X4MOciop_w_lY-10dinwS086o91-pgW8j356Oxt-KBqhP00xYkzGZ-YhsHjpFJwW8Iwb0tm5NLOwQVImgfpdFaPotVk6CWqNWcdEZlowIwq3odd8n1IbuFWrLv3IWPri/s1600/imagesCASLOEWK.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqGMsPh0NBUOq1X4MOciop_w_lY-10dinwS086o91-pgW8j356Oxt-KBqhP00xYkzGZ-YhsHjpFJwW8Iwb0tm5NLOwQVImgfpdFaPotVk6CWqNWcdEZlowIwq3odd8n1IbuFWrLv3IWPri/s1600/imagesCASLOEWK.jpg" /></a>And Pepi Le Pew would be perfect for teaching soldiers about sexual harassment.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
I digress, but not too much. An entertaining video can help make learning about an ordinarily dry subject more palatable, and therefore more effective. And I can think of few subjects more dry than the internal revenue code or policies of the IRS. Sadly, the Star Trek video taught nothing of value. It made a few references to subjects of interest (identity theft, for example), but didn't go into any real depth. This video looked more like the type of thing a really nerdy frat house put together after getting drunk on a Saturday night.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"> </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">I'm not sure how someone would successfully combine Star Trek with an IRS training video. Perhaps it would involve an intrepid away team of IRS auditors digging it's way out from under a mound of receipts. But it's worth noting that the Gilligan's Island video was actually determined to have some training value, so it must be possible. Too bad the Star Trek video was a total waste. Granted, $60,000 isn't a huge amount when compared to most government spending. But it does provide another example of the government's cavalier attitude toward spending public funds. There is a culture of entitlement amongst bureaucrats that assumes that they can spend money budgeted to them on whatever they like. Like extravagant conventions held by the GSA. Or Joe Biden's hotel bills.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"> </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Goofy stuff isn't necessarily a waste, though. The makers of these videos claim that they can actually save money. I think that's true, since it's probably less expensive than printing loads of instructional materials and hiring instructors to teach long, dull classes that no one pays attention to. That might be more expensive than even five or six videos. But we need someone to ensure that the content actually does the job. And doesn't suck.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"> </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">So the government doesn't have to explain why the videos were made. It only has to explain why it couldn't do better. I'm all for training government employees in the cheapest and most effective way possible. Videos can actually do that, like the WWII cartons. And on that note, I definitely think the military should consider bringing the Looney Tunes in for training. At least use Wile E Coyote as a drill instructor. But maybe don't have him instruct on the things he's bad at, like explosives, engineering, or anything involving falling from great heights. Maybe he should be a shooting instructor instead?</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgiQZdxi4S0WiAdrx-aAKMZ9d5LKNaElSpuYFcxxdJ66cqHjxyPsm-ktIquJdDdrmbiACzyc55rt5WzdYg5PDL6v0jQ90W92CFJbi-x7AkSIOc3JiQXGyBxNoZi_lj9ff0hfrxnMH0MpqsM/s1600/images2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="311" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgiQZdxi4S0WiAdrx-aAKMZ9d5LKNaElSpuYFcxxdJ66cqHjxyPsm-ktIquJdDdrmbiACzyc55rt5WzdYg5PDL6v0jQ90W92CFJbi-x7AkSIOc3JiQXGyBxNoZi_lj9ff0hfrxnMH0MpqsM/s400/images2.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"> </div>JustAnotherInternetGuyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06366125906633398760noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595388636959836189.post-11898488736320487562013-03-08T01:07:00.001-05:002013-03-08T13:40:54.594-05:00Trolling the American RandstandOn March 6th, in response to a wishy-washy position posed by Attorney General Holder, Senator Rand Paul threw down an old school move. An actual filibuster. Not the half-assed "don't have sixty votes" filibuster. He hit the floor and said he'd talk until the president responded. The point was simple. Eric Holder wouldn't commit to saying that we would not use predators to kill Americans on American soil. Rand Paul took a stand saying he should commit. Demanding answers from the president. He went on for hours lecturing about due process, the constitution, and any number of entirely relevant things. Not the cheap type of filibustering where some douche just reads from the phone book.<br />
<br />
Republican senators Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Pat Toomey, John Thune, John Barrasso, John Cornyn, Jerry Moran, Jeff Flake, Mitch McConnell, and showed up. Also, Senators Marco Rubio (MINE!), Saxby Chambliss (from my home state), and Tim Scott (my home state's neighbor to the north) participated. One of the old guard, Mitch McConnell, also made an appearance. And I've heard a lot of people call him Johnny-Come-Lately, but that's better than the twelve Johnny-Would-Rather-Let-The-President-Buy-Him(And One Her)-Dinner senators. And Mark Kirk didn't participate (he is recovering from a stroke, after all), but showed up and deserves a shoutout for bringing a care package.<br />
<br />
Even some Democrats were there. Ron Wyden (D) participated in the filibuster. Dick Durbin (<em>Heavy</em> D) was there too. Granted, he wasn't participating, just asking questions, but he was Involved In The Democratic Process. Not something that seems to happen very often these days. And the questions he asked (confrontational, but not discourteously so), added to Paul's credibility. Paul knocked his first two questions out of the park. The last one (towards the end), was more of a single. <br />
<br />
For the most part, when the senators broke in for questions, they did so with pertinent questions that added to the debate, Dems and Reps alike. But there was also a bit of fun. Ted Cruz took some time to quote everything from Shakespeare to Patton. Marco Rubio followed up by quoting Wiz Khalifa and Jay-Z. It was all still relevant, though, as they tied the artistic references into the debate.<br />
<br />
But the most epic part was when Ted Cruz carpet bombed the Senate with tweets from everyone who was supporting Rand Paul. The twitterverse was alive with all things Rand Paul. Around the world. He did this twice, bringing thousands who were glued to C-Span (when's the last time that happened, ever) into the process. Ted Cruz gets the Best Supporting Actor award for that. But the MVP was still Rand Paul, because he suddenly energized the public about politics, for the first time in years.<br />
<br />
Of course, it was only a matter of time until detracty detractors who detract started detracting. The first salvo was the typical opening move of the radical left. Articles, blog posts, and tweets starting referring to his RAAAACISM! This was in reference to a series of interviews in 2010 where Rand Paul failed to properly bless and sprinkle and show proper deference to the Civil Rights Act. Instead, he had the incredibly bad taste to note that other fundamental rights, like free speech and property ownership, are occasionally at odds with the CRA. Instead of bowing and scraping before the almighty CRA, he actually had the temerity to suggest that the CRA and other fundamental rights might occasionally conflict with each other and need to be reconciled. This is an obscure legal concept also known as: The Reason Judges Have Jobs.<br />
<br />
Race baiting is all too common these days. But it's a waste of time to obsess over this sort of thing. Someone who fails to have even this rudimentary understanding of how the Constitution works is the posterchild for low information voters. What this episode does is show two key things about Rand Paul. He's willing to explore and debate the Constitution in a nuanced way, and he's willing to go where few dare to tread.<br />
<br />
So when "Racist" doesn't work, go for "Irrelevant". Various writers and journalists have decided that he was wasting time. Debating a question that was already answered. For example, I read a piece by Tommy Christopher on <a href="http://www.mediaite.com/tv/what-do-rand-pauls-drone-i-buster-fans-actually-want/">Mediaite</a> pushing this point. He believed that Eric Holder actually did answer the question. But the fact is, Holder left the question open. He used 9/11 and Pearl Harbor as examples of unusual circumstances where this might happen, but did not clarify explicitly what defines a circumstance where using a drone is allowed.<br />
<br />
Of course, when "Irrelevant" fails, "Crazy" is always an option. I saw Krystal Ball and Toure on the <a href="http://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbc-hosts-mock-rand-paul-made-serious-issue-of-drones-sound-absurd-crazy-and-on-the-fringe/">Cycle</a> pushing this. Apparently, Rand Paul was just a nut ginning up a silly, non-issue to pander to conspiracy theorists, anti-government nuts, and "savages" (Toure's word. Stay Classy). Notably, just as liberal Steve Kornacki took a different position (Not sure where S.E. Cupp was) from his two colleagues and upheld the need for exploring these points. The relative newness of the drone program means there are lots of unanswered questions.<br />
<br />
It's good that he did. The attorney general's response <em>was </em>a tad vague, saying that use of drones on Americans on American soil would only happen in extreme circumstances, but not clarifying what criteria would be used to determine what those circumstances are. And exploring unlikely hypotheticals is not something a crazy person does. It's common practice in politics.<br />
<br />
I'm reminded of the 2008 Republican presidential campaign. In one debate, the various candidates were asked by Brit Hume about a highly unlikely, ticking time-bomb, Jack-Baueresque scenario. Would they, in the wake of several damaging attacks against the US, torture someone who potentially had knowledge of another attack that was imminent? Mitt Romney danced around it (shocking, I know. Kind of like an Eric Holder). Rand's father Ron Paul was strongly against it. So was John McCain. Of course, McCain comes to that position honestly, and from personal experience.<br />
<br />
Brit Hume asked a pertinent question about an unlikely, there-but-for-the-grace-of-God-go-we scenario. This is because these highly unlikely scenarios are the ones where people and governments take the most extreme action and are at great risk for overreach. To a libertarian type of guy like Rand Paul, government overreach is to be avoided at all costs. So I find it odd that John McCain, who was happy to answer the question about the unlikely scenario related to torture, was so willing to dismiss the unlikely scenario that was proposed by Rand Paul.<br />
<br />
Paul admits it's unlikely that Obama would ever do this. And it's unlikely that anyone would do this. But one unfortunate election could result in a nut who would consider droning Americans without due process of law. So defining the laws clearly now prevents this scenario from happening. Just as defining torture ensures we don't cross the line there. I'm surprised that McCain would be willing to deal in hypotheticals in one case, but spurn the same thing in another. Especially when the one he spurned is the one more likely to result in dead bodies, if it did ever happen.<br />
<br />
Eric Holder did respond. The answer was that we can't use drones against "non-combatant" Americans. Plenty of Paul critics claim that the simplicity of this response (including two out of three Cycle liberals) makes Paul look ridiculous. But it doesn't. Paul got some additional clarification (his goal from the start), which isn't ridiculous. The response also leaves questions open, suggesting that Paul is on to something. What is a "combatant" American? Holder's still missing a few details. And if we don't define it, and we elect some nutjob in the future, that guy may decide to define it for us with executive orders.<br />
<br />
Rand Paul took a stand to make the administration clarify how far it would go to protect itself. He's seeking to set a standard that, even if it is highly unlikely we'll ever need it, is something that we must be absolutely clear about. Because if we don't figure it out now, we may find ourselves figuring it out the hard way in the future. This is not Rand Paul being an anti-government conspiracy nut. Nor is he pandering to the extreme right. He's a libertarian. That's not a wingnut; libertarians tend to be moderate. And the evidence of that is the support he got from the left. From politicians (Wyden) to actors (John Cusack) to activists (Code Pink and more than a few Anonymous and Occupy supporters, based on tweets I saw) to left wing journalists (Cenk Uygur of Current TV. That happened.), members of the left wing supported him. He was able to unite disparate factions in a common cause. It's been a while since a politician could pull that off. No wonder #StandwithRand is still trending.JustAnotherInternetGuyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06366125906633398760noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595388636959836189.post-436537231259045472013-01-04T00:06:00.000-05:002013-01-04T00:09:49.361-05:00Christmas: An Excuse For Family, Friends, and Co-Workers to Slowly Poison UsI was on my way to spend Christmas with my family in Georgia, and I stopped in a gas station not far from Savannah. Given that I'd been on the road for over six hours, I felt an urge to use the facilities. While performing the necessary tasks in the men's room, the janitor, who was busy cleaning, said "So, are you ready for Christmas, or are you ready for it to come and go?" Initially, I was perturbed. Problem one, the guy was being too damned happy. I rarely approve of happy people, because I think they're unrealistic. Problem two, he started a conversation with a guy standing in front of a urinal. Major faux-pas. Eyes forward, no talking, and tend to your business is proper bathroom etiquette.<br />
<br />
But I overcame my initial annoyance with the guy, because I realized I had no idea how to answer his question. After some thought, I answered honestly and said "That's not a bad question." He thought this was hilarious. I was somewhat disappointed in myself for unintentionally making a guy who was already unnecessarily happy even happier. My inability to answer with a resounding yes was quite simple. I'm not a Scrooge or a Grinch (although I am occasionally a grouch), but I have noticed a downside to the Christmas season. Specifically 5-15 extra pounds. It happens each year.<br />
<br />
The evidence of this was confirmed earlier today, when my boss said "Hey, have you put on weight?" If it's not already obvious, my boss has the tact equivalent of, say, Archie Bunker. Or Oscar the Grouch. Or Archie Bunker after he gets his ass kicked by Oscar the Grouch. Or vice-versa. The point is he has limited social skills. But he's not afraid to speak his mind, and he wasn't wrong. Still, I don't want to hear comments on my weight gain from friends, family, and co-workers. This is like drug-pushers telling addicts they have a problem. This was their idea.<br />
<br />
Here's why it's their idea. It starts in early December. The biggest clients of my employer and the people who sell things to my employer (payroll provider, benefits provider, etc.) send us gifts for Christmas. This usually means food, which is laid out in a common area to tempt all passersby. Then the people I work with (including boss-guy) bring in leftovers from various Christmas parties. The food in question is not exactly health food. On the contrary, it tends to be assorted forms of sugar-coated lard drowning in cholesterol sauce.<br />
<br />
Then I go home for Christmas, and it gets worse. First step, dinner with the immediate family. In Southeast Georgia. Where the only thing we don't fry is the iced tea, and that's just because we haven't figured out how. Yet. Then the next day is dinner with the extended family. Which is a potluck dinner. In the South, that means a smorgasbord of waistline increases and myocardial infarctions waiting to happen. Including ten different desserts covered in molasses or chocolate or both. And iced tea. Of course. Sweet iced tea; loaded with sugar. None of that pagan-style "unsweet" (shudder) iced tea.<br />
<br />
As a parting gift, parents, aunts, uncles, etc. give me as much of their leftovers to take home with me as they can. Old people are like that. They pretend it's out of generosity, but they're really just jealously clinging to their remaining years of life. They figure I've got quite a few more left than they do, so if lose a year or two I'll still have a few decades to play with. Never mind that they're slowly poisoning me with the most unhealthy (but admittedly awesome) food on the planet.<br />
<br />
So why not throw it all out? Nuh-uh. When you're raised in a culture that celebrates frugality (we use leftover pickle jars as drinking glasses), wasting all that food is sacrilege. Besides, the food is just too good. I can't resist, even though it could kill me. Moth to the flame. So Christmas alone results in double digit weight increase and multiple carb comas. And it takes a week to go through the leftovers.<br />
<br />
This means New Year's Eve is just insult to injury. At precisely the moment I finish the Christmas leftovers, I'm beset by a holiday involving the eating of buffalo wings, fried chicken, barbecue, hamburgers, hot dogs, french fries, and onion rings. Not to mention imbibing lots of alcohol. No wonder so many people make a diet their New Year's resolution. Our greatest dietary sins are committed just prior to the end of the year, so our penance begins in January. Fortunately, the raging hangover on January 1st is a not so subtle reminder that I need to start behaving myself.<br />
<br />
So, yeah, Random-Guy-In-Gas-Station-Bathroom. I was ready to indulge in an eating orgy for a week, AKA Christmas. But I was also ready for it to come and go, hoping that the damage wouldn't be too great. Yeah, boss. I did put on a few pounds. Truth is, I don't really regret it. It's ironic that I choose what's considered by most Americans to be the holiest time of year to indulge in one of my favorite sins. Gluttony. I know I'll have to make up for it somehow over the next few weeks or months. Maybe I did take a year or two off of my life. But it was worth it.JustAnotherInternetGuyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06366125906633398760noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595388636959836189.post-72138056154799131892012-12-21T19:44:00.001-05:002012-12-21T19:45:12.826-05:00Jumping the Gun: Why Most of the Gun Debate After Newtown Isn't HelpfulJay Carney got some flak after the Newtown massacre by saying "Today is not the day to talk about gun control." Detractors almost universally said "if not now, when." They were right. We can say what we want, when we want. But pushing for gun control immediately after the incident, before the facts come in, increases the chances that we'll just say or do something useless.<br />
<br />
Many of the loudest gun control advocates are pushing for assault weapons bans, because a semi-automatic assault rifle was used to kill the children in Newtown. Many gun advocates, including many pundits and politicians who have previously opposed these bans, are saying that nobody needs weapons like this. I'm generally inclined to agree with this, but any time the government tells me what I do or don't need, the Libertarian part of my psyche cringes. One thing they say that makes sense is that certain weapons only belong on the battlefield. The trick is identifying what that means.<br />
<br />
The definition of assault weapons is a bit vague. Automatic weapons are always considered assault weapons. Not all semi-automatic weapons are considered assault weapons, only ones with certain characteristics are. The assault weapons ban defined an assault weapon as a weapon with detachable magazines and at least two other characteristics that were considered typical of assault weapons. The problem is, a few of the things that potentially define something as an assault weapon seem mostly or entirely harmless.<br />
<br />
Two examples are pistol grips and collapsible stocks. A collapsible stock is a stock that can be shortened in order to be customized to the size of the user. I don't see how this makes a gun noticeably more dangerous. A pistol grip allows the user to control the recoil more easily. One could argue that it makes a shooter more able to shoot people more quickly. But it also makes them more able to shoot static targets more quickly or deer more quickly or whatever. Typically, how quickly someone can kill targets has more to do with the skill of the shooter than the type of stock or grip that a gun has. This ban seems to be designed to ban guns that <em>look </em>dangerous. They may like they belong on a battlefield, but many of them are no more or less dangerous than more ordinary looking weapons.<br />
<br />
Another problem with fixating on assault weapons is the fact that they are not used in most murders. Most murders are committed with pistols, which is probably why the last assault weapons ban had no noticeable effect on homicide rates. The President echoed this in the presidential debates, noting that most murders involve "cheap handguns". Even some mass killings are done with pistols. The Virginia Tech massacre, the worst school shooting ever, was done with two handguns. By focusing entirely on the specific circumstances of the shootings in Newtown, we risk ignoring most of the violence in this country. <br />
<br />
Another thing that has come to the forefront is a focus on mental health and identifying people with problems and treating them. Many, if not all, of the mass murderers in recent years have had some kind of mental health problem. Disturbing behavior by the Tucson killer was reported by many classmates at a local community college he attended and nothing was done. The Aurora killer's classmates also reported strange behavior and nothing was done. On the other hand, The Virginia Tech killer and one of the Columbine killers had been diagnosed with mental health problems prior to the attacks and had received treatment. The Newtown killer was known to have some mental problems and some reports suggest his mother was about to have him committed. These instances all suggest that more intervention is necessary and when it happens it needs to be more effective. But what's also true is that most murderers are not crazy. Most murderers kill for a relatively mundane reason: an argument, jealousy, revenge. Angry results in more murders than crazy. Focusing only on the mentally unstable ignores most of the problem. It's always a good idea to improve mental health care (or any other health care), but this won't fix most of the problem.<br />
<br />
As with every other mass shooting, the debate over the "culture of violence" has reemerged. We are told that America has a history of violence and our culture glorifies violence and contributed to this. But this actually doesn't make any sense. The same violent movies and video games that are common in a America are equally common in other nations where murder is extremely rare. American movies are commonly watched in Canada, the UK, France, Germany, and Australia. They buy the video games too. France, the UK, and Germany have far more violent histories than America. Yet murder rates are low in all of these countries. Not only would attempting to silence or deter these forms of entertainment be a violation of the First Amendment, it would be a complete waste of time. Other countries are able to avoid real violence, despite the fact that they are exposed to the same amount of fake violence as we are and despite the fact that they have histories as violent, if not more so, than ours.<br />
<br />
While I'm on the subject of foreign countries, it has to be mentioned that other industrialized nations have stricter gun control laws. In some, like Japan and England, this results in low rates of gun ownership and low murder rates. Others, like Canada or France, have relatively high numbers of gun owners (though not as many as us) but still have low murder rates. And some others, like Brazil and Russia, have low rates of gun ownership but much higher murder rates. What this means is the presence or lack of guns and gun control laws doesn't appear to predict a country's murder rate. The source of the problem is something else.<br />
<br />
This doesn't mean gun control is useless. I think some gun control measures makes sense. Smaller magazine size is fine. I truly don't need a 30 round clip to defend myself. If I need to defend myself from an attack and need more than six or seven bullets to do it, this is the sort of attack I should be running away from. And limiting magazine size won't prevent me from buying more than one gun. This won't stop people from producing homemade high capacity magazines, but I still think it will reduce the chances of mass shootings occurring. Background checks should be required for all gun purchases. Instant background checks should be available everywhere. There must be a way to make background checks possible at gun shows. This won't stop strawbuyers, but it will still prevent many felons and crazy people from getting guns. Lastly, one thing that often goes unmentioned is that many criminals acquire guns from licensed dealers who make illicit sales under the table. So another thing that must happen is additional enforcement.<br />
<br />
But as for the rest of the debate, it's a hasty reaction which will have little or no effect. We won't fix the problem by renewing an assault weapons ban that didn't accomplish anything significant the first time, other than boosting assault weapon sales before its passage. And hand wringing over movies and video games is a waste of time. This is a multi-faceted problem that will probably take decades or generations to fix. We won't be able to control it if we only respond to the headlines. We will not fix anything if we attempt to resurrect legislation that already failed once. We must be willing to commit to rigorous analysis of all aspects of the problem and explore all possible solutions, while being mindful of the Constitution and its guarantees. We must accept that this requires a prolonged effort at the grassroots level by all citizens who want the violence to stop. If we want to prevent future violence and respect the memory of the victims of violence, we must attempt to find solutions that actually work and shake off the tired old rhetoric that solves nothing.JustAnotherInternetGuyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06366125906633398760noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595388636959836189.post-48140415372528168552012-12-05T22:28:00.001-05:002012-12-06T13:16:21.751-05:00The Gun Made Me Do ItBob Costas has been echoing the same tired old talking point that gun control advocates have been spewing for years. On the O'Reilly Factor, Bob Costas said (paraphrasing) that if more people possess guns that it is more likely that a dispute would escalate because someone has a gun. What he actually said is <a href="http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/12/05/full-interview-bill-oreilly-takes-on-bob-costas-over-americas-gun-culture/">here</a>, on the second clip at about the 1:30 mark. This assumes that the possession of the gun is more likely to cause one person to want to kill another in a dispute. This is false. It's true that a person with a gun is more likely to succeed in killing someone else, but the gun does not magically cause someone to be more aggressive.<br />
<br />
The problem is not the presence of guns. The problem is that people in the United States are more likely to want to kill someone than they would be in many other countries. Many of the highly publicized murders we've seen were preventable without taking away guns. Kansas City Chiefs Guy had a history of problems in his personal life. Crazy Guy in Arizona had been reported acting loony at his community college. Nobody did anything. If we had been more proactive about identifying and dealing with these problems, they never would have escalated into violence.<br />
<br />
More recently, <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/06/us-usa-florida-shooting-idUSBRE8B503N20121206">Michael Dunn killed Jordan Davis in Jacksonville, Florida</a>. This was an escalation of a simple argument. A motive for murder that is all too common. This is the real problem. People in the United States are willing to kill for stupid reasons. Apparently, Jordan Davis and his pals were just playing their music too loud. That's not a sufficient reason to kill. We should be focusing our efforts on figuring out why people are willing to do things this senseless.<br />
<br />
Instead, Costas and others simply fixate on the guns. If two guys want to kill each other and we take away their guns, it doesn't suddenly make them not want to kill each other. Disarming us isn't the answer.<br />
<br />
Gun control advocates like to point to other industrialized nations which have strict gun control laws and lower crime. But they always forget to mention Russia and Brazil. Russia has extremely strict gun control laws, but twice the murder rate of the US. Brazil is the most violent industrialized nation in the world, despite its gun laws. Here in the US, gun ownership has been on the rise, despite the fact that violent crimes have been declining for years. The presence or lack of guns or gun control laws isn't the problem or the solution.<br />
<br />
The problem of violence is extremely complex and nuanced. Simply demanding gun control every time a tragedy happens is a simple-minded solution. Simple-minded solutions do not fix complex problems. We need to make an effort to identify why we can't identify dangerous people in time and why ordinary people are so willing to kill for ridiculous reasons. Until we accept that deeper analysis is necessary, this problem won't go away.JustAnotherInternetGuyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06366125906633398760noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595388636959836189.post-5774941517334350582012-12-03T21:13:00.001-05:002012-12-03T21:16:30.202-05:00To Prevent the Country From Committing Fiscal Suicide, Congress Must Commit Political SuicideSeveral of my bosses, past and present, have recently channeled Warren Buffett and told me they want the government to raise taxes on them. This stunned me a bit. Like many business owners they are all conservative. Or at least conservative-ish. Meaning they all fall somewhere between Dick Cheney and Ron Paul on the political spectrum. These are generally anti-tax people. They believe taxes should be kept as low as possible for the simple reason that they believe people should keep as much of their own property and income as possible.<br />
<br />
So how do these guys finally arrive at a tax raise? As conservative-ish people, they also believe in personal responsibility. Therefore, these are not the type of people who are inclined to leave a mess behind. Failure to handle the budget now just means they're dumping it on their kids, and their kids will have it even worse. We've arrived at a point where it may actually make sense under the rules of conservatism (or at least conservative-ish-ness) to increase taxes. Because somebody has to pay the debt, and true conservatives are not the type of people who pass on their problems to someone else.<br />
<br />
The counterargument to raising taxes is that it removes cash from businesses that they could use to invest or hire more people. This is not false, but not necessarily true either. Most of the bosses and ex-bosses I talked to could hire more people, but they don't have enough work to give to new people. Nobody hires people to do nothing. Unless there's some wacky union contract involved. They could invest in new business, but the market is uncertain. They, like many people, are being cautious. New investments are always risky, and when there are plenty of analysts foretelling of a double-dip recession, new investments are <em>very</em> risky.<br />
<br />
Getting the debt under control would eliminate some of this uncertainty. America's credit rating (recently downgraded) is one of the foundations of the global economy. Until recently, treasury securities were considered the closest thing there is to a risk-free investment, and investors and analysts used it as a benchmark by which the attractiveness of other investments could be measured. The downgrading of our credit increased the uncertainty, which is why investors are cautious. That's partly responsible for the slow recovery.<br />
<br />
Of course, Republicans always bring up cutting spending and possibly closing loopholes rather than raising rates. And they're right. But in order to cut spending in a way that actually brings the debt under control, significant cuts must be made in defense, Medicare, and Social Security. In order to significantly raise revenue by closing loopholes, some of the more popular loopholes, like mortgage interest deductions, would have to go.<br />
<br />
This is the problem. Nobody wants to lose the things that they like. Raising rates is more popular than removing the mortgage interest deduction, because raising the rates in the top tax bracket would only affect a few people and removing the mortgage interest deduction would affect many more people. Cutting defense is more popular than cutting Medicare and Social Security, because most people currently or eventually will benefit from Medicare and Social Security. Strictly speaking, everyone benefits from defense, but it's impact on our lives is not as tangible as entitlement programs are. Because of this, defense cuts are more popular than entitlement cuts.<br />
<br />
The problem with cutting popular programs is that politicians see value (Read: re-election) in defending them. Anytime someone talks about Medicare or Social Security reform, politicians with no interest in reform and a great deal of interest in re-election dust off the same old tired talking points. Gems like "Medicare is the most popular government program" or "Social Security is the most successful social program in the history of the world," are bandied about in order to prevent government from taking real action. I think these statements are generally true (although talking points, by their nature, are <em>always</em> at least one part falsehood), but they are only true for the time being. Once Medicare and Social Security become fiscal train wrecks (an eventuality we've seen coming for decades), they won't be considered popular or successful anymore. We have to fix them now.<br />
<br />
The solution is that everyone needs to give up something. Something we like. We can't expect someone else to take care of this for us. We all have to be willing to give something. If this means the rich pay more taxes, let's consider that. If this means the payroll tax ceiling is raised or removed, let's consider that. If this means benefits are reduced or retirement ages are increased (the latter is likely necessary, since we all live longer these days), let's consider that. If this means cutting defense or removing mortgage interest deductions, let's consider that. I know some rich guys who are willing to put up some money, the rest of us should think about ponying something up as well.<br />
<br />
We should pass a bill that increases taxes and/or removes loopholes. And the new revenue must be committed primarily to controlling debt. No earmarks or pet projects. These revenue increases must be married to spending cuts, including defense, Medicare, and Social Security cuts. And there must be triggers in this bill that require that all of these things be done within one year of passing the bill, or else everything in the bill goes back to the way it was prior to the bill's passage. This last part is critical. Reagan raised some taxes in return for a promise to cut spending in the eighties. The Democrats reneged. This time, it can't be a bait-and-switch.<br />
<br />
In order to accomplish this, everyone in congress will have to sign off on a bill that includes at least one thing that upsets their supporters. This is the type of compromise we need. Traditionally, politicians are only interested supporting bills that have negative effects on someone else's constituents. This can't continue. The members of congress may have to commit political suicide to pass a bill like this. But it's better than the entire country committing fiscal suicide.JustAnotherInternetGuyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06366125906633398760noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595388636959836189.post-8812927476823317502012-11-29T20:55:00.001-05:002012-11-30T15:15:06.568-05:00Egypt: Yet Another Revolutionary Screw-upGrand High Douchebag Morsi of Egypt has declared himself Grand High Pharoah Douchebag of Egypt. Apparently, negotiating a truce with Israel gains you the right to be God-King. Because, nobody has <em>ever</em> done that before. Except several ex-presidents. And Anwar Sadat, who they killed for it. Now Egyptians are rioting in the streets. Again. While watching this, it occurred to me that too many revolutions go sideways like this.<br />
<br />
Americans are fortunate that our revolution didn't go bad. But ours was a little different from many others. Our revolution was a colony demanding independence from an empire that treated us like second class citizens. We were already independent in many ways, having our own governments at the city and colonial levels. It was not difficult to translate that into a cohesive government once the British had been sent on their way.<br />
<br />
Most other revolutions that happened in that time, like the French revolution, were popular revolutions where peasants who'd been forced to live in wretched poverty overthrew their elites. They tore apart the fabric of their society in the process of revolting, resulting in chaos. The French revolution went like this: Kill the king. Then go crazy with the guillotine. Then go crazy with the Napolean. Then, after a making a mess of everything, bring back the royal family. Which is right where they were when it started.<br />
<br />
Marxist revolutions frequently followed a similar pattern: Bloodbaths and dictators. Stalin killed something like 20 million. Mao killed anywhere from 30-90 million. Pol Pot killed almost 2 million. The list goes on. The pattern is clear, though: Overthrow the government. Have some nut job take over. Kill everyone associated with the old government. Then kill everyone opposed to the new government. Then kill everyone who <em>might</em> be opposed to the new government.<br />
<br />
This has me wondering if it's inevitable that these sorts of developments happen after popular revolutions. They start out with good intentions, but end up getting hijacked by crazy people. The Muslim Brotherhood hijacked the Egyptian revolution in the same way Maximilien Robespierre hijacked the French revolution. And maybe they haven't started a full fledged Reign of Terror (yet), but there have been increasing attacks on Coptic Christians, amongst other atrocities.<br />
<br />
Now Ramses the Umpteenth is declaring himself dictator of Egypt. Seems like it happens every time. I'm somewhat heartened to see that the reaction of the people was immediate. Maybe the young kids who started this revolution will correct it's course and have real, modern democracy, not the quasi-theocracies the Middle East is known for. But maybe we'll have another nutjob dictator birthed from a popular revolution that makes a mess of everything.JustAnotherInternetGuyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06366125906633398760noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595388636959836189.post-64413412064089545852012-11-23T15:37:00.000-05:002012-11-23T15:44:09.434-05:00Where Unions Go WrongI was absolutely amazed the when the baker's union refused to make a deal with Hostess, even after it was abundantly clear that everyone would lose their jobs if nothing was done. I've been laid off twice before, so I tend to take stuff like this personally. The baker's union appeared to have an all or nothing, "give us what we want or we're taking you with us," attitude. Even the <a href="http://www.teamster.org/content/teamsters-bakery-workers-should-hold-secret-ballot-vote-hostess">teamster's union</a> was asking them to think it over. When another union thinks your union is going too far, it's time to rethink your position.<br />
<br />
Alas, the baker's union stood strong, and screwed 18,500 people. I know that despite the sensational headlines that Great American Brands Are Dead, Twinkies and Wonderbread will probably survive. They'll be sold to some other company in the liquidation. The downside of this is that some of the potential buyers are not American companies, like Grupo Bimbo (I hope that means something less racy in Spanish) of Mexico. So the brands may saved, but the American jobs may not be.<br />
<br />
The dispute was in part about pensions and wages, but there were also unusual rules in the union contracts that forced the company to be inefficient. The most often mentioned in the media is that Twinkies and Wonderbread can't be transported in the same truck. This means that if you have a half of a truckload of Twinkies and a half of a truckload of Wonderbread, there must be two trucks, and therefore two drivers, two teams loading the trucks, etc. And the loaders who load Twinkies cannot also load Wonderbread. Any idiot can see that this is wildly inefficient. Only one truck and one group of loaders is necessary.<br />
<br />
So why would anyone do this? It's quite simple. Twice the number of union workers = twice the number of union dues. This is where the goals of union management diverge from the needs of union workers. The union bosses want to increase dues collections, so they need to increase the rolls of the union. In slightly more than half of the states, even a non-union worker can be forced to pay a fee if they choose not to join a union. They can also be fired if they don't join. So any additional jobs automatically increases union revenue, even if those jobs are unnecessary.<br />
<br />
What a worker wants is to make a living and to have job security. Forcing inefficiencies on a company hurts job security, as we've just seen with Hostess. The right way to produce jobs is for a company to be as profitable as possible and expand, hiring new workers for the expansion. Jobs at a profitable company are far more secure than jobs at an unprofitable one. I feel stupid for stating the obvious like that, but apparently some people still don't get it.<br />
<br />
Now unlike many of my more conservative buddies, I don't think unions are inherently evil. It is possible for them to benefit workers without burdening employers unnecessarily. The problem is that the system is broken by giving the unions special treatment. There is a reason to have a union putting upward pressure on worker pay. It's because labor is sort of illiquid.<br />
<br />
Take, for example, the words of Matt Patterson from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, as seen on Special Report with Bret Baier:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
What your labor is worth is what you receive, and if your employer feels that you are worth more you'll get more, and for a lot of people who are complaining about their working conditions, they're perfectly free to go out and get another job or start a company of their own, and that's how the free market works, and should work.</blockquote>
<br />
I should note that he's not necessarily wrong, but he's not quite right either. Going out and getting another job requires that one is available, which is not always the case. Starting a company requires seed capital, which not everyone has or can borrow. But most importantly, what we're worth and what our employers thinks we're worth aren't always the same thing. Our employers will eventually realize what we're worth, but only every six months to a year when he hands out raises. This is what I mean by illiquid. Even then, they may lowball us on the raise. And getting a new job, even if available, isn't always the preferred move.<br />
<br />
Prices on an exchange update almost immediately and reflect the true value of what's being traded because there is constant trading. In other words, these things are liquid. But if a laborer constantly trades (read: gets a new job) as suggested by Patterson, he'll become known as a "job-hopper" and be considered unreliable. This actually reduces a laborer's value. A union can renegotiate pay more frequently, bringing the worker's wage in line with his actual value more frequently. This introduces a form of competition, which is not an anti-capitalist idea.<br />
<br />
The problem is unions are considered indispensable by some (which <em>is</em> an anti-capitalist idea), so they are given special treatment. Regulations that permit unions to compel dues and membership stack the deck in favor of unions. The truth is that unions, like any organization, don't have a right to exist. We should make them constantly justify their existence. That's what the free market is really about. The answer to this problem is Right-to-Work.<br />
<br />
Right-to-Work doesn't destroy unions. Many of the greatest advances in worker rights happened long before there were any compulsory dues or membership. There was a time where every state was effectively a Right-to-Work state. Unions did fine without compulsory laws. Right-to-Work <em>does</em> keep unions honest. If there were no compulsory union dues, the absurdly inefficient clauses in union contracts would be unnecessary. The extra jobs produced by separating Twinkies from Wonderbread would not necessarily result in new union dues. So the unions would have no reason to weigh down contracts with these kinds of clauses, because it would produce no value for them. <br />
<br />
Let unions operate in every state, let workers join any union they want, but also make every state a right to work state. This will result in union negotiations where the unions negotiate for the benefit of their workers, not just to increase their union rolls. Unions will have to constantly justify that they deserve to exist, and will start to realize that they, like the workers they represent, cannot survive without employers. Maybe they'll start to see that forcing an employer to be inefficient is a self-destructive act.JustAnotherInternetGuyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06366125906633398760noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595388636959836189.post-41906859218598735272012-11-20T22:54:00.000-05:002012-11-20T22:54:57.679-05:00Oliver Stone's Revision of US History - Should I bother?I'm toying with the idea of buying "The Untold History of the United States" by Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick. Not because I think I'll learn anything from it, but because I occasionally like to remind myself that there are crazier people in the world than me. Granted, it seems premature to pass judgment on a book I've not read. On the other hand, anyone who knows me can attest to the fact that I'm a terrible skinflint. If I'm going to blow $15-$20 on a book, I better know it's going to be worth it.<br />
<br />
What I have to go on so far is the talking points coming from Stone and Kuznick, through interviews and snippets of the Showtime documentary which follows the book. Presumably these are summations of his main points designed to induce me into buying. Therefore, purchasing the book would expose me to more of the same. I will assume that these interviews and clips are mere previews for what is contained in the book, because that's how books and other media are sold. So what are some of these talking points?<br />
<br />
<strong>I. The United States Didn't Win World War II, the Soviet Union Did</strong><br />
<strong></strong><br />
Stone contests that the USSR lost more people at Stalingrad and Kiev than the US did in the entire war. Which is true, although losing more people doesn't necessarily equate to <em>accomplishing </em>more. The USSR pushed the Nazis out of Eastern Europe and ultimately took Berlin at great cost. These were important accomplishments, but are only part of the story. <br />
<br />
First of all, the Soviets had no involvement in pushing the Germans out of North Africa or the Mediterranean. But more importantly, they did next to nothing against the Japanese. They declared war on Japan on August 8th, 1945. Which also happens to be the day before the Nagasaki bombing. They were barely involved in the Pacific theater.<br />
<br />
In Europe, they played a major and important role, perhaps even the key one. Holding the line at Stalingrad (actually, Russians prefer Volgograd these days because Stalin was a douche, but I guess I shouldn't nitpick <em>too</em> much) prevented Germans from having access to Russian oilfields. German Tiger tanks were notorious gas guzzlers, even compared to other tanks. And that's saying something. If the Soviets hadn't held there, it's very possible that the Battle of the Bulge (where the Germans literally ran out of gas), would have ended differently. And any idiot can see the value of taking Berlin.<br />
<br />
But to ignore Japan is to ignore, let's say, 47% of the war. In the Pacific, the USSR was Ivan come lately. The Soviets invaded Manchuria after the US had pushed the Japanese all the way back across the Pacific. Strangely, Stone tries to contend that the Japanese were ready to surrender before Hiroshima, but the thing that convinced them to surrender was the Russian invasion on the day of the second bombing. So we didn't have to bomb them because they were ready to surrender but they weren't really ready to surrender until the Soviets attacked <em>after</em> we bombed them. I'm getting a bit cross-eyed.<br />
<br />
Stone tried to qualify his remarks in an interview with CBS, and stated that Russia won the war on <em>land</em>. Nah. North Africa is land. France and Italy are land. And strictly speaking, the Solomon Islands and the Phillipines and Iwo Jima and Okinawa count as land. And stop acting like the naval contributions don't count. Taking back the Pacific is a big deal, and the Soviets had nothing to do with it.<br />
<br />
<strong>II. American Exceptionalism is a False Idea</strong><br />
<br />
In the same interview where he qualified his claims that the Soviets won World War II by saying they won on <em>land</em>, Stone claimed that American Exceptionalism (viewing ourselves as an indispensable nation), makes us incapable of being a "global partner.". Other statements he made were to claim that no other country considers themselves indispensable and dictates to others and China has no history of aggression.<br />
<br />
Wow. Where to begin. I'm pretty sure Nikita Khrushchev saying "We will bury you!" and "Communism is the wave of the future!" was at least <em>implying</em> that he thought the Soviet Union was indispensable. Also, controlling Eastern Europe for decades sounds <em>kind of</em> like dictating to others. So the guys who he just got done praising for winning World War II are suddenly ignored <em>after </em>World War II. Maybe he doesn't ignore them in the book. But he's not exactly selling me on the book with this. I could get a twelve pack of beer for the same amount, and I'm not sure that the book's worth as much yet.<br />
<br />
As for the Chinese, they did a fair amount of dictating as well. For example, they did some dictating to Tibet. After they took it over circa 1950. So unless Stone considers 1950 to be pre-history, China <em>does</em> have some aggression in its history. But I guess that would make World War II pre-history too. I'm getting more confused here.<br />
<br />
But I need not restrict myself to what happened decades ago. The Chinese spend plenty of time bullying nations in Southeast Asia, mostly in disputes over the South China Sea. I'm pretty sure bullying counts as aggression. The Chinese government also does all sorts of aggressive things against its own people, like running them over with tanks for protesting. Or throwing them in jail for writing books. Or putting their wives under house arrest when they win a Nobel Prize for said book. <br />
<br />
The Russians have done plenty of dictating to neighboring nations, sometimes using alternative means of persuasion, like poisoning candidates for president of Ukraine. Also, I think the assorted Syrian shenanigans being perpetrated by Putin count as dictating to others. With bombs and stuff. I guess the only time things like this are worth considering are when America does them.<br />
<br />
They miss the obvious. America is the most powerful nation in the free world, and we are not partners with everyone. There is no moral equivalency between us and the repressive government in a place like Russia, and certainly not the extraordinarily repressive government in China. We may not be enemies, but we should compete with them. We need to be a message to the world that freedom works better than repression, and we're the only ones capable of standing up to the world's biggest repressors. That's what makes us indispensable.<br />
<br />
We haven't always been perfect and admit that, something the Russian and Chinese governments, past and present, avoid doing. We designed a system that is based on ideas, not ethnicities, races, or nationalities. And it's also a self-improving system. So we may underperform at moments in time (slavery, racism, sexism, the list goes on), but our system is designed to overcome these failings. We gradually (sometimes too gradually) learn from our own mistakes and continually get better and more free, while the Russian and Chinese governments continue to silence dissent and suppress freedoms. That's what makes us exceptional.<br />
<br />
<strong>III. American Imperialism</strong><br />
<br />
The co-author Peter Kuznick, claimed in an overly sympathetic interview with Tavis Smiley that this history is from the viewpoint of the victims. Right, America victimizes the world. Yawn. He goes on to explain the birth of American imperialism. America is the evil empire. Double yawn. America seeks global domination. Please. There were some times in early history where we had some expansionist adventures, but in the twentieth century that's not quite true.<br />
<br />
We didn't willingly enter World War I or World War II. We resisted getting involved in the first until an American cruise liner was attacked. We were dragged into the second when Hawaii was attacked. Prior to these attacks, we were inclined to keep to ourselves. After the war, we were the only free country not in shambles, facing Soviet aggression. We took on the role of the superpower of the free world, because no one else could. If we are an empire, we are the first one ever that didn't become an empire willingly. We did so to combat a larger, stronger empire bent on repression and global domination. We were the only ones who could. It's probably more accurate to call us a <em>counter</em>-empire. We don't want to rule the world; we want to make sure no one does.<br />
<br />
In the Smiley interview, he said he was proud of Showtime, because the documentary wasn't the sort of thing that would be shown on normal TV. There's a reason why these things aren't shown on normal TV. These three ideas are classic canards of extreme lefties. They go out of their way to diminish American achievements, then claim that America is a regressive force in the world while ignoring actual regressives in the world.<br />
<br />
Well, I've made up my mind. The assorted lunacies I've heard so far have only served to reinforce my belief in America and Americanism. The authors' addiction to obsolete ideologies has increased my allegience to the ideology that rendered them obsolete. Reading the entire book can only make me <em>more </em>patriotic. Also, I'm a sucker for good comedy. If the whole book is this crazy, it should produce a few thousand laughs for me. That's always worth $15-$20.JustAnotherInternetGuyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06366125906633398760noreply@blogger.com0