The Onion nails the election:
"After emerging victorious from one of the most pivotal elections in history, president-elect Barack Obama will assume the role of commander in chief on Jan. 20, shattering a racial barrier the United States is, at long last, shitty enough to overcome.
Faced with losing everything, Americans took a long overdue step forward and elected Barack Obama. Although polls going into the final weeks of October showed Sen. Obama in the lead, it remained unclear whether the failing economy, dilapidated housing market, crumbling national infrastructure, health care crisis, energy crisis, and five-year-long disastrous war in Iraq had made the nation crappy enough to rise above 300 years of racial prejudice and make lasting change.
"Today the American people have made their voices heard, and they have said, 'Things are finally as terrible as we're willing to tolerate," said Obama, addressing a crowd of unemployed, uninsured, and debt-ridden supporters. "To elect a black man, in this country, and at this time—these last eight years must have really broken you."
Added Obama, "It's a great day for our nation."
Carrying a majority of the popular vote, Obama did especially well among women and young voters, who polls showed were particularly sensitive to the current climate of everything being fucked. Another contributing factor to Obama's victory, political experts said, may have been the growing number of Americans who, faced with the complete collapse of their country, were at last able to abandon their preconceptions and cast their vote for a progressive African-American."
There are many great lines in there, noting we finally figured out that the economy and the waste of life in Iraq are more important issues than abortion and gay marriage. And then there is this doozy:
"Obama's victory is being called the most significant change in politics since the 1992 election, when a full-scale economic recession led voters to momentarily ignore the fact that candidate Bill Clinton had once smoked marijuana."
This stuff wouldn't be so funny if it weren't so close to the truth. No doubt thousands of people reading this article would argue that abortion, gay marriage, and whether Clinton inhaled are indeed more important than those other issues. The article finishes with a flourish:
"As we enter a new era of equality for all people, the election of Barack Obama will decidedly be a milestone in U.S. history, undeniable proof that Americans, when pushed to the very brink, are willing to look past outward appearances and judge a person by the quality of his character and strength of his record. So as long as that person is not a woman."
Are they begging for Clinton vs Palin in 2012? Say it ain't so!
Saturday, November 8, 2008
What the SC Halloween Shooting Suggests About our Gun Laws
Some say Quentin Patrick is a poster boy for gun control. Patrick shot 29 times through his door at some trick-or-treaters and their father, killing one of the kids. He sounds like the poster boy for better drug and mental health laws to me. If this event says anything about gun laws, its that they need to be aimed specifically at the problem, not be some blunt instrument which effects millions of people who are irrelevant to the problem.
What sane, sober person responds to a knock at the door by launching an attack? Put another way, which rerun of that scenario would result in more deaths: Patrick armed only with a large steak knife, or a healthy person as the owner armed with the AK-47? Gun deaths are not random events like diseases that hit the population uniformly. They are very concentrated among young males, the suicidal-mentally ill, and of course criminals. Let's see how Mr. Patrick scores:
"An ex-convict who thought he was being robbed gunned down a 12-year-old trick-or-treater, spraying nearly 30 rounds with an assault rifle from inside his home after hearing a knock on the door, police said Saturday. Quentin Patrick, 22, is accused of killing 12-year-old T.J. Darrisaw on Friday night."
Wow, a young male ex-convict. Color me shocked. There is also this:
"Police said they also charged a 19-year-old in his home, Ericka Patrice Pee, with obstruction of justice when she was caught trying to run away after the shooting with $7,500 in cash. Patterson did not give an explanation for the money."
I'll give you one: he's got some sort of criminal enterprise going there, probably drug dealing. Patrick has prior drug convictions.
So the lesson here is not to ban guns. The lesson here is get the damned guns out of the hands of criminals and people not sufficiently psychologically stable to handle them.
Let's have stiffer penalties for crimes committed with guns, or for possessing a gun where it is illegal. How about a higher minimum age for purchasing certain weapons? Might not pass constitutional muster, but it's worth a shot. More sensible drug laws would surely make a big difference, as would better mental health care. Stop filling prisons with people convicted of nothing more serious than drug possession, and start filling them with people who use guns to commit crimes, and let's see how the data changes.
Accidental gun deaths are tragic of course, but all death is tragic. That's not what is relevant when setting public policy. We simply do not outlaw causes of death that cause as few accidental deaths as guns do. We'd be outlawing swimming pools, mop buckets, and various models of transportation, were we to take that attitude. Freedom carries risk, we knew that going in.
For what its worth, I don't have a big problem with banning assault weapons, but my reasons have to do with my reading of the constitution*. I just don't think its where we should focus our energies, because I don't think there is much societal gain to be had there. We know who is abusing their gun rights. Curtailing their freedoms is the way to handle the problem in a supposedly free society, not infringing on everyone else's.
=======
* I do not think the founding fathers could have possibly understood the concept of weapons which could not be controlled sufficiently by the average person to effectively attack a single, deserving target, and consequently I do not think the term "arms" in the second amendment applies to such weapons. Thus, nuclear weapons can be banned, but 22's cannot. In between there is room for disagreement, and automatic weapons tread on the line.
What sane, sober person responds to a knock at the door by launching an attack? Put another way, which rerun of that scenario would result in more deaths: Patrick armed only with a large steak knife, or a healthy person as the owner armed with the AK-47? Gun deaths are not random events like diseases that hit the population uniformly. They are very concentrated among young males, the suicidal-mentally ill, and of course criminals. Let's see how Mr. Patrick scores:
"An ex-convict who thought he was being robbed gunned down a 12-year-old trick-or-treater, spraying nearly 30 rounds with an assault rifle from inside his home after hearing a knock on the door, police said Saturday. Quentin Patrick, 22, is accused of killing 12-year-old T.J. Darrisaw on Friday night."
Wow, a young male ex-convict. Color me shocked. There is also this:
"Police said they also charged a 19-year-old in his home, Ericka Patrice Pee, with obstruction of justice when she was caught trying to run away after the shooting with $7,500 in cash. Patterson did not give an explanation for the money."
I'll give you one: he's got some sort of criminal enterprise going there, probably drug dealing. Patrick has prior drug convictions.
So the lesson here is not to ban guns. The lesson here is get the damned guns out of the hands of criminals and people not sufficiently psychologically stable to handle them.
Let's have stiffer penalties for crimes committed with guns, or for possessing a gun where it is illegal. How about a higher minimum age for purchasing certain weapons? Might not pass constitutional muster, but it's worth a shot. More sensible drug laws would surely make a big difference, as would better mental health care. Stop filling prisons with people convicted of nothing more serious than drug possession, and start filling them with people who use guns to commit crimes, and let's see how the data changes.
Accidental gun deaths are tragic of course, but all death is tragic. That's not what is relevant when setting public policy. We simply do not outlaw causes of death that cause as few accidental deaths as guns do. We'd be outlawing swimming pools, mop buckets, and various models of transportation, were we to take that attitude. Freedom carries risk, we knew that going in.
For what its worth, I don't have a big problem with banning assault weapons, but my reasons have to do with my reading of the constitution*. I just don't think its where we should focus our energies, because I don't think there is much societal gain to be had there. We know who is abusing their gun rights. Curtailing their freedoms is the way to handle the problem in a supposedly free society, not infringing on everyone else's.
=======
* I do not think the founding fathers could have possibly understood the concept of weapons which could not be controlled sufficiently by the average person to effectively attack a single, deserving target, and consequently I do not think the term "arms" in the second amendment applies to such weapons. Thus, nuclear weapons can be banned, but 22's cannot. In between there is room for disagreement, and automatic weapons tread on the line.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Palin Didn't Know Africa was a Continent, O'Reilly Suggests Tutoring
You gotta love Bill O'Reilly's reaction in this video to learning that Sarah Palin's ignorance was far worse than any of us imagined. Apparently she didn't know that Africa was a continent, not a country, or what the countries in NAFTA were. O'Reilly's solution was that she could be tutored on how the government works.
Are you serial Bill? Nominate a person for the second highest government office in the land who needs tutoring on the basics? Would you support hiring a man for NFL head coach who needs tutoring on the basics of football? Would you submit to surgery by a doctor who needs tutoring on the basics of surgery? Fair and balanced indeed.
But then, if you listen to the entire clip above, O'Reilly actual asks with a straight face what went wrong with the Katy Couric interview. Bill, if you have to ask, I doubt any explanation will make sense to you. To use a phrase that's all the rage, what an incredible pinhead. You guys need to let her go.
Are you serial Bill? Nominate a person for the second highest government office in the land who needs tutoring on the basics? Would you support hiring a man for NFL head coach who needs tutoring on the basics of football? Would you submit to surgery by a doctor who needs tutoring on the basics of surgery? Fair and balanced indeed.
But then, if you listen to the entire clip above, O'Reilly actual asks with a straight face what went wrong with the Katy Couric interview. Bill, if you have to ask, I doubt any explanation will make sense to you. To use a phrase that's all the rage, what an incredible pinhead. You guys need to let her go.
Obama Considers Anit-Vax Nut Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for EPA Post
President Elect Obama is considering RFK Jr for the head of the EPA. This would be a horrific start for a presidency supposedly interested in being pro-science, and not falling prey to the politicization of science so endemic to the Bush administration, and scorned on this and many other science blogs. RFK is an anti-science anti-vax crank, and prone to Pr-damaging histrionic misrepresentations of his opponents as Nazis and such. Orac has a detailed summary.
Obama had better make these decisions very carefully. The scientific community which was so excited by his candidacy will turn on him like a pack of rabid wolves if he starts this nonsense. Ours is a very data-driven support.
Obama had better make these decisions very carefully. The scientific community which was so excited by his candidacy will turn on him like a pack of rabid wolves if he starts this nonsense. Ours is a very data-driven support.
US Infant Mortality 29th in the World
For those who like to tout our supposedly great health care system, some facts to break up the bravado: Our infant mortality rate ranks 29th, closer to that of Costa Rica than of the Top 5, and is worse than Cuba. So what exactly is so great about that?
This is a classic example of a topic conservatives dismiss with speculation masquerading as facts. "That's because the crack mothers and those irresponsible and on welfare bring down the averages". Of course, there is never any data submitted to support this claim, and even if there was, it isn't like other countries don't have poor people to take care of too. That merely begs the question: why are they so much better at taking care of their worst off than we are? And if we restricted the data to the well-off, would we necessarily be at the top.
I await with great eagerness and little expectation for someone to show me, using actual data, not speculation, why the United States health care system should not be changed to more closely match what is done in other countries. Novelty can be a good thing, when it comes with superior results. Novelty in the face of inferior results begins to more resemble simple stubbornness than anything as noble as defense of liberty.
This is a classic example of a topic conservatives dismiss with speculation masquerading as facts. "That's because the crack mothers and those irresponsible and on welfare bring down the averages". Of course, there is never any data submitted to support this claim, and even if there was, it isn't like other countries don't have poor people to take care of too. That merely begs the question: why are they so much better at taking care of their worst off than we are? And if we restricted the data to the well-off, would we necessarily be at the top.
I await with great eagerness and little expectation for someone to show me, using actual data, not speculation, why the United States health care system should not be changed to more closely match what is done in other countries. Novelty can be a good thing, when it comes with superior results. Novelty in the face of inferior results begins to more resemble simple stubbornness than anything as noble as defense of liberty.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Our Proud Democracy
When they had the first votes in Iraq, some said that showed they had accepted democracy. But voting is the easy part. Everyone likes to vote. After all, they had votes in Soviet Russia. Everyone likes democracy ... when they think they are going to win. What proves one's commitment to democracy is one's willingness to acknowledge the authority of those who win even when you didn't support them. Richard Nixon, of all people, set the example, when he refused to challenge the results in 1960 when he lost to John F. Kennedy by the slimmest of margins. He could have fought the outcome, called for recounts, gone to court; but he didn't, for the sake of the nation. Al Gore could have fought the results of the 2000 election far harder than he did. Some even think he might have won in the end. But at what cost to the nation? He too ended his quest, rather than attack the very foundation of democracy. These men truly put country first.
Those on the losing side of this presidential election have been very frank about their greater love of country and the principles of America. Well, now they have the greatest opportunity to show it that one could hope for. They can demonstrate, rather than merely pontificate, their love of freedom and democracy by accepting fully the results of this election and the political power that goes with it. They can show the world, which they so dearly wish to convert to democracy, just how well we do it here in the United States of America. They can show that they truly respect the office of the President of the United States of America, even if they don't like, and even perhaps criticize harshly, its current occupant. They can recognize that the election is over, we have a new president, and show that they are truly worthy of the word we have for lovers of country and democracy: Patriots.
Today I've read comments by Americans saying they won't accept Obama as their president. Their reasons? They use lots of words and phrases: socialist, Marxist, and others that mean essentially the same thing: He doesn't agree with them politically. Well, my fellow Americans, those kinds of disagreements are decided at the ballot box in democracies, and we just did that. You lost. Accept it. That is what being patriotic is all about. It's not about who wears flag pins, or puts yellow ribbons on their car, or who says "God bless America" the most. Anybody can do that. That's easy. Accepting the vote when you lose is hard. That's what it's all about. Without that, there is no democracy. People who can't do that don't deserve democracy. They are unworthy of it. They say the word, but they don't grasp its meaning. They resort to violence when the vote doesn't go their way. They challenge the very authority of the office. They give up on winning at the ballot box and decide to try to effect political change through violence, and threats designed to instill fear. It's nothing new. It's an old tactic that has been tried all over the world for centuries by thousands of people. We have a name for them too:
Terrorists.
Those on the losing side of this presidential election have been very frank about their greater love of country and the principles of America. Well, now they have the greatest opportunity to show it that one could hope for. They can demonstrate, rather than merely pontificate, their love of freedom and democracy by accepting fully the results of this election and the political power that goes with it. They can show the world, which they so dearly wish to convert to democracy, just how well we do it here in the United States of America. They can show that they truly respect the office of the President of the United States of America, even if they don't like, and even perhaps criticize harshly, its current occupant. They can recognize that the election is over, we have a new president, and show that they are truly worthy of the word we have for lovers of country and democracy: Patriots.
Today I've read comments by Americans saying they won't accept Obama as their president. Their reasons? They use lots of words and phrases: socialist, Marxist, and others that mean essentially the same thing: He doesn't agree with them politically. Well, my fellow Americans, those kinds of disagreements are decided at the ballot box in democracies, and we just did that. You lost. Accept it. That is what being patriotic is all about. It's not about who wears flag pins, or puts yellow ribbons on their car, or who says "God bless America" the most. Anybody can do that. That's easy. Accepting the vote when you lose is hard. That's what it's all about. Without that, there is no democracy. People who can't do that don't deserve democracy. They are unworthy of it. They say the word, but they don't grasp its meaning. They resort to violence when the vote doesn't go their way. They challenge the very authority of the office. They give up on winning at the ballot box and decide to try to effect political change through violence, and threats designed to instill fear. It's nothing new. It's an old tactic that has been tried all over the world for centuries by thousands of people. We have a name for them too:
Terrorists.
The GOP Pundits Reaction: Most Still Don't Get It
One would think after getting one's ass handed to you in an election as just happened, it would cause a lot of soul searching among the losers: What did we do wrong? What do we need to do more? How do we better convey our message? What in the message needs to be changed.
There are some that get it. Cal Thomas, surprisingly, leads the way, suggesting the Christian Right do the radical thing and follow Jesus' example, give to Caeser what is Caeser's, and try persuasion by example socially, rather than via politics. George Will warns of the dangers of becoming a regional party with "no intellectual seeds of intellectual rebirth".
But on balance, they just don't get it.
Rich Galen wants to pretend that it was all about the economy, which is the easiest way to avoid responsibility for the loss. It's like a football team that gets beaten badly and blames the rain. Ben Shapiro, never to be outdone for the intellectual low ground, and master of MSU, Ben Shapiro claims it's all about 'Americans’ puerile need for unity through self-congratulatory, cathartic membership in a broad, transformative political movement.' This guy should write a psycho horror novel series called 'DENIAL'. Michael Medved pretends the Obama victory had nothing to do with values. It's just another version of the "we lost because we are better than them" argument, which solves no problems, and thus guarantees further failures. Many of them join Robert Knight in clinging to the notion that there was anything relevant about William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright. You know what they say about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results? There is nothing you are going to tell America about those pseudo issues that we don't already know. Boring. Knight pours salt into that rhetorical wound by implying that it was the media's fault there wasn't much substantive discussion of "judicial activism, marriage, abortion, gun control, cultural depravity, and illegal immigration", when it was the McCain campaign raising pseudo issue after pseudo issue, and made an incompetent loon from Alaska the story, first by nominating her, and then by pretending she should get a pass from the media test every other candidate for VP had to pass.
The Republican party had better get it through its head that it lost because it ran a horribly weak candidate, a la 1996, insulted the country's collective intelligence by nominating someone completely unqualified to be his running mate (a la Ross Perot), and is simply out of step with America on many serious issues. The anti-abortion, abstinence-only, prayer-in-school, science-denying faction is going to shrink in the next 4 years, and right now that's all you appeal to. Keep that attitude, pretend "Palin 2012" is anything but a sick joke, you'll suffer a McGovern-like wipe out, and America will lose the conservative check on liberal excesses we desperately need. You just have to stop catering to the reality-deniers.
There are some that get it. Cal Thomas, surprisingly, leads the way, suggesting the Christian Right do the radical thing and follow Jesus' example, give to Caeser what is Caeser's, and try persuasion by example socially, rather than via politics. George Will warns of the dangers of becoming a regional party with "no intellectual seeds of intellectual rebirth".
But on balance, they just don't get it.
Rich Galen wants to pretend that it was all about the economy, which is the easiest way to avoid responsibility for the loss. It's like a football team that gets beaten badly and blames the rain. Ben Shapiro, never to be outdone for the intellectual low ground, and master of MSU, Ben Shapiro claims it's all about 'Americans’ puerile need for unity through self-congratulatory, cathartic membership in a broad, transformative political movement.' This guy should write a psycho horror novel series called 'DENIAL'. Michael Medved pretends the Obama victory had nothing to do with values. It's just another version of the "we lost because we are better than them" argument, which solves no problems, and thus guarantees further failures. Many of them join Robert Knight in clinging to the notion that there was anything relevant about William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright. You know what they say about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results? There is nothing you are going to tell America about those pseudo issues that we don't already know. Boring. Knight pours salt into that rhetorical wound by implying that it was the media's fault there wasn't much substantive discussion of "judicial activism, marriage, abortion, gun control, cultural depravity, and illegal immigration", when it was the McCain campaign raising pseudo issue after pseudo issue, and made an incompetent loon from Alaska the story, first by nominating her, and then by pretending she should get a pass from the media test every other candidate for VP had to pass.
The Republican party had better get it through its head that it lost because it ran a horribly weak candidate, a la 1996, insulted the country's collective intelligence by nominating someone completely unqualified to be his running mate (a la Ross Perot), and is simply out of step with America on many serious issues. The anti-abortion, abstinence-only, prayer-in-school, science-denying faction is going to shrink in the next 4 years, and right now that's all you appeal to. Keep that attitude, pretend "Palin 2012" is anything but a sick joke, you'll suffer a McGovern-like wipe out, and America will lose the conservative check on liberal excesses we desperately need. You just have to stop catering to the reality-deniers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
