tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16728962062032337212024-02-08T02:56:45.658-08:00Send Penguins! Lokihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06290936791524026416noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1672896206203233721.post-12778745938773791472019-04-30T22:33:00.000-07:002019-04-30T22:33:04.160-07:00Private Public Partnerships, and Privately Owned Toll RoadsI'm getting ready for my annual Mother's Day roadtrip. Once again we will be going south to the beautiful North Virginia suburbs. And that got me thinking about something I'd only recently become aware of as my new GPS unit showed me another way to Escape from The Beltway!<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: xx-small;"><b>TM </b>(Soon to be a major motion picture event from NeverSail Films)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: xx-small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: x-small;">It's the Dulles Greenway road, or the second half of VA 267. It is a 12.53 mile long divided highway linking Dulles Airport with Leesburg, Virginia. It's actually a damned nice road. Perhaps especially compared to the Beltway and the other roads leading there from the area of Northern Virginia that I visit. Outside of commuting hours it's a wide open road, 65 MPH speed limit, and scant traffic. It's also a toll road, charging between $4.75 and $5.80 (by my casual understanding of the toll rates. I may be mistaken on specifics, calling it ~$5.00 a trip is a fair approximation, I believe.) depending upon congestion pricing for two axle vehicles like most Personally Owned Vehicles. I've paid it before and likely will again, because even after 10 AM I-66 and I-495 are often congested and frustrating to drive. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: x-small;">Having said that, I hate everything about why this road exists. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: x-small;">Their website's About page puts their finger precisely upon the reasons this road makes me angry. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: x-small;">"</span><span style="background-color: #f7f7f7; color: #4e4e4e; font-family: "PT Serif", serif; font-size: 17px;">The Greenway is a leading example of the current trend towards the privatization of public facilities." </span><br />
<span style="background-color: #f7f7f7; color: #4e4e4e; font-family: "PT Serif", serif; font-size: 17px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: #f7f7f7; color: #4e4e4e; font-family: "PT Serif", serif; font-size: 17px;">The website is promoting not just their own project, but trying to use it to leverage the idea in people's minds that public-private partnerships, where the private sector takes over some public work is an unequivocal good thing. They boast of how their road, which was built as a private enterprise, reduces commute and travel times for the people using it by about 50% for the comparable drive. I don't think there's any way to disagree with that. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: #f7f7f7; color: #4e4e4e; font-family: "PT Serif", serif; font-size: 17px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: #f7f7f7; color: #4e4e4e; font-family: "PT Serif", serif; font-size: 17px;">It's still a horrible, horrible idea - and one that I doubt could work outside of geographic and population circumstances similar to those that exist around the Northern Virginia Beltway communities. Are those circumstances repeated in other parts of the country? Sure, around select cities. But as a general case? Not really. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: #f7f7f7; color: #4e4e4e; font-family: "PT Serif", serif; font-size: 17px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: #f7f7f7; color: #4e4e4e; font-family: "PT Serif", serif; font-size: 17px;">This isn't a general solution to congestion problems in the DC area. This is a specific solution for people who work in the DC area and can afford to live in Leesburg. And, hey, when the road isn't being put to use by their primary market, people like yours truly can benefit from the chance to skip the local road congestion and stop lights. So what's the problem?</span><br />
<span style="background-color: #f7f7f7; color: #4e4e4e; font-family: "PT Serif", serif; font-size: 17px;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #4e4e4e; font-family: PT Serif, serif;"><span style="background-color: #f7f7f7; font-size: 17px;">In short, it's the toll, and mindset behind it. I'm actually living in a state with one of the early modern toll highway systems in the US: NY and the NY Thruway. It's a toll road that often on the local level is paralleled by various local access roads that are slower than the Thruway, and have stop lights. It is unfair to act as though the sole source of revenue for the Thruway is it's tolls, there's also concessions income - and that's not true for the Greenway. But for both roads (treating the octopus of the NY Thruway as one road for these purposes.) the vast majority of their income comes from tolls. </span></span><br />
<span style="color: #4e4e4e; font-family: PT Serif, serif;"><span style="background-color: #f7f7f7; font-size: 17px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #4e4e4e; font-family: PT Serif, serif;"><span style="background-color: #f7f7f7; font-size: 17px;">According to the 2018 Thruway budget book, in 2017 they collected $726 million in tolls on the entirety of the nearly 500 mile road. The Greenway on the other hand in 2017 generated $92 million from toll revenue. (both figures are approximate.) I can't seem to find the numbers for trips on both roads at this time, and I really haven't the energy to go hunting. But what I believe to be important here is this: An end-to-end toll on the Thruway, defined as Exit 1 in NYC, to Exit 61 at the PA State border is $22.75 cash price. An end-to-end toll on the Greenway varies but is approximately $5.00. The cost in toll per mile of road is more interesting: NY Thruway: 4.5 cents per mile; on shorter haul trips on the thruway such as one might choose while avoiding local access roads the cost per mile seems to go up to abut 5 cents per mile. </span></span><span style="background-color: #f7f7f7; color: #4e4e4e; font-family: "PT Serif", serif; font-size: 17px;">On the Greenway? Using that $5.00 toll figure (which is admittedly inaccurate) the toll cost is 40 cents per mile. Granted that's covering both the loan debt and some profit for the owner/operator, but it's hard to see how this public private partnership is truly improving things for the population as a whole. Instead it's creating a little enclave for people who can afford a daily cost of $10 (each way) to save half an hour of time. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: #f7f7f7; color: #4e4e4e; font-family: "PT Serif", serif; font-size: 17px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: #f7f7f7; color: #4e4e4e; font-family: "PT Serif", serif; font-size: 17px;">It's an expensive road for the haves, not a road supported for all. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: #f7f7f7; color: #4e4e4e; font-family: "PT Serif", serif; font-size: 17px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: #f7f7f7; color: #4e4e4e; font-family: "PT Serif", serif; font-size: 17px;">And we shouldn't look to this as a model for the future. </span>Lokihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06290936791524026416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1672896206203233721.post-60269748314960537032018-10-06T06:29:00.000-07:002018-10-06T06:34:12.917-07:00Two Letters Made PublicI have come to a watershed moment.<br />
<br />
I cannot pretend any longer. <br />
<br />
The GOP cares nothing for decency, civil rights, nor anything else but their power, and that of their patrons. They are bought and paid for by oligarchs, and wish nothing more than to create in the United States a reprise of all the worst traits of the Persian Gulf states: Helotry and poverty for the masses, and massive wealth for the privileged few. They prioritize the profits of investors over the education of students. They prioritize a narrow religious intolerance over mercy. And they enshrine sexual abusers as being above the law.<br />
<br />
I will no longer vote in any coming election for any candidate aligned with the Republican Party. Nor will any candidate on the Republican ticket be considered for an off-party vote here in NY state (i.e. Independence, Constitutional Party, or the like.)<br />
<br />
In support of that I have sent two letters this morning: <br />
<br />
To the campaign for Dr Maxwell here in my local US House race:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /><div id=":2fo" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Roboto, RobotoDraft, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">
<div class="qQVYZb">
</div>
<div class="utdU2e">
</div>
<div class="btm">
</div>
</div>
<div class="" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Roboto, RobotoDraft, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">
<div class="aHl" style="margin-left: -38px;">
</div>
<div id=":2g1" tabindex="-1">
</div>
<div class="ii gt" id=":2fq" style="direction: ltr; font-size: 12.8px; margin: 8px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative;">
<div class="a3s aXjCH " id=":2fp" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: 1.5; overflow: hidden;">
<div dir="ltr">
Dear Dr. Maxwell,<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I am a veteran. I am an American. I am concerned about the direction this nation is taking. I'm also completely and utterly disgusted by the direction the GOP has chosen these past two years in particular. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
You have made your campaign a quiet endorsement of the policies and behaviors of the blight currently infesting The People's House. By doing so you have shown me that you believe American Values include: </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<ul>
<li style="margin-left: 15px;">Concentration Camps on the Border</li>
<li style="margin-left: 15px;">Removing Children From their Parents - With no Plan and Less Concern for their Reunification</li>
<li style="margin-left: 15px;">Attacking Sexual Assault Victims</li>
<li style="margin-left: 15px;">Prioritizing Profits Above Civil Rights</li>
<li style="margin-left: 15px;">Bankrupting the Federal Government in the Name of Rewarding Wealthy Donors</li>
<li style="margin-left: 15px;">Criminalizing Pregnancy Outcomes in Spite of Credible Medical Testimony that no Proof of Wrongdoing Exists</li>
<li style="margin-left: 15px;">Placing Artificial Barriers Against Voting for People in Poverty</li>
<li style="margin-left: 15px;">Mocking Allied Governments</li>
<li style="margin-left: 15px;">Admiring Dictators for their Wontan Use of Extra-Legal Killings as a Sign of Strength</li>
</ul>
<div>
I realize this is going to come as a shock to you, but none of these things are the American Values I signed up to defend when I put my life on the line in the US Navy. If you wish to claim that while I was in the Navy I saw no risk to my life because I never saw combat, I'd like to remind you of the casualties aboard the USS <i>Dhalgren</i> and the USS <i>Iwo Jima</i> that occurred without any enemy action, either. Steam plans are inherently dangerous environments, as are ships. </div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Your alignment with privilege and the shifting goalposts that Senator Mitch McConnell has chosen to embrace in his goal of remaking the United States into a Persian Gulf style oligarchy is absolutely disgusting to me. After this week's latest proof that the GOP, the part of Lincoln, no longer has any moral compass but privilege and wealth - I can no longer consider voting for anyone who feels that these are American Values. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It is my dearest hope that your campaign fails miserable and is part of many campaigns across these United States where the People speak up and tell you and your corporate masters what we think of your vision. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Wishing you all personal well-being and health, but absolutely no success, I remain: </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Michael D. Taub, formerly MM3(SW)</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
And then to the author of this lickspittle OP-Ed piece in the local paper: https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/opinion/guest-column/2018/10/02/can-we-find-common-ground-kavanaugh/1499270002/</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div class="adn ads" data-legacy-message-id="166498a725c04a89" data-message-id="#msg-a:r7800564586520561971" style="border-left: none; display: flex; font-family: Roboto, RobotoDraft, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: medium; padding: 0px;">
<div class="gs" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 20px; width: 1512px;">
<div class="">
<div class="ii gt" id=":2g3" style="direction: ltr; font-size: 12.8px; margin: 8px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative;">
<div class="a3s aXjCH " id=":2g4" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: 1.5; overflow: hidden;">
<div dir="ltr">
Dear Ms. Valeria-Iseman,<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I believe that your reduction of the opposition to Judge Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court to simply the conflict between his testimony and Dr. Ford's testimony is an inherently dishonest position. Your implication that the only reason people have for believing Dr. Ford's testimony is a desire to show solidarity based solely upon gender identity is frankly disgusting. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Judge Kavanaugh's public record is such that even before Dr. Ford came forward there were many people who had serious questions about his position towards women's rights. I suspect you and I would disagree sharply about the importance and justice of Roe v. Wade, so let's shelve that particular issue. Judge Kavanaugh's recent decision to try to bar a refugee from getting an abortion for no reason other than his personal view that abortion is wrong, while the law of the land is defined by Roe v. Wade, however shows a disregard for everything I understand about the law and judicial temperament. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Then there's Judge Kavanaugh's relationship and testimony regarding former Federal Judge Alex Kozinski. If you have managed to avoid this particular information in your bubble, let me remind you that Alex Kozinski was removed from the bench pending an investigation into his constant disgusting, abusive, and sexually harassing behavior towards his staff in his courtroom. Including during the time while Brett Kavanaugh was working for the judge. Among other behaviors Kozinski would ask of his female staff whether this, or that pornographic clip he'd found on the web was titillating to them. According to Wikipedia at least fifteen women have accused the former judge of this behavior. In the end, facing a full fledged, and long-overdue, investigation Kozinski chose to resign. The charges are not proven in a court of law, but neither are they refuted. I choose to believe that no one would agree to endure the abuse that public accusers like Dr. Ford are traditionally subjected to in the court of public opinion without having endured an unspeakable provocation. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Now, I grant you that Brett Kavanaugh is not responsible for Kozinski's behavior. However, he is accused of having been present while Kozinski would confront at least one of his former staff. Not only did Brett Kavanaugh fail to intercede with his mentor's disgusting behavior, but he later said he never saw the judge behave in any way that was improper. I could accept that he hadn't recognized the behavior as improper, but once it was being called out for investigation - one would trust a legal scholar of Kavanaugh's stature to be able to reach the standard of 2.8 knowledge: Can recognize correct answer when given. In short, Kavanaugh does not come into the recent allegations without stains on his reputation, nor questions about his views of the rights of women as full fledged individuals. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Then you reduce the current allegations against Kavanaugh to simply those of Dr. Ford. Which is also not the case. A total of three women have now come forward. Each with different stories, but each of the stories fit a picture of a young man so protected by his privilege that he felt no need to accord women whom he had no emotional relationship with the courtesy you provide even to those people coming to the Open Door Mission. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The FBI investigation was a face-saving sham, and to pretend it could have been anything else is simply a slap in the face for the courage that Dr. Ford showed coming forward. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Until you and other defenders of Brett Kavanaugh accept that there's more here than one woman's unsubstantiated accusations against your man, I'm afraid there's no common ground to be found. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Sincerely,</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Michael D. Taub. </div>
</div>
<div class="yj6qo">
</div>
<div class="adL">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="hi" style="background: rgb(242, 242, 242); border-bottom-left-radius: 1px; border-bottom-right-radius: 1px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; width: auto;">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="ajx" style="clear: both;">
</div>
</div>
<div class="gA gt acV" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; border-bottom-left-radius: 0px; border-bottom-right-radius: 0px; border-top: none; font-family: Roboto, RobotoDraft, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; width: auto;">
<div class="gB xu" style="border-top: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div class="ip iq" style="border-top: none; clear: both; margin: 0px; padding: 16px 0px;">
May the current plague infesting the White House suffer a mischief. Preferably involving a heart attack while in a compromising position.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Lokihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06290936791524026416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1672896206203233721.post-30971393866535816172017-08-01T11:42:00.001-07:002017-08-01T11:42:19.910-07:00Chris Collins: Idiot or Rational Racist? A local US Rep from the State of NY, but not my Rep, Chris Collins recently announced his intent to defang the remaining clauses of the NY SAFE Act by pushing through a bill in Congress to establish Federal protections for firearms rights above and beyond those currently defined by the second amendment. <br />
<br />
So what, you may ask? I mean everyone and their uncle knows that the GOP is sucking at the gun manufacturer's lobby and Astroturf organization's (Also known in some circles as the NRA.) tit for years. Why would it be noteworthy that they'd bring out more legislation to protect their profits at the cost of any attempt to bring regulatory sanity to the issue of personal firearms in the US? <br />
<br />
Well, Chris Collins is also a major supporter of OBL. And as far as I know has yet to condemn the fraudulent and repressive so-called "<span style="background-color: white; color: #414141; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", "DejaVu Serif", serif;">Presidential Commission on Election Integrity</span>." Now, some context for out of state readers: The only remaining clauses of the NY SAFE Act with any teeth are those requiring registration of all legally-owned individual firearms with local law enforcement (With the ability for said owners to opt-out of having their data in any searchable database), and tracking purchase of ammunition with that being reported, again, to local law enforcement. Whether that is a worthwhile use of the time of the various law enforcement departments is beyond the scope of this essay. Frankly it's a stupid law, and was a stupider law before the courts struck down some of the other "key" clauses. <br />
<br />
But it is a duly enacted law, and one that has been modified by the courts to account for current Federal standards for respecting Second Amendment rights. <br />
<br />
One could comment about how fucking stupid it is for the GOP to be the champions of State's Rights, except when those rights start pinching the multi-million dollar companies that pay their election war chests, but that would open one up, legitimately, to the fact that as a fairly radical sort, myself, I think that things like SSM and other inviolate civil rights enforced by the Federal government is a good thing, regardless of what fucktards like Mike Pence or Pat McCrory might think. <br />
<br />
Instead let's look at the dichotomy between allowing Federal oversight of all voter rolls with an eye towards disenfranching as many poor and minorities as possible - all in the service of the ego of a fucking narcissist's claim that he really won the popular vote, except for those illegal votes, which have yet to be proven to exist - and the idea of protesting the registration in a searchable database of all firearms in a state. If searchable databases are a bad thing, because they give the government too much power, you'd think that a consistent person would oppose both. <br />
<br />
As I said, Chris Collins is a staunch supporter of OBL. And has said nothing against the Election Integrity Commission. <br />
<br />
So he's not consistent. <br />
<br />
Now, he could just be a flaming idiot and unconcerned with appearing to have any kind of compass other than "follow the money." I can't provide evidence against that. <br />
<br />
But there's a more compelling theory: If you assume, for the sake of argument, that he's a classist racist asshole, a lot of things line up.<br />
<br />
Protecting the privacy of people owning personal firearms is never going to be a threat to the Federal government. Even when the Bundy clan had their showdowns, in neither case were the immediate consequences for the Federal government going to involved any kind of far-reaching effect. I think that that tunnel vision, and inability to think past the next news cycle was an error, but I'm admittedly sometimes taken by a truly Old Testament attitude towards threatening law enforcement. <br />
<br />
Protecting the privacy of voters, on the other hand, would be a good way to prevent having so-called self-appointed election monitors coming to various homes and discussing a person's political party choices. Just to point out one possible use for the data. Which is a deadly threat to the idea of a fully participating representative democracy. Gosh, it's almost like Chris Collins supports voter suppression.<br />
<br />
And with Kris Kobach involved with this commission, that's exactly what it is intended to do. <br />
<br />
There's an uglier side to this, too<br />
<br />
By making it impossible to enact any kind of restriction on firearms sales or ownership, or even enforcing any kind of consumer standards for firearms (Did you know that the Consumer Product Safety Act specifically excludes firearms as type of product that can be tracked for safety purposes?) cheap firearms will keep bubbling through the poorest neighborhoods, and keep playing a part in the violence endemic to crushing poverty - which can then be used to excuse draconian policing tactics, and refusing to actually hold police accountable for things like shooting a black man for doing what he was told to do, because the cop in question thought he smelled pot. <br />
<br />
With that kind of simmering violence you can easily manufacture excuses to send in the stormtroopers to promote law and order - and if the peaceful opposition gets caught up in the works, you can either criminalize their presence in the area, or just kill 'em and plant the evidence of their malfeasance later. It's not like we could afford to risk the safety of our beloved peace officers by actually holding them accountable for killing innocent pregnant women, after all. (Well, not innocent black pregnant women. If she's white, maybe that's worth prosecuting.) <br />
<br />
In the end a ballot is deadlier than a bullet. It has more far-ranging effects. And it can do more to promote change than a bullet can. <br />
<br />
So by standing by while the Federal government chooses to go on an unjustified witch hunt through national voting records, but protesting and trying to stop the state government from trying, however ineffectually, to curb firearms violence by keeping records of firearm ownership, it's pretty clear that whether an idiot or a racist Chris Collins agrees with my judgment about the relative deadliness of bullets and ballots. <br />
<br />
And if he can agree to that, it's a lot harder to believe he's an idiot. <br />
<br />
Which makes the racist accusation a lot more credible. <br />
<br />
So, thank you, Chris Collins, for making explicit your racism and classism. <br />
<br />
One would think that a true student of the Founding Fathers would remember the rallying cry of: No Taxation Without Representation. But that would put your party at risk, so... I understand. And then we might have more minority presidents. Lokihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06290936791524026416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1672896206203233721.post-65463254318350494812017-07-22T07:44:00.002-07:002017-07-22T07:44:22.938-07:00Bodycams and Police IntegrityThis week had an event happen that just confirmed something that advocates for police reform have been saying for years: There are dirty cops who will plant evidence on people they want to arrest, and that behavior is tolerated if not abetted by a large number of other officers. <br />
<br />
For anyone living under a rock, the incident I'm referring to is this: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/19/us/baltimore-police-video-drugs.html?mcubz=0<br />
<br />
The short version if you don't care to view the video and read the accompanying article is that Officer Pinheiro attempted to turn off his bodycam, while he planted some drugs at the scene of an arrest. Then left the scene, tried to turn the bodycam back on, and returned to "find" the drugs. Obviously the case associated with this incident has been dismissed by the DA's office, but that's only the tip of the iceberg.<br />
<br />
There are three officers at the scene and the bodycam clearly shows the two other officers watching while Officer Pinheiro planted the drugs. Even more distrubing, the DA's office seems perfectly happy to continue to use Officer Pinheiro's testimony in other criminal cases. At this point the Officer has zero credibility, and I would argue that any officer who worked with him should be viewed with deep suspicion, too. <br />
<br />
We can assume one of two things about this incident: Either it was a completely one-off incident and shock, alone, was why the other officers made no protest on the video. Or it's fucking routine, and they're used to it. <br />
<br />
I know which way I'd lean. <br />
<br />
This is why bodycams that record only at the command of the officers in question is such a bad idea. It's not that I believe that all cops are dirty, I really don't. I do think that currently most police officers associations are so spineless, they care more about protecting crooks, bullies and rapists in their ranks than they do about protecting and serving the public. One of the best ways to start restoring some sense of faith in the police of this nation would be to require body cams that start recording as soon as the officer begins his or her shift, and only stops after they return to clock off their shift.<br />
<br />
And until police officer's associations, DAs and the (In)Justice Department start taking action in that direction, I'm forced to believe that their priorities lay more with protecting abusers than in serving the public. Lokihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06290936791524026416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1672896206203233721.post-52940929112032595002017-06-05T09:39:00.001-07:002017-06-05T09:39:53.197-07:00Facebook is a stupid companyWhether you use Facebook or not is up to you, and I won't judge. <br />
<br />
I'm sure that social people find it useful and entertaining. My own experience on the platform was not the best: I didn't have problems with dealing with abusive people, I just had one or two people I kept in contact with through it, and then there were the stupid Zynga games. At one point during one of their stupid phases they updated their TOS to suggest they were claiming copyright on anything posted on their pages and I noped out of that so hard, I hadn't been back. This was back around 2007 or so. Do you remember your passwords from that era? I sure don't. (This matters.)<br />
<br />
At the time, Facebook only allowed one to deactivate the account. <br />
<br />
Today I got a welcome back email from Facebook. <br />
<br />
For some reason these idiots thought that a login from a Mac OS computer in fucking Vietnam was completely legit and re-opened my Facebook account. I guess there's something to be said for following a seemingly legitimate password combination, but FFS how was there no question about a ten year dormant account being reactivated from fucking Vietnam?<br />
<br />
And of course, Facebook, being Facebook, still has all the old Hotel California attitudes, and finding out how to secure the account required a password I no longer had any knowledge of. Fortunately I had recently upgraded my gmail account's password to something umpteen characters long. So there was no reasonable chance for a hacker to get that. I did eventually get to reset the password, generated a huge one from my password manager, and told Facebook thank you, no - fuck off forever assholes. <br />
<br />
But seriously - ten year dormant account - reactivated from fucking Vietnam? <br />
<br />
Why was that even processed in the first place?Lokihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06290936791524026416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1672896206203233721.post-2241332025808409182017-06-01T15:11:00.000-07:002017-06-01T15:11:31.483-07:00Ex-con being shamed in the press! And Loki approves, for once.This morning I was looking at various news feeds (as one does) while avoiding the serious news about the latest disaster in the making coming from the psychopath party in Washington and came across the news that the parents of students at a private school in Montreal are somewhat disturbed that an ex-con has been volunteering at the school.<br />
<br />
Normally this sort of shit pisses me right the fuck off. If someone has been released after serving their sentence they shouldn't be automatically stigmatized. Normally my concern for stigmatization of ex-cons is that it sabotages any attempt at re-integration with society at large, and more often than not there's no reason for such a stigma. <br />
<br />
In this case? If I were one of the parents, I'd be up in arms myself.<br />
<br />
Because the ex-con in this case is Karla Homolka. <br />
<br />
For anyone who reads this who doesn't know who that might be, she was the partner of a serial killer in Canada in the early 90s. She was personally and directly involved in the torture, rape, and execution of two teenaged girls, including her then sixteen year old sister. And because sexism, sensationalism and fucking idiocy (If not outright incompetence.) she was allowed to make a plea deal with the prosecution for her testimony, where she presented herself as an unwilling accomplice to her partner's nefarious schemes. In exchange for which she got a sentence that seemed appropriate for someone who presented herself as nearly as much a victim as the two deceased girls. <br />
<br />
Cue about two years later. Someone finds a roll of exposed film in the house Homolka had shared with her partner. <br />
<br />
Now, it is difficult to properly place context with snapshots - and often there's room for a lot of interpretation between shots. But when someone's plea bargain testimony included things like claiming she never participated in hurting the girls, and the photos show her doing just that, it's. . a little suggestive that <i>maybe</i> her testimony was less than truthful. <br />
<br />
Since her partner had been claiming from day one they'd been equal partners in the killings, and hasn't changed since his trial, the benefit of the doubt in my mind is that he's most likely being truthful about that. <br />
<br />
Anyways, for legal reasons (which I tend to approve of, even when they lead to abortions of justice like this case) the Canucks coudln't go against the deal they'd made with her for her testimony, and she was released after serving her term.<br />
<br />
She married, had a child, moved out of the country, and then seems to have moved back to Montreal, where at least some of her kids are going to a religious school there. And where she has been a chaperone on a field trip, and been involved in some classroom activities. The school claims that they have no way to bar her, but can at the same time say that they've made it policy that she's not to be allowed to be alone with any students. I am. . . underwhelmed by their judgment.<br />
<br />
I'm also rather disturbed that it seems the first that the other parents at this school knew of their celebrity chaperone was after the local press broke the story. <br />
<br />
Now there's been some talk about how Karla served her time and should be allowed to get on with her life. Which strikes me as utter bullshit - she got away with conning the Canadian Criminal Courts, but to expect me to believe she's actually demonstrated remorse for her crimes is more than I can stomach. Even if she had been fully truthful in her testimony, I'd be leery of allowing her access in a school to minors. Given that I think she pulled one of the greatest cons in criminal history - no fucking way. Lokihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06290936791524026416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1672896206203233721.post-38335892411842194472017-05-31T10:44:00.003-07:002017-05-31T10:44:54.502-07:00Portland and the GOPIn the wake of the assault on three men who dared to try to restrict a patriot's freedom of speech, the GOP of Portland is talking about using that patriot's friends from the 3% for security at their future events.<br />
<br />
Or translated to sanity - the GOP doubles down on hate speech, demonizing political opponents, and advocating for vigilantism.<br />
<br />
Quite honestly, this is starting to shape up as Trayvon Martin vs. George Zimmerman, part two. And I expect the sequel to be just as much a travesty of justice as the original. The GOP's nationwide. (and racially defined) push to create a right to self-defense in the absence of any reasonable threat, simply the perception of threat is already getting killer cops acquitted. It got George Zimmerman acquitted. And it's going to make it possible (perhaps even likely) that Jeremy Joseph Christian will also be acquitted. <br />
<br />
(After the Bundy Jr. gang got acquitted my faith in the jury system took a severe blow.) <br />
<br />
The fucktards are organized, have several nationally recognized outlets for their insanity and have created echo chambers. And now we're being told that it's not FAAAIIIR to demonize a group because one nut attacked people when his abusive tirade was challenged. Because self-defense. <br />
<br />
Between this, and the recent election of a fucktard from Montana who feels that he's justified in assaulting journalists - I'm done. The GOP is no a hate group. They will not police themselves. And as such I will not support, vote, or even show any more than the bare modicum of respect the office they hold might deserve. <br />
<br />
<br />Lokihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06290936791524026416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1672896206203233721.post-64879439363184676142017-03-26T10:28:00.001-07:002017-03-26T10:29:20.794-07:00Yes, it's so much simpler to just demonize bad parents for being bad parents.<div class="MsoNormal">
My response to a column in my local USAToday network paper this weekend. <a href="http://www.miamiherald.com/living/liv-columns-blogs/ana-veciana-suarez/article139718148.html">The original column, linked here</a>. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Dear Editor,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">I believe that the column your paper chose to run in the
March 25 Living section, by Ana Veciana-Suarez, under the headline “Crocodile
Tears for Teen After Suicide,” was a deeply flawed piece that should never have
been given national attention. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">While I agree with Ana Veciana-Suarez’s thesis that the
mother of her piece is clearly trying to make a cash grab in the wake of her
personal tragedy, I find it appalling the lengths to which the article goes on
about demonizing the woman. The texts
quoted in the piece are justly horrifying.
But the article’s insistence on naming only the woman involved, and none
of the other people who had wronged young Naika Venant seems to me to be doing
just what the mother claims, recasting her as the sole villain in this
piece. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">If this article had been bought, and paid for, by the State
of Florida’s DCF it couldn’t have been a better attempt to shift blame away
from “the black hole of the system.” The
acceptance that foster care is going to involve rape, and neglect, and that “[Naika’s]
<span style="background: white; color: #333333;">journey through foster care made her even more
disrespectful and rebellious, too. Her behavior, however, was an expected
result of the great trauma she endured,” is frankly horrifying. This shouldn’t be seen as an opportunity to pile
upon a woman who is herself deeply flawed, but a chance to shine a light upon
the often desperate straits that the whole nation’s foster care system is
facing – often enough because of inadequate funding and impossible caseloads, as has been highlighted by
the investigations locally in the wake of the Brook Stagles case. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">It seems to me to be not merely unfair to send this article
out nationally where it is falling into the public’s purview without any
context, nor any direct follow-up to be expected, but a dangerous over-simplification
– presenting the parent of a child who died while in care of the state’s as the
sole named villain of the piece – when anyone who took the time to think about
it would realize that the parents of all the children who find themselves in
the foster care system are going to be deeply flawed individuals – and excusing
failures of the system by blaming them for blatantly predictable failures is
going to leave us with a system that isn’t bothering to ask what can it do
better, and what resources does it need to meet the real-world demands placed
upon it. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Sincerely, <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Michael D. Taub<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">cc. aveciana@MiamiHerald.com</span></span><o:p></o:p></div>
Lokihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06290936791524026416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1672896206203233721.post-1240327334902025282017-03-04T12:27:00.001-08:002017-03-04T12:27:44.110-08:00Power Disparity and HumorI just saw the new McCafe ad today - it seems to be titled "Enlighten-Mint" and it's got me wondering just how in the hell it got greenlit.<br />
<br />
For a look at the ad here's an <a href="https://www.ispot.tv/ad/APdX/mcdonalds-mccaf-shamrock-chocolate-madness-enlighten-mint">iTV link</a>.<br />
<br />
The short synopsis for this is that a white asshole comes by to a black woman's desk, takes the McCafe drink from her desk, and walks off it it. And then because for every fifth one the woman buys McDonalds will give her a free one she just accepts this, and goes about replacing her stolen drink. <br />
<br />
This wouldn't have been funny if it were two people on an equal power level. As it is, having a guy of any race taking something from a woman of any race is fucked up. Especially if the only recourse the woman seems to feel she has available is to replace her stolen drink out of her own resources. The power levels here are just so fucked up it's really infuriating to see. <br />
<br />
As it is having a Caucasian of any gender taking something from an African American of any gender is fucked up. Especially if the only recourse the African American seems to feel they have available is to replace their stolen drink out of their own resources. The power levels here are just so fucked up it's really infuriating to see.<br />
<br />
Combine both those seemingly obvious fucked-up levels into one spectacular shit sandwich and I'm fucking pissed. Pissed at McDonald's for running this ad. Pissed at the ad agency for thinking it up. And pissed that we're in a place where no one who noticed how fucked up that ad might be felt safe speaking up against it. <br />
<br />
This ad needs to be pulled. <br />
<br />
And people who think this is funny, like say, OBL and the Attorney General of the United States, need to get a clue.<br />
<br />
P.S. I've been rather stuck lately with helping out with a family medical emergency. I'll be posting more regularly, soon.Lokihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06290936791524026416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1672896206203233721.post-45777554714693987802017-01-23T08:16:00.001-08:002017-01-23T08:16:11.966-08:00Alternative FactsOn Friday Our Beloved Leader took the oath of office and was sworn in as the 45th President. <br />
<br />
By Sunday we were presented with an official government spokesperson providing demonstrably falsifiable statements as fact, and promising punishment for those outlets that do not go along with the revealed truth of Our Beloved Leader. We've also been provided with the circus of official spokes people for the administration telling us that we're mean to call someone on telling falsehoods - that they were simply "Alternative Facts." And that we shouldn't get all upset about these things. <br />
<br />
There's been nothing that I've seen or heard, yet, about the promised official crack down on people daring to disagree with Our Beloved Leader, but I won't be surprised when that promise - like so many others that people said he'd never follow-through on - gets fulfilled. It is what Our Beloved Leader has done to criticism in the past, and exactly how he was talking all through the campaign. Bullies can change, but usually only when they've been pulled up short by having their bullying tactics blow up in their face. That a plurality of the electorate was willing to vote for Our Beloved Leader is more than enough, in my opinion, to justify to Our Beloved Leader that his bullying is going to be accepted, tolerated and even embraced. <br />
<br />
So expect to see journalists being charged with crimes for daring to question alternative facts when presented by the administration or Our Beloved Leader directly. <br />
<br />
It's a shame that there's no recent example for a model where failing to fall in line with the official (If easily falsifyable) truth were treated as a crime, or worse. <br />
<br />
Oh, wait - that was known as <span style="background-color: white; color: #252525; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Правда. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #252525; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #252525;"><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14px;">Pravda.</span></span>Lokihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06290936791524026416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1672896206203233721.post-76204685761158666282016-12-16T06:09:00.001-08:002016-12-16T06:09:39.296-08:00In other news: Water is found to be shockingly wet!In a report released today the Indianapolis Star and USA Today have found a perponderance of sexual abuse directed mostly towards underaged girls in gymnastics, particularly in those facilities associated with the US Gymnastics Team - you know the one that goes to the Olympics and all the international meets.<br />
<br />
Why anyone should be surprised at this in the wake of the similar scandal a few years back surrounding figure skating is beyond me. <br />
<br />
Young people putting their all into an effort to be the best, under the control of a barely examined cadre of coaches who have the power to stop those dreams on a whim, working for a standard that is always going to be subjective - oh, and with parents, as often as not, who are more invested in having an Olympian as their daughter or son, than the best interests of that individual. <br />
<br />
What could possibly go wrong?<br />
<br />
FFS. <br />
<br />
I'm glad it's been documented, but anyone who is susprised by this shit in the rape culture we live in is too stupid to be expected to remember to breathe.Lokihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06290936791524026416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1672896206203233721.post-20126720653015110322016-12-14T05:21:00.001-08:002016-12-14T05:21:17.514-08:00Can We Stop Acting Surprised when Our Beloved Leader Stoops to Perfectly Expected Levels of Shittiness?Look. . .<br />
<br />
We all saw the same never-ending campaign. <br />
<br />
We all heard the lies, the evasions, the misdirections and the promises. <br />
<br />
The election went to the candidate who promised attacks on the First Amendment. To the candidate who promised religious and ethnic tests for refugees, immigrants, and of course, people who have lived here almost their whole lives through no fault of their own. He made sweeping foreign policy statements without any consideration of the possible effects. He swindles people with fewer resources to protect themselves in the courts, and regrets that any mere millionaire can play golf just because they've fallen into some money. <br />
<br />
He has boasted of being so smart he never needs any education on any topic. As a former Navy Nuke that's fucking frightening - I'm pretty smart, but I've also had it beaten into my head that there are many, many things that I thought I knew that I didn't, because I'd never been educated in the topic. He not only never examines his presuppositions or prejudices, but revels in them and thinks that proves his brilliance.<br />
<br />
He's courted the Religious Right and by choosing Pence for his VP he's as much as promised that there will be massive, coordinated attacks on gay, transexual, and women's rights. He's shown he's perfectly willing to gut the US education system in favor of furthering the YEC idiocy. That he not only refused to consider any evidence for Anthropogenic Climate Change, but is now promising to prevent any Federal Agency from gathering data that might sweep back to support that theory. <br />
<br />
He's played the rules for thee but not for me card so many times he's gotten it platinum plated, and shows no sign at all that he believes laws apply to him. He's chosen a candidate for Attorney General who will cheerfully ignore civil rights for over half the population, and I suspect would be perfectly happy with a means test for civil rights. "Is your net worth greater than $1 million? Then you have civil rights. If not? Go fuck yourself for bothering us Real Americans." He's endorsed revisionist histories of both the recent and distant past.<br />
<br />
He's got a twenty plus year record of admiring and then bloviating to the press how he admires strong-arm tactics, and politicians. He invited foreign espionage agents to attack his opponent. He continues to admire a world leader who had gutted his own country's Constitution, and is known to have orchestrated the killing of members of his own country's press. <br />
<br />
He continued with the Birther nonsense until 2016, with his baseless "I hear someone tell me there's something fishy with Obama's birth certificate," because he's a flaming goddamned racist asshole. He's incited violence agaisnt Latinx, blacks, and Muslims. He's legitimized white-supremacists and the KKK. <br />
<br />
He is, in shot a total, and complete shit-hole of a person.<br />
<br />
And no one not those of us who hate him, nor those of us who voted for him, have any room to pretend he's been anything but that for his whole time in the public eye. <br />
<br />
Stop being surprised when the leopard's spots are still in their accustomed place. <br />
<br />
Anyone expressing surprise or shock, now, is a fucking idiot, who obviously needs a reminder to inhale on a regular basis.Lokihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06290936791524026416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1672896206203233721.post-89690041750487274052016-12-09T13:40:00.000-08:002016-12-09T13:40:41.691-08:00Why wait for the new year to be Sauron levels of Evil?If you're in Ohio, you can get the ball rolling by trying to pass a ban on abortion after six goddamned weeks.<br />
<br />
Note that in the state next to Ohio they've already criminalized miscarriage and have jailed women on the presumption of having tried a DIY chemical/medical abortion when they've miscarried. And the governor of Indiana is going to be our next Vice President. <br />
<br />
The ACLU is begging John Kasich to veto this vile Ohio bill, but given that Kasich was the fucktard who decided that stopping STD clinics was a perfectly okay response to the Planned Parenthood hoax, I doubt he's going to listen.<br />
<br />
It's beginning already.<br />
<br />
Civil liberties. They were nice when we had them, weren't they?<br />
<br />
<br />Lokihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06290936791524026416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1672896206203233721.post-55648672207647401572016-11-09T02:17:00.000-08:002016-11-09T07:21:52.630-08:00I am ashamed.My fellow Americans -<br />
<br />
What in the fuck were you thinking? Are we really going back to the days when it's okay to grope women? To mock minorities? To claim that someone isn't American because of where their parents or grandparents were born - no matter where they were born themselves?<br />
<br />
Do we not care about civil rights?<br />
<br />
Do we not care about standing by our promises?<br />
<br />
Say goodbye to The Voter Rights Act of 1965, what provisions remain, let alone any chance of replacing the ones the Supreme Court struck down. Say goodbye to the ACA. Say goodbye to the Federal Minimum Wage. Say goodbye to any attempt for a national policy for carbon emissions. Say goodbye to Net Neutrality. Say goodbye to Dodd-Frank, any of its provisions. Say goodbye to civil rights for all. Say goodbye to Abortion Rights. Say goodbye to the VA. Say Hello to more for-profit prisons. Say Hello to an expanded School to Prison Pipeline. <br />
<br />
Say Hello to newer and more prevalent STDs as more and more clinics get shut down. Say Hello to a new Jim Crow era. Say Hello to more for-profit prisons. Say Hello to an expanded School to Prison Pipeline. Say Hello to faith tests for citizenship. Say Hello to even more insane ID requirements that still won't let people of color vote.<br />
<br />
And especially to those nominally Christian assholes who voted for The Hairpiece: You have just made a deal with the devil. You have made it clear that theocracy is all that matters to you, not mercy, not justice, not liberty, nor any other virtue. I no longer am going to pretend you're not a font of never-ending hate, out to destroy everything and everyone I care about. Lokihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06290936791524026416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1672896206203233721.post-15055679181426317802016-11-03T08:14:00.000-07:002016-11-03T08:14:03.904-07:00Hipsters can ruin anythingI hate ranch dressing.<br />
<br />
I think it is vile.<br />
<br />
I would just as soon it dropped off the face of the earth - and never use it at home nor when I'm out in restaurants. <br />
<br />
So, when I saw that the Washington Post had published an editorial piece claiming that "<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/11/01/ranch-dressing-is-whats-wrong-with-america/?utm_term=.a95f3603078e">Ranch dressing is what's wrong with America</a>," I was all over that! Not only would it be a welcome anodyne to the various feelings generated by this unending electoral season, but a chance to metaphorically join a pitch-fork carrying crowd marching on The Hidden Valley, planning to burn it down? I'm all over that.<br />
<br />
Then I read the article.<br />
<br />
And now I'm wanting to go out and buy some ranch dressing just to delivery an appropriately milk-fat battered invitation for that piece's author to go to Hell. <br />
<br />
I'm going to begin by pointing out the correction note at the bottom of the article. Once you read that you suddenly understand why the article admits that ranch dressing was invented in California at a humbug dude style restaurant, and then blames it for being too mid-Western to be good food. That's because the writer managed to fuck up his research because he was sure that the imagined mid-Western link had to be there - and that should have been sufficient to damn the Satan's smegma that is Ranch Dressing in the eyes of any right-thinking person, anywhere.<br />
<br />
Yanno what else comes out of the mid-West? Corn, wheat, and hushpuppies. So do the Cubs! Just because something hails from the mid-West is only a damning criticism if you happen to be a NY or Californian hipster. Or a member of said coastal elites. (Hmm.... I wonder if there's an a correlation there?)<br />
<br />
Then let's consider what ranch dressing really is: Our friend the hipster idiot thinks that ranch dressing is primarily made from buttermilk, and that is the source of it's astonishingly high fat content. Hidden Valley's own labels places a single 30 g serving as having 15 g of fat. (Which if you're wondering really is an astonishingly high fat content for anything.) But buttermilk has a fat content of about 2 g per cup - or 246 g serving. There is no way you're getting that fat content from buttermilk - of course since I'm not a hipster idiot, I can do some basic research. <br />
<br />
Here's a secret for everyone following at home: Ranch dressing is flavored or seasoned with buttermilk, but the majority component for the used semen that Americans seem dedicated to putting on everything is actually a fat emulsion, like mayonnaise. (Or as the Military's commissary chain called it while I was active duty: Salad Dressing, Type II) Since we're going to try to stick to at least some facts in this piece let's consider what mayonnaise is: usually it's some oil (vegetable, or olive) mixed with raw egg, and some lemon juice, and salt to taste. No kidding it's a high in fat food, but the milk products in ranch dressing are not the problem with ranch dressing.<br />
<br />
Then our beloved idiot feels the need to castigate ranch dressing for tasting like half-rotted milk. <br />
<br />
Buttermilk is a fermented food. Get it right, bozo! It's a fully rotted product! It's just that sometimes when things are rotted, they taste awesome. (Other fermented foods that are awesome include sauerkraut, cheese, garum, and thousand year eggs.*) <br />
<br />
Complaining about something tasting like what it's been flavored with is fucking bizarre. And if you don't like cheese, I don't care what else you might want to say about food - we're not even int he same galaxy. There may be some Venn Diagram overlap in our food preferences, but there's no real alignment in our tastes of views. It's just a coincidence.<br />
<br />
Then he gets onto this utterly contra-factual complaint about ranch dressing being primarily a means of getting milkfat into people's gobs. Which if you'll remember the little lesson I offered earlier, is a bit of a stretch. I figure what animal product is in ranch dressing is most likely to be overwhelmingly chicken, from the eggs used in the mayonnaise base, than any milkfat from the buttermilk added for flavoring. Certainly there's going to be more egg fat than milk fat in any given sampling of ranch dressing.<br />
<br />
Now, the environmental impact of dairy and meat farming is something I can't argue with - from a simple energy efficiency perspective that should be obvious: a biological system is doing very well to be able to harness 20-30% of the available chemical energy in the food it consumes. And when we eat meat, in particular, because we're not hyenas and only care about some parts of the carcass, that efficiency gets even worse. I've seen some figures that say for every pound of beef consumed something like the equivalent of ten pounds of grain was fed to the cow to produce it. That 10% figure may be off, but I'm sure it's good within +5%/-2%. So in a food scarce world that explains why a number of sane and sensible people think that we do eat too much meat, and meat byproducts. <br />
(There are some other things to consider besides that bare bones analysis, but that's beyond the scope of this rant.)<br />
<br />
To make the claim that ranch dressing's need for buttermilk is going to affect the scope of dairy or meat farming taking place is blatantly absurd. It's probably got a bigger effect on poultry production, but I'd think even there that less than 1% of the eggs produced in our nation are destined to be ruined by conversion to that curdles serum that is ranch dressing. <br />
<br />
Let's go back to the only point that should matter: If you think ranch dressing tastes good you're wrong and bad and evil, and you need to try other things. <br />
<br />
But not because of milkfat or anti-flyover state snobbery. Just remember: it's Satan's smegma and it doesn't taste good. If you must have a creamy dressing on your salad greens go with Caesar dressing - it's got fermented fish in it! Yum! Lokihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06290936791524026416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1672896206203233721.post-57111563333695112532016-11-01T09:47:00.001-07:002016-11-01T09:47:36.160-07:00Delivery Driver Gets Robbed - Then Gets ShaftedLet's take a moment from our current unending electoral fears and pomp to consider this story out of Michigan where a <a href="http://fox17online.com/2016/10/31/delivery-driver-forced-to-pay-back-dominos-after-being-robbed-at-gunpoint/">pizza delivery driver is informed, after being robbed at gun point, he has to repay some of the money he lost to the store</a>. If you think that sounds fucked up, don't worry the store and the company has a policy that makes it all make sense: The driver's not supposed to leave the store, ever, with more than $20 in cash on his person. So anything more than that the driver might have is supposed to be locked into the driver's personal locker at the store. <br />
<br />
If you're not rolling your eyes, yet, you're suffering from a case of privilege and ignorance. You also probably believe that the laws forbidden contact between strippers and customers are obeyed; that HazMat workers always wear proper protective gear; and that people turn off their cell phones at the gas pump, too. <br />
<br />
Here's a clue for all you find people swimming in ignorance: The majority of strip clubs work very hard to make sure that their dancers know they're expected to be available to their customers, without letting them get caught violating the law; Hazmat workers can get very blase about what they consider to be low-level risks; most people with a modicum of knowledge recognize that the spark hazard from a cell phone is so far below reasonable probability that obeying those stupid signs and laws to turn off the cell phone is a waste of time for no material improvement in safety. (Now, making sure to take steps to avoid static discharge - those make a good deal of sense.) And pizza delivery drivers are screwed so many ways by their management it's not funny.<br />
<br />
First off, most places only offer drivers minimum wage - or less. Because you can argue that the driver is in a tipped position, the management can shuck off their labor costs onto the consumer. Of course to be a delivery driver - you need access to a car - which is gas and mileage for wear and tear on the vehicle. The pizza shop ain't paying for that shit - that's the driver's problem. So, that's coming out of the minimum wage the driver is supposedly making. And remember - the driver isn't even likely to be getting minimum wage in the first place. Tips are where the delivery driver makes or breaks it on these nights.<br />
<br />
The more deliveries a driver can make per trip, the better it is for him. He doesn't give a shit about how cold your pizza gets (to be fair, why should he? The store sure as hell doesn't care, either.) nor how many more pies are waiting to go out. The less back and forth driving he can do, the more real money he'll make over his necessary overhead. And going out with more than one order and only $20 means that if both parties need to make change from $20 bills, the driver is stuck come the second stop. In practice most drivers I've known want to have $20 in smaller bills per delivery on their route, when they leave the store. Just so they don't get caught in a position of being unable to make change for their customers.<br />
<br />
Also going to the more deliveries thing - no matter how little time it takes to drop cash into that locker, it's going to be a time suck. It might be only a minute, but I suspect there's going to be logging involved, and other paperwork crap, too - all of which deducts from the time the driver can actually be doing something that makes them enough money for this evening at the store to be anything more than wasted time. <br />
<br />
Let's not forget that drivers are going to be fired for taking too long on their rounds, for letting pies sit too long before taken out on delivery, or if the customer has any complaint about the experience. The driver has zero incentive, to spend time on anything but deliveries as long as there's something close to ready to go out. <br />
<br />
Then there's the effect of the ubiquitous delivery fee: consumers see that, and assume it's going to the driver, so they don't need to tip. Which is so many kinds of fucked up I don't care to get into it. Look up, online, some of the complaints pizza drivers have about delivery fees if you want to see how it works out in practice. The effect that matters here is that the chain is perfectly willing to impose a fee on the consumer knowing it will harm their tipped employee, with no benefit accruing to said employee. <br />
<br />
Finally pizza drivers get targeted for robberies all the fucking time.<br />
<br />
As long as the injuries aren't too horrific, they rarely make the news. But this story's blase, if a driver feels a delivery to be unsafe they can tell the manager is just so much unadulterated bullshit. The company in this case is washing its hands of any obligation to the driver, and then getting shocked when the drivers try to maximize their own efficiency for their personal benefit. <br />
<br />
I am not moved by this story's reporting, nor do I find the store's position very sympathetic. <br />
<br />
And please remember to tip your drivers when you order delivery. Lokihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06290936791524026416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1672896206203233721.post-27122346282316147492016-10-15T09:07:00.000-07:002016-10-15T13:38:17.896-07:00Smart DogsMy dog Bear is a relatively smart dog. <br />
<br />
This is, unfortunately, making his life more complicated.<br />
<br />
The best example of this, that I can think of, is that he has discovered a very frustrating and annoying triangle of danger and doom in my living room. <br />
<br />
Now, to many people this will sound like proof of my dog's stupidity. The problem is that they'd be judging based upon human standards. And my human standards, my dog's perception and reasoning is deeply flawed. But I's argue that his behavior is showing some very intelligent strategies for defining problems, and trying to work out solutions for them. For a dog. <br />
<br />
You can judge an animal's intelligence against two general standards. The first standard is going to be the human scale of sentience and problem-solving that we use to justify our mastery of the animal kingdom. The second scale is the scale of relative intelligence within a species - that is, how an individual animal reacts or 'thinks' compared to others of its species (or family, or even genera, if they're closely related). This comparative scale is also sometimes used to prove that, say, crows are smarter than mice, or other such wide comparisons - but I find those to be inherently dissatisfying, and of questionable validity. <br />
<br />
Bear has identified a problem when we're playing with his toys in the house. If I throw them from the couch to the other side of the house, he'll often stumble when he's running back to the couch and jumping back up on for the next round of the game. Bear has correctly noticed that this only seems to happen in a single general area of the floor - it's what I've laughingly called The Family Room Triangle - a triangle bounded by the two ends of the archway between the dining room and the family room, and the front of the couch. When he's running through that area he stumbles far, far more often than anywhere else in the house - especially if he's carrying a toy in his mouth. <br />
<br />
So, to avoid this hazard he will, when coming back with his toy, skirt around the edges of this triangle, cautiously, and carefully stepping until he's close enough to the couch to leap up onto it. This has significantly improved his rate of successfully reaching the couch without stumbling, but it's not perfect. So he's recently added a new curlicue: he's going first into his crate, then coming out to the couch. So far this new strategy for dealing with the perfidity of The Family Room Triangle has been successful. <br />
<br />
So Bear's identified a hazard: The Family Room Triangle; he's clearly worked out a theoretical framework for how the hazard works: There's just something in that particular area that likes to trip him! And now he's taken actions to minimize his exposure to the risks inherent within The Family Room Triangle. And, as I said, those actions do work within the framework of what he's considered.<br />
<br />
All in all, a very intelligent response from a dog. But it's still a dog's solution, based on several flawed understandings of the issues involved.<br />
<br />
There are two factors that have escaped Bear's consideration when facing the problem of the evil force that's tripping him when he plays with me on the couch: friction and transient obstacles. <br />
<br />
Friction comes into play because I have laminate flooring on the first floor in my house. Dogs and laminate flooring do not always get along. He'll skid on it, especially when chasing balls outbound from the couch, and can adjust for that, because the skidding happens every time he reaches sufficient speed. It's not a variable hazard, and so the rules for dealing with it are pretty easy. Coming back from retrieving his toy, however, he's moving at a slower pace and only really risks overcoming the coefficient of friction between his foot pads and the floor, i.e. slipping, when he's making the last leap up onto the couch and using more force than he does while trotting back with his toy. That's one major cause for his slips. <br />
<br />
The other cause is, well, Bear's a dog. And spoiled. He's got several toys, and since they're all large and relatively easy to spot, I don't insist that they get put away regularly. Bear has a distinct tendency to leave his toys where they lie when he decides that play time is over. Because of the simple frequency of traffic through The Family Room Triangle, many of his toys come to rest in that area. And Bear has a dog's rather sanguine attitude towards blunt hazards, particularly familiar blunt hazards: I'll just walk through them because even if I bump against them, they're not going to poke out an eye. But that ignores that when his feet land, or more properly attempt to land, on his toys, they do not give purchase for his feet, and he often stumbles. i.e. the transient hazards trip him up.<br />
<br />
But he doesn't recognize them as part of the problem for The Family Room Triangle - even when none of his toys are lying within that area he's still playing it safe by skirting the edge. And so, with the best of intentions, and with the most determined reasoning available to him, my dog is making himself look pretty ridiculous - because he's a smart dog. (And before people try telling me that he's not so smart, ask yourselves how many children you may know who would find Bear's treatment of the challenge before him to be a perfectly appropriate model for them to follow, rather than worrying about cleaning up their own play space?)<br />
<br />
<a href="https://youtu.be/AY2JujuSgvU">YouTube video demonstrating some of this behavior.</a>Lokihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06290936791524026416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1672896206203233721.post-51318481317274260512016-09-11T12:15:00.000-07:002016-09-11T12:15:04.017-07:00Making Legislation FUN!Representative Jimmy Martin, of the Alabama Legislature is bummed out.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Benton Sans", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; letter-spacing: 0.208px; line-height: 24px;">"Whoever was the mastermind of this ethics bill totally screwed up the camaraderie and fun in the Alabama Legislature."</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Benton Sans", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; letter-spacing: 0.208px; line-height: 24px;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: Benton Sans, Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; letter-spacing: 0.208px; line-height: 24px;">Representative Martin is a horrible representative. I am even willing to grant the idea that he's being honest when he claims that he can't be bought for the price of a steak dinner. But what he deliberately is choosing to ignore is that when lobbyists are the ones with access to representatives, when the voice that inform our representatives are the lobbies and not the voices of voters, that colors how the representatives are going to see various issues. The danger of outright vote-buying is real, and I'm convinced the price on a vote is a Hell of a lot cheaper than Representative Martin wants you to believe - I'm remembering the Monroe County's LDC Scandal involving the former County Executive's husband scheming to award a no-bid contract to some buddies - at significantly above market rates for the work being done - and all that the man got from this was about $2000 in house work, as I recall. While the county is locked into a long term contract that is going to cost millions of dollars more than it might otherwise - because he swung the business to some buddies of his. </span></span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: Benton Sans, Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; letter-spacing: 0.208px; line-height: 24px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: Benton Sans, Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; letter-spacing: 0.208px; line-height: 24px;">But that's not the only thing that should concern the public when our legislators talk about ethics and especially ethics reform. Certainly I'm particularly focused on this issue because, well, I'm in New York. And I got to see the comedy show when the new governor was all for ethics reform and investigation - until it started to sniff around some of <i>his</i> deals. And he unceremoniously, and prematurely, shut it down. </span></span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: Benton Sans, Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; letter-spacing: 0.208px; line-height: 24px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: Benton Sans, Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; letter-spacing: 0.208px; line-height: 24px;">But to get back to Representative Martin and his missing fun - when a lobbyist takes a representative - at any level of government - out to dinner, or other vaguely trivial perks - it comes with a hook. Not necessarily the outright buying of a vote - but more insidiously, it colors the representative's view of the group being that perk. And in particularly, this is a tactic that's most easily used by people who are already on the top of the social and economic pyramid: So, say, the payday loan people can afford to pay lobbyists to do this wooing of representatives - and garnering goodwill. But a lot of the groups that are fighting what I see as unconscionable abuses by those same groups can't afford more than a bare lobbying presence in the state capitol. Sometimes all they can do is pool time, not money, to try to meet in person with a representative to present their side of the issue. And frankly, if you expect that, most of the time, most representatiaves won't give a more open ear to the group that can afford to take them out to a nice steak dinner, than the often desperate and shrill people trying to yell at him outside his office - you're living in a fantasyland. </span></span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: Benton Sans, Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; letter-spacing: 0.208px; line-height: 24px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: Benton Sans, Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; letter-spacing: 0.208px; line-height: 24px;">And it seem to me that Representative Martin is happy in fantasyland - because it's good to him. And no one else matters a good goddamn.</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: Benton Sans, Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; letter-spacing: 0.208px; line-height: 24px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: Benton Sans, Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; letter-spacing: 0.208px; line-height: 24px;">One hopes his constituents remember this come November. </span></span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: Benton Sans, Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; letter-spacing: 0.208px; line-height: 24px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: Benton Sans, Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; letter-spacing: 0.208px; line-height: 24px;"><a href="http://%22whoever%20was%20the%20mastermind%20of%20this%20ethics%20bill%20totally%20screwed%20up%20the%20camaraderie%20and%20fun%20in%20the%20alabama%20legislature.%22/">source</a></span></span>Lokihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06290936791524026416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1672896206203233721.post-48693367477818522432016-07-22T10:01:00.002-07:002016-07-22T15:57:24.454-07:00Harris County, Texas: Here's your Badge!The People of Harris County, Texas, are presumably good Texans - steeped in the conservative values that the State is so proud of: Individuality, Honoring Slave-Keeping Land Pirates, Defense of Business to Blow Up Towns with Impunity - you know all those things that Texans are famous for in our modern times. <br />
<br />
They have added a new honor to their constellation of self-made ribbons for which Texans should be justifiably proud: They incarcerate rape victims for the flaw of suffering mental illness! I tell you, Saudi Arabia is very proud to see one of the so-called Liberal Democracies start down the proper path of punishing those disobliging persons who dare to report sexual assaults. <br />
<br />
A young woman, named Jenny in court proceedings, broke down on the stand in her attempt to testify against her rapist at trial. The People of Harris County, in the form of their District Attorney, and the presiding judge, chose to react with the compassion that any Texan can be proud to see in the halls of justiice: They immediately remanded Jenny to the County Jail, because in her own words she had become a flight risk as a witness. And they kept her there for almost a full month. During this time she was kept in a county holding facility - a category of facility notorious throughout the union for the lax supervision, care and safety compared to State and Federal prisons. But I'm sure that the DA and judge made certain that Jenny was getting care for her mental illness. They wouldn't just throw someone in the fit of a depressive breakdown into prison without any care or therapy, would they?<br />
<br />
Oh, of course they did. <br />
<br />
Therapy and care are for the State prisons, after all. <br />
<br />
All this because a prosecutor was justifiably concerned that the only thing that matters in the criminal justice system: The prosecutor's own batting average, might be at risk. <br />
<br />
I was going to offer a badge here for the residents of Harris County to proudly wear to show their support for the actions of their elected officials. Instead, I think I'll wait til the people of Harris County have shown whether they agree with the DA's office that this was a completely justified use of legal powers to incarcerate a rape victim when she had a mental health attack. <br />
<br />
I honestly expect the incumbent to be re-elected, but let's face it sometimes they do get voted out. So, Harris County - here's your chance to prove to this damned Yankee asshole that you're not the bass-ackwards redneck women-hating justice as a score-card jackasses I think of when I think of Texans.<br />
<br />
Choose your pride! <br />
<br />
<br />
Oh - links. I forgot links: <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.click2houston.com/news/rape-victim-put-in-jail-after-breakdown-on-witness-stand">http://www.click2houston.com/news/rape-victim-put-in-jail-after-breakdown-on-witness-stand</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.click2houston.com/news/investigates/attorney-says-district-attorney-lied-in-video-statement">http://www.click2houston.com/news/investigates/attorney-says-district-attorney-lied-in-video-statement</a><br />
<br />
P.S. given how easy it will be prove or disprove the woman's attorney's statement about her housing status, I can't imagine that he would be lying about that. <br />
<br />
<br />Lokihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06290936791524026416noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1672896206203233721.post-66470406014032094912016-06-19T13:04:00.000-07:002016-07-06T18:40:01.608-07:00Example of the Evidence of an Unhealthy Relationship with Firearms in the USIn the wake of the Orlando shootings last weekend, there have been a lot of things said by people all over the issue of firearms rights and gun control. I'm sick of it, and I believe that there is nothing that will ever be done by the people nominally in charge because our nation has become a bunch of gun-loving lunatics who will fight to the bitter end to defend a myth and right that are increasingly irrelevant to the largely urban population of the nation.<br />
<br />
And this story from last year, in the LaCrosse Tribune shows it better than any argument I can imagine: <a href="http://lacrossetribune.com/news/local/man-who-shot-roommate-while-teasing-cat-with-laser-sight/article_391cd397-6e3b-54ea-81af-986b2750f7d4.html">http://lacrossetribune.com/news/local/man-who-shot-roommate-while-teasing-cat-with-laser-sight/article_391cd397-6e3b-54ea-81af-986b2750f7d4.html</a><br />
<br />
(In case the link expires or for those people too lazy to read the link, while it's still up: A man was using the laser target on his pistol to play laser tag with his cat. The pistol was loaded, so when he accidentally gripped the trigger, he ended up shooting his roommate and friend in the leg. Now this guy has no previous record, had done all the necessary stuff to own his gun, except think about the most basic safety requirements. And yet - the prosecutors in the case argued for the judge to allow the guy to plead to a charge that would allow the guy in question to have his felony record expunged, for fear that his right to own a firearm would be restricted otherwise.) <br />
<br />
When we're cherry picking charges that could have been gross negligence or even assault, simply to allow the person who behaved in a criminally stupid manner that goes against everything I know of firearms safety to continue to own a gun. . .<br />
<br />
Guns are too goddamned important to Americans. Lokihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06290936791524026416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1672896206203233721.post-17868733867728055822016-02-20T11:15:00.001-08:002016-02-20T11:15:05.046-08:00The Wall between the US and MexicoI just thought I'd take a moment here, to document some of what I've found when I choose to look up the known or estimated costs of the sort of wall that certain politicians of the GOP want to see built on the US-Mexico border. <br />
<br />
Historically, I can think of two borders fortifications that would be adequate parallels between the sort of wall that these GOP idiots want: The Demilitarized Zone between North Korea and South Korea, and the Berlin Wall. While there are certain reasons that the DMZ might have been the better example to use to estimate costs - the use of military troops from more open governments would probably allow for a better baseline for estimating the manpower costs of maintaining such a border fortification being the biggest one I can think of. Having said that, there is effectively zero official sanctioned communication between the two Koreas - so there's no need for the DMZ to worry much about rail traffic, tourists, or any other large-scale legitimate crossing. For this reason I'm more inclined to base my estimates from the model of the Berlin Wall, instead.<br />
<br />
Now, there's going to be someone out there telling me that I'm barking mad to think that the Berlin Wall is a good model to choose - I mean the fortifications of the wall were manned 24/7 with pillboxes guard towers and estimates of thousands of troops being occupied to keep East Berliners from making illicit crossings into the West. But an unmanned wall is going to be worse than useless. We already have significant environmental barriers between the US and Mexico - if the pressure pushing people North from Mexico weren't already terribly strong, there would be no need nor desire to risk having a coyote smuggle one across the desert border - often in atrocious, and life-threatening conditions. The existing segments of wall have already been defeated countless times, by direct measures - not simply people walking past the edge of these existing walls. Tunnels, catapults, rockets, balloons and other means have all been used to get contraband and people across the border. If the proposed wall is not manned, and patrolled, it will not achieve any of the goals that its supporters claim. So the proposed wall will be a manned wall. And given the rhetoric of some of the people supporting this wall, it will be armed with shoot-to-kill orders. <br />
<br />
So - the Berlin Wall it is.<br />
<br />
The Berlin Wall, according to Wikipedia, was 155 km long. Or just over 96 miles. According to <a href="https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1499&dat=19630817&id=-TsaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=MycEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3640,3496157&hl=en">this article</a> from the August 17, 1963 <i>Milwaukee Journal</i> pegs the cost of the then existing wall at $25 million. Now, we're going to ignore that, even as late as the mid-80s the Berlin Wall was in a constant state of flux and continually being improved. We're also going to ignore that the Berlin Wall was constructed in many different ways - only some of the wall being the iconic three point something meter tall concrete wall. For a ballpark figure we're talking about $260,000 per mile to build the Berlin Wall. This doesn't include anything but the physical artifact of the wall, so manning costs and I think weaponry costs are still to be figured. For the purposes of a quick and dirty examination this will work, however.<br />
<br />
Inflation counters across the web are pretty consistent when dealing with US dollars. The ones I checked all gave a 2016 value for that $260,000 per mile figure derived above of about $2 million dollars per mile of wall. The US-Mexico border is, according to Wikipedia 1954 miles. At this point, I'm just going to call it a 2000 mile long wall, at $2 million per mile - that's a <i>four billion dollar</i> wall they're talking about. It doesn't figure anything for manning costs. <br />
<br />
That same 1963 article claims about 11,000 trooops were involved with manning the positions along the Berlin Wall. That's a Division strength unit being used, or about a company of troops for every mile of fortification. Simply extrapolating that would leave us with a requirement for over two hundred thousand troops to man this money hole. <br />
<br />
Let me say that again: <i>two hundred thousand</i> troops. The current size of the US Army is four hundred and fifteen thousand active duty and another six hundred thousand in the various reserve formations. Depending upon how you want to look at it that means that this boondoggle would suck up anywhere from 20% of the Army's personnel to almost 50% of it. <br />
<br />
Which brings up another reason that I'm sure these cost figures are low: the housing of the troops required for this wall haven't been accounted for. In an urban environment it's relatively easy to add another ten thousand people without having to worry about building water facilities, waste treatment, housing, cooking, stores, etc- all the things that people need to be healthy and functional. (I don't believe the GOP candidates give a flying fuck about the people manning this boondoggle to be happy. Knowing the way their alleged minds seem to work they probably think that homicidal anger and frustration will make the troops manning this fiasco more effective killers of would-be crossers.)<br />
<br />
And again, using the Berlin Wall model - it will still be doomed to failure. I realize that the human costs are beneath the contempt of the politicians putting forward this idea, but those will be abominable. The human cost associated with the current methods of smuggling people across the border is already horrific, and while I'm sure the coyotes will be able to find ways around this proposed wall, too, the risks will be going up. And some people will be losing that gamble. Yet even at its most effective and efficient the Berlin Wall never stopped everyone from making the crossing. Many crossings were later shown up as the sort of daring-do that makes for good TV movies, other crossings were more mundane - but they happened through the whole history of the Berlin Wall.<br />
<br />
<br />
So, can we stop talking about a wall between the US and Mexico as something that makes sense in any kind of reality? <br />
<br />Lokihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06290936791524026416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1672896206203233721.post-35441654926102064042016-02-19T08:07:00.000-08:002016-02-19T08:07:02.782-08:00No Cake For You!<div class="MsoNormal">
Senator Ritchie’s proposed State Law is a bundle of mixed
assumptions, misleading justifications, and utterly vile insinuations against
those people in NY who are using SNAP benefits to maintain their basic
nutrition. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
While the Senator is undeniably correct to discuss the
obesity epidemic in the US and here in NY in particular, her attack on SNAP
recipients is utterly reprehensible. While
she makes an argument against foods that have minimal nutritional value and are
often considered junk food – such as cookies, soda, and energy drinks, it’s her
repeated claims that something has to be done to prevent people receiving SNAP
from getting “better cuts of meat, or lobster,” that is getting the most attention
in the press. Not only would it be
impossible for the use of SNAP benefits to purchase these items to be
contributing to the obestity epidemic that the Senator claims to be trying to
deal with, there’s no reason to assume that any significant fraction of SNAP
benefits are being used to purchase such items.
Until evidence of such widespread purchases can be produced it seems to
this writer that there’s little more behind this bill that the continued
vilification of the poor that is a constant refrain from the GOP – even as they
keep enacting policies to bankrupt more and more workers.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The most offensive part of the whole proposal, however,
comes when one looks at what the Senator thinks the financial costs of enacting
this boneheaded piece of maliciousness would be: None.
Yes, you read that right. This
woman, who seems to think that your neighbors who have to take two jobs to pay
the rent, and heating costs, and then still qualify for SNAP benefits to be
able to feed themselves and their families but are somehow magically overeating
on steak and lobster this woman also believes in magical accounting from state
employees: Her proposal claims there
will be no costs associated with implementing this change in the law – even after
specifically tasking two different offices to come up with policies, and lists
of foods and beverages to be added to the list of things one can’t buy with
SNAP benefits. Either the Senator is so
ignorant of the way that the state government works that she assumes there are
hordes of underworked staffers in the Office of Temporary and Disability
Assistance who will have the time to make up her required list of further items
to be barred. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Let’s be honest here – this is the same sort of fraudulent
thinking behind the claims of wanting to help poor people get into drug rehabilitation
programs that is used as a justification for drug screening and testing of
applicants in several states – testing that has overwhelmingly found that
contrary to the assumptions of the rich and powerful most poor people are too
damned poor to afford drugs. It is a
moral judgment that if someone is receiving public assistance the public has
the right and responsibility to restrict what those people can choose to do
with themselves. And far too many people
in the public believe that all the poor deserve is gruel, or something equally
disheartening because all they need is motivation to be able to go out and get
a good paying job. And this in an
America where billion dollar companies feel no guilt in telling their employees
that, in order to live on the wages paid them, they’ll have to take a second
job (which will also not be full time- because that would cost the company more
money in required benefits) and make use of SNAP benefits to feed themselves. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
And Senator Ritchie begrudges these people so much as a cupcake
for celebration? To Hell with her. And the gold-plated SUV she rode in on.<o:p></o:p></div>
Lokihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06290936791524026416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1672896206203233721.post-29704937861300017792015-10-10T15:37:00.001-07:002015-10-10T15:40:15.872-07:00Demonizing the Mentally Ill - a letter to the VoteVets organization<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
I was deeply disturbed by the email I got from your group today asking for my signature on a petition being circulated by Garrett Reppenhagen, asking to call on Congress for sensible gun laws to be enacted - requiring background checks on all purchases and to keep guns out of the hands of the dangerously mentally ill. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
I cannot support such a petition. In a United States where too many of our leaders view Mental Illness as an on or off condition for people - with anyone having any diagnosis of mental illness to be considered a danger for hair trigger explosions of temper and ill-judgement - without careful and specific definitions for what "Dangerously Mentally Ill" might mean, I am far too afraid that by the time Congress is done with such a proposal they will simultaneously shift the burden for self-defense to the mantle of the private gun-owner and then remove the ability to protect themselves from the one in four people in the United States who will suffer from some form of mental illness during their life times. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
This is not sound public policy. It's also regressive in that it leaves at the most vulnerable those people who are poorest and can least afford to protect themselves with a privately owned firearm. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
I am going to ignore, for the sake of keeping this note to a readable length, the fact that without regular proficiency shooting I don't believe that anyone could use a gun for self defense in any sort of effective manner, anyways. Similarly, I will simply mention that any massive increase in gun ownership in the US is going to increase the rate of death by firearms if only because the largest single risk-factor for suicide in this nation is the presence or absence of a gun in the home. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
Without specific, clear, and limited definitions for what constitutes dangerous mental illness, a petition such as the one Garrett Reppenhagen is circulating is going to do more harm than good. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
The thing that bothers me most is that while I abhor the fuzziness of this particular petition's language I agree with the intent of the petition - to make sure that people whom any reasonable, informed person might consider a poor risk for good judgment when holding a lethal weapon do not have easy access to firearms seems only sensible to me. But in order for that discussion to happen, we've got to address just what is and isn't mental illness in the public conscioiusness. As an example, in two of the three more public shooting incidents to have gotten the attention of the national media, the perpetrators have no history of mental illness in their records, and can be argued to have been acting in their right minds at the time that they committed their horrific crimes. Darryl Roof is a racist who was too willing to buy into the necessity for race war to cleanse the nation, and protect it from inimical influences, this does not mean, however, that he was acting under the influence of any mental illness when he performed his horrific and insane actions. No definition of dangerous mental illness would have kept a gun out of Mr. Roof's hands. That the standard background check should have kept a gun out of his hands is no comfort, either - but it's not a sign that there is a loophole for the dangerously mentally ill to acquire firearms that needs to be closed with quickly enacted, and poorly thought out legislation. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
When you're representing an organization that is primarily consists of veterans of recent military service, it is particularly galling to me to see you lending yourselves to the demonization of the mentally ill without taking precautions to make sure that the service members coming back from service overseas with mental illnesses are not going to be lumped into whatever sacrificial group is going to be staked out for the next round of gun violence. One in four Americans will suffer mental illness at some time in their lives, and the vast majority of them will never commit any crimes in that time. I don't know what the incidence of mental illness is in recent veterans, but I can't help but think it's even higher than the current average for Americans as a whole. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
There are far too many in the Presidential field who view the best solution for gun violence in the US to be an extension of gun ownership, and more venues where it is considered normal to carry firearms. This would merely be annoying if it weren't for the concurrent demand these same politicians are making to remove firearms from the mentally ill. As far as I know, Garrett Repenhagen's petition is the only voice sharing this general call that even hints that there might be such a thing as someone suffering mental illness who isn't an immediate public hazard. So the effect of these policy changes, if they go through, may be to improve the safety of those people trusted to carry firearms, and the people around them. I take leave to doubt that, but again - that's beyond the scope of this discussion. It will also leave a sizable population, who in many cases have never committed any crime, metaphorically staked out as sacrificial goats to anyone who wants to target them.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
And when talking about the mentally ill, they're a group already so statistically more vulnerable than those around them, this is utterly unconscionable in my opinion - and would be so even if I weren't on a VA Disability Pension for my own depression. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
If we, as a people, or VoteVets as an organization, wishes to advocate for more rational gun control laws - something I support - it seems to me that a very useful dual-pronged first step would be to remove the Congressional bars to simply gathering information about gun violence and crime in the US. On the one hand, the BATF is barred, by statute, from collecting and analyzing data active gun sales - we require cars to be registered and in most states insured, becuase of the risk to the public good from such devices, isn't it time we consider doing the same for firearms? More importantly, forbidding the CDC to commission studies that touch on gun violence or treat gun violence as a public health concern limits anyone approaching the issue with any kind of reliable data from which to make decisions. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
I do support other steps as well, and would support a petition for the improved background checks that Garrett Repenhagen suggests. I'd love to support including some kind of check to try to keep firearms out of the hands of the dangerously mentally ill if I were sure that that provision weren't going to mutate quickly into a blanket condemnation of all the mentally ill. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
But I don't think that any of these steps, by themselves, are going to be sufficient or provide a cure-all for gun violence in this nation. And the sooner we admit that these are only first steps, the better off we'll be. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Lokihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06290936791524026416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1672896206203233721.post-35410640755272564862015-10-06T06:41:00.001-07:002015-10-06T06:41:21.411-07:00A question for the gun rights crowd: When would it become an issue of too easy access to guns?This past Saturday an 8 year old girl was killed by a shotgun blast. Allegedly fired by an 11 year old boy, over an argument about puppies. <br />
<br />
According to the story going around, now, the boy was denied an opportunity to play with the girl's puppy - and so went into his house, got the loaded shotgun his father kept, and fired it out the window at her. <br />
<br />
Now, clearly, there's a lot of things to point fingers at - not least being the boy's insane sense of entitlement. We can also speak about his obvious control and anger issues, too. But in my mind had the shotgun not been loaded, unlocked, in a known location, this would not have escalated to the point where the parents of an 8 year old girl are burying her this week. <br />
<br />
Are we, as a society, so in love with guns that we're going to defend the right to have them without let, regulation, nor reason above the expectation of sound parenting? While the 11 yo boy is obviously responsible for his own lethal action, there's also a good case to be made that his parents should also have some accountability. The mother of the Sandy Hook shooter has been castigated in the press for allowing her son access to her weapons - and she'd kept them locked in a proper gun safe, that he got at only after he killed her. Obviously there was no convenient straw-buyer to be put through the public trial in that case, to provide a scapegoat for the tragedy. When William Spengler killed his sister, and several first responders from the West Webster Fire Department and several responding police officers, there was a straw buyer who could be punished with the full extent of the law. <br />
<br />
Of course, she's the only person I'm aware of who has been punished by those laws. There's a current murder case going on where Charlie Tan is accused of killing his father - with a shotgun purchased for the deed, by a friend. There are no pending straw buyer charges for friend. <br />
<br />
So, who will be held accountable for this boy's hair trigger temper and easy access to firearms? Are we going to continue to vilify anyone labeled as being mentally ill, and blame the parents for not getting their son the counseling or treatment it seems like would have been appropriate? Or are we going to finally recognize that lethal weapons in the home are lethal weapons and certain precautions are simply good practice that should be automatically taken by anyone who feels the need to have firearms in the house?Lokihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06290936791524026416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1672896206203233721.post-9078064769818458662015-10-02T05:13:00.001-07:002015-10-02T05:13:18.344-07:00Some thoughts on the 2015 Papal Visit to the US, and why I think that the Pope has blundered badlyWelp, It's done. The great, historic Papal visit to the US of 2015 is over and done. Popapalooza has finished its run and at the end of the run, the Pope's popularity had surged high, and his position had brought some interesting guns to the continuing fight in Congress and the nation as a whole over the role of government in the international global ecological fight.<br />
<br />
In among the many personal and public pilgrimages the Pope took during this visit were many things that spoke towards his message of forgiveness and toleration. His words at the Ground Zero site were far from the blanket condemnation that so many US hawks would have preferred to hear, for example.<br />
<br />
To add to the impact of his visit, his alarmingly liberal positions, at least from the view of the US-based episcopal ranks, have forced into a the limelight that many US bishops are only happy talking about Papal Primacy when the views from the Vatican are marching in lock-step with their own prejudices, or can be twisted to be that when presented to their congregations. <br />
<br />
(As an aside, that last paragraph certainly sounds like I'm getting my view of the Catholic heirarchy from Jack Chick tracts. The reality is rather that it's my own interpretation of the events of my lifetime. I was raised in the Catholic faith, in a household that subscribed towards the Jesuit tradition of education - i.e. that all knowledge was to be studied and evaluated, rather than having certain arguments or pieces of evidence locked away from the masses lest they be tempted into doubt or confusion. My personal opinion is that the Catholic Church would be better served if that sort of attitude would spread further through the hierarchy. And while I can talk about the bishopric as if it were a unitary body, the truth is that there are many different views within that body. There are individual bishops in the US whom I find very laudable. And others whom I think would love to bring back the Inquisition. But the current behavior of the mass of bishops in the US leaves me doubting both their adherence to the theory of Papal Primacy, and their ability to express Christian mercy. For example, when the Bishop of Rochester, last year, banned all travel to Africa, and recommended quarantine for anyone returning from that continent in response to the ebola epidemic, he failed, in my opinion, the tests of both reason and faith.) <br />
<br />
I am no longer a practicing Catholic and unlikely to return to any church. So I have to admit my view of things is that of an outsider, but an outsider who does have a fair grounding in both history and the catechism of the faith. In a world where the Catholic Church is still propagating such evil policies as not merely fighting the availability of condoms in Africa to fight the spread of HIV, but are often actively complicit in spreading mis-information about the efficacy of condoms in fighting the spread of disease, I welcomed any sign that the Throne of Peter would be filled by someone who would pay more attention to the realities that the poor of the world are facing, instead of simply trying to build an ivory tower of perfection for a few select Westerners. <br />
<br />
So, this is the background for how I viewed the Papal visit.<br />
<br />
I had been cautiously optimistic as the Papal visit focused on several of the great humanitarian trials facing the world at the moment - the exodus of refugees from Mesopotamia, and the climate crisis. I am not so arrogant as to suggest I have the answers for either, but the current attitude of so many people to deny that either problem exists or could affect them personally is a huge bar to getting any kind of solution in place. <br />
<br />
The Pope's statements on these issues were clear, concise, and most importantly without much nuance: these problems exist, and people should address them - especially good Catholics and Christians of any stripe. <br />
<br />
A simple, easily understood call to action. <br />
<br />
Then on the last day of his visit, this so-called People's Pope visited with Kim Davis. <br />
<br />
In the interests of full disclosure I think that Kim Davis is an idiot, and worse a tyrant, who wishes to see imposed a true theocracy in the US. Furthermore I believe she is a tool of evil manipulators who are using her. In short, if she cannot, in good conscience balance her oath to obey the law with her private views of what God demands of her, the proper and just decision for her is to resign her position. That she finds this impossible to even consider says scary things to me about what she's willing to impose on other people on the basis of her faith. It's not simply a matter of supporting gay marriage, but rather what other verses will she use, next, to impose her will upon her constituents? <br />
<br />
With this background I think that having anyone giving her support is a BAD THING. <br />
<br />
That the Pope and his handlers tried to visit her in secret is even worse. <br />
<br />
It undermines any authority he has by suggesting that he's got positions he's not willing to make public, for fear of the political backlash. Furthermore, since the Vatican is now having to scramble to put the best spin possible on this visit, I have the distinct impression that this was supposed to be a secret visit. In which case, anyone who thought that Kim Davis or her handlers would agree to keep quiet anything that might strengthen their position in the current public debate was an idiot of the first water. <br />
<br />
Whether it says good things about me, or not, my primary guide is intelligence. I may deplore someone's actions, but it's only when those actions are stupid as well as evil that I really get exercised. So, this one act not only burns up much of the goodwill the Pope had established with his visit, and by making it a private vs. a public visit he's left the question of to what degree he means to support Davis and her position. The Vatican's current spin is so mealy-mouthed that it's going to have the inevitable effect of softening anything else the Pope cares to say for years to come.<br />
<br />
And all this to support an idiot women, who isn't even of the Catholic faith, who is violating her oath of office egregiously, and riding high on a wave of hero-worship from other idiots who can't understand the rule of law when it hits them in their face? <br />
<br />
What a fiasco. Lokihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06290936791524026416noreply@blogger.com0