This Week in WTF, July 27, 2012

– One of the more, uh, creative members of the Texas State Board of Education, Ken Mercer, tries to blame liberals or communists or somebody for changes to the social studies curriculum that he himself made–specifically, the removal of the terms “free market” and “free enterprise.” He presumably figures most people will not actually do the research to see that he is lying, nor will they read anything in the “librul meedeeyuh” that would prove his pants are on fire. He’s right about that, at least (h/t Texas Freedom Network)

– Michelle Bachmann has finally found a way to bring Republicans and Democrats together with her tomfoolery over Huma Abedin, aide to Secretary of State Clinton. I doubt that was Bachmann’s intent, of course, since I have my doubts that she can see the consequences of her own actions more than about thirty seconds into the future. I also haven’t ruled out the possibility that she is actually a cyborg sent back in time from a future America that has already had to endure a Romney and a Palin presidency and derives most of its GDP desperately trying to sell tickets to a nationwide network of creation museums and theme parks to Canadian tourists. If that is the case, I assume the cyborg will be built in China, Japan, or India, because there’s no way we would have the wherewithal to do it here.

Louie Gohmert, Bryan Fischer, and even Rick Warren test the limits of humanity.

Chick-Fil-A. That gets its own post.

Sally Ride was the first American woman, and only the third woman in history, to go to space. She was about as true a pioneer as America is ever likely to have. She could not have served as a den mother, though.

Share

Where the Government Creates, the Private Sector Sexifies

I mean “sexify” in the sense of “make marketable” or “desirable”–“sexy,” to use the parlance of our times. I am specifically referring to the internet. Al Gore did not invent the internet, and he never claimed he did. It was actually a decades-spanning effort of government agencies and private companies with government contracts, gradually building computers and networks that could eventually integrate to create a truly decentralized, global system.

768px-Internet_map_1024

Partial map of the Internet based on the January 15, 2005 data found on opte.org. Each line is drawn between two nodes, representing two IP addresses. The length of the lines are indicative of the delay between those two nodes. This graph represents less than 30% of the Class C networks reachable by the data collection program in early 2005. Lines are color-coded according to their corresponding RFC 1918 allocation as follows:
Dark blue: net, ca, us
Green: com, org
Red: mil, gov, edu
Yellow: jp, cn, tw, au, de
Magenta: uk, it, pl, fr
Gold: br, kr, nl
White: unknown

Many of the essential components of what we now call the internet actually would have been foolish ventures, had private companies undertaken them. Perhaps it was a gamble by the government, but it was a gamble that paid off big. According to Farhad Manjoo at Slate:

In 1960, an engineer named Paul Baran came up with the idea of a packet-switching network. Baran was working for the RAND Corporation, a government-funded think tank, and he’d been looking for ways to create networks that would survive a disaster. Baran saw that the country’s most basic communications infrastructure—especially the telephone network maintained by AT&T—had several central points of failure. If you took out these central machines, the entire network would fail. His insight was to create a decentralized network, one in which every point was connected to every other point in multiple ways—your message from New York to San Francisco would get split into packets and might pass through Chicago, New Orleans, Atlanta, Tampa, or St. Louis. If one of those nodes were taken out, most of your message would get through, and the network would still survive. Continue reading

Share

You are not John McClane. Neither is anybody else.

If only other people in that theater had been armed, maybe this wouldn’t have happened…

This sentiment has made its way around since Friday. For the most part, it is a fantastical load of bull. Here’s why.

Dark theater, loud movie, intense action sequence. Add to that a deranged gunman and a room full of people who were not expecting real gunfire. I have never attempted to shoot a specific person in a crowded theater full of panicked people, and neither has almost 100% of the American public. It sounds prohibitvely impossible. Did I mention that this all occurred in the dark. In. The. Dark.

Experienced Delta Force operators would have difficulty with that sort of situation, I imagine, because once again, no one expected gunfire.

In a crowded, chaotic, dark environment, several questions present themselves. What if you shoot and miss, and hit an innocent bystander? What if you see someone with a gun, you shoot, and you then learn that the person you killed was a fellow CHL carrier, also trying to take the shooter down? What happens when the cops show up? They are, in all likelihood, not going to know that you are a heroic defender of the innocent. They are going to see an asshole with a gun, and it is highly likely that they are going to take you down. They may or may not conclude that you were not an aggressor, but by then you’ll be dead, and the cop who shot you will probably still get a medal.

It is very comforting to think that an armed citizen could have handily taken the shooter in Aurora down, and it is possible that someone with sufficient training and skill could have. The odds are very much against it, and pondering it is really just a comic-book fantasy that we use to make ourselves feel better and to tell ourselves “I would have done it differently.”

David Weigel at Slate looks at the reality of trying to shoot this guy in the context of a darkened, noisy theater filled with what might have been tear gas. He discusses past situations where a bystander did successfully stop a shooter, noting that they all occurred in open spaces and in broad daylight. In a follow-up piece, Weigel talks to Greg Block, a federally-certified firearms safety trainer with twenty-nine years of experience. Block, to put it mildly, knows more about firearms than most people talking about arming the moviegoers will ever, ever know. Block thinks that he, personally, could have gotten the drop on the shooter, but for the fact that it was dark, crowded, and full of disorienting smoke. He says he could have gotten shots off within two seconds. Among anyone reading this, or anyone that anyone reading this knows, how many people could fire multiple accurate shots from a pistol within two seconds of drawing their gun? Again, I can’t say for certain, but I suspect the answer, if not zero, is asymptotic to zero. How many people who want to carry guns in public could even have the reaction time to draw, identify the correct target, and shoot in under two seconds? Very, very few, I reckon. Unless, of course, you are a current or former Delta Force operator.

We stopped being the kind of society that spends a significant portion of its free time preparing for gun battles over a century ago. Do we really want to go back to that? Because that is the only way that arming the moviegoers would have even stood a chance of success, i.e. if everyone had gone in there mentally prepared for battle.

What Happens When Bystanders Have Guns

Two fairly recent stories cast doubt on any guarantee of a happy outcome when law-abiding citizens are armed. Continue reading

Share

A Political Proposal

Some people need to meet their presidential candidates in person, perhaps to size them up. Then again it could be a sort of superstitious need for physical proximity, even if only to stand in the same general presence of the candidate, or even just to meet the candidate’s surrogate or representative. The candidate almost becomes a myth, or a totem, sort of like a rabbit’s foot or Jesus. I’m not one to get all riled up over a politician.

These campaign trips get expensive, though, both in the cost to the campaign itself, and through security costs and disruptions to the host cities. They have to provide security, but they also have to give up a significant part of their city to the candidate’s security apparatus.

So I propose a solution. Figure out how much it will cost the city in lost productivity and public services, then cut a check to the campaign for that amount. The candidate can deliver speeches via webcam, and the rest of us can stay home.

I’m totally kidding, by the way. This would be a terrible idea.

Share

Why America is Doomed

A commenter on BuzzFeed yesterday suggested that Mitt Romney shouldn’t release his tax returns until Barack Obama releases his school records.

The person who thinks that way deserves someone like Mitt Romney as president. The problem is, it’s not worth hurting the other 299,999,999 people in this country just to teach that asshole a lesson.

UPDATE: It’s actually worse than that: Trump to Romney: Demand Obama’s college records:

Billionaire businessman and Mitt Romney supporter Donald Trump said Monday morning that the GOP nominee should release more of his tax returns — as soon as President Obama releases his college records.

“Obama should give his college applications and records — you talk about transparency,” Mr. Trump said on “Fox and Friends.” “We will learn more about Obama when we look at those college applications than any other thing that can happen.”

***

Nevertheless, Mr. Trump said Republicans should keep pushing on the issue.

“If I were Mitt Romney or advising Mitt Romney, I would say, ‘I will put out all of my records, I’ll go back as far as you want, after you put out your records on college,'” he said.

“I’ll tell you what — the Republicans have to get a lot tougher,” he continued. “They have to get down and dirty also, because that’s what’s happening to them.”

The Obama campaign’s response could be politely summarized as “bite me,” which seems appropriate.

Share

If this isn’t the greatest meme of the 2012 election season…

There’s been a bit of a blowup over presumptive Republican presidential nominee Willard Mitt Romney’s refusal to disclose more than the last two years of tax returns which, he points out, is more than is required by law. Because what we really want in a president is somehow who does just above the bare minimum. Anyway, it led to this meme, which I admit made me LOL quite a bit:

20120717-082947.jpg

Charles Pierce hit on a very important point in Esquire, which may explain the whole debacle:

There is nothing in those tax returns that is in any way illegal. Certainly, there is within them probably a fairly clear illustration about how our tax code — and, indeed, our entire economic system — has been gamed to benefit the folks in Romney’s economic stratum, but that’s hardly a secret anymore. As Paul Krugman said in this morning’s New York Times, that’s what this whole election is going to be about, whether the two candidates like it or not. And I don’t think Romney’s trying to keep secret how much money he’s kicked back to his church, either. Anybody who’s bothered by that is bothered on theological and cultural grounds. All recent evidence to the contrary, Romney’s people, and Romney himself, are not stupid. They know all this as well as anyone else does. He is not fighting the release of these returns to keep us from finding out the dark secrets about how stupid-wealthy he and his family are. He is fighting the release of these returns because he doesn’t think he should have to release them.

It is helpful always to remind yourself that, in the mind of Willard Romney, there are only two kinds of people — himself and his family, and The Help. Throughout his career, and especially throughout his brief political career, Romney has treated The Help with a kind of lordly disdain. It was there when he swooped down from snowy Olympus and shoved an incumbent Republican governor named Jane Swift under a train. It was there in the general election in 2002, when he glibly pushed aside the Democratic candidate, state treasurer Shannon O’Brien, who raised almost all the same issues against Romney that the president and his people are belaboring him with today. The only time it didn’t work was in his race against Senator Edward Kennedy, when Romney found himself up against a candidate with so much money that he couldn’t outspend him, and so much historical gravitas that he couldn’t ignore him.

The Help has no right to go pawing through the family books, giggling at the obvious loopholes and tax dodges, running amok through all the tax shelters, and probably getting their chocolate-y fingerprints all over the pages of the Romney family ledger. And, certainly, those members of The Help in the employ of the president of the United States, who is also part of The Help, have no right to use the nearly comically ostentatious wealth of the Romney as some sort of scrimey political weapon. He does not have to answer to The Help. I mean, jeepers, he’s running for office.
This isn’t stubbornness. That’s often an acquired trait. What this is, fundamentally, is contempt. Contempt for the process, and contempt for the people who make their living in that process, and contempt for the people whose lives depend on that process. There are rules for The Help with which Willard Romney never has had to abide, and he has no intention of starting now. My dear young fellow, this simply is not done.

Because I’m lazy, and because there isn’t much I can add on the silliness of this whole issue, here are some blogs I would have linked to had I written out a full post on this:

Share

Couldn’t Have Said It Better Myself

20120707-175428.jpgWe know Obamacare is bad, according to many, because freedom is good. I think I’m representing the argument as accurately-yet-succinctly as possible. Many of Obamacare’s more strident opponents might object to my caps-lock-free use of the word “freedom,” preferring instead to use the sobriquet “FREEDOM.” I will use the lowercase version, but please understand that my refusal to express my stridency through capitalization does not necessarily reflect a lack of enthusiasm for my subject matter.

Now then, on to the point of today’s screed: libertarianism might be “back,” at least according to Pauline Arrillaga at the Associated Press, who writes that

Something’s going on in America this election year: a renaissance of an ideal as old as the nation itself – that live-and-let-live, get-out-of-my-business, individualism vs. paternalism dogma that is the hallmark of libertarianism.

It’s Saturday, so I’m not going to bother unpacking the various historical amd equitable inaccuracies in that statement. I’d be preaching to the choir, anyway. Where it gets interesting is where she starts talking to actual self-styled libertarians.

She interviewed Mark Skousen, an economist who founded FreedomFest, a conference starting this week in Las Vegas that talks about freedom, presumably with some liberty thrown in for good measure. I’m not saying that Skousen speaks for all libertarians, but he brings up some points that have long bothered me about the whole concept of libertarianism, or at least the way many people express it:

“It is a rebirth,” said Skousen, and a reaction to a feeling shared by many that America has moved too far afield from its founding principles. “This country was established for the very thing that we’re fighting right now: excessive government control of our lives. In today’s world everything is either prohibited or mandated. … You have to have medical insurance. You have to wear a seat belt. … They have to pat you down (at the airport).”

Skousen has a simple analogy for all of this: “If you restrict a teenager, they rebel. I think that’s what people are feeling.”

Perhaps he was speaking off the cuff, and had not had time to put together a better list of examples. Of course, he is also purporting to represent an ideology, so the examples of “excessive governmemt control” he cites are worth noting. Airport pat-downs are pretty obvious. I have yet to hear anyone who doesn’t actually work for the TSA defending the practice, but no one in Washington seems to have the guts to stand up to them. Complaining about that hardly sets this guy apart.

Seat belts: truly, our Founding Fathers fought, bled, and died, so that their descendants two centuries later could hurtle across paved roads in large steel carriages at speeds unknown anywhere else in the animal kingdom with no safety restraints. (This was covered in a song that unfortunately did not make the final selection cut for Schoolhouse Rock.) As an example of excessive government control, this makes Skousen look like a crybaby.

Medical insurance: this is the issue of the day, isn’t it? Never mind that most Americans want affordable health care and agree with the individual provisions of Obamacare. Never mind that we as a nation made a decision that health care should be a for-profit enterprise, meaning that drugs are developed and marketed for their ability to make money for shareholders more than for their ability to improve health. Never mind that ensuring people have basic access to health care is the right damn thing to do. The fact is that people both need and want health care, and they have to pay for it. The only people who would “suffer” under the mandate are the tiny percentage of people who can afford insurance but decide not to purchase it. Presumably because of FREEDOM. I am skeptical that someone who would refuse to buy health insurance under those circumstances, if faced with an illness or injury later on that required health care at a greater cost than they could not afford, would just go gently into that good night. Opposition to the mandate, once you get past all the “slippery slope” rhetoric and word salad about liberty, is really just about being a freeloader. And that brings me to my last observation.

Skousen overtly compares libertarians to angry teenagers who don’t like rules. That is the perfect analogy, actually. He sounds like a sullen teen who is angry that his dad won’t let him borrow the car even though his mom needs the car right then to take his little sister to soccer practice. He wants the car right now, and screw the rest of the family. He’s probably not quite a bad as Veruca Salt from Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, but he’s getting there.

In Skousen’s analogy, the teenager represents the libertarians, and the parents represent the government. There’s another word we can use to describe the parents, and it encompasses everything that libertarians like Skousen are not: grownups.

Photo credit: ‘Veruca Salt, from the film ‘Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory’ [Fair use], via Virginmedia.com.

Share

My First Thoughts on the Supreme Court’s Health Care Decision

Last week, House Majority Leader John Boehner issued a plea to Republicans et al not to “spike the ball” should the Court strike down the law. It was a magnanimous, if futile gesture. Rush Limbaugh, never letting an opportunity to issue jowly gloats slide, admonished his followers to keep doing what they do best (i.e. commit mass asshattery). Here is what I imagine their ball-spiking party looks like today:

1241261617_football-fail(Source: GIF and video)

I’m surprised, first of all, at the way the vote split. The opinion just posted to the Supreme Court’s site, and I have not had a chance to read all 193 pages (go figure). I’m uploading a copy of the opinion below, if anyone wants to indulge.

Treating the individual mandate as a tax is an interesting outcome. I thought the Commerce Clause arguments were pretty solid, given precedent (stare decisis: look it up and explain it to Justice Scalia, please.)

At the moment, I doubt anyone outside the court itself has read the opinion, unless they have mad speed-reading skillz. It will be several days before there is any meaningful analysis or commentary. I will be ignoring the media drivel. If I can get around to it, I’ll delve into the topic some more.

Opinion of the Court, National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, Supreme Court of the United States, June 28, 2012

Share

If you’re going to insist on sticking your nose into other people’s relationships that do not concern you, you will have to do it without any Oreos

Oreos, those eminently awesome chocolate and cream cookies, burst onto the national stage yesterday due to an act of basic human decency. Of course, some people simply cannot let that sort of thing go unpunished. In a fit of diversity and inclusiveness, Oreo posted a rainbow cookie to its Facebook page, garnering hundreds of thousands of “likes” and more than twenty thousand comments. Some comments are supportive, and some are a permanent part of the internet, whose comments will hopefully come back to haunt the authors some day.

Now we know it’s getting real, because Fox Nation’s readers have the story, and they are offended!!!

gay-oreo

I was hoping to collect a few choice quotes, but (a) Fox Nation commenters are cowards who don’t use their real names; and (b) I made it through one page and got sick to my stomach, in part because of the unabashed bigotry, but also because of the sheer number of people who think “lol u r stupd” is a good response to someone raising cogent, albeit “librul” points of contention.

Anyway, it only took about two seconds before I came across a racist jab at the president, courtesy of woodsman1st:

gay-oreo1

After four years of obummer, I believe I want nothing but vanilla cookies with white frosting.

This guy probably takes immense pride at being able to type out “obummer” correctly. If you don’t think this comment is racist to the core, then I have now identified an argument to which “lol u r stupd” is the best response, except that it might have too many big words for you.

Next (and this is as far as I made it), we have libssukkalot, whose handle doesn’t even merit ridicule:

gay-oreo2

First time in my life that I’ve ever seen a gay cookie, but then again it has been three and a half years of a lot of firsts too! I’ve never seen this many stupid people in charge of a country, and I’ve also never seen a “Dictator” for president of the United States until Obama!

With no way of knowing how old this person is, or anything else about the person’s background, it is impossible to say exactly how dumb this comment is above a baseline level of dumb.

That’s as far as I got. I don’t get why people think what others do in their own private romantic lives is any concern of theirs. As for the argument that gay people rub their sexuality in people’s faces, maybe you should stop thinking about penises so much whenever you see two dudes holding hands. Just sayin’.

Maybe it’s just that you haven’t had the proper introduction. Here’s a link to some excellent gay porn. Maybe you’ll end up liking it…

…Click the link…….I dare you…..

Share

Today in WTF? June 20, 2012

'Hyena vs ass' by Schillings, Karl Georg, 1865-1921; Johnston, Harry Hamilton, Sir, 1858-1927 [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons1. Ron Paul gets social security:

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) may rail against Social Security insolvency in the public eye, but that hasn’t stopped him from accepting the government checks.

The libertarian-leaning Republican and former presidential candidate admitted Wednesday that he accepts Social Security checks just minutes after he called for younger generations to wean themselves off the program, in an interview on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

Ayn Rand also suckled at the big evil government’s teat, so it’s only fair. Anyway, it’s for the younger generations to make the sacrifices, right?

2. The EPA might ban baptisms, according to Mike Huckabee: Continue reading

Share