Bigots alive and well and blaming Mexicans for Swine Flu--Dumbasses!

Among the various reasons I have for not listening to talk radio or watching Fox News, one has to be the bigotry and racism prominently displayed.

When Michael Savage gets fired because he blames Mexicans for the Swine Flu and says things like "they wipe the butts with their hands" (what else would they use their feet?) or Michelle Malkin of Fox news uses the Swine Flu to justify closing the border, then I draw the line.

In an effort to show my contempt for this slag that passes as media, I plan on eating Mexican food today, prepared by real Mexicans.

Screw you bigots! Screw you too if you support such drivel.

Relgious more likely to support torture...so much for forgiveness.

All I want to know: What exactly do they teach these people in church that causes them to be more likely to support the use of torture?

I mean, the Bible says nothing about supporting torture. In fact, the Bible says to forgive and turn the other cheek.

It's been awhile since I've been to Church, but if the results of this study provide a glimpse into what passes as Christianity these days, then I don't want to go.

Crappy broadband a legacy of Bush policy against enforcing Anti-Trust law.

Surely most of you get tired of me bashing the last President. Yet, there remain so many screw-ups by Bush, some intentional and many a result of his ideological blinders, that I must point out what his penchant for laissez-faire boob-ism wrought.

The Justice Department under Bush instituted a policy of refusing to enforce anti-trust law. You know, the laws enacted to prevent monopolies and anti-competitive practices. Ashcroft dropped an Anti-Trust lawsuit against Microsoft during the early years and it set the stage for later malfeasance.

This whole atmosphere of ignoring anti-competitive business practices in the name of--wait for it--free markets has actually reduced our supply of market-friendly internet.

For example: In Tennessee, when municipalities began looking at providing free wi-fi, the cable companies cried foul and spent a lot of cash greasing the General Assembly's palms to pass a law prohibiting cities from competing with cable. The Justice Department did nothing.

Now, it seems the lack of competition and the virtual monopoly on broadband by a number of providers means we have to suffer with crap for speed, crap for customer service, and crap for expense.

If Bush had really been in favor of business, his policies would reflect the value of maintaining competition instead of encouraging monopolies.

We all would have the best broadband in the world instead of the 15th best.

When Republicans talk of capitalism they can't ignore the dangers monopolies create.

Green means NO MEAT.

I'm gonna make a bold statement.

You cannot be green unless you avoid the consumption of meat.

Those of you who know me, understand that I've been a vegetarian for over two decades. My reasons are ethical, but my decision to avoid meat for all these years accords with my personal belief that the environment deserves our protection and not our continued exploitation for our personal appetites.

For more evidence supporting my personal view, look at this article and the links found therein.

Using Rove arguments to support Obama--try it for fun.

I've decided to try a thought experiment as an homage to the last administration.

I want to trot out some of the same arguments used by the Bush administration and followed by McCain & Palin during the '08 election.

If you supported McCain/Palin or Bush you will remember these. As a point of consistency, they should apply equally well to Obama.

If you find yourself incapable of applying these same chestnuts to Obama, without caveat, then you need to ask yourself if you're not being a little intellectually dishonest.

1. Since Obama's been in office, the terrorists have not attacked us. Therefore, Obama's policies on national security are working. (You'll recall Bush used this same argument as validation for the efficacy of his presidency despite the fact that absence of evidence is not the same as evidence--it's sophistry, specifically argumentum ad ignorantiam --Glenn Beck's stock in trade).

2. Don't change horses in the middle of the stream. Even if Obama's not doing such a good job, things are so bad right now that we shoudn't go messing up things by replacing him because during a crisis, we need stability more than change. (Bush used this and McCain/Palin tried to link into the whole stability of vision thing to keep the Republicans in power--again, this is nothing but Bullshit and the results of the Bush years show it to be the case.)

3. Obama's a secret Muslim and is going to turn us into a communist state. (This doesn't pass the laugh test so I won't even diginify it with an answer except to say that if you believed this crap, you're an idiot.)

I'll stop here. Once I've gone through my Rove file, we can talk about it some more.

The same arguments used in the past must work equally well for the other side. if they don't then perhaps the arguments are suspect to begin with.

Night owls have advantages over early birds.

The results of this study add fuel to a fire that's been burning for awhile with me.

I've always taken issue with those who point to my tendency to rise late and stay up late. Our society, due to its Calvinist legacy, puts great stock in the dictum: early to bed early to rise.

My point is that late risers and early risers each have something to offer and to force one into the mold of the other is prejudice.

This recent study offers proof that being a night owl gives certain benefits.

Good.

Greed of executives may kill Chrysler.

I blogged about this earlier when I noted that the auto manufacturers were shunning bankruptcy because of the executive compensation issue.

Now, it seems my prediction was true.

Chrysler, a company in danger of dying, has turned down federal loans to keep itself afloat because of...(drum roll please) EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION.

Sometimes the greed of a few can kill the livelihood of thousands.

Too bad.

Pill could kill Alcoholics Anonymous and Doctor Drew's Business

This story is encouraging. A pill that can help addicts kick their problems.

Love the idea.

More troubling though is the recalcitrance of the Rehab industry and the AA crowd to using a pill to stop addiction.

Why would anyone holding themselves out as a professional or support group for addicts take issue with a medication showing such promise?

Money. For the rehab industry, a pill eliminates the thousands of dollars billed for treatment.

Even if it works.

For AA: The whole edifice of AA is built around the disease model of addiction. AA operates like a cult whose success at treating addiction is no better than chance (50/50). That's the level of remission among alcoholics WITHOUT AA.

When a pill stops addiction, what use would anyone have for a twelve step system?

None.

I think this work is great.

Bullets to the head will stop the piracy--Violent, but effective

I'm not one for violence as a policy. In fact, I think too many people are quick to use the gun when other tactics might work better.

Too many advocate government sanctioned violence, especially if they're not the one doing the actual killing. Somehow the sanitary nature of government violence makes it more palatable for the rest of us to tolerate.

But then, there's the piracy issue.

Three issues fuel the piracy mess off Somalia:

1) No strong government in Somalia to put the smack-down on those exploiting the territorial waters.

2) Willingness of commercial shipping companies to pay ransom because it's less expensive than to pay the families and customers should the results become dire.

3) Willful ignorance by countries with the capacity to stop it militarily.

We're seeing a sea-change (literally) off Somalia. The U.S. under Obama has manned up at sent the pirates to Davey Jones' Locker for messing with us.

A few bullets to the head will stop the lawlessness caused by shipping companies cowardly, albeit capitalistic, ways.

Morality may just be post hoc rationalizations for what we feel.

Apparently, we are all moral hypocrites. Recent research indicates that most of us use our emotions to guide our morals and devote considerable time to justifying our morality to fit our emotional state.

No surprising about this work: Conservatives spend a lot of time thinking about sex while liberals think mostly about food.

One look at the Moral Majority could have told you that.

As for me: I still think it possible for people to behave with cool rationality, but only if they exercise extreme effort and realize that emotions are to be compartmentalized instead of followed as the ultimate guide to truth.

Stress from poverty undermines children's mental development. Time to change that.

The results of this study are stunning.

When science finds significant evidence that poverty diminishes a child's mental capacity then we have no choice but to eliminate poverty for the sake of the children.

The study showed that the central factor--the only cause--was stress caused by poverty.

Can we afford any philosophy or attitude that undermines the mental capacity of our nation's children?

I say "No".

Poverty is probably one of the last conquerable social evils. Alleviating poverty is within our grasp, but we must willingly give up outdated dogmas that serve only a few at the expense of our future.

New Technology takes away our privacy to our own genitals for the sake of "Stopping the Terrorists" No way.

Okay, this technology, although really cool from a technical point, is extremely scary from a Constitutional standpoint.

When you can see genitalia from a technology then it's too much.

I don't care about thwarting terrorists if it means I have to show my business.

The company making this scary piece of equipment says that there's zero storage of images and it's viewed at a remote location.

SO WHAT!? Look at the detail.

My mantra about the shifting nature of our rights (primarily away from our best interest) is this: Just because we can do something doesn't make it alright.

I can buy a gun and shoot someone in the face, but that doesn't make it okay. Similarly, this x-ray technology is not okay.

It won't be long before someone would offer to sell nude pictures of celebrities and politicians from this technology, despite all the safeguards.

Hell no!.

Crazy often defined by proximity in time. The farther away in time, the less crazy it seems to be.

Will someone please explain this to me?

A Maryland woman made a plea deal that includes a "resurrection" clause.

Her request was that when and if her son is resurrected from the dead that all charges against her will be dropped for allowing him to die.

Of course the D.A. agreed because the resurrection of the victim from the dead means no crime happened. Kind of a moot point.

Most of us agree that this woman is a little crazy.

My next question will probably tick off a lot of people: Why is her belief crazy but the belief in the resurrection of a man thousands of years ago not a little insane?

I'm just saying. If resurrection is possible thousands of years ago, why not now?

Universal health care the cure for foreign competition in medical treatment

Failings in the U.S. health care system are highlighted by the plight of the uninsured.

Our profit-driven system benefits the vendors of medical care (doctors, hospitals & pharmaceuticals) at the expense of patients.

Many, myself included, find a system where lives are placed at risk primarily for profit immoral and scandalous. A supposedly advanced society doesn't place a price on lives like we do to profit certain industries.

Our profit-driven system generates one side-effect: Lower cost providers will always pop up to push prices down. That's the nature of market economics.

In the case of foreign doctors and hospitals, these low cost competitors are rising to fill a long-felt need in American health care.

It's a good thing too.

American doctors and hospitals need competition from their American-trained foreign brethren. Foreign competition will encourage the American medical industry to get on-board with universal health care because that will be the only thing to save American medicine from overseas competition.

Universal health care will take the form of protectionism for U.S. medicine. There's no way to maintain the best health care system in the world with the highest individual cost to consumers when the customer base shrinks as a result of the insurance industry policy of excluding people from coverage who most need treatment, leaving these externalized costs for the rest of society to pick up.

Something's gonna have to give in our health care system. I suspect that doctors will realize that insurance providers don't have the public's best interest at heart and will protect their own bottom line by preferring a universal plan insuring payment over the headache of dealing with private insurance companies.

Better late than never.

Tesla Sedan finally makes its debut

Tesla, the electric car starup that made out mouths drool over their roadster, has bitten the bullet and produced a sedan for the mass market.

The price is around $50 k. More reasonable by comparison to the $100 k price tag of the roadster.

The car looks great.

I just hope the hype meets up with reality after a poor showing of the roadster during a BBC road test. I blogged about it previously.

Drug warriors asking for more money to fund ineffective approach to drug problems. Just "Say No" to misspent cash.

Here's where the disconnect occurs in our efforts to combat drug abuse and the attendant crime associated with illegal drugs.

Those from law enforcement always want more resources and stiffer penalties. Just like this bozo advocates.

The problem with the education angle is that programs that historically receive government funding have shown little to no effect--in essence they are a waste of money.

I give you the D.A.R.E. program. D.A.R.E. has never been effective. If you don't believe me, then look at the government's own scientific study supporting my claim.

Law enforcement and its apologists and advocates have no credibility when it comes to treating the drug problem in the U.S. They've had three decades to prove themselves and have FAILED.

The criminal justice system has never successfully treated what amounts to a health issue.

Until our policies reflect the health aspect of drug problems, we'll endure further demands for cash from the law enforcement lobby.

It's time to stop the police-industrial complex our drug policies have created.

Secretary Clinton speaks the truth about U.S. Drug Policy--Good for her, good for us.

Here's a positive sign. Someone in the Obama administration actually speaking the truth about U.S. drug policy.

Secretary Clinton stated publicly that the War on Drugs has been a failure.

She noted this while in Mexico.

In my previous post I noted how we must honestly address our failures and look to alternative policies.

Excellent.

Time for a new approach to this failed drug war.

The escalating violence in Mexico and the potential for spillover into the U.S. highlights the failings of our decades long drug war.

Prohibition enforcement has not worked. Every angle has been tried and yet rates of drug addiction and drug use are roughly the same as they have been every year since the 1920's--the first decade to see good records on drug use and addiction.

What's been the result of enforcement? More prisons, more cost to society in lost economic potential and a law enforcement boondoggle.

Drug abuse isn't pretty, but one thing is clear: Continuing down the same path of failed policies, increasing corruption and wasted capital is not the better choice.

Trying alternatives is our best option. We know prohibition doesn't work. Admitting our failures is not giving in; it honesty in policy. Aren't we due for some integrity in our drug policy?

The Obama administration is trying the same old failed approach to the Mexican drug problem, but it won't work. You can't target Second Amendment rights when the real problem boils down to failed drug policies that have no effect on demand.

Ending the violence means hitting the drug cartels where it counts: Their cash flow.

Demand is not affected by prohibition, that much is proven by our history. When a product has consistent demand over decades, someone will always try to meet that demand, despite the legal obstacles our policies might place in the way.

What are we left with?

Legalization and regulation.

By legalizing drugs, we remove the financial incentives. Legal substances have lower margins. Legal substances have better quality. Legal substances are subject to taxation and oversight.

The costs to society for legalization are far less than what's been paid thus far for prohibition. The benefits are incalculable and might just deal a fatal blow to those organizations inured to the profits prohibition has created, namely the Drug Cartels.

Dramatic times call for dramatic measures.

Meat consumption linked to dramatic risk of cancer and heart disease. Just say no to meat.

A fun new study paints a grim picture of the long-term consequences of red meat consumption.

Apparently, eating red meat increases the risk of cancer and heart disease dramatically. Women suffer an increased likelihood of death as a result, moreso than the risk men face.

Men increase their risk of cancer by about 25%. Women increase their risk about 50%.

This is dramatic.

Another call for vegetarianism.

Obama giving up the macho in favor of the smart approach to Iran.

I would like to point out that President Obama's approach to Iran is exactly what is needed.

For far too long the U.S. has tried to bully and threaten its way to a solution with the Islamist nation--all to little effect.

I would also like to point out that I suggested just such an approach in an earlier post on this blog.

Being the big dog on the block gives us ample strength without us needing to strut around and tell everyone about how great we are. Previous administrations and our most recent Republican nominee for president pursued the same agenda: Talk tough and be tough.

It didn't work, except at the polls. The message lost on all the talk tough crowd is that being macho and being smart are mutually exclusive endeavors. This is why you don't find big tough rednecks on Jeopardy and why you don't find pointy-headed nerds on the football field.

Obama's nuanced approach to Iran creates an untenable situation for the mullahs. The "Great Satan" ceases to motivate when the U.S. is extending a hand in peace. The youthful Iranian population wants to participate in the world at large. The restraints placed on them by their reactionary leaders generates increased discontent when the "Great Satan" is perceived as the "Great Peace-Maker".

Obama's approach boxes in the Iranian leadership between moribund rhetoric and youthful population bristling under the reactionary yoke of oppression. Strategically, it's brilliant.

Kudos to Obama for being smart instead of macho.