Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) revealed that some members of his party opposed
expanding background checks for gun sales recently because they didn't
want to "be seen helping the president."
Friday, May 3, 2013
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Who Really Bankrupted America?
In January 2001, with the budget balanced and clear sailing ahead, the Congressional Budget Office forecast ever-larger annual surpluses indefinitely. The outlook was so rosy, the CBO said, that Washington would have enough money by the end of the decade to pay off everything it owed.
Now, instead of tending a nest egg of more than $2 trillion, the federal government expects to owe more than $10 trillion to outside investors by the end of this year. The national debt is larger, as a percentage of the economy, than at any time in U.S. history except for the period shortly after World War II.
Polls show that a large majority of Americans blame wasteful or unnecessary federal programs for the nation’s budget problems. But routine increases in defense and domestic spending account for only about 15 percent of the financial deterioration, according to a new analysis of CBO (Congressional Budget Office) data.
The biggest culprit, by far, has been an erosion of tax revenue triggered largely by two recessions and multiple rounds of tax cuts. Together, the economy and the tax bills enacted under former president George W. Bush, and to a lesser extent by President Obama, wiped out $6.3 trillion in anticipated revenue. That’s nearly half of the $12.7 trillion swing from projected surpluses to real debt. Federal tax collections now stand at their lowest level as a percentage of the economy in 60 years.
Obama’s 2009 economic stimulus, a favorite target of Republicans who blame Democrats for the mounting debt, has added $719 billion — 6 percent of the total shift, according to the new analysis of CBO data by the nonprofit Pew Fiscal Analysis Initiative. All told, Obama-era choices account for about $1.7 trillion in new debt, according to a separate Washington Post analysis of CBO data over the past decade. Bush-era policies, meanwhile, account for more than $7 trillion and are a major contributor to the trillion-dollar annual budget deficits that are dominating the political debate.
Lori Montgomery The Washington Post
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Reality Behind the Debt Crisis
I stopped writing about politics because it was driving me crazy. I decided to bury my head in the sand for a while. That is until I heard about the 39 riders on the the Boehner plan to raise the Debt Ceiling. The Bill was intended to a limited increase in the Debt Ceiling and we would have the whole fight again in a few months. The 39 riders were all about destroying regulation, environmental regulation. De-funding the EPA and gutting the Endangered Species Act are prime Republican targets. If the current class of Republicans and Tea Baggers had their way we would return to the pre-progressive Oligarchy when the wealthiest Americans owned everything, child labor laws did not exist, the environment was pillaged and plundered, factories were death traps, and the food was not fit for human consumption. Why would that be? Because regulation is really there to help the poorest and weakest of our society. The bottom 90% benefit the most from governmental protection. If we want a vision of the Republican Plan we need only to look at China with its lung searing pollution, toxic products and toys, unregulated building codes, and lack of personal liberty.
Yes the Republicans want to unfetter industry, the job creators, but they also want to tell you what you can do with your own body and tell you who you can love.
The Republicans always paint Democrats as tax and spend liberals but a quick search of the debt accumulated in my lifetime reveals the most fiscally prudent Presidents have been Johnson, Nixon and Clinton and the most fiscally reckless have been Ford, Reagan, and both Bushes. I left our Carter because he's somewhere in the middle and I left out Obama because were are only part way through his first term. George W. Bush raised the National Debt from 5.7 Trillion to 10.6 Trillion doubling it in 8 years. Under Bush Senior the Debt nearly doubled from 2.6 to 4.1 Trillion. Under Reagen the National Debt went from 900 Billion to 2.7 Trillion increasing by two thirds. Yes the debt has risen under all of the last 9 presidents but Clinton and Johnson were the best at keeping it under control.
If you want to believe the Republican lies and let the gut all environmental protection then go ahead... I'm looking to move to Canada.
Yes the Republicans want to unfetter industry, the job creators, but they also want to tell you what you can do with your own body and tell you who you can love.
The Republicans always paint Democrats as tax and spend liberals but a quick search of the debt accumulated in my lifetime reveals the most fiscally prudent Presidents have been Johnson, Nixon and Clinton and the most fiscally reckless have been Ford, Reagan, and both Bushes. I left our Carter because he's somewhere in the middle and I left out Obama because were are only part way through his first term. George W. Bush raised the National Debt from 5.7 Trillion to 10.6 Trillion doubling it in 8 years. Under Bush Senior the Debt nearly doubled from 2.6 to 4.1 Trillion. Under Reagen the National Debt went from 900 Billion to 2.7 Trillion increasing by two thirds. Yes the debt has risen under all of the last 9 presidents but Clinton and Johnson were the best at keeping it under control.
If you want to believe the Republican lies and let the gut all environmental protection then go ahead... I'm looking to move to Canada.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Stop Robo Calls
Robo Calls are annoying and the are perfectly legal. Even if you signed up for the Colorado and National Do Not Call list politicians and their proxies can still Robo Call your cell phone. What can you do?
I'm all for free speech but it stops with my phone.
- If you get a Robo Call hang up and try to call the number back and voice your disapproval. Sometime you get a live person and sometimes you can leave a message.
- Contact your state representative. In Colorado you can try this link: http://comaps.org/allsearch_old.html
- Contact the DNC and RNC and voice your disapproval
I'm all for free speech but it stops with my phone.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Why Will the Government Shut Down?
Culture Wars. Here is a partial list of the riders attached to the funding extension:
- Prohibits the Federal Reserve from transferring more than $80 million to the new Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. Basically killing the program
- Prohibits funding for the EPA to change a rule regulating water. Can you say arsenic in the water?
- Prohibits the District of Columbia from using its own, non-federal funds to pay for abortions beyond the very limited circumstances in which federal funds are currently available (in circumstances of rape or incest and to save the life of a pregnant woman). Really?
- Prohibits funds to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., or any of its affiliates.
- Prohibits funding for needle-exchange programs.
- Prohibits the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives from collecting information on multiple sales of rifles or shotguns to the same person. Preparing for the revolution are we?
- Prohibits funding for the Sustainable Communities Initiative. Who cares about sustainability? Fuck it.
- Blocks funds for the Federal Communications Commission to institute Net Neutrality rules. Because Comcast has your best interests at heart...
- Prohibits Recovery Act funds for signage. Now that's just douchey
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
If You Watch It Backwards
What a great concept! This site give a literal description of the plot of your favorite movies if they were watched in reverse... For example:
If You Watch It Backwards
If you watch “Top Gun” backwards, it’s about the breakup of two gay Navy pilots.
If You Watch It Backwards
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
I Love Statistics
I frequently peruse the stats at the Pew center and I found a few that are not really shocking but eye opening.
Here's a set of three stats:
1. How religious a state is
2. Levels of poverty per state
3. Teen pregnancy per state
States like Mississippi are a trifecta in that they have high religious beliefs, high poverty, and high teen pregnancy. On the other end of the spectrum are Vermont and New Hampshire; low in all three categories. It's also interesting that states with the most restrictive sex education tend to have the highest rates of teen pregnancy...
Religiosity (click to zoom)
Poverty
Teen Pregnancy
Here's a set of three stats:
1. How religious a state is
2. Levels of poverty per state
3. Teen pregnancy per state
States like Mississippi are a trifecta in that they have high religious beliefs, high poverty, and high teen pregnancy. On the other end of the spectrum are Vermont and New Hampshire; low in all three categories. It's also interesting that states with the most restrictive sex education tend to have the highest rates of teen pregnancy...
Religiosity (click to zoom)
Poverty
Teen Pregnancy
Monday, March 21, 2011
Big Pharma Profits
Drug companies would like use to believe that it costs close to a $1 billion to bring new drug to market. They site a 2003 from Tufts University. The study, which was published in the Journal of Health Economics, was conducted out of the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development (TCSDD), a drug industry-funded group that “advocate[s] on behalf of initiatives and issues that further the cause of pharmaceutical innovation” (http://csdd.tufts.edu/about/corporate_sponsorship).
Tufts produced a drug industry-funded study that contains drug industry-favored results. It includes a small and random sampling of unnamed drugs, and claims that such drugs cost an average of $802 million a piece to produce in 2000, or $1 billion in 2011 dollars when accounting for inflation. But the precise numbers and details are all but missing from the report. So how anyone in the scientific or regulatory community can willfully accept the report as anything other than hearsay is anyone’s guess.
According to a recent piece in Slate, the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association (PhRMA), a pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry trade group, says that average drug development costs are even higher, having allegedly topped $1.32 billion in 2006. Based on this number, PhRMA is claiming that such costs increased by a whopping 64 percent in just six years, which is more than double the normal medical inflation rate.
The Light and Warburton study, which has been published in the journal BioSocieties, says that these figures are greatly overblown, and are simply not based in reality. The Slate piece cites additional research noting that 84 percent of the costs associated with the first research phase of drug development is covered by taxpayers via government grants. Add to this the report’s estimate that the drug industry uses a little more than one percent of its sales revenue on basic research, and the costs in this department are very minimal.
Another little-known fact is that drug company R&D costs are tax exempt. They do not depreciate like normal investments do, either. When accounting for the many other tax breaks that drug companies receive, their actual net costs are cut by at least half of what they claim, according to the report. And when adjusting for “cost of capital,” that amount should be cut in half again if it is to even approach an accurate estimate for R&D costs. After all, if drug companies are not willing to take a risk in the R&D department — which is part of what running a business is all about — then they should not be in business at all, right?
Apparently drug companies feel as though they are entitled to massive profits, even if they fail to produce a valuable product. No other industry receives the benefits that Big Pharma does in the name of public health, and yet the industry is constantly whining and threatening that unless it can keep riding the gravy train and receiving special treatment, the production of drugs will cease. This, of course, takes place as the industry marks up its drugs as much as 569,000 percent over cost, bilking insurance companies and the government out of billions
Tufts produced a drug industry-funded study that contains drug industry-favored results. It includes a small and random sampling of unnamed drugs, and claims that such drugs cost an average of $802 million a piece to produce in 2000, or $1 billion in 2011 dollars when accounting for inflation. But the precise numbers and details are all but missing from the report. So how anyone in the scientific or regulatory community can willfully accept the report as anything other than hearsay is anyone’s guess.
According to a recent piece in Slate, the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association (PhRMA), a pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry trade group, says that average drug development costs are even higher, having allegedly topped $1.32 billion in 2006. Based on this number, PhRMA is claiming that such costs increased by a whopping 64 percent in just six years, which is more than double the normal medical inflation rate.
The Light and Warburton study, which has been published in the journal BioSocieties, says that these figures are greatly overblown, and are simply not based in reality. The Slate piece cites additional research noting that 84 percent of the costs associated with the first research phase of drug development is covered by taxpayers via government grants. Add to this the report’s estimate that the drug industry uses a little more than one percent of its sales revenue on basic research, and the costs in this department are very minimal.
Another little-known fact is that drug company R&D costs are tax exempt. They do not depreciate like normal investments do, either. When accounting for the many other tax breaks that drug companies receive, their actual net costs are cut by at least half of what they claim, according to the report. And when adjusting for “cost of capital,” that amount should be cut in half again if it is to even approach an accurate estimate for R&D costs. After all, if drug companies are not willing to take a risk in the R&D department — which is part of what running a business is all about — then they should not be in business at all, right?
Apparently drug companies feel as though they are entitled to massive profits, even if they fail to produce a valuable product. No other industry receives the benefits that Big Pharma does in the name of public health, and yet the industry is constantly whining and threatening that unless it can keep riding the gravy train and receiving special treatment, the production of drugs will cease. This, of course, takes place as the industry marks up its drugs as much as 569,000 percent over cost, bilking insurance companies and the government out of billions
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Too Much To Handle
The devastating quake in Japan is weighing heavily on my heart this week but it's not weighing on Limbaugh's heart, if he still has one. Limbaugh has spent his time mocking the Japanese survivors for maintaining a recycling program... "They've given us the Prius. Even now, refugees are recycling their garbage." Here, he began to laugh, continuing, "and yet, Gaia levels them! Just wipes them out!"
So while I cannot even comprehend the kind of hate festering the Limbaugh's heart I can look at the budget and the Republicans and quietly say WTF. While Japanese survivors are able to maintain a recycling program in the face of devastation (because they can see beyond the immediate crisis), GOP’s top priority is somewhere between “get Styrofoam cups back into Congress” — an actual push the Republicans took up to thumb their nose at Nancy Pelosi’s environmental policies — and make “Sesame Street” beg for money.
Recently Ezra Klein of the Washington Post wrote:
The discretionary spending programs being dickered over currently in Washington account for only 12 percent of the federal budget, "and that's not where the problem is." The grave and gathering threat to our fiscal future comes from the so-called "entitlement programs" of Social security, Medicare, and Medicaid, which now consume 47 percent of the budget and will consume 64 percent by 2020... Trying to wipe out the deficit and shrink the national debt by cutting the discretionary budget is a bit "like trying to clean your house by doing more and more to organize the hall closet." The closet might be neater but the real mess still awaits you.
So while I cannot even comprehend the kind of hate festering the Limbaugh's heart I can look at the budget and the Republicans and quietly say WTF. While Japanese survivors are able to maintain a recycling program in the face of devastation (because they can see beyond the immediate crisis), GOP’s top priority is somewhere between “get Styrofoam cups back into Congress” — an actual push the Republicans took up to thumb their nose at Nancy Pelosi’s environmental policies — and make “Sesame Street” beg for money.
Recently Ezra Klein of the Washington Post wrote:
The discretionary spending programs being dickered over currently in Washington account for only 12 percent of the federal budget, "and that's not where the problem is." The grave and gathering threat to our fiscal future comes from the so-called "entitlement programs" of Social security, Medicare, and Medicaid, which now consume 47 percent of the budget and will consume 64 percent by 2020... Trying to wipe out the deficit and shrink the national debt by cutting the discretionary budget is a bit "like trying to clean your house by doing more and more to organize the hall closet." The closet might be neater but the real mess still awaits you.
Monday, March 14, 2011
O'Keefe Lying Again
Last week, a Project Veritas "sting" operation directed at National Public Radio cost some NPR executives their jobs. Beginning with Senior Vice President for Fundraising Ron Schiller, who was depicted on tape disparaging the Tea Party movement and suggesting that NPR should move away from federal funding, the fallout eventually cost NPR CEO Vivian Schiller her job as well. That's sort of the NPR way "act in haste, repent in leisure."
The Glenn Beck-branded website, The Blaze, may seem an unlikely defender of NPR but when the site's editor, Scott Baker, and video production specialist, Pam Key, examined the raw footage, they found "questionable editing and tactics."
—The video "does not explain how the NPR executives would have a basis to believe they were meeting with a Muslim Brotherhood front group," and indeed "includes a longer section of description that seems to downplay connections of the MEAC group to the Muslim Brotherhood as popularly perceived."
—The video is edited to make it appear that Ron Schiller "is aware and perhaps amused or approving of the MEAC['s]" advocacy for Sharia law, but Schiller's "Really? That's what they said?" remark is actually made in reference to "confusion" involving the "restaurant reservation."
—Schiller is actually complimentary of Republicans, and prefaces his criticism of the Tea Party by indicating that it's his own opinion, not NPR's. (Plenty of conservatives and Tea Party activists have averred that NPR has treated them fairly.) Baker also finds footage in which Schiller and director of institutional giving Betsy Liley express a hesitancy to disparage the "education of conservatives" and defend "intellects of Fox News viewers."
Al Tompkins, a senior faculty member for broadcasting and online at the Poynter Institute, says there are "two ways to lie. One is to tell me something that didn't happen. And the other is not to tell me something that did happen." After comparing O'Keefe's edited tape to the longer version, "I think that they employed both techniques in this," Tompkins says.
One "big warning flag" Tompkins saw in the shorter tape was the way it made it appear that Schiller had laughed and commented "really, that's what they said?" after being told that the fake Muslim group advocates for sharia law. In fact, the longer tape shows that Schiller made that comment during an "innocuous exchange" that had nothing to do with the supposed group's position on sharia law, David reports.
Tompkins also says that O'Keefe's edited tape ignores the fact that Schiller said "six times ... over and over and over again" that donors cannot buy the kind of coverage they want on NPR.
O'Keefe continues to maintain that their video is "very honest." It's easy to see why: the effects of his "sting" operation manifested themselves in several public firings, so he can couch his claims—however dubious they may be—in the fact that NPR's response was a de facto acceptance of the video's premise.
Which is why organizations like NPR shouldn't freak out and start firing people until all the facts are known.
Curried Cauliflower Soup
I had a potluck to go to and decided to make a soup. I'm a big fan of thicker pureed soups and I wanted to use a head of cauliflower I had in the fridge; so this is what I came up with.
1 tablespoon whole coriander toasted and freshly ground
1 tablespoon whole cumin toasted and freshly ground
1 teaspoon of turmeric
1 teaspoon hot red pepper or more
2 tablespoons of garlic, minced
1 tablespoon of ginger, minced
1 large onion, small dice
1 large celery root, cubed
1 large head of cauliflower, broken into florets
2 medium potatoes, cubed
1 quart vegetable stock
3–4 cups of water
Salt
Olive oil (I use Whole Foods brand EVOO for almost everything except for deep frying)
1 cup of heavy cream
Toss cauliflower florets with a bit of olive oil and salt and roast in a 400° oven until browned.
Sweat Onion until translucent, heavily salt to help the process along. Add all of the spices and stir over medium high heat. You want to release the oils in the spices and you will have a sticky mess in the bottom of the pot. Add celery root, garlic, ginger and potatoes. Add a little water if necessary to scrape up any browned bits on the bottom of pot and saute until everything starts to just take on a bit of color. Add water, stock and roasted cauliflower and BRB then RTS (Bring to Boil, Reduce to Simmer)
Simmer until the veggies are fork tender then shut off heat and puree with an immersion blender (You can buy an immersion blender at Bed Bath and Beyond for around $50 bucks and it's money well spent!).
Blend to a smooth consistency and then add the heavy cream. Ladle into bowls and enjoy.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
In Defense of NPR
When Gov. Scott Walker was caught on tape musing about how he wanted to let troublemakers mingle among the Wisconsin protesters; it made the news for about five minutes. When James O'Keefe and Andrew Breitbart manipulate tape to show their point of view, think Shirley Sherrod and acorn, it makes headlines. For those who still think there is a liberal bias to the news I say you are delusional.
NPR is the only real news let and if you think it's liberal it's only because it challenges the status quo, as news should. News should challenge not reflect.
As far as the Schiller and Schiller debacle... fuck it... What did Schiller actually say?
It's true! "We've just exposed the true hearts and minds of NPR and their executives," O'Keefe said in a letter posted on the site. What is interesting and what's not getting reported is The heavily edited video shows Schiller and another NPR executive, Betsy Liley, meeting at a pricey restaurant in Washington's Georgetown neighborhood with two men claiming to be part of a Muslim organization. The men offer NPR a $5 million donation. NPR said Tuesday it was "repeatedly pressured" to accept a $5 million check, which the organization "repeatedly refused."
What is interesting is the O'Keefe claims to stand for truthiness but heavily edits his videos, just like Andrew Breitbart, to tell his story..
As far as Juan Williams is concerned, he should have been let go a long time ago. He obviously loved working for Fox more than he loved working for NPR. If you value NPR let your voice be hear http://www.170millionamericans.org/
NPR is the only real news let and if you think it's liberal it's only because it challenges the status quo, as news should. News should challenge not reflect.
As far as the Schiller and Schiller debacle... fuck it... What did Schiller actually say?
"The current Republican Party is not really the Republican Party. It's been hijacked by this group that is ... not just Islamophobic but, really, xenophobic," Schiller said in the video, referring to the tea party movement. "They believe in sort of white, middle America, gun-toting — it's scary. They're seriously racist, racist people."
It's true! "We've just exposed the true hearts and minds of NPR and their executives," O'Keefe said in a letter posted on the site. What is interesting and what's not getting reported is The heavily edited video shows Schiller and another NPR executive, Betsy Liley, meeting at a pricey restaurant in Washington's Georgetown neighborhood with two men claiming to be part of a Muslim organization. The men offer NPR a $5 million donation. NPR said Tuesday it was "repeatedly pressured" to accept a $5 million check, which the organization "repeatedly refused."
What is interesting is the O'Keefe claims to stand for truthiness but heavily edits his videos, just like Andrew Breitbart, to tell his story..
As far as Juan Williams is concerned, he should have been let go a long time ago. He obviously loved working for Fox more than he loved working for NPR. If you value NPR let your voice be hear http://www.170millionamericans.org/
How Smart Are Elephants?
I saw this a few days ago and while I knew that elephants were smart I was blown away by this research.
from the AP
Elephants are socially complex. In a series of tests, the giant mammals learned to cooperate to solve a problem, researchers report.
The elephants caught on as quickly as chimpanzees, elevating themselves to to the level of great apes, dolphins and crows.
The tests, conducted in Thailand, involved food rewards placed on a platform on the ground connected to a rope. The elephants were behind a fence. To get the food, the elephants had to pull the two ends of the rope at the same time to drag the platform under the fence. Pull only one end and all you get is rope. Six pairs of elephants were tested 40 times over two days and every pair figured it out, succeeding on at least eight of the last 10 trials.
In another experiment, the researchers left only one end of the rope within reach of the elephants, with the other end coiled on the table. The elephants didn't bother to pull the rope, seeming to recognize that it wouldn't work if their partner couldn't pull the other end.
It is hard to draw a line between learning and understanding, the researchers concluded, but the elephants did engage in cooperative behavior and paid attention to their partner.
Previously elephant ability to be self aware was tested.
Elephants can recognize themselves in a mirror, joining only humans, apes and dolphins as animals that possess this kind of self-awareness, researchers now report.
"This would seem to be a trait common to and independently evolved by animals with large, complex brains, complex social lives and known capacities for empathy and altruism, even though the animals all have very different kinds of brains," researcher Diana Reiss, a senior cognitive research scientist at the Wildlife Conservation Society in Brooklyn, N.Y., told LiveScience.
The researchers began their experiment by introducing three adult female Asian elephants to a mirror [image] eight feet wide by eight feet high constructed in a private area of their yard at the Bronx Zoo. Making the jumbo-sized mirror as "elephant-resistant" as they could was a challenge, given that "elephants love to constantly push with their heads and manipulate anything they can," explained researcher Joshua Plotnik, a graduate student at Emory University in Atlanta.
"We used a mirror made of plastic -- if we used glass, it would have broken very easily -- and framed it with steel and bolted it to the wall, but we were still worried they'd bring it down," Plotnik told LiveScience. "Luckily that didn't happen. We never saw them attempt to rip the mirror off. They seemed too interested in it to do that."
One of the first things animals capable of recognizing themselves in mirrors do is try exploring the other side of the mirror. Elephants Maxine and Patty did this [video]: they swung their trunks over and behind the wall on which the mirror was mounted, kneeled in front of it to get their trunks under and behind it, and even attempted to physically climb the wall. Remarkably, the elephants did not appear to at first mistake their reflections as strangers and try to greet them, as many animals that can recognize themselves normally do.
"Elephants have been tested in front of mirrors before, but previous studies used relatively small mirrors kept out of the elephants' reach," he added. "This study is the first to test the animals in front of a huge mirror they could touch, rub against and try to look behind."
As they begin to understand mirrors, animals that can recognize their reflections try repeating actions in front of it. The elephants, for example, waved their trunks around and moved their heads in and out of the mirror view.
Finally, once animals recognize reflections as their own, they use mirrors to investigate their own bodies. On more than one occasion, the elephants stuck their trunks into their mouths in front of the mirror, and Maxine used her trunk to pull her ear slowly toward the mirror.
"As a result of this study, the elephant now joins a cognitive elite," said researcher Frans de Waal at Emory University.
One elephant, named Happy, passed the final test of repeatedly touching an X painted on her forehead, a place she could not see without a mirror. As a control, when a colorless paint was used to draw the X, Happy didn't bother with it. While only Happy passed this test [video], the researchers noted that more than half of chimpanzees examined typically fail this test.
"Also, while primates constantly groom themselves, elephants love to throw mud on themselves and bathe in dust, so the other elephants might have seen that mark on their heads and not cared," Plotnik said.
Future research can focus on when elephants first develop this capacity. "We first see evidence of humans recognizing their reflections when they are 18 months old," Reiss said.
The scientists reported their findings online October 30 via the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Hopefully, she added, this will encourage people to protect elephants.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
The Dirty Word
When did liberal become such a dirty word?
What does it mean?
Let's take a look:
'liberal(s)' appears to be a derogatory term for people of a particular politcal persuasion. Is Liberal the new Communist?
Here below is one set of definitions for liberal. Would this define said 'liberals' when voiced by a 'libertarian' or conservative in the states? you'll notice words like 'tolerance' and phrases like 'not bound by orthodoxy'. Are these reprehensible qualities to a tea bagger? Or does 'liberal' mean something completely different to them? Just asking...
Definitions of liberal on the Web:
•broad: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad political stance"; "generous and broad sympathies"; "a liberal newspaper"; "tolerant of his opponent's opinions"
•having political or social views favoring reform and progress
•tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition
•a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties
•big: given or giving freely; "was a big tipper"; "the bounteous goodness of God"; "bountiful compliments"; "a freehanded host"; "a handsome allowance"
•a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets
Conversely what is Conservative:
•resistant to change
•cautious: avoiding excess; "a conservative estimate"
•a person who is reluctant to accept changes and new ideas
•bourgeois: conforming to the standards and conventions of the middle class; "a bourgeois mentality"
What does it mean?
Let's take a look:
'liberal(s)' appears to be a derogatory term for people of a particular politcal persuasion. Is Liberal the new Communist?
Here below is one set of definitions for liberal. Would this define said 'liberals' when voiced by a 'libertarian' or conservative in the states? you'll notice words like 'tolerance' and phrases like 'not bound by orthodoxy'. Are these reprehensible qualities to a tea bagger? Or does 'liberal' mean something completely different to them? Just asking...
Definitions of liberal on the Web:
•broad: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad political stance"; "generous and broad sympathies"; "a liberal newspaper"; "tolerant of his opponent's opinions"
•having political or social views favoring reform and progress
•tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition
•a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties
•big: given or giving freely; "was a big tipper"; "the bounteous goodness of God"; "bountiful compliments"; "a freehanded host"; "a handsome allowance"
•a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets
Conversely what is Conservative:
•resistant to change
•cautious: avoiding excess; "a conservative estimate"
•a person who is reluctant to accept changes and new ideas
•bourgeois: conforming to the standards and conventions of the middle class; "a bourgeois mentality"
Net Neutrality
Today Nancy Pelosi tweeted this:
House GOP schedule today: defending #DOMA & stopping #NetNeutrality. Not on the agenda: #jobs (http://go.usa.gov/40D).
of course the haters tweeted this:
@NancyPelosi House GOP schedule today defending #DOMA & stopping #NetNeutrality / YES FIGHTING YOUR MARXIST AGENDA SO WE CAN GROW JOBS #TCOT
and this:
@NancyPelosi, not everyone can have a government job like you Pelosi.
So what is Net Neutrality and why all the vitriol? Here are a few FAQs from: Save The Internet
What is Net Neutrality?
Net Neutrality is the guiding principle that preserves the free and open Internet.
Net Neutrality means that Internet service providers may not discriminate between different kinds of content and applications online. It guarantees a level playing field for all Web sites and Internet technologies.
Net Neutrality is the reason the Internet has driven economic innovation, democratic participation and free speech online. It protects the consumer's right to use any equipment, content, application or service without interference from the network provider. With Net Neutrality, the network's only job is to move data—not to choose which data to privilege with higher quality service.
Who wants to get rid of Net Neutrality?
The nation's largest telephone and cable companies—including AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner Cable—want to be Internet gatekeepers, deciding which Web sites go fast or slow and which won't load at all.
They want to tax content providers to guarantee speedy delivery of their data. And they want to discriminate in favor of their own search engines, Internet phone services and streaming video—while slowing down or blocking services offered by their competitors.
These companies have a new vision for the Internet. Instead of a level playing field, they want to reserve express lanes for their own content and services—or those of big corporations that can afford the steep tolls—and leave the rest of us on a winding dirt road.
The big phone and cable companies are spending hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying Congress and the Federal Communications Commission to gut Net Neutrality, putting the future of the Internet at risk.
What's happening in Congress?
Republicans in the House—aided by millions in political contributions from phone and cable companies—have launched a full-frontal assault against Net Neutrality and the FCC's authority to protect consumers' right to connect. In Early 2011 they introduced several measures to both "defund" the FCC's ability to act as a watchdog against industry abuses and to take away the agency's ability to enforce protections.
So while the thugs in congress, aided by millions in contributions from telecoms, want you to be afraid of net neutrality; the conspiracy machine at Fox News has the ignorant masses, once again, believing what is good regulation is bad. They want you to believe that net neutrality is a Marxist plot against America, which it's not.
Never mind the bullshit surrounding DOMA. The DOJ only said it would not defend the Constitutionality of the law. It DID NOT said it would not enforce the law... The Republicans, once again, are trying to get the public to take their collective eyes of the ball.
House GOP schedule today: defending #DOMA & stopping #NetNeutrality. Not on the agenda: #jobs (http://go.usa.gov/40D).
of course the haters tweeted this:
@NancyPelosi House GOP schedule today defending #DOMA & stopping #NetNeutrality / YES FIGHTING YOUR MARXIST AGENDA SO WE CAN GROW JOBS #TCOT
and this:
@NancyPelosi, not everyone can have a government job like you Pelosi.
So what is Net Neutrality and why all the vitriol? Here are a few FAQs from: Save The Internet
What is Net Neutrality?
Net Neutrality is the guiding principle that preserves the free and open Internet.
Net Neutrality means that Internet service providers may not discriminate between different kinds of content and applications online. It guarantees a level playing field for all Web sites and Internet technologies.
Net Neutrality is the reason the Internet has driven economic innovation, democratic participation and free speech online. It protects the consumer's right to use any equipment, content, application or service without interference from the network provider. With Net Neutrality, the network's only job is to move data—not to choose which data to privilege with higher quality service.
Who wants to get rid of Net Neutrality?
The nation's largest telephone and cable companies—including AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner Cable—want to be Internet gatekeepers, deciding which Web sites go fast or slow and which won't load at all.
They want to tax content providers to guarantee speedy delivery of their data. And they want to discriminate in favor of their own search engines, Internet phone services and streaming video—while slowing down or blocking services offered by their competitors.
These companies have a new vision for the Internet. Instead of a level playing field, they want to reserve express lanes for their own content and services—or those of big corporations that can afford the steep tolls—and leave the rest of us on a winding dirt road.
The big phone and cable companies are spending hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying Congress and the Federal Communications Commission to gut Net Neutrality, putting the future of the Internet at risk.
What's happening in Congress?
Republicans in the House—aided by millions in political contributions from phone and cable companies—have launched a full-frontal assault against Net Neutrality and the FCC's authority to protect consumers' right to connect. In Early 2011 they introduced several measures to both "defund" the FCC's ability to act as a watchdog against industry abuses and to take away the agency's ability to enforce protections.
So while the thugs in congress, aided by millions in contributions from telecoms, want you to be afraid of net neutrality; the conspiracy machine at Fox News has the ignorant masses, once again, believing what is good regulation is bad. They want you to believe that net neutrality is a Marxist plot against America, which it's not.
Never mind the bullshit surrounding DOMA. The DOJ only said it would not defend the Constitutionality of the law. It DID NOT said it would not enforce the law... The Republicans, once again, are trying to get the public to take their collective eyes of the ball.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Why I Teach Design and Not Art
Design is the ultimate expression of the immutable laws of the universe. I know that sounds heady and pompous but I believe the five principles of design are the key to everything.
1. Unity
2. Balance
3. Rhythm
4. Emphasis
5. Proportion
Simply stated, these principles point us to what we find to be beautiful, efficient, and desirable. They help to explain the inner workings of our body and mind and our outer workings of family, culture, and the world.
At one point, I think, design and art were one. The names we remember from the Renaissance are not simply known as painters and sculptors. They were architects, they built machines of war, and they created urban spaces. They solved major problems of math and physics AND they created incredibly beautiful art. Somewhere along the way I think that connection was lost. Somewhere along the way art became about personal expression and no longer spoke in the language of visual communication.
As school systems have languished over the last few decades the connection to art, music, physical activity have been lost. Children today are pushed to achieve but to achieve what. Without cultural context, without a big picture, without grounding what will they have learned?
It's time for designers everywhere to step into classrooms, boardrooms, and the halls of congress to show the world or at least the folks here at home that DESIGN is the solution. Why the financial meltdown? Lack of balance and scale? Why the fear? Lack of unity and focus? What can rhythm teach use about driving, stress, and fatigue.
OK enough pontificating... time to make stuff
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)