Did I Do That?

A few days ago, Cheesehead posted a blog about haboobs.  In it, she mentioned a letter to the editor of the Arizona Republic and his offense of the word haboob.  Then yesterday, there was an article in the NY Times about the same letter.  I was also perusing Keith Olbermann's Worst Person in the World video from Current TV and thought, "Hey, this guy is a candidate for worst person."  So, I sent an email to Countdown with a link to the article.  Guess who the the Bronze Medal recipient was for Worst Person?  Yep.  I'd like to think I influenced that segment, but it could very well have been coincidence as well.  At any rate, a deserving recipient.

I've Run Out of Names

I don't know what to call the Republican Party anymore.  Crazy.  Idiotic.  Batshit insane.  I just can't fathom the fact that about 85 or so freshman legislators in the House of Representatives are holding not only the US economy hostage, but perhaps the World economy as well.  Not to mention the rock solid foundation that has always been the United States Treasury.  For what reason?  None.  Really.  There is absolutely no reason to carry this gambit any further.  I really hope it is a bluff, but these ideologues are dangerous, and may very well succeed in what the 9/11 terrorist attacks couldn't.  Completely destabilize the country and bring about economic chaos.

If anything, in a time of high unemployment and a sputtering economy, more spending is what is needed, strategic tax breaks are needed, and I'm not talking about lowering income rates, I'm talking about payroll tax holidays.  Short term things to put money into peoples pockets so they can spend.  Instead, the Republicans want to take money out of the economy and cause a default and economic crisis.  All for money that they already appropriated.  It is absolutely crazy, and anybody who agrees with it is mis-informed. 

Boner, yes, I'm going there, because his stewardship of the House of Representatives can be called nothing less.  Boner walked out on the debt negotiations, and an angry President Obama held a press conference not 30 minutes later and threw not only Boner's ass under the bus, but the entire Republican majority of the House of Representatives.  Finally!  You could tell Obama was hot and he was kicking ass.  Unfortunately, the Republican caucus has been completely blind to the polls where a strong majority of the country is placing the blame squarely on them.  Wall Street and business leaders, usually parked in the middle of the Republican camp, went to the House to talk to these people.  Wealthy Republicans have said they are willing to pay a bit more.  But these yahoos are determined to steer us to economic chaos.

Even channeling Ronald Reagan and the threat of default has done little to sway these idiot's minds.  Boner has lost his job.  He is in a lose-lose situation.  He may as well go out in a blaze of glory and do the right thing.  Twist the arm of his caucus until they break to raise the debt ceiling in a clean bill.  No strings attached.  I don't have high hopes.

The Debt Ceiling, Balanced Budget Amendment, and Ronald Reagan's Ass

It is frightfully obvious to me, based on some of the recent comments in social media circles, that many people do not understand what the Debt Ceiling (or Limit) really is.  The Constitution grants power to Congress to appropriate funds to run the country.  The political process by which this is done has become very convoluted over the years, but basically, appropriations bills passed by Congress are basically telling the Executive Branch to spend the money.  If the money is not readily available, then the US Government sells bonds to raise the money.  After a certain amount of time, the US Government must pay back that money.  In this case, we have been borrowing a heckuva lot of money and the bills are coming due on a daily basis.  The Debt Ceiling basically restricts how much we can pay back to those we have already borrowed money from.  It has NOTHING to do with future spending.  This is simply paying back the money that the government has already agreed to spend.  It's like you borrowing money to buy a car.  Once you have committed to buying the car, you are obligated to pay the money back according to the terms of your loan. Failure to do so results in a default.  In the case of a car, it will get repo'd (and then you can appear on a game show).  In the case of a government, you default, and you leave a lot of people very angry for not paying your bills and less likely to loan money to you in the future when you will really need it.

So, to recap, the debt ceiling is about meeting our obligations for money we have already spent as a nation and has nothing to do with future spending.  These should be two separate arguments, but Republicans decided to be asses about it this time around because Obama is President.  They didn't give a shit about raising it again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, when Bush was President and he ran two wars "off" budget.  The Treasury still had to borrow the money however.

There are those who argue that the debt ceiling should be abolished all together.   Why?  Because Congress has already approved the spending of that money, why should they have to approve spending that money again?  Second, it is very likely unconstitutional.  The Fourteenth Amendment states,

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Former President Bill Clinton has states that he thinks Obama should stop playing games with the Republicans and simply order the Treasury to continue to pay the bills as directed by the Fourteenth Amendment in which the public debt shall not be questioned. 

Ronald Reagan.  Yes, Ronald fucking Reagan, begged for Congress to increase the debt limit when he was President citing unknown dire consequences if they did not.  This is the same Ronald fucking Reagan that Republicans worship and would ass kiss 'til the cows come home.  Even the homophobic ones!  (That's pretty much all of them, right?)

Also, in the case of current economy, the United States should be spending MORE money on a job stimulus.  What happens when you put people back to work?  Well, you pay less unemployment compensation and you bring in more revenue for payroll taxes and income taxes.  Duh.

The Republicans are also making a big deal of the Balanced Budget Amendment, which is another asinine idea of theirs.  Yes, it is populist.  Why should the government not live within its means like we all do?  But we don't.  How much do you own on  your house, your car, student loans?  Do you have the case on hand to pay for that today?  No, you don't.  Therefore,  you are in violation of your own Balanced Budget Amendment.  Our economy functions on credit and debt.  Large capital purchases are not possible without this.  Also, if the Government is forced into a BBA, then what do we do when a natural disaster hits, like Katrina, or the Big One is California?  What if we have to fight another war?  What if we have to stimulate the economy as a result of the next recession?  Then what?  Restricting the ability of the US Government to borrow money above and beyond its budget is absolutely critical to national survival, stability, and security.  To pass a BBA, no matter how populist, would be an incredibly stupid thing to do.  But then, we are talking about the Republicans here, so who the fuck knows that idiotic shit them come up with next.

Thoughts on TAM9 - Advancing Skepticism Online

I attended my first TAM this year, and I have to say it was a blast.  I will plan to do several posts on it over the course of this week.  Day 1 is mostly optional workshops on a whole array of subjects such as Defending Evolution in the Classroom (mostly NCSE panelists), Problems in Paranormal Investigations, Skepticism in the Classroom, and Advancing Skepticism Online.  The workshops were an additional fee and based on my flight schedule and my blog, I signed up for the latter.  The panel consisted of Brian Dunning who does the Skeptoid podcast.  Tim Farley who blogs on technical matters at Skeptical Software Tools.   Robynn "Swoopy"  McCarthy & Dered Colanduno of the Skepticality podcast.  Cristina Rad of OMGZitsCriss YouTube Channel, and Maria Myrback, who is the JREF Blog coordinator.

In all fairness, I have been up to my eyeballs in the more science driven blogs and atheist blogs and have not really paid a lot of attention to the skeptic blogosphere, so the only one on the panel I had heard about was Cristina, and only because there was a donation drive to fly her in from Romania.  Good thing to, because she was probably the most authentic and sincere one in the bunch.

Dunning turned me off right away.  He basically whined about how much work a podcast is, how he has less time with the family, and if he had it to do over, he might not do it.  he also blatantly said not to start a blog.  Wonderfully supportive!  He was also adamant that you should be on a regular schedule.  Jen McCreight had a good tweet in response to that,

A slightly unpredictable schedule keeps people interested, because they're waiting for something to show up. Basic learning theory.

Dunning also said that it shouldn't be hobby or something to that effect.  I'm not sure because I already tuned him out.  I won't be checking out Skeptoid anytime soon.

Swoopy made a comment that if you want your blog to be really popular, you should strive for G-rated, or maybe just PG rated.  Hearing that, and noting that PZ Myers was in the audience, I couldn't help but wonder what his opinion on that comment was.  I tweeted something in response to Jen about what PZ would think of that.  Sure enough, no more than 5 seconds after hitting send, PZ stood up, made a comment about something else, then said, "As for the G-rated thing.  Fuck that!"  Nice!  PZ only has one of the most popular blogs around.  You don't need to be clean to be popular.  I think Cristina nailed it though when said that it was important to just be authentic and also that your goal should not be to become popular.  It certainly wasn't hers.  Your passion and authenticity will attract viewers and readers, and from that, you will gain popularity.  Swoopy echoed that sentiment as well.  Well said!  I relayed this part to Cheesehead who felt the need to blog about her blogging experience and she is absolutely right with respect to authenticity and self-censorship when you feel it is necessary, but ultimately, that is the writer's choice.

This is not to say that NO blogs or podcasts should be G-rated.  If that is your style, great.  Also, there were some teachers in the room and they said they use those podcasts sometimes in lessons.  That is great!  The point is, don't try to be someone who you are not.

There was some Q&A.  What can we do online besides blogging, podcasting etc.?  Another swing and a miss here.  They said commenting was good on stories that may lack a skeptical viewpoint, but the panel was convinced that it the author won't change the article or update it.  I don't think that is true.  From my experience, the comment section on most newspaper sites is a heaping pile of shitheads (no G-rating) who sit around all day and just wait to call people names.  However, this does not mean that you can't respond to the journalist directly and provide them a skeptical viewpoint and avoid the mosh pit of the comments.  This was never said and it should have been.  Also, from a later panel, if you comment to the same journalist many times in this manner, they may just contact you back for a skeptical viewpoint before the publish an article.  You can also write editorials to the paper with the skeptical view.  If you belong to a skeptical organization, get your organization's name in front of those journalists and be the go to voice for them with an opposing viewpoint.


The rest of the panel was basically a disappointment to me.  Yes, having some dissension on the panel is a good thing, but they really didn't argue it on the panel, they just let the contradictions hang in the room.

Robert Reich

Robert Reich is the former Labor Secretary under Bill Clinton.  I'm not really sure why he didn't have a larger role in his Administration.  Also, why this man is not a top economic adviser to Obama, I have no idea.  Do yourself a favor and go to his website, http://robertreich.org/, and check out the videos and what he has written.  It is common sense stuff that is critical of both Republicans and Obama.  And, he has a vision for what we need to do for the future.  I'm definitely going to subscribe to his RSS feed from his website, twitter, and look at reading some of his books.

Following Republican Logic is Hazardous to Your Health

You can take your pick on who said what.  Between Boehner, McConnell, and Cantor, it all adds up to crazy shit.  The GOP is against a $4 trillion spending cut plan because they are concerned about the paltry revenue increases.  Try and follow the logic here.  They claim that it is not acceptable to consider tax increases because it is taking money out of the economy and putting it into the treasury.  OK.  With me so far.  But, they are perfectly OK with a $2.5 trillion spending cut because, well, that takes money out of the economy and puts it into the treasury.  Did you blink?

Let's review again.  They don't want to increase taxes because that takes money out of the economy.  Instead, they would rather cut spending in a Draconian way instead, because that takes money out of the economy.

Also, when they talk about the tax increases for the wealthy, the refer to them as the job providers.  Um, no, that is called trickle down economics and I think we can all agree that was a failure.  But, hey, let's try the same thing again, because it just may work.  Instead, they want to cut taxes.  Well, guess what, we extended the Bush tax cuts about 7 months ago.  Did it help?  Nope.  It didn't help in 2001 or in any of the years leading up to the renewal.  Do you know what those "job providers" do with the money they save on their taxes?  Yep, they invest it in Wall Street, so they can make even more money for themselves and the suits on Wall Street.  Then guess what happens, they want to cut the capital gains taxes so they can save even more of their saved money from taxes.

Our national problem is jobs, not the deficit.  We have record low interest rates and no one right now has any issue letting the US borrow money from them, at least until the GOP fucks it up by holding the debt limit hostage.  We need jobs, which means we need government spending.  Not cutting.

Feds Say No to Medical Marijuana

I have many things to be disappointed about with the Obama Administration.  Here is another example that ties into the whole "War on Drugs" and its miserable failure over the last 25 years (another Republican idea that stinks).

The federal government officially declared that marijuana has no accepted medical use and should remain classified as a dangerous and addictive drug. It will remain in the same class of drugs as heroin.

You can read all the details and history of the effort to reclassify marijuana as a lesser drug that heroin.  This effort even pre-dates the "War on Drugs."  It is also a prime example of how slowly the Federal Government works.

What does this mean?  Most likely a Constitutional challenge on States' Rights I would assume.  As more and more states are legalizing medical marijuana, and at least one state, Connecticut, actually reclassifying marijuana possession as a misdemeanor, the Feds are basically saying they don't care and will still go after the growers of medical marijuana.  If a state legalizes medical marijuana, does the Federal Government have the right to ignore that and raid them.  Or, are the states in violation of the Federal Controlled Substance legislation and in violation by their passing of such laws.

With the states facing major budget issues and prisons all over the United States dealing with overcrowding, there is quite a bit of financial justification for ignoring the marijuana issue.  I can't find the post now, but it is said that U.S. Law Enforcement spends almost 4 billion dollars a year in marijuana enforcement.  I can think of better places for 4 billion dollars to be spent, such as schools.  That number doesn't include the cost to incarcerate either.  Imagine how much could be saved by letting the petty marijuana people go?  Again, put that money into the schools instead.

Obama campaigned to do something different about the marijuana issue, treating it has a health issue and not a criminal issue.  You can read Ed Brayton's blog post on this from 2009 where Attorney General Eric Holder pledged to end medical marijuana raids.  Then this more recent post from a couple of days ago where the DOJ has done a complete 180.

Insanity is often described as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.  The "War on Drugs," especially has it pertains to marijuana, has been a complete and dismal failure.  So, the natural reaction is to keep doing what we are doing in hopes it will somehow lead to a different result.

Update [7/11/2011]  So, the Feds say no acceptable medical use.  What does the science say?  Here is a Scientific American article that tries to address this question.