Facepalm

var _gaq = _gaq || []; _gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-9963778-3']); _gaq.push(['_trackPageview']); (function() { var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true; ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s); })(); Political ranting. Because there isn't enough of that. <--sarcasm

[facepalmfrants]

The American Revival

This promoted tweet has been popping up on my timeline recently, and it gets me thinking what exactly it’s trying to say.

Most literally, it seems to me to be a play to the evangelical base. After all, “revival” is a word steeped in born-again fundamentalism. To say you want an “American Revival” in politics, especially from the right, sounds like a call to “return America to its Christian roots”. Of course, this country was not founded on Christianity (or any religion), but regardless, that’s what the most obvious interpretation of this ad means to me.

But to dig further, what is it implying on a practical level? What is Scott Walker proposing he revive us from?

After the GOP swept the 2014 midterm elections, there was a letter written by a Canadian to the Detroit Free Press. Basically, it questioned the voters’ sanity:

Consider, right now in America, corporate profits are at record highs, the country's adding 200,000 jobs per month, unemployment is below 6%, U.S. gross national product growth is the best of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries. The dollar is at its strongest levels in years, the stock market is near record highs, gasoline prices are falling, there's no inflation, interest rates are the lowest in 30 years, U.S. oil imports are declining, U.S. oil production is rapidly increasing, the deficit is rapidly declining, and the wealthy are still making astonishing amounts of money. America is leading the world once again and respected internationally — in sharp contrast to the Bush years. Obama brought soldiers home from Iraq and killed Osama bin Laden. So, Americans vote for the party that got you into the mess that Obama just dug you out of? This defies reason.

Is this the hell that Walker thinks we need to be revived from? Now, none of this is to say that everything is perfect. But it plays into what Republicans need to do in order to get votes in 2016. In 1980, Ronald Reagan put it to the American people after four years under Carter: “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” In order for the GOP to win in 2016, they need to be able to ask that question AND know the answer will be “most definitely not”.

But how to do that? Are we better off as a country today than we were 8 years ago? By almost every metric, yes. Less wars, more jobs, more profits, more people with health insurance, all the other stuff in that letter and more. But people have a short memory, so attention is turned to what it feels like today compared to yesterday. Thus, we get things like “same-sex marriage will criminalize Christianity” and “ISIS is coming over the border” and “We have never seen more threats against our nation and its citizens than we do today.” There was briefly some lip service paid to an actual problem that persists - income inequality - but that can’t possibly play out considering every Republican’s tax plan. Heck, the GOP-led House just passed a bill to end the estate tax, which only affects something like the top 0.1%. And seeing as how corporations have never been more profitable, and yet are using those profits for stock-buybacks instead of more hiring, giving the ‘job creators’ more tax incentives doesn’t seem like it’ll do much more on the employment front. So I haven’t seen that batted around lately from the right.

And to take it a step further, pointing out (truthfully, or making it up) that you’re not better off today than yesterday is a way to avoid getting into specifics of your own. Scott Walker continues to say things like “leadership” when it comes to foreign policy. That’s his answer: we need leadership. Anything more specific? Nope, and the last time he tried he appeared to compare unions and teachers to ISIS. We saw what happened when Jeb Bush and Rubio were asked about Iraq (no link required, that was everywhere). Lindsey Graham knows how to handle Iran because he worked in a pool hall. That’s all the specifics we need, apparently.

It’s what the GOP has been doing ever since Obama has been elected: oppose everything he does, without saying specifically what you’d do differently. The solution is implied: “Vote the Dems out”. When I see “Join Our American Revival”, I think that’s a phrase based on a false portrayal of the state of the world today. Are things perfect? Of course not. Are things better than they have been lately? In many cases, yes. In other cases, maybe not. But I don’t see answers from the GOP candidates, only condemnation of Obama and buzzwords like “leadership”.

And “revival”.

[facepalmfrants]

Imagine Obama is coaching a football team. He was chosen to coach the team by the fans, but there are people who HATE that he runs the show. They call into sports shows and complain about how much he sucks, even after victories.

So, now we're in the middle of this week's game, and the other team starts changing the rules. They (and their fans) start saying that touchdowns only count for 2 points, whereas field goals count for 20. Plus they keep giving themselves 5 downs instead of 4. The reason they're doing it is obvious: they're losing, but only by the rules of the game. If you score the game the way they see it, they're actually winning. Obama's team has scored a few touchdowns, and they've only scored a field goal. Oh no!

Anyone with half a brain knows who's winning here. But the other team's fans like the result, so they cheer even harder for the changed rules. "We're winning!" They might even score a few new fans. But oddly, the ones that hate coach Obama see an opportunity here. They can legitimize the other team's crazy rules too, because doing so paints the coach in a negative light. By many measures, our team is winning. But if you agree a touchdown's now worth 2 points, Obama's a miserable failure. So they call into sports shows and say how he's dropping the ball, letting the other guys win. Certain sports shows play clips that the other team produced to claim victory and hold up their new rules as legitimate. And maybe Obama doesn't even like his own team, he likes the other team better, that's why he's letting them win.

In football it's clearly absurd but fairly harmless. But this same thing is happening right now on the right with ISIS. They attack Obama's word choice (not calling them "Islamic extremists"), they attack his tactics (or implied lack of), they attack his own patriotism. And ISIS is winning!

The other night, Bill O'Reilly flat out stated that we were in a holy war with ISIS, blaming Obama for not realizing it and, by extension, currently losing it.

What they're doing with ISIS is the same thing as the football metaphor: they are legitimizing ISIS's own framing in order to criticize the president. 

ISIS thinks it's a holy war. ISIS thinks the West hates Islam. This is how they recruit. This is how they attempt to win people over to their cause: "We're fighting a holy war against the West who hates us." When O'Reilly agrees with them in order to say Obama sucks, he's accepting the touchdowns-count-as-2 worldview as real. 

Remember that horrible ISIS video of the Jordanian pilot being burned alive? Fox News posted the ENTIRE VIDEO (albeit with a graphic warning) because "look what Obama is letting happen". ISIS made that video to be viewed by as many people as possible, but Fox saw an opportunity to say "Look at how Obama's failing."

Let's go back to a football stadium. If a fan runs out on the field, he or she is looking for one thing: attention. That's why every network knows not to show it. They cut away while security removes the fan. If every person that ran onto the field got national high-definition coverage, eventually there's fans every game, looking for their 15 seconds.

That's why news outlets (for the most part) weren't posting ISIS videos. You'd basically be doing their work for them, distributing their own propaganda. But there were places on the right, places that hate coach Obama, that posted everything ISIS put out there just to criticize Obama for the fact that they exist at all. And now they're flat out accepting ISIS's claim that we're both in a holy war against each other. That's not just unpatriotic, it's dangerous.

I'm not trying to downplay ISIS as a threat here. But they're playing a game with us, poking us so that we'll come over there, bomb them, invade their lands, insult their 'religion'. And every bomb, every boot on their ground, every insult thrown at Islam generally only gives them more 'proof' to show to potential recruits.

If you want to criticize Obama's policy of dealing with ISIS, fine. More bombs, less bombs, troops, a wider coalition. But posting propaganda, attacking Obama's word choice, questioning Obama's loyalty to his country, and claiming we're in a "holy war" is giving ISIS exactly what they want. Any fan in the stands that stands up and says, "Hey, we're losing because field goals really are 20 points each! Obama sucks!" would be booed into the parking lot.

When you'd rather accept ISIS's world view because it helps you blame the president, you've really taken #thanksobama way too far.

[facepalmfrants]

Been a while since I've posted here, but today it was just too much. There was a huge march in NYC this past weekend about climate change. But didn't you hear? Climate change isn't real!

The Daily Show hits the frustration pretty well, but the right-wing Washington Times had an equally-frustrating op-ed today entitled "Mr. Obama's Hot Flash on Global Warming". Let me just select a few points that drive me crazy.

The Tuesday weather forecast for Manhattan calls for sunny skies with temperatures in the 70s.

Ha ha, the ol' "It's not hot outside, so how can global warming be real" canard. Hilarious.

Several European nations, in fact, have turned out to be fair-weather global warmists. They talk a good game, but attempts to impose a binding worldwide treaty collapsed in Copenhagen five years ago.

Having nothing to do with politicians like the readers of this op-ed, who viciously fight and smear anyone who claims climate change is real.

Even Hollywood is bailing. Benjamin Schmidt, a historian at Northeastern University, created an online tool to search for specific words and phrases in movies and television shows. “Climate change” is no longer hot among screenwriters.

A totally irrelevant metric, but hey, this online tool was on Buzzfeed this week, so maybe we can get some clicks!

Last week, New Scientist magazine responded to the inconvenient truth that Antarctica sea ice has been growing at record levels. The ice, the magazine says, is made by global warming. The warming winds in the Southern Hemisphere pull cold air onto the Antarctic sea ice, causing it to expand. This is from New Scientist, not The Onion.

Warming makes ICE?! That's crazy! Ha ha ha, I don't even understand how that works! Obviously the Earth's climate is either hot or cold, and every spot on Earth where weather happens is self-contained, never affecting anything else! A 5-year old can understand climate science, so anything that doesn't make sense to a 5-year old can't be true!

Earth is a resilient place that has survived asteroid strikes, tidal waves, the fury of volcanoes and the jolt of earthquakes. It’s the ultimate in presumption to assume that the planet will be thrown hopelessly out of balance by a few extra puffs of the stuff that makes plants grow and flowers bloom.

This one is silly on two parts. First, of course EARTH has survived asteroid strikes, tidal waves, volcanoes and earthquakes. Climate scientists aren't literally saying the Earth itself will be destroyed. They're saying PEOPLE will. People don't survive asteroids, tidal waves, volcanoes, and earthquakes. If there are more of those, then more people will die.

Secondly, the whole "carbon dioxide is good for us, plants breathe it, we exhale it" thing. You know what else can be good for us? Water and oxygen. But have you heard of this?

Dilutional hyponatremia, also known as water poisoning. That's right, you can literally drink too much water and die.

Oxygen toxicity, the result of breathing too much oxygen.

It's not that CO2 is bad. It's that too much of it is harmful.

As Stewart says in the clip above, these politicians are in charge of science policy. But they don't understand science.

[facepalmfrants]

Victoza is an injectable prescription medicine that may improve blood sugar in adults with Type 2 diabetes when used with diet and exercise. It is not recommended as the first medication to treat diabetes, and should not be used in people with Type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. Victoza has not been studied with meal-time insulin. Victoza is not insulin. Do not take Victoza if you have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome Type 2, or if you are allergic to Victoza or any of its ingredients. Symptoms of a serious allergic reaction may include swelling of face, lips, tongue, or throat, fainting or dizziness, very rapid heartbeat, problems breathing or swallowing, severe rash or itching. Tell your doctor if you get a lump or swelling in your neck. Serious side effects may happen in people who take Victoza, including inflammation of the pancreas, pancreatitis, which may be fatal. Stop taking Victoza and call your doctor right away if you have signs of pancreatitis, such as severe pain that will not go away in your abdomen, or from your abdomen to your back, with or without vomiting. Tell your doctor about all the medicines you take, and if you have any medical conditions. Taking Victoza with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. The most common side effects are nausea, diarrhea, and headache. Some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may cause kidney problems. 

Pharma ads. I've always hated them. The main reason is this: consumers are not legally allowed to purchase prescription drugs without the consent of a licensed doctor, so why should there be any effort to create a brand awareness among consumers? No one with Type 2 diabetes is standing around thinking, "I'm in the mood for a Victoza today!" It's not a thing you 'buy', it's a treatment solution that only a doctor can provide.

Secondly, watch just about any pharma ad on mute, and you'll see that aside from the drug name's typography, there's not a lot brand creation going on anyway. Just about every ad features people hiking, boating, travelling in general, doing outdoorsy stuff that few people, healthy or sick, can object to. "Oooo, that looks nice. I'd love to be able to ride a bike down the street." What it wants to do is make you think: Are you uncomfortable? That's not your fault, it's a disease! We have a pill you can take, and then you can be outdoors hiking in New Zealand!!

But with Obamacare starting to take effect, something else starts to stand out, another reason why they should go away. Let's look at what is referred to as the "Major Statement" of any pharma ad: the side effects. This is the pharma equivalent of "Professional driver on closed course. Do not attempt" of any car ad. It's legal CYA language. I've transcribed the above ad's Major Statement here. As you read through it, it becomes clear that the wording was born out of an era when the lawyers could not safely assume that the consumer had access to a regular doctor.

- Tell your doctor if you get a lump or swelling in your neck. - Call your doctor right away if you have signs of pancreatitis. - Tell your doctor about all the medicines you take, and if you have any medical conditions.

See what I mean? The lawyers behind Victoza want to make sure that if you ONLY go to see the doctor because you saw their ad, that you contact your doctor on these specific side effects because they might be due directly to what Victoza is doing to you. All of it is to do directly with the product and the consumer.

But as the ACA makes healthcare more affordable and universally accessible, more people will start to have a doctor they can comfortably see regularly (preventative services don't even require a copay). You won't have to be told to "tell your doctor about any medical conditions you have" because he/she will already know. You won't have to be told to tell your doctor if you have signs of pancreatitis due to Victoza, because you'll call your doctor if you have the signs regardless. Because you can do so without fear of going bankrupt.

The new healthcare normal should mean that you don't need to be told what to tell your doctor about - you and your doctor will have a relationship already. Just another reason why pharma ads should go away.

ALSO: The FDA is apparently aware that Major Statements are too long, resulting in 'reduced consumer comprehension". Unfortunately, the avenue they're discussing is shortening the Major Statement with a more general "Talk to your doctor about the risks". Rhetorically, that does feel like a step towards assuming the consumer has a doctor. But I still believe the answer is doing away with the ads altogether.

[facepalmfrants]

Just gonna put this here.

[facepalmfrants]

There's just no room for meaningful compromise here thanks to our old friend taxes. As you'll recall, Republicans don't want to raise them and they especially object to raising taxes on high income individuals. They want to lower taxes on high income individuals. It is true that sometimes (1999-2000) they want to do this to avoid a dangerous budget surplus while at other times (2001, 2008-10) they want to do it as economic stimulus while at yet other times (2003-7) they want to do it as a long-term growth strategy or (2011-2013) as a tax simplification strategy. But the policy ask—lower taxes, especially on rich people—doesn't change.

From Matthew Yglesias at Slate.

So true. Surplus? Give it back to Americans with lower taxes. Economic slowdown? Stimulate the economy with lower taxes. Budget deficit? Increase revenue somehow by lowering taxes.

Don't forget, too, that the GOP used to looooooooooove stimulus. Remember the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, when Bush tried to avoid a recession by giving everyone $300? Just gave people free money. 

Remember in 2006, when gas prices were high? Senate Republicans' solution was to give everyone $100. Just give people free money. (this ultimately never happened, but the fact that it was floated as an actual GOP solution speaks volumes).

And yet during our "Great Recession", Obama's stimulus wasn't to just GIVE people money. It was to borrow money (with historically low interest rates that basically makes it free), and spend that money on infrastructure and public projects that the government tends to fund anyway. So roads and bridges are fixed, electrical grids repaired, and millions of people are given a job, with pay, to fix and repair all these things. Not $300, or $100, but a JOB. Which gives them an income, which they then spend, which increases demand, which increases employment, all of which increases tax revenue without raising tax rates, thus lowering the deficit. And then we pay back that borrowed money 1-for-1 (thanks to low interest rates). And we're left with full employment, a stronger infrastructure, and low low budget deficit.

To the GOP, smart stimulus is a freedom-destroying idea. Maybe Obama should have just suggested we give everyone $300?

[facepalmfrants]

Republicans don’t have a war on women. We’re having a war for women. To empower them to be something other than victims of their gender. If the Democrats want to insult the women of America by making them believe that they are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing for them a prescription each month for birth control, because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of the government, then so be it. Let us take that discussion all across America, because women are far more than the Democrats have played them to be.

- Mike Huckabee

Um, what? Democrats' attempt to include birth control for women without a copay is ONLY because they believe women can't control their libido without the government telling them when to do sexy-times? I mean, this is the ultimate in projection.

Also important to remember: many women take birth control for reasons having nothing to do with sexy-times and contraception.

[facepalmfrants]

We knew that the GOP would instantly be against everything Obama was about when he won election in 2008. Part of the way they decided to do that was take the state of the nation during the recession - in which unemployment was high, resulting in increased use of welfare programs - and claim it's Obama's plan all along.   Unemployment insurance, food stamps, and the like are a safety net. They're the sprinklers that turn on when there's a fire in the building. The GOP decided to cast Obama as one who believes the sprinklers should ALWAYS BE ON, and cites the fact that they're still on (because of a slow recovery, IMO because the GOP killed Obama's jobs plan because of "spending") as evidence.

It's ridiculous, yes. But you could see where it was leading years ago, and it's only getting worse: a vilifying of the poor. In order to be "against" an imaginary Obama that believes welfare benefits should be plentiful and never-ending, they have forced themselves to be against those who genuinely need them (again, because of the slow recovery made possible in part by GOP obstruction). Moochers, takers, lazy couch-sitters eating caviar and steak on their wide-screen TVs and their Obama Phones.

Maybe they don't hear themselves, but when you see it all at once - like in the segment above - it sure does make the right sound like a bunch of douche canoes.

[facepalmfrants]

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) says that Republicans could have won the fight to derail President Barack Obama's health care law by shutting down the government if they had just accused the Democrats holding children with cancer 'hostage.'

So, Cruz and the far-right shut down the government to try and get rid of "government health care", and in doing so should have used as leverage the fact that the shutdown was denying children government health care?

[facepalmfrants]

Factchecking Fox on Obamacare

This brief article on Salon really does capture my continued befuddlement on the far-right's anger over Obamacare. When I hear people like Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) say that the ACA is going to 'destroy everything we know as a nation', I mean really? The model for this law has been in effect in Massachusetts for 7 years, and I'm pretty sure that state is still there.

I hear people say it's a "government take-over of healthcare". Not at all. I wish it were single-payer (Medicare for all), but it's most definitely not. It's still getting healthcare through private insurers.

But in this Salon article, look how many of these Hannity guests oppose Obamacare because...... why? Many of the 'problems' they cite are problems that have always existed in the less-than-ideal private insurance industry. One person says that Obama should have focused on "tort reform" to bring down the cost of health care. Tort Reform? If that isn't a GOP talking point, I don't know what is. Oh, I'm sure she was complaining for years, every month she had to pay her premium: "You know, I bet I'd pay less if we could just get some of that tort reform."

All these people seem predisposed to hate it, and like many others I see who claim the same, their rhetoric doesn't match the actual law. Now you see people pointing at the website snafus (unfortunate, yes) as proof that the law itself is a 'trainwreck'. Imagine your favorite brick-and-mortar store opens a new website, and it keeps failing when you try to buy something from home. Does this website's problems mean the brick-and-mortar store itself is flawed?

The ACA is more or less a simple three-legged stool. First, you force insurers to cover everyone, regardless of pre-existing conditions. It's hard to argue against that (go ahead, Hannity, say "an insurance company should be able to deny health coverage to someone with cancer... or acne"). Second, because allowing sick people into the pool will cause premiums to rise, you 'mandate' that everyone purchase insurance, so that the risk is lowered by increased participation by healthy people. Oh, okay, "government don't force me to buy something", but don't you want health coverage anyway? If you're uninsured and your appendix bursts, you want to pay for it at cost? What if it bankrupts you? What if you can't pay, and the rest of us pay for you?

Third, if you're requiring all people to purchase private insurance, then you need to help out people on whom this purchase would be prohibitively expensive (i.e., the poor). So you have the subsidies based on income level. That's the three main legs of the ACA stool. Sure, there's other stuff for small businesses of 50 employees or more, but that's the gist for most of us. And get this: about 80% of us already get our coverage through our employer*, so this doesn't really affect us anyway. This is for the millions that are uninsured, mainly because they couldn't afford it or couldn't get coverage because they've been sick before.

Chill out, people. Get informed.

*I've always thought it anti-GOP to hear the GOP crow about "you want insurance, get a job!" The party of FREE MARKET CHOICE telling you to let your employer choose your policy for you, and make retaining that policy contingent on remaining employed at that one company.

[facepalmfrants]

The House, as 80s Screwball Comedy

Let’s say there’s a school, Adams School. This school is made up of 100 students, an exclusive mix of Jocks and Nerds. Jocks tend to favor Jock policies, like an upgraded scoreboard, bigger school weight room, and protein shakes available in the lunchroom. Nerds tend to favor Nerd policies, like increased participation in math competitions, a wider variety of science textbooks, and better access to pocket protectors. But the two sides do tend to agree on other policies that benefit all.

How does Adams decide which policies to enact? It allows its student body to represent itself. The school votes for one President to preside over the entire student body. But there’s also a Student Council, made up of 10 representatives. Each one represents a Homeroom class of 10 students. Jocks vote for Jocks, Nerds for Nerds.

Let’s take this little world and see if we can’t see what’s so crazy about this shutdown nonsense, shall we?

MAJORITY RULES?

Currently, there are 55 Nerds and 45 Jocks at Adams. When the election was held, Nerd Gilbert Lowe won the presidency with 55% of the vote over Jock Stan Gable. With that sort of majority school-wide, you’d expect the Student Council to be composed of 6 Nerds and 4 Jocks. Or at least split 5-5.

Curiously, the Student Council has gone the other way: 6 Jocks and 4 Nerds. Looking at the overall make-up of the school, this doesn’t make a lot of sense. But here’s what’s going on.

GERRYMANDERING

For a procedural reason, every few years it’s up to either the Jocks or the Nerds to decide which Homeroom each student attends (and will vote from). Just leaving it to random chance, odds are you’d get a pretty even collection of classrooms. A few more Jocks in Homeroom A, a few more Nerds in Homeroom B, and so on, so that the average ratio across Homerooms matches that of the student body as a whole.

However, this time around, the Jocks had an idea. First, they took 30 of the 55 total Nerds and put them in Homerooms A-C, all together. 100% Nerds in those three classes. Those Homerooms will vote Nerd all the way, without a doubt.

Then, the Jocks took 20 Jocks and put them in Homerooms D and E. Those are 100% Jock, voting Jock.

Lastly, the Jocks took the remaining 25 Nerds and 25 Jocks and split them up so that the remaining 5 Homerooms go 4-1 for Jocks, even though there are the same number of each left.

Homeroom Breakdown

A - 10 Nerds B - 10 Nerds C - 10 Nerds D - 10 Jocks E - 10 Jocks F - 4 Nerds, 6 Jocks G - 4 Nerds, 6 Jocks H - 4 Nerds, 6 Jocks I - 4 Nerds, 6 Jocks J - 9 Nerds, 1 Jock

So in a school that is 55% Nerd, the Jocks have crafted the Homerooms to give themselves an electoral advantage in the Student Council elections. 55 votes went to Nerds for Student Council, over 45 for Jocks, and yet Jocks won 2 more spots! They nominate one of their six to become Speaker of the Council. And it’s the Jock Speaker that decides what the Council will vote on.

HASTERT RULE

Normally, when a policy is proposed, it’s up to the Student Council to vote on it. There are Jock-favored policies and Nerd-favored policies, but there are also policies that are pretty simple and are either favored or killed with a clear majority.

Unfortunately, with the current situation the way it is, the Jocks in the Student Council have adopted a procedure named after a Jock of yore, Dennis “The Meat” Hastert. The Hastert Rule says that the Speaker of the Council may NOT bring any vote to the floor that won’t get all 6 Jock votes. It's not an actual rule, but rather a way for the Jocks to present a unified front against Nerd President Gilbert.

So say the vote for a new weight room comes up. The Nerds are united against it, the Jocks united for it. So the Speaker brings it to a vote, because all 6 Jocks favor it. Bill passes.

But if there’s a Nerd issue, like new science textbooks, that the Nerds (school-wide) unanimously support, the Speaker won’t even bring it to the floor, because the Jocks don’t support it at all. Nerd issue doesn’t even see the light of day.

Unfortunately, this can also apply for issues that share support on both sides. Say all the Nerds and 2 of the Jocks want More Parking Spaces outside the school. According to the Hastert Rule, the Jock Speaker WILL NOT bring that issue to the floor for a vote, even though a majority of the Student Council supports it. It’s because it’s not uniformly supported by the Jocks that the issue dies.

THE D (and E) PARTY

There are a small faction of Jocks, about 20 or so, that HATE President Gilbert. They don’t believe he should be President. They’ve questioned whether he’s even eligible (maybe he’s an illegal transfer, or his classes have never included athletics). These Jocks have been the most vocal, and have declared that they don’t want a SINGLE Nerd policy enacted.

A lot of those 20 Jocks are in Homerooms D and E, rendering those two Homerooms the most vocal opponents of President Gilbert. When the two Jocks that represent those Homerooms visit and hear from their ‘constituents’, all they hear is “DOWN WITH GILBERT”. So these two Jocks come into the Council thinking the ‘will of the people’ is exclusively “DOWN WITH GILBERT”. Any policy issue that might come before the Student Council that has the support of Nerds is de facto dead-on-arrival for Homeroom Reps D and E. Even the More Parking Spaces bill, which would pass with a majority on the floor, is loudly denounced by Reps D and E. I mean, if they don't vote "DOWN WITH GILBERT", their Homeroom might replace them with a Jock that will.

And because of the Hastert Rule, the Jock Speaker will not bring More Parking Spaces to the floor at all, because it does not have the backing of all 6 Jocks in the Council. Consider that: all Nerds support it, which means at least 55% of the entire school supports it. Add in the 2 Jocks that support it, and the percentage of the student body that supports the More Parking Spaces bill rises even higher. And yet it doesn't even get a vote by a Student Council meant to reflect the student body's wishes.

SHUTDOWN

Now, the Jocks (especially the extreme Jocks from D and E) have a specific target: a bill that the Jocks hate, that was passed a few years ago, before the Jocks reworked the Homeroom ratios and took the Student Council. This policy, the More School Nurses Policy, was supported by President Gilbert and passed with a majority vote when the Nerds controlled the Council.

The Jocks don’t like it, so they try to strike it down whenever they get a chance. The Jock Speaker brings countless bills to the floor saying “UNDO THE MORE SCHOOL NURSES POLICY”, because he knows the Jocks will vote for it (lest they get replaced by another Jock in the next election). The Jocks all vote for it, the Nerds all don’t, it passes. Of course, President Gilbert won’t sign these bills, because it was his bill, his idea. So it dies, and no new policy has been enacted. The Jocks know this, but want to be seen as trying to do it again and again.

Now Adams School has a dilemma: it relies on the student council to vote for the Prom Theme and Budget. Last year it was Enchantment Under The Sea, with $200 delegated for streamers, punch, and a DJ. This year, there’s not much disagreement on what the theme will be (Old West!), or what the budget will be ($190). But the Jocks see an opportunity.

Or more specifically, Jocks D and E see an opportunity. They say, “We won’t vote for the Prom Bill unless you get rid of the More School Nurses Program”. The Prom and School Nurses are completely unrelated issues. The Nerds all say, “That’s ridiculous.” Foremost, they’re not going to just agree to dismantle President Gilbert’s signature policy. But second, the idea that Adams' prom – which will affect just about the entire student body – would be held hostage by two Jocks that are hell-bent on destroying School Nurses is just odd.

Now, if the Speaker brought a simple Prom Bill (Old West, $190) to the floor, it would get a majority vote: 4 Nerds and 2-3 Jocks. But because of the Hastert Rule, the Speaker won’t even consider a “clean” Prom Bill, because two of the Jocks (D & E) have vowed they won’t vote for it. So no prom.

BREAK IT DOWN

So here’s why the Prom Shutdown is so far from what the school wants or what their representatives should be doing.

- The student body is more Nerd than Jock, yet the Homerooms have been set-up to give Jocks more voice than the Nerds. Thus, the Student Council doesn’t accurately reflect the student body as a whole.

- Additionally, because of the Hastert Rule, the majority-Nerd student body is further disenfranchised, because the only bills that will come up for a vote are bills that have unanimous Jock support. Often, those bills are not Nerd-friendly.

- And even bills that do enjoy a majority support school-wide, bills that would win a majority of Student Council votes, are tabled because of Homeroom Reps D & E.

The result? In a school made up of 55% Nerds, most of the policy decisions for Adams School are made by Homeroom Reps D & E. Two Jock-dominated Homerooms are now, more or less, running the a school with a slight majority of Nerds.

That’s not how this is supposed to work.

(Yes, this is silly and reductive. It doesn’t account for the Senate, or the idea that people like Ogre can “switch sides” from Nerd to Jock or Jock to Nerd (rendering some Homerooms ‘toss-ups’), or outside money influence and campaign finance incentives for a particular position. But the bottom line is, the House of Representatives was set up to be a reflection of the country as a whole. It’s not, anymore)

[facepalmfrants]

I don't know anything about Massachusetts's 5th District, but this is a delightful candidate ad.

[facepalmfrants]

[facepalmfrants]

Briefly, on the Zimmerman Trial

First off, I was surprised how quickly this incident became political. One citizen shoots another one, they don't know each other, and instantly the right and left take sides. What political gain is there, really (potential answer below)?

Racism: It's suggested by the 911 tapes that Zimmerman muttered "f*&king coons". This may be relevant in regard to hate crimes law, especially if Zimmerman is found guilty. But it's never been the crux of the case for me.

Martin's Past: The defense (and again, bizarrely, the political right) was really trying to smear Trayvon, saying he was a bad kid, did drugs, thought himself 'gangsta', etc.... As the judge rightly pointed out, this is completely irrelevant. Zimmerman didn't know who Trayvon was (hence his suspicion); Trayvon could have been Charles Manson or Mother Theresa. It in no way influenced Zimmerman's thinking. Maybe (per the racism thinking) he assumed Trayvon was 'no good' because he was black, but there's no way any personal details about Trayvon could possibly have influenced the outcome.

Stand Your Ground: These laws are ridiculous (personal opinion), but it's likely this issue, because of its direct relation to the gun safety debate, is the reason this got so political so fast. I personally think this is the simple core of the case. First, Zimmerman was told specifically NOT to follow Martin. He did anyway, confronted him, and ended up killing him. That's not standing your ground. Second, most of the attention on this law has been solely on Zimmerman's right to "stand your ground". What about Martin's? He didn't have a gun, but from his point of view, he was walking home, and some guy he doesn't know starts following him. This guy confronts him, with a firearm. What was Martin supposed to do? He has every reason to feel as threatened, if not more, as Zimmerman. Why can Zimmerman follow and confront someone and claim "Stand Your Ground", but an unarmed teenager can be followed and confronted by a citizen with a firearm, and he can't stand HIS ground? Clearly he tried, witness Zimmerman's bloodied face. But he lost that battle.

For this reason, I think it should be a quick guilty verdict. Unfortunately, this crazy country is so polarized now, who knows what could happen.

[facepalmfrants]

A great Maddow segment, pointing out that one of the two parties in Washington isn't interested in actual policy, just optics.

[facepalmfrants]

Daily Kos: Conservative arguments against gun reform continue to be not at all ridiculous

When the gun nuts are positioning the post-apocalyptic horror worlds of Stephen King as an example of something to aspire to, you know they're getting a tad desperate.

[facepalmfrants]

A quick notation on the above. 

I'm a Red Sox fan, who lived in NYC for 12 years. I understand that this shirt is a Sox/Yanks rivalry shirt. I understand Nike pulling it out of respect, not going to talk about that.

What I will mention is the actual Boston Massacre, March 5, 1770, when British soldiers fired into an angry mob of Bostonians, killing five. Keep in mind, we weren't yet free from British rule, yet had our sights on a declaration of independence from the crown. Here you have the enemy firing into a crowd, killing citizens. Of course there were calls to be brutal with these soldiers.

And yet, it was John Adams - who would become our 2nd President not too long after this - that stood up and defended the soldiers in a fair trial. Why? Because that's the example they wanted to set. In Adams' words:

The Part I took in Defence of Cptn. Preston and the Soldiers, procured me Anxiety, and Obloquy enough. It was, however, one of the most gallant, generous, manly and disinterested Actions of my whole Life, and one of the best Pieces of Service I ever rendered my Country.

Compare that 'disinterested' focus on fairness and the rule of law in a time of increased passions and fear with what Jon Stewart so cleverly pointed out last night: those on the right that claim to LOVE LOVE LOVE this country and its freedoms are clamoring to abandon just about every Amendement out there (except the 2nd, of course) because, again, citizens of Boston were wrongfully killed by a few men. And the right is stirring up fear fear fear!

It's a stark contrast.