Please Remember That Funding Terrorists is Illegal...mmmk?

Cross-posted at AtheistHobos.com

When I saw the Salon.com headline NFL under scrutiny for “gay checking" - NY Attorney General Eric Schneiderman told the NFL's Roger Goodell to investigate, I was initially glad to hear that the NFL was getting some real pressure on this.  After all, what the hell does one's sexual orientation have to do with whether or not you can run fast or catch a ball?  It doesn't.  But NFL recruiters are concerned with gays because hyper-pseudo/faux-maculinity (of which homophobia is an integral ingredient), is a defining characteristic of football culture.

But as I read on, I felt nagged by something that I couldn't quite put my finger on.  The AG writing to Commissioner Goodell:

We ask that the league immediately issue a statement that any form of discrimination or harassment on the basis of sexual orientation by league teams or players against potential recruits or players constitutes a violation of state, local and, in some cases, contractor law and will not be tolerated.

There it is.  We ask.

This is the Attorney General of the State of New York asking industry to comply with anti-discrimination laws.

That is severely fucked up.  Especially when you consider areas where law enforcement doesn't politely ask the accused to send an internal memo reminding itself to abide by the law.

Perhaps the absurdity and asymmetric way in which law enforcement treats individual citizens versus corporations can be seen better this way:

Mr. Schwartz, we ask that you immediately send yourself an email as a reminder that you may face 35 years in prision and/or possible suicide if you do not immediately cease the practice of connecting to JSTOR’s archive of digitized journal articles through MIT’s
computer network and use this access to download a major portion of JSTOR’s archive onto your computers and computer hard drives.

Remember, Schwartz was authorized to access JSTOR and download its papers.  Which is what he did.  He wasn't charged with dissemination.  His crime was that he downloaded too many papers at once.  His case was pursued by United States Attorney Carmen Ortiz to "send a message".

Or maybe we should consider how the War on Drugs is prosecuted.  I'm sure it is common for prosecutors to write something along these lines:

Mr. Cox, following your arrest for cultivating a cannabis garden to help cope with your condition of testicular cancer, I would urge you to find another source of pain relief that is not classified as a controlled substance under federal law.  Perhaps an aspirin and a cup of earl grey tea would work for you; my wife finds it particularly soothing when she's feeling stressed.  Marijuana is considered a Schedule 1 controlled substance and the possession or cultivation thereof constitutes a violation of federal law.  Cheerio.

Here is James Cox's story:

James Cox suffered from testicular cancer that had spread to his stomach, and marijuana helped not only increase his appetite, but also helped him to cope with the pain. Addicted to Demerol after 15 years on the medication, he found that marijuana helped him to take less of the narcotic and still manage his chronic pain. In the late ‘80s, police discovered his cannabis garden while investigating an attempted burglary at his home. James was sentenced to 15 years, his wife to five. Authorities also confiscated the home he and his wife, Pat, had inherited from her mother. The future looked so grim the couple attempted suicide while out on bond. Cox’s sentence was eventually given a stay, but when Cox was arrested for growing marijuana again, he was sent back to jail. In 1995, he wrote that being incarcerated led to “constant discomfort” he believed to be “a direct result of not having the medical benefits of marijuana.” His stomach “deteriorated to the point where I could not eat anything due to incurable bleeding ulcers.” After almost five years in prison, Cox was finally released on parole.

Of course those two examples are laughable in their absurdity stemming from their implausibility.

Here are two examples that are laughable in their absurdity stemming from their reality.

Dear Barclays, thank you for remitting the fine amount commensurate with 1/1000 of your cash position; your cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciated.  We would like to take this opportunity to remind your organization that manipulation of interest rates, particularly those as benchmarked as LIBOR is a violation of federal and international law.  We consider defrauding US federal, state and local governments, not to mention consumers (no really, we don't care about them) of the amount of $6 billion to be a serious infraction and will pursue recompense in civil court aggressively, though you need to worry about criminal indictment.  If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact my secretary.

Or the big daddy of them all:

Dear HSBC, we appreciate your compliance and agreement to pay a fine that you will recoup in profits in 45 days.  Going forward, please be mindful that it is illegal to fund terrorists and/or drug traffikers.  Continued behavior will not result in criminal prosecution of your leadership, but may result in additional fines.

Is it not clear to everyone that corporations held to a separate standard of the law than the citizens the laws are intended to protect?

¡Viva justice!

Vitamin C Megadosing & the Nobel Disease

Cross-posted at AtheistHobos.com

Anyone that has ever been to one knows that the gym locker room is a curious place as one often over-hears others' conversations (not to mention the strange predilection for some guys to feel compelled to walk around in nothing but a t-shirt).  

Last week I overheard two strangers talking about the cold season and how its especially bad this year.  Then one of them offered a solution: megadosing on vitamin C.  Oh boy, here we go; some dumbass is going to start offering some dubious medical advice to a stranger (at least I assume they're strangers to each other as one guy asked the others name when they departed).  His protocol was to basically take about 30,000mg of vitamin C over the course of the workday.  First you start out taking 500mg; an hour later, 1,000; another hour 2,000; and keep doubling until you get up to 16,000mg.

Sounds brilliant, right?

My favorite part was when he said "Yea man, its intense.  The thing is, you just gotta get through the nonstop diarrhea for about a day and you'll be good." 

Even if this treatment actually worked, would it really be worth dealing with 'nonstop diarrhea' for a day so that you can avoid a 24-hour cold?

Needless to say, I was skeptical.

The literature simply does not support the conclusion that mega-dosing on vitamin C will prevent or mitigate a cold.  This 2009 meta-analysis concluded: 

Our literature review revealed that vitamin C is not effective at preventing the common cold in the general adult population; however, it is effective at preventing colds when consumed regularly by athletes training in subarctic conditions. We also found that regular vitamin C consumption may reduce the duration of cold symptoms in both adults and children, but it does not decrease the severity of cold symptoms.

Seems pretty straightforward.  So its curious why these kinds of notions persist.

Vitamin C mega-dosing was first promoted by Linus Pauling, a Nobel laureate in chemistry.  I suspect that as soon as you saw his name attached to the Nobel brand, you probably thought (consciously or sub-consciously), 'well maybe there is something to it, after all, he is a Nobel laureate.'  

While a natural reaction, its important to remember that Nobel winners are obviously very intelligent, but not infallible.  Especially when they stray outside of their area of expertise.  Its easy to focus on the fact that he's a scientist with a Nobel, but a Nobel in chemistry (for his work on chemical bonding) is far afield from medical research.  Fortunately, his namesake institute at Oregon State University seems to recognize that Pauling's promotion of vitamin C isn't supported by the evidence.

Indeed, Pauling is certainly not alone in making dubious claims or promoting questionable (pseudo) science.  

Here are a couple examples on why you shouldn't take the claims of a Nobel winner for granted (here's a more complete list):

1. Ivar Gieavaer - Won the 1973 Nobel prize for work on tunneling in superconductors.  I like how fellow Nobel winner Mario Molina (for work on the destruction of the ozone) characterized AGW critics: "...Molina said that critics aren’t usually the experts. Listening to them, he added, is like going to your dentist when you have a heart problem."
2.  Brian Josephson - Won the 1973 Nobel prize for his work on semiconductors and superconductors.  But since (or perhaps before), he has apparently found psychic healing to be provocative.
3. Luc Montagnier -  Won the 2008 Nobel prize for his work in discovering HIV and that HPV can cause cervical cancer.  He has since published a paper (in a journal he had just started) espousing the crackpot idea that DNA can teleport ghostly impressions of itself elsewhere.  Mmmhm.
4. Kary Mullis - Won the 1993 Nobel prize for his work in improvements to the concept of the polymerase chain reaction.  This fellow seems to have achieved a hat-trick in unsupported or flat-out stupid beliefs: denial of HIV causing AIDS, disputes that anthropomorphic global warming is occurring, and is, shall we say skeptical of the big bang theory. 
5. Isaac Newton - You've probably heard of him and his accomplishments.  However, you may not have heard that he was really into alchemy.  That's right, the idea that you can turn lead into gold.

As I was reading about these Nobel winners and their wacky unsupported side-hypotheses, I wondered if there might be a certain amount of hubris that accompanies becoming a Nobel winner.   It seems this phenomenon already has a name: Nobel Disease.  Sure enough, when I found Kary Mullis, I found some evidence of this:

I get tired of talking about the polymerase chain reaction, but I read a lot, and think a lot, and I can talk about almost anything.  Being a Nobel laureate is a license to be an expert in lots of things as long as you do your homework.

He seems to have forgotten that last part about doing the homework. 

Penn Sate and Steubenville, OH - Not So Different

Cross-posted at AtheistHobos.com

The fallout from the Sandusky scandal and the ensuing Penn State coverup continues.  Pennsylvania's Governor, Tom Corbett, has filed suit against the NCAA claiming that the sanctions it levied against Penn State were "arbitrary and capricious" and that the "punishments threaten to have a devastating, long-lasting, and irreparable effect on the commonwealth, its citizens, and the economy."

This is a very curious lawsuit in my unprofessional opinion since as far as I can tell, the economic impact resulting from the sanctions is the primary complaint and basis for the lawsuit.  This is curious because that is precisely what the intended impact was.  Sanctions without any detrimental effects would fail to adequately punish the institution that so blatantly covered up child rape in service of its football team, not to mention that it would fail to serve as a meaningful deterrence to other would-be obfuscatory institutions.

Additionally, it seem that detrimental effects to the economy shouldn't be a sufficient standard for a state to claim a liability.  For starters, there should be consideration to the ethical underpinnings of what is causing the detrimental economic effects.  For example, if an economy was highly dependent on slave labor, would the eradication of slave labor be cause to award damages to the state that had previously benefited from such a practice?  I think most people would agree that that would not be sufficient.  Detrimental economic impacts directly resulting from the actions of an organization should not be the sole basis for awarding damages.

I haven't read the lawsuit, but I'm skeptical that the claim that the sanctions "threaten to have a devastating, long-lasting, and irreparable effect on the commonwealth, its citizens, and the economy" is actually true.  In fact, I suspect that given the vast alumni network (>500k) and the near cult-like following Penn State football has cultivated, donations have probably seen a spike.  Penn State played all twelve of its scheduled games, seven of them at home.  While average attendance was down about 5% from 2011, some of the decline was probably inevitable as attendance has been declining since 2007.  Nevertheless, I have a hard time buying that a 5% decline in attendance and all the business it brings to the community constitutes an irreparable effect on the commonwealth, its citizens and the economy.

Finally, before I move on, let's just acknowledge this for what it is: politics.  Corbett was/is on the Penn State Board of Trustees that agreed to the sanctions, he was the guy that dragged his feet as PA Attorney General in investigating the case several years ago, and he's up for re-election in 2014.  I'm sure he's been feeling the heat from his constituents (many of them Penn Staters or PSU fans), so it strikes me as a thinly veiled attempt to curry favor with the voters.  This isn't, as the deadspin article linked above alludes, about what the NCAA did or didn't do.  The NCAA may be full of shit in how it determines who gets punished and how, but economic impacts notwithstanding, I don't see how that affects the state of PA. 

****
In other football news, 16 year old girl was reportedly drugged and gang-raped by football players in Steubenville, Ohio, and two people, Trent Mays and Ma’lik Richmond, have been arrested for it. 

Well at least they've been arrested for it, the police are investigating, and justice will be served.

But as one might cynically expect, in a small town, a successful football team dominates local culture.  The NYT quotes a life-long resident attesting to this unfortunate fact:

“The players are considered heroes, and that’s pretty pathetic, because they’ve been able to get away with things for years because of it,” Flanagan said. “Everyone just looks the other way.”

And now supporters of the football team, indeed even its coaches, are making victim-blaming rationalizations.

“The rape was just an excuse, I think,” said the 27-year-old Hubbard, who is No. 2 on the Big Red’s career rushing list.

“What else are you going to tell your parents when you come home drunk like that and after a night like that?” said Hubbard, who is one of the team’s 19 coaches. “She had to make up something. Now people are trying to blow up our football program because of it.”

And just to top it all off, a video was leaked with a former Steubenville baseball team member making jokes about the rape:

“She is so raped,” he laughs, continuing an offensive tirade including the lines, “They raped her quicker than Mike Tyson!” and “they raped her more than the Duke lacrosse team!” grossly quipping that the unconscious girl was “deader than Trayvon Martin,”  even as other voices captured in the video interject, saying, “That’s not cool, bro … That’s like rape. It is rape. They raped her.” Other teens in the video laugh along.

 ****
I've always enjoyed watching and attending football games.  I've enjoyed tailgating, drinking beers, and getting excited with my friends at games.  

In my more immature years, my happiness was strongly tied to the success of my team, and I would engage in heated arguments with rivals, often seeing our differences as those between good and evil.

This attitude has waned in recent years and given way to a casual fan attitude that enjoys watching sports for what they are: games.

The NFL isn't looking for a cure for cancer (don't talk to me about those pink fucking ribbons: I'm talking about the raison d'être), and the NBA isn't solving global warming or the energy crisis. 

It is becoming increasingly clear that what should be a form of mild entertainment is a force for corruption, misogyny, corporatism.

Bill Gates Didn't Say That

Cross-posted at AtheistHobos.com

Over the past few days I've seen the revival of a quote attributed to Bill Gates giving a commencement speech to a high school.  It seems that this trope has been going around the intertubes for over a decade, originally as part of an email chain.  Here's what's been making the rounds on Facebook (including the pic):

Bill Gates recently gave a Commencement speech at a High School about 11 things they did not and will not learn in school. He talks about how feel-good, politically correct teachings created a generation of kids with no concept of reality and how this concept set them up for failure in the real world.

Rule 1: Life is not fair - get used to it!

Rule 2: The world won't care about your self-esteem. The world will expect you to accomplish something BEFORE you feel good about yourself.

Rule 3: You will NOT make $60,000 a year right out of high school. You won't be a vice-president with a car phone until you earn both.

Rule 4: If you think your teacher is tough, wait till you get a boss.

Rule 5: Flipping burgers is not beneath your dignity. Your Grandparents had a different word for burger flipping: they called it opportunity.

Rule 6: If you mess up, it's not your parents' fault, so don't whine about your mistakes; learn from them.

Rule 7: Before you were born, your parents weren't as boring as they are now. They got that way from paying your bills, cleaning your clothes and listening to you talk about how cool you thought you were. So before you save the rain forest from the parasites of your parent's generation, try delousing the closet in your own room.

Rule 8: Your school may have done away with winners and losers, but life HAS NOT. In some schools, they have abolished failing grades and they'll give you as MANY TIMES as you want to get the right answer. This doesn't bear the slightest resemblance to ANYTHING in real life.

Rule 9: Life is not divided into semesters. You don't get summers off and very few employers are interested in helping you FIND YOURSELF. Do that on your own time.

Rule 10: Television is NOT real life. In real life people actually have to leave the coffee shop and go to jobs.

Rule 11: Be nice to nerds. Chances are you'll end up working for one.

If you agree, pass it on.
If you can read this - Thank a teacher!
If you are reading it in English - Thank a soldier!! 

But it turns out that Bill Gates never gave such a ridiculous commencement speech to a high school.  Instead it is from Charles J. Sykes' 1996 book Dumbing Down Our Kids: Why American Children Feel Good About Themselves But Can't Read, Write, or Add.

Such lazy misattribution certainly doesn't surprise me, but regardless of who said this, it strikes me as extremely condescending to kids, and assumes the worst of them. Whoever wrote this just comes off sounding like a bitter old man.  Talking down to kids is a surefire way for whatever you're saying to be completely ignored.

But even regardless of the condescending tone, its somewhat curious why this trope lives on and periodically re-surfaces.  In this case, it seems to be related to the tragedy that took place last week in Newtown, CT, where 20 children and 7 adults were gunned down.  The gun that's photoshopped into Gates' hand kind of gives it away, not to mention the fact that it was posted from the FB page 'King Glock". [That last bit about thanking a soldier if you're reading in English is laughably absurd....because soldiers are literally defending the English language]

The question is why does this phony Bill Gates speech have anything to do with the senseless shootings in Newtown, CT?  We are all looking for answers as to why this happened, for the obvious reason that if we can figure out what caused this tragedy, then maybe we can prevent any future tragedies of this nature.  Those perpetuating this meme seem to have fixated on a perceived sense of entitlement by children, which seems to imply that they ascribe the roots of Lanza's motive to his sense of entitlement of one or several items addressed in the phony Gates' speech.  The evidence for this is non-existent as far as I can tell.  And yet, that is the genius of such a post; without explicitly making any claims on the specifics of Lanza's motive, those perpetuating this meme can comfort themselves with a narrative that surely fits within their worldview, which apparently includes lecturing kids about how "before you save the rain forest from the parasites of your parent's generation, try delousing the closet in your own room." [I'm so glad Bill Gates didn't say such patently stupid things.  Here's a game: see how many logical fallacies you can spot in this ridiculous rant]

But Bill Gates isn't the only one whose name is being used to lend an air of legitimacy to someone's half-witted attribution theory for the Newtown tragedy.  Before the Bill Gates re-surfacing, Morgan Freeman was purported as going on a rant about how its the media's fault by giving the murderer so much on-air attention.  By doing so, fake-Freeman argues, it inspires others to kill as many people as possible so as to get more attention for their despair instead of just 'off[ing] themselves'.   Aside from the fact that there's no evidence that this was Lanza's motive, The Inquisitr points out that "most fame-hound killers are too narcissistic to die with their crimes. Anyone wishing to obtain fame this way is going to stick around for the coverage."  Its a truly ludicious rant; anyone who reposted it should be embarrassed, not just for being so duped by such poorly attributed writing, but for exposing what they find to be a compelling narrative.

Andrew Solomon, interviewed by Salon, however, makes an interesting point that could easily be confused with fake-Morgan Freeman: that by virtue of the media focusing on the murders rather than the suicide, it clouds the issues that led to the murders (as opposed to the media focus on the perpetrator inspiring other perpetrators a la fake-Freeman):

[Solomon]: The other problem, I think, is in the reporting — and the thing where I really do feel informed on my experiences, especially with the Klebolds — is this was a murder/suicide. The murder is what gets most of the media attention. If this guy had just killed himself, it would be a shame, and none of us would be any the wiser of it.

[Salon]: So a different way to understand this would be to think first about the suicide, and then about the way in which it happened?

[Solomon]: Yes, I think the initial impulse is one of self-hatred, and it’s characteristic of adolescents to express their own self-hatred by doing damage to others. By being mean to their parents. By being disagreeable with their friends. By driving snowmobiles drunk even though they know they could kill someone else or themselves. Careless, arrogant, ungenerous — that is characteristic in inappropriate adolescents.

This, obviously, takes this phenomenon to an entirely different level, to an insane level, and to a level that is hopefully not to recur. But the basic thing is that this level is really not so alien as people seem to think. It begins in self-hatred and despair, I think, rather than beginning in aggression. The aggression toward others, it seems to me, is secondary to the aggression to himself. I’m doing a lot of leaps and hypothesizing on the basis of the incredibly thin evidence we have so far.

Its an interesting interview with an expert that has studied Columbine for the past 13 years.

Finally, I'll close this post with a quote attributed to Thomas Jefferson from a source that is probably pretty reliable:

I am certainly not an advocate for for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.

On Pragmatism and Hope: Wingnuts Losing their Nuts?

 Cross-posted at AtheistHobos.com

With President Obama's re-election, the hard wall of reality has met the Republican party ideology head on as GOP leaders are rethinking their strategy in alienating huge constituencies (hispanics, women, the middle class) in order to satisfy what essentially amounts to the old white guy voting block.  It is quite striking to see a party, for which the immediate reaction to Obama's first term election was to make a hard right in order to oppose all items on the White House agenda, even if it had been on the GOP agenda in some form (cap and trade vis a vis global warming or healthcare reform), moderate even a little on core issues.  With the rise of the Tea Party in the mid-term elections, this apparent shift in the wake of Obama's re-election is not what I had expected.

For example, take Sean Hannity, Fox News arch-conservative pundit, who has done a virtual 180 on the issue of immigration.  Within two days of Obama's re-election, Hannity said "...if some people have criminal records you can send them home, but if people are here, law-abiding, participating for years, their kids are born here, you know, it’s first secure the border, pathway to citizenship, done, whatever little penalties you want to put in there, if you want, and it’s done."

Even Speaker of the House, John Boehner, who has lived in constant fear of the Tea Party wing over the last two years has taken a softer stance on immigration saying, "A comprehensive approach is long overdue, and I’m confident that the president, myself and others can find the common ground to take care of this issue once and for all."

Today, former Bush adviser Linda Hughes laid the smack down hard on old white guys pontificating on rape:

[I]f another Republican man says anything about rape other than it is a horrific, violent crime, I want to personally cut out his tongue. The college-age daughters of many of my friends voted for Obama because they were completely turned off by Neanderthal comments like the suggestion of ‘legitimate rape.’”

Sing it sister.

And yesterday, influential conservative pundit Bill Kristol went on "Fox News Sunday" and said something that is anathema to the Grover Norquist era-GOP: raise taxes on the rich.

It won’t kill the country if we raise taxes a little bit on millionaires … It really won’t, I don’t think. I don’t really understand why Republicans don’t take Obama’s offer

and

Really? The Republican Party is going to fall on its sword to defend a bunch of millionaires, half of whom voted Democratic and half of whom live in Hollywood and are hostile?

 We will see how this plays out when the new Congress convenes in January.  Will this break from party orthodoxy have a ripple effect on other pragmatic party leaders that are truly interested in solving the debt crisis, or will Grover Norquist and the Tea Party caucus assert its clout and kill a debt solution that includes tax increases to for the wealthy?

One of the provisions of the Bush tax cuts that will expire if Congress does nothing by the end of the year, is the capital gains tax rate of 15%.  If Congress extends the tax cuts, the long-term capital gains tax will increase to 20%.

One of the arguments for a lower long-term capital gains tax compared to regular income is that it discourages 'locking-in' gains.  That is, if you don't get any benefit from holding on to an asset for a while, you'll be more likely to sell it when it has appreciated in value to the point where the upside risk is lower than the downside risk (i.e. you believe it will fall in value before it rises value).  For example, if you buy one share of ABC stock at $10 and it runs up to $100 in the next three months, you will probably be inclined to sell and lock-in your $90 profit.  Yet, you will taxed at the short-term capital gains rate, which is whatever rate your normal income is taxed at.  So it may be more than twice the long-term rate.  In the example above, other investors are probably thinking of selling as well.  So if everyone starts selling to lock-in their gains, without the incentive of a lower tax rate for holding, there may be increased volatility in the market. (Of course, in this example, even with the lower tax rate, you may well be inclined to take the higher tax rate anyway.)

Assuming that reduction in volatility is a desirable outcome (and I think it generally is, although I can think of some counter-arguments), I agree with the principle of providing an incentive to hold assets for some pre-defined duration; one year seems reasonable.

Source: Congressional Research Service

But I think a better way to approach this would be to provide a dis-incentive to short term trading of assets that would be subject to capital gains tax.  Of course, the current structure was proposed and passed by the wealthy for the wealthy.  Why?  Because a) those in power are much wealthier than their constituents and b) wealthy people benefit most from favorable long-term capital gains treatment.  But why should the m(b)illionaire's source of income be taxed at a lower rate than the rest of us?

Another common trope to justify a lower long-term capital gains tax rate is that it leads to increased productivity, saving and investment.  This is the central tenant of supply-side economics, that when the rich do well, the mana trickles down to the rest of us in the form of higher employment.  Yet, the data does not support this hypothesis.  Instead, in a 2012 report, the non-partisan Congressional Research Service concluded that

The results of the analysis suggest that changes over the past 65 years in the top marginal tax rate and the top capital gains tax rate do not appear correlated with economic growth. The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment, and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie.

Source: Congressional Research Service

So if lower taxes for the uber-wealthy doesn't have a measurable effect on economic output, and given the fiscal crisis facing the nation, the solution to maintaining the incentive to hold assets seems apparent.  Tax long-term capital gains at the same rate as normal income (which, btw, also needs to be reformed), and tax short-term capital gains at a higher rate to discourage speculative investments that lack a the fundamental financial merits to be held past one year.

But while that may discourage speculative investments by the wealthy, a flat, say, 50% for all income brackets would stunt the growth of those in the bottom brackets that may otherwise be on trajectory to enter higher brackets.  And yet, we want to maintain the dis-incentive to hold assets for the short term. Perhaps one way to deal with this is to peg the dis-incentive to the normal income rate.  That is, if your marginal tax rate is 20% and the dis-incentive is 50%, the tax rate on your short-term gains would be .2*1.5 = .3.  You would pay 30% on short-term gains.  Alternatively, if your marginal tax rate is 40%, a 50% increase would set your short-term tax rate at 60%.

I have little hope that my proposal or anything close to it would be adopted any time soon, but the shift in rhetoric and policy stance by conservative leaders gives me some hope that incremental progress is achievable.

Keep Your Politics to Yourself: A Guide to Facebook

Cross-posted at AtheistHobos.com

You know what kills me?  When people put up political talk on Facebook.  Seriously, what makes you think I'm interested in your political views?  Here's a clue.  I'm NOT.  I don't care if you're the goddamned President of the Fucking Universe, I don't want to hear about your politics on Facebook.  Go hold a rally somewhere in he middle of central bumblefuck with all your glossy-eyed acolytes and get your rocks off.

But not on Facebook.  Facebook is for faces...as in pictures.  And don't get all cute with me and start posting pictures that express a political opinion.

Listen.  I know you think you have important things to talk about like 'global warming' or 'traditional marriage', but the truth is, I couldn't give a shit less if the ocean swallows up Florida or if gay marriage makes you want to get a divorce.

Seriously, don't you have anything better to do with your time than to express yourself on important issues that challenge our nation?  You want to be a political activist, go ahead.  Start some non-profit organization.  But I friended you because we had some wild times in college, not because I care about what you have to say about economic policy.  Put it this way: I want Facebook friends that make me laugh, not friends that challenge my deeply valued biases or my critical thinking skills.

Can't you go back to posting happy smiling pictures of your weekend with your family or something less controversial than abortion.  Cause really, its making me upset that you have a different opinion on this issue than me.  And I don't want to think to hard to understand your position either.

And finally, while I find your political postings annoying (mainly because they don't align to my worldview), I want to remind you that I purposely don't post my political opinions to Facebook due to the fact that a) I'm not good at expressing myself and detest confrontation and/or b) I want to be able to make the self-congratulatory claim in some post-partisan fashion that I Keep My Politics to Myself.

So please, don't offer me your opinion on middle-class handouts or tax cuts for the rich because I really just want to look at kittens all day.  Please consider self-censoring the next time you have a political opinion, otherwise, I'm gunna de-friend you.  So there!

An Endorsement (if not a vote) for Jill Stein

Cross-posted at AtheistHobos.com 

I know, the title is bound to annoy people, but I'm still not sure who I will be voting for.  Of course, it won't be Romney, but I have been swayed over the past week or so to the possibility of voting for Green Party candidate, Jill Stein.

But that slightly mischaracterizes the choice.  A vote for Jill Stein isn't really a vote for "Jill Stein".  Its a protest vote.  Its a message to the democratic party that progressives aren't buying the President's assault on civil liberties, his passiveness on climate change, his indifference to the growing economic inequalities, or his slightly less bad foreign policy of endless war that may or may not involve attacking Iran ('may not' isn't an option for Romney).  Its a vote for the long haul and a tacit acceptance that the situation may worsen considerably in the interim.  In fact, for some, that may be precisely the strategy: to hope for an epic backlash once the effects of the GOP's regressive policies begin to be felt.

Josh indicated his intention to vote for Stein, and I wholly support that decision.  If Stein were an electable candidate it would be a no brainer; I agree with probably 99% of her policy positions.  Unfortunately, she doesn't stand a chance, and I live in a swing state, thus complicating my decision.  Matt Stoler's piece over the weekend made some compelling points on the value in voting for a third party, one of which is the power of resistance:

One of the more intriguing arguments in this line came from a Canadian UAW member, Joe Emersberger, who actually tried measuring the difference between recent Republican and Democratic Presidents. He noted that Ronald Reagan was the worst President for life expectancy growth, income growth of the top one percent, deunionization, and closing the racial gap in life expectancy. But the second worst – for deunionization and share of income going to the top one percent – was actually Bill Clinton, followed by Barack Obama. George Bush did substantially better than those two on these measures, and surpassed Clinton in closing the racial life expectancy gap. This is quite possibly accurate – Clinton’s changed the country with NAFTA, a policy nearly as hostile to labor rights as Reagan’s embrace of union busting. George W. Bush though faced a hostile public and a partisan Democratic opposition. 

So as is frustratingly the case, the choice for me is between a lot of pain with the hope that a message will be sent or a continuation of a little bit of pain mixed with some pleasure.

In a way it is like some wacky prisoners' dilemma scenario where its not clear who the defector and the cooperators are.  From the point of view of the third party, voting for Obama is defecting and standing in the way of progressive reforms across the board.  From the incumbents perspective, its the opposite.  And I honestly don't know where I fall in that spectrum.

I want to say I will vote for Stein, but when I walk into the polling station to 'pull the lever', my more cynical side may take over.  I'll let you know on Wednesday.


Follow me @JesusLovesBags

Debate Reform: iPads

Cross posted at AtheistHobos.com

[Update: Gawker has a story about debate conspiracy theories of covert communications, including one about Romney pulling out a cheat-sheet.  My only objection to this is that it should be specifically sanctioned and both candidates should be able to communicate with their staffs. Bring it out in the open and level the playing field.]

I didn't watch the Presidential Debate Wednesday night, but from the accounts I've read, Romney lied his ass off, and Obama sat there and took it, failing to challenge or counter Romney's claims.

We've kind of seen this disregard for facts in GOP VP candidate Paul Ryan's convention speech.  It was so blatantly false that former Bush political strategist, Michael Dowd, was compelled to comment that "At some point, the truth should matter".

Indeed it should.  And that is a bit of a problem with debates as they are currently conducted: you can lie your ass off making claims that are completely unsupported by facts.  And unless your opponent (if they are actually interested in the facts) happens to have sufficient facts memorized to counter your bullshit, they risk a) lying and, probably worse, b) get caught lying.

Which is a shame.  The debate is a rhetorical cage match.  Its not based on factually true substance, especially if one party is willing to 'stretch' the truth.

When I watch a debate I want to see one candidate call the other out when they start spouting bullshit.  I want a control mechanism, other than the candidates' memory, to keep the other honest. 

I'm probably not alone in this. After Obama's failure to challenge Romney, there are probably many liberals that are thinking the same thing. But if/when Obama starts making dubious claims I'm sure conservatives will feel that way.

My solution? iPads.

At first I was thinking of it as a way for the candidate to quickly look something up while their opponent was talking. But that would likely prove to cumbersome and inefficient to be workable. But what if the candidate could be connected to their team of advisors and fact checkers? Then they could just get an instant message with the relevant piece of data and smoke their opponent right then and there.

Now I'm sure some will say the debate should be the two candidates going tet-a-tet and let the best one win. I say F that. This shouldn't be a test of one person. Presidential Administrations are composed of many people working together to advance an agenda. Why shouldn't the debate reflect that reality? Especially if it results in the candidates not making patently bullshit claims that can't be instantaneously refuted?

And of course, as with any tool, just having access to it won't magically and instantaneously eliminate the bald-faced lies.  But I suspect that over time, and as candidates learn how to use the iPad to effectively receive information from their team and articulate it, the degree of bullshit will slowly subside.

Maybe there are other problems that I haven't considered (and I'd welcome any feedback on this idea), but let's transform debates from rhetorical fact-optional contests into a fact-based discussion of policy.

Bring in the iPads.

Free Speech & Blasphemy

Non-violent Free Speech. You're doing it right.

Cross-posted at AtheistHobos.com

My last post was about the appropriate response to terrorist attacks.  Appropriate in the sense that the response would yield the most productive outcome for society.

In this post, I'm interested in discussing the free speech facet of the whole story.  

Needless to say, when content of mere images and video cause so much angst and agitation that you can only respond with random (or non-random) violence and destruction, you are seriously fucked up.  There's really no other way to put it, you may need to seek professional help.  Because you are a menace to society.  

And yet, people will still lay the blame at the feet of those exercising their free speech (however disgusting and incorrect it may be) by saying 'you should have known that people would die as a consequence of your words'.  Which is really an admission that those committing the violence are out of control lunatics.  Free speech does not, and society should not, submit to the irrationality of lunatics. 

Non-violent Free Speech? You're doing it wrong.

When thousands of people riot and 50+ people are killed because the mob objects to the content of whatever medium, there is something wrong with their whole worldview.  It is categorically insane.

And then you have those in power that want to place arbitrary limits on free speech in order to prevent such outbursts in the first place, instead of placing responsibility for such monstrous acts upon those that commit them.  PZ Myers highlighted just a few instances where this is currently happening and it is truly scary how those in power are so eager to take control over what constitutes Acceptable Free Speech:

Consider the young Greek man who has been arrested for mocking a cleric; Alexander Aan, arrested in Indonesia for denying the existence of god; Alber Saber, arrested in Egypt for linking to a stupid movie that mocked Mohammed; Rimsah Masih, accused of desecrating the Quran and facing hateful death threats; Asia Bibi, sentenced to death for blasphemy in Pakistan; and too many others to list. Consider that the European Union has just called for “full respect of religion” and “the importance of respecting all prophets” — blasphemy laws are spreading.

"Full respect of religion"?  How am I supposed to respect a religion that willfully shelters child rapists?  How am I supposed to respect a religion whose adherents to go into a murder rampage at the sight of a cartoon?

What the fuck is there to respect?

Certainly not the religion itself.  Though I do, if nothing else, respect the right to non-violently practice whatever wacky bullshit you want.

And I can't go without mentioning the logical absurdity of blasphemy laws.  Really, just think about it.  So now we're going to give everyone the right not to be offended?  What happens when one group's mere existence and its associated ideology is deemed to be offensive by an Approved Religion (right? so there's gotta be a way to filter out all the bullshit that 6 billion people might be offended by.  So you'd have to have approved organizations - religions - that would get to file suit against a party to ensure that the alleged violation is actually offensive to a sufficiently large group of constituents... you can see how absurd this is getting already).

Oh, like how the existence of Isreal seems to be rather offensive to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as he is quoted as saying Israel should be "wiped off the map".  So who wins there?  Israel and its right to merely exist or theocratic Iran, which finds Israel's existence offensive?

This really can all be summed up in two words: Heckler's Veto.  

You have the right – if you disagree with me – to go outside and perform your protest. But you don’t get the right to come in when I’m talking and shout me down. Otherwise people can always silence a speaker by heckler’s veto, and Babel results.

I am heartened and dismayed at this response by a moderate Muslim on Facebook.  Credit is certainly due for calling out this person's fellow Muslims, but they get it quite wrong trying to play the false equivalence of blame when addressing the issue of free speech.

So apparently there is a film produced that shows the Prophet (PBUH) in a manner that is undignified and completely wrong...and as a result, the Muslim world is up in arms, destroying their respective countries, the personal properties of their fellow Muslims, and killing innocent people. This raises a few questions to think about first for my fellow Muslims and second to the people making this f

ilm:

To Muslims:
1.) Can these violent outbursts undo this film?
2.) Does the existence of this film and is wrongful portrayal change your view on the Prophet (PBUH)?
3.) Have you not, by your violence alone, given a film that would have otherwise disappeared into the black hole, more prominence, where more people have seen it and perhaps bought into the propaganda?
4.) What have you gained from these violent protests? Have you with such violence and disregard for human life not shamed the work and life of the Prophet (PBUH)?
5.) Have you really done justice to your religion? To the teachings of your Prophet (PBUH)? To your fellow Muslims who have to live with your actions? To the fellow Muslims and innocent people you are killing?
6.) Would your time not be better spent, living your life in the true image of the Prophet (PBUH)? Would that not be the best way to negate all of these wrongful portrayals? How does living to the very stereotype you are objecting help protect the name of the Prophet (PBUH)?

To the producers of this film:
1.) Really??! I mean REALLY??!!!
2.) I get that freedom of speech is important..but it's important in America, and perhaps should exist in the rest of the world...but who are you to force feed your "freedom" down the throats of others? Are you not infringing on their rights in someway?
3.) You knew the kind of reaction this would have, and you did it anyway, so aren't just as responsible for the many people that have lost their lives as a result? Shouldn't your willful disregard for human life be punishable? Especially in a time where wars are being fought and lives are at stake, and emotions are high?
4.) Shouldn't freedom of speech be practiced with common sense and a regard for repercussions especially when your practice endangers not your life but the lives of others?

All of this is a poor example of basic human decency.

Libyan Attacks - Let's Fight Violence with Science

Cross posted at AtheistHobos.com

By now, you've probably heard about the terrorist attacks on the US consulate in Libya where four Americans were killed in protest of an anti-Muslim film that was recently released.

There are many facets of this development that merit discussion, but this comment from Obama caught my attention:

As we mourn their loss, we must also send a clear and resolute message to the world: those who attack our people will find no escape from justice. We will not waver in their pursuit. And we will never allow anyone to shake the resolve of the United States of America

The sentiment, that the US will do whatever is needed, where ever it is needed, as long as it is needed to bring those who committed these senseless acts to justice, is understandable.  It represents a respect and to the families of those that were murdered and a commitment to Justice.

Yet, I can't help but feel that this is a misguided approach, if it is truly intended to be implemented as Obama's remarks make it sound.  Is there no cost too high?  Its a tough line to walk: on the one hand terrorism should not be tolerated and society seemingly should deter terrorism through the pursuit of justice; on the other hand, resources are finite and the problems that face our country and the world are nearly infinite.

So here's my half-baked, semi-thawed, top-of-the-morning idea that probably makes no political or foreign policy sense to anyone that knows that a consulate isn't an embassy:

Instead of spending millions billions to bring the terrorists to justice for the non-trivial lives of 4 individuals, let us spend billions - as a direct response to these attacks - on research to cure cancer, diabetes, and heart disease. 

These three diseases accounted for 1,200,000 deaths in 2010.  So finding a cure for any of them would obviously be a huge benefit to society.

Sure it sounds ridiculous and non-sequitir.  But that's kinda the point.  Instead of responding to hateful, anti-free speech violence fueled by religious zealotry with imperialistic,  ineffectual (in that it seems to just fuel hatred and spur terrorist recruiting) violence fueled by the unfortunate combination of revenge-lust and a well-funded military industrial complex, let's try something radically different:

Instead of responding to violence with violence.  Let's fight violence with science.

What could be more devastating to those that hate America than to refuse to capitulate to their dream of pervasive violence, social instability, and hate?

Wouldn't finding a cure for the most costly, debilitating, and deadly diseases (and all the scientific and technological discoveries and applications that result) benefit society more than avenging the injustice of those murdered at the Libyan consulate?

There's a shocking disparity between our priorities and the things that threaten us.  So why not defiantly fight violence with science?

Repost - Waving The Flag ≠ Patriotism

Re-posted from 2011 and cross-posted at AtheistHobos.com

Hanging a multicolored piece of fabric is not patriotism.  If you think it is, you're a pretentious rube. When you consider the impact 9/11 had on this country, such a trivial gesture seems terribly inadequate.  Instead of having a meaningful and reflective conversation on the impact that 9/11 had on the country's foreign and domestic policies, politics, culture, media, etc., there seems to be  a race to be the most outwardly pious patriot possible.

Saying nice sounding things does not "honor" the soldiers or "respect" the victims or their families.  To the contrary, I would argue, such meaningless platitudes trivialize the sacrifices of those protecting us and the victims of 9/11.  But to express dissent from the fragile and air-headed sensibilities of the masses, is to call upon the masses to demonize one's self.

Just looking at my facebook feed is depressing how facile and prentious the 9/11 comments are: "God bless the USA" or "The families of 9/11 in our prayers" or "Never forget".    I would like to ask, what purpose does posting "God bless America" serve?  Setting aside the fact that no evidence exists for a god, what makes you think by saying this that he would 'bless' the USA?  Is it necessary to say this in order to prevent another terrorist attack?  Was it god's will for 9/11 to occur and for thousands to lose their lives?  If so, why are you trying to countermand god's will, and if it wasn't god's will, what makes you think he has the ability to prevent another such attack?  And why are you asking for blessing only for America?  Wouldn't world peace be more desirable?  I'll save my rhetorical (though I would be happy to hear responses) questions on the other two common sentiments since they're just as vacuous and serve only to flaunt the posters' faux patriotism.

I say "faux patriotism" because one would never hear these people take any substantive interest in any of the negative outcomes 9/11 had on society.  You wouldn't hear them take issue with the fact that we have essentially capitulated to the terrorists' goals of weakening our democratic principles.  Instead, if informed of the systematic undermining of the Constitution by their own government in the name of counter-terrorism, post hoc rationalizations are made along the lines of "well, if it increases our security, then I'll trust the experts."  Never is there a discussion of how to balance the inherent tradeoffs between of security and liberty.  Instead security is the only goal, and those that are concerned with the erosion of civil liberties are un-Patriotic

Take for example, the Patriot Act.  What a brilliant work of propaganda to attach the very attribute to which average Americans aspire to the piece of legislation that anyone that has a passing knowledge of the Bill of Rights would recognize as, at the very least, a threat to the 4th Amendment and 1st Amendments. 

This past week, the ACLU released a report as Glenn Greenwald puts it, "to comprehensively survey the severe erosion of civil liberties justified in the name of that event, an erosion that -- as it documents -- continues unabated, indeed often in accelerated form, under the Obama administration."  Reading Greenwald's analysis of the report is quite sobering:

Last week, the top lawyer and 34-year-veteran of the CIA, John Rizzo, explained to PBS' Frontline that Obama has "changed virtually nothing" from Bush policies in these areas, and this week, the ACLU explains that "most [Bush] policies remain core elements of our national security strategy today."  At some point very soon, this basic truth will be impossible to deny with a straight face even for the most hardened loyalists of both parties, each of whom have been eager, for their own reasons, to deny it.

Here are a couple snippets from the report:

This last point I think is the most important.  The continued torture, rendition, warrantless wiretaps, indefinite detention, and the targeted assassination of a US citizen are disgusting violations of civil liberties, but, in my opinion, are far less of a threat to a functioning democracy than surveillance for the purposes of silencing political dissent under the pretext of security.  A government so obsessed with security as ours is becoming (or has become) is one that loses any sembalence of Democracy.  When political dissent is considered a threat to Democracy, you no longer have Democracy; you have an authoritarian regime.  And perhaps an authoritarian regime that capitalizes on the fear that terror attacks fuel.

While few would be so stupid as to publicly wish for more terror attacks, one Arkansas Republican probably spoke for many when he said in 2007, "all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001] and the naysayers will come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country."

But any thoughtful discussion of the important issues that affect society will by and large not take place on Facebook.  Instead you will see meaningless pablum from those that want to display their Patriot Feathers.  Or just as any good propaganda machine would love, you'll see vitriolic attacks on anyone that says anything (like questioning the multifarious impact that government policies have had on the country) that can be construed as not "supporting the troops" or "honoring the fallen".

So it is.  (and the hash tag is quite telling: I'm going to yell and curse at you until you agree with me or shut up.  And if you don't capitulate to my opinion, I'm not going to even try to refute your argument.  Go ahead, de-friend me.  Or we can have a civil discussion on the issues on their merits)