Foxy: I'm proud of our great nation and I appreciate just how blessed we are to live here! I don't see stories of people literally dying trying to migrate to Western Europe, unless I'm just missing those. This is such an awful place - that's why there's thousands and thousands of people a month pouring across our southern border. Grow up and show some appreciation.
First of all, people are literally dying to migrate to Western Europe and you are just missing it. They are crossing the Mediterranean in droves on rickety boats that often sink. 3,000 have drowned already this year, and Western European countries are listing immigration as their top concern.
Secondly, as for quality of life, if you care about things the U.S. is better but if you care about people Europe is better.
There is nothing "more blessed" about being in the U.S. over other advanced industrial democracies.
8-17-22 7:33 • Far Left Extreme
FiftySomething: I'm happy that this Supreme Court overturned Roe, and I hope they go further. We need to tone down the far left extremism in this country! Now maybe we can find a healthy middle ground.
Roe was the healthy middle ground, allowing unrestricted abortion for the first two trimesters while allowing restrictions later in the pregnancy, with exceptions. What could be more middle than that?
Allowing gay marriage, or contraception, is not extreme. Wanting to hold powerful men to account for sexual harassment a la Me Too is not extreme either. Wanting to end systematic discrimination by race is not extreme. Wanting public healthcare, which every other democracy has, is not extreme. Wanting public education and other social supports which already work in other places is not extreme. Wanting to rein in wealth inequality is not extreme - it's necessary to maintain a functioning democracy.
The bits that are cast as extreme by the right are not extreme either. "Defund the police" is an unfortunate slogan but it just means diverting some of society's resources away from force and into prevention. "Critical Race Theory" isn't a problem. "Forced transitioning" isn't a problem.
I'm all for toning down extremism but today's left is not extreme.
8-13-22 2:53 • FBI Mar-a-Lago Raid
Pinto: Trump's crimes are catching up to him!
Quadra: His treasonous ass belongs in prison, never to hold office again.
Triad: Ha! Reading through this is comical. Oh boy!! They really really REALLY got him this time.
Or he may elude justice yet again. The question is, why are you for that?
Triad: As commander in chief it was his right to classify or declassify anything he wants. He doesn't have to declare it. This whole charade will be thrown out. This was already upheld by the SCOTUS in 1987 department of Navy v Egan.
He did nothing legally wrong.
Who cares? It was still incredibly stupid, selfish and dangerous. Why are you for this level of stupidity, selfishness and danger to our country?
Would you be just as giddy with joy to see Brandon get away with this?
8-08-22 8:20 • Woke Breakfast
(Or, Doing Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast Enrages Cracker Barrelites)
T-Eight: So Cracker Barrell caused outrage this week when they announced they would be adding vegetarian "Impossible" sausage to their breakfast menu. Some are accusing the restaurant chain of going "woke".
Woke is good.
Venine: I for one will be happy when the word "woke" disappears.
The reaction against vegetarian options and against the word "woke" are the same - a knee-jerk rejection of the idea of caring.
Venine: You honestly believe that those opposed to or tired of the word "woke" are rejecting the idea of caring? How so and in your own words (versus quotes or links)?
Woke means caring about systemic racism. What is there to be opposed to?
Babs: It's just stupid that anyone would bitch about additional options on a menu. It has nothing to do with being "woke," a term I'm sick of hearing because idiots are griping about it. People can just get over it. Why would it be a bad thing for a restaurant to offer options?
This isn't just any option. No one would complain, or call it woke, if the new option was a steak between two fried chicken breasts with bacon.
The problem is that vegetarian options imply care - for one's health, for animals, for the environment - which the complainers do not want to think about, because it might find them wanting.
Venine: Your last paragraph suggests that you assume far too much on why people are upset over something so silly.
Don't allow yourself to be so caught up in new tags and trends that you happen to agree with and then turn around, pointing fingers condescendingly.
Yes, the complainers are being ridiculous but how do you know they're really left "wanting?"
Why do you think they are upset?
Babs: Honestly, I think the complainers are upset because they have been told to be upset. Their favorite media outlets constantly tell them they are being attacked, things are being taken from them, culture is changing in a way that won't favor them, they will have to acknowledge other people, or other ideas, or other beliefs. They are "victims" in some undefined way and anything that can be used to further this plot line is a big story. Rather sad.
True, but they are being told to be upset over *this* because vegetarianism is 'woke' and that is a slur.
Babs: I think of "woke" more as a newer term for political correctness.
Political correctness means caring about systemic injustice and trying not to perpetuate it. So, I agree, and I don't think that's a problem.
Venine: I think they're just opposed to the change in menu, and perhaps feel that this new sausage is going to lead to more changes.
That's silly, but I do not feel they're the unwoke or systemically racist.
*They* are the ones who used the word 'woke' as their complaint, and they would not be complaining if the change was more meat options.
Venine: You feel you really know why they're complaining? That it doesn't really have anything to do with meatless sausage?
It has everything to do with meatless sausage. Some people don't want to sit down to a heart-clogging, cruelly-raised, environmentally devastating steak and have to think about the problems their behavior is causing for the world. Which is very much how these same whiners feel about addressing systemic injustice of all kinds. That is why THEY are calling it "woke". It's now a slur for every change that would help the world that people don't want to make.
Twofer: You really need to reign it in, Lady! You sound like a sanctimonious twit. You do realize most those impossible meats are neither healthier or less environmentally devastating right?
Hi there Twofer! I appreciate your point of view so I have looked into it.
First of all, impossible meats *are* less environmentally devastating than beef.¹ Impossible beef uses a tenth of the water and emits a tenth of the greenhouse gasses to produce, and is far more efficient than raising large animals for 18 to 24 months. It takes one hundred calories of feed for every one calorie you get back in meat. Yes, soy is a monoculture, but it takes far more soy to make beef than to just make soy into protein.
Secondly, impossible meats involve no risk of animal suffering, and that is another reason people choose them.
Lastly, impossible meats are not claimed to be healthier, but there is no question that eating lots of beef and pork is unhealthy.² It's associated with higher risk for type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease, stroke and colon cancer. A vegetarian diet, with or without impossibles, has a lot of health benefits. Some find it less cruel and it's definitely less taxing on the environment.
But who wants to think about all that woke crap at breakfast? IMO, this is why some have denounced the menu change as, specifically, "woke" - concerned with choices they do not care to think about.
Thanks for inspiring me to learn more about this Twofer!
1. Researchers from Johns Hopkins University found the environmental impact of plant-based meats was much lower than beef for all sustainability metrics studied, looking at greenhouse-gas emissions, blue-water footprint, land use, pesticide use, water quality, and biodiversity impacts.
Twofer: Ah, but your source does not take into account all the factors, like food waste, which produces a substantial amount of greenhouse gases, and is over 80% plant based. Crops have the highest percentages of annual food loss and waste. Less than 20% of food loss/waste is animal base and this includes, milk, cheese, yogurt, and eggs.
Food waste is an everyone problem, but throwing out 22% of our meat uneaten is even more of a waste because it required so much in resources to produce. Throwing out meat is wasting some of the most environmentally-costly food available.¹
Twofer: Crops also causes soil degradation, depletes natural minerals from the soil, disrupts natural ecosystems and biodiversity, contributes to deforestation, accounts for 70% of fresh water consumption, increases high reactive levels of nitrogen in soil from chemical fertilization. Food production for humans is environmentally devistating period.
Very true. But, you need way more crops to feed animals for meat, so it makes all the crop problems much worse. We need to dial back on the damage we are doing and feeding more people with fewer crops is one way.
Twofer: As far as health, the studies are flawed to be quite frank. The studies do not include other lifestyle factors, nor differentiate between processed and unprocessed red meat. One to two servings of 6 oz or less of grass feed beef a week isn't going to increase your cancer or heart disease risks. As with all things in life, balance is important.
Yes, I said, eating lots of beef and pork. I agree it can be part of a balanced diet, but it's not required for a balanced diet.
None of this suggests impossible meats are "just as bad" as the meat the are replacing. They require way less crops and, don't forget, less animal suffering. It seems to be a step in the right direction. I think having it on the menu at Cracker Barrel could nudge a few people to choose meat a little less often, and that would help. Whether the complainers like it or not, this will get people thinking about these important issues.
Thanks Twofer!
8-05-22 4:33 • You can see my art from space
As the Russians invaded Ukraine, I painted the word "PEACE" really big in chalk on the sidewalk in front of my house. It's long gone, but today I discovered that it's still visible in the satellite photos on Google Maps! You can just make out the big peace sign in the driveway.
T-Eight: That's so neat, love it when you show your work!
You are so kind, thank you! This is what it looked like from the ground:
6-06-22 7:02 • What to do, I show you.
T-Eight: It's like this nation needs a complete, total overhaul of attitudes and cultures and way of life. But how do you do that?
There is a way.
Humans have two main behavioral modes. For all that humans can be brutal and selfish, we are also capable of great love and compassion. For the most part, humans are brutal and selfish to our outgroups, while we are loving and compassionate to our ingroup. The behavioral mode is activated based on who we are facing.
The only way to prevent planetary disaster will be to work together. We will need to activate our ingroup behavior - for everyone. We can do this only if we realize, finally, that there is no outgroup. We are all here together and we are all the same thing. We have to treat everyone with the love and compassion of our ingroup.
We need new constitutions that declare the rights of everyone, and all lifekind, to be part of our care. We can give each other the help and support we need and make sure we all have enough of everything. That will let us work together and repair the damage we have done.
We have this behavior in us. We just have to turn it on.
6-04-22 6:04 • Rugged Socialism
Spooner: Saw signs like this today:
Finally, schools are getting serious about protecting their students from shooters!
It doesn't help to threaten deadly force to shooters. They usually end up dead anyway and they know that. Most school shootings are suicides.
Edge: If we were really serious about mental health we would replace school police officers with social workers, nurses, and psychologists.
To treat what mental health issues?
Edge: I don't know that there is a specific diagnosis shared by mass shooters but even identifying kids that have poor coping skills or anger management problems, or get bullied, and help those issues might go a long way.
I agree. I think everyone should have help with coping skills, anger management and bullying. It would improve lives and reduce violence.
But, I am *for* massively expanded social and medical services. Are most people? Will people agree to huge increases in public funding for mental health services at school? Most school budgets are strapped as it is.
And what would these mental health care workers be able to say? Would they be held by the same constraints against discussing gender and gay marriage and systemic racism as the teachers?
And what about the parents? Will they consent to have their children psychologically evaluated for anger management by public school "groomers"? Will they have to give permission for counseling?
Do you think such a massive, expensive new form of government oversight at the most personal level will be accepted?
Edge: I don’t think mental health workers, at least in Florida, would be constrained by the don’t say gay act. When one is counseled that’s private under HIPAA except under certain instances. What might help instead of going through the schools is expanding Medicaid which does cover mental health services I believe. Except Florida didn’t so Republicans will have to be convinced.
What might help politicians is a comparison. What’s cheaper in the long run, spend the money now or later when they’re adults and hit the prison system?
Abusive parents may not want counseling and perhaps CPS will have to step in. I'm fine with that to stop school shootings.
Sadly, there is just no way any of this will happen in the current political climate. Yes it would be cheaper in the long run, but so would a million other things that kids need and we can't get funded. And there is no way that many parents will go along with mass screenings and counseling. The first time these counselors tell a kid it's okay to be gay, or that racism can be a factor in bullying, they will be shut down just like the teachers.
The same political forces that are preventing action on guns will also prevent any meaningful mental health intervention by the state. That would "violate their rights" even more than taking guns away.
And none of this addresses why American kids are so anxious, isolated, angry and bullied in the first place.
The only way forward is a sea change in political thinking that emphasizes group effort equal to individual effort. "Rugged Individualism" is tearing us to pieces. If we could come together and help each other instead, it would address every one of these problems. We need Rugged Socialism.
6-01-22 6:12 • Materialism
Questor: We could get rid of guns but that would not get rid of the problem.
Limiting access to guns would make the carnage less.
Questor: It would make it less, but it would be like treating a cavity by stopping lollipops. Yes, the lollipops are making things ten times worse and they do need to be avoided.
But the cavity is still there.
Making it less matters. One cavity every now and then can be managed. Hundreds of cavities every day are destroying our national health.
Questor: What's causing it?
U.S. culture is uniquely selfish.
It starts with our founding as a caste system on occupied land. It shows in our "right" to shoot people who touch our stuff, but is even more brutally expressed through our winner-take-all economic system. A few people live in opulence and splendor while most people can't afford a health emergency or an education. The greediest are keeping almost all of what society produces. A full life is more expensive than most can afford, so they are living and dying in debt.
Selfishness has atomized us, broken society into a thousand tiny pieces. Instead of communities, we just have families, competing against each other for homes and jobs and enough to get by. We have even split the families apart - generations no longer live together, leaving fragile nuclear families which can break even further. "Rugged individualism" has turned us against one another and it's every man for himself.
We are not sharing. We don't give each other the basic things that people in Europe and Canada give each other - education, healthcare, retirement, social services. Because we don't share, we have no social trust. We don't have each other's back so we can never relax. And, for selfish reasons, our politics are pushing people into opposing camps with less to share in common.
So people are alone, adrift in a nation that will not help them and where they have no hope for the future. What do they have to live for? When you are in pain and you don't care if you die, what do other people matter?
Questor: For America, What is causing the rageful anger?
Materialism wasn't as much fun as they thought it would be.
5-29-22 10:54 • Who Should Be Educated
A spin-off and continuation of this conversation about the oppression that causes riots.
Lindsay: Do you think people who skipped college because it was too expensive are oppressed?
Is the guy who only has $487 in his bank account oppressed?
It's oppression and a crime against humanity that people cannot get the education they want or survive an emergency without going bankrupt.
MissMom: As someone who did that (as did my husband) not one bit. We have are a single income household and we do just fine.
I'm sure you are doing great and I'm so happy for you but it is a stain on our country that you were stopped from pursuing education you wanted.
MissMom: I disagree. Our society needs all types to function. If everyone is looking for jobs that require a college degree who is going to do the jobs that don't but are absolutely necessary to our society?
Do you think some who want education should be purposely excluded, just so they are forced to fill the lowest jobs?
That is not necessary. People who do not want education are free to not pursue it. They would be available for unskilled work. So would people who tried college but didn't graduate, people who are still working on their degree, teens who live at home, people who just need a little extra, etc. There will still be all kinds of workers, and if the work is really necessary, it should pay enough to incentivize someone to do it.
Lindsay: I would agree with you if the topic was healthcare. Everyone should have a human right to health care.
But secondary level education that totals in the tens of thousands of dollars that allows the student to seek a degree in anything they choose? Why should everyone have a right to a Bachelor’s degree in Medieval Poetry? ( if that’s the degree they chose)
Great question.
First of all, people should study what they want to study because choosing your education is a human right. Some people are practical and some are dreamers and it takes all kinds, so personal proclivities should be nurtured. Choices can be more or less incentivized based on need.
Secondly, a Bachelor's in MedPo contains multitudes. Students have to take math, science, civics, even phys ed along with their major, plus electives that interest them. A Bachelor's is a well-rounded degree that teaches people to research, write and reason in ways far beyond the ability of a high-schooler. That gives people more skill they can use lifelong.
Thirdly, the benefits of full education to society are priceless. For every MedPo major, there are dozens of geneticists and programmers and nurses and teachers and managers who do critical work. Plus, if everyone could pursue their talents, imagine the genius mathematicians and scientists and poets and artists who could be trained, the amazing cures and devices and artforms that could be invented! Even if only a few people take their education to soaring heights, all of humanity benefits and makes the investment worthwhile.
Lastly, a well-educated public would greatly benefit the body politic. Advanced education elevates mental skill, expands vocabulary, teaches critical thinking. People would be less deceived if they understood more. People would learn history, and be less likely to repeat it. All of society would be better off - and better prepared for the future.
Thanks for asking!
Lindsay: But, our society desperately needs those who come from trade schools, which can be covered by Pell Grants if the student has enough need and can make the person $100,000 in yearly wages depending on the job. Why should society as a whole be made to pay for a Medieval Poetry degree seeker which we don’t really need, when we already help to pay for those we do really need?
Trade schools are good too. We can incentivize this path if we want more people to choose it.
Lindsay: So if students with the greatest need already have trade school or an associate’s paid for, is that aspect of oppression no longer a problem in America, or do people need fully free bachelor’s in order to not be oppressed?
People need the freedom to make their own educational choices and pursue the level of attainment they wish and have the chops for in order to not be oppressed. Not just those who can afford it, or those with "the greatest need," but everyone. Being able to make those choices is freedom from oppression.
Lindsay: Does it not stop at a Bachelor's then? Are we oppressed if we don't get free Master's and PhD's ?
If advanced degrees are distributed by ability to pay, yes that is oppression. It's also insane, like pouring dinner down the drain.
BitPlayer: What do you mean by "oppressed?".
Oppression is "the state of being subject to unjust treatment or control." I would say it is unjust and controlling to limit people's educational attainment based on ability to pay. But I could also use words like exploitation and deprivation.
I would be open to suggestions for the terminology. Point is our current system is failing people.
Lindsay: Do you think there could become problems in society if everyone expects their lives to be handed to them for free without having to work for it?
First of all, you mean like our freeloading kindergartners, elementary and high schoolers? No, like public healthcare, public education is a social good, and the return on investment is a healthy and educated populace. It's not giving a man a fish, it's teaching him to fish.
Secondly, getting a bachelor's or a master's or a PhD is something you have to work for. You have to go to the classes and do the assignments and pass the tests. You have to read books, do research, write papers, conduct experiments, and for every hour in the classroom, instructors expect three in homework. Going to school full time is a more than full time job which requires busting your ass, and the more ass you bust the more you get out of it. This teaches people the meaning of work.
Lindsay: We Already have student loans where the cost of school is put off until graduation. Those do cover up to medical school or law school of needed. Is the requirement to pay those loans back oppresssion?
The college loan industry is predatory and exploitative and part of the oppression, yes.
Lindsay: How Long do you think is plausible for the working population of the US to support adults who need their housing and food paid for totaling 7 years in order to fund everyone attaining a doctorate?
How smart do we want our country to be? That money doesn't disappear into a hole - it is invested in creating experts who can diagnose problems and create solutions and collaborate with others using reliable methods, and who will contribute WAY more to the economy over the rest of their lives. They will earn more, their states will have less violent crime and their kids will do better in school. It's one of the best things we could spend money on.
Also, not everyone - just people who a) want a doctorate, b) are capable of a doctorate and c) can't afford a doctorate. That's not a big number. Right now fewer than 2% of Americans have a PhD. It would be well worth it just to double or triple that number and would cost a relative pittance.
Lindsay: What do you consider a pittance when it comes to what taxpayers will be asked to pay if the entire country has masters and doctorates paid for?
If we do triple the number of people who have doctorates we then get 13,500,000!
That would be great to have thirteen million doctors, but if it costs $100,000 to get each one of them that degree that's about one trillion three hundred fifty billion dollars added onto the taxes.
Over 80 years, maybe. Meanwhile, the investment pays for itself in better lives, better economies and less social ill.
Lindsay: You keep mentioning things that would be nice, but failing to show how Americans have been oppressed by not having every choice paid for.
It's not *every* life choice, it is access to critical infrastructure for those who need it. Education is a social service. Do we use it to sieve out the undeserving and keep them from reaching their dreams, or do we use it uplift as many as possible, by allowing all who want to and can to participate?
Keeping talented people down is oppression, and stupid. Why shouldn't the richest country in the world have things that are nice?
BitPlayer: College education pays for itself in the long run.
MissMom: It all depends on what field of work they're each in. Tradesmen out earn many disciplines that require a degree. I'd take a plumber over a master's level LCSW all day long. That plumber is earning about four times that of the social worker. And that's after 6 years of college education. Level of education does not equate to intelligence nor to earning power. All college teaches a person to do is memorize, repeat and conform. People make their own way, college or not.
The social worker contributes far more to society than just their income taxes. Good social workers prevent crime and help conquer addiction and get kids in school and help young people go to college and help ex-cons find jobs and help the elderly get meals and curb domestic violence and prevent suicides and about a million other things that benefit society as a whole.
Plumbers are very important to society too. But some people want to do social work. It is well worth it to make sure that every person who wants to take on this hard job, even if they can't afford tuition, can study and work in this field if they want to and have what it takes. The return on investment for society in better human lives pays back a thousandfold.
It would also be better if the plumbers were people who choose to be plumbers and not just frustrated would-be social workers and others who could not afford college. Every person should have the choice to pursue the career they want. That's freedom.
Lindsay: It wouldn't be eighty years, it would be in five to ten years.
Last year about 55,000 people in the U.S. graduated with a PhD. Tripling that number would mean about 165,000 new PhDs per year. That's thirteen and a half million new doctorates after 80 years. At $100,000 per degree that's $12,500 per year so a measly two billion dollars a year (if we paid for all of them), a tiny fraction of the $586 billion we already spend to send everyone to public school. Over 80 years that's only one hundred sixty billion dollars, a pittance.
More doctorates would be great, but a more important goal would be to double the numbers who make it to their Bachelors or Associates (from 30% to 60+%), at a cost of $10-20 billion per year for say 2/3 of high school grads. That would require increasing the existing public funding for education by only about 3%, and that's if we payed for ALL of them. These are not unmanageable costs.
Lindsay: How exactly does it pay for itself? Better lives isn’t really an example of how something pays for itself. How would our economy improve with that many more PhD holders?
In social terms, bad lives cost dollars. It costs tax payers three times as much to house someone in prison per year as it does to pay for an education. People with college degrees are far less likely to be involved in violent crime. They are far less likely to be unemployed or in poverty, so need far less in social aid. They are also less likely to smoke and more likely to exercise and see a doctor regularly, so need fewer healthcare interventions. Lastly, higher levels of education are correlated with higher levels of civic participation, including volunteer work, voting, and blood donation, which also decrease social cost. A well-educated society is cheaper to run.
Additionally, the positive economic benefits are enormous. College grads on average make more money, spend more money, pay more taxes. Businesses can have more experts and there are more scientists and engineers and designers to invent new products and increase productivity. More businesses can be started and entire new industries can be created making many new jobs. Just look at the way U.S. innovation exploded in the 1950s with the G.I. Bill, creating the middle class we now envy. More knowledge means more commerce and more innovation for solving social problems that cost us money. Education pays.
Lindsay: Economically speaking, social ills are a prosperous occurrence. We pay police, judges, lawyers, jail employees, social workers, everyone in the marijuana, alcohol and gambling world. Not to say that getting rid of social ills wouldn’t be better for the inner peace of a society, but it’s not anything that would increase profitability.
Are you suggesting that we should not prevent social ills because they are "prosperous"? Don't educate people so we can profit off of their misery? Ouch. That's oppression.
The purpose of society is not "profitability," it's to make a place for people to live their lives. Why not make it a good one? The "jail employees" can get a degree too and go to work for a software company. That would be better.
