Football is Killing People

It seems pretty clear that there is no way to play football without really awful damage to the humans playing the game. We always have been aware that most NFL players spend their retirement in pain, often crippled with orthopedic injuries.

It's now clear that they are also living with severe brain injuries. I can't remember most of the stats I've heard but one is that NFL players have four times the rates of ALS and altzheimers of the general population. There are many other bad outcomes and evidence that it does not require a concussion to cause damage.

Football looks to me like this: We are paying grown men to destroy themselves of the field of valor. For our entertainment, we hire young men to go on a field and ruin their bodies and minds. That sort of makes me sick but, I also have a lot of resentment about their whole culture and also am sort of glad to find out that these arrogant, exulted, dimwitted heroes are getting their just deserts.

But then I remember this: Football is the most popular participatory sport by a huge margin. It is played by children and they are getting injured, too. Not only are there the obvious injuries of the occasional child who blows out a knee in high school but, much more importantly, they are banging their tender young brains viciously.

Youth football programs are run by amateurs. They do not have money for good equipment. The players do not have experience to protect themselves.THey actually do get lots of concussions and they get even more sub-concussive smacks on the head whose danger is not well understaood but is thought to be a really bad thing, at least as the number of incidents mounts.

And they are doing it because, in most of the homes in America, people paying their cable provider big bucks (another reason to hate the NFL) so they can watch young men destroy themselves and call them heroes. Fathers excitedly talking to their sons about the admirable qualities of these players.

Imagine if we had a culture where families were watching porn together and telling their daughters that the porn star women were amazingly awesome heroes. If we exulted in their amazing physical performance, their courage in taking on a dozen men, they incredible determination to rise to the peak of their sport. Imagine if we had a culture where we were making heroes of women who were intentionally destroying themselves.

Nobody can doubt that I am basically disgusted by just about everything in modern American culture. From the way people drive to the environment to the fact that we put up with advertising on everything, I think we are idiots and have created a cesspool to live in so I admit I have a jaundiced view.

But I don't think I am being too extreme in thinking that we are doing a terrible thing by supporting an industry of gladiators with a national network that recruits children at a very young age to strive to prove their prowess and willingness to sacrifice so they can reach the ultimate goal of entertaining us by ruining their bodies and their minds.

Guns and Freedom

When I was young and stupid, I often said that the only reasonable objection to gun control was that someday we might need to shoot the cops. If I had been saying this when I was five years old in the fifties, I might have been right. To say it today is just plain wrong.

We are long, long past the time when guns are useful in defending yourself against the government. If the government wants to screw you, they will hop onto their computer terminal and type, Fuck You. If they want you in a prison camp, they will shut down your grocery store and put a trail of Froot Loops leading into the cell. Sure, somebody will hunt rabbits to avoid the camp but if you have kids, you'll do what you have to to feed them.

Oh! you say, you'd hunt if only we hadn't taken your gun. Well, how long do you think it would take Chicago to be stripped of all animals, down to the rats, if the grocery stores were gone? I live in semi-rural Minnesota and am 100% sure that the local ecology would support us for a couple of months at most.

But, if you don't believe that, then they can turn off the gas and freeze you out in the winter. The trees on my property would keep me warm for a year but, it would be a really tough year. Year two would be a double bitch.

Tens of thousands of people are harmed every year using guns justified, at least in this context, by the microscopic possibility that those guns might someday be useful in securing freedom. Trading year after year of tens of thousands of people's lives and even more are are harmed for something that is a bizarrely rare possibility (we are not living in the Sudan) and is even less likely to be remedied by guns (technological society has much, much more effective means of tyranny than violence) is the epitome of foolishness and cruelty.

A Fight I Support

Though I make no comparison between the two events beyond the fact that they are brutal, national traumas, in World War Two, America made a decision to undergo desperate hardships. We did it and emerged stronger and better. Obviously the stakes are completely different but we have allowed the Republican radicals to destroy our ability to work on problems and it is time to make a decision that we have the will and toughness to change the course of history.

Since Newt Gingrich invented the new regime in 1994, Republicans have stopped voting as individuals adhering instead to a political principal where they act as a bloc to impose their will on the country. Through a combination of intimidation, ideology and increasingly radical conservatism, they have paralyzed our country.

Now, we cannot we tap our national home equity loan to cover our bills (debt limit, in case I'm too obscure), but we can't be intelligent about the deficit, the environment, energy, national security, healthcare, infrastructure or anything else. These are crucial issues, some of which, the environment, at least, are truly apocalyptic.

I suspect that the President realizes that we are at a decisive moment. Listening to his tone about the debt limit ("I will *not* negotiate about the debt limit."), he seems to realize that the real "hopey, changey thing" he has been elected for is to use his historic second term popularity to put an end to this.

It will be awful if the worst happens but I will support the President cheerfully as he refuses to compromise in a way that validates or capitulates to Republican coercsion. It is my expectation that the ensuing hard times will cause the electorate to understand that politics is not a game and reject the childish arrogance of the Republican lunatics.

I believe that, if they force us into recession, default on our debts, and more, that each Republican vote against extending unemployment benefits, stimulus, etc, will be a nail in a Tea Bagger coffin. I expect that the next election will restore respect for the value of compromise and a realization that the government is the tool Americans use to work together to make our lives better.

What Barack should say about drones

"Do you think I turned into a different person who wants to hurt people or subvert their civil rights? Well, I didn't. You know how I used to completely agree with you about drones?  Well, not any more. The reason is that I got into office and found out what is really going on.

"The things liberals and progressive people are complaining about are things that I complain about every day in meetings. Here's the thing: if you knew what I know, you would be very grateful we are able to mount the national security regime I have implemented.

"It's been reported that I personally judge to whom we apply the rules of the battlefield. That's exactly true. You can rest assured that I am sickened every time I hear about a death, especially unintended victims on both sides. You can also trust that I sincerely try to figure out how to deal with things that can't be revealed. If a mistake is made, it's on my head alone and I take that seriously.

"In the end I hope you will realize that the difference between then and now is that I know a lot about what's really happening in the world. If you make me actually explain about that in a way that would allow the public to make an informed decision, it would be very bad. I would still act as I now do, even at risk of the destruction of my reputation, ife or career.

"I ask for your support, and right now I am speaking especially to people on the left that have known me for a long time. You know I am not like George Bush. You can trust that I have managed this national security regime according to principle. The place where you need to trust me is when I say, Please, don't make it harder for me to do an already brutal job. It is necessary."

Homo Sapiens Sapiens vs Homo Sapiens Veritas

America is trying to come to grips with this election. There seems to be a more bitter, harsh divide between the partisans of the candidates than ever before. Each side is convinced that the world is going to end if their man loses. Of course, it's really something that's been going on for a long time.

On, a guy named Andrew O'Hehir addressed the problem. He thinks that it goes back to some fundamental visions of the role of the country and the loss of power by white people in a world where everyone is increasingly not-white. Everything the guy says, is true but it misses the point. (Check it out here: ) He correctly emphasizes the intractability of these issues and the dangerous divide that results but I think he misses a deeper reason for our schism.

I think this divide is based on the fact that we actually have two kinds of human beings trying to coexist. By this I mean physical difference that enforces two different ways of processing reality. It is a neurological difference that I am increasingly convinced is as concrete and significant as schizophrenia.

On the one side are people who have the power of conviction. Whatever lump of meat inside their brains that causes the sensation of faith is highly developed. Along with that faith is a reverence for ideals, of right and wrong, of economics, of social policy, and so on. These ideals are introduced into their lives at an early age and act as seed crystals to organize their observations into a worldview.

On the other side are people in whom this lump of meat is diminutive. These are people who question everything and, based on their observations, make up stories to explain why things are as they are. From this imagination, ideals emerge. Conversations about them become observations to other people and those observations become the basis of other stories. Similarities in the stories are upheld as ideals but they are always provisional. New information is able to upset the worldview of these people at any time.

The former, faithful, people resist changes to their worldview because 'ideal' is ideal. Once an ideal is included in the canon, subsequent information exists only to confirm the value of the ideal. Satisfaction and beauty are associated with things and ideas that fit closer to the ideals. This sensation is not subject to analysis and is adequate to establish the correct interpretation of new observations. It is what Stephen Colbert refers to as his "gut."

Those other folks, let's stop being coy and call them liberals, are very successful in science and art, enterprises that depend on the ability to open-mindedly synthesize new realities in response to new observations. The other folks, hereafter known as conservatives, excel where consistency of purpose and the ability to prioritize are valuable.

Business people tend to be conservative because they are able to ignore the complications they face because they are able to apply their highly developed skill at faith to themselves. This allows them to fearlessly assert authority, take risks and ignore secondary consequences of their actions.

Both kinds of people are useful in various contexts. The challenge is that, as with the changing successfulness of women relative to men, reality is starting to make some preferences known. Just as society no longer really needs very many large, muscular, violent men (as it did in days of yore), it has less need for people who can go off into the wilderness armed with little more than their faith in their own rightness and the ability to ignore the fact that there are bears, or children at home that need care.

I don't know how we reconcile these two but I do think it's a mistake to conceive the difference based on beliefs or insecurity. Sure, the white guys are feeling a little put upon as they realize that the brown guys are more numerous and that sheer whiteness doesn't really buy much once you are competing on an equal footing but, that's momentary. A hundred years from now, everyone will be coffee colored and gay and no one will care.

What will not change is that, now that we can select our mates from the entire population (rather than just those within walking distance of our log cabin), people are choosing mates based on the similarity of their brain meat. Of course, they *think* it's because they share faith, or an interest in history, or curiosity or whatever, but increasingly, people choose mates who have an equal ability to have faith or to approach the world as a tabula rasa. That is, conservatives marry conservatives and engender purebred conservatives. Liberals do it, too.

This is potentially a Neanderthal vs Homo Sapiens sort of conflict. I don't have any idea how we solve it but I do know it's not really about abortion, the environment or racism. It's about what kinds of people we are and it's very frightening.

Republicans are Awful People

I am listening to the ex-CEO of Acorn. She is describing the quality control process Acorn used. They reviewed the registrations and handed them in with an audit list. It flagged ones they thought were suspicious, eg, Mickey Mouse.

They did it this way to avoid having themselves be involved in discarding registrations but also to make sure the secretaries of state were aware. The 'scandal' that forced them out of business was based on registrations that they flagged. It was utterly fictitious bullshit propagated by Republicans to hamper voter registration among the poor and black people served by Acorn.

That's enough reason to hate Republicans but, it gets worse. This year the Republican National Committee wanted to do voter registration. They turned to their usual guy, Nathan Sproul, but, since he had long been known for cheating on registration, THEY ASKED HIM TO CHANGE HIS CORPORATE NAME so that no one would know it was the same guy who cheated last time.

Then, he did it again. In several states his registrars turned away Democrats, registered people to fictitious addresses and threw away Democratic registrations. Unlike Acorn, this guy had no quality control process to flag bad registrations, nor did they take care to avoid throwing out registrations.

Instead, it was left to the secretaries of state and outside activists to figure it out. Did the Republican National Committee know about this? Since they asked him to change his corporate name to avoid other recognizing him, you have to figure they knew about his propensity for cheating.

Hypocrisy does not even begin to characterize the low moral character of Republicans. They cynically drove a virtuous organization out of business to interfere with the 25% of the new voter registrations they gathered. Even more cynically, they actively sought a company they knew would cheat. In the one case, they threw a national shit-fit. In the other, they quietly fired the guy - for this year.

Fox News? They had 122 stories about Acorn. They have had three stories about this year's republican cheating.

Binders Full of Women

"Binder full of women," was the main trope generated by the debate. Different from what might be expected, my initial reaction to the emphasis on this was that it was another pointless jab at a minor slip of the tongue. As much as it is (sometimes) amusing, it is frustrating to see people distracted from real reasons to vote against Mitt.

In this case, the focus is pertinent. Romney, of course, should have said, "Binders full of resumes" or "women's resumes" but he didn't. If he had used that phrasing, it would have shown that he was focused on the skills those women could have brought to his cabinet.

Instead, it revealed (or confirmed) his sense of female subordination. He didn't think, "Jeez, I really need the female perspective here. This is too one-sided." His choice objectifies the women in that binder. It suggests to me that he was looking at his cabinet and thinking, "This will not look good."

Part of the reason that these minor locutions are interesting is that they offer a peek to the unguarded views of a person, the so-called, freudian slip. In this case, Romney used language that treated women as nouns and omitted mention of the main idea, their skills. This, is indicative of his real truth and confirms that his anti-woman policies are sincerely held.

Pretending to Help

I call this, "Pretending to Help." I like that title because it's what Romney/Ryan is all about. They conned their way into the place and pretended to help – just like they want to do with the White House.

Phoney Phoney Phoney

Pass it around. This deserves to be viral.

"'Had they asked for permission, it wouldn’t have been granted. … But I certainly wouldn’t have let him wash clean pans, and then take a picture,' Antal said."

Closing Loopholes

This is information that I hope will be helpful for people who are sincerely still trying to figure out if a vote for Barack is a vote to miss out on a big payoff from Romney's economic plan. You know the details of loopholes that Barack and Joe are beating Romney about? Remember that Romney and Ryan keep saying that "Six studies" say, "Yes, it works!"

Well, this guy wrote an explanatory essay about the details of the six "studies". Each of them is a combination of potential answers to "How are you going to pay for five trillion in tax cuts for rich people?"

The article is written by Josh Barro, an economics writer at Bloomberg. It summarizes and compares the six "studies" that Romney uses to prove his tax plan. The article gives a lot of information about the trade-offs in the Romney/Ryan tax plan. In the end, he is very clear that nothing like what Romney suggests is going to happen without substantial contribution from regular people.

Says Josh Barro,

"They say they have six independent studies -- six! -- that "have confirmed the soundness of the Governor’s tax plan," and so I should stop whining.  Let's take a tour of those studies and see how they measure up."

"The Romney campaign sent over a list of the studies, but they are perhaps more accurately described as "analyses," since four of them are blog posts or op-eds. I'm not hating -- I blog for a living -- but I don't generally describe my posts as "studies."
He also says,

"But claims about growth induced by tax policy changes are often overstated -- remember, the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts were also sold on the promise of higher economic growth offsetting much of the revenue loss. It didn't happen." (emphasis mine)

It didn't happen and it won't happen. Romney's main plan cannot work without raising taxes on people that can't afford it.

Read the article HERE

Political Argument

Though I still beg for any conservatives around here to actually engage the conversation, it is fun to run into a tenacious opponent, even if the opposition is expressed entirely in bullet points cribbed from some combination of Fox News and some blog called "Sultan Knish" (which immediately discredits itself by referring to Obama's socialism). 

Anyway, I have re-read this thing several times. I dream of finding a conservative that will read my responses and actually respond to them directly. In my opening counterpoint, I reply with four or five actual claims. Things that look at facts and make conclusions. I would love it if this person had said, "Fracking isn't a problem for the water because..." and made an argument. Instead, it's 'taxes are too high' and it's as if I never wrote a word.

Of course, it also puts me a little beyond sanity to hear another person who is economically free telling the rest of us to just buck up and take advantage of all that freedom out there – because getting a new job is as easy as snapping your fingers, and figuring out what bank isn't screwing you is a matter of just asking the knowledge fairy.

And don't get me started about "freedom of religion". I was kind of happy with the Buddhist comparison though. 

Let me know what I should have done better.



I don't usually comment on politics, but when it is thrown out there....Romney has a history of turning around bungled businesses, olympics and states....and what is Obama's plan and why hasn't he started it? Via Sultan Knish blog: The real issue at stake here is whether the working class will end up being squeezed out by the government class. It's an issue that affects the rich, poor and middle class alike, and the Republicans are coming dangerously close to articulating it in between applause breaks. The Democrats would like to avoid this line of conservation as much as possible, because once the debate is fully underway, Americans will start assessing their individual economic stakes in the fight, instead of assuming that their economic interest is joined at the hip to their racial identity, gender or choice of bed partners.


But that's not true. You haven't been impeded at all by the government. Neither have I or anyone I know. If you are having trouble in your life right now, it's because a corporation is screwing you. Whether it's fracking your water supply, charging you heinous fees at the bank, foreclosing your mortgage without documentation, or paying too much at the gas station – or ten million other things.

Your interaction with the government? I haven't had one. Not one. Freedoms lost? None (except for being able to get a job without a drug test, credit check or having them examine my Facebook for anti-corporate ranting – more corporate fun).

Romney is a competent guy. However, he's also a pleaser. He went from being emphatically pro-choice and progressive, to claiming to be a "severe conservative", to supporting a personhood platform in his party. 

How did this happen? The Mormons didn't change their policy. His parents didn't change their policy. No, he changed his mind to suit those who could offer him advantage, who could help him get power.

Yes, he has had good accomplishments. But he has no moral core. He will do or say *anything* and is doing so right now. When he gets into office, he will be reliant on the party base for his power. They have already voted for horrible anti-women rape redefinitions, gay-hating laws, and many other awful things. 

Can you imagine that the 'Pleaser' will be able to resist them when he is in office.

And for good measure, everyone that has tried to do the arithmetic on his economic plan has found that it will balloon the deficit.

How about giving almost 50% of our income to the government? That is a bit of an intrusion. And yes, we pay that much on our income. No, corporations are not "screwing me", but providing millions of jobs and investment opportunities to Americans. With capitalism you have the freedom to change banks to those that offer the most competitive pricing, with government you have no freedom of choice but to succumb to what they offer. You don't have to work for a company that insists on drug tests, credit checks and facebook snooping. That is called freedom! I think Romney's moral core is rock solid. And as far as those horrible anti-woman policies....they all have to do with providing federal funding for those issues. I can't imagine forcing a person who religously opposes abortion to fund them! Now, really, talking about ballooning deficits, it would be quit difficult to top what is happening now!


Never mind, Amy. I guess you're rich. You're on their side. The rest of us don't have all those choices. Most of us have to work for whomever will give us a job and whatever business is within driving distance of our house. 

If you think insurance regulation should be subject to everyone's religious preferences, you have no clue about the meaning of either religious freedom or running a society. 

Of course, like most conservatives, your idea of religious freedom is self-serving. You offer me no opportunity to avoid paying for death penalties or wars that violate my religion.

I just beg you, please don't vote. You're not qualified.

Class envy. Are we tired of it yet? And what side am I on exactly? Success is something to be proud of and what sort of choices do I have that you don't have? Who do you think we work for? Imagine this, we work for someone who has given us a job and within driving distance of our house! Religious freedom is not having government ordering the catholic church to provide a service they find not compatible with their belief. I do understand religious freedom and no, my idea of religious freedom is not self serving because I am not religious! You do not need to fight in wars if it against your religion and you can exercise your freedom to vote to have your voice heard if you do not like an unjust war or the death penalty. You can move to states that do not have the death penalty. There are choices here. Are they easy? No, but they are there for someone who truly wants to exercise them. I do apologize for putting you over the edge, but I am also tired of feeling ashamed for success through a lot of hard work (and we did build our success without Obama's help and we did pay for the roads and society through our very high taxes) I am sick of victimhood, class envy and a sluggish non-recovering economy. For your own benefit, try voting for Mitt to open business opportunities ......then you can get out from under your oppressive employer.


Mitt wants to blow the deficit out of the water. No one is telling the Catholic Church they have to do anything. They are telling insurance companies have to include contraception in their policies because the science (Is that part of your universe) says that it's essential to a healthy life.

I am *required* to pay for wars. Paying for abortions is no different. In fact, wars kill actual people, not clumps of cells. There's no reason you shouldn't have to join me in paying for things we don't like. That's what society is about - compromise.

Nobody is criticizing your success. I am criticizing your stinginess. If you are paying over fifty percent (and I'm guessing that you are including property tax on a *huge* house to get that far), then you are spending a *lot* more money on yourself that I am and ridiculous amounts more than the average person.

This country has a huge deficit that you think is important. You probably have a couple of nice vacations each year yet you want to raise the taxes on people like me who haven't been on an actual vacation in years. You want Mitt to implement his tax plan that will either explode the deficit or pull $80 billion bucks out of the budget that might have gone for infrastructure, schools or other meaningful support.

You want this so you can afford expensive cars, fancy vacations, and a lush life. While the deficit burns.

Romney is a plutocrat and so are you.

Catholic religion doesn't believe in birth control. Forcing Catholic institutions to provide health insurance that covers birth control sounds like religious repression to me. One of the few constitutional federal powers is to protect our country. Now you may have a difference of opinion as to just what wars we fight to keep our country safe, so I would suggest voting for persons who do not want our country to be the world's cop. And that might just include preventing genocides and getting rid of rogue dictators! And when does a human being become "human". I am glad you know that answer, for the rest of us it is an emotional struggle. How do you know I am stingy? No, I don't live in a huge house. How do you know how much money I spend? Why haven't you been on a vacation in years? That employer of yours is horrendous! Ever think of changing jobs or striking out on your own? Mitts plan wants to grow the economy, which means more tax revenue. You see, simple economics: economic growth is not a zero sum game, the pie can grow, my success did not prevent you from success, we can all become better off. The pizza pie see? I don't know who you are, but to be honest, you seem rather hateful and jealous. Glad you are not my friend. And on that note, I will no longer respond to you. Have a good day!


Good, that gives me the last word.

Buddhists don't believe in eating meat. Does that mean the government should stop including meat in government cafeterias? Moslems and Mormons believe alcohol is evil. Should they be forced to grant tax breaks to synagogues that serve wine on Friday nights?

Every religion has moral prejudices. You seem to want them to be enforced over all of us. Dumb.

I'll tell you when a human being becomes human. When its mother says it does. The idea that you think that *you* should decide what kind of surgery a woman has, what sort of probes, tools or other devices she chooses to put into her vagina represents the grim slavery that people who claim to pay 50% in tax usually want to impose on others. It's none of your business when a life becomes a life so stop struggling. Nobody is asking you to have an abortion.

My employer is horrendous and I am one of the lucky ones. There are a lot of uneducated people out there who are barely able to get a job. Those people don't get sick days. They get fired if their child gets sick. They are screwed by corporations left and right while people like you say, "Just get another job." It would be funny to remark at how completely out of touch you are in your privilege if there weren't real people being screwed brutally every day by arrogance.

Mitt's economic plan is both incomplete and a disaster. The Tax Policy Foundation, a non-partisan think-tank often cited by Republicans, says that, even with incredibly favorable assumptions, it will take at least $86 billion from middle class and poor people. This will cause a huge recession. You don't know what you are talking about when you say it will increase revenue.

I'm not hateful or jealous. I revel in the success of decent people, people who understand that, if they are able to feed their family and pay their rent after paying 50% in taxes, that they are lucky people enjoying the best this country has to offer. People who are glad to contribute to our society.

I love people who realize that being rich gives them an institutional advantage that requires them to treat others generously, who realize that paying taxes is a way of supporting our society and helping people.

What I hate is glib people who quote right-wing cliches, who casually talk about the enslavement of women, and accept silly premises because the tax policy would work in their favor. I hate greed and narrow-mindedness. I hate people who don't know facts but still assert opinions.

That's why you see anger in my tone.

And that last word is what really counts.....I concede you are totally right. I am a right winger who clings to my religion and did I mention guns? I hate immigrants, women's reproductive freedom, I am racist, I am selfish, I live in a mansion, spend tons of money, go on extravagant vacations, laugh at the poor, spit at the downtrodden, insist I should pay no taxes, so stupid that I can't fathom your enlightened way, I am lucky to have this income just fall in my lap, I am glib (that is true I admit when dealing with ideologues and name callers-bad habit of mine), I don't understand the all powerful and benevolent big government, I want to enslave women (even though being a "Julia" seems kind of like enslavement to me). Oh, yes, I know no facts, but insert my opinion. To tell you the truth I am kind of beginning to feel sorry for you. There are issues to be discussed, no need to sling mud. I hope you have good friends to sit down with a nice glass of wine and discuss life. I do love life! I am forever grateful to this beautiful country and the wonderful opportunities it has given me and my family. I am thankful for great parents and family who taught hard work, dedication, kindness and forgiveness. Call me an idiot-I don't care!