I had a personal data breach ping on my dark web monitoring... Some of my personal data including an old email and password, address, and phone number( the usual data they get when they breach a badly programmed totally insecure web site or storefront etc... that was storing passwords in an insecure format ) was exposed in the middle of March 2020.
That's not exactly an uncommon or unexpected thing. These things get exposed from old breaches, and then are collected and aggregated to build password cracking dictionaries and do datamining etc... and eventually they often get released into the wild.
What's amusing though, is that it's a 20 year old email, password, address and phone number, from when I lived in Fremont, CA.
I left Fremont and moved to Ireland in 2001.
Remember... Everything is forever on the internet.
Showing posts with label Stupidity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Stupidity. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 02, 2020
Don't Fail Closed Unless It's for Security
Apparently Plex... the leading home media server platform in the English speaking world... is down, (or at least partially and intermittently down) worldwide at the moment.
For about 60-90 minutes so far. They're working on it, and uou can check the status here: https://status.plex.tv/
To be clear... this isn't just the Plex web service and remote UI, local media servers are failing to display libraries and videos... Not every one, not all the time... but a lot of them, and by default (you have to manually access the direct URL for the media library you want to access, and somtimes that still fails).
It seems that they've got an API hook that calls home when you access your media server, and it's not supposed to be required for operations when there is internet access... but in practice, it IS required, because It's failing closed. That API hook is not completely down, but it's responding so slowly, that it is effectively down, as requests will time out most of the time from most servers etc...
Theoretically, if there's no internet access from your media server, and you access it locally via direct URI (local ip address, port, and path), your media server SHOULD just load the default page view. Though in my experience, this also fails sometimes on some clients.
Now... There are lots of times when you want things to fail closed. When something is not actually optional, then yes, if that thing isn't available, you should fail closed, and provide a helpful error message as to why. If something is important for security reasons and it's not available, you should definitely fail closed... Often in those circumstances you should fail closed silently, without error output, or with just generic and non-helpful output, so that the failure in security is non-obvious.
... But you should never fail closed on something just because it's an option you want to have, but isn't necessary for functionality and security.
Your personal gratification, and "nice to have"... or your businesses desire to have some piece of data.. are MUCH less important than making sure your users have the best possible functionality and user experience, as much of the time as possible.
Sadly, it's a very common flaw in both implementation, and basic thought process.
For about 60-90 minutes so far. They're working on it, and uou can check the status here: https://status.plex.tv/
To be clear... this isn't just the Plex web service and remote UI, local media servers are failing to display libraries and videos... Not every one, not all the time... but a lot of them, and by default (you have to manually access the direct URL for the media library you want to access, and somtimes that still fails).
It seems that they've got an API hook that calls home when you access your media server, and it's not supposed to be required for operations when there is internet access... but in practice, it IS required, because It's failing closed. That API hook is not completely down, but it's responding so slowly, that it is effectively down, as requests will time out most of the time from most servers etc...
Theoretically, if there's no internet access from your media server, and you access it locally via direct URI (local ip address, port, and path), your media server SHOULD just load the default page view. Though in my experience, this also fails sometimes on some clients.
UPDATE 2145utc : unless you access some specific URLs, some of their entire web domains or subdomains are timing out or giving server errors.
I think they may have an infrastructure issue, as well as an API issue.
For example, as of right now, the main app URL and app URI are both giving a server error. https://plex.tv/app and https://plex.tv are both giving server errors.
But, if you access it by https://www.plex.tv the main page loads.... Until you try to sign in, at which point it starts timing out again. That's generally a session management, authentication management, load balancing, or content distribution and delivery network issue.
Then, if you attempt to sign in, sometimes it timesout without presenting the login dialog, sometimes the dialog loads, however every time the dialog loaded, my signin timed out sliently, either freezing, or just going back to the login prompt... But the really fun part, is that I got a "new login" notification email from Plex, even though the site wasn't actually granting me access.
Doing some basic systematic investigation... it's definitely a session and authentication management issue somewhere... or likely a combination of issues stacking to cause the failure. Especially as it's a timeout issue and it's intermittent, and given the URL/URI issue, and the login and presentation issue It's most likely an interaction between their load balancing/content distribution, and their auth and session management API or backend service.This is a good lesson on why you don't implement optional non-security things, with "fail closed" dependencies. The default should be, if that API hook can't hit its call home, then the default page view appears. Not "plex is unreachable".
Now... There are lots of times when you want things to fail closed. When something is not actually optional, then yes, if that thing isn't available, you should fail closed, and provide a helpful error message as to why. If something is important for security reasons and it's not available, you should definitely fail closed... Often in those circumstances you should fail closed silently, without error output, or with just generic and non-helpful output, so that the failure in security is non-obvious.
... But you should never fail closed on something just because it's an option you want to have, but isn't necessary for functionality and security.
Your personal gratification, and "nice to have"... or your businesses desire to have some piece of data.. are MUCH less important than making sure your users have the best possible functionality and user experience, as much of the time as possible.
Sadly, it's a very common flaw in both implementation, and basic thought process.
Monday, June 01, 2020
Think about what you're actually saying for a minute...
"You care more about buildings than black peoples lives"
You're arguing that destroying the lives of business and property owners (most insurance doesn't cover riots by the way), and probably their employees who will lose their jobs...
... People who were not involved, and did no harm to any of the people in question, or anyone else for that matter...
...is OK because some people who looked like some other people harmed some other people.
You're saying that it is justified to harm uninvolved innocents... and in fact thus far there have been multiple attempted murders. Maybe even murders by the time you read this... because people are ANGRY, about other people harming yet other people... and none of the people doing the harm, or being harmed in these riots, are any of the people they are supposed to be angry at, who actually did the things they're supposed to be angry about.
... And that's OK with you?
Are you deluded, stupid, or evil?
You're arguing that destroying the lives of business and property owners (most insurance doesn't cover riots by the way), and probably their employees who will lose their jobs...
... People who were not involved, and did no harm to any of the people in question, or anyone else for that matter...
...is OK because some people who looked like some other people harmed some other people.
You're saying that it is justified to harm uninvolved innocents... and in fact thus far there have been multiple attempted murders. Maybe even murders by the time you read this... because people are ANGRY, about other people harming yet other people... and none of the people doing the harm, or being harmed in these riots, are any of the people they are supposed to be angry at, who actually did the things they're supposed to be angry about.
... And that's OK with you?
Are you deluded, stupid, or evil?
Civil War... Ehhhh... Not so much...
From 1968 to 1974, we were actually on the brink of a civil war.
There were literally thousands of bombings, shootings, assaults, and robberies, at least theoretically in furtherance of trying to start a civil war, and overthrow the government (in actuality a lot of the people had no clue what they were really doing or why... and a large minority of them were just in it for the sex and drugs).
Nixon resigning, ending the draft, and getting out of Viet Nam were the biggest factors in defusing that.
Also most of the people who were deliberately pushing the armed insurrections getting strung out on cocaine and heroin, self absorbed into the me generation sex and drugs and partying culture, arrested and jailed, or killed; was a big part of defusing it.
And finally, the soviets no longer paying for agitators to foment armed revolution, and the FBI stopping their operations paying and instigating agitators to do so; were the last big part of defusing it.
...It sounds insane... Like a conspiracy theory... but it's all true. You can easily confirm it for yourself...
These last few weeks... prelude to a civil war... Ehh... Not so much.
There were literally thousands of bombings, shootings, assaults, and robberies, at least theoretically in furtherance of trying to start a civil war, and overthrow the government (in actuality a lot of the people had no clue what they were really doing or why... and a large minority of them were just in it for the sex and drugs).
Nixon resigning, ending the draft, and getting out of Viet Nam were the biggest factors in defusing that.
Also most of the people who were deliberately pushing the armed insurrections getting strung out on cocaine and heroin, self absorbed into the me generation sex and drugs and partying culture, arrested and jailed, or killed; was a big part of defusing it.
And finally, the soviets no longer paying for agitators to foment armed revolution, and the FBI stopping their operations paying and instigating agitators to do so; were the last big part of defusing it.
...It sounds insane... Like a conspiracy theory... but it's all true. You can easily confirm it for yourself...
These last few weeks... prelude to a civil war... Ehh... Not so much.
Thursday, August 20, 2015
Critical Process Capture
I'm going to illustrate for you how process capture, and broken processes, have real world consequences, for the success of your organization, as well as for the people in it.
At the very end of April, my father had a serious heart attack. In the wake of that, my wife and I decided to move back to the Boston area, to be closer to him.
I start looking for jobs up here, I go through interviews, I get some great opportunities, I spend most of June and early July hustling a new gig... I even get a choice of potential offers...
One of them looks like a really great gig, and it's only a few minutes from my dad, and they want me to start right away, and GREAT... I take the offer, I sign the contract, I let the other employers know I'm unavailable, and I start getting ready to come up here.
That was July 11th...
Now, it's mid... I guess late... August... August 20th to be exact. Six weeks after I signed the contract... and now tied for the longest time I've gone between signed contract, and start date.
When I was recruited, this was a critically urgent... in fact months overdue... requirement. And they had a very quick process for interviewing and hiring me... It was two weeks from first phone call, to signed contract, with a projected start date another two weeks out... "Maybe three at the most".
At this point, "the process" got started... and the failure started along with it.
A two week out start date, became the first week of August... Then, after my tickets have been booked for two weeks, and I'm a day from travelling, I get a phone call... It's not gonna be the 3rd, it'll be a meeting on the 5th to get my badges and paperwork done, and then I'll start either the 6th or the 10th.
Ok, that's annoying, but I can deal with it... a few days of hanging out with my family, seeing my friends... It's a big pain losing a week of billing, but we'll live.
Then I go to the meeting on the 5th expecting to be ready to go... get my badge, fill in my final paperwork... This is what my recruiter and contract manager said the meeting was supposed to be about...
Except "the process" had other plans.
I talk to the hiring manager in the meeting that Wednesday, and I find out that due to "delays in the approvals process", even though I had signed the contract on July 11th, the actual PO for the first phase of the engagement, had only been signed that Monday... and, because it is a completely serialized process, with no parallel work streams allowed, the SOW hadn't even been signed or approved yet.
At that point, they hadn't even started the paperwork to get me cleared to start, never mind a start date, a workspace, a PC, ID'S etc... and in fact, because of "the process", they weren't even allowed to START the sub process for doing do.
But "they're working on it"... "it should be the next week, assuming all goes well, or at worst, the 17th", because "someone will be working "the process" the whole time".
Only the week of the 10th the hiring manager goes on vacation... and I find out that nothing even got started the week before, except my background check...
... Which I told them at the first meeting would pop an issue if they did a credit check, because of the medical issues and losing the house etc... and which they said wouldn't be a problem, there was an exception process and they'd get started right away...
Remember, I signed the contract July 11th, and was told by the contracting agency, that the background check had cleared, THREE WEEKS BEFORE, or I never would have got on a plane in the first place...
And, of course, there's an issue with my background check, because they are one of the few companies that still does a credit check for pre-employment screening ...even though I'm just a subcontractor... and they have arbitrary rules about what's "clearable", so there's a problem...
...but there's an "exception process", and I need to wait for the paperwork from the background check company in order to do my part of the process... Which by the way they send to Florida instead of here, and which doesn't get to Florida, until this past SATURDAY, more than a week after the background check was initiated.
...Meanwhile my hiring manager needs to start the exception process... which can take 10 to 15 business days... which he was supposed to do after the meeting on THE FIFTH...
... Only he's on vacation, and he didnt start the "exception process" because they can't start the exception until the background check starts being processed and comes up with a problem... and that didnt actually happen until he was already on vacation... and the person who is supposed to be "working the process" isn't "working the process", because only the hiring manager is allowed to start the "except process"...
...but the manager "knows about it, and will start on it as soon as he gets back".
... yeah...
The hiring manager finally got back from vacation on Tuesday, and apparently NOBODY understands the damn process, because four different people in four different groups have a different idea of what needs to be done by who...
...and there can't be any separate work streams, it's all serial...
...and unless they can "expedite the exception process", it may be ANOTHER 10 TO 15 BUSINESS DAYS before the EXCEPTION can be processed... and that has to be completed before the REST of the on boarding process can even START...
... which may take 10 to 15 days beyond that...
... Unless they can "expedite the on boarding process"...
That's been my last few days... and in fact, my last few weeks.
Yesterday, I got a call from the contact administrator, the hiring manager says it's absolutely critical to get me on boarded as soon as possible, and he's working the exception process but needs me to go back to the group that told me that I need to have the hiring manager work the "exception process".
They're now six months overdue on the requirements I'm supposed to be filling, and every day I'm not working they fall further and further behind...
... but "the process" must be obeyed, and there is no way around it except "the exception process", which is really just another part of "the process".
Later today, I talk to that group again... I tried working with them again yesterday, but the guy who was supposed to be working with me, was out the last few days, and their backfill person had no clue what to do... except to "start the process over again" from scratch, which would take... you guessed it... another 10 to 15 business days.
This friends, is process capture... I'm almost tempted to say at its worst... but unfortunately, I've seen worse...
Thursday, February 26, 2015
Stop Calling Government Regulation Net Neutrality
Stop using "net neutrality" to refer to government regulation of the internet.
That's not what net neutrality is, and it's certainly not what the government regulations promulgated by the FCC today are, in this case "Common Carrier Rules".
People who don't know any better are celebrating todays faux "net neutrality" FCC action as a victory for freedom and free speech on the internet, when in fact, it's exactly the opposite.
I've written extensively about net neutrality and this is very much NOT it.
All the FCC has done today, is impose common carrier regulation on every ISP (oh and by the way, lots of other organizations as well who "provide internet access". No-one has any idea how the regulations are going to be finalized, what the language will mean, who will be impacted and how... except everyone knows it's going to cost a lot), instead of just the telephone companies it was already imposed on. Verizon for example, who was already one of the worst violators of net neutrality, even with common carrier regulation already in place for them.
Thus it makes competition and breaking of existing monopolies even harder, while not actually doing a damn thing to secure or improve neutrality... oh and it gives the FCC more control over the internet.
Absolutely none of those are good things.
Common carrier regulation is a big part of what made the current near monopolies on Internet access happy in the first place, because small independent companies couldn't compete with the giant Telcom conglomerates under those regulations. So, they all got swallowed up.
I've been working with telecommunications companies, and common carrier regulations, for more than 20 years. I'm an expert in governance and regulatory compliance, and I can tell you right now, NOBODY understands these regulations, because they are not capable of being understood.
These regulations and the rulings and case law associated with them go back to 1930s... and in some particulars all the way back to the 1870s. And of course, rather than replace them with something clear when they wanted to make new regulations, congress and the FCC just amended and added on and countermanded and...
I've flowcharted them before to try to see what applied how and where and when... the only thing I could come up with was "nobody knows for sure, it all depends what a regulator or judge says at the time".
This wasn't a blow for freedom and free speech... This was a giveaway to big corporate donors in the telecommunications industry.
The big telcos have been trying to get their primary competition, non-telco ISPs, burdened with the same regulatory load they labor under, for DECADES. Now, in one stroke, the FCC at the personal direction of the president, has given it to them.
Oh and guess what else common carrier regulation includes... SURVEILLANCE. All common carriers are required to provide the government and law enforcement "reasonable access" for surveillance, as well as to give up records, usage details, and other subscriber and user data, WITHOUT A WARRANT.
What does "reasonable access" mean? Whatever the government says it means... and if you think I'm exaggerating, I'm not. I've dealt with the FBI on this issue, and that's a direct quote.
Yes, this is not only a massive corporate crony handout, it's also a huge gimme to the FBI and the NSA, who have wanted all ISPs stuck under common carrier for years as well.
Stop calling government regulation of the internet "net neutrality". Letting the liars control the language helps them lie to you.
Net neutrality is not government regulation, and these regulations are certainly not net neutrality, nor anything like it. Don't be taken in by fraud, cronyism, and statism, masquerading as freedom.
That's not what net neutrality is, and it's certainly not what the government regulations promulgated by the FCC today are, in this case "Common Carrier Rules".
People who don't know any better are celebrating todays faux "net neutrality" FCC action as a victory for freedom and free speech on the internet, when in fact, it's exactly the opposite.
I've written extensively about net neutrality and this is very much NOT it.
All the FCC has done today, is impose common carrier regulation on every ISP (oh and by the way, lots of other organizations as well who "provide internet access". No-one has any idea how the regulations are going to be finalized, what the language will mean, who will be impacted and how... except everyone knows it's going to cost a lot), instead of just the telephone companies it was already imposed on. Verizon for example, who was already one of the worst violators of net neutrality, even with common carrier regulation already in place for them.
Thus it makes competition and breaking of existing monopolies even harder, while not actually doing a damn thing to secure or improve neutrality... oh and it gives the FCC more control over the internet.
Absolutely none of those are good things.
Common carrier regulation is a big part of what made the current near monopolies on Internet access happy in the first place, because small independent companies couldn't compete with the giant Telcom conglomerates under those regulations. So, they all got swallowed up.
I've been working with telecommunications companies, and common carrier regulations, for more than 20 years. I'm an expert in governance and regulatory compliance, and I can tell you right now, NOBODY understands these regulations, because they are not capable of being understood.
These regulations and the rulings and case law associated with them go back to 1930s... and in some particulars all the way back to the 1870s. And of course, rather than replace them with something clear when they wanted to make new regulations, congress and the FCC just amended and added on and countermanded and...
I've flowcharted them before to try to see what applied how and where and when... the only thing I could come up with was "nobody knows for sure, it all depends what a regulator or judge says at the time".
This wasn't a blow for freedom and free speech... This was a giveaway to big corporate donors in the telecommunications industry.
The big telcos have been trying to get their primary competition, non-telco ISPs, burdened with the same regulatory load they labor under, for DECADES. Now, in one stroke, the FCC at the personal direction of the president, has given it to them.
Oh and guess what else common carrier regulation includes... SURVEILLANCE. All common carriers are required to provide the government and law enforcement "reasonable access" for surveillance, as well as to give up records, usage details, and other subscriber and user data, WITHOUT A WARRANT.
What does "reasonable access" mean? Whatever the government says it means... and if you think I'm exaggerating, I'm not. I've dealt with the FBI on this issue, and that's a direct quote.
Yes, this is not only a massive corporate crony handout, it's also a huge gimme to the FBI and the NSA, who have wanted all ISPs stuck under common carrier for years as well.
Stop calling government regulation of the internet "net neutrality". Letting the liars control the language helps them lie to you.
Net neutrality is not government regulation, and these regulations are certainly not net neutrality, nor anything like it. Don't be taken in by fraud, cronyism, and statism, masquerading as freedom.
Saturday, January 03, 2015
The Minimum Wage Lie
When “progressives” say “the minimum wage hasn’t kept up with inflation”, they're lying.
Not shading, the truth, exaggerating, or interpreting things differently… they are flat out lying.
… And what’s more, the ones who made up the lie in the first place, know they're lying (the rest mostly just parrot what they’ve been told).
What exactly would “keeping up with inflation” mean?
The minimum wage has been $7.25 an hour since 2009.
In 1938, when the federal minimum wage was established, it was $0.25 an hour. In constant dollars (adjusted for inflation) that’s $4.19 as of 2014.
So, not only has the minimum wage kept up with inflation, it’s nearly doubled it.
Ok.. well what about more recently?
Minimum wage 15 years ago in 2000: $5.15, or $7.06 in constant dollars
Minimum wage 20 years ago in 1995: $4.25, or $6.59 in constant dollars.
Minimum wage 25 years ago in 1990: $3.80, or $6.87 in constant dollars.
Minimum wage 30 years ago in 1985: $3.30, or $7.25 in constant dollars.
Funny… that’s exactly what it is today… How shocking.
So, for 30 years, the minimum wage has not only kept up with inflation, for most of that time it’s been ahead of it.
So, how are they lying?
The way “progressives” claim minimum wage hasn’t been “keeping up with inflation”, is by comparing today, with the highest level it has ever been; almost 50 years ago, in 1968, when the minimum wage went to $1.60 an hour ($10.86 in constant dollars).
This was a statistical anomaly.
There’s a long and loathsome tradition of lying with statistical anomalies.
At $1.60 an hour, the minimum wage in 1968 was a huge 20% spike from what it had been just 3 years before in ’65, more than 40% above what it had been in 1960, and nearly double what it had been 12 years before in 1956 when politicians started throwing minimum wage increases faster and bigger (again, all in constant dollar terms. The minimum wage at the beginning of 1956 was about $6.30 in constant dollars)
In constant dollar terms, the minimum wage today, is about the same as it was in 1962 (and as I showed above, 1985).
It just so happens that from 1948 to 1968 we had the single largest wealth expansion over 20 years, seen in the history of the nation (about 5-8% annual growth)… Which then crashed hard starting at the end of ’68.
From 1968 to 1984, the U.S. had 16 years of the worst inflation we ever saw, and the purchasing power of ALL wages fell significantly, as wages failed to come even close to keeping up with inflation (we saw 13.5% inflation in 1980 alone, which is about what we see every 4 years today).
It took until 1988 for real wages to climb back to their 1968 constant dollar level, because we were in a 20 year long inflationary recession, complicated by two oil shocks and a stock market crash (actually a couple, but ’87 was the biggest one since ’29).
However, the minimum wage was boosted significantly in that time period, far more than other wages rose, and stayed above the 1962 water mark until the end of that high inflationary period in 1984, declining slightly until 1992, then spiking and declining again until 1997 etc… etc…
By the by… household income in 1968? appx. $7,700, which is about the same as today in constant dollar terms… About $51,0000 (about 8% more than it was in 1967, at $47k). Which is almost exactly what it was in 1988 as well. Household income peaked in 1999 and 2007 at around $55,000, and troughed in 1975 at around $45,000
Of course, income was on a massive upswing from 1948 to 1968 (and in fact had been on a massive upswing overall since 1896 with the exception of 1929 through 1936). In 1941 household income was about $1500 ($24,000 constant), in 1948 $3,800 ($37,000 constant).
Like I said, it was the single greatest expansion in real income and wealth over a 20 year period, in American history.
1968 was a ridiculous historical anomaly… Not a baseline expectation.
So, From 1964 to 1984, the minimum wage was jacked artificially high (proportionally far above median wage levels), and “progressives” chose to cherry pick the absolute peak in 1968 from that part of the dataset, in order to sell the lie.
A living wage?
As to the minimum wage not being a living wage… No, of course its not. It never was, its not supposed to be, and it never should be.
The minimum wage is intended to be for part time, seasonal workers, entry level workers, and working students.
Only about 4% of all workers earn the minimum wage, and less than 2% of full time workers earn the minimum wage.
Minimum wage is what you pay people whose labor isn’t worth more than that. Otherwise everyone would make minimum wage. But since 98% of full time workers can get more than minimum wage, they do so.
What should the minimum wage be?
Zero.
Wait, won’t everyone become poor suddenly?
No, of course not. Literally 98% of full time workers already get more than minimum wage. If we abolished the minimum wage, most of them wouldn’t suddenly be paid nothing.
Wages should be whatever someone is willing to work for. If you’re willing to work for $1, and someone else isn’t, you get the job. On the other hand, if an employer is offering $10 and no-one is willing to take the job for that, they need to offer $11, or $12, or whatever minimum wage someone is willing to take.
If you don’t want to work for $7.25 an hour, don’t take the job. If nobody offers you more than that, too bad, but that’s all your labor is worth.
If you are willing to work for someone for $7.00, and they’re willing to pay you $7.00, what right does some “progressive” have to tell either of you, that you can’t work for that much?
No-one is “exploiting the workers”, if those workers took the jobs voluntarily, and show up for work voluntarily… If all you can find is a job for less than what you want to work for, you’re not being exploited, THAT’S ALL YOUR LABOR IS WORTH TO THOSE EMPLOYERS.
You may think your labor worth more, but things aren’t worth what you want them to be worth, they’re only worth what someone else is willing to pay for them.
But let’s be generous…
All that said, I don’t think we’ll be able to eliminate the minimum wage any time soon.
So, to those “progressives” who would say “let’s make the minimum wage keep up with inflation”, I agree wholeheartedly… Let’s make it $4.19.
Oh and if you don’t believe me on these numbers, they come from the department of labor, the department of commerce, and the census. If I’m lying to you, it’s with the governments own numbers… the same ones “progressives” are lying to you with.
Not shading, the truth, exaggerating, or interpreting things differently… they are flat out lying.
… And what’s more, the ones who made up the lie in the first place, know they're lying (the rest mostly just parrot what they’ve been told).
What exactly would “keeping up with inflation” mean?
The minimum wage has been $7.25 an hour since 2009.
In 1938, when the federal minimum wage was established, it was $0.25 an hour. In constant dollars (adjusted for inflation) that’s $4.19 as of 2014.
So, not only has the minimum wage kept up with inflation, it’s nearly doubled it.
Ok.. well what about more recently?
Minimum wage 15 years ago in 2000: $5.15, or $7.06 in constant dollars
Minimum wage 20 years ago in 1995: $4.25, or $6.59 in constant dollars.
Minimum wage 25 years ago in 1990: $3.80, or $6.87 in constant dollars.
Minimum wage 30 years ago in 1985: $3.30, or $7.25 in constant dollars.
Funny… that’s exactly what it is today… How shocking.
So, for 30 years, the minimum wage has not only kept up with inflation, for most of that time it’s been ahead of it.
So, how are they lying?
The way “progressives” claim minimum wage hasn’t been “keeping up with inflation”, is by comparing today, with the highest level it has ever been; almost 50 years ago, in 1968, when the minimum wage went to $1.60 an hour ($10.86 in constant dollars).
This was a statistical anomaly.
There’s a long and loathsome tradition of lying with statistical anomalies.
At $1.60 an hour, the minimum wage in 1968 was a huge 20% spike from what it had been just 3 years before in ’65, more than 40% above what it had been in 1960, and nearly double what it had been 12 years before in 1956 when politicians started throwing minimum wage increases faster and bigger (again, all in constant dollar terms. The minimum wage at the beginning of 1956 was about $6.30 in constant dollars)
In constant dollar terms, the minimum wage today, is about the same as it was in 1962 (and as I showed above, 1985).
It just so happens that from 1948 to 1968 we had the single largest wealth expansion over 20 years, seen in the history of the nation (about 5-8% annual growth)… Which then crashed hard starting at the end of ’68.
From 1968 to 1984, the U.S. had 16 years of the worst inflation we ever saw, and the purchasing power of ALL wages fell significantly, as wages failed to come even close to keeping up with inflation (we saw 13.5% inflation in 1980 alone, which is about what we see every 4 years today).
It took until 1988 for real wages to climb back to their 1968 constant dollar level, because we were in a 20 year long inflationary recession, complicated by two oil shocks and a stock market crash (actually a couple, but ’87 was the biggest one since ’29).
However, the minimum wage was boosted significantly in that time period, far more than other wages rose, and stayed above the 1962 water mark until the end of that high inflationary period in 1984, declining slightly until 1992, then spiking and declining again until 1997 etc… etc…
By the by… household income in 1968? appx. $7,700, which is about the same as today in constant dollar terms… About $51,0000 (about 8% more than it was in 1967, at $47k). Which is almost exactly what it was in 1988 as well. Household income peaked in 1999 and 2007 at around $55,000, and troughed in 1975 at around $45,000
Of course, income was on a massive upswing from 1948 to 1968 (and in fact had been on a massive upswing overall since 1896 with the exception of 1929 through 1936). In 1941 household income was about $1500 ($24,000 constant), in 1948 $3,800 ($37,000 constant).
Like I said, it was the single greatest expansion in real income and wealth over a 20 year period, in American history.
1968 was a ridiculous historical anomaly… Not a baseline expectation.
So, From 1964 to 1984, the minimum wage was jacked artificially high (proportionally far above median wage levels), and “progressives” chose to cherry pick the absolute peak in 1968 from that part of the dataset, in order to sell the lie.
A living wage?
As to the minimum wage not being a living wage… No, of course its not. It never was, its not supposed to be, and it never should be.
The minimum wage is intended to be for part time, seasonal workers, entry level workers, and working students.
Only about 4% of all workers earn the minimum wage, and less than 2% of full time workers earn the minimum wage.
Minimum wage is what you pay people whose labor isn’t worth more than that. Otherwise everyone would make minimum wage. But since 98% of full time workers can get more than minimum wage, they do so.
What should the minimum wage be?
Zero.
Wait, won’t everyone become poor suddenly?
No, of course not. Literally 98% of full time workers already get more than minimum wage. If we abolished the minimum wage, most of them wouldn’t suddenly be paid nothing.
Wages should be whatever someone is willing to work for. If you’re willing to work for $1, and someone else isn’t, you get the job. On the other hand, if an employer is offering $10 and no-one is willing to take the job for that, they need to offer $11, or $12, or whatever minimum wage someone is willing to take.
If you don’t want to work for $7.25 an hour, don’t take the job. If nobody offers you more than that, too bad, but that’s all your labor is worth.
If you are willing to work for someone for $7.00, and they’re willing to pay you $7.00, what right does some “progressive” have to tell either of you, that you can’t work for that much?
No-one is “exploiting the workers”, if those workers took the jobs voluntarily, and show up for work voluntarily… If all you can find is a job for less than what you want to work for, you’re not being exploited, THAT’S ALL YOUR LABOR IS WORTH TO THOSE EMPLOYERS.
You may think your labor worth more, but things aren’t worth what you want them to be worth, they’re only worth what someone else is willing to pay for them.
But let’s be generous…
All that said, I don’t think we’ll be able to eliminate the minimum wage any time soon.
So, to those “progressives” who would say “let’s make the minimum wage keep up with inflation”, I agree wholeheartedly… Let’s make it $4.19.
Oh and if you don’t believe me on these numbers, they come from the department of labor, the department of commerce, and the census. If I’m lying to you, it’s with the governments own numbers… the same ones “progressives” are lying to you with.
Monday, December 22, 2014
The concept of "Cultural Appropriation" is both false and harmful
So... The subject of "cultural appropriation" is coming up again, this time in regards to Iggy Azalea (born Amethyst Amelia Kelly), a young, extremely white, woman from Australia, who spent the last 7-ish years in the American south (mostly Atlanta); who raps in a "dirty south" style and accent, common to black rappers from Houston to Atlanta.
If you're unfamiliar with the concept of "cultural appropriation" here's a definition (from wikipedia):
To be clear, Iggy Azalea doesn't claim to be black, pretend to be black, doesn't "act black" (whatever that's supposed to mean) in her normal speech, accent, or mannerisms etc... She simply raps in a style commonly used by black rappers.
Here's a video of her biggest hit to date "Fancy"(which hit number one earlier this year):
Overall, there is outrage, among the easily outraged, that a white woman is "acting black", and that this is racist, disrespectful, and cultural appropriation. Also, that she is racially insensitive... even stupid... And that in general, she sucks.
While I don't disagree that Iggy Azaelea sucks (actually, she's quite capable as a performer... she sucks on purpose, because it makes her... and her producers who really run the show... a lot of money), I hold the entire concept of "cultural appropriation" as a negative thing... or even as a thing... as not only false, but harmful.
If it was done mockingly, or deceptively, sure... but we're talking about a performance style, not someone actually passing themselves off as a different race.
More importantly, nothing is being STOLEN... You can't steal a cultural identity, or a performance style, or a form of artistic impression.
She isn't copying anyone in particular, she isn't plagiarizing, and she isn't stopping black people from rapping in the same way, or making money doing so.
No race "owns" any type or style of art. Just because someone of one race chooses to create or perform a style of art most commonly created or performed by another race, does not invalidate that art, or make it racist.
To suggest otherwise is to suppress freedom of expression.
It is also to suggest that Nat King Cole, Charlie Pride, and Harry Belafonte were illegitimate... or that the Beatles, Rolling Stones, The Who, The Yardbirds... Yeah, I could go on, about both sides... for hours.
I personally sing blues and soul. I love the music, it moves me, and I sing it very passionately, and well, with a great deal of emotion and expression...
If I preform this music as it is intended to be performed... or at all... Is that racist cultural appropriation?
I love Indian, and Mexican food... is it racist cultural appropriation if I cook and serve these foods in a restaurant?
Or is that just ridiculous?
Now... to criticize Iggy Azalea for racial and cultural stupidity... I'm right there with you.
But the whole cultural appropriation concept... or the notion that it somehow diminishes anyone or disrespects anyone... really needs to die.
If you're unfamiliar with the concept of "cultural appropriation" here's a definition (from wikipedia):
Cultural appropriation is the adoption of elements of one culture by members of a different cultural group, specifically the use by cultural outsiders of a minority, oppressed culture's symbols or other cultural elements. It differs from acculturation or assimilation in that cultural "appropriation" or "misappropriation" refers to the adoption of these cultural elements, taken from minority cultures by members of the dominant culture, and then using these elements outside of their original cultural context.Cultural appropriation, is often taken to be an act of racism, or at best racial insensitivity or intolerance, and in some cases, this can be a valid interpretation... SOME cases.
To be clear, Iggy Azalea doesn't claim to be black, pretend to be black, doesn't "act black" (whatever that's supposed to mean) in her normal speech, accent, or mannerisms etc... She simply raps in a style commonly used by black rappers.
Here's a video of her biggest hit to date "Fancy"(which hit number one earlier this year):
Overall, there is outrage, among the easily outraged, that a white woman is "acting black", and that this is racist, disrespectful, and cultural appropriation. Also, that she is racially insensitive... even stupid... And that in general, she sucks.
While I don't disagree that Iggy Azaelea sucks (actually, she's quite capable as a performer... she sucks on purpose, because it makes her... and her producers who really run the show... a lot of money), I hold the entire concept of "cultural appropriation" as a negative thing... or even as a thing... as not only false, but harmful.
If it was done mockingly, or deceptively, sure... but we're talking about a performance style, not someone actually passing themselves off as a different race.
More importantly, nothing is being STOLEN... You can't steal a cultural identity, or a performance style, or a form of artistic impression.
She isn't copying anyone in particular, she isn't plagiarizing, and she isn't stopping black people from rapping in the same way, or making money doing so.
No race "owns" any type or style of art. Just because someone of one race chooses to create or perform a style of art most commonly created or performed by another race, does not invalidate that art, or make it racist.
To suggest otherwise is to suppress freedom of expression.
It is also to suggest that Nat King Cole, Charlie Pride, and Harry Belafonte were illegitimate... or that the Beatles, Rolling Stones, The Who, The Yardbirds... Yeah, I could go on, about both sides... for hours.
I personally sing blues and soul. I love the music, it moves me, and I sing it very passionately, and well, with a great deal of emotion and expression...
If I preform this music as it is intended to be performed... or at all... Is that racist cultural appropriation?
I love Indian, and Mexican food... is it racist cultural appropriation if I cook and serve these foods in a restaurant?
Or is that just ridiculous?
Now... to criticize Iggy Azalea for racial and cultural stupidity... I'm right there with you.
But the whole cultural appropriation concept... or the notion that it somehow diminishes anyone or disrespects anyone... really needs to die.
Thursday, November 13, 2014
Well Fuck
Our truck, our only transportation, was stolen overnight, right from our driveway. I was awake all night and didn't hear a thing, and the dogs never stirred, which is really odd.
It's a very desirable truck, a 2006 dodge diesel 4x4 in black. It's probably already in pieces.
It also had our cameras in it, some other electronics, a bunch of my tools, and most importantly, our car seat.
I just checked our insurance, and it won't pay, because it turns out it had been cancelled a few months back because the credit card I had set to autopay had expired, but we didn't get the notification because they were still sending them to the old address.
It's just been one damn thing after another the past few years.
It's a very desirable truck, a 2006 dodge diesel 4x4 in black. It's probably already in pieces.
It also had our cameras in it, some other electronics, a bunch of my tools, and most importantly, our car seat.
I just checked our insurance, and it won't pay, because it turns out it had been cancelled a few months back because the credit card I had set to autopay had expired, but we didn't get the notification because they were still sending them to the old address.
It's just been one damn thing after another the past few years.
Wednesday, September 24, 2014
Salute silliness....
Ok... on the latte salute thing...
Seriously?
This, is what you want to make a thing out of?
Ok yes, the guy is commander in chief, has been for six years, and he SHOULD know the basics of military honors and courtesies by now. It was a MINOR gaffe.
But if the president hadn't returned the salute, all y'all who are bitching about the latte, would just be bitching about him not saluting instead... because of course, the point isn't what he actually did or didn't do... it's that he's "the bad guy".
And don't give me some garbage about disrespecting servicemembers, and how as a servicemember or veteran you're personally offended etc... etc...
That's bull.
He was attempting to acknowledge the salute, he just didn't know the proper form for the situation, and reflexively returned the salute without thinking.
This is not some giant issue of disrespect, to the Marine, the corps, servicemembers, or veterans. If anything, it's an embarrassment to HIM
Guess what... I've accidentally rendered salutes with something in my hand... and so has every other service member, ever.
I'm reasonably certain that everyone who has ever served more than a few months, has accidentally rendered a "coffee salute" or a "cola salute"...
...and in so doing, earned themselves a bit of pain, a moderate to severe amount of embarrassment, possibly an ass chewing, and likely a big dry cleaning bill.
I've also accidentally rendered a "sharpie" salute, a "wet paint brush" salute, and on several occasions "lubricant" salutes. I've even rendered more than a couple "briefcase in the face" salutes (and seen many more).
I have thankfully been spared the joys of the "firing pin in the eye" salute, the "m9 slide" salute, and the "field knife salute", but I have witnessed them.
And of course, there's the ultimate faux pas, the "grenade" salute (live, smoke, teargas, or otherwise)... which yes, has actually happened, many, many times (though I've never witnessed it, I have Army and Marine corps buddies who have).
In no case were my improperly rendered salutes disrespectful to the recipients; they were embarrassments to ME personally.
Saluting becomes such an ingrained reflex that it is totally automatic... it's muscle memory... and you actually have to remember to stop yourself when you need to (for example, when you have a coffee cup in your hand). You also end up developing the habit (out of self defense if nothing else) of keeping your right hand free whenever possible, and of scanning other peoples right hands, to see if they're occupied or not.
In fact, it's one of the reasons I developed the habit of wearing my watch on my left wrist, and wearing no rings on my right hand, even though I'm right handed. I don't like having anything on my right hand, wrist, or forearm to grab or snag. When you need to wear a lanyard, a retention strap, a ground strap etc... (anything tied, strapped or clipped to your hand wrist, or forearm), you develop the habit of wearing it on your left when possible.
I've known commanders to have semi-official policies in their commands specifically NOT to salute anyone in that command (or return salutes, no matter the rank) when they have certain things in or around their hands (drinks, POL, paints and solvents, open containers of any kind, sensitive electronics, weapons, ordnance etc...), specifically to avoid this sort of thing happening by reflex.
Obama has never served, he's never had the saluting rules drilled into him, nor has he ever developed the habit of keeping his right hand free when possible, and checking it before saluting.
So he made a minor gaffe.
... Oh that's leaving aside the fact that by the conventions of military courtesy, HE DOESN'T ACTUALLY HAVE TO RETURN THE SALUTE.
I keep saying, stop making this piddling stuff an issue... and YES IT IS PIDDLING STUFF. It just makes you... and by extension everyone associated with you... look petty and stupid.
There are plenty of good reasons to dislike Obama. There are plenty of REAL, important, BIG issues to raise hell over. The fact that he doesn't know when NOT to salute isn't one of them.
He's just started another shooting war for gods sake, and we're talking about COFFEE.
---
You can stop reading now if you like because I'm going to get into the obscurity of protocol etc... but the next bit might interest you...
__
So... What exactly is the proper rendering of military honors and courtesies in this situation?
That's not as simple as you might think... there are actually a rather large and complicated set of rules, regulations, conventions, and traditions; and they vary by service, circumstance, and occasion.
FIRST: The Personal martial salute, is an honor and a privilege, accorded only to those who serve, or have served, honorably.
There are many formal and personal military honors and courtesies which may be accorded to individuals, entitled by their official status or position. There are even many different types of personal and formal honors which are considered salutes.
The personal martial salute is unique among them, in that it is a privilege only accorded those who serve, or have served, honorably; in the service of, or in command of, the Uniformed Services of the United States.
Uniformed service members in honorable standing, veterans in honorable standing, and under certain circumstances civilians in the military chain of command (The president {and former presidents in honorable standing}, any person currently exercising constitutional and statutory national command authority {this is not always the president. It may be the VP, Speaker of house etc..}, the secretary of defense and the service secretaries while acting in their statutory military command duties, and Ambassadors while exercising their ambassadorial rank and duties as the highest representative of the U.S. government within their accredited sovereign territory); are accorded personal military honors and courtesies, including the privilege of the personal martial salute.
By convention (though it is not absolutely required), unless diplomatic protocol supersedes, military honors and courtesies (including personal honors and courtesies such as the personal martial salute), are extended to equivalent persons of allied or friendly foreign powers (foreign heads of state, senior officers etc...); and may be accorded to those of honorable and lawful hostile powers.
Although other government officials may be accorded formal military honors and courtesies, including some personal honors and courtesies, they are not accorded the privilege of the personal martial salute. By convention however, service members will often offer the personal martial salute to high government officials (VP, cabinet members, Speaker of the house, Senate majority leader, state governors, ambassadors, service secretaries etc...) on ceremonial occasions of greeting, or as a token of respect.
It is not appropriate for these officials to return the salute, unless they are otherwise accorded the privilege; though acknowledging the salute with a polite nod or personal salutation such as "Good Morning Sergeant" is courteous and appropriate.
SECOND: This unique honor and privilege can be stripped. It can also be restored.
Prisoners, confines, or detainees who have not been convicted of any crime which might bring dishonor on the service or the nation, (including lawful military combatant prisoners of war), are accorded the privilege of the personal martial salute.
The privilege of the personal martial salute is not accorded to any detainee, prisoner or confinee, who has been convicted of an offense against the honor of the service or the nation. If, on discharging all punishments and conditions of any sentence for such crimes; the servicemember is allowed to return to honorable service, or is dismissed, separated, or discharged from service under honorable conditions; they are once again accorded the privilege.
The privilege of the personal martial salute, is not accorded any service member, or veteran, currently in any other than honorable status or condition (including uncharacterised discharges, dismissals, and separations). This may also include servicemembers and veterans who are legitimately convicted in recognized civilian courts, of offenses which would bring dishonor on the service or the nation; unless they are through some action returned to honorable status (reversal of conviction, pardon, commutation with restoration of honorable status, petition for upgrade of discharge etc...).
Yes, if a veteran who was honorably discharged is convicted of a serious crime after they are discharged; even if the offense is in no way connected to their service or the military, they MAY be considered to be in an other than honorable condition, for purposes of military benefits, and military honors and courtesies.
This determination is by no means certain, and in general honorable status or condition can be restored after all penalties and conditions of any criminal sentences have been fulfilled or discharged (though this is also by no means certain).
THIRD: Saluting is required of and among, all members of the SEVEN Uniformed Services of the United States... but is never REQUIRED of Civilians.
... Wait... SEVEN?
Yep, that's right, there are seven Uniformed Services of the United States, not just "the military" as most think of them.
FOURTH: Who is required to salute, when?
Unless otherwise noted or excepted, all service members on duty, or in uniform; when outdoors, or traveling in or on vehicles (official, or personal if the servicemember is clearly visible), or horseback (but not vessels, which have their own special rules); are required to salute commissioned and warrant officers (and civilians accorded the privilege), upon meeting, or when entering or passing through their immediate presence or nearby line of sight (by convention, within range of a spoken conversation).
Unless otherwise noted or excepted, those of lower rank should first render the salute to those of higher rank(including the president, or person exercising national command authority or performing constitutional or statutory military command duties, but not other civilians), and should hold their salute until it is returned or otherwise acknowledged, or until the senior has left the juniors immediate presence or nearby line of site.
Enlisted personnel are not generally required to salute each other.
The services have varying rules and conventions about saluting when they are wearing headgear or not, whether they are under arms or not (carrying a weapon), whether they are under colors or not (carrying a flag, guidon, pennant etc..) and whether they salute while indoors or not (excepting when formally reporting or certain other formal interactions). They also have differing definitions and conventions about what is or is not considered indoors or outdoors.
To avoid excessive saluting; unless otherwise required (as listed below), it is the general convention in most services and commands, to only salute a higher ranking officer the first time one sees them for the duty day.
Certain formal interactions may require salutes to be rendered even when it would not otherwise be required to do so (either in general, or by specific exception as noted below).
These may include (depending on the customs of the service, and the command in question):
No matter the rank or circumstance, if at all possible, any properly rendered salute, honor, or courtesy, from anyone accorded the privilege; should be returned or acknowledged with appropriate respect and courtesy.
That said, the higher the rank, and the greater the rank differential; the greater consideration given of the seniors time and attention.
The servicemembers who salute the most aren't privates... they rarely see or interact with senior officers; they're colonels and generals. Almost everyone they see, all day, every day, has to salute them, and many of those salutes have to be returned.
Many, but not all... generals would spend all their times doing nothing but, if they were always required to return every salute.
If a general is busy, rushing out of his chopper, and has his briefcase in his right hand, and his left on the bird, he's not expected to stop, swap hands, and salute the airmen manning the stairs. He might... and he might not... and honestly, nobody gives a damn either way.
It is the custom of all the services, that recipients of the medal of honor, whether in uniform or not, are to be rendered the personal martial salute first, by all those accorded the privilege, regardless of rank (including the president, if a veteran, or at his own discretion if not). They are only required to return the salute (as per regulations and conventions of the service) if they are on duty, or in uniform; though as with all accorded the privilege, they should acknowledge salutes with appropriate respect and courtesy.
It is also the custom of all the services, that all proper salutes rendered by recipients of the medal of honor, to those on duty, or in uniform; be returned with an appropriate personal martial salute, regardless of rank (excepting those not accorded the privilege, such as prisoners; and under the exceptions noted below).
FIFTH: Depending on the customs and conventions of each particular service or command, servicemembers are generally not required to render or return a salute if:
Conventionally, this consists of a polite nod, and optionally (STRONGLY recommended for juniors acknowledging seniors) offering a verbal salutation (by rank, rank and name, or rank name and title or honorific) if and as appropriate i.e. "Good Morning Sergeant", "Good afternoon General Banks Sir", "Good evening Mr. President" etc...
Uhh... yeah... that's... a lot of stuff...
Yes... yes it is... and I'm pretty sure I'm missing or forgetting some stuff, or never knew it, and couldn't immediately find it in the standard manuals and references (I did check before writing this).
It get's REALLY complicated when you are dealing with joint service, and international joint service situations... Remembering who salutes what, where, when, and how... or doesn't; when there's officers of varying, possibly unfamiliar rank, from 28 different nations, plus their corresponding diplomats and elected officials... it's really not very fun.
There are literally entire military and diplomatic career fields who figure out nothing but this stuff...
Honestly though, most servicemembers don't need to know most of this stuff most of the time... there's 5-8 basic rules (depending on the service), a few reasonable exceptions, and some well known traditions and conventions; with the servicemembers expected to always do their best to behave in appropriate, professional, courteous, respectful, and military manner.
Much as it seems, the military doesn't ALWAYS treat everyone below the rank of Colonel, as if they were a particularly stupid child with behavioral problems... Just most of the time.
So... Back to Obama and what he should have done?
By general convention, exiting a vehicle, descending a stair, and with a cup in his hand; the president should not have returned the salute by hand.
As I noted above, when it is reasonable and appropriate to do so, anyone accorded the privilege should try to appropriately and properly return any salute properly rendered them; however, a senior officer is generally not expected or required to stop what they are doing, clear their hand, and return a salute rendered to them by a junior officer or enlisted man.
It is a nice courtesy if they do, but it's not offensive or disrespectful not to.
It is entirely appropriate to acknowledge a salute with a respectful nod, and optionally an appropriate verbal salutation.
So he shouldn't have saluted; he should have nodded, and if he had time, said "Good morning Sergeant" or something similar.
After reviewing... or more likely skimming... all the protocol above... it's really not quite so simple huh?
Not exactly surprising that someone who doesn't the proper saluting protocol and habits drilled into them for thousands and thousands of hours; and who is extremely busy, and has a lot on their mind; gets it wrong now and again?
Understand... I'm not defending Obama... I don't have to, because in this, he requires no defense.
He's just initiated another shooting war, and we're talking about lattes?
How do you defend that?
Seriously?
This, is what you want to make a thing out of?
Ok yes, the guy is commander in chief, has been for six years, and he SHOULD know the basics of military honors and courtesies by now. It was a MINOR gaffe.
But if the president hadn't returned the salute, all y'all who are bitching about the latte, would just be bitching about him not saluting instead... because of course, the point isn't what he actually did or didn't do... it's that he's "the bad guy".
And don't give me some garbage about disrespecting servicemembers, and how as a servicemember or veteran you're personally offended etc... etc...
That's bull.
He was attempting to acknowledge the salute, he just didn't know the proper form for the situation, and reflexively returned the salute without thinking.
This is not some giant issue of disrespect, to the Marine, the corps, servicemembers, or veterans. If anything, it's an embarrassment to HIM
Guess what... I've accidentally rendered salutes with something in my hand... and so has every other service member, ever.
I'm reasonably certain that everyone who has ever served more than a few months, has accidentally rendered a "coffee salute" or a "cola salute"...
...and in so doing, earned themselves a bit of pain, a moderate to severe amount of embarrassment, possibly an ass chewing, and likely a big dry cleaning bill.
I've also accidentally rendered a "sharpie" salute, a "wet paint brush" salute, and on several occasions "lubricant" salutes. I've even rendered more than a couple "briefcase in the face" salutes (and seen many more).
I have thankfully been spared the joys of the "firing pin in the eye" salute, the "m9 slide" salute, and the "field knife salute", but I have witnessed them.
And of course, there's the ultimate faux pas, the "grenade" salute (live, smoke, teargas, or otherwise)... which yes, has actually happened, many, many times (though I've never witnessed it, I have Army and Marine corps buddies who have).
In no case were my improperly rendered salutes disrespectful to the recipients; they were embarrassments to ME personally.
Saluting becomes such an ingrained reflex that it is totally automatic... it's muscle memory... and you actually have to remember to stop yourself when you need to (for example, when you have a coffee cup in your hand). You also end up developing the habit (out of self defense if nothing else) of keeping your right hand free whenever possible, and of scanning other peoples right hands, to see if they're occupied or not.
In fact, it's one of the reasons I developed the habit of wearing my watch on my left wrist, and wearing no rings on my right hand, even though I'm right handed. I don't like having anything on my right hand, wrist, or forearm to grab or snag. When you need to wear a lanyard, a retention strap, a ground strap etc... (anything tied, strapped or clipped to your hand wrist, or forearm), you develop the habit of wearing it on your left when possible.
I've known commanders to have semi-official policies in their commands specifically NOT to salute anyone in that command (or return salutes, no matter the rank) when they have certain things in or around their hands (drinks, POL, paints and solvents, open containers of any kind, sensitive electronics, weapons, ordnance etc...), specifically to avoid this sort of thing happening by reflex.
Obama has never served, he's never had the saluting rules drilled into him, nor has he ever developed the habit of keeping his right hand free when possible, and checking it before saluting.
So he made a minor gaffe.
... Oh that's leaving aside the fact that by the conventions of military courtesy, HE DOESN'T ACTUALLY HAVE TO RETURN THE SALUTE.
I keep saying, stop making this piddling stuff an issue... and YES IT IS PIDDLING STUFF. It just makes you... and by extension everyone associated with you... look petty and stupid.
There are plenty of good reasons to dislike Obama. There are plenty of REAL, important, BIG issues to raise hell over. The fact that he doesn't know when NOT to salute isn't one of them.
He's just started another shooting war for gods sake, and we're talking about COFFEE.
---
You can stop reading now if you like because I'm going to get into the obscurity of protocol etc... but the next bit might interest you...
__
So... What exactly is the proper rendering of military honors and courtesies in this situation?
That's not as simple as you might think... there are actually a rather large and complicated set of rules, regulations, conventions, and traditions; and they vary by service, circumstance, and occasion.
FIRST: The Personal martial salute, is an honor and a privilege, accorded only to those who serve, or have served, honorably.
There are many formal and personal military honors and courtesies which may be accorded to individuals, entitled by their official status or position. There are even many different types of personal and formal honors which are considered salutes.
The personal martial salute is unique among them, in that it is a privilege only accorded those who serve, or have served, honorably; in the service of, or in command of, the Uniformed Services of the United States.
Uniformed service members in honorable standing, veterans in honorable standing, and under certain circumstances civilians in the military chain of command (The president {and former presidents in honorable standing}, any person currently exercising constitutional and statutory national command authority {this is not always the president. It may be the VP, Speaker of house etc..}, the secretary of defense and the service secretaries while acting in their statutory military command duties, and Ambassadors while exercising their ambassadorial rank and duties as the highest representative of the U.S. government within their accredited sovereign territory); are accorded personal military honors and courtesies, including the privilege of the personal martial salute.
By convention (though it is not absolutely required), unless diplomatic protocol supersedes, military honors and courtesies (including personal honors and courtesies such as the personal martial salute), are extended to equivalent persons of allied or friendly foreign powers (foreign heads of state, senior officers etc...); and may be accorded to those of honorable and lawful hostile powers.
Note: For many years, the honor and privilege of the personal martial salute, was not accorded to veterans or servicemembers out of uniform (except under certain special circumstances). A few years ago standards were revised to allow those not in uniform, who would otherwise be accorded the privilege of the salute; to do so when appropriate to the honor of the service, and the nation, at their own discretion.
Appropriate times might generally be (but of course are not limited to):
The privilege of the personal martial salute, does NOT apply to government service civilians of assimilated rank (regardless of other personal or formal honors), unless they are otherwise accorded the privilege.
- At formal ceremonial events, retreats and reviles, service events, veterans events, commissioning or decommissioning and retirement ceremonies, funerals, memorials and the like.
- When making certain official or recognized oaths or pledges of honor or service.
- When receiving certain official or recognized awards or honors.
- When it is appropriate to honor the colors, the service, or the nation (raising, lowering, commissioning, retiring, presentation, or formal parading of national, state, and certain ceremonial, official or service flags or "colors". Playing of the national anthem. Playing of the service song of ones service, or ones brother services).
Although other government officials may be accorded formal military honors and courtesies, including some personal honors and courtesies, they are not accorded the privilege of the personal martial salute. By convention however, service members will often offer the personal martial salute to high government officials (VP, cabinet members, Speaker of the house, Senate majority leader, state governors, ambassadors, service secretaries etc...) on ceremonial occasions of greeting, or as a token of respect.
It is not appropriate for these officials to return the salute, unless they are otherwise accorded the privilege; though acknowledging the salute with a polite nod or personal salutation such as "Good Morning Sergeant" is courteous and appropriate.
SECOND: This unique honor and privilege can be stripped. It can also be restored.
Prisoners, confines, or detainees who have not been convicted of any crime which might bring dishonor on the service or the nation, (including lawful military combatant prisoners of war), are accorded the privilege of the personal martial salute.
The privilege of the personal martial salute is not accorded to any detainee, prisoner or confinee, who has been convicted of an offense against the honor of the service or the nation. If, on discharging all punishments and conditions of any sentence for such crimes; the servicemember is allowed to return to honorable service, or is dismissed, separated, or discharged from service under honorable conditions; they are once again accorded the privilege.
The privilege of the personal martial salute, is not accorded any service member, or veteran, currently in any other than honorable status or condition (including uncharacterised discharges, dismissals, and separations). This may also include servicemembers and veterans who are legitimately convicted in recognized civilian courts, of offenses which would bring dishonor on the service or the nation; unless they are through some action returned to honorable status (reversal of conviction, pardon, commutation with restoration of honorable status, petition for upgrade of discharge etc...).
Yes, if a veteran who was honorably discharged is convicted of a serious crime after they are discharged; even if the offense is in no way connected to their service or the military, they MAY be considered to be in an other than honorable condition, for purposes of military benefits, and military honors and courtesies.
This determination is by no means certain, and in general honorable status or condition can be restored after all penalties and conditions of any criminal sentences have been fulfilled or discharged (though this is also by no means certain).
THIRD: Saluting is required of and among, all members of the SEVEN Uniformed Services of the United States... but is never REQUIRED of Civilians.
... Wait... SEVEN?
Yep, that's right, there are seven Uniformed Services of the United States, not just "the military" as most think of them.
- United States Army
- United States Marine Corps
- United States Navy
- United States Air Force
- United States Coast Guard
- United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps
- National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commissioned Officer Corps
FOURTH: Who is required to salute, when?
Unless otherwise noted or excepted, all service members on duty, or in uniform; when outdoors, or traveling in or on vehicles (official, or personal if the servicemember is clearly visible), or horseback (but not vessels, which have their own special rules); are required to salute commissioned and warrant officers (and civilians accorded the privilege), upon meeting, or when entering or passing through their immediate presence or nearby line of sight (by convention, within range of a spoken conversation).
Unless otherwise noted or excepted, those of lower rank should first render the salute to those of higher rank(including the president, or person exercising national command authority or performing constitutional or statutory military command duties, but not other civilians), and should hold their salute until it is returned or otherwise acknowledged, or until the senior has left the juniors immediate presence or nearby line of site.
Enlisted personnel are not generally required to salute each other.
The services have varying rules and conventions about saluting when they are wearing headgear or not, whether they are under arms or not (carrying a weapon), whether they are under colors or not (carrying a flag, guidon, pennant etc..) and whether they salute while indoors or not (excepting when formally reporting or certain other formal interactions). They also have differing definitions and conventions about what is or is not considered indoors or outdoors.
To avoid excessive saluting; unless otherwise required (as listed below), it is the general convention in most services and commands, to only salute a higher ranking officer the first time one sees them for the duty day.
Certain formal interactions may require salutes to be rendered even when it would not otherwise be required to do so (either in general, or by specific exception as noted below).
These may include (depending on the customs of the service, and the command in question):
- Formally reporting to an officer or command (this may include saluting those of lower rank, if they are the commander of, or official designate for the officer or command being reported to).
- Formally relaying an order or command, or delivering a report or official communication, to an officer or command (or their designate).
- When acting as the leader or commander of a formation, detail, or other organized group of servicemembers; to render salutes and other honors and courtesies as appropriate.
- Formally assuming, relieving, or being relieved of command or responsibility (whether temporarily or permanently), for a command, formation, detail, post or watch command, or other organization, or official or formal command duty.
- Formally assuming, relieving, or being relieved of certain other official or formal non-command, "non-line" or "outside of normal chain of command", responsibilities or duties
- Formally assuming, relieving, or being relieved of custody or responsibility for certain items and materials such as keys, badges, codebooks and codekeys, classified documents, and other such items of sensitivity or importance
- Formally assuming, relieving, or being relieved of a guard or sentry post or duty.
- Formally assuming, relieving, or being relieved of custody of, or responsibility for, a prisoner. detainee, or confinee (including lawful or unlawful foreign combatants); or any formation or group thereof.
- Formally assuming, relieving, or being relieved of custody of or responsibility for a "color", "honor", or other ceremonial item or duty.
- Awarding, presenting, officially citing, or receiving; military, diplomatic, governmental, or other officially recognized citations, honors, or awards (medals and commendations for example)
- Formally rendering military, diplomatic, or other recognized honors and courtesies.
- Formally participating in the swearing or affirming, of certain oaths or affirmations.
- Participation in official commissioning, decommissioning, retirement, discharge, separation, and other similar events and ceremonies.
- Participation in courts martial, administrative or command disciplinary or investigative actions, or activities thereunto.
- When legal, political, or diplomatic protocols, require that formal or personal military honors and courtesies, or other specific saluting practices, protocols or conventions be observed.
- When lawful orders, command policies, or service conventions and traditions; require that formal or personal military honors and courtesies, or other specific saluting practices, protocols or conventions be observed.
No matter the rank or circumstance, if at all possible, any properly rendered salute, honor, or courtesy, from anyone accorded the privilege; should be returned or acknowledged with appropriate respect and courtesy.
That said, the higher the rank, and the greater the rank differential; the greater consideration given of the seniors time and attention.
The servicemembers who salute the most aren't privates... they rarely see or interact with senior officers; they're colonels and generals. Almost everyone they see, all day, every day, has to salute them, and many of those salutes have to be returned.
Many, but not all... generals would spend all their times doing nothing but, if they were always required to return every salute.
If a general is busy, rushing out of his chopper, and has his briefcase in his right hand, and his left on the bird, he's not expected to stop, swap hands, and salute the airmen manning the stairs. He might... and he might not... and honestly, nobody gives a damn either way.
It is the custom of all the services, that recipients of the medal of honor, whether in uniform or not, are to be rendered the personal martial salute first, by all those accorded the privilege, regardless of rank (including the president, if a veteran, or at his own discretion if not). They are only required to return the salute (as per regulations and conventions of the service) if they are on duty, or in uniform; though as with all accorded the privilege, they should acknowledge salutes with appropriate respect and courtesy.
It is also the custom of all the services, that all proper salutes rendered by recipients of the medal of honor, to those on duty, or in uniform; be returned with an appropriate personal martial salute, regardless of rank (excepting those not accorded the privilege, such as prisoners; and under the exceptions noted below).
FIFTH: Depending on the customs and conventions of each particular service or command, servicemembers are generally not required to render or return a salute if:
- On duty, but in civilian clothing, and not otherwise required to salute as above (servicemembers may serve in roles allowing or requiring them to wear civilian clothing while on duty. In these circumstances they may salute if appropriate, but are not generally required to do so except certain formal circumstances as noted above).
- Engaged in routine work, duties, or activities (playing sports, physical exercise etc...); whether on or off duty, in or out of uniform; where doing so would unduly interfere or cause a safety hazard
- In a public non-military place, or at a public event, outside of a military context (church, non-military social functions, theaters, sporting events, in public or mass transport, etc...), even if such places or events are owned, operated, controlled, or administered by the military.
- In a public or group gathering, such as a meeting, and not otherwise required by specific convention or regulation to salute (as you would when delivering a formal report)
- Acting as a member of, but not leading, a formation or detail (unless so commanded)
- The act of saluting would block or impede safe and free movement through a portal or passage (one should safely clear the portal or passage, then salute if required)
- Their hands are required for a railing, line, handgrip, or otherwise for safety or movement
- Their hands are full, and their right hand cannot be conveniently and safely be cleared; UNLESS what they're full of is a "signal" (signal flags, whistles or other visual or audible signaling devices which can be used to render a salute) a "color" (an official or ceremonial flag, pennant, guidon, standard, baton, or other official or ceremonial symbol of command, office or authority) a weapon (in which case the appropriate personal martial salute should be rendered, if safe and appropriate to do so), or other item which can be used to properly render a personal martial salute (there are literally hundreds of possible items and salutes).
- Following a lawful command, order, or policy, to not salute, or to follow specific saluting practices and conventions.
- Required to follow legal or diplomatic protocol superseding military protocol, which would render a salute improper or inappropriate.
- Doing so would cause the servicemember to present an unmilitary or unprofessional appearance; would appear to or actually be disrespectful, discourteous, insolent, or mocking; or might otherwise be prejudicial to good order and discipline (for example, if a servicemember were on duty, but in costume as santa claus).
- Doing so would otherwise be unsafe, unreasonable, or inappropriate
Conventionally, this consists of a polite nod, and optionally (STRONGLY recommended for juniors acknowledging seniors) offering a verbal salutation (by rank, rank and name, or rank name and title or honorific) if and as appropriate i.e. "Good Morning Sergeant", "Good afternoon General Banks Sir", "Good evening Mr. President" etc...
Yes... yes it is... and I'm pretty sure I'm missing or forgetting some stuff, or never knew it, and couldn't immediately find it in the standard manuals and references (I did check before writing this).
It get's REALLY complicated when you are dealing with joint service, and international joint service situations... Remembering who salutes what, where, when, and how... or doesn't; when there's officers of varying, possibly unfamiliar rank, from 28 different nations, plus their corresponding diplomats and elected officials... it's really not very fun.
There are literally entire military and diplomatic career fields who figure out nothing but this stuff...
Honestly though, most servicemembers don't need to know most of this stuff most of the time... there's 5-8 basic rules (depending on the service), a few reasonable exceptions, and some well known traditions and conventions; with the servicemembers expected to always do their best to behave in appropriate, professional, courteous, respectful, and military manner.
Much as it seems, the military doesn't ALWAYS treat everyone below the rank of Colonel, as if they were a particularly stupid child with behavioral problems... Just most of the time.
So... Back to Obama and what he should have done?
By general convention, exiting a vehicle, descending a stair, and with a cup in his hand; the president should not have returned the salute by hand.
As I noted above, when it is reasonable and appropriate to do so, anyone accorded the privilege should try to appropriately and properly return any salute properly rendered them; however, a senior officer is generally not expected or required to stop what they are doing, clear their hand, and return a salute rendered to them by a junior officer or enlisted man.
It is a nice courtesy if they do, but it's not offensive or disrespectful not to.
It is entirely appropriate to acknowledge a salute with a respectful nod, and optionally an appropriate verbal salutation.
So he shouldn't have saluted; he should have nodded, and if he had time, said "Good morning Sergeant" or something similar.
After reviewing... or more likely skimming... all the protocol above... it's really not quite so simple huh?
Not exactly surprising that someone who doesn't the proper saluting protocol and habits drilled into them for thousands and thousands of hours; and who is extremely busy, and has a lot on their mind; gets it wrong now and again?
Understand... I'm not defending Obama... I don't have to, because in this, he requires no defense.
He's just initiated another shooting war, and we're talking about lattes?
How do you defend that?
Monday, July 28, 2014
Yes... it's the owner not the dog... BUT...
This, is a Cane Corso:
Cane Corsos are some of the biggest, strongest, and by their very genetic nature, most territorial and protective dogs. They are bred to hunt large game, and to catch and herd straying swine and cattle.
Like other large "catch dogs", they can literally catch a large livestock animal, and either kill them, or hold them on the ground waiting for their handler to come and retrieve the caught prey.
This, is a Presa Canario:
Presa Canarios are a very different breed in many ways, but they descend from the same basic genetic foundation (molosser) and are also large catch dogs. They have the same size, strength, and drives as the Cane Corso. They are big, strong, highly territorial, and highly protective.
How big is "big"?
Those chains and big heavy collars aren't for show. Males of either breed can easily exceed 150lbs, and standing on their hind legs can easily look a 6'2" man like myself directly in the eyes.
Corsos and Presas can be great dogs. Loyal, affectionate, loving, fun...
...For the right people, in the right environment...
A few days ago, a couple of Cane Corsos killed a jogger in Michigan. It came out that those same dogs had attacked other people in the neighborhood over the course of two years, but nothing had been done.
A few years ago, actor Ving Rhames had a pair of Presa Canarios, that killed his gardener.
This Michigan incident is the latest in a long series of reports from the last few years where Cane Corsos, or Presa Canarios have killed pedestrians, joggers, yard or service workers etc...
No, it's not the dogs fault. Yes, it is their owners fault.
But... not for the reasons some "dog people" like to champion.
Yes, there is no such thing as inherently bad or dangerous dog, or an inherently bad or dangerous breed...
...except that isn't ENTIRELY true.
As is usually the case, the truth is more complicated.
All dogs, no matter the breed, are potentially dangerous, because they are DOGS. YOU may consider them a member of your family, but they are not children, they are DOGS.
They are little... or not so little... balls of muscle and instincts with teeth and claws; and under the right... or wrong... circumstances, they can be dangerous.
Of course, abuse or ill treatment can make any dog MORE dangerous...
...but it doesn't take abuse to make a dog dangerous. It just takes the wrong situation, or the wrong environment, or the wrong owner who doesn't know how to handle their dog.
Some breeds of dogs need special handling or they will be dangerous, simply because of their natures. Their size, their strength, their basic breed characteristics, and their instincts.
Big, strong, territorial dogs with high prey drive or high protective drive, ARE dangerous; if not kept in the right environments, and trained, socialized, and exercised and handled properly; by the right sort of people who can properly manage these types of dogs.
Cane Corsos and Presa Canarios are working dogs. They NEED to work. They need to work off their energy, and they NEED to follow their "mission" instinct.
In military parlance, they are extremely motivated and mission oriented, and their mission is to PROTECT THE HERD AND THE FIELDS AND THE PACK AT ALL COSTS.
They're very good at it. It's what they're bred for.
They are NOT dogs that you can have in a busy urban or suburban area. They'll be miserable, and they'll make you miserable. They'll literally be driven crazy by the constant influx of strangers and "threats".
Dogs like this need room to run. More importantly, they need defensive depth. They need a big buffer zone for "their" territory. They need room to back off if they feel threatened.
If they don't have room, unless they are properly trained and handled, and their handler is present and managing the situation properly; in close quarters they WILL feel threatened, and they WILL get aggressively protective.
These are SERIOUS working dogs.
However, for a certain class of asshole, they have become "fashionable" over the past few years, because they're so big, so strong, and so "dangerous". Rottweilers and "pit bulls" are becoming more common, and certain types of assholes just want to have the biggest, baddest dog on the block.
Another type of asshole doesn't recognize that dogs are actually animals, rather than just furry people. Or that the dog that is so cuddly and great with them, is an entirely different beast when it comes to strangers and their "mission" or their territory.
Dogs are NOT fashion accessories. Nor are they furry children. They are living beings, with their own needs and drives, not simply extensions or projections of their owners.
Most people are simply not mentally and emotionally prepared to, or even physically able to, properly handle Cane Corsos and Presa Canarios (or for that matter most other large dogs); nor do most people have the proper environment to keep them.
I have been handling and training large dogs since I was a child, and I'm a VERY large, strong, and dominant man.. I've also made a habit of rehabilitating troubled and abused large breed dogs, particularly rottweilers and other molosser variants. My family and I love "politically incorrect" dogs, and have had great experiences with our wonderful rescued dogs, that others had considered "dangerous" or "unstable" because of prior abuse.
Even given all that however, unless I raised them myself, or knew the person who raised them, I would not accept a Presa or a Corso into my pack. Not a chance in hell in fact.
Even if I'd raised one from a pup, if I didn't have a big, FULLY FENCED and secure property, with neighbors who also knew how to handle and deal with big, protective dogs, I wouldn't even consider having a Corso or a Presa.
For people who like and want "big dogs", and can deal with a confident, physical, and protective dog, I'm always a fan of rotties.
Jayne, my rott/amstaff male, is 130lbs of muscle, teeth, and love. He's the worlds largest lap dog when I let him get away with it.
We like to joke that he might be "dangerous" or "aggressive" if he weren't too busy looking for comfort and cuddles, and too lazy to chase after trouble.
My other rott mix is a 65lb rott/redbone coonhound bitch, and her coonhound side sometimes causes her to follow her nose into trouble, but she's still a total affection slut.
No matter what though, you still need to be prepared and able to handle large dogs.
What do I mean when I say "prepared and able to handle large dogs" ?
Well, let me use myself as an example. Yes, I'm a big strong man, but that's not the most important thing. The most important things are emotional and mental preparedness.
You MUST be the alpha, and you must be prepared to do what is necessary to deal with your dog.
I can make Jayne cower and roll with a strong look... and he loves and respects me, and I love and respect him, enough that I rarely have to.
When he does get upset, or over excited, I can usually calm him down with a word or a touch, or at worst a strong tone of command and a physical reminder.
USUALLY... but not always...
Jayne is well trained, and well socialized, with an even... in fact a laid back and lazy... demeanor and temperament; but like all dogs, he can get excited, or anxious, or agitated. Very rarely, again like any other dog, he can get excited or agitated enough that he can be difficult to handle.
If he gets so excited or scared that his instincts overwhelm his pack conditioning, I'm big enough, strong enough, and mean enough to back him down, and hold him down if necessary.
And he knows it...
If as an absolute last resort he is driven mad by something, and I am unable to back him down, calm him down, get him back under control or otherwise safely restrain or isolate him from those he could harm... I am prepared to kill him.
And he knows it...
It may sound silly to you, but anyone who works with dogs will understand this... A properly socialized dog knows when you are bigger and stronger and meaner than he is... he especially knows whether you're willing to kill him if you have to. That's how their world works.
Understand, I have raised Jayne from first separation, and love this dog as a member of my own family... but I also recognize a dog is a dog, not a child; and 130lbs of out of control and maddened muscle and teeth is a danger that must be brought under control or stopped, by whatever means necessary.
When you own big dogs... that's what you MUST understand, and be prepared for. If you are not, you have NO DAMN BUSINESS owning a big dog.
Monday, June 02, 2014
Re-writing history to fit his personal racial narrative preferences....
This is one of the stupidest and most offensive things I've read in some time... and I don't LIKE the "religious right".
Uhh... no... not even close...
The ACTUAL "real" origins of the "religious right" go much farther back first of all.
It started with the "aftereffects" of the second great awakening, and the fundamentalist-modernist/reformist controversy and schism of the late 1890s through 1920s.
This was the separation of "mainline" protestantism, and evangelical/fundamental protestantism; as well as the marking of wholesale entry of organized fundamentalist church groups aggregating into larger political blocs and attempting to act on a regional and national basis.
It's got NOTHING to do with racism or race... Mostly in fact, the issues they advocated for, were economic and social justice issues.
Mainline protestantism mostly aligned strongly on the right economically but were socially moderate, and evangelical/fundamentalist protestantism mostly aligned strongly on the left economically (particularly with the rise of "farm progressives" and later the "new deal"), while being strongly socially conservative or reactionary.
What BEGAN to establish religious groups as right wing in the fundamentalist and evangelical branches, was in fact largely postwar anti-communism/anti-socialism.
From the 1920s, the evangelical churches that were active in issues of race, were strongly economically leftist and STAUNCH democrats.
It was the LATER response to changing social conditions and the rise of race based social change in the south that roused the more reactionary elements...
But that was NOT a factor of the "religious right"...
In fact that was STILL mostly among democrats and those who were moderate leftists economically, but "social conservatives" (who were not in fact conservatives, they were reactionaries).
It wasn't even until the 1980s that the majority of evangelicals identified at Republican or right wing, primarily transitioning with Carter and Reagan.
Through at least the early 80s, evangelicals and other fundamentalists were the strong core of southern, and midwestern democrats.
Ascribing the rise of the "religious right" to race is... ridiculous, short sighted, and bigoted.
...Though unsurprising...
"The REAL Origins of the Religious Right"
"In fact, it wasn’t until 1979—a full six years after Roe—that evangelical leaders, at the behest of conservative activist Paul Weyrich, seized on abortion not for moral reasons, but as a rallying-cry to deny President Jimmy Carter a second term. Why? Because the anti-abortion crusade was more palatable than the religious right’s real motive: protecting segregated schools."
Uhh... no... not even close...
The ACTUAL "real" origins of the "religious right" go much farther back first of all.
It started with the "aftereffects" of the second great awakening, and the fundamentalist-modernist/reformist controversy and schism of the late 1890s through 1920s.
This was the separation of "mainline" protestantism, and evangelical/fundamental protestantism; as well as the marking of wholesale entry of organized fundamentalist church groups aggregating into larger political blocs and attempting to act on a regional and national basis.
It's got NOTHING to do with racism or race... Mostly in fact, the issues they advocated for, were economic and social justice issues.
Mainline protestantism mostly aligned strongly on the right economically but were socially moderate, and evangelical/fundamentalist protestantism mostly aligned strongly on the left economically (particularly with the rise of "farm progressives" and later the "new deal"), while being strongly socially conservative or reactionary.
What BEGAN to establish religious groups as right wing in the fundamentalist and evangelical branches, was in fact largely postwar anti-communism/anti-socialism.
From the 1920s, the evangelical churches that were active in issues of race, were strongly economically leftist and STAUNCH democrats.
It was the LATER response to changing social conditions and the rise of race based social change in the south that roused the more reactionary elements...
But that was NOT a factor of the "religious right"...
In fact that was STILL mostly among democrats and those who were moderate leftists economically, but "social conservatives" (who were not in fact conservatives, they were reactionaries).
It wasn't even until the 1980s that the majority of evangelicals identified at Republican or right wing, primarily transitioning with Carter and Reagan.
Through at least the early 80s, evangelicals and other fundamentalists were the strong core of southern, and midwestern democrats.
Ascribing the rise of the "religious right" to race is... ridiculous, short sighted, and bigoted.
...Though unsurprising...
Mostly Untrue.... How to Lie with Facts part whatever...
A couple months back I wrote a few posts in a row about how we are lied to using common misunderstandings about science, basic facts, statistics, percentages and the like...
Time to address another one...
So, popular facebook meme:
True or Not?
MOSTLY untrue...
The first part of it being mostly untrue, is that McDonalds has announced that it already does not use "mechanically separated and recovered beef slurry" in most of their patties in most of their locations; and that for those who do, they will cease doing so.
For the other part of it being mostly untrue... that's where we get into lying with science, and misapplication and overgeneralization etc...
Its a semantic issue, and a matter of lying using the facts without context.
Yes, every major food processors lower cost frozen beef patties are made at least in part, with mechanically separated and recovered beef (the same is true of chicken patties and nuggets).
First thing there is, mechanically separated beef IS "real" beef. It just looks gross and has no texture.
Now... Some of it, from some processors, is cleansed with ammonia, from others it isn't.
However, in either case, it is generally cleansed, neutralized, flushed and rinsed with either saline solution or pure distilled water, and only trace amounts of ammonia remain.
Also, this is a standard technique... in fact, sometimes an FDA MANDATED technique... for maintaining sanitation in all processed meats including ground beef and beef that has been broken down into primals and subprimals at a processing facility (i.e. anything smaller than a side of beef that gets shipped to your supermarket for their own butchers to break down... which means almost all beef sold in the U.S. today; generally referred to as "boxed beef").
In any case, what remains in the food product prior to shipment is so low as to require a lab to detect it... Lower than the levels likely to be present in your own kitchen.
Mechanically separated meat is indistinguishable in lab tests from other meat except in that when handled properly it actually has LESS chemical trace AND less pathogen trace, than most ground beef.
Further, it has been in used for over 100 years, and it does NOT cause cancer.
Nor does ammonia in the extremely tiny amounts remaining in any food product. If it did, we would all get cancer from the trace amounts of ammonia left in our kitchens from using windex.
So.. you can't say it's absolutely 100% false... and some of the bare facts are at least in part correct... But basically the graphic is a lie.
The meme itself by the way was created by an anti-meat raw food advocacy group, who run the website "rawforbeauty.com".
Time to address another one...
So, popular facebook meme:
True or Not?
MOSTLY untrue...
The first part of it being mostly untrue, is that McDonalds has announced that it already does not use "mechanically separated and recovered beef slurry" in most of their patties in most of their locations; and that for those who do, they will cease doing so.
For the other part of it being mostly untrue... that's where we get into lying with science, and misapplication and overgeneralization etc...
Its a semantic issue, and a matter of lying using the facts without context.
Yes, every major food processors lower cost frozen beef patties are made at least in part, with mechanically separated and recovered beef (the same is true of chicken patties and nuggets).
First thing there is, mechanically separated beef IS "real" beef. It just looks gross and has no texture.
Now... Some of it, from some processors, is cleansed with ammonia, from others it isn't.
However, in either case, it is generally cleansed, neutralized, flushed and rinsed with either saline solution or pure distilled water, and only trace amounts of ammonia remain.
Also, this is a standard technique... in fact, sometimes an FDA MANDATED technique... for maintaining sanitation in all processed meats including ground beef and beef that has been broken down into primals and subprimals at a processing facility (i.e. anything smaller than a side of beef that gets shipped to your supermarket for their own butchers to break down... which means almost all beef sold in the U.S. today; generally referred to as "boxed beef").
In any case, what remains in the food product prior to shipment is so low as to require a lab to detect it... Lower than the levels likely to be present in your own kitchen.
Mechanically separated meat is indistinguishable in lab tests from other meat except in that when handled properly it actually has LESS chemical trace AND less pathogen trace, than most ground beef.
Further, it has been in used for over 100 years, and it does NOT cause cancer.
Nor does ammonia in the extremely tiny amounts remaining in any food product. If it did, we would all get cancer from the trace amounts of ammonia left in our kitchens from using windex.
So.. you can't say it's absolutely 100% false... and some of the bare facts are at least in part correct... But basically the graphic is a lie.
The meme itself by the way was created by an anti-meat raw food advocacy group, who run the website "rawforbeauty.com".
Let's all get screwed over JUST A LITTLE BIT LESS
This... in it's entirety. Not one single word said here is incorrect in any way.
This is not a left, right, or libertarian issue... it's an EVERYONE GETTING SCREWED MORE issue.
Let's all try to get screwed JUST A LITTLE BIT LESS people.
Tuesday, May 20, 2014
Note to "OUR" side... Strongly worded communication to follow...
Earlier today, a friend posted a negative headline about Chipotle deciding to ban open carry in their corporate owned restaurants... but then made a post showing that he understood that the issue was more complicated than the headline, by far.
The headline was "Chipotle declares it's stores shooting galleries".
My response was thus:
Let us be absolutely clear...
After years of being perfectly fine with people carrying firearms in Chipotle stores, "open carry activists" carrying AR-15s and deliberately provoking confrontations with customers and police, have forced Chipotle to change their policies.
Note to "OUR" side:
This is not "activism", this is attention seeking, nothing less. It's the same kind of thing that conservatives decry about "feminist activists" who walk around topless around children, or "gay activists" who wear leather thongs and dry hump in street parades.
Yes... you should have the legal freedom to do that... because we live in a free society.
...But you shouldn't ACTUALLY DO IT, because doing to is nothing more than shocking sensibilities for its own sake. It's assholic attention seeking.
It also brings us back to one of those paradoxes, or irritating factors I keep coming back to...
"An unfortunate number of theoretically liberty oriented people are that way; not because liberty is the best way, but simply because they are horses asses, misanthropes, contrarian, or insane"
The headline was "Chipotle declares it's stores shooting galleries".
My response was thus:
Let us be absolutely clear...
After years of being perfectly fine with people carrying firearms in Chipotle stores, "open carry activists" carrying AR-15s and deliberately provoking confrontations with customers and police, have forced Chipotle to change their policies.
Note to "OUR" side:
STOP BEING FUCKTARDS!
This is not "activism", this is attention seeking, nothing less. It's the same kind of thing that conservatives decry about "feminist activists" who walk around topless around children, or "gay activists" who wear leather thongs and dry hump in street parades.
Yes... you should have the legal freedom to do that... because we live in a free society.
...But you shouldn't ACTUALLY DO IT, because doing to is nothing more than shocking sensibilities for its own sake. It's assholic attention seeking.
It also brings us back to one of those paradoxes, or irritating factors I keep coming back to...
"An unfortunate number of theoretically liberty oriented people are that way; not because liberty is the best way, but simply because they are horses asses, misanthropes, contrarian, or insane"
Tuesday, February 25, 2014
The Problem With Freedom
Here's the problem with supporting liberty and freedom... You have to support peoples liberty and freedom to be assholes and idiots.
I think discriminating against gays or blacks or anyone else for some arbitrary characteristic that doesn't harm you is fucking idiotic, and proof that you are a total asshole.
However, I think you should be free to associate with, or exclude, anyone you want to from your private property, or private business.
Why?
Because that's what freedom of conscience, and true property rights are.
The right to associate with those you wish, and not associate with those you do not, is inherent to freedom of conscience.
The right of exclusion IS one of the three fundamental rights of private property (the others being the rights to use and dispose of the property as you see fit, and the right to the outputs, proceeds, and benefits accrued on or by the property).
Arbitrary discrimination by private businesses is wrong, stupid, offensive, and just bad business.
But it shouldn't be illegal.
Note: At least not for truly private businesses.
There is an argument to be made that public corporations, because of the legal protections they receive from the government, and their "public ownership" through equities; should not be allowed to discriminate. Some even argue that by obtaining a business license, a business can be prohibited from discrimination.
Unless such prohibition is written into the laws for licensure of these businesses, or for the foundation and governance of corporations, I disagree with this argument (and I have issues with the concept of making anti-discrimination part of the law, again on the grounds above), but there is at least a basis for it.Oh and for those of you who think this is just about gays... it applies equally to guns. I think that businesses that exclude lawful bearers of arms from their premises are idiots, and that it's bad business... but its THEIR property, and they have the right to exclude me if they want to.
The GOVERNMENT should NEVER be allowed to discriminate, nor should any public utility, or any organization with a lawful monopoly. Any organization with which interaction is mandatory, or their power over you is involuntary, can never be allowed to discriminate.
Private individuals, and their private property though, can never be prohibited from doing so... at least if we value and wish to preserve freedom and liberty (and in this country, frequently and unfortunately, we do not).
Freedom of conscience though, is a wonderful thing... They get to discriminate. Guess what, so do you. You can choose not to patronize their business. You can organize all your friends... and the entire world if everyone else is so inclined... to not patronize that business.
That's freedom for ya...
Oh and by the by, these laws currently proceeding in several states explicitly legally authorizing business to refuse to serve people on the basis of their sexual orientation, are part of the blowback I predicted would result from the current strategy many in the gay rights movement have of "suing our way to normalcy"...
"Dammit, if they don't want to make my same sex wedding cake, I'll SUE".
Or worse "We'll get married in Massachusetts, and then move to Kansas and sue for them to recognize our marriage".
Many lied saying that would never happen. Many more well intentioned supporters honestly believed the lie, and repeated it.
When I raise this issue with my liberal friends, they often say that I am being ridiculous.
It HAS been happening, from the first legally recognized same sex marriages in this country.
It's a bad strategy, and it has and will continue to backfire.
Friday, February 21, 2014
A bad analogy can be dangerous, a purity test, deadly
I've written at rather great length about the debt ceiling, and the political idiocy surrounding it, several times, most recently during the LAST "debt ceiling showdown and government shutdown traveling vaudeville show" here:
"Defunding, Debt Limits, Shutdowns, Oh My!"
"A not so brief explanation and history of U.S. federal government debt"
As noted when the "fix" was passed last time, it wasn't actually a "fix", it just pushed the next "crisis" a few months down the road.
Welcome to a few months down the road...
The debt ceiling increase was voted up last week (this time for 12 months instead of 3), as everyone knew it would be, as it absolutely had to be (see the posts above for more on why that is true).
The Republican leadership used a procedural trick to make it seem like they were actually opposing it... entirely for PR purposes, and entirely because of these geniuses who either don't understand; or rather those who do, but take advantage of the ignorance and misunderstand of those who don't.
This time, the Republicans... or at least most of them... were slightly less stupid than the last couple times. MOST republicans seem to have finally come to understand that playing chicken with the debt ceiling is NOT a winning strategy.
...Well, it isn't a winning strategy for Republicans, but when they do, it IS a GREAT strategy for Democrats.
Of course, that hasn't stopped much of the self identified "conservative" public from going absolutely insane, again... sadly, quite predictably.
It seems they believe, with absolutely unshakable conviction, that somehow, attacking a supermajority of the house and senate for not doing the impossible, will make things better. That somehow, doing what absolutely must be done to avoid disaster, is "betrayal".
Really, all they are doing is highlighting their complete lack of understanding of both politics, and the mechanics of how our government functions; oh and that they completely failed to learn anything from the last few times they pulled this crap.
In fact, many of them are PROUDLY ignorant of reality. They will loudly proclaim that "it's a matter of principle dammit", and that anyone who actually understand what reality is, and understands the necessity to work within the bounds of reality is just "caught up in the system".
... and of course, there are always politicians in a position to use this sentiment. They have been doing so quite aggressively this past week.
This REALLY does not help
The only Republicans (or conservatives, or even libertarians) this sort of idiocy helps, are the ones who have no chance of losing to a Democrat (it helps them raise money), and the ones mounting a challenge to a safe Republican seat from the right.
Republicans being attacked from the right may make some "conservatives" feel better, but it doesn't actually make anything better, because rhetoric isn't legislation. It certainly doesn't do anything good for the Republican legislative agenda.
In the long run, this stupidity (and yes, it is emotionally indulgent stupidity, and attention seeking) weakens congressional Republicans, and doesn't actually HELP achieve the desires of the "conservatives" who like the IDEA of "fighting at all costs", "never compromising" etc... etc... (most of whom aren't actually conservative even if they think they are. Mostly, they're populists, or reactionaries, or both)
Simply put, you can't legislate if you don't win elections. The elections that are going to be won by senators and house members who are "real conservatives", as defined by these geniuses, are already in Republican hands. Maybe 1 or 2 seats can be won from the right, but that's it.
The geniuses forget two major things:
To gain vetoproof legislative majorities in both houses, which is the only way they can legislate now, Republicans need to take seats away from "centrist" democrats.
Let's leave aside the entire issue of "centrists" (whether they actually exist, what the definition is etc...) and just accept there is an electoral reality here.
Republicans who are "real conservatives" are not going to win seats in the urban northeast. A republican who believes in small government, personal and economic liberty, low taxes etc, but who is also socially moderate or liberal (pro choice, pro gay marriage for example), just might (in fact, they have).
If you say that someone who believes those things isn't really conservative, or isn't a Republican, or is a RINO... YOU are part of the problem.
Shutting down the government may FEEL like a great "moral victory" to those on the right, but it will NEVER win elections in centrist districts. In fact, it will COST the Republicans seats they've already won in those districts.
These are seats that will NOT be made up by the phantom hoards of "real conservative" voters that will magically appear when "real conservative" candidates show up. Those seats are the ones that Republican already control.
There are a few senate seats in the south and west that the "real conservatives" might be able to win with their rhetoric... but honestly, if they were going to do so, why didn't they over the last three elections?
The people who don't understand this, have since 2012 been doing their best to turn the Republicans, into the democratic party circa 1968. They are the Republican equivalent of McGovern democrats.
Part of the problem here, is that most people (including most of the "conservatives" above) don't really understand the debt ceiling. They don't actually understand what it is, how it works, and why we can't just decide not to raise the limit once we've reached... or more often actually exceeded... it.
No, really, we can't do that. If we did, very bad things would happen.
They feel that refusing to raise the debt ceiling would mean the federal government would have to spend less.
That is an intuitive idea. It makes sense...
... It's also dangerously wrong.
The problem, is that people intuitively think of the debt ceiling as analogous to the credit limit on a credit card. In fact, that is the rhetoric most politicians and much of the media use when they talk about the subject; and the rhetoric of much of the "conservative" commentariat.
With a credit card, when you hit your credit limit, you have to stop spending. Then, you have to pay down your debt before you can spend again.
Many people, probably most people, seem to think that government spending and debt work like this; or at least is should, and would if we didn't keep raising the debt ceiling.
It's an easy and relatable analogy. It feels correct, and it suggests a simple solution to a very difficult problem.
Unfortunately, feelings are not reality.
There are rarely simple solutions to complicated and difficult problems.
A friend wrote this:
There is really no one sentence explanation for how this works, unless you have a background in business or finance.
Trying to relate it to something that a lot of people are familiar with, though not as many as a credit card... hmmm...
Ok, this is one of those "I have to explain this thing, so I can explain this other thing" situations.
Here goes...
Say you run a company that only gets paid every three months, at the end of each quarter (this is more common than you might think).
In order to run the company, you need to pay all your suppliers and contractors. So, you get terms from them. Your suppliers and contractors will provide you goods and services, and you will pay them within 90 days of invoicing.
At the end of the 90 days, you HAVE to pay these bills.
Remember, you've already used the goods and services. If you don't pay the bills, your vendors sue you, put a lien on your business and property etc... If you want to try to keep running, you can't get anyone else to give you terms. Everything goes to prepay or COD.
You REALLY want to avoid that if at all possible.
Now... it's possible that your receivables won't come in until after your payables are due. It's possible that there will be delays in processing and funds clearance. It's possible your business might have a bad quarter, and your receivables won't be enough to pay your outstanding payables. Maybe most of your billables are paid quarterly, but there a couple big ones that are only paid yearly.
Oh and of course, you need to pay the day to day costs and expenses (which are two different things, and the difference is important, but would make this explanation even longer) of running your business. Weekly salaries, payables without credit terms, fees etc...
So, in order to operate, you get a line of credit from a commercial lender (hopefully at a favorable interest rate). That lets you pay your day to day costs and expenses, and pay your bills as they come due, without worrying about your receivables current account.
Then, as your revenues come in, you pay down your credit line. The amount of your credit line you use, is, reasonably, called your utilization.
The lender doesn't make you pay ALL of your utilization off every month, or every year, or for that matter EVER.
So long as you don't use ALL of your credit (creditors consider that a bad sign), and you keep making your mandated payments (on time), your lenders will probably keep extending you credit (since they make money on it).
Pretty much every medium and large business (and a lot of small businesses) operate on this basis. Whether you know it or not, if they've got more than 20 employees, or they own or lease a building, it's almost certainly how your employer operates. It's how most of the businesses you interact with operate.
It's also how the federal government operates.
The government has day to day costs, and they consume goods and services (and transfer funds to other entities), as directed by legislation and regulation. They pay these costs from their current accounts, which are debt financed, and they pay on the debt out of their revenues.
So... that's the background and baseline.
Now, a business with a lot of revenue, can still have a year, even several years (in some cases even MANY years) where their expenditures exceed their revenues.
Maybe they had an off year, maybe a major customer went bankrupt and didn't pay them, maybe they expanded a lot, maybe they made a lot of investment; maybe their revenues were increasing, but their expenses increased faster...
There are plenty of reasons why a viable business might have their expenditures exceed their revenues. Many companies go on that way for many years in fact. Some businesses have more years with losses than profits.
This is where most peoples level of understanding becomes problematic. Most people know that a company can lose money and still continue operating, but they don't really understand the details of how or why.
So long as a company has substantial ongoing revenue, and a solid history of making their payments on time; even if the company isn't profitable, they will likely be able to obtain operating credit.
Major companies maintain lines of credit in the billions, so that they can manage manage their liquidity. When they need it, and presuming creditors have confidence in their ability to repay, they will get additional credit.
If a company would like to raise a fixed amount of capital, that they would like to repay over a longer (or at least a fixed) period of time, typically at a lower interest rate than cash/credit financing, they may elect to issue debt in the form of bonds.
The proceeds of the sale of bonds accrue directly to the issuer. The purchasers are then free to sell these bonds to others as they see fit.
So long as investors believe in the viability of the bond issuer, they will buy new bond issues.
Again, this is how the federal government operates.
The FedGov's 2013 accounts receivable (2.8 trillion) were lower than their 2013 expenditures (3.5 trillion). This 700 billion deficit was covered by issuing bonds, which were purchased by investors (primarily large institutional investors, foreign governments, and foreign banks).
However, this debt isn't issued in real time, to pay the governments bills. The government floats a balance at all times, paying it down with revenues and the proceeds of debt issuance.
The government can't just shut down in between tax payments and bond auctions. It has bills to pay and payments to make every day.
Depending on the time of year, and the particular year, the government spends about 90 days ahead of its revenues.
The debt ceiling isn't actually a credit limit, it's the terms of the debt we've already incurred.
An important difference between the government and private businesses of course, is that they don't have a choice about most of their spending, as their board of directors (congress) has incurred these obligations, and written them into law.
The federal government can't just stop spending, even if they don't have any money. They are not allowed to stop spending until congress tells them to.
Congress tells them to spend, and it tells them not to spend.
The problem isn't the debt ceiling... and the debt ceiling isn't actually a restraint on government spending.
The problem is congress.
You can't stop government spending by refusing to increase the debt limit. That just shuts the government down, and really, that isn't good for anyone...
...but in actuality it doesn't shut the government down, because the law doesn't allow it to.
It just shuts down the stuff that isn't explicitly required by law.
Even if the government is "shut down", they are still required to make payments on debt.
If they don't, the U.S. defaults on our sovereign debt.
If the U.S. Federal Government were to default on our sovereign debt, the entire world would be plunged into a massive depression. Pretty much every economy in the world would collapse.
That's really bad. We really don't want that.
But guess what, even that wouldn't stop the government from spending.
The many laws requiring government spending don't allow it to stop just because the bank accounts are empty. They do not contemplate the notion of an empty bank account.
When governments don't have enough money to pay their bills, they just print more.
So, what happens then, is hyperinflation. The government keeps spending dollars, by printing money... or rather electronically creating it out of nothing. This devalues the currency.
When the currency enters a devaluation cycle, people decide to stop taking it.
This of course makes the global depression a thousand times worse.
Repeat after me:
NOTHING CAN STOP THE GOVERNMENT FROM SPENDING BUT ACTS OF CONGRESS
Ok, so then, how do we make them stop spending?
Win elections.
So long as the democrats have control of the presidency and one house of congress, they can keep spending nearly as much as they want.
AFTER you win elections, you have to pass legislation cutting spending. To do that, you need veto-proof majorities, and/or a Republican president.
Now... if the Republicans prove to be no better than democrats on spending (or worse, as Bush was), THEN you attack them from the right.
"Defunding, Debt Limits, Shutdowns, Oh My!"
"A not so brief explanation and history of U.S. federal government debt"
As noted when the "fix" was passed last time, it wasn't actually a "fix", it just pushed the next "crisis" a few months down the road.
Welcome to a few months down the road...
The debt ceiling increase was voted up last week (this time for 12 months instead of 3), as everyone knew it would be, as it absolutely had to be (see the posts above for more on why that is true).
The Republican leadership used a procedural trick to make it seem like they were actually opposing it... entirely for PR purposes, and entirely because of these geniuses who either don't understand; or rather those who do, but take advantage of the ignorance and misunderstand of those who don't.
This time, the Republicans... or at least most of them... were slightly less stupid than the last couple times. MOST republicans seem to have finally come to understand that playing chicken with the debt ceiling is NOT a winning strategy.
...Well, it isn't a winning strategy for Republicans, but when they do, it IS a GREAT strategy for Democrats.
Of course, that hasn't stopped much of the self identified "conservative" public from going absolutely insane, again... sadly, quite predictably.
It seems they believe, with absolutely unshakable conviction, that somehow, attacking a supermajority of the house and senate for not doing the impossible, will make things better. That somehow, doing what absolutely must be done to avoid disaster, is "betrayal".
Really, all they are doing is highlighting their complete lack of understanding of both politics, and the mechanics of how our government functions; oh and that they completely failed to learn anything from the last few times they pulled this crap.
In fact, many of them are PROUDLY ignorant of reality. They will loudly proclaim that "it's a matter of principle dammit", and that anyone who actually understand what reality is, and understands the necessity to work within the bounds of reality is just "caught up in the system".
... and of course, there are always politicians in a position to use this sentiment. They have been doing so quite aggressively this past week.
This REALLY does not help
The only Republicans (or conservatives, or even libertarians) this sort of idiocy helps, are the ones who have no chance of losing to a Democrat (it helps them raise money), and the ones mounting a challenge to a safe Republican seat from the right.
Republicans being attacked from the right may make some "conservatives" feel better, but it doesn't actually make anything better, because rhetoric isn't legislation. It certainly doesn't do anything good for the Republican legislative agenda.
In the long run, this stupidity (and yes, it is emotionally indulgent stupidity, and attention seeking) weakens congressional Republicans, and doesn't actually HELP achieve the desires of the "conservatives" who like the IDEA of "fighting at all costs", "never compromising" etc... etc... (most of whom aren't actually conservative even if they think they are. Mostly, they're populists, or reactionaries, or both)
Simply put, you can't legislate if you don't win elections. The elections that are going to be won by senators and house members who are "real conservatives", as defined by these geniuses, are already in Republican hands. Maybe 1 or 2 seats can be won from the right, but that's it.
The geniuses forget two major things:
- You don't win majorities from the edges: The far right and the far left are only about 20% of the electorate on either side. 40% total. 60% of the electorate are somewhere "in the middle", and they will VOTE somewhere "in the middle".
- All politics is local: Senators, and particularly house members, are elected on LOCAL issues, or at least on LOCAL attitudes, ideas, preferences etc... "Real conservative" ideas may be vote winners where YOU live, but not for where the majority of voters live. Yes, they're "better" and "right" and all that, but it doesn't matter because most people don't agree with them.
To gain vetoproof legislative majorities in both houses, which is the only way they can legislate now, Republicans need to take seats away from "centrist" democrats.
Let's leave aside the entire issue of "centrists" (whether they actually exist, what the definition is etc...) and just accept there is an electoral reality here.
Republicans who are "real conservatives" are not going to win seats in the urban northeast. A republican who believes in small government, personal and economic liberty, low taxes etc, but who is also socially moderate or liberal (pro choice, pro gay marriage for example), just might (in fact, they have).
If you say that someone who believes those things isn't really conservative, or isn't a Republican, or is a RINO... YOU are part of the problem.
Shutting down the government may FEEL like a great "moral victory" to those on the right, but it will NEVER win elections in centrist districts. In fact, it will COST the Republicans seats they've already won in those districts.
These are seats that will NOT be made up by the phantom hoards of "real conservative" voters that will magically appear when "real conservative" candidates show up. Those seats are the ones that Republican already control.
There are a few senate seats in the south and west that the "real conservatives" might be able to win with their rhetoric... but honestly, if they were going to do so, why didn't they over the last three elections?
The people who don't understand this, have since 2012 been doing their best to turn the Republicans, into the democratic party circa 1968. They are the Republican equivalent of McGovern democrats.
Note: At the moment, there is a very strange dichotomy going on with presidential politics, largely as a function of the differences between local and national media and their influence in elections.
Mitt Romney likely would have beaten Obama in 2012 if a large number of conservatives hadn't stayed home, because he wasn't conservative enough. He also likely would have won, if the media hadn't been so effective at portraying Romney as an ultra-right wing super-conservative.
Both happened. Romney lost.
Do you see the problem here?
Anyone not left wing (or otherwise a media darling... which tends to last just until that person threatens a "progressive" with defeat) can reliably count on the media to portray them as insanely far right. Witness McCain in 2008. He went from being the anti-Bush media darling, to, you guessed it, "right wing lunatic who want to control womens bodies" etc... etc...
The only way to combat that, is to DIRECTLY (with irrefutable evidence) show "centrists" that you are a "centrist", or at least someone they can vote for.
2012 was a matter of purity tests screwing conservatives and Republicans. If the "McGovern Democrats" have their way, so will 2016.So... why don't they understand?
Part of the problem here, is that most people (including most of the "conservatives" above) don't really understand the debt ceiling. They don't actually understand what it is, how it works, and why we can't just decide not to raise the limit once we've reached... or more often actually exceeded... it.
No, really, we can't do that. If we did, very bad things would happen.
They feel that refusing to raise the debt ceiling would mean the federal government would have to spend less.
That is an intuitive idea. It makes sense...
... It's also dangerously wrong.
The problem, is that people intuitively think of the debt ceiling as analogous to the credit limit on a credit card. In fact, that is the rhetoric most politicians and much of the media use when they talk about the subject; and the rhetoric of much of the "conservative" commentariat.
With a credit card, when you hit your credit limit, you have to stop spending. Then, you have to pay down your debt before you can spend again.
Many people, probably most people, seem to think that government spending and debt work like this; or at least is should, and would if we didn't keep raising the debt ceiling.
It's an easy and relatable analogy. It feels correct, and it suggests a simple solution to a very difficult problem.
Unfortunately, feelings are not reality.
There are rarely simple solutions to complicated and difficult problems.
A friend wrote this:
"I think the problem with the debt ceiling comes mainly from the fact that people think it's a credit limit, when it's more like a kind of a line you set yourself when drawing up a budget for the year"That analogy is better than what most people seem to have in their mind, but it's still not quite right. It's simple, and quick, but it's still misleading as an analogy.
There is really no one sentence explanation for how this works, unless you have a background in business or finance.
Trying to relate it to something that a lot of people are familiar with, though not as many as a credit card... hmmm...
Ok, this is one of those "I have to explain this thing, so I can explain this other thing" situations.
Here goes...
Say you run a company that only gets paid every three months, at the end of each quarter (this is more common than you might think).
In order to run the company, you need to pay all your suppliers and contractors. So, you get terms from them. Your suppliers and contractors will provide you goods and services, and you will pay them within 90 days of invoicing.
At the end of the 90 days, you HAVE to pay these bills.
Remember, you've already used the goods and services. If you don't pay the bills, your vendors sue you, put a lien on your business and property etc... If you want to try to keep running, you can't get anyone else to give you terms. Everything goes to prepay or COD.
You REALLY want to avoid that if at all possible.
Now... it's possible that your receivables won't come in until after your payables are due. It's possible that there will be delays in processing and funds clearance. It's possible your business might have a bad quarter, and your receivables won't be enough to pay your outstanding payables. Maybe most of your billables are paid quarterly, but there a couple big ones that are only paid yearly.
Oh and of course, you need to pay the day to day costs and expenses (which are two different things, and the difference is important, but would make this explanation even longer) of running your business. Weekly salaries, payables without credit terms, fees etc...
So, in order to operate, you get a line of credit from a commercial lender (hopefully at a favorable interest rate). That lets you pay your day to day costs and expenses, and pay your bills as they come due, without worrying about your receivables current account.
Then, as your revenues come in, you pay down your credit line. The amount of your credit line you use, is, reasonably, called your utilization.
The lender doesn't make you pay ALL of your utilization off every month, or every year, or for that matter EVER.
So long as you don't use ALL of your credit (creditors consider that a bad sign), and you keep making your mandated payments (on time), your lenders will probably keep extending you credit (since they make money on it).
Pretty much every medium and large business (and a lot of small businesses) operate on this basis. Whether you know it or not, if they've got more than 20 employees, or they own or lease a building, it's almost certainly how your employer operates. It's how most of the businesses you interact with operate.
It's also how the federal government operates.
The government has day to day costs, and they consume goods and services (and transfer funds to other entities), as directed by legislation and regulation. They pay these costs from their current accounts, which are debt financed, and they pay on the debt out of their revenues.
So... that's the background and baseline.
Now, a business with a lot of revenue, can still have a year, even several years (in some cases even MANY years) where their expenditures exceed their revenues.
Maybe they had an off year, maybe a major customer went bankrupt and didn't pay them, maybe they expanded a lot, maybe they made a lot of investment; maybe their revenues were increasing, but their expenses increased faster...
There are plenty of reasons why a viable business might have their expenditures exceed their revenues. Many companies go on that way for many years in fact. Some businesses have more years with losses than profits.
This is where most peoples level of understanding becomes problematic. Most people know that a company can lose money and still continue operating, but they don't really understand the details of how or why.
So long as a company has substantial ongoing revenue, and a solid history of making their payments on time; even if the company isn't profitable, they will likely be able to obtain operating credit.
Major companies maintain lines of credit in the billions, so that they can manage manage their liquidity. When they need it, and presuming creditors have confidence in their ability to repay, they will get additional credit.
If a company would like to raise a fixed amount of capital, that they would like to repay over a longer (or at least a fixed) period of time, typically at a lower interest rate than cash/credit financing, they may elect to issue debt in the form of bonds.
The proceeds of the sale of bonds accrue directly to the issuer. The purchasers are then free to sell these bonds to others as they see fit.
So long as investors believe in the viability of the bond issuer, they will buy new bond issues.
Again, this is how the federal government operates.
The FedGov's 2013 accounts receivable (2.8 trillion) were lower than their 2013 expenditures (3.5 trillion). This 700 billion deficit was covered by issuing bonds, which were purchased by investors (primarily large institutional investors, foreign governments, and foreign banks).
However, this debt isn't issued in real time, to pay the governments bills. The government floats a balance at all times, paying it down with revenues and the proceeds of debt issuance.
The government can't just shut down in between tax payments and bond auctions. It has bills to pay and payments to make every day.
Depending on the time of year, and the particular year, the government spends about 90 days ahead of its revenues.
The debt ceiling isn't actually a credit limit, it's the terms of the debt we've already incurred.
An important difference between the government and private businesses of course, is that they don't have a choice about most of their spending, as their board of directors (congress) has incurred these obligations, and written them into law.
The federal government can't just stop spending, even if they don't have any money. They are not allowed to stop spending until congress tells them to.
Congress tells them to spend, and it tells them not to spend.
The problem isn't the debt ceiling... and the debt ceiling isn't actually a restraint on government spending.
The problem is congress.
You can't stop government spending by refusing to increase the debt limit. That just shuts the government down, and really, that isn't good for anyone...
...but in actuality it doesn't shut the government down, because the law doesn't allow it to.
It just shuts down the stuff that isn't explicitly required by law.
Even if the government is "shut down", they are still required to make payments on debt.
If they don't, the U.S. defaults on our sovereign debt.
If the U.S. Federal Government were to default on our sovereign debt, the entire world would be plunged into a massive depression. Pretty much every economy in the world would collapse.
That's really bad. We really don't want that.
But guess what, even that wouldn't stop the government from spending.
The many laws requiring government spending don't allow it to stop just because the bank accounts are empty. They do not contemplate the notion of an empty bank account.
When governments don't have enough money to pay their bills, they just print more.
So, what happens then, is hyperinflation. The government keeps spending dollars, by printing money... or rather electronically creating it out of nothing. This devalues the currency.
When the currency enters a devaluation cycle, people decide to stop taking it.
This of course makes the global depression a thousand times worse.
Repeat after me:
NOTHING CAN STOP THE GOVERNMENT FROM SPENDING BUT ACTS OF CONGRESS
Ok, so then, how do we make them stop spending?
Win elections.
So long as the democrats have control of the presidency and one house of congress, they can keep spending nearly as much as they want.
AFTER you win elections, you have to pass legislation cutting spending. To do that, you need veto-proof majorities, and/or a Republican president.
Now... if the Republicans prove to be no better than democrats on spending (or worse, as Bush was), THEN you attack them from the right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)