Gosh, I hope you don't expect to get climate science from political/social columnists, whether Gail or Rush. What I get from Gail is humorous and insightful perspectives on current issues. As an intelligent non-idealogue she seems to accept the preponderance of scientific evidence that humans are effecting climate and rightfully comments that Republicans are against what previously they supported. Like the Know Nothings of 160 years ago Republicans are blind to anything that differs from their beliefs, but now want to stop government to assuage their social/religious/economic/scientific opinions that are typically unsupported by data. I recommend that citizens do read scientists' explanations of climate, starting with "Scientific American", "Science News", or science websites such as "Real Climate - Climate Science from Climate Scientists" (http://www.realclimate.org).
Thursday, March 28, 2013
Sunday, January 27, 2013
Slowing Gun Violence
I sent this message to West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin today:
I encourage you to vote for the bill Senator Diane Feinstein has introduced to reduce the availability of military style assult weapons and extended ammunition clips, and to require background checks for all gun purchases. These are reasonable responses to the continuing onslaught of murders that the US suffers.
The argument that more guns make us safer is not true. The USA has far more weapons in the hands of citizens than any other country in the world, and we have far more gun violence than any other country. We have more weapons and more violence than we did 50 years ago. All countries have video games, violent movies and crazy people, but without assult rifles and extended ammo clips the harm that can be committed is quite limited.
The recent shoot out between two college students in Texas demonstrates what happens when guns are everywhere. A fist fight escalated into gunfire when both students pulled out their pistols. There would have absolutely been no wounding of people if they had not been carrying guns.
The real reason the NRA strong-arms you and other politicians to not restrict guns is not to protect hunting - who hunts with a assault rifle? - nor to protect a family, but to fight to overthrow a government they hate. Although they call themselves patriots, it is extraordinarily unpatriotic and unAmerican to say that each individual can attack the government if they don't like particular actions. And while it may seem romantic to be the lone "patriot" who attacks an evil government, it is absolutely absurd.
A person's right to bear arms must be balanced with the rights of thousands of innocent people a year not to be killed by gunfire.
Joe Manchin, you are commendably trying to find ways to get the government to work to accomplish the people's business. Protecting citizens from trigger happy college kids and crazy people with more armaments than the police is a clear priority in allowing Americans to strive for life, libery and the pursuit of happiness. You have the prestige and seriousness to side with Senator Feinstein and to explain to West Virginians why that is a good thing. No one would listen to Senator Rockefeller on guns, but they will listen to you.
Thank you,
Charles Wood
I encourage you to vote for the bill Senator Diane Feinstein has introduced to reduce the availability of military style assult weapons and extended ammunition clips, and to require background checks for all gun purchases. These are reasonable responses to the continuing onslaught of murders that the US suffers.
The argument that more guns make us safer is not true. The USA has far more weapons in the hands of citizens than any other country in the world, and we have far more gun violence than any other country. We have more weapons and more violence than we did 50 years ago. All countries have video games, violent movies and crazy people, but without assult rifles and extended ammo clips the harm that can be committed is quite limited.
The recent shoot out between two college students in Texas demonstrates what happens when guns are everywhere. A fist fight escalated into gunfire when both students pulled out their pistols. There would have absolutely been no wounding of people if they had not been carrying guns.
The real reason the NRA strong-arms you and other politicians to not restrict guns is not to protect hunting - who hunts with a assault rifle? - nor to protect a family, but to fight to overthrow a government they hate. Although they call themselves patriots, it is extraordinarily unpatriotic and unAmerican to say that each individual can attack the government if they don't like particular actions. And while it may seem romantic to be the lone "patriot" who attacks an evil government, it is absolutely absurd.
A person's right to bear arms must be balanced with the rights of thousands of innocent people a year not to be killed by gunfire.
Joe Manchin, you are commendably trying to find ways to get the government to work to accomplish the people's business. Protecting citizens from trigger happy college kids and crazy people with more armaments than the police is a clear priority in allowing Americans to strive for life, libery and the pursuit of happiness. You have the prestige and seriousness to side with Senator Feinstein and to explain to West Virginians why that is a good thing. No one would listen to Senator Rockefeller on guns, but they will listen to you.
Thank you,
Charles Wood
Sunday, December 30, 2012
Fiscal Cliff
Here is a message I just sent my representative, Congressman McKinley:
Because the Republican-controlled House has failed to initiate meaningful legislation the Senate and President have had to negotiate. I fully expect that you will support any action that comes from the Senate to resolve the fiscal cliff. If the House, including you, do not support any measure from the Senate, the members of the House leadership should resign. And all of you should be ashamed to pick up your pay checks.
Stand up for your country, not your party.
Charles Wood
Because the Republican-controlled House has failed to initiate meaningful legislation the Senate and President have had to negotiate. I fully expect that you will support any action that comes from the Senate to resolve the fiscal cliff. If the House, including you, do not support any measure from the Senate, the members of the House leadership should resign. And all of you should be ashamed to pick up your pay checks.
Stand up for your country, not your party.
Charles Wood
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Lockstep Conservatives
Science magazine reports an Italian study that discloses more physiological differences between liberals and conservatives. Participants in an experiment were shown images of politicians looking to their left or right. Participants were asked to look left or right depending on the color of a small square placed between the politician's eyes, but the real experimental goal was to see how strongly the participants followed the politician's gaze left or right. Self-described conservative participants looking at conservative politicians tended to look in the direction the politician looked even if the colored square instructed them to look the opposite way. Liberal participants were less likely to follow the gaze of liberal politicians. The experimenters compared the conservatives’ behavior to animal studies which found that subordinate primates follow the gaze of dominant monkeys.
I add that this is consistent with the tendency of House Republicans to vote 100% with their leadership’s desires. The experiment results above also are consistent with the famous Will Rogers quote: I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat.
Study by Marco Tullio Liuzza, a social neuroscientist, published in PLoS ONE. From Science 7 Oct, 2011, p 25.
I add that this is consistent with the tendency of House Republicans to vote 100% with their leadership’s desires. The experiment results above also are consistent with the famous Will Rogers quote: I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat.
Study by Marco Tullio Liuzza, a social neuroscientist, published in PLoS ONE. From Science 7 Oct, 2011, p 25.
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Think Big
Another comment I posted at the NYT, this time in response to a despondent Democrat:
Dem (comment #8) said:
"... a Romney presidency might be the only way to break the impasse and at least make some policy progress."
This assumes that the Rs continue in control of the House, and the Ds lose the Senate. The coattails of any elected R as President might lead to that, but the country would shoot back to 1890, pre-taxes, pre-regulation, pre-workers rights, pre-modern science. That would be a disaster.
Think what Obama could have done if the Rs had acted even halfway responsible the last 3 years. Obama with a D House would have a chance to move the country forward (and the economy is likely to get better the next few years no matter who is President).
Dem, you should work to return control of the House to the Ds. All the new Rs are vulnerable because they have sabatoged the govt since day 1 - and they say such stupid things - so that a public angered with govt stalemate may want more change since the 2010 version didn't work. Or as Sarah would say, How those Tea Party guys workin out for ya?
Dem (comment #8) said:
"... a Romney presidency might be the only way to break the impasse and at least make some policy progress."
This assumes that the Rs continue in control of the House, and the Ds lose the Senate. The coattails of any elected R as President might lead to that, but the country would shoot back to 1890, pre-taxes, pre-regulation, pre-workers rights, pre-modern science. That would be a disaster.
Think what Obama could have done if the Rs had acted even halfway responsible the last 3 years. Obama with a D House would have a chance to move the country forward (and the economy is likely to get better the next few years no matter who is President).
Dem, you should work to return control of the House to the Ds. All the new Rs are vulnerable because they have sabatoged the govt since day 1 - and they say such stupid things - so that a public angered with govt stalemate may want more change since the 2010 version didn't work. Or as Sarah would say, How those Tea Party guys workin out for ya?
Saturday, October 1, 2011
Religious Extremists
I posted this comment in response to Ross Douthat's column in the NY Times today:
I don't see how you can uncritically accept any of these crazy Republicans who want to be president. You ignore their beliefs and only talk of the horse race. Do you not believe in science? Is the Earth really only 6000 yrs old? Do you want fewer regulations on cantaloupe growers? Do you think any of the Repubs have any idea that compromise is part of governing? Do you want to abolish the Dept of Education? How can someone who doesn't believe in government run it? Don't dignify them by calling them populists, they are crazy religious extremists who reject the 21st century much less the 20th. How can you and any serious Republican not be ashamed of their hijacked party?
I don't see how you can uncritically accept any of these crazy Republicans who want to be president. You ignore their beliefs and only talk of the horse race. Do you not believe in science? Is the Earth really only 6000 yrs old? Do you want fewer regulations on cantaloupe growers? Do you think any of the Repubs have any idea that compromise is part of governing? Do you want to abolish the Dept of Education? How can someone who doesn't believe in government run it? Don't dignify them by calling them populists, they are crazy religious extremists who reject the 21st century much less the 20th. How can you and any serious Republican not be ashamed of their hijacked party?
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Are Republicans Crazy?
Crazy is not a word that encourages dispassionate discussion, but may be appropriate for beliefs that are counter to the lessons of history. In today's NY Times Steven Rattner talks about these ideas espoused by Republicans:
* Bachmann, Paul and Romney: opposed raising the debt ceiling
* Bachmann and Paul: will never vote to raise the debt ceiling
* Cut, cap and balance bill: cut government spending by 25%, taking US back to 1966 level
* Balanced budget amendment: no government flexibility to manage
* Ryan budget proposal: replace Medicare with vouchers
* Perry: would not have supported TARP financial rescue
* Perry: repeal 16th amendment to eliminate income tax (80% of federal revenue)
* Paul: abolish Federal Reserve to prevents previous panics and busts
* Bachmann: no extension of unemployment insurance for jobless
* Bachmann and Romney and others: repeal Obama health care plan
* Bachmann: repeal Dodd-Frank financial reform
* Bachmann: General Motors and Citigroup should have not received government support, should have gone bankrupt
Rattner quotes UCal professor who found idealogical divergence in Congress the greatest in 120 yrs - since the decade that led up to the Civil War. And the increased polarization is from Republicans moving further to the right than ever before.
In general, Republicans want to remove all the protections that have grown up over the last 100 years that attempt to prevent business abuses, protect the poor, stabilize the economy, and support a government of a size necessary for a vastly large economy. I wonder if they defend the Gilded Age when large corporations - trusts - did whatever they wanted, the working week was 50-60 hr, child labor was common, full time workers lived nearly in poverty, and retirement meant instant poverty. Are any of those conditions ones we should try to re-establish?
* Bachmann, Paul and Romney: opposed raising the debt ceiling
* Bachmann and Paul: will never vote to raise the debt ceiling
* Cut, cap and balance bill: cut government spending by 25%, taking US back to 1966 level
* Balanced budget amendment: no government flexibility to manage
* Ryan budget proposal: replace Medicare with vouchers
* Perry: would not have supported TARP financial rescue
* Perry: repeal 16th amendment to eliminate income tax (80% of federal revenue)
* Paul: abolish Federal Reserve to prevents previous panics and busts
* Bachmann: no extension of unemployment insurance for jobless
* Bachmann and Romney and others: repeal Obama health care plan
* Bachmann: repeal Dodd-Frank financial reform
* Bachmann: General Motors and Citigroup should have not received government support, should have gone bankrupt
Rattner quotes UCal professor who found idealogical divergence in Congress the greatest in 120 yrs - since the decade that led up to the Civil War. And the increased polarization is from Republicans moving further to the right than ever before.
In general, Republicans want to remove all the protections that have grown up over the last 100 years that attempt to prevent business abuses, protect the poor, stabilize the economy, and support a government of a size necessary for a vastly large economy. I wonder if they defend the Gilded Age when large corporations - trusts - did whatever they wanted, the working week was 50-60 hr, child labor was common, full time workers lived nearly in poverty, and retirement meant instant poverty. Are any of those conditions ones we should try to re-establish?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Gail's column: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/28/opinion/collins-cooling-on-warming.html?ref=opinion