In the wake of so many recent mass shootings, the TSAP has gradually shifted our position on guns towards favoring more gun control than in the past. But what about the old standby argument that "more guns = less crime", as John Lott's famous 1997 study argued and the gun lobby just luurrrves to parrot to this day?
Well, it turns out that more recent research has thoroughly debunked that zombie idea that just doesn't seem to want to die already. To wit, the best studies on the matter show either no significant effect either way or even an increase in violent crime correlated with right-to-carry laws. And tighter gun laws in general--surprise, surprise--are in fact also correlated with fewer gun deaths in general as well. As for the old chestnut about self-defense, it turns out that having a gun in the house actually makes its occupants statistically LESS safe on balance. While it is true that correlation does not prove causation, such correlations still robustly hold up after numerous variables are controlled for and in a variety of statistical models, and clearly lean in the opposite direction as Lott's discredited, outdated, and now-a-radical-outlier study does. These facts dovetail nicely with well-known international evidence as well.
Ok, you ask, but then why did violent crime, including firearm homicides, drop in states that passed right-to-carry laws? Well, it dropped in all states for a variety of unrelated reasons, but it did not drop evenly: states that did not loosen their gun laws in fact saw much larger decreases in violent crime compared with the states that did loosen theirs. And gun ownership rates actually dropped during the period of decreasing gun violence, which means a positive correlation between gun ownership and violence. Thus, we see that Lott's whole thesis was based on nothing more than a statistical mirage all along.
So, in other words, the overwhelming weight of the evidence strongly suggests that "more guns = more crime" is true, all else being equal. We at the TSAP do apologize for also mindlessly parroting the now-debunked opposite theory for so long. While we were never in league with the NRA or took even one penny from the gun lobby, we were nonetheless unwittingly acting as fellow-travelers for them on purely libertarian and individualistic grounds. And we now realize what a grave error that has been, all because of--dare we say--JUNK SCIENCE. I mean, what else would you call a specious "study" that looks good at first, yet is later revealed to be not only inaccurate, but in fact virtually 100% wrong?
While we still support the Second Amendment, of course, it would seem that now our favorite part is where it says "well-regulated". Yes, really. Too bad the NRA and their bought-and-paid-for politicians can't seem to read the first half of the freaking sentence! But the gun lobby and their lackeys aren't really well known for nuance, to put it mildly.
Sunday, October 8, 2017
Thursday, October 5, 2017
Enough Is Enough Already!
The worst mass shooting in modern American history* occurred just a few days ago on October 1, 2017 in Las Vegas. A lone gunman (of unknown motive and political affiliation) armed to the teeth with the obligatory high-powered semi-automatic rifle--23 of them to be exact, many equipped with rapid-fire "bump stocks", plus thousands of rounds of ammo--shot up a country music concert from the window in his hotel room, killing 59 and injuring over 500 people. It seems that mass shootings have become an almost daily occurrence in recent years--in the USA at least. But the rest of the industrialized world doesn't really seem to have this kind of problem. Why is that? Well, there's always....
GUNS.
America is the land of 300 million guns, and combined with a culture that is crazier and more violent than most other "developed" countries, and much more extreme inequality, it is a very lethal combination indeed. Of course, the biggest elephant in the room is the fact that at least 98% of mass shooters are MEN. Thanks to the patriarchy and the sort of "toxic masculinity" that it creates, combined with the above factors, too many men end up resorting to violence. Like the Iron Maiden song says, "a briefcase, a lunch, and a man on the edge". With a gun. I mean, what could possibly go wrong, right?
There should be no doubt at this point that something needs to be done. However, we do not believe that banning all guns for everyone, or adopting British or European-style gun laws, is the solution, as the genie is already out of the bottle, and there is also that whole Constitution thingy as well. Thus, the TSAP recommends that the following measures be taken:
In this particular shooting, a deadly combination of toxic masculinity, readily-available weapons of war, and perhaps some unknown sort of zealotry (or not) ultimately led to the deaths of over 50 innocent people. And yet no one saw it coming, at least under the current system. If that's not the all-time KING of wake-up calls, I honestly don't know what is.
I don't know about you, but my favorite part of the Second Amendment is where it says "well-regulated". Too bad so many Republican Congresscritters who are bought and paid for by the NRA can't seem to read the first half of the freaking sentence. Oh, and nevermind that when it was written, guns at that time fired at most one round per minute, not 600+ per minute like so many of today's killing machines. Not like the gun lobby and their lackeys really do nuance.
* Many people refer to the Las Vegas shooting as the "worst mass shooting in American history" period, but to do so ignores that there were even worse ones still in the 19th century against Native Americans, most notably at Wounded Knee. Of course, that's different. I mean, today's shootings aren't even in the same league as the GENOCIDE our nation was founded on.
GUNS.
America is the land of 300 million guns, and combined with a culture that is crazier and more violent than most other "developed" countries, and much more extreme inequality, it is a very lethal combination indeed. Of course, the biggest elephant in the room is the fact that at least 98% of mass shooters are MEN. Thanks to the patriarchy and the sort of "toxic masculinity" that it creates, combined with the above factors, too many men end up resorting to violence. Like the Iron Maiden song says, "a briefcase, a lunch, and a man on the edge". With a gun. I mean, what could possibly go wrong, right?
There should be no doubt at this point that something needs to be done. However, we do not believe that banning all guns for everyone, or adopting British or European-style gun laws, is the solution, as the genie is already out of the bottle, and there is also that whole Constitution thingy as well. Thus, the TSAP recommends that the following measures be taken:
- Bring back a new and improved 1994 assault-weapons ban yesterday, this time with more teeth. This time, include all rapid-fire devices and all magazines with more than ten rounds in the ban as well as the previously-banned types of semi-automatic rifles and their knockoffs.
- Remove the 20-year ban on gun violence research, yesterday.
- End the gun-show loophole and implement universal background checks, yesterday.
- Put a significant excise tax on all bullets/ammo, like Chris Rock recommended. (Seriously)
- Treat ammo sales the same as gun sales. Or better yet, treat bullets like Sudafed: must show ID, limit on the number that one can buy, the number bought would be recorded, and if you do buy too many, you will be investigated.
- Pass a "one gun a month" law at the federal level. And consider perhaps putting a limit on the number of guns that an individual can own at a given time, except for antiques/relics/curios.
- Require reporting of lost or stolen guns.
- Regulate firearms like other consumer products in terms of health and safety standards--currently such standards are nonexistent.
- Improve enforcement of existing gun laws, which tend not to be enforced very well these days, and improve state reporting of prohibited persons to NICS. Also, prohibit anyone on the terrorism watch list from buying any guns, period. (Believe it or not, the shooter in last year's Orlando shooting was on the terror watch list and was still able to get a gun)
- Consider a massive gun buyback program, one that pays significantly more than what the guns are worth on the street. Voluntary for any still-legal weapons, mandatory for any newly-banned ones.
- And last but not least, improve our woefully-inadequate mental healthcare system.
In this particular shooting, a deadly combination of toxic masculinity, readily-available weapons of war, and perhaps some unknown sort of zealotry (or not) ultimately led to the deaths of over 50 innocent people. And yet no one saw it coming, at least under the current system. If that's not the all-time KING of wake-up calls, I honestly don't know what is.
I don't know about you, but my favorite part of the Second Amendment is where it says "well-regulated". Too bad so many Republican Congresscritters who are bought and paid for by the NRA can't seem to read the first half of the freaking sentence. Oh, and nevermind that when it was written, guns at that time fired at most one round per minute, not 600+ per minute like so many of today's killing machines. Not like the gun lobby and their lackeys really do nuance.
* Many people refer to the Las Vegas shooting as the "worst mass shooting in American history" period, but to do so ignores that there were even worse ones still in the 19th century against Native Americans, most notably at Wounded Knee. Of course, that's different. I mean, today's shootings aren't even in the same league as the GENOCIDE our nation was founded on.
Monday, September 4, 2017
State of the Planet Address 2017 (Post-Harvey Edition)
Every year since 2011, the TSAP has been giving our annual State of the Planet Address in mid-January. This year, we gave one in February and a second one in September due to the record-breaking Hurricane Harvey. Yes, we know it is a bit of a downer to say the least. So sit down, take off your rose-colored glasses, and read on:
Our planet is in grave danger, and has been for quite some time now. We face several serious long term problems: climate change, deforestation, desertification, loss of biodiversity, overharvesting, energy crises, and of course pollution of many kinds. Polar ice caps are melting. Rainforests have been shrinking by 50 acres per minute. Numerous species are going extinct every year. Soil is eroding rapidly. Food shortages have occurred in several countries in recent years. Weather has been getting crazier each year thanks to climate change. We have had numerous wildfires, floods followed by long periods of drought, and a "storm of the century" at least once a year for the past few years. And it is only getting worse every year. In fact, 2016 has been the hottest year on record, and the third straight record year. Look no further than the three record-breaking storms in the past dozen years: Katrina (2005, highest storm surge), Sandy (2012, largest diameter), and now Harvey (2017, a 1000-year flood, and overall worst hurricane on record) for a taste of the future.
In fact, on the other side of the world, the worst monsoon season in recent memory has recently displaced 41 million people due to record flooding. Thus for many, the future is sadly already here to one degree or another.
None of this is an accident of course. These problems are man-made, and their solutions must also begin and end with humans. We cannot afford to sit idly by any longer, lest we face hell and high water in the not-too-distant future. Our unsustainable scorched-earth policy towards the planet has to end. Yesterday.
While we do not invoke the precautionary principle for all issues, we unequivocally do for the issue of climate change and any other environmental issues of comparable magnitude. In fact, for something as dire as climate change, as of 2015 we now support a strong "no regrets" approach. With no apologies to hardcore libertarians or paleoconservatives, in fact. We are not fazed one bit by the naysayers' pseudoscience as it does not really "debunk" the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming. The only serious debate is about how fast it will happen, and when the tipping point (or points) will occur. It is not a matter of if, but when. And the less precarious position is to assume it is a real and urgent problem. We need to reduce CO2 emissions to the point where the CO2 concentration is at or below 350 ppm, ASAP. And it is currently at an unsustainably high level of 400+ ppm, and growing.
Solving the problem of climate change will also help to solve the other ecological crises we are facing, for they all ultimately have the same root causes, not least of which is our insatiable addiction to dirty energy. However, there is a right way to solve it, and several wrong ways. Technology is important, but it won't be decisive on its own (economics geeks may recall Jevons Paradox). The real problem is the paradigm that our society has been following, and that system is based on wetiko, the parasite of the mind and cancer of the soul. It often seems that the only difference between capitalism and cannibalism is the spelling.
The TSAP endorses the ideas embodied in Steve Stoft's new book Carbonomics, most notably a tax-and-dividend system that would tax carbon (i.e. fossil fuels) at the source, and give all Americans an equal share of the revenue generated from this tax. (Note that our proposal to tax natural resources and pay out an Alaska-like citizen's dividend already includes this.) Yes, prices for various things would undoubtedly rise due to this tax, all else being equal, but the dividend will allow Americans to pay for this increase. The average American would in fact break even, but those who (directly or indirectly) use less energy than average will effectively pay less tax, while the energy hogs will effectively be taxed more, as they should be. Thus it is certainly not a regressive tax, and may even be mildly progressive. This is both the simplest and most equitable way to reduce carbon emissions as well as other forms of pollution, not to mention waste of dwindling non-renewable resources. The real challenge is getting the feds to accept something that won't directly benefit them (in the short term). Carbonomics also includes other good ideas, such as improving how fuel economy standards are done, and crafting a better verison of the Kyoto treaty.
In addition to the ideas in Carbonomics, we also support several other measures to help us end our addiction to fossil fuels once and for all. Our Great American Phase-Out plan would phase out all fossil fuels by 2030 at the latest, via alternative energy, efficiency, and conservation. One good idea to further the development of alternative energy would be the use of feed-in tariffs for renewable power sources.
We support ending net deforestation completely, and putting carbon back in the ground through carbon sequestration. One method is known as biochar, a type of charcoal made from plants that remove carbon dioxide from the air, that is subsequently buried. This is also an ancient method of soil fertilization and conservation, originally called terra preta. It also helps preserve biodiversity. Another crucial method would be regenerative organic farming, which also turns the soil into an effective carbon sink as well.
We've said this before, and we'll say it again. Our ultimate goal is 100% renewable energy by 2030, but we need to hedge our bets. We can phase out fossil fuels, or we can phase out nuclear power, but we can't do both at the same time--and fossil fuels need to be phased out first, and quickly. Nuclear is doing a pretty good job of phasing itself out as it is. So let's not get rid of it prematurely.
But the biggest elephant in the room (make that the elephant in the Volkswagen) is overpopulation. It does not make for pleasant dinner conversation, but it must be addressed or else all other causes become lost causes in the long run. We absolutely need to have fewer kids, or nature will reduce our population for us, and the latter will NOT be pleasant to say the least. The TSAP believes in voluntarily reducing the total fertility rate (TFR) to 1.5-1.9 children per woman to do so, but let us be clear that we do NOT support draconian and/or coercive measures of population control (like China has used). We believe that more liberty is the answer, not less. In fact, the two most effective means of reducing the birthrate are poverty reduction and female empowerment. Fortunately, America's TFR has recently dropped to below 1.9, with no indication of rising back above replacement rate in the near term. But clearly we cannot keep growing and growing, that's for sure (in fact, we need to shrink). And our insatiable addiction to economic growth (despite being decoupled from well-being) is also every bit as harmful as overpopulation as well, if not more so. Growth for the sake of growth, the ideology of the cancer cell, is clearly one of the most asinine obsessions our nation (and world) has ever had. We clearly need to transition to a steady-state economy, most likely following a period of what Naomi Klein calls "selective degrowth" as well. And to do that, we need a radical paradigm shift to happen yesterday. Put another way, we need to leave room for Nature, lest Nature not leave room for us. We have been warned, decades ago in fact. Unfortunately, such warnings have largely fallen of deaf ears until very recently.
Last but not least, the TSAP now believes that as long as men remain in charge, we are all merely rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Let's face it, it ain't gonna be us fellas who will save the world, as the past 7000 years or so have shown. We paved paradise and put up a parking lot, we created a desert and called it peace. We devoured and suffocated our own empire, and our proverbial 15 minutes of fame is almost up. Only when women finally take over and reclaim their rightful position as the new leaders of the free world--and they will--will there be any real permanent solution.
Bottom line: we need to take the environment much more seriously than we do now. We ignore it at our own peril. And while the current administration in DC clearly doesn't care, We the People must act nonetheless. With no apologies to the deniosaurs or Big Oil or Big Gas, or Dirty Coal.
Oh, by the way, wanna hear a joke? Peak Oil. Not saying it won't happen, of course--it will eventually peak and decline at some point--but climate change kinda supersedes it. While conventional oil most likely has already peaked, there is more than enough total oil (including unconventional) to deep-fry the Earth--and most of which needs to stay in the ground if we wish to avoid catastrophic climate change. Fossil fuels are, after all, what Buckminster Fuller referred to as our planet's "energy savings account", which we need to wean ourselves off of and save just in case of a planetary emergency--and he first said this in 1941!
So quibble all you want, but the truth must be faced head-on. We have a planet to save. So let's roll!
Our planet is in grave danger, and has been for quite some time now. We face several serious long term problems: climate change, deforestation, desertification, loss of biodiversity, overharvesting, energy crises, and of course pollution of many kinds. Polar ice caps are melting. Rainforests have been shrinking by 50 acres per minute. Numerous species are going extinct every year. Soil is eroding rapidly. Food shortages have occurred in several countries in recent years. Weather has been getting crazier each year thanks to climate change. We have had numerous wildfires, floods followed by long periods of drought, and a "storm of the century" at least once a year for the past few years. And it is only getting worse every year. In fact, 2016 has been the hottest year on record, and the third straight record year. Look no further than the three record-breaking storms in the past dozen years: Katrina (2005, highest storm surge), Sandy (2012, largest diameter), and now Harvey (2017, a 1000-year flood, and overall worst hurricane on record) for a taste of the future.
In fact, on the other side of the world, the worst monsoon season in recent memory has recently displaced 41 million people due to record flooding. Thus for many, the future is sadly already here to one degree or another.
None of this is an accident of course. These problems are man-made, and their solutions must also begin and end with humans. We cannot afford to sit idly by any longer, lest we face hell and high water in the not-too-distant future. Our unsustainable scorched-earth policy towards the planet has to end. Yesterday.
While we do not invoke the precautionary principle for all issues, we unequivocally do for the issue of climate change and any other environmental issues of comparable magnitude. In fact, for something as dire as climate change, as of 2015 we now support a strong "no regrets" approach. With no apologies to hardcore libertarians or paleoconservatives, in fact. We are not fazed one bit by the naysayers' pseudoscience as it does not really "debunk" the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming. The only serious debate is about how fast it will happen, and when the tipping point (or points) will occur. It is not a matter of if, but when. And the less precarious position is to assume it is a real and urgent problem. We need to reduce CO2 emissions to the point where the CO2 concentration is at or below 350 ppm, ASAP. And it is currently at an unsustainably high level of 400+ ppm, and growing.
Solving the problem of climate change will also help to solve the other ecological crises we are facing, for they all ultimately have the same root causes, not least of which is our insatiable addiction to dirty energy. However, there is a right way to solve it, and several wrong ways. Technology is important, but it won't be decisive on its own (economics geeks may recall Jevons Paradox). The real problem is the paradigm that our society has been following, and that system is based on wetiko, the parasite of the mind and cancer of the soul. It often seems that the only difference between capitalism and cannibalism is the spelling.
The TSAP endorses the ideas embodied in Steve Stoft's new book Carbonomics, most notably a tax-and-dividend system that would tax carbon (i.e. fossil fuels) at the source, and give all Americans an equal share of the revenue generated from this tax. (Note that our proposal to tax natural resources and pay out an Alaska-like citizen's dividend already includes this.) Yes, prices for various things would undoubtedly rise due to this tax, all else being equal, but the dividend will allow Americans to pay for this increase. The average American would in fact break even, but those who (directly or indirectly) use less energy than average will effectively pay less tax, while the energy hogs will effectively be taxed more, as they should be. Thus it is certainly not a regressive tax, and may even be mildly progressive. This is both the simplest and most equitable way to reduce carbon emissions as well as other forms of pollution, not to mention waste of dwindling non-renewable resources. The real challenge is getting the feds to accept something that won't directly benefit them (in the short term). Carbonomics also includes other good ideas, such as improving how fuel economy standards are done, and crafting a better verison of the Kyoto treaty.
In addition to the ideas in Carbonomics, we also support several other measures to help us end our addiction to fossil fuels once and for all. Our Great American Phase-Out plan would phase out all fossil fuels by 2030 at the latest, via alternative energy, efficiency, and conservation. One good idea to further the development of alternative energy would be the use of feed-in tariffs for renewable power sources.
We support ending net deforestation completely, and putting carbon back in the ground through carbon sequestration. One method is known as biochar, a type of charcoal made from plants that remove carbon dioxide from the air, that is subsequently buried. This is also an ancient method of soil fertilization and conservation, originally called terra preta. It also helps preserve biodiversity. Another crucial method would be regenerative organic farming, which also turns the soil into an effective carbon sink as well.
We've said this before, and we'll say it again. Our ultimate goal is 100% renewable energy by 2030, but we need to hedge our bets. We can phase out fossil fuels, or we can phase out nuclear power, but we can't do both at the same time--and fossil fuels need to be phased out first, and quickly. Nuclear is doing a pretty good job of phasing itself out as it is. So let's not get rid of it prematurely.
But the biggest elephant in the room (make that the elephant in the Volkswagen) is overpopulation. It does not make for pleasant dinner conversation, but it must be addressed or else all other causes become lost causes in the long run. We absolutely need to have fewer kids, or nature will reduce our population for us, and the latter will NOT be pleasant to say the least. The TSAP believes in voluntarily reducing the total fertility rate (TFR) to 1.5-1.9 children per woman to do so, but let us be clear that we do NOT support draconian and/or coercive measures of population control (like China has used). We believe that more liberty is the answer, not less. In fact, the two most effective means of reducing the birthrate are poverty reduction and female empowerment. Fortunately, America's TFR has recently dropped to below 1.9, with no indication of rising back above replacement rate in the near term. But clearly we cannot keep growing and growing, that's for sure (in fact, we need to shrink). And our insatiable addiction to economic growth (despite being decoupled from well-being) is also every bit as harmful as overpopulation as well, if not more so. Growth for the sake of growth, the ideology of the cancer cell, is clearly one of the most asinine obsessions our nation (and world) has ever had. We clearly need to transition to a steady-state economy, most likely following a period of what Naomi Klein calls "selective degrowth" as well. And to do that, we need a radical paradigm shift to happen yesterday. Put another way, we need to leave room for Nature, lest Nature not leave room for us. We have been warned, decades ago in fact. Unfortunately, such warnings have largely fallen of deaf ears until very recently.
Last but not least, the TSAP now believes that as long as men remain in charge, we are all merely rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Let's face it, it ain't gonna be us fellas who will save the world, as the past 7000 years or so have shown. We paved paradise and put up a parking lot, we created a desert and called it peace. We devoured and suffocated our own empire, and our proverbial 15 minutes of fame is almost up. Only when women finally take over and reclaim their rightful position as the new leaders of the free world--and they will--will there be any real permanent solution.
Bottom line: we need to take the environment much more seriously than we do now. We ignore it at our own peril. And while the current administration in DC clearly doesn't care, We the People must act nonetheless. With no apologies to the deniosaurs or Big Oil or Big Gas, or Dirty Coal.
Oh, by the way, wanna hear a joke? Peak Oil. Not saying it won't happen, of course--it will eventually peak and decline at some point--but climate change kinda supersedes it. While conventional oil most likely has already peaked, there is more than enough total oil (including unconventional) to deep-fry the Earth--and most of which needs to stay in the ground if we wish to avoid catastrophic climate change. Fossil fuels are, after all, what Buckminster Fuller referred to as our planet's "energy savings account", which we need to wean ourselves off of and save just in case of a planetary emergency--and he first said this in 1941!
So quibble all you want, but the truth must be faced head-on. We have a planet to save. So let's roll!
Tuesday, August 15, 2017
We Must Condemn the Alt-Reich (Or, What Hath Trump Wrought?)
First, let's be brutally honest about what the so-called "alt-right" really is: they are a repackaged and rebranded collection of white supremacists, neo-Nazis, and KKK, with some neo-reactionaries, neo-Confederates, and fellow-travelers thrown in for good measure. Even the term "white nationalist" is a euphemism for what these racist, hate-mongering deplorables really are. Let's get that straight first.
Further emboldened, some neo-Nazis even vandalized the Boston Holocaust Memorial shortly after, the second time this summer after 22 straight years of no such incidents. The broken glass was clearly an echo of the infamous Kristallnacht pogrom in 1938, and there were swastikas and anti-Semitic graffiti everywhere. So much for a "post-racial society". It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that hate crimes have accelerated since the Trump campaign and especially since the election.
Second, let's be brutally honest about what really happened in Charlottesville, VA on August 12-13, 2017. A group of the aforementioned Alt-Reich white supremacist hatemongers descended on the town of Charlottesville to protest the taking down of a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee. And that protest quickly got out of hand. What started as marching through town with citronella Tiki torches (end-of-summer sale at Walmart, what else) ended in violence and bloodshed when the increasingly angry and restless (and armed) crowd of modern-day brownshirts clashed with the counter-protestors who opposed them. One of the white supremacists, James Alex Fields, Jr., even used his accelerating car as a weapon and drove through a crowd of counter-protestors, killing Heather Heyer and injuring at least 19 others. And yes, that is premeditated murder--it was planned and he exhibited what is known as "universal malice" when he deliberately used his car as a deadly weapon against his targets. In fact, it is clearly an act of domestic terrorism. And the black man that was brutally beaten with poles by a group of white supremacists in a parking garage? He was the victim of a modern-day lynching.
Then Un-President Trump, ever careful not to offend his deplorable base that voted for him, blamed the violence on "both sides", drawing the ultimate false equivalency--a dog whistle that was not lost on the neo-Nazis. Then, two days after it happened and after much criticism, he then finally named the problem--racism, white supremacists, KKK, neo-Nazis--but then almost in the same breath implied that we should all "unite" (!) with them. Then, in his next speech, he even had the GALL to blame the violence on the "alt-left", whatever that is. Sounds like more "alt-facts" as usual, Donald. Sadly, this comes as no surprise.
Further emboldened, some neo-Nazis even vandalized the Boston Holocaust Memorial shortly after, the second time this summer after 22 straight years of no such incidents. The broken glass was clearly an echo of the infamous Kristallnacht pogrom in 1938, and there were swastikas and anti-Semitic graffiti everywhere. So much for a "post-racial society". It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that hate crimes have accelerated since the Trump campaign and especially since the election.
It should be painfully obvious now that Trump in fact created, or at least unleashed, this monster, or at least its latest incarnation which he keeps enabling. And he utterly failed his biggest moral test yet by not immediately and unequivocally naming and condemning this monster. Worse, he even once referred to them collectively as "fine people".
To all those who voted for Trump, how does it feel to be on the wrong side of history? Because we wouldn't know anything about that. Believe me.
Friday, August 11, 2017
Trump Is "Wagging the Dog"--But Will He Get Us All Killed?
As the Russiagate scandal is closing in on the Trump administration and it is becoming increasingly clear that the jig is up, Trump is getting increasingly bold in his attempts to "wag the dog", that is, to distract the American people from the ever-growing scandal. His latest attempt to do so is to apparently provoke a war--even a potential nuclear war(!)--with North Korea. And the (other) already-unhinged dictator, Kim Jong Un, is making threats against the USA in response to Trump's reckless "fire and fury" and "locked and loaded" threats against North Korea. Clearly, he is playing a very dangerous game to say the least.
In other words, Trump is perfectly willing to literally risk getting us all KILLED for no other reasons than 1) so he can temporarily distract us from the Russiagate scandal, 2) to possibly extract favorable deals from China, and 3) to get to play "war" and "tough guy" (with other people's lives) at the same time. This comedy of errors is clearly NOT funny anymore, if it ever really was. I hate to say it, but suddenly the idea of a President Pence (shudder!) doesn't really look quite so scary anymore by comparison.
Bottom line: The Donald absolutely MUST be impeached or forced to resign, yesterday. Otherwise, there may not even be a tomorrow.
Monday, July 17, 2017
About That Danish Minimum Wage Study
On the heels of the debate about the specious Seattle minimum wage study, a new Danish study is currently making headlines. Denmark has a de facto minimum wage (set by collective bargaining) of over $20/hour, or about $14.50/hour when adjusting for purchasing power parity. That is the rate for adults 18 and over. Prior to that age, the de facto minimum wage is significantly lower, and suddenly jumps by 40% upon turning 18. The researchers did a regression discontinuity design to determine what effects on employment that would have, and they found a 33% drop in employment within the first month after turning 18. And it apparently takes a full two years for the employment rate to fully recover to what it was just prior to one's 18th birthday.
So what do we make of this finding? This study actually leaves the reader with more questions than answers. One should note that age discrimination in employment is illegal in Denmark, with one exception: it is in fact perfectly legal to fire someone upon turning 18 in order to avoid paying the higher minimum wage. Yes, really. Thus, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how that creates a powerful incentive to preferentially hire 16 and 17 year olds temporarily, use them up, and throw them away like so much garbage upon turning 18.
However, this study does not actually prove that a higher minimum wage is a bad idea overall. The biggest takeaway from this study is that age discrimination is a bad idea across the board, not that the minimum wage is too high. So close the goddamn loophole in the age discrimination law. And if they still see a need to set the minimum wage lower for workers under 18, at least make it graduated and less of a difference from the adult minimum wage.
For example, the TSAP party platform calls for the minimum wage in this country to be raised to $15/hour for all workers over 18, with the minimum wage for workers under 18 set no less than 80% of the adult minimum wage (i.e. $12/hour), on a sliding scale rather than one sudden and sharp jump. And it should go without saying that firing someone upon turning 18 (or any age, for that matter) just to avoid paying them a bit more should be illegal, period. As this latest study shows, caveat lector, anything less is basically asking for trouble.
So what do we make of this finding? This study actually leaves the reader with more questions than answers. One should note that age discrimination in employment is illegal in Denmark, with one exception: it is in fact perfectly legal to fire someone upon turning 18 in order to avoid paying the higher minimum wage. Yes, really. Thus, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how that creates a powerful incentive to preferentially hire 16 and 17 year olds temporarily, use them up, and throw them away like so much garbage upon turning 18.
However, this study does not actually prove that a higher minimum wage is a bad idea overall. The biggest takeaway from this study is that age discrimination is a bad idea across the board, not that the minimum wage is too high. So close the goddamn loophole in the age discrimination law. And if they still see a need to set the minimum wage lower for workers under 18, at least make it graduated and less of a difference from the adult minimum wage.
For example, the TSAP party platform calls for the minimum wage in this country to be raised to $15/hour for all workers over 18, with the minimum wage for workers under 18 set no less than 80% of the adult minimum wage (i.e. $12/hour), on a sliding scale rather than one sudden and sharp jump. And it should go without saying that firing someone upon turning 18 (or any age, for that matter) just to avoid paying them a bit more should be illegal, period. As this latest study shows, caveat lector, anything less is basically asking for trouble.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
