Unintended Consequences: New York Lesbian Mothers and Kansas Conservatives

By the time I was a teen my father no longer practiced corporal punishment on me. He thought it was no longer effective on me and disrespectful to both of us. However one of his favorite sayings when he thought I (or anyone else regardless of age or relationship) was about to do something ill-advised was to throw up his hands and declare "You can do whatever you want to do. You're (almost) grown." Left unsaid was the sentence "But don't come crying to me when it doesn't work out, dummy!" I've adopted that saying and use it often. I was reminded of this advice while reading two stories concerning recent events in New York and Kansas. In each instance, policy changes that were implemented have proven to have some consequences which were either not fully anticipated (New York) or were the exact opposite of what was promised (Kansas). This doesn't necessarily prove that the policy changes were stupid ideas, though my bias would make me argue that's definitely the case in the Kansas situation. But it does show that before people make legal or policy changes they do need to think things through a little more carefully. Fewer people would get hurt and bloggers wouldn't have fodder for quick posts before devoting their undivided attention to their day job. Both stories showed that good intentions don't necessarily lead to good results.  Both stories also illuminated that liberals and conservatives can be equally dogmatic and/or have blind spots when it comes to certain base principles.

As we've discussed before when it comes to custody and child care disputes the only primary principle that the state generally adheres to is that the man is always wrong and must pay is that the best interests of the child are paramount and the biological parent(s) is (are) responsible for the well being of the child. There are a few exceptions to this insofar as biology but these exceptions are generally to the detriment of the man. In most states if you are a married man and your wife produces a child you are held responsible for the well being of that child even if you prove that your wife was cheating with the mailman. Too bad, so sad, you're the dad. On the other hand if you are a stepfather or boyfriend and your wife or girlfriend has children and you and she break up, generally speaking you won't have financial responsibility, custody or visitation to those children. You can seek it but it's not by any means guaranteed. You're not the biological father. You would have such responsibilities if you adopted the children. A lesbian couple in New York (or rather one half of a lesbian couple) discovered this the hard way when they broke up and the woman who was not the biological mother tried to obtain visitation/custody to the child which they had both parented.

The Marriage Equality Act, which New York State passed in June 2011, allowed Jann Paczkowski to marry her partner, Jamie, with the assurance that “the marriages of same-sex and different-sex couples” would “be treated equally in all respects under the law.” But when the couple separated and Ms. Paczkowski sought joint custody of the 2-year-old boy they were raising together, she discovered the limits of that assurance. On June 30, 2014, a judge in Nassau County family court ruled that Ms. Paczkowski did not have legal standing to seek access to the boy — because even under the Marriage Equality Act, she was not his parent. 

In his decision, Judge Edmund M. Dane acknowledged “inequity” and “imbalance” in the law, adding that if Ms. Paczkowski were a man in the same position, the law might point toward a different ruling. But in the end, he left Jann with no contact with the boy. The decision devastated Ms. Paczkowski, 36. “You can see how angry and upset I am,” she said on a recent afternoon, seated beside her court-appointed lawyer after a morning spent moving cars for an auction house. She had not seen the boy since a brief visit on Mother’s Day. Children born to a married couple are legally presumed to belong to both spouses; for those born before a marriage — like J. and numerous children born to gay parents before the Marriage Equality Act — only the biological parent is presumed to be the parent.

I am not sure that this is some bias against gay people. The law in New York did allow for non-biological parents to adopt the children of their partners. For whatever reason Jann Paczkowski did not do that. So since there was no adoption the state went with Jamie Lechner as the sole parent. Although gays can marry and have children biology only allows one of them to be the biological parent. Heterosexuals are much less likely to have this issue, by definition.  LINK
This can be "fixed" legally but the flip side is that the fix wouldn't just apply to gay couples, who are after all an overwhelming minority of all couples. If New York allows non-biological and non-adoptive "parents" standing in custody or visitation cases that would mean that every girlfriend, boyfriend or ex-spouse would also have standing to sue for custody or visitation in every single type of living arrangement. That might be less than ideal. Or maybe that is what people want. I can't call it. It would also allow biological parents to sue every single boyfriend, girlfriend or ex-spouse for child support. That is definitely a bad idea in my opinion. I mean if you live with someone for a year or so and then decide that it's not working out do you really want them coming after you for support for a child that is not yours? Or perhaps you discover that Mr. or Miss Right is really horribly wrong and a substance abuser to boot so you leave. Should they be able to assert co-parenting rights to your child when they are not the biological or adoptive parent?

Moving to the Midwest, the state of Kansas, under the leadership of Republican Governor Sam Brownback took a shift far to the right on both cultural and economic issues with results that so far, at least economically have been been just short of disastrous.
One of the basic ideas that animates supply side neo-conservative economics is that tax rates on the wealthy, capital and/or corporations are too high. What needs to occur is that the tax rates on these segments of society should be lowered. This will be good for everyone because the wealthy will be inspired to invest more and hire more, available jobs will increase and those nasty government busybodies will have less funding with which to harass decent God fearing Americans. Low taxes= high prosperity. Well Kansas tried that. It didn't work. Instead of budget surpluses, low unemployment and solid revenue streams Kansas finds its job growth lagging the nation's, a gaping hole in its budget that must be plugged and cuts in the state's bond rating which of course means that the cost to borrow money will increase. This is not exactly what Brownback promised when he and his supporters pushed through significant cuts in both income and sales taxes to the point where some people of lower means were paying more in sales taxes than higher income people were paying in income taxes. Prosperity was evidently not just around the corner. Trickle down economics once again failed to deliver the goods. Obviously though I suppose it might depend on what you thought the "goods" were. If your preferred response to gaping revenue cuts is to then cut public spending (i.e. education) even further than possibly everything is working according to plan. The thing is though is that even other Kansas Republicans are starting to admit that things haven't gone according to plan and are beginning to distance themselves from Brownback's agenda. Brownback and his ilk may have tacked too far to the right.

HUTCHINSON, Kan. — In his 40 years living in Kansas, Konrad Hastings cannot remember voting for a Democrat. He is the type who agonizes over big purchases, trying to save as much money as possible. He is against stricter gun laws, opposes abortion in most cases and prefers less government involvement in his life. 

But when he casts his ballot for governor in November, he plans to shun the leader of this state’s conservative movement, the Republican incumbent, Sam Brownback, and vote for the Democratic challenger. 

“He’s leading Kansas down,” said Mr. Hastings, 68, who said he voted for Mr. Brownback four years ago, when he easily won his first term. “We’re going to be bankrupt in two or three years if we keep going his way.” Voters like Mr. Hastings are at the heart of Mr. Brownback’s surprising fight for political survival. Most criticism of Mr. Brownback has centered on the tax cuts, which slashed individual income tax rates and eliminated taxes on nonwage earnings for nearly 200,000 small businesses. The most recent fiscal year ended with state revenues more than $300 million short of expectations. Based on decreased revenue from the tax cuts, the state’s nonpartisan legislative research department estimates that the budget will have to be adjusted by $1.3 billion, either through spending cuts or additional revenue, over the next five years in order to remain balanced.

Opponents of the governor have used this to stoke fears that he would cut vital services. Both Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s have downgraded Kansas’ credit rating.

LINK
People obviously have different ideas about abortion, gay marriage, gun control and so on but when you start messing with their money everyone tends to notice. States are generally required to have balanced budgets so if there is a shortfall either taxes must increase or spending must decline. Different political groups have different preferences for which choices should be made and that's fine. What's not fine is pretending that there is a free lunch. If you cut taxes, generally revenue is going to drop. There is a political class that is entirely invested in pretending that this isn't true but it is. Now the bill is coming due in Kansas.  Governor Brownback has a 7 point lead over his Democratic challenger, which is pretty close for a reliably Republican state like Kansas. Time will tell what political choice Kansans make but once again it should be obvious to people that trickle down economics is very good at cutting taxes on the wealthy, on capitalists or corporations. It is somewhat limited however when it comes to producing prosperity for everyone, all else equal.

What's your take on these two stories?

Do you think that a non-biological gay parent should be treated the same as a biological heterosexual parent?

Will Governor Brownback be re-elected? Are tax cuts the way to prosperity?

Book Reviews: Mr. Mercedes, Dead Wrong

Mr. Mercedes
by Stephen King

I've been reading a lot of Stephen King's works lately. Someday I will get around to reading what some people say is King's masterpiece, The Dark Tower series, but I didn't have time for all that. So Mr. Mercedes it was. This book is about 400 pages. There are no supernatural elements so if you're unable to suspend disbelief to enter the world of vampires and curses, ghosts and multidimensional demons, then this might be safe reading for you. King called this book his first hardboiled detective tale. King provides some detailed descriptions and some very realistic characterizations, generally. He also stumbles in creating a black character. Here, the black character, despite being a teenager of very high intelligence, is a person who finds it amusingly ironic to speak to the white protagonist in 1930s Stepin Fetchit dialect. The teen claims to do this because he's upper middle class, likely going to an Ivy League school and worries that he's not really living the true "black experience". This is senseless. I grew up middle class. My brother is a Harvard grad. Last I checked there were about seven first or second degree family members on both sides who are attorneys or doctors. We rarely had doubts about who we were or what society was all about and if we did we certainly wouldn't have expressed them by speaking Amos-n-Andy dialect to a white man old enough to be our grandfather. NOBODY in either parent's family thought poverty or dysfunction was the real black experience. Also, my parents wouldn't have allowed me to hang around alone with any adult man, regardless of race. Alarm bells would have gone off. "So Shady, where do you think you're going? Oh Dad, I'm just going over to Mr. Hodges' house to hang out and do things I can't talk to you about". Right. Don't get me wrong. I know that good friends can racially or ethnically mock themselves and each other. I've seen/heard it. But my experience has been that such banter is done by long time intimate friends or lovers with enough history to know that no malice is meant. 

I just couldn't buy that a sixty something white retired cop and a black teenager would have had such trust and history. And certain black conservatives not withstanding I don't know any black people who would find it amusing to refer to their employer to his face and in front of other whites as "Massa So-and-So".

We learn the killer's identity almost immediately. The suspense is in whether the hero and his boy wonder sidekick, his younger love interest, and her OCD afflicted cousin will discover the bad guy's identity and/or protect themselves, the general public and their loved ones from the killer. It seems as if incest is becoming more popular as a literary marker of evil.
Brady Hartsfield, a nondescript looking computer tech, stole a Mercedes. For fun he ran over numerous people at a job fair. He was never caught. Brady is a sociopath. He considers other people cattle. He enjoys proving to himself daily that he is smarter than and thus superior to everyone else. He lives with his mother, Deborah Ann, an alcoholic former cheerleader who is losing her shape. Nevertheless, Deborah Ann, a racist like Brady, loves her son. She loves him so much that she provides Brady grateful "release" when he gets fierce intense throbbing... uh... headaches. They haven't done THAT final thing yet but they've done other things. They never discuss their sin with each other. King doesn't go into detailed specifics about what they actually do. The duo has even worse secrets.

Former police detective Bill Hodges was assigned to the case but could not solve it. Now retired, depressed, moving quickly from overweight to obese, and estranged from his remaining family he spends his days watching Jerry Springer, Judge Judy and contemplating suicide. Bill gets a note from Brady taunting him for not solving the case and threatening to cause more havoc. But Bill doesn't commit suicide as Brady intended. Instead Bill has found purpose. With the help of local teen computer genius Jerome Robinson and the sexy Janey Patterson, a relative of one of Brady's victims, Bill launches his own investigation. However Bill is limited because he's no longer a police officer. He may be a former brother in blue but there is very little active duty officers like less than non-cops interfering in their investigations, lying to them and withholding evidence. If his former co-workers find out what he's up to it won't be pretty. Over the computer and elsewhere Bill and Brady play out a deadly cat-and-mouse game. Each attempts to figure out what makes the other tick. Each tries to goad their opponent into making a critical mistake. You will enjoy how Bill picks up little bits and pieces of information from what Brady writes and what Brady does not write. Brady loves hiding in plain sight. He thinks he maintains a public persona of a helpful cheerful fellow. He almost never drops his masks. Speaking of masks there is a shout out to Pennywise in IT.

King's eye for phrasing is in full effect here. It's amazing how some writers can so easily and accurately describe things of deep mystery and complexity while others have great trouble informing you that the sky is blue. If you've ever had to attend a funeral of someone you cared for then King's description of a woman crying after her sister's funeral sounding like "the hoarse cries of a crow in a cornfield" may bring back some unpleasant memories. King flows so effortlessly that you don't want the story to stop. King also gives interesting insights into the challenges of aging. If you are fascinated by two men matching wits for all the marbles you may enjoy this story. Brady reminded me of a similar King character in The Stand, Harold Lauder. His final plans are almost exactly the same as Lauder's and for many of the same reasons.






Dead Wrong
by Richard Belzer and David Wayne

I am open to different explanations for key historical events. Some people would call these explanations conspiracy theories. I can pretty much detail when I became at least willing to consider alternative explanations. It all began when I was around eight or nine years old. I read in the World Book Encyclopedia that Jack Ruby was a nightclub owner who killed Lee Harvey Oswald, that disaffected Marine sniper who murdered JFK, because Ruby was distraught with grief and wanted to spare Jackie Kennedy the trauma of a trial. It wasn't until later that I learned that Ruby was actually a Chicago Outfit associate who ran strip clubs and prostitutes and had several contacts with Dallas police. It wasn't until later that I learned that the rifle allegedly used to kill JFK was a piece of garbage that couldn't consistently hit the broad side of a barn in a master sniper's hands, which Oswald was not. It wasn't until later that I learned that three bullets probably could not have caused the mayhem inflicted. It wasn't until later that I learned that people identifying themselves as Secret Service agents were on the grassy knoll but that the Secret Service said none of its agents were on the knoll. It wasn't until later that I learned of the calvacade of witnesses who had suspicious deaths shortly after November 22, 1963. It wasn't until later that I learned of various men calling themselves Lee Harvey Oswald were behaving oddly in 1962-1963. Most of these men looked nothing like Lee Harvey Oswald. So learning all of this and more in the years since reading the World Book Encyclopedia entry made me at least willing to wonder if the official explanation and the evidence for certain things added up. I suppose eventually either way you get to faith on some things but then again we know that officials lie. If the Chicago Police and FBI lied about their murder of Black Panther Fred Hampton, and we know that they did, what else are people in positions of power lying about? 

This book, written by actor, comedian, writer and gadfly Richard Belzer and investigative journalist David Wayne, seeks to show you exactly what else the powers that be are lying about or have lied about. I don't agree with all of their conclusions but as the old joke goes just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you. Dead Wrong examines and rejects the mainstream wisdom on some of the stranger mysterious deaths or assassinations over the past half-century or so. This includes the Kennedy Brothers, MLK ,Marilyn Monroe, Fred Hampton, and many more lesser known figures such as Henry Marshall and Frank Olsen. Investigator Marshall was a whistleblower on Department of Agriculture shenanigans that led to high ranking people, including LBJ. After Marshall refused a promotion, seeing it as a bribe, he was found dead on his farm shot with his own rifle. Marshall had been shot five times with a bolt-action rifle but the initial verdict by the local politically connected county sheriff and justice of the peace was suicide! They ordered the body buried without an autopsy. It wasn't until one of the LBJ associates was arrested and charged with fraud and conspiracy that a grand jury ordered Marshall's body exhumed. It was discovered that he had suffered a blow to the head and had had a high level of carbon monoxide in his body before being shot. The ruling of suicide was overturned. This book is stuffed full of facts and interesting allusions but is aimed at the skeptic or person who only has casual interest in these matters. It's an interesting read nonetheless and may make you excited to dig deeper into these matters. Are you ready to take the red pill?

Do the Right Thing!

Do you think you are a moral person? You probably do. There are very few people who consciously think of themselves as evil, immoral or heartless. Even people who kill puppies for a living usually have what they see as good reasons for doing so. From time to time we all have to make decisions, some small and some large about what sort of people we are. Generally these are not difficult and life altering major decisions like telling your dying friend that his wife cheated on him and he has been raising another man's children or escaping a sinking ship and realizing that the lifeboat only has enough room for two other people when you have three kids. All the same morals are morals no matter how minor the decisions seem to be. The choices we make in situations both big and small define the sort of people that we are trying to become. There aren't necessarily right answers to many of these questions but there are probably some answers that may seem right to you. Some questions are purely hypothetical; others are drawn from real life experiences, albeit not necessarily mine. What's the right thing to do in the following ten situations?

One
You're out in public. You notice that a highly attractive member of the opposite sex has some writing on a body part normally not visible to the general public. This could be a very important message. If this person didn't wish for you to read the writings on their (insert body part here) they wouldn't have ventured out dressed as they did, would they? So what do you do? Avert your eyes? Take a quick look and move on? Openly leer? Politely inform the person that they are showing more flesh than they may realize? Or saunter over to ask the person what the message says as you can't quite make it out from your vantage point? 

Two
You are with your unmarried significant other at an important family event. You think that s/he could be the ONE. This is your first chance to make an impression on their family. Your honey's parent makes an offhand comment to you on a sensitive topic (race/religion/culture/politics) that makes you see red. You wonder how a person this stupid manages to dress themselves every morning. But your special rider thinks their parent hung the moon. S/he told you beforehand that their parent had different views than you. S/he asked you to be nice. Arguing with their parent might destroy your relationship with Miss/Mr. Wonderful. So what do you do? Do you pretend agreement? Say nothing? Gracefully change the subject? Or let this ignoramus know how dumb they are? Would your answer change if you were married?

Three
At the grocery store you buy something cheap. The cashier makes a mistake. He returns too much change. E.g, he gives you back two $10 bills when your expected change was $2.10. Do you point out the mistake and return the money? Or do you take the money and keep it moving? After all it's not your fault he can't count.

Four
You're on a company critical project. You discover a catastrophic flaw. You need time to correct the problem. You may need to redesign everything. Without a fix you KNOW there will be massive failures, bad publicity, legal consequences, and increased costs. You tell your boss. Your boss says the project has been delayed long enough. She insists that you cut corners to make the target date. She doesn't trust your analysis. She says any problems can be fixed later. This is not a debate. She informs you that you will meet the date. She warns you against going to upper management, ownership or the press. The boss says this issue is closed. All she wants to hear from you is "Yes. We will meet the date". Getting on her bad side is a career limiting move. She has a long memory and highly placed friends throughout the company. So what do you do?

Five
You're attending a company training event. This week long class is required for your next promotion. You must create and deliver a multimedia presentation on various business cases. The instructor wants teamwork. He has randomly assigned everyone partners. The instructor will judge you on the final presentation and on cooperation with your partner. Your partner is a man infamous throughout the entire department for ignoring basic American hygiene. He last showered during the Clinton Administration. Soap, toothpaste, deodorant and daily clothing changes are foreign concepts to him. He can make you nauseous. The other students know this and definitely won't switch partners with you. What do you do? Grit it out without complaining? Tell the instructor that you can't work with this person? Or angrily tell Mr. Skunk that unused soap is worthless soap?

Six
A good friend has privately told you that the thrill is gone from their marriage. He or she is cheating. They are entirely unrepentant. Their spouse is completely clueless and still believes that Mr./Mrs. Cheater is wonderful. The cheater just wanted to vent. They don't want their spouse to know. They don't want THAT headache right now, especially since they're on their way to the no-tell motel. You are also REALLY good friends with their spouse and routinely see them, both with and without their adulterous other half. The faithful spouse believes that you are righteous. They would see your silence as a horrible betrayal. So what do you do? Mind your own business and let grown people work it out? Tell the other spouse what's going on?

Seven
You're at an impasse on a work assignment. Your task must be completed tomorrow but that looks unlikely. Your boss has gone home. There is another more experienced, higher ranking person who could immediately provide the solution. However, in the past when you asked him for help, he made a Broadway production of how busy he was. He said that if you wanted him to do your job for you then he wanted your salary. He ultimately gave you the answer you needed but not without a humiliating dressing down disguised as humor. You can ask him for assistance, eat a big load of crap, get the answers you need and meet deadlines. Or you can continue to fly solo. You'll stay late and will probably miss your project time commitments anyway even if you do eventually find the answer. Your boss will be VERY upset with you if you miss your deadlines. So what do you do?

Eight
Walking through a grocery store aisle you see a person knock an entire section of items off the shelf. They do not put anything back on the shelf and just continue on their way. What do you do? Do you also ignore the items on the floor because you didn't create the mess. Do you confront the person who knocked the items over? Do you start putting things back yourself?

Nine
You have a valuable investment. Selling it won't permit you to retire but you will be able to improve your savings, carry out some home improvement projects, and provide seed capital for your long postponed Evil Overlord project to rule the world. But before selling the asset and admiring your fat wallet you learn that a close family member (but not your spouse/sibling/parent) is in a serious financial jam. Rescuing them will cost roughly the expected profit from your asset sale. Do you help your kin? It will take years to recoup the lost cash. Do you stick to your original plans? Would your answer change if it were a first degree relative?

Ten

You've had a long hard day at work. You're dead on your feet. You're taking crowded public transportation home. You're about 20 minutes away from your stop. Fortunately you found a seat. Standing people are packed together like sardines. A visibly pregnant woman gets on the vehicle. There are no open seats. No one offers her a seat. She's in front of you. She's not verbally asking for your seat but she is making eye contact with you. Do you offer your seat? Is your answer dependent on your age or gender?

President Obama Approval Ratings and Leadership

I am not a President Obama partisan. I supported other candidates. I think the President has been a more or less average President. I have been severely disappointed on his foreign policy and civil liberties moves. I think that by instinct and training the President is too often cautious when he should be bold. That aside, given the nature of the United States political economy one would have been foolish to expect any President, let alone the first Black President to have been a fire breathing transformative figure of justice for race, gender, class or any other issue that is near and dear to the Left. That's just not how things work, despite what Cornel West says. It's not original to me and I can't remember where I read it but just recently I perused something that claimed (perhaps jokingly, perhaps not) that just as soon as any US President is inaugurated he is shown an unreleased tape of the events in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963 and asked if he has any questions. I don't know about that but for whatever reason President Obama has been something of a disappointment to some notable progressive figures, most recently filmmaker Michael Moore. For some reason some white progressives always seem to be surprised and vaguely disappointed that not every black politician is Nat Turner Malcolm X the 3rd, a fire breathing reject from a 70s blaxploitation movie who's here to kick a$$ and stick it to the Man. I'm not entirely sure such a man would have been elected President. Nah, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have been. But it's not just rotund Michiganians that the President has to worry about pleasing. His approval ratings for leadership have reached new lows just as he plans to address the nation this evening to discuss his strategy for dealing with the group ISIS.

Barack Obama’s rating for strong leadership has dropped to a new low in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll, hammered by criticism of his work on international crises and a stalled domestic agenda alike. With the midterm elections looming, Americans by a 10-point margin, 52-42 percent, see his presidency more as a failure than a success.

Just 38 percent now approve of Obama’s handling of international affairs, down 8 percentage points since July to a career low; 56 percent disapprove, a majority for the first time. Fifty-two percent say he’s been too cautious in dealing with Islamic insurgents in Iraq and Syria. And the public is ahead of Obama in support for a military response to that crisis, with 65 percent in favor of extending U.S. air strikes to Syria.  

LINK

Now you can always find reasons to blame the guy in the Big Seat before you for leaving you a big old s*** sandwich to chow down on. Almost every President does that, especially if the previous President was a member of the opposite party. Heck, even if the previous President was a member of your party, would be Presidents often find it prudent to distance themselves policy wise, just ask Hillary Clinton. I think that the Iraq war pursued by President Bush and the entire Mid-East policy pursued by previous Presidents have been utter failures. ISIS would not exist as it does now had the US not invaded Iraq and unwittingly released and restoked ethnic and religious tensions across the region. Unlike what Cheney and other neocons claimed, invading Iraq did not lead to peaceful multiparty democracies in the Middle East. But that's not important now. President Obama is in charge. He will have to convince people that he knows what he's doing and that he has a coherent and applicable foreign policy strategy. Ironically, Congress, which has the constitutional power to declare war and end funding for war, has been in hiding on the issue, scared to say yea or nay. It is much safer to effectively vote "Present" and then blame the President if things turn out bad or say you were with him all along if things work out. That's a failing in our system.

Nevertheless whether it is "optics" as the President and his supporters dismissively term it or an actual "failure of leadership" as trained conservative critics bray on command, there does seem to me to be a certain hesitation, a certain reluctance, a willingness to "lead from behind" which can be somewhat offsetting to the American public. As pointed out in the ABC NEWS link though the saving grace for the President is that the Republicans in Congress and Congress in general are seen in an even worse light. Their constant "no" on everything and their embrace of racialized ugliness have left Republicans in a bad place, nationally. Also I think that people forget sometimes, in part because of the 24-7 news cycle and constant "scandal that fizzles out", that we do not live under a parliamentary system. Even if almost everyone thinks the President is the worst President ever and the Democrats get slaughtered in the midterms, absent impeachment and conviction, President Obama still has two years and change left in his term. He's not going anywhere.

Still, from a purely partisan perspective, it might help Democrats heck it might help the country, if the President could provide or be seen to provide some stronger leadership and clarity. I don't understand how he can claim he doesn't need congressional approval for war in Libya, turn around and say he probably does need it in Syria and now hint that he may not need it for Iraq and Syria. You have to give your supporters something to rally for, not just constantly say the other guys are worse. Although that may be true I'm not sure that gets people to the polls in November or helps your party keep the White House in 2016.

What do you think?

Do you think the President has provided strong leadership?

Do you have any serious disappointments with the President?

If you could talk to him what you like to him to say in his speech tonight? Will you watch his speech?

What policy changes would you ask him to make? What can he do to improve the public perception of his leadership?

Carbon Taxes: Is the time right?

I belong to the NRDC. I support many local and national initiatives designed to reduce carbon emissions and protect disappearing flora and fauna. Humans must live more harmoniously with the planet, as this appears to be the only place in our solar system where we can live. I believe that the relevant scientific data shows unambiguously that global climate change is real and that humans are a huge causal factor. I despise the idea of killing animals for fun or for backwards religious/medical/cultural beliefs (See post on "The Devouring Dragon"). If humanity doesn't change worldwide practices around energy use and resource consumption we could see an even more devastated planet. There will be higher temperatures and more floods. There will be less wildlife and fewer trees. And those unpleasant changes could arrive sooner than we think. And yet I find myself unable to fully support a carbon tax though I will admit that it’s probably the right thing to do. Hypocrisy?  Probably. Quite possibly actually. Heck, absolutely. But let’s examine why.

The basic idea of a carbon tax is that pollution is an externality to economic activity. Neither the seller nor the buyer is concerned with pollution because they aren't paying for it. Just as an amoral factory owner will, absent aggressive regulation, criminal penalties and civil liability, dump pollutants in the water, someone else, i.e yours truly or even the people reading this blog post, will engage in activities that increase carbon emissions because we are not paying the full price.

If the government taxes carbon producing activities, you will engage in them less. You will try to produce less carbon, saving yourself money and also saving the environment. Suddenly the monetary incentives and the environmental incentives are lined up together. You spend less money. Climate change slows. That’s the idea, anyway. The reality might be a little different. Although the whole “coastal elites” trope is beyond hoary it's useful to compare and contrast the different experiences of people who live in very densely populated urban areas and use mass transit to reach work and of people who live in more open areas and/or don’t use mass transit. I spend roughly about $300/month on gasoline. That's the cost of my commute. I live in SE Michigan which lacks consistent public transportation but does have massive suburban sprawl. If I lived in The Bronx or Harlem and worked in downtown Manhattan my transportation costs (assuming I didn’t drive) would probably be a little over $100/month. For now, I am locked into working where I do. Working closer to home would entail a significant pay cut. I'm not a fan of that. 

So if there were a carbon tax the million dollar question is how much would it cost. A CBO analysis claimed that a $21/ton carbon tax would raise gasoline prices by about $0.20 gallon. That would cost me roughly $5/week or about $20/mth, not counting other changes a tax would require. I wouldn't LIKE it but I could live with it. 

Some people think that such a small carbon tax doesn't really change behavior enough. They would prefer a carbon tax anywhere from double to twelve times the amount mentioned in the CBO analysis. They would like to see gas prices raised by $1/gallon or more.
I would be against that for many reasons but the biggest one is obviously that I just don't currently earn enough to be blase about $5,$6,$7 or more for a gallon of gasoline. Something would have to give. Maybe it's food, although a carbon tax would also increase food prices because so much of our food supply is delivered to market via fossil fuels. Maybe I eat out less or don't see first run movies or just buy less food or (horror) fewer books but I can't stop driving to work. A US carbon tax also gives US companies more incentives to move production to China, already the world's largest carbon emissions producer. China is taking steps which could mean game over as far as global climate change is concerned. The Chinese are increasing their use of refrigeration. This is wonderful if you are concerned about food spoilage, food safety and storage, fighting disease, and immediate access to varied foods. But if you're primarily concerned about climate change then the idea of 1.3 billion people deciding to live just like Americans makes you nervous.

An artificial winter has begun to stretch across the country, through its fields and its ports, its logistics hubs and freeways. China had 250 million cubic feet of refrigerated storage capacity in 2007; by 2017, the country is on track to have 20 times that. At five billion cubic feet, China will surpass even the United States, which has led the world in cold storage ever since artificial refrigeration was invented. And even that translates to only 3.7 cubic feet of cold storage per capita, or roughly a third of what Americans currently have — meaning that the Chinese refrigeration boom is only just beginning. This is not simply transforming how Chinese people grow, distribute and consume food.

It also stands to become a formidable new factor in climate change; cooling is already responsible for 15 percent of all electricity consumption worldwide, and leaks of chemical refrigerants are a major source of greenhouse-gas pollution. Of all the shifts in lifestyle that threaten the planet right now, perhaps not one is as important as the changing way that Chinese people eat.

Calculating the climate-change impact of an expanded Chinese cold chain is extremely complicated.  Artificial refrigeration contributes to global greenhouse-gas emissions in two main ways. First, generating the power (whether it be electricity for warehouses or diesel fuel for trucks) that fuels the heat-exchange process, which is at the heart of any cooling system, accounts for about 80 percent of refrigeration’s global-warming impact (measured in tons of CO2) and currently consumes nearly a sixth of global electricity usage.

You see the issue, yes? No American should tell any one in China that they shouldn't be using refrigeration. But it may be that what's good for the Chinese and their health is bad for the planet. Probably the Chinese wouldn't be too interested in altering their approach unless everyone else does likewise. Are you willing to give up refrigeration and other modern comforts that contribute to emissions? No? Then don't expect (insert foreign group here) to do so. Our ability to change our environment has outstripped our political control. I could support a carbon tax if every country has one as well. We can only fix carbon emissions via a planet wide solution. But that won't happen because each country has different goals and needs. It's easy to wax rhapsodic about saving the Brazilian rainforest but if your family's livelihood depends on lumber, then that rainforest will have to go. We're experiencing the classic prisoner's dilemma. From outside the system cooperation makes sense but rational actors within the system will not cooperate. Everyone is worse off. The usual solution is imposition of an outside regulator. 

For criminals this might be the Mafia. If criminals have certainty that talking brings swift and certain death, then each criminal keeps his mouth shut. No one is convicted and both criminals walk free. They are better off. But states are the regulators. Who can tell sovereign states what to do? How would we create a planet wide single regulator for carbon emissions. I don't see how it could be done. So that means that the climate change we're seeing now could be irreversible. It's not completely hopeless of course. China is moving towards greater usage of natural gas, not because of foreign concerns, but because of internal Chinese worries about air quality and dependency on foreign imports. But Australia just repealed its carbon tax because of some of the fears I listed above. People generally act in their own interest. The challenge is bringing the narrow national or individual private interest and the greater public or international interest into congruence. How do we do that?

What are your thoughts? Would you drive less if a carbon tax were imposed?

Are you concerned with climate change?

Would you give up refrigeration to save the environment?

Movie Reviews: Supernatural Season Six

Supernatural Season Six
created by Eric Kripke

What's your next move when you've told the story you wanted to tell, pulled off your greatest trick, completed all the narrative arcs and basically done everything with the characters you created that you could think of but find that there's still massive consumer demand for your story?

As Sir Arthur Conan Doyle realized after he killed off Sherlock Holmes only to be browbeaten into bringing him back, some creative types learn that the show must go on no matter what. Supernatural creator, showrunner and executive producer Eric Kripke wrote, produced and oversaw an exciting, entertaining and occasionally masterful five seasons of a show that touched on everything from fatalism, predestination and free will to sibling love and rivalry, parental love and loss, heaven and hell, God's mysterious workings and the fatal blindness of evil. He wrapped everything up neatly with a tidy bow for fans. Kripke only intended for the show to last five seasons. Season Five completed everything. However, there was demand for more of the adventures of Sam and Dean Winchester. So Kripke bowed out as showrunner and turned over the show's reins to former writer and assistant producer Sera Gamble. I had mixed feelings about this. I thought it was an example of commerce winning out over art. If you're Sam and Dean after you've thrown a jerry wrench into the Apocalypse, saved the Universe, defeated Lucifer, The Archangel Michael, a host of Angels and Demons, conspired with Death, killed three of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, and (totally unwittingly) possibly talked to and hung out with God Himself, what else can you do that matches all that? I mean there's no place to go but down, isn't there? Well maybe...

Season Six really started emphasizing a theme that would become ever bigger in subsequent seasons. The Winchester Brothers have an extremely strong sibling bond, one that is made even stronger because of their parents' untimely violent demon caused deaths. They feel, often correctly, that's it's them against the world. And they intend to win. But it could be that this sibling love, this fraternal link is so ferociously tight, so intense that it's emotionally and psychologically unhealthy. There's little room for anyone else be they friend, lover or wife. It's a running gag on the show that Sam and Dean are often mistaken for a gay couple. Some fans both in-Universe and even in real life write "Wincest" fan-fiction. Right. I love my siblings. But if I spent every waking moment with them, working with them, traveling with them, etc, sooner rather than later we would go crazy and/or hurt each other. Good fences make good neighbors. That's just as true for family as it is anyone else. It may even be more accurate with family as relatives have the amazing ability to annoy you in ways that are both profound and prosaic. Whether it's the uncle who tells the same doggone story at every family gathering or the way your sister always sucks her teeth when she gets nervous, sometimes relatives can work your nerves.

At the end of Season Five, humanity avoided the Apocalypse, thanks to Sam, Dean and their Dad's trusty 67' Impala. Long story short, Lucifer, Michael and Sam were trapped in Hell forever. The Apocalypse was ended. The world was saved. And Dean lost his little brother, whom he was charged to protect. Dean has seemingly accepted Sam's death. He's living with Lisa (Cindy Sampson) and her young son Ben. Lisa has claimed that Ben is not Dean's son but Ben acts just like Dean and did so before they ever met. Lisa is that rare woman with whom the peripatetic and sometime clownishly macho Dean wants to settle down. Dean has deep and abiding feelings for Lisa, though they aren't married yet. Lisa also loves Dean. She has no problem with occasionally calling Dean on his bs. She's very supportive and quite nurturing but remains a truthteller. Dean and Lisa have something good, something real together. Dean has left the hunting lifestyle behind, though he hasn't been able to bring himself to sell the family heirloom, the Impala or get rid of the weapons and esoteric items in the trunk. And he still has his Daddy's trusty .45. When some strange events occur close to home Dean tries to ignore them. But you can't hide your true nature, even from yourself. And Dean is no longer just worried about himself. He takes his responsibilities to Lisa and Ben very seriously. He'll die for them. As his spidey-sense has gone off Dean takes steps to protect Lisa and Ben. Dean starts hunting again but he's rusty and out of shape. He's about to be killed by the monster-of-the week when surprise, surprise, he is rescued by Sam, back from Hell. Well. Dean is pleased and as shocked as you might be to see his little brother, once he verifies that it is Sam and not something else. But Dean quickly intuits that something is not quite right with Sam. Just as you can hear a loved one's voice and immediately know something is wrong, Dean knows something is up with Sam.

Being locked in Hell's cage and being the plaything of a frustrated Lucifer and Michael could certainly leave marks on anyone but it's more than that. Dean can't quite put his finger on it. Dean is annoyed when Sam casually reveals that he's been back from Hell for quite some time and has been working with their previously unknown maternal relatives, including their grandfather Samuel (Mitch Pileggi) whom Dean thought was dead. Even their godfather Bobby Singer (Jim Beaver) knew of Sam's return. Everyone kept the truth from Dean because they did not want to destroy his good thing with Lisa. Well that's what they say. Dean must make the decision on whether he wants to take up hunting with Sam again and if so what that means for Lisa and Ben. Season Six's other theme is than nature abhors a vacuum. With God having left Heaven for parts unknown, Lucifer and Michael trapped in Hell and Gabriel dead, the last remaining Archangel, Raphael (Demore Barnes), decided that he should rule Heaven. Raphael is something of a well intentioned extremist. He wants to restart the Apocalypse. Raphael thinks that if the Book says there's supposed to be a Final Battle then by God there will BE a Final Battle even if he has to start it himself.

The worldweary angel Castiel (Misha Collins), a Winchester patron, ally and friend, opposes Raphael, even though he lacks the power to truly go toe to toe with an Archangel. Pivoting from resistance to counterattacks, Castiel thinks that he should rule Heaven, for the greater good of course. He might need the Winchester Brothers' help. As they are actually just "intelligent wave frequencies" Castiel and most other angels do not fully understand humans or as they call them "hairless apes". Sam and Dean will learn how truly alien the thought processes of angels can be. Meanwhile in Hell, the demon Crowley, (Mark Sheppard) seizes power and crowns himself as the King of Hell. Crowley's plans range from sick and twisted to downright maleficent. Many of his plots involve the Winchester Brothers. He hasn't forgotten how they've ruined his previous designs. And immortals have memories that are well, immortal. Crowley intends to win no matter what occurs. He was the season's most interesting and convincing villain. 

Season Six's balance is concerned with Dean trying to figure out what's wrong with Sam and fix it. But Sam may not want Dean's help. Sam is after all, bigger and stronger than Dean. Dean can't physically make Sam do things. Sam has some secrets. He seems unconcerned with some things that used to be very important to him before. And who let Sam out of the Cage anyway? If someone can do that can Lucifer and Michael escape? And grandfather or not, Dean does not know Samuel. Dean saw his grandfather die. Dean doesn't trust Samuel or his newly discovered cousins. Dean doesn't like that neither Samuel nor Sam can tell him why they're alive. Dean thinks someone is playing him. And nobody plays Dean Winchester. As revealed in Season Five, some residents of Heaven and Hell are not so different from each other. The powerful players on either side (Castiel may be an exception)  generally have little respect or love for humans. The malevolence of demons is matched by the contempt of the angels. There's also a third force, something that has no allegiance to either Heaven or Hell but is feared by both, that is an ever growing threat in this season. Sam and Dean get wind of it and try to stop it.

Fellow hunters Bobby Singer and Rufus Turner (Steven Williams) show up to give advice and assistance or more commonly tell the Winchester Brothers that they're complete and total morons. This was an uneven season. It had some trouble finding its sea legs so to speak. There were some lighter moments, including a (Mel Brooks homage) trip to an alternate reality where Sam and Dean are actors on a show titled Supernatural and Dean's compulsive need to one-up Sam. And of course the brothers continue their trademark impersonations of FBI agents who all just happen to have rock star names. As this is almost a reboot, if you have never watched the series before you could almost start watching from this season if you were so inclined.
TRAILER

Cute Animals, Neoteny and Rights

The other day while I was finishing watching Season 8 of Supernatural, I noticed that my dog suddenly seemed very interested in something on the carpet. Well unlike Robb Stark, I make a point of paying attention to what my direwolf is trying to tell me. For someone with a pretty small brain the dog notices more than you might think. I halted the DVD and went to see what the dog was watching. It turned out to be a rather large spider. So I moved the dog away from it. Now usually I would have just killed the spider. But having read the recent special Time magazine issue on animals and how we think of them I decided against that. I retrieved some paper towels. I carefully picked up the spider and dropped it outside. Would I extend such mercy to a housefly? Doubtful. I'm not familiar with the exact details of the different habitats, hygiene and dietary habits of spiders and flies. However, when I see a fly I immediately think disease, dirt, filth and nastiness. A fly vomits on its food before eating it, eats fecal material, and most importantly looks disgusting to me. A spider also appears alien but does not immediately and automatically bring up to me all the images of decay and filth that a fly does. So it was easier for me to save the spider. Any fly that enters my house is going to be almost immediately swatted or chemically poisoned. Is that fair or logical? Probably not.

The Time issue pointed out some things that have intrigued me. People walk or drive down the streets in their neighborhood or their local university central campus and see squirrels running all over the place, jumping from tree to tree, roof to roof, playing, frolicking, hiding food or digging for food and occasionally making a nuisance of themselves. Few people are bothered by this. Many people think it's cute, especially in the fall. Some people will even put out food for squirrels or try to convince squirrels to approach them for food. But if you replace "squirrel" in the above sentence with "rat" most Americans would be physically disgusted. Nobody in their right mind puts out food for rats. And if you saw rats routinely running across the street or jumping from your neighbor's roof to yours you'd probably soon be looking for a new place to live, provided you had the resources to make it happen. Why is this? They're both rodents. Why do we have disgust for one simply because it has smaller eyes, lacks a furry tail and has more prominent or even frightening looking teeth? Why does the squirrel get such good PR when in some aspects it's just a furry tailed rat? Why do the words "dirty" and "rat" almost always go together as an insult? Does anyone call informers "squirrels"?

In part the answer is something called neoteny. We tend to be hardwired to respond positively to juvenile characteristics. Things like large eyes, big heads, and weak chins (at least in our own species and most mammals) may cause us to think of the possessor as "cute" or "young" and/or trigger protective responses. Creatures that retain some of these characteristics to adulthood might be more successful living with humans. This certainly seems to have been the case with dogs. When a creature lacks these things, is non-mammalian or has other characteristics that override any "positive" traits (like for example a long nasty looking rat tail) we might have trouble extending empathy and sympathy. As pointed out in the Time issue, Michael Vick horrified people not only by investing in and attending dog fight events but also by electrocuting, hanging or otherwise killing dogs that had lost too often, were old, or were considered bad investments. If Vick had invested in or invented some new rat poison product which killed 10000 times as many rats as dogs, few people outside of PETA would have noticed or cared. He would not have gone to prison or have become a target of disgust and protest. I understand that but to be fair I also have to admit that these feelings are logically incoherent. Presumably the rat who ate poison and died from internal bleeding, organ failure, suffocation or heart attacks wanted to live just as badly as the dog that was electrocuted, shot or hanged. It just happens to be the rat's misfortune that it has a face only another rat could love. So the other part of the equation could just be "speciesism" for lack of a better word. The more something resembles us, the more likely we are to extend empathy to it. Insects and arachnids are just out of luck, looking incredibly different than humans in particular and mammals in general. Few will describe them as cute or cuddly at any stage of their existence.

These things are hardwired in humans but they are also very much culturally based. The picture of the rats drinking milk comes from Rajasthan, India where apparently the rat has some sort of religious status. And there are several present day cultures across the world where the dog is considered food for consumption as much as it is considered a pet. I find these things incredibly disgusting and even immoral but that's my own cultural bias isn't it. Perhaps some day we (Americans) will look at the routine killing of animals we currently consider vermin to be morally challenged behavior. I don't know. So although human existence in and of itself means that some animals will die it might be wise to at least examine your actions where you have a choice. If you can avoid killing an animal when you don't have to isn't that a good thing? 

Thoughts?