Common Sense often wonders when statistics are bantered about. DO they make any sense at all? If you put them in a bag, drop the bag on the floor and it splits, what's the smell like? Once in a while someone pokes some well deserved humor at the bizarre claims that are all to common. Here's one worth a few minutes.
Rob Reid: The $8 billion iPod - YouTube:
With a nod to Thomas Paine, Baron d'Holbach, and "Captain Obvious" perspectives on what should be, but remarkably often isn't, obvious common sense.
Saturday, March 17, 2012
Interesting President Obama fact check
PolitiFact | Fact-checking the Obama campaign film:
The radical right has been an unending source of nonsense for Common Sense. But now, as President Obama begins to campaign for re-election more seriously it's only fair to examine his campaign statements. Courtesy of PolitiFact.com (it should be must reading for every voter) an interesting examination of The Road We've Traveled, a Davis Guggenheim documentary on President Obama. So far the score is one Mostly True and one Mostly False. While Common Sense would hope for and, indeed, expect better it's not bad at all in this political season when distortions so gross as to rise to lying are common.
While Common Sense is in the area here's the current Obama Meter (more details via the link).
Common Sense thinks facts trump distorted rhetoric and mindless faith. After all, reality has the special quality of being, well, real. That's just common sense.
The radical right has been an unending source of nonsense for Common Sense. But now, as President Obama begins to campaign for re-election more seriously it's only fair to examine his campaign statements. Courtesy of PolitiFact.com (it should be must reading for every voter) an interesting examination of The Road We've Traveled, a Davis Guggenheim documentary on President Obama. So far the score is one Mostly True and one Mostly False. While Common Sense would hope for and, indeed, expect better it's not bad at all in this political season when distortions so gross as to rise to lying are common.
While Common Sense is in the area here's the current Obama Meter (more details via the link).
Rating their promises
Common Sense thinks facts trump distorted rhetoric and mindless faith. After all, reality has the special quality of being, well, real. That's just common sense.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
What are they thinking - Washington state $100 surtax on EVs
General Motors earlier this week sent a letter to Washington Gov. Chris Gregorie asking that a proposed $100 EV surtax be removed from the state’s transportation bill (Senate Bill 6455, ESSB 6455) on the grounds that it will create a disincentive toward the purchase of an EV. The proposal currently excludes vehicles such as the Chevrolet Volt, which can run part of the time on gasoline.
Proponents of the surtax argue the fee is needed to offset losses in state gas tax revenues since EV owners don’t need to buy gas. GM believes this proposal is misguided and will hurt sales and market adoption of EVs. The small number of pure EVs on the road at this point have a negligible impact on state revenues, GM argues.
In the special category of what are they thinking Washington State has proposed a $100 surtax on pure EVs, those that never run on gasoline. It is of course true that gasoline taxes help pay for roads and that pure EVs don't use gasoline but do use roads. It is also, however, true that burning gasoline is a significant contributor to global warming. The obvious question is what matters most paying for roads or leaving a habitable environment to the future. Common Sense suggest that the environment trumps roads. What are they thinking?
Related articles
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Insurance, religious freedom, politics, & wingnuts
Common Sense has often noted wingnut silliness. Today I received this bit from Senator Scott Brown in response to a note I'd sent in opposition to the Blunt amendment to the current highway bill. This inappropriate amendment would have created an exception for religiously affiliated businesses to the healthcare law. Herewith the entirety of Senator Brown's email:
In his second paragraph Senator Brown notes the first amendment to the Constitution, argues it's importance as a reason to support a conscience exemption for religious organizations
to the law that requires insurance coverage for birth control with an exemption for churches. This argument is dis-ingenious on several grounds. First, the first amendment provides only that the federal government can not establish an official religion. It does not exempt religious organizations from law and indeed religious organizations are subject to many laws. Thus the issue is not about the first amendment in itself.
Secondly, the second paragraph sets up an untrue straw man. It references religious organizations as though they are all a thing of a kind, as though churches and organizations such as hospitals or universities with a religious affiliation are all religious organizations in the same sense. Clearly a Catholic university that employees many non-Catholics and offers education services independent of religious affiliation is principally a university. It is not a religion as understood by the First Amendment. It's purpose is not religion but education.
Finally, the second paragraph ignores the laws existing exemption for churches proper.
In the following paragraph Senator Brown continues his fuzzy thinking about what religious organizations are and sets up another false straw man, this time around violation of religious faith. It implies that there is an element of faith that addresses health insurance coverage, particularly health insurance coverage for employees not of their employer's religious faith. This is simply not true. Consider that contraception is a violation of Catholic faith notwithstanding the reality that virtually all Catholics violate this religious stricture. However, it should be noted that the Catholic faith does not speak to insurance coverage in any regard. It follows that non-church Catholic affiliated organizations should not be empowered to impose their religious strictures, however much those strictures are actually ignored by Catholics, on non-Catholic employees. Indeed, it can well be argued that even churches proper should not be allowed to impose their articles of faith on their employees.
In this paragraph Senator Brown goes on to cite his family and previous support for family planning and health services for women and then appeal to people of faith. It is clear from Senator Brown's previous record that he generally reflects the will of the people of Massachusetts where support for contraception is extremely high. To the degree that Senator Brown is elected to represent the people of Massachusetts then he should have no issue supporting contraception services for all employees no matter the religious views of their employer. Senator Brown goes on to offer that there should be a compromise. What he fails to do is to offer a compromise.
In the final paragraph Senator Brown distorts Senator Blunt's amendment.
It should finally be noted that the United States has a long history of religious freedom. The first amendment provides a legal basis for freedom of religion. Existing law and practices provide freedom from religion. People of faith are free to practice their faith. They are not, however, free to impose their religious views on others. Religious affiliated institutions are not free to impose their religious views on their employees.
Our laws provide for equal protection under the law. They provide that employers can not discriminate based on the employees religion. Surely those laws apply to American bedrooms for those who work in religious affiliated institutions such as hospitals and universities. That's just common sense.
Political discourse, particularly discourse on contentious issues, is not advanced by distortions, false straw men, and other distortions of the sort in Senator Brown's email. That's just common sense.
Thank you for contacting me regarding religious conscience exemptions in healthcare. I value the input of my constituents on all issues and would like to take this opportunity to respond.
The First Amendment to the Constitution secures for all Americans the freedom of religion. Our Founders felt this freedom was so important that they didn’t just place it in the First Amendment — it’s the first thing to be mentioned — ahead of freedom of speech, the press, or the right to petition government. I support a conscience exemption for religious organizations from the new healthcare mandate because I want to make sure that we are providing the same protections for religious groups that have existed for more than 220 years.
Under President Obama’s healthcare law [P.L. 111-148], for the first time in our history, religious organizations are being coerced by a federal mandate to violate their deepest religious and moral convictions. Religious organizations are faced with an impossible choice: drop coverage entirely for their employees and pay a punitive fine to the federal government, or violate their faith. As a husband and the father of two daughters, I believe insurers should provide access to contraception services, and I support federal funding for family planning and health services for women. That is the way I have voted as a member of both the Massachusetts legislature and the United States Senate. However, I also respect people of faith and believe we can both provide coverage for the services that women rely on, and have a conscience clause that guarantees religious freedom. It is important to note that we have found that balance in the Massachusetts healthcare law, and we should also be able to do so at the federal level.
It is for these reasons that I voted in favor of an amendment to the Highway Bill (S. 1831), on March 1, 2012, offered by Senator Roy Blunt (MO), which would have restored the conscience protections in law that existed prior to the new federal mandate proposed in February 2012. The amendment would have required plan sponsors who received a religious exemption for specific services to offer health coverage of the same or greater value as a plan that included those services. This means that employers would have no financial incentive to seek religious exemptions to any mandated health service. The amendment would not have prohibited women from accessing any healthcare service they need, nor would it have impacted existing state laws, and it did not address any other federal law besides the new flawed healthcare mandate. The amendment failed by a vote 51-48.
Again, thank you for getting in touch with me. Should you have any additional questions or comments, please feel free to contact me or visit my website at www.scottbrown.senate.gov.
Scott P. BrownSenator Brown's note seems reasonable enough at a casual read but fails on the facts. Consider the following:
United States Senator
In his second paragraph Senator Brown notes the first amendment to the Constitution, argues it's importance as a reason to support a conscience exemption for religious organizations
to the law that requires insurance coverage for birth control with an exemption for churches. This argument is dis-ingenious on several grounds. First, the first amendment provides only that the federal government can not establish an official religion. It does not exempt religious organizations from law and indeed religious organizations are subject to many laws. Thus the issue is not about the first amendment in itself.
Secondly, the second paragraph sets up an untrue straw man. It references religious organizations as though they are all a thing of a kind, as though churches and organizations such as hospitals or universities with a religious affiliation are all religious organizations in the same sense. Clearly a Catholic university that employees many non-Catholics and offers education services independent of religious affiliation is principally a university. It is not a religion as understood by the First Amendment. It's purpose is not religion but education.
Finally, the second paragraph ignores the laws existing exemption for churches proper.
In the following paragraph Senator Brown continues his fuzzy thinking about what religious organizations are and sets up another false straw man, this time around violation of religious faith. It implies that there is an element of faith that addresses health insurance coverage, particularly health insurance coverage for employees not of their employer's religious faith. This is simply not true. Consider that contraception is a violation of Catholic faith notwithstanding the reality that virtually all Catholics violate this religious stricture. However, it should be noted that the Catholic faith does not speak to insurance coverage in any regard. It follows that non-church Catholic affiliated organizations should not be empowered to impose their religious strictures, however much those strictures are actually ignored by Catholics, on non-Catholic employees. Indeed, it can well be argued that even churches proper should not be allowed to impose their articles of faith on their employees.
In this paragraph Senator Brown goes on to cite his family and previous support for family planning and health services for women and then appeal to people of faith. It is clear from Senator Brown's previous record that he generally reflects the will of the people of Massachusetts where support for contraception is extremely high. To the degree that Senator Brown is elected to represent the people of Massachusetts then he should have no issue supporting contraception services for all employees no matter the religious views of their employer. Senator Brown goes on to offer that there should be a compromise. What he fails to do is to offer a compromise.
In the final paragraph Senator Brown distorts Senator Blunt's amendment.
It should finally be noted that the United States has a long history of religious freedom. The first amendment provides a legal basis for freedom of religion. Existing law and practices provide freedom from religion. People of faith are free to practice their faith. They are not, however, free to impose their religious views on others. Religious affiliated institutions are not free to impose their religious views on their employees.
Our laws provide for equal protection under the law. They provide that employers can not discriminate based on the employees religion. Surely those laws apply to American bedrooms for those who work in religious affiliated institutions such as hospitals and universities. That's just common sense.
Political discourse, particularly discourse on contentious issues, is not advanced by distortions, false straw men, and other distortions of the sort in Senator Brown's email. That's just common sense.
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Democracy v. Primary Elections: Why primaries are undemocratic
RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - Republican Vote Count:
Super Tuesday is over and the Republican primary process continues with Mr. Romney ahead in delegates and behind in the popular vote raising the obvious questions: Is the primary process democratic? Does it yield the candidate that represents the majority view?
The short common sense answers are no, the process is not democratic and it does not yield a candidate that represents the majority view. The facts are simple enough. After 22 primaries here are the results:
Some 59% of Republican primary voters want someone other than Mr. Romney yet these candidates have only 46% of the delegates. Clearly not democratic, at least in-so-far as the delegate count doesn't reflect the popular vote. Even more clearly, Mr. Romney doesn't represent the majority view.
There are several reasons for this.
Primaries are dominated by the most active party members. These activist do not necessarily represent the party majority. In the specific case of the Republican primaries it seems all but certain that the radical conservative and religious right are disproportionately active.
Three of these primaries are winner take all contest. In particular, Florida with its 50 delegates distorts the results. Winner take all election systems inherently lead to disparities between popular and electoral counts.
There are a number of other voting systems that are both more democratic and more likely to yield a representative candidate. There's an interesting article here.
Some years ago Common Sense was at a large party and asked What was the last time you voted for a presidential candidate you actually supported as opposed to the least objectionable candidate? The results were disheartening with most having to go back many many elections to find a candidate that they actually supported.
The central point here is that the system the political parties use to select candidates is seriously broken and Common Sense thinks it should be changed.
Super Tuesday is over and the Republican primary process continues with Mr. Romney ahead in delegates and behind in the popular vote raising the obvious questions: Is the primary process democratic? Does it yield the candidate that represents the majority view?
The short common sense answers are no, the process is not democratic and it does not yield a candidate that represents the majority view. The facts are simple enough. After 22 primaries here are the results:
| Romney | Santorum | Gingrich | Paul | Total | |
| Popular vote | 3179444 | 1948574 | 1818413 | 896392 | 7842823 |
| % Popular vote | 41% | 25% | 23% | 11% | |
| Delegates | 381 | 160 | 101 | 61 | 703 |
| % Delegates | 54% | 23% | 14% | 9% |
Some 59% of Republican primary voters want someone other than Mr. Romney yet these candidates have only 46% of the delegates. Clearly not democratic, at least in-so-far as the delegate count doesn't reflect the popular vote. Even more clearly, Mr. Romney doesn't represent the majority view.
There are several reasons for this.
Primaries are dominated by the most active party members. These activist do not necessarily represent the party majority. In the specific case of the Republican primaries it seems all but certain that the radical conservative and religious right are disproportionately active.
Three of these primaries are winner take all contest. In particular, Florida with its 50 delegates distorts the results. Winner take all election systems inherently lead to disparities between popular and electoral counts.
There are a number of other voting systems that are both more democratic and more likely to yield a representative candidate. There's an interesting article here.
Some years ago Common Sense was at a large party and asked What was the last time you voted for a presidential candidate you actually supported as opposed to the least objectionable candidate? The results were disheartening with most having to go back many many elections to find a candidate that they actually supported.
The central point here is that the system the political parties use to select candidates is seriously broken and Common Sense thinks it should be changed.
Friday, March 2, 2012
The Associated Press: Maine GOP Sen. Snowe won't seek re-election
The Associated Press: Maine GOP Sen. Snowe won't seek re-election:
When a center Republican is so fed up that she quits things in Congress are clearly not good for the majority of Americans.
When a center Republican is so fed up that she quits things in Congress are clearly not good for the majority of Americans.
Paul Gilding: The Earth is full | Video on TED.com
Paul Gilding: The Earth is full | Video on TED.com:
Some uncommon common sense worth a view and thoughtful consideration.
Some uncommon common sense worth a view and thoughtful consideration.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)