Is Barbieland its own self-contained multiverse? Barbie contains more questions than answers

Warning: Many Spoilers Ahead for the Barbie movie.

In “Barbie,” Gloria, played by America Ferrera, is having an existential crisis in the “Real World,” which results in her daughter’s old Barbie doll “Stereotypical Barbie,” reflecting on her very out-of-place emotions and concerns in Barbieland, sending Stereotypical Barbie, played by Margot Robbie, on a journey of self-discovery.

But why is there only one Stereotypical Barbie?

When we see Barbieland, we see every variation of Barbie doll in the Barbie universe. There’s Doctor Barbie, President Barbie, Physicist Barbie, and so on. There are also multiple variations of Ken, and side characters like Midge the Pregnant Barbie and Allan, Ken’s friend. But there’s only one of each of them. None of the Kens or Barbies look exactly alike. There only appears to be one Stereotypical Barbie, one Beach Ken, etc. etc. But we know from the plot that this Stereotypical Barbie is tied specifically to Gloria. She’s the Barbie Gloria played with with her daughter Sasha when she was younger. So where are all the millions of other Stereotypical Barbies that all the other kids played with?

The only conclusion possible is that we are in Barbieland Prime, and this Barbieland is one of a million parallel Barbielands, one for each Stereotypical Barbie doll that Mattel produced. This gives rise to another question. Are each of the other Barbies in a Barbieland Universe tied to a girl in the real world, or only one? And if it’s each one, how does the multiverse decide which Barbies will populate which universes? In other words, does the Prime Universe Doctor Barbie owned by Real World Girl A live with the Stereotypical Barbie owned by Gloria because the two Barbies came from the same toy store, or because Gloria and Real World Girl A who owns Doctor Barbie Prime live in close "Real World" proximity to each other? Or are all the Barbies in this particular Barbieland toys of Gloria's daughter? Do poor kids create Barbieland Universes populated only by one or two Kens and Barbies?

The Midge Problem

Then there is the problem of Midge. Midge is the “Pregnant Barbie,” who we learned was discontinued because the concept was a little too disturbing. This means there are fewer Midges out there than other Barbies. Does that mean that certain Barbielands have Midges and some don’t? If each Barbieland Universe represents one child's toy collection, this works fine. But if different Barbieland Barbies in the same universe have different "Real World" owners, this is a problem. Are there Barbielands with Midges who aren’t tied to people in the “Real World?” Or does Midge ONLY appear in Barbieland prime and represent all Midges in the Real World?

(Fun fact: Any guesses who the father of Midge's baby is? Here's a hint: It's not Ken!)

Mattel World

The “Real World” presents another problem. It doesn’t seem like it can really be “our” world. The “Board of Directors” of Mattel is a caricature. They’re all clueless men, when in reality Mattel’s BOD is roughly half women. They dance and run like action figures/dolls. They effortlessly travel back and forth between their world and Barbieland, and they also know the “correct” Barbieland to travel to when seeking Stereotypical Barbie Prime.

I propose that Mattel World is not “our” world at all, but a hub universe around which all the Barbieland Universes are connected, while also having some connection to “our world,” so that what the Barbies do in Barbieland affects the owners of their dolls in the Mattel World Universe, which in turn affects those dolls and their owners in our actual real world.

Other Universes

So if the Barbieland/Mattel Multiverse is its own distinct multiverse within the omniverse, where does that leave related Universes/Multiverses? For example, does the Mattel Universe also connect to other universes where Mattel toys are real, such as the Big Jim Universe or the American Girl Universe? And are these also self-contained multiverses, with a universe for each toy produced or purchased? What about the Toy Story Universe? We know that Barbie exists there. Is the Toy Story Universe a Barbieland Universe, far from Barbieland Universe Prime, where “Barbie Reality” has been distorted due to cosmological distance? Or is the Toy Story Universe part of its own multiverse adjacent to the Barbieland Multiverse?

I’m certain that all these questions and more will be answered in “Barbie 2.” Until then, we can only speculate.

How to Talk to Your Conservative Friends and Relatives About Gun Control

 

There has just been another mass shooting. I won’t say which one, so this blog post will remain evergreen since there will certainly be many more. That being said, it’s time to demand that all your NRA-loving, GOP-supporting friends and relatives finally abandon their zero-tolerance policy on gun control and hold their chosen representatives accountable. To help, here’s how you counter all their ridiculous arguments as to why less gun control, not more, is the answer.

The criminals don’t obey gun laws. These shooters won’t care about gun control. At least this way the victims can get their own guns and have a chance. (If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns)

This is probably one of the most common arguments against gun control that is trotted out, and the one that can stand the least scrutiny. To debunk this one, just have your gun-loving friend substitute any other crime for gun possession.

“We can’t outlaw murder! Serial killers aren’t going to obey that law! At least if we legalize murder, law-abiding citizens will have the chance to murder the criminal before a criminal murders them!”

“We can’t outlaw drunk driving! Drunks aren’t going to care if there’s a law if they want to drive! At least this way, law-abiding citizens who want to drink a little before they drive home won’t have the drunks ruin their night!”

“We can’t outlaw theft! The burglars aren’t going to stop stealing because there’s a law! At least this way, we can legally steal our stuff back!”

You get the idea.

I need to defend myself and my family

You are much more likely to see you or your family killed or wounded if you have a gun than if you don’t. Studies show:

People successfully defend themselves with guns in less than 1% of crimes in which there is contact between a perpetrator and a victim.

Having access to a gun doesn’t better protect people from being injured during a crime compared to other protective actions like calling law enforcement or fleeing the scene.

Someone with a gun is four times more likely to be shot in an assault.

Firearm access triples the risk of suicide death and doubles the risk of homicide.

Firearms make it five times more likely that a victim will be killed in a domestic dispute.

Places like Chicago have stringent gun laws and they have more gun deaths than anywhere

Conservatives like to trot out this one because it is so much the opposite of the truth that it feels true. In fact, gun violence in Chicago rose after gun laws were weakened, and even though their gun laws are still stricter than many others, most of the guns in Chicago come from neighboring Wisconsin and Indiana, which have very weak gun laws. Furthermore, no other country has as lax gun laws as the US, and no other country has our level of gun violence.

The only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

No. When Gabby Giffords was shot in Arizona, the shooter was subdued by unarmed samaritans. In fact, the “good guy with the gun” showed up late and almost killed one of the subduers.

The good guy with a gun in Buffalo ran up against the shooter’s body armor, and ended up just as dead as the other victims.

Good guy with a gun Jemel Robertson subdued a shooter at Manny’s Blue Room in Robbins, Illinois. While he held the shooter at bay, police arrived and shot Jemel dead. I’m sure I don’t have to tell you what color he was.

The 2^nd Amendment says I have the right to own however many guns I want of any kind no matter what!

It doesn’t. The text of the 2^nd Amendment reads “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

First of all, this is a conditional statement. It’s like saying “The pool being full of water, the right to swim and dive shall not be infringed.” If the pool is no longer full of water, the second part doesn’t apply. A well-regulated militia is no longer necessary to the security of a free state, hence, everyone doesn’t need to have guns.

Furthermore, even that bastion of conservatism, Antonin Scalia, ruled in DC vs. Heller that the 2^nd Amendment doesn’t give everyone unrestricted access to weapons of war. He specifically ruled that the amendment only applies to the type of weapon that one could reasonably expect a person of that time to own, such as a handgun or a standard rifle. Not an AR-15.

Finally, the words “well-regulated militia” have importance. Well-regulated means restrictions, as appropriate, can apply, and militia, as defined by the Constitution, does not mean you and your buddies out in the woods, but a group of volunteer soldiers ready to be called into service BY THE GOVERNMENT, to allow states to protect themselves. (Article I Section 8). Basically, if you are not in the National Guard, the state doesn’t have to allow you to have a gun.

Also it’s worth noting for your Strict Constructionist friends that there’s nothing in the Constitution that requires states allow guns to be bought or sold.

There you have it. Clear and logical refutations of all your friends’ and family’s pro-gun arguments for them to ignore at the next reunion!

The Arc of the Moral Universe

 

Two court cases captured the attention of Americans on all sides of the political spectrum this month, the trials of Kyle Rittenhouse and of Travis and Greg McMichael and William Bryan. Two different verdicts that I think illustrate that in some cases, the American system of justice still works.

Many of those whose political inclinations lean left were outraged by the verdict in the Rittenhouse case. They have accused the Judge, the jury, the lawyers, and everyone but the Bailiff in this case of being biased and racist, despite the fact that the victims in this case were white. The reality is, that while no one can say to what extent certain individuals are racist, racism was not the determining factor in this case.

Our judicial system is designed to give even the most loathsome individuals the same protection as those we love. This is what happened in the Rittenhouse case. Those on the left find Rittenouse to be a villain as much as those on the right find him to be a hero, but justice does not care either way. Justice is blind. We don’t like the idea that a kid can walk the streets with an assault rifle whenever he wants (the fact that he was underage is a separate issue. If he were 18 we would feel the same way). We don’t like the idea that if a person feels threatened in the street, they can shoot the person they feel threatened by. We especially don’t like the understanding that if that kid were black, he would likely be gunned down himself or arrested by the cops before he ever got a chance to defend himself. But none of these things can be factors in court if someone is to have a fair trial, and that’s what Kyle Rittenhouse got. He got a presumption of innocence, and the prosecutor failed to prove that his actions were not self-defense beyond the high standard of reasonable doubt. You don’t have to like it, but you should appreciate it. Some will find that suggestion offensive because the law is not applied fairly to all people. I’ll get to that.

Look, in contrast, at the McMichaels/Bryan case. These men subjected Ahmaud Arbery to what was essentially a 21^st century lynching. They hunted this poor man down like a dog. Greg McMichael’s defense was essentially “he looked like a dirty, sketchy, black kid.” These men were found guilty of multiple counts of murder, not because the judge, or the jury, or the lawyers were anti-white racists. 11 out of the 12 jurors were white. They were found guilty because the same system that applied to Kyle Rittenhouse was applied to them, and under that standard, the prosecution showed that these men murdered Ahmaud Arbery. The system worked.

Again, a lot of the outrage over Kyle Rittenhouse is the idea that he got off because he was white. There’s no question that white people enjoy privilege in our criminal justice system. But look at the two cases. The man whose victims were white was acquitted, and those whose victim was black were convicted. Doesn’t quite fit the narrative.

The outrage is justified. We’ve heard a lot of talk about Critical Race Theory over the last few months, and ironically, the right has been looking for it in the wrong place. It has been fully on display in our courts. There’s not an aware human being in this country that doesn’t know that if a black kid had crossed state lines and attended a BLM protest with an AR-15, his fate would have been very different. We all have a sense that even if he made it to court, a conviction would have been almost certain. It’s also clear that it took way too long to bring the McMichaels’ to justice. But these are problems with the legislature, and a legal system that is rooted in racism, not with the way justice was applied in these two cases.

The law that allowed the McMichaels to feel justified in hunting down Ahmaud Arbery, the Citizens Arrest law, previously in effect for over 150 years, has been repealed. This is what we should focus on. Here is a law that illustrates critical race theory. No black man in Georgia could ever in history have gotten away with approaching a white man with a gun with the intent of making an arrest. No black man should ever have to accept a non-law enforcement white man approaching him with a gun with the assumption that a legal arrest is about to take place. It was a law rooted in systemic racism and as a result of this case, it was repealed. That is the kind of justice we should be focused on. One may have cause to hope that laws against open carry of assault rifles in Wisconsin and in particular laws against underage carry will be strengthened in the wake of the Rittenhouse trial. It’s an iffy proposition. The NRA is strong, but we can hope. However, as disappointed as I am that Kyle Rittenhouse walks free today, and even worse, as some kind of right wing icon, I remain steadfast in my belief that the justice system worked in both of these cases, and that, we as a society must work to fix the system’s racial inequities, not throw it away when we don’t get the results we want.

“The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.” – Martin Luther King, Jr.

Why Simone Biles Represents Everything That’s Wrong With America (It's not what you think)

 

On Tuesday, Simone Biles, after a poor performance on the vault, suddenly and shockingly withdrew from the Olympic All-Around Team Gymnastics competition, citing mental health issues. 

Biles’ decision immediately turned into a political football, with those on the right predictably calling her a quitter who doesn’t respect our country and someone who embodies the Millennial and younger generation’s “everyone should get a trophy” egalitarian (dare I say “socialist?”) attitude.

Those on the left responded, if anything, even more strongly, insisting that Biles, the most decorated and successful gymnast of all time, is the undisputed GOAT and owes nothing to a bunch of armchair athletes who criticize others to cover up their own inadequacy. Those questioning Biles’ decision were just as predictably called racists and misogynists once again abusing their privilege.

Even Kerri Strug (who famously pushed through the pain of a broken ankle to land her final vault as part of a US victory in the 1996 Olympic Games) was dragged back into the limelight for the controversy, with those taking issue with Biles’ decision pointing to her as an example of someone with the true heart of a champion, an inspiration to young women and girls everywhere, while the pro-Biles camp reframed Strug as a victim of a draconian Eastern European coach willing to destroy as many young girls as necessary to get what he wanted, while Biles is the real Olympic hero for standing up to the tyranny of patriarchal sport.

The point is this. The Olympics, at one time, were supposed to represent hope. The hope that if we all, Russian or American, Arab or Israeli, man or woman, Black or white, young or old, could put aside our differences in the spirit of non-violent, friendly competition for two weeks, we could have lasting peace throughout the world.

While that idea was a little pollyanna-ish, there’s something to it. Even if it didn’t work on an international level, or at least, not for long, it worked internally. In the past, when it came to the Olympics, all of America was on the same side, at least as far as we knew. We all collectively cheered when Kerri Strug landed that vault. We all rejoiced when Team USA beat Team USSR at the “Miracle on Ice.” During the Olympics, regardless of our differences, we were all Americans.

Now, it’s possible that this image was an illusion. It’s possible that during each Olympics, while we all had a public face of unifying support, some faction of Americans were seething at some injustice or other behind the scenes, decades safely removed from the revealing spotlight of social media. But even the ILLUSION was worth something. The perception that it was possible for all Americans to come together for some common cause meant something.

We no longer have that illusion because it is no longer true. We can’t even all get on the same side against a devastating killer virus, let alone for an Olympic athlete.

In Biles’ absence, Sunisa Lee stepped up for the Americans, helping the USA secure a silver medal in the Team competition and winning the Individual All-Around. In another time, another era, this would have been the story. The only story. Americans have each others’ backs. If one of us falls, the others will be right there to pick them up and press on. 

We are no longer worthy of that narrative.

Why is this the case? What has happened over the last 20 years to turn us into a country where we just can’t all get along? There seems little point in trying to find out, as that analysis would immediately become just as polarized as our reality. Liberals will point to FOX News propaganda pushing America to the right, Conservatives will accuse Academia of pulling it to the left. The real question is can anything be done about it?

Short of an intergalactic alien invasion or a mutated virus so deadly it kills off the side that is polarized against defending itself against it, it’s hard to imagine what that would be.

In the meantime, I’ll still be watching the Olympics and cheering for Team USA. Who’s with me?

"Cognitive Dissonance"

The other day, I posted a query to my Facebook feed about who were the worst types of Trumpers. Amidst the obvious choices of wealth fetishists, racists, overgrown frat boys and the like, I offered the option to write in your own.

One person replied: “Cognitive dissonance.”

What he meant was that it is human nature to become intractable about one’s opinions, especially those we hold strongly. That for most people, once you convince yourself of a position, evidence to the contrary is so disturbing to your psyche that you are more likely to dismiss it, explain it away or repress it than consider it fairly. The worst type of Trumpers are those who won't admit who he is to themselves.

But the more I thought about it, the more I felt that if those were the worst type of Trumpers, it wasn't because of their cognitive dissonance, it was because of our own.

We see Trump wallowing in corruption. We see his 40-year history, a matter of public record, of cheating on his taxes, his wives and his contractors, of lying literally hundreds of times a week. We see that he is barely literate, that he has no understanding of the position he holds nor has he any interest in learning.

We see him committing fraud to the tune of millions of dollars over and over again, and wonder not just how he ever could have become President, but how millions of people will respond to these charges with something on the order of “Yeah, well, what about Hillary and Obama?” despite the fact that neither of them has been stained with any kind of scandal even approaching what happens to Trump in an average week. Despite that both boast a long record of public service while he has had none, and that their professional conduct compared to his has been impeccable.

We could accept, perhaps, if those people simply proclaimed they didn’t care for Obama’s politics or even that they didn’t like the idea of a woman with power. But to suggest somehow that Hillary Clinton should be behind bars while Donald Trump should be in charge of the entire country? It is literally impossible to fathom what twisted logical gymnastics one could have gone through to arrive at such a conclusion.

But that’s the rub, isn’t it? I suspect that most of these people applied no logic at all. They got it in their head that Trump is the right guy for them and that was the end of it. They suffer no cognitive dissonance because they are quite effective at discarding logic and reason when it comes to Trump. 

But the rest of us have no such luxury. We work ourselves into a rage trying to figure out how a human being with access to basically the same kinds of neurons, synapses, sulci and gyri as we could have come to the conclusion that Trump is at all competent, let alone someone appropriate for ultimate power.

They happily trot down the lane in their MAGA hats and their “Hillary for Prison” T-shirts, blissfully oblivious to the fact that crony after crony of Trump’s inner circle has been indicted or jailed, completely indifferent to the fact that people with years of dedicated service to our country have cried out that this man is unequivocally and gruesomely abusing his power, dismissing these brave souls as hoaxers or “never Trumpers,” while the rest of us are tearing our hair out wondering what we’re missing. 

Cursed with the ability to reason and respect for scientific inquiry, we have to consider the possibility, however remote, that they may be onto something, while they get to just decide that we hate America, are somehow not real, or are brainwashed by “fake news.”

It doesn’t seem fair. We desperately want to say, “well, they’re just idiots,” or, “there are a lot of horrible people in America,” but something nags us about the idea that tens of millions of people with whom we share citizenship are just stupid or terrible. Meanwhile, they seem unfazed by the absurdity of the idea that half the population of the country actively hates it here and is trying to destroy it from within.

Well, I’ve thought about it a lot and I’m here to tell you that we’re not crazy. Trump really is what we think he is and there are really people who will never care, for a variety of reasons that include some unholy cocktail of wealth fetishism, racism, power fantasies, fear of cognitive dissonance and…eye of newt, I guess. I’m afraid the best thing we can do is to dismiss the ones that cannot be reasoned with and hold fast to the ones that can, the way our ancestors dealt with bears and sabretooth tigers, and try to hang on until the winds of change blow our way again.

Trump Supporter's Guide to Sleeping at Night

When Trump does something horrible, like publicly ask a foreign country to investigate his political opponents or tell women of color in Congress to "go back where they came from," or pay off a pornstar to stay quiet about his adultery and then lie about it, refer to the following menu:

Choose as many as apply:

A) He didn't do it. Fake News

B) He did it, but it only seems wrong because failing left-wing media outlets make it sound worse than it is.

C) He did it, and it was wrong, but as long as he's keeping the gays/abortionists/immigrants in check, he can do whatever else he wants.

D) He did it, but he had to do it to Keep America Great

E) He did it, but the Democrats made him do it because they hate him.

F) He did it, but it doesn't matter because something that Obama/Hillary/Biden did was much worse (even if we don't know EXACTLY what that something is. Something about Benghazi or Kenya).

G) He did it, but it's good because it's making the liberals crazy.

H) He did it, but he didn't mean it, he was just making a hilarious (racism/treason/totalitarianism) joke.

I) He did it, but you only care because you hate him.

J) No, YOU'RE the racist!

Is It Okay to Get Something For Nothing?

“When you get something for nothing, you just haven't been billed for it yet.” – Franklin P. Jones, Humorist

One of the most deeply ingrained creeds in the American ethos is the idea that if you work hard, anything is possible. It’s the American Dream. The implied corollary to that, of course, is that if you don’t work hard, you’ll get nothing. More importantly, you deserve nothing.

This is an idea that seems so obvious to the average American that it is held firmly and without a doubt by every conservative thinker, from the most Alt-Right all the way down to the last rung on the conservative ladder, the modern political climate’s “moderate/centrist” Democrat.

It’s a point that seems so unassailable that even those further on the left usually don’t want to touch it. Andrew Yang, one of a score of candidates vying for the Democratic presidential nomination as I write this, has as the cornerstone of his platform the idea of UBI – Universal Basic Income, which says that every adult American will get $1000 a month on which to live.

This is the type of proposal that has conservatives waking up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat. The very idea that not just some Americans, but EVERY American, would get a monthly stipend of a THOUSAND DOLLARS--$12,000 a year!—for just sitting on their behinds, is such anathema to those on the right and many in the middle, that they would rather see almost anything else become public policy.

It defies imagination just how preoccupied many Americans are with the sheer injustice of such a concept. It’s a principle that has “investigative journalists” from the mainstream conservative media regularly following around homeless people in the hopes of catching one sporting a new pair of sneakers or talking on a cellphone. It’s an idea that fills right-wing TV pundits with rage. “A thousand dollars! For nothing! Those freeloaders! Those savages!” As if a thousand dollars a month would allow someone with nothing to live high on the hog.

Can you imagine Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh trying to live on $1000 a month? I question whether they and their ilk could survive on $1000 a DAY.

And yet Yang, despite the swell of popularity he is enjoying and universal agreement that this is a bright guy who knows what he is talking about, is summarily dismissed when discussing UBI. The media seems to think he could not possibly mean it, and is just trying to pull eyes, the way candidates for Class President of your local High School would put up posters in bold letters exclaiming: “FREE SEX!...and now that I’ve got your attention…”

So, what is it that seems so obviously horrible to Americans about the idea of getting something for nothing? And why does it only apply to the poor? We don’t seem to care about the obscene amount of wealth that children inherit from their rich parents. Far from it, we build reality television shows around them. We don’t mind seeing Instagram models get six-figure paydays just for taking a picture of themselves sporting a certain brand of lipstick, even though this seems far from the type of “good day’s work for a good day’s pay” type of effort the Puritan forefathers of this country espoused.

No, it’s only the idea of people of limited means having their means a little bit less limited without any effort on their part that we find so objectionable. Is there any logical explanation for this?

Well, what are the arguments against something like UBI?

Some will say it’s not good for society. If people know they can get something for nothing, they won’t work. We’ll have a nation of freeloaders.

But this is obviously ridiculous. In most parts of the country, $1000 a month is enough money to put a roof over your head and feed yourself and little else. Would anyone who finds the idea of these luxuriating freeloaders so objectionable be content to have nothing more in life than three cheap meals and protection from the rain? Unlikely.

In fact, the reverse is almost certainly true. A person who is on the street and starving can do little else but try to survive. There’s no opportunity to interview for a job when you can’t shower or change your clothes or get a good night’s sleep. On the other hand, with $1000 a month, you could do all those things. And human nature being what it is, once you get a taste of a little comfort, you want more.

Something like UBI would mean no homeless people, a healthier population and more people looking for gainful employment. And if the cost of that is a handful of people who just want to live in a hovel and eat fast food and play video games all day, so what? Who does it hurt? Especially in comparison to what you get in return!

Of course, the other argument is, why should a hardworking American pay for other people to freeload? But this argument also doesn’t ring true. People routinely pay taxes that go to bribing big companies to stay in the U.S. by offering billion dollar tax cuts, that go to the building of giant military death machines that we will never use and often don’t work, and that go to many other things that ultimately offer less of a benefit to society than giving every American citizen a little bit of dignity.

And yet people would rather pay hundreds of dollars for all those things than part with one red cent to make sure a homeless person has a roof over their head or can see a doctor when they are sick.

Why? Even when it doesn’t affect them at all, they object. Even if UBI, universal health care and all the other programs that just give the most disadvantaged of our citizens a chance to succeed were to be paid for by a marginal tax on the wealthiest one percent, even if 99 percent of Americans would not be affected AT ALL, they still object. Why?

I suppose there’s the slippery slope argument. Some may say, well, if someone gets something for free now, they’re just going to want more and more. Eventually, we will get to that point where no one wants to work.

I don’t buy it. There are people in this country now that have more money than they can ever spend or will ever need, and they still put in full working hours every day. There are also people who volunteer their time and do work for nothing. And honestly, would it really be so awful if our society became so advanced that the only people who worked were people who want to?

Is the explanation that our true human nature is sour grapes? "I have to work, so why shouldn’t they?"  Is it that even if we will have so much more than they do either way, we absolutely refuse to let someone else have something that we had to work for? Is it true that for many Americans, it actually feels that someone getting a handout hurts them personally? Even if they don’t have to pay for it? Even if it’s someone they don’t know?

Unfortunately, for many, perhaps even most Americans, it seems that this is indeed the source of our indignation. A study by Zonghu and Li found that increases in relative income and absolute income both weaken negative emotion, but only increases in relative income improve positive emotion.

In other words, being well-off and being wealthier than those around you both make you less depressed, but what makes you feel really good is having more than others in your community. People actually derive joy in knowing that they are doing better than others, and helping the least fortunate closes that gap.

It’s not the idea of taking some of our money and giving it to the less fortunate that people find so objectionable, it’s the idea of taking some of our precious social status and giving it to the less fortunate that we can’t stand. It is our willingness and ability (or perceived willingness and ability) to work that is the currency that social programs for the less fortunate threaten to devalue, and that we cannot abide if we are to maintain our feelings of superiority.

Is there anything that can change this attitude? It will be tough. Even the idea of forgiving student debt has the people who have already worked off their own student debt up in arms. We really cannot stand the idea of someone else getting something for free that we had to work for, no matter what the positive consequences might be.

But maybe the least we can do is not stigmatize the very idea.

The New NRA: Solving the Gun Problem in America

The recent school shooting in Florida has given rise to renewed cries to address the growing gun problem in this country. The response is the same. Gun control advocates call for harsher gun regulations, anti-gun control factions panic that the government is coming for their guns, and politicians who accept millions from the NRA to make sure that kids like Nicholas Cruz have easy access to assault rifles either act confused and helpless, as if there is no solution to this problem, or find a scapegoat to deflect the blame to, like bad parenting, mental illness, or, most brazenly, lack of enough guns.

To those of us watching these politicians defy any standards of public decency and safety for reasons that openly and unabashedly boil down to their own greed, the situation seems hopeless. The Republican party is firmly entrenched in the pocket of the NRA, who have millions upon millions of dollars to spend, and there’s nothing any of us can do about it.

I believe that there is a solution though, and it comes from the very conservatives from the state of California who likely support the NRA.

The Solution

If there’s one thing corrupt politicians are great at, it is distorting and obfuscating the truth. So, for the safety of our children, let’s put aside our ethics and take a page from their book.

California suffers from what some might call an excess of democracy. Every Election Day, multiple propositions are put on the ballot for Californians to vote on. These are real policy changes, like allowing gay marriage or tightening environmental regulations. Since many of these propositions are overwhelmingly good for the people and would easily pass if that were clear, each year, corporations create counter propositions and use their influence to get them on the ballot.

These counter propositions look exactly like the good propositions, except that if you manage to get to the end of them, the policy change they would enact is exactly the opposite of the original prop.

The idea is not to get these counter propositions to pass; they rarely do. The goal is to confuse voters so much that too many of them either vote for the wrong proposition, or become so uncertain that they don’t vote for either, so neither pass. This almost always works.

So what does this have to do with the NRA? Well, here is my proposal, and I hope someone with the time and resources reads this and decides to try it.

The New NRA

I propose we create a new organization. Call it the New National Rifle Association, or NNRA. We create a fancy logo with a nice big automatic weapon on it, maybe a majestic bald eagle, and state as our mission to protect the ownership of guns and responsible gun use. We then send newsletters to as many voting gun supporters as we can find.

The NNRA can even set up programs to encourage good marksmanship and responsible gun ownership, just like the real NRA used to almost exclusively. However, when it comes time to elect a pro-gun politician, the NNRA will blanket the electorate with reasons why that politician shouldn’t be elected. 

The NNRA wouldn’t need to have the money and influence the NRA does, because the goal is not to win—its just to confuse the electorate enough so that they won’t vote for NRA cronies. If the NRA tries to fight us, we won’t fight back. We’re all on the same side, responsible gun ownership, right? So, nothing to fight about. Meanwhile, we keep diluting the NRA’s influence and there’s nothing they can do about it.

The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence is great, but it's David without his slingshot vs.Goliath. We can't win by taking on the NRA head-on.

I am sure this would work, so I really hope someone tries it. The only way to beat the NRA is by fighting fire with fire—A philosophy I’m sure its members will appreciate.

Thou Shalt Not Use the Bible to Defend Your Abortion Stance

Congress is currently hearing H.R. 490, the “Heartbeat Protection Act,” a bill introduced by Republican Steve King of Ohio that would Federally ban all abortions after six weeks.

It is widely accepted that the bill is not intended to pass, but is another great Republican use of the taxpayers’ money, to wit: poking Roe v. Wade. The right wing is very excited about the prospect of The Donald stacking the Supreme Court with a bunch of activist Bible-thumpers, and this is their first shot across the bow. As usual, it’s a bunch of men proposing restrictions on the rights of women.

Now, the right wing, especially the religious right, but even your average gay-bashing, Confederacy apologist Republican politician, loves to cite the Bible to justify their grossly inappropriate and inhumane behavior. For example, when the recent allegations about Roy Moore’s propensity to chase underage girls emerged, Alabama State Auditor Jim Ziegler brushed them off with “Joseph was an adult carpenter and Mary was a teenager, and they became the parents of Jesus.”

The Bible on Abortion

But since Pro-Birth activists are so quick to wave the Bible, let’s see what the Bible has to say about abortion. Hmm…

Let’s see here….

Oh! I see! Nothing! Since it’s the Bible, the words can be twisted to say anything the reader wants, but there is nothing explicit in the Bible about abortion, early termination of pregnancy (other than a verse stating that if someone causes your pregnant wife to miscarry, they owe you restitution, just as if they dented your fender, Exodus 21:22), or frankly, anything about children really at all, besides the fact that’s important to give them a good beating now and then to keep them in line (Proverbs 13:24).

And WHY, do you suppose it is, that God, who had so much to say about what you should wear, what you can eat and who you can have sex with, was completely mum on the subject of abortion? Well, I’ll tell you why. Because 2000 years ago, if you didn’t want your baby, you would take it up a mountain right after it was born and leave it there. It was called exposure, and it was a very effective form of birth control, and no one gave a shit. Not God. Not anybody. “Hey, Jim, what happened to that little one you had on the way?” “Oh, it turned out to be a girl, so I had to go up the mountain,” “Ah, hard luck. You’ll get ‘em next time, old boy!”

So, any Pro-Birther who tries to shove a Bible in your face has no idea what they’re talking about. Shockingly. The war by the Right against abortion is about one thing, and one thing only: The subjugation of women.

Is Abortion Murder?

Now, if you are Pro-Birth, you may personally feel that this does not reflect your opinion. You genuinely believe those clumps of cells are human beings being murdered. But let me ask you to participate in this thought experiment:

There is a virus raging through the country, killing everyone. There is a vaccine, but supplies are limited. You are six weeks pregnant with twins and have a four-year-old son. Do you give your one dose of vaccine to yourself or your four-year-old child?

If you choose to take the injection yourself and save your unborn twins in the process, you are a good, utilitarian, pro-birth mother. Three is better than one. If, on the other hand, you choose to give the medicine to your four year old, it means you actually have children.

Well, you don’t have to have children to make the right choice, obviously, but I have a hard time imagining any real mother opting to sacrifice her son in this scenario. So, at the very least, the life of a fetus and the life of a living human are not equivalent. The Republicans in Congress know this. They do not care. It’s about subjugation. Don’t believe me? I have three words for you: “Baird v. Eisenstadt.”

What Is Baird v. Eisenstadt?

We hear a lot about the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 that affirmed that it is unconstitutional to criminalize abortion. We hear very little about the decision the previous year, Baird v. Eisenstadt. That’s the one that legalized birth control.

Yes, that’s right. Even though the birth control pill reached the public consciousness in the 1960s, and some form of birth control had existed pretty much since civilization began before that, unmarried women did not have a Federally protected right to birth control until 1972, the year before Roe. And you read that right, unmarried women. It was just fine for married couples to use birth control, presumably because that meant the man was sick of his wife pumping out rugrats.

Attacks on abortion, just like attacks on birth control, are about keeping women out of the workforce, out of politics, out of anything but the kitchen and the bedroom, just like “the good old days.”

Abortion may be a tragedy, you may find it distasteful, but if it occurs before a fetus is viable, it is not murder, and if you support legislation that implies that it is, you are betraying the female gender. The next time a Pro-Birther reaches for a Bible to defend their position, save them some time. There ain’t nothing in there for them. Perhaps you can convince them to pick up a book on gender politics in the 21^st century instead.

Getting Ahead in Capital Punishment

Big Pharma standard bearer Pfizer recently made headlines by refusing to sell drugs to states for use in executions, ending their position as the last holdout among manufacturers of drugs that are used for this purpose. It was a surprisingly moralistic and human gesture for a big pharmaceutical company, not in the least bit diminished by the fact that Pfizer didn’t even sell execution drugs until they acquired Hospira, Inc. last year, so it probably didn’t hurt their bottom line too much.

While I applaud Pfizer for its humanitarian move, it does leave a problem, which is how states that wish to continue murdering their citizens will carry out their executions. According to the New York Times article, “A few states have adopted the electric chair, firing squad or gas chamber as an alternative if lethal drugs are not available.”

EXCUSE ME? Did I just read that right? Did that just say the fucking GAS CHAMBER?? 

Now, I’m well aware that Godwin’s Law says that you can’t win an argument by comparing the other side to Hitler, but THE GAS CHAMBER? If you can find me a person that doesn’t immediately think of Nazis when you say “gas chamber,” then I will show you a person that is either under the age of 25 or lives at least 500 miles from the nearest Jew (not counting the ones in Israel).

For the uninitiated, here’s how the gas chamber works, according to Wikipedia (you can trust them on this one, I promise): As implemented in the United States, the gas chamber is considered to be the most dangerous, most complicated, and most expensive method of administering the death penalty. The condemned person is strapped into a chair within an airtight chamber, which is then sealed. The executioner activates a mechanism which drops potassium cyanide (or sodium cyanide ) pellets into a bath of sulfuric acid beneath the chair; the ensuing chemical reaction generates lethal hydrogen cyanide gas.

The gas is visible to the condemned, who is advised to take several deep breaths to speed unconsciousness. Nonetheless, there are often convulsions and excessive drooling. There may also be urinating, defecating, and vomiting.

Well gee, that doesn’t sound at all cruel or unusual to me. And yet, Oklahoma, the state that is so resolute in its belief in the sanctity of human life that it recently introduced legislation to ban all abortions (and thank you, Governor Fallin, for nipping that nonsense in the bud), is considering introducing the gas chamber to execute its poor black citizens capital offenders. Oh, but don’t worry, they’ll be using safe, painless, nitrogen gas. The victims won’t feel a thing. Yeah. Don’t count on it. 

In 1983 in Mississippi, Jimmy Lee Gray was executed in the gas chamber. According to reports:

“Officials had to clear the room eight minutes after the gas was released when Gray’s desperate gasps for air repulsed witnesses.” According to defense attorney David Bruck, “Jimmy Lee Gray died banging his head against a steel pole in the gas chamber while the reporters counted his moans.”

Now, this gas chamber did not use Nitrogen gas and Jimmy Lee Gray was a murderous pedophile scumbag, but this is not the point. The point is if you think something like this won’t happen again because of this “humane alternative” to cyanide gas, you are kidding yourself.

So where does that leave us? Well, besides the obvious alternative of PUT A STOP TO MURDERING YOUR OWN CITIZENS LIKE EVERY OTHER CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD, we are offered the firing squad and the electric chair. Well everyone knows the electric chair sucks and screw-ups like that gas chamber fiasco happen almost every time they try to use it. That’s what made lethal injection so popular in the first place. And the firing squad? Just plugging someone full of holes? Seems pretty barbaric. But there is another alternative, and I don’t know why no one has considered it.

Yes, the humble guillotine. Despite its French name, no one knows who exactly invented the guillotine, and its use has been credited to have begun as far back as the turn of the 14^th century. However, it was Dr. Guillotin in the 1790s who successfully advocated for its use as the primary execution device in France, where it served to send thousands to their just reward during the French Revolution. Once France ended capital punishment in 1981, though, that was the end of the guillotine. It has never been used to execute capital punishment in the United States.

Why? Why not? Is it because the guillotine was inhumane? In fact, during the French Revolution, people complained about the government’s use of the guillotine because the condemned were getting off too easy.

The guillotine is the simplest mechanically out of all the death penalty devices and produces death the fastest. In fact, assuming the blade and mechanism are properly maintained, it’s over nearly instantaneously, before the victim has the time to register pain. Now, it is possible that the brain can remain alive for a few seconds after being separated from the body, but there’s still no pain, and this phenomenon would probably be much more disturbing to the observers than the condemned.

No, I speculate that the guillotine, despite being the most humane method of execution, has never been and will never be used in this country because:

            1. It’s associated with the French Revolution and therefore somehow seems archaic and barbaric.

And

  

     2. It’s French.

Well, as I pointed out, it’s not ACTUALLY French, but neither are French Fries. The point is that it’s associated with France, and God forbid we should kill anybody the swishy French way, right?

Let me be clear, here. I am not advocating for the death penalty in any way, shape or form. I think it’s savage, unconstitutional, and, to quote Supreme Court Justice William Brennan “demeans us all.” I mean, full disclosure, Hitler used the guillotine too. 

But if you HAVE to kill your citizens, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington and Wyoming, won’t you at least consider the guillotine? Please, don’t stand on tradition or national pride on this one. Use your head.