We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Wednesday, October 26. 2011
Best wishes to Mr. Vanderleun for a speedy recovery from his heart attack
Seriously hot curry
Actual sign spotted at WalMart
Boomtown Strippers Make $2k/Night in ND, "We Make More Than Doctors"
Women prefer not to work with women
Ben Stein: Raising Taxes Is the Adult Thing to Do
Obama’s Mythical Political Skills Won’t Save Him: Ramesh Ponnuru
Occupying St. Paul’s - A centuries-old building is rendered useless by demonstrators.
White House Unveils Details of Student-Loan Relief Plan
Greenspan: Why European Union Is Doomed to Fail
Mitt Romney Boldly Defends Right Not to be Bold About Anything
You are the 99%? We are the 66% who call you deadbeats. Pay up! - Fixed
The plan to begin another housing crisis
Wall Street Occupiers Continue To Desecrate The American Flag, San Diego Protesters Sic Dog On Old Glory…
Terrorist BILL AYERS Teaches Revolutionary Theory to Young Leftists at Occupy Chicago
Eugene Robinson clearly did not read Maggie's Farm yesterday
Related, Harsanyi: The Real Luddites
From homeland security to healthcare, the federal government now has the power to reach further than ever into American society. But so far, the feds have sensibly stayed out of the business of appointing religious leaders.
Tracked: Oct 26, 07:05
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Bird Dog: Eugene Robinson clearly did not read Maggie's Farm yesterday
There is nothing in the previous posting which impacts theories of anthropogenic climate change. What Muller et al. determined was that the Earth is going through a period of dramatic warming, confirming the conclusions of Mann et al.
We pray for global warming, but remain skeptical. We tend to be skeptics about most things, and end up right more often than not with that rule of thumb.
Skepticism is the right position, however, the evidence for anthropogenic climate change is substantial. Denying the state of the evidence isn't skepticism, but contrariness.
There is evidence of warming but no credible evidence of anthropomorphic cause which is the scam that the climate cult keeps trying to push. The only real 'evidence' the climatistas ever had were their models built by scientists. The only problem is that models are not 'evidence', they're conjectures and they've were revealed to contain fraudulent data, i.e., they are frauds.
There are just far too many holes in the argument to implement economically destructive policies that have no evidence that they'd actually solve what is not even proven to be a problem. Furthermore nobody has satisfactorily made the case that on balance a slightly warmer planet is worse than our current temperature or whatever temperature is deemed as 'normal'. In other words, what exactly is the problem that we're so desperate to solve?
I understand your deeply held conviction for anthropomorphic climate change...I even gave you climate change...you just can't satisfactorily prove it.
My 11 yr old daughter called BS on her science teacher. My daughter doesn't understand that if we are the problem now, than who was the problem in the previous warming cycles? Bless her heart.
phil g: The only real 'evidence' the climatistas ever had were their models built by scientists.
Modeling is important, but among direct evidence is the warming troposphere and the cooling stratosphere, a phenomena which strongly supports greenhouse warming.
Now quite as clear-cut as that.
Anthony Watts (2007): The real question is whether this small downturn in the tropospheric temperature trend is a short term anomaly, or something indicative of a longer term event. Only time will tell.
NOAA: 2010 Tied For Warmest Year on Record
Like I said, this is evidence of warming, but it is a leap of faith to assume it is a result of anthropomorphic impact and if it is still doesn't answer the question of what exactly is the problem and the cost of the warming.
Those are the critical burdens of evidence that must be met before justifying a costly solution that might not even be a solution.
phil g: Like I said, this is evidence of warming, but it is a leap of faith to assume it is a result of anthropomorphic impact and if it is still doesn't answer the question of what exactly is the problem and the cost of the warming.
Anthropogenic climate change is scientifically well-established. Scientists are now working on the problem of the effects of climate change, and of various policy responses. Fortunately, many responses are good policy even without climate change, such as conservation of energy resources.
Bird Dog: Paul Ryan declares war on Obama’s class-warfare campaign
During a time of national emergency, with an on-going war and deficits threatening the U.S. financial position, asking the wealthiest Americans to pay a bit more is not "class warfare."
We'll go for higher taxes if:
1. For every $ of new tax, a dollar is reduced from Fed spending, and
2. If taxes are raised for everybody, across the board.
BD, don't hold your breath on that. #2 is much more likely than #1.
Bird Dog: We'll go for higher taxes if: 1. For every $ of new tax, a dollar is reduced from Fed spending, and 2. If taxes are raised for everybody, across the board.
That would be one way to bring the budget into balance. Obama proposed $3 in cuts for each $1 in taxes, but the Republicans have nixed any deal that involves taxes.
As for raising taxes across the board, Clinton-era tax rates, which were higher for all tax brackets, were sustainable, reasonably fair, and resulted in surpluses.
Obama's spending cuts are way in the future (when he's gone and on his speaking tour) or from cutting future growth not baseline cuts. His job killing taxes are now.
Please tell me what is fair about almost half of the people paying NOTHING in federal income taxes and the other paying ALL of the federal income taxes.
Well, increasing taxes or cutting spending is not prudent while the economy is still recovering, so postponing most cuts makes sense—but only if the U.S. is responsible enough to address the deficits in the out-years.
As for the federal tax burden, the income tax accounts for less than half of federal revenues. When accounting for the total tax burden, then the tax burden by quintile is (2007): 4%, 11%, 14%, 17%, 25%. So most everyone is paying something. A return to Clinton-era tax rates may be warranted once the economy is on solid ground. The tax burden at that time of relative prosperity was (1999): 6%, 13%, 17%, 20%, 28%.
Why is cutting spending a bad idea in a bad economy? That's just a Keynesian myth. After WWII, the Keynesians screamed bloody murder that cutting spending would collapse the economy, but taxes and spending were cut - while several million men rejoined the workforce - and the economy boomed.
That's not a valid assessment.
BTW, I think that alleged Wal Mart picture is really from Best Buy.
I am greatly disappointed in Ben Stein. The adult thing to do is
Stop Spending! NOW! Sheesh! And let business operate with out the piranhas of regulation feeding on them.
And of course Repubs deny "Climate Science": climate "scientists" have been fudging, making up, and lying about their "data".
East Anglia U. e-mails, anyone?
The economy needs growth. Growth is the way out. Within the bounds of govt obligations, whatever tax structure promotes growth is the right tax structure.
(related --and how: the current Nyquist)
((will attempt hyperlink but expect that it will not work))
(please forgive lengthy excerpt --feel free to delete, Maggie!)
The pioneers of totalitarianism, Lenin and Hitler, both denounced the capitalism system as rotten. But Lenin was the first to recognize, with the advent of his New Economic Policy, that totalitarianism can wear a capitalist face. Lenin called his version of capitalism “state capitalism,” while Hitler proposed a “social market economy.” In both instances, the central principle was state power over private power. This formula seems to be emerging today in the United States, without the appearance of an overt socialist revolution. In America, socialist totalitarian principles advance by gradualism. Capitalism is overtaken bit by bit, so that most observers do not realize how far things have moved down “the road to serfdom.” Whether it is health care or banking, the automobile industry, fishing or timber – the state successfully interjects itself, asserting ultimate control. The reason is always given that the state can solve problems that the market cannot solve.
In 1944 Yale University press published a book titled Omnipotent Government, by Ludwig von Mises. In this book, Mises explained, “The economist does not substitute his own judgment about the desirability of ultimate ends sought by nations…. He merely asks whether the ends sought by nations … can indeed be attained by the methods actually chosen….” In terms of the state versus the market, which renders the life of the common man more pleasant? Should we look to state intervention to save us from poverty, or should we look to the market? For Ludwig von Mises, the answer was perfectly obvious. The preservation of the market economy based on private ownership of the means of production, grants free competition and consumer sovereignty. State interference with the market restricts productivity, hampers the accumulation of wealth, “and makes people poorer,” wrote Mises, who pleaded with his generation: “do not abolish or cripple the capitalist system which, in spite of all obstacles put in its way by governments and politicians, has raised the standard of living of the masses in an unprecedented way.”
Someone who is young and knows very little may occupy Wall Street and call for the abolition of capitalism, yet this same young person has enjoyed a high standard of living because of capitalism. Whether he knows it or not, the protestor who calls for the abolition of the market economy is siding with a totalitarian principle. He is siding with the followers of Lenin and Hitler. Those who decry “economic inequality” may not realize that equality is a totalitarian objective, while economic inequality is the condition which continually raises the level of civilization and the general standard of living. Where poverty is universal, everyone is equal. Less understood is how the dictator secures his power by reducing the most distinguished citizens to a common level. For in political matters, the wealthy have traditionally checked tyranny. This fact was freely acknowledged by ancient historians and philosophers. The aspiring tyrant instigates class warfare, pressing down on the prosperous. He uses numbers to hold sway, achieving dominance over all.
The Greek historian Herodotus tells of the advice given by Thrasyboulos the tyrant to Periandros the Corinthian. Rather than explaining the method of tyrannical government, Thrasyboulos demonstrated by leading Periandros’ messenger into a field planted with grain as he cut down the finest and tallest stalks. According to Herodotus, “Periandros understood the meaning of what Thrasyboulos had done and perceived that he was advising him to murder the prominent men of the city.” This indeed became Periandros’ method of governing – as it secured total power for himself.
An even more subtle method was practiced by Hitler, and by latter-day Chinese and Russian governments. One does not have to physically eliminate prominent people in order to secure control. It is possible to use intimidation. One may threaten to send prominent businessmen to prison on false charges; confiscate their wealth or their businesses. In many instances, a leveling effect can be produced without wholesale slaughter. The power of the state to threaten private persons is ever present whenever the state becomes tyrannical. Today’s Wall Street protestors blame private businesses for capturing the state, and using it as an instrument of private enterprise. With this argument, business is described as a threat to all. The businessman is blamed for seeking profit and wealth, and converting this wealth into political influence. The supposed solution is to “control” the businessman by using the power of the state. Few stop and think what this entails. Already, in the United States today, businesses are held hostage by environmentalists, animal rights activists, minority advocates, economic egalitarians and feminists. There are so many regulations and laws, through which a businessman might be fined or jailed, that our system is already prepped for a transition to totalitarianism.
(read the rest @ link)
The Greek historian Herodotus tells of the advice given by Thrasyboulos the tyrant to Periandros the Corinthian.
There has to be a movie in there somewhere. :>)
Euripides the Tailor would seam to be a good choice for screenwriter
re the Nautilus:
The NYT lost me when they compared it to the 'disappearing" polar bear.
How can one tell if the shellfish is actually disappearing or if some one is inventing numbers to manipulate public policy?
Don't doubt it one bit. In fact, I'd say they need to put it on now rather than later.
Of course what we do is irrelevant. The emerging middle class in China, India and other countries will want and we all know about supply and demand.
Sharks are another species that will soon, if not already is, endangered.
The sad truth is as long as their is an Asian market, Japan/China/Korea for these things, this stuff will continue happening. The other day I was at the local guides association meeting and I mentioned the number of turtles I'd seen recently - Eastern Painted, Mud, Musk - around to one of the guys and he told me that it took ten to twelve years to build the turtle population after a complete ban on harvesting. Why? Local Asian population almost fished them out of the lake in two years. Same with Moultrie, Marion, Greenwood, Thurman, etc.
Not specific to, but related to the Occupy Whatever Protests.
The 1% Is Finally Striking Back!!!
Air Force Bombs OWS protesters!!!
I was a secretary for the IRS lawyers. I was the ONLY female secretary (and back in those days they only had females)who would work with either sex......and saw absolutely no difference in whether the lawyer was a male or female.....idiots can be either sex.
'Disappearing polar bears?' Rubbish. According to my-husband-the-writer, the polar bear world population is doing just fine, thank you, in spite of stupid environmentalists who publish pictures of bears perched on small ice chunks looking anxious. Polar bear scientists have tagged polar bears which have swum five hundred miles or more without making landfall.
As J says above in another connection, "idiots can be either sex", and many of them are environmentalists who don't check their "scientific" facts.
P.S. If you want to know more about Downs Matthews and his books, google him.