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.
At Watts: Green Movement Dead In The Water. It's been said many times before, but it certainly seems moribund. Problem is that too many people, and governments, make big bucks from the scam.
I remain in favor of more warmening for the benefit of the human species, but am preparing for the coming Ice Age apocalypse by buying a 1-BR condo in West Palm. (Just kidding. Florida is not my kind of place.)
I thought this video makes a rather comprehensive case against continuing the silliness of producing pennies.
Personal thoughts:
— IMHO, the greatest invention of the 1990's was the 'penny tray' at convenience stores.
— I've referred to them as 'pocket pollution' for decades.
— When I get home from shopping, I empty my pockets, file any important receipts, dump any coins in the change jar and drop any pennies in the waste basket, where they rightfully belong.
It always takes David years to see the blindingly obvious. He should write his op-eds, then past-date them a few years. He is a naif, and a pussy-man too - but that's why he has his job.
Free market capitalism is relatively new in human history. Prior to the rise of capitalism, the way people amassed great wealth was by looting, plundering and enslaving their fellow man. Capitalism made it possible to become wealthy by serving one's fellow man. Capitalists seek to discover what people want and then produce it as efficiently as possible. Free market capitalism is ruthless in its profit and loss discipline. This explains much of the hostility toward free market capitalism; some of it is held by businessmen. Smith recognized this hostility when he said, "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." He was hinting at government-backed crony capitalism, which has come to characterize much of today's businesses.
Free market capitalism has other enemies -- mostly among the intellectual elite and political tyrants. These are people who believe that they have superior wisdom to the masses and that God has ordained them to forcibly impose that wisdom on the rest of us. Of course, they have what they consider to be good reasons for restricting liberty, but every tyrant who has ever lived has had what he considered good reason for restricting liberty. A tyrant's agenda calls for the attenuation or the elimination of the market and what is implied by it -- voluntary exchange. Tyrants do not trust that people acting voluntarily will do what the tyrant thinks they should do. They want to replace the market with economic planning and regulation.
Roger B. Clegg, president of the Center for Equal Opportunity, which opposes racial and ethnic preferences, said, "When these things come to a vote, and people have to give a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down, I think a lot of politicians conclude that they do not want to be on record as favoring this kind of preferential treatment."
I am strongly in favor of preferential treatment for skills, talents, achievement, and potential.
I was informed, as 2011 waned, that my tax credit for commuting would fall from $230 a month to $125. This bothered me. Not because I feel I deserve a credit to commute, but because I can't figure out what the government is trying to do.
The fact is, if public transport is a 'good' we should all take advantage of no matter what, then the government should pay for it by taxing everyone and making it available for 'free' - as they do in Portland. Of course, I oppose this idea entirely. However, if the theory is that we can get people to do something that is 'good for everybody', then isn't this the way to do it? Half-measures, like credits, subsidies, and other methods of this ilk only mask what is possibly (though probably not) a problem - that public transportation isn't really viable. There are ways to determine whether this is true, but not for the average commuter.
What is the premise behind having a tax credit for public commutation? I like it, I'll use it if it's offered, but I didn't demand it, nor did I write Congress to keep it at $230/month. The cost, to me, of increased taxation due to the lower credit will be about $270 over the course of the year, so it's not a big deal. Why not just get rid of it altogether? If public transport is truly efficient, then it would make much more sense for me to take it, rather than driving into the city myself (or carpooling).
My commute is about $330/month. The cost of driving (assuming the Federal allowance of .55/mile and $150 a month parking) is about $780/month. Even if I made a more realistic assumption of about .25/mile, public transport is still an advantage. But public transport is heavily subsidized. So I really don't know which is more efficient, and determining this is very hard.
Here is the issue: Subsidies and tax breaks are supposed to promote the 'public good'. But how do I know which is more efficient, let alone even better, for me personally? If it is a 'public good', then its value will be transparent without subsidies and credits. I'll take whatever credits get offered. It would be crazy for me not to. But I'd much rather have a clear means of determining which makes more sense by comparing simple features like cost, time and effort (hey - in the end, I like reading on the train, so if it did cost more I'd probably still take it).
It is precisely this lack of transparency that makes other government initiatives, like Obamacare, a pure misallocation of resources. Unable to determine where our real efficiencies lie, we opt for what we assume is 'best' or costs us least. But we cannot know for sure if these things really make sense at all.
A reader sent us this info about the Romney lads whose pics we posted this morning:
Taggart Romney (1970)- Managing Partner at Solamere Capital , CMO at L.A. Dodgers, Vice President of OnField Marketing at Reebok, Director of Strategic Planning at Elan Corp.; B.Sc Economics, BYU and MBA from Harvard
Matthew Romney (1971) - VP of Property Management at Excel Legacy Corp, Product Manager for Microsoft Corp.; Bachelor of Arts from BYU and MBA from Harvard
Joshua Romney (1975) - Owner of Romney Ventures (a real estate developer), Acquisition Analyst at Intercontinental Real Estate; Bachelor of Arts from BYU and MBA from Harvard. Josh served in a number of political positions in the past several years, most notably as an advisor to his father’s presidential campaign and Utah Governor’s Gary Herbert gubernatorial campaign.
Dr. Benjamin Romney (1978) - Practices Internal Medicine in Boston; Degree in Management from BYU and a medical degree from Tufts University School of Medicine.
Craig Romney (1981) - Advertising Music Producer at McGarry Bowen; Bachelor Degree in Communication, Brigham Young University (BYU)
Rosenberg argues that belief in free will and purpose and all that (see above) is belief in hokum of the same order as belief in God. The atheists’ self-image as the hero nihilist choosing her fate is condemned as being just as hopeless as the religious self image.
Everybody "believes in something," even if it is only Self. Self is a false idol. Question is whether the "something" is worthy of devotion.
I'll offer to teach Tea Party 101 for free. After all, it was a much bigger deal, with clean, non-sociopathic and polite people, involved tons more people with no arrests, and had real impact. Guess the Academic Left doesn't care for those sots of things.
Imagine what a horror 2011 was for progressives as Americans began to comprehend their stunning abundance of fossil fuels — beyond their two centuries’ supply of coal. Progressives responded with attempts to impede development of the vast proven reserves of natural gas and oil here and in Canada. They bent the willowy Obama to delay approval of the Keystone XL pipeline to carry oil from Canadian tar sands; they raised environmental objections to new techniques for extracting gas and “tight” oil from shale formations.
The way to revive sustainable growth is with more government aid to help create jobs, support demand and prevent foreclosures. As things stand now, however, Washington will provide less help, not more, in 2012. Republican lawmakers refuse to acknowledge that government cutbacks at a time of economic weakness will only make the economy weaker. And too many Democrats, who should know better, have for too long been reluctant to challenge them.
It has been a long standing theory of mine, starting back in the late '90s, that the more complex systems become, the easier they are to break. The complexity creates conditions in which a minor glitch in one system can create havoc in other associated systems all without human interaction. This theory also applies to society as a whole as far as I'm concerned meaning that the more rules, regulations, laws and policies are enacted, the ability to circumvent them becomes easier and easier.
How 
Seriously, If You Pick The Wrong Major 
