Friday morning links

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Friday, October 5. 2012

Trash Cams May Monitor Discarded Federally Imposed Vegetables

Three innings? Not bad

10 Things I Hate That Everybody Loves

Neil Armstrong Buried at Sea

The girl’s guide to visiting the USS Makin Island

To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets

One man's heroic quest: Cataloging 350,000 medal-of-valor winners

Your right to resell your own stuff is in peril - It could become illegal to resell your iPhone 4, car or family antiques

Taxing marriage

"Jesus’ Wife" text fragment a fake

Executive Pay: How Much Is Too Much?

Doctor seeking Illinois Senate seat offers brutal diagnosis of ObamaCare in viral video

California Governor extends $100 million Hollywood tax credit… now it’ll be cheaper for them to make movies about the evils of corporate welfare

Why unions fear this film - Revealing truths about schools

Airline to help upset voters leave the U.S.

Left-Right Agreement on Affirmative Action?

HHS: Bible publisher not a ‘religious employer’

The Road to Recovery - As Hayek taught, freedom and the rule of law drive prosperity.

McArdle: The Benefits of Business Experience

Glenn: With liberty and taxes for all

The Price of Public Health Care Insurance

Mallory Factor: How Public Unions Exploit the Ruse of 'Official Time' - Government employees get paid to spend time on the job working on union projects that they don't disclose to managers or the public.

CNN hits hard on Libya: The only conclusion is that the White House tried to cover something up

Undecided voters in focus group swing sharply toward Romney; Frank Luntz: ‘I’ve never seen anything like this’; CBS post-debate poll shows big win for Romney

I can't believe this paragraph at Politico:

Obama has never been the nation’s most forceful debater, and he makes no secret of his disdain for the theatrical side of politics. If his conduct on the debate stage with Romney seemed oddly passive, it was in some ways just another manifestation of the president’s restrained approach to communicating with the electorate, whom he seems to believe — in the face of all existing evidence — are not swayed by electoral artifice.

Romney spokesman - There will be a complete review of Obama DOJ under a Romney admin

Coulter On Race Tape: "He Just Turns It On & Suddenly We Got Malcolm X"

Resurfaced ’07 Talk by Obama Renews Questions on Race

Obama: “Rich people are all for nonviolence. Why wouldn’t they be? They’ve got what they want.”

Brokaw: If Romney Performed Like Obama Did Last Night 'It Would Have Been Over'

HURT: Obama the debater: Making Jimmy Carter look awesome

Mika Brzezinski on Debate: “I’m Sick to My Stomach”

Stewart: Er, the president isn’t looking quite as brilliant as he used to

At Tatler:

Mr Axelrod, speaking on a campaign conference call, made an appeal to reporters to make the points that Obama himself had failed to make in the debate

This administration lies whenever lying is expedient in a scheme it is trying to accomplish or an accusation it is trying to dodge.

Torture Creep - Why are more Americans accepting Bush-era policies than ever before?

Sensitive documents left behind at U.S. diplomatic post in Libya

China moves to silence journalists who offered rare taste of transparency

Report: Obama Admin Rejected Military Intervention in Benghazi During Attack

In Syria, Assad crosses the red lines

Posted by Bird Dog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 05:24 | Comments (13) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

The marriage penalty is fixed every few decades, alternating with the single-person penalty fix.

The mathematical problem is that you can't do both of two desireable things in a progressive tax system:

1. Couples making the same total income pay the same tax;

2. Tax law neither favors nor disfavors marriage.

The only real fix is a flat tax system.

#1 rhhardin (Link) on 2012-10-05 06:58 (Reply)

I don't see why you can't do both things at once. If the tax liability for a two-earner couple making a total of X taxable income equals the tax liability for an individual (or a one-earner couple) also making X taxable income, there is no penalty for being or not being married.

It was not that way prior to 2003 when you had a marriage penalty. The two-earner couple had a greater tax liability than an individual (or a one-earner couple) with the exact same taxable income. According to the article, that marriage penalty is soming back.

#1.1 arcs on 2012-10-05 15:58 (Reply)

If one of the two earners in the married household makes the X and the other zero, then tax law favors marriage. They'd pay more in total if they were not married, owing to the progressive tax code.

#1.1.1 rhhardin (Link) on 2012-10-05 19:10 (Reply)

Your right to resell your own stuff is in peril

Its happening more and more that "copyright" holders are extending their reach into the private world and attempting to control everything even in redistribution. And the courts are letting them get away with it based on nothing more than legal gymnastics of the kind that makes "1984" look ridiculous by comparison.

I copyright all my photos that I post to the web. I learned very early on that image aggregators don't give a damn about who owns what - all they care about is "stock" imagery under what is called "fair public use". And you can't fight them - Getty images in particular is guilty of swiping images, putting their stamp on them and claiming "fair use" and they have entire teams of lawyers doing their dirty legal work.

I've even had this happen to me. I had an image on a web site that I used to post to on a regular basis - it was an Olympus camera oriented site (I'm a big Olympus fan and user). Somebody swiped it, took it into Photoshop, did some work with the metadata on the image, then had the nerve to claim that I copied her work and she tried to get me to take my image down as a copyright violation.

She screwed up fortunately - the image had been on the site for almost three years prior to her claim and when this was pointed out to her, she disappeared - but never did take down the image on her site and she still claims it as her own.

I don't put my better photos on line any more because of that reason.

Our whole system of legal copyright and fair use is screwed up royally.

Sorry - a tad off topic, but tangentially related I think.

#2 Tom Francis on 2012-10-05 09:44 (Reply)

re Your right to resell your own stuff is in peril

Very worrisome.

Looks like a nightmare to enforce. If it is enforced, hard for me to believe the electorate would stand for it.

Loopholes? Could one give away or trade items as long as they weren't sold?

What if the company that originally sold the item is no longer in business?

re Cities Lose the Helmets

Refreshing to see some entities recognize that people should be allowed to make their own choices when it comes to personal safety. A very small push back to the nanny state.

#3 feeblemind on 2012-10-05 10:20 (Reply)

The other thing I don't understand about the property case is how an interest can be decreed for a third party in my property after the fact (purchase), without compensating me for it?

Guess that is why I am a feeble minded peasant and not a brilliant lawyer.

#3.1 feeblemind on 2012-10-05 11:10 (Reply)

Feebs, maybe you're going at it from the wrong direction. For example, imagine your power --and the 'tribute' that would flow to you --if you could simply label everyone in the world an 'enemy of the state' and then just punish or exonerate whenever and whomever happened to attract your attention?

It sure worked for the ancient kings of Mesopotamia!

#3.1.1 buddy larsen on 2012-10-05 14:05 (Reply)

Jet Blue: WHY, oh why, a round-trip ticket? They want to leave, not take a vacation.

Agreement on Affirmative Action? Maybe the lefties are learning? Nah, gotta be an evil plot.

Politico: Is there any reason that I should believe what they tell me, or should I just go with my lying eyes?

Reviewing the DOJ is a good place to start. Look at ALL departments.

The MSM was complicit in foisting Obama on us. Still, why did it take this long to unearth this video? Likely because it was hard to find.

Stewart and Rendell: I think that Obama expected the Romney he's read about in the NYT and WaPo. He didn't, per Patton's line in the movie, read Romney's book. Clueless, to mention another movie.

#4 Sam L. on 2012-10-05 10:46 (Reply)

re Cycling sans helmet

To an extent I agree that squawking about a helmet all the time, particularly if you're cycling at low speeds, or on back roads with little car traffic, is counterproductive. I never wore a helmet when I rode by bike as a kid. Sure, I crashed; we all did. But the instinct to preserve the brain box is so strong that you will literally sacrifice the rest of you to keep it from hitting the pavement.

Flash forward to now: I wear a helmet when cycling because I live in a dense, urban environment, and I am mixing it up in traffic with cars, buses and other cyclists, all at much higher rates of speed. Now, instead of puttering along for the fun of it, I'm out for exercise. But, I will hop on my bike without a helmet now if I'm just going to the store or down to the beach.

As an aside, I've taken up figure skating and spend a good amount of time on the ice. I see a lot of kids (and adults) who are strapping on helmets and IMHO it makes no sense. Figure skating is all about balance and body position. Adding a helmet to the equation throws off that delicate balance and ruins peripheral vision. You need that when 99% of the jumps you complete are from a backwards position. And spins are difficult enough without adding more bulkiness to your head. Those I see with helmets on appear more tentative and skittish on the ice as compared to their non-helmeted mates.

Full disclosure: I first laced up skates when I was four. I skated all through my childhood and quite often as an adult. Lessons have been a different matter. I fall quite often. However, most of my injuries are to my knees, shoulders and hips. Helmets don’t help with that.

#5 KellyM on 2012-10-05 12:39 (Reply)

This link goes to one of those online reference checks:
This administration lies whenever lying is expedient in a scheme it is trying to accomplish or an accusation it is trying to dodge. Bad Link.

#6 JimK on 2012-10-05 13:00 (Reply)

How much executive pay is too much? One dollar more than the shareholders are willing to pay.

#7 Texan99 (Link) on 2012-10-05 13:13 (Reply)

excerpt from the doctor's viral video link (bolding mine):

QUOTE:

“I had no idea I was being videotaped,” Bellar told FoxNews.com. “I meant it as a light opener to a more serious issue. It did take on a life of its own."

But Bellar, who is running for office for the first time, has strong feelings about ObamaCare, which she considers an “erosion” of rights. She is seeking to succeed Edward Maloney, who is retiring from the district, which includes Chicago's 19th Ward, and has picked up the endorsement of the Chicago Tribune.

The title of senator would be just the latest entry on an interesting and lengthy resume. Bellar was a Benedictine nun for nearly five years, although she left before she completed her final vows. She is a major in the U.S. Army Reserves, runs a family medical practice, teaches part time at both Benedictine and DePaul universities and practices law.

“I’ve been fortunate," Bellar said. "I’m just a life-long learner and have always wanted to help serve others.”

Of the upcoming election, Bellar says that she plans to shake up the statehouse where President Obama got his start in politics.

“They will not know what hit them,” she said.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/02/doctor-seeking-illinois-senate-seat-offers-brutal-diagnosis-obamacare-in-viral/#ixzz28RwB6CRZ

#8 buddy larsen on 2012-10-05 14:16 (Reply)

Kinda buried in all these links is the one that I think is great - Armstrong buried at sea. I do find it rather fitting that a great man known for his going into outer space is buried in the depths of the ocean. Thanks for the link.

#9 Charles on 2012-10-05 16:39 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Friday, October 5. 2012

Friday morning links