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.
New York Mayor Bill de Blasio emphatically backed New Governor Andrew Cuomo’s controversial remarks that “extreme” conservatives – which he defined as being pro-life, second amendment advocates, or supporters of traditional marriage – “have no place in the state of New York.” “I stand by that 100 percent,” de Blasio told reporters at the U.S. Conference of Mayors in Washington, D.C. on Thursday.
Not to long ago I heard a comment by a city official in my home town (suburb of Chicago) who blamed local flooding on global warming. But I can remember from my childhood that large areas were set aside as unsuitable for development because in the 50s they were known to be flood plains. But here we are, all that land has been built up. Because, Ka-ching.
We had a bad flood in Hawaii about 25 years ago, especially in this one neighborhood where the water came through and took everything. Somebody finally thought to translate the Hawaiian name for the area into English, and it meant "Dry Stream Bed."
Flooding is one of my favorite infrastructure related pet peeves. I'm not sure I would always blame the government, but poor municipal planning is certainly part of the problem. Happily, the government is slowly buying up houses in flood prone areas in the burbs now and that helps. As referenced by Edith in her comment, it seems the main issue is that we tend to build close to water and lots of that development is going to be on swamp land. Being close to water is historically very beneficial for trade and transportation. However, flood prone land is also very demanding in terms of engineering and building and paying for the required flood mitigation infrastructure. Tunnels and pumps and dykes cost lots of money. On the whole, all of that infrastructure needs to be significantly improved. It needs to be improved because every time a good sized storm comes around, it causes a disaster. Not much point spending all that money if it doesn't work, is there? I also think floods can be used much more effectively. Why waste all of that water? We can and should build a series of regional aqueduct / tunnel / pipeline systems to divert flood waters to reservoirs. For example, when the Mississippi river floods, as it always does, some of that extra water can be diverted into reservoirs located in the dry regions of the country. Dig a bunch of extra big holes in Texas, Nevada and Georgia or wherever they usually need water and link them up with pipes and aqueducts. Shoot, the Romans could do it, why not us? Or maybe I'm just nuts?
Well yeah, not building on wetlands is the way to go for sure. But, that isn't really the issue as most folks now understand that. So, if anyone can figure out a good way to move all those cities, I'm all for it. I just don't think it can be done. Failing that, I'm all about infrastructure. OK, maybe New Orleans should be closed. But moving Chicago or New York might be a bit more challenging. Plus, diverting water to drought ridden areas would be really keen. Maybe crazy, but keen nonetheless.
So Red Bill and Gov. Cuomo don't like 'those opinionated, intolerant Conservatives', 'cause they don't hold values that they champion? Well, colour me surprised.
Seeing how bad financially NY (and NYC) is right now, the far better position is to (heh) liberalize their taxes, regs, and holster their class warfare rhetoric, and try to get themselves outta their dire straits than go Full Commie.
Been nice knowing ya, Big Apple et al - I'll visit\travel to far more tolerant climes... like Hannity's pending move to FLA...
"If on a baseball team, you have nine players—three who bat .100, three who bat .200, and three who bat .300, your lineup bats at an average of .200," the White House economist explained. "You then focus on improving the average of the lowest performers so that the .100s now bat .150. But you also end up adding more of them. Now you have five players who bat .150, one who bats .200, and three who bat .300. The overall team average now goes down to .189—because while the lowest-performing group improved, its share also increased."
(this from White House Economists)
OK, here's my issue with this.
First, business-wise, it's wrong. Anyone in business knows the best way to get more out of something is to rely on the top performers in your analysis of revenue providers, not trying to get more from the worst performers. You don't try to get the people spending $100 to spend $150 - they probably CAN'T, especially in this economic environment, when the top spenders are earning MORE.
Second, from a baseball perspective, the more likely gains are always likely to be from the top performers, too. A .300 hitter is more likely to work at getting to .330 than a .100 hitter is to be able to work at getting to .150. The skill set is such that if I hit .100 (and I probably do), the amount of work and practice it would take for me to budge that much is significantly more than the gains I'll provide. The .300 hitter just needs a few tweaks and a little extra practice to get his average up (oddly, this is easily backed up by a guy I can't stand - Malcolm Gladwell).
The White House economists quoted are seeking to rationalize, not explain, why people are leaving the workforce. They are trying to justify their existence by pulling numbers out of their ass.
While this economy has struck across all income levels, the fact is entry-level jobs are not where there has been any growth, and that's easily proven by the temp working numbers. My office doesn't hire full time entry level any more. We hire temp workers and if they pan out, we make them full time - it helps us avoid lots of resource issues.
So, yeah, those White House economists haven't applied any thought to their comments, nor have they spoken to people in the workforce who do the hiring.
The wife and I went out for a dinner date. So I guess we're old. I paid and I asked her about going out...but she had to fill out the credit card slip because I left my reading glasses at the house...guess I'm old and forgetful.
Reading the comments about "dating" is frightening. "We don't need those stinkin' old fashioned rules because everyone can and should just have sex with everyone else." or something stupid like that...
Establishing a relationship (and marriage) before becoming intimate is just sensible and right. But, I guess the young and stupid (ill trained by my peers) just know more than the old and, hopefully, wise.