Maggie's FarmWe 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
Categories
QuicksearchLinks
Blog Administration |
Saturday, March 29. 2014Saturday morning linksThanks to our pal at Never Yet Melted for mailing me that book. That was my Mom's life, or an aspect of it. What one needs to know about female orgasm. Females like orgasms. The moving moment a deaf woman is overcome by emotion as she HEARS for the first time after having her cochlear implants switched on How did she understand speech? Can Boys Be ‘Coerced’ Into Sex? Depends on how you define "coerced" U.S. Autism Estimate Rises 30% in Two Years California Bullet Train Tallies Yet Another Failure New IPCC report will back off on alarmism Feds Blew $700,000 on Global Warming Junk Science Musical The Collapsing Soufflé of Climate Change "Even with its too-high, too-fast assumptions, the recently leaked draft of the IPCC impacts report makes clear that when it comes to the effect on human welfare, "for most economic sectors, the impact of climate change will be small relative to the impacts of other drivers," such as economic growth and technology, for the rest of this century. If temperatures change by about 1C degrees between now and 2090, as Mr. Lewis calculates, then the effects will be even smaller. Religious tide turns against 'Noah' Feminist Unleashes Anti-Christian Hatred Is College A Waste Of Time And Money? Should The Post run a correction to the Koch oil sands story?i Charming image below from University of Michigan Exhibit Celebrates Abortion as ‘Life-Sustaining Act’ Nobody who loves abortion was aborted. Thanks, Mom, for not aborting me. Sultan: The Shape of a Post-American World The more tolerant society becomes, the more desperate the race and gender hustlers become. Another outrageous UN appointment Via a money manager friend:
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
Is college a waste of time and money?
I actually set up a spreadsheet to run this calc for me. Tough part is making all the assumptions of what life would be like w/o a degree. In the end, it seems to have worked out for me. But, college and grad school were 20-25 years ago. Plus, although I make a good salary, I'm in a high cost of housing area...what about that? We're looking to prepare our sons to forego college, or at least minimize the time/money investment it requires. I was lucky. Divorce court decreed my father had to pay for his kids' education. Even so, my (private college) tuition/room/board/books costs were only $14,000 a year. My father asked what I'd have done if he didn't pay. I said I'd have taken a loan and worked.
Even so, I did work during college. Hawked beer and popcorn at football games freshman year, then worked at a cable TV station senior year. Worked every summer. At $56,000, all in, my education was not only worth it, but I paid my father back with a real estate investment and some stock advice that netted him far more than that amount. I probably should have taken the stock advice myself, but I was just starting my family and had very little at that point. Today, with my second son about to enter college, I'm looking at about $360,000 after both are finished (probably less, since the first son is starting to work and pay some bills and the second one got some scholarships to attend my alma mater), but I consider it worth it. I have seen my first son grow dramatically in his first two years. While he has a long way to go, college still has been a net positive for him despite his focus on the social rather than academic side. The second son has learned from his brother's mistakes. His cousin recently called and said "well, you're the last of the family to try and make it through college unscathed, so make it count." I suspect he will. He's much more concerned about his studies, and he got into a very, very good school. I know plenty of kids, however, who have no business going to any college but will because their parents can afford it. It will be 4 years of country club for them. What's particularly galling is the amount of financial aid some of them managed to get from the government. I don't begrudge anyone whatever they can squeeze from whatever source they tap. I find it a bit odd that a family which can afford 2 country clubs, a car for each kid, 3 vacations a year and a huge McMansion is still qualifying for financial aid.... I was lucky. Divorce court decreed my father had to pay for his kids' education. Even so, my (private college) tuition/room/board/books costs were only $14,000 a year. My father asked what I'd have done if he didn't pay. I said I'd have taken a loan and worked.
Even so, I did work during college. Hawked beer and popcorn at football games freshman year, then worked at a cable TV station senior year. Worked every summer. At $56,000, all in, my education was not only worth it, but I paid my father back with a real estate investment and some stock advice that netted him far more than that amount. I probably should have taken the stock advice myself, but I was just starting my family and had very little at that point. Today, with my second son about to enter college, I'm looking at about $360,000 after both are finished (probably less, since the first son is starting to work and pay some bills and the second one got some scholarships to attend my alma mater), but I consider it worth it. I have seen my first son grow dramatically in his first two years. While he has a long way to go, college still has been a net positive for him despite his focus on the social rather than academic side. The second son has learned from his brother's mistakes. His cousin recently called and said "well, you're the last of the family to try and make it through college unscathed, so make it count." I suspect he will. He's much more concerned about his studies, and he got into a very, very good school. I know plenty of kids, however, who have no business going to any college but will because their parents can afford it. It will be 4 years of country club for them. What's particularly galling is the amount of financial aid some of them managed to get from the government. I don't begrudge anyone whatever they can squeeze from whatever source they tap. I find it a bit odd that a family which can afford 2 country clubs, a car for each kid, 3 vacations a year and a huge McMansion is still qualifying for financial aid.... One of the expenses often overlooked is that fact that you forgo earning wages and experience during the time you spend in college. Of course, this seems to be less of an issue in these times of high unemployment and low workforce participation.
"What one needs to know about female orgasm."
Ya know, if women would spend more time and effort developing themselves as females, instead of trying to morph into men, they would get a better handle on such things. What a waste. The truth is, women don't make good men, take a peek at Hillary if you doubt my words of wisdom. Then look away quickly before your eyes rot. And I speak not of her external appearance so much as her internal decay. How did she understand speech? I had the same exact question. Suppose I learned to read Hungarian but had never heard it spoken. I don't think I would understand if someone spoke it to me. I can get a lot of the Portuguese I read because I speak Spanish and because I studied Portuguese 17 years ago - but I cannot understand spoken Portuguese. So I have a lot of questions about this story, too. (Not that I doubt she can hear when she couldn't before, but there are parts missing.) From looking at her childhood photos, she was using hearing aids which would have helped her speech therapist teach her how to speak intelligibly.
Heres a video at teacher web showing some of the process. "Feminist Unleashes Anti-Christian Hatred"
We are all familiar with the fanaticism of the secular humanist hordes. It has lately become popular to describe them as religious and to call their faith in hatred, power and control a religion. But is that really the best way to describe them? Does sharing many of the characteristics of a religion make it so? I tend to think not. But, I am a stick in the mud, I prefer words to have specific meanings and I like simplicity. Maybe it doesn't make a lot of difference either way? But, if feminism is a religion and if global warming is a religion, what isn't? The word religion is already broadly defined, does it improve anything to broaden it some more? I would submit that it does not. I would also submit that calling their shallow, almost completely self-centered belief systems religions, is misleading. The inevitable, almost automatic comparisons to traditional religions will lead us where? They have no counter weight to self in their belief structures. And no, I reject the idea that abortion is a god in any sense of the term. They have no god. They have no real world view, no perspective and no way to account for contrarian viewpoints, conflicting facts or the unknown. Which may help explain why they are so intolerant, fanatic and violent. Let us rather call them what they plainly are. Selfish to the point of blindness, haters to the point of murder, destroyers and deceivers. Look at their agendas, look at what they propose for humanity. It is death. So, let's call a spade a spade. Otherwise, I may be too easily confused. Nonetheless, you gotta admit there must be a bit of the supernatural in feminism, 'cause it sure as hell ain't natural.
I was wondering how many waves of feminism we have experienced so far? Is it two, three or more? And, if it comes in waves, is that evidence it can move faster than the speed of light since it has no substance? Must be true, where else can it get it's supernatural properties?
Matt Ridley: Be as skeptical of the climate change Pollyanna as you are of the alarmist. All of it is based on speculation drawn from problematic data.
"U.S. autism estimate risees 30% in two years".
I can fix the autism problem or at least reduce it back to traditional levels. Take all the profit out of it. The schools are given money for every student with autism. The parents are eligible for grants, care and extra benefits for autistic children. The medical and psychiatric community is given taxpayer money for treating autistic children, colleges are given money for studying autism, and even the people who have discovered that autism is up 30% n the last two years are in some part paid by taxpayer money. So take out all the taxpayer fundng, grants, payments, and incentives and the level of autism will drop like a rock. And as an unintended and beneficial consequence all those children who never had autism but probably have some other learning disability or medical problem will get the correct diagnoses and the correct help and throw off the terrible incorrect diagnoses of autism. No offense, but as the uncle of 3 autistic kids, there's more to the issue than 'profit'.
While even my family would agree that the money issue is a problem, there is still a need for study, here. Maybe not government grants, which I oppose, but there is an issue of some nature which hasn't been fully identified. Well, not precisely identified. Autism rates are rising because of spectrum creep. I've commented here before about a 1st grade teacher my son had who insisted all her kids one year had some degree of autism or ADHD. It was one of the most astounding statements I'd ever heard. And several parents took her at her word and had their kids classified. Most ADHD kids aren't ADHD at all. They have crappy parents and lousy skill sets. As for real autism, the kind my nephews have, we all knew the kid on the bus who was 'weird'. We all had one or two. The numbers haven't changed, the classification has. Now I read reports of 'autism clusters'. Thing is the clusters appear in predictable patterns - regions where parents move to take advantage of studies and classes that benefit their kids! I suppose you could call that the 'profit', and it could be at times. I see it as a natural outgrowth of any shared experience - like Silicon Valley. You move to where you know you can get what you need and leverage what's available. We create many myths in our culture of too much information, and particularly myths surrounding science and behavior. The politicization of education and science has done tremendous damage to groups within our nation and is undermining our ability to understand what's really going on with people in various social groups. Think of the anti-vaccination people. Measles is now a problem in NYC! If you don't want to vaccinate your kid, fine. I'm vaccinated and so are my kids. I don't worry about catching it. I worry about the damage it's doing the kids who are impacted. I oppose forcing opinions and behaviors on people, but I support the application of common sense. No offense intended. Imagine if you will that only children who were actually autistic were diagnosed to be autistic. Wouldn't this mean better investigation of the condition and perhaps better treatment as well. The autistic diagnoses "inflation" hurts people with autism. A similar thing has happened in Africa where AIDS is over diagnosed simply because the worlds governmentss and NGOs are heavily into funding the political carnival that surrounds aids. Ironically aid for mosquito borne diseases in Africa are way down simply because a lot of people with these diseases are counted as having or dying from AIDS. So the politics distorts the aid and hurts the people, but what else is new.
To a lesser extent we see this in the diagnoses of "obesity" in this country. By simply declaring that 40% of Americans are obese you can get grants and funding for your studies and research. Is it any wonder then that the rate of obesity continues to rise. At this rate I expect to see 110% of Americans achieving obesity soon and the only thing that can save us all from being fat is if another disease claims the spotlight and thus the funding and then the parasites will ride that dead horse until the funding and hype runs out. We have reached a state where science be damned because phony science can be used to make money and garner awards and acclaim. That's not really 'profit' or money, in general. It's just bad science and politicization.
If the government didn't grant any money at all, and left it to pharmaceutical companies or research facilities, there would still be profit and money. It would be directed more efficiently, however. I found the AIDS comment particularly interesting because it reminds me of another story I tell regularly. When I was about 25 and wandering the streets of NYC, my newly adopted home, I saw many people with Kaposi Sarcoma sunning themselves on the piers. I commented to my father, a surgeon, how odd it was that someone with severe skin cancer (a symptom of AIDS) would be sunning themselves, though I suppose at that point, what's the harm? He replied how surprised he was that I knew and could tell by seeing it, what Kaposi Sarcoma was. He had learned about it in 1955, while in med school, and was told "don't worry, this is only in East Africa so you probably will NEVER see it." At that point, he wondered if AIDS was the probable cause in East Africa back in the day (most likely was). Even without government money, AIDS still spread and became an issue (though hardly the plague its money grubbers claim it is/was). So it's clear profit isn't the issue ALL the time, nor is politicization. In the case of autism, it is very, very clear that politicization is the problem, though you seem to have shifted it to the 'profit' or money. I agree money plays a role - but politics is the problem. In the book The Graduate, the Dustin Hoffman character had spent his summer as a forest fire fighter and picking up a case of the clap. Mrs Robinson coerces him into have sex with her in order to prove that he was not a fearful, inexperience young boy, that is, that he was not the character as written in the movie.
It's been a long time, but my memory is that Benjamin was not inexperienced when he hooked up with Mrs. Robinson. He got it on with an Indian girl one night when he was fighting fires. I don't remember if Mrs. Robinson 'coerced' Benjamin, however.
The character in the book was experienced. In the book, Mrs R manipulated him by implying that any reluctance on his part would be taken as proof of his inexperienced.
This is how Dustin Hoffman played the scene: Benjamin: Oh my God! Mrs. Robinson: Pardon? Benjamin: Oh no, Mrs. Robinson. Oh no. Mrs. Robinson: What's wrong? Benjamin: Mrs. Robinson, you didn't... I mean, you didn't expect... Mrs. Robinson: What? Benjamin: I mean, you didn't really think I'd do something like that. Mrs. Robinson: Like what? Benjamin: What do you think? Mrs. Robinson: Well, I don't know. Benjamin: For god's sake, Mrs. Robinson. Here we are. You got me into your house. You give me a drink. You... put on music. Now you start opening up your personal life to me and tell me your husband won't be home for hours. Mrs. Robinson: So? Benjamin: Mrs. Robinson, you're trying to seduce me. Mrs. Robinson: [laughs] Huh? Benjamin: Aren't you? Re: Can boys and men be 'coerced' into sex
I have no experience with this since I don't have any sons and my daughter is not interested in sex (another story), but a good friend of mine whose sons are in their 30s now told me that when they were teenagers, the girls were often the aggressors. (I suppose we should thank Women's Lib who thought it best to drag women down to the level of randy men rather than encourage men to rise to the level of decent women) I don't like the idea of redefining 'coercion'. I don't doubt that the boys can be sheepish about sex and that in many cases when they had sex, it might not have been what they really (intellectually) wanted, but boys and men are programmed to be horny most of the time. For many (most?), it would not take much to convince him that he really wanted it (at least at some level). To me, it makes more sense to call it seduced. I don't understand the redefinition. I admit, I could tolerate only a bit of the article.
But of course boys can be coerced into sex. Threats work just as well on boys. "have sex or I'll tell everyone you were to afraid" "have sex or I'll tell everyone you are gay". The very idea that boys are always up for sex with anyone means that those that might decline have something to lose if they don't and she retaliates. And not all girls are smaller than all boys even a the same age so violence isn't impossible. I see what you're saying but it seems to me that if a guy were REALLY being coerced, he would likely be to nervous/mad/humiliated/whatever to get it up. Of course, if being humiliated, for example, is the guy's thing, it's not really coercion, is it? I can't say I have any experience with that even secondarily so maybe I'm wrong.
I'm breaking a cardinal blog rule of mine but if you all promise to forget I ever admitted this, I can help clarify the coerced sex issue a little bit. Maybe. I was once, not even that many years ago, jumped by a woman demanding immediate intercourse. Out of the blue, she hopped onto my lap, removed her large breast from her shirt, stuck it in my mouth and said, fuck me now. I was watching TV, minding my own business, no alcohol was involved. Needless to say, I was shocked. And confused. She was a big girl and her breasts were huge. My mind said no but another part of me had other ideas and was perking up fast. It was a close call but I did manage to extricate myself from that situation without complying. It all happened very quickly, maybe two minutes. If that girl had been armed, sex would have happened. Well, I'm not sure how Mr. Happy would react to a knife. Yeah I do, he would love it. No excuses, zero responsibility. Coerced sex with males is a no brainer. Literally. Just knock us out, tie us up or don't tell us your boyfriend is in the next room taking a quick shower. I still wonder if I was right to disappoint that poor girl. Shut up Mr. Happy.
Re: California's bullet train
This is and will continue to be a huge boondoggle that would never happen if we had stuck with the Constitution and Federalism. I don't mind if California compels its citizens to pay for a shiny object they are unlikely to use, but it is too expensive for the citizens of California to pay for, the rest of us have to be compelled to chip in for something we will likely never see much less use or even secondarily benefit from. And now it's slower than advertised! Unprotected Kids: I am amazed The Atlantic published that. Perhaps they want to scare the overprotective parents into being more so.
Good to hear the CaliBulleTrain is losing important supporters. Feminists are nuts and hate Christians: Who woulda thunk it? WaPo: Yes, they should; and no, they won't. It's the WaPo. re Via a money manager friend:
I have been reading that the stock market has been a 'sucker's market' since the DOW was at about 9000. When it hit 12000, I saw a chart which indicated a massive sell off. And yet, where are we today? One wonders how accurate their "seven year predictions" have been in the past? Seven years is a long way to peer into the future. How can the Fed change their policies? Looks to me like they have painted themselves into a corner because they must keep interest rates cheap for Uncle Sam. The question that nags me is, are we headed for deflation as many argue or are we headed for runaway inflation as the world prints money to fund deficits? Massive inflation always tends to create a deflation. So, it could be both.
It is a sucker's market. Just because you've blown the balloon slightly larger than you expected doesn't mean you can go 10, 20 or 30% further. It's still going to bust, you just don't know when. I think 9,000 is a bit odd to call a sucker's market. 11-12,000, sure. Something funny - this isn't me tooting my horn, it's just an interesting side note and it's worth mentioning purely for interest. I called the bottom in 2001 and 2008/9. Part of it is luck, part of it is charting and part of it is just thinking 'how do people think and act'? This doesn't mean I was 'right'. It just means lots of people must have been doing the same thing. It also doesn't mean I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is, otherwise I wouldn't be blogging for free and working for a living. Calling a top is tougher than calling a bottom. A top implies you know what the Fed is going to do and how buyers and sellers will react to it. The Greenspan/Bernanke put was a real thing - but I'd never have put a dollar against it because the day it stops being a real thing you can and likely will lose more than you gained in all the previous events. But a top will occur. And I don't think I want to be part of it. I've been reducing my profile in the market even as it has climbed. Am I losing some opportunity? Of course, but I'm still taking part, and I'll be safer when the downside comes. On the other hand, I'll make another call on a bottom and I hope third time's a charm because that's when I'll get back in. Even if it goes down further past that point (which seems unlikely, but anything is possible in a general collapse/deflation), I'll still not have lost as much and have tremendous upside. I don't recommend anyone be betting heavily on the upside in this market, but that's what makes markets work. There will always be someone buying your stock from you when you want to sell - the question is at what price? By the way, I should add this - a bottom is easier to call because there is always a minimal implied value to a business, even in a general deflation. As a result, a market probably can't go to zero unless the government steps in and kills it (always an option...but in that case, nobody wins anyway) through nationalization or some other method of confiscation.
Bottoms are rarely reactive to Fed policy. The can be reactive if they are just part of mild corrections. In a general collapse, it means people are not interested in what the Fed is doing, and at least feel there isn't much value it can add. I can't disagree with your analysis, Bulldog. I'm not quite sure how "Massive inflation always tends to create a deflation". If you mean that rising prices in general don't actually keep up inflation, I see your point, but I don't think that's what you meant. Care to elaborate?
Congratulations on calling those bottoms. Every once in a while, something will give you a signal and I think one of the ideas is to be able to listen for lots of different signals and have the guts to take advantage of what you heard. Sometimes having a little knowledge is good, having more is bad, and maybe having a lot is very good. I remember in the 80's, I heard on the radio that OPEC announced that they were no longer going to support the price of oil by constraining production. I said to myself, "the games over. Oil is going to drop like a rock". As it happened, I was going to see a stock broker I was working with and mentioned my theory to my broker and he was willing to introduce me to a guy who knew commodities but I demurred. Oil futures are a highly leveraged game and a little position can either make you a fortune or cost you a fortune (I didn't know about options at the time). About at the same time, I thought that interest rates had to fall. This time I bought 30 year govt bonds and did quite well. I got a good interest payment and the value of the bonds went up as the interest rate went down. Since then, I feel like I've learned a lot more about trading and finance but that means that I'm aware of more countervailing indicators so in spite of my increased knowledge, it can be harder to be sure that I'm right. |
The weather has turned, with a considerable amount of rain working to melt/wash away a good portion of the snow cover here in the Lakes Region of New Hampshire. Some bare patches of ground can now be seen here...
Tracked: Mar 30, 21:57