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
Friday, November 14. 2014
A book (h/t reader) - Dining on the Shore Line Route: New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad
South American Catholics Turning Protestant
The Rudy Giuliani guide to beating Hillary Clinton
Rush: Amnesty is Irreversible
Obamacare's Foundation of Lies - There is only one kind of lie, it's apolitical, and it cripples the best of intentions.
Krauthammer on Obamacare:
Warren to the rescue - Democrats are reeling. So they're calling on their biggest star.
Forcing females into combat is real ‘war on women’
Tracked: Nov 16, 09:54
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
"Democrats are reeling. So they're calling on their biggest star."
Whose career just happens to, also, be based on a lie designed to manipulate the stupid. In this case, the stupidity of Ivy League selection committees.
Yes. Her career is based on perpetrating a fraud. The Democratic Party has no problem with her past and embraces her, so what does this say about the thinking and character of the king makers in the dem party?
I recommend, if she campaigns in your area, carry a sign: Go, Cherokee Maid!
Of course, the Interstate Highway system would be better funding if funds weren't siphoned off for urban "mass" transit boondoggles.
But in spite of that, the author of the piece wants both better cargo rail and more HS passenger rail. Two incompatible "solutions" that use the same tracks. So it is hard to take the piece seriously since it really only reflects the authors biases and not cogent thought.
Take for example these observations made by Edward Glaeser and Paul Romer while discussing urbanization. Trucks are still needed even if they aren't moving over long hauls. Manufacturing has left the urban core for the suburbs as it should because it no longer makes since and no longer needs a dense population to man the shifts.
In the video, listen up until time 54 (link above starts at 50) for an amusing anecdote from Glaeser as to why the Zip Car couldn't work in NYC, 1975. Interesting observation by Romer as to taxis being a complement to mass transit and how the taxi shortage in Paris makes it harder to get around compared to NYC.
Because cars, and the infrastructure we've built around them, are a disaster. They kill more than 30,000 Americans a year, and maim many times more. They degrade our air quality and contribute to global warming. They are a huge economic burden to the working poor, and the sheer amount of land devoted to storing them has devastated our urban centers and made housing unaffordable.
When the article is this wrong, why should I believe anything in it?
I wonder how many people die each year from the consequences of sexual promiscuity (that is, sexually-transmitted diseases)? What should the government do about that?
"Interstate Highway system would be better funding if funds weren't siphoned off for urban "mass" transit boondoggles"
^this. X 10,000.
If the Federal Gas Tax (I pay nearly $.60/gal in taxes. Don't give me the "nineteen cents bull) were even three quarters focused on roads, the Fund would be overflowing with cash. It's been a few years, but the MidAtlantic AAA ran some data and found that all motor vehicle taxes/year raised something over $10,000 per mile of paved road (any size)/year. Considering that the vast majority of paved road mileage sees little or no annual maintenance, the available dollars to heavily trafficked roads is more than enough...
Just happened to find a retro site with lots of interesting pictures of London's past, and other old cool English stuff as well.
"amnesty is irreversible".
Rush is right. It is even worse. Most peoplethink this is along process where eventually down the road "some" illegals gain citizenship and "then" can get jobs or benefits. No,no! On the day Obama makes his unconstitutional declaration every illegal will fall into a grey area of the law and 100% of them willbe eligble for welfare, SS, Medicaid & Medicare, unemployment and everything. Even those illegals who sneak in the day after, the month after the year after Obama commits this treason they will be eligible for the full enchilada. Why? Because there is an army of lawyers waiting to do battle and more then half of our federal judges are red diaper baby liberals who are eager to enshrine Obama's treachery into law by decree. And then back to what Rush said even if after years of fightng this a Supreme Court were to decide it was never legal and all of it was a unconstitutional sham it's effects will never be reversed. 20 million, 30 million, who knows how many illegals will become citizens or pseudo-citizens and YOU will be forced tosupport them. Look around in your typical large city at the school budget and ever increasing taxes to pay for more schools and more teachers. Then look at who is in the schools. Most if not all of the dramatic increase in school spending over the last 10 years is a direct result of illegal immigration. This will bankrupt the middle class. And that is and was always the intent of the Democrats.
South American Catholics Turning Protestant
One of the first to bring this to the attention of Gringos was David Stoll. Is Latin America Turning Protestant? The Politics of Evangelical Growth. This book was published in 1991.
I knew a Guatemalan couple who broke up in the early 1990s because the husband was an enthusiastic Mormon and the wife was a nominal Catholic to whom religion wasn't that important. Mormon jokes in Guatemala have been around for at least 30 years. Such as: what is the quickest way to shut a door? Open it and see a Mormon missionary in front of the door.
re Interstate System
The author pretty much discredits himself with this line:
"So why should the Obama administration get on board with this? Because cars, and the infrastructure we've built around them, are a disaster. They kill more than 30,000 Americans a year, and maim many times more. They degrade our air quality and contribute to global warming. They are a huge economic burden to the working poor, and the sheer amount of land devoted to storing them has devastated our urban centers and made housing unaffordable."
The ignorance and myopia in this statement is breathtaking. He is not measuring what we are losing against what we have gained. I am not going to rehash how important motor vehicles are to the average person's life. His thinking is obviously that of a person who longs for central planning by wise and infallible bureaucrats.
I have no problem with toll roads ..... IF...... you didn't have to pay any fuel tax while using those roads.
20 years ago I joined the military. This was about 4 or 5 months before Clinton decided to change the game. I joined and my fellow women joined with the knowledge that we would get shore duty, work in office settings, etc. This meant I could get married, be a mom, and more-or-less balance a military career with this lifestyle. Then, Clinton decided that women should be able to serve in more of a front line capacity...suddenly, women in the military were forced to make a choice - deploy or never have a chance to advance much beyond the lowest ranks.
I knew women who were 10 years into their military career...with small children...who cried when they realized they had to go to sea for 6 months and leave their children behind. And what about dual military couples? Military couples were forced to sign paper work giving parenting rights over to relatives or parents while they were deployed - some friends I knew had no trustworthy relatives, bad histories with families, etc. But you HAD to sign this paper work or they could shove you out the door.
Clinton forced this down women's throats for a handful of career officers who wanted to be like men. Instead, it forced many more enlisted with a lot less resources and education to deal with a military that took away promises made (no deployment) and had them over a barrel.
This new decision is no different. It is going to open up billets to ALL, which means most enlisted women will NOT have a choice. Sure, they claim you have a choice...but really, your military career will be stunted unless you take these front line jobs. All to make a few manly women happy. Ridiculous.
"The generals don’t seem to care that women don’t have the muscle to survive the battlefield." I doubt that. This is being forced upon them. They do have a choice: Salute and say Yes, Sir; or retire.
re: interstate system (and all highway systems for that matter)
TopGear UK did some research a few seasons ago, attempting to dispel the common belief that mass transit (trains) was somehow better for the environment than all those people in their individual cars. Turns out they were right. Everyone in their little cars, even when stalled in traffic, was less of a pollution problem than the trains. The whole thing is a crock.
The TopGear guys often does interesting contests between the presenters, comparing the use of a car to that of various methods of public transport. One that was particularly interesting was a commute from the far west of London to downtown - one person by car, one person by bike and one person by speedboat on the Thames. Check it out. Very interesting stuff.
re: Latin America turning Protestant.
While I'm no genius, this is a no brainer. Latin America has been steeped in the propaganda of Liberation Theology since the 60s, making what should be a wholly personal and spiritual journey a political one. It's no wonder that many are turning their backs on the Catholic Church. Being Catholic, I wish it were otherwise. That said, it's about the saving of souls, regardless of the route taken to get there.
As MF folks know already I am opposed to any woman being given a job for which she does not have the necessary previous experience. You want to run a computer company--I want you to know about computers, AND management, AND Finance,etc.
You want to be president of a university--I want you to have started as a teacher's aid for several years, I want you to have been an untenured faculty for 7 years, and then I want you to have served several years in research AND teaching, on top of that I want you to have spent at least 5 years as department chair, and another five years and dean of a college, AND THEN AND ONLY THEN do I want to have to consider you for a leadership role. The real trouble with women in the military is that it is just another sneaky way to hand off federal funds to women who want a safe job and be able to have their family life at home. Men would like that too--but, first they must have the experience in the field. I am so sorry Miss T--that is not against women. It is just against the theory that any woman can do any job at any time--and THAT IS WRONG!
Apropos of the Interstate System, I spent about a quarter century deep in the numbers, and mass transit projects are the least of the problems, in terms of absolute dollars, with respect to highway funding. Most mass transit funding comes out of the general fund. The highway trust fund has been overspent by 10=to=20% since the '70s (as far back as the published Federal Highway Administration data were available). When the original expressways were built, back before WWII, they used the toll system on the rational that users taking advantage of the higher level of service should pay for it. As of now, that average motorist is cross-subsidizing expressway users, particularly trucks, by a substantial margin. My source data are taken from FHWA's annual Highway Statistics series - I can point you to the particular tables if you want to read it for yourself - and (with respect to the cross-subsidization of trucks) work originally done by the research office of Iowa DOT back in the early '80s, and since followed up by a few other states.
While I was working with the stimulus bill, several years ago, I had several town engineers tell me they could do the highway work for a half to a third of what the Federal requirements cost. Taking theses engineers' professional judgment at face value, it would probably mean less money out of your wallet if a substantial portion of the Federal-Aid Highway program were turned back to the states. That what the numbers indicate. The question is whether there is the political will, and I'm not a bettin' man ...
Just an anecdote, but you can drive on the very well kept "Free"way in Pennsylvania then cross the bridge and drive on the horrible New Jersey "Toll" road. Hmmm?
Abolish the Interstate Highway System? For the fist few paragraphs he almost makes sense, turn it over to the States - but "almost" does not quite make it. Then he goes into his actual agenda: we were "better off" without cars, when people mostly walked to work from their 3rd floor rooms, or outside the cities from housing provided by the company. I doubt he has ever HAD to use public transportation to get to work or the grocery store. At one time, I was faced with taking two busses to get to work, which does not sound too bad until I add that the two bus lines were separated by over three miles - I called in sick two days until I got my car fixed...
So nice to see ya'll got Rush Dumbaugh thoughts here 'linked' for us who need enlightment on amnesty........