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
Saturday, August 29. 2015
Trial Lawyers Get Rich, Plaintiffs Get Coupons
I once got a check for $1.64 from one of those
A vivid character is why. Obama was a vivid character too. Trump is like Teddy Roosevelt.
Indian sisters told they will be repeatedly gang-raped as punishment for their brother's crime
Your daily challenge to test your multicultural sensitivity and tolerance
Gloucester update: Libertarians and Heroin
I love Uber. It's the limo service for regular people.
Tracked: Aug 30, 09:16
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Trial Lawyers Get Rich, Plaintiffs Get Coupons. That explains the plethora of trial lawyer ads on cable TV, especially at supper time. Sometimes an ad from the same lawyer will run three or four times in an hour.
"tort reform" is the mantra of either (1) someone who has no idea how the system works or (2) big defendants looking for a way to shield themselves from numerous claims that individually cannot be litigated because of the expense.
professional malpractice claims are expensive to litigate because expert witnesses, depositions, pretrial bullshit and trials cost a shitload of money, which shitload is advanced out of the plaintiff's lawyer's pocket. these costs aren't recoverable (if at all) unless the final judgment is worth the costs and fees (always discounted by the chance of a defense verdict). that means some kinds of legitimate claims aren't going to be litigated because it isn't worth any lawyer's time unless there's a class action.
or there are instances where there are thousands of identical claims, say, for a broken part worth $100, that only in the aggregate are worth suing over.
either way, not litigating means a win for the defendants, which the author either doesn't know, or more likely, is what the author wants.
The Fed shouldn't be stimulating the economy, but only regulating the value of money. Two goals is a bad idea.
The guy's analysis of money is wrongheaded all over.
Money is a ticket in line to say what the economy does next, presumably something for you. The Fed creates or destroys tickets so that the number of outstanding tickets matches what the economy is capable of doing at once.
In normal times, it does this by looking at leading indicators of inflation. If they point to more inflation, the Fed extinguishes some tickets by raising its interest rate target a tiny bit. If there are too few, it lowers its target a tiny bit. Then it waits to see what happens next month.
Raising the interest rate target means selling debt until the interest rate rises to its target. Lowering it means buying back debt until it falls to its target. Thus the economy decides what to do about the decrease or increase in tickets outstanding, which is sort of a minimal invasion by the government.
If the Fed sticks to this, it's better than gold.
At the moment, the Fed is recapitalizing the financial sector by buying bad assets, but keeping the money from circulating by paying interest on deposits in the Fed, which is a weird situation that will be interesting to unwind someday.
"Why the other Republicans can’t push Trump off-screen"
"In the argument with Trump over mass deportation, clearly Bush is right."
Rich Lowry is part of the Republican elite protecting the Republican elite. He has it exactly wrong. Trump isn't way ahead of Bush because Trump is a better showman. He is ahead because he is speaking truth to the immigration problem. Because in the arguement over mass deportation Trump is right and Bush is not only wrong but he is also suicidal. Americans know that America cannot survive a mssive immigration and amnesty. This is a matter of life and death and Bush is clueless while Trump is right. This mutual mass suicide by Americans has been moving towards that day when it can no longer be stopped for decades now. But this is it. If Bush or the Democrats win it is over. Today you work for 35 weeks to pay your taxes to support 50 million Americans and 12 million illegal aliens who don't want to work. After Bush gets elected those numbers will skyrocket and no amount of your labor will be able to pay for the free loaders. This is either the election where we finally kill the golden goose or turn it around. Frankly I expect the elites to win and the middle class to lose. But make no mistake Trump is the only politician/prostitute out there that could save us now.
I'm not sure Trump is the only one who can save us. He is very vocal about a lot of issues that absolutely need to be addressed and he's refreshingly un-PC, but I'm not happy about a president who publicly calls people stupid - that's decidedly low rent. His past is not totally positive; he's been ruthless against non-business people, for example when he sicked the government on property owners that got in the way of one of his development projects.
I'm not sure if his business experience translates to government. On the other hand, we've tried government types and look where we are. It is possible that his rashness, business attitudes and methods, and populism may shake things up so completely that he does a lot of good, but given his past, I wonder how much of a Trump shake up would be good...
I like Walker, Fiarina, Perry, Rubio, and Cruz but I've been disappointed in the amount of enthusiasm Walker and Perry have been able to generate, and I'm a little wary about Rubio wrt illegal immigration. I like Fiarina for the same reason a lot of people like Trump, but I find her MUCH more coherent and thoughtful. I would also be very happy with Cruz, too as he is much closer to me ideologically and he's crazy smart.
I like Walker and Cruz and will vote for either of them. But do you think Walker or Cruz would be talking about illegal immigration at all if Trump had never entered the race?
Like it or not we are going to have front row seats to watch illegal immigration destroy most of Western Europe in our lifetime. If we do not turn our own illegal immigration around very soon then we will watch it happen here as well.
I do not consider Trump a hero or even a great choice for president but seriously wouldn't he be better then Obama has been or Hilary would be? Obama says far worse things then calling people stupid.
Like almost all our problems this one could be easily fixed but it won't be. We will find some way to give the 11-30 million illegals amnesty (we will call it something else but it will be amnesty) and that will encourage another 50 million or so to sneak across our border. Someone has to pay for this. The rich will indeed pay taxes but they will protect their assets even if that means moving offshore. So ultimately the middle class must pay for this massive immigration, after all these people cannot and will not support themselves. Obamacare was never for the middle class it was always a method to provide free health care for future Democrat voters. You will one day be told by your doctor/insurer that the system cannot possibly afford the cost of the lifesaving medical care that you need and we are so sorry. While at the same time providing health care to millions and millions of illegal aliens paid for by your taxes. I wish you good luck.
I don't disagree with a thing you said. Trump would definitely be better than Obummer has been or Clinton would be. I also agree that he might be just what we need now. As I said, Trump is talking about issues that needed to be addressed and the reason he's so popular is that nobody seems to be so energized about it as the voters are. They missed a golden opportunity to jump out in front. I think part of the reason is that most everybody else was playing the same political game to one degree or another while the voters are tired of the same old sh*t. If nothing else, Trump will definitely be different. I think it is the same dynamic that propelled Perot.
Hopefully, this negative sentiment (anything but the old way) will fade and a positive one will emerge. When it happened in '92, Perot might have given us Clinton. The un-Bush sentiment got us Obummer.
Interestingly, the anti-party sentiment is not only against the pubbies, but also the demoncrats. This could be a very dangerous situation, because it could be revolutionary - but on the other hand revolutions are not always bad. If we are to have a revolution, I prefer someone more ideologically libertarian/conservative. This is why I'm not so hot on Trump, but if it's Trump against ANY demoncrat, there is no contest.
"Trump would definitely be better than Obummer has been or Clinton would be."
Yea, see that's a problem - in addition to all the damage Obama has done; he has also lowered our standards!
Because ANYBODY would be better than Obama.
"Indian sisters told they will be repeatedly gang-raped as punishment for their brother's crime"
Just goes to demonstrate that India is part of the Anglosphere, the Anglosphere/modern world does not extend to all parts of India. the Indian government should be embarrassed by this pre-modern action of familial guilt, patriarchy and the use of rape as officially-sanctioned punishment. They should take aggressive action to protect these girls.
The fact that a simple philosophy as libertarianism can be so overwhelming and consistently misunderstood is the reason for libertarianism: we don't want a majority that fucking stupid dictating our lives.
Re: Is the Fed Necessary?
I agree that it is not, however I remember many years ago, Sen. Patrick Moynihan comparing charts of the economy prior to the formation of the Fed and after. Prior to the Fed, panics were much more frequent where as today, things are relatively stable by comparison. What we've traded for that stability is devaluation of our currency and the loss of freedom from a (semi-private) bureaucracy that determines interest rates and money supply - sometimes done well and other times not so much.
Do they still make Narragansett beer, the illegal beverage of my high school years?
What I think is hilarious is brands like Gennesee and Rolling Rock are now being marketed here as "craft" beers. We used to buy that stuff in college when we couldn't afford real beers like Budweiser.
RE: "Two sisters who have been told they will be repeatedly gang-raped as a “punishment” for the crimes committed by their brother."
First off; they need to fix that headline; the quote marks belong on "crime," not just punishment. Since the caste system is illegal in India, under Indian law marrying outside your caste and with free will is not a crime.
Second; gang raping IS a crime. Even if it is not treated as such in rural India.
Thirdly; we will hear from Hillary and the DNC about this very real act of war on women and real class warfare . . .?
Uber Shows How To Break Crony Capitalism
I love Uber. It's the limo service for regular people.
Which is why the "elites" hate Uber. It makes them less special.