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, October 23. 2015
Dylan does Sinatra his way on hallowed London stage
Feminist Blog Suggests "Empowering" Halloween Costumes for Girls,
Why You Can’t Afford to Retire - And why expanding Social Security isn't enough to help the middle class.
Does Privatizing Higher Education Undermine the Public Good?
Krauthammer: "We're Living In An Age Where What You Say And Its Relation With The Facts Is Completely Irrelevant"
Democrats Are Godless Heathen Tyrant Maniacs Because That’s What Voters Want:
Klavan: Waiting on the GOP - Americans are waiting for the grownups in the room to start acting like, well, grownups.
Netanyahu is so good
Tracked: Oct 25, 09:59
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Damn free markets offering me things that I need and things that I don't need at a reasonable price. It's unconscionable.
Re: Why You can't retire. I can't relate to any of those reasons. I don't and probably won't make a lot of money in my life, but I still save between 20 and 30% net income.
I've had pension plans at several companies and they mean nothing to me. I won't be there long enough to be fully vested. I'd prefer a Roth IRA and larger paychecks today to pensions that may not be there tomorrow.
I don't plan on paying for college for my three sons. I'll pay for college courses while they are teenagers, but if you are old enough to be a full time student you're a grown man and should be paying for that yourself.
They didn't mention the biggest hurdle to retirement or early retirement: affordable medical insurance. I'd like to retire at 50, but I can't afford insurance premiums that are twice as much as any house payment I've ever made.
I think a lot of us are hit with a triple-whammy. 1. Our incomes are way down compared to what we made pre-2007 and medical insurance premiums are killing us--Obamacare made it worse, at least for those who don't qualify for some government-subsidized dole. 2. We are caring for elderly parents, both their medical and other expenses. 3. We still are caring financially for our adult kids--we sacrificed a lot of what we would otherwise save to put them through college, and now with the dismal economy they can't find jobs, or good enough jobs, so you are still subsidizing them on housing or they are still living with you (one of my adult kids is in the first category, the other in the second).
The result: my wife is hoping to retire when she is 70, but increasingly doesn't think it will happen. I figure I am going to have to work until I die, and am not going to have anything to show for it.
And just wait until the unbelievable debt our government has racked up comes home to roost, especially on our kids and grandkids. It's going to get much worse.
"The Free Market Preys on Your Every Weakness"
So does the government.
Gotta go buy my lottery ticket!
Dylan/Sinatra: it's about time Bob got some recognition for his musical efforts. A Lifetime Achievement Award for his contributions to American music is in order. All the other artists covering his work speaks volumes.
I'm thankful that Dylan's music has not been relegated to elevator or hold time musak.
he does NOT have the voice for standards from the great american songbook.
Krauthammer: "We're Living In An Age Where What You Say And Its Relation With The Facts Is Completely Irrelevant"
"The aide said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' ... 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.' "
You miss Krauthammer's point as well as the point of your quote. Krauthammer is saying that Hillary is willing to say anything regardless of the facts (and that the press doesn't care).
She sees no disconnect that her "good friend" Chris Stevens didn't even have her email address or conflict between the fact that in private conversations to her family, the President of Libya, or the Prime Minister of Egypt she said she knew that the attack on our installation in Benghazi was a terrorist attack and her subsequent statements, including to the relatives of those killed there, that it was a spontaneous demonstration about a video.
The Bush aid you quote is saying (his empire characterization aside) that by being on the offensive, they are changing the facts on the ground rather than reacting to them. A bit different from "leading from behind."
HRC seems to think if she "plunks her magic twanger" often enough, revisionism will reign. Hey, not everyone's that dumb, including the parents and friends of the four gentlemen who were killed because of her shenanigans running guns for the Muslim Brotherhood to kick out Assad.
It is my personal opinion that only privately funded higher education offers the hope of a rigorous, non-political education. I am always stunned when I hear the liberal fem/nazi experts whine and cry about private education being corrupt. Their claim is that only privately owned and operated "for profit" universities hire incompetent educators; only privately funded "for profit" universities overpay their executives; only the "elite students" of "for profit" schools get passed through courses about which they have no understanding of what has been taught. My own personal experience is this: the private "non-profit" most liberal university in the country that my DH worked for for years was the MOST CORRUPT in the country ! It was forced to shut down in 20 states, but still the Federal Dept. of Education allows it to operate. Why is that do you suppose? I suggest to you that the protection provided to a "non-profit" provides equal or greater opportunity to abuse the trust of students than is offered by a "for profit" education. WAKE UP PEOPLE--being state run, or federally protected has guaranteed academic corruption !
The market is not immoral, it is amoral. It will provide what people want if it can be provided at prices people will pay. Even Adam Smith regarded himself as a moral philosopher stressed this.
You can't wire morality into the system, and if you attempt to do so, the question becomes "whose morality?" This always seems to end with a group stating "Mine" and enforcing their will with machine guns and barbed wire, until the machineguns and barbed wire take on more importance than whatever morality they were attempting to defend. Power becomes the end in itself, the Orwellian boot.
Another guy named Dan: It will provide what people want if it can be provided at prices people will pay.
Markets are the engine of economic growth; however, markets have a problem with accounting for externalities, as well as the extremes of market cycles.
I'm not stating that there should be no regulation of the market, as long as such regulation still allows willing and knowledgeable buyers to exchange with willing and honest sellers.
An honest seller would not conceal externalities, while a knowledgeable buyer would consider them in the price he's willing to pay.
Morality needs to be contained in the participants, not on the system.
Those aren't bugs, Zach, they're features. Self-cleaning, clear the deadwood, stuff like that.
market cycles are normal. who cares?
Tulip frenzy? People are free to be foolish.
The last "market cycle" (which has yet to have a recovery) was entirely the result of government mismanagement of the economy, especially the forced provision of hundreds of billions of dollars of imprudent loans under the Community Reinvestment Act. When that government-created bubble collapsed, it took everything else down with it. No amount of government manipulation of statistics changes what everyone knows, we are in an incredibly bad economic depression which is only propped up by the continued printing of money and zero-interest rates (which has created another massive bubble in the stock market).
Another guy named Dan: An honest seller would not conceal externalities, while a knowledgeable buyer would consider them in the price he's willing to pay.
Externalities are costs incurred by people not a party to the transactions, such as air pollution.
Or government? The government makes a lot more money off of gasoline than any oil company.
I know what externalities are. My point is that a rational, moral, and knowledgeable buyer would be aware that they exist, and would consider their costs to society or the world in general before acting. Again, morality resides in the participants, not in the system. If you want the participants to be bound by the fact that there may be unknown externalities, then you are prescribing complete stasis.
Another guy named Dan: My point is that a rational, moral, and knowledgeable buyer would be aware that they exist, and would consider their costs to society or the world in general before acting.
Which is why there has never been any air or water pollution. Everyone has rational self-interest and are moral, and those are never in opposition.
Interesting then that "government" related industry (not beholden to markets) are the worst offenders in waste generation.
Witness Ford's descent from self sufficient operations to wasteful idiocy in supporting the "war effort"...
a regulated market should force disclosure of material facts that are known only to the seller or not readily available to the buyer (e.g., blue sky laws) while then allowing the buyer to make bad decisions, if that's what he or she wants.
where market information is widely available, the government should limit itself to preventing outward fraud, although it should step lightly here.
libtards, of course, want to regulate all aspects of economic transactions substituting their concepts of fairness ("we will tell you what's good for you") with market efficiency.
It is true, the market, capitalism, liberalism (as it was before being usurped by modern "liberals", is for adults, for the mature, for those with bourgeoisie self-discipline. In other words, it is for free people, not immature toddlers who cannot control themselves when given liberty by their "owners".
Liberalism is a doctrine directed entirely towards the conduct of men in this world. In the last analysis, it has nothing else in view than the advancement of their outward, material welfare and does not concern itself directly with their inner, spiritual and metaphysical needs. It does not promise men happiness and contentment, but only the most abundant possible satisfaction of all those desires that can be satisfied by the things of the outer world.
It is not from a disdain of spiritual goods that liberalism concerns itself exclusively with man’s material well-being, but from a conviction that what is highest and deepest in man cannot be touched by any outward regulation.
Mises, Ludwig von (2010-12-10). Liberalism (p. 4). Ludwig von Mises Institute. Kindle Edition.
If the Democrats are truly into the 'free college' thing, then they should also institute strict entry requirements, so we are only paying for the best and brightest to attend. No affirmative action. Only those with certain test scores and GPA will be given the 'free college' so that we are expending our tax dollars on those who will actually do something to make America better.
If they make it free, doesn't it also make it worthless?
in contrast to right now where it's extremely expensive and still worthless for the most part. Or at least for some subjects/majors, it is.
And anyway, we have absolutely NO say on how our tax dollars are spent.
Sadly, in order to do certain jobs you have to have the education to do it. Some may think it is 'worthless,' but try working as a counselor without a college degree and master's degree to prove you CAN. No state in the country will allow you to practice as a counselor without that degree in hand.
This is true of many other jobs. The college degree is the requirement for licensing in many states. How do you become a nurse without a nursing degree? Etc.
Look at the job market. Plenty of jobs require degrees. Technical writing? Better have an English degree.
I don't think they intend to make it free for all. I am thinking their intent is to make it "means tested" or for groups which have suffered discrimination in the past so it will end up being free for Democrat voters.
Sorry - thought you said Netanyahu is no good.
Which is how I - and a large number of my fellow card-carrying Likudniks, and most of the rest of the center-right - is feeling right now about Bibi.
He better pull some fantastic Putin-Iran rabbit out of the hat that justifies this lame behavior... we are sick of the craven spectable of Bibi caving to Pali violence, and missing an opportunity to take back territority (both geographical and rhetorical).
Here is a golden opportunity to bring the sorry charade of Oslo - forced on us by the Left - to a merciful conclusion. And he's running around with his tail between his legs.
With a lame duck White House that, like a stone, will not give us anything anyway - and is increasingly hamstrung by the pre-election season.
Inexplicable. And frustrating, And sick-making.