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.
Obama believes attacking Syria will send a message. He's correct, it will, but the message will not be what he thinks. Rather than a forceful show of strength, the world will view it in these terms:
there they go again, doing something they would never want done to them, and demonstrating that they alone think they can decide what deaths constitute a moral obscenity and what constitute mere unfortunate collateral damage.
The Syrian situation exists purely because the Obama foreign policy has been weak. As a result, it has fostered situations which allow tyrannical leaders to be overthrown, with tacit approval of the US government, without any support or plan for providing material support afterward.
Each of these situations has become chaotic - which is precisely what should have been expected, since the region in question has never been completely stable and any hint of stability had previously been provided by despotic regimes. When these despotic regimes have faced a populace encouraged to stand up, they have fallen (as expected), and reverted to anarchy.
Obama is faced with a situation which he didn't plan for, but should have. Increased anarchy in a region he hoped he'd guide gently toward democracy. He has learned you can't reason with mobs or tyrants. And now he's learned what every other leader in the world knows - if you want to deal with tyrants, you have to do so from a position of strength.
But he has squandered our strength.
Now he needs to regain it and lacks the ability to do so. He is hoping a show of military force will help. He is wrong. He can only make things worse now. Best to back off, disengage, and let the chips fall where they may.
The recent train wreck in Connecticut brings to mind the classic 1999 book, Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies. This book spurred the development of the field of accident research, but it is somewhat dated now. Accidents are inevitable, and at some point efforts to prevent dangers creates new forms of danger.
I have been thinking about it. As I commented then, sociologists tend not to discuss psychology. A good rule of thumb is that a person's character traits - personality traits - determine a lot about their adaptation to life and to reality - their success in making goals, and pursuing their goals, for themselves.
It doesn't matter where character traits come from: genetics, examples, or wherever. What matters is the balance between the useful ones and the detrimental ones.
Furthermore, some character traits, like obsessionalism, are good for some things (eg being a pilot or surgeon) but detrimental for others (eg being a jazz musician, or displaying emotion in relationships). For another example, the capacity for controlled violence (useful for cops and soldiers and, in fact many other jobs too including my own, at times). People are even beginning to talk about the usefulness of Asperger's traits.
Each of us is our own stew of traits and strengths and weaknesses. Mature adults do not blame the world or others for their difficulties, but look at themselves, try to identify their shortcomings, and try to improve them if they chose to.
I do not view social class or income as a measure of life success or life adaptation. In my professional world, we use other, less superficial measures such as quality and stability of relationships, breadth of interests, responsibility and reliability, self-control, active engagement in life, and so on.
However, as Murray implies, social class can be a very rough measure of human adaptation for people with material ambitions: people in the upper middle class tend to be more adaptable and able socially and intellectually, and those in the lower class tend to either have more adaptive problems, or to cause more problems for others (which includes governmental or charitable dependency, crime, disorder, etc).
Before I run out of space, I want to say a word about social capital, as I constructed my own practical understanding of it. In my simple-minded way, applying one's social capital means participating in and contributing to one's community, whatever that may be. Being a constructive part of it, beyond the bare minimum of holding down a job or raising a family.
Whether it's as simple as introducing people to each other, throwing holiday parties, getting a stop sign on a corner, helping a kid find a job, volunteering at church, raising money to sustain the local chamber group, running a Boy Scout troop, attending town meetings, joining clubs, starting a softball team, or coaching soccer, we all have ways to contribute to our social network, our neighborhoods, and to our communities. I do know how corny all that sounds, but I believe it is very important.
Our social capital is truly the kind of capital which we must either spend or waste before we die. People who do not jump in and spend theirs before they die are selfish, mean, and un-American, in my book.
Feral pig, Wild Boar, Wild Hog, Russian Boar, farm pig. They are all pigs, all very slight variants of the one species Sus scrofa. (The tusks are removed from farm pigs at birth.) In the US, they are all called "pigs."
No sus scrofa is native to North America.
We have posted in the past about the pig/boar hybrids which have been expanding their range across the US, wreaking havoc in the process to woodlands and to agriculture. They are so prolific, and so destructive, that most areas of the US now have open season on the pigs. Hog wild: Feral pig population explodes in U.S
Distinguishing European (aka Russian) Boar from farm pig/boar hybrids is almost impossible, but it is thought that, in many or most areas, most animals are hybrid. Since they're all the same species, it doesn't really matter. Pigs.
Texas and California have seen enormous population growth of Sus, but they have spread around the country - even around Albany NY where the biggest pigs have traditionally been the NYS politicians.
Since every area in the US in which they have appeared is eager to be rid of them, year-round hunting opportunities are abundant. Hunting over bait stations is entirely legal. Some use AR-15s, some use bow, some use revolver, and some macho dudes use baying dogs and kill the pigs with a hunting knife.
There are simply not enough pig hunters to control these creatures, so I propose releasing Wolves into areas where the wild pigs are a problem. The Wolves would have a field day.
Some people do not enjoy the taste of wild pig, which is a bit gamier than the corn-fed farm pig. I have had the wild boar, the same Sus scrofa, which lives in the Appenines of Umbria, and it is a special treat when cooked the ways the Umbrians do it. "Cinghiale." I've had it there cooked several ways, and the sausage too. Even snuck some cinghiale salumi home in my bags.
This being a fairly dead weekend in the blog world, I thought I'd just re-post this old gem. I don't do many you-are-there pieces, but they're lots of fun to write. Another fave of the genre is Treasure Hunting With A Metal Detector.
As a small side note, some of the bloggers here don't know that blog protocol dictates that the word 'repost' be included somewhere (title or text) in reposts, so check the dates before responding to a comment. There are two like that below.
(an email to friends, September '00)
Howdy, all —
I've just returned from Colorado Springs and I thought I'd share some of my experiences with you.
First off, sorry, no photos. It's a nice place, but I really didn't want to haul my $800 'photographically-compliant computer' (AKA "digital camera") all over the place. Just picture amazing rock formations and incredible vistas and you've got it.
There are few places on the globe where you can actually see the curve of the planet. You can't see it from sea level. You and I would see it, out on the ocean, because we know the Earth is round, but it would just be an illusion. Hold a straightedge up and it's flat as flat can be. You need two somewhat unique things lined up next to each other, a fairly rare occurrence.
You (1) need an extremely wide, vast plain, flat as a pancake, and (2) a fairly high (10,000 feet-plus) mountain perched right on the edge of aforementioned pancake.
I give you Kansas and Pike's Peak.
Most high mountains are in the middle of mountain ranges. I know that sounds crazy, but it's true. As such, the horizon is very irregular. But Pike's Peak is right on the edge of the Colorado Plateau, looking out across flat, flat, flat, Kansas.
You see The Curve.
Your first thought is,
They were right! It is round.
Maybe you already knew it, but it's always nice to have it confirmed.
13:2 Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by doing that some have entertained angels without knowing it.
13:3 Remember those who are in prison, as though you were in prison with them; those who are being tortured, as though you yourselves were being tortured.
13:4 Let marriage be held in honor by all, and let the marriage bed be kept undefiled; for God will judge fornicators and adulterers.
13:5 Keep your lives free from the love of money, and be content with what you have; for he has said, "I will never leave you or forsake you."
13:6 So we can say with confidence, "The Lord is my helper; I will not be afraid. What can anyone do to me?"
13:7 Remember your leaders, those who spoke the word of God to you; consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith.
13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.
13:15 Through him, then, let us continually offer a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that confess his name.
13:16 Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God.
"the thing is, tho, that the moral or ethical question of entering consequentially into a stranger's life is not the same question as whether or not one is lonely."
His excellent phrase "entering consequentially into a stranger's life" got me thinking. As a psychotherapeutically-oriented shrink, most of my work is to "enter consequentially into strangers' lives," and that is a privilege and sometimes a frightening position which I am paid to do as a professional person.
Most adults are cautious, aren't we? - about who we permit into our lives, and to what extent. We may make exceptions with relatives, clergy, or people with white coats, but, generally, our interpersonal lives consist of concentric circles, admitting few to our inner sanctum.
The reason for that is, of course, because confiding in someone, being emotionally intimate with someone, cannot be inconsequential for normal people. Relationships affect us and affect our lives, so they are a serious matter and potentially dangerous.
Loneliness is painful. Lonely people, sad to say, and substance-abusers may be less discriminating about whom to let in. Fact is, though, closeness is always somewhat risky for both people involved because we humans get attached and thus vulnerable.
Buddy's comment, however, was on the topic of Sugar Daddies and mistresses, sort-of about the idea of sexual intimacy rather than personal or emotional intimacy. There is the hooking up culture of course. A college student recently told me that if he strikes out and doesn't get laid by a different girl each night of Spring Break in Nassau, he will feel like a loser. But I do not mean to be discussing purely recreational or athletic alcohol-infused sexual adventures.
What I am wondering about is whether it is possible for a Sugar Daddy and the gal, over time, not to form an affectionate attachment despite the basic free-market win-win foundation of the relationship. Or even regular co-workers.
Perhaps some people are more capable of inconsequential intimacy or exploitative intimacy than others. Not perhaps. Definitely.
This is a bit of a gripe piece. I know when I was younger, there were people in the organization I worked who felt I was a cocky and outspoken employee. But I was effective and that allowed mobility, and I developed a good reputation over time. As time has gone on, younger people have moved up and I've noticed a considerable bit of 'ageism' on the part of younger folk, so forgive me if I engage a bit of my own.
Not too long ago, I was teaching a class within my company. I encourage Q&A, as well as comments and interruptions as long as they are on topic. At one point, a young man stopped me to ask, "Wouldn't we be better off if we just got rid of the older executives who don't understand new media, and started fresh from scratch?"
I smiled, and replied very simply, "No."
He took offense and commented that younger people knew more, were more adaptable, etc. I again smiled and said, "I know what you're thinking. I was there once, too. We do tend to think, when we're new to the workforce, that business is messed up and we know a better way. Frankly, we probably do when we're younger. But there are a few things lacking when we think this way. For example, experience and perspective. While I can understand you point of view, and to some degree you're correct, the reality is altogether different and it may take time to understand, let alone accept, this."
He was not happy with my response, and his interruptions eventually disrupted the class and we never finished. I had to speak with his director about his behavior. Eventually, he left the company to go with a smaller start-up firm. I hope he found what he was looking for.
He wrote treatises on chess, math, and other things too. Imagine what sort of website he could have had, had he only invented the intertunnels too. Everybody knows that Sippican invented the intertunnels.
Double entry sounds like tax cheating, but it is not. It is about credits and debits. (It does not refer to the private, personal books for cash receipts that many unscupulous Lefties use to dodge Uncle Sam and rip off their neighbors.)
I suppose if I asked for a mere shred of sympathy for our president because of the sticky wicket Syria has become, I'd get laughed right off the stage?
I thought so.
From Theo's, I suppose this just about sums it up:
Welcome to the Middle East, indeed.
(by the way, I hope you don't mind my interrupting, but it just now occurred to me to ask: What countries are in the Middle West? Kansas?)
With Bush's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, although still sectarian, at least the battle lines were fairly well drawn. If even half of the above pic is true, we are a long, long ways from those former days of innocence. And I have no reason to think the entire thing isn't right on the money. What a friggin' mess.
As she has a hundred times before, our own Klondike Queen nailed it:
In laying out the case for military strikes on Syria, Secretary of State John Kerry on Friday had praise for the French, who he called “our oldest ally,” but snubbed any mention of the British, who have long believed they enjoyed a “special relationship” with the U.S.
When you're forced to praise the weak-ass French as being staunch allies, you know the End Times are near.
Which isn't to say all Brits are particularly happy with their Parliament's decision:
Remember how France refused to support us in the Iraq War and patriots were calling for French fries to be renamed "freedom fries"?
Turnabout's fair play:
Britain, a U.S. ally in the war in Iraq, might watch from the sidelines if Washington launches a Syrian strike and turns to France for a European stamp of approval. (Could we see the debut of “liberty muffins’’ a decade after the derisory “freedom fries”?)
Back to our president, remember how the MSM labeled President Bush a 'warmonger', 'baby-killer', with his 'immoral war' and all the rest?
From CNN's web site this morning:
This time, with a Democrat in the White House, it appears the rules have changed. Poor President Obama is already war-weary — and he hasn't even done anything yet. But he's tough and gritty and 'determined' to see Truth and Justice prevail. Must be nice having the MSM cover your ass.
My personal fantasy:
(ring-ring!)
"Good morning, this is Susan, Sarah Palin's assistant."
"Hi, this is President Obama. Can I speak to Sarah for a sec?"
"Sure, she's right here. Hey, Sarah, President Deadbeat's on the phone!"
"Good morning, Mr. President, this is Sarah. How may I help you?"
"Could you pop by the White House later today? I'd like to have you standing beside me when I repeat your message to the world."
Weekends are a real wasteland around here, especially in the summer, and double-especially the holidays, so I hate to burn up my valuable little horde of links. Instead, I'll list a few link sites. Then you may wallow and bask in glorious linkdom to your heart's content.
On a right-wing site, the first two to mention would probably be Drudge and Instapundit. Both are somewhat eclectic, in that right under the article demanding we immediately nuke Syria is a link to how hot Madonna looks in her new grillz.
Next up might be Real Clear Politics, and what's to note is that when it comes to sections like their 'Tech' and 'History', they're actually a fairly 'deep' site, with a specific search usually pulling up lots of goodies.
Leaving news and history behind, the next step might be one of the 'why' sites, like Life's Little Mysteries.
The next step down the ladder would be a site like Linkiest, which runs the range from the inane to the brilliant.
Although he's shut down for the time being due to family problems, I think the best political cartoonist out there these days is the Hope and Change guy. Going through the archives is a blast.
Another great cartoonistartist textmeister is the guy who does the Text From Dog site. For just quick text messages, some of it's quite clever.
As for my own links pages, I have a collection of my video posts here, one of computer tips here, and a 'best of' here.
Well, that should keep you busy for a few minutes.
A little over a month ago, I posted a piece on Seth Klarman's call for a change in economic policy. The bizarre action in stock and bond markets indicate something is amiss. Is 'tapering' going to tank the market (undoubtedly, if done properly)? Will our increasingly likely involvement with Syria have implications in the economy (of course)?
What all these questions imply is that we're spending too much money, somewhere, on 'stuff', rather than productive capacity. Production is what creates consumption and demand, not vice-versa as Keynesians suggest. The very first consumer had to produce (via hunting/gathering) what he/she consumed before it could be consumed. This is not a chicken-egg question, it's self-evident. Your desire to consume a hard-boiled egg may create the demand needed to have someone, somewhere to boil an egg and sell it to you. This desire, however, cannot be stimulated by providing you with cash or the means to purchase or make the egg. Before you can create that demand, you have to know it can be produced either by yourself or by someone else who you can purchase it from. If the recipe for a hard-boiled egg doesn't exist, but you desire it, your entrepreneurial spirits may be stirred to become a cook and make this for all to enjoy. That process leads to the development of consumer desire for the product.
Today, however, our government believes desires of this sort are generated by moving money, with the benefit of a 'central brain' in Washington, D.C. to guide the money into places where it can be used to increase consumption, which will drive production. This guided shifting of cash will lift all boats. Not all the money will be shifted from the rich to the poor, but some will be shifted from the future into the present, making the present more productive, and the future that much more productive because we'll borrow from tax revenues generated by increased taxes on the future rich.
Aaron Clarey prepared a useful chart showing how well this works, how much GDP we get per government dollar spent.
The problem with Keynesianism is its core belief that you can properly shift money to productive areas through a reasonably well guided government process. There are some who claim borrowing from the future limits future productive capacity, due to payments on interest. This is true to a point. One has to remember entrepreneurs borrow from the future to increase productive capacity. That concept is not flawed in business. The reason it is flawed in government is at least two-fold:
1. Dead-weight loss. A government has to pay for bureaucrats to shuffle the money from the taxpayer to the areas of productive value, and is not incentivized to do it in a timely or useful manner. An entrepreneur will do this more efficiently, realizing any wasted money is lost potential. 2. Perfect knowledge. None of us have perfect knowledge regarding what will yield great productivity. More entrepreneurs fail than succeed, but the risk and responsibility falls upon them and their investors. It's only logical that government will fail more frequently than it succeeds if it tries to use money to increase productivity. This is why Solyndras are more common than not. But the problem is the risk is absorbed by taxpayers, not investors, who may not have wanted to see the money go to a Solyndra, while the responsibilty should be borne by the politicians, but is never assigned to them in full. More importantly, government reassignation of revenues is not a tool of progress, as some politicians claim, it is a tool for resistance to change.
Markets are conducive to evolutionary improvement. Government empowers those who want to resist change.~Arnold Kling
The government's failure shouldn't be a surprise. If he was an entrepreneur, the massive failure of Obama's economic policies should almost be expected.
It is the source of the money he is using to pursue his goals that are at issue. All investors may be taxpayers, but not all taxpayers are investors. It is wrong to force them to invest when the odds of failure are high and they have no say about who gets the money.
Taxing Peter to pay Paul is using Peter for Paul. It is corrupting. Modern governments have been encouraged to think that any abuse of Peter is just fine, that Peter is a slave available for any duty that the ruler has in mind. ~Deirdre McCloskey
Sleep patterns in humans are culturally-established. Some cultures have their siesta, for example. Many American males like their weekend naps.
European families, and many American families up until the early 20th Century, often shared beds unless they were prosperous. In the old days, Europeans had two sleeps - a first and a second. Two sleeps with sex or prayer, or both, in between. Both sounds good to me.
The cutting-room sweepings suggest the chief errors in Dylan's recording career were his tendencies to discard gems and cede power to producers. Stripped of overdubs, the new Portrait has a mellow, natural beauty. In stark, porous arrangements, the music is vibrant and urgent, driven by Dylan's raw, potent vocals.
Rare photos of Ernest Hemingway from his recently released family scrapbooks
Feral pig, Wild Boar, Wild Hog, Russian Boar, farm pig. They are all pigs, all very slight variants of the one species 
(an email to friends, September '00)
Accountants know who he was. He was a pal of Leonardo, and 
People always talk about the places they'd like to see or to visit. It's a big world. Most everybody has a bucket list.