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.
This is from back when F&F was ordered by Obama in 2009 (thanks, reader):
Thus, a lousy and aggressive, if reckless, border plan, OK'ed by Obama and Holder, that resulted tragically. A fatal SNAFU, resulting in American deaths and many Mexican deaths. Why not just say so? Admit a well-intentioned but ultimately tragic error. That is termed "manning-up." There is nothing much to conceal here that I can see.
Unless there are tons of unfortunate emails about the PR approach to the mess that would be embarassing to the Administration. Stupid, unnessary cover-up? Stupid, stupid, stupid. Or am I missing something?
This is stupid stuff. The Admin's covert leaks to the media are the bigger scandal. This is a sideshow, despite these terrible and unnecessary deaths. Nobody died in Watergate.
In the case of universities, the anti-elitism strategy has been to insist that the degree experience become a near-universal benefit. At the same time, the belief has to be maintained that the whole thing is still in some way a major achievement, a reason for enhanced self-esteem. (This, of course, generates the familiar prizes-for-all inconsistency.)
The nagging doubt remains: as long as it is not literally for everyone, and as long as there are some institutions which are more exclusive than others, there is something about universities which is at odds with the prevailing ethos of perfect, Facebookish horizontality.
It is this ambiguity which seems to keep the what-are-universities-for programme busy, and makes boggling about the question so appealing. Nothing is said which contravenes the basic pseudo-egalitarian ideology, but a certain frisson is generated by juxtaposing mutually inconsistent requirements...
"The deficit spending the Greek government wants to do is almost-entirely suppressive or neutral to GDP - it is spending by government, for government, on government. The population is shrinking, their internal revenue picture is already dreadful and only getting worse (because they have the worst ratio of producers to consumers of tax funding in the civilized world, and getting worser) and the only way any government of Greece can survive and keep the mayhem in the streets down to acceptable levels is to restore the drunken-sailor approach to public spending that got them into trouble in the first place. This means 14 monthly pension checks a year, retirement at 50 for workers in hazardous trades like hairdressing, and all the other 1,001 ways they managed to bankrupt themselves already."
The MSM pundits always wail about "ungovernable" when their pets fail at their jobs. I remember when NYC was said to be ungovernable when Dinkins was mayor. It was amusing and gratifying to see how governable, prosperous, and civilized NYC became when Giuliani was elected.
What is a "college education" in America, these days? Seems to me that there is no such unitary thing, and that it can mean almost anything. As I have mentioned here in the past, I have interviewed college grads who could not do calculus or even explain basic statistics, read a foreign language, or write a grammatical, well-structured formal essay. These basic skills can be achieved in high school, by those who want to learn stuff.
Or easily achieved in the library or on the internet. Not everybody is driven to learn things.
There's a debate going on these days about the notion of "college for all," and Robert Samuelson has been scoring points.
College for All, of course, entails extensive remediation for kids who are not prepared for, or capable of, "higher ed" as we older folks think of it. It also entails lowering expectations and standards. I don't blame the schools - I mostly blame the students. There is no such thing as "getting an education," because all learning is ultimately self-education. Without drive, curiosity, discipline, determination, and IQ nothing valuable will happen.
The education industry, naturally, markets itself and wants to fill all of their seats with warm, paying bodies even if they are not capable of serious high-school level achievement. Here's a summary of the current debate on college-level remediation.
Obama certainly tilted America leftward, but he didn't do it through inspiration, he did it through deception. This was not an administration that created a new consensus, but one that functioned as its own closed door consensus that it occasionally stepped out to announce to the American People.
Not only didn't Obama win the argument, but he lost the election. Congress snapped back to the right so fast that it might have been a rubber band on steroids. And this was to Obama's advantage because it allowed him to spend the next two years blaming his own laziness, corruption and ineptitude on a Congress which had only tilted right because of him.
...guiding all this would be the world’s premiere political body and bastion of freedom, fairness, democracy and human rights – the UN General Assembly.
To guide this “fundamental” shift toward the sustainability paradigm, the Group laid down eight principles – the key being the “precautionary principle,” which forbids any activity that might involve risk or “do harm.” Its own sustainability prescriptions are, of course, exempted from any reviews under the precautionary principle.
Like a cross between a kayak and a surfboard. Probably invented by cavemen on logs, but new again.
They look like good clean fun. A friend of mine takes her dog on it with her. Her husband fly-fishes for Stripers and Blues off one in Block Island Sound, and looks down on decadent fishermen on comfy boats. I can picture a thrilling Nantucket Sleigh Ride with a fat Striper on the line. Cool ride.
There is always space for new sorts of water fun. I was told that a local joint sold out of them on Father's Day, at $700-2000 per board.
Apparently you can surf on them, if you have some sense of fun, but getting wet is part of it all. Generally, you have to keep your knees bent to do the balancing thing when there's a good chop or wavy gravy, as in skiing or snowboarding. Paddleboards.
It's difficult to study something that nobody can define in a non-circular way. From McCloskey: Happyism - The creepy new economics of pleasure. She makes the point that much of this is pseudo-scientific.
A quote from her very interesting essay:
...in the eighteenth century, our earthly happiness became important to us, in high intellectual fashion. By 1776, “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” was an unoriginal formulation of what we all, of course, now admitted that we chiefly wanted. John Locke had taught, in 1677, that “the business of men [is] to be happy in this world by the enjoyment of the things of nature subservient to life, health, ease, and pleasure”—though he added piously, “and by the comfortable [that is, comforting] hopes of another life when this is ended.” By 1738, the Comte de Mirabeau wrote to a friend, recommending simply, “[W]hat should be our only goal: happiness.”
“Our only goal.” To see how strange such a remark is, consider whether it could have been uttered by a leader of opinion in 1538. Martin Luther? Michelangelo? Charles V? No. They sought heavenly, artistic, or political glory—not something so domestic as happiness. Yet, in the late seventeenth century, even Anglican priests commenced preaching that God wanted us to be happy as much as holy. They called it “eudaemonism.” Anglicans and, astonishingly, some New England Congregationalists turned against the old, harsh, Augustinian-Calvinist line. We are not, declared the eudaemonists, mere sinners in the hands of an angry God, worms unworthy of grace. We are God’s beloved creatures, his pets.
The eudaemonistic turn was a Very Good Thing, resulting in fresh projects to better our stay here on Earth, some of them remarkably successful. Democracy was one, since, if you followed the fashion for universal happiness, it became impossible to go on insisting that what really mattered was the pleasure of the Duke or the Lord Bishop. Enlightened despots of the era claimed to seek the good of all, which paradoxically gave the populace the idea that maybe they themselves could do it.
I will remind our readers that Freud (yes, still relevant in many ways but not in all ways) had a somewhat tragic view of life and figured that pleasure and joy certainly matter, but that, overall, ordinary - "non-neurotic" - unhappiness is man's fate. Some days, I agree with that, other days, I don't.
By coincidence, Schneiderman's Unhappy or Depressed? I will need to return to the Dalrymple piece he quotes, later.
The worst economic recovery since World War II that Obama and the Democrats midwifed has exposed the failure of the notion that the government can create economic growth and wealth rather than merely expropriating it from the creative and productive, and that centralized planning and regulating by “experts” can more efficiently allocate resources than the free market does. But more important is the underlying idea of progressivism that Obama’s policies is predicated on: Perfect justice, prosperity, and equality are possible if enlightened elites are given the power to organize and run society according to “scientific” knowledge about human nature and behavior. For two centuries this hubristic idea has led to failure, misery, and murder on a vast scale, yet progressives continue to increase government power in order to create this impossible utopia. Obamacare is just the latest iteration of this frequently demonstrated fallacy that complex human behavior, which reflects the unpredictable free will of millions of unique individuals, can be organized, controlled and regimented in order to achieve some dream-world utopia. That progressives still cling to this exploded idea despite the evidence of history and a disintegrating E.U. shows just how reactionary and blinkered they are.
Do not go there. You will not like it. Nobody cool goes there.
The water is too cold for you as are the cones at Harbor Freeze or whatever it's called now; the people are mostly Liberals; everybody drives a Subaru with Obama stickers; the lobsters will snap at you; the air is way too pine-scented and salty; it's not fancy enough; you don't have to select your clothing; nobody has a hot tub; there are no swimming pools; it's cool and rainy sometimes and you need a sweater at night and you will get sunburned on the nice days; all the good food is just shellfish and fish; the beaches are too big and the ponds are too deep and dark; there are too many little kids in the restaurants; socialites, investment bankers, and politicians never go there; the blueberry-corn meal pancakes are terrible and the Portuguese seafood stews are terrible; the joint at Cahoon's Hollow is like totally bourgeois and their drinks are too big; there is too much surf on the ocean beaches not to mention the annoying seals; sea gulls and herons crap on your windshield; all the good walks are too long; you have to slam on the brakes for Box Turtles crossing the roads; you will get covered with mud digging your own clams and collecting your own oysters, and you will slice up your hands opening them; etc., etc.
Worse still, with the rapid rise of the oceans due to your car, it will soon be underwater (maybe in 3000 years). So don't buy out there. It's a big, temporary sandbar left over from the last Ice Age.
My girls spent the weekend practicing skeet and trap at a friend's club (they like guns), then they had a jolly overnight in NYC gallivanting around wherever young folks gallivant these days.
Do they know the NYC subways? Do fish pee in your reservoir? Well, they know the Manhattan and Brooklyn trains anyway. I think they know the cool clubs too.
It's a pleasure to a Dad when your kids get along, because you want them there for eachother when you're gone. My lad is preoccupied with his own pleasant chores, although I could use some spare young muscle.
I spent the weekend doing what I enjoy most: heavy manual labor around the farm's decorative grounds (the decorative parts, not the rough parts). I dedicate a weekend each late Spring (and one day in March) to these seasonal jobs, before it gets too warm and all you want to do is to sit on a Farmall tractor with a cold one. First the chain saw work, then the clipper work, then the hedge-trimming, then the major weeding. Mrs. BD does the less-heavy weeding and pruning, being more obsessional than I am. And she likes to tell me where to move plants. Not a bad deal to be my wife despite my occasional crankiness.
Then the damn clean-up. It's the work Americans supposedly won't do. Well, I could use some immigrant help to get everything done on my list...
So what's for Father's Day supper? My favorite meal, or close to it - Vitello Tonnato - cold sliced veal with tuna sauce (with arborio rice and salad - arborio rice isn't just for risotto. You cook it in chicken broth). Great, strong flavors in the sauce - capers, anchovy, tuna. Need to make it hours, or a day, in advance. Mrs. BD likes to make it.
During the American Revolution, it was, "Give me Liberty or give me death." Today it's, "Give me Universal Health Care or give me death." And the alternative to death is a nanny state that controls every aspect of our lives, only for us to die anyway. Fighting for Liberty may occasionally make men immortal, but fighting for government bureaucracy just makes them slaves.
To win re-election, Obama has "gone rogue," boldly going where no Democrat has gone before. Obama in essence has said, screw it. I am not going to masquerade as a moderate. I am going to campaign as a full blown anti-capitalism, anti-Constitution progressive/socialist!
While global warming alarmists cloak themselves in the mantle of science, the truth is that there is nothing scientific about their enterprise. The models that are the sole basis for global warming alarmism have been proved conclusively to be wrong. That really is all that needs to be said about the matter. The fact that alarmists and their supporters in the media and in politics continue to try to foist discredited theories onto the public shows that their real interest is not science, but politics and power.
Watching President Obama flop around like a fish out of water, careening from gaffe to desperation to dishonesty, I find myself searching for ways to put his troubling behavior into historic perspective.
Is this The Unmaking of a President? Or is it The Unmasking? Perhaps we are witnessing an American Tragedy. Or maybe we’re seeing final proof his election was The Great Mistake.
All those fit the facts, and lead to a shared conclusion. So far, the 2012 election has almost nothing to do with Mitt Romney. Even the GOP doesn’t love its choice, but the race is a dead heat because Obama is so disappointing.
4:26 He also said, "The kingdom of God is as if someone would scatter seed on the ground,
4:27 and would sleep and rise night and day, and the seed would sprout and grow, he does not know how.
4:28 The earth produces of itself, first the stalk, then the head, then the full grain in the head.
4:29 But when the grain is ripe, at once he goes in with his sickle, because the harvest has come."
4:30 He also said, "With what can we compare the kingdom of God, or what parable will we use for it?
4:31 It is like a mustard seed, which, when sown upon the ground, is the smallest of all the seeds on earth;
4:32 yet when it is sown it grows up and becomes the greatest of all shrubs, and puts forth large branches, so that the birds of the air can make nests in its shade."
4:33 With many such parables he spoke the word to them, as they were able to hear it;
4:34 he did not speak to them except in parables, but he explained everything in private to his disciples.
It may be sneaky, cynical, and seems like a unconstitutional abuse of power, but this is hardball politics being played here. It's a power play, to mix metaphors.
Here are the clever parts: Obama preempts Rubio's plan (they want to kneecap Rubio), it helps with some key states, and anybody who opposes the idea seems cruel (it's not as if most Americans worry about Constitutional nuance - mostly people seem to just like an idea, not like it, or not care).
So whether his proposal ever comes to pass or not, Obama has called "Check!" on the Hispanic and immigration issue. Maybe Checkmate on the politics of those issues.
He is following the plan to pander to each constituency, each "community" he can. Solidifying a possibly-wavering base of voters with goodies of all sorts, and conveying caring sentiments. Obama wants to win. I don't know why. I spose it's a sport and winning is the point.
Axelrod has lots of tricks up his sleeve. He's from Chicago so you cannot misunderestimate him. They play rough, and they cheat without qualms. See Obama’s policy strategy: Ignore laws. Laws are just a nuisance when there is so much at stake.
Whether you knew it or not, he was always worrying about you, always caring. He made decisions you never knew about that made your life better. He shielded you from knowledge of the evils of the world as long as he could. He helped give your childhood a hint of magic.
Perhaps the most difficult question in urban planning is how our cities became so ugly. This question is seldom asked by urban planners because it is their discipline that claims to be the beautifying motor for American cities. Indeed, the planning profession often controls the now ubiquitous architectural approval committees that exist in nearly every city and town. Zoning has been expanded under the planning culture to include judgment on the artfulness and beauty of structures.
It is precisely the nexus of planning and government that creates the problem. Planning cannot exist outside of the governmental context. Government supplies the power and the legitimacy of planning. But why government plans is the real question. Does government serve the cause of economic advancement for a city and see to it that beauty counts in its commercial success? Or is planning really a vehicle used to build a social utopia in which it designs an environment that aims to advance a vision of how people are supposed to live, without regard to the city’s economic life?
Cigareets and whuskey and wild wild women They'll drive you crazy they'll drive you insane Cigareets and whuskey and wild wild women They'll drive you crazy they'll drive you insane
Once I was happy and had a good wife, I had enough money to last me for life I met with a gal and we went on a spree, she taught me to smoke and drink whusky Cigareets and whuskey...
And now I'm feeble and broken with age The lines on my face make a well written page I'm leavin' this story how sad but how true On women and whusky and what they will do Cigareets and whuskey...
Write on the cross at the head of my grave For women and whusky here lies a poor slave Take warning dear stranger take warning dear friend Then write in big letters these words at the end Cigareets and whuskey... They'll drive you crazy they'll drive you insane.
Who knows who wrote this old classic true-country tune, which works well as folk, country, bluegrass, or Irish. I noticed that Jim Croce recorded it once, but the only sample I have of the tune is from good old Ramblin' Jack Elliott - the fake cowboy:
Rules of storytelling
Like a cross between a kayak and a surfboard. Probably invented by cavemen on logs, but new again.
It's difficult to study something that nobody can define in a non-circular way. From McCloskey: 
Your dad, your hero - 
