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.
Has individual liberty been a prime value in American politics and policy since Coolidge? (We are defining liberty as freedom from the power and interference of the state.)
Do Americans talk liberty, but desire utilitariansm? Is real freedom too difficult or scarey for most people nowadays?
Secondly, three guys including Will Wilkinson discuss Libertarianism and Liberty in serious depth at Boston Review. At Maggie's, we believe that the "liberty cost" has to be a large factor in any policy equation, or else we aren't America anymore.
Today, you hear more about financial cost, health cost, and environmental cost, than about liberty cost. (Can I trademark the term "liberty cost," or has somebody else done that already?)
Seems to me that Repubs talk more liberty than the Dems, who have eliminated it from their political calculus since Woodrow Wilson. However, the Repubs talk it better than they act it. Have pols simply learned that, when it comes to voting, people want stuff more from the feds than they want freedom?
We have been warned that the world is in for a long period of deleveraging from debt-driven economies. This via Zero Hedge:
This is not a bump in the road; it is the exhaustion of the entire model of growth that we have depended on for the past 30 years. Once the debt saturation point has been reached, adding more debt subtracts from the economy rather than adds to it. This is reflected in the decline of employment by every metric: total number of jobs, civilian participation, payrolls per capita, and employment as a percentage of the total population.
We are past the point of debt saturation, and so we need a new model of employment, and indeed of “growth” itself. Sadly, as discussed in a recent report, the Status Quo financial witch-doctors have only prescribed more debt and more unproductive friction.
What the researchers omitted, as they went on to explain in the rest of the paper, was just how many variables they poked and prodded before sheer chance threw up a headline-making result—a clearly false headline-making result.
The odds of statistical bogosity grow when researchers don't have to report all the ways they manipulated their data in exploratory fashion. For example, the researchers "used father's age to control for baseline age across participants," thereby fudging the subjects' actual ages. They factored in lots of completely irrelevant data. And, rather than establish from the outset how many subjects they would test, they tested until they obtained the false result.
The authors of that provocative paper were Joseph P. Simmons and Uri Simonsohn of the University of Pennsylvania, and Leif D. Nelson of the University of California at Berkeley. "Many of us," they wrote—"and this includes the three authors of this article"—end up "yielding to the pressure to do whatever is justifiable to compile a set of studies that we can publish. This is driven not by a willingness to deceive but by the self-serving interpretation of ambiguity. ... "
Earth | Time Lapse View from Space, Fly Over | NASA, ISS from Michael König on Vimeo. Time lapse sequences of photographs taken by Ron Garan, Satoshi Furukawa and the crew of expeditions 28 & 29 onboard the International Space Station from August to October, 2011, who shot these pictures at an altitude of around 350 km.
Shooting locations in order of appearance:
1. Aurora Borealis Pass over the United States at Night 2. Aurora Borealis and eastern United States at Night 3. Aurora Australis from Madagascar to southwest of Australia 4. Aurora Australis south of Australia 5. Northwest coast of United States to Central South America at Night 6. Aurora Australis from the Southern to the Northern Pacific Ocean 7. Halfway around the World 8. Night Pass over Central Africa and the Middle East 9. Evening Pass over the Sahara Desert and the Middle East 10. Pass over Canada and Central United States at Night 11. Pass over Southern California to Hudson Bay 12. Islands in the Philippine Sea at Night 13. Pass over Eastern Asia to Philippine Sea and Guam 14. Views of the Mideast at Night 15. Night Pass over Mediterranean Sea 16. Aurora Borealis and the United States at Night 17. Aurora Australis over Indian Ocean 18. Eastern Europe to Southeastern Asia at Night
"And the centerfielder's going back... back... Home run, Team Republican!"
Sorry, just getting in the mood.
With this extraordinarily long lull between debates (an entire week), I thought I'd step back and take a fresh look at things. Armed with the very latest in caffeine-fortified psychotropic drugs and a Jack Daniels I.V. drip, I'm prepared to take on such challenging questions as, "Does bra size matter in a presidential race?", and "Would you vote for someone with an opposing astrological sign?" That's why Maggie hired me, to take on tough, penetrating questions like these that no other blogger dares address.
By the way, I had a rare insight while writing this post and have resolved not to say too many scornful, derisive, abusive, reprehensible things about Ron Paul ever again. So that's good news for our Ron Paul fan(s) out there.
Thus you see, he is a Composition of Whim, Affectation, Wickedness, Vanity, and Inquietude, with a very small, if any Ingredient of Madness. … The ruling Qualities abovementioned, together with Ingratitude, Ferocity, and Lying, I need not mention, Eloquence and Invention, form the whole of the Composition
The rising cost of medical care comes from advanced, expensive technology (almost all created in the US), advanced expensive pharmacology, costs of malpractice insurance and absurdly excess expenditures to avoid lawsuits, and medical insurance and government insurance-subsidies for all medical care. Given all of the above things not changing anytime soon, the only way to control costs is bureaucratic rationing - which will entail the politicizing of any medical care which is covered by insurance. And that is a very bad idea, too. I see a future for medical care outside the entire insurance nexus.
Had I been a young, junior kid on the staff, I'm sure I would have done what McQueary did. Chain of authority. Had I been in Paterno's shoes, probably what he did: chain of authority. Arguably ethically wrong, but natural. (Update: I may not be well-informed about what was witnessed.)
A beautifully-restored turn-of-the-century summer "cottage" on the CT shore. These sorts of places originally had no central heat as they were indeed summer get-aways for prosperous New Yorkers, but they had plenty of coal fireplaces to take the chill off on cool summer or fall nights.
Third floor, as in most larger, pre-income tax era houses, was servants' quarters.
Very nice carriage barn too, with room upstairs for your chauffeur or gardener. In those days, there were tons of secure jobs for semi-skilled servants.
Many attorneys and many law profs generally assume that the Commerce Clause is dead and, indeed, was laid to rest many years ago. Whenever I bring up my sentimental and quaint views of the Constitutional limits on federal power, colleagues often see me as a naive artifact from a former age. Which, perhaps, I am.
Lawyers rarely deal with Constitutional issues, just with ordinary civil and criminal laws and rules and regulations (of which there exist more than anyone could possibly know or even be dimly aware of, thus providing people like me with tidy incomes).
Fact is, the late, lamented death of the original meaning of the commerce clause (designed mainly, as I understand it, to eliminate then-existing obstacles to inter-state commerce) opened the door to the Feds regulating and controlling everything and anything they want to. One might wish that the FFs might have been a little more explicit in their definitions and intentions, but they could not have anticipated every single language loophole the feds might have decided to exploit in their reaches for more and more power, control, and money - even though that was their greatest fear and the reason they bothered to write the thing in the first place. King George lll would envy the power of our current federal government. Loopholes are always for the Common Good, naturally. Antique that I am, for me freedom is the ultimate Common Good. To me, the meaning of "Freedom" is freedom from the power of the state far more than it is freedom from external threats to security, or German threats to Europe, or Islamist insanity.
I predict that much or all of ObamaCare is upheld by the Supremes, in deference to Congress. I deeply hope that I am wrong because the feds have shown little ability to run much of anything effectively or flexibly except the armed forces, much less 17% of the American economy. We'll all end up with USPS medical care, and it will be frozen in law so it can no longer adapt or innovate, or even try to help me and you outside of government guidelines.
Assuming this will be somewhat safer than bariatric surgery, we'll all be able to eat all we want and as inactive as we want, and we'll all be as skinny as models. Being in shape will lose all of its virtue because it will be effortless.
Theodore Dalrymple put it characteristically well in the City Journal a few years ago when he said that, had she survived to our own time, Woolf would have had the satisfaction of observing that her cast of mind - shallow, dishonest, resentful, envious, snobbish, self-absorbed, trivial, philistine, and ultimately brutal - had triumphed among the elites of the Western world. And if that seems a little harsh on someone who did I think have a considerable gift - Mrs Dalloway is surely a very good novel - just remember that she also wrote the most immitigably stupid book of the twentieth century.
It just goes to show that you should look at how people comport themselves towards the world before accepting that they have something worthwhile to say about turning away from it. But the good news is that, when you do look, what you see is not always a disappointment.
You can turn away from the world without a chip on your shoulder, perhaps without even really thinking that that’s what you’re doing. But of course it isn’t as easy as that. Most of us will turn away from the world because it displeases us, and displeasure with the world is usually going to be our own fault. By comparison, turning away from the world in the full bloom of its loveliness is a gift, and no one will grasp it who has not already begun to receive it.
and
But I think I went too far in worrying that even the best philosophical or literary talk about death was always going to be on the edge of vacuity. By comparison, I’d say nowadays that a well-adjusted sense of absurdity and meaninglessness is much more likely to be good practice for the truth of its expression. After all, death does define existence. And the refusal to face up to it - no, that’s wrong, almost everyone “faces up to it”; the real point is to let the thought of it mature over the years - is as good an explanation as any for our tendency to insist on defining ourselves in terms of contingent things, things that are vulnerable to change.
The examples are endless. A violinist can get her fingers crushed. A footballer can lose a leg. A devoted husband can discover that his wife is betraying him. Children grow up and leave home. We don’t always get the top job. All of these things can induce despair. But, according to Kierkegaard, the real despair is about something else. It is about the thought that one is nothing if not a violinist, an athlete, a man loved by his wife, a mother whose children still need her, someone moving successfully up the career ladder, and so on.
The idea first conceived back in the 1920s by two senior officials of the League of Nations – Jean Monnet and Arthur Salter, a British civil servant – was a United States of Europe, ruled by a government of unelected technocrats like themselves. Two things were anathema to them: nation states with the power of veto (which they had seen destroy the League of Nations) and any need to consult the wishes of the people in elections.
Even as the Eurozone cracks, however, such leaders as Germany’s Angela Merkel are calling for greater political integration.
“It is time for a breakthrough to a new Europe,” she said. “That will mean more Europe, not less Europe.”
She’s dead wrong, and the failure of the euro proves it. What Europe needs is less faux unity and more honest division — free nation-states united by a common Western culture, not a centrally planned, bureaucrat-run pipe dream.
Good for Cameron. He can see that Germany (and maybe France) want to use the crisis to consolidate and build power, a la Rahm Emanuel. Given the track record, one wonders why anyone would want to go along with that plan. I always thought the Common Market seemed reasonable, but it was just a first step towards some crazy utopian vision created by people with little experience in the real world but who think they know what's best for everybody else.
By the way, what's the difference between a technocracy and a dictatorship?
After last Saturday night's debate, I spent three hours writing one of the best wrap-ups yet. When I awoke the next morning, it had vanished from the Maggie's editor.
I have four logical theories on what might have happened:
1. The dog ate the server's hard drive.
2. Bird Dog, ever mindful of the "politically centrist" in the site's banner and the possibility of class action law suits for false advertising, read how many harsh, critical things I'd written about the liberal scum-dog moderators and immediately deleted the post to save the site's reputation. Because, as everybody knows, if there's one thing a politically-centrist site would never, ever, do, it would be to disparage one side without fairly and centristically disparaging the other.
3. The webmaster, never dreaming in his wildest dreams that some demented blogger would actually be writing on a Saturday night when he's supposed to be out there having one of those "life" things I read about did some kind of maintenance routine, or maybe an upgrade didn't work and he hit 'Restore', and that was that.
4. God is a Democrat, and omnipotently seeing that my article was destined to be viewed as the "greatest piece of literature in the history of mankind" and would be read in every language on every continent on earth and play the decisive role in getting Sarah Palin and Chris Christie elected Empress and Vice-Emperor Of The World (Newt Gingrich as Secretary of Earth, Mark Steyn as Chief of Staff), decided He'd better nip it in the bud. "This Palin woman just doesn't know her place," He mumbled. "And what's with that accent!"
There were, however, two telling moments during the debate, so I thought I'd grab the YouTube clips and snip out the scenes for your enjoyment.
Since liberal moderators will be speaking and there might be children present, decorum dictates that we continue below the fold.
Mrs. BD's pic on the High Line Sunday evening. It's pleasant for a stroll, but surprising to me how much of an attraction it has become. No public funds.
What the Boomers as a generation missed (there were, of course and thankfully, many honorable individual exceptions) was the core set of values that every generation must discover to make a successful transition to real adulthood: maturity. Collectively the Boomers continued to follow ideals they associated with youth and individualism: fulfillment and “creativity” rather than endurance and commitment. Boomer spouses dropped families because relationships with spouses or children or mortgage payments no longer “fulfilled” them; Boomer society tolerated the most selfish and immature behavior in its public and cultural leaders out of the classically youthful and immature belief that intolerance and hypocrisy are greater sins than the dereliction of duty. That the greatest and most effective political leader the Baby Boom produced was William Jefferson Clinton tells you all you need to know.
But gee, Prof Mead, those stuffy old moralities and values like honor, integrity, self-restraint, self-reliance, duty, sacrifice, loyalty, etc. are so...inauthentic, hypocritical, uptight, old-fashioned - and no darn fun.
When I was able to get on a military transport home to the East Coast from the West just before going on to Vietnam, it was all officers on board except me (then a Lance Corporal). Regardless of rank, I was fully treated as an equal. When we arrived at New Jersey's Maguire AFB, anti-Vietnam protesters surrounded the gates, blocking buses in to NYC. Several high-ranking officers invited me to share their cab, at no cost (knowing I cleared about $100 a month).
When I returned from Vietnam and was mustered out, all my college friends -- most opposed to the US in Vietnam -- threw me a welcome home party. It was totally sincere and non-political. Many told me I had experienced something they couldn't imagine and wouldn't risk, and wondered what that would add to my life or diminish in theirs. -- However, my first date after that was with a girl who asked if I'd killed any babies in Vietnam. I didn't date for many months after.
My point is that almost any who have an inkling, a modicum of sense, have respect for our service. As decades have gone by, most Americans have realized that respect is due.
All this is by way of introducing you to read all of Justin Timberlake's awakening to respect. Then, for rueful chuckles at a complete fool in a dangerous position of academic authority, I invite you to read this post, and wonder "why can't this jerk be more like Justin Timberlake?"
Math and science are difficult, and they aren't all about "what I think" and "what I feel." Failure is a good thing in a meritocratic field because it separates those with potential from those without. Whether it's banks or students, America needs more room for healthy failure.
Failure is more important than success, because more can be learned from it. In the end, success in achieving goals is better, though. Much more enjoyable.
Long-term mortgages may or may not be a good idea, but they do have willing sellers and buyers. In most of the world, mortgages are either rare or very short-term, ie 5 years, and are not tax-advantaged. From Forbes:
A 2005 paper by Adam Gordon describes the effects of federal mortgage policy from the 1930s until the 1960s. Congress created the Federal Housing Administration in 1934, and gave it the power to provide mortgage insurance to housing lenders. At the time, state and federal regulations strictly limited the kinds of mortgages banks could issue, which meant that mortgages were short—often as little as 5 to 7 years—and came with down-payments of between a third and half the value of a home. In the 1930s, the FHA convinced all 48 states to relax these rules for FHA-backed loans, arguing (correctly) that such loans were not as risky since they had the backing of the federal government. But most states did not liberalize the rules for banks with private mortgage insurance. In practice, this meant that FHA-backed loans were the only 30-year, low-down-payment loans on the market, giving the FHA de facto power to decide who would be eligible for such loans.
and
The FHA’s standards became a self-fulfilling prophesy. Young, upwardly mobile families in the market for a first home (at least the white ones) went where they could get the best deal, and thanks to federal guarantees that was the suburbs. Meanwhile, urban areas were starved of capital thanks to state laws that banned private parties from making long-term loans in those areas. Not surprisingly, suburban home construction boomed during this period, while urban areas stagnated.
The FHA and the mortgage interest tax deduction introduced giant distortions into housing markets. Just add "free" government highways to the mix, and you get what you have.
In my view, the FHA and the mortgage deduction are simply subsidies to construction industries and unions, and the freeways simply indirect subsidies to the auto and trucking industries and suburban construction industries.
Nationwide, an estimated 250,000 students are enrolled in full-time virtual schools, up 40% in the last three years, according to Evergreen Education Group, a consulting firm that works with online schools. More than two million pupils take at least one class online, according to the International Association for K-12 Online Learning, a trade group.
Transnationals are not so much anti-democratic as post-democratic. They believe that in the 21st century, democracy should be updated to include the enforcement of "universal principles of human rights" that they, of course, will enumerate and define. They talk not of surrendering sovereignty but of "sharing" it "collectively." The result, they assert, will be a new age of "global authority" that will produce "global justice" under a "global rule of law."
Indeed, since the end of the Cold War, transnational progressives have been establishing international laws — really supranational laws — that no voters can repeal or even amend. One way this is accomplished is to draft a treaty and apply international pressure to get the U.S. president's signature and the U.S. Senate's ratification. Judges — often from undemocratic countries — in transnational courts then interpret the treaty to mean whatever they want it to mean. There are no courts of appeal.
And if the U.S. rejects the treaty or agrees to only parts of it by issuing "reservations," the transnationals declare that the U.S. is bound nonetheless — under what they call "customary international law" to which, they further insist, even the U.S. Constitution is "subordinate."
That good old toon is via 
Listen Up, Boomers: The Backlash Has Begun
A 2005 paper