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.
In Willpower, the pioneering researcher Roy F. Baumeister collaborates with renowned New York Times science writer John Tierney to revolutionize our understanding of the most coveted human virtue: self-control.
In what became one of the most cited papers in social science literature, Baumeister discovered that willpower actually operates like a muscle: it can be strengthened with practice and fatigued by overuse. Willpower is fueled by glucose, and it can be bolstered simply by replenishing the brain's store of fuel. That's why eating and sleeping- and especially failing to do either of those-have such dramatic effects on self-control (and why dieters have such a hard time resisting temptation).
Baumeister's latest research shows that we typically spend four hours every day resisting temptation. No wonder people around the world rank a lack of self-control as their biggest weakness. Willpower looks to the lives of entrepreneurs, parents, entertainers, and artists-including David Blaine, Eric Clapton, and others-who have flourished by improving their self-control.
From Klavan's post:
Willpower surpasses even intelligence as a predictor of success in life. And Baumeister has performed a number of experiments that convinced him that willpower is something like a muscle: it can be strengthened, conserved, and fatigued...
But in the question period after the presentation, I asked Baumeister how else, aside from eating well, could willpower be strengthened. His response was this: Exercise strengthens willpower just as it strengthens muscles. Even a meaningless exercise of will — training yourself to use your left hand for a task instead of your right, for instance — can make the will stronger over time. He added — I quote from memory: “When I was a boy, I used to be baffled by the idea of profanity. I used to wonder why there should be all these words that everyone knew but nobody used. But now I understand: that strengthens willpower.”
Well, right. In other words, behaving well, behaving responsibly, learning the norms of politeness and refusing to abandon them without good reason tend to make you a more self-controlled, successful, and finally better person.
This is precisely the wisdom my generation threw away. Their promiscuity, adolescent foul-mouthedness, bad manners, and disregard for tradition — all of which they claimed were a new kind of freedom — were in fact the precursors to the very oldest kind of slavery: slavery to one’s own impulses and desires. This slavery, packaged in the Sixties as “identity” or “culture” or “the right to be yourself,” ultimately leads to enslavement by others as it makes you indolent and irresponsible and in need of protection and restraint by the powers that be. A poor black man’s journey from hip hop culture to prison is a perfect example. So is a middle class white man’s journey from moral license and unwarranted praise to his sniveling need for an all-providing — oh, and by the way, all-powerful — state.
Ditto to that, Mr. Klavan. I have always thought of willpower as mental or moral muscle. I've been practicing telling myself for years that I will do, or will not do, one thing or another several times daily. It gets easier, just like running that extra mile.
Willpower and persistence are surely important in pursuing one's goals in life, but I would add other items too, for examples:
Comportment Good vibes Sense of duty Social intuition Good, sane judgement Constructing good life plans - if you want to
When I joined Maggie's recently, I was told it was a voluntary collective. "To each according to their needs, from each according to their abilities. Just be eclectic with your topics." I decided this would be interesting and fun.
After watching the Occupy Wall Street movement, however, I've come to realize that Maggie's is just another corporate entity keeping me down, and I am being shortchanged by The System. I've decided to visit some of the Wall Street protesters and get them to join me here. We can complain about how Maggie is keeping us from enjoying the well-deserved fruits of our labor. After all, Maggie's Farm takes advantage of a public good (the internet), so just as people like Elizabeth Warren point out Maggie should, in all fairness, be giving back.
The Wall Street protesters agree and feel that if Maggie won't share, then perhaps the government should step in and make things fair. After all, I went to college. I have debts. I'm putting into The System. Where are my goodies? I want my Dunkin' Donuts! It's time to redistribute!
I call on other writers to join me in creating a list of demands that can be endless. Not having one demand makes us stronger. If we have more, and make the demands go on and on forever, we show strength.
Now I'm going to go take a nap, play some hacky sack, blog on my Mac about how I'm looking out for the best interests of other Maggie's Farmers, have compassion for others, feel good about myself, and engage in many other unproductive activities until I get something for nothing.
(I really hope Maggie has a sense of humor.)
Editor, to Bulldog: We would gladly surrender to the armed occupiers below the fold, but I am afraid most of today's Occupier chicks do not meet Maggie's Farm standards - to say the least. Furthermore, the $5 million Dunkin Donuts pays me each year is all mine! Be a big dog and suck it up! You get a free megaphone out of it!
If anything, preschool may do lasting damage to many children. A 2005 analysis by researchers at Stanford University and the University of California, Berkeley, found that kindergartners with 15 or more hours of preschool every week were less motivated and more aggressive in class. Likewise, Canada's C.D. Howe Institute found a higher incidence of anxiety, hyperactivity and poor social skills among kids in Quebec after universal preschool.
"Even the people who did the experiment will tell you that the chances are very, very small that it's right," Carroll said. "They just want people to understand that it's on the table, it's possible. They don't know what's wrong with their experiment. They would like someone else to check it, to duplicate it, to see what might be wrong."
...the Obama administration — let me be candid here — seems clueless, overpopulated as it is by policy nerds, academic overachievers, and tenured functionaries (cf. Larry Summers’ “there is no adult in charge”). They tend to flash Ivy League certificates, but otherwise have little record of achievement in the private sector. Officials seem to think that long ago test scores, a now Neolithic nod from an Ivy League professor, or a past prize translates into knowing what makes America run in places like Idaho and southern Michigan.
“Healthy men should no longer receive a P.S.A. blood test to screen for prostate cancer because the test does not save lives over all and often leads to more tests and treatments that needlessly cause pain, impotence and incontinence in many, a key government health panel has decided,” reports the New York Times. But JunkScience.com was all over this more than 13 years ago.
Our readers have all been educated on the Cloward-Piven strategy. We have an admin in DC which is steeped in Alinsky, Gramsci, and Cloward-Piven. Just add Lenin and you have their Founding Fathers.
...only three economists predicted job gains anywhere near what Obama claimed. And the median forecast was a piddling 288,000 new jobs. Given the $447 billion price tag, that comes to $1.6 million per job.
How often does the MSM call the O out on his habitual lying?
22:1 Once more Jesus spoke to them in parables, saying:
22:2 "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding banquet for his son.
22:3 He sent his slaves to call those who had been invited to the wedding banquet, but they would not come.
22:4 Again he sent other slaves, saying, 'Tell those who have been invited: Look, I have prepared my dinner, my oxen and my fat calves have been slaughtered, and everything is ready; come to the wedding banquet.'
22:5 But they made light of it and went away, one to his farm, another to his business,
22:6 while the rest seized his slaves, mistreated them, and killed them.
22:7 The king was enraged. He sent his troops, destroyed those murderers, and burned their city.
22:8 Then he said to his slaves, 'The wedding is ready, but those invited were not worthy.
22:9 Go therefore into the main streets, and invite everyone you find to the wedding banquet.'
22:10 Those slaves went out into the streets and gathered all whom they found, both good and bad; so the wedding hall was filled with guests.
22:11 "But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing a wedding robe,
22:12 and he said to him, 'Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding robe?' And he was speechless.
22:13 Then the king said to the attendants, 'Bind him hand and foot, and throw him into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'
Katrina provided the opportunity to reconstruct NO education from the beginning.
The Big Easy's School Revolution - John White, superintendent of New Orleans' public schools: 'In other cities, charter schools exist in spite of the system. Here they are the system.'
A couple of years ago we took the train up from Stresa to Domodossola, then the Centovalli train over to Locarno in Switzerland, and then the ferry back down Lago Maggiore to Baveno.
We got off the train in some little town to take a hike, but took a left instead of a right and ended up with a multi-mile hike through mountain roads and some amazing tiny alpine towns instead of hiking to the center of the town.
We had to hitchike back just in time to catch the last train of the day to Locarno, and had to run down to catch the last ferry down the lake. Funny now, but it was not funny to me at the time.
It's a cool 2-hour train ride into Switzerland, then back down the lake to Italy through steep gorges, mountain passes, tiny farm villages, vineyards, and alpine forests:
Independents and some Democrats must be joining nearly all Republicans in the recognition of deep dysfunction in the Obama-Reid-Pelosi leadership axis. The lefty pollsters must be telling them that the numbers --weighted correctly and unspun for the MSM-- are collapsing at every level, which is making an already desperate group collectively unhinged.
Let us recall that it was Obama – not McCain – who picked up the most money from the banking, hedge fund, and securities sectors. It was a majority of House Democrats – not Republicans – who voted for TARP. And it was the Democratic financial reform bill – not the GOP’s – that ignored Fannie & Freddie and watered down the Volcker Rule to irrelevance. Tim Geithner's financial bailout plan prompted even John Heilemann (no GOP partisan!) to declare that it was “strikingly favorable to Wall Street.” So, if there was ever a cycle that the charge--“The GOP is a tool of fat cats!”--won’t stick, it is 2012.
Over the long term, however, it’s a different story, and Republicans should pay close attention to what’s happening. The protests on Wall Street this month are only a taste of what will come should the GOP win the White House in 2013.
Not everybody who is complaining was wronged. The We Are the 99 Percent Tumblr includes complaints like this: “My father (multiple PhD’s) lives in his car so that he can do what he loves for a living rather than be a slave to the system.” A Columbia graduate student complained to the Associated Press that she has to eat rice and beans. These are not people who got screwed. These are people who have gainful employment available to them and made follow-your-dreams life choices that reduce their incomes. That’s their prerogative; it’s not anybody else’s problem.
I. There was a naughty boy, A naughty boy was he, He would not stop at home, He could not quiet be- He took In his knapsack A book Full of vowels And a shirt With some towels, A slight cap For night cap, A hair brush, Comb ditto, New stockings For old ones Would split O! This knapsack Tight at's back He rivetted close And followed his nose To the north, To the north, And follow'd his nose To the north.
II. There was a naughty boy And a naughty boy was he, For nothing would he do But scribble poetry- He took An ink stand In his hand And a pen Big as ten In the other, And away In a pother He ran To the mountains And fountains And ghostes And postes And witches And ditches And wrote In his coat When the weather Was cool. Fear of gout, And without When the weather Was warm- Och the charm When we choose To follow one's nose To the north, To the north, To follow one's nose To the north!
III. There was a naughty boy And a naughty boy was he, He kept little fishes In washing tubs three In spite Of the might Of the maid Nor afraid Of his Granny-good- He often would Hurly burly Get up early And go By hook or crook To the brook And bring home Miller's thumb, Tittlebat Not over fat, Minnows small As the stall Of a glove, Not above The size Of a nice Little baby's Little fingers- O he made 'Twas his trade Of fish a pretty kettle A kettle- A kettle Of fish a pretty kettle A kettle!
IV. There was a naughty boy, And a naughty boy was he, He ran away to Scotland The people for to see- There he found That the ground Was as hard, That a yard Was as long, That a song Was as merry, That a cherry Was as red, That lead Was as weighty, That fourscore Was as eighty, That a door Was as wooden As in England- So he stood in his shoes And he wonder'd, He wonder'd, He stood in his Shoes and he wonder'd.
Fresh beer, unpasteurized. My lunch in Bavaria, along the Danube canal, last summer. Roast pork, grilled pork, bratwurst, weisswurst, sauerkraut, applesauce, weissbrau. Hold the veggies! I like German mustard - isn't mustard a vegetable?
Mitt Romney’s speech today (text) on foreign policy stands in stark contrast to President Obama’s muddling, kowtowing to despots, undermining allies, and hollowing of our military readiness, and in contrast to the isolationism of Ron Paul and the sentiments but lack of meat from Perry and Bachmann.A reaction:
Romney’s unapologetic statement of American exceptionalism and devotion to the promotion of freedom as well as his understanding of the threats facing the country from Islamism, Iran, as well as China and Russia, provides encouragement for conservatives who have been waiting to hear whether he is up to the task of being commander-in-chief…. some of the most interesting points concerned Romney’s commitment to reversing Obama’s cuts in defense spending….Romney’s speech, like the roster of foreign policy advisers his campaign released yesterday, should quiet worries he isn’t prepared to meet the dangers a feckless Obama will leave for his successor.
As he did on his jobs plan, Romney’s foreign policy rollout is detailed, organized, professional and aided by very smart people. The logistics of assembling a big team of top advisors, crafting a short but bold speech and coming up with a detailed written document are daunting and impressive. The level of detail is unlike anything any other candidate has attempted, and far exceeds what we usually get in campaigns. This is Romney the executive, Romney the smart guy and Romney the polished professional. His message is clear: I’m prepared and I know what I am doing.
But what is surprising about his foreign policy effort is that unlike his economic plans and what has come top be seen as a character defect (e.g. lack of strong convictions) his foreign policy statements are bold, unqualified, and not couched for political advantage.
A skeptic can say it’s just campaign talk. A cynic can say that we can’t afford to be leader of the free world and the free world of the world. An opponent can say it’s rewarmed George Bush or neoconservative.
This Republican must say this is real leadership. There are many reasons for many Republicans to be shy of Romney as less conservative than they would like. True. And, if this is the best that can be gotten, it exceeds any realistic alternative, by a long shot.
If there is one political theme here at Maggie's, it is distrust of the power and of the wisdom of the state. Especially, the remote governmental powers. We have faith in the ability of the individual citizen to make his own choices and decisions according to his own lights. We do believe in collectivism, of the voluntary sort.
Regarding close-up government, in my town, you can walk into our First Selectman's office (if you bring a Starbucks for her with you) or Second Selectman's office, and chat about anything for a bit. They only work 9-3, so you have to bear that in mind. If somebody else is there too, you all chat together. That works for me. We're a small town.
What if your kid is too skinny? What if she's an early anorectically-minded girl who nibbles on lettuce and is driving you to exasperation? Should that 14 year-old be taken from you while you are charged with felony child-neglect?
I hear all of these stories. Life is full of all sorts of stories. I tend to fall on the freedom side of things. It's messy and things go wrong, but that's the way life is. Freedom to screw up is the closest to utopia we're gonna get.
And, if we are to see government control of medical care, what if I am too fat for their cost statistics? Can they take me away from me?
The extremism of R2P’s leading proponent is exhibited in Anne-Marie Slaughter’s op-ed in today’s New York Times. Slaughter likens the Wall Street protesters to those demonstrating against oppressive regimes in the Middle East and recommends removal of the US system of checks and balances that protect minority views and avoid poorly developed political stampedes. (Slaughter doesn’t mention or give credence to the more numerous, mature citizenry participating in or supporting the Tea Parties more peaceful protests for more limited government intrusions into Americans’ private lives and earnings.)
R2P’s leading proponent, Anne-Marie Slaughter of Harvard, believes that US foreign policies and military interventions should prioritize the Right To Protect severely repressed peoples through US obeisance to liberal internationalist elites’ sentiments in favor of some they like regardless of the US Constitution or laws or national or security interests.
In today’s New York Times, Slaughter takes her R2P home to the US, advocating that majorities rule regardless of the formal and informal checks and balances of our political system and overriding the rights of political minorities. Again, it is the majorities that liberals like who should be given more powers.
Without any sense of proportionality or of core differences between the US and Middle East satrapies, Slaughter says, “Indeed, the twin drivers of America’s nascent protest movement against the financial sector are injustice and invisibility, the very grievances that drove the Arab Spring.” Slaughter then concludes, “The only effective response is a political response, of a nature and magnitude that convinces protesters on the streets that they can in fact secure the change they seek within, rather than outside, the system.”
Slaughter’s system, however, would reduce the ability of permanent or transitory political minorities to protect their interests. They would, also, further factionalize the US and make compromises more difficult as the power of centrists is reduced.
Slaughter would eliminate the filibuster that ensures that a temporary electoral minority in the US Senate cannot be ridden over roughshod by the majority of the day (which, in the latest 1-vote US Senate Democrat majority vote has – as Politico headlines – put the “Senate in chaos”). Slaughter would install proportional representation, which often result in more unstable governance and unsavory alliances that revolve around access to the public purse and less accountability to any but each faction's die-hards. Slaughter would bar private funding in elections, by which the smaller number of wealthy can counterbalance the votes of the poorer who blithely may support expropriatory programs. (Note: The US Supreme Court has ruled such laws unconstitutional.) In effect, Slaughter supports transitory mob rule, politely of course.
Slaughter ends by commenting, “I am beginning to suspect that people abroad with long experience of disenfranchisement and trampling of their dignity may in fact understand the fissures in our society better than we do ourselves.”
Instead, Slaughter exhibits her liberal elitist view of the US, and demonstrates that she is as extremist in domestic policy as in foreign policy.
What makes me suspect Slaughter and her ilk would be more hesitant to endorse simple majority rule after the 2012 elections?
I was drifting around the TV one weekend back in '94. I blundered across the U.S. Amateur Golf Championship, but, only being interested in the pros, I reached to click the remote.
But, well, the kid was about ready to hit his putt, and it's pretty rude to make any abrupt movements at that point, so I held off on the remote for a sec.
The ball rolled toward the hole a long 30 feet away. It rolled up a slight slope and veered to the left. It rolled up another slope and veered to the right. Then it veered to the left again. It crept right up to the hole...
and dropped in.
That was my introduction to Tiger Woods. I've rarely missed an event he's been in since.
I am not going to sit it out - Brown has been nudging his constituency as far to the center as they can tolerate in MA. Maybe further. I give him credit for that.
“Barack Obama is a bigger disaster to this country than 9-11. If you took the phrase ‘fair share’ ‘millionaires and billionaires’ and ‘pass this bill’ out of his vocabulary he would be unable to deliver a speech… The American people developed a fighting spirit after 9-11 and we responded back after them. And if allowed to defeat would be total. But, Barack Obama, what he has done to our economy, what he has done to the American spirit of individual responsibility and self-reliance… Killing three thousand people is a tragedy, Sean. It is a real tragedy. But, killing the individualism, the self-reliance, and the self respect of the American people like Barack Obama has done is much more of a tragedy.”
It’s all very odd. Obama is acting as if his approval ratings are in the mid-60s instead of the low 40s. He’s acting as if Republicans fear him instead of Democrats like Senator Claire McCaskill, who no longer want to be seen with him. The president is acting like his agenda is popular rather than radioactive. He’s acting as if the public still cares what he thinks rather than having tuned him out long ago. And he’s acting as if Republicans will feel compelled to justify their opposition to this singularly inept chief executive and his failing presidency.
Obama is once again trying to weave a narrative that is utterly detached from the real world. From time to time my son does the same thing.
If you look at methods alone, there isn't a huge difference between the Wall Street protests and the Tea Party protests. They have very different values, different demands, and different bases of support. But both utilize the First Amendment as a means of making their point.
The Wall Streeters are more rowdy, and as a result have seen quite a bit of police involvement. There have been far fewer arrests at individual Tea Party events. Some of the Wall Street arrests and the overly physical nature of the police are unnecessary. But there is little doubt the Wall Streeters are far more provocative and looking to antagonize the police, given the nature of the agitators involved. We've seen them before. They know the best way to get on TV is to create a scene, and they are good at doing it. Is it a surprise so much of the 'police violence' is being caught on video? They are planning to get this on video by initiating events which will lead to the use of violence, even at moments when the police probably should show more restraint.
So why does Obama view one set of protestors an "expression of frustration", while the other is "misidentifying sort of who the culprits are"? Both are viable protests, seeking to make points and be heard. From that standpoint, both are worthy of having Obama's full attention. But no, one has been formally rejected by the "vast majority" of Americans.
To be clear, there is no reason to prevent either group from gathering, protesting, or speaking. It's unfair to say one is more legitimate than the other. But for our country's leader to recognize one as more valid than the other is absurd. Particularly when the group which he considers more valid has not made its agenda clear, is only advocating a never ending list of grievances without valid solutions, and is provoking violent activity (some of it, but not all, unwarranted) on the part of the police. Tea Partiers, whether you support or oppose them, have tended to gather peacefully and have made their agenda clear. They support smaller government, lower taxes and they oppose crony capitalism. What's interesting is the two groups share that final point. Where they differ is on solutions.
The Tea Party solves crony capitalism by shrinking government and getting it out of the way. The Wall Street protestors don't have a clear solution, but it's clear increasing the role of government is part of their solution. Increasing that role with politicians 'who care'. In other words, people like them.
The Wall Streeters' world is like Orwell's "Animal Farm", where some people are more equal than others. Their solution, unfortunately, is to keep it that way, but change the people who are more equal.
After watching the Occupy Wall Street movement, however, I've come to realize that Maggie's is just another corporate entity keeping me down, and I am being shortchanged by 
Emitters kindly requested to stop breathing. Image via 
Maurice Sendak 
the nature of the agitators involved. We've seen them before. They know the best way to get on TV is to create a scene, and they are good at doing it. Is it a surprise so much of the 'police violence' is being caught on video? They are planning to get this on video by initiating events which will lead to the use of violence, even at moments when the police probably should show more restraint.