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.
The other day, former Google employee Doug Edwards asked President Obama to please raise my taxes. Edwards has the luxury of being "unemployed by choice." This is a very nice choice to have, one which I wish I had when I was unemployed. Not having the financial wherewithal Mr. Edwards has, it forced me to make some very different choices during my period of unemployment. One of them was not related to raising my taxes at all.
Where Edwards, and Warren Buffett, go off the rails is their assumption that raising their taxes is something they should be allowed to impose on others who may not share their views. If Mr. Edwards has a very good friend who is also making money by selling his stock from "a small startup that did quite well", it's quite possible that friend is happy with his tax rate. Is it fair or right for Mr. Edwards to tell his friend that his taxes should be raised?
More importantly, what is Mr. Edwards doing with his money that he wants the government to have? He pointed to Pell Grants, infrastructure and job training programs as things he considered important and worthy of having his money taxed. We could all agree that infrastructure is in need of improvement. But couldn't Mr. Edwards put his money to better use by setting up scholarships and grants on his own, or becoming an entrepreneur and doing his own job training program by starting a business? Mr. Edwards, I don't want to tell you how to spend your money. After all, it's yours, and I have no right to tell you how it is best used. That's up to you. If you want to pay more taxes, then pay. After all, you can gift money to the government. Nobody's stopping you.
On the other hand, if I had the luxury of Mr. Edwards' position, I'm fairly certain I could set up a scholarship fund and provide money for schools far more efficiently than the government. Why would I want the government to take my money, spend hundreds of thousands of what they collect on bureaucrats who don't add value, and have those people distribute the money to needy school students? There's less money to help the students. Of course, it does become a remarkably inefficient jobs program. I suppose that's the joy. You've been taxed and given several people useless jobs that you could probably do better on your own.
If I had the background that Mr. Edwards has, and lived in the startup capital of the US, I could probably be an entrepreneur. Then my money does several things. It becomes productive, I get to have my own jobs program, and the company and all its employees get taxed. Funny thing about the free market; you can actually be quite effective with your money if you have a good idea.
Mr. Edwards and Buffett aren't asking not for their taxes to be raised, but for everyone's taxes to be raised, and they have missed the very point that not raising taxes creates value if people want it to create value. Edwards and Buffett think the money has to go to the government to be effective. Sadly, the money will produce nothing of value, and the government will only ask for more later after this money is misspent.
Mr. Edwards, the only thing I can think is that you mean well, but you have missed the boat entirely. It would probably be far more useful to everyone if you and your "Patriotic Millionaires for Higher Taxes" set up a Venture Capital Fund or funded some schools in down and out regions of the US. I'm sure all of your "Patriotic Millionaire" friends are very smart and capable people, so one option would help create jobs and taxes, while the other would reduce our reliance on the federal government for handouts. Either way, you get to feel better and we all win.
Because of its near-limitless reach, if fully implemented, ObamaCare will quickly become a political force surpassing even Social Security and Medicare. Once that happens, the only way to win elections will be to promise not to touch government health care. Every politician will have to accept and even endorse issues that are now championed only by the far left.
In so many places citizens are hardly citizens but subjects -- wards of the government, dependent on the state for their housing, their health care, their monthly salaries, their education, even their weekly food baskets. When troubles come, their first thought is not “How can I help myself and my community” but “Hurry up, government, and help me.” In this regard the contrast, say, between the decidedly independent citizens of the American Heartland on one hand and supinely dependent New Orleans could not be greater.
What's that quote about "If politicians don't like the voters, they should elect a new citizenry"? Of course, that's what illegal immigration amounts to.
Students in the ever-expanding roster of official campus victim groups flatter themselves that by attending what is in fact the most caring, protective, and opportunity-rich institution in the history of the world, they are braving unspeakable threats to their ego and even to their physical safety. (Indeed, so desirable is this alleged threatened status that a gender and women’s studies major held a sign during Tuesday’s protest of the bake sale decrying the exclusion of “queer people” from the Republicans’ pricing structure.)
I think we're gonna throw a little Oktoberfest party this year.
Cheap and easy: Get a pile of bratwurst, weisswurst, cole slaw, sauerkraut, applesauce, German mustard, German potato salad, and German pretzels at Costco.
Split the wursts and toss them on the charcoal. Boil some of the weisswurst, and grill some of them. Maybe cook up a pile of potato pancakes.
A random selection of German beers - definitely some weissbrau - and maybe some German wine. German chocolate cake too.
After a few brews, get everybody to do the Chicken Dance.
Dan Kahan of Yale Law School discusses Cultural Cognition and the Challenge of Science Communication.
His lecture is basically about confirmation bias, which he discusses in terms of "cultural cognition."
While he acknowledges that at least some of what he terms "cultural" is in fact psychological (eg a person's fearfulness or curiosity about life) rather than groupthink, it is still an interesting approach to opinion formation.
I get the sense that he thinks people should believe what the experts say. I also think he has a slight case of Asperger's, which makes listening to him an interesting experience. As a Maggie's person, my tendency is to be skeptical about what experts say (which places me in his hierarchical, individualistic categories).
Well, I suppose that, to be up to date, I should say "Working with those to whom one is or becomes attracted."
Guys used to have affairs with their secretaries. Today, there are no secretaries, and women are working in every field from the military to police forces to trading floors. When it was a Man's World, there was less temptation.
It is no surprise that people form attractions and attachments with co-workers - after all, most people spend more time with co-workers than with their spouse and family. Some emotional connection is inevitable.
I won't even bother asking whether you have had this happen to you, because it is universal and frequent. (Years ago, a co-worker of mine told me that he only wanted assistants who were ugly or old, so he would not be distracted.)
My question for our readers, if they wish to be open about this topic, is this:
How do you deal with it when you feel turned on by, attracted to, or in love or lust with a co-worker?
Less gullible. Makes sense to me. The people who preach to me about it know nothing. People who have studied the sciences at higher levels know that most scientific knowledge is never settled. Science is about theories, mostly, tested by observation, and eventually replaced by new theories and new information.
Climate science, in my view, is in its infancy, is overfunded compared with more compelling areas, and will ultimately turn out to be largely irrelevant except to those who study it - and to paleontologists.
As regular readers know, we are skeptical but have some hope that some global warming is happening. Gaia would like it. The next ice age would be quite unpleasant.
Only 17% of American physicians are members. I quit them long ago, over their politics. Like so many foundations and non-profits in America, they were hijacked by Lefties years ago.
The antipathy of physicians for the AMA is not just about money, turf, and guild. It goes way beyond that. However, apparently the AMA's strenuous support of Obamacare (seemingly without understanding any of its implications) has been the final straw.
There is a new breed of young physicians, especially women, who don't mind being employees, having bosses, or working as an agent of the government, but most docs over 40 are not interested in that. In general, docs like autonomy, flexibility, self-direction. Also, they hate paperwork and bureaucracy.
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined.... [T]he powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
This division of labor accords with the venerable principle of subsidiarity, which allocates governmental responsibilities to the lowest levels able to exercise them. The effect is to ensure that governmental decisions most immediately affecting people's lives will be made by officials who are the closest to them and have the most intimate knowledge of the relevant facts and conditions. This design served us so well during the first 150 years of our national existence that the eminent British historian Lord Acton, declared that our constitutional development of federalism "has produced a community more powerful, more prosperous, more intelligent, and more free than any other which the world has seen." Over the years, however, our federal government has engaged in massive raids on the constitutional prerogatives of the states. Today there is virtually no governmental responsibility beyond the reach of federal authority. As a consequence, our nation has been converted into an administrative state overseen by unelected officials who issue regulations that reach into every corner of American life. Few appreciate the extent of this transformation. In 1935, at the outset of the New Deal, the United States Code consisted of a single volume containing 2,275 pages of statutes. Today, it comprises 30 volumes of statutory law. When I was in law school, Title 42, which contains the federal laws relating to public health and welfare, consisted of just 128 pages. Today it contains over 6,200 pages, more than twice as many as the entire body of federal law at the beginning of the New Deal.
Bureaus and agencies issue endless marching orders to administer those federal statutes. By 2010, the Code of Federal Regulations contained over 166,000 pages of detailed, fine-print regulations that have the force of law and affect virtually every aspect of American life.
People have to spend tons of money on lawyers just to know what is in those pages. What a waste. Good for the legal industry, however.
Who would provide public education were it not for gov?
This argument is couched improperly. It can be rephrased as Who will force others to provide for my children’s education that I’m not willing to pay for myself? And for this, you are correct – you need government to do that.
I can hear the rebuttal… But what about the poor? Especially the ones who have a lot of children? Certainly you can’t expect them to shoulder any part of the responsibility for their actions! No, of course not. Government must step in to mitigate the consequences of poor planning and personal irresponsibility. Because without government, the poor would have to rely on friends, family, and charity – none of which can be forced to give as much as some might demand. What would the poor (or rich for that matter) do if they had to face the consequences of their own actions? That would just be horrible.
"... staff should be prepared to be economical with the truth when asked by pupils what their favourite colour is and, in the interests of good race relations, answer “black” or “brown”.
If I told patients that their records would be electronically accessible, I doubt anyone would speak openly with me. For that same reason, I keep very minimal paper records. My field of medicine is a little different, however.
Along with ordinary aerobics, this is all anybody needs to keep the lower bones and muscles fit for vigorous living.
Feel the burn: Squats and lunges, done properly. I just do them during spare minutes in my day, around 5 sets of each until it hurts too much. It's no big workout, but, like hitting your head with a hammer, it feels good when you stop.
With all due respect to the Bible and to Shakespeare, I say that it is obviously acceptable in casual and conversational English, and in poetic English, but not in formal English, and the same goes for run-on sentences.
America does run on Dunkin', as does Maggie's HQ. Mediocre coffee but good caffeine - and always a great ambience.
"Let's Take a Traditional City Break 4: Many Variations, One Theme." New World Economics likes The Old Urbanist (as do we) - and posted some dynamite urban street scenes
If you can remember only one fact, make it this one: The middle class (middle quintile) pays 14.1 percent of its income in federal taxes, while the rich (top tenth of one percent of the population) pay 30.4 percent.
"Nearly 16,000 migrated to California, while 10,000 moved to New Jersey, 8000 to New York, and 8000 to other American states," according to Gabriel. "Around 14,000 left to Australia, 17,000 to Canada, and 20,000 settled in the Netherlands, Italy, England, Austria, Germany and France."
Here's something you don't have in common with 10,873 other supporters of this movement who tell us they live in Connecticut.
That many of your neighbors have decided to own a piece of this campaign by making a donation of whatever they could afford. For some, that meant just $5. For others, it meant $100 or more. But each had their own personal reason for giving.
Our records show that you aren't one of the 10,873 people in your state who have stepped up for 2012. Now's your chance to change that.
Here's why you should join your neighbors in supporting this campaign: We've been running the numbers, and with hundreds of thousands of individual donors across the country -- we are now well on our way to a million people.
In the 2008 campaign, it took us more than a year to reach that milestone. This time around, we could cross it as soon as October -- just six months after the launch of the campaign.
Between now and then, we have an important fundraising deadline.
Our opponents have significant operations on the ground in key battleground states, full-time candidates without day jobs, and a lot of media attention to fuel their campaigns.
President Obama has you. And when you're building a grassroots organization from the bottom up, the first person gets the next one involved. And the first 10,873 provide the foundation and inspiration for the next 10,873.
Support the campaign before the deadline, and bring us closer to one million donors -- give $3 today:
Attended a wonderful Chopin recital last night, perfomed by Benjamin Hochman.
Among other pieces, he performed Chopin's Barcarolle, Op 60. It's a mind-blowingly charming piece, and there is something about the relatively-rare key of F# Major that works for me.
It is? What kind of "love"? What did Lennon/McCarthy mean, and who made them experts?
Our link yesterday morning from F- Feelings was excellent: Love Slaves. "The bad news is that most love won’t work, and you’ve got to leave it alone when you know it won’t."
If we let emotion control our lives, we are animals. If we let reason control our lives, we are robots.
There are more kinds of love than the Eskimos have (proverbially) kinds of snow. I once tried to make a list, and gave up. People vary enormously in their needs or wants for all of those sorts of need, desire, addiction, and attachment.
The people don't owe Warren and her vast government machine anything. She owes it to them.
For over a century, the public has paid far more into government than it has received back in benefits. That extra money has gone to people like Warren. It has gone into the entire rotten machinery of crony capitalism, welfare state machine politics and massive bureaucracy. So let's be clear about this. We don't owe Warren and her ilk anything. She owes us.
When Jimmy Hoffa threatens the non-unionists, one imagines that Detroit is building better, safer, more reliable cars at a better price and has for decades. When Barack Obama urges the Black Caucus to march for equality, and adopts the cadences and pose of a 1960 civil rights leader, one would think the right wing in Florida just picked Bull Connor, not Herman Cain, as their straw poll winner. When the third-generation, hip spokesman for La Raza talks about inequality, one would think she herself just crossed the border from Oaxaca, forced to flee a benevolent Mexico to work in the pits of an American Mordor.
The other day, former Google employee Doug Edwards asked President Obama to 
Our poll yesterday about workplace romance generated interesting comments. Thanks, readers.
Well, I suppose that, to be up to date, I should say "Working with those to whom one is or becomes attracted." 
Today's toon via 
