Maggie's Farm

I have no idea how anything at the University of Missouri ever gets done.  It's pretty clear this is a campus held hostage by a few entitled nitwit students and a few radical professors (some of whom have lost their job).

But I'm at a loss for words when it comes to stuff like this. 

Black pain is not an easy subject to cover, but the lesson we can take from this encounter at Missouri is that our presence as journalists, with the long legacy of criminalizing blackness that comes with it, may trigger the same harmful emotions that led to the students’ protests in the first place.

We have a name for activists who don't want the media around.  They are called fascists.  They seek to impose their views by force, and having media around exposes their sometimes brutal and always childish behavior to the world.  It has nothing to do with sensitivity or "safe space" (what the hell is that?).  It has everything to do with hiding your aggression from visibility.

Now, as the University continues to spin out of control, we're learning that most of the claims were lies.  We're learning the hunger striker is really just an entitled brat.  The football team are just useful idiots, pawns in a bigger game of stupidity, which became apparent when the students sought to separate themselves to create "black only healing space."

I have no doubt these students have grandparents who fought to have schools integrated.  So I'm confused.  Did we come full circle?  Is separate but equal the law of the land, or is separate but equal only in effect if and when a certain group of people say they want it to be in effect?  I'm all for their right to voluntarily segregate themselves, but if they do so they should be aware they are simply making things unequal once again, and they have no standing to ask to be treated equally.

They have created a very arbitrary line.  I think I'll go create my "white only healing space" to sort through my emotions on this, but I have a feeling I'd be called a racist for having that space.  I know these kids are wrong.  It's hard for opinions to be wrong, but when they are, they are usually wrong by a long shot.  In this case there's no question.  These are not students, because they've learned nothing and are acting out on childish impulses.  If the university had a president, I'd think the correct response is to expel each and every one of them.  There's always room for protest on campus, there's always room for freedom of speech.  But there isn't room for lying, misrepresentation, and there's certainly no room for closing one's mind to history and/or the law simply because your emotions were 'triggered'.  Time to grow up, snowflakes. 

The Barrister's post today on whether aid organizations know what they are doing struck a chord with me.  Last week, the non-Nobel Prize (it's not one of the originals, but was funded by Sweden's Central Bank in memory of Alfred) was given to Angus Deaton.

Deaton is well-liked in the community of Economics because he is generally perceived as not having an ideological ax to grind.  In other words, he hasn't spent time justifying one school of thought versus another as many economists, such as Krugman, typically do.  Deaton has spent his time analyzing the reasons for, and solutions to, extreme poverty in the world.  He was not wedded to a school of thought which supported intervention over markets, or vice versa.  

What he found, as a result, is broadly accepted by many different schools of thought, because he plumbed the depths of human behavior, particularly the behavior of the very poor.

In seeking solutions, he did not limit himself to the need for individual endeavor, or simply promote ideas supporting government aid and intervention.  What he found is that inequality was a great driver of behaviors to improve individual position, and promote general progress, as long as there were structures in place to protect individual rights.

 Most overseas development aid, he argues, is a waste and even destructive use of money, and he worries that even some humanitarian aid ends up doing more harm than good.

Deaton is critic of foreign aid, as that line suggests.  His primary thrust, however, is that the world is on the whole wealthier and healthier than it's ever been in history and has the potential to continue getting wealthier and healthier.  He points out there is not a nation on earth where infant mortality has risen since 1950.  The main reason for this, is income growth which is the result of trade and markets.  However, Deaton points out that aid is similar to using an engineering approach to solving a problem.  Pumping money into the 'problem' doesn't solve it.  The solution requires strong institutions to protect rights and activity.

 “Innovators need to be free from the risk of expropriation, functioning law courts are needed to settle disputes and protect patents, and tax rates cannot be too high. When all of these conditions come together— as they have in the United States for a century and a half— we get sustained economic growth and higher living standards.”

Deaton is by no means advocating Laissez-Faire Economics.  He recognized strong judicial institutions supporting individual drive and effort are necessary, or gains are easily lost.  However, he points to the value of trade and markets and the goodwill they spread over a broad swathe of society.  He generally disagrees with Piketty's claim that income inequality is a scourge.  However, he did worry about centralization of undue influence in the realm of politics, since wealth can be used to derive political power. 

 In the United States, in one paper with co-author Darren Lubotsky, he showed that—contrary to deeply held views—income inequality in the U.S. was not linked to higher mortality rates.

 By focusing on how the poor behave, rather than on seeking institutional solutions that adhere to a particular economic theme, Deaton has found ways to help the poor, and has created the potential to completely eliminate extreme poverty (as opposed to the relative poverty we often see positioned here in the US by politicians as reasons to provide assistance) within our lifetime.

Deaton has done a great service to the realm of Economics.  It is a field which often comes under justifiable criticism.  One area of criticism has often been the lack of attention paid to poverty, as opposed to wealth accumulation.  Deaton, in focusing on poverty, has shown that the two are inextricably linked.  Not because wealth accumulation makes others more poor, but because wealth accumulation spreads goodwill to all, if institutions exist to protect individual rights.  But he is critical of the use of intrusive aid and handouts, particularly in environments where individual rights are still lacking. 

Mike Rowe is one of my favorite life commentators.  His program Dirty Jobs was excellent television, not just for his portrayal of the everyday laborer as a hero of modern culture, but because he showed that hard work is its own reward.  He has assiduously avoided taking sides in political debates, though he's made it pretty clear people need to be left to their own devices as much as possible.  Mike is a trained opera singer, who stumbled into television quite by accident via QVC, and has become a bit of an icon, though he tries to distance himself from any kind of hero-worship.  His life advice, I've found, is usually spot-on.  I don't know if he comes up with it himself, but it's all pretty darn good.

 He seems like the kind of guy you would love to have an everyday conversation with, toss back some beer or bourbon, then work with him to replace your septic system.  In no particular order.

He responds to fan mail fairly regularly, and I really enjoyed his post today:

The New York Times just published a 27-point guide on what it means to be a “Modern Man.”  As someone widely regarded as a “Man’s Man,” I’d love to get your take. (Personally, I’m not sure what a “Man’s Man” is, but my wife assures me that you are one.)

Don Phillips

Following up on the previous theme of finding things to do as an empty-nester, we were at the mall recently (the Apple Store to fix an iPad and iPhone which had gone awry) and found a gallery which was selling/showing Salvador Dali etchings from the Argillet Collection.

Christine Argillet is the daughter of Pierre Argillet, one of Dali's patrons.  His relationship with Dali began in 1934 and continued throughout his life.  Christine essentially grew up with Dali, and since Pierre's death has managed one of the largest Dali collections in the world.

I love Dali's work and for my sake my wife suggested we walk in.  The gallery manager viewed the etchings with us, telling stories from previous shows which Christine had attended.  We were invited back for the show (this weekend on Saturday), which I will attend.  A bit later, on the ride home, my wife told me she had no interest in Dali, but knew I enjoyed surrealism, was willing to take a look but I'd likely attend on my own.  That's fine, I spent an hour by myself in the Time Warner Building on Columbus Avenue when they had Dali's work in the lobby.  A lucky find while out walking NYC streets during lunch.

I was lucky that my wife had paid attention as we were leaving the mall.  Empty-nesting is a constant relearning of what brought you together in the first place.  Sometimes you find things one or both enjoy, sometimes you just indulge the other person.  Dali is a great indulgence, particularly on her part.

As an empty-nester, finding activities to fill time is a weekly quest.  The wife and I are in the second year of being home alone (it had been 20 years since we were only a couple, prior to last Fall), and there is always a question of finding interests we both share, or are willing to endure for the sake of the other.

This weekend we determined to go to the movies.  The Martian was playing, and has gotten good reviews.  I like Sci-Fi, she does not, but she likes movies where people save Matt Damon, I guess.  As luck would have it, the showtimes were all sold out.  We then considered The Walk, Robert Zemeckis' dramatization of Philippe Petit's traversing the World Trade Center Towers.  It was in 3-D.  Generally, I don't like 3-D.  We thought maybe this would be a good application of the gimmick. It could be fun to be that close to feeling what Petit felt.  The wife was not as sure, and she had see Man On Wire, the documentary, which I had not seen.  She had enjoyed the documentary and wasn't sure this would do the story justice.  Still, we took the plunge.

If you can deal with 3-D, the movie is relatively true to the story, and told in compelling fashion.  Not being a fan of 3-D, I'd have to say it worked.  My palms were sweating as he crossed the wire.  I flinched twice in scenes which were deliberately shot to make you flinch (knew it was going to happen, but still fell for it).

In what may be the classic example of bad journalism in the field of economics, I offer this example

"In what may go down in history as the textbook example of how dangerous an unregulated free market can be when a company decides it wants to be greedy, Turing Pharmaceuticals of New York hiked the cost of a powerful drug used to treat people with life-threatening illnesses like AIDS and cancer by over 5,000 percent overnight."

The last time I looked, patents were government-protected monopolies.  The benefits of patents are debatable in the discussion of free markets.  Most economists recognize their value as an tool for creating the incentive for innovation.  However, it is recognized as a temporarily assigned privilege.

I don't hold a particular stance on whether or not patents are viable tools.  Unlike Jeffrey Tucker, I'd venture that removing patents altogether would not be good for innovation.  I'm willing to accept his arguments, they do make a great deal of sense, I just don't think they have practical applications (I could be wrong...saying something doesn't have practical application just means it hasn't been tried, so we're wary.  In fact, patents didn't exist for many years and humans still made tremendous innovations without intellectual property rights.)

Since patents are a government rigging of market management (controlling production), perhaps the length of patents should be reduced.  Or perhaps upon the sale of a patent, the protections are eliminated within a shortened time frame.  

Patents are government regulation and an inhibition on markets.  Thus, the government has the means to 'fix' what it broke with patents.  That said, the journalist needs to learn quite a bit about what a free market is.

Late note:  A comment mentions that Daraprim is off-patent and the firm purchased 'exclusive rights', which the journalist failed to look into and assumed was a patent.  I looked into it at lunch, because I'd assume the same thing.  There are no 'exclusive rights' without a patent.  What the firm purchased was the only factory currently making the drug.  There are no 'exclusive rights' at all.  By keeping the price down, the current company was making a profit and reducing competition (which should have, oddly enough, brought it up on anti-trust laws).  But the new owner may make a short term large margin, only to face a competitor who decides to now enter this market and drive prices down.

All in all, the free market is working far better than this journalist ever imagined, even if the short term hit for people is substantial.  My guess is the competition will push the price for the drug far lower than it was previously.

Now that I'm back to an empty nest, there is a greater need to fill time on the weekends.  Which means more relaxation and fun for the wife and me.  We went into the city for a walking tour through Central Park.  I get to walk it whenever I want, since my office is only a block away and lunchtime strolls are normal.  I found out she had never been to Strawberry Fields, so that was a stop along the way.  In addition, we walked through the zoo and saw the seals, the statue of Balto, Literary Walk, The Mall, the statue of Balto, and a host of other sights which require only the time and energy to walk for 2 to 3 hours.

There were two things which I don't see much of, though.  The first was a street show on The Mall.  About 8 young men exhibiting their athleticism, performing gymnastic feats for a crowd they'd assembled.  They must practice a lot, they were all perfectly timed, in great shape, and their sales pitch was hilarious and frequently done in unison.  I was plucked from the crowd, along with 8 other men for a supposed athletic feat.  I had a feeling it was as much a shakedown as it was my being part of the show, and I was right.  I was fine with it, though.  After all, I was part of the show for 15 minutes, and I spent another 15 minutes or so watching them as part of the crowd.  I figure they collected about $400 for all 8 of them after a half hour of work.  Lots of people handing over 10's and 20's.  They aren't earning a living doing this, but it's a good way to fill time and make spare cash.  We enjoyed watching (and being part of) their performance, even if it cost us $20.  I'd have spent more at a comedy club or at the US Open (which I won't be attending for the first time in several years).

Then there was this guy (or gal - not sure), and I realized "walking the park is so much fun...you just never know who you're going to see."  I think I'll leave defining normal to others.  The pumps are a nice touch.

Yesterday's NLRB ruling came as a surprise to nobody but the groups seeking to unionize, and it's not a decision so much as kicking the can.  The NLRB decided it has no jurisdiction in the Northwestern case, but this non-decision has some interesting implications.  While Northwestern, and other state-run universities, won't see players unionize any time soon, the case for unionization can be taken to private universities and did not outright rule against unionization.  The union pushing for this has vowed to try again.

It's widely known that college football and basketball are de facto minor leagues for the NBA and NFL.  But they are not true minor leagues, and while the athletes are not paid in the same fashion as professionals (they are 'amateurs', after all), they are actually paid quite a bit of money.  Most of these payments are utilized at their own discretion, such as getting an education and not just taking Underwater Pottery 101.

At any major school, the education itself carries a cost of $18,000-50,000 a year.  At some elite schools, it could be substantially more.  Very few people in the 18-24 age range earn this much money, let alone are given the opportunity to supplement that 'payment' through the use of educational facilities.  

There are other payments as well.  'Free' food (the players eat substantial portions at the school cafeterias), 'free' living facilities (not always 5-star quality, but I liked my college digs), 'free' health care and fitness facilities, travel to and from games, and the likelihood of a free meal at a host of local bars and restaurants (if you're the big star).  

My neighbor's son is currently playing Wide Receiver at a major northeastern university.  I've spoken with him many times since he's been up there, and he works hard.  His freshman year was a bust, due to pulled hamstring (he tells me the workouts for injured players are harder than for those who are healthy, but you work on other muscle groups that usually go ignored).  To hear his stories, however, you come to realize these young people have a very good lifestyle, even if they are not the rock-star QB.

The NCAA needs reform, no doubt.  College athletics (and education - but that's a completely different matter), in general, needs reform.  I don't think unionization will solve any of these issues, nor will any kind of governmental interference.  It's fair to say these are well-compensated student/athletes (emphasis on athlete) for the level of play they are engaged in.  If the players want to unionize, I really don't have a problem with that.  I suppose if they did and pushed for more 'stuff', they'd find out just how important or unimportant they are (I'm thinking unimportant, at many schools, though not the big-sports ones).

It's also fair to say that, if some people have their way, and these athletes get paid, the Title IX athletics will disappear.  The wide-ranging effects of unionization and paid student-athletes has never truly been investigated.  My guess is the only logical end to this will be to turn major college sports into a true minor league.  For now, however, the NCAA continues to hold sway.

Maybe you read about this today.  Cecil the lion was killed by a dentist who is now in hiding due to death threats from those who 'cared' about Cecil.

 I wish I could care about Cecil the Lion, but as much as I think his killer is a bit of an asshole, I'm more disturbed by the outpouring of death threats he has received.

More to the point, I'm trying to figure out what I'm supposed to be upset about today? The kid whose body they found in the dumpster or a freaking lion who was killed legally (however much the kill was rigged to be legal, and however much of an ass the guy is, it was legal).

Yeah, Cecil is a sad story. Yeah the dentist is probably an idiot. But let's face it - we have a presidential contest about to start and a host of issues here at home that have led us to be concerned about way too much:

1. a moron former first lady who claims she is 'for the people' and gets $600 haircuts, while roping herself off from the people in parades

2. a moron socialist who occasionally says something cool, but is generally an asshole because he wants to pay everyone a minimum of $15 an hour but won't even pay his own staffers that wage - because it's too much.

3. a moron businessman who speaks plainly and pisses people off because running the country isn't the same as running a business.  Yeah, he makes a few good points, but he has no shot at winning and even if he did I wouldn't trust him with my tax dollars.

4. a moron president who is no doubt hoping someone will change laws and allow him to run for a third term (while I'd support changing that law, I don't support him)

5. a bunch of morons trying to ban the Confederate battle flag, but not really caring about the 20 other Confederate flags which were equally "racist" then, but have different meanings today.

6. a bunch of morons who think banning guns is a good idea so they created "gun free zones" which have become kill zones - and they believe this supports their cause!

7. a bunch of morons who think certain words are triggers and should be outlawed because they 'offend'

The list of things I need to care about is endless.  I have to remind myself each day to not offend anyone, to not be myself because someone else may not like what I am or what I stand for, to abide by some of the dumbest laws a nation can devise (and be concerned about others which are certainly headed our way), and generally be sensitive and caring to all people and all animals, all the time, everywhere, no matter what.

I'm pissed off about Cecil. But he's a freaking lion and he's thousands of miles away. There will be more lions, and he's not in my backyard.  But I'm tired of having to care about every little thing that someone thinks is 'important' to them.  I care about me, and my family, and my friends.  I care if they are healthy, and I care if someone is impinging on mine, or their rights.  So yes, I care.  But I really just can't find time in my day to care about Cecil.  Sorry.

When I left for Italy in May, I was aware of a growing pain in my left heel.  Plantar Fasciitis is not something I'm unfamiliar with, I've had an occasional bout in the past.  I powered through 2 weeks of walking and sight-seeing.  The toughest part is always just getting going in the morning.  Sometimes, after a brief sit-down, it can be painful when you stand up.  After 2 months, though, the pain has continued with me.  In the past, I'd just keep doing what I'm doing and eventually it went away.  Youth has its benefits.  At my age, it takes considerably longer to deal with this sort of thing.  I've started stretching my calves and inserted arch supports in all my shoes.  

I've learned that people have all sorts of ways to deal with this.  My aunt suggested rolling my arch on a tomato soup can for 5 minutes every night before bed (haven't tried that yet).  She claims her problems are gone, though she continues this ritual every night just to be sure.

Anyone here suffer from this non-debilitating, but downright bothersome ailment?  Any ideas on how to treat it? 

Times haven't really changed.  But views and perspectives certainly have.

We are in a better economic place today than we were during the Bush/Reagan debate.  Yet, somehow, the conversation has devolved. There is a problem today - but it's the same problem it was 35 years ago.  In fact, the question was about "the problem" of illegal immigration.

We don't need to just welcome them in, but a path to citizenship for those who work hard should be available. 

NBC's dismissal of Trump, last week, was probably not a bad decision, depending on your point of view.  I consider him a blowhard who does not add much meaningful dialogue to the discussion of politics.  He's not a viable candidate for president.  I consider his comments about Mexicans wrong and misguided.  His statements point to many misguided but widely held beliefs about immigration in our country.  Yes, his comments were intolerant.  So what?  Last I checked, that's a perfectly legal trait to have in this nation where we have freedom of speech.  It may not be socially acceptable, though I will not play Thought Police and tell him he can't say these things.  I know plenty of people who share his views, and just as many people who applauded his ouster from NBC on the basis of these views.  I fail to see why these led to his removal, since Chris Matthews and Al Sharpton are still employed by NBC.  Both of these commentators are incredibly biased, and have chosen to be intolerant or racist like Trump.  It's also worth noting how they are exceedingly partisan, without facing the kind of repercussions we've seen for other partisan commentators (I guess you have to be a very special leftist to be accorded this kind of treatment).

So what can be said about Trump's removal?  Not much, really.  NBC has every right to employ whomever they choose.  On that basis alone, Trump's dismissal isn't worth talking about.  What is worth talking about are the reasons NBC used.  Had they said "We do not choose to work with him anymore" or "We really just don't like his comb-over," I doubt many people would pay much attention to this tempest in a teapot.  But they didn't.  NBC called him out for his comments about Mexicans, citing these as the reason for the parting of ways.  It's an odd reason, considering their other employees' stated views.  

Happy Independence Day!  If you're like me, you're with your family and being independent together (h/t to Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer).  

If you're like me, you're probably having hot dogs and hamburgers, potato or macaroni salad, soda or beer, or other kinds of foods which were purchased at a store after being shipped from some other part of the U.S. or even another nation.   

If you're like me, you probably don't spend time worrying about the details of how your food reached your table.  But you may know people, as I do, who think the whole "eat local' idea will save our health and economy.  We have a restaurant here which is excellent, but very expensive, and always booked.  We need to make reservations several months in advance to get a table.   They only serve locally grown foods (I believe it's a 50 mile radius), and it's BYOB (so I guess they're OK with bringing French wine to go with the Jersey Tomatoes).

Normally I don't go in for faddish trends, and I really don't buy the whole "local food" movement.  But this is a good restaurant and just because I don't agree with it doesn't mean I'll avoid a good meal.  Good food is good food.  There are reasons why I don't necessarily think the local food movement is ever going to change how we live, and it certainly is not going to make our lives better.

As this video (45 minutes long - so be prepared) points out, most nations with small farms have economic problems.  This doesn't intrinsically mean small farms are impoverishing those nations, but there's no doubt being a food exporter (and the U.S. is by far the largest) is an indication of economic strength through size.  This video also points out the hypocrisy of our nation's politics and its 'solutions' to perceived problems.  We have deemed some banks "Too Big To Fail" and willingly subsidize their moral hazard, while at the same time pointing to large agricultural firms and saying they are "Too Big To Succeed" and impose excessive regulations on them while subsidizing failing small farms.  So the policy of the U.S. that we subsidize failure, and engage double standards wherever we see fit.

The Jungle is often touted as an example of what would happen if we did not support regulation of the food industry.  Unfortunately, this novel was a work of fiction designed to draw attention to the plight of the working man.  It was the lies of Upton Sinclair about the Chicago Packing District that stick in people's memory, however.  By and large, most food businesses provided healthier foods than smaller firms.  It was in their best interest to do so.  One does not win new consumers by killing or injuring those you have.  In fact, most of these businesses wanted regulation as a means to raise barriers to entry against their smaller competitors, and to prevent foreign foods, which had raised trade barriers, from being too competitive.

Our recent trip to Italy complete, my wife and I began wondering "What's Next?" almost immediately.  On a particularly rainy day, she suggested we watch "The Way" which she had saved on VOD.  I wasn't expecting much, and as movies go I didn't really get much.  It was a pleasant, if not bittersweet, story of a widower coming to grips with the loss of a child who had reached adulthood and passed.

What caught my attention, though I'm not sure if it caught my wife's, was the trail itself.  I was an avid hiker/camper in my youth.  My wife is not.  El Camino is roughly 800 km, or about 500 miles, if started in Roncesvalles, France.  

The history of El Camino is quite lengthy, a pilgrimage which preceded even the Christian era.  With the growth of the Church, and the incorporation of many pagan rituals and groups within the Church itself, El Camino took on new significance as a means of penance.  The attraction of Santiago de Compostela is related to the belief that St. James the Greater's (Santiago)  tomb is in the church at that site.  The belief was, for years, that the path offered an opportunity for penance and spiritual growth, as any pilgrimage seeks to provide.

There were, and to some degree still are, many paths to complete the pilgrimage.  Which is one reason given to the rise of the symbol of El Camino, the scallop shell, with many routes ending at a single point.  Other reasons for the shell include the belief that to 'prove' one completed the trip, a scallop shell was required to be taken as a token.  Scallop shells also happened to provide other traveling purposes, such as acting as a plate for food, or large enough for a small drink of water.  All the stories about the shell relate back to some myths about the arrival of St. James' body to Spain's shores.

One of my degrees from college was in TV/Film Production.  I never used it, but it was a strong interest of mine when I was younger.  I wanted to make documentaries.

Today, the documentary world is full of nonsense.  Outside of Ken Burns, whose work usually captures my eyes and ears, there aren't many documentary works which are interesting at all.  Most documentaries today seem to be paid for by either corporations or left-wing nutjob organizations.  They are more propaganda than documentary.

Which is a shame.  The term documentary used to mean something, and not just mean "telling you a story I'm paid to tell you because it's what my paymasters want."

"Nanook of the North" was one of the first documentaries, and this work comprised at least 3 full classes in one semester of documentary study.  Even then, much was known about how much Robert Flaherty had scripted, rather than actually documenting 'Nanook's' life.  Flaherty defended his position, pointing out the issues a producer has in trying to recreate reality.  As a class, we agreed that Flaherty's limitations, based on the bulkiness of his equipment and limited capacity for being in the right place at the right time, gave him some leeway to play somewhat fast and loose with the generally accepted rules of documentary film-making.  Even so, his work perpetrated and reinforced some stereotypes, rather than helping to inform people about how accustomed to modern life Eskimos really were.

A friend of mine who absolutely loves Obama enjoys sharing little things with friends via Facebook and email.  I've put a few below the fold, though I'm still searching for the one which claims that Obama lowered unemployment, increased the stock market to record highs, and lowered gas prices to recent lows.  That one was a hoot. 

They are factoids which support the concept that Obama is a good, gracious, and successful president despite claims to the otherwise.

By the same token, this same person (and many others like him) continually complain about the 'state of the economy' and how 'corporations are ruining the US' and how we're still plagued with high unemployment and poverty.  

 I suppose they can make the claims they make because they believe if Obama had the full support of the nation and Congress, these things would finally be 'taken care of' and we'd all live in Candyland.

But it doesn't square.  These folk are deluded enough to say the things they say, and make no mistake - none of the facts used are untrue, they are merely out of context and misunderstood by the dopes who use them (to be fair, I've seen plenty of similar stuff by Republicans, and the information used just as poorly).  Yet if things are just so dandy, what else does Obama need to really 'fix'?  That's what I don't understand.  These people are incapable of leaving well enough alone.  Once you've got something working, you don't keep fiddling with it.  That is, if you actually assume the economy is working.  I don't.  It's functioning.  Sort've.  You can't really shut down an economy, it just shifts its activities to more profitable and easier methods.  So yes, the economy continues to function despite the damage Obama has done.  Measurements are just data.  They don't tell you about the health of the economy.  These fools have misconstrued momentary data for meaningful analysis, and completely missed out on the fact that correlation is not causation. 

Based on a request in the comments from my Cinque Terre post, I thought I'd put something together on Lake Trasimeno.  

My visit to the lake was very short, but deliberate.  I had a full day of history in Rome at the Forum, Colosseum, Circus Maximus, and Catacombs.  My family is not fond of 'history' or 'battle' vacations, so I decided the best way to handle this was to pack it into the drive from Florence to Rome.  On that drive, we first stopped at Siena, and spent several hours walking the beautiful streets of this city.  Siena was too short, and worthy of a separate post altogether.  But for me, the visit meant we were only an hour from Lake Trasimeno, which was 15 minutes out of our way on the final ride to Rome.

As a result, it was easy convincing everyone that dad could have one more slice of history pie.  

Along the way, I told the story of Hannibal and the battle, and why it was so significant.  First, it was the largest ambush in history, and remains so.  Second, it was one of the first examples of a military turning movement.  Finally, it was a decisive victory for the Carthaginians, wiping out two entire Roman legions by a factor of at least six Romans to one Carthaginian.  However, some estimates put this ratio at 11 to 1.

Being of limited means while I have two young men attending university, my vacations tend to be rather short or local.  Four days to Florida or Bermuda, maybe bring the wife along on a business trip if it's somewhere nice such as Palm Springs, or perhaps just a staycation.  Our last big vacation was Ireland in 2007, with the boys, for two weeks.  During the intervening period, the wife and I both read City of Falling Angels by John Berendt, a true story of his stay in Venice shortly after the fire which destroyed La Fenice, the opera house.  He detailed the story of Venice, how the city operates, and all the good and bad which goes along with it.  We determined Venice was to be our next big vacation, or at least part of it.  2015 was the year when our frequent flier and hotel points had reached a point we could do this rather inexpensively, so we took advantage.

We are a week returned from two weeks in Italy, during which we visited Rome, took an overnight train to Venice, rented a car and drove to Verona, then Rappallo, stopped in the Cinque Terre, stayed at a Tuscan resort in Barga, spent a day in Lucca, spent an hour in Pisa (which is all you really need, in my opinion) and then finished up with three days in Florence.  On our final drive down to Rome, we spent 3 hours in Siena, then took a 30 minute side trip to Lake Trasimeno (being a history buff, I had to see the battlefield where Hannibal decisively defeated the Romans, losing only 1 man to every 10 of the Romans).

When I returned to the office, the first question most people had was "Which city was your favorite?"  Florence and Venice, obviously, were amazing.  But I'd opt for the Cinque Terre.

While not technically a city, it was far and away the most beautiful and wonderful place we saw.

Both the Romans and the English shared the idea that the law is something to be discovered more than to be enacted and that nobody is so powerful in his society as to be in a position to identify his own will with the law of the land.

~Bruno Leoni

I'm not concerned about Man-Made Climate Change.  It's a tempest in a Progressive teapot.  But some people care, and they really truly believe the government is needed to step in and solve for every 'problem' that doesn't exist.  My point has always been that should Man-Made Climate Change prove real (doubtful, at best), the market would find a means of 'fixing' the problem.

Well, the market has done quite a bit to 'fix' it, already (though even the fixes that currently exist like solar and wind would best be left to the market and have no government subsidies or breaks - the only thing keeping most of these affordable).  But it looks like some forms of "fossil fuel" will remain the fuel of the future...and with good reason.  There is a profit motive to give people a reason to buy some...especially 'green' versions of fossil fuels.

This is not nearly as funny as the Yale vs. North Carolina soccer shoot-out.  But since News Junkie stumbled on Studio C, the group of young comedians who made Scott Sterling famous across the globe,  I thought my fellow farmer would enjoy this skit.  The ending is in his sweet spot.

Shortly after I was born, my father was shipped off by the Navy to live at Subic Bay Naval Station, where I spent the first two years of life.  During that period, my mother took classes in Japanese art.  Our homes, even after we returned to Philadelphia, always had some kind of Japanese artwork on display.  When I bought my first apartment, my sister ound one of my mother's works, had it framed, and delivered it to my home.  It still hangs on the wall of my man-cave in the basement.

I've always had some kind of Asian influence, either art or literature, in my life.  I suppose it's the result of my parents' years in the Philippines and then my father's subsequent time in Micronesia after their divorce.  We children always received some kind of books or other material from his travels.

Recently, my sister commented that she'd taken my mother and half-sister to the Philadelphia Museum of Art to see the Kano Exhibit.  I was jealous, until she told me it was a four-part exhibit due to the nature of the material.  Yesterday, we drove down and joined them for part 2 - Ink and Gold.

A current 'hot topic' among the young and ill-informed (thanks to their heavy dosage of 'news' from The Daily Show and Last Week Tonight) is the belief the IRS should get more money for enforcement.

I have a better idea.  Shut it down and generate taxes via another method.  

I think there are some easier ways to take money by taxing financial transactions, given the size of those markets. 

But even if that isn't going to work, and income taxes remain the main method of tax taking, then funding the IRS is a terrible idea.  The best way to raise revenue isn't to force people to adhere to a difficult and unworkable code that is punitive.  It's to simplify that code and reduce the work.  The idea of increasing enforcement is a 'jobs creation' idea that produces nothing.  Let jobs be created where they add, rather than take, value - in the open market.

To do this, make the income tax low and flat.  You earned $10,000?  Fill out the form on the back of a postcard.  Maybe you have deductions for family members living at home, but beyond that, you pay 10%.  So $10,000, deduct yourself and pay $900.   $250,000, deduct the wife and 3 kids and pay $24,600.  Easy to file, easy to audit, easy to enforce, hard to avoid...lower staff, lower costs, higher collection rates.

It really is that easy.  But again, it's just another good idea that won't pass because people are too caught up in how things have been rather than considering how they can be. 

The title is a real question, I'd like to hear what people think.

Our department was given a briefing on yet another huge company-wide initiative to aggregate and coalesce all data, allowing us to develop relationships across whole departments and sectors of the businesses we run.  It's a tremendous opportunity, and one which is needed if you consider what Facebook and Google are doing with data (among many other firms that have well-developed data management groups).

I had several questions about the project.  For one, was there a revenue impact which was expected to offset the cost, and if so how was it calculated?  What was the timeline for introduction at departmental and company-wide levels?  What were the expectations of the use of the data?  Was it better to implement in a piecemeal fashion, department by department - continuing the current path we are on - or was their top-down approach more efficient and likely to yield better results?  Each question received an answer, sometimes dismissive, which led to more questions.  

I was viewed negatively for my inquisitiveness.  I explained I wasn't opposed to the project, but that I'd seen projects like this many times.  None have worked as expected and most never paid off.  These were not reasons to avoid doing it, but it is good to ask questions and be sure.  I was told to 'trust' the data scientists, none of whom I know, and don't stand in the way.  I acquiesced, and ceased my questions.  Groupthink is a powerful thing.  Data was here to save our business, I was assured.

On the train ride home, I ran into a colleague from another department who is much closer to this project and he told me even more details about the project.  For one, it was the third attempt by this team to implement the 'vision' (so much for trust!).  For another, they were abandoning all the work done in the previous 2 operations and starting from scratch, meaning work which had been done on all the old systems had to be reassessed and either tossed or transferred to newer platforms.  Finally, they'd spent exorbitant sums of money already, to the point that break-even was probably 10 years off, assuming they met their 4 year timeline.  He listened to my questions and nodded, saying they were all the right questions and there was good reason to question the nature and scope of this project.  

Google, Facebook and all the other firms with huge data systems have the benefit of being young and starting from scratch while new technologies were being introduced.  This is how business works, it's part of the process of creative destruction.  The newer companies benefit from untried, but potentially beneficial products, living or dying by their ability to manage and incorporate these ideas and technology.  Older companies have to try and keep up, and many are incapable of doing so.  However, these older firms need to be careful about the implementation.  Data is as much about art as it is about what the data tells us, sometimes less is more.  Sometimes your gut tells you as much as $10mm worth of information does.  I have seen people collect information on months-long projects only to confirm suggestions which were made at the outset.  The delays cost money.  There are rare, very rare, occasions when the data tells us something different.  Sometimes the reason it tells us something different is due to the time delay in collecting the data.  Perhaps this is a form of Heisenberg's Cat played out in the realm of business.

I am a huge believer in collecting and managing data.  My job relies on it.  But as I tell my boss, data and technology are like Stradivarius violins.  You can give me a Stradivarius and I will make awful noise with it.  Give it to a concert violinist, and beautiful music is made.  The same is true of data.  Many data scientists today, I've found, make very basic mistakes in their assumptions about what data tells them.  The most common is the confusion over causation and correlation.  I have had arguments with PhDs over this very issue when they present correlative data without proving the linkage to causation.  

Baseball is a great example of this point.  Sabermetrics have revived and increased my interest in the game.  Yet Sabermetrics have limits.  A cute, sappy movie  Trouble With The Curve illustrates where data intersects with knowledge and experience.  Data can provide support, but it takes experience to know what that data is telling you.

Dr. Joy Bliss recently posted about this issue, as the problem has infected even the realm of medicine and health. 

Data can do many things.  But the last thing it should be used for is policy-making, because data is typically utilized under the 'pretense of knowledge' and applied in a fashion that has unintended consequences.  They may also have politics, which don't benefit you, built in.

Michael Crichton famously warned us of the problem of politicized science and data.  Sadly, many intelligent people remain ignorant of misplaced trust in data, demonizing critics without explaining fully why the critics' logic is flawed.

A company, like the one which employs me, is just as likely to politicize positions.  We call it groupthink.  In my briefing, I was not part of the groupthink.  I enjoy being on the outside.  I may be wrong at times, but when I am, I'm happy to know that I have played the role of Captain Obvious, asking difficult questions in a fashion to open up the thought process further - if it can be opened up further.  Sadly, as I watch what happens in the office, I begin to understand why Progressives remain so prevalent in our society.  They are incapable of moving past groupthink.  If everyone else is doing it, it must be good - right?