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.
I have a very optimistic long-term outlook regarding our society. There are moments, however, which question my resolve. This is one of them.
It's articles like this that remind me Jean Baudrillard was right and I realize this isn't reality. It is an alternate reality, though. It seeks to simulate what the rest of us live. Kanye may feel comfortable calling out people like George W. Bush, or anyone else he doesn't like, but it's pretty clear he hasn't been in touch with reality for a long time.
The real question is why people like this continue to get coverage. My guess is they fear slipping into obscurity, and the best way to avoid it is to be outrageous and 'make news'.
Since real news isn't important to many people anymore, people like Kanye and the Kardashians can continue to dominate. Analysis is meaningless, the only thing important today (and don't think Obama isn't well aware of this) is a good photo, a headline, some Tweets to your peeps, and positive coverage on "The Daily Show" and any other Comedy Central program that purports to 'deliver the news'.
Looks like Thomas Piketty fudged data to make his case. Not all that surprising, since we're familiar with how those on the Left love fudged data (cough, cough, East Anglia, cough).
It's also not surprising that the true believers still think there's value in his 'theoretical framework'.
My son has decided which college to attend in August. Yesterday I received a survey from one of the colleges he turned down. It was a series of questions about his decision, who influenced the decision, and which factors guided him.
It ended with two questions which surprised me. The first was to what degree allowing freshmen to have a car on campus would have altered his decision. I responded "Definitely would have no impact." I see no reason for a car on campus and certainly not freshman year.
The second question was "To what degree did the university's commitment to environmental issues play a role?" I replied "None at all."
Seriously? I know a few wingnuts take this seriously, but frankly I can't understand this devotion to 'environmental issues' I keep seeing at the colleges I visited. It truly is a religion and it's astounding when you consider the improved state of our environment today as opposed to, say, 60 years ago.
I suppose in another 18 years we'll only send kids to schools powered by sun, wind and geothermal energy. The glass, paper and plastic will all be in separated trashcans, every five feet, which are emptied every 20 minutes. Or maybe we're there already.
I know when I want to learn, it must be in the most eco-friendly environment possible and I don't care about the academics, it's all about saving the earth.
I had no idea snails had a preference for handedness, since they have no hands. Apparently they do, however. There's lots of interesting stuff before the final paragraph, where they discuss the issue of dextral or sinistral snails.
Between the Bundy mess, ACA, and a myriad of other issues currently presented to the American citizen, we may be faced with another situation of government overreach very soon.
Is it any surprise the idea emanates from a Democratic Party Think Tank? No, not really. Force and coercion are their stock in trade.
Compulsory voting is a very bad idea. While there is sometimes more than one choice on any ballot, I have definitely felt the need to abstain from voting simply because I didn't like the choices. Furthermore, not voting is a 'vote'. It is an expression of either complacency (I'll accept whatever everyone else wants) or disgust (I have no use for anyone on the ballot). When I abstain, it's always out of disgust.
The right to vote is akin to a right of free expression. In fact, it is free expression. Compulsory voting, as a result, is a violation of your right to free speech.
Chalk this up to the two parties (because while the Republicans would likely oppose it, if it passed they would support it just like they are beginning to give up on repealing the ACA) wanting to make false claims of 'popular support' where none exists, and further increase their choke hold on the voting public.
Very gutsy group of Fifth Graders down in Hurst, TX. Props are due to them for their creativity and the willingness to do this. We showed this to our teens and got shrugs - a typical teen response. I'll hand it to these kids. Beats the hell out of the alternative. Reminded me of the classic SNL Martin Short/Harry Shearer skit. "I'm not...that strong a swimmer."
In time, these houses won't be as ugly and more will be able to be produced in shorter periods of time. I'd expect these innovations to be available soon, too. Say three to five years. Affordable homes are much needed here in the U.S. I expect some entrepreneur here will figure out how to make that work very soon.
I am more intrigued by a 3-D printed home than by the tiny house 'movement'.
Watching Face the Nation now, and they are discussing the Don Sterling racism situation. Which is good, after all, the media has covered Bundy's obtuse behavior, trying to make his racism more important than his legitimate claims of government overreach. Several clips of people, including Obama, speaking out against Sterling's statements, were shown. Some called for the NBA to "do something" to Sterling.
However, the show spent all of maybe 20 seconds discussing Sterling with Dem. Senator Clarie McCaskill before she shifted the discussion to a bill she is working on. I wonder why?
Apparently, the Chinese people who travel to Malaysia are doing so in reduced numbers due to the loss of Malaysian Air Flight 370. When I heard this I thought, "Well, nobody said people are rational."
My initial thinking was that air flight is still safe, so if the issue is safety, that's odd. My wife replied, "It's perfectly rational. They think the Malaysian government has mishandled this and they're punishing the government by not traveling."
At first, I thought this was a good reply, but then I thought again. It's still irrational. For two reasons.
The first is a soft reason. 'Punishing' a government is something we all need to do. Governments very rarely do anything right or useful. One could argue the corruption and mismanagement in China is so pervasive, it would do the Chinese tourists well to fix their own government first. I don't know what they are doing, but given the state of affairs there, one could reasonably argue 'not much'. The same is true here, in the U.S., for us. It's a reasonable point, but it doesn't fully make a strong case for how irrational the Malaysian tourism behavior is.
The second reason is that the tourism isn't really hurting the government. Boycotts real people and businesses and rarely send a message to governments. People and businesses who had nothing to do with the missing plane or the mismanagement of the search are impacted. These people rely on tourists, particularly wealthy Chinese, to maintain themselves and their businesses. While it's true this impacts the Malaysian government in terms of taxes, and it could lead to a reversal for the ruling party in the next election. This may impact the current politicians, but is unlikely to yield any meaningful reform. Most importantly, along these lines, it's not expected to be long-lasting. For any meaningful impact, behavior like this would have to be consistent over time.
In the past, I've been guilty of thinking along similar lines when a foreign government didn't do something I thought was right. Over time, I've learned, assuming the government is the people is the wrong attitude. The two are frequently very different things. Chinese tourists may feel better about themselves by not traveling to Malaysia, but it's odd to think they are having any kind of impact, except on the business owners who rely on the stream of visitors they usually get.
Yikes! A friend of mine forwarded me this video. Not sure if it was a competition, but it seems to be given the spectators and the stunts. This not the kind of mountain biking I do, but I am impressed at the skill and guts. Can you smell the fear? Oh, that's me...
We probably all remember Obama's "You didn't build that" speech. Which, of course, was really lifted from Elizabeth Warren's "You didn't build that" speech, itself lifted from yet someone else whose views helped frame the Occupy Movement.
What is the value of a shot clock in basketball? In terms of keeping the flow and tempo of the game up, it's worth quite a bit. It prevents teams from stalling and keeps fan interest high.
But what is the cost of the shot clock? Is it worth having a clock at all?
Not in certain regions of the country, because the school conferences recognized even something as seemingly inconsequential as a clock may have costs which outweigh their value. It's basic math. Too bad it can't be isn't applied to more policies in our nation.
As a home brewer, I've always considered potentially increasing my output and move into the 'craft' category. However, once you do that, you have to start considering laws, both state and federal, which guide the business. Some laws are left over from Prohibition, and put undue burden on brewers, distillers, or vintners. Still others are new, and some are just crazy.
During a recent lunch, my wife and I were discussing the growth of small distilleries in New York. They are making a comeback because of a change in the law which lowers the fees necessary to be a small output distiller. This has been a job growth engine for the state, while also producing some much needed state revenue. It is a classic example of how less law can increase economic growth and opportunity.
The conversation with my wife, however, revolved around any laws which may exist (and they do, in some states) that limit production to using only agricultural products which are produced in-state. My wife had no problem with this, saying it would grow more jobs. I pointed out any state putting such limitations on distilling or brewing would hurt the economy, because if a distiller wished to use product from another state to start up, he couldn't, and since the law would force him to purchase only in-state product, prices for those products would increase dramatically as more brewers or distillers opened, becoming a prohibitive factor in new business.
I'm all for local-grown product, if that's what you like. But everybody, from consumer to brewmaster to distiller needs to have choices. If I might like a product which is made in one state, but utilizes grain from another, I may never have the opportunity to try it. Laws which limit inputs are, by definition, limiting economic growth. Which is why protectionism is always a bad idea. Limiting opportunity can only limit growth. This concept can be applied across a broad swathe of legislation which seeks to 'create' equality by creating new inequalities.
That said, it is nice to see small pockets of legislators learning "less is more" when it comes to laws and jobs. As for my bourbon, I'm still a fan of Buffalo Trace and Maker's Mark. However, I've tried Widow Jane, out of Brooklyn, and it's quite good. I also received some Hillrock as a gift and it, too, is very good, though the cinnamon aftertaste is a bit different than I've had. Still another recommended Hudson Baby Bourbon, though I haven't tried it yet.
Still looking to try my first Pappy Van Winkle, though.
If you're looking for a new outlet for the absurdity of Progressive Elitism, it's available now. Vox.com is up and the first article caught my eye because the headline was something I agree with 100%. How Politics Makes Us Stupid.
It's a fun read, if you're up for it. Because Ezra Klein spends quite a bit of time discussing how we willingly delude ourselves into wanting to win battles we can't win. The problem, of course, is that Ezra only spends time using examples of topics that are contentious and don't have clear-cut answers. Ezra deludes himself with politics, becoming increasingly stupid through the course of the article, without even noticing it, and using it to create a stance of moral superiority built upon...well, not much.
Strong start with the title. Pretty pathetic follow through. Ezra doesn't spend a moment questioning himself or his beliefs, or how he could have fallen victim to the accusations he lays against others. Furthermore, he doesn't take the time to analyze some critical philosophical points which are more meaningful than the numbers he claims support his view. Choice, to me, outweighs all the perceived (and I'd say non-existent, though I know the math says otherwise) benefits of forced behaviors. I should have the choice to get a vaccine. I should have the choice to own a gun. I should have the choice to own a Hummer. Even if Ezra feels the benefits of forcing me to believe what he believes, and behave as he behaves makes him feel better about society as a whole, I should still have that choic
It's not about the math he employs, it's about the choices I should be permitted to be able to make.
The CEO of Mozilla, Brendan Eich, was forced to step down over a personal belief. This is what our country is coming to. You can't have a belief if it is not in line with that which is approved by the shrieking masses.
It's worth noting his donation has been known about since 2008. It's also worth noting Eich penned a blog post about his donation and how it did not conflict with his position, that his role as CEO was to pursue Mozilla's goals regardless of whether employees agreed with his personal views or not.
This is not enough anymore. As this author notes, your views are meaningful and can play a role in what happens to you. Should they? If I disagree with much of what Donna Shalala supports, should I prevent my child from attending her university even if it's the best place for him to go?
I don't agree with most of Zuckerberg or Gates' political views. I still use their products. I fail to see what led to Eich's ouster. They hired him knowing his views, they may have expected a backlash, but felt they could deal with it. They should have.
I opposed gay marriage legislation, too. Admittedly, for wholly different reasons, since I think gay people have the right to be as miserable as the rest of us married folk. I opposed it because I just don't think government is the proper guarantor of contract, or grantor of right, of marriage. Were Martha and George Washington married? As far as I can tell they were, though not necessarily, because the US government didn't exist when they got married. In fact, government involvement in marriage was originally designed as an exclusionary tool, not an inclusive one. The earliest laws were designed to prevent miscegenation. The easiest way to avoid the discussion is to simply say government shouldn't have passed any laws preventing people who consent to marriage from entering that contract. Since I opposed gay marriage legislation, could I suffer the same fate as Eich? Quite possibly, in our intolerant society, I could, because I don't support laws giving special exceptions to existing laws, I just want to do away with those laws altogether.
Personal views are personal views, and as long as Eich was cognizant of his long-term goals as CEO, and didn't let his personal views impact his treatment or management of people within the organization, then he should have been kept on. Otherwise, his removal is an act of cowardice and shame.
Two weeks ago, I questioned if we were in another bubble based on the (then upcoming) IPO of King Digital Entertainment, makers of the highly addictive Candy Crush game.
Well, the IPO has been launched, the early returns are in and... you can decide on whether we are in a bubble.
Or maybe it's just a Buble and everybody is feeling good...
Necessity isn't the mother of invention, incentives are. Necessity, at times, is an incentive to invent or improve.
Speaking of incentives, is virtue inalienable? Are there situations which can mitigate morally reprehensible behavior? Broadly speaking, I'd say no, not usually. However, context is important and always useful in developing a justifiable opinion about some very specific situations. Along these lines, what represents an unfair advantage in making an exchange? Would the person purchasing this egg be wrong to not disclose information he had about it? After all, we do have laws about not disclosing information about what is being sold.
These same laws should apply to the buyer, should they not?
I'm sure most people say "Advertising doesn't work, I've never bought anything because of advertising." Perhaps, though this ignores the fact that advertising is designed to inform, entertain, draw attention to a product, and drive interest or motivate purchase. It also helps maintain brand loyalty. There are many things advertising cannot do, as well, and one is assure business will be driven to the cash registers, particularly if the advertising is ill-considered.
But this is a good example of how advertising can not only entertain, but co-opt a message which is designed to hurt a business. It may not drive business, but God bless the owner who realized how to turn a bad situation to his favor.
Many people believe corporations and businesses are strong, particularly if they are large and have huge profits (as many car dealers often do). It is my view advertising is proof businesses are weak and competition is intense. Finding new and useful ways to get your message to break through the clutter is good for business. Done poorly, it can annoy, distract, and possibly hurt business. Done well, it can keep your consumer base intact or grow the foundation of purchasers. Or keep your opponents off balance.
A 1965 picture of the psychedelic rock band which eventually became Pink Floyd includes their original lead guitarist, Rado Klose (second from the right). Rado left the band shortly after this picture was taken, before the name change and growth of the band's popularity.
Rado was born in Cambridge in 1945, his father a refugee from Nazi Germany. He was studying architecture and science when he met Syd Barrett and Roger Waters. He joined them, along with Nick Mason and Richard Wright, to perform under a variety of band names. He was less interested in rock, enjoyingjazz and blues. He was also a serious student and chose to leave the band to pursue his studies. He is believed to have been one of their most talented members. Clearly having an artistic streak, he followed his interests into photography.
He became an acclaimed photographer, and some of his work is available online now. His guitar work is available on two recorded tracks which are available, a cover of Slim Harpo's I'm a King Bee and the original Lucy Leave when the band was called The Tea Set. These often appear on Pink Floyd bootlegs. Klose remained close to his friends in the music community, occasionally working on some albums in the 2000's.
My wife and I watched "Philomena" last night. It's an excellent film with top-notch acting, an engaging story and poignant humor.
The story lays bare difficulties which face humanity on many physical and spiritual levels - love, anger, acceptance and forgiveness.
I was displeased with Stephen Frears' generalized and broad attacks on the Catholic faith. While I'm not a regular practitioner, I am certain I have a better understanding than he does of what it means to be, and act, Catholic.
His broadsides against the Church and God should have been directed at individuals within the Church itself, or the misunderstandings of the nature of God. Instead he engaged a series of stereotypical and repetitive misconceptions which are common. His most egregious being a comparison of God to terrorists by discussing how many people died in an earthquake in Turkey. Getting past this requires an understanding this is a critical part of developing the story, however acidic the commentary employed.
To Frears' film-making credit, Philomena comes across as a truly great person - devout, loving, and understanding what being Catholic really means, despite having had to deal with great tragedy and hardship. Her difficulties often were by the hand of individuals who called themselves tools of God.
She epitomizes all that is good and right in the human condition - making few demands of anybody, finding great joy in life, and forgiving those who wronged her, intentionally or otherwise. She recognizes her shortcomings and errors, and accepts them for what they are. She pushes on through life bravely, assured in her relationship with God and her faith. As Stephen Frears' character attempts to snarkily put her down, her 'ignorance' instead puts him in his place and he comes to learn that despite being a respected public personality with a broad arc of learning, he still has much to learn from people he holds in low regard.
I recommend this film, because it is great in many ways, and has only one very bad flaw that is necessary to the story, yet is overcome by the uplifting nature of the main character.
