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 refuse to eat or buy anything with an "organic" label. It's just stupid, Gwyneth Paltrow stupid. Well, I have smoked some organic weed, but only when the good stuff wasn't available and, anyway, I didn't inhale it - and it didn't make me stupid enough to want Ben & Jerry's.
Rise and Fall of the Pocket Protector - Designed to keep shirts clean and tools handy, this ubiquitous invention declined into a social stigma but rebounded as a symbol of nerd pride
When Doctors Ignore ‘Do Not Resuscitate’ Orders - Over 88 percent of physicians don’t want to be kept alive in a situation where doing so only prolongs their existence. So why aren’t they listening to patients who ask for the same?
At Maggie's Farm, we believe that politics has become too important in life because government has become too large and powerful. Perhaps it has always seemed thus to regular people, through all history.
It's a provocative article, and I'm not sure that I agree with it. It makes it sound as if people were nothing but victims of the "powerful." Today, as in the past, people have to construct their own lives. It must be true, though, that there are fewer "good, steady jobs" in the US for the semi-skilled (factories, farms, offices) than there once were. Most people do not aspire to a big career, just honest work and a nice family life.
There is something deeply wrong with all of this domestic spying. America is not China or North Korea. Are we supposed to love our government? What's going on?
Can somebody explain to me why it so much resembles the global warming crisis graph? H.L. Mencken claimed that governments create a sense of crisis to justify their existence and their growing powers.
Critics suggested not only that I be fired for my views but that I should be prosecuted for them, and that the government should ensure that such views are not published. Live-and-let-live is not the Left’s way, never has been, and never will be. It is not sufficient that transsexuals should be free to act on their delusions — the rest of us are expected to participate in them with unreserved enthusiasm, and the Left is willing to use the state to compel us to do so. To simply believe otherwise and to share those views in print is in the minds of many on the Left not only a social transgression but something that should be a crime. The belief that members of minority political tendencies should be jailed for their views is very much in vogue for the Left at the moment. Democrats in the Senate are seeking to repeal the First Amendment. All of us — conservatives and whatever traditional liberals there still may be on the left side of the spectrum — should fully appreciate the sobering fact that there is a nascent, popular, authoritarian movement among members of the Left that supports everything from censorship to literal, non-metaphorical gulags in which to imprison people for their political beliefs.
It's necessary to be fearless in the face of these jerks and lunatics. On further thought, "fearless" is not the word. The right approach is mockery, not courage.
...liberty is not an economic good, but an existential one. The economic good is a mere bonus. The argument that liberty is good for economic activity or for growth of the system feels lowly and commercial (an argument used by consequentialists). If you were a wild animal, would you elect to be in a zoo because the economy is better over there than in the wild? Liberty is my raison d’être.
Like many if not most medical students, I spent some time at the VA hospital attached to the school. I did a thoracic surgery rotation and a psychiatry rotation there, at least. Also worked in their ER, which was inexplicably and redundantly separate from the general hospital's ER a block away.
The joint medical school-VA staff there were wonderful and more practically-minded than the full-time academics and researchers at the med school. They let us do things and procedures which the regular med center would never have let us do, and that was good experience. The patients, mostly WW 2 and Korea vets, but some Vietnam vets (they were still youthful and healthy then) were poor, on the whole, lacking in financial and overall life resources. There were plenty of veterans admitted to the regular medical center too but, at the time, I had no interest in how these systems worked.
Now I understand the the VA is plain old government medicine. Here's Charles Krauthammer, MD:
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: If you are non-ideological, if you brought in some experts and say how do you attack the problem right now? You give everybody on the list a voucher to go anywhere they want and they'll get their care within days. And if the budget won't hold it, then you do a separate appropriation. I can't see anybody in Congress who would oppose that. However, as you point out, this administration has been arguing for five years that the government knows best, it should allocate resources, and we won't even think of this.
And for the long-run, I think the question is this -- you know, this was started by Abraham Lincoln after the Civil War and at the time it made sense. But now that the country is so much larger, medicine is so much dispersed in areas of the country where there are other expertise. The budget for the VA is $85 billion a year, the number of patients is 6.5 [million] or so. Do the math. That's almost $10,000 a year per patient.
Why not have each of those vets get a voucher for $10,000 to purchase private insurance and to go anywhere? But of course an administration like this would never even contemplate that. But it is a question. If these problems are systemic and chronic, and they are from the bureaucrat structure of a government-run system, why wouldn't you contemplate voucherizing and privatizing it?
WHEN will The People finally realize that the Veterans Administration is National Health -- what you get when the government runs a healthcare system? Its shabby service and uninterested administration are followed every decade or so by a scandal and the resignation of an administrator or two. Doctors in private practice must build their reputations for quality service, and then their incomes will follow. Doctors in national health are secure in their income, and indifferent to their reputations. When will we ever learn such a simple lesson?
My nonprofit for schoolteachers, Stossel in the Classroom, offers free videos that introduce students to economics. This year, we ran an essay contest inviting students to write on the topic "Food Nannies: Who Decides What You Eat?"
I was happy to see that many students understood that this debate is about more than safety. It's really about freedom. Sixteen-year-old Caroline Clausen won $1,000 for her essay, which contained this sarcastic passage: "Congress shall have the power to regulate the mixing, baking, serving, labeling, selling and consumption of food. Did James Madison's secretary forget to copy this provision into the Constitution?"
All modern presidents of both parties have been too much with us. Talking incessantly, they have put politics unhealthily at the center of America’s consciousness.
George, they have put government unhealthily at the center of American life
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'.
Our political discourse assumes, sometimes implicitly but often explicitly, that there exists a predictable, linear, straightforward relationship between the formal enactment of a given policy and the real-world outcomes that will be experienced as a result of it. This is a convenient fiction, and sometimes even the authors of that fiction roll their eyes at their own work, as when the Congressional Budget Office scored the Affordable Care Act and then added the caveat that its analysts did not believe that the policy would be implemented the way the law’s authors intended and the White House promised, thereby communicating that its report should be consumed only in saline solution.
Politics is mostly words about words, but it has real-world consequences, and death is not an uncommon one. The truth, which in Washington is an unspeakable truth, is that almost the entirety of our conversation about politics is predicated on a fundamental error in our understanding of reality. Unlike a certain Entity with Whom presidents and senators sometimes seem to confuse themselves, politicians cannot speak reality into being. (“Let there be . . . health care.”) The situation at the VA should not surprise us; what did we expect, having no way of even knowing what we should have expected? This outcome was at least as likely as any other, and certainly more likely than one in which reality matched policy through some obscure divine office unknown to us.
...climate scientists are trying to create some kind of weird world where model results have some sort of independent reality, where in fact the model results should be trusted over measurements when the two diverge. If this is science -- which it is not -- but if it were, then I would be anti-science.
Once upon a time, a friend of mine accidentally took over thousands of computers. He had found a vulnerability in a piece of software and started playing with it. In the process, he figured out how to get total administration access over a network. He put it in a script, and ran it to see what would happen, then went to bed for about four hours. Next morning on the way to work he checked on it, and discovered he was now lord and master of about 50,000 computers. After nearly vomiting in fear he killed the whole thing and deleted all the files associated with it. In the end he said he threw the hard drive into a bonfire. I can’t tell you who he is because he doesn’t want to go to Federal prison, which is what could have happened if he’d told anyone that could do anything about the bug he’d found. Did that bug get fixed? Probably eventually, but not by my friend. This story isn’t extraordinary at all. Spend much time in the hacker and security scene, you’ll hear stories like this and worse.
Down Under, the Immigration "Rules Have Changed"; "Anyone seeking to illegally enter Australia … will never make Australia home
Making School Lunches Healthier Doesn't Mean Kids Will Eat Them - A new study found that less than half of students took a vegetable from the lunch line and ate some of it.
1st-Grader Accidentally Brings Toy Gun To School, 
VDH: 
Update 
Warning label for 
A book: 
Dallas Willard's
I forget where I found that image (ok, reader reminds that it was our friend 
The good news for today: