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.
Policy think tanks across the country have analyzed the finding of Maine’s experiment and have called on their state governments to follow suit. Some even heralded the program as a model for the nation. The problem facing many action oriented states come from restrictions put in place by the federal system. While the Republican lead welfare reform of the 90s did a great deal to push welfare to the state level, it also left a great deal to be desired.
To function as independent bodies, as the federal system intends, and better serve their most vulnerable citizens’ states ought to have greater freedom to experiment with welfare reforms. Congress could act to give states a greater say in how welfare is implemented within their borders if reform is to be both helpful to those in need and sustainable.
It's an optimistic article. However, there are really no solutions. Modern societies will always have populations who will not or can not function very well. As far as the guaranteed government income idea goes, forget it. People too low-functioning to hold a job probably could not handle money well. The only thing that saddens me about American state and federal welfare programs are the numbers of potentially-functional people who settle for life on the dole and/or the underground economy instead of a life of dignity and self-reliance.
Because it is so interesting and intelligent. I do not always agree with him but he is a darn good speaker. Good explanation of the Trump phenomenon. Stay for the questions at the end.
Living in the NYC area, I have plenty of wacky Progressive friends. They are really wacky these days. Of course, my Republican friends can be just as nutty, at times. It all depends on what you're discussing, though this should go without saying.
What's really crazy, though, is how one Progressive friend mentioned to me that polarization has reached "fever pitch" and the basis of her comment was the recent Congressional shooting. I shrugged and said it had been at that level for 24 years, really, and she'd simply chosen not to notice. Now that she's energized politically, it matters to her. No, no, no, she replied, that can't be it. It most certainly is.
All my Progressive friends are members of the #Resist movement. I am not a Trump supporter, but I'm not suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome, either. He's had mixed results so far. Nothing outlandish, nothing crazy. I think he's accomplished quite a bit (both better and worse) for not passing a single piece of major legislation. His bluster and hyperbole bug me, but that's just talk and Tweets. I've seen and heard worse from regular politicians. Yet it's these words that set off the #Resist people. They go bonkers over every little thing! It's fascinating.
I can't say I agree with the conclusions drawn by this Harvard Business Review article. If office politics are only about influence, the premise is that being political is actually beneficial.
I see a significant difference between being social and being political.
"The truth is that just being a member of an organization is a political act. And in fact, we must influence people at work all the time. It’s how we get things done. And to influence, we must have power, the real currency in workplaces. "
Is that really true? Did I join a fraternity to be political and gain power and influence? Did my joining mean there were political implications? As a member of my church, is membership political? And to influence, must we have power? I have always been taught that influence is not power, but access to, and ability to, inform and shift power.
I can see how these memberships can morph into political alliances or positions, but they are not inherently political, we don't necessarily join social groups for political reasons (though I know plenty of people who joined country clubs for political reasons).
We have too many sociologists, psychologists and anthropologists over-analyzing behaviors and assigning them improper value. I completely understand the value and benefit of good work socialization. We need to maintain relationships and behaviors to not just garner influence, but to just to get jobs done effectively. But the maintenance isn't in itself political, most often (certainly in my case) it's genuine, sincere and geared toward generating productive and useful outcomes.
My perspective is that it becomes political when it is self-serving or guided by less than sincere or honest motives. When subterfuge, dissemination of false or bad information, and exclusion take place it becomes political. The author tries to differentiate these behaviors as Machiavellian, anathema to proper behavior in an office. Certainly they are - but they are far too common, particularly in large organizations, simply because people can get away with it. By lumping good social action in with political behavior, this author does employees a disservice.
Peterson, for one thing, has a knack for framing large topics. That is a job of a teacher (or a preacher). He offers the listener a big frame, a map, in which to fill in the details. That is something which is difficult to do on one's own without expertise.
In my career as a student, I had a couple of History teachers and profs who never set the frame: Battle of Thermopylae? What, when why, how, and why should I care? Plenty of reasons to be interested, but it wasn't told so it was disembodied information.
Peterson's hypomanic lectures teach Psychology, Anthropology, Politics, Religion, Mythology, History - they are interdisciplinary explosions. It's all from the tragic, fierce, fact-facing view of the world.
With things around now like The Great Courses, and Peterson, for examples, any curious person in the world can get a high-level university education if they want it. Cliche though it is, a formal education is just a door to further learning for those who want it.
We'll continue to post Peterson's explosions, and to urge our readers to try out some of The Great Courses as alternatives to TV.
In this piece, he focuses on IQ as a limiting factor in pursuing goals, but makes the more important point that personality factors are likely more important in life choices and career success. Unfortunately, he ignores certain factors, like passion and interest but this is just a short segment.
I have seen a number of articles this morning about Macron's win. At least two were about how France is better than Britain and/or the US. However much satire is involved, and certainly Andy Borowitz believes himself to be a satirist, there is one problem with the concept (which Borowitz fervently believes is true) being promoted. That problem is Obama.
After all, both four and eight years ago, the US was so darn progressive and ahead of the curve. In such a short period of time, we've become mind-numbingly idiotic, to believe the press. This only happens when a non-Democrat is elected (I hesitate to say Republican because I really don't consider Trump a Republican in any traditional sense). Remember when Bush was elected, and re-elected? We were stupid then, as well.
Whether Macron is good for France or not remains to be seen, and is of little interest because it's France. They've hitched their wagon to losing causes far too many times to trust their instincts (for clarity, since Progressives have a problem with it, this statement was satire). For now, the Left is hailing his victory as the Waterloo of far-right politics. That's hard to support, since Macron is hardly a darling of the Left. Besides, even many policies which have been deemed 'far-right' could just as easily be labeled Leftist (traditionally, anti-immigration, closed-border, and protectionist views have been domains of the Left. It is only recently that they've been furiously adopted by the Right).
Justice Brandeis notwithstanding, progressives have never been content to “experiment” at the local level and be judged by the results. In every way they can, they seek to push all policy decisions to the national level. There, with only the meager voting power to constrain them, they can impose their one-size-fits-all, “comprehensive” policies on everyone. They even hound those individuals and companies who seek to exit the jurisdiction of the United States for freer pastures elsewhere.
The last few months, since the shocking (to some) result of the election, traditional news media has been blaring about 'fake news'. I'm really not sure what fake news is. CBS News says each morning, in their intro and promotions, that they are 'real news' (though I've seen quite a bit that I'd call fake on their network). I've had people try and explain what it is to me, and there are examples of stuff that is clearly fake, but applying a definition to what it is? Unavailable. You pretty much know it when you see it, like porn.
So who gets to make the decision about what is truly 'fake news'? I know it when I see it, and every individual should have that right to decide. As I tell my friends, I apply Occam's Razor to everything I see and read. If it doesn't look or smell right, then it's probably fake and more digging needs to be done. Few people take the time or effort, anymore. So our government wants to do it for us. The politicians, at least, want to promote the concept that someone should be doing it for us. So guess what? They are. It's my view that Google's announcement last week to use algorithms to flesh out 'fake news' is going to be their Waterloo. Algorithms can't tell people what to read, what to believe, and can't discern truth from falsehood. All algorithms can do is push an agenda from those controlling the algorithm. So we'll be spoon fed pablum as real news seekers are cast aside as non-traditional sources or 'extremist' or having some other epithet applied to lower their score on the algorithm.
We may not have a Ministry of Truth, but lots of countries are trying to. If progress and opportunity slow and die in the coming years, the 'fake news' reaction will be why. After all, one clear case of how this is a problem is Man-Made ManBearPig Global Warming/Climate Change. Any site posting legitimate data and information which rebuts the Global Warming/Climate Change agenda will undoubtedly be labelled 'fake news'. From this point forward, any other opinion deemed 'incorrect' will fail the test and we can see where this algorithm will deprive people of good information.
This is a rant. If you think government works for the people, you may not want to read this. If you know government is essentially a means for legal theft, read on. I have just gone through a mind-numbing process which has left me absolutely cold and more determinedly Libertarian. Shrink the government, and shrink it fast. Don't worry about the process. Just time to get rid of the stupid, inefficient and idiotic things it does.
When my son was born, a friend bought a single share of Disney stock for him. Today, that would be slightly more than 3 (3.04) shares. At today's price, that represents $339.
When my son graduated from college, he began to pull together all his savings bonds, gifts, and various financial instruments to see what was at his disposal. Sadly, he couldn't get the stock. It had been taken by the state of NJ in 2012. Presumably because the corporation had had no contact with me for over 5 years. Which is strange. I contacted the corporate offices and they had my name, address, email, and phone number. All of the correct information.
I never received any notifications of escheatment, never received any kind of warning from the shareholder office or the state.
What is even more galling is what happened after escheatment. NJ law stipulates after 1 year any financial instruments are to be sold. This meant the state was now holding about $220 in my son's unclaimed property, rather than the stock itself.
It's amazing to me that the state will have no problem finding me in 10 days to take my taxes. But when they take my property, they won't lift a finger to find me.
In fact, that's literally what the two brainless bureaucrats at Unclaimed Property Administration said to me. The state does nothing, outside of advertise in newspapers and the web, to contact people whose property they are holding. Here's the kicker. I was told the stock was sold in 2013, but the advertisement wasn't made until 2014. In other words, they held it for 2 years before even letting the world know they held it. So there was no way we were getting the stock back.
I can point fingers at the corporate shareholder office for not trying hard enough. They certainly didn't. But they would, presumably, keep trying unless the law steps in. The law did, in fact, step in and once its process started, nothing was done to assist in 'finding' me. The state, which presumably has greater resources to contact me when they want my taxes, didn't lift a finger to find me. The response from the unclaimed property division is that they have no relationship with the tax division. Of course not. That would actually require intelligence.
My son is only out $110, so this isn't the end of the world. As a big picture example of how useless government is, though - this is a classic example.
Closely examining how the 11 percent decline of middle-income families was distributed between the upper- and lower-income categories, he points out that not only did 7 percent move into the upper-income group, but that Hispanic immigrants accounted for three-quarters of the 4 percent that enlarged the lower-income category. Absent the influx of lower-skilled immigrants between 1971 and 2015, the share of middle-class households in the American population would have experienced only a 1 percent shift downward at the same time as the number of upper-income families increased by 7 percent. In other words, middle-class people did not so much experience a downward shift as immigrants enlarged the data set. And for many if not most of these immigrants, gaining a foothold in the lower-income group represented a significant economic step upward compared to their position before coming to the United States.
Something similar has happened with education, I think.
So medical "insurance" is no longer true insurance except at the catastrophic end. If the old model was Major Medical insurance against catastrophe, the new model is more of a medical payment system. That has changed everything.
Duh. It's Tammany Hall writ large. It's a shame in a place like America but, at one point or another, almost anybody can be a Gimme Voter. Dems have persuaded people, over the years, that there is nothing shameful or undignified about getting stuff for free.
Federal failure is a critical issue because the government controls so many aspects of our lives. Federal spending represents more than one-fifth of the nation's economic output, and federal regulations infiltrate many state, local, and private activities. When the government fails, it can create widespread harm. This essay examines structural features of the executive branch that are generating frequent failures in federal policies.
"Force is among the most simple-minded, and hence primitive and unrefined, reactions that we hairless apes resort to. And it is nothing less than sadly astonishing that some of the most prominent enemies of peaceful commerce and voluntary cooperation have become known as “Progressives.” “Progressives'” first and overriding instinct whenever they encounter some economic or social situation that they disapprove of is to forcibly push, pull, demand, and prohibit individuals who are going peacefully about their own business to behave in ways that “Progressives” have divined is best."
About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern.
But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final.
No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.
Part 1 by Dr. Norman Doidge is thorough and smart but a bit dull. His error, I think, is in missing a crucial component of the Speech and Thought Police which is their destructive rage and desire for control. In a sense, he gives them too much credit for genuineness. Believe me, they are not hurt when they claim victimhood. They are victimizing.
If you only have a little time, skip Doidge. Prof. Peterson is a fascinating speaker and is able to identify human evil. He has been victimized and he is pissed and passionate. This is dynamite and I urge all of our readers to listen:
Doubtful. There are 60,000 pages of federal administrative law. Nobody knows those laws because it would be impossible, but they can nail you if you break one. Not only that, but Congress not only never passed those details of the laws, but has no control of them either. UNDERSTANDING THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE.
Reynolds asks the right question: Would the Left be so gung-ho about a "Living Constitution" if conservative activists controlled the Supreme Court? Discussed at Althouse.
A "living Constitution" just means the politics du jour which can bend with the winds.
Living in the NYC area, I have plenty of wacky Progressive friends. They are really wacky these days. Of course, my Republican friends can be just as nutty, at times. It all depends on what you're discussing, though this should go without saying.
At Zero Hedge, 
The last few months, since the shocking (to some) result of the election, traditional news media has been blaring about 'fake news'. I'm really not sure what fake news is. CBS News says each morning, in their intro and promotions, that they are 'real news' (though I've seen quite a bit that I'd call fake on their network). I've had people try and explain what it is to me, and there are examples of stuff that is clearly fake, but applying a definition to what it is? Unavailable. You pretty much know it when you see it, like porn.