Thursday, February 5. 2009
 In a way it's surprising that even one European Dark Ages manuscript survived, but in another way it's surprising that we don't have more of the doubtless many lost Beowulfs. (When you think about it, it's a miracle that we even have Boswell's letters from the 1700s. Some were found being used as wrapping paper in Marseilles. Long story.)
Prof. Sutherland inspired Mrs. BD to dig into this intricately-constructed story, but she elected to do it with Seamus Heaney's wonderful translation from the Anglo-Saxon instead of with the original.
The illustrated edition helps bring the times to life, but it comes in a plain version too. We like Seamus very much.
In response to my shout-out about MacFarlane's book last weekend, our friend Tom Brewton sent this (which he had posted previously):
 The simple, undeniable, and clarion fact is that our personal freedoms came about only, exclusively, and entirely because, centuries before, enough Englishmen had owned enough private property to compel the crown to recognize their rights. When individuals hold the nation’s purse strings, the rulers can’t afford to be too arbitrary.
Evolution of individual property ownership and individual liberties was a process that took place only in England, and it was the very heart of the ethos brought to America by the English colonists.
As Alan Macfarlane (The Origins of English Individualism) explains, England’s traditions of property ownership and the rights of contract, along with its supporting legal system, are historically unique in the world. Only in England did the legal right exist for individuals to own and freely dispose of property. As a consequence, according to accounts by visiting merchants and diplomats from the 15th century onwards, England had a per capita wealth and standard of living, even among the peasant farmers, vastly greater than that of any other European country. It is no accident that the 19th century industrial revolution was more extensive and more effective in England than on the Continent.
Elsewhere in Europe, property was a vague concept based, not on a legal title as in England, but on the feudal tradition of occupancy by generations of the same family. A peasant farm was “owned” by the whole family. No member of the family had any legal way to dispose of any of the property by contract. Every member of the family was entitled by tradition to live on the farm. When a family grew larger, there was less produce from the farm for each member.
The Continental peasant economy was characterized by subsistence farming. Peasant families hardly ever possessed money, but lived by bartering produce at local markets. There was almost no hired labor working for wages. The effect was social and economic stagnation with little prospect for increasing the wealth or living-standards of individuals.
In contrast, England at least as early as the 13th century, around the time that Henry II instituted the common law, had a well developed legal system of individual ownership. Church and court records of the time, both in the rural districts and in the cities, show continual sales of all or parts of farm land and other property by the legal owner, who was always an individual, not a family. Fathers could, and did, disinherit individual children; women owned and sold property in their own name, appearing by legal right to represent themselves in such transactions before the local courts.
The expected pattern in rural England, described by Henry de Bracton in the 13th century (On the Laws and Customs of England), was for sons to leave their families at an early age and hire themselves out as laborers on other farms or in the trades. They usually worked and saved their wages until they had accumulated enough to buy a small farm or business, then they married and began to raise their families. Harder-working and more capable individuals often became well-to-do by continually adding to their property holdings, but there was nothing guaranteed by law or tradition. Indeed, records over several generations in any given local jurisdiction show a constant turnover of family names in the property ownership and tax records. The grandchildren of a wealthy yeoman farmer could easily be poor, if they were not equally hard-working and prudent.
The result of this ethos was an unparalleled degree of economic and political individualism in England, and later in the British North American colonies. For an additional perspective, note the striking contrast between British North America and Latin America, where the Spanish crown originally controlled or owned all property. Latin Americans have never enjoyed the secure personal freedoms found here from the earliest days of the English colonists.
For non-English immigrants to America, especially the millions after the Civil War from historically-feudal Continental Europe, this almost universal private ownership of property was both a jarring social and legal ethos, and, at the same time, the source of their great opportunity for a better life in the New World. Their European heritage led them to identify property ownership with the hereditary landed aristocracy and therefore with repression. They had heard all their lives that liberty was to be taken with armed revolution against existing authority. With no conception of the English heritage of working and saving to accumulate private property over the long term, small numbers of them simply transferred their radical socialism to American soil.
Tuesday, February 3. 2009
From Bruce Kesler. I no longer will term him "guest poster" because he seems to be turning into a regular.
Above the law? Thank you Mr. Daschle.
We should all be thanking Tom Daschle for his behavior in not paying all his taxes and evading lobbying laws. The even larger issues are highlighted for public discussion that some of our rulers do not follow the same laws expected of the rest of us, and that they exploit the loopholes in the ever expanding laws.
At issue are to what standards our rulers are to be held and whether laws are enough the answer. Laws help keep honest people honest, by providing guidance, but personal integrity and shame are essential as well. Strict enforcement is also critical, especially for those who anyway breach the law and public trust.
First, we must admit that none of us are saints, nor are any solons capable of foreseeing all eventualities. Imperfect men can only make imperfect laws, and imperfect men may err in following them. Despite partisan stances toward imperfections of our adversaries, most of us do observe reasonable tolerance toward imperfect behavior.
That acknowledged, tolerance is exceeded when imperfect behavior is clearly beyond the law, blatant, or frequent. It is a matter of our basic governance in a democracy that our rulers be held to, at least, the same standards as other citizens.
This is not a matter of policy differences, unless one wants to argue that our rulers are or should be above the law for whatever reasons of need or effectiveness.
Here, some minds might wander into consideration of some of the measures taken by the Bush administration, and some by the Clinton administration, in their efforts against terrorism. What makes them qualitatively different is that they literally involve national security, almost all were within or not outside the law as it existed, that they were not for personal enrichment, and that reasonable, qualified experts differ on them. As evidenced by the Obama administration¿s initial adoption or non-rejection - yet - of most of these measures, despite Obama's campaign rhetoric, these are policy differences.
Regarding Tom Daschle, we had two clear choices, allowing him to skate or holding him accountable. Tom Daschle had the third choice, having the shame and sense to withdraw, which he now has. If he had been confirmed, our Senators would undermine public confidence in and compliance with the laws and respect for themselves. If Daschle were rejected, our legislators' job would not be complete. They owe us more. Daschle's withdrawal still leaves their job incomplete.
There are enough other examples of tax and law evasion by other legislators and appointees to merit additional examination of their behavior and stringent enforcement actions. The suggestion here: http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/02/audit_them_all.html
for all to be subject to regular comprehensive tax audits is worthwhile. The Congressional ethics committees need to be more independent and active. That requires the addition of independent special investigators, as with the executive¿s agencies. Their work should be fast and their reports published immediately, avoiding burying by legislators. Laws passed by the Congress should apply to Congress itself, with any exceptions being at least justified by supermajorities. Lastly, our major media must take more seriously its self-professed role as nonpartisan guardians of truth-to-power. The extent to which it has not is far beyond evident.
These will go a long way toward ending attitudes of our rulers or perceptions of them being above the law. They may well, also, further more careful consideration of the laws passed, as their effects are more applied to themselves.
We deserve no less. Thank you Mr. Daschle for your contribution to our government's integrity. Now, go away in rightful shame.
 My mentioning a pied a terre in Manhattan motivated me to locate this nice little 2 BR place on West 81st, facing the Museum of Natural History. I want this (photo of LR with working fireplace).
They are asking $1.2 million. Details here.
I used to own a 1 BR place with doorman on West 82, but that was long ago. Bought it for $62,000. and, had I kept it, it would have been the best investment I ever made.
Monday, February 2. 2009
More snow coming tonight and tomorrow, and guess who is sold out of ice melter, salt, and traction gravel once again. Mind you, this is snow country here, especially with our global cooling. Guy said last shipment sold out in two hours. Is this nation short of gravel and rock salt? Is government action needed? Is this a case of "peak salt"? "Peak gravel"?
Maybe it's time to go back to the Saudis for a new deal on sand.
Using my lawn fertilizer spreader for salt and gravel has pretty much destroyed it this winter. I thought I'd pick up a new one at Home Depot to go along with the salt and gravel that they were out of. Well, it seems to be the wrong season for heavy-duty broadcast spreaders. What I need is one of these, but they don't sell them at Home Depot:
Barnard, VT. (pop. 958). Here's the Barnard Inn site. If you have cash, it's a good time to buy a VT getaway.
 The first place is a c. 1850 hill farm with 65 acres (photo on right), so it would work for horses or cattle with plenty of room for a shooting range too. It's a restored 2300 sq.' Cape farmhouse with barn and outbuildings. As a farmer at heart, I'd check out the barns first. They are asking 1.1 million. Details here.
Second is the c. 1791 Cape farmhouse (photo below), also completely restored with additions bringing it up to a generous 7600 sq.'. I think they did a good job expanding the living space without altering the humble appearance of the old farmhouse. Those metal roofs aren't charming, or in keeping with the style, but they are practical as heck in snow country - and they last forever. It's on a paltry 12 acres with ponds and stream. Too little land for cattle, but I'd guess there's some good turkey hunting there. They are asking only 3.9 million. Details here. (Prop. taxes a hefty $35,000)
Since I already have a fine New England farm, if I had a few million burning a hole in my pocket I think I'd consider picking up a pied a terre in NYC just about now, or later in the Spring when prices will drop even further. Trouble is, with boats it's not the price - it's the maintenance, and with houses it's the property taxes (plus the maintenance).
Gwynnie and I have been trying to get a clean copy of this email for several days. This is from a Partner at Heidrick & Struggles who was on Flight 1549. Note the 4 life lessons learned, at end.
"Gerry McNamara (New York/Charlotte) was on US Airways Flight 1549 last week. We caught up with him to discuss the harrowing incident and - in a departure from our usual format -present his stirring account as told to us:
Thursday was a difficult day for all of us at the firm and I left the Park Avenue office early afternoon to catch a cab bound for LaGuardia Airport. I was scheduled for a 5pm departure, but able to secure a seat on the earlier flight scheduled to leave at 3PM.
As many of us who fly frequently often do, I recall wondering if I'd just placed myself on a flight I shouldn't be on!
Just prior to boarding I finished up a conference call with my associate, Jenn Sparks (New York), and our placement, the CIO of United Airlines. When I told him that I was about to board a USAirways flight, we all had a little fun with it.
I remember walking on the plane and seeing a fellow with grey hair in the cockpit and thinking "that's a good thing... I like to see grey hair in the cockpit!"
I was seated in 8F, on the starboard side window and next to a young businessman. The New York to Charlotte flight is one I've taken what seems like hundreds of times over the years. We take off north over the Bronx and as we climb, turn west over the Hudson River to New Jersey and tack south.
I love to fly, always have, and this flight plan gives a great view of several NY landmarks including Yankee Stadium and the George Washington Bridge.
I had started to point out items of interest to the gentleman next to me when we heard a terrible crash - a sound no one ever wants to hear while flying - and then the engines wound down to a screeching halt. 10 seconds later, there was a strong smell of jet fuel. I knew we would be landing and thought the pilot would take us down, no doubt to Newark Airport.
As we began to turn south I noticed the pilot lining up on the river still - I thought - en route for Newark. Next thing we heard was "Brace for impact!" - a phrase I had heard many years before as an active duty Marine Officer but never before on a commercial air flight.
Continue reading "On Flight 1549"
Sunday, February 1. 2009
People are not buying luxuries these days, so such things are becoming quite inexpensive. I used to like beautiful antique rugs, but now I prefer attractive rugs that I don't mind walking on with boots, or the dog scratching at. I know we have some readers who might be offended, but these non-fancy runners I found on eBay (mostly roughtly 3'8''-4'x10') looked good to me. And cheap enough to tramp on with shoes, or for the dog to roll on.
(I know our rug expert readers will find fault, but these are hand-knotted 100 KPSI not-new Iranian rugs.)
  
We have highlighted New York's CSC in the past, but, after seeing their Uncle Vanya, this remarkable place deserves another pat on the back. Classic Stage Company.
Their short runs work well to attract distinguished actors who long to sink their teeth into classic works. The Long Wharf Theater in New Haven used to do that too. I don't know about now.
Saturday, January 31. 2009
From our guest poster Bruce Kesler -
President Obama’s told congressional Republicans, suggesting changes to the Porkapalooza recovery bill, “I won.” So much for the promised cooperation across the aisle. Today, discussing the bill with an avid Obama supporter, I suggested a compromise: Let the Democrats’ bill pass but with one amendment, that all provisions and spending sunset (expire) December 31, 2009. He agreed. If there’s anything of merit buried in the dungpile, it will flower. Congress can then renew it. Otherwise, most of the waste will die, having been demonstrated worthless. Another major promise by the new administration, for greater transparency, is quickly showing itself subject to crossed fingers behind the back.
The open-government advocate Sunlight Foundation reveals that the very first bill signed by Obama broke his promise to wait at least 5-days before signing any non-emergency legislation, to receive public comments to be considered by the President. Sunlight notes: “It is too bad they let this transparency promise slip on the very first piece of legislation that hit the President’s desk.” The Columbia Journalism Review finds its ill and unprofessional treatment by the White house Press Office fails to meet Obama’s promise, possibly to “indicate that President Obama’s messages about open government have not reached press secretary Robert Gibbs and his staff.” The CJR reporter comments:
Talking to working reporters is not the only way to communicate with the people. The Obama administration seems to be embracing direct delivery of its messages via the whitehouse.gov website and YouTube. They seem to be saying “We don’t need the press to communicate our messages to the people. We can talk to the people ourselves.” The media honeymoon with Obama is fading, after so much support from the media to his campaign. Another now dispensable Obama supporter under the bus.
So, it seems that the Obama messages will be delivered directly to his supporters, but the feedback from any disagreeing or questioning is less welcomed. The definition of a dysfunctional system is one lacking feedback, for adaptivity. It’s going to be a long, and dangerous, four years.
Friday, January 30. 2009
Every day I feel more steamed about this "stimulus." This is no stimulus. Dear readers, we are in the process of getting scammed, hoodwinked, tricked - in a way that Bernie Madoff could only dream about doing in his wildest dreams. The statists are literally trying to pull a fast one over on me. It's the biggest money and power grab since Lyndon Johnson, and nobody knows all of the details, implications, or the long-term consequences - not to mention the undiscussed or unintended (or quietly-intended) consequences.
It's a trickster's delight. Are we such easy marks? I hope not. They hope most of us are uninformed morons and will defer to their superior wisdom. The House bill goes far beyond the usual pork. It changes the role of the federal government in our lives, and is intended to do so. This is no short-term stimulus for an ugly recession; this is long-term change via centralization of power and money using today's fears about the economy as a convenient excuse.
Why is it long-term? Heck, it's not just long-term; this stuff is forever. How difficult is it to "cut" a program? Well, no more difficult than trying to take a lollypop out of a kid's mouth. The socialist ratchet wrench has no reverse setting.
Yes, I am not pleased with hopey-changey thus far.
From WSJ's Look at the Time:
 That's what the stimulus bill was about—not knowing what time it is, not knowing the old pork-barrel, group-greasing ways are over, done, embarrassing. When you create a bill like that, it doesn't mean you're a pro, it doesn't mean you're a tough, no-nonsense pol. It means you're a slob.
That's how the Democratic establishment in the House looks, not like people who are responding to a crisis, or even like people who are ignoring a crisis, but people who are using a crisis. Our hopeful, compelling new president shouldn't have gone with this bill. He made news this week by going to the House to meet with Republicans. He could have made history by listening to them.
Via NRO:
To call the economic legislation now moving through Congress a stimulus bill obscures its full implications. The measure represents the most ambitious effort in decades to swell public spending on domestic priorities such as education, infrastructure, and scientific research that many Democrats consider the foundation stones of sustained prosperity.
The Democratic plan . . . provides the biggest surge in long-term public investment since President Johnson's Great Society in the 1960s. . . .
[T]he bill also emphatically expands programs targeted more at the far term than the near term — from aid to schools in low-income areas ($13 billion) to expanded college loans ($16 billion) and scientific research ($10 billion). In normal times, Congress might never enlarge so many programs at once. But, as with Reagan's tax cut, the crisis-induced demand for action may suspend the normal laws of political gravity — and allow Democrats to redirect federal priorities as boldly as Reagan did. "This is a once-in-a-25-year opportunity to [implement] a lot of our agenda," a top House Democratic aide says.
How big is the "stimulus"? Bigger than any program or war in history.
The stimulus will undo two decades of welfare reform.
Via Insty:
For the amount spent we could have given every unemployed person in the United States roughly $75,000.
We could give every person who had lost a job and is now passing through long-term unemployment of six months or longer roughly $300,000.
There has been pork barrel politics since there has been politics. The scale of this pork is beyond what had ever been imagined before — and no one can be sure it will actually do much stimulation.
Wall Street didn’t have Obama’s chutzpah. And it didn’t do nearly the damage to the nation that this bill will do. (Via Dan Riehl).
Via SDA:
The U.S. National Debt was $930 billion in 1980, or 33% of GDP. Today it is $10.7 trillion, or 76% of GDP. The National Debt has grown by 1,150% in 28 years. With the planned fiscal stimulus (taxing future generations), the National Debt will reach 100% of GDP during the Obama administration. When Argentina’s economy collapsed in 1998, their National Debt as a percentage of GDP was 65%. The Great Deniers say we are not Argentina. They say we are safe because the U.S. dollar is the reserve currency of the world. This is like jumping off a 20 story building and as you pass the 10th floor someone yells out the window asking how you are doing. You answer, “Good, so far”.
Around every New Year's Day, or, if I procrastinate, sometime before the end of January, I tend to do a little personal inventory.
 I know what I am pretty good at: my work, raising kids, being a wife, being a friend, skiing, shooting, tennis, golf, sailing, reading, and a few other things too. But I force myself to take time to focus on the things I am bad at. I wonder whether they are amenable to improvement, or whether they are hopeless.
As one grows older, more flaws and weaknesses move from the "Maybe Improveable" into the "Hopeless" category. The reality of one's limits sinks in by repeatedly bumping into reality, one's identity clarifies itself, and one's humility deepens.
Here are just a few of the things I stink at, and which have been contemplating this January:
Being a leader. I am a natural born non-leader. Not a follower by any means (in fact, a lousy follower too), but utterly lacking in leadership skills or talents. When I say "Follow me!" nobody follows. And when somebody else says "Follow me!" I say "Wait a minute, and let me think about it."
Being an executive. I am terrible at running things, and the things I get involved with running only work when the others take initiative. I am terrible at making organizational decisions except at the most elementary level, and I am a complete retard with office politics. I care enough, but I can't make things happen. Plus I detest going to meetings. They make me squirrely.
Paperwork. I derive no pleasure or satisfaction from getting it done, and, despite years of determination, I find myself still making excuses to avoid it.
Writing. I give plenty of talks and lectures, and do that well enough to convey information. I have plenty of ideas and things I think are worth writing about, but I lack the talent to write in memorable or engaging ways. I am at my best speaking off the cuff. And it's not that I dislike writing. I like to write things. I just never like the way it comes off on paper. Dull and pedantic, even when I try to write casual. That's partly why I do not post more regularly here. I am never even half-satisfied with what I put on paper. I have written a number of posts for Maggie's, read them the next day, said "That's lame," and pushed "delete."
Phone calls. Unlike most women, I hate the phone. I avoid the phone. Basically, I will not make phone calls except under duress. I cannot get over this flaw. Maybe it's because I spend my days talking to people, but that sounds like an excuse. Anyhow, email is what makes my life function nowadays.
Thursday, January 29. 2009
 I thought he was elected to run the city, but he seems to prefer controlling what we put in our mouths. Fats, smokes, soda pop - and now salt!?!
What an idiot. There is not a darn thing wrong with salt. Furthermore, food without salt tastes like cardboard. As a lover of NYC, I have had it with this nanny Mayor. Let's go back to a normal machine sleazebag Dem who will rip you off and pad his pocket and pass money to his buddies - but won't tell you what to eat or drink or smoke. Towns like NYC are for people who want to be free to do what the heck they want, and are not terrified by death.
This Bloomberg guy is a nut. Rich, but still a control freak and a crank. Dietarily-obsessed, too, it seems, with a mild form of eating disorder which causes him to be concerned with what other people do. He's neither my doctor nor my nutritionist nor my Mom, even though he seems to imagine that he is and that I want him to be.
What will be next on his list? Meat? Alcohol? Coffee? Chocolate? Broccoli (which raises cancer risk)? Greens (whose folate raises risk of cancer recurrence)?
Wednesday, January 28. 2009
From guest poster Bruce Kesler -
I heard Rush Limbaugh on radio say that the stimulus bill being worked on in Washington should be split in proportion of the popular vote percentages for Obama and McCain between Democrat ideas of “infrastructure” and Republican ideas of “tax cuts.”
One is never sure whether Rush is joking. Regardless, I gagged. (Ed note: It was irony, BK)
Indeed, I’m gagging at the whole stimulus discussions. Whether spending or tax cuts. The concept of the stimulus bill is that by putting more money in some people’s pockets, demand for goods and services will be increased, which will stimulate business spending. There are several slips between cup and lip in this.
First, much of the demand we were accustomed to was speculation, and much else was reckless to prudent family budgets. Much home and auto buying, as well as much other consumer spending, was by those who couldn’t afford the purchases. This should not be restimulated. Those who can afford purchases will make purchases.
Second, relatively few of those who can afford purchases are rejected for credit. Loosening credit will mostly reallow those who cannot afford purchases to resume.
Third, though the stimulus bill is not based on currently increasing most taxes, unless we want to see a future major inflation tax on everyone due to this huge deficit spending we will see huge future tax increases on most to pay for the otherwise unsustainable deficit spending.
In short, the very idea of the stimulus bill is inane.
There may be grounds for some very, very limited and targeted, proven boosts to some people or businesses in real dire need, provided it does not become ongoing or contrary to their getting their affairs and operations in effective order.
The rest is sheer hooey. The politicians who support it are just trying to buy votes and contributions from their constituencies, at the expense of everyone else and of reason.
See John Cochrane's Fiscal Stimulus, Fiscal Inflation, or Fiscal Fallacies
Tuesday, January 27. 2009
"A dark hour for the Netherlands." You may insult Christianity all you want, but don't hurt the tender, sensitive and delicate Islamic feelings. Allah supposedly hates that, and would like your head separated from the rest of your body to emphasize his holy, sacred point.
h/t to Moonbattery for this excellent bit by Pat Condell re Geert Wilders' insane and frightening persecution. Yes, we are all sick and tired of Islam and the multicultural Mafia - and also of the Dutch-style suicidal idiocy. What's in their water? If a religious belief cannot handle a little multicultural criticism, what good is it?
Our version of Godwin's Law: This is like the Spanish Inquisition. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.
Deeply related: Never be rude to an Arab
Come and get us, you Dutch moonbats. You are a disgrace to your heritage and your history.
Monday, January 26. 2009
 Our Editor sent me AVI's piece on the inauguration and the split-verb (and split infinitive) myth. It's clear to me that Justice Roberts' inner grammatical gyroscope resisted the grammatical error in "to faithfully execute..."
This grammatical issue is discussed at Volokh. Well, I will boldly go where many others have gone before, and offer my own views on the subject.
(But first, let me say that some blog writing tends to the off-the cuff, conversational, informal (ie sloppy) writing. Most of us have real jobs, and dash it off. Nevertheless, good habits like good character tends to shine through if we have them engrained. We aren't perfect in that way, and our own Grammatical Sticklers Gwynnie and Dylanologist sit like Jiminy Crickets on our shoulder to try to keep us in line. Grammar School was called that for a reason.)
Are "rules made to be broken"? Well, kinda-sorta. Grammatical rules can be broken for effect. Poets, orators, and good writers do that all the time. However, the effect is lost when the larger context of a transposition of words (a hyperbaton) is grammatically unsound too. Here's a good hyperbaton: "Constant you are, but yet a woman." (Henry IV). Here's one of mine: "I will happily attend your soiree provided that if an interesting selection of single malts and Cuban cigars will be offered."
Life is the same way: if you do one crazy thing, it is dramatic. If you do crazy things all the time, it isn't.
Let's take a look at split infinitives. I am of the school that views them as grammatical errors and as evidence of lousy schooling (but not of lousy intelligence). Split verbs have always been a similar subject of grammatical dispute. It is difficult to have a conversation without using them, but they are awkward-sounding.
I don't want to endlessly beat a dead horse. I suppose my point is that solid grammar and solid language are supportive of clear thinking and clear communication, but that rules can be broken for rhetorical purposes - but only by those who otherwise use the rules most of the time.
Sort of off-topic: One of my pet peeves which I see everywhere these days is the use of the quasi-legal term "absent." It is a kind of Lazy English which some seem to feel sounds elevated. "Absent a coordinated Republican resistance, tax-dodger Timothy Geithner will be approved as the new boss of the IRS." What's wrong with good old "without"?
Image: Sculpture of "Grammar" as one of the Seven Liberal Arts, Munster Church, Frieberg, c. 1270. As the source notes, "Notice that Grammar has a pretty good hold on the ear of one student and is holding a hefty cudgel that could whack the split infinitives and dangling participles from between the ears of any young and stubborn head."
Sunday, January 25. 2009
The "Can" is probably the most sought-after duck for hunters (but I know I have described Mallards and Black Ducks similarly). Not only is his 60 mph flight a challenge, but he is considered the most tasty duck at the table. He is probably tasty because, despite being a diving duck, he prefers plant material. He's fairly large, too.
He breeds in the West and Northwest up through Alaska, but winters all along the Eastern Seaboard. You can read about them here.
Gwynnie took this photo of a male Can in breeding plumage on Saturday in CT. The sloped head is diagnostic, even in poor light. I suspect that he used a long lens:
Friday, January 23. 2009
Remarkable photos of the Airbus salvage in the Hudson on the Manhattan shore, taken mainly by the crane crew. Jersey shore opposite. Photos are in sequence in continuation page below.
Continue reading "Salvage photos of Flight 1549"
Over the transom and most likely apocryphal, said to be from a Nashville teacher:
 We are worried about "the cow" when it is all about the "Ice Cream."
The most eye-opening civics lesson I ever had was while teaching third grade this year. The presidential election was heating up and some of the children showed an interest. I decided we would have an election for a class president. We would choose our nominees. They would make a campaign speech and the class would vote.
To simplify the process, candidates were nominated by other class members. We discussed what kinds of characteristics these students should have. We got many nominations and from those, Jamie and Olivia were picked to run for the top spot. The class had done a great job in their selections. Both candidates were good kids. I thought Jamie might have an advantage because he got lots of parental support. I had never seen Olivia's mother.
The day arrived when they were to make their speeches Jamie went first. He had specific ideas about how to make our class a better place. He ended by promising to do his very best. Every one applauded. He sat down and Olivia came to the podium. Her speech was concise. She said, "If you will vote for me, I will give you ice cream." She sat down. The class went wild. "Yes! Yes! We want ice cream." She surely would say more. She did not have to. A discussion followed. How did she plan to pay for the ice cream? She wasn't sure. Would her parents buy it or would the class pay for it. She didn't know. The class really didn't care. All they were thinking about was ice cream.
Jamie was forgotten. Olivia won by a landslide.
Every time Barack Obama opened his mouth he offered ice cream and fifty-two percent of the people reacted like nine year olds. They want ice cream. The other forty-eight percent know they're going to have to feed the cow and clean up the crap.
From Bruce Kesler:
Now that the grand coronation, er inauguration, is old news, with our major media continuing in its electoral path of ignoring the troubling portents of the policies and appointments coming from now President Obama, can we look forward to the major media resurrecting its role as -- it likes to view itself, but polls showing majority distrust from its consumers -- speaking truth to power?
There are plenty of opportunities for the major media to do so, from a bloated economic recovery bill that explodes with political payoff boondoggles and catastrophically expands inflation-inducing inflation, to payoffs to unions that reduce independent worker protections and hobble efficient business management, to ignoring the desires of the 85% of Americans who don’t want their health care dictated by bureaucrats in Washington, to half-hearted defenses against worldwide terrorists.
As readership and viewership continue their sharp declines, and major newspapers shrink in content and TV networks increase their cheaper to produce unreality offerings, they might stop to reconsider the poor survival sense of being inane lackies of the reckless ideologies and pontifications that now hold power at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, and its echoing commercial failures from Hollywood.
Not likely, but one can hope for change, can’t one?
Thursday, January 22. 2009
"Great to have a black guy in the White House (whether or not I like his politics)."
I had the above thought about "a black guy in the WH," and then realized it was a racist thought. It's discriminating (1: making a distinction : distinguishing <a discriminating mark>2: marked by discrimination: a: discerning , judicious <discriminating buyers>) on race. It's just the flip side of the same coin of race-awareness with which loud voices in this country have hammered us with for years.
From a race-awareness (ie racist) viewpoint, what's the difference between "electing the black guy is great" vs. "electing the black guy is bad"? Or electing a white guy is better or worse? Neither do justice to the human inside.
Truth is, we white folks are generally pleased about electing an African-American fellow. However, I believe we are pleased for the wrong reason - our moral vanity. I hear people say "It means we are post-racial." Then they talk about their surprise that so many "other people" would vote for a black guy. It's always "other people," and that's the tell.
If we are post-racial, why is it such a big deal? How is being pleased about voting for a black guy "post-racial"?
I am ready to take on Obama and Congress on the issues, not on skin color. And I will, to the best of my limited ability.
Related: Jules vs. Limbaugh.
Nope, none of the above. Sippican built this for me, and the good guy delivered it in person with his heir as porter. I insisted that they stay for dinner, and put the heir to work keeping the fireplaces stoked.
This big box has a name: The Seven Stogey Mountain. Surely one-of-a-kind. Those "pages" of the "book" aren't painted on: they are grooves in the wood.
I think it will hold around 6 boxes of cigars, maybe more. If they come in tubes, I take them out of the tubes before putting them in.
It is not every day that you find a humidor made of 3/4 inch solid Spanish Cedar and solid Maple. The weight and thickness of this wood will hold humidity better than the ordinary, non-electric humidor. This should become an heirloom, if I can only talk my kids into the fine, peaceful, satisfying and serene habit of tobacco enjoyment. They worry about tobacco when driving cars and sky-diving and working on Wall Street are things that are truly dangerous. Hey, Obama has made smoking cool again.
After I took the photos, I began a rapid humidification of the Spanish Cedar with distilled water. I use a sponge for that, repeating daily for several days before putting any ceegars in it. Otherwise, the dry, thirsty wood will suck the moisture out of the smokes.
Wednesday, January 21. 2009
Leonhardt, in The NYT. Makes sense to me. I was there. In my view, some folks hype the badness simply to rationalize government power and money grabs.
The Big Three car-assemblers are dead men walking, and have been for years. I do have a concern about the banks, however, because when governments end up owning them, politics ends up running them. That is even worse than having politics run medical treatment.
Maybe it's a query: Which is worse: Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and Nancy Pelosi controlling your doctor - or controlling your bank?
Friday, January 16. 2009
From guest poster Bruce Kesler:
Only when voters speak out loudly, and only occasionally even then, do our legislators take heed. Newly elected president Barack Obama and his choice for Secretary of Health and Human Services former Senator Tom Daschle, who is also tasked as “health reform” czar by Obama, say they intend major changes in how Americans receive health care, with government taking vastly increased control.
The latest Rasmussen poll reports that most Americans are highly skeptical and unwilling to pay higher taxes for it: Forty-three percent (43%) of U.S. voters say the quality of health care in America will get worse if a government-run health insurance plan is created to compete with private plans. Thirty-three percent (33%) say quality will get better, and 10% say it will stay the same… Forty-seven percent (47%) of voters say it is better to expand coverage through private health insurance plans than through government-run programs like Medicaid. Thirty-five percent (35%) believe the opposite to be true, with 17% not sure. In a survey last April, just 29% of American adults supported a national health insurance program overseen by the Federal Government…. just 36% favor a government-controlled health plan for the uninsured if it means an increase in their income taxes. Fifty percent (50%) are opposed to such a plan for those who cannot get insurance if it means a tax increase, and 14% are undecided….
A majority of U.S. voters (58%), however, oppose any kind of government-controlled health plan if it means they have to change their own insurance coverage.
Wednesday’s overwhelming vote in the US House to pass the huge expansion of the SCHIP program, formerly passed by the last Congress and twice vetoed by President Bush, is touted as a “down payment” on Obama-Daschle getting their way on their bigger healthcare goals. Republican efforts to amend the SCHIP bill – for example, requiring that sponsors who pledged to support legal immigrants do so -- were not allowed by the Democrats in the House. The recent empirical evidence in Hawaii was ignored that allowing those with high incomes -- those with incomes up to $80,000 may enter SCHIP -- results in many abandoning existing insurance and greatly increased government deficits. Hawaii abandoned the unaffordable program:
State health officials argued that most of the children enrolled in the universal child care program previously had private health insurance, indicating that it was helping those who didn't need it.
As with many of Obama’s choices for top spots, Tom Daschle’s nomination is running into some turbulence over his dealings with his own “charitable” tax deductions and associations with a “charity” that may have abused its status for political ends – as too many do. He’ll likely be confirmed anyway, especially with Democrat control of Congress.
Yet, as opposition has mounted in Congress – reacting to heavy public opposition – over the lack of transparency and use of hundreds of billions of dollars of “bailout” funds and Obama’s intents for over a trillion dollars more, the portent for Obama-Daschle “charities” getting their way to control over the 15% of the US’s economy in healthcare diminishes.
Thus the key question: Will data dash Daschle?
Thursday, January 15. 2009
 Since it's going to be as cold as heck everywhere this week and weekend, our group decided that we'd rather freeze skiing at Sugarloaf than freeze with the annoying NYC and Fairfield County crowds in the annoying and tedious Vermont lift lines.
There are excellent last-minute MLK weekend deals, thanks to the lousy economy.
Looks like the weather will be invigorating - around or below 0 (F) all weekend. But I've skiied at -10. The trick is to keep moving, and to try to resist the temptation to lick anything metal.
And to not overdress for the temp. If you do, you'll sweat too much coming down, and the sweat will freeze to you on the lifts. Best to stay cold. After all, it is winter - and the earth is cooling fast.
This is an 8-hour drive for me from NYC. Sugarloaf is up in the Rangely area where I have happily hunted and fished in the past. I'm leaving now, back Sunday night. Will leave some pre-posts for our Editor's kind consideration.
|
