My first guest blogger this week (while I'm on vacation) is Stephen Smith, caretaker of the Beginner's Guide To Freedom blog. (One of his earlier posts, which Stephen wrote shortly after his run as a Libertarian for the Texas State Senate, is the best thing I've ever read on the relationship between money, The Mommy and Daddy Party, and elections.)
In the following essay about the possible end of the Free Market that has done so much for us during the lastt two centuries, Stephen makes an unlikely analogy between The Chairman and unh...me. I'm not Frank, Dean-0, Sammy, or even the Joey Bishop of the local libertarians. I'm merely the Shawn Levy, doing his best to write down what is happening.
Here's Stephen:
This writing under a deadline stuff is hard. Unlike the author of The Whited Sepulchre, I’m not accustomed to writing on a daily basis. Usually I just wait for some item in the news to strike me in the right way, and I knock out a page or two whenever the mood is right. But, hey - when Frank Sinatra calls up Peter Lawford to open for him in Vegas, Peter doesn’t complain that he’s not “feeling it” that day. Peter just shows up and tries not to disappoint Frankie. So I’m happy to play Peter Lawford to The Whited Sepulchre’s Frank Sinatra today.
The topic this week is, “Whiter Libertarianism?” or something to that effect. I’ve been searching diligently for an optimistic angle here, but sadly I have found none. As I scan the economic landscape, all I see are dark clouds. As I write these words, the federal government is in full panic mode, desperate to print more money and nationalize ever-larger sectors of the American economy.
One of the big stories in the news this week involves Bernard Madoff, a Wall Street financier accused of defrauding investors of $50 billion. The Securities and Exchange Commission is describing Mr. Madoff’s activities as “the biggest Ponzi scheme in history.” Apparently the SEC has never heard of Social Security or Medicare. The SEC has also admitted to ignoring Mr. Madoff’s malfeasance for over a decade. In true Washington fashion, the SEC’s admitted incompetence is being used to justify increasing its budget and power. Maybe I should try that at my office. “Sorry, boss, but I just haven’t felt like doing much work these last few months. Guess that means I’m due for a promotion and a raise, huh?” It must sound better when pitched to a Congressional committee.
I don’t mean to make light of the Madoff story. If he is indeed guilty of fraud, then he should be prosecuted accordingly. But I find it fascinating that the press makes so much of a $50 billion private scandal while it enthusiastically cheers the $8 trillion public scandal being perpetrated by the federal government in the form of bailouts and outright takeovers of private sector enterprises. I’m no journalist, of course, but it seems to me that some basic questions simply aren’t being asked. Like, “Hey, Bernanke! Where are you getting the $8 trillion, exactly?” Or perhaps that question has already been answered now that the Fed has cut the federal funds rate to zero.
These issues do not bode well for us free-market types. As French President Nicolas Sarkozy said, “Laissez-faire is finished.” No doubt he is correct in his summation, but laissez-faire capitalism has been dead for nigh on a century. The idea that the current Keynesian nightmare threatening to plunge the planet into an even Greater Depression is somehow the result of free-market capitalism is patently ridiculous. The seeds of the crisis date back to at least the New Deal, and what we’re witnessing today is a perfect storm of decades of government intervention in the marketplace. The fact that President Bush has “abandoned free market principles to save the free market system” (just as he abandoned Constitutional principles of individual liberty to protect freedom) is simply one more nail in capitalism’s coffin. Since Barack Obama never had any free market principles to abandon, I suspect things will get even worse in the years to come.
As I have often said, libertarianism is for those of us who would rather be right than popular. The recent economic headlines have only confirmed that viewpoint. So it looks like we’re going to be even less popular over the next few years than we have been up to this point (if you can imagine such a thing). Nevertheless, we will continue to be right. We may have to work harder to make ourselves heard, but individual liberty and the free market go hand in hand - one cannot survive without the other. It will be up to us to defend both. No one else will.
That's what you get when you read "A Beginner's Guide To Freedom". Great, great stuff. Thank you, Stephen Smith !
Monday, December 22, 2008
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Guest bloggers this week
In a few hours I'll be getting on a cruise ship and playing blackjack for a week.
(I think the boat is stopping in Cozumel, The Cayman Islands, and Jamaica. It supposedly has great food, live shows, multiple swimming pools, live music in all the bars, an ice skating rink, plus easy access to Cuban cigars. I hope everyone else enjoys them. I'm going to play blackjack for a solid week or until the money runs out.)
In the meantime, I've asked a few of my favorite libertarians (and the token House Democrat) to guest blog for me through the 28th of this month. It should be enlightening.
I've set the control panel on this site to automatically post everything that's been sent in at the rate of one entry per day. I'm really looking forward to seeing how well this works.
Guest blogger logo from here.
(I think the boat is stopping in Cozumel, The Cayman Islands, and Jamaica. It supposedly has great food, live shows, multiple swimming pools, live music in all the bars, an ice skating rink, plus easy access to Cuban cigars. I hope everyone else enjoys them. I'm going to play blackjack for a solid week or until the money runs out.)
In the meantime, I've asked a few of my favorite libertarians (and the token House Democrat) to guest blog for me through the 28th of this month. It should be enlightening.
I've set the control panel on this site to automatically post everything that's been sent in at the rate of one entry per day. I'm really looking forward to seeing how well this works. Guest blogger logo from here.
Saturday, December 20, 2008
A proposal for political celibacy
If the people at The Politico are to be believed, the President's daughter and the governor's son are both lobbying to be appointed to the New York senate seat of the President's wife, but no one knows who the New York Secretary of State's son will appoint to the position, since the Secretary of The Interior's son is pushing hard for the candidacy of the judge's son.
Got that? No? Hit the link above and get back to me.
We've seen this before. When the Church was one of the dominant political powers in Europe, Pope Innocent II, in the year 1139, declared all priestly marriages to be null and void. Getting the kids out of the family business was the only way to ensure that all Church property would remain Church property. They were getting looted.
I propose that New York state do the same. Until the Kennedys, Cuomos, Clintons, Pattersons (ahem...), Ickes, and other prominent political families stop having political babies, those families are going to continue their deathgrip on the Democrat party.
Got that? No? Hit the link above and get back to me.
We've seen this before. When the Church was one of the dominant political powers in Europe, Pope Innocent II, in the year 1139, declared all priestly marriages to be null and void. Getting the kids out of the family business was the only way to ensure that all Church property would remain Church property. They were getting looted.
I propose that New York state do the same. Until the Kennedys, Cuomos, Clintons, Pattersons (ahem...), Ickes, and other prominent political families stop having political babies, those families are going to continue their deathgrip on the Democrat party.
Otherwise, they could wind up like the Republicans in the last election cycle, where the admiral's son defeated the Michigan governor's son to win the nomination to replace President #41's son, only to be defeated by the Kenyan Government Economist's son.
Priestly Celibacy got the job done for the Church.
Can a requirement of Political Celibacy be very far off?
Friday, December 19, 2008
Imitation Is The Sincerest Form Of Flattery
During the last couple of months, people have been asking me what happened to my Serial Commenter and arch-nemesis, Fembuttx.
Her sudden disappearance was widely discussed during the last two Libertarian meetups that I attended. I got emails asking if she had died, or if I'd shot her. A group in a black van from "CSI Eastside" showed up in my back yard and prodded every square foot of it with a methane probe. They confiscated my shovel. Two of my guns were taken away for ballistics analysis.
For readers who are new to this site, here's the story. Whenever I wrote about politics, regulations, free speech, 2nd amendment issues, or global warming/cooling/dimming, Fembuttx would turn the comment field into a discussion of her bedroom acrobatics. (I say "her", although no one really knows the true identity of the Fembutt.)
It lasted for about 6 months. And then she disappeared.
"Fembuttx is dead. Long live Fembuttx !" we all said. (Well, not all of us. But you get the picture.)
Thanks to my friend Ray, I've now learned that Fembuttx lives. Not just in our memories, but online.
The name of her site? The Whited Sepulchres. (Note the plural)
Check out the "About Me' part of her Blogspot Profile. (Before you go there, make sure you aren't drinking anything. Otherwise you'll snort liquid all over your screen.)
I would NEVER encourage this, but wouldn't it be funny if lots of libertarians went over there and left irrelevant comments about The Federal Reserve, Systemic Inflation, Regulatory Over-reach, The 2nd Amendment, and Ron Paul?
Warning: this site is for immature audiences only !
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Card Check vs. Secret Ballots
A monopoly is a monopoly is a monopoly.
It doesn't matter if the monopoly is in sugar, corn, or computer operating systems. Monopolies are harmful. They harm consumers by preventing lower-priced goods from entering the market. (Do a bit o' Googling on the words "Sugar" and "Fanjul".)
It doesn't even matter if monopolies are related to labor. Labor unions are monopolies. The only way they can be effective? Keep out everyone who is willing to do the job for less. (Do a bit o' Googling on the words "Hoffa" and "Teamsters".)
Back during the campaign season, [the President-elect] vowed that he would pass something called Card Check:
EFCA (The hilariously named Employee Free Choice Act, AKA Card Check) requires employers to recognize a union— without an election—once organizers collect cards from a majority of employees. Indeed, the act states that once the union submits signatures from over 50 percent of the employees to the NLRB, it must certify the union without an election. Under EFCA, holding a secret ballot election once unions collect cards from a majority of workers would become illegal.
Additionally, a card-check–only recognition process strips workers of their privacy. Polls show that most Americans strongly oppose denying workers the privacy of the voting booth when deciding whether to join a union. In response to such criticism, unions now argue that EFCA does not end secret ballot elections. Instead, proponents argue that EFCA gives workers the choice between organizing using public card-check or private elections.
Unions make this claim because union organizers can call for an organizing election after cards have been signed by at least 30 percent of employees. Since card-check recognition under EFCA occurs after organizers submit cards signed by a majority of workers, secret ballot elections could— in theory—occur under EFCA if organizers submitted cards signed by 30 to 50 percent of workers.
In practice this scenario will not happen. Nothing in the legislation gives workers any control over what organizing method unions use. That decision is left to union organizers. Organized labor's well-documented preference for card-check recognition makes it clear that EFCA effectively eliminates secret ballot elections.
In other words, union organizers have a choice between going the Secret Ballot Route, or the Card Check Route. Here's why:
But enough about Card Check.
There are two ways to move large quantities of large freight. Truckload (TL) and Less-Than-Truckload (LTL). Truckload carriers usually carry large amounts of freight directly from point A to point B. The freight usually isn't unloaded or transferred from trailer to trailer. The driver who picks the stuff up is often the one who delivers it to the final destination. Truckload carriers are more difficult for unions to organize, simply because One Driver in One Truck doesn't require much of a supporting cast and doesn't spend much time socializing with the breakroom lawyers at the freight dock.
LTL freight is picked up in smaller quantitites. One driver will often drive around the same area every day, gathering as much freight as possible from multiple shipping locations. He then delivers it to a central terminal, where it is sorted by state/zip code, and put onto other trucks going in that same general direction. All of that freight moves to the next "break bulk" terminal, where it is sorted one more time by destination. One pallet of merchandise might be on 6 different trucks if it had to go from Key West to Seattle. Large numbers of LTL employees work in the same location every day. They clock in and clock out, unlike their TL counterparts. Therefore, they've been much easier for the unions to take over.
As I understand it, almost all LTL carriers were once organized by The Teamsters Union. Therefore, most of them are now out of business.
But their former employees are still entitled to payments from The Teamsters' Pension Fund. (For an insane amount of info on this, read The Teamsters, by Stephen Brill.)
The U.S. is left with four LTL carriers burdened with the blessings of Teamster drivers: Yellow, Roadway, USF, and ABF.
Yellow Freight purchased Roadway in 2003. Then they bought USF. (Or maybe they did it earlier. I've always had difficulty getting USF to show up on time, and don't use them if I can help it.) The new Yellow/Roadway/USF conglomerate is called YRC Worldwide, and they're having issues. They're having to re-negotiate their Teamsters contract.
Here's Bill Zollars, president of YRC Worldwide: "This modification would address our operating cost structure, which is higher than a number of companies in our industry, due primarily to pension plan funding obligations. Funding pensions for our own Teamsters employees is affordable; however, paying for all the retirees and former employees of failed companies as required under our current plans makes us less competitive."
While working on a longer-term solution to this issue, YRC Worldwide is seeking immediate cost savings through proposed changes for the remainder of the contract including:
-- 10 percent reduction in all wages paid, inclusive of scheduled
increases
-- Suspension of Cost of Living Adjustments (COLA)
In exchange, Teamsters employees would receive a 15 percent ownership stake in YRC Worldwide allowing them to share in future company performance through stock price appreciation. The details of this plan are still being finalized. Contributions to the health, welfare and pension plans would continue as previously negotiated.
Why are The Teamsters being so accomodating to YRC Worldwide? Because if YRC goes belly up, that leaves ABF as the only LTL carrier paying money into the pension fund. The Teamsters pension fund is just like Social Security, the Bernie Madoff ripoffs, or any other Ponzi scheme. The continued health of the fund relies on finding new suckers to contribute money to the fund.
So, according to my Teamster buddy, they'll soon be voting on whether or not to take this pay cut in exchange for a 15% share of YRC Worldwide. Here's the Teamsters For A Democratic Union website:
The final decision will be made by YRC Teamsters, because Article 12, Section 2 of the IBT Constitution requires a secret-ballot vote to amend the national contract.
What ???
The final decision will be made by YRC Teamsters, because Article 12, Section 2 of the IBT Constitution requires a secret-ballot vote to amend the national contract.
Did that say "secret ballot vote"? What ??? Surely that's a typo. Nope. Here's a blog called The Union Label, regarding a recent Teamster publication:
On the inside back-cover, in a special “Election Supervisor’s Report to IBT Members,” Richard W. Mark explains that “Every member has the right to vote their own ballot in secret” in the upcoming election of union leaders. Yet on Page 28, the headline boasts: “Winning With Card-Check.”
So.... James Hoffa Jr., the son of the still-absent Jimmy Hoffa Sr., is presently in charge of The Teamsters. Why would a Hoffa supporter or opponent insist on the anonymity of a secret ballot?
Sounds like they could use some Card Check.
Cartoon from RedPlanetCartoons.
It doesn't matter if the monopoly is in sugar, corn, or computer operating systems. Monopolies are harmful. They harm consumers by preventing lower-priced goods from entering the market. (Do a bit o' Googling on the words "Sugar" and "Fanjul".)
It doesn't even matter if monopolies are related to labor. Labor unions are monopolies. The only way they can be effective? Keep out everyone who is willing to do the job for less. (Do a bit o' Googling on the words "Hoffa" and "Teamsters".)
Back during the campaign season, [the President-elect] vowed that he would pass something called Card Check:
EFCA (The hilariously named Employee Free Choice Act, AKA Card Check) requires employers to recognize a union— without an election—once organizers collect cards from a majority of employees. Indeed, the act states that once the union submits signatures from over 50 percent of the employees to the NLRB, it must certify the union without an election. Under EFCA, holding a secret ballot election once unions collect cards from a majority of workers would become illegal.
Additionally, a card-check–only recognition process strips workers of their privacy. Polls show that most Americans strongly oppose denying workers the privacy of the voting booth when deciding whether to join a union. In response to such criticism, unions now argue that EFCA does not end secret ballot elections. Instead, proponents argue that EFCA gives workers the choice between organizing using public card-check or private elections.
Unions make this claim because union organizers can call for an organizing election after cards have been signed by at least 30 percent of employees. Since card-check recognition under EFCA occurs after organizers submit cards signed by a majority of workers, secret ballot elections could— in theory—occur under EFCA if organizers submitted cards signed by 30 to 50 percent of workers.
In practice this scenario will not happen. Nothing in the legislation gives workers any control over what organizing method unions use. That decision is left to union organizers. Organized labor's well-documented preference for card-check recognition makes it clear that EFCA effectively eliminates secret ballot elections.
In other words, union organizers have a choice between going the Secret Ballot Route, or the Card Check Route. Here's why:
Those are almost the EXACT words I heard from a Teamster driver when we were discussing this issue last week. The absence of secret ballot allows fear, intimidation, and peer pressure to enter the picture, a fact that is conspicuously absent from most of the mainstream media coverage of Card Check.
Organizers can simply go from employee to employee with either a petition or cards. They can get the employee drunk. They can tell the employee that he's signing a football betting pool. They can do whatever is necessary to get a signature on that document. Once they hit the magic 51 %, it's over. No secret ballot. No right to privacy.
If one political party or the other were to advocate eliminating secret ballots in general political elections? You would've heard a lot more about the right to privacy. Whether it's fair or not, unions gave more than 80 million dollars in support of the [President-elect] so they could get this card check thing put into play, and they're going to want something for their money.
But enough about Card Check.
There are two ways to move large quantities of large freight. Truckload (TL) and Less-Than-Truckload (LTL). Truckload carriers usually carry large amounts of freight directly from point A to point B. The freight usually isn't unloaded or transferred from trailer to trailer. The driver who picks the stuff up is often the one who delivers it to the final destination. Truckload carriers are more difficult for unions to organize, simply because One Driver in One Truck doesn't require much of a supporting cast and doesn't spend much time socializing with the breakroom lawyers at the freight dock.
LTL freight is picked up in smaller quantitites. One driver will often drive around the same area every day, gathering as much freight as possible from multiple shipping locations. He then delivers it to a central terminal, where it is sorted by state/zip code, and put onto other trucks going in that same general direction. All of that freight moves to the next "break bulk" terminal, where it is sorted one more time by destination. One pallet of merchandise might be on 6 different trucks if it had to go from Key West to Seattle. Large numbers of LTL employees work in the same location every day. They clock in and clock out, unlike their TL counterparts. Therefore, they've been much easier for the unions to take over.
As I understand it, almost all LTL carriers were once organized by The Teamsters Union. Therefore, most of them are now out of business.
But their former employees are still entitled to payments from The Teamsters' Pension Fund. (For an insane amount of info on this, read The Teamsters, by Stephen Brill.)
The U.S. is left with four LTL carriers burdened with the blessings of Teamster drivers: Yellow, Roadway, USF, and ABF.
Yellow Freight purchased Roadway in 2003. Then they bought USF. (Or maybe they did it earlier. I've always had difficulty getting USF to show up on time, and don't use them if I can help it.) The new Yellow/Roadway/USF conglomerate is called YRC Worldwide, and they're having issues. They're having to re-negotiate their Teamsters contract.
Here's Bill Zollars, president of YRC Worldwide: "This modification would address our operating cost structure, which is higher than a number of companies in our industry, due primarily to pension plan funding obligations. Funding pensions for our own Teamsters employees is affordable; however, paying for all the retirees and former employees of failed companies as required under our current plans makes us less competitive."
While working on a longer-term solution to this issue, YRC Worldwide is seeking immediate cost savings through proposed changes for the remainder of the contract including:
-- 10 percent reduction in all wages paid, inclusive of scheduled
increases
-- Suspension of Cost of Living Adjustments (COLA)
In exchange, Teamsters employees would receive a 15 percent ownership stake in YRC Worldwide allowing them to share in future company performance through stock price appreciation. The details of this plan are still being finalized. Contributions to the health, welfare and pension plans would continue as previously negotiated.
Why are The Teamsters being so accomodating to YRC Worldwide? Because if YRC goes belly up, that leaves ABF as the only LTL carrier paying money into the pension fund. The Teamsters pension fund is just like Social Security, the Bernie Madoff ripoffs, or any other Ponzi scheme. The continued health of the fund relies on finding new suckers to contribute money to the fund.
So, according to my Teamster buddy, they'll soon be voting on whether or not to take this pay cut in exchange for a 15% share of YRC Worldwide. Here's the Teamsters For A Democratic Union website:
The final decision will be made by YRC Teamsters, because Article 12, Section 2 of the IBT Constitution requires a secret-ballot vote to amend the national contract.
What ???
The final decision will be made by YRC Teamsters, because Article 12, Section 2 of the IBT Constitution requires a secret-ballot vote to amend the national contract.
Did that say "secret ballot vote"? What ??? Surely that's a typo. Nope. Here's a blog called The Union Label, regarding a recent Teamster publication:
On the inside back-cover, in a special “Election Supervisor’s Report to IBT Members,” Richard W. Mark explains that “Every member has the right to vote their own ballot in secret” in the upcoming election of union leaders. Yet on Page 28, the headline boasts: “Winning With Card-Check.”
So.... James Hoffa Jr., the son of the still-absent Jimmy Hoffa Sr., is presently in charge of The Teamsters. Why would a Hoffa supporter or opponent insist on the anonymity of a secret ballot?
Sounds like they could use some Card Check.
Cartoon from RedPlanetCartoons.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Merry Christmas (a little early)
I'm going on a Christmas vacation in a few days, and wanted to get this one out early. This picture seems to fit the year.
I hope everyone has a great Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Ramadan, Winter Solstice, etc.
I hope everyone has a great Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Ramadan, Winter Solstice, etc.
One more crack in the glass ceiling
John F. Kennedy's daughter might be appointed to fill the Senate seat vacated by Bill Clinton's wife.
(There might be a better way to phrase that. But seriously, are there any New Yorkers who want to be represented by someone who brings more to the table than name recognition? Someone who has been elected to something just once? To the East Greenbush, NY school board? Or the Genesee Falls City Council?)
(There might be a better way to phrase that. But seriously, are there any New Yorkers who want to be represented by someone who brings more to the table than name recognition? Someone who has been elected to something just once? To the East Greenbush, NY school board? Or the Genesee Falls City Council?)
Monday, December 15, 2008
Buying Locally Grown - No matter how far you have to drive
I don't go out looking for this stuff. Salon.com emails it to me every morning.....
How I Seduced My Neighbors Into Going Green - By James Glave
I didn't want to be an eco-jerk. So I consulted a "global warming negotiator." That's when the fun began.
James Glave is a good writer. Lives in British Colombia. He's a good photographer (here's his Flickr photostream). But he apparently developed an obsession with the CO2 emissions required to power his neighbor's yard lighting.
Five of them (floodlights) were mounted across the front of his house. I had not inspected them up close but each likely contained a 65-watt incandescent bulb. As far as I could discern, they illuminated his front yard for no particular reason..... But those five beacons across the way were still doing atmospheric damage. I had already done the math on what we might delicately call my neighbor's nocturnal emissions, and as best as I could calculate, the lamps were kicking up something in the range of 95 pounds of carbon dioxide a year.
In the grand scheme of things, that's atmospheric chump change. It is the equivalent of about three return trips to Grandma's house in my father-in-law's hand-me-down Lexus SUV, and I easily find ways to justify those excursions. Hell, I probably endanger more polar bears just by vacuuming the house and doing my laundry, which amasses around my house in great fuzzy piles like Tribbles on the Starship Enterprise.
It was unfair of me to pick on my neighbor, whom I shall call David. But there was something about his all-night Light Show for Nobody that I couldn't quite keep my mouth shut about. In my head, his lamps had come to symbolize all the little things we all could be doing to save ourselves from extinction if we only knew better. If each of us took all the baby steps to overcome unconscious bad habits we didn't even know we had, we could dial back the planetary thermostat. We could unleash staggeringly good changes.
James, to his eternal credit, doesn't want to be an eco-jerk. He admits that he can't bring too much righteous indignation to bear on the outrage in his neighbor's yard, since JAMES IS RUNNING AROUND TOWN IN A LEXUS SUV. (I'm betting that the neighbor has a bigger house, bigger yard, and makes the most money. The people of my acquaintance who want "Change" generally want The Change to apply mostly to those who are one or two notches up the food chain.... I could be wrong.)
But how does one bring neighbors into a state of SUV-driving, yet floodlight extinguishing grace without being offensive and causing them to rebel against The One True Faith?
You bring in a consultant. Yes, a consultant, from Futerra Sustainability Communications. You can read that middle part yourself. The idea of bringing in a damn consultant to get yer damn neighbor to turn off his damn floodlights is too much for me to damn copy. Sorry. Anyway, the consultant, after charging him God Knows What for her services, suggests that James have a neighborhood "green" party. Plus, she says, "Food Helps".
"Food helps," said (the consultant). "Having food and alcohol at a meeting really helps. If you offer a really nice evening, maybe trying a whole load of local foods, and they have eaten your food and drunk your wine, then -- and only then -- do you introduce the idea of changing habits as a group. You could approach it as a challenge to the next town over. But however you approach it, wait until they have eaten your food and drunk your wine. Then they'll feel beholden to you."
If you've read this far, I hate to tell you this, but this is just the introduction. All of that was merely my preliminary throat-clearing, for which I apologize. Now I can get to the point. James lives in British Colombia, and is determined to serve nothing but food produced in British Colombia.
JAMES GOES SHOPPING
I wanted to serve a local dinner. Of course, winter is about the worst time to try such a stunt. But Townsend had told me to make my neighbors comfortable, show them a good time. So I trucked down to my local Whole Foods and asked the butcher for some organic beef that was as regional as possible, within reason.
"All of our beef comes from an open-range ranch in British Columbia," she said, offering me a pamphlet with a picture of what looked like an honest-to-God cowboy on the front. The steer pictured inside looked happy enough; a few dozen of them browsed in a grassy field.
"I'd like to do a roast for about eight people. What are my options?"
"The prime rib is our best cut, lots of marble in the meat," she replied. "That would be very tender, really nice."
"How much?"
"Eight people?" She did the math. "You're looking at about $85."
I like my neighbors, but not that much. "What are my other options?"
"Chuck roast is a leaner cut," she explained. "But it'll be very nice if you cook it for a long time at a low heat."
Sounds easy enough. And at $26, I could afford to buy it, with enough left over for hundred-mile-compliant carrots.
(For the uninitiated, for something to be 100 mile compliant, it has to be grown within 100 miles of the store.)
"Keep a lid on it, keep it moist," she instructed, as she handed it (the roast) over. "You'll do well with that."
Everything in the Whole Foods vegetable section was from California, so I dialed Capers, a natural-foods market a couple miles down the street that I knew specialized in local produce. "We've got Jerusalem artichokes and celery root," the produce manager offered. "Not too much else from around here at this time of year. Everything is sort of finished."
I had no idea what to do with either. "I'll be right over," I said.
Saturday rolled around. I couldn't quite remember, but I think the butcher instructed me to cook the beef for four or five hours at 275 degrees. Dinner was at 7 p.m. I carefully installed my precious planet-friendly roast on the oven's middle rack early in the afternoon. I placed it under a tent of foil with some water in the pan. A couple of hours later, as delicious aromas filled the kitchen, it was time to check on the meat's progress toward perfection. I extracted the evening's piece de resistance, pulled back the foil, and stuck my friend chuck with a meat thermometer.
Hope turned to dread as the red needle instantly zoomed past "beef-rare," "beef-medium," and "beef-well." Like a runaway boxcar, the thermometer's pointer only picked up speed from there. It moved onto other animals, rocketing right through "lamb" and barely pausing at "poultry." Finally, the gauge ran out of livestock options altogether and, after pulling a double-jointed full rotation, came to rest off the scale, in an unmarked zone that should properly be labeled tanned goods.
In panic, I reached for my mobile and dialed Beef 911. My wife, Elle, answered, and after listening to me describe the symptoms, pronounced the roast dead over the phone. "It's lunch meat," she said, clearly disgusted with me. "Go get something else and start over."
I hopped in the SUV and drove to my island's gourmet butcher shop. There I shelled out $60 for a prime rib roast from Alberta, for eight people, proving once again that when it comes to sustainable consumption, you can always do it almost right the second time -- for more than what it would've cost you from the beginning.
The meal was a success. Everyone had a great time. The neighbor voluntarily turned off his prison-yard floodlights.
But at what cost? In parts of this essay, James is poking fun at his own inefficiency. In other parts, I think he's unknowningly "showing" more than he's "telling".
For instance, what are the environmental implications of cooking a roast for a long, long, long time over low heat, as compared to yard floodlights? Especially when you could've served something pre-cooked, like Spam?
Second, James was at the O So Politically Correct Whole Foods Market, but their produce was from shipped in from Politically Incorrect California. The fact that the California produce was grown, harvested, shipped, and unloaded in one of the most efficient processes devised by humans doesn't matter. It's not "local". So James admits in an essay read by millions of people on Salon.com, he admits, without a gun pointed at his head, he declares that he hopped in an SUV that weighs somewhere between 2,000 and 8,00 pounds and uses that thing to drive his righteous butt A COUPLE OF MILES DOWN THE STREET, and I assume A COUPLE OF MILES BACK so he can do the right thing and buy local produce. The freight costs on shipping an identical amount of produce in bulk shipping containers from Taiwan to British Columbia would be lower than that.
Jesus Christ Almighty.
Then you get into the multiple trips for the meat, which are merely funny.
So here's my question: I don't know how much of this is James poking fun at his environmentalist pretensions, and how much of this is cluelessness. I honestly don't.
Because every conversation that I have with a locavore makes me think that they don't have any idea how to look at true freight and shipping costs.
There's little or no difference between the James Glave comedy of errors and the locavore behavior that I see every day. They insist on locally grown food, and don't care how far they have to drive to get it.
Unbelieveable.
**************************
On a slightly related note, here's something from "Environmental Science And Technology"
The researchers looked at the total life cycle of greenhouse gases emitted to produce the food consumed by an average American household. It turns out that transportation as a whole is not the main offender. It accounts for about 11 percent of those food-related emissions, with only 4 percent in the final delivery stage from producer to retailer. Agricultural and production practices are responsible for almost all the rest.
Here's a chart of how "all the rest" breaks out:
How I Seduced My Neighbors Into Going Green - By James Glave
I didn't want to be an eco-jerk. So I consulted a "global warming negotiator." That's when the fun began.
James Glave is a good writer. Lives in British Colombia. He's a good photographer (here's his Flickr photostream). But he apparently developed an obsession with the CO2 emissions required to power his neighbor's yard lighting.
Five of them (floodlights) were mounted across the front of his house. I had not inspected them up close but each likely contained a 65-watt incandescent bulb. As far as I could discern, they illuminated his front yard for no particular reason..... But those five beacons across the way were still doing atmospheric damage. I had already done the math on what we might delicately call my neighbor's nocturnal emissions, and as best as I could calculate, the lamps were kicking up something in the range of 95 pounds of carbon dioxide a year.
In the grand scheme of things, that's atmospheric chump change. It is the equivalent of about three return trips to Grandma's house in my father-in-law's hand-me-down Lexus SUV, and I easily find ways to justify those excursions. Hell, I probably endanger more polar bears just by vacuuming the house and doing my laundry, which amasses around my house in great fuzzy piles like Tribbles on the Starship Enterprise.
It was unfair of me to pick on my neighbor, whom I shall call David. But there was something about his all-night Light Show for Nobody that I couldn't quite keep my mouth shut about. In my head, his lamps had come to symbolize all the little things we all could be doing to save ourselves from extinction if we only knew better. If each of us took all the baby steps to overcome unconscious bad habits we didn't even know we had, we could dial back the planetary thermostat. We could unleash staggeringly good changes.
James, to his eternal credit, doesn't want to be an eco-jerk. He admits that he can't bring too much righteous indignation to bear on the outrage in his neighbor's yard, since JAMES IS RUNNING AROUND TOWN IN A LEXUS SUV. (I'm betting that the neighbor has a bigger house, bigger yard, and makes the most money. The people of my acquaintance who want "Change" generally want The Change to apply mostly to those who are one or two notches up the food chain.... I could be wrong.)
But how does one bring neighbors into a state of SUV-driving, yet floodlight extinguishing grace without being offensive and causing them to rebel against The One True Faith?
You bring in a consultant. Yes, a consultant, from Futerra Sustainability Communications. You can read that middle part yourself. The idea of bringing in a damn consultant to get yer damn neighbor to turn off his damn floodlights is too much for me to damn copy. Sorry. Anyway, the consultant, after charging him God Knows What for her services, suggests that James have a neighborhood "green" party. Plus, she says, "Food Helps".
"Food helps," said (the consultant). "Having food and alcohol at a meeting really helps. If you offer a really nice evening, maybe trying a whole load of local foods, and they have eaten your food and drunk your wine, then -- and only then -- do you introduce the idea of changing habits as a group. You could approach it as a challenge to the next town over. But however you approach it, wait until they have eaten your food and drunk your wine. Then they'll feel beholden to you."
If you've read this far, I hate to tell you this, but this is just the introduction. All of that was merely my preliminary throat-clearing, for which I apologize. Now I can get to the point. James lives in British Colombia, and is determined to serve nothing but food produced in British Colombia.
JAMES GOES SHOPPING
I wanted to serve a local dinner. Of course, winter is about the worst time to try such a stunt. But Townsend had told me to make my neighbors comfortable, show them a good time. So I trucked down to my local Whole Foods and asked the butcher for some organic beef that was as regional as possible, within reason.
"All of our beef comes from an open-range ranch in British Columbia," she said, offering me a pamphlet with a picture of what looked like an honest-to-God cowboy on the front. The steer pictured inside looked happy enough; a few dozen of them browsed in a grassy field.
"I'd like to do a roast for about eight people. What are my options?"
"The prime rib is our best cut, lots of marble in the meat," she replied. "That would be very tender, really nice."
"How much?"
"Eight people?" She did the math. "You're looking at about $85."
I like my neighbors, but not that much. "What are my other options?"
"Chuck roast is a leaner cut," she explained. "But it'll be very nice if you cook it for a long time at a low heat."
Sounds easy enough. And at $26, I could afford to buy it, with enough left over for hundred-mile-compliant carrots.
(For the uninitiated, for something to be 100 mile compliant, it has to be grown within 100 miles of the store.)
"Keep a lid on it, keep it moist," she instructed, as she handed it (the roast) over. "You'll do well with that."
Everything in the Whole Foods vegetable section was from California, so I dialed Capers, a natural-foods market a couple miles down the street that I knew specialized in local produce. "We've got Jerusalem artichokes and celery root," the produce manager offered. "Not too much else from around here at this time of year. Everything is sort of finished."
I had no idea what to do with either. "I'll be right over," I said.
Saturday rolled around. I couldn't quite remember, but I think the butcher instructed me to cook the beef for four or five hours at 275 degrees. Dinner was at 7 p.m. I carefully installed my precious planet-friendly roast on the oven's middle rack early in the afternoon. I placed it under a tent of foil with some water in the pan. A couple of hours later, as delicious aromas filled the kitchen, it was time to check on the meat's progress toward perfection. I extracted the evening's piece de resistance, pulled back the foil, and stuck my friend chuck with a meat thermometer.
Hope turned to dread as the red needle instantly zoomed past "beef-rare," "beef-medium," and "beef-well." Like a runaway boxcar, the thermometer's pointer only picked up speed from there. It moved onto other animals, rocketing right through "lamb" and barely pausing at "poultry." Finally, the gauge ran out of livestock options altogether and, after pulling a double-jointed full rotation, came to rest off the scale, in an unmarked zone that should properly be labeled tanned goods.
In panic, I reached for my mobile and dialed Beef 911. My wife, Elle, answered, and after listening to me describe the symptoms, pronounced the roast dead over the phone. "It's lunch meat," she said, clearly disgusted with me. "Go get something else and start over."
I hopped in the SUV and drove to my island's gourmet butcher shop. There I shelled out $60 for a prime rib roast from Alberta, for eight people, proving once again that when it comes to sustainable consumption, you can always do it almost right the second time -- for more than what it would've cost you from the beginning.
The meal was a success. Everyone had a great time. The neighbor voluntarily turned off his prison-yard floodlights.
But at what cost? In parts of this essay, James is poking fun at his own inefficiency. In other parts, I think he's unknowningly "showing" more than he's "telling".
For instance, what are the environmental implications of cooking a roast for a long, long, long time over low heat, as compared to yard floodlights? Especially when you could've served something pre-cooked, like Spam?
Second, James was at the O So Politically Correct Whole Foods Market, but their produce was from shipped in from Politically Incorrect California. The fact that the California produce was grown, harvested, shipped, and unloaded in one of the most efficient processes devised by humans doesn't matter. It's not "local". So James admits in an essay read by millions of people on Salon.com, he admits, without a gun pointed at his head, he declares that he hopped in an SUV that weighs somewhere between 2,000 and 8,00 pounds and uses that thing to drive his righteous butt A COUPLE OF MILES DOWN THE STREET, and I assume A COUPLE OF MILES BACK so he can do the right thing and buy local produce. The freight costs on shipping an identical amount of produce in bulk shipping containers from Taiwan to British Columbia would be lower than that.
Jesus Christ Almighty.
Then you get into the multiple trips for the meat, which are merely funny.
So here's my question: I don't know how much of this is James poking fun at his environmentalist pretensions, and how much of this is cluelessness. I honestly don't.
Because every conversation that I have with a locavore makes me think that they don't have any idea how to look at true freight and shipping costs.
There's little or no difference between the James Glave comedy of errors and the locavore behavior that I see every day. They insist on locally grown food, and don't care how far they have to drive to get it.
Unbelieveable.
**************************
On a slightly related note, here's something from "Environmental Science And Technology"
The researchers looked at the total life cycle of greenhouse gases emitted to produce the food consumed by an average American household. It turns out that transportation as a whole is not the main offender. It accounts for about 11 percent of those food-related emissions, with only 4 percent in the final delivery stage from producer to retailer. Agricultural and production practices are responsible for almost all the rest.
Here's a chart of how "all the rest" breaks out:
Enjoy the guilt. Or eat whatever you want to eat at the lowest price possible. You're probably wasting less resources that way.
The Preacher's Story
This is The Preacher's Story, from RealLivePreacher.com
It's one of the most brutally honest Loss Of Faith stories I've ever read. I hope you'll read it, and then get back to me.
This guy recently spoke at my own Broadway Baptist Church in Fort Worth, TX.
If you've ever felt the same way as the guy in The Preacher's Story link, come see us.
Speaking of what to do with changing faith....Starting January 4th, we're going to be reading Bishop John Shelby Spong's "Why Christianity Must Change Or Die" at Broadway Baptist Church in Fort Worth. Every Sunday mornings in January at 9:30 a.m., room 306, at 305 West Broadway, Fort Worth TX.
Check out the Spong link too. Look at the customer reviews. 99 of the reviewers give the book 5 stars, and 63 people give it only one star. Read a few of each variety (you can click on the star chart to read only the Raves or only the Rotten Tomatoes). Ask yourself what kind of people you'd want to hang out with for an hour on Sunday morning, and then come see us.
The Ultimate Property Right
Let's put on our hip boots and wade into The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Wrap your head around that sentence, and you'll understand why hard core Libertarians are fanatical about abolishing the draft, drug law reform, gay rights, and so forth. If I belong to myself, then what happens to me is no one's business but my own.
Here's an excerpt from their article on Libertarianism:
Libertarianism holds that agents are, at least initially, full self-owners. Agents are (moral) full self-owners in that they morally own themselves in just the same way that they can morally fully own inanimate objects.
Wrap your head around that sentence, and you'll understand why hard core Libertarians are fanatical about abolishing the draft, drug law reform, gay rights, and so forth. If I belong to myself, then what happens to me is no one's business but my own.
Andrew Ian Dodge has reminded me of another self-ownership issue that doesn't get as much publicity as it did back in the days of Dr. Kevorkian.....
(I corresponded with Andrew back when he merely ran a site called Dodgeblogium. That's the site for "bloggers who combine a taste for heavy metal music with a taste for heavy metal politics". Now he has his own Pajamas Media page, where he posts alongside bow-tie wearing conservatives. You've GOT to click both of those links. I love the internet.)
Ok, back to the topic..... Andrew raises the issue of Physician-Assisted Suicide. And whether there is any possible reason to broadcast it on television.
....This time around, controversy has been raging for weeks after Sky Television decided to air the actual death of a man from Harrowgate, North Yorkshire, as he prepared to die at a suicide clinic called Dignitas in Switzerland. Dignitas has seen several British citizens use its services to end painful and debilitating lives, but this was the first time one of their procedures was actually broadcast on British television.
Sky (Rupert Murdoch’s news outlet in Britain) produced a rather moving piece where tehe sufferer himself, Craig Ewert, makes the case for his ability to take his own life to save himself suffering. He even, between gasps of oxygen, manages to pose some interesting questions to the Christian opponents of the procedure.
Sky (Rupert Murdoch’s news outlet in Britain) produced a rather moving piece where tehe sufferer himself, Craig Ewert, makes the case for his ability to take his own life to save himself suffering. He even, between gasps of oxygen, manages to pose some interesting questions to the Christian opponents of the procedure.
Suicide has been decriminalized in Britain, simply because
.....Prosecuting a dead person seems to be seen as rather unreasonable, not to mention rather difficult, although such trials have occurred in the country’s past. The problem boils down to the law which threatens those who help facilitate the act with punishment of up to 14 years in prison.
Imagine intolerable pain, going on for hours, days, and months. But no, you must suffer. Mustn't set a bad example for everyone else. Check out the comments on Andrew's Pajama's Media post. This one in particular:
This is horrible!!!! Suicide is murder of one’s self. Common sense and at least minimal background in Christianity’s 10 Commandments gives us the answer: THOU SHALT NOT KILL! Suicide is killing of one’s self. Furthermore, to be televised while committing such a crime, is to be an exhabitionalist, while one cruel enough to watch is mentally sick! If someone is stupid enough to kill him/herself, don’t drag others into your selfishness and self-pity.
Dec 14, 2008 - 11:22 am
Dec 14, 2008 - 11:22 am
The point of the broadcast was for Craig Ewert to raise questions about his own right to die, and for others to see what a Physician-Assisted Suicide is like.
Are there are other things we do as a society that should be broadcast for the same reasons? Would some of us be so gung-ho about executions if we had to watch it happen, just once?
How about a late-term abortion? Does anyone think that watching one of those might change polling data?
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Light To See By
Here's Jon Stewart of The Daily Show, going head to head with Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee on the subject of Gay Marriage.
H.T. to Dr. Ralph....
Huckabee argues that marriage has always meant one man and one woman, he argues that marriage is defined "anatomically" as between a man and a woman because of the need to create the next generation. He claims that through 5,000 years of recorded history, that's what it has always meant.
Stewart takes the easiest shot first. Marriage used to mean polygamy. (Think King Solomon, Abraham, etc.)
Stewart then asks if it would be ok to say that Hispanics can't get married.....
Huckabee responds that "there's a big difference in a person being black, and a person practicing a lifestyle and engaging in a marital relationship".
Throughout all of this, the studio audience is cheering Stewart. My question is, where the hell were all these people when California's Proposition 8 was being voted into law????? Huckabee claims that 68% of voters are opposed to gay marriage, but you wouldn't know it from listening to the people in this video. (My best guess is that there's a lot of difference between people in a herd, and individuals in a voting booth.)
Stewart winds things up by asking Governor Huckabee when he chose to not be gay.
The only point I would've added? Here's the Apostle Paul, in 1 Corinthians, Chapter 7, verse 1: "Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry."
Paul goes on to write about how marriage is no better than a necessary evil, and how he has chosen to remain celibate. In verse 6, he says "I say this as a concession, not as a command. I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that."
Let's assume that Mike Huckabee is correct, and that Paul was divinely inspired when he wrote those words. It gives some perspective to the self-proclaimed superiority of the "Focus On The Family" people, doesn't it?
(Full Disclosure: I think that most of what Paul wrote was about as divinely inspired as The Daily Kos, or The Huffington Post. Half the time, the man was just blogging. If he'd had any idea that 2,000 years later, people in places he couldn't even imagine would be reading his stuff every Sunday and arguing about the true intent, he would've tightened up his prose a bit.)
Next point.....
Leslie Jordan is an actor, comedian and writer. He is as gay as a Barbra Streisand Film Festival, and has a new book out called "Down The Pink Carpet", which is about growing up not just gay, and not just effeminate (I know, I know, they're not the same thing), but growing up gay, effeminate, and almost freakishly flamboyant in a small town in the deep south. In the Southern Baptist Church. Surrounded by people who thought he'd outgrow it.
It didn't happen. It ain't gonna happen. But Leslie Jordan, in Mike Huckabee's worldview, is merely a confused heterosexual.
What a crock.
At one point in the book, Jordan talks about going to a helpful therapist/counselor to deal with some family issues and resentments, and this therapist explained that Jordan's father "was doing the best he could with the light he had to see by". Jordan Sr's inability to understand his obviously gay son was like the racism (by our standards) found in the words and writing of Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln didn't have as much light to see by.
Which gets us back to Mike Huckabee. On the issue of gays and lesbians having a "choice" in their sexual orientation, we now have plenty of "light to see by". It's high noon with a clear sky. We're standing in the middle of the football field with the floodlights on. We're holding flashlights.
Anyone with eyes to see, and an ounce of compassion buried in their creeds, superstitions, and dogmas - anyone can tell that gays and lesbians aren't confused heterosexuals. They didn't choose to be the way they are. Many of them have gone through stages where they would give anything in the world to be just like everyone else.
There came a time when theologians had to give up the idea of a flat earth, the sun rotating around the earth, infant damnation, and the existence of witches. (If you just finished reading that sentence, and thought to yourself that the scriptures in question aren't "wrong", but were just misinterpreted? Get some professional help. Leslie Jordan can recommend a good therapist.)
We now have plenty of light to see by.
H.T. to Dr. Ralph....
Huckabee argues that marriage has always meant one man and one woman, he argues that marriage is defined "anatomically" as between a man and a woman because of the need to create the next generation. He claims that through 5,000 years of recorded history, that's what it has always meant.
Stewart takes the easiest shot first. Marriage used to mean polygamy. (Think King Solomon, Abraham, etc.)
Stewart then asks if it would be ok to say that Hispanics can't get married.....
Huckabee responds that "there's a big difference in a person being black, and a person practicing a lifestyle and engaging in a marital relationship".
Throughout all of this, the studio audience is cheering Stewart. My question is, where the hell were all these people when California's Proposition 8 was being voted into law????? Huckabee claims that 68% of voters are opposed to gay marriage, but you wouldn't know it from listening to the people in this video. (My best guess is that there's a lot of difference between people in a herd, and individuals in a voting booth.)
Stewart winds things up by asking Governor Huckabee when he chose to not be gay.
The only point I would've added? Here's the Apostle Paul, in 1 Corinthians, Chapter 7, verse 1: "Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry."
Paul goes on to write about how marriage is no better than a necessary evil, and how he has chosen to remain celibate. In verse 6, he says "I say this as a concession, not as a command. I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that."
Let's assume that Mike Huckabee is correct, and that Paul was divinely inspired when he wrote those words. It gives some perspective to the self-proclaimed superiority of the "Focus On The Family" people, doesn't it?
(Full Disclosure: I think that most of what Paul wrote was about as divinely inspired as The Daily Kos, or The Huffington Post. Half the time, the man was just blogging. If he'd had any idea that 2,000 years later, people in places he couldn't even imagine would be reading his stuff every Sunday and arguing about the true intent, he would've tightened up his prose a bit.)
Next point.....
Leslie Jordan is an actor, comedian and writer. He is as gay as a Barbra Streisand Film Festival, and has a new book out called "Down The Pink Carpet", which is about growing up not just gay, and not just effeminate (I know, I know, they're not the same thing), but growing up gay, effeminate, and almost freakishly flamboyant in a small town in the deep south. In the Southern Baptist Church. Surrounded by people who thought he'd outgrow it.
It didn't happen. It ain't gonna happen. But Leslie Jordan, in Mike Huckabee's worldview, is merely a confused heterosexual.
What a crock.
At one point in the book, Jordan talks about going to a helpful therapist/counselor to deal with some family issues and resentments, and this therapist explained that Jordan's father "was doing the best he could with the light he had to see by". Jordan Sr's inability to understand his obviously gay son was like the racism (by our standards) found in the words and writing of Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln didn't have as much light to see by.
Which gets us back to Mike Huckabee. On the issue of gays and lesbians having a "choice" in their sexual orientation, we now have plenty of "light to see by". It's high noon with a clear sky. We're standing in the middle of the football field with the floodlights on. We're holding flashlights.
Anyone with eyes to see, and an ounce of compassion buried in their creeds, superstitions, and dogmas - anyone can tell that gays and lesbians aren't confused heterosexuals. They didn't choose to be the way they are. Many of them have gone through stages where they would give anything in the world to be just like everyone else.
There came a time when theologians had to give up the idea of a flat earth, the sun rotating around the earth, infant damnation, and the existence of witches. (If you just finished reading that sentence, and thought to yourself that the scriptures in question aren't "wrong", but were just misinterpreted? Get some professional help. Leslie Jordan can recommend a good therapist.)
We now have plenty of light to see by.
And In The Red Corner....
Back in January, I wrote something about an editorial by Joel Stein in which Mr. Stein was making a total mockery of the "Locally Grown" food movement.
It caught the eye of one of my Blogging heroes, Perry DeHavilland of Samizdata, who linked to it and got me somewhere around 30% of my current readership.
In the meantime, wonder of wonders, I started commenting back and forth with a guy called The Red Son. The Red Son is a Marxist revolutionary type with a serious weapons fetish and a hankerin' for revolutionary posters.
Somehow, Red Son found that old post and used it to start a discussion/argument with Perry, and the argument over the virtues of locally grown food has been going on for about two days now. Perry's site, Samizdata, is what inspired me to start typing every day. The Red Son is the only true collectivist I've ever encountered who appeared to have sense enough to feed himself. I'm more than a little proud of providing the battleground for these two.
Both of these guys know a lot about logic, rhetoric, argument, and history. In my opinion, The Red Son is in the difficult position of having to argue from totally false premises.
Go here to read it. I've tried to chime in, but I'm now staying out of their way. You can safely ignore most of the January comments, and skip straight to the December conversation. Interesting stuff.
It caught the eye of one of my Blogging heroes, Perry DeHavilland of Samizdata, who linked to it and got me somewhere around 30% of my current readership.
In the meantime, wonder of wonders, I started commenting back and forth with a guy called The Red Son. The Red Son is a Marxist revolutionary type with a serious weapons fetish and a hankerin' for revolutionary posters.
Somehow, Red Son found that old post and used it to start a discussion/argument with Perry, and the argument over the virtues of locally grown food has been going on for about two days now. Perry's site, Samizdata, is what inspired me to start typing every day. The Red Son is the only true collectivist I've ever encountered who appeared to have sense enough to feed himself. I'm more than a little proud of providing the battleground for these two.
Both of these guys know a lot about logic, rhetoric, argument, and history. In my opinion, The Red Son is in the difficult position of having to argue from totally false premises.
Go here to read it. I've tried to chime in, but I'm now staying out of their way. You can safely ignore most of the January comments, and skip straight to the December conversation. Interesting stuff.
Caption Contest - "Hawgs Gone Wild" edition
It's time for another caption contest.
Procrustes won the November contest, in spite of a desperate effort by Fembuttx to stuff the ballot box.
This next one one might require some preliminary explanation....
Deer hunters sometimes set up dispensers that will chunk corn all over the ground two or three times a day. (I'm having to explain all this for the Israelis, Australians, and Brits who visit this site.)
The corn feeders are mounted on a tripod to keep the deer from knocking over the vat. Sometimes they'll set up a few motion-activated cameras to record what's going on around the feeder at night.
My friend and co-worker Brent sent me this amazing picture of a wild hog making a late night visit to a corn feeder. Until yesterday, I didn't even know they could stand on their back legs.
Procrustes won the November contest, in spite of a desperate effort by Fembuttx to stuff the ballot box.
This next one one might require some preliminary explanation....
Deer hunters sometimes set up dispensers that will chunk corn all over the ground two or three times a day. (I'm having to explain all this for the Israelis, Australians, and Brits who visit this site.)
The corn feeders are mounted on a tripod to keep the deer from knocking over the vat. Sometimes they'll set up a few motion-activated cameras to record what's going on around the feeder at night.
My friend and co-worker Brent sent me this amazing picture of a wild hog making a late night visit to a corn feeder. Until yesterday, I didn't even know they could stand on their back legs.
I need a caption for this wonderful picture. I'm going into metaphor overload just looking at it.
The competition committee is giving bonus points for any caption referencing the political activity of the last two months.
Any captions making fun of my own eating habits will lose points.
Global Warming, Global Cooling, Global Dimming, and now....
Have you ever eaten a huge platter of Mexican food for lunch, gone home and taken a nap, and as long as you were undisturbed, there were no "inappropriate" side-effects?
Planet earth supposedly did that prior to the last ice age. Sat down and had the bean burritos, the refried beans, and the 3-bean salad, all washed down with Coronas. Then earth curled up and went to sleep for about 800 years.
According to Slate.com our planet is now awakening from its wintertime digestive slumber. Our friend Mr. Earth is now lying in bed, wondering if he can release some digestive pressure, but keep it contained within the bedsheets and not disturb Mrs. Earth. Or maybe it would be better to just get up and trot down the hall to the restroom? Either way, the consequences could be disastrous for humanity.
If earth asks you to pull its finger? Don't do it.
The picture of "Methane Ice" came from here.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Space Shuttle Endeavour, December 11, 2008
I work underneath the flight path of everything that enters or exits the former Carswell Airforce Base in Fort Worth. It's now called the Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base in Fort Worth, but I'm a traditionalist, and we still call it Carswell.
The Endeavour space shuttle has been in town for the previous 24 hours or so, having stopped in at Carswell for an oil change, some more windshield wiper fluid, and, if they have any taste at all, lunch at Kincaid's.
Here's the Fort Worth Star-Telegram: The space shuttle Endeavour landed at the Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base in Fort Worth at 3:10 p.m., its second of two scheduled Texas stops on its way home to Cape Canaveral, Fla.
It marks the first time the jumbo jet transporting the shuttle has landed at the base since 1997.
A large crowd of onlookers watched the landing on the base's 12,000-foot runway from nearby Spur 341.
The Endeavour is on its way back to NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida. It will remain at the former Carswell Air Force Base overnight and is scheduled to take off at sunrise Thursday.
The modified 747 with the shuttle riding piggyback landed at midmorning at Biggs Army Airfield at Fort Bliss, near El Paso. The aircraft left Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., this morning.
Depending on the weather along the route, the shuttle will arrive at Cape Canaveral in Florida either Thursday or Friday.
Endeavour was supposed to leave California on Sunday, but a technical delay and bad weather postponed the trip. The shuttle landed at the California backup site on Nov. 30 after storms hit its main Florida landing site. The cross-country ferry is expected to cost more than $1.8 million.
It took off again this morning sometime around 11:00, heading north instead of south, so no more pictures. Hope you enjoyed these.
The Endeavour space shuttle has been in town for the previous 24 hours or so, having stopped in at Carswell for an oil change, some more windshield wiper fluid, and, if they have any taste at all, lunch at Kincaid's.
We all went out in the street yesterday to see the shuttle fly overhead, and my friend Derek took these pictures. Do you see it? I don't either, but this one was in with the other pictures.
Here's the Fort Worth Star-Telegram: The space shuttle Endeavour landed at the Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base in Fort Worth at 3:10 p.m., its second of two scheduled Texas stops on its way home to Cape Canaveral, Fla.
It marks the first time the jumbo jet transporting the shuttle has landed at the base since 1997.
A large crowd of onlookers watched the landing on the base's 12,000-foot runway from nearby Spur 341.
The Endeavour is on its way back to NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida. It will remain at the former Carswell Air Force Base overnight and is scheduled to take off at sunrise Thursday.
The modified 747 with the shuttle riding piggyback landed at midmorning at Biggs Army Airfield at Fort Bliss, near El Paso. The aircraft left Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., this morning.
Depending on the weather along the route, the shuttle will arrive at Cape Canaveral in Florida either Thursday or Friday.
Endeavour was supposed to leave California on Sunday, but a technical delay and bad weather postponed the trip. The shuttle landed at the California backup site on Nov. 30 after storms hit its main Florida landing site. The cross-country ferry is expected to cost more than $1.8 million.
That's all from the Star-Telegram, and that's all of Derek's photos. The rest of these came from a friend of a friend who got to watch the landing at Carswell. (We usually keep Derek chained to his desk, photoshopping pictures for freight claims.)
It took off again this morning sometime around 11:00, heading north instead of south, so no more pictures. Hope you enjoyed these.
Rod Blagojevich and [The President-elect]
I have been called a cynic, an anarchist, a nihilist, and, in the words of one memorable email, someone who "irresponsibly spew(s) vitriol".
But every now and then, someone pulls back the curtain to show me that government really is worse than I have feared.
The National Post has the best summary of the Illinois Governor's indictment so far. The Post is a Canadian outfit, so they at least mention which political party Rod Blagojevich is affiliated with, a fact that's curiously absent from a lot of the U.S. press coverage.
(Hint: This might have been your first guess, but Blagojevich is NOT a Libertarian. So guess again.)
But every now and then, someone pulls back the curtain to show me that government really is worse than I have feared.
The National Post has the best summary of the Illinois Governor's indictment so far. The Post is a Canadian outfit, so they at least mention which political party Rod Blagojevich is affiliated with, a fact that's curiously absent from a lot of the U.S. press coverage.
(Hint: This might have been your first guess, but Blagojevich is NOT a Libertarian. So guess again.)
The picture of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, former Senator Barack Obama, and Chicago Mayor Richard Daley came from this article in Salon, the last few lines of which might become funnier with age. We'll see.
Back to the National Post:
Reuters reports that Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich was arrested on criminal charges on Tuesday, including trying to sell the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by fellow Democrat President-elect Barack Obama, federal prosecutors said.
Blagojevich was also accused of threatening to withhold substantial state assistance to the Tribune Company in connection with the sale of the Chicago Cubs' baseball home Wrigley Field "to induce the firing of Chicago Tribune editorial board members sharply critical" of him.
I'm not going to go off on why The Great State of Illinois needs to provide "substantial state assistance" to The Chicago Tribune in their sale of a ballpark. Especially when The Chicago Tribune is supposed to be a watchdog over the shady goings-on in The Great State of Illinois. But, as my friend Dr. Ralph tells me, they do things differently up there.
The 51-year-old Blagojevich and his chief of staff, John Harris, were charged in a 76-page federal indictment with conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and solicitation of bribery. Both were taken into custody at their homes in Chicago.
The FBI's criminal complaint doesn't give any names of the senatorial candidates under discussion, but refers to them as [Senate Candidate #1] through [Senate Candidate #5]. To protect the privacy of the individual who vacated the Senate seat that was for sale on Ebay, the FBI omits his name and calls him [the President-elect].
Here's an example, from an intercepted conference call. This has people all over Chicago trying to guess who's who:
ROD BLAGOJEVICH said that the consultants (Advisor B and another consultant are believed to be on the call at that time) are telling him that he has to “suck it up” for two years and do nothing and give this “****** ******** **** **** **** [the President-elect] his senator.
**** him.
For nothing? **** him.”
ROD BLAGOJEVICH states that he will put “[Senate Candidate 4]” in the Senate “before I just give ****ng [Senate Candidate 1] a ****ing Senate seat and I don’t get anything.”
I'm not condemning the profanity on these calls. At my workplace, we have to say worse than that to get one box on a UPS truck. I merely wanted to illustrate that the Illinois governor wasn't going to simply appoint the best person for the job and not even get an ambassadorship out of it. Here's the Chicago Tribune:
....Blagojevich is quoted in the affidavit as frequently speaking of the president-elect with profanity and scorn. But there is an overlap among some of their top political confidants.
Axelrod ran Blagojevich's successful 1996 campaign for a Northwest Side U.S. House seat, though the two later had a falling-out. When Blagojevich was elected governor in 2002, his replacement in Congress was Rahm Emanuel, now Obama's designee as chief of staff. Emanuel and Blagojevich have since worked closely on several initiatives.
This is a link to the entire FBI complaint. If you have time, skim the first few pages, then flip to page 60, and read to the end.
Good Lord in heaven. These people are urban Snopeses. (Also, you might not be familiar with the SEIU, a group frequently mentioned in the complaint. SEIU stands for the "Service Employees International Union". They spent more than 16 million dollars getting [the President-elect] elected.)
Until January 21st, or until further complaints are filed by the FBI, I intend to refer to the individual who vacated this controversial senate seat as [the President-elect].
Monday, December 8, 2008
Credit Derivative Monopoly
Thanks to my online friend Jay at Soob, I've discovered this guy: TDAXP.
TDAXP's posts are good, but what's really interesting is this explanation, buried deep in the comment fields, of a variation of the Monopoly board game called "Credit Derivative Monopoly". Here's an excerpt:
Credit Derivative Monopoly uses financial engineering, however, to create Housing-Backed Securities. Say a player owns Boardwalk and Park Place, but does not have any cash left.
Likewise, another player has no monopolies, but perhaps $400 in extra cash. Credit Derivative Monopoly allows transfer that extra capital in exchange for the asset of, say, half the rental income on those two houses. So if a third player lands on Boardwalk, half goes to the property owner and half goes to the player who purchased those housing-backed securities.
.....In our two games of play, the instruments got increasingly complex. In one, the price for purchasing 8 houses was half the rent, plus forgiveness on all rent owed by the purchasing player to the selling player for the next three landings, plus the rent owed by the purchasing player to a named third-payer player for three landings.
My head hurts just thinking about it.
Mortgage meltdown picture from Ocean.flynn Cool photostream there, BTW.
TDAXP's posts are good, but what's really interesting is this explanation, buried deep in the comment fields, of a variation of the Monopoly board game called "Credit Derivative Monopoly". Here's an excerpt:
Credit Derivative Monopoly uses financial engineering, however, to create Housing-Backed Securities. Say a player owns Boardwalk and Park Place, but does not have any cash left.
Likewise, another player has no monopolies, but perhaps $400 in extra cash. Credit Derivative Monopoly allows transfer that extra capital in exchange for the asset of, say, half the rental income on those two houses. So if a third player lands on Boardwalk, half goes to the property owner and half goes to the player who purchased those housing-backed securities.
.....In our two games of play, the instruments got increasingly complex. In one, the price for purchasing 8 houses was half the rent, plus forgiveness on all rent owed by the purchasing player to the selling player for the next three landings, plus the rent owed by the purchasing player to a named third-payer player for three landings.
My head hurts just thinking about it.
Mortgage meltdown picture from Ocean.flynn Cool photostream there, BTW.
Thomas Sowell on what The Road To Hell Is Paved With
Brothers and Sisters, we will begin our services today with a brief reading from National Socialist Radio , and a few words from Henry Waxman about the Wall Street Bailout legislation.
"I wish we would have made the language tighter. I was aware at the time that it wasn't as clear and direct as I would have liked it," says Rep. Henry Waxman (Mommy Party - CA). "And to find now that it might be used for extravagant pensions or bonuses or dividends or any other purpose is inconsistent with what Congress intended."
Please add Brother Henry Waxman to your prayer lists, as we all wish him a speedy recovery.
Now please stand for this month's reading from the Gospel According to Saint Thomas, in which we gather here to read words by, or about economist Thomas Sowell, who is the smartest man in the world now that Milton Friedman is dead:
"Economics is a study of incentives and their consequences, not intentions and their goals."
"What counts in assessing a social or economic policy is not the stated intentions of promoters, but the incentives created and the actual end results produced"
"Economics is a study of cause and effect, not intentions and hopes."
I invite the congregation, during our moment of quiet time, to compare and contrast the statements of Brother Waxman and Saint Thomas.
You may be seated.
"I wish we would have made the language tighter. I was aware at the time that it wasn't as clear and direct as I would have liked it," says Rep. Henry Waxman (Mommy Party - CA). "And to find now that it might be used for extravagant pensions or bonuses or dividends or any other purpose is inconsistent with what Congress intended."
Please add Brother Henry Waxman to your prayer lists, as we all wish him a speedy recovery.
Now please stand for this month's reading from the Gospel According to Saint Thomas, in which we gather here to read words by, or about economist Thomas Sowell, who is the smartest man in the world now that Milton Friedman is dead:
"Economics is a study of incentives and their consequences, not intentions and their goals."
"What counts in assessing a social or economic policy is not the stated intentions of promoters, but the incentives created and the actual end results produced"
"Economics is a study of cause and effect, not intentions and hopes."
I invite the congregation, during our moment of quiet time, to compare and contrast the statements of Brother Waxman and Saint Thomas.
You may be seated.
At the close of our services, after you have repented of your addiction to bailouts, subsidies, quotas, and giveaways, after you have dropped your opposition to NAFTA and stopped supporting rent control, and basically gotten right with God, I invite you to cautiously visit this site, at http://tsowellusa.ytmnd.com/ . If you have speakers on your computer, turn them up.
Please remember that Saint Thomas is not divine. He is, of course, saintly but not godlike. We violate the First and Second Commandments when we set up online shrines and altars to someone who is, according to rumors, human.
Next week our guest speakers will be a group of missionaries who are trying to put a copy of Saint Thomas's "Basic Economics-3rd edition" on the nightstand of every room in every Motel 6 in the United States.
You are dismissed.
Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson !! - The Twin Towers Died For Your Sins !!
Here are Reverend Jerry Falwell and Reverend Pat Robertson, recorded shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
They neglect to mention that we also allow women to teach men (in violation of 2nd Timothy 2:12), and that a lot of us eat shellfish and pigs (prohibited throughout Leviticus).
I believe I've seen women preachers on Brother Pat's TV show and network. Brother Jerry looks like he's had many a platter of shellfish and pigs.
We also have a banking system that loans out money, expecting repayment with interest (Deuteronomy 23:19), and many of us, including those two clowns, occasionally shave our faces.(See Leviticus 19:27. Shaving is a big No-No.)
And I suspect that both of these heretics are wearing at least one article of clothing made of blended fabrics (surely they've read Deuteronomy 22:22).
If you accept the biblical admonition that committing an "abomination" is worthy of death (see Ezekiel 18:9-14), then we can only conclude that....
Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson caused the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
They neglect to mention that we also allow women to teach men (in violation of 2nd Timothy 2:12), and that a lot of us eat shellfish and pigs (prohibited throughout Leviticus).
I believe I've seen women preachers on Brother Pat's TV show and network. Brother Jerry looks like he's had many a platter of shellfish and pigs.
We also have a banking system that loans out money, expecting repayment with interest (Deuteronomy 23:19), and many of us, including those two clowns, occasionally shave our faces.(See Leviticus 19:27. Shaving is a big No-No.)
And I suspect that both of these heretics are wearing at least one article of clothing made of blended fabrics (surely they've read Deuteronomy 22:22).
If you accept the biblical admonition that committing an "abomination" is worthy of death (see Ezekiel 18:9-14), then we can only conclude that....
Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson caused the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
How To Interview Nancy Pelosi
A lot of people wailed and moaned at the passing of Tim Russert, since he was supposedly the last "bulldog" TV journalist who would ask THE HARD QUESTIONS, and not stop asking until the question was answered.
That was a bunch of baloney. Russert was a warm, personable guy. He was smart. And he would ask the hard questions. Twice.
Then he would move on. To the next question.
This guy does it properly.
OMG.
I've had to hit "pause", get up and walk away for a few minutes, then come back to the computer for a few seconds more. This is painful.
Why doesn't he have a Sunday morning show?
He doesn't even get to the really hard questions about Tuna.
That was a bunch of baloney. Russert was a warm, personable guy. He was smart. And he would ask the hard questions. Twice.
Then he would move on. To the next question.
This guy does it properly.
OMG.
I've had to hit "pause", get up and walk away for a few minutes, then come back to the computer for a few seconds more. This is painful.
Why doesn't he have a Sunday morning show?
He doesn't even get to the really hard questions about Tuna.
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Don Boudreaux on Government Expertise
Much has been written in the last few months about the need for increased regulation. The idea is that Congress should immediately employ more regulatory hobbits, trolls, and munchkins to produce more hurdles for the opponents of their donors. 
We need some oversight, dang it. If people want to get rich betting on the probability of dubious mortgages getting paid, we need to support them.
Don Boudreaux, economics professor at George Mason University, and half of the incredible Cafe Hayek blog, asks the following related question:
He asks: What the hell are you people thinking?
He asks, If you wouldn't entrust your 401(k) to a senator, why support political investments in the auto industry?
Editor, Baltimore Sun
Dear Editor:
You opine that Detroit automakers "need to explain in detail to Congress how they intend to eliminate thousands of uneconomical dealerships, swiftly bring their labor costs closer to what Toyota pays its workers in this country, and quickly produce more energy-efficient cars that Americans will want to buy" ("Selling American cars," Dec. 4).
No. These companies deserve investment funds only if they're able to make cars that will sell AND can demonstrate this ability to private investors. Congress is manned by people who specialize in winning popularity contests called "elections." These are not people expert in judging business models, or at pondering the pros and cons of different retail-distribution methods, or equipped to accurately discern the nuances of consumer demands for automobiles, or even – judging from their track record – aware of the most elementary principles of finance and economics.
If, say, you're looking for someone to manage your 401(k), would you entrust that job to Sen. Mikulski or Rep. Hoyer? Of course not, for that's not what they do. So why entrust them and other politicians with the job of investing on a vastly larger scale?
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
All of which, of course, is common sense. Some of the people grilling the Big 3 CEO's know more about Eritraean Contraceptive Methods than the do about the economics of the auto industry. But let's take it to a more basic level.
We've been through recessions in the past, and came out of them ok.
Lot's of people got wiped out in the dotcom bubble, but we didn't have rioting in the streets.
I occasionally get wiped out at the blackjack table, and walk away wishing for increased government oversight of blackjack dealers. I, too, have felt the pain of totally undeserved gambling losses due to lack of oversight. There should be laws preventing dealers from pulling a 5 out of nowhere to play on top of their 16.
Speaking of which, do you remember people using the phrase "play the stock market", with the implication that one could lose everything that had been put into play? Much like losing a game of Blackjack, Monopoly, or (ahem) Risk? "Playing The Stock Market" has gone out of favor. We now want a risk-free way to put our money to work so we won't have to work to earn more money.
We are supposedly clamoring for regulation that will produce only winners and no losers. "Money for nothing, and your chicks for free," in the words of Dire Straits.
So which Congressperson or Senator has the gumption to understand the implications of every regulatory pebble thrown into the workings of the Free Market? My vote would go to Ron Paul or Arizona's Jeff Flake.
Are there any others who see increased economic regulation as anything but protecting donors from risk and change?
Let's go even more basic.... At this point, can you honestly say that you would trust, say, Senator Robert Byrd to properly order the Happy Meals for Miss MacGillicuddy's Kindergarten?
We need some oversight, dang it. If people want to get rich betting on the probability of dubious mortgages getting paid, we need to support them.
Don Boudreaux, economics professor at George Mason University, and half of the incredible Cafe Hayek blog, asks the following related question:
He asks, If you wouldn't entrust your 401(k) to a senator, why support political investments in the auto industry?
Editor, Baltimore Sun
Dear Editor:
You opine that Detroit automakers "need to explain in detail to Congress how they intend to eliminate thousands of uneconomical dealerships, swiftly bring their labor costs closer to what Toyota pays its workers in this country, and quickly produce more energy-efficient cars that Americans will want to buy" ("Selling American cars," Dec. 4).
No. These companies deserve investment funds only if they're able to make cars that will sell AND can demonstrate this ability to private investors. Congress is manned by people who specialize in winning popularity contests called "elections." These are not people expert in judging business models, or at pondering the pros and cons of different retail-distribution methods, or equipped to accurately discern the nuances of consumer demands for automobiles, or even – judging from their track record – aware of the most elementary principles of finance and economics.
If, say, you're looking for someone to manage your 401(k), would you entrust that job to Sen. Mikulski or Rep. Hoyer? Of course not, for that's not what they do. So why entrust them and other politicians with the job of investing on a vastly larger scale?
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
All of which, of course, is common sense. Some of the people grilling the Big 3 CEO's know more about Eritraean Contraceptive Methods than the do about the economics of the auto industry. But let's take it to a more basic level.
We've been through recessions in the past, and came out of them ok.
Lot's of people got wiped out in the dotcom bubble, but we didn't have rioting in the streets.
I occasionally get wiped out at the blackjack table, and walk away wishing for increased government oversight of blackjack dealers. I, too, have felt the pain of totally undeserved gambling losses due to lack of oversight. There should be laws preventing dealers from pulling a 5 out of nowhere to play on top of their 16.
Speaking of which, do you remember people using the phrase "play the stock market", with the implication that one could lose everything that had been put into play? Much like losing a game of Blackjack, Monopoly, or (ahem) Risk? "Playing The Stock Market" has gone out of favor. We now want a risk-free way to put our money to work so we won't have to work to earn more money.
We are supposedly clamoring for regulation that will produce only winners and no losers. "Money for nothing, and your chicks for free," in the words of Dire Straits.
So which Congressperson or Senator has the gumption to understand the implications of every regulatory pebble thrown into the workings of the Free Market? My vote would go to Ron Paul or Arizona's Jeff Flake.
Are there any others who see increased economic regulation as anything but protecting donors from risk and change?
Let's go even more basic.... At this point, can you honestly say that you would trust, say, Senator Robert Byrd to properly order the Happy Meals for Miss MacGillicuddy's Kindergarten?
Friday, December 5, 2008
Mission Accomplished - a 15 Year High In Unemployment
The Unemployment Rate has hit a 15 year high, along with the new high in the minimum wage.
Thanks Be Unto God for yet another increase in the minimum wage, coming to us next year. That should help employers hire more people, right? Especially the young, inexperienced minorities that this legislation is designed to help.
Hit the minimum wage tab below for additional rants on this subject.
Exodus 23:2
Exodus 23:2 linkage here.
This one's also from The Grouchy Old Cripple in Atlanta. You can hit this link an see a GREAT video of an eleven-year old girl field stripping what looks like an AR-15 rifle and re-assembling it in less than a minute.
Either that appeals to you, or it doesn't. The Grouchy Old Cripple. Often imitated, never duplicated.
Who Was The President?
Here's a history test put out by Mental Floss magazine. (Thanks to The Grouchy Old Cripple in Atlanta for posting.) It's called Who Was President?
I got 10 out of 13.
Anyone outside of the U.S. who gets a better score than that needs to keep it to himself.
Please, please, please....Take The Day Off
No. Please don't.
Don't do this.
"Help" from government is what got us into the credit mess.
Please, please, please don't let Uncle Sam help that particular state any more.
For the last 75 years, it's been a mess of corporate welfare and traditional welfare.
Now, they're on the brink of turning things around.
You guys need to go help Michigan some more.
Or better yet, stay home.
Please.
Don't do this.
"Help" from government is what got us into the credit mess.
Please, please, please don't let Uncle Sam help that particular state any more.
For the last 75 years, it's been a mess of corporate welfare and traditional welfare.
Now, they're on the brink of turning things around.
You guys need to go help Michigan some more.
Or better yet, stay home.
Please.
The Death Clock
Here's a link to The Death Clock, an online mechanism that tells you when you're probably going to die. It's based on age, attitude, whether or not you smoke, height, and weight. If you need help calculating your Body Mass Index, click here. The number will appear inside the heart on the drawing.
Y'all have fun without me. If you look at Item #9 on my previous post, I might not outlive General Motors.
Regular commenters, please let me know when you're going to join me at Greenwood Cemetery.
Nine Questions About The Big 3 Bailout
A few questions about the Big 3 bailout....
1) After being thoroughly chastised for arriving in D.C. in private jets for their first Subsidy Session, the Detroit CEO's appear to have learned the value of The Meaningless Symbolic Gesture. I think they all pulled into Washington in hybrids this time, simply because cars that run on BS, rhetoric, and moonbeams haven't been invented yet and were unavailable.
Anyway, question #1 is.... since corporate jets are, by almost any standard, nothing but an ego boost, are the Big 3 automakers going to sell the jets? Should there be a string attached requiring them to get rid of them, if the jets were a dealbreaker in the previous episode of Dancing For Dollars?
2) How many American automakers have already gone out of business? Is there something special about these three?
3) Companies based overseas who have opened auto plants in the Southeast appear to be doing ok. When is the last time someone got drunk enough to open a major automobile factory in Detroit?
4) Are all industries in need of a bailout based in "Blue" states? Just curious. Wondering if there's a correlation between worldview and business practices.
5) The United Auto Workers gave the Obama campaign 80 million dollars. I'm sure there were no strings attached. Obama has resigned from the Senate so he won't have to vote on this. The only sane way to bail out the Big 3 (without requiring another bailout in 20 minutes) will be to rip up the current Union contracts. Do you think some people are going to be, um, pissed?
6) A lot of people are pointing to the success of the previous Chrysler bailout , the one engineered by Lee Iacocca. Did that do any good, or did it just postpone misery?
7) I have a four year old F-150. I've taken good care of it. But I've already had to put $1,800 into it, and another $2,000 is probably on the way.
Every time I go to a dealer (the backbones of our small towns, the economic linchpins of our communities, blah blah blah) the repair quote is higher than the price charged by a smaller shop.
The other two vehicles in my Earth-Warming Fleet are imports, or should I say, their parent companies are Japanese. These cars haven't needed any major repairs in the last 5 years.
And when these vehicles do go into the shop, I don't go into cardiac arrest.
(I grew up on a Chevy-oriented farm. Switched to Fords about 10 years ago. I recently decided that I'm not going to buy another American made vehicle. Ever.)
I realize that this isn't a representative sample, but what's up with that?
8) If your organization is in trouble, and people start saying you are "too big to be allowed to fail", hasn't your size become a liability instead of an asset? Isn't the market already telling you that you're too big to pay attention to everything you're doing, and you need to trim some fat?
9) If the bailout goes through Congress and Obama signs it, does anyone want to place any wagers on how long before one of the Big 3 goes bankrupt or needs yet another bailout? I'm putting the over/under at July 1, 2011.
1) After being thoroughly chastised for arriving in D.C. in private jets for their first Subsidy Session, the Detroit CEO's appear to have learned the value of The Meaningless Symbolic Gesture. I think they all pulled into Washington in hybrids this time, simply because cars that run on BS, rhetoric, and moonbeams haven't been invented yet and were unavailable.
Anyway, question #1 is.... since corporate jets are, by almost any standard, nothing but an ego boost, are the Big 3 automakers going to sell the jets? Should there be a string attached requiring them to get rid of them, if the jets were a dealbreaker in the previous episode of Dancing For Dollars?
2) How many American automakers have already gone out of business? Is there something special about these three?
3) Companies based overseas who have opened auto plants in the Southeast appear to be doing ok. When is the last time someone got drunk enough to open a major automobile factory in Detroit?
4) Are all industries in need of a bailout based in "Blue" states? Just curious. Wondering if there's a correlation between worldview and business practices.
5) The United Auto Workers gave the Obama campaign 80 million dollars. I'm sure there were no strings attached. Obama has resigned from the Senate so he won't have to vote on this. The only sane way to bail out the Big 3 (without requiring another bailout in 20 minutes) will be to rip up the current Union contracts. Do you think some people are going to be, um, pissed?
6) A lot of people are pointing to the success of the previous Chrysler bailout , the one engineered by Lee Iacocca. Did that do any good, or did it just postpone misery?
7) I have a four year old F-150. I've taken good care of it. But I've already had to put $1,800 into it, and another $2,000 is probably on the way.
Every time I go to a dealer (the backbones of our small towns, the economic linchpins of our communities, blah blah blah) the repair quote is higher than the price charged by a smaller shop.
The other two vehicles in my Earth-Warming Fleet are imports, or should I say, their parent companies are Japanese. These cars haven't needed any major repairs in the last 5 years.
And when these vehicles do go into the shop, I don't go into cardiac arrest.
(I grew up on a Chevy-oriented farm. Switched to Fords about 10 years ago. I recently decided that I'm not going to buy another American made vehicle. Ever.)
I realize that this isn't a representative sample, but what's up with that?
8) If your organization is in trouble, and people start saying you are "too big to be allowed to fail", hasn't your size become a liability instead of an asset? Isn't the market already telling you that you're too big to pay attention to everything you're doing, and you need to trim some fat?
9) If the bailout goes through Congress and Obama signs it, does anyone want to place any wagers on how long before one of the Big 3 goes bankrupt or needs yet another bailout? I'm putting the over/under at July 1, 2011.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
More Mail From The Obama Campaign
During the electoral unpleasantness of last November (exactly one month ago!) I was on the email list of all the major Mommy and Daddy party candidates.
Obama is still running for office. From today's email inbox:
Dear Whited Sepulchre --
They call me dear....I donated $12.50 to help him defeat She Whose Name Is Not Spoken early in the primaries. Now he's made her Secretary of State. I want a refund.
(There is a conspiracy theory amongst those who choose to believe that Obama hasn't gone stark raving mad .... Obama had to get Hillary out of the Senate so she wouldn't screw up health care, since he wants to screw that up himself. The only way to keep her from sucking all the air out of the room was to offer her a high profile cabinet position, then wait on the inevitable Clinton circus to erupt so he can ask her to resign.
Or it could be that Obama has gone stark raving mad. Can you seriously imagine her diving into the current mess between India and Pakistan?)
Exactly one month ago, you made history by giving all Americans a real opportunity for change.
Now it's time to start preparing and working for change in our communities.
On December 13th and 14th, supporters are coming together in every part of the country to reflect on what we've accomplished and plan the future of this movement. Your ideas and feedback will be collected and used to guide this movement in the months and years ahead. Join your friends and neighbors -- sign up to host or attend a Change is Coming house meeting near you.
I think I'm gonna scrape the Bob Barr sticker off the F-150 and attend one of these. Or maybe I'll just lease a Volvo for that weekend, then go to a Change Is Coming House and LiveBlog it.
Since the election, the challenges we face -- and our responsibility to take action -- have only gotten more urgent.
"our responsibility to take action"....are those the scariest words you've read today?
You can connect with fellow supporters, make progress on the issues you care about, and help shape the future of your community and our country.
Learn what you can do now to support President-elect Obama's agenda for change and continue to make a difference in your community.
Take the first important step by hosting or attending a Change is Coming house meeting. Sign up right now:http://my.barackobama.com/changeiscoming
Or maybe we could convert the Tarrant County Libertarian Meetup into a Change Is Coming event. That would be memorable.
To get our country back on track, it will take all of us working together.
Barack and Joe have a clear agenda and an unprecedented opportunity for change. But they can't do it alone.
Awwww....let's let Barack and Joe try to do it alone. And if they need help after three years and eleven months, lets hire them a couple of temps.
Will you join us at a house meeting and help plan the next steps for this movement?
The result of these "Change Is Coming" house meetings will be dumpsters full of mail headed toward Congress from earnest, organized grievance collectors. They're going to emphasize Barack and Joe's moral responsibility to take action. All your friends and neighbors are going to be gathered 'round the dining room table, passing around a big drippy cauldron of the poisoned Kool-Aid.
May God have mercy on us all.
Thanks,
David Plouffe
Campaign Manager
Obama for America
KoolAid parody poster came from here.
Obama is still running for office. From today's email inbox:
Dear Whited Sepulchre --
They call me dear....I donated $12.50 to help him defeat She Whose Name Is Not Spoken early in the primaries. Now he's made her Secretary of State. I want a refund.
(There is a conspiracy theory amongst those who choose to believe that Obama hasn't gone stark raving mad .... Obama had to get Hillary out of the Senate so she wouldn't screw up health care, since he wants to screw that up himself. The only way to keep her from sucking all the air out of the room was to offer her a high profile cabinet position, then wait on the inevitable Clinton circus to erupt so he can ask her to resign.
Or it could be that Obama has gone stark raving mad. Can you seriously imagine her diving into the current mess between India and Pakistan?)
Exactly one month ago, you made history by giving all Americans a real opportunity for change.
Now it's time to start preparing and working for change in our communities.
On December 13th and 14th, supporters are coming together in every part of the country to reflect on what we've accomplished and plan the future of this movement. Your ideas and feedback will be collected and used to guide this movement in the months and years ahead. Join your friends and neighbors -- sign up to host or attend a Change is Coming house meeting near you.
I think I'm gonna scrape the Bob Barr sticker off the F-150 and attend one of these. Or maybe I'll just lease a Volvo for that weekend, then go to a Change Is Coming House and LiveBlog it.
Since the election, the challenges we face -- and our responsibility to take action -- have only gotten more urgent.
"our responsibility to take action"....are those the scariest words you've read today?
You can connect with fellow supporters, make progress on the issues you care about, and help shape the future of your community and our country.
Learn what you can do now to support President-elect Obama's agenda for change and continue to make a difference in your community.
Take the first important step by hosting or attending a Change is Coming house meeting. Sign up right now:http://my.barackobama.com/changeiscoming
Or maybe we could convert the Tarrant County Libertarian Meetup into a Change Is Coming event. That would be memorable.
To get our country back on track, it will take all of us working together.
Barack and Joe have a clear agenda and an unprecedented opportunity for change. But they can't do it alone.
Awwww....let's let Barack and Joe try to do it alone. And if they need help after three years and eleven months, lets hire them a couple of temps.
Will you join us at a house meeting and help plan the next steps for this movement?
The result of these "Change Is Coming" house meetings will be dumpsters full of mail headed toward Congress from earnest, organized grievance collectors. They're going to emphasize Barack and Joe's moral responsibility to take action. All your friends and neighbors are going to be gathered 'round the dining room table, passing around a big drippy cauldron of the poisoned Kool-Aid.
May God have mercy on us all.
Thanks,
David Plouffe
Campaign Manager
Obama for America
KoolAid parody poster came from here.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
A Beginner's Guide To Freedom
Do you ever wish that there was a blog like mine, but written by someone who could get straight to the point?
Do you ever wish you could read a serious libertarian site that covers the issues without erupting into name-calling, goofy pictures, and vitriol?
I have just the place for you to visit....
I met Stephen Smith at my first Tarrant County Libertarian Meetup. (Come to Pop's Safari Bar tomorrow night for one of our mini-meetings, and you can meet him too.)
He writes a political blog called A Beginner's Guide To Freedom, and also ran for the State Legislature as a Libertarian.
In this post about his campaign experience, he wrote:
"You see, the Republicans and Democrats in each state have set certain rules about who is and who is not allowed on the ballot – i.e., whom the voter may or may not vote for. The specifics vary, but generally speaking, the Republicans and Democrats get space on the ballot automatically, but every other party has to go through a time-consuming and wildly expensive process of obtaining signatures, verifying names and addresses, and fighting off legal challenges just so they can have their candidates listed as a choice for the voter to ignore come November. And should the voter ever pay more attention to these renegade candidates than the major parties might like, the number of signatures required to gain ballot access in the next election cycle is simply raised higher."
In other words, The Mommy Party and The Daddy Party ain't about to go gently into that good night.
Here's Steven on Gay/Lesbian marriage in general, and California's passage of Proposition 8 in particular:
Nevertheless, I think both sides of the gay marriage debate miss a fundamental point. The real question is not whether government should recognize gay marriage. The real question is “Why does anyone – gay or straight – have to ask government for permission to marry at all?”
Well said. But almost immediately afterward, Steven couldn't resist having a little fun at Melissa Etheridge's expense.
Melissa Etheridge inadvertently stumbled over a good point recently. After Prop 8 passed in California, she fired off an angry blog post in which she threatened to withhold her state income taxes because the vote didn’t go her way. She backed off that threat in a later interview featured on the November 17th edition of Access Hollywood, but she did mention how bizarre it seemed that her right to marry the person of her choice had been put to majority vote.
Yeah, it seems like a fundamental right to me, too.
But I can’t help laughing at the irony. Melissa Etheridge is a proud “progressive” who has been outspoken in her support for the likes of Dennis Kucinich and Al Gore. So normally she’s all for putting things to a vote – like voting for new and creative ways to waste your money on some ill-conceived socialist plan.
....Now that she’s on the losing side, however, Ms. Etheridge is slowly coming to grips with the fact that direct democracy is a double-edged sword. Do you think this will be enough to get her to reconsider her lifelong worship of big government? Neither do I.
Me either. Why Gays and Lesbians insist on voting for Democrats is God's own mystery.
Stephen's blog is one of the few I've discovered where I've been impressed enough to start at the beginning with the goal of reading the whole thing.
Read him, link him, save his site to your favorites, and meet us at Pop's tomorrow night.
John Stossel on The Bailouts
Here's John Stossel, of ABC News, saying all the things I try to say but doing it much more eloquently.
WARNING: He does NOT have any funny pictures.
WARNING: He does NOT have any funny pictures.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)