I'd say "a queen" (*rimshot*) but really that's not good enough for royal protocol. Maybe for a while they can make do with "His or Her Royal Highness, the Prince or Princess of Such-and-So."
What Do You Call A "Gender-Fluid" Monarch?
I'd say "a queen" (*rimshot*) but really that's not good enough for royal protocol. Maybe for a while they can make do with "His or Her Royal Highness, the Prince or Princess of Such-and-So."
Woke
If you don't know Titania McGrath -- who insists she is not satire -- you are missing out. Here is an interview with a woman who might, or might not, be the brains behind her.
Prison Reform
Van Jones has a good point. Don't just read the soundbite caption. It's worth listening to his full commentary.
African Methodists Fight For Biblical Sexuality
An interesting story via Instapundit.
Contrast with this story about Michelle Malkin, where the progressives at tech firms are working to elevate ancient religious norms over modern American ideas of liberty.
Contrast with this story about Michelle Malkin, where the progressives at tech firms are working to elevate ancient religious norms over modern American ideas of liberty.
How Dare You Allow Her To Defend Her Friend?
It's racist, because she's black, I guess? Allowing a black woman to defend a white man against a charge of racism is using her as "prop," which proves that he's racist; whereas, of course, using a white man to defend a white man against a charge of racism is to be dismissed as mere white privilege (or "supremacy" or something). And of course, if you don't defend yourself at all, well, surely you'd rebut it if you could, so the charge must be true.
These rhetorical games are getting old fast.
These rhetorical games are getting old fast.
Gun Control Bill Up in House
If you're inclined to call your Congressperson, the vote is today on the universal background check bill. Almost all gun sales are already subject to background checks; this would criminalize private sales between individuals, so that the government had a record of every single transfer. This would be used only for the good, of course, and never to build a database for confiscatory purposes.
UPDATE: Post hoc ergo propter hoc is an informal fallacy; but the timeline is interesting.
UPDATE: Cam Edwards points out that, should this bill become law, a battered woman who borrowed a gun to defend herself would be a criminal -- and on conviction, would lose herright [UPDATE: See comments] legal permission to own a gun.
UPDATE: Post hoc ergo propter hoc is an informal fallacy; but the timeline is interesting.
UPDATE: Cam Edwards points out that, should this bill become law, a battered woman who borrowed a gun to defend herself would be a criminal -- and on conviction, would lose her
Travel Guide
I've been to quite a few of the red areas on this new map of the world's most dangerous destinations.
Not all of them, to be sure. Road trip!
Not all of them, to be sure. Road trip!
Once More on Reparations
...then I'll step back. (Note: cross-posted from my blog)
Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate wannabe
and Senator Kamala Harris (D, CA) wants us to take
our dark history seriously.
We must confront the dark history of slavery and government-sanctioned discrimination in this country that has had many consequences, including undermining the ability of black families to build wealth in America for generations. We need systemic, structural changes to address that.
Absolutely. The
Progressive-Democratic Party must confront its dark history of slavery and
government-sanctioned discrimination.
The Progressive-Democratic Party must confront its dark
history of its Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney, who ruled that Dred Scott, a
free black man in the north, must be returned to the ownership of his owner—and
who further ruled that blacks could not be citizens of the United States
because blacks were not fully men.
The Progressive-Democratic Party must confront its demand for the States Right of holding
slaves, slavery over which the nation had to fight a bloody civil war to end
because of Party intransigence.
The Progressive-Democratic Party must confront its dark
history of its creation, the Ku Klux Klan, which it used to terrorize newly
freed blacks—and any who supported them—in the aftermath of the Party's lost
overt slavery policy.
The Progressive-Democratic Party must confront its dark
history of its Jim Crow Laws, designed explicitly to keep blacks from voting.
The Progressive-Democratic Party must confront its dark
history of segregation, resumed in full under President Woodrow Wilson (D), who
actively resegregated the Federal government after it had been steadily
integrated following the Civil War, a policy for which Wilson insisted blacks
should be grateful for the "protection," and which continued apace in
schools under the fiction of "separate but equal," which included all
public spaces, and which extended even to sections of buses, drinking fountains,
and rest rooms.
The Progressive-Democratic Party must confront its dark
history of destroying black families by enacting "welfare" laws that
paid single mothers but not intact families, making it fiscally useful, if not
wholly immoral, for fathers to absent themselves.
The Progressive-Democratic Party must confront its dark
history of deliberate, overt racial (and gender) discrimination in its
"affirmative action" policies that give special treatment based,
ultimately, on skin color and/or gender.
The Progressive-Democratic Party must confront its dark
history of undermining the ability of black families (such as they're allowed
to exist) to build wealth by keeping them trapped in Party's welfare cage with
the designed-in welfare cliff that prevents welfare recipients—most of whom are
minority recipients, with most of those black—from getting a new job or a pay
raise that would put them above an income threshold that would cut welfare
payments by more than the pay raise.
The Progressive-Democratic Party must confront its dark
present of identity politics that seeks to give special treatment to particular
groups of Americans—which is nothing more than segregation modernized.
The Progressive-Democratic Party does, most definitely, need
systemic, structural changes to address that.
Eric Hines
Getting Around the Electoral College
NPR reports on the popular vote movement:
There are questions about whether this would be constitutional or not, but the argument is that the Constitution leaves it up to the states to decide what to do with their electoral votes.
Democrats in Colorado and New Mexico are pushing ahead with legislation to pledge their 14 collective electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote — no matter who wins each state.
The plan only goes into effect if the law passes in states representing an electoral majority. That threshold is 270 votes, which is the same number needed to win the presidency. ...
So far, 11 states — including New York, California and New Jersey — have joined the effort along with the District of Columbia, putting the effort 98 votes short of its goal.
Colorado appears poised to join as the 12th state. The state legislature passed the bill Thursday, and Gov. Jared Polis is expected to sign it. In New Mexico, the legislation is awaiting consideration in the state Senate after the House approved it earlier this month.
There are questions about whether this would be constitutional or not, but the argument is that the Constitution leaves it up to the states to decide what to do with their electoral votes.
"Love and Marriage"
Headline: "New Viking Study Points to “Love and Marriage” as the Main Reason for their Raids."
Umm... well, let's hear him out.
Well, I do keep reading arguments, both by men's rights activists and certain kinds feminists, that marriage is a form of slavery...
No, look, this is simple. Slaves were one of the main things raiders of this era -- not merely Vikings -- wanted. Unlike the slavery we think of in American history, however, pre-modern and ancient slavers -- like ISIS today -- wanted female slaves. Males were typically killed, although men caught young enough were often castrated and sold as eunuchs in certain parts of the world (the Muslims in Spain did a huge trade here).
One of the underappreciated qualities of the Western European High Middle Ages is that it eliminated chattel slavery, though not until after the Viking Age (but around 1300, even in fringes of Medieval Europe like the Scottish Highlands). Unfree labor persisted, as for example in serfdom, although that too diminished as the feudal system began to give way to town-based market economies over the period. The driving force wasn't economics, though, it was Catholic moral arguments against enslaving fellow children of God. The idea was that there was a pure equality at work among all our fellow human beings: God had made each of our souls, after all, and loved them each equally. It therefore could not be moral to enslave another.
Chattel slavery was reintroduced in the Renaissance, as Portuguese sailors captured and discovered trade routes to Africa that allowed them new opportunities for rich trade as long as they were willing to trade slaves on one leg of the voyage. The whole apparatus of color-conscious racism was built out of a desire to avoid the Medieval arguments against enslaving fellow children of God by trying to create a middle category between humans and animals (who could of course be owned).
But if we are talking about the Viking Age, we're talking about the pre-Christian period in the north. The later Catholic arguments had not been developed and wouldn't have been persuasive to a non-Christian people in any case. They were still doing what the Greeks had done at Troy, and as ISIS does today: take what your right hand can control, and rule it.
Umm... well, let's hear him out.
The practice of marrying more women allowed the eligible bachelorettes to have high expectations about their future husbands, and impoverished or underprivileged men didn’t fit the criteria.So it's the poorer, less powerful men who need women.
In order to raise their chances of getting married, young Viking men joined the raids, hoping to enrich themselves. Sometimes, they even kidnapped Celtic women on their warrior “voyages.”"Sometimes" to such a degree that Iceland's population descends, according to recent genetic studies, from "Norse men and Celtic women."
Well, I do keep reading arguments, both by men's rights activists and certain kinds feminists, that marriage is a form of slavery...
No, look, this is simple. Slaves were one of the main things raiders of this era -- not merely Vikings -- wanted. Unlike the slavery we think of in American history, however, pre-modern and ancient slavers -- like ISIS today -- wanted female slaves. Males were typically killed, although men caught young enough were often castrated and sold as eunuchs in certain parts of the world (the Muslims in Spain did a huge trade here).
One of the underappreciated qualities of the Western European High Middle Ages is that it eliminated chattel slavery, though not until after the Viking Age (but around 1300, even in fringes of Medieval Europe like the Scottish Highlands). Unfree labor persisted, as for example in serfdom, although that too diminished as the feudal system began to give way to town-based market economies over the period. The driving force wasn't economics, though, it was Catholic moral arguments against enslaving fellow children of God. The idea was that there was a pure equality at work among all our fellow human beings: God had made each of our souls, after all, and loved them each equally. It therefore could not be moral to enslave another.
Chattel slavery was reintroduced in the Renaissance, as Portuguese sailors captured and discovered trade routes to Africa that allowed them new opportunities for rich trade as long as they were willing to trade slaves on one leg of the voyage. The whole apparatus of color-conscious racism was built out of a desire to avoid the Medieval arguments against enslaving fellow children of God by trying to create a middle category between humans and animals (who could of course be owned).
But if we are talking about the Viking Age, we're talking about the pre-Christian period in the north. The later Catholic arguments had not been developed and wouldn't have been persuasive to a non-Christian people in any case. They were still doing what the Greeks had done at Troy, and as ISIS does today: take what your right hand can control, and rule it.
Is That A Debt, Or A Gift?
Mike helpfully calculates in the comments to the last GND post, "$94 trillion comes out to about $261,111 per person in the US." For a household of three, then, you'd be on the hook for $783,333 -- and American household net worth was only $81,850 in 2014 according to Census data.
"But we're going to take from the rich, not the average!" No, that data includes the rich. Once you've taken everything they have, and everything everyone else has, you're still not anywhere near where you'd need to be. You're around ten percent of the way there.
The new slogan, though, is that the idea shouldn't be that this spending will create a debt of $261,111 per individual. It is that this spending represents a gift of $261,111 per individual. They're going to make us all rich! Well, richer.
Inflation occurs when more money chases the same amount of goods. The argument here is that, yes, there will be more money -- we're going to print vast amounts -- but that it will also be chasing new goods: railroads, power plants, wind farms, batteries, refurbished houses. Inflation won't be a problem because the new money won't drive up the price of existing goods. It'll all be spent on the new stuff.
That's clearly wrong for elements of the deal like Medicare For All, which is going to be massive new spending on the same health care stocks that are available now. But it isn't clearly wrong for a lot of the GND's spending, which really does seek to create vast quantities of things that do not currently exist. Indeed, one of my major criticisms of it has been that it cannot possibly attain its goal of reducing emissions because we'd need to run the factories day and night to create the stuff they'd need -- cut down millions of trees for railroad ties -- boil millions of gallons of tar for creosote -- build new diesel plants -- vastly increase production of steel and aluminium for trains and windmills -- etc., etc. Carbon production would be through the roof precisely as a result of this plan.
Where, though, is the inflation? Factory workers are going to have new wages from all this overtime, and they're going to be using that wealth to chase existing goods; but maybe not the same goods. Maybe they'd like a new car -- one of the electric ones, no doubt, assuming they can get a government permission slip for it. Maybe they'd like new, more luxurious clothes. (Still not reducing emissions, are we?) It could be that new economic growth would occur rather than inflation, or more likely 'in addition to inflation,' but less than we imagine.
Inflation, such as did occur, would reduce the sting of any debt anyway.
That's the argument that's being made. We should think carefully about where it goes wrong, and how to counter it.
"But we're going to take from the rich, not the average!" No, that data includes the rich. Once you've taken everything they have, and everything everyone else has, you're still not anywhere near where you'd need to be. You're around ten percent of the way there.
The new slogan, though, is that the idea shouldn't be that this spending will create a debt of $261,111 per individual. It is that this spending represents a gift of $261,111 per individual. They're going to make us all rich! Well, richer.
Inflation occurs when more money chases the same amount of goods. The argument here is that, yes, there will be more money -- we're going to print vast amounts -- but that it will also be chasing new goods: railroads, power plants, wind farms, batteries, refurbished houses. Inflation won't be a problem because the new money won't drive up the price of existing goods. It'll all be spent on the new stuff.
That's clearly wrong for elements of the deal like Medicare For All, which is going to be massive new spending on the same health care stocks that are available now. But it isn't clearly wrong for a lot of the GND's spending, which really does seek to create vast quantities of things that do not currently exist. Indeed, one of my major criticisms of it has been that it cannot possibly attain its goal of reducing emissions because we'd need to run the factories day and night to create the stuff they'd need -- cut down millions of trees for railroad ties -- boil millions of gallons of tar for creosote -- build new diesel plants -- vastly increase production of steel and aluminium for trains and windmills -- etc., etc. Carbon production would be through the roof precisely as a result of this plan.
Where, though, is the inflation? Factory workers are going to have new wages from all this overtime, and they're going to be using that wealth to chase existing goods; but maybe not the same goods. Maybe they'd like a new car -- one of the electric ones, no doubt, assuming they can get a government permission slip for it. Maybe they'd like new, more luxurious clothes. (Still not reducing emissions, are we?) It could be that new economic growth would occur rather than inflation, or more likely 'in addition to inflation,' but less than we imagine.
Inflation, such as did occur, would reduce the sting of any debt anyway.
That's the argument that's being made. We should think carefully about where it goes wrong, and how to counter it.
Nullification
NPR is very upset that Washington state sheriffs are flatly refusing to enforce a raft of new, unconstitutional gun control laws.
Sheriffs shouldn't enforce unconstitutional laws, and if they do, juries shouldn't convict anyone of violating them.
"It dates back to a movement from the '60s and '70s called the Posse Comitatus movement, that itself came out of the Ku Klux Klan," he says. "That isn't to say that there's a moral equivalence to the Klan and these constitutional sheriffs."Oh, heavens no! We're just going to mention them in the same breath a few times.
Sheriffs shouldn't enforce unconstitutional laws, and if they do, juries shouldn't convict anyone of violating them.
Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Stop asking the wrong questions about that Green New Deal, says HuffPo. Ask the right questions.
But just in case you were curious what the HuffPo economist thinks "we" can afford:
The Benefit, Not The CostI notice that this article never actually floats a number for how much this would cost. Money is no object!
Sure, it’ll cost a lot of money. That’s likely to rattle the nerves of self-proclaimed deficit hawks, Democrats and Republicans alike, who will ask the same tired questions: “How will we pay for it?” “What about the deficit and debt?” “Won’t it hurt our economy?” ...
Politicians need to reject the urge to ask “How are we going to pay for it?” and avoid the trap when it’s asked of them. A better question is: What’s the best use of public money? Giving it away to the top 1 percent who don’t spend it, widening already dangerous wealth and income gaps? Or investing it in a 21st century, low-carbon economy by rebuilding America’s infrastructure, bolstering resilience, and promoting good-paying jobs across rural and urban communities?
But just in case you were curious what the HuffPo economist thinks "we" can afford:
Study: Green New Deal Would Cost Up to $94 Trillion
Justice Does Not Equal Fairness
A group of morons men's rights activists has convinced a judge to make women register for the draft that we don't even have.
For this reason, it is completely irrational to draft young women and send them to war. Is it "fair" that only men have to register? Who cares? In spite of John Rawls and his followers, justice does not simply equal fairness. It has an important rationality component. It cannot be just to require our civilization to do suicidal things. 'The Constitution is not a suicide pact,' but even if it were, that would be a great reason to return to the Declaration model and 'alter or abolish it.'
Somehow the draft existed for the whole history of this country without violating the Constitution, but now once again a judge has 'discovered' that an institution as old as the nation is somehow forbidden by our basic laws. This insanity has to stop.
On Friday, a Texas judge ruled that the Selective Service System (SSS) violates the Constitution by requiring only men to register for the draft. The court ruled with the National Coalition for Men (NCFM) in a lawsuit claiming the male-only draft constitutes discrimination against men. NCFM's lawyer told PJ Media that even if the SSS appeals, they are likely to lose again. He also suggested the Pentagon will not end the draft, so women may have to register.If we had a war large enough in scale to require a draft, it would be the kind of major war in which a lot of people die. The way a civilization replaces its dead is through young women. This is, in fact, the only way it can be done. You don't need many men to make the babies, but you do need lots of women. Each woman can only produce one new person a year, excepting twins and so forth, and there's no other way to do it.
For this reason, it is completely irrational to draft young women and send them to war. Is it "fair" that only men have to register? Who cares? In spite of John Rawls and his followers, justice does not simply equal fairness. It has an important rationality component. It cannot be just to require our civilization to do suicidal things. 'The Constitution is not a suicide pact,' but even if it were, that would be a great reason to return to the Declaration model and 'alter or abolish it.'
Somehow the draft existed for the whole history of this country without violating the Constitution, but now once again a judge has 'discovered' that an institution as old as the nation is somehow forbidden by our basic laws. This insanity has to stop.
Judge Strips North Carolina of the Power to Amend its Constitution
A judge has just ruled that North Carolina's legislature is so gerrymandered that it may not place constitutional amendments on the ballot.
Well, actually, he only struck down two amendments on this score. The recent ballot had quite a few, but the only two he struck down were Voter ID and a constitutional limit on how high income taxes can go.
This is a hell of a ruling. By an exactly similar argument, no act of the legislature can be valid. The amendments are actually the most probably legitimate expressions of the will of the people, because the people have to approve them in a direct referendum. Even if you accept that the state's legislature is too heavily gerrymandered to be valid, if an amendment gets 55-57% of the popular vote, presumably it might pass a properly constituted assembly too.
Practically, of course, the judge isn't taking away the ability of the legislature to amend the constitution in ways that judges approve. He's allowing the numerous other amendments to stand. He's not even striking down the laws, which were only passed by this presumptively-invalid assembly.
This judge should be removed from office. However high his ratings, this is an unacceptable act of judicial supremacism. We do not have the right to govern ourselves as a people 'if and only if our superiors approve of how we do it.'
Well, actually, he only struck down two amendments on this score. The recent ballot had quite a few, but the only two he struck down were Voter ID and a constitutional limit on how high income taxes can go.
The amendments were backed by Republican lawmakers, and on Friday N.C. GOP Chairman Robin Hayes said in a written statement to The News & Observer that he thinks the ruling should be overturned.This judge, by the way, is very highly rated by Ballotopedia. His "Integrity and Fairness" score is 4.67 out of 5.
“These amendments were placed on the ballot and passed by an overwhelming majority of North Carolinians,” Hayes said. “This unprecedented and absurd ruling by a liberal judge is the very definition of judicial activism.”
The voter ID amendment passed with 55.5 percent of the vote while the amendment to cap the state income tax received 57 percent of the vote.
This is a hell of a ruling. By an exactly similar argument, no act of the legislature can be valid. The amendments are actually the most probably legitimate expressions of the will of the people, because the people have to approve them in a direct referendum. Even if you accept that the state's legislature is too heavily gerrymandered to be valid, if an amendment gets 55-57% of the popular vote, presumably it might pass a properly constituted assembly too.
Practically, of course, the judge isn't taking away the ability of the legislature to amend the constitution in ways that judges approve. He's allowing the numerous other amendments to stand. He's not even striking down the laws, which were only passed by this presumptively-invalid assembly.
This judge should be removed from office. However high his ratings, this is an unacceptable act of judicial supremacism. We do not have the right to govern ourselves as a people 'if and only if our superiors approve of how we do it.'
Popular Votes
In all but six states, conservatives outnumber liberals. California is not one of those states: it has fewer conservatives than average, but still more conservatives than liberals.
All six states are in the north, and all of them except New York are relatively non-diverse.
Suddenly the concerns about the Senate and the Electoral College make more sense, eh?
All six states are in the north, and all of them except New York are relatively non-diverse.
Suddenly the concerns about the Senate and the Electoral College make more sense, eh?
Reparations
Having had so much success with the Green New Deal's plausibility, two of the Democratic candidates for President -- both of whom endorsed the GND -- have decided that they'd like to endorse another big program, reparations for slavery, too.
I'm not in principle opposed to the idea. In principle, in fact, I think it is plausible. This sort of payment-for-injury-suffered-by-relatives exists in several traditions, including our own: the wergild of the Vikings and Anglo-Saxons, the diyya of the Arabs (still in use today in some places). The basic approach is well known and works. We would need to do two things:
1) Determine a fair price for inflicting slavery on someone;
2) Agree that, in return for the paying of that price, we would reconcile completely and never return to the issue again. Compensation is complete and the matter is settled; the agreement is that no more compensation will ever be due.
In principle we could do that here, too. Say we decided that a fit price for stealing a man's life via slavery was a million current-day US dollars. That's a non-extravagant figure that a court might award in a wrongful death lawsuit against a corporation, and it's an amount of money that a hard-working individual might earn in his or her lifetime with careful investment. So, we assign a million dollars to each and every person who was a slave in the USA; that number grew from 400,000 to 4.4 million over several decades, so we figure 4.4M + 2.2M. + 1.1M + 400,000 = 8.1 million total slaves. At a million dollars each, $8,100,000,000,000 (8.1 trillion dollars).
Heck, that's cheaper than the GND by far. So far, so good.
Of course, you've got to divide that money among all the descendants of all of those people. And if you're related to two of them -- or, across generations, to six or eight of them -- then you should get a part of the payment for each of them. My guess is that no records exist that would make that possible to calculate reliably.
Now, assuming that all black Americans have at least one slave ancestor, and that no other Americans do, the payout would come to $170,000 per person. (If you had two or more, more.) America could pay this off on a rolling basis, too, rather than as a lump sum; if we used actuarial tables to contribute life expectancy, and divided your payoffs by your expected lifespan, some people would need to be paid in 5 years but some could be paid over 50.
Again, compared to the GND, this is relatively cheap. Heck, it's cheap compared to Medicare for All, which is $3.2 Trillion every year. In three years it would cost more than this one time payout. So, in principle, it might make sense.
I think there are practical details that would make a program like this very difficult to get everyone to agree to, however. Many Americans' ancestors weren't even here when slavery was a thing; they will object to paying the taxes to fund this reparations payment for something their ancestors had no part of. No living Americans own slaves, and they might object to being forced to pay for someone else's wrongdoing. And on the other side, too, even a large payment may not allow people to accept that the debt is really settled. Plus, there's another issue: Say that you've got five people in your family, but the week after the payments begin to go out, one of them gets pregnant. Each of you gets $170,000, but the child gets nothing just by virtue of being born a little too late. Over time, that's going to create a bulge of resentful young people who got left out of the payments by accident of fate.
Also, it won't turn out to be the case that -- per assumption -- no non-black Americans have slave ancestors (nor that all black Americans do -- look at Barack Obama). There's no way of resolving that without causing problems.
Very often the practicalities are what kill things, and I don't think this one is going anywhere. But I can see a case for it. Maybe somebody else will come up with a model that might work.
UPDATE: Warren complicates the plan substantially when she says it should cover Native Americans, too. That's much harder to do on a wergild basis because the issue isn't the deaths per se, it's the elimination of whole civilizations and ways of life.
I'm not in principle opposed to the idea. In principle, in fact, I think it is plausible. This sort of payment-for-injury-suffered-by-relatives exists in several traditions, including our own: the wergild of the Vikings and Anglo-Saxons, the diyya of the Arabs (still in use today in some places). The basic approach is well known and works. We would need to do two things:
1) Determine a fair price for inflicting slavery on someone;
2) Agree that, in return for the paying of that price, we would reconcile completely and never return to the issue again. Compensation is complete and the matter is settled; the agreement is that no more compensation will ever be due.
In principle we could do that here, too. Say we decided that a fit price for stealing a man's life via slavery was a million current-day US dollars. That's a non-extravagant figure that a court might award in a wrongful death lawsuit against a corporation, and it's an amount of money that a hard-working individual might earn in his or her lifetime with careful investment. So, we assign a million dollars to each and every person who was a slave in the USA; that number grew from 400,000 to 4.4 million over several decades, so we figure 4.4M + 2.2M. + 1.1M + 400,000 = 8.1 million total slaves. At a million dollars each, $8,100,000,000,000 (8.1 trillion dollars).
Heck, that's cheaper than the GND by far. So far, so good.
Of course, you've got to divide that money among all the descendants of all of those people. And if you're related to two of them -- or, across generations, to six or eight of them -- then you should get a part of the payment for each of them. My guess is that no records exist that would make that possible to calculate reliably.
Now, assuming that all black Americans have at least one slave ancestor, and that no other Americans do, the payout would come to $170,000 per person. (If you had two or more, more.) America could pay this off on a rolling basis, too, rather than as a lump sum; if we used actuarial tables to contribute life expectancy, and divided your payoffs by your expected lifespan, some people would need to be paid in 5 years but some could be paid over 50.
Again, compared to the GND, this is relatively cheap. Heck, it's cheap compared to Medicare for All, which is $3.2 Trillion every year. In three years it would cost more than this one time payout. So, in principle, it might make sense.
I think there are practical details that would make a program like this very difficult to get everyone to agree to, however. Many Americans' ancestors weren't even here when slavery was a thing; they will object to paying the taxes to fund this reparations payment for something their ancestors had no part of. No living Americans own slaves, and they might object to being forced to pay for someone else's wrongdoing. And on the other side, too, even a large payment may not allow people to accept that the debt is really settled. Plus, there's another issue: Say that you've got five people in your family, but the week after the payments begin to go out, one of them gets pregnant. Each of you gets $170,000, but the child gets nothing just by virtue of being born a little too late. Over time, that's going to create a bulge of resentful young people who got left out of the payments by accident of fate.
Also, it won't turn out to be the case that -- per assumption -- no non-black Americans have slave ancestors (nor that all black Americans do -- look at Barack Obama). There's no way of resolving that without causing problems.
Very often the practicalities are what kill things, and I don't think this one is going anywhere. But I can see a case for it. Maybe somebody else will come up with a model that might work.
UPDATE: Warren complicates the plan substantially when she says it should cover Native Americans, too. That's much harder to do on a wergild basis because the issue isn't the deaths per se, it's the elimination of whole civilizations and ways of life.
Another Act of Political Violence
I'm writing this less to draw attention to the activist getting punched, than to make a point about language and the culture of risk aversion.
The occasional scuffle used to be an ordinary feature of life; when I was a boy, "Dagwood" and his neighbors got in brawls almost every week. I'm not saying that we should all start beating people up, but I am saying that you should toughen your heart a little here.
We've got a whole society full of people going to "therapy" to heal their "trauma," by which they mean life. Now you've got even conservatives talking about being a "survivor" for taking a punch.
Harden up, people. Show a little self-respect.
Another conservative student was assaulted on @UCBerkeley's campus. I just spoke to the survivor of the attack who is a dear friend of mine. He is in good spirits and plans on continuing to fight for conservative values on campus once his black eye is gone! What a bad a**!"Survivor"? C'mon. He got punched in the face. If he gets knifed and doesn't die, OK, sure, his life was in danger and he survived. You'd have to be extremely unlucky in how you fell, though, for a punch to be a thing you 'survive' rather than just a thing that happened.
The occasional scuffle used to be an ordinary feature of life; when I was a boy, "Dagwood" and his neighbors got in brawls almost every week. I'm not saying that we should all start beating people up, but I am saying that you should toughen your heart a little here.
We've got a whole society full of people going to "therapy" to heal their "trauma," by which they mean life. Now you've got even conservatives talking about being a "survivor" for taking a punch.
Harden up, people. Show a little self-respect.
TINA
We've discussed the huge problem of the national debt here many times. The issue is that, right now, there is no alternative.
President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans gave Americans a sizable tax break, a perfectly appropriate means of jolting the economy — if it came with offsetting spending cuts. But spending increased. So in the most prosperous stretch we've enjoyed in decades, revenues still lag expenditures by $1 trillion a year.I'd be surprised if it were as small a figure as quadruple. As we discussed recently, just two of the items -- refitting or replacing every building in America, and building a giant new high speed railroad network -- would require running the factories and lumber mills and diesel fuel refineries day and night all decade just to get the materials to do the jobs. If, indeed, it could be done even then.
That fiscal recklessness should buy the GOP a ticket out of Washington. But those who would replace Trump are campaigning on even more gluttony.
Nearly every Democrat has signed on to the Medicare for All plan.... a promise of universal child care... putting free college on the table....
And then there's the Green New Deal, which would blow the gates to socialism wide open. Implementation would require a doubling to quadrupling of federal expenditures.
Why Should That Be True?
Feminists in Sweden want a ban on sex robots, although the language they're using suggests to me that it would be a much bigger ban than that practically.
However, what strikes me immediately is that the thing might go the other way. They seem to think that people (well, "men") won't be able or willing to make a distinction between women and robots that look like women. It may very well be that people do make the distinction, though, just as they make the distinction between reality and make-believe. In learning what you can do to a robot that you can't do to a real person, the distinction that women are real people who can't be mistreated is reinforced.
Japan seems to do something like this with its manga cartoons, which are hideously violent. Japan's real life, however, is not hideously violent at all. It's stressful and competitive, and these intense violent fantasies manifestly do arise in that context. But they put them in the make believe space, and the society remains mostly peaceful (though suicide is an issue).
I'm not advocating the reading of manga, and I suspect many people will reject the idea of sexbots as disgusting (as, frankly, is the manga). However, I do think that pushing the bad stuff into the world of make believe can be a stopgap measure during times when whatever is producing 'the bad stuff' can't be fixed. Japan also has Buddhist monasteries where you can go and leave the stressful society behind you, but if you aren't ready to do that -- if you feel compelled by the pressures of family and society to keep up the rat race -- pushing the anger and such into the make believe space may be better for everyone than acting it out on real people.
Of course, I don't know that it would work that way -- but neither do these Swedish women know it'd work out the other way. The idea that we should ban something in the absence of any demonstrated actual harm should be rejected, even if we find the conduct disgusting. Let people be free, even if they do things you may not like.
There remain other ethical issues, of course; obviously unless these things are made to be able to reproduce, they'd be indefensible according to Catholic theology (and likely even then, though I haven't worked that argument out in my head).
UPDATE:
Locating your violent fantasies in make believe isn't just for men! From FB:
They're demanding legislation targeting technology that "reproduces ideas about exploiting women's bodies"."Technology that reproduces ideas" is not just "robots." That's properly speaking a ban on the printing press, for example; the internet, especially given its role in forwarding pornography; television, movies, etc.
Three Swedish feminist organisations, Sweden's Women's Lobby, the National Organisation for Women's Shelters and Young Women's Shelters (Roks) as well as the empowerment organisation Unizon have published a joint appeal in the newspaper Expressen, in which they demand a state ban on "dangerous" sex robots for men.
The debaters noted that today's sex robots often have the "appearances and attributes typical of the objectifying, sexualised and degrading attitude to women found in today's mainstream pornography".
"Why are men willing to pay tens of thousands of dollars for a robot that obeys their smallest command?" the feminists asked rhetorically. "A female robot cannot say no to something that the man wants, if she is not programmed to do so", the feminists complained.
However, what strikes me immediately is that the thing might go the other way. They seem to think that people (well, "men") won't be able or willing to make a distinction between women and robots that look like women. It may very well be that people do make the distinction, though, just as they make the distinction between reality and make-believe. In learning what you can do to a robot that you can't do to a real person, the distinction that women are real people who can't be mistreated is reinforced.
Japan seems to do something like this with its manga cartoons, which are hideously violent. Japan's real life, however, is not hideously violent at all. It's stressful and competitive, and these intense violent fantasies manifestly do arise in that context. But they put them in the make believe space, and the society remains mostly peaceful (though suicide is an issue).
I'm not advocating the reading of manga, and I suspect many people will reject the idea of sexbots as disgusting (as, frankly, is the manga). However, I do think that pushing the bad stuff into the world of make believe can be a stopgap measure during times when whatever is producing 'the bad stuff' can't be fixed. Japan also has Buddhist monasteries where you can go and leave the stressful society behind you, but if you aren't ready to do that -- if you feel compelled by the pressures of family and society to keep up the rat race -- pushing the anger and such into the make believe space may be better for everyone than acting it out on real people.
Of course, I don't know that it would work that way -- but neither do these Swedish women know it'd work out the other way. The idea that we should ban something in the absence of any demonstrated actual harm should be rejected, even if we find the conduct disgusting. Let people be free, even if they do things you may not like.
There remain other ethical issues, of course; obviously unless these things are made to be able to reproduce, they'd be indefensible according to Catholic theology (and likely even then, though I haven't worked that argument out in my head).
UPDATE:
Locating your violent fantasies in make believe isn't just for men! From FB:
Why the long face?
A Quillette article examines why technological and other progress is so often seen as stalling. My first thought was "risk"--we've developed a bizarre approach to it. We're doing everything we can to uncouple risk from reward, and we're increasingly willing to accept paralysis rather than suffer risk. A few paragraphs down, I found this:
The last 200 years have seen a shift from what moral sociologists have described as the ‘honour’ or warrior culture pre-dating the 19th-century—to the ‘dignity’ culture of the 20th-century—to the emergence of a ‘victimhood’ culture in the 21st.
Part of this shift includes the increasing adversity to risk.
Turning a Corner?
A few weeks ago we discussed a Houston police raid in which the police killed two fellow citizens, with five police officers shot. The description of the event suggested, even then, that the police had shot each other while killing the citizens. Now, it turns out, the alleged 'drug buy informant' lied, the investigating officer lied, and there was no reason to run the raid at all.
The police seem to be responding to this better than previous suspect events. First, they've declared an end to no-knock raids.
Second, they're preparing charges against 'one or more officers.'
Good. Discipline is the soul of the army, and while police are not properly an army, they're increasingly trained and acting as if they were.
The police seem to be responding to this better than previous suspect events. First, they've declared an end to no-knock raids.
Second, they're preparing charges against 'one or more officers.'
Good. Discipline is the soul of the army, and while police are not properly an army, they're increasingly trained and acting as if they were.
The Devil Hates a Sleeping Bag
Willie Nelson this time.
I always think of The Quiet Man when sleeping bags come up.
I always think of The Quiet Man when sleeping bags come up.
Negative, AZ, FBI
Arizona would like its citizens to be forced to give up their DNA for a massive state database, and pay $250 for the privilege.
American governments have gotten to big for their britches. Especially the law-enforcement branches, to include (as that essay does) the FBI and DOJ.
We need to break them to saddle.
American governments have gotten to big for their britches. Especially the law-enforcement branches, to include (as that essay does) the FBI and DOJ.
We need to break them to saddle.
You can't fire me!
It's a cry you hear from union workers, civil servants, and people with ironclad employment contracts. Usually not so much from restaurant workers. New York is out there on the cutting edge, considering laws to prevent restaurant operators from firing a worker when they conclude they can't stay in business if they have to pay him the new minimum wage. Will New York force the restaurants out of business? Will we then learn that the market has failed, so the government has to step in and supply this essential service? At least that way the worker can get civil service protection. Of course, the restaurants may be about as good as the DMV and siphon off a lot of New York tax dollars, which will spur Cuomo to complain even more bitterly that Florida is stealing his citizens.
MAGA Hat Threatens Armed Man
It's perfectly understandable self-defense given such a provocation.
Police in Bowling Green, Kentucky, say James Phillips was arrested after witnesses said he pulled a gun inside a Sam’s Club outlet because the victim was wearing a red “Make America Great Again” hat.... Police reported that store surveillance video substantiates Phillips’ story and that he never laid a hand on the Trump-hating assailant.I have seen people wearing MAGA hats on rare occasion around here, but they're not common. I suspect the sense that you might get shot for wearing one -- or beaten, or robbed, or become the subject of a nationwide Three Minutes' Hate -- is one reason they are not all that popular even in the rural South.
Officials said that when he was arrested, Phillips had a .40 caliber Glock handgun with a bullet in the chamber sitting in his pocket . He also had two extra loaded magazines on his person.
Selective taboos
At Powerline, a refreshing look at when the concept of personal responsibility is allowed to intrude on policy discussions, and when it can be dismissed as cruel.
In the case of “Detroit,” we must decide how far to go in order to improve, in the short term, the material condition of the population. How much should we spend on welfare? How lenient should we be with criminals? Should there be monetary reparations? Should there be forced integration?
In the case of rural America, the policy questions prompted by Carlson are different. How much trade protection should certain American industries receive? To what extent should we limit legal immigration?
The answer in both cases depends in part on how much weight we place on the concept of personal responsibility. Those who take the concept seriously will be less inclined to transfer vast amounts of money, or to tolerate high risk associated with the early release of criminals, than those who don’t.
They will also be less inclined to think Americans should pay more for consumer goods as a result of trade barriers and restrictions on the number of people who can work in the U.S. They may ask how much more they should pay for cars because males in rural America are making irresponsible personal choices.
The best answer might well be “somewhat more.” Even for conservatives, the concept of personal responsibility isn’t absolute. We are willing to spend a considerable amount of money on welfare even though we know that if recipients made better choices, we would be able to spend considerably less.
Storm memento
A too-infrequent guest from Houston arrived this year with a bowl turned from a downed oak trunk that he took home with him last year. I'd forgotten he took it, so the gift was a delightful surprise.
Citizenship Tests
Perhaps we should consider stripping voting rights from anyone who can't pass the test? I am saddened to see that the South does particularly badly here, although only Vermont has a majority with a passing score (and that barely).
Seizing and pouncing
Or is it pouncing and then seizing? Let's go to the video:
Whatever it is, I'm sure it's very unfair to tasty Democrats.
Whatever it is, I'm sure it's very unfair to tasty Democrats.
Get To Work, Fellow Oppressors
Apparently we're really letting some people down by not being out there beating and harassing our opponents. I blame myself; I haven't threatened anybody in at least a week or two.
Well, not intentionally. Some people seem to be threatened by our very existence, but apparently that's not enough.
UPDATE: And then there were two.
Well, not intentionally. Some people seem to be threatened by our very existence, but apparently that's not enough.
UPDATE: And then there were two.
Small Victories
The border fight we've been having has faced stiff opposition from both Democrats and some Republicans, a few because they fear convincing Latinos that they are racists but most because they are interested in helping their donors depress the price of labor. Nevertheless, all the news isn't bad; there have been some compromises.
Trump and GOP negotiators led by Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., and his team blocked several moves by Pelosi and other Democrats to fill the deal with anti-wall moves like lowering spending for ICE and slashing the number of “detention beds” to hold criminal illegal immigrants.In addition, the NYT reports, the tough border policies are causing some people to give up and go home -- or to choose life in Mexico, which offered them asylum.
“Pelosi lost. She knew her position on detentions beds was unsustainable and only playing to her fringe. She also said no new miles for the wall,” said the source. “She had to step back from all positions.”
Compared to a simple continuing resolution, or CR, with nothing extra beyond current spending levels set in fiscal 2018, Trump gained extra funding for the wall.... “nearly three times as much as would have been available under a CR,” said the source.
On detention beds, the number increased 13 percent over fiscal 2018. And when another $750 million in transfer and reprogramming authority is added in, it represents a 44 percent increase, said the source.
What’s more, the bill provides historic funding levels for ICE and Customs and Border Protection, a rejection of liberal efforts to kill the agencies. It was a 7 percent budget increase for a combined $21.5 billion.
[T]housands of caravan members who had been waiting to seek asylum in the United States appear to have given up, Mexican officials said, dealing President Trump an apparent win after a humbling week for his immigration agenda.There's reason to be annoyed that the Republican Congress never ponied up money for a wall, and there's reason to be annoyed about the use of unconstitutional emergency powers that no president should really have. If you believe that a nation has to control its borders to remain stable, however, there is some good news too.
About 6,000 asylum seekers who had traveled en masse, many of them in defiance of Mr. Trump’s demands that they turn around, arrived in Northern Mexico in late November as part of a caravan that originated in Honduras. Since then, more than 1,000 have accepted an offer to be returned home by the Mexican government, the officials said. Another 1,000 have decided to stay in Mexico, accepting work permits that were offered to them last fall, at the height of international consternation over how to deal with the growing presence of migrant caravans.
Rye Whiskey
Gringo raises the similarity between two different folk songs in the comments below. In fact there's a fair number of folk songs who have similar lines. I like this one because it pieces very many of them together.
"Jack of diamonds, Jack of Daniels.."
They know a lot of the old songs.
"Jack of diamonds, Jack of Daniels.."
They know a lot of the old songs.
Cultural Appropriation!
No, no, that should be a good American version, like this:
Er, no, wait...
All those old Prohibition songs end up being better advertisements for a drop of the pure.
It's because they were wrong, of course. But that was an American song first, you Irish cultural appropriators!
UPDATE:
Not that cigarettes are good for you. Tex Williams is dead now, more's the pity.
The Man Who Strangled a Mountain Lion Gave an Interview
I haven't found the text yet, but it looks like he's doing all right.
What's with these crushed Asians?
(Who remembers that Gilda Radner skit?) Actually what I wanted to write about is a Department of Labor lawsuit against tech giant Oracle for discriminating against the usual suspects. This caught my eye as a complaint about how Asian-heavy the tech jobs are at Oracle:
And this is what the Asian statistics look like even with the Ivy League schools grinding them into the dirt as hard as they know how.
Some of the new claims also substitute broad statistics for refined analysis. For example, as the Wall Street Journal points out, the DOL relies for its hiring discrimination claim on evidence that 82 percent of employees hired by Oracle for technical positions are Asians, whereas Asians were “only” 75 percent of applicants.It sounds to me like being in the ballpark if the racial quotas for applicants and hirees are within 10% or so, so I can't get too excited about the ratio of 75% to 82%. But seriously, 3/4 of the applicants are Asian? Are we not supposed to notice this? Are we supposed to think that's irrelevant to questions about what aspects of race might be important in job statistics besides allegations of racism?
And this is what the Asian statistics look like even with the Ivy League schools grinding them into the dirt as hard as they know how.
Got That Gentrification Problem Licked
I had thought that it was part of a Congressperson's job to try to obtain investment in their communities, but apparently that's wrong.
“Anything is possible: today was the day a group of dedicated, everyday New Yorkers & their neighbors defeated Amazon’s corporate greed, its worker exploitation, and the power of the richest man in the world."
Yeah, you sure showed him.
“Anything is possible: today was the day a group of dedicated, everyday New Yorkers & their neighbors defeated Amazon’s corporate greed, its worker exploitation, and the power of the richest man in the world."
Yeah, you sure showed him.
Lufthansa sues passenger
Okay, with a headline like that, you know it has to be good stupid. Oh boy, is it.
https://www.npr.org/2019/02/13/694352593/lufthansa-airlines-sues-customer-who-skipped-part-of-his-return-flight
In short, the passenger booked a round trip flight from Oslo to Seattle (with a layover in Frankfurt) for about $741. While returning from Seattle, he then got off in Frankfurt and thence flew to Berlin on a completely separate ticket. Lufthansa says that the cost of his flight ought to have been about $2300 more if he had bought it "properly", and wants him to pay the difference.
So let's make this simple. Let's say you want to get from New York to LA. But the flights are more expensive than a flight from New York to Lake Tahoe that has a layover in LA. So by buying the NY>LA>Tahoe ticket and just getting off in LA, you save money. But then the airline catches wind of it and demands you to pay the difference since you really wanted a NY>LA flight.
One would hope you'd tell them to pound sand. You took advantage of their pricing. "But then they can't sell the seat from LA to Tahoe!" Wrong! That seat was sold, you paid for it. Whether you use it or not is immaterial, it was paid for in full by you. And this argument is doubly rich from an industry that thinks little of double-booking seats because they expect passengers to miss flights or not fly for some reason.
But what truly amuses me is that Lufthansa's argument explicitly says that if you buy a ticket you are obligated to use all parts of the ticket, or else they'll sue. Which leads me to the idea that if they believe that missing (or not taking) a flight grants them the right to charge you for the price of a ticket from your origin to the layover city you actually stop at, then that allows them to demand money from every passenger stranded in a layover city every time there's a weather cancellation, or mechanical problem, or other flight delay. Talk about perverse incentives!
https://www.npr.org/2019/02/13/694352593/lufthansa-airlines-sues-customer-who-skipped-part-of-his-return-flight
In short, the passenger booked a round trip flight from Oslo to Seattle (with a layover in Frankfurt) for about $741. While returning from Seattle, he then got off in Frankfurt and thence flew to Berlin on a completely separate ticket. Lufthansa says that the cost of his flight ought to have been about $2300 more if he had bought it "properly", and wants him to pay the difference.
So let's make this simple. Let's say you want to get from New York to LA. But the flights are more expensive than a flight from New York to Lake Tahoe that has a layover in LA. So by buying the NY>LA>Tahoe ticket and just getting off in LA, you save money. But then the airline catches wind of it and demands you to pay the difference since you really wanted a NY>LA flight.
One would hope you'd tell them to pound sand. You took advantage of their pricing. "But then they can't sell the seat from LA to Tahoe!" Wrong! That seat was sold, you paid for it. Whether you use it or not is immaterial, it was paid for in full by you. And this argument is doubly rich from an industry that thinks little of double-booking seats because they expect passengers to miss flights or not fly for some reason.
But what truly amuses me is that Lufthansa's argument explicitly says that if you buy a ticket you are obligated to use all parts of the ticket, or else they'll sue. Which leads me to the idea that if they believe that missing (or not taking) a flight grants them the right to charge you for the price of a ticket from your origin to the layover city you actually stop at, then that allows them to demand money from every passenger stranded in a layover city every time there's a weather cancellation, or mechanical problem, or other flight delay. Talk about perverse incentives!
"Demonic Males" and Morality
A piece of Darwinian theory, which I have not finished reading, and am posting here chiefly to remind me to get back to it. It may be of interest to many of you, too.
Yeah, That Makes Sense...?
Her office pushed back against the notion that it was hypocritical for Ocasio-Cortez, who has made housing affordability one of her top policy concerns, to move into a luxury building. A spokesman pointed out that her office also uses a car with an "internal combustion engine that runs on fossil fuels," even though she thinks their use should be eliminated.Her spokesman said that.
Republicans sabotage Green New Deal... by calling for a vote?
It's true. According to Senator Markey (co-sponsor of the Green New Deal), when Sen. McConnell called for a vote on the proposal, that's sabotaging it.
http://reason.com/blog/2019/02/13/green-new-deal-vote-markey-aoc-mcconnell
No honestly, you can't make this up. "This is a list of things we want!" "Okay, let's vote on it." "You just want to avoid a national debate about it!"
No, what's more likely is that Sen. Markey realizes the same thing that Sen. McConnell has. That it's unpassable, unworkable, and that by forcing Democrats (many of whom are running for their party's nomination for President) to vote on it, they will either have the albatross of this pile of Green dung tied around their neck, or they will be forced to repudiate it and this tick off their base.
It's not sabotage, Sen. Markey. It's being hoist in your own petard.
http://reason.com/blog/2019/02/13/green-new-deal-vote-markey-aoc-mcconnell
No honestly, you can't make this up. "This is a list of things we want!" "Okay, let's vote on it." "You just want to avoid a national debate about it!"
No, what's more likely is that Sen. Markey realizes the same thing that Sen. McConnell has. That it's unpassable, unworkable, and that by forcing Democrats (many of whom are running for their party's nomination for President) to vote on it, they will either have the albatross of this pile of Green dung tied around their neck, or they will be forced to repudiate it and this tick off their base.
It's not sabotage, Sen. Markey. It's being hoist in your own petard.
Incandescent Beauty
An argument that the world is too beautiful to explained by natural selection, which begins with another bird example:
The way the theory works, of course, is that it's a kind of accident; natural selection doesn't necessarily mean that changes are useful, it just tends to strip away the ones that aren't via extinction. If the birds are 'good enough' at surviving in other ways, these kinds of extravagances can survive. But this is only one example; it turns out that nature seems to strive for beauty in many other ways.
It's a point Hannah Arendt made some years ago. She pointed out that animals are quite ugly internally -- intestines and the like -- but not externally. She reasoned that there was something about life that strives to be seen as beautiful. That's interesting, especially since so much of life lacks eyes that see; but even starfish are beautiful, in their way. In fact, it extends beyond life. Galaxies certainly are beautiful, and they're almost accidents. Waves on the ocean; sunsets.
A male flame bowerbird is a creature of incandescent beauty. The hue of his plumage transitions seamlessly from molten red to sunshine yellow. But that radiance is not enough to attract a mate. When males of most bowerbird species are ready to begin courting, they set about building the structure for which they are named: an assemblage of twigs shaped into a spire, corridor or hut. They decorate their bowers with scores of colorful objects, like flowers, berries, snail shells or, if they are near an urban area, bottle caps and plastic cutlery. Some bowerbirds even arrange the items in their collection from smallest to largest, forming a walkway that makes themselves and their trinkets all the more striking to a female — an optical illusion known as forced perspective that humans did not perfect until the 15th century.It's art, the scientists reason, and the development of such an elaborate courtship ritual is not adaptive. So why do they do it?
The way the theory works, of course, is that it's a kind of accident; natural selection doesn't necessarily mean that changes are useful, it just tends to strip away the ones that aren't via extinction. If the birds are 'good enough' at surviving in other ways, these kinds of extravagances can survive. But this is only one example; it turns out that nature seems to strive for beauty in many other ways.
It's a point Hannah Arendt made some years ago. She pointed out that animals are quite ugly internally -- intestines and the like -- but not externally. She reasoned that there was something about life that strives to be seen as beautiful. That's interesting, especially since so much of life lacks eyes that see; but even starfish are beautiful, in their way. In fact, it extends beyond life. Galaxies certainly are beautiful, and they're almost accidents. Waves on the ocean; sunsets.
Well, now that you've explained that it's economics
You all thought the Green Leap Forward was economic lunacy, but not so fast. It turns out that it's really good economics: the logical next step after the enemies of mankind crushed our hopes for the carbon tax. It's an "economic stimulus package for the planet." You love the planet, don't you? For you unsophisticated types, here's how it works. It's simple, just pay attention and shut up.
[T]he challenges and costs of relying solely on current technologies to address climate change are prohibitively high. We need investments in clean innovation to make it cheaper to reduce emissions in the future. . . . While carbon pricing is the most cost effective way to reduce emissions today, government subsidies are the most cost effective way to advance clean technologies tomorrow.We know this, because government subsidies consistently produce cost-effective results. You have to spend money to make money! You can't afford NOT to buy this! We'll lose money on every transaction, but make it up in volume. A cautionary note, because, you know, these guys are serious and sober, not just snake-oil salesmen:
Of course, the effectiveness of the proposal at spurring innovation will depend on its design, the exact details of which have yet to be ironed out.Now a nod to opposing arguments, to show we're considering all sides of the debate:
Opponents will also claim that the government is a bad venture capitalist, and that a Green New Deal will pour taxpayer dollars into clean energy boondoggles. While concerns about government waste are certainly real, they can be avoided through smart policy design.Now that makes me sad. Who would say such mean things about the government's record as a venture capitalist? They're doing the best they can. Anyway, we're going to avoid any problems by going out right now and getting us some smart policy design. Not those old bad policy designs.
This almost makes me like the deal to avert the shutdown
"Journalist and Soros Equality Fellow" Michelle Garcia complains on CNN that Democrats "gave too much away":
If Trump signs off on the deal, he gets far less border wall funding than he initially demanded, in the immediate, but he wins critical credibility for the Republicans' unsubstantiated and false claims of a border security crisis.
I may try this
You'll say, no doubt, that it's an unconventional approach, but I'm thinking it would really liven up the next Commissioners Court meeting.
Actually it reminds me of the joke with the punchline, "You don't come here for the hunting, do you?"
Actually it reminds me of the joke with the punchline, "You don't come here for the hunting, do you?"
Interesting comparison
Mr. Soros is a little concerned:
The European Council on Foreign Relations, an organization whose founding was sponsored by George Soros, has concluded that up to a third of the European Parliament may consist of “populists” after this spring’s elections, paralyzing decision-making in the EU. Mr. Soros warned that the EU may dissolve, like the Soviet Union.
Not much of a capitalist
Elizabeth Warren recently announced that billionaires should "stop being freeloaders." Robert Reich helpfully explained:
Anyone who has a billion dollars either exploited a monopoly that should have been broken up, got inside information unavailable to other investors, bribed some politicians, or inherited the money from their parents (who did one of the above).AEI, not exactly a firebreathing conservative site but at least a moderately sensible one, breathed a quiet protest after pointing out that, honestly, there are lots of OK guy who get rich by the stunning and unfair move of introducing a wildly popular and valuable product:
Calling for higher tax rates doesn’t make you a socialist. Nor does arguing for a more expansive safety net. But saying all wealth is, at best, undeserved and, at worst, pilfered, pinched, pocketed, and purloined? Well, you’re probably not much of a capitalist, that’s for sure.
Rescue
The Netflix documentary series "The Horn," about Swiss helicopter rescue teams operating near the Matterhorn, is worth catching. Beautifully filmed, without a word on toxic masculinity.
I had no idea Swiss German sounded so unlike my bit of school German. In the Swiss dialect, the long "a" in words like zehn or geht rhymes with the English "eye." Other sound shifts are too alien and too various for me to catch. Only when the doctor is talking does it sound like German to me.
It looks like those helicopter pilots could land on a flagpole.
I had no idea Swiss German sounded so unlike my bit of school German. In the Swiss dialect, the long "a" in words like zehn or geht rhymes with the English "eye." Other sound shifts are too alien and too various for me to catch. Only when the doctor is talking does it sound like German to me.
It looks like those helicopter pilots could land on a flagpole.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)