Demolition Goes Wrong

Demolition Goes Wrong

I tried to find a direct YouTube embed, but all the ones there had incredibly annoying ads up front, so just go to this Daily Caller link. It's only a minute and a quarter long.

Here are a bunch more YouTubes with demolition "oops" moments.

Earmarks

Earmarks

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) has a piece in the National Review Online today about earmarks, a subject that's been puzzling me lately. Sen. Coburn joins Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and 12 other conservative senators, including the new Tea Party candidates, in pushing an earmark ban:

1. Pat Toomey (R-Penn.)
2. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)
3. Rand Paul (R-Ky.)
4. Mike Lee (R-Utah)
5. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.)
6. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.)
7. John Ensign (R-Nev.)
8. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.)
9. John Cornyn (R-Tex.)
10. Richard Burr (R-N.C.)
11. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.)
12. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.)

The Deficit Commission also supports an earmark ban. The prospective new Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), does not.

The argument against an earmark ban usually goes like this: the money's going to get appropriated anyway, so wouldn't you rather have your own congressmen decide what project it will be spent on than some bureaucrat sitting on a panel in an executive branch controlled by the other party? What's more, earmarks the tail wagging the dog: they're a small fraction of overall spending.

Sen. Coburn's argument is that "a small rudder can help steer a big ship." As one commenter noted, earmarks are bribe solicitation. The point of many earmarks is not to appropriate funds for a specific project that really is important on national grounds (which would be the only legitimate reason for using federal money rather than local funds), but an out-and-out bribe to secure a vote for some completely separate measure that may dwarf the earmark itself in terms of cost and intrusiveness. Use of the Cornhusker Kickback to obtain a vote for ObamaCare is a recent and glaring example.

Sen. Coburn quotes Thomas Jefferson, who predicted that federally funded local projects would "be the source of eternal scramble among the members, who can get the most money wasted in their State; and they will always get the most who are the meanest." He adds: "Thomas Jefferson understood that earmarks and coercion would go hand in hand." Coburn also argues that

earmarks are a convoluted way for Congress to try to regain authority they have already ceded to the executive branch through bad legislation. The fact is there is nothing an earmark can do that can't be done more equitably and openly through a competitive grant process.

It's not clear to me that the feds ought to be funding anywhere near as many local projects as they do. If they must, I'd prefer they made block grants to the states and let the states work out where to spend the money. Even better, they could stop collecting federal taxes for this kind of thing and let the states decide how much to tax and spend on local projects. The only exceptions should be truly federal projects, like military bases, the location of which should be determined by some much more transparent process than backroom pork-barrel rolling. I'd rather my federal congressmen spent more time worrying about getting the federal government to keep its mitts out of local affairs, and less about bringing federal largesse to my district -- particularly when I'm the one paying for the federal largesse in the first place.

Veteran's Day

Veteran's Day:

To all of you who've served, my thanks.

To all of you who haven't, McQ at BLACKFIVE thanks you.

Why Do Things Cost So Much?

Why Do Things Cost So Much?

Megan McCardle has a thread going about trade barriers and the impact on the cost of goods and the standard of living. I liked this comment about the difficulty of comparing standards of living today against those of 50-60 years ago, when U.S. manufacturing looked very different from today:

Well, if you give me 50's housing and 50's health care, I can probably live pretty cheaply. Part of what drives those prices up is the fact that we consume much more. And if you give me 50's school kids coming from intact 2-parent 50's families and attending 50's churches every Sunday, and 50's school teachers who are either unmarried single women or married and more or less supported by their husbands, I can doubtless cut your education costs (and local taxes), too.

Infinite Ethics

Infinite Ethics:

On grizzly bears:

One human being is worth more than an infinite number of grizzly bears. Another way to put it is that there is no number of live grizzlies worth one dead human being.

That really depends on who the human beings in question happen to be. I can think of some good examples of people I'd be willing to trade for grizzlies.

Ethics doesn't admit of infinites. "Never" and "forever" are neither for men (as Fritz Leiber wrote in "The Circle Curse"). We don't do ethics this way because ethics is always about balancing goods. Declaring one good to be infinite, even relative to another, means discarding entirely something else that is good. Do we say that human life is infinitely more valuable than horses? Well, people are often killed riding horses -- we should do away with the brutes! How about human life versus candy? Eliminate candy! Bacon? Fatty foods in general?

Of course, that depends on grizzly bears being in any way good. Are they good? The author deploys some Christian arguments, so let's talk about what Christianity says about the matter.

St. Augustine would have said that they were, because everything created is good. This is another reason to avoid assigning infinities, then: by effectively reducing the value of the opposite to zero, you are denying a truth about it. Everything that humanity has to make decisions about has some good. It may not be much, but it cannot be nothing. Therefore, nothing has infinite good.

(Since we are in the realm of specifically Christian ethics we must ask: What about God? Augustine would say that God has infinite goodness, and indeed is infinitely good; but that even in the case of God, humanity must make non-infinite calculations about him. After all, sometimes we have to turn our attention away from God and toward food, or charity towards fellow humans. Charity toward men is good, but even the best charity is not infinitely good -- and therefore, it has no value next to God. Yet it is certainly clear as a point of Christian ethics that God wants us to engage in charity. One might reply: "But since God wants it, you're really serving God by showing charity toward his creatures." Yes; and that's true of grizzly bears also, even if it is true to a lesser degree.)

The author cites the Bible as evidence that the land is cursed if people and livestock are being killed by savage beasts. The Bible also cites livestock dying of illness as evidence of a divine curse, but some livestock are always dying of illness in every nation.

What about David? He had to fight bears off the livestock. That doesn't look like proof of a curse on his nation, but the way in which he became brave enough to be a useful servant of God.

The presence of the bear can be a blessing or a curse, depending on how you encounter it. The difference doesn't depend on the bear. It depends on you.

1775

Happy Birthday:

It's the Marine Corps Birthday.

A committee of the Continental Congress met at Tun Tavern to draft a resolution calling for two battalions of Marines able to fight for independence at sea and on shore.

The resolution was approved on November 10, 1775, officially forming the Continental Marines.

Now that was a Congress that knew how to shape legends.

This is a good year for remembering those original Marines, who helped win the space in which the Constitution was crafted. Their descendants have defended that space ever since.



Hulu is launching a patriotism channel, which will feature among other things the stories of the lives of Medal of Honor recipients. There are about fourteen up this morning.

The Project VALOUR-IT fundraiser is still going on, for today and tomorrow. Team Marine is doing very well, having more than doubled its original goal. If you'd like to help them help today's wounded Marines, this is a fine day to do it.



Semper Fi, Marines.

He keeps using that word.

Somehow, I don't think it means what he thinks it means.

I mean, really. Can you imagine him picking up a gun?

Me neither.

Snake ID

Snake ID

Who's good at identifying snakes from descriptions? I didn't get a photo, unfortunately. This guy was fairly long, maybe 36 inches, not fat for his length, and not a pit viper. His head was slightly distinct from his body. His back bore a pattern of closely and regularly spaced solid small diamonds about 1/4-inch wide, and his sides bore a pattern of much larger hollow diamonds about an inch wide, more widely spaced. The entire effect was regular and geometrical rather than camouflage-splotchy. The background color was brownish, while the pattern spots were darker brown or black. His tail was smooth and pointy. He was sunning on the concrete, then slid off into dry brush (actually, my asparagus bed) when we encouraged him to move out of reach of the rambunctious dog.

I've looked at lots of pictures of Texas snakes, but I haven't found any with a pattern even remotely like this. (But since I couldn't find a similar picture, I decided to go with Snake Girl up there, because I think she's elegant.) Any ideas?

W. C. Fields

W. C. Fields:

The title of the last post reminds me: I don't think we've ever taken a look at W. C. Fields. He's certainly an American icon.

Shoo, Bear

Go Away, Kid, You Bother Me:

Via TBSBFB.

Guinness is good for you

Guinness is Good For You:

Two of my favorite things:

Zenyatta could be getting her favorite beer straight from the tap if she wins the Breeders’ Cup Classic on Saturday. Guinness said Friday it is offering a trip to Ireland and its famed St. James Gate Brewery in Dublin for Zenyatta, trainer John Shirreffs and owners Jerry and Ann Moss if the 6-year-old mare wins at Churchill Downs to close her career with a 20-0 record. Shirreffs is known to open a bottle of Guinness and pour it into a bowl for Zenyatta in the afternoon. He says she’ll only drink the dark Irish stout with its creamy head.

No wonder she's a winner!

Seriously?

The Power of the Press (Secretary):

This report is stunning:

[D]uring President Obama's trip to India, Gibbs assumed the role of press advocate and threatened to pull Obama out of bilateral talks with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh because three U.S. reporters were blocked from covering the meeting.

It's nice that Gibbs has the interest of the American press at heart, but -- did I understand that the press secretary was going to pull the US President out of bilateral talks? Gibbs said he was "serious" about this threat.

Normally that would seem to be overstepping one's authority a little bit. The idea that a press secretary might have veto power over whether the President is allowed to attend negotiations with another head of government... that's alarming. I know they work closely together, but still! The President might value his advisor's opinion without the advisor having that kind of authority over him. Gibbs seems confident, though: he didn't say he would ask the President to pull out of the negotiations, but that he would pull him out.

The End of (a) Tyranny

The End of (a) Tyranny:

The West awakes:

The US, bizarrely, is running at least 10 years behind in this process, having elected a government which chose to embark on the social democratic experiment at precisely the moment when its Western European inventors were despairing of it, and desperately trying to find politically palatable ways of winding it down.

The American people – being made of rather different stuff and having historical roots which incline them to be distrustful of government in any form – immediately rejected the whole idea....

So a generation after the collapse of totalitarian socialism, its democratic form is finally crumbling as well. And, oddly enough, the latter may take longer than the former to unravel. The one virtue of totalitarian governments is that they can be swept away in a single blow, either through violent overthrow or – as in the case of Soviet communism – by their populations simply walking out from under them.

Here's to the end of the Soviet Union, and to the good people long under her who had the sense to walk away. They were the ones who carried the weight, and when they came to see things clearly, they are the ones who laid it down.



May we know such sense, in our own way.

Not Quite, Bill

Not Quite, Bill:

There's a serious error in the first few seconds of this video, which undermines the message quite a bit. He posits a situation in which a unanimous Congress passes a law overturning the First Amendment, signed by the President; and he says that the right thing to do would be to resist this 'procedurally correct, unanimous' law.

What he wants to get at is a discussion of positive law (or 'political law,' as he calls it) versus natural law.

Unfortunately, the example doesn't go with the discussion. All of you see the problem: a law of the sort he describes would be unconstitutional on its face. A simple act of legislation cannot amend the Constitution. A government that tried to set aside the Constitution through simple legislation would merit a revolt even within the limited terms of positive law. Many of us have an obligation by oath to uphold the Constitution in such circumstances.

In order to get at the point he wants to get at, we need to think about whether or not it would be legitimate to amend the Constitution in a way that eliminates the First Amendment freedoms. The President doesn't sign proposed constitutional amendments; they go to the states for ratification.

The real point only becomes clear if and only if three-quarters or more of the states ratify the law -- the amendment that overturns the First Amendment. Now, perhaps, it's a question of natural law justifying a revolt against an unjust positive law.

Boom

A Boom in Crocodiles:

Apparently the makers of Cassidy's ad received certain complains.



I thought that was a most civilized reply.

Super-Rabbit

Super-Rabbit:

The ultimate lines of this episode are relevant.

Bugs Bunny-Super rabbit



I assume you know why.

Celebration Ale

Celebration Ale:

My favorite drink appeared today. It's available for about two months of the year, from sometime in November until the end of Yuletide.

Fine stuff. It reminds me of a joke, though. I was shopping for a birthday card, and I came across one that said something like:

"Happy birthday! I consulted a prominent astrologer to learn about your stars, and now I know which sign has the greatest influence on your life."

You open up the card, and a sign folds out that reads: "BAR."

Well, it's Friday. Be merry.

Demotivators

Project VALOUR-IT: Demotivators

I was asked to link to Cassandra's Demotivator's post, as a part of the VALOUR-IT challenge. Asked, and by a lady of noble spirit, I obey.

I would have done it sooner, but I wanted to think of a good demotivator. The truth is, while I had some good ones last year, I can't think of anything this year.

Apologies

Apologies:

One of you wrote today to ask me after something I once wrote on how a gentleman ought to apologize. I can't remember where it was, and I haven't found it; but it takes only a moment to spell out the rules. The rules are simple. A gentleman is a fighting man, and is therefore meant to be frank.

1) Take responsibility for the fault.
2) Explicitly say either "I am sorry" or "I apologize."
3) In a few words, explain yourself without attempting to excuse yourself.

I realize that can be very hard. I didn't say it was easy, though; I said it was simple. There is a sense in which God is simple. That doesn't make it easy to understand his nature; in fact, it makes it much harder.

That's what Carl Von Clausewitz said, though: 'In war, everything is simple; and the simplest things are hard.'

Speaking of what is hard, a harder thing to do than to give a good apology is to receive one. I hold with Alexander Dumas, who wrote -- I can't seem to find the precise quote of his either -- that a gentleman can do no more than apologize. Once that has been done, his honor is neatly concerned with having his apology received on honorable terms. If that is also done, he can do very much more: but if it is not done, he cannot.

It is therefore of chief importance that we learn to accept an honest and sincere apology. We are enjoined to forgive everything, and love our enemies as well as our neighbors. That is another simple rule that proves very hard.

Yet there it is.

"A penny for the old Guy, sir."

"A penny for the old Guy, sir."

If no one else is going to get to it, I guess it's up to me to remind us of today's date.

Remember, remember, the Fifth of November
'Twas Gunpowder Treason and plot.
I see no reason why Gunpowder Treason
Should ever be forgot.

I'm giving you early warning so you can get your bonfires going for tonight, and prepare your bangers and mash, bonfire toffee, parkin, and baked potatoes.

For those of you without strong feelings concerning a plot to murder James I and restore the True Faith to Protestant England, this is just Samhain, the Celtic fire/harvest festival that marks the end of summer, when the veil between the Overworld and the Underworld stretches thin, and candles can be left in an open western window to welcome visits from the beloved dead. It's time to decide which livestock must be slaughtered in order for both the herds and the people to survive the winter. The children should also prepare for guising and pranks -- or we may be a few days late for that.