http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8834
This is entertaining to watch politicians falling over each other trying to come up with some solution which is seen as helping the consumer. What would however be of the greatest benefit to the consumer is not 'bailout loans' or fixing interest rates on sub-prime mortgages. It's information, real information, on the nature and terms of their mortgages. People seem utterly mystified by the banking world as it is, and then those papers that sign over 15-30 years of lifetime seem completely bewildering. What's more, looking over who has sub-prime rates according to the research, it's people who'd already bought a house and were refinancing. People who had already done at least one decision, which may have been good or bad, and then decided to do something which may have been utterly stupid. Or at least, it was fine so long as housing prices continued to rise, a foolish assumption. What the government can do is provide in effect a standard loan disclosure such that a bank would have to provide, in English, the terms and conditions of a loan as agreed to. In the modern environment, it's possible to take one's business elsewhere if they don't like what they're seeing 10-15 years down the road.
For an idea what this would look like:
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.26179/pub_detail.asp
It's one page with two pages of explanation of terms. That's it. None of this 30 page of lawyerese crap.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-605.pdf
That one's a big bigger story. But suffices to say, anything which alters the arrangement between school taxes and school districts such that money follows students and not the other way around is fine by me. The unions would be another problem, but one that can be marginalized in other ways.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa587.pdf
This was an interesting perspective in that the 'diversity' culture that we've developed under the idea that schools and other publicly funded efforts blend our people is an utter waste of time. Which I already knew. But that one way to get around it was the prospect of school choice, giving parents both less belligerence and control (something which happens when choosing colleges for example).
For example, with all the evangelicals keeping their children home schooled, giving them a school which uses those 2000 year old teachings instead of modern science is fine by me. It will keep them backward and idiotic for easy identification.
10 December 2007
09 December 2007
guns at church
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/09/church.shooting/index.html
Despite my complaining on the coverage for such things, I was secretly waiting for a disgruntled worshiper. Guns at church is the one thing left after shootings at malls and schools. Now the trilogy is complete and we can move on.
Despite my complaining on the coverage for such things, I was secretly waiting for a disgruntled worshiper. Guns at church is the one thing left after shootings at malls and schools. Now the trilogy is complete and we can move on.
the war on sex
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/07/naked.twister.ap/index.html
Again with the no sex parties. What the hell people? I guess the hangup is not the noise generated but the money being spent for live sex performances. Which seems rather silly because the money probably isn't being provided for one of the 'performers' to have sex with someone other than who they want to have sex with. As opposed to prostitution, which very likely would be people who they would not want to have sex with otherwise.
What confuses me most is this line:
"We're not about infringing on the rights of the Cherry Pit patrons or owners," Lewis said. "But now your right to have fun has infringed on everyone else's. And now you have to draw the line".... What line is being crossed? The right to have 'fun' is infringing on everyone else's how? Much like the drug war in this country, the war on sexuality is pretty much a war against individuality. Not a war to provide decency or morality, but instead a way to infringe on individual rights. For all the whining free market capitalists have toward democrats on things like schools and health care (and I consider myself in this group most of the time), that there's not equal outrage involving the war on drugs or strip clubs strikes me as political hypocrisy. Instead there's indignation that there isn't more being done to proscribe some moral authority and decency, which isn't really the government's job. A community wants to shut down a strip club, stop going. Protest in front of it legally. And so on. It will move out of town as a matter of course if there is no longer any financial gain to be made. The same would be true here. There are legal reasons to harass noisy neighbours who happen to be having a sex party. Use them if people are so upset. Most people are liable to simply find another venue or amend their habits such that they do not impinge on their neighbours complicity. But again, I'd have to ask, aside from noise, what is being done that so offends the neighbours that a line has been crossed?
There was, tucked down at the bottom of the story, some legal recourse I can agree with. It's hard to say that a private party is being held when there are dozens of cars coming and going up and down the street and around 100 people in attendance. I would personally have a hard time coming up with 100 people I know, so I can imagine that this is providing a bit of annoyance. I don't see how it's going to 'reduce property value' as one neighbour whined. Property values are dipping of their own accord more than likely. But it is hard to imagine having a private party with a cast of hundreds which requires some fiscal management to provide refreshments and so on. That's a bit much.
Again with the no sex parties. What the hell people? I guess the hangup is not the noise generated but the money being spent for live sex performances. Which seems rather silly because the money probably isn't being provided for one of the 'performers' to have sex with someone other than who they want to have sex with. As opposed to prostitution, which very likely would be people who they would not want to have sex with otherwise.
What confuses me most is this line:
"We're not about infringing on the rights of the Cherry Pit patrons or owners," Lewis said. "But now your right to have fun has infringed on everyone else's. And now you have to draw the line".... What line is being crossed? The right to have 'fun' is infringing on everyone else's how? Much like the drug war in this country, the war on sexuality is pretty much a war against individuality. Not a war to provide decency or morality, but instead a way to infringe on individual rights. For all the whining free market capitalists have toward democrats on things like schools and health care (and I consider myself in this group most of the time), that there's not equal outrage involving the war on drugs or strip clubs strikes me as political hypocrisy. Instead there's indignation that there isn't more being done to proscribe some moral authority and decency, which isn't really the government's job. A community wants to shut down a strip club, stop going. Protest in front of it legally. And so on. It will move out of town as a matter of course if there is no longer any financial gain to be made. The same would be true here. There are legal reasons to harass noisy neighbours who happen to be having a sex party. Use them if people are so upset. Most people are liable to simply find another venue or amend their habits such that they do not impinge on their neighbours complicity. But again, I'd have to ask, aside from noise, what is being done that so offends the neighbours that a line has been crossed?
There was, tucked down at the bottom of the story, some legal recourse I can agree with. It's hard to say that a private party is being held when there are dozens of cars coming and going up and down the street and around 100 people in attendance. I would personally have a hard time coming up with 100 people I know, so I can imagine that this is providing a bit of annoyance. I don't see how it's going to 'reduce property value' as one neighbour whined. Property values are dipping of their own accord more than likely. But it is hard to imagine having a private party with a cast of hundreds which requires some fiscal management to provide refreshments and so on. That's a bit much.
08 December 2007
sex is dirty, you will get syphilis and die
http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSJ/MGArticle/WSJ_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1173353751674&path=!nationworld&s=1037645509161
Abstinence is a nice idea.. sort of. I can readily understand that relationships where sex becomes a prominent part too soon can become rather less than optimal soon thereafter. Sex when it evolves as a part of a relationship is fine. Great even. Waiting for it (like for marriage) gives it some special prominence that it probably doesn't deserve. It's good to have sex, but considering how most people do, it's probably not the best thing in the world (I don't see this personally, but I can imagine given all the fuss it's given in comedy about how bad people are at sex. I can't imagine how bad everyone is the first time without practice, but it must be pretty bad because people are always laughing). Here's the problem with teaching abstinence as a solution to things like STDs and teen pregnancy. It doesn't do anything. It's not a solution. Teens have hormones. These hormones impede or otherwise short circuit regular decision making. It's possible to control one's self, admirable in many respects. But to expect all people to impose equal and high levels of self control as it regards sex, which combines both the raging hormones with confusing emotional and physical needs that have developed over puberty, is exceedingly unlikely. Teaching that there are consequences to our behaviors is of course useful. But teaching that there are ways to minimize those consequences and still experience a good deal of otherwise healthy behavior is ultimately smarter on a societal level. Because it's pretty clear that teens and young single adults are going to have a healthy level of sexual activity regardless of whether we tell them not to do it. And well should they because it can be a valuable, if sometimes painful, lesson for some. What it should not be accompanied with is the more serious (read: worse than embarrassment/emotional trauma) consequences of STDs or the complex decision of abortion/adoption resulting of a pregnancy. If some attempts are made to teach how avoid these problems, guess what, kids are generally smart enough to make some amends to their intended behaviors.
Personally, on the individual level, parents can try to impose some code of conduct as it regards sexual activity upon their children. To be fair, the most effective way to prevent such behavior is probably to generally be so overwhelmingly humiliating such that the child has no self-respect to begin with and therefore does not trust other human beings enough to let them have verbal contact, much less physical or sexual contacts. This is perhaps not the best way to raise a child with some hope for a prosperous and successful future however. Maybe it's functional if one wants to raise sociopathic killers or terrorists. But not so much for human beings. The easiest and least painful means for such imposition is to have some levels of communication between parents and children. Akward as it may be, talking about sex, in a serious manner, generally allows people to have some appreciation for the act itself that isn't limited to some lewd pornographic depiction of it, where children otherwise would learn about sexual activity in the modern world. Though they might emerge with some more creative sexual techniques and positions, they aren't going to learn very much about how sex is part of a relationship or the emotional damages it can cause to some if it's not. Women unfortunately are the ones with greater neurochemical responses to orgasms that lead to emotional responses. So naturally men need to either be not very good in bed or realize that if they do know what they're doing, they better have a plan on what to do after it's over. Because they may be stuck with this girl for a while if they don't, and that may be good, or it may be bad. I suppose like many things we say that it gets better over time..which might be true, but I think people get bored with it faster than it gets better. And if there isn't some structure in place that supercedes sexual intimacy, it's pretty much a waste of time personally.
Maybe it would help if instead of seeing sex as a weakness, akin to addictions like alcohol or drugs, sex was a wonderful form of recreation, engaged in between (generally two) people who have an accompanying intimate bond emotionally. This is not to say agape or pure love, but at least something like a genuine respect for the other person (s). We as a society are quick to depict sex, but it is rarely if ever shown in a positive manner. Sexual behaviors on TV or other mediums tend to emphasize aggressive and casual use of others, or provocative self-displays, rather than any manner of self or mutual respect. Whereas beer commercials always show men commisserating with his closest companions and a few dozen scantily clad women observing the latest great sporting event on a gigantic TV. As though this was an honest portrayal of beer drinking. Never is beer shown afterwards with someone having a raging hangover puking into a toilet after having pissed on some random dumpster the night before and waking up with no scantily clad women around, or if they are scantily clad, they themselves are probably in the same unpleasant condition, hungover and disorientated, thus in no condition for any pre-working/school sexual romp. This is essentially the type of extreme portrait shown as it regards sex in any overt manner on media. What sort of mixed messages are we to receive? Sex is great, but it's dirty and we shouldn't want it? But we do, because that beer commercial plays on that desire. So we have to suppress it and only expose our filthy lustful desire when we're intoxicated.. ? So yes, our society is full of it.
And until it loses this strange mixed signal, experts can continue to predict rises in teen pregnancy and STD transmission rates.
Abstinence is a nice idea.. sort of. I can readily understand that relationships where sex becomes a prominent part too soon can become rather less than optimal soon thereafter. Sex when it evolves as a part of a relationship is fine. Great even. Waiting for it (like for marriage) gives it some special prominence that it probably doesn't deserve. It's good to have sex, but considering how most people do, it's probably not the best thing in the world (I don't see this personally, but I can imagine given all the fuss it's given in comedy about how bad people are at sex. I can't imagine how bad everyone is the first time without practice, but it must be pretty bad because people are always laughing). Here's the problem with teaching abstinence as a solution to things like STDs and teen pregnancy. It doesn't do anything. It's not a solution. Teens have hormones. These hormones impede or otherwise short circuit regular decision making. It's possible to control one's self, admirable in many respects. But to expect all people to impose equal and high levels of self control as it regards sex, which combines both the raging hormones with confusing emotional and physical needs that have developed over puberty, is exceedingly unlikely. Teaching that there are consequences to our behaviors is of course useful. But teaching that there are ways to minimize those consequences and still experience a good deal of otherwise healthy behavior is ultimately smarter on a societal level. Because it's pretty clear that teens and young single adults are going to have a healthy level of sexual activity regardless of whether we tell them not to do it. And well should they because it can be a valuable, if sometimes painful, lesson for some. What it should not be accompanied with is the more serious (read: worse than embarrassment/emotional trauma) consequences of STDs or the complex decision of abortion/adoption resulting of a pregnancy. If some attempts are made to teach how avoid these problems, guess what, kids are generally smart enough to make some amends to their intended behaviors.
Personally, on the individual level, parents can try to impose some code of conduct as it regards sexual activity upon their children. To be fair, the most effective way to prevent such behavior is probably to generally be so overwhelmingly humiliating such that the child has no self-respect to begin with and therefore does not trust other human beings enough to let them have verbal contact, much less physical or sexual contacts. This is perhaps not the best way to raise a child with some hope for a prosperous and successful future however. Maybe it's functional if one wants to raise sociopathic killers or terrorists. But not so much for human beings. The easiest and least painful means for such imposition is to have some levels of communication between parents and children. Akward as it may be, talking about sex, in a serious manner, generally allows people to have some appreciation for the act itself that isn't limited to some lewd pornographic depiction of it, where children otherwise would learn about sexual activity in the modern world. Though they might emerge with some more creative sexual techniques and positions, they aren't going to learn very much about how sex is part of a relationship or the emotional damages it can cause to some if it's not. Women unfortunately are the ones with greater neurochemical responses to orgasms that lead to emotional responses. So naturally men need to either be not very good in bed or realize that if they do know what they're doing, they better have a plan on what to do after it's over. Because they may be stuck with this girl for a while if they don't, and that may be good, or it may be bad. I suppose like many things we say that it gets better over time..which might be true, but I think people get bored with it faster than it gets better. And if there isn't some structure in place that supercedes sexual intimacy, it's pretty much a waste of time personally.
Maybe it would help if instead of seeing sex as a weakness, akin to addictions like alcohol or drugs, sex was a wonderful form of recreation, engaged in between (generally two) people who have an accompanying intimate bond emotionally. This is not to say agape or pure love, but at least something like a genuine respect for the other person (s). We as a society are quick to depict sex, but it is rarely if ever shown in a positive manner. Sexual behaviors on TV or other mediums tend to emphasize aggressive and casual use of others, or provocative self-displays, rather than any manner of self or mutual respect. Whereas beer commercials always show men commisserating with his closest companions and a few dozen scantily clad women observing the latest great sporting event on a gigantic TV. As though this was an honest portrayal of beer drinking. Never is beer shown afterwards with someone having a raging hangover puking into a toilet after having pissed on some random dumpster the night before and waking up with no scantily clad women around, or if they are scantily clad, they themselves are probably in the same unpleasant condition, hungover and disorientated, thus in no condition for any pre-working/school sexual romp. This is essentially the type of extreme portrait shown as it regards sex in any overt manner on media. What sort of mixed messages are we to receive? Sex is great, but it's dirty and we shouldn't want it? But we do, because that beer commercial plays on that desire. So we have to suppress it and only expose our filthy lustful desire when we're intoxicated.. ? So yes, our society is full of it.
And until it loses this strange mixed signal, experts can continue to predict rises in teen pregnancy and STD transmission rates.
bali
"Meanwhile, the government officials and activists that have flown to Bali will cause as much pollution as 20,000 cars in one year. Each delegate will produce an average of 4.07 metric tons of carbon dioxide. This total is the equivalent of 20,350 mid-sized cars. Some of the nations' delegates promise to offset their carbon footprint by planting trees or buying emissions credits. But scientists say that these symbolic actions won't do squat."
I'd like to focus on the overall workings of the 'carbon offset' programs. The rest of this needs no explanation, hypocrisy speaks volumes. Carbon offsets are essentially the fake environmentalist mentality that says "I can continue being a dirty rotten capitalistic pig who throws his garbage upon the ground, drive my SUV to the airport to jet off to exotic locations where upon I will meet with other 'important' people and describe how other people who do exactly as I do are evil because they do not plant trees or purchase credits to 'offset' their behavior." It's all phony and preposterous bluster. Planting trees or the amount of 'carbon credits' that would be needed are far in excess of what these people are doing or suggesting that we do. What would be more admirable is instead these people had conferences online, minimizing the polluting effects while using technology, actually reduced their lifestyles or found alternative means of powering them (or funded such means where they don't already easily exist) and so forth. Fake environmentalist behavior that claims such lofty aims as "I'm saving the planet, what are you doing?" is ridiculous. What environmentalism is really doing is not 'saving' the planet. It is intended to create a healthier balance between the interfering behaviors of man upon nature, or rather man's nature. What we might do to realize is that we are just as much a part of a fragile ecosystem that supports our own life. That's good, because we then realize we're just as weak and fragile and it might do to look around at human beings and our problems as a universal system. But what it does not do is say that human beings have the wherewithal to 'save' much of anything. We have power to preserve some things, some things we can influence or control, or at least mitigate. But then we see the power of nature in wildfires or hurricanes, blizzards, and so on. And we remember that we can't predict what the weather will do tomorrow with reliability. And we might relax, and realize that we're not going to save the planet because we don't even know how it works yet. It's very hard to fix something that is 1) maybe not even broken, and 2) doesn't come with a manual or some easily understood coding that allows one to take it apart bit by bit and see how it fit together in the first place. I advise doing something else instead. A bit smarter than trying to fix things that we probably won't have much effect on anyway.
What we can do is save what we have; conservationism is a healthy message. It helps strengthen internal economies by making them entrepreneurial and dependent upon natural resources inherent to their domains by adopting a stronger dependency on what's readily available and conserving what is not. In America's case, there is oil here. That's nice. But not nearly as much as we need. Which isn't. Conserving or replacing that huge volume of oil won't be easy, but no environmentalist plan based on 'carbon offsets' is talking about how to practically replace the fuels and engines of the world's vibrant and growing global economics. It's a giant scam for this reason, because if the people who want it aren't going to take it seriously enough to reduce their own lifestyles to avert 'potential disaster', then what are the rest of us to do?
I don't want to hear another lecture from the UN/Al Gore or any other phony environmentalist until they have energy neutral homes and 80-90% personal recycling, plus they're in a hybrid car pool (not a limo/private plane), and so on. They can afford these amendments. Why aren't they doing them? They should also not have conferences in Switzerland or Bali. They should all be in Darfur, Iraq, etc. Somewhere where it seems a bit hypocritical to say that the environment is man's biggest threat, when it is still clearly man's ever increasing ability to find ways to threaten himself physically.
I'd like to focus on the overall workings of the 'carbon offset' programs. The rest of this needs no explanation, hypocrisy speaks volumes. Carbon offsets are essentially the fake environmentalist mentality that says "I can continue being a dirty rotten capitalistic pig who throws his garbage upon the ground, drive my SUV to the airport to jet off to exotic locations where upon I will meet with other 'important' people and describe how other people who do exactly as I do are evil because they do not plant trees or purchase credits to 'offset' their behavior." It's all phony and preposterous bluster. Planting trees or the amount of 'carbon credits' that would be needed are far in excess of what these people are doing or suggesting that we do. What would be more admirable is instead these people had conferences online, minimizing the polluting effects while using technology, actually reduced their lifestyles or found alternative means of powering them (or funded such means where they don't already easily exist) and so forth. Fake environmentalist behavior that claims such lofty aims as "I'm saving the planet, what are you doing?" is ridiculous. What environmentalism is really doing is not 'saving' the planet. It is intended to create a healthier balance between the interfering behaviors of man upon nature, or rather man's nature. What we might do to realize is that we are just as much a part of a fragile ecosystem that supports our own life. That's good, because we then realize we're just as weak and fragile and it might do to look around at human beings and our problems as a universal system. But what it does not do is say that human beings have the wherewithal to 'save' much of anything. We have power to preserve some things, some things we can influence or control, or at least mitigate. But then we see the power of nature in wildfires or hurricanes, blizzards, and so on. And we remember that we can't predict what the weather will do tomorrow with reliability. And we might relax, and realize that we're not going to save the planet because we don't even know how it works yet. It's very hard to fix something that is 1) maybe not even broken, and 2) doesn't come with a manual or some easily understood coding that allows one to take it apart bit by bit and see how it fit together in the first place. I advise doing something else instead. A bit smarter than trying to fix things that we probably won't have much effect on anyway.
What we can do is save what we have; conservationism is a healthy message. It helps strengthen internal economies by making them entrepreneurial and dependent upon natural resources inherent to their domains by adopting a stronger dependency on what's readily available and conserving what is not. In America's case, there is oil here. That's nice. But not nearly as much as we need. Which isn't. Conserving or replacing that huge volume of oil won't be easy, but no environmentalist plan based on 'carbon offsets' is talking about how to practically replace the fuels and engines of the world's vibrant and growing global economics. It's a giant scam for this reason, because if the people who want it aren't going to take it seriously enough to reduce their own lifestyles to avert 'potential disaster', then what are the rest of us to do?
I don't want to hear another lecture from the UN/Al Gore or any other phony environmentalist until they have energy neutral homes and 80-90% personal recycling, plus they're in a hybrid car pool (not a limo/private plane), and so on. They can afford these amendments. Why aren't they doing them? They should also not have conferences in Switzerland or Bali. They should all be in Darfur, Iraq, etc. Somewhere where it seems a bit hypocritical to say that the environment is man's biggest threat, when it is still clearly man's ever increasing ability to find ways to threaten himself physically.
06 December 2007
random acts of violence
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/05/mall.shooting/index.html
Maybe if these people want to be famous, that's fine. .but find a better way to do than killing off others and then yourself. You don't even get to enjoy the full fifteen minutes, what with the condition of deadness you find yourself in after that.
Here's the real problem, ever since Columbine, shooters have noticed that shooting others is something that gets real recognition. Infamy, maybe, but at least it's something that has volume and attention to it. Much of the problem with people today has been that things are too quiet, too ordinary, or otherwise without merit. There's use in appreciation of peaceful times and the calm reflection it can bring. But reflection only works when one has something to reflect on. These people do not.
Maybe instead what these shooters should start doing is killing reporters and anchorman. Because unless those idiots stop giving so much attention to things that cause harm and dismay, and that are not part of some underlying importance but rather random acts of violence or even accidents (airplane crashes), we're going to keep getting these assaults in schools, malls and so forth from time to time. And there really isn't much we can do about it on any level to stop it.
Maybe if these people want to be famous, that's fine. .but find a better way to do than killing off others and then yourself. You don't even get to enjoy the full fifteen minutes, what with the condition of deadness you find yourself in after that.
Here's the real problem, ever since Columbine, shooters have noticed that shooting others is something that gets real recognition. Infamy, maybe, but at least it's something that has volume and attention to it. Much of the problem with people today has been that things are too quiet, too ordinary, or otherwise without merit. There's use in appreciation of peaceful times and the calm reflection it can bring. But reflection only works when one has something to reflect on. These people do not.
Maybe instead what these shooters should start doing is killing reporters and anchorman. Because unless those idiots stop giving so much attention to things that cause harm and dismay, and that are not part of some underlying importance but rather random acts of violence or even accidents (airplane crashes), we're going to keep getting these assaults in schools, malls and so forth from time to time. And there really isn't much we can do about it on any level to stop it.
05 December 2007
racist moms
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/do-mothers-pass-on-racism-more-than-fathers/more-2132
This is surprising how? As I understand it, there's generally a parental 'role' for both mother or father. It can be satisfied by either party, but generally people might acquire the ability to interact and co-exist with others from their motherly relationship and tend to acquire self-temperance/control/discipline from the fatherly (this comes up most often in studies of prison populations, ie nobody sends father's day cards in prison, but mom almost always gets a card). Since generally racist tendencies are involved in not co-existing with others, it would tend to mean that we would blame mothers abstractly for this problem. Additionally, as the story notes, mothers still tend to pull the majority of childcare duties. Which gives them a good deal more influence on things like friendships, activities, and so on.
Please wake me when someone conducts a study that contradicts logical common sense.
This is surprising how? As I understand it, there's generally a parental 'role' for both mother or father. It can be satisfied by either party, but generally people might acquire the ability to interact and co-exist with others from their motherly relationship and tend to acquire self-temperance/control/discipline from the fatherly (this comes up most often in studies of prison populations, ie nobody sends father's day cards in prison, but mom almost always gets a card). Since generally racist tendencies are involved in not co-existing with others, it would tend to mean that we would blame mothers abstractly for this problem. Additionally, as the story notes, mothers still tend to pull the majority of childcare duties. Which gives them a good deal more influence on things like friendships, activities, and so on.
Please wake me when someone conducts a study that contradicts logical common sense.
speeding kills?
http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/editorial/story.html?id=02ba28f0-86a5-4250-9bd2-d1c2ae606a5b
Speeding kills? The history of speed limits is based originally on engineer assessments of what the average traveled speed on a main road was. At some point, it was decided that reducing the speed traveled would increase fuel economy. Which I suppose it does. The net result however was that people continued traveling on roads at virtually the same speed. This turned out to be a cash cow for local or state governments. Supposedly studies were conducted that showed that lower speeds are safer. But in fact, the safest speed is the one that an average person will travel on a given road (regardless of what the actual limit is, it's whatever people are driving on it); excepting side streets where children (and pets) nix the arrangement. The result being: speed limits are usually too low by at least 5-10 mph in most places. What do most people admit to speeding at, yes 5-10 mph. What do most people get pulled over for, yes 10 mph over. Does any of this increase traffic danger? Actually no. When the limits were raised again, people resumed driving at rates that they always drove at, regardless of imposed limits. The net result however was that a large minority of actual law-abiding citizens also resumed driving at those rates, thus creating greater uniformity and safety. People who drive too slow are just as hazardous, if not more so, than people who drive too fast. A little publicized fact of traffic studies as it is generally lazier to say that driving too fast is deadly. It can be. But intellectually, a person driving fast generally has good conditions to do so, that being, no or few other cars (otherwise, they're probably doing something minutely dangerous). A person driving too slow is generally in the way, causing other cars to have to maneuver to get around them, which maneuvering is the easiest way to cause an accident. Driving fast in a nearly straight line, not so much. In any case, I'll go crawl back under my hole so as not to get a ticket myself. But needless to say, drive whatever traffic levels are going or permit. It's the safest way to travel.
Speeding kills? The history of speed limits is based originally on engineer assessments of what the average traveled speed on a main road was. At some point, it was decided that reducing the speed traveled would increase fuel economy. Which I suppose it does. The net result however was that people continued traveling on roads at virtually the same speed. This turned out to be a cash cow for local or state governments. Supposedly studies were conducted that showed that lower speeds are safer. But in fact, the safest speed is the one that an average person will travel on a given road (regardless of what the actual limit is, it's whatever people are driving on it); excepting side streets where children (and pets) nix the arrangement. The result being: speed limits are usually too low by at least 5-10 mph in most places. What do most people admit to speeding at, yes 5-10 mph. What do most people get pulled over for, yes 10 mph over. Does any of this increase traffic danger? Actually no. When the limits were raised again, people resumed driving at rates that they always drove at, regardless of imposed limits. The net result however was that a large minority of actual law-abiding citizens also resumed driving at those rates, thus creating greater uniformity and safety. People who drive too slow are just as hazardous, if not more so, than people who drive too fast. A little publicized fact of traffic studies as it is generally lazier to say that driving too fast is deadly. It can be. But intellectually, a person driving fast generally has good conditions to do so, that being, no or few other cars (otherwise, they're probably doing something minutely dangerous). A person driving too slow is generally in the way, causing other cars to have to maneuver to get around them, which maneuvering is the easiest way to cause an accident. Driving fast in a nearly straight line, not so much. In any case, I'll go crawl back under my hole so as not to get a ticket myself. But needless to say, drive whatever traffic levels are going or permit. It's the safest way to travel.
04 December 2007
yell out fire next time
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/12/04/blog.arrest.ap/index.html
We do have some interesting things that come out as a result of free speech. I'm not in favor of going down the hallways firing at the fleeing teachers and executing the standing ones. So I think the O.P. as a sarcastic tone was a bit much. But I'm quite confident many teachers are lazy and ineffective. I've seen them.
That said, we do need some wiggle room on free speech. Sarcasm and dark comedy as well as blunt language and sexual innuendo (overt or otherwise) are not only not permitted and censored, but apparently a cause for detainment. I have no problem with someone taking the point of view of their opponents in an argument/debate and extending it to a radical view to make light of it or otherwise make a point.
Now as to why someone else didn't recognize this.. probably because they suffered through the same educational system that I'm calling out on a regular basis. It's not really the police's fault when someone files a complaint. Sort of, they could use some common sense as well. But in the trigger happy news environs we live in now, it's hard not to take such things with some seriousness as a public official. I blame the lazy view that such statements are posing direct threat rather than being an annoyance for other extremist views.
We do have some interesting things that come out as a result of free speech. I'm not in favor of going down the hallways firing at the fleeing teachers and executing the standing ones. So I think the O.P. as a sarcastic tone was a bit much. But I'm quite confident many teachers are lazy and ineffective. I've seen them.
That said, we do need some wiggle room on free speech. Sarcasm and dark comedy as well as blunt language and sexual innuendo (overt or otherwise) are not only not permitted and censored, but apparently a cause for detainment. I have no problem with someone taking the point of view of their opponents in an argument/debate and extending it to a radical view to make light of it or otherwise make a point.
Now as to why someone else didn't recognize this.. probably because they suffered through the same educational system that I'm calling out on a regular basis. It's not really the police's fault when someone files a complaint. Sort of, they could use some common sense as well. But in the trigger happy news environs we live in now, it's hard not to take such things with some seriousness as a public official. I blame the lazy view that such statements are posing direct threat rather than being an annoyance for other extremist views.
bush pc
Congress should fund troops "without telling our military how to conduct this war,
Maybe I'm confused, but considering that Congress is supposedly the only entity that can authorize war and authorize peace accords, it might be important for them to be have some influence over how the military conducts itself beyond just assessing funding. It's truly annoying to have the 'emperor' bothering the general once he has committed to battle, agreed. But the whole committing to battle and not committing to battle is a political question. While it's nice to win battles, it's important to understand what are we fighting for. And it's not clear what that is in Iraq and it never was. First it was WMDs, then freedom, and now. .terrorism? There's a laudable goal somewhere in building a free and stable country, but if you're building something, it helps to have a stable foundation on which to build and build from. A castle made of sand will just blow away eventually. Iran or Lebanon are much more ripe for democracy than Iraq will be for many years. Even Palestine is probably better equipped than Iraq.
Given what I've been seeing, it sounds like the 'surge' is having some effects. But it is not really a surge that is doing anything, because they radically changed tactics. Someone figured out that they were in guerrilla warfare and started behaving accordingly. There's a play book for fighting unconventional warfare. Much of it includes being active and present in communities that are threatened in order to provide at least a semi-positive image of troop disposition. Cooperation with locals allows for cutting off supplies of men and material, better reconnaissance, and a safer working environment for everyone. Sitting on forts and escorting diplomats or supplies through dangerous territory by shooting at anything that moves does not. I'm glad someone at the Pentagon was smart enough to figure that out..after 4 years. Unfortunately they apparently forgot to tell the mercs to behave.
"Bush had "knowingly" disregarded or misrepresented intelligence. "This is ... exactly what he did in the run-up to the war in Iraq, in consistently exaggerating the intelligence," -- This on Iran, after reports now that Iran has halted it's nuclear weapons program as of several years ago. It is true that any country with nuclear reactors and uranium enrichment facilities can build a nuclear weapon. But to do it under international scrutiny is fairly difficult. This was principally why I was not committed to Iraq in the first place because it was so difficult to produce such facilities and weapons under both sanctions and scrutiny. Why we rushed to believe intelligence suggests that we were willing to assume that Saddam was a bad guy, which he was. And that he wanted to do something dramatic, which he might. What we really should have done then is just put a bullet in his head or a bomb on the palace he was sleeping in, but that apparently is against our laws. Something about risking assassination of the President, even though that's only happened from domestic sources, and probably will continue to be so long as we have a huge military. If we're that worried about it, we could have taken the case to the UN and said "look the sanctions are only making Saddam and his cronies rich (as well as the UN). Why don't we just take care of this problem the old fashioned way and shoot the guy." Barring that, we could have sent people in to detain him for international tribunal (which if you notice, he was only charged with things that happened before the US started selling him weapons in the 80s to kill Persians but used against his own citizens as well). Occupying a country and attempting to build a regime that was favorable to our positions is not a tenable foreign policy stance (though it worked sometimes during the Cold War for a while, it always backfires; just look at Iran and anywhere in Latin America). Shooting international criminals however is probably fine.
"commented on the case of a 19-year-old Saudi Arabian woman who was gang-raped and then punished by a Saudi court which sentenced her to 200 lashes and six months in prison."
--- While it is true she was punished, her crime was not being raped. It would do to distinguish the inanity of strict shariah law. Her crime was meeting with an unrelated male alone, not being assaulted and raped by several men. Supposedly shariah law recognizes that rape is rather unpleasant at least, but given that the otherwise strict judicial code did not execute the rapists, or at least castrate them... I might have been mistaken. If they're willing to saw off people's hands for theft, then I'd think the least that could be done is cut off a rapist's tools as well.
Maybe I'm confused, but considering that Congress is supposedly the only entity that can authorize war and authorize peace accords, it might be important for them to be have some influence over how the military conducts itself beyond just assessing funding. It's truly annoying to have the 'emperor' bothering the general once he has committed to battle, agreed. But the whole committing to battle and not committing to battle is a political question. While it's nice to win battles, it's important to understand what are we fighting for. And it's not clear what that is in Iraq and it never was. First it was WMDs, then freedom, and now. .terrorism? There's a laudable goal somewhere in building a free and stable country, but if you're building something, it helps to have a stable foundation on which to build and build from. A castle made of sand will just blow away eventually. Iran or Lebanon are much more ripe for democracy than Iraq will be for many years. Even Palestine is probably better equipped than Iraq.
Given what I've been seeing, it sounds like the 'surge' is having some effects. But it is not really a surge that is doing anything, because they radically changed tactics. Someone figured out that they were in guerrilla warfare and started behaving accordingly. There's a play book for fighting unconventional warfare. Much of it includes being active and present in communities that are threatened in order to provide at least a semi-positive image of troop disposition. Cooperation with locals allows for cutting off supplies of men and material, better reconnaissance, and a safer working environment for everyone. Sitting on forts and escorting diplomats or supplies through dangerous territory by shooting at anything that moves does not. I'm glad someone at the Pentagon was smart enough to figure that out..after 4 years. Unfortunately they apparently forgot to tell the mercs to behave.
"Bush had "knowingly" disregarded or misrepresented intelligence. "This is ... exactly what he did in the run-up to the war in Iraq, in consistently exaggerating the intelligence," -- This on Iran, after reports now that Iran has halted it's nuclear weapons program as of several years ago. It is true that any country with nuclear reactors and uranium enrichment facilities can build a nuclear weapon. But to do it under international scrutiny is fairly difficult. This was principally why I was not committed to Iraq in the first place because it was so difficult to produce such facilities and weapons under both sanctions and scrutiny. Why we rushed to believe intelligence suggests that we were willing to assume that Saddam was a bad guy, which he was. And that he wanted to do something dramatic, which he might. What we really should have done then is just put a bullet in his head or a bomb on the palace he was sleeping in, but that apparently is against our laws. Something about risking assassination of the President, even though that's only happened from domestic sources, and probably will continue to be so long as we have a huge military. If we're that worried about it, we could have taken the case to the UN and said "look the sanctions are only making Saddam and his cronies rich (as well as the UN). Why don't we just take care of this problem the old fashioned way and shoot the guy." Barring that, we could have sent people in to detain him for international tribunal (which if you notice, he was only charged with things that happened before the US started selling him weapons in the 80s to kill Persians but used against his own citizens as well). Occupying a country and attempting to build a regime that was favorable to our positions is not a tenable foreign policy stance (though it worked sometimes during the Cold War for a while, it always backfires; just look at Iran and anywhere in Latin America). Shooting international criminals however is probably fine.
"commented on the case of a 19-year-old Saudi Arabian woman who was gang-raped and then punished by a Saudi court which sentenced her to 200 lashes and six months in prison."
--- While it is true she was punished, her crime was not being raped. It would do to distinguish the inanity of strict shariah law. Her crime was meeting with an unrelated male alone, not being assaulted and raped by several men. Supposedly shariah law recognizes that rape is rather unpleasant at least, but given that the otherwise strict judicial code did not execute the rapists, or at least castrate them... I might have been mistaken. If they're willing to saw off people's hands for theft, then I'd think the least that could be done is cut off a rapist's tools as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
