Archive for the ‘Whys & wherefores’ Category

h1

How to make a sandwich

September 17, 2015

This is along the lines of “I, Pencil.” But instead of just talking about the principles of division of labor and comparative advantage that are typically involved, Mr. George sets out to actually make himself a sandwich from scratch.

‘From scratch’ in this case means raising or securing all the different foods that will go into his sandwich as directly and as personally as he can. He gets his hands dirty, in other words.

(This is a series of 14 short videos; you’ll need to click to see the next one as each one ends.)

Luckily for him, he’s not a BLT fan like I am.

Via Carpe Diem

h1

What he said (6)

September 1, 2015

I recently finished Michael Crichton’s novel State of Fear. It’s a little dated now, since it came out in late 2004, but I still found it an entertaining read. And that’s despite the fact that it’s not one of his better novels; it ain’t a patch on The Andromeda Strain, for example.

I won’t give anything away but it’s a story about how people perceive climate change and anthropogenic global warming.

At the end, Crichton wrote some end notes to explain his personal take on AGW. Among those were these comments that I liked.

I believe people are well intentioned. But I have great respect for the corrosive influence of bias, systematic distortions of thought, the power of rationalization, the guises of self-interest, and the inevitability of unintended consequences.

I am certain there is too much certainty in the world.

Before making expensive policy decisions on the basis of climate models, I think it is reasonable to require that those models predict future temperatures accurately for a period of ten years. Twenty would be better.

The hard-headed common sense of these remarks reminds me of things that Thomas Sowell has said.

h1

Intellectuals and capitalism

August 18, 2015

I think Mr Mackey makes a good point early in this clip about what amounts to snobbery, in a word. (After the mid-point, he gets off onto other topics.)

A free market is the most reliable way to let the next mad genius succeed.


Glenn Reynolds had a good op-ed on a related topic this week.

Fast moving bad news builds prosperity

Nassim Nicholas Taleb recently tweeted: “The free-market system lets you notice the flaws and hides its benefits. All other systems hide the flaws and show the benefits.”

This drew a response: “The most valuable property of the price mechanism is as a reliable mechanism for delivering bad news.” These two statements explain a lot about why socialist systems fail pretty much everywhere but get pretty good press, while capitalism has delivered truly astounding results but is constantly besieged by detractors.

It is simple really: When the “Great Leader” builds a new stadium, everyone sees the construction. Nobody sees the more worthwhile projects that didn’t get done instead because the capital was diverted, through taxation, from less visible but possibly more worthwhile ventures — a thousand tailor shops, bakeries or physician offices.

At the same time, markets deliver the bad news whether you want to hear it or not, but delivering the bad news is not a sign of failure, it is a characteristic of systems that work. When you stub your toe, the neurons in between your foot and your head don’t try to figure out ways not to send the news to your brain. If they did, you’d trip a lot more often. Likewise, in a market, bad decisions show up pretty rapidly: Build a car that nobody wants, and you’re stuck with a bunch of expensive unsold cars; invest in new technologies that don’t work, and you lose a lot of money and have nothing to show for it. These painful consequences mean that people are pretty careful in their investments, at least so long as they’re investing their own money. […]

h1

Tell us what you really think

August 4, 2015

Here are a couple of interesting videos about free speech, political correctness, and all like that. This first one is a comedy routine by Steve Hughes.

I liked his comparison of political correctness to health & safety rules. That’s another "Mother, may I?" category.

This second clip in an interview by Reason.TV with Jim Doti, president of Chapman University.

h1

Props to the cop

August 1, 2015

Here’s an interesting post at reddit: “Free Inhabitant” claims she can not be arrested. Cites Articles of Confederation. Gets arrested. Literally cries rape.

The discussion at reddit speculates that she was quoting Article 4 of the Articles of Confederation (predecessor to the U.S. Constitution) as the basis for her claim to be a Free Inhabitant who is immune to civil authority.

So this lady tried citing the Articles of Confederation, which made her a “free inhabitant”, which she claims gives her all the rights of a US citizen without having to follow any US laws.

Yes, she does really say that.

Clearly, she is unaware that the Articles of Confederation were superseded by the US constitution. She is also unaware that “free inhabitant” is literally referencing people who are not slaves, not some sort of protected super-class of people. She is also unaware that the Articles of Confederation are not part of US code. She is, finally, also unaware of the definition of rape.

Taking this video at face value, it seems evident that someone doesn’t know the laws. But I don’t think it was the officer who had to deal with this woman.

Instead, I’d say that officer deserves a lot of credit for handling this as calmly as he did. And it makes me wonder how many "roadside lawyers" like this the police have to deal with. (Too many in their opinions, I’m sure.)

h1

More spoilers

July 30, 2015

This reminds me of a recent post. Thank goodness my neighbors don’t practice this kind of passive-aggressive assholery.

H.T. Paul

h1

We can do without the knee-jerk outrage

July 24, 2015

From all the politicians reacting to Donald Trump’s idiotic remarks about immigrants. (May Trump emigrate to some place looking for a Fearless Leader. Please.)

Here’s an interesting article at FEE about a study of crime rates among immigrants by the National Criminal Justice Reference Service.

By the Numbers: Does Immigration Cause Crime?
The preponderance of research shows no effect

The alleged murder of Kate Steinle in San Francisco by illegal immigrant Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez has reignited the debate over the link between immigration and crime. Such debates often call for change in policy regarding the deportation or apprehension of illegal immigrants.

However, if policies should change, it should not be in reaction to a single tragic murder. It should be in response to careful research on whether immigrants actually boost the US crime rates.

With few exceptions, immigrants are less crime prone than natives or have no effect on crime rates. As described below, the research is fairly one-sided.

(Via Coyoteblog)

The Wall Street Journal has an editorial in a similar vein. I don’t know whether it cites the same study as the FEE article snce I’m not a subscriber.

Regular readers will recall that I think our immigration laws are too restrictive, not too lax. And in that vein, here’s a little visual snark:

Ancestors-n-immigrants

I can just imagine some 19th century Donald-Trump-like-idiot going on about my Irish great-great-grandfather.

(And for that matter, where the hell did Trump’s forebears immigrate from?)

h1

Slum dog millionaires

July 23, 2015

Here’s the opening of an interesting article at Cato at Liberty. RTWT.

How Capitalism Is Undermining the Indian Caste System

Karl Marx was wrong about many things but right about one thing: the revolutionary way capitalism attacks and destroys feudalism. As I explain in a new study, in India, the rise of capitalism since the economic reforms of 1991 has also attacked and eroded casteism, a social hierarchy that placed four castes on top with a fifth caste—dalits—like dirt beneath the feet of others. Dalits, once called untouchables, were traditionally denied any livelihood save virtual serfdom to landowners and the filthiest, most disease-ridden tasks, such as cleaning toilets and handling dead humans and animals. Remarkably, the opening up of the Indian economy has enabled dalits to break out of their traditional low occupations and start businesses. The Dalit Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (DICCI) now boasts over 3,000 millionaire members. This revolution is still in its early stages, but is now unstoppable.

As an aside, my brother-in-law’s wife was born in Kolkata (Calcutta). She told us a story once about her parents’ household and mentioned in passing that the family’s servants washed their car by hauling water in buckets.

It made my back ache to think of it. I’m hoping those servants have better things to do these days than schlepping water to wash cars.

But getting back to castes and feudalism, I’ve always been fond of this rhetorical question: When Adam delved and Eve span, who was then the gentleman?

That applies as well to Eve’s children in India as it does to her children everywhere else.

Anyone claiming privileges because of "breeding" or "family line" deserves a poke in the nose, IMO. When you think about those claims, they’re just another form of racism — or maybe "sub-racism", which is a concept that’s even more ridiculous.

Now that I think of it, claims like those make a very good reductio ad absurdum argument against racism.


Update: (8/18/15)

I just came across this trailer for a documentary that will appear on public television soon.

h1

Thank God for the Fifth Amendment

July 12, 2015

This video has been around for a while (7 years on YouTube) but it’s chock full of good practical advice, from both Professor Duane and Officer Bruch, so that I think it’s worth posting here.

If you haven’t seen it, it’s worth the 50 minutes it takes to watch it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

Avoiding talking to the police without counsel is a recurring topic at Popehat.com: in this post for example. That one’s worth your time too.

h1

There’s usually a lot of that going around

July 7, 2015

From The Washington Post, a sensible opinion about the tempest-in-a-teapot over the Confederate flag.

There’s no race war in America

Did you know that this newspaper is named for a slaveholder? It’s right there on our masthead, the name of a man who for 56 years held other human beings in bondage on his Virginia plantation — a man, according to the official Mount Vernon Web site, who “frequently utilized harsh punishment against the enslaved population, including whippings.” This dreaded symbol of oppression is delivered to the doorsteps and inboxes of hundreds of thousands of people each morning.

Sure, George Washington also emancipated his slaves in his will, won our independence and became the father of our country — but no matter. It is an outrage that this paper continues to bear the name of such a man.

It is time to rename The Washington Post!

Think that’s stupid? You’re right. But there’s a lot of stupid going around today. The latest example: The TV Land network has pulled the plug on reruns of one of America’s most beloved shows, “The Dukes of Hazzard,” because the car in the show, the General Lee, bears a Confederate flag. There is nothing racist about “The Dukes of Hazzard.” It is a show about moonshine, short shorts and fast cars. What is accomplished by banning “The Dukes of Hazzard”? Nothing. […]

This impulse to wipe away history is Stalinist. Just like Joseph Stalin once erased people from photographs, we’re now erasing people from our collective history.

These historical purges are not only wrong, they are also completely unnecessary. If you want to see where race relations are in the South, just look at how the people of Charleston, S.C., reacted to the shootings at Emanuel AME Church. There were no race riots. The city didn’t burn. People came together — black and white — to mourn and heal together. The white mayor of Charleston joined hands with the state’s black senator and its Indian American governor to pray. Thousands of people of all races, creeds and colors formed a “unity chain” that stretched two miles across the Ravenel Bridge to honor those who died.

h1

Spoilers ahead

June 20, 2015

Via CoyoteBlog I ran across some news recently that left me thinking worse of my fellow citizens. Some people just can’t leave well-enough alone.

First, here’s a report about Deborah Vollmer in Chevy Chase, MD. She seems to be conducting some type of social justice warfare over property zoning. (My emphasis below.)

Declaring war against thy neighbor over a house and a shared driveway

Deborah Vollmer wants to make one thing very clear. Under no circumstances can you park on the driveway. This is not a drill. This is not a joke. Please park on the street.

This isn’t just a driveway, Vollmer explained, stepping across it on a soggy Thursday morning. It is the fault line dividing two titanic forces, a battlefield between past and present, between the haves and the have-nots, between environmental conservation and environmental degradation.

Put another way, the driveway separates her million-dollar house from her neighbor’s million-dollar house.

Suddenly, a figure materialized at the window in the neighbor’s house. It was Vollmer’s next-door neighbor and nemesis — an elegantly dressed, blond-haired woman named Linda Schwartz, who at this precise moment looked very unhappy. Seconds later, a garage door screeched open and Schwartz backed her ­Mercedes-Benz onto the driveway.

Vollmer, eyes widening in alarm, darted out of sight. “I got to get out of here!” she yelled as she vamoosed. “There’s a no-contact order against me!” […]

Thus passed another tense moment in what local officials say has become the town of Chevy Chase’s lengthiest, costliest, and most litigious neighborhood spat in recent memory. What began as a contested building permit six years ago has spiraled into a clash of wills, spawning five lawsuits, two misdemeanor convictions, arrests, anger-management classes, and a court order that Vollmer steer clear of the Schwartzes — or risk spending 18 months in the slammer.

“It is so sad that this has happened,” said Arthur Schwartz. “She is independently wealthy, has not had to work and has little else to do but continue to sue us and her own town, without regard to the law or what any court has told her.” […]

Read the whole thing to get the flavor of Ms Vollmer’s state of mind. Thank goodness she doesn’t live in my neighborhood.


And from the other coast, Megan McArdle writes about Barbara Berwick’s suit against Uber (and quotes one of Coyote’s posts). RTWT.

‘Employee’ Label Would End Uber as We Know It

If you’re a freelance writer who occasionally sells articles to a website, are you actually an employee? If you live in California, I think the answer might be — yes?

The California labor commissioner has ruled that Uber drivers are employees, not contractors, because they can’t be Uber drivers without the application, because the company pulls DMV records and does background checks, and because the company specifies various rules about how the work may be performed and cuts off access to the application if you get persistently low ratings or are inactive for 180 days (presumably since they no longer have good data on your driving ability).

On the face of it, this ruling seems ludicrous. Raise your hand if you’ve ever had an employer who said: “Hey, as long as you don’t actively alienate the customers, you can just show up and work whenever you feel like. No need to let me know when you’re coming, just show up and I’ll pay you for any work you do. Just put in a couple of hours every six months, m’kay?” Yeah, I never had that job either, and neither did anyone else who wasn’t blackmailing the boss or working for a family member. […]

But wait… there’s more! Here’s an article by Lauren Smiley about Ms Berwick and her legal actions against Uber and others.

The Many, Many Cases of the Woman Who Just Beat Uber
“I’m enjoying my five minutes of fame.”

As Barbara Ann Berwick tells it, she came to San Francisco in 1969 “to be a hippie” — but ended up as an online funds trader, a defeated political candidate, and a repeat litigant, who has pressed legal claims against everyone from a hospital to a media company for leaving newspapers at her doorstep. (She lost.)

Now, though, Berwick has won an important blow against one of the most powerful companies in today’s San Francisco. The California Labor Commissioner’s Office determined her to be an employee of Uber — not just a contractor — and awarded her approximately $4,000 in expenses, according to court documents. […]

Berwick waved off naysayers who will accuse her of cruising for another legal settlement by taking the wheel of her car for Uber. This is, after all, a time when the behemoth ridesharing company faces battles across the country about classifying its drivers as contractors, meaning that they are not eligible for benefits or other perks. She wasn’t cynical, says Berwick. She said she’d been homeless in the past. But now in general, “I’m doing quite well.”

“I want social change,” Berwick says. Before she took the Uber gig, she says, she didn’t realize that she’d be driving as a contractor. “I didn’t actually read the box I checked, so I assumed I’d be an employee, because it makes no sense to be an independent contractor. I found out real fast.” She says she was regularly driving more than 40 hours a week.

She says she stopped driving in September and filed her claim. […]

I think Berwick got her "social change" – for herself and for all the other Uber drivers in California. Be sure to tell Barabara "Thanks," folks.

Ms Berwick’s claim that she didn’t understand that she’d be treated as a contractor strikes me as pretty disingenuous. A person who’s been an online trader and a repeat litigant (a) doesn’t read agreements and (b) doesn’t know how Uber works? What?

Perhaps there’s more behind her suit against Uber than has been reported. Who benefits from the labor commissioner’s decision? Not Uber, certainly. Not most other Uber drivers, probably. Berwick’s benefits were the small windfalls of $4,000 and "five minutes of fame," so no clear winners so far.

So who will benefit from this?

Or did Berwick have her eye on more than recovering her expenses?

Trans Woman Who Sued Uber For Expenses Wants To Become CEO.

h1

Sounds like my kind of place

June 14, 2015

While meandering the web one day, I came across the Smoking Policy statement for The Vortex. I’ve never been there but I gather it’s a bar/grill kind of place with a couple of locations in Atlanta, Georgia. (My emphasis below.)

SMOKE ‘EM IF YOU GOT ‘EM

We allow the smoking of cigarettes and e-cigarettes on our premises. If you decide to smoke either one, please only do so in our designated smoking area. Be advised, we do not allow the smoking of cigars, pipes, clove cigarettes or anything forbidden by our Statist overlords.

WE LOVE FREEDOM OF CHOICE

While we’re happy to welcome smokers and non-smokers alike, we will never tolerate crybabies. So if your personal preference is to avoid being around any amount of smoke, then this may not be the place for you. That’s okay. Don’t be sad. We’re not. There are many “smoke-free” establishments in town that will gladly welcome your business. We believe that freedom of choice should always be celebrated, as it’s a rare commodity these days.

THE REAL DANGER

Ultimately, we feel that matters of personal risk assessment are best left to the individual, not the State. We believe that sovereign individuals must have supreme authority over their personal choices with regard to their own body, life and behavior, without the interference of governing powers. As advocates for this kind of freedom, we are deeply concerned that more citizens do not seem to understand the real dangers of coercive legislation. Any time you create a State apparatus capable of repression, it will inevitably fall into the hands of bullies, busy-bodies and tyrants. History has proven this time and time again.

Second-Hand Smoke is better than Second-Hand Fascism.

An establishment with a sensible policy like this one – plus the declaration that The Vortex is an "Official Idiot-Free Zone" is my kind o’ place. If & when I get to Atlanta, I believe I’ll stop by.

h1

These good old days of cheap energy

June 4, 2015

Here’s a video that highlights something I think most people take for granted.

All that work to generate the electricity that costs me about 2/10 of a cent. How many Roberts for a penny’s worth of current? 5.

He’s lucky he only had to power a toaster. One of my grandmothers had no toaster. Instead, she toasted bread using the broiler in her electric oven – one side at a time. (And was that slow.) I’d like to see Robert toast bread that way.

As for granny, it gets worse: on cool mornings in spring or autumn, she’d turn the oven on with its door open to take the chill out of her kitchen.

Looking at the #toasterchallenge hashtag, I imagine that the video makers’ point is that we should all conserve energy as much as possible.

But I don’t regard energy as some finite resource that we’re likely to completely consume in the near future. We hadn’t run out of coal when we switched to oil. We hadn’t run out of trees when we switched to coal. I doubt that we’ll have run out of oil when we switch to… whatever.

As one of Carl Sagan’s sons (I don’t recall which one) said: life is possible because the Earth exists in the sun’s energy gradient. That gradient – that waterfall of energy we live within – is what drives it all. And I think we’ve got a few billion years to go before we’ll need another star.

Assuming that the market’s allowed to work, energy will continue to be available pretty much indefinitely. It may not always be available at today’s bargain prices, which allow us to waste it on things like air travel for pleasure, power sports, global computer networks, vanity satellite launches, quick and easy cooking, well-lit roads and sidewalks, and toasting bread in electric ovens.

But it’ll be available.


Update 6/6/15: Now here’s a way to toast bread that wastes even more energy than granny’s method, I think. I hate to think how many ‘Roberts’ this would take.

Via engadget


Update 6/2/15:

Maybe I was too pessimistic above or too into the current group think about energy. This article appeared recently at Bloomberg Business.

The Way Humans Get Electricity Is About to Change Forever

The renewable-energy boom is here. Trillions of dollars will be invested over the next 25 years, driving some of the most profound changes yet in how humans get their electricity. That’s according to a new forecast by Bloomberg New Energy Finance that plots out global power markets to 2040.

Here are six massive shifts coming soon to power markets near you: […]

Prices are coming down for rooftop solar and — more importantly — for home energy storage. (See Tesla’s Powerwall.)

Dry battery storage is still a little spendy; the Powerwall unit’s not cheap when you start looking at its lifetime and replacement costs. But when I can store 30-40 kWh in my basement for 10¢/kWh (counting maintenance & replacement), I’ll be all over that.

h1

Hear, hear! (3)

April 26, 2015

Daniel Hannan (member of the European Parliament) writes:

It’s time to introduce a voluntary fame tax

I’ve just come across an utterly brilliant idea for tax reform, one that would elevate and improve our public discourse. It comes from my friend James Hannam, who is standing for election as a councillor in Kent, and for whom I went canvassing over the weekend in the gorgeous village of Sissinghurst. […]

James’s suggestion is as follows. The sorts of people who get recruited by political causes as celebrity supporters – television personalities, comedians and the like – should have to pay a special “fame levy” of around 20 per cent of their income. This tax would reflect the fact that they get paid to do really cool things, and are at the same time asked to opine about politics without the bother of getting themselves elected to anything.

It would, however, be voluntary. All the celebrities would need to do, to avoid the toll, is sign a public declaration to the effect that they wanted to opt out.

They’d be free to sign or not to sign. Either way, the rest of us would know whether or not to take them seriously when they assured us that they “wouldn’t mind paying a bit more tax” in order to “make society fairer”.

H.T. Jeff G

h1

Living free and dying

February 22, 2015

I suppose I wasn’t the only kid who daydreamed about being a hobo, at least among people of similar age and background. I recall reading stories that included hobo characters or which were about hobos and their foot-loose way of life was attractive to a boy living under his parents’ and schoool’s discipline.

So I enjoyed this short documentary about modern day hobos in the U.S. Watching it reminded me that I’d still like to travel across the country by train just to see what’s out there, away from the Interstates and the airports.

Are there hobos in other countries? I don’t know. There are migrant workers, surely; I wonder if they have a tradition of riding freight trains between jobs.


Thinking about hobos reminded me of Hard Times, Studs Turkel’s oral history of the Great Depression. (It’s a good book to read, if you haven’t.) That site has links to audio of the interviews he conducted while writing the book.

Here’s an interview with a former hobo named Frank Czerwonka and another with a fellow named Louis Banks.

Stories about hobos led me to thinking about songs about them. Here’s Jimmie Rodger’s Hobo’s Meditation. I particularly like the cover of this song by Parton, Ronstandt, and Harris on their album Trio.

And I can’t bring up hobo songs without mentioning Roger Miller’s King of the Road, of course. Years ago, I heard a local musician perform this and he described it as ‘flawless’.

h1

Hear, hear! (2)

November 8, 2014

Here’s a Reason TV interview with Jason Brennan, a professor of philosophy at Georgetown, about his new book Why Not Capitalism?

It’s an interesting interview. Maybe I’ll buy his book.

h1

Another one bites the dust

September 27, 2014

Paul sends a link to this article at Vice about a utopian settlement project called Galt’s Gulch Chile. Has any utopian settlement ever lasted for more than a couple of decades?

Based on this article, it sounds as though this project didn’t fall apart so much as it never got started.

ATLAS MUGGED: HOW A LIBERTARIAN PARADISE IN CHILE FELL APART

It was a good idea, in theory anyway. The plan was to form a sustainable community made up of people who believed in capitalism, limited government, and self-reliance. The site was already picked out: 11,000 acres of fertile land nestled in the valleys of the Chilean Andes, just an hour’s drive away from the capital of Santiago, to the east, and the Pacific Ocean, to the west. Residents could make money growing and exporting organic produce while enjoying Chile’s low taxes and temperate climate. This was no crackpot scheme to establish a micronation on a platform floating in the middle of the ocean (a common libertarian dream)—this was a serious attempt to build a refuge where free marketers and anarcho-capitalists could hole up and wait for the world’s fiat currencies to collapse. They called it “Galt’s Gulch Chile” (GGC), naming it for the fictional place where the world’s competent capitalists flee to in Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged.

The project was conceived in 2012 by four men: John Cobin, an American expat living in Chile who once ran unsuccessfully for Congress in South Carolina; Jeff Berwick, the globe-trotting founder of the Dollar Vigilante, a financial newsletter that preaches the coming end of the current monetary system; Cobin’s Chilean partner; and Ken Johnson, a roving entrepreneur whose previous investment projects included real estate, wind turbines, and “water ionizers,” pseudoscientific gizmos that are advertised as being able to slow aging.

That initial group quickly fell apart, though today the principals disagree on why. Now, two years after its founding, the would-be paradise is ensnared in a set of personal conflicts, mainly centered on Johnson. Instead of living in a picturesque valley selling Galt’s Gulch–branded juice, the libertarian founders are accusing one another of being drunks, liars, and sociopaths. GGC’s would-be inhabitants have called Johnson a “weirdo,” a “pathological liar,” “insane,” a “scammer,” and other, similar things. Some shareholders are pursuing legal action in an effort to remove him from the project, a drastic measure for antigovernment types to take. Johnson, who remains the manager of the trust that controls the land, claims all the allegations against him are false. So what happened?

h1

What he said (5)

September 24, 2014

A good essay about what science is and what it’s not. (The author’s emphasis below.)

How our botched understanding of ‘science’ ruins everything

Here’s one certain sign that something is very wrong with our collective mind: Everybody uses a word, but no one is clear on what the word actually means.

One of those words is “science.”

Everybody uses it. Science says this, science says that. You must vote for me because science. You must buy this because science. You must hate the folks over there because science.

Look, science is really important. And yet, who among us can easily provide a clear definition of the word “science” that matches the way people employ the term in everyday life?

So let me explain what science actually is. Science is the process through which we derive reliable predictive rules through controlled experimentation. That’s the science that gives us airplanes and flu vaccines and the Internet. But what almost everyone means when he or she says “science” is something different.

To most people, capital-S Science is the pursuit of capital-T Truth. It is a thing engaged in by people wearing lab coats and/or doing fancy math that nobody else understands. The reason capital-S Science gives us airplanes and flu vaccines is not because it is an incremental engineering process but because scientists are really smart people.

In other words — and this is the key thing — when people say “science”, what they really mean is magic or truth.

H.T. Jeff

h1

Eugene

September 20, 2014

An old friend sent me a link to Greg Brown’s Eugene.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xwmcz1BY89g

Sometimes you gotta not look too hard – just let the dog find you.

Live free or die.

h1

An official protection racket

September 13, 2014

Matt Ridley gives us a lesson in the history of governments – think of it as Civics 101 – while he writes about the militarization of police in the United States.

Government begins as a monopoly on violence
It’s an official protection racket

My Times column last week was on the historical roots of government: […]

The deal implicit in being governed is at root a simple one: we allow the people who govern us to have an exclusive right to commit violence, so long as they direct it at other countries and at criminals. In almost every nation, if you go back far enough, government began as a group of thugs who, as Pope Gregory VII put it in 1081, “raised themselves up above their fellows by pride, plunder, treachery, murder — in short by every kind of crime”.

Was Canute, or William the Conqueror, or Oliver Cromwell really much different from the Islamic State? They got to the top by violence and then violently dealt with anybody who rebelled. The American writer Albert Jay Nock in 1939 observed: “The idea that the state originated to serve any kind of social purpose is completely unhistorical. It originated in conquest and confiscation — that is to say, in crime . . . No state known to history originated in any other manner, or for any other purpose.” […]

One of the great peculiarities of the United States is that it never quite managed to impose a state monopoly on powerful weaponry. The right to bear arms was a reaction to the presence of redcoats as an occupying army before 1783. The government got to own the tanks and aircraft carriers, but never pointed them at its own people, who were allowed to own guns much more freely than in other countries.

This is what makes the kit that the police displayed in Ferguson, Missouri, this month so alarming. With their camouflage uniforms, armoured vehicles and heavy-calibre machine guns, “law enforcement” cops looked less like a constabulary and more like an occupying army. In recent years, largely by exploiting the “war” on terror and the “war” on drugs, the American police have indeed been radically militarised. […]