The Opinionated Bastard

Which everyone should subscribe to, its a great magazine:

Here’s the Article.

Here’s the conclusion:

Finally, a word of unsolicited advice to scientists who want to play in the public policy arena. Facts by themselves do not immediately entail the adoption of particular policies. Many of the scientific “facts” cited by activists arise from contested epidemiological data and controversial computer models. For example, if humanity is significantly warming the planet, it is entirely possible that the best policy is to encourage rapid technological progress and economic growth so that any problems caused by such warming can be dealt with more effectively and fairly in the future. And how does one make the trade-off between possibly harming a few species of birds through the use of DDT, and using the insecticide to prevent the deaths of millions of people each year from malaria? These are political decisions. Suggestive scientific data certainly help guide our decisions, but they do not mandate any particular policies—not even those championed by the most brilliant researchers.

Well said.

From a “market-based environmental group”. You can read it here.

While that’s not a great grade, it “suggests that the Bush administration has improved slightly on the Clinton administration in bringing market approaches into environmental policy.” Bush was better then Clinton? Hmm…

Here’s an interesting quote to whet your appetite:

Activists have created the impression that the Bush administration has virtually ended air pollution regulation in the United States. In reality, the administration has taken a series of actions that will eliminate the vast majority of remaining air emissions.

The President’s press conference from yesterday.

Interesting to compare the transcript with the news stories. All politicians give thoughtful, reasoned answers in general, which the media dumbs down to irrelevancy.

For reasons that are complex to explain, but basically, because NCLB forces our schools to actually see if they are working as schools.

Eduwonk from my Blog Roll is a fan as well, but today he? got a letter from an urban administrator praising NCLB. Its nice to hear stories from the trenches…

Read the Whole Thing

So Martha Stewart, who was convicted of insider trading for selling a stock she’d tried to sell 3 times before, and had discussed selling with her broker, goes to the big house, but Senators get a free pass?

So many issues in our society will be resolved for the better once Alternative Energy means something other than Energy that’s too expensive.

Winds of Change does a periodic round up of the news, which I fine useful. I also like their Wilsonian foreign policy perspective and their other news round ups as well. (They’re in my blogroll in the “news” category)

Here’s the link to the energy news roundup.

They have almost no understanding of how the economy actually works. Here’s an argument against any sort of incremental privatization of Social Security from Mike Kinsley, who according to Blog Maverick runs the editorial pages at the LA Times!

I’m going to fisk it, and I won’t be kind…however, as a bit of a disclaimer, I work on Wall Street for a mutual fund company so its possible that privatizing Social Security might help me professionally.

Mike Kinsley says:

My contention: Social Security privatization is not just unlikely to succeed, for various reasons that are subject to discussion. It is mathematically certain to fail. Discussion is pointless.

Discussion is never pointless, when the person is as wrong as you are.

The usual case against privatization is that (1) millions of inexperienced investors may end up worse off, and (2) stocks don’t necessarily do better than bonds over the long-run, as proponents assume.But privatization won’t work for a better reason: it can’t possibly work, even in theory. The logic is not very complicated.

Your logic is not complicated, that much is true, its just wrong.

\1. To “work,” privatization must generate more money for retirees than current arrangements. This bonus is supposed to be extra money in retirees’ pockets and/or it is supposed to make up for a reduction in promised benefits, thus helping to close the looming revenue gap.

Actually, it can “work” in a number of ways. It can provide people with more easy access to their SS-related retirement funds for instance. LA Times is a big company, so presumably, you have a 401K plan. I work for a small company, so I don’t, instead, I’m limited to this lame-ass IRA thing. Ever change jobs? Its a pain to move all that stuff. If President Bush just made 401K plans that were attached to the person instead the company, that would be a big win for millions of Americans, even if they never made a single dime more money.

An investment can also “work” if it provides other benefits. Some 401K plans let you borrow money against the plan, essentially paying yourself interest.

Imagine you want to finance $10,000 worth of car payment. If you get a bank loan, that $10K will cost you $15K. If you borrow against your 401K, that $10K will still cost you $15K, but you get the extra $5K for retirement.

“Working” could even mean as little as making Americans feel involved in the whole process and getting them to keep track of what is happening with Social Security.

So immediately, I challenge your assertion that it has to generate more money for it to work. But it doesn’t matter, because SS always invests in T-Bills by law (funding our National Debt), which is the least risky, but also least-returning form of investment. So its not hard to be.

\2. Where does this bonus come from? There are only two possibilities: from greater economic growth, or from other people.

No, it can come from more efficient use of the same money. There’s something I call “conservation of money” in that in general, money is neither created or destroyed.

When you spend $100 on a good or service, you now have that good or service, but the vendor now has $100, which they presumably spend on some other good or service. So that $100 is still there, moving around the economy.

The Federal Government, when they take $100 away from you, spends it on $40 worth of goods or services, sucking $60 out of the economy, because they are do mind-numbingly inefficient.

So its far better to have $100 free in the economy then $100 in taxes. Its important to understand that there’s not just money, there’s whether that money produces anything. If your employer pays you $100, then you probably produced $110 worth in goods and services. If the government pays a welfare recipient $100, whether that welfare recipient is on AFDC, a corporation getting subsidies, or foreign aid going to a corrupt leader, that $100 produced nothing, terminating the economic cycle.

The government, merely by existing is a drag on the economy.

\3. Greater economic growth requires either more capital to invest, or smarter investment of the same amount of capital. Privatization will not lead to either of these.

Or more efficient use of capital. The 1990’s saw a large amount of economic growth due to computerization leading to large efficiencies. Efficiencies that produced more profits, producing growth.

Its very important to realize that the economy is NOT a zero sum game, its a cycle. In private industry, $100 of capital is expected to produce $110 worth of good/services. All economic growth is based on that cycle…

So if the money can stay productive as long as it possibly can, it will lead to greater growth.

a) If nothing else in the federal budget changes, every dollar deflected from the federal treasury into private social security accounts must be replaced by a dollar that the government raises in private markets. So the total pool of capital available for private investment remains the same.

Well, at least you’re admitting that SS is basically a hidden tax of 15% on top of the existing income tax. In theory, ALL of the money in SS taxes was supposed to belong to the payee, that just never happened.

Anyways, its more complicated then that. If the government says: 1% of the 15% is yours to invest in something other then T-bills that’s not money the government is “losing”. Presumably the government would no longer have to pay out benefits attributable to that 1%, instead that would be a separate account that paid separate benefits.

b) The only change in decision-making about capital investment is that the decisions about some fraction of the capital stock will be made by people with little or no financial experience. Maybe this will not be the disaster that some critics predict. But there is no reason to think that it will actually increase the overall return on capital.

If you see the economy as a zero-sum game, no it wouldn’t. But the economy is NOT a zero-sum game, so it easily can. The key point you’re missing is that money in the government’s hands is nearly wasted, so by taking it (temporarily) out of the governments hands we increase the amount of productive money in circulation, increasing growth.

\4. If the economy doesn’t produce more than it otherwise would, the Social Security privatization bonus must come from other investors, in the form of a lower return.

Well, we have no way of telling what “it otherwise would”, but investing and the economy is NOT a zero sum game.

For heaven’s sakes, one of the main controls the Federal Reserve has is the M1, the money supply. How can you think its a zero sum game when the Government can adjust how much money exists in the economy at any point in time?

a) This is in fact the implicit assumption behind the notion of putting Social Security money into stocks, instead of government bonds, because stocks have a better long-term return. The bonus will come from those saps who sell the stocks and buy the bonds.

Actually, you could get a much larger return then SS just by buying something other then T-bills. There are other bonds besides T-Bills, but that’s all that SS invests in. SS privatization doesn’t have to be a big win, it can be a small win. If it just did a little bit better then inflation (which it doesn’t do now), that would help everyone.

b) In other words, privatization means betting the nation’s most important social program on a theory that cannot be true unless many people are convinced that it’s false.

c) Even if the theory is true, initially, privatization will make it false. The money newly available for private investment will bid up the price of (and thus lower the return on) stocks, while the government will need to raise the interest on bonds in order to attract replacement money.

Nope. More money in the stock market can also mean more new businesses, which means more new jobs, which means higher wages, which means a strong economy, which means more money in the stock market, which…

And which means more tax revenues. Were you asleep during the ’90s? Strong Stock market, Strong economy, strong tax base…

Plus there’s nothing that says the money would have to go into the stock market. It could go into bonds, thereby lowering interest rates, which would help relieve government debt…

d) In short, there is no way other investors can be tricked or induced into financing a higher return on Social Security.

If you were correct, which you’re not. You seem to think that we live on that mythical South Sea island that used large stones for money, so that the money supply was finite. Money is a lot more complicated in the modern world then that South Sea island. It moves in cycles, and the faster those cycles go, the more the economy grows.

Even on that South Sea Island, you had economic growth, because people could make new stones…

\5. If the privatization bonus cannot come from the existing economy, and cannot come from growth, it cannot exist. And therefore, privatization cannot work.

Q.E.D.

You seem to know very little about economics, and it stuns me that you are in any way affiliated with the editorial pages of the LA Times. The mind boggles.

Update: Original posting of Kinsleys email was here

Another update: This guy said it better Pie growing is more important then pie slicing.

One of the reasons I got interested in politics was I started reading the transcripts of the administration briefings. I was shocked at the difference between what the administration said, and what got reported they said.

Bottom line, CBS, NYT and WP are all capitalist organizations organized for profit. They make that profit by getting you to consume their product, and they get you to do that by making the news more exciting. One need not look for liberal bias, one need only look for “conflict bias”.

The news we see or read every day is more and more just “made up” in the newrooms. If Professional Wresting isn’t a “Sport” but “Sports Entertainment”, our media has become not “News” but “News Entertainment”. So something like “memogate” isn’t particularly surprising to me. I don’t expect 60 Minutes to be any more accurate in their coverage then CSI is accurate with the science.

Of course, you’re not going to be convinced by anything I say, so I’ll make a suggestion.

Stop relying on the mainstream media to report what the White House, DOD, etc. actually said. Instead, go to their websites and subscribe to the transcripts.

You’ll find, as I did, that the news we get from the MSM is so distorted/filtered as to be meaningless. Realize I’m not asking you to believe the Administration, I’m merely asking you to go directly to the source for what the Administration said, not let it be filtered by the media.

I’m a small-l libertarian, so mostly I’m in favor of legalizing things. Then I read this piece on samizdata.

A 25-year-old waitress who turned down a job providing “sexual services” at a brothel in Berlin faces possible cuts to her unemployment benefit under laws introduced this year.

Prostitution was legalised in Germany just over two years ago and brothel owners – who must pay tax and employee health insurance – were granted access to official databases of jobseekers.

The waitress, an unemployed information technology professional, had said that she was willing to work in a bar at night and had worked in a cafe.

She received a letter from the job centre telling her that an employer was interested in her “profile” and that she should ring them. Only on doing so did the woman, who has not been identified for legal reasons, realise that she was calling a brothel.

Under Germany’s welfare reforms, any woman under 55 who has been out of work for more than a year can be forced to take an available job – including in the sex industry – or lose her unemployment benefit. Last month German unemployment rose for the 11th consecutive month to 4.5 million, taking the number out of work to its highest since reunification in 1990.

So if we legalized prostitution, then people who turned down said jobs could lose their unemployment.

Pretty good example of why policy is hard and you have to think of the big picture.

Update: You think I would have learned by now not to trust an article from the Telegraph. Turns out the story isn’t true. Snopes as always has wonderful coverage.

So I was in the the Noise Editorial meeting, and one of the guys there commented on how the right wing was “stupid” and ignorant.

Nope, I didn’t kill him.

I decided to write this post instead.

From my experience, its the left that are shallow and stupid, not the right. I often agree with the left on ends but not on means. It’s the how where the knee-jerk left seems weak, they don’t think things through. Policy is hard, and good science doesn’t always make good policy.

For an example, consider the environment. Imagine if there was a device that cost $500 that would reduce car exhaust emissions by 5%.

If I’m a lefty environmentalist, I’d want to pass a law forcing all auto manufacturers to include said device on all new cars. Sounds good right? It would cut emissions by 5%.

As a righty environmentalist, I can tell you, this would be a disaster for the environment. You have to look at this magic device in the larger picture of life.

Only one post so far.

It’s pretty interesting already though, seeing the left smack down the radical left.

In the wake of the Popular Mechanics great debunking of all the major 9/11 conspiracy nonsense I’ve seen lots of links to the article.

However, sometimes I think the blogosphere takes itself too seriously. So here’s a heretical thought.

Scientists have correlated admissions to mental health facilities with the incidence of magnetic storms in the atmosphere.

Which leads to the question: What if the Tin Foil Hat Brigade is right? Not that the tin foil protects their brains from the evil mind control rays of the (Aliens, Government, Israelis) per se, but rather that wearing tin foil on their head makes them a little less crazy.

Next time you have a headache or are feeling stressed, get out the Reynolds wrap…

Flu reports nationwide from the CDC.

Education is supposed to be this difficult problem.

It shouldn’t be. Teaching children at its core is a very simple problem. You need children to interact with an adult. The more time they interact with that adult, the more they learn. The more materials available to the teacher in the classroom, the more kids learn.

I know, that seems so obvious its stupid. Maximize time spent with a teacher, maximize the resources available to that teacher, and the child will learn more quickly.

But what then, am I to think of a bureaucracy in every state that forgets this simple fact? The education establishment tries very hard to improve our schools, but they’re like a guy in a rowboat rowing very hard the wrong direction: they just go around in circles.

A typical program in our school systems is Title XII. This program is designed to help kids who have fallen behind catch up. The typical way this is implemented is that they hire a separate part-time teacher to teach the Title XII kids. These kids are pulled out of the classroom for a certain number of hours a week so that the Title XII teacher can give them additional attention. Usually the Title XII teacher teaches 5-10 kids at a time.

See the problem yet?

I was mostly ignoring this case.

I can see both sides. Medical science now has the capability to torture people even unto death. Yet Dylan Thomas said it best: “Rage, rage against the dying of the light”.

Unfortunately, the time has come for someone in the middle to comment on this tragedy.

Life is complex, and there are times when there are no good answers. This is one of those cases.

Ignore what you might have read. The media has spun this issue so hard that any story about it in the media at this point is bunk. The reality is that Terri Schiavo has been mentally dead for 14 years, and her husband and parents disagree about what to do about it. Everything else pro and con is just a distortion of the facts: believe nothing bad about her husband, and nothing good about her “condition”.

A number of well-meaning people on both sides of this issue have created an abomination. Neither of the two options: keeping a dead woman’s body alive indefinitely or starving her to death are acceptable answers to this conundrum. The logical, merciful thing would be to give her a drug overdose.

The fact that we have gone beyond logic and mercy in this case is what frustrates me so much with the media, and the politicians that think that screaming at each other is debate.

I wish Terri Schiavo a good death. It’s too bad she won’t get one.

Here’s a FAQ about the case if you’re interested: Hat Tip: Right Wing News

A while back, I wrote a piece on education and I asked some teachers with blogs for comments.

While most agreed with me that bureaucracy was the problem, the comments all had one theme:

Quality teachers are the answer to education, period.

Frankly, I was somewhat thunderstruck. This ran completely counter to everything I expected. The teachers talked about how some teachers were burned out, they advocated merit pay, etc.

Basically, everything the NEA (the teachers union) has fought against the last two decades the teachers were for, and everything the NEA fought for, the teachers were against.

Now, in retrospect, that shouldn’t be too surprising. My mother, despite being the shop steward for her union, hated the union. The only thing worse then the idiots in the union were the nincompoops in the district office.

Now, today, I find out that that NEA is suing the government over NCLB. Hat Tip: Eduwonk.

The core of the lawsuit boils down to the contention that No Child Left Behind is forcing school districts (and by extension states) to spend too much on education. This is, to put it mildly, a novel argument from the NEA.

Or as ScrappleFace put it, the NEA wants “No Bureaucrat Left Behind”.

Now I’ve never been a big fan of the NEA. This is an organization that rates schools not by whether or not the kids are learning, but on how much the school spends. We wonder why education keeps getting more expensive while kids seem to be learning less and less? Because the NEA is measuring the wrong thing.

As the son of a shop steward for the NEA, the grandson of a man who spent time in Leavenworth for running a labor union, I never thought I’d say this but:

It’s time to bust the Teachers Union.

Save our kids, kill the NEA!

From the WSJ:

Abuse of the taxing power is about as serious as corruption can get in our democracy, and it should be of bipartisan concern. In the 1990s, conservative critics of the Clinton Administration such as the Heritage Foundation had to endure suspicious audits. And of course the Nixon Tapes reveal that the former Republican President ordered tax investigations of Democratic opponents and donors. These columns recently raised doubts about an IRS probe of the tax status of the NAACP.

Effing Politicians on BOTH sides.

This posting on BookSlut brought up a hoary old chestnut about the Patriot act:

Ken Wainstein, U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, made the disclosure in testimony to the House subcommittee on crime, terrorism and homeland security. He argued that Congress should renew provisions of the USA Patriot Act that allow seizure of library and bookstore records.

Get ready for a fight

Realize, that there is no provision in the USA Patriot Act that specifically allows seizure of library or bookstore records.

Rather, there is a provision in the Patriot Act that requires seizure of 3rd party records to be approved by a judge.

Previously, this required approval of a grand jury.

In other words:

A subpoena now requires judicial review.

That’s it.

While perhaps libraries or bookstores should be singled out for special treatment, this actually has nothing to do with the Patriot act. Libraries or bookstores could always be subpoenaed for records, its a pretty basic part of our judicial system that people can be subpoenaed for records. (Duh)

The Patriot Act changed this to require a judge to review it, which if you knew anything about grand juries (only the Prosecution testifies, etc.) you’d realize meant subpoenas were basically rubber stamps. Judges are often more skeptical, because of the “fruit of the poisoned tree” rule.

So while there are probably definite issues with parts of the Patriot Act, hearing stuff like this constantly repeated just annoys me.

First, to quote Laura Bush:

George didn’t know much about ranches when we bought the place. … But I’m proud of George. He’s learned a lot about ranching since that first year when he tried to milk the horse. What’s worse, it was a male horse.

Some too-tightly-wrapped-damn-yankee-pansy-ass conservatives have complained about Laura’s potty mouth. Link1Link2Link3

Let me tell you a story boys and girls. Its the grossest thing I’ve ever heard.

My wife used to work in the office at the Flagstaff Riding Center. One day, the young vet and the old vet are checking out the horses. One of the stallions has these strange sores on his penis. The younger vet is mystified. The older vet looks at it and says. “Hmmm… Looks like Summer Sores. Did this horse come up from Phoenix?”

Turns out it had. So the old vet says, probably Summer Sores. So they slice open the Horses penis, and worms crawl out…the penis is honeycombed with holes…

Seems that there are these flies, and they land on the horse’s penis and lay their eggs. The maggots then eat through the horses penis.

So every day after that, the stallions penis had to have ointment applied.

There’s only one way to apply ointment to a stallion’s penis…

Naturally, it fell to the junior horse trainer to perform this job.

After a few days of this, whenever that stallion saw her, the stallion we get an erection…

Anyone who thinks Laura Bush was being naughty is a pansy-ass-city-slicker-yankee. Raising animals isn’t like it is on a nature show…

About immigration. I mean, I love La Shawn normally, but stuff like this just irritates me.

I mean really, people in non-border states don’t know what they’re talking about.

It seems to me that there are only two sides in this debate:

Non-Border states: Yeah, we should close the border with Mexico. Border States: The border is closed? Someone should tell the Mexicans…

Do the math people!

Look, the border is 2,000 miles long, or 11 million feet.

Let’s say decide to implement your own border closing. The government must be stupid right? We just need to put up a fence. Well, lets see how much that would cost. We’ll want a 12’ high fence at least, plus about a foot of razor wire on top.

Looking around the internet, that will run us about $140/foot or $1.5 billion.

That’s for the fencing. Now we’re going to need some guard towers every 500 feet. Let’s say its $10,000 for a simple guard tower. We’ll need 22,000 of those, so that’s another $220 million. We’re assuming that the guards don’t mind peeing in a bucket, otherwise we’ll need 11 million feet of plumbing…

Total so far: $1.7 billion.

We’ll need 22,000 guards, at $100,000/year, 3 shifts a day, so that’s $6.6 billion in salaries every year.

Total so far: $1.7 billion for a fence with guard towers, plus $6.6 billion/year for guard salaries.

Have you non-border-state people shut up yet? No? Ok, well these guards need some way to get to the guard tower, so now we need 2,000 miles of road along the border. Say $800,000 a mile, so that’s another $1.6 billion.

Total so far: $1.7 billion for a fence with guard towers, plus $1.6 billion for a road so the guards can get to the towers, plus $6.6 billion/year for guard salaries.

Now we’ll have to maintain the fence and the road, figure 10%/year in maintenance costs for the fence, since it will be getting actively attacked, and 5% for the road. So that’s $250 million/year in maintenance costs.

Total so far: $9.9 billion the first year, $6.9 billion/year after that.

So ignoring the fact that our guards don’t have uniforms, guns, bathrooms, helicopters, training or supervision, we’re spending $9.9 billion to keep out 3-5 million Mexican immigrants/year, or $2000 per possible immigrant.

Currently, the Border Patrol has 9,000 agents stationed on the Mexican border. The reality is that the border patrol only patrols about 50 miles out of the 2,000 miles of border with Mexico. To patrol those 50 miles, will cost us $6.7 billion in 2006. So my numbers are probably very very low, but even so, just put to up a fence and man it at a minimal level would more then double the cost of the border patrol.

On the other hand if the 5 million people who cross the Mexican border generated $2500 in taxes instead of having to pay $2500 criminals to cross the border that would be $12.5 billion dollars in additional revenue to the government.

Like I said, if you don’t live in a border state, kindly shut up.

I really, really hate both sides of the abortion debate.

Both sides are too busy screaming at each other to really make any progress.

1.6 million abortions a year is too much, making it illegal won’t stop it.

Emergency Contraception would cut that by 75%, or it would prevent 1.2 million abortions a year:

PlanB

How It Works

The fact its, we could cut the number of abortions by 75%, and give women a another choice if PlanB was available without a prescription.

You’re Pro-Choice or Pro-Life and you don’t know what Emergency Contraception is? F* YOU! You are an idiot, and I’d rather smack you then talk to you.

Join the Mercutio Side today! Emergency Contraception should be next to the tampons in every supermarket in America!

Patrick Ruffini is reading the Pew Report

Which is basically a comprehensive survey of politics in America.

Now realize that Patrick worked for the Bush campaign, and you have some insight into how true political insiders think about things. Its more interesting reading his take on the Pew report then it would be to read the Pew report cold.

I’m adding him to the blog roll as an expert for that reason.

From BookSlut

Some Phoenix parents might be “startled” to learn the public library's new teen reading program is called “Shut Up and Read,” reports The Arizona Republic. They should just be grateful the library didn't go with their first choice, “Read a Book, You Fucking Pussy.”

You people who don't live in Arizona are wusses. Cowboys rule!

Kindly pull your head out of your ass please.

You guys have had it too easy for too long.

Unlike our parents, Generation X knows how to add. You dumped us in front of those video games, and you're surprised now that we know how to calculate our optimum economic strategies down to the gnat's ass? Legend of Zelda dude!

You self indulgent baby boomers are roadkill on the highway of history, you just don't know it yet. We're younger then you, smarter then you, and 300,000 hours of video games have honed our reflexes to a fever pitch. The only reason we haven't killed you all and taken over is there's just too damn many of you baby boomers. But you're getting older...

Stop lying to us. We know that its 15% of our paycheck, not 7.5% that's getting sucked into the cavernous maw of the government, we can count, and many of us have had to work as “independent contractors” for one of you greedy-ass boomers. Anyone who's ever paid “Self-Employment” tax knows isn't fooled anymore that government is a good thing.

Don't feed us this line about that really being our money either. We never believed you when you told us that you were holding our Social Security in “trust”. It was obvious at the time that the government was taking our money, giving some small fraction to seniors, and blowing the rest on hookers and crack. So now the bill is coming due, and you tell us nothing needs to be done?

As a member of the video game generation, I've spent more time managing artificial economies then the current board of the Federal Reserve. I know what works, and what doesn't. Stop lying to me, and fix Social Security, because I'm getting older and I need to start saving more for retirement.

If you don't, by the time you retire, we'll just drop the whole Social Security fiasco, and to hell with the Me generation, you can eat cat food.

Don't think numbers will help you. We're the video game generation, and all we have to do to keep you from voting is computerize the whole thing, and you dumbasses will never be able to vote again. Think you'll be able to vote? Let me ask you. Is your VCR blinking 12:00?

You have been warned.

In this book I just finished, Freakonomics, the author figured out why crime rates suddenly dropped in 1995 and kept going.

Roe v. Wade lowered crime.

Unwanted children are more likely to become criminals.

Think I'm pro-choice? Think again. As the author points out, 1.6 million abortions/year isn't exactly an efficient way to stop crime. Ask yourself if you're pro-choice, “How sure are you that abortion up until the moment of birth is a good thing?”

99% sure? ok, that's 16,000 preventable deaths a year.

When was the last time you were 99% sure about anything?

Like I said, before making it illegal isn't the answer, but neither is the status quo.

I'll say it again: Plan B

Oh, and by the way, I recommend the book. Did you know most drug dealers make under minimum wage? It's pretty interesting.

Just a few posts, but scary ones.

Right or Left, knowing the facts about alternative energy is a must.

Here's the latest briefing from Winds of Change

I'll say it again though, if it was practical, it wouldn't be “alternative” it would be “energy”.

That said, I'm thinking about putting a wind machine on my property. APS just got approval to raise their rates during the summer when all the Phoenix people turn on their air conditioners. But that means that my electric bill jumped $60. A $500/500 watt generator could save me $44/month, so it might end up paying for itself during the summer months.

I used to refute the claim that a man was 5 times more likely to be shot by his wife then by a stranger with the fact that he was 5 times more likely to be stabbed by his wife then a stranger, so shouldn't we ban kitchen knives too?

I figured it was obvious this was stupid. I guess not the British are talking about doing just that.

Its not that we need to control guns, its that we need to be nicer to our wives so they don't kill us, the evil witches. :-)

Is it acceptable for me to admit that if I walk into a Bar-B-Que Joint and the people behind the counter are black I start drooling?

Ditto with Fry Bread made by grey-haired Navajo ladies...

Mmmmm... Sushi made by Japanese people...

A Jewish Deli...

An Arab Shish-Ke-Bab joint...

Now mind you, I don't think it has anything to do with genes, I think it has to do with culture. If you come from a culture that has a distinctive food, you're going to be one up on someone from some other culture when you make that food. Even KFC, as homogenized as it is, tastes better in the south.

When will be be able to celebrate our differences instead of downplaying them?

Though come to think of it, I think Jewish delis are better not so much because of some delicatessen culture in Judaism, but because of the kosher rules. Also the best cheeseburgers in Santa Clara used to be found in this Teriyaki joint run by Japanese.

But as a general rule, black people know good Bar-B-Que.

So I took this political test, which not surprisingly labeled me “Libertarian”, given that I'm socially-liberal, economically-conservative. Though only mildly so, as I believe that the world is a little more complex then their questions imply.

Big surprise there...that's with a small-L in my case, I can't stand the Libertarian party.

Hat tip to cleverzenmonkey. I've taken these tests before, but this one is pretty well done.

I'd go around saying I was a moderate again...but I've talked to enough people on the left to know that if they're the left, I'm way over on the right...you know, the people who think NPR is too conservative...previous entry on this topic