Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Gus Van Horn blog

Regulars
  • Content count

    184
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never
  • Days Won

    6

Everything posted by Gus Van Horn blog

  1. Over at Investor's Business Daily is an editorial arguing against a British proposal to tax major technology companies in order to fund welfare for everyone, aka "Universal Basic Income." Insofar as their argument goes, they are on the right track, economically, but some mention of the right of someone to keep his own earnings would have been helpful. Why? Because this idea is even more contemptible than it is absurd. You may have to ponder that point, though, because the welfare state has normalized massive theft from the productive for decades. In any event, the editorial provides the following warning just a wee bit too late: Yet, this is how the far-left thinks. Money is magic. All you have to do is imagine a need, and you can take whatever you want from producers to satisfy that need. And don't worry: Like all bad ideas, this one will jump the pond and soon be discussed by the economically illiterate far-left in the U.S. as an "answer" to our welfare problems.This idea has actually already "jumped the pond." Admittedly, he is a fringe candidate, but one Andrew Yang has already thrown his hat into the 2020 Democrat presidential ring on a platform of technophobic demagoguery cum goodies-for-all: Robots will make life easier, but not to the point we can quit working altogether. (Photo by Franck Veschi on Unsplash)That candidate is Andrew Yang, a well-connected New York businessman who is mounting a longer-than-long-shot bid for the White House. Mr. Yang, a former tech executive who started the nonprofit organization Venture for America, believes that automation and advanced artificial intelligence will soon make millions of jobs obsolete -- yours, mine, those of our accountants and radiologists and grocery store cashiers. He says America needs to take radical steps to prevent Great Depression-level unemployment and a total societal meltdown, including handing out trillions of dollars in cash. [link omitted]This may be, as IBD put it, "an absurd idea" (just like robots wiping out all our jobs), but it has indeed arrived. Yang himself may be a long-shot, but I am sure his stronger competitors will seriously consider whether his idea -- like your money -- is worth stealing. -- CAV Link to Original
  2. Four Things 1. Would you believe that there is now an anti-straw movement? Unsurprisingly, it is making legislative headway in California: The majority leader of California's state Assembly has introduced legislation that would impose a fine of up to $1,000 on any waiter or waitress who offers a plastic drinking straw to a customer without being asked. The Washington Post notes that this is part of a growing anti-straw movement, which is driven by alarm over the 500 million straws that are used every single day -- which is almost certainly a fake number, seeing as how it is based on an unconfirmed phone survey by a 9-year-old boy. (Yes, really.) [links omitted]I happen to dislike straws and live in a blue state. On the outside chance someone sees me in a restaurant and speaks to me as a fellow traveler, I will enjoy the chance to speak up for the freedom of others to use as many straws as they wish. 2. On news of the demise of Billy Graham, I thought it interesting to see what, if anything, Ayn Rand might have had to say about him. I was not ... erm ... disappointed: "We live," says Mr. Graham, "in a society that is too often dominated by selfish interests and expediency. The time is overdue for Americans to engage in some deep soul-searching about the underpinnings of our society and our goals as a nation .... No, it is not too late, but time is rapidly running out if American democracy based on Judeo-Christian tradition is to survive. First, we need a national and pervasive awakening that includes repentance for our individual and corporate sins .... Let's face it -- we need supernatural help! American leaders were driven to God for help at crisis periods such as the Revolutionary War, the Constitutional Convention, and the Civil War!...[The media] could render constructive service to the nation at this critical moment of history if they joined hands with the churches and synagogues and used their vast powers to fan the dying embers of the moral and spiritual life of the nation .... Watergate can teach us that we need to take the law of Moses and the Sermon on the Mount seriously .... The moral laws expressed in these two great documents could form the moral guidelines for every American." In view of an intellectual spokesman or defender of this kind, do you wonder why the political Right loses every battle -- and why the Left can batter rightists with impunity? Mr. Graham is not the worst of his kind. Other representatives of the Right may have a more sophisticated literary style, but, philosophically, they have nothing more to offer than the passage quoted above. (from The Ayn Rand Letter, vol. II, no. 14, pp. 189-190) [italics added]Good riddance. 3. An article about industrial nitrogen fixation quotes the following interesting fact: Due to its dramatic impact on the human ability to grow food, the Haber process served as the "detonator of the population explosion", enabling the global population to increase from 1.6 billion in 1900 to today's 7 billion. Nearly 50% of the nitrogen found in human tissues originated from the Haber-Bosch process.Fritz's Haber's legacy is mixed: He is also known as "the father of chemical warfare." Carl Bosch, on the other hand, opposed many Nazi policies and was gradually removed from his high positions after the rise of Adolf Hitler. 4. A young woman enjoys a "planet killer combo." (Photo by Alexa Suter on Unsplash)I started with some absurd news and I'll end with some more. But I'll re-frame this one: Which sandwich requires the most ingenuity -- with fossil fuel consumption as a proxy -- for humanity to enjoy? Believe it or not, some British researchers have spent valuable time and money answering this question and found that "premade, prepackaged, all-day-breakfast sandwiches" had the biggest "carbon [sic] footprint." There was no word on my favorite, the mighty mufuletta. (I'm sure they didn't need to hear that to say, "more study is needed" at some point.) That said, I am sure I could at least make things respectable by ordering the olive salad online. That, and using a straw with my drink. -- CAV Link to Original
  3. In a recent column, Walter Williams demolishes an economic fallacy that helps altruists rationalize both protectionism and universal welfare: Just imagine how many people we could employ to transport hay if we got rid of those job-stealing tractors! (Original Photo by Gozha Net on Unsplash)People always want more of something that will create a job for someone. To suggest that there are a finite number of jobs commits an error known as the "lump of labor fallacy." That fallacy suggests that when automation or technology eliminates a job, there's nothing that people want that would create employment for the person displaced by the automation. In other words, all human wants have been satisfied. Let's look at a few examples. In 1790, farmers were 90 percent of the U.S. labor force. By 1900, only about 41 percent of our workers were employed in agriculture. Today less than 3 percent of Americans are employed in agriculture. And it's a good thing. If 90 percent or 41 percent of our labor force were still employed in agriculture, where in the world would we find the workforce to produce all those goods and services that weren't around in 1790 or 1900, such as cars, aircraft, TVs, computers, aircraft carriers, etc.? Indeed, if technology had not destroyed all of those agricultural jobs, we would be a much, much poorer nation.And, yes, in case you were wondering, Wiliams does talk about how technology affects manufacturing jobs. -- CAV Link to Original
  4. After learning the latest on Barnes and Noble, one might imagine that the accountant I mentioned in last week's blog post had somehow taken over the struggling chain: Fortunately for me, I'm more of an Amazon or Half Price Books guy... (Image via Pixabay.)... Following the "how to slit your own business throat in one easy lesson" plan, it is laying off head cashiers, digital leads and others in their stores who are 1) full-time employees and 2) have the experience and knowledge that helps a store run smoothly. The company says it will save them tens of millions of dollars a year. Which it might, on a protected profit and loss sheet. What those projections don't show are the number of customers and individual transactions that will be lost because customers can't get help when needed, can't get their questions answered and can't find the books they want because they haven't been unloaded from their boxes yet.Oh, and that's not all. Employee morale and training opportunities, a valuable part of any business, apparently didn't factor in to the decision making, either: ... The remaining employees have just seen a huge round of layoffs and wonder if they're going to be next. Moreover, they don't have the experience to do the jobs of those let go. Is it any wonder they are feeling worried and depressed about their work situation?The only rational explanation I can come up with for this is that those in charge see a very short time horizon. I suppose I could be wrong since I am not a businessman. Nevertheless it looks to me like if they had a chance to return to viability before, they just blew it. -- CAV Link to Original
  5. In a recent column at Inc. is a proof by counterexample that several rationalizations for public education are wrong: Photo by Nicola Tolin on Unsplash.When I worked there, the chairman (Robert Wegman, who died in 2006) funded several private Catholic elementary schools in Rochester, New York, where the company is headquartered. I had the privilege of meeting with him, one on one, to report on the success of these schools. I asked why he did this, and he said that he saw failing public schools that weren't capable of producing the kind of people he needed to make his stores successful, so he decided to do something, and that was funding the private schools. There was no requirement that the scholarship students one day work for Wegmans, but I'm sure many of them did. [bold added]Just off the top of my head, this blasts to flinders the following excuses for government schools: (1) businessmen are too "blinded" by the almighty dollar to spend money on improving their communities, (2) education is "too important" to leave to private parties, and (3) if the government didn't guarantee this vital resource (as if government schools provide a decent education), nobody would because they are "too selfish". Feel free to add any others you can think of in the comments. Most people -- the secularized Christians of the left especially included -- are oblivious to the dangers of religion, so I'll give the late Robert Wegman a pass for supporting parochial schools rather than, say, secular Montessori schools. In addition, there could be other good reasons for his choice, including no other viable alternatives at the time. The point is, the short paragraph above should give pause to anyone who values education and imagines that we need or even want the government to be involved. We see the results of the latter all the time, and have a solid reason here to consider the free market alternative. -- CAV Link to Original
  6. Notable Commentary "... I am ... deeply disturbed by any prospect of psychiatric diagnoses being used (or misused) for political purposes." -- Paul Hsieh, in "You Might Not Like the President, but That Doesn't Mean He's Crazy " at Forbes. "If [Susan Stamper] Brown sincerely wants conditions in Haiti to improve she should speak against their government." -- Bob Stubblefield, in "Letter: Haiti, America Should Have More Respect for Rights" at The Aiken Standard. "In the quest to protect misguided notions of freedom, ... it is freedom that will suffer." -- Tara Smith, in "The Free Speech Vernacular: Conceptual Confusions in the Way We Speak About Speech" at The Texas Review of Law and Politics, vol. 22, no.1, pp. 57-92. (2018, PDF, blogged here). "The advocates of the restrictions frame every new way to speak about politics as a 'loophole' that must be sealed up." -- Talbot Manvel, in "We Don't Need More Campaign Finance Laws" at The Capitol Gazette. "If one values romantic love, the idea of multiple sexual partners is repugnant, as it is and should be, for the civilized man -- the man who values himself as an individual." -- Charlotte Cushman, in "Monogamy is Moral, Promiscuity is Not" at The American Thinker. From the Blogs The latest post at You Can and Did Build It, about the beginning of the philosophical discussion of free will, closes with an interesting observation: Image via Wikipedia,Aristotle's view that man's character is shaped by the man himself, and therefore he is responsible for it (and its consequences), is the most important part of his discussion. If men learned nothing from Aristotle's view of free will but this conclusion, much of the current debate (certainly in ethics, politics and law) would end. No one who accepted Aristotle's view would argue that a criminal should be excused because he "felt," in the moment, that he wanted to slaughter a whole family, or because he was too drunk to know what he was doing when he tee-boned another car. Maybe all that is true -- maybe he didn't, in the moment, know what he was doing. But according to reason, and to Aristotle, that is beside the point. The criminal brought himself to this moment by his own choices, and could have done otherwise. That is why we do, and should continue to, "punish a man for his very ignorance, if he is ... responsible for the ignorance." [bold added]Incidentally, you may be interested to learn of The Internet Classics Archive, which has brought "the wisdom of the classics to the Internet since 1994." I had either forgotten about or did not know of this resource until I followed a link from that post to the Nichomachean Ethics. -- CAV Link to Original
  7. What do travel expense audits and smart phone apps have in common? Both offer excellent examples of how meaningless price can be when that number is yanked from all context. The first example comes to us from Allison Green's excellent Ask a Manager blog, where a reader has run afoul of an accountant with a myopic concern with airline ticket prices: He may have lost two hours of sleep and can't get any real work done today, but he saved the company fifty bucks. (Photo by Harry Knight on Unsplash)I replied that the added expense of ground transport to farther-flung airports would routinely add at least $100 to each round-trip, which always makes flying from my preferred airport a wash, and that my status on American means an additional $25-35 savings each way on checked baggage that I'd have to pay on other airlines. The accounting rep then said that I should use the alternative airports and use public transit, which takes far longer to use (even though our employee manual specifically says the organization reimburses for cabs). The accounting rep said I could also save money by taking flights that leave at 5 a.m. and return after 10 p.m., even though my business needs often call for spending the morning in the office and taking an afternoon flight. As part of the "audit follow up," he instructed me to send accounting screenshots of all flights on Kayak available ANYTIME ON THE SAME DAY to ensure I am choosing the cheapest option regardless of time of day.The above passage doesn't even mention further costs, such as lost productivity to the business that such a selection process would entail, although that does come up. Obviously, it's harder to cut costs than just looking at a bunch of numbers for just one of the costs. In a similar vein, a software developer tackles a lament common among those involved in smart phone software, urging his compatriots to "Stop using the cup of coffee vs. $0.99 app analogy": Fact: Your $1 App is a Total Gamble Now, contrast this with your app, Mr. Developer. I don't know you from Adam. You're pitching digital Instant Refresher Juice 1.0 to me in the form of a new app. The return I'm going to get is questionable at best. I already have 30 games on my phone, some of them very good. Do I need another one? I don't play the 30 I have. The experience I'm going to get from adding one more game is not trustable. I'm assured of nothing. Last week I bought a game for 99 cents and it was terrible. I played it once, for 15 seconds. I could be shoving $1 straight down the toilet again for all I know. Your app, good sir, is a total gamble. Sure, it's only a $1 gamble ... but it's a gamble and that fact matters more than any price you might place on it. [format edits]Offering a lower dollar price for something is pointless if doing so fails to solve other, greater costs that exist whether or not they, too, are priced in dollars. Numbers may not lie, but they cannot contain the full truth, as both of these examples attest. -- CAV Link to Original
  8. Philosopher Tara Smith has just published a timely and much-needed corrective (PDF) to the ongoing debate about freedom of speech. Although this has been published in an academic journal, the combination of the subject matter and Smith's clear writing will make the material accessible to any intelligent reader. Since I strongly recommend reading it, let me add that you should not be put off by its nominal length of 34 pages: In addition to this article being a pleasure to read, these are small pages and often only partially filled by the main article, with the remaining space for footnotes. These, although often interesting, can be skipped. If you've ever had a conversation with someone about freedom of speech and been perplexed by, say, nonchalance about censorship or an odd conflation of the content of speech with the idea of freedom of speech, this article is especially for you: You are probably well aware that people are confused about at least one aspect of this vital debate, and you will likely profit from Smith's clarity regarding what people are confused about, how widespread the confusion is, and what is causing the confusion. I'll provide a few excerpts below, but even these won't do justice as a teaser. But perhaps they'll show why I think that if you share my concern about our continued ability to enjoy the right to freedom of speech, you should read this piece in its entirety. Its title is, "The Free Speech Vernacular: Conceptual Confusions in the Way We Speak About Speech." Even if one is aware that many or most people have serious misconceptions about freedom of speech, Smith may surprise with some of her examples of intellectuals and opinion leaders offering muddled opinions on the matter. Noting that "not only rubes" use the terms "censorship" and "freedom" pliably, Smith provides an example from academia: n a recent law review article, Brian Leiter argues that, because much of what people have to say is of little value, we should temper our adoration of free speech and rein in its protection. In support, Leiter reasons that "[t]here is no free speech in the courtroom [where speakers must adhere to rules of admissible evidence and the like], and (almost) no one thinks there should be." We also accept restrictions on speech in classrooms and scientific research; therefore, he concludes, we would be justified in placing legal restrictions on all speech. Unfortunately, this, too, relies on a flagrant equivocation -- this time, between freedom of speech and standards of constructive speech. Freedom is not immunity from all standards of judgment (such as standards of logical strength, probative relevance, or pedagogical import). Rather, it is the absence of coercion; one's speech is free when it is not forcibly restricted by other people. [footnotes omitted, bold added] (71) The number and severity of Smith's examples are, fortunately, matched by her clarity about what is going on. Shortly after the above comes the following list of "Confusions Concerning the Referent of 'Freedom' of Speech": The point is, people sling around the phrase "freedom of speech" to mean several different and often inaccurate things. An inventory (which is not necessarily exhaustive): People confuse the absence of external coercion of speech with the absence of normative standards' applicability to speech (such as in Leiter's reasoning). People confuse freedom of speech with the quality of speech -- with its objectivity or truth or wisdom, for instance (as in [Bill] O'Reilly's remark about a free press). People confuse freedom of speech with the value of speech or with the value of a particular thing that is said. Yet the fact that a particular person's speech makes no positive contribution to the advance of knowledge or to the resolution of a question tells us nothing about whether his speech is free. (Leiter's contention that we should rein in freedom of speech because much speech has little value reflects this confusion.) Closely related, people confuse the value of speech with the value of freedom of speech. Yet in fact, the value of a particular exercise of the right to speak (e.g., of Jim's particular utterance at the meeting last Friday) does not dictate the value of his, or of anyone's, having the freedom to say what he likes. The value of particular instances of speaking is not identical with the value of freedom of speech -- of that general condition. People often mistake freedom for license -- for the prerogative to do as one pleases, subject to no boundaries whatsoever. This notion is implicit in [Steven] Pinker, [Jeremy] Waldron, [Eric] Heinze, and [Emma] Teitel, for instance, each of whom viewed legal limits as exceptions to free speech that demonstrate its not being absolute. In fact, these would be exceptions (abnormalities) only on the supposition that the governing norm should be utterly boundless, that respect for true freedom demands allowing individuals carte blanche. Yet as John Locke recognized, "[f]reedom is not, as we are told, [a l]iberty for every [m]an to do as he lists: (For who could be free, when every other [m]an's [h]umour might domineer over him?)." And this mistake is linked with yet another. People often overlook the fact that "speech" is a wider category than "freedom of speech." "Speech" does not mean "freedom of speech." Image of inscription of First Amendment via Wikipedia. Indeed, it is for this reason that the First Amendment decrees that "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech" rather than "no law abridging speech." "Freedom of speech" refers to a specific subset of speech: of all the speaking that a person is capable of engaging in, it is that portion that he may rightfully engage in (i.e., without infringing on others' rights). The Amendment's language respects the difference between that which a person can say and that which a person is entitled to say. Correspondingly, the fact that a person's speech is restricted does not entail that his freedom of speech is restricted. It might be or might not be, depending on whether the restricted speech falls within his rightful freedom of speech, that is, the speech that he is entitled to engage in. And in light of this, we should be able to appreciate a final confusion: People sometimes treat the ability to do something interchangeably with the freedom to do that thing. This is reflected in the complaints that because a person can no longer use Facebook or broadcast his political views at work, his rights are violated. On just a bit of reflection, it is easy to see that there are plenty of things that a person is unable to do that he remains free to do. I cannot speak Polish, as it happens, and I do not know how to juggle, yet no one has interfered with my freedom to do either. Had I wanted to learn, I have been free to do so. My inability results from factors other than others' coercion. Admittedly, other people play a more influential role in a person's inability to broadcast his beliefs through certain media (T-shirts at work, on Facebook, etc.). Yet those uncooperative people are not coercing him. His freedom is intact, although his desires may be frustrated. For freedom does not mean: "I get what I want." (Again, such a notion of freedom could only be fulfilled by trampling on others' freedom. It is thus not an internally coherent conception.) The larger point is simply that an inability does not entail a lack of freedom. In short, this inventory makes plain that we often employ the term "freedom" of speech indiscriminately. We use it to refer to a range of phenomena that are actually distinct. [footnotes omitted, format edits] (71-74) There are more kinds of serious confusion about freedom of speech than you probably think. And they are more widespread among intellectuals and pundits than you might imagine. Likewise, even if you appreciate the importance of freedom of speech, you will likely find even more reasons to insist on a clearer debate. I will leave here with Smith's warning about the danger attendant to the widespread, sloppy use of the term, "censorship": The danger, in short, is the normalization of censorship. Whether or not that term is used, this is what takes place under a bloated conception of "freedom" of speech and under the latitude granted by the rejection of absolutes and the embrace of exceptions. Such normalization is not simply a far-off possibility. It occurs already. When an FCC Chair declares that, "there is censorship by ratings, by advertisers," conveniently excusing unwarranted government restrictions by effectively pleading, "don't object to the government for censoring -- we all censor, it's all the same," this is normalizing. When a Wall Street Journal columnist criticizes Google and Facebook for "excessive censorship," implying that some censorship would be fine, this is normalizing. [notes omitted] (p. 81) I highly recommend reading this piece thoroughly, first as a means of improving one's own thinking about the matter (including Smith's indication of where the confusions originate), and second, to be able to recommend it to others intelligently. -- CAV Link to Original
  9. Image of autonomous vehicles via Wikipedia For a recent editorial on self-driving cars, Megan McArdle's title deserves an "A" for getting attention and an "F" for principle: "I'm a Libertarian. But Self-Driving Cars Won't Thrive Without Some Government 'Meddling'" Long-time readers might think I threw the flag on the first word, but I'm allowing a more generous interpretation of libertarian as meaning "pro-capitalist" there. I will even offer my qualified agreement with her, up to a point: Regulators are by their very nature risk-averse. Tragedies get laid at their door, while the main result of a success is that someone else gets the credit for whatever great new thing the regulator didn't prevent from happening. Innovating in a heavily regulated area, such as the national highway system, is thus a bit of a challenge. In the U.S., this difficulty is compounded by the fact that state and local governments also like to get in on the action. To get self- driving cars on our roads, we need a comprehensive federal framework that encourages innovation. [bold added]Indeed, given the regulatory and legal milieu of the United States today, some coordination of regulation (along with relief from liability) will have to happen for this technology to see daily use -- her "Level 4 automation" -- if it is even possible to do so in such a heavily-regulated sector. Sadly, we may be decades away from getting anywhere near a proper level of freedom in the transportation sector. That said, McArdle missed an opportunity to discuss how this could occur in a radically different legal context that truly does encourage innovation -- by respecting individual rights. Granted, it would take more than a column to make a full case for a truly private infrastructure, a tort system that isn't based on shaking down whoever has the deepest pockets, and allowing a combination of the profit motive and non-government standards bodies to take care of ensuring that the technology can be applied uniformly-enough to be useful for transportation. (Quick thought experiment: You run a private highway. You know that many different types of cars come to and from your road from other roads. Wouldn't it make good sense to come to some kind of consensus with auto manufacturers and other road owners on how to make this all work? Your time and distance perspective will already be greater than that of the local transit authorities or state regulators we now have. Your decisions will also not be subject to change at the whim of an unelected bureaucrat or an elected official in charge of said bureaucrat.) That said, it would clearly take a book or more to flesh out such arguments -- well beyond the scope of a column. But it would have been nice if McArdle, an intelligent writer whom I often enjoy, had at least indicated that an alternative to our current system of controls (which breed like rabbits) is possible. And again, there is the possibility that our government system is too brittle to allow fully automatic cars. Absent an alternative vision of government, we could well end up never seeing automatic cars at all, and falling for the myth that it was a nut we never really could crack. -- CAV Link to Original
  10. According to news reports, a California State Assemblywoman highly visible in the #MeToo social media campaign has come under fire for alleged sexual harassment. This is about as shocking to me as hearing that, say, a televangelist has been caught in an act of infidelity. There will always be hypocrites. It also doesn't surprise me that a female politician would eventually come under such scrutiny. Men don't have a monopoly on loutish or foolish behavior, and powerful people often feel like they can get away with things that others can't. In terms of newsworthiness, this would rate to me as another scalp, and potentially quite a valuable one. (That said, I do think that, in part due to generally being physically stronger, and in part for cultural reasons, men are more likely to perpetrate sexual harassment.) Strangely, an expert quoted by Politico doesn't see it this way, and that might actually be the most interesting part of the story: Image via Wikipedia.Jessica Levinson, a professor of law and political ethics at Loyola Law School of Los Angeles -- and the current president of the Los Angeles Ethics Commission -- said that, if proven true, the accusations against Garcia threaten to seriously damage the nationwide movement that has been credited with bringing the issue of sexual harassment into the open. "Hypocrisy knows no bounds and no partisanship, it crosses all party affiliations,'' she said. "To the extent that these are substantiated claims, there's a picture of Cristina Garcia as a hypocrite in the dictionary." The stories underscore how "sexual harassment is not OK, period -- regardless of whether it's by a man, or a woman. And frankly, this threatens to set the movement back -- because when you have one of the faces of this movement facing these allegations, that's a real problem." [bold added]This can undermine the credibility of the movement, but only if Garcia remains unscathed by allegations proved true or she is ruined by false allegations. Both of these possibilities deserve serious thought regardless of the viability of any movement. In any event, something I noted before bears repeating: This could be very good or very bad, depending on why this is happening so quickly. It would be a very good thing if, indeed, this is a sign that, culturally, the kind of mistreatment of women the likes of Weinstein specialize in is no longer getting a pass. But consider that some of the outrage is coming from the left, which has been responsible lately for fostering outrages against men, on the premise that, as Cannon puts it so well, "merely being a man [might be] some sort of pre-existing condition." (Oh. And Caucasians. And the wealthy, but I don't really need to bring that up, do I?) Let's not forget that Weinstein is something of a strikeout: white, wealthy, and male.In other words, this movement is a mixed bag, and to the degree the left is using it to pass improper legislation, it is bad, and a loss of credibility among its bad elements isn't necessarily a bad thing. On the other hand, to the extent that this movement is making sexual harassment socially unacceptable, these allegations offer a valuable lesson. Consider the following: Unlike many women, he said he never felt physically threatened, and always felt supported by [California Assemblyman Ian] Calderon, his boss. But he said he feared repercussions from an influential assemblywoman who could affect his fledgling communication business. “Who wants to be that guy that Cristina Garcia is going after?” he said. [bold added]The "he" here was a 25-year-old staffer whom Garcia allegedly cornered and groped after an Assembly social event in 2014. The bolded quote can help many men better understand what the women facing the unwanted attentions of the more powerful go through when having to decide later whether to report such an incident. -- CAV Link to Original
  11. Four Things 1. The coals to Newcastle aspect of this story isn't really that remarkable, but I think the following is: With rising crude exports and already booming overseas sales of refined petroleum products such as gasoline, the U.S. net oil imports have plunged to below 3 million barrels a day, the lowest since data available starting 45 years ago, compared with more than 12 million barrels a day in 2006. The U.S. could become a net petroleum exporter by 2029, the EIA said this week.Three cheers for fracking. 2. Has someone finally produced a tablet for the inveterate taker of notes on paper? I was initially ambivalent after reading this Gizmodo article on the "reMarkable," but the following comment from a Hacker News thread has me intrigued: Some cool facts about the device from a hacker point of view: Main developer/CTO is a KDE dev and very open source-friendly. You get root access to the device out of the box. The device is running a mainline kernel with minimal patches, which have a good chance at being upstreamed. The toolchain is open. They use vanilla QT/QML and people have already built simple example apps. There's an unofficial Linux client which works just fine. Desktop client and device run the same code, so you can just sync the files locally without connecting the device to the internet. Works both ways (it's the setup I use). [format edits, notes omitted, bold added]In other words, while the tablet may be pricey at the moment, and it might seem limited on its own, there is no dependence on a single device or a "walled garden" around the data it generates. Assuming the writing is as natural as the review suggests, this could make it really easy to enjoy the benefits of paper note taking and digitization all at once. Image via Pixabay.3. As long as they make a good gumbo: "This Mutant Crayfish Clones Itself, and It’s Taking Over Europe." Or an Etouffee. (Scroll down for my recipe.) 4. And speaking of crawfish, here's a map of what Americans call those delectable freshwater crustaceans. I actually called them "crawdads" when I was very young, despite being a Mississippian. The map suggests a possible explanation: My mother came from Arkansas, and her mother from Missouri, where that term is more common. -- CAV Link to Original
  12. The anti-treatment "raw water" crowd* are at it again, this time improperly citing a study as "scientific" evidence that campers and hikers need not filter naturally-occurring water. Fortunately, the merits of treating naturally-occurring water are quite well established, and Wes Siler of Outside Online is paying attention. Siler notes something that opponents of this easy, prudent practice are all too eager to sweep under the rug: context. The study itself, the state of the scientific literature on the subject matter, and widely-known facts easily applicable with an ounce of common sense all contradict that foolhardy conclusion. Here is just a small sample of Siler's well-reasoned and clearly-written rebuttal: Image of Giardia via Wikipedia.The irresponsibility of the don't-filter argument is exacerbated by two things: While most Giardia, E. coli, Cyrptosporidium, and [other] waterborne pathogens induce fairly minor illnesses in adults, the effects can be much more severe if the infected person suffers from immunosuppression, is very young or old, or, as with my friend, is simply unlucky. In children, for instance, the CDC says giardiasis can may lead to symptoms as severe as delayed physical and mental growth, slow development, and malnutrition. Effective treatment options are affordable and easy to use. Use an expensive filter because you're short on time or like cleaner tasting water -- cheaper methods will keep you just as healthy. Both [physician Thomas R.] Welch and [Slate author Ethan] Linck argue that the failure to wash hands after taking a poo is responsible for more infections than drinking unpurified water. But while that is an argument for taking some hand sanitizer along, it is not an argument against water treatment. [link in original, bold added, minor edits]Even the study cited by Slate doesn't advise against treating water: "If our objective is to protect the backcountry user from enteric infection, then we should emphasize the overwhelming evidence showing that assiduous hand-washing or using alcohol-based hand cleansers is by far the most important strategy." I disagree with Welch that also urging water purification "dilutes" such a message. There is one point on which I do agree with Linck: Not purifying for oneself should be a personal decision since it is not risk-free, while purifying it is nearly so. As I have noted before, even this will probably not deter some people from flirting with the following scenario (or worse), anyway: Last year, a good friend of mine caught chronic giardiasis. The diarrhea that resulted was unpredictable, frequently sending him scrambling for a bathroom. For most of the year, that meant his dating life was totally on hold and he couldn’t travel. Already a thin guy, the resulting weight loss caused him to look visibly ill. To him, the worst part was the embarrassment all this caused, all from a parasite he caught on a camping trip here in California. [minor edits]It is with amusement that I consider those cases, so long as they are self-inflicted. To everyone else: You have been warned. And, if you are sending your kids to a camp, I recommend making sure those in charge will be treating any water they find. -- CAV * The author of the Slate piece claims not to be in this crowd, but his anti-capitalist sentiments, which permeate the entire piece, place him in the same "return of the primitive" camp, if you will. One can imagine him yelling "check your privilege" as he rushes to the water closet some time after a hike. Link to Original
  13. Over at The Unclutterer, there is a series that might be of interest to anyone interested in improving their record-keeping. (Scroll to the bottom of the post for links to the four earlier installments.) My first thought, upon encountering this fifth post was, "Wasn't that topic hot -- oh about a decade ago?" (The first post addresses that very thought, by the way.) The following excerpt both reminds me of my first foray into improved record-keeping and provides a good feel for what the rest is like: You probably still need one of these. (Image via Pixabay.)Is it worth imaging? If you're going to be shredding the paper within the next year, it may not be worth your time to scan it. The tax returns you are required to keep (but never actually look at again) may be able to sit quietly in a box until they are ready to be shredded. Focus on getting [this] year's documents imaged first, then work backwards in time if required. Many user manuals for appliances and electronics are probably already in digital format. Don't waste your time scanning them. Search for them online and download them. You can scan the receipt of purchase and keep that with the digital copy of your user manual. [format edits, bold added]Ah, memories! I remember going hog wild with my new scanner one afternoon back when I lived in Boston, and quickly realizing I was wasting my time. I also realized I would have trouble keeping up such a practice over the long haul. I quit, thinking I'd let ideas for a systematic approach percolate in my mind, but I didn't get back to it. Instead, a combination of indecision and being preoccupied with other things led, over time, to me defaulting into keeping many paper records as paper records, and simply shredding those regularly. It was when I found -- and deleted -- a directory of useless, scanned electric bills a couple of years later that I realized that using a drawer for certain paper records was a time-saver and explicitly made the decision. I think the series is a good idea: The novelty has worn off of "going paperless," enough that we can more easily see that it makes sense sometimes, and sometimes, not. Note further that the series discusses many other aspects of record-keeping from the perspective of record-keeping principles generally accepted in business. -- CAV Link to Original
  14. Making a point I noted some time ago, but from a different perspective, a commenter at Marginal Revolution explains part of why automation is not the threat that snobbish academics and pandering politicians would have us believe it is to "low level jobs" (as they like to think of them): Photo by Rhys Moult on Unsplash.For example, truck drivers don't just drive trucks. They also secure loads, including determining what to load first and last and how to tie it all down securely. They act as agents for the trunking company. They verify that what they are picking up is what is on the manifest. They are the early warning system for vehicle maintenance. They deal with the government and others at weighing stations. When sleeping in the cab, they act as security for the load. If the vehicle breaks down, they set up road flares and contact authorities. If the vehicle doesn't handle correctly, the driver has to stop and analyze what's wrong -- blown tire, shifting load, whatever.There is much more for anyone who sees a truck on the highway and thinks driving is the whole job for the man in the cab -- not that automating that task is easy. That said, the following stands out: "When you see how hard it is to simply digitize a paper process inside a single plant (often a multi-year project), you start to roll your eyes at ivory tower claims of entire industries being totally transformed by automation in a few years." It is interesting to consider the above in light of how much academics dislike being written off as irrelevant. To the degree that their fields are relevant to daily life it's part of the territory to the degree that the connection between their thinking and daily life is indirect or non-obvious. To the degree that many people disdain abstract thinking, it's a justified annoyance. But to the degree that they don't keep in touch with the world they're supposed to be studying, as seen here, it's unjustified. More, it is a sign that they need to re-think how they are working. -- CAV Link to Original
  15. I and many others bring up Venezuela, the (latest) example of socialism in practice, as potentially enlightening for members of the younger generation who might be amenable to evidence and logical argument when it comes to politics. But the assault of the left against Western civilization isn't just against economic freedom. Iran, like Venezuela, can serve as an example of what life can be like under one of the many cultures the left insists is superior to our own -- when the "racist" idea of individual rights is discarded. Apparently, it's high time for such an admonition, given that a college student is being publicly harassed for refusing to try on a hijab. From that just-linked blog post coms the following from a news story covering ongoing anti-hijab protests in Iran: The choice of wearing a headscarf should not be a matter of life, liberty, or even bravery. (Image via Wikipedia)"We are fighting against the most visible symbol of oppression," said Masih Alinejad, who hosts the website My Stealthy Freedom where women in Iran post photos of themselves without hijabs. Under Iran"s Islamic law, imposed after the 1979 revolution, women are obliged to cover their hair with a scarf, known as a hijab, and wear long, loose-fitting clothes. Violators are publicly admonished, fined or arrested. "These women are saying, "It is enough - it is the 21st century and we want to be our true selves,"" the Iranian activist told the Thomson Reuters Foundation. Iranian police said on Thursday that 29 women who took part in the campaign had been arrested in Iran for protesting against the country"s compulsory hijab rules, the semi-official Tasnim news agency reported. Those arrested were accused of public order offences and referred to the state prosecutor"s office, Iranian media reported. [bold added, link in original] The fact that the student being harassed isn't taking things lying down is encouraging, but it is alarming that such things go on with administrative approval. Aside from the campus group in the blog post, I am thinking of an email that landed in my in-box from a government university, which suggested celebrating "World Hijab Day." Perhaps it helps that, despite government schools working to replace young minds with invincibly prejudiced vessels of leftist orthodoxy, some of their teachings are so blatantly at odds (women should be treated as equals vs. multiculturalism here) that it's getting hard to miss. They may have government schools in a death-grip, but it is increasingly obvious that the Law of Non-Contradiction is not on their side. -- CAV Link to Original
  16. Four Things 1. Lately, my four-year-old son has gotten it into his head that the least bit of wind will rip away anything light and, I guess, lose it forever. He gets worried any time I wear a scarf when I am around him, and will urge me to hold on to it. One day, I had it draped over my neck when I was taking him home from pre-k and there was some wind. In a near-panic, he grabbed both ends so it wouldn't go away. I had to just hobble to the car since my hands were full and there's no talking him out of things like this in one shot at his age. So now, when I might want a scarf, but will have him with me, I factor in doing without for convenience vs. using it so I can gradually show him the wind isn't always a big deal. 2. I always knew that the Navajo Indians were not the only code talkers employed by American forces, but I was under the impression that they were the first. Actually, the first code talkers were Choctaw Indians, and they fought during World War I: Choctaw Code Talkers (Image via Wikipedia)Unfortunately, there was little mention of the Choctaw Code Talkers after W W I mainly because the men did not discuss their roles during war. Both the term, and the Choctaw association to the term died out. It resurfaced again during World War II, when Navajo speakers were recruited especially by the Marines to serve in their standard communications units located in the Pacific.The exact way the Choctaw started out code-talking is lost to time, but it appears to have started when someone overheard two men conversing in the language in a barracks. 3. I hate snow, and vastly prefer to enjoy winter from afar. With that out of the way, I loved these winter photos from north of the Arctic circle. 4. Here are the strangest roadside attractions in each state I have called home: Mississippi -- The Devil's Junction/Birthplace of the Blues, Texas -- The Cadillac Ranch, Rhode Island -- Green Animals Topiary Garden, Florida -- World's Smallest Police Station, Connecticut -- Frog Bridge, Virginia -- The Great Stalacpipe Organ, California -- Elmer's Bottle Tree Ranch, Massachusetts -- The Museum of Bad Art, Missouri -- Jesse James Home Museum, and Maryland -- National Museum of Civil War Medicine To find one from a state not listed, go here. The states are in order of when I first resided in each. Of these, I have lived in only one, Texas, more than once, and I wouldn't mind living there again. I have split my life roughly in thirds so far among Mississippi (where I was born, but which lacks opportunity), Texas (which I would pick, but which lacks my wife), and the rest. Of the others, five were due to Navy moves and three to be with my wife. -- CAV Link to Original
  17. A bill wending its way through the Washington state legislature is ostensibly aimed at making it easier for customers to repair their own consumer electronics. This "right to repair" bill would, for example, forbid manufacturers gluing batteries into such devices as smartphones and tablets. Apple has particularly raised the hackles of proponents, many of whom are either interested in making their own electronics repairs or are environmentalists. Here is probably the part of the article I empathize most with: Image via Wikipedia.Late last year, Apple confirmed that it slows down the processor speeds of iPhones with older batteries. This performance decrease can be fixed by replacing the battery, but Apple's replacement program has a weeks-long waiting list and the company has fought against third-party repair of its phones at every turn. A wave of so-called right-to-repair or fair repair bills that would prevent companies from having repair monopolies have been introduced in states around the country. Last year, 12 states introduced bills that would require electronics manufacturers to make repair information available to consumers and third-party repair shops and would require them to sell replacement parts for electronics. It would also prevent them from using software locks to prevent repair or from remotely bricking electronics that use aftermarket parts. Already in 2018, 17 states have introduced fair repair bills. [links omitted]While I empathize, as someone who used to upgrade my PCs when larger disks or cheaper RAM would hit the marketplace, the pace of improvements in many of these devices has been such that holding onto them for longer than a few years doesn't make sense for most people at the prices they have been able to pay -- on top of the repairs being harder due to the much smaller size of the devices. I suspect that the number of people interested in making repairs is insignificant enough in this market that catering to them would not make sense for most manufacturers. I have heard, for example, that gluing in batteries makes the devices cheaper: If only a tiny fraction of people who want, say, a Microsoft Surface, are interested in repairing one, why should the already-expensive devices be made even more so? And if enough such people want something like a Surface, nothing is stopping a manufacturer from making one and selling it to them. This law interferes with the right to contract, and will make devices more expensive for most people so a few hobbyists, people who waste hours to save small amounts of money, and environmentalist scolds can achieve their objectives at everyone else's expense. That said, I don't entirely scoff at the idea of phones being made easier to repair. I recall a smartphone I was perfectly happy with whose power button had failed -- but for which the cost of repair was comparable to simply buying a new phone: I ended up buying a new phone, and it really wasn't better enough that I would have otherwise bought it. It is easy to imagine companies pursuing short-term profits by making cheap trash, and perhaps some companies -- whose management is influenced by pragmatism -- do this. (In the case of Apple, I vaguely recall reading somewhere that phasing out support for old devices on its part is a way it saves money for most of its customers. In any case, potential customers of theirs shoud take note of its well-known practice of not supporting devices for more than a few years.) This is unacceptable, but it is something customers should handle themselves -- by refusing to purchase junk, or at least doing so with open eyes. In any event, that isn't a problem that government abridging the right to contract can or will solve -- although it will create other problems in the attempt. -- CAV Link to Original
  18. Vox laments the "damage" EPA head Scott Pruitt is doing to the EPA "from within," even as it demonstrates ways environmentalists can slow down his campaign of regulatory rollback, delay, and non-enforcement. But the following passage is what I find alarming, given how Pruitt's tactics and the GOP's refusal to argue for the abolishment of the EPA tee it up: And, in the meantime, the government can keep subsidizing rights-violating noise-polluters like these. (Photo by Karsten Würth (@inf1783) on Unsplash) The EPA is essentially an environmental public health agency. Its regulations directly affect millions of Americans as it diagnoses ailments in the air, water, and soil, to name a few, and prescribes solutions. It has had a pretty great track record. The Clean Air Act, for example, reduced conventional air pollutants by 70 percent since 1970. Substances like ozone, carbon monoxide, and lead have dangerous consequences for human health like heart attacks, strokes, and respiratory arrests. According to one estimate, the legislation prevents 184,000 premature deaths each year and has saved $22 trillion in health care costs over a period of 20 years. [links omitted]It is easy to make Pruitt and the GOP look bad -- and to smear capitalism -- when there is no one pointing out that proper protection of property rights could accomplish many of the "public health" goals of the EPA while also protecting our rights, rather than violating them. And not only does a positive case against the EPA remain unstated, so does the negative case, against preventative/regulatory law. Pruitt may indeed give us breathing room, but it is coming at an even greater cost than I initially anticipated. -- CAV Link to Original
  19. Dropbox -- or at least one of their bloggers -- takes on the question of what to do about the rightly hated "open office." The article starts off well enough, ticking off the many well-documented problems with open offices. But then, judging from some of the comments at Hacker News, the article then proceeds to tick off many of its readers by suggesting an alternate office plan many of them have problems with: Maybe it's better than this, but that's not saying much. (Photo by Alex Kotliarskyi on Unsplash) No designated desks. Today's mobile communication tools allow people to work from anywhere, opening up the entire building as a potential workplace. You may want the buzz of energy that a cafe or atrium can provide. Other times, you may find that setting up shop in the fresh air can lead to fresh perspectives. Moreover, according to the architecture and design firm Gensler, "employers who offer choice in when and where to work have workers who are 12% more satisfied with their jobs and report higher effectiveness scores." These kinds of setups -- where people have the autonomy to work in the areas that best suit their tasks and temperaments at any given moment -- may just be what offices need. With them, companies can finally achieve the freedom and exchange of ideas promised by the original open office of the 1950s. And that can give us something we can all agree on: workplaces that work for all employees. [formatting and link in original]Yes. It's "hot desking," and I've commented on it here, although it was to note the increased chance of theft of personal items such a setup brings with it. Many of the gripes against hot-desking regarded the fact that the setup makes customizing an office (with something like a standing desk) more difficult, and can leave workers without a real home base when they're at work. Lockers can partly remedy the second problem, and it appears that the market is hard at work on the first (such as with portable stands that can convert a traditional desk to a standing one). That said, the discussion there leaves me with the impression that I am not alone in being highly skeptical of this idea. -- CAV Link to Original
  20. Government regulation frequently has economic consequences that are unintentional, or at least unanticipated by most people. It should be no surprise then, that, since regulations affect the behavior of individual human beings making mundane decisions, such consequences can pop up in the most unexpected places. I've noted a couple of these before, from the layout of suburbia to modern car design. To our list of examples, we can add architecture, which turns out to have a very long and rich history of such influence (and particularly so when we include special kinds of taxation as a de facto form of regulation). Here's an example from a survey by Kurt Kohlstedt at 99% Invisible: Taxation makes these houses in Amsterdam picturesque -- and a pain on moving day. (Photo by Isabella Jusková on Unsplash)In 1783, Paris implemented a 20-meter (roughly 65 feet) restriction on structures, with a crucial caveat: the limit was based on measuring up to the cornice line, leaving out the roof zone above. Naturally, land owners seeking to optimize their habitable space responded by building up mansard roofs. Later window-based taxes offset some of the financial incentive behind this design strategy, but in 1902, an expansion of the law allowed up to four additional floors to be built using the roof-related loophole, helping to re-expand its utility. Similar restrictions in other places helped the mansard style spread beyond Paris as well.Regulation and taxation had other consequences, ranging from the picturesque through the curious to the disastrous: Respectively, Amsterdam's tall, narrow housing; English bricks increasing in size over the ages; and a deadly fire caused by a baker connecting his hearth to the chimney of a neighbor. Many people speak of the economic consequences of regulation in vague, abstract terms since it is easy in some respects to conceptualize its impact by looking at aggregate economic effects, like its $1.75 trillion drag on the economy. This can be useful, but in order to help other individuals understand just how pervasive regulation really is, it might help to recall such concrete consequences. Even a simple tax can end up interfering with such personal decisions as how to build a home. -- CAV Link to Original
  21. Notable Commentary "[W]e should bury trash, bit by bit, not ourselves." -- Gus Van Horn, in "It's Time to Get Serious About Recycling, Via Market Forces" at RealClear Markets. "I support the right of everyone to eat meat (or not) according to their individual personal, medical, and economic circumstances." -- Paul Hsieh, in "In the War on Meat, Count Me in the Resistance" at Forbes. "By focusing on opposing the PRC, the United States has inadvertently become a second-handed actor, driven not by its own values and interests, but by those to which it is reacting." -- Scott McDonald, in "Forthcoming Asia Strategy Should Avoid Second-Handed Pitfalls" at The National Interest. "A rational immigration policy could exclude individuals who are criminals, dangerously contagious or terrorists; but to exclude individuals because they are members of a group is a form of collectivism as anti-American as (but not as anti-conceptual as) racism." -- Bob Stubblefield, in "Letter: American Should Not Exclude Anyone" at The Aiken Standard. From the Blogs "Manhattan Contrarian" Francis Menton recently reviewed economic news from Venezuela -- "Maybe you thought Venezuela had hit rock bottom a year ago..." -- ahead of a review of "useful idiots" whose quotes in support of that regime he'd rounded up a year ago. Among them, Bernie Sanders: "Feeling the Bern" in Venezuela. (Image via Wikipedia)These days, the American dream is more apt to be realized in South America, in places such as Ecuador, Venezuela and Argentina, where incomes are actually more equal today than they are in the land of Horatio Alger. Who's the banana republic now?Read the whole thing. -- CAV Link to Original
  22. Michelle Malkin observes that the public education establishment isn't wasting any time trying to gain political advantage from the Turpin family abuse and imprisonment case: Image via Pexels.[T]he vultures of political opportunism are using the plight of the Turpin children to impose expanded control over all home-schoolers in the Golden State. California Assemblymember Jose Medina, D-Riverside, plans to introduce a bill requiring that "mandated reporters" designated by the state Department of Education conduct annual assessments in all home schools. Echoing Medina's concern for "the lack of oversight the state of California currently has in monitoring private and home schools," liberal New Republic writer Sarah Jones decried how "lax homeschooling laws protect child abusers." She pivoted quickly from the Turpin tragedy to an attack on the home-school movement's academic achievements and opposition to mandatory kindergarten. Fundamentally, the home-school crackdown caucus views the very freedom to educate one's own children as a threat to government authority. In the name of liberating the Turpin children, they seek to keep the rest of us home-schooling families in regulatory chains.Earlier in the piece, Malkin notes gaping holes in the assumption that government oversight is some sort of panacea. These exist in the forms of both the well-known, general deficiency of government schools at providing a decent education and numerous instances of sexual abuse there. She also argues that the rationale for the increased state oversight is flawed by indicating the many lost opportunities in this case to have raised an alarm about possible abuse. Unfortunately, quibbling over how much state supervision of home schooling there should be represents a missed opportunity because it concedes the premise that the state ought to run or regulate education. Rather, this long chain of missed opportunities to stop the abuse highlights the following crucial fact: Child abuse, false imprisonment, and torture are already illegal. The parents are being investigated. They will be tried. And they will probably die in jail. As tragic as this case is, to demand that the state closely scrutinize whatever activities a parent takes when not entrusting his child to the care of the state would be analogous to having a cop shadow everyone while they shop -- because some people steal, or having random raids in private residences at night -- because sometimes domestic disputes or murders occur in such places. In order to have a free society, human beings must be free to act, so long as they do not violate the rights of others, and integral to that condition is a presumption of innocence before the law and the absence of prescriptive law. That crimes sometimes occur does not merit the state treating everyone like a criminal or, worse, like the Turpins treated their own children. -- CAV Link to Original
  23. Over at Inc., Suzanne Lucas reviews a book by Amy Alkon, proprietress of the Unfuck Your Habitat web site (and author of a book with the same name). Unsurprisingly for Alkon, the book's title is Unf*ckology: A Field Guide to Living with Guts and Confidence. Lucas admits she was planning on skipping the book until she heard an interview with Alkon and realized the book might have something to offer for many of her readers. Lucas concludes: Image of Amy Alkon via Wikipedia.If you've ever been the person in the office who works extra long hours only to see your co-worker get the promotion, you'll recognize yourself in this book. Learning how to stand up to people in authority and say no when you need to can actually help advance your career. My favorite advice from the book is that just because you're afraid to do it, doesn't mean that fear is a good reason not to. When we talk about bravery we often think that "brave" people have no fear, but the reality is, brave people are afraid, they just go ahead anyway. Alkon teaches a technique called "cognitive reappraisal" for helping you get through this. This means rethinking how you view a situation.When you come across something scary, like Alkon says, introducing yourself to an important stranger, you can either be paralyzed by fear, or you can rethink.This is a book I wish my twenty-year-old self had gotten his hands on, and since the degree of shyness I had then is something that takes a lifetime to recover from, I am tempted to purchase it anyway. Whatever you might think of her affinity for profanity, Alkon offers a sympathetic voice to those with hurdles of one kind or another to overcome. A good example comes from her site, mentioned above, in which she addresses the large number of people for whom cleaning house apparently comes naturally -- and yet still feel the need to insult her audience: If you think it's easy, then this isn't for you." That's it. If you think it's easy, or stupid, or unnecessary, UfYH wasn't meant for you. If you think articles and books about cleaning are pointless, well, I'm not sure why you read them except to be a jerk about it in comments. It's meant for everyone else. For people who don't know how to clean. Or who don't know where to start. For people who can't do it the way they were taught because that takes energy or mobility that they don't have. For people who are overwhelmed. Or ashamed. It's OK to be any or all of those things, no matter what sanctimonious strangers on the internet say. If you're any of those things and you're here, you're using the resources you can find to try to make things better for yourself. Isn't that the point of the internet (well, that and cute animal gifs)?Alkon has "been there" before, she knows how to get to a better place, and she isn't in the all-too common business of flagellating those who are trying to find their way there. If you've read this book already, feel free to leave a comment or drop me a line. -- CAV Link to Original
  24. Over at Medium, Chris Castiglione decries what he calls "censorship," by the EPA, whose Trump-appointed head has seen that it no longer uses the term "climate change" on its website. Castiglione's grasp of which he pontificates is slippery beyond the obvious point that presidents choose some of their employees: He never questions the conventional wisdom about climate change (né global warming), his grasp of the history of the EPA lacks full context, and he would do well to consider what censorship is, and why it is wrong. Regarding the scientific issue of climate change, even Nature recently published an article admitting that models predicting catastrophic warming were wrong -- not that catastrophic warming would justify the political measures the left touts as a solution, anyway. Similarly, although Castiglione understandably credits the EPA with improving air and water quality over the past few decades, this improvement is largely to whatever degree its regulations mimicked the private property protections that were removed to cause these problems in the first place. And regarding censorship? I'll defer to Ayn Rand: This was said to government employees, not forced onto private citizens. (Photo by Kristina Flour on Unsplash.)"Censorship" is a term pertaining only to governmental action. No private action is censorship. No private individual or agency can silence a man or suppress a publication; only the government can do so. The freedom of speech of private individuals includes the right not to agree, not to listen and not to finance one's own antagonists. [bold added]The functionaries of the EPA are government employees, not private individuals. I would add that, among the many violations of my individual rights the EPA represents, has been its bullhorning specific answers to and interpretations regarding the scientific questions about climate change, for political purposes. I think Trump should be working on abolishing the EPA, but I'll give one cheer for him ending its improper use of my money to spread views I disagree with. (That said, I think this way of doing it is ham-fisted and looks cowardly. But telling a subordinate employee what he can and cannot say is part of an employer's purview.) As even Castiglione admits, this does not stop him or any other private citizen from continuing his "climate change" advocacy, or from pointing out the existence of the Internet Archive. Whatever you think of him, Trump is not guilty of stopping private citizens from speaking their minds: He has only deprived a vocal political faction of a tax-financed forum for their views. That is not the same thing. In fact, had he done this on principle, it would have been a win for property rights. -- CAV Link to Original
  25. Almost exactly two years ago, I ran across Derek Lowe's explanation of the government's role in causing high prices for or shortages of some off-patent drugs. A recent story in the New York Times -- about hospitals manufacturing their own drugs -- reminded me of his explanation of how perverse regulatory incentives were distorting this market. Unsurprisingly, and as I hoped he might, the pharma blogger weighed in soon after the Gray Lady: Without government meddling in the economy, cronyism such as his wouldn't be possible. (Image via Wikipedia)... if you're going to start your own generic manufacturing effort, you have to get in line for the FDA to review your application to sell the compound(s). And that's one of the logjams -- one that will not be fixed by jamming another log into it. The article, though, mixes several problems together. You have the not-enough-players-making-cheap-drugs problem (which can happen through several means, regulatory approval not least among them), and you also have the only-one-manufacturer-eat-my-dust problem, which also takes many forms. In some cases of the latter, you have old, off-patent, formerly cheap compounds where one supplier has been granted market exclusivity (and the ability to raise prices and drive everyone else out of the market). How does this happen? Deliberately by design of the FDA: there are incentives to bring older drugs into the modern regulatory framework, and if you do the tests needed, you get a very, very nice reward. Too nice, from my point of view, but that's how the law is written. In other one-manufacturer cases, people have bought up the only supplier of a small drug and then taken it into "restricted distribution", which basically keeps any other potential competitor from running the comparison trials needed to even get in line at the FDA to sell the drug, too. That's the Martin Shkreli playbook (although he's not the only one), and it also takes advantage of FDA regulations about how and why distribution of a drug can be so restricted. Want to change these? Change the law. [emphasis in original]Lowe mentions that eliminating the "logjam" is a high priority of the current head of the FDA, and that is potentially good news in the short term. But I cannot agree more with Lowe's last sentence, although I know I would take it much farther than he would. We must ultimately abolish the FDA, devolving whatever legitimate functions it performs either to legitimate governmental agencies or to non-governmental watchdog groups (depending on whether these are the business of the government) and altogether ending its innovation-killing, health-threatening stranglehold on the drug market. The FDA prevents desperate patients from trying new drugs even when they have nothing to lose, slows down or stops the introduction of even less speculative or cutting-edge drugs, and, as we see again here, threatens the availability of familiar drugs. -- CAV Link to Original
×