Gus Van Horn blog

For some clear thinking about a common tax "shelter", mosey on over to this article on 401(k) plans by James Altucher. Here's a sample of some thinking unclouded by conventional "wisdom" or the doe-eyed trust in government-as-brain-substitute too many people seem to have these days: Let's look at it conceptually for a second and then I will look at the cons. You are paid money by an employer. You have that money in your hands for five seconds, and then it is whisked away into this account and you can't look at it again for another 20-35 years unless you want to pay a massive penalty. Will you be alive in 30 years? Hopefully! Else you will never see that money again. Ok, that's my first problem with 401k. I like to have total control over money that is called mine. Perhaps I am being overly harsh to call so many people naive. The tax code, designed to "nudge" us into letting the fed make choices for us, is quite complex, and most people, understandably, don't want to waste precious time having to contemplate it. Altucher does a great job of essentializing this particular scheme and asking the right kinds of questions to help his readers realize that perhaps what our tax code encourages us to do isn't necessarily wise. -- CAV Link to Original

The title of a CNN editorial by Orrin Hatch -- "Why Fight Against Obamacare Isn't Over" -- tells only half the story. I'll let the Republican Senator start telling the otherhalf: This exemplifies what's wrong with the Republicans' unprincipled "opposition" to ObamaCare that their motto of "Repeal and Replace" has long foreshadowed. As I said in that previous post, aside from controls (which Hatch seems to like) breeding controls: Had the Republicans grasped this, they would not only see that accepting any part of such a plan would leave us on the slippery slope right back to it. Dictating any aspect of a contract between two individuals sets the precedent for issuing everyone marching orders in the form of contracts-in-name-only. The debate isn't over because the Republicans are on the right side and will fight tooth and nail for the truth: From what I can tell, it isn't over because it hasn't even started. Everyone is on the same side, namely that of the government running everything. -- CAV Link to Original

Over at (apparently, Not-Quite-So) RationalWiki is an unintentionally amusing "explanation" of the presumably fallacious charge that something is a "Gotcha argument". I ran across this while researching the so-called Argumentum ad tl:dr, itself a variant of the "Gish Gallop". In case it has changed since May 17, I quote the entry regarding "Gotcha arguments" in its entirety: A Gotcha argument is a claim that another's argumentation is invalid because it backs an idiot into a corner that cannot be fought out of, usually through use of facts, logic and/or scientific knowledge to crush one's superstitions. Sarah Palin accuses reporters of this -- by name of "gotcha journalism" -- as a way to "cover" her inability to answer simple questions and to make the "liberal media" seem like the bad guys. To avoid such allegations when arguing with neoconservatives, one must avoid any and all use of facts, reason or anything deemed to be "elitist" (e.g., shoes, proper grammar, half a brain, a higher education that didn't take 6 years to complete, ability to answer simple questions, ability to talk, knowledge that the earth isn't flat and is also far older than 6,000 years old, basic understanding of anything outside the US, owning a foreign car). [links and footnote markers omitted] Not to defend Sarah Palin, but observe that she drives the author of this piece (that RationalWiki calls a "stub", to be fair) so batty that he seems to confuse neoconservatives with religious fundamentalists, among other things. He is so beside himself that he seems to forget that he is writing to teach people about rhetoric and the use of logic, taking the truth of his own presumably leftist political opinions for granted. Had the writer not made me laugh, I would have been annoyed. In any case, how likely is someone to find this source reliable when such undisciplined writing appears there? If the author is so easily distracted, and makes such obvious mistakes, why should be trust him on other things? Other articles at RationalWiki seem fine, but it is fair to question someone in large things when he can't be trusted in small ones. Aside from a good laugh, I came away with an unintended, easy-to-remember lesson in rhetoric: Remember why and for whom you write. Psychological distance -- waiting between drafts and before publishing -- can help with this, and prevent one from writing badly, and potentially harming one's own credibility. -- CAV P.S. I occurs to me that the entry was meantto be funny, If so, the humor is so ham-fisted that any laughter remains unintentional. Link to Original

John Stossel writes a columnon regulation empowering left-wing "activists" that should concern anyone who values our current standard of living: It also turns out that some [National Resources Defense Council] activists now work for the EPA, and although activists aren't supposed to get involved in issues pushed by the agency, they do it anyway. The NRDC's Nancy Stoner became an EPA regulator. Then she wrote her former colleagues, "I am not supposed to set up meetings with NRDC staff," referring to a pledge she signed not to participate in any matters directly involving her former employer. Then she got around these restrictions by qualifying that she could attend such a meeting if "there are enough others in attendance." Stossel details how the EPA stopped a precious metals mine in its tracks despite its being 90 miles away from an area it supposedly "threatened" -- not that the government has any business dictating how someone should develop his own property. Also worthwhile is Stossel's account of the dishonest tactics used to sway public opinion about the proposed mine. I have found too often today that when the media refer to someone as an "activist", that person is not one in the true sense of the term. That is, he is not really concerned with persuading someone else of his point of view. He is typically just a bully with an agenda. Sadly, our leviathan state increasingly makes the opinions of such people equivalent to law, rendering debate irrelevant. This is a trend we must reverse. -- CAV Link to Original

Vaccination: A Victim of Its Own Success? Amesh Adalja considersthe possible role a common mental shortcut might have in the rise of the anti-vaccination movement: I find it hard to fathom that while a glass ingestion is correctly thought of as a clear and present danger to her child, vaccine-preventable illnesses--which kill incalculably more children than glass ingestions ever could--doesn't register the same sense of alarm in this mother. The only explanation I can come up with is a serious threat misperception akin to fearing shark attacks but not drowning in the neighborhood pool--something that has to do with what is known as an availability heuristic coupled with the ability to imagine a horrible outcome. In this example, it is not hard for a mother to imagine her child ingesting glass and having a horrible outcome while it may be harder for her to imagine her child contracting a disease made rare because of the success of vaccines. On top of this, plenty of anti-vaxxers will be happy to help such parents imagine terrible outcomes and that these are "linked" to vaccination. Weekend Reading "Such freedom can be daunting -- but it's far better than having no real choices at all." -- Paul Hsieh, in "In Praise of the Market Economy" at PJ Media "Confidence doesn't mean knowing everything, but it does mean trusting your reasoning." -- Michael Hurd, in "How to Take Criticism Rationally" at The Delaware Wave "Most of the time, you can still like and respect someone with whom you disagree, especially if your relationship with them is worth more to you than winning the argument." -- Michael Hurd, in "The Perils and Positives of 'Agreeing to Disagree" at The Delaware Coast Press "If one person's 'need' does not generate an 'entitlement' in the realm of bodily autonomy, why does it do so in the realm of economics?" -- Paul Hsieh, in "Genuine Charity Requires Freedom" at Forbes "Such burdens trample physician autonomy along with women's individual rights on the road to foisting a religiously derived view of fetal rights onto the entire populace." -- Amesh Adalja, in "Innovation at Risk as States Ban Telemedicine for Medical Abortions" at The Pittsburgh City Paper Saletan on GMOs Writing at Slate, William Saletan takes a look at the debate on genetically modified organisms used in agriculture and finds the following: The USDA's catalog of recently engineered plants shows plenty of worthwhile options. The list includes drought-tolerant corn, virus-resistant plums, non-browning apples, potatoes with fewer natural toxins, and soybeans that produce less saturated fat. A recent global inventory by the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization discusses other projects in the pipeline: virus-resistant beans, heat-tolerant sugarcane, salt-tolerant wheat, disease-resistant cassava, high-iron rice, and cotton that requires less nitrogen fertilizer. Skim the news, and you'll find scientists at work on more ambitious ideas: high-calcium carrots, antioxidant tomatoes, nonallergenic nuts, bacteria-resistant oranges, water-conserving wheat, corn and cassava loaded with extra nutrients, and a flaxlike plant that produces the healthy oil formerly available only in fish. That's what genetic engineering can do for health ... The reason it hasn't is that we've been stuck in a stupid, wasteful fight over GMOs. On one side is an army of quacks and pseudo-environmentalists waging a leftist war on science. On the other side are corporate cowards who would rather stick to profitable weed-killing than invest in products that might offend a suspicious public. The only way to end this fight is to educate ourselves and make it clear to everyone -- European governments, trend-setting grocers, fad-hopping restaurant chains, research universities, and biotechnology investors -- that we're ready, as voters and consumers, to embrace nutritious ... food, no matter where it got its genes. We want our GMOs. Now, show us what you can do. [links dropped] This long article is worth reading not just for the information it imparts about GMOs, but also for the snapshot it provides of the thought processes of anti-GMO activists. No amount of scientific rigor in favor of GMOs is enough for them, and yet it's deuces wild when it comes to imagining reasons to frighten the public about them. -- CAV Link to Original

1. My four-year-old daughter has been eager to help me with chores lately. A couple of weekends ago, she helped me fold clothes, and she has remained interested in learning how to cook. My son, now two, has amazed me with the number of words he clearly knows the meanings of. His pronunciation is a little behind that, but he is quite good at getting his point across. I would swear he sometimes uses complete sentences, too, although his words run together. A few days ago, he said something that I am pretty sure was, "I want to get that down." It all sounded like one long word, but I knew what he wanted, and couldn't help but smile when he reached up for a refrigerator magnet. A week or so before that, I saw him stumble and asked, "Are you okay?" He replied with a mashed-together sounding, "I'm okay." Little Man has had a strong sense of order for a long time. A couple of recent instances reminded me of how he used to line up his Disney figurines every morning. Wednesday morning, ahead of a car trip, he pointed out that Pumpkin's drink holder was empty. (She told me she didn't want anything after I showed her the drink and asked.) Also, after so many mornings of my holding him to help him sleep and working by the light of an LED lamp, he expects it to be on when I have him downstairs and haven't put my things away. He marches right over and turns it on. 2. Yuck! Unclutterer discusseda pizza cone maker set last week in its amusing "Unitasker Wednesday" series. Even more amusing to me was the title of its next entry: "You Don't Need to Finish Everything You Begin." For their sakes, I hope that's a coincidence! 3. Well, at least this guy's prospective client made it easy to make up his mind: I will put down a $20 deposit. You will submit your work to me by 3PM on these specific dates, and if I am not satisfied with your work by the 30th, I will rescind my deposit and find another designer for my logo. If I want to contact you about this at midnight, you must be available to communicate with me. This is because you only have a week to work on this, as my cousin took a year to create the last logo and I was unsatisfied. We need this now. If I am satisfied with the logo, I will pay you the remaining $20. The first commenter came up with about the right response, I think. 4. Thisis a great list: "Life Lessons From Differential Equations." There is even inspiration to be found in the last: "You can sometimes do what sounds impossible by reframing your problem." [Link to math lesson omitted.] -- CAV Link to Original

A George Will columnon government enforcement of an overprotective new norm of parenting led me to a nightmarish account titled, "The Day I Left My Son in the Car", and recounting the years-long ordeal faced by a mother who made the following perfectly rational decision (And yes, I disagree with her mea culpa to the effect that she made a mistake, however small.): For that decision, and because a creep in the parking lot (who never confronted her) videotaped the whole thing and informed the police, the mother faced criminal charges and had to go to court. I recommend reading the whole surreal account, especially if you are a parent, as a cautionary tale. Two things stand out to me, though, that weren't stressed. First is a dose of sanity about the risk of leaving a child in a car by Lenore Skenazy: All I can add to the list of risks from here and elsewhere is a big one that few seem to explicitly note: That of intrusive government. The mother here ultimately paid with a hundred hours of "community" service in order to avoid a trial and the possible loss of her son. It is not the proper role of the government to empower worry-wart busybodies to make risk assessments on behalf of others. Second, an attitude towards the mother expressed by many of her friends comforted her, but it disturbs me: Who am I to judge? There can be good and bad reasons for saying this. Admitting that one hasn't enough information is a good reason, but an unwillingness to make a decision and stick to it is perhaps the worst. Many people wrongly see this as a virtue, but it is not. Those who won't make a stand pave the way for every little dictator out there with a camera and nothing better to do to make their decisions for them. The fact that we have come so far down the road to totalitarianism suggests to met that too many people either do not know or do not care what is at stake. -- CAV Link to Original

Just days after I got a fat, unexpected check from the IRS (along with an explanation that beggars belief), I happened to run into a news story about the possibility of the IRS harassing people for their beliefs: "Unfortunately, the IRS has not taken sufficient steps to prevent targeting Americans based on their personal beliefs," the GAO [Government Accountability Office] says. Specifically, The GAO found that "control deficiencies" do "increase the risk" that the IRS nonprofit unit "could select organizations for examinations in an unfair manner -- for example, based on an organization's religious, educational, political or other views." No, I'm not being harassed any more than anyone else with income, but my time is being wasted on top of the fact that I am now pretty sure they're coming to loot my bank account a bit more. I was tempted to call this story, "yet another reason this organization should be abolished". Perhaps that's the case, but it really only aggravates the fundamental reason: The whole function of the IRS, legalized theft carried out by the government, is an abuse of government power. -- CAV Link to Original

Five years on, former senator Phil Gramm provides a needed retrospectiveon Dodd-Frank. His assessment deserves to be read in full, but here is the worst part: ... Dodd-Frank has empowered regulators to set rules on their own, rather than implement requirements set by Congress. This has undermined a vital condition necessary to put money and America back to work -- legal and regulatory certainty. Gramm elaborates that this new power isn't even constrained by past legal precedent: Over the years the Federal Trade Commission and the courts defined what constituted "unfair and deceptive" financial practices. Dodd-Frank added the word "abusive" without defining it. The result: The CFPB [Consumer Financial Protection Bureau] can now ban services and products offered by financial institutions even though they are not unfair or deceptive by long-standing precedent. Regulators in the Dodd-Frank era impose restrictions on financial institutions never contemplated by Congress, and they push international regulations on insurance companies and money-market funds that Congress never authorized. The law's Financial Stability Oversight Council meets in private and is made up exclusively of the sitting president's appointed allies. Dodd-Frank does not say what makes a financial institution systemically important and thus subject to stringent regulation. The council does. Banks so designated have regulators embedded in their executive offices to monitor and advise, eerily reminiscent of the old political officers who were placed in every Soviet factory and military unit. [bold added] It is bad enough that the economic recovery has been hampered by this law, but the specter of non-objective law is much worse -- so much so that Ayn Rand once calledit, "the most effective weapon of human enslavement," since "its victims become its enforcers and enslave themselves." -- CAV Link to Original

Another Perot, the Other Clinton? Scott Holleran notes a serious lack of substance in the Trump candidacy: To this unseriousness, add either a sense of entitlement or malice aforethought. Trump has threatened a third-party run should the Republican establishment not treat him "fairly". "... I know Hillary very well...," he says in another part of the article. Great. Weekend Reading "Rather than relying on objective, rational facts, [people pleasers] place themselves totally at the mercy of others' judgments." -- Michael Hurd, in "'People Pleasing' Backfires On Its Own Terms" at The Delaware Wave "[Y]ou're entirely right to take offense at ... unsolicited advice, no matter the source." -- Michael Hurd, in "How to Give GOOD Advice" at The Delaware Coast Press Thallium in Greens? I have often heard extolled the virtues of leafy, green vegetables, but caution may be warranted, if the work of California scientist Ernie Hubbard is to be believed: Kale, which I fortunately dislike, seems to be a top suspect. -- CAV Link to Original

1. In lieu of one of my occasional beer recommendations, here is a bit about one I definitely intend to try, the soon-to-be-renamed "Submission Ale" by St. Louis's own Alpha Brewery: Yes! It's a beer that pokes fun at Islam (as the brewery has other religions), and no, the name change has nothing to do with cowardice or the social media vitriol directed at the label pictured above. 2. And speaking of Islam, I hearthat a comic book artist has discovered a new technique for rendering Mohammed (pun intended). Decorum forbids speculation about the medium. 3. John Stossel, commenting on the anti-science left: Had the Alpha Brewery not offended so many leftists, they would have had to add, say, a "Silent Spring Bock" to their line. 4. Two quotes, one by a seven-year-old boy on ethics, and another by Ayn Rand on humor, seem apropos at this juncture. First, the boy, commentingon ethicists: And now, the second: To see the connection, observe the tweets in the very first link. -- CAV Link to Original

Thomas Sowell consideringthe methodology of the advocates of such left-wing causes as gun control, summarizes it quite well and asks a devastating question: Most gun control zealots show not the slightest interest in testing empirically their beliefs or assumptions. There have been careful factual studies by various scholars of what happens after gun control laws have been instituted, strengthened or reduced. But those studies are seldom even mentioned by gun control activists. Somehow they just know that gun restrictions reduce gun crime, no matter how many studies show the opposite. How do they know? Because other like-minded people say so -- and say so repeatedly and loudly. A few gun control advocates may cherry-pick examples of countries with stronger gun control laws than ours that have lower murder rates (such as England) -- and omit other countries with stronger gun control laws than ours that have far higher murder rates (such as Mexico, Russia and Brazil). You don't test an assumption or belief by cherry-picking examples. Not if you are serious. And if you are not going to be serious about life and death, when are you going to be serious? [bold added] In the process of asking this question, Sowell comes very close to showing what is wrong with how most people think about political questions. There is plainly an admixture of seeking what one thinks of as good, ignorance, and wishful thinking. Were our culture not so rife with the problem of the moral-practical dichotomy (caused by altruism), people would more often approach political questions with the same ruthless logic they approach the other (often smaller) questions that they do understand and realize affect them personally. -- CAV Link to Original

John Cook makes an interesting pointregarding a rule you may have had drummed into your head when you first learned fractions: [it] serves some purpose in the early years, but somewhere along the way students need to learn reducing fractions is not only unnecessary, but can be bad for communication. For example, if the fraction 45/365 comes up in the discussion of something that happened 45 days in a year, the fraction 45/365 is clearer than 9/73. The fraction 45/365 is not simpler in a number theoretic sense, but it is psychologicallysimpler since it's obvious where the denominator came from. In this context, writing 9/73 is not a simplification but an obfuscation. Simplifying fractions sometimes makes things clearer, but not always. It depends on context, and context is something students don't understand at first. So it makes sense to be pedantic at some stage, but then students need to learn that clear communication trumps pedantic conventions. [emphasis in original] This touches on something I have noticed as a parent of an increasingly inquisitive toddler: The need to focus on one lesson frequently requires setting aside a wider context so the matter at hand can be held in mind. It is perhaps harsh to call reducing fractions pedantic, but there is a serious issue here. Teaching such rules as if they must always be followed or come from a vacuum discourages subsequent questioning and integration with other knowledge. A full explanation is likely impractical at the time, but perhaps teachers should more often say something like, "We will be doing things this way because it makes these lessons easier to learn." -- CAV Updates Today: Changed "of the time" to "at the time" in last sentence. Link to Original

Blogger Jacques Mattheij considersthe historical parallels between two government databases of personal information whose security was compromised. Each database was compiled for innocent-enough reasons, but the compromises exposed the individuals to great harm. This was despite the individuals having "nothing to hide". In the one case, a Dutch database containing information on religious affiliation fell into Nazi hands during their occupation of the Netherlands. The other database is that of the the recently-breached U. S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM). Mattheij concludes: f you're not content with living in a world where all of that data is public then you'd better stop repeating that silly mantra "if you've got nothing to hide then you've got nothing to fear," even if instead of death or identity theft your problems might merely be those of inconvenience or embarrassment when your data gets re-purposed in ways that you could not imagine when you sent it out in the world in a careless manner, and when you helped erode the concept of privacy as a great good that needs to be protected rather than sacrificed on the altar of commerce or of national security (especially from some ill defined bogey man, such as the terrorists). [minor edits] Mattheij's warning is well-taken, but there's an even greater danger than carelessness with personal information. Consider a recent news story, on a race database the Obama Administration plans on using to attack property rights (among others: read the whole thing) under the guise of racial equality. The story focuses too much on the existence of government databases, and ignores a greater threat that makes all of this possible: Federally funded cities deemed overly segregated will be pressured to change their zoning laws to allow construction of more subsidized housing in affluent areas in the suburbs, and relocate inner-city minorities to those predominantly white areas. HUD's maps, which use dots to show the racial distribution or density in residential areas, will be used to select affordable-housing sites. As I have noted before (in the above link on property rights), it is our blind trust in the government, both a frequent source of the "nothing to hide" argument and the cause of so much acceptance of and reliance on such rights violations as zoning. Were we not already so ready to let the government run everything else, we wouldn't need to be worried about losing our last shreds of privacy now. A government with enough power to take enough loot to give us everything is indeed big enough to take it all away. And, to an improper government, everything -- including your privacy -- is loot. -- CAV Link to Original

Bruce Bialosky ends an otherwise perspicacious column badly, by making the common error of conceding a fundamental premise to an intellectual enemy. Writing about "supposed capitalists" -- his term, and far superior to the self-contradictory "crony capitalists" used in the title of the piece -- who supported "net neutrality", Bialosky asks: When will capitalists [ sic] stop trying to line their pockets through the largesse of the government? Certainly some government/business cooperation is needed, but it stops there. Obama has been a master of playing off these greedy capitalists who think they can control factors if they are at the table as opposed to fighting the expansion of government control. Playing footsie with the Left never works over time. Hastings, Schmidt, and Karp are already regretting their foolhardiness. The rest of us will end up suffering. [bold added] The statement in bold is where Bialosky will lose his argument, and pointless discussions over where to draw a line will begin. Fortunately, this passage reminded me of one in which Ayn Rand discussed the whole notion of government-business "partnerships", in her essay, "The New Fascism: Rule By Consensus", found in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal: The formula by which the sacrificial animals are to be fooled and tamed is being repeated today with growing insistence and frequency: businessmen, it is said, must regard the government, not as an enemy, but as a "partner." The notion of a "partnership" between a private group and public officials, between business and government, between production and force, is a linguistic corruption (an "anti-concept") typical of a fascist ideology -- an ideology that regards force as the basic element and ultimate arbiter in all human relationships. (216) Rand notes further that "partnership" is "an indecent euphemism for government control", and that: [T]here are men who may find such a prospect attractive; they exist among businessmen as among every other group or profession: the men who dread the competition of a free market and would welcome an armed "partner" to extort special advantages over their abler competitors; men who seek to rise, not by merit but by pull, men who are willing and eager to live not by right, but by favor. Among businessmen, this type of mentality was responsible for the passage of the antitrust laws and is still supporting them today. (216) The useful idiots Bialosky wrote of are no capitalists. On top of this, it is too bad that so many other Obama supporters seem oblivious to such examples of things not turning out so well when they get what they ask for. -- CAV Updates Today: (1) Fixed a formatting error. (2) Slight clarification to last sentence. Link to Original

Constrained by Draft A story explaining why web page loading is often excruciatingly slow (above and beyond any factor on the browserend) reminds me indirectly of a Navy mnemonic for the dayshape that a ship should display at sea when it is constrained by draft. We called it a "beer can". The below excerpt of an excerpt, comes from the article's point of departure, a rant about a short article taking forever to download, among other things: I love iMore. I think they're the best staff covering Apple today, and their content is great. But count me in with Nick Heer -- their website is shit-ass. Rene Ritchie's response acknowledges the problem, but a web page like that -- Rene's 537-word all-text response -- should not weigh 14 MB. [links and footnote dropped] The problem comes from the way providers of "free, as in beer" content sell ads to stay afloat. Amusingly, the result, while we have it, is bloated web pages. Weekend Reading "Imagine if any creative genius or innovator in human history had stopped his work and decided, 'It's not what you know, it's who you know.'" -- Michael Hurd, in "What You Know, Who You Know" at The Delaware Wave "There's a suburban myth that women's brains are inherently suited for multitasking; something men cannot understand" -- Michael Hurd, in "Why Rush-a-Holics Rush" at The Delaware Coast Press "Every milestone in Hope's life, from his name to his good humor, charity work, show business, property development and vast wealth, is an example of self-made success." -- Scott Holleran, in "Honor Burbank, Bob Hope and Flying History" at The Burbank Leader Backgrounder As Holleran explains at his blog, the article linked above is his response to a proposal to rename Burbank's airport. I agree that it would be a shame to go through with that proposal. Computational Snake Oil Computer researcher Matt Might succinctly explains why any vendor's claim that a file compression program works every time are wrong, period: If such a magic algorithm actually existed, then it could be applied repeatedly to any file to make it smaller and smaller. Download speeds would drop to nothing. Might elaborates a bit more, and notes that he is, "happy to testify as an expert witness in court cases where there is a claim of infinite or guaranteed compression." -- CAV Link to Original

1. My daughter, who just turned four, has been asking to help me in the kitchen when I cooklately. The first time, the interest came out of the blue, so I had to think on my feet to come up with a few hands-on things that she could do safely. (This is harder than you might think!) I also tried explaining what I did, and why, and that the first step in learning is often watching others doing something. That said, I need to come up with a few simple things we can do with more pedagogical value. 2. The latest new beer for me, Founder's Devil Dancer Triple IPA, is a winner: When you dance with the Devil, the Devil don't change. You do. Massive in complexity, the huge malt character balances the insane amount of [ alpha acids] used to create it. At an incredible 112 [international bittering units], it's dry-hopped with ten hop varieties. [link added] Almost everything that brewery makes I like. 3. After reading a news story in the British press, I saw a link to an explanation of why people started wearing powdered wigs, which were called perukes. Thanks to curiosity getting the better of me, I now know more than I wanted to: For nearly two centuries, powdered wigs -- called perukes -- were all the rage. The chic hairpiece would have never become popular, however, if it hadn't been for a venereal disease, a pair of self-conscious kings, and poor hair hygiene. Read the whole thing to see how this all fits together. 4. Blogger "graydon2" justifiably waxes rhapsodic about text, which he calls "the oldest and most stable communication technology": Text can convey ideas with a precisely controlled level of ambiguity and precision, implied context and elaborated content, unmatched by anything else. It is not a coincidence that all of literature and poetry, history and philosophy, mathematics, logic, programming and engineering rely on textual encodings for their ideas. I sometimes wish more of those employed for the purpose of ... creating? ... assembly instructions had gotten the memo. -- CAV Link to Original

Showering one morning during a recent visit to Jacksonville, I marveled at a clever use of magnets in the curtain liner. (They eliminated the gap between the liner and the wall at the top. Until then, I'd only seen magnets employed around the bottom of shower curtain liners.) This small innovation triggered a memory -- of a poor bathroom layout I endured on a past trip -- and an idea. The idea probably isn't wholly novel or unobvious, but even if it were, it isn't the kind of thing I'd implement. I would nevertheless like this idea to be out there for someone else to do something with. The idea is also valuable as a partial answer to a kind of pro-government-regulation argument I hear from time to time. While showering, I considered a list I was making, of things I'd want in a house. I quickly realized that a similar list might serve well as an accommodation checklist. That list might be even better online for at least a couple of reasons: First, it would be easier to benefit from the experiences of others, who may have had unpleasant surprises I hadn't yet. Second, the list could conceivably be cross-referenced to hotels. For example, I could see a tall traveler being able to avoid, say, a hotel with particularly low shower heads. Overall, some master list, of things all customers want or expect would emerge that could also serve as a minimal standard for hotel service. A further thought followed: This is one of the things that could, along with generally more alert customers, replace government regulation of business. Such lists, almost certainly curated in some way, would complement already-existing non-governmental entities like the Consumers Union or Underwriters Laboratories. It is not my intent in a short blog post to outline in great detail how this could be done, but to suggest that the prevalence of government regulations has caused many people to wonder how standards for industries could be formulated and enforced. (Crowd-sourcing would be a method of formulation. Publicity and the free market would be mechanisms of enforcement.) I also am not suggesting that crowd-sourcing regulations is some kind of cure-all. (Food handling in restaurants comes to mind: There are technical areas like this, in which specialized knowledge, such as of how to prevent the spread of food-borne diseases, would be indispensable, and would necessitate some kind of watchdog group or standards body staffed by specialists.) Those things said, there are many aspects of business comprehensible to decently-educated adults of average intelligence which would be amenable to the efforts of active-minded customers interested in getting the most for their money. -- CAV Link to Original

Not long ago, I made note of an article that explained a rapid and distinct fashion shift as being at least in part due to government regulation. Here's another, which covers a pet peeve of mine: bottled water. I have always wondered why so many people started buying something at a huge markup, and at not so great an increase (if any) in convenience. Now, I know: ... Fiji Water infuriated Ohio with the tagline “The label says Fiji because it’s not bottled in Cleveland.” The insinuation, of course, was that there was something wrong with local water. Americans were receptive to this message because of another shift: the rise of environmentalism. In response to activist pressure, the government drafted measures like 1974’s Safe Drinking Water Act. The legislation made water much safer by limiting dumping and setting contaminant standards. But it had an unintended consequence: Because municipalities had to notify residents of contamination immediately, Americans who had grown up trusting tap water were now getting bombarded with warnings of possible risks. [link dropped] That is, regulations that may have cleaned up water some (by forcing people to refrain from something a system that protected property rights would have taken care of long ago) also whipped people up into a panic over possible risks. The article, by the way, also explains why it is that you just can't seem to find a decent water fountain anywhere these days. Bottled water is fine for emergencies -- I have some in the basement for tornadoes. But when I take the kids out to the park, I bring a few thermoses with filtered water along. -- CAV P.S. The above also makes this patronizing filtered water commercial almost comical to me, not that I have a problem with bottles being sent to landfills. Link to Original

In the course of looking for blogging material one morning, a passage from this column, on a curious personnel decision by Apple, jogged an old memory. The passage? [Criminal justice reform advocate Pat] Nolan agreed that there are jobs from which employers might reasonably bar ex-cons. Most businesses, for example, would not want to hire check kiters to operate cash registers. You don't want convicted child molesters working in public schools. Nolan thinks private employers should be able to tailor employment policies to keep certain offenders from sensitive jobs. [bold added] Setting aside the small matter of the propriety of the government meddling in hiring decisions at all, it's the adjective public in the above passage that interests me. I'm sure that Debra Saunders didn't intend to imply that we'd want child molesters working in private schools -- but not in public schools. The adjective probably went into her draft -- and through her editors -- out of habit. We are so used to the government running schools that the phrase "public schools" seems to be tantamount to "schools" for most people. For someone like me, who is interested in massive changes to the cultural and political status quo, the death grip such ideas have on the minds and imaginationsof the public is a serious concern: We often find ourselves running head-on into things it doesn't even occur to the vast majority to question. Another of those things people take for granted -- and this is what the passage reminded me of -- is what constitutes fairness. Most people learn -- wrongly -- from an early age to regard altruist ethicsand collectivist politics as the ideal and implementation of fairness. These notions and their cultural penetrance were exemplified by myself when I was around eight. I was looking at a globe and saw the vast swath of the earth occupied by the USSR. Grasping vaguely that the Soviets were enemies (but clearly not why), I informed my fatherwhat I'd do about that state of affairs: "I think we should divide the Soviet Union equally among all the other countries." "How communistic!" my father said, smiling. Although he did not explain the contradiction, my father's quip instantly made me aware that I'd said something odd. (Although I remember this, and there were other similar things he said that stand out, this did not directly lead me to question communism or altruism. I will say that I owe it to my dad that such comments made me aware of a certain kind of issue most people did not seem to be aware of. I'd only much later realize that these were philosophicalissues.) Such is the prevalence -- and early introduction -- of certain ideas that the task of contesting them is quite difficult. -- CAV Link to Original

Amity Shlaes takes a cue from the Washington Nationals, who recently introduced "Silent Cal" (Coolidge) as a mascot, and compares the economic policies of our thirtieth President to those of his predecessor and successor. Specifically, she notes that lower income taxes spurred prosperity and speculates on why: This advocate of limited government sees the data as a two-edged sword. Reducing tax rates on the way to abolition of taxation will have the added benefit of hastening a diminution of our sovereign debt. At the same time, without an attempt at informing the public of the moral case against taxation (and for proper limits on government) a la Mellon's book, momentum can be lost as conditions improve, and we'll be ripe for future generations to slide right back down the slippery slope to serfdom as Shlaes notes FDR did. Incidentally, Coolidge's talk of "excessive" taxes concedes the premise that taxation is just fine, and also reminds me of modern conservatives who complain only of over-regulation. -- CAV Link to Original

From the World of Sport, a Failed Economics Exam For winning the World Cup, the US women's soccer team receivedonly a quarter of the prize money that the winners of the men's competition did. Apparently this was all the information many "journalists" needed to conclude that sexism was at play: The Atlantic , the Associated Press, and other outlets similarly noted the pay disparity but remained curiously incurious about why. The writers did not appear to consider legitimate reasons to pay women's soccer players less than their male counterparts. The articles advanced sexism as the reflexive explanation. In fact, the women's game, although growing in popularity, makes orders of magnitude less money during its world championship than the men's game. If anything, the winners of the women's competition were overpaid! Weekend Reading "... 'Vacation Syndrome' [is] when an individual tries to take a vacation from ALL responsibilities, instead of just some." -- Michael Hurd, in "The Positives and Perils of Vacation Mindset" at The Delaware Wave "t's not the escape that matters; it's what you're escaping." -- Michael Hurd, in "Why We Sometimes 'Medicate' Ourselves" at The Delaware Coast Press "[W]e shouldn't crumble in the face of man-made institutions only a few decades old, or their mealy-mouthed advocates. " -- Gus Van Horn, in "'Reagan Conservatives' Dismantle Republican Revolution" at RealClear Markets "[T]he sexual orientation of a particular individual is caused by choices made by that individual." -- Ron Pisaturo, in "How Choice and Emotion Can Influence Sexual Orientation" at The Federalist "It's impossible to tell exactly how many Coloradans are violating the consumer use tax statutes -- but the number is at least several hundred thousand and probably several million." -- Ari Armstrong, in "Are You a Colorado Use Tax Felon?" at The Complete Colorado A Word of Thanks I thank reader Steve D. for his very helpful suggestions on an earlier draft of the piece linked above. My Two Cents Ron Pisaturo writes about a complicated topic that I will admit that I have not spent a great deal of time trying to unravel. While I agree with the general thesis, which I think the quote above encapsulates, I doubt that one of its apparent implications, that one could change one's basic sexual orientation, is practical in many cases, if at all. I think that many of the choices that shape sexual orientation occur so early in life that they end up becoming very deeply integrated into one's overall personality. I think that even if someone were somehow interested in changing his basic sexual orientation, the task would take so long and require so much effort as to be practically impossible. For this reason, I regard basic sexual orientation as an issue outside morality. That said, I am not claiming that Pisaturo argues either that anyone should try to change his sexual orientation or that this is a moral issue. A Word to the Wise on GMail If you've been missing correspondence from your in-box and you use GMail, take heed: f you're ... using GMail for your communications, especially if it is using a domain that does not otherwise advertise itself as being a GMail-run domain please keep a very close eye on your spam folder, Google is no longer able to tell the ham from the spam and the number of false positives is extremely worrisome. And if you're not a GMail user and you wonder why your contact is not responding verify with them if your message hasn't been mis-classified as spam by Google's very much broken spam detection system. [minor edits] Prompted by this account, I checked my spam folder to find two pieces of correspondence from my wife's professional email address. -- CAV Link to Original

1. Amesh Adalja notes the 130th anniversary of Louis Pasteur's rabies vaccination of Joseph Meister: Why I elevate Pasteur to that level has to do with the fact that not only did he discover the rabies vaccine but his contributions to the germ theory of disease (I'm not even counting his contributions to stereochemistry) gave the entire field a green light to hypothesize, innovate, and advance. Such an achievement's ramifications are incalculable. I join Dr. Adalja in thanking this great man for doing so much to make modern civilization possible. 2. Don't ask me why I haven't yet recommended Founder's Porter: I have no good answer. The beer is aptly described by the label as, "dark, rich & sexy:" Pours silky black with a creamy tan head. The nose is sweet with strong chocolate and caramel malt presence. No absence of hops gives Founders' robust porter the full flavor you deserve and expect. Cozy like velvet. It's a lover, not a fighter. I've enjoyed this for years, even using it as a winter go-to beer. 3. It's always good to hear about companies not only rebounding from stupid policies, but coming up with good ones from dialogues between management and the rank-and-file: ased in part on ideas crowdsourced from employees, Morris and her team scrapped annual evaluations and replaced them with a system called Check In. At the start of each fiscal year, employees and managers set specific goals. Then, at least every eight weeks but usually much more often, people "check in" with their bosses for a real-time discussion of how things are going. At an annual "rewards check-in," managers give out raises and bonuses according to how well each employee has met or exceeded his or her targets. "Managers are empowered to make those decisions," says Morris. "There is no 'matrix.' HR isn't involved." Adobe had been sapping its own employees' morale with a "yank and rank" evaluation system before. 4. Stunned as I am that anyone could not know when to use "a" vs. "an", I provide a link to the rule for the edification of any passer-by. -- CAV Link to Original

There's a sneaky proposal in Congress -- backed by many Republicans -- to enable states to make out-of-state businesses collect sales taxes from online purchases. Among the many silly arguments being used to foist this on the public is that it is more convenientthan the way such taxes are currently collected: First, just because computers make something easier doesn't mean it's a good idea. Second, I'd personally find having more of my own money more convenient than having it stolen more efficiently. (Note that such an option isn't even on the radar for these people.) The people for whom this proposal is truly convenient are the loot-and-spend politicians who do not stand for limited government. I discussthe "efairness" proposal more at RealClear Markets: The idea that the government forcibly taking money from other people is "fair," so long as everyone gets robbed is egalitarianism, pure and simple, and it disgusts me to see that the party that frequently bills itself as getting the government out of our wallets is pushing this. -- CAV Link to Original

Accordingto "Black Lives Matter" protester and flag-burner Jesse Nevel, there is no difference between the American and Confederate flags: To anyone for whom lives matter enough to bother learning from history, Thomas Sowell reminds us that: Regarding the value of military superiority in at least buying time for better ideas to prevail, I can think of at least one prominent individual who seems to have missed the memo. -- CAV Link to Original