Gus Van Horn blog

Jean Moroney of Thinking Directions writes about a common and vexing problem: How can one do in-depth thinking when one hasn't long blocks of time to work with? Her advice concerns stitching together the smaller blocks of time one does have. Here is part of her advice on how to handle the end of a session. Within the article, Moroney mentions a course she offers that features techniques that can solve this problem completely. I recommend it and will point out that there is a free course at her site that one can try to get an idea of what to expect. -- CAV Link to Original

If you're having trouble buying, selling, or -- like former Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke recently did -- refinancing a home, you might have our paternalistic, "helicopter-parent-from-hell" government to thank. Bruce Bialosky writes about some of the "unintended consequences" of Dodd-Frank including significant impediments to buying and selling houses: ... It used to be that a mortgage broker or real estate agent would contact their reliable appraiser to get a timely and hopefully accurate evaluation of a property. The lawyers behind Dodd-Frank saw that as a means of manipulation and no doubt on some occasions that would occur. The new system requires a third party service to be contacted that, of course, charges a fee to obtain an appraisal that is added on top of the appraiser's fee. That means out of the box the cost of appraisals have been driven up. Koevary says it is worse than that. He and his fellow professionals used to be able to contact their friendly appraiser and get an idea whether the property will appraise at either the sell price or refinance price. That is no longer possible because of the requirement of using a third party service. Koevary states that often people will incur appraisal fees under the new system and find out the deal will not fly. Thus, his client gets stuck with significant appraisal costs which have done nothing but kill the deal. The law has also resulted in lots of third-party appraisers falling under the control of "big' lenders; difficulties in obtaining financing for people with unusual sources of income, and an end to discounted fees by mortgage brokers. I am an advocate of laissez-faire, and I oppose laws like Dodd-Frank on moral and practical grounds. Regulars know this already, and that I consequently never supported this law. That said, on my reading of this column, I am beginning to feel ill at ease with Bialosky's term, "unintended consequences". I am not singling him out for criticism: Many conservatives use the term, and I probably have used it myself in the past. However, my uneasiness lies with the idea that the phrase may be letting proponents of such laws off the hook too easily for meaning well. I am not an economist, but at least two economists I know of have pointed out that central planning is doomed to fail for removing rational thought from the economy. History is also littered with failed attempts at central planning. Perhaps we could use a term like "unforeseen consequences", or "side effects", or even "further ramifications" instead. (Or maybe "unplanned consequences of central planning" would be the ticket.) In any event, I have no patience with the idea that, any time something goes wrong, we should reach to the cabinet for even more government interference, as if that worked the first thousand times. (And I haven't even touched on the question of whether it is the right thing to do with government...) My question for advocates of government regulation of everything is this: How many "unintended consequences" does it take before I should begin to wonder what it is you intend to do? -- CAV Link to Original

Although he is not explicitly calling for an American foreign policy based on national self-interest, Brett Stephens of The Wall Street Journalmakes some recommendations that I think might apply to pursuing such a policy. Stephens proposes that we apply a criminological insight to bad international behavior in order to make it easier to maintain the peace: "Disorder and crime are usually inextricably linked, in a kind of developmental sequence," Drs. [George] Kelling and [James Q.] Wilson argued. It had long been known that if one broken window wasn't replaced, it wouldn't be long before all the other windows were broken too. Why? Because, they wrote, "one unrepaired broken window is a signal that no one cares, and so breaking more windows costs nothing." The idea that the mere appearance of disorder encourages a deeper form of disorder cuts against the conventional wisdom that crime is a function of "root causes." Yet municipalities that adopted policing techniques based on the broken-windows theory--techniques that emphasized policing by foot patrols and the strict enforcement of laws against petty crimes and "social incivilities"--tended to register sharp drops in crime and improvements in the overall quality of life. Stephens cites encouraging evidence from our nation's recent long-term decline in crime in support of his view. I think his idea has merit, but that it will ultimately succeed only if coupled with a significant change for the better in what we treat as our objectives in foreign policy. To look at this merely as a way of striking some sort of a happy medium between Barack Obama's fecklessness and George W. Bush's nation-building export of the welfare state is to miss an opportunity to reconsider our fundamental strategy. As we have seen in many recent wars, great weapons, personnel, and tactics can still lose if deployed for the wrong end. -- CAV Link to Original

With the grand jury in the Michael Brown case expected to announce a decision this week, Ron Christie of The Daily Beast asks, "Is Ferguson on the Brink of War?" Christie's skepticism of "civil rights" "activists" -- which I share -- is hardly assuaged by the actions (or lack thereof) of a few prominent members of officialdom: While our first African American Attorney General was quick to condemn America for being a "nation of cowards" on matters of race, I find it cowardly that he has not consistently spoken out to respect the work of the grand jury and the rule of law. He was too busy, apparently, seeking to bring federal civil rights charges against the charged officer whose fate has not yet been determined by the grand jury. So much for his impartiality. And where is the President--one so quick to interject himself where race is involved (the Cambridge, Massachusetts police officer acted "stupidly") but absent when a violent confrontation appears likely if a grand jury does not indict a white officer for the death of a black teenager. He should be speaking out forcefully and frequently about the need for calm as the jurors conclude their work. His silence is both deafening and disheartening. I find it a sad commentary that the beginning of the Obama era encouraged millions of Americans to think that we had entered a post-racial phase in our evolution as a country from the dark stain that slavery has placed upon our collective history and heritage. As we enter the waning years of the Obama Administration, America remains as divided as ever on matters of race. Apparently, many of us had moved past racial bigotry, but a few of us hadn't. In the meantime, the cultural and political rot at least isn't complete: Local officials have been preparing for the worst and passing out notices in the lead-in, in some cases advising residents to treat the possibility of civil unrest like a storm -- to stock up on food and medicine in case leaving home for a few days is not feasible. Perhaps this is what President Obama meant when he told "protest" leaders recently to stay "on course". Whatever the case, don't expect any help from the Republicans. They're too busy hiding behind Joe Biden, whom they jokingly call "impeachment insurance". The new Congress has yet to take office, and it seems that they're already preparing to file a "spinelessness insurance" claim! No wonder violent bigots feel like they can act with impunity. -- CAV Link to Original

Look Who's In Town The Reverend Osagyefo Sekou, who recently made national headlines by using a racial slur to refer to Palestinians, is here in town to keep things "peaceful" whether or not the grand jury investigating the Michael Brown shooting returns a verdict he likes. Pardon my skepticism, but: Sure, he is. "We are in a rebellion at the moment," said Reverend Osagyego [ sic] Sekou, an activist from Boston. "That means breaking police lines, non-compliance with police orders. It is confrontational but not violent." He urged the group of potential protesters to try to focus their minds on "deep, abiding love" to remain calm during demonstrations. These are the words of someone who likens the police in New York to the defense forces of a regime he apparently equates with the Jim Crow South at best -- and don't forget that he is saying it for public consumption. I guess we'll find out soon enough if he really means it. Weekend Reading "Obnoxious people can't get validation from themselves, so they seek reactions from others by being blowhards." -- Michael Hurd, in "How to Handle an Obnoxious Person" at The Delaware Wave "So how do you deal with tradespeople? Simple: Treat them the way you want to be treated." -- Michael Hurd, in "Amazing How a Little Respect Gets Things Done" at The Delaware Coast Press "Here's a radical thought for conservatives: Brittany Maynard has a right to life -- to her life. " -- Peter Schwartz, in "A Real Right to Life" at The Huffington Post In Further Detail As Peter Schwartz so economically demonstrates, the outcry over Brittany Maynard's decision to end her life on her own terms exposes many conservatives as opponents to individual freedom. Read the whole thing, and keep this piece in mind the next time you encounter a so-called right-to-lifer -- or even a conservative complaining about paternalism. Too Bad the Taboo Doesn't Extend to Reading the Word "Pig" The American Thinker recently wrote of the work of comic book writer and Pigman creator Bosch Fawstin: Fawstin seems to be on a mission to educate others about the threat that Islam poses to all of civilization. His primary tool of communication is through the creation of a comic-book superhero - Pigman - who battles jihadists. Fawstin talks about how Muslims dread contact with anything related to pigs, noting that if he had an airline he would have all the seats covered with pigskin leather, making it the safest airline flying. Most interesting to me is Fawstin's description of what his "moderate" Moslem upbringing included: anti-Semitism, admiration of Adolf Hitler, domestic violence, and sadness on the occasion of the birth of a girl. --CAV Link to Original

1. The remote for our garage door opener recently needed a new battery. As a parent of small children -- read: well-stocked on batteries -- I figured this would be an instant fix. But no: This thing used a battery type I'd never heard of and which, apparently has at least two common names. On the way to figuring out what to get, I learned the following hack specific to this type of small, 12 V battery: Peeling back the paper, I found 8 (1.5 volt) button cell batteries! These are perfectly good button cells that will work in any 1.5 volt device they fit in! [my bold, minor edits] Each cell in the stack of this two-dollar battery retails separately for about five bucks at Radio Shack, allowing for significant savings if you need the button cells for, say, small, noise-making children's toys. That said, when I bought my A23 battery at Walmart, I found a blister pack of the button cells next to it for a reasonable price. Also, as the comments and what little I know about batteries suggest, this isn't something that will work on just any battery. 2. Over at Futility Closet is a nice post -- with two demostration videos -- about a man's hobby of building low-power hot air engines: When Jos de Vink retired from a career in computer technology in 2002, he began casting about for an engaging project. His neighbor, a passionate model builder, challenged him to design a working hot air engine driven solely by the heat of a tea or wax light. De Vink uses scrap brass and bronze to build his engines, and has managed to run some of his engines off the warmth of a human hand. 3. Cristiano Ronaldo, arguably the world's best soccer player at present, amuses me by calling a spade a spadeon the subject of his many envious detractors: Ronaldo was roundly mocked for explaining fan antipathy thusly: "It is because I am handsome, rich and a great player, because I am envied. I have no other explanation." While that sounds like a terribly conceited thing to say, the man speaks the truth. They do hate him because he's beautiful! And rich. And insanely talented. And because he dates gorgeous supermodels. [link added] Until the World Cup, I had no strong opinion about him, other than a vague impression that he was a prima donna. But he gave his best effort even after his team had been eliminated from the next round. Between that and the above quote, I do have to give the man credit. 4. My daughter likes to ride "Daddy Horse" (me on all fours) and my son likes to charge under me on all fours when I am crawling. And so it is that I occasionally find myself in the middle of a "Daddy sandwich". -- CAV Link to Original

"Steel man" is an interesting new phrase I encountered at Word Spy, and, as you might expect from a play on the term "straw man", it refers to an approach to debate. Here is the definition: The strongest version of an opponent's argument, particularly when this version improves upon the opponent's original argument. The idea isn't a new one, but the quick way to describe it is. The idea has merit, but exploring it pays higher dividends than I initially expected it to. To get an idea of what I mean, consider the following quote from an example citation: I'm serious. I think steelmanning makes you a better person. It makes you more charitable, forcing you to assume, at least for a moment, that the people you're arguing with, much as you ferociously disagree with them or even actively dislike them, are people who might have something to teach you. It makes you more compassionate, learning to treat those you argue with as true opponents, not merely obstacles. It broadens your mind, preventing us from making easy dismissals or declaring preemptive victory, pushing us to imagine all the things that could and might be true in this beautiful, strange world of ours. And it keeps us rational, reminding us that we're arguing against ideas, not people, and that our goal is to take down these bad ideas, not to revel in the defeat of incorrect people. This author earlier correctly notes that the purpose of debate is to reach the truth, and that showing a deep understanding of an opponent's arguments can be a winning rhetorical strategy. In those ways, steel-manning obviously makes one better, in terms of how well one's understanding conforms to reality: What is my opponent actually saying? What merits might that argument have? What can I learn that I didn't know before, regardless? I am not sure how clearly this author realizes this, but these are all proper, selfishreasons to thoroughly examine an unfamiliar position that may have merit. I wouldn't call the part of selfishness that encompasses civility and good will "charity", but giving others the benefit of the doubt is a recognition of the fact that one can learn valuable things from other people. This is the exact opposite in all ways from the attempt to con others (and oneself) by using a straw man. A straw man ignores reality and places one's best interests at the mercy of the gullibility or willingness-to-be-fooled of others, be they offering an argument or looking for reasons not to consider one they don't like. If one cannot argue well for and with himself, he cannot do so for or with others. The real purpose of arguments, our overly politicized culture notwithstanding, is not to get people we regard as idiots to do our bidding, but to teach -- ourselves and others. -- CAV Link to Original

Although her Ayn Rand-inspired dating advice (via HBL) is geared towards women, Jennifer Grossman's piece really speaks to any single. Despite the crude opening, I'll keep it in mind for my kids way down the road: Rule #2: Don't date men who don't admire you. You don't have to be beautiful to be admired by men -- you don't even have to be particularly skilled or smart. A man can admire your spirit, your qualities, your way. You can date men who want you and chase you, but admiration is a different thing altogether. To admire is defined as to "regard with respect," or to "look at with pleasure." Women often say that they don't want to be "put on a pedestal," but that's exactly where they should be, held on high, off the floor, where they won't be bumped into, overlooked, or stepped on. Grossman elaborates further on what she means by "put on a pedestal" in the next paragraph. (Men would do well, in this case, to note among other things that (a) a woman -- a worthwhile one, anyway -- wants to be treated with respect, and ( this respect can only really start with a better-than-passing acquaintance. The above can also be used for introspection when in doubt about a relationship: "Do I respect her?") On top of the article offering good advice, another aspect about it heartens me as an advocate of Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism: It is an example of what needs to occur for Rand's ideas to gain wider acceptance and, therefore, cultural (including political) influence. Conventional wisdom aside, Rand didn't confine her writings to politics, and to the extent that she has been relevant or even "prophetic", it has been precisely because she understands that political philosophy -- like any other kind of knowledge -- doesn't exist in a vacuum. As people see Rand's relevance on more issues than politics -- which oughtn't be the huge concern that it is, anyway -- they will be more receptive to re-thinking more and more of what they hadn't thought to question or had the opportunity to question. Reading or re-reading Rand provokes lots of this, an more people rationally examining their lives is definitely a good thing all around. -- CAV Link to Original

There is a saying that politics is the "art of the possible". This is true in the sense that an electorate unready for actual reform will not support actual reform, but I get the sense that, too often, this deters many politicians from even trying. That said, there is some cause for optimism regarding taxation. Writing for the Wall Street Journal, Cleta Mitchell enumerates several abuses by the IRS against conservative political groups that our Republican Congress can finally investigate, and concludes: My regular readers will know that I see this as not nearly enough: Ultimately, we must both reign our government in to its properfunctions and cease using confiscatory schemes, such as taxation and inflation, to fund it. This is a change that plainly can't be done overnight, so I can offer very qualified support for tax reform as an intermediate step towards abolition -- so long as it involves something like moving to a flat rate and a stripping-away of most of the power now wielded by the IRS (until it can be abolished altogether) thanks to our convoluted and paternalistic tax code. To build on Mitchell's theme, the bringing-to-light of these abuses offers not just the chance to show once and for all what an abusive agency the IRS is, but also to demonstrate that any similar scheme of doling out favors to "nudge" people into activities favored by the government not only invites abuse, but constitutes abuse. This won't turn the electorate into advocates of limited government and laissez-faire overnight, but it would make advocacy of the same a little bit easier, and more reform possible down the road. When I hear Republicans decry the IRS as "broken", the parable of the scorpion and the frog comes to mind. The IRS is not broken: It is vicious. The IRS must be abolished, even before taxation itself. It amazes me that the Republicans -- whose very supporters the IRS targeted for abuse -- is even considering taking this beast across the river by means of "reforming" it. -- CAV Link to Original

The latest column about the government "playing" with tax dollars -- <a href="http://jewishworldreview.com/1114/hinkle111014.php3">this one by A. Barton Hinkle</a> -- has come out. Hinkle does admit that "[n]o amount of pork-trimming can offset the huge outlays for entitlements," but he falls for the temptation to focus on what he regards as the goofiest ways the government spends money. Hinkle even compiles two bulletted lists, one devoted to funding for scientific research he personally finds ridiculous. (More on that in a moment.)<br /><br />The grand total of the sixteen itemized examples? $42,106,976,000. That's over $42.1 billion. Almost all of this comes from the $41 billion "missile defense system with a 70 percent failure rate", which is, for all I know, a legitimate use of money: Given the government's proper role in defense and the possibility that the science behind such a system might be difficult enough to make a thirty percent success rate look pretty good, that's possibly money well spent.<br /><br />But it's when Hinkle starts listing scientific projects that the failed premise behind his article becomes apparent. I am not defending government funding of science in general, but journalists (and politicians) are notorious for not appreciating <a href="http://gusvanhorn.blogspot.com/2013/02/government-funding-vs-standards.html">why scientists study certain seemingly inconsequential things</a>. (Search "fruit fly".) I don't wish to pick on Hinkle, whose work I find thought-provoking, but consider what his article is looking at (foolish government spending)&nbsp; <i>vis-a-vis</i> the greater problem (unsustainable government spending). What offends Hinkle and most others who look at things like the items on his lists, some of which are not necessarily wastes of money? <b>Our money is being taken forcibly from us and being spent on things we'd never buy</b>. <br /><br />Or is it?<br /><br />Most people buy into two ideas -- two philosophical premises -- that make everything Hinkle decries possible: (1) It is proper for the government to fund itself by <a href="http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/taxation.html">taxation</a>; and (2) "<a href="http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/altruism.html">I am my brother's keeper</a>." The first forces open your wallet. The second, thanks to the common, but mistaken belief that we are a "<a href="http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/democracy.html">democracy</a>" (vice a constitutional republic that is <a href="http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/government.html#order_3">supposed</a> to protect <a href="http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/individual_rights.html">individual rights</a>), puts what your confiscated money is spent on at the discretion of officials chosen by a majority who regards the government's job as watching over them. This is why entitlement spending, a subject Hinkle may be afraid or morally unable to address fully, <a href="http://gusvanhorn.blogspot.com/2014/10/to-whom-are-third-rails-really-dangerous.html">makes everything he discusses look like chump change</a>. On some matters, like science, we have laudable attempts to delegate this spending authority to experts, but mis-spending will occur due to error or politicization. It is a mistake to hold these things up as folly when the general, unchecked will of the people is so calamitous. If we accept the idea that our money is there for the state's taking, and that others are entitled to it, we really have no room to complain about how that money is spent, do we?<br /><br />It's time to stop bickering over how other people spend our money and begin finding ways to stop having it forcibly taken from us. This means either really asking <i>why</i> we are supposed to be our brothers' keepers or, for anyone who already has, helping others begin to do the same. There is no satisfactory answer to that question, but focusing on minor outrages will keep many of us from ever realizing it.<br /><br />-- CAV<br /><br />PS: Yes. The government has legitimate functions and those have to be funded. We should also consider other ways of funding them. Link to Original

<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="1"></a><b>1</b>. Ugh! The past few days have featured the Van Horn family taking turns enduring a stomach virus. I'll spare the reader further details, except for the cute part: <b>I am, apparently, the "go-to" parent for Little Man</b><b></b>. Pumpkin, on the other hand, said, "I want my Momma," when she fell ill.<br /><br />Side note: I discovered in conversation yesterday that Pumpkin's vocabulary includes the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portmanteau">portmanteau</a>, "<a href="http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/ginormous">ginormous</a>". (Until just now, I had no idea that that word had originated as 1940's military slang: I heard it for the first time in the movie, <i>Elf</i>.)<br /><br /><a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="2"></a><b>2</b>. Word to the wise: As much as I like our <a href="http://www.dropcam.com/">Dropcam</a>, <a href="http://gusvanhorn.blogspot.com/2014/03/always-have-at-least-plan-b.html">it can't work if it can't call home</a>. Luckily, we have a radio monitor as a back-up, which somewhat offset the frustration of learning that "Dropcam [was] down for maintenance," when we were up at 4:00 a.m. tending to one sick kid and needing to monitor the other. <b>Dropcam is fine -- but you should have a back-up system</b>.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="3"></a><b>3</b>. Halloween -- and the frequency with which daycare failure has been keeping me from using my home office lately -- evoke <b>thoughts of cobwebs</b>. Hopefully, things won't <a href="http://www.wired.com/2014/10/4-acre-spider-web-engulfs-building/">get quite to this level</a> before I get back in there!<br /><br /><a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="4"></a><b>4</b>. Evaluating possible future positions in my wife's medical career has been made much easier with <a href="http://money.cnn.com/calculator/pf/cost-of-living/">this cost-of-living calculator</a>. For example, despite an impressive-sounding salary, a position in San Francisco would have left us&nbsp;<i>worse off</i> than we are now. I suspected that might be the case, since, <b>when we were in Boston, I met several people who had&nbsp;moved there from San Francisco<i> to save money</i></b>. Boston ain't cheap, and San Francisco is a no-go. <br /><br />-- CAV Link to Original

In case anyone mistook yesterday's rebellion against Barack Obama for a real detour from the road of improper government, the state of Alaska provides us with a counter-example. In the words of an NPR headline, voters there gave massive government intrusion into their lives a big "thumbs-up" by passing a minimum wage hike and legalizing marijuana -- if by "legalizing", you mean something like "making the government into the gang in charge of the marijuana turf": "Now that the campaign is over, it's time to establish a robust regulatory system that sets an example for other states," [Taylor] Bickford [spokesman for the pro-legalization Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol in Alaska] said in a prepared statement. "A regulated marijuana market will generate millions of dollars in tax revenue and create good jobs for Alaskans. Law enforcement will be able to spend their time addressing serious crimes instead of enforcing failed marijuana prohibition laws." Regulate marijuana like alcohol, eh? Americans clearly have lots to re-learn if that's what freedom looks like to them. Regarding Bickford's intoning that, "t's time to establish a robust regulatory system that sets an example for other states." The only example this is going to set is a negative one: Alaska should have simply repealed (or, perhaps sunsetted) its ban on marijuana, rather than replacing one bad law with another. This principle applies to more issues than this one, and on matters much more consequential than the narrow issue of whether people are truly free to obtain or use marijuana. Mitch McConnell, are you listening? -- CAV Link to Original

The following quote, taken from election commentary in the Wall Street Journal, sums up the good news and the bad news regarding yesterday's election results, culturally speaking: The 2014 midterm campaigns were defined by voters' long-simmering frustration with the ability of elected officials in Washington to move the country forward. The economy was the top voter concern, with an overwhelming majority describing economic conditions as poor or "not so good.'' Health care was second on the list. By better than a two-to-one margin, more voters polled said the next generation would have a worse life than today's. Two-thirds said the U.S. had gone off track--more widespread negativity than in either the 2010 or 2012 elections. On Tuesday, many voters said they cast ballots more in opposition to one candidate than support for the other. [bold added] The good news is that people still think their lives can and should be better, and think this can be achieved by better elected officials. The bad news -- and nothing will really change unless this does -- is that too many people see government as having an active role in bettering their lives, essentially by central planning. Until significant numbers of voters realize that central planning, by its very nature, constitutes the government doing the opposite of its proper job and thus getting in the way of prosperity, they will keep electing central planners, such as the President and Mitch "Repeal and Replace" McConnell. -- CAV P.S. I have already noted the political goodnews these election results might represent. Link to Original

Quick! What would you do, as a member of the multiculturalist left, if you wanted to misuse the government to solve a crisis that exists only in your imagination? Perhaps you'd get members of a few select cultures -- it would be offensive to call them "inferior" for wanting to use fuel or feed themselves -- to curtail their own inconvenient breeding: But there's been little or no funding for such programs, and the discussions tend to stall before getting into meaty policy. And despite the United Nations holding a special session on population and development a day before its September climate-change summit, academics lamented a lack of cross talk. Why? Talking about population control requires walking a tightrope: There's nuance between encouraging access to birth control and a China-style one-child policy, but that doesn't always translate in the retelling, and it can all too easily sound like a developed world leader telling people in the developing world that they should stop having children--especially because much of the population boom is coming from regions like sub-Saharan Africa. [link in original] There's no "nuance" when there's a government gun behind the plan. The only "nuance" here is in the now-commonplace misuse of the word "access". They're calling it "'access' to birth control", but what they really mean is, "access to your wallet for the purposes of funding a covert eugenics scheme". -- CAV P.S. I thought I posted this nearly twelve hours ago. Glitch or mental lapse, here it is at last! Link to Original

Amusing news comes from the part of the country where I grew up: But then that's the uphill battle she must fight, [Mary] Landrieu [D-LA] sighed, because in the South blacks and women have had it hard. She declined to explain how she has been elected three times as a senator by such a collection of unwashed knuckle draggers. Gov. Bobby Jindal, R-La., appropriately called her out. "Senator Landrieu's comments are remarkably divisive," Jindal tweeted. "She appears to be living in a different century." One constant in this story is the role of the Democrats, at least in the South, as reactionaries. When race really could keep certain candidates out of office for cultural and legal reasons, it was the southern Democrats who fought the hardest to preserve Jim Crow. Now, when the kind of policies championed by Saint FDR are fast-tracking us to ruin, it is the Democrats who most aggressively want to expand them at all costs. It is most fitting that a man who almost certainly couldn't have been elected only a generation ago is calling Senator Landrieu out. Republicans are laughing heartily at this, but they should stop laughing for a moment and reflect. Too often, I hear from conservatives that some evil of our metastatic government, like the income tax, or regulation of everything, or public education is "too big" to get rid of. Sometimes, this is merely self-serving nonsense by insincere advocates of "small government" who merely want to use the state for their own (often theocratic) ends. But often, this is lamentation on the part of those who really are interested in proper government, focused entirely on protection of individual rights. I wonder how many of these same people would have looked at, say, slavery in the 1850's, or Jim Crow in the 1950's and said the same thing. This is an understandable, but mistaken view. Laughing due to a success is fine, but understanding it and striving to build on it is far better. This particular election will, at best, serve as a stay of execution unless advocates of limited government start workingtoday on achieving limited government. Not just talking about it as if it were a pipe dream, and not just trying to stymie or slow the growth of improper government. Advocates of limited government should vote for the GOP tomorrow, but hold their feet to the fire from then on. -- CAV Link to Original

Truth vs. Epithets Via Michael Hurd comes the following quote from an ex-Moslem regarding terrorism: We have not seen a single Jew blow himself up in a German restaurant. We have not seen a single Jew destroy a church. We have not seen a single Jew protest by killing people. I believe our people [islamic believers] are hostages to our own beliefs and teachings. The Jews have come from the tragedy and forced the world to respect them, with their knowledge, not with their terror; with their work, not with their crying and yelling. For an interesting rhetorical and epistemological contrast, compare this with the words and underlying thought processes of the Reverend Osagyefo Uhuru Sekou, who keynoted an event for the Students for Justice [sic] in Palestine: "Part of the understanding, a framework for understanding the ways in which Palestinians and African Americans exist in the same way is to be invited into a kind of [inaudible] community of niggers," Sekou said. "In this context, Palestinians are very much niggers." "In Palestine," he went on to say, "I responded physically in my body to the [israel Defense Forces] the same way I would respond to the [New York City Police Department], that my body responded that way because I fundamentally understood the level of repression that Palestinians were living under was very similar" to minority communities in the United States. [bowdlerization in original removed] One speaker relies on evidence and uses words to appeal to reason; the other merely indulges in emotion and whim, and uses words only to intimidate others by stirring up some element of fear -- of being alone in opposing a crowd, be it in the form of not belonging or of being labeled a "racist". Weekend Reading "Though many fears are justified and help keep us alive, irrational and unfounded fears are a drain on our psychological well-being and a waste of our valuable time." -- Michael Hurd, in "Avoidance NOT the Way to Curb Irrational Fear!" at The Delaware Wave "We are heading towards financial and political ruin because we have accepted ideas - philosophic and moral ideas - that undercut free enterprise and the productive people who sustain it." -- David Sokol, in "Free Enterprise Will Crumble if We Fail to Make the Moral Case for Capitalism" at City A.M. "The lesson I draw from the events in Dallas is that in the fluid situation that characterizes this outbreak, it is necessary to continually integrate new information from the frontlines into response plans, public messaging and clinical care." -- Amesh Adalja, in "Ebola Lessons We Need To Learn From Dallas", at Time My Two Cents For as much publicity as Ayn Rand has gotten over the past few years, she has an undeserved reputation as merely a political thinker. Sokol's piece does a good job of showing that political ideas arise from deeper premises, and that anyone who values Rand's political opinions should think more deeply than politics. Modeling the Pot Luck From "Game Theory: The Potluck Dilemma": For the purposes of this model, a complete game will be considered a single gathering with enough food ("S 1") to satiate all attendees ("D 1"). Goldring et al. introduced the premise of too much food--a supply-side problem--in their King's Chef Scenario. However, this problem does not apply to the Potluck Dilemma because we all know that mooch Keith will steal the leftovers ("e") and try to get the dog hilariously drunk. Therefore, when S 1=D 1+e, a single game will be complete. Heh! This brings back memories of grad school and the pot luck dinners I used to attend back then. -- CAV Link to Original

1. Like other toddlers his age, Little Man hates getting his nose wiped -- or at least he did until a couple of days ago. He's had a cold, and would scream whenever I tried to wipe his nose. He had even started running away from me if I had a wipe in one hand. But one day, after I noticed buildup, I showed him what I got rid of when I was done. He has since not just been calm about nose wiping, he surprised me one morning by requesting one. "Why are you poking your wet finger in my face, Little Man? " He replied by poking his finger (back) into his snotty nose -- or was he pointing? At any rate, he seemed quite happy with me wiping him off afterwards. 2. I didn't go to Mississippi State, but both of my brothers did. Consequently, I am enjoying with them an amazing football season that has seen the Bulldogs make the quickest ascent from unranked to top of the polls. Here's a passage from a good article about the man behind the turnaround: Dan Mullen called the meeting of everyone even remotely related to the Mississippi State program. Not just players and staff. Then he called them out. "Secretaries, faculty reps, everybody," the toast of this town said Saturday night. "I wanted them to know it had to change." Change the attitude, the resignation, the acceptance of the mediocre. That was six years ago, before anyone even dreamed of record crowds, beating three top-10 teams in a row and a possible No. 1 ranking. Six years ago Mississippi State's first-year coach stared down the room telling them, "You got five coaches fired." The season is far from over, but, as a sign I saw in coverage of the game against Kentucky put it, "Why not?" 3. On the way to the pumpkin patch yesterday, my daughter made the following commentary on my driving/evocative description of the remainder of the trip: "We'll keep passing cars until we get there." 4. Mediumrepublishes a fascinating 1984 article from Harper's on the then-new innovation of electronic spreadsheets: It is not far-fetched to imagine that the introduction of the electronic spreadsheet will have an effect like that brought about by the development during the Renaissance of double-entry bookkeeping. Like the new spreadsheet, the double-entry ledger, with its separation of debits and credits, gave merchants a more accurate picture of their businesses and let them see -- there, on the page -- how they might grow by pruning here, investing there. The electronic spreadsheet is to double entry what an oil painting is to a sketch. And just as double-entry changed not only individual businesses but business, so has the electronic spreadsheet. Among the reasons for the breathless optimism were efficiencies, such as twenty-hour jobs requiring several people becoming possible to one man in a quarter hour. -- CAV Updates Today: Added missing bold and hyperlink to Item 4. Link to Original

Walter Williams succinctly demolishes a host of myths about the causes of African poverty, most notably the idea that it is a legacy of colonialism: Poverty is not a cause but a result of Africa's problems. What African countries need the West cannot provide. They need personal liberty. That means a political system in which there are guarantees of private property rights, free markets, honest government and the rule of law. Africa's poverty is, for the most part, self-inflicted. Some people might disagree because their college professors taught them that the legacy of colonialism explains Third World poverty. That's nonsense. Canada was a colony. So were Australia, New Zealand and Hong Kong. In fact, the richest country in the world, the United States, was once a colony. By contrast, Third World countries such as Ethiopia, Liberia, Nepal and Bhutan were never colonies, yet they are home to some of the world's poorest people. Williams, not content merely with a tearing-down by counterexample, cites several lines of strong evidence in favor of his view that the continent needs freedom. Furthermore, our usual response of sending foreign aid is actually making it more difficult for Africans to win freedom for themselves by empowering despots. -- CAV Link to Original

Dick Morris writes an interesting column about <a href="http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1014/morris102914.php3">how Republicans could best use a Senate majority</a>, should they win one in the upcoming elections. One area of&nbsp; focus is on how the GOP could pass a budget that, while slowing down or stopping parts of Obama's agenda, would be unlikely to draw a veto. Morris lists the following possibilities: <br /><ul><li>Use the Immigration and Customs Enforcement appropriation to overturn Obama's executive order, expected right after Election Day, to end deportations;</li><li>Use the Health and Human Services line to defund the Independent Payment Advisory Board, dubbed the "death panel" by Sarah Palin;</li><li>Repeal the medical device tax;</li><li>Require release of IRS emails by appending a requirement to the budget for that wayward agency;</li><li>Stop the Federal Election Commission from regulating Internet blogs;</li><li>Block the Federal Communications Commission from its attempts at Internet regulation. [link dropped]</li></ul>Some of these, like a repeal of the innovation-destroying medical device tax, look like unequivocal wins. Others, like blocking the FEC from regulating blogs, look more like temporary solutions to problems that will come roaring back without further action in the future. (And I frankly don't see how defunding the "death panels" is anything other than a dubious, symbolic win: Any scheme of government payment for anything will ultimately call for limits to spending, so that threat will simply arise in another form unless ObamaCare is repealed.)<br /><br /><a href="http://gusvanhorn.blogspot.com/2014/05/kill-these-treaties.html">Morris</a> and others, like <a href="http://gusvanhorn.blogspot.com/2014/06/limit-him-to-his-term.html">Thomas Sowell</a>, have commented before on other ways a GOP Senate majority could thwart the President, such as by killing bad treaties or preventing particularly bad judicial appointments. As I elaborated then, I regard a GOP win as a holding action at best. That said, it could be a crucial one, and I support voting for such a majority.<br /><br />-- CAV Link to Original

Over at Unclutterer, Jacki Hollywood Brown gives good, general advice on uncluttering that I found inspirational when I first encountered it. Her advice is given as a series of bullets, such as this one: Although I value uncluttering advice, what was really interesting to me when I first encountered this post was the following question: Why do I find this inspirational? Briefly introspecting, I see that the answer is twofold: First, the general approach, of breaking down a huge task into smaller, easy steps towards a goal, is applicable to almost any major project. Second, I had been thinking about (and feeling a little overwhelmed about) a few major projects of my own. Brown's article is so successful because she understands both the general approach and many aspects of the kind of project. Her example shows that if one understands the approach, and yet still feels overwhelmed, then part of the project is finding out how to break it down, and make it manageable. It wasn't cleaning my house that was bothering me, but Brown helped me realize the source of my stress: I didn't truly understand how to break down the projects that were making me feel overwhelmed. -- CAV Link to Original

Writing at RealClear Politics, James Harrigan and Antony Davies observe that, as of October 26, the federal government has already exhausted this year's revenues towards this year's expenses. They call it "Deficit Day", and elaborate further: The last ratio, they note, is approaching the point at which it would become mathematically impossible, all things remaining the same, for the government to repay its debt. And then the authors drop the real hammer: They hadn't even included so-called "unfunded liabilities", such as Social Security, in that calculation. When those are included, the ratio becomes 3,000 per cent -- already well past that point. I guess they had to leave out the "unfunded liabilities" to even be able to have a "deficit day". I agree with the authors that this is cause for alarm, but disagree with their contention that "our financial problems begin with deficits". No: Those deficits had to come from somewhere, and that "somewhere" is spending on programs which enjoy significant political support. We aren't going to even start solving these problems until the sense in which these programs are known as "third rails" changes from "dangerous to attack" to "dangerous to continue", and that's going to take cultural change on a historic scale. -- CAV Link to Original

A Decade Ago... ... I started this blog. It is hard to believe I have been doing this on most days for ten years, particularly over the past three and change, with my very young children eating into my writing time and usually interrupting what has been left of it. About halfway through this post, for example, I had to start holding Little Man, badly congested from a cold, on my chest so he could sleep. Almost fittingly, this anniversary sees me at home, alone with the kids, while my wife is away at a medical conference. It is possible she will make connections with her first post-training employer there, ultimately leading to a permanent position for her and making our next move, if there is one, permanent. I have found blogging to be a good, although not wholly satisfying, outlet for my desire to write about politics, culture, thinking, and a little about everything else. I am somewhat optimistic that I shall soon be better able to write more demanding pieces again. I'll keep the rest of the introspection that such an anniversary prompts to myself: It's for my sole benefit and is incomplete anyway. I'll make the following exception, though: I'd like to thank the readers, supporters, and friends who have come my way due to this activity: Your companionship has been a rich reward and, for someone inclined towards introversion (to put it mildly), a very pleasant surprise. Last, but not least, I'd like to thank my wife for putting up with her "bitchy blogger" for so long, and with such good humor. Weekend Reading "[A]ll good advice should have an 'if/then' component." -- Michael Hurd, in "The Advantages and Perils of Advice-Taking" at The Delaware Wave "f one uses [alcohol] to stop thinking, or to distort reality in order to act in counterproductive ways, then I consider that abuse, even if it involves only a single drink." -- Michael Hurd, in "Alcohol Use and Abuse" at The Delaware Coast Press "Keynesianism is a theory about what kind of orders the state should issue to its serfs." -- Harry Binswanger, in "Keynesianism Is Government Force Blocking Reality" at RealClear Markets "Overall, I think Dan Diamond strikes the right balance in his piece, 'It's OK To Worry About Ebola In NYC. But You Shouldn't Panic.'" -- Paul Hsieh, in "Why You Should Be Concerned but Not Fearful About Ebola in NYC" at Forbes My Two Cents It is amazing how succesfully moral intrincism stunts thinking about alcohol. I suspect that few, if any, of the critics Michael Hurd brought up in his column about the subject would have thought of the case (quoted above) of a single drink constituting abuse. From Here to Agloe and Back If you liked the story of how a raccoon "became" an aardvark through a prank at Wikipedia, you'll appreciate this similar one by NPR: "An Imaginary Town Becomes Real, Then Not. True Story " --CAV Link to Original

1. I sometimes post beer recommendations here, but it is always only after rigorous testing and careful study. But, if by "rigorous study", you mean "more than one tasting", I will have made an exception today by mentioning Black Albert, brewed by De Struise of Belgium. Depending on whom you believe at Beer Advocate, this one is either"world class" or merely "outstanding". I lean towards the former description, for this is a truly memorable beer. Click to enlarge. The label notes (above) say it all. 2. At $1799.00 it's ... out of my price range, but if I had money to burn, I couldn't think of a better kitchen gadget than one that would allow me to brew whatever I want in only four hours. An excerpt from a USA Today review of the "PicoBrew" reads in part: Hit "brew" and walk away. The Internet-connected PicoBrew adds the ingredients based on the chosen recipe... And lest the folks at Unclutterer cluck, this is no mere "unitasker". Apparently, it is "also great for Sous-Vide [sic] cooking". 3. He's making the country more like Soviet Russia every day, so I can't think of a people better-suited to poke fun at Barack Obama than the Russians. And boy, do they nail him! 4. I don't condone vandalism, but the story about how a raccoon became an aardvark nevertheless makes interesting reading: This kind of feedback loop--wherein an error that appears on Wikipedia then trickles to sources that Wikipedia considers authoritative, which are in turn used as evidence for the original falsehood--is a documented phenomenon. There's even a Wikipedia article describing it. Some of the most well-known examples involve Wikipedia entries for famous people, such as when users edited the article on the British actor Sacha Baron Cohen to say he had worked at Goldman Sachs. When a Wikipedia editor tried to remove the apocryphal detail, it took some convincing. Because it had since appeared in several articles on Cohen in the British press, the burden was on Wikipedians to disprove the myth. [link in original, minor format edits] Amusingly, the next paragraph of the article mentions that the Internet encyclopedia had, for a long time, erroneously reported the birth date of its own founder. I love Wikipedia, but I love being sure of the truth more. For important matters, it is wise to seek multiple sources for factual information. -- CAV Link to Original

The California legislature has just done advocates of limited government a favor by passing a law that is a poster-child of everything wrong with unlimited government power: It will ban plastic shopping bags statewide beginning in 2015. Stephen DeMaura notes at Forbes that the law enriches some at the expense of others, actually achieves the opposite of its stated purpose of solid waste reduction (not, let me add, that this is a proper role of government), and actually presents a public health threat in the form of an arbitrary incentive to use a certain type of shopping bag: [R]eusable bags ... pose a growing public health risk, as demonstrated by a particularly disturbing vignette from Oregon, where a girls soccer team was stricken by the Norovirus traced to a reusable tote. In the seven years since San Francisco became the first American municipality to ban plastic bags in 2007, researchers have tracked a 5-percent increase in death from food-borne illness. That increase isn't simply coincidental, but causal: According to a 2011 white paper by the International Association for Food Protection, a majority of reusable bags contain coliform bacteria. These are genuine facts that California's lawmakers and governor willfully ignored. But they won't be ignored by voters--either their pockets will be hurting from a new regressive tax or their bellies from the forced transition to bacteria-riddled totes--when considering a referendum in 2016. [links dropped, bold added] Also noteworthy are the jobs that this move will cost Californians. People involved in the manufacture of the economical plastic bags will lose their jobs, as well as those in the enterprise (ironically created in the first place by government regulations) of recycling them. At every step of this process, note the displacement of rational thought by government force. Starting with a complete disregard for what government is actually supposed to be doing -- opening the floodgates for it to meddle with everything -- we have the government proceeding to: Declare itself puppetmaster of the people whose rights it is supposed to be protecting. (This is the whole premise behind prescriptive law.) Declare itself instead as guardian of "the environment". (This is a concession to any lingering power the people might have: They must be shamed into supporting such measures. All other communication with those whom it regards as subjects will be in the form of orders.) Dictate to everyone that "the environment" must be protected, and how to do so. Unilaterally declare something unfit for the purpose it has decided. Force anyone who uses paper bags to pay bribe money to shut up any potential opponents. Present anyone who doesn't want to pay the bribe to choose between the following: (a) waste irreplaceable time by washing reusable bags, or ( risk sickening themselves and others by not washing such bags. Consider this law a microcosm of how our unbounded government operates today. It might also be worth contemplating how such an entity -- that can't and won't even get the matter of which bag to use for shopping right -- is supposed to micromanage much more important things, like your personal health and the entire economy. As I said, this law is a favor, but there is a catch: It is not enough to call this law "impractical", because that merely leaves unanswered the question, "For what?" It obviously succeeds at quite a few things, and it is these things which hold the key to questioning its moral basis. Until we do that, the gang in power will continue to hide behind the fuzzy notion of "the common good", and we will merely squabble over implementation of bad laws. -- CAV Link to Original

Thomas Sowell comments on the dishonest reporting behind a particular type of "news" story, in the process making a valuable connection and helping me make another: Crusaders against such loans often make the interest rate charged seem even higher by quoting these interest rates in annual terms, even when the loan is actually repayable in a matter of weeks. It is like saying that a $100 a night hotel room costs $36,500 a year, when virtually nobody rents a hotel room for a year. Sowell further elaborates as to why so-called "payday loans" have such high rates, before noting that the very people calling the practice "predatory" are themselves preying on ignorance in the process of furthering a political agenda. That's perspicacious, but has Sowell also unearthed a general rhetorical strategy of the left? I think so. Consider any number of leftist crusades, as I did in yesterday's post: Racial equality has practically come to mean government handouts and quotas; reproductive rights somehow became the "right" to purchase abortions with other people's money; and now, same-sex unions have been perverted into micromanagement of marriage chapels (among other things). At the risk of stating the obvious, we thus have: race-based law in the name of ending racism, forced payment of an elective medical procedure by a third party in the name of "choice", and bossing chaplains around in the name of not bossing around homosexuals who wish to marry. The rhetorical tactic is a sort of quickie form of what Ayn Rand identified as the "Argument from Intimidation", and if spelled out, it might go something like this: "Only a bigot (e.g., a racist, misogynist, or homophobe) could possibly oppose what I advocate, since I am denouncing bigotry." Early in his article, Sowell notes all the repercussions leftists like to ignore about the policies they advocate. Perhaps it's time to call their bluff, and openly question their professed concerns. -- CAV Link to Original