Looks like the Fall happened without any new posts here.
On the way to the airport from my recent Christmas visit to CA, my parents suggested I let people who may read this know that it's done. I thought such a gesture a sensible and conscientious thing to do for the close friends and family who may be waiting next to their Google alerts for my muddled thoughts to be posted.
So, until further notice, my thoughts will not be posted here. May this blog be kept at rest until it is useful again.
However, I am still active on The Internet via Twitter (@Tay_Bark) and guest blogging for The Institute for Faith, Work and Economics' blog (blog.tifwe.org).
For those few who've faithfully supported my efforts to communicate through this medium, I thank you for your readership! It's always meant a lot to get feedback from someone who says they've read my blog. I look forward to interacting with you all through Twitter, the IFWE blog and wherever else our paths may cross!
Thanks all!
Monday, December 31, 2012
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Friday, May 18, 2012
The Ex-Patriot Act
This is ridiculous.
Eduardo Saverin renounces his US citizenship because of high capital gains tax and Sens. Schumer and Casey come up with legislation that would stick it to him anyway.
The articles say the legislation probably won't get out of committees, but it's a little crazy that things like are thought up in our Congress.
The thinking behind this Ex-Patriot Act seems to be that America made you rich, now you owe your country. Why? Do hyper-successful/wealthy people owe anything to the government? Sure, one can extrapolate all sorts of things: public schools, police, roads, whatever, that may have formed a foundation for success. But what's the true value of all that? Why does a rich person owe more than a "normal" person?
Rather than government institutions being a catalyst for human success, I think that informal institutions like culture, morality, community and personal attributes are far more influential than anything the government would contribute. All that mixed with a little right-place-at-the-right-time.
Eduardo Saverin renounces his US citizenship because of high capital gains tax and Sens. Schumer and Casey come up with legislation that would stick it to him anyway.
The articles say the legislation probably won't get out of committees, but it's a little crazy that things like are thought up in our Congress.
The thinking behind this Ex-Patriot Act seems to be that America made you rich, now you owe your country. Why? Do hyper-successful/wealthy people owe anything to the government? Sure, one can extrapolate all sorts of things: public schools, police, roads, whatever, that may have formed a foundation for success. But what's the true value of all that? Why does a rich person owe more than a "normal" person?
Rather than government institutions being a catalyst for human success, I think that informal institutions like culture, morality, community and personal attributes are far more influential than anything the government would contribute. All that mixed with a little right-place-at-the-right-time.
Thursday, May 3, 2012
Commenting on Regulations
Ever wanted a direct voice in federal regulation formation? I'm sure you've had that thought many a time sitting at home with nothing to do. Well, know that you can!
Check out Regulations.gov to review upcoming regulations and submit what they call "public comments." It is required by law that they read all comments in the allotted time frame before regulation becomes law. If a salient enough point is brought up, amendments have to be made.
Now, while this public comment feature is a good thing, having all these regulations coming through the pipe in an ever increasing number may not be a good thing. Kind of like awesome cinnamon rolls in prison or something: it brightens your experience, but the experience overall still stinks.
Check out Regulations.gov to review upcoming regulations and submit what they call "public comments." It is required by law that they read all comments in the allotted time frame before regulation becomes law. If a salient enough point is brought up, amendments have to be made.
Now, while this public comment feature is a good thing, having all these regulations coming through the pipe in an ever increasing number may not be a good thing. Kind of like awesome cinnamon rolls in prison or something: it brightens your experience, but the experience overall still stinks.
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
The State of Those Republicans
In reading this Reason article on why conservatives should hope for a Romney loss this November, I found one of the last paragraphs particularly poignant and agreeable:
"The GOP is in a state of intellectual flux, illustrated perfectly by the ideological heterodoxy of its presidential field. Various strains representing different interests are fighting for the soul of the GOP: The neocons are duking it out with anti-war Paulistas. Social moderates are trying to wrest some space from pro-life religious conservatives. Deficits and debt worry everyone, but there is no consensus on entitlement reform. The GOP allegedly stands for the free market—but it has yet to figure out whether Bush’s financial bailout was right or wrong."
"The GOP is in a state of intellectual flux, illustrated perfectly by the ideological heterodoxy of its presidential field. Various strains representing different interests are fighting for the soul of the GOP: The neocons are duking it out with anti-war Paulistas. Social moderates are trying to wrest some space from pro-life religious conservatives. Deficits and debt worry everyone, but there is no consensus on entitlement reform. The GOP allegedly stands for the free market—but it has yet to figure out whether Bush’s financial bailout was right or wrong."
Monday, April 23, 2012
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Random Thoughts
Open Face Surgery by Cryptopsy is my latest favorite Over the Top Ridiculous Best Metal Song/Band Name Combo.
Buffett/Obama want rich people to pay more in taxes. Limited gov types say, "So send the government a check!" Progressives retort that's ridiculous because then the rich won't pay. Perhaps not all that ridiculous as the folks at the Buffett level of income probably all know each other and could peer pressure each other into voluntarily giving the feds 50% of their income (or whatever). I'd imagine when you're at that status you are not separated from anyone famous/exorbitantly wealthy by more than 2 degrees. It would be a spontaneously constructed sort of coercion, rather than state coercion, employing existent cultural norms/good behavior rather than threat of force from the state.
I watched a bit of the movie Death Race last night. Don't sue just yet: it was on TV, there were explosions, I was tired. The producers came up with the name "Criminal Island" for where the prisoners are imprisoned for the death races. Of course, Jason Statham's character was partnered with the one beautiful woman in the "Terminal" cases prison who shampoos her hair everyday. Additionally, while everyone else's partners are getting killed by stray gunfire, she's unhurt. I'd like to see a movie where the heroin that the hero is partnered with has a terrible personality, hygiene, and quite masculine looks due to the time they spend mastering the things the typical heroine is good at in movies (marital arts, tech stuff, decision making, etc). The two would then form a bond of friendship and mutual respect or at least a working relationship until they part ways.
Buffett/Obama want rich people to pay more in taxes. Limited gov types say, "So send the government a check!" Progressives retort that's ridiculous because then the rich won't pay. Perhaps not all that ridiculous as the folks at the Buffett level of income probably all know each other and could peer pressure each other into voluntarily giving the feds 50% of their income (or whatever). I'd imagine when you're at that status you are not separated from anyone famous/exorbitantly wealthy by more than 2 degrees. It would be a spontaneously constructed sort of coercion, rather than state coercion, employing existent cultural norms/good behavior rather than threat of force from the state.
I watched a bit of the movie Death Race last night. Don't sue just yet: it was on TV, there were explosions, I was tired. The producers came up with the name "Criminal Island" for where the prisoners are imprisoned for the death races. Of course, Jason Statham's character was partnered with the one beautiful woman in the "Terminal" cases prison who shampoos her hair everyday. Additionally, while everyone else's partners are getting killed by stray gunfire, she's unhurt. I'd like to see a movie where the heroin that the hero is partnered with has a terrible personality, hygiene, and quite masculine looks due to the time they spend mastering the things the typical heroine is good at in movies (marital arts, tech stuff, decision making, etc). The two would then form a bond of friendship and mutual respect or at least a working relationship until they part ways.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
LRA Responds to Kony 2012
Hat tip to my friend Divine for bringing my attention to this open letter from the LRA to...everyone?
They drop quotes from Jesus, Thomas Jefferson, US Secretary of States, generals. And it's really long.
They drop quotes from Jesus, Thomas Jefferson, US Secretary of States, generals. And it's really long.
Monday, April 9, 2012
The Titanic Centennial
I just read this great article in The New Yorker on our culture's fascination with the Titanic disaster. At first I took issue with the claim that the fascination is "unending." But by the end I can see what the author meant. It's a bit long yet contains one of the best endings to an article I've read in a while. Worth a read as it summarizes the key literature and films about the disaster over the last 100 years.
Growing up, I went through a phase where I read and watched all I could about the Titanic. I remember the National Geographic TV special my family had on tape that I watched dozens of times, even taking it to my friends' houses to show/watch with them. They usually weren't as into it as I was. Titanic and the story of the Bismarck (huge German battleship during WWII) were subjects of my pre-teen amateur studies. I liked sunken ships, I guess.
Growing up, I went through a phase where I read and watched all I could about the Titanic. I remember the National Geographic TV special my family had on tape that I watched dozens of times, even taking it to my friends' houses to show/watch with them. They usually weren't as into it as I was. Titanic and the story of the Bismarck (huge German battleship during WWII) were subjects of my pre-teen amateur studies. I liked sunken ships, I guess.
Monday, April 2, 2012
A Man Crushed
Our culture gives attention in spurts. Although that's not news to anyone. The Kony2012 campaign exemplified that characteristic.
I navigated over to Invisible Children recently to see what was up, since that whole subject has fallen out of the social media discourse for the most part. On their site was this post from Jason Russell's wife regarding his health and it seems he was emotionally destroyed by the attention he and his organization received. Apparently he will be in the hospital for weeks and will spend months recovering before he is deemed stable enough to return to work. This is a story that truly saddens me. Imagine pouring your life into a project to have a laser beam of global attention focused on you that goes from majority support to majority ridicule in a matter of a week.
Not only did the rise to fame, the critiques and then public collapse all get talked about as they were happening, most likely they will stick around for awhile for his children to read about, as things on the internet don't just go away. It has become a part of the Russell, IC history.
Invisible Children took advantage of a powerful force: social discourse through social media. And like any powerful force, it can do both good and harm. While I think most any situation can be redeemed, thus far, at least, it seems more harm than good has come from this case, especially in Russell's personal life.
UPDATE: Google search counts over time for Kony.
I navigated over to Invisible Children recently to see what was up, since that whole subject has fallen out of the social media discourse for the most part. On their site was this post from Jason Russell's wife regarding his health and it seems he was emotionally destroyed by the attention he and his organization received. Apparently he will be in the hospital for weeks and will spend months recovering before he is deemed stable enough to return to work. This is a story that truly saddens me. Imagine pouring your life into a project to have a laser beam of global attention focused on you that goes from majority support to majority ridicule in a matter of a week.
Not only did the rise to fame, the critiques and then public collapse all get talked about as they were happening, most likely they will stick around for awhile for his children to read about, as things on the internet don't just go away. It has become a part of the Russell, IC history.
Invisible Children took advantage of a powerful force: social discourse through social media. And like any powerful force, it can do both good and harm. While I think most any situation can be redeemed, thus far, at least, it seems more harm than good has come from this case, especially in Russell's personal life.
UPDATE: Google search counts over time for Kony.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
A Model of Rejoicing
Sometimes things are just worth getting stoked about. Especially as you walk across the South Pole.
Highlights at :45 and 2:10.
Highlights at :45 and 2:10.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
A Worthy Upheaval?
This editorial from the Detroit Free Press (of which I am not a frequent reader, it just appeared in Google, although I'm sure it's a fine paper) has a nice overview of the Affordable Care Act arguments going on in the Supreme Court right now.
My favorite bit however, was when they said a ruling against the ACA based on the individual mandate portion would go against past rulings and "invite constitutional challenges to everything from the Environmental Protection Agency to the federal laws guaranteeing occupational safety, food and drug purity, and minority voting rights."
Most of those things do deserve a second, third, fourth, etc. glance, I think. As for minority voting rights, I'm not exactly sure how that's connected, but that should be upheld as voting rights should not be predicated based on ethnicity, or whatever, except age. (Although there are some political theorists who would say voting is far too important of a thing to be left to the people. That's another issue).
Should the EPA have such broad power? Can the government "guarantee" occupational safety? Why is it the federal government's job to regulate food purity? What does "purity" even mean? A farmer down the road can't sell raw cow's milk, yet there is a Taco Bell in every city. Various parties would hesitate to call either raw milk or Taco Bell "pure."
Basically if the Court did have to review all that stuff, maybe it would be a good thing.
My favorite bit however, was when they said a ruling against the ACA based on the individual mandate portion would go against past rulings and "invite constitutional challenges to everything from the Environmental Protection Agency to the federal laws guaranteeing occupational safety, food and drug purity, and minority voting rights."
Most of those things do deserve a second, third, fourth, etc. glance, I think. As for minority voting rights, I'm not exactly sure how that's connected, but that should be upheld as voting rights should not be predicated based on ethnicity, or whatever, except age. (Although there are some political theorists who would say voting is far too important of a thing to be left to the people. That's another issue).
Should the EPA have such broad power? Can the government "guarantee" occupational safety? Why is it the federal government's job to regulate food purity? What does "purity" even mean? A farmer down the road can't sell raw cow's milk, yet there is a Taco Bell in every city. Various parties would hesitate to call either raw milk or Taco Bell "pure."
Basically if the Court did have to review all that stuff, maybe it would be a good thing.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Thoughts on Helium
No, I am not on helium. But this Acton blog post talks about how a government stockpile being released (har) into the market drove prices down so far that we've supposedly been squandering a precious resource.
I am slightly worried. We will see where this goes.
I am slightly worried. We will see where this goes.
Monday, March 12, 2012
Religo-enviro-capitalists
A friend forwarded this article to me about GreenFaith, a non-profit consulting company that works with religious groups of all faiths to help lessen their "environmental footprint." They market it by telling how it saves the churches, mosques, etc money and how it attracts young people who care most about these issues. I also believe it is fulfilling a moral mandate by encouraging believers to be good stewards of this earth. From the article, it appears they are effective. This is encouraging to me because they don't force folks to follow their principles (I'm assuming all this stuff is actually beneficial to people and the earth). It is a voluntary action, messaged in a way that gets people and organizations involved of their own accord.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
The Cool
Here's one from the Way Back Machine. Oh, how things have changed. This was the peak of advertising at one point. I wonder what they 80s people would have thought about our current car commercials? I guess we can ask the 80s people, but they went the 90s and 2000s, so they've been corrupted. The jingle also confirms my belief that some Christian worship songs are still stuck in the 80s.
Fair Wages
May I posit that "fair pay" is undefinable? This is based on the fact that we cannot know what certain people are "worthy" of being paid. Any effort on the part of the government or unions to make sure employees "get their fair share" will result in unintended, ill side effects.
From the goodness in our hearts, we can look at those being paid the minimum wage or below and say, They should be paid X amount. X is typically propounded as a reasonable pay rate: not too little (of course) but also not too high. What I find interesting in that reasoning is that there is a perception of economic reality, but not actual follow through on economic reality. For example, we may believe the worker in such and such factory getting paid $10.50 an hour is being paid far too little. We wax eloquent on the greed of the factory owners and give speeches on the rights of the worker. Our solution is to push for a fair wage of $20.00 an hour so he can feed his four children. We have come to this solution by investigating the financials of the factory and think the factory's profit margin is too high and therefore the leadership can afford to pay their workers $20.00/hr.
For the same factory, I think a human being is worth $1000.00/hr. Think of all the good that would come of that pay rate! His entire family never has to work again, he can found charities, travel, and overall benefit himself and his neighbors. I say, forget the financials of the company and whether they can pay that rate for very long! We are talking about a human being here! He is worth $1000.00/hr based on his humanness.
Of course, the second scenario is completely unfeasible as it would put the factory and therefore our worker out of business but we assume the first is feasible (it's often not) because of the magic $20.00/hr rate we came up with. The defunct auto industry in Michigan illustrates what happens when third parties (unions) try to dictate a "fair wage." The Post Office is another example of lofty goals meeting with economic reality.
Both scenarios make their judgements not on the value the worker creates (his output, quality of output, attitude on the job, skill set, experience, etc.) but on the "merit" we assign to him from our perspective, which is a very slippery foundation. It is in the company's interest to pay him more as his experience increases so they don't lose him to another factory that does perceive his value and is willing to pay him commensurately.
Only the individual can decide what wage their skills are worth. Any attempt by third parties to dictate that wage is a mistake and leads to worse things than they were initially fighting against.
From the goodness in our hearts, we can look at those being paid the minimum wage or below and say, They should be paid X amount. X is typically propounded as a reasonable pay rate: not too little (of course) but also not too high. What I find interesting in that reasoning is that there is a perception of economic reality, but not actual follow through on economic reality. For example, we may believe the worker in such and such factory getting paid $10.50 an hour is being paid far too little. We wax eloquent on the greed of the factory owners and give speeches on the rights of the worker. Our solution is to push for a fair wage of $20.00 an hour so he can feed his four children. We have come to this solution by investigating the financials of the factory and think the factory's profit margin is too high and therefore the leadership can afford to pay their workers $20.00/hr.
For the same factory, I think a human being is worth $1000.00/hr. Think of all the good that would come of that pay rate! His entire family never has to work again, he can found charities, travel, and overall benefit himself and his neighbors. I say, forget the financials of the company and whether they can pay that rate for very long! We are talking about a human being here! He is worth $1000.00/hr based on his humanness.
Of course, the second scenario is completely unfeasible as it would put the factory and therefore our worker out of business but we assume the first is feasible (it's often not) because of the magic $20.00/hr rate we came up with. The defunct auto industry in Michigan illustrates what happens when third parties (unions) try to dictate a "fair wage." The Post Office is another example of lofty goals meeting with economic reality.
Both scenarios make their judgements not on the value the worker creates (his output, quality of output, attitude on the job, skill set, experience, etc.) but on the "merit" we assign to him from our perspective, which is a very slippery foundation. It is in the company's interest to pay him more as his experience increases so they don't lose him to another factory that does perceive his value and is willing to pay him commensurately.
Only the individual can decide what wage their skills are worth. Any attempt by third parties to dictate that wage is a mistake and leads to worse things than they were initially fighting against.
Monday, March 5, 2012
Trapped in an Elevator
You guys may of seen this video, but I had never until a few weeks ago. This guy was trapped in an elevator for 41 hours. It's all on this time lapse video. My assumption is that it is legit.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Institute for Faith, Work and Economics
If you sometimes enjoy my blog, you may enjoy the Institute for Faith, Work and Economics blog. They discuss the issues in their organization's name, trying to bridge the gap we've artificially created between the realm of work and the church.
It's a brand new organization as well, full of committed, intelligent people.
Check it out.
It's a brand new organization as well, full of committed, intelligent people.
Check it out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)