February 2009

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28

Man cannot aspire if he looked down; if he rise, he must look up.

-Samuel Smiles

July 31, 2008

Hold my calls...

You make the call… is this actual news, or is it a piece of satire?

By a voice vote, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee passed the Halting Airplane Noise to Give Us Peace--or HANG UP--Act, which was introduced earlier this year by Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.).

We only wish it were satire, friends. CNET’s blog notes that the FCC and FAA already coordinate a ban on in-flight cell phone use, but apparently the House doesn’t have anything more important to do than to move the prohibition from federal policy to federal law. Representative DeFazio justified the legislation by noting that without it, airlines might offer customers choices!!!!

"Polls show the public overwhelmingly doesn't want to be subjected to people talking on their cell phones on increasingly over-packed airplanes. However, with Internet access just around the corner on U.S. flights, it won't be long before the ban on voice communications on in-flight planes is lifted," DeFazio said in a statement. Cash-strapped airlines could end up charging some passengers to use their phones while charging others to sit in a phone-free section of the plane, he said.

And that’s un-American.

The cake is taken by a House member who the AP declines to name:

A third House member raised the specter of national security, saying she'd witnessed one man use his cell phone camera to take pictures of sensitive parts of the airplane.

So let’s look at this realistically. Will it still be legal for passengers to talk to one another? Will it still be legal for passengers to talk to themselves? Is it legitimate to make my speech illegal based solely on who I am talking to? I am trying to figure out any situation in which that makes sense.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

July 30, 2008

Presumption best precedes failure

Columnist Dana Milbank poked fun at Barak Obama today for behaving as though he had already won the presidential election. Third-hand, we are told that Obama said the following to House Democrats yesterday:

"This is the moment . . . that the world is waiting for... I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions.

What's interesting is that it doesn't matter whether or not he actually said this. Supporters will see nothing wrong with it, and for detractors it will only confirm their opinions of him. But for me, the statement makes an interesting contribution to a thought experiment about failed candidacies.

If Barak Obama wins the election, I think we all know that John McCain's presidential aspirations are over. He will finish out his fourth term in the Senate and he might even surprise us by seeking a fifth term in 2010, but nothing more.

But what will happen to Barak Obama if John McCain wins? Will he immediately run for re-election in the 2010 Senate race? And from there... what? A 2012 repeat of Obama and Clinton duking it out for the Democratic nomination? How will Democratic politicians treat him if he has to spend the next four years as the presumptive nominee? Democratic voters won't fall out of love with him if he loses - hell, they still absolutely love Al Gore and Bill Clinton, so we know they have long memories. But can he possibly keep the golden child mojo working without ruffling a lot of feathers? What would he become in American pop culture? Would a 2012 defeat (either for the nomination or the presidency) end him? Would a 2010 Senate defeat end him? Could even a defeat this fall unravel everything?

I know that whenever he does finally fall, it will be attributed to evil forces in the Republican corporate-political machine, bent on destroying hope and the best traditions to which Mr. Obama refers. And it will be so ugly. But at this point, I just can't wait for it to happen. Not because I wish any ill will on Mr. Obama, but for no reason other than because I don't like presumptiveness. As some anonymous wag said on Fark! this morning, "What he is doing seems to be as smart as copyrighting "19-0" a week before the super bowl."

Yes, that is an excellent analogy.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

July 25, 2008

Hair of the Dog

You may have heard that the President recently used an alcohol metaphor to describe the financial affairs of our nation. "[Wall Street] got drunk and now it's got a hangover. The question is, how long will it sober up and not try to do all these fancy financial instruments?"

First, I'd like to point out that the media hype about this is a bit overblown, as they have made it sound like he made these comments with some expectation of secrecy and confidentiality because Bush had asked people to turn off their cameras. But that's a load of crap. Clearly he knew cameras were being used -- there are repeated flashes, and the camcorder visible at 0:13 of the video doesn't appear to be hidden in any way. In fact if you listen, he says that he asked for the television cameras to be turned off. That's all. Besides, he's the President. He knows that when he speaks to any crowd anywhere, it's simply not confidential.

But second, I'd like to know what the President or Congress have suggested as a remedy, other than some hair of the dog that bit us.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

July 24, 2008

The debt we owe to black athletes

NPR’s Frank Deford asks: Does Obama owe a debt to blacks in sports?

The answer of course is yes. Obama owes a debt to every man or woman who fought to end racial discrimination and to be judged on their merits, and that certainly includes those who pioneered a desegregated world of sports. Ironically, Barak Obama’s current popularity cannot possibly be attributed to his merits alone. He is too inexperienced to have made it this far if he were not tall, dark, and handsome. Being a skilled orator does not mean that one is a substantive man, and the content of Obama’s character is still largely unknown. It is a disservice to equate him to Jesse Owens, Muhammad Ali, or Michael Jordan. But he definitely does owe them a debt, as these were the men who helped define the public recognition of excellence and leadership by American blacks. Though Obama has not shown himself worthy of carrying their torch, he certainly sees by its light.

I find it depressing to hear people say that Senator Obama is breaking down barriers. So far, all I have seen him do is be the first to step through a barrier that had been knocked down by hard working and sometimes unrecognized men and women over the last half century. But I will admit that the symbolism of his candidacy is important to America. Seeing a (partly) black man as the nominee for one of the two major political parties probably does more for the worldview of young people than did the first election of a black governor (L. Douglas Wilder) or member of Congress (Joseph Rainey) or first appointment of a black cabinet member (Robert C. Weaver) or Supreme Court Justice (Thurgood Marshall). It might do as much for them as it did for young white children to be able to look up to Jackie Robinson or Bill Russell, when earlier generations couldn’t have imagined doing so.

Deford makes an interesting point, in my opinion. But I would really like to live to see the day that a black man can run for president without his blackness being noteworthy. That is the debt we all owe to black pioneers in sports -- and every other aspect of life.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

We demand that you supply!

What timing. Just yesterday I linked to one of my favorite posts ever from this blog. In that old post, I had a go-round with a blogger named Mac about the evils of "Big Box Mart".

As we all know, "Big Box Mart" and other evil corporations are constantly alleged to put Mom and Pop out of business. And as I pointed out to Mac, that's a load of crap.

WalMart doesn't put competitors out of business - the customers do. Even Hollywood got that one right.

When my wife and I first saw You've Got Mail, she pointed out to me that Fox Books is clearly supposed to represent Barnes and Noble - right down to the font on the Fox Books storefront. The customers who complained about Meg Ryan's bookstore going out of business had a way to keep it open -- they could have shopped there. But they partook of the convenience and low prices that are available in the Tom Hanks' big chain store, and the small bookstore did what it was supposed to do. It followed the laws of economics. And customers were so, so sad. They never even realized the part they played -- that they had complete control over which store would thrive.

This aspect of the movie was funny because it is true. So it should be no surprise to see people in real life failing to understand the laws of economics. Via Captain Capitalism, a WSJ article on how upset people are about certain Starbucks locations closing. Letters are being written. Calls are being made. Petitions are being signed. But these things don't pay the bills. Starbucks will, of course, keep open any stores where cappuccinos are being ordered. Just like in the movie, consumers have control over which stores will thrive.

Cap asks; "Anybody want to point out the OBVIOUS freaking solution to this problem then?"

I'll point out an opportunity. Rather than think as a consumer, these folks should think as potential owners. If, as the WSJ says, "Starbucks outlets serve as key draws for other retailers, making the loss of one a blow to the surrounding area," then it shouldn't be impossible to lease the location of your favorite Starbucks and open your own coffeehouse. In fact, it should be pretty easy to convince some of the local retailers to cooperate in shared advertising, WiFi, and discounts or deliveries that would encourage sales to the employees of the nearby stores.

Sound crazy? It is. Too bad Meg Ryan's character didn't think of that. I think it would have made the movie a lot better.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Anarchy

I find anarchists to be fascinating, compelling, and completely impenetrable. Jokes aside, the lack of dogma and structure makes them a little hard to learn about. And let's be honest, some of them are full-on crazy and full of crap. So that also makes it difficult.

But I really need to post a link to Anarchopedia, both as a bookmark and as a conversation piece.

I'm mostly interested in anarcho-capitalists, but I do get exposure to some of them in my regular rounds of the blogosphere. If you fancy yourself any level of anarchist, I'd love to hear your thoughts on Anarchopedia and other web resources. I'd especially love to hear from anticapitalism anarchists, because I have no idea where you are coming from.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)

July 23, 2008

Mistrust Misplaced

There is a fundamental difference between our approach and that of capitalism's classical defenders and modern apologists. With very few exceptions, they are responsible - by defeault - for capitalism's destruction. The default consisted of their inability or unwillingness to fight the battle where it had to be fought: on moral-philosophical grounds.

This is from the introduction to Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. I have mentioned that very important work a few times on this blog. When I first read that book, I recognized immediately that Rand was putting any future failure of Capitalism squarely on the shoulders of Capitalists. Capitalism is not in danger of failing on its merits, but it is in danger of being scuttled by those who would crossbreed it with socialism for the sake of personal profit. Either system can be used to gain wealth, so it is natural that some people would attempt to use both at the same time. Natural, but immoral.

The current situation with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac has attracted a lot of attention, and little of it could be considered good for the image of Capitalism among the economically illiterate voters who struggle at America’s rudder. More regulation surely looms ahead. Could this actually be a good and necessary thing?

The Economist:

[Freddie Mac’s and Fannie Mae’s] importance lies in what their rescue says about the financial system. At Fannie and Freddie—and, shockingly, at the investment banks—the profits were privatised, but the risks were socialised. One Republican senator complained that he thought he had “woken up in France”. Mr Paulson was still right to intervene: the collapse of Fannie and Freddie would have been a catastrophe. But by not formally nationalising them, he has let down taxpayers and made the same deeply uncapitalist mistake the British government initially made with Northern Rock, a failed mortgage bank it tried to prop up.

Let me emphasize that the profits were privatised, but the risks were socialised. Silly British spelling aside, this is immoral and it ought to be illegal.

In the past, we have argued for privatising Fannie and Freddie completely. But now that the guarantee is explicit, Mr Paulson should seek to secure the gains for taxpayers and treat Fannie and Freddie like one of their own mortgages, by nationalising them, breaking them up and selling them on.

I don’t see why not. It’s got to be one or the other, but the current structure cannot be allowed to continue. Um, obviously.

One last comment from the Economist:

If you cannot let firms fail in a bust, then you must contain them in the boom. That helps explain why the investment banks now need more supervision; why financial firms should have to hold more capital as a boom gathers pace; and why monetary policy should lean against rising asset prices. Regulation is necessary, but beware the state being seduced into taking on duties it cannot possibly carry out well. As Fannie and Freddie show, regulators are easily captured and outwitted. The best controls are transparency and competition. When possible the government needs to stand back. Sadly, it failed to do so in the American mortgage market.

I don’t hear much of this type of commentary from American media and politicians, but this is exactly the case.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

July 17, 2008

Independence Day Blogging

Okay, I am nearly two weeks late in sharing this, but please bear with me.

I took the kids to their first ever baseball game on July 5. Not just their first ever professional game, but their first ever baseball game of any kind. And it included post-game fireworks.

This may not seem like a big deal to some people, and really by itself it isn't. But baseball is a part of the American tradition, and even as it becomes less important than other pasttimes, it still holds a special place for me. Maybe I make too much of it because I got to see a lot of AAA games when I was a kid. (My father was with the hospital that ran the First Aid station for the Buffalo Bisons, and he often took us to the games he worked.) Or maybe it's because I played league baseball longer than I played any other organized sport. Or maybe it's because I've also had a chance to see fireworks after a game in Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Baltimore and Philadelphia over the years. Probably it's all of these reasons.

So I've meant to do this for years. I'd love to make this an annual tradition for the family, but the future of the Richmond Braves is up in the air (the team may be moving to Gwinnett County, Ga). I don't know if we'll ever get to do this again, but I am willing to look into incorporating it into a trip to visit friends or family in another city. We'll see.

All I know is that the whole family had a great time... even if the kids had to cover their ears during the finale.

This here's what America's all about.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

July 16, 2008

The power of cartoons, part XLII

newyorker%20logo.jpg

I've a grand idea to increase circulation, what?

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

July 10, 2008

The American Way

Stephen Dubner of Freakonomics Blog notes that “there aren’t many goods and services in this country that you can’t significantly upgrade if you have the money.”

Of course. That's part of the American Way - the wealthy are able to afford better goods and services than are the poor. This is the type of thing that people lament when they are relatively poor, but then relish in when they have some money. In fact, it’s the whole point of dragging oneself out of poverty – to live a more comfortable life. The wealthy can have better cars, better clothes, better communities, and better schools.

Yes, better schools. Higher income areas generally have better school facilities, in an effort to provide a better educational experience to the children of the well-to-do.

Interestingly, Greg Mankiw recently discussed how this may not be acceptable to some people, including Massachusetts State Treasurer Tim Cahill:

One community should not be able to provide better opportunities for kids versus another community just because they have the money.

In my opinion, the quote is even more offensive as a part of the Boston Globe story Mankiw linked than it is standing alone. As Mankiw notes, the town is planning to pay for all of the “bells and whistles” that would make their school better than those in other communities. By saying that the town should not be able to do this, Cahill is supporting the mindset that it is wrong for one person to have something better than another. Keep in mind that this is not a matter of a wealthy town trying to take anything away from a poorer town, or to exploit them. It is a matter of a wealthy town saying that if the state is willing to help fund the construction of a mediocre school for the town, they should be willing to spend the same amount to help build an even better school.

Put it this way: If it costs the state the same amount of money to build a fantastical school as it does to build a mediocre school, then which should be built? It seems like a no-brainer, doesn't it?

However, Mankiw’s position is predicated on the notion that the wealthy town is entitled to state assistance in building their schools in the first place. While I would not make the socialistic argument that poor towns deserve that money more than rich towns, I will note that Cahill and others at the state level don’t really care about the poor rich kids when they are tasked with doling out funds. If the state had only one thousand dollars to spend on education, would it be best to divide it evenly among all of the school districts? What is the rationale behind public schools in the first place? If it is a proper function of government at all, then what level of government would best address that function? That is hardly a new question, but I think I would be hard pressed to come up with an argument that the state has a vested interest in funding education to the wealthy as much as to the poor. The whole notion of public education is that it is the safety net; the bare minimum.

Consider the following from the Boston Globe article:

If communities still want to pursue additional features on their own, Cahill said, they can build separate buildings and fund them through endowments, like universities or private schools do. Otherwise, he recommends cutting back programs, particularly in areas that don't have to do with core academics, or placing more emphasis on areas that get the most usage, like classrooms.

"No one is saying I want more square footage in my classrooms. No, they want more common space, a larger gym, balconies for their auditoriums, large administrative areas. They're not talking about a larger library," Cahill said. "It's paramount. We're building schools for education, not for phys ed, not for the arts, not for community events."

Now that sounds like the party line for conservatives and any libertarians who support public education. Assuming the state has a proper role to play in public education, that role must be to provide an acceptable level of educational opportunities for all students in the state. If the money would make a bigger difference in the inner city or out in podunk, then it is the responsibility of the state officials to see to it that the money goes there, and not to helping the wealthiest town put in extravagant extracurricular amenities.

I think Professor Mankiw and the residents of his town should consider the points made in Dubner’s blog post, especially this one:

Don’t like sending your kids to the public school? Pay for private school.

That's the American Way.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Home improvement amid economic hardships

On March 28 of this year I said the following:

This weekend the wife and I are going to try tiling the kitchen wall... that'll be a new experience. Wish us luck.

For several reasons, our estimated date for the project was off. By just over three months, actually. This past weekend, the wife and I finally got the tiles up on the wall.

AB%20tiling.JPG

I'm supposed to be grouting right now, but I'm putting it off in the hopes of getting G-Dawg to help out when he comes to visit us this weekend.

Now, this is just one of many home-improvement projects that are ongoing at Casa Wulf. And my house is far from the only one undergoing projects in the neighborhood. I have to slalom white vans full of blue collar workers as I drive the side streets. Why is this happening in the middle of an economic downturn? Personally, I imagine that it's because we still have our jobs and the houses need work. It doesn't matter whether my house was worth more last year, and it doesn't matter that gas is $4.00/gallon. We live here. It's a priority to fix the things that need to be fixed.

I'm sure that's overly simplistic. After all, the figures don't lie, and DIY retailers have not been immune to the economic woes and increased shipping costs. We all know that times are tough. But I'm telling you, the roof is still getting replaced down the street, and life is doing its best to go on.

By the way, if you are in the market for an easy-to-use portable tile saw, I will endorse the QEP 4" wet saw... provided you don't need it to hold up for a full project or beyond. The bearings on the motor started to give out when we were ~80% through, and they seized entirely with one-and-a-half tiles still to go. On the one hand, what a piece of crap. On the other hand, it's a 1/3 HP saw I purchased for less than $50.00 and will never need again. I purposely got the cheapest one I could find. So, I wasn't too upset about putting it in the trash... I didn't have room for it in my tool chest anyway.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

July 1, 2008

Crying won’t help you, Praying won’t do you no good

And so it happens again.

Gulfport [Illinois] was protected by a levee rated to withstand a 100-year flood. Although it wasn't designed to protect the town from a flood on the scale of last week's, it was enough protection that the Federal Emergency Management Agency did not require business or homeowners to purchase flood insurance.

Only 28 of the town's 200 residents had federal flood insurance. The rest trusted that the levees would hold. Residents Rick and Gina Gerstel, who lost everything, say no one from their bank to the municipal or federal governments ever told them they were at risk and ought to buy flood insurance.

Should the municipal or federal governments have to tell you whether or not you need insurance for this or that? Well, at first glance, no, you should be an adult and be responsible for your own well being. But of course if residents were actually misled about the dangers, that would be a different story. After all, who maintains the levees, thereby taking on responsibility for their structural soundness?

But the government didn’t say that residents were completely protected. Just to withstand a 100-year flood. And unless I miss my mark, that means that the danger of flooding was known ahead of time. I would have had insurance. (I know, easy for me to say from the high ground. Then again, I didn’t purchase a house in the flood plain to begin with.)

According to the article, Senator Chris Dodd “supports legislation that would require anyone living in an area protected by a levee to have flood insurance.”

The libertarian gut instinct is to tell Senator Dodd where he can stick his legislation requiring citizens to purchase insurance.

The savvy libertarian will note that the article says “have flood insurance”, not “purchase flood insurance.” That’s alarming, although the negative reaction to Dodd’s proposal seems to be predicated entirely on the notion that the insurance would be purchased by individuals. “Rates for the insurance would be set by a federal administrator.” Of course.

The pragmatic libertarian will suggest that since we already have the FEMA National Flood Insurance Program, and we don’t have any chance of doing away with it anywhere soon, we may as well tighten up the requirements for people to get federal dollars just for living in a flood plain. If you look closely, Senator Dodd’s plan would not actually require anybody to purchase flood insurance. But those who didn’t purchase insurance would be ineligible for the NFIP assistance. That doesn’t sound nearly as objectionable to the pragmatic libertarian.

The researched libertarian will look up some facts on the NFIP and figure out that when the President declares a disaster and property owners become eligible for NFIP funds, they get a low interest loan. If the property is considered to be in a high risk flood zone, the owners are already required to purchase flood insurance before they can pay back the federal loan. That insurance requirement stays with the house apparently everafter, even if the house is sold.

In other words, I don’t see how this proposal by Senator Dodd would actually help anybody much, except that NFIP has an upper limit of $250,000 for the house and $100,000 for what's inside it. And it doesn’t make him look good with his base, does it? Will Democrats in Connecticut (which can also flood) be impressed by this? I don’t get it.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)