Half an hour ago I was thinking about pulling the Harley out and running into town to drop off some stuff to a friend. Looked like a nice day.
Now it's snowing.
Sigh!
Sunday, February 26, 2012
What a cool idea!
The Dead Covers Project.
Record your favorite Grateful Dead song and post it up on dead.net. A great way to hear a new take on some of your favorites and find new bands.
I am now looking into a band called The Giving Tree Band. OK. Lame name but they did an awesome cover of Brown Eyed Women and I'm currently listening to their latest album The Joke, The Threat, and the Obvious. Yeah, seems like sort of a lame album name too. Apparently their strengths are in making music, not naming stuff.
So here's Brown Eyed Women. Check out their other stuff here.
Record your favorite Grateful Dead song and post it up on dead.net. A great way to hear a new take on some of your favorites and find new bands.
I am now looking into a band called The Giving Tree Band. OK. Lame name but they did an awesome cover of Brown Eyed Women and I'm currently listening to their latest album The Joke, The Threat, and the Obvious. Yeah, seems like sort of a lame album name too. Apparently their strengths are in making music, not naming stuff.
So here's Brown Eyed Women. Check out their other stuff here.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Trying to ban bacon!
From Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit, regarding the Administrations contraceptive (and abortifaceints, FYI) mandate:
“It’s as if we passed a law requiring mosques to sell bacon and then, when people objected, responded by saying ‘What’s wrong with bacon? You’re trying to ban bacon!!!!’”
“It’s as if we passed a law requiring mosques to sell bacon and then, when people objected, responded by saying ‘What’s wrong with bacon? You’re trying to ban bacon!!!!’”
The "Sitting Still" Blues
Four day weekend. President's Day, and since they have a number of days that can be plugged in anywhere, the calendar committee at the school district plugs one of them in on Friday before so we get a four day weekend.
(FYI teachers work the same number of days regardless of how they are distributed so before you get your panties in a bunch about teachers having so many days off...)
So Friday I get up, clean up a little, read, watch some TV. About 1 I head off for a family obligation, then to my shop. Work on Harleys for about four hours, home, watch TV, up a little late and off to my shop to work on Harleys. Run a few errands, home, watch TV, read a little, to bed earlier. Up this morning, coffee, read a little, finish the current book, and have this weird sense like I need to be somewhere, doing something.
Don't know what, don't know why, but REALLY feel like I need to be somewhere.
Wondering if I'm forgetting something.
And I still have one more day to go after this.
(FYI teachers work the same number of days regardless of how they are distributed so before you get your panties in a bunch about teachers having so many days off...)
So Friday I get up, clean up a little, read, watch some TV. About 1 I head off for a family obligation, then to my shop. Work on Harleys for about four hours, home, watch TV, up a little late and off to my shop to work on Harleys. Run a few errands, home, watch TV, read a little, to bed earlier. Up this morning, coffee, read a little, finish the current book, and have this weird sense like I need to be somewhere, doing something.
Don't know what, don't know why, but REALLY feel like I need to be somewhere.
Wondering if I'm forgetting something.
And I still have one more day to go after this.
Friday, February 17, 2012
Limited government, not small government
Professor Hale put up an interesting comment on my last post. He pointed out that a part of the problem here is that the government has any say whatsoever in who you hire. Not only does this type of government interference represent a wide divergence from the principles that our country was founded on, it is the antithesis of true freedom. When government gets to dictate how you run your business and with whom you choose to associate, you have little left. The giant bureaucracy required to oversee these mandates consumes vast chunks of output to no productive purpose. Requiring that I hire a representative number of whites, blacks, asians, gays, etc does not improve my business, and therefore does not improve my community by providing more jobs or income for the local population.
So am I condoning discrimination? Actually the market will deal with this issue without any help from the federal government. If I want to provide the best product for the best price in order to maximize my own return, I need to hire the best people and I need to create and keep customers. If I discriminate against the best workers due to some ridiculous standard like skin color, my productivity will decrease and I will be less able to compete. In the long run, I either don't survive or I survive as a much smaller, less efficient, and therefore less profitable enterprise. Government mandates on the other hand interfere with this process by preventing me from hiring the most qualified regardless of skin color or some other artificial designation.
So is hiring the only area in which government interference becomes an issue? Well, the second part of my last post, mandates on health coverage, now can be seen in a different light. Why exactly does the government have any say at all in what type of health coverage I provide to my employees? If they don't like the coverage I offer, are they not free to go find a job that offers what they do want? For that matter, why does health coverage have to be provided by employers anyway? The main reason that most people currently get health coverage (I reject the words "health insurance" for our current system for reasons which I will discuss another time) is that the system has been tilted towards the employers by the federal government. They get a tax break for providing you with coverage, if you buy it yourself, not so much. It is government meddling in the health care market that has driven up prices and made it so unaffordable.
There are countless other examples which I won't detail here. The Department of Energy, the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human Services, the list goes on and you can read the arguments for and against by checking out organizations like the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation. I will explain the title of this post, however.
Conservatives are often described as proponents of "small" government. I believe this is misleading and wrong. I don't think a "small" bureaucracy devoted to violating my right to freedom of association is the answer. What really matters is "limited" government. A limited government would not be interfering in hiring decisions, would not be mandating a particular kind of health plan, would not be deciding what kind of energy should be emphasized, what kind of mathematics education should be taught in local schools, or how many housing projects should be built in a city. A limited government would do the things allowed it by the Constitution: providing for the national defense, controlling immigration, and those other duties specifically listed. They should be as big as they need to be in order to effectively do those things. When we have limited government again, we will be a free people. Until then, when the government can decide who we hire, who we fire, what goods and services we can or must purchase, with whom we associate and the limits of that association, we are not a free people.
So am I condoning discrimination? Actually the market will deal with this issue without any help from the federal government. If I want to provide the best product for the best price in order to maximize my own return, I need to hire the best people and I need to create and keep customers. If I discriminate against the best workers due to some ridiculous standard like skin color, my productivity will decrease and I will be less able to compete. In the long run, I either don't survive or I survive as a much smaller, less efficient, and therefore less profitable enterprise. Government mandates on the other hand interfere with this process by preventing me from hiring the most qualified regardless of skin color or some other artificial designation.
So is hiring the only area in which government interference becomes an issue? Well, the second part of my last post, mandates on health coverage, now can be seen in a different light. Why exactly does the government have any say at all in what type of health coverage I provide to my employees? If they don't like the coverage I offer, are they not free to go find a job that offers what they do want? For that matter, why does health coverage have to be provided by employers anyway? The main reason that most people currently get health coverage (I reject the words "health insurance" for our current system for reasons which I will discuss another time) is that the system has been tilted towards the employers by the federal government. They get a tax break for providing you with coverage, if you buy it yourself, not so much. It is government meddling in the health care market that has driven up prices and made it so unaffordable.
There are countless other examples which I won't detail here. The Department of Energy, the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human Services, the list goes on and you can read the arguments for and against by checking out organizations like the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation. I will explain the title of this post, however.
Conservatives are often described as proponents of "small" government. I believe this is misleading and wrong. I don't think a "small" bureaucracy devoted to violating my right to freedom of association is the answer. What really matters is "limited" government. A limited government would not be interfering in hiring decisions, would not be mandating a particular kind of health plan, would not be deciding what kind of energy should be emphasized, what kind of mathematics education should be taught in local schools, or how many housing projects should be built in a city. A limited government would do the things allowed it by the Constitution: providing for the national defense, controlling immigration, and those other duties specifically listed. They should be as big as they need to be in order to effectively do those things. When we have limited government again, we will be a free people. Until then, when the government can decide who we hire, who we fire, what goods and services we can or must purchase, with whom we associate and the limits of that association, we are not a free people.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
We're gonna party like it's 1984 (gettin' down on the farm)
Two cases.
1) The Obama administration argues before the Supreme Court that religious groups should be subject to the same anti-discrimination hiring laws that every else is. In otherwords, they can't discriminate against someone based on various beliefs when hiring or firing.
2) The Obama administration issues a ruling that religious organizations must provide contraception and abortion services to their employees as a part of their health care. The narrow exemption that the administration permits includes organizations that only hire people who are a part of their belief system.
So let's see how this would work.
Me: I only hire people of my own religion therefore I qualify for the exemption
DOJ bureaucrat: You are not allowed to discriminate like that. You must hire someone who does not share your belief system. (and pay us a fine for violating our rules)
HHS Bureaucrat: You hired someone from out of your belief system so you no longer qualify for the exemption. (and pay us a fine for not having a qualifying health care plan)
So where exactly is the administration "compromising"? Talk about doublespeak.
1) The Obama administration argues before the Supreme Court that religious groups should be subject to the same anti-discrimination hiring laws that every else is. In otherwords, they can't discriminate against someone based on various beliefs when hiring or firing.
2) The Obama administration issues a ruling that religious organizations must provide contraception and abortion services to their employees as a part of their health care. The narrow exemption that the administration permits includes organizations that only hire people who are a part of their belief system.
So let's see how this would work.
Me: I only hire people of my own religion therefore I qualify for the exemption
DOJ bureaucrat: You are not allowed to discriminate like that. You must hire someone who does not share your belief system. (and pay us a fine for violating our rules)
HHS Bureaucrat: You hired someone from out of your belief system so you no longer qualify for the exemption. (and pay us a fine for not having a qualifying health care plan)
So where exactly is the administration "compromising"? Talk about doublespeak.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Three New Authors (to keep me entertained for years)
Dick Francis is a thousand years old and his son is turning out mediocre books under his name. Robert Parker passed away, Robert Jordan and John D. MacDonald likewise. Louis L'Amour is long gone, Alistair Maclean, the list goes on and on. All prodigious writers of entertaining fiction in various genres. I've read all their books, many of them several times. Have to find new authors to entertain me. Over the past couple years, these three have stood out.
Brandon Sanderson
I first heard of him when I picked up the Mistborn novel, The Final Empire. Couldn't put them down. Sanderson created a whole new magic system for his world, and it is both consistent and interesting. The story is fascinating and well worth the read. He followed the trilogy up with a fourth book, set several hundred years later, in which he took the unusual step of having technology advance within the world, rather than creating the typical fantasy world where nothing changes for thousands of years. Sanderson also recently finished writing the last three books of Robert Jordan's epic Wheel of Time after Jordan passed away with the series unfinished.
Michael J. Sullivan
Self published six books in The Riyria Revelations, the story of two "adventurers", Royce and Hadrian, a thief and an ex-mercenary who take on a variety of dangerous assignments for nobles until they become scapegoats in a plot to kill a king. Sullivan sold quite a few as e-books before this great series of stories was finally picked up by a publishing house and printed as a trilogy. Looking forward to his next project.
Naomi Novik
Imagine the Napoleonic wars with dragons. If you are going to fight with dragons, you'd better have tactics, and Novik does a fine job of distinguishing between different types of dragons and what they can do, as well as going into some detail about how the dragons affect the fighting. The Temeraire series starts with His Majesty's Dragon, when the captain of a line ship inadvertently bonds to a captured French dragon, making him too valuable as a dragon flyer to continue in the Navy.
Still three unread books between the three of them, and with a bit of luck they'll be cranking out quality reads for years to come.
S.M. Stirling
Harry Harrison had this to say about him. "Stirling can wreck a world better than anyone I've ever read". It's true. His Emberverse series, consisting of two independent series of books, envisions a time when technology stops working, the vast majority of the human population dies in disaster and famine, but the remainders build new societies without technology based on their knowledge of their favorite time period. The successful societies that spring up include a Celtic, feudal, Roman, Norse, and combinations of the aforementioned. Absolutely excellent. The second series "Nantucket" has the island of Nantucket being transported into the distant past. The stories are independent but related.
Brandon Sanderson
I first heard of him when I picked up the Mistborn novel, The Final Empire. Couldn't put them down. Sanderson created a whole new magic system for his world, and it is both consistent and interesting. The story is fascinating and well worth the read. He followed the trilogy up with a fourth book, set several hundred years later, in which he took the unusual step of having technology advance within the world, rather than creating the typical fantasy world where nothing changes for thousands of years. Sanderson also recently finished writing the last three books of Robert Jordan's epic Wheel of Time after Jordan passed away with the series unfinished.
Michael J. Sullivan
Self published six books in The Riyria Revelations, the story of two "adventurers", Royce and Hadrian, a thief and an ex-mercenary who take on a variety of dangerous assignments for nobles until they become scapegoats in a plot to kill a king. Sullivan sold quite a few as e-books before this great series of stories was finally picked up by a publishing house and printed as a trilogy. Looking forward to his next project.
Naomi Novik
Imagine the Napoleonic wars with dragons. If you are going to fight with dragons, you'd better have tactics, and Novik does a fine job of distinguishing between different types of dragons and what they can do, as well as going into some detail about how the dragons affect the fighting. The Temeraire series starts with His Majesty's Dragon, when the captain of a line ship inadvertently bonds to a captured French dragon, making him too valuable as a dragon flyer to continue in the Navy.
Still three unread books between the three of them, and with a bit of luck they'll be cranking out quality reads for years to come.
S.M. Stirling
Harry Harrison had this to say about him. "Stirling can wreck a world better than anyone I've ever read". It's true. His Emberverse series, consisting of two independent series of books, envisions a time when technology stops working, the vast majority of the human population dies in disaster and famine, but the remainders build new societies without technology based on their knowledge of their favorite time period. The successful societies that spring up include a Celtic, feudal, Roman, Norse, and combinations of the aforementioned. Absolutely excellent. The second series "Nantucket" has the island of Nantucket being transported into the distant past. The stories are independent but related.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Brilliant
Ravel's Bolero is one of my favorite pieces of music and at one time I had eight or nine different recordings (vinyl LPs, all since gone). However, I had never seen it performed so the other day I did a quick google search and came up with this. Absolutely brilliant.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Some Confusion about "Peace" Signs
So why exactly do you need to wear a mask or a hood if you are going to march around carrying a peace sign? Is it possible that peace is not the end goal and that...
Oh wait, one guy didn't get the memo. He's carrying his Anarchy sign instead. That clears things up quite nicely.
Oh wait, one guy didn't get the memo. He's carrying his Anarchy sign instead. That clears things up quite nicely.
The Consistency of the Gray Lady
In 1995, with a Democratic President and a Republican Senate Minority, the NY Times editorialized that it was time to eliminate the filibuster. They referred to Republican use of the filibuster as a "relentless abuse of a time honored tradition".
In 2005, with a Republican President and a Democratic Senate Minority, the NY Times editorialized that the filibuster was an important safeguard in protecting "unrestrained majority rule". They referred to Republican's plan to eliminate the use of the filibuster for judicial nominations as a "dangerous game".
In 2012, just three days ago, with a Democratic President and a Republican Senate Minority, the NY Times editorialized that it is time to end the filibuster against judicial nominess. They referred to Republican use of the filibuster as "cynical partisanship and cheap tricks".
Speaking of cynical partisanship...
Oh well, at least the Times is consistent. Consistently in favor of anything that will allow the Democratic party to get whatever they want.
In 2005, with a Republican President and a Democratic Senate Minority, the NY Times editorialized that the filibuster was an important safeguard in protecting "unrestrained majority rule". They referred to Republican's plan to eliminate the use of the filibuster for judicial nominations as a "dangerous game".
In 2012, just three days ago, with a Democratic President and a Republican Senate Minority, the NY Times editorialized that it is time to end the filibuster against judicial nominess. They referred to Republican use of the filibuster as "cynical partisanship and cheap tricks".
Speaking of cynical partisanship...
Oh well, at least the Times is consistent. Consistently in favor of anything that will allow the Democratic party to get whatever they want.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)