Get it, or get out.  Just kidding.

And my revised edition of the 2'nd Amendment:  "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free nation, the right of the people to self defense by necessary means shall not be denied.  Congress and the states will cooperate to regulate and support such militia and their facilities."

Read moreShow less

David Strumfels's photos

 

The free market is not a moral mechanism, and was never seriously promoted as one by its founders. It is simply the best way to get competing/cooperating interests to work best to build the overall economy. But as a moral force, it is as devoid of life as Social Darwinism (or even true Darwinism at that) was, and using it that way just a rationalization for inhumanity. Even the preamble to the US Constitution declares "... to Provide for the Common Welfare ...". Of course, big government is not the preferred way to deal with needy and unfortunate in our society; but if we don't want to go that route we have to come up with better alternatives that will still (probably) involve government to some degree but allow market forces to work where appropriate. To me, I see Obamacare as just one attempt to do exactly that; and I'll back that position up by noting it's similarity to Republican plans (Romenycare in MA?) along the same lines.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/26/bill-maher-big-business-big-government_n_5623418.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000018&ir=Media

Read more (15 lines)Show less

'Big Business IS The New Big Government'

The Huffington Post

OK, I've been touting the coming solar energy revolution as a natural by-product of the computer revolution, in it's post but parallel emergence from materials science/chemistry/physics, both in converting raw solar to electricity and in storage technologies.  And I don't think I'm going to abandon that over one article, especially one that includes the same whopping big logical fallacy all solar-deniers (if I can use that term) make:  the fallacy that proclaims the computer revolution didn't happen because it's too expensive and difficult to keep changing those damned vacuum tubes.  But I've also learned that one ignores economists at one's peril.  So, without further introduction, here is ...

http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21608646-wind-and-solar-power-are-even-more-expensive-commonly-thought-sun-wind-and

Read more (11 lines)Show less

Sun, wind and drain

The Economist

SUBSIDIES for renewable energy are one of the most contested areas of public policy. Billions are spent nursing the infant solar- and wind-power industries in the...

 

A little more perspective.  Gaza is about 175 square miles and contains some 1.8 million inhabitants -- that's about 10,000 per square mile, the equal of any major city in the world in size and density.  It is also basically walled off and blockaded anywhere you turn.  In addition, it is heavily populated with people who have already provided rationalizations for violence.  I understand the reasons this was done, and Israel's security needs, but there is no way this is anything other than a stick of dynamite with a lit fuse.  All parties involved have to come up with something better.  Hamas, IDF -- unshoulder your weapons and deal with this impossible situation.  To my country (the US), the EU, and all surrounding nations:  all must be involved in unweaving this most interlocking and tangled of webs before catastrophe happens.

http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1870148,00.html

Read more (11 lines)Show less

Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com

http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1870148,00.html

One can talk of a Right to health care as stemming from the DOI rights to life and the pursuit of happiness.  At the same time, health care providers have the same right to liberty.  I am all in favor of using markets to meet these rights to the extent they can, but if that's all we have, too many fall through the cracks.  So I find the logic behind Obamacare sound, even if the applications of it need tweaking and revisiting.  Socialized healthcare (like socialized police and fire protection) has its merits, but might be too heavy-handed to work well in the US.  Gosh, I guess I'm admitting I really don't know.  But let's working on the problem.

Read moreShow less

Foundation for Economic Education originally shared:

 

"Talk of 'rights' is just a rhetorical game progressives play to get the policies they want (usually a single payer system). But talk of 'rights' does nothing for the goal of actually figuring out how to get people reasonable access to the healthcare they need. To do that, we have to deal directly with the problems of affordability (as in the United States) or with the perverse consequences of rationing (as in Canada). The disastrous rollout of Obamacare just might stimulate a serious, widespread discussion of these options for the first time."

Read moreShow less

#14 - Healthcare Is a Right : The Freeman : Foundation for Economic Education

 

There's an old saw about how we need liberals to come up with new ideas and solutions to problems, but we need conservatives to make these ideas work in practice.  There used to be some truth in that.  I'm not sure there is anymore.

http://dailysignal.com/2014/07/26/conservatives-societal-change-comes-best-individuals-government/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

Read moreShow less

Conservatives: Societal Change Comes Best From Individuals, Not Government

dailysignal.com

Pew Research released a study of Americans' political beliefs, dividing them into seven categories from "steadfast conservatives" to "solid liberals."

Charles Darwin (if anyone believes Jacob Bronowski and Richard Dawkins) was a Victorian-era gentleman who held the racial views of his time and culture. He clearly did not believe in equality of races, but then neither did Lincoln and virtually everyone else; only Darwin's co-discoverer of Evolution by Natural Selection, Alfred Russell Wallace, rejected the racist views of his day. Paradoxically, this caused him to reject Darwinism as a theory of human evolution, which is one of the reasons why he doesn't have the fame Darwin has acquired. If you enjoy historic irony (as I do), you will find this delightful.

ALL OF WHICH has nothing to do with Darwin's main theories, the discoveries in genetics made during his time (poor Mendel in his overlooked abbey) and after (de Vries in 1901 rediscovering Mendel and making him famous at last), or any of the truckloads of fossil and other evidence from other fields that prove Neo-Darwinism true beyond any rational doubt.Read more (14 lines)Show less

David Strumfels's photos