All news is local.
We hear a lot about ocean-borne debris fouling the beaches of Hawaii and America's West Coast as a result of the earthquake and tsunami in Japan.
Will we hear as much about debris from storm damage on America's East Coast fouling beaches in Europe?
Don't mess with Mother Nature. She'll get you in the end.
For those who deny global warming, ask them when they last saw ice skating on Central Park Lake in Manhattan, or on any local pond. Or ask the Flexible Flyer company about sled sales. Or ask why some bird species no longer migrate. Or ask why mockingbirds are no longer limited to the American South.
The issue is not whether the climate is changing, but how much people contribute to it, and how we can change our ways so we don't self-destruct.
Justice is blind. And sometimes more than that.
The Shooda Stood in Bed Award goes to the Italian weather forecasters who faced criminal charges for not predicting the extent of earthquake damage.
The Why Bother Award goes to those in Europe who require folks to purchase travelers insurance. Unless you're over 65, in which case you are rejected because of age and you can't get it even if you do want it.
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Allegedly Troublesome
Don't get heartburn in the first place. -- Larry the Cable Guy
Ample use of the word "allegedly" doesn't get you off the hook and can get you in trouble.
The standards of usage are upheld by copy editors at newspapers, magazines and online publications in America and other English-speaking countries around the world.
They are unknown and unsung. They get no bylines, yet they save those who do from looking foolish every day. It is serious work, with serious consequences.
This is not to say that copy editors are humorless and always take themselves seriously. Some of the best one-liners ever perpetrated have come from copy editors -- many are unprintable and understandable only in the context of the moment.
A rule learned early by every good writer and copy editor is this: If you don't want to see it in print, don't put it in the computer. And don't rely on the next guy to invoke the CYA rule and take it out or otherwise fix it. Do it yourself. (CYA = "cover your a...")
If you must make jokes with the copy, keep it verbal.
This rule was forgotten by the copy editor who inserted "allegedly born in Hawaii" into a story about the President, and expected the next editor to catch the joke and delete the word "allegedly." He didn't.
Ample use of the word "allegedly" doesn't get you off the hook and can get you in trouble.
The standards of usage are upheld by copy editors at newspapers, magazines and online publications in America and other English-speaking countries around the world.
They are unknown and unsung. They get no bylines, yet they save those who do from looking foolish every day. It is serious work, with serious consequences.
This is not to say that copy editors are humorless and always take themselves seriously. Some of the best one-liners ever perpetrated have come from copy editors -- many are unprintable and understandable only in the context of the moment.
A rule learned early by every good writer and copy editor is this: If you don't want to see it in print, don't put it in the computer. And don't rely on the next guy to invoke the CYA rule and take it out or otherwise fix it. Do it yourself. (CYA = "cover your a...")
If you must make jokes with the copy, keep it verbal.
This rule was forgotten by the copy editor who inserted "allegedly born in Hawaii" into a story about the President, and expected the next editor to catch the joke and delete the word "allegedly." He didn't.
Multiplier
If common sense is so common, how come no one thought of it before?
A genius is one who sees where others do not look.
The concept of the multiplier effect only took hold in the 1930s -- some 80 years ago -- in the lifetime of many now living. Yet it's now accepted in economics as "common sense."
Here's an example: The Haynes Kayak Co. gets an order for 100 additional boats. This requires that the company hire one more worker, who in turn spends his wages on food, clothing, shelter, etc. To get to work, he buys a car, which means more gasoline sales. More auto sales in turn generate additional income for the car sales representative, support staff including secretary, bookkeeper and mechanic, as well as gas station employes, truckers who deliver the fuel, drillers, refinery workers, engineers who operate the oil wells, and those who benefit from their additional income.
It matters not whether the additional first order came from government or from the private sector. The effect of multiplying benefits through the entire economy is the same.
A genius is one who sees where others do not look.
The concept of the multiplier effect only took hold in the 1930s -- some 80 years ago -- in the lifetime of many now living. Yet it's now accepted in economics as "common sense."
Here's an example: The Haynes Kayak Co. gets an order for 100 additional boats. This requires that the company hire one more worker, who in turn spends his wages on food, clothing, shelter, etc. To get to work, he buys a car, which means more gasoline sales. More auto sales in turn generate additional income for the car sales representative, support staff including secretary, bookkeeper and mechanic, as well as gas station employes, truckers who deliver the fuel, drillers, refinery workers, engineers who operate the oil wells, and those who benefit from their additional income.
It matters not whether the additional first order came from government or from the private sector. The effect of multiplying benefits through the entire economy is the same.
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Idle Thoughts
Q/ What do you think of open borders?
A/ Close the borders. There are too many Canadians clamoring to come here to take advantage of our health care system.
Kudos to Jon Stewart of The Daily Show for taking aim at a Fox News host and guest who lamented the changing demographics of America, with the rush of new immigrants endangering the traditional American way of life.
The host and guest were named O'Reilly and Goldberg.
A commentator noted the reluctance of the conservative wing of the GOP to see what might be happening to their party. "It's one thing to be on the Titanic. It's another not to know an iceberg has struck."
There's a need for people who can't hear "no."
There's a thin line between confidence and arrogance.
Education is never wasted.
Religionists discovered marketing as a way to spread their influence. When that didn't work, they turned to violence.
Religion begets politics, but not the reverse.
What if he got in touch with his inner Thurston Howell, but no one was home?
The TV graphic noted that the electric company replaced more than 2500 polls.
(So who needs Gallup?)
A/ Close the borders. There are too many Canadians clamoring to come here to take advantage of our health care system.
Kudos to Jon Stewart of The Daily Show for taking aim at a Fox News host and guest who lamented the changing demographics of America, with the rush of new immigrants endangering the traditional American way of life.
The host and guest were named O'Reilly and Goldberg.
A commentator noted the reluctance of the conservative wing of the GOP to see what might be happening to their party. "It's one thing to be on the Titanic. It's another not to know an iceberg has struck."
There's a need for people who can't hear "no."
There's a thin line between confidence and arrogance.
Education is never wasted.
Religionists discovered marketing as a way to spread their influence. When that didn't work, they turned to violence.
Religion begets politics, but not the reverse.
What if he got in touch with his inner Thurston Howell, but no one was home?
The TV graphic noted that the electric company replaced more than 2500 polls.
(So who needs Gallup?)
Monday, November 26, 2012
Media and Bias
I disagree with what you say, but I defend your right to say it.
Truth takes a back seat to favoritism
News items:
TV journalists in Maine lose their jobs for not covering news as management prefers.
TV journalists in Gaza lose their lives for not covering news as government prefers.
In Maine, the TV anchors resigned on the air without giving reasons, but history shows a pattern of the general manager pressuring the news director regarding which stories to cover and how.
In Gaza, members of a TV crew affiliated with a Hamas-owned station were blown up by a missile fired by the Israeli military. A spokeswoman for the military defended the attack because of what she called "relevance to terrorist activities."
Read: Do things our way or else.
It may well be that the Gaza crew and Hamas television endorsed the Palestinian cause, even to the level of being propagandists. But that does not mean that propagandists for one side are to be supported, while those who report the news and views of the other side are to be killed.
It also may well be that terrorists sometimes deploy in the guise of journalists to get better access to their targets. If so, they are indeed legitimate targets, and they are to be treated as terrorists, not as journalists. But in the Gaza case, where is the evidence? The Israeli government has an obligation to present it.
One could make the case that in America, many news outlets slant their coverage to one side or another. Conservatives are fond of blasting what they call "media elite liberals" for their alleged favoritism toward Democrats. Favoritism toward Republican conservatives is, of course, admirable and to be encouraged.
However, the right of free speech and a free press is a universal right, and the opposition deserves to be heard. And the right of reporters to present the news and views without interference must be respected, whether in Maine or in Gaza.
Truth takes a back seat to favoritism
News items:
TV journalists in Maine lose their jobs for not covering news as management prefers.
TV journalists in Gaza lose their lives for not covering news as government prefers.
In Maine, the TV anchors resigned on the air without giving reasons, but history shows a pattern of the general manager pressuring the news director regarding which stories to cover and how.
In Gaza, members of a TV crew affiliated with a Hamas-owned station were blown up by a missile fired by the Israeli military. A spokeswoman for the military defended the attack because of what she called "relevance to terrorist activities."
Read: Do things our way or else.
It may well be that the Gaza crew and Hamas television endorsed the Palestinian cause, even to the level of being propagandists. But that does not mean that propagandists for one side are to be supported, while those who report the news and views of the other side are to be killed.
It also may well be that terrorists sometimes deploy in the guise of journalists to get better access to their targets. If so, they are indeed legitimate targets, and they are to be treated as terrorists, not as journalists. But in the Gaza case, where is the evidence? The Israeli government has an obligation to present it.
One could make the case that in America, many news outlets slant their coverage to one side or another. Conservatives are fond of blasting what they call "media elite liberals" for their alleged favoritism toward Democrats. Favoritism toward Republican conservatives is, of course, admirable and to be encouraged.
However, the right of free speech and a free press is a universal right, and the opposition deserves to be heard. And the right of reporters to present the news and views without interference must be respected, whether in Maine or in Gaza.
The Undoubtful
Supply creates its own demand
Classical, or 19th Century economics, emphasized the study of individual personal and business behavior based on, among other assumptions, that an economy would reach an equilibrium, where all factors balance and there is "full employment" of all inputs and all things are equal. The problem with that assumption, known as the ceteris paribus assumption, is that other things are never equal -- except in theory. In the real world, all things are always moving. You can't step into the same river twice.
So while Adam Smith, Alfred Marshall and others built an excellent theoretical foundation for the study of economic behavior of people and business, when these concepts are applied to the larger, real world of trends and behaviors, their assumptions do not always apply.
Prime among these assumptions is that supply creates its own demand. And modern followers of these principles are so convinced of their rightness that they "know" they are right and everyone else is wrong, so there is no time or room for discussion. "Maybe" is not in their lexicon.
Current devotees of classical economics adhere to faith in supply-side economics, and to a top-down recovery plan. When the theoretical precepts and assumptions fail to work or adequately describe behavior of people and business, the conclusion is that people are misbehaving. It was a given that "supply creates its own demand."
Except that during the 1930s, there was an excess supply of labor, but no demand for workers. In America, the unemployment rate was estimated at 25 percent -- more, if agricultural workers were included in the count. And the economy, by the technical definitions of 19th Century economics, was in equilibrium.
The reality, however, was that the economy was static. It had stopped growing. It was no longer a vibrant economy. It was, in many ways, dying.
Even so, all the factors of economic production had reached equilibrium, and the theory held that things were fine.
Despite the efforts of many, the outdated beliefs of 19th Century economists are still held, and those who hold them still believe in the top-down, supply-side economics that predicts recovery if wealthy managers are given enough incentive to hire idle workers. The true believers have no doubt of the rightness of their position.
And they cite 19th Century experts in support.
Classical, or 19th Century economics, emphasized the study of individual personal and business behavior based on, among other assumptions, that an economy would reach an equilibrium, where all factors balance and there is "full employment" of all inputs and all things are equal. The problem with that assumption, known as the ceteris paribus assumption, is that other things are never equal -- except in theory. In the real world, all things are always moving. You can't step into the same river twice.
So while Adam Smith, Alfred Marshall and others built an excellent theoretical foundation for the study of economic behavior of people and business, when these concepts are applied to the larger, real world of trends and behaviors, their assumptions do not always apply.
Prime among these assumptions is that supply creates its own demand. And modern followers of these principles are so convinced of their rightness that they "know" they are right and everyone else is wrong, so there is no time or room for discussion. "Maybe" is not in their lexicon.
Current devotees of classical economics adhere to faith in supply-side economics, and to a top-down recovery plan. When the theoretical precepts and assumptions fail to work or adequately describe behavior of people and business, the conclusion is that people are misbehaving. It was a given that "supply creates its own demand."
Except that during the 1930s, there was an excess supply of labor, but no demand for workers. In America, the unemployment rate was estimated at 25 percent -- more, if agricultural workers were included in the count. And the economy, by the technical definitions of 19th Century economics, was in equilibrium.
The reality, however, was that the economy was static. It had stopped growing. It was no longer a vibrant economy. It was, in many ways, dying.
Even so, all the factors of economic production had reached equilibrium, and the theory held that things were fine.
Despite the efforts of many, the outdated beliefs of 19th Century economists are still held, and those who hold them still believe in the top-down, supply-side economics that predicts recovery if wealthy managers are given enough incentive to hire idle workers. The true believers have no doubt of the rightness of their position.
And they cite 19th Century experts in support.
Saturday, November 24, 2012
The Undeserving Poor
Whenever I'm up against Middle Class morality, they say, 'You're part of the undeserving poor, so you can't have it.' -- Alfred P. Doolittle
Health care insurance is too important to be left to the private sector.
Secession talk is in the wind again, fanned by fear of excess federal involvement -- control, in the minds of secessionists -- and prime among the federal fear factors is health care.
Now that the election is over, however, some conservatives are already changing their views on health care insurance.
Even Fareed Zakaria, prominent conservative editor and TV host, and an admitted devotee of the free market, has said that health care should not be left to free market principles.
You can choose to buy an expensive car, he noted, "but you can't choose to have a heart attack." When you need health care, you need it today, he said. In a free market, Zakaria pointed out, those who can afford health care insurance will buy it, while those who cannot afford it will do without.
Moreover, the reality is that insurance companies will provide coverage only to healthy people -- who don't need health care. Those who are sick, are likely to become sick, or have pre-existing conditions, are routinely rejected. Result: They go to hospital emergency rooms, as suggested by recent candidates. But that's the most expensive form of health care, and the cost is picked up by the hospital, which passes it on to other clients in the form of higher rates. In turn, these costs result in higher insurance premiums, and eventually higher rates to taxpayers, who help to support hospitals.
Thus, many of the uninsured poor get their health care through ER visits, but contribute little or nothing and do not get the benefit of appropriate care.
As Zakaria has pointed out, insurance only works if everyone is part of the program.
Meanwhile, if a state secedes it will be a localized responsibility to provide health care insurance-- or not -- for its citizens.
If they can afford health care, they will get it. If not, they will die.
America then becomes a nation divisible by wealth, with liberty, justice and health care for those who can afford it.
Not for all.
Health care insurance is too important to be left to the private sector.
Secession talk is in the wind again, fanned by fear of excess federal involvement -- control, in the minds of secessionists -- and prime among the federal fear factors is health care.
Now that the election is over, however, some conservatives are already changing their views on health care insurance.
Even Fareed Zakaria, prominent conservative editor and TV host, and an admitted devotee of the free market, has said that health care should not be left to free market principles.
You can choose to buy an expensive car, he noted, "but you can't choose to have a heart attack." When you need health care, you need it today, he said. In a free market, Zakaria pointed out, those who can afford health care insurance will buy it, while those who cannot afford it will do without.
Moreover, the reality is that insurance companies will provide coverage only to healthy people -- who don't need health care. Those who are sick, are likely to become sick, or have pre-existing conditions, are routinely rejected. Result: They go to hospital emergency rooms, as suggested by recent candidates. But that's the most expensive form of health care, and the cost is picked up by the hospital, which passes it on to other clients in the form of higher rates. In turn, these costs result in higher insurance premiums, and eventually higher rates to taxpayers, who help to support hospitals.
Thus, many of the uninsured poor get their health care through ER visits, but contribute little or nothing and do not get the benefit of appropriate care.
As Zakaria has pointed out, insurance only works if everyone is part of the program.
Meanwhile, if a state secedes it will be a localized responsibility to provide health care insurance-- or not -- for its citizens.
If they can afford health care, they will get it. If not, they will die.
America then becomes a nation divisible by wealth, with liberty, justice and health care for those who can afford it.
Not for all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)