Heard on NPR today that the Transportation Minister of the EU is outraged at the problems being caused by the heavy snowfall across Europe. If the airports can't handle it, he wants to increase regulation.
'Cause that's the solution to everything. By God, we'll slap a regulation in that limits the amount of snow an airport can experience in any given period. That'll fix 'em.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Friday, December 17, 2010
"We compromised on eight."
"The Conservatives wanted six; the Liberals wanted four; we compromised on eight." - Winston Churchill.
I cannot swear to the exact accuracy of the previous quote, but it is more or less accurate. It has to do with the British government's internal arguments on naval spending circa 1909. The Admiralty wanted to build six battleships that year, but Churchill and Lloyd George wanted four. A crisis in the form of a scare about German naval building occurred and when the dust settled, Parliament authorized the building of eight battleships.
This quote is mentioned because it came to mind after reading that the President was going to sign the tax compromise bill this afternoon. Everyone seems to agree that the deficit is a problem and the economy is a problem. The Dems want to expand unemployment to pay benefits for a longer time, costing the tax payer money. They argue this puts money in the hands of people who will spend it and stimulates the economy. The GOP wants to keep taxes low, allowing people to keep more money and hopes they will then spend or invest it. This also costs the taxpayer's money, albeit while avoiding a tax rise that would, excuse the expression, tax the resources of many families. Note that both scheme cost the government money, and in this year of urgency about the growing debt, what do we do? We adopt both.
Doing neither would substantially raise the amount of income the government has. Doing both seems the worst possible thing, so, of course, that's what we did. And it's not the first time. Frequently, in the past, when the two major parties could not agree nor one prevail, they solve the problem by spending more while reducing the government's income at the same time. It's moronic and unsustainable.
I cannot swear to the exact accuracy of the previous quote, but it is more or less accurate. It has to do with the British government's internal arguments on naval spending circa 1909. The Admiralty wanted to build six battleships that year, but Churchill and Lloyd George wanted four. A crisis in the form of a scare about German naval building occurred and when the dust settled, Parliament authorized the building of eight battleships.
This quote is mentioned because it came to mind after reading that the President was going to sign the tax compromise bill this afternoon. Everyone seems to agree that the deficit is a problem and the economy is a problem. The Dems want to expand unemployment to pay benefits for a longer time, costing the tax payer money. They argue this puts money in the hands of people who will spend it and stimulates the economy. The GOP wants to keep taxes low, allowing people to keep more money and hopes they will then spend or invest it. This also costs the taxpayer's money, albeit while avoiding a tax rise that would, excuse the expression, tax the resources of many families. Note that both scheme cost the government money, and in this year of urgency about the growing debt, what do we do? We adopt both.
Doing neither would substantially raise the amount of income the government has. Doing both seems the worst possible thing, so, of course, that's what we did. And it's not the first time. Frequently, in the past, when the two major parties could not agree nor one prevail, they solve the problem by spending more while reducing the government's income at the same time. It's moronic and unsustainable.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Death of a St. Louis Icon
Yesterday marked the last day of the last broadcast of KFUO 99.1 FM, AKA Classic 99, one of the few private classic radio stations. KFUO was owned by the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod, LCMS, and had been operating as a classic music station, one of the best in the country, for 62 years. Then LCMS sold it to some funko Jhesus group. (You have to put the "h" in Jesus because it's the first letter of the word "holy.") I guess they did not see it as important to their mission any longer, and I think I heard that they were loosing money on it. As my father noted, I want to hate the LCMS for this, but I wasn't contributing to keep the station going, and they can sell their property if they want to. Still, I will miss it.
So my wife and I sat in the living room last night and listened to the last hour of Classic 99. They went out, flags flying, playing Beethoven's 9th, Ode to Joy.
So my wife and I sat in the living room last night and listened to the last hour of Classic 99. They went out, flags flying, playing Beethoven's 9th, Ode to Joy.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Conflict Metal
Here's another NPR triggered story: NPR today did a piece on conflict metals which are basically like conflict diamonds except that they are precious or industrial metals, not gems. NPR interviewed a bunch of folks who were demonstrating outside Intel in Portland, Oregon, against the use of conflict metals in computer chip manufacturing. Seems they want Congress to pass a law making companies accountable for their supply chains to make sure that no conflict metals are being used in that company's products.
I think my first question is why should a vocal minority be allowed to impose its conscience on the rest of the world?
Right behind that, my next thought was that these people were trying to impose on the company an obligation that they seemed to lazy to undertake themselves. I'll explain. At every step of the supply line, you can look back at the supply line, but that line also runs forward by which I mean the customer is also part of the process and if they sell the product to another customer, like a used car, they are now part of the chain. So, if you don't like a company's manufacturing process, then don't buy its product or even better make yourself, the consumer legally responsible for the origin of the components. And, if your answer is that you don't know if the product is made with materials that make a profit for a group you think is morally repugnant, then think about that for just a second. If you don't know, and, thus, it is not fair for you to have to be accountable for your use, why is it fair to make a company accountable for where the people they buy from get their stuff? If you can't be bothered to go find out, why should you make them do it for you?
Oh I know; I know. It's because you are morally right and true and brave and wise and anointed and all that and that GIVES you the right to create laws like this. And it means that you have the right to use the government to impose your true and noble nature on everyone else when you can't get enough people voluntarily involved in your cause that they would cease to purchase the product based on their own sense of morality. Certainly, it would NEVER mean that if you can't get enough people to voluntarily boycott the product, it is because they don't care enough to find out if it is in the class of evil products or maybe even, gasp, disagree with you. No, you have to do what's best for them. Because you know it far better then they, the poor little things. Onward, Utopia! Huzzah!
I think my first question is why should a vocal minority be allowed to impose its conscience on the rest of the world?
Right behind that, my next thought was that these people were trying to impose on the company an obligation that they seemed to lazy to undertake themselves. I'll explain. At every step of the supply line, you can look back at the supply line, but that line also runs forward by which I mean the customer is also part of the process and if they sell the product to another customer, like a used car, they are now part of the chain. So, if you don't like a company's manufacturing process, then don't buy its product or even better make yourself, the consumer legally responsible for the origin of the components. And, if your answer is that you don't know if the product is made with materials that make a profit for a group you think is morally repugnant, then think about that for just a second. If you don't know, and, thus, it is not fair for you to have to be accountable for your use, why is it fair to make a company accountable for where the people they buy from get their stuff? If you can't be bothered to go find out, why should you make them do it for you?
Oh I know; I know. It's because you are morally right and true and brave and wise and anointed and all that and that GIVES you the right to create laws like this. And it means that you have the right to use the government to impose your true and noble nature on everyone else when you can't get enough people voluntarily involved in your cause that they would cease to purchase the product based on their own sense of morality. Certainly, it would NEVER mean that if you can't get enough people to voluntarily boycott the product, it is because they don't care enough to find out if it is in the class of evil products or maybe even, gasp, disagree with you. No, you have to do what's best for them. Because you know it far better then they, the poor little things. Onward, Utopia! Huzzah!
NPR
I haven't posted in a long time - Shame on me. I am really good of thinking of things to post when I'm driving too, probably because I have no way to note it down or post it. Anyway, this one I remembered.
Last Thursday (I think), Steve Innskeep or Carl Castle or someone on NPR was interviewing a Harvard MBA about an MBA code of ethics which the subject had developed. The NPR guy said something during the interview that roughly was, "the bank gives you a loan it shouldn't have, and you get foreclosed." That phrase struck me enough that I tuned out most of the rest of the interview.
I should note that the phrase was not the focus of the question at the time. Rather it was just tossed off like it was a common knowledge fact. For example, it was said in the same manner that someone might mention that if a car runs out of gas, it won't run.
What drivel! Does anyone else see a cause and effect problem there. The question implies that if the homeowner is subjected to a foreclosure, it is, inter alia, the BANK'S fault. It does not even allow for the idea that just possibly, in the ultra rare case, something other than the evil bank might be at fault when a foreclosure happens. I dunno, maybe the homeowner lost their job and couldn't make the payments. Maybe they are an addict and chose not to make the payments. Maybe the homeowner violated another term of the mortgage? Maybe the homeowner should have known better than to take out a loan like that? Maybe, the homeowner lied on the loan application. I'm sure though that someone thinks that last one is the bank's fault too; after all they should have anticipated that borrowers might lie and thus be responsible for protecting the borrower from his/her own stupidity and greed.
CAVEAT: This post should not be read to imply that I think banks are blameless - I happen to detest big banks. However, I am really tired of having John Q blame everyone, banks, government regulators, etc. EXCEPT the homeowners.
Last Thursday (I think), Steve Innskeep or Carl Castle or someone on NPR was interviewing a Harvard MBA about an MBA code of ethics which the subject had developed. The NPR guy said something during the interview that roughly was, "the bank gives you a loan it shouldn't have, and you get foreclosed." That phrase struck me enough that I tuned out most of the rest of the interview.
I should note that the phrase was not the focus of the question at the time. Rather it was just tossed off like it was a common knowledge fact. For example, it was said in the same manner that someone might mention that if a car runs out of gas, it won't run.
What drivel! Does anyone else see a cause and effect problem there. The question implies that if the homeowner is subjected to a foreclosure, it is, inter alia, the BANK'S fault. It does not even allow for the idea that just possibly, in the ultra rare case, something other than the evil bank might be at fault when a foreclosure happens. I dunno, maybe the homeowner lost their job and couldn't make the payments. Maybe they are an addict and chose not to make the payments. Maybe the homeowner violated another term of the mortgage? Maybe the homeowner should have known better than to take out a loan like that? Maybe, the homeowner lied on the loan application. I'm sure though that someone thinks that last one is the bank's fault too; after all they should have anticipated that borrowers might lie and thus be responsible for protecting the borrower from his/her own stupidity and greed.
CAVEAT: This post should not be read to imply that I think banks are blameless - I happen to detest big banks. However, I am really tired of having John Q blame everyone, banks, government regulators, etc. EXCEPT the homeowners.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)