Potpourri
==> These foolish people are straining a young marriage by restricting themselves to Bitcoin. But maybe they’re hoping to avoid fighting about money; instead they will fight about a medium of exchange.
==> People I know suspected hanky panky with the Auburn police department’s ticketing policies, but one cop blows the whistle on it (and gets fired).
==> A neat carbon tax calculator. Great for parties!
==> A decent collection of funny behind-the-scenes movie stills.
==> I swear I can never get anywhere in my arguments with Noah Smith. It’s like he doesn’t even get my (awesome) point half the time.
==> You know you got smacked down when John Taylor tells you in public that you misapplied the Taylor Rule.
==> Tom Woods boldly takes a stand against slavery. Speaking of which: I haven’t gotten sufficient reassurance from all the people jumping in on this topic, that they are opposed to mass murder of innocent people during a war. Since they don’t start each article with a firm declaration of this, should we suspect them all of being soft on this issue of collateral damage?
The units of the Taylor Rule don’t add up.
“r” is a rate (i.e. per time)
“p” is a rate (i.e. per time)
“y” is a unitless ratio (percent deviation of GDP from a target GDP)
“c” the Okun’s thingy is some strange unit, but not a rate.
I know that unemployment is often called “the unemployment rate” but it isn’t a rate, and time is not part of the measurement. Unemployment can be measured instantaneously.
I would suggest that in most cases people just shrug and don’t care much. For example, many people in Australia were gung-ho about sending troops into Iraq and Afghanistan, but now we are wringing hands over this refugee problem… each of the wars that we started produced an extra million or so refugees.
I don’t know if you should Bob, but you do. Or did any way. I recall a post, subsequently withdrawn, claiming just exactly that Daniel and I did.
Hummel reviews Woods on the Black Laws and the Confederacy. http://www.la-articles.org.uk/woods2.htm
OK, I was going to keep it in a private email to Bob and some others but now I can’t resist.
When I saw this headline I was secretly hoping the first line would read “Tom DiLorenzo and Tom Woods seen fleeing from the scene”:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/lincoln-memorial-vandalized-with-green-paint/2013/07/26/b48a3e32-f5da-11e2-a2f1-a7acf9bd5d3a_story.html
Maybe if they were instead carrying machine guns, occupying schools and churches, threatening to shoot at anyone who wanted out of their (Woods and DiLorenzo) Rothbardian utopia, DK would hold them in higher esteem.
He would be lobbying for a huge Greek temple of worship built to honor them.
Glenn Greenwald bothers me in a really deep, genuine way…..and I’m always a little shocked that a lot of people don’t see it that way.
Posted by dkuehn
http://factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.com/2012/04/glenn-greenwald-bothers-me-in-really.html
Nice to know Bob never ever ever objects to a little hyperbole on this blog!
You mean you think what I said is horrible and accusatory?
While I would, in general, have also assumed such a comment to be hyperbole, in this case it isn’t, Ken B.
What I said is actually consistent with what DK once claimed on this blog he would support, should the people of Texas decide to secede from his Union.
In other words, if you happened to be in Austin, TX, and you were in a mall or resturant say, where the majority of the people want to secede, then as you are told to lay face down with your hands behind your back, by armed stormtroopers with itchy trigger fingers, you can rest assured that DK is fully in support of your predicament. Send him pictures.
In his first inaugural address, Lincoln announced to the states that had already seceded that he only wanted to continue to collect tariffs if the came back into the Union:
I therefore consider that, in view of the Constitution and the laws, the Union is unbroken; and to the extent of my ability I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part; and I shall perform it so far as practicable, unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means, or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself.
In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence; and there shall be none, unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.
Then he explained that he had no objection to the passage of the Corwin Amendment to the Constitution which would have made slavery permanent without the possibility of an amendment:
I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable
Clearly, the supporters of Lincoln and his genocidal invasion of the south are motivated by support for the Corwin amendment and genocide. As long as we’re name calling….
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln%27s_First_Inaugural_Address
And the straw man appears. No one here argues Lincoln had ending slavery in the slave states as a goal early in the war or before his election.
This fact actually incriminates the Confederacy btw. Lincoln’s policy was to stop the spread of slavery, and it was to that the confederates objected.
“And the straw man appears. No one here argues Lincoln had ending slavery in the slave states as a goal early in the war or before his election.”
And the meta straw man’s head just exploded.
Nobody claimed that anyone here argued Lincoln had ending slavery in the slave states as a goal early in the war or before his election.
“This fact actually incriminates the Confederacy btw. Lincoln’s policy was to stop the spread of slavery, and it was to that the confederates objected.”
That wasn’t Lincolns’ policy. His policy was to establish and maintain control. Slavery was moot.
If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. – Abraham Lincoln, Letter to Horace Greeley, August 22, 1862.
Lincoln didn’t care about slavery. He only cared about power.
The confederacy was a quasi-totalitarian hellhole. Saddam was as bad or worse. You need more than that to justify each invasion. Unless you actually have an ulterior motive.
http://www.adena.com/adena/usa/cw/cw279.htm
Very much the same arguments were put forth on the Southern side as well. There’s logic to this though. Since Alexander Hamilton Stephens was a supporter of slavery, everything else he supported must also be wrong. Thus, since Stephens said secession was a bad idea, thus secession must really be a good idea. Thus, Lincoln was wrong.
We live in a golden age of art vandalization. The list of paintings and statues attacked in galleries in recent decades is very long. I did some googling once on this. The most famous example in recent decades was a chisel attack on the Pieta, but there have been attacks on The Night Watch and hundreds of others. And let’s not forget the bimyan Buddha.
It’s because you typically say 6 right things and 4 wrong things, and ask “Am I right or am I wrong?” about the whole package. You can’t demand that an intellectually honest person accept a package deal like that.
Are we talking about actual wrong things, or wrong in relation to wrong?
I’m going out on a limb and suggesting that Mr. Smith has no familiarity with even basic Austrian concepts and/or analysis. Like every other Keynesian in the galaxy.
Holy moly! According to the carbon tax calculator, we could have all industrial nations stop all carbon emissions, and assume the max (4.5 C) climate sensitivity, and it buys us a whopping 0.4 degree reduction by 2100.
I hope they did their homework…
Those games are designed to make sure no one wins.
Always remember that the objective is to make sure the guy drops another quarter into the slot so he can play again.
“By your powers combined …”
Captain Planet! Our hero!
“We’re the Turner-teers. You can be one, too. Cuz reducing population is the thing to do.”
“I haven’t gotten sufficient reassurance from all the people jumping in on this topic, that they are opposed to mass murder of innocent people during a war.”
Yes I really started sensing many blind spots recently… They are almost everywhere and infinite in amount.
The law of non-contradiction is a big one on this blog.
Why didn’t you make your ‘cryptic talk’ more specific when I asked you?
http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2013/07/potpourri-151.html#comment-69742
Thanks,