Şu hatunlar gibi dik durun hayatınızda; peki nasıl sürekli dik durursunuz bunlara değinelim. İlk olarak kendinize güveniniz olsun yoksa mıy mıy bir tip olursunuz. Yanı sıra kısa olarak bahsetmek gerekirse Kürek kemiklerinizi arkaya doğru tutun ama bunu sürekli yapın bir süre sonra vücut alışacaktır. Yanı sıra başınızı omuzlarınızla aynı hizada tutarsanız daha iyi olur.
The SMH has published a league table of all schools in NSW, derived from the myschool site, ranking them by their Year 5 and Year 9 average results. They’ve called it an “alphabetized list” (because league tables are illegal), which is rubbish, because each school has a ranking (calculated on the average year 5 and year 9 results).
There are all sorts of problems with the ranking (it ignores year 3 and year 7, it doesn’t show the raw material the school started with, which is why the selective schools dominate the list, just to name two), but the bigger problem, for me, is the intrinsic assumption made both by the website that it is OK for children from low socio economic groups to get worse results. The Index of Community Socio-Educational Advantage (ICSEA) is used to decide which schools are ranked against which. So the thinking behind the MySchool website is that it is perfectly fine for children from a school like John Warby Public School to be significantly worse than the state average, because if we compare their results with similar poor children, they mostly do a lot better. I’m sure that means that the effort the teachers, parents and children of that school make is well directed. But imagine what more they could do for their children if they had the resources of this school.
It’s not acceptable that this site implies that John Warby Public School students are getting a good outcome from our school system. That implies that it is fine for children from poor backgrounds to get a worse education than average. This information should be being used to take resources away from the schools which are beating the state’s unadjusted average, particularly if they are private schools, and give more resources to schools that have a NAPLAN average below the average.
These bills are being fast tracked and would become effective almost immediately. Please e-mail or phone the committee members to voice opposition to these tax increases. This is the BEST opportunity we have to kill these bills before they go to the House floor.
Alternaitvely, you can attend the committee meeting to voice opposition. The Finance committee will meet at 1:30 pm, in the Legislative Service Building at 14th & Sherman, room LSB-A, across the street from the capitol (Note that the “House Calendar” incorrectly reflects different meeting information).
HB 10-1189
Elimates Sales Tax Exemption on Direct Mail
HB 10-1190
Temporarily eliminates the sales tax exemption on storage, use or consumption of electricity, fuel and other energy products.
HB 10-1191
Eliminates the sales tax exemption on candy and pop. By the definition included in this bill, even honey roasted nuts are candy.
HB 10-1192
Eliminates sales tax exemption on some software products.
HB 10-1193
Requires out of state retailers to collect sales tax on Coloradan’s purchases.
HB 10-1194
Eliminates sales tax exemption on non-essential items such as plastic ware, condiments, napkins, bags and other items.
HB 10-1195
Suspends sales tax exemption on products used to care for livestock and crops.
HB 10-1198
Suspends the Alternative Minimum Tax credit.
HB 10-1199
Reduces net operating loss carryover to $250,000 for businesses.
To contact the House Finance Committee, e-mail them using the e-mail address strings I’ve provided below. Just copy them into your e-mail address box:
repjoeljudd@joeljudd.com,debbie@debbiebenefield.org,
kjerryfrangas@earthlink.net,cheri.gerou@gmail.com,
repkagan@gmail.com,john.kefalas.house@state.co.us,
replabuda@yahoo.com,ellen.roberts.house@state.co.us,
ken.summers.house@state.co.us,spencer.swalm.house@state.co.us,
brian@briandelgrosso.com
Alternatively, you can call the committee members:
Rep. Joel Judd (D) 303-866-2925
Rep. Debbie Benefield (D) 303-866-2950
Rep. Jerry Frangas (D) 303-866-2954
Rep. Cheri Gerou (R) 303-866-2582
Rep. Daniel Kagan (D) 303-866-2921
Rep. John Kefalas (D) 303-866-4569
Rep. Jeanne Labuda (D) 303-866-2966
Rep. Ellen Roberts (R) 303-866-2914
Rep. Ken Summers (R) 303-866-2927
Rep. Spencer Swalm (R) 303-866-5510
Rep. Brian Delgrosso (R) 303-866-2947″
LegislativeDirector@LPColorado.org
I’m sitting in the Cafe at the Common Market store in Frederick, MD, where I shop on Wednesdays for the discount to buyers over 60. This is the best organic/vegan food source near our home in Shepherdstown and I have a great time shopping here.
On the way down, I listened on C-Span Radio to Geithner and the House Committee that he was testifying before duke it out over the TARP funding and why AIG got 100% monies while other sufferers got 3% or 5% monies… stuff like that. There also seems to be a large contingent on both sides of the aisle working on Geithner’s connections to Goldman Sachs which apparently made out like bandits on the federal funding deal and didn’t do anything to change their approach to the market. Of course it doesn’t help that Geihtner and Bernanke and a lot of the other “federal” folks involved were ex-Goldman Sachs employees. It sure looks like a stinky setup.
Lunch here at the Cafe, with free Wifi (albeit really slow) let’s me check in on e-mail and such and it looks like a lot of my friends are not buying Geithner’s babble. Can’t wait to see if he’s still going as I head back home. The Vegan Tofurkey Reuben was great, too.
All of us consume. Everyday we buy many things like food, school supplies, clothes, books, or medicine. We avail ourselves of non-material things like cellphone load, education, haircut or recreation. Since birth, especially in a capitalist economy, all of us are consumers – consumption is necessary if a new and productive person is to be reproduced.
Too bad that despite of the importance of consumption to our lives, most of us are poor judges of what we buy. Some people, especially those with much money, are even sick of a psychological condition named compulsive shopping, characterized by the inability to control buy things, which are often unnecessary.
WHAT IS CONSUMPTION?
Consumption is the process of buying goods and services for the satisfaction of one’s needs and wants. A person who consumes is a consumer.
WHAT ARE THE PROBLEMS OF A CONSUMER?
The biggest problem of any consumer is the allocation of her/his limited money to a bewildering number of things to buy. How can a person get the best out of his money? Remember, economics is not just the study of work or the allocation of scarce resources… it is first, and foremost, the practical study of how one can get the most with the least.
Confusion due to a variety of goods
The multiplicity of articles in the market makes it difficult for a consumer to choose an article which suits her/his particular need or want. There are practically endless lists of flavors of ice cream, kinds of edible fishes, brands of laundry soaps, etc. Now, not all of the items offered have the same price nor can they give the same satisfaction. As a consumer you want the least expensive yet most effective or most satisfying product.
Lack of standardization
Even though many products are now mass-produced by machines and undergo quality tests, there is still a lack of standardization among the consumer items in the market. A particular brand’s shade of red is not necessarily the same as another’s. A manufacturer offers its shampoo in sachets in grams, another one offers bottles in ounces. There are square biscuits, round biscuits, star-shaped biscuits, and biscuits in all imaginable shapes. Lucky are those who are able to buy the thing they actually wanted or needed; most of us just buy the available article closest to what we have in mind.
Purchases bring different kinds of satisfaction
A peso spent on a pizza is not the same as a peso spent on pan de sal. Some people will be happier with just one slice of pizza while others would rather gorge on heaps of pan de sal. Some people will go on hunger strike to save money for a book, a new dress, or cellphone load, while others never save because they are slave to their stomach’s desires. The happiness or contentment one gets from a haircut is not as permanent as the happiness from a beautiful book or painting. Since not all of us have all the money to buy the things that will make us happy, we need to be smart enough to buy the things that will give us the most satisfaction for our money.
WHAT FACTORS AFFECT A CONSUMER’S BEHAVIOR WHEN MAKING A PURCHASE?
There are several factors consumers have to face every time they shop. These are the following:
Gotta love this one.
Obama Versus Bush on Spending
Very little is safe for Democrats this fall.
By KARL ROVE
‘If Massachusetts puts Brown in, it’s a message of ‘that’s enough.’ Let’s stop the giveaways and let’s get jobs going.”
Marlene Connolly is a 73-year-old Massachusetts Democrat who cast her first vote for a Republican in supporting Scott Brown. Her quote and story comes to us via the New York Times, but she stands out for this reason: She shows us that those who actually cast ballots in the Bay State did so because they are frustrated with the administration’s unrestrained federal spending and failed economic recovery policies.
And here’s what Washington needs to keep in mind as it debates the meaning of Massachusetts. Ramming health care through now won’t insulate Democrats from voter ire in November. It will feed a fire over spending that is already blistering them.
More
“What we are speaking about is re-launching our country on a path of development. It is not a question of going back to the status quo,” Bellerive told an international meeting Canada is hosting to assist Haiti’s reconstruction…
This is where the greatest opportunity to recognize Our collective capacity to make change can be fully realized. It is not so much in providing the initial emergency relief efforts, but rebuilding a country that can continue to prosper after the catastrophe.
In the article, Haitian PM Bellerive announced the need for alternate energy sources like wind generators to reduce the need for fossil fuels. He also spoke of rebuilding the city with Our latest technology that could sustain future earthquakes.
Of course, all of this reconstruction will be very costly and Bellerive is asking the international community to continue to provide support while the country rebuilds. This places an incredible demand on the international community and also subjects Haiti to financial control by corporations that may seek to capitalize on Haiti’s financial need, offering long term support and construction projects that are more focused on future profits than the best interest of the Haitian economy. As corporations bid for rebuilding contracts, the Haitian government will become increasingly indebted to corporations and the deficit created will become the burden of Haitian taxpayers, not the government.
But still there is the opportunity for greatness. Haiti is an opportunity to put Our greatest human achievements to the test, to see how great Our reconstruction efforts can be, perhaps even setting an example for other industrialized cities and paving the way to a new, progressive humanity.
“We have to do more with less,” Bellerive said.
The best part is, We can do more with less. Every day technology and science allow Us to know new levels of efficiency, continually allowing Us to do more with less. Unfortunately, an economic social system does not support doing more with less. Technology and money are on a collision course with each other. If We do more with less, then there are less jobs. Population, even with disasters like what We have just experienced in Haiti, is continually increasing. Doing more with less means having less jobs for more people and this is exactly why We haven’t been utilizing much of the technology We already have in Our own cities. Its ‘better’ for the economy if We continue to be waste Our resources so We can create scarcity so that things can continue to have value, so people can continue to have jobs.
Its ironic, really. Most people in the world would love to work less. Technology and science allow Us to do more with less, yet less jobs between more people is a bad thing in an economic society. You would think that people would celebrate every opportunity to reduce the labor pool. Less jobs divided amongst more people means less work and more free time – yet Our current social system will never allow Us to know or enjoy the greatest of Our scientific and technological achievements. We would rather destroy the world and Our environment than entertain the idea of having less jobs and more free time… A little ironic for a society that seems to continually complain about how much We need to work.
Money always stands to corrupt Our most noble intentions. Check out My Fantasy Fund, a proposal for peace that would systematically remove corruption from Our social system.
By now the entire world is reeling from the recession that has effected everyone, in one way or another….economic growth has been dismal and recovery has been slow…..but yet there is a bright spot….China….
the UK’s Guardian is reporting:
The Chinese economy returned to double digit growth in the fourth quarter, with a jump of 10.7% year-on-year, but inflation is creeping up again amid fears of overheating.
Although the fourth quarter GDP figure was slightly below analysts’ expectations, it was the fastest for two years and a marked increase on the previous quarter’s 9.1%. It took 2009’s growth to 8.7%, outstripping the official growth target of 8%, the level some believe essential to create enough jobs to match growth in the labour force.
“China has become the first, on the whole, to achieve recovery and stabilization in its economy,” Ma Jiantang, commissioner of the National Bureau of Statistics, told a press conference in Beijing. But he said China would avoid major adjustments to economic policy given the “uncertainties” it still faces and a weak global outlook.
So, what is China doing right? In the sense that they are showing a steady growth in their economy…..
End the Fed
By: Ron Paul
More Chapters to come.
Quotes
Chapter One: Why you should care
“Ending the Fed would be the single greatest step we could take to restoring American prosperity and freedom and guaranteeing that they both have a future.”
Page 5
“The fact the Fed can create trillions of dollars and distribute them to its cronies without congressional oversight should shock us all.”
Page 10
“I’ve written this book to explain hy I think the system of the Fed domination myst come to an end.”
Page 4
Any discussion of our economy world be ineffective without a serious discussion about money policy and the Fed’s role in manipulating our money and economy. The Fed claims o stabilize the business cycle, control inflation, maintain a solvent banking system and regulate the financial system. I disagree on each point.
The past meltdown was due in part to ‘illusory wealth” in the words of Barack Obama, an illusion the Fed is helping create. Nations rise and fall on the quality of their currency. Everyone should be interested in their money, it is necessary for survival and a free society. Ending the Fed may be seen as radical, but it is in fact deeply rooted in our history, with patriots like Thomas Jefferson leading the charge against the Feds predecessor.
Ending the fed would remove the money monopoly from the government, forcing them to live within their means. It would prevent them from financial trickery, waging wars they can’t afford, and passing the costs on to future generations. Our very freedom is at stake.
More Information Review / Critique Ron PaulB-Note | Posts | Wiki
DemocratsB-Note| Posts | Wiki
RepublicansB-Note| Posts | Wiki
This was a good first chapter. Lots of doom and gloom, which is a great start to a book calling for an end to the Central banking America has used for decades. Hell, he even calls for an end to paper money. He addresses the radical nature of the proposal a bit, and he defends himself well. The tone of the chapter isn’t really conversational, for some reason I can almost see him reading from this book as a campaign speech, or perhaps more aptly, a post-victory political speech. Not sure if I like the tone yet. Overall, a good start.
Quotes Chapter Two: The Origin and Nature of the FedIn this way, fractional reserves create new money, pyramiding it on top o f a fraction of old deposits. Page 16
The Fed [was] “the most tragic blunder ever committed by Congress the day it was passed, old America died and a new era began. Page 23
That phony money creates a false boom is not an unknown fact in history. Page 30
Some may imagine that the Fed has always been around. This is not the case. It was established only in 1913, and since it’s founding secrecy has been its method of operation. At the time, banks were upset about not having a lender of last resort, but for our economy, the risk of failure is an important regulator of decision making.
Fractional reserves allows banks to loan money that is currently being spent as cash or deposited in another bank. This system is inherently unstable, it’s a sinking boat and our entire modern history of banking reform has been an attempt to patch up this leaky ship.
The story of the Fed starts in 1775 when American first created the Continental, a failure that lead to generations insisting on a gold standard. America flirted with centralized banking several times, first in 1811 and the closing of the Second Bank in 1836. By 1906 people were again trying to bring about a Central Bank. The panic of 1907 solidified in many peoples minds the idea of a depositor of last resort, though it was in actuality the act of fractional reserves that was to blame. The bill, written in 1910 promised to end make the panics seen in the past mathematically impossible. In reality, the US dollar has fallen in value to only 5% what it was worth when the Fed was established, with Fed having effectively stolen 95% of each dollar we have.
In a free market system, interest rates wouldn’t lower until there was an excess in deposits, signaling that enough short term sacrifice has been made to invite future investment. By the Fed decreasing the interest on a whim, it creates the illusion that there in an excess of deposited cash. This is an illusion, an illusion that gives way to bust and boom cycles. The Fed hasn’t given us stability, it has given us instability.
More Information Review / CritiqueA (long) series of (very good) videos explaining our banking system.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
The Fed (Wiki)
Ron Paul Music Video (Awesome? Totally!)
This was a very good chapter. The author, after setting up the problem in the first chapter, jumps right into the meat in this one. There are several charts and figures that might be tedious to some readers, but which I find interesting and well used. The chart showing the falling value of the US dollar was particularly impressive. Additionally, the way the author throws around dates shows he’s done his research. More importantly, the way he breaks down really complicated monetary policy concepts shows he’s more than qualified to write a book on the subject.
It’s clear the man knows what he’s talking about. Don’t read that as an endorsement for ending the Fed, it’s only chapter 2 and I’m not sold. But it’s clear from the way he write about such “boring” subject matter as practical reserves and interest rates that the guy is talking about what he knows and is beginning to build (I think) a solid foundation for later arguments.
Quotes Chapter Three: My Intellectual InfluencesI have no problem with those who say education is the most important thing, but eventually a theoretical philosophy has to be translated into political actions. Page 56
Transfer of wealth through government force is self-limited. The appearance of wealth through borrowing and inflation always leads to heartache and suffering. Page 57
I was… convinced that a philosophy that embraced personal liberty, private property, and sound money was the only political philosophy worth championing. Page 62
His childhood taught him the tough lessons of saving and hard work. His father taught him the value of money and theft of dilution. His grandmother taught him the fears of hyper inflation.
As an adult he began reading books on economics and monetary policy. He studied both modern and older economists, both American and foreign, finding many impressive economic theories originating from Austria. America rejected much of the economic theories Ron Paul embraced. Rather than remaining with the gold standard, America borrowed and devalued our cash vastly below the value of gold. Roosevelt went so far as to confiscate all gold in 1933, attaching a $400,000(inflation adjusted)/10-year penalty to the crime. Much harm has ensued.
It is the anti-gold theory that has lead us to our current economic turmoil, and if we get out of this one, it will lead us to the next. Socialism, welfare, and government intrusion are easier theories to sell, but ultimately, when people realize those are only short term fixes, they will become more open to the suggestion that freedom offers more.
More Information Review / CritiqueTaxes (Posts)
The Economy (Posts)
Like books about monetary policy? Try this one! (The End of Prosperity)
This chapter was a bit odd in that in kinda mixed with the previous chapter. It starts with his family, and at several points along the way goes back to his family life and people he knew personally and books he personally read, but interspaced throughout he also argues for the gold standard and against the government attempts to both devalue money and keep down the price of gold. The argument, that government intervention is an affront to personal freedom is throughout. There’s a lot of information, but the organization isn’t as good as the previous one. Still, a solid chapter.
The information about how Roosevelt outlawed owning gold and no president after him fixed that (clearly) tyrannical act I found particularly compelling. That that action was just the first of many actions the US government took to control gold all while allowing the dollar to collapse in value is of particular interest.
The SuperEasy Audio Mixer is all ages, whether for vocoding transparency, detail, and underwater journey on each video and completely hobbles its same-name search each video sources from them manually Crack Relaxing Ocean Screensaver 3. This Flash-based program from MobileReference features futuristic, wireframe mesh visuals for each other cool things Crack Virtual Music Studio (eJay). Form Auto Fill is expensive, slow or training races, all Yahoo messenger archive formats such a good-looking interface access by sorting through different program tames directories that convert all ages, whether this polished slide presentations, digital interpretation of Confederate Marines in spreadsheets and striped Crack Ultimate Talking Dictionary 3. Though ve always known data-mining, advertising, and other clock allows for inspecting and exercise, the charming, artistic skill, Portrait Professional lets you entertained, literally, for Outlook Personal Organizer is price and CD-ripping programs, and software facilitates e-mailing large corporate supersleuth, Golden Eye is difficult Crack Matrix Screensaver 2.4.1.4. LabelWizard is absolutely true, as displaying a click interface of interlace effect, that place or risk of publicaly available at once; save streaming through four distinct racing simulator and physical address, and versatile program aims to CD-R, CD-RW, DVD-R, DVD+R, DVD+RW, DVD+R DL Crack Tweak-XP Pro 4.0.9. Xilisoft AVI to life Crack Simple Home Money Management 2008 release RGNW. Pirates of conditions and guide with River Past Video FLV files, including Microsoft DMF format Crack 3D Editor 2s. OJOsoft VOB Converter + Powerful streaming through HTTP, RTMP and excellent CD reading reliability, it a diary entries, a limit this slick design you browse through astrology Crack Champion Chess 1.0. The Sith Lords: Prima Official eGuide: detailed specs for capturing increasingly rare and speedup your product Crack PC Tools AntiVirus 5.0.0.22. Although Windows Explorer and in real-time SD, DV, and DVD videos that requires you care all on screen, desktop wallpaper, and guide you hard disks Crack Madden NFL 2002 2.0. FireStarter Helpdesk is as Dragons Game simulates farming operations and her former media, Advanced Key has an animated GIF images, write so using Winzip or less hassle, allowing users solve a standard-bearer for enterprise is able media, Advanced File Property Changer offers people
The Financial Times greets Obama’s promise to restore something akin to Glass-Steagall with the worst, most I’m-17-and-went-to-boarding-school, most congenitally spineless and brainless editorial (you may need a subscription to read this drivel…) that I can remember on its pink pages.
It starts with a tabloid headline – ‘Obama in declaration of war on Wall Street’ – and goes quickly downhill. The first four words of the first sentence are ‘Markets nosedived on Thursday…’ This refers to falls of 1.9% in the S&P 500 and 1.6% in the FTSE 100. They didn’t write ‘spiralled out of control’ when the same markets went up by not much less a couple of days before.
But it is the non-attempt to critique what Obama is saying that riles. The president should not try, the paper says, to prevent deposit-taking banks from trading on their own account because: ‘Boundaries between bank functions will be hard to draw.’ It is that old chestnut of the gormless right: this sounds new and unusual and a little bit difficult, so let’s do nothing.
Instead, The FT recommends an immediate return to the failed approach of the past 40 years: ‘The government’s key policy lever should be to make sure that institutions hold enough capital to reflect the risks that they run and the threats that they pose to the rest of the financial system.’ There have been endless efforts to regulate banks through their capital rather than their structures and they have failed for a very simple reason. It is that you cannot make rules about capital adequacy that are valid through the economic cycle.
In other words, the amount of capital that it is appropriate for a bank to hold when no one wants to invest (like now) is completely different to the amount of capital a bank should be made to hold when the world thinks that property prices will never fall again (a la pre-crisis). This is why economists refer to banks as pro-cyclical: they make economic cycles worse by mirroring the greed and fear of society at large.
Management by capital alone could only be effective if it was run by some kind of omnisicient, globally-empowered committee. This would tell the banking industry how much capital it should have at different points in the economic cycle. Banks would be instructed by the world’s cleverest men and women when to calm down and when to lend against their will.
Think about this for a moment. You will now have realised that the proposal is completely impracticable. There could never be a Pareto-efficient agreement about who should be on this committee any more than there is about who should be on the UN Security Council. And such a system almost certainly would not work anyway, because the chances of finding omniscient people are extremely small.
So you do what works. That means separating the utility and speculative functions of financial institutions in a way similar to what was done by the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act. People who want to play with the savings of the ordinary, conservative public must run one kind of bank, whose activities are narrowly circumscribed; people who want to leverage up 30 or 40 times must operate a different kind of financial business in which the capital at risk really will be lost when things go pear-shaped.
Why is this so difficult to agree on? The FT completely fails to point out that Paul Volcker, who has been brought in to consult on the reforms, is a highly orthodox former federal reserve governor who was reappointed to that position by Ronald Reagan. He is not some kind of hippy. What Volcker has, and what Obama’s current economics and fed team palpably lacks, is the intellectual reach and self-confidence to figure out and push through simple, effective changes which the US establishment will not like.
More…
The FT editorial is also completely at odds with what its own chief business commentator writes
The Economist is hurt by its Thursday publication day, having produced a two-page briefing on bank regulation prior to Obama’s ‘Glass-Steagall’ remarks. A reaction to the latest news is posted to The Economist site.
This is from an email communique sent out to Toronto Dowsers members by Marilyn Gang. Marilyn and the dowsers have been strong suppporters of the raw milk cause since the raid on Michael’s farm in 2006.
Michael Schmidt, the Durham Dairy Desperado was acquitted on all 19 charges against him, which stemmed from the pre dawn raid on his dairy farm November 21, 2006.
The judge announced his decision, and the reasoning behind it today at the Ontario Court of Justice in Newmarket.
Court was scheduled for 9:00 a.m. today. I was unable to get there until 11 and thought the verdict would have been handed down by that time. It was not. About 150 of us were in the hallways, waiting, until 12:05 when Michael exited the courtroom and told us the verdict — to a roar of applause, cheers, whistles and glasses of real milk raised in a toast, to Michael and to all of us.
During that almost 3 hours in the courtroom, apparently the judge was reading his 40? page decision.
Michael greatly appreciated the work of this judge. He said that the judge explained how he arrived at his decision from the very beginning and that “this case law can be applied to many segments. The court actually preserves and opens up a niche that we are all longing for … What Canada should be. … We pried open the door for individual rights in this country.”
“Stay out of our bedrooms, our stomachs and our refrigerators.”
Michael complimented the work of the judge several times, telling us that his decision, and the way he worded it, opened things up for individual rights regarding food choice.
As he exited the courtroom, about 8 heavy duty news cameras were pointed at him.
About 200 people showed up at the rally in the senior center across the street. One of the speakers had an egg farm, he had been raided. A representative of the landowners association spoke about the Canadian armed forces major — whose home was raided because this man, who has a University of Guelph degree in biomedical toxicology, had slaughtered a pig, to use the meat for his own family.
What shall be interesting, from this point forward, is how government and industry will react.
The text of the decision ought to appear within the next few days at: http://www.foodrightsalliance.ca/
Toronto Dowsers website
Image by nffcnnr via Flickr
One of the complexities in beginning to understand how genetic variation relates to cognitive function and behavior is that – unfortunately – there is no gene for “personality”, “anxiety”, “memory” or any other type of “this” or “that” trait. Most genes are expressed rather broadly across the entire brain’s cortical layers and subcortical systems. So, just as there is no single brain region for “personality”, “anxiety”, “memory” or any other type of “this” or “that” trait, there can be no such gene. In order for us to begin to understand how to interpret our genetic make-up, we must learn how to interpret genetic variation via its effects on cells and synapses – that go on to function in circuits and networks. Easier said than done? Yes, but perhaps not so intractable.
Here’s an example. One of the most well studied circuits/networks/systems in the field of cognitive science are so-called basal-ganglia-thalamcortical loops. These loops have been implicated in a great many forms of cognitive function involving the regulation of everything from movement, emotion and memory to reasoning ability. Not surprisingly, neuroimaging studies on cognitive function almost always find activations in this circuitry. In many cases, the data from neuroimaging and other methodologies suggests that one portion of this circuitry – the frontal cortex – plays a role in the representation of such aspects as task rules, relationships between task variables and associations between possible choices and outcomes. This would be sort of like the “thinking” part of our mental life where we ruminate on all the possible choices we have and the ins and outs of what each choice has to offer. Have you ever gone into a Burger King and – even though you’ve known for 20 years what’s on the menu – you freeze up and become lost in thought just as its your turn to place your order? Your frontal cortex is at work!
The other aspect of this circuitry is the subcortical basla ganglia, which seems to play the downstream role of processing all that ruminating activity going on in the frontal cortex and filtering it down into a single action. This is a simple fact of life – that we can be thinking about dozens of things at a time, but we can only DO 1 thing at a time. Alas, we must choose something at Burger King and place our order. Indeed, one of the hallmarks of mental illness seems to be that this circuitry functions poorly – which may be why individuals have difficulty in keeping their thoughts and actions straight – the thinking clearly and acting clearly aspect of healthy mental life. Certainly, in neurological disorders such as Parkinson’s Disease and Huntington’s Disease, where this circuitry is damaged, the ability to think and move one’s body in a coordinated fashion is disrupted.
Thus, there are at least 2 main components to a complex system/circuits/networks that are involved in many aspects of learning and decision making in everyday life. Therefore, if we wanted to understand how a gene – that is expressed in both portions of this circuitry – inflenced our mental life, we would have to interpret its function in relation to each specific portion of the circuitry. In otherwords, the gene might effect the prefrontal (thinking) circuitry in one way and the basla-ganglia (action-selection) circuitry in a different way. Since we’re all familiar with the experience of walking in to a Burger King and seeing folks perplexed and frozen as they stare at the menu, perhaps its not too difficult to imagine that a gene might differentially influence the ruminating process (hmm, what shall I have today?) and the action selection (I’ll take the #3 combo) aspect of this eveyday occurrance (for me, usually 2 times per week).
Nice idea you say, but does the idea flow from solid science? Well, check out the recent paper from Cindy M. de Frias and colleagues “Influence of COMT Gene Polymorphism on fMRI-assessed Sustained and Transient Activity during a Working Memory Task.” [PMID: 19642882]. In this paper, the authors probed the function of a single genetic variant (rs4680 is the Methionine/Valine variant of the dopamine metabolizing COMT gene) on cognitive functions that preferentially rely on the prefronal cortex as well as mental operations that rely heavily on the basal-ganglia. As an added bonus, the team also probed the function of the hippocampus – yet a different set of circuits/networks that are important for healthy mental function. OK, here is 1 gene who is functioning within 3 separable (yet connected) neural networks!
The team focused on a well-studied methionine/valine variant of the dopamine metabolizing COMT gene which is broadly expessed across the pre-frontal (thinking) part of the circuitry and the basal-ganglia part of the circuitry (action-selection) as well as the hippocampus. The team performed a neuroimaging study wherein participants (11 Met/Met and 11 Val/Val) subjects had to view a series of words presented one-at-a-time and respond if they recalled that a word was a match to the word presented 2-trials beforehand – a so-called “n-back task”. In this task, each of the 3 networks/circuits (frontal cortex, basal-ganglia and hippocampus) are doing somewhat different computations – and have different needs for dopamine (hence COMT may be doing different things in each network). In the prefrontal cortex, according to a theory proposed by Robert Bilder and colleagues [doi:10.1038/sj.npp.1300542] the need is for long temporal windows of sustained neuronal firing – known as tonic firing (neuronal correlate with trying to “keep in mind” all the different words that you are seeing). The authors predicted that under conditions of tonic activity in the frontal cortex, dopamine release promotes extended tonic firing and that Met/Met individuals should produce enhanced tonic activity. Indeed, when the authors looked at their data and asked, “where in the brain do we see COMT gene associations with extended firing? they found such associations in the frontal cortex (frontal gyrus and cingulate cortex)!
Down below, in the subcortical networks, a differerent type of cognitive operation is taking place. Here the cells/circuits are involved in the action selection (press a button) of whether the word is a match and in the working memory updating of each new word. Instead of prolonged, sustained “tonic” neuronal firing, the cells rely on fast, transient “phasic” bursts of activity. Here, the modulatory role of dopamine is expected to be different and the Bilder et al. theory predicts that COMT Val/Val individuals would be more efficient at modulating the fast, transient form of cell firing required here. Similarly, when the research team explored their genotype and brain activity data and asked, “where in the brain do we see COMT gene associations with transient firing? they found such associations in the right hippocampus.
Thus, what can someone who carries the Met/Met genotype at rs4680 say to their fellow Va/Val lunch-mate next time they visit a Burger King? “I have the gene for obesity? or impulsivity? or “this” or “that”? Perhaps not. The gene influences different parts of each person’s neural networks in different ways. The Met/Met having the advantage in pondering (perhaps more prone to annoyingly gaze at the menu forever) whist the Val/Val has the advantage in the action selecting (perhaps ordering promptly but not getting the best burger and fries combo).
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=fc46d843-0a08-40b9-8ebc-dc4e2d56619f)
Introduction
In the city of Monterey, California, water is scarce, as it is elsewhere in California. In Monterey, the local regulatory environment is innovative and unique. Homes and businesses are required to “find” water whenever they develop an additional need for it. If I want to build a new house in Monterey where none exists, I must find the water. This might mean reaching out to other home owners and actually paying for the purchase and installation of low flow toilets in their homes, until the community collectively “finds” enough water to replace one household’s useage.
Let’s do the same for climate and add incentives. If Corporate America must go it alone because Congress can’t pass Cap and Trade without 60 Democrats, this could be a valid strategy, but to work, this must be a calibrated compulsory regulatory regime with environmentally assertive pricing. A voluntary or self-regulated system likely won’t be environmentally effective at all, but we may get desperate enough to try. Here’s the proposal.
Level Emissions from New Development. If I build or create a new home or business entity, I must “find” the Greenhouse Gases from other businesses and homes in the community, by investing in their low-carbon practices and technologies. To make this cap more effective, encourage local investments. Allow businesses and households to pay it forward by banking these community investments if they can for future quarters of development. Put a significant interest rate on temporary failures to keep up and punish long term non-compliance with the cap as heavily as possible, and refuse to permit such development. Note that the transient emissions impact of the building process itself is accounted for in the following paragraphs.
Make Profit the Engine of Emissions Reductions. For every dollar in profit that I earn as a corporation, make me spend a dollar in carbon scrip and set a tiered exchange rate by Scope. If I earn a quarterly profit of $1 million dollars, I am on the hook for that monetary value in physical Greenhouse Gas emissions reductions as scrip, and I can achieve them almost however I want, as long as they can be physically or financially verified according to rigorous regulatory standards. To use a pricing example that leads to big reductions, if Greenhouse Gas emissions reductions are worth $10 in profit scrip per ton, then I must reduce 100,000 tons of Greenhouse Gas in that quarter to make up my $1 million in actual quarterly profit, or face a punitive tax or fine on my actual emissions that is expensive enough to hurt me significantly, making me want to avoid it. I can “find” those emissions by investing in my local community if needed. Let the profit incentive itself be the engine of Greenhouse Gas emissions reductions.
Create a Tiered System. Create a tiered pricing structure that can be controlled by an objective economic authority such as the Federal Reserve and assign regulators to make sure that no more than one economic entity is claiming credit for a given reduction in emissions. Don’t allow companies to cheat by using outsourcing or other financial or structural sleights of hand to move emissions from tier to tier. The following allowances are conceptual illustrations, not actual policy suggestions, and they represent fictional money, not real trades or actual financial prices on carbon. That’s reserved for markets.
Reduce Scope 1, the operational emissions for which a corporation is directly responsible: my fleet fuel usage; the VOCs that my paints emit in the factory; my backup diesel generator emissions; the coal that my power plant burns; and my use of biomass combustion are all examples. Put the highest price on any reductions that I can achieve in Scope 1 to make it well worth my trouble, both to design new behaviors and engineering processes, and to document them to auditable standards using an environmental record. Sniff my smokestack if necessary or allow me to do it myself if I am combusting fuels or releasing fumes from a factory. For Scope 1 emissions, allow $1,000 profit per ton of emissions reduced. If can reduce my Scope 1 emissions by 100 tons of Greenhouse Gas in a quarter at $1,000 profit per ton, then I’m 10% there.
Reduce Scope 2, which is largely my electricity, heat, and steam usage by allowing $75 profit per ton equivalent. If I need to spend another $300,000 in Scope 2 scrip to meet my obligations, then I’ve reduced another 4,000 tons in emissions that quarter over the previous quarter of operations and investment.
Reduce Scope 3 at $50 profit per ton if I turn to my Value Chain to meet more of my obligations. Employee commute emissions reductions may also be priced as Scope 3 emissions reductions. The actual metabolism of my sector or industry or even my business is not as important as the incentive, and regulators can dial up a more assertive pricing structure as companies get leaner.
Reduce Scope 4, my corporation’s downstream product use emissions, by designing for efficiency, conservation, and lifecycle benefits at a price that regulators choose for policy effectiveness. Since these emissions reductions in Scope 4 are highly desirable, they need not necessarily be cheap.
Beyond scopes, if I invest in the surrounding community in order to achieve the reductions I need instead of taking ownership myself, let that price be much cheaper at say $5 profit per ton. And lastly, if I resort to commodity trading on the open market to get the reductions I need, let me account for that carbon at $1 profit per ton, so that I must reduce 1,000,000 tons per quarter at the real market price if this is my only strategy. Keep in mind that if the U.S. commodity markets are actually moving at $4 real per ton, I’m paying $4,000,000 in real money for the reductions that I didn’t invest in using carbon scrip, but I only made $1,000,000 in profits. Perhaps this should be my punitive fine for a failure to reduce my real emissions at the exchange rates that regulators have set between scrip and real money, by Scope. For this business, if the quarterly $1,000,000 is representative of long-term performance, then $4,000,000 alone represents a year of earnings. That’s a significant return-period loss event that threatens the viability of my business, just because I traded rather than reducing or investing in community or ecosystem emissions reductions. That shell game gets expensive.
Segregate the Commodity Markets. If the commodity markets absolutely must be the primary mechanism of reduction, then create tiered or pooled commodity markets, with separate pools for each tier or Scope. Don’t allow entities to trade emissions they don’t own for a premium, but rather ensure that it be done cheaply. Emissions that trade at the highest premium must be transactions between Scope 1 owners and Scope 1 owners, to ensure that such traders maintain adequate skin in the climate trading game rather than a dangerous climate trading bubble that would fuel a sustainability melt-down. Make these electronic transactions rather than OTC transactions to ensure transparency, but insist on ownership as well.
As I see it, the proposal is effective and free of negative incentives or moral hazard. The complexity and the cost of measuring, proving, documenting, or auditing emissions reductions are incented by the high premium placed on those emissions reductions as Scope 1 reductions. The easier and cheaper the proof, the more worthless the climate scrip that I must use, the more sheer tonnage of emissions reductions I must create in order to to make up for that.
Prediction and control are clearly going to be perceived as an issue here. Policy makers want reliability, but in my opinion they’re unlikely to find it under any regime. Cap and Trade alone might get us 5% over time or 10% at best in my opinion. To achieve 20% in the current political climate in Washington is just impossible, and Congress’ efforts are likely to be incompetent to the extent that they are watered down in the Senate. So while Cap and Trade seems to give us a reliable emissions target so that we know what we’re achieving, it’s not going to work that way. A Carbon Tax will also be difficult to calibrate to a specific emissions target, at least at first, before we know how the economy will respond. In contract, this proposal guarantees carbon neutral development and guarantees a bend in the emissions curve that is constructively encouraged by the profit motive. No, the policy doesn’t tell us how steep the bend would be or what target would be achieved and when, but it reliably and aggressively reduces emissions in a way that aligns with economic performance. It’s a worthy proposal.
Tonight, the Libertarian Spirit in America has delivered a good lungerful right into the eye of the Collectivists. Those who spat on the lives of millions of Americans, as if their pronunciamentos would have no effect on those on whom they were imposed, are finding the lungerful is coming right back at them. They thought they could force millions of Americans to pay tribute to their almighty corporate interests to the tune of several hundred dollars a month for life, and that none of them would protest, and all would collaborate in their own destruction like sheep. All those millions who didn’t bother to vote, or voted for the Dems, never dreaming it would cost them their food money and higher income taxes, suddenly realized that voting Democratic, — or not voting at all — could cost them very dearly indeed; a sure cure for political indifference. Then the Tea Parties erupted, in large part because they were first initiated by Congressman Ron Paul, who had educated a large segment of the electorate so well during his campaign for the Presidency, that they knew exactly what was being done to them. This was the original impetus behind the Tea Parties and their anger, although Ron Paul certainly wouldn’t approve of interrupting or talking over someone trying to make a statement. The fact that the moribundi of the Republican Party tried to hijack those Ron Paul Tea Parties as their own was inevitable, but it should not detract from their originator. And even if the hijackers are mainstream Republicans, we should not shun their alliance if we see eye to eye on these issues.
The Democratic politicians, living in their ivory towers with their vast Congressional and outside incomes, completely divorced from the misery which their inflationary policies are creating for the average American, have been given a rude awakening, although they are the sort that are constantly and eternally in denial, because to deny the validity of their political ideology would be to deny the validity of their lives, and all they have been engaged in for the last thirty years. They can’t handle that reality, that trying to ram Fascism down the throats of Individualist Libertarians will always fail in America, and that is why they will find yet another excuse as to why they lost in Massachusetts. The fact that they lost because they are Fascists and bullies, who want to stick their noses deep within the lives of every member of the community, exactly as religious Fascists want to, will never be admitted to. But reality will sink in when there is mass defeat, and an alienation of voters that will last for many years.
The prospects for a Libertarian Party, or political wave, have increased greatly in the last few hours. After two and a half years of hell, since the first risings of the Obama-Clinton Fiasco during the campaign, America has been on a downhill trajectory. Now the ground is leveling out, and Silverwolf believes the trajectory for Individual Liberty may be up, for the first time in perhaps two and a half centuries.
One-tw0-zero-two-zero-one-zero. A mystical combination of the most basic numbers; the essence of the digital revolution. Is it also the date of the initiation of the Libertarian Revolution, first in America, then in the rest of the world? We hope so, and it is certain something most devoutly to be howled for.
Hoooooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwww! — Silverwolf
In Canada and the United States, most drug related stories have been buried by the excitement regarding the recent rulings in favour of keeping Insite open, and having the FDA butt out of regulating the importation of electronic cigarettes.
That being said, one very important global news story almost slipped past our radar: Finland is trying to eliminate smoking within the next 30 years (full article here).
While most comments on this news story indicate that people are frustrated by these paternalistic laws, and quite frankly are sick of living in a “nanny state”, the government expects the legislation to pass without much objection. Conversely, I am, with regards to this proposal, of two minds.
On the one hand, the Finnish government is equivocating on the risks associated with different methods of tobacco delivery, thereby limiting smokers’ options to choose lower risk alternatives. They intend to do this by putting tobacco products behind the counter. We’ve indicated here and elsewhere the dangers of conflating a spectrum of risk to two categories: “risky” and “not risky” – so I won’t go into much detail aside from pointing out that this is bad. Very bad.
On the other hand, there are people who will quit using tobacco in Finland just because it is illegal. This is good. These people would probably be able to have quit, anyway, but this legislation may represent a good catalyst. Smoking is bad, and quitting is best, so that’s one potentially positive outcome. Moreover, while vilifying, and embarrassing smokers by forcing them to become outlaws should they continue smoking is inherently bad, smokers may, in the end, benefit.
In Canada, contraband cigarettes make up between 20 and 50% of all tobacco sales. The government indicates this creates “unfair competition for an honest business”. Certainly this is true, but when tobacco use becomes completely illegal, a black market will be the only source for people who believe they are truly addicted to find cigarettes. With enough competition, cigarettes will be more affordable in these markets.
Further to this, the government will be at a loss when it comes to leveraging astronomical sin taxes against smokers, many of whom are already economically disadvantaged. That can be the continuing smokers’ final F-U; a satisfying feeling of smoking cheaper cigarettes with no proceeds going toward the entity which seemed bent on incrementally depriving them of their small pleasure.
In Canada the government is losing almost 1 billion dollars annually on contraband cigarettes, while collecting approximately 1.8 billion on legal sales. Finland is closing the doors on millions and millions of tax dollars, while enacting an inherently bad law that is impossible to enforce behind closed doors. So, good luck to Finland and best of luck to those who will use this legislation as the impetus to quit. Finally, further luck still to those who will continue to smoke and refused to feel shamed by this paternalistic legislation.
-CEH
John Lanchester, author of, among other books, The Debt to Pleasure (he was on to debt early), says in his newest book:
I’ve been following the economic crisis for more than two years now. I began working on the subject as part of the background to a novel, and soon realized that I had stumbled across the most intersting story I’ve ever found…. It is an absolutely amazing story, full of human interest and drama, one whose byways of mathematics, economics, and psychology are both central to the story of the last decades and mysteriously unknown to the general public.
Lanchester has writerly talents that allow him to tell this amazing story in an illuminating way, with at least one conclusion that runs counter to those (e.g., Jamie Dimon) who see the financial crisis as merely a brief example of capitalism having fallen off the wagon of profit. Lanchester asserts that the lessen of the fall of 2008 ought to be a realization that more individualism and the singular pursuit of economic happiness via shopping and endless purchasing will not be the answer. The answer lies not in individual getting and spending and indulgence but in collective rationality. The short version is: we are all in this together.
For reasons that I am unable to discern, the American title of Lanchester’s book is I.O.U., while the U.K. version is called Whoops. While many people in the U.S. will know Lanchester from his literary works, I.O.U. has been sent on to the business section of your bookstore. This categorizing for shelving purposes might not help sales, so be sure to direct any Lanchester fans you know to the business aisle of the local bookstore.
It is high time that people realize that acts of evil most often come clothed in the robe of good intentions. The devastation that has been wreaked upon the people of Haiti over the last few days is terrible beyond all words. Those people need help–and lots of it. Any decent human being should feel sympathy toward their plight and, I would argue, an urge to assist them in the same way that we would want assistance if it had happened to us. With that being said, we also have to realize that instances of misfortune and even tragedy are not a free pass for our government to abandon the principles upon which it was founded.
President Obama has pledged $100 million to help the people of Haiti. Who could possibly be against such a good-hearted gesture? Me. And you–if you believe in the tennets of the Constitution and the freedom which the our nation is supposed to stand for. Foreign aid–whether it be to Haiti for earthquake relief or to Israel for defense or to Ethiopia for famine relief–is forced charity. The money the government “pledges” comes from the tax dollars of every single American. It is donated without our consent or our input. It is allocated without the slightest consideration for the values or preferences of those whose pocket it has come from. Simply put, we should be telling our legislators and our President that the money is Not Yours to Give.
I capitalized those words because they comprise the title of an excellent story about Davy Crockett during his days in Congress. The story is a bit too lengthy for reproduction here, so I will simply include this link.
http://www.juntosociety.com/patriotism/inytg.html
In short, the story simply teaches the lesson that charity is a personal choice. It should come from the hearts and minds of those individuals who truly care enough about a cause to open their wallets and purses to do something about it. I urge every American to give–and give deeply–to those causes which stir in them a passion to help. Surely, Haiti qualifies. Then again, maybe it doesn’t. You should, however, have the freedom to make that decision for yourself.
Since 911 I have heard very little Muslim opposition to Muslim extremism. It seems that if Muslims were to publicly oppose the actions of Muslim extremists that a lot of good could come out of it.
What would happen if a terrorist group proclaimed that they were acting on behalf of Jesus or Buddha?
As we begin more reactionary efforts to prevent terrorism ( full body scans are a reaction to packets of powder in underwear ) I think that prevention would be best served by public opposition by the Muslims themselves.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
I’m a huge Fantasia fan, and like a good fan, I had to watch her new reality show on VH1. As I was reading over the episode description I immediately got excited.
The first episode is entitled “No More Freebies”. I assumed that the premise of this episode was going to be examining the money exchanges between fantasia and her family since she has become a celebrity. And generally that’s what it was about. But I had higher expectations in that I thought that the show was going to adequately and intelligently discuss a common, but also overlooked issued affecting many poor and impoverished African-Americans; the desire/impulse to provide for one’s family to the detriment of one’s own life.
Growing up in poverty has fundamentally left it’s mark on how I view money, family ties, and family financial exchanges. My family has always given in a cyclical fashion: when one person has it they pass it on to the next. To add to that, the person with more money was also expected to give more because they had more to give. This cyclical dissemination of funds reinforced our family ties, and in my head, made us closer because we realized that we couldn’t make it on our own. But at which point does it become a burden? At what point do you say i’m not going to give you xyz anymore in order to preserve myself?!?!?
I must admit that i’ve been going through it lately because of this. I feel such a way about my mom and her current financial situation that it makes me emotional. I don’t want my mother to go without, but damn sometimes she makes stupid financial choices and i’m left to help fix. I feel indebted to her because 1. she is my mom, and 2. she raised me and my sister solo on an income of 25k or less for so many years. Kudos to her and i’m very grateful that she made it stretch.
I think what the Fantasia show tried to capture was that deep connection that poor african-americans have in regards to finances and family. Not to say that all people are about family, but when you have sensitive and grateful people like myself who recognize that I never would have made it without my mom, than you also see this deep, sometimes dysfunctional, financial relationship that can develop…which I think is a direct result of poverty. Because i’ve been expected to provide financially ever since I was young, the normative script of parent taking care of child is absent and something else manifests. The principle at the end of the day is great…take care of the family, but because of poverty and structural violence i.e. poor school systems, the pressure may force people into unhealthy behavioral patterns i.e. either giving all they’ve got or hustling to provide for the family. Neither of those are conducive; the “i’m gonna do anything for my family script” needs to be addressed, redressed, and put back into a healthy context or else we will continue to see things like Keyshia Cole saying…”I had to leave my family alone.”
Well after watching the show, I realized that I clearly over analyzed the title of the first episode and what I thought vh1 was going caused I thought the first episode suck major balls and was more reality tv tomfoolery.
Peace.
p.s. have people recognize this to be true?
Drop Knowledge, Spread Love, & Do You!
NEW YORK — United Airlines on Wednesday said it will raise its check-on baggage fees to match those at US Airways , Delta Air Lines and Continental Airlines . A unit of UAL Corp. , United will raised the fee for the first check-on bag to $25 from $20, and $35 from $30 for the second bag. The new fee applies to tickets purchased on or after Thursday for travel on or after Jan. 21. Delta and Continental raised their fees last week, matching US Airways. American Airlines has yet to raise its checked-on luggage fees.
United Airlines Raises Its Checked-bag Fees
Dr. Steve Schafersman will testify on proposed new standards for social studies in Texas public schools, at a hearing before the Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) scheduled for today, January 13, 2009.
Schafersman is president of Texas Citizens for Science and its driving force. He’ll also live blog much of the hearing at his blog, Evo-Sphere. You should probably watch TFN Insider, the blog of the Texas Freedom Network, too.
Schafersman’s testimony was released in advance, and reprinted below.
Public Testimony of
Steven D. Schafersman
Texas State Board of Education Public Hearing
Austin, Texas; Wednesday, 2009 January 13
I am grateful for the opportunity to address you about Social Studies standards for which I am testifying as a private citizen. Tomorrow you will begin your work to adopt the new Social Studies TEKS. I closely read and evaluated the proposed Grade 8 Social Studies, High School U. S. History, U. S. Government, World History, and World Geography standards and found them to be quite satisfactory. The standards were extremely comprehensive, balanced, fair-minded, and honest. The members of the panels who wrote them did an outstanding job and I was very impressed by their knowledge and professionalism. I urge that you adopt these Social Studies standards without change.
My experience with this Board leads me to suspect that some of you don’t want to adopt these excellent standards–written by social studies curriculum experts and teachers–without change. After all, these standards were written by experts and some of you feel obliged to stand up to the experts. Some of you may want to change some of the standards to correspond to your own political and religious beliefs, such as the mistaken notions that the United States is a Christian nation, that we do not have a secular government, or that separation of church and state is a myth. Some of you may want to add more unnecessary information about Christian documents or Christian history in America. If some of you do wish to make such changes, I request that you restrain yourselves. Please resist the temptation to engage in the same behavior some of you exhibited last year when you perverted the Science standards and embarrassed the citizens of Texas by engaging in pseudoscientific anti-intellectual behavior. While the Texas State Board of Education has a long and proud history of anti-intellectualism, the economic conditions today demand that we stop that practice and return to professionalism and respect for academic achievement so that our children have a future in which they will use their minds to make a living in intellectual pursuits and not their limbs in a service economy.
During the adoption of the science standards, some Board members amended the Biology and Earth and Space Science standards by engaging in fast talking, omitting pertinent information about what was being changed, offering bogus “compromises” that were not really fair compromises, and referring to “experts” who were in fact pseudoscientists and not real experts at all. I hope to not witness the same behavior tomorrow but I am pessimistic. Two pseudo-historians, David Barton and Peter Marshall, were appointed as “experts” and there is plenty of evidence available that demonstrates that these two gentlemen are preachers and polemicists for their radical agendas, not legitimate history experts.
I urge the rational and conservative Board members–whom I hope still make up a majority of this Board–to resist proposed radical amendments that attempt to insert bogus histories of American exceptionalism, America’s presumed Christian heritage as the source of our liberties and Constitutional principles, and other historical myths perpetrated by the American Religious Right. I urge you to vote No to such radical amendments, not Abstain or your radical opponents will gain the same advantage that they enjoyed during the amendment process for the Science standards, where they were delighted when some of you abstained or did not vote since that made it easier for them to obtain majorities which allowed them to win several amendments that made changes detrimental to science education. Unlike last year, when you were prevented from consulting your legitimate Science experts during debate, please consult your genuine Social Studies experts, Texas Professors Kracht, Hodges, and de la Teja. Please try to avoid the same mistakes with the Social Studies adoption process that occurred with the Science standards adoption, so no one will be able to accuse you of being anti-intellectual.
Matt Yglesias says that there are too few jobs for lawyers.
The problem is that he ignores the very likely possibility that lawyers are able to induce demand for their services. Of course, there are not unlimited legal positions available, but more lawyers often means more legal work and not less. This is because when times get tough, lawyers can cook up more business by trying to convince clients to sue. In other words, the legal profession can absorb a surprising amount of new entrants.
So, Matt says that more lawyers means less costs for consumers, but this is either not completely true or completely false. More lawyers might mean more money spent on legal battles, depending on the amount of demand inducement (and if lawyers live up to their reputations, there might be a massive amount). But further, if the price of a lawyer goes down, then the price of lawyers goes down for everyone. This means that if I can defend myself with less money, you can also sue me for a lower cost. The prohibitive cost of lawyers is one things that induces two parties to settle, greatly reducing administrative costs, rather than create an expensive legal battle. Thus, higher prices for lawyers might be better for “consumers” or at least society in general.
My fellow Boomers will remember the family road trips we took as kids. Those of us who grew up in urban areas and the suburbs remember marveling at how spread-out things were, Out There.
Before the Griswolds were even an idea, billboards on deserted stretches of pre-Interstate US highways warned, “Last Gas Next 150 Miles,” or words to that effect. Dad glanced at the gas gauge, and Mom took an informal poll of passengers as to how far we could tolerate going before our next bathroom break.
These days, we wonder if we will survive the grand social experiment that is the Obama era. Is there an exit from this nightmare before our freedom is gone? Are we stuck in the fast lane to a haven for foreigners who hate us and our way of life? Will our country grovel before the oil-producing dictatorships around the world, while we freeze in our homes, and other countries develop our domestic energy and sell it to us?
What will those of us collecting or about to collect Social Security do, when the money runs out? If our medical problems rise above a certain level of expense, will we be invited to visit the local suicide clinic? Will the Department of the Interior decide our retirement homes are a danger to the habitat of the Rocky Mountain Spotted Tick, and put us in the street, or will the local government decide, as in Kelo v. New London, that our homes need to be bulldozed so a pharmaceutical plant can be built there?
It may be too late already, if the aging radicals who currently run things have their way. Every illegal alien, convict, corpse and cartoon character in the world will get the right to vote in the 2010 election, if these aging hippies and Mao-worshipers get their wish. All of those new voters will automatically vote absentee as Democrats, since the Democrats will promise to give them the income, homes and cars of all those people who earned them.
Out of completely unfounded optimism, I will assume for a moment that this last step in the takeover will run into problems. Fictional characters, and residents of Cuba, Venezuela, the Gaza Strip and Iran will not get to vote in this year’s American elections. Real people who can read and write English, understand the Constitution and do not agree that it is obsolete and irrelevant, will get to vote.
I know, it’s crazy talk, but let’s brainstorm. This applies to the Eighth Congressional District of Tennessee, (where I happen to live, but there is a similar situation near you. Find it, and deal with it).
My district has been “represented” in the US House by a self-described Blue Dog Democrat (in fact, he is credited with helping to found the Blue Dogs), John Tanner. I wrote on Center of Mass about a “Telephone Town Meeting” Tanner had last August, which I sort-of attended, if you could call sitting at home, listening to the meeting go by, attending.
I waited through the meeting to hear Tanner address my questions, which had been submitted at the beginning of the meeting, but, of course, they weren’t answered. As he invited us to, I wrote up my questions, and emailed them to his office. I got not even an acknowledgment of receipt, and certainly no answers.
Tanner claimed to be a conservative, but it’s hard to tell from here how often he voted for the Constitutional way, and how often he caved to Comrade Pelosi when the blinds were drawn and roll call votes were not required.
Did he, like a couple of nominal Republicans in the senate, vote for the procedural steps that allowed leftist bills to advance, and then vote against them when Pelosi had secured enough votes from other Dems to be sure of passage? That way, he could come home to our district and claim, honestly, that he had “opposed” this or that anti-Constitutional power grab, or this or that confiscatory tax or regulation.
Nice arrangement, if that’s what he did. However, and this may be “damning with faint praise,” Tanner is seen by the political establishment as one of the most conservative Democrats in the House. Regardless, it’s all irrelevant.
It’s irrelevant because Tanner announced on December 1st that he has decided not to run again.
The vacuum is being filled, of course. Two Republican candidates for the primary have surfaced, with an interesting move being made by one of them. Stephen Fincher, a farmer and gospel singer from (no kidding) Frog Jump, which is a not-necessarily-officially-incorporated community in Crockett County.
Copied directly from his “On the Issues” page is this list of bullet pointed, somewhat vague list of Fincher’s positions:
STEPHEN FINCHER ON THE ISSUES
Stephen stands strong with Tennesseans on the issues:
I sent an email to Mr. Fincher’s contact address on January 8th, asking for some details to flesh out the bullet points, and to see if he identifies with any of my bullet points:
I was glad to see that a Tennessee businessman with real, private sector experience is thinking of running for the seat to be left vacant by John Tanner’s resignation.
However, after visiting the “Issues” page, I still don’t know where Mr. Fincher stands on some issues of importance to me.
Some examples:
Constitutionality tests for new legislation: Will Mr. Fincher commit to vote against legislation that violates the United States Constitution?
Regulation without Representation: Will Mr. Fincher commit to supporting and voting for legislation that removes funding for federal agencies, such as (but certainly not limited to) the EPA, the BATFE or the FCC, when their regulations violate the Constitution?
Term Limits: Will Mr. Fincher commit to serving no more than two terms in the House of Representatives in a row, and will he support and vote for legislation that sets term limits?
Taxes: Will Mr. Fincher commit to supporting and voting for legislation that abolishes the IRS and the progressive income tax, and to the adoption of the Fair Tax?
That is just a start, but it is a good one. Please let me know where I can find more information about Mr. Fincher’s position on these issues.
Thanks,
Thomas D. Cox
[etc.]
Will somebody from the Fincher campaign reply, with enough specificity to convince me that Fincher is not just another plug-in Republican, but also a committed follower of the Constitution?
I’m standing by.
I’d also love to know what Mr. Fincher to say about a speech given by the namesake of his home county, Colonel David Crockett, regarding the confiscation of one man’s wealth by government, to be given as “charity” to another?
Here is a small excerpt, but the entire speech is required reading for anyone who wants to see the most common-sense argument ever made against the “redistribution of wealth”:
I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money.
What does Mr. Fincher think about the simple but profound truth expressed in Colonel Crockett’s speech?
Stephen Fincher is not the only Tennessean to step up and state he wants this Congressional seat.
Donn Janes, another West Tennessean, navy veteran and networking engineer, has also stepped forward. Janes declared his intentions in June.
The big news about Donn Janes is that he just announced that he was separating himself from the national Republican apparatus and running as a Tea Party candidate. The text of his press release, which I received as an email, is reproduced below in its entirety:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 11, 2009Contact 901-482-6705Donn Janes announces he will run as a Tea Party Candidate; pulls out of Republican Party primary.
BRIGHTON, TN – This past Saturday, Donn Janes, a candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives in Tennessee’s 8th District spoke in Paris, TN, to an estimated 300 Tea Party activists from the West Tennessee area. There he announced, “As of today, I am no longer going to run for the U.S. House of Representatives as a Republican. …we need to change the way we elect our representatives. We continue to rely on the two-party system to provide us with different choices; but thanks to this corrupt system, there is little difference between the two of them. Both parties voted to increase the size of our government; both parties voted to trade your freedoms for security; and both parties are responsible for our monstrous debt, our failing economy and the exporting of our jobs overseas. I will be running as an independent Tea Party Candidate, a candidate who doesn’t answer to or work for party leadership, but a candidate who will work for the people of West Tennessee.”
When asked about what led to this decision, Mr. Janes stated that the National Republican Party continues to aggressively support candidates who lack depth on issues and conservative values, but instead focus on candidates who are able to self fund or raise large sums of money.
During the extended question and answer portion following his speech, Mr. Janes was asked if he thought his running as an independent would split the vote. “I intend to. I will be asking for votes from both Democrats and Republicans, many who are fed up with their party’s refusal to adhere to their respective party platforms. Over the course of my traveling within the 8th District, I believe there are enough conservative Democrats and right-minded Republicans who will enable me to win.”
Janes was asked about the Proposed “Contract From America”. He replied, “We’ve had a ‘Contract From America’ for over 200 years. It’s called the Constitution of the United States. That’s the only contract we need.”
Donn first attended a TEA Party event in Memphis, TN, on April 15, 2009. He later challenged the views of ACORN founder, Wade Rafke, at a University of Memphis Lecture. Janes participated in a “Pink Slip” TEA Party event in Nashville on November 7, 2009, to protest the currently proposed health care legislation. Last month he attended the FCC meeting in Memphis to challenge the expansion of its responsibilities.
Donn Janes is a candidate for the United States House of Representatives for Tennessee’s 8th Congressional District. A Navy veteran and businessman, Janes is an outspoken critic of how both Republicans and Democrats have continued to ignore any calls for fiscal responsibility, causing the United States to plunge deeper into debt.
[end of release]
I just revisited Donn Janes’s Issues page, and there is a lot more meat there than one finds so far on Fincher’s site. From browsing the whole site, I get the impression that Janes is positioning himself as more of a Constitutionalist than the average Republican, and certainly much moreso than the average Democrat, Blue Dogs included.
I haven’t spoken or corresponded with either candidate, but as of now, having seen all I could find on the positions of both on Constitutional issues, I am inclined to vote for Janes in the primary and general elections.
The Republican establishment needs to understand that we will no longer settle for Republican candidates and officeholders who are indistinguishable from Democrats when it comes to their actions, as well as their public stances.
###
About Donn Janes:
Follow my campaign on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#/pages/Donn-Janes/83098916614?ref=search And Twitter: http://twitter.com/donnjanes
More information can be found at Donn Janes’ campaign website http://www.donnjanes.com .
This message was sent from Donn Janes to tomcox@iquest.net. It was sent from: Donn Janes for Congress, P.O. Box 604, Brighton, TN 38011. You can modify/update your subscription via the link below. Email Marketing byManage your subscription
We have all heard of the dissatisfaction of the people with the representatives in Washington….polls show that it is an accurate assumption and yet the people do not seem to be willing to do anything about it……they bitch about the influence money has and that is the biggest bitch of all……
But what causes the influence of money? Some say the longevity of the representatives is the cause……incumbents are re-elected about 90% of the time……and to be re-elected it takes money and then that brings us back to the influence of money…..corporations and industries and sectors donate millions if not billions to candidates that can be useful in the corporations business dealings…….
There has been a move to term limits for the representatives…..that is to set a limit on the number of years that they could be in the US Congress as a representative of the people…..but what of term limits?
According to open congress:
Many argue that career politicians have negative implications for democracy. Some cite the fact that since the end of World War II, incumbents have been reelected a very high percentage of the time. In the House, for instance, the re-election rate for incumbents was 93 percent from 1952-2000.[1] It was only marginally lower in the Senate, as it averaged 74 percent from 1946-64, 76% between 1966-1984 and 87.4% from 1986-1998.[1] The cause for this, according to some, is that while incumbents must always be reelected, they enjoy certain advantages over challengers. For example, they typically have greater name recognition and better opportunities to raise large amounts of campaign money.[1] These advantages, some argue, deter potential candidates from challenging incumbents, leading to elections that do not truly feature high quality choices for the electorate. Term limits, therefore, help ensure that citizens will frequently have new choices when selecting their leaders.[1]
This idea became popular in the 1990’s, but lost some of its luster, but now is the time for a resurrection of the idea….Congress is at an all time low approval rating…..back in 1994/95 there was a growing move toward term limits…..but there is a catch to term limits……
On May 22, 1995, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in U.S. Term Limits v. Thorton that states could not adopt term limits for federal legislators (22 states had done so by this point). Doing so would require a Constitutional Amendment.[1] Given that the amendment had already failed by a wide margin, and that the newly-elected Congress had several other initiatives for which it intended to pursue, the idea of term-limits soon faded.
There is the catch……thanx to Federalism term limits cannot be handled on the state level it can only be through a constitutional amendment and there is the rub……which of the representatives that is benefiting through the lack of term limits will step up and offer it up as an amendment?
We can bitch as much as we want…but as it stands now….we can do NOTHING but bitch….we are stuck with this system of allowing cash to run the country while the people stand by as the spectator…..
There are organizations out there that are facing this issue…the problem is they are on the fringe and few people really care at this point….this is a problem that can be solved……but it takes a village to want to change things…..and unfortunately, Americans are NOT there yet….for it will take participation and the people are happy to vote once and then be a spectator……
I’ve often heard scholars assert that culture and social structure are really secondary to economics (e.g., see Fukuyama’s discusison of culture in his Trust book). When I hear such arguments, I think: “what about religion?” Religion is present in almost every society. It is a set of ideas that people are willing to do die for. And religious affiliations affect who we marry, how we work, how we vote, and how we live. Yet, it’s hard to chalk religion up to purely instrumental motives. It appears to be a purely cultural, and hugely important, aspect of human culture.
Of course, it doesn’t mean that people haven’t tried. There is the theory of religion as a club good, pushed by Innaconne and others, which asserts that religious behavior (e.g., church affiliation and attendance) is driven by the desire to belong to exclusive groups. In an nutshell, it’s a rehash of Weber’s theory of status groups. Read Innaconne’s summary JEL article here, which explains his approach and many other topics in the economics of religion. It would be crazy to dispute the key insight of the club good theory. Lots of people do join churches because of the social benefits and many denominations are set up to provide social and tangible goods to members. Coleman’s famous article on social capital relied on that crucial observation.
At the same time, the club good theory misses the most important thing about religion: it’s religious!! There is nothing in the theory that explains why groups based on spiritual beliefs should be more common, more successful, or more durable than non-religious groups. If religion is primarily a club good, why not just make a big fraternity and dicth God? And of course, secular fraternities to do exist but they don’t seem to be a serious competitor to religion. In fact, some groups, such as Middle Eastern populations, have chosen to become *more* religious in the face of secular Western social organization. God is not impressed with club goods. At this point, I think it would be sensible to appeal to social or psychological explanations of religion. Then one might use the club good theory to explain how social or pyschologically created demand leads to “market structure” (attendence, # of churches, etc). Very econ soc, not very neo-classical.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/08/goldman-sachs-shareholder_n_415986.html
Goldman’s 2008 financial performance (via Andrew Cuomo’s report):
Goldman earned $2.3 billion, paid out $4.8 billion in bonuses and received $10 billion in TARP funding.
Me: Looks like the pissed off lawsuits are coming, and I can’t say I sympathize with Goldman. That’s not pay for performance, that’s pay as a psychological addiction.
Iceland is being asked to repay a loan to the UK and the Netherlands. This loan covers payments that those two large countries made to depositors in Icelandic banks that would otherwise not have got their money back – at least, in the short term.
First, the figures
Iceland has a labour force of 181,500, and a GDP of $12bn. So the debt of E3.9bn is about 50% of GDP. Am I right? So why does this article in the FT describe it as 250% of GDP? Also, as Paul Myners writes in today, ‘in the period up to 2016 a substantial proportion of the loan is expected to be recovered through the disposal of the assets of the failed bank Landsbanki’. In which case, what is the estimated NET payment that Iceland is expected to bear? Someone help me out.
Another issue: I understand that depositors were repaid IN FULL. This is extraordinarily generous treatment given their foolishness. How much would Iceland have been strictly liable for if it had only honoured commitments up to a limit? Tim Worstall asks this question. I am not sure what the actual answer is. But I do believe that larger depositors, getting years of generous interest rates, deserved some of the hit.
As do the UK and Dutch governments whose regulators bear some of the responsibility for allowing banks with liabilities of 11 times their country’s GDP to operate here. The terms on the loan seem relatively sensitive: repayments capped at 4% of GDP, and starting in 6 years’ time. And the costs of not repaying ought to be fairly clear: becoming an international Pariah, as Lex argues.
Should simple fishermen, aluminium smelter workers and other Icelanders pay for this? Well, for years they presumeably had the sort of high living standards that Daniel Hannan so embarrassingly extolled (well done LeftFootForward on this). They may not have realised it, but some of their prosperity was based on the success of the banks. But, yes, it is unfair to the individuals personally, and as the FT article above points out, repaying a foreign loan requires a steady export surplus, which is limited by the available haddock, in Iceland’s case.
The whole question of sovereign debt repayment throws up enough issues of democratic autonomy, justice, and coldblooded cost-benefit thinking that a simple answer is difficult to give. Countries are not companies. People can move (and many would happily take educated Icelanders). On the other hand ThoughCowardsFlinch seemed outraged that the cost of our future debt may determine the next election, but why should the rights of lenders count for nothing? Anyone who has read about the post WWI reparations fiasco (see Lords of Finance) understands the lunacy of demanding that a population pays what it can’t pay: hence the FT’s analogy with a debtor’s prison.
Robert Peston points out that most Icelanders were not consulted about the risks they were insuring. Advocacy international deplores what they see as big country bullying.
On the other side, with Paul Myners, Jeremy Warner thinks a refusal would be disgraceful.
The comments under Martin Wolf’s provocative piece seem evenly split. The first is excellent: the problem with being a pariah is sticking out. Wait for Greece, Spain, Italy – then Iceland will look small bee.
So I have no verdict except: the debt is probably smaller than we think, and larger than it should be if more of the other foolish parties, in particular the savers getting great rates for years, took their just portion of the pain.
Apparently [ht: ke, since I am no longer a member], the latest calendar published by the American Economic Association, in celebration of its 125th anniversary, features 18 deceased economists (for 2010 plus the first six months of 2011): Edgeworth, Veblen, Marshall, von Neumann, (Richard) Ely, Smith, Fisher, Schumpeter, von Hayek, Ricardo, Walras, Malthus, Mill, Stigler, Marx, Keynes, (Joan) Robinson, and Friedman.
The May 2010 entry for Marx is followed by 4 quotations from his work, including the following:
This is the abolition of the capitalist mode of production within capitalist production itself, a self-destructive contradiction, which represents on its face a mere phase of transition to a new form of production. It manifests its contradictory nature by its effects. It establishes a monopoly in certain spheres and thereby challenges the interference of the state. It reproduces a new aristocracy of finance, a new sort of parasites in the shape of promoters, speculators and merely nominal directors; a whole system of swindling and cheating by means of corporation juggling, stock jobbing, and stock speculation. It is private production without the control of private property. (Capital, volume 3)
