One of the nice things about the Internet and blogging is you hear ordinary voices from all over. Atlanta recently had a few inches of snow a condition with which drivers in Atlanta are not experienced at driving and the road crews are not equipped with the supplies of shovels and salt or sand that we have in the north. So … before y’all get all cocky about how you don’t even blink at a few inches in your area and schools don’t close unless more is dumped. Consider. I read a few years back from an Alaskan blogger who pointed out that schools in her town don’t close unless more than 48″ are dumped on the town in less than 24 hours. So. Set your pride aside and consider how Chicago, Minneapolis, or New York (or your town) would react to having a few inches less than 48″ of snow on a Tuesday and remember those Alaskans would treat it as business as usual.

This year, the traditional incandescent light bulb is becoming extinct. There was a big push by environmentalists to force the change to higher efficiency bulbs, like Compact Fluorescent bulbs, or CFLs. The idea was that they light with less energy, and so everyone should use them. Never mind the market; coercion was necessary.

And one of the things they like to trumpet about this was that the light bulb industry supported this move. The thought is that if even they think it’s a good idea, government ought to force the issue. But not one of those environmentalists ever considered this:

Competitive markets with low costs of entry have a characteristic that consumers love and businesses lament: very low profit margins. GE, Philips and Sylvania dominated the U.S. market in incandescents, but they couldn’t convert that dominance into price hikes. Because of light bulb’s low material and manufacturing costs, any big climb in prices would have invited new competitors to undercut the giants — and that new competitor would probably have won a distribution deal with Wal-Mart.

Basically, with a low-cost light bulb, the major players in the market couldn’t just jack up the price on their wares. Someone else could step in and, with a low cost of entry into the light bulb market, build a better mousetrap, so to speak, and the world would beat a path to their door.

Unless. Unless the light bulb companies could push government regulations that would make the bare minimum light bulb incredibly more expensive. They’d get their price hike, and they’d further their hold on the industry by keeping out competition, because start-up costs are now much higher.

Now, you may be saying, “See, Doug? Eeevil corporations are to blame for this! And you’re always defending them!” Two things. First, the law itself is the problem, and the blame for that comes, not from corporations, but from a big government with the power to pass such a law, and which is more than willing to stick its hand into your wallet. Government did this, not corporations. And I’ll reiterate that, if you don’t like a corporation, you can stop buying from them immediately. If you don’t like your government, you’ll have to wait for the next election cycle, and hope there are enough people who agree with you.

Second, I don’t blame corporations at all for trying to lobby the government for things that will benefit them. If I did blame them, then I’d have to blame every single grassroots organization that does the same sort of lobbying, even those environmentalists. Is lobbying the government an evil thing to do? Not at all! But government should know its boundaries and should stay within them. That’s why we have a constitution. But these days, the Constitution has been reinterpreted to say, for example, that you must buy a particular financial instrument. If the government can force you to buy something, I think it’s gone far beyond what the framers of the Constitution ever intended, and that power is for sale to the highest bidder.

Oh, and consider this. If anyone claims that certain government policies are required because the free market has failed, just let them know that we really haven’t had a “free market” in decades. Light bulbs and ObamaCare are only the two most recent examples.

G’day.

1. Not Crazy, more specifically defined.
2. Mr Obama apparently imitates one of my favorite Calvin/Hobbes cartoons (use your own words). Immigration will help businesses “to locate”, yah. Whatever you pretend that means I guess.
3. Some more detailed remarks, apparently the speech was very, if unintentionally, humorous.
4. Tech notes.
5. Smoke ’em if you got ’em.
6. Faith and action.
7. More Democrat Senators who haven’t been to a drug store to price condoms in quite some time.
8. India “perplexed” that the US is bug-nuts crazy. I am too I guess.
9. What to do? You mean besides learning to like red-beans+rice and/or split-peas with spam?
10. “Science” apparently confused which kids are fat, uhm, duh.
11. Speaking of childhood obesity … it’s not necesssarily permanent.
12. Palinquin lady.
13. ‘Cause industrial Carbon in the 11th century was omnipresent. Alas, the seas rose and killed everything (just after it had been turned into a newt). But, “it got better.”
14. Stupidity in schools.

Hello. Cold out there it seems. Mr Gore apparently not in touch (this weather may be cold but it only “extreme” if you are susceptible to confirmation bias … in which case you think the climate is radically changing because of normal weather patterns like el Nino (Nina?) moving the jetstream). Links?

1. Place and income mobility. At a glance, you’re best of in the Mid-west and West.
2. Chaos and electric demand.
3. Another question for the pseudo-intellectual Gore.
4. Repealing the 14th in practice.
5. Twitter as precis practice.
6. Finding love.
7. Or finding something akin to love in the wrong places.
8. Energy balance and the sloth.
9. Always beware of the “I can’t imagine” argument, it’s a not-well-known rhetorical/logical fallacy.
10. Cinema.
11. Mr Huckabee was he recently abused for making sense?
12. Return query, replace “all women” with “All men” or “all fans of Charles Dickens” “all prefer pink to purple” (to which you’d should object). If the criteria isn’t germane to the topic using it is a criteria is bigotry or race/sex/whatever-criteria -ism.
13. Language does not commute (order matters).
14. Uranium enrichment numbers.

So, -8 F here this morning. Seems like the weather is returning to that pattern of a few years ago, of about a week of bitter cold with occasional warming spells during which snow is dumped on us. #2 daughter opted to be dropped off at school instead of walking.

1. This person seems to have more difficulty with their child’s choice than might be expected.
2. I’d have to support the Att. Gen. decision if honest (even though I disagree with his conclusion), you have two choices when electing an official, that you want him to guess and vote/act according to his perception his constituents, or the constituents should expect evaluate him and expect him to vote/act according to his conscience. Back in the day, Mr Kerry claimed he did the former. I think the former is not right.
3. More Benghazi lies. First “it was the video” canard, now it was the Ambassador’s fault. Geesh.
4. We’ll be seeing lots of posts of this sort on this anniversary. Liberals often like to base civic ethics on Rawls and “they are to be of the greatest benefit to the least-advantaged members of society” … somehow they pretend that the fetus is more advantaged, has a louder/stronger voice in society, and more empowered than the mother. That illogical twist fuels much wickedness.
5. One more, “abortion allows women … to fulfill their dreams”. Say what? Little girls dream of many things, few dream of killing their child. I mean, I’ve joked with my daughter’s about embarking on the career path of “evil genius” and that they should practice their “evil laugh” but they just roll their eyes at me when I do that.
6. Revenge ala Christie claimed. I wouldn’t put it past the Admin.
7. So, in those states with legal marijuana … apparently the illegal street price is lower than the legal price. So, what besides taxes might cause that? Perhaps the FDA has a hand in raising those prices too.
8. Hacking and gas.
9. Another Obamacare suit which may have  legs.
10. More on the min wage.
11. Obama’s NSA speech (which apparently was roundly panned) graded here.

Well, back at home. Links?

1. A use for that valve cap.
2. Yer gubmit, looking out for … well, no good reason I guess.
3. No no no, don’t slander the teacher, if anything slander the administrators.
4. Speaking of teachers ….
5. Gender and quotes, not unexpected results.
6. Consequences for not towing the party line.
7. Prayer of very different sorts, here and here.
8. Of cold and calorie.
9. The IRS and implications.
10. Of hard drives and failure.

Good morning.

1. From the economists, trouble ahead and rebuttals to the notion that minimum wage increases don’t actually help the poor are very weak.
2. Why are you laughing? I’m trying to figure out why the side of his head is melting! That seems a lot more relevant than what he’s saying.
3. An unusual Iranian (putting it somewhat mildly).
4. Mr King.
5. On standing on the right side of history.
6. This would be a better side, or at least a side I’d like to, well, own.
7. Uhm, that would be yes.
8. Still a dumb idea, GOP people for impeachment seem to forget that as bad (horrible) as Mr Obama might be and whatever he does, Mr Biden would be far worse.
9. Mr Biden apparently thinks the Detroit economy is doing just fine.
10. Maybe? Don’t hold your breath.
11. Gills?
12. Editorial bias?
13. Nah, it’s a master-race kinda novel.

In 36 years, from 1970 to 2006, the world poverty rate fell 40%. 40%! This is huge news, but you probably didn’t hear about it anywhere else. I certainly didn’t until I saw the link someone posted. But the rest of the story, as Paul Harvey would have put it, is how this happened. For the explanation, I defer to Arthur Brooks.

It turns out that between 1970 and 2010 the worst poverty in the world – people who live on one dollar a day or less – that has decreased by 80 percent. You never hear about that.

It’s the greatest achievement in human history, and you never hear about it.

80 percent of the world’s worst poverty has been eradicated in less than 40 years. That has never, ever happened before.

So what did that? What accounts for that? United Nations? US foreign aid? The International Monetary Fund? Central planning? No.

It was globalization, free trade, the boom in international entrepreneurship. In short, it was the free enterprise system, American style, which is our gift to the world.

I will state, assert and defend the statement that if you love the poor, if you are a good Samaritan, you must stand for the free enterprise system, and you must defend it, not just for ourselves but for people around the world. It is the best anti-poverty measure ever invented.

Not aid, not handouts, and not a government interfering with the economy; capitalism and free enterprise are the poor’s best friend. Remember this the next time a politician has a “bold new approach” to income inequality and poverty.

Tickets sold out immediately for the Answers in Genesis Museum’s night of debate between Bill Nye "The Science Guy" and Ken Ham, proprietor of Answers in Genesis. The topic is “Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?”

Since tickets sold out so fast, the debate will be live-streamed on the Internet at http://debatelive.org/ . The debate will be on Tuesday, February 4th, at 7pm. Should be interesting.

I posted something on my personal Facebook page about how one of the booming businesses in Detroit is photographing the dilapidated buildings. I labeled my link to the article, “Documenting decades of Democratic dominance.” Can you tell I like alliteration?

This bothered one of my Democrat friends who said that my bias was showing, and that blaming Democrats for Detroit was like blaming Republicans for the Katrina response. His contention was that both were unfair. I, and some other friends of mine, had to point out a few differences.

• The Republican administration wanted to come into Louisiana before the storm hit to be ready when it arrived, but the Democrats in the state capitol wouldn’t allow it.
• The Democrats at the city level in New Orleans failed to use the resources they already had to evacuate their own people.
• Democrats have been running Detroit for 50 years. To say that blaming their policies is unfair, is to make one wonder how long one party has to rule a city for their policies to actually affect that city.

So no, the analogy isn’t even close. And the devastation in Detroit wasn’t caused by Mother Nature, either.

This is yet another example of how Democrats seem to take the stance that it’s never their policies that failed, and in fact the best way to solve any problems they cause is to do the same thing with more money. That has always been Paul Krugman’s solution regarding stimulus spending. That has always been the solution for failing public schools, poverty programs, and every other idea that just isn’t panning out the way they thought it should.

Oh, and when ObamaCare drags down our economy, expect the same excuses, because we’re hearing them already. Republicans are being accuses of “sabotaging” it, when all they did was make the Democrats own it by not voting for it. As it is, the need to a revamp of the website, and delaying key parts of the law, are not sabotage by any means. But Republicans will get the blame while the Democrats will throw more money at a program that was sold as a way to reduce the deficit.

Blame is useful, if it is honestly applied. Using it, we can find our mistakes, and correct them. Democrats will never accept it, even after a half century track record. Does that give you confidence?

Links?

1. So there’s this survey …. I have a beef with one of their questions. There is a question asking if you value higher self-control or creativity. This is a confusing question to answer, I think creativity is incredibly important. I also think that self-discipline/self-control are a pre-requisite for creativity. If you think calculus is valuable can you weigh the relative importance of the ability to do algebra or calculus higher? I answered algebra, because calculus. Is this how we distinguish liberals from conservatives, liberals are those who don’t think creativity requires discipline? What? Do they think creativity just sort of “happens” magically?
2. A died in the wool classical liberal.
3. Mammals can learn.
4. So, cui bono and the minimum wage. When you factor in how much a higher min wage boosts automation, you can pretty much set aside notion that the beneficiaries are the “the poor”.
5. Ignorance, democracy, and gun control.
6. Safety nets.
7. Haute couture.
8. Obamacare. And the coming bailout.
9. Climate change, I’m missing the part where this is bad.
10. More on climate here.
11. A quality American education, eh?
12. “Republicans” do that? Not all of us.
13. Bigotry exemplified. Don’t judge on the quality of the work (content of character) but the gender count of your references, i.e., the color of your skin.
14. Income inequality.
15. That voter fraud.
16. Go girl!

Bill de Blasio was recently elected as the mayor of New York City. De Blasio is a liberal Democrat, as opposed to the liberal Republican Michael Bloomberg, who just left the post. The NY Times wrote a rather hopeful piece on de Blasio just before the end of the year, which included this paragraph.

His administration could be a redemptive moment for a national left whose policies were often blamed for the crumbling of urban centers in the 1960s and 1970s, yet has now started to reassert itself in smaller jurisdictions with bold new approaches on issues like income equality and poverty.

1960s and 70s? How about the 2010? Detroit anyone? Anyone? Bueller? That city had half a century of Democratic rule, and look where it is now! But the Times conveniently forgets this, preferring to suggest that Democrats only screwed up 50 years ago, and really haven’t had a chance since then. These “bold new approaches” are simply novel ways of destroying the economy, which hurt the poor the most.

As home schooling parents, who happen to reside in California, it has always been our intention to give our children the opportunity to attend whichever university they desired and were qualified for. While private universities are certainly an option (an expensive option), we have also wanted our children to have the opportunity to attend a state supported school (primarily because of the lower cost involved). Yet, it wasn’t until our first child was in her junior year of high school that we seriously addressed the following question:

How does a home schooled high school graduate properly apply and get admitted to either a Cal State University (CSU) or University of California (UC) school?

Are you a home schooling parent, in California, who can relate to this question? Has the prospect of home schooling your child through high school caused you to have more than a few sleepless nights?

Read the rest of this entry

Links?

1. A question of bias. Case in point.
2. Zoooom, or should that be “hyper-zoom”.
3. Eating only fast food, what really happens.
4. Moving towards single payer, because we all wish our health care was as good as the VA. The wealthy just wish they had it so so good. This is their strategy for getting that. File *that* under “cunning plan”.
5. Reading between the lines that means plastic = cheese and the big companies like Nabisco &c have figured out how to make sawdust taste “good”. Apparently we can thank Ms Obama.
6. Copyright silliness.
7. Our brilliant, err, cunning foreign policy plan. I recently read a hisory of the Crimean War. Cunning plans seem to spring up in foreign policy quite frequently. (as in Am I jumping the gun, Baldrick, or are the words “I have a cunning plan” marching with ill-deserved confidence in the direction of this conversation?)
8. Poverty is ended in the US. Who knew? By the calculation a single person making about 11k per year is “below the poverty level”  but that same person typically gets 20k in aid .. putting them well above the poverty line, hence my conclusion. Oddly enough a single young 20-something makinger 11k per year but who live at home with his parents counts as “below the poverty line” by their calculation I think.
9. Our tone deaf and aggressively stupid Administration, exhibit A.
10. Putting Mr Coates down a few notches.
11. Diet and exercise are the key I suppose.
12. No no no. Congress-critters are on a par with used car salesmen, it’s the life long bureaucrats and executives that are on a par with criminals.
13. Well grammar is one culprit, I suspect “because they don’t read” is the other.
14. This was known before Oct. 1 2013.
15. Hint: people who defended Mr Obama vis a vis the IRS scandal don’t have a leg to stand on regarding criticism like that without being hypocritical.

Links?

1. So, will this news spread? Or will left wing MSM loyalists quash it successfully?
2. The scandal of the day, it’s been my impressions that people are also saying “the cover up is making it worse.” If cover ups always made it worse, politicians would learn an never do it. That they do, gives reason to believe that most of the time, the cover up is successful. Which likely means that like icebergs 90% of the crap is under the surface.
3. Watch for the smears to begin.
4. So, in the wake of a cold snap, we are warned that “weather doesn’t equal climate” … except apparently when it is convenient to pretend it does. Consistency is apparently not required.
5. Obama and Afghanistan. Has there been a more shallow President, ever?
6. Cross-aisle praise.
7. Thesis sometimes should begin with the letter “F” at the start instead of the di-graph “Th”.
8. Crime and concealed carry.
9. Stupid laws across the pond.
10. What is a right (hint: not having healthcare/job/food/home provided)?
11. An MIT climate scientist speaks on climate.
12. Modeling and economics.
13. Cold weather and verse.
14. A commercial has “people talking” … how they talk beyond saying … “that’s really dumb” escapes me. I suppose they could enumerate the many ways in which it is really off the rails.