Good morning.

1. Approaching the Nativity and the seasonal liturgical practices of the East.
2. An upcoming discussion.
3. Does that exhaust the choices?
4. So … it has to end? What? Now, do you figure we’ll see the liberal/progressive press and thinkers all figuring out how to revamp mental healthcare in America? Or will they stupidly and mindlessly go after things that won’t make a difference? Or how to organize fast (armed?) responses to violence in public places? Or will they use this as an opportunity to steal more liberties from the people?
5. Foot votes.
6. Very pretty.
7. Negative to vastly outweigh the positive. Which describes most of what Washington does these days. Which is why gridlock is the voters choice.
8. Metrics.
9. What the modern progressives seek … uniformity trumps all else?
10. One progressive argues for legalizing automatic guns and good body armor for civilians.
11. Small government conservatism begins here.
12. Minding Midgley … is it detecting mental health problems … or just locating actual evil in our midst?
13. Why?

Well, better late than never, eh?

1. How is the US like an autocracy?
2. Medical eRecords.
3. Hypocrisy.
4. Grass is not a “priority” … heh. Today its’ not … 30 years ago it was and now the priority is (perhaps) keeping the kids away from it.
5. Maya.
6. I guess while I was working and net-less … another shooting occurred. A question that will come up answered.
7. A reaction to that.
8. The fiscal cliff thang.
9. No true Scotsman comes to ESPN.
10. Bang tech.
11. What too much safety net looks like.

Love

The 1st Sunday of Advent was December 2^nd. I’m late. I know.

This year we’re celebrating Love for the First Sunday of Advent. You may have heard of the saying, “God is Love.” Indeed, reference 1 John 4. But what exactly is that supposed to mean? In English, the word ‘love’ has a variety of applications which can run from the erotic to gastronomical. I ‘love’ green chile cheeseburgers, for instance. Not to worry, though, because we have the Word of God to explain this to us.

In Romans 5 we are told of the depths of love which was expressed for us.

For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die—but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.

(Romans 5:6-11 ESV)

And in the well known John 3:16 passage we are explicitly told of God’s love for mankind as well as the implications of such love. Hence we celebrate the Advent of Love, a pre-existing love, which by its very nature, cannot have existed in a singular state – for who would God have to love?

One admonition I’d like to leave you with is that as you reflect on the Love of God, particularly in the Advent of the Incarnate Jesus, don’t make the mistake of trivializing said love by over-personalizing the concept. While God loves each and every one of us, the phrase “For God so loved the world…” should not be translated “For God so loved ME…” In our self-centered culture, that’s an easy trap to fall into. I recently heard an evangelist prompt the audience he was speaking to to repeat the phrase, “Jesus was born, just for me.” Besides being wrong on so many levels, such a phrase only serves to reinforce the individualistic mentality so prevalent in society. Remember Romans 5:8, “…but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”

Happy Advent!

And in the same region there were shepherds out in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And an angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were filled with great fear. And the angel said to them, “Fear not, for behold, I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. And this will be a sign for you: you will find a baby wrapped in swaddling cloths and lying in a manger.” And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying,

“Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased!”

(Luke 2:8-14 ESV)

I have a lot of vacation saved up for the end of the year, so I have to take quite a bit of it so I don’t lose any. (We, like many companies, can only carry so many days of one year’s vacation into another year. Part of the reason is so that people have to take vacation and not get burned out.) So I’ll be off the rest of the year, and this will likely be my last post of the year. When I return, we will have gone off the so-called "Fiscal Cliff", or we’ll have come to an agreement to avoid it.

As the countdown to the Fiscal Cliff continues, tax increases seem to be the only way Democrats in Congress think that we can close the deficit gap. But Michael Barone points out that, no, tax increases alone will never be enough. It’s not the panacea that Democrats claim it to be. He covers some ideas that I’ve mentioned here, like the fact that entitlement spending alone is enough to keep a deficit going. You might think tax increases are helping, but we’d just be sinking slower. Some I’ve engaged in on this subject have said, “well, at least that’s in the right direction”. Sure, if you can hold your breath indefinitely. No, the right direction would be to start rising and get above the water level.

Another point is that higher tax rates don’t typically produce more tax revenue. From the 1940s to the 1960s, when the top marginal tax rate was 91% (91%!), tax revenues always bounced between 15 and 21% of GDP. Why? Because with a tax rate like that, people spend more time looking for tax shelters and other means, legal and illegal, to keep from paying those high rates. Thus, the Congressional Research Service notes that, during those times of 91% top rates, the effective tax rate on earners in the top 1/100^th percent was 45%. Now, I understand that only income over a certain amount was charged that 91% rate, but even the tiniest sliver of earners at the very top, the absolute richest of the rich, were still paying an aggregate of less than half the rate. Some studies put it at 1/3^rd the rate. This is simple pain avoidance. Threaten to poke me, and I’ll defend myself.

And so from 1948 until now, with up economies and down, with huge marginal tax rates and smaller ones, under Republican Presidents or Democratic, the total US tax revenue taken in as a percentage of GDP has stayed remarkably consistent in the same range; between 15 and 21%. The tax rate made precious little difference in how much of the economy was taken in taxes.

The lesson, then, is this: grow the economy and restrain spending. If we’re going to get the same percentage of the economy in taxes, then to get more tax revenue, you must grow the economy. And as Barack Obama himself said in 2009, “you don’t raise in a recession.” Now, you might say we’re coming out of the recession, but his proposal for $50 billion more in yet another stimulus says he thinks otherwise. Don’t read his lips; read his proposals.

But, once you get those increases revenues, don’t spend that and more on, well, another stimulus, which, by the administration’s own numbers, grew the economy and the jobs at a slower rate than doing nothing. No, taking more in is not a license to spend it. But it’s what government does. That’s why any deal which includes higher taxes may look like a healthy compromise, but it’s nothing more than a ruse that will put us further in debt.

Gotta be quick … oh, hi! Good morning.

1. Six bullet points on Iraq/Afghanistan that the President’s supporters likely either wish would go away but should defend (and likely won’t/don’t).
2. Mr Mom’s beginner mistake is a classic.
3. History lessons … answering 3 questions.
4. I think the argument that the level of fine is not excessive is the harder, err … frankly impossible, one to make.
5. And more government overreach.
6. Speaking of government malfeasance and overreach … Democrat shenanigans that likely won’t make the (biased) mainstream news.
7. Opposite day.
8. Materials sciences.
9. Meta-ontology.
10. Two separate arguments that right-to-work is not a libertarian notion, here and here.
11. Drones and the law.

Belated … (because alas, I overslept a bit but then my controller failed so I’m dead in the water on this startup … so … I’m working today in a hotel)

1. How about dueling? And accountability and honor?
2. Wink to Wynk.
3. Single (and not whining).
4. Freedom of speech.
5. I see it’s “fees” on the middle class … that’s not raising taxes, no no no. What it really is lying by semantics.
6. Where a little research might have gone a long way.
7. Yet another legal challenge for Obamacare.
8. So, in asking whether parody is necessarily parasitical (that is can it stand on its own) … how about Sewer, Electric and Gas … does one have to have familiarity with Mr Rand to appreciate the parody?
9. How you can tell when you’re a government monopoly.
10. A predicted effect fails to show … but remember the science is unquestion(able?). I recall asking a commentor who accepts Anthro-origins of climate change … for successful predictions by climatologists made in the past … and got no response. That seems a crucial lapse.
11. Looking at the Philippines.

Good morning

1. Internal trauma and new tech.
2. Asia arms.
3. Internet faith/non-faith arguments and some issues seen from one side.
4. Realpolitikand the President.
5. Climate and re-distribution for whatever reason.
6. More ghastly nonsense from the UN.
7. I’d be guessing your average feminist is allergic to this kind of discussion.
8. Conversion.
9. Consistency.
10. New government intrusions into healthcare.
11. Well, to be honest … they are both acts of war and assassinations.
12. Freedom of speech in Europe.
13. Gosh … I guess that’s the same reason that no profession at all is reliably transmitted by film and TV or that the great majority of the founding/important men/women of any field are ignored, e.g., Emmy Noether. So, the question isn’t why Mr Douglass is ignored, but why should historical figures be an exception?

Gotta run. Have a good one.

As the countdown to the Fiscal Cliff continues, tax increases seem to be the only way Democrats in Congress think that we can close the deficit gap. But Michael Barone points out that, no, tax increases alone will never be enough. It’s not the panacea that Democrats claim it to be. He covers some ideas that I’ve mentioned here, that entitlement spending alone is enough to keep a deficit going. You might think tax increases are helping, but we’d just be sinking slower. Some I’ve engaged in on this subject call that the “right direction”. No, the right direction would be to start rising and get above the water level.

Another point is that higher tax rates don’t typically produce more tax revenue. From the 1940s to the 1960s, when the top marginal tax rate was 91% (91%!), tax revenues never topped 20% of GDP. Why? Because with a tax rate like that, people, spend more time looking for tax shelters and other means, legal and illegal, to keep from paying those high rates. Thus, Congressional Research Service notes that, during those times of 91% top rates, the tax rate on earners in the top 1/100^th percent were paying only 45%. Now, I understand that only income over a certain amount was charged that 91% rate, but even the tiniest sliver of earners at the top, the absolute richest of the rich, were still paying an aggregate of less than half the rate. Some studies put it at 1/3^rd the rate. This is simple pain avoidance.

And since 1948, with up economies and down, with huge marginal tax rates and smaller ones, under Republican Presidents or Democratic, the total US tax revenue taken in as a percentage of GDP has stayed remarkably consistent between 15 and 21%. These charts are worth checking out. They show this, as well as how other things, like federal debt or government expenditures, have changed relative to GDP. It is really worth your time to check out.

Good morning.

1. Don’t call it “asking” please. That implies there is choice where there isn’t.
2. This is not unrelated.
3. Forgetting Martin Luther (apparently).
4. Feeling blue on Monday.
5. Nerd scorn.
6. Evil and its fruits.
7. Gun buyback store.
8. Progressives still seeking to install the right to kill for convenience.
9. Malthus and the slave.
10. A book noted.
11. Naturalism, religion, and straw men.

Good morning. Running late.

1. GM.
2. VW.
3. Same topic little gain then, big gain now.
4. Rube Goldberg.
5. Apparently someone never drank moderately in good company.
6. Social justice (isn’t).
7. Someone doesn’t realize that private employers can (and should be able to) ask those questions.
8. Beltway physical anthropology.
9. Birth and death.
10. Axes and axis.
11. Oh, wonderful …

Goood morning.

1. For the carbon fans.
2. Bang! Art.
3. Let’s see, the Democrat plan is to “go over the cliff” and blame the GOP. Hard to do, honestly, in the face of this though.
4. Origin of terms as explanation.
5. The flawed argument against torture is that it doesn’t work. Here’s another failure of consequentialism. The reason it’s a bad idea is not because it doesn’t work.
6. Liking gridlock (stopping athwart progress saying stop) is a conservative thing I suspect.
7. Potato famine as laisseze faire … is just plain bad history.
8. Hmm, I’d say the description fits just about everybody of any party affiliation in the beltway.
9. On the other hand, here’s a strong bid by the  Democrats for both at the same time.
10. Libertarians, it seems, can’t muster strong arguments against bestiality.
11. The sad state of soft academia.
12. Glub glub.
13. Big red gets stupid too.
14. So … connected to the President’s departure or not?
15. My feeling is that there was no intention of keeping the promises, i.e., they were lies and deception. Do you agree or disagree?

Well, yesterday was a travel, on-site, travel day … sorry about not giving warning.

Anyhow, links? I’m running late, hence the brevity.

1. Noses.
2. Economics of genocide.
3. Human dignity lapsed.
4. A book to read.
5. Nonchalant taken to an extreme.
6. Of metrics and meaning.
7. Time and relationships.
8. Isolationism by another name.
9. Afghanistan.
10. BBQ and a reprise.
11. Threat or expression of same.
12. Hobby Lobby. Someone explain why H/L doesn’t get the exemption but Tyndale does in a consistent fashion.
13. Anthropology and Conan.
14. Mr Biden.
15. I think we value freedom because we think it fosters happiness, and some don’t think it does (foster) the same way others do.
16. If useless, why bother?
17. Guns and footballers.
18. Yikes.

A Twitter post from Piers Morgan,

The 2nd amendment was devised with muskets in mind, not high-powered handguns & assault rifles. Fact.

A WordPress response from me,

And the 1st Amendment was devised with movable type ink printing presses in mind, not internet websites, much less Twitter postings. Fact.

We were told, point blank, that we don’t, by a local government employee.

Here’s the story. In the tiny town we live in, apparently there have been an increasing number of code violations regarding, among other things, people parking cars on their lawns, off the driveway. My wife, returning from our town’ s annual Christmas parade, was pulling up to our house with plans to park on the street in front of our house for the moment. She saw a Code Enforcement car coming down our dead-end street, and parked a little bit further off to the side, thinking that maybe this officer might be concerned that she was blocking too much of the street. In doing this, about 1/3 of the tire width was actually on the grass; a few inches.

When the Code Enforcement office turned around and came back down our street, he rolled his window down and said to my wife that, FYI, he was patrolling for, among other thing, cars on lawns and that, technically, he could cite her for her current parking situation, but wouldn’t this time. In the ensuing conversation, he told her a number of very odd things.

Now, I understand if a community doesn’t want to live in an area where people regularly park on their lawns. I can see erosion issues, and I can understand that this could lead to people who turn their property into auto mechanic yards. He mentioned that cars can leak fluid and it would get into the water supply. (Of course, those leaks from a car on the road would wind up in the storm drain where it would go directly into the lake behind our house, unfiltered by the ground. But he didn’t seem to realize that.) The community decides that it will make certain rules about how you keep your property, and you might get fined for breaking these rules, but it’s still your property. Not according to this guy. In his mind, since the government can create restrictions on what you can do, then it’s not your property. You only have the license to use it. He didn’t go into who actually owns it or who you’re licensing it from, but he was quite clear that  our ownership of the property was an illusion.

And, since I can’t, for instance, use my house as a factory, then I don’t really own that, either.

Really?

Now, my guess is this is just one, incredibly misinformed, random government worker we ran into. But still, is this indicative of a bigger issue regarding what government thinks? Perhaps folks at higher levels still do, in fact, understand the concept of private property, and that having regulations on the use of something doesn’t mean the regulatory body owns it. But really, this is unbelievable.

I can be put in jail for child abuse. Wonder what this guy thinks about my kids.

Doug Payton blogs at Considerettes and podcasts at "Consider This".

From the Daily Mail in London:

Sick children are being discharged from NHS hospitals to die at home or in hospices on controversial ‘death pathways’.

Until now, end of life regime the Liverpool Care Pathway was thought to have involved only elderly and terminally-ill adults.

But the Mail can reveal the practice of withdrawing food and fluid by tube is being used on young patients as well as severely disabled newborn babies.

One doctor has admitted starving and dehydrating ten babies to death in the neonatal unit of one hospital alone.

Writing in a leading medical journal, the physician revealed the process can take an average of ten days during which a  baby becomes ‘smaller and shrunken’.

The LCP – on which 130,000 elderly and terminally-ill adult patients die each year – is now the subject of an independent inquiry ordered by ministers.

The fact is, when a bureaucracy pays for health care, its main focus over time becomes the money, not the lives. This, frankly, must happen when we hand over our freedoms to the government. Human nature fairly dictates that, again over time, our better natures lose to the almighty dollar/pound/euro. When we, individually, determine how and where our money’s spent, we can make better choices than society in the aggregate.

Individuals have a conscience. Government entities don’t.