Guns Save Lives

it's true...

so anyway, this afternoon I was cleaning out my e-mail inbox and just for giggles, I actually opened an e-mail from the GOP.  How they got my address I'll never know; probably from signing some petition whilst less than sober.  The GOP's e-mail had a link to a Thomas Sowell essay that you should read.  A taste:

"The defensive use of guns is usually either not discussed at all in the media or else is depicted as if it means bullets flying in all directions, like the gunfight at the OK Corral.  But most defensive uses of guns do not involve actually pulling the trigger.

If someone comes at you with a knife and you point a gun at him, he is very unlikely to keep coming, and far more likely to head in the other direction, perhaps in some haste, if he has a brain in his head.  Only if he is an idiot are you likely to have to pull the trigger.  And if he is an idiot with a knife coming after you, you had better have a trigger to pull."

Read the whole thing (it's not a long piece).  As per his usual, Sowell is spot-on.

more soon

Confirming two things

that you already know to be true...

so anyway, that whole "global warming" thing?  It's all bullshit:

"OVER the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar. The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO₂ put there by humanity since 1750. And yet, as James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, observes, “the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade.” "

Emphasis mine.

And second, we were right; as it turns out Bush 43 was not responsible for the economy crashing in '08, the lion's share of the blame for the recession accrues to Jimmy F'n Carter, William Jefferson Blythe Clinton, and the Community Re-investment Act:

"Democrats and the media insist the Community Reinvestment Act, the anti-redlining law beefed up by President Clinton, had nothing to do with the subprime mortgage crisis and recession.

But a new study by the respected National Bureau of Economic Research finds, “Yes, it did. We find that adherence to that act led to riskier lending by banks.”

Added NBER: “There is a clear pattern of increased defaults for loans made by these banks in quarters around the (CRA) exam. Moreover, the effects are larger for loans made within CRA tracts,” or predominantly low-income and minority areas."

Related:
Read more »

Words of Wisdom

or prophecy, take your pick....

so anyway, I sure wish I remembered where I found this:

“Everything which might cause doubt about the wisdom of the government or create discontent will be kept from the people. The basis of unfavorable comparisons with elsewhere, the knowledge of possible alternatives to the course actually taken, information which might suggest failure on the part of the government to live up to its promises or to take advantage of opportunities to improve conditions--all will be suppressed. There is consequently no field where the systematic control of information will not be practiced and uniformity of views not enforced.” 

--Friedrich A. von Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, 1943

I'm adding that quote to the sidebar once I decide where to put it.  As for where I found it, I haven't a clue.  See also, Blogroll (If you posted this on your blog yesterday let me know.  It's policy around here to only steal with attribution.)

One snippet of this quote caught my eye:

"...information which might suggest failure on the part of the government to live up to its promises or to take advantage of opportunities to improve conditions--all will be suppressed."

Park that little tidbit in the back of your mind until next Friday when the November unemployment numbers are published.  It would not surprise me in the least if the headlines next Friday read:

Great News, Comrades! The unemployment rate has decreased to 8.2%!

And the sheeple will buy it.  All they'll see is unemployment decreased.  Their next thought will be "What time is the game on?" or "Who's on Dancing with the Stars Vaguely Familiar?"

more soon

Preach it, my brother

another spot on commentary by the inestimable Mr.Whittle...

so anyway, via Ragin' Dave, we get Bill Whittle's latest Firewall:
Read more »

A Simple Truth

to bad it's too long for a bumper sticker....

so anyway, InstaPunk (actual) has a really good post up about a simple truth:

Raising tax rates does not automatically increase tax revenue,
whereas cutting federal spending always decreases the deficit.
Do go read the whole thing.

more soon

Simple Economics

it really is this easy to understand

so anyway, here's the sitch: I've been involved in a running debate with the progressive wing of the family over the cost of health insurance. I'm told, over and over, that ObamaCare is a big f'n deal and I should be grateful that the Democrats are looking out for my best interest. Overlay this with the fact that our COBRA coverage is about to expire and we've been shopping for health insurance for the past several months. It's a topic of keen interest around Casa de Miguel.

The ObamaCare "pre-existing condition" provision and requiring insurers to cover "children" up to the age of 26 (that recently went into effect) were touted it as a victory for working people, courtesy of President Obama and the all-compassionate Democrats. I was branded a fool for my stubborn insistence that ObamaCare was anything less than a good thing.

We finally decided on a policy, and TheMissus™ was shocked when the final price was 23% more than this initial quote. "It all those greedy insurance companies. They want Obama to fail, so they're raising the prices to screw the working class" TheMissus™ exclaimed. (Yes, her "logic" escaped me, too. Actually, she went on for several days on the topic. Decorum prevents me from quoting her verbatim.) When I could get a word in edge-wise, I responded with a mashed-up paraphrase of Hanlon's Razor and BlackFive's Uncle Jimbo:

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by employing the antiquated, dead white male concept of doing the fucking math"

When she finally paused to catch her breath, I said "No, it's just simple economics. Gather 'round, children and I'll put you some knowledge." So the whole family plopped down on the couch to listen and I began:

"It was a dark and stormy night....." sorry, wrong story (ed)

"Suppose you're the owner of a restaurant, and it's a 'all-you-can-eat' buffet. You charge $10 per growd-up and they can eat all they want and their kids under 12 years old eat for free. Got it?"

There were general nods of understanding from the kids. TheMissus™ rolled her eyes.

"Now say the Government comes in and tells you that now you have to let kids under 18 years old eat for free."

At this point, TheMissus™, being both progressive and oh so "open-minded", stormed out of the room in a huff. Out of the room, but not out of ear-shot.

Twin the Youngest paused for a moment then said "Teenagers eat a lot more than little kids"

"Yes, usually that's true" I replied. "Not always, but usually a teenager will eat more than a 10 year old."

"A lot more" said Twin the Eldest.

"Here is the question" I said. "Now that you have to let teenagers eat for free, how much do you charge each customer for the 'all-you-can-eat' buffet?"

Twin the Youngest piped up: "You said that teenagers eat for free, so you wouldn't charge them anything."

"Good point" I said. "What would you charge the parents, the growd-ups?"

TheBoy™ leapt to his feet and said "A hundred dollars!" [My heart swelled with pride and I had to wipe away a tear. That's my boy!] "Well, buddy, a hundred dollars is a lot to pay for a meal, even if it is all you can eat" I said. "Good thinking, though."

"I'd still charge $10, but they could only have one plate of food" said Twin the Eldest.

I replied "Nope, you can't do that. You have an 'all-you-can-eat' restaurant and the Government says that you can not change anything about your business, except now you have to let teenagers eat for free."

After a long pause, Twin the Youngest said "But that's not fair". As soon as she said it, she knew what I would say.

"Fair is a weather forecast. How much would you charge?"

Twin the Eldest said $20, Twin the Youngest said $15. TheBoy™ said $30.

"OK" I said. "Why would you charge more?"

Both girls started saying the same thing at the same time. They're twins. It happens.

"Because teenagers eat a lot more than little kids and it will use up more of the food so you would have to charge more."

"Right," I said "your costs would go up because you have to provide more food." Around this time the snickering and snide commentary coming from the other room had all but stopped. TheMissus™ had become uncharacteristically silent.

We talked about it for a few more minutes and I was pleased with their grasp of the subject. The girls are eleven, TheBoy™ is six. All three of them seemed to have an intuitive understanding of Econ 101, and before the conversation was over they were offering up solutions to the question, such as "selling cheaper food" (the concept of reduction of quality), and "only letting people eat there once a week" (rationing).

It really is that simple, I'm surprised that more adults cannot (or will not) recognize the basic concepts of economics.

more soon