Of course. Vegas is about the easiest place to access, and the easiest place in which to find accomodations. Come to think of it, I have some Vegas.com cards saved up. I'll suggest we meet for dinner at Border Grill in the Mandalay Bay.
The best selling wine in America is, I think, Berenger white zinfandel from California. If you ask me, this is alcoholic Kool-Aid, but people drink lots of it. You can get this for $6 a bottle without much effort. I have plenty of friends who seem to want their wines as sweet as they can get them. If all you actually care about is sweetness (regardless of what you claim to care about), then there is no reason to ever pay more than $7 a bottle pretty much anywhere you go, including hyper-expensive metro areas like NYC, DC, and SF.
But if the question is, why pay more than $10 a bottle, I think that the answer is, to educate yourself. The quality goes up when sweetness is set aside in favor of tannins, and the maker stops having to appeal to such a broad audience. Smaller labels, often ones whose only marketing is their tasting rooms, offer a lot of different options. To get there, though, you need to tolerate the price point rises to around $25 a bottle, you start finding some really interesting stuff, the spectrum of the different varieties and styles opens up enough to educate you, and it ought not to take too long before you start finding labels and makers that you like.
Once you've educated yourself you can start searching the lower tier of prices for something similar to what you've enjoyed during your time in the middle tiers -- and you can feel at least reasonably comfortable when you are out at a nice place and are confronted with both restaraunt markups (2-3 times what you'd pay retail) and specimens from the higher tiers of pricing.
My assumption is that if it's a book-on-demand site, we (meaning the editor, presumptively meaning Erik) could add or take away from its contents as we liked. I'm not 100% clear on the nuts and bolts of that sort of thing, though.
In terms of the legalities, that depends on the terms of the license agreement, but we've got a few lawyers here who could probably whip up something appropriate. I'd be happy to help out with that, in my copious free time.
Sure, that's one way to look at it; the economist each all of us will labor to find a way to quantify morality and in some contexts I think that is a useful calculus. It's not the only way to go, though; quantifying everything eliminates the possibility of a moral dealbreaker -- something that the economist would quantify as of infinite value. As you've framed it, maybe $225K is an acceptable opportunity cost for not vivisecting puppies, but perhaps $500K is not (meaning you'd do it for $525K a year). Or $1M or $2.5M or whatever -- we're in a moral auction at this point, and it's not clear to me that everything is subject to a moral auction.
Having to vivisect puppies would be a dealbreaker for me and I suspect for most of us; confronted with the reality of actually doing it, the money and other incentives would stop mattering at all and the quantification melts away. If you could see yourself doing it for a particular quantity of money, then there is still surely something else that you can concieve of, which you would not bargain away for any amount of money.
While I don't feel this way, mabye Murali and/or JHG finds the idea of working for "a corporation" (whatever that means) to be the moral equivalent of vivisecting puppies. You and I might not make that moral choice but it's not for us to tell either of them what they're morally comfortable with doing. So if that's the case, then $250K in exchange for working for "a corporation" is simply not an option.
A self-publishing, book-on-demand site would probably be best. The product would wind up looking nice, and the product could remain available whenver someone cared to purchase it (no inventory for anyone to sit on).
There are copyright issues, as I understand that each of the authors maintains copyright in the writing, with a license given to the blog for use here. I have no problem licensing anything I've written to Erik or Mark or whomever for purposes of the Journal of the Ordinary Gentlemen, provided that the proceeds are then used in an appropriate fashion.
On that note, I suggest the proceeds go to defraying the costs of maintaining the blog. Anything in excess of that should go to a charity of some kind. I'm not insistent on that, but it seems like a logical thing to do.
When people are engaging in debate about public policy they have stepped into the public arena, and when you do so you have voluntarily made yourself a public actor and can no longer claim the mantle of being private.
Changing minds is qualitatively different than changing laws. One is persuasion; the other compulsion. My ideas are valid regardless of my identity; the law demands obedience. Different standards appropriately apply in different arenas.
I think about a half dozen LOOG bloggers and sub-bloggers know my real identity anyway despite the tissue of my pseudonym. On a cheekier level and intended in fun, what's a "Kolohe" anyway?
All other things being equal, making more money is better than making less. All other things may not be equal, though.
If your choices come down to making $250K a year vivisecting puppies and $25K a year rescuing stray puppies to save them from vivisection, morality may trump money. The real world is not nearly so binary as this. There are always a multiplicity of options.
"Working for a corporation" is not ispo facto a bad moral choice. Nor is it ipso facto a more financially rewarding option. The more sobriety you bring to your decision, the better decision you will make. Ideology defeats sobriety.
I don't see Tod letting Clinton off the hook for the perjury. I see him saying that the basic issue was ruthless abuse of power for the basest of motives.
Nor do I see Tod claiming to know Cain is a liar, so much as he's saying that the multiplicity of accusations hints at a propensity similar to Clinton's to ruthlessly abuse power.
Ah, the things I miss by not Twittering. So the poll reflects not only the commentariat plus the lurkertariat, but also the twittertariat. And who knows, maybe even the facebookegeoisie too.
Here, I can feel safer generalizing: a signifcant number of people who come here are generally looking for us specifically. An appreciable number of them are looking for Freddie.
As I post this comment, I count 24 named people who voted "nay" to 17 who voted "aye." Let's call that roughly equal, with the edge going to "nay."
But the anonymous survey is running 70-30 in favor of "aye."
I hesitate to draw any more conclusions from that. First, I do not think we can safely exclude the possibility that the voting system is being somehow gamed -- if you can change your IP address, you can vote more than once. Second, this only tells us that lurkers are more pro-PPACA than the roughly evenly-divided commentariat; I don't know that it's necessarily safe to even characterize them as "more liberal" based on this single data point.
Constitutionally permissible given current commerce clause jurisprudence. If I were on the Supreme Court, knowing what I know now, I'd vote to uphold it.
But I think it's a bad policy idea, as certain to backfire as Wile E. Coyote's latest mail-order shipment from Acme Co. If I had been in Congress when it came up for a vote, I'd have voted no.
So I think that as framed, that makes me a "nay" on this question.
Signing petitions? Making campaign donations? Signing a petition is neither a private act, nor is it voting. Campaign donations are acts of public speech.
Likely. But what can I do? He called me out, and then he called me a coward. Worse, I got a phone call I had to take, delaying my sur-response. Honor is at stake now!
I suppose I have to play, then. At least in California, it's very clear that the state constitution (Article II, Section 7) provides that voting (in a general election for public office and public initiatives) is not only private, but secret. Normatively, I agree with the state constitution and I would infer such a limit on the Federal government's power as well.
What I think wardsmith is getting at is a voter for a public official in a general election, like for Governor or President. Can I be compelled to disclose who I voted for, or why? No. I can vote for candidate "X" instead of candidate "Y," by virtue of the worst possible motives imaginable (think, racism or whatever other horrible motive you can concoct that is even worse than that), and no government entity may legitimately inquire into either my vote or my reasons for voting as I did. And I may later decline to answer any question concerning who I voted for, without official penalty or governmental sanction.
As I see it, this is a negatively-framed right -- it is a limitation on the power of government to inquire into my exercise of the franchise rather than an affirmative obligation of the government to give me something.
In practice, people often waive this right. It's relatively easy to get most people to freely disclose who they voted for and why, just by asking nicely.
On “Census II : Map Graph!”
Of course. Vegas is about the easiest place to access, and the easiest place in which to find accomodations. Come to think of it, I have some Vegas.com cards saved up. I'll suggest we meet for dinner at Border Grill in the Mandalay Bay.
On “Cheap Wine, Expensive Wine, and Good Wine”
The best selling wine in America is, I think, Berenger white zinfandel from California. If you ask me, this is alcoholic Kool-Aid, but people drink lots of it. You can get this for $6 a bottle without much effort. I have plenty of friends who seem to want their wines as sweet as they can get them. If all you actually care about is sweetness (regardless of what you claim to care about), then there is no reason to ever pay more than $7 a bottle pretty much anywhere you go, including hyper-expensive metro areas like NYC, DC, and SF.
But if the question is, why pay more than $10 a bottle, I think that the answer is, to educate yourself. The quality goes up when sweetness is set aside in favor of tannins, and the maker stops having to appeal to such a broad audience. Smaller labels, often ones whose only marketing is their tasting rooms, offer a lot of different options. To get there, though, you need to tolerate the price point rises to around $25 a bottle, you start finding some really interesting stuff, the spectrum of the different varieties and styles opens up enough to educate you, and it ought not to take too long before you start finding labels and makers that you like.
Once you've educated yourself you can start searching the lower tier of prices for something similar to what you've enjoyed during your time in the middle tiers -- and you can feel at least reasonably comfortable when you are out at a nice place and are confronted with both restaraunt markups (2-3 times what you'd pay retail) and specimens from the higher tiers of pricing.
On “The Journal of Ordinary Gentlemen”
My assumption is that if it's a book-on-demand site, we (meaning the editor, presumptively meaning Erik) could add or take away from its contents as we liked. I'm not 100% clear on the nuts and bolts of that sort of thing, though.
In terms of the legalities, that depends on the terms of the license agreement, but we've got a few lawyers here who could probably whip up something appropriate. I'd be happy to help out with that, in my copious free time.
On “Bad choices (Or Where I come off as a judgemental jerk)”
Sure, that's one way to look at it; the economist each all of us will labor to find a way to quantify morality and in some contexts I think that is a useful calculus. It's not the only way to go, though; quantifying everything eliminates the possibility of a moral dealbreaker -- something that the economist would quantify as of infinite value. As you've framed it, maybe $225K is an acceptable opportunity cost for not vivisecting puppies, but perhaps $500K is not (meaning you'd do it for $525K a year). Or $1M or $2.5M or whatever -- we're in a moral auction at this point, and it's not clear to me that everything is subject to a moral auction.
Having to vivisect puppies would be a dealbreaker for me and I suspect for most of us; confronted with the reality of actually doing it, the money and other incentives would stop mattering at all and the quantification melts away. If you could see yourself doing it for a particular quantity of money, then there is still surely something else that you can concieve of, which you would not bargain away for any amount of money.
While I don't feel this way, mabye Murali and/or JHG finds the idea of working for "a corporation" (whatever that means) to be the moral equivalent of vivisecting puppies. You and I might not make that moral choice but it's not for us to tell either of them what they're morally comfortable with doing. So if that's the case, then $250K in exchange for working for "a corporation" is simply not an option.
On “The Journal of Ordinary Gentlemen”
A self-publishing, book-on-demand site would probably be best. The product would wind up looking nice, and the product could remain available whenver someone cared to purchase it (no inventory for anyone to sit on).
There are copyright issues, as I understand that each of the authors maintains copyright in the writing, with a license given to the blog for use here. I have no problem licensing anything I've written to Erik or Mark or whomever for purposes of the Journal of the Ordinary Gentlemen, provided that the proceeds are then used in an appropriate fashion.
On that note, I suggest the proceeds go to defraying the costs of maintaining the blog. Anything in excess of that should go to a charity of some kind. I'm not insistent on that, but it seems like a logical thing to do.
On “If You Don’t Want To Be Chilled Stay Out Of The Freezer”
So do you disagree with the distinction I drew above in response to Kolohe's question?
"
Changing minds is qualitatively different than changing laws. One is persuasion; the other compulsion. My ideas are valid regardless of my identity; the law demands obedience. Different standards appropriately apply in different arenas.
I think about a half dozen LOOG bloggers and sub-bloggers know my real identity anyway despite the tissue of my pseudonym. On a cheekier level and intended in fun, what's a "Kolohe" anyway?
On “Herman Cain, Bill Clinton, and the Myth of He Said/She Said”
I'd have said:
Different and, alas, more ambiguous.
"
The matter resolved to the mutual satisfaction of all parties is pretty much all I can tell you. Sorry.
"
Ding ding ding ding ding ding ding!
"
I had a very nice quid pro quo case going until just this week. Resolved. But yes, most cases are hostile environment.
On “Bad choices (Or Where I come off as a judgemental jerk)”
All other things being equal, making more money is better than making less. All other things may not be equal, though.
If your choices come down to making $250K a year vivisecting puppies and $25K a year rescuing stray puppies to save them from vivisection, morality may trump money. The real world is not nearly so binary as this. There are always a multiplicity of options.
"Working for a corporation" is not ispo facto a bad moral choice. Nor is it ipso facto a more financially rewarding option. The more sobriety you bring to your decision, the better decision you will make. Ideology defeats sobriety.
On “Herman Cain, Bill Clinton, and the Myth of He Said/She Said”
I don't see Tod letting Clinton off the hook for the perjury. I see him saying that the basic issue was ruthless abuse of power for the basest of motives.
Nor do I see Tod claiming to know Cain is a liar, so much as he's saying that the multiplicity of accusations hints at a propensity similar to Clinton's to ruthlessly abuse power.
On “Would you vote for Obamacare?”
Ah, the things I miss by not Twittering. So the poll reflects not only the commentariat plus the lurkertariat, but also the twittertariat. And who knows, maybe even the facebookegeoisie too.
On “For Greginak”
Here, I can feel safer generalizing: a signifcant number of people who come here are generally looking for us specifically. An appreciable number of them are looking for Freddie.
On “Would you vote for Obamacare?”
As I post this comment, I count 24 named people who voted "nay" to 17 who voted "aye." Let's call that roughly equal, with the edge going to "nay."
But the anonymous survey is running 70-30 in favor of "aye."
I hesitate to draw any more conclusions from that. First, I do not think we can safely exclude the possibility that the voting system is being somehow gamed -- if you can change your IP address, you can vote more than once. Second, this only tells us that lurkers are more pro-PPACA than the roughly evenly-divided commentariat; I don't know that it's necessarily safe to even characterize them as "more liberal" based on this single data point.
But I would call it a major discrepancy.
On “Sound Off”
How delicious to encapsulate the spectrum of differing Circuit opinions within a single commentariat!
No desire today to do a deep argument about Constitutionality; the question on the table is "for" or "against" and we're both against.
"
FIFY. Seemed most likely to me you wanted to leave the word "am" italicized.
"
Constitutionally permissible given current commerce clause jurisprudence. If I were on the Supreme Court, knowing what I know now, I'd vote to uphold it.
But I think it's a bad policy idea, as certain to backfire as Wile E. Coyote's latest mail-order shipment from Acme Co. If I had been in Congress when it came up for a vote, I'd have voted no.
So I think that as framed, that makes me a "nay" on this question.
On “Of Two Minds At Once”
Signing petitions? Making campaign donations? Signing a petition is neither a private act, nor is it voting. Campaign donations are acts of public speech.
"
I was overly suspicious, then, ward; please accept my apologies for that.
"
Likely. But what can I do? He called me out, and then he called me a coward. Worse, I got a phone call I had to take, delaying my sur-response. Honor is at stake now!
"
See above. Although I'd rather you'd just made your point.
"
I suppose I have to play, then. At least in California, it's very clear that the state constitution (Article II, Section 7) provides that voting (in a general election for public office and public initiatives) is not only private, but secret. Normatively, I agree with the state constitution and I would infer such a limit on the Federal government's power as well.
What I think wardsmith is getting at is a voter for a public official in a general election, like for Governor or President. Can I be compelled to disclose who I voted for, or why? No. I can vote for candidate "X" instead of candidate "Y," by virtue of the worst possible motives imaginable (think, racism or whatever other horrible motive you can concoct that is even worse than that), and no government entity may legitimately inquire into either my vote or my reasons for voting as I did. And I may later decline to answer any question concerning who I voted for, without official penalty or governmental sanction.
As I see it, this is a negatively-framed right -- it is a limitation on the power of government to inquire into my exercise of the franchise rather than an affirmative obligation of the government to give me something.
In practice, people often waive this right. It's relatively easy to get most people to freely disclose who they voted for and why, just by asking nicely.
"
Oh, come on. When it's easy like that, do the setup yourself and move straight to the punch.