I won't argue the plus-or-minuses of low rates for very long-term capital gains. I will argue that shorter-term gains should simply be lumped in with "labor" income, much the way that gambling profits are. For the most part that's what trading, and particularly short-term trading, in stocks that pay no or negligible dividends is.
Which is why decisions about culling the animal population should be left to the professionals.
I'm almost unequivocally on the side of the bears here. Also on the side of the rattlesnakes, bull moose and elk, bison, etc. And lightning, which is more likely to kill you in a national park than any of the animals. Not to mention freedom to drive to the parks, which is far more likely to kill you than animals and lightning combined. Most people visiting a national park or national wilderness area won't encounter bears (and most likely will encounter mooching black bears*). Most bear encounters are not fatal. We can afford to have some spaces left where the rules are stacked in favor of the wildlife.
* Often taught bad habits by people feeding them. My own opinion is that anyone caught feeding the animals in a national park should have their visitation privileges removed, immediately and permanently.
@aarondavid
Ah, very different needs then. I go the used book route mostly for odd academic works that I've decided I need on my shelf, usually after reading a copy borrowed through my local library network. So I don't care about most of the things that a dealer or collector would, mostly just intact and clean pages. These days, a PDF version would probably be better for my uses -- searchable, doesn't take up the volume, and overlays allow for copious note jotting.
So can a set of bells laced in your boots, making a reasonable amount of noise as you walk along, and knowing how to behave if you do encounter a bear. Statistically, you're in more danger from lightning in the western national parks than you are from bears. To be honest, I'd worry a lot more about a national park full of people carrying a loaded "big ass caliber gun" than I would about grizzlies. Guns get dropped; people fall; sh*t happens.
In the grizzly piece, I have to wonder who wrote the Park Service's line "It's a national park, not a wildlife preserve." Yellowstone is significantly bigger than the state of Delaware; there are multiple interacting ecosystems; it's one of the sites where we chose to re-introduce northern gray wolves; it's a national park, but it's also a stupendous wildlife preserve once you get away from the roads and day hikers).
When I lived on the East Coast, I discovered that there was a language gap between me and the majority of the people living there: when they said "national park" they had a vision of a something well kept, of modest size, and safe. They had trouble with the idea that even in the maintained portions along the roads in Yellowstone, there were things that could kill you. Even more so with the concept that (a) you could hike for two or three days away from the roads and still be in Yellowstone and (b) once you were away from the roads, there were even more things that could kill you (eg, hypothermia two days away from care is not to be taken lightly).
I've started using thriftbooks and have been quite pleased so far. Prices are good. Their standards on quality ratings seem to be higher than mine -- one of the last ones I got was rated "good", but I think it's somewhere between excellent and barely-touched. Free shipping for orders over $10.
Yes, and as the American public realizes that the quite expensive two-theater forward presences are largely wasted effort, they will be dismantled.
If I were a national leader in Japan, somewhere in the government I would have a group of people looking secretly and in detail at the Israeli option. Japan could put together a nuclear deterrent in a year or less -- they have tons of plutonium stockpiled and rockets suitable for delivery. The rest is straightforward engineering. China would make loud noises, but so long as Japan stayed well clear of the South China Sea, it would just be noise.
I don't disagree with that. But I assert that along several axes -- energy, economy, politics, personnel, weapons systems, allies -- the costs of maintaining effective global reach will be relatively too expensive. How many places are there in the world today where the US almost certainly wouldn't be able to pull off an invasion and occupation? How many more/less do you think there will be in 25 years?
I look at what is going on in Europe (and Asia) and I find myself suspicious that the Big Breakup will be kicked down the road a ways by the violence that is going to erupt out there.
I have a bet with Kolohe, dated 5/30/2014, that 25 years from that point the US will no longer be a global conventional superpower.
It’s unlikely a sufficient number will support doing away with Birthright Citizenship to amend the Constitution.
I believe that there will be no further Amendments to the Constitution in my lifetime. Well, an outside chance if the Big Breakup happens sooner (or I live longer) than I think. And even then, that the various parts agree to do things "legally" rather than just establishing the new parts by other undisputed agreements. Anyway, tinkering around the edges is done; there will be at least 13 states opposed to any small changes. From here on out, sufficient majorities at the national level will simply reinterpret the words that are already there.
I've read pieces that assert that some business people in the northern tier of Mexican states are quietly discussing secession from Mexico City, followed by an immediate request for some sort of linkage to the US (territory, protectorate, something). The arguments advanced are that those states are significantly richer than the rest of the country and trust an occupying US military to push the worst of the drug cartel violence south into the next tier of states.
What still pisses me off is that electronic or otherwise, getting copies of my medical records is like pulling teeth. Last time changes in insurance required me to change practices, the new docs got a copy of the old records for free, based on "professional courtesy". For me, it was on the order of two bucks per page for paper copies. There's no one more concerned with having a complete set of my medical records than me, but everyone goes out of their way to make it difficult for me to assemble one.
As I recall, it doesn't make a lot of difference numerically if kids are allowed to stay if someone here legally signs on as their guardian.
The whole "anchor baby" argument is based on the belief that one kid's citizenship can be parlayed quickly into legal status (at least permanent residency and green cards, if not citizenship) for an entire extended family. I thought much of that had been done away with already, or at least the numbers limited.
You have boys, do you not? I can almost guarantee that a some time down the road several years, Will is going to be quite concerned about how much and which skin the clothes worn by girls of a certain age reveal.
@zic
We were "outsiders" so to speak, there because of my dad's job, no real relatives in the area. My Iowa ancestry was from down by the Missouri border, almost straight UK by heritage (I vaguely recall conversations with my Great Aunt Martha, from Liverpool; no one told me that I shouldn't be able to handle Liverpudlian, so we got along fine). NW Iowa's population at the time -- late 1950s, 1960s -- was still largely derived from the northern route transcontinental railroad recruiting Scandinavians. Iowa was settled from SE to NW over a surprisingly long period of time. In school, I was the short dark kid with the funny name -- the blond viking girls were all bigger than me. God help you if you mixed up the Petersens and Petersons. Seven different kinds of Lutheran church.
I was a kid in NW Iowa and was raised more-or-less Methodist. As they say, if you simply assume that there will be a covered dish potluck after the religious observation, you might be a Methodist.
I first realized that this was actually a stereotype when I read Rex Stout's Nero Wolfe novel Some Buried Caesar, where the gourmand Wolfe eats chicken fricassee and dumplings repeatedly, under what would otherwise be intolerable conditions, at the Methodist tent.
I'll argue that regionalism answers some of the concerns in the OP.
My favorite example currently is California [1]. There's a perception outside the state of the laid-back Californian, be it someone in their Marin County hot tub with a glass of white wine or surfers or potheads or valley girls or OT's very own Burt Likko, who has a hell of a stressful job and still comes across as laid back. While there's some truth to that external view, it completely misses the California that I see as a regular business visitor over the years: smarts, and energy, and the whole "we can fix our problems" vibe. California dealt with its initial water problems, its air problems, and has led much of the rest of the country during the process. Non-Californians write pieces about the disaster of the current drought; but at least IMO, there's no place in the country better suited to making whatever changes are necessary to deal with the problem. There's a regional identity that transcends many of the ethnic divisions [2].
[1] Full disclosure. I have a California birth certificate. Over the decades, there have been at least a half-dozen times when I could have ended up in California, quite happily I think, but the circumstances just never quite worked out that way.
[2] Here at OT, Saul Degraw and LeeEsq are New York suburb Jewish brothers. I enjoy reading their comments a lot, and have the impression that Lee is rapidly becoming Californian in a way that Saul is not.
In Omaha for my niece's wedding. Spent yesterday driving from Denver with my almost-two-year-old granddaughter, who was terrific. To the zoo today, then the wedding tomorrow, and drive home on Sunday.
Still, it seems to me that the trigger event that determines whether he gets taxed or not is something King can control...
There are a number of reasons that this statement makes me nervous, although I admit that there's not enough information available for me to understand if my concerns are real or not. For one thing, the range of incomes that we're discussing here are pretty low. It's one thing to tell a top neurosurgeon "lower your fee" or "take fewer cases"; it's another to tell someone near the poverty line "earn less money so you don't have to buy insurance." The second is that the person may not have a choice. If, for example, you're on a military pension (King is a Vietnam vet), your income is what the government says it is -- there's no option to say "Only send me 90% of the pension, please."
@pinky
Bah. The other three are just sidekicks. My standard would be, who do you want in a huge end-of-the-world scenario. Superman and Mr. Fantastic make that list, but it's a big step down to whoever comes next. Spidey and the Batman are terrific on a save-the-city scale, but don't make the big time.
On “My morning read; global economics, leadership, and sex”
I won't argue the plus-or-minuses of low rates for very long-term capital gains. I will argue that shorter-term gains should simply be lumped in with "labor" income, much the way that gambling profits are. For the most part that's what trading, and particularly short-term trading, in stocks that pay no or negligible dividends is.
On “Questions From the Headlines”
This divide seems grey to me.
Which is why decisions about culling the animal population should be left to the professionals.
I'm almost unequivocally on the side of the bears here. Also on the side of the rattlesnakes, bull moose and elk, bison, etc. And lightning, which is more likely to kill you in a national park than any of the animals. Not to mention freedom to drive to the parks, which is far more likely to kill you than animals and lightning combined. Most people visiting a national park or national wilderness area won't encounter bears (and most likely will encounter mooching black bears*). Most bear encounters are not fatal. We can afford to have some spaces left where the rules are stacked in favor of the wildlife.
* Often taught bad habits by people feeding them. My own opinion is that anyone caught feeding the animals in a national park should have their visitation privileges removed, immediately and permanently.
On “Sunday!”
@aarondavid
Ah, very different needs then. I go the used book route mostly for odd academic works that I've decided I need on my shelf, usually after reading a copy borrowed through my local library network. So I don't care about most of the things that a dealer or collector would, mostly just intact and clean pages. These days, a PDF version would probably be better for my uses -- searchable, doesn't take up the volume, and overlays allow for copious note jotting.
On “Questions From the Headlines”
So can a set of bells laced in your boots, making a reasonable amount of noise as you walk along, and knowing how to behave if you do encounter a bear. Statistically, you're in more danger from lightning in the western national parks than you are from bears. To be honest, I'd worry a lot more about a national park full of people carrying a loaded "big ass caliber gun" than I would about grizzlies. Guns get dropped; people fall; sh*t happens.
"
In the grizzly piece, I have to wonder who wrote the Park Service's line "It's a national park, not a wildlife preserve." Yellowstone is significantly bigger than the state of Delaware; there are multiple interacting ecosystems; it's one of the sites where we chose to re-introduce northern gray wolves; it's a national park, but it's also a stupendous wildlife preserve once you get away from the roads and day hikers).
When I lived on the East Coast, I discovered that there was a language gap between me and the majority of the people living there: when they said "national park" they had a vision of a something well kept, of modest size, and safe. They had trouble with the idea that even in the maintained portions along the roads in Yellowstone, there were things that could kill you. Even more so with the concept that (a) you could hike for two or three days away from the roads and still be in Yellowstone and (b) once you were away from the roads, there were even more things that could kill you (eg, hypothermia two days away from care is not to be taken lightly).
On “Sunday!”
Also, used books.
I've started using thriftbooks and have been quite pleased so far. Prices are good. Their standards on quality ratings seem to be higher than mine -- one of the last ones I got was rated "good", but I think it's somewhere between excellent and barely-touched. Free shipping for orders over $10.
"
Caligula, without the explicit sex?
On “Without a Country”
Yes, and as the American public realizes that the quite expensive two-theater forward presences are largely wasted effort, they will be dismantled.
If I were a national leader in Japan, somewhere in the government I would have a group of people looking secretly and in detail at the Israeli option. Japan could put together a nuclear deterrent in a year or less -- they have tons of plutonium stockpiled and rockets suitable for delivery. The rest is straightforward engineering. China would make loud noises, but so long as Japan stayed well clear of the South China Sea, it would just be noise.
"
I don't disagree with that. But I assert that along several axes -- energy, economy, politics, personnel, weapons systems, allies -- the costs of maintaining effective global reach will be relatively too expensive. How many places are there in the world today where the US almost certainly wouldn't be able to pull off an invasion and occupation? How many more/less do you think there will be in 25 years?
"
I look at what is going on in Europe (and Asia) and I find myself suspicious that the Big Breakup will be kicked down the road a ways by the violence that is going to erupt out there.
I have a bet with Kolohe, dated 5/30/2014, that 25 years from that point the US will no longer be a global conventional superpower.
"
It’s unlikely a sufficient number will support doing away with Birthright Citizenship to amend the Constitution.
I believe that there will be no further Amendments to the Constitution in my lifetime. Well, an outside chance if the Big Breakup happens sooner (or I live longer) than I think. And even then, that the various parts agree to do things "legally" rather than just establishing the new parts by other undisputed agreements. Anyway, tinkering around the edges is done; there will be at least 13 states opposed to any small changes. From here on out, sufficient majorities at the national level will simply reinterpret the words that are already there.
"
My first guess is lower taxes for the elites, and the non-elites lose single-payer health insurance.
"
I've read pieces that assert that some business people in the northern tier of Mexican states are quietly discussing secession from Mexico City, followed by an immediate request for some sort of linkage to the US (territory, protectorate, something). The arguments advanced are that those states are significantly richer than the rest of the country and trust an occupying US military to push the worst of the drug cartel violence south into the next tier of states.
On “Linky Friday #128: Ubersafe”
What still pisses me off is that electronic or otherwise, getting copies of my medical records is like pulling teeth. Last time changes in insurance required me to change practices, the new docs got a copy of the old records for free, based on "professional courtesy". For me, it was on the order of two bucks per page for paper copies. There's no one more concerned with having a complete set of my medical records than me, but everyone goes out of their way to make it difficult for me to assemble one.
On “Without a Country”
As I recall, it doesn't make a lot of difference numerically if kids are allowed to stay if someone here legally signs on as their guardian.
The whole "anchor baby" argument is based on the belief that one kid's citizenship can be parlayed quickly into legal status (at least permanent residency and green cards, if not citizenship) for an entire extended family. I thought much of that had been done away with already, or at least the numbers limited.
On “Linky Friday #128: Ubersafe”
You have boys, do you not? I can almost guarantee that a some time down the road several years, Will is going to be quite concerned about how much and which skin the clothes worn by girls of a certain age reveal.
"
S7: Well done, sir!
On “Rethinking White Identity”
Oops.
"
@zic
We were "outsiders" so to speak, there because of my dad's job, no real relatives in the area. My Iowa ancestry was from down by the Missouri border, almost straight UK by heritage (I vaguely recall conversations with my Great Aunt Martha, from Liverpool; no one told me that I shouldn't be able to handle Liverpudlian, so we got along fine). NW Iowa's population at the time -- late 1950s, 1960s -- was still largely derived from the northern route transcontinental railroad recruiting Scandinavians. Iowa was settled from SE to NW over a surprisingly long period of time. In school, I was the short dark kid with the funny name -- the blond viking girls were all bigger than me. God help you if you mixed up the Petersens and Petersons. Seven different kinds of Lutheran church.
"
I was a kid in NW Iowa and was raised more-or-less Methodist. As they say, if you simply assume that there will be a covered dish potluck after the religious observation, you might be a Methodist.
I first realized that this was actually a stereotype when I read Rex Stout's Nero Wolfe novel Some Buried Caesar, where the gourmand Wolfe eats chicken fricassee and dumplings repeatedly, under what would otherwise be intolerable conditions, at the Methodist tent.
"
I'll argue that regionalism answers some of the concerns in the OP.
My favorite example currently is California [1]. There's a perception outside the state of the laid-back Californian, be it someone in their Marin County hot tub with a glass of white wine or surfers or potheads or valley girls or OT's very own Burt Likko, who has a hell of a stressful job and still comes across as laid back. While there's some truth to that external view, it completely misses the California that I see as a regular business visitor over the years: smarts, and energy, and the whole "we can fix our problems" vibe. California dealt with its initial water problems, its air problems, and has led much of the rest of the country during the process. Non-Californians write pieces about the disaster of the current drought; but at least IMO, there's no place in the country better suited to making whatever changes are necessary to deal with the problem. There's a regional identity that transcends many of the ethnic divisions [2].
[1] Full disclosure. I have a California birth certificate. Over the decades, there have been at least a half-dozen times when I could have ended up in California, quite happily I think, but the circumstances just never quite worked out that way.
[2] Here at OT, Saul Degraw and LeeEsq are New York suburb Jewish brothers. I enjoy reading their comments a lot, and have the impression that Lee is rapidly becoming Californian in a way that Saul is not.
On “Weekend!”
In Omaha for my niece's wedding. Spent yesterday driving from Denver with my almost-two-year-old granddaughter, who was terrific. To the zoo today, then the wedding tomorrow, and drive home on Sunday.
On “When Text And Context Collide”
Still, it seems to me that the trigger event that determines whether he gets taxed or not is something King can control...
There are a number of reasons that this statement makes me nervous, although I admit that there's not enough information available for me to understand if my concerns are real or not. For one thing, the range of incomes that we're discussing here are pretty low. It's one thing to tell a top neurosurgeon "lower your fee" or "take fewer cases"; it's another to tell someone near the poverty line "earn less money so you don't have to buy insurance." The second is that the person may not have a choice. If, for example, you're on a military pension (King is a Vietnam vet), your income is what the government says it is -- there's no option to say "Only send me 90% of the pension, please."
On “Mount Rushmore — Super Edition”
@pinky
Bah. The other three are just sidekicks. My standard would be, who do you want in a huge end-of-the-world scenario. Superman and Mr. Fantastic make that list, but it's a big step down to whoever comes next. Spidey and the Batman are terrific on a save-the-city scale, but don't make the big time.
On “No Kidding?”
At the risk of being troll-like, Gifts of Gab has stopped loading in both Firefox and Chrome on my Mac (still works on Safari).
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.