It sure sounds that way. It might well have been indirect or unintentional, i.e. Braun told his family, friends on the team, agent, etc., and one of them let it slip to the press. And there’s nothing MLBs protocols can do to prevent that sort of thing from happening.
I don’t know. Someone tells someone, who tells someone…
My point is that there are lots of ways that the story could leak through Braun’s side without involving a nefarious plot, a calculated PR ploy, or a breach of mandated confidentiality. (While a leak from the league or the union would almost certainly be at least the latter.)
What’s yours?
Suzuki breings the bulk, Slusser brings the snark:
That often has been the plan with Suzuki at the start of the year, and somehow he has started 516 games in the past four seasons, most in the majors among catchers.
you better hope to God you don't show up in this little community, because you'll wish you had never come
There aren’t many free-agent third baseman available, although one is well known to A’s fans: Former Oakland shortstop Miguel Tejada remains unsigned, as are Wes Helms and Felipe Lopez. Were the A’s to pursue a trade, they’re likely to have interest in Angels infielder Alberto Callaspo, who is believed to be available, though Oakland probably would not be willing to part with any significant prospect for him.
you better hope to God you don't show up in this little community, because you'll wish you had never come
They keep mentioning people hearing it “pop”, which just sounds exactly like ACL/MCL to me. That would suck a lot. I’m hoping that the sprain diagnosis holds up.
From Jane Lee, it sounds like it’s mostly Donaldson for now. I am on board with this plan (assuming Billy doesn’t come back from the Oscars and FK it up).
Yeah, I guess Callaspo isn’t hopeless with the bat and would probably outplay Donaldson at third. I still wouldn’t want to have to give up any players (to the Angels!!) to get him.
Callaspo has positive UZR for his career at 3B (UZR/150 is +8.2 for 2500 innings since 2006). But I didn’t know that when I made the statement above; I was mostly basing it on the fact that he played some SS in the minors.
Also, while catcher is the top of the defensive spectrum, the skills are pretty different from infield positions (though I’m sure that Donaldson has a good arm). But I did watch a video this morning (posted by SuSlu maybe?) of Donaldson fielding at third. So my 5 second scouting report is that he looked good and I’ll be pulling for him.
Donaldson was an outstanding 3bman before he moved behind the plate his junior year of college. Fuck i guess Callaspo’s -11 in 09 was an outlier. my bad.
In play, run(s)! Talk dirty to me gamecast, talk dirty. - Nevermoor
I dunno, it sure feels like C-3B is a swap that should be more natural.
If you squint really hard you can see similarities between blocking pitches in the dirt and having to knock down grounders or have quick reflexes at third. Good arm required for C-2B throw, just like 3B-1B throw (which likely rules out Barton post surgery…)
And I have to say: mikev is one of my favorite people on here
-slusser.
throwing yes, i see the similarity. i’d bet a catcher would even have and edge on a 3b-man since throwing from your knees is harder than from your feet or a running start. but it seems there are two make-or-break skills at 3b, and throwing across the diamond is only one of them. 3b is probably the most exigent position for footwork, and C’s don’t get a lot of that. so it might be a natural transition for some, but not to the extend that you’d expect every catcher to be OK at 3rd, like you would expect every one of them to be OK at 1st.
*i’m* AV. alex vause. put this loon in psych before she hurts someone.
Taking the Manny news well, but would much rather it be Tejada than Manny. Both would be nice, but concerned about remaining MLB ability for both. Voting yes on Tejada.
Johnny FKing Damon has not been shy about wanting to put in these last no-so-great years of his career, just to pad his career stats to try and make the Hall-Of-Fame.
If Tejada can put up a couple more even garbage years of 125+ hits, he becomes a huge blind spot in the HOF debate for shortstops going forward.
And Mr. Lukas has recipes and art projects and other fine filler for the non-baseball months.
\"Weren\'t you already aware the Kay is already writing everyone\'s story? We\'re all just characters who believe we are real. Things make more sense now, don\'t they. Be honest.\"- DMOAS
Stevie is awesome. Kind of a PITA (in a very amusing way, but the taunting penalties are still costly) and maybe not the (nebulous) “true #1” that I think you guys are looking for, but still awesome. I hope the Bills can keep him.
The tentative agreement for a downtown arena for the Kings probably kills my idea that Sacramento would be a fallback option if San Jose falls through (and assuming Oakland never gets it act together on a plan). I don’t see Sacramento being able to support two big league teams at any time in the foreseeable future.
Current ownership group isn’t building anywhere other than SJ; I suspect that if SJ gets killed (either through MLB/Giants blocking move, SJ residents voting it down, or several other ways Lew could end up screwing it up) than we’ll see something like another decade of Crywolffisher milking the revenue-sharing teat while the team dead-ends it in the Coliseum. I doubt that a SJ rejection would result in anything like a quick sale.
you better hope to God you don't show up in this little community, because you'll wish you had never come
Based purely on my limited experiences, I think it is because most colleges are very liberal places so to be a “republican who cares about politics” essentially forces you into a tiny group without much room for intra-group disagreement.
I would be very interested to see how the effect changes (if at all) at less liberal schools.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want"
I go along with the “more educated people have more experience arguing / ability to argue” theory. Someone could believe in the science behind global warming and still have reasons to argue against it (i.e. they think that a shift from our current energy policy would damage their economic prospects and/or standard of living). On many fronts, they have shown that arguing against basic scientific fact can be an effective method of preserving the status quo. More educated people might be better at holding the line.
The evidence does not support the notion that people voting conservative are cynical opportunists. The vast majority of even college-educated people make themselves economically worse off by voting Republican. Standard false consciousness, really.
The people STARTING the memes are cynical, sure. Exxon* funding anti-global warming propaganda is just the standard crap that comes out of a “marketplace of ideas” (namely, the most prominent ideas are the ones most useful to those with lots of money to pay for them). But people BELIEVING the anti-global warming propaganda is not a result of them all (or even mostly) thinking rationally that they’d be better off with more fossil fuel consumption and then supporting it.
And it’s the opinions of the consumers that that study (and its converses, which show essentially the same effect among liberals, albeit a bit weaker because liberals’ news sources tend to be less, well, false) is measuring, not the opinions of the “thought leaders” (please imagine that weighted with as much irony as I can muster).
* I actually have no idea if Exxon funds anti-global warming propaganda, but I didn’t feel like looking up a real example.
Okay, but “harder to convince because you have more psychologically invested in your position” seems somewhat more likely than “harder to convince because that was the strategy devised at the last secret meeting at C. Montgomery Burns’s mansion.”
I seriously doubt this has anything to do with colleges. Political viewpoint is heavily genetic and also heavily influenced by things like where someone is in birth order among children in a family. Most of the rest is social circumstances.
George Lakoff and his ilk have, IMO, disproved (or, at least, put on life support) the notion that politics has anything to do with rational argumentation. Day-to-day electoral politics is all about hitting subconscious buttons in people’s brains, which is why I’m mostly not interested in it. It’s stupid on an essential level.
The cognitive dissonance required to reject your party’s insane position on global warming far outweighs whatever minor dissonance believing in something that’s false causes, especially since the first kind of dissonance makes it extremely unlikely that you will even seek out the information required for you to know with certainty that your belief is false.
I’m guessing he means conditioning and schooling from parents when you’re young, not literally at a DNA level. Either way, it passes down through generations.
Then I’m intrigued. You think that I, the son of Marin County liberals, had been spirited away at birth to Sugar Land, TX or some such place and raised by conservative parents I would be more likely to think leftward than a baby born to those same conservative parents and raised in the same way? That’s not a position I’ve heard before.
In that hypothetical, absolutely, yes. Not even much of a question, really. Adoptive children share essentially no personality traits with their parents.
The novelty for me is in thinking of political attitudes as personality traits. I tend to think of them as being almost wholly a product of the values and beliefs a person is led to believe are sort of intrinsically correct from a young age, most of which comes from parents, friends, teachers etc.
I’d tend to agree with you, based on nothing else but pure speculation. I rarely think of political orientation as a quest for informed position that reinforces personal values – for that, people would have to have a basic idea of what politicians really do and most don’t.
As somewhat of a stretch, I’d liken politic orientation with sports team support. In more cases than not, you will end up rooting for the same team your parents, neighbors and friends did, although the actual players might be different.
A repeated disclaimer – I have no idea what the fuck I’m talking about and nothing of substance to back it up.
(This could use some clarification. I do not, of course, mean that there’s a “Republican gene.” But basic personality traits are heavily heritable, and they’re expressed through politics. To take the most obvious example, identical twins tend to be much more politically alike than fraternal twins.)
I think it’s a surprising argument that the observation that going to college makes Republicans less connected to truth has no connection to college.
Nevertheless, it strikes me as testable, since there are certainly places (like Baylor, Mrs. N’s alma mater) where conservatives are not a ~5% minority.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want"
That wasn’t particularly well phrased. Let’s try again.
College-educated people are more intelligent than average and more educated than average. Those traits make them more likely to become deeply psychologically invested in particular viewpoints. The effect of that outweighs whatever effect is caused by the increased information and/or increased ability to process information imparted by intelligence and education.
But I don’t think where you educate them/select them for intelligence matters much, if at all.
If you can’t get excited about a minor league contract for a 40 year old who has to serve 50 games for a roid suspension, only played 5 games last year, and had a .739 OPS with 0 home runs after being sent back to the AL the previous season, what CAN you get excited about?
And I have to say: mikev is one of my favorite people on here
-slusser.
I get that. I’m excited that the A’s have the best righthanded power hitter of my adult lifetime on their roster, even if it turns out he’s the modern day equivalent of a decripit Buffalo Bill Cody being wheeled out for gawkers at each whistle stop.
"Kraut will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no kraut."
Tax receipts as a percent of GDP are like 5% below the Clinton years (surplus, awesome economy, etc.). And that’s with the drop in GDP from the recession.
What’s your argument that tax receipts are high enough?
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want"
That’s ridiculous. Insisting on 100% govt efficiency before addressing the fundamental handicap in our system today is a recipe for disaster (and/or Mad Max).
"Kraut will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no kraut."
Really? wouldn’t the Tarp money have been better spent if every man woman and child received $2500? We would have either bought things to improve the economy, or paid down debt. Either way the money would have still ended up in the hands of the banks. The difference would have been in our personal debt. Now, we have the same tax debt, yet we weren’t allowed to reduce our personal debt. We just can’t continue on this never ending route.
When Bush did something similar (though not as large) it had very little impact on the economy. Though if you’re proposing that as additional stimulus it wouldn’t hurt.
Saving the financial system was certainly distasteful, but necessary.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want"
Taxes are not remotely high enough. Even if you disagree with punitive/incentivizing approach to certain behavoirs, raw income taxes should be much higher for a pretty significant chunk of the populace (including me).
"Kraut will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no kraut."
Even if they implemented it so that it was essentially tax neutral or progressive for the middle class? It seems like all kinds of good incentive to shift taxation from income to consumption/pollution.
Which will unduly injure those who have to travel long distances to work. This smells just like the era when the largest vehicle polluter in CA was the state itself. Interestingly enough, they exempted themselves from their own regulations. The government collects enough in taxes, but they unfortunately have have no sense of fiscal responsibility. I also don’t like the idea of inventing something, in order to tax it.
I do understand why it makes sense to be wary about government choosing to incentivize certain behaviors (though I’m on board with FSU on this one). But in the comment you replied to, I was trying to propose the carbon tax in a way that was essentially independent of government revenues, so I think the fiscal responsibility thing is irrelevant. If the government successfully tightens its belt, then cutting taxes could happen, regardless of whether it’s a carbon tax or an income tax.
I don’t see them cutting the tax once it is in effect. What is normal for most consumption taxes(such as the cigarette tax), is that the rate increases as the use decreases, thereby keeping the revenue constant. I remember during the 2008 election cycle, when there was a proposal to make gasoline a minimum of $5 per gal, by a combination of production costs and taxation. If the cost to produce the fuel decreased, the tax would increase accordingly. However, if the cost of the product increased, the taxes weren’t to be lowered.
I happen to trust the population to make the correct choices all on their own. I don’t trust those in power, who feel they know what is best for me, and feel obligated to nudge/push/drag me to their point of view. That is because they invariably include exclusions to make their life easier.
It is true that the carbon tax has a double purpose — to raise the money that the government needs to operate and also to discourage fossil fuel use. So your point is probably right on.
I happen to trust the population to make the correct choices all on their own
I think this is exactly backwards.
I trust the population to make the correct choice for themselves individually and based on the prevailing incentives all by themselves.
The carbon tax would change the prevailing incentives, causing the population’s individually-rational decision to change, causing less carbon dioxide emission.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want"
That’s actually a central role of government under any theory I’m aware of. Internalizing the externalities of individual behavior is right up there with security.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want"
No. Security refers to protection from external influences from outside the US. Not the same as protecting us from ourselves. That is my responsibility.
I think that willful ignorance of the tragedy of the commons is a tenet and/or symptom of hardcore individualism, which is a streak that runs rampant in the tea party right.
\"Weren\'t you already aware the Kay is already writing everyone\'s story? We\'re all just characters who believe we are real. Things make more sense now, don\'t they. Be honest.\"- DMOAS
Ironic, to say the least, given that it was originally used as an argument against things like communism. (Which doesn’t make it wrong– all modern-day egalitarians, a group I firmly count myself a member of, have realized that it has to be dealt with head-on, not hand-waved away with granola about loving one’s brother as oneself.)
\"Weren\'t you already aware the Kay is already writing everyone\'s story? We\'re all just characters who believe we are real. Things make more sense now, don\'t they. Be honest.\"- DMOAS
\"Weren\'t you already aware the Kay is already writing everyone\'s story? We\'re all just characters who believe we are real. Things make more sense now, don\'t they. Be honest.\"- DMOAS
Honestly this is the most ass backwards argument you could possibly make from an economics perspective. Every economist agrees that in order to mitigate the ability for producers of a product and consumers of a product to force society to pay for their harmful actions, you need either Pigovian taxes or a cap and trade system. I guess you just don’t want clean water, clean air, or the ability to live without other people’s cheapness killing you.
In play, run(s)! Talk dirty to me gamecast, talk dirty. - Nevermoor
I guess you just don’t want clean water, clean air, or the ability to live without other people’s cheapness killing you.
Are you referring to the smog and other air pollutions blowing into the Central Valley from the Bay Area? The ones that we have to compensate for because the bay has more votes, and thus the state has said it is our problem? Taxes should be % based. The more I drive, the more I pay, with the percentage remaining the same. I am opposed the penalty tax of the carbon credit system.
You realize that the only economists who don’t agree with cap and trade system think that the government should be MORE active in controlling externalities.
In play, run(s)! Talk dirty to me gamecast, talk dirty. - Nevermoor
Only sellable if a company gets the right to pollute more than they need.
It’ll increase the cost of inefficient energy production, which will raise gas costs. Which means your $/gallon at the pump goes up. Which charges you for the negative externalities associated with driving at a percentage.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want"
If you “trust the population to make choices all on their own,” getting rid of the ridiculously huge subsidies that the fossil fuel industry receives every year (artificially suppressing gasoline prices, and dwarfing subsidies to renewable energy source providers by orders of magnitude) would be a very nice start.
The state should disincentivize long commutes. One of the single best conservation approaches our culture could embrace would be getting people to live closer to where they work.
"Kraut will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no kraut."
I’m generally in agreement, but for a subset of those whose work involves a lot of consumption, such as farming, I’d prefer some sort of break in order to keep food prices lower.
A soliloquy of fresh-sounding ideas which would probably be disastrous.
Inflation would have to do with absolute prices, but what nevermoor is proposing is to let the relative prices between food and other stuff return to their natural values. My guess is that inflationary effects would depend on how you implemented the giving people money part. I mean, right now we are in effect giving farmers money.
Interesting, tell me more about these “natural values”.
It seems like you and nevermoor are suggesting that we remove farm subsidies (which would probably increase prices) and instead give that money to people for more purchasing power, to be able to afford those higher prices.
Well, my farm policy comes in (at least) two flavors:
1. Same total amount, but retargeted to increase the price of meat/starch while decreasing the price of fruits/veggies
2. Dramatically reduced amount, with savings used to expand food stamps, assuming responsible projections showed the result to be an increase in food security (i.e. getting more people enough money to eat outweighs insecurity increase caused by more expensive food).
One is, of course, far less radical than the other.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want"
My understanding is that it’s more that if you didn’t food would be cheap enough that all the farmers would become indebted and impoverished.
Since there essentially aren’t any farmers anymore, that seems like a non-issue. Some agribusiness firm isn’t going to become indebted and impoverished as a result of a rise in the quantity of table sugar.
I hadn’t voiced my support for it (though I probably would support a well implemented version). Also, I’m sure the scare quotes around natural values are warranted because it’s a complex concept. I readily admit that I don’t know enough about economics to be confident about all the ramifications.
Your summary in the second paragraph is a good match to how I understand it.
It’s worse than that. Right now we’re actually, in many instances, paying farmers NOT to grow things.
I get that that policy may have made sense as a stopgap expedient in the Depression, but it’s been eighty years now and we’re still doing it. It’s insanity on a stick.
Well, to one of Tutu’s points, that’s one of the reasons to distrust the federal government — once an economic program is installed and becomes “successful” (ie becomes a regular line-item with an industry/sector dependent on it for funding) it becomes nigh impossible to kill/downsize/redirect, even when it becomes counterproductive to its original mission.
you better hope to God you don't show up in this little community, because you'll wish you had never come
Okay, yes, when you have a government as corrupt as ours, many of the things it does will be corrupt. But the solution to corruption isn’t just to throw up your hands and abandon the entire concept of government. There are non-corrupt governments; ours just isn’t one of them.
I would think that government corruption would be best rated on a scale from 0.1% to 99.9%.
There are no 0%’s or 100%’s.
\"Weren\'t you already aware the Kay is already writing everyone\'s story? We\'re all just characters who believe we are real. Things make more sense now, don\'t they. Be honest.\"- DMOAS
Rent seeking happens in all economic systems with any government. In the vast vast majority of cases the harm caused by rent seeking is outweighed by the cost to society of the externality.
In play, run(s)! Talk dirty to me gamecast, talk dirty. - Nevermoor
\"Weren\'t you already aware the Kay is already writing everyone\'s story? We\'re all just characters who believe we are real. Things make more sense now, don\'t they. Be honest.\"- DMOAS
1. Where the economy is now, inflation is both desirable and difficult to obtain.
2. Expanding food stamp programs would be such a tiny cost that I don’t see it having any macro effect.
3. Removing farm subsidies (or, at least, retargeting many of ’em) would raise food prices, which would make food stamp programs cost more, and would certainly trigger inflation under certain price measures.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want"
I agree that inflation is certainly a good sign for an overall healthy economy, but I’m not necessarily sure inflation as a goal is congruent with actually giving the lowest income individuals/families more ability to buy food, which is what we’re talking about here.
Housing is a really important point in this type of scheme. If commuting become more expensive, then housing in regions with good jobs (like San Francisco) becomes even more ridiculous. So you would also need to allow for more housing supply in cities. /yglesias
I think it’s been pretty well demonstrated (but I don’t have any refs — sorry) that higher density living is more efficient from a resources consumed / carbon footprint point of view. Building skyscrapers consumes a lot of resources, of course, but that’s a one time thing; in exchange, you get short commutes and usable public transit. Plus, building single family homes in the burbs is probably even more costly, in a per resident sense.
And dormitories would be the most efficient, correct? One massive kitchen per building, public bathrooms at the end of the hall, etc. (I’m only half joking). Where does the interference into personal choice end?
For all 4 years? (and, of course, that’s a different issue, providing efficient housing and making it cheaper is not tyranny. Actually requiring people to live in it is, at least if the actor is a government)
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want"
That is not true about Berkeley. A few ways around it that I observed. One guy I knew simply filled out his housing papers too late. Couple others did sign up, but were released from their housing contracts within a month as they moved into their respective Co-ops/frats. The 3rd situation was people that chose to commute from home.
I don’t know of any examples that require it for four years. And the schools that I’ve been affiliated with actually do illustrate your point well. Stanford and University of Chicago both require you to live in dorms for freshman year, but after that you can do what you want. At Stanford, everyone stays in dorms because Palo Alto rents are ridiculous; at UofC, most people (but not all) move to off-campus apartments, because they are plentiful and cheap.
Matlab was originally built on top of Fortran, which also uses 1 based indexing.
It really isn’t that hard switching between C and Matlab. Like colin says, it’s mostly “for” statements, and the syntax is otherwise different enough not to get confused between the two languages.
Today I discovered that my last 3 months work may have been FKed up by the authors of the beam-map and beam-convolution codes I was required to use failing to agree on their array indexing.
\"Weren\'t you already aware the Kay is already writing everyone\'s story? We\'re all just characters who believe we are real. Things make more sense now, don\'t they. Be honest.\"- DMOAS
Making people pay the full cost for their freely chosen actions is not “interference.” It’s the exact opposite of interference— right now, the person driving the gas-guzzling SUV is interfering with MY right to not have my country’s coastline flooded, have my country’s lakes filled with acid shit, and so on. He is free-riding off of me, not the other way around.
Then let’s include the full costs of these “efficient cities”. Let’s put a “sin” tax on every gallon of water, for every mile that it is shipped into the cities from outside their districts. Coastline damage? How about the actual destruction of Hetch-Hetchy Valley done by the efficient cities in order to have cheap, fresh water. Lets make that “sin” tax great enough to encourage SF to build de-salinization plants along their pristine coastline, and force them to pay to restore my habitat. Guess what? That isn’t ever going to happen, because those same “Efficient” cities have enough votes to stop it, and if you forced it on them in this manner, there would be riots. Let’s put the same tax on the water shipped to LA. They have been raping Mono Lake for decades. Let’s do the same for food. I say your carbon tax isn’t enough. Let’s double it on food transportation, so that we encourage people in those “efficient” cities to grow their own food locally.
How about the “acid rain” and smog caused by the Bay Area city dwellers, that blows into the Central Valleys? We are told by the State that it doesn’t matter where the smog comes from, it’s our problem to fix it. Those “efficient” cities escape the full cost again.
And I really don’t care what your perceived damage is. I have done my part. I do have a solar system heating my water. I don’t drive an SUV. By the way, how many SUVs are housed in those “efficient” cities? I drive a diesel Jetta that gets better mileage in my foothill area than my friends’ Prius’. I’ve super insulated my house to conserve energy costs. I do grow my own vegetables. I pump my own water, and process my own sewage. I recycle my wash water, and use in to water my garden. ALL of the wash water in the cities goes into the sewer systems. I absorb the entire cost. When the floods of ’97 hit, the “efficient” city of Modesto had all three of their sewer plants dump raw sewage into the Tuolomne River. Mine didn’t.
Is global warming happening? Probably. But these cycles have been going on for millions of years. Man has minimal effect on these. Man didn’t destroy Japan’s coastline. The earthquake/tsunami did. Man didn’t cause the mini ice age of 1816. Volcanoes did. So, let’s look at this from a more statistical angle. How old is the earth in your opinion? 3 Billion years or so? This science is taking the last 40 years of data, and projecting it forward and blaming it on mankind. I have been ridiculed for doing the same thing in regards to baseball players. You call it SSS. Or trending.
This ISN’T about saving the environment. None of you have shown how the taxes raised would be spent to fix the ecology problem. How many times have the gas taxes, which were intended to repair and maintain the systems, been redirected into other projects? Doesn’t sound to me like someone is paying their “full cost”. This is about raising taxes on some targeted group, that you find offensive. The “sin” tax on tobacco wasn’t done to stop smoking. It was done to raise taxes. If the central government was truing concerned about the ravages of tobacco, they would simply outlaw it. Of course, then they would lose all those lovely tax dollars. Proof of this is the state of Indiana,(or was it Illinois?), that passed a ban on smoking in public places. Great. Sounds good. However, when they found their tax revenue falling, they decided to remove the restriction on smoking in casinos, as they found that by allowing smoking there, they would get an increase in gambling taxes. WOW! I thought this was all about protecting the children! I hope someone gets the chance to sue the state in the same manner that
Big Tobacco” was, because this state deliberately increased a burden in our health system.
Ah! if we are talking about industrialization’s effect, then let’s go back to 200 years ago. I can make it by living off the land. I don’t need electricity and such. I can make my own shelter, and get my own water, etc. Those in the cities can’t. They will starve and die off from disease.
It is definitely true that a lot of the meddlesome government activity that you object to would be unnecessary if the population was much much lower and spread out (though I think you’d probably have to go back more than 200 years to achieved your idealized state). But it’s just a fact that there are more than 6 billion people on earth now. I don’t think you’re seriously proposing letting people die as a solution to resource overconsumption.
@Colin, not that that should be the first choice, but it certainly should be on the table if we’re truly worried about efficiency and “fair” pay of resources.
It isn’t my idealized state. If we are to reverse man’s impact, then this must happen. Why not? Aren’t we trying to save the earth? Isn’t that the ultimate goal? Isn’t the sacrifice of the few, worth the salvation of the many? We wouldn’t have those 6 billion people if it weren’t for industrialization. SO, in theory they should never have been born. I don’t want to go that direction, but I also don’t see this government intervention as the answer either. And it isn’t because I don’t care. I really do, as you can tell from the way my wife and I have structured our family’s life. It is because no matter how these taxes are implemented, it will always be perverted into something else. I would prefer a flat tax along the lines of what Steve Forbes suggested in his presidential campaign. Create a base level to support the truly poor,applicable to all, then a non progressive tax rate (say 17%) on every dime earned from there. At the same time, the government MUST be limited to spending a set percentage of GDP.
I’m generally pro-human and happy about the greatly increased standard of living that we achieved, knowledge we have gained (shameless science plug!), etc. I think the goal should be to try to achieve sustainability while giving up as few of those gains as possible. Maybe that’s overly optimistic/utopian…
I’m with you there. Where we differ is in what changes need to be made, and who gets to decide which ones, and how to implement them. When those who don’t agree are told they are ignorant, and don’t deserve to be at the table and should be ignored, then it really isn’t a consensus. I find that every close minded, and counter productive. If put to a popular vote, most of these measures, when implemented fairly, would never pass. It becomes a case of, “fix the other guy, but leave me alone”. And that is on all sides of any issue. So, who gets to become judge and jury?
This is what you don’t get. We support the taxes on us and our efficient cities that you are claiming we don’t.
You also have a basic misunderstanding of the context of sin taxes or where the revenue from cap and trade systems go and how they improve the environment. With Pigovian style taxes (eg a carbon tax) revenue is suppose to go to repairing the damage caused, but the most of the real benefit is the voluntary decline in pollutants produced because of decreased consumption. With cap and trade the sale of permits to an agragate cap ensures that the people that can make the easiest cuts in pollutant production have the incentive to while those who have the hardest time do so last. It improves efficiency of regulations and none of the money goes to the government.
In play, run(s)! Talk dirty to me gamecast, talk dirty. - Nevermoor
I know I said I was finished, but I should respond.
With cap and trade the sale of permits to an agragate cap ensures that the people that can make the easiest cuts in pollutant production have the incentive to while those who have the hardest time do so last.
This rarely happens. The normal procedure, is that the group with the largest voting base is the last to have to comply. Those with the fewest votes assume the greatest burden.
This is the equivelent of your Scott Brocious arguments and you don’t know it.
Look. I wrote my thesis on rent seeking in cap and trade systems compared to rent seeking in Pigovian taxes.
I know what Im talking about and to say that your statement is historically inaccurate is kind to your statement. If your statement were true, acid rain, for example would be a huge systemic problem, but it isn’t because of cap and trade.
Really this is showing a shocking level of ignorance of what a cap and trade system is.
In play, run(s)! Talk dirty to me gamecast, talk dirty. - Nevermoor
It’s only “uncalled for” in the sense that the level of ignorance is unfortunately far from shocking, and in fact rather common.
Look, if you want to know how they work, that’s fine. I’m sure DFA or someone else will be happy to explain it to you. But it sounds like you’re more interested in sulking and feeling aggrieved.
What you’re not seeing is your in the minority of your own large city. So he’s absolutely right in saying the people in big cities would never play fair. They’d take one big look at the sticker shock to their wallets and never go for it. You can be on the streets screaming how “This is fair, play fair” but no one will be listing to your voice. The one thing all of you are failing to account for in your theories over how to do all this, is that it would be run by humans.
Industrialization is a short evolutionary blip. It starts when a sentient species realizes connections between tools and processes and begins to create machines. It ends when machines are intelligent, self-aware, and self-replicating and either merge with or replace the sentient beings, or if the sentient beings are so destructive that they blow themeselves and/or their environment up before their machines become intelligent, self-aware, and self-replicating.
Human corruption will only be overcome when we give up individual freedom and are all connected to a central hivemind that makes us feel really good, be incredibly productive, and prevents corrupt thoughts from becoming actions.
\"Weren\'t you already aware the Kay is already writing everyone\'s story? We\'re all just characters who believe we are real. Things make more sense now, don\'t they. Be honest.\"- DMOAS
Human corruption will only be overcome when we give up individual freedom and are all connected to a central hivemind that makes us feel really good, be incredibly productive, and prevents corrupt thoughts from becoming actions.
So … when we all go back to **?
you better hope to God you don't show up in this little community, because you'll wish you had never come
Yeah everyone is rent seeking it is true. The idea that urban cities are better than rural or suburban folks at rent seeking is absurd. Look at the percentage of tax dollars that go to subsidize rural life. Urban centers bleed resources.
In play, run(s)! Talk dirty to me gamecast, talk dirty. - Nevermoor
None of you have shown how the taxes raised would be spent to fix the ecology problem.
With the cigarette example, the United States has had a hugely successful impact on smoking rates. That’s for three reasons: (1) because making smoking more expensive deters people (per that article: “more people stop smoking because of cost than for any other single reason”); (2) because regulations made it more difficult to smoke (i.e. no smoking in buildings, bars, airplanes, etc.); and (3) lots of money from the tax was spent to educate and to help smokers quit.
With the global warming example, it is unlikely we will see as steep a decline among people (because driving/eating meat/heating homes/etc tend not to respond to price changes), but by making polluting more expensive to businesses you are creating space for clean energy companies to compete, for industrial scrubbing/sequestration technologies to sell themselves, and for R&D projects into greener manufacturing methods to show a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
A real-world example is that restaurants in SF can’t use styrofoam, and many many places have chosen to instead use compostable containers, utensils, etc. There’s a restaurant two buildings over from me that doesn’t even have trash cans, because everything the customer gets is compost or recycle. So that’s how raising the cost in and of itself helps.
Under a cap/trade plan, you also see cap allowances decrease over time, so there is a regulatory horizon on emissions that is intended to directly require less polluting. Under a more-liberal command/control model, there would also be explicit maximums business would be required to hit.
And, for the third part, the only bill that I know of that passed the house would have spent the revenue on subsidizing new technologies, modernizing the electrical grid (which is necessary if we are going to rely more heavily on intermittent power supplies like solar/wind), and other such things.
In short, I disagree with your assessment of the historical example and the current proposals.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want"
Right. It’s hard to imagine that the one-time cost of building something quite permanent (like a skyscraper) is going to matter much over constant efficiency improvements.
That calculation, of course, changes when you’re talking about a hybrid car vs. a normal high-mileage car.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want"
I agree that it’s definitely more efficient. But I don’t think it’s as simple as just the cost of building more skyscrapers. At a certain point due to finite space, you’re going to have to tear down existing infrastructure (i.e. suburbs, highways, etc) in order to continue expansion, which would lead to displacement costs assuming you stopped suburban production at the same time. My question, again, is whether or not the overall costs of building, tearing down, and displacement leads to an overall gain over the status quo.
That’s not even considering the fact that you’d naturally need to convince people who are like-minded with Tutu-late to actually go along with this plan and move to the skyscrapers. I would think that a more sizable portion of the population agree with Tutu-late than you, nm, or DFA. In which case, de-incentivizing suburban living would likely lead to RAGE and empty skyscrapers, rather than actually encouraging more people to move to the cities.
I agree that our opinion is unpopular, but most of it is “like I like what I do and its cheaper than what you do”. If you make it more expensive tastes will change.
In play, run(s)! Talk dirty to me gamecast, talk dirty. - Nevermoor
This argument is a little skewed by the people who are arguing it… Urban liberals who enjoy city life and being around people…
What if being around people made you feel uncomfortable? What if the idea that someone was living above you and below you made you paranoid? What if you were the type of person that couldn’t read other peoples’ body language or verbal cues well and usually got the short end of the stick in social situations? What if living at a fast pace and riding buses and trains was mentally grating on you and you just craved being as far away from cities and people as you possibly could?
Those are all hypotheticals that would drive somebody away from cities and into rural living. They are also hypotheticals that could easily make someone less desirable as an employee and less likely to be able to afford extended costs of unsubsidized rural living. Yet, they are also hypotheticals that make someone less likely to be able to succeed in a city, as well.
\"Weren\'t you already aware the Kay is already writing everyone\'s story? We\'re all just characters who believe we are real. Things make more sense now, don\'t they. Be honest.\"- DMOAS
Very accurately stated, SPWC. Some of us truly love connecting with nature away from cities. That doesn’t make us bad people who must be forced into something we aren’t.
This.
And I think part of why I like urban living is that it is easy to be anonymous when I want to be.
A small town, where there are fewer people but everyone knows each other, would be a lot harder to deal with.
Yeah, but to live in an urban setting and be anonymous requires a lot of trust in the society and institutions around you.
Some people are incapable of that level of trust in other people and insitutions.
\"Weren\'t you already aware the Kay is already writing everyone\'s story? We\'re all just characters who believe we are real. Things make more sense now, don\'t they. Be honest.\"- DMOAS
They are also hypotheticals that could easily make someone less desirable as an employee and less likely to be able to afford extended costs of unsubsidized rural living. Yet, they are also hypotheticals that make someone less likely to be able to succeed in a city, as well.
Why should I pay for that person to live in a rural area when I am not being paid to live in the city?
@Tutu: You aren’t being forced to do anything. You are being asked to pay for the true costs of your decisions.
In play, run(s)! Talk dirty to me gamecast, talk dirty. - Nevermoor
Africa has shown us many examples of how city life can deteriorate rapidly upon influx of rural refugees.
Maybe it’s worth subsidizing the hicks a little to keep them the FK out of the city, ‘cuz they probably wouldn’t be good urban neighbors.
\"Weren\'t you already aware the Kay is already writing everyone\'s story? We\'re all just characters who believe we are real. Things make more sense now, don\'t they. Be honest.\"- DMOAS
\"Weren\'t you already aware the Kay is already writing everyone\'s story? We\'re all just characters who believe we are real. Things make more sense now, don\'t they. Be honest.\"- DMOAS
My aunt has become one of those people now that she’s been living near Marysville for a few years, after living in the Bay Area most of her life. Now she’s bought into the Tea Party and the whole idea that the government is trying to force everyone into small areas, congested cities, close to freeways, etc.
Obviously that sort of thing has been proposed in this thread, but what has the government done in real life to at all discourage rural living? The only thing that comes to mind is the establishment of national/state parks, which slightly limits the available land, but that’s a laughably small effect.
She’s been reading websites, various stories and so on, probably some of the conspiracy theories ones. She thinks the gov’t wants to push everyone away from rural areas, farmland and so on so they have to rely on the gov’t more. Stuff like that.
Yeah ok, the ideas on this thread don’t include forcing anyone to move anywhere… but it’s clearly possible for someone to interpret them as doing that in practice. But my main point is that, historically and presently, the policy of the US is very friendly towards people living in small towns and rural areas. There hasn’t been any serious indication from the government that this will change.
In the technical sense sure, but if James’ aunt heard this kind of discussion coming from actual government people, then she would be justifiably worried that she would be driven to move (note: driven by economic forces, not by outright gov’t order).
Anyway, I think we’re going around in a circle on this. I don’t believe that anyone proposed having the gov’t force people to move.
I’ve got lots of uninformed righties and angry libertarians in my family and my wife’s family.
They’re generally emotion-based people, so logical arguments don’t tend to sway them. Also, technology for the most part has passed them by, and they’re not going to catch up.
\"Weren\'t you already aware the Kay is already writing everyone\'s story? We\'re all just characters who believe we are real. Things make more sense now, don\'t they. Be honest.\"- DMOAS
Okay… choose between getting kicked in the nuts or paying me $1000. Go on, choose. I’m not *forcing* you to get kicked in the nuts. It’s not my fault that I’m proposing to completely change the rules of society and it’s entire economic system, the one you grew up with and the only one you’ve ever known, all because *today* a small portion of the population feel that’s the way it should be. It’s not my fault all of these changes will make it impossible for you to afford not to get kicked in the nuts. BUT I’M NOT FORCING YOU TO DO ANYTHING!
Force comes in many different forms. Some are financial. Some are societal. Some are physical. Some are emotional. But they’re all very real. And whether you see it or not, what you’re proposing with these changes, is *force*. No one is dragging someone like Tutu out of his house and in a literal sense chain him to the city. But setting up a system where he can’t afford to live where he’s always lived is still a form of force.
To say “I’m going to stop paying you to make the choices you’ve made” is force makes the word force meaninglessly broad. Is changing the structure of farm subsidies force? Tweaking the tax code? Cutting funding for food stamps?
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want"
In a sense, yes. Changing the rules is a type of force. Put it this way, I’m not against changing the system. At all. We can do better, we should do better. What we can’t do, is do it callously and selfishly, even if (and especially if) the current rules are in themselves selfishly slanting the wrong way. And this is even more true for changing rules that have been in affect for decades. The biggest problem is people are too impatient when it comes to change. Now, like anything, there are ALWAYS exceptions to the rule. Sometimes you do have to cut the cord so to speak and do it fast, but that doesn’t make it right to not do your best to account for the harm it’ll do to those who are cut off.
So in the simplest case, say the US government had been giving you, specifically, $100/month for decades because of some administrative snafu.
Are any of these not your argument?
1: Stopping the payments is a use of force
2: The payments should not be stopped immediately because you will be harmed
3: I should have patience while the powers that be figure out the proper way to stop paying you.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want"
Yeah that might be a valid argument except thousands of children die every year from particulate mater caused by polluters. They don’t have time. Why should you get to kill them so you can live where you want to without paying the costs?
In play, run(s)! Talk dirty to me gamecast, talk dirty. - Nevermoor
@Nevermoor Any argument taken to an extreme can come across wonky, but yes, to a degree that is my argument. Keep in mind a big part of #3 comes in a variable scaling down of things in an effort to make that adjustment. Something like a $100 payment will be a very quick adjustment and take very little time. Just like adjusting for a trillion dollars should be an appropriately long adjustment. And that’s my main point, that you have consider the question “How difficult will it be to make that adjustment?” and be considerate of that difficulty. Yes, I get that there’s a difficulty on the other side, hence the reality that the change *should* happen, but just like the person asked to be changed needs time to adjust because they’ve come to rely on it, the person in need has already spent that same amount of time already compensating for what’s been lacking.
Some people are literally born without a brain. That… sucks, much more so than your example (which I find odd, since I largely meet the criteria you describe, yet choose voluntarily to live in a city, but let’s not get too far off track).
What’s the point here? Everyone is born with a different set of strengths and weaknesses, and they don’t all add up to the same thing, either.
I’m with DFA’s response here. I think you’re buying too far into the “central planner ruling our lives” fear here. I think getting new energy efficient skyscrapers is easy (relax zoning limits in downtown areas subject to meeting strict efficiency rules and watch the developers do the rest). Getting people to move there is the developers’ problem, but you can help by raising the price of polluting activities like driving.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want"
It’s not about what I personally believe. For the record, I would like nothing more than for the U.S. to develop more cities in accordance with the infrastructure of a city such as, say, Berlin. I would definitely love to live there.
My opinion, though, is that most in the general populace would indeed buy into the “government forcing us where to live” line of thought that’s sure to come from certain political parties and conglomerates if some politician actually had the guts to propose this idea. Perhaps I’m simply more cynical than you guys, but I think that kind of rhetoric would overpower the costs/efficiency argument (see HCR, but this is on a much larger scale).
I think the effects are being exaggerated by both proponents and opponents here. The effect of an emissions tax on gas would be something like 10 cents a gallon. Some people do try to drive a little less when prices go up, but a change of that magnitude isn’t going to change many people’s preferences about where they live in the short term.
The bigger effect would be at the level of energy use at the industrial level and electricity generation.
I honestly have no idea what the ultimate at-the-pump or in-the-energy-bill impact would be. I also don’t care as long as it’s closer to the right amount.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want"
Which won’t work in the temporary jobs like construction. I also don’t like the government dictating where I chose to live. Then, if I don’t agree, they tax me. Who sets the carbon use limits? Will the rich be allowed to buy these phony “credits” from those who never use their quota, so order to continue polluting? Sounds like another huge scam by the elite to control the population. Why not refuse the use of drones over the US proper? 30,000 are expected to be in use by 2020. That sounds like a great use of tax revenue. Let’s cut out the garbage before increasing the burden on the populace.
Every government policy (except for the ones explicitly dictating what the government doesn’t have control over) exerts some form of social control. To be against governmental policies because they exert social control naturally leads to the untenable position that one should be against all governmental policies.
In order to clarify, I’m a “State’s Rights” type. My problem is the one size fits all approach that comes from Washington. If a particular state, such as CA wants to impose something, then I am much more understanding, than if it comes from federal mandate.
Yeah thats just scientifically not true. The earth is a system that is in equilibrium. We keep fucking with it by changing they composition of the atmosphere and the sea. Thats like saying that the sea is already salty so you could add trillions of tons of salt to the water and it wouldn’t kill any fish. Its just wrong.
In play, run(s)! Talk dirty to me gamecast, talk dirty. - Nevermoor
and if I don’t use BART and don’t live in the city, you benefit by having less wait at restaurants and shorter lines at the grocery score or to get into popscene
And I have to say: mikev is one of my favorite people on here
-slusser.
@MikeV: Neither of those are state-provided goods. And, lower volume at the grocery store = higher prices. And, of course, I’m not telling you to live in a city.
@Tutu: As well as requiring those who do not own cars to pay for road building costs/maintenance (including pollution, law enforcement, medical care, etc.)
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want"
This position makes no sense. If California decides to tax your carbon, you’re okay with it, but if DC does, you aren’t? What happened to resisting “interference?” Now it’s “interference is okay, but not if it comes from one government and not another”?
How are you paying for it? How will taxing me, in order to increase tax revenue, change anything? Those like Al Gore are still flying around in their jets, driving SUVs, etc. are still polluting the same. He just claims that he has bought someone else’s carbon credits to offset his footprint. That’s a bunch of crap. he isn’t reducing anything. This will become a false commodity. Then it will become manipulated by those in power, and there will be no change in the health of the earth.
That’s an argument against a specific form of carbon regulation. I’m (quite frankly) not sure what my ideal form of regulation is.
Also, substantively, the cost you would bear is in increased costs of gas/electricity/goods as factories have to pay to reduce their emissions. Which would be a real change.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want"
1 most carbon credit schemes right now are silly because they are done by organizations that fight against greenhouse gas regulation, like power companies. Pretty much everyone agrees on that.
2 I pay for it with my health from breathing the particulate matter that goes into the air. I pay for it with taxes to build roads. I pay for it with noise pollution that I have to hear. I pay for it with rising sea tides that will make my city unlivable. I pay for it with increased catastrophic weather systems. I pay for it by having colder winters and hotter summers. I pay for it by decreased food production causing higher prices.
In play, run(s)! Talk dirty to me gamecast, talk dirty. - Nevermoor
No, what he’s claiming (whether true or not, I have no idea) is that he has specifically arranged to preserve enough carbon sinks which would otherwise have been destroyed, so that it cancels out the impact of his SUVs, and so on.
Don’t confuse carbon credits in a cap-and-trade system with voluntarily zeroing-out your carbon footprint under existing law. Cap-and-trade is exactly what it describes– an overall cap on emissions, plus trading of licenses to pollute up to (but not over) that overall cap. Voluntary zeroing-out involves things like “buying patches of rainforest in the Amazon and then deliberately not doing anything with it other than letting it sit there sucking up carbon.” Other than the topical relationship to global warming, those two initiatives are basically unrelated.
Will you explain to me how an over polluter, buying credits from say a third world non-polluter help with the overall improvement? The person he is buying the credits from already has a zero footprint.
A US cap/trade system wouldn’t give a third-world non-polluter any allocation.
A US non-polluting business that did get an allocation, though, would sell it for money giving their clean business a competitive edge against dirty businesses. Which is the whole point of internalizing the externalities.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want"
It wouldn’t. He’s not buying them from a third-world non-polluter. He’s buying them from a third world polluter.
Deforestation, particularly tropical rainforest deforestation, has a massive impact on CO2 emissions, both because carbon gets taken out of trees (where it has often been stored for hundreds or thousands of years) and released into the atmosphere directly, and because those trees are no longer able to absorb CO2 from OTHER pollutant sources.
It makes a ton of economic sense for people in first world countries to, in effect, pay people in third world countries not to release CO2, then release it themselves instead. A net pound of CO2 as released from a fuel-efficient car does immensely more economic work than a net pound of CO2 released as a result of slash-and-burn agriculture.
I think most carbon offset programs are bullshit. But paying farmers in areas where there is rainforest left not to burn it is a good idea. Its an even better idea to pay them the difference between farming sustainabily in the rain forest and the bounty from destroying it for traditional farming.
In play, run(s)! Talk dirty to me gamecast, talk dirty. - Nevermoor
Good idea, so long as the farmers have the knowledge/desire/materials to actually do the sustainable farming. I expect that there is more than a little inertia with respect to changing farming practices in (name country with rainforest here), even with monetary incentives.
A soliloquy of fresh-sounding ideas which would probably be disastrous.
How are you paying for it? There is relatively no crime where I live, yet my income taxes pay for prisons that house the criminals from the cities. Will you change all taxes, so that those using the services pay all costs? Where do you see the end to this interference?
yeah, there are many facets of this, just like with anything else, and no story is black and white. but, I guess I’m leaning towards different shade of gray than you and tutu
Meh, guns will and his willingness to use them on “upstanding” tax payers would keep him safe for crime. And being miles inland, China would have to cross a lot of U.S. soil to get to him, assuming they gave a shit about him in the first place.
Let me get this straight. Suppose each state were it’s own country. Are you seriously suggesting that Colorado should pay California a tax simply for being geographically in between China and Colorado?
Well we aren’t individual countries, so yes everyone should pay (progressively) for our national defense. If we were seperate countries, Im not sure why we would deny China the use of our airspace.
In play, run(s)! Talk dirty to me gamecast, talk dirty. - Nevermoor
For my money, income taxes should do nearly all of the work for individuals, because they are the easiest to make progressive (consumption taxes are often regressive). Then you layer on top sin taxes (cigarettes, carbon emissions, etc) to do the double work of discouraging harmful activity and raising additional revenue.
For businesses, you need to be much more careful about profiting from unpriced negative externalities.
Then you use that money to pay for defense, regulatory enforcement, and social safety programs.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want"
with 1170(h) cases all the money is now local (housing and “parole”). I am not sure what is going to happen to the guys that actually go to the hoosegow.
I heard in monterey last weekend that San Quentin was not going to be used as the only receiving place in nor cal. is that your doing?
For the nth time: We don’t give two tenths of a shit about where he lives. If he wants to live 500 miles from his job and pay what it really costs to commute back and forth every day, I could not possibly care less.
Government isn’t dictating where you live. You are. All this is doing is asking you to stop charging others for your life choices. You choose to live a inefficient life. Thats fine, but you shouldn’t ask me to pay for it, which you are currently doing.
In play, run(s)! Talk dirty to me gamecast, talk dirty. - Nevermoor
We need to bring back antimacassars. Slap those on the chairs at Beauty Bar, wring ’em out once a week, and you’ve got FREE GREASY HIPSTER-OIL-POWERED FLOTILLA!
you better hope to God you don't show up in this little community, because you'll wish you had never come
Why? Its exactly what you are doing. This isn’t some bullshit liberal theory. It is standard Econ 101 that anyone who has even taken a High School economics course knows. Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals. EVERYONE. Freeloader(rider) is one of the technical terms for it. You are a freeloader. So am I. I drive to work far more than I should mostly because of perverse incentives (my car is efficient and I am reimbursed for gas and parking so my costs aren’t in line with the costs to society and I value the time savings over those costs). I also eat meat frequently. I love hot showers. Its the primary job of the government to make sure that the markets price these things at their true cost.
In play, run(s)! Talk dirty to me gamecast, talk dirty. - Nevermoor
Methinks that if we all took some Ecstasy & Truth Serum, the liberal argument would turn into “We like society. It makes us feel warm and fuzzy and fills us with a sense of wonder and amazement. We want it to be fair and efficient and to have its’ costs fairly spread.”
The conservative argument would turn into “We are generally suspicious of other people and want to keep them at arms’ length. Society is at best a necessary evil, and we want to invest our emotional and economic resources in our microsocieties/families/properties, not the greater society outside.”
\"Weren\'t you already aware the Kay is already writing everyone\'s story? We\'re all just characters who believe we are real. Things make more sense now, don\'t they. Be honest.\"- DMOAS
I think that the “invest our emotional and economic resources in our microsocieties/families/properties, not the greater society outside” applies to liberals as well. Think communes, buy local campaigns, back to the land, peak oil, permaculture, farmers’ markets, Transition Cities, urban farms.
I think you’ve got that reversed. Liberals actually think that people in aggregate are evil and need to be reined in by collective effort, while conservatives think every sovereign decision-maker, acting in aggregate, is natural and good. At an individual level, sure, it’s reversed, but that’s not where the action is.
you better hope to God you don't show up in this little community, because you'll wish you had never come
Evil is definitely not the right word. I would put it: people individually are self-interested, which in the aggregate hurts everyone unless it is reined in.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want"
I think that the individual level is where the action is for emotion-based people, and the public level is where the action is for logic-based people.
\"Weren\'t you already aware the Kay is already writing everyone\'s story? We\'re all just characters who believe we are real. Things make more sense now, don\'t they. Be honest.\"- DMOAS
I disagree, unless your are going to grandfather in those of us who already live where we do. If this forces me to HAVE to move because of financial reasons, then it is dictating.
All it forces you to do is change your calculation in a way that better reflects the costs of your choices. If the only reason you’re living where you are is that the people of your state are paying you to do so, I don’t have a problem with you deciding you should move.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want"
No, I live here so that I don’t have to deal with the problems/interference of the cities. So, only the rich/elite should be allowed to live in nice areas.
No. Only the people willing to pay for it should be able to live in nice areas. If you want to spend 75% of your income living in a really posh area, knock yourself out.
Those are two different concepts. If you want to pay to live in your area, fine. No one cares. What you would like is to live in a nice area and not pay for it. Well, okay– I’d like you to pay for my bagel. I propose that government mandate that those who like bagels get a free bagel every Tuesday. If you don’t like bagels, tough.
Sounds like a great law, right? Well, unless you don’t like bagels. Then it seems like a totally arbitrary redistribution of resources.
Then lets apply this to the health care system. Most here are in support of the national healthcare law just passed. Why? Why do those that aren’t sickly have to pay a subsidy to those who can’t afford the full cost. Smoking/drugs/bad habits were their personal choice. If they can’t afford the full cost, or insurance on their own, too bad. This seems like selective enforcement of “bearing the full cost”.
I think that there has been a fair amount of support expressed here for cigarette taxes, because a) smoking is terrible for people’s health and b) society does end up paying at least part of the cost for medical care that is the result of smoking.
But no matter how good of choices everyone makes, people do get injured and sick. Modern medicine is very expensive, so it makes sense to collectivize that cost. Insurance works better when more people buy into the system, so that’s pretty much the goal of the health care law.
If someone discovered some behavior that was actually causing all of society’s health problems, then there is a good chance that I would be in favor of some regulation to discourage that behavior. (all within limits, of course)
Also, I think the conversation has gone in lots of different directions, but I think that many of the people arguing against you would be content if the government merely ended/scaled back programs that they think are actively disincentivizing city living and/or incentivizing rural life.
Yeah, we all have our pet issues, and as a society, we need to work together to fix the problems. All views need to be given the same respect, whether we thing they have a brain or not, whether we agree with them or not. We all have skin in the decision. Our country is such a vast diversity of regions, that sometimes the local states must, and should make the choices. Even within each state, one law may not work for each county. That is why I do like the present checks-and-balances system the founding fathers created. Yes it makes quick changes difficult, but it also tempers the effects of poor, hasty decisions.
The checks/balances system is ok, though I think you get better political parties when they campaign with the understanding that if they win they’ll be expected/able to do what they promise. The filibuster that was tacked on top is not.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want"
This reminds me of a joke where an English kid, an Italian kid and a Swiss kid are discussing how babies are created.
The Englishman says, “well, of course, the stork brings them”. The Italian starts laughing, “you crazy, mama and papa make amore, you know, love, and than the baby comes”.
And the Swiss kid says, “In Switzerland, it differs from one county to the other”
The filibuster wasn’t “included” in anything. It’s an unintended byproduct of the Senate’s rules that has been used over the decades mainly to block things like civil rights legislation that a dedicated minority was solidly against despite the overwhelming support of the majority.
The Senate itself was put in the Constitution in part to temper the house’s passions, but it does that well enough without the non-constitutional filibuster (e.g. by giving members six-year terms so they don’t constantly have to face voters).
We also get a better system even the three branches stop assuming the role the other branches. Judges who go beyond deciding the constitutionality of laws. Executive branch that bypasses Congress through arbitrary orders. Both of these are the corruptions of the system that make me happy when they deadlock. If they were truly honest, we would all be much better off.
1. The filibuster was not made a rule. Rather, the rule to end debate via majority vote was deleted at that time (as part of a large rewrite), and no one realized/intended to make ending debate impossible (as it was until 1917).
2. Saying a rule isn’t a problem, only its use, is weak. It exists, is used essentially all the time, and makes legislating impossible without a 60 vote majority (i.e. NOT what the framers had in mind).
3. I don’t think judges are as activist as many do (and when they are activist, they aren’t always left-leaning either)
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want"
@Tutu
I didn’t say it was unconstitutional. I said it wasn’t included in the constitution, meaning it wasn’t part of the constitutional scheme. Either way, just look at the graph on that wikipedia page to see that the modern filibuster has become institutionalized in way that the senate of the 19th Century could never have imagined.
As to your second point, politicians are often going to do things that hurt the country if our institutions allow them to do so. You can’t fix the politicians, but you can fix the institutions.
Well, first off, I don’t particularly like the new healthcare law and have said so on a number of occasions. Part of that is because the law is utterly incomprehensible, but a lot of it is that to the extent I understand it, I think it whiffs on a lot of issues.
But this analogy fails. Uninsured people put immense stress on society. They cause all kinds of unnecessary economic damage to themselves, local hospitals, and the people around them. Worse, the average person is completely incompetent at judging whether they need it or not. It’s pretty well impossible to dispute that we’re collectively better off if everyone has health insurance than if some people don’t have it. That ain’t the case with bagels.
But this analogy fails. Uninsured people put immense stress on society. They cause all kinds of unnecessary economic damage to themselves, local hospitals, and the people around them. Worse, the average person is completely incompetent at judging whether they need it or not. It’s pretty well impossible to dispute that we’re collectively better off if everyone has health insurance than if some people don’t have it.
In play, run(s)! Talk dirty to me gamecast, talk dirty. - Nevermoor
Actually, our current prioritization of highway expansion/extension projects is extremely inefficient. Shifting even a small % of that money to public transit would be much more economical.
There’s really no defense for saying that the government is/will be trying to force people to move to the cities. One reason is that our current land use/transportation policy does exactly the opposite–its cumulative effect is to greatly incentivize the development of housing in the suburbs/exurbs, while urban development gets the shaft. A second reason is that pretty much every study out there shows that many individuals would prefer to live in the kind of transit-oriented, mixed-use area that transportation engineers call “smart growth”, but they can’t because there’s not enough supply. This is a trend that looks to increase in the next 20 years, as the Baby Boomers retire–the elderly especially tend to prefer/benefit from being able to reach amenities w/o driving long distances, and don’t need McMansions.
“Providing additional choice” != “forcing people to change”. If anything, our current transportation policy “forces” people to the exurbs, not the other way around.
Please. It would take a shit ton more than a small percent to make a dent in any of that. And “many” is a nebulous term. The biggest problem with changing the highway system it almost universally thinks too small. If it’s going to require later expansion even before the first “completed” version of it is in place, it’s not good enough. If you were tell me that starting today 100% of our transportation funding (aside from basic repair work) would go into the creation of super BART (the original concept of what BART was and much, much more) I’d be all for it. In a “think big” scenario, it makes a shit ton of sense. But if you suggesting the Marin & Sonomas of the world should create a completely independent rail system that goes from Santa Rosa to San Rafael and would force you to take a bus and/or ferry AND bus/other train system to complete your trip, I’ll tell to suck it up and expand the highway because your idea is useless.
The real telling part of mass transit, was highlighted in Gov Brown’s earlier terms. His Director of transportation was pushing hard for the expansion of mass transit, yet she used her car to go places. When she was asked why, she responded that “Mass transit will never go where I need it to, when I need to get there.” ( paraphrased). Mass transit is an excellent system in a confined area. I love to use the BART system when I visit. Also, we need to remember the interstate highway system was NOT designed and built for the general population! It was built as a part of national defense, so that the military had a way to move troops and equipment from one region to another efficiently. It is very necessary, and will always exist. To say that the people who use it most should pay the entire cost of its upkeep, is ignoring it’s main purpose. This purpose is one that all Americans benefit from
I have a hard time believing, at this point, that moving troops and equipment from one spot to another within the continental United States is a purpose that I benefit in any substantial way from. The notion that someone’s about to launch a land invasion of the US… well, anyone who thinks that’s about to happen needs to get his tinfoil hat readjusted.
The interstate system was never primarily intended for national defense purposes; it was for long-distance transportation by the general public and particularly truckers. There were several proposals for financing the highways, including tolls and creation of a “Federal Highway Corporation” to issue bonds. What they finally came up with was creation of a Federal Highway Trust Fund, whereby user taxes (e.g. the gas tax) were raised, the revenue placed in the trust fund, and then that money was distributed to the states when they were ready to commence construction. To make the tax increase palatable to fiscal conservatives the “national defense” uses of the highway system were certainly played up, not just moving troops and tanks around but even more so the value of the highways in evacuating cities, say moving the entire population of Chicago to tent cities in the fields of Iowa, or wherever, where they’d supposedly be safe from nuclear attack. Remember, this is the era when school kids were being taught to “duck and cover” in case the ICBMs flew. So sticking the “national defense” label on the highway improvements was mostly to give the politicians some cover for voting for the tax increase.
Earl Swift’s recent book The Big Roads goes into this and has some anecdotes which are either comical or horrifying in retrospect, especially the story about the idea of using atomic bombs to blast through mountain ranges in the deserts, rather than conventional dynamiting and excavation, being seriously considered.
If people had to travel by train or plane with no roads to get anywhere, wouldn’t we much more likely to be attacked by someone who really wanted to? Not saying that as an argument, I’m just trying to picture that. The soviets or even china right now, just fly a plane, blow up a few train tracks and more or less destroy our economy. Hmm… maybe not.
you know, perhaps some of those people could sell their fat SUV and buy a 3L car (that’s 3 liters per 100 km consumption, or something like 70 miles per gallon). Or they could switch to a hybrid or a fully electric car, which would have been in place a long time ago had fossil fuels not been crazy subsidized.
You need to remember that our government won’t allow the same fuel efficient car into the US. I do own a Jetta that get 45highway. It also get 36 in the foothill areas while my friends’ pruis’ get around 30. The Jettas in Europe get much better mileage( closer to 60), we just aren’t allowed to import them. Electric cars don’t work in all areas. That’s the problem with a one size, fits all approach.
Having that extra vote wouldn’t have made a difference, sadly. The White House wanted no part of cap and trade; it only became any sort of issue at all because Nancysmash cracked heads in the House. If you had to point to one event that did the most damage to Kerry/Lieberman, it would probably be the Gulf oil spill…but it was probably DOA anyway.
The Obama plan was to win HCR quickly by introducing a politically palatable middle ground plan that should have gotten bipartisan support due to the fact that it was a Republican plan and then use the win’s PC on immigration and cap and trade. They just fucked it up by assuming good faith from the GOP.
In play, run(s)! Talk dirty to me gamecast, talk dirty. - Nevermoor
That last part is definitely part of why it took so long (as is the Kennedy illness).
I very much hope that if Obama could have seen the future through 2010 he, and Congress, would have moved faster and not tried for a consensus that turned out not to be achievable.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want"
Without clicking the link, I can only assume from the url that this involves a wax-preserved Kennedy corpse being wheeled out for gawkers at each whistle stop, a la Lenin and Mao.
"Kraut will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no kraut."
Well I go by one of my middle names now, but yes it is awesome. Although when I was 10 and having a hard time with repeatedly being the new kid at school it wasn’t so awesome.
Your season tickets have been shipped to the address below via FedEx. This is a 2-day service. The first delivery attempt should be made no later than 2 business days from today.
Once I have ’em, I’ll start a new post to see who wants the ones we have, and who wants other dates.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want"
Also, if we want a date like April 21 for the next annual FKgate, it would be useful to reach consensus on that relatively soon, so that folks can make travel plans and I can start talking with the A’s about a block of tix.
"Kraut will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no kraut."
Given the size of the site now it’s probably sensible to just declare 4/21 as the date and find out who the yes’s and no’s are. That early date leaves plenty of room for a second one in the summer if FKers are up for it.
There’s going to be a second one when elcroata passes through, whenever that might be.
\"Weren\'t you already aware the Kay is already writing everyone\'s story? We\'re all just characters who believe we are real. Things make more sense now, don\'t they. Be honest.\"- DMOAS
For me tuu. It was very civil, and I hope as enlightening to you as it has been for me. I’m outta here. Have to fix dinner for the mrs., and get ready to go the Boy Scouts with my son.
Wow. Just got through all of this because yesterday was chaotic. My BP has gone up and down way too much the past 15-20 reading it..
Thank you guys for doing it. And yeah, For the most part it stayed civil. This is why we love FK! I always think back to that somehow starting up elsewhere. Two posts and it would have been killed off and strikes issued across the board.
I couldnt have provided anything noteworthy to the conversation, but I am bookmarking it just to go back and get learned some more when I have time this weekend.
So it appears that my sewer pipe has sprung a leak. At least this is what I infer from the pool of flushable kitty litter, toilet paper, and shit in my yard.
That’s the likely scenario; a call to Rescue Rooter should get you up and flushing again in no time. My initial reaction is that “flushable kitty litter” may not be so flushable after all, kind of like “flushable tampons”.
The rooter folks have been here several times in the two-plus years I’ve lived here….this cottage is more than 100 years old, so it has some systems issues. The flushable litter is supposedly even safe for septic systems, but yeah, it could be the problem, given that I’ve only been using it for the last ten days or so.
Anyway, that would be nice if it’s just a call to the rooter people and not my landlord spending thousands of dollars and digging a trench in the yard….because then I’ll have to wait for him to get around to it.
That’s good to know though. I just looked on the Burlingame website and it basically says if your building was built before the mid-1960’s it wasn’t required to get a city cleanout valve and you’re shit out of luck, as it were.
Mandatory overflow valve legislation is all the rage these days, and most CA cities either already have or soon will adopt it. However, it’s not required until you either replace your sewer line or sell your house.
"Kraut will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no kraut."
wow. I laughed really hard at that. thanks. I do like exotic pets (use to work in a pet store) but I would never subject one to having me care for it at this age… Though I did almost buy a jelly fish tank last week.
In play, run(s)! Talk dirty to me gamecast, talk dirty. - Nevermoor
We actually saw a huge owl at Aquatic Park the other night! We were walking up the curving sidewalk from the waterfront, JP riding on my shoulders. He said “Look, papa — what’s that?” He didn’t point, just looked somewhere ahead and up. I was like, Ghirardelli Square? The Buena Vista? The gazebo? “No, look — what’s that?” All of a sudden, there was a silent blur above us atop the lamppost, and this massive owl went swooping off after one of the turnaround rats.
you better hope to God you don't show up in this little community, because you'll wish you had never come
Yes, I’m only using it for the two weeks when the cat’s shedding radioactivity, because if I put the litter in the trash it could set off alarms at the landfill.
The place I live now, I don’t have any garbage service. The landlord is a contractor and he makes a dump run about every two months. Which is fine, I don’t generate that much trash, but a few things like chicken bones that will start to stink get separated and disposed of separately, and those parking lot cans are therefore where Walmart comes in very handy.
It seemed strange to me too, but the clinics are licensed by the State of California and this is the approved procedure. What they told me was, it’s not actually radioactive enough to be a hazard, it’s only radioactive enough to set off the alarm at the dump.
may not be so flushable after all, kind of like “flushable tamponsâ€.
When I worked in a sewage treatment plant, I learned that the worst thing for the city’s filtration system was the plastic tampon applicators that some people flushed. Just in case anyone was wondering.
I couldn’t see it from any window, it’s around the back of the house where I rarely have occasion to venture…but once I determined what it was, I probably said both.
So wait, are we really giving the job to Donaldson? That doesn’t exactly sound wise to me. Hell, I’d prefer Cardenas, but I’m guessing that’s not an option anymore.
Why would we need to develop third basemen? We had that perennial All-Star who held down the position for 162 games a year for most of the last decade.
That’s true, but I still want this team to be watchable. And I have a bad feeling that Donaldson is just gonna be a waste of time, with nothing to show for it.
And if so, the A’s will play Timmons or sign some mediocre player or – maybe – get lucky on somebody overlooked by another organization.
I don’t mean to be so indifferent. I strongly prefer a watchable team too. But if there’s any year where season-ending injuries don’t really matter, it’s this one. The only thing that would upset me is Beane trading someone useful to fill the void.
The two things I find intolerably unwatchable are (1) pitchers who can’t throw strikes and (2) bad infield defense. I want somebody who can field and I’ll just put up with the .600 OPS. In other words the 2012 version of Jack Hannahan.
\"Weren\'t you already aware the Kay is already writing everyone\'s story? We\'re all just characters who believe we are real. Things make more sense now, don\'t they. Be honest.\"- DMOAS
That’s where I am at. The team is going to be bad. I’m very sorry for Sizemore, because this really sucks for him. But he wasn’t the difference between a contending team and an also-ran. It just reinforces the fact that the A’s have failed to develop or acquire a third baseman for what seems like forever. What the hell? Why not let Donaldson have a shot? He’s a more interesting option than Timmons. And anything is better than a stupid trade, unless the A’s can clear away one of the mediocre outfielders.
I don’t know. I would guess Timmons is less likely to be awful, and neither one of them has any real chance of being good. But, yeah, it highlights just how weak we are at infield in general.
I hope he gets a lot of playing time in Chicago… gets some cheap dingers, and hopefully a fielding percentage over .900
\"Weren\'t you already aware the Kay is already writing everyone\'s story? We\'re all just characters who believe we are real. Things make more sense now, don\'t they. Be honest.\"- DMOAS
Yes, and directly into the track-cleaner truck during a caution flag. Those things have helicopter engines mounted on the back and are loaded with jet fuel. Huge explosion.
With Romney’s early voting lead, Santorum is going to have to win big with Primary Day voters.
It’s kind of a no-lose situation for Santorum, though. Either he loses by a small margin, setting himself up for a good Super Tuesday, or he beats Romney in Michigan, setting up a Republican freakout.
it’s a complicated decision, right? his shot is perfect. i don’t know how to weigh the luck in cristiano’s (though it went exactly to the bottom corner) vs. the, um, gamesmaship? in messi’s (perfect placement too, but he kicked with the wall unprepared).
riquelme‘s, also yesterday, was a lot like messi’s, just less angle and more people between him and the goal.
*i’m* AV. alex vause. put this loon in psych before she hurts someone.
It is tough. The wall wasn’t set for Messi’s strike, but I don’t think it mattered. That was like the platonic ideal of a free kick.
But after watching the replay of Ronaldo’s more, I don’t think you can call it luck. He clearly knew what he was doing, and it got through all of those defenders because they were surprised he even tried it. I’m voting against him, though, because of his annoying celebration and those horrible red kits.
really? they are? i feel so left out way over here, no perspective on who’s the fachero or not. i just kinda like them because of falcao and simeone.
oh, also, was watching the sky network broadcast, and one of the commentators said something like, games like these are great because you see countrymen match up against each other, such as alexis who’s from chile… and falcao. (gah!)
*i’m* AV. alex vause. put this loon in psych before she hurts someone.
OH! the main caudillo. in argentina you always talk about someone a caudillo on the field, like when they call mascherano el jefecito, that i thought you were talking about an actual player.
That was amazing – and I didn’t know all South-American variations. After “English as she is spoke” (it was delivered yesterday), you provide me with second great source entertainment in less than a week. Alvaro for president!
My neighbors’ garage band has evolved over the years, but several iterations ago I believe they went by the name of “Fellating Donnie Baseball” (plaschke warning)
The apparent success of the Kings’ fans and Kevin Johnson in holding on to their team makes me wonder what former baseball (or football) player would be a good mayor for Oakland. I’d certainly vote for Mark Ellis.
I will begrudgingly grumble that the city is not getting raped in this deal nearly as badly as other muncipalities have with their stadium financing. We’re basically selling X amount of future parking revenue for up front cash to finance the city’s share of the deal.
As for Oakland, the obvious answer would be Dave Stewart or Rickey Henderson.
\"Weren\'t you already aware the Kay is already writing everyone\'s story? We\'re all just characters who believe we are real. Things make more sense now, don\'t they. Be honest.\"- DMOAS
3. Gawker has a new post up about the (hilariously sub-literate) emails they’ve received threatening legal action about Hamilton Nolan’s gift suite article.
"Kraut will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no kraut."
the email was misguided but totally deserved. anyone who can’t tell the diff between a fedora and a porkpie is “definately” a moran beyond proportions.
*i’m* AV. alex vause. put this loon in psych before she hurts someone.
4. Also from that Uni Watch post:
many teams wore white in the 70s
4. A’s roster management philosophy w/r/t broken wings: “Discard or save for stockâ€
So … reading between the lines … did Braun himself (or his people) leak the drug test results?
It sure sounds that way. It might well have been indirect or unintentional, i.e. Braun told his family, friends on the team, agent, etc., and one of them let it slip to the press. And there’s nothing MLBs protocols can do to prevent that sort of thing from happening.
yup. How does Braun’s family have access to the press?
I don’t know. Someone tells someone, who tells someone…
My point is that there are lots of ways that the story could leak through Braun’s side without involving a nefarious plot, a calculated PR ploy, or a breach of mandated confidentiality. (While a leak from the league or the union would almost certainly be at least the latter.)
What’s yours?
Yeah, I agree. I was just wondering out loud.
It would almost have to be braun himself.
Goodman does good pan
Suzuki breings the bulk, Slusser brings the snark:
Perfect, so he’ll be even slower getting around on hittable pitches and…
MOAR INFIELD POPUPS!
Thanks, and go As.
If you haven’t yet put forks through your eyes this morning:
They keep mentioning people hearing it “pop”, which just sounds exactly like ACL/MCL to me. That would suck a lot. I’m hoping that the sprain diagnosis holds up.
From Jane Lee, it sounds like it’s mostly Donaldson for now. I am on board with this plan (assuming Billy doesn’t come back from the Oscars and FK it up).
LET THE KIDS PLAY
werd (especially if the other options are Tejada or Callaspo)
i. can’t. stop. reading it as: collapso.
Me too
thank goodness. i thought i was as blind as a monkey.
oh wait.
That would be an awesome story if Donaldson were able to make something of this chance.
Do you know how happy this would make me? Id trade all of my skinny jeans for this to happen.
Let me know when the bidding reaches your cardigans.
All of them? Thats a high price monkey.
Cardenas
Chavez
barton
Only after he’s DFAed and traded to Tampa Bay.
Dan. Johnson.
KOOOOOOOOOOOOOOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUZ!
Hannahannahannahannahannahannahannahan!
Cardenas has the best hitting projections of anyone mentioned except Callaspo.
Yeah, I guess Callaspo isn’t hopeless with the bat and would probably outplay Donaldson at third. I still wouldn’t want to have to give up any players (to the Angels!!) to get him.
I don’t think that Donaldson would get outplayed by Callaspo who is a butcher over there.
Callaspo has positive UZR for his career at 3B (UZR/150 is +8.2 for 2500 innings since 2006). But I didn’t know that when I made the statement above; I was mostly basing it on the fact that he played some SS in the minors.
Also, while catcher is the top of the defensive spectrum, the skills are pretty different from infield positions (though I’m sure that Donaldson has a good arm). But I did watch a video this morning (posted by SuSlu maybe?) of Donaldson fielding at third. So my 5 second scouting report is that he looked good and I’ll be pulling for him.
Donaldson was an outstanding 3bman before he moved behind the plate his junior year of college. Fuck i guess Callaspo’s -11 in 09 was an outlier. my bad.
He played mostly 2B in 2009. That really does not appear to be part of his skillset.
played there in college according to DFA, no?
I dunno, it sure feels like C-3B is a swap that should be more natural.
If you squint really hard you can see similarities between blocking pitches in the dirt and having to knock down grounders or have quick reflexes at third. Good arm required for C-2B throw, just like 3B-1B throw (which likely rules out Barton post surgery…)
Thanks, and go As.
Wait. Did MIKEV just give up on Barton->3b?!?
as soon as I found out he had a torn shoulder labrum that pretty much sealed it
Thanks, and go As.
I thought that was an important qualification for our 3Bs
Those are good points. Also, people have pointed out that Donaldson has plenty of experience at 3B. I will stop worrying about his fielding.
throwing yes, i see the similarity. i’d bet a catcher would even have and edge on a 3b-man since throwing from your knees is harder than from your feet or a running start. but it seems there are two make-or-break skills at 3b, and throwing across the diamond is only one of them. 3b is probably the most exigent position for footwork, and C’s don’t get a lot of that. so it might be a natural transition for some, but not to the extend that you’d expect every catcher to be OK at 3rd, like you would expect every one of them to be OK at 1st.
we are making with the funny here, right? Cardenas is still a cub, right?
yes.
Funny / still lamenting the fact that we gave away a potentially if marginally useful player for nothing.
Taking the Manny news well, but would much rather it be Tejada than Manny. Both would be nice, but concerned about remaining MLB ability for both. Voting yes on Tejada.
Johnny FKing Damon has not been shy about wanting to put in these last no-so-great years of his career, just to pad his career stats to try and make the Hall-Of-Fame.
If Tejada can put up a couple more even garbage years of 125+ hits, he becomes a huge blind spot in the HOF debate for shortstops going forward.
I love uniwatch during baseball season
And Mr. Lukas has recipes and art projects and other fine filler for the non-baseball months.
Interesting idea.
The Bay Area, I think, is ready for another ____. Johnson.
Stevie is awesome. Kind of a PITA (in a very amusing way, but the taunting penalties are still costly) and maybe not the (nebulous) “true #1” that I think you guys are looking for, but still awesome. I hope the Bills can keep him.
After the combine, I’m guessing they have no chance at drafting Stephen Hill
Thanks, and go As.
As long as RG3 drops and is willing to play WR…
The tentative agreement for a downtown arena for the Kings probably kills my idea that Sacramento would be a fallback option if San Jose falls through (and assuming Oakland never gets it act together on a plan). I don’t see Sacramento being able to support two big league teams at any time in the foreseeable future.
Current ownership group isn’t building anywhere other than SJ; I suspect that if SJ gets killed (either through MLB/Giants blocking move, SJ residents voting it down, or several other ways Lew could end up screwing it up) than we’ll see something like another decade of Crywolffisher milking the revenue-sharing teat while the team dead-ends it in the Coliseum. I doubt that a SJ rejection would result in anything like a quick sale.
Do any of your misguided raiders fans know enough about their stadium issues to put a probability on sharing with the Niners in SC?
I find this fascinating.
Based purely on my limited experiences, I think it is because most colleges are very liberal places so to be a “republican who cares about politics” essentially forces you into a tiny group without much room for intra-group disagreement.
I would be very interested to see how the effect changes (if at all) at less liberal schools.
I go along with the “more educated people have more experience arguing / ability to argue” theory. Someone could believe in the science behind global warming and still have reasons to argue against it (i.e. they think that a shift from our current energy policy would damage their economic prospects and/or standard of living). On many fronts, they have shown that arguing against basic scientific fact can be an effective method of preserving the status quo. More educated people might be better at holding the line.
The evidence does not support the notion that people voting conservative are cynical opportunists. The vast majority of even college-educated people make themselves economically worse off by voting Republican. Standard false consciousness, really.
The people STARTING the memes are cynical, sure. Exxon* funding anti-global warming propaganda is just the standard crap that comes out of a “marketplace of ideas” (namely, the most prominent ideas are the ones most useful to those with lots of money to pay for them). But people BELIEVING the anti-global warming propaganda is not a result of them all (or even mostly) thinking rationally that they’d be better off with more fossil fuel consumption and then supporting it.
And it’s the opinions of the consumers that that study (and its converses, which show essentially the same effect among liberals, albeit a bit weaker because liberals’ news sources tend to be less, well, false) is measuring, not the opinions of the “thought leaders” (please imagine that weighted with as much irony as I can muster).
* I actually have no idea if Exxon funds anti-global warming propaganda, but I didn’t feel like looking up a real example.
I was trying to explain the trend of harder to convince with increasing education.
Okay, but “harder to convince because you have more psychologically invested in your position” seems somewhat more likely than “harder to convince because that was the strategy devised at the last secret meeting at C. Montgomery Burns’s mansion.”
I seriously doubt this has anything to do with colleges. Political viewpoint is heavily genetic and also heavily influenced by things like where someone is in birth order among children in a family. Most of the rest is social circumstances.
George Lakoff and his ilk have, IMO, disproved (or, at least, put on life support) the notion that politics has anything to do with rational argumentation. Day-to-day electoral politics is all about hitting subconscious buttons in people’s brains, which is why I’m mostly not interested in it. It’s stupid on an essential level.
The cognitive dissonance required to reject your party’s insane position on global warming far outweighs whatever minor dissonance believing in something that’s false causes, especially since the first kind of dissonance makes it extremely unlikely that you will even seek out the information required for you to know with certainty that your belief is false.
tagline!
Genetic? How so?
I’m guessing he means conditioning and schooling from parents when you’re young, not literally at a DNA level. Either way, it passes down through generations.
Oh, well that’s not very interesting. Which I guess is Paul’s point.
No, I mean literally at a DNA level.
Huh, really?
Then I’m intrigued. You think that I, the son of Marin County liberals, had been spirited away at birth to Sugar Land, TX or some such place and raised by conservative parents I would be more likely to think leftward than a baby born to those same conservative parents and raised in the same way? That’s not a position I’ve heard before.
In that hypothetical, absolutely, yes. Not even much of a question, really. Adoptive children share essentially no personality traits with their parents.
The novelty for me is in thinking of political attitudes as personality traits. I tend to think of them as being almost wholly a product of the values and beliefs a person is led to believe are sort of intrinsically correct from a young age, most of which comes from parents, friends, teachers etc.
I’d tend to agree with you, based on nothing else but pure speculation. I rarely think of political orientation as a quest for informed position that reinforces personal values – for that, people would have to have a basic idea of what politicians really do and most don’t.
As somewhat of a stretch, I’d liken politic orientation with sports team support. In more cases than not, you will end up rooting for the same team your parents, neighbors and friends did, although the actual players might be different.
A repeated disclaimer – I have no idea what the fuck I’m talking about and nothing of substance to back it up.
I’d suggest reading some George Lakoff on this point.
It really is good stuff.
(This could use some clarification. I do not, of course, mean that there’s a “Republican gene.” But basic personality traits are heavily heritable, and they’re expressed through politics. To take the most obvious example, identical twins tend to be much more politically alike than fraternal twins.)
I was surprised by the OK Cupid correlation for “Do you want things to be complex or simple” or however it was worded.
well stated. I agree.
I think it’s a surprising argument that the observation that going to college makes Republicans less connected to truth has no connection to college.
Nevertheless, it strikes me as testable, since there are certainly places (like Baylor, Mrs. N’s alma mater) where conservatives are not a ~5% minority.
That wasn’t particularly well phrased. Let’s try again.
College-educated people are more intelligent than average and more educated than average. Those traits make them more likely to become deeply psychologically invested in particular viewpoints. The effect of that outweighs whatever effect is caused by the increased information and/or increased ability to process information imparted by intelligence and education.
But I don’t think where you educate them/select them for intelligence matters much, if at all.
Fair enough. I wonder if anyone has ever/could ever test it.
I also find this fascinating, in a good governance sort of way.
the handyman at the building my office is in is verry excited about manny. (that wasn’t a long very. it was a very in a spanish accent.)
If you can’t get excited about a minor league contract for a 40 year old who has to serve 50 games for a roid suspension, only played 5 games last year, and had a .739 OPS with 0 home runs after being sent back to the AL the previous season, what CAN you get excited about?
Thanks, and go As.
Josh Donaldson?
stop talking about me.
totally. it was like the other side of excitement. the i don’t care, he’s from my country, i’m going to take my kids to see him, kind of excitement.
The Matsui Combination
(/Ludlum)
TMC isn’t a book, it’s a, um … video.
just one? /the
criterionmatsui collectionI get that. I’m excited that the A’s have the best righthanded power hitter of my adult lifetime on their roster, even if it turns out he’s the modern day equivalent of a decripit Buffalo Bill Cody being wheeled out for gawkers at each whistle stop.
Remember: One too-early Kennedy death and one too-shitty massachusetts campaign were all that kept us from getting something like this too.
A carbon tax? Not likely.
Do not want.
You should.
I want a baryon tax.
Because there just aren’t enough taxes…
Thanks, and go As.
No. No there aren’t.
Wow.
We don’t pay for the actual monetary impact we have on the world.
Who decides the impact, and what it should cost?
The state.
See, e.g., every environmental regulation, zoning regulation, “sin” tax, targeted tax credit, etc.
Tax receipts as a percent of GDP are like 5% below the Clinton years (surplus, awesome economy, etc.). And that’s with the drop in GDP from the recession.
What’s your argument that tax receipts are high enough?
Tax revenue isn’t the problem. Use of those revenues is.
My statement is that there are not enough taxes. Evidence of that is that there aren’t enough revenues.
Efficient use of revenues is a whole different issue (and one where we probably agree in places).
Then lets reduce those to 0% before we demand 100% efficiency from the population and increase their taxes.
That’s ridiculous. Insisting on 100% govt efficiency before addressing the fundamental handicap in our system today is a recipe for disaster (and/or Mad Max).
Really? wouldn’t the Tarp money have been better spent if every man woman and child received $2500? We would have either bought things to improve the economy, or paid down debt. Either way the money would have still ended up in the hands of the banks. The difference would have been in our personal debt. Now, we have the same tax debt, yet we weren’t allowed to reduce our personal debt. We just can’t continue on this never ending route.
Actually we can. England hasn’t paid off debt from the 1200s. We just need to grow GDP faster than our debt grows.
When Bush did something similar (though not as large) it had very little impact on the economy. Though if you’re proposing that as additional stimulus it wouldn’t hurt.
Saving the financial system was certainly distasteful, but necessary.
Taxes are not remotely high enough. Even if you disagree with punitive/incentivizing approach to certain behavoirs, raw income taxes should be much higher for a pretty significant chunk of the populace (including me).
Amen brother!
This.
there aren’t. there are plenty of negative extrnalities that need to be taxed more.
JEGGINGS TAX
Concur!
Hella Support.
Even if they implemented it so that it was essentially tax neutral or progressive for the middle class? It seems like all kinds of good incentive to shift taxation from income to consumption/pollution.
Which will unduly injure those who have to travel long distances to work. This smells just like the era when the largest vehicle polluter in CA was the state itself. Interestingly enough, they exempted themselves from their own regulations. The government collects enough in taxes, but they unfortunately have have no sense of fiscal responsibility. I also don’t like the idea of inventing something, in order to tax it.
I don’t think they invented carbon dioxide.
Ok, that was my snarky response.
I do understand why it makes sense to be wary about government choosing to incentivize certain behaviors (though I’m on board with FSU on this one). But in the comment you replied to, I was trying to propose the carbon tax in a way that was essentially independent of government revenues, so I think the fiscal responsibility thing is irrelevant. If the government successfully tightens its belt, then cutting taxes could happen, regardless of whether it’s a carbon tax or an income tax.
I don’t see them cutting the tax once it is in effect. What is normal for most consumption taxes(such as the cigarette tax), is that the rate increases as the use decreases, thereby keeping the revenue constant. I remember during the 2008 election cycle, when there was a proposal to make gasoline a minimum of $5 per gal, by a combination of production costs and taxation. If the cost to produce the fuel decreased, the tax would increase accordingly. However, if the cost of the product increased, the taxes weren’t to be lowered.
I happen to trust the population to make the correct choices all on their own. I don’t trust those in power, who feel they know what is best for me, and feel obligated to nudge/push/drag me to their point of view. That is because they invariably include exclusions to make their life easier.
It is true that the carbon tax has a double purpose — to raise the money that the government needs to operate and also to discourage fossil fuel use. So your point is probably right on.
I don’t feel it is the governments responsibility to decide the proper use of fossil fuels.
I think this is exactly backwards.
I trust the population to make the correct choice for themselves individually and based on the prevailing incentives all by themselves.
The carbon tax would change the prevailing incentives, causing the population’s individually-rational decision to change, causing less carbon dioxide emission.
It isn’t the role of the government to decide which way to point the incentives. I’m against all incentives from DC.
I’m all for de-deincenting rocket-launcher-assisted homicide. Damn those meddling bureaucrats!
hehehe.
That’s actually a central role of government under any theory I’m aware of. Internalizing the externalities of individual behavior is right up there with security.
This is something even my libertarian friends agree with.
No. Security refers to protection from external influences from outside the US. Not the same as protecting us from ourselves. That is my responsibility.
I know that security is a different thing (though your definition is wrong in that it excludes Police, for example).
But you seem to either disbelieve or ignore the tragedy of the commons, and I’m saying that preventing it is a central role of any government.
I think that willful ignorance of the tragedy of the commons is a tenet and/or symptom of hardcore individualism, which is a streak that runs rampant in the tea party right.
Ironic, to say the least, given that it was originally used as an argument against things like communism. (Which doesn’t make it wrong– all modern-day egalitarians, a group I firmly count myself a member of, have realized that it has to be dealt with head-on, not hand-waved away with granola about loving one’s brother as oneself.)
This.
am now in the middle of this documentary about individualism. pretty awesome so far.
the trap: what happened to our dream of freedom? Pt. 1, “f**k you buddy”
What about cops?
Are you anti-police?
I used to be.
I’m not anymore.
But enough about spwc …
asvd
Honestly this is the most ass backwards argument you could possibly make from an economics perspective. Every economist agrees that in order to mitigate the ability for producers of a product and consumers of a product to force society to pay for their harmful actions, you need either Pigovian taxes or a cap and trade system. I guess you just don’t want clean water, clean air, or the ability to live without other people’s cheapness killing you.
Are you referring to the smog and other air pollutions blowing into the Central Valley from the Bay Area? The ones that we have to compensate for because the bay has more votes, and thus the state has said it is our problem? Taxes should be % based. The more I drive, the more I pay, with the percentage remaining the same. I am opposed the penalty tax of the carbon credit system.
A carbon credit system would increase your at-the-pump gas costs in exactly that way.
No. because from what I understand, they will also be traded/exchanged. They then become a commodity.
You realize that the only economists who don’t agree with cap and trade system think that the government should be MORE active in controlling externalities.
Yeah, C&T is the enviro equivalent of Rombamaneycare
Only sellable if a company gets the right to pollute more than they need.
It’ll increase the cost of inefficient energy production, which will raise gas costs. Which means your $/gallon at the pump goes up. Which charges you for the negative externalities associated with driving at a percentage.
Exactly. The correct choices for idividuals is to not take responsibility
I wouldn’t even trust them that far.
If you “trust the population to make choices all on their own,” getting rid of the ridiculously huge subsidies that the fossil fuel industry receives every year (artificially suppressing gasoline prices, and dwarfing subsidies to renewable energy source providers by orders of magnitude) would be a very nice start.
I agree
The state should disincentivize long commutes. One of the single best conservation approaches our culture could embrace would be getting people to live closer to where they work.
I’m generally in agreement, but for a subset of those whose work involves a lot of consumption, such as farming, I’d prefer some sort of break in order to keep food prices lower.
Because farmers get nothing like enough tax incentives already…
If you want to make it easier for people with little money to buy food: give those people money to buy food.
Wouldn’t inflation negate much of the increased buying power?
Inflation would have to do with absolute prices, but what nevermoor is proposing is to let the relative prices between food and other stuff return to their natural values. My guess is that inflationary effects would depend on how you implemented the giving people money part. I mean, right now we are in effect giving farmers money.
Interesting, tell me more about these “natural values”.
It seems like you and nevermoor are suggesting that we remove farm subsidies (which would probably increase prices) and instead give that money to people for more purchasing power, to be able to afford those higher prices.
Well, my farm policy comes in (at least) two flavors:
1. Same total amount, but retargeted to increase the price of meat/starch while decreasing the price of fruits/veggies
2. Dramatically reduced amount, with savings used to expand food stamps, assuming responsible projections showed the result to be an increase in food security (i.e. getting more people enough money to eat outweighs insecurity increase caused by more expensive food).
One is, of course, far less radical than the other.
I’m not convinced it would even raise the price of food at all. As I said, many of the current subsidies are directly designed to decrease production.
Well, the theory behind them is that if you didn’t food would be too cheap to produce at all though, right?
(note: I’m not saying that argument is true)
My understanding is that it’s more that if you didn’t food would be cheap enough that all the farmers would become indebted and impoverished.
Since there essentially aren’t any farmers anymore, that seems like a non-issue. Some agribusiness firm isn’t going to become indebted and impoverished as a result of a rise in the quantity of table sugar.
Some subsidies are in the form of price floor guarantees.
I hadn’t voiced my support for it (though I probably would support a well implemented version). Also, I’m sure the scare quotes around natural values are warranted because it’s a complex concept. I readily admit that I don’t know enough about economics to be confident about all the ramifications.
Your summary in the second paragraph is a good match to how I understand it.
Whoa, I didn’t mean to imply scare quotes. I was genuinely curious about the concept and asking a question.
Its equilibrium values without subsidies.
I got a more aggressive vibe the first time I read your comment and then the inquisitive vibe (which you were going for) on subsequent readings.
It’s worse than that. Right now we’re actually, in many instances, paying farmers NOT to grow things.
I get that that policy may have made sense as a stopgap expedient in the Depression, but it’s been eighty years now and we’re still doing it. It’s insanity on a stick.
Well, to one of Tutu’s points, that’s one of the reasons to distrust the federal government — once an economic program is installed and becomes “successful” (ie becomes a regular line-item with an industry/sector dependent on it for funding) it becomes nigh impossible to kill/downsize/redirect, even when it becomes counterproductive to its original mission.
Okay, yes, when you have a government as corrupt as ours, many of the things it does will be corrupt. But the solution to corruption isn’t just to throw up your hands and abandon the entire concept of government. There are non-corrupt governments; ours just isn’t one of them.
Example, please?
I would think that government corruption would be best rated on a scale from 0.1% to 99.9%.
There are no 0%’s or 100%’s.
This. And depending on one’s definition of “corrupt,” I don’t call the US federal govt horribly bad. Intrinsically conflicted to be sure.
Yeah it doesn’t measure well on international corruption scales for a developed country tho.
Now hold on, Mars and the moon have 0% corruption in their governments.
Wait until 2020.
Rent seeking happens in all economic systems with any government. In the vast vast majority of cases the harm caused by rent seeking is outweighed by the cost to society of the externality.
Agreed.
1. Where the economy is now, inflation is both desirable and difficult to obtain.
2. Expanding food stamp programs would be such a tiny cost that I don’t see it having any macro effect.
3. Removing farm subsidies (or, at least, retargeting many of ’em) would raise food prices, which would make food stamp programs cost more, and would certainly trigger inflation under certain price measures.
I agree that inflation is certainly a good sign for an overall healthy economy, but I’m not necessarily sure inflation as a goal is congruent with actually giving the lowest income individuals/families more ability to buy food, which is what we’re talking about here.
Generally, maybe not. In the current economy, absolutely (if for no other reason than that it would make finding a job easier)
In general, yes, but this works best when comparable jobs are easy to find and houses are easy to sell. Neither being the case right now.
Housing is a really important point in this type of scheme. If commuting become more expensive, then housing in regions with good jobs (like San Francisco) becomes even more ridiculous. So you would also need to allow for more housing supply in cities. /yglesias
Absolutely. It’s all about the density of development in conjunction with public transit.
density is good.
destiny is god
Should be happening already.
Ah, but then wouldn’t increased development lead to increased fossil fuel consumption/environmental costs as well? What’s the overall gain here?
I think it’s been pretty well demonstrated (but I don’t have any refs — sorry) that higher density living is more efficient from a resources consumed / carbon footprint point of view. Building skyscrapers consumes a lot of resources, of course, but that’s a one time thing; in exchange, you get short commutes and usable public transit. Plus, building single family homes in the burbs is probably even more costly, in a per resident sense.
And dormitories would be the most efficient, correct? One massive kitchen per building, public bathrooms at the end of the hall, etc. (I’m only half joking). Where does the interference into personal choice end?
This.
Thanks, and go As.
Accurate pricing != interference into political choice.
In college, at least, that housing option was available and cheaper than living off-campus. People made their choices freely.
TYRANNY!!! (?)
Some colleges make you live in the dorms, so maybe not the best example.
For all 4 years? (and, of course, that’s a different issue, providing efficient housing and making it cheaper is not tyranny. Actually requiring people to live in it is, at least if the actor is a government)
I know that both UC Berkeley and San Diego State make students live in dorms for at least freshman year.
Thanks, and go As.
We had to do 2 years.
yeah we did two required years and then we moved back senior year to the apts because they were cheaper.
not everyone gets in at UCLA. Then you are on your own
That is not true about Berkeley. A few ways around it that I observed. One guy I knew simply filled out his housing papers too late. Couple others did sign up, but were released from their housing contracts within a month as they moved into their respective Co-ops/frats. The 3rd situation was people that chose to commute from home.
I don’t know of any examples that require it for four years. And the schools that I’ve been affiliated with actually do illustrate your point well. Stanford and University of Chicago both require you to live in dorms for freshman year, but after that you can do what you want. At Stanford, everyone stays in dorms because Palo Alto rents are ridiculous; at UofC, most people (but not all) move to off-campus apartments, because they are plentiful and cheap.
FYI, you can get the does not equal symbol with the html code ampersand-ne-; minus the dashes.
≠
Yeah, but that wouldn’t subtly tell the world that I’m a comp sci major.
That’s a good facade to maintain for people to whom your ashamed to admit you’re a lawyer.
I have to have some part of me that’s cool
One of the (many) things that I dislike about matlab (which I have to use on account of the research group I’m in), is that it uses ~= instead of !=
That would piss me off every time.
Why did they do that? Does != mean something else?
@nevermoor This isn’t even close to being the worst part — array indexes start from 1
! is used for shell commands apparently
1?!? That would break everything I write.
@nevermoor Lots of
for i=1:length(x)Matlab was originally built on top of Fortran, which also uses 1 based indexing.
It really isn’t that hard switching between C and Matlab. Like colin says, it’s mostly “for” statements, and the syntax is otherwise different enough not to get confused between the two languages.
Today I discovered that my last 3 months work may have been FKed up by the authors of the beam-map and beam-convolution codes I was required to use failing to agree on their array indexing.
that’s inexcusable.
I do miss living in the dorms.
Making people pay the full cost for their freely chosen actions is not “interference.” It’s the exact opposite of interference— right now, the person driving the gas-guzzling SUV is interfering with MY right to not have my country’s coastline flooded, have my country’s lakes filled with acid shit, and so on. He is free-riding off of me, not the other way around.
amen
Then let’s include the full costs of these “efficient cities”. Let’s put a “sin” tax on every gallon of water, for every mile that it is shipped into the cities from outside their districts. Coastline damage? How about the actual destruction of Hetch-Hetchy Valley done by the efficient cities in order to have cheap, fresh water. Lets make that “sin” tax great enough to encourage SF to build de-salinization plants along their pristine coastline, and force them to pay to restore my habitat. Guess what? That isn’t ever going to happen, because those same “Efficient” cities have enough votes to stop it, and if you forced it on them in this manner, there would be riots. Let’s put the same tax on the water shipped to LA. They have been raping Mono Lake for decades. Let’s do the same for food. I say your carbon tax isn’t enough. Let’s double it on food transportation, so that we encourage people in those “efficient” cities to grow their own food locally.
How about the “acid rain” and smog caused by the Bay Area city dwellers, that blows into the Central Valleys? We are told by the State that it doesn’t matter where the smog comes from, it’s our problem to fix it. Those “efficient” cities escape the full cost again.
And I really don’t care what your perceived damage is. I have done my part. I do have a solar system heating my water. I don’t drive an SUV. By the way, how many SUVs are housed in those “efficient” cities? I drive a diesel Jetta that gets better mileage in my foothill area than my friends’ Prius’. I’ve super insulated my house to conserve energy costs. I do grow my own vegetables. I pump my own water, and process my own sewage. I recycle my wash water, and use in to water my garden. ALL of the wash water in the cities goes into the sewer systems. I absorb the entire cost. When the floods of ’97 hit, the “efficient” city of Modesto had all three of their sewer plants dump raw sewage into the Tuolomne River. Mine didn’t.
Is global warming happening? Probably. But these cycles have been going on for millions of years. Man has minimal effect on these. Man didn’t destroy Japan’s coastline. The earthquake/tsunami did. Man didn’t cause the mini ice age of 1816. Volcanoes did. So, let’s look at this from a more statistical angle. How old is the earth in your opinion? 3 Billion years or so? This science is taking the last 40 years of data, and projecting it forward and blaming it on mankind. I have been ridiculed for doing the same thing in regards to baseball players. You call it SSS. Or trending.
This ISN’T about saving the environment. None of you have shown how the taxes raised would be spent to fix the ecology problem. How many times have the gas taxes, which were intended to repair and maintain the systems, been redirected into other projects? Doesn’t sound to me like someone is paying their “full cost”. This is about raising taxes on some targeted group, that you find offensive. The “sin” tax on tobacco wasn’t done to stop smoking. It was done to raise taxes. If the central government was truing concerned about the ravages of tobacco, they would simply outlaw it. Of course, then they would lose all those lovely tax dollars. Proof of this is the state of Indiana,(or was it Illinois?), that passed a ban on smoking in public places. Great. Sounds good. However, when they found their tax revenue falling, they decided to remove the restriction on smoking in casinos, as they found that by allowing smoking there, they would get an increase in gambling taxes. WOW! I thought this was all about protecting the children! I hope someone gets the chance to sue the state in the same manner that
Big Tobacco” was, because this state deliberately increased a burden in our health system.
I’m finished with this sub-thread.
I appreciate your engaging like this, and there’s plenty of substance to chew over.
This however:
is patently false, as I suspect you know. Ice cores, for example, have given us records going back up to 800,000 years.
Yes, but mankind had no affect 800,000years ago, and the warming/cooling still went on.
True, but given an 800,000 year record, you can see qualitatively and quantitatively different behaviour coincident with human industrialization.
@ptbnl
Ah! if we are talking about industrialization’s effect, then let’s go back to 200 years ago. I can make it by living off the land. I don’t need electricity and such. I can make my own shelter, and get my own water, etc. Those in the cities can’t. They will starve and die off from disease.
@tutu
It is definitely true that a lot of the meddlesome government activity that you object to would be unnecessary if the population was much much lower and spread out (though I think you’d probably have to go back more than 200 years to achieved your idealized state). But it’s just a fact that there are more than 6 billion people on earth now. I don’t think you’re seriously proposing letting people die as a solution to resource overconsumption.
@Colin, not that that should be the first choice, but it certainly should be on the table if we’re truly worried about efficiency and “fair” pay of resources.
@colin
It isn’t my idealized state. If we are to reverse man’s impact, then this must happen. Why not? Aren’t we trying to save the earth? Isn’t that the ultimate goal? Isn’t the sacrifice of the few, worth the salvation of the many? We wouldn’t have those 6 billion people if it weren’t for industrialization. SO, in theory they should never have been born. I don’t want to go that direction, but I also don’t see this government intervention as the answer either. And it isn’t because I don’t care. I really do, as you can tell from the way my wife and I have structured our family’s life. It is because no matter how these taxes are implemented, it will always be perverted into something else. I would prefer a flat tax along the lines of what Steve Forbes suggested in his presidential campaign. Create a base level to support the truly poor,applicable to all, then a non progressive tax rate (say 17%) on every dime earned from there. At the same time, the government MUST be limited to spending a set percentage of GDP.
@tutu
I’m generally pro-human and happy about the greatly increased standard of living that we achieved, knowledge we have gained (shameless science plug!), etc. I think the goal should be to try to achieve sustainability while giving up as few of those gains as possible. Maybe that’s overly optimistic/utopian…
@colin
I’m with you there. Where we differ is in what changes need to be made, and who gets to decide which ones, and how to implement them. When those who don’t agree are told they are ignorant, and don’t deserve to be at the table and should be ignored, then it really isn’t a consensus. I find that every close minded, and counter productive. If put to a popular vote, most of these measures, when implemented fairly, would never pass. It becomes a case of, “fix the other guy, but leave me alone”. And that is on all sides of any issue. So, who gets to become judge and jury?
This is what you don’t get. We support the taxes on us and our efficient cities that you are claiming we don’t.
You also have a basic misunderstanding of the context of sin taxes or where the revenue from cap and trade systems go and how they improve the environment. With Pigovian style taxes (eg a carbon tax) revenue is suppose to go to repairing the damage caused, but the most of the real benefit is the voluntary decline in pollutants produced because of decreased consumption. With cap and trade the sale of permits to an agragate cap ensures that the people that can make the easiest cuts in pollutant production have the incentive to while those who have the hardest time do so last. It improves efficiency of regulations and none of the money goes to the government.
I know I said I was finished, but I should respond.
This rarely happens. The normal procedure, is that the group with the largest voting base is the last to have to comply. Those with the fewest votes assume the greatest burden.
This is the equivelent of your Scott Brocious arguments and you don’t know it.
Look. I wrote my thesis on rent seeking in cap and trade systems compared to rent seeking in Pigovian taxes.
I know what Im talking about and to say that your statement is historically inaccurate is kind to your statement. If your statement were true, acid rain, for example would be a huge systemic problem, but it isn’t because of cap and trade.
Really this is showing a shocking level of ignorance of what a cap and trade system is.
That is uncalled for. We’re finished with this.
Do you want me to link to case studies of successful cap and trade systems? I will.
It’s only “uncalled for” in the sense that the level of ignorance is unfortunately far from shocking, and in fact rather common.
Look, if you want to know how they work, that’s fine. I’m sure DFA or someone else will be happy to explain it to you. But it sounds like you’re more interested in sulking and feeling aggrieved.
What you’re not seeing is your in the minority of your own large city. So he’s absolutely right in saying the people in big cities would never play fair. They’d take one big look at the sticker shock to their wallets and never go for it. You can be on the streets screaming how “This is fair, play fair” but no one will be listing to your voice. The one thing all of you are failing to account for in your theories over how to do all this, is that it would be run by humans.
This is exactly correct. The greed of those in control, whether through their votes or position of power, will always trump the ideals.
@ everybody, pretty much.
Industrialization is a short evolutionary blip. It starts when a sentient species realizes connections between tools and processes and begins to create machines. It ends when machines are intelligent, self-aware, and self-replicating and either merge with or replace the sentient beings, or if the sentient beings are so destructive that they blow themeselves and/or their environment up before their machines become intelligent, self-aware, and self-replicating.
Human corruption will only be overcome when we give up individual freedom and are all connected to a central hivemind that makes us feel really good, be incredibly productive, and prevents corrupt thoughts from becoming actions.
@spwc
So … when we all go back to **?
@monkey — very nice
Yeah everyone is rent seeking it is true. The idea that urban cities are better than rural or suburban folks at rent seeking is absurd. Look at the percentage of tax dollars that go to subsidize rural life. Urban centers bleed resources.
The part that I want to respond to is:
With the cigarette example, the United States has had a hugely successful impact on smoking rates. That’s for three reasons: (1) because making smoking more expensive deters people (per that article: “more people stop smoking because of cost than for any other single reason”); (2) because regulations made it more difficult to smoke (i.e. no smoking in buildings, bars, airplanes, etc.); and (3) lots of money from the tax was spent to educate and to help smokers quit.
With the global warming example, it is unlikely we will see as steep a decline among people (because driving/eating meat/heating homes/etc tend not to respond to price changes), but by making polluting more expensive to businesses you are creating space for clean energy companies to compete, for industrial scrubbing/sequestration technologies to sell themselves, and for R&D projects into greener manufacturing methods to show a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
A real-world example is that restaurants in SF can’t use styrofoam, and many many places have chosen to instead use compostable containers, utensils, etc. There’s a restaurant two buildings over from me that doesn’t even have trash cans, because everything the customer gets is compost or recycle. So that’s how raising the cost in and of itself helps.
Under a cap/trade plan, you also see cap allowances decrease over time, so there is a regulatory horizon on emissions that is intended to directly require less polluting. Under a more-liberal command/control model, there would also be explicit maximums business would be required to hit.
And, for the third part, the only bill that I know of that passed the house would have spent the revenue on subsidizing new technologies, modernizing the electrical grid (which is necessary if we are going to rely more heavily on intermittent power supplies like solar/wind), and other such things.
In short, I disagree with your assessment of the historical example and the current proposals.
Right. It’s hard to imagine that the one-time cost of building something quite permanent (like a skyscraper) is going to matter much over constant efficiency improvements.
That calculation, of course, changes when you’re talking about a hybrid car vs. a normal high-mileage car.
I agree that it’s definitely more efficient. But I don’t think it’s as simple as just the cost of building more skyscrapers. At a certain point due to finite space, you’re going to have to tear down existing infrastructure (i.e. suburbs, highways, etc) in order to continue expansion, which would lead to displacement costs assuming you stopped suburban production at the same time. My question, again, is whether or not the overall costs of building, tearing down, and displacement leads to an overall gain over the status quo.
That’s not even considering the fact that you’d naturally need to convince people who are like-minded with Tutu-late to actually go along with this plan and move to the skyscrapers. I would think that a more sizable portion of the population agree with Tutu-late than you, nm, or DFA. In which case, de-incentivizing suburban living would likely lead to RAGE and empty skyscrapers, rather than actually encouraging more people to move to the cities.
I agree that our opinion is unpopular, but most of it is “like I like what I do and its cheaper than what you do”. If you make it more expensive tastes will change.
not necessarily.
This argument is a little skewed by the people who are arguing it… Urban liberals who enjoy city life and being around people…
What if being around people made you feel uncomfortable? What if the idea that someone was living above you and below you made you paranoid? What if you were the type of person that couldn’t read other peoples’ body language or verbal cues well and usually got the short end of the stick in social situations? What if living at a fast pace and riding buses and trains was mentally grating on you and you just craved being as far away from cities and people as you possibly could?
Those are all hypotheticals that would drive somebody away from cities and into rural living. They are also hypotheticals that could easily make someone less desirable as an employee and less likely to be able to afford extended costs of unsubsidized rural living. Yet, they are also hypotheticals that make someone less likely to be able to succeed in a city, as well.
Very accurately stated, SPWC. Some of us truly love connecting with nature away from cities. That doesn’t make us bad people who must be forced into something we aren’t.
I hate people. People suck. Present company excepted, of course.
This.
And I think part of why I like urban living is that it is easy to be anonymous when I want to be.
A small town, where there are fewer people but everyone knows each other, would be a lot harder to deal with.
@ andeux
Yeah, but to live in an urban setting and be anonymous requires a lot of trust in the society and institutions around you.
Some people are incapable of that level of trust in other people and insitutions.
Yeah and then you date those peoples daughters, not like that happens on FK.
Why should I pay for that person to live in a rural area when I am not being paid to live in the city?
@Tutu: You aren’t being forced to do anything. You are being asked to pay for the true costs of your decisions.
Africa has shown us many examples of how city life can deteriorate rapidly upon influx of rural refugees.
Maybe it’s worth subsidizing the hicks a little to keep them the FK out of the city, ‘cuz they probably wouldn’t be good urban neighbors.
Then that person shouldn’t live in a city.
I’m going to try this in all-caps and bold in the hope that people hear it:
NO ONE IS TRYING TO FORCE EVERYONE TO MOVE TO CITIES
… and nm achieves overlap with atrios!
That won’t be the case forever.
Why not?
My aunt has become one of those people now that she’s been living near Marysville for a few years, after living in the Bay Area most of her life. Now she’s bought into the Tea Party and the whole idea that the government is trying to force everyone into small areas, congested cities, close to freeways, etc.
how ever would one get that idea
Thanks, and go As.
Paranoia? Refusing to read what other people say carefully or thinking about issues for more than a nanosecond?
Is that what you’re accusing me of, or just speaking in general?
Thanks, and go As.
@MikeV
Obviously that sort of thing has been proposed in this thread, but what has the government done in real life to at all discourage rural living? The only thing that comes to mind is the establishment of national/state parks, which slightly limits the available land, but that’s a laughably small effect.
@mikeV
Iunno — maybe the fluoridated water and the dental implants?
@colin:
Link?
@nevermoor: link for what?
@MikeV
She’s been reading websites, various stories and so on, probably some of the conspiracy theories ones. She thinks the gov’t wants to push everyone away from rural areas, farmland and so on so they have to rely on the gov’t more. Stuff like that.
@Colin:
Yeah ok, the ideas on this thread don’t include forcing anyone to move anywhere… but it’s clearly possible for someone to interpret them as doing that in practice. But my main point is that, historically and presently, the policy of the US is very friendly towards people living in small towns and rural areas. There hasn’t been any serious indication from the government that this will change.
So by “has been” you mean “has not been”, yes?
@nevermoor
In the technical sense sure, but if James’ aunt heard this kind of discussion coming from actual government people, then she would be justifiably worried that she would be driven to move (note: driven by economic forces, not by outright gov’t order).
Anyway, I think we’re going around in a circle on this. I don’t believe that anyone proposed having the gov’t force people to move.
@colin
I can guarantee you she hasn’t heard it from any gov’t people, but rather “friends of hers.”
@ James & Colin
I’ve got lots of uninformed righties and angry libertarians in my family and my wife’s family.
They’re generally emotion-based people, so logical arguments don’t tend to sway them. Also, technology for the most part has passed them by, and they’re not going to catch up.
Okay… choose between getting kicked in the nuts or paying me $1000. Go on, choose. I’m not *forcing* you to get kicked in the nuts. It’s not my fault that I’m proposing to completely change the rules of society and it’s entire economic system, the one you grew up with and the only one you’ve ever known, all because *today* a small portion of the population feel that’s the way it should be. It’s not my fault all of these changes will make it impossible for you to afford not to get kicked in the nuts. BUT I’M NOT FORCING YOU TO DO ANYTHING!
Force comes in many different forms. Some are financial. Some are societal. Some are physical. Some are emotional. But they’re all very real. And whether you see it or not, what you’re proposing with these changes, is *force*. No one is dragging someone like Tutu out of his house and in a literal sense chain him to the city. But setting up a system where he can’t afford to live where he’s always lived is still a form of force.
This is the argument that created Prop 13.
To say “I’m going to stop paying you to make the choices you’ve made” is force makes the word force meaninglessly broad. Is changing the structure of farm subsidies force? Tweaking the tax code? Cutting funding for food stamps?
In a sense, yes. Changing the rules is a type of force. Put it this way, I’m not against changing the system. At all. We can do better, we should do better. What we can’t do, is do it callously and selfishly, even if (and especially if) the current rules are in themselves selfishly slanting the wrong way. And this is even more true for changing rules that have been in affect for decades. The biggest problem is people are too impatient when it comes to change. Now, like anything, there are ALWAYS exceptions to the rule. Sometimes you do have to cut the cord so to speak and do it fast, but that doesn’t make it right to not do your best to account for the harm it’ll do to those who are cut off.
So in the simplest case, say the US government had been giving you, specifically, $100/month for decades because of some administrative snafu.
Are any of these not your argument?
1: Stopping the payments is a use of force
2: The payments should not be stopped immediately because you will be harmed
3: I should have patience while the powers that be figure out the proper way to stop paying you.
Yeah that might be a valid argument except thousands of children die every year from particulate mater caused by polluters. They don’t have time. Why should you get to kill them so you can live where you want to without paying the costs?
More like, choose between stopping your periodic kicking of ME in the nuts, or paying me $1000.
Which seems totally fair to me.
@Paul: Wait, you’re saying that for $1,000 I can periodically kick you in the nuts? Hmmm…
@Nevermoor Any argument taken to an extreme can come across wonky, but yes, to a degree that is my argument. Keep in mind a big part of #3 comes in a variable scaling down of things in an effort to make that adjustment. Something like a $100 payment will be a very quick adjustment and take very little time. Just like adjusting for a trillion dollars should be an appropriately long adjustment. And that’s my main point, that you have consider the question “How difficult will it be to make that adjustment?” and be considerate of that difficulty. Yes, I get that there’s a difficulty on the other side, hence the reality that the change *should* happen, but just like the person asked to be changed needs time to adjust because they’ve come to rely on it, the person in need has already spent that same amount of time already compensating for what’s been lacking.
Okay.
Some people are literally born without a brain. That… sucks, much more so than your example (which I find odd, since I largely meet the criteria you describe, yet choose voluntarily to live in a city, but let’s not get too far off track).
What’s the point here? Everyone is born with a different set of strengths and weaknesses, and they don’t all add up to the same thing, either.
I’m with DFA’s response here. I think you’re buying too far into the “central planner ruling our lives” fear here. I think getting new energy efficient skyscrapers is easy (relax zoning limits in downtown areas subject to meeting strict efficiency rules and watch the developers do the rest). Getting people to move there is the developers’ problem, but you can help by raising the price of polluting activities like driving.
Yeah, and I think Joe Montana would disagree that anyone forced him into the Millennium Tower.
It’s not about what I personally believe. For the record, I would like nothing more than for the U.S. to develop more cities in accordance with the infrastructure of a city such as, say, Berlin. I would definitely love to live there.
My opinion, though, is that most in the general populace would indeed buy into the “government forcing us where to live” line of thought that’s sure to come from certain political parties and conglomerates if some politician actually had the guts to propose this idea. Perhaps I’m simply more cynical than you guys, but I think that kind of rhetoric would overpower the costs/efficiency argument (see HCR, but this is on a much larger scale).
Oh it would absolutely be “THE UN IS MAKING US LIVE IN URBAN PRISONS” from a lot of people. They would just lose out over time.
And, of course, the fact that a policy could be effectively/dishonestly demagoged is no reason not to prefer it.
I think the effects are being exaggerated by both proponents and opponents here. The effect of an emissions tax on gas would be something like 10 cents a gallon. Some people do try to drive a little less when prices go up, but a change of that magnitude isn’t going to change many people’s preferences about where they live in the short term.
The bigger effect would be at the level of energy use at the industrial level and electricity generation.
I think this is a good point.
I honestly have no idea what the ultimate at-the-pump or in-the-energy-bill impact would be. I also don’t care as long as it’s closer to the right amount.
Actually it would reduce it. Buildings that are built now are significantly more energy efficient than the buildings that they replace.
Which won’t work in the temporary jobs like construction. I also don’t like the government dictating where I chose to live. Then, if I don’t agree, they tax me. Who sets the carbon use limits? Will the rich be allowed to buy these phony “credits” from those who never use their quota, so order to continue polluting? Sounds like another huge scam by the elite to control the population. Why not refuse the use of drones over the US proper? 30,000 are expected to be in use by 2020. That sounds like a great use of tax revenue. Let’s cut out the garbage before increasing the burden on the populace.
I think we’re probably all with you on the drones.
In my opinion, there is no difference between the carbon tax and the drones. They will both be manipulated into a form of control of the people.
Every government policy (except for the ones explicitly dictating what the government doesn’t have control over) exerts some form of social control. To be against governmental policies because they exert social control naturally leads to the untenable position that one should be against all governmental policies.
In order to clarify, I’m a “State’s Rights” type. My problem is the one size fits all approach that comes from Washington. If a particular state, such as CA wants to impose something, then I am much more understanding, than if it comes from federal mandate.
Pollution in WVA hurts people in NY, TX, and even CA.
I don’t agree. The earth itself pollutes more than mankind does.
Ummm (as an example of human pollution)…
If you mean global warming specifically, I expect that I’m not going to change your mind.
Yeah thats just scientifically not true. The earth is a system that is in equilibrium. We keep fucking with it by changing they composition of the atmosphere and the sea. Thats like saying that the sea is already salty so you could add trillions of tons of salt to the water and it wouldn’t kill any fish. Its just wrong.
Then why do you think the government should force me to pay for your long ass commute?
Why should I have to pay for you to take BART?
Thanks, and go As.
Because you benefit both from cleaner air and less highway congestion (not to mention the right to use BART)
and if I don’t use BART and don’t live in the city, you benefit by having less wait at restaurants and shorter lines at the grocery score or to get into popscene
Thanks, and go As.
As well as requiring those who don’t use rapid transit pay for the building costs.
Psht like theyd ever force me to wait in line at popscene.
@MikeV: Neither of those are state-provided goods. And, lower volume at the grocery store = higher prices. And, of course, I’m not telling you to live in a city.
@Tutu: As well as requiring those who do not own cars to pay for road building costs/maintenance (including pollution, law enforcement, medical care, etc.)
I actually pay more than the full cost of BART because the rides to the airport are priced higher than cost to fund the rest of the system.
That being said Im fine paying for a full BART fair, as long as my full BART fair accompanies 10 dollar a gallon gas and bridge tolls.
bridges already have tolls.
Thanks, and go As.
Not nearly high enough to pay for the cost of maintaining the bridge.
Not nearly high enough to be self-sufficient. And roads in California don’t.
Neither does Amtrak. The suburbs subsidize mass transit as well.
comparing the costs of Amtrak to the US highway system is like comparing the change in my couch to my paycheck.
Why?
This position makes no sense. If California decides to tax your carbon, you’re okay with it, but if DC does, you aren’t? What happened to resisting “interference?” Now it’s “interference is okay, but not if it comes from one government and not another”?
In form of socius untenable, all governmental policies should be against one.
nice
This is different from “government dictating who bears the cost of where you choose to live”, which is what we are actually talking about.
This is just a word play. The issue is the same.
So you want to live wherever you want and have the rest of us foot the bill?
How are you paying for it? How will taxing me, in order to increase tax revenue, change anything? Those like Al Gore are still flying around in their jets, driving SUVs, etc. are still polluting the same. He just claims that he has bought someone else’s carbon credits to offset his footprint. That’s a bunch of crap. he isn’t reducing anything. This will become a false commodity. Then it will become manipulated by those in power, and there will be no change in the health of the earth.
That’s an argument against a specific form of carbon regulation. I’m (quite frankly) not sure what my ideal form of regulation is.
Also, substantively, the cost you would bear is in increased costs of gas/electricity/goods as factories have to pay to reduce their emissions. Which would be a real change.
1 most carbon credit schemes right now are silly because they are done by organizations that fight against greenhouse gas regulation, like power companies. Pretty much everyone agrees on that.
2 I pay for it with my health from breathing the particulate matter that goes into the air. I pay for it with taxes to build roads. I pay for it with noise pollution that I have to hear. I pay for it with rising sea tides that will make my city unlivable. I pay for it with increased catastrophic weather systems. I pay for it by having colder winters and hotter summers. I pay for it by decreased food production causing higher prices.
heath care costs. uninsured getting sick and using state subsidized medical care
No, what he’s claiming (whether true or not, I have no idea) is that he has specifically arranged to preserve enough carbon sinks which would otherwise have been destroyed, so that it cancels out the impact of his SUVs, and so on.
Don’t confuse carbon credits in a cap-and-trade system with voluntarily zeroing-out your carbon footprint under existing law. Cap-and-trade is exactly what it describes– an overall cap on emissions, plus trading of licenses to pollute up to (but not over) that overall cap. Voluntary zeroing-out involves things like “buying patches of rainforest in the Amazon and then deliberately not doing anything with it other than letting it sit there sucking up carbon.” Other than the topical relationship to global warming, those two initiatives are basically unrelated.
Will you explain to me how an over polluter, buying credits from say a third world non-polluter help with the overall improvement? The person he is buying the credits from already has a zero footprint.
A US cap/trade system wouldn’t give a third-world non-polluter any allocation.
A US non-polluting business that did get an allocation, though, would sell it for money giving their clean business a competitive edge against dirty businesses. Which is the whole point of internalizing the externalities.
It wouldn’t. He’s not buying them from a third-world non-polluter. He’s buying them from a third world polluter.
Deforestation, particularly tropical rainforest deforestation, has a massive impact on CO2 emissions, both because carbon gets taken out of trees (where it has often been stored for hundreds or thousands of years) and released into the atmosphere directly, and because those trees are no longer able to absorb CO2 from OTHER pollutant sources.
It makes a ton of economic sense for people in first world countries to, in effect, pay people in third world countries not to release CO2, then release it themselves instead. A net pound of CO2 as released from a fuel-efficient car does immensely more economic work than a net pound of CO2 released as a result of slash-and-burn agriculture.
I think most carbon offset programs are bullshit. But paying farmers in areas where there is rainforest left not to burn it is a good idea. Its an even better idea to pay them the difference between farming sustainabily in the rain forest and the bounty from destroying it for traditional farming.
Good idea, so long as the farmers have the knowledge/desire/materials to actually do the sustainable farming. I expect that there is more than a little inertia with respect to changing farming practices in (name country with rainforest here), even with monetary incentives.
as opposed to living where you want him to?
Thanks, and go As.
As opposed to living where he wants to and paying for the costs of that decision
How are you paying for it? There is relatively no crime where I live, yet my income taxes pay for prisons that house the criminals from the cities. Will you change all taxes, so that those using the services pay all costs? Where do you see the end to this interference?
Will you stop using all federal-funded roads (ie, all of them) and stop eating all subsidized foodstuffs?
very nice
Will I get to stop paying taxes?
Thanks, and go As.
would you make that deal?
probably not, but if we’re getting into hypotheticals.,.,
Thanks, and go As.
yeah, there are many facets of this, just like with anything else, and no story is black and white. but, I guess I’m leaning towards different shade of gray than you and tutu
Only if you want no police/fire support either. Or recourse if anyone screws with you. Or access to public schools/libraries/parks.
Or if you want china to invade your house.
Meh, guns will and his willingness to use them on “upstanding” tax payers would keep him safe for crime. And being miles inland, China would have to cross a lot of U.S. soil to get to him, assuming they gave a shit about him in the first place.
The argument that the US soil will protect Mike relies on the US military, which relies on taxes. Taxes mike should have to pay.
Let me get this straight. Suppose each state were it’s own country. Are you seriously suggesting that Colorado should pay California a tax simply for being geographically in between China and Colorado?
Well we aren’t individual countries, so yes everyone should pay (progressively) for our national defense. If we were seperate countries, Im not sure why we would deny China the use of our airspace.
I don’t know about Colorado, but Wyoming can fend for itself.
For my money, income taxes should do nearly all of the work for individuals, because they are the easiest to make progressive (consumption taxes are often regressive). Then you layer on top sin taxes (cigarettes, carbon emissions, etc) to do the double work of discouraging harmful activity and raising additional revenue.
For businesses, you need to be much more careful about profiting from unpriced negative externalities.
Then you use that money to pay for defense, regulatory enforcement, and social safety programs.
Yeah because the prison industrial complex totally benefits the urban enviros. LOL
If I had my way, each county would pay drectly for prisoners they send.
The rural counties send more people than the big cities percentage wise.
That’s the plan with parole now isn’t it?
with 1170(h) cases all the money is now local (housing and “parole”). I am not sure what is going to happen to the guys that actually go to the hoosegow.
I heard in monterey last weekend that San Quentin was not going to be used as the only receiving place in nor cal. is that your doing?
We’re involved, but “our doing” is too strong
TWWS
For the nth time: We don’t give two tenths of a shit about where he lives. If he wants to live 500 miles from his job and pay what it really costs to commute back and forth every day, I could not possibly care less.
Government isn’t dictating where you live. You are. All this is doing is asking you to stop charging others for your life choices. You choose to live a inefficient life. Thats fine, but you shouldn’t ask me to pay for it, which you are currently doing.
hang on, I gotta put gas in my boat.
Thanks, and go As.
We need to bring back antimacassars. Slap those on the chairs at Beauty Bar, wring ’em out once a week, and you’ve got FREE GREASY HIPSTER-OIL-POWERED FLOTILLA!
The one with the leaky gas tank?:)
which is fine. You should just have to pay the true cost. I don’t get why you don’t want to take responsibility for your actions and be a freeloader.
I think you need to step back and watch what you say to people for a second.
Thanks, and go As.
Why? Its exactly what you are doing. This isn’t some bullshit liberal theory. It is standard Econ 101 that anyone who has even taken a High School economics course knows. Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals. EVERYONE. Freeloader(rider) is one of the technical terms for it. You are a freeloader. So am I. I drive to work far more than I should mostly because of perverse incentives (my car is efficient and I am reimbursed for gas and parking so my costs aren’t in line with the costs to society and I value the time savings over those costs). I also eat meat frequently. I love hot showers. Its the primary job of the government to make sure that the markets price these things at their true cost.
I am done with this particular subthread.
Thanks, and go As.
Hmm…
Methinks that if we all took some Ecstasy & Truth Serum, the liberal argument would turn into “We like society. It makes us feel warm and fuzzy and fills us with a sense of wonder and amazement. We want it to be fair and efficient and to have its’ costs fairly spread.”
The conservative argument would turn into “We are generally suspicious of other people and want to keep them at arms’ length. Society is at best a necessary evil, and we want to invest our emotional and economic resources in our microsocieties/families/properties, not the greater society outside.”
I think that the “invest our emotional and economic resources in our microsocieties/families/properties, not the greater society outside” applies to liberals as well. Think communes, buy local campaigns, back to the land, peak oil, permaculture, farmers’ markets, Transition Cities, urban farms.
I think you’ve got that reversed. Liberals actually think that people in aggregate are evil and need to be reined in by collective effort, while conservatives think every sovereign decision-maker, acting in aggregate, is natural and good. At an individual level, sure, it’s reversed, but that’s not where the action is.
Evil is definitely not the right word. I would put it: people individually are self-interested, which in the aggregate hurts everyone unless it is reined in.
I think that the individual level is where the action is for emotion-based people, and the public level is where the action is for logic-based people.
I disagree, unless your are going to grandfather in those of us who already live where we do. If this forces me to HAVE to move because of financial reasons, then it is dictating.
All it forces you to do is change your calculation in a way that better reflects the costs of your choices. If the only reason you’re living where you are is that the people of your state are paying you to do so, I don’t have a problem with you deciding you should move.
exactly
No, I live here so that I don’t have to deal with the problems/interference of the cities. So, only the rich/elite should be allowed to live in nice areas.
If you value those benefits higher than their true costs, you’ll stay. If you don’t, you’re only there because you’re a taxpayer subsidy case.
Also, I think you’re overestimating the degree to which this would impact your personal finances.
Corporations are people, my friend. TL is actually Chevron.
If he is then I want $5.
Aim higher, ask for a whole gallon of gas.
Step 1: get $5
Step 2: get contacts inside Chevron
Step 3: wait for Chevron to get sued
Step 4: profit!
(I’ve solved the ??? problem!!!)
No. Only the people willing to pay for it should be able to live in nice areas. If you want to spend 75% of your income living in a really posh area, knock yourself out.
Those are two different concepts. If you want to pay to live in your area, fine. No one cares. What you would like is to live in a nice area and not pay for it. Well, okay– I’d like you to pay for my bagel. I propose that government mandate that those who like bagels get a free bagel every Tuesday. If you don’t like bagels, tough.
Sounds like a great law, right? Well, unless you don’t like bagels. Then it seems like a totally arbitrary redistribution of resources.
Then lets apply this to the health care system. Most here are in support of the national healthcare law just passed. Why? Why do those that aren’t sickly have to pay a subsidy to those who can’t afford the full cost. Smoking/drugs/bad habits were their personal choice. If they can’t afford the full cost, or insurance on their own, too bad. This seems like selective enforcement of “bearing the full cost”.
I think that there has been a fair amount of support expressed here for cigarette taxes, because a) smoking is terrible for people’s health and b) society does end up paying at least part of the cost for medical care that is the result of smoking.
But no matter how good of choices everyone makes, people do get injured and sick. Modern medicine is very expensive, so it makes sense to collectivize that cost. Insurance works better when more people buy into the system, so that’s pretty much the goal of the health care law.
If someone discovered some behavior that was actually causing all of society’s health problems, then there is a good chance that I would be in favor of some regulation to discourage that behavior. (all within limits, of course)
Also, I think the conversation has gone in lots of different directions, but I think that many of the people arguing against you would be content if the government merely ended/scaled back programs that they think are actively disincentivizing city living and/or incentivizing rural life.
Yeah, we all have our pet issues, and as a society, we need to work together to fix the problems. All views need to be given the same respect, whether we thing they have a brain or not, whether we agree with them or not. We all have skin in the decision. Our country is such a vast diversity of regions, that sometimes the local states must, and should make the choices. Even within each state, one law may not work for each county. That is why I do like the present checks-and-balances system the founding fathers created. Yes it makes quick changes difficult, but it also tempers the effects of poor, hasty decisions.
The checks/balances system is ok, though I think you get better political parties when they campaign with the understanding that if they win they’ll be expected/able to do what they promise. The filibuster that was tacked on top is not.
This reminds me of a joke where an English kid, an Italian kid and a Swiss kid are discussing how babies are created.
The Englishman says, “well, of course, the stork brings them”. The Italian starts laughing, “you crazy, mama and papa make amore, you know, love, and than the baby comes”.
And the Swiss kid says, “In Switzerland, it differs from one county to the other”
Don’t you think that the filibuster encourages compromise? It was included to temper the “mob law” influences allowed in the house.
@elcroata
hehehe. I like that.
These days, it seems like it mostly encourages status quo because it is too hard to pass anything of substance.
The filibuster wasn’t “included” in anything. It’s an unintended byproduct of the Senate’s rules that has been used over the decades mainly to block things like civil rights legislation that a dedicated minority was solidly against despite the overwhelming support of the majority.
The Senate itself was put in the Constitution in part to temper the house’s passions, but it does that well enough without the non-constitutional filibuster (e.g. by giving members six-year terms so they don’t constantly have to face voters).
@nevermoor
We also get a better system even the three branches stop assuming the role the other branches. Judges who go beyond deciding the constitutionality of laws. Executive branch that bypasses Congress through arbitrary orders. Both of these are the corruptions of the system that make me happy when they deadlock. If they were truly honest, we would all be much better off.
@GM
The filibuster was made a rule in 1806, and upheld by the US Supreme Court in 1892.
link
The Filibuster itself isn’t a problem. The application of it by dishonest politicians, with ulterior motives, is the problem.
@Tutu:
1. The filibuster was not made a rule. Rather, the rule to end debate via majority vote was deleted at that time (as part of a large rewrite), and no one realized/intended to make ending debate impossible (as it was until 1917).
2. Saying a rule isn’t a problem, only its use, is weak. It exists, is used essentially all the time, and makes legislating impossible without a 60 vote majority (i.e. NOT what the framers had in mind).
3. I don’t think judges are as activist as many do (and when they are activist, they aren’t always left-leaning either)
@Tutu
I didn’t say it was unconstitutional. I said it wasn’t included in the constitution, meaning it wasn’t part of the constitutional scheme. Either way, just look at the graph on that wikipedia page to see that the modern filibuster has become institutionalized in way that the senate of the 19th Century could never have imagined.
As to your second point, politicians are often going to do things that hurt the country if our institutions allow them to do so. You can’t fix the politicians, but you can fix the institutions.
@tutulate: Gentlemen’s agreements don’t do anything to prevent abuses when the people elected are not gentlemen.
(Which is, of course, precisely when you need abuses to be prevented!)
Well, first off, I don’t particularly like the new healthcare law and have said so on a number of occasions. Part of that is because the law is utterly incomprehensible, but a lot of it is that to the extent I understand it, I think it whiffs on a lot of issues.
But this analogy fails. Uninsured people put immense stress on society. They cause all kinds of unnecessary economic damage to themselves, local hospitals, and the people around them. Worse, the average person is completely incompetent at judging whether they need it or not. It’s pretty well impossible to dispute that we’re collectively better off if everyone has health insurance than if some people don’t have it. That ain’t the case with bagels.
Exactly
This
Nice in theory, horribly inefficient/affective in practice.
Actually, our current prioritization of highway expansion/extension projects is extremely inefficient. Shifting even a small % of that money to public transit would be much more economical.
There’s really no defense for saying that the government is/will be trying to force people to move to the cities. One reason is that our current land use/transportation policy does exactly the opposite–its cumulative effect is to greatly incentivize the development of housing in the suburbs/exurbs, while urban development gets the shaft. A second reason is that pretty much every study out there shows that many individuals would prefer to live in the kind of transit-oriented, mixed-use area that transportation engineers call “smart growth”, but they can’t because there’s not enough supply. This is a trend that looks to increase in the next 20 years, as the Baby Boomers retire–the elderly especially tend to prefer/benefit from being able to reach amenities w/o driving long distances, and don’t need McMansions.
“Providing additional choice” != “forcing people to change”. If anything, our current transportation policy “forces” people to the exurbs, not the other way around.
Please. It would take a shit ton more than a small percent to make a dent in any of that. And “many” is a nebulous term. The biggest problem with changing the highway system it almost universally thinks too small. If it’s going to require later expansion even before the first “completed” version of it is in place, it’s not good enough. If you were tell me that starting today 100% of our transportation funding (aside from basic repair work) would go into the creation of super BART (the original concept of what BART was and much, much more) I’d be all for it. In a “think big” scenario, it makes a shit ton of sense. But if you suggesting the Marin & Sonomas of the world should create a completely independent rail system that goes from Santa Rosa to San Rafael and would force you to take a bus and/or ferry AND bus/other train system to complete your trip, I’ll tell to suck it up and expand the highway because your idea is useless.
The real telling part of mass transit, was highlighted in Gov Brown’s earlier terms. His Director of transportation was pushing hard for the expansion of mass transit, yet she used her car to go places. When she was asked why, she responded that “Mass transit will never go where I need it to, when I need to get there.” ( paraphrased). Mass transit is an excellent system in a confined area. I love to use the BART system when I visit. Also, we need to remember the interstate highway system was NOT designed and built for the general population! It was built as a part of national defense, so that the military had a way to move troops and equipment from one region to another efficiently. It is very necessary, and will always exist. To say that the people who use it most should pay the entire cost of its upkeep, is ignoring it’s main purpose. This purpose is one that all Americans benefit from
I have a hard time believing, at this point, that moving troops and equipment from one spot to another within the continental United States is a purpose that I benefit in any substantial way from. The notion that someone’s about to launch a land invasion of the US… well, anyone who thinks that’s about to happen needs to get his tinfoil hat readjusted.
The interstate system was never primarily intended for national defense purposes; it was for long-distance transportation by the general public and particularly truckers. There were several proposals for financing the highways, including tolls and creation of a “Federal Highway Corporation” to issue bonds. What they finally came up with was creation of a Federal Highway Trust Fund, whereby user taxes (e.g. the gas tax) were raised, the revenue placed in the trust fund, and then that money was distributed to the states when they were ready to commence construction. To make the tax increase palatable to fiscal conservatives the “national defense” uses of the highway system were certainly played up, not just moving troops and tanks around but even more so the value of the highways in evacuating cities, say moving the entire population of Chicago to tent cities in the fields of Iowa, or wherever, where they’d supposedly be safe from nuclear attack. Remember, this is the era when school kids were being taught to “duck and cover” in case the ICBMs flew. So sticking the “national defense” label on the highway improvements was mostly to give the politicians some cover for voting for the tax increase.
Earl Swift’s recent book The Big Roads goes into this and has some anecdotes which are either comical or horrifying in retrospect, especially the story about the idea of using atomic bombs to blast through mountain ranges in the deserts, rather than conventional dynamiting and excavation, being seriously considered.
Operation Plowshare.
ICIP plowshare for the Peaceful Nuclear Explosions
If people had to travel by train or plane with no roads to get anywhere, wouldn’t we much more likely to be attacked by someone who really wanted to? Not saying that as an argument, I’m just trying to picture that. The soviets or even china right now, just fly a plane, blow up a few train tracks and more or less destroy our economy. Hmm… maybe not.
you know, perhaps some of those people could sell their fat SUV and buy a 3L car (that’s 3 liters per 100 km consumption, or something like 70 miles per gallon). Or they could switch to a hybrid or a fully electric car, which would have been in place a long time ago had fossil fuels not been crazy subsidized.
Exactly.
You need to remember that our government won’t allow the same fuel efficient car into the US. I do own a Jetta that get 45highway. It also get 36 in the foothill areas while my friends’ pruis’ get around 30. The Jettas in Europe get much better mileage( closer to 60), we just aren’t allowed to import them. Electric cars don’t work in all areas. That’s the problem with a one size, fits all approach.
some sort of carbon pricing. The house, after all, passed cap/trade.
That’s a much harder sell for someone like Landrieu or Baucus than HCR was.
but its a much easier reconsiliation vote because its a tax and has a budget impact.
Having that extra vote wouldn’t have made a difference, sadly. The White House wanted no part of cap and trade; it only became any sort of issue at all because Nancysmash cracked heads in the House. If you had to point to one event that did the most damage to Kerry/Lieberman, it would probably be the Gulf oil spill…but it was probably DOA anyway.
I disagree with that wrt the administration. They certainly cared more about HCR than Cap/Trade, but I think they were hoping/expecting to get both.
And whether it’s cap/trade or carbon-tax, it’s all within “something like this” at least as I mean it.
The Obama plan was to win HCR quickly by introducing a politically palatable middle ground plan that should have gotten bipartisan support due to the fact that it was a Republican plan and then use the win’s PC on immigration and cap and trade. They just fucked it up by assuming good faith from the GOP.
That last part is definitely part of why it took so long (as is the Kennedy illness).
I very much hope that if Obama could have seen the future through 2010 he, and Congress, would have moved faster and not tried for a consensus that turned out not to be achievable.
Without clicking the link, I can only assume from the url that this involves a wax-preserved Kennedy corpse being wheeled out for gawkers at each whistle stop, a la Lenin and Mao.
Huzzah!
Ruston Seaman?
That is my name on Mission Mission
A while back I promised, threatened to post this story, so here it is.
Awesome. Thank you for that.
r. crumb?
Yes. I actually have the original sketch that was used for that piece.
nice
yeah, that was awesome.
Cool story. The R Crumb illustration more than makes up for the fact that it was the Angels.
My dad also kept the Sports Illustrated dated with my birthday. It features Nolan Ryan in an Angels uniform on the cover.
Nice! With illustration by R. Crumb, no less!
great story. i can’t remember your connection to it though. is that you being born?
Yep. That’s me.
Your name is Huckleberry? That.is.awesome.
(and so is the story!)
Well I go by one of my middle names now, but yes it is awesome. Although when I was 10 and having a hard time with repeatedly being the new kid at school it wasn’t so awesome.
Yeah I could see that. Although “Huck” is pretty cool too and a bit less odd sounding!
He could have gone with a normalized truncation of “Berry.”
#obama
Yes, but I wanted the most normal sounding name possible. 10 year old logic dude.
That’s what I went by mostly. Try playing the banana-fana game with it…
Hee!
very nice
(adding this so that WP doesn’t bitch about me already having said that in this thread)
Picture Day!
I love that Doolittle posed with a bat.
Oh Bartolo, what a fine looking man!
Shrek!:)
Maybe that’s not the most flattering angle for him to be photographed from. Or, chillingly, maybe it is.
I LOL’ed
yeah, i thought it made him look human.
That camera angle is horrible for most all of them. Coco’s photo is the only one that is halfway decent.
https://twitter.com/#!/Austan_Goolsbee/status/174266545361518592
Any updates on Cespedes’s visa issues?
Once I have ’em, I’ll start a new post to see who wants the ones we have, and who wants other dates.
Jesus. I’ll bet those tickets sat in someone’s fridge since Saturday.
I sure hope that you people are paying the ACTUAL cost of having those delivered
Thanks, and go As.
We aren’t, because FedEx (or whoever) gets to use the roads for free, and emit CO2 for free.
Who are the A’s to say where we should sit? Next they’ll insist that we all eat one from one common food concession and all pee in one common trough.
Also, if we want a date like April 21 for the next annual FKgate, it would be useful to reach consensus on that relatively soon, so that folks can make travel plans and I can start talking with the A’s about a block of tix.
I’m going to wait for government economists to tell us the optimal date.
I vote yes to the 21st (especially since it was an amendment to the original proposal).
What’s the html code for 10 upraised wiggling fingers?
Given the size of the site now it’s probably sensible to just declare 4/21 as the date and find out who the yes’s and no’s are. That early date leaves plenty of room for a second one in the summer if FKers are up for it.
There’s going to be a second one when elcroata passes through, whenever that might be.
use the old post just to piss poppy off
Danica makes it all the way to Lap 2 before getting caught up in a wreck (looks like she’ll be able to race on).
Btw: thanks to MikeV/Tutu for engaging. This stuff is one of my favorite FKing parts.
For me tuu. It was very civil, and I hope as enlightening to you as it has been for me. I’m outta here. Have to fix dinner for the mrs., and get ready to go the Boy Scouts with my son.
Goodnight all!
I’m glad to hear that you’re ok with it. I was getting concerned that we were piling on.
It’s always fun when someone squirts lighter fluid on the Grill.
I don’t mind, although I’m admittedly painfully ignorant on most of these subjects.
Thanks, and go As.
I wish I could have engaged. Pup duty make it difficult to do more than follow.
Never too late to add your 10 cents
There isn’t much I felt needed to be said.
Agreed. Also, what happened to Waddle Canseco? His would’ve been a valuable voice for the laissez fairy position.
I wish LCJ was around.
he is in Hong Kong or taiwan or shanghai, so he may be super busy
Wow. Just got through all of this because yesterday was chaotic. My BP has gone up and down way too much the past 15-20 reading it..
Thank you guys for doing it. And yeah, For the most part it stayed civil. This is why we love FK! I always think back to that somehow starting up elsewhere. Two posts and it would have been killed off and strikes issued across the board.
I couldnt have provided anything noteworthy to the conversation, but I am bookmarking it just to go back and get learned some more when I have time this weekend.
So it appears that my sewer pipe has sprung a leak. At least this is what I infer from the pool of flushable kitty litter, toilet paper, and shit in my yard.
Sounds like someone forgot to leave a christmas bonus for her trash collector.
It’s not coming out of an overflow valve? That’s what would typically happen if you have a clog.
Could be, I suppose. I’m not sure where that valve is. I called and texted my landlord but haven’t heard back….
That’s the likely scenario; a call to Rescue Rooter should get you up and flushing again in no time. My initial reaction is that “flushable kitty litter” may not be so flushable after all, kind of like “flushable tampons”.
The rooter folks have been here several times in the two-plus years I’ve lived here….this cottage is more than 100 years old, so it has some systems issues. The flushable litter is supposedly even safe for septic systems, but yeah, it could be the problem, given that I’ve only been using it for the last ten days or so.
Anyway, that would be nice if it’s just a call to the rooter people and not my landlord spending thousands of dollars and digging a trench in the yard….because then I’ll have to wait for him to get around to it.
Are you in Berkeley? If it’s a problem at the overflow valve (even on your side), the city will snake it out for free.
I wish. Burlingame.
That’s good to know though. I just looked on the Burlingame website and it basically says if your building was built before the mid-1960’s it wasn’t required to get a city cleanout valve and you’re shit out of luck, as it were.
#stanford
That hurts monkey.
Mandatory overflow valve legislation is all the rage these days, and most CA cities either already have or soon will adopt it. However, it’s not required until you either replace your sewer line or sell your house.
Yeah its bad for otters too. Just like garbage disposals cost billions of dollars in repair for sewer lines.
Dude. If you’re gonna keep domesticated otters, you should spring for the specialized otter litter. Goddam hipsters and their goddam exotic pets.
wow. I laughed really hard at that. thanks. I do like exotic pets (use to work in a pet store) but I would never subject one to having me care for it at this age… Though I did almost buy a jelly fish tank last week.
Uh-hunh. I bet you do.
Bow-chica-wow-wow!
I had the following when I was a kid:
Wolf hybrid
Argentine Horned Frog
Bearded Dragons
Corn Snake
Firebelly newts
Firebelly toads
We were more into the raptors:
Barn owl
Tawny owl
Red-tailed hawk
Common buzzard (x2)
Ferret (for flushing rabbits for the hawks to hunt)
Horse (briefly)
#WANT
The barn owl was my favorite.
My brother has also written a book on falconry if you’re interested – “Kai: Hawking in Britain with a Redtail”.
I don’t think you can keep them in sf.
Why not?
Where would I put it?
In with your cardigans.
I think this is when JL needs to photoshop a cardigan on a raptor
Raccoon. Indoors.
Little Edie is that you?
We actually saw a huge owl at Aquatic Park the other night! We were walking up the curving sidewalk from the waterfront, JP riding on my shoulders. He said “Look, papa — what’s that?” He didn’t point, just looked somewhere ahead and up. I was like, Ghirardelli Square? The Buena Vista? The gazebo? “No, look — what’s that?” All of a sudden, there was a silent blur above us atop the lamppost, and this massive owl went swooping off after one of the turnaround rats.
The silence of an owl in flight is extraordinary.
And so unexpected at Aquatic Park, of all places! It does offer a smorgasbord of rats, tho.
I’ve seen owls at Cesar Chavez and aquatic park in Berkeley, which offer a similar smorgasbord of rats and ground squirrels.
did they get the guy whose dog bit theo?
That would be cool
Yes, I’m only using it for the two weeks when the cat’s shedding radioactivity, because if I put the litter in the trash it could set off alarms at the landfill.
Take it to Walmart and dump it in the trash cans in the parking lot there like everybody else does.
Why didn’t I think of that!
The place I live now, I don’t have any garbage service. The landlord is a contractor and he makes a dump run about every two months. Which is fine, I don’t generate that much trash, but a few things like chicken bones that will start to stink get separated and disposed of separately, and those parking lot cans are therefore where Walmart comes in very handy.
so flushing it into the ocean is what we should be doing for radioactive catshit? Im not trying to be an ass here. Legit question?
It seemed strange to me too, but the clinics are licensed by the State of California and this is the approved procedure. What they told me was, it’s not actually radioactive enough to be a hazard, it’s only radioactive enough to set off the alarm at the dump.
When I worked in a sewage treatment plant, I learned that the worst thing for the city’s filtration system was the plastic tampon applicators that some people flushed. Just in case anyone was wondering.
Also wipes. Even the “flushable” ones aren’t.
You are full of shit.
And it’s very slightly radioactive too!
On the plus side, we’ve got a FKer who can help you with your Superfund application
There is flushable kitty litter, and there is toilet paper. Then there’s fifty feet of crap. And then there’s Englishmajor’s yard.
I laughed out loud.
Mee too.
When you looked out the window and saw it, did you choose “aaahhhhh…. shit.” or “holy shit!”?
I couldn’t see it from any window, it’s around the back of the house where I rarely have occasion to venture…but once I determined what it was, I probably said both.
Ow:
https://twitter.com/#!/joestiglich/status/174306152425865217
Bummer. Mrs. McCarthy is going to be sad to miss her pal Mrs. Sizemore.
Dammit.
That is pretty much what I expected when they said there was an audible pop.
Probably the only pop we’ll hear all season.
But Suzuki’s using a heavier bat!!!!!
I don’t understand. Is that like using a number 3 pencil on a test that says to use a number 2?
popups are a kind of pop…
So is the pop of the glove when the defense finds it.
Since this is the season where we apparently indulge every whim that comes to mind, I would not be opposed to bringing back Miggy to backup Donaldson.
I’m on board with that. AT the very least it’ll prevent englishmajor from letting the bleacher drummers steal Tejada’s beat for Cespedes.
Cespedes would be happy too.
Miggy always was a fan favorite.
Sink or swim time for DFA!
I am happy about this.
Even if Sizemore never makes it back, I’ll always remember him for that bases-clearing double at Comiskey that made Vince’s voice crack.
the worst part for me is that the front office will now “do” something about it
Exactly.
ouch
Guh. Odds on Billy trading for Conor Jackson?
No. No no no. NO NO NO NO NO.
I am sad for him, that just sucks. :(
So wait, are we really giving the job to Donaldson? That doesn’t exactly sound wise to me. Hell, I’d prefer Cardenas, but I’m guessing that’s not an option anymore.
I’m worried that Beane is going to make some sort of panic move and trade for a crappy 3b.
How do Stephen Parker and Wes Timmons strike you?
….fuck. Is that seriously all we’ve got?
Rosales, Sogard
Donaldson it is!
No cookies for you!
Seriously, though, we have 47 outfielders, but not a single worthwhile third baseman other than Donaldson?
Also, Sizemore was pretty well likely to suck even if healthy, wasn’t he?
He was pretty good last year. I mean, sure, anyone can suck in any given year, but I wouldn’t call it probable for Sizemore.
this
and Rosales
Why would we need to develop third basemen? We had that perennial All-Star who held down the position for 162 games a year for most of the last decade.
I laughed.
Hee.
And the A’s could have had him back, but the Yankees beat them to him.
Oh god, I want my Chavvy back.
(chiliiiiii’s)
Really, though, why should we care?
Care that Donaldson will be at 3B? Or care that Sizemore popped his ACL?
The former. Serious bummer for SS, but, c’mon, this team ain’t goin’ nowhere, even if Beane trades Peacock, Cole, Milone, and Norris for Zimmerman.
That’s true, but I still want this team to be watchable. And I have a bad feeling that Donaldson is just gonna be a waste of time, with nothing to show for it.
And if so, the A’s will play Timmons or sign some mediocre player or – maybe – get lucky on somebody overlooked by another organization.
I don’t mean to be so indifferent. I strongly prefer a watchable team too. But if there’s any year where season-ending injuries don’t really matter, it’s this one. The only thing that would upset me is Beane trading someone useful to fill the void.
The two things I find intolerably unwatchable are (1) pitchers who can’t throw strikes and (2) bad infield defense. I want somebody who can field and I’ll just put up with the .600 OPS. In other words the 2012 version of Jack Hannahan.
(3) bad pitcher defense on bunts & DP coverage
I want someone who is great at SOMETHING
Whether it’s oversliding second base, defense, throwing, whatever. Obviously I’d rather it was wOBA-ing, but I’m willing to be realistic.,
Wes Timmons, HBP king of AAA.
We are not going to agree on this are we?
Heh. I think not.
Donaldson exemplifies the type of player that you should be playing if youre rebuilding. Probably will suck. Might not though.
That’s where I am at. The team is going to be bad. I’m very sorry for Sizemore, because this really sucks for him. But he wasn’t the difference between a contending team and an also-ran. It just reinforces the fact that the A’s have failed to develop or acquire a third baseman for what seems like forever. What the hell? Why not let Donaldson have a shot? He’s a more interesting option than Timmons. And anything is better than a stupid trade, unless the A’s can clear away one of the mediocre outfielders.
I don’t know. I would guess Timmons is less likely to be awful, and neither one of them has any real chance of being good. But, yeah, it highlights just how weak we are at infield in general.
I really don’t think people would have liked what they’d have seen out of Cardenas at 3B. That’s not to say anything about Donaldson there, of course.
I hope he gets a lot of playing time in Chicago… gets some cheap dingers, and hopefully a fielding percentage over .900
*ahem*
DARIC BARTON, THIRD BASE.
Thanks, and go As.
Who’s on first?
one of the other 18 1b/dh guys?
Thanks, and go As.
There’s always this.
https://twitter.com/#!/Baseclogger/status/174311033358397441
Thanks, and go As.
I… kind of want to see him try that.
go for it!
I wonder if whoever had the VIVA TEJADA banner still has it…of course, it might have been more than 3 x 6.
Well, Tejada is out then.
Well that’s one of the crazier things I’ve seen during a NASCAR race.
Someone turned right?
Yes, and directly into the track-cleaner truck during a caution flag. Those things have helicopter engines mounted on the back and are loaded with jet fuel. Huge explosion.
Jesus. Is everyone OK?
Fortunately yes. It could easily have gone otherwise. The question now is whether the track is damaged enough to prevent completion of the race.
Well I’ll be damned. Both funny and true.
My name is Juan Pablo Montoya, you cleaned my father, prepare to die.
Those trucks must have one helluva firewall behind the cab.
It was kind of awesome.
someone cared about it?
Nate Silver’s model has Michigan as a dead heat heading into tomorrow’s vote. Exciting!
With Romney’s early voting lead, Santorum is going to have to win big with Primary Day voters.
It’s kind of a no-lose situation for Santorum, though. Either he loses by a small margin, setting himself up for a good Super Tuesday, or he beats Romney in Michigan, setting up a Republican freakout.
ok, goal of the week time.
this?
or this?
better version.
Cheeky bastard.
Not you. Him.
Messi. That is perfection.
it’s a complicated decision, right? his shot is perfect. i don’t know how to weigh the luck in cristiano’s (though it went exactly to the bottom corner) vs. the, um, gamesmaship? in messi’s (perfect placement too, but he kicked with the wall unprepared).
riquelme‘s, also yesterday, was a lot like messi’s, just less angle and more people between him and the goal.
It is tough. The wall wasn’t set for Messi’s strike, but I don’t think it mattered. That was like the platonic ideal of a free kick.
But after watching the replay of Ronaldo’s more, I don’t think you can call it luck. He clearly knew what he was doing, and it got through all of those defenders because they were surprised he even tried it. I’m voting against him, though, because of his annoying celebration and those horrible red kits.
yeah, i try not to watch ronaldo celebrate his goals.
That one was way less difficult.
Saw this while driving around Yolo/Sutter county and posted it to reddit:
Anywhere near Rice Ave in West Sacramento? I know some guys up there who might own such a thing.
I don’t think it was them. It was at place that was either a farm or an ag equipment company.
Made the front page. Nice!
Messi. FK Ronaldo
Thanks, and go As.
Messi. One, it was awesome; two, it was against Atletico y su peña que son unos fachas de mierda
really? they are? i feel so left out way over here, no perspective on who’s the fachero or not. i just kinda like them because of falcao and simeone.
oh, also, was watching the sky network broadcast, and one of the commentators said something like, games like these are great because you see countrymen match up against each other, such as alexis who’s from chile… and falcao. (gah!)
LOL
Yes they are, if they could sign one player from present or past, I bet they would sign caudillo
sorry. is that someone’s nickname? or do you mean like the literal meaning?
Francisco Franco. Not to be confused with Frank Francisco. Or, mostly not…
OH! the main caudillo. in argentina you always talk about someone a caudillo on the field, like when they call mascherano el jefecito, that i thought you were talking about an actual player.
which now makes me realize you said facha meaning fascist. and we say facha meaning face or façade, like you pretend you’re something you’re not. si hacés facha, you’re being a fake. ay dios, ¡que difÃcil es hablar el español!
That was amazing – and I didn’t know all South-American variations. After “English as she is spoke” (it was delivered yesterday), you provide me with second great source entertainment in less than a week. Alvaro for president!
i’d settle for generalisimo…
yeah, that song is great. my little cousin just showed it to me the other day.
Still dead.
asvd
heh
I thought he was referring to Boras’s first client.
My neighbors’ garage band has evolved over the years, but several iterations ago I believe they went by the name of “Fellating Donnie Baseball” (plaschke warning)
Apparently the Dodger trainer gives happy endings too.
The apparent success of the Kings’ fans and Kevin Johnson in holding on to their team makes me wonder what former baseball (or football) player would be a good mayor for Oakland. I’d certainly vote for Mark Ellis.
Hmm…
I will begrudgingly grumble that the city is not getting raped in this deal nearly as badly as other muncipalities have with their stadium financing. We’re basically selling X amount of future parking revenue for up front cash to finance the city’s share of the deal.
As for Oakland, the obvious answer would be Dave Stewart or Rickey Henderson.
I was thinking about Rickey, or Reggie myself. Unfortunately, I fear their egos would take front stage. Dave and Mark are really good choices. IMHO.
I’d like to see Dave Stewart giving That Look to Selig across the bargaining table, for sure.
Also:
Love this.
You have to mentally add a big explosion sound effect between panels 1 and 3.
I did.
I think it works better without it. I do hear the Mount Davis whimpering though.
Brilliant.
I’d like to see Dave Stewart giving That Look to Gov Moonbeam across the bargaining table
If we can expand the pool to people once associated with sports, I’d gladly vote for Hammer.
I’d like to cast a vote for someone who DIDN’T go bankrupt after having bazillions of dollars.
Thanks, and go As.
See, I take that as a plus…burned hand teaches best and all that.
Perhaps if he had lost it all and built himself back up into being a bazillionaire again, sure.
Thanks, and go As.
Also, someone with the good judgment not to make the “Pumps and a Bump” video.
Hatteberg
This.
Dear Win7 UAC:
FK You.
Thanks, and go As.
3. Gawker has a new post up about the (hilariously sub-literate) emails they’ve received threatening legal action about Hamilton Nolan’s gift suite article.
The first set of emails were hilarious. The second set just seemed like a prank — nobody really writes like that, do they?
Have you ever read comments on youtube?
gp
the email was misguided but totally deserved. anyone who can’t tell the diff between a fedora and a porkpie is “definately” a moran beyond proportions.
Lady Gaga reviews Moneyball.
I don’t think that’s what a Bronx cheer is, but whatev.
That’s what I thought. Isn’t that when you make sort of a fart noise with your mouth?
Exactly. AKA a raspberry.