The Scientific Importance of Free Speech

http://quillette.com/2018/04/13/scientific-importance-free-speech/

"Editor’s note: this is a shortened version of a speech that the author was due to give last month at King’s College London which was canceled because the university deemed the event to be too ‘high risk’."

A take on Starbuck's recent incident.

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/374847.php

Isn't that called "paying your fair share"?

Trump's tax cut not for everyone: 1 million Californians will owe $12 billion more next year

http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article209015539.html

Oh, this sound like a good idea.

If the executive agencies have their way, the NSA will have a record of every lock combination in use by every company—a skeleton key, if you will, to gain access to your digital home, papers, effects, and aspects of your person without warrant or probable cause—effectively mandating that companies hand over skeleton keys to the locks that they provide to their users, at any time: what they call “exceptional access.”

https://fee.org/articles/the-nsa-wants-a-skeleton-key-to-everyones-encrypted-data/

Paul Ryan departs Washington and leaves a big hole.

Henry Olsen in City Journal:

"Ryan’s plan was always fiscal, not programmatic. It looked at federal programs primarily through the prism of expenditure, rather than accomplishment. It also saw freedom as a primary political goal, implicitly arguing that Americans should accept greater risk in their lives—and fewer public services, if necessary—in pursuit of that goal. Thus, Ryan’s plans invariably included detailed analyses of budgetary impacts but largely ignored what would happen to health-insurance coverage or retiree income, among other real-life consequences. Ryan’s plans explained the price of everything but the value of nothing."

"Changing that perception would have required entering into a dialogue with Americans that accepted their concerns about the disruption that such reforms would cause. It would have required making peace with the goals, at least, of the welfare state, and positioning reform as a way to protect those goals, rather than as a way to transcend them. In short, it required a completely different approach than the one Ryan and the small-government Republicans employed."

AND

"I hope that we have not seen the last of Ryan. He should use this time out of leadership to reflect on his career, as Churchill and Lincoln did. I hope that he will return with a deeper understanding of the America he so clearly loves, and of the human desire for security and dignity, which Ryan sometimes lost sight of in his enthusiasm for abstract principles of freedom. A personally incorruptible man with such a balanced philosophy would be exactly what America yearns for."

While mostly agreeing with the author, I think Olsen forgets that Ryan was one of the few politicians in Congress willing to compromise with the opposition; in his case, with the goals of the welfare state. That willingness to compromise is what got him into trouble with many of the hardline ideologues in Congress. The Murray-Ryan budget deal rankled feathers on both sides of the aisle.

Congress will be diminished with the loss of people like Ryan and the ascendancy of the hardliners, on both sides of the aisle - politicians who would rather trash the country to win the argument than compromise and govern.

A take on Starbuck's recent incident. ~ I R A Darth Aggie at April 18, 2018 6:15 AM

They apparently believed they had/have the right to sit in someone else's private property uninvited and unwanted until they feel like leaving. ~ from the link by I R A Darth Aggie at April 18, 2018 6:15 AM

Too many people are advocating treating businesses like public conveyances with mandatory wage and hiring policies, mandatory service requirements, "somebody owes me a job" attitudes, etc.

Socialism dictates that the resources of a society - physical, natural, economic, intellectual, and even human - are for the benefit of all and that private property is theft.

Here's a similar take speculating whether the Starbucks incident was a set-up from the beginning.

"At the halfway mark in the video, a 30-something white man appears, asking the police what is going on. Turns out he is the person the pair was set to meet at Starbucks. The man, Andrew Yaffe, a local real estate developer, can be heard defending the pair, saying, 'This is absolute discrimination.'"

"Yaffe's timing was picture-perfect. He didn't show up until after the police arrived and after DePino had begun filming her video."

AND

"Melissa DePino filmed the arrest in an eight-minute video, and before long, BLM activists were blocking the entrance to the establishment. ... Funny that DePino's name has been published in every article about the incident but not the names of the two men arrested."

I'm still not sold on the hyperloop, but this stood out to me.

Even when California completes its high-speed rail — if it ever does — it's hard to imagine why anyone would use it, even with heavy government subsidies. In other words, it's a project only government would see fit to pursue.

In contrast, private investors risking their own money aren't going to build hyperloop systems that are endlessly over budget and that won't attract significant ridership. And when they do see an opportunity, they won't take two decades to build it.

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/hyperloop-development-california-high-speed-rail-delays/

I think Olsen forgets that Ryan was one of the few politicians in Congress willing to compromise with the opposition; in his case, with the goals of the welfare state. That willingness to compromise is what got him into trouble with many of the hardline ideologues in Congress.

I'm baffled: how does one successfully compromise with someone who is unwilling to make concessions? that's one thing the Democrats have going for them: they're willing to accept incremental advancement of their goals, but they never give any of that back.

If Ryan was as focused on the budget issues as claimed, he could have attacked the one thing that locks us into an ever increasing amount of money needed: eliminate base-line budgeting.

Is fisking articles in The New Yorker like dropping dynamite into barrels of fish?

Its stores close on Sundays.

This complaint always makes me laugh. I constantly see snooty progs toss that out there, like being closed on Sunday is soooooooo silly. How quaint. How prosaic. You know what else shuts down on Sunday? London and Paris. Seriously, they turn into ghost towns and most of the shops and restaurants are closed. Damn those ultra-Christian redneck Europeans!

http://monsterhunternation.com/2018/04/16/fisking-the-new-yorker-in-defense-of-delicious-chicken/

If Ryan was as focused on the budget issues as claimed, he could have attacked the one thing that locks us into an ever increasing amount of money needed: eliminate base-line budgeting. ~ I R A Darth Aggie at April 18, 2018 8:45 AM

Several times that has been tried without success. "Speaking specifically about this bill, Ryan said that 'families don't get automatic raises every year. Neither should Washington.'" The bill in question was passed by the House but never voted on by the Senate.

It's up to us, the voters, to decide we want - nay, we demand - fiscal prudence and responsibility and then elect people who will pass the needed reforms. A lone voice crying in the wilderness (Vox clamantis in deserto) cannot do it alone.

Get ready for a lot of violence -

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/world/too-many-men/

Individual activity and achievement are racist -

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/04/18/lawsuit-google-instructed-managers-that-individual-achievement-and-objectivity-were-examples-of-white-dominant-culture/

Those violent "Swedes" -

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/04/18/shootings-sweden-so-common-dont-make-headlines/

Supported by beagles of every political stripe -

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-18/ban-on-killing-dogs-and-cats-for-meals-considered-by-house-panel

Still no "logical conclusion": Cowardly.

Something something Intrasexual competition something something

http://archive.is/8HCqa

Posting the archived link in case the twit deletes her tweet.

Why are dictatorships so anal about record keeping?

Still no coherent argument, just ad hominem attacks: the illusion of knowledge.

Little One, you're furtively guttural, not briskly concise: You're a tepid child with a shameful secret... You're terrified, as you well ought to be.

Quite specifically, you're neither well-read nor old enough to feign Latin.

Can You Outrun a Bad Diet? Experts Share Their Nutrition Advice for Runners

https://www.runnersworld.com/nutrition-weight-loss/a19726348/outrunning-a-bad-diet/

Can You Outrun a Bad Diet? Experts Share Their Nutrition Advice for Runners

https://www.runnersworld.com/nutrition-weight-loss/a19726348/outrunning-a-bad-diet/

Eeeeevil Trump.

https://twitter.com/maiasz/status/986584565190979589

Re Snoopys WP post, given every war is birthed in population pressures hopefully given their proximity India and China will spend their extra men on each other - its gonna suck for IndoChina, but well make a lot of money selling them ammo

Regarding the eating of cats and dogs, I fail to see the issue so long as A) they arent tortured, and B) they arent someones stolen pets

John McAfee, yikes

https://twitter.com/officialmcafee/status/986733546671878144

"Why are dictatorships so anal about record keeping?"

Not all of them are Conan. But if you want to be successful then you need to be organized. Record keeping and bureaucratization is a key part of reducing overhead and improving efficiency. So any large organization is anal about records, dictatorship or not.