Danny Noonan: I planned to go to law school after I graduated, but it looks like my folks won't have enough money to put me through college. Judge Smails: Well, the world needs ditch diggers, too. Lacey Underall: [to Danny] Nice try.
The economic point here is that, when we let government sodomize markets, mis-allocation of resources occurs. Cranking out graduates with degrees in Recreational Whining is fine for grievance-group-based politics, but suck-tacular in general. See Instapundit
Semi-true. I submit that there are a few academics, e.g. Thomas Sowell, Glenn Reynolds, Victor Davis Hanson, and anyone at Volokh.com, that are not complete wastes of carbohydrates.
The point of doing social science research? Yes. Anybody can "argue that players' actions become less rational and that it is hard to find optimal strategies."
It takes an academic to lay the argument out in a paper so Byzantine that it's hard to find optimal reading strategies.
This triggers the writing of more papers, until an entire academic research field springs from a single seed of "Duh".
The US Justice System is there to enforce the law.
Except when 'prosecutorial discretion' is employed in cases, e.g. that of David Gregory.
As you browse Overcriminalized, you may get the impression that the second best way to destroy a country, after debt, is regulation.
The 1972 operation at Allianz Worldwide Care marked the first gender re-assignment surgery ever performed to take a dog from hound to bitch.
Asked exactly why an otherwise astute investor would spend such a pretty penny (the fee was rumored to be £50,000) on a completely useless veterinary act, George Soros presaged a later villain: "He has failed me for the last time."
Your suggestions, unlike mine, do roughly jack for tackling concentration of power, which leads to trying to solve personal problems at a federal level.
Gerrymandered districts are a minor issue in the formation of our new aristocracy http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2009/08/one-chart-to-rule-them-all.html
In my perfect world, there would be a contest for a public graph algorithm that would calculate districts for minimal surface area.
The political knife fight would move initially to algorithm parameters, but then settle on making sure data inputs were not too thrashed. Such an algorithm would have a LOT of parameters, e.g. population, income &c. But it would happen in public.
If you'd followed my Barnett link, term limits are Article 7
No person who has served as a Senator for more than nine years, or as a Representative for more than eleven years, shall be eligible for election or appointment to the Senate or the House of Representatives respectively, excluding any time served prior to the enactment of this Article.
My own creative input would be a "Kill Switch Amendment", whereby, at 18 months, 2/3 of State legislatures have to certify a Congress "Doth Suck Not". Failure to pass muster means that no sitting Congresscritter can run for that seat again next time they stand for election. Like chemotherapy, a few good cells may be lost. I'm confident we've the population to compensate. The nice feature is that you could safely toss all 535 pieces of work in a shot, blowing away the seniority incentives that ensure an abject piece of work like, say, Jim Moran, has SCOTUS-like tenure.
Among the overarching ironies of all this is that the people whinging on about "corporate welfare" fail to support any of the Tea Party effort to restore anything akin to representative democracy in the U.S.
Where is the "72 hour" rule in any of this? We've had two months of Fiscal Cliff drumbeat, and it comes down to a Yet Another Congressional Drive-by.
-Push all Entitlements back to the states.
-Rescind the 16th&17th Amendments.
-Remove Bernanke's anti-Constitutional power to inflate the currency.
-Move the House closer to its original apportionment per the 1787 Constitution.
-Adopt something like Randy Barnette's Bill of Federalism.
In summary, confining our Federal Government to federal tasks will see us relatively less fed up.
"Dinner for One" is THE German New Year's tradition: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1v4BYV-YvA
I'll watch that again with the wife. Somehow it improves with repetition.
You say 'badly flawed', I say my government can't even pass a budget. I notice that Your Anonymity shot the messenger, without addressing the empirical reality of the grocery checkout. Funny how often THAT pattern repeats itself in dialogue with 'experts'.
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't it always midnight somewhere?
Maybe he can finally get that hoopty fixed.
The economic point here is that, when we let government sodomize markets, mis-allocation of resources occurs.
Cranking out graduates with degrees in Recreational Whining is fine for grievance-group-based politics, but suck-tacular in general. See Instapundit
I didn't say it was bad, just that it ended my interest in the genre more or less completely.
After http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Folded_Himself I have been unable to take any time travel stories.
OK, I love Gene Wolf enough that I forgave him http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_book_of_the_new_sun
Dangerous gear
Need not cause one fear
First make the grade
On straight razor blade
Burma Shave
. . .is somehow a bad thing?
Are you saying that treating law as a business model.
Think of it as http://bandcamp.com/, hold the band.
I was expecting some Kafka-esque island for lawyers, academics, and politicians.
. . .the outsourcer claimed the scheme was merely an oblique reference to the U.S. government.
Semi-true. I submit that there are a few academics, e.g. Thomas Sowell, Glenn Reynolds, Victor Davis Hanson, and anyone at Volokh.com, that are not complete wastes of carbohydrates.
The point of doing social science research? Yes. Anybody can "argue that players' actions become less rational and that it is hard to find optimal strategies."
It takes an academic to lay the argument out in a paper so Byzantine that it's hard to find optimal reading strategies.
This triggers the writing of more papers, until an entire academic research field springs from a single seed of "Duh".
Except when 'prosecutorial discretion' is employed in cases, e.g. that of David Gregory.
As you browse Overcriminalized, you may get the impression that the second best way to destroy a country, after debt, is regulation.
Falling for, falling in. . .
That's what's going on now, albeit slowly, under the rubric "Progress".
I was stationed out of Yokosuka for a year, where I heard the aphorism.
Truly a different mindset.
. . .is a Western disease.
The 1972 operation at Allianz Worldwide Care marked the first gender re-assignment surgery ever performed to take a dog from hound to bitch.
Asked exactly why an otherwise astute investor would spend such a pretty penny (the fee was rumored to be £50,000) on a completely useless veterinary act, George Soros presaged a later villain: "He has failed me for the last time."
Send the John Boehner to the ex-husband. No good can come of the encounter.
I think the current seniority system is orders of magnitude worse than reasonable term limits.
Gerrymandered districts are a minor issue in the formation of our new aristocracy http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2009/08/one-chart-to-rule-them-all.html
In my perfect world, there would be a contest for a public graph algorithm that would calculate districts for minimal surface area.
The political knife fight would move initially to algorithm parameters, but then settle on making sure data inputs were not too thrashed. Such an algorithm would have a LOT of parameters, e.g. population, income &c. But it would happen in public.
If you'd followed my Barnett link, term limits are Article 7
My own creative input would be a "Kill Switch Amendment", whereby, at 18 months, 2/3 of State legislatures have to certify a Congress "Doth Suck Not". Failure to pass muster means that no sitting Congresscritter can run for that seat again next time they stand for election. Like chemotherapy, a few good cells may be lost. I'm confident we've the population to compensate. The nice feature is that you could safely toss all 535 pieces of work in a shot, blowing away the seniority incentives that ensure an abject piece of work like, say, Jim Moran, has SCOTUS-like tenure.
Where is the "72 hour" rule in any of this? We've had two months of Fiscal Cliff drumbeat, and it comes down to a Yet Another Congressional Drive-by.
In summary, confining our Federal Government to federal tasks will see us relatively less fed up.
"Dinner for One" is THE German New Year's tradition:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1v4BYV-YvA
I'll watch that again with the wife. Somehow it improves with repetition.
You say 'badly flawed', I say my government can't even pass a budget. I notice that Your Anonymity shot the messenger, without addressing the empirical reality of the grocery checkout. Funny how often THAT pattern repeats itself in dialogue with 'experts'.