data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f4301/f4301a442cd14db904e50a69e77475f9e0a28f92" alt=""
The last square reminds me of the very funny (though unintended to be) 1984 film Red Dawn where the Soviets invade Colorado.
"But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime."
Frederic Bastiat
Many students come to college with preconceived notions of what college is like--some are accurate, some are not. Though common on many campuses, alcohol abuse is not a significant part of campus life at George Mason University. One of the most important decisions you can make is to join the vast majority of people who do not abuse alcohol or drugs. For the minority of students who abuse alcohol (including underage drinking) and illicit drugs, the official university policy will be vigorously enforced, along with state alcohol and drug laws. The on-campus use of illicit drugs or the abuse of alcohol will not be condoned merely as a “college rite of passage.” Noise, vandalism, property damage and assault resulting from alcohol or drug abuse will not be tolerated on Mason's campuses.I couldn't help but wonder how the line between use and abuse of alcohol was drawn (and by whom). Shoot, I wondered what the line was! So I looked it up. Aside from underage drinking and vandalism, the closest thing I found to defining the level of alcohol consumption (abuse) that warrants punishment is this:
All cases involving severely intoxicated students and/or police or emergency medical responses will be referred to the University Judicial Administrator for disciplinary action. The University Judicial Administrator may mandate an evaluation by the Office of Alcohol, Drug, and Health Education, or an outside agency.Severely intoxicated. That is the rule. Crystal clear. Thanks.
The fact that there is never a taxi when you need one in the rain, or that you can fly 3,000 miles more comfortably than you can fly 300 and flights are occasionally overbooked, reminds us how spoiled we are. We expect this fantastically complex system to be even better coordinated than it sometimes is. Tens of millions of people making billions of decisions every week about what to buy and what to sell and where to work and how much to save and how much to borrow and what orders to fill and what stocks to accumulate and where to move and what schools to go to and what jobs to take and where to build the supermarkets and movie theatres and electric power stations, when to invest in buildings above ground and mine shafts underground and fleets of trucks and ships and aircraft--if you are in a mood to be amazed, it can amaze you that the system works at all.You should pick this one up if you haven't already.
A flock of birds sweeps across the sky. Like a well-choreographed dance troupe, the birds veer to the left in unison. Then, suddenly, they all dart to the right and swoop down toward the ground. Each movement seems perfectly coordinated. The flock as a whole is as graceful--maybe more graceful--than any of the birds within it.Follow the link to read more.
How do birds keep their movements so orderly, so synchronized? Most people assume birds play a game of follow-the-leader: the bird at the font of the flock leads, and the others follow. But that's not so. In fact, most bird flocks don't have leaders at all. There is no special "leader bird." Rather, the flock is an example of what some people call "self-organization."
To be a complete economist, a man need only be a mathematician, a philosopher, a psychologist, an anthropologist, a historian, a geographer, and a student of politics; a master of prose exposition; and a man of the world with experience of practical business and finance, an understanding of the problems of administration, and a good knowledge of four or five languages. All this is, of course, in addition to familiarity with the economic literature itself.Expect to see many more posts from my classes/readings over the course of the next few months.
It's straight out of Psychology 101: "The Bystander Effect," a phenomenon illustrated by the infamous 1964 murder of Kitty Genovese as 38 callous neighbors ignored her screams for help.
Except that while details of the case were exposed as dubious over the years, psychology instructors and students still operate off the original parable of bad Samaritans united by indifference to a gruesome attack, according to an article by three British university professors.
[...]
As the three professors prepared the article, Manning said, they were struck by the Genovese case as a contemporary parable — the antithesis of the Biblical tale of the Good Samaritan, who stopped to assist a traveler assaulted by thieves on the road from Jerusalem to Jericho.
But she acknowledged the article might make little difference in future retellings of the case. "Once such 'facts' become generally accepted," Manning said, "they are often difficult to correct."
Last Friday's editorial announced the Ohio Department of Agriculture's plan to "make tainted food known to the public" (Food warnings, July 25). The article notes that grocers are "under no obligation" to tell consumers they have contaminated beef. But this is simply untrue.
While there are no laws forcing grocers to inform the public, they face pressure from a very important court: the court of public opinion. The reputation effect, as economists note, compels businesses to act in the interest of their clients. Not wanting to lose future customers, Kroger was driven to "pull tainted meat off its shelves" despite the costs incurred.
Admittedly, market forces do not work perfectly. But neither do government bureaucracies. If Ohioans corrected their romantic view of government they would likely see the superiority of market solutions.
German packaging: "Quadratisch. Praktisch. Gut." ("Square. Practical. Good.")Special thanks to Marion and Julia for introducing me to this wonderful bar of chocolate.
French packaging: "Carré. Pratique. Gourmand."
English packaging: "The handy chocolate square"
English packaging (UK): "Quality in a Square."
Italian packaging: "Quadrato. Pratico. Buono."
Danish Packaging: "Kvadratisk. Praktisk. God."
Russian packaging: "Квадратный. Практичный. Хороший."
Like McCain’s own ad, an announcer narrates the beginning of the clip. While McCain’s clip called Obama “the biggest celebrity in the world,” Paris’ version refers to McCain as “the oldest celebrity in the world, like super-old, old enough to remember when dancing was a sin and beer was served in a bucket.”
Rickrolling is an Internet meme involving the music video for the 1987 Rick Astley song "Never Gonna Give You Up". The meme is a bait and switch: a person provides a Web link they claim is relevant to the topic at hand, but the link actually takes the user to the Astley video. The URL can be masked or obfuscated in some manner so that the user cannot determine the true source of the link without clicking (and thus satisfying their curiosity). When a person clicks on the link given and is led to the web page he/she is said to have been "Rickrolled". By extension, it can also mean playing the song loudly in public in order to be disruptive.Today's New York Times had a decent article on Rick Rolling and firm productivity.
[...]
An April 2008 poll by SurveyUSA estimated that at least 18 million American adults have been rickrolled.
You not only supported the latest federal farm bill, you commended it, stating that it "will provide America's hard-working farmers and ranchers with more support and more predictability." Critics have called that $307 billion monstrosity an orgy of earmarks, corporate welfare, and protectionism. It actually increases subsidies to huge agribusinesses in an era of record grain prices — subsidies that are already crushing farmers in the developing world. The New York Times called it "disgraceful." The Wall Street Journal called it a "scam." How does the "change" candidate justify supporting a bill larded with sweetheart deals for big agribusiness when just about everyone not getting a check from the bill opposed it?Wow. I love this guy's questions. Any word on who will be taking Tim Russert's place at the table?
[...]
In your autobiography, you admit to using marijuana and cocaine in high school and college. Yet you largely support the federal drug war — a change from several years ago when you said you'd be open to decriminalizing marijuana. Would Barack Obama be where he is today if he had been arrested in college for using drugs? Doesn't the fact that you and our current president (who has all but admitted to prior drug use) have risen to such high stature suggest that the worst thing about illicit drugs is not the drugs themselves, but what the government will do to you if you're caught?
[...]
In a speech to Cuban-Americans in Miami, you called the Cuban trade embargo "an important inducement for change," a 180-degree shift from your prior position. The trade embargo has been in place for 46 years. Did denying an entire generation of Cubans access to American goods, culture, and ideas induce any actual change? Wasn't the real effect just to keep Cubans poor and isolated? In communist countries like Vietnam and China, trade with the U.S. has ushered in economic reform, and vastly improved the standard of living. Why wouldn't it be the same if we were to start trading with Cuba?
[...]
Your wife said that as president, "Barack Obama will . . . demand that you shed your cynicism . . . That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual . . ." How is any of this remotely the responsibility of the president? Where in the Constitution does it say that the president should be our personal motivator and spiritual leader? Will you help us lose weight and eat our vegetables, too?
In your January primary debate, you referred to "greedy" Wall Street stockbrokers, and in contrasting your career to the business career of Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney, you said, "I led the largest squadron in the United States Navy. And I did it out of patriotism, not for profit." Do you think a career in public service is inherently more noble and virtuous than a career in the private sector? Are people who spend their lives on the taxpayer dole as politicians and government employees simply better people than those who create wealth and jobs through private enterprise?I cannot imagine these questions coming up in the debates. But they should.
[...]
After the Supreme Court's decision in the Heller gun rights case, you admirably commented, "This ruling does not mark the end of our struggle against those who seek to limit the rights of law-abiding citizens. We must always remain vigilant in defense of our freedoms." I couldn't agree more. But on the subject of campaign finance reform, you said in 2006 that, "I would rather have a clean government than one where, quote, First Amendment rights are being respected, that has become corrupt. If I had my choice, I'd rather have the clean government." How do you reconcile these two positions? Is a "clean" government (whatever that means) really more important than the rights and freedoms of its citizens?
[...]
In 1989, your wife Cindy became addicted to the prescription drugs Percocet and Vicodin. Eventually, she began stealing medication from the non-profit medical charity she ran to assist the victims of war and disaster areas. You and your wife were able to negotiate a settlement with the Justice Department that let her off with restitution and admission to a rehabilitation center, but no fines, jail time or even public disclosure. Certainly no one could fault you for trying to save your spouse from criminal sanction. But you're consistently one of the most strident drug warriors in Congress. You've voted to strengthen penalties against those who use and traffic in both illicit drugs and who divert prescription drugs. You've supported mandatory minimums and harsher penalties for first-time offenders. Why shouldn't average people without powerful connections who make the same mistakes your wife made be shown the same leniency and mercy the criminal justice system showed her?