"Scientists in Australia say they’ve developed an apple that can stay fresh at room temperature and, if refrigerated, can last for months. The apple for now is called RS103-130, but I think it’s safe to assume they’ll come up with a catchier name for it. The fruit’s developers (that sounds weird, doesn’t it?) say taste tests indicate that it is “the world’s best apple."

posted 2 weeks ago

1 note | Comments (View)


"[W]riting for a porno mag is an important American literary rite of passage, like getting into a feud with Norman Mailer."

posted 2 weeks ago

3 notes | Comments (View)


"Abstract: This Article explores what limits the Thirteenth Amendment’s prohibition on involuntary servitude places on the government’s use of informants in criminal investigations. Informants are a crucial part of all law enforcement efforts and a keystone in the investigation and prosecution of organized crime syndicates and “victimless” crimes, such as narcotics trafficking, prostitution, and gambling. While many informants merely provide previously-obtained information to the police, others take more active roles in assisting law enforcement, engaging in controlled drug buys, wearing wires, or infiltrating criminal organizations. This latter group of “active informants” is the most useful to law enforcement because they work under police direction to obtain hard evidence of criminal conduct. Though active informants cooperate for many reasons, most assist the police out of fear that if they refuse, they will be subject to criminal prosecution or more severe punishment. This Article argues that by compelling these “coerced informants” to work under such a threat, the government violates the Thirteenth Amendment’s prohibition on involuntary servitude… ."

SSRN-Coerced Informants and Thirteenth Amendment Limitations on the Police-Informant Relationship by Michael Rich

Mike Rich (a good friend) wrote this fantastic article about the problem of coerced informants.  It’s a growing problem—for example, there’s what happened to this poor woman who had unpaid parking tickets.  If you care about this issue, follow Mike’s informants twitter.

posted 2 weeks ago

3 notes | Comments (View)


"But Rand’s popularity almost crashed with the stock market. As the current economic catastrophe unfurled, former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan issued a mea culpa. The once-infallible Maestro — one of Rand’s most powerful disciples and once a member of her New York salons — admitted he had misplaced faith in the ability of markets to self-regulate."

Ayn Rand goes mainstream - Kendra Marr (h/t Squashed)

This represents a typical and profound misreading of Ayn Rand’s work.  Or rather, it’s the type of characterization applied to Rand by people who have never read her.  In her books, businessmen and people are often corrupt, irresponsible, and irrational.  Rand believed in capitalism because it was moral and just—not because it eradicated the flaws of men, and not because it provided any utilitarian maximization of wealth or happiness.  So when Greenspan admitted that he had overestimated the rationality of the market, he wasn’t rejecting anything Rand had espoused.  He was rejecting, perhaps, things that the Chicago school economists had espoused.  Non-libertarians tend to think this is the same—that Friedman and Rand were intellectual compatriots.  They weren’t.  Their libertarian beliefs rest upon vastly different values and assumptions.

posted 2 weeks ago

4 notes | Comments (View)


"So if I understand the Democrats’ logic correctly, health insurance companies are evil profit mongers who do everything they can to avoid paying for their customers’ needed procedures. Therefore, the government will now at the point of a gun force every American to give said health insurance companies a portion of their money, whether they want to or not."

posted 2 weeks ago

19 notes | Comments (View)


Auto-Tune Cute Kids and Kanye

(via schmoyoho)

posted 2 weeks ago

7 notes | Comments (View)


"My theory is that Hersh’s journalism is a little like a 12-gauge shotgun. He just lets it go, and something is bound to hit the target. But each year, it seems, another inch is shaved off the barrel, so the shot group gets wider and wider. Over time, fewer and fewer pellets actually hit the target, but such is his reputation that people only remember the articles of his that actually exposed something new and none of the articles that, in retrospect, turned out to be just crazy talk."

Andrew Exum, on Seymour Hersh (via Andrew Sullivan)

This seems right to me.  It also describes Robin Williams’ stand-up comedy, I think—a hundred rapid fire jokes discharged with the hope that you’ll just remember the one that was funny.

posted 2 weeks ago

3 notes | Comments (View)


(via ReasonTV)

posted 3 weeks ago

4 notes | Comments (View)


Silly Me

robot-heart-politics:

jeffmiller:

Why should I have to pay for contact lenses?  I didn’t choose to have bad eyesight.

You can always choose the less expensive option—glasses.

But you agree, at least, that I shouldn’t have to pay for the glasses.

Why should I have to pay for restaurant food?  I didn’t choose to be hungry.

You can always choose the less expensive option—eat at home.

But you must agree that I shouldn’t have to pay for the groceries.

Why should I have to pay my taxes?  I didn’t choose to be born in this country.

You can always choose to move to a place with a lower tax burden. Russia, Jamaica, Belarus, Gabon…

Since I didn’t choose to be born here, I assume I don’t have to pay for my transportation to Belarus, right?

Why should I have to buy health insurance under Obama’s plan?  I didn’t choose Obama to be President.

You do choose to continue living in a democracy. You can always choose to move somewhere else. Any dictatorship or monarchy of your choosing!

So, as you can see, you do have some choice in the matter over how much you spend to correct your eyesight, how much you spend on food, how much you pay on taxes…even what country you live in.

I, however, have absolutely zero control over what kind of genitalia I was born with or what plumbing came along with it, and as of yet, there’s no way to snap your fingers and magically change your biological sex from female to male…

Is your telling me that I can move to another country any different than me telling you to have a sex change operation?  I mean, they’re both pretty offensive, but hey, it’s still a choice.  And choice is what matters, right?

posted 3 weeks ago

53 notes | Comments (View)


Silly Me

mikehudack:

The reality is that there are cost differentials on a number of variables. It’s socially acceptable to pass some of those differentials on to consumers, but not others. You can’t charge someone more for health insurance because they’re a woman or because they’re gay. But you can charge smokers more.

Society has decided to make gay people and women protected classes. For all sorts of (mostly good) reasons. Society has decided to make the opposite decision about smokers for all sorts of (mostly good) reasons.

Deal with it.

Mike … if women are being charged more for health insurance premiums, it isn’t because they are women.  It’s because the fact of being a woman carries with it different health risks than the fact of being a man.  This isn’t sexism afoot … it’s a matter of statistics.

When I go to the barber, the sign on the way says that a man’s haircut is $17, while a woman’s is $25.  Again, this isn’t because the barbers hate women (indeed, many of them are women).  It’s because the average woman’s hairstyle requires more work than the average man’s.

When we talk about protected classes, we talk in terms of basic equality of treatment … like “equal pay for equal work.”  We don’t talk about equal pay for unequal work.  This is a huge point.  A barber can charge women more because it’s more costly to service a woman; similarly, an insurer can charge women more where it’s more costly to insure a woman.  Our commitment to equality does not require that we provide services to certain classes as some kind of loss leader.

posted 3 weeks ago

53 notes | Comments (View)


Silly Me

robot-heart-politics:

““Well, we’re all different. Why should a smoker pay more?””

Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX), when asked “Why should a woman pay more than a man [for health premiums]?” (via ohfortheloveofdog)

I guess I’ll have to remember the next time I’m born to select the y chromosome option. Silly me, making the choice to be a woman!

Why should I have to pay for contact lenses?  I didn’t choose to have bad eyesight.

Why should I have to pay for restaurant food?  I didn’t choose to be hungry.

Why should I have to pay my taxes?  I didn’t choose to be born in this country.

Why should I have to buy health insurance under Obama’s plan?  I didn’t choose Obama to be President.

Silly me.  I’ve been paying for services based upon things like their market value.[1]  This value is set by things like supply and demand.  And these things are driven by things like cost and utility.

From now on, I’m not going to pay for things that I didn’t choose.  (“Hey Mr. Umbrella man—hand one over.  I didn’t choose for it to rain!”)

1.  Or sometimes, because the government makes me buy it even if I don’t want it.

posted 3 weeks ago

53 notes | Comments (View)


The Mandate

mikehudack:

That’s astonishingly unfair. I’m not a fan of the mandate either (I’m not a fan of guaranteed issue, for that matter) but we need to acknowledge where this comes from. “The Democrats” (as if they’re a Borg Collective) generally supported an individual mandate as a compromise short of single payer. During the Presidential campaign Obama was the only one not to support a mandate. This is him compromising to match the will of the rest of his party, nothing else.

I’m not buying this.  When Obama campaigned against Clinton, the issue of the mandate was the single biggest policy difference between them.  He campaigned as if this difference mattered.  He campaigned as if this were an issue of principle.  For him to jettison this in his first year in office is atrocious.  This isn’t a compromise he needed to make with the rest of his party—it’s a compromise he chose to make with the insurance companies that donated lots of money to his party.

The debate over health care has been raging for decades.  This imposed mandate is something relatively new and absolutely awful.  It’s also, most likely, unconstitutional.  But we shouldn’t have to resort to the courts to protect our rights … we should be able to turn to our leaders.  Obama failed us in this regard.

posted 3 weeks ago

20 notes | Comments (View)


"Now, jail isn’t a certainty; depending on the infraction, fines are also an option. And, looked at another way, all this really means is that the government  continues to retain the authority to lock up those who don’t pay their taxes. But still, this is a stark reminder that when liberals talk about “health care as a right,” what they really mean is “health insurance as a requirement."

No Health Insurance? Go Directly to Jail. - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine

It’s the last sentence that is astonishingly right.  This debate began as a discussion of health care as a right.  But the legislation winding its way through the system isn’t about that—it’s about health care as a requirement. As a mandate.  As an obligation.  It’s not a right to health insurance; it’s the loss of the right not to buy insurance from insurance companies.

I hate the idea of government-provided health care, but in many ways that seems preferable to the product we’re getting.  Once again, the Democrats sold out their principles and managed to find something worse than what they originally promised.

posted 3 weeks ago

20 notes | Comments (View)


"I am not a great outdoorsman."

Congressman Barney Frank,  who was present while police busted his partner for growing pot.  The quote is his excuse as to why he was unaware that his partner was growing pot.  Yes, he expects us to believe that it takes a great outdoorsman to know what pot looks like.

I wish Frank had said: “It’s absurd that pot is illegal.  It’s just a plant, for crying out loud.”  But instead of saying something reasonable, he said something ridiculous.

It’s funny that Frank’s excuse is that he is not a great outdoorsman, while Sanford’s excuse was that he was a great outdoorsman.

posted 3 weeks ago

26 notes | Comments (View)


"Democrats counter that their agenda has kick-started a recovery on Wall Street, even if it hasn’t trickled down to the job market yet, and that Republicans are putting what they’ve begun at risk."


Worst. Talking Point. Ever. - Megan McArdle


Trickle down economics, Obama style

posted 3 weeks ago

6 notes | Comments (View)




eXTReMe Tracker