JayB

Reposted from an earlier thread: "As the [classical] liberal sees it, the task of the state consists solely and exclusively in guaranteeing the protection of life, health, liberty, and private property against violent attacks. Everything that goes beyond this is an evil. A government that, instead of fulfilling its task, sought to go so far as actually to infringe on personal security of life and health, freedom, and property would, of course, be altogether bad. Still, as Jacob Burckhardt says, power is evil in itself, no matter who exercises it. It tends to corrupt those who wield it and leads to abuse. Not only absolute sovereigns and aristocrats, but the masses also, in whose hands democracy entrusts the supreme power of government, are only too easily inclined to excesses. In the United States, the manufacture and sale of alcoholic beverages are prohibited. Other countries do not go so far, but nearly everywhere some restrictions are imposed on the sale of opium, cocaine, and similar narcotics. It is universally deemed one of the tasks of legislation and government to protect the individual from himself. Even those who otherwise generally have misgivings about extending the area of governmental activity consider it quite proper that the freedom of the individual should be curtailed in this respect, and they think that only a benighted doctrinairism could oppose such prohibitions. Indeed, so general is the acceptance of this kind of interference by the authorities in the life of the individual that those who, are opposed to liberalism on principle are prone to base their argument on the ostensibly undisputed acknowledgment of the necessity of such prohibitions and to draw from it the conclusion that complete freedom is an evil and that some measure of restriction must be imposed upon the freedom of the individual by the governmental authorities in their capacity as guardians of his welfare. The question cannot be whether the authorities ought to impose restrictions upon the freedom of the individual, but only how far they ought to go in this respect. No words need be wasted over the fact that all these narcotics are harmful. The question whether even a small quantity of alcohol is harmful or whether the harm results only from the abuse of alcoholic beverages is not at issue here. It is an established fact that alcoholism, cocainism, and morphinism are deadly enemies of life, of health, and of the capacity for work and enjoyment; and a utilitarian must therefore consider them as vices. But this is far from demonstrating that the authorities must interpose to suppress these vices by commercial prohibitions, nor is it by any means evident that such intervention on the part of the government is really capable of suppressing them or that, even if this end could be attained, it might not therewith open up a Pandora's box of other dangers, no less mischievous than alcoholism and morphinism. Whoever is convinced that indulgence or excessive indulgence in these poisons is pernicious is not hindered from living abstemiously or temperately. This question cannot be treated exclusively in reference to alcoholism, morphinism, cocainism, etc., which all reasonable men acknowledge to be evils. For if the majority of citizens is, in principle, conceded the right to impose its way of life upon a minority, it is impossible to stop at prohibitions against indulgence in alcohol, morphine, cocaine, and similar poisons. Why should not what is valid for these poisons be valid also for nicotine, caffeine, and the like? Why should not the state generally prescribe which foods may be indulged in and which must be avoided because they are injurious? In sports too, many people are prone to carry their indulgence further than their strength will allow. Why should not the state interfere here as well? Few men know how to be temperate in their sexual life, and it seems especially difficult for aging persons to understand that they should cease entirely to indulge in such pleasures or, at least, do so in moderation. Should not the state intervene here too? More harmful still than all these pleasures, many will say, is the reading of evil literature. Should a press pandering to the lowest instincts of man be allowed to corrupt the soul? Should not the exhibition of pornographic pictures, of obscene plays, in short, of all allurements to immorality, be prohibited? And is not the dissemination of false sociological doctrines just as injurious to men and nations? Should men be permitted to incite others to civil war and to wars against foreign countries? And should scurrilous lampoons and blasphemous diatribes be allowed to undermine respect for God and the Church? We see that as soon as we surrender the principle that the state should not interfere in any questions touching on the individual's mode of life, we end by regulating and restricting the latter down to the smallest detail. The personal freedom of the individual is abrogated. He becomes a slave of the community, bound to obey the dictates of the majority. It is hardly necessary to expatiate on the ways in which such powers could be abused by malevolent persons in authority. The wielding, of powers of this kind even by men imbued with the best of intentions must needs reduce the world to a graveyard of the spirit. All mankind's progress has been achieved as a result of the initiative of a small minority that began to deviate from the ideas and customs of the majority until their example finally moved the others to accept the innovation themselves. To give the majority the right to dictate to the minority what it is to think, to read, and to do is to put a stop to progress once and for all. Let no one object that the struggle against morphinism and the struggle against "evil" literature are two quite different things. The only difference between them is that some of the same people who favor the prohibition of the former will not agree to the prohibition of the latter. In the United States, the Methodists and Fundamentalists, right after the passage of the law prohibiting the manufacture and sale of alcoholic beverages, took up the struggle for the suppression of the theory of evolution, and they have already succeeded in ousting Darwinism from the schools in a number of states. In Soviet Russia, every free expression of opinion is suppressed. Whether or not permission is granted for a book to be published depends on the discretion of a number of uneducated and uncultivated fanatics who have been placed in charge of the arm of the government empowered to concern itself with such matters. The propensity of our contemporaries to demand authoritarian prohibition as soon as something does not please them, and their readiness to submit to such prohibitions even when what is prohibited is quite agreeable to them shows how deeply ingrained the spirit of servility still remains within them. It will require many long years of self-education until the subject can turn himself into the citizen. A free man must be able to endure it when his fellow men act and live otherwise than he considers proper. He must free himself from the habit, just as soon as something does not please him, of calling for the police."

1. Our experience with prohibition pretty much disproves every single argument that you've just made. 2. Your desire for the state to control every aspect of human behavior - predicated on the notion that people should never be legally entitled to decide what's in their best interest, nor are capable of doing the same - is far more frightening than anything than any set of motives that could ever be attributed to any corporation. When you were a child, did your older brother terrify you by telling you that there was a corporation hiding under your bed?

I'd say that Falwell discredited the set of beliefs that he stood for far more effectively than any of his most rabid critics ever could have, so if you count yourselves amongst those who opposed his viewpoints, you should mourn his death for the simple reason that an unintentional champion of your causes has passed on. I didn't count myself amongst his fans, but recognized that he had a certain utility.

I'm heading the wrong way in a hurry. Lost five pounds last week. Too much activity, not enough food or time to prepare it.

Carbs, sugars, fats, whatever. In the end the only thing that matters is the delta between caloric intake and caloric expenditure. Burn more than you consume and you lose weight. Consume more than you burn and you gain weight. End of story.

"Yet ski areas consciously decide that the appeasement of the status quo to 'go big' (i.e. keep the customers coming back) is more important than avoiding inevitable severe injuries." Don't hit parks much do ya? The number of people that hit a jump is inversely proportional to its size. I'd almost wager that the number decreases as the square of the hypotenuse formed by the back of the jump and the tabletop. Even in the biggest parks, the number of people that hit the biggest jumps is in the single digits on any given day. The real money maker/crowd-attractor is groomed slopes, and you could make a much more convincing argument that pervasive grooming results in a situation where rank beginners who lack both the skill and the judgment required to control their speed end up skiing way too fast and endanger both themselves and their fellow skiers. "I think it would have to do something with restricted access and a second waiver." I think you are correct here. I'd be amazed if this is the only ramification of this ruling, though.

"After a five-week trial, a King County jury on Friday awarded $14 million to a 27-year-old skier who was paralyzed after dropping 37 feet from a ski jump at the Summit at Snoqualmie. Kenny Salvini, of Lake Tapps, was 23 years old when he went off the jump at the Central Terrain Park at Snoqualmie Central and landed on compact snow and ice in February 2004, said his attorney, Jack Connelly. During the trial at the Regional Justice Center in Kent, "information came out ... that the man who built [the jump] eyeballed it with a Sno-Cat" rather than engineering a design, Connelly said. Engineers and an aeronautics professor from the University of California, Davis, testified that the jump was improperly designed and featured a short landing area, Connelly said, adding that ski jumps are supposed to be sloped so that energy from a vertical jump is transferred into a skier's forward motion on landing. "Going off this jump was the equivalent of jumping off a three-story building," Connelly said. "If you're going to be throwing kids 37 feet in the air, these jumps need to be engineered, designed and constructed properly." Officials from the Summit at Snoqualmie on Friday afternoon wouldn't answer questions about the incident but released a statement. It said risk is inherent in snow sports, but, "that said, any time there is an incident, our genuine thoughts and prayers are with our guests and their families." The statement said Summit officials "are disappointed but respectful of the [trial] process." According to Connelly, other people were injured on the same jump in the weeks before Salvini's accident, including a snowboarder who broke his back. A week after Salvini was injured, 19-year-old Peter Melrose of Bellevue died going off a different jump at the same terrain park, he said. "There were 10 accidents with eight people taken off the slope in a toboggan" in the weeks before Salvini was hurt, landing on what Connelly said was a flat surface. In all, he said, evidence of 15 earlier accidents was admitted into evidence but "nothing was done" by ski operators to fix or close the faulty jumps. The full jury award was for about $31 million, Connelly said, explaining that the amount was decreased to $14 million after calculating "the comparative fault" of his client and "the inherent risk of the sport." advertising Before he was injured, Salvini, now a quadriplegic, was captain of the wrestling team at Central Washington University in Ellensburg, where he graduated in engineering technology, Connelly said. His mother is now his full-time caregiver. Over the course of his life, Salvini's medical needs are estimated to cost between $23 million and $26 million, Connelly said." I feel bad for the guy, but this sets a very, very, very bad precedent. If there's anyplace where you voluntarily assume risk at a ski area, it's when you line up above a jump and make the decision to hit it.

Clearly by conspiracy by big pharma to scare the public into worrying excessively about the "dangers" of "cancer" so that they can reap the profits generated by the sheeple who want to "protect themselves" against this "disease."

Couldn't get much worse.

Actually, actors in the sectors of the economy that are the most dependent on immigrant labor have been amongst the most vocal advocates of immigration reform. It seems like most of their proposals have involved making it easier for Mexicans and others to come to the US to work legally, without making it easier for them to acquire permanent citizenship. Of all the ideas put forward to reform immigration, I think that this is one of the worst, in that embracing a system of rules that encourages large numbers of desperately poor people to come to the US to work, but denies them the opportunity to become citizens has the potential to create a class of people who come to feel both exploited by and alienated from the country that they are residing in on a more or less permanent basis. This is the system by which large numbers of Muslim immigrants came to Europe, and you can see how well that's worked out for Euroland. Whatever the defects of the current system, the prospect of eventually gaining citizenship - or the citizenship granted their American born children - seems to encourage a level of personal investment in and identification with the US that's ultimately fostered a much more peaceful and harmonious outcome than mass-migration has elsewhere in the world. I'm not sure what the best solution to illegal immigration is, but I'm pretty sure that it doesn't involve giving official sanction to a bifurcated society of citizens and permanent non-citizens. The funny thing about this debate is that no one ever seems to focus on the ultimate cause. In this case, it's the fact that the entrenched corruption, inefficiency, and incompetence that permeates the conduct of both business and politics in Mexico that has rendered a substantial portion of that country's citizens destitute and desperate for the country's entire history.

I can't believe that Ponzini is stealing my thunder on this one....

Such innocence... One wonders what would happen if an electronic chain letter started circulating that encouraged all recipients to reduce global CO2 emissions by refusing to exhale for 10 minutes...

Ken: There's actually a bunch of material out there concerning the effects of food aid on economies in which most of the people derive their living from small scale agriculture. I don't have any at my fingertips, but there's plenty out there if you are interested in looking into the issue a bit more.

Its called the master cleanse, more intense then a juice fast...less then a water fast. I did it for a spring cleaning, its a big transition time in my life and I felt the need to do it. I don't go to doctors and this is my way of healing my body....after day 10 your body starts repairing damaged tissue...blah blah blah. I wanted to go longer but you get sorta spacy which I was getting tired of One thing I have wondered about doing this type of fast is if I need to cut out my activity. I just can imagine having no energy. Did you use spirolina or super blue green in your juice or any other type of suplement? Ken: Since you are in the minority of folks that can actually assess the scientific evidence to support the specific claims made by the folks that advocate fasting, I'd encourage you to do so.

"If something cannot go on forever, it will stop." http://www.pimco.com/LeftNav/Global+Markets/Global+Credit+Perspectives/2007/U.S.+Credit+Perspectives-+5-2007.htm

Might have a winner here.

"This delightful 3 bedroom Craftsman home built in 1925 boasts tons of original charm: built-ins, and hardwood floors throughout. Sunny spaces including living room with traditional fireplace, formal sitting den/parlor, and large updated eat-in kitchen w/French doors leading out to deck for BBQs & huge level backyard for relaxing & summertime fun! Two bedrooms upstairs, one bedroom on the main, full bath updated w/pedestal sink. Unfinished lwr lvl for expansion or storage. Sweet Ballard location!" 3 bedroom, 1 bath, 1280 square feet. $499,950 Underpriced isn't an adjective that I'd use in association with long-commute-free real estate in Seattle. Whether you think that paying a half-a-fucking-million for a 1300 square foot home on a postage-stamp lot constitutes a good value becomes irrelevant at some point. Get to a certain price threshold, and the math just doesn't work anymore for the average household, and the folks that want to own their own detached house start moving to places where they can actually afford to buy, and perhaps buy something with a bit more square footage than your average two bedroom apartment. Supply/demand constraints being what they are, that's bound to be way out in commuterland for the forseeable future. When I commute from North Ballard (technically Crown Hill, so I'm as north west as you can get without being in Golden Gardens) to Seattle in my car, it takes 20 min. I am at the start of the bus line, so the bus is always on time. If I take the express, it takes about 30-35 min. So what is this horrible commute? I understand the restraints and moving somewhere you can afford and all that shit--that's how I bought my place in Ballard. All the whining in the world won't change that (not that you are whining-I just mean folks in general). Housing is expensive and living on the streets ain't fun. I was using Ballard of an example a place that's close to the city but now well beyond the means of the average household, who will have to choose between staying close to the city and never owning a home or buying something more affordable in commuterland.

"I agree, but there are more costs associated with commuting than just fuel, namely the car itself, maintenance, and insurance. Because we live in Ballard, my wife and I are able to make due with one car as I'm able bike/bus to work. The further you live out in commuter land, the more likely it is that the typical family will require two cars. Most importantly, and not directly related to fuel prices, is the cost of my time. I work a lot, and I can get home to my family far quicker on my bike than I could in a car if I lived in commuter-land. That's a huge added value." I agree with a lot of what you've said, and share alot of your priorities, but you have to be able to actually afford a place before any of these considerations become material. There's always renting, but the popular mythology surrounding home-ownership is such that relatively few people are content with this option.

"This delightful 3 bedroom Craftsman home built in 1925 boasts tons of original charm: built-ins, and hardwood floors throughout. Sunny spaces including living room with traditional fireplace, formal sitting den/parlor, and large updated eat-in kitchen w/French doors leading out to deck for BBQs & huge level backyard for relaxing & summertime fun! Two bedrooms upstairs, one bedroom on the main, full bath updated w/pedestal sink. Unfinished lwr lvl for expansion or storage. Sweet Ballard location!" 3 bedroom, 1 bath, 1280 square feet. $499,950 Underpriced isn't an adjective that I'd use in association with long-commute-free real estate in Seattle. Whether you think that paying a half-a-fucking-million for a 1300 square foot home on a postage-stamp lot constitutes a good value becomes irrelevant at some point. Get to a certain price threshold, and the math just doesn't work anymore for the average household, and the folks that want to own their own detached house start moving to places where they can actually afford to buy, and perhaps buy something with a bit more square footage than your average two bedroom apartment. Supply/demand constraints being what they are, that's bound to be way out in commuterland for the forseeable future.

When the average POS 3/2 craftsman in Ballard that has both wiring and plumbing from the 1940s or earlier is going for something north of $500K - any expense associated with driving is going too and from a much less expensive home is going to be trivial by comparison. People may elect to commute in more fuel efficient cars, but when you factor all of the other elements that determine where people live - the price of fuel is way, way down on the list. It's also worth remembering that the price of fertilizer, energy, shipping, plastics, etc, etc are all affected by the price of oil, so pretty much anything that's made, grown, shipped - eg, everything - will rise along with the price of oil. Those who spend a disproportionate share of their money on consumer goods and utilities will see a real reduction in their purchasing power, ability to save, and overall standard of living as a result of higher oil prices. The much loathed rich guys in SUV's that divert much more of their income into savings, investments, etc really aren't going to notice the impact much.

170. Will enter as the sole contestant in my own reverse-weight-loss contest and try to get back to 175 by June 1.

One month. Separate prizes for greatest percentage lost and greatest number of pounds lost. Winners will receive Karen Carpenter CD's and Posters....

I wear large cloudveil drytooling gloves and I couldn't get my pinky onto the tool. Literally. If the new cobra's grip is as tight as the prototype they were showing at the show, and you have large hands, forget about it. Same with the vipers. None of the guys who wandered over to the booth with me could fit their fingers in the pinky grip either, one fat fingered desert rat couldn't even get his hand on without gloves! BD has enlarged the fang so that all you sausage finger kids can get your mitts on them. Anybody shopping for a pair of quarks or nomics? Will be by the time next Winter rolls around. Somthing tells me that they may be gone by that time though...

I think that it's much more realistic to calculate the maximum real value of childcare for a given person or family by determining by the amount that they could actually afford to pay if the parent or both parents are working full time, or a single parent is doing the same. Ditto for any other domestic service. If the maximum salary for a given woman is $20,000 per year, and the maximum amount that she could actually spend on child-care and other miscellaneous domestic help is $500, you are drifting way off into fantasy land if you seriously believe that she is creating $40K in real value for herself with each additional kid that she cranks out by not paying for childcare that she could never afford in the first place. Per "real value is created by not spending money on things I could never afford in the first place" model it should be possible for me to generate $235K in "economic value" for myself by electing to buy a car costs $15K, rather than one that costs $235K despite the fact that I couldn't afford a $250,000 car in the first place.