In which Vox makes a booboo

In regards to the costs of passed opportunities:

[Opportunity cost is] not infinite, but near infinite, yes. It's not merely my logic, it is a simple matter of observable fact. No matter what you do, there is a near infinity of things that you will not do at the same time...

The attempt to reduce this near infinity of choice to two choices is the Ricardian Vice. The attempt to quantify it with a dollar value is the Samuelsonian Vice. And the attempt to ignore the question posed and conflate the question with other definitions of opportunity cost is simply incorrect.

Let us say that (using Vox's example) we are going to a Clapton concert, but in order to do so, we must forgo a Dylan concert that we subjectively* value at $50. Our opportunity cost to go to Clapton is therefore the $50 in value we are giving up in order to do that. Clear enough?

But to go to Clapton, we are also not going bowling (which we subjectively value at $20) nor are we playing Dragon Age ($30). By Vox's reckoning here our opportunity cost to go to Clapton has risen to $100 ($50 + 20 + $30). Since there is "a near infinity of things that you will not do at the same time," the opportunity cost of Clapton (or any other action) is near infinite once we add them all in.

Here's the booboo: It doesn't matter how many other choices there are, because you can only choose one. My choice is not Clapton OR (Dylan + bowling + Dragon Age), my choice is Clapton OR Dylan, Clapton OR bowling, Clapton OR Dragon Age. We MUST reduce the choice to a selection between Clapton and one other thing** because in reality we can go to Clapton or we can do one other thing. While I may be rejecting EACH option, I am not rejecting ALL options, because selecting all the options is not an option.

Opportunity cost is "The cost of an alternative that must be forgone in order to pursue a certain action. Put another way, the benefits you could have received by taking an alternative action." AN alternative. ONE single alternative. It is not based on the thing chosen (e.g. going to Clapton), but on the thing rejected (e.g. not going bowling). Therefore there are a million different opportunity costs for each choice, but they simply cannot be added together as Vox seems to have done to reach his "near infinity."   He may be correct that opportunity cost is not really worth measuring, but he's certainly incorrect in measuring it that way.

* which is the only way to do it anyway. Ticket prices don't matter, pizza prices don't matter. We judge the experience that we are not doing to be worth $50, and that's its opportunity cost.
** Or between any 2 other things (e.g. bowling OR Dragon Age).

Peak Oil is back

A couple years ago, in response to the release of one IEA* assertion about future oil supplies, I wrote:

How, then, do we get from today's just-under-75 mbpd to 96 mbpd, a 30% increase in production, in three short years? We don't. It's as simple as that. Not going to happen. If $130 oil does not turn on the taps, nothing will or can turn on the taps, and it's just quite possible that we are seeing as much oil as we are ever going to see.

I mention that today because the IEA is out with their most recent energy assessment, which contains a very interesting chart:

There are two things on this chart to notice.  The first is that, as I predicted, we will be using nowhere near 95 mbpd of oil beginning in 13 months; the IEA's new, improved numbers won't reach 95 mbpd until 2035.  That's about a 25% reduction in future usage, all told. While that fact that energy 'experts' have scaled back their expected usage by a quarter in 2 short years is scary, it is not the scary thing.

Nor is the scary thing the dark blue. The dark blue is Peak Oil, the sudden and irreversible reduction in the annual production of petroleum products**, to be sure. But it is also (and maybe mostly) the natural depletion of existing wells - no matter what, the future of existing wells is that they will slow and slow and slow.  That's what wells do. 

No, the scary part is the light blue, helpfully denoted as "fields yet to be developed or found." Fields yet to be developed are fine, as there are two or three*** really, really big ones out there that will be developed over the next 15 years. They don't add up to even Mexico much less Russia or Saudi, but they are there. And each of them was denoted as the most exciting discovery in the past 20, 30, or 40 years.  What that says is that we have not been discovering very much in those 20, 30, or 40 years. There are also and always a bzillion little places being drilled.

But setting those aside, we have "fields yet to be found." Seriously, the IEA is counting stuff we have not found yet, and by the looks of the wedge, we will be finding a whole lot of it: 6 Saudi Arabias' worth all told.  How do we know what fields we will find?  We don't, obviously.  How can we estimate how much oil we will get from wells we don't know we can find when we have found relatively few in the last 40 years of looking? We can't. How do they know we will find and produce *exactly* as much as is being depleted from current wells? They don't, obviously. Nor do I, nor does anyone else.

What the IEA has done is decided how much demand there will be, then presumed sufficient supply at reasonable prices, then presumed the magical discovery of that supply even in the face of recent contrary experience.  Everything to the right of the 2009 is fantasy. It's total bs, but it's somewhat comforting bs, though 25% less comforting than a few years ago****. In reality, we are probably not going to discover 6 Saudis' worth of oil in the next 25 years. That little bump 'ending' in 2009 is probably Peak Oil (remember, history lies to the left of the line); the upturn probably won't happen. That means we have probably seen as much total oil pumped in a given year as we ever will again.

So dig out all your 2005-era Peak Oil articles. They'll be in style again before you know it.

* International Energy Agency, though I don't think it's an official government body. 
** It is not the world "running out of oil." The skeptics are right that there is a lot of oil out there in various forms.  It is the world running out of cheap oil there for the taking.
*** literally. There's one in Brazil, another off the coast of Louisiana, and a whopper in China.
**** The fact that total oil production has gone from 'ever-increasing' in prior IEA charts to obviously and fraudulently flat in this one should not be comforting to anyone, and yet there it is.

It'll work, too

TSA wins a big one

National Opt-Out Day is a huge failure:

The opt-out campaign was criticized by TSA Administrator John Pistole as "irresponsible," and this week he urged fliers not to participate, though it hardly seemed necessary...

[TSA Spokesbabe Ann] Davis could not say just how many passengers opted out of being scanned in Newark, though she said it was very few.

"I don’t have numbers," Davis said, "just an overall sense that passengers seem to be opting out of Opt Out."

Obviously, Americans are utter chickenshits, unwilling to make even the smallest symbolic stand in the face of Janet's Dimwit Stormtroopers. This is proven by the fact that in Newark, as across the country, the number of people opting out of the microwaves to receive prostate exams instead, was negligible.

Except for one thing:

The majority of Newark’s full-body scanners were idle throughout much of the day, depriving most passengers of the chance to opt out of the controversial screening procedure even if they had wanted to.

That's right. On the busiest flying day of the year, in Newark, as across the country, TSA turned the machines off. Interpret that as you will.

Won't someone think of the turkeys?

If you ever needed evidence that liberalism is a mental disorder:

In a letter to President Obama, Bill Maher urges our commander in chief to take better care of the turkeys pardoned during the White House's annual Thanksgiving Turkey Presentation.

"After their 15 minutes of fame are over, they will be banished to obscurity, trading in the limelight for a cramped dive, forgotten by the masses," the talk-show host writes on behalf of PETA.

I've got a better idea - drop the theater and just eat the freaking turkeys.

Mocking, like this

The TSA tackles a serious issue:

This perception [that TSA agents are "burger-flippers in toy-cop uniforms"] was once so pervasive, and the officers were feeling so beleaguered, that two years ago the T.S.A. changed their uniform shirts to blue from white, and issued gold badges to replace their badge-shaped patches.

Problem solved, right, Officer Occifer Big Mac?

What to do

For the nice young lady who asked, "but what do we DO about airport groping?"

First you realize that if it's not stopped here*, then you will eventually be searched any time you get on a bus, train, subway, or enter a public building. You must hold in your mind the fact - THE FACT - that this will continue and grow until Americans put a stop to it.

Second, realize that the argument that TSA can put their hands on your junk because of an underwear bomber, they can put a finger up your ass as soon as someone smuggles C4 in a cavity.  The argument is the same. So either it stops here or blue latex goes all the way to your small intestine. Lubricant is a privilege, not a right.

Third, calculate how much you're willing to pay to get the rules changed. I will not fly with daughters. We have had foster kids who have suffered sexual abuse already, so there's no way in hell some stranger with a plastic badge is going to stick a hand down their pants. But for me, yes, I'll fly, and I'll arrive early enough that I can "opt out" of the microwave without fear of missing a flight.  I can demand a private room**. I can demand that the officer change gloves***. I can make them explain the procedure to me in small words. I can even helpfully remind the agent that he doesn't have to do this - he can always quit his job. The purpose, if you're willing to pay the price, is to exercise your rights in a way that is sure to make the lemmings in line care****. I have a lot of practice at being an asshole while smiling.

Fourth, figure out other ways to complain. If you decide to drive somewhere instead of flying, write a nice letter to a couple of airlines explaining why. If it hurts the airlines, they need to know*****.  Drop a note and a fax to your representative, or write directly to the TSA. These are obviously less effective than gumming up the passenger lines, but if you feel the need to do something, well, that's something.

Finally, mock, mock, mock.  At every chance. Online. In your local paper. At lunch with friends. Use phrases like "gate rape" and "Total Sexual Assault." When people think of the TSA, they ought to imagine half-witted stormtroopers with their hands down travelers' underwear, because that's what they are. Alinski wrote that, "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage." It's going to spark a reaction; TSA will either back down or they will double down.  It is better for everyone if they back down, but it won't happen unless enough Americans are willing to pay a small, personal price today. Like an auction, the price gets higher the longer you wait.

And don't forget to record your experience as best you can and put it on YouTube. At least until they ban that, too.

* a clever person could argue that all you have to do to avoid gate rape is to walk through the microwave.  That's all you have to do under *today's* rules, but TSA still claims authority to change the rules, make special rules just for you, and arrest anyone who complains. We also know they will break the rules and slide their fingers into your panties just to be extra safe. 
** which has the additional advantage of taking longer, up to 10 minutes vs. 20 seconds in the microwave. On the other hand, the TSA guy is going to be more embarrassed rubbing my ass in public than I will be to have it done.
*** You have no idea where those gloves have been. Well, besides down the ABC news girl's panties, of course.
**** Nudge, nudge, wink, wink.
***** You could actually write a letter without actually canceling a trip or changing plans.  They don't follow up on that sort of thing, really.

Psychic Goat says oats tomorrow

And he is looking forward to them very much.

UPDATE: There they are:

The Minnesota Vikings fired head coach Brad Childress on Monday, one day after a 31-3 loss at home to the Green Bay Packers dropped the team to 3-7.

He's amazing, no?

Geography 101

The Spartan Solution

So in all fairness, if I ask Justin to fix other people's problems, I ought to be able/willing/expected to answer the question too, even if it means putting on the kind of social engineer hat that I absolutely despise when worn by the fools who grasp for that sort of thing.  However, I'll do it, fully realizing that my efforts in this respect are as apt to fall victim to the same kinds of unintended consequences as everyone else's.

So with that said, I begin my project with a few assumptions*:

1. The Moynihan Report correctly identified the causes and problem with the black family, i.e. that much of the root of the dysfunctional urban (for lack of a better word) culture is the result of a 400-year, systematic emasculation/alienation of the black male.
2. The current generation is lost. In all probability, you cannot turn most 20-year-old gang-bangers into good fathers.
3. The ACLU, women's groups, school boards, and most blacks themselves are going to hate it**, and it will probably not fly under current law and/or ideology.

The Spartan Solution is to essentially break the current black culture by raising a generation of men who are competent, confident, secure, and dedicated to being men, in all that entails.  And it starts with a particular type of school. Like the Spartans of old, it destroys or at least overrides the family as constituted, but unlike them, it is voluntary. It does not teach self esteem, that baseless bullshit that ostentatiously rewards merely showing up, it teaches the student to be something worth esteeming. It is like a military school, but without the class gradation and subjection. Its progress is limited only by the raw material of the students and the leadership of the coaches.

Each school is made up of exactly 100 students, ages 5-10, though others may follow dedicated to advanced pursuit of the subjects of the elementary school.  It does not teach 'subjects,' it teaches skills. Those skills are: reading, writing, public speaking, athletics, mechanics, and thinking, but it does not call them those. There are no grades or groups, there are only peers, young men, who work individually with the support of their peers and adult male 'coaches' to master the above. All students are considered equals, and all students are expected to learn mastery of the skills the school teaches.  They wear uniforms, they may enter only when they are 5 (all expelled students are replaced by a 5-year-old), and no women are allowed: not in class, not in administration, not on the school grounds. Women will be respected in abstentia; these students will be surrounded by men (not all black) working, deciding, acting, leading. It does not value feelings, it values accomplishment.

Their day is essentially broken down thus:

Reading: all students are expected to learn to read, and to read all the time.  They can read on any subject they wish. They are expected to be able to speak to the class on what they are reading, to be able to share their knowledge publicly and in proper grammar, to ask and answer questions. They will be instilled with curiosity, praised when they do well, and publicly reprimanded when they do not. They will also be expected to be able to share their learning in written form.

Athletics: fully half the day (if needed) will be used to burn off the abundance of male energy of these students.  They will sprint, box, wrestle, throw balls, whatever it takes to ensure that when they are in class, they have no excess energy even for foot-tapping.  All students will be expected to understand the games they play (including drawing up plays and strategizing where appropriate) and to lead and organize others.

"Classroom" games: checkers, chess, mine sweeper - whatever games are pursued will be designed to teach the student to think quickly, to plan, to deduce. We don't play 'Lifeboat.'

"Advanced" subjects, like plumbing, electrical, mechanical, entrepreneurship. There are no social studies, no history***, no dicing frogs - there will be very few times where teachers will teach something and expect students to pay attention and take notes.  Instead, students will be expected to be able to 'do' an unlimited number of things. The teacher will show them how to plumb a sink or change oil or use a power saw, and the students will each do it until they get it right.

Whatever the subjects, students will be expected to master a hundred specific skills. Just like the real world there are no tests (though work is obviously graded): either you have mastered a skill or you have not. Progress in the school is not by grades, but is measured by how fast, how far, how well a student performs the myriad tasks that make up his education.

The staff is made up of men whose primary desire is to see these kids excel. They don't have to be trained teachers (after all, subjects will not be taught) but they must be able to teach, keep order, and to be fair.  They must also demand respect and be respectable. Discipline must be paramount, although once the 'culture' is established, I don't expect this to be much of a problem - young people are naturally subject to peer pressure. All students will be addressed as "Mr. (whatever)," all coaches be addressed as "Sir." Coaches will treat the students like men and expect them to act the part without excuse.  If you can't sprint, it had better be because you have a wooden leg. If you're fat, sprinting will solve that.

The student graduates when he has mastered the requisite skills - when he can read well and likes to read, when he can speak publicly, when he can write clearly, when he can throw a punch and take one. In essence, when he is a man - confident, curious, knowledgeable - and has become something to be proud of.  If the student refuses to comply, he can be replaced, though all expulsions are subject to a vote of their peers (one time) to retain them and give them another chance. Spartan School is a privilege, not a right, and plenty of kids are waiting for a chance at it.

The purpose, obviously, is to instill a culture of confidence and competence in young men, the belief that they can do things, undergirded by the experience of having done them well.  The student will have struggled, failed and not been broken, won and been a good sport about it. The skills and attitudes he has learned will be his forever.

This kind of a school can't last forever - obviously the student is going to have to learn some history and some mathematics elsewhere.  But by instilling a love of learning and the skills of learning, confidence and competence and respect while the students are malleable enough to fit that mold, it will begin to change boys from useless appendages of a matriarchal culture into leaders of the next generation.

Do I expect this will 'solve' the problems of urban culture?  Of course not. But it will strike at the heart of one problem: boys are who are not needed, and are neither respected nor respectable. It will teach them to learn what they want to learn and that they can do what they want to do. Where they go from there is entirely up to them.

* I will leave the elimination of welfare to others. It is necessary but not sufficient to the solution.
** The latter because it says, without compromise, that current 'urban' black culture is fatally faulty and must be replaced wholly.
*** heresy, I know. But these subjects will be covered under reading and writing. After all, a student must read and write about *something*

Safe at last

Thank God Almighty we're safe at last:

New York's senior senator said Tuesday that high-alcohol, caffeinated beverages such as Four Loko and Joose will soon be banned by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

"Let these rulings serve as a warning to anyone who tried to peddle dangerous and toxic brews to our children. Do it and we will shut you down," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat.

By "children," of course, he means Americans aged 21 or older, who are the only ones who can legally buy alcohol already.  So I guess those who wish to mix alcohol and caffeine from now on will have to settle for a good old rum-and-Coke.

Frayed edge of sanity

Bob Herbert finally finds his knitting needles:

The terrible economic downturn has made it more difficult than ever to douse this raging fire that is consuming the life prospects of so many young blacks, and the growing sentiment in Washington is to do even less to help any Americans in need. It is inconceivable in this atmosphere that blacks themselves will not mobilize in a major way to save these young people. I see no other alternative.

The first and most important step would be a major effort to begin knitting the black family back together...

Let me save time: knitting the black family back together is not "the first and most important step," to stopping the cultural carnage in Black America, it is the only step. It is the only step worth taking, and it is the only thing that can be done. The stats that Herbert quotes are all tied together: the jail stats and the poverty stats follow the family structure stats as night follows day.

Modern embarrassed racism and racial discrimination are nothing compared to the challenges faced by a black boy raised in a matriarchal culture without structure, without books, without stability, without work, without role models, without discipline, without training, and without protection from the anarchy created by those a few years ahead of him in age. Only a father, grandfather, and uncles can make a man of him. A boy needs men to teach him to be a man with all that entails. Only black men can fill this role, and if they do not, then it will not be done, whether that is "inconceivable" or not.

Of course, there is one more step that liberals need to take, and that's to get past complaining that Washington "is to do even less to help" and to welcome that fact.  Washington can't fix this dysfunction, can't help fix this dysfunction; Washington can only enable it. The Great Society tried to create a country in which no one who worked needed to be poor; what liberals created instead was a nation where no one needed to work so long as they and their children agreed to remain poor forever.

Dysfunction is an integral part of that deal. The payment for accepting the government as your husband is that he will eventually house your children.

(hat tip: cfdxprt)

They were who we thought they were

You know, the Vikings should think about picking up a wide receiver somewhere.

What do they want?

In regards to the student protest riots in England yesterday, I got to thinking about what it is that students want.  It is certainly not, as the signs helpfully provided by the Socialist Workers Party claimed, "Free Education Now." After all, education is already free. If becoming educated is your goal, then there is no government program* either in Britain or the States that can keep you from becoming educated.  You can learn anything you wish about anything you wish. Just open a book.

"Oh, but that's not what we mean**," they say. "That kind of education doesn't help. What we really want is a diploma for free."

Fair enough. How about if the Tories just print up diplomas for the whole lot of you and hand them out? Education finished, now you can go get a job.

"Oh, but that's not what we mean, either" they say. "If just anyone can get a diploma like that, they are worthless. What we really want is to go to school for four years for free - we want to live on campus for free and take any class for free and eat any meal for free - THEN we want to walk off of campus with a diploma that is valuable."

So you don't really want an education, and you don't really want a diploma. What you are asking for is a fun time followed by a something for nothing that will carry you through until early retirement?

"What do you expect?" they say, "We're socialists."

* outside of public education itself, perhaps.
** Plus that's too hard.

Quick Hits

It's probably apocryphal:

A group of British dignitaries, including Gordon Brown, were paying a visit [to Bush]... Trying to be even-handed and polite, the Brits said something diplomatic about McCain’s campaign, expecting Bush to express some warm words of support for the Republican candidate.

Not a chance. “I probably won’t even vote for the guy,” Bush told the group, according to two people present...

But I can sure understand the sentiment.

Can somebody* tell me why the 3-5 Vikings are favored over the 5-3 Bears IN CHICAGO? Seriously, this set of circumstances all but guarantees an overtime Chicago win following a classic drive-killing Childress decision late in the fourth. At least he'll probably get fired over it, which is nice.

Thank you, to all veterans. I appreciate all you do and have done for this nation.

The GOP had plenty of votes to ban earmarks when they all knew it didn't matter. Now that it does, prospects that such a vote might pass again are "murkier." Quick, everyone act surprised. Not only is DC an integrity sink, Democrats are not the only ones who prove to be very poor choosers of leadership.

Watching a History Channel special on the Goths last night reminded me just how far they have gone downhill in the past 1600 years.

All the squealing about the Deficit Commission's drafts disguise how minor the proposal actually is. "The blueprint would raise the early retirement age to 64 and the standard retirement age to 69 for today's toddlers." Today's toddlers? Really? Liberals are catatonic about a two-year adjustment that will take place more than six decades from now?  We are screwed, you know. And it's not going to take six decades.

Sometimes the comments are the best part.

* CJ? I know you're behind this.

Anyone missing a small city?

I love how among the possible explanations for the fact that there was a freaking missile launched 35 miles from Los Angeles and no one seems to know where it came from, the one that doesn't get mentioned is "another country asking politely for our attention."

'Cause that could never happen, right?

Meanwhile, back in the history department

So anyway, I just finished my first online class, which also happened to be the one required class of the masters program. 

Since there are six weeks left in the current semester and I have no homework, I'm starting my spring Readings class, which will demand reading eight* books on Custer, including biographies of different periods of his life, topped off by a recent archaeological report on the battle at Little Big Horn.

So far, I've started his autobiography, and concluded he's kind of a dick.  Hopefully the Indians will get him at some point.

* I have to do reports on 5, but to be able to speak historiographically about them, there are a couple more that will demand some attention.

Decade of decadence

WSJ sums up the past 10 100 years of finance:

Mrs. Palin's remarks may have the beneficial effect of bringing the dollar back to the center of the American political debate, not to mention of the GOP economic platform. Republican economic reformers of the 1970s and 1980s—especially Ronald Reagan and Jack Kemp—understood the importance of stable money to U.S. prosperity.

On the other hand, the Bush Administration was clueless. Its succession of Treasury Secretaries promoted dollar devaluation little different from that of the current Administration, while the White House ignored or applauded an over-easy Fed policy that created the credit boom and housing bubble that led to financial panic.

Amen to that.  One of the things that's so frustrating about listening to those who insist that Bush and Obama are polar opposites* is that most of them have absolutely no understanding of economic policies and even less interest in them. If you point out that Moneycakes was appointed by and pursued the same policies under both Bush and Obama, you get a blank stare. Mention that the Treasury has followed an almost identical path of purposeful dollar destruction under both regimes and you're being conspiratorial.  Mention that none of the principals involved have any freaking idea what they're talking about (as reading a single newspaper article from three years ago would prove beyond a doubt) and you're being arrogant. Three years ago is not important.

But the truth is that the differences in economic policy between the two administrations are a difference in paint color on a McMansion: the face is different, the structure beneath is exactly the same.  Both spent billions of borrowed dollars to promote "affordable housing" by doing everything possible to keep houses expensive. Both avoided short-term economic pain by rewarding foolish and reckless behavior in the markets and the financial system. Both have talked about a "strong dollar policy" while doing everything politically or fiscally possible to weaken the dollar, from lowering rates to running deficits to badgering China and now to simple inflation, which they call "quantitative easing" for no other reason than to keep the ignorant in the dark.

But most importantly, both have promoted the social destruction that comes from debt-based consumer spending. Low interest rates** and cheap credit promote a live-for-today mentality that erases both the past and the future from the public mind. It's bad enough, though understandable, when companies try to get you to buy stuff you don't need on their company cards. When the government does everything possible to promote that kind of mass foolishness, they sacrifice society itself for the sake of already-fixed quarterly GDP numbers.

Palin is making the right noises now, though I suspect she understands less than it sounds like***. And a few other Republicans like Ron Paul and Paul Ryan have been screaming about this the whole time. Yet the rest of the Republicans urge you to get out there and spend - even if they have to borrow the money and give it to you - like there's no tomorrow. And then they stand amazed to find people living like there's no tomorrow, and argue themselves blue in the face over what laws need to be passed to keep civil society from crumbling around them. Lenin was right, said Keynes, "There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose." Amazing to think that it will probably be Lenin's intellectual disciples who finally put the brakes on our spending bender.

* from either side of the aisle, it makes no difference.
** with banks not paying anything in interest due to Fed policies, those few remaining savers are doing it only because it's important. Their virtue will be punished accordingly.
*** Governor, you're no Jack Kemp.

A pretend story

I laughed a little at this:

WASHINGTON: A George Washington University women’s basketball player, Kye Allums, is to play for the women’s basketball team again this year despite changing gender. The NCAA has ruled the move is within the boundaries set by the national college sports authority...

The 5 foot 11 inch guard from Hugo, Minnesota, said the university has been supportive of his decision. But he will not be permitted to undergo testosterone therapy as long as he is competing on the team.

So Kye was a chick last year and she played women's basketball.  But now she says she's a man even though she has undergone no physical changes and had no drug treatment to make those changes, and she's playing women's basketball again.

So how is this story any more than a story about a very confused woman playing women's basketball?

Just go read it

Seriously, read it.

---

Wholly unrelated UPDATE: Run, Nancy, Run.

It's not that he's wrong

It's that you're stupid:

President Barack Obama is acknowledging in the wake of this week's election rout that he hasn't been able to successfully promote his economic-rescue message to anxious Americans*...

Obama also said he recognizes now that "leadership is not just legislation," and that "it's a matter of persuading people, bringing them together and setting a tone and making an argument that people can understand."

It's not the policies or actions that are the problem, it's that you people just don't get it. He'll pretend to take the blame for the message not getting through, but there can be no doubt that the fault really does not lie with him not "making an argument that people can understand."**

The real problem is that you're too dumb to realize what he's done for you. Sometimes, late at night, he wonders why he even bothers.

* It's not that you're unemployed, but that you're not yet convinced that you have a job.
** He is, after all, "a president who is able to convey his ideas," a truly great communicator. The Huffington Post tells me so.

One can only hope

that this social worker's nightmare comes true:

“There are a fair number of areas that we can no longer afford to do, that are not a core function of government,” Brownback said.

Less conservative Kansans find such comments unnerving. About 88 percent of the state’s tax dollars are spent on education or social services.

“He’ll be in office for eight years, and he’ll dismantle, either directly or through cutting the budgets of, many valuable social service agencies,” said Ralph Hoover, a 70-year-old retired probation officer and social worker from Topeka, who voted a straight Democratic ticket.

Eight years is a long time, hopefully long enough to get most of that job done. Sam may be up to it, or he may not. But having a conservative House behind him will certainly help*. Having a conservative senate would help even more, and that might be coming a little closer. Ray Merrick will probably replace LT. Gov Colyer, so that's not a conservative gain, but if the GOP committee officers pick a conservative replacement for Derek Schmidt**, that will move the senate a little.  In all honesty, it will probably take a general election (2 years off) to get a conservative senate***.

Then, and possibly only then, they can go after the supreme court, which I expect will waste very little time in seizing the public school system on the same pretext as last time - that the legislature is not spending enough money.  This time, maybe, there will enough backbone in the capital to not only tell them to go pound sand, but to change the process by which judges are selected.

That will *really* make people who vote straight Democrat squeal. 

* last year there was a little noise about a "coalition speaker," by which the Dems and the liberal Repubs would pick one of the latter as speaker, in order to deny conservatives the gavel.  You will not hear that kind of talk this year most likely.
** That's why you've been fighting over those party seats for 20 years, folks.
*** Of course, that will mean fighting a whole lot of ultra-conservative nonsense - Sam-I-am is more of a Bushian "compassionate conservative" than I like. But we can burn that bridge when we come to it. 

Would you like to swing on a star*?

or carry Moonbeam home in a jar....

By this time next year California entrepreneurs will be searching desperately for a way out of that state. Let me be the first to offer Kansas as an alternative abode for those fleeing the fiscal trainwreck that is about to descend out west. Wichita is said to be a pretty good place for heavy industry, as well. No pressure. Just think about it.

Interesting results here in Kansas. A lot of folks think that it's a GOP state, and it is, but not like you'd think. Because of its long populist/progressive history, the GOP here has historically been the longtime home of GOP squishes like Bill Graves, Nancy Kassebaum, and Jan Meyers. Kathleen Sebelius was elected governor twice by wide margins, the previous Republican governor fought with the conservative Republican minority in the Kansas House far more than he did with Democrats. His predecessor, Democrat Joan Finney (here she is is with Fred Phelps, Jr., and who's that handsome chap standing between them?) was pro-life and ran to the right of the Republican she defeated.  Of the six statewide offices, only the Insurance Commissioner was held by a Republican before last night. Even stranger, only that office was still held by the person elected to it 4 years ago.

But as of last night, for the first time since Alf Landon starred as John McCain**, the GOP won everything - the senate seat, all congressional seats, all statewide offices. They won both contested state senate seats (to keep a 30-10 advantage) and the state house by a 92-33*** margin. 

But those are not the important numbers.  According to the state director of AFP****, hidden in that 92 are an increase of  about 21 real fiscal conservatives. In the governor's mansion we will now have a conservative - an opportunistic weasel perhaps, but a conservative. While the Senate remains more liberal than the house, the senate Republican leader is leaving to become AG, which will force a new leadership election that just might be won by a conservative.  Kansas has long been Republican, but for the first time it's going to be really, really, freaking conservative.

Here's to hoping they don't screw it up.

UPDATE: Question 1***** passed 89-11. w00t!

* ad astra per aspera
** That would be 1936, for those who don't remember Nancy Kassebaum's dad.
*** One of the 33 is my state rep, a Democrat who was endorsed by Kansans for Life and is the secretary of the local gun club. Weird, huh?
**** who used to be my next-door office neighbor in an administration long ago.
***** Free machine guns and RPGs for everyone, I think it was.

Hopefully, this will work...

O no, we suck again!

Good grief. I really hope Chilly gets to watch the second half of the season from a Real. Comfortable. La-Z-Boy.

Hahahaha

Hahahaha haha ha ha:

In this time of niche publications and cable networks that thrive on ideological anger, we should be seeking to strengthen NPR's role as a convener of the public square, a demagogue-free zone where all political and social groups - including conservatives and others opposed to federal funding of public media* - should be welcome on equal terms.
-- The Washington Post on why other people should fund NPR

Haha ha hahaha haha haha hahaha ha hahahaha haha hahaha ha haha hahaha haha ha hahaha hahaha hahaha hahaha hahahahahaha hahahahahahahahaha.

Because, you know, they've done such a good job being balanced and open so far.

* So liberals would provide federally-funded media for those opposed to federally-funded media? How liberal of them.