Wednesday assorted links


Is it me or has Robert E Kelly's daughter done us all the massive favor of making his really excellent thoughts and analysis of Korean matters so much more globally known and therefore potentially influential?

Chalk it to Gender bias, but I think its his son who really pushed the envelope.

Wasn't it her wife? As we say in Brazil, behind a great man there is akways a great woman.

* his wife

Wife, mistress, etc.

2. "My wife is a modern dance choreographer, and she sees firsthand how hard it is to build a sustainable financial platform for creative works that exist as ephemeral experiences." Ephemeral experiences. Sustainable financial platform. Was the writer intentionally ironic? Probably not. Sustainable financial platforms are what's made us complacent, for Heaven's sake. Two things are the ruination of all that's good: digital advertising and digital skimming. Blood suckers.

Lawyers like to remind critics that 230-40 years ago lawyers were writing the declaration of independence and the constitution while physicians were using leeches to "cure" their patients. Now that's blood sucking! remind people that they haven't been useful since the 18th century?

If I had to buy all the music I stream, I would be broke.

About ten years ago I calculated that I could have either legally bought all the music in my hard drive, or bought a car.

2. Complacency. I'll suggest that much of complacency is attributable to lack in transparency. I've commented at another thread the contagion of saying the opposite of what one means. At this blog, it's considered an intellectual exercise. No, it's deception. The appeal of streaming music is that it's "free". How many believe that? The appeal of Facebook is that it's "free". How many believe that? The appeal of Google is that it's "free". How many believe that? Deception, especially self-deception, is the path to bondage.

4. If government can control a woman's reproductive actions, why not men's?

It does already, and to a far greater degree. If a man and woman have sex and pregnancy results, the woman has multiple options -- abortion, adoption, or raising the child with or without the father's involvement. The father, on the other hand, has no options and is under tight legal control of the mother and legal system -- child support (through age 24 if the child goes to university). It does not matter if the father was an underage boy who was the victim of statutory rape -- he's still on the hook for child support. It also does not matter if the man was not actually the biological father. If he's married to the woman and hasn't yet obtained a divorce, he's on the hook. The idea that government takes a laissez faire attitude toward men's reproductive actions is completely laughable.

So you think a man should be able to choose whether a woman has an abortion or places a kid up for adoption, and that he should be able to force the woman to carry the child to full gestation against her wishes, as well as raise the child in a separate family with a different spouse, without the involvement of the biological mother? How many females committing statutory rape have kids and force the father to pay child support each yea, 500,000, a million? On the other hand, if an underage woman is the victim of statutory rape and becomes pregnant, free sailing--womyn have all the power!

By the way, how many states require payment of child support through age 24 if enrolled in college? Because I think the answer is maybe 0 to 2. They almost all end after graduation of high school. Of course, a good father would be out of there and on run well before that. You can't force me to pay to support my offspring, Gov Man!

If men are held financially liable for womens' decisions, then they should be given a degree of control.

Contrapositively, if men have no degree of control over a woman's decision, then they should not be held financially liable for it.

The best compromise: legal paternity surrender after sufficient accommodations. If a man reimburses a woman financially for an abortion and for the monetary equivalence of the burden of becoming pregnant, then he should be off the hook if the woman chooses to not go through with the procedure.

The alternative to this system? Maintain the status quo, but don't be surprised when men like me drift towards the Republican party and show little sympathy when abortion rights are curtailed.

Slocum just answered the question that was asked. Why not allow a man to disavow a new child like a mother can? Mother can still do as she wishes with it. Choice is only for women? Is allowing the mother kill my child fairer than me not paying for it? Choice opens a lot of questions.

"If men are held financially liable for womens’ decisions, then they should be given a degree of control." Did they make a decision when they decided to have unprotected sex? How would you operationalize sharing a decision to have an abortion? It is binary when it comes down to it--you do or don't have the abortion--there is no physical risk to the father, some to the mother. What if the dad wants the little bugger killed off while mom does not? He is financially absolved from all responsibility if mom has a religious objection to abortion? What about adoption? How do you make that a "shared" decision? Veto rights? Is the father currently prohibited from adopting and raising the child if mom wants to walk away?

What the is "the monetary equivalence of the burden of becoming pregnant"? Haha. Life is priceless, you know.

Something tells me it was more than a requirement to take responsibility for your actions and own offspring that led you to drift toward the Republican party.

" Did they make a decision when they decided to have unprotected sex?"

So she did have a choice all along.

Or perhaps it was his choice to carry a child for 9 months. Who knows!?

@Jan: All of these questions are easy to answer if you just think about them.

>Did they make a decision when they decided to have unprotected sex?

If having unprotected sex counted as consenting to parenthood, then abortion restrictions would be justifiable anyway.

>How would you operationalize sharing a decision to have an abortion?

I just mentioned the "Legal Paternity Surrender w/ Reasonable Accommodations" (henceforth called "LPSwRA") idea.

>It is binary when it comes down to it–you do or don’t have the abortion–there is no physical risk to the father, some to the mother.

Right, and the LPSwRA arrangement accounts for that.

>What if the dad wants the little bugger killed off while mom does not? He is financially absolved from all responsibility if mom has a religious objection to abortion?

Yep. Same goes when the sexes are reversed.

>What about adoption? How do you make that a “shared” decision?

With LPSwRA. If dad doesnt want the child, mom has the option to put the baby up for adoption. Currently, if the dad wanted the child, but the mom wanted to put him up for adoption, there would be nothing he could do (at least in 45 states, last time i checked). LPSwRA balances these inequities.

>Is the father currently prohibited from adopting and raising the child if mom wants to walk away?

I dont see why he would be.

>What the is “the monetary equivalence of the burden of becoming pregnant”?

Net expected value for hospital bills, lost productivity, emotional harm, etc. Courts have routinely put monetary value on emotional assets (like when someone sues someone else for emotional harm, for instance).

>Something tells me it was more than a requirement to take responsibility for your actions and own offspring that led you to drift toward the Republican party.

SJWs, Black Lives Matter, Gamergate, blatant media bias, feminism and the denigration of Men's Rights, etc. Point is, there's a countercultural movement growing that you are feeding by demanding double standards against men.

"Is the father currently prohibited from adopting and raising the child if mom wants to walk away?"

This is actually a fascinating question.

Does anyone have the answer?

That is, can the father of a child adopt the very child the mother wishes to place up for adoption and that he has fathered?

"abortion–there is no physical risk to the father, some to the mother."

There's risk in abortion? This is the first time I'm hearing about it. Someone tell Planned Parenthood.

"Or perhaps it was his choice to carry a child for 9 months. Who knows!?"

Women should have the right to abortion, and despite this right, men should be penalized by the child support system because.....

Jan's argument is the shameful equivalent of arguing for race or sex based justice.

Jan did catch you on one thing. Is the new right the demand abortion party, or the no abortion party?

If women should have rights over their bodies for the 9 months of pregnancy, men should have rights over their bodies for the 20+ years following that.

American law "finds a man" because of our history of breadwinners, small government, and a social desire to see every kid provided for. Everything changes if you decide to pay for that social desire with social welfare. Then the man can do whatever he wants, and mom gets free daycare.

Welcome the welfare state, it frees you to be an inattentive (but no longer "deadbeat") dad.

The cases you suggest for an underage boy or not father of wife's child prior to divorce.

Wouldn't those be cases of needing a better lawyer or an appeal?

In the sense that an asteroid target needs a better lawyer, or a Christian needed a better lawyer against Obama.

Definitely not for the underage boy. As far as I know that is black letter law nation wide

In Pennsylvania, at least, my recollection is that men are automatically on the hook for supporting any children the wife has during marriage, even if the man can prove he is not the biological father. That's just the way the law is written, I don't think even the best lawyer can do much to contest child support in such a situation.

7. "This is an easy thing to fix. The AHCA itself contains a transitional tax credit schedule in which individual would get a means-tested, age-adjusted tax credit to buy insurance. If Republicans simply kept that schedule, and ditched the flat tax credit, they’d cover many more people."

Easy? This is the crucial GOP division. Old-line Republicans want to reduce transfers, and new Populists want to help people in rural West Virginia. The question of the day is what side the White House is on.

P.S. I am watching you.

Heh, I think you have the Old-line Republicans and new batch of little Freedom Eagles backwards.

PS Trump literally doesn't give a damn. He wants to be popular.

Pay for W. Va at the expense of CA. Why not? Tribal politics rule aftwr Obama.

6 -- I suppose Max Headroom was busy with other projects?

I love the Paglia chick. I'd like to get drunk with her, stroll through a museum after hours, spill bottles, make grandstand speeches to the gods, and then go have a steak dinner.

"Jung-A did not use too much force in removing the children from the room. It is quite apparent from the video that she is frantically trying to salvage the professionalism of the interview. The children were not injured. When Marion speaks in the clip, she says, in Korean, ‘why Mom?’ She is responding in surprise, because we normally do not treat out children this way."
And this is why you have children roaming through your house. Overwhelming force is what works. As Mr. Theodore Roosevelt advised parents, "Don't hit at all if you can help it; don't hit if you can possibly avoid it; but if you do hit him, put him to sleep."

Remarkable. And how many children do you have, exactly?

One, and he never invaded anyone's interview.

Gapminder has a quiz up for how well you know the world:

(hint: be optimistic)

My god, please no more Paglia.

Can we please hear more from the woman aligned without would-be FLOTUS pimp, amd Democrat Bow Wow? Can we please hear more about sexist air-conditioning?

5. Ray seems to have moved from cash to chickens.

@Anonymous - thanks for the mention. The Blattman article was good; I sent an email to TC a while ago predicting doom for Bill Gates "chicken in every household" scheme (akin to Henry IV of France's claim "If God keeps me, I will make sure that no peasant in my realm will lack the means to have a chicken in the pot on Sunday!")

I got out of the Philippine poultry business, but am getting into Filipino nurses for the First World and some light manufacturing businesses in PH.

The trouble with raising poultry is cost: even if you hatch your own chicks as opposed to buying them, as I did, it's expensive. Not just the vaccines but the feed, the lights on 24 hours (to gain weight faster), the antibiotics (ditto, weight gainers, added to their water), and chickens tend to catch disease if they get damp, even though I kept them inside the coop all day with the 12 V DC outdoor lights on (if you let them free range, they run out of food quick, and they don't gain weight fast and their meat gets tough, not as marketable), as in PH it rains hard about 9 months a year, and feed (with probiotics added, Integra is a good San Mig company chicken feed but the feed costs about two pounds feed for every one pound chicken, and that's if you get fast growing Cx Cornish meat chickens). Then there's the loss (chicks are no big loss, but if you lose a 1 kg bird just before slaughter it's sad); they die for no apparent reason, I even had a suspected cobra strike a few times. Chicken per kg pricing is also cut throat. The fun stuff like slaughtering them (I got good at exsanguination as throat slitting is euphemistically called) and watching them grow from chick to harvest in about 30 to 40 days (and watching the young roosters spar with one another when they are happy, it's pretty funny) doesn't make up for cleaning the coops (daily, you have to turn the soil over or you'll get smelly chicken coops which annoy neighbors or you might get the rare fly strike (where the fly maggot enters any open wound and many of these maggots will eat the chicken alive, from inside out, the chickens are programmed not to show pain or distress --it's an evolutionary survival mechanism--and before you know it they're completely infested and eaten alive by maggots, and worse, unsellable. I never had it happen but I did have a few chickens leave a wound on them--and show no symptoms--until the wound gangrened, literally green, and yes we ate it, just chop off the rotten part, eat the rest, it's harmless and the good meat is delicious). And of course spraying with the excellent, cheap and relatively harmless Malathion for red mite (microscopic itchy red mites that make chickens slowly lose weight, common with egg layers, and they can infest humans for up to seven days before dying, during which time your genitals itch like crazy, you cannot remove them with tweezers either, only with a special expensive cream, I just used to wait until they died in me). The rewards are nice in that the neighborhood appreciates it, with the occasional demanding consumer aside (they'll bargain in the Philippines even if you have a rock bottom price, to get a few pesos extra, and the more ignorant neighbors think you're exploiting them even if your prices are less than that of the super market price). But profitability was 0 (typical) to 2% (max)--not worth it--and I did not ever recoup my capital costs of building coops (we use them now for raising fighting roosters for fun). Plucking feathers is also a hassle (I wish I had those mechanical pluckers that clean a chicken in 30 seconds, but they cost an arm and a leg, not just a chicken wing either). I had up to 300 birds a month at one point but the work was too much for the meager profit.

So now I'm going to do some light manufacturing using some skilled mechanics, of which there are many in PH. As Blattman says, the Third World has skilled people, just no capital and often no tools. And I'll do the nursing business for rich old Greeks, of which there are plenty. But Greece is not a good country to do business in, so I doubt I make a lot of money, just break even plus a modest profit. Both projects are only "for fun" as I'm in the 1% already, and don't need the money any more than Bill Gates does.

So, so lonely.

Projection noted. You're cyberstalking me loser, I'm talking to one of my fans. Vamos! Go scarf some MSG laden chicken and be gone.

So, so delusional.

I don't think maggots eat healthy flesh? They actually use maggots for debridement in hospitals because they are so effective for wound healing?

Why did Trump draw a line re: no jokes about his wealth in his Roast a few years ago?

A: He's not a billionaire.

Why does Ray Lopez always refer to himself as 'in the 1%'


#2 (spicy curries)

Once again Heston Blumenthal proves that he's a culinary visionary. The Fat Duck's incorporation of sound with food was frequently mocked by skeptics, but looks like science has proved that taste is affected by auditory processing.

1. Are women punished more severely for financial misconduct than are men?

Exhibit A: Martha Stewart

#2b Spicieness and tactile sensation are linked as proven by bio-chemistry and neuro-science.

"""Research shows that a molecule in the peppers activates your cells’ touch receptors, making them feel like they’ve been rapidly vibrated. ... What’s behind this strange phenomenon, scientifically known as paresthesia? Scientists believe that it has something to do with a molecule called hydroxy-alpha-sanshool, naturally present in the peppers. ...The scientists say that frequency of the Szechuan’s numbing sensation fell within the range of vibration typically conveyed by a highly-sensitive type of tactile receptor called Meissner receptors, which cover around 10-80 hertz."""

#7) Do I understand this correctly? The CBO first tries to predict how many people will sign up for health insurance in the future due to the individual mandate, *even if they don't have health insurance now*. Then, it counts these people as having "lost" insurance if the individual mandate is removed? I guess that is consistent with the Washington definition of a "spending cut" as a slowing of the rate of increase in spending relative to some previous baseline. Good to know, though, that many of these are fictitious "losses".

On the bright side, we now have a whole new vocabulary for political discourse. By this same definition of loss, I suppose one argument against criminal sentencing reform is that, by reducing prison sentences, reform will cause many convicts to "lose" a lot of free food and housing. Also, how many millions of women have "lost" K-12 education benefits for their kids as a result of legalizing abortion?

To analyze 2018 policy options, I use forecast figures of what the situation will be in 2018, not the present numbers on March 15, 2017.

That's how it's done when analyzing what effects a polciy change will have when it occurs at some future date.

Whether the specific estimates would have panned out is a different question. Not even really related to the issue you raise, at least the way you raise it.

But the policy change is going to occur now, not at some future date. You can't lose insurance you never got in the first place. It's disingenuous to call people who you predict would have gotten health insurance in the future who you now project will not get health insurance "people who lost their insurance"

Compare "2018 do nothing" to "2018 reform" scenarios.

The baseline is fictional numbers, but it makes sense.

But if the estimates used are bogus, then they are bogus. The question of using estimates of a future situation is not invalidating as a method.

If you injure me and I miss work in the future because of my injuries, I get to sue you for "lost wages." Same principle, it's just semantics.

There's a difference between lost wages from a job that you currently actually have and "lost wages" from a hypothetical future job that you claim that you would have gotten years into the future after hypothetically increasing your education and/or hypothetically being promoted to CEO.

And, it's more than just semantics. When someone says they lost their health insurance, they don't mean that the CBO used to predict that they would buy insurance in the future but now predicts that they won't.

I looked at the CBO report and found this discussion you started is a red herring. What the CBO does is compare what would happen under current policy to what would happen under an alternative policy. That is, in fact, the only logical way to evaluate the impact of a given policy. The exact language used in the CBO report is, "the increase in the number of uninsured people relative to the number under current law would rise to 21 million in 2020 and then to 24 million in 2026."

They don't even use the word "lost" in the report.

Imagine we had a mandate to work.

Then we remove that mandate.

People who didn't want to work, would not be working at jobs they didn't want.

Yes, unemployment would go up, but would it be fair to trumpet that as if people were being hurt?

Technically, maybe unemployment wouldn't go up because they wouldn't report they were looking for work at all.

Maybe a solution is there: % insured of those who actively want to be insured.

The comparison of lost wages from a current job and lost wages from a hypothetical job are interesting.

I assume the second is attributed lower value, but certainly not zero, for many purposes.

So by the associative property, streaming music has made curries less spicy.

"SJWs, Black Lives Matter, Gamergate, blatant media bias, feminism and the denigration of Men’s Rights, etc. Point is, there’s a countercultural movement growing that you are feeding by demanding double standards against men."

The Internet is a silly place.

Hail Trump!

That, and deadly serious

Women's rights needed some support to get things rolling.

Some decades later, slowly slowly, we see some men starting to realize that a time will come that this equity and gender balance issue will require that men also advocate for themselves, per se, as men.

I wouldn't like to see things go very far this way, and instead for women's rights groups to basically fade away once the main objectives relating to equal opportunity, freedom from various forms of abuse, etc., are basically achieved. But if the women's rights groups are not fading away as we approach equal opportunity and treatment of women, then Newtonian logic should be sufficient to understand that men's advocates will be needed too.

The situation is still one where things are overall (on average) better for men, so the situation is not dire. But it certainly doesn't bother me to hear/heard occasional grumblings to the effect of something or other like that might have to happen.

What sorts of insults do you think the trolls will use to demotivate, demoralize, and defenstrate those males who will take up the cause of advocating for men?

I wonder what kind of man wakes up in the morning and thinks “SJWs, Black Lives Matter, Gamergate, blatant media bias, feminism and the denigration of Men’s Rights" are all arrayed against him.

Not anyone focused on his immediate problems or opportunities.

Wake up and go to work. Try to sell to government offices. Notice they seem really keen on minority, women, and disabled veteran businesses as vendors.

Nope. nobody who is focused on immediate problems or opportunities would notice that.

I'm sure there are other examples.

In case you're not paying attention, we're entering Four Feet Good, Two Feet Better territory with many of these issues.

When judging polarization, I prefer to look at peoples' actual policy views, rather than a complicated analysis of social media sharing correlations between different websites. Looking at actual views, both left and right have moved further to their side, but the left moved first and has moved farther.

#4b, not good

That's one for Alex.

Comments for this post are closed