As our erstwhile Vice President once told a school audience, e pluribus unum means out of one come many. It's beginning to look like the old Veep Gore's misunderstanding and mis-translation has taken root in the Senate (hey, that's where he used to hang out, isn't it?).
Yep, the Senate, thanks to a member from Hawaii, is poised to further fracture our Union. These United States will have even more levels of government, this time based on yet another racial or ethnic identification - Native Hawaiians.
As a native American of Belgian descent, I resent other ethnicities getting all the goodies - I want to set up a Barony of Belgian-Americans that operates in tandem with the current Federal government. As Baron of Belgian America, I will rule my brethren with kindness, mercy, frites, mussels, and beer. After all, if other groups get extra layers of government to insulate them from reality, why shouldn't I? Freedom for Flemish Americans! Up the Walloons!
I suppose it's more likely we'll end up with a federation of a Balkanized America than with my dream of the Barony of Belgian America. So, with a heavy heart, I say:
grr.
Charles, Baron van Becelaere
Friday, June 02, 2006
Thursday, May 04, 2006
Gasoline Prices, etc
Well, at least it looks like there won't be any silly "tax rebates" coming from the Feds based on the increased gasoline tax revenues. Still, it does look at least possible that some kind of investigation of those evil oil companies may be in the offing.
Oh, and on the more local front, our "business friendly" governor, Jennifer Granholm, is busy pressing for a windfall profits tax on the oil industry. Hmm, I guess the message is something like, "We want you to come do business in Michigan. Be careful that you don't do too well, though, or we'll come take your profits." Sounds like a winning message, doesn't it?
Of course, everyone knows that the windfall profits tax back in the Carter years
That's exactly the problem, it will work exactly as it did then.
Imagine this scenario.
Staples buys paper from the manufacturer at $75 per whatever, then marks it up to $100. Every time they sell one of those units, they make $25 - or, 25% of the sale is their margin.
Suddenly, there's a shortage, or a labor cost increase, or whatever, and the cost to Staples goes up to $112.50. Staples then marks that unit up to $150.
Now each time they sell one of those units, they make $37.50, a windfall of 50%!
Oh, wait a minute - they're still only making a margin of 25% of the sale. Maybe there's no windfall at all.
Why can't everything be this simple and clear? Perhaps because we don't want to think, we just want to blame.
grr.
Oh, and on the more local front, our "business friendly" governor, Jennifer Granholm, is busy pressing for a windfall profits tax on the oil industry. Hmm, I guess the message is something like, "We want you to come do business in Michigan. Be careful that you don't do too well, though, or we'll come take your profits." Sounds like a winning message, doesn't it?
Of course, everyone knows that the windfall profits tax back in the Carter years
That's exactly the problem, it will work exactly as it did then.
Imagine this scenario.
Staples buys paper from the manufacturer at $75 per whatever, then marks it up to $100. Every time they sell one of those units, they make $25 - or, 25% of the sale is their margin.
Suddenly, there's a shortage, or a labor cost increase, or whatever, and the cost to Staples goes up to $112.50. Staples then marks that unit up to $150.
Now each time they sell one of those units, they make $37.50, a windfall of 50%!
Oh, wait a minute - they're still only making a margin of 25% of the sale. Maybe there's no windfall at all.
Why can't everything be this simple and clear? Perhaps because we don't want to think, we just want to blame.
grr.
Friday, April 07, 2006
Immigration Arguments
I was listening to one of the proponents of amnesty for illegal immigrants the other day, and something struck me about his arguments.
First, they were strictly economic in nature. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised to hear that from the left, given the essentially complete takeover of the left by socialist thinking, but it still seems odd.
Secondly, they seemed eerily reminiscent of arguments not heard in this country since the mid 1800s. The whole justification seemed to be essentially the same as the justification for keeping slavery in the soon-to-be Confederacy. It boiled down to this: we can't find Americans willing to do these jobs at these wages, so don't take our Mexicans away. Given the amazing blinders as to the true costs of illegals with which the left tends to view this situation, I suppose it's far from surprising that they don't see that paying a wage at which an American would do the job would actually cost us all less than paying the outrageously low wages and letting the taxpayers pick up all the extras.
I have absolutely no compassion for businesses which are based knowingly on breaking the law. Neither should you.
First, they were strictly economic in nature. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised to hear that from the left, given the essentially complete takeover of the left by socialist thinking, but it still seems odd.
Secondly, they seemed eerily reminiscent of arguments not heard in this country since the mid 1800s. The whole justification seemed to be essentially the same as the justification for keeping slavery in the soon-to-be Confederacy. It boiled down to this: we can't find Americans willing to do these jobs at these wages, so don't take our Mexicans away. Given the amazing blinders as to the true costs of illegals with which the left tends to view this situation, I suppose it's far from surprising that they don't see that paying a wage at which an American would do the job would actually cost us all less than paying the outrageously low wages and letting the taxpayers pick up all the extras.
I have absolutely no compassion for businesses which are based knowingly on breaking the law. Neither should you.
Friday, March 31, 2006
Perhaps I Just Don't Speak English Well Enough
I'm afraid I'm having trouble understanding some of the news reports lately.
It seems that I don't quite know the correct usage of some of the basic terms in our current immigration debate.
Somehow, people are up in arms at the thought if making it criminal to do something that's against the law (or "illegal" as we often say).
Hmm. Seems to me that if you break a law - I'm not talking about a civil infraction, such as a traffic ticket (and only some of them) - then you've done something criminal. Perhaps there are some fine distinctions of which I'm unaware. For example, is it only felons who are criminals? I don't remember reading that anywhere, but I suppose it could be the case.
Still, I don't think that's the distinction anyone is "honestly" making in this debate. Somehow, those who want immigrants to "play by the rules" (that's a nice way of saying "obey the law" in my book) are evil Blue Meanies who are bent on creating a new class of criminals out of whole cloth.
It seems more likely that those on the other side are attempting to end the crime of illegal immigration by defining it away. "Oh, it's no longer illegal to do that; and look - our crime rate has gone down dramatically!" What nonsense.
It seems that I don't quite know the correct usage of some of the basic terms in our current immigration debate.
Somehow, people are up in arms at the thought if making it criminal to do something that's against the law (or "illegal" as we often say).
Hmm. Seems to me that if you break a law - I'm not talking about a civil infraction, such as a traffic ticket (and only some of them) - then you've done something criminal. Perhaps there are some fine distinctions of which I'm unaware. For example, is it only felons who are criminals? I don't remember reading that anywhere, but I suppose it could be the case.
Still, I don't think that's the distinction anyone is "honestly" making in this debate. Somehow, those who want immigrants to "play by the rules" (that's a nice way of saying "obey the law" in my book) are evil Blue Meanies who are bent on creating a new class of criminals out of whole cloth.
It seems more likely that those on the other side are attempting to end the crime of illegal immigration by defining it away. "Oh, it's no longer illegal to do that; and look - our crime rate has gone down dramatically!" What nonsense.
Thursday, March 16, 2006
Prohibition
Well, it's back, apparently. That's right, folks, narrow-minded busybodies are back at it - high-minded do-gooders are out to tell you what's good for you, and make it stick!
Oh wait, this time it's folks on the left, and it's tobacco. Oh, then it's alright. Man, what are these folks in California smoking? Clearly it's not tobacco!
Don't call it a ban, though - you can still smoke in certain well-defined remote areas, as well as in your car (provided the windows are rolled up and no one can smell your smoke). I wonder if they're going to ban smoky cars (diesel delivery trucks need not bring their wares into town! doesn't matter how green the product - or produce - bring it by mule, please)?
Next thing you know, we're going to ban highway salt. No, not because it rusts our cars, or causes trouble with grass growing next to the roads - we've got to limit exposure to second-hand salt!
That's right, folks - second-hand salt is a deadly danger (it's been researched in India, and that's where all our jobs are going, so they ought to know, right?). Next up, the HHS (Health and Hubris Services) will be baning that shaker on your table.
OK, I feel better now (think I'll go find a salt lick). Smoke 'em if you've got 'em - just not near anyone else!
Oh wait, this time it's folks on the left, and it's tobacco. Oh, then it's alright. Man, what are these folks in California smoking? Clearly it's not tobacco!
Don't call it a ban, though - you can still smoke in certain well-defined remote areas, as well as in your car (provided the windows are rolled up and no one can smell your smoke). I wonder if they're going to ban smoky cars (diesel delivery trucks need not bring their wares into town! doesn't matter how green the product - or produce - bring it by mule, please)?
Next thing you know, we're going to ban highway salt. No, not because it rusts our cars, or causes trouble with grass growing next to the roads - we've got to limit exposure to second-hand salt!
That's right, folks - second-hand salt is a deadly danger (it's been researched in India, and that's where all our jobs are going, so they ought to know, right?). Next up, the HHS (Health and Hubris Services) will be baning that shaker on your table.
OK, I feel better now (think I'll go find a salt lick). Smoke 'em if you've got 'em - just not near anyone else!
Monday, February 13, 2006
Global Warming my Eye
At last, there's a report of what's really going on with the climate [check here] - we're headed for another Ice Age.
For years I've been telling everyone who'll listen that we should pump as much of those "greenhouse gasses" into the atmosphere as possible - anything to cushion the coming Ice Age. Just look at the activity of the sun: where are the neutrinos? Riddle me that, global warming man!
The sun is entering a downtime in the cycle of sunspots, and it's already dropped its fusion activity radically - there are simply not nearly enough neutrinos coming out to sustain current energy output. We're about to see the sun's radius reduced slightly, causing an increase in density, causing a re-ignition of the fusion reaction. Of course, in the meantime, we're looking at dropping temperatures. Cuddle alert if ever there was one!
For a fun novelized exploration of what's about to happen, check out "Fallen Angels" by Niven, Pournelle, and Flynn [check it out here]. It's especially fun if you've ever been part of a science fiction convention, but once you're into the story, that's just icing on the cake. Highly recommended.
Now go put on a sweater!
For years I've been telling everyone who'll listen that we should pump as much of those "greenhouse gasses" into the atmosphere as possible - anything to cushion the coming Ice Age. Just look at the activity of the sun: where are the neutrinos? Riddle me that, global warming man!
The sun is entering a downtime in the cycle of sunspots, and it's already dropped its fusion activity radically - there are simply not nearly enough neutrinos coming out to sustain current energy output. We're about to see the sun's radius reduced slightly, causing an increase in density, causing a re-ignition of the fusion reaction. Of course, in the meantime, we're looking at dropping temperatures. Cuddle alert if ever there was one!
For a fun novelized exploration of what's about to happen, check out "Fallen Angels" by Niven, Pournelle, and Flynn [check it out here]. It's especially fun if you've ever been part of a science fiction convention, but once you're into the story, that's just icing on the cake. Highly recommended.
Now go put on a sweater!
Thursday, February 09, 2006
Linguistic Musings
Here are a few things that I've posted in other places over the years. Kind of fun, and it helps keep this blog filling up!
1. What is an adverb?
Adverbs, like Adjectives, are words used to modify other words.
In the case of Adjectives, they modify only nouns.
All other words are modified by Adverbs.
Can you give an example?
In that sentence, bloody is used as an adverb, while in other contexts it can be used as an adjective. One of the confusions among students of grammar is that the classification of a given word can differ, based upon its use.
What?
I thought you'd never ask.
Think of that same word, "bloody," in another context:
If we were in England, we might hear someone say:
Oh
I thought you'd see it my way. Just remember that there are many other, less family-friendly modifiers which could be used in just the same way!
Happy Modifying!
2. What are personal pronouns?
There are two uses beyond the simple substitution of he for Bruce or she for Sheila, for example.
And those are?
The singular indefinite pronoun and the singular pronoun of personification.
'He' is the singular indefinite pronoun in English ("if a person drinks too much, he will likely experience a hangover"). 'He' also happens to be the masculine personal pronoun.
'She' is the singular pronoun of personification in English ("if England fails to advance America's foreign-policy ambitions, she will suffer terrible consequences"). 'She' also happens to be the feminine personal pronoun.
Confusing the two exhibits not a warm-and-fuzzy concern for the inclusion of women so much as a writer's or speaker's ignorance. Using the feminine personal pronoun as an indefinite article is as moronic as using the masculine personal pronoun for personification. Thus the captain greets us: "Welcome to my ship. Isn't he splendid?"
I mean, give it up, people. It's not thoughtful; it's just illiterate.
btw - many thanks to Thomas C. Greene of the Register for his unusually grammatical (at least for the Register) analysis of this topic.
3. What new words might I want to use?
Here are several new coinages for your lexical pleasure, enjoy!
grandmonition (v. n.) - The urging of (especially) kin to overindulge somewhat, as in "Eat up," she grandmonished him, "you're nothing but skin and bones."
plebicide (v. n.) - This is the killing of one's "people" in order to assure electoral dominance. For example: The Baath party called for a plebicide on the eve on national elections.
[compare plebiscite - a direct vote of the entire electorate].
weblication (v. n.) - The "replication" of someone else's web materials in order to create one's own (not that this ever happens).
1. What is an adverb?
Adverbs, like Adjectives, are words used to modify other words.
In the case of Adjectives, they modify only nouns.
All other words are modified by Adverbs.
Can you give an example?
You're bloody right I can.
That was an example, in case you didn't notice.In that sentence, bloody is used as an adverb, while in other contexts it can be used as an adjective. One of the confusions among students of grammar is that the classification of a given word can differ, based upon its use.
What?
I thought you'd never ask.
Think of that same word, "bloody," in another context:
That is one bloody wound.
There, "bloody" is used as an adjective, simply modifying the noun "wound."If we were in England, we might hear someone say:
That is one bloody vicious rabbit.
Note that there is no comma between "bloody" and "vicious," indicating that they are not serial adjectives, both modifying the noun, "rabbit." Thus, "bloody" in this context is acting as an adverb, and actually modifies the adjective. "vicious."Oh
I thought you'd see it my way. Just remember that there are many other, less family-friendly modifiers which could be used in just the same way!
Happy Modifying!
2. What are personal pronouns?
There are two uses beyond the simple substitution of he for Bruce or she for Sheila, for example.
And those are?
The singular indefinite pronoun and the singular pronoun of personification.
'He' is the singular indefinite pronoun in English ("if a person drinks too much, he will likely experience a hangover"). 'He' also happens to be the masculine personal pronoun.
'She' is the singular pronoun of personification in English ("if England fails to advance America's foreign-policy ambitions, she will suffer terrible consequences"). 'She' also happens to be the feminine personal pronoun.
Confusing the two exhibits not a warm-and-fuzzy concern for the inclusion of women so much as a writer's or speaker's ignorance. Using the feminine personal pronoun as an indefinite article is as moronic as using the masculine personal pronoun for personification. Thus the captain greets us: "Welcome to my ship. Isn't he splendid?"
I mean, give it up, people. It's not thoughtful; it's just illiterate.
btw - many thanks to Thomas C. Greene of the Register for his unusually grammatical (at least for the Register) analysis of this topic.
3. What new words might I want to use?
Here are several new coinages for your lexical pleasure, enjoy!
grandmonition (v. n.) - The urging of (especially) kin to overindulge somewhat, as in "Eat up," she grandmonished him, "you're nothing but skin and bones."
plebicide (v. n.) - This is the killing of one's "people" in order to assure electoral dominance. For example: The Baath party called for a plebicide on the eve on national elections.
[compare plebiscite - a direct vote of the entire electorate].
weblication (v. n.) - The "replication" of someone else's web materials in order to create one's own (not that this ever happens).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
