etheror

1.Regardless of what this nimrod says coffee is not going extinct due to climate change.
2. If climate change really does affect the coffee crop materially, we'll begin growing it in other places or worst case: greenhouses. The crop won't die overnight.
3. Coffee is much more likely to be regulated out of existence than to be global warmed out of existence.

Oprah was a major factor in giving Obama the 2008 Democratic nomination over Hillary. In the battle of liberal public opinion, Oprah aligned with her race rather than her gender.

Oprah has always been a liberal grievance huckster. Her manner is quiet and feminine. While emotional her arguments have the trappings of common sense. However, under the covers Oprah's attitudes have much in common with those of her new protege, Rosie O'Donnell.

Rosie hated George W. Bush. She hated his confidence, popularity, his unapologetic advocacy of American interest. For Rosie, W was a proxy for America and therefore reviled. I believe that Oprah in her heart of hearts feels the same way.
Both Oprah and Rosie are in it for the money but like a lot of liberal media personalities, they see an opportunity to get paid for doing what they love. And worse; for doing "public good."

Irresponsible Truther accusations, and incessant celebrity squabbles have not significantly diminished Rosie. Occasionally she goes too far, but eventually her innate cleverness brings her back to the fore. People either don't understand, forgive, or forget too quickly.

On Rosie's new OWN show, expect plenty of pap regarding bullying, oil companies, and the 99%.

Rosie O'Donnell has denounced the political influence of corporations. I agree and can name 3 specific corporations that have done real and lasting damage to the political fabric of our country: Discovery, Hearst, and Harpo Productions. If we are going to unwind the first amendment as so many liberals seem to desire, let's start here.

It turns out that the Frankfurt shooter was inspired by Brian de Palma's Redacted.

I don't blame de Palma for the shooting.

However, his movie that shows American's raping Muslims is annoying in that it is anti-true.

While the behavior of US troops in Iraq/Afghanistan has not been perfect, it has been exemplary. I wonder if there has been a less rape-inclined occupation force in the history of war.

Brian De Palma and the Jihadists probably don't agree about much. However, both want to believe the worst about the US.

So I'm "celebrating" the conclusion of the first decade of the GWOT by reading some of the heavy hitters in the early days of Iraq and the early days of blogging as well. Bill Whittle was the clearest writer of the moment in my opinion.

Or clearest to me; I think both Bill and I were liberals mugged by Sept 11.

I was sorry to see that Bill retired ejectejecteject last year. He has moved to a more video-driven format here.

I took Sept 11 personally.

The first plane, American Airlines Flight 11, flew directly over my head as I walked to my office on Maiden Lane. I didn't see anything, audio only. I heard the low flying object -- jet, rocket, UFO -- throttle up and then boom.

People walking across the street were gasping and looking at something I couldn't see from my vantage point. When I crossed the street and looked up I learned that the World Trade Center had been attacked again. This was no accident.

At first, It didn't look so bad. The fire was high enough in the building that I though most everyone would escape. I didn't for a moment think that the building was in any sort of structural jeopardy. I had an important meeting at the office that day, so I pressed on to work.

My office was on the opposite side of the island from WTC but it is a rather narrow island down town. Really only 10 blocks away. I was worried that I'd have to walk through the smoked that was potentially poisoned or contaminated. There was also some bizarre twinkling coming from the smoke cloud. As I got closer, I realized that it was 8 1/2 x 11 sheets of paper being blown from the hole in the building. If you wound an office, it bleeds paper.

A fellow walking ahead of me passed into the smoke without ill effects so I did as well. Without too much trouble I was able to get into my building and get to my desk.

Everyone was freaking out. I had an old Walkman radio in my desk, I gave that to a colleague while I tried to find some information on the Internet. The web was overwhelmed by simultaneous requests. I was flummoxed by poor overwhelmed news servers and intranet capacity. My colleague told me that there had been two planes and that now both buildings were on fire.

Needless to say, my super-important meeting was canceled.

At that point, the fog of war descended. Information was scarce. Telephones weren't working reliably because the circuits were overloaded. Rumors were being repeated by radio broadcasters. I discounted the attack on the Pentagon when I first heard about it because there had been two earlier rumors that Congress and the White House had been kamakazied.

I was low enough in the building that I really had no viewpoint on what was happening. If I had stayed at the subway exit where I first spied the damage, I would have been able to see the story play out a lot better.

A ghastly rumor started that people were jumping out of the windows rather than burn to death. Several people who worked on my floor rushed to the penthouse to get a better view. The rumors were true and each of these people was scarred by what they saw.

At this point, we heard an earthquake-like rumble. My colleague who was listening to my radio said that the South tower had collapsed. Her English was imperfect and I was sure she had misinterpreted. I thought maybe the top of the North tower had fallen off. Surely there was no way that

My firm did not own the office building in which I worked. But whoever ran 180 Maiden Lane was an honest-to-goodness hero that day. When they realized that a giant cloud of debris was coming our way, they turned off the AC intakes.

So my experience was long rumble, AC goes off, and then the windows go black for 10 minutes. This was repeated a half hour later when the North tower collapsed as well.

The subways had been disrupted. Obviously the PATH train couldn't run. I lived in Manhattan and often walked home for the exercise so I had no problem. But my asthmatic colleague from NJ was in trouble. Luckily, our office was directly above a NY Waterways ferry terminal. The NY Waterways guys, Dunkirk-like, just started landing loading and booking across to Jersey City as fast as they could. My colleague made it out before the lines started to get long.

When I left the building, It was a completely different world from when I had entered. It was a war zone. There was a coating of disgusting smelling grey soot everywhere. Even on the other side of the island, there were dozens of people staggering around with minor injuries. Again, the helpful people at 180 Maiden Lane were providing first aid and water in the lobby.

I ran into some former colleagues and we agreed to start hoofing it home together. I was able to stop at Barnes and Noble and buy a couple books on radical Islam on the way home.

So, yeah, I took Sept 11 personally. As far as I'm concerned, the attackers were trying to get me, but I got lucky.

Liberals are quick to point out that entitlements have nothing to do with our current budget problems and should be off the table when it comes to making sacrifices while resolving our debt.

It is true that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid have not significantly contributed to the debt. Obamacare's gimmickry kicks in over time with benefits preceding the costs by several years.

At present, liberals are right and entitlements did not create the debt.

But entitlements have already begun affecting the debt and their impact will increase going forward. This will happen much faster than people think. Entitlement spending makes reducing the debt much harder since entitlements reduce revenues left over for the discretionary budget.

The problem will be painful to solve today but each year that it is delayed, the damage to the fabric of the country will become greater. If we wait too long, the damage may be fatal.

Up until recently, Social Security has run a surplus. The SS department takes those surplus funds and uses them to buys Treasuries. That is; SS lends the treasury money which reduces the revenue required the federal govt. But like all loans, this must be paid back. The required revenue is reduced for today in favor of increased revenue demands for the future.

As the baby boomers retire, more and more non-FICA revenue will be required to pay back these debts. Our unfunded liabilities are much worse than the $14.6tn debt.

People live longer than they used to. Medical care is more expensive. Obamacare makes the problem even worse.

Medicare is in more imminent danger than Social Security. States and municipalities are all playing the same games and have massive unfunded liabilities.

If the current proportions do not change, entitlement spending will consume all tax revenue by 2052. This is obviously untenable.

Liberals pride themselves on being smarter than conservatives. On economic matters, liberals fail to grasp several fundamental concepts. One example: it is the anticipated future performance that determines the present value of an asset. The anticipated future negative cashflows associated with SS, Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare are impacting the value of the dollar, our national credit rating, the stock market, gold, and the world economy.

You're goddamed right Republicans want to end Medicare-as-we-know-it. Better to end Medicare-as-we-know-it than America-as-we-know-it.

The debt is one way of looking at the economic obligations of our nation. It is a narrow, optimistic view. Entitlements make up the majority of the future obligations faction America and must be considered in order to fix the problem.

One reason I won't be voting for Mitt Romney is because he has espoused more of this progressive taxation claptrap.

Warren Buffett is one of the most successful capitalists in human history. He is profoundly intelligent, sensible, and since his 60s, quite charismatic.

And yet he is so, so wrong on the subject of taxation.

Buffett calls for higher taxes on the mega rich.
1. Buffett's main point, that his taxes are a lower fraction of his income than that of his employees is somewhat unusual. Buffett's primary business is investment which is akin to savings. Capital gains are intentionally taxed at a lower rate to encourage individuals to save.
2. It won't work. Buffett's proposal would raise about $500bn over 10 years. We really need $8tn over that same period just to keep our debt/GDP ratio where it is today.
3. You can only do it once. America is successful because you can move from pauper to prince over the course of your career if you have sufficient talent and initiative. This attracts businesses and entrepreneurs. If the message that gets out that there is a limited upside here smart people will go elsewhere.
4. If only the rich materially contribute to the state, the state will surely begin to pander to the rich. Much the way the relationship governments and tobacco companies have evolved into a perverse symbiosis, government would begin to need the wealthy. Only the legal intermediaries would benefit from this uncertain, inefficient, and pointless dance.
5. If history is our guide, additional taxation would likely be spent on increased entitlements rather than reducing the debt. Putting more money into the system will simply collateralize additional borrowing which will obviously make the problem worse in the long term. Britain's experiment with a welfare economy is collapsing. "Citizens" on the dole, it turns out, view their entitlements as just that. When the flow of benefits is ever so slightly throttled down, they riot.
6. It is not fair. Liberals constantly talk about the rich paying their share. This is an outrageous anti-truth. The top 1% earn 20% of the income and pay 40% of the taxes. It is the poor and lower middle class who are not pulling their weight. Increasing taxes on the rich is obvious tyranny of the majority. If you meet a mega-rich person in the coming days, thank him or her.
7. Redistributionists will use Warren's specific point and modest proposal as justification for increased taxes on not just the mega-rich but the middle class as well.

I sincerely applaud Warren for his charity. He is a thoughtful fellow who ultimately decided not to ruin his children by dispersing his billions into their accounts unearned. It is his money and his choice. But when it comes to my money, somebody needs to tell Warren Buffett to have a coke and a smile and shut the fuck up.

(Apologies to Eddie Murphy/Richard Pryor.)

The left and right are really at odds over the root cause and proper response to the rioting in London last week.

For the left, this is another tragedy brought on by inequality and the economic malaise. A British colleague recently bewailed the life damaging effects that this will have on the looters.

The right sees the riots as liberal policies: mass immigration, breakdown of the family, unwillingness to protect property, and societal coddling come home to roost.

Neither side has particularly good evidence for their case. Here are some facts:
1. The riots were sparked at the memorial service of a black drug dealer.
2. The events were characterized by looting, vandalism, and mugging. The targets were mostly music, electronics, and clothing rather than political. Total damage will likely fall between 100 million and 200 million GBP.
3. Several deaths were caused directly by looters.
4. The rioters coordinated their attacks using social media.

The left, no doubt, has the better argument here. Tottenham was a powder keg. There were tons of angry and unemployed people.

But as to why these unfortunates are so angry, the right has a more compelling case. Fifty years of state paternalism, socialized medicine, and welfare has not helped and has likely hurt the situation. Constant sensitivity to race has only emphasized the racial boundary. The lack of a stake in society has eroded any sense of citizenship or community.

So while cause attribution by the right and the left, in this case, is not necessarily contradictory advantage goes to the social conservatives.

As a Hobbesian, I am inclined to find tribal violence to be the natural state of man. The real question is why doesn't this happen all the time.

I'm sure that Cowen has attacked this in his book and fundamentally I agree with his thesis, but:
1. Is the internet a single technology? Aren't google, email, wikipedia, instant messaging, facebook, remote backups, direct marketing all separate, disruptive technologies which happen to use a common substrate?
2. I'd like to contrast The Great Stagnation to The Innovator's Dilemma.
3. Surely cellphones, thumb drives, automobile safety, video games, etc have all made our lives much better -- even from a dry, economic perspective. Good god, pornography is plentiful, free, and disturbingly specific.

(I should really buy this book if I'm going to keep commenting upon it.)