Guard Dog

Another example of this mass insanity we call government. The city of Toronto has a a park with a steep rocky hill in the entrance. Several people visiting the park have fallen. The city was planning to build a wooden stair to make it safer. The bids to complete the job ranged from $65k-$150k. A retired auto mechanic went out there one weekend and built it himself for $550. The park visitors were over joyed. The city is furious. They have since blocked access to the stairs, they are demanding he tear them down, and he may face charges. http://globalnews.ca/news/3610696/tom-riley-park-stairs-toronto/

An interesting story from the book I described above. Two german lieutenants on the run after the escpape made it was far as Gila Bend, just 10 miles from Mexico. The stopped to wash their clothes in a canal when they were found by a group of cowboys. When the cowboys heard who they were they were so impressed about how far they'd gotten they took them into town for a beer while waiting for the Sheriff to come get them. That's pretty cool.

Again with the insinuation that homeless people are just lazy. It's such a great thought process because it goes like "only lazy people are ever homeless → I'm not lazy → I will never be homeless". If only. I take it then that, for instance, the hundreds of thousands of homeless veterans are just lazy? A certain book I'm reading says that that, by 1993, just about 5% of all companies in the US had started looking into ways to automate processes and suppress jobs, where 75% of all jobs in the US were essentially repetitive tasks (i.e. easily substituted for a machine). I take it that the millions of people being laid off with no prospects of finding even a job flipping burgers are lazy? The downward slope in prime-age male % participation in the workforce hasn't changed despite the recent employment upturn, which is in part driven by poor quality job creation. Are those not able to find stable, full-time jobs lazy? And no, you don't see roving gangs of starving proles because they turn to crime rather than starve. Are you sure you don't see roving gangs in the most economically depressed areas of the US? GD was being pretty clearly sarcastic and/or tongue-in-cheek. It does not always come over well on text forums.

At the risk or repeating someting I wrote a few pages back: Being poor is not a choice. Staying poor might not even be a choice. Staying poor by failing to take advantage ot the programs, opportunites, and charities that exist to help people in that situation IS a choice. But if you want to discuss the need for a Universal Basic Income at some point, one that REPLACES all other social benefits we are way overpaying for poor returns on, I'm open to that.

This one is for Ben

(emphasis mine) Much like with the whole "invisible hand" gimmick, I'm not really sold on this romantic vision that "winners and losers" is a state of affairs that is desirable, if being a loser means lacking basic means to sustain yourself through no fault of your own. This isn't a game, and in this context, the increasing amount of "losers" tend to turn to crime which threatens the stability of society as a whole. A system that will not make everyone rich but will indeed make most poor is, I'm sorry, a very bad system. And I see no reason why a system created by humans to serve humans "should not be controlled". That's very much what laissez-faire is, at its core. No one starves to death in the United States. No one who is willing to keep a job goes without a home, a car if they choose, a HD television and at least basic cable. We have some of the richest "poor" people around because a reasonably good standard of living is not all that expensive. And that is due in large part to many different businesses competing for their dollars. If the only restaurant was Taco Bell how much do you think a taco would cost? By winners and losers I was really more referring to some folks getting rich and others... not. You don't see roving gangs of starving proles here you realize. Almost all Americans are doing well enough.

It's not that the markets are out of control. And there are things the government can to to modify activity. Taxation for example. Increase tax on an activity, capital gains for example, and you get less of that activity, investing for example. Decrease taxes and you get more of that activity. If you want to encourage borrowing, decrease the interest rate. Do the opposite to discourage. But at the end of the day the economy is millions of investors, producers, consumers, buyers, sellers, and speculators doing what is in their own interests and beholden to nothing else. It can't be controlled. Nor should it be. The problem rises when trying to take control without taking over. Then it's neither free nor regulated. Neither wolf nor dog. That isn't good. I've said a hundred times pure laissez-faire capitalism is not the best option. There must be some ground rules but they must be few, universally and evenhanded enforced. That economy will grow, then contract, grow then contract. It will always correct it's excesses and return to the mean. It's a beautiful system because is follows human behavior. It won't make everyone rich. There will be winners and losers. Just like in life. But over all there will be a much higher level of prosperity and opportunity for anyone to improve their lot. I know Ben will argue the opposite but in his system the economy is chained hand and foot. It may never crash but it will never grow. There is no incentive for hard work, innovation, risk taking investments, etc. And so none of those things will happen.

Regrettably you hit the nail on the head. And it is not a good thing: https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/rise-of-the-warrior-cop-radley-balko/1113024804?ean=9781610394574

Trump is much more of an embarrassment and has created real consternation and discord in the USA He is not a dictator and has done several positive things in the USA but we still have to wait for his 4 years to end I doubt Hilary would have created such a dysfunctional, dichotomy in the USA around left and right wing? There would be plenty of dysfunction to go around. Just a different sort. But at least we are spared the shrieking chorus of "misogyny, misogyny!" very time the congress controlled by one party opposed something a President of the other party wanted to do. Like how they cried "Racism, racism!" the last 8 years?

Not every day... but often. I'm not just posting to read my own words though. I am trying to convince the half dozen or more posters here that are receptive to it to think about the country outside the Republican/Democrat binary death trap. In the last 25 years we've had two Republican Presidents and two Democrat Presidents and Congresses controlled by either and both parties along the way. The tax rates are relatively stable and social change with a few notable exceptions has been pretty predictable. The economy goes up, the economy goes down because it is largely beyond the control of those whose hands are on the levers of power. Did Obamacare bring healthcare to all Americans? No, all it did was FORCE everyone to BUY insurance and tax half the people to subsidize the cost for the other half. And the price only goes up. The Republican version does the same thing essentially with the added benefit of raising the cost further because of high risk pools. So Republicans, Democrats, round and round it goes but not much changes right? No, the number of incarcerated Americans per 100k has risen from 800 to over 1450 in the last 20 years. Shootings by police have spiked in the last 20 years. The number of property seizures due to imminent domain and civil asset forfeiture has increased four hundred times since 2005. Not to mention the domestic spying, warrantless wiretaps, data seizures, hell they even want to know what library books we're reading. And overseas on non stop parade of interventions, air strikes, bombings, invasions, and drone strikes. That is not to say all of them are unnecessary, just that it never ends. The last US President to not order US forces into combat (not counting declared wars or UN actions) was Herbert Hoover. So the big things the Dems & Repubs have in common are no matter who wins Americans gradually become less free and we become more entangled in overseas conflicts that cost money and lives and pays us back... nothing really. A wise man once said if you find yourself in a hole the first step to get out is to stop digging. If any country ever needed a fresh perspective, this one does. That's why I keep reminding everyone.

I believe that was their exact sales pitch: "Yeah she isn't a good choice but you don't want Trump to win do you?' That did not fly. Would you rather by stung be a scorpion or bitten by a snake? Eight million voters (myself included) decided they didn't want either last November. Good for us.

Jose Quintana made his debut for the Cubs last night by striking out 12 and getting a W. I guess it's pretty rare for a player to be traded and not even need to find a new place to live. http://m.mlb.com/news/article/242472006/jose-quintana-impresses-teammates-in-debut/?topicId=27118122 Oakland traded Sean Doolittle and Ryan Madsen to the Nats for two of their top 10 prospects and someone I've never heard of: http://m.mlb.com/news/article/242442972/nationals-acquire-doolittle-madson-from-as/ . Washington has the worst bullpen ERA in the league and that will be a problem come October. Giancarlo Stanton ALMOST save a home run. But lost his glove in the process: http://m.mlb.com/cutfour/2017/07/16/242456952 RHP Stacey Piagno got a W in her first start for the indy league Sonoma Stompers. She threw 7 innings, got 4 Ks and retired the 11 consecutive batters. http://m.mlb.com/cutfour/2017/07/16/242525472 This is funny: http://m.mlb.com/cutfour/2017/07/16/242456808

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/07/16/feminist-scientists-say-citing-research-by-straight-white-men-promotes-a-system-of-oppression/?utm_term=.91f96522050b I have no comment on this story other than:

For the folks out there who are wondering what might have been, here is a pretty good take on what a Hillary Clinton administration would look like right now: http://nypost.com/2017/07/15/hillarys-white-house-would-be-no-different-from-trumps/ Once again I feel obligated to point out there were names other than Trump & Clinton on your ballot.

As long as one wolf still lives the sheep are never safe.

Rare albino humpback photographed off the Gold Coast of Austrailia. "'There she blows!- there she blows! A hump like a snow-hill! It is Moby-****!'"

They did one for Star Ward and Star Trek too... they were not that good.

OK then. Stop what you are arguing about and watch this: https://youtu.be/w2gSm7RyI6w Their last one wasn't so good. This one is great.

The Doctor can literally go to any place at any time in the entire universe and yet most episodes still play in London or some other English city. Gee... Maybe that's why I can't get into it anymore. In the old days he went all over the universe. Now all the aliens come to him.

Volo is right about his point though. Changing races/gender/whatever of long established characters is done less in the service of their stories than it is to shove a finger in the eye of all the people who might not like it. As well a a shout out to all the ones who will.I think they call that "challenging conventions" which is just fancy way to say it. There is no controvery in creating strong female charachters like Xena, Danerys Targaryen, etc. There is controversy in taking a long established character and making them female. It is political. Of course it is. That is not to say Whittaker is not up to the task and can't make the role her own. Or that Idris Elba could not have us all believing he really is James Bond. Their acting chops are not in question. But casting them isn't about putting the best actor in the role. if about shoving "it" in everyone's faces and stirring up controversy. Seems stupid to me but I guess that's why I'm not in show biz. I suspect the folks who were watching will still watch and the ones who were not won't start now. After all if you don't like it... change the doggone channel. But there will be a dust up over it I'm sure so the decision will serve it's purpose.

They have been threatening to do that since the Tom Baker days. I'm surprised it took this long! Wow, pop culture has turned on it's head. We've had gay characters in westerns, Superman renounced his US Citizenship, celebrities are running for President... and winning, Spider-Man is black... no Puerto Rican... no both (it's a bitch when you can't decide), Doctor Who, Thor, and Captain Marvel are all women now, and Han solo and Captain America are dead. There are no rules anymore, anything goes. It's THUNDERDOME! As for Jodie Whittaker taking over, file me under "whatever". I used to like Doctor Who back in the Tom Baker/ Peter Davidson days. But then I grew up. Haven't watched an episode since Caves of Androzoni (but that was a good one).

Now reading this: In 1944 25 German POWs tunneled out of an Arizona internment camp and tried to reach Mexico. All were recaptured but they gave it a hell of a run.

The images from the Juno flyover of Jupiter's great red storm are showing up: There are more here: https://www.missionjuno.swri.edu/junocam/processing?source=all&ob_from=&ob_to=&perpage=16 Plus and interesting tidbit on who is doing the image processing: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/juno-delivers-stunning-new-views-of-great-red-spot/ The actual data from the radar and other sensors has not been released yet.

https://youtu.be/0QaAKi0NFkA