Wednesday, August 31, 2022

I see wonderful things

Click to enlarge.

at No comments:

The Poultry Seller by Emanuel de Witte (Dutch, 1617-1692).

The Poultry Seller by Emanuel de Witte (Dutch, 1617-1692).



















Click to enlarge.

at No comments:

None so blind as those who will not see

I have been trying to avoid a lot of media generated outrage lately by simply not commenting until there is some reasonable record of fact for the issue at hand.  But some of them never get to the facts.  How long has the January 6th Committee been around?  Pelosi announced the creation of a House commission on February 15th, 2021.  Here we are a year and a half later and there have been repeated announcements of major discovery or development and nothing ever actually emerges.  So far, there is no there there.

Same with the Mar-a-Lago raid.  Sure looks like an inappropriate targeting of a political opponent.  Might there be a real underlying crime?  Sure.  But let's see it.  So far, a week or two after the raid, we are still mired in rumors of who did or did not know of the raid, who did or did not approve it, and a constantly evolving swirl of reasons for why it occurred.  Waiting for facts seems like a mug's game some times.

But if you are an empirical rationalist, that's what we do.  What's the law?  What's the facts?

Ann Althouse has a piece, "The spectacle of a former president facing criminal investigation raises profound questions about American democracy, and these questions demand answers." which echoes my sentiments.  She is critiquing an ill-argued New York Times editorial from last week.

The urgency to stop Trump feels like a mistrust of the people. The deplorable subsection of America shouldn't have elected him in the first time — so goes the elite opinion — and we can't let those people have another chance to give this man power. That's anti-democratic, and isn't that why the oligarchy presents itself as serving democracy?

Is that one of the "profound questions about American democracy" the NYT editors address here? I doubt it, but I will finally read this thing and let you know if — by off chance — the elite editors of the NYT notice the contradiction:

Mr. Trump’s unprecedented assault on the integrity of American democracy requires a criminal investigation....

Trump is framed as the attacker of democracy, rather than one of the candidates for election. He's going to wreck elections, not participate in them. 

[D]oing nothing to hold him accountable for his actions in the months leading up to Jan. 6 could set an irresistible precedent for future presidents. Why not attempt to stay in power by any means necessary or use the power of the office to enrich oneself or punish one’s enemies, knowing that the law does not apply to presidents in or out of office?... 

Trump pursued available remedies and didn't get very far, then participated in a big demonstration, but do you want to criminalize seeking court remedies and delivering big speeches? That doesn't approach "by any means necessary." And it's odd to include on that list "us[ing] the power of the office to... punish one’s enemies," because that sounds like what is being done to Trump.

[snip]

Part of democracy is critiquing democracy. Both sides do it, and both sides lie. The "Russia collusion" hoax dogged Trump throughout his presidency. We need to be able to debate about defects in the voting and vote counting process, even as we also need to be able to declare a winner within a practical timeframe. Would the NYT denounce things like "Not My President Day" or all the people who think Al Gore won in 2000?

No, there won't be any principled demand to suppress lies about elections, and if there were, it would be a despicable attack on freedom of speech. The remedy for what they see as lies about the election is simply more speech. I can see the frustration: Why do people keep believing what the NYT believes it knows to be lies? But that's always the problem with freedom of speech. People tell and believe a lot of lies. If you want democracy, you can't let that flip you out into hysteria. Concentrate on the next election and defeat your opponent at the polls.

If your response is, no, because my opponent might win and we can't take that risk, then you don't believe in democracy.

The establishment wing of the national parties as well as academia and the mainstream media, basically the chattering class, are all talking about civil war and threats to democracy and the threat of the far right but all the authoritarian actions and efforts to suppress free speech and efforts to extra-judicially target political opponents seem to originate from the White House and the Congressional Democrats.  

And the chattering class can't seem to see what everyone else does.  The Emperor has no clothes; the establishment is the repressive anti-democratic authoritarians.


UPDATE:  II had not realized that the accusation of something being anti-democratic had become common among the authoritarian left (along with "conspiracy theory", "far right", "unrepresentative", "racist", etc.).  But apparently so.  From Stop Calling Everything You Disagree With ‘Anti-Democratic’ by Tyler Cowen.  

The danger is that “stuff I agree with” will increasingly be labeled as “democratic,” while anything someone opposes will be called “anti-democratic.” Democracy thus comes to be seen as a way to enact a series of personal preferences rather than a (mostly) beneficial impersonal mechanism for making collective decisions.

Closer to home and more controversially, many on the political left in the US have made the charge that the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade was “anti-democratic.” It is fine to call Dobbs a bad decision, but in fact the ruling puts abortion law into the hands of state legislatures. If aliens were visiting from Mars, they simply would not see that move as anti-democratic.

[snip]

It is also harmful to call the Dobbs decision anti-democratic when what you’re really arguing for is greater involvement by the federal government in abortion policy — a defensible view. No one says the Swiss government is “anti-democratic” because it puts so many decisions (for better or worse) into the hands of the cantons. And pointing out that many US state governments are not as democratic as you might prefer does not overturn this logic.

It would be more honest, and more accurate, simply to note that court put the decision into the hands of (imperfectly) democratic state governments, and that you disagree with the decisions of those governments.

By conflating “what’s right” with “what’s democratic,” you may end up fooling yourself about the popularity of your own views. If you attribute the failure of your views to prevail to “non-democratic” or “anti-democratic” forces, you might conclude the world simply needs more majoritarianism, more referenda, more voting.

Those may or may not be correct conclusions. But they should be judged empirically, rather than following from people’s idiosyncratic terminology about what they mean by “democracy” — and, by extension, “anti-democratic.”

at No comments:

History

 

at No comments:

An Insight

 

at No comments:

I see wonderful things

 

at No comments:

Some times you just have to call it out as a lie

Yesterday I ended up spending a fair amount of time in the car, running from one meeting to another.  The journeys were relatively short so I did not do what I usually do with NPR, turning off if it is ideological reporting.  

And it was rather a sobering experience.  In five to fifteen minute segments, time and again, I heard think asserted as fact which at best were debatable and at worse were clearly only opinion.  It really has become a joke "news" organization.  

This morning I see Why even environmentalists are supporting nuclear power today by Uri Berliner.  I have spent nearly forty years working domestically and internationally in the energy sector in general and the power production sector in particular.

There is nowhere of which I am aware where mainstream environmental groups are strongly and obviously in support of nuclear power.  All the mainstream environmental groups have been firmly opposed to nuclear power for decades.

It has been one of the terrific ironies in the past five years of ESG that all the environmental groups who have supported government subsidized renewables projects have also vociferously and reflexively opposed nuclear power.  

Even when renewables have been demonstrated to be much more expensive than anticipated, cannot provide the base load needed by grids, and have made power grids far more fragile and vulnerable to massive outages.  

In the past six months, with the disruption of Russian gas supplies owing to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, there has been a crisis in energy planning in western Europe.  US warnings from the past decade have been realized.  Europe is too vulnerable to Russian energy supplies.  Everyone is looking at doing everything they can to scrounge up some reliable base load electrical energy.

Everything except consider keeping, extending, or reactivating shuttered nuclear power plants or coal plants.  Amidst a great gritting of teeth, European authorities are scrambling to find liquified natural gas supplies to replace Russian supplies.  Even with these efforts, everyone is anticipating an expensive energy winter and much lower energy supplies.  People will be going cold and paying a lot for it.

Even in the midst of this crisis, Germany has swung back and forth about their current plan to close nuclear plants.

And in all instances, environmental groups have been pushing for zero carbon and zero nuclear.

Berliner would have us believe that is not the case.  I was fascinated by the headline.  It is so obviously untrue, what is the argument he is actually making?  What terms are being redefined?  What environmental groups are now supporting nuclear energy?

As click-bait, the headline works.  I clicked through.  

Resistance to nuclear power is starting to ebb around the world with support from a surprising group: environmentalists.

This change of heart spans the globe, and is being prompted by climate change, unreliable electrical grids and fears about national security in the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

In California, the state's last remaining power plant — Diablo Canyon, situated on the Pacific Coast between San Francisco and Los Angeles — long scheduled to be scrapped, may now remain open. Governor Gavin Newsom, a longtime opponent of the plant, is seeking to extend its lifespan through at least 2029.

It's a remarkable turnaround in a state where anti-nuclear activists and progressive Democratic lawmakers have fought with great success to rid the state of nuclear power.

Last week, Japan's prime minister said the country is restarting idled nuclear plants and considering building new ones. This is a sharp reversal for the country that largely abandoned nuclear after the tsunami-led disaster at the Fukushima plant in 2011.

Germany pulled the plug on nuclear after Fukushima, too. But this summer there's been an intense debate in Germany over whether to restart three plants in response to the country's severe energy crisis prompted by the Russia-Ukraine war.

All true as far it goes but where are the mainstream environmental groups supporting nuclear power?

Backers of nuclear power note that it is a source of emissions-free reliable power. And they believe their case has been strengthened due to the threat of climate change and the need to stabilize unreliable electrical grids.

In California the moment of truth came in 2020 when residents had to endure a series of rolling power outages, said Michael Shellenberger, an environmentalist and author who supports nuclear.

"The state is constantly on the verge of blackouts," Shellenberger said.

Michael Shellenberger you say?  He's the mainstream environmentalist who is supporting nuclear power?  Shellenberger, the free-market supporting libertarian?  That environmentalist?  From Wikipedia.

Michael D. Shellenberger (born June 16, 1971) is an American author and former public relations professional whose writing has focused on the intersection of climate change, the environment, nuclear power, and politics, and more recently on how he believes progressivism is linked to homelessness, drug addiction, and mental illness. He is a co-founder of the Breakthrough Institute, co-founder of the California Peace Coalition, and the founder of Environmental Progress.

A self-described ecomodernist, Shellenberger believes that economic growth can continue without negative environmental impacts through technological research and development, usually through a combination of nuclear power and urbanization. A controversial figure, Shellenberger disagrees with most environmentalists over the impacts of environmental threats and policies for addressing them. Shellenberger's positions and writings on climate change and environmentalism have received criticism from environmental scientists and academics, who have called his arguments “bad science" and "inaccurate". In contrast, his positions and writings have received praise from writers and journalists in the popular press, including conservative and libertarian news outlets and organizations. In a similar manner, many academics criticized Shellenberger's positions and writings on homelessness, while receiving mixed reception from writers and journalists in the popular press.

I am not dissing Shellenberger.  I think he is right on many issues.  The point is that Berliner is using Shellenberger who does support nuclear power but is an individual widely repudiated and rejected by the environmental community as evidence that the environmental community now supports nuclear power.

That is nonsense verging on outright misrepresentation.  So much for NPR's "Stand with the facts" tag line.  

Berliner even acknowledges that Shellenberger is not representative of the environmental community.

So it is striking that the most vehement arguments to keep Diablo Canyon running haven't come the nuclear industry. Instead, they have been put forward by a most unlikely collection of pro-nuclear advocates.

It seemed quixotic, even hopeless, in 2016, when Shellenberger along with the pioneering climate scientist James Hansen and Stewart Brand, founder of the crunchy Whole Earth Catalog, began advocating to save Diablo Canyon.

"We were basically excluded from polite conversation for even talking about keeping the plant open," recalled Shellenberger. Promoting nuclear as an important tool in fighting climate change would get him dismissed by fellow environmentalists as a conspiracy theorist or, falsely, as a corporate shill, he added.

Berliner has made an argument that US environmentalists are supporting nuclear power.  His only evidence is an environmentalist widely rejected by the environmental advocacy and policy community.  Does Berliner have any other evidence for environmentalist support for nuclear, internationally or domestically?

Well there is the recent environmental group founded by two employees of a nuclear power plant.  

At the same time, Kristin Zaitz and Heather Hoff were forming an advocacy group called Mothers for Nuclear, a local grassroots effort to keep Diablo Canyon operating. To say their views were not widely embraced would be a serious understatement.

"We felt like we were on an island all by ourselves," said Zaitz. "We had people wishing that we would die, wishing we would get cancer...making weird videos about us that made me feel like, am I unsafe, is my family unsafe?"

In many ways Zaitz and Hoff are also the most unlikely of nuclear advocates. They both describe themselves as eco-friendly liberals, moms concerned about preserving wild spaces, recycling and climate change.

At Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo, not far from Diablo Canyon, they both studied engineering and both took jobs at the plant – Hoff is a materials scientist and Zaitz is a civil engineer – despite misgivings about nuclear energy.

"I was nervous about nuclear before I started working there," said Hoff. "And it took a lot of years to change my mind...and eventually realize that nuclear really aligned with my environmental and humanitarian goals."

I must admit the accompanying photo of this particular environmental group was charming.  Sunny, cheery, and mostly peaceful.




















In his article, Uri Berliner makes the argument that environmental groups globally are now supporting nuclear power.

His evidence is 1) a single capitalist libertarian environmentalist in California who supports nuclear but is roundly condemned by environmentalists, and 2) a couple of moms in California who work at a nuclear power plant.

These are not the environmental advocacy community.  These are at best fringe individuals at the distant margin of the environmental community.

Berliner does not support his argument with evidence and I suspect he cannot support it with evidence.  Greenpeace, Earth Day, Sierra Club, Environmental Defense Fund, Rainforest Alliance, Nature Conservancy, Sierra Club, etc. - where do they stand on nuclear power?  Are they advocates for nuclear?  

I know they have long been opposed and my impression is that their position has not changed.  Berliner offers nothing to revise that impression.

What he offers is something so empirically emaciated and rationally irrelevant that his whole article comes across as a lie.  

at No comments:

Offbeat Humor

at No comments:

Data Talks

 

at No comments:

Silent Meadow, 1990 by Eyvind Earle (American, 1916-2000)

Silent Meadow, 1990 by Eyvind Earle (American, 1916-2000)
















Click to enlarge.

at No comments:

Tuesday, August 30, 2022

History

 

at No comments:

An Insight

 

at No comments:

I see wonderful things

 

at No comments:

The Ninth Circuit is by far the largest of the thirteen courts of appeals, covering a total of 9 states and 2 territories and with 29 active judgeships.

All my adult life, the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has been notorious as a liberal bastion where normal activities could be held unlawful and where radical left policies could easily be defended.  The Ninth was also notorious for for their rulings being ultimately overturned by the Supreme Court.  

Under the Trump administration, there was not only a major effort to appoint more traditional judges to the Supreme Court but there was a particular effort to address the egregiousness of the Ninth Circuit Court.  With his appointment of ten judges to the Ninth Circuit Court, it was claimed that the viper's nest of overturned decisions had been fixed.  But many things are claimed which simply aren't true.

However, in the past couple of years, I have heard less and less of the Ninth and mockable decisions.  Perhaps the targeted effort to solve the problem has worked?  Well, perhaps.

From San Jose Unified School District Discriminated Against Fellowship of Christian Athletes, Based on … by Eugene Volokh.  The subheading is the FCA's requirement that leaders "abide by a Statement of Faith, which includes the belief that sexual relations should be limited within the context of a marriage between a man and a woman" -- so holds a Ninth Circuit's panel.  

Basically, a case was brought to the Ninth concerning a public school district which was blatantly and maliciously discriminating against Christians.  The Ninth found against the school district.  That doesn't sound like much but it was exactly the sort of egregious case which in the past the Ninth would have found some means to rationalize and endorse. 

Pioneer’s Climate Committee—the body that led the district-wide push for FCA derecognition—had members that expressed remarkably similar hostile statements. Peter Glasser was the most forthcoming about his contempt for FCA’s religious beliefs. The day after learning about FCA’s religious-based views on marriage and sexuality, Glasser channeled his inner Martin Luther, pinning the Statement of Faith and Sexual Purity Statement to his classroom whiteboard along with his grievances. But instead of a reformation, Glasser demanded an inquisition. As he explained in emails sent to Principal Espiritu, FCA’s “bullshit” views “have no validity” and amount to heresy because they violated “my truth.” Glasser believed “attacking these views is the only way to make a better campus” and proclaimed that he would not be an “enabler for this kind of ‘religious freedom’ anymore.”

Glasser’s desire to attack FCA’s views makes plain that FCA, putting it charitably, was “less than fully welcome” on Pioneer’s campus. Glasser’s comments also improperly imputed insincerity to FCA’s religious views by referring to their beliefs as an exercise in (air quotes) “religious freedom.”

Glasser was not the only skeptic. Michelle Bowman also serves on the Climate Committee and as faculty advisor to the Satanic Temple Club. In discussing this lawsuit with a former student, she opined that “evangelicals, like FCA, are charlatans and not in the least bit Christian,” and “choose darkness over knowledge and they perpetuate ignorance.” But it is not for Bowman to dictate what beliefs are genuinely Christian.  Id. at 1731 (The government cannot "pass[ ] judgment upon or presuppose[ ] the illegitimacy of religious beliefs."). Nor should the government disfavor religious-based beliefs, even if many may view them as not "acceptable, logical, consistent, or comprehensible."

With these two individuals in the room, the Climate Committee concluded that FCA's Statement of Faith and Sexual Purity Statement go against Pioneer High School's core values and that the Committee "need[s] to take a united stance" against FCA. The Committee's unity suggests there was little to no push back against Glasser and Bowman's views. So does the speed of the derecognition decision—two days later, Principal Espiritu informed FCA that they had lost recognition without giving FCA's students any opportunity to defend themselves or their organization. At least the baker in Masterpiece Cakeshop had a chance to be heard.

Equally telling was the continued hostility towards FCA even after it lost ASB recognition and thus could not possibly violate the School District’s non-discrimination policies. In an effort “to ban FCA completely from campus,” Glasser ginned up another potential “avenue” of attack during Summer 2019. He posited that FCA could be accused of violating the School District’s sexual harassment policy by creating “a hostile work environment for students and faculty.” In other words, teenagers—meeting privately to discuss the Bible—were creating a hostile work environment for adult faculty, according to Glasser. There is no indication in the record that Glasser’s inimical view of FCA was rebuffed.

But in reading this article, it prompted me to go over to Wikipedia to see if I could get a sense of the magnitude of Trump's changes.  In doing so, Wikipedia reminded me of something I had sort of forgotten - its sheer size.

Headquartered in San Francisco, California, the Ninth Circuit is by far the largest of the thirteen courts of appeals, covering a total of 9 states and 2 territories and with 29 active judgeships. The court's regular meeting places are Seattle at the William Kenzo Nakamura United States Courthouse, Portland at the Pioneer Courthouse, San Francisco at the James R. Browning U.S. Court of Appeals Building, and Pasadena at the Richard H. Chambers U.S. Court of Appeals.

Panels of the court occasionally travel to hear cases in other locations within the circuit. Although the judges travel around the circuit, the court arranges its hearings so that cases from the northern region of the circuit are heard in Seattle or Portland, cases from southern California and Arizona are heard in Pasadena, and cases from northern California, Nevada, Hawaii, and the Pacific territories are heard in San Francisco. Additionally, the court holds yearly sittings in Anchorage and Honolulu. For lawyers who must come and present their cases to the court in person, this administrative grouping of cases helps to reduce the time and cost of travel. Ninth Circuit judges are also appointed by the United States Secretary of the Interior to serve as temporary acting Associate Justices for non-federal appellate sessions at the High Court of American Samoa in Fagatogo.

[snip]

The Ninth Circuit's large size is due to the dramatic increases in both the population of the western states and the court's geographic jurisdiction that have occurred since the U.S. Congress created the Ninth Circuit in 1891. The court was originally granted appellate jurisdiction over federal district courts in California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. As new states and territories were added to the federal judicial hierarchy in the twentieth century, many of those in the West were placed in the Ninth Circuit: the newly acquired Territory of Hawaii in 1900, Arizona upon its admission to the Union in 1912, the Territory of Alaska in 1948, Guam in 1951, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in 1977.

And then there are the facts behind its former tendency to make bad decisions which would then be overturned by the Supreme Court.

However, a detailed study in 2018 reported by Brian T. Fitzpatrick, a law professor at Vanderbilt University, looked at how often a federal circuit court was reversed for every thousand cases it terminated on the merits between 1994 and 2015. The study found that the Ninth Circuit's decisions were reversed at a rate of 2.50 cases per thousand, which was by far the highest rate in the country, with the Sixth Circuit second as 1.73 cases per thousand. Fitzgerald also noted that the 9th Circuit was unanimously reversed more than three times as often as the least reversed circuits and over 20% more often than the next closest circuit.

at No comments:

Offbeat Humor




















Click to enlarge.

at No comments:

Data Talks

 

at No comments:

Bather on a rock, 1892 by Pierre-Auguste Renoir (French, 1841–1919)

Bather on a rock, 1892 by Pierre-Auguste Renoir (French, 1841–1919)























Click to enlarge.

at No comments:

Monday, August 29, 2022

History

 

at No comments:

An Insight

 

at No comments:

I see wonderful things

 

at No comments:

Offbeat Humor






















Click to enlarge.

at No comments:

A policy so bad it can't even be defended.

From No Country for Pension Geeks by Allison Schrager.  The subheading is Perhaps expecting meaning from work is a bad idea.  

Student Loans

I’ve written before that student debt forgiveness is bad economic policy. I don’t say that lightly. Usually, there’s some merit to any economic policy. Even if I don’t think it’s the right choice, I can make an argument for it. But this is shockingly bad, even if we knew it was coming. I still didn’t believe it, but it seems like once a bad policy idea gets into the ether, it necessarily comes to be.

There are reasons economists on the left and right (except for the extreme left) are all horrified. I don’t think it’s fair, but fairness is not how I judge an economic policy—because fairness is subjective. I hate it because it is inefficient.

I operate under the assumption that someone has to pay for a $300–$900 billion giveaway. I think many people genuinely believe we don’t have to pay for it, or the only potential cost is inflation (Modern Monetary Theory still lives in the minds of the naïve). I think it will be inflationary—not in a big way, but in a way we don’t need right now. If you thought the IRA reduced inflation by lowering the deficit, then you should think forgiveness is inflationary because any deficit reduction is eliminated—twice over. Inflation will probably decline over the next year for other reasons, but now it will be higher than it otherwise would have been. So, people will probably assume forgiveness was costless.

I judge policies based on their efficiency. By efficient, I mean this thing will cost something, and what are we getting out of it? It will cost something by increasing the national debt, which will mean higher interest rates and/or taxes one day. Generally, for that cost, you want the policy to do one of two things: boost growth or help the needy. This does neither. You can quibble about overall inflation, but it will make education inflation worse and distort incentives, which is bad for growth: so are more debt and higher rates. And there’s an opportunity cost. Think of the better ways we could use that money: climate change, K–12 education, anything. And the benefits go to the well-off. Most graduates earn less than $125,000 right after they graduate, but graduate salaries grow quickly. And so, we’re giving a big, big bailout to the highest earners who don’t need it. It’s the most inefficient policy I can think of, and we’ve had some very inefficient policies.

Economists also take institutions seriously. Good institutions are critical to growth and prosperity. And the fact that the president used the pretext of a “COVID emergency” to hand hundreds of billions of dollars to his favored political constituency and more than double the generosity of an on-going entitlement is really disturbing. I don’t love every economic policy, but when Congress passes a spending bill, I figure, “Well, it’s the will of the voters, and whoever passed it will be held accountable in a local election in a few months.”

Spending bills are supposed to go through Congress for a reason. And the fact that some Democrats, who are facing an election this fall, are critical of forgiveness suggests this would not have passed Congress. The whole thing degrades our institutions and changes how we spend; what’s next when Republicans are in office? This is a banana republic–level policy and economic malpractice.

The fact the White House says they don’t even know what this will cost and then mocked businesses who took PPP grants is shameful. We can quibble about all the COVID-era policies, but we came out of the pandemic with one of the best jobs market in a generation (at the cost of inflation) for new graduates; why do they get a bailout on top of that?

I agree there are problems with student debt, especially for borrowers who did not graduate or went to for-profit schools. But we can deal with that by allowing debt to be discharged into bankruptcy filings and reforming the income-based repayment program to something sane and meaningful (not 5% of income).

Then there are the issues related to agency.  Who is on the hook for what?  Ideally, it is the universities who ought to be guaranteeing the value of their product by underwriting the loans to their students.  If students do not make the good educational choices that allow them to become more productive and effective, then the university takes the hit, not the tax payer.  As it stands right now, there is a reduced positive feedback mechanism to reward good educational decision-making and no negative feedback mechanism for bad educational decision-making.

Student loan forgiveness drawbacks:

Doesn't increase individual or national productivity.

Doesn't help the needy.

Unknown price tag because we don't know how many students would have how much debt forgiven.

Exceedingly regressive, rewarding the privileged and doing nothing for the poor.

Inflationary.

Increases national debt with no compensatory national benefit.

Rewards degrees and education which do not improve individual productivity outcomes.

Almost certainly illegal.

Erodes trust in institutions (educational and governmental).

A blatant bribing of voters.

Bi-partisan opposition. 

Student loan forgiveness policy benefits:

TBD

It is pretty shameful and a black mark on the administration when an immensely expensive policy is proposed under shaky legal cover, with no clear benefits and many negative outcomes.  How did we get to this state of affairs?

at No comments:

Data Talks

 

at No comments:

The stilt race, 1960 by Jeffrey Smart

The stilt race, 1960 by Jeffrey Smart

















Click to enlarge.

at No comments:

Sunday, August 28, 2022

History

 

at No comments:

An Insight

 

at No comments:

I see wonderful things

 

at No comments:

Offbeat Humor

 

at No comments:

Data Talks

 

at No comments:

Bend in the Road, 2018 by Leonard Kościański

Bend in the Road, 2018 by Leonard Kościański
























Click to enlarge.

at No comments:

Saturday, August 27, 2022

History

 

at No comments:

An Insight

 

at No comments:

I see wonderful things

 

at No comments:

Offbeat Humor

 

at No comments:

Data Talks

 

at No comments:

The Island of the Greengrocer, 2018 by Alessandro Tofanelli

The Island of the Greengrocer, 2018 by Alessandro Tofanelli























Click to enlarge.

at No comments:

Friday, August 26, 2022

History

 

at No comments:

An Insight

 

at No comments:

I see wonderful things

 

at No comments:

Offbeat Humor





















Click to enlarge.

at No comments:

Data Talks

 

at No comments:

The Good Traveler, 2006 by Bo Bartlett

The Good Traveler, 2006 by Bo Bartlett


















Click to enlarge.

at No comments:

Thursday, August 25, 2022

History

 

at No comments:

An Insight

 

at No comments:

I see wonderful things

 

at No comments:

Offbeat Humor






















Click to enlarge.

at No comments:

Data Talks

 

at No comments:

My Penguin and Me, 2002 by Quint Buchholz

My Penguin and Me, 2002 by Quint Buchholz


















Click to enlarge.

at No comments:

Wednesday, August 24, 2022

History

 

Which prompts the question, which president was under fire in the front lines of battle closest to his term of President.  Teddy Roosevelt was three years.  Andrew Jackson was about a decade.  George Washington was six years.  Nobody else is coming to mind.  

at No comments:

An Insight

 

at No comments:

I see wonderful things

 

at No comments:

Offbeat Humor

 

at No comments:

Data Talks

 

at No comments:

The Garden of Eden, 1901 by Hugh Goldwin Rivière

The Garden of Eden, 1901 by Hugh Goldwin Rivière
























Click to enlarge.

at No comments:

Tuesday, August 23, 2022

History

 

at No comments:

An Insight

 

at No comments:

I see wonderful things

 

at No comments:

Offbeat Humor

 

at No comments:

Data Talks

 

at No comments:

Boy In by Juliette Aristides (b. 1971)

Boy In by Juliette Aristides (b. 1971)




















Click to enlarge.

at No comments:

Monday, August 22, 2022

History

 

at No comments:

An Insight

 

at No comments:

I see wonderful things

 

at No comments:

Offbeat Humor

 

at No comments:

Data Talks

 

at No comments:

Café King at Night (Unter den Linden), 1925-30 by Lesser Ury

Café King at Night (Unter den Linden), 1925-30 by Lesser Ury



























Click to enlarge.

at No comments:

Environs of Milford, 1946 by Daniel Garber

Environs of Milford, 1946 by Daniel Garber






















Click to enlarge.

at No comments:

Sunday, August 21, 2022

History

 

at No comments:

An Insight

 

at No comments:

I see wonderful things

 

at No comments:

Offbeat Humor





















Click to enlarge.

at No comments:

Data Talks

 

 

at No comments:

Lever de Lune sur un Canal, 1900 by Charles Guilloux

Lever de Lune sur un Canal, 1900 by Charles Guilloux


















Click to enlarge.

at No comments:

Saturday, August 20, 2022

History

at No comments:

An Insight


That's not what the headline actually says, but certainly that is what it means and what it describes.   


at No comments:

I see wonderful things

 

at No comments: