EFFin’ Unsound

post by tensor

Fresh from his failed attempt to tell us about heat and entropy, Jonathan Gardner tells us not to worry about resource depletion. Will this effort succeed any better? Sadly…

Thanks to the power of free markets, we are all but guaranteed an inexhaustible supply of resources.

How do “free markets” guarantee resources? Read on:

The way it works is this. If there is a shortage of a useful commodity, then the price will rise according to the shortage. As the price rises, people stockpile and protect the supply in hopes of future profits.

Yes, price gouging is a problem in unfettered markets. But how does any market guarantee anyt–

This alone will ensure that we’ll always have the commodity available in one form or another to those who truly need it.

“Look, Gramps, the price is $100 per pill for your heart medication. I’ve got a pharmacy to run here. Go cry me a river.”

Eventually, innovation will come to bear on the problem, and we’ll find ways to either more efficiently use the limited resource or find something else that solves the same problem.

Another pharmaceutical company will market similar medication for only $99/pill, thus allowing Grandpa to move up to a better brand of cat food — once per week, anyway. Feel that free-markety magick a-workin’! But Jonathan’s just getting warmed up (not from greenhouse gasses, of course):

Let’s suppose that we really are running out of oil. Forget, for a moment, whether or not the earth is creating oil…

Phase One: Recall that the mass of earth is finite, so if we consume anything in it at a finite rate, we will eventually depl–
Phase Two: CRIMESTOP!!
Phase Three: (Market-Ensured) Profit!!

One thing that will happen immediately is the real price of oil will increase.

If we may run out of oil someday, why would the price increase “immediately”? Because FREE MARKETS THAT’S WHY!

This will cause people all over the world to use less of it.

Or, possibly, to pay more for the same amount, passing that cost along as best they can. In that case, there is no conservation of oil, just liquidity drained from the global economy. But this is not a problem because FREE MARKETS THAT’S WHY, LIBS!

If some government wants to subsidize the oil in their country, that is fine, the country will simply have to find a place to fig up the cash to do so—likely from the same people who buy the oil.

Or, some government could accuse a tin-pot, formerly-friendly dictator (who just so happens to be sitting atop huge proven reserves of oil) of having unstoppable robot drones and secret weapons of mass destruction, and use those ludicrously-false accusations as a flimsy excuse to invade and secure the oil, paying for this naked theft with the money and blood of the citizens of both countries. Why, this wondrous free market stuff just keeps getting better and better! How could it possibly get any more awes–

The commodities market will react by stockpiling reserves.

Thus reducing the flow of a vital resource, at the very moment it is most needed! TOTES AWESOME!! WE LOVES YOU FREE MARKET!!!

If we know for certain that oil is going to run out, then whoever has oil when it runs out will be a very, very rich man.

This is why we must drill, drill, drill baby drill, right now, off-shore, and in the ANWR, and pump that oil out now, so we won’t have any when the rest of the world runs out!! Otherwise, when we have oil and no one else does, we would all be very rich accused falsely of having robot drones and secret weapons of mass destruction…

But, again, back to how free markets assure us of having none all of the resources we could ever want:

This will further deplete the amount of oil available for consumption today, but will make oil available in the future. This will further drive the price up.

Because higher prices for oil = better economy. And a pony.

With the price of oil shooting through the roof, people who rely on oil will begin investing their time and resources into finding real alternatives.

Assuming they have any resources left after paying the (now, hugely increased) cost of oil.

Whoever discovers a way to replace oil will make a handsome profit from it. And with the innovation, we won’t need oil anymore.

Thus crushing the commodity marketers, who had so heroically assured our supply of oil in those days of scarce resources. Screw you, WITH THE POWER OF THE FREE MARKET!

Unfortunately for alarmists, the earth has enough and to spare.

There exists a hard-and-fast, scientifically-verified reason for thi–

This is because it is a creation of a loving God and not a random event.

“And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying, thou shalt keep holy the sabbath free markets…”

All the resources of the earth are there for us to use wisely for our benefit.

Or, we could ignore coming shortages, letting the prices and availability carom wildly, disrupting our ability to cope in a time of crisis. But that’s what Almighty God Free Markets so decreed! SUCK ON THAT, ATHEIST LIBS!!1!

And there is plenty for everyone, as long as we are willing to live according to the laws of Nature and not of man.

Jonathan goes to the zoo to see the gorillas speculate on derivatives whilst they secure funds for their arbitrage from secret, offshore bank accounts.

There is enough land, water, food, and minerals for everything we need.

Phase One — oh, just forget it. (”Fig up”??!?)

Post by Carl

I wrote up most of a piece on this Joni Balter column (that Erica C. Barnett already wrote about) and then Firefox crashed. Normally when that happens, it saves it, but for whatever reason it didn’t this time. So enjoy this piece, somewhat more stale and somewhat more disjointed than I would have liked it to be.

Over the years, Seattle has acquired a variety of nicknames. Queen City. Rain City. Jet City. And if Mayor Mike McGinn gets his way, Seattle also will be known as the Motor-less City.

It’s funny because it’s true: improving bike and pedestrian access will make it impossible to drive.

Or something like that.

This was a whole paragraph. From someone who is paid to write. And it isn’t even a transition to the next paragraph.

The bicycle lobby helped elect the mayor and now it wants significant bike striping all over town in return.

This is the only lobby that’s true for.

The question of whether this group of citizens can impose their will on the rest of the place will be answered in the next year or so.

Impose their will on the rest of us means have a vote.

The City Council is pondering creation of a transportation taxing district. After a fair amount of Seattle process, the city would ask that reliable and generous Seattle ATM, the taxpayers, to pay higher property or sales taxes or increased vehicle licensing fees to produce millions of dollars a year for bicycle and pedestrian improvements.

That reliable ATM that rejected paying for stadiums and the latte tax. I love how she’s coming to the taxpayer’s defense by saying they shouldn’t be allowed to vote on spending money to make it easier to bike and walk around the city.

The council can create the taxing district with a simple council vote — and its creation enables the collecting of new taxes. Then, as soon as next summer or fall, bike and pedestrian groups would be expected to help sell the plan to voters, who must approve most of the taxes.

So, the voters get to decide. Seems fair, if a bit too Western-lets-vote-on-everything for my tastes.

At the depth of a stubborn recession, with pressing civic needs ranging from education to public safety, is this really the top priority? Or do these powerful interest groups merely have the city’s ear?

I love how a column about special interests in the Mayor’s office includes how bike groups are awful but doesn’t mention Vulcan. Because a somewhat different pattern of paint on a few city streets and more sidewalks are the scariest influence imaginable at City Hall.

As an avid runner, and occasional biker, I bear no deep-seated opposition to more recreational or commuter space for each and every group. At least theoretically. As a taxpayer, I say hold your spandex bike tights on a minute.

Do you believe she’s ever ran or biked to work? Me either.

In 2011 Seattle’s Families and Education Levy that supports public-school students comes up for renewal. McGinn flirts with the idea of more public investment in light rail in several locations. And this fall, the big thinkers at King County propose a sales tax increase for public safety. The Legislature patched its leaky budget with a slew of taxes on candy, bottled water, beer and soda pop.

Well the Families and Education Levy is tax money that we’re already paying. Those other things we’ll have to figure out or not over elections a year apart. And no mention that the sales tax will go down or the B&O tax will shrink if 1098 passes.

Have a headache?

No

You will.

No, I won’t.

Seattle and King County are oh so adept at sending spending requests to the ballot but pathetic at deciding which money measures to move forward and which to put on hold until the ravaged economy improves.

The taxpayers still want things, so they generally support those tax increases.

If you pose the question to voters, do you prefer a sidewalk in a neighborhood or a police officer downtown, says one wise business leader, the choice just might be public safety.

That’s why people often say they’d rather have higher taxes than chose between either.

But that’s not how it works. Each item is put forward as the absolute most important thing for that moment. And why not? The generous voters of Seattle usually say yes

But they do say no to ending sentences with a period. Don’t you have a copy editor?

Keep in mind, the bike and pedestrian lobbies, whose efforts began before the arrival of McGinn, are already getting improvements that infuriate some motorists — oops, motorists, swear word, I know. Nickerson Street east-west between the Ballard and Fremont bridges is on a “road diet” that provides increased safety, more bicycle lanes and fewer car lanes.

Were you drunk when you wrote this? Who the fuck advised you to write in the style of angry drunk?

Safety advocates also fought to change the configuration on Northeast 125th Street — again more bike space, fewer car lanes and enhanced safety.

Are you sure it isn’t safety that you think is a swear word? Anyway, I’m sure the rest of this article will mention if those road diets were effective or not.

Increasingly, cars are being shoved aside, as evidenced by efforts to jack up commercial parking rates, the constant plea for more light rail and significant transfer of asphalt to bike lanes.

Seriously, looking out my apartment right now (toward the end of rush hour), there’s only a half full parking lot, street parking taken mostly up, and 4 lanes (2 each way) that are pretty full. Obviously, no cars anywhere in Seattle. Damn you McGinn for taking all the cars away!

Had Seattle elected leaders with a better business sense or a more rational view of the affordability or lack of it of living in the city, things might be different. But every new bike lane can make a road less appealing to a car or a truck. Bicycles prevail, freight mobility takes a sorry hike.

Making sure people have an alternative to driving is cheaper for them, and gets cars off the road so freight doesn’t have to compete with as many single occupancy vehicles. I guess a dollar spent on taxes is awful, but a dollar spent on maintaining your car is free.

This is all more complicated than it sounds. A tax package might also include money for general road maintenance, transit, money to rebuild the sea wall and a host of other, perhaps worthy endeavors.

Seattle voters aren’t going to support more roads. I’m sorry.

The issue is not the worthiness of any project but the ability to pay for it all. Seattle voters have to decide what kind of city they want: one with affordable taxes and reasonable accommodation for business and jobs, or a bike and pedestrian haven backed by plenty of public spending. And that means generous and frequent donations from Seattleites who may not spend umpteen hours a week on two wheels.

Because bikes cost the city a lot more than roads. Der. Also, people who ride bikes don’t pay taxes, so they don’t support your driving.

– posted by thehim

Lou Guzzo actually wrote a post this week with the title “Governments Have No Right to Make Moral Decisions for People”. That would be the same Lou Guzzo who has advocated for the abolition of gambling, alcohol, boxing, pornography, billboards, rock concerts, and the entire state of Nevada.

Post by Carl Ballard

I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that all of the Blethen dailys in the state have had editorials recently bashing unions. Because otherwise, it’s just sock puppetry.

– posted by thehim

I don’t normally make fun of the Clown Car over at HA, but this post wrapped up some other thoughts I had as well.

– posted by thehim

Gary Randall is freaking out because Elisabeth Hasselbeck now supports gay marriage:

I have spent my entire life introducing people, privately, from the pulpit, and on radio and television to a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. A relationship that truly changes the heart.

That is the Great Commission of Christianity.

But I am well aware that morality can and must be legislated, until all hearts are changed.

An astute commenter points out the obvious:

So, in other words until you are able to convert the everyone to your particular brand of Christianity, you are not only willing, but eager to use the full force of government to force everyone to live as if they adhered to your brand of Christianity. And this differs from Sharia law how?

I’d imagine that this has something to do with why young people aren’t buying into Randall’s hateful version of Christianity any more.

Post by Carl Ballard

In the Catholic Northwest Progress (the official newspaper for the Seattle Archdiocese), Sister Mary Ann Walsh has a column up about gay marriage. I feel a little uncomfortable making fun of a nun, but oh well.

‘The law is a ass’

So spoke Mr. Bumble in Charles Dickens’ Oliver Twist. The humorous jab at lawyers hit home Aug. 4, when federal Judge Vaughn Walker overturned California’s Proposition 8 that limited marriage to one man and one woman.

Next time someone complains that this blog swears too much, I’ll point them to this piece where I manage to swear less than a nun.

The judge’s decision called California voters “irrational,” which suggests that their decision was absurd. What’s really absurd is the judge’s dismissal of marriage between a man and a woman as if it were some kookie idea.

He didn’t dismiss a single marriage between a man and a woman.

What’s irrational is ignoring the will of the people with real life experience of marriage, who have voted down gay marriage not only in California, but throughout the United States whenever legalization of gay marriage has been put to a vote. These votes have not occurred in pockets of conservatism. Fourteen years ago the U.S. House of Representatives voted 342-67, and the Senate voted 85-14, to accept the traditional definition of marriage.

While I’m unmarried, I can’t tell you how amusing it is that a woman who has literally taken a vow of chastity is talking about people’s real life experience with marriage. Anyway, the leader of the House that passed it was serial adulterer-divorcee Newt Gingrich, and the person who signed it into law was Bill Clinton. So you know they defended marriage.

Anti-religious position
What is even more irrational is the judge’s dismissal of the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of freedom for religion with these damning words: “Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.”

That does what to freedom of religion now? Somehow you’ve read a prohibition against any “law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” as meaning that judges have to agree with Church dogma? With the opinions of religious people?

Placing religion and government at odds amounts to Constitutional irrationality. It is no small irony that his anti-religious position is enshrined in a ruling deemed to oppose bigotry.

Government must protect people’s rights. If that means that it’s at odds with some people’s religion, so be it. If religion says you can’t take the Lord’s name in vain, and government guarantees free speech, I’m sorry, but government and religion will be at odds, and government will be right. His ruling, however, was neither anti- nor pro- religion.

In his decision Judge Walker backed his bigotry with errors, including the misstatement that the “Catholic Church views homosexuality as sinful.” The fact is the Catholic Church sees homosexuality as a condition, not something intrinsically sinful. The church calls for pastoral support, not condemnation, for people with this condition.

Awesome.

The Catholic Church makes clear that it is homosexual activities it deems sinful, because it holds that all sexual activity belongs within marriage between a man and a woman. At the same time the Catholic Church opposes all unjust discrimination against gays and lesbians and abhors violence against them.

Look, we don’t think you should beat up gay people, therefore, our opposition to letting them get married isn’t bigotry. And we don’t think being gay is a sin, we think acting gay is a sin. Why do you hate religion, judge? So full of hate.

Bigotry of religion?
The Catholic Church also holds that marriage is a unique institution with a privileged place because it is foundational to the good of society. The church is not alone in asserting that a family headed by a mother and a father is the optimal place in which to raise a child.

You’re wrong. That’s a perfectly good environment to raise a child, but there are plenty of other environments just as good. Loving, caring parents of wanted children seem to be the best option.

Judge Walker begs to differ, and says that research supporting the contrary view “is accepted beyond serious debate in the field of developmental psychology.” If there is a statement open to debate, that’s it.

But his point was that it wasn’t provided by the people seeking to keep the ban in place.

Judge Walker devoted three pages of his decision making a case for the bigotry of religion, an insult to the tens of millions of religious people in the nation. This is not to deny that some people act despicably and portray their bigotry against gays as religious expression.

Like when they say God doesn’t want loving couples to get married.

So too do those who spew anti-immigrant and anti-woman sentiments. They are an unfortunate result of our human condition that lets the morally weak, even morally decrepit, walk among us. Bigotry is unfortunate, but not a reason to upend the U.S. Constitution.

The Constitution isn’t upended in this case.

Archbishop Joseph Kurtz, chairman of the U.S. bishops’ Ad Hoc Committee for the Defense of Marriage, was spot on when he declared that “It is simply unimaginable that the court could claim a conflict between marriage and the Constitution.”

No court did that.

On Aug. 4, 2010, Judge Walker proved Dickens right. The law is a ass.

Letting loving couples get married and ending a form of discrimination is not so bad as you think it is.

– posted by thehim

The folks at the Chicken Wing are still not dealing well with Clint Didier’s defeat:

Most Republicans pride themselves on abiding by the law. They don’t speed, don’t do illegal drugs, don’t rob banks, don’t murder people and think it is reprehensible when people do. They believe that people who break the law should be punished — fined or jailed. No ifs, ands or buts about it.

So what about when one steals an election? Not through blatant fraud but through a more ingrained, insidious, deeper form of theft. Where the victim of the theft actually becomes an unwitting accomplice to the crime. What crime is that? It is called “Voting for the lesser of two evils.”

Part of me respects the Didiots for refusing to simply roll over and support Rossi. They describe Rossi in many of the same ways that I have - he’s an opportunistic huckster whose only loyalty is to powerful interests. But where my respect starts to wane is over the fact that on the issues that illustrate that stereotype about Rossi, Didier is in complete agreement with him (in fact, Didier even boasted about his opposition to the DISCLOSE Act). And where my respect gets drained completely is over social issues, where the Didiots have invented this conglomeration of intensely extremist positions that they think are somehow ingrained in the Constitution, but in reality are just a set of talking points that provide a thin veil over intensely bigoted and reactionary beliefs. If you read through that entire screed by Michele St. Pierre, you understand that she views the Constitution not as the basis of how our government should work, but as a religious framework. To her, our entire political system is a morality play, where the forces of good and evil are duking it out, rather than what it really is - a battle over competing economic interests in a system that tilts on an axis between corporate power and the power of the masses.

And since both corporate power and the power of the masses can each go to dangerous extremes, we’ll always and forever be voting for the lesser of two evils. There are no messiahs in this game, only hucksters and those crazy enough to think they might be messiahs.

– posted by thehim

For the entire duration of this blog, the undisputed champ of anti-Muslim blogosphere crazy has been Tracy Oetting, who gave us this legendary gem. But with Oetting’s lack of recent posting, there’s a new sheriff in town, and she goes by the name DCAT:

Islam you best be praying!

Brace yourself Islam! DCAT is about to go “angry black woman confronting her ex-boyfriend in front of a live audience” on your ass!

Because more people are on to your crap then you think!

Building community centers and other completely ordinary things!

Go ahead have those babies here!

Procreating! So devious.

You teach them hate and you will lose them here in the USA to protective child agencies!

Agencies run by protective children?

You will not win in the name of GOD!

I’m not sure they’re aware that they’re playing.

You work for satan there for you will enter the flames of hell for all eternity!

This never makes sense to me. If they work for Satan, and Satan runs hell, then won’t they be rewarded by Satan once they get there? Won’t they be the ones who get air conditioning and all the good seats to see the great musicians who end up in hell too?

Listen up America!

I’m all ears.

These muslim people are not here to practice religious freedom in a country that allows freedom of religion.

They’re here to sucker us into taking on mortgages we can’t afford.

They are not here to share the American dream of freedom and justice for all.

They’re here to dismantle the government entitlements that have sustained the middle class.

They are not here to share the good will and loving kindness of Mohammad and of islam.

So are there any Muslims who actually practice Islam?

They are here to infiltrate and destroy our nation.

First they came for Jimmy Dean and I said nothing.

They are here on a military and fanatical Satanic religious mission to conquer and destroy our country.

They’re already close to their takeover of the lower Manhattan Burlington Coat Factory. If they get their hands on that many sharp hangers, the streets will fill with blood!

They are here on a mission of Jihad.

They’re even building a swimming pool to teach their terror babies how to swim!

Their goal is the destruction of the United States of America as a nation, as a philosophy and as a people.

No, that’s your goal.

America had better wake up.

But don’t drink that evil Muslim-invented coffee stuff. We can’t allow them to change us!

America had better get over the politically correct tolerance of these murderous barbaric parasites.

Jesus, this is stuff that would make some neo-Nazis blush.

America had better consider seriously the consequences of not purging and eradicating this insidious cancer from within our borders.

Jesus, this is stuff that would make Hitler himself blush.

It’s time to draw the line and finish this war or your children and grand children will be answering to the will of Sharia law and not to the laws of the United States.

Sharia Law is a pretty frightening prospect to me, but committing a second Holocaust seems far worse.

Every single day that passes while we debate the socialist muslim government that is now running our country will be one day closer to our utter and total destruction as a people and a nation.

I can’t take it anymore. For more thoughts on this sad subject, read my post at HA.

Post by Carl Ballard

I feel like I’ve been churning out refutations to The Seattle Times’ dumbass antitax nonsense for ever. And while I’m not sure what more there is to say, as long as they keep writing these editorials, I feel like it’s my job to keep calling them assholes.

FEW Seattleites doubt the need for more investment in transportation in many areas of the city. But City Council talk of a new transportation taxing district that could prompt a slew of tax requests elicits one response: Are you kidding?

Look assholes, there are plenty of responses. A sane one would be a cost benefit analysis. Since I haven’t done anything approaching that, I’ll refrain from the merits, and cut most of the rest of this.

“What I am hearing from Lake City to Fauntleroy is that voters will pay more for sidewalks, crosswalks and safety improvement,” said Rasmussen. He added that he understood, “We also have to prioritize and we have to put some projects on hold.”

The emphasis should be on prioritizing and delaying some projects. We understand retail sales, real-estate excise and gas-tax revenues are coming in slower than expected. We also understand a growing city has a long list of needs.

Do you? Because it seems like the only need you understand the city has is the need to cut your taxes.

But this is not the time to lump so many expensive endeavors into a basket and create a new transportation district. The city is planning to raise commercial parking taxes to continue planning and design of the sea wall replacement.

When is the time? I can’t recall you demanding tax increases in a time of plenty so that when the downturn hit, we could be prepared. And I sure as hell don’t think you’ll be demanding tax increases when the economy improves.

The sea wall is a necessity, but the parking tax may be harmful to economic recovery.

There is no economic damage to the city if the seawall fails.

Slow down. Seattle has done far less budget cutting and prioritizing than either the state or King County. Part of that is a more-sober attitude toward taxes.

They have far less budget cutting than the rest of the state or King County because they ignore your dumbass pronouncements on taxes and spending.