We have yet another rule change on “health care reform” this week, this one being that people who had their health insurance policies cancelled are exempted from being reqiuired to carry health insurance next year. This is the most recent in a long list of changes made by executive order to this legislation, to a law passed by Congress.
Apparently laws passed by Congress are now interpreted by our executive branch as merely suggestions, which it can execute or waive in accordance with its latest whim. Not content with mere “signing statements” used by his predecessor, Obama writes executive orders actually changing the substance of laws passed by Congress and no one blinks.
There was significant objection when Bush used signing statements to the effect that he would not enforce as passed certain portions of laws that he was signing into law, but there is no objection at all when Obama writes executive orders which entirely change the substance of portions of laws passed by Congress and which he has earlier signed into law. The infamous, “It’s okay when a Democrat does it.”
If part of the “Affordable Care Act” as passed by Congress is making Democrats look bad Obama can just change that law as needed to suit the public relations needs of the Democratic Party. Maybe that’s why we call it “Obamacare” rather than the name that was on the act passed by Congress. It isn’t really a law, you see, because Congress no longer has any real power in our government. All it can do is make suggestions, which the executive branch can either accept or ignore as it sees fit.
The article points out that, “…in October 2011, the administration scrapped a long-term care insurance program created by the new law, saying it was too costly and would not work.” It was the will of Congress that this program would be included in the reform, and when Obama’s staff decided that “it was too costly and would not work” Obama did not go back to Congress and ask them to remove it, he simply removed it by executive order. There has been no objection by Congress to him changing the law passed by Congress, no comment by the media, and no outcry by constitutional scholars or lawyers.
It is simply accepted fact that the executive and legislative branches of our government are no longer equal, as they were created by the constitution; that Congress is subordinate to the executive.
Friday, December 20, 2013
Wednesday, December 18, 2013
Food? Section, Sports?
The San Diego paper's Food Section has deteriorated into complete uselessness now, featuring recipes for Holiday Chili-Lime Fruit Salad and Glazed Medjool Date and Meyer Lemon Scones. Nothing wrong with fruit salad, and my wife is very fond of scones, but let's try for some small degree of sanity in the ingredients.
And why are the sports writers still putting the words "Chargers" and "playoffs" in the same sentence?
And why are the sports writers still putting the words "Chargers" and "playoffs" in the same sentence?
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
Wives Can Confuse You
My auto license expires in February, and the state sends a renewal notice about four months before the expiration, so I went ahead and renewed this month. My wife is amazed by the fact that for most of 2014 my car will be running around with a 2015 sticker on it. She finds that amazing and difficult to understand. It did not bother her at all that for most of 2013 it was running around with a 2014 sticker on it, or that in 2012 it had a 2013 sticker...
For the sake of comity in the household I agreed with her that it was very strange. Husbands do things like that.
For the sake of comity in the household I agreed with her that it was very strange. Husbands do things like that.
"Young White Males"
Piers Morgan was holding a discussion with a psychiatrist last night on the subject of school shootings. Morgan was, as usual, blaming the guns, saying that if we didn‘t have guns young white males wouldn’t go crazy because “it is always young white males between the ages of 18 and 24” and it is the gun culture that causes young white males to go crazy.
The psychiatrist to some degree in agreement but was trying to make the point that there is a bit more to it than that, such as teaching our young to accept disappointment and how to be resilient. Morgan was having none of it, repeatedly insisting that guns cause young white males to go crazy. When the psychiatrist spoke of the “black culture which teaches that a gun is a necessary fixture for being a man,” Morgan got all huffy and said that “this is not about the black culture, is it” because the shootings are always done by young white males.
The psychiatrist finally got tired of Morgan’s idiocy and told him that the shootings covered by the media were always young white males, but that he was certain that as many or more shootings occurred in black schools and were not covered because “the white-controlled media does not care what happens in black schools.”
Piers Morgan should have slinked off of the set in abject mortification, but of course was unfazed by having been made to look like a complete idiot. Being an idiot is a natural state for him, so he merely proceeded with the discussion, but he did quit prattling about “young white males.”
The psychiatrist to some degree in agreement but was trying to make the point that there is a bit more to it than that, such as teaching our young to accept disappointment and how to be resilient. Morgan was having none of it, repeatedly insisting that guns cause young white males to go crazy. When the psychiatrist spoke of the “black culture which teaches that a gun is a necessary fixture for being a man,” Morgan got all huffy and said that “this is not about the black culture, is it” because the shootings are always done by young white males.
The psychiatrist finally got tired of Morgan’s idiocy and told him that the shootings covered by the media were always young white males, but that he was certain that as many or more shootings occurred in black schools and were not covered because “the white-controlled media does not care what happens in black schools.”
Piers Morgan should have slinked off of the set in abject mortification, but of course was unfazed by having been made to look like a complete idiot. Being an idiot is a natural state for him, so he merely proceeded with the discussion, but he did quit prattling about “young white males.”
Sunday, December 15, 2013
Sweet Weekend
The Chargers beat the Broncos. Navy made it twelve straight over Army (note heading above). The New Orleans Criminals lost. Eli Manning not only lost, he was shut out, had five interceptions and finished with a 31.9 quarterback rating. And Miami beat the New England Patriots.
We will not talk about what Denver did to my fantasy football team.
We will not talk about what Denver did to my fantasy football team.
Funky Math
An obscure (to me) blog wrote Monday of a “mysterious law that predicts the size of the world’s largest cities,” called “Zipf’s Law.” Apparently, this guy Zipf was a linguist who discovered this “law” with respect to word usage, and has since discovered that it is pretty much universal. With respect to cities, it means that a nation’s largest city is twice as large as the second largest, the second is twice as large as the third largest, and so on.
To say that “the numbers aren’t exact” is more than a little bit of an understatement, and to say that “they are remarkably consistent with Zipf's predictions” is nothing short of delusional. At my first casual glance I saw two cities which are essentially the same size.
The first one works reasonably okay; Los Angeles at 3,792,621 is at least within hand grenade distance of the 4,087,566 which would be half of New York’s 8,175,133.
But half of Los Angeles is 1,896,310 and that is a lot closer to #4 Houston than it is #3 Chicago, smaller than either one of them, and it’s getting pretty close to #5 Philadelphia. We only had one step in Mr. Zipf’s putative “law” before things went to shit, and the author of this piece didn’t notice.
And it gets worse; much worse. Half of #3 Chicago would be 1,347,799, which is nowhere even close to #4 Houston. In fact, Chicago and Houston are for all practical purposes about the same size. Half of #3 Chicago is significantly smaller than #5 Philadelphia.
For Zipf’s law to be true, Los Angeles would have a population of 4,087,566 rather than 3,792,621, and we will quickly see even larger divergence between Mr. Zipf and reality. Chicago would lose almost a quarter of its population, dropping to 2,043,783 from 2,695,598. Houston would shrink by half to 1,021,891 from 2,100,263 and Philadelphia would diminish to 510,945, one-third of it’s present 1,526,006.
China, it turns out, has one city at 44 million, one at 27 million, one at 19 million, and then a whole bunch at around 10 million. Brazil has one city at 11 million, one at 6 million and then a whole bunch are around 2 million. Argentina kind of breaks the series with one city at 3 million and several at right around 1 million. France really screws it up with one city at 12 million, the next largest at 2 million and the third at 1.7 million.
Hard do decide which is nuttier; Zipf or the writer of this piece.
Just take a look at the top ranked cities in the United States by population. In the 2010 census, the biggest city in the U.S., New York, had a population of 8,175,133. Los Angeles, ranked number 2, had a population of 3,792,621. And the cities in the next three ranks, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia, clock in at 2,695,598, 2,100,263 and 1,526,006 respectively. You can see that obviously the numbers aren't exact, but looked at statistically, they are remarkably consistent with Zipf's predictions.
To say that “the numbers aren’t exact” is more than a little bit of an understatement, and to say that “they are remarkably consistent with Zipf's predictions” is nothing short of delusional. At my first casual glance I saw two cities which are essentially the same size.
The first one works reasonably okay; Los Angeles at 3,792,621 is at least within hand grenade distance of the 4,087,566 which would be half of New York’s 8,175,133.
But half of Los Angeles is 1,896,310 and that is a lot closer to #4 Houston than it is #3 Chicago, smaller than either one of them, and it’s getting pretty close to #5 Philadelphia. We only had one step in Mr. Zipf’s putative “law” before things went to shit, and the author of this piece didn’t notice.
And it gets worse; much worse. Half of #3 Chicago would be 1,347,799, which is nowhere even close to #4 Houston. In fact, Chicago and Houston are for all practical purposes about the same size. Half of #3 Chicago is significantly smaller than #5 Philadelphia.
For Zipf’s law to be true, Los Angeles would have a population of 4,087,566 rather than 3,792,621, and we will quickly see even larger divergence between Mr. Zipf and reality. Chicago would lose almost a quarter of its population, dropping to 2,043,783 from 2,695,598. Houston would shrink by half to 1,021,891 from 2,100,263 and Philadelphia would diminish to 510,945, one-third of it’s present 1,526,006.
China, it turns out, has one city at 44 million, one at 27 million, one at 19 million, and then a whole bunch at around 10 million. Brazil has one city at 11 million, one at 6 million and then a whole bunch are around 2 million. Argentina kind of breaks the series with one city at 3 million and several at right around 1 million. France really screws it up with one city at 12 million, the next largest at 2 million and the third at 1.7 million.
Hard do decide which is nuttier; Zipf or the writer of this piece.
Friday, December 13, 2013
Democrats and Populist Causes
If any event ever disproved the liberal position that electing Democrats is necessary, or even valuable, for the populist cause, this new budget deal should certainly do the job. It won’t, of course, because liberals hold fast to the position that “my mind is made up so don’t confuse me with any facts.” They also steadfastly focus on what Democrats promise and staunchly ignore what they actually do in office.
Neither side will mind the fiction, to repeat myself, that this budget is a false pretense; promising to do something in ten years while being only a two year deal. Nor will they mind that it doesn't even actually do what it proclaims to do; actually reduce the deficit to any meaningful degree. It actually replaces a $6.3 billion deficit reduction with a $2.3 billion reduction, which looks like a $4.0 billion increase to me. Even if you ignore reality and accept the $2.3 billion reduction; the CBO estimates the deficit to be $6.3 trillion over the next ten years, so that $2.3 billion amounts to a reduction of one third of one percent.
If I tell a prospective client that I am going to solve one third of one percent of his problem, and that I am going to take ten years to do it, he is going to tell me to take a long walk on a short pier. But I’ve covered all that before; back to Democrats and their claims to populism.
Democrats should be the ones screaming about the horrors of this budget deal, but other than a few mild squeaks about the failure to extend jobless benefits they ate not objecting to it at all. Rather than mild objections, they should refuse to accept a budget that did not include an extension of unemployment benefits, and that’s just the starting point. This entire budget is supported on the backs of the working class and gives an entirely free ride to the oligarchy.
Revenue increases are not in the form of a more progressive income tax, which certainly should be the case, but are in the form of “user fees” which will fall heavily on the working class. You will, for instance, pay a higher fee for the privilege of being groped by a uniformed thug at the airport every time you take the kids to visit Grandma. Government workers will pay a higher fee for their pension, and that is not a higher contribution which they will get back when they retire, that is a higher fee for the same retirement benefit. Many of our military retirees will have their cost of living adjustments reduced.
Democrats are saying they will get the unemployment benefits done at a later date, but it obviously will be a lot harder to do that as an “off budget” item. Not to mention that Obama promised to eliminate the “off budget” spending that Bush made so common.
Is there any evidence in this budget that Democrats are standing up for the working class? There is not, because they are not doing so.
Neither side will mind the fiction, to repeat myself, that this budget is a false pretense; promising to do something in ten years while being only a two year deal. Nor will they mind that it doesn't even actually do what it proclaims to do; actually reduce the deficit to any meaningful degree. It actually replaces a $6.3 billion deficit reduction with a $2.3 billion reduction, which looks like a $4.0 billion increase to me. Even if you ignore reality and accept the $2.3 billion reduction; the CBO estimates the deficit to be $6.3 trillion over the next ten years, so that $2.3 billion amounts to a reduction of one third of one percent.
If I tell a prospective client that I am going to solve one third of one percent of his problem, and that I am going to take ten years to do it, he is going to tell me to take a long walk on a short pier. But I’ve covered all that before; back to Democrats and their claims to populism.
Democrats should be the ones screaming about the horrors of this budget deal, but other than a few mild squeaks about the failure to extend jobless benefits they ate not objecting to it at all. Rather than mild objections, they should refuse to accept a budget that did not include an extension of unemployment benefits, and that’s just the starting point. This entire budget is supported on the backs of the working class and gives an entirely free ride to the oligarchy.
Revenue increases are not in the form of a more progressive income tax, which certainly should be the case, but are in the form of “user fees” which will fall heavily on the working class. You will, for instance, pay a higher fee for the privilege of being groped by a uniformed thug at the airport every time you take the kids to visit Grandma. Government workers will pay a higher fee for their pension, and that is not a higher contribution which they will get back when they retire, that is a higher fee for the same retirement benefit. Many of our military retirees will have their cost of living adjustments reduced.
Democrats are saying they will get the unemployment benefits done at a later date, but it obviously will be a lot harder to do that as an “off budget” item. Not to mention that Obama promised to eliminate the “off budget” spending that Bush made so common.
Is there any evidence in this budget that Democrats are standing up for the working class? There is not, because they are not doing so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)