Post v.31

Saudi justice is often depicted as rough justice, in this particular case one hopes it is doubly so:

Early morning shoppers at a supermarket in Jeddah were left reeling yesterday, with some falling unconscious, after a well-built Syrian man clinched a knife and decapitated his 15-month-old nephew in front of his mother in the store’s fruit and vegetable section.

In a brutal murder that has shocked the city, the 25-year-old man beheaded the boy, who was out shopping with his mother — in full glare of shoppers and staff at Al-Marhaba supermarket on Sari Street around 9.30 a.m. The man, who is the boy’s maternal uncle, apparently killed the boy following a dispute with his sister and brother-in-law.

Eyewitnesses said that the man picked up a knife from inside the store and severed the boy’s head. The mother and a shopper standing close by fainted, while several other stood in shock and disbelief over what had happened.

Words truly escape.

Post v.30

It was rather difficult to comprehend after reading the opening paragraph in this Financial Times article:

Germany will on Tuesday call for the European Union to clamp down on the continent’s last tax havens, whose low taxes and bank secrecy rules it sees as an incitement to tax evasion.

Pardon me, but is it not the hyper levels of taxation unfortunately found in many European countries which is the very true incitement for individuals to become motivated in the protection of their incomes/wealth?

Post v.29

This does not seem to be a hoax of the Hoax:

FOUR STRATEGIES FROM WHICH TO CHOOSE

There are four basic strategies for dealing with climate change: Wait for a Miracle, Last Man Standing, Change the System, or Just Stop. Which do you choose? (The idea of four strategies and a few of these phrases come from Richard Weinberg’s book Powerdown.)

1) Wait for a Miracle: This is the strategy of the ~ 90% of humanity who either never heard of global warming, or who approach climate catastrophe through philosophizing, theorizing, or proselytizing, or by fantasizing that someone will discover a technological breakthrough to save us all. These people choose to do nothing.

2) Last Man Standing: This is the strategy favored by the elite, wealthy, power holders in the corporocracy. The plan is already being implemented: business as usual while ruthlessly competing for dwindling resources as the world "goes down." Survivor takes all. However, no amount of money, nor guns, assures survival from ecological collapse.

3) Change the System: This is the strategy favored by intelligent, compassionate, political activists in NGO's lobbying for regulations to change the socio-economic system. Workable scenarios for international cooperation, conservation, and resource sharing might indeed be developed, but implementation fails in practice due to too much compromise. When the cat has no claws, rats rule the world.

4) Just Stop, Build an Ark: This is the strategy of a small minority, relying on alternative sources of information, who realize that the entire system of industrial civilization is inherently unsustainable. Of these people, most will simply watch helplessly and cynically as the world disintegrates. Only a small subset of this already marginal group will take total personal responsibility for having caused the present conditions in the first place, and will then Just Stop creating them. Out of the ashes of their lives, they will gather in small sustainable social systems beyond the reach of globalization and create parallel culture "lifeboats," the "arks."

Go with either #'s 1 or 2. Do either include the issuance of a firearm? That may tip the scale.

Post v.28

Ho-hum....

GILFORD, N.H. (AP) - Much of this week's winter carnival in Gilford has been canceled, due to too much winter.

Parks and Recreation Director Herb Greene notes that the cancellation of 2 events was due to poor road conditions and snow-filled parking lots.

Post v.27

Close to perfect. Vote with your feet and let those greedy for what you got taste a little bit of "social ...... sTrEeT jUsTiCe", from an economic perspective:

Post v.26

A fascinating article in the New York Times by Carol Pogash. The topic is that of US high school students eligible for 'free' lunch programs and their choice to not participate. The article correctly serves as a microcosm into the many elements highlighting the relationship between individuals and the state: economic choice, social awareness, immigration, statism, unintended consequences, and so on.

Prior to reading the article one should note, as this piece is coming from the NYT, the 'purpose' behind the information presented is undoubtedly designed to provoke an emotional response and prompt 'someone to do something' through more intervention by the state.

As noted earlier, the article's main theme revolves around the stigmatisation 'felt' by individuals who choose not to participate in government subsidised 'free' lunch programs. Some points which stick out in the article:

Many districts have a dual system like the one at Balboa: one line, in the cafeteria, for government-subsidized meals (also available to students who pay) and another line for mostly snacks and fast-food for students with cash, in another room, down the hall and around the corner.

Odd to create such a dual system, why is that?

Most of the separation came into being in response to a federal requirement that food of minimal nutritional value not be sold in the same place as subsidized meals — which have to meet certain nutritional standards.

Ahh, no doubt more regulation by the state with only the best of intentions at heart will help to solve the new 'problem' created by the previous regulation which was designed to solve the old 'problem'.

What else:

"We want their participation so it’s important for us to deal with the stigma," said Ms. Hill, who is also executive director of food services for the public schools in Jackson, Miss., where students who pay are required to buy the subsidized meal before they are allowed to buy à la carte items.

So, force all into a one-size-fits situation to avoid the stigmatisation of some. How much of the state-forced purchasing results in wasted food? Could those resources (the monies, the food, opportunity costs, time itself) be put to better uses by individuals deciding vs. the state?

How about we put this version of 'doing something' by the state into a way which may get the attention of statists, what is the carbon footprint of the food wasted by this particular collective vs. individual solution?

Do read the article. The anecdote about immigrants being grateful for the 'free' lunch programme in California is quite illuminating. That of immigrants going to the United States, taking advantage of the opportunities available, and no doubt having a better chance at succeeding in their newfound home.

Added bonus quote which gives away the plot:

Ann Cooper, director of nutrition services for the public schools in Berkeley, Calif., said that attention to school cafeterias had traditionally focused on nutrition, but that the separation of students who pay and those who receive free meals was an important "social justice issue."

Post v.25

Tim Worstall with two (among many) nice points:

....The first is that the newspapers really do have a problem now: on just about any and everything, their readers in aggregate know more than their journalists do. And comment systems are making it clear that they do. The second is that those on The Guardian really know very little at all about how the tax system works: perhaps that's why they're so insistent that taxes should be higher?