This is Ryan Mount's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Ryan Mount's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Ryan Mount
Grass Valley, CA
Grass Valley > Nevada City and their faux hipster BS. :-)
Interests: Thinking of ways to confuse people, Humour (with a "u"), songwriting, reading books with big words, Michel Foucault, baseball, travel, India, Taiwan, William Blake, John Donne, linguistics, rhetoric, my kids, my beautiful partner Karina, love
Recent Activity
A Camel is a Horse built by committee.
Toggle Commented Apr 30, 2014 on Common Core Town Hall at Rebane's Ruminations
Isn't it strange that the Federal Government "owns" almost 90% of Nevada? Sorry for being captain obvious here, but I had't really thought about it. (here is the number of times per month I think about Nevada: 0.) I guess in return they get their "States' rights" for prostitution and gambling. Screw everything else. Why even bother with them as a State? Maybe we could sell Nevada to the Chinese* to help pay off the debt. Sure, there's a lot of nuclear wasteland but with our good, old-fashioned, American marketing know-how, we could turn it into a Chinese vacation paradise. *note: we keep Las Vegas. And the silver. They can have Reno...for free.
I find the State's Rights issue coming out of this run-in with BLM. I've heard it over and over again. It's a legitimate argument, a 100 years ago before the Federal government started putting everything under Federal jurisdiction. I happen to like stronger and more sovereign States, but it hasn't been that way for quite some time, and I don't see the 9th and 10th Amendments ever being enforced ever again. Shame, really. So you can see how an issue like this cuts America in half. (or maybe in quarters at least). For those Paleo-Conservatives who want to move power out of Washington and back to the States, this is their poster child issue. In fact, they raced there wrapped in the 2nd Amendment. But for people who dig more central planning, they best you'll get out of them is, "Sorry Charlie, that's the way it is. Us central planners will take over from here. And please fill out this 'How did we Do?' survey before you leave. Have a nice day." And the worst, of course, is this creepy armed activity. (it's REALLY creepy, even if one agrees that Mr. Bundy is a criminal).
Washing hands is far more effective. You have to change gloves frequently (and re-wash ones hands) in order for this to be effective. So in case of a bartender, s/he would be changing their gloves between drinks. Off the scale dumb. In a nutshell, this is a classic case of symbolism over substance; to make people feel safer rather than actually be safer. Our quest for a sterile society might ironically end up making sicker.
It appears that California lawmakers are trying to reverse this idiotic latex glove law with emergency legislation: Here is the coffee-spitting moment from the article: "'It had unintended consequences,' said Assemblyman Richard Pan, D-Sacramento, a physician and chairman of the Assembly's Committee on Health, which carried the bill in the first place." Here's a tip for the State's disembrained legislature: next time, how about talking to the people you represent before passing a law that fundamentally changes with way we go about our lives? What a bunch of d*cks. We have become such weenies, afraid of everything and looking for antibiotic wipes and creams to save us. Yikes germs! Reminds me of this:
The USA is one of the growing places on planet Earth where the underprivileged and poor are overweight. Now, if we're talking about many [most, but not all] third world countries, they're starving to death. We're more in danger of the poor storming the castle for free mobile phones or cable TV.
Scott- The reason this came up at all was because of the automatic burger machine. And I want to hasten its arrival. So I suppose that makes me even more cynical. And I have a proposal that will get this ball moving. Also, I was thinking this could also function to get the "working poor" off entitlements. And also to stop the constant bitching about Walmart employees having to use supplemental government benefits. This constant complaining is more torture than a Dr. Oz marathon. The goals are these: - Reward people who work/provide an incentive for able bodied people to work with a wage that enables them to get off government assistance (pay up front at consumption, where the economy is more efficient, as opposed to the back end, after the fact Progressive Tax) - Stop tax money from going into a Black Hole, hopefully lowering the tax burden. (I'd like it replaced) > Working at what? I'm constantly hearing that there is a dis-incentive to not work because not working pays $50K/year. So to answer your question directly: ANYTHING other than nothing for starters. But I'm, for the record, talking about people who are already productive workers. Not the couch sitter. That's an issue (the chronic couch sitter) with separate circumstances that requires a different solution. Perhaps one as radical as you propose. Quickly: > cut off all benies at a certain future date for all able bodied citizens And replace with what? More hospital ER visits? Church food drives? I think we should more conservative and targeted than this, like increasing the minimum wage to a point that gets able-bodied workers off the government teat. > Artificially jacking up wages is just another form of welfare Categorically no. It doesn't impact the economy the way people thinks it does. Besides, if my supply-side instincts are correct, a more efficient (and practical) way to do this would be to pay people more and get them off the expense side of the government ledger. > Can some one explain why a private financial agreement between 2 consenting adults in this country that involve the time and labor of one or both said individuals is any business of any govt entity? You mean other than labor laws?(Children, overtime, right to organize) Safety? And, well, wages. But plenty of people do this under the table. But for larger economies, this is not practical. You are free to hire an unbonded person to clean off your roof, but if s/he falls off? If a McDonalds employee is off the clock, and slips and falls in the kitchen?
Heat Balls. Now that's what I'm talking about. Exit Question: How well does an LED bulb do in an Easy Bake Oven? I suppose the lower percentile will think a higher Kelvin color temperature means it will cook faster. "Mom, my cake has been baking for 17 hours and it's still gooey." "Honey, try putting a 5000K bulb in there instead."
Break it into two events. One with 50 people. One with 50. Governments are stoopid, but they mean well. I think. Or simply call it a wedding as per G-V 2.1 Sec 3. "Yes officer, this my extended Latino, Scot and Thai 103 member family. We're Catholic, you see. I know. A Catholic Scotsman?! Anyhow, this is the reception. I had to charge admission because they're all penny-pinchers. Especially the Scots branch."
My assumptions always start with this: small changes can have big long term impacts; however that should not stop us from thinking about the big ideas. George 04:50> I'm assume your proposal would also include a commensurate tax reform so that such a minimum wage would not just be another add-on under the current spending regime. We would have to fix that as well. I want a Consumption or Flat Tax, which just ain't gonna happen because too many people get cookies out of the Progressive Tax cookie jar. AND it a social engineering tool of the government. Anyhow, my proposal is in the spirit of a Consumption Tax. Barring that, we'd have to adjust the tax code more towards things like earned income credits (if necessary) and less towards deductions. (that will probably never fly either). Scott at 09:08 PM> Free loaders are currently pulling down (all benies tabulated) 30K to 50K a year... Let's try to undo that by starting with people who are willing to work. One thing at a time. If one is making a living minimum wage, under my proposal, government entitlements drop off or disappear. As a practical matter, and not just a bitchy one, wouldn't we rather our tax money going to people who are working? Aren't the fruits of work much sweeter than sitting on the couch collecting the same money? BTW, even the most ardent demand-side economists admit that raising the minimum wage, especially to the levels I'm suggesting, will eliminate jobs. So this is one place where Rebane's bloggers and Keynesians come together. Wow. However the long term, according to them, it will raise workers out of the poverty level and have positive long term effects. That is, if one does not subscribe to George's Singularity projections which most Demand-siders don't.
Joe, that's correct as long as we're not talking about commodities. Now, there are lots of different ice creams (that the plural of ice cream?) out there, but it's hard to find any better than Ben and Jerry's. Generally from what I read, raising the minimum wage even by a significant amount does not impact margins, particularly in a Fast Food sector. (I used to manage a Burger King right out of high school, and this is the case). As long as volumes are high, labor costs, which in the BK franchise at the time was aiming for 15%, is not an issue. As long as we keep our eyes on the working poor, who do indeed make a sizable chunk of social services beneficiaries, then I find my Jack Kemp-ish solution to be practical. Pay them up front, and take the services away by means testing them. When talking about other demographics, the elderly, in infirm, children who require services, we just have to pay for that. Deadbeats? Hard to find a reason to help them out.
I beg your pardon for the repeat. I have a Jack Kemp-sorta proposal for our minimum wage issue. It's more of a bluff, but I do mean it in all seriousness: Raise the minimum wage to a level that doesn't require workers to get public assistance. (not sure what that would be, but certainly more). I mean, we're (individuals and businesses) are already sporting the funding via taxes, so why not pay up front where a business can readily manage their liabilities like wages? And then give them chance to reduce labor costs through automation.
Real Singularity. Right Now. This is where it starts and then moves up the economic ladder.
Ben- There is a influentional group of people (largely Technorati who think they can fix everything with a smartphone app, but others as well) who believe that democracy and "freedom" (however one wants to define freedom) are incompatible. So enter stage Right: neoreactionary/neocameralism From the affirmative: - - From the dissent: - - (and this stupefyingly long FAQ): It would be interesting to hear feedback from this blog because I smell wiffs occasionally of neocameralism. Just wiffs.
Toggle Commented Jan 11, 2014 on So You Wanna College Degree? at Rebane's Ruminations
"Good teacher. He seems to care." The guy who killed [murdered, IMO] Kinison got off with a slap on the wrist. He got probation and community service. If you're gonna kill someone, make sure you use a car.
> Following the government/Keynesian playbook we were supposed I think we have "recovered," but it's certainly not big rock candy mountain everyone was hoping for. I think the Democrats need to own their "recovery." If someone is unemployed for 99 weeks, something is very wrong. And that's gotta be a combination of factors including inflexibility of the unemployed ("I'm NOT moving to North Dakota!"), as well as some kind of fundamental shift in the economy, and certainly the government enablement via long running benefits like this 99 week'er thing. Practically speaking, when (not if) these chronic benefits are extended, I think the prudent thing to do would be at least keep these people busy. If we're going to throw money down a rat hole, we might as well put it in a jar, burying it and make the unemployed go after it.
Mr. Rebane- Are you saying that politicians of election opportunists? I really wish we could re-think unemployment insurance. Maybe requiring people to do something for it. Some ideas: - school/retraining - a part-time job - Maybe have them work for EDD answering phones. - Attend a UCLA English class and learn about disabled, Female African-American modern poets from Cleveland - Learn to write grants - Dance. Yes, make them dance for it. Anyhow, it's a mess. And frankly I'm not sure people are that excited about getting unemployment benefits/insurance/dole/whatever. I'm reasonably confident most people would prefer to work rather than stay at home and watch Dr. Oz. Unless they're masochists.
Gregory | 02 January 2014 at 12:44 PM> "If the church had not been given notice the old sign did not meet code, a reasonable person would assume they had a right to think a fresh message in the same format would be perfectly OK. I don't think a church or any individual with a non-commercial sign should have to trudge over to the Rood/Rude center to perform a mother-may-I when a message is changed." I totally agree with that in principle. But we're dealing with malcontents who are so thin-skinned that they'd turn their own grandma in for telling them to sit straight at the table. And we're also dealing with a modern bureaucracy that will eventually have to permit homeless people ala The Threepenny Opera. Just get the permit. I hope they make the sign bigger.
I really like the ACLU, but their silence/excuses for avoiding the 2nd Amendment seems to be their Achilles Heel. Their position is a disingenuous "the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right." Note: there is a danger of taking this discussion sideways. My apologies in advance. Weenies. Shame, really. Take a side man! Anyhow, whoever complained about the sign is/was a jerk and their mother was a hamster and smelt of elderberries. It wasn't hurting anyone and it just reveals how thin-skinned and dumb we are. Is the anonymous complaint a matter of public record? (anonymous = blacked out names) It would be interesting to read it. Or is it as simple as making a phone call? What's the process for this?
Todd, I understand your point and I'm sorry for arguing past it. My point is, regardless of whether this is a nefarious or overreaching action by the county or not (I'm pretty sure it isn't), they just need to go get the thing permitted. They need to "jump through the hoop." The anarchist in me, however, wants to start complaining about other signs just to see what will happen. Not that I have time for any of that. What's good for the goose...
> "separation" of church and state and the secularists There is no such thing. This is not a 1st Amendment issue. This is a compliance issue. Time. Place. Manner. Think of it like broadcasting over the airwaves or, to use a well worn hyperbolic example, shouting fire in a theater. This is a ask permission vs beg forgiveness issue. If they (or we) do not like the regs, we should change them and let people post bills without impunity. (I would not recommend that) These are civil matters. And generally civil matters are not enforced unless someone complains or files a motion in court. Those of us who've been through a divorce are intimately apprised of that: The court assumes everything is hunky dory as long as no one complains. Now, with regards of this sign thing, I personally don't care. I see no harm it the sign. And frankly it looks better than the previous one. But some local dickhead complained. (there's always some jerkoff ruining everything). So the county intervened and asked that it get permitted. That's it. There's no war on Christmas. There's no war on Duck Dynasty. There's no resurrection of the Fairness Doctrine. Rush Limbaugh isn't going anywhere and the Simple Truth church should just get the sign permitted. If the government comes after your church Todd, I will happily show up to kick some butt to defend it, even though I'm a professed Pastafarian.
Simple Truth officials is on record (CBS Sacramento) as saying attendance is up after the sign and its fake controversy. I think a judge would hear that and immediately assume it was an advertisement and fall under the jurisdiction of the County regs. It's a slow news day. I wonder if the Right is trying to conflate this with the recent Phil Robertson non-sense as well and the Rush Limbaugh-ness (fears of the Fairness Doctrine, some devils never die!) of this comment thread. "Our 1st Amendment rights are under attack! Uh, no! Next they're going to force me to watch Dr. Oz and perform juice enemas against my will! Oh the humanity." Probably, but they'll have to get a permit and an order first. So you'll have time to relax your sphincters. Time. Place. Manner. They're not being censored, they're being asked to get permission to change the existing sign. Until it's approved, they have to take it down. No conspiracy here folks. If the county said: "You have to take this down due nor can you post due to it's religious content," then we'd have a bonafide fight on our hands.
They're not going to succeed George. I think that news [pun intended] will be a great disappointment to Limbaugh's foes, and more interestingly, to those Rush supporters who enjoy a good fight.