Peggy Carter singing 10,000 Maniacs

Yes, I am very aware that it's actually Natalie Merchant, but that was my first thought on seeing this older performance on YouTube (actually saw it on Krugman's blog).  She doesn't actually look like Hayley Atwell, but the outfit, hair and camera angles...Agent Carter was the first person I thought of.

"Liberal" Professors

Professors and universities are bastions of liberal thought.  Sure, but why?  This article states that the reason is self-selection, i.e. liberal youth consider academia an appropriate destination more than conservative youth and so choose it.  Fine, but this seems to me to be circular and so there is still a "why?" to consider.

First: it is circular, because the self-selection needs to be kickstarted somehow.  There needs to be a reason that liberals are more likely to see academia as a good environment to them that isn't "there are more liberals than conservatives in academia." It had to get that way somehow.  Note that that could have still been self-selection but the motivation to get from no apparent bias to professors are all liberal can't be that professors are all liberal.

So, why is it that academia developed into a place where liberals gather?  I haven't the resources (time or physical) to figure this out myself--I certainly do have a few thoughts on the matter--but this isn't a new phenomenon (some aspects are but not the whole liberal vs. conservative thought in educational settings).  

I should also note that while this has some bearing on US politics, that isn't necessarily a big part of it. Particularly today, the political side of liberal vs. conservative doesn't really register to me as an intellectual debate.  The two political sides are far more divided along emotional and group lines, though, yes, one side is far more welcoming of intellect/reason/facts/science/thought/... than the other.  

Seriously: Don't Use Brokers

Even before Wolf of Wall Street and now the Furman memo (first at Bloomberg but more fun read is Taibbi's). It was obvious to anyone who paid any attention that managed funds were a bad idea.  Tons of fees and most do worse than the market average (deducting fees even more are worse).  Yesterday's golden boy is tomorrow's goat--past success does not predict future success in finance.

Your best option is and has been to park your money in a couple low cost index funds (exchange traded or not) and then leave it there.  For balance split between total stocks and total bonds.  You can add REIT and international if you feel like it and the ratio of the split(s) should relate to your risk tolerance (more simply: to your age).  That's it.  Anyone who tells you differently is trying to take money from you and pocket it himself (well, maybe herself, but let's be honest: it's probably gonna be a dude).

Yes some people (and maybe you!) can get lucky and pick the right blend of stocks at the right times and make a killing: doing way better than the market.  But 00 may also come up on the roulette wheel, the dealer may not be sitting on 20 with that face card showing, and 7 could get rolled 3x in a row.  If you want to gamble, that's fine, and the stock market is as good a place to do it as any (and more respectable for some odd reason).  If you are just trying to save for retirement the best way possible, on the other hand, gambling isn't the wise choice.  You may hit the financial jackpot, but probably, you're going to be a lot poorer than you would be if you had just stuck with the simple, cheap option.

Because We Don't...Listen?

Look, scientists are not necessarily the people we want to pay attention to for every little thing.  We are, however, the go-to people for, you know, science stuff.  That's why some of this crap is really frustrating.

Look at that list then think about where the two parties sit.  One party is pro-science, the other is not.  There are some crossover issues, but they are not really party platform points...Yes, more liberals (probably) think GM foods are not safe to eat, and certainly more liberal politicians push for laws on labeling, but the Democratic party does not really care.  Animal research is similar.  Nuclear power is also similar except that the party is very much pro nuclear power.  

Only one party has large numbers who state they do not believe the science on climate change.  Only one party has presidential candidates who publicly declare that they do not believe in evolution.  Indirectly on the list but only one party fights against alternative energy mostly that which comes in the form of solar.

I really do wish the Republican party wasn't anti-science.  I probably still wouldn't vote for them because I have a heart (i.e. liberal on social issues) but at least I would be somewhat less fearful of the damage that will be done to our country and our planet when they have power.

Mostly "Conservative" Rich but Not Entirely

So the "Rich Think the Poor Have it Easy" do they?  I am genuinely curious about why this belief comes about.  Is it straight up class-ism?  Is it a combination of Fox News and the Wall Street Journal poisoning their brains?  I just don't understand how anyone could really believe that the poor have it easy.

We have a (small) safety net that mostly keeps poorer people from being completely destitute.  It helps keep poorer families from starving and helps keep a roof over their head.  Public schools provide some opportunity for advancement for their children, though it should be pretty obvious how inadequate that is.  Moreover we put less toward alleviating poverty today than we did 40, 50 years ago.

I wonder how much is an age divide.  Older people are more likely to be rich.  They mostly grew up during that time that being poor was less of an obstacle than it is today, and there are dramatic differences in some standard of living/cultural issues that confuse the whole picture--"When I was a kid I didn't have an  Xbox and a 40 in. flat screen to play it on!  I had a stick and a hoop and I liked it!"

...really this post is going to be either too long or incomplete so I'm leaving it incomplete.  I just wish I could understand the astounding lack of empathy among the well off in our society.  On the one hand they complain about how hard it is to get by on only $250k, on the other they think people making $20k/year have it easy.

Infuriating and Depressing

There's really no good way to understand understand how [some] American [police] handle black citizens other than racism.  There's even less of a way to get around how the justice system treats these events other than racism.  There are two justice systems in America.  Black people who may or may not be guilty of some crime can be killed by police and nothing comes of it.  White gun nuts engaged in open carry while drunk on the other hand?  Pretty much nothing.  He loses his gun for an afternoon (because drunk) and that's it.  No citation, no wrestling, tazering, pepper spraying, and definitely no shooting because white.

Just Raise the Damn Gas Tax!

Vehicle mileage taxes are stupid on many levels.  But they keep coming up.  You can read here a good (and less emotional) overview of why the VMT idea should die.

Someone Should Remind Bill that Stalin was an Atheist

Considering that Atheists have long gotten shit from religious types about lack of moral compass one would think that a present day atheist would have enough sense to not blame religion (or lack thereof) for the horrible things people do.

Stalin and Pol Pot were atheists.  They were horrible people.  Following Bill Maher "logic" atheism makes people horrible (and yes, people have actually made that leap).

Helicopter Money

Simon Wren-Lewis has a good description of Helicopter money but I think he may be missing a couple things.

First is the perception of a "tax cut" vs. "free money".  At one level, if everyone gets $1000 it is the same either way.  If it is a tax cut, however, there is a perception that people who pay more in taxes are getting less out of the deal, and also, people who have little to no tax liability may receive nothing, and those are often the people most in need and most likely to spend.  Additionally, people seem to act differently about free money (read: they spend it) compared to earned money (which a tax cut is returning).

The second thing is the targeting/distribution aspect.  Tax cuts get money to all tax payers/filers.  Helicopter money can get money to everyone.  It could also target specific [debt] problems that may be holding back the economy (student loans, credit cards, mortgages).  True the latter is not exactly the same as helicopter money, but it isn't the same as the current QE strategy either, and everything else he said about it applies equally.

Personally the way I would like to see "helicopter money" distributed is via debt reduction to real people.  I am particularly fond of the fed buying and torching student loan debt, but I could also get behind credit card debt (which I don't really have) or mortgages, though with that last one I think I'd prefer a partial rather than complete buyout (up to maybe $50k per primary mortgage).

There is a lot of fear and uncertainty remaining in the US, and having lots of debt is a real issue for it.  People don't feel as free to spend money if they have these huge responsibilities hanging over them.  Even a fairly generous helicopter drop (via tax cut) isn't directly addressing the debt issue, and probably won't do enough to boost the economy.

Bill Maher is an Asshole

Sometimes he's a good asshole, but lately he's been on his anti-religion zealotry binge and he sounds every bit as bigoted, stupid and vile as the fundamentalists he is ranting against.  There are some atheists who are every bit as fundamentalist and xenophobic as the various fundamentalist religious groups around the world.  They hate religion and religious people like Fred Phelps hates gays: irrationally and with heavy doses of scorn and vitriol.

I saw a bit of the segment with Ben Affleck and I liked that Ben stood his ground against the fundamentalists at the head of the table, but Reza Aslan is right: you can't argue to convince Bill Maher: his viewpoint is not rational.  It is emotional, and he cannot be dissuaded.

Incidentally: the whole of that linked interview is really good.

"Abortion Rights Without Apologies"

Nicely put.

Dear SEPTA,

When I moved close to the Jenkintown train station I rode the train almost daily to Warminster for work.  It was (if I recall) $68 for a monthly (2-zone) pass.  Over the years, my travel increased a bit, that pass price kept going up and I started buying only in months I knew I was commuting to work for the whole of.  Now that pass doesn't exist and I would need to buy the $109 cross county.

I now ride SEPTA to/from the airport and occasionally to/from the city but otherwise not at all.  If the pass had been kept at the (already too-high) $75 level, I would still get a pass for months I wasn't travelling otherwise (e.g. I would have gotten one this month).  If that $75 was for the cross county I would consider buying it every month (except maybe Dec) regardless of whether or not I was travelling.  So SEPTA could be getting $600-800 a year from me, a single counter-flow rider whose ticket purchases are pure profit for you and who doesn't crowd out others (i.e. not riding peak to/from city), but instead you get $0 because your pricing for tickets is too high for non-center city commuters (especially considering your much worse scheduling for us).

SEPTA really should realize this: There is far more space on the counter-flow trains so extra commuters are pure gravy.  But it is cheaper than $75/month and MUCH more convenient for me--and for most suburban workers--to drive to work, so people with cars [who are not going to the city for work] currently have no good reason to ride SEPTA because the prices are just too damned high.

If I were in charge of their pricing I would try making the cross county pass $60/month, would market it to weekend city riders as well as suburban commuters, give it a year and see what happens.  I would buy that every month even though I wouldn't always be riding.

Commuters to the city have to deal with crappy traffic and paying for parking in the city: I don't.  I like the train because 1. the walking at both ends does me good and 2. reading on my commute is much easier.  When I drive, however, I can stop off at Costco, my Co-op, the beer store, or Target on my way home, so even months that I mostly take the train, I will likely want to drive occasionally.  If the pass price is so high that I can only justify it by riding every day...I won't buy it.

Zoning Laws

At some level zoning laws make sense.  There are good reasons for me not to be allowed to pave my entire property on a whim, and there are good reasons that I can't just decide to run a bar out of my basement, and there are good reasons that I cannot build a 30' wall on my property line.  That said, a lot of zoning is parochial nonsense.

Setbacks are my current gripe (for personal reasons, and because of this mention by Atrios).  Between being able to maintain your property, not invading on a neighbor's or public space and not being a fire hazard a few feet of setback, in some cases, makes good sense.  10 - 30' (depending on zoning and structure) almost never does.

The only thing a 10' setback does is break up your property into smaller and less usable pieces.  It is particularly galling to have such in a neighborhood where lots of earlier built structures are right on the property line.

Because This Time It'll Work!

Doing Iraq Wrongish

I don't think I really disagree with Obama's (stated, apparent) policies on Iraq and ISIS (or ISIL or just IS or the evil hobgoblins of doom riding the four horsemen of the apocolypse to destroy America and make the world a terrorist paradise of...but I digress).  It's the way he talks about them, and the way that most other news outlets and media people and politicians talk about them.

Digby's put together a piece that covers how I feel about this.

I'm More Optimistic But It's Gonna Take Change

David Atkins seems a little oddly pessimistic in this post.  On the one hand he is very correct about the progress of technology and what it will be able to do in the future.  On the other he seems to ignore that a future in which all jobs are performed by machines is one in which either people must either all be enjoying immense prosperity or we are hiding from the robot death machines that are keeping insurrection in check (whether they are controlled by an AI or the future's 1% is kind of irrelevant).

While there are times I feel like the doomsday scenario is where we are headed, mostly I don't.  There are a few reasons for that, some positive some negative.  Let's start with the negative...

I don't know that we will really develop machines/software that can truly replace human creativity.  It could be our limit, or that we realize it is a bad idea (more likely the former).  I mean AI's will either enslave or kill us.  It is the sensible thing to do.  Whether our history is actually one of violence and destruction interspersed with periods of peace and prosperity, or the other way around doesn't matter much because our current trend is not good.  Particularly with respect to...

...Global warming, which will vastly change how we live on this planet over the coming decades.  Peoples will move, starve, thirst, die, and wars will start.  Or we will resolve all these issues via a combination of technological development and a vast, global political force for good that sees that that development is distributed to maximize the aid to humanity. (Stop laughing!)

On a more positive note there is the fact that if you replace all people in the workforce with machines: who buys the products the machines make?  In that world either governments/corporations would need to ensure that somehow the bulk of the population had the wherewithal to consume, or the wealthy could move to enclaves where the rabble couldn't kill them.

In reality I suspect that we will not approach any of these things (except global warming which we can't stop at this point and so will have to deal with).  If machines displace enough middle class the economy will suffer so there will be less impetus for further development.  There could be an asymptotic approach, but I think we would find there are local minima/maxima that would really require some heft to get past, and in our current political state we're nowhere close to having it.

I think in the US we will mostly be not as well off as we would like--with the wealthy being increasingly distant from the others--but still sufficiently comfortable that revolution doesn't really happen.

I'm not sure that is really optimism, but it isn't the downward spiral or killer robots of doom so it's something.

Puppy

We were planning on waiting on getting a new dog until after a bit of travel coming up, but a "Puppy Adoption" sign put an end to that thinking.  We adopted Ripley--nominally a border collie/lab mix, but who knows for sure (or really cares)--took him home and really pissed off the cats.

New puppy, day 1:

Day 2: ~26 hrs later he vomited everything he had eaten that day and a few hours after that at about 2:30 am he woke us up with very vile smelling bloody diarrhea.  Now we know what an intussusception is.  He had parvo, which is likely contributor to getting the intussusception, and the surgery alone was $4k.  I don't know what kind of person it takes to choose to put a puppy down (or let it die) rather than fork over the $4k for the life saving surgery, but I know I'm not that kind of person.  So he is now Ripley, as in "Believe it or not this puppy was $5000!".

He is doing quite well now--staples out and back to eating anything he can get in his mouth...and still pissing off the cats by his mere presence.

But you don't need that much!

I find retirement calculators like this one (I know, CNN's crappy Money section again) incredibly frustrating. The single biggest issue goes to methodology where (burried) you can find:

We then assume you can live comfortably off of 85% of your pre-retirement income. So if you earn $100,000 the year you retire, we estimate you will need $85,000 during the first year of retirement. For each subsequent year, we increase your income need by 2.3% to keep up with inflation...

Here's the problem: what you need and what you earn don't scale this way.  Someone making $50k/year at 35 who has a house and kids, is someone who, may be making $100k in 30 years, but who, at that time could well have a paid off house and grown kids they are no longer paying for.  No fucking way does that person need $85k/year (plus inflation) to retire on!  What you need in retirement is only a large fraction of what you earned if you still have lots of debt.  But anyone with that level of debt probably isn't a candidate for this calculator, as they probably can't afford to put away the 15%+ of their income necessary to have a secure retirement!  The whole thing is just fucked.

No matter how much you earn, if you can actually manage to put $1-2 million into retirement, own your residence, and be otherwise debt free at retirement, then that'll be plenty.  There are people who don't believe that, but they are pretty much all delusional financial types.

Shorter President Obama

"Torturers are patriots"

Not Learning Good

I would have thought that after Hillary lost to Barack in 2008 she would have learned that the Democratic base likes their candidate to be less warmongery.  It even sounded like she had really come to see how badly flawed her judgement was on Iraq.  Guess not.  I really want to like Hillary, but it is exactly this kind of right-wing sounding militaristic crap that I find outrageous coming from anyone, much less a Democrat.  I hope that we get a better candidate on military/intelligence that can displace her.  What is more likely is that such a candidate would make her pull back and lots of people would believe she is less of a warmonger than she is.

She's probably worse than Obama...who, still dissapointingly, was not a whole lot better than Bush Jr.  Why the fuck can't we get a presidential candidate that doesn't want to arm and then bomb the hell out of the middle east?!?