The Other Guys

There must be something wrong with me. (In a heretofore-unsuspected dimension, I mean.) If you have cable and have turned it on at any point in the past 3 months you know that the Will Ferrell/Mark Wahlberg Adam McKay-helmed comedy vehicle The Other Guys gets played approximately 50 times per day. Now: every time I’m flipping channels and see it, I watch some of it.

And find it hilarious yet again.

Every time. It never gets old. Every scene. All told I’ve probably seen it like 10+ times by now. To the point where I actually notice that they must be showing an ‘edited-for-TV version’ that includes a few extra scenes that weren’t in the theatrical/DVD version. And I get excited about those scenes. Its humor just doesn’t wane for me. It’s actually getting kind of creepy. Like, is it radioactive? What dark comedy powers have they tapped into?

Anyway, so, when I was flipping around last night and saw that the Will Ferrell/John C. Reilly Adam-McKay-helmed comedy vehicle Stepbrothers was coming on, I decided to try to watch it. And what was my reaction?

“This seems dumb.”

I guess it’s like becoming a wine connoisseur, your taste buds develop to the point where small differences are inflated into huge importance. Yeah. So that makes me like a fine-wine connoisseur. Something like that.

Just one more shopping day to Cliffday!

Any special plans for Cliffday? Of course, I’ll be in my bomb shelter, but we’re also going to bring a little tree in there. You know, for kids. And for the oxygen.

I’m working on writing some Cliffday Carols. Lyrically they are all bleak, post-apocalyptic affairs, but the melodies sure are bright and cheery.

It’s looking like the Mayans were only about 10 days early or so with their prediction. Maybe this all traces to that calendar thing that monks did or something? Maybe they were actually right-on and we just don’t know it (yet).

The veracity of the preceding all hinges, of course, on Congress not working out and passing a ”DEAL”. God forbid Congress does a ”DEAL”. I would hate that. I’d have to edit this blog post and everything. What a pain! Crimson Reach to Congress: NO ”DEAL”. Please let us have a ”DEAL”less Cliffday! Don’t spoil Cliffday!

My Favorite Obama Speech

My favorite Obama speech was that one where, as he talked, he kept looking to the left and then down and then to the right and then down and then to the left and then down and then to the right and then down and then to the left and then down and then to the right and then down and so on and so on until he was finished saying the words of the speech.

That particular Obama speech was AWESOME. I especially liked how it wasn’t ‘just a speech’, because you could totally tell he was really emphatically and caringly directing his words at particular people in the audience. Two of them, in fact.

Performance bias

This is a cute time-lapse video of a dad actively entertaining his kid without TV or similar (HT: CDAN) but let’s not pretend it wouldn’t have looked different had he not been aware the camera was rolling.

Faux uncertainty on taxes

Ramesh Ponnuru says it’s “ridiculous that we don’t know what our tax rates will be in a few days”. But that’s not true at all. We know perfectly well what our tax rates will be: they will be whatever tax rates were before the Bush Tax Cuts™ were passed. Unless something changes.

Something could always change. But let’s not pretend there’s not a default course of tax rates. There is, and that default course is that tax rates are going up. Moreover, this is evidently what President Obama and the (D)s want, given the side of the bargaining table they have decided to sit on. There’s not much uncertainty here except to the extent that Obama & (D)s appear inclined to try to pass a tax cut from those pre-’01 levels (a ‘permanent’ one, in retarded modern parlance). They do not appear so inclined. Moreover, the American public doesn’t seem to want them to either, given how they voted.

So, let ‘em have it, and make sure they understand: tax rates will go up. On everyone. Because of what Obama and the (D)s want.

Pretending there’s a huge amount of uncertainty about this only muddies the waters.

End-of-year blog-crazies

Half Sigma’s weird self-nullifying announcement of an attempt to change net identities seems to have kicked off a larger trend of bloggers-going-crazy-at-end-of-year. Thus, next up we have Elliot Temple, David Deutsch’s biggest cheerleader for probably a decade, explaining ceremoniously that he has changed his mind about David Deutsch. Duly noted.

I have written some pretty dumb/weird stuff and gone off the rails on this or that momentary obsession, but I’m really not sure how I’m going to top this sort of thing. These guys are really setting the bar high.

RELATED? UPDATE: After much soul-searching and consultation with an internet anagram generator, I have decided to change my alias to (The) Crimson Reach. I’m trying to distance myself from the old persona. So please, effective immediately I request that the Internet cease all references to ‘Sonic Charmer’ and start called me (The) Crimson Reach. The blog will be much the same, only I will not mention parking-lot-related pet peeves of mine (such as IDIOT ASSHOLES who enter like a six- or ten-story parking garage and then drive 2.5mph trying to ‘follow someone to their space’ oblivious to the fact that (a) there are 10 cars behind them being delayed by this and (b) if they would just fucking drive up a few levels there would be free spaces galore. You fucking morons.) Accordingly, all parking-related comments will be deleted. In addition, in an unrelated but simultaneous change, I have ceremoniously changed my mind about (oh, let’s say) Oliver Willis (i.e. how stupid he is) and will start reading him religiously and praising his insights instead. I’m in the process of registering an official Oliver Willis fanclub domain as we speak. I’ll be moderating the Oliver Willis discussion forum.

UPDATE 2: Changed my mind. Changing back. Also, no Willis. And parking rants totally allowed.

UPDATE 3: By popular demand, (The) Crimson Reach is back!

UPDATE 4: Potential new blog title to go along with all these changes: Reach With Crimson Grip. Feedback welcome. Still focus-grouping it. Will let you know.

How not to create a new fake ‘net identity

Half Sigma has announced that, due to the bad connotations of Half Sigma being labeled as a ‘racist’ for things he is known for writing about ‘human biodiversity’ and such (and for his commenters), he will stop blogging at Half Sigma and start blogging in an edited-for-’racism’ way as The Lion Of The Blogosphere. We know this from his posts on his blog Half Sigma in which he declares his intent to start blogging at The Lion Of The Blogosphere, to which he helpfully links (as Half Sigma) in multiple posts discussing his intent and ideas for the new non-racist blog in which he’ll be called The Lion and totally not Half Sigma. That way, uh…

Yeah, I don’t think any of that’s gonna work. We are asked to imagine that The Powers That Be are so oppressive and omniscient that they can make Half Sigma’s life unpleasant for being Half Sigma the internet racist, but at the same time, like, a year or three from now, when this The Lion blog has gained a big readership of its own (?), none of them and nobody else will know or remember that that guy used to be Half Sigma, so they’ll just be all, ‘and isn’t it great how he’s not a racist?’

Cuz, y’know, the internet, it forgets stuff?

Free advice to Half Sigma: the way you create a new fake identity is just to create it and start blogging at the new place. You do not talk about it from the old place. At most you discreetly link to it on the old place’s sidebar maybe a month or two later, but even that risks people figuring you out. You think ‘Sonic Charmer’ doesn’t know whereof he (or she) speaks?

Sonic’s 2012: The Year In Rock (And Roll)

Apparently these are the top 50 albums of 2012. I have heard of almost none of those artists. I wish them well.

The official RWCG top albums of 2012 is slightly different. As with 2010′s list (I seem not to have done a 2011 one), these are albums I listened to a lot in 2012, but admittedly have not confirmed at press time were actually released in 2012. So please let me know if technically some of these are not 2012 releases:

  • Redd Kross, Researching the Blues
  • Sparks, Propaganda
  • Roy Orbison, Mystery Girl
  • The Vandals, Hitler Bad, Vandals Good
  • Fun, Aim and Ignite
  • Suede, Head Music
  • Warren Zevon, Warren Zevon
  • Fountains of Wayne, Utopia Parkway
  • Sloan, The Double Cross
  • The Mr. T Experience, Revenge Is Sweet, And So Are You

UPDATE: Upon further research, only one of these was. But at least that’s better than my 2010 list!

What ‘Good School’ really means

I was recently reminded again of my hopeless befuddlement over the entire concept of ‘Good Schools’. I was in a conversation about places to live and I mentioned maybe moving from to [city in a county that always shows up in top-10 or -20 of 'wealthiest counties'] to [other city a couple miles away in the same county & closer to work] wouldn’t be such a bad idea.

What was the response?

“No, no, you don’t want to live there! The schools are much worse. Much better where you are. Or you could move to [top 5 wealthiest county].”

Again: same county!

The more I think about statements like these the less I am able understand just what the heck ‘Good Schools’™ is supposed to mean. I mean, tangibly.

I know that I’ve never sat down and studied this whole issue of ‘school quality’ before deciding to live somewhere (because I’m a terrible parent, clearly), but I’m pretty sure that if I randomly sat in on like a third-grade class in a school in the ‘Bad Schools’ area I’m talking about vs. one in the ‘Good Schools’ areas, I wouldn’t be able to notice a dime’s worth of difference. Group activities to work on xeroxed worksheets. Random art on the classroom walls. Stuff about how recycling is good. Reasonably-energetic and conscientious female or gay-male teacher (aside from some of the older don’t-care-anymore teachers, who can be found equally in ‘Good Schools’). Doing dubiously-useful stuff on computers. Recess. Kid politics.

I know it’s been a while since I’ve been in school myself, but just what are the super-special amazing things going on in the ‘Good Schools’ that make them so ‘Good’? I literally can’t even picture it. Are they learning Algebraic Topology instead of Multiplication in their math class? Are they getting one-on-one editorial and career guidance in writing their first novels, instead of answering ‘compare and contrast’ questions about snippets of abridged versions of, like, Sounder? In science class are they writing turbulence-simulation iPod apps or building quantum computers instead of making posters of The Greenhouse Effect that show a big circular arrow going from the sky to ground and back?

Seriously, if you’re one of these people who believes in this mythical thing everyone talks about called ‘Good Schools’, could you please tell me in specific terms just what in the heck you are talking about?

The immediate answer I suppose is that a ‘Good School’ is just a school that performs slightly better (like 99 percentile instead of 97-98) on some boring aggregate statistics such as Average Class Size or Average Test Score Increase From One Year To The Next. Again, I have never actually bothered to look at such things (again: terrible parent), but I can totally imagine that the Average Class Size where I live is, like, 23.7 whereas in the Bad School place 3 miles away it’s 24.4. And similar for Test Score type measures.

The problem is, if that’s what people have in mind with this Good School/Bad School obsession, that’s just retarded! Seriously, you’re going to decide where you live based on some average statistics about schools you read somewhere? Averages are nice and all, and I can understand if the differences people are talking about were huge and material, but above some baseline threshold surely the idiosyncratic/personal attributes of your own kids, yourselves, your family life, etc., would dwarf any such Average Effect Of Schools. I mean, as long as the schools are above some baseline, why sweat it? That just strikes me as a totally silly and disproportionate way to make decisions about things.

Yet everyone seems to! Or at least, they talk as if they do. And I don’t actually think all those people are stupid. But I do think the ’23.7 vs 24.4′ model of the Good Schools/Bad Schools paradigm doesn’t add up. There is no way that can actually be the motivator. So what is it then?

To be frank, I think it’s just race. A ‘Good School’ is a school that has only a few non-Asian minorities; a ‘Bad School’ is one with noticeably-many of them. All these test scores and class sizes people pretend to be dwelling on (which make little sense on their own as important highly-sensitive measures of School Goodness) are just interpreted by parents/homebuyers as proxies for race. Probably correctly, too, more or less. In any event, there is often no other way for parents to get access to the data they’re really interested in, so it’s just as well to be using these stats. In fact, I may go ahead and look them up myself now.

No, Tiger Mom was all right

Scientific American reports that “Motivation to work hard and good study techniques, not IQ, lead to better math skills”. I’m not sure what they mean by opening this finding with “Looks like Tiger Mom had it half-right”. Is it because they subconsciously parse the study’s finding as meaning ‘work yes, but you don’t necessarily need to be Asian’?

Anyway, from the sound of it this is one of those studies in which aggregated self-reported fuzzy 1-5 scores on questionably-meaningful questions are summarized in pop-science articles as indicating something definite and pat like ‘good study techniques’, and correlations become causation, and so forth, so it’s best not to read too much into the headline description.

I will say however that from my experience the best way to good math skills is motivation not to work hard and an associated bad study techniques. Math is really about noticing patterns and finding shortcuts so that you don’t have to either ‘work hard’ or ‘study’. Perhaps there is a time-preference/delayed-gratification component to it, people with farther-time outlook are more motivated to do math since they are more willing to put in the upfront investment for the long-time payoff of ‘I understand this and don’t have to work hard’.

In a way, people who think that way (like myself) are tricking themselves, of course. It’s not as if by thinking on and trying to Understand Math I saved myself a bunch of time I would have otherwise had to spend doing manual math problems. A taste for math is a sort of industriousness that is detached from reality; you have the good attitude of an entrepreneur (work now, payoff later) only you’re applying it to something in which there is no ‘payoff’ as such, just more ‘problems’ to ‘understand’. So there is clearly some detachment-from-reality mixed in. Long time horizon + reality-detachment = math skills? Yup, sounds about right. And seems to describe ‘Tiger Mom’ just fine, as well.

There’s been no QE

Sober Look points out that, technically, there’s been no QE.

Yes, the Fed has bought up a bunch of stuff and swelled its balance sheet – i.e. engaged in the policies that QE supporters pushed for the sake of ‘QE’ – but that apparently hasn’t much affected bank reserves or the money supply or therefore the velocity of money. Since pushing those things upward is routinely pitched as the ‘benefit’ of the QE-intended purchases in question, this would seem to immediately raise the question, have any of these non-QE “QEs” been worth it? Even by the standards of their defenders they should be considered a failure right?

Furthermore, since they’re a failure, and in practice have not done the supposedly-beneficial thing their supporters anticipated and hoped for, shouldn’t the Reality-Based neo-Keynesians change their position? Something about ‘when the facts change what do you do sir’?


Made-up and, technically, untrue biographical facts about me

I cried like a baby when ‘Old B.O.B.’, the Slim Pickens-voiced robot in Disney’s The Black Hole, died (or whatever happened to him). On my personal top 5 most-poignant cinematic moments list.

I totally know who Taylor Swift is. In fact, I really dig her stuff and think she is very talented at the entertainment-related craft for which she is so famous and well-known (including, of course, by me) that I hear other people saying her name a lot in entertainment-related discussions.

I have received not more than 5 sets of pajamas as Christmas presents in my lifetime. Gotta be less than that.

I’ve read all of the Twilight novels except for the fourth, which I threw down in disgust halfway through due to the shoddy and subpar writing compared to the others.

I hold a Practitioner’s Certificate in Keynesian Economics. It was part of a summer course I took at the Institute.

I have but a mild case of Morgellon’s Syndrome and have spent many the lazy and not-entirely-unpleasant Sunday afternoon idly pulling fibers out of the skin on my forearm. I made a ball out of them.

I’m a lapsed Wiccan. Guess I just became disillusioned by the watered-down and compromised version of Wicca too often practiced today. Call me a traditionalist but I still say they should stick with true Wicca.

You can see me as a kid in the background of one of the scenes near the end of The Goonies (on the beach).

I have shared a nanny with Rush’s Geddy Lee. We did a sort of nanny-share thing together. Worked out fine.

I’m still really looking forward to going over the ‘fiscal cliff’

I can’t wait. I’m like a kid who’s so giddy about the Lego Space System™ Legos that Santa’s gonna bring that he can’t get to sleep on Christmas Eve. It’s gonna be so awesome!!

Part of what I love thinking about is how much of a disaster it’s going to be. You know, like Y2K. When that clock ticks 12:00.01, then all of a sudden we will have gone over the ‘fiscal cliff’.

I also like the idea that, right now, there are a million Peter Gibbonses slaving away at a thousand Initechs who are working like monkeys on the ‘fiscal cliff problem’. What if we go over the cliff? How many lines of COBOL will have to be changed? I don’t know but I don’t even want to think about it. But they still smash their printer with a baseball bat (that part is the same).

I assume we’re all going to have to change the way we live. I may have to stop watching The Office. I mean, stopping watching The Office is a life change that’s been a long time coming, ever since whatshisname left, and nowadays it’s obviously only going on inertia, so maybe this ‘fiscal cliff’ will be the thing that finally pushes it over the edge. Who’s to say? I’m not an Economist.

Everything is going to be different. How? In what way? There is only one word that comes to mind: bedlam. I can’t even envision it not being bedlam frankly. And I love that. Is there still Law on the other side of the ‘fiscal cliff’? Or is it more like a Hobbesian anarchic state? I’m thinking something like a Mad Max type scenario but less Australian. That’s where I’ll thrive. I would probably emerge as a leader of some sort in the resulting chaos (I bet). I was in a rut here anyway.

Links & comment: Guns guns guns

Half Sigma on the Second Amendment. At the end he dismisses ‘the argument that we need guns to have a revolution against the government’. I agree that such a thing is a dead letter but I don’t think that’s the idea anyway; citizens having guns isn’t about them ‘revolting against’ the government but, rather, adding friction to the government’s more onerous, arrogant and grandiose designs. The fact that most such friction would, in the event, be bad for the gun owners themselves (cf. Waco, Ruby Ridge) is completely beside the point. Does the possibility of such outcomes make government personnel think twice? ‘Revolution’ or not, I think that (a) it probably does and (b) if so, that’s a good thing.

Dusk in Autumn on compost piles.

Stationary Waves, Advice To Gun Control Advocates

Is Black America Lost? Well I for one have a clear conscience about this, as I’m the only one who has put forth a practical, compromising bipartisan proposal to fix what ails Black America and solve the Gun Problem at the same time: just take Blacks’ guns away!

My read of this Garrett Jones post is that natural socioeconomic forces will lead Smart People away from the ‘social insurance’ model of welfare. If so, and to the extent that this is true: good. We need less (misnomered) government-supplied ‘insurance’ that is really just redistribution in disguise.

Kevin Drum wants people to know that while he’s ‘agnostic on Hagel, just as I was agnostic about Susan Rice for secretary of state’, he’s ‘disgusted’ by people who disapprove of those people saying ‘sniveling’ bad things (‘smears’) about them when they are trial-ballooned for high positions. Hmm. He keeps using that word, ‘agnostic’. I do not think it means what he thinks it means. I’m the one who’s ‘agnostic’, buddy, since I barely know who these people are and have little opinion either way whether they attain those posts. Get it now?

When ‘How Much’ questions are treated like ‘Yes/No’ questions

The debate over whether the CRA led to risky lending rages on. I remain perplexed that this is even a question.

I get that a lot of people want the answer to this to be No. But the only valid way to actually get a No answer is by saying that the government regulation did nothing at all. If it did something, then it did the thing that it did. People are basically asking whether a regulation did the thing that it did. Let me back up by rephrasing the question in the context of the CRA:

Did a regulation saying ‘in certain cases you must lend more money than, left to your own devices, you otherwise would (i.e., $0, perhaps)’ lead to riskier lending?

Or, since ‘lending’ is buying (i.e. the lender is buying a loan from the borrower), and the ‘purchase price’ is a compensation/proxy/equivalent for risk, we could rephrase it like this:

Did a regulation saying ‘in a certain minimum of cases you must pay above market price for a thing’ increase the market price of that thing?

Or, more generally,

Did a regulation saying ‘do X’ make more X happen?

Which is why, stepping back further, the question really sounds like this to my ears:

Did a regulation do the thing that it did?

Why do we need a ‘study’ with regression analyses and peer reviewers to prove this? Why is this even a question?

Now to be fair, I guess I am pretty open to the idea that this or that government policy is ineffective, if that’s what people are saying (I don’t think it is). But it’s odd indeed that a regulation’s cheerleaders are so wedded to a position that – logically – amounts to asserting that said regulation doesn’t do anything at all. If the CRA doesn’t do anything, let’s repeal it, no harm no foul and no one should object. But if the CRA did anything at all, then it did what it did, i.e., increased risky lending. Period.

Of course, if the ‘No’ crowd is feeling like phrasing things more carefully and honestly, they’ll probably back off the ‘No’ position: ‘Oh, come on’, they’ll say, ‘you know what we mean. We’re not saying it had no effect whatsoever, just that the effect that it did have was small’. Or negligible, immaterial, marginal, tolerable, etc. (all of which of course beg the question – ‘compared to what? by what standard?). I mean, I assume this is what an intellectually honest ‘No’ person would say, because at least it would be a defensible position.

So why doesn’t anyone just say that then? Why do we keep seeing this question treated like a Yes/No question rather than a How Much question? I guess it’s because the political costs of acknowledging even the tiniest effect of the CRA are just deemed to be too politically damaging. So Nope, they aren’t giving an inch. NO EFFECT!

Not coincidentally, we see this same tactic (artificially treating a How Much question as a Yes/No question, in order to insist upon a No answer) in the realm of affirmative action. Supporters typically make sweeping binary claims like, ‘No, affirmative action doesn’t lead to less-qualified nonwhites being hired over more-qualified whites, so shut up.’ Once again, simple logic dictates that if affirmative action does anything at all, then this is precisely what it does. But once again, its supporters appear hell-bent on not admitting it so they can get a No answer – and hide the fact that inside that ‘No’ is smuggled a host of value judgments, because by ‘No’ they really mean ‘Yes, but not an intolerable amount’…’intolerable’ being secretly defined by them.

In short, treating these as Yes/No questions allows the side wishing to deny known and highly predictable economic effects of their policy to disguise that effect and smuggle their value-judgment (that the effect is worth it) inside a sweeping and binary ‘it’s fine, so shut up’ verdict. It just so happens that in both cases it’s the left that wishes to do this. I’m sure that’s just a coincidence.

Super Sunny Christmas

My favorite Christmas song ever meant for Aussies**.

**also, the only (that I know of)

Am I wrong or is Spotify going to have to charge all its users at some point?

Spotify has basically ruined the economics of music-buying for me (in a ‘good’ way, short-term, but read on). I don’t even think I would consider ‘buying’ a music album anymore. That’d be a ‘waste’ of my money, because whatever it is (with some negligible exceptions), ‘I could just listen to it on Spotify anytime I want’.

Now, that’s great for me. I’m literally saving hundreds of dollars a year. But how is anyone making money, musicians or greedy music execs? I have to imagine the existence of Spotify is having the same effect on other former-music-buyers. And the current generation of tweens/teens growing up to be music fans, aren’t even forming the habit of buying music in the first place. ‘It’s on Spotify.’

So, that can’t continue, right? What’s going to have to happen, at some point in the near future when Spotify/The Powers That Be have determined that Spotify’s market (for lack of a better term) penetration is big enough, is that Spotify is going to slap a fee even onto all of its ‘free’ users.

Yes, X% will revolt and cry foul and curse Spotify and vow to never use it again, but (1-X)%, having gotten the Spotify habit, will acquiesce and pay, and that tradeoff will be worth it to The Music Industry, so they’ll do it.

Because if they don’t, isn’t the music industry going to just shrivel and die? What am I missing?

Movies are fiction

Spike Lee is undoubtedly correct when he says American slavery was not a Sergio Leone spaghetti western, but it’s a little weird to cite this as a reason not to see Django Unchained. You know what else wasn’t a Sergio Leone spaghetti western? The actual late-1800s American west.

Moreover, two can play this game. The ‘Son of Sam’ serial killings were not a Martin Scorsese streets-of-New-York coming-of-age story, yet that didn’t stop me from watching Summer of Sam. The 9/11 attacks were not a story of regret and goodbyes, yet I still watched 25th Hour (and it was great!)

Does moviemaker Spike Lee understand that these are movies we’re talking about?

Obama, Economist

Matthew Yglesias writes a post whose basic premise is that he finds it troubling that President Obama doesn’t know jack shit about economics (which he apparently just figured out), and he doesn’t really want to believe that, so he can think of mental contortions he could perform allowing him not to believe it, but if it’s as true as it seems, it’s troubling.

I understand. The natural assumption was that Barack Obama is an Expert on economics, because he is a tall svelte hip sort-of-black guy with a (D) after his name. THEREFORE, it was only natural to assume he is Smart about economics and, for that matter, about everything else. It must be shocking for a guy like Matthew Yglesias to identify an issue on which Tall Skinny-(D) doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about. Who even knew that was possible?

Gun control modest proposal: just disarm all the blacks

Steve Sailer says lefties favor gun control because they’re afraid of blacks. Michael Moore says righties oppose gun control and want guns because they’re afraid of blacks.

Do I detect the makings of a consensus here? It seems that if there’s one thing both left and right can join hands and agree upon, it’s that…black people are scary!

To my mind this suggests a Modest Proposal, a ‘grand bargain’, to resolve the problem of gun control once and for all. Simply, it’s this: 

We modify the Second Amendment to remove the individual right to keep and bear arms, and empower the government to ban guns and disarm citizens by force – but only for black people.

If Sailer is right, the left should be all for this – and once it’s in place – their fears assuaged – will stop agitating for further gun control. Meanwhile if Moore is right, most righty gun nuts should be ok with it too, and – their fears assuaged – will voluntarily disarm over time. Thus this is a Pareto improvement that would actually be stable and have virtuous feedback effects.

As a gun-control opponent, I really can’t imagine what possible objection a gun-control advocate could have.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 318 other followers