 |
| |
|
|
|
While doing research for my real life after the military I stumbled upon this great blog about mining, titled I think mining. This is a blog worth reading. They guy loves mining, and talking about mining, and discovering the excitement of mining. Check it out, you might catch gold fever too. Who knew an illness could be so good?
I think mining
Later. /dwb |
|
| | hide comments | | | |
|
|
|
"One notable wrinkle of the E.S.A. is that a species is often declared endangered months or even years before its 'critical habitats' are officially designated. This allows time for developers, environmentalists and everyone in between to have their say at public hearings. What happens during that lag time? In a new working paper that examines the plight of the cactus ferruginous pygmy owl, the economists John List, Michael Margolis and Daniel Osgood found that landowners near Tucson rushed to clear their property for development rather than risk having it declared a safe haven for the owl. The economists make the argument for 'the distinct possibility that the Endangered Species Act is actually endangering, rather than protecting, species.'" Exactly right, folks!
Everything liberals do has the unintended consequence of harming what they intend to protect or to help. The New York Times concludes with this: "So does this mean that every law designed to help endangered animals, poor people and the disabled is bound to fail? Of course not. But with a government that is regularly begged for relief -- these days, from mortgage woes, health-care costs and tax burdens -- and with every presidential hopeful making daily promises to address these woes, it might be worth encouraging the winning candidate to think twice (or even 8 or 10 times) before rushing off to do good. Because if there is any law more powerful than the ones constructed in a place like Washington, it is the law of unintended consequences." Stephen Dubner and Steven Levitt, the authors of this story are authors of the book Freakonomics.
Direct from the doctor of democracy, El Rushbo. |
|
| | hide comments | | | |
|
|
|
Two excellent articles by Victor Davis Hanson.
The good professor begins with Why International Borders Remain in Flux and explains why there is so much fighting in the world right now. The answer; its always been that way.
The truth is that there is no single global trend toward either consolidation or disunion. Instead, the world continually reshuffles and realigns as demography, resources, ideologies, religions — and even the environment — all are in a state of constant flux, while the human reaction to create order and reflect power remains constant.
The lecture continues with Do We Still Have Grant's and Sherman's? discussing who becomes a general in our military, and how that effects our country and the way we fight wars. Its something on my mind for the last few months, and this was a valuable study on the subject.
Its interesting how Grant and Sherman were nobody particularly special before the Civil War, yet they were perfectly positioned to become the leaders that won the war for the North. None of their peers could have predicted that, but it happened.
The significance in the promotions of an H.R. McMaster or a Sean McFarland to general is not that they represent the nature of all future American wars. In fact, it is easy to conceive how a blow-up in North Korea or Iran would require a return to conventional military assets of heavy armor, firepower and high-tech close air-ground support.
Instead, the issue is whether the military still remains flexible enough to find the right commanders for the right type of fighting at the right time — and is preparing for all sorts of diverse scenarios in an increasingly competitive and unpredictable world.
Why does this matter? It matters because we can't predict the future. We can't envision how advances in technology or knowledge or changes in culture or public understanding will affect the next war, the next political race, the next change of boundaries on the world map.
The man, politician, general, organization, country, that is able to change the fastest, to take advantage of new methods and transitions, is the one who will win. I like to compare it to driving. Anyone can drive down a straight, empty highway at sixty miles per hour. The tricky part is the transitions; taking a sharp curve too fast on an unknown road at night in a thunderstorm can be deadly.
The trick (and I'm not saying I have this down) is being able to recognize that the transition is coming soon enough to take advantage of it, instead of going off the cliff.
Anyway, enjoy.
Later.
|
|
| | hide comments | | | |
|
|
|
Here is an article by Arthur Brooks in City Journal saying that the happiest people in the world are also the people with the most freedom.
Sounds good to me. Bring on the freedom! It seems that we have been giving up much of our freedom in the last few years, and I don't like it. Why are we so willing to let some people tell us what not to do? Don't smoke in a restaurant. Don't ride a bike without a helmet. Don't drive an SUV.
How about, "Don't tell me what to do!" When did we lose that in America?
The attitude of self-sufficiency, of rugged individualism that made this country great, and a worthwhile place to live. Don't feel guilty for living in a place of wealth and success. Don't make someone else feel guilty for being successful. Don't feel guilty for someone else's failure. That all has to do with living free.
We are free to suceed or fail by our own efforts. You are not doing anyone any favors by assuming that they are too stupid, or lazy, to help themselves, therefore you need to help them. Its insane. Don't feel that way. Life is an individual sport; its up to you to see if you can suceed in life.
The only responsibility government has is to ensure that we are secure from outside threats to our security, and to ensure that the citizens retain their freedom. What do we do? We give it away, sell it to the hightest bidder. Don't do it. You will regret it.
The data and evidence don’t prove that all kinds of freedom bring equal happiness, or that more freedom is always better than less. For example, what about economic freedom? Pundits and politicians on the left often tell us that a free economy makes for an unhappy population: the disruptions of capitalism make us insecure, and we would prefer the security of generous welfare programs and national health care. But for most people, it turns out, that isn’t true.
...
Surprisingly, one reason that religious experience is satisfying may be that religion imposes constraints on behavior—and these constraints point to a kind of freedom that isn’t conducive to happiness.
That last statement about religious freedom is profound, at least to my muddled mind. I've often wondered why people, politicians, goverments seem so scared of Christianity in general. Christians are some of the best citizens a government could hope to have in their communities. Their beliefs (if followed) keep them from the trouble that plague society; drunkedness, theft, sexual immorality, murder, etc., etc. Instead, the Good Book instructs believers to produce fruits of righteousness; love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfullness, gentleness and self-control..."against such there is no law". In other words, no one in their right mind would see fit to arrest a citizen for producing the works of righteousness.
Some say point to these "restrictions of freedom" in the Scriptures as a limit on our freedom. Not at all. We are free to do them, or not to do them. We are completely free to live as we desire. In fact, the Preacher tells us to "follow the desire of our heart", with only one condition, "you will be held accountable for your actions (paraphrase by dwb)".
And that leads me to this drawn out point about the quote above; the so-called "restrictions" on our behavior in the Bible merely protect us from a form of freedom that does not produce happiness. Our welfare is what is at stake, our best interest is at heart. More freedom allows for more self-determination, more opportunity for success. Yes, sometimes opportunity for failure, but that is also another opportunity for experience, and another chance for success. Some freedom's can make life more difficulty, less happy, but that does not include economic freedom in any way.
If the importance of liberty to happiness sounds obvious to you—as obvious as the importance of life to liberty—it’s probably because you’re an American. In many countries, you would find yourself fined, imprisoned, or worse for asserting your right to vote, worship, or even open a business as you wished. America is an oasis of happiness-producing freedom in a world that generally doesn’t believe that citizens can handle freedom and doesn’t trust them to try.
As Americans, we understand that people can be entrusted with freedom, which is why we guard it so jealously. But happiness requires that we also use freedom responsibly—which means, both as individuals and as a nation, balancing abundant private liberty with healthy personal morality.
Live free friends, be happy.
ps. Read the article, he articulates these thoughts much better without my interference. /dwb |
|
| | hide comments | | | |
|
|
|
I was reading the "fatalgrams" on the Mining Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) website today, and I found this picture, which reminded me of where I have been before. (I know, its morbid to read "fatalgrams", and see who has died, but its interesting to me.)
http://www.msha.gov/FATALS/2008/FAB08m06.asp
These are good safety memo's to encourage everyone to think safety. In this picture, the mechanic and two miners were working on the piece of machinery, a roof bolter, when the ceiling collapsed, killing the mechanic and wounding a miner. It doesnt' look like much fell out, but the rocks and cement are very heavy, and are definitely enough to kill you.
I had a fist sized rock drop from 10 feet and hit me in the head, and it nearly knocked me out. Once a 12"x18"x8" slab landed on top of my jackleg, bounced into my face, and landed on my foot. If it had hit me directly, I would probably not have felt it at all, I would just be unconcious.
Anyway, just something of interest to me, and maybe to you.
Out. |
|
| | hide comments | | | |
|
|
