Thoughts On A Sunday

Our non-winter winter continues, with above average temperatures and, for the time being, below average precipitation (we're about 20 inches below the 'normal' snowfall for the beginning of February). In light of this past week's focus on AGW, maybe someone will claim it's global warming. (Never mind that both the Farmer's Almanac and NOAA predicted a rather mild winter and below average snowfall for northern New England.)

We're not complaining all that much. The mild winter has meant we haven't used nearly as much fire wood as we might have and the Official Weekend Snowblower has spent most of its time in the garage. (I think I've used it all of three times this winter.)


It's Super Bowl Sunday and the New England Patriots are playing the New York Giants in a rematch. The Patriots are hoping to make up for their loss against the Giants at their last Super Bowl appearance, one that ruined their perfect season. (The Patriots had a 16-0 record during the regular season, and an 18-1 record overall.)

And again the Giants won. (I still find it difficult to believe a 9-7 team even qualified for the Super Bowl, let alone won it.)

But I have to hand it to the Giants – they wanted it more than the Patriots and worked harder for it.


I have to agree with Bogie on this one: Thank god for AAA!


Here's another favorite blogress I have to agree with, particularly in regards to not learning the proper lessons from the movies. Hasn't anyone down there ever seen The Thing?


By way of Maggie's Farm comes this explanation of the Eurozone bankruptcy.

While it does cover the basics, it does overlook why the Eurozone got into this mess to begin with: promising more to their citizens than they could deliver, particularly in the way of social services they had no means to pay for. Now that the bill has come due they expect others to foot the bill. The problem is that “the others” are reluctant to do so.


It appears income tax evasion increases during times of rising income tax rates, rising unemployment, and/or decreasing per capita real GDP.

Gee, not a surprise to me. How many otherwise unemployed or underemployed folks are willing to work “under the table” in order to feed their families during tough economic times? How much bartering of goods and services takes place under those same conditions?

The underground economy almost always flourishes during tough economic times, particularly when the government itself one of the main causes. (The underground economy in the old Soviet Union was the only thing that let it continue as long as it did, seeing it was thought the GDP of that underground economy was greater than that of the official Soviet GDP.)


Glenn Reynolds links to Russ Douthat's piece on the 'outrage' of pro-abortion advocates due to the decision by the Susan G. Komen Foundation – a private organization – to cease its funding Planned Parenthood. To hear the media tell it, it's tantamount to murder.

The Komen Foundation made it's reasons clear – PP doesn't do mammograms. The Komen Foundation's raison d'étrè is fighting breast cancer by funding research and helping to provide support services, period.

Writes Douthat:

Three truths, in particular, should be obvious to everyone reporting on the Komen-Planned Parenthood controversy. First, that the fight against breast cancer is unifying and completely uncontroversial, while the provision of abortion may be the most polarizing issue in the United States today. Second, that it’s no more “political” to disassociate oneself from the nation’s largest abortion provider than it is to associate with it in the first place. Third, that for every American who greeted Komen’s shift with “anger and outrage” (as Andrea Mitchell put it), there was probably an American who was relieved and gratified.

Ironically, with all the media brouhaha about the Komen Foundation's decision, donations to the foundation increased dramatically.


Also this from Glenn Reynolds: It's takers versus makers and these days the takers are winning.

In today’s America, government benefits flow to large numbers of people who are encouraged to vote for politicians who’ll keep them coming. The benefits are paid for by other people who, being less numerous, can’t muster enough votes to put this to a stop.

Over time, this causes the economy to do worse, pushing more people into the moocher class and further strengthening the politicians whose position depends on robbing Peter to pay Paul.  Because, as they say, if you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can be pretty sure of getting Paul’s vote.

It's a nightmare scenario right out of Atlas Shrugged. The only thing missing is Directive 10-289, but I figure that one is only a matter of time unless we change our course.


And that's the news from Lake Winnipesaukee, where the ice on the lake is still dark blue, warmer weather is on its way, and where we have to swallow yet another Patriots defeat at the Super Bowl to the Giants.