Terrible Editorials, Opinion Pieces and Letters to the Editor

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Terrible Editorials, Opinion Pieces and Letters to the Editor

«‹›106 »

VideoTapir: Oct 18, 2005; He'll tire eventually.

No point bolding anything. This is some high grade bullshit through and through. We've got false equivalence, dog-whistle racism, confusing correlation with cause, confusing cause with effect, absurd fearmongering, attempts to taint the other side by associating them with another hated enemy, and outright lies.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/8/egalizing-marijuana-recreational-use-colorado-wash/

quote:

MILLER: Obama�s cultural legacy is legal marijuana blowing through America
Stoned citizens will further burden the dependency society

By Emily Miller

-

The Washington Times

Wednesday, January 8, 2014

You can go into a store in Colorado and buy marijuana to get stoned for kicks, but you cannot purchase a 40- or 60-watt light bulb. This is the state of affairs in America after five years of President Obama�s liberalism, which has misguided the public on what are the actual dangers to society.

On New Year�s Day, Colorado became the first state to allow the purchase of marijuana for recreational use. Anyone over the age of 21 can buy pot over the counter to smoke at home to get high. Washington state also legalized cannabis, and sales will begin there in June.

Colorado is being watched by other loosey-goosey states that may jump on the drug-decriminalizing bandwagon. Twenty-one states and the District of Columbia already allow for sales of marijuana for supposedly �medical� use.

Crime-ridden Washington, D.C., is actually considering a ballot initiative to legalize the drug. The Washington Times reported exclusively Tuesday that if the measure is approved by voters � and, most critically, by Congress � residents would be allowed to grow marijuana in their homes and transfer up to an ounce.

This demonstrates how activists are totally uneducated about the severe consequences of smoking pot.

Cully Stimson was a prosecutor in drug court in San Diego and has served as a military trial judge.

�There�s already a significant number of D.C. residents involved in the criminal justice system,� the senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation told me in an interview. �By telling them that marijuana is a medicine and not a drug, then legalizing it, you�re going to have a stoned, dependent community that is even worse than today.�

Mr. Stimson, a former defense attorney, has written extensively on drug policies and the dangers of marijuana. He predicts that Colorado�s social experiment will fail badly.

�Nothing positive will come out of it,� he stated. �You�re going to have lower test scores and a class of people who are unemployable because they are stoned all the time. People are going to die on ski slopes, on the roads.�

The think tank expert further explained, �Countries that have legalized marijuana have experienced negative social effects. They�ve seen more dependency � marijuana is highly addictive and a gateway to harder drugs � and more crime and a bigger black market because the drug cartels undercut legal sellers and also target youth.�

Marijuana proponents who claim that pot is no different than alcohol are ignorant of the science. [b]The body can process alcohol, and in many studies, a few drinks have been proven to have health benefits. Marijuana, on the other hand, is simply a toxin. Pot is more similar to heroin and cocaine than alcohol in how it affects the body.

According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the physical consequences of smoking marijuana joints � which do not have a filter, as cigarettes do, that can block some of the carcinogens and toxins � include respiratory problems, lung infections and a diminished immune system.

Scientists have shown that the active ingredient in marijuana, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), affects brain function in areas such as memory and concentration, which can affect learning skills and academic achievement.

The medical studies also prove that chronic marijuana use leads to psychosis, depression, suicidal thoughts and �amotivational syndrome,� which is a loss in engagement in formerly rewarding activities.

While Hollywood has actively pushed pot smoking by making light of this laziness, it has a terrible consequence to a society plagued by high unemployment.

The physical effects are permanent when the drug is started young. Exposure to marijuana as a teenager can alter brain development, according to the NIH. There have already been reports showing decreased academic performance by children who live in states that have legalized �medical� marijuana.

Those who push to legalize pot by saying the increased tax revenue to the states is a benefit that outweighs the risk of increased access and dependence by the young are woefully negligent.

The risk of addiction from using marijuana goes from one in 10 adults to one in six for those who start as adolescents. That rate jumps to between one-quarter to one-half for kids who smoke weed daily.

The potency of THC has increased by almost 10 times the levels in the 1980s, which makes the side effects more severe and the drug more additive.

Studies of high school students show a high correlation between cocaine addiction and the start of drug use with marijuana.

Virtually every person in drug-treatment centers began their addictions by using marijuana. Yet when asked in a recent Rasmussen Reports poll whether marijuana use leads to harder drugs, only 39 percent of respondents correctly said �yes.�

Colorado and Washington are breaking federal law, established in 1970, which prohibits possessing, growing or distributing marijuana. However, Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. decided unilaterally in August not to enforce the statute in these two states. The Justice Department has merely told the governors to vaguely regulate and enforce public health.

Mr. Obama�s lead prosecutor has given zero direction on how to prevent drug trafficking across state lines or enforce this cash-only business.

There has been a massive marketing campaign for decades from the far left, Hollywood and politicians to manipulate the public into thinking marijuana use is harmless.

According to the same Rasmussen poll, 41 percent of the public favors the legalization of recreational marijuana use in their state, while 50 percent oppose it.

Although legalizing marijuana is an issue that crosses party lines, with libertarians and some conservatives favoring it from the position of not wanting the government regulating their bodies, smoking pot is not an individual decision without dire consequences to society as a whole.

Emily Miller is senior editor of opinion for The Washington Times and author of �Emily Gets Her Gun� (Regnery, 2013).

# ? Jan 13, 2014 04:52

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 23, 2024 21:25

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

I don't care how bright my lightbulb is, I want it to use 40 watts! :bahgawd:

# ? Jan 13, 2014 05:09

MisterBadIdea: Oct 9, 2012; Anything?

I would like to defend David Wong/Jason Pargin by pointing out that he also wrote this:
http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-things-rich-people-need-to-stop-saying/

so I think makes a pretty solid case that he doesn't defines people's worth solely in terms of capitalism.

# ? Jan 13, 2014 06:15

Pththya-lyi: Nov 8, 2009; THUNDERDOME LOSER 2020

MisterBadIdea posted:

I would like to defend David Wong/Jason Pargin by pointing out that he also wrote this:
http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-things-rich-people-need-to-stop-saying/

so I think makes a pretty solid case that he doesn't defines people's worth solely in terms of capitalism.

But he doesn't object strenuously enough to the way things are, and that makes him the enemy.

# ? Jan 13, 2014 07:08

Snowman Crossing: Dec 4, 2009

VideoTapir posted:

No point bolding anything. This is some high grade bullshit through and through. We've got false equivalence, dog-whistle racism, confusing correlation with cause, confusing cause with effect, absurd fearmongering, attempts to taint the other side by associating them with another hated enemy, and outright lies.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/8/egalizing-marijuana-recreational-use-colorado-wash/

Jesus christ that was farrago of bullshit. The decriminalization of marijuana isn't really an important issue to me, and even I am outraged by the idea of people reading that nonsense and thinking any part of that fractally wrong masterpiece is worth considering.

# ? Jan 13, 2014 15:29

MisterBadIdea: Oct 9, 2012; Anything?

Pththya-lyi posted:

But he doesn't object strenuously enough to the way things are, and that makes him the enemy.

Hey, to be fair to both sides, it's not wrong to be bothered by a guy who sees Alec Baldwin in Glengarry Glen Ross as an inspirational figure and not a soul-destroying symbol of everything wrong with the world.

# ? Jan 13, 2014 19:44

JohnClark: Mar 24, 2005; Well that's less than ideal

So the WSJ and the Heritage Foundation have blessed us with their latest list of which countries are the most economically "free" around the world.

Terry Miller posted:

World economic freedom has reached record levels, according to the 2014 Index of Economic Freedom, released Tuesday by the Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal. But after seven straight years of decline, the U.S. has dropped out of the top 10 most economically free countries.

For 20 years, the index has measured a nation's commitment to free enterprise on a scale of 0 to 100 by evaluating 10 categories, including fiscal soundness, government size and property rights. These commitments have powerful effects: Countries achieving higher levels of economic freedom consistently and measurably outperform others in economic growth, long-term prosperity and social progress. Botswana, for example, has made gains through low tax rates and political stability.

Those losing freedom, on the other hand, risk economic stagnation, high unemployment and deteriorating social conditions. For instance, heavy-handed government intervention in Brazil's economy continues to limit mobility and fuel a sense of injustice.

It's not hard to see why the U.S. is losing ground. Even marginal tax rates exceeding 43% cannot finance runaway government spending, which has caused the national debt to skyrocket. The Obama administration continues to shackle entire sectors of the economy with regulation, including health care, finance and energy. The intervention impedes both personal freedom and national prosperity.

But as the U.S. economy languishes, many countries are leaping ahead, thanks to policies that enhance economic freedom�the same ones that made the U.S. economy the most powerful in the world. Governments in 114 countries have taken steps in the past year to increase the economic freedom of their citizens. Forty-three countries, from every part of the world, have now reached their highest economic freedom ranking in the index's history.

Hong Kong continues to dominate the list, followed by Singapore, Australia, Switzerland, New Zealand and Canada. These are the only countries to earn the index's "economically free" designation. Mauritius earned top honors among African countries and Chile excelled in Latin America. Despite the turmoil in the Middle East, several Gulf states, led by Bahrain, earned designation as "mostly free."

A realignment is under way in Europe, according to the index's findings. Eighteen European nations, including Germany, Sweden, Georgia and Poland, have reached new highs in economic freedom. By contrast, five others�Greece, Italy, France, Cyprus and the United Kingdom�registered scores lower than they received when the index started two decades ago.

The most improved players are in Eastern Europe, including Estonia, Lithuania and the Czech Republic. These countries have gained the most economic freedom over the past two decades. And it's no surprise: Those who have lived under communism have no trouble recognizing the benefits of a free-market system. But countries that have experimented with milder forms of socialism, such as Sweden, Denmark and Canada, also have made impressive moves toward greater economic freedom, with gains near 10 points or higher on the index scale. Sweden, for instance, is now ranked 20th out of 178 countries, up from 34th out of 140 countries in 1996.

The U.S. and the U.K, historically champions of free enterprise, have suffered the most pronounced declines. Both countries now fall in the "mostly free" category. Some of the worst performers are in Latin America, particularly Venezuela, Argentina, Ecuador and Bolivia. All are governed by crony-populist regimes pushing policies that have made property rights less secure, spending unsustainable and inflation evermore threatening.

Despite financial crises and recessions, the global economy has expanded by nearly 70% in 20 years, to $54 trillion in 2012 from $32 trillion in 1993. Hundreds of millions of people have left grinding poverty behind as their economies have become freer. But it is an appalling, avoidable human tragedy how many of the world's peoples remain unfree�and poor.

The record of increasing economic freedom elsewhere makes it inexcusable that a country like the U.S. continues to pursue policies antithetical to its own growth, while wielding its influence to encourage other countries to chart the same disastrous course. The 2014 Index of Economic Freedom documents a world-wide race to enhance economic opportunity through greater freedom�and this year's index demonstrates that the U.S. needs a drastic change in direction.

Here's the list itself:

Given the fact that the countries that are ahead of us all have universal health care (even tiny Mauritius) and some of them even provide free college (even tiny Mauritius), I guess the point of this article is to argue in favor of those things?

# ? Jan 14, 2014 18:22

Knight: Dec 23, 2000; SPACE-A-HOLIC; Taco Defender

JohnClark posted:

So the WSJ and the Heritage Foundation have blessed us with their latest list of which countries are the most economically "free" around the world.

Here's the list itself:

Given the fact that the countries that are ahead of us all have universal health care (even tiny Mauritius) and some of them even provide free college (even tiny Mauritius), I guess the point of this article is to argue in favor of those things?

Looks like they just ranked the countries with the most successful economies, adjusted any ones that would be scandalous to their base, and just hoped they wouldn't look too closely and notice these counties have all implemented the policies they're raging against. (they won't)

# ? Jan 14, 2014 19:31

Badger of Basra: Jul 26, 2007

JohnClark posted:

So the WSJ and the Heritage Foundation have blessed us with their latest list of which countries are the most economically "free" around the world.

Here's the list itself:

Given the fact that the countries that are ahead of us all have universal health care (even tiny Mauritius) and some of them even provide free college (even tiny Mauritius), I guess the point of this article is to argue in favor of those things?

Is there a methodology behind this or do they just pick whichever countries they like and put them towards the top? There's no reason for France to be #70.

# ? Jan 14, 2014 19:34

boner confessor: Apr 25, 2013; by R. Guyovich

Badger of Basra posted:

Is there a methodology behind this or do they just pick whichever countries they like and put them towards the top? There's no reason for France to be #70.

They subjectively grade each country on a 0-100 scale for four key values and then average the values. They basically make it up, but in a scientific way.

http://www.heritage.org/index/about

# ? Jan 14, 2014 19:42

Caros: May 14, 2008

JohnClark posted:

So the WSJ and the Heritage Foundation have blessed us with their latest list of which countries are the most economically "free" around the world.

Here's the list itself:

Given the fact that the countries that are ahead of us all have universal health care (even tiny Mauritius) and some of them even provide free college (even tiny Mauritius), I guess the point of this article is to argue in favor of those things?

Sort of an aside, but when did the WSJ become such a poo poo heap? As a child I recall it being held up as this paragon of reporting virtue, but ever since I was old enough to actually care its been producing reports like this garbage.

# ? Jan 14, 2014 20:12

Silver2195: Apr 4, 2012

Caros posted:

Sort of an aside, but when did the WSJ become such a poo poo heap? As a child I recall it being held up as this paragon of reporting virtue, but ever since I was old enough to actually care its been producing reports like this garbage.

WSJ's editorial line has always been pretty conservative, but the actual reporting used to be pretty respectable. Then Murdoch bought it in 2007.

# ? Jan 14, 2014 20:19

Caros: May 14, 2008

Silver2195 posted:

WSJ's editorial line has always been pretty conservative, but the actual reporting used to be pretty respectable. Then Murdoch bought it in 2007.

Ah. That would be it, yeah.

# ? Jan 14, 2014 20:56

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

Caros posted:

Ah. That would be it, yeah.

It was funny to hear execs cry as their tasteful all-text layouts and woodcut-style illustrations were replaced with color and graphics. But I also cried.

# ? Jan 14, 2014 23:06

A Fancy 400 lbs: Jul 24, 2008

In Singapore public gatherings of more than five people need a government permit, there's no trial by jury and being found guilty of murder and certain drug crimes is a mandatory death sentence by hanging. The government is also a majority shareholder in most of the major domestic companies. But they have low taxes, so second freest!

# ? Jan 15, 2014 03:31

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

A Fancy 400 lbs posted:

In Singapore public gatherings of more than five people need a government permit, there's no trial by jury and being found guilty of murder and certain drug crimes is a mandatory death sentence by hanging. The government is also a majority shareholder in most of the major domestic companies. But they have low taxes, so second freest!

No, see Singapore is more free, because heterosexuals in Singapore are not oppressed by the spectre of LGBT people walking the streets un-imprisoned, un-beaten, and un-murdered :freep:

# ? Jan 15, 2014 03:39

AShamefulDisplay: Jun 30, 2013

Some fucks posted:

Six quantitative factors are equally weighted, with each counted as one-sixth of the labor freedom component:1

Ratio of minimum wage to the average value added per worker,
Hindrance to hiring additional workers,
Rigidity of hours,
Difficulty of firing redundant employees,
Legally mandated notice period, and
Mandatory severance pay.

# ? Jan 15, 2014 12:27

cafel: Mar 29, 2010; This post is hurting the economy!

Thank god someone's fighting the evil that is mandate periods of notice of termination and severance pay.

# ? Jan 15, 2014 12:32

VideoTapir: Oct 18, 2005; He'll tire eventually.

Silver2195 posted:

WSJ's editorial line has always been pretty conservative, but the actual reporting used to be pretty respectable. Then Murdoch bought it in 2007.

The Laffer Curve was posted before the takeover was finalized (but after the bid).

Only registered members can see post attachments!

# ? Jan 15, 2014 13:25

Perestroika: Apr 8, 2010

VideoTapir posted:

The Laffer Curve was posted before the takeover was finalized (but after the bid).

I...just...what? I'm pretty sure that's not how you fit a curve. :psyduck:

# ? Jan 15, 2014 14:03

losonti tokash: Oct 29, 2007; I'm so pretty, oh so pretty.

VideoTapir posted:

The Laffer Curve was posted before the takeover was finalized (but after the bid).

What the gently caress is this

# ? Jan 15, 2014 14:12

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

I love that the slope goes almost vertical by about 32% tax rate.

Apparently all we need to do to double corporate tax revenue is cut 1% off the rate :downs:

But don't bump it up 1% or we'll collect zero! :ohdear:

# ? Jan 15, 2014 15:52

MaxxBot: Oct 6, 2003; you could have clapped

you should have clapped!!

VitalSigns posted:

No, see Singapore is more free, because heterosexuals in Singapore are not oppressed by the spectre of LGBT people walking the streets un-imprisoned, un-beaten, and un-murdered

Actually I have heard for how awful they are in other areas they are at least passable on LGBT rights, all things considered. They do hold gay festivals and stuff without being beaten, and while homosexuality is still illegal there it's much like in the US right before Lawrence where it had become mostly symbolic. I still wouldn't want to live there but it's no Russia.

# ? Jan 15, 2014 16:15

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

You might want to revisit your definition of "passable" if it includes criminalizing a minority of people with all of the enabling of police harassment of that minority that it entails.

I can't tell if it's funnier that the WSJ defines freedom as "the freedom of the majority to oppress anyone they like" and "the freedom of the rich to exploit the poor"...or that they pretty obviously just begged the question and ranked countries by economic growth regardless of their policies so they could prove "freedom" helps the economy while simultaneously demanding America move away from the policies of the "most free" countries on the list.

# ? Jan 15, 2014 17:12

Thundercracker: Jun 25, 2004; Proudly serving the Ruinous Powers since as a veteran of the long war.; College Slice

A Fancy 400 lbs posted:

In Singapore public gatherings of more than five people need a government permit, there's no trial by jury and being found guilty of murder and certain drug crimes is a mandatory death sentence by hanging. The government is also a majority shareholder in most of the major domestic companies. But they have low taxes, so second freest!

Singapore is definitely politically authortarian, but makes economic attractiveness their first priority. It's possible to be socially repressive and also economically "free" (whatever that means).

It's a weird little city-state, but definitely an attractive place for businesses to operate, especially if they want access to the Southeast Asian markets without all the regulatory/corruption baggage that comes from operating in those countries.

# ? Jan 15, 2014 21:23

Blarghalt: May 19, 2010

VitalSigns posted:

You might want to revisit your definition of "passable" if it includes criminalizing a minority of people with all of the enabling of police harassment of that minority that it entails.

I can't tell if it's funnier that the WSJ defines freedom as "the freedom of the majority to oppress anyone they like" and "the freedom of the rich to exploit the poor"...or that they pretty obviously just begged the question and ranked countries by economic growth regardless of their policies so they could prove "freedom" helps the economy while simultaneously demanding America move away from the policies of the "most free" countries on the list.

That's the problem. At the end of the day, libertarians value property rights more than human rights.

# ? Jan 15, 2014 22:21

ErIog: Jul 11, 2001

losonti tokash posted:

What the gently caress is this

I was kind of pissed at the lack of context in your post at first, but there's so many things wrong with that graph that I believe that you've actually landed on the proper response. I'm surprised it doesn't have a Fox News bug floating in the corner of it and a news ticker at the bottom.

They take the textbook definition of an outlier in the data, and then fit the :lol:

curve to it. The rest of the curve very obviously doesn't match up with the rest of the points at all. The axes are comparing two things that are not actually in direct relation to one another. It's comparing overall tax revenue to only one specific kind of tax as if it's the only tax operating in the economy.

It's a thing of beauty. If I were a college professor I would use that graph as a test question with the free response question: "What's wrong with this graph?" There's so many technical things wrong with that graph that it wouldn't even be very ideological. You could agree with the Laffer curve and all the supply-side economics you want, and it doesn't make that graphic make any more sense.

# ? Jan 16, 2014 05:04

Mo_Steel: Mar 7, 2008; Let's Clock Into The Sunset Together; Fun Shoe

VideoTapir posted:

The Laffer Curve was posted before the takeover was finalized (but after the bid).

The

Curve is always mind boggling with data points visible. I like this version better:

See, no annoying data points to mess with your assumptions that way.

# ? Jan 16, 2014 05:23

VideoTapir: Oct 18, 2005; He'll tire eventually.

losonti tokash posted:

What the gently caress is this

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB118428874152665452

That appears to be the original article, but I'm not sure given the paywall.

Anyway, in 2007, they posted an editorial about corporate tax rates that included that...curve. When someone tries to use the WSJ (and only the WSJ) to support an argument now, I reply with that image.

If someone tries to use IBD, you can respond with "the same IBD that claimed Stephen Hawking would be dead if he weren't an American?"

There are some things that are just so goddamned stupid that letting them get through your editorial process ruins your credibility as a serious publication.

edit: here we go:

quote:

WE'RE NUMBER ONE, ALAS

July 13, 2007

Lawmakers recently approved an 8.9 percentage point reduction in the corporate income tax rate. Too bad the tax cutters are Germans, not Americans, says the Wall Street Journal.

There's a trend here:

At least 25 developed nations have adopted Reaganite corporate income tax rate cuts since 2001; The United States is conspicuously not one of them.
Vietnam has recently announced it is cutting its corporate rate to 25 percent from 28 percent.
Singapore has approved a corporate tax cut to 18 percent from 20 percent to compete with low-tax Hong Kong's rate of 17.5 percent.
Even in France, new President Nicolas Sarkozy has proposed reducing the corporate tax rate to 25 percent from 34.4 percent.
As a result, the United States now has the unflattering distinction of having the developed world's highest corporate tax rate of 39.3 percent (35 percent federal plus a state average of 4.3 percent), according to the Tax Foundation.

Foreign leaders are also learning another lesson from cutting taxes -- lower corporate tax rates with fewer loopholes can lead to more, not less, tax revenue from business:

Ireland, for example, has a 12.5 percent corporate rate, nearly the lowest in the world, and yet collects 3.6 percent of GDP in corporate revenues, well above the international average.
America, by contrast, with its near 40 percent rate has been averaging less than 2.5 percent of GDP in corporate receipts.
Unfortunately, Congress is moving in the reverse direction, threatening to raise the tax rate on corporate dividends, which is another tax on business income. There's also movement in the Senate to raise taxes on the foreign-source income of U.S. companies. The effect would be to raise the marginal tax rate for companies that base their corporate headquarters abroad.

Source: Editorial, "We're Number One, Alas," Wall Street Journal, July 13, 2007.

The actual text of the editorial isn't much better than the graph. Gee, I wonder why Ireland could be collecting so much in corporate tax? Turns out you don't have to have a good guess to be an editor at the WSJ.

VideoTapir fucked around with this message at 05:44 on Jan 16, 2014

# ? Jan 16, 2014 05:41

Harold Fjord: Jan 3, 2004

Mo_Steel posted:

The Curve is always mind boggling with data points visible. I like this version better:

See, no annoying data points to mess with your assumptions that way.

I don't understand why the first curve has to pass RIGHT THROUGH Norway even though it's a clear outlier. At least yours is making sure to pass through all points.

# ? Jan 16, 2014 13:20

Orange Devil: Oct 1, 2010; Wullie's reign cannae smother the flames o' equality!

Nevvy Z posted:

I don't understand why the first curve has to pass RIGHT THROUGH Norway even though it's a clear outlier. At least yours is making sure to pass through all points.

Because if you don't pass through or at least very close to Norway then the curve only goes up, which kinda defeats their little theory.

# ? Jan 16, 2014 13:23

Entropic: Feb 21, 2007; patriarchy sucks

But are those the actual data points used to generate the curve, or an assortment of example countries being compared to the curve?

# ? Jan 16, 2014 15:22

thefncrow: Mar 14, 2001

Entropic posted:

But are those the actual data points used to generate the curve, or an assortment of example countries being compared to the curve?

They're data points that they're trying to fit a Laffer Curve to. There is no "actual" Laffer Curve, as it's inception was being drawn on a bar napkin with an unlabeled y axis and pretty much consists of "concave down parabola where y is zero at 0% and 100%".

# ? Jan 16, 2014 16:25

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Entropic posted:

But are those the actual data points used to generate the curve, or an assortment of example countries being compared to the curve?

The curve was generated from those actual data points, I believe by the Gaussian Greatest-Root-Mean-Squared-Error algorithm.

# ? Jan 16, 2014 16:33

VideoTapir: Oct 18, 2005; He'll tire eventually.

VitalSigns posted:

The curve was generated from those actual data points, I believe by the Gaussian Greatest-Root-Mean-Squared-Error algorithm.

More like the vector-line-tool-in-the-graphics program algorithm.

# ? Jan 16, 2014 16:38

Joshmo: Aug 22, 2007

I was reading through RationalWiki the other day and saw that exact same Laffer curve picture and this guy does a pretty solid takedown of it with some more fail by the WSJ. The conclusion with only more maths involved is exactly the same as what's been said here: I'm pretty sure that's not how you fit a curve.

http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2007/08/replicating-the.html
http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2010/03/simplistic-wsj-minimum-wage-editorial.html

Or some Barry Ritholtz whose title says it all, Art Laffer: Make Up Your Own Facts Here

quote:

In his OpEd, Mr. Laffer confuses causation with correlation, ignores market history, makes spurious argument, and simply make up crap as he goes along.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/06/art-laffer-make-up-your-own-facts-here/

# ? Jan 17, 2014 00:32

Armyman25: Sep 6, 2005

My sister-in-law posted this on Facebook. It's either STDH.txt or poo poo that's easy to do if you are wealthy.

http://qz.com/165716/how-i-made-sure-all-12-of-my-kids-could-pay-for-college-themselves/

How I made sure all 12 of my kids could pay for college themselves
By Francis L. Thompson January 12, 2014
Francis L. Thompson is an engineer at Northrop Grumman Corp. He led the teams that designed the first Direct TV satellites and missile defense satellites, as well as ground control for these systems.
The Thompson family photo. Or Photoshop, since they haven't all been in the same place since 1998. Courtesy of Francis Thompson

My wife and I had 12 children over the course of 15 1/2 years. Today, our oldest is 37 and our youngest is 22. I have always had a very prosperous job and enough money to give my kids almost anything. But my wife and I decided not to.
4

I will share with you the things that we did, but first let me tell you the results: All 12 of my children have college degrees (or are in school), and we as parents did not pay for it. Most have graduate degrees. Those who are married have wonderful spouses with the same ethics and college degrees, too. We have 18 grandchildren who are learning the same things that our kids learned�self respect, gratitude, and a desire to give back to society.
SM
2

We raised our family in Utah, Florida, and California; my wife and I now live in Colorado. In March, we will have been married 40 years. I attribute the love between us as a part of our success with the children. They see a stable home life with a commitment that does not have compromises.
1

Here�s what we did right (we got plenty wrong, too, but that�s another list):
3
Chores

Kids had to perform chores from age 3. A 3-year-old does not clean toilets very well but by the time he is 4, it�s a reasonably good job.
They got allowances based on how they did the chores for the week.
We had the children wash their own clothes by the time they turned 8. We assigned them a wash day.
When they started reading, they had to make dinner by reading a recipe. They also had to learn to double a recipe.
The boys and girls had to learn to sew.

Study time

Education was very important in our family.
3

We had study time from 6 to 8pm every week day. No television, computer, games, or other activities until the two hours were up. If they had no homework, then they read books. For those too young to be in school, we had someone read books to them. After the two hours, they could do whatever they wanted as long as they were in by curfew.
All the kids were required to take every Advanced Placement class there was. We did not let entrance scores be an impediment. We went to the school and demanded our kids be let in. Then we, as parents, spent the time to ensure they had the understanding to pass the class. After the first child, the school learned that we kept our promise that the kids could handle the AP classes.
If children would come home and say that a teacher hated them or was not fair, our response was that you need to find a way to get along. You need find a way to learn the material because in real life, you may have a boss that does not like you. We would not enable children to �blame� the teacher for not learning, but place the responsibility for learning the material back on the child. Of course, we were alongside them for two hours of study a day, for them to ask for help anytime.

Picky eaters not allowed

We all ate dinner and breakfast together. Breakfast was at 5:15am and then the children had to do chores before school. Dinner was at 5:30pm.
More broadly, food was interesting. We wanted a balanced diet, but hated it when we were young and parents made us eat all our food. Sometimes we were full and just did not want to eat anymore. Our rule was to give the kids the food they hated most first (usually vegetables) and then they got the next type of food. They did not have to eat it and could leave the table. If later they complained they were hungry, we would get out that food they did not want to eat, warm it up in the microwave, and provide it to them. Again, they did not have to eat it. But they got no other food until the next meal unless they ate it.
We did not have snacks between meals. We always had the four food groups (meat, dairy, grain, fruits and vegetables) and nearly always had dessert of some kind. To this day, our kids are not afraid to try different foods, and have no allergies to foods. They try all kinds of new foods and eat only until they are full. Not one of our kids is even a little bit heavy. They are thin, athletic, and very healthy. With 12 kids, you would think that at least one would have some food allergies or food special needs. (I am not a doctor.)

Extracurriculars

All kids had to play some kind of sport. They got to choose, but choosing none was not an option. We started them in grade school. We did not care if it was swimming, football, baseball, fencing, tennis, etc. and did not care if they chose to change sports. But they had to play something.
All kids had to be in some kind of club: Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, history, drama, etc.
They were required to provide community service. We would volunteer within our community and at church. For Eagle Scout projects, we would have the entire family help. Once we collected old clothes and took them to Mexico and passed them out. The kids saw what life was like for many families and how their collections made them so happy and made a difference.

Independence

When the kids turned 16, we bought each a car. The first one learned what that meant. As the tow truck pulled a once �new� car into the driveway, my oldest proclaimed: �Dad, it is a wreck!� I said, �Yes, but a 1965 Mustang fastback wreck. Here are the repair manuals. Tools are in the garage. I will pay for every part, but will not pay for LABOR.� Eleven months later, the car had a rebuilt engine, rebuilt transmission, newly upholstered interior, a new suspension system, and a new coat of paint. My daughter (yes, it was my daughter) had one of the hottest cars at high school. And her pride that she built it was beyond imaginable. (As a side note, none of my kids ever got a ticket for speeding, even though no car had less than 450 horsepower.)
We as parents allowed kids to make mistakes. Five years before the 16th birthday and their �new� car gift, they had to help out with our family cars. Once I asked my son, Samuel, to change the oil and asked if he needed help or instruction. �No, Dad, I can do it.� An hour later, he came in and said, �Dad, does it take 18 quarts of oil to change the oil?� I asked where did he put 18 quarts of oil when normally only five were needed. His response: �That big screw on top at the front of the engine.� I said �You mean the radiator?� Well, he did not get into trouble for filling the radiator with oil. He had to drain it, we bought a radiator flush, put in new radiator fluid, and then he had to change the real oil. We did not ground him or give him any punishment for doing it �wrong.� We let the lesson be the teaching tool. Our children are not afraid to try something new. They were trained that if they do something wrong they will not get punished. It often cost us more money, but we were raising kids, not saving money.
The kids each got their own computer, but had to build it. I bought the processor, memory, power supply, case, keyboard, hard drive, motherboard, and mouse. They had to put it together and load the software on. This started when they were 12.
We let the children make their own choices, but limited. For example, do you want to go to bed now or clean your room? Rarely, did we give directives that were one way, unless it dealt with living the agreed-upon family rules. This let the child feel that she had some control over life.

In it together

We required the children to help each other. When a fifth grader is required to read 30 minutes a day, and a first grader is required to be read to 30 minutes a day, have one sit next to the other and read. Those in high school calculus tutored those in algebra or grade-school math.
We assigned an older child to a younger child to teach them and help them accomplish their weekly chores.
We let the children be a part of making the family rules. For example, the kids wanted the rule that no toys were allowed in the family room. The toys had to stay either in the bedroom or playroom. In addition to their chores, they had to all clean their bedroom every day (or just keep it clean in the first place). These were rules that the children wanted. We gave them a chance each month to amend or create new rules. Mom and Dad had veto power of course.
We tried to be always consistent. If they had to study two hours every night, we did not make an exception to it. Curfew was 10pm during school nights and midnight on non-school nights. There were no exceptions to the rules.

Vacation policy

We would take family vacations every summer for two or three weeks. We could afford a hotel, or cruise, but did not choose those options. We went camping and backpacking. If it rained, then we would figure out how to backpack in the rain and survive. We would set up a base camp at a site with five or six tents, and I would take all kids age 6 or older on a three- to five-day backpack trip. My wife would stay with the little ones. Remember, for 15 years, she was either pregnant or just had a baby. My kids and I hiked across the Grand Canyon, to the top of Mount Whitney, across the Continental Divide, across Yosemite.
We would send kids via airplane to relatives in Europe or across the US for two or three weeks at a time. We started this when they were in kindergarten. It would take special treatment for the airlines to take a 5-year-old alone on the plane and required people on the other end to have special documentation. We only sent the kids if they wanted to go. However, with the younger ones seeing the older ones travel, they wanted to go. The kids learned from an early age that we, as parents, were always there for them, but would let them grow their own wings and fly.

Money and materialism

Even though we have sufficient money, we have not helped the children buy homes, pay for education, pay for weddings (yes, we do not pay for weddings either). We have provided extensive information on how to do it or how to buy rental units and use equity to grow wealth. We do not �give� things to our children but we give them information and teach them �how� to do things. We have helped them with contacts in corporations, but they have to do the interviews and �earn� the jobs.
We give birthday and Christmas presents to the kids. We would play Santa Claus but as they got older, and would ask about it, we would not lie. We would say it is a game we play and it is fun. We did and do have lists for items that each child would like for presents. Then everyone can see what they want. With the internet, it is easy to send such lists around to the children and grandchildren. Still, homemade gifts are often the favorite of all.

The real world

We loved the children regardless of what they did. But would not prevent consequences of any of their actions. We let them suffer consequences and would not try to mitigate the consequences because we saw them suffering. We would cry and be sad, but would not do anything to reduce the consequences of their actions.

We were and are not our kids� best friends. We were their parents.
14

# ? Jan 17, 2014 03:51

blackmet: Aug 5, 2006; I believe there is a universal Truth to the process of doing things right (Not that I have any idea what that actually means).

That didn't really explain how the kids paid for college themselves at all.

Maybe via part time jobs? Which they were able to use the funds from because wealthy mommy and daddy paid for EVERYTHING else? I honestly have no idea how they did it.

Really, the title of the article matches the content about as well as "Man eaten by lawnmower while brushing teeth" would have.

# ? Jan 17, 2014 04:43

Harold Fjord: Jan 3, 2004

Probably loans. He probably just means "we paid for everything their whole lives including the house in the neighborhood with the schools that are well funded."

Given the site this is on though, I think it's less "Here's how to raise responsible kids, just be rich" and more "Here's how our kids didn't end up spoiled pieces of poo poo in rehab at 16 after murdering a family"

# ? Jan 17, 2014 05:11

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 23, 2024 21:25

Okuteru: Nov 10, 2007; Choose this life you're on your own

I like the last line where they claim they are not there to be friends with their children.

They're right. They have to earn that.

E: the parents have to, not the kids

# ? Jan 17, 2014 05:40

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Terrible Editorials, Opinion Pieces and Letters to the Editor

«‹›106 »