I call this one….’Maddie on a Rock’
Is this a bench dog, or can this dog hunt?
It is fascinating to look at the debate over Thomas Piketty’s work through the lens of Thomas Kuhn’s analysis. Just as Kuhn predicted, new data is unable to resolve disputes once a field has entered a state of pre-revolutionary crisis. On one side Piketty has provided enough evidence to persuade the pre-converted and on the other side Chris Giles, of the Financial Times, has now provided enough doubt to persuade the un-converted. According to Kuhn, this crisis phase will persist indefinitely, regardless of the emergence of new data, until a new way to think about economic theory emerges – this will be the paradigm shift which resolves the crisis
Negotiating with suppliers for equitable terms and making stocking and assortment decisions based on those terms is one of a bookseller’s, or any retailer’s, most important jobs. Suppliers get to decide the terms under which they are willing to sell to a retailer. It’s reciprocally the right of a retailer to determine whether the terms on offer are acceptable and to stock items accordingly. A retailer can feature a supplier’s items in its advertising and promotional circulars, “stack it high” in the front of the store, keep small quantities on hand in the back aisle, or not carry the item at all, and bookstores and other retailers do these every day. When we negotiate with suppliers, we are doing so on behalf of customers. Negotiating for acceptable terms is an essential business practice that is critical to keeping service and value high for customers in the medium and long term
This makes me miss the small bookstore even more. When there were many points of sale, you could go to the one that was run by the old socialist couple, the one run by the poet, the one run by the computer geeks, the one run by the retired conservative lawyer, and you could browse a point of view and discover new things. Now we have this apology for discourse - this gibberish.
But if I know what I want, and the will allow me to have it, it is so, so, much better.
I got this e-mail from the Republican National Committee, from Senator Ron Johnson. It is copied below in italics. It contains an interesting fallacy, an intentional one for sure. If you have a job, your company determines your health care plan. The Affordable Healthcare Act determines a minimum level of coverage that we all must have, and makes that available to a wider group through subsidies. The minimal plans under the AHC are meant to provide a base line of coverage for all. If federal employees have something more through their employer, AKA the government of the USA, that is OK. An employer can provide more coverage, and most do. An individual can buy healthcare insurance directly, or can pay the fine and buy out of pocket whatever medical services he wants, from whatever provider he chooses. Nothing in the Affordable Care Act prohibits that. If you have the money you can buy whatever you want.
If Senator Ron Johnson wants to, in solidarity with the poor of our nation, take a baseline privately provided insurance package that would be great. I’m not sure that is his point though. It might even be great to try and enlist others to take the minimal packages (there are other packages that one can buy) to show his solidarity with the lower economic strata of our country. However, why does he think that taking away care options from them would be a good idea. If so, he needs to state his case on that.
What a funny guy. Did he not pay attention in school when they taught how to make logical arguments, or is he intentionally trying to mis-lead his readers? I would find that hard to believe from one of our honorable senators.
I am tired of these types of “arguments”, whether from the right, or from the left, whether from the DNC, or the RNC.
Let’s hold our representatives to a higher standard of argument. Perhaps there should be a rhetoric test to get into the Congress.
When I sued President Obama and his Administration over ObamaCare in January, I made sure you and other supporters of the Republican National Committee were among the first to know.
I believe President Obama has abused his power and exceeded his legal authority by arranging for his liberal allies in Congress to receive ObamaCare benefits that were intentionally excluded from the law.
Liberal Democrats advocated for ObamaCare — and now they don’t want to have to live under the same law they forced onto other Americans.
I asked you to sign our petition in support of my lawsuit. It was overwhelming when nearly 80,000 Americans responded and added their names to stop Obama’s hypocrisy.
But I am missing one important name: yours.
Lenley, since I filed the lawsuit, 45 lawmakers have joined me in my fight against the Obama Administration.
But we need to keep the momentum going — and I am counting on your support.
The Obama Administration’s antics cannot continue. If we stand together, they will be stopped.
We need you in the fight to rein in this Imperial President and stop him from giving his liberal allies unfair special treatments under ObamaCare.
U.S. Senator from Wisconsin
If you compare the costs of the Reagan Administration’s serial security lapses in Beirut to the costs of Benghazi, it’s clear what has really deteriorated in the intervening three decades. It’s not the security of American government personnel working abroad. It’s the behavior of American congressmen at home.
My senses sharpen at the words of Stevie Smith… Smith had recently passed away after a lifetime of bleeding to death. She appeared to live like a never-opened window, with hardly any right to be, except to pass on a shivery touch of flu. She lived with her aunt in a Victorian pile in Palmers Green, all so painful yet full of life; absent from life—yet all of it right on top of her; fencing adversity with spilled ink; 50 percent blotting paper and 50 percent loose tea.
—Morrissey (via newdirectionspublishing)
Love this. An entire movie of the mind in this short piece.