Nobrainer’s Think Tank

I thoroughly believe that buying local is a great idea, so long as the price/quality combination is better than I’d get elsewhere. Which of course means that I don’t give two cow-patties about where my food comes from. Certainly I am not alone in this matter, but I at least do not try to delude others about my motives. It is from this perspective that I’m always suspicious of people who stake a claim to their progressivity by buying local, especially when it just so happens that they’re getting a bargain.

It is that point-of-view that hit me when I was reading a WaPo article about urbanites who are now going out of their way to buy sides-o-meat.

A friend invited [David Storm, a legal analyst in Charlottesville,] to share a steer bought from a farmer just 45 minutes away. The cost: $1 a pound, plus a 36-cents-per-pound processing fee, or $735.76 for a 541-pound carcass, which translated to 275 pounds of dry-aged beef. “We did it for a lot of reasons,” says Storm, 39. “One was cost. Two, it is grass-fed and fresh, so it will hopefully taste better. And three, we’re supporting a local farmer, something we’re very avid about.

“Plus it seemed fun. People would say, ‘Anything new?’ And I could say, ‘Yeah, I just bought a side of beef.’ “

Nevermind.

Now that I read this again, I think that David realizes that he made a bad decision but is trying to convince himself that it wasn’t. Seriously, how could you convince yourself ahead of time that freshness is important when you’re considering purchasing 275 pounds of beef that you’re just going to put in the freezer for up to a year?

The quote, from a candidate who I will let remain nameless:

TAPPER: But…proponents of school choice say that the best way to change the status quo is to give parents, inner-city parents a choice. Why not?

[Candidate]: Well, the problem is, is that, you know, although it might benefit some kids at the top, what you’re going to do is leave a lot of kids at the bottom. We don’t have enough slots for every child to go into a parochial school or a private school. And what you would see is a huge drain of resources out of the public schools.

So what I’ve said is let’s foster competition within the public school system. Let’s make sure that charter schools are up and running. Let’s make sure that kids who are in failing schools, in local school districts, have an option to go to schools that are doing well.

But what I don’t want to do is to see a diminished commitment to the public schools to the point where all we have are the hardest-to-teach kids with the least involved parents with the most disabilities in the public schools. That’s going to make things worse, and we’re going to lose the commitment to public schools that I think have been so important to building this country.

The analysis:

Finally, note the political mastery here. Take the question of how many kids would leave government schools for private schools under a full school competition system. [He] wants to be on both sides of this assumption, sometimes assuming the number is small (when discussing benefits) and then assuming the number is large (when discussing costs). [He] is a master because he makes this switch back and forth from sentence to sentence. First, the number leaving public schools is low, since choice would just benefit “some kids” (Bad old rich ones at that) and leave our [sic] “a lot of kids.” He again in the next sentence implies the number switching must be low, because there are not many private school spots. One sentence later, though, the number switching is high, since it would be a “huge drain of resources.” And then, in the third paragraph, the number switching is very high, since all that are left in public schools are a small core of the “hardest-to-teach kids.”

I recently ran across another instance of having it both ways, not related to politics, but to the topic of peak oil. (more…)

I figured I needed to post something that was more funny and less serious. So here it is.

On news that Americans drove 1.4 Billion fewer highway miles than at the same time last year,

[Transportation Secretary Mary] Peters expressed concern that the cutbacks have resulted in the collection of fewer taxes on gasoline. Such taxes are funneled to the federal Highway Trust Fund, which gets 18.4 cents per gallon from gasoline and 24.4 cents per gallon from diesel fuel.

“History shows that we’re going to continue to see congested roads while gas tax revenues decline even further,” she said.

So people are going to drive less, but congestion isn’t going to improve? That seems odd. I’m certain there is wiggle room. For example, perhaps the miles being cut are vacation miles, or something, and not commuter miles. Or not [emphasis mine].

Commuter rail ridership broke an all-time record this week, and Caltrans reported a dip in freeway traffic as commuters across California struggled with record gasoline prices.

I will go back and somewhat agree with Mary Peters. If fleet fuel efficiency improves, and all other things remain equal, then higher gas taxes are necessary.

I’ve never met Larry Abernathy. I’ve never heard him speak. But every time I read things attributed to him I want to kick him in the gonads. Mayor Abernathy has been crusading to making all businesses in Clemson non-smoking. In the process, his words and actions piss me off.

He says the measure is all about improving the community.

“In the long haul, it save [sic] lives, and the bottom line (that’s) what it’s about. We know passive smoke is equally as dangerous as direct smoke,” Abernathy said.

Isn’t that nice. The small town mayor is trying to save ourselves from ourselves. How quaint. It’s all about saving lives, he says. Well does he really believe that? Doubtful, and that’s why he’s a douchebag in my book.

The smoking ban goes into effect July 1. The ordinance also prohibits the use of chewing tobacco, snuff or dip inside any public building or business in the city limits.

Because we all know that passive chewing tobacco, snuff, and dip are so dangerous.