Professor Nestor Jackdaws

Jim Meskimen is one of the best impressionists on the internet.  I've watched him on and off for several years.  He can switch from voice to voice in a flash, adopting mannerisms and ticks to match.  Really impressive stuff.  However, he has one unique character that is both a goofy caricature of an English professor and also a serious advocate for the arts.  Professor Nestor Jackdaws of Oxmouth College speaks on all facets of art, sometimes giving a review of art, but always encouraging the artist in everyone.  Though an artist himself - he has displayed his paintings and drawings in some videos, Meskimen has created his alter ego to evangelize for art.  It is a strange thing to say that I like the Nestor Jackdaws videos more than his celebrity impressions.  If you liked watching Bob Ross paint, Nestor Jackdaws is just the fellow for you.

A Liberal Education

Russ interviewed Pano Kanelos, the President of St. John's College, notably about the future of education and why a liberal education is important.  Russ has recently moved to Israel to become President of Shalem College.  The two discuss why a liberal education has fallen in esteem in recent decades and why they think it is perhaps the most important aspect of education.  St. John's, which is one of the oldest colleges in the United States (established 1696), bases its curriculum on the Great Books.  Too much of modern education is providing technical skills of a particular field (engineering, computer science, etc.), which is more in line with practical trades rather than higher learning.  Both Roberts and Kanelos hold that education should produce thoughtful people rather than a barcoded product with specific knowledge on narrow subjects.  Kanelos says that "education is not the acquisition of knowledge.  It's the acquisition of wisdom."  Precisely.

An excellent discussion with thoughts on why the humanities have been in decline for decades and how that trend might be reversed.  As one who pursued a liberal education, I wish them luck.

Averting Climate Change

Robert Pindyck has a new book, Climate Future: Averting and Adapting to Climate Change, and he appeared on EconTalk to discuss his findings.  He admits out the gate that the situation is uncertain, and we cannot know what the future holds.  Perhaps carbon pollution will lead to catastrophe or maybe it will have little noticeable impact.  However, he likened the situation to having insurance.  You don't know if your house will burn down, so it is a good idea to have insurance just in case.  Good point, but that doesn't quite work.  If the worst does happen, what will my insurance money buy me?  Nothing.  The government will - in the best circumstance - spend it to mitigate climate change.  More likely, it will spend it on pet projects that have nothing to do with climate change.  Though I am highly skeptical of the climate change issue, it is certainly reasonable to take some actions.  It was proposed that the government stop subsidizing people to build houses on the beach or in flood plains.  Proposing a carbon tax to decrease the use of fossil fuels is a classic proposal, but it will have little impact unless China, India, and other parts of the developing world agree.  Not going to happen.  To show how urgent the situation is, Pindyck noted that it will be 30 to 40 years before the current CO2 emissions have their full impact on the global temperature.  Stop all CO2 tomorrow and the future is still bleak.  Great.  With that in mind, adaptations were suggested.  Russ was more willing to consider adapting to change, while Pindyck was eager to enact his carbon tax.  I did like the mention that an electric car is often a coal-powered car under our current method of power generation.  In the end, there are no easy answers, though we should take precautions.  I'll agree with that.

My big issue with the climate change debate is that the earth has been much warmer, so warm that the poles had no ice.  That was millions of years ago.  A thousand years ago, it was warmer than today, which is why the Vikings thought it would be a good idea to colonize Greenland.  This was the Medieval Warm Period.  I've never heard a climate scientist explain this based on the current modeling.  The earth today is in an interglacial period of an ongoing ice age.  Yes, this is an interglacial period of the current ice age, the Quaternary glaciation.

Twitter

Elon Musk has purchased Twitter and panic has ensued.  I am reminded of the election of Abraham Lincoln, of all things.  No sooner had Lincoln been elected than the South commenced to secede.  There was no waiting to see what policies he might pursue, just immediate panic.  Despite Lincoln winning with less than 40% of the popular vote, the South chose to secede.  Had the South remained, an additional 12 Democratic Senators would have tipped the Senate to the Democrats: 35 Democrats, 29 Republicans, and one Unionist.  There were 7 Democrat Senators from Union states and 7 more from Border States.  Instead, the balance was 29 Republicans, 23 Democrats, and 1 Unionist.  As more Confederate states departed, the balance was further unbalanced.  Even with the Republican dominance that followed, Northern Democrats were still needed to pass the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery.  Clearly, this could never have been ratified if the South had not seceded.

Musk has only just purchased Twitter and has implemented little, if anything yet.  Why not wait to see how things shake out?  If it goes to hell, then tweet your prescience and delete your account then.  By staying on the platform, you have the ability to shape the platform.  By leaving, you have none.  I am also reminded of all those who proclaimed that they would leave the United States if Bush or Trump were elected.  Amazingly, they never did leave.

Musk has declared himself to be a free speech absolutist.  As such, one would expect a much higher bar for banning people from Twitter under Musk.  Twitter has, over the last few years, clearly chosen sides in many debates, banning or suspending those who dare to voice opinions on the 'wrong' side of the issue.  One hopes that Musk will let the two sides argue.  Time will tell.

Master and Man

Today on Econtalk, a physician and an economist discuss Tolstoy.  That seems a strange topic for a podcast called Econtalk, but it proves entertaining.  In 1895, Tolstoy wrote the short story Master and Man.  It tells the tale of Vasili Brekhunov and his peasant, Nikita, who set out in a blizzard to purchase a forest.  Vasili is a well-to-do landowner, who has dramatically expanded the family holdings since his father's time.  He is a tough negotiator, who uses tricks and schemes to make sure he gains the best deal.  From his thoughts, he is a fair man and a benefactor to his peasants.  From Nikita's thoughts, Vasili uses his position to cheat peasants like him.  During the trip through the blizzard, the pair repeatedly get lost and find themselves in the wrong village.  Despite offers that they spend the night, Vasili is single-minded in his determination to beat any competitors to purchase a valuable forest.  It is not until they are hopelessly lost that he reconsiders his quest for profit.

Russ Roberts, host of Econtalk, and Richard Gunderman, MD, PhD, Professor at Indiana University, discuss the story from the perspective of both Adam Smith and Thomas Hobbes.  Yes, this is one of those academic discussions.  The pair dissect the story and consider the motives of the main characters, what Tolstoy is trying to say.  There is also the question of what Adam Smith would think, more from the perspective of his Theory of Moral Sentiments than his Wealth of Nations.  Roberts finds commonality between Hobbes and Smith's views in this situation while Gunderman looks to Hobbes as saying man must be protected from the brutality of man vs. Smith seeing men working in self-interest, but also working cooperatively.

Both held the story in high regard, though I found it less impressive.  As a parable, it is passable.  However, it was hard to overlook Vasili's blindness to the dangers he faced.  After twice getting lost in the blizzard, he set out again as it was growing dark.  The previous two efforts, he had lost his way on account of not being able to see the markers, buried by the snow.  How did such a fool survive this long?  However, Nikita is a wonderful character, the fatalistic but good-natured Russian.

Not the best EconTalk, but certainly worth a listen.  Of course, definitely read the short story first.  It is available for free here.

Fletch's Fortune

Fletch returns to his Italian villa from the beach and discovers two men waiting inside.  They are CIA agents who want him to attend a journalists' convention in Virginia.  While there, they expect him to plant bugs in all the rooms and record the private conversations.  Of course, Fletch declines.  At which point, they explain that he has not filed taxes - ever - and has a lot of money for an unemployed journalist.  Threats of extradition and jail convince him.  They are particularly interested in recordings of Walter March, the owner of a large number of newspapers and current President of the American Journalism Alliance.  No sooner does Fletch arrive in the United States than he learns that Walter March has been murdered.  Nonetheless, the CIA want him to continue the operation.

Another page-turner in which Fletch must solve a murder, turn the tables on the CIA, resolve his tax issues, avoid a ceremony to receive his Bronze Star, and get back to his villa in Italy.  The book also provides some background for Fletch's time as a reporter in Chicago, introducing a former colleague and the return of Jack Saunders (Confess, Fletch).  It is entertaining to discover that Fletch solves the case while the reader isn't looking.  He does it right in front of us, a simple line, that comes and goes with nary a thought.

Excellent book.  Highly recommended.

Confess, Fletch

Fletch has only just arrived in Boston and is surprised to discover a beautiful naked woman on the floor of his apartment.  She's dead.  After pouring himself a whiskey, he calls the police.  Not the emergency line, since it's no longer an emergency.  Soon, the police arrive.  Detective Flynn notes that Fletch is the obvious suspect.  Fletch agrees, but assures him that he is innocent.  Flynn says it would be so much easier if he would just confess.  Fletch declines.  Flynn takes his word for it and, to the horror of his partner/stenographer, declines to arrest Fletch.

Fletch is in Boston to look for missing paintings.  His would-be father-in-law, an Italian count, was kidnapped and eventually murdered for lack of a ransom payment.  Some years earlier, the count's fortune in paintings was stolen.  Fletch found some clues that a couple of the paintings had been sold through a Boston art dealer.  To complicate matters, his would-be step-mother-in-law, Sylvia, has followed him and demands he not rob her of the paintings when he finds them.  Then his fiancée arrives.

While getting leads on the missing paintings through the art dealer, he must also investigate the murder for which he is the prime suspect.  Though he finds Inspector Flynn a charming fellow, the man has overlooked a number of suspects, from the drunken next-door neighbor, the owner of the apartment, the owner's former wife, and perhaps even the fiancée of the murdered woman.

As with the first book, Fletch proves to be able to win everyone's confidence and elicit all sorts of useful information or convince people to do him favors that aren't always above board.

Truly an outstanding follow up to Fletch.  Flynn proved to be a highlight and had a series of spinoff novels, which I'll have to get around to reading.  Highly recommended.

Fletch

Fletch is lying on the beach when a well-dressed man makes him an offer.  "I want you to kill me."  Fletch is intrigued.  The man says he is dying of cancer and wants to avoid the suffering.  Fletch says, "Sure."  As it happened, Fletch was on the beach to uncover the source of drugs that had been plaguing the area for years.  He is a reporter for the News-Tribune in California and had been posing as a drug addict on the beach for a few weeks.  Not having made much progress on that story, he jumped to investigating the man who wants to be killed.  The story has lots of humor, mostly from Fletch's quirky takes and off-the-wall comments.

As it is Fletch, he can't just have two storylines.  No, his first ex-wife has sent a lawyer to extract alimony from him.  His second ex-wife has also demanded back payment for alimony.  Then there is his editor, an incompetent who only has the position because she is sleeping with the editor-in-chief, who demands that he attend a ceremony to be awarded the Bronze Star that he won in Vietnam.  She thinks it will be a feather in the cap of the paper.

Fletch is a professional at social engineering, able to use tidbits of key knowledge to win the confidence of anyone.  He can step into any setting and immediately set people at ease.  He then proceeds to milk them for information, which they offer willingly with only general steering from Fletch.  Better yet, they find him utterly charming and are eager to invite him for lunch, dinner, or - in the case of ladies - to hop in the sack.

As I had just read Fletch and the Widow Bradley and commented how it wasn't as good as Fletch, I decided to reread it.  I stand by that assessment.  Of note, though written later, the Widow Bradley is a prequel and occurs immediately prior to Fletch.  Gregory McDonald has a quick style that makes for a highly readable novel.  I started the book on Friday and finished on Saturday.  I can't remember the last time I read a book that fast.  Now to watch the Chevy Chase movie again to see how it compares.

Highly recommended.

Welcome Wagon

Related to the previous post, Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit has long talked about a Welcome Wagon project to introduce blue state refugees to red state values.  Too often, blue staters leave the blue state that has become unlivable and relocate to a red state.  However, once established in the red state, they continue to vote for blue state policies.  If sufficient blue staters migrate to the state, it starts to resemble the state they left.  The goal is to explain the cause and effect of their voting patterns.

Tim Pool, who describes himself as a milquetoast fence sitter who leans left, recently moved to a more conservative state.  He had previously lived in such places as the Philadelphia metro area, New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago.  Though he rarely votes, he announced that he would not try to impose his values in his newly adopted state.  It was working well enough before he arrived.  This is exactly the mindset sought by the Welcome Wagon.

Voting with Your Feet

Many years ago, some pundit was saying great things about Cuba, espousing the healthcare and high literacy rate.  The opposing pundit replied that people vote with their feet (i.e., they leave or enter a country) and Cuba had net negative migration.  People were choosing to leave.  Though I cannot recall who said it, this idea has stuck with me ever since.  Often, when someone starts bashing America as a bad country, I ask why everyone wants to migrate here rather than all those superior countries?  A change in topic is the typical result.

With that in mind, there was a link on Instapundit to a page showing tax burdens by state.  The most burdensome states are New York, Connecticut, Hawaii, Vermont, and California.  The states with the lowest tax burden were Alaska, Wyoming, Tennessee, South Dakota, and Michigan.  Given that, where are people moving?  Let's take a look at U-Haul.

The highest inflow is to Tennessee, Texas, Florida, Ohio, and Arizona.  The highest outflow comes from Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Illinois, and California.  There are a couple of matches between the U-Haul chart and the tax burdens, but not much.  Let's see what northAmerican Moving Services moving shows.  Alaska and Hawaii are listed as undefined so there are only 48 states to consider.

Tennessee and Florida are again ranked in the top five for destinations while New Jersey, Illinois, and California are listed for departures.  The inflow states tend to have lower taxes than outflow states.  However, Texas and Michigan have about the same tax burden, just levied in different ways (Texas has no state income tax while Michigan does).  The departure states are generally colder than the destination states, but California, Ohio, and Idaho throw a wrench in that theory.

Let's go back and get the tax burden ratings for the states that appear in the two charts.  What does that look like?

Again, it is pretty clear that the inflow states have the lower tax burden but Michigan is an outflow state with a low tax burden.  Odd.  Idaho is an inflow state with an above median tax burden.  What gives?  Let's combine the three charts and sort:

I pasted them all together and then sorted by the total of Tax Burden + northAmerican Ranking + U-Haul Ranking.  I should have gone back to the various charts and filled in the missing numbers, but I've already spent enough time on this.  After a little more investigation, there was a pattern.

There is a clear migration away from Democrat-controlled states toward Republican-controlled states.  People are voting with their feet.

Disband the FBI

Of the four men on trial for plotting to kidnap Governor Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, two were found not guilty on all counts.  The remaining two resulted in a hung jury.  Looking back, it does seem unusual that a major bust by the FBI should happen the month before the presidential election and that it should involve a Democratic governor in an important battleground state.  In the wake of the arrests and the massive reporting that followed, Whitmer blamed Trump and Trump blamed Whitmer for locking down the state.  Soon after, Trump lost Michigan and the election.

After the election, FBI shenanigans were exposed.  A dozen FBI agents and/or informants were involved in the plot, 'observing' every facet of the growing plot.  Those arrested claimed that much of the push toward the plot came from the FBI informants and agents.  That two of the men were found not guilty leads one to think that probably was the case.  I would generally dismiss such conspiracy theories about the FBI, but two of the men charged were found not guilty.  12 jurors voted unanimously against the government case.  Sure, I could see a hung jury with one hold out juror, but a unanimous vote against seems unthinkable.  What evidence did the jurors see that convinced them there was nothing there?  When one considers the role of the FBI in the Russian Collusion Hoax, it becomes all that more believable that agents could perpetrate something like this.

I used to think very highly of the FBI.  As a kid, I used to watch the TV series with Efrem Zimbalist Jr.  I was a big fan of the X-Files, which took the FBI to strange places.  Fringe did much the same.  Now, the FBI always seems to be political.  I'm all for infiltrating violent or would-be violent groups, but where are the big arrests of BLM and Antifa?  Director Comey sent memos to someone outside of government in order to trigger a special counsel investigation against Trump.  His successor, Andrew McCabe was fired for leaking information to the media.  Agent Peter Strzok was fired as well.  FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith was fired for falsifying a FISA document to spy on a Trump campaign advisor.  All these men were deeply involved in the Russian Collusion story, which has since been shown to be false.  The FBI is no longer an unbiased law enforcement agency.  As many black Americans don't believe the testimony of any police officer, I am more and more inclined to doubt any testimony from the FBI, especially if the case has political implications.

Upload, Season 2

The first season ended with Nathan (Robbie Amell) having a visit from his cloying girlfriend, Ingrid (Allegra Edwards).  She revealed that she had uploaded for him.  She had committed suicide to join him in the digital afterlife.  Now feeling massively guilty and beholden to her, he tries to make a go of it while wondering what happened to Nora (Andy Allo).  He had used his computer skills to rescue her from an assassin in the real world, but now he couldn't contact her.  Was she okay?  Indeed, Nora is fine though she has fled the city and now lives a technology-free existence with a cult of neo-Luddites called Luds.  In her absence, a new employee, Tinsley, uses Nora's avatar, much to Nathan's consternation.  The Luds are very interested in using Nora's skills and connections to oppose the eternal life granted to some while denied to the majority.

Only 7 episodes for the season, but overall good entertainment.  There is a strange fascination with going digital by some people.  Nathan's program, a free version for uploading, is online but controlled by unscrupulous people.  Nathan's mother plans to upload as a surprise to her son.  What?  You are healthy and not that old but you're going to commit suicide to have a virtual life?  What kind of nuttiness is that?  The show does reverse itself on technology from last season; it turns out that there is a backup that can be restored.  Thus, downloading into a new body and then getting run over by a truck will not result in permanent death.  Of course, that is going to quickly result in multiple versions of the same person.  More on that next season.

Good popcorn fun.

1356

Thomas of Hookton is an English archer during the 100 Year War between England and France.  He leads a band of archers and men-at-arms called the Hellequin.  Some years ago, he had gone on a quest for the Holy Grail and recovered it (The Grail Trilogy is excellent).  Now, his liege lord, the Earl of Northampton, has requested he find La Malice, the sword that Peter drew to protect Jesus.  Could it still exist?  Many believed it did and that it was hidden in France.  Thomas is not alone in his quest for the holy sword.  Cardinal Bessieres, a man who hopes to be Pope, believes the blade will assure his rise.  His minion, Father Marchant, gladly kills in order to track the path of the sword.  While Thomas pursues clues to the sword's whereabouts, Edward, the Black Prince, is sourging the south of France while King John II of France avoids confrontation.  The slaughter a French army at Crecy (1346) by the fearsome longbows is still a fresh memory.  In the end, Thomas finds himself joining the Black Prince near Poitiers, where King John II has marshalled an immense army and trapped the English on a hill.  It looks hopeless and Edward is inclined to accept horrendous terms for surrender.  Such talk only gives King John more confidence and he orders an attack!  Thus began the Battle of Poitiers.

The conclusion feels a bit rushed.  There are some character deaths that come like footnotes rather than tragic losses or well-deserved comeuppance.  Some characters who were prominent in the beginning, notably Brother Michael, have vanished by the end.  As Brother Michael fades, in walks Keane, an Irish seminary student, who has the same desire to be a man-at-arms as Michael.  Soon, Keane eclipsed Michael.  In fact, Keane became the Harper to Thomas of Hookton's Sharpe.  (Cornwell's most famous character is English officer Richard Sharpe and his constant sidekick was Irish Sergeant Patrick Harper).  Of course, I liked Keane far more than I liked Michael.  I suppose Michael wrote himself out while Keane was just irresistible.

A terrific tale that sees action across southern France.  Several notable historic characters play large roles and others have cameos.  There is Edward the Black Prince who seems a charming rogue and brilliant warrior, King John II of France and his sons Prince Charles and Prince Philippe, Pope Innocent VI, and even Pope Gregory XI in his days as a student at Montpelier.  There is lots of action, loads of flavor of the time period, and a wonderful amount of actual history.  Bernard Cornwell is one of the greatest historical fiction writers, sure to go down with the likes of C. S. Forester and Arthur Conan Doyle.

Highly recommended.

Sedecim et Septemdecim Delenda Est!

Here is an article singing my song!  I've made this argument several times over the years, mostly for the 17th Amendment, but I whole-heartedly agree with repealing the 16th as well.  The Federal government is supposed to be a small, LIMITED government.  The states are STATES, not provinces.  It is a FEDERAL government, not a CENTRAL government.  Though I have long viewed the centralizing of power in Washington DC as a predictable result of changing the way senators are chosen, I did not tie the growth of the bureaucratic state to that amendment.  However, Kozlovich and Lehr make a good case for it.  With states unable to stem government overreach without their Senate veto, the growth of legislation and outsourcing the details to alphabet agencies does make sense.  Even so, the Constitution clearly states that 'All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress.'  That is clearly not the EPA, the FDA, the EEOC, or any of the other myriad agencies.  A rule that imposes penalties must be passed by members of Congress, not outsourced to unelected bureaucrats.  The Supreme Court got rolled by FDR's threat to pack the court and the floodgates were opened for more and more rules and regulations to flood from the unelected and largely unaccountable administrative state.

The 16th and 17th Amendments must be repealed!  In the aftermath, the central government will dwindle in size and power, and the states will regain some independence from an overbearing Washington DC.  As noted in a previous posting, Obamacare was opposed by 26 states and therefore could not have passed if the states still had control of the Senate as intended.  Much as I like the idea, it is a hard sell.  No path for accomplishing these feats is outlined.

Buy an Electric Car to Save Money on Gas

"A typical driver will save about $80 a month from not having to pay gas at the pump"

President Joe Biden

That is a good point.  One can save on gas by just not having to buy gas.  However, is it cheaper to buy an electric car?  If you have a working car, getting a new car is automatically much more expensive.  That car payment will be much more than $80 a month.  If you have a working car, don't try to save money by buying an electric car.  I don't think the president was suggesting that you take on a new car payment to save on gas.  However, what if you are in the market for a new car and have a choice between electric or gas?  In that case, the president is encouraging the purchase of an electric vehicle rather than a gas one.  Will that save money?  Let's run some numbers.

Step One: What electric vehicles are available and how much do they cost?  One of my first hits for that was this webpage.

The least expensive car on the list was the Nissan Leaf for $27,400.  It has a base range of 149 miles per charge.  The Tesla Model 3 is listed at $40,690 with a base range of 267 miles.  In both cases, I chose the least expensive model (i.e., no extended range with battery upgrade, etc.).

Step Two: What gas cars are available and how much do they cost?  I went looking for inexpensive cars (we're trying to save money, after all) and found this webpage.

The least expensive car was the Chevrolet Spark for $14,595.  It has a 9 gallon tank and gets 33 mpg, giving it a range of 297 miles.  The most expensive car on this list was the Nissan Sentra at $20,635.  It also gets 33 mpg but has a 12.4 gallon tank, giving it a range of 409 miles.

Step Three.  What is the car payment?  Using myself as the buyer, I found that I could get an interest rate in the range of 2.25% to 3.24%.  Let's split the difference and use 2.75%.  Also, I will go for a 5 year loan.  Let's run the numbers:

Make Model - Monthly Payment

Chevy Spark - $260.63

Nissan Sentra - $368.50

Nissan Leaf - $489.30

Tesla Model 3 - $726.63

The most expensive of the gas cars is over $120 cheaper per month than the most inexpensive electric car.  Both of the gas cars can go further on a tank of gas than either of the electric cars will go on a charge.  Though I fully expect electric cars to eventually overtake gas cars, that time has not yet come.  If you need to buy a new car, the electric will not save you money.  Of course, this calculation might be different in California, where the gas price is dramatically higher.