May 16, 2008
The Minneapolis Star Tribune is reporting that a Christian group is calling for a boycott of Starbucks over their return to their old logo. The group, named “The Resistance” makes the complaint that the logo,
“has a naked woman on it with her legs spread like a prostitute,” Mark Dice, founder of the group, said in a news release. “Need I say more? It’s extremely poor taste, and the company might as well call themselves Slutbucks.”
Laughable, indeed. From the Star Tribune, here is a photo of the logo:
The Consumerist chimes in, wondering whether “mermaids had legs.” The Star Tribune’s article continues to detail the group.
The group, which claims more than 3,000 members nationwide and has found a place on the fringe advancing various conspiracy theories, is calling for a national boycott of the coffee-selling giant.
Finally, the Consumerist sums the issue up, humorously saying:
We seriously doubt this logo is obscene enough to deter anyone from their morning cup. From what we know of coffee drinkers, still photos from German scheissen porn wouldn’t separate them from their hot liquid crack.
One of my major beefs with society is its ability to foster “outrage” over anything. It makes it convenient to be offened. People need to lighten up and learn to get along. I don’t see anything objectionable with a mythical character used as a logo on a coffee cup.
Oh, and in the interest in full disclosure, I am one of those that needs his “hot liquid crack” in the morning. It can be partially blamed for my six posts at Office Rumors today.
May 16, 2008
Greg Mankiw’s Blog details an email from a friend of his at the White House where the staffers speculate on the best reasons to veto the Farm Bill. These include:
- Too much spending
- New sugar program
- Subsidies for rich farmers
- Getting the best of both worlds
- Using food aid dollars inefficiently
Read it all for the details.
May 16, 2008
Richard Posner bills the new farm bill (which has passed both the House and Senate) as “Outlandish.” He also has an interesting take on our representatives in government and their relationship with rich farmers:
The President has expressed dissatisfaction with the proposed Farm Bill wending its way through Congress. He wants farmers whose annual incomes exceed $200,000 to be denied subsidies; the present cutoff is $2.6 million and Congress will not go below $950,000. The President’s concern with farm subsidies cannot be taken very seriously, since in 2002 the Republican Congress with Administration connivance greatly increased these subsidies and at the same time repealed some of the modest reforms that the Clinton Administration had introduced in 1996. The Administration’s current proposals would, if enacted, be a step in the right direction, but they will not be enacted, and, judging from the 2002 legislation, they are intended I suspect merely to embarrass the Democratic Congress.
This is obviously a smart move by the Bush Administration, but as simply a political one, is not meant to reform the situation. Also of interest is the unwillingness of those in power to move for that reform. Instead of attempting to buy votes, they could further put Bush in a box and move for true reform, with the Bush proposal at center.
There is no need for the government to be giving subsidies to farmers who are making $2.6m or even $950,000. Profitable farming takes some initial pretty heavy initial asset costs, but the dollars spent subsidizing these people–who don’t really need it–could be spent on funding R&D for a number of energy or farming technologies.
May 16, 2008
Zimbabwe has suffered under horrible inflation for a number of years. The Economists’ Free Exchange blog has a great example on its effects:
THE economic blogosphere is full of gems today. Inflation in America and Britain is uncomfortably high, but it could be worse—just ask Zimbabwe:
“During the meal, one of my mates was drinking beer - 750ml bottles of Castle Lager (fondly called bombers) he ordered a 5th one, was advised that the price, which when he ordered his 1st, 2nd 3rd and 4th ones was 160 million per bottle, had gone up to 340 million per bottle.”Best to drink quickly, I suppose.
Nasty.
May 16, 2008
The blog “Mind Your Decisions” has a basic “frequently asked questions” and a benefits analysis of 401(k) accounts. For those recently entering the working world, this is a useful post. It is very up-to-date because it includes topics such as Roth 401(k)s, which are similar in benefits (tax-free growth) to the Roth IRAs. The author, Presh Talwalkar, also has some discussion on whether a Roth or regular account is better.
This topic is a nice addition to the post I made earlier this week on how to start investing for recent college graduates.
May 16, 2008
I changed the title from our “photograph” to “picture” for today because this really puts things in perspective.
The recent talk in the media about the world entering a post-United States era is simply bunk when we have an economy as large as the closest four. Simply because of the size of the United States, it will continue to play a role in the vast majority of geopolitical issues, whether they deal with worldwide or regional topics.
You can see any number of versions by visiting the host of this image at Flickr.
May 15, 2008
Via Wired.com’s liveblog by Alexis Madrigal:
And an excerpt:
Scientists using a combination of radio and X-rays have found the most recent supernova remnant observed in our galaxy, located about 26,000 light-years from here. It’s the youngest, most energetic supernova we know and could shed light on just exactly how the stardust we’re made of — heavier elements and all — gets created.
Cool.
May 14, 2008
The Economist’s Free Exchange blog has some interesting bits on two topics today:
The posts do well to sum up many of the blogosphere’s discussion over the last few days.
May 14, 2008
Greg Mankiw has a great quote from a Thomas Sowell piece for Real Clear Politics in which he comments on the pandering to voters which is happening in the Presidential race and Congress (emphasis mine):
Some people think that the reason the public misunderstands so many issues is that these issues are too “complex” for most voters. But is that really so?
With all the commotion in the media and in politics about the high price of gasoline, is there really some terribly complex explanation?
Is there anything complex about the fact that with two countries– India and China– having rapid economic growth, and with combined populations 8 times that of the United States, they are creating an increased demand for the world’s oil supply?
The problem is not that supply and demand is such a complex explanation. The problem is that supply and demand is not an emotionally satisfying explanation. For that, you need melodrama, heroes and villains.
It is clear that many people prefer to blame President Bush. Others prefer to blame the oil companies, who have long been the favorite villains of the left.
Politicians understand that. Numerous times they have summoned the heads of oil companies before Congressional committees to be denounced on nationwide television for “greed,” with the politicians calling for a federal investigation to “get to the bottom of this!”
Now that is emotionally satisfying, which is the whole point. By the time yet another federal investigation is completed– and turns up nothing to substantiate the villainy that is supposed to be the reason for high gasoline prices– most people’s attention will have turned to something else.
[...]
If you want cheering crowds, don’t bother to study economics. It will only hold you back. Tell people what they want to hear– and they don’t want to hear about supply and demand.
No, supply and demand is not too “complex.” It is just not very emotionally satisfying.
Read the whole thing. This is very central to a number of arguments conservatives use on a regular basis, but it is an inherent problem with our system. Not surprisingly, the politicians are motivated to pander to certain groups so they can maintain their office and their electoral support.
The conservatives’ issue lies in whether some control or ethical framework should be employed to avoid this in the interest of a move benevolent leadership. A few things are for certain: the pandering in election years is becoming disruptingly overt, and is one of the least appealing aspects of our democratic system of government.
See Sowell’s part 2 here.
May 14, 2008
Andrew Sullivan has a great bit from a reader summarizing why the Conservative (Tory) Party has made a revival in recent elections in the UK, and it happens to mirror the same happenings in our neighbor to the north. Here’s the meat of it:
Basically the exact same thing played itself out in Canada a couple of years ago. You have a conservative party banished to the woods for over a decade due to a combination of charismatic and dynamic opponents and internal incompetence. Then the leader on whose back the party rose to power (Blair and Jean Chrétien) gives way to their wonkish but dithering deputy (Brown and Paul Martin).
[...]
Combined with the standard stories of overreach and incompetence that come from being in party so long sullying the good name of the government party, the conservative party out of power long enough for everyone to forget what made them so obnoxious in the first place and replacing the old conservative leaders with newer, younger faces, add water and - bingo! - instant “conservative mandate”.
This is extremely interesting because the same movement has been happening here over the past few years. In this case, it has been a second term with a re-worked cabinet, not an incompetent successor, that has brought about what should be an easy win for Democrats in November.
It really is their year to screw it up. No one is talking about how little the Democratic Congress has done since their win for “change” at the mid-term elections (I did here). We’ll see if the GOP brings up anything along those lines in the next six months.
