New Developments

Bill Barnwell is one of my favorite sports writers (formerly of Grantland), but he wrote a very nice article about his weight loss over the course of 2015.

If this gets popular among U.S. airlines, perhaps we can make it back to Europe after all.

Here are more developments on the UVA lawsuit against Rolling Stone.

And here are more developments on how millennials have been spending their money.

Responses:

1. It won't make money in the short run, but I suspect they are relying on divorce data and high enough interest rates to cover the loans that won't be paid back.  Moreover, they won't give the money to just anyone - I suspect that their rating system will give some loans to some pretty "undeserving" couples.

2. Wheel in the bacon!

3. That is a nice story.  I'm glad that she was able to appreciate the kind gesture.

4. Maybe we can check it out after we check out the Chinese place you mentioned last time. :P

5. Is it that the topic of finances is a way for you and your dad to connect, or that it's the only way?  I'm glad their relationship has improved with time, though.  When there's hurt that you've started to heal from and you just want to be able to restart a relationship, it's nice to be able to find that one thing that serves as a way to get back in.

6. I imagine that the intensity, however short term, explains the preference among many young people.  Short-term intense happiness vs. long-term consistency is the difference between social media and books.  I think both are important, though.  It doesn't make sense to have to choose.

7. The story of the guy who couldn't find a job to pay his loans after attending his crap college and instead attending law school and accumulating more loans makes me very sad.  In my view, this provides evidence that the college method of higher education is lacking.  This also reaffirms my belief that the problems should be fixed at the primary and secondary school levels before turning to higher education.

8. Do you mean cute and adorable?  If so, then yes. :)

9. Mission accomplished!

10. Do you not like the cool formation?  That took years of practice... :/

R2R:

2. They would not.  One primary reason why many modern progressives prefer government action is that they insist that change is impossible without forcing all of society to participate.  For all the money that, say, George Soros has and spends on political activities, he would insist that it's not enough to effect real change.  See also the claims of people like Warren Buffett that they would support increasing taxes on millionaires and billionaires, despite the fact that literally no one is stopping them from just writing a check to the U.S. Treasury.  Modern progressives respond to the collective action problem and the bias towards short-term thinking with government action, whereas many conservatives and libertarians respond by trying to align incentives with voluntary action.  This is why conservatives would totally go for that plan while progressives would probably just scoff.

3. Add it to the Bullet Journal!

R2R2R2R2R2R:

1. The second paragraph was me questioning the role of the media, so I agree with you there.  But the San Bernadino massacre is relevant to me inasmuch as it influences policy action on terrorism, gun control, foreign policy, and other issues, since policy action by our elected representatives is relevant to me in my role as a member of a society based on self-government and republicanism.  You are right that I was not in immediate danger of being harmed by those gunmen, but if you believe that that incident reflects the potential for domestic radicalization of ordinary citizens (because of ISIS or other organizations), then that justifies the consideration of policy action.  To be sure, I would be less inclined to agree if the reporting of the incident itself increased radicalization efforts, but that's a cost-benefit analysis that I hope that the media would consider.  Also, I would not agree if the cause of the shooting was less relevant to policy considerations.  And I acknowledge that almost any incident could have policy implications, but given the current debates about dealing with Syrian refugees, how and whether to intervene in Syria, the efficacy of domestic surveillance programs, etc., there seems to be a clear policy angle here.

The policy angle would not exist in your hypothetical regarding the Chinese miners.  The policy angle may not even exist in the case of a similar hypothetical event regarding American miners (to the extent that, say, the mine accident was really just a freak accident).

I wanted to add an additional word about copycat killers.  To the extent that the media is reporting on, say, serial killers, I think the concern for copycat killers outweighs any potential newsworthiness outside of the local area in which the murders are happening, and even then it would be close.  To the extent that the news media needed to report in order to warn people to stay on high alert for a suspect - or if the media wanted to warn about his modus operandi in order to protect, say, the class of victims that was the target of the serial killer - I think there's an argument for reporting.  But if the concern is how we as a society through our elected officials should respond in the face of a growing threat of radical Islam in America, then it seems irresponsible for the media to ignore these incidents, even if I would agree that the manner in which they report these stories should change (i.e., de-emphasizing the fame- and glory-related details and focusing on the facts and narratives that relate to the policy implications).  If this leads to a greater potential for copycat killers or even publicity of the event in a manner that increases recruits, then that is the price we pay for self-government.

B