When Ronald Regan got shot, it was in an inner-city area where the nearest hospital had lots of experience with gunshot wounds. That probably made all the difference for him.

Had he been in the suburbs or Hyannisport , it might have ended much differently.

Oh. I thought you were talking about government, not society, not the public.

A reasonable mistake, since we had been talking about government, specifically, a law.

Two inapt economic metaphors for the price of one!

The mining metaphor ("extracting", like it was bauxite).

The maritime metaphor ("keeping it afloat", like it was a rowboat or an ocean liner).

Always?

That explains why all restaurants are McDonald's, all cars are Yugos, all computers are Commodore Pets, and so on.

Oh, wait. They aren't.

Speaking of traffic court, a bill in the Missouri General Assembly would limit the percentage of a municipality's revenue that could come from traffic fines (or fines in general -- I forget which). It's 12.5% in St. Louis County (where Ferguson and other ticket-heavy municipalities are), and 20% elsewhere in the state.

The governor is expected to sign it.

Uh, no. (Also, who is this "we"? The Commissariat for Personal Transportation Services?)

Some people want the better service enough to pay more for it. Some prefer something more affordable, and are willing to tolerate the lower quality, so they can spend the difference on other things. Maybe they'd rather put up with the lower quality than do without.

What's wrong with allowing diversity in this area, too?

That's refreshingly honest. The laws exist to protect jobs in that particular industry.

Despicable, but honest. Usually people bleat about how unlicensed hair-braiders (or tour guides, or interior decorators, or whatever) will cause the apocalypse, as unsuspecting customers get back-alley hair-braidings (or whatever).

But not this time. Just a flat-out claim that without government stifling competitors, they wouldn't have jobs.

Kudos to you!

Speaking of making money: if the climate models are right (or right enough) to make major economic policy changes that affect literally billions of people, a savvy person could make money off those denier rubes.

Just apply Allison's Precept, and bet them about near-future climate changes. They'll think the models are hooey, bet against them being right, be wrong (of course) and you'll not only win money, but they'll lose money. http://duckduckgo.com/?q=allis...

You ever try that?

So far, I've not found a believer in AGW who is willing to risk their own money on the validity of those climate models, but is perfectly willing to risk the chances of increased prosperity for the poorest of the world's people on their validity.

Maybe today will be different.

You should get your money back on those mind-reading lessons.

Some think that the science is flawed, and have either specific or general reasons for thinking so.

Half a century from now, or less, we may find out that AGW is as incorrect and supportable as the "scientific" proof of white supremacy.

Science marches on -- sometimes after being off-course for a while.

But I do get an occasional one for something which isn't an especially good fit. Maybe every six months or so, fortunately.

One outfit -- Craps or Job Roulette or Dice or something like that -- once sent me one based off an ancient resume that was completely off. I hadn't been even a part-time Oracle DBA in literally decades, or anything like it. (It might have been unrealistic in its geographic positioning, too.)

And yet, in the late 19th Century US, people did invest. And quite often profited.

I guess they weren't smart. Otherwise, they would have made reality match theory. ("Stupid reality.")

Usually, bi-partisan agreement means something is worse than usual. Not this time.

I'm beginning to doubt my position, now. (A little.)