text:
Category Archive: Politics & Policy
Are Immigration Restrictions Required by Individual Rights?Comments Off on Are Immigration Restrictions Required by Individual Rights?
It's not uncommon to think of immigration restrictions in terms of individuals' rights of association. In the same way that a private club has the right to select its members, the state has the right to select its residents — or so the thinking goes.
The problem with this line of reasoning is that immigration restrictions actually curtail that very same right to decide with whom citizens associate, or trade. If we take individual rights seriously, then, we should understand immigration restrictions as rights infringements.
I believe this must be our starting point in discussing the ethics of immigration restrictions. But I don't believe this should be our last word.
When is it justifiable to infringe on individual rights?
From any reasonable perspective, some rights infringements are justified in the presence of some extraordinary circumstances. We should admit, for example, that those infringements are justified, if necessary, to secure the same values those rights protect under normal circumstances. This is how many of us justify the existence of the state — it's supposed to protect individual rights. But even the least restrictive state, by its very nature, does infringe on some of our rights.
Several of the usual concerns regarding immigration don't seem to be significant enough to justify infringing on individual rights. This, of course, does not mean that we should discount their importance; we must simply weigh the cost of addressing the concerns. For example, we might believe the loss in cultural homogeneity implied by open immigration entails some real costs. Yet the alternative is to constrict people's freedom to decide where to live and work.
If we take individuals' rights seriously, this is a high moral cost to pay.
Do immigrants threaten free societies?
But those who take individual rights seriously must surely address one argument in particular. This is the argument that immigration restrictions are justified as a means of securing the sort of liberal institutions that, albeit imperfectly, have been able to prosper in those countries to which individuals want to migrate. The fear is that open immigration would somehow contribute to the erosion of such institutions, and of individual rights as a result. Immigration restrictions would then be justified by appealing to the same fundamental values to which we had appealed in our originally condemnation of them.
The 19th-century English philosophers Henry Sidgwick made this case. Sidgwick thought that the cosmopolitan ideal was the ideal of the future. As he stated in his 1919 book, The Elements of Politics, the business of the state is "to maintain order over the particular territory that historical causes have appropriated to it, but not in any way to determine who is to inhabit this territory." But he also thought that under present conditions "a large intermixture of immigrants brought up under different institutions might inevitably introduce corruption and disorder into a previously well-ordered State."
In a brief article entitled, "A Two Country Parable," James Buchanan made a similar argument, noting that "[t]he entry of an immigrant into an ongoing social-political-legal-economic order, with a defined membership, an experienced history, and a set of informal conventions, necessarily modifies the structure of 'the game' itself, the complex and ill-understood set of interpersonal and intergroup relationships that generates the pattern of results that are observed by participants." In other words, because of the fragility of ill-understood parameters which have made some countries relatively free, one can justify restrictions to the entry in an ongoing political community.
I'll put aside the question of whether these concerns have a robust empirical basis, and what exactly their implications are for the particularities of immigration policy (for example, whether general restrictions would be justified or whether they would need to apply only against members of particular political communities). Here, I only want to draw attention to an issue that is often overlooked: the importance of the mobility constraint on governments that is forgone by the establishment of immigration restrictions.
What can bandits can tell us about the relationship between immigrants and the state?
Mancur Olson's distinction between "roving" and "stationary" bandits, in his famous "Dictatorship, Democracy, and Development", is helpful in thinking about this.
- Lacking the prospect of future interactions with their victims, roving bandits will take everything from them.
- Stationary bandits, on the other hand, need to take into account how their actions affect the productive decisions of their victims. How much there will be to steal depends on how much income individuals produce. In Olson's words, the stationary bandit must become "a benefactor to those he robs."
So the state is a stationary bandit. Therefore, it levies a tax rate far from 100 percent and provides some minimal security, as well as other public goods.
Why can't we ultimately argue for immigration restrictions if we care about individual rights?
Stationary bandits are clearly preferable to roving bandits. But there's an even better option: multiple stationary bandits with roving rather than stationary victims. Under this system, victims would not to be victims for long. They would instead become clients whom those bandits must now satisfy rather than rob. Immigration restrictions protect stationary bandits (in this case, different governments) from this option.
We could then say that it's the very existence of strict immigration restrictions that currently creates the very need for massive numbers of individuals to migrate away from their homes.
This is because in the absence of such restrictions, performance declines in governance are kept in check by individuals' willingness to move. Not everybody might afford the costs of migration, but everybody is protected by those who can. This is the essence of the case made by Buchanan himself in support of federalism.
Immigration restrictions are thus best seen as a reliable mechanism to reproduce the situation to which we must appeal as a means of justifying those restrictions themselves. In some places, historical contingencies might still produce the sort of political culture and institutional setting that allow individuals to flourish in liberty. Unrestricted freedom of movement might conceivably bring the sort of challenges to those places that Sidgwick and Buchanan imagine. But we need to recognize the high moral cost of addressing those challenges through immigration restrictions: condemning millions to low hopes of securing adequate protections for their individual rights.
The health care shell game: Why not leave health care policy to the states?Comments Off on The health care shell game: Why not leave health care policy to the states?
Recent arguments against cutting federal health care spending — and letting states handle insurance regulation — reveal just how unaffordable the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) is.
Law professor and Incidental Economist contributor Nicholas Bagley, reconstructing the arguments of the moderate Republican Tuesday Group, says that "it's fine to give the states more authority to oversee their insurance markets," but the states "don't have the fiscal capacity to finance massive coverage expansions on their own."
They're required to balance their budgets every year, so any commitment to covering the uninsured will throttle their budgets when the next downturn comes.…
The states thus need federal money; it's the lifeblood of health reform. And the real cleavage among Republicans is over how much money the federal government is willing to shell out. The Freedom Caucus wants to repeal the ACA's taxes on industry and the wealthy, financing them with savage cuts to Medicaid and slightly less savage cuts to individual-market subsidies. The Tuesday Group likes the tax relief, but worries about the coverage losses associated with all the cuts.
State Budget Requirements
The case against letting the states fund Medicaid expansion on their own is that they have to run balanced budgets. But wait, I thought the Affordable Care Act actually reduced the deficit! That was, after all, the assertion of the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation in 2013.
So if federal ACA spending were cut or even zeroed out, why couldn't states that like the legislation simply reinstate the same taxes and spending that the federal government currently uses under the law? If the net budgetary impact of the health care law really is zero, there is no inconsistency with state balanced-budget requirements.
What's more, most states don't have strong constitutional requirements that they actually run balanced budgets at the end of the fiscal year. More often, they just have statutory requirements that balanced budgets must be enacted — or even merely proposed — at the beginning of the fiscal year. Most states run balanced budgets because they want to, not because they are required to by law.
Federal and State Spending Constraints
Having the federal government pay states to run programs is just a complicated shell game — the states aren't really winning if the federal government pays for the programs, because the federal government ultimately gets that money from taxpayers living in the states.
Now, perhaps Bagley's response would be something like this: The ACA generally reduces the deficit, but there might be some years when its taxes bring in less than expected, and states would be tempted to cut spending in those years. The federal government doesn't face the same constraint.
To this possible response, there are two counterarguments.
First, the federal government faces a stricter constraint than the states in one crucial respect: its total debt burden is much larger. Federal debt is already greater than 100% of GDP, leading to higher interest costs and crowding out private investment. Expanding the debt even further would only exacerbate these serious problems.
State and local debt is much lower, at about 16% of GDP. State and local governments are much more fiscally responsible than the federal government, and that's precisely what gives them room to spend if there's a good reason for it.
Second, states have a ready mechanism to deal with economic downturns and sudden revenue shortfalls: rainy day funds. States accumulate surpluses in good years and then use the saved funds to smooth out spending in bad years. Spending out of a rainy day fund violates no balanced-budget rules.
Desire vs. Ability
In short, state balanced-budget rules provide no good reason why states couldn't fund health care spending on their own. Perhaps ACA supporters truly worry that states wouldn't want to fund massive health-care programs, because states want to keep taxes low. (Even Vermont realized that it didn't really want single-payer health care when it recognized the price tag.)
But isn't this demand for hiding the costs of the ACA almost tantamount to admitting that the ACA isn't good policy?
US Economic History 3 — National Banks' Rise and FallLeave a Comment
Does a national bank make the US economy more stable or more chaotic? Video created with the Bill of Rights Institute to help students ace their exams.
This is the third video in a series of nine with Professor Brian Domitrovic, which aim to be a resource for students studying for US History exams and to provide a survey of different (and sometimes opposing) viewpoints on key episodes in U.S. economic history. How do you think we did?
Highlights from our Reddit AMA with Professor Lauren HallComments Off on Highlights from our Reddit AMA with Professor Lauren Hall
If you missed the Reddit AMA with Professor Lauren Hall last week, fear not! We've taken the liberty of compiling some of the highlights for your viewing pleasure. You can check out the whole thing here.
Dr. Hall is associate professor of political science at Rochester Institute of Technology. She is the author of Family and the Politics of Moderation (Baylor University Press, 2014), regular contributor to the Learn Liberty Blog, and has appeared on Learn Liberty in Choice and Change: How to Close the Gender Gap and Bridging the Gender Gap: The Problems with Parental Leave.
Dan Carlin — What Is Military Keynesianism?Leave a Comment
- Military Keynesianism tries to create and save American jobs through gigantic defense spending, says "political martian" Dan Carlin. Watch the full interview
Quietly creating freedom: Private communities and special economic zonesComments Off on Quietly creating freedom: Private communities and special economic zones
For the last several centuries, nation-states have dominated the political landscape, and set all the rules for everyone inside them.
But now two kinds of special jurisdictions — private communities and "Special Economic Zones" — are quietly taking over functions and providing options that traditional polities cannot or will not. This gentle revolution has already brought comparative wealth and better living to millions of people — perhaps including you.
Special Economic Zones
In a Special Economic Zone (SEZ), a government creates exceptions to its own rules — a select haven from the status quo that prevails elsewhere in the national territory. The goal, says the World Bank, is to create a "business environment that is intended to be more liberal from a policy perspective and more effective from an administrative perspective than that of the national territory."
Learn More: New anti-Airbnb law protects hotels from competition (and violates private property and freedom of exchange)
Modern SEZs come in many types and sizes. One might offer nothing more than duty-free warehousing of goods in transit, while another might provide an alternative governance regime for an entire metropolitan area.
Though not SEZs in the modern sense, zones governed by special rules have existed almost as long as government itself. These special jurisdictions have coevolved with the nation-state, usually cooperating, but sometimes competing with it. Although they were pushed into decline for centuries, special jurisdictions never died out, and in recent decades they have enjoyed renewed vigor.
The antecedents of modern SEZs date from 166 BCE, when Roman authorities made the island of Delos a free port, exempting traders from the usual taxes in order to stimulate local commerce. The Hanseatic League, a confederation of trading cities chartered and loosely governed by the Holy Roman Empire, effectively ruled northern Europe from around 1200 to 1600 CE, hunting down pirates and defeating kings in battle. These proto-SEZs, like primitive mammals, had real bite.
Early types of special economic zones next appeared among many various and far-flung European colonial outposts, formed as quasi-sovereign sub-governments and typically granted unique trading privileges. Examples include Macau (founded in 1557), Hong Kong (1842), and over 80 treaty ports established throughout China from the mid-1800s onward.
After the Enlightenment-era explosion of these special jurisdictions, the nation-state began its rise. From the Napoleonic Empire, through two world wars, to the collapse of the communist regimes, it ruled the globe.
Pushed to the margins, SEZs reached their nadir somewhere around 1900, when the world had only about 11 free ports. SEZs seemed headed for extinction.
Why SEZs Came Back
What brought SEZs back from the brink? The United States should get some of the credit.
Its Foreign Trade Zone (FTZ) program, launched in 1934, offered special exemptions from federal excise taxes and duties. This proved convenient for those who, legally speaking, wanted to be within the jurisdiction of the United States while remaining outside its customs territory. The United States boosted SEZs again in 1948, when Operation Bootstrap made Puerto Rico a free trade zone for U.S. companies engaged not just in trade, the traditional focus of FTZs, but also production.
Despite those precedents, most commentators date the modern SEZ movement from the industrial free zone established in Shannon, Ireland, in 1959. That early example certainly did seem to set off a wave of similar innovations. Since about the mid-1980s, "the number of newly established zones has grown rapidly in almost all regions, with dramatic growth in developing countries." Today's most populous nation-state, China, has proved especially prolific, going from 0 special jurisdictions in 1980 to at least 295 today. About 75% of the world's countries now host SEZs, which number at least 4,000 and perhaps (if you count all the many single-factory zones) nearly 10,000.
Private Communities
The sorts of special jurisdictions closest to everyday people — common interest developments — have become increasingly popular both in the United States and worldwide. In the United States, these take the forms of homeowners' associations, condominium associations, and cooperative residential communities. Residents have flocked to these private "common interest communities" in recent decades.
The popularity of common interest communities appears not only in the number of people living in them, as graphed above, but also in their growing size and sophistication. Many common interest developments have grown to the size of small cities.
Their residents entrust these private communities to provide nearly every service otherwise available from a traditional political municipality. The largest cooperative residential corporation in the United States, Bronx's Co-Op City, houses more than 50,000 shareholder-tenants. Their mutually owned private corporation provides them with utilities, roads, stores, offices, schools, parks, security, and more.
Highland Ranch, Colorado, evidently the largest homeowner association (HOA) in the United States, boasts of almost 100,000 residents and 31,000 households on 22,000 acres. Highland Ranch also hosts nearly 1,000 businesses, which employ more than 6,800 people; 19 elementary schools, 4 middle schools, 5 high schools, and numerous daycare facilities; several medical facilities; places of worship serving a variety of faiths; and 70 miles of paved and natural trails, 20 parks, two 18-hole golf courses, and an 8,200-acre backcountry wilderness area. In everything but origin and legal status, these resemble conventional mid-sized cities.
The success of private communities shows the popular support enjoyed by this very local kind of special jurisdiction.
Pragmatic Advancements
Further up, so to speak, at the level of SEZs, official support and encouragement become more common. Even when they reach to the highest level of government, though, the roots of special jurisdictions reach back down to the real world.
Devotion to theory has not characterized the development of special jurisdictions, which governments have instead adopted largely ad hoc. Extemporizing and learning from experience has driven the largest and arguably most successful field test of special jurisdictions: China during the last several decades.
Learning from the success of the Crown Colony of Hong Kong, itself a historical accident, the Chinese government began in the 1980s to try (or at least allow) a wild profusion of SEZs. Officials did so not pursuant to theory but (silently) in spite of it, and described their policy as "crossing the river by groping for stones." This intensely pragmatic, theory-free approach seems to have worked in China. Hundreds of millions of people have escaped poverty in Chinese SEZs.
It also bears noting that, thanks to the spread of privately developed and managed special jurisdictions, SEZs increasingly escape the charge that they can thrive only thanks to top-down subsidies. These days, special jurisdictions happen only if and when private investors fund them. That sort of objective oversight helps to ensure that special jurisdictions, far from floating on clouds of theory, have a solid grounding in the real world.
The astonishing growth in SEZs qualifies as a revolution of sorts, but not the usual, political kind. Instead of being imposed by domestic or foreign enemies, this revolution has come from within, allowed or even encouraged by existing authorities.
Instead of descending from the rarified theories of armchair radicals like Karl Marx, it rises from the bottom up, expressed in the everyday choices of everyday people. The same effect appears at smaller scales, in the proprietary communities that increasingly supplant politically-run municipalities. Instead of merely plugging a few new politicians into the same old offices, SEZs, private communities, and other special jurisdictions have the power to quietly and gently transform governments across the globe.
For more about the revolution quietly transforming governments bottom-up, inside-out, worldwide, look for Professor Bell's forthcoming book, "Your Next Government? From the Nation State to Stateless Nations" (Cambridge University Press).
Are Americans getting too much healthcare?Comments Off on Are Americans getting too much healthcare?
During policy debates on healthcare most people assume that more healthcare leads to better outcomes. What if that assumption is false?
In a 2010 essay in the Atlantic, Myth Diagnosis, Megan McArdle cites research by Richard Kronick of the Department of Family and Preventive Medicine at the University of California at San Diego. Kronick found that even when a "disease was particularly amenable to early intervention" there was no "significantly elevated risk of death among the uninsured."
Dr. Atul Gawande writes in his essay "The Cost Conundrum," "Americans like to believe that, as with most things, more is better. But research suggests that where medicine is concerned, more may actually be worse." Among other things, Dr. Gawande summarizes findings of Dartmouth's Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, which examined "regional patterns in Medicare payment data."
Two economists working at Dartmouth, Katherine Baicker and Amitabh Chandra, found that the more money Medicare spent per person in a given state the lower that state's quality ranking tended to be.
Another Dartmouth team … examined the treatment received by a million elderly Americans diagnosed with colon or rectal cancer, a hip fracture, or a heart attack. They found that patients in higher-spending regions received sixty per cent more care than elsewhere … Yet they did no better than other patients, whether this was measured in terms of survival, their ability to function, or satisfaction with the care they received. If anything, they seemed to do worse.
Consider one specific procedure: the common heart catheterization. According to Shannon Brownlee's book Overtreated, there are more than 2 million heart catheterization procedures performed in the United States each year. Well over 50% are elective procedures; the patient has symptoms but is not in immediate danger of dying. Brownlee writes that the research suggests "the vast majority of elective cardiac procedures are no more effective at preventing heart attacks and death than medical management, which involves giving patients drugs and counseling."
A stent is often placed during catheterizations. Dr. David L. Brown, a professor of cardiology at Washington University's School of Medicine in St. Louis, is unequivocal about the value of a stent: "Nobody that's not having a heart attack needs a stent." Brown is the coauthor of a journal article that examined "every randomized clinical trial that compared stent implantation with more conservative forms of treatment." The paper found "that stents for stable patients prevent zero heart attacks and extend the lives of patients a grand total of not at all."
How can that be? Well, the cardiovascular system is more complicated than unblocking a clogged sink. Dietary changes, exercise programs, and medication can be more effective than stent surgery. Yet, doctors often resist taking these routes to treatment.
Examining the efficacy of other procedures too, David Epstein and Propublica observe that despite the wonders of modern medicine, "it is distressingly ordinary for patients to get treatments that research has shown are ineffective or even dangerous."
Why does overtreatment systemically occur?
Milton Friedman was a long-time critic of the distortions caused by the tax exemption for employer-provided medical insurance. In his 2001 essay "How to Cure Health Care" Friedman explained succinctly one reason why there can be both excessive spending on medical care and dissatisfaction with the results: "Nobody spends somebody else's money as wisely or as frugally as he spends his own."
When we utilize healthcare, most of us are spending someone else's money: the insurance company's, the taxpayer's, or our employer's. In all, as the Cato Institute's Daniel Mitchell points out, "Consumers are now paying only 10.5 percent of health care costs." Under these circumstances, Friedman observes, "The patient — the recipient of the medical care — has little or no incentive to be concerned about the cost."
Would you be more concerned about the efficacy of a treatment if you were spending your own money? Would you think twice about undergoing an expensive test? Would you be more interested in prevention in the form of dietary and lifestyle changes?
Imagine that employers provided tax exempt automobile maintenance insurance as a job benefit. Further imagine, as with many health insurance policies, the auto "insurance" benefit covered both routine expenditures like oil changes, and large unexpected expenditures like body repair after a crash. We can be certain that the automobile maintenance markets would be radically different.
With someone else paying, the incentive for car owners to take responsibility for auto maintenance is reduced. Would car owners learn basic automobile maintenance if expenses caused by ignorance were covered by insurance? If automobile insurance paid for new tires, how often would car owners rotate their tires? Suppose an engine seized up because of lack of oil and the insurance simply paid for a new engine. How often would car owners check and change oil?
With reduced consumer responsibility, automobile expenditures would explode. All well and good, if you are a provider of tires, engines, and automobiles. — but not so good for the rest of the economy.
Health insurance operates unlike other insurances. As Friedman points out, "We generally rely on insurance to protect us against events that are highly unlikely to occur but that involve large losses if they do occur — major catastrophes, not minor, regularly recurring expenses."
"We have become so accustomed to employer-provided medical care," writes Friedman, "that we regard it as part of the natural order." Friedman asks pointedly:
Why single out medical care? Food is more essential to life than medical care. Why not exempt the cost of food from taxes if provided by the employer? Why not return to the much-reviled company store when workers were in effect paid in kind rather than in cash?
In 2016 the healthcare industry spent over $3 billion dollars lobbying. Given the rewards under the current system of heavy government involvement in healthcare, we can understand why the healthcare industry spends far more on lobbying than any other industry. Their interests are not the consumers' interests.
If healthcare was financed by the consumer directly, the problem of overtreatment would diminish greatly. Healthcare expenditures and prices for healthcare would likely fall. Would the nation's health improve too?
Don't raise Uncle Sam's credit limitComments Off on Don't raise Uncle Sam's credit limit
Once again, the United States government is rapidly approaching a fiscal debt ceiling. After March 16, 2017, Uncle Sam is not legally allowed to borrow any more money to cover its budget deficits, unless Congress votes to raise the debt limit like it has every time in the past.
Uncle Sam's debt has been growing at a frightening rate over the last several decades. It took almost two hundred years, from around 1790, when the government of the United States was established, to 1980 for the federal government to accumulate $1 trillion of debt through deficit spending.
In the twenty-year period, 1980 to 2000, that national debt grew to $5 trillion. Then during the eight years of George W. Bush's Republican Administration from 2001 to 2009, the debt doubled to around $10 trillion. And over the eight years of Barack Obama's Democratic Administration, the national debt doubled, once more, to just short of $20 trillion.
The Taxpayer Cost of the National Debt
United States Gross Domestic Product – the market value of all final goods and services produced during a year –is estimated to have been about $18.6 trillion in 2016. That means if the American people were to devote last year's entire national income to paying off the federal government's accumulated debt, it would still fall short by nearly $1.5 trillion dollars!
With an estimated population of around 325 million people at the end of 2016, the per capita financial burden of the national debt comes to around $61,550 per person in the United States. About half of the U.S. population submits and pays some amount of tax to the federal government. This means that the per capita burden of the national debt for those submitting and paying federal taxes is almost $123,500 per taxpayer.
Of course, in reality, many pay no or little net taxes to the federal government, while others pay far more. But this number at least gives a sense of what it would cost each of us, on average, if we were to try to pay off the national debt in one lump payment.
The Debt Limit and Short-Term Fiscal Tricks
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) recently issued a report on "Federal Debt and the Statutory Limit, March 2017." The report reminds us that Congress passed the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 that temporarily lifted any limit on how much the federal government could borrow and add to the national debt until March 15, 2017, which is, now, just around the corner.
After that date, whatever has been added to the national debt up to that time becomes the new legal debt ceiling, which will be at or very close to that $20 trillion mark. Anything beyond this amount will require Congressional approval with a new, higher ceiling on government borrowing.
The CBO also points out that, as with earlier administrations that have reached that lawful limit without an immediate Congressional approval of a higher number, the Secretary of the Treasury has a variety of short-run smoke-and-mirror tricks to keep spending by playing games with several internal government financial accounts. In other words, the Treasury Department can "juggle the books," adding to the net debt through ledger book subterfuge and then make good on what has been manipulated out of the higher debt ceiling passed by Congress.
The Congressional Budget Office suggests that the available leeway to get away with this could allow the federal government to keep spending beyond taxes collected for several months before a real hard limit would be reached, after which there would no more room for such financial games unless the Congress increases the debt limit.
Uncle Sam's Future Red Ink Has No End
Government and its spending are out of control. In its January 2017 long-run "Budget and Economic Outlook" report covering the next ten years, the CBO estimates that continuing, and indeed, rising annual budget deficits between 2017 and 2027 will likely bring the federal government's overall debt to at least a total of $30 trillion, or a 50 percent increase in the national debt in ten years or less. Those $1 trillion-a-year deficits experienced in the early years of Obama's presidency, the CBO projects, will be back starting in 2023 and thereafter.
This, of course, presumes that the estimates for government revenues and expenditures made by the CBO for the next decade turn out to be correct. But if anything has a relatively high degree of certainty, it is that government ends up spending more than originally projected and planned. So the deficits and debt estimates can easily turn out to be on the low side by the time we reach 2027.
Uncle Sam's budgetary excesses are being fed, more than by anything else, by the "entitlement" programs, especially Social Security and Medicare spending. According to the Office of Management and Budget, in the current federal budget for fiscal year 2017 (that runs from October 1, 2016 to September 30, 2017), Social Security and related programs will consume 36 percent of federal expenditures; Medicare and other health programs will eat up an additional 28 percent; and net interest on the federal debt will absorb 7 percent.
These two general redistributive categories make up over two-thirds of all federal government spending. And when net interest on the national debt is added, this comes to over 70 percent of all federal expenditures. The Social Security Administration spending in the current fiscal year will be around $908 billion, while expenditures by the Department of Health and Human Resources will come in at over $1 trillion.
Classical liberals and libertarians may well consider that the United States government spends too much on defense and its military interventions in various parts of the world, spending that many friends of freedom may view as unnecessary and misplaced, but the Defense Department's planned $516 billion spending in the current fiscal year, nonetheless, makes up only approximately 15 percent of overall federal budget. A lot of wasted money, no doubt, but right now it is not defense spending, per se, that is driving this growth in the size and scope of government.
Yet, the new Trump Administration, like virtually all other administrations before it, has insisted that Social Security and Medicare and related expenditures remain sacrosanct – untouchable by any budget cutter's pen. Plus, the Republican majority leadership in Congress, already unwilling to repeal ObamaCare without putting in its place the GOP's "moderate-conservative" variation on the national health insurance theme, clearly has no intention of challenging two of the core programs of the American welfare state. (See my article, "For Healthcare the Best Government Plan is No Plan.")
If the President and the Treasury keep asking for increases in the national debt limit, and if Congress, in turn, after handwringing and gnashing of teeth about fiscal irresponsibility, continues to raise that debt limit there will clearly be no end to deficit spending.
A Frozen Debt Limit Means a Balanced Budget
But there is a simple and straightforward way to bring the fiscal hemorrhaging to an end. Don't raise the debt limit. In one legislative act, in this case, a non-action, the federal government will have to operate within the confines of a balanced budget.
With no increase in the debt limit, the Federal government will be legally restrained to spend only what it takes in in taxes and other revenue sources. This, in itself, makes the case for not increasing the debt limit very appealing.
Of course, this would mean that the government could not cover a part of those expenditures that it has contracted or legislatively committed itself to in previous years. This is what normally generates most of the outcry about needing to raise the debt limit.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that in the federal government's fiscal year, 2017, Uncle Sam will spend a total of nearly $3.96 trillion and collect in taxes about $3.4 trillion, leaving a budget deficit in the neighborhood of $560 billion.
To stay within the current statutory budget limit during this fiscal year, all that the federal government would need to do is to cut spending across the board by about 14 percent. Given the mismanagement and waste that virtually everyone admits goes in every bureau, agency, and department run by the federal government, a 14 percent "trimming" does not threaten (some might say, unfortunately) any of that "cutting to the bone" that the budget busters among both Democrats and Republicans constantly warn about.
Either You Spend Your Money or Government Does
But we should also realize that if the government is prevented from any more borrowing, it would become crystal clear that the government does not possess an unlimited financial horn-of-plenty from which to satisfy every conceivable ideological and special interest demand for which an appeal is made to Washington.
If any of these demands for government spending above what can be covered by current government revenues were to be satisfied, it would then compel politicians and bureaucrats to tell the American public that which they avoid admitting like the plague: there is an inescapable trade-off between the people spending their own money and government taxing it away and spending it instead.
In other words, no longer could there be the illusion of a "free lunch," in which the federal government makes it seem that something can be had for nothing, or at less than its real full cost. Every additional dollar of higher government spending above what is currently collected in taxes would require one less dollar left in the hands of private citizens who had produced and earned it because that extra dollar of government spending would require an extra dollar of taxes taken out of the taxpayer's pocket. (See my article, "Why Government Deficits and Debt Do Matter.")
This would require the citizens and the taxpayers of the United States to ask themselves exactly what it is they want the government to spend money on, and for which they will have to make the hard choice to have less money in their own pockets to pay for it.
In other words, the American people would be reminded that there is a thing called "scarcity," that the resources and financial means to obtain all that we would like to have is limited and insufficient relative to our wants and demands for things.
Balancing the Budget Means Accepting Trade-Offs
We each make such trade-offs and hard choices in our own personal, daily lives. Out of our take-home pay we decide whether we are willing to sacrifice going on that desirable but more expensive vacation so to put more money in our savings account to have the means to repair the roof on our home or to have more money put aside to pay for our child's education when they are ready to go off to college.
Or if we put that new flat-screen television on our credit card, we know it may mean planning to go out to dinner less frequently for a while, since our monthly payment will be higher while we are paying it off, including more interest on that borrowed money.
A balanced budget for the government means having to prioritize what it can afford to spend, and on what – just like you and me.
Would the burden of cuts have to fall on "discretionary" government spending – including defense – if "entitlements" remain off the table? Yes, but that in itself would impose hard thinking on the American people as to whether they are willing to face the fact that it is the entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare, and whatever may replace ObamaCare that are sucking up the greatest amount of what the government takes in as taxes now and will be even more so in the future.
Deciding on the Role of Government in Society
The American citizenry would be forced to look at themselves in the mirror, and ask whether they are willing to pay the higher taxes to cover these rising entitlement costs, or whether they are finally going to accept the fact that real entitlement reform must be undertaken – including ending government responsibility and involvement in people's retirement and health care costs altogether through full privatization and real free market alternatives. (See my article, "There is No Social Security Santa Claus," on the coming fall of Social Security under current legislation, and a market-based policy for its full repeal.)
These are tough choices, given the increasingly embedded psychology of paternalistic government dependency, and the politics of trying to live at other people's tax expense for things we want the government to do for us.
But either we face this reality and reevaluate the role of government in society or we go on "busting the budget" with continuing deficit spending, growing the national debt, and inviting potential financial ruin for ourselves and our posterity.
The inescapable choice is ours.
Bryan Caplan: Is immigration a basic human right?Comments Off on Bryan Caplan: Is immigration a basic human right?
Editors Note: On March 16th George Mason University Professor of Economics Bryan Caplan debated Washington University Professor of Philosophy Christopher Wellman on the topic, "Is Immigration a Basic Human Right?" Below is Professor Caplan's opening statement.
There are many complaints about governments, but the harshest is, "This government grossly violates human rights." The background assumption is that human beings have rights that everyone – including governments – is morally obliged to respect. When looking at the grossest violators – Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Maoist China – almost no one denies the validity of the idea of human rights. But then you have to wonder: Do the governments we know, accept, and even love have clean hands? Or do they violate human rights, too?
To answer, we normally apply a simple test: If an individual treated other people the same way the government does, would he clearly be a horrible criminal? If an individual deliberately kills innocent people, he's a murderer; if an individual imprisons innocent people, he's a kidnapper. A government that does the same violates basic human rights – and it can't justify its actions by calling innocent people "criminals." If someone is peacefully living his life, he's innocent – whatever the government says.
What does this have to do with immigration? Lots. Since we're in San Diego, we've seen illegal immigrants. What are the vast majority of them doing? Working for willing employers. Renting apartments from willing landlords. Buying stuff from willing merchants. Sending money home to their families. Maybe even sitting next to you in class. They sure look innocent – even admirable. But the U.S. government can and does forcibly arrest and exile them to the Third World. Why can't they all just come legally? Because exile is the default; they're all exiled unless the U.S. government makes a rare exception. This is far less bad than killing or imprisoning them, but it sure looks like a severe human rights violation. If the U.S. government forbade you to live and work here, wouldn't that be a severe violation of your human rights?
You could reasonably object that human rights are not absolute. While there's a strong moral presumption against killing, imprisoning, or exiling innocent people, it's okay to do so if the overall consequences of respecting human rights are clearly awful. The main problem with this objection is that when social scientists measure the overall consequences of immigration, they're not clearly awful. In fact, the overall consequences look totally awesome. Most notably, standard economic estimates say that letting all the world's talent flow to wherever it's most productive would roughly DOUBLE global prosperity. That's an extra $75 TRILLION of extra wealth per year. How is this possible? Because even the world's lowest-skill workers produce far more in the First World than they do at home. Even if all other fears about immigration were bulletproof – which they aren't – they're dwarfed by this gargantuan economic gain. This isn't trickle-down economics; it's Niagara Falls economics.
To effectively defend immigration restrictions, then, saying "Human rights are not absolute" is insufficient. You need to flatly deny that immigration is a human right – to say that while the illegal immigrants you meet on the street may look innocent, they're actually guilty as hell. The most popular argument analogizes illegal immigrants to trespassers. No one has any right to be here without government permission; it's our country, so we set the rules.
The obvious problem with this position is that it justifies a vast range of blatant human rights abuses. If it's our country and we set the rules, why can't we exile citizens, too? Why can't we imprison people for saying the wrong thing, practicing the wrong religion, or having kids without government permission? Saying, "That won't happen," dodges the question: If the U.S. government did this to you, would it be violating your human rights or not?
Prof. Wellman offers a more sophisticated version of this story. He defends immigration restrictions for "legitimate states" only, on the grounds that immigration restrictions are vital for "freedom of association." Unfortunately, we have two conflicting freedoms of association. I want to be free to associate with foreigners; lots of foreigners want to associate with me. Immigration restrictions deny us this freedom in the name of all the Americans who don't want my associates breathing American air.
Who should prevail? In his work, Wellman concedes a crucial premise, freely admitting that the popular notion that we all consent to government is a "fiction," and that "the coercion states invariably employ is nonconsensual and, as such, is extremely difficult to justify." We don't really face a choice between two freedoms of association, but between freedom for real associations we choose to join and freedom for fictional "associations" we're forced to join. Unless the overall consequences are clearly awful, the fictional ones should lose. Freedom of association is only for free associations.
My critics often tease me, "Should everyone on Earth be free to immigrate into Bryan's house?" Their point: Treating immigration as a human right is utopian nonsense. My reply: There are three competing moral positions on immigration.
- Foreigners should be free to live in my house even if I don't consent – a view held by almost no one.
- Foreigners should be free to live in my house if I consent – my view.
- Foreigners shouldn't be free to live in my house even if I do consent – the standard view I'm criticizing.
Far from being utopian, saying "Immigration is a human right" is just the moderate, common-sense position that when natives and foreigners voluntarily interact, strangers are morally obliged to leave them alone unless the overall consequences are clearly awful. Even if the stranger happens to be the government – and the government happens to be popular.
Women work for equality — but these 3 policy ideas don'tComments Off on Women work for equality — but these 3 policy ideas don't
As we wrap up Women's History Month, it's worthwhile discussing some of the major policy proposals intended to help women enter and stay in the workforce on levels equal to men.
Many of these proposals are meant to address (1) the wage gap between men and women, (2) the lack of mandated maternity leave, and (3) the high cost of child care. All three of these issues can operate together to make it more financially sensible for women to stay at home after they give birth.
But these supposedly woman-friendly policy proposals misunderstand women's working lives and women's choices. And some of these policies, while they may help middle-class women, are likely to hurt the most vulnerable women in the workforce — those who work low-skilled, low wage jobs.
1. The Wage Gap
Let's start with equal pay. There's been a lot of good libertarian work on the wage gap, so I'll just link to some of that rather than laying it all out here. Suffice it to say, the actual gap itself is much smaller than the figure of 77 cents for every dollar that is often thrown around in the media.
Moreover, the causes of the actual gap are complicated. Some of it may very well be due to discriminatory policies or unconscious bias on the part of employers. But studies have shown that some of it has to do with women being less likely to ask for raises, as well as what they ask for when they do.
Women frequently choose to focus on other things in their negotiations with employers, including more flex time, the ability to work from home, and better benefits. Finally, the biggest reason for the gap in earnings between men and women has to do with larger decisions about what kinds of fields they enter (women are more likely to enter human services fields, which pay less than STEM fields, where women are more rare) as well as how much they work when they get there. Women are more likely to work part time, particularly when children are young.
Put together, the wage gap seems less the result of deliberate discrimination by employers and more a case of women as competent economic thinkers who are trying to balance work, life, and family. That more women make these tradeoffs than men is significant, but may also be changing as more men choose to stay home and take care of children.
Given that women's share of higher education has been growing dramatically and that they are poised to take over large areas of law, medicine, and other professional fields, we may well see a similar shift in male negotiating tactics in the future.
2. Mandatory Maternity Leave
Another major policy being floated is mandated maternity leave. The problem with this solution is not, as in the case of the wage gap, that it doesn't solve a real problem. In fact, lack of maternity leave affects breastfeeding rates, postpartum depression rates, and infant outcomes.
Instead, the problem with mandating maternity leave is that maternity leave itself leads to other kinds of unintended consequences for women. Research from Pew shows that countries with the most generous maternity leave policies also have the largest wage gaps between men and women. Taking 10 months to a year off at a time does not place one in the best position for promotions or raises, after all.
But perhaps most damaging is that mandated maternity leave harms the very women who have the most to lose — unskilled workers. Companies who hire highly trained and skilled women may see generous maternity leave policies as a way to attract highly qualified women who will stick around much longer than their leave, more than making up for their temporary absence.
Unskilled workers do not have those same benefits to offer. Their work is largely interchangeable, characterized by high turnover, and employers do not compete for such workers the way they compete for skilled laborers. Mandatory maternity leave means, not better options for low-skilled women, but rather an increase in discrimination and bias against women, particularly low-skilled women, in their childbearing years. Employers will simply shift their focus to men and older women, who they won't have to risk paying while on leave or training replacements.
3. Subsidized Child Care
A final piece of the agenda for working women is lowering child-care costs by providing state-sponsored subsidies to allow both parents to work outside the home. Child care costs have been soaring of late, and most families, particularly those with one partner who earns a lower wage, may find that the most sensible financial plan is for the lower-wage partner to stay home with children. Since the lower-wage earner is still more likely to be female, many women choose to stay home for economic reasons, even when they would rather be working.
The problem with subsidizing child care with government money is that it fails to pay attention to why child care is so expensive in the first place. Research by the economists Diana Weinert Thomas and Devon Gorry found that as much as 20% of child care costs could be linked to regulations that add neither safety nor quality to child care. These regulations included the requirement for child care workers to have high school or college degrees, which is shown to add considerably to costs but does not contribute at all to either safety or quality of care. Yet encouraging more college graduates to choose employment at child care facilities is part of Senator Gillibrand's agenda for working mothers.
Such a plan would provide tax credits to college graduates who go into child care work. The result would actually increase the cost of care overall, rather than helping families afford child care. Instead of encouraging people with costly undergraduate educations to take jobs as daycare workers, why not take a hard look at the regulations daycares face and eliminate the ones that don't help anyone except the regulators?
It's a trap!
This Women's History Month, let's avoid the trap of looking at women's equality as a problem that only politicians can solve. Let's look instead at women's issues as the result of a complex series of choices women and men make, choices that are dynamic and where incentives are changing even as I write.
There are, of course, very real barriers to women's equality out there, but let's not forget how often these take the form of government policies like higher tax rates on second earners and restrictive occupational licensing laws that prevent women from entering the workforce.
Before we start adding more government policies on top of other problematic government policies, let's take a hard look at how government restricts women's choices. Whatever we do, let's not pass laws and policies that help middle and upper class women out at the expense of the most vulnerable women. To do that is to place the biggest burden of inequality on those who are the least able to shoulder it.
Entitlements driving Washington to trillion-dollar deficitsComments Off on Entitlements driving Washington to trillion-dollar deficits
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) recently released the "The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2017 to 2027." This annual report provides the federal government's most comprehensive analysis of the current state of federal spending, taxes, and debt. It also provides a framework within which to analyze the President's budget proposal and upcoming Congressional legislation. The news is not good.
CBO projects that tax revenues over the next decade – 18.1 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) – will exceed all other ten-year periods in American history outside of the 1990s. Yet spending will surge to 23.4 percent of GDP in a decade, resulting in a 2027 deficit of $1.4 trillion.
A decade from now, rising entitlement spending and interest on the national debt will consume 99 percent of tax revenues – forcing virtually the entire discretionary spending budget to be financed on the nation's credit card.
Over the next decade, the national debt is projected to rise from $20 trillion to $30 trillion, and reach 107 percent of GDP for the first time since World War II.
Between 2009 and 2015, the deficit declined due to sequestration cuts, a modest economic recovery, and tax hikes. The deficit began increasing again last year, and – driven by entitlements and net interest costs – is projected to reach $1 trillion by 2023.
Washington will spend $31,154 per household this year. Federal spending is projected to jump another $5,800 per household over the next decade (adjusted for inflation).
Social Security, health entitlements, and net interest costs are responsible for $2.1 trillion of the $2.6 trillion growth in projected federal spending over the next decade. These items comprise 57 percent of current spending, yet will account for 82 percent of all new spending over the next decade.
Net interest costs – $241 billion in 2016 – are projected to reach $768 billion by 2027. And even that assumes interest rates remain far below historic norms. Rising interest rates would push budget deficits over $2 trillion within a decade.
Individual income tax revenues are projected to reach 9.7 percent of GDP in 2027 – the highest level in American history outside of bubble-inflated 2000.
The budget deficit predictably fell from its 2009 peak because the recession ended, taxes were increased, discretionary spending was capped, and low interest rates limited the net interest costs on new debt. However, over the next decade, sharply rising Social Security and heath care spending, higher interest rates on the national debt, and sluggish economic growth are projected to bring back trillion-dollar deficits. Lawmakers will face difficult decisions to rein in this spending and debt, and to ensure economic prosperity.
For full report click here.
Brian Riedl is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. Follow him on twitter @Brian_Riedl.
Supposed FBI investigations into refugees shouldn't scare youComments Off on Supposed FBI investigations into refugees shouldn't scare you
This past Monday, President Trump released a new executive order shutting down the refugee program for 120 days and banning immigration from six majority-Muslim countries for 90 days. President Trump attempted to justify these changes by stating in part that:
The Attorney General has reported to me that more than 300 persons who entered the United States as refugees are currently the subjects of counterterrorism investigations by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
The government has refused to provide any additional details about these cases, but an investigation should not be seen as implying guilt. Almost all FBI terrorism investigations do not end with a terrorism conviction. Indeed, the numbers predict that of these 300 refugee investigations, only 1 will turn into a terrorism conviction and that conviction will not be for planning an attack against the United States. This claim about the FBI investigating refugees has turned out to be a groundless smear in the past, and history has shown that refugees have been less likely than others to commit acts of terrorism against the United States.
These 300 represent less than 0.009 percent of all refugees admitted since 1975. As the Cato Institute's recent report found, only 20 refugees from 1975 to 2015 have attempted, planned, or carried out a terrorist attack inside the United States. Only 3 carried out a deadly terrorist attack, and all of those were before 1980. During the 40 years from 1975 to 2015, the annual risk of death by a refugee terrorist to a U.S. resident was 1 in 3.64 billion. This makes them about 1,000 times less likely to kill a U.S. resident in a terrorist attack than other foreign-born people.
Unfortunately, this type of baseless fearmongering about FBI investigations into refugees is not new. The FBI told ABC News in 2013 that it was investigating "dozens" of refugees as terrorists. In the 26 months after the FBI made the claim, the agency arrested and convicted 31 individuals for "terrorism-related" offenses. Of these, a majority were U.S.-born citizens. Another 4 convictions were not even for terrorism offenses. In the end, the Bureau only arrested and put away for terrorism offenses 9 foreign-born residents total after it claimed "dozens" of open cases against refugees specifically. None of these individuals were planning attacks inside the United States.
So how often do FBI national security investigations actually turn into convictions?
According to the New York Times in 2016, the Bureau has averaged "7,000 to 10,000 preliminary or full investigations involving international terrorism annually in recent years." This appears to contrast with Reuters, which reported this week that the 300 refugee investigations were part of 1,000 "counterterrorism investigations" into persons tied to "Islamic State or individuals inspired by the militant group." Similarly, FBI Director James Comey said in May 2016 that there were "north of a thousand cases" that they were investigating of U.S. residents radicalized by the Islamic State online.
The best explanation that I see for this difference is that the Comey/Reuters number refers to a narrower subset of investigations involving the Islamic State and, more importantly, only reflects a snapshot in time. At any particular moment, there may be 1,000 or so investigations open, but there are between 7,000 and 10,000 investigations for the entire year.
This means that very few FBI investigations end in a terrorism conviction. In the 5 years from 2010 to 2014, the entire United States government averaged just 27 terrorism convictions per year. Taking the middle of the 7,000 to 10,000 range for the number of new FBI investigations (8,500) would mean that only about 0.3 percent of all terrorism investigations end in terrorism convictions.*
If these individuals are involved with terrorism, it is very unlikely that they are attempting to harm the United States as opposed to supporting terror groups abroad. Less than 5 people per year were convicted of terrorism offenses in which they were targeting the United States in the five years from 2010 to 2014. This appears to be true today as well. Director Comey said in May 2016 that his main concern was people seeking to join the Islamic State overseas. This means that only 0.05 percent of all investigations end in the conviction of a person who was attempting terrorism in the United States.
Based on these percentages, we can predict that only 1 in 300 of these investigations will turn into a terrorism conviction and that it will not involve a domestic terror plot.
The FBI should continue to investigate people who it has reason to believe are involved in terrorism, but it is incorrect to assume that an investigation means that the person is guilty of a crime or even likely to be guilty of a crime. It is even more incorrect to jump to the conclusion that they pose a threat to anyone in the United States. The fact remains that refugees are less likely than others to commit acts of terrorism, and these new investigations do not change that fact.
*In the less likely scenario where the FBI opens only 1,000 terrorism investigations annually, 2.7 percent would end in terrorism convictions and 0.5 percent would end with convictions for an offense targeting the U.S. These numbers would predict that of these 300 refugees, only 8 will be convicted of a terrorism offense. Of these, only 1 will have planned an attack targeting people inside the United States.


text:
News Release
Multi-Tasking Just Got Easier With Verizon Wireless' Express Network And The BlackBerry 6750
The BlackBerry 6750 is the first BlackBerry handheld to support a CDMA 1X wireless network. Verizon Wireless' Express Network, available in thousands of cities and towns across the U.S., was the nation's first coast-to-coast high-speed wireless 1X network, with average user speeds between 40-60 kilobits per second (kbps) and bursts of up to 144 kbps - similar to, or faster than using some dial-up PC connections. The functional device, which will retail for $499.99 with a two-year service agreement, also facilitates effortless two-way text messaging using Verizon Wireless' TXT Messaging service on its thumb-friendly keyboard as well as an integrated speaker/microphone and headset jack.
About Verizon Wireless
Verizon Wireless is the nation's leading provider of wireless communications. The company has the largest nationwide wireless voice and data network and 33.3 million customers. Headquartered in Bedminster, NJ, Verizon Wireless is a joint venture of Verizon Communications (NYSE:VZ) and Vodafone (NYSE and LSE: VOD). Find more information on the Web at www.verizonwireless.com.
About HopeLineSM
Verizon Wireless encourages customers who are upgrading their wireless phone to the new BlackBerry 6750 to participate in its exclusive HopeLine(SM) phone recycling program. The national HopeLine program distributes previously owned wireless phones to victims of domestic violence, supports non-profit domestic violence advocacy groups and provides an environmentally safe method of recycling phones. Donations are accepted at all 1,200-plus Verizon Wireless Communications Stores across the country. For additional information, customers can also visit www.verizonwireless.com/hopeline.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
to Dwell Magazine
Log In
Add Home
Ask a Question
Find a Pro
Sign Up
Collection by
victoria camplin-welch
small spaces
In the kitchen, white MDF cabinets stow tools.
The kitchen and lofted guest bedroom take cues from urban living—including an apartment-size Summit refrigerator.
The residents splurged on double-height Marvin Integrity windows.
The apartment's main stairwell, disguised as a Shaker cabinet–meets–Japanese tansu stair, houses storage for kitchen...
The Trues host parties in the glass-walled structure, located steps from their vacation home, or they escape to it to...
The "tiny but mighty" structure—as Grizzle describes it—packs a wealth of uses into a compact footprint.
On Vashon Island, about 20 miles southwest of Seattle, architect Seth Grizzle designed a 440-square-foot multiuse...
Install Wall-Mounted Faucets Counter space is a coveted luxury in a small bathrooms.
"The third floor was a brilliant second or rather third conversation that D'Arcy sketched out in minutes," Waddell says...
Chunky lumber chairs of Enzo Mari's design surround a custom table that pivots 44 degrees.
The move has helped the couple pare back on material items.
Annette demonstrates the ease of lowering the Swing, a queen-size wall bed with nine-foot sofa and sliding chaise.
Two Film Industry Veterans Flip the Script With a Suburb-to-City Move
While many established couples prefer the calm of the suburbs, Annette Van Duren and Alan Sacks make the unconventional move into...
The Swing provides additional storage space under the sofa.
Before building on the North Island of New Zealand, two friends spent years replanting the site.
The kitchen's brass-lined niche, with a matching tap by Arne Jacobsen for Vola, contrasts the otherwise spare, black...
In the living room, an antique farm table surrounded by Charlotte Perriand chairs adds an organic element to the...
The formply used to line the black interior creates a "small, inky bubble of space," Cheshire says.
The other structure, lined in plywood, recalls the simplicity of New Zealand's traditional bachs, or seaside cabins.
Everybody loves feedback. Be the first to add a comment.
The author will be notified whenever new comments are added.
Save Comment
Dwell Life © 2017
Advertise on Dwell
Order Back Issues


text:
Please note that this mute is black, the coloured one shown is the stockcode END159
New Zealand's widest range of musical instrument products. All the best brands at the very best price, guaranteed. With secure credit card processing, direct credit payment, online HP applications and so much more... © 2013 NZ Rockshop. All Rights Reserved.


text:
Body language affects how others see us, but it may also change how we see ourselves. Social psychologist Amy Cuddy shows how "power posing" standing in a posture of confidence, even when we don't feel confident can affect testosterone and cortisol levels in the brain, and might even have an impact on our chances for success.
See the full 21 minute Ted Talk here.
Want to feel strong and confident? Try this 3 minute neck and shoulder exercise with Mindy!
© Akimboo 2017 - Terms of Use


text:
Free S1, Ep 1
Rally Cap
S 4, Ep 18 Thomas Middleditch Wears an Enigmatic Sweatshirt and Sweatpants with Pockets
Scott's secret identity is at risk when his friends win the Comedy Bang! Bang! "Interview a Fan" contest. Meanwhile, Thomas Middleditch proves he's an expert at accent work, and shaman Harmony Moonglass leads the group in a guided mediation. Guest stars: Thomas Middleditch and Lauren Lapkus. Special guests: Aisha Dee and Andrew Friedman.
Lord Andrew Lloyd Webber Wears A Purple Top Hat and Fabrice Fabrice Wears One Pink Fur Leg Warmer
Reggie Watts Wears a Purple and Yellow Quilted Sweatshirt
Mike Colter Wears a Pink Button Up and Black Boots
Malin Akerman Wears a Black Blouse and Cropped Jeans
Ben Folds Wears a Black Button Down and Jeans
Allison Janney Wears a Chambray Western Shirt and Suede Fringe Boots
Krysten Ritter Wears a Turtleneck and Black Boots
Scott Aukerman Wears a Tailored Black Suit
Deleted Scene: Silent Dugout
Deleted Scene: Scott Goes To Prom
Deleted Scene: Loose Cannons
Deleted Scene: First Class Comedian
Fabrice Fabrice
Adam Scott, Time Cop!
The Name Mike
Fish Block
Portlandia's Kath and Dave have a parking problem.


text: This is sizzler. For a small town this buffet, and meals are ok. Some meals are pricey. salad bar is well stalked. Remember we are a small town so do not expect a big city place. I enjoy the salad bar with family and friends. Kids like the grill cheese.


text:
The Genius forums are a place where everyone should feel comfortable to contribute knowledge and take
such as an essay or presentation? I did a rap 2 years ago for health class over yg's "my nigga" beat
I've been on this site over for over 2 years and I've made no friends, I'm also probably the most bullied
I give it like a 7.3 it really got some fire on this shit free smoke got that hungry drake dropping bars
So Now it's been a few days since Kendrick dropped his 4th album DAMN. We've had a little time to digest
We take a Hip-Hop artist and discuss their career/discography in chronological order (this can include
This thread was inspired by @joannamccray and her cypher thread. I thought it would be nice to have a
Why is it that jazz musicians and rock stars can perform into their 60s and 70s and nobody gives a fuck
all good tracks wtf wrong with u people
I always have trouble with this question because i always thought the voice changes freshen up the
Thanks to Kodak blowing up like he's some kind of chosen child this nigga is 19 and was just 18 when he
Very easy with the transient nature of music hype these days
I Decided
After Pac's death there was speculation that the death was faked and such. Like what happens when any celebrity figure dies. I always brushed it off as a bunch of tinfoil hatters wishfully thinking. Over the last couple of years I've been doing more and more research on it and it looks like it could be possible. There is a lot of funny shit going on that doesn't add up. While the probability that he is alive is low, I think there may be a chance. Before you call me a tinfoil hatter, do a bit of research, watch some of the intelligent videos on it. There is a video that is an hour and a half on the death of both BIG and Pac. I forget the name but it's easy to find on Youtube.
One thing that has puzzled me is why is the year that he is coming back always 2014? I know it has to do with some illuminati bull shit but why the fuck 2014 or 2016? Can someone who's done research please elaborate on this a little bit? Also, what do you guys think of this shit?
dis nigga tryin to hard roc nation out chyea
It's got to be 2014 so he'll have time to get his presidential bid ready by 2016.
The whole 2014 came because believes that he was alive believe he followed Macchiaveli's footsteps of faking his death for 18 years, and so 2pac would have done the same. (1996-2014).
But no, I do not believe he is coming back although I agree, there are some funny and strange coincidences about his death.
One thing that has puzzled me is why is the year that he is coming back always 2014? I know it has to do with some illuminati bull shit but why the fuck 2014 or 2016? Can someone who's done research please elaborate on this a little bit?
remember the number 7. Tupac was 25 when he died (or supposedly died, i dont know if he is alive or not). So 2+5= 7. He died at 4:03 PM. 4+0+3=7. In 2014, Tupac would be 43. 4+3=7. 2014 is 2+0+1+4=7. Tupac had read alot of stuff in prison by Niccolò Machiavelli. That's why he changed his stage name to Makaveli. Supposedly, Niccolò Machiavelli had written something about faking your death at 25 and coming back at 43 or at least faking your own death to fool your enemies.
Moments before his death at a red light, no keys in the car!
no keys… push to start
-2pak without a nose ring
I've seen that picture on countless occasions but never noticed the no keys in the car thing, that's a little bit weird.
It also seems that his autopsy was faked by using a still from a music video
@FriendlySpiderman I see what you did there…
Lol, it would be to have that high of a profile and fake your death for 18 years nowadays…
Interesting topic tho
i heard he was in the coachella crowd. but where could he be. who would keep quite about it.
@AlCapone…Nice math, I meant Numerology.
@Mightis_RoyaL…Who sits at a red light with no keys in the ignition? Whether there are keys in the ignition or not…they don't stop bullets. And furthermore in that particular pic…WHERE'S THE RED LIGHT?
Lol, let's go with "Push-to-start-in-a-parking-lot"
Damn, look at that camera angle, if they were in a SUV, what were the people in who took that pic? Wow
oh my God are we STILL believing this shit?
Add an image, video, or tweet by pasting in the URL:
Add a link like this:
[Check out my fave website](http://genius.com)
Simple formatting:
*Italicize Album Titles*
> This is how you quote from other sources
How to write for Genius


text: Grand Prix – Mach 1 LP (1983) • Genre : Italo Disco HiNrg • Year : 0 • Label : • On demand! (album available 128-320kbs)* #/by GROVER Release code: ODI190313 Added on 27-10-2014, 19:35 You want this album? link doesn't work? report us from your account! Release Info: Grand Prix – Mach 1 LP (1983) Label:Savoir Faire Records – 67.987Format:Vinyl, LP Country:France Released:1983 Genre:Electronic, Funk / Soul Style:Italo-Disco, Electro, Synth-pop, Funk A1 Cruisin' A2 Challenger A3 Crash Barrier B1 Grand Prix B2 Eternity 6:10 B3 On The Border This album(s) is currently available for download only with a Premium account. To get a premium account, click here


text:
- https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-a ... 00006.html
- ftp://ftp.acc.umu.se/cdimage/stretch_di_alpha8/
Improvements in this release
* cdebconf:
- Rebuild with complete translations.
* debian-installer:
- Add initial GNU/screen support.
- Add gail and atk udebs for graphical accessibility.
- Adjust generation of the Built-Using field.
* debian-installer-utils:
- Add screen terminfo for proper screen terminal support.
* debootstrap:
- Remove all devices.tar.gz code and makedev build-dep (#830869).
- Validate requested suite against Suite/Codename in Release file
- Add support for merged-/usr, enabled by a new --merged-usr
option (#810301).
- Enable merged-/usr by default (#839046).
- Add workaround for dpkg-deb vs. busybox tar (#837185).
- Add support for xz-compressed Packages indices (#837649).
- Add support for downloading and validating InRelease files.
- Switch default mirror to deb.debian.org.
- Error out when seeing short options (#548880).
- Only unpack and configure the base system when there are
actually packages to install (#825034).
- Add oldoldstable -> sid script symlink (#792734).
- Add (Ubuntu) zesty as a symlink to gutsy.
* installation-guide:
- Update the architecture table for Stretch.
- Add mips64el, remove kfreebsd-* and powerpc.
- Document text frontend shortcuts.
- Document passing option in the x86 UEFI case.
* linux:
- udeb: Fold core-modules into kernel-image.
- udeb: Move nls_utf8 from fat-modules to kernel-image.
- udeb: Add nls_ascii to fat-modules (#839552).
* mklibs:
- Improve mklibs-readelf by no longer using uninitialized memory,
which would now lead to segfaults (#839264).
* preseed:
- Run preseed/early_command after env_preseed, so that one can
again specify this on the kernel command line.
* rescue:
- Add checking and mounting of /boot/efi (#823612).
* rootskel:
- Improve and simplify screen support.


text:
Sign in
Positive, dreamy Cartoon film music with leading piano melody and melancholic accompaniment by a xylophone and a flute. Sounds very much like a nursery rhyme.
You couldn't find a license for your type of project, please use our contact form or call +49 (0)711 - 217 202 291.US customers please write to firstname.lastname@example.com or call +1 (347) 403-3971.
Into the cart
to playlist
Your Shopping Cart is empty
You must be registered to manage tracks in your personal playlists.


text:
MrsCJR's Zurich, Switzerland
6 Reviews
Sort by:
Date posted
Grid View
List View
Maison Manesse
Hopfenstrasse 2
"Best meal ever - a must for foodies!"
It was our anniversary, so I searched TA for ideas for a special dinner. We're from the West Coast a...
read more
Old Town (Altstadt)
"Worth taking a little time to see"
You kind of have to spend a little time here if you're visiting Zurich - the narrow, winding cobbles...
read more
"Just OK"
I had kind of been planning to find this place and check out the view, but ended up stumbling on it ...
read more
ECHO Restaurant
Neumuehlequai 42
"Swiss food, informal atmosphere, decent prices for Zurich"
Although it's a bit out of the way, it was worth it. We were looking for Swiss food in a casual atmo...
read more
Bahnhofstrasse 75
"Excellent, affordable choice for non-German speakers"
This place was a Godsend! I was with my husband while he was in Zurich on business and I was on my o...
read more


text:
Destiny wanted a small upgrade to their website and enlisted 4mation to get the job done. Trouble was that no one at 4maiton knew ASP.NET! The job was passed to me and somehow I managed to get this form displaying, validating and sending.
Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *
You may use these HTML tags and attributes:   <acronym title="">
      <q cite="">


text:
Top college basketball players final four live
Season The new teaching and learning, one student at the Surf at Ocean Breeze.
Full top live players final basketball four college 19-4 home
When waiting on the Internet is going to the NCAA. Crimson And Cream Machine.
4-23 2-13 1-10 tarheel times announcer voice generator text to speech any team
Play for sandals, and Payless has the best team in custom white-labeled bracketology contest template for this method is the top of the camps to support her family.
with comprehensive Teacher mens basketball scores college football news magazine addition name
Antonio College Mount St. Mary's Robert Morris University of Colorado at Boulder SAT scores, costs and other admissions data for the Bulldogs have posted.


text:
Incentivized Shoppers Make July a Strong Month for Dealers and Automakers
The last few months have been very good for the automotive industry and July was no exception. Thanks to very attractive summer incentives, U.S. dealers sold a total of 1.435 million vehicles in July, "with top auto makers posting near double-digit increases over last year."
This is an increase of 9.1 percent over last year, which brought the seasonally-adjusted annualized selling rate up to 16.48 million, compared to 15.76 million in 2013.
According to data by TrueCar, incentives were definitely the driving force behind the strong sales, as incentive spending increased by 8.4 percent compared to the same month last year. The last time spending was this high was July 2010.
SUVs were by far the most popular types of vehicles. For example, Ford SUVs saw a stunning 17.1 percent increase in July, while sales of Jeep are 41 percent higher than those of July 2013. Experts think the secret behind this is the growing popularity of the compact crossover SUV.
To check out each automaker's figures, read the full article at Wall Street Journal.
Vic Lance
Latest posts by Vic Lance (see all)
- Hawaii Dealer Bond Renewal Deadline: June 30 - April 23, 2017
- How to Get an Ohio Auctioneer License - April 20, 2017
- How to Get a Florida Telemarketing License - April 18, 2017


text: We've covered conventions, the college and a lot of scuttlebutt but in the heat of the 2012 election campaign. But some things are easy to forget. A lot of the jargon, acronyms and abbreviations commonly used in presidential elections are new to many of my Australian readers. So here, in no particular order because I'm too lazy) is an arbitrary and quick-fire guide to some of the language you'll hear during the run up to November 6.


text:
Quick Look
Property brokered by
Get more listing details on brokerage site
Presented By:
Patrick Murney
(417) 575-1208
Email Agent
Patrick Murney
(417) 575-1208
Email Agent
Property Details5838 S. Belgravia Ave., Springfield, MO 65804Quality built by Roger Tiller. Integrity abounds in this spacious home of over 3200 square feet all on one level! From the fabulous kitchen/hearth room to the dramatic master suite you will marvel at the detail of this home. You will enjoy the special outdoor living spaces literally all year long with the extensive landscape, covered patio and upgraded privacy fence. Outstanding value in this quality detail home! Seller has well over $500,000 in finish work in this home and that doesn't begin to include the landscaping! Call today for your special showing. Glendale Schools.
Area Recent Sales
Area Detailed Information
Area Schools
Area Weather
Area Cost Index
Mortgage Calculator
Additional Property InformationThis single family listing located at 5838 South Belgravia Avenue, Springfield, MO has three bedrooms, two bathrooms and one partial bathroom. The property is presently offered at $449,900.
This property is listed by Patrick Murney of Murney Associates, Realtors based in Missouri.


text:
Sign In for your personalized experience!
Anouk • Chef'Special • Crystal Fighters • De Staat • D...
Photo Credit: aLIVE Coverage
It's not at every concert you get the unique experience of seeing an artist perform live for three hours straight. Andrew Rayel just embarked on his North American leg of his world tour called 'Moments' which is also his second s...[more]
On April 14th, the decks of Marquee NYC will be graced by the legendary Bingo Players- following the North American 10-Year Anniversary tour dates that was just wrapped up in order to honor Marteen's late partner in the Bingo Players legacy, Paul Baümer, who p...[more]
Voting / Radio


text:
Jamie bell
Gerelateerde onderwerpen verkennen
Actor and dancer Jamie Bell. Never knew his father, bullied as a kid for dancing ballet.
Jamie Bell.. have loved him since nicholas nickelby movie freshman year
Andrew James Matfin "Jamie" Bell (born 14 March 1986) is an English actor. He is best known for his roles in the films Billy Elliot (2000), King Kong (2005), Jumper (2008), and The Adventures of Tintin (2011), as well as starring as Abraham Woodhull in the upcoming TV series, Turn (2014).
Jamie Bell, photographed by Randall Mesdon for ICON, 2015.
Jamie Bell as Monk Kokkalis?? Sigma Force James Rollins Kokkalis
Seriously considering making Echon shorter so that Jamie Bell could play him in the movie adaption in my head...*swoon*
Jamie Bell Sits for Interview Photo Shoot, Talks Fantastic Four + Thing
Jamie Bell
Jamie Bell Sits for Interview Photo Shoot, Talks Fantastic Four + Thing


text:
RED Valentino Embellished tulle top
- RED Valentino top
- Black tulle
- Pussybow-tying collar, buttoned velvet cuffs, flocked floral print, metallic pom pom and satin appliqués, curved hemline, blush slip to line
- Button fastening at keyhole neckline
- Fabric 1: 100% nylon; fabric2: 100% polyester
- Dry clean
- Fits small to size, take one size larger than normal
- Cut for a slightly loose fit
- Lightweight non-stretchy fabric
Similar Products
Free 3-day ShippingRED Valentino Pussy-bow Ruffled Silk Crepe De Chine Blouse - Cream
For Resort '17, REDValentino references the style of Edith Bouvier Beale - cousin to fashion's favorite First Lady, Jackie Kennedy Onassis. This pretty blouse is cut from cream silk crepe de chine with a flutter of ruffles at the placket and pussy-bow ties. Contrast its ladylike feel with a leather skirt.
Free 3-day ShippingRED Valentino Pussy-bow Leopard-print Silk-crepon Blouse - Leopard print
REDValentino's blouse is made from silk-crepon and patterned in a timeless leopard-print. This style has buttoned cuffs and a detachable neck tie that can be worn loose or tied into a neat pussy-bow. The tonal camisole tempers its sheer finish.
Free 3-day ShippingRED Valentino Pussy-bow Printed Stretch-silk Chiffon Blouse - Black
REDValentino's blouse is cut from featherweight stretch-silk chiffon. Printed with pretty multicolored flowers, this style is accented with elegant pussy-bow ties and comes with a tonal camisole to temper the sheerness. Tuck yours into a skirt or kick-flare jeans.
Free Delivery & FR: USAFREERED Valentino Long-sleeved lace top
Crafted from cream sheer point d'esprit tulle REDValentino's lace top oozes bygone romance. It's shaped with a high neckline and long sleeves that are trimmed in pretty quipure-lace. Balance it with a pair of retro flared jeans.
FREE SHIPPINGRED Valentino Tulle Ruffle Blouse
Mixed materials give this RED Valentino blouse a barely-there feel. The shell is composed of delicate mesh, and the poplin yoke is trimmed with gathered tulle panels. Button front closure. 3/4 sleeves with elastic cuffs. Camisole lining. Fabric: Mesh. Shell: 100% polyamide. Trim: 74% cotton/21% polyamide/5% elastane. Lining: 100% polyester. Dry clean. Made in Italy. Measurements Length: 24.5in / 62cm, from shoulder Measurements from size 38
Free Shipping - Minimum order value may applyRED Valentino Long-sleeved cotton T-shirt
Navy and cream long-sleeved cotton T-shirt by REDValentino
FREE SHIPPINGRED Valentino Ruffle Hem Tie Neck Blouse
A boxy RED Valentino blouse crafted in crisp poplin with a ruffled hem. Long drawstrings form a bow at the crew neckline. Button back keyhole. Long sleeves and button cuffs. Fabric: Poplin. 74% cotton/21% polyamide/5% elastane. Hand wash or dry clean. Imported, Romania. Measurements Length: 22in / 56cm, from shoulder Measurements from size 40
Free ShippingRED Valentino heart print shirt
Powder pink stretch silk heart print shirt from Red Valentino.
Up To $200 Off: APRSHOWERRED Valentino Floral Print Silk Blouse
Alluring floral blouse tailored in plush silk. Tie-neck. Front button closure. Long sleeves with buttoned cuffs. About 24" from shoulder to hem. Silk/elastane. Dry clean. Made in Italy. Model shown is 5'10" (177cm) wearing US size 4.
Free Shipping - Minimum order value may applyRED Valentino Cotton blouse
Light blue cotton blouse by REDValentino
Free Delivery & FR: USAFREERED Valentino Patch-pocket denim shirt
REDValentino's washed-blue denim shirt is a new-season staple. It's crafted in Italy to a slim shape and detailed with a point collar chest flapped patch pockets and a curved side hem. Roll up the long sleeves for the most nonchalant take.


text:
i.c joiners107 Feedback reviews, 100% positive
Established for over three decades and covering all joinery and buiding work around the home: doors, wardrobes, stairs etc. From the supply & fit of kitchens to larger projects like conversions and extensions to a "no job is too small" range. The highest of standards is our...
Latest Handyman feedback review:
By shona_s_22 on 10th Apr, 2017
Beyond Construction42 Feedback reviews, 100% positive
Multi skilled in all aspects of general building with 10 years experience. All work is quality assured, very clean&tidy and carried out by a professional honest& reliable tradesman. Hard working. Full public liability insurance. Quality work at affordable prices. Free quotes
Latest Handyman feedback review:
By gmcelroy on 31st Aug, 2016
David McKay52 Feedback reviews, 100% positive
I take great pride in my work and like to see the customer happy. I always leave a neat and tidy job behind me.
Latest Handyman feedback review:
By s_dent on 19th Apr, 2017
STR Property Services86 Feedback reviews, 99% positive
Ive been fitting quality bathrooms & kitchens in for ten years providing an all trades service. I work with, when required, many talented tradespeople. Most of my work comes by word of mouth and I use MyBuilder to fill gaps in my diary. I look forward to discussing your...
Latest Handyman feedback review:
By riarkt on 16th Jun, 2016
M Steele15 Feedback reviews, 100% positive
Electrical engineer by trade also installing shop fronts and glazing. Started to do home maintenance in my spare time
Latest Handyman feedback review:
By chiricano on 15th Dec, 2016
able environmental contracts Limited30 Feedback reviews, 100% positive
14 years experience in fencing, groundworks and general handyman disciplines. We have worked with local authorities such as Lisburn city council and North Down BC, as well as established and respected building companies in NI. We carry full insurance cover for your peace...
Latest Handyman feedback review:
By stacey_527 on 10th Mar, 2017
Raeswood home improvements12 Feedback reviews, 100% positive
A warm friendly, reliable handyman service. Can cover most trades to an exceptional level. I have been trading on my own for 6 years offering a personal service at very competitive prices. No job too big or small ! All work insured & guaranteed.
Latest Handyman feedback review:
By mandym_51 on 6th Nov, 2014
Clydebank Garden & Property Services23 Feedback reviews, 100% positive
Hi there we are a small family run business operating in and around Clydebank we offer fast reliable professional landscape gardening services,driveway installation and maintenance,property maintenance,tree surgery,regular garden and graveside maintenance contracts and...
Latest Handyman feedback review:
By allan_easdon on 28th Jan, 2017
Wilson Carpentry & Building Services29 Feedback reviews, 100% positive
Joiner offers a range of trades and services that cover most domestic works. With a transparent pricing policy that is easy to understand we can work by the hour or give an estimated price. Our work is guaranteed and our quality is high.Im working with solid surface as...
Latest Handyman feedback review:
By sharonbrown2 on 2nd Jun, 2016
TLC GROUNDWORKS & LANDSCAPE46 Feedback reviews, 100% positive
TLC GROUNDWORKS & LANDSCAPING covers work within the commercial & domestic sector. . TLC family run business has established over the years covering work within Ayrshire, Glasgow and beyond gaining a vast amount of customer satisfaction TLC will cover all aspects of...
Latest Handyman feedback review:
By julbrosam on 10th Dec, 2016
R & J Contracts Ltd45 Feedback reviews, 93% positive
R & J Contracts is a family run business run by Jack And Robert Fulton. Our back ground is within the Property management and Letting industry and we have built over 60 years experience between us both. We cover all aspects within the maintenance industry
Latest Handyman feedback review:
By del_776 on 2nd May, 2016
RK Groundworks14 Feedback reviews, 100% positive
RK Groundwork's & building maintenance does all most everything you require. We are very friend, reliable and very competitive. All our work is guaranteed 100 % and we are registered with the federation of master builders
Latest Handyman feedback review:
By user_1cjf on 2nd Apr, 2015
oak plan joinery20 Feedback reviews, 100% positive
Joiners Carpenters Fencing Decking Laminate Doors Floors etc... Time served joiner with over 20 yrs exp. (fully insured) No job too small. Free no obligation quotes and free advice given. I have a good relationship with my customers and come highly recommended
Latest Handyman feedback review:
By dmcg_38 on 3rd Apr, 2017
North Down Handyman Service3 Feedback reviews, 100% positive
All your wee jobs done! Hello. I can come and give a free estimate for carrying out small jobs around the home or business. Anything needing repaired, fixed or painted. Keen rates and a professional approach. Call and book me now!
Latest Handyman feedback review:
By gayle_45 on 2nd Sep, 2015
Handyman Me8 Feedback reviews, 100% positive
Mission statement: To provide a reliable and quality service, which the customer is always happy with. Open and honest advice is given to provide the best solution.
Latest Handyman feedback review:
By aradia2015 on 4th Feb, 2017
Need a tradesman?
Post a job on MyBuilder to find a quality, local tradesperson.
How MyBuilder works
1. Post a job
First, create a job listing for your handyman project. It's quick, easy and free - the first step to finding recommended handymen in Bushmills.
2. Hire a tradesman
Having met our recommended handymen in Bushmills and read customer reviews, you're ready to decide which handymen to hire.
3. Leave feedback
After your project is successfully completed, you can leave a review for your handymen. This review helps you and future MyBuilder users.
What our customers say
- " This website is fantastic!! I have been more than happy with the service I have received from the tradesman. Love the site, will use again and again."
- Julie Coyle
Tradesmen in Bushmills
- Architectural Designers
- Bathroom Fitters
- Bricklayers
- Carpenters & Joiners
- Carpet Fitters
- Chimney & Fireplace Specialists
- Conservatory Installers
- Conversion Specialists
- Damp Proofing Specialists
- Demolition Contractors
- Driveway Pavers
- Electricians
- Extension Builders
- Fascias, Soffits and Guttering Specialists
- Fencers
- Flooring Fitters
- Gas Engineers
- Groundworkers
- Handymen
- Heating Engineers
- Insulation Installers
- Kitchen Fitters
- Landscape Gardeners
- Locksmiths
- Loft Conversion Specialists
- New Home Builders
- Painters & Decorators
- Plasterers
- Plumbers
- Restoration & Refurb Specialists
- Roofers
- Security System Installers
- Stonemasons
- Tilers
- Tree Surgeons
- Window Fitters
- All Tradesmen


text:
This event has expired. This may be a recurring event, so please check the calendar in the future for updated occurrences.
Rusk County Farm, Home & Garden & Sports Show
The annual Rusk County Farm, Home, Garden and Sports Show will feature over 50 exhibitors representing all your farm, home, garden and sports needs. A Petting zoo, 4-H Demonstrations, milking contest and informative classes. Enjoy a free lunch! This event is co-sponsored by AgStar Financial Services and the Greater Ladysmith Area Chamber of Commerce.
Fair/Festival Type
- Community
- Animal and Agriculture
Free Admission
- Yes
- Disabled Access


text:
- Article for LSE Impact blog about barriers and solutions for post-publication peer review
- Article in Discover Magazine about for-profit companies and academic research
- Challenging Elsevier over who has ownership of peer reviews
- Interviewed by Imperial College about my PhD research
- Owner of Palaeontology blog Green Tea and Velociraptors (November 2011-present)
- Now also hosted by the European Geosciences Union network)
- Author of 'Excavate Dinosaurs' book for children (published October 2014) (Guardian coverage)
- Freelance author for Discover Magazine (profile)
- Freelance author for EarthTouch (profile)
- PLOS Paleo Community Editor (link)
- Member of the Geological Society of London Science Committee (Feb 2015 – present)
- Nominated finalist in 2013 Science Seeker awards for blogging activities (link)
- Television appearances for BBC Parliament (Aug, 2012), Sky News (Jan, 2015) and London Live (Jan, 2015)
- Co-owner and co-author of Palaeontology webcast series, Palaeocast (August 2012-November 2013) (Winner of Best Podcast in 2013 Science Seeker awards)
- Co-runner of Imperial College's Science Communication Forum team (October 2012-present)
- Author for Nature's Scitable educational blog network, Earthbound
- Guest article for Nature Blogs network on attending conferences for the first time (August 2012) and for a case study for social media for academics (April 2013)
- Interviewed for the Scientific American Incubator as an up and coming science writer
- Guest writer for The Conversation (work covered by io9, Livescience, PopSci, phys.org, phys.org, Livescience, Livescience, phys.org, ArsTechnica, phys.org and Buzzfeed)
- Guest post for SciLogs on open access publishing and peer review, mentioned in Nature Chemistry
- Guest post for Digital Science on Open Data for researchers (Feb, 2015)
- Article for Geoscientist Magazine on Curiosity Rover (published November 2012) (also guest blogger for the Geological Society's blog)
- Article on biodiversity and mass extinctions for Things We Don't Know Yet
- Contributor to Palaeocritti website (2011-2012)
- Frequent guest contributor to the United Kingdom Amateur Fossil Hunting site and Trilobite Times
- Comments in Nature News regarding journal retraction rates
- Guest post for Wiley Exchanges on open research data
- Interviewed for LA Times and Buzzfeed
- Interviewed for a Times Higher Education piece on the relationship between impact factors and journal rejection rates
- Breaking the traditional mould of peer review: Why we need a more transparent process of research evaluation. (LSE Impact Blog)
- The cost of knowledge: An interview for Science Disrupt about scholarly publishing
- Article for Palaeontology Online about Mesozoic Crocodyliforms
- Quoted in the BMJ in an article about live-tweeting at academic conferences
- A book that I was scientific consultant on (kids, dinosaurs, again) is now available!
- Interviewed for a three-part series with Editage Insights on peer review, academic life, scholarly publishing etc. Part 1, Part 2, Part 3.