dangerous liberty

A co-worker just emailed a link to Useful Dead Technologies, a sardonic piece, bemoaning the loss of the tried and true to new technology.

Here’s one complaint:

Volume control knobs
You’re driving down the road and that song comes on. You know the one, it really rocks and you must crank that sucker up.

But there’s no crank any more. You have to take your eyes off of the road to find the one button on the fifty buttons to turn the damned thing up or down. Thank God they invented cell phones so you can call an ambulance after you wreck your car trying to turn the volume down to answer your cell phone!

And if you want to adjust the tone, balance, or rear fade, forget it. You’re either going to have to stop the car, or get a passenger to do it for you. If, that is, he or she can find the owner’s manual to figure out how to.

The old technology used knobs. There was a volume knob on the left, and a tuning knob on the right. Behind the volume knob was a tone control, or two tone controls (treble and bass). The knob on the right changed the stations, and it had a knob or two under it controlling balance and sometimes fade.

Some less stupid car radio manufacturers still use knobs, albeit digital knobs. But even these are less useful.

Old fashioned analog potentiometer knobs not only could be used without taking your eyes off the road, they were far more precise. My car stereo (with its volume buttons you have to look at to adjust) has 25 discrete volume levels. Some stereos have 50.

The old fashioned analog volume controls had an infinite number of levels. They were analog. If you’re at the fringe of a reception area and the weather or whatever has caused the signal to drift, you could precisely tune it with your radio’s analog variable capacitor. Today if (for example) KSHE 95’s 94.7Mhz drifts to 94.8 and you’re north of Litchfield (about 50 miles), you’re out of luck, as you can tune to 94.7 or 94.9, but not 94.8200032010023445 like you can with an analog tuner.

Here’s the reverse: I live within a mile of a huge radio tower, WRUF in Gainesville. It broadcasts PBS TV and AM/FM Radio. The only way I can listen to radio stations which aren’t Rock 104 is if I have a digital tuner. All of the analog radios are bled into by the tower. Forget about AM. My 2.4GHz wireless headphones pick up the VHF TV signal when the base isn’t tuned or is off. The tuner for that signal is analog as well and if I don’t have it exactly correct, I get PBS while I’m working in the yard and want to jam tunes! Even then, as I turn my head or go behind the shed, instead of a fading signal or a bit of static, I get Arthur and the Berenstein Bears!

Although, I must say during the early days of digital radio, I preferred analog, because the LEDS were always burning out or the innards fried and whoop! No more radio. The new stuff seems to have improved greatly, as is usually the case with consumer goods.

Kerry Kerstetter has a good post, Terminology Is Subjective, over at SS choice dot com. He addresses some of the left wing rhetoric about SS not being a crisis, pointing out how it may not be a crises for all, but will be for some, especially those who die before they reach retirement age. He goes on to point out that the solution to raise retirement age is basically meant to cheat some out of whatever benefits they would get for the last few years of their lives.

Herein lies the rub on this whole argument. Whether there is a crises or not is irrelevent. I’m willing to argue reform soley on the moral component. It is WRONG for the state to take this money and dole it out. Groups like Club For Growth and others with financial clout need to focus on this during the campaign to reform the system.

Grandma and Grandpa will support reform if we ask enough seniors “Do you really want your children and grandchildren to be subject to political masters in their retirement?” “Wouldn’t it be better for the country if every person had their own account with real assests? Assests they could pass down to their children?”

The moral dimension to this argument is the most important. Coupled with the principles of private ownership of capital, I cannot see how this debate can be lost.

However, it is incumbent upon every voter who believes in choice to press their representatives for GOOD, LASTING reform and convince their friends and neighbors of the moral imperative to reform - getting them to help press this case. And this means the end of transition will see an end to the current system. A complete end. It seems to me if there are to be taxes for government run payouts to indigent poor, they should be on the gains side of retirement and should be capped at under 1% of those gains.

We must hold the ideal, the principle, the morals up and fight like hell to get reform in that manner. It means focusing the public debate on the moral issues and presenting a vision of a future where the entire country owns the keys to their retirement and their children can benefit from their lifetime of work. What better way to lift the poor? I can think of none.

This is an alliance worth joining, Blogging for Personal Accounts. Unite for progress! Do it for the Children! Do it for the poor! (to the guys at SS Choice - please add me to your blogroll!)

Yesterday, the New York Times published a negative slant on the Chilean Private retirement plan, the same one touted by Social Security reformers as an antidote to fear mongering over ‘privatization schemes’.

Now witness the difference between two leading blogger takes on this piece, Kevin Drum (and the collective wisdom of his commenters) and Donald Luskin (all by himself).

Drum passes on a juicy quote meant to emphasize his ongoing talking points and ridicule private reform advocates. His commenters add more of the same.

Contrast that with Luskin, who takes the entire piece apart with a mixture of his legendary snark and bottomless bag of reasoning and facts. Luskin exposes a piece of yellow trash in the NYT, while Drum trumpets it.

This issue is too important to allow any side to distort facts and figures, therefore it is important for opposing sides to honestly evaluate what the other side is saying. If reformers have it worng, correct them with reason and facts. I hope Drum will take the time to read Luskin’s shredded copy of the NYT piece and say where he has it wrong.

However, if Luskin makes sense (which he does), then Drum needs to modify his advocacy to include consideration of new found truth.

Social Security Choice, a great new resource for those supporting reform of the SS system.

The best thing this group has going for them are the wealth of facts and figures they bring to their arguments.

A must read for those looking for answers to the anti-reformer’s propaganda.

A center-left friend of mine and I were discussing Iraq and Terror matters the other day and he suggested that terrorism had increased because of the war. I responded, noting the lack of attacks on US soil and he countered with terrorists think long term and thus the proof is in the future.

Well, the future is now, if the account linked by Michelle Malkin is true.

I do think it is a matter of time before these groups are successful, however, when another attack does work, I will view it in light of many which have not.

It also occurs to me that organized and funded groups don’t have a great deal of time, because the force of the US state is active to shut them down and will be, so long as the American public deems it necessary.

Keven Drum brings John Stossel into the Dan Rather pile-on, recounting a story where Stossel’s reporting was false and he apologized on air 6 months later. Drum muses:

If recklessly reporting untruths because they fit an alleged underlying political bias is a firing offense for a prime time journalist on a TV news magazine, then it’s a firing offense. If it’s cause for a reprimand, then it’s cause for a reprimand. I don’t quite see why standards should be different just because it’s a bunch of conservatives howling this time around instead of liberals.

Does Drum fail to recognize the difference between shoddy journalism which attempts to influence an election and that which attempts to influence opinions about organic food?

It sure seems like it.