Michael Jackson “son” hoax • Interspecies altruism • Zookeepers play Mama Bear
Screwed up names spell screwed up people • Scandal again • My first thought •
D.C. homeless housing crisis • Income inequality
I am reminded of the Clonaid hoax, and suppose the only motivation can be to increase name recognition and perhaps draw some really, really stupid fans.
This infant was one of a litter of three. The mother previously ate both of its siblings because they were sickly: in the wild, the presence of a deceased baby in the den can attract predators, endangering everyone. So the zookeepers removed this one from the mother for safekeeping.
“[S]loth bears are highly intelligent animals, who keepers say have complex emotions — including fear and outrage — and vibrant personalities, and who enjoy watching videos.”
“Anything from feeding to cleaning . . . to holding, bonding, snuggling,” Babitz said. “When you’re working with a bear, they’re so complex emotionally and cognitively and socially, and they need that bonding . . . and whether it comes from their own mom or human doesn’t really matter at that age.”
“If she wakes up and starts crying, we can run right in and take care of her,” Babitz said. “She’s still getting a bottle in the middle of the night. The other thing is: She’s a baby. She has bad dreams. She gets scared. She starts crying, and she needs someone to comfort her.”
Related: Polar bears aren’t all warm fuzzies.
Pertinent post: What’s in a name?
I have intentionally been quiet about the Columbia Mall incident because it was so wildly overblown in the media. Here’s another case of a looney whom no law could keep separate from the firearm. Pertinent post: “Scandal:” the meaning of the word
Thursday, March 20, 2014. The program has commandeered twenty bunks, making “overnight” hard to get into. Tuesday night I was one of four who slept on the floor. Wednesday night they opened the gate at 14:30 and closed it, having reached capacity, at 14:45. Registration doesn’t begin until 15:00.
This morning after breakfast, as usual, I went to sit on the steps across the street and have a smoke. Charles, Mark and Lee came walking toward me, looking tired and dirty. Having been unable to get in to “overnight,” they’d spent the night around the corner. My first thought was, “Why should I be better off than they?”
I have many clippings on this topic. Part of the dilemma is that current D.C. law mandates that the city house anybody anytime the temperature falls below 32 degrees — which actually isn’t all that cold. Another part of the dilemma is what to do with people, especially families, once they’ve been housed — throw them back on the street? What do you do with a household like that of Relisha Rudd?
This article epitomizes the sort of thing I’d like to examine on The William Tell Show: when shifts in public opinion occur, the reasons for those shifts (which I believe are seldom examined), and whether or not opinions correspond to reality.
Rampell finds that the rich inevitably get richer, and wealth continues to become concentrated in the hands of the few, regardless of which party’s in power or what policies are in place. Income inequality becomes a popular issue only when the real incomes of the majority fall — when the majority are becoming poorer, which proves to be a separate question.
“[I]f the 0.1 percent want to be left alone — or at least not pursued by pitchforks and guillotines — they should probably support policies that promote the upward mobility of other Americans. That would include things such as early childhood education, more generous Pell grants and a higher minimum wage, for example. While some of these policies might require higher taxes, it’s not clear that marginally improving mobility or raising the living standards of the most destitute would do much to hinder the very richest Americans’ ability to continue getting even richer. So far, little else has.”
Except for the higher minimum wage, which is debatable in its own right, the policy options Rampell mentions are all indirect and involve a time offset before they would bear fruit for the prosperity of the nation. In a previous post I referred to articles claiming that “the real power to effect change lies in the private sector,” and thus need not necessarily rely on public policy at all.