The debate over whether homosexuality is a choice (as if such a thing would be relevant to fundamental questions involving freedom) never seems to end.

Herman Cain was recently asked about choice by Joy Behar:

I mean, don’t think anybody in this world wants to be gay considering all the vilification that is brought upon someone who is gay. Why would you choose that?

I think that’s a poor way to put it. Regardless of who is born gay and who isn’t (I think both can happen, btw), does she really think that no one would ever choose lifestyles that bring on vilification?

Let’s change the phraseology a bit, by substituting a word:

I don’t think anybody in this world wants to be Republican considering all the vilification that is brought upon someone who is Republican. Why would you choose that?

Or:

I don’t think anybody in this world wants to be a Christian considering all the vilification that is brought upon someone who is Christian. Why would you choose that?

Or even:

I don’t think anybody in this world wants to be tattooed and pierced considering all the vilification that is brought upon someone who is tattooed and pierced. Why would you choose that?

I don’t know why. Because there is freedom, maybe?

My worry is that saying that people have no choice in something is a way of saying they have no freedom.  The freedom to do something is just as important as the freedom not to do it.

Sometimes I think determinists want to do away with freedom.

Speaking of freedom, another question which has been vexing me is this. If a man wants to become a woman, is he free to do so, right? Or would the determinists see him as a woman who had no choice but to have been born in the body of a man, and who thus has no choice but to have sexual reassignment surgery? Really? Then why can’t a member of one race have racial reassignment procedures to become a member of another race? If I can be born into the wrong sex, then why can’t I be born into the wrong race? Why would people be born into races and sexualities, but not born into their sexes? I believe in freedom of people to be — or to try to be — whatever they want, but such inconsistencies puzzle me. I realize that a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, so maybe I am being a fool by posing such a question. If so, did I choose to be a fool? Or was I born that way?

After all, I don’t think anybody in this world wants to be a fool considering all the vilification that is brought upon someone who is foolish. Why would I choose that?

Yesterday I looked at the lessons of Part One of “Prohibition”, a movie by Ken Burns. Today the lessons of Part Two.

We will obey the law because that is what law abiding citizens do. For about 6 months or until supplies run out. Then we will buy from the “nice” guys until their supplies or luck runs out. Then we will buy from who ever we can as long as the supplies keep coming. The moral of the story is:

Cross Posted at Power and Control

Former editor of the NYT Howell Raines (who, to the shock of absolutely no one, turns out to be an unabashed lefty ideologue) repeats the myth about Buffett’s secretary paying less taxes than he does:

As Warren Buffet points out, middle-income Americans ought to be protesting a system in which billionaires like him pay a third to a half of the 33% tax rate of Buffet’s secretary.

It is past time for this ridiculous claim to die.  It’s had legs because tax law is somewhat arcane, but I’m here today in my capacity as a CPA* to cut those legs out from under it.  I offer you the following simple explanation of why this claim is totally false.

Let’s say one day you decide to start a business, Bob’s Widgets.  You’ve been in the widget industry for years, you think you can design a better widget that companies will find more efficient (less costly, more durable, etc).  Risking all your own capital, you engineer, manufacture, and begin selling your widgets.  Customers like your widgets, your venture is successful, and numerous people throughout the world enjoy the benefits of the productivity increase wrought by your improved widgets.

So, after a few rounds of of expansion and growth, your company is making $10M a year in profit.   You pay the top marginal  rate of 35% on nearly all of this, so we’ll be simplistic here and just call your tax rate 35%.

Since you’re not Elizabeth Warren and therefore not really, really excited about giving the gov’t $3.5M dollars (possibly because unlike her, you have some grasp of the proportion of the gov’t spending that goes to roads, police, and firemen), you call up your accountant and tell him “Hey, Howell Raines says that Warren Buffet guy pays less taxes than his secretary.  My secretary sure as hell isn’t paying the gov’t 35% of what I pay her; in fact, I’m pretty sure she’s one of that majority of Americans who hardly pay any income taxes.”  Noting that Warren Buffet seems to own C corporations instead of LLCs, you order your accountant to convert your LLC to a C Corp, stat!

And so it is done.  And you’re sitting behind your mahogany desk, congratulating yourself on your cleverness and imagining various uses for the millions you have just saved (even better widgets!), when your accountant enters, clears his throat, and mumbles something about a corporate tax.  You stare blankly.  He goes on to mumble something else about a dividends tax.  You begin to turn red.  He continues mumbling about a capital gains tax, then runs from the room, just avoiding your chair which you have sprung out of and hurled at him.

Because, you see, you didn’t just save millions of dollars.  In fact, you’re now paying taxes twice, first 35% at the corporate level, then again at the personal level on any dividends you receive — with both taxed at 35%, you are paying a total of 57.75%  ( (1 – .35 ) * (1 – .35))  on the income that actually makes it into your bank account.  That’s right, you are actually paying millions more in taxes than you did as an LLC (this is why, as Megan noted a while back, income has been moving from C Corps to LLCs for decades, which movement has driven increasing inequality in measurements of personal income in the U.S.).

And so you fire your accountant, who really should have told you this earlier, and vow that next time you’ll look for a licensed CPA instead of just hiring the first guy that shows up and asks for the job.

Still fuming, you decide to sell your company to Warren Buffett, and find out what exactly he’s been doing to avoid all these taxes you’ve been paying.  (Howell Raines would never mislead you, he was the editor of the NYT!)  Buffett agrees to buy your company at a P/E ratio of 10:1, meaning your company is worth  $100M.  So, you take your $100M home (minus the ~$15M capital gains tax, of course) and get ready to watch the magic as Warren dodges those taxes.

Much to your chagrin, nothing of the sort happens.  Your company, now the property of Mr. Buffett, pays the same 35% tax rate as it did under you, and he pays the same ordinary income rate on any dividends that make it to his bank account.  It turns out Buffett has been paying corporate taxes all along (using the roughly 20:1 P/E ratio of the S&P 500 and Buffett’s net worth of $50B, he’s paying about 50 / 20 * .35 = $875M a year at the corporate level alone); he only pays the lower tax rate on his realized capital gains.  You shake your head, deeply disillusioned with Howell Raines, and use your millions to establish accounting scholarships all over the country in the hopes that others won’t make the same mistake.  And you cancel your subscription to the NYT.

*(by education, not currently practicing)

Being petrified would seem to have its advantages.

Of course, if you really were a rock, you’d have no say over how you were painted. Here in Ann Arbor they have one that gets painted constantly.

No idea what it looks like today.

This one’s not bad either.

That is my take away from watching the first two hours of Ken Burns “Prohibition”.

Update: I said this in an e-mail.

Drug Prohibition. Same old song. New lyrics.

Cross Posted at Power and Control

“Prohibition” on PBS – TV schedule

Cross Posted at Power and Control

Earlier I got an email from M. Simon, who said this:

I keep telling my friends on the Right that when they have run through the dopers (or warring on them is no longer useful) all that apparatus used to go after the dopers will be used on them (we are already seeing the beginnings of this). They just can’t comprehend it – because everyone knows that dopers are the enemies of civilization.

He reminded me of a thought I had in a post last week. It occurred to me that support for the drug war in certain quarters might not be based on religion, nor on a culture war style dislike of druggies. Rather, because the drug war is morality-based, it is seen as a foot in the door for morality enforcement generally. My post was in response to this:

Congress needs to act quickly before the federal government compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies us. They need to bring our criminal laws back to basics: Get off the backs of businesses and keep us safe from truly dangerous and morally wrongful behavior.

I see a major contradiction in the above statement. Once you countenance morality enforcement, then why not wage war against big business? Or “the rich”? Why would drug addicts be any more immoral than fat cats on Wall Street? The left has its morality and some of them claim that Jesus was against the rich.

While I have seen no analogous claim on the right that Jesus was against drug addicts, Newt Gingrich wants to execute drug dealers, while Roseanne Barr wants to execute rich bankers.

The principle is what? Morality? Whose morality will that be?

In the name of morality, some Democrats want to criminalize “cyber-bullying.” Which is what exactly? I share Lady Gaga’s concern and even anger over the pressures that drove that gay teenager to suicide, but yet… If you post things online, people can and will react to them. The dead gay kid’s YouTube video drew hateful comments.

…they are continuing to post hatefull comments on his you tube videos, it is absolutely disgusting, that you tube is still allowing this to continue.

I would expect that had someone made a video urging him to come to Jesus, that, too, would have drawn hateful comments. And it would itself have been called hateful. Such things are the inevitable result of being online, where opinions proliferate freely. Whether it is immoral to be gay, or immoral to condemn being gay (or to hate either) is not the point here.  If “cyber-bullying” becomes a crime, then “hateful comments” would simply be illegal:

Under Klein’s bill, the crime of stalking in the third degree would be updated to explicitly include harassing a child using electronic communication.

To better reflect the nature of online interactions, the bill removes requirements that the offender initiate the contact and that the victim be a direct recipient of the communication.

Although it is already a crime to “intentionally cause or aid” another person’s suicide, the bill would update the state’s second-degree manslaughter statute to explicitly include cyber-bullying as a possible cause of such a suicide.

Would ridiculing a post or a YouTube video be “harassment” if the author of the post or video happened to be a child? And the victim need not be be a direct recipient of the communication? What does that mean? That I can’t criticize a minor in this blog? Do I have to know they are minors? Is this not legislating morality? The problem is, kids insult each other, and so do adults. One man’s hate speech is another man’s religion and so forth. Homosexuality is a hate crime against the family and Christianity and Islam are hate crimes against homosexuality and Christianity is a hate crime against Islam which is likewise a hate crime against Christianity.  I see no end to it.

Interestingly, in their haste to criminalize “cyber-bullying,” New York politicians seem to be forgetting that gay kid’s number one complaint: that life had become unendurable in school. Yet the law compelled him to go to that school, unendurable day after unendurable day. Adults face no such restrictions on their freedom, nor are they forced to endure similar taunts in the workplace. They can quit, or even sue. Children, who are inherently more fragile and more easily traumatized than adults, are routinely subjected to what no adult would ever have to tolerate. Under penalty of law. Now, tell me, what’s fair about that? No wonder the adults who preside over the institutionalized tormenting of children target social media…

Anyway, morality is confusing as hell.

I have nothing against moral people or morality per se. I just wish morality had been left in the hands of people with moral restraint. Instead, it often seems to be the property of moral busybodies.

At the risk of sounding hateful, it doesn’t “get better.”

AFTERTHOUGHT: Perhaps I am being unfair to the people who created the website intending to provide hope for depressed gay teenagers. It may be that their unstated premise is that eventually the kids will be free from the torture they must endure in state-mandated schools for the simple reason that they will graduate. If so, why don’t they just say so?

The audio is not so hot (it sounds like it was recorded off a playing TV), but the information is excellent.

More here. Watch the above first for background.

H/T Zero Hedge

Cross Posted at Power and Control

Sometimes I despair about my allies. Let alone my enemies.

Guns and drugs don’t mix according to the ATF. If you live in a state where medical marijuana is legal you can go to prison for up to two years if you use medical marijuana and own a firearm. A gun rights group and a medical marijuana group are getting together to oppose this measure.

Gary Marbut, president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, and Kate Cholewa and Chris Lindsey, board members of Montana Cannabis Industry Association, separately blasted the Sept. 21 letter sent by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives of the U.S. Justice Department to federally licensed firearms dealers.

“It is egregious that people may be sentenced to years in a federal prison only because they possessed a firearm while using a state-approved medicine,” Marbut said in a statement from the association.

Cholewa said: “In fact, the policy goes so far as to say even being in possession of a medical cannabis card forfeits a citizen’s Second Amendment rights whether or not that person ever followed through and used cannabis for their condition.”

Chris Lindsey, a lawyer specializing in medical marijuana cases, wrote: “With a stroke of a pen, the Department of Justice has suspended the Second Amendment for those who use medical cannabis.”

Rep. Diane Sands, D-Missoula, who headed an interim legislative panel that studied the issue last year, called the letter “further evidence that federal marijuana law trumps any Montana legislation, initiative or court action attempting to create protected medical use for marijuana.”

“The only viable action open to Montana and other states is to change the federal law,” Sands said.

I have been trying for years to get gun groups to recognize the threats to their rights that the Drug War has created by posting things like Guns And Weed – The Road To Freedom, to no avail. The only gun group to get it was Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. Evidently the ATF is bound and determined to help me get my message across by direct action. Thanks ATF!

H/T Drug Policy Forum of Texas

Cross Posted at Power and Control

Probably because I am so accustomed to reading about dress codes under Sharia Law, yesterday I was annoyed to read that police in New York are telling women not to wear shorts or short skirts.

At the same time, I recognize that police have no authority to tell people what to wear, as long as they aren’t violating laws against nudity or something. It’s probably worth noting that in San Francisco, there’s a current problem with men sitting around naked on public benches, but I guess that raises the additional issue of public health.

I didn’t have time to make sense or nonsense of New York hemlines but Ann Althouse has:

You’d think by now the cops would have figured out how to broach this touchy subject. Look at this response from the woman quoted at the first link: “I can’t wear shorts? Besides the fact that I wasn’t wearing anything that was inappropriate or provocative…. I don’t think that should be part of the problem. At all.” Of course, she’s right, but the annals of crime are full of innocent victims. The cops would like to encourage people to defend against crime, but advice from an authority figure feels like a restriction of your freedom… which the police know and use to control people.

There is a difference between telling someone what to wear and offering friendly advice. I don’t know where to draw the line. Crime itself can be a form of control. I remember years ago getting hopelessly lost somewhere in a large urban slum in New Jersey, and I had unthinkingly made two mistakes:

1. I was dressed up, and
2. I was driving my mom’s very cutesy little Mazda Miata convertible.

Not wise under the circumstances (although I had not planned to get lost where I did). Anyway, I drove around completely lost until finally I saw what seemed like reassuring surroundings at the time. There was a crumbling garage (all covered with the usual graffiti), and a big fat, heavily-tattooed, mean-looking biker staring at me incredulously, and next to him was a pit bull on a chain! I pulled right in to ask for directions, but before I could say anything the biker guy came running up and said,

“HEY! YOU ARE IN A BAAAD NEIGHBORHOOD!”

He meant well, of course, and it was obvious I should not have been there looking like I did, or driving what I was driving. He knew intuitively that I knew this full well, so he didn’t give me a lecture on proper neighborhood attire; he simply gave me excellent directions on the best way out and I was very grateful.

Now, had I been an idiot and stopped to ask directions from a group of teenage muggers, or had my mom’s Miata run out of gas, that would not have justified any crime committed against me.

There is a fine line between giving advice and blaming the victim, and it involves common sense. The biker guy who helped me out had infinitely more common sense than New York’s clueless cops, who may mean to be helpful, but if they keep telling women what to wear will begin to sound like Mutaween.

No doubt there are blame the victim choruses on both sides of the sharia issue. And there’s no doubt I don’t have time for them.

AFTERTHOUGHT: Should police also be telling men not to wear shorts or male cross dressers not to wear short skirts? Or would that be so “fair” that it would constitute some sort of double reverse discrimination?

(Exclusion and inclusion are both forms of discrimination, and it is very complicated.)

The Colorado Independent tells the story.

Hundreds of law enforcement professionals including Denver’s U.S. District Judge John Kane have come together on a curious quest: Saying the drug war has failed, they want to legalize drugs.

Some are very nuts and bolts, saying the war on drugs has cost trillions of dollars while only making the problem worse. Others like Kane, while agreeing on that point, are more philosophical. “Our national drug policy is inconsistent with the nature of justice, abusive of the nature of authority, and ignorant of the compelling force of forgiveness,” he says on the web site of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition.

I’m of the opinion that we can’t have a Free Country with a prohibition regime that arrests 1.6 million people a year for prohibition violations. Eric pretty much agrees although he is less sanguine than I am that it will end any time soon.

Winston Churchill said Alcohol Prohibition was “an affront to the whole history of mankind.” And it seems so is Drug Prohibition.

Tony Ryan, who was a Denver police officer for more than 35 years, told The Colorado Independent that not only has the drug war been utterly ineffective but that it has also been counterproductive in many important ways.

He says the war on drugs is the number one reason cops become corrupt. “It’s the money. These drug cartels don’t care who they kill. Even a good cop, faced with the choice of ‘take this money or we’ll kill you’ will often take the money. And it is getting worse. Drugs are a vicious business,” he said.

The way it is put in the vernacular is Plata O Plomo, Silver Or Lead. An easy choice. Anyone who knows the history of Alcohol Prohibition knows that it was the same for that Prohibition regime. Human nature being what it is.

Officer Ryan goes on:

He says that while the money coming from the sale of drugs causes huge problems on one hand, money coming from the federal government–with virtually every law enforcement organization in the country getting grants of one sort or another to fight the drug war–causes additional problems.

“The war on drugs is an addiction because of the money police departments get,” Ryan says.

What the officer is saying is that a significant segment of local law enforcement has been Federalized. I don’t believe that is what our Founders had in mind when they designed our governing arrangements some 220 years ago. Thomas Jefferson had something to say about that:

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

As usual desperate times call for desperate measure.

Ryan is among those circulating petitions for Colorado’s Regulate Marijuana like Alcohol initiative. He also serves as a public speaker through LEAP.

“We give members of law enforcement, who saw the drug war up close and risked their lives for it, a voice,” Tom Angell, spokesman for the group, told the Colorado Independent. “They will almost universally tell you that the drug war distracted them from the mission of solving crimes and ensuring public safety.”

He says LEAP wants to see all drugs made legal. “There is no drug that is made safer to the public by turning its manufacture and distribution over to cartels and gangs. You don’t want gangs selling drugs on your street corners, but that is what you have,” he said.

About 75 percent of Americans and 69 percent of police chiefs say that Drug Prohibition has failed.

You might also want to support another police organization against Drug Prohibition at Citizens Opposing Prohibition.

You can watch a history of that earlier failure tomorrow evening on PBS. It is called “Prohibition“. Check your local listings.

Cross Posted at Power and Control

I was dreaming about this song this afternoon while I was taking a short nap. So I thought I ought to post it. The words were a little different in my dream though “I’m naked and can’t find my way home”.

Cross Posted at Power and Control

I feel guilty. Driving around yesterday, I stumbled upon a massive liquidation sale here in Ann Arbor. It consists of the contents of the corporate HQ of Borders Books, and I bought a bunch of office supplies and computer stuff (including the computer I am writing this post on, and a real workhorse of a laser printer). Great deals though they were, it was just depressing as hell to see gigantic piles of material that represent lost jobs. Right here in Ann Arbor. And now there yet more major vacancies. (This on top of Pfizer.)

A pity that this has happened in Ann Arbor, one of the most affluent places in Michigan.

I got good deals, and normally I am happy when that happens. Like most people, I gloat when I am able to buy cool stuff for a fraction of what it’s worth.

This time I am sad.

Bill Whittle does a preliminary investigation of the recent Reno Air Races accident that killed 11 people. It is very good if you want to know what went wrong. And why nothing in life is risk free.

Mind Your Own Business. Live Free Or Die.

Thanks Bill!

Cross Posted at Power and Control

I’m a fan of Naked Lunch. Especially the movie Naked Lunch.

So imagine my surprise when I received a political fund raising e-mail that started off:

Do you want to see Barack Obama and Lady Gaga win this week’s political battle? I know I sure don’t.

As you know tomorrow is the 3rd Quarter FEC deadline for receiving contributions. That’s why we here at The Campaign to Defeat Barack Obama are in the middle of a huge fundraising drive – and we need your help!

You see, our political opponents are doing the same. This week, Lady Gaga – the controversial radical Leftist singer joined Barack Obama for a fundraiser held at the residence of the Chief Operating Officer of Facebook.

So I went looking for a Lady Gaga video and found the above video which I rather enjoy. I also sent the fundraisers this little note:

Rock and Roll Music is corrupting our youth. Have you seen how Elvis swivels his hips?

Seriously? Is this the best you have got?

I’m getting so tired of moral panic politics. Get. A. Grip. — — Uh. Oh. That is probably corrupting our youth too. And causing blindness besides.

Bigotry these days is getting, like, really really complicated.

But my goal is to simplify, and yes, I think I can.

Today I marveled over Janeane Garofalo’s very serious claim that “Racist Republicans Support Herman Cain,” because it reminded me of my superciliously convoluted explanation of why Cain can’t win:

He can’t win. That’s because the Republicans don’t want to be seen as being influenced by race no matter how much they are.

The real racists are those (like me) who don’t consider race an issue.

I need to elaborate a bit, because with regard to Herman Cain, it is now apparent that all the following are absolute liberal truths:

• Republicans who support Cain because he is black are racist.
• Republicans who oppose Cain because he is black are racist.
• Republicans who support Cain and do not care whether he is black are racist.
• Republicans who oppose Cain and do not care whether he is black are racist.
• Republicans who are neutral or have no position on Cain are racist.

Got that? It’s easily reduced to a very simple equation.

All Republicans are racist, no matter who or what they oppose or support.

Similarly, as Zombie explained, not making fun of people constitutes making fun of people.

…a (presumably) gay student was greatly offended that the discriminatory price list didn’t also insult and degrade queers. No fair! If you Republicans aren’t sufficiently bigoted against us, then we’ll lose relevance! By leaving any mention of us out of your bake sale, you discriminated against us by not discriminating against us!

Got that?

Now go out and try not being bigoted, you bigoted Republicans!

You will only prove how bigoted you are!

I have a new article up at ECN Magazine about a microprocessor that can do 90 billion instructions per second for a power cost of about 1 watt. Pretty good huh? It gets better. The chip has 144 processors in the package and when they are all idle the chip uses only 14 microwatts.

GreenArrays (the company that makes the chip) has partnered with another company to make the processor available to hobbyists.

Cross Posted at Power and Control

Alan Kellogg in the comments says you might like to compare this version:

The Wall Street Journal had a scare story up a while back to the effect of Needle Parks coming to the US. Well that is interesting and just more of the same old. What is really interesting is the comments. I’m going to excerpt a few of them.

These two ignorant prohibitionists shamefully forgot to mention that when the Swiss closed Needle Park way back at the beginning of the 1990s they immediately replaced it with an extremely successful ‘Heroin Assisted Treatment’ program. (google: “Heroin-assisted treatment (HAT)”) — Addicts are now provided with several daily dosages of pure and legal Heroin in a controlled and clinical environment.

At the end of 2009, 1356 patients were undergoing HAT at 21 outpatient centers and in 2 prisons.

HAT is now being carried out at centres in Basle, Bern, Biel, Brugg, Burgdorf, Chur, Geneva, Horgen, Lucerne, Olten, Reinach, Schaffhausen, Solothurn, St. Gallen, Thun, Winterthur, Wetzikon, Zug, Zürich and in two prisons Oberschöngrün (canton Solthurn) and Realtà (canton Graubünden).

And:

Lauren Kurilchik, it seems you are a Tea party activist and therefor ostensibly support “less government involvement” in our lives. Isn’t that a bit of a disconnect with what you’ve been posting here? which is for more government involvement in the lives of anyone who takes any drugs except for those you happen to approve of. — I see you have a section on your webpage about “beer drinking tea-party patriots” For those wishing to check it out, just google “Lauren Kurilchik cheers meetup”

Why can’t you admit the obvious, Lauren? The misguided and counterproductive policy of prohibition has failed; the “unintended” consequences are disastrous. Untold Thousands of people have lost their lives in prohibition-associated violence. Drug lords have taken over entire communities. Misery has spread unabated and corruption is undermining fragile democracies everywhere.

And:

Lauren Kurilchick needs to wake-up from her alcohol-haze and realize that most of the nation is now far more informed than during times when ‘Her Ludicrous Hysteria’ was easier to sell. Prohibition is perverse; a human rights and social justice atrocity. And her posts here are a text book example of that perversion. Individuals like herself who perpetuate the idea that ‘We the People’ should continue spending billions upon billions of dollars to fight ‘Their Unwinnable War’ should be made to stand before us with their heads hung in abject shame, for the grave damage they have caused our ‘once free and prosperous’ nation.

And:

Amazing that the “education czar” does not advocate education and rehabilitation when it comes to drug policy. Imagine if we made it illegal to drop out of school and put all of those people behind bars. Criminalization of drugs has not and never will work. By the way, the “social costs” of drug use are already being paid. Might as well collect some taxes to deal with them.

And:

Hundreds of billions of $$$ are redistributed to public employee union members with the present destructive federal drug “war”: DEA, prison guards, local sheriff and police, ATF, border patrol. No way this willl change in our lifetime. Or perhaps the prison system will collapse because of all the non violent drug offends locked up for what is essentially a brain chemistry sickness.

And that is just one page. There are six more mostly like that. Compare it with what you would have seen in the WSJ just ten years ago. The Times They Are A Changin.