12-14-13 Hodgepodge

Saturday, December 14, 2013

Email Introduction Etiquette

The best advice is well-reasoned advice, as we see from a short piece on the above subject at 42Floors:

The reason you send a fresh email is that you want Mark the Advisor to be able to forward it from his mobile phone without having to delete all the content from your previous conversation.  This also gives you a chance to succinctly describe your startup exactly the way you want it to be heard...
I enjoyed reading this and will find it quite useful.

Weekend Reading

"Would it be too much to expect a simple 'you did build that' from a senator put in office by the Tea Party?" -- Yaron Brook and Steve Simpson, in "'You Didn't Build That,' Conservative Style" at Forbes

"This distinction between supply-side and demand-side perspectives on the economy proves invaluable in many ways -- especially as it pertains to optimal investment strategies -- but it's also relevant to accurately measuring and interpreting the true, existential status of the latest U.S. expansion (2009-2013)." -- Richard Salsman, in "The U.S. Economy Hits Its Stride -- on the Supply Side" at Forbes

"Kids should leave childhood with two things: (1) a sense of being loved, and (2) the ability to think." -- Michael Hurd, in "Four Tips for Good Parenting" at The Delaware Coast Press

"The term ['fragile'] gives emotions more significance than they merit..." -- Michael Hurd, in "Are You Fragile?" at The Delaware Wave

"Expand immigration without citizenship." -- Harry Binswanger, in "Let's Call the Democrats' Bluff on Immigration" at Forbes

"It is the increasingly socialized atmosphere of medicine that has created this scenario that puts physicians in a financial stewardship position creating a conflict with their role as an advocate for their patients." -- Amesh Adalja, in "Medicare Has Chained Us Together, Reliant on End-of-Life Government Rationing" at Forbes

"To fully defeat [ObamaCare], we should reject the core idea that self-sacrifice is our moral duty." -- Peter Schwartz, in "The Opponents of Obamacare Are Completely Missing the Point" at Forbes

My Two Cents

I particularly admire the way Binswanger combines an incisive examination of the positions of each of the two major parties with a not-impossible-now first step towards establishing a rational immigration policy.

Twenty-Six Emails vs. One Call

The cartoon heading the first article linked today is an amusing reminder that new tools are just that. Sometimes, the "old" way of doing things can be quicker, particularly when the best way to use the new tool hasn't been established or made widely known.



Vigilis said...

Gus, the articles you spotlighted from Forbes have been overdue in national political discussions.
Thank you for highlighting them.

In response to Peter Schwartz's "Why should the fact of someone’s need constitute a claim against you?", I must answer with government's frequent and wrongheaded habit deplored by Objectivists and myself no less harshly.

Now that atheists and amoralists have been winning court cases, it has become much easier for government to insert bureaucracy as America's ultimate decision broker, more unaccountable than ever. Formerly sacrosanct faith-based, individual conscience is ridiculed, eroded and replaced by the faces of idiots representing bureaucracies.

Every so-called religious sect or denomination exhibits attitudes, behaviors and beliefs I have found both offensive and off-putting. Yet, summary dismissal of the faith-based is short-sighted.

Without the faith-based, the government's overreach will become tyranny, not Objectivist utopia.

Non-pragmatic academics are as much of the problem today as a beggaring pope.

Gus Van Horn said...


Did you know that the authors of each of these pieces, to a man, are atheists (as am I)?

I am sure that each would disagree with the idea that our form of government can be adequately defended by appealing to faith, and would oppose any attempt by the government to ram religion down our throats via "faith-based" initiatives.

It is amazing to me that that you would support that, given that you find other religions replete with things you find repugnant. Among many other considerations: How do you know that what YOU believe in would win out in such a scenario as the government forcing people to conform to the baseless dictates of some religion or other?


Anonymous said...

I'm not certain I'm following your point, so I'm going to restate it as I understand it. If you would be so good as let me know if I'm on point or not, I'd appreciate it.

In your sentence about Peter Schwartz and someone's need constituting a claim against you, are you saying that government endorsement of that claim is what you consider wrongheaded and something you deplore? (The structure of the sentence makes that question unclear to me.)

I'm assuming that your point about atheists and amoralists winning court cases is trying to point up that certain religious institutions are being driven from the civil sphere thus opening up a vacuum for inserting the face of bureaucracy?

And when you say that "Without the faith-based, the gov't's overreach will become tyranny..." are you referring to individuals of faith or faith-based institutions?

If you have the time, I'd certainly appreciate it. It may be that I'm just missing the obvious here, but I'm having trouble grasping exactly what you're saying in these points.

Thank you

c. andrew