response 104 of 113:

Jul 10 04:01 UTC 2003

Re #103:  Oh, of course I do.  That's one situation where the size of
the problem is a decent match to a big, blunt instrument.  Anytime
you're trying to discourage something, a tax works amazingly well;
tobacco consumption, for example.  But you've got to be careful that
the tax isn't too easy and profitable to evade so you don't create
opportunities for organized crime, e.g. smuggling.

As long as we've got to have taxes, taxing things that people should
probably be doing less of seems better than the alternative.

response 106 of 113:

Jul 10 16:05 UTC 2003

There is currently a negative tax on having children.

response 108 of 113:

Jul 16 08:11 UTC 2003

quality conytributions - gotta love it - until the affirmative
action discussin got derailed into , what, irs?
  
start a new item.
  
this is affirmative action.
  
i am glad to hear that some non-recipients have chaffed at the 
suggestion/presumption that they were recipients =  and happier
still that they graduated inthe tip of their class.
  
such preformance does more for eliminating racism than any other
action.

response 110 of 113:

Jul 17 18:49 UTC 2003

Hopefully that will mean the end of undergraduate racism at UofM, since they
can't apply individual scrutiny to the tens of thousands of applicants they
get every year.

response 112 of 113:

Jul 23 14:02 UTC 2003

heard an amusing commercial for Comedy Central's new show this morning:
"There *is* a lot of racial tension on the force.  It's all because of
Andy Garcia.  He can't help it, poor guy--he's a Mexican."  :)