Wednesday, April 03, 2013

The Perfect KPC Post

 David Allen Coe agreed when Steve Goodman and John Prine claimed to have written the "Perfect Country Song."  It is worth listening to.  Here is Steve Goodman's version.

I now claim to have the Perfect KPC post.  It raises substantive social, political, economic, and scientific issues.  And if you read it you will understand the difference between a ruddy duck penis and the penis of a ruddy duck.  Most importantly, you will once again see an example of how people on the right are getting it wrong.

Nod to Angry Alex.


kebko said...

I have a good one for you too. If this is an April Fools joke, they sure did play it straight:

Anonymous said...

I get the argument that research meets the qualifications of a public good, more so than most things funded by government. But how do we determine how much should be spent on that public good? Maybe the current budget is too low, but what would be too high?

I guess what I really want to know is: how many different animal penises should we be studying?

Tom said...

It appears that readers will see how critics are "getting it wrong" by reading Ms Brennan's summary of these critics' positions, she with a pecuniary interest in the matter. Perfect post, Mungo?

It seems that this critic also has a pecuniary interest, thou not by choice. No, the wise and beneficent elite, being already in the business of seizing funds wholesale, decided for me that I was to fund Basic Science, including this tidbit on duck dongs. I don't have a problem with Basic Science nor with Duck Dong Digs. My problem is with the Snobbish Elite Pickpockets (SEPs), who reserve for themselves the decision of what is, or is not, a public good and then to command the funding for their chosen.

I also have a problem with the notion that public goods can only funded by the SEP model. Is it beneath the dignity of Ms Brennan to put her project on Kickstarter or to beg Michael Bloomberg for pocket change? (Yes, Bloomberg is a SEP, but he has his own money, too.)

Ananias Profit said...

The right (whoever that is) may get this wrong, but that doesn't make it right:

"Investment in the NSF is just over $20 per year per person, while it takes upward of $2,000 per year per person to fund the military."

That's like saying I shouldn't mind that some duck diddler is stealing my TV because Chuck Hagel is stealing my car.