October 27, 2008
MINNESOTA FEDS: MELTDOWN LIMITED TO SPECIFIC RISKS, NOT ACROSS THE BOARD
Check this out, especially the graphs. What it says, essentially, is that yes, certain securities and credit lines are nearly worthless, but everything else is OK, and never really down very much.
Loans & leases? Up.
Industrial loans? Up.
Bank credit? Up.
Consumer credit? Up.
Home Resales? Up.
All the activities of day to day profitable business are fine, even during the worst stock meltdown in history. Only certain types of commercial paper, plus T-bills and LIBOR, really hit the skids.
So, like I said many weeks ago, let the losers lose, and let everybody else keep doing business. Don't let the government rob money from these prospering activities to bail out the mortgage swindlers and redistributionist Democrats.
Loans & leases? Up.
Industrial loans? Up.
Bank credit? Up.
Consumer credit? Up.
Home Resales? Up.
All the activities of day to day profitable business are fine, even during the worst stock meltdown in history. Only certain types of commercial paper, plus T-bills and LIBOR, really hit the skids.
So, like I said many weeks ago, let the losers lose, and let everybody else keep doing business. Don't let the government rob money from these prospering activities to bail out the mortgage swindlers and redistributionist Democrats.
Posted by: JBD at
08:30 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 129 words, total size 1 kb.
STATISTIC? VERY IMPORTANT. MEAN, MODE, MEDIAN, YOU SEE?
Iowahawk does a nice job of explaining why political polls in general, and "margins of error" in particular, are scientifically bogus, and practically useless as predicitive indicators of a future vote.
If you are a non-math type, and your eyes glaze over reading his analysis, then you have no business being swayed by any news report quoting a poll, since you haven't seen the raw data, and you couldn't interpret it even if you did.
When a news report says "the so-and-so poll shows it 44 to 43 in favor of Obama, with 13 undecided, and a 4.3 % margin of error" they are simply dressing up the pollsters prejudices in words that sound like science. (Same thing they do in "climate change" reports, but that's another rant.) But they know nobody will listen to a report that says "these guys say that the people they called tonight who would give them an answer prefer Obama over McCain."
Polls are skewed (changed) by the questions asked, and by who does the asking, and by who is asked, and when, and by which medium, and so on. Poll accuracy is based entirely on the honesty of the pollster. Which is why politicians spin public polls to their best advantage, but still pay for their own private polls so that they know what they are really up against.
And that margin of error bit is strictly a function of the number of people who responded to the poll. It is insignificant compared to all other factors, not even worth mentioning, but pollsters mention it anyway, to make it sound scientific.
So remember: the only poll that is accurate is the actual vote on election day.
If you are a non-math type, and your eyes glaze over reading his analysis, then you have no business being swayed by any news report quoting a poll, since you haven't seen the raw data, and you couldn't interpret it even if you did.
When a news report says "the so-and-so poll shows it 44 to 43 in favor of Obama, with 13 undecided, and a 4.3 % margin of error" they are simply dressing up the pollsters prejudices in words that sound like science. (Same thing they do in "climate change" reports, but that's another rant.) But they know nobody will listen to a report that says "these guys say that the people they called tonight who would give them an answer prefer Obama over McCain."
Polls are skewed (changed) by the questions asked, and by who does the asking, and by who is asked, and when, and by which medium, and so on. Poll accuracy is based entirely on the honesty of the pollster. Which is why politicians spin public polls to their best advantage, but still pay for their own private polls so that they know what they are really up against.
And that margin of error bit is strictly a function of the number of people who responded to the poll. It is insignificant compared to all other factors, not even worth mentioning, but pollsters mention it anyway, to make it sound scientific.
So remember: the only poll that is accurate is the actual vote on election day.
Posted by: JBD at
08:23 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 291 words, total size 2 kb.
WHY ARE THERE (STILL) THREE GRADES OF GAS?
I know what the difference is - it's octane rating, the property that rates how well a gas resists pre-ignition, or "knocking". But since the invention of electronic fuel injection, the requirement for higher octane grades has faded to practically nothing. I haven't bought anything but the cheapest regular 87 octane gas I could find for 20 years. With one rare exception: when I had a fully-loaded FunBus on a long trip - the higher octane ran a little cooler, and heat is the mortal enemy of the FunBus..
Is this guy trying to say that it is strictly a marketing ploy by the oil companies? I can't find any requirement for there to be 3 grades, just that, well, there are. Wouldn't it be a lot cheaper for the refineries to make only one grade, or do they just "cut" it, like watering down booze? Doesn't sound right to me.
Before EFI, engines ranged from gutless wonders (our pink 62 Rambler American) to monster big blocks, all naturally aspirated via carburetors. I could see there being a need then. But why now?
Why not simply make one grade of gas and sell octane booster separately - available everywhere - for those who need it? Does anybody out there buy mid-grade or premium gas for everyday driving? Why? I can see for off road vehicles, boats, race cars, etc. But again, why not just use octane boost?
You could then convert the other two nozzles to ethanol/methanol or other blends for flex fuel vehicles. The underground tanks and pipes have to be different, but these systems get dug up all the time in California.
Chief? White Lightning? Doodle? Any input on this?
Is this guy trying to say that it is strictly a marketing ploy by the oil companies? I can't find any requirement for there to be 3 grades, just that, well, there are. Wouldn't it be a lot cheaper for the refineries to make only one grade, or do they just "cut" it, like watering down booze? Doesn't sound right to me.
Before EFI, engines ranged from gutless wonders (our pink 62 Rambler American) to monster big blocks, all naturally aspirated via carburetors. I could see there being a need then. But why now?
Why not simply make one grade of gas and sell octane booster separately - available everywhere - for those who need it? Does anybody out there buy mid-grade or premium gas for everyday driving? Why? I can see for off road vehicles, boats, race cars, etc. But again, why not just use octane boost?
You could then convert the other two nozzles to ethanol/methanol or other blends for flex fuel vehicles. The underground tanks and pipes have to be different, but these systems get dug up all the time in California.
Chief? White Lightning? Doodle? Any input on this?
Posted by: JBD at
07:13 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 290 words, total size 2 kb.
WHY IS GAS IN TENNESSE A DOLLAR CHEAPER THAN CALIFORNIA?
Gas prices in TN.
A buck a gallon cheaper! Didn't they just go through prices spikes and shortages from Hurricane Ike?
My guess is state taxes and Prop 65 and other smog compliance.
A buck a gallon cheaper! Didn't they just go through prices spikes and shortages from Hurricane Ike?
My guess is state taxes and Prop 65 and other smog compliance.
Posted by: JBD at
06:40 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 43 words, total size 1 kb.
ALL AMERICAN ADULTS SHOULD BE FORCED TO READ THIS OUT LOUD
Anyone who has had Econ 101 knows this. But we routinely let our government violate these basic principles.
This is not "trickle down" or "capitalist jargon" or "laissez faire". This is real life.
Congress and the Fed need to back off, and let the losers lose and the winners win.
This is not "trickle down" or "capitalist jargon" or "laissez faire". This is real life.
Congress and the Fed need to back off, and let the losers lose and the winners win.
Posted by: JBD at
01:28 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 61 words, total size 1 kb.
October 26, 2008
BUSTED, COMRADE!
Transcript of Barack Obama on a radio show in Chicago in 2001:
Transcript of Barack Obama on a radio show in Chicago in 2001:
If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendancy to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.
Hat tip: Ace.
Posted by: JBD at
10:09 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 277 words, total size 2 kb.
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES - NOV 5, 2008
(Stolen from a comment here. Hey, I'm just spreading the wealth.!)
Notice to All Employees
As of November 5, 2008, when Obama is officially elected into office, our company will instill a few new policies which are in keeping with his new, inspiring issues of change and fairness:- All salespeople will be pooling their sales commissions into a common pool that will be divided equally between all of you. This will serve to give those of you who are under achieving a “fair shake.â€
- All hourly employees will be pooling their wages, including overtime, into a common pool, dividing it equally amongst yourselves. This will help those who are “too busy for overtime†to reap the rewards from those who have more spare time and can work extra hours.
- All top management will now be referred to as “the government.†We will not participate in this “pooling†experience because the law doesn’t apply to us.
- The “government†will give eloquent speeches to all employees every week, encouraging its workers to continue to work hard “for the good of all.â€
- The employees will be thrilled with these new policies because it’s “good to spread the wealth.†Those of you who have underachieved will finally get an opportunity; those of you who have worked hard and had success will feel more “patriotic.â€
- The last few people who were hired should clean out their desks. Don’t feel bad though, because President Obama will give you ‘FREE’ healthcare, ‘FREE’ handouts, ‘FREE’ oil for heating your home, ‘FREE’ food stamps, and he’ll let you stay in your home for as long as you want even if you can’t pay your mortgage. If you appeal directly to our democratic congress, you might even get a free flat screen TV and a coupon for free haircuts (shouldn’t all Americans be entitled to a flat screen TV and a nice looking hair?) !!!
Posted by: JBD at
09:44 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 339 words, total size 2 kb.
EVEN OTHER REPORTERS ARE STARTING TO NOTICE
A huge backlash will devastate the mainstream media after the election, especially if Obama loses. Why?
1. They're covering up for Obama and Biden. When what they are covering comes to light, and people realize they knew about this stuff but held it until after the elections, the rage will be visceral and long lasting.
2. Most reporters and their editors have abandoned all pretense at journalistic ethics to do whatever it takes to drag Obama across the finish line. Look what they did to Hillary, and they still couldn't keep her from winning the last 4 or 5 large primaries. Now they are doing the same to McCain & Palin, and even other reporters are starting to notice the smell of partisanship.
3. Journalists are acting like fanboys for Obama. And Obama is already starting to blow them off.
4. Lifelong journalists are uncomfortable with what's happening.
People who believed what they were told will abandon the sources that conned them, and will look for new sources. Advertisers will follow. With the economy tanking, nobody will invest in traditional media, and they will die off like bees who used their stingers. Those who used to be oracles on high, who were there only because their predecessors built their reputations on integrity and hard work, will now have to fight for eyeballs and ears down in the trenches against the people they detested.
And I can't wait.
1. They're covering up for Obama and Biden. When what they are covering comes to light, and people realize they knew about this stuff but held it until after the elections, the rage will be visceral and long lasting.
2. Most reporters and their editors have abandoned all pretense at journalistic ethics to do whatever it takes to drag Obama across the finish line. Look what they did to Hillary, and they still couldn't keep her from winning the last 4 or 5 large primaries. Now they are doing the same to McCain & Palin, and even other reporters are starting to notice the smell of partisanship.
3. Journalists are acting like fanboys for Obama. And Obama is already starting to blow them off.
4. Lifelong journalists are uncomfortable with what's happening.
People who believed what they were told will abandon the sources that conned them, and will look for new sources. Advertisers will follow. With the economy tanking, nobody will invest in traditional media, and they will die off like bees who used their stingers. Those who used to be oracles on high, who were there only because their predecessors built their reputations on integrity and hard work, will now have to fight for eyeballs and ears down in the trenches against the people they detested.
And I can't wait.
Posted by: JBD at
09:41 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 244 words, total size 2 kb.
WE'RE DIPPED, BUT EUROPE IS BONED
As a percent of annual GDP, we've got something like 4% that we stand to lose in the economic meltdown. Bad right? We're used to 2-3% growth of GDP per year. So that mean at least 2 years of good growth after we settle out to get back to where we are now.
But look at these numbers for European countries exposure to loans to third world countries:
C'mon, Obama, you know you want to!
But look at these numbers for European countries exposure to loans to third world countries:
Austria’s bank exposure to emerging markets is equal to 85pc of GDP – with a heavy concentration in Hungary, Ukraine, and Serbia – all now queuing up (with Belarus) for rescue packages from the International Monetary Fund.
Exposure is 50pc of GDP for Switzerland, 25pc for Sweden, 24pc for the UK, and 23pc for Spain. The US figure is just 4pc. America is the staid old lady in this drama.
Amazingly, Spanish banks alone have lent $316bn to Latin America, almost twice the lending by all US banks combined ($172bn) to what was once the US backyard. Hence the growing doubts about the health of Spain’s financial system – already under stress from its own property crash – as Argentina spirals towards another default, and Brazil’s currency, bonds and stocks all go into freefall.
Broadly speaking, the US and Japan sat out the emerging market credit boom. The lending spree has been a European play – often using dollar balance sheets, adding another ugly twist as global “deleveraging†causes the dollar to rocket. Nowhere has this been more extreme than in the ex-Soviet bloc.
The region has borrowed $1.6 trillion in dollars, euros, and Swiss francs. A few dare-devil homeowners in Hungary and Latvia took out mortgages in Japanese yen. They have just suffered a 40pc rise in their debt since July. Nobody warned them what happens when the Japanese carry trade goes into brutal reverse, as it does when the cycle turns. . . .
Russia too is in the eye of the storm, despite its energy wealth – or because of it. The cost of insuring Russian sovereign debt through credit default swaps (CDS) surged to 1,200 basis points last week, higher than Iceland’s debt before Götterdammerung struck Reykjavik.
The markets no longer believe that the spending structure of the Russian state is viable as oil threatens to plunge below $60 a barrel. The foreign debt of the oligarchs ($530bn) has surpassed the country’s foreign reserves. Some $47bn has to be repaid over the next two months.
Merde! These are war-causing numbers. And we look absolutely fabulous in comparison. Great - while they're imploding and warring over who owes what to who, we'll invade Mexico and Cuba.Exposure is 50pc of GDP for Switzerland, 25pc for Sweden, 24pc for the UK, and 23pc for Spain. The US figure is just 4pc. America is the staid old lady in this drama.
Amazingly, Spanish banks alone have lent $316bn to Latin America, almost twice the lending by all US banks combined ($172bn) to what was once the US backyard. Hence the growing doubts about the health of Spain’s financial system – already under stress from its own property crash – as Argentina spirals towards another default, and Brazil’s currency, bonds and stocks all go into freefall.
Broadly speaking, the US and Japan sat out the emerging market credit boom. The lending spree has been a European play – often using dollar balance sheets, adding another ugly twist as global “deleveraging†causes the dollar to rocket. Nowhere has this been more extreme than in the ex-Soviet bloc.
The region has borrowed $1.6 trillion in dollars, euros, and Swiss francs. A few dare-devil homeowners in Hungary and Latvia took out mortgages in Japanese yen. They have just suffered a 40pc rise in their debt since July. Nobody warned them what happens when the Japanese carry trade goes into brutal reverse, as it does when the cycle turns. . . .
Russia too is in the eye of the storm, despite its energy wealth – or because of it. The cost of insuring Russian sovereign debt through credit default swaps (CDS) surged to 1,200 basis points last week, higher than Iceland’s debt before Götterdammerung struck Reykjavik.
The markets no longer believe that the spending structure of the Russian state is viable as oil threatens to plunge below $60 a barrel. The foreign debt of the oligarchs ($530bn) has surpassed the country’s foreign reserves. Some $47bn has to be repaid over the next two months.
C'mon, Obama, you know you want to!
Posted by: JBD at
09:33 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 445 words, total size 3 kb.
UPSIDE TO OBAMA TAX PLAN - MORE VACATIONS!
This economist compares tax plans, and if Obama wins and gets his way, his advice for all those hardworking, productive people out there?
Work less.
Work less.
Posted by: JBD at
08:59 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 33 words, total size 1 kb.
HEY WAIT! OBAMA DOESN'T MEAN *MY* WEALTH!
This is sweet.
Hat tip: Instapundit.
Hat tip: Instapundit.
Posted by: JBD at
08:31 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 13 words, total size 1 kb.
A FIFTH COLUMN ON THE 4TH ESTATE
An eerie example of simultaneous creation in the blogosphere has occurred. Both Ace and Dirty Harry have been so disgusted by the treatment of Joe the Plumber by the mainstream media that they have called for conservatives in general and bloggers in particular to give the media a dose of their own medicine.
The result is here. The plan is to have citizens treat the media employees like the media treats citizens. Every reporter, editor, source and talking head will be given the same background check and airing of dirty laundry that greeted Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber. A chilling effect? Solid hydrogen, baby.
One nice side effect of vetting media elites 24/7 would be that no one would risk leaking information to them, since the risk of getting caught would dramatically increase. No anonymous sources, no manufactured news, like the current spate of "dissent in the McCain camp" stories. How do they know what's going on inside the McCain camp? Why "anonymous sources" of course.
Now the general rule in journalism is that the reporter and his editor are supposed to know who the source is, and typically they also look for corroboration from an independent source, but not always. Some stories are "too good to check", and if the story turns out wrong in some way, they just issue a muted and grudging correction a week later, buried in the middle of the pile of 3rd rate news.
Here's how this works: instead of Reynolds’ “Army of Davids†we’d have our own fifth column on the 4th estate. Conservative hotties like MKH and Coulter can school all the conservative babes on how to pull a Mata Hari on the dude reporters, learning all their dirty personal secrets and sources. Then we blackmail them with this knowledge, to either kill stories or reveal sources, and then we expose them regardless, just like the press does now. Live by the source, die by the source.
What about all the female reporters? Lucianne would run an insurgent training camp for fake "BFF" girlfriends, with head counselor Linda Tripp. Sweet revenge, eh Linda, baby? Just lend a sympathetic ear to the pinko infobroads over a couple of appletinis, and they’ll spill their guts on their sources and skeletons.
A taste of their own medicine, and all that.
UPDATE: A commenter at one of the sites says the Joe the Plumber got what he deserved because once he started going on talk shows, he became an advocate, not just some guy who asked a question.
I responded:
I'm looking forward to this a great deal.
The result is here. The plan is to have citizens treat the media employees like the media treats citizens. Every reporter, editor, source and talking head will be given the same background check and airing of dirty laundry that greeted Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber. A chilling effect? Solid hydrogen, baby.
One nice side effect of vetting media elites 24/7 would be that no one would risk leaking information to them, since the risk of getting caught would dramatically increase. No anonymous sources, no manufactured news, like the current spate of "dissent in the McCain camp" stories. How do they know what's going on inside the McCain camp? Why "anonymous sources" of course.
Now the general rule in journalism is that the reporter and his editor are supposed to know who the source is, and typically they also look for corroboration from an independent source, but not always. Some stories are "too good to check", and if the story turns out wrong in some way, they just issue a muted and grudging correction a week later, buried in the middle of the pile of 3rd rate news.
Here's how this works: instead of Reynolds’ “Army of Davids†we’d have our own fifth column on the 4th estate. Conservative hotties like MKH and Coulter can school all the conservative babes on how to pull a Mata Hari on the dude reporters, learning all their dirty personal secrets and sources. Then we blackmail them with this knowledge, to either kill stories or reveal sources, and then we expose them regardless, just like the press does now. Live by the source, die by the source.
What about all the female reporters? Lucianne would run an insurgent training camp for fake "BFF" girlfriends, with head counselor Linda Tripp. Sweet revenge, eh Linda, baby? Just lend a sympathetic ear to the pinko infobroads over a couple of appletinis, and they’ll spill their guts on their sources and skeletons.
A taste of their own medicine, and all that.
UPDATE: A commenter at one of the sites says the Joe the Plumber got what he deserved because once he started going on talk shows, he became an advocate, not just some guy who asked a question.
I responded:
The story is not Joe. The story is Obama saying "spread the wealth around." This is how he intends "to resolve the global financial crisis, energy dependence, the oncoming recession, loss of competiveness in America, education, health care, social security, etc…" The MSM is avoiding the importance of that crucial glimpse into the real Obama worldview in favor of "doing the Greta" on Joe.
I agree that Joe let himself in for more scrutiny when he did the talk shows, and he seems to be handling it without whimpering about it. But McCain is not employing Joe as a surrogate; rather, he is using Obama's answer to Joe's question as a legit campaign issue, and Obama and the press are ducking it by changing the subject to Joe's particulars.
That's what everybody is mad about, I think. Obama's worldview is basically socialist, and all of the evidence we have about him supports that. He and his supporters know socialism will not sell, so they have to obfuscate their agenda in gauzy "hope" and "change" and "health care reform" and "education resources" campaign trailspeak.
So you see the point: the media ignored the real story ("spread the wealth around") and instead attacked the guy who caused the story to come to light. The difference? If Joe the Plumber had been an Obama supporter, and had asked him "Hey, Barack, how is your tax plan going to help me?" and Obama replied the same way. the media would not have attacKed the guy who asked the question to defend Obama's answer. They would have had to come up with some other smokescreen.I agree that Joe let himself in for more scrutiny when he did the talk shows, and he seems to be handling it without whimpering about it. But McCain is not employing Joe as a surrogate; rather, he is using Obama's answer to Joe's question as a legit campaign issue, and Obama and the press are ducking it by changing the subject to Joe's particulars.
That's what everybody is mad about, I think. Obama's worldview is basically socialist, and all of the evidence we have about him supports that. He and his supporters know socialism will not sell, so they have to obfuscate their agenda in gauzy "hope" and "change" and "health care reform" and "education resources" campaign trailspeak.
I'm looking forward to this a great deal.
Posted by: JBD at
08:30 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 708 words, total size 5 kb.
CALIFORNIA PROPOSITION 8 - CIVIL RIGHTS & CULTURE COLLIDE
A long time friend of mine (nearly 30 years) sent me an e-mail and asked that I consider voting No on Proposition 8, the Marriage Protection proposition here in California. This friend is one of those people I consider golden - unequivocally honest, brilliant, funny and wise. Wrong on this one, though.
The request:
The request:
I hope I may impose upon our long friendship by asking you to consider voting NO on Question 8 on the November 4 ballot. As you probably know, this is the proposal to amend the California State Constitution to take away the right, recently recognized by the California Supreme Court, of same-sex couples to marry in California. It is, in my opinion, a mean-spirited effort to continue discrimination against a long-persecuted group, and it's only purpose is to impose a particular religious viewpoint on all citizens, whether or not they share that religion or that viewpoint. Its main practical effect would be to discourage a lot of tourist dollars coming to California; my best friends from Delaware got married in San Diego in August.
Thanks for your consideration, and I hope all is well.
Here's my response, edited to eliminate my friends' identity.I will indeed consider carefully how I will vote on 8. Between lawn signs, bumper stickers and other advertising, it is certainly a well known prop here in CA. And now that the big Hollywood and teacher union money just kicked in, every radio and TV in town has "No On 8" ads running.
I don't think the spirit of the proposition is mean, rather it is simply assertive of a rational viewpoint. And the viewpoint is cultural, not specifically religious, though for most people the two are synonymous. Unfortunately, like all issues in the culture war, it is polarizing and emotional, making for bad law regardless of spirit or viewpoint. Note how well Roe v Wade settled for good the abortion issue.
Those who I find least persuasive try to employ the civil rights argument. Marriage is the cultural cornerstone of the building block of society, the family. That we have eroded the strength of marriage and family through divorce, "blended" families and other "arrangements" does not support the argument that marriage is therefore now some kind of malleable or assignable "right", or that those not so deemed married by the state somehow suffer any loss of rights.
And I know several "blended" families and "arranged" couplings. Some are sincere, mostly positive, and happy, while others are for appearances, or convenience, or for a political statement. In all cases they are self-serving, and our society would endure with or without these associations. Without cultural human marriage and family, however, society will erode and disintegrate.
My culture and viewpoint compel me to vote Yes, sadly, and in exasperation that radicals from both sides have forced me to make a decision that will to a degree unnecessarily alienate me from some people. But I don't make cultural decisions based on the impact of tourism, and if my vote means more tourist dollars to Provincetown and fewer to San Diego, I think I can handle it. I'm happy to tolerate benign counter-culturalism, but I won't indulge or subsidize it.
I'm also knee-jerk opposed to practically everything that unions support. I've seen the teacher unions up close and personal, from the inside. Their spirit is always mean, my money is always theirs, and any opposition is racist and Jesus-freak. Yeah, that's the way to my heart. The fact that they are prominently on the No side makes my Yes vote easier. Just what in the hell does this have to do with their jobs as teachers? And why are the compulsory dues contributions of teachers who support 8 being used to oppose it?
And what if the proposition fails, which, given the barrage of ads, it very well might? Well, for one thing, you won't see Pentacostals or Knights of Columbus members rioting in the street, or heading towards Belmont Heights nude on bicycles in protest. Those who supported 8 will be as polite, hard-working and religious as they always were, just more determined than ever to reduce the power of government over their lives. We'll see a further hardening of the cultural battle lines, and a growing anti-government constituency that will at some point close their wallets. I know I'm immanentizing the eschaton, but that's the way it appears to be going anyway, what with a tanking economy and a Socialist President & Congress in our future.
Full disclosure: I'm 3rd Degree (though inactive) KofC - at least my dues are voluntary.
Hope I'm wrong. I'm a Julian Simon devotee, so I think the best is always ahead. Anyway, it's good to hear from you, and continued best wishes.
I don't think the spirit of the proposition is mean, rather it is simply assertive of a rational viewpoint. And the viewpoint is cultural, not specifically religious, though for most people the two are synonymous. Unfortunately, like all issues in the culture war, it is polarizing and emotional, making for bad law regardless of spirit or viewpoint. Note how well Roe v Wade settled for good the abortion issue.
Those who I find least persuasive try to employ the civil rights argument. Marriage is the cultural cornerstone of the building block of society, the family. That we have eroded the strength of marriage and family through divorce, "blended" families and other "arrangements" does not support the argument that marriage is therefore now some kind of malleable or assignable "right", or that those not so deemed married by the state somehow suffer any loss of rights.
And I know several "blended" families and "arranged" couplings. Some are sincere, mostly positive, and happy, while others are for appearances, or convenience, or for a political statement. In all cases they are self-serving, and our society would endure with or without these associations. Without cultural human marriage and family, however, society will erode and disintegrate.
My culture and viewpoint compel me to vote Yes, sadly, and in exasperation that radicals from both sides have forced me to make a decision that will to a degree unnecessarily alienate me from some people. But I don't make cultural decisions based on the impact of tourism, and if my vote means more tourist dollars to Provincetown and fewer to San Diego, I think I can handle it. I'm happy to tolerate benign counter-culturalism, but I won't indulge or subsidize it.
I'm also knee-jerk opposed to practically everything that unions support. I've seen the teacher unions up close and personal, from the inside. Their spirit is always mean, my money is always theirs, and any opposition is racist and Jesus-freak. Yeah, that's the way to my heart. The fact that they are prominently on the No side makes my Yes vote easier. Just what in the hell does this have to do with their jobs as teachers? And why are the compulsory dues contributions of teachers who support 8 being used to oppose it?
And what if the proposition fails, which, given the barrage of ads, it very well might? Well, for one thing, you won't see Pentacostals or Knights of Columbus members rioting in the street, or heading towards Belmont Heights nude on bicycles in protest. Those who supported 8 will be as polite, hard-working and religious as they always were, just more determined than ever to reduce the power of government over their lives. We'll see a further hardening of the cultural battle lines, and a growing anti-government constituency that will at some point close their wallets. I know I'm immanentizing the eschaton, but that's the way it appears to be going anyway, what with a tanking economy and a Socialist President & Congress in our future.
Full disclosure: I'm 3rd Degree (though inactive) KofC - at least my dues are voluntary.
Hope I'm wrong. I'm a Julian Simon devotee, so I think the best is always ahead. Anyway, it's good to hear from you, and continued best wishes.
Posted by: JBD at
08:18 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 796 words, total size 6 kb.
DR. DOOM AGREES WITH ME
Remember my worst case scenario regarding the meltdown?
This guy agrees. And he was right about everything else.
Stay calm. Don't panic. Just play it conservative for a while. Deal with people you know. Do what golfers call "swinging within yourself". Take risks in discrete, independent small bites.
This guy agrees. And he was right about everything else.
Stay calm. Don't panic. Just play it conservative for a while. Deal with people you know. Do what golfers call "swinging within yourself". Take risks in discrete, independent small bites.
Posted by: JBD at
07:37 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 53 words, total size 1 kb.
RINO SIGHTING: BEN STEIN
Cousin Big Mike lets fly once again:
How can I not respond?
My mother was a liberal. I think it may have disappointed her that the more economics I studied, the more conservative I became. Economics tells us there is no such thing as a free lunch. Democrats used to be the main offenders here.
However, since Reagan, the Republicans have chased a free lunch in terms of low taxes while spending freely. The problem with this reasoning is that the national deficits we have been running are akin to a family living off of credit cards and home equity loans! In a real sense it is similar to a pyramid scheme. We have been living as if we could increase borrowing forever!
In my opinion, McCain might very well lead us into depression! He seems totally clueless about economics. This is not just me saying it. I’ll also attach an article by Ben Stein. He is a rock-ribbed conservative with a PhD in Economics. He was a speech writer for Nixon. If you want I can send you other articles by conservatives such as George Will and David Brooks.
In general, economically competent Republicans have concluded that the Reagan years of low taxes and deregulation should be over! Meanwhile, the party has pretty well alienated anyone not ignorant about economics! Obama strongly leads in support all professional groups including bankers, CPAs, Attorneys, and MDs. High tech executive favor Obama 5-1!
I feel guilty about all of the times I’ve voted Republican recently! I’m doing penance by writing this essay and actually donating to Obama.
However, since Reagan, the Republicans have chased a free lunch in terms of low taxes while spending freely. The problem with this reasoning is that the national deficits we have been running are akin to a family living off of credit cards and home equity loans! In a real sense it is similar to a pyramid scheme. We have been living as if we could increase borrowing forever!
In my opinion, McCain might very well lead us into depression! He seems totally clueless about economics. This is not just me saying it. I’ll also attach an article by Ben Stein. He is a rock-ribbed conservative with a PhD in Economics. He was a speech writer for Nixon. If you want I can send you other articles by conservatives such as George Will and David Brooks.
In general, economically competent Republicans have concluded that the Reagan years of low taxes and deregulation should be over! Meanwhile, the party has pretty well alienated anyone not ignorant about economics! Obama strongly leads in support all professional groups including bankers, CPAs, Attorneys, and MDs. High tech executive favor Obama 5-1!
I feel guilty about all of the times I’ve voted Republican recently! I’m doing penance by writing this essay and actually donating to Obama.
How can I not respond?
Been reading Ben Stein for 20 years, and have a couple of his books. He has only recently turned sappy on taxes (he's always been sappy on tort reform, since he's a lawyer first, economist second, character actor third.) One problem with this most recent change in tune re: taxes is that, as he full well knows, there are not enough "rich" people (high annual income earners) in the country to make a dent in the deficit. Notice also that this article was from August 9, before the big meltdown. He's changed his tune again since then, and his latest articles are panicked calls for "shared misery". RINO talk if ever I heard it.
Ben has been going soft as he ages and gets more acculturated in Hollywood. He gets more writing gigs, TV spots and other opportunities if he's seen as a softening conservative. His statement that Social Security, military, and the bulk of government spending is "untouchable" is ludicrous, as we are all about to find out. If there's no money, spending will drop, and the interesting part will be to see who defends what spending as "essential".
Increasing taxes to increase government revenue is idiotic. Government revenue increased every year following tax cuts, because the money not collected by the government stays in the economy and creates wealth through voluntary economic activity. As the economy grows, tax revenues increase, so taxes actually should to be reduced continually to keep the level of spending the same.
That does not happen, obviously, except at the low-income levels, where the bottom 38% pay no AGI income taxes (they still still pay around 15% in SS taxes, but since those revenues have been pulled out of the SS system for decades and spent on current expenses, it amounts to a bottom Fed tax rate on everybody of no less than 15%). As more money is collected, budgets get bigger, and projections are based on ever-increasing revenue. Which brings us to where we are today - spending commitments that are far in excess of any taxable income. And you people want more of it?
Giving the government money is the problem, not the solution. The government will spend everything it can get, plus anything it can get away with through budget doges. What do you think is going to happen to all those "projected" pension and Social Security "out" year funding increases now that income to governments at all levels will shrink by 30-50% for the next 2 years? The SS and pension meltdown will occur in a matter of months, not in the 10-12 years as projected "best case".
What Mike Dunn has right is that the Republicans did become part of the problem by overspending. In fact, they spent like Democrats. When they acted like Republicans, as they did from 1994-2000, they made Clinton swallow balanced budgets and spending restraints he once characterized as impossible and dangerous. By the way, how was the economy doing then?
So blame any president all you want, but the truth is that Congress spends the money, and the president can only shut down the government if he opposes a bad budget bill. And W would not do that with soldiers on the battlefield, so he signed budgets that were greatly in excess of what he asked for. The majority Republicans in congress from 2000-2006, joined with the spend-it-all Democrats, are to blame. My solution is to keep the money away from both of them. How is that bad?
And if they really think it will help, Ben and all his rich friends can write checks to the government any time they damn well please. You think they could do it quietly for once? Since they haven't, and won't, until the government forces them to, says more about their true motivations than all their bitching about it ever could.
Ben has been going soft as he ages and gets more acculturated in Hollywood. He gets more writing gigs, TV spots and other opportunities if he's seen as a softening conservative. His statement that Social Security, military, and the bulk of government spending is "untouchable" is ludicrous, as we are all about to find out. If there's no money, spending will drop, and the interesting part will be to see who defends what spending as "essential".
Increasing taxes to increase government revenue is idiotic. Government revenue increased every year following tax cuts, because the money not collected by the government stays in the economy and creates wealth through voluntary economic activity. As the economy grows, tax revenues increase, so taxes actually should to be reduced continually to keep the level of spending the same.
That does not happen, obviously, except at the low-income levels, where the bottom 38% pay no AGI income taxes (they still still pay around 15% in SS taxes, but since those revenues have been pulled out of the SS system for decades and spent on current expenses, it amounts to a bottom Fed tax rate on everybody of no less than 15%). As more money is collected, budgets get bigger, and projections are based on ever-increasing revenue. Which brings us to where we are today - spending commitments that are far in excess of any taxable income. And you people want more of it?
Giving the government money is the problem, not the solution. The government will spend everything it can get, plus anything it can get away with through budget doges. What do you think is going to happen to all those "projected" pension and Social Security "out" year funding increases now that income to governments at all levels will shrink by 30-50% for the next 2 years? The SS and pension meltdown will occur in a matter of months, not in the 10-12 years as projected "best case".
What Mike Dunn has right is that the Republicans did become part of the problem by overspending. In fact, they spent like Democrats. When they acted like Republicans, as they did from 1994-2000, they made Clinton swallow balanced budgets and spending restraints he once characterized as impossible and dangerous. By the way, how was the economy doing then?
So blame any president all you want, but the truth is that Congress spends the money, and the president can only shut down the government if he opposes a bad budget bill. And W would not do that with soldiers on the battlefield, so he signed budgets that were greatly in excess of what he asked for. The majority Republicans in congress from 2000-2006, joined with the spend-it-all Democrats, are to blame. My solution is to keep the money away from both of them. How is that bad?
And if they really think it will help, Ben and all his rich friends can write checks to the government any time they damn well please. You think they could do it quietly for once? Since they haven't, and won't, until the government forces them to, says more about their true motivations than all their bitching about it ever could.
Posted by: JBD at
06:53 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 913 words, total size 6 kb.
CHUTZPAH, SWEETHART, CHUTZPAH
A friend forwarded this note she got recently from a mortgage broker:
[JBD - the article is now gone from their home page - I found a cached copy, click on the link below].
Go read the plan. It boils down to this - the government should subsidize mortgages so that real estate values will increase, and this will save the market. And they are dead serious about it.
So let me get this straight - the original bubble and the ensuing crisis was caused by the government subsidizing mortgages, and the answer is for the government to do it again?
I know you have to be aggressive to sell mortgages, but this takes the cake. They should all be hiding in rain barrels or wearing disguises instead of lobbying for more of the same.
Dear XXXXX ,
Amerisave has come up with a plan to protect your home’s value and to save the economy. We are trying to get as much publicity for the plan as possible in the hopes that Washington will take notice. The article is on the home page of www.amerisave.com .
[JBD - the article is now gone from their home page - I found a cached copy, click on the link below].
Please review the article, and if you think it is a good plan, Digg It. Please forward this email to friends and family, and if you have a website link it to www.amerisave.com .
We must all do what we can to get the politicians to act on this plan.
Sincerely,
The Mortgage Broker Guy
We must all do what we can to get the politicians to act on this plan.
Sincerely,
The Mortgage Broker Guy
Go read the plan. It boils down to this - the government should subsidize mortgages so that real estate values will increase, and this will save the market. And they are dead serious about it.
So let me get this straight - the original bubble and the ensuing crisis was caused by the government subsidizing mortgages, and the answer is for the government to do it again?
I know you have to be aggressive to sell mortgages, but this takes the cake. They should all be hiding in rain barrels or wearing disguises instead of lobbying for more of the same.
Posted by: JBD at
05:56 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 223 words, total size 2 kb.
OBAMA & RACE - AT LAST, A SIMPLE, NON CONTROVERSIAL TOPIC
I was trying to bolt together my thoughts on the subject of race and politics in re: Obama, when I fortunately stumbled across this.
It's everything I wanted to say, only, you know, good.
It's everything I wanted to say, only, you know, good.
Posted by: JBD at
04:12 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 45 words, total size 1 kb.
THE FRED FLINTSTONE VERSION OF THE STOCK MARKET
In keeping with the "back to basics" mode for the day, I suggest you read this to help you understand just what in the hell everybody is talking about.
I've read it 4 times, and I'm still foggy on hedging.
I've read it 4 times, and I'm still foggy on hedging.
Posted by: JBD at
02:56 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 48 words, total size 1 kb.
SO SHOULD THERE BE A WINDFALL LOSSES TAX CUT FOR OIL COMPANIES?
Gas prices go up = oil company windfall profits = calls for tax increases.
Gas prices go down (now lower than a year ago same date) = oil company extraordinary losses = call for tax cuts?
If not, why not?
Gas prices go down (now lower than a year ago same date) = oil company extraordinary losses = call for tax cuts?
If not, why not?
Posted by: JBD at
02:53 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 52 words, total size 1 kb.
TAXES EXPLAINED SO THAT EVEN US DRUNKS CAN UNDERSTAND
The Chief sends along this parable to illustrate for us morons what Joe the Plumber was trying to explain to Obama.
For those who understand, no explanation is necessary.
For those who don't understand, no explanation is possible.
By David Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia
Here's a follow up from Rumen, a native Bulgarian, who revises the fable to illustrate the "sub-prime bubble" and what it's like to "pay taxes" outside of America, under the Hot Breath of the Cossacks.
Until they pass the Internet Fairness Doctrine, that is.
UPDATE: A real life example of this parable!
Bar Stool Economics
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
> The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
> The fifth would pay $1.
> The sixth would pay $3.
> The seventh would pay $7.
> The eighth would pay $12.
> The ninth would pay $18.
> The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20." (The Bush tax cuts) The bill for the ten men now cost them just $80.
The men still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes, so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. What about the other six men, though, the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 "windfall" so that everyone would get his fair share"
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33, but if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink their beer (the Obama plan). So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount. So, he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
> The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
> The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
> The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
> The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
> The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
> The tenth man now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six men was better off than before, and the first four continued to drink for free. Once outside the bar, though, the men began to compare their savings. (Listening to Obama) "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man and said, "He got $10." "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I did!" "That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I only got two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth man and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up (Name: Atlas. Reaction: Shrug)
So the remaining nine sat down and had their beers without him. When it came time to pay the bill, though, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between them for even half the bill.
And that, boys and girls, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, or attack them for being wealthy, and they may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking their beer overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
[JBD comment: Depending, of course, where "overseas" you go. Most of the "10th men" from the EU and socialist Asia had to come to America just to get the privilege of of earning enough money to pay for 9 free beers for every one he enjoyed. What we really get from "going overseas" is either cheaper beer or more "friends" for the same amount of money]Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
> The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
> The fifth would pay $1.
> The sixth would pay $3.
> The seventh would pay $7.
> The eighth would pay $12.
> The ninth would pay $18.
> The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20." (The Bush tax cuts) The bill for the ten men now cost them just $80.
The men still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes, so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. What about the other six men, though, the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 "windfall" so that everyone would get his fair share"
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33, but if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink their beer (the Obama plan). So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount. So, he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
> The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
> The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
> The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
> The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
> The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
> The tenth man now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six men was better off than before, and the first four continued to drink for free. Once outside the bar, though, the men began to compare their savings. (Listening to Obama) "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man and said, "He got $10." "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I did!" "That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I only got two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth man and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up (Name: Atlas. Reaction: Shrug)
So the remaining nine sat down and had their beers without him. When it came time to pay the bill, though, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between them for even half the bill.
And that, boys and girls, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, or attack them for being wealthy, and they may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking their beer overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
For those who understand, no explanation is necessary.
For those who don't understand, no explanation is possible.
By David Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia
Actually the true story was a little bit different:
It started the same way you describe it:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
But one day the richest man (Bill Clinton) came to the bar with this "great" idea. "Lets have a credit card (FannieMae) and pay 20 % from our bill with it."
This way :
>The fifth would pay $0.80. - $0.20 on the credit
>The sixth would pay $2.4 - $0.60 on the credit
>The seventh would pay $5.6 - $1.4 on the credit
>The eighth would pay $9.6 - $2.4 on the credit
>The ninth would pay $14.4 - $3.6 on the credit
>The tenth man (the richest) would pay $47.1 - $11.8 on the credit
Everybody was happy, especially the richest man. He was saving a lot. They start drinking more and more and spending more and more money and paying with the credit card. Suddenly on the eight day something happened. The credit card was maxed out. They couldn't use it anymore. They gathered together and started to discuss what to do next. How to get out from this crisis situation.
They had to pay as they used to pay eight days ago:
>The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
>The fifth would pay $1.
>The sixth would pay $3.
>The seventh would pay $7.
>The eighth would pay $12.
>The ninth would pay $18.
>The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59
But what about the credit card they maxed out? Who will pay for that? Everybody was very angry with the rich man. (Now George Bush) "You put us into this mess! You will have to pay it!" The rich man got angry and said. "OK I won't drink beer in this bar anymore" and he left.
He went overseas into another bar. As soon as he entered the bar a big scary looking guy with huge muscles (Nancy Pelosi) came to him. "Look fellow, this bar is nothing like the bar you came from. Here you have to pay me 50% from the money you spent so I can protect you."
"Are you crazy?" said the rich man. "I'm not giving you a shit"
As soon as he said that another four guys even bigger and scarier than the first one came and beat the crap out of him and took all his money away. (The mainstream media)
I might have goofed up the story line with my paretheticals, but it is my blog, after all. It started the same way you describe it:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
But one day the richest man (Bill Clinton) came to the bar with this "great" idea. "Lets have a credit card (FannieMae) and pay 20 % from our bill with it."
This way :
>The fifth would pay $0.80. - $0.20 on the credit
>The sixth would pay $2.4 - $0.60 on the credit
>The seventh would pay $5.6 - $1.4 on the credit
>The eighth would pay $9.6 - $2.4 on the credit
>The ninth would pay $14.4 - $3.6 on the credit
>The tenth man (the richest) would pay $47.1 - $11.8 on the credit
Everybody was happy, especially the richest man. He was saving a lot. They start drinking more and more and spending more and more money and paying with the credit card. Suddenly on the eight day something happened. The credit card was maxed out. They couldn't use it anymore. They gathered together and started to discuss what to do next. How to get out from this crisis situation.
They had to pay as they used to pay eight days ago:
>The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
>The fifth would pay $1.
>The sixth would pay $3.
>The seventh would pay $7.
>The eighth would pay $12.
>The ninth would pay $18.
>The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59
But what about the credit card they maxed out? Who will pay for that? Everybody was very angry with the rich man. (Now George Bush) "You put us into this mess! You will have to pay it!" The rich man got angry and said. "OK I won't drink beer in this bar anymore" and he left.
He went overseas into another bar. As soon as he entered the bar a big scary looking guy with huge muscles (Nancy Pelosi) came to him. "Look fellow, this bar is nothing like the bar you came from. Here you have to pay me 50% from the money you spent so I can protect you."
"Are you crazy?" said the rich man. "I'm not giving you a shit"
As soon as he said that another four guys even bigger and scarier than the first one came and beat the crap out of him and took all his money away. (The mainstream media)
Until they pass the Internet Fairness Doctrine, that is.
UPDATE: A real life example of this parable!
Posted by: JBD at
01:11 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 1130 words, total size 13 kb.
75kb generated in CPU 0.0802, elapsed 0.0668 seconds.
27 queries taking 0.057 seconds, 70 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
27 queries taking 0.057 seconds, 70 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.