Sunday, May 31, 2009
Holy "I'm never going to be a contributing member to society-daddy-can-you-give-me-more-money-please-while-I-protest-the-capitalist-system-that-afforded-me-this-lifestyle" Batman.
This is an example of the reason this country is damned. Young CHILDREN that never have to grow up.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Ergo, to prove to you it is that insane in this state of Minnesota, visit Stingernation.
A more social outlook on Minnesota than my hate filled tirades.
Friday, May 29, 2009
That being said, inventory to sales seems to have leveled off. Normally this would suggest an end to a recession, but when you misallocate $2 trillion in a $14 trillion in the form of a "stimulus," well that kind of fiscal policy will mute any traditional, natural means by which the economy heals itself.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
If this is the quality and caliber of his "economists" well freaking A. They're about as good as Lehman Brother, AIG, GMAC and other economists out there.
I can't wait, I really can't wait, until all those people who were so damn foolish and ignorant when it came to economics who voted for Barack Obama ACTUALLY THINKING HE KNEW HOW TO FIX THIS ECONOMY get to suffer the consequences.
ht to One Conservative Voice
I qualified for the first round which necessitated a professional photoshoot, however, I unfortunately did not make it to the second round. That being said, the photos of your lovable adorable Captain are available for your entertainment (my female friends say 43, 44 and 79 are the best), and if you happen to be in the Minneapolis area, the competition still goes on.
Also, permit me (should you ever have the need for a professional photographer) to endorse Ingrid Wertmann. Not only is she a professional, but she is also quite witty, funny and personable. You would do yourself a good service getting her to meet your photography needs.
"What is your favorite color and why"
who at the same time is presumably the first line of defense to help in (what would seem to be the INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT TASK OF) finding the best labor,
ehhhh, not so much a profession. More like "accounting was hard and I like having power... err...I meant, I'm a people person" kind of hobby.
But there is one thing I do not get and that is Taleo/Brass Ring or any one of those online application software packages. Not that having an online application program is a bad thing, but the only question I want answered is;
WHY IN EF'S NAME DO I HAVE TO UPLOAD A RESUME ONLY TO RE-ENTER THAT SAME DAMN DATA INTO TEXT FIELDS???
Uploading the resume I can understand.
Entering my work experience in individual, organized text fields.
BUT NOT BOTH!
But oh no, they want you to duplicate your work.
Thus, I ask all of you Cappy Cap readers, does anybody have the answer to this?
And no, I will not be taking answers from HR people. I want an engineer or a hiring manager or something outside the political machine to give me the real answer.
POST SCRIPT - I have received enough e-mails/posts from HR professionals (which I recall quite clearly not asking for) lecturing me about the merits of this double entry data system. They fall into two categories.
One- as cited by those in the computer science fields which makes much sense - is in regards to parsing. That if one is to effectively screen for the skills/experience/talent/etc. you need to enter it twice, providing searchable data yet providing a ready-resume for reference. And that was the answer I was looking for. The logical, rational explanation why I was seemingly doing pointless work twice. I will now go forth and enter the data twice, should I ever decide to grace the labor market with the opportunity to avail themselves of my talent.
Two - the condescending tone of (obviously) HR professionals (who were self-admitted) about how "If you can't enter data twice, then what kind of worthless employee would you be?"
Gee, I don't know, the same kind of worthless employer/manager/management type that makes people jump through worthless hoops to prove their aptitude for being a corporate bitch...err...I mean...ummm..."prove their aptitude for being a "LOYAL" employee?"
ENTER DATA TWICE SIMPLY TO PROVE POTENTIAL LOYALTY?
No, sounds more like a screening tactic to find out who you can get to be your corporate bitch (sorry for my cursing, but I am adamantly insistent this is one of the major flaws of corporate America that will bring about it's end) than any sincere desire to find talented ADULT employees.
This is precisely the response I wanted because it does prove that these HR people are:
who have no real skill or talent, but above all else are;
POWER HUNGRY ASSHOLES WHO DON'T CONTRIBUTE A DAMN THING TO THE CORPORATION.
What sick twisted minds come up with a WORTHLESS test to simply test whether people will pointlessly do things? What it tells me is what we've already known.
Corporate America wants compliant people. Not smart people. Smart decisions are reserved for nepotists, connected cronies, and people who sleep their way to the top. And if you want to become part of "Lehman Brothers" or "Goldman Sachs" well your schmoozing tactics must be top notch.
And if you don't believe that I'm right, that I'm just some embittered kook, well then, why don't you just take a looksie at the profits of all those "established" "fortune 500" corporations and "bulge bracket" "elite" Wall Street firms?
Wouldn't the "BEST TALENT" have inoculated them against this housing crash and subsequent economic crisis?
Oh, that's right, I don't play corrupt ball. And people like Shiller and Schiff are morons.
In the meantime, enjoy hiring the MBA's who've been trained to tell you what you want to hear and not what you need to hear. Let alone anybody with any real skill, talent or insight that might actually lead your company out of this economic morass and into prosperity. I'm sure you'll become as innovative and efficient as Japanese Kieretsu's.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Unfortunately my uncle had taken ill and I went to visit him in the scenic eastern Wisconsin town of
for the entire trip in terms of sustenance.
But even more limited is your choice of radio stations, for while there are many radio stations, they all fall into two distinct categories;
I literally heard a song called "That's Not My Truck in Her Driveway."
Only to change the channel and hear a southern-accented man (of which there are none in
And there's only so many games you can play to entertain yourself. Games like "count the number of strip clubs" (4 of them - Shooters, Chubby's, The "Rear End, and Up North, NONE of which suggested anything less than metric tonnage on the stage), "Cows and Graveyards" (pick a side, north or south, one gets cows, the other gets graveyards, whichever side gets the most WINS!) and "Pull Over and Go to the Bathroom A Lot Even Though You Don't Have to Go But Really Just Need a Break from the Mundacity."
Regardless, I'd get intermittent reception of Rush Limbaugh or talk radio so I was able to make it, but I heard three things on the radio that made me think and thought this worthy of writing.
The first thing I heard was on the news, this nut job woman who essentially killed her child because when he daughter went into a coma instead of taking her to the hospital, had A PRAYER RING so that God might save her.
The second thing was the on-going saga of the nutjob "naturalistic" parents in Sleepy Eye,
But the third was the one that did it. It was a Jesus station I had temporarily tuned into and the radio show host, who was a pastor, was calling on his listeners to PRAY FOR THE COUNTRY SO THEY MIGHT OVERCOME THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION.Now, it is no secret that I am pretty much anti-religion. I think religion is essentially just a hold-over of ancient forms of government, becoming obsoleted as science proves more and more of their beliefs incorrect, which essentially makes them just cults of brainwashing or "clubs" people join to make themselves feel better. But what particularly irks me is that this displays the "spectator sport" attitude of what I think infects most of the people on the right. They think "praying" is somehow going to help bring about the end of the wave of socialism sweeping the nation. It also makes it incredibly difficult for conservatism, capitalism, or libertarianism to mount a counter-offensive in that the religious right, with inane statements like this, is intertwined, particularly with the Republican party.
Now I know people on the right don't want to hear this, but right now, in the midst of the worst recession since the Great Depression and as the country IS leaving its historical, constitutionally founded past and RAPIDLY pursuing an anti-freedom, socialist agenda we have REALLY got to shed these irrelevant battles for/against social issues such as gay rights, abortion, etc., and focus on the one that is most pressing and most relevant and that is the economic issue.
The Republican party is delusioned with ancillary arguments and causes that are frankly irrelevant to the future of the nation. It needs to realize the immediate threat is economic. And, being the economist, I will argue that if economic freedom is THE MOST IMPORTANT freedom in that if it is lost, then all other social freedoms will be lost. It is the "key stone" freedom that ensures and guarantees all others (which is why if I am king I will make a constitutional amendment that the governments, state federal and local, cannot confiscate more than 25% GDP). Furthermore more, the Republican party has got to grow a pair and make a clear distinction between them and the democrats. Oh I know the country wants socialism, but look how well you've done for yourselves capitulating to their desires and leaving true republican standards becoming "socialists light." You lost everything. The best thing for the Republican party would be to instead of looking at the next election (which is short termism) start looking long term which means making a clear distinction between them and the socialists, which means standing on principle and STICKING TO IT REGARDLESS OF THE IDIOCY/PARTICULAR MOOD OF THE NATION, and the reason why they should do this is that when the country is suffering in the throes of socialism they will have a clear and distinctly different alternative. Not just "socialism light" which I'm sure will become the next fad in about 15 years or so, but it would more or less guarantee a "reign" of sorts that would last more than 4 years, not to mention complete control of the congress. Heck, to help expedite this, the Republican party could actually become more moralled than the Democrats. The Republican party could go so far as to make it a party by-law that no republican shall have more than three terms in any government office...
Of course I'm just dreaming, but that is certainly more feasible than anybody's prayer being answered to get Obama out of office.
The knee-jerk, complete lack of thinking and intellectually honesty response from brainwashed leftists, particularly the youth, is that Obama is just carrying on what Bush started.
Try to show them figures. Try to explain Obama "quadrupled down" on what Bush did (which behooves the question why was GW so bad when Obama is Bush X's 4). They still PURPOSELY CHOOSE TO IGNORE REALITY and still blame it on Bush.
Ergo, I get sick of these infantile arguments from infantile children who just want to bitch and cheer for socialism and not ever grow up and have an adult conversation. But the little video below might, just might, get these Obama/Socialism zealots the slap across the face they need;
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
We get more heart attacks, strokes and prostate trouble.
I say, it's time for a change.
I say, let them give us money.
Let's live off them for a while."
So I'm curious, is it sexist to be for this or are you a hero of feminism if you're for it?
I'm just confused and want clarification.
Ah, isn't it great when leftist philosophy inevitably reveals it's hypocrisy?
The swing dance renaissance of the late 90’s brought out the best of my generation and provided us with arguably the best times we were ever going to have in our lives. Men were dressing in suits and women were dressing in dresses. People cared about what they looked like, not in a slutty, going-to-the-meat market sort of way, but more in a “how close can I get to look like Cary Gran/Audrey Hepburn” sort of way. It often reminded me of a theory I had that if the architecture in a city looked better then the people would be happier as it gave them something visually pleasing to look at. And the way the masses dressed I theorized would be no different and thus if the people would dress better then the masses would be happier. But if there was one thing to look at in the entire swing dance scene and something that would certainly make the men happier as it would be visually pleasing to look at, one had to go no further than the illustrious and moxified Jennifer Fondulac.
Jennifer Fondulac was every guy’s dream come true. She was a short, petite redhead whose specialty was not just fashion, but retro fashion. She would regale the men in the swing scene with beautiful 1950’s dresses, heels that were so classy they would put most of the Fredrick’s of
Fortunately for me I was one of the best swing dancers which invariably meant I got to not only dance with this heavenly creature, but I got to know her as well. She invited me over to a couple parties and soon, after enough conversation, she invited me out for a ride on her little moped. Sure enough, I showed up, and there she was on her vintage Vespa, pigtails coming out of her helmet and all. She took me for a joy ride through
Of course in retrospect I was well within my rights to ask her out. We had danced, we were roughly on par with one another in terms of looks. Same intelligence level and she had invited me to not just parties, but now a one on one outing where she was giving me a ride on her moped. And so with great confidence that I was soon to be courting this hot red-headed number I asked her on a date. To which she responded,
“Oh, I’m sorry, but I have a boyfriend.”
I was shocked. Never before in the past 4 months of me knowing her had I seen nor heard of a boyfriend. And given she had a passion for dancing, I figured he must have been on the swing dance scene as well. Completely confused as to his whereabouts I said,
“You have a boyfriend? Well where the hell has he been? I’ve never seen you with a guy before.”
And then the jaw-dropping moment came that would knock Jennifer from a heavenly, naughty, June Cleaver with red hair and a moped to just another childish, middle-schoolish girl,
“Well he lives in the
A face that can only be described as the Shrek-Donkey face when they see the Doluc welcome song took to my face.
Now the reason I bring this up is that not only do I need to establish a historical record of what I had gone through during my twenties so you all know why your beloved Captain came out the way he did, and not only have I heard of this excuse being used more and more by older and older girls/women and therefore find it necessary to discuss it, but there are no doubt millions of young, middle school/high school boys where it is a ritual that they have to tolerate this vapid crap and are left even more confused than they already were (which was already an unacceptable amount of confusion anyway). Ergo let me explain;
1. That’s precisely what the “I have a boyfriend in Chile/UK/Russia” line is; vapid crap. There is no line or logic to it. If you get this excuse it’s because the girl doesn’t really want to have a boyfriend, but just likes to have the “status” of having a boyfriend.
2. I don’t know if it’s because girls are afraid of intimacy or what the specific reason is why girls resort to this, but you can see the inanity of it regardless when you ask the natural follow up question of “how often do you see him?” This is the logical question in that half, if not 90% of the point of having a boy/girlfriend is the kissings and the snugglings and (presuming you’re old enough) the sexings. The inanity is proved when they almost always say, “every 6 months he flies over for 2 weeks, but (are you ready for the eye-roller?) WE E-MAIL EVERY NIGHT," as if that has now validated this pointless relationship. I know it doesn’t make any sense, but it is key to understand you don’t have to concern yourself with making heads or tails of it. All you have to do is realize that you ARE dealing with a little girl and is probably somebody you don’t want to go out with anyway.
3. I can understand younger girls (such as middle school or even freshmen in high school) doing this in that they are LITTLE GIRLS and prone to playing with Barbie Dolls and make-believe and living in lala land. But good lord and all that is Godiva Chocolates and fat wiener dogs, women who ARE IN THEIR 20’s???????? Now as I said before, this was quite some time ago when I ran into the 25 year old, but I’m hearing this as a more common event.
Thus, for all the Cappy Cap women out there, could some of you please explain to me what the heck is going on? In the meantime could we all make it a law or something this excuse is never used upon graduating from the 8th grade?
But the biggest bubble, and one that has yet to deflate fully, is the retirement bubble. Yes, tens of billions of dollars flooding religiously and regularly every month into the stock market because the federal government has just magically decided that stocks and mutual funds are now the defacto retirement vehicle for the masses. And with tax benefits granted via the 401k/IRA/403b and other plans, how can you not throw your money into the stock market?
Regardless, this behavior engrains in the American psychology that rising asset prices HAS to occur simply because we've invested so much in it. That Barack Obama CANNOT fail because we've put our hearts and souls into it. Or (on the other side of the political isle) America CANNOT fail because it's America and Americans are great because Sean Hannity told me so, tee-hee, I want an SUV and a rich husband, tee-hee! It is a religious belief rather than a calculated financial investment that drives market sentiment and thus why you have this;
Oh, yeah, THAT'S reassuring;
"America is still getting sucky, we're just getting suckier at a slightly less sucky rate."
And how does the market respond to this?
Up 2% I last saw today.
Oh yeah, like the market just isn't looking for ANY reason for prices to go up.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
For example if we were allowed to get rid of children that disrupt class and thereby lessen the quality of education for the remaining 80%, imagine what levels of learning those kids could learn?
Instead of having "commuter lanes" that nobody uses or light rail systems that benefit the minority, why not build 12 lane highways so people can not only get to work on time, but spend more time with family, less time on the road, and if you are a true environmentalist, burn less fossil fuels as they zip quickly along.
We could even shoot the majority of bankers and mortgage brokers that caused the economic crisis we're in. Imagine a functional and accurate financial system that assesses risk and return precisely and allocates resources accordingly (not to mention the additional honesty we'd receive from bankers as "The Great Banker Purge of 2009" is fresh in their memories).
But of all the many bottlenecks we could destroy there is one that would cause immense economic growth;
The grocery store lane.
You see right now in Minnesota you get a 50/50 chance of having a self-check out lane at most grocery stores. Those 50% WITHOUT self-check out lanes are the culprits in holding back our economic recovery. Yes, I, along with many-a-bachelor have availed ourselves of this great time saving device. We save the grocery store money in that they needn't hire labor to check us out. And with the time saved, it gives us all that much more time to contribute to GDP and lead this nation out of recession.
But oh, there are those grocery stores that insist on holding us hostage, waiting behind Tilly and her $173.45 worth of groceries, keeping us from our heroic economic calling of contributing to GDP. Oh no, we're not allowed out of the slow grocery store lane. No, we have to suffer looking over worthless rags/magazines about Julia Roberts and Brad Pitt interspersed between the trashy romance novels. Only to be condemned to a lengthier sentence as Tilly pulls out her coupons.
Yes, Tilly saved $1.02.
But it cost the economy $3,506 in lost labor and production.
Ergo, when I am king, I shall mandate that all stores have self-check out lines so that the movers and shakers and true GDP-producers may pay for their wares, get out of the store and get on with their lives, while Tilly and her coupon cutters can hold each other up.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Understand though, California is nothing more than a beta trial version of Obama 1.0, which will roll out for the nation in a couple years.
In the meantime, how much you want to bet the children of California are going to ask states with more responsible people to bail them out with a federal hand out?
What an overrated state, simply (and this is how simple it is) because of the weather.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Young (latin for - idiots who are too young to know what they're talking about and should not be able to vote until they're 35) Americans voted in droves for Barack Obama. Why they did this can be summarized why they voted for Stevie or whoever it was that won the latest round of American Idol. It was a popularity contest. Nobody bothered to look at his projected spending. Nobody bothered to see whether there was enough money to pay for his promises. Nobody held him up to any kind of standard or rigor that should have been applied to the president of the United States. And the reason why is that's "lame man. Why do you have to kill our good time? Why do you have to be such a downer, man? Who cares about economics and finance and the budget. Can't you just be for hope and change? Besides he's cool. Did you see his pecks? Geez, you're such a nerd!"
The problem is their ignorance has finally caught up with them. For while the Baby Boomers will it seems die before they have to pay the piper, Gen X and Gen Y will not. And all they've done in voting for "hope and change" is essentially indebt themselves further to the tune of several trillion dollars (I'm just saying "several" trillion because it's going to be more than three, but less than 60...I hope) In other words, no Gen X'er who voted for Obama looked at the chart below which shows how much additional federal debt has been added each year per person and shows they quite frankly, just got totally screwed;
It's frankly appalling that the government has burdened everybody (or projected to burden them) with more debt than we ever did in the history of the US. Not even in WWII when there was a crisis of genuinely epic proportions did we burden the American public so. And FDR indebted Americans NOWHERE NEAR THE AMOUNT TODAY (I adjusted for inflation). This is simply just idiots voting themselves bread and circuses who are too damn stupid to realize they've essentially turned themselves and their children into slaves to afford these things.
Now if you really want to do something funny today, print off the chart above and then show it to a young Obama supporter and watch them hem and haw and then DISMISS IT AS IRRELEVANT or "I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU GOT THOSE FIGURES" simply because they are too damn ignorant (or too damn ashamed) to realize they should have buyer's remorse. They will literally adhere to their ideology when you've just shown them they've swallowed, hook line and sinker indentured servitude. That is the definition of stupid.
Yes, the Captain's wares. It puts food on his table, pays the mortgage and helps him pay taxes to the beloved Obama!
Take a class on personal financial management
Learn how to invest in stocks
Buy his awesome book
Buy his "I contribute to GDP" apparel (and impress the opposite sex at the same time)
Or take a dance class (or buy his instructional dance dvd's if you happen to not be conveniently located in Minneapolis)
Go, do it now! Quick!
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Monday, May 18, 2009
And so to irk these nazis further I've decided to post another chart from The Economist which, once again, seems to betray its namesake in that it didn't adjust for certain simple economic factors. This chart shows the median income of (essentially) married people versus single children. They cite the incomes of people with a spouse and two children versus that of a single person. They then herald this "amazing" discovery that single people do not make as much as married and child-full people.
And that natural question I ask;
"Did you adjust for this income on a per capita basis?"
I didn't think so.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Friday, May 15, 2009
And of the many things I'd recommend including eliminating corporate taxes, phasing out medicare and social security and welfare, as well as banning government finances of 2-year degrees and all liberal arts degrees, there is one that would come first and foremost;
Assassinating all people who insist on getting ahead of me in line at the gas station who then;
Ask for a pack of cigarettes
Who then debate what kind of cigarettes they want and talk through their thought process
Oh, guess what. They don't have menthols. Do you want another?
Hmmm...let me see. How about filtered?
The process restarts then, and inevitably a cancer stick of choice is chosen.
And upon finally getting those cigarettes, without fail, they buy at least one lottery ticket.
But not without first going through the same tortuously slow process of picking a type of cigarette.
Sure enough a stick that will kill them and a piece of paper that will impoverish them further is chosen. And how do these people pay for it?
With a check.
Of course by this time a line of 40 people has formed behind these people and we've all missed whatever previous engagement we had. And the economy has tanked an additional 6.2% GDP because these people are the plaque that clogs the arteries of America's economy. But that's alright, society accommodates for these people because it's more important to inconvenience the masses and tank the economy and grind all progress to a halt than to let the rest of us get on with our lives.
In any case, just sharing that with you guys that this would be my first act as president.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Brought to you by The Deets! YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE DEETS!!!!
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Or at least that is what I am told by the 20 somethings who tend bar at my favorite watering hole in my favorite town.
I am old.
I am also reliably informed that I am nerdy.
Never mind that I'm quite dashing. Never mind that I can dance the night away with any femme fatale I want. Never mind that I have probably had more than my fair share of dates with the local lovelies.
No, I'm a nerd.
And the reason I'm a nerd is that when I walk into my favorite bar, it is a 100% guarantee that the "game" is on. And it is also a 100% guarantee that all the 20 something staff, either on or off duty are watching the game. And when I walk into the bar and ask, "So is that team with the blue jersey's going to try to hit the ball with the wood stick harder than the team with the red jerseys are?"
"Boy, I sure hope he runs fast around that diamond in the dirt they placed for him there."
"Ooo! Look, one set of guys on skates are trying to hit the black disc into a net while A SEPARATE GROUP OF GUYS try to do the same, but to the other net! What chaos will ensue?"
"Wow! I hope the guys in the gray throw the orange sphere into the circle more than the guys in the purple do!"
It is a practical guarantee I am lectured, "Dude, you're such a nerd! Don't you know who that is! That's JOE MAUER!"
I then sarcastically point to the idiot in the bar wearing a Joe Mauer jersey with "MAUER" on the back and say, "Well wait, how can Joe Mauer be on the TV swinging the wooden stick when he's sitting at the bar."
Of course the larger intellectual point is lost on these twenty somethings, but that's just the point.
Watching sports is stupid.
Playing them, well now that's fun. There's a purpose in that. You get exercise, you get to play and have fun, there's also good ole fashioned competition. But to sit there and buy a $60 jersey and pin your happiness and hopes on one group of guys with white jerseys throwing the ball further than the other group of guys in the blue jerseys is bordering insane.
But here is an interesting thought, and one I cannot claim I concocted for I heard it on the Michael Medved show,
"What if people paid half the amount of attention to government than they do sports?"
Well I'll tell you what would happen, the country would not be in recession right now. Matter of fact, it may never be in recession again. For you see this is a democracy (anybody e-mailing me about this being a republic will be summarily ignored) and if the masses are ignorant and stupid, then the government is also going to be ignorant and stupid. Conversely if the masses are informed and educated, then the government would implement sound and effective laws and policies and standards of living would easily reach $250,000 income per capita.
However, this is not the case. People much rather watch a pointless score of how many times a rubber disc was shot across the ice and into another team's net than they would calculate the government deficit as a percent of GDP. People would much rather in a twisted (or perhaps complete lack of) logic apply relevancy of a football team's performance to their own personal lives than the tax rate they pay. People would much rather pin their success and happiness on the outcome of a basketball game than they would taking stewardship in this democracy, informing themselves about the issues, and in their citizenship duty vote in a competent government that would make effective decisions that would improve the lot of society.
In short, people would rather talk about Joe Mauer's batting average (which does not affect their lives in the slightest) than the medicare crisis (which most certainly will.)
Now, normally one would chalk this up to economics being "boring" and what "nerd" would want to talk about economics? However this moldy, boring study of economics seems to be getting a little bit more play and relevancy. As more and more people are being laid off and more and more of the dads of the 20 somethings are losing their jobs, now the kiddies are starting to realize there is the potential, though remote, that they might actually have to save some of their check to pay for rent instead of blowing it on booze in that there is the remote possibility daddy will not pay it for them (as daddy just recently was foreclosed upon or lost his job). Or that the tips are not coming in as much as the bar is only half as full as it used to be and people are tipping half as much.
Now of course we're a long way from 20 somethings putting as much effort into studying the federal budget as much as they do their fantasy football picks, but soon the desperation of the economy will more or less compel them to set the Iphonepoddiamondblue/blackberry down and maybe think or at least ponder, "Gee, how am I going to pay for my Crackberry Bill?"
Of course, this is the just the first step in a long and tortuous journey of discovering the truth. Of course it is already too late as these 20 somethings like Prager and Medved will inevitably become "Me too" conservatives only after they've pissed their lives away voting for people to destroy their futures, because this process takes 10 years to undo all the brainwashing. But at least it's a start and maybe some day...some day...these 20 somethings, albeit 40 somethings by the time they realize it, will come around. Of course, by that time it will be too late, but at least they'll understand why the country collapsed.
Because we all cared more about whether Brett Favre was going to play for the Vikings versus whether Obama was bankrupting the nation by bailing out inept and incompetent corporations.
Now go buy those dumb ass big styrafoam hands with the "#1" on it and wear your jerseys and "support your team" while the rest of the country dies because of a lack of real men.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
"WHAT!? Are you crazy? Why would you do that!"
"Well what's wrong with you? Why don't you want kids?
Some go so far as to even call it "selfish" that I don't want to endure the 18 year pain and agony that is known as a child.
But despite the obvious benefits to never having children, these benefits do not seem so obvious to the masses. And therefore as a benefit to the masses (not to mention to get these pro-children zealots off my ass) I have decided to explain, in detail why I decided not to have children so you may see there is actual rhyme and reason to such a decision and that you may really want to seriously think about it yourself.
First off there is the cost of a child. Forget it. Depending on the figures you use, a kid can run anywhere from $200,000 on the cheap to $500,000 on the average. I made a post once about the ROI of a vasectomy and basically you don't have to worry about paying for your retirement if you don't have kids. Amortized over 18 years (22 if you pay for college) you get an annualized rate of return (or technically savings) of around 47%. But forget investing it in the stock market, just think about the opportunity costs of that $500,000. A house, a boat, a car. All bought and paid for if you just refuse to have children. And if you think about that house, boat and car, isn't that why you're already an indentured slave anyway? What if you already had your house paid off by the age of 40? Retirement wouldn't be such a worry now would it? So I don't want to hear about people saying, "it's only money and you can't hug money." No, but I sure can hug a boat or a Pontiac Solstice.
Second is the issue of time. Time is empirically and economically the same thing as money, but that assumes you can choose to work. You don't have a choice when it comes to children. You have to allocate time to them. So when you are done working for 10 hours with a 2 hour commute, guess what, that kid is still going to need attention. You essentially have not only committed your personal financial resources, you've really and literally have committed yourself to becoming a slave for 18 years. And guess what? Every time you have another one, the sentence is renewed. Sorry, I get one shot at this life and it isn't going to be baby sitting a child, or multiple children. It's going to be doing what I want to do. And no that isn't being "selfish."
The reason it isn't being selfish is (third) the fact I know I would be a bad father. In knowing I don't want to have children, I spare any would be children from what would be guaranteed to be a horrible upbringing. THIS IS INFINITELY MORE COMPASSIONATE THAN SOMEBODY WHO HAS A CHILD, FINDS THE CHILD INCONVENIENT AND THEN SENDS IT TO DAY CARE OR HIRES A NANNY TO TAKE CARE OF IT. This is INFINITELY MORE COMPASSIONATE THAN THE THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE TODAY WHO HAVE CHILDREN BECAUSE THEY "WANT A CHILD" JUST LIKE THEY "WANT AN SUV" OR A "EUROPEAN TRIP." AND THIS IS CERTAINLY INFINITELY MORE COMPASSIONATE AND CARRYING THAN HAVING A CHILD TO COLLECT ANOTHER WELFARE CHECK ALA OCTOMOM. Call me selfish all you want, I at least care enough about children to know that unless I would be home with them or my wife would, then I shouldn't even bring them into this world.
Fourth, along the same lines of caring enough about a child to not have one is the issue of slavery. Oh sure slavery is illegal, but I'm sorry, have you seen the entitlement spending commitments this country has burdened future generations with? That $1.4 trillion deficit the government ran? Yeah, that's just a mere fraction of the estimated $10 trillion in new debt future generations will be saddled with by the "compassionate and caring" socialists in the government. And social security and medicare? You see the commitments on those programs? What worsens it is that I adamantly refuse to have my child grow up to become anything but a productive member of society, which only guarantees he'll be a battery or host for future parasites whose parents were not so adamant about instilling an honorable work ethic, if not brainwashed them that the "man" was out to get them and they were disadvantaged and poor and were entitled to sit on their asses and achieve nothing while, essentially making my child a slave for them. Forget it. Again, my unborn child does not deserve that and will never have to face that.
Fifth, I see this more and more in Minnesota. The legal risks of having children. You can't spank them, you can't discipline them no matter how much of a beating they need. No they need "time outs." They need "stern words." I can see it now. I will be prohibited from effectively disciplining my child which will result in a mini-Kim Jong Ill dictator who, with the help of the public schools brainwashing him, will turn me in for false charges of child abuse or (give it 10 years) failing to recycle. I'll be as effective as the UN.
Finally, and this is what I don't get, is the lifestyle. What is so damn wrong with wanting to have a lifestyle of no children? Look, 6 billion people on the planet and 50 billion before them have done what we've always done and that is;
Having children is NOT a new experience. It's NOT unique. And if people would stop and think about it for one genuine second and ask "Hey, I only get one shot at this life. What do I want to achieve?" I think more and more people would start to realize they are finite and get only one shot at this life and would start to agree more and more with me. I'm about to take a month long vacation. I get to sleep in till 10 AM everyday. I get to keep my house in whatever order I want. I get to go fossil hunting and shan't leave this planet until I go dustdevil chasing in Australia. I get to salsa dance every night. I get to do whatever I want, whenever I want and even at this early age have already achieved and lived more than most people twice my age.
And the reason why is that children, no matter how lovely or loved, still handicap your ability to go and live this life as contrasted if you were without them.
Now I know people do have children and do genuinely love them and do genuinely appreciate them and would have it no other way. But for god's sake, can society at least accept or acknowledge there are damn good reasons NOT to have children? Can society at least respect another individual's wish not to have a child? And for the love of all that is chocolates and ice cream can you people with "baby-rabies" that find it your place to lecture others about not having children back off? Besides which, we all know why you insist everybody have children just like you.
Misery loves company.
POST POST - To the ignorant people who do not understand the vasectomy procedure, I am not a eunuch. Look it up and get informed. For those regular Cappy Cap readers you have no idea how many comments I've deleted simply because morons think I'm running around without...um...'the boys." I apologize for having to explain this simple anatomical lesson.
POST POST POST - If you think this was insightful, buy my book. My bachelor pad ways needs financing. Tumblers of scotch don't pay for themselves you know!
Monday, May 11, 2009
The answer is no. And the reason the answer is no is because you can't tax free time. Ergo, why commit to a full time job when over half my income will be confiscated between state, federal and local authorities? It doesn't pay to work, unless the pay somehow overcompensates for the taxes.
Now I will admit that I have the benefit of having alternative sources of income which permit me to do this, but with more and more of my friends becoming unemployed, I think it's high time for a lesson not to so much assuage the guilt of perhaps being unemployed, but to make those of you out there who are unemployed realize that there is a real benefit to this and that you should not be so depressed. And that benefit is free time.
Now look, you're going to find a job in the future and that job will be "kind" enough to grant you 2-3 weeks paid vacation. You work there for 10 years (heh, because you know how corporate loyalty is nowadays) and you might work your way up to 4 weeks vacation. But never will you be granted 2 months or 3 months vacation. That is how you must look at unemployment; a SUPER long vacation.
Yes, I know you don't have income coming in. Yes, I know times may be tough. But unless you have children and a family to feed, unemployment is frankly and literally your BEST and ONLY opportunity to have some real fun in life.
For example my beloved Babe of Capitalism was unfortunately laid off. She was depressed, but with severance and unemployment, should be able to make it 5 months without any real hardship. Now aside from my boyish charming humor and amazing kissing skils, to make her happy I decided we should avail ourselves of this (maybe) twice in a lifetime opportunity and take a 6 week vacation out in the Black Hills and Badlands. And if you think about it, seriously, when else would we have such an opportunity?
You go anywhere for 2 weeks and you're rushed. You can't sit, you can't relax, you have to go go go go go. "See Europe in a 2 weeks!"
Well that would result in a blur now wouldn't it?
No, see Europe in 6 weeks. See Glacier National Park in 3 weeks and then go to the Grand Tetons for another 3. See the Caribbean over the course of a long slow 2 months. That is how you should vacation.
And unless you know of a better time to take a good, thorough vacation than a 3 month spate of unemployment, I just don't see life presenting another such opportunity.
Ergo, beloved work-lorn people of the laid off classes, do not worry or fret or even waste another calorie of energy concerning yourselves with finding a job. One, it's not in your control and all you can do is apply. But, two, more importantly is to take advantage of this rare opportunity to really go and do what you want. You will probably not have another chance.
Then you were probably stupid enough to believe in "hope and change."
The chances of 3.5% growth is a FRACTION of Jennifer Aniston showing up at my doorstep with a batch of chocolate chip cookies.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Saturday, May 09, 2009
Friday, May 08, 2009
You see when the market price of the stuff you're pumping out of the ground falls by 50%, then so too do your profits. However, what also falls is ignorant, populist mentality when the price collapses and thus demand for taxing the "windfall profits" of the "evil oil industry" collapses as well. Even if Congress were to tax the evil oil companies, what profits are they going to tax? Besides, I thought everybody was bitching about bailing out companies and industries who WEREN'T profitable. Or is it the leftist's right to be an intellectually dishonest child bitching about it being to cold and then bitching about it being too hot? Precisely, my little spoiled brat child, what would be the "optimal" temperature or level of profits for these firms and what is your logical adult rationalization for that level, or are you just whining on a whim and crying like a vapid, crabby little infant for the sake of doing so?
Regardless, the point is "big oil" doesn't control the price of oil. The world economy went into recession, demand for oil tanked, and now prices have gone down. A more classical textbook example of supply and demand in economics does not exist.
But, wait, let me guess. When oil breaks $2.50 a gallon, we're going to start complaining again, aren't we?
You want a quick question to find out whether the person you're dating has the intellectual temerity and maturity to be in a long term relationship with you, ask them who controls the price of oil.
Thursday, May 07, 2009
Now I'm no big fan of children, but if you really want a child and REALLY want to LOVE a child, instead of having an accessory to go with the SUV and the drapes, maybe make sure s/he has BOTH a father and a mother. Heck, I've even go so far as to say having two parents, gay or straight, would be better than one.
I will not tolerate any criticism on this issue. Unlike most people on the left, I actually do give a damn about the children and don't just use them as a hostage to negotiate more money;
Wednesday, May 06, 2009
But then again, you didn't listen during the Dotcom Mania. And you didn't listen during the housing bubble.
What makes us think your heads will finally come out of your New York Time's asses and listen this time around?
So here's a little simple formula for all you newspapers out there to assess your current market value;
The value of a newspaper = salvageable book value of assets - market value of debt
So in other words, you're all insolvent.
I have entered a sort of "Most Eligible Bachelor" competition here in Minneapolis and as luck would have it, I made it past the first round.
The next step is to go in for a photo-shoot where I was instructed by the photographer to show up with the attire for TWO THEMES. I asked her "what kind of themes?" She said, "The themes where you are at your best."
I have decided one theme, which will be my standard Cary Grant/Frank Sinatra classic suit and tie. I shall also perhaps bring a cigar as they are very evil, and well, frankly, girls even though publicly they may "claim" they don't like cigars and cigars are "icky" they can't help the fact I'm being a "rebel" and breaking the rules which will of course help me win.
However the second theme I am having trouble with and thusly would appreciate your opinion.
Option #1 - The Rugged Indiana Jones Fossil Hunting Paleontologist - I will wear my hiking gear, trim my beard down to a rugged 5 o'clock shadow, my patented fossil hunting hat (kind of like Indiana Jone's has his hat, I have mine) and whatever else I can think of that I bring whilst conducting my expeditions
Option #2 - Old WWII Fighter Pilot Motif - I have an authentic WWII fighter pilot uniform, bomber jacket and all that I use when I go out dancing at the annual hangar dances. I fear it is too similar to the suit and tie, Cary Grant classic attire, but it was a theme recommended by friends.
In any case, I have to go in on the 13th. Any preferences or opinions would be appreciated. Also part of the judging will be done on the internet, so of course I'll be calling all economists of the
femme fatale persuasion to come and vote for lil' ole me once I find out the details.
Post Update - OK, here's some pictures, hopefully this will provide some reference;
"DO YOU REALLY THINK YOU CONTROLLED ANY ASPECT OF YOU GETTING LAID OFF?"
Now IS the time to relax, take it easy and enjoy. And the reason why is that you do not control the fates. Middle aged losers who so mismanaged this country are to blame. And to my friends, who are largely in the Gen X category who actually feel guilty in getting laid off, let me ask you this;
Are you really to blame for this economic collapse? I'm sorry, but were you in control of AIG, Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs? Does somebody know Bernie Madoff personally? I didn't think so. It's not "young punk kids" in charge of this nation right now. It's the old, burnt out, pot smoking 1968 hippies who never had any talent anyway who are in control. Spoiled brats that had everything handed to them that never had to go and work or toil or suffer to build up the mantle that would make them real adults. Yeah, the "Jim Moronson" generation who (if you REALLY think about it) never had any hope of ever becoming anything near approaching their previous generation's stature, morality, honor, integrity or capability simply because they lived off of the previous generation's (and future generation's) labor.
No you weren't, you were not to blame.
The previous generation was.
And if you thought you could do something about it? Oh, you fool. They weren't going to let you take command either, no matter how much more informed and superior leaders you may have been. It is a system, a system to keep those who are outdated and obsolete in command and control. Ergo, there is only one thing left to do whilst the country crumbles as it's currently incompetent leaders flail, hopelessly to turn the country around;
Because watching cartoons ensures you don't piss away any more of your valuable and FINITE life working to contributing to social security and medicare.
Again, I doubt the women who were in the prohibition crusade were in it to get people to stop drinking as much as they were to make themselves feel better. Besides, if they really wanted to get men to stop drinking they wouldn't have made themselves the POSTER CHILDREN TO STOP DRINKING.
With those mugs it would only DRIVE men to drink.
In any case, I had noticed on the University of Minnesota's web site that they were going to boost the GPA necessary for getting "honors" to 3.67. I recall my mother had gone to the U of MN back in the 70's and back then a 3.0 was required to get an "honors" notation. For me it was 3.5 back in 1997. Regardless, it shows that while grades have inflated, the deans and academic management have decided not to change the academic rigor needed to graduate with honors. Of course MJ Perry has to go and ruin my fun by posting a chart closely enough related to make my post obsolete;
You can read his post here.
That being said, he has allowed me to simply link to his chart, thereby giving me the opportunity to ride my motorcycle around today and fish instead of make an original blog post.
Ah, the benefits of plagiarism.
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
Monday, May 04, 2009
Of the many reasons the Captain does not want children, one of the more highly ranked ones is that I very much appreciate and like my current lifestyle.
I go home and the only noise I hear is the security alarm go off notifying me I opened the door. I then type in my little code and the system is de-armed. After that....silence.
Beautiful, wonderful silence.
From that point on the only noises I hear are the noises I make. Typing on the keyboard. Opening and closing doors. The uncorking of a wine bottle. The ruffling of paper work. It is a calm and serene bachelor pad and only unless I through on some Beastie Boys or Cypress Hill is that serenity PURPOSELY disturbed.
Now the problem is that if you are over 30 and have never had a child, you start to take this calm, serenity for granted. You don't appreciate the order and clock-like regularity and stability of your life. That is until of course you visit fools that have decided to have children and are starkly reminded just how good you got it.
My girlfriend and I visited two poor souls that were friends of mine last night. We hopped on the motorcycle, took advantage of the near 70 degree day and with some spare time in our schedule, decided to drop in on this married couple. Upon entering the house all seemed in order until one of the children decided to come down stairs and visit with us. She was about a 2 year old child and while her parents and I tried to have an adult conversation the child then started screaming and yelling and making noise. Now the child was not upset or angry or crying, she was actually quite ecstatic to see new people. So this was jovial yelling and screaming, but none the less, still yelling and screaming.
I thought that after a certain amount of time the kid would stop, but it didn't. Certainly, I thought, my friends would intervene and take the child away and put her in the garage or the basement or something. But they didn't. It went on and on and on, to the point that I soon realized my friend who I was talking to did not show signs of this even affecting her. She could continue on the conversation without even skipping a beat, no matter how loud or piercing the screeches were from her little child. Once I realized this I couldn't really believe these screeches were not affecting her, which behooved me to interrupt our conversation and sincerely ask her;
"Wait, wait, wait. Doesn't this bother you?"
To which she responded, "What?"
I said, "The screaming? Doesn't this affect you? Why haven't you put the kid in another room or something?"
"Well she had a long nap and has a lot of energy."
Which didn't of course answer my original question and made me realize what had happened.
My friend and her husband had become "inured" to the noise. They had become "inured" to the children. No matter how loud, nor how outlandish the behavior of the child, my friends had grown accustomed to it and it no longer fazed them. And it was scary because what had happened was really nothing short of brainwashing.
For example, I had a buddy once whose girlfriend was a very attractive girl. He was an honorable and caring man, but perhaps too caring. He was one of those guys who still believed in chivalry and taking care of the women and being the knight in shining armor, blah blah blah. In other words he was a sensitive 90's man. Sure enough his "girlfriend" who didn't really want to spend that much time with him some how convinced him that spending 2 HOURS A WEEK together was more than enough for a relationship. His original, darwinistic, genetic code-programmed response was,
"BS, 2 hours PER WEEK? We're not boyfriend girlfriend, we're kind of maybe seeing each other a little."
Naturally a battle of "how much time is the appropriate amount of time" ensued, but he lost as she constantly wore him down AND ULTIMATELY CONVINCED HIM THAT HE WAS BEING SELFISH AND JEALOUS FOR WANTING TO SPEND MORE THAN 2 HOURS A WEEK WITH HER!
The point was he became "inured" to her unrealistic definition of a "relationship," inevitably capitulated and has ever since been treated like sh!t.
It was the same thing with my married friends. They had lost the battle. They had given up. And instead of having any semblance of self-respect for themselves, they now let their kid run their lives and it could only be obviated by it being seen by an outside observer who deems screeching children socially unacceptable.
Regardless, the event did re-teach me a lesson. Be happy with what you have if you have no children. Sure the freedom to do whatever you want, whenever you want is great. And of course the largest of all reasons not to have children; ALL the income in "income PER CAPITA" is spent on you, because you are the only capita. But, boy, after last night, I really started to appreciate the nothingness serenity and calmness known as silence.
Sunday, May 03, 2009
Saturday, May 02, 2009
Though mold and regular lack of upkeep will do that too.
Regardless, it is beautiful. I would just love to see the faces of the bankers, mortgage brokers and real estate developers that help piss away the resources on those homes that would only be destroyed.
To quote an old song from the U of MN PD;
"It's Wilson Gate, Yeah Wilson Gate.
Tis Saturday night and you've not a date
Start your shift at quarter past 8.
We'll fire your ass if you be late.
Now life is grand and life is great
Cause it's Wilson Gate, yeah Wilson Gate."
Tis Saturday night, and you've not a date.
So tune in!
C R I P E S
Friday, May 01, 2009
It is pointless to argue with liberals and leftists.
I don't mean this in a broad-insulting-stroke-of-the-brush sort of way. I mean that in a sincere, realistic way.
It is pointless to argue with liberals and leftists.
And here is the reason why;
When you argue with them, you are not arguing facts or statistics, you are arguing against a religion. Understand that conservatism, capitalism, and liberty are all founded in empirical evidence that has proven, time and time again, that when a people are free and you do not tax them to death, they will thrive and succeed. Limitless examples throughout history show this, not to mention terrabytes of economic data will support this as well.
Capitalism is the BEST economic system, hands down, period, if for any other reason it is the only system based in reality.
However, leftists ideology, whatever the strain, is not based in reality. It is based in a belief. Specifically, a belief that they WANT to believe in. There is no empirical evidence. There is no rational thought or intellectual honesty or rigor involved. It is simply something for the masses to opiate themselves on and feel good about it. ie- it socialism, leftism, liberalism IS A RELIGION.
Now two points that must be made of this;
1. You can't argue with fundamentalists, not matter what their stripe. Religious right christians that insist sex is bad and gays are evil. Radical muslims that want to blow you up because, well, you're not a radical muslim. Extreme fringes of Jews who won't fly on planes on Fridays (or whatever day it is, I'm not terribly familiar with the Jewish religion). Regardless, trying to convince a leftist that lower taxes and a small government is best for society is like trying to convince a christian that dinosaurs did indeed exist MILLIONS of years ago and that carbon dating is a correct technique. It goes against their religion.
Yes, they have no basis. Yes, they ignore the empirical evidence. But that is the whole point of a religion. You ignore reality because you CHOOSE to believe in what you WANT to believe in.
2. The hypocrisy of it all. I want to know the number of global warming zealots that mock christians and religious people in general. No seriously, think about that. How many leftists who believe in this global warming RELIGION in the same breath then slam on religious people. The brush could be plied to leftists in general. How many socialists scoff or mock people for believing in something that has no empirical evidence to support it yet at the same time swallow the socialist religion whole?
Thus, my friends, there is only one thing to do. And that is let reality do your arguing for you. You can't win, because they won't believe you. It is more important to them to adhere and subscribe to their religion of socialism than it is to adhere to anything as noble and honorable as the truth. Therefore you're just wasting your breath.
But just like the radical muslim who might have second thoughts about blowing himself up, or the 75 year old christian, spinster virgin who passed up on plenty of honorable men to be alone with her cats and her bible reality will inevitably dawn on them. They will look at their single, infinitesimally finite life they were given and realized they ruined it. They pissed the only thing they had away. Think about it for a second. Don't you think the burnt out hippie who is now approaching 65 years old who still wears the pony tail and can point at nothing but, "sticking it to the man" back in '68 as his largest single achievement? How about the millions of aged Russian communists who were all for the Bolshevikian revolution? Boy, wasn't the past 90 years of their lives fun and fruitful? What will the modern legions of socialists, leftists and communists achieve in their lives? You do realize that the majority of young people voted to have Obama make them indentured slaves (ergo why "young" is latin for "stupid as all hell.)? How successful do you think these socialist zealots are going to be in their lives pursuing a "dream" that is really a nightmare?
But you see, that's the only thing that will convince them otherwise. It's not going to be you. It's not going to be the charming Captain with all of his charts and graphs. It's not even going to be people who have lived and suffered under communism.
No, what will inevitably prove you right will be the leftists getting what they want and realizing they've pissed their lives away.
And that is the best revenge one can have.