Friday, June 29, 2012

"The Good, The Bad and The Cappy"

OK Cappy Cappites, time for a little experiment.

I'm off to the Black Hills this weekend (again, because, we'll, they're there).  However, I'm going to test this Amazon Affiliate link thing whilst away.  Below is a poster (and a link to it).  It is the coolest poster I have ever seen and I bought one when I was in Vegas, however, you can order it on Amazon.

I am fully aware that this poster may not be the most desired product by the lady readers of Cappy Cap, but for those of you economists out there who do love "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly" I would strongly recommend this poster (I have it hanging in my office actually and it starts some interesting conversations).

The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly Movie (Clint Eastwood) Poster Print - 24x36 

My goal is to see if I can earn enough money to pay for my $20 gambling spree I shall go on in Deadwood.  It would give me warm fuzzies to see if there was $20 in my account to fund my gambling addiction.

Make sure you enjoy the decline today.

Anybody Know Peter Schiff?

The problem I run into is if they're too big, they won't consider even looking at my book.  But if somebody knows them, they may consider it if a copy is brought to them by their contact.

Still waiting for Ezra Levant to read the book I sent him!  Ahem ahem!  Cough cough!!!

Clean It Up Boys

Again, it seems I have to remind people the single worst thing I have to do is delete a comment, that is otherwise brilliant, but full of vulgarity. 

I will tolerate the occasional and well-placed curse word, but a tirade of cursing and disparaging language will not make it.  Please clean it up.

Debt Costs You Marriage

Lauren Dollard graduated from Fordham University in 2008 with $157,000 in debt, including interest. "My boyfriend won't marry me because of my debt," she says. "He doesn't want it attached to his name (I know, this could also be an excuse)." She said she would trade her "fancy private school education" in a heartbeat to live "as an independent adult."

 Uh, no dear, he's not looking for excuses.

Hopey changey kiddies!  Hopey changey!!!!

Thursday, June 28, 2012

We Don't Need No Stiiiinnnnnking Fathers Linkage

If fathers were more prevalent and manly in society, 90% of the "childhood psychoses" would disappear over night...but then where would all the "child psychology" and "social work" majors find employment?  And we all know it's MUCH more important for people who can't do math to have make work government jobs than psychologically healthy children.

Yes, because consumption is the only thing that matters (as i pointed out before).

Well sure, if you think education should be about the children, you moron.  But everybody knows that's not what schools are for. (I am of course joking about the moron statement).

That's too complicated for the teachers to figure out.  Therefore we will not be pursuing that idea.  PS you're racist.

Fact- fat is gross.  If you want to argue, I suggest you focus on the first word there.  But this is taking it a bit too far.

I shall answer Clarissa's question (which is a good one).  The reason women (married or not, working or not) do the majority of the housework is because of one simple thing - women's standards for tidiness are multiple times higher than men's.  We are OK with an upturned shoe in the middle of the hall.  You decree it a "filthy mess" and declare war on it.  We men will clean the house to the point it is sanitary.  You can clean it to the point of perfection if you want.  We guys have more important stuff to do in life.

Saving a 17 Year Old

Let me tell you a story.

Was at a bar/restaurant last night.  Within the group of people I'm at is a mother-son combination and a (frankly) overweight, ugly middle aged woman (henceforth referred to as "the OUMAW").

The mother and the OUMAW are tag teaming this poor boy about what to do when it comes to matters of the ladies and courting when he heads off to college/the real world.  And all the advice is absolutely wrong, only guaranteeing he'll be fed to the meat-grinder at a faster rate.

"Be nice."

"Be sweet."

"Be kind."

"My husband who does what I tell him and makes the money.  You need to  become like him."

I speak up.

"Look, don't be nice.  Be a jerk.  I mean, don't be abusive, but the last thing girls like or want is the sappy overtly sweet nice guy.  Be aloof, master back-handed compliments.  NEVER be desperate."

"Don't have kids.  They cost too much money and they'll take away from your fun with your wife, IF you choose to have one."

"Date LOTS of girls. TONS.  That way you'll have some fun initially, but realize just how many poor ones are out there, making sure you'll know when you find a really good one or the "right one."

"Realize you are not inferior to girls.  ESPECIALLY at your age.  When you get older, you'll realize just how childish they really are reading "People" magazine or watching TMZ or Jersey Shore.  Just because they're cute, does not mean they're smarter than you, let alone that you want to date them."

Naturally the mom and the OUMAW we enraged.


Their response was interesting because I don't for a second believe they weren't trying to help the boy, they love the kid.  Their response seemed visceral, automated.  As if they were prompted by instinct, rather than thought.  Regardless, merely telling the boy "don't listen to that bad bad man over there" was not enough.  The mom and especially the OUMAW had to then "debunk" me and thus the interrogation/attempt to "expose" me began.

"So, what you just live alone all by yourself?"

- "Yes."

"AHA!  So you're all alone!"

-"No, I have friends and a girlfriend back in Minnesota.  And I've made some friends here in South Dakota."

"So, is she some like mail-order bride or something that doesn't have a mind of her own?"

-"No, actually she's an engineer and makes more money than I do."

"And she tolerates your attitude?"

-"Matter of fact, yes, she likes the fact I'm the male and I am willing to draw the line in the sand and stick to my guns.  She cooks for me, treats me very nice, and hangs out with me and picks on me.  She's also hot and doesn't mind getting dolled up in lingerie."

As the interrogation went on it was becoming apparent to the ladies (AND the boy), that their plan was backfiring on them.  I was living proof that everything they said to the boy was wrong and that just because they were older, didn't mean they necessarily wiser in this particular department.  Losing the battle they switched tactics (and dare I say, were curious how about this minimalistic/maxi-fun approach to life I had.)

"So you obviously don't have children, do you?"

-"No, I had a vasectomy."

And that was adding fuel to the fire.


I then calmly leaned over to the boy, almost as if I was ignoring them, but spoke loud enough so everybody could hear.

"Look, kid, you know how much you cost to raise?  $500,000.  When it's all said and done, your mom and dad dropped HALF A MILLION DOLLARS ON YOU and that doesn't even include accounting for their time.  You don't have to go to college, you don't have to slave away.  You can live on the cheap, drive your motorcycle around, hell, buy a boat and a house and eat great food ALL if you don't have children."

Naturally, instead of listening to the words coming out of my mouth and focusing on the point I was trying to make, this merely sent the ladies' emotions into a tizzy.  They thought I was saying the kid wasn't worth it.  That he was a mistake.  Sure enough the responses of "he's worth every penny."  "I am so proud of him."  "I would do it all over again" blah blah blah blah, came pouring in.

Thankfully you could tell by his eyes he did not only take umbrage to the statement, but was digesting precisely the point I was trying to make.

Emotionally upset, the OUMAW started to tear in even more, but what is nice about this little "philosophy" the Manosphere, or heck, just single or childless people have, is that it's unassailable.  There's really no emotion involved in it.  I don't get agitated when people tell me they want to have 5 children and grow organic chickens.  It's their life. But the OUMAW was obviously insulted I chose to lead my life my way and she was having none of it.  Additionally, she wanted to intervene in this poor boy's life, send him on a path SHE deemed the "right" one and dissuade him from my (obviously) "dark side of the force life" of motorcycle, freedom, hiking,  and minimal responsibility.  Ergo, I had to be "stopped."

With a smug tone she said, "So, do you RENT or do you OWN your apartment?"

Internally I rolled my eyes.  She had no idea just how intricately familiar I am with real estate and the economics thereof.  She also had no idea how far away I could see this one coming.  I played the game.

-"I rent."

"Oh, so look at you!  You don't even have equity built up in your house.  You're so blah blah blah...."

I interrupted.

-"I own rental property back in Minnesota."

"Oh." she said.  "Well that's good, I own a house too."

I responded (knowing how she bragged about how her husband made all the money),

"Yeah, but my husband didn't pay for my house."

Hooo!!!  Hooo!!!!!!  The OUMAW did NOT like that.  But it's not because I was implying she wasn't an independent woman.  It was the fact I highlighted she TRULY WASN'T an independent woman.  That and in the eyes of the boy I was just furthering my particular authority in this conversation and debunking hers.

The fireworks were continuing and the boy was paying very close attention.  He was noticing how the women were being irrational, emotional and trying to knock me out, whlie I just sat there, very calm, dispassionate, spoke the truth, didn't get riled up, but stuck to my guns.  At no time did I say his mom or the OUMAW were wrong or not trying to help him, I merely was presenting the other side of the same coin, a "male" or "older brother" side of life.  I wrote down Dalrock, Roissy, The U of Man and a couple other blogs on a napkin, gave it to him and said,

"Look, when I was your age, we didn't have the internet.  But what has happened since it's development, is it has allowed millions of men my age and younger and older to compare notes about dating.  And what it has enabled us to do is detect trends, patterns, observations, etc. and see what works in the dating world and what doesn't. But most importantly, it makes it so young boys like you DO NOT have to suffer the bullsh#t we did when we were your age.  Your mother and the OUMAW obviously do love you, but it's only one side of the story.  You need the guy's side."

He went off on his merry way as he had to work the next day, and I was happy I saved another soul an inordinate amount of pain in his future.

Now the moral of the story is not "warm fuzzies" the Captain probably saved the kid a lot of pain.  It's that I am still shocked that there are women out there who think it their place to lecture men about the lives they choose to lead.  The vehement response I got when I merely said things like;

"I don't want kids."

"I live on the cheap."

"I dated lots of girls."

BLAMO!  I'm an evil cad and I must be lectured.  And not only must I be lectured, they have every RIGHT to come in and lecture me.

But there's another aspect to it - you forget there are people out there like that.

It's akin to when I worry if the advice we give young men today is relevant anymore.  Have relations between young boys and girls changed so that boys don't need this philosophy?  I don't want to give him advice that would have worked in 1992, but would only serve to hurt him now.  And then I see some news story about girls having pregnancy pacts in high schools or something, and know these poor boys need us more than ever.

And here it is the same thing.

I forget there are people out there who almost unconsciously deem themselves not just your superior, but charter themselves with the right to intervene in your life and tell you what to do as THEY SEE FIT.  And while this applies to a wide range of people (abusive husbands, controlling wives, etc. etc.), I am intrigued how common it is when it comes to courting/social-sexual dynamics between men and women, and when the men merely speak truth from the hills -

"We like long legs, big boobs, long hair."

BLAMO!  That is somehow "wrong."  THat is "bad" (even though it is genetic programming).  And that is more than enough of an excuse for women to come in and not just lecture you, but REALLY try to get you to change.

But above all, it provides some amazing hindsight as to just what an uphill battle us older guys had when we were young boys being lectured by the women in our lives.

You're shallow for liking long legs.  You're shallow for liking big boobs.  You should LOVE a woman for her personality.  And be nice and be kind, and buy her flowers, and open doors for her and write her poetry, etc. etc.

How any of us came out of that brainwashing, let alone on our own accord, is amazing.  But this brainwashing and indoctrination is still happening.  And therefore fellow members of the Manosphere, like Batman, we gotta be there for the boys.

Carry on gentlemen.  Carry on.

Wednesday, June 27, 2012

Stockton City Council FAIL


Wow, "three year associate of arts in interior design" AND a graduate of "Leadership Stockton?"  Is this like where they issue medals for 24th place?  Good lord, what the hell were you people in Stockton thinking this lady would do?  Arrange the furniture in an artistic way so then Wells Fargo repossesses city hall it looks nice?  Nice going Miller, you once again prove the liberal arts is a place for people who can't do basic math.


You will see a correlation of people who sit on school boards (where there is of course never enough money for the chillllldreeennnn) and their inability to manage finances.  Because why should they?  They never had to before?  Just make the rich pay more.  I was going to give Canepa some bonus points for running a business, but nepotism is not acceptable.  FAIL.

Thank you for your service -  FAIL

While Ms. Eggman gets a bit of a reprieve for her military service she decided to flush it all down the toilet with Bachelors, Masters and Doctorate degrees in El-Crapo Studies.  I wonder if she ever took an accounting course in her 13 years of college education...oh...wait!  Of course not!  Money is limitless according to the humanities!  Does she have any practical application outside running bankruptcy municipalities?  Probably not.  FAIL!


Wow, if there's a poster child NOT to attend degree mills or correspondent schools, Mr. Fritchen is their boy!  Once again a MASTERS degree proves nothing about an individual's ability to provide a tangible, practical service (like the advance complex mathematics of "ADDING" and "SUBTRACTION" in "BUDGETS!").  Oh, and was he on the "Parks and Recreation" commission for 8 years?  Yeah, right, like you had ANY intention of getting a real job.  FAIL!


Let me list the countries the Peace Corps have been to that have improved because of their visit.....OH, that's right!  ZERO!  And surprise surprise, IS THIS YET ANOTHER person with public school experience?  What were you idiots who voted this moron in thinking?  That she was going to take her extensive "well building" experience for impoverished villagers in third world countries and maybe sing Kumbaya and that would solve your financial problems?  Wait, wait.  Let me guess.  Most of you who voted her in did so because you were never even AWARE of the financial problems because Jersey Shore was on.  Oh well, you get the government you deserve.  FAIL (for both the mayor and the voters)


Where the heck was this guy?  Oh, wait, I bet probably drowned out by the bickering about "reading initiatives" and "peace rallies" by the above five.  And I bet he was considered the "mean one" when he attempted to introduce some fiscal reality.  Perhaps District 1 could secede from Stockton and form their own SOLVENT city.  Of course I don't know for a fact as I have not looked at voting records,  but I'm merely testing my Crusaderism/Worthless degree theories here.  PASS.

As Rome Went, So Will America

But (to quote Michael Savage)

"You don't want to hear about that.  You want to hear about some guy who hit a ball over a fence."

God damnit, you will enjoy the decline, whether you like it or not.

Tuesday, June 26, 2012

It's Called "Capital Flight"

But you knew that already.

I Envy Cooks

I am not musically gifted and I down right must have a psychological impairment when it comes to cooking.  Ergo why I envy people so who can do




Then again it could be genetics.  My dad could burn water.  I also remember him cooking a Tombstone pizza and leaving it in there for so long it curled up like a thick Frisbee.

"Weather" Does Not Compensate for Poverty

One thing I love about liberals who live in liberal states or towns is when you got them on the ropes about the economic decline and decay of their state or town, they will always, ALWAYS cite three things that universally excuses their craptastic economies:

1.  The weather
2.  The culture
3.  The restaurants

Me - "I don't pay state income taxes in South Dakota."

Minnesota Liberal - (scoffingly) "Yes, but you have to LIVE THERE!  Huh huh huh."

Me - "I don't have to bail out billionaire professional sports teams."

New York Liberal - "Yes, but you don't have Thai food.  Huh huh huh."

Me - "Unemployment is below 5% meaning I have a stable job and chance for advancement."

California Liberal - "Yes, but we have great weather.  Huh huh huh."

Of course, they only do this because deep down inside they agree with you and hate paying taxes just as much as the other guy, but since they're liberal their ideology comes first, even before themselves, which is delusional.  And since we're dealing with irrational and delusional people there's nothing we can do to convince them otherwise.  This relegates us to the only thing left to do - mock them.

So here's some mockery.

"Hope the weather is worth it. Huh huh huh."

Children, IQ's, and Idiocracy

Oh, I know all the right people will get upset, but you see, when you've got nothing left to lose, you find great entertainment value in truth.

For example children correlate strongly with lower IQ's, lower standards of living and higher corruption.

Now get very angry and indignant about these facts and blame me or George Bush for it.

Monday, June 25, 2012

Tornadoes Fear Me Linkage

Really hard to enjoy the decline when stuff like this happens.  Then again, it reiterates that's your only option.

Fellow blogger gets cancer.  You can help him out here.

I have always wanted to read about the Soviet economy in that (like its nuclear armament), it was overestimated.  Perhaps not on purpose either, a lot of the Soviet strategy was to bluff and lie (don't all communists?).  The US fell for it, but still a good book about the realities of the Soviet economy would be interesting.

I have said it before, the problems with the US is not our politicians, its the collapse and decay of our people at the cellular level.  Mangan agrees.

At the "peak" of my game a lot of my friends wondered "how I did it?"  They didn't see the psychological costs and drama of dating many women at the same time.  All they saw was the numbers and physical beauty.  They did not see the suicide threats, the assaults, the husband she failed to mention for three months, or the girl taking off her shirt and then wondering why I was trying to kiss her.  It's enough to make millions join the MGTOW movement.

More lengthy and deep stuff from Badger.

I have never hit a woman.  I have, however, been hit at least 6 times by a woman (all uncalled for, so please don't bother with the jokes or the presumptions).  Equality purists would say "well, it's time to start treating women as genuine equals," but I will instead simply institute a new policy- report any assault, no matter how minor, to the police and pursue them to the fullest extent of the law.  The days of slapping men and thinking you can get away with it are over.

Some desperately needed light heartedness.

And some more desperately needed light heartedness.

God this was a dreary linkfest.

On an eccentric note, your Captain is going to try buying a suit online since he could never find true, white suits available in clothing stores.  Remember, if you're going to buy something, do the Captain a favor and buy it from the Amazon link to the right.  He gets a 6% commish on the purchase!

Stupid for Investing in California

From our Californian Agent in the Field.

Might as well head to Cuba with a Trillion Dollar Bill and give it to Castro.

Sunday, June 24, 2012

We're Taking You With Us

One of, if not "the" single thing I hate about teaching is answering a "wrong question."

A "wrong question" is where the student asks a question that is based on false or erroneous premises, and thus it's not enough to simply answer the question.  You have to:

1.  Spend time explaining or deconstructing their false premises so they get the correct ones.
2.  Explain to them the correct premises/how it works in the real world.
3.  Then reanswer their wrong question, hoping to god they understood your deconstruction/rebuilding of their premises.

And I fear with this topic, I'm going to have to do the same.  So in an attempt to be preemptive and efficient, let me explain a couple things about economics, so that when I do make my point EVERYBODY will understand.

First, understand there is no such thing as "money."  Money really doesn't exist.  It is only a means by which we track and account for how much labor somebody gave up for "payment."  If you look at the economy all it is, is really people just exchanging their finite time on this planet in barter for goods and services that either extend, maintain or enhance their lives (write that one down because that sentence right there is worth about 12 college economics textbooks)

Second, understand there is nothing inherently valuable about money.  The only reason "gold" or "paper dollars" have "value" is because they can be traded for something that DOES have genuine value.  Food, gas, a desk, a computer, a video game, etc. etc.

Third (and this is VERY important), what is "wealth?"  What makes a person or a nation "wealthy?"

I'll tell you this.  It's not money.  Because money is a piece of paper or rare metal. There is no inherent value to money.  It is the STUFF MONEY CAN BUY that is WEALTH.

And it is here people are confused about economics.

Understand that a person who is "rich" or "wealthy" is not "rich" or "wealthy" because they have "a lot of money."  They are rich or wealthy because they can afford STUFF and THINGS they can CONSUME to MAINTAIN, ENHANCE and EXTEND their lives (write that one down too for the "Economist Book O' Gold")

In short "wealth" is not the currency or money you hold.  Wealth is all the stuff you can produce.

This is why Adam Smith wrote the book "The Wealth of Nations."  He wasn't talking about billions of "dollars" or "yen" or "rupees."  He was talking about all the stuff that improves and enhances our lives.  He was talking about nations' abilities to produce things of value - food, booze, clothing, games, cars, electronics, styrafoam, trees, cattle, dogs, cats, minks, furs, jewelry, diamonds, motorcycles, etc. etc. etc.

Because if you think about it, a dollar doesn't do anything for you.  It is the STUFF the dollar can purchase that does something for you.

So all the wars, all the votes, all the progressive taxation is NOT about somebody else's "money," it is about getting other people to forfeit their time to pay for the stuff you want to consume while sacrificing none of your time at all.  It's about making other people pay for your "stuff."  It's simply just slavery.  This is the base level modus operandi of all humans and cultures since the dawn of man (you may also write that one down in the "Economist Book O' Gold.")

Now, since HOPEFULLY I've deconstructed your previous beliefs that economics is "all about the money" and made you realize it's all about "the stuff."  So now let us talk about grocery stores.

I know a lot of you on the left think you're entitled to "basic" things.  Food, clothing, and shelter.  I've seen some people even proclaim they're "entitled" to health care, education, and even cell phones.

But let's get back to reality for one second.

Who provides "food, clothing, shelter, health care, education, and cell phones?"

If you are a liberal (and I'm not mocking you here) you believe in a philosophy or political ideology of the "Great Liberal Economic Oort Cloud."  The reason you believe in this is because (and admit it please) you have been too lazy to bother with studying economics, how economies work, let alone - thinking it through.  Therefore, you just throw up your hands into the air and think the government/business/industrial complex "figures it out" for you.  There's this "highly complex" economic-political-social-governmental-god-like entity that is WAY too complicated for you to understand that just farts out jobs and only truly intelligent people like Barack Hussein Obama can understand.

But in reality, just like money, there is no government.

You TRULY fail to realize that the "government" is nothing more than you and me because we are all in this boat together, and we simply voted our neighbors, colleagues and friends into office.  "We" are "the government."  Therefore the solution to our current day economic problems....nay....EVERY SINGLE ONE OF OUR PROBLEMS resides within THE PEOPLE.  The "government" cannot do anything just like "the corporations" cannot do anything because both are merely composed and controlled by us - the people.

So who provides the "food, clothing, shelter, health care, education, cell phones" and general "stuff" humans wage war over?

We do.

Not the government.

Technically not the "corporations."

It all boils down to people, because there is no other "entity" or "creature" on the planet to provide these things

By this time, I hope we're all still on the same page.  We have thus far covered that it isn't money that matters, it's the actually goods or services MONEY CAN BUY that matters.  STUFF matters.  AND EQUALLY IMPORTANT we have dispelled the delusion that "government" or "corporations" are entities to themselves able to create "magically" jobs, employment, wealth and income.  There are "technically" no such things as "governments" or "corporations" as they are nothing more than amalgamations of people.

People - you and me - your brother and your sister - your neighbor and your enemy - are ULTIMATELY responsible for this nation, for this country and for our economic success and future.

So since it is on the people, let's talk about two distinctly different types of people in our modern day America.

I like to be simple so I categorize the many groups of Americans into two simple categories:




Since there is no GLEOC and the success of this nation and all others depends on the individuals, you either carry your weight and support yourself or you don't.

"Parasite" is not meant to be a pejorative or mocking term.  It is meant to be an ACCURATE term.

Take emotion, political bias, or whatever you want to use to excuse your erroneous thinking out of it, the definition of a parasite is some thing that lives off of others.  And there's a ton in these here United States.

Anybody who collects a government check (bar social security, though, some will argue) is a parasite.

I don't mean that to be insulting, I don't mean that to be derogatory - it's simply the truth.  If you collect a government check you are NOT supporting yourself and therefore living off the slave labor of others and are a BONAFIED PARASITE.  You DO live off of others.  If "others" didn't exist, you WOULD NOT exist, end of story, no discussion, take your bleeding liberal heart emotional-therefore-irrelevant arguments elsewhere. 

However, that does not so much irk me as I am willing to accept as much as the next man that people get down on their luck.

What irks me is when 50% of the population collects a government check AND HAS THE AUDACITY TO DEMAND MORE,  AND CRIMINALIZE THE HOST OF WHICH IT'S PARASITING OFF OF.

There is no end to the "rich doesn't pay their fair share" or the opposite side of the coin - woeismeism.  
So a short message to all of you who think "the rich should pay more" to compensate you for;

YOU majoring in a stupid degree and taking on $100,000 in debt to pay for it
YOU breeding children you couldn't afford and never bothered to think about
YOU being too lazy to put down the booze/drugs to find reliable employment
YOU for choosing a cushy government job and daring to demand people who actually produce something of wealth to pay for your bloated government salary and pension
YOU for just be a pathetic, lazy, moronic parasite who expects other people to pay for you

"YOU" cannot live without "US."

WE produce the STUFF.  WE are the people who actually produce the goods and services that have value and people want and need.  YOU need US more than WE need YOU!

We're the ones that produce the groceries to keep your "WIC Accepted Here" BS grocery isle full of the food you need.

We're the ones that go to school for 10 years to become the doctors to provide you "free health care" when you decide to get knocked up for the 5th time before your 25th birthday.

We are the ones who engineer the buses and cars you ride to enjoy the roads WE designed with OUR MONEY you used for bus fare.

We are the only reason you live and exist today.  Without us, you would not exist.

That's not an opinion.

It's not a "wish."

That's not political bias.

It's a fact you have been shielded from by liberal politicians and an ignorant voting population that votes to take our money to pay for your parasitic (again, not insulting - just true) lives.

You're not "independent."  You're not "cool."  And you're certainly not "oppressed" or "tyrannized" over.  You're just parasites enslaving other people who actually produce STUFF and things of value.

Now, you can get all pissed off at all those rich people, and never spend a calorie of energy looking at how much they pay in taxes to pay for your parasitic existence, but here's another shocking bit of fact-

Hate us as much as you want, we're taking you with us.

You can vote to tax us to death.  You can vote to make it illegal to be successful.  You can villainize "profit" and "wealth" all you want. However, in the end, you WILL realize that we are your life line.

We are the ones producing the food, the clothing, the shelter and the STUFF you NEED TO LIVE.

We are the ones that are producing the doctors, the surgeons the nurses and the RA's to take care of you. The food that goes in your mouths and the 4 illegitimate childrens' mouths you have.  We are the ones producing EVERYTHING you need to live.  And you produce NOTHING in return (maybe more illegitimate children, who the hell knows).

But you DARE want to piss us off, or tax us to the point it is no longer in our best interest to play host to your parasitic lives? OR you DARE to attack us because you are envious, bigoted, and hate filled?

Go ahead.

Because if we go down, we're taking you with us.

And what's funny, is we don't have to try because we're the ones producing all the stuff.

So I dare suggest for those of you who think you're "oppressed" or "disadvantaged" as you snort coke, knock up girl #14, get knocked up by guy #15, major in philosophy or some other obvious galactically stupid decision, to take your complaints and the consequences of your stupid decisions, shove them, and have a strong belt of STFU and be THANKFUL we're paying the taxes to shield you from the full costs, consequences and catastrophes of your inconceivable stupidity.

"The Cappy Cap Logic Challenge!"

Can you meet the challenge?!

The easy part is to link this to the lack of fathers.

The hard part (and where we will test your economist mettle) is to explain how the majority of victims brought this upon themselves, have only themselves to blame and the delicious irony that has resulted (and consequently sweetened our official "Enjoy the Decline" drinks!).

Your choice of a free copy of "Worthless" or "Behind the Housing Crash" will be mailed to the person with the timeliest and clearest/most correct logic.

Saturday, June 23, 2012

California Idiots

Seriously, how do you people elect these morons?

Oh, wait!  That's right!  You guys are morons yourselves!

I love when he's asked if the plan would be "pre-tax or post-tax" and he "doesn't know."  Just shows you how liberals don't think things through because they're too damn lazy to think of the consequences.  Just barf feel-good, puppies and unicorns legislation out there and collect the votes of the idiots you just bribed.

Thursday, June 21, 2012

Alexander Discovered Rocks and Dirt

An interesting observation I've had Cappy Cappites.  Another mountain-hiking inspired epiphany brought about by the fact my MP3 player stopped working (it's amazing how many epiphanies I have while hiking without my MP3 player).

This one is the observation that after long and grueling hikes and climbs, after thousands of calories of energy burned, and after much planning, plotting and scheming about how to summit a peak

in the end

when you finally get there

every peak

has had nothing more than dirt and rocks at the top.

Some had snow, but all had dirt and rocks.

And this an epiphany did make.

Understand that I was brought up poor and in Wisconsin.  Wisconsin does not have mountains, but when my friends at school returned from their summer vacations and showed me pictures of Rocky Mountain National Park or Glacier or Yellowstone I was literally mesmerized by the pictures.  "Whats up in those mountains?  Where are these mountains?  Whose been there before?  Did you climb to the top of them?  Why not?"  I had never seen such a thing with my own eyes, but my visceral response was that I NEEDED to climb them.  I NEEDED to see what was up there.

Quite pathetically, when we would visit my grandparents in Minnesota we would drive through a bluff region of Wisconsin, the peaks of which never went more than 200 feet, but to a human only 1/4th the size of a full grown adult, they may as well have been mountains.  All I wanted to do was climb them and I would beseech my father to pull over and let us climb just one of them

"No, we have to make it to Tomah before 7PM."

So blame it on unfulfilled child psychological reasons, when I finally had the money and the residency near mountains BLAMO!!!!  I climbed every mountain I could.

In the Black Hills there is only one peak (Crooks Tower) that I haven't climbed that is of any significant height.  I've hiked straight through the upper part of Badland's National Park both east-west and north-south.  I did Halley's Peak in Rocky Mountain National Park as well as Deseret's Peak in Utah.  And since the Big Horn Mountains are withing 3 hours drive to the west, I've been tackling several mountains and lake hikes there.

But as time has gone on and I've fulfilled more and more hikes a very sad observation came to me - I'm the only one doing these hikes.

Oh sure, occasionally I've had a friend or a Meet-Up hiking buddy join, but the vast majority of my hikes are by myself.  And the reason they're by myself is multi-fold.

1.  I'm in excellent shape.  Not to brag, but to do a 16 mile hike with a 4,000 foot elevation gain and all under 8 hours, there's not a lot of people who can keep up with me.

2.  I have minimal obligations.  When it's Friday afternoon and I finish up whatever project or call I'm working on, BLAMO!  I'm out the door driving to a mountain range for the weekend.  I have no children, I have no wife, I have no car payment, and I can afford the gas and lodging (assuming I'm not camping).  If I decide to go, not only can I afford to go, I CAN go because there's only one person to account and accommodate for.

3.  I just plain have the desire to go and climb mountains and take long hikes.  As a kid when I first saw the Badlands from the main road, the badlands formations went on forever.  It made a young boy's mind wander and ask "what else is out there?  Who has been out there?  What will I find if I go out there?  Can I make it out there?"  That has never left me since the 8th grade and now when I see a peak or a map or a lake or just a far off butte, my brain is predisposed to wonder what treasure I will find AND it provides my the psychological determination to commit myself to that hike.  Regardless, most people do not have that curiosity nor that determination.

Getting back to point, regardless of the reason, what I find myself doing more often than not, is summiting a monstrous peak, finishing a dehydrating hike, or just plain achieving an impressive physical feat only to turn around, look around and see I'm the only guy on top of this mountain.  Or I'm the only guy returning to my Chevy parked in the Buffalo National Grasslands.  I'm the only one shouting for joy that I found a rare fairburn agate in Ardmore, SD. 

There's nobody there.

Now what makes this depressing is NOT that I'm alone.  I know all of you "nursing home scare-tactic freaks" always love to say, "you'll die ALL ALOOOOOOONE!"

That is not what I'm talking about.

What I'm talking about is what happens when you start to master or excel in a certain field to the point you no longer have peers or people you can associate with or compare against.  There's nobody to turn to and say,

"Hey, we did a kick ass job! Don't you agree!?"

You don't even have rivals or enemies to compete against.  Tesla had Edison.  The Joker had Batman.  Hogan had Colonel Klink.  There was at least SOMEBODY to provide a standard against.

But, if you are fortunate enough to excel in whatever hobby it is you choose to pursue, and you continue to progress in that endeavor, there will be fewer and fewer people you can relate to.

Now I didn't bring this up to get all sappy and sad on you guys, but as a sincere and legitimate observation for those of you in the Manosphere AS WELL as any woman who achieves excellence in whatever field or hobby intrigues her-

There's only rocks and dirt at the top.

Men of the Manosphere, REAL men, men who follow their genetic and intellectual programming will ALWAYS pursue some kind of study or discipline that interests them in an attempt to master it.  Not only will the majority of men succeed, they will be interested by multiple disciplines and hobbies and also excel in those as well.  But there is an ultimate drawback or a disadvantage for men in the Manosphere embedded in our nature

We have unlimited time and financial resources to dedicate to these intellectual pursuits.

Much like my hiking is put 3 standard deviations to the right of the mean by the fact I have no children, no wife and no obligations, so too are all of your personal hobbies and intellectual pursuits.  In having no family, no wife/husband, no children, just yourself, you have an INORDINATE amount of time and resources to dedicate to your own interests and desires.  With such an amount of resources you will not only quickly master whatever hobbies or pursuits you're interested in, but rapidly surpass your married/obligated peers to the point you'll be all alone.

You'll be the Jimmy Hendricks of guitar players.

You'll be the Duke Ellington of Jazz composers

You'll be the Cappy Cap of the fossil hunting, motorcycle riding, ballroom dancing, economists.

And you'll have nobody to compare, compete or just plain converse with.

Now, does this mean I'm advocating you self-handicap yourself and not achieve your own personal best just so you can have a social life? 

Hell no. 

All it means is that you are on the fore-front, the vanguard, the production-possibilities curve of whatever particular interest piques you.  It also means that you are more likely to go down in history as an "expert," a "connoisseur" that will be remembered for your advancing of the field.  It is just an observation and a somewhat-of-a-warning that if you do decide to focus on your own potential, it's a guarantee you'll achieve it, but it's a warning as to just how few people there are at your level when you do.  And like me when it comes to fossil hunting, or Roosh when it comes to visiting different countries, or Victor when it comes to mastering self-discipline, you will be that "freak" 4 standard deviations to the right of the mean.

Or to quote an Alexander the Great quote:

"When Alexander saw the breadth of his domain, he wept for there were no more worlds to conquer."

I'd Like Some White Privilege Please

What is that disease or psychological disorder where people hate themselves?  In the meantime I'm still waiting for the unfair advantages my skin color is supposedly supposed to bring me.

Wednesday, June 20, 2012


From our American Agent in the Field.

Remember, buy Worthless.  It's worth every penny.

The 12 Year Life Expectancy of the "Tax the Rich" Plan

Some quick back of napkin economics here fellow junior, deputy, official, aspiring, or otherwise economists!

So I was on another hike, enjoying the decline, like I do, and got to kicking around a couple questions about wealth.  Specifically,

"How long could "the poor" live off of "the rich" if we finally decided just to confiscate and redistribute the wealth like so many of our democrat and socialist friends would like?"

First understand a couple statistics and facts.

One, there is an estimated $62 trillion of wealth in the US currently.

Two, the "rich" defined as the top 20% own 85% of it, so $52.7 trillion.

Three, of the $3.6 trillion federal budget, $2.2 trillion or 60% of that is spent on wealth transfers.

Four, the states spend roughly the same amount as the feds and have roughly the same percentage going to wealth redistribution (again, this is "back of napkin" economics, not "break out the Cray super computer and run complex models that will fail anyway" economics).  So add another $2.2 trillion for a total of wealth transfers of $4.4 trillion.

Now, if we decided to "stick it to the rich" and "solve everybody's problems" and confiscated all $52.7 trillion of those hated rich people and divide it by the $4.4 trillion in resources the "poor" consumes, that wealth transfer will last them a whopping:

12 years.

Now I'm being INCREDIBLY optimistic because I'm ignoring a couple things.

First, this assumes you can just confiscate the wealth of rich people without it having a direct impact on the market value of that wealth.  If you decided that 80% of the wealth was to be communal, the stock market would tank, immediately driving the wealth that could be confiscated well below $52.7 trillion.

Second, this also assumes the economy would even continue to function so the parasitic classes could spend their stolen-gains on said goods and services.  With 80% of the wealth taken out, I doubt grocery store owners, energy producers, engineers, doctors, and all the people that produce the actual STUFF that gives your $52.7 trillion in cash value would bother showing up for work.  So this essentially ignores the fact that the grocery stores and car dealerships would be empty and very optimistically assumes the dollar would still be accepted as a medium of exchange.

Third, it also assumes the "rich" sit idly by and don't ship their money offshore.  That all those lawyers and accountants are on vacation at the same time so as the legislation slowly moves through congress, rich people are completely unaware of the handgrab coming their way.

Of course, real economists such as you, me, our lieutenants and agents in the field know the economy would collapse immediately, but I still like to argue with the mental handicap of an envious and lazy liberal who deems themselves entitled to other people's money.  It proves, even with their rosy assumptions about how the real world works, that their ideology is impossible.

Enjoy the 12 years!

Tuesday, June 19, 2012

The Return of Aramis

Aramis is a cologne that my grandpa wore.  I remember the smell quite distinctly because I believe the nerves in your nose are most closely related to memory in your brain or some other such thing I've heard.  Of course when I smell Aramis I immediately get a smile on my face because I remember my loving grandpa.  The same thing happens when I smell chlorine in a pool (because the rare times we'd stay at a hotel with a pool as a kid) and when I smell the combination of lawn mower exhaust and freshly cut grass.

I bought a bottle of Aramis in college and used it sparingly.  At first because I would save it for "rare" occasions, and then because the girls I would date would say they liked "Drakar" or whatever the fashionable cologne was that weekend.  So 19 years later I still have about 1/4th of a bottle.

But then something funny happened.

A female friend of mine said she "LOVED" Aramis.

Because of the smell?


Because of the company?


Because of some other reason I couldn't guess?


It was because her dad wore Aramis and it reminded her of him.

Now not to get into girl-daddy issues, but this little tidbit of knowledge got me thinking:

"What if you were to wear all the old colognes that were popular amongst men back in the 70's and 80's when the girls of today were little daddy's daughters and were regularly exposed to the scent of that cologne?

Would it remind them of dad and thus see you in a more manly and attractive fashion?  Would it remind them of their youth, making them happier and thus more agreeable to your presence?"

I have no proof, but I'd be curious to see if you male lieutenants out there might want to try to carry out an experiment.  If we were to look up the most popular colognes of the 70's and 80's among 30+ year old men, wear them while out and about, and see if there is a discernible effect.  Heck there may be one already.

I just know Brut cologne never worked regardless of what year it was.

No Houses for Sociology Majors

Heh heh.

Oh, I love when reality strikes.

Monday, June 18, 2012

"Vengeance is The Captain's," Sayeth the Lord

Anger, defense, and retribution are all good things in the hands of good men.

Take that away from them or criminalize them for it, there will be nobody to defend you or society when the bad men, who are equally equipped and will never jettison those traits, walk in unopposed, almost mockingly so and destroy your lives.

And yeah, I'm engaging in "sensationalism." 

No Good Comes of Horses

Horses AND "KHOMA."

Though the two usually go together.

If you don't know what "KHOMA" is then I suggest you read this.

You could wipe out third-world poverty if American women simply donated money to charity instead of maintained horses.  But no, no.  Pretties horsies iz so pretteez to looksies ats!!!  Yeah pweettty horsieeeeessss!!!

Besides, what's a few hundred million child-deaths due to malaria compared to a pretty shiny pony?

God I hate horses.

Housing to Recover?

If you look at the supply side, I'd have to say yes!  Only took 6 years to finally bottom out, but it looks like housing is slightly recovering:

Oh, but wait!  There's the other side of the formula - demand.

And with unemployment still high, fresh college graduates and yoots who tripped over their own slobber to vote for Obama crushed under student debt and no disposable income, not to mention ever increasing property taxes, there is a fraction of the demand as there was previously.  I sincerely doubt there will be "booming" property least until the presidential election is over and people WITH MONEY have genuine hope in the future of the country.

Saturday, June 16, 2012

Recession Medicine


Remember, it's more important for government bureaucrats to have jobs than for the rest of you to have them. 

Friday, June 15, 2012

Fan Mail


MBAs are totally degraded, as we know.

Atabasca University (distance learning) published today the list of
the 183 graduates from it program, here are my findings:

- 166 people provided their names, most their places of employment
- 48 of them (28.9%) work for government (hospitals, education boards,
city of this and that, etc.)
- 22 work for banks or investment funds (13.25%)
- 8 work for hi-tech companies (4.8%)

You can analyse it however you want, but I have some suspicions as to
what your commentary might be.

I have one with two comments:

- How can it be that the government sector accounts for a third of all
MBAs? What are they doing that is so important? Getting a well-rounded
- I am 100% sure my taxpayer's money is paying for all 48 MBAs in the
so-called public sector. I have no objections with some MBAs for key
people (there was one from Ministry of Defence) being paid by
taxpayer's money. However, I do object to 30% of the MBAs in 2012
being paid on my dime. Some examples of what I think to be wasted
taxpayer's money (unless it can be proven otherwise): Interior Health
Authority, Heffley Creek, BC (a town I never heard of needs an MBA
there?); Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation (they couldn't get one
ready made in Toronto? are you kidding me?; City of Ottawa;
Electical/Mechanical Contractors Association; City of Mississauga.

And an encore comment:

- I look forward to male advancement and mentoring programs in
government, since males account for less just under 50% of MBAs earned
by government operated authorities, despite males having longer
careers in industry than females.

I'm surprised it's only 30% government workers.  The only people with money are those in the public sector....and well, those kids whose parents are mortgaging their retirement to put little Suzie or Jimmy through an MBA program....

of course in the laughable hopes....

they'll make enough money....

to pay off their parents....

via nursing home financing...

and visits....

which will never come.

Enjoy the nursing home decline!

Thursday, June 14, 2012

There Should Be No Profit in the Stock Market

If you were like me when you were younger, you had questions or observations about economics, philosophy, finance, etc., that were so simple that you PRESUMED you were wrong.  Your logic was too simple, it made too much sense, and the real world around you (at that time) was providing evidence to the contrary of your observation.

However, I've studied economics long enough, lived long enough, and thought all my founding and consequential theories through to the point I've realized that one of my innocent observations back when I was in college was actually correct, and no, my logic was not flawed.  And that observation was:

There should be no profit in the stock market. 

I came to this observation when I was thinking about "market efficiency" - the concept that a market would price in all known data and information into the price of a stock, thereby reflecting its true value. If this is true, then prices would be bid up or down to the point the stock would have a "fair" value, leaving no room for profit or arbitrage. 

What triggered this original observation was the "investment philosophy" that over time the S&P 500 has historically provided 10-12% annualized rates of return (depending on whether you account for dividends or not).  I found that odd because 10-12% per year is a sizable premium over inflation. If markets were truly efficient, that margin of return would attract more and more money, flooding the market until the real rate of return was 0%.  This would initially result in prices being driven up (becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy as those increases in prices would result in higher returns), but inevitably stock prices would reach an "equilibrium" point where the dividends and profits of a firm would attract no more money and prices would stabilize resulting in no future capital gains. 

I originally theorized why the market kept going up for reasons similar to why we have a underfunded pension crisis - poor assumptions made on the part of actuaries.  Specifically, the market was failing to account for population growth and longevity of people.  So when Henry Ford started Ford, investors thought "we can sell these things to all 50 million Americans" failing to look into the future where the market in 100 years would NOT be 300 million Americans, but 3 billion people in 1st and 2nd world economies.  That growth was never factored into prices back then.

I also theorized that the S&P 500 index is always "fresh."  Meaning that it is a self-selecting and de-selecting index, getting rid of companies that either fail and are obsoleted through technological advancements, while bringing in the new, up-and-coming companies.  This "survival of the fittest" aspect of the S&P 500 means companies that grow the most to become the largest and most "successful" companies in the US ensure positive rates of return.  And not just positive, but these new companies and the technologies they bring into the world capitalize on larger and entirely new markets made from whole cloth (Apple for example with its electronic doo-daddery). 

However, while this explains why there has been (historically) considerably higher-than-inflation rates of return, it still doesn't debunk my theory there should be no profit.  All it shows is that the market failed to be efficient and underestimated technological advances and population growth.

There is, however, a very interesting chart that speaks to this.  Robert Shiller has created, among many other charts, this one which I find very telling:

It is the 10 year average PE ratio vs. their 20 year annualized returns for 5 separate periods or "vintages" throughout the history of the S&P 500.  What it shows is that people are actually OVERLY OPTIMISTIC when it comes to their expected rate of return.  Companies with very high PE ratios provide lower returns than companies with very low PE ratios, never delivering the profits they were promising. 

This is counter to what I thought was the case.  If people were underestimating the market, then higher PE ratio companies would result in higher returns.  But here, it shows we are overestimating the market. Admittedly, following the "survival of the fittest" aspect of the S&P 500 Index, a lot of those dots in that chart that had high PE's are no longer with us today and thus their statistical representation is moot.  The S&P 500 jettisoned them once they got too small or went bankrupt.  This, however, does not change the fact people's psychologies remain overly-optimistic.

Sadly, this is as far as my thinking and statistics have gotten me.  I know intuitively that if the stock market were TRULY efficient, it would reach an equilibrium point in terms of pricing resulting in 0% capital gains (which, consequently, would DESTROY the entire US retirement industry).  However, my best guess would be the answer lies somewhere in the market failing to account for population growth, underestimating technological advances, or just plain failing to account for increase in disposable income (though that factor will soon be going away).

Any ideas lieutenants?

Wednesday, June 13, 2012

"Probably Nothing"

Oh, you crazy socialists, promising yourselves everything.  When will you learn you need production to pay for everything?

Hey, you crazy kids enjoy that decline!

Williston Boy Flowers

So a girl in the office gets a bouquet of flowers.
I remembered, she JUST HAD flowers on her desk about a month ago.

So I inquire, "Didn't you just get flowers last month or something?"

She says, "Yes, I did."

I asked, "Well, why?  Are you particularly good to your husband?"

She says, "No, he's working the Bakken oil field and he sends me flowers every month."

I said, "Really?  That's awfully nice of him!"

She says, "Well, I'm not the only one.  "Amy" also gets flowers every month from her hubby and he works in Williston too."

I just wanted to point that out for all you aging 30 something NYC Sex and the City, EPL girls out there who are chasing "Mr. Big."  Just so you know you totally made the right decision passing up on those "loser" "blue collar hicks" and sticking to your guns to find that guy who makes 6 figures and has his MBA.

Because these guys also make 6 figures, but they DON'T have their MBA.

And a girl musn't lower her standards now, musn't she?

Canadians Have Crusaders Too

And just like their American cousins, I ask, "why are none of them good looking?"

Tuesday, June 12, 2012

Applying the "Well Rounded" Argument to Fathers

To test whether somebody really believes in their own ideology or are just picking and choosing from different ideologies to suit and excuse their lifestyle choices or outright hypocrisies, you simply have to look at whether or not they apply their presumed ideology and its tenets universally.

For example the environmentalist types who claim nature should be untouched.  Don't pick up that raccoon, if it was meant to die, it will die.  Don't prune the deer population, nature will take its course.  Of course when it comes to humans, we're not part of nature.  And instead of letting us progress and advance as we would unopposed we have to "cut back on our consumption."  "Stop emitting greenhouse gases."  "Save the planet."  Or, on the other side, if famine or plague occurs in some part of the world now we ARE to intervene (which I'm not necessarily against - just pointing out the double standard).  We're not left to evolve like our woodland creature friends naturally.  Oh no, we're different, we're special, we have to artificially stop our progress, evolution and advancement to the point "Idiocracy" is no longer a mockumentary.

Another example is religion and global warming.  IN GENERAL leftists are usually anti-religion.  They mock and ridicule it.  Oh you fool for believing in a big bearded fellow in the sky.  But they'll sure swallow whole all the global warming, environmentalism and "Gaia" BS - failing to note it's nothing more than a religion itself, if not, even worse, just a fad.

And then there's the "social liberal" argument (which I'm for) where we want MAXIMUM social freedoms.  Don't tell us what to do and how to do long as it pertains to abortion, smoking pot, and gay marriage.  But if it comes to letting people own guns, having a heater in a bar, or driving a 12 cylinder, gas-guzzling sports car, by god, those aren't RIGHTS!  Those are tools of fascism and tyranny!!!  You can't have THOSE rights!  Again, the hypocrisy shines through.

However, while doing a little philosophisizing whilst hiking in the mountains I had another epiphany.  An observation of yet another instance of hypocrisy where a group of people advocate one thing, but then completely disregard their advocation when it comes to an issue personal for them. - the DESPERATE need to be "well-rounded."

In general (though not always) people who tend to be for forcing kids to take college classes they don't need under the guise of "it will make you well-rounded" tend to be of the liberal stripe.  Not always, but most of the time.  These same people, however, are also more likely advocate single-parenthood (mother or father, it doesn't matter, but we'll focus on single moms because that's where the majority of the hubbub is focused).  They not only advocate it, but celebrate it and champion it.

But my little economist brain is having a hard time trying to reconcile something.

If you want to force children to take prerequisite college classes so you can milk them for more"to make them well rounded" wouldn't you also then be a strong advocate in recommending children be brought up with fathers in order to make them also "well rounded?"

I mean, if the purpose of becoming "well-rounded" is so you can interact and more fully engage society, you would think having a male role model early on in life so that you may effectively interact with half the population would be VERY important.  That having SOME experience or knowledge about how the other half of the population acts dishes up more well-roundedness than the Marxist drivel in Uber-Mandatory Freshman English Lit?  Additionally, why wait till you're 19 to get "well-rounded?"  With a father in the household, BAM!  Your lessons in well-roundedness commence immediately.  And you get a much more diverse, more well-rounded education than what the colleges serve up.  You can learn to change oil, develop a work ethic, self-supportation, independence, self-reliance, charm girls (or conversely) know what those young naughty boys are thinking.  College prereq classes are so homogenous with their commie-centric horse-blinder focus, they can't hold a candle to the diversity and well-roundedness a father can provide..

Naturally of course I'm partially joking, but the hypocrisy still exists.  And my target is NOT to criticize people who bring children into this world without fathers (or mothers, for that matter).  But rather to shine a light as to what's really going on.  Understand the majority of people who are forcing you kids to take college prerequisite classes do not do so because they truly believe "it will make you well-rounded."  If they believed that and put so much importance and emphasis on it, then they'd also advocate not bringing children into this world in single-parent conditions.  Because you want to talk about NOT being well-rounded?  You want to talk about being maladjusted?  You want to talk about a genuine disadvantage due to a genuine lack of well-roundedness?  It isn't because a kid can't cite Dworkin or didn't read enough Noam Chomsky.  It's because that kid didn't have a father and is completely dysfunctional when it comes to interacting in the real world.

No, the reason you're being forced to attend classes that are of no benefit to you is because they want your money.  You look at the people who benefit most from billions of dollars being spent every year on worthless prereq classes, 9 out of 10 times it's a liberal academian who is deathly afraid of the private sector or working in the real world and has found a little fiefdom by forcing you kids to take his/her worthless and mind-numbing class.  You also get the joy of buying his $300 38th edition book (because the 37th edition just won't do) "Post Modernity Social Dynamics Under New Rubric and Paradigm Analysis of Sexist Misogyny."  It has nothing to do with your education or making you "well-rounded."

Besides, the truth is, if you have friends, interests, a cool father and just a curiosity in life, you are already well-rounded and don't need any "adjustments" by your collegiate indoctrinators.

Monday, June 11, 2012

Lawyer Trolls

Short version - scumbag lawyer files frivolous lawsuit against "The Oatmeal."

His readers respond by donating $60,000 to his cause

When I'm sued, I hope the Cappy Cappites will come through for me the same.  In the meantime help out "The Oatmeal" because it's people like him, SDA, Blazing Cat Fur, and even myself, that pay the price tolerating DB lawyer trolls while we write to protect freedom and expose tyranny.

Fathers "Optional"

I know the skin of the drum is pretty worn out, but I'm going to say it again as long as idiocy like this continues:

Children need fathers (and to be intellectually honest, mothers).  If you bring children into the world without one (mother or father), you are the epitome of selfish.  You are putting yourself and your own greedy desires to have children ahead of the children you so wish to bring into this world.  You really don't care about the child, you care about HAVING a child like "having" an SUV or "having" a manicure.  A physical item that is nothing more than a thing to you, not a human being.

Now I know that finding "the perfect man" (emphasis on "perfect," not "good") is quite a bothersome chore, and besides, "the lord will provide" one anyway, so you don't have to worry about it, but it is my humble prediction the young (and now, not-so-young ladies) will come to rue their decision to go it alone and become a "choice mom."  First, I believe they will COMPLETELY underestimate how much it takes to rear and bring up a child.  Both in terms of finances and labor.  They will get into the ring with a the little tyke and soon realize they really do need a tag-team partner to wrestle the challenge of bringing up a kid.  Second,  I also predict they will not realize until it's too late just how severely they've torpedoed their chances of finding a guy in the future.  It's one thing if you're a widow.  That would hardly faze a man if you're looking to date, if anything it would beget pity.  It's even one thing if you're divorced with one kid with one ex-husband.  I'll even say it's "one thing" if you have multiple kids from multiple dads.  But if you had a kid purposely with no intention of ever having a father you might as well claim you have Ebola, are a manic depressive and are prone to bouts of physical violence.  That will send any quality men SCREAMING in a mad dash away from you.

I'm not expecting things to change.  The importance of fathers and husbands have so been dwindled, and the "nobility" and "heroism" of single-motherhood (however it comes about) so championed it's no shock the "non-marrieds" are piling up.  I just have one question to ask about a missing variable in this entire equation-

won't somebody please think of the chilllllldreeeeennnnn?

The Smith and Wesson Retirement Plan

I love truth.  It's such a wonderful thing.  It makes you sane, helps you make better, more effective decisions and it irks all the right people.  But what I really love about truth is how some people seem to have a huge problem with it.  How they'll desperately try to ignore it, rationalize it away, or just plain deny it as if they had a choice.

"The sky is blue."

"No it's not."

"Communism and socialism has failed."

"No it hasn't."

"Children need fathers."

"No they don't - sexist!"

I take great entertainment value in watching people lie to themselves as day after day, night after night, the real world delivers anything from minor cuts to crushing blows to their fragile "reality" and how they desperately scramble to find some some kind of explanation, ANY explanation or rationalization why they're still right, and the real world is wrong.

Now we could go on for hours about the many and varied people who choose to ignore reality and mock them mercilessly:

-Liberal arts majors who voted for Obama, joined the OWS movement and still can't understand why they don't have jobs.

-All the aging women who KNEW they could "have it all," with mocking boys in their youth to boot, who sing in chorus "Where have all the good men gone."

-The union members of now bankrupt cities and municipalities who won't be getting everythign they were promised in terms of pension, because, well, the money just plain ain't there.

But today I'm going to talk to you about something that affects all of us, is very important, and only the smart people will realize what I say is deadly serious and very much real, while the delusionals of the world caught up in American Idol or how thin Michelle Obama's arms are, will be aghast at what I have to say and will no doubt pull from the inventory of "ist" names to call me.

The Smith and Wesson Retirement Plan.

"What is the Smith and Wesson Retirement Plan" you ask?

Well, it's a very simple plan.

Instead of socking away $400 a month into your IRA or 401k, spending hours of your life managing it, spending thousands of dollars on various managerial and advisory fees, only to have the government either outright confiscate it or inflate it away you instead spend the small nominal fee of...

33 cents.

Why 33 cents?

Because 33 cents is the price of a single 45 caliber bullet.  And with that bullet you can permanently retire yourself.

Now a lot of people will be shocked with such a statement.  How dare I suggest euthanasia (which, when I was younger thought was "youth in Asia" and had NO idea what people were all up in arms about) as a viable retirement plan.  But, if you're so open minded (as I know many of you liberals claim to be) perhaps you can read on and realize that The Smith and Wesson Retirement Plan is probably a much better plan than your 401k.

First, consider the fact that the VAST majority of people are just plain not saving up enough for retirement.  In the consulting I do, I have a never-ending line of 58 year old people coming up to me and saying,

"I'm 58 and just finished paying off my 4th child's doctorate in French Literature.  I have a house that's underwater, and I'd like to start planning for retirement.  I'd like to retire at 62.  What should I invest in?"

I tell them the politically correct thing (you'll have to work till you're 80), and then they go to Edward Jones or Charles Schwab to see if they can find somebody to lie to them (remember what I told you about how distasteful truth was to some people?)

And forget old people, young people don't stand much of a chance either.  With no employment prospects, $50,000 in student debts, and an unemployment rate of 8%, even if they wanted to save for retirement they can't.  They need all of their money NOW to simply make ends meet.  And (to add further mockery to this stupid retirement system we have) even if they did have the money, what?  They're going to invest in an overpriced stock market with a P/E of 24 because TRILLIONS of dollars of baby boomer money has flooded the market, making it a bad deal to begin with?

Regardless of the reasons why, most people will PLAIN NOT HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO PAY FOR RETIREMENT and THEY NEVER WILL.  So why bother saving up in the first place?

Second, don't think Big Daddy government is going to come and bail you out.  I don't know if you've noticed this whole Greece thing going on, but no matter what previous generations of Greeks promised themselves in terms of retirement or medical benefits, if the money ain't there (guess what!)

IT AIN'T THERE!  (curse you evil truth!!!!)

Did you see any of the articles about how the hospitals are running short on vital drugs?  Funny how that works given the government "decreed" they were "entitled" to all that free health care.  Let me let you in on another little tidbit of "uncomfortable truth."  If there's no money in it for the private sector to create those drugs (say like you regulate or tax pharmaceuticals to death), then it don't matter what who promised who what - there ain't no drugs and you're going to die no matter what you were promised.

Third, let's put a very positive spin on this (and I am not exaggerating or being facetious).  Realize the majority of your expenses you incur (or more likely, the taxpayer incurs) in terms of your living and health care expenses come in the last 6 months of your life.  The premise of The Smith and Wesson Retirement Plan is that you would us the 45 caliber bullet to off yourself before then, saving society hundreds of thousands of dollars NOT TO MENTION saving you the 6 most miserable months of your life.  Now macroeconomic benefits aside (like  no government debt, booming economic growth, improved health care through innovation, and yes, dare I say it, longer life expectancies, but don't let this concept confuse you), there is a huge advantage to this - the fact you don't have to save up for retirement in the first place if you're willing to work as long as you can and participate in The Smith and Wesson Retirement Plan when the time comes.  That money can instead be spent on the years of your life WHEN YOU CAN ENJOY IT!

I remember, VERY CLEARLY, trying to save money into a IRA when I was making $23,000, commuting 120 miles every day for work and living downtown.  Now I'm cheap, but my life had NO FRILLS.

Once I realized that having lifelong employment in America like a 1960's Japanese Keiretsu was laughably impossible, I forgave myself of the responsibility to "do the right thing" and invest in a 401k.  For the first time in my life I "let go," went out, got drunk, tried sushi, stay at hotels (as opposed to sleeping in my car at a wayside) went on trips and enjoyed life.  The other option was to continue to live in poverty, have no fun, and have what meager savings I had stored up in a 401k confiscated in "2020 National Wealth Redistribution Financial Solvency Patriotism Act."

The single best thing about The Smith and Wesson Retirement Plan is you get to enjoy the ONE life you're given on this planet and don't have to worry about spending the resources to extend your life when you can't enjoy it.

Fourth, you will not be a burden on society.  I know hippies who never studied economics love to sit there and yell from their Depends,

"I contributed to the system and I deserve my government benefits!!!"

epically failing to realize they voted in things like "The Great Society" and other programs that blew away the money they "socked away" for retirement, and now literally demand future generations to become their slaves.

You don't have to become such ignorant hypocrites.  You can live your life, contribute as long as you can, and the second you realize you might become a parasite upon society, take yourself out.  I know that sounds harsh (because we've all been told to ignore the 600 Pound Reality Gorilla in the room), but it IS altruistic.  Certainly more altruistic in demanding and voting that OTHER people pay for the charities you wanted them too over your live and then voting to have other people take care of you.

Finally (and here's that damn truth and reality getting in the way of things again), you really don't have a choice.  Bar some spectacular economic growth and a true revolution of the economy, the money and resources plain isn't going to be there to make good on all the promises pot smoking commies back in the 50's, 60's and 70's made to themselves, future generations, all humans in the world, not to mention, pay back the debts we've currently accrued.  This once again revisits our buddies in Greece who are "entitled" to "Zymorgopentothol (tm)," but the fine men and women were taxed so much to death at Zymorgopentothol, Inc, they decided no longer to supply Greece with that life-saving drug.  You will have to make the choice to continue living in a desperate, painful state, or ending it mercifully (and cost-effectively) yourself.  I do not wish to be so pessimistic, cynical or macabre, but I'm not.  I'm really not.  That's going to be the REALITY for a lot of people.  And if you don't believe me, or think I'm just engaging in sensationalism how about for once YOU do the leg work and look up the finances of social security, medicare, medicaid, the federal government and general economic statistics of the US?  YOU run projections, make calculations and theorize and predict where the economy will go.  YOU prove me wrong and tell me where the magical money is going to come from to pay for everything everyone promised themselves.

Because again, I thoroughly enjoy and anticipate the crazy rationalizations, excuses and explanations delusional people come up with so they can keep believing in Lala-Land.  And until I execute my own Smith and Wesson Retirement Plan, one of the main forms of entertainment I'll have (in addition to hiking mountains, smoking cigars, playing video games, riding motorcycles and working as little as I can) is watching you fans of socialism, communism and "free" health care blow trillions of your own dollars on private retirement programs that will not only be confiscated later, but never compare to my 33 cent program.

And you wouldn't want to deprive me of that entertainment, would you?

Sunday, June 10, 2012

Not a Sociology Major

From our Married Agent in the Field.

Ben Hurs of The Manosphere

Follow the logic on this:

Married men who work and have stay at home wives are causing "HOSTILE WORKING ENVIRONMENTS" for women at work.

What I really love, though, is how they use the phrase "pockets of resistance to the "gender revolution"" (yes, double quotes were needed because of their stupidity)


Apparently they don't see the Ben Hurs of The Manosphere mobilizing millions of men every month.

hat tip

Saturday, June 09, 2012

Three Web Sites To Destroy Big Education

I've said it before and I'll say it again - if I ever have to hire somebody I will give them equal weighting to Khan's Academy classes as "real" ones from a university.

This of course assumes I'm in a position of power - HA HA HA HA!!!

Regardless, you will visit these three sites and improve yourself.

You will conform.

You will obey.

Compliance is mandatory.

Lake Angeline

Had day 2 of my second trip to the Big Horn Mountains.  It was rainy, cold, snowing, sleeting, hailing AND lightning today at Lake Angeline, for all 14 miles of it!  I decided to reward myself with a Captain American cupcake.  And yes, I bought it because it had a free Captain America ring embedded in the frosting (see bottom).