It's Not Your Fault

I call my buddy Alejandro to see what he was doing yesterday. He's wasn't doing much and since he's from Mexico, I thought he might find it novel to partake in an American pastime;

Shooting assault rifles.

He had never shot a gun before so I brought my little arsenal with and we headed out to the range.

En route to the range, I asked him what he had been doing with all his free time, because unfortunately he, along with 2,500 other engineers got laid off at one of the larger employers in town. He said he was looking for another job, talking to recruiters, applying, etc., but then he said something that made me quite angry. Not at him, but in general;

"I'm also going to this workshop where they try to help us out with dealing with the stress and the shame that comes with getting laid off."

The "shame?" I thought to myself. Why would he have shame when 2,499 other people got laid off? Fear of not being able to pay your bills, I could understand. Annoyance due to the fact you would now have to restrain your budget and not afford certain luxuries, OK. But shame? Why would you feel shame?

Sadly, it's a story I had heard before. Not more than 2 weeks previously another friend of mine was laid off. A computer programmer. He was telling me how he couldn't bear to hang out with us, his friends, because he was too ashamed he had been laid off. He was in a 2 month depression, holed up in his house, before he got another job (and found the pride to start hanging out with us again).

Another friend of mine just last Thursday was laid off, and though nowhere near as distraught was certainly down and depressed about it. I was keeping somewhat close tabs on her particular employment situation as her boss would constantly berate her for not meeting sales goals, ignoring the fact the economy was in a recession and that sales across the company were down. But despite the psychopathology of her boss, she still felt a little bit of shame.

So let me lay it out for all of you out there who are getting laid off once and for all;

It's not your fault.

Pure and simple, it's not your fault.

I'm not saying this to make you feel better. I'm not saying this to get you in the "cheer up camperoos! The sun always comes up tomorrow. And you should be happy little people, because if you're not perpetually happy, then you have psychological issues and need prosaic!" brainwashed-modern-day-American-mandatory-perpetual-happiness-sort-of-way.

No, I'm saying it because it's true.

It's not your fault.

The reason it isn't your fault is multifold.

One, we're in a recession.

Oh, I know your boss may have berated you and harped on you and told you, you weren't cutting it. But don't kid yourself, the reason for this added pressure is because his boss was pressuring him to boost sales because the regional manager was being pressured by his boss to cut losses, because the president and CEO has noticed the stock price tanking and isn't going to get his bonus this year. And the reason the stock price is tanking is because we're in a recession. A recession, I might add, management should have known was coming years ago and should have prepared for it, but are so incompetent and late in dealing with it, they now have to have massive lay offs.

This is what you must understand from a macro-economic perspective. When GDP contracts at 3.8%, it doesn't matter how good of an employee you are, demand for your firm's product, and thus labor goes down. The company cannot keep you on, not because you're not pulling your own weight, but because there just isn't demand for your labor. If anything, management should be criticized for hiring so many people in the first place, only to lay off again in 6 months when the economic indicators suggested a recession was on the way. It really is something to view as "nothing personal."

The second thing I wish to point out is the childish, assholeic (which is a word I just made up, but is the only way to describe it) behavior some managers have where they lack the maturity to be forthright with their employees and instead insist on blaming the problems of the macro-economy ON THEIR EMPLOYEES!

This enrages me because you have a person in a position of power, a position of authority, falsely blaming their staff for the problems of the company. The reason they do this again is that management is responsible for maneuvering the company through choppy economic waters. Management is responsible for making the decisions, developing the policies and implementing the strategies to deal with the outside environment. And since they are so inept and incompetent that their policies don't work, they don't have the intellectual honesty to admit it was THEIR decisions and THEIR fault that led the company to the dire straits it currently now faces. Ergo, since their bloated egos can't handle it, they blame their staff.

I hear endless stories of my friends being flogged to produce more sales, to make more loans, to sell more cars, despite this being the worst economy since the Volcker Recession. And if they don't, well then it's not the economy's fault, it's their fault and they should feel ashamed as the door hits them on the ass on their way out. To blame an economic crisis currently estimated to cost $2 trillion not on the sub prime deadbeats and corrupt banking system, but because my friend didn't sell enough couches is not only laughable, but hypocritical and typical of management today. Perhaps we should blame the chef of the Exxon Valdez for it running into a reef and not the drunk captain.

The third and final thing I insist you must understand is that your "supervisors" are NOT your SUPERIORS. And I think this takes a little more psychological thinking than normal.

Just because somebody is your boss or is older than you does not make them BETTER than you. Oh sure, back in the day that may have held, but today it absolutely does not.

When historians look back at this recession it is going to be a shameful period for the Baby Boomers for they are the ones who were more or less at the helm of this financial disaster. This is not to foist all blame on them, as there is certainly no limit to the amount of idiotic, disgusting, entitlement mentality driven Gen-X'ers who more or less make up a plurality of the sub prime dead beats and thus are also to blame, but at the helm of all the financial institutions, regulatory institutions, governments and corporations were the Baby Boomers. And they were asleep.

Be they bankers who disregarded any semblance of risk management in an attempt to enrich themselves through commissions, be they middle or senior managers who blindly flogged their staff to boost sales to make bonus at the expense of the integrity of the firm, be they auto manufacturing firms who had not the pair of cajones required to face down the union and basically admit to the reality "we can't afford to keep paying you this much," or be they the politicians and government leaders who instituted policies that channeled trillions to sub prime deadbeats all to buy votes from the degenerates of this country, in all cases sanity, logic, integrity and real leadership were forfeited for short term gain. The decisions being made by the leaders of these institutions were so horribly wrong, misguided and short sighted it is impossible to blame the ground troops over the officers for losing this war.

Of course to blame your elders or supervisors requires some bold and arrogant thinking. You are basically saying, "I, a younger, not-as-experienced, INDIVIDUAL claim to know more than the older, wiser and more experienced MASSES." But all one has to do is look at the empirical data. If the bosses, supervisors, leaders, governors, regulators and elders were right, would we be in this financial debacle? If they were competent, would we need trillion dollar bailouts? If the heads of these firms, the "elite" of Wall Street and other banks, we so god damned gifted, would they require taxpayer money? If they knew what they were doing and were thusly entitled to the rank of "supervisor" or "manager" or "boss" or "executive" would the company be in the red with its stock price tanking, along with the rest of the stock market, impoverishing us with the destruction of our 401k?

Once you understand this, then you will realize why you should have no shame. And not only why you should have no shame, but why you should have pride in getting let go by one of these Titanically-doomed wrecks.

In the meantime do yourself a favor and pour yourself a Fat Dachshund (1 part vodka, 1 part white creme de cocoa, one part baileys). You've earned it.

Minimalist/Modern Art #2

I had tendered a theory as to how minimalist/modern art, which sucks, ever got popular and thus far this is the most authoritative (and interesting) explanation I've received. It is quite long, so I once again, allow you to pour yourself a martini and enjoy (more shorter posts however are below);

________________________

Hey Cappy, well I just noticed your blog post about minimalist art and architecture, and I know all about the history of how this crap got started (or some of the history). It ties right into the history of socialism and fascism and communism and modern science. Lemme try to explain; I'll start with architecture:

As much as I dislike conventional religion, the one thing you cannot knock conventional religion on was that it almost always resulted in beautiful architecture in cultures. Architecture was considered the highest form of human achievement. It was also based on a set of geometric principles (which have mostly been lost by the modern "profession" of architecture). These principles of geometry are somewhat covered in a book called "Sacred Geometry" by Robert Lawlor. Basically these geometric principles are recognized by your subconscious, i.e. even if you don't know them, your brain does, which is why if you look at forms of architecture that were designed using these principles of geometry, whether Greek, Roman, Gothic, Egyptian, French, etc...whatever architecture, they all look beautiful, whereas with "modern" architecture, it looks totally whack.

However, when the Renaissance hit, even though this was the time of enlightenment, reason, and the rise of science, it had one problem: it also meant the beginning of the death of architecture. You see, historically, as said, architecture was always grounded very much in religion. But with the age of Enlightenment, the "intellectuals," who believed completely in science, rationality, and planning, began to see this religious-based architecture as nothing but "decorated shelter." It was not just decorated shelter, as it is grounded in geometric principles, but the intellectuals were unaware of this, and this artform was dying out (this adherence to science and rationality also is what led to the rise of fascism, socialism, etc...).

Then came the industrial revolution, in which science, "reason," and the idea that society needed to be centrally planned began to become the norm amongst the intellectuals. The idea of the free-market and all that was nonsensical to them. For an egalitarian society, society needed to be centrally planned. And people needed to be controlled. Told what to do.

Enter the beginnings of modern architecture and modern art.

Because of the emphasis of strict rationality, and on the belief that conventional religious-based architecture was just decorated shelter, the schools of architecture began to totally reject those old views for newer ideas of architecture. New architecture was to "scientific" and "rational." It was to be strictly for "function." Not form, beauty, none of that "crap." Just function and rationality. Logic.

Like the Borg would design it I guess one could reason. The classical geoemtrical principles for designing architecture began to be lost.

If you look at the history of many of the founders of the modern architecture and modern art movements, they tie right in with the Nazis and fascism (one architect even tried to start an American Nazi party). Many such architects also hated capitalism and Western civilization I believe. Modern architecture is, at its core, fascist. Remember, fascism, socialism, etc...all were movements emphasizing the rejection of religion, and the dominance of strict logic, rationality, and central planning of society.

What was so ironic is in reality, this so-called "functional" architecture was in reality completely un-functional oftentimes. You couldn't live in it. And it did not meld well with nature. Meanwhile the so-called "decorated shelter," was actually very functional and rational.

Architecture, in order to be liveable, has to fulfill what is called the "cave concept." We humans have programmed into our evolutionary genes the need for security from the forces of nature of course, and the base area of such security is originally a mother's womb. When humans are born and working to survive, they seek a secondary version of that womb, albeit subconsciously. The primitive humans sought it from "mother Earth," via caves. A cave provides shelter and is provided by the Earth, the "mother." it is dark and cozy, even if it is a cave. If there's a hurricane outside, a cave is great.

With buildings, homes must meet this same caveman concept. If you go into a home and you don't feel warm and cozy inside, and private, it isn't fulfilling this caveman concept. Well much of this modernist "rational" architecture did not fulfill the caveman concept at all. It was far too open.

Although the "elites" in the art and architecture and media worlds love to praise these crazy designs put forth, and used the term "reactionary" to describe folks like Treasury Secretary Mellon when he put up buildings designed in classical architecture, you will notice that none of these elites ever live in such architecture.

The entire home-building industry is dominated by classical architecture-based homes. Only the extreme environmental types or dedicated Marxists and so forth will live in the ultra-minimalist stuff. The home building industry remains dominated by classical designs because, as said, that is what the human mind recognizes as normal because it is based on geometric principles that all people recognize as least subconciously.

If you notice, for all our great technology, engineering, scientific prowess these days, architectural development among humanity has literally died. It's gone. In the past, great architecture was the pinnacle of a civilization's achievement. It's art, it's engineering, it's religion, etc...were expressed through its architecture. But now, that is gone completely. Architecture instead is very degraded. The reason being because those sacred geometric principles, which all cultures in the ancient worlds were aware of, have been lost. All of the great architecture is the classical stuff from the past. Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Persian, French, Gothic, English, Middle Eastern, etc...there is no new architecture designed in modern times that can match the classical stuff.

Yes, those big corporate skyscrapers made of glass and steel are beautiful objects in terms of how they light up at night and reflect light during the day, but they are really just gleaming rectangles. There is no geometric principle to them. And yes, they are great attributes to human engineering, but again, not architecture. Just engineering.

They are also the ultimate expression of the phallus (penis worship). You will find that reverance of the phallus and reverance of the vulva pop up in architecture throughout history. for example, the shape of the Catholic churches is that of the vulva and a woman's womb.

A prime reason for this lack of development in modern architecture is because architecture takes generations to develop. It you look at the great architectures, it's not like some guy just said, "Hmmm....I'll design a new form of architecture," and out comes the Cathedral or the Taj Mahal. Such architectures were developed by multiple architects and designers, over years and years, generations and generations even. Yes, a single building using an existing form of architecture may be designed by one architect, but the particular architecture itself takes generations usually to come forth (so the designer of the Taj Mahal was using an architecture form already in existence by that time, developed by many before him).

One can in particular see this in how the Greeks started off, and then the Romans took what the Greeks did and advanced it a good deal further.

Today, there is none of that. Architects are just expected to come up with their own stuff. As a result, an architect may sit down and try to come up with something original, but highly unlikely will any architect suddenly "invent" a new architectural style that can match the beauty of the classical stuff. No one has yet to come out with a totally new architectural style that matches that of the great cathedrals, or the Islamic architecture, or the Greeks and Romans in terms of beauty, but is actually designed in modern times, where if the ancients came into today, they'd be, "WOW, awesome new stuff guys!"

So instead, we end up with the most assinine architectural designs ever thought of. And worse, they aren't even attempted to be rational nowadays. They challenge the engineers to figure out how to build them! They also assault the human mind. The "elites" may praise them, but to a normal person, it's like, "WTF!?"

And worse still, architects these days are expected to be "fashionable." Now obviously, if creating a great style of architecture that is totally new and original takes maybe a couple of generations, it is thus a recipe for disaster if architects try to be fashionable, and thus we get such crazy, insane designs.

An architect can only really be original in a classy sense these days by taking all the classical forms of architecture and combining them to create hybrid styles, for example a home half French and half Meditaerranean, and so forth. Such architectures are also very beautiful. Look to the luxury home market for such beauty, in particular the homes that run like $5 million and up. Here is an awesome architect who designs such homes and an awesome website:

http://www.dreamhomedesignusa.com/

An awesome book on this subject which also will lead you into other books and talks about the fascism element of the history of modern architecture is the following:

The Return of Sacred Architecture: The Golden Ratio and the End of Modernism, by Herbert Bangs. I highly recommend it.

I also wonder about furniture too. If you look at the classical furnitures of the cultures of the world, versus "modern" furniture, it's like the same thing; there is no furniture designed in modern times that can match the classical stuff. It's all either the classical, or based on the classical designs, or it's some very crazy "modernist' furniture. Furniture historically was based off of architecture if you read about it.

Alright, now onto modern art and how that got started. Although modern art ties in somewhat with fascism/socialism and elitism and all that, it has a slightly different history.

Historically, as we know, human art always strove to be as realistic as possible. Since the time the first caveman tried making pictures, they have sought realism as the highest ideal. The Greeks with their statues epitomized this. Portraitists were greatly valued among royalty and elites for their abilities and so forth.

But then came a little snag: the invention of the camera. Suddenly, virtually overnight, what had once been a prized skill, became virtually worthless. No longer did you need some highly-skilled, expensive portraitist to paint your picture. You could just get a camera. Granted, the camera gave only black and white pictures in those days, but it was enough to destroy the portraitists.

And suddenly, photorealistic art began to get thrown out the window. No longer was it referred to as "art." This took a little time though. Artists, in order to be considered artists, had to find a new way to express themselves. Hence came abstract art. Now originally, an artist, to be accepted as an abstract artist, had to first become a skilled photorealistic artist, but eventually this all got thrown out by the pigheaded elites in the art schools so that only so-called abstract art was accepted.

Now, there is REAL abstract art, as in it has real meaning, but this eventually got tossed out the window as well. A few buckets of paint thrown at a canvas in a fit of rage were considered art, but a beautiful photorealistic painting was not. Throughout most of the 20th century, any kind of realiistic art was considered trash, and only so-called "abstract" art was accepted.

This still is the case among the elites, who will use taxpayer money to put up ugly twisted pieces of metal that they call art because the free market won't accept it (and in NYC when Rudy Giuliani cut such funding, they accused him of infringing on freedom of speech, the bastards).

It got so bad that by the end of the 20th century, a cigarette box nailed to a piece of cardboard was considered art.

(Interestingly, as a sidenote, it doesn't seem like music was hit in this sense. Luckily the elites do not look down at classical music, but give great praise to the theme of Super Mario Bros. :D ).

One problem many people do not seem to realize is that photorealistic artwork is not art that could easily be replaced by a camera. There are pictures one can paint that one could never use a camera for.

For example, if you want a picture of two gladiators battling it out in the Roman colliseum, to hang on your wall, you probably need to paint it. If you want a picture of some fantasy world with a huge dragon and a knight, again, you need a painter. You can't take a picture of such a thing.

Thus, the camera, contrary to the naysayers, did not wipe out the photorealistic painting.

There are also the naysayers who will say, "How can photography be a form of art? It's just taking a picture." Well yes, but if you take multiple pictures let's say, and combine them into one very unique image, that can be quite fascinating. They do that in advertising all the time, for example.

You can also use photography, computer generated art, and photorealistic painting all combined to create fantastic realitistic art (as does the artist I am about to give you a link to).

Today there has finally been a revolt it seems against the so-called abstract nonsense. Yes, certain art, like Picasso, the work of M.C. Escher (very mathematical), and mathematic artwork of the Islamic world, are abstract art that is very fascinating and has meaning and even beautiful, but most abstract "art" is just pure BS. A picture that is ripped isn't art. A statue of a dung-covered Jesus is not art.

A VERY awesome artist you should check out is here: www.howarddavidjohnson.com - he is the epitomy of a photorealistic art painter who paints stuff you can't use a camera for! I love this guy's work.

If you are interested in some awesome classical luxurious interior design, check out Clive Christian: http://www.clive.com/home/slideshow.html

Hope this helps, that's a summary of how this whole modern architecture and modern art movement got started. Check out that book I recommended, it will lead you to other stuff if you're interested.

The modern educational system, the university system, feminism, modern architecture, environmentalism, eugenics, etc...all have their histories grounded in fascism.

Coolest Guy Ever

Got this from a regular reader. He shall remain anonymous;
_________

There I was, teaching at the Univ. Of Kentucky on a one year teaching gig. When the weather got nice, they had an 'art gallery hop', I think it was the first Thursday of every month.

Anyway, I'm in this gallery when I see my favorite Hollywood actress - a really FAMOUS actress. Not that she's a great actress, but I mean the HOTTEST actress. I mosey up to her but pretend I don't know who she is.

We start talking small talk and I make her explain what she does and what movies she starred in. I've seen them all, but only acknowledge her bit part in a Star Trek episode. We drink wine, eat cheese, walk together from one gallery to the next. At the end of the evening, SHE asks me out to dinner the following night.

We exchange cell phone numbers and she gives me the address where she's staying. She suggests trying out a new Brazilian restaurant in town. I love Brazilian, so that's great.

The next evening I pick her up. She's dressed very casually but still HOT. She's waiting outside the gated community and she gets in the car before I can run around to get the door.

We get to the restaurant and I hold the door open for her. While we're sitting she gives me a lecture about how sexist holding a door for a woman is. I roll with it.

A Brazilian churrascaria is a barbecue meat place, but she is a vegetarian! So we have this awkward petty conversation while I try to eat as little meat as possible and she barely pretends not to be disgusted. Remember, she picked the restaurant.

By the end of dinner I'm exhausted by the empty conversation and her inability to grasp what I teach and do. The check comes and this MULTIMILLIONAIRE actress who scolded me for holding a door and invited ME to dinner doesn't reach for it and doesn't flinch to pay half.

I figure that a blow job in the parking lot is out of the question.

I take her home and even knowing not to expect a kiss, it's still awkward to say goodnight. Then SHE invites me to go horseback riding the next day, early. I've never been horse riding on anything larger than a pony, but I accept.

I stay up half the night wondering WTF happened. I Mapquest directions to the stables. Then I Google her and find out she's MARRIED to some race car driver. Definitely no blow job coming.

Next morning I wake up at 7:30 and I'm supposed to meet her at 8 and it's at least a 20 minute drive. There's no way I could shower, dress, and drive there in time.

I made the ultimate fold of a losing hand and STOOD HER UP. She never called me and I never called her.

That's my once in a lifetime story, but I still bow down to your dominatrix story.

Holy Biased Media Batman!

If ever there has been a time where individuals must think independently and on their own, and make a concerted effort to find the truth as the "guardians" of truth, ie-the media, have become so corrupted they have become pointless, it is now;


Seriously, and I genuinely mean this, WHY would ANYBODY read the Toronoto Star? What would be the point? You might as well read Nazi propoganda or Pravda. That's if they can find the time to stop orgasming over Obama and get around to writing some words. Jesus.

Thanks to SDA for the link.

Ht for the person who posted it.

Minimalist Art

Quick story, then I'll leave you guys for the weekend.

Friend of mine and I are driving through Minneapolis. We come across Ghetto's in the Sky, my former residence and he says,

"You know, you can just tell architecture from the 60's or the 70's because it looks like utter sh!t."

Which then prompted me to share a theory I had about 60's and 70's art and architecture in general. That the reason everything went from ornate Roman architecture, or stylish 1940's downtown New York American architecture to utter crap was that the people designing the stuff in the 60's and 70's were basically lazy bums who had no real talent. That "minimalist" art (otherwise known as "crap") came about as Baby Boomers who had rich parents didn't have to work for a living, but to make themselves feel good became "artists."

Now, normally the free market would punish their wretched abominations of "art," they would starve and hopefully find another profession...or just plain starve. However, this original set of trust fund babies had rich parents, and to make their "children artists" feel good about themselves (or just give them some make work) the parents would buy not only their children's art, but other parents' childrens' art. ie-it became a club of pity where artists who had no real skill, but had connections to the upper classes, could throw "parties" and "openings" to display their "ground breaking art" fully relying on the heart strings of their parents to buy their crap. And arguably, not just the heart strings, but the fabricated pride a parent would have being able to say, "My son is a great artist."

Thus the minimalist art form was born.

Now I know this is a theory. A theory formed from observation that during the 60's and 70's art and architecture went to sh!t. A theory formed by looking at "art" in the Walker "Art" Museum and realizing I could create half the crap on display. A theory also derived by noticing the Walker Art Museum is in the foothills of elite, babyboomertrustfundbaby central; Kenwood, and would basically be the playground all the Mark Daytons of the world would play in with the other talentless children of Kenwood. But I'm wondering if I'm right.

Does anybody OUTSIDE THE ART WORLD (ie-not biased) know the history of minimalist art and how on God's green earth such crap ever got popular in the first place?

GDP Per Square Kilometer

Interesting chart. Nothing really insightful. I think the only conclusion I can make is that sand does not lend itself well to making GDP.

I Want His Skills

Though some girls would argue I already do this, heh heh;

Click on this one and then the next two.

Remember kids, sex and being sexy is evil.

Go to bible camp instead.

The American Herbivore Movement

There is the Japanese Herbivore movement, but you will see it "COMING TO AN AMERICA NEAR YOU!!!"

The article is spot on about some things, but it does miss the cause of it by a mile.

Japanese men aren't becoming herbivores because they're tepid or gay or meek.

Their decision to "drop out" is a shrewd economic calculation in that they realize their lives are finite and the costs of "marriage" and the barriers to entry for a "career" just plain aren't worth the amount of life they must sacrifice for what is a marginal and unsecure career, let alone a marriage more prone to divorce.

Don't worry, it's already happening here. The media can call it whatever semi-pejorative term it wants, but "herbivorian" it isn't.

It's just men "going Galt."

The Republican Party is About as Efficiently Managed as Lehman Brothers

Logic would suggest to me that if you are a political party or a charity or in general, a non-profit, probably key to your operations would be the use of volunteers. That this one aspect, voluntary work, would be a vital, if not, life blood aspect of your organization, and therefore not only would you do your utmost to do what you could to recruit volunteers, but should you be so fortunate enough to have people inquire or be interested in volunteering for your organization there would be a mechanism or process in place by which to process these people and implement them into your organization to their maximum effect.

Of course that’s what logic would suggest

Reality is a completely different matter.

Given the outright ass-kicking the republican party received from the wave of socialism taking over the US, I thought it high time that I do something beyond the blog and actually live up to the required stewardship a citizen has in a democracy and participate a little bit in politics. It wasn’t going to be anything grandiose, but I thought that maybe, with my background in economics, unrivalled charting abilities, and public speaking skills I would be able to do something for the republican party. Perhaps volunteer some time, give them a couple pointers on economics, show them some charts that would do an immense amount of good battling the forces of socialism and ignorance, or just how to grow a pair and plain argue with liberals.

So I sent an e-mail to the Minnesota GOP. A day passed.

Another day passed.

And soon a week.

And soon, enough time that I opted to contact the Minnesota Young republicans, a division of the Minnesota GOP.

I was informed that I should contact the head of my local chapter, which I did by leaving a message on her voice mail.

A day passed.

Another day passed.

And soon a week.

Inevitably, I did get a call back from somebody, but it was from the main GOP office that I contacted originally, not the local chapter. He informed me that he thought I would be able to do some good for the party with my background and said he’d forward my contact information to the local chapter of the republican party.

Three days later, I’m still waiting.

Now, I understand that people are busy. I understand that there are many aspects to a political party. But I have a hard time believing that if I had called the Obama campaign or the democratic party it would have been this much of a hassle, let alone this many weeks before they would have contacted me. Something tells me that key to the democrats obliterating the republicans this last election was not so much the ignorance people have about government finances or basic economics (though that does contribute), but they just plain have their sh!t together and the republicans are horribly mismanaged.

Now I’m not looking to become the next chairman of the Minnesota GOP. I’m not even looking to be some kind “leader” in the GOP. All I want to do is contribute my talents, however they may be used, to the party that best has the organization, system and machine in place to fight off socialism and do my part in perhaps saving this nation. But if the republican party is so horribly inept and completely mismanaged that they cannot simply harness or process WILLING volunteers into a force that helps the party, then what hope is there of them ever delivering a proportionate counter-defeat come 2010, let alone repelling the advance of socialism?

Perspective for Stimulus

Just a little perspective.

The Solution to Illegal Immigration

Heh

Post post - My god people, given the amount of critical comments I've received on this post, I think all of you need to pour yourself a drink and realize

IT'S A FREAKING JOKE!

Notice how the link is to a COMIC STRIP.

Suggesting HUMOR, not a serious analysis of solving the illegal immigration problem.

Federal Budget as a Percent of GDP

Given the talk about the nearly $1 trillion bailout, I took it upon myself to recalculate one of my favorite measures, government expenditures as a percent of GDP.


I like this chart in that if there is one simple chart that shows you we are heading for socialism and that Obama and the democrats are indeed socialists, this is it. Imagine, it was in 1900 that the US government only taxed us at a 2.5% rate. Then, after each successive war, the government has found it necessary to boost its take of economy to today, where including Obama's bailout, I estimate the federal government ALONE will take 30% of GDP in 2009.

Of course, this does not include state and local governments' take of GDP which now certainly pushes it above 50% in some states and makes it impossible to argue that Obama is anything but a socialist. You throw in nationalized health care and lord knows what else, and the US and its history of capitalism are quite simply over. And that is not hyperbole or rhetoric, that's just the sad simple truth.

Enjoy the socialism comrade! And don't say I didn't warn you.

Oh, and buy the book already damnit!

Sick, Disgusting People

I forgot to mention it when they broke the truce, but Hamas did start it again. It's an important distinction to make, because when Hamas and Israel start fighting again, the MSM as well as the international media will fail to make this vitally important point.

They may also fail to give this appropriate coverage.

I don't want to hear any BS from people criticizing Israel.

Sick Days

I remember being a kid and being able to scam my way into not going to school by the simple fact that if I woke up once the heard the heater kick in, and ran to the bathroom, I could sit on the toilet which was right next to the heat vent, put my head next to it, heat up my forehead and after 2 minutes of heat, run right upstairs, have my mom put her hand on my forehead and say,

"Oh, you have a fever. Better stay home."

The truth is that less than 10% of the "sick days" I had during school were genuine, and the same percentage of days I presume hold true in the adult working world. Since leaving home I have only had 1 sick day and that was when I had food poisoning. Beyond that I've gone to work sick, tired, perhaps a little hung over, but only once in 15 years did I ever take a sick day. Ergo, the following chart isn't a measure of relative healthy, but relative propensity to lie.

The Baby Boomers' Worst Nightmare

Conventional investing philosophy is that the stock market goes up and down, but over the long run, stocks generally trend upward. This simple principle is what over $10 trillion worth of 401k's, IRA's, pensions and other retirement vehicles are based upon, as well as pretty much every Americans' retirement. Ergo, yes, stocks may be down, but "don't worry, stocks go up in the long run, now might even be the time to buy."

Alas, I think I need to remind people of what happened to the last 1st world nation that suffered from a stock bubble and a housing bubble; Japan.

You see, Japan, back in the late 80's was growing by leaps and bounds, imminently approaching its WWII rival in terms of standards of living and economic power. Because they were destined for greatness, Japanese stocks and property were destined for great price increases. So great that the price outstripped any realistic notion of profitability or rents those stocks and properties could feasibly generate. A bubble formed, then popped and HAS NOT RECOVERED IN THE PAST 20 YEARS;



The moral of the story is that this is a very likely scenario for the US as well and throws a little kink into everybody's retirement plan. Oh, I know Goldman Sachs and American Express and whoever else out there said you can rely on the stock market to provide 10-11% annualized return, but you see it is quite possible many people will never see their 401k's recover, because, well, you can't just live off of increasing asset prices. Profits have to increase as well. And given the utter distaste Americans have with producing wealth (not to mention Obama's insistence on punishing it), a very Japanese like 20 year period of economic malaise and stagnant stock prices is certainly a possibility.

Enjoy working till your 80.

Capital Flight and Brain Drain

When society degrades and deteriorates, those with the slightest bit of competence and promise start to look elsewhere. And although, this is not politically correct, nor popular (which should make it golden) anybody with any skill or game in the US should start to look elsewhere.

The US is collapsing.

Oh, I know, disregard that random, rouge, rugged blogger, he knows not what he speaks of, but yeah, I'm sorry, my heart felt opinion is that the US is collapsing and if you have any desire to actually produce something of worth for society or have a life for yourself, jump off this Titanic, parasitic socialist wreck and find something else in life worth pursuing, because we're going down.

I don't know how long I've suffered tolerating limitless numbers of "sociology" majors and "journalism" majors who no doubt are the rank and file of the Obama Messiah Saviours of us all, but in the end it will not deliver the results necessary to pull us out of this recession/depression. The sad, truth of it is that nobody in this country is willing to learn the necessary skills or trades required to produce the goods and services that the rest of the world wants, which would actually produce the wealth/value that would give merit to the US. This is a rotting carcass of spoiled brats who believe that since they exist they are entitled. And since they are entitled, why should they work. And since there is no work....well, you know where that childish philosophy leads.

Ergo, I tender a proposal to all the nations in this world. Though nations are governments, in the end, no matter how much you'd like to theorize otherwise, the free market and competition reigns supreme for it is reality. And if you wish to become a great nation, then you will realize that a nation is only as great as its people. And if you wish to be great, then you should by default, wish to attract great people. The question is how.

Do you tax the living crap out of them?

Do you punish them with corporate taxes and drive the Bill Gates away?

Do you parasite off of them, absconding with their producitivity to bribe the masses to vote for you knowing full well you've driven them, and real economy productivity away?

Or do you become a revolutionary and actually attract them by letting them retain the majority of the fruits of their labor?

Do you let people form corporations and entities by which THEY have deemed most efficient to deliver goods and services most cheaply and most affordably and stay the ef out of it?

Do you leave the them hell alone and as a government promise them the most basic of services without interrupting and interfering with issues that are of no concern not right of the government?

Ergo, let me tender a crazy, insane, revolutionary thought in the apparachicks of governments around the world;

Since a country is only as great as its people are, why don't you take advantage of the greatest opportunity in the world and pilfer from the United States all their productive and talented citizens?

Seriously, do you think the average productive American likes subsidizing scores of parasites? Do you think we productive members of America like paying for welfare bums, social security frauds and others who have never had any intention of producing the wealth necessary to support their own lives?

American producers, the workers, the toilers, the enterprenuers who created the largest, most powerful most successful economy in the world are simply there for the plucking. You could poach them and then instead of these hard workers slaving away to support the parasitic masses of the Obama world, work instead for your nation.

Oh, I know that would have to result in you lowering taxes and actually being honest with your citizens that they (GASP) have to support themselves, but think of the economic productivity and growth that would occur if you were to take the best from America with the simple promise that you don't indenture them to economic slavery and let them keep 90% of what they earn?

It is the simple concept that even though you are a government, you still compete in the international world. And any government smart enough to poach the talent and productivity of labor from other nations by (again, GASP!) LETTING THEM KEEP THE VAST MAJORITY OF THEIR LABOR, you will become the greatest nation on the planet.

The question is whether you want to punish productivity and reward stupidity (as Obama is doing with his bailouts) or reward productivity and punish stupidity (which I see no nation doing right now).

The simplicity of this strategy is so simplistic, only government bureaucrats couldn't see the low hanging fruit that is in front of them.

"Disproportionate Response"

Good.

Glad to see somebody in Western civilization grew a pair.

Was beginning to think I was the only one.

I Have Posed This Question Before

http://www.leasticoulddo.com/comic/20090110

If This Doesn't Make You Happy

Then I don't know what will.

Enjoy the weekend folks!

GDP Shrinks

Isn't this heavenly?

GDP shrinks 3.8%.

Worst economic performance since the Volcker Recession. Especially in light of this which I wrote almost a year and a half ago and my projections this recession will be worse than the Volcker Recession but not as bad as the Great Depression.

I may not be rich, I may not be popular and I may not have a job, but I'm right.