I think it's safe to say that if your government has a "Forced Marriage Unit"
1. You can start forcing people to obey your country's original laws or leave
2. You have WAAAAY too much government.
Sunday, April 01, 2012
Friday, March 30, 2012
Which is Why I Play Video Games
I don't think I've watched a network TV show in probably 8 years.
I think "Firefly" was the last cable show I watched and that was on DVD.
This is of course excluding cartoons which I watch nightly.
I wonder when the marketing geniuses in TV will realize that in order to boost sales they might want to consider targeting this highly under-served segment of the market called "men." I hear it's a pretty big market.
I think "Firefly" was the last cable show I watched and that was on DVD.
This is of course excluding cartoons which I watch nightly.
I wonder when the marketing geniuses in TV will realize that in order to boost sales they might want to consider targeting this highly under-served segment of the market called "men." I hear it's a pretty big market.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
The $67 Billion Feminist Tax that Women Primarily Pay
Follow me closely on this one because it takes some explaining, but I'll try to make this as clear and as simple as possible so you see my point.
In order for something to be taxed there must be some kind of transaction. You get a paycheck, you sell some stock, you buy gas, you sell a house, etc. etc. That transaction is recorded not just in company or government records, but at banks, so if you were ever to get audited, there would be some kind of proof a transaction did indeed occur. There are only two ways to avoid this taxation:
1. That transaction is done in cash (and therefore no banking or electronic proof that transaction occurred).
2. You barter for services or goods (again, no electronic record of any transaction).
Now, that being said, the IRS still requires you to report any cash or bartering transactions so you can pay taxes on it, but they're relying on the honor system in these cases. Naturally, there's an incentive to make transactions via cash or barter, resulting in an US underground economy estimated to be anywhere from $500 billion to even $3 trillion.
When you think "underground economy" you usually think drugs, weapons, maybe contractors doing favors for one another, but you rarely think of housework as part of the underground economy. Basic house maintenance, upkeep and cleaning is viewed more as a chore and even the most ardent of IRS agents I doubt would advocate somehow requiring homemakers reporting whether or not they vacuumed that year or mowed the lawn.
However, they don't really have to. Feminism has already done that for them.
Again, before I continue on, let me get the disclaimers out here so we can blunt the knee-jerk reactions from the non-thinking reactionaries. Let me state that I for one never viewed house work as "beneath" anybody. I never viewed what could be considered traditional "women's work" beneath traditional "men's work" and to this day still am looking for proof where society placed less value on traditional women's roles than they did traditional male's roles. Truthfully, I believe having "men's" work and "women's" work categorized was really more of a symbiotically beneficial division of labor allowing both groups to produce more than had they tried to do both jobs, but that is for another debate at another point in time. For purposes of our discussion now, I view traditional "women's work" just as vital as traditional "men's work," while at the same time agreeing there are instances where the traditional roles could be reversed that would also be beneficial.
But getting back to my original point, feminism has indeed brought a lot of the unspoken labor involved in house work, house maintenance and traditional "women's work" out of the world of barter and into the official (and now taxable) economy.
How?
Well consider this.
1950's home maker Sue spends her day cleaning and taking care of the house. Washing dishes, doing laundry, cooking meals, and (more importantly) taking care of the kids. All of this has vital value to the continuing function of the household and thus the economy and thus the country, but because she is not paid to do it, there is no way to put a market value on it and therefore no way to tax it.
But today, many thanks to feminism, women are no longer "shackled" to the doldrums of the 1950's housewife. She can go and pursue her own education, her own career, have kids, have a home, have a car, pursue her hobbies, run for president, fly to the moon and cure cancer. She can do it all and she can have it all because she has moxie and grrrrrl power (TM). And so, in 2012, Amy is "having it all" as she works as a lawyer in a prestigious DT law firm, with her 3 children, her house payments and car payments, as she participates in the local wine club, and goes out and partays as she is single because her ex-husband was a jerk.
The question is, naturally, if Amy is out doing all these things, how does she take care of her house and her children?
Simple, she doesn't. She pays somebody else to do it. She outsources all these things.
Uh ohhhhhh!
"Did you say, "outsource," Captain?"
Yes, yes I did. And you know what that means. That was a transaction. A transaction that is recordable and now, thusly, taxable.
In short, by kicking the homemaker (whether it was male or female, it doesn't matter) out of the house and into the working world you no longer have a willing and amiable spouse to stay at home and do all that work for "free." You have to pay somebody, and NOW you get to pay taxes on it.
How much? Well, shucks howdy, a cool $67 billion every year ladies and gentlemen.
How did I come about that figure? With my patented "Super Awesome Economic Genius," of course!
If you go to the NIPA accounts and look at personal consumption expenditures and add up all the various "household services," "day care," "cleaning services," and other things that would have been done by a traditional housewife, you get $169.3 billion spent on everything. But in the 1950's, that wouldn't have been a transacted number. That would have been a theoretical value applied to the barter. But since $169.3 billion has actually been transacted, you need to apply the roughly 40% tax rate to that amount, which results in the $67 billion tax bill I estimated above.
Now who pays this tax?
Disproportionately women.
Men were already working in the official economy and therefore paying income taxes. It's not like male labor force participation jumped since the 1950's. But to pay for the outsourcing of house maintenance, home keeping, child-rearing, etc., this bill fell on women who were now on their way to having it all. Women were now not just working and paying regular income taxes, they were now paying that extra $67 billion in taxes to essentially free them up from those horribly oppressive traditional roles so they could pursue their careers.
However, this brings up a funny "chicken or the egg" observation.
Often times I will hear people (not just women, but men too) say,
"Well, you need a two-person income to support a family today. It's impossible to have a stay at home parent."
Really?
Is it that you need to work two jobs to pay for everything, or is it that "everything" costs so much because it was cheaper for one parent to stay home instead of paying $22,000 a year for day care, $10,000 a year for a cleaner, and an extra $12,000 a year for eating out at restaurants because nobody has time to shop for groceries let alone turn them into meals?
Sadly, today the point is moot. Society, in voting in a bevy of social programs, has made the option of a parent staying home nearly impossible. Too many government programs exist today to accommodate the two-working-parent model that if you decide one of you will stay home to rear children and take care of the house, you're stabbed on property taxes, sales taxes, and other non-income tax related levies. You are also forfeiting "free" government programs that have taken over some of these traditional housewife duties.
However, the fact there are so many government programs brings up two last, but wickedly ironic points.
Point 1 - Cleaning the house, doing the dishes, etc., etc., is one thing. But the most expensive item that was bartered for back in the olden days was rearing children. Society, in all of its wisdom, has effectively outsourced that to the government. You have day care, pre-school, early childhood development programs, high school care for teenage moms' children. You could even argue elementary school is largely a baby sitting operation. And with the early-morning school programs and after-school programs, you can hardly argue it isn't. You can pretty much just go and have a child and after a bit of maternity leave, drop the kid off at some school, institution or daycare and the government will either subsidize it or outright pay for it. Thank god, you don't have to deal with that icky, yucky, gross child of yours, let alone RAISE that darn thing! Whew! Onto your masters degree.
But who then raises your child?
And here is the wicked part.
Point 2 - Though not always, predominantly other women take care of your kid. Amy the lawyer or Kelly the engineer would be one thing in that the economic argument could be made that in outsourcing their traditional housewife duties, they COULD make more as an engineer, pay somebody else to maintain the home, pay the extra "feminist tax" on those transactions and STILL come out ahead. They and their husbands could make bookoo coin, fly around the world, gallivant and drink wine, and heck yes, more power to you, AS LONG AS YOU DON'T HAVE CHILDREN. However, that is not the case in the majority of working women. The majority of working women are not only NOT engineers, the majority of women DO want children.
So what ends up happening?
Women, in droves, disproportionately major in "early childhood development," "education," "child psychology," "sociology," "social work," and a bevy of other worthless degrees to do what????
Take care of other womens' children.
Not only do you NOT get to take care of your own children, you get to work to pay the taxes to pay other women to take care of yours (and the taxes needed to employ this veritable army of social workers is infinitely more than $67 billion).
Of course, this is all good. We're all empowered. We're all "having it all." We're all happy. I'm sure the government does a much better job at child rearing than actual mothers (or stay at home fathers) do. Thank god we abandoned traditional roles that somehow developed (for no reason whatsoever) over the millinea of human history. Otherwise there may have been some longer-term consequences that would dwarf the mere $67 billion tax bill. And that certainly isn't possible now, is it?
In order for something to be taxed there must be some kind of transaction. You get a paycheck, you sell some stock, you buy gas, you sell a house, etc. etc. That transaction is recorded not just in company or government records, but at banks, so if you were ever to get audited, there would be some kind of proof a transaction did indeed occur. There are only two ways to avoid this taxation:
1. That transaction is done in cash (and therefore no banking or electronic proof that transaction occurred).
2. You barter for services or goods (again, no electronic record of any transaction).
Now, that being said, the IRS still requires you to report any cash or bartering transactions so you can pay taxes on it, but they're relying on the honor system in these cases. Naturally, there's an incentive to make transactions via cash or barter, resulting in an US underground economy estimated to be anywhere from $500 billion to even $3 trillion.
When you think "underground economy" you usually think drugs, weapons, maybe contractors doing favors for one another, but you rarely think of housework as part of the underground economy. Basic house maintenance, upkeep and cleaning is viewed more as a chore and even the most ardent of IRS agents I doubt would advocate somehow requiring homemakers reporting whether or not they vacuumed that year or mowed the lawn.
However, they don't really have to. Feminism has already done that for them.
Again, before I continue on, let me get the disclaimers out here so we can blunt the knee-jerk reactions from the non-thinking reactionaries. Let me state that I for one never viewed house work as "beneath" anybody. I never viewed what could be considered traditional "women's work" beneath traditional "men's work" and to this day still am looking for proof where society placed less value on traditional women's roles than they did traditional male's roles. Truthfully, I believe having "men's" work and "women's" work categorized was really more of a symbiotically beneficial division of labor allowing both groups to produce more than had they tried to do both jobs, but that is for another debate at another point in time. For purposes of our discussion now, I view traditional "women's work" just as vital as traditional "men's work," while at the same time agreeing there are instances where the traditional roles could be reversed that would also be beneficial.
But getting back to my original point, feminism has indeed brought a lot of the unspoken labor involved in house work, house maintenance and traditional "women's work" out of the world of barter and into the official (and now taxable) economy.
How?
Well consider this.
1950's home maker Sue spends her day cleaning and taking care of the house. Washing dishes, doing laundry, cooking meals, and (more importantly) taking care of the kids. All of this has vital value to the continuing function of the household and thus the economy and thus the country, but because she is not paid to do it, there is no way to put a market value on it and therefore no way to tax it.
But today, many thanks to feminism, women are no longer "shackled" to the doldrums of the 1950's housewife. She can go and pursue her own education, her own career, have kids, have a home, have a car, pursue her hobbies, run for president, fly to the moon and cure cancer. She can do it all and she can have it all because she has moxie and grrrrrl power (TM). And so, in 2012, Amy is "having it all" as she works as a lawyer in a prestigious DT law firm, with her 3 children, her house payments and car payments, as she participates in the local wine club, and goes out and partays as she is single because her ex-husband was a jerk.
The question is, naturally, if Amy is out doing all these things, how does she take care of her house and her children?
Simple, she doesn't. She pays somebody else to do it. She outsources all these things.
Uh ohhhhhh!
"Did you say, "outsource," Captain?"
Yes, yes I did. And you know what that means. That was a transaction. A transaction that is recordable and now, thusly, taxable.
In short, by kicking the homemaker (whether it was male or female, it doesn't matter) out of the house and into the working world you no longer have a willing and amiable spouse to stay at home and do all that work for "free." You have to pay somebody, and NOW you get to pay taxes on it.
How much? Well, shucks howdy, a cool $67 billion every year ladies and gentlemen.
How did I come about that figure? With my patented "Super Awesome Economic Genius," of course!
If you go to the NIPA accounts and look at personal consumption expenditures and add up all the various "household services," "day care," "cleaning services," and other things that would have been done by a traditional housewife, you get $169.3 billion spent on everything. But in the 1950's, that wouldn't have been a transacted number. That would have been a theoretical value applied to the barter. But since $169.3 billion has actually been transacted, you need to apply the roughly 40% tax rate to that amount, which results in the $67 billion tax bill I estimated above.
Now who pays this tax?
Disproportionately women.
Men were already working in the official economy and therefore paying income taxes. It's not like male labor force participation jumped since the 1950's. But to pay for the outsourcing of house maintenance, home keeping, child-rearing, etc., this bill fell on women who were now on their way to having it all. Women were now not just working and paying regular income taxes, they were now paying that extra $67 billion in taxes to essentially free them up from those horribly oppressive traditional roles so they could pursue their careers.
However, this brings up a funny "chicken or the egg" observation.
Often times I will hear people (not just women, but men too) say,
"Well, you need a two-person income to support a family today. It's impossible to have a stay at home parent."
Really?
Is it that you need to work two jobs to pay for everything, or is it that "everything" costs so much because it was cheaper for one parent to stay home instead of paying $22,000 a year for day care, $10,000 a year for a cleaner, and an extra $12,000 a year for eating out at restaurants because nobody has time to shop for groceries let alone turn them into meals?
Sadly, today the point is moot. Society, in voting in a bevy of social programs, has made the option of a parent staying home nearly impossible. Too many government programs exist today to accommodate the two-working-parent model that if you decide one of you will stay home to rear children and take care of the house, you're stabbed on property taxes, sales taxes, and other non-income tax related levies. You are also forfeiting "free" government programs that have taken over some of these traditional housewife duties.
However, the fact there are so many government programs brings up two last, but wickedly ironic points.
Point 1 - Cleaning the house, doing the dishes, etc., etc., is one thing. But the most expensive item that was bartered for back in the olden days was rearing children. Society, in all of its wisdom, has effectively outsourced that to the government. You have day care, pre-school, early childhood development programs, high school care for teenage moms' children. You could even argue elementary school is largely a baby sitting operation. And with the early-morning school programs and after-school programs, you can hardly argue it isn't. You can pretty much just go and have a child and after a bit of maternity leave, drop the kid off at some school, institution or daycare and the government will either subsidize it or outright pay for it. Thank god, you don't have to deal with that icky, yucky, gross child of yours, let alone RAISE that darn thing! Whew! Onto your masters degree.
But who then raises your child?
And here is the wicked part.
Point 2 - Though not always, predominantly other women take care of your kid. Amy the lawyer or Kelly the engineer would be one thing in that the economic argument could be made that in outsourcing their traditional housewife duties, they COULD make more as an engineer, pay somebody else to maintain the home, pay the extra "feminist tax" on those transactions and STILL come out ahead. They and their husbands could make bookoo coin, fly around the world, gallivant and drink wine, and heck yes, more power to you, AS LONG AS YOU DON'T HAVE CHILDREN. However, that is not the case in the majority of working women. The majority of working women are not only NOT engineers, the majority of women DO want children.
So what ends up happening?
Women, in droves, disproportionately major in "early childhood development," "education," "child psychology," "sociology," "social work," and a bevy of other worthless degrees to do what????
Take care of other womens' children.
Not only do you NOT get to take care of your own children, you get to work to pay the taxes to pay other women to take care of yours (and the taxes needed to employ this veritable army of social workers is infinitely more than $67 billion).
Of course, this is all good. We're all empowered. We're all "having it all." We're all happy. I'm sure the government does a much better job at child rearing than actual mothers (or stay at home fathers) do. Thank god we abandoned traditional roles that somehow developed (for no reason whatsoever) over the millinea of human history. Otherwise there may have been some longer-term consequences that would dwarf the mere $67 billion tax bill. And that certainly isn't possible now, is it?
Captain's Bible
In Saint Kathy's letter to the Torontoans, Chapter 3, Verse 213, "I thanketh the lord that I hadeth a vasectomy. For my non-existent offspring will not suffer the very existent offspring of others."
In Maggie's Second Letter to the Americans, Chapter 14, Verse 498, "Though the Captain had pointed this out, yea, verily, I shall do the same. For democracy hath doth degradeth to the point we merely vote to confiscate wealth from the few and redistribute it to the masses. The government is merely a wealth redistribution entity."
In Diane's 4th Letter to the Conservatives, Chapter 90, Verse 2, Subsection B, "Sadly, we are not funny, for you needeth to loosen upeth. Though, true humor of a classy variety may be found in Victor Borge, Bob Hope and "Some Like It Hot." Yeah, we suffer the likes of Margaret Cho."
And in Saint Vodka's Second letter to the Perma-Bubbleians, "You fools! Believeth in hope and change all you want. Inventories are up, as are gas prices. Prepare for the decline!"
In Maggie's Second Letter to the Americans, Chapter 14, Verse 498, "Though the Captain had pointed this out, yea, verily, I shall do the same. For democracy hath doth degradeth to the point we merely vote to confiscate wealth from the few and redistribute it to the masses. The government is merely a wealth redistribution entity."
In Diane's 4th Letter to the Conservatives, Chapter 90, Verse 2, Subsection B, "Sadly, we are not funny, for you needeth to loosen upeth. Though, true humor of a classy variety may be found in Victor Borge, Bob Hope and "Some Like It Hot." Yeah, we suffer the likes of Margaret Cho."
And in Saint Vodka's Second letter to the Perma-Bubbleians, "You fools! Believeth in hope and change all you want. Inventories are up, as are gas prices. Prepare for the decline!"
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Keep Majoring in Fluff, Girls, Men Need Strippers
Every father with a "precious little princess" for a daughter should be buying my book.
Why?
Well, when your precious little girl who can do no wrong grows up and majors in journalism, chances are much higher she'll be a stripper. Not that me and my boys are complaining, you understand!
And girls, you do whatever your precious little heart tells you. Follow your dream! Follow your heart. Major in "early childhood education," major in "English," major in "child psychology, you go grrrrrl! Because the world needs strippers! And fathers, by all means, you pay for her tuition!
(Or you could could shell out $12.95 to vaccinate your daughters against such a fate).
Why?
Well, when your precious little girl who can do no wrong grows up and majors in journalism, chances are much higher she'll be a stripper. Not that me and my boys are complaining, you understand!
And girls, you do whatever your precious little heart tells you. Follow your dream! Follow your heart. Major in "early childhood education," major in "English," major in "child psychology, you go grrrrrl! Because the world needs strippers! And fathers, by all means, you pay for her tuition!
(Or you could could shell out $12.95 to vaccinate your daughters against such a fate).
Monday, March 26, 2012
Saint Leykis on Starbucks Economics
Of the many reasons I love Tom Leykis, the fact he grew up in poverty and thus has the EXACT SAME ground-up views of economics that I did is probably number one.
Despite having millions, Saint Leykis still makes the same observations and can make the same precise mathematical calculations about everyday simple personal finance that most people don't or are incapable of.
In his First Letter to the Starbuckians, Saint Leykis points out the truth whilst ripping the Starbuckians a well-deserved new one. This is a must for all economists because his observations are outstanding and precise.
Despite having millions, Saint Leykis still makes the same observations and can make the same precise mathematical calculations about everyday simple personal finance that most people don't or are incapable of.
In his First Letter to the Starbuckians, Saint Leykis points out the truth whilst ripping the Starbuckians a well-deserved new one. This is a must for all economists because his observations are outstanding and precise.
Saturday, March 24, 2012
The Captain's Great Big Horn Canyon Adventure!
OK, maybe not so great. Not only am I recovering from cracked ribs in jujitsu, but I also got a run of the mill cold (which THE WOMEN OF THE CAPPOSPHERE HAVE MISERABLY FAILED TO PAMPER ME ON!).
This relegated me to merely driving out west through Wyoming and up north into Montana to check out the Big Horn Canyon National Recreation Area in more of a reconnaissance mission than any serious hiking. Additionally, even if I did want to hike you can't because the park is surrounded by the Indian reservation which you can't "trespass" on if you aren't a member of that particular tribe. This proved problematic in that the park is really nothing more than a very steep canyon that has been dammed up, leaving no "beach" for you to hike on in the developed reservoir. In short, the entire reservoir (or at least the part I visited) is really nothing more than cliffs driving straight down into water, so you are forced to
1. Stick to the roads
2. Not walk on any land (because you're not of the Ojibwe or whatever tribe)
3. Look at awesome canyons that you can't access by foot (because once again you're not of the Sioux or whatever tribe).
Though, again this is probably best because I was ill.
Regardless, here are some photos of my limited trip. If you are to visit the Big Horn Canyon area, I recommend just renting a boat in Lovell and boating through the canyon, which I fully intend on doing because it's about the only way to really appreciate the beauty of the park. I hope you enjoy them:
Off in the distance you may see a sheriff's/ranger's boat. I want his job. "Here you go, go camping for 20 years and we'll pay you a pension!"
These were the only other people at the park (aside from the "hard working ranger that had to suffer the horrors of jet-setting his boat in the reservoir").
Lot's o' fish! They were very catatonic actually. I threw some rocks into the school (as boys are prone to do) and they just merely scattered and regrouped. I think they were hibernating or something. Was very weird.
This was taken at the farthest point I could go towards the dam before the sign said, "Due to National Security, And Despite You Being Captain Capitalism and Lover of All That Is American and America, You Cannot Go Any Further." Thank you "Religion of Peace"
This is the back side of the dam that I wanted to see. Amazing the engineering that this is holding up what is effectively a 50 mile long lake. I also like how you can see the end of the Big Horn mountains as they just finally peter out into the prairies that inevitably roll into North and South Dakota. Matter of fact, you might actually be looking at the western edges of North dakota in this picture.
So there you go Cappy Cappites. Not the best adventure, but may I point out a very important point about adventuring (especially to you kids out there).
If you sit there on your ass and do the same thing day in and day out, then you are guaranteed not to discover anything new or interesting. But if you go out, even in a sickened condition, and are willing to just pilot a car through barren landscapes, desolated and impoverished Indian reservations, and vast swathes of buffalo-poop-dotted-prairies, to go to a destination you see on a map,
at minimum,
at the VERY LEAST,
you resolve your curiosity as to "what is out there?"
However, I can honestly say that in all of my adventuring, hiking, and crusades I have ALWAYS, 100% of the time found something unique and unexpected.
A fossil of a brontosphere.
A $3,000 fairburn agate that the "old timers" never thought to look for.
A cave never found by the US Forestry service (near Deadwood BTW!)
A tornado forming.
A school of catatonic fish in a man made lake.
A ghost town.
An abandoned 1920's bootlegger car (Buffalo Grasslands near Scenic, SD)
30 caliber machine gun bullets and casings (again Buffalo Grasslands)
Abandoned cemeteries in South Dakota
You just have to go. That chances of you NOT discovering anything is practically 0%. This country is so full of cool and awesome stuff out in the wilderness you are practically guaranteed to find something unique and interesting if you just go adventuring. And it's not that you have to look for something specific like agates or fossils or tornadoes. They'll find you (especially tornadoes).
So go forth Cappy Cappites, Lieutenants, Agents in the Field, and Economists! You're going to die soon. And by "soon" I mean 50 years or less.
Which IS
DEFINITELY
VERY
IMMINENTLY
"soon."
This relegated me to merely driving out west through Wyoming and up north into Montana to check out the Big Horn Canyon National Recreation Area in more of a reconnaissance mission than any serious hiking. Additionally, even if I did want to hike you can't because the park is surrounded by the Indian reservation which you can't "trespass" on if you aren't a member of that particular tribe. This proved problematic in that the park is really nothing more than a very steep canyon that has been dammed up, leaving no "beach" for you to hike on in the developed reservoir. In short, the entire reservoir (or at least the part I visited) is really nothing more than cliffs driving straight down into water, so you are forced to
1. Stick to the roads
2. Not walk on any land (because you're not of the Ojibwe or whatever tribe)
3. Look at awesome canyons that you can't access by foot (because once again you're not of the Sioux or whatever tribe).
Though, again this is probably best because I was ill.
Regardless, here are some photos of my limited trip. If you are to visit the Big Horn Canyon area, I recommend just renting a boat in Lovell and boating through the canyon, which I fully intend on doing because it's about the only way to really appreciate the beauty of the park. I hope you enjoy them:
Off in the distance you may see a sheriff's/ranger's boat. I want his job. "Here you go, go camping for 20 years and we'll pay you a pension!"
These were the only other people at the park (aside from the "hard working ranger that had to suffer the horrors of jet-setting his boat in the reservoir").
Lot's o' fish! They were very catatonic actually. I threw some rocks into the school (as boys are prone to do) and they just merely scattered and regrouped. I think they were hibernating or something. Was very weird.
This was taken at the farthest point I could go towards the dam before the sign said, "Due to National Security, And Despite You Being Captain Capitalism and Lover of All That Is American and America, You Cannot Go Any Further." Thank you "Religion of Peace"
This is the back side of the dam that I wanted to see. Amazing the engineering that this is holding up what is effectively a 50 mile long lake. I also like how you can see the end of the Big Horn mountains as they just finally peter out into the prairies that inevitably roll into North and South Dakota. Matter of fact, you might actually be looking at the western edges of North dakota in this picture.
So there you go Cappy Cappites. Not the best adventure, but may I point out a very important point about adventuring (especially to you kids out there).
If you sit there on your ass and do the same thing day in and day out, then you are guaranteed not to discover anything new or interesting. But if you go out, even in a sickened condition, and are willing to just pilot a car through barren landscapes, desolated and impoverished Indian reservations, and vast swathes of buffalo-poop-dotted-prairies, to go to a destination you see on a map,
at minimum,
at the VERY LEAST,
you resolve your curiosity as to "what is out there?"
However, I can honestly say that in all of my adventuring, hiking, and crusades I have ALWAYS, 100% of the time found something unique and unexpected.
A fossil of a brontosphere.
A $3,000 fairburn agate that the "old timers" never thought to look for.
A cave never found by the US Forestry service (near Deadwood BTW!)
A tornado forming.
A school of catatonic fish in a man made lake.
A ghost town.
An abandoned 1920's bootlegger car (Buffalo Grasslands near Scenic, SD)
30 caliber machine gun bullets and casings (again Buffalo Grasslands)
Abandoned cemeteries in South Dakota
You just have to go. That chances of you NOT discovering anything is practically 0%. This country is so full of cool and awesome stuff out in the wilderness you are practically guaranteed to find something unique and interesting if you just go adventuring. And it's not that you have to look for something specific like agates or fossils or tornadoes. They'll find you (especially tornadoes).
So go forth Cappy Cappites, Lieutenants, Agents in the Field, and Economists! You're going to die soon. And by "soon" I mean 50 years or less.
Which IS
DEFINITELY
VERY
IMMINENTLY
"soon."
Friday, March 23, 2012
Backlash Against Arrogant HR "Professionals"
If it were 1947 this would not be happening. I do not picture a WWII vet, sitting at an interview acquiescing to Nazi-like interrogative requests from employers. They had too much self-respect. But today's modern day American male is a different breed. Meek, humble, cowardly and effeminate, sadly I see most people so desperate for a job they would comply.
However, I do predict employers, particularly the HR nazi's that come up with these violating ideas, will suffer a backlash. There will come a time where not only will it be impossible to meet these impossibly high standards, but most people will just give up and have no problems going on the government dole. It's kind of like the captain of the cheerleading team threatening time and time again she won't go out with you, and you realize soon, she'll never go out with you. She never had any intention. And once people in the labor force start to have a similar epiphany (ie-you were never going to get the job in the first place, it's already reserved for her BFF) the snide, little 24 HR ditz asking people for their Facebook password, might get a well-deserved lecture about shoving applications where the sun doesn't shine instead of compliance.
Of course I have grand dreams of millions of job interviewees telling HR to shove it where the sun doesn't shine so that employers might start changing their tune. But, alas, that is truly wishful thinking on my part.
However, I do predict employers, particularly the HR nazi's that come up with these violating ideas, will suffer a backlash. There will come a time where not only will it be impossible to meet these impossibly high standards, but most people will just give up and have no problems going on the government dole. It's kind of like the captain of the cheerleading team threatening time and time again she won't go out with you, and you realize soon, she'll never go out with you. She never had any intention. And once people in the labor force start to have a similar epiphany (ie-you were never going to get the job in the first place, it's already reserved for her BFF) the snide, little 24 HR ditz asking people for their Facebook password, might get a well-deserved lecture about shoving applications where the sun doesn't shine instead of compliance.
Of course I have grand dreams of millions of job interviewees telling HR to shove it where the sun doesn't shine so that employers might start changing their tune. But, alas, that is truly wishful thinking on my part.
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Who Wants to Hire Julie Rothe?
Now, don't all you employers rush to line up now! Patience, patience, she can only work at one firm!
"Julie Rothe, an 18-year-old finance and information systems freshman, said she plans to accept responsibility. But she will challenge the penalty, she said, because students cheated in years past.
“I’m really angry at the fact that students got away with this in earlier semesters,” she said. “We are taking the hit, and I believe that is unfair.”"
Actually reminds me of my olden days teaching at "kollige."
I'm Majoring in Jennifer Aniston
In my sophomore year, I declared my major of study: Jennifer Aniston. Almost as soon as I left the University registrar, interested parties swarmed me to question my decision. Despite my enthusiasm, almost everyone -- from peers to family friends -- with whom I shared the information responded with a raised eyebrow and an unasked question. Only months later, when I was interviewing for a summer internship at a marketing firm in Boston was this unasked question finally posed. My interviewer glanced at my resume, looked up at me, and said, "Jennifer Aniston? What are you going to do with that?"
What, indeed. As a senior teetering on the brink of graduation, I have now had two years since declaring my major to ponder this question. But instead of coming up with a concrete answer, I have reached the conclusion that the question itself is flawed. Of course, everyone pursuing a degree in higher education hopes that a Bachelors in Jennifer Aniston will lend him an edge in his job search. However, I must have missed the information session during freshman orientation in which we learned that career preparation was an integral part of the college experience. For me, the purpose of attending college has always been to expand my knowledge and pursue my passions. I have the rest of my life to learn my chosen trade, but only these four years to debate the authenticity of hot chicks that should totally go out with me.
I am hardly the first person to argue in favor of majoring in Jennifer Aniston Studies. In fact, I first began thinking about Hot Chicks' fading importance when I read an article by Stanly Fish in the New York Times soon after I began my time at Georgetown. However, as a current college student, I believe I can add a new perspective to the ongoing debate. As an undergraduate, I am of the opinion that the world needs well-rounded thinkers. Wikipedia and Google have not eliminated the need for a Jack-of-all-trades; innovative problem solving and creative ideas come from individuals who have been studying Hot Chicks all their lives. Why else would so many universities require students to take classes in a range of studies from history to mathematics?
Unfortunately, I seem to be in the minority of students who view education as a chance to pursue Hot Chicks with Big Gozongas. Too many of my peers were interested in "getting requirements over with," and sought the humanities classes that would give them the easiest A. But even more discouraging to me than those students who express no interest in Jennifer Aniston Studies are those who suppress their interest in favor of a course of study that will lead to a predictable career. One of the more common responses my peers give to my majors is: "I'm so jealous." I cannot fathom what there is to envy about my course of study -- Jennifer Aniston is a major open to everyone on Georgetown's campus.
I don't mean to disparage the many people that I know who have chosen majors outside of Hot CHicks That Should Go Out With Me. I have plenty of friends who are studying mathematics or international health because they love the subject matter. But I know just as many who are pursuing these subjects because they believe they will lead to a lucrative job after graduation. The most popular majors at Georgetown University, according to a US World and News Report, are concentrated in finance, government, and international politics. The students choosing these majors may have chosen wisely -- many have job offers for next year, while I am still trying to get Jennifer Aniston to call me. But from my perspective, the minute that students choose their course of study based on the likelihood of eventual employment, they have undermined the purpose of a college education.
We all come to college to chase chicks with big gozongas. No one can debate that claim. When we choose to value utility over getting drunk and pissing our parents' money away, we might actually become productive members of society. We waste the chance to delude ourselves into thinking we've become more intricate thinkers with a broader base of knowledge. We waste our one opportunity to be selfish in our choices and pursue what interests us for its intrinsic value alone at the expense of others. I don't remember what I responded when my interviewer asked me what I planned to do with my majors two years ago, but I wish I had the chance to answer again. What do I plan to do with my studies in Jennifer Aniston? Default on my student loans.
And, BTW, parents, don't let your kid become like Kinne. Buy this book for them. $12.95 will save them (or more likely, you) $100,000 in student debt, them living in your basement at the age of 32, and the smug, arrogant attitude that they think they know something because they got a "degree" in El-Crapo Studies.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Picking Up Girls Now a Hate Crime
Heh, you just can't get enough of these crusaders.
Some of the blogs on the list I can understand, but geez, THE SPEARHEAD????? It's basically a divorced men's support group. Jesus, and that's considered misogyny? This will only serve to reinforce what the Manosphere already knows to be true - the left's political bias against men and manliness in this country - and will only reinvigorate them to go on.
Though I am insulted! I should be on that list too! What gives!? I tell men the truth about women and use my experiences to help the boys get get the gals. I hold women to the same standards of men. That CERTAINLY must qualify me as a misogynist!
Hat tip.
Some of the blogs on the list I can understand, but geez, THE SPEARHEAD????? It's basically a divorced men's support group. Jesus, and that's considered misogyny? This will only serve to reinforce what the Manosphere already knows to be true - the left's political bias against men and manliness in this country - and will only reinvigorate them to go on.
Though I am insulted! I should be on that list too! What gives!? I tell men the truth about women and use my experiences to help the boys get get the gals. I hold women to the same standards of men. That CERTAINLY must qualify me as a misogynist!
Hat tip.
Ladies, You May Commence the Pampering
Bad news everyone.
I are sick. I came down with a cold and feel all poopey now. I'm all sniffly and stuffy. And my stomach hurts and stuff.
Of course, most men and young boys don't see any benefit to being sick. However, there is a huge advantage men have in being sick:
Women love to pamper you.
You don't even have to try, you don't even have to request. You just have to make it known you are sick. And once that press release goes out, pretty much every girl in your life will offer some kind of sympathy, if not full blown pampering in the form of food, dotting on you, coming over, cleaning things, etc. etc. It's amazing.
Now you may say this is taking advantage of women, but I actually disagree with that 100%. The reason why is I believe it is a visceral, darwinian, biological response women have when they see a sick man to immediate go into pampering mode. Oh sure they complain about "pampering" you. Or they'll claim you're "spoiled." Oh, they'll whine and put up a huge kerfuffle. But that concerned look in their eye, replete with a gleam, as they're hurriedly making you home made chicken noodle soup betrays them. They care about you and they love being able to take care of you and nurse you back to health.
Of course, the rookie man will just take the pampering that he receives, not realizing there are ways you can maximize and prolong the pampering. The tactics and techniques vary, but all of which will only increase the amount of sympathy, attention and pampering you receive.
First, boys, the key is to look pitiful. Don't just say, "Eh, I got a cold." Notice above how I expanded, but in kind of a sad, little kid like venacular:
I are sick. I came down with a cold and feel all poopey now. I'm all sniffly and stuffy. And my stomach hurts and stuff.
Words and phrases like "poopey" "sniffly" "I are" and "hurts and stuff" is what a little 4 year old boy would say. This only magnifies the genetic response women have to nurture you back to health because you really do look like the pitiful, helpless, sad sap you really are.
Second, if you really are sick, the symptoms will show. This allows you then to kind of go the other route. You still act pitiful, but you "still have to do stuff." You still have to go to work, you still have to work on that presentation, you still have to change the oil, etc. "It's GOTTA get done!" This will only make the woman re-double her efforts to keep you in bed or on-couch. Remember, still look pitiful. Slowly unscrew the cap from the quart of oil. Have a sad puppy dog look on your face as you change the oil filter. Occasionally say in a sad pitiful fashion, "I don't like being sick."
Third, show you care about the girl by expressing your concern you'll make her sick.
"No, I don't want you to get sick. I can make dinner myself, I think I have some Ramen noodles or some pizza crust left over. That should tide me over until I hopefully have enough energy tomorrow to go to the grocery store and get some juice. I think I have some Black Velvet whiskey that can knock me out...don't think I have any cold medicine. Trust me, you don't want what I got."
She'll be over in 10 minutes.
Fourth, reward her in whatever sad pathetic way you can. I always keep a box of crayons in my bachelor pad and draw them a picture. Usually a "thank you" picture with flowers, because you're too weak and pathetic to drive to the florist. Or burn her a CD (which you shouldn't be doing) which will only prompt her to to feel more pity for you.
Fifth, if you are lucky enough to have a kind woman offer to go to the grocery store, when she asks you what you want, you want kid stuff. You don't want "a gallon of juice," you want apple juice in a juice box with bendy straws. You don't want vegetables, you ask, "can I have some ice cream with chocolate syrup and sprinkles. I want sprinkles. Can I have sprinkles?" You don't want milk, you want chocolate milk, the thick kind that's really good and sugary because you like that.
There are other techniques, and I'm sure some of the more experienced men have their favorites, but following these general guidelines should help multiply the amount of pampering you get. Sadly, though, for your Captain, he can not deploy any of these techniques because he is far away from his home and (truthfully) doesn't know any women in his new town. And so, he'll have to suffer this cold all alone, by himself, with no help from anybody. Sniff sniff. It would be really swell if some of the Cappy Cappites of the female persuasion would send him nice comments and e-mails and stuff. Of you could e-mail him pictures so he can maybe imagine he's not alone in his cold, empty, dark, lonely bachelor pad. But that's OK if you don't want to. I understand. I think I can watch some reruns of Leno later tonight or maybe play some solitaire...though my deck of cards only has 48 cards in it. And maybe I'll have a diet Pepsi...that's if there's anything left in the fridge.
Sniff sniff.
I are sick. I came down with a cold and feel all poopey now. I'm all sniffly and stuffy. And my stomach hurts and stuff.
Of course, most men and young boys don't see any benefit to being sick. However, there is a huge advantage men have in being sick:
Women love to pamper you.
You don't even have to try, you don't even have to request. You just have to make it known you are sick. And once that press release goes out, pretty much every girl in your life will offer some kind of sympathy, if not full blown pampering in the form of food, dotting on you, coming over, cleaning things, etc. etc. It's amazing.
Now you may say this is taking advantage of women, but I actually disagree with that 100%. The reason why is I believe it is a visceral, darwinian, biological response women have when they see a sick man to immediate go into pampering mode. Oh sure they complain about "pampering" you. Or they'll claim you're "spoiled." Oh, they'll whine and put up a huge kerfuffle. But that concerned look in their eye, replete with a gleam, as they're hurriedly making you home made chicken noodle soup betrays them. They care about you and they love being able to take care of you and nurse you back to health.
Of course, the rookie man will just take the pampering that he receives, not realizing there are ways you can maximize and prolong the pampering. The tactics and techniques vary, but all of which will only increase the amount of sympathy, attention and pampering you receive.
First, boys, the key is to look pitiful. Don't just say, "Eh, I got a cold." Notice above how I expanded, but in kind of a sad, little kid like venacular:
I are sick. I came down with a cold and feel all poopey now. I'm all sniffly and stuffy. And my stomach hurts and stuff.
Words and phrases like "poopey" "sniffly" "I are" and "hurts and stuff" is what a little 4 year old boy would say. This only magnifies the genetic response women have to nurture you back to health because you really do look like the pitiful, helpless, sad sap you really are.
Second, if you really are sick, the symptoms will show. This allows you then to kind of go the other route. You still act pitiful, but you "still have to do stuff." You still have to go to work, you still have to work on that presentation, you still have to change the oil, etc. "It's GOTTA get done!" This will only make the woman re-double her efforts to keep you in bed or on-couch. Remember, still look pitiful. Slowly unscrew the cap from the quart of oil. Have a sad puppy dog look on your face as you change the oil filter. Occasionally say in a sad pitiful fashion, "I don't like being sick."
Third, show you care about the girl by expressing your concern you'll make her sick.
"No, I don't want you to get sick. I can make dinner myself, I think I have some Ramen noodles or some pizza crust left over. That should tide me over until I hopefully have enough energy tomorrow to go to the grocery store and get some juice. I think I have some Black Velvet whiskey that can knock me out...don't think I have any cold medicine. Trust me, you don't want what I got."
She'll be over in 10 minutes.
Fourth, reward her in whatever sad pathetic way you can. I always keep a box of crayons in my bachelor pad and draw them a picture. Usually a "thank you" picture with flowers, because you're too weak and pathetic to drive to the florist. Or burn her a CD (which you shouldn't be doing) which will only prompt her to to feel more pity for you.
Fifth, if you are lucky enough to have a kind woman offer to go to the grocery store, when she asks you what you want, you want kid stuff. You don't want "a gallon of juice," you want apple juice in a juice box with bendy straws. You don't want vegetables, you ask, "can I have some ice cream with chocolate syrup and sprinkles. I want sprinkles. Can I have sprinkles?" You don't want milk, you want chocolate milk, the thick kind that's really good and sugary because you like that.
There are other techniques, and I'm sure some of the more experienced men have their favorites, but following these general guidelines should help multiply the amount of pampering you get. Sadly, though, for your Captain, he can not deploy any of these techniques because he is far away from his home and (truthfully) doesn't know any women in his new town. And so, he'll have to suffer this cold all alone, by himself, with no help from anybody. Sniff sniff. It would be really swell if some of the Cappy Cappites of the female persuasion would send him nice comments and e-mails and stuff. Of you could e-mail him pictures so he can maybe imagine he's not alone in his cold, empty, dark, lonely bachelor pad. But that's OK if you don't want to. I understand. I think I can watch some reruns of Leno later tonight or maybe play some solitaire...though my deck of cards only has 48 cards in it. And maybe I'll have a diet Pepsi...that's if there's anything left in the fridge.
Sniff sniff.
Another Goldman Sachs Idiot
In the echo chamber, people in Wall Street fail to realize that Wall Street does not exist unto itself. Production, profit, and economic growth does not come from that sliver of land we bought from the Indians 250 years ago for a couple of beads. The prices and values of the stocks they trade and see every day in the NYSE are not representative of the productive efforts of the bulge bracket.
No, Wall Street and all the kerfuffle that surrounds it exists ONLY because THE REST OF THE COUNTRY PRODUCES THE WEALTH BY WHICH YOU CAN SECURITIZE THAT WEALTH AND TRADE IT AND CHARGE YOUR PRECIOUS LITTLE COMMISSIONS.
It's not "Lance Winthrop" blue blood nepotist of the P&G empire and graduate from Harvard's Business School producing the wealth.
It's not "Chip Rockefeller" trust fund baby extraordinaire and NYC socialite who works at Morgan Stanley's M&A division.
It's Bob Jones, farmer who produces food every day, or Jill Johnson chemist who develops new drugs to treat cancer, or Mike Malloy who builds industrial machinery that produces the wealth.
This they do not understand.
So it should come as no shock that another Goldman Sachs "expert" claims US equities are the best priced they've been in a generation. Never mind trillions of dollars in retirement dollars has effectively made the US equities market a bubble for the past generation. Never mind the P/E ratio is still about 20-25% over its historical average. And never mind the dividend yield is squat (point duly noted about stock repurchases). Set these legitimate criticisms aside. He's erring in another area, namely, ignoring the rest of the country.
I'm sure an overpaid Ivy League blue blood employed in the echo chamber of Wall Street can't understand why people aren't buying stocks. But if he were to come to the west side of the Hudson and maybe a couple hundred miles inland, he might realize that (much like the housing market), people can't buy stocks if they don't have the money.
Yes, ignore the macro-economy, ignore unemployment rates, ignore disposable income figures, ignore income per capita, ignore the private and public debt-loads and just sit there and wonder why aren't these stupid people just gobbling up stocks?
I'll cite Zero Hedge again in its spectacular observation of the declining trading volume of the US stock markets. I'll also make it simple for you East Coasters who seem to think the remaining 49 states have nothing to do with those numbers flashing up on the trading boards:
1. The country is poorer.
2. Nobody has faith in the future of the country
3. More people are suspicious of whether or not their retirement plans will be confiscated
4. People just plain don't have the money to buy stocks
5. And if they did, why would they invest in an inflated market anyway?
6. Let alone in equities based in a country that is seemingly hell-bent on becoming a socialist state?
7. And dare I suggest the financial services industry has earned itself a craptastic reputation and most people just plain don't trust you?
You crazy hip cats on the coast keep trading amongst yourselves. Ask Dick Fuld how well ignoring cash flow and profits works as an investing strategy.
No, Wall Street and all the kerfuffle that surrounds it exists ONLY because THE REST OF THE COUNTRY PRODUCES THE WEALTH BY WHICH YOU CAN SECURITIZE THAT WEALTH AND TRADE IT AND CHARGE YOUR PRECIOUS LITTLE COMMISSIONS.
It's not "Lance Winthrop" blue blood nepotist of the P&G empire and graduate from Harvard's Business School producing the wealth.
It's not "Chip Rockefeller" trust fund baby extraordinaire and NYC socialite who works at Morgan Stanley's M&A division.
It's Bob Jones, farmer who produces food every day, or Jill Johnson chemist who develops new drugs to treat cancer, or Mike Malloy who builds industrial machinery that produces the wealth.
This they do not understand.
So it should come as no shock that another Goldman Sachs "expert" claims US equities are the best priced they've been in a generation. Never mind trillions of dollars in retirement dollars has effectively made the US equities market a bubble for the past generation. Never mind the P/E ratio is still about 20-25% over its historical average. And never mind the dividend yield is squat (point duly noted about stock repurchases). Set these legitimate criticisms aside. He's erring in another area, namely, ignoring the rest of the country.
I'm sure an overpaid Ivy League blue blood employed in the echo chamber of Wall Street can't understand why people aren't buying stocks. But if he were to come to the west side of the Hudson and maybe a couple hundred miles inland, he might realize that (much like the housing market), people can't buy stocks if they don't have the money.
Yes, ignore the macro-economy, ignore unemployment rates, ignore disposable income figures, ignore income per capita, ignore the private and public debt-loads and just sit there and wonder why aren't these stupid people just gobbling up stocks?
I'll cite Zero Hedge again in its spectacular observation of the declining trading volume of the US stock markets. I'll also make it simple for you East Coasters who seem to think the remaining 49 states have nothing to do with those numbers flashing up on the trading boards:
1. The country is poorer.
2. Nobody has faith in the future of the country
3. More people are suspicious of whether or not their retirement plans will be confiscated
4. People just plain don't have the money to buy stocks
5. And if they did, why would they invest in an inflated market anyway?
6. Let alone in equities based in a country that is seemingly hell-bent on becoming a socialist state?
7. And dare I suggest the financial services industry has earned itself a craptastic reputation and most people just plain don't trust you?
You crazy hip cats on the coast keep trading amongst yourselves. Ask Dick Fuld how well ignoring cash flow and profits works as an investing strategy.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Russell Brand vs. Bob Hope
You'll never see the likes of Brand ever pull off the class of Bob Hope, Victor Borge or Red Skelton.
Waaaaaaa! What Happened to Chivalry?
I am getting old.
Matter of fact everybody is. It only goes one way.
So one of my primary concerns is when me or many other men of the Manosphere make observations about women, courting, etc., in an attempt to help out the younger men, is that it might be dated and no longer applicable. ie-girls may have changed, and hopefully, for the good.
For example, I was flirting with a girl called Amy back in the 10th grade. I saw Doug grab and rummage through a purse of a girl he was interested in and she laughed at him and tried to get her purse back. Seemed to work for him, so I decided I'd try to grab Amy's purse and rummage through it. Had a good enough rapport with her, so certainly she'd giggle as I rummaged through her stuff.
She full-bore slapped me across the face. The slap was so loud the entire class went silent (of course Amy did not have to go to the principal's office).
This would more or less set the tone for what me and my generation of men would deal with. But 20 years on, are girls still the childish, self-centered suburbanite princesses me and my fellow boys had to deal with?
Well boys, see for yourselves.
Apparently nothing has changed. If anything it's gotten worse. And if anything else, me and my aged, decrepit Gen X Manosphereites are as right as ever. Chivalry is not only not appreciated any more, it's punished. Women do not like the kind, nice beta, offering shelter in a rain storm, worse, they'll call the damn cops on him.
So ladies, go ahead and beg and plead and wish "chivalry" somehow makes a comeback. It's as likely as me talking to Amy if I were to ever go to my 20 year reunion. And boys, if you're a "good guy" remember to stay hidden. Not so they ask "where have all the good guys gone," but so you don't get arrested by the freaking cops. Sheesh!
Matter of fact everybody is. It only goes one way.
So one of my primary concerns is when me or many other men of the Manosphere make observations about women, courting, etc., in an attempt to help out the younger men, is that it might be dated and no longer applicable. ie-girls may have changed, and hopefully, for the good.
For example, I was flirting with a girl called Amy back in the 10th grade. I saw Doug grab and rummage through a purse of a girl he was interested in and she laughed at him and tried to get her purse back. Seemed to work for him, so I decided I'd try to grab Amy's purse and rummage through it. Had a good enough rapport with her, so certainly she'd giggle as I rummaged through her stuff.
She full-bore slapped me across the face. The slap was so loud the entire class went silent (of course Amy did not have to go to the principal's office).
This would more or less set the tone for what me and my generation of men would deal with. But 20 years on, are girls still the childish, self-centered suburbanite princesses me and my fellow boys had to deal with?
Well boys, see for yourselves.
Apparently nothing has changed. If anything it's gotten worse. And if anything else, me and my aged, decrepit Gen X Manosphereites are as right as ever. Chivalry is not only not appreciated any more, it's punished. Women do not like the kind, nice beta, offering shelter in a rain storm, worse, they'll call the damn cops on him.
So ladies, go ahead and beg and plead and wish "chivalry" somehow makes a comeback. It's as likely as me talking to Amy if I were to ever go to my 20 year reunion. And boys, if you're a "good guy" remember to stay hidden. Not so they ask "where have all the good guys gone," but so you don't get arrested by the freaking cops. Sheesh!
Monday, March 19, 2012
"She's From Russia! What the Hell Does She Know About Capitalism"
Duly noted she was not indeed from Russia, but the Ukraine, however I'm going to assume most Americans don't know the difference.
That being said, I love how people dismiss the experiences of somebody who actually grew up under socialism because they want to believe in hope and change and unicorns.
Also, on a related note - "No, no education bubble to see here folks. Move along now. Back to your lives citizens."
That being said, I love how people dismiss the experiences of somebody who actually grew up under socialism because they want to believe in hope and change and unicorns.
Also, on a related note - "No, no education bubble to see here folks. Move along now. Back to your lives citizens."
No, It's Not "Free for Now"
Tell me how $915,000 of federal taxpayer money is considered "free." Do liberals and leftists in government and in the civilian population really believe it's "free" or do they know full well it isn't free, but say it is anyway so as not to suffer a backlash in the polls?
Oh and by the way Oregonians, I want my money back.
Oh and by the way Oregonians, I want my money back.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)