Out-freaking-standing!
Sunday, December 02, 2012
Why You Should Always Carry a Gun in Casper
Wyoming state law is that you don't need a permit to carry a gun. You can carry concealed, or as a lot of cowboys do on your hip for everybody to see. The reason why is that the right to carry guns in Wyoming is VERY coveted by its people. Casper City Council tried to pass a law banning the open carry of guns when addressing the city council. This received a response from the State government that any laws made by any local government (that would restrict gun rights) would be overturned AND the politicians who made such legislation would be fined/stripped of their office.
They like their guns.
Because of this, in combination with the fact Wyoming is rural, I thought I would not need to carry my gun as much. Everybody is carrying and as they say, "An armed society is a polite society."
That is until I went to the Alibi Bar.
The Alibi Bar from the outside looks to be a cool, kitchy, schwank bar with a 1940's exterior decor. I saw it my first time in Casper and intended on visiting it when I was all settled in.
However, upon entry you get in and quickly realize it's a dive bar just like the rest. Worse though is that it displays one of Wyoming's biggest problems - alcoholism and meth. Drunk men with no lives looking for fights and "tweakers" unaware of what they're doing, looking for trouble. I walked out of the Alibi Bar and a guy in the parking who was yelling at his wife, starts to threaten her because she "probably wants to go for a ride with me on my motorcycle." He then starts to approach me and I realized, "sh!t! I don't have my gun!" His wife's imploring brought him back to her car and a scuffle (or shooting) did not ensue.
The larger point is that there's a lot of guys, a lot fewer women, a lot of drugs, and a lot of booze. Add to that the men of Wyoming really do view their women as property, and you are probably in more danger at the local Casper bar than you are a bad part of town in a large city. You should carry as much as possible....unless....
unless the school you attend doesn't permit you to carry a gun (see below).
Of course what could the possible consequences be?
Oh, that's right, being in one of the few places that bans guns in town and then having some raging lunatic come in with an "edged weapon," who goes on a killing spree, and being able to do nothing about it.
But hey, at least you academians did the politically correct and liberal thing and banned guns. And that's worth the lives of a couple people at least!
Post post - it is my understanding Casper College is a private school permitted to make its own rules regarding gun possession. Contacting government representatives would be moot...though, that never stopped leftists from respecting the lines of private property and ownership.
They like their guns.
Because of this, in combination with the fact Wyoming is rural, I thought I would not need to carry my gun as much. Everybody is carrying and as they say, "An armed society is a polite society."
That is until I went to the Alibi Bar.
The Alibi Bar from the outside looks to be a cool, kitchy, schwank bar with a 1940's exterior decor. I saw it my first time in Casper and intended on visiting it when I was all settled in.
However, upon entry you get in and quickly realize it's a dive bar just like the rest. Worse though is that it displays one of Wyoming's biggest problems - alcoholism and meth. Drunk men with no lives looking for fights and "tweakers" unaware of what they're doing, looking for trouble. I walked out of the Alibi Bar and a guy in the parking who was yelling at his wife, starts to threaten her because she "probably wants to go for a ride with me on my motorcycle." He then starts to approach me and I realized, "sh!t! I don't have my gun!" His wife's imploring brought him back to her car and a scuffle (or shooting) did not ensue.
The larger point is that there's a lot of guys, a lot fewer women, a lot of drugs, and a lot of booze. Add to that the men of Wyoming really do view their women as property, and you are probably in more danger at the local Casper bar than you are a bad part of town in a large city. You should carry as much as possible....unless....
unless the school you attend doesn't permit you to carry a gun (see below).
Oh, that's right, being in one of the few places that bans guns in town and then having some raging lunatic come in with an "edged weapon," who goes on a killing spree, and being able to do nothing about it.
But hey, at least you academians did the politically correct and liberal thing and banned guns. And that's worth the lives of a couple people at least!
Post post - it is my understanding Casper College is a private school permitted to make its own rules regarding gun possession. Contacting government representatives would be moot...though, that never stopped leftists from respecting the lines of private property and ownership.
Friday, November 30, 2012
The Pathetic Conformity of Young "Rebels"
Something I took for granted was the sworn rivalry between teachers and students.
As a student I remember my teachers and I were sworn enemies. It was never stated, but it was obvious through actions and behaviors, and as quickly as the first week of kindergarten, that teachers were not there to help the students, but to take advantage of them. I do not mean in a "physical" or "sexually abusive" way, but in a financial and psychological way. It was very apparent to me at the age of 5 that the teachers were not there to help us, they were there for ulterior motives, and me and my peers would be the victims in this racket.
Obviously I could not articulate this at that time. I didn't have the vocabulary, the thought, let alone the context. But now in hindsight and knowing the racket education is, I can identify precisely what was going on. Young adults, too lazy to find real work, used "educating the children" as an excuse to avoid math, rigor or any career endeavor that required effort. And so, for 13 years, me and millions of other youth had to suffer at the hands of overpaid, overglorified, inferior-human, baby sitters, and though we couldn't articulate the argument above, we intuitively KNEW IT becuase of the day in, day out hell these morons forced upon us. It was WAR. And it was between the innocent students and the people posing as teachers (why else would "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" be so popular?).
Fast forward to today and times have definitely changed. And changed for the worse.
Instead of a Calvin and Hobbes-esque rivalry students have with teachers, they have something much worse.
A BFF relationship.
At least in the "olden days" we knew the teachers were the incompetent boobs sent there to baby sit us. It was clear they were incapable of teaching, let alone stimulating the minds of youth. They disliked math, and we go to suffer for it. So it was clear they were the enemy.
But not today.
Oh no.
Teachers are the best friends of the students. Why, they're all BFF!
Are the teachers the enemy?
No.
Are the teachers arrogant 20 somethings showing cracks as they face the realities of not being intelligent or versed enough in any one subject to capture the minds and curiosity of the students so said students naturally behave?
No.
However, are the teachers spineless 20 somethings that keep the educational standards their typically low level, but now with the added benefits of "happy warm friendship, diversity, global warming, eh.. you all get B's and are winners fuzzies?"
Yes.
It is here a very sinister development has occurred.
Instead of students having a natural and visceral hatred for their faux-teachers, teachers have developed the ability to befriend and cajole students. Beforehand, teachers would just shove whatever political agenda they had on the students, all while spectacularly displaying they had no ability to teach or pass on knowledge, making school a hell. This was not a recipe for compliance. The rebellion was akin to Steve McQueen in the Great Escape (and I don't joke about that, me and my peers in grade school came up with some insanely crafty ways to rebel and deal with the mundane hell of school).
But today, I believe teachers know they know nothing and are not interesting. And therefore they approach their students in a more ass-kissing way.
The result in an interesting one.
Unrebellious youth.
In befriending, and not teaching, students, teachers have simply managed to make students "one of the leftists, educational establishment team."
Did they learn calculus?
No, but they did learn about global warming.
Did they learn basic financial budgeting skills?
No, but they did learn how much George Bush sucks.
In other words, the students and teachers are no longer rivals, they're political allies. And in being allies, there is no distrust. And with no distrust there can be no rebellious youth. They're pawns. They're compliant. They're obedient.
The irony, of course, is that this is the complete opposite of how they view themselves and how they've been taught to perceive themselves. Most 20 somethings think they're "independent," "highly intelligent" and "very open minded." When in reality they are nothing but the most conforming generation EVER in US history.
They swallowed whole the the leftist BS shoved down their throats by their indoctrinators.
They swallowed whole the socialist ideology shoved down their throats by their educators.
The parrot and repeat what they were told to by their elders, displaying PERFECTLY they are the opposite of what they claim.
I mean, just look at a hipster. Somebody trying so hard not to conform they only end up epitomizing conformity.
The said truth is that none of you youth are "rebels." You are the most pathetic, sad, group of conforming saps the world has ever seen. And if you don't believe it, compare yourselves to the second-most pathetic group of conformists - hippie baby boomers.
You know how the baby boomers said, "don't trust anybody over 30?"
You guys can't even follow THAT simple rule! You eat up whatever older people tell you as long as it jives with what your childish brain wants to believe. Meanwhile they're robbing your future blind with entitlement programs. Not to mention does anybody see the irony of when administrators and professors of college campuses keep getting 8-12% raises each year, but their students are so brainwashed and conforming, the students blame it on republican legislatures for not spending enough on education?
So to all you idiotic youth, 90% of which join the college democrats, 90% of you who simple repeat what your professors or teachers said, 90% of which think and do the exact same thing as the other 90%,
you're not rebellious.
you're not indepdenent minded
you're not cool.
You're a bunch of pathetic, ignorant, conforming suckers too stupid and too lazy to be genuine rebels.
You want to see rebels?
Look at the college republicans or college libertarians.
But, oh wait, you can't. Your teachers said they were racists, sexist, whatever. And you mustn't disobey you teachers, now, mustn't you? Why, that would not be conforming!
As a student I remember my teachers and I were sworn enemies. It was never stated, but it was obvious through actions and behaviors, and as quickly as the first week of kindergarten, that teachers were not there to help the students, but to take advantage of them. I do not mean in a "physical" or "sexually abusive" way, but in a financial and psychological way. It was very apparent to me at the age of 5 that the teachers were not there to help us, they were there for ulterior motives, and me and my peers would be the victims in this racket.
Obviously I could not articulate this at that time. I didn't have the vocabulary, the thought, let alone the context. But now in hindsight and knowing the racket education is, I can identify precisely what was going on. Young adults, too lazy to find real work, used "educating the children" as an excuse to avoid math, rigor or any career endeavor that required effort. And so, for 13 years, me and millions of other youth had to suffer at the hands of overpaid, overglorified, inferior-human, baby sitters, and though we couldn't articulate the argument above, we intuitively KNEW IT becuase of the day in, day out hell these morons forced upon us. It was WAR. And it was between the innocent students and the people posing as teachers (why else would "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" be so popular?).
Fast forward to today and times have definitely changed. And changed for the worse.
Instead of a Calvin and Hobbes-esque rivalry students have with teachers, they have something much worse.
A BFF relationship.
At least in the "olden days" we knew the teachers were the incompetent boobs sent there to baby sit us. It was clear they were incapable of teaching, let alone stimulating the minds of youth. They disliked math, and we go to suffer for it. So it was clear they were the enemy.
But not today.
Oh no.
Teachers are the best friends of the students. Why, they're all BFF!
Are the teachers the enemy?
No.
Are the teachers arrogant 20 somethings showing cracks as they face the realities of not being intelligent or versed enough in any one subject to capture the minds and curiosity of the students so said students naturally behave?
No.
However, are the teachers spineless 20 somethings that keep the educational standards their typically low level, but now with the added benefits of "happy warm friendship, diversity, global warming, eh.. you all get B's and are winners fuzzies?"
Yes.
It is here a very sinister development has occurred.
Instead of students having a natural and visceral hatred for their faux-teachers, teachers have developed the ability to befriend and cajole students. Beforehand, teachers would just shove whatever political agenda they had on the students, all while spectacularly displaying they had no ability to teach or pass on knowledge, making school a hell. This was not a recipe for compliance. The rebellion was akin to Steve McQueen in the Great Escape (and I don't joke about that, me and my peers in grade school came up with some insanely crafty ways to rebel and deal with the mundane hell of school).
But today, I believe teachers know they know nothing and are not interesting. And therefore they approach their students in a more ass-kissing way.
The result in an interesting one.
Unrebellious youth.
In befriending, and not teaching, students, teachers have simply managed to make students "one of the leftists, educational establishment team."
Did they learn calculus?
No, but they did learn about global warming.
Did they learn basic financial budgeting skills?
No, but they did learn how much George Bush sucks.
In other words, the students and teachers are no longer rivals, they're political allies. And in being allies, there is no distrust. And with no distrust there can be no rebellious youth. They're pawns. They're compliant. They're obedient.
The irony, of course, is that this is the complete opposite of how they view themselves and how they've been taught to perceive themselves. Most 20 somethings think they're "independent," "highly intelligent" and "very open minded." When in reality they are nothing but the most conforming generation EVER in US history.
They swallowed whole the the leftist BS shoved down their throats by their indoctrinators.
They swallowed whole the socialist ideology shoved down their throats by their educators.
The parrot and repeat what they were told to by their elders, displaying PERFECTLY they are the opposite of what they claim.
I mean, just look at a hipster. Somebody trying so hard not to conform they only end up epitomizing conformity.
The said truth is that none of you youth are "rebels." You are the most pathetic, sad, group of conforming saps the world has ever seen. And if you don't believe it, compare yourselves to the second-most pathetic group of conformists - hippie baby boomers.
You know how the baby boomers said, "don't trust anybody over 30?"
You guys can't even follow THAT simple rule! You eat up whatever older people tell you as long as it jives with what your childish brain wants to believe. Meanwhile they're robbing your future blind with entitlement programs. Not to mention does anybody see the irony of when administrators and professors of college campuses keep getting 8-12% raises each year, but their students are so brainwashed and conforming, the students blame it on republican legislatures for not spending enough on education?
So to all you idiotic youth, 90% of which join the college democrats, 90% of you who simple repeat what your professors or teachers said, 90% of which think and do the exact same thing as the other 90%,
you're not rebellious.
you're not indepdenent minded
you're not cool.
You're a bunch of pathetic, ignorant, conforming suckers too stupid and too lazy to be genuine rebels.
You want to see rebels?
Look at the college republicans or college libertarians.
But, oh wait, you can't. Your teachers said they were racists, sexist, whatever. And you mustn't disobey you teachers, now, mustn't you? Why, that would not be conforming!
Thursday, November 29, 2012
I Yearn to Kill My Boss In Meetings
The meeting works like this;
Big time, gray haired bosses like to see how much of other people’s time they can send into a black hole. ALL people, no matter how irrelevant their job is to the presumed purpose of the meeting are required to attend. Nobody is listening to the current speaker because it’s irrelevant to their job. Meanwhile, the brown nosers who, like you, have no purpose of being at the meeting either, ask a litany of questions or blather on about their project to make themselves sound busy and productive, which only lengthens the pain and suffering of those who actually have REAL work to do. Meanwhile the boss sits there, laughing inside, knowing he or she is exercising their power forcing youto waste your time and made you spend the money on gas to attend the meeting.
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
QOTD
This is the first ever QOTD on Cappy Cap. He should be proud:
"Women, enjoy your cats
Retirees, enjoy your cat food
Men, enjoy the decline"
"Women, enjoy your cats
Retirees, enjoy your cat food
Men, enjoy the decline"
The Destruction Principle
In my Crusaderism video I mentioned the "destruction principle." I didn't do it justice in that it was part of a larger presentation, but I believe it needs expanding and explaining here.
When I was a kid my brother and I would set up snow forts and battle it out throwing snowballs at each other. Of course, it was more than snowballs, it was more like snow cannon balls and ice chunks. The key was not to kill each other, but to demolish each other's fort. Direct hits would cause enough damage that we'd have to spend time repairing them instead of continuing our offensive.
But then I got smart.
I started building a tall snow tower off to the right of my fort. It didn't take much to build and it was a smaller target. Once built it attracted all the attention and attacks of my brother. Sure he'd hit it occasionally, more often than not knocking it down, but the time it took to rebuild it was a fraction of what it would be to rebuild a direct hit to my fort.
In short, I knew psychologically it would make a more attractive target even though it had no "military value." The reason why? Easy target, less work.
The trick though was "production" or "value."
Say my brother DID score a direct hit on the tower and brought it down. The brain would release endorphins because he brought it down. He would think it was progress, that he achieved some kind of value. But he didn't. He was just lazy.
That is the destruction principle. It is easier to destroy something that already exists than build something of genuine value up from scratch.
This is key to understand the psychology Crusaders and Crusaderism because when given the choice of:
"Work hard, study something rigorous, and put in the effort into a long and demanding career"
or
"Find something in society that already exists, villianize it and declare it evil, then wage a campaign against it"
the lazy, mathophoic, work-fearing leftist crusader will ALWAYS go for destroying institutions and pillars over doing something that requires effort.
And you must understand how arrogant and truly evil this is. The crusader doesn't target these pillars or institutions of society because those institutions and pillars are evil. They target those things because the crusaders are evil. They are so arrogant and self-centered they have no problem bring down various aspects of society, regardless of:
1. whether or not society likes these pillars
2. whether or not society benefits from these pillars
3. the wishes of anybody else.
The crusader's desire to engage in destruction disguised as heroic, crusading "faux-production" to simply give their meaningless lives meaning is paramount to all other people, all other lives and all other cultures.
Take three genuinely evil people and see if I'm making this up or if my theory explains them.
Dr. Grover Furr - This guy defends Stalin and claims the genocide that occurred under Soviet Russia never happened. Does he really believe that? No, probably not. But it doesn't matter. It's easier for him to tear down institutions like capitalism, western civilzation, etc., and then claim he's on some kind of "crusade" against the "evil United States." In reality he is just a worthless human being.
Robert Jensen - The nutjob "professor/journalist" (notice a trend here with worthless people and worthless degrees?) who claimed Thanksgiving was nothing more than a nazi, racist event forced on the poor Indians. Again, does it dawn on him this was 400 years ago? Does it dawn on him that most people (Indians included) hold Thanksgiving dear and is part of the American culture? Of course, not, but that's not his goal. His goal is to knock down the snow tower and make it seem like he's doing something. So he falsely vilifies Thanksgiving, gets warm crusaderism fuzzies, and in the process belittles and condemns all you racists, sexist, nazi homophobes. Again, a worthless human.
Annie Laurie Gaylor (later part of the interview) - You may not know her, but she's one of these nutjobs out there riding around the country suing little towns and counties if they display crosses on cemeteries, public parks, or any other public property. Does Annie Laurie Gaylor really believe for a second people in different towns are "oppressed" and "offended" by nativity scenes in the local park during Christmas? No, you can hear it in her voice that she's lying and she can't cite anyone has complained. But a more plausible theory is she is a worthless individual, too lazy and too incompetent to offer society anything of value. Does it bear out? You be the judge. Worthless degree? Worthless faux-accomplishments? Worthless person?
But again, none of that matters. Annie's little ego is more important than the thousands of other people who she forces her little crusade upon, even though these people never did anything to her.
The scary thing about the destruction principle is just how scary it is in predicting tyrants and dictators. People who don't care about other people, who are so narcissistic they believe they are the only ones that matter and not only do other people not matter, but they should be forced to bide by the crusader's will. Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung, Osama Bin Laden you name it, all spoiled little brats with no real skill who deemed their precious little egos more valuable than the lives of millions.
I didn't make the video of Crusaderism for S's and G's. I made it as a weapon, a tool, and a warning. We can identify these people. We can indentify the people who are are going to destroy the country. AND we can explain what they're doing and why. This is not an argument to go and kill these people or anything as drastic like that, it's to expose them so when they say, "America is evil" or "capitalism is evil" or "hard work is evil" or any other outright lie they tell is identified as such and the public is made aware of what their ulterior motives really are. To destroy the United States and western civilization because they refuse to be adults and work for a living.
It is that simple.
This post sponsored by "Top Shelf." If you liked the writing above, you'll love the writing in "Top Shelf." Available in paperback or Kindle.
When I was a kid my brother and I would set up snow forts and battle it out throwing snowballs at each other. Of course, it was more than snowballs, it was more like snow cannon balls and ice chunks. The key was not to kill each other, but to demolish each other's fort. Direct hits would cause enough damage that we'd have to spend time repairing them instead of continuing our offensive.
But then I got smart.
I started building a tall snow tower off to the right of my fort. It didn't take much to build and it was a smaller target. Once built it attracted all the attention and attacks of my brother. Sure he'd hit it occasionally, more often than not knocking it down, but the time it took to rebuild it was a fraction of what it would be to rebuild a direct hit to my fort.
In short, I knew psychologically it would make a more attractive target even though it had no "military value." The reason why? Easy target, less work.
The trick though was "production" or "value."
Say my brother DID score a direct hit on the tower and brought it down. The brain would release endorphins because he brought it down. He would think it was progress, that he achieved some kind of value. But he didn't. He was just lazy.
That is the destruction principle. It is easier to destroy something that already exists than build something of genuine value up from scratch.
This is key to understand the psychology Crusaders and Crusaderism because when given the choice of:
"Work hard, study something rigorous, and put in the effort into a long and demanding career"
or
"Find something in society that already exists, villianize it and declare it evil, then wage a campaign against it"
the lazy, mathophoic, work-fearing leftist crusader will ALWAYS go for destroying institutions and pillars over doing something that requires effort.
And you must understand how arrogant and truly evil this is. The crusader doesn't target these pillars or institutions of society because those institutions and pillars are evil. They target those things because the crusaders are evil. They are so arrogant and self-centered they have no problem bring down various aspects of society, regardless of:
1. whether or not society likes these pillars
2. whether or not society benefits from these pillars
3. the wishes of anybody else.
The crusader's desire to engage in destruction disguised as heroic, crusading "faux-production" to simply give their meaningless lives meaning is paramount to all other people, all other lives and all other cultures.
Take three genuinely evil people and see if I'm making this up or if my theory explains them.
Dr. Grover Furr - This guy defends Stalin and claims the genocide that occurred under Soviet Russia never happened. Does he really believe that? No, probably not. But it doesn't matter. It's easier for him to tear down institutions like capitalism, western civilzation, etc., and then claim he's on some kind of "crusade" against the "evil United States." In reality he is just a worthless human being.
Robert Jensen - The nutjob "professor/journalist" (notice a trend here with worthless people and worthless degrees?) who claimed Thanksgiving was nothing more than a nazi, racist event forced on the poor Indians. Again, does it dawn on him this was 400 years ago? Does it dawn on him that most people (Indians included) hold Thanksgiving dear and is part of the American culture? Of course, not, but that's not his goal. His goal is to knock down the snow tower and make it seem like he's doing something. So he falsely vilifies Thanksgiving, gets warm crusaderism fuzzies, and in the process belittles and condemns all you racists, sexist, nazi homophobes. Again, a worthless human.
Annie Laurie Gaylor (later part of the interview) - You may not know her, but she's one of these nutjobs out there riding around the country suing little towns and counties if they display crosses on cemeteries, public parks, or any other public property. Does Annie Laurie Gaylor really believe for a second people in different towns are "oppressed" and "offended" by nativity scenes in the local park during Christmas? No, you can hear it in her voice that she's lying and she can't cite anyone has complained. But a more plausible theory is she is a worthless individual, too lazy and too incompetent to offer society anything of value. Does it bear out? You be the judge. Worthless degree? Worthless faux-accomplishments? Worthless person?
But again, none of that matters. Annie's little ego is more important than the thousands of other people who she forces her little crusade upon, even though these people never did anything to her.
The scary thing about the destruction principle is just how scary it is in predicting tyrants and dictators. People who don't care about other people, who are so narcissistic they believe they are the only ones that matter and not only do other people not matter, but they should be forced to bide by the crusader's will. Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung, Osama Bin Laden you name it, all spoiled little brats with no real skill who deemed their precious little egos more valuable than the lives of millions.
I didn't make the video of Crusaderism for S's and G's. I made it as a weapon, a tool, and a warning. We can identify these people. We can indentify the people who are are going to destroy the country. AND we can explain what they're doing and why. This is not an argument to go and kill these people or anything as drastic like that, it's to expose them so when they say, "America is evil" or "capitalism is evil" or "hard work is evil" or any other outright lie they tell is identified as such and the public is made aware of what their ulterior motives really are. To destroy the United States and western civilization because they refuse to be adults and work for a living.
It is that simple.
This post sponsored by "Top Shelf." If you liked the writing above, you'll love the writing in "Top Shelf." Available in paperback or Kindle.
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Boo-Freaking-Hoo
Dr. Helen points out the shortage of men willing to marry and the surplus of women who want marriage
Dalrock updates his charts lending further data to support this.
I ask the simple question, "If women want to get married, then why don't they start considering what men want?"
Of course, we know the answer. They want a wedding. They want "their day." They don't want to be a wife, let alone serve and support a guy. That is glaringly obvious to the men who are refusing to propose.
But hey, you girls go an enjoy that decline, alright!
Dalrock updates his charts lending further data to support this.
I ask the simple question, "If women want to get married, then why don't they start considering what men want?"
Of course, we know the answer. They want a wedding. They want "their day." They don't want to be a wife, let alone serve and support a guy. That is glaringly obvious to the men who are refusing to propose.
But hey, you girls go an enjoy that decline, alright!
Hipsters on Food Stamps Part II
It's a simple thesis and no one wants to hear it: hipsters may lack
drive, but the world they live in wasn't set up by them, it was set up
by their parents, i.e. the Dumbest Generation Of Narcissists In The History Of The World, the ones who magnified the importance and cost of
college without having any idea of what should be its purpose, let alone
its content.
I would only add that the Hipsters and youth in general who think they're so independent failed miserably to be truly independent in that they sucked up and swallowed whole the leftist commie tripe that was shoved down their throats. There was no "don't trust anybody over 30" They listened to their Baby Boomer and Gen X Parents because the crap they were saying was too sweet to critically think about.
It will be very fun to enjoy the decline.
I would only add that the Hipsters and youth in general who think they're so independent failed miserably to be truly independent in that they sucked up and swallowed whole the leftist commie tripe that was shoved down their throats. There was no "don't trust anybody over 30" They listened to their Baby Boomer and Gen X Parents because the crap they were saying was too sweet to critically think about.
It will be very fun to enjoy the decline.
Feminists Hating On the Division of Labor
Why do you feminists hate the division of labor so much?
And an aside, but I'm going to keep doing this until it gets into the young ladies' skulls, how many of you men could imagine dating, let alone marrying somebody with this "vision" of a family.
And an aside, but I'm going to keep doing this until it gets into the young ladies' skulls, how many of you men could imagine dating, let alone marrying somebody with this "vision" of a family.
"So You Just Walked Off the Job???"
I don't know why it popped into my mind, but I remembered interviewing about a year back for a credit analyst position. It was a hiring manager/HR ditz duo combo interview. The hiring manager was asking pertinent questions and answering my pertinent questions in return. It became very clear I knew more about underwriting and analysis when he didn't know what market-inference pricing was (a technique I use to value collateral), resulting in essentially me giving him a lesson. Intermittently we were interrupted by the HR ditz with one of her canned questions.
But two stood out, not because of her questions, but because of my answers.
The first was "so you spent a pretty short stint at bank X. Why such a short stint?"
I answered truthfully:
"They were corrupt, lending money to friends and cronies, and anytime I did any kind of analysis they disregarded it and wanted me to change the figures."
She then asked, "So did you give them two weeks notice."
"Nope, I just up and left."
She was shocked. You could hear it in her voice,
"So you JUST WALKED OFF THE JOB!!!???"
She literally couldn't believe somebody would have the audacity to just give their employer the proverbial bird and leave without notice. It was almost as if she said, "So you just BEAT YOUR CHILDREN!!!???" Never mind I might have had good reason to. Never mind it is more likely employers are more abusive and unjust than the employees. No, I violated a cardinal rule. I didn't give my employer 2 weeks notice.
The second question that she asked was about my book.
"So I see you wrote a book," referring to "Behind the Housing Crash."
I said "yes, I did."
"So what's it about?"
"It's an expose of all the corrupt dealing and banking practices I saw and endured while working at various community banks in Minnesota."
Thinking she had me she said, "So why didn't you put this on your resume!?" proving she had Google-Stalked me.
I said, "It is on my resume. If you look on the second page at the bottom, it should be noted there." proving she hadn't done her job.
Soon enough the hiring manager piped in, "Actually, he did list it. It's right here."
And then the money-shot quote, "But you wrote a book!"
I had to laugh inside because I wanted to say, "Yeah, my god! People writing books! Next thing you know people might start READING BOOKS!!! GASP!!!"
Again, I don't know why the thought popped into my mind this morning, but it did remind me that in the back recesses of my mind a theory or thought is starting to form. A theory that goes something like this:
Two factors are giving employers and corporations the upper hand when it comes to the labor market. One, the fact the labor market sucks right now with record high unemployment gives employers the negotiating edge. Additionally the sheer length of time the average person is unemployed now makes these people even more desperate, giving employers an additional advantage. Two, progressive credentialism has resulted in a wicked spiral. Because everybody has college degrees, people now must get additional certifications in order to be the better candidate among their peers. So people then pursue masters degrees. The problem is that everybody is pursing masters degrees. And so people pursue extra credentials or certifications. The problem is everybody is pursuing additional certifications, and so on and so on. In the end nearly everybody is overqualified and overeducated for most jobs. So to outshine other candidates job hunters resort to softer skills,namely ass kissing and brown-nosing. Impeccably sharp suits, spending time networking and attending job fairs, the job hunter is so desperate they'll spend more time trying to find a job than actually working.
Now, analogize this to a market where you have a score of suitors pursuing one woman. The male suitors are the job hunters and the sole woman is the job. What is going to happen to that woman's psychology when day after day she is asked out, pursued, inquired about and just plain lavished with attention? Furthermore, what is gong to happen to her psychology when these men become more and more desperate resorting to tactics like flowers, chocolates, them wearing stupidly loud shirts? 100 to 1 she's going to develop and ego and an attitude. She's going to become arrogant and cocky and instead of looking for what she really needs (a man) she's going to nit pick irrelevant things (I don't like how his nails are done. I don't like his shoes, etc.).
And it's the same with employers.
Because of progressive credentialism and all the extra labor in the market, employers are adopting a very arrogant and cocky attitude. So arrogrant and cocky the psychological torment you'd have to go through working the job would plain not be worth it (just like dating the entitlement princess). And we already see evidence of employers getting this attitude.
YOU (GASP!!!) WROTE A BOOK!!!!???
YOU (GASP!!!) WALKED OFF A JOB!!!!?
By the way where is your Facebook password, I want it. And no you can't have mine.
Oh, and we're going to Google-Stalk you.
And we want to run a credit check on you, but you can't request the same of us.
I even recall an investment bank requiring your ACT and SAT scores
It is also no coincidence HR is once again dominated by women. The skills women develop nitpicking minor infractions among romantic suitors is the precise exact same skills they use to nitpick infractions against job applicants. Of course, it is no surprise their success in picking qualified romantic suitors is the same as picking qualified job applicants. There is no data out there to prove it, but nearly EVERY HR lady I've personally know has been divorced, had dating problems, or at minimum had some kind of mental problem. Sure there were a handful of relatively stable women, but the majority were not. And I'm willing to bet their woefully inadequate ability to judge character when choosing men is equally woefully inadequate when judging job applicants (which we do have actual data for from MErcer, which shows a r-square of .14 between HR questions and actual job performance). This should not be surprising when instead of asking questions about accounting, valuation techniques, chemical processes, and HR ditz can only assess things like:
"I don't like his hair."
"He didn't answer 'if you could be an animal, which animal would it be and why' question to my satisfaction."
"Did you see her shoes!? OMG! Hideous!"
Not to belabor the HR angle, the larger point is that it is becoming very obvious corporations are developing a psychosis of their own. It's almost as if they're becoming sentient even though they're organizations. An entitlement princess mentality is developing which makes the proposition of working for them not worth the risk of spending 20 years of your life getting educated, certified, qualified, licensed and CPE'd to death, only to have a job where your psychologically abused.
And just like men are boycotting women, so too I believe employees will boycott abusive employers.
Enjoy the decline!
But two stood out, not because of her questions, but because of my answers.
The first was "so you spent a pretty short stint at bank X. Why such a short stint?"
I answered truthfully:
"They were corrupt, lending money to friends and cronies, and anytime I did any kind of analysis they disregarded it and wanted me to change the figures."
She then asked, "So did you give them two weeks notice."
"Nope, I just up and left."
She was shocked. You could hear it in her voice,
"So you JUST WALKED OFF THE JOB!!!???"
She literally couldn't believe somebody would have the audacity to just give their employer the proverbial bird and leave without notice. It was almost as if she said, "So you just BEAT YOUR CHILDREN!!!???" Never mind I might have had good reason to. Never mind it is more likely employers are more abusive and unjust than the employees. No, I violated a cardinal rule. I didn't give my employer 2 weeks notice.
The second question that she asked was about my book.
"So I see you wrote a book," referring to "Behind the Housing Crash."
I said "yes, I did."
"So what's it about?"
"It's an expose of all the corrupt dealing and banking practices I saw and endured while working at various community banks in Minnesota."
Thinking she had me she said, "So why didn't you put this on your resume!?" proving she had Google-Stalked me.
I said, "It is on my resume. If you look on the second page at the bottom, it should be noted there." proving she hadn't done her job.
Soon enough the hiring manager piped in, "Actually, he did list it. It's right here."
And then the money-shot quote, "But you wrote a book!"
I had to laugh inside because I wanted to say, "Yeah, my god! People writing books! Next thing you know people might start READING BOOKS!!! GASP!!!"
Again, I don't know why the thought popped into my mind this morning, but it did remind me that in the back recesses of my mind a theory or thought is starting to form. A theory that goes something like this:
Two factors are giving employers and corporations the upper hand when it comes to the labor market. One, the fact the labor market sucks right now with record high unemployment gives employers the negotiating edge. Additionally the sheer length of time the average person is unemployed now makes these people even more desperate, giving employers an additional advantage. Two, progressive credentialism has resulted in a wicked spiral. Because everybody has college degrees, people now must get additional certifications in order to be the better candidate among their peers. So people then pursue masters degrees. The problem is that everybody is pursing masters degrees. And so people pursue extra credentials or certifications. The problem is everybody is pursuing additional certifications, and so on and so on. In the end nearly everybody is overqualified and overeducated for most jobs. So to outshine other candidates job hunters resort to softer skills,namely ass kissing and brown-nosing. Impeccably sharp suits, spending time networking and attending job fairs, the job hunter is so desperate they'll spend more time trying to find a job than actually working.
Now, analogize this to a market where you have a score of suitors pursuing one woman. The male suitors are the job hunters and the sole woman is the job. What is going to happen to that woman's psychology when day after day she is asked out, pursued, inquired about and just plain lavished with attention? Furthermore, what is gong to happen to her psychology when these men become more and more desperate resorting to tactics like flowers, chocolates, them wearing stupidly loud shirts? 100 to 1 she's going to develop and ego and an attitude. She's going to become arrogant and cocky and instead of looking for what she really needs (a man) she's going to nit pick irrelevant things (I don't like how his nails are done. I don't like his shoes, etc.).
And it's the same with employers.
Because of progressive credentialism and all the extra labor in the market, employers are adopting a very arrogant and cocky attitude. So arrogrant and cocky the psychological torment you'd have to go through working the job would plain not be worth it (just like dating the entitlement princess). And we already see evidence of employers getting this attitude.
YOU (GASP!!!) WROTE A BOOK!!!!???
YOU (GASP!!!) WALKED OFF A JOB!!!!?
By the way where is your Facebook password, I want it. And no you can't have mine.
Oh, and we're going to Google-Stalk you.
And we want to run a credit check on you, but you can't request the same of us.
I even recall an investment bank requiring your ACT and SAT scores
It is also no coincidence HR is once again dominated by women. The skills women develop nitpicking minor infractions among romantic suitors is the precise exact same skills they use to nitpick infractions against job applicants. Of course, it is no surprise their success in picking qualified romantic suitors is the same as picking qualified job applicants. There is no data out there to prove it, but nearly EVERY HR lady I've personally know has been divorced, had dating problems, or at minimum had some kind of mental problem. Sure there were a handful of relatively stable women, but the majority were not. And I'm willing to bet their woefully inadequate ability to judge character when choosing men is equally woefully inadequate when judging job applicants (which we do have actual data for from MErcer, which shows a r-square of .14 between HR questions and actual job performance). This should not be surprising when instead of asking questions about accounting, valuation techniques, chemical processes, and HR ditz can only assess things like:
"I don't like his hair."
"He didn't answer 'if you could be an animal, which animal would it be and why' question to my satisfaction."
"Did you see her shoes!? OMG! Hideous!"
Not to belabor the HR angle, the larger point is that it is becoming very obvious corporations are developing a psychosis of their own. It's almost as if they're becoming sentient even though they're organizations. An entitlement princess mentality is developing which makes the proposition of working for them not worth the risk of spending 20 years of your life getting educated, certified, qualified, licensed and CPE'd to death, only to have a job where your psychologically abused.
And just like men are boycotting women, so too I believe employees will boycott abusive employers.
Enjoy the decline!
Monday, November 26, 2012
Super Happy Warm Fuzzy Feminists
Help the Captain out here. An evil little seed has been planted in my mind. It will grow into an eeeevil little idea and then an eeeevil little plan. And when I execute this plan it will be pure EEEEEVILLLLL! I will laugh maniacally. BWAHA HA HA HAAAA!!!
So here's a list of the "you go girl" "grrrrl power" types of women from an old list whose advice and lecturings have done nothing but hurt women.
Virginia Heffernan
Sandra Log Tsing
Maureen Dowd
Emily Bazelon
Lindy West
Amanda Marcotte
Jessica Valenti
Jill Filipovic
Carolyn Hax
Hanna Rosin
Ann Bartow
Bollick
Can we add to this?
So here's a list of the "you go girl" "grrrrl power" types of women from an old list whose advice and lecturings have done nothing but hurt women.
Virginia Heffernan
Sandra Log Tsing
Maureen Dowd
Emily Bazelon
Lindy West
Amanda Marcotte
Jessica Valenti
Jill Filipovic
Carolyn Hax
Hanna Rosin
Ann Bartow
Bollick
Can we add to this?
Sunday, November 25, 2012
Reminder - The Peter Schiff Show
A friendly reminder to all the economists, lieutenants, and agents in the field, the ole Captain will be on the Peter Schiff Show tomorrow, Monday the 26th, 10:33AM Eastern time.
Tune in!
Tune in!
Give the Woman the Credit Card...
and look what happens.
Just kidding. Margret Thatcher and (more recently) Merkel display/ed more fiscal responsibility than the bozo we have in office today.
That being said, time to buy more commodities! Cause the same thing is going to happen here!
Enjoy the decline!
Just kidding. Margret Thatcher and (more recently) Merkel display/ed more fiscal responsibility than the bozo we have in office today.
That being said, time to buy more commodities! Cause the same thing is going to happen here!
Enjoy the decline!
The "Less Sucky Economy" Bubble
I loathe bubbles. Not because bubbles distort prices, misallocate resources, trigger recessions and drop standards of living, but because they keep screwing up my economic predictions. And it's not even that they screw up my predictions. My economic predictions normally come true, I guess a better way to say it is they "postpone" my economic predictions.
For example I intuitively knew a long time ago that the US was on an unsustainable economic path. We would have to balance the budget, cut government spending, otherwise the private sector would be crowded out, etc. etc. I was in my 20's and naturally I was a "party pooper" I was the "loser Republican who was wound too tight." At parties people would try to start arugments with me and i would say, "Look, this is not going to work, it's not sustainable!"
Was I right?
Of course I was, I'm always right!
But was I proven right at that time?
No.
Worse, I was temporarily proven WRONG by a bubble, Namely the housing bubble.
With the housing bubble the US (and other) economies looked incredibly great. People were making money, GDP was going through the roof, unemployment was below 5%. What is that idiot republican talking about? Why is he such a downer?
And good luck being the one republican at a 20 something party who now has to explain the masking effects a housing bubble has on the underlying, long term fundamentals of the US economy. You're always the life of the party then!
And so, even though I would be proven right in due time, at that moment in time I was a bad economist. I was put into the penalty box and I felt shame.
Of course, inevitably I was vindicated. The housing bubble popped and the ensuing crash came. And if anything the election of Barack Obama merely hastened my prediction of an "ultimate" crash coming triggered by unsustainable government spending. But particularly vindicating was the aging and thus maturing of my friends and peers. A decade ago I was the "tight, loser, most-likely-racist republican." Today, now that my friends are married, have houses, have children, had jobs, lost jobs, lost their houses, etc., they're paying a little bit more attention to what the Ole Captain is saying. And I might add there have been several friends who have said something to the effect of,
"You know, we all thought you were just this nerd who didn't know what he was talking about, but man, you were right!"
It was almost as if I was becoming a WELL-RESPECTED ECONOMIST!!!
Of course, the irony was that as the economy worsened my reputation and career improved. Predicting doom, but living in a doomed world. Watching the US get destroyed and capitalizing off of it. But I was happy. I was on the vanguard of predicting the crashes, the envelop of economic thought (Enjoying the Decline, ID-ing feminism as a marxist threat, minimalism, etc.), things were finally going the way I predicted they would...until....
another bubble.
Though thoroughly enjoying drinking Rumpleminze and playing video games, sadly I'm starting to see another bubble on the horizon. Another stinking bubble that is no doubt going to postpone my predictions. Another bubble that will mask our severe and crippling financial problems here in the US and give the desperate investing community the false rationale they need to start driving asset prices WAY above the value of their underlying cash flow.
The "Less Sucky Economy" Bubble.
The Less Sucky Economy Bubble or "LSEB" is precisely that.
Is our economy great?
No.
Is our economy good?
No.
Is our economy even sustainable?
No.
But it is LESS SUCKY than all the other economies out there so LET'S FLOOD THE US MARKET WITH MONEY ANYWAY!!!!
The reason we're "less sucky" here in the US is NOT because of the problems of Greece and Europe. I know people have been talking about that for a while analogizing the US to the "best looking horse in the glue factory." And that is true. What I'm talking about is that combined with a crash in China.
I am no expert on the Chinese economy, but what I have read and studied it is becoming more and more apparent the Chinese economy will contract, maybe even crash (perhaps some junior, deputy, aspiring, official or otherwise economist can speak more of this). HOwever, it doesn't even have to crash, it just has to stagnate and its other drawbacks (corruption, inefficiency, bureaucratically managed SOE's) will be the end of China being a beacon of economic growth in the world, and thus no longer a destination for foreign investment.
Stagnation or crash, the question will be the same - where do we invest? Who will lead the world economy out of its doldrums? Who will be our hero!?
You won't believe the answer.
The United States.
That fat, bloated, overeducated, unskilled, lazy, gluttonous, debt-ridden, crippled country who re-elected a bread and circus man is going to be the "savior" of the world.
How?
Again, it's not that there are any genuine economic growth prospects, let alone an economic future in the US, it's that we're pretty much "less sucky" than everybody else.
Europe??? Are you kidding? They hate themselves and are being run over by immigrants from other countries who not only want to destroy western civilization, but disproportionately live off the state. Their debt problems are definitely "more sucky" than ours and if France is any indication they love socialism even more than we do.
China? Well if China does crash/contract/stagnate, every quants black-swan models are going to be thrown off because their forecasted growth rates will no longer apply. That means the prices we're paying for Chinese investment assets are way too high and likely to come crashing down. So China is out for the count.
South America/Central America? Well, while I do like Mexico, it's going to be impossible because of its relatively small size to counteract the larger South American continent, namely a collapse in growth in Brazil and Argentina (besides, just watch what happens to Argentina with their socialist fool ruining the country).
That leaves the United States as the default go to economy in a world of really sucky economies.
Sadly, this bubble will again mask our underlying problems and provide faux growth (like the housing bubble did for Bush and the Dotcom bubble did for Clinton) for Obama. I don't believe it will result in "booming" GDP growth or lower employment, as much as continued financing for our government to borrow and low interest rates in general. It will also improve the value of the dollar. Debt will continue to go up, and if there is any improvement in headline economic statistics (GDP, unemployment, etc.) that good news will once again overshadow our more pressing problems (entitlement programs, spending, and debt).
However, this brings up another aspect of the United States that people don't realize. What we are relying on is our previous reputation as the "United States." Keep in mind most people in the world, just like the US, are spectacularly ignorant about economics. They are too lazy to look things up, let alone think through and develop a functional understanding of how economics works. So the majority of people and thus money, flows based on perception and reputation. The US dollar is still the reserve currency of the world only because of the reputation we earned ourselves when we did some serious ass-kicking we did in the 40's and 50's. Today it will remain so because we're "less sucky," regardless of the rot and decay in our economic fundamentals.
This post brought to you by Amazon. Yes Amazon! Why drive, fight lines and pay for overhead this Christmas season when you can shop from the convenience of your home drunk? Shop at Amazon! It's more fun!
For example I intuitively knew a long time ago that the US was on an unsustainable economic path. We would have to balance the budget, cut government spending, otherwise the private sector would be crowded out, etc. etc. I was in my 20's and naturally I was a "party pooper" I was the "loser Republican who was wound too tight." At parties people would try to start arugments with me and i would say, "Look, this is not going to work, it's not sustainable!"
Was I right?
Of course I was, I'm always right!
But was I proven right at that time?
No.
Worse, I was temporarily proven WRONG by a bubble, Namely the housing bubble.
With the housing bubble the US (and other) economies looked incredibly great. People were making money, GDP was going through the roof, unemployment was below 5%. What is that idiot republican talking about? Why is he such a downer?
And good luck being the one republican at a 20 something party who now has to explain the masking effects a housing bubble has on the underlying, long term fundamentals of the US economy. You're always the life of the party then!
And so, even though I would be proven right in due time, at that moment in time I was a bad economist. I was put into the penalty box and I felt shame.
Of course, inevitably I was vindicated. The housing bubble popped and the ensuing crash came. And if anything the election of Barack Obama merely hastened my prediction of an "ultimate" crash coming triggered by unsustainable government spending. But particularly vindicating was the aging and thus maturing of my friends and peers. A decade ago I was the "tight, loser, most-likely-racist republican." Today, now that my friends are married, have houses, have children, had jobs, lost jobs, lost their houses, etc., they're paying a little bit more attention to what the Ole Captain is saying. And I might add there have been several friends who have said something to the effect of,
"You know, we all thought you were just this nerd who didn't know what he was talking about, but man, you were right!"
It was almost as if I was becoming a WELL-RESPECTED ECONOMIST!!!
Of course, the irony was that as the economy worsened my reputation and career improved. Predicting doom, but living in a doomed world. Watching the US get destroyed and capitalizing off of it. But I was happy. I was on the vanguard of predicting the crashes, the envelop of economic thought (Enjoying the Decline, ID-ing feminism as a marxist threat, minimalism, etc.), things were finally going the way I predicted they would...until....
another bubble.
Though thoroughly enjoying drinking Rumpleminze and playing video games, sadly I'm starting to see another bubble on the horizon. Another stinking bubble that is no doubt going to postpone my predictions. Another bubble that will mask our severe and crippling financial problems here in the US and give the desperate investing community the false rationale they need to start driving asset prices WAY above the value of their underlying cash flow.
The "Less Sucky Economy" Bubble.
The Less Sucky Economy Bubble or "LSEB" is precisely that.
Is our economy great?
No.
Is our economy good?
No.
Is our economy even sustainable?
No.
But it is LESS SUCKY than all the other economies out there so LET'S FLOOD THE US MARKET WITH MONEY ANYWAY!!!!
The reason we're "less sucky" here in the US is NOT because of the problems of Greece and Europe. I know people have been talking about that for a while analogizing the US to the "best looking horse in the glue factory." And that is true. What I'm talking about is that combined with a crash in China.
I am no expert on the Chinese economy, but what I have read and studied it is becoming more and more apparent the Chinese economy will contract, maybe even crash (perhaps some junior, deputy, aspiring, official or otherwise economist can speak more of this). HOwever, it doesn't even have to crash, it just has to stagnate and its other drawbacks (corruption, inefficiency, bureaucratically managed SOE's) will be the end of China being a beacon of economic growth in the world, and thus no longer a destination for foreign investment.
Stagnation or crash, the question will be the same - where do we invest? Who will lead the world economy out of its doldrums? Who will be our hero!?
You won't believe the answer.
The United States.
That fat, bloated, overeducated, unskilled, lazy, gluttonous, debt-ridden, crippled country who re-elected a bread and circus man is going to be the "savior" of the world.
How?
Again, it's not that there are any genuine economic growth prospects, let alone an economic future in the US, it's that we're pretty much "less sucky" than everybody else.
Europe??? Are you kidding? They hate themselves and are being run over by immigrants from other countries who not only want to destroy western civilization, but disproportionately live off the state. Their debt problems are definitely "more sucky" than ours and if France is any indication they love socialism even more than we do.
China? Well if China does crash/contract/stagnate, every quants black-swan models are going to be thrown off because their forecasted growth rates will no longer apply. That means the prices we're paying for Chinese investment assets are way too high and likely to come crashing down. So China is out for the count.
South America/Central America? Well, while I do like Mexico, it's going to be impossible because of its relatively small size to counteract the larger South American continent, namely a collapse in growth in Brazil and Argentina (besides, just watch what happens to Argentina with their socialist fool ruining the country).
That leaves the United States as the default go to economy in a world of really sucky economies.
Sadly, this bubble will again mask our underlying problems and provide faux growth (like the housing bubble did for Bush and the Dotcom bubble did for Clinton) for Obama. I don't believe it will result in "booming" GDP growth or lower employment, as much as continued financing for our government to borrow and low interest rates in general. It will also improve the value of the dollar. Debt will continue to go up, and if there is any improvement in headline economic statistics (GDP, unemployment, etc.) that good news will once again overshadow our more pressing problems (entitlement programs, spending, and debt).
However, this brings up another aspect of the United States that people don't realize. What we are relying on is our previous reputation as the "United States." Keep in mind most people in the world, just like the US, are spectacularly ignorant about economics. They are too lazy to look things up, let alone think through and develop a functional understanding of how economics works. So the majority of people and thus money, flows based on perception and reputation. The US dollar is still the reserve currency of the world only because of the reputation we earned ourselves when we did some serious ass-kicking we did in the 40's and 50's. Today it will remain so because we're "less sucky," regardless of the rot and decay in our economic fundamentals.
This post brought to you by Amazon. Yes Amazon! Why drive, fight lines and pay for overhead this Christmas season when you can shop from the convenience of your home drunk? Shop at Amazon! It's more fun!
Target: Swedish Feminism
Next time we have to save Europe, let's not save Sweden.
On a related note - the father could not be reached for comment (but thankfully the state is there for her)
On a related note, ladies, I want you to hear me and hear me well. If a law like this EVER gets passed in the US, the guns are coming and the revolution will start. What irks me about the article is how the men in the article completely failed to reframe the debate and are thus lending credence to it by engaging these communists by coming up with pathetic rationales why then shouldn't have to pee sitting down. They should be saying, "you just try it and see what happens."
On an unrelated note - HI-freaking-larious. Language warning.
On a related note - the father could not be reached for comment (but thankfully the state is there for her)
On a related note, ladies, I want you to hear me and hear me well. If a law like this EVER gets passed in the US, the guns are coming and the revolution will start. What irks me about the article is how the men in the article completely failed to reframe the debate and are thus lending credence to it by engaging these communists by coming up with pathetic rationales why then shouldn't have to pee sitting down. They should be saying, "you just try it and see what happens."
On an unrelated note - HI-freaking-larious. Language warning.
Friday, November 23, 2012
Dealing With the HR Ditz
The next war the Captain will be waging is on Human Resources. You math impaired children have been warned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)