And I don't mean recently. I mean like she JUST showed up at the docks two minutes ago, looking at her watch, while the boat left port about 30 years ago, which matter of fact has probably been scrapped at the Bangladeshi boat yards.
There is also an element of "wanting my cake and eating it too" to her thinking (or perhaps, lack thereof.
So, once again, ergo I think it's time for another "Dating Stories of the Captain" so that we all may learn, ESPECIALLY women, and genuinely improve our lives (by avoiding the Captain's mistakes).
Long ago, your Captain was a naive, youthful, idealistic lieutenant. Though battle-hardened and having a few scars to evidence his experience, he was at the perfect balance of maturity and realism countered with a healthy amount of hope, optimism and a belief in the right kind of romance triggered by the right kind of girl.
He found her.
In a dance class of his. Cute as a button. Very smart. But more importantly, there was that chemistry that just doesn't come along that frequently (matter of fact, he hadn't ever experienced anything like up to that point in his life).
You would think that with such chemistry and the stars aligning, etc., that this would be an easy plane to land for the ole Captain. However, there was just one little problem. She was a STRINGENT Christian and I was an agnostic.
Understand, this was the only hiccup.
She was completely enamored with me, and I with her (as proof, look at the economics poem I wrote for her). However, for 6 months she fought every NATURAL, BIOLOGICAL drive and instinct she had to kiss me and go out with me, because of one passage from the bible that has ruined more potential happy couples than anything else - 2nd Corinthinians 6:14
"Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?"
Translation? If he isn't a Christian, then you CANNOT date him (let alone marry the guy).
It was a sad situation. It was more than one conversation where she would break down crying as she could not reconcile St. Paul's words to the Corinthians with her natural, visceral attraction to me and my agnosticism. And try as I might to point out the idiocy of listening to a doctrine that has been translated over 2,000 years ago across 4 different languages (one of which is dead now) as well as the fact that "what if there's a chance, Christianity might not be the "100% correct religion," she would have no part of it. She had her check list. She was resolute. The Lord would provide.
Aside from this very large disagreement, there was only one other disagreement we had. It was nowhere near as major nor deal-breaking, but it did provide me some insight later on in life that explained to me what was really going on;
She found my version of sexuality, intimacy and romance revolting.
I, like any other red-blooded American male, had NO SHAME of admitting that it would be GRAND to come home from a hard day's work and there, unbeknownst to me was my wife/girlfriend/significant other in a French Maid outfit with a martini in one hand, a cigar in the other and Frank Sinatra playing in the background. Not every day of course, but to have a wife like that would be grand.
She found it not only revolting, but insulting.
"Why you would want your wife to degrade herself to such a level is beyond me. I find it to be more like slavery than anything else."
And thus like the author of the article, this girl completely missed the boat.
In the end I realized what was really happening. This girl wanted the best of BOTH worlds.
She wanted an alpha male, which explained her instinctive attraction to me (not to brag, but yeah, I'm pretty alpha). I didn't take crap. I spoke my mind. I would fight. I had passion. I did what I wanted. And I relented for no one and nothing. I supported myself and had never taken charity. I was a real man's man.
However, she also wanted the beta. The man who would collapse and say, "Paris is worth the mass." Who would deny his own beliefs and fake being a Christian. Who would submit to her, albeit intellectually dishonestly. And who would actually forfeit the life long American males' dream of a beautiful wife just simply dressing up all sexy and pampering him once in a while for what I presume would be a sex life solely for the purpose of making more Christians, not (heaven forbid!) for recreational purposes.
It is here that his love-ne'er-meant-to-be and the author of the article fail, and will continue to fail, because they do not understand one very simple rule about men;
Being alpha and being beta ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.
A man CANNOT be both alpha and beta.
You get one or the other.
Now I know some women would prefer one over the other. And naturally you would like some elements of both. BUT YOU CAN ONLY CHOOSE ONE.
The nature of an alpha male is to be the leader. THis is the NATURAL STATE or at least INCLINATION or biological PREDISPOSITION FOR MEN. They are "MEN." They are MANLY. They will go and do manly things and have manly preferences. It is natural and biological and it is NOT OPTIONAL. Boys will be boys, no we don't need no freaking Ritalin. This is normal.
Then there are the beta men. They go against their nature because they think it will some how bring them an advantage. THis is certainly true. Patience, compromising, avoiding conflict are all life-increasing acts in threatening environments. But do not expect them to hold to principle, hold their ground or be MANLY because that results in conflict or a threat. And it doesn't even have to be a life-threatening conflict. Just conflict in general because they almost seem to prefer peace and agreement over their own inner desires. They will constantly ask you for your approval. They will constantly get permission first. They will not be the manly, rugged Steve McQueen character you all want to whisk you away on your motorcycle against your parents' wishes. They will be like Al Gore or Woody Alan.
The larger point is simply this ladies. You do not get your checklist because, frankly, no man in the 3 billion men on the planet meet it. Not because each trait unto itself is outlandish to expect or so rare, but a lot of them ARE mutually exclusive. What you have to ask yourself is do you want an alpha male (like a Ferrari, powerful, but expensive and fuel inefficient) or a beta male (like a PRius, high quality, good gas mileage, reliable, but no power). Because while you can't have the "perfect man," you CAN have a GOOD man (whether he's a beta or an alpha). ie- a good Chevy is better than the non-existent 700 HP V-12 Ferrari that gets 95 MPG with George Clooney in the passenger seat. Besides, last I checked the girl of long ago is still waiting for the strong alpha male, who is yet beta enough to abide by all of her requests. Apparently the Lord is not providing.
ht to the notifiers of this article.
Saturday, October 02, 2010
Friday, October 01, 2010
No Pressure
This is not a joke. This was actually put together by the 1010 Campaign. They thought being truthful was not only funny, but would convince people to join them.
Ah, leftist activists and the mindless corporations all to eager to "go green" that finance them.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Black Markets Form in the Funniest Places
This is not meant to be a crass subject, but because of the nature of the subject, I am giving you fair warning.
The short version is this;
Since Britain has made it possible for women to sue sperm donors for child support (surprise, surprise) the supply of sperm has run out forcing women to look for donors via a brand-new black market. Ah, the undefiable laws of economics.
The official version is this.
The very crass interpretation and hat tip (don't tell me I didn't warn you) is this.
The short version is this;
Since Britain has made it possible for women to sue sperm donors for child support (surprise, surprise) the supply of sperm has run out forcing women to look for donors via a brand-new black market. Ah, the undefiable laws of economics.
The official version is this.
The very crass interpretation and hat tip (don't tell me I didn't warn you) is this.
The Economics of Courtship - Part 1 - The Two Tiered Market
I've decided that much of romance, courting, marriage, blah blah blah, seems to confuse a lot of people on both sides of the dating game. And I'm only half-jesting when I say this, but just some basic economics goes a long way in explaining the different phenomena we see in the courting/dating world. And it is because of this, I've decided to write a yet-to-be-determined number of pieces of the economics of courtship in that I've already come up with three and thought it might be worth writing about.
Today's topic is the "Two Tiered Market."
I cannot claim to have been the original observer of this phenomenon, it may have been Roissy, but it I think it was somebody perhaps a little less visceral (if anybody knows, please send the link my way), regardless, it was the observation that women in their late 20's to about their 40's believe or associate sex with marriage. Or, more specifically, that if they have sex with a man, they believe that is a representation or a proxy for his level of interest in marriage.
Now, again, when we delve into the courting world there are no databases, there are no records kept and so it largely goes based on anecdotal evidence and experience, but I would say not ALL women obviously fall for this, but some certainly do. So as a favor to them, not to mention codify this theory, permit me you this graph (I love that phrase);
What we have here is a classical supply and demand chart of two markets; the sexual market and the marriage market.
In the first market we have the demand for sex (presumably from men) and the supply of sex (presumably women) - (the roles actually do not matter as to who is the buyer and who is the supplier, you could switch them if you wanted, as long as you are consistent amongst both markets, you will get the same results). In general, men demand sex more than women. Yes, horribly politically incorrect of me, I know. Send the Speech-Police's best sniper after me, in the mean time it does not change the fact that it is true, so my death will avail nothing and no one. In any case, demand is high and relatively inelastic.
Also, in general, women in their late 20's to 40's are more or less over that initial fear or discomfort with sex. They are more comfortable with it, they certainly aren't just going to go willy nilly offering it all over the place, but their supply curve is what I would consider normal (yes, send in the Politically Correct Assassins).
The point where the two meet is the equilibrium point, where if you were paying atttention in high school economics, is the "price" you pay for sex - denoted by P,s. In this metaphorical example it would be dinners men must take women out on, gas, psychological issues, the time dedicated to it, etc. etc.
Now notice the line, P,s, goes across to the other market, the marriage market.
The reason it does this is SOME women think that because a man has sex, that he is now interested in marriage. When in reality they are TWO SEPARATE AND DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT MARKETS. TWO SEPARATE AND DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT "GOODS AND SERVICES" AS THE ECONOMIC TERM IS.
However, in assuming sex=marriage, this brings about an economic phenomenon known as a "price floor." Meaning you cannot charge BELOW a certain price, or "below the floor." This is why P,s is carried over to the marriage market on that green line.
In the marriage market, women also supply marriage. For the ages of late 20's to 40's, women, in general, are more than willing to supply a LOT of marriage. But with this sex-induced psychological floor, they are led to believe that demand is much higher than it actually is (see line D,m to realize that men of equivalent marrying age do not demand marriage ANYWHERE NEAR as much as they demand sex, resulting in a free market price of marriage that is very low, P,m).
Now, because there is an effective price floor, this results in a price that is "too high." At that lofty price very few men are willing to demand or pay for a marriage. Whereas at that very high price, women are MORE THAN WILLING to supply it. This results in what economists call a "surplus"-denoted by the gray "Surplus, m."
A surplus of what? A surplus of women in the marriage market.
This is why I fear for (and have genuine pity for) women who mistake sex for marriage or at least perhaps more realistically, love and affection that may lead to marriage. It may not be seen too frequently in the late 20's as most men at that age are still willing to get married, but no doubt you know of some guy in his 40's who is dating some woman who "just won't commit."
Well, there you go, in economic-charty-goodness no less.
And that's, frankly that. I have nothing more to really add to it, because, well , it's economics. It's kind of cut and dry.
Today's topic is the "Two Tiered Market."
I cannot claim to have been the original observer of this phenomenon, it may have been Roissy, but it I think it was somebody perhaps a little less visceral (if anybody knows, please send the link my way), regardless, it was the observation that women in their late 20's to about their 40's believe or associate sex with marriage. Or, more specifically, that if they have sex with a man, they believe that is a representation or a proxy for his level of interest in marriage.
Now, again, when we delve into the courting world there are no databases, there are no records kept and so it largely goes based on anecdotal evidence and experience, but I would say not ALL women obviously fall for this, but some certainly do. So as a favor to them, not to mention codify this theory, permit me you this graph (I love that phrase);
What we have here is a classical supply and demand chart of two markets; the sexual market and the marriage market.
In the first market we have the demand for sex (presumably from men) and the supply of sex (presumably women) - (the roles actually do not matter as to who is the buyer and who is the supplier, you could switch them if you wanted, as long as you are consistent amongst both markets, you will get the same results). In general, men demand sex more than women. Yes, horribly politically incorrect of me, I know. Send the Speech-Police's best sniper after me, in the mean time it does not change the fact that it is true, so my death will avail nothing and no one. In any case, demand is high and relatively inelastic.
Also, in general, women in their late 20's to 40's are more or less over that initial fear or discomfort with sex. They are more comfortable with it, they certainly aren't just going to go willy nilly offering it all over the place, but their supply curve is what I would consider normal (yes, send in the Politically Correct Assassins).
The point where the two meet is the equilibrium point, where if you were paying atttention in high school economics, is the "price" you pay for sex - denoted by P,s. In this metaphorical example it would be dinners men must take women out on, gas, psychological issues, the time dedicated to it, etc. etc.
Now notice the line, P,s, goes across to the other market, the marriage market.
The reason it does this is SOME women think that because a man has sex, that he is now interested in marriage. When in reality they are TWO SEPARATE AND DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT MARKETS. TWO SEPARATE AND DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT "GOODS AND SERVICES" AS THE ECONOMIC TERM IS.
However, in assuming sex=marriage, this brings about an economic phenomenon known as a "price floor." Meaning you cannot charge BELOW a certain price, or "below the floor." This is why P,s is carried over to the marriage market on that green line.
In the marriage market, women also supply marriage. For the ages of late 20's to 40's, women, in general, are more than willing to supply a LOT of marriage. But with this sex-induced psychological floor, they are led to believe that demand is much higher than it actually is (see line D,m to realize that men of equivalent marrying age do not demand marriage ANYWHERE NEAR as much as they demand sex, resulting in a free market price of marriage that is very low, P,m).
Now, because there is an effective price floor, this results in a price that is "too high." At that lofty price very few men are willing to demand or pay for a marriage. Whereas at that very high price, women are MORE THAN WILLING to supply it. This results in what economists call a "surplus"-denoted by the gray "Surplus, m."
A surplus of what? A surplus of women in the marriage market.
This is why I fear for (and have genuine pity for) women who mistake sex for marriage or at least perhaps more realistically, love and affection that may lead to marriage. It may not be seen too frequently in the late 20's as most men at that age are still willing to get married, but no doubt you know of some guy in his 40's who is dating some woman who "just won't commit."
Well, there you go, in economic-charty-goodness no less.
And that's, frankly that. I have nothing more to really add to it, because, well , it's economics. It's kind of cut and dry.
Masters in Tulip Arranging
This is a phenomenon that I call the "Engineer/Social Worker" phenomenon. You have a husband, who makes $70,000 as an engineer or a computer geek or what have you, but then a (typically) liberal, independent woman who as a part time social worker or women's studies major makes $20,000 per year at some government-make-work job. However, she spends $40,000 per year on stuff, thereby necessitating a subsidy from her husband, yet at the same time will no doubt claim she is independent, when mathematically and factually she's not.
I know people like this and there's a LOT of them. Maybe not the majority of the population, but definitely a lot of sheepish, sensitive 90's men with masters in computer engineering that are just thankful to have a female in their lives and turn a blind eyes to the economic realities of independence. The wife usually runs roughshod over him and after they get married, we never see our buddy again. Usually it's by accident 4 years later when the beaten, wearied-eye man is hauling three kids around and has lost that wild mustang look in his eye.
Oh well, not every guy can be a P-51 Mustang. You need tankers and haulers too.
ht to Fraulein Elizabeth
I know people like this and there's a LOT of them. Maybe not the majority of the population, but definitely a lot of sheepish, sensitive 90's men with masters in computer engineering that are just thankful to have a female in their lives and turn a blind eyes to the economic realities of independence. The wife usually runs roughshod over him and after they get married, we never see our buddy again. Usually it's by accident 4 years later when the beaten, wearied-eye man is hauling three kids around and has lost that wild mustang look in his eye.
Oh well, not every guy can be a P-51 Mustang. You need tankers and haulers too.
ht to Fraulein Elizabeth
Looking for a Bubble
Cripes.
OK, let me explain this to you in normal everyday terms.
You are the father or mother of little Jimmy.
Jimmy has been a problem child ever since he went into school.
You get a report from Jimmy's teacher and she says;
"Little Jimmy showed some improvement today. He beat up LESS kids than he did last week. THis is an improving trend! Additionally, you know that D- he received on his test last week? Well, I made a grading error and it's actually just a regular D!"
You then reward Jimmy with ice cream for not beating up as many kids and getting a slightly better grade than previously thought.
It's the same thing here;
"We're not cutting as many jobs"
AND
"Instead of a sclerotic growth rate of 1.6%, we are now BOOMING with a revised growth rate of 1.7%."
And what's the Dow Jones doing? Up 50 points so far.
If I recall correctly, after Bush cut taxes back during his first term to fight off the then-Dotcom recession, GDP boomed at 6% one quarter and there was something like 300,000 jobs created.
But, oh, that's right. Those jobs don't count. Because it's Bush!
You are free to continue enjoying the decline!
OK, let me explain this to you in normal everyday terms.
You are the father or mother of little Jimmy.
Jimmy has been a problem child ever since he went into school.
You get a report from Jimmy's teacher and she says;
"Little Jimmy showed some improvement today. He beat up LESS kids than he did last week. THis is an improving trend! Additionally, you know that D- he received on his test last week? Well, I made a grading error and it's actually just a regular D!"
You then reward Jimmy with ice cream for not beating up as many kids and getting a slightly better grade than previously thought.
It's the same thing here;
"We're not cutting as many jobs"
AND
"Instead of a sclerotic growth rate of 1.6%, we are now BOOMING with a revised growth rate of 1.7%."
And what's the Dow Jones doing? Up 50 points so far.
If I recall correctly, after Bush cut taxes back during his first term to fight off the then-Dotcom recession, GDP boomed at 6% one quarter and there was something like 300,000 jobs created.
But, oh, that's right. Those jobs don't count. Because it's Bush!
You are free to continue enjoying the decline!
Don't Give Me This "Tax Credit" BS
Let me explain here and now the condescending and insulting nature of "tax credits" and why you should be insulted by the term.
Originally, those evil white males of 1770's yore, set out to make a rare and original society wherein the people governed themselves. Those evil bastards, how dare they.
This meant those in the government were not the ones in charge, but rather it was the people who voted them in to take care of various public service affairs so that the rest of society may go on and pursue life, liberty and happiness.
But if one were to really take themselves out of the political mire and muck and look at the US today, you would see not a government serving the people and letting them go about their own affairs, but a very intrusive government that "ordains" or "blesses" or "determines" who should do what and why and when and where and how.
But what is most insulting of all of these and really angers me is this condescending tone democrats have about "giving business tax CREDITS to set up shop here and there."
The reason it angers me so is that it shows you the reality of the situation. It is no longer the people or the private sector that is determining their own destinies. It is the government that "grants" you the privilege, nay, the "honor" of having a little bit of extra bread by "charitably" granting you a "credit." Originally, it was the government that we "credited" by paying taxes into the coffers to manage the public administration affairs. And when it came to conducting business or private affairs, the government was to largely butt out and get back to building roads and defending us against foreign invaders. But no, now it is US that is at the behest of the "almighty government" to the point we actually accept "credits" as a little doggy treat for behaving "correctly."
Understand, the whole idea of a "credit" implies, by default that the government is the authority and you are the peasant. That the government is the one in charge, with the wisdom and will determine if you've been a good boy or a bad boy and will reward you with "credits" and "breaks" and "incentives."
Did you hire minorities?
Good wittle boy. You get a scooby snack tax credit!
Did you buy a new green, efficient furnace?
Oooo! Whoz da wittle American? Whoz da wittle American? Yez zats you. Yez zats you! You get a wittle tax cwedit!"
Did you recycle?
Awww! Da wittle, WITTLE Amerwican. Look at da cuuuuute wittle American. Yes youz a good recycler aren't you? Herez a wittle tax credit.
Just recently such a vomit-inducing incident occurred when both democrats AND republicans in Minnesota tried vainly to bribe Ford into not shutting down it's St. Paul Ranger plant.
"Oooo! Gee Whillikers Mr. Pawlenty and Socialist Minnesota State Legislature! You'll grant us dumb corporate car-manufacturing yokels a tax "break?" Why gee whillikers massa, that sure is gracious of you."
Thankfully Ford (as it did with the bailout money) passed and maintained some level of dignity and morality.
Regardless, the larger point I'm trying to make is that (like many of my points) NOBODY ELSE IS MAKING IT!
Good Christ, people? When the hell did we let the government get so powerful and big that it could take the tone of "granting" us a charity such as a "tax credit?" Since when did we take the position of "beggar" and be honored to have ANYTHING "credited" to us? Since when did the government become the sole authority and judge as to what is good or bad and could reward it with "credits" which is simply the opposite side of the coin of taxing it to punish it?
Of course I know the answer. Several generations have failed to install the idea of individualism in their offspring and the success of the US has spoiled most people to become complacent about important issues like (oh I don't know) FREEDOM AND INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY, to the point we forfeit it up to charlatans and soothe sayers.
But, then my ole blood pressure gets up. I realize the US is not 300 million Cappy Caps running around. It's more like 1 million Cappy Caps and 299 million "American Idol" watchers. And then I realize you can't change it. Just work less and not slave yourself away to pay taxes so other people can live off of you. Besides, if you work so little, you might just get rewarded with a "tax credit."
Originally, those evil white males of 1770's yore, set out to make a rare and original society wherein the people governed themselves. Those evil bastards, how dare they.
This meant those in the government were not the ones in charge, but rather it was the people who voted them in to take care of various public service affairs so that the rest of society may go on and pursue life, liberty and happiness.
But if one were to really take themselves out of the political mire and muck and look at the US today, you would see not a government serving the people and letting them go about their own affairs, but a very intrusive government that "ordains" or "blesses" or "determines" who should do what and why and when and where and how.
But what is most insulting of all of these and really angers me is this condescending tone democrats have about "giving business tax CREDITS to set up shop here and there."
The reason it angers me so is that it shows you the reality of the situation. It is no longer the people or the private sector that is determining their own destinies. It is the government that "grants" you the privilege, nay, the "honor" of having a little bit of extra bread by "charitably" granting you a "credit." Originally, it was the government that we "credited" by paying taxes into the coffers to manage the public administration affairs. And when it came to conducting business or private affairs, the government was to largely butt out and get back to building roads and defending us against foreign invaders. But no, now it is US that is at the behest of the "almighty government" to the point we actually accept "credits" as a little doggy treat for behaving "correctly."
Understand, the whole idea of a "credit" implies, by default that the government is the authority and you are the peasant. That the government is the one in charge, with the wisdom and will determine if you've been a good boy or a bad boy and will reward you with "credits" and "breaks" and "incentives."
Did you hire minorities?
Good wittle boy. You get a scooby snack tax credit!
Did you buy a new green, efficient furnace?
Oooo! Whoz da wittle American? Whoz da wittle American? Yez zats you. Yez zats you! You get a wittle tax cwedit!"
Did you recycle?
Awww! Da wittle, WITTLE Amerwican. Look at da cuuuuute wittle American. Yes youz a good recycler aren't you? Herez a wittle tax credit.
Just recently such a vomit-inducing incident occurred when both democrats AND republicans in Minnesota tried vainly to bribe Ford into not shutting down it's St. Paul Ranger plant.
"Oooo! Gee Whillikers Mr. Pawlenty and Socialist Minnesota State Legislature! You'll grant us dumb corporate car-manufacturing yokels a tax "break?" Why gee whillikers massa, that sure is gracious of you."
Thankfully Ford (as it did with the bailout money) passed and maintained some level of dignity and morality.
Regardless, the larger point I'm trying to make is that (like many of my points) NOBODY ELSE IS MAKING IT!
Good Christ, people? When the hell did we let the government get so powerful and big that it could take the tone of "granting" us a charity such as a "tax credit?" Since when did we take the position of "beggar" and be honored to have ANYTHING "credited" to us? Since when did the government become the sole authority and judge as to what is good or bad and could reward it with "credits" which is simply the opposite side of the coin of taxing it to punish it?
Of course I know the answer. Several generations have failed to install the idea of individualism in their offspring and the success of the US has spoiled most people to become complacent about important issues like (oh I don't know) FREEDOM AND INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY, to the point we forfeit it up to charlatans and soothe sayers.
But, then my ole blood pressure gets up. I realize the US is not 300 million Cappy Caps running around. It's more like 1 million Cappy Caps and 299 million "American Idol" watchers. And then I realize you can't change it. Just work less and not slave yourself away to pay taxes so other people can live off of you. Besides, if you work so little, you might just get rewarded with a "tax credit."
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
I No Longer Care About GPA's
I graduated 5th in my class at the U of MN - Carlson School of Management.
Two A-'s, the rest were A's.
The students ranked 1-4 were all bought and paid for by their parents and took a year longer than me to graduate. I also worked full time.
I will never do that again and let that be a lesson to you kids out there - GPA's don't matter.
It is an issue of marginal benefit. Without trying your Captain is getting solid B's, low A's in his classes in computer networking. To eek out all A's I would have to nearly double my study time and life is frankly too short (actually it was the observation your Captain had that he got a B+ on his latest test and it didn't bother him, whereas 13 years ago it would have enraged me that prompted this post).
Since many of you are in college and in your youth, I suggest drinking more and partying more and studying less. The straight A's ain't worth it. Go do fun stuff, maintain a B average, and enjoy your life. Study, but take an intermittent break to chase girls or something (they won't let you catch them, but it's a fun game to play anyway). Besides, it ain't like there are any jobs out there for you anyway, and by now nepotism and cronyism has so corrupted the labor market, if you don't know anybody, then forget it. Life's too short.
Two A-'s, the rest were A's.
The students ranked 1-4 were all bought and paid for by their parents and took a year longer than me to graduate. I also worked full time.
I will never do that again and let that be a lesson to you kids out there - GPA's don't matter.
It is an issue of marginal benefit. Without trying your Captain is getting solid B's, low A's in his classes in computer networking. To eek out all A's I would have to nearly double my study time and life is frankly too short (actually it was the observation your Captain had that he got a B+ on his latest test and it didn't bother him, whereas 13 years ago it would have enraged me that prompted this post).
Since many of you are in college and in your youth, I suggest drinking more and partying more and studying less. The straight A's ain't worth it. Go do fun stuff, maintain a B average, and enjoy your life. Study, but take an intermittent break to chase girls or something (they won't let you catch them, but it's a fun game to play anyway). Besides, it ain't like there are any jobs out there for you anyway, and by now nepotism and cronyism has so corrupted the labor market, if you don't know anybody, then forget it. Life's too short.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Sunday, September 26, 2010
What Did I Tell You About Credit Unions?
Only $50 billion, huh?
I swear I should be called the "Trillion Dollar Kid."
Because if anybody had listened to me, none of this would have happened.
I swear I should be called the "Trillion Dollar Kid."
Because if anybody had listened to me, none of this would have happened.
Saturday, September 25, 2010
The Matt McNeil Show
I tune into 950 AM because it is the local affiliate remnants of the "Air America" thing.
The reason I tune in is because after a while of listening to Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage, you can almost finish their sentences for them. Whereas I'm finding it a very addictive and forbidden habit to tune into liberal talk radio. Not for anything insightful that they might say, but because I have this morbid curiosity to see their rationalization and logic (or lack thereof).
Of course, this results in an odd listening pattern.
I listen.
they try to make a point.
it's either factually wrong, the premises they're using are flawed, it's intellectually dishonest or it's just outlandish.
This then rises my blood-pressure up to a level where I have to turn it off because there's no point.
I tune back into conservative talk
Realize they're just now discovering things and making observations I made years ago
I switch back to liberal talk radio for more
repeat.
Inevitably, it boils down to boredom, I want to listen to something new, but I can only listen to stuff I know is factually wrong and "stage-one" thinking for so long.
For example Mike Malloy. He's purely angry. Just a nazi. He has no problems calling for the execution of Republicans. Everything is Bush's fault. And it's all explained in a complex conspiracy theory you just don't have the brains to understand, because, well, you didn't have a trust fund to finance a liberal arts degree in philosophy.
Ed Schulz is even worse. Mike Malloy will actually get a rise out of you. There's at least some entertainment in that. But Ed Schulz. Cripes. Nothing but repeating the same damn thing over and over again. His refrain?
"The little guy?"
Who's keeping him down?
"The man."
The man is who?
"Corporations."
Solution
"Governmetn legislation for the little guy."
Not on iota of economic though about maybe going beyond the "rich get richer, poor get poorer" and (oh heck, I don't know) LOOKING FREAKING STUFF UP BEFORE YOU FORM AN OPINION?
What's worse is his callers. GOOD LORD. Think of the people who are actually intellectual stimulated by his one-trick-pony droning to the point of calling in. And guess what they say,
"Yeah, you know, it's the corporations holding down the little guy. When does the average working Joe get a fair shake in this country?"
Stephanie Miller. Eh. More like a morning comedy show where it would be quite entertaining if the premises they were operating by we actually true. For example;
Stephanie Miller - "Well, Sarah Palin's at it again."
Moron Producer Guy #1 - "What, she thinks she can still see Russia from her house?"
All - Laughter
Stephanie Miller - "No, she's out there again, pushing for those nazi tea partiers."
Moron Producer Guy #2 - "Heh, those tea partiers. They'll follow anyone to protest anything. They must be a bunch of bored trophy wives!"
All - Laughter
It's more or less the same thing and it isn't a surprise Air America went down, but it still provides for a REALLY interesting (and scary) insight into the psychology or just the sheer lack of knowledge and information these people have.
However, there is one show. Don't know if it's new, but I was tuning in, and I liked it. Still disagreed, but I liked it because the host was above all things, honest. Matt McNeil is a local guy, and the reason I say he's honest is because it isn't a platform for a burnt out baby boomer hippie to relive the 60's like Mike Malloy.
It isn't a funny laugh show where you mock people of the other political team and make intellectually dishonest comparisons and pass that on as a Dennis Prager-level piece of thoughtful radio like Stephanie Miller.
And is isn't just a boring, droning mouth piece for the unions or CNN miserably failing to become the left's Rush Limbaugh, as Ed Schulz.
It's this guy, out here in Minnesota, who genuinely cares about the country who happens to be liberal. His logic makes sense. His moral compass I would say is sound (for example he genuinely cares about kids getting a good education) and you could have an adult conversation with him, whereas with a Mike Malloy you no doubt would be called a nazi and be a member of a conspiracy to bring down the average man.
There's just one problem.
Like most honorable, well-intentioned liberals, he just isn't informed.
I called into the show because I've been trying to ask various liberals (talk show hosts primarily, but any liberal that would answer my question) various questions as to the specifics of what they would like to achieve or bring about in the US. The particular topic he was on was education. I thought it would not be too much of a tangent to get his opinion on how much would be enough to satisfy the left's ideal education system.
His answer was, "I don't know specifically how much in terms of money, but I would like it that my kid would have paper and pencils. That we could have programs like music and art." He went onto list some other things, but that's precisely it.
He listed things as a proxy or substitute for actual dollar amounts.
As I don't have children, I'm not concerned with "things." I'm concerned with the bottom line of my property tax bill wherein I subsidize (quite charitably I might add) the education of other people's children. And here was the gap.
I know how much is spent on the schools. I've looked up per pupil spending, put it terms of gross state product, looked at the budget. I know the factual, specific data that tells us how much we spend.
He was more concerned about the outcome of all that spending. ie-the quality of the spending. And that is how he measures whether or not we spend "enough."
The problem is that spending does not correlate with performance when it comes to education. How do I know this? Because I (again) looked it up and ran a correlation between spending per pupil and standardized test scores.
Sadly what Matt doesn't realize is that he still has to spend money and pay property taxes too. And simply getting more money won't solve the problem. It's an issue of efficiency. Elk River has 6 football coaches for ONE high school. I question whether a schools need a brand new, fully equipped theater or if it could maybe just get by with using the gym as a theater as well. We could go on and cite various examples of spending in the schools that isn't efficient, but you get my point.
This issue here I'm trying to make isn't one of public school finances and efficiency. It's the point that the only difference between Matt (a liberal talk show host) and myself (an evil, right wing hate monger that eats kittens for breakfast) is one of knowledge. Knowing something rather than feeling or theorizing (no matter how logical) about something results in the correct answer because it is known. It is based in fact. And if you're going to look at government policy, at whatever level, the only way it will be effective and of a benefit to the people is if it is also based in fact, not feelings or dreams or hope or change or nice wordy words coming from a politician's mouth.
The reason I tune in is because after a while of listening to Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage, you can almost finish their sentences for them. Whereas I'm finding it a very addictive and forbidden habit to tune into liberal talk radio. Not for anything insightful that they might say, but because I have this morbid curiosity to see their rationalization and logic (or lack thereof).
Of course, this results in an odd listening pattern.
I listen.
they try to make a point.
it's either factually wrong, the premises they're using are flawed, it's intellectually dishonest or it's just outlandish.
This then rises my blood-pressure up to a level where I have to turn it off because there's no point.
I tune back into conservative talk
Realize they're just now discovering things and making observations I made years ago
I switch back to liberal talk radio for more
repeat.
Inevitably, it boils down to boredom, I want to listen to something new, but I can only listen to stuff I know is factually wrong and "stage-one" thinking for so long.
For example Mike Malloy. He's purely angry. Just a nazi. He has no problems calling for the execution of Republicans. Everything is Bush's fault. And it's all explained in a complex conspiracy theory you just don't have the brains to understand, because, well, you didn't have a trust fund to finance a liberal arts degree in philosophy.
Ed Schulz is even worse. Mike Malloy will actually get a rise out of you. There's at least some entertainment in that. But Ed Schulz. Cripes. Nothing but repeating the same damn thing over and over again. His refrain?
"The little guy?"
Who's keeping him down?
"The man."
The man is who?
"Corporations."
Solution
"Governmetn legislation for the little guy."
Not on iota of economic though about maybe going beyond the "rich get richer, poor get poorer" and (oh heck, I don't know) LOOKING FREAKING STUFF UP BEFORE YOU FORM AN OPINION?
What's worse is his callers. GOOD LORD. Think of the people who are actually intellectual stimulated by his one-trick-pony droning to the point of calling in. And guess what they say,
"Yeah, you know, it's the corporations holding down the little guy. When does the average working Joe get a fair shake in this country?"
Stephanie Miller. Eh. More like a morning comedy show where it would be quite entertaining if the premises they were operating by we actually true. For example;
Stephanie Miller - "Well, Sarah Palin's at it again."
Moron Producer Guy #1 - "What, she thinks she can still see Russia from her house?"
All - Laughter
Stephanie Miller - "No, she's out there again, pushing for those nazi tea partiers."
Moron Producer Guy #2 - "Heh, those tea partiers. They'll follow anyone to protest anything. They must be a bunch of bored trophy wives!"
All - Laughter
It's more or less the same thing and it isn't a surprise Air America went down, but it still provides for a REALLY interesting (and scary) insight into the psychology or just the sheer lack of knowledge and information these people have.
However, there is one show. Don't know if it's new, but I was tuning in, and I liked it. Still disagreed, but I liked it because the host was above all things, honest. Matt McNeil is a local guy, and the reason I say he's honest is because it isn't a platform for a burnt out baby boomer hippie to relive the 60's like Mike Malloy.
It isn't a funny laugh show where you mock people of the other political team and make intellectually dishonest comparisons and pass that on as a Dennis Prager-level piece of thoughtful radio like Stephanie Miller.
And is isn't just a boring, droning mouth piece for the unions or CNN miserably failing to become the left's Rush Limbaugh, as Ed Schulz.
It's this guy, out here in Minnesota, who genuinely cares about the country who happens to be liberal. His logic makes sense. His moral compass I would say is sound (for example he genuinely cares about kids getting a good education) and you could have an adult conversation with him, whereas with a Mike Malloy you no doubt would be called a nazi and be a member of a conspiracy to bring down the average man.
There's just one problem.
Like most honorable, well-intentioned liberals, he just isn't informed.
I called into the show because I've been trying to ask various liberals (talk show hosts primarily, but any liberal that would answer my question) various questions as to the specifics of what they would like to achieve or bring about in the US. The particular topic he was on was education. I thought it would not be too much of a tangent to get his opinion on how much would be enough to satisfy the left's ideal education system.
His answer was, "I don't know specifically how much in terms of money, but I would like it that my kid would have paper and pencils. That we could have programs like music and art." He went onto list some other things, but that's precisely it.
He listed things as a proxy or substitute for actual dollar amounts.
As I don't have children, I'm not concerned with "things." I'm concerned with the bottom line of my property tax bill wherein I subsidize (quite charitably I might add) the education of other people's children. And here was the gap.
I know how much is spent on the schools. I've looked up per pupil spending, put it terms of gross state product, looked at the budget. I know the factual, specific data that tells us how much we spend.
He was more concerned about the outcome of all that spending. ie-the quality of the spending. And that is how he measures whether or not we spend "enough."
The problem is that spending does not correlate with performance when it comes to education. How do I know this? Because I (again) looked it up and ran a correlation between spending per pupil and standardized test scores.
Sadly what Matt doesn't realize is that he still has to spend money and pay property taxes too. And simply getting more money won't solve the problem. It's an issue of efficiency. Elk River has 6 football coaches for ONE high school. I question whether a schools need a brand new, fully equipped theater or if it could maybe just get by with using the gym as a theater as well. We could go on and cite various examples of spending in the schools that isn't efficient, but you get my point.
This issue here I'm trying to make isn't one of public school finances and efficiency. It's the point that the only difference between Matt (a liberal talk show host) and myself (an evil, right wing hate monger that eats kittens for breakfast) is one of knowledge. Knowing something rather than feeling or theorizing (no matter how logical) about something results in the correct answer because it is known. It is based in fact. And if you're going to look at government policy, at whatever level, the only way it will be effective and of a benefit to the people is if it is also based in fact, not feelings or dreams or hope or change or nice wordy words coming from a politician's mouth.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Do You See What I See?
OK, the guy on the top is from Fox.
The guys on the bottom are from CNN and NBC.
WHAT DO YOU NOTICE ABOUT THEM?
It is an observation I have made for many years and it is an INCREDIBLY politically incorrect observation, but (as most politically incorrect things are) it's 100% true.
Do you see what I see?
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Chicks Dig Guns
I was dating a girl a while ago. Typical late 20 something girl who towed the liberal line and said all the right things and thought the right way. She came into my house for the first time and saw my pistol which I keep on my desk next to my computer. I was in the kitchen when she said in a shocked voice,
"Is this your gun!?"
"Yep." I said.
"Is it real?"
"Yep." I said.
"Well why do you have it?"
"In case I need to shoot the bad guys."
"Well, I'm not comfortable with guns."
"Then don't pick it up. Besides which you don't have to worry about anything. You're not one of the bad guys."
"Well I just don't understand why you would need a gun though."
"As I said before, it's in case I need to shoot the bad guys."
"Well what kind of bad guys are here? I mean have you ever had to use it?"
"Almost once, but otherwise no, thankfully."
The conversation continued on and it was typically typical of somebody who's never thought about guns and just regurgitates the line they're fed vs. somebody who likes to ensure his life and freedom is guaranteed by a little more than some piece of paper located in Washington, D.C. The typical naivete of a person who never suffered strife and was not capable of realizing the merits of owning a gun for protective purposes AND had also never studied history, arguing against somebody who had the slightest bit of common sense and was fully aware of history.
I had finished pouring myself a martini when I walked back into my office and saw her holding the gun. She was holding it in extreme fear, but obviously curiosity had gotten the better of her.
I extended my hand, signaling her to give it to me. Like carrying a bubonic-plague-infested dead mouse by its tail, she handed it over. I dropped the magazine out of the handle, doubled checked to make sure the chamber was empty, flipped it around in palm of my hand so the handle was facing her saying, "Here, knock yourself out. It can't hurt you now."
"It won't go off?"
I shook the magazine in my hand as I turned my attention back to my martini, "Not without this."
And in what had to be no more than 30 seconds, she said, "this is pretty cool! I should get a gun!"
I was rolling my eyes over as I was sipping my martini.
First let me state that chicks like guns.
I don't care who they are. What they tell you. What they say they think they say they believe they think they say.
Chicks
like
guns.
You put one in their hand, get them used to it, and even if they're a peacenik they all of the sudden are no longer irrationally afraid of this piece of metal. And not only are they no longer afraid, they want to try and shoot one. Makes for a great date, or just a good time with friends of the female persuasion, or anybody of any persuasion. I have never known anybody NOT to like firing guns.
Second, it shows you just how shallow some people's political and ideological beliefs are. It would be like going to an atheist, who after 5 minutes of arguing with you about how Christianity is stupid, all of the sudden after holding a bible for 30 seconds wants to go to church. Of course, guns are way more fun than bibles, but you get my point.
Finally, she couldn't help but look in the mirror because of how the gun looked. Do not be confused. A man with a gun is more attractive than a man with out one. Just look at any action flick movie poster and sure enough the hero is carrying a gun. Doesn't have to be a huge M-60 Rambo gun, but James Bond with his little pea-shooter is enough. Why do they put it there? Because Hollywood marketers know a guy with a gun who has to go hunt down the bad guy/s is more attractive than a peacenik who tries to go and talk to the bad guys into hopefully seeing his side of the situation and resolving the conflict peacefully with a little help from the UN and Jimmy Carter.
Therefore Cappy Capites of both the male and female persuasion, IF YOU DON'T HAVE KIDS and DON'T HAVE KIDS WALKING INTO YOUR HOUSE ON A REGULAR BASIS, may I suggest leaving a semi-automatic pistol in a very Peter Gunn sort of way hanging about your abode?
I know gun safety nuts will go into hyperdrive and say, "how dare you leave a loaded gun in your house laying around for untrained people to accidentally grab, pull back the hammer and then accidentally pull the trigger!"
Set that legitimate criticism aside. I'm making a point aside that.
A pistol, laying on your desk or on in the holster hung up on the door is akin to leaving something unique about you that women do indeed notice and will probably find attractive. For example, a nice pair of jeans hanging over the chair (ex-girlfriend told me about that one). A tie hanging on the doorknob. A martini glass on the coffee table. A motorcycle jacket over the chair. A Ty Wilson painting on the wall. A friend of mine even suggested an issue of Playboy laying about (which suggests a bit of bravado and confidence on your part, on account you are not worried about being perceived as a perve). A gun achieves the same, but because of its lefty-MSM-induced "forbidden nature" it's even more so. You are a bad boy. You have a gun. Something that can take a man's life away (or if you're good enough, multiple people).
Combine these bad boy aspects society places on guns with the natural, biological, darwinian implications of gun ownership and you are showing the girl that you take survival, protection and providership seriously. No man (or woman) is going to hurt you or your family. You are not messing around. By leaving that piece of metal on your desk you are not only a bad boy, but a bad boy that will fight. And it is this, no matter what they might say otherwise, is ultimately sexy.
Yes, slightly dangerous, but oh, wait, dangerous is also sexy too.
So to re"Cap" (har har har!)
Gun = bad boy + defender/protector + dangerous + forbidden = Sexy.
Am I wrong here? The formula missing something?
"Is this your gun!?"
"Yep." I said.
"Is it real?"
"Yep." I said.
"Well why do you have it?"
"In case I need to shoot the bad guys."
"Well, I'm not comfortable with guns."
"Then don't pick it up. Besides which you don't have to worry about anything. You're not one of the bad guys."
"Well I just don't understand why you would need a gun though."
"As I said before, it's in case I need to shoot the bad guys."
"Well what kind of bad guys are here? I mean have you ever had to use it?"
"Almost once, but otherwise no, thankfully."
The conversation continued on and it was typically typical of somebody who's never thought about guns and just regurgitates the line they're fed vs. somebody who likes to ensure his life and freedom is guaranteed by a little more than some piece of paper located in Washington, D.C. The typical naivete of a person who never suffered strife and was not capable of realizing the merits of owning a gun for protective purposes AND had also never studied history, arguing against somebody who had the slightest bit of common sense and was fully aware of history.
I had finished pouring myself a martini when I walked back into my office and saw her holding the gun. She was holding it in extreme fear, but obviously curiosity had gotten the better of her.
I extended my hand, signaling her to give it to me. Like carrying a bubonic-plague-infested dead mouse by its tail, she handed it over. I dropped the magazine out of the handle, doubled checked to make sure the chamber was empty, flipped it around in palm of my hand so the handle was facing her saying, "Here, knock yourself out. It can't hurt you now."
"It won't go off?"
I shook the magazine in my hand as I turned my attention back to my martini, "Not without this."
And in what had to be no more than 30 seconds, she said, "this is pretty cool! I should get a gun!"
I was rolling my eyes over as I was sipping my martini.
First let me state that chicks like guns.
I don't care who they are. What they tell you. What they say they think they say they believe they think they say.
Chicks
like
guns.
You put one in their hand, get them used to it, and even if they're a peacenik they all of the sudden are no longer irrationally afraid of this piece of metal. And not only are they no longer afraid, they want to try and shoot one. Makes for a great date, or just a good time with friends of the female persuasion, or anybody of any persuasion. I have never known anybody NOT to like firing guns.
Second, it shows you just how shallow some people's political and ideological beliefs are. It would be like going to an atheist, who after 5 minutes of arguing with you about how Christianity is stupid, all of the sudden after holding a bible for 30 seconds wants to go to church. Of course, guns are way more fun than bibles, but you get my point.
Finally, she couldn't help but look in the mirror because of how the gun looked. Do not be confused. A man with a gun is more attractive than a man with out one. Just look at any action flick movie poster and sure enough the hero is carrying a gun. Doesn't have to be a huge M-60 Rambo gun, but James Bond with his little pea-shooter is enough. Why do they put it there? Because Hollywood marketers know a guy with a gun who has to go hunt down the bad guy/s is more attractive than a peacenik who tries to go and talk to the bad guys into hopefully seeing his side of the situation and resolving the conflict peacefully with a little help from the UN and Jimmy Carter.
Therefore Cappy Capites of both the male and female persuasion, IF YOU DON'T HAVE KIDS and DON'T HAVE KIDS WALKING INTO YOUR HOUSE ON A REGULAR BASIS, may I suggest leaving a semi-automatic pistol in a very Peter Gunn sort of way hanging about your abode?
I know gun safety nuts will go into hyperdrive and say, "how dare you leave a loaded gun in your house laying around for untrained people to accidentally grab, pull back the hammer and then accidentally pull the trigger!"
Set that legitimate criticism aside. I'm making a point aside that.
A pistol, laying on your desk or on in the holster hung up on the door is akin to leaving something unique about you that women do indeed notice and will probably find attractive. For example, a nice pair of jeans hanging over the chair (ex-girlfriend told me about that one). A tie hanging on the doorknob. A martini glass on the coffee table. A motorcycle jacket over the chair. A Ty Wilson painting on the wall. A friend of mine even suggested an issue of Playboy laying about (which suggests a bit of bravado and confidence on your part, on account you are not worried about being perceived as a perve). A gun achieves the same, but because of its lefty-MSM-induced "forbidden nature" it's even more so. You are a bad boy. You have a gun. Something that can take a man's life away (or if you're good enough, multiple people).
Combine these bad boy aspects society places on guns with the natural, biological, darwinian implications of gun ownership and you are showing the girl that you take survival, protection and providership seriously. No man (or woman) is going to hurt you or your family. You are not messing around. By leaving that piece of metal on your desk you are not only a bad boy, but a bad boy that will fight. And it is this, no matter what they might say otherwise, is ultimately sexy.
Yes, slightly dangerous, but oh, wait, dangerous is also sexy too.
So to re"Cap" (har har har!)
Gun = bad boy + defender/protector + dangerous + forbidden = Sexy.
Am I wrong here? The formula missing something?
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Saturday, September 18, 2010
New "Sparkly" Currency to Jump Start the Economy
Only a moron, with absolutely NO CONCEPT OF ECONOMICS would think issuing a new currency because it is flashy would "jumpstart the economy."
And is it any surprise the currency design they highlight has the two presidents who utterly FAILED to "jump start the economy?"
C
R
I
P
E
S
And is it any surprise the currency design they highlight has the two presidents who utterly FAILED to "jump start the economy?"
C
R
I
P
E
S
Friday, September 17, 2010
Fools
I swear, these econometricians are brainwashed to never see the forest from the trees which only makes Black Swans a common species.
Ever consider the dire and daunting entitlement program problems the country has? That ever factor into your little freaking economics model?
Honest to god, I just need about 1 billion of me cloned and I could take care of the rest.
Ever consider the dire and daunting entitlement program problems the country has? That ever factor into your little freaking economics model?
Honest to god, I just need about 1 billion of me cloned and I could take care of the rest.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Pulling an Ireland
I must type quickly for the Rupmleminze has entered my mouth and has about 10 minutes before it enters the blood stream and therefore turns my mind into that of a normally observant economist and not the brilliant (and charming) economist I am whilst sober.
I was listening to talk radio and the whole commotion today is about whether or not to let the Bush tax cuts expire.
Which is like arguing about whether or not we should re-arrange the deck chairs on the Titanic because it's so cute and so short-falling of what it utterly needed to get this economy out of recession.
What is needed to get this economy out of a recession is something much more revolutionary, albeit much simpler - pulling an Ireland.
Now many people ask, "Captain, what is "pulling and Ireland?"
Well I shall tell you.
Ireland before it had its economic boom was not too unlike the United States today - a socialist nation, burdened by slow economic growth, huge deficits and debt, and no real hope or future to look forward to.
Then in the early 90's Ireland decided to do something revolutionary;
Cut government spending.
Cut taxes
And become a tax haven by lowering corporate taxes to 12%.
Over the 15 years Ireland's standard of living went from roughly 70% that of the European average to 120% (if I recall my figures correctly) and started to rival the US (and guess who's going to come out of the recession sooner!)
Now admittedly, IReland is suffering from an economic crisis more severe than the US, but that is more due to their idiotic bankers and banking system which made Lehman Brothers look conservative, but neither here nor there, Ireland's economic lot improved.
And the reason why Ireland was able to shrug off the economic malaise was because instead of looking to the government to solve the problems that ailed it, it left it up to the people to solve. It GREW ITSELF out of it's problems.
I remember the Reagan years where the deficit and debt were HUGE issues. A $200 billion deficit was HUGE. Well Pelosi and Obama propose new "stimulus measures" on that amount every other week. That $200 billion today looks like chump change.
The reason why is the economy BOOMED and grew itself out of its debt woes.
Now what's funny (and this is what makes me the genius economist that I am) is that the US doesn't have a choice....Well it' DOES have a choice, but if they want to get out of this recession, it only has one REAL choice.
Choice #1 - Continue the way Japan did since 1990 and wonder why we limp along at 1-2% RGDP growth.
CHoice #2 - Pull and Ireland, slash taxes, get the economy BOOMING to the point it not only dwarfs out current debt and deficit problems, but makes social security and medicare look like chump change.
In other words, implement policies that get the average income per capita of the nation up to $150,000 per year (which I believe is possible-laugh as you may) and we can afford all these cute little entitlements with spare change.
Now the myopic idiots BOTH in WAshington and on talk radio somehow think lowering taxes will increase the debt (and what I find utterly hypocritical is they act like pissing away money on the stimulus doesn't!), but forget the Laffer Curve, forget supply side economics, I'm going to explain to all you idiots in Washington in REAL simple terms that everybody can understand why lowering taxes is the way to go -
North Korea
Venezuela
Cuba
You see, let's break it down really simple and imagine taxes are a linear, single variable. If you increase taxes, tax revenues go up. If you lower them, tax revenues go down. So according to this simple linear philosophy, North Korea, CUba, Venezuela and any other communist country should have AMPLE government revenues to pay for all their little socialist services. Because their tax rates are effectively 100%. Right? So they should have TONS, AMPLE amounts of government revenue to afford their socialist services. Matter of fact, they should SHAME the US by the sheer amount of money they blow on services.
But what's funny is if you look at their budgets (if you can find them) they spend NOWHERE NEAR THE AMOUNT THE US DOES ON SOCIAL SERVICES.
Well, now, how can this be?
Well, the reason why is that no matter how you try to think otherwise and no matter what you tell people, in the end the government inevitably and invariably derives its revenue from production in the private sector. And if there is no production in the private sector (like say in Cuba, North Korea and Venezuela) there's nothing to tax and therefore no tax revenue.
Ergo, even though philosophically they are considered "caring socialist nations" in the end, they effectively spend a pittance on social programs compared to their (decaying and dying) capitalist counterparts simply because the money (or production) isn't there. ie-they fail in their socialist cause because they destroy the goose that lays the golden egg.
Now why this is so hard to understand, I don't know. The simple fact that the government by default is a parasitic organization that lives off the private sector (the host) means if you had wise government you would know that your gravy train, your blood, comes from a booming private sector. Ergo, implement policies to boost it.
Ireland inevitably figured it out.
Our forefathers certainly did.
And even those stubborn Russians abandoned their childish Marxist religion.
But no, you idiots in WAshington cannot appreciate the simplicity of pulling an Ireland. And the idiotic American public, with a severe and unforgivable level of ignorance elected arguably the most inept, childish, incompetent charlatan in the history of the US.
Of course, perhaps I hit it on the head. To you people who are so adamantly against lowering taxes and thinks the economy's salvation lies within the government, perhaps I give you too much credit. Perhaps deep down inside you know the government can't solve the problem but are inhibited by your zealous religion. Perhaps you know the world is round and the Earth is not the center of the solar system but you cannot abandon your religion. Perhaps you are no more of an intellectual than all those "southern, bible belt Christians." Because you don't care to bother looking up the "truth" as much as you care about being married to your equally worthless religion of leftism and socialism. Because I'm sorry, could you please explain to me how socialism materially differs from a religion? Last I recall, no empirical proof is cited by its followers, just like most religions. Perhaps i could have a bumper sticker that says, "Obama, Protect me from Your Followers?"
Regardless, enjoy the decline! Hallelujah Socialist Brothers and Sisters! Enjoy the decline!
I shall enjoy now a very secular and second Rumpleminze.
I was listening to talk radio and the whole commotion today is about whether or not to let the Bush tax cuts expire.
Which is like arguing about whether or not we should re-arrange the deck chairs on the Titanic because it's so cute and so short-falling of what it utterly needed to get this economy out of recession.
What is needed to get this economy out of a recession is something much more revolutionary, albeit much simpler - pulling an Ireland.
Now many people ask, "Captain, what is "pulling and Ireland?"
Well I shall tell you.
Ireland before it had its economic boom was not too unlike the United States today - a socialist nation, burdened by slow economic growth, huge deficits and debt, and no real hope or future to look forward to.
Then in the early 90's Ireland decided to do something revolutionary;
Cut government spending.
Cut taxes
And become a tax haven by lowering corporate taxes to 12%.
Over the 15 years Ireland's standard of living went from roughly 70% that of the European average to 120% (if I recall my figures correctly) and started to rival the US (and guess who's going to come out of the recession sooner!)
Now admittedly, IReland is suffering from an economic crisis more severe than the US, but that is more due to their idiotic bankers and banking system which made Lehman Brothers look conservative, but neither here nor there, Ireland's economic lot improved.
And the reason why Ireland was able to shrug off the economic malaise was because instead of looking to the government to solve the problems that ailed it, it left it up to the people to solve. It GREW ITSELF out of it's problems.
I remember the Reagan years where the deficit and debt were HUGE issues. A $200 billion deficit was HUGE. Well Pelosi and Obama propose new "stimulus measures" on that amount every other week. That $200 billion today looks like chump change.
The reason why is the economy BOOMED and grew itself out of its debt woes.
Now what's funny (and this is what makes me the genius economist that I am) is that the US doesn't have a choice....Well it' DOES have a choice, but if they want to get out of this recession, it only has one REAL choice.
Choice #1 - Continue the way Japan did since 1990 and wonder why we limp along at 1-2% RGDP growth.
CHoice #2 - Pull and Ireland, slash taxes, get the economy BOOMING to the point it not only dwarfs out current debt and deficit problems, but makes social security and medicare look like chump change.
In other words, implement policies that get the average income per capita of the nation up to $150,000 per year (which I believe is possible-laugh as you may) and we can afford all these cute little entitlements with spare change.
Now the myopic idiots BOTH in WAshington and on talk radio somehow think lowering taxes will increase the debt (and what I find utterly hypocritical is they act like pissing away money on the stimulus doesn't!), but forget the Laffer Curve, forget supply side economics, I'm going to explain to all you idiots in Washington in REAL simple terms that everybody can understand why lowering taxes is the way to go -
North Korea
Venezuela
Cuba
You see, let's break it down really simple and imagine taxes are a linear, single variable. If you increase taxes, tax revenues go up. If you lower them, tax revenues go down. So according to this simple linear philosophy, North Korea, CUba, Venezuela and any other communist country should have AMPLE government revenues to pay for all their little socialist services. Because their tax rates are effectively 100%. Right? So they should have TONS, AMPLE amounts of government revenue to afford their socialist services. Matter of fact, they should SHAME the US by the sheer amount of money they blow on services.
But what's funny is if you look at their budgets (if you can find them) they spend NOWHERE NEAR THE AMOUNT THE US DOES ON SOCIAL SERVICES.
Well, now, how can this be?
Well, the reason why is that no matter how you try to think otherwise and no matter what you tell people, in the end the government inevitably and invariably derives its revenue from production in the private sector. And if there is no production in the private sector (like say in Cuba, North Korea and Venezuela) there's nothing to tax and therefore no tax revenue.
Ergo, even though philosophically they are considered "caring socialist nations" in the end, they effectively spend a pittance on social programs compared to their (decaying and dying) capitalist counterparts simply because the money (or production) isn't there. ie-they fail in their socialist cause because they destroy the goose that lays the golden egg.
Now why this is so hard to understand, I don't know. The simple fact that the government by default is a parasitic organization that lives off the private sector (the host) means if you had wise government you would know that your gravy train, your blood, comes from a booming private sector. Ergo, implement policies to boost it.
Ireland inevitably figured it out.
Our forefathers certainly did.
And even those stubborn Russians abandoned their childish Marxist religion.
But no, you idiots in WAshington cannot appreciate the simplicity of pulling an Ireland. And the idiotic American public, with a severe and unforgivable level of ignorance elected arguably the most inept, childish, incompetent charlatan in the history of the US.
Of course, perhaps I hit it on the head. To you people who are so adamantly against lowering taxes and thinks the economy's salvation lies within the government, perhaps I give you too much credit. Perhaps deep down inside you know the government can't solve the problem but are inhibited by your zealous religion. Perhaps you know the world is round and the Earth is not the center of the solar system but you cannot abandon your religion. Perhaps you are no more of an intellectual than all those "southern, bible belt Christians." Because you don't care to bother looking up the "truth" as much as you care about being married to your equally worthless religion of leftism and socialism. Because I'm sorry, could you please explain to me how socialism materially differs from a religion? Last I recall, no empirical proof is cited by its followers, just like most religions. Perhaps i could have a bumper sticker that says, "Obama, Protect me from Your Followers?"
Regardless, enjoy the decline! Hallelujah Socialist Brothers and Sisters! Enjoy the decline!
I shall enjoy now a very secular and second Rumpleminze.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Attention Parochial School Principals!
Your Captain, as you know, went to parochial school.
"Parochial school" is a euphemism for Uber Nazi Concentration Kamp fur Kinderdass wir hassen und wollen ganz psychologisch zu zerstören"
Their goal is to force feed little innocent children religion and brainwash them so they never develop independent thinking skills as an adult, thereby guaranteeing future sources of revenue.
Thankfully I had a father who was a pastor, which drove me to the breaking point, and now I pretty much loathe all religion in all of its forms be it Christianity, Islam, Judaism or modern day, up and coming hip religions that the kids just love and swallow whole such as Global Warming, Feminism, Pacifism and their umbrella group, Socialism.
Regardless, I know a problem you principals and staff of parochial schools have is that the kids may actually be bored with the curriculum you are trying to them. I know!? How CAN'T they like a 1,300 page religious tome? And like how can the story of Exodus ever get boring when you tell it over and over and over
and over
and over
and over
and over.
I mean, you never know, the Jew's might not make it out of Egypt by the 19th freaking read of Exodus!
Regardless, I saw something that may make studying the Bible (or any religious doctrine) a bit more interesting. I know I would have paid attention more than I did if I had this.
"Parochial school" is a euphemism for Uber Nazi Concentration Kamp fur Kinderdass wir hassen und wollen ganz psychologisch zu zerstören"
Their goal is to force feed little innocent children religion and brainwash them so they never develop independent thinking skills as an adult, thereby guaranteeing future sources of revenue.
Thankfully I had a father who was a pastor, which drove me to the breaking point, and now I pretty much loathe all religion in all of its forms be it Christianity, Islam, Judaism or modern day, up and coming hip religions that the kids just love and swallow whole such as Global Warming, Feminism, Pacifism and their umbrella group, Socialism.
Regardless, I know a problem you principals and staff of parochial schools have is that the kids may actually be bored with the curriculum you are trying to them. I know!? How CAN'T they like a 1,300 page religious tome? And like how can the story of Exodus ever get boring when you tell it over and over and over
and over
and over
and over
and over.
I mean, you never know, the Jew's might not make it out of Egypt by the 19th freaking read of Exodus!
Regardless, I saw something that may make studying the Bible (or any religious doctrine) a bit more interesting. I know I would have paid attention more than I did if I had this.
When Buyers Flee the Market
In one of my more brilliant (and recent pieces - because of the awesome chart at the end) I a likened the courtship market of people in their 30's much like the housing market. It was a-BOOMIN' and buyers were desperate to buy a house, ANY HOUSE.
And all of the sudden - POOF!
No more buyers.
The buyers, exasperated from the horrors of trying to find a house, having to constantly battle against other buyers, looking at dumps that needed repair and needed tens of thousands of dollars worth of improvements, not to mention the pain of getting financing, just gave up. The houses just weren't worth it. Renting was better. And the goal of living in a McMansion was soon replaced with a much simpler life of renting and NEVER BUYING.
Now, the sellers are desperate. Most bankrupt. And nobody wants their McMansions any more as society and the economy more or less force frugality upon the buyers.
Seems this young lady (or perhaps not so young any more) is starting to notice it on the analogous "seller"side while us "buyers" saw it coming a long time ago.
Here is the ht to a slightly harsher interpretation of this poor woman's situation.
And all of the sudden - POOF!
No more buyers.
The buyers, exasperated from the horrors of trying to find a house, having to constantly battle against other buyers, looking at dumps that needed repair and needed tens of thousands of dollars worth of improvements, not to mention the pain of getting financing, just gave up. The houses just weren't worth it. Renting was better. And the goal of living in a McMansion was soon replaced with a much simpler life of renting and NEVER BUYING.
Now, the sellers are desperate. Most bankrupt. And nobody wants their McMansions any more as society and the economy more or less force frugality upon the buyers.
Seems this young lady (or perhaps not so young any more) is starting to notice it on the analogous "seller"side while us "buyers" saw it coming a long time ago.
Here is the ht to a slightly harsher interpretation of this poor woman's situation.
The Captain Returns to College
A day in the life of the Captain is basically this;
10AM - Wake Up and SSS
1030-1130 - Get my morning power drink, answer e-mails and answer any questions my students have in my online classes (all of you should take)
1130-1145 - Look at Drudge, curse, make a post for you guys.
1145-130PM - Run around Lake Calhouns and the Isles
130-430PM - House work, cutting wood, work out, eat
430-10PM - Leave for dance class early to avoid rush hour, teach and drive back home
10PM -Midnight - Meet with my crew, drink, dance, crash with the lovely Natasha
Midnight - 2AM - internet, watching Hogan's Heroes and Venture Brothers
Now, this is certainly not a bad life. But it leaves one wanting. It certainly is not hard teaching dance classes, and online classes are certainly great, but loafing around going Galt does not fill the soul of a true, productive American man. You feel empty. Ergo why your Captain started his two year degree in computer networking.
Now the merits of computer networking should be obvious;
1. In demand skill that will get you the highest income with the least amount of schooling.
2. No need to go 4 years (most of which would be pissed away on worthless liberal arts pre-req's) to learn a skill that is deployable in 2 years.
3. The finite nature of computer networking makes it much more immune to politics and moronic middle aged bankers. For example if you design the network correctly and it works, it works. There's nothing to complain about. Versus predicting a housing crash 2 years before it happens, trying to tell your baby boomer bosses to not make bad loans, even if you're right, you're still going to be berated, disciplined and yelled at because you got in the way of their big, fat commission check. There is no politics simply because of the nature of computers.
So the Captain goes to his first networking class and what do you suppose the breakdown of the students are?
The sole, lonely Captain and a score of bodacious, hot 20 something babes?
The Captain and an equal mix men and women of his age?
The Captain and a rainbow of diversity where the Captain was the only non-Catholic Irish, quarter-Jew with a smattering of German blood in him, representing the white man?
No, it was the Captain, a score of fat, pasty nerdy white guys between 30-50 and two lonely girls.
And it depressed me. Not because there weren't tons of totally hot and find babes in the class, but because once again the reason women make less than men, the reason for the wage gap was sitting there right in front of me. All the complaining, all the demands for justice, all the whining, and yet there was the proof that women, by and large, are not going to make the right choices to close that gap.
Of course, when I went to the bathroom and walked pasted (what I believe to be) a media arts class, what do you suppose the break down of that was?
Makes me wonder if people really are that stupid or just plain brainwashed.
10AM - Wake Up and SSS
1030-1130 - Get my morning power drink, answer e-mails and answer any questions my students have in my online classes (all of you should take)
1130-1145 - Look at Drudge, curse, make a post for you guys.
1145-130PM - Run around Lake Calhouns and the Isles
130-430PM - House work, cutting wood, work out, eat
430-10PM - Leave for dance class early to avoid rush hour, teach and drive back home
10PM -Midnight - Meet with my crew, drink, dance, crash with the lovely Natasha
Midnight - 2AM - internet, watching Hogan's Heroes and Venture Brothers
Now, this is certainly not a bad life. But it leaves one wanting. It certainly is not hard teaching dance classes, and online classes are certainly great, but loafing around going Galt does not fill the soul of a true, productive American man. You feel empty. Ergo why your Captain started his two year degree in computer networking.
Now the merits of computer networking should be obvious;
1. In demand skill that will get you the highest income with the least amount of schooling.
2. No need to go 4 years (most of which would be pissed away on worthless liberal arts pre-req's) to learn a skill that is deployable in 2 years.
3. The finite nature of computer networking makes it much more immune to politics and moronic middle aged bankers. For example if you design the network correctly and it works, it works. There's nothing to complain about. Versus predicting a housing crash 2 years before it happens, trying to tell your baby boomer bosses to not make bad loans, even if you're right, you're still going to be berated, disciplined and yelled at because you got in the way of their big, fat commission check. There is no politics simply because of the nature of computers.
So the Captain goes to his first networking class and what do you suppose the breakdown of the students are?
The sole, lonely Captain and a score of bodacious, hot 20 something babes?
The Captain and an equal mix men and women of his age?
The Captain and a rainbow of diversity where the Captain was the only non-Catholic Irish, quarter-Jew with a smattering of German blood in him, representing the white man?
No, it was the Captain, a score of fat, pasty nerdy white guys between 30-50 and two lonely girls.
And it depressed me. Not because there weren't tons of totally hot and find babes in the class, but because once again the reason women make less than men, the reason for the wage gap was sitting there right in front of me. All the complaining, all the demands for justice, all the whining, and yet there was the proof that women, by and large, are not going to make the right choices to close that gap.
Of course, when I went to the bathroom and walked pasted (what I believe to be) a media arts class, what do you suppose the break down of that was?
Makes me wonder if people really are that stupid or just plain brainwashed.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
The Solution to Global Warming
To let people work from home.
Oh, wait! NO!
THat would mean treating full grown adults, like....um...adults!
And corporate America, no matter how much better than public sector America, is still pretty effed up and obsessed with petty politics and control instead of genuine progress and profitability.
Ergo, let's nuke the globe and unnecessarily force millions of people to commute billions of hours per year in jammed highways so we can still wield control over them all the while claiming we're "going green" for marketing purposes to eek out that extra .0004% of "idiotic hippie loser brainwashed lefties who believe in global warming because it makes them feel good" in market share.
(PS- I looked into that "working from home thing" being a technological infeasibility given people's work habits and I found out it's a bunch of bull. You CAN set up a remote office and remote access pretty much anywhere on the freaking planet and be pretty secure, ergo, why in EF's NAME are we still commuting and forcing millions of people into cubicles?" - Oh, that's right, we're not American's any more. Anything that is possible is impossible because of political correctness, corporate BS politics and just a general crappy attitude amongst demoralized Americans)
Enjoy the decline!
Oh, wait! NO!
THat would mean treating full grown adults, like....um...adults!
And corporate America, no matter how much better than public sector America, is still pretty effed up and obsessed with petty politics and control instead of genuine progress and profitability.
Ergo, let's nuke the globe and unnecessarily force millions of people to commute billions of hours per year in jammed highways so we can still wield control over them all the while claiming we're "going green" for marketing purposes to eek out that extra .0004% of "idiotic hippie loser brainwashed lefties who believe in global warming because it makes them feel good" in market share.
(PS- I looked into that "working from home thing" being a technological infeasibility given people's work habits and I found out it's a bunch of bull. You CAN set up a remote office and remote access pretty much anywhere on the freaking planet and be pretty secure, ergo, why in EF's NAME are we still commuting and forcing millions of people into cubicles?" - Oh, that's right, we're not American's any more. Anything that is possible is impossible because of political correctness, corporate BS politics and just a general crappy attitude amongst demoralized Americans)
Enjoy the decline!
Ron Thomas is a moron
A 2 year TECH COLLEGE WITH A SPORTS PROGRAM. And you people wonder why your taxes are so high? It's because of worthless overpaid academian bureaucrats like this.
I can only imagine what his pension looks like.
I can only imagine what his pension looks like.
Of More Intellectual Fair
Is it "fare" or "fair?" I don't know.
Regardless, a more thoughtful piece about youngsters realizing they have to work.
Regardless, a more thoughtful piece about youngsters realizing they have to work.
Monday, September 13, 2010
A Farewell to a Pair of Boots
As you know the Captain is an avid hiker, ballroom dancer and runner. You also know he is in Minnesota where it behooves you to have a good pair of work boots pretty much year round. Ergo, you not only end up hiking in the work boots, but you dance in them (you get some strange looks from salsa dancers when you're the only one with steel toed boots on), wear them out regularly, and build up amazing large and toned calf muscles.
However, inevitably, the time comes where you outwork your work boots and it's time to get new ones. And that time for me was today.
The boots had worn out all of their tread. The rubber completely gone in certain areas and now were starting to corrode the actual boot itself. Not to mention Natasha was pointing out the sad state of disrepair my boots were in. This necessitated a trip to Fleet Farm which has Cap-taporrific boots and is where I go to get my boots.
However, I unexpectedly felt a little tug at the heart whereafter purchasing the new boots I immediately went to the trash can, started undoing the laces on the old boots that have served me so well, and started to remember the fine times and achievements I had with my old boots.
No less than 9 peaks.
Multiple hikes across the Badlands.
Scores of miles in the agate beds.
Thousands of miles of day to day walking and hundreds of miles of outdoor winter running.
And days worth of swing, salsa, and ballroom dancing, not to mention instruction as well.
And so it was with a little bittersweetness, I cast the old, trusty pair of boots, that had been on greater adventures than most other normal boots, into the garbage, whilst silently giving them a little internal salute for all their service.
Oh you laugh, but you know you would too.
However, inevitably, the time comes where you outwork your work boots and it's time to get new ones. And that time for me was today.
The boots had worn out all of their tread. The rubber completely gone in certain areas and now were starting to corrode the actual boot itself. Not to mention Natasha was pointing out the sad state of disrepair my boots were in. This necessitated a trip to Fleet Farm which has Cap-taporrific boots and is where I go to get my boots.
However, I unexpectedly felt a little tug at the heart whereafter purchasing the new boots I immediately went to the trash can, started undoing the laces on the old boots that have served me so well, and started to remember the fine times and achievements I had with my old boots.
No less than 9 peaks.
Multiple hikes across the Badlands.
Scores of miles in the agate beds.
Thousands of miles of day to day walking and hundreds of miles of outdoor winter running.
And days worth of swing, salsa, and ballroom dancing, not to mention instruction as well.
And so it was with a little bittersweetness, I cast the old, trusty pair of boots, that had been on greater adventures than most other normal boots, into the garbage, whilst silently giving them a little internal salute for all their service.
Oh you laugh, but you know you would too.
Yet Another Reason
To increase the voting age to 30;
What's sad is it's not a joke. This is really an ad.
What's sad is it's not a joke. This is really an ad.
Master's Degree in Community Organizing for Mexican Solidarity
Where do I start with this?
1. The idiocy of thinking this is some kind of career when it really, IT REALLY is just a masters degree in complaining and extorting money from people.
2. How they claim "neoliberal economics" (free market economics) has "failed" when if you look at the current financial crisis and future ones to come they are largely due to socialist entitlement programs that are unaffordable. But what is really juicy is how they seem to have NO PROBLEM charging very capitalistic prices for their program.
3. If you go to their photos what do you notice about the people? This is a tricky one, but there is a correlation.
4. How the people from the US that would take this course are not going to make one genuine lick of difference or improvement in the lives of Mexicans and are ultimately just using this as a hobby to make themselves feel better and avoid getting a real job.
Normally I would get my blood pressure up about this, but what's great is that programs like this and the people who attend them are so delusional when it comes to the real world and how economics and economies work that they will never, ever get the money from the "social justice" they're seeking simply because if they ever had their ideology realized, there would be no production and therefore no wealth to transfer. Because, what? They're going to produce I-pods and gasoline? The world's GDP under these morons would consist of drum circles, dwindling trust funds, and some home-grown pot (poorly grown I might add).
Enjoy the decline.
ht to CFACT
1. The idiocy of thinking this is some kind of career when it really, IT REALLY is just a masters degree in complaining and extorting money from people.
2. How they claim "neoliberal economics" (free market economics) has "failed" when if you look at the current financial crisis and future ones to come they are largely due to socialist entitlement programs that are unaffordable. But what is really juicy is how they seem to have NO PROBLEM charging very capitalistic prices for their program.
3. If you go to their photos what do you notice about the people? This is a tricky one, but there is a correlation.
4. How the people from the US that would take this course are not going to make one genuine lick of difference or improvement in the lives of Mexicans and are ultimately just using this as a hobby to make themselves feel better and avoid getting a real job.
Normally I would get my blood pressure up about this, but what's great is that programs like this and the people who attend them are so delusional when it comes to the real world and how economics and economies work that they will never, ever get the money from the "social justice" they're seeking simply because if they ever had their ideology realized, there would be no production and therefore no wealth to transfer. Because, what? They're going to produce I-pods and gasoline? The world's GDP under these morons would consist of drum circles, dwindling trust funds, and some home-grown pot (poorly grown I might add).
Enjoy the decline.
ht to CFACT
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Friday, September 10, 2010
Poetic Justice
Seems reality is starting to finally set in on children who major in a hobby, instead of an investment.
I give her a very Nelson-from-the-Simpsons;
"Ha ha!"
But don't worry, kiddies! Obama will take care of it!
I give her a very Nelson-from-the-Simpsons;
"Ha ha!"
But don't worry, kiddies! Obama will take care of it!
Oh! You Mean the Public Sector Gets Its Money from the Private Sector
and there AREN'T limitless resources?
You mean like there's a BUDGET or something?
You mean we CAN'T have 1-1 student to teacher ratios someday?
Enjoy the blood-pressure increasing decline!
You mean like there's a BUDGET or something?
You mean we CAN'T have 1-1 student to teacher ratios someday?
Enjoy the blood-pressure increasing decline!
Thursday, September 09, 2010
Why Elk River Has High Property Taxes
A story that has been circling the Twin Cities is this "hazing" incident at a local town called Elk River. And true to form the traditional main stream media misses the real story and focuses on something that is largely irrelevant - the hazing.
What they should have focused on, and should at least be in the "Elk River Gazette" or what have you, should be the fact that there was SIX FOOTBALL COACHES for ONE HIGH SCHOOL.
Being intellectually honest, I knew that there was a chance that somehow maybe these were volunteer positions and before I got all angry, I would confirm to see if they are paid.
Well, turns out they are.
All SIX positions are PAID positions.
Now, being honest, the HR director did inform me these salaries were in part subsidized by "booster club" revenues. However, that does not answer the question why you need SIX coaches for ONE FOOTBALL PROGRAM at ONE HIGH SCHOOL, let alone why they're even paid positions at all.
In any case enjoy the sphere throwing while you also enjoy the decline.
What they should have focused on, and should at least be in the "Elk River Gazette" or what have you, should be the fact that there was SIX FOOTBALL COACHES for ONE HIGH SCHOOL.
Being intellectually honest, I knew that there was a chance that somehow maybe these were volunteer positions and before I got all angry, I would confirm to see if they are paid.
Well, turns out they are.
All SIX positions are PAID positions.
Now, being honest, the HR director did inform me these salaries were in part subsidized by "booster club" revenues. However, that does not answer the question why you need SIX coaches for ONE FOOTBALL PROGRAM at ONE HIGH SCHOOL, let alone why they're even paid positions at all.
In any case enjoy the sphere throwing while you also enjoy the decline.
Wednesday, September 08, 2010
Obama's Plan to Accelerate Write Offs
Isn't this the EXACT SAME THING BUSH DID?
Oh wait, it is!
Now what's going to be real fun is to talk to the dwindling supply of Obamanauts and force them to either;
1. Admit Bush was right
or
2. Admit Obama was wrong
which, ultimately in any case leads them to the conclusion that;
they were wrong.
Of course we could follow Cappy Cap's plan to eliminate corporate taxes altogether to get the economy booming, but again, that would just be too damn simple, wouldn't it?
Oh wait, it is!
Now what's going to be real fun is to talk to the dwindling supply of Obamanauts and force them to either;
1. Admit Bush was right
or
2. Admit Obama was wrong
which, ultimately in any case leads them to the conclusion that;
they were wrong.
Of course we could follow Cappy Cap's plan to eliminate corporate taxes altogether to get the economy booming, but again, that would just be too damn simple, wouldn't it?
Monday, September 06, 2010
How Barack Obama is the New Field Marshall Haig
Honest to bleeping Christ.
Because it's only logical when the original trillion dollars failed and then Pelosi's $26 billion failed that somehow this new $50 billion is magical and will succeed.
It reminds me of this skit from Blackadder;
Because it's only logical when the original trillion dollars failed and then Pelosi's $26 billion failed that somehow this new $50 billion is magical and will succeed.
It reminds me of this skit from Blackadder;
Sunday, September 05, 2010
Why Hiring from the Military is Better Than Hiring from Harvard
Not that you wouldn't have gotten that impression comparing Eisenhower vs. Obama.
Which reminds me, I have to really get my game on and do a post I've been meaning to do -
"Why Would Anybody Hire an Ivy Leaguer?"
Which reminds me, I have to really get my game on and do a post I've been meaning to do -
"Why Would Anybody Hire an Ivy Leaguer?"
Friday, September 03, 2010
Before I Forget
A question to all the economists out there.
I was thinking, as I typically do, about the dire situation of America and exactly what measures could be taken to fix it.
To me it's very simple;
Eliminate corporate taxes
Streamline regulation
Have a constitutional amendment that would limit fed, state and local spending and tax collection to a cumulative 15% GDP
and a bunch of other things, but in short unleashing the private sector, the animal spirits and the productive capacity of human nature to grow us out of this recession and dwarf our debt woes.
But then it dawned on me I have another theory - that the individual American, on average, is deteriorating to an entitlement slob and much like a cancer society is decaying as the cancer spreads and corrupts individual cells/people that makes up the whole.
I soon realized these two theories are in conflict with one another, and since I'm not a leftist, I admit I had conflicting theories and wanted to get your opinions on it.
Let us say we DO eliminate corporate taxes, replace income taxes with a sales tax, constitutionally ban governments from taking more than 15%, or whatever your wish list may be.
Has the basic unit of the economy, the individual, been so corrupted that there is no more animal spirits or entrepreneurial gung ho to actually avail themselves of that opportunity?
In other words say we get our wish list. Do you really expect Millineals and Gen X'ers to go and become the next Howard Hughes or TOny Stark?
It's an important question because one of the underlying premises is that there's always this gung ho entrepreneurial class of innovators and capitalists and dreamers and industrialists.
If you look around I see a bunch of Emo Kids and spoiled brats who couldn't run a lemonade stand if they got a Obama stimulus check.
Something to consider that even if we do the right things and implement the right policies, the society itself has become so degraded and decayed, it wouldn't matter.
I was thinking, as I typically do, about the dire situation of America and exactly what measures could be taken to fix it.
To me it's very simple;
Eliminate corporate taxes
Streamline regulation
Have a constitutional amendment that would limit fed, state and local spending and tax collection to a cumulative 15% GDP
and a bunch of other things, but in short unleashing the private sector, the animal spirits and the productive capacity of human nature to grow us out of this recession and dwarf our debt woes.
But then it dawned on me I have another theory - that the individual American, on average, is deteriorating to an entitlement slob and much like a cancer society is decaying as the cancer spreads and corrupts individual cells/people that makes up the whole.
I soon realized these two theories are in conflict with one another, and since I'm not a leftist, I admit I had conflicting theories and wanted to get your opinions on it.
Let us say we DO eliminate corporate taxes, replace income taxes with a sales tax, constitutionally ban governments from taking more than 15%, or whatever your wish list may be.
Has the basic unit of the economy, the individual, been so corrupted that there is no more animal spirits or entrepreneurial gung ho to actually avail themselves of that opportunity?
In other words say we get our wish list. Do you really expect Millineals and Gen X'ers to go and become the next Howard Hughes or TOny Stark?
It's an important question because one of the underlying premises is that there's always this gung ho entrepreneurial class of innovators and capitalists and dreamers and industrialists.
If you look around I see a bunch of Emo Kids and spoiled brats who couldn't run a lemonade stand if they got a Obama stimulus check.
Something to consider that even if we do the right things and implement the right policies, the society itself has become so degraded and decayed, it wouldn't matter.
A Dark Prediction
In short, feminists from the 60's are starting to realize that no matter how much sociological, feminist propaganda they were fed in the 70's, the reality is that men don't want to date them anymore. And instead of accepting this reality and that their time has passed, they are becoming psychotic (your beloved Captain remembers quite starkly an episode where he was punched by a very left-leaning "feminist" after he told her he didn't want to sleep with her anymore)
Regardless, feminism is over simply because it failed in its sole promise;
To make women happy.
Enjoy the decline!
HT
Regardless, feminism is over simply because it failed in its sole promise;
To make women happy.
Enjoy the decline!
HT
Thursday, September 02, 2010
Julia Brownley
I'm going to go out on a limb here and test my Crusaderism Theory and bet that Julia Brownley, who authored legislation in California to ban plastic bottles is a crusader.
For those of you who have yet to watch my brilliant economic piece of "crusaderism," in short it is an explanation that basically explains all leftist AND some right wing politicians and their behavior. It exposes them for who they are - people who have no real world skills or talents or employment prospects and thus go into politics where they feign as if they care about their constituents, but are really there first and foremost for themselves because they want to avoid having a real job.
It's not that you didn't know this already, but it can now officially be defined, identified and be considered a disease or ailment that plagues society, not to mention prevented and legislated against (should the population ever decide to be wise enough to ban crusaders from office).
In any case, I shall predict that Julia Brownley;
1. Has a worthless undergrad degree
2. Has no real world working experience in the private sector or as a productive public sector employee (say like managing a department or working as a garbage man, etc.)
3. Is a democrat (which was in the article, but of course)
4. Comes from AT LEAST upper middle income socio-economically
5. (I'll go on a limb here) and also predict that her daddy or mommy is also in politics. (This one I could be wrong on, it's just a gut feeling).
How'd I do?
For those of you who have yet to watch my brilliant economic piece of "crusaderism," in short it is an explanation that basically explains all leftist AND some right wing politicians and their behavior. It exposes them for who they are - people who have no real world skills or talents or employment prospects and thus go into politics where they feign as if they care about their constituents, but are really there first and foremost for themselves because they want to avoid having a real job.
It's not that you didn't know this already, but it can now officially be defined, identified and be considered a disease or ailment that plagues society, not to mention prevented and legislated against (should the population ever decide to be wise enough to ban crusaders from office).
In any case, I shall predict that Julia Brownley;
1. Has a worthless undergrad degree
2. Has no real world working experience in the private sector or as a productive public sector employee (say like managing a department or working as a garbage man, etc.)
3. Is a democrat (which was in the article, but of course)
4. Comes from AT LEAST upper middle income socio-economically
5. (I'll go on a limb here) and also predict that her daddy or mommy is also in politics. (This one I could be wrong on, it's just a gut feeling).
How'd I do?
"Sports Communications"
From Lt. Latino on the front lines in California.
He duly notes that they fail to mention starting salaries.
I swear, if it keeps going you'll be able to get a doctorate in ice cream tasting.
He duly notes that they fail to mention starting salaries.
I swear, if it keeps going you'll be able to get a doctorate in ice cream tasting.
Wednesday, September 01, 2010
HA HA HA HA HA!!!
I wrote about it before.
Now see what daddy's little girl is doing in today's economy.
I am SO enjoying the decline.
Now see what daddy's little girl is doing in today's economy.
I am SO enjoying the decline.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Fools
I don't know, maybe make your own kid become a freaking adult and pay for their own college education?
And how many people are cashing in retirement plans to pay for worthless degrees.
Good lord, I'm going to smoke and drink tonight. You guys have fun with this society. I'm checking out and living in Black Water via Red Dead Redemption.
And how many people are cashing in retirement plans to pay for worthless degrees.
Good lord, I'm going to smoke and drink tonight. You guys have fun with this society. I'm checking out and living in Black Water via Red Dead Redemption.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Heh Heh
Enjoy the decline!
Now what if America didn't have corporate taxes?
I know, I know. That's just CRAZY TALK!
Now what if America didn't have corporate taxes?
I know, I know. That's just CRAZY TALK!
Sunday, August 29, 2010
To the 30/40 Something Woman Who Wouldn't Leave Me Alone
I heard you the first time.
It was obvious you didn't pick up on my somewhat less than subtle hint.
And therefore I had to endure your frequent commentary, obviously directed my way, which interrupted my dinner.
So let me explain to you why you are 30/40 something and sitting at a bar by yourself and I am 35 sitting at a bar by myself but why I am infinitely more happy.
I came there because I was hungry. I needed food. And since I am an alpha-male bachelor of the highest order (not to mention an outstanding economist) I have outsourced all of my food preparation to third parties, namely restaurants.
The reason I chose this particular restaurant was not because you were there, nor the score of other desperate 30 something women, but because it served four simple purposes;
1. It was open
2. It had good food
3. It also served Rumpleminze
4. It was nearby
These four simple things AND ONLY these four simple things is what made me show up.
I wanted food.
I wanted a drink.
I didn't want to prepare it.
And I wanted to go home.
However, you were there for different reasons.
And it was plainly obvious.
First off, I wore crappy khaki shorts, sandals, a crappy shirt and a cap. It was obvious I did not come there to meet anybody.
You however, still thinking it's 19-freaking-93 and you're still 21 were dolled up in a silver sequene top and black slick slacks. You were on the hunt, purposely looking to find a guy, whereas I was not looking for a girl.
(Oh, and by the way, please don't act indignant that I presupposed you were looking for a man. I'm not a naive, simple, honest 22 year old kid anymore. The truth with that clothing, you were on the hunt.)
However, much like 20 years ago when young men (who you would not doubt today give an appendage for) gave you unwelcomed advances and you poo pooed them away, your unwelcomed advances I had to endure today were incredibly hypocritical. The reason being is that those "unwelcomed" advances you had to "suffer" 20 years ago were no doubt at a bar where you were dressed the part and enticing such advances and no doubt welcoming them whilst acting appalled they occurred not to mention picking up free drinks all along the way.
Today, I was sitting by myself, warfing down food, in crappy clothes giving no such false signals to beget attention or free drinks. I wanted to be left alone, eat my food, yet you continued to harass me.
Second, I ordered a Rumpleminze.
Why?
Because I like Rumpleminze. Strong, ice cold, soothing on the throat. You can enjoy it for a while. Nice patient, enjoyable drink.
You, at the age of 40 something ordered a vodka-freaking-red bull.
Really? Is that what the "kids" are ordering today? Is that what's "hip?" Are you in with the "in crowd?" Perhaps you can find yourself a Vampire/Wolverine Boyfriend or whatever the fad is with the mentally insane teenagers of today.
Third, speaking of kids. How many do you have? Because I see that "single moms" are all the rage. See, I have no kids because instead of thinking of myself the entire time I remembered what it was like to be a kid. And I then came to the incredibly OBVIOUS conclusion that before bringing a kid into this world, maybe I ought to find a reliable, stable, loving wife before I start breeding and bringing innocent souls into this world. That they weren't "toys" or "objects" to have. That they were humans, just like you and me and had feelings, needs, requirements and demands. But I guess I'm just supposed to ignore my natural and visceral disgust for single parenthood in that obviously both parents failed to get it right the first time and I should instead go the politically correct route and cheer on the "nobility" and "courage" of "single parents."
Un-freaking-likely. There's still a victim. It's the children, and unlike when you guys invoke the term "for the children" to advance your own personal aims while cowardly hiding behind the child, I actually mean it in that I actually care about the kid, mine or not. I'm going back to enjoy my Rumpleminze while I avoid divorce if it's all the same with you.
Fourth, physically you got to be kidding me. I run 4-7 miles every other day and lift weights. I watch what I eat and I am in great shape. You look like you watch Oprah 4-7 times a day and occasionally lift your ass from the couch to get more food. I don't care what a bunch of bitter, burnt out 1960's hippie aging feminists said in the drug induced 70's and neither should you. The truth is that no matter what philosophy they lay down and tell you how things "should" be the REALITY is that men like women that are in shape.
I know.
We're evil, sexist, bigoted misogynist poopy-heads.
All of us.
But it ain't going to change and the sooner you learn that, the sooner you ACCEPT that FACT, the sooner you will start to employ strategies and techniques that are actually based in REALITY and have success.
Now, no doubt many of the female readers of this are livid.
No doubt I am evil and a horrible man for daring to lecture this slightly-aged woman about her unwelcomed behavior not to mention point out truths we all know to be true.
But for just once will you girls listen to me? Especially those of you who continue to watch dumbass movies like "Eat Pray Love" thinking somehow it relates to you and will somehow help you. Because if you listen, you will actually get some practical advice that will bring you genuine progress and happiness in your life unlike the tombs of women's magazine articles you've read which has resulted in you ended up where you are today (which is where the annoying woman was this particular night)
You are in your 30's or 40's.
You are not in your 20's.
And whereas men may have been naive and willing to fall over each other just to get a date with you when Clinton was in his first term, that is no longer the case. The game has changed.
Namely it has changed in that the men are no longer playing. They left the field. I don't know how many times I've heard late 30 something female friends of mine say, "You have to play hard to get. You have to get him to chase you."
I ask in return;
"Have you ever looked back to see that NOBODY is chasing?"
This somehow turns out to be some kind of "revolutionary" (not to mention" insulting")thought.
"WHAT!???"
"MEN, NOT CHASING!!!????"
"HOW DARE YOU!!!!"
No, how dare you.
What, you thought men were going to chase forever?
You see, men only have a finite, limited amount of energy for chasing. And you girls in your 20's were masters of exhausting it all.
Giving out your phone number, but then never returning the call.
Agreeing to a date and then canceling at the last minute.
The made up drama and land mines you laid around to keep them on their feet and never sure of where they stood.
And good lord, don't even get me started on all the complications involved with having sex.
It all worked GREAT back in the late teens and 20's, but guess what happened?
Inevitably men got smart. Men got wise. And worst of all, men just plain got some self-respect.
It wasn't an immediate flood on account different men woke up at various ages, but you throw in some divorces, the general disrespect and disregard for men and male behavior in society, and guess what?
20 years later men aren't chasing any more. They left in droves. They flooded OUT of the market.
Don't take it personally, it's not that they don't want to chase "you" any more.
They just don't want to chase period.
The "field" or the "market" has become so hostile, so hopelessly lopsided men increasingly went against their largest biological drive (women) and started enjoying life on their own. And think about that. It's become so hostile, so futile and such a waste of resources MEN HAVE LITERALLY STOPPED CHASING WOMEN.
You think I'm joking?
Why is the average age of marriage jumping?
Why are people having less kids?
And might I ask, do you know any perpetual bachelors out there who just enjoy a good Rumpleminze, some video games, or perhaps some fishing instead of trying to even entertain the idea of suffering a first date?
Do you know any 30-4o something men who regularly "go out clubbing" and "partaaaaay?"
Yeah, those ranks are thinning a bit aren't they? It's not that ALL men are quitting, just the good ones in that they have enough smarts, self-respect and sense to.
Worse still, and please don't shoot the messenger, this is just the plain truth-
Men can and usually date younger. So all those nice college boys that tried to pine for your affection back in the 90's you never called back or dared to mock infront of your girlfriends? Yeah, they're not gunning after you any more (if gunning after anybody at all). You need to chase after some Reaganauts who remember Duran Duran. Enjoy the Rogaine!
The overall point can actually be summarized with a classical supply and demand chart of economics. The "supply" women were willing to supply to the market was somewhat limited and Maureen-Dowdishly stingy (thus a supply curve that is far to the left). And in 1993 young Gen X men, quite obliviously were all desperately trying to get any kind of attention and affection they could (thus a demand curve to the far right). This resulted in an insanely high price the men had to "pay" to get a date (denoted by "P1"). This "price" manifested itself in terms of expensive dates, kindness, willing to show up, asking girls out more, general attention towards women, not to mention suffering being stood up, psychotic episodes, drama, soap opera BS and just general abuse they would endure. Over time though the sheer hell a man had to go through dating deterred him from the market (not to mention, a lot of men found lovely, kind caring women and immeidately grabbed them for themselves and left the dating market forever). This shifted the demand curve to the far left over the course of 15 years. What's interesting, given the "EAt PRay Love" and "Why You Rule and Your Boyfriend Sucks" magazines and the "cougar" fad and feminist indoctination and lord knows whatever other faux-fads the media barraged poor young women with, women were led to believe that they would always be in demand. That they owned the market. That they owned the hottest piece of property in 2006 and that there was no housing bubble. Ergo, almost unbeknownst to most 30-40 something women they never picked up on this dramatic drop in demand and held their supply incredibly low not knowing most of the buyers had left the market for substitute goods (look it up if you're interested in economics). This shift in the demand curve resulted in a huge drop in price from P1 to P2.
Now the question is (assuming you would inevitably like to get married or start a family or just plain have a guy in your life) how do you deal with this dire "market."
Well, the sad truth is it may be out of your control.
Notice the only thing that changed is demand. Men (the "buyers") left the market, not the women. Additionally it took about 15 years to drive them away, it's certainly going to take longer to get them back. They're more focused on deriving the most utility from the remaining years of their lives. They're not 25 thinking of starting a family, they're 40 and thinking about an LCD projector and Red Dead Redemption and football season and how to make up the lost income they're never going to receive from social security. Therefore you can hit the clubs all you want, but if no men are there, no men are there.
This means about the only course of action you have is to ask men out.
I remember an old female college friend of mine who had a HUGE crush on this guy. She spent an ENTIRE YEAR fretting and worrying about asking him out and tried every trick in the book to get him to ask her out. Hilariously in true male form, he never picked up the hints which compelled her to ask him out.
Did she?
Never did. She CRIED MULTIPLE TIMES PER WEEK instead of just getting it over with and asking him out. Suffered infinitely more and longer than if she had just bleeping asking the guy out.
Sorry ladies, it's the 4th quarter, you're down by 14 points and you do not have the luxury of waiting for the guy to ask you out.
When myself and my other male colleagues were told women were equal back in the 90's we actually took it to heart. We believed it and incorporated into our thought process that women are equal. And guess what, whether you like it or not, today you ARE equal which means you now have equal responsibility, not least of which in our minds back then was asking us out or making your intentions known.
Today it's not even an academic debate. It's reality. Men aren't looking, they're not asking, they're out of the market. Your only option is to take matters into your own hands and pull the trigger yourself.
Sadly, or perhaps not so sadly, the only other option is to give up like most men. I will readily admit it's not just the women that have made the courting world a nightmare (though I will defend till my death they have disproportionately done so). There are members in the males ranks that are entitled to their fair share of blame. And given this you may realize what a lot of men have already and that is life is too short to waste it on a pursuit that will never materialize. You have 82 years of life expectancy. And while you may not like playing video games or fishing, there are certainly other things you can be doing aside from "clubbing" or "looking for a guy" or just plain wasting your finite energy looking/hoping for one.
You may biologically or naturally be against this. You may say, "but I want to find a man and get married and have kids."
Well again, it's an issue of reality. Reality may be that's never going to happen. So do you want to continue wasting life pursuing something that is not going to happen? Or do you want to enjoy it doing things that are within your control, never worrying about men again?
It sounds sad and depressing at first, but when you realize the reality or at least probability of the situation you can move on and enjoy a really good life without men. Millions of men have done the exact same thing, just without women. And the freedom that comes with it to enjoy your life and do your own thing with no regard or attachment to the idea of courtship is actually quite liberating and genuine happiness can be found in such a life.
Besides which, there was only one small difference between myself and the desperate 30 something woman at the bar that explained why I was happy and she was miserable-
She's still looking.
I gave up long ago.
Who do you think has the happier life?
It was obvious you didn't pick up on my somewhat less than subtle hint.
And therefore I had to endure your frequent commentary, obviously directed my way, which interrupted my dinner.
So let me explain to you why you are 30/40 something and sitting at a bar by yourself and I am 35 sitting at a bar by myself but why I am infinitely more happy.
I came there because I was hungry. I needed food. And since I am an alpha-male bachelor of the highest order (not to mention an outstanding economist) I have outsourced all of my food preparation to third parties, namely restaurants.
The reason I chose this particular restaurant was not because you were there, nor the score of other desperate 30 something women, but because it served four simple purposes;
1. It was open
2. It had good food
3. It also served Rumpleminze
4. It was nearby
These four simple things AND ONLY these four simple things is what made me show up.
I wanted food.
I wanted a drink.
I didn't want to prepare it.
And I wanted to go home.
However, you were there for different reasons.
And it was plainly obvious.
First off, I wore crappy khaki shorts, sandals, a crappy shirt and a cap. It was obvious I did not come there to meet anybody.
You however, still thinking it's 19-freaking-93 and you're still 21 were dolled up in a silver sequene top and black slick slacks. You were on the hunt, purposely looking to find a guy, whereas I was not looking for a girl.
(Oh, and by the way, please don't act indignant that I presupposed you were looking for a man. I'm not a naive, simple, honest 22 year old kid anymore. The truth with that clothing, you were on the hunt.)
However, much like 20 years ago when young men (who you would not doubt today give an appendage for) gave you unwelcomed advances and you poo pooed them away, your unwelcomed advances I had to endure today were incredibly hypocritical. The reason being is that those "unwelcomed" advances you had to "suffer" 20 years ago were no doubt at a bar where you were dressed the part and enticing such advances and no doubt welcoming them whilst acting appalled they occurred not to mention picking up free drinks all along the way.
Today, I was sitting by myself, warfing down food, in crappy clothes giving no such false signals to beget attention or free drinks. I wanted to be left alone, eat my food, yet you continued to harass me.
Second, I ordered a Rumpleminze.
Why?
Because I like Rumpleminze. Strong, ice cold, soothing on the throat. You can enjoy it for a while. Nice patient, enjoyable drink.
You, at the age of 40 something ordered a vodka-freaking-red bull.
Really? Is that what the "kids" are ordering today? Is that what's "hip?" Are you in with the "in crowd?" Perhaps you can find yourself a Vampire/Wolverine Boyfriend or whatever the fad is with the mentally insane teenagers of today.
Third, speaking of kids. How many do you have? Because I see that "single moms" are all the rage. See, I have no kids because instead of thinking of myself the entire time I remembered what it was like to be a kid. And I then came to the incredibly OBVIOUS conclusion that before bringing a kid into this world, maybe I ought to find a reliable, stable, loving wife before I start breeding and bringing innocent souls into this world. That they weren't "toys" or "objects" to have. That they were humans, just like you and me and had feelings, needs, requirements and demands. But I guess I'm just supposed to ignore my natural and visceral disgust for single parenthood in that obviously both parents failed to get it right the first time and I should instead go the politically correct route and cheer on the "nobility" and "courage" of "single parents."
Un-freaking-likely. There's still a victim. It's the children, and unlike when you guys invoke the term "for the children" to advance your own personal aims while cowardly hiding behind the child, I actually mean it in that I actually care about the kid, mine or not. I'm going back to enjoy my Rumpleminze while I avoid divorce if it's all the same with you.
Fourth, physically you got to be kidding me. I run 4-7 miles every other day and lift weights. I watch what I eat and I am in great shape. You look like you watch Oprah 4-7 times a day and occasionally lift your ass from the couch to get more food. I don't care what a bunch of bitter, burnt out 1960's hippie aging feminists said in the drug induced 70's and neither should you. The truth is that no matter what philosophy they lay down and tell you how things "should" be the REALITY is that men like women that are in shape.
I know.
We're evil, sexist, bigoted misogynist poopy-heads.
All of us.
But it ain't going to change and the sooner you learn that, the sooner you ACCEPT that FACT, the sooner you will start to employ strategies and techniques that are actually based in REALITY and have success.
Now, no doubt many of the female readers of this are livid.
No doubt I am evil and a horrible man for daring to lecture this slightly-aged woman about her unwelcomed behavior not to mention point out truths we all know to be true.
But for just once will you girls listen to me? Especially those of you who continue to watch dumbass movies like "Eat Pray Love" thinking somehow it relates to you and will somehow help you. Because if you listen, you will actually get some practical advice that will bring you genuine progress and happiness in your life unlike the tombs of women's magazine articles you've read which has resulted in you ended up where you are today (which is where the annoying woman was this particular night)
You are in your 30's or 40's.
You are not in your 20's.
And whereas men may have been naive and willing to fall over each other just to get a date with you when Clinton was in his first term, that is no longer the case. The game has changed.
Namely it has changed in that the men are no longer playing. They left the field. I don't know how many times I've heard late 30 something female friends of mine say, "You have to play hard to get. You have to get him to chase you."
I ask in return;
"Have you ever looked back to see that NOBODY is chasing?"
This somehow turns out to be some kind of "revolutionary" (not to mention" insulting")thought.
"WHAT!???"
"MEN, NOT CHASING!!!????"
"HOW DARE YOU!!!!"
No, how dare you.
What, you thought men were going to chase forever?
You see, men only have a finite, limited amount of energy for chasing. And you girls in your 20's were masters of exhausting it all.
Giving out your phone number, but then never returning the call.
Agreeing to a date and then canceling at the last minute.
The made up drama and land mines you laid around to keep them on their feet and never sure of where they stood.
And good lord, don't even get me started on all the complications involved with having sex.
It all worked GREAT back in the late teens and 20's, but guess what happened?
Inevitably men got smart. Men got wise. And worst of all, men just plain got some self-respect.
It wasn't an immediate flood on account different men woke up at various ages, but you throw in some divorces, the general disrespect and disregard for men and male behavior in society, and guess what?
20 years later men aren't chasing any more. They left in droves. They flooded OUT of the market.
Don't take it personally, it's not that they don't want to chase "you" any more.
They just don't want to chase period.
The "field" or the "market" has become so hostile, so hopelessly lopsided men increasingly went against their largest biological drive (women) and started enjoying life on their own. And think about that. It's become so hostile, so futile and such a waste of resources MEN HAVE LITERALLY STOPPED CHASING WOMEN.
You think I'm joking?
Why is the average age of marriage jumping?
Why are people having less kids?
And might I ask, do you know any perpetual bachelors out there who just enjoy a good Rumpleminze, some video games, or perhaps some fishing instead of trying to even entertain the idea of suffering a first date?
Do you know any 30-4o something men who regularly "go out clubbing" and "partaaaaay?"
Yeah, those ranks are thinning a bit aren't they? It's not that ALL men are quitting, just the good ones in that they have enough smarts, self-respect and sense to.
Worse still, and please don't shoot the messenger, this is just the plain truth-
Men can and usually date younger. So all those nice college boys that tried to pine for your affection back in the 90's you never called back or dared to mock infront of your girlfriends? Yeah, they're not gunning after you any more (if gunning after anybody at all). You need to chase after some Reaganauts who remember Duran Duran. Enjoy the Rogaine!
The overall point can actually be summarized with a classical supply and demand chart of economics. The "supply" women were willing to supply to the market was somewhat limited and Maureen-Dowdishly stingy (thus a supply curve that is far to the left). And in 1993 young Gen X men, quite obliviously were all desperately trying to get any kind of attention and affection they could (thus a demand curve to the far right). This resulted in an insanely high price the men had to "pay" to get a date (denoted by "P1"). This "price" manifested itself in terms of expensive dates, kindness, willing to show up, asking girls out more, general attention towards women, not to mention suffering being stood up, psychotic episodes, drama, soap opera BS and just general abuse they would endure. Over time though the sheer hell a man had to go through dating deterred him from the market (not to mention, a lot of men found lovely, kind caring women and immeidately grabbed them for themselves and left the dating market forever). This shifted the demand curve to the far left over the course of 15 years. What's interesting, given the "EAt PRay Love" and "Why You Rule and Your Boyfriend Sucks" magazines and the "cougar" fad and feminist indoctination and lord knows whatever other faux-fads the media barraged poor young women with, women were led to believe that they would always be in demand. That they owned the market. That they owned the hottest piece of property in 2006 and that there was no housing bubble. Ergo, almost unbeknownst to most 30-40 something women they never picked up on this dramatic drop in demand and held their supply incredibly low not knowing most of the buyers had left the market for substitute goods (look it up if you're interested in economics). This shift in the demand curve resulted in a huge drop in price from P1 to P2.
Now the question is (assuming you would inevitably like to get married or start a family or just plain have a guy in your life) how do you deal with this dire "market."
Well, the sad truth is it may be out of your control.
Notice the only thing that changed is demand. Men (the "buyers") left the market, not the women. Additionally it took about 15 years to drive them away, it's certainly going to take longer to get them back. They're more focused on deriving the most utility from the remaining years of their lives. They're not 25 thinking of starting a family, they're 40 and thinking about an LCD projector and Red Dead Redemption and football season and how to make up the lost income they're never going to receive from social security. Therefore you can hit the clubs all you want, but if no men are there, no men are there.
This means about the only course of action you have is to ask men out.
I remember an old female college friend of mine who had a HUGE crush on this guy. She spent an ENTIRE YEAR fretting and worrying about asking him out and tried every trick in the book to get him to ask her out. Hilariously in true male form, he never picked up the hints which compelled her to ask him out.
Did she?
Never did. She CRIED MULTIPLE TIMES PER WEEK instead of just getting it over with and asking him out. Suffered infinitely more and longer than if she had just bleeping asking the guy out.
Sorry ladies, it's the 4th quarter, you're down by 14 points and you do not have the luxury of waiting for the guy to ask you out.
When myself and my other male colleagues were told women were equal back in the 90's we actually took it to heart. We believed it and incorporated into our thought process that women are equal. And guess what, whether you like it or not, today you ARE equal which means you now have equal responsibility, not least of which in our minds back then was asking us out or making your intentions known.
Today it's not even an academic debate. It's reality. Men aren't looking, they're not asking, they're out of the market. Your only option is to take matters into your own hands and pull the trigger yourself.
Sadly, or perhaps not so sadly, the only other option is to give up like most men. I will readily admit it's not just the women that have made the courting world a nightmare (though I will defend till my death they have disproportionately done so). There are members in the males ranks that are entitled to their fair share of blame. And given this you may realize what a lot of men have already and that is life is too short to waste it on a pursuit that will never materialize. You have 82 years of life expectancy. And while you may not like playing video games or fishing, there are certainly other things you can be doing aside from "clubbing" or "looking for a guy" or just plain wasting your finite energy looking/hoping for one.
You may biologically or naturally be against this. You may say, "but I want to find a man and get married and have kids."
Well again, it's an issue of reality. Reality may be that's never going to happen. So do you want to continue wasting life pursuing something that is not going to happen? Or do you want to enjoy it doing things that are within your control, never worrying about men again?
It sounds sad and depressing at first, but when you realize the reality or at least probability of the situation you can move on and enjoy a really good life without men. Millions of men have done the exact same thing, just without women. And the freedom that comes with it to enjoy your life and do your own thing with no regard or attachment to the idea of courtship is actually quite liberating and genuine happiness can be found in such a life.
Besides which, there was only one small difference between myself and the desperate 30 something woman at the bar that explained why I was happy and she was miserable-
She's still looking.
I gave up long ago.
Who do you think has the happier life?
President Erkle
Good lord.
Look, I'm not for the faux photo ops that Sarkozy and Putin deliberately put on to entice the weaker minded females of the population into voting for them, but could we at least has some freaking dignity in the office of the President?
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Dividends
As some of you know, I teach a BRILLIANT online course on stock valuation and analysis. I say it's brilliant not to brag, but because it really is brilliant, there's nothing like it in college. It covers not just how to read financial statements and how to calculate ratios, but picks up where colleges fail and TEACHES YOU VALUATION TECHNIQUES. YOU SHOULD TAKE IT.
In any case, I had a student ask a question about dividends, the answer to which I realized would be of benefit to all the Cappy Capites out there, not to mention the everyday Joe's who are having a hard time understanding why their 401k isn't skyrocketing through the roof during these glory days of hope and change.
So I submit to you more of my economic genius;
Yes, everything you stated is correct. To clarify though what drives the value of a stock or what it is you are precisely selling to another buyer on the second market, let me further explain.
What you own when you own a share of stock is the right to the proportional earnings of that corporation. Now, of course not all companies pay out their earnings in the form of a dividend. They will retain ALL of the earnings and reinvest them back into the company.
Now you would say, "well then why should I own the stock if they NEVER pay a dividend."
And you would be correct. If a company NEVER pays a dividend, then that stock has no value. You just gave the company (or secondary market seller) money for a piece of paper that will never give you money in return.
However, companies inevitably DO pay dividends. The reason they retain earnings and not pay dividends is to grow the company so they can earn even MORE money in the future.
Now this is where investing philosophy gets cute. Companies are typically very arrogant about paying dividends. They ALL think they're going to grow into huge multi-billion dollar behemoths and then, MAYBE THEN they'll pay you serfs some pittance of a dividend. Of course what is more likely to happen is they inevitably go belly up. What they SHOULD do is when times are good is pay out some of their earnings as a dividend otherwise the stock IS worthless.
Now what's interesting (and scary) about this, is it shows you a MAJOR flaw in today's conventional retirement system - everybody buys stocks because they "might go up in the future," not because they pay dividends. Well the question is "what drives stock prices up?" And the answer is scary;
Only dividends can drive stock prices up.
The reason why is when you sell a share of stock, yes you may have made a gain, but why did that buyer buy it from you? Well, because today or in the future that stock will pay dividends.
No matter how many times a stock is bought or sold, it only has value because either today or sometime in the future it's going to pay a dividend. So you are essenitally selling the right to future dividends when you sell a stock. Ergo, dividends (or the likelyhood dividends will be paid) is what drives stock prices.
So what this means is you currently have 100 million Americans all throwing their money into 401k's and IRA's and 403b's NOT because all these companies are paying great dividends, but because they magically think "stock prices just go up" for random magical reasons.
This is why you will want to DEFINITELY look at the "dividend yield" of a mutual fund or a stock before you buy it to make sure there is real cash flow associated with the stock and giving that stock something of value.
In any case, I had a student ask a question about dividends, the answer to which I realized would be of benefit to all the Cappy Capites out there, not to mention the everyday Joe's who are having a hard time understanding why their 401k isn't skyrocketing through the roof during these glory days of hope and change.
So I submit to you more of my economic genius;
Yes, everything you stated is correct. To clarify though what drives the value of a stock or what it is you are precisely selling to another buyer on the second market, let me further explain.
What you own when you own a share of stock is the right to the proportional earnings of that corporation. Now, of course not all companies pay out their earnings in the form of a dividend. They will retain ALL of the earnings and reinvest them back into the company.
Now you would say, "well then why should I own the stock if they NEVER pay a dividend."
And you would be correct. If a company NEVER pays a dividend, then that stock has no value. You just gave the company (or secondary market seller) money for a piece of paper that will never give you money in return.
However, companies inevitably DO pay dividends. The reason they retain earnings and not pay dividends is to grow the company so they can earn even MORE money in the future.
Now this is where investing philosophy gets cute. Companies are typically very arrogant about paying dividends. They ALL think they're going to grow into huge multi-billion dollar behemoths and then, MAYBE THEN they'll pay you serfs some pittance of a dividend. Of course what is more likely to happen is they inevitably go belly up. What they SHOULD do is when times are good is pay out some of their earnings as a dividend otherwise the stock IS worthless.
Now what's interesting (and scary) about this, is it shows you a MAJOR flaw in today's conventional retirement system - everybody buys stocks because they "might go up in the future," not because they pay dividends. Well the question is "what drives stock prices up?" And the answer is scary;
Only dividends can drive stock prices up.
The reason why is when you sell a share of stock, yes you may have made a gain, but why did that buyer buy it from you? Well, because today or in the future that stock will pay dividends.
No matter how many times a stock is bought or sold, it only has value because either today or sometime in the future it's going to pay a dividend. So you are essenitally selling the right to future dividends when you sell a stock. Ergo, dividends (or the likelyhood dividends will be paid) is what drives stock prices.
So what this means is you currently have 100 million Americans all throwing their money into 401k's and IRA's and 403b's NOT because all these companies are paying great dividends, but because they magically think "stock prices just go up" for random magical reasons.
This is why you will want to DEFINITELY look at the "dividend yield" of a mutual fund or a stock before you buy it to make sure there is real cash flow associated with the stock and giving that stock something of value.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Why Liberal Art Majors Should Be Banned from Politics
As we now come around to finishing off the second year of Obama's and the democrat's rule over the US and the economy that never really recovered looks like it's going to tank again, a prediction I made quite some time ago is coming true;
People who 2 years ago could not be reasoned with, with data, statistics, and facts about the perils and dangers of socialism are slowly being convinced by their;
1. Personal current dire economic condition
2. Hopelessness about their personal future economic condition
3. Lack of financial and employment security
I knew, after arguing with enough leftists and liberals, that there was no changing their mind in that they were married to an ideology and did not have the intellectual fortitude and honesty to entertain facts. And the only thing that would convince them is the reality they wrought upon themselves.
Now while most of my colleagues on the left will continue to beat the worn out drum that this is all still "Bush's fault," I know that some of you are contemplating removing your lips from Barack Obama's buttocks, and will perhaps now listen to rational, realistic, fact-based adult reasoning.
I know I have no hopes of throwing up the terrabytes of economic data and keeping your attention. But perhaps you will entertain a theory I have about liberal art majors and politics.
There is a STRONG correlation, so strong it goes beyond a theory. It's a law. And I even put together a nice little presentation on it. I also am intellectually honest in this presentation and point out fallacies on the right. Perhaps this can be the starting ground by which we set aside all the brainwashing, pot-smoking, flowers and puppies and unicorn talk we received in college and now start to be adults and be intellectually honest in what we observe with our own eyes. I'm not expecting everybody to become Reaganauts, but a simple acknowledgment of the phenomenon I've observed here;
And if we agree upon this, then maybe I could entertain you with some data and statistics?
People who 2 years ago could not be reasoned with, with data, statistics, and facts about the perils and dangers of socialism are slowly being convinced by their;
1. Personal current dire economic condition
2. Hopelessness about their personal future economic condition
3. Lack of financial and employment security
I knew, after arguing with enough leftists and liberals, that there was no changing their mind in that they were married to an ideology and did not have the intellectual fortitude and honesty to entertain facts. And the only thing that would convince them is the reality they wrought upon themselves.
Now while most of my colleagues on the left will continue to beat the worn out drum that this is all still "Bush's fault," I know that some of you are contemplating removing your lips from Barack Obama's buttocks, and will perhaps now listen to rational, realistic, fact-based adult reasoning.
I know I have no hopes of throwing up the terrabytes of economic data and keeping your attention. But perhaps you will entertain a theory I have about liberal art majors and politics.
There is a STRONG correlation, so strong it goes beyond a theory. It's a law. And I even put together a nice little presentation on it. I also am intellectually honest in this presentation and point out fallacies on the right. Perhaps this can be the starting ground by which we set aside all the brainwashing, pot-smoking, flowers and puppies and unicorn talk we received in college and now start to be adults and be intellectually honest in what we observe with our own eyes. I'm not expecting everybody to become Reaganauts, but a simple acknowledgment of the phenomenon I've observed here;
And if we agree upon this, then maybe I could entertain you with some data and statistics?
Forget College
Why go to college when you will;
1. Waste your money on a bubble degree
2. Spend 4-5 years of your youth with no improved prospects of employment
3. Can go to a two year college and learn a practical skill that will generate more income than a 4 year degree?
1. Waste your money on a bubble degree
2. Spend 4-5 years of your youth with no improved prospects of employment
3. Can go to a two year college and learn a practical skill that will generate more income than a 4 year degree?
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Where Not to...
1. move
2. invest
3. Start a family
4.work hard
5. start a business
And may I point out that while the democrats here in Minnesota rail against our Governor, Tim Pawlenty, for being a cold hearted evil republican for not increasing taxes, Minnesota is now finally off of this list?
Enjoy the decline!
2. invest
3. Start a family
4.work hard
5. start a business
And may I point out that while the democrats here in Minnesota rail against our Governor, Tim Pawlenty, for being a cold hearted evil republican for not increasing taxes, Minnesota is now finally off of this list?
Enjoy the decline!
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
The Destructive Principle
One of my more brilliant observations or creations is what I like to call "The Destructive Principle."
In short it is the theory or law that it is easier to destroy something that already exists than to create something of value that is new.
You say, "well, what's so big about that?"
Well, it delves deep, deep, deep into the leftist crusader mindset and is vital to understand.
Understand ALL human beings have a desire to achieve something. Some people want to go to the moon. Others want to start a family. Some want to start a business. However, it is a question of whether you have the work ethic and tenacity to set goals, study hard, prepare and set out to achieve those goals. But for many people on the left they do not have the work ethic to go forth and produce something of value. Instead, they find it much easier to protest against something thereby avoiding having to produce anything of worth yet still feeling good about themselves as they "crusade" against some perceived evil or ailment of society.
What is key to understand though about The Destructive Principle is that these people, if intellectually dishonest enough, do not care whether what they set out to destroy or crusade against is indeed an ailment or something bad. Matter of fact, some professional protesters and crusaders will go out of their way to besmirch and vilify something that is largely innocent and productive for society simply so they can avoid a real job, yet get to play "make believe super hero crusader."
The video below is again a mere sampling of my economic genius. Please note the worthlessness of the people's degrees I highlight in the video and ask yourself the question;
"Do they care about society or do they just really care about themselves to the point they hold no reservations of making it worse for society so they can play "super crusader make believe adult hero."
In short it is the theory or law that it is easier to destroy something that already exists than to create something of value that is new.
You say, "well, what's so big about that?"
Well, it delves deep, deep, deep into the leftist crusader mindset and is vital to understand.
Understand ALL human beings have a desire to achieve something. Some people want to go to the moon. Others want to start a family. Some want to start a business. However, it is a question of whether you have the work ethic and tenacity to set goals, study hard, prepare and set out to achieve those goals. But for many people on the left they do not have the work ethic to go forth and produce something of value. Instead, they find it much easier to protest against something thereby avoiding having to produce anything of worth yet still feeling good about themselves as they "crusade" against some perceived evil or ailment of society.
What is key to understand though about The Destructive Principle is that these people, if intellectually dishonest enough, do not care whether what they set out to destroy or crusade against is indeed an ailment or something bad. Matter of fact, some professional protesters and crusaders will go out of their way to besmirch and vilify something that is largely innocent and productive for society simply so they can avoid a real job, yet get to play "make believe super hero crusader."
The video below is again a mere sampling of my economic genius. Please note the worthlessness of the people's degrees I highlight in the video and ask yourself the question;
"Do they care about society or do they just really care about themselves to the point they hold no reservations of making it worse for society so they can play "super crusader make believe adult hero."
Enjoying the Decline
I'm being serious when I say this. I REALLY enjoy watching the decline and chaos. I suggest pouring a martini and lighting up a cigar and watching this like a movie;
When I Am King
I will eliminate any CAFE standards and bring back 8-12 cylinder cars and let the auto companies make whatever cars they want, bringing back a car renaissance similar to the 1950's.
GM however will be forced to abide by this.
GM however will be forced to abide by this.
Monday, August 23, 2010
But NO! THat's TOO SIMPLE!
He's not only written about it before, I've written about it before.
But it is just too damn simple for the average "brainwashed-to-hate-corporations-yet-demand-jobs-and-high-401k plan balances Americans" to understand and appreciate.
But it is just too damn simple for the average "brainwashed-to-hate-corporations-yet-demand-jobs-and-high-401k plan balances Americans" to understand and appreciate.
Chicks Shooting AR 15's
For all the Natasha and Sindi fans;
Now they may upgrade to "Hot Chicks in Bikini's Shooting AR 15's while in heels" but that would require contributions to finance the ammo and heels.
Now they may upgrade to "Hot Chicks in Bikini's Shooting AR 15's while in heels" but that would require contributions to finance the ammo and heels.
Escape from Minneapolis
I have never been so happy I sold my property and no longer pay property taxes in Minneapolis.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
-140% Return on Sales at Americana Community Bank
Normally, it's bad when you lose money.
But when you have sales of roughly $3.8 million and you have a loss of $5.2 MILLION, you are so spectacularly mismanaged that it's more evidence of a criminal organization or scam than any kind of incompetence.
That is of course unless you're Americana Community Bank.
To continue my gloating (and to remind Cappy Cap readers), this was the bank that 3 years ago said while I was being interviewed;
1. "We don't have any problems in our real estate portfolio."
and
2. Hired my ex boss instead of me for the position.
and
3. Received a cease and desist order last year.
Here's their financials if you're interested. Good God and Gravy. What's sad is it really isn't a criminal enterprise or some kind of scam. They just are really that incompetent.
But when you have sales of roughly $3.8 million and you have a loss of $5.2 MILLION, you are so spectacularly mismanaged that it's more evidence of a criminal organization or scam than any kind of incompetence.
That is of course unless you're Americana Community Bank.
To continue my gloating (and to remind Cappy Cap readers), this was the bank that 3 years ago said while I was being interviewed;
1. "We don't have any problems in our real estate portfolio."
and
2. Hired my ex boss instead of me for the position.
and
3. Received a cease and desist order last year.
Here's their financials if you're interested. Good God and Gravy. What's sad is it really isn't a criminal enterprise or some kind of scam. They just are really that incompetent.
Friday, August 20, 2010
Tatsuya Ishida's Love Fest is Over at Sinfest
Sinfest, which if you haven't read, is arguably the greatest comic ever since Calvin and Hobbes.
It's creator, Tatsuya Ishida, however is a huge Obama fan. This would normally put me at odds with the guy, but if you read his comic from the beginning, you will realize he is simply a misled genius.
What is heartening though is to see a noticeable lack of Obama cartoons wherein Ishida's lips are firmly planted on Obama's buttocks. Seems the glue is coming loose at the young man's (heck, he's a year younger than me) lips and a dose of economic reality is setting in.
The larger point is much like liberal arts-majoring melinnials today who face no employment prospects, I enjoy watching the Obama fanatics slowly get hit upside the head with reality.
Enjoy the decline!
It's creator, Tatsuya Ishida, however is a huge Obama fan. This would normally put me at odds with the guy, but if you read his comic from the beginning, you will realize he is simply a misled genius.
What is heartening though is to see a noticeable lack of Obama cartoons wherein Ishida's lips are firmly planted on Obama's buttocks. Seems the glue is coming loose at the young man's (heck, he's a year younger than me) lips and a dose of economic reality is setting in.
The larger point is much like liberal arts-majoring melinnials today who face no employment prospects, I enjoy watching the Obama fanatics slowly get hit upside the head with reality.
Enjoy the decline!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)