If this was the WWII generation, the WTC would be done and finished by now.
But no, we have to adhere to zoning, and environmental studies and focus groups and surveys and everything that now handicaps us from rebuilding something that should have been rebuilt in a matter of two years.
I'm starting to subscribe to the theory that the WTC should be rebuilt exactly the way it was, despite it's horrendous 1970's style architecture.
The fact it isn't built yet is a testament to the severe lack of Americanism in America.
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Monday, June 30, 2008
People Aren't Saving Enough for Retirement
There are times I wonder whether I should just become a ward on the state, live off the taxpayer and not try anymore. Seriously, it gets as bad as that at times. And the reason why is I think a critical mass or a critical percentage of the population is doing so, and by "critical mass" I mean enough to tank the rest of society, so why even bother. Why not just become sub prime slime and take out all the money on my house, blow it on a fancy car, and booze it up and go to Vegas. And then send the keys in the mail to the bank saying, "sorry, repossess, I don't care anymore." And then go live off the dole.
Oh, wait, that's right, I'm not a socialist. I actually support myself.
That being said, my self-reliance and true manliness of self-supportation does not dull the pain, nor lessen the anger when I see data like this;
Apparently, that vast majority of Americans do not have enough saved up for retirement. And by default, then, must be expected Daddy Government to come in and save them.
The question is, with what?
Social security?
So here's what I want all real men and women to do. If you're interested go to this web site which will help you calculate what you need to retire. Then compare it to the above chart. And then rack your brain trying to balance your desire to be a real American and support yourself or to just capitulate and go the route of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Anyway, another great article from The Economist.
Oh, wait, that's right, I'm not a socialist. I actually support myself.
That being said, my self-reliance and true manliness of self-supportation does not dull the pain, nor lessen the anger when I see data like this;
Apparently, that vast majority of Americans do not have enough saved up for retirement. And by default, then, must be expected Daddy Government to come in and save them.
The question is, with what?
Social security?
So here's what I want all real men and women to do. If you're interested go to this web site which will help you calculate what you need to retire. Then compare it to the above chart. And then rack your brain trying to balance your desire to be a real American and support yourself or to just capitulate and go the route of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Anyway, another great article from The Economist.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Stuff White People Like - Bumper Stickers
Absolutely freaking hilarious.
If you're thinking about committing suicide, this will stop you dead in your tracks.
Warning - the site is pretty funny and you can get lost for about 2 hours on it.
If you're thinking about committing suicide, this will stop you dead in your tracks.
Warning - the site is pretty funny and you can get lost for about 2 hours on it.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
When I am King
I went to a wedding tonight and if there is something that must be extinguished from society it must be this;
"I donated money to a charity and give this donation to you as a gift."
OK, seriously, when I'm king, you are one of the first people I'm going to send to the gallows.
This is not to belittle the Crohn's and Colitis foundation, but rather those that engage in such fake "altruistic" behavior. Seriously, WTF??? There are many reason why this is so dishonest.
1. What if I wanted my freaking gift? Huh, did that occur to you? Who are you to determine whether I want a genuine bona fide table gift or a donation (no matter how honorable it may be) to some charity? Truth is I don't care about the table gift. I wouldn't have even known there was a table gift to begin with. But then you say there WAS a table gift, but that was taken away from me and given to something else? Hello, how, precisely is that a "gift" for me?
2. Don't give me this gloating "how selfless and altruistic are we" BS that you were so "kind" and "charitable" to donate money in my name to a freaking charity. It's a cop out. Plain and simple. Additionally the condescending tone of it, "how dare you expect a gift when there are people suffering." No, I'm sorry, I'm a selfish, evil, capitalist, hate-filled, racist, dog-tripping, old-people punching, nose picking, booger-eating, goose stepping bastard. Where's my freaking gift?!
3. Not to accuse this particular party, but, I'm sorry, this is too rife to be abused. All I have to do is donate 30 cents to the "Captain Capitalism's Whiskey Fund" and write on some piece of paper that says "Your gift is a $5,000 donation we made to the 'Jones Cancer Fund'" I won't have kids, but I fully expect to have nieces and nephews. And when I do, Uncle Cappy is buying them X-box and ice cream and video games and fishing trips and Swiss army knives and splat ball guns and pocket bikes and water cannons and home made rockets and all the other cool stuff kids want but parents forbid. I'm not making a freaking-a charity donation in their name.
4. The concept of a gift is that you at least TRY to guess what the person genuinely wants. This is why I always advocate giving the gift of cash. Nobody is a better determiner of what one needs, than oneself. And think about what that person wants all you want, you'll never, in the quite literal economic sense give anybody a better gift than cash. In donating money to a charity of fund, you take away the semi-purchasing power of a true and genuine gift and force that person to donate their would be gift to something that is in reality nothing more than something designated to make you feel better about yourself. ie-quit giving a gift to you for yourself you cheat skate hypocrite. Either get them what they want, or cash, or nothing at all.
When I am king, "donating to a charity" as a gift will be punishable by death.
"I donated money to a charity and give this donation to you as a gift."
OK, seriously, when I'm king, you are one of the first people I'm going to send to the gallows.
This is not to belittle the Crohn's and Colitis foundation, but rather those that engage in such fake "altruistic" behavior. Seriously, WTF??? There are many reason why this is so dishonest.
1. What if I wanted my freaking gift? Huh, did that occur to you? Who are you to determine whether I want a genuine bona fide table gift or a donation (no matter how honorable it may be) to some charity? Truth is I don't care about the table gift. I wouldn't have even known there was a table gift to begin with. But then you say there WAS a table gift, but that was taken away from me and given to something else? Hello, how, precisely is that a "gift" for me?
2. Don't give me this gloating "how selfless and altruistic are we" BS that you were so "kind" and "charitable" to donate money in my name to a freaking charity. It's a cop out. Plain and simple. Additionally the condescending tone of it, "how dare you expect a gift when there are people suffering." No, I'm sorry, I'm a selfish, evil, capitalist, hate-filled, racist, dog-tripping, old-people punching, nose picking, booger-eating, goose stepping bastard. Where's my freaking gift?!
3. Not to accuse this particular party, but, I'm sorry, this is too rife to be abused. All I have to do is donate 30 cents to the "Captain Capitalism's Whiskey Fund" and write on some piece of paper that says "Your gift is a $5,000 donation we made to the 'Jones Cancer Fund'" I won't have kids, but I fully expect to have nieces and nephews. And when I do, Uncle Cappy is buying them X-box and ice cream and video games and fishing trips and Swiss army knives and splat ball guns and pocket bikes and water cannons and home made rockets and all the other cool stuff kids want but parents forbid. I'm not making a freaking-a charity donation in their name.
4. The concept of a gift is that you at least TRY to guess what the person genuinely wants. This is why I always advocate giving the gift of cash. Nobody is a better determiner of what one needs, than oneself. And think about what that person wants all you want, you'll never, in the quite literal economic sense give anybody a better gift than cash. In donating money to a charity of fund, you take away the semi-purchasing power of a true and genuine gift and force that person to donate their would be gift to something that is in reality nothing more than something designated to make you feel better about yourself. ie-quit giving a gift to you for yourself you cheat skate hypocrite. Either get them what they want, or cash, or nothing at all.
When I am king, "donating to a charity" as a gift will be punishable by death.
The Surge is Working
Older chart, but I've been so busy, yet I did want to post this because, well, afterall, that truth thing kind of hurts. Plus I like it when our boys do a good job;
I will never understand the defeatist mentality.
I will never understand the defeatist mentality.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Anybody Know Who This Artist Is?
So my grandpa always had these up in his basement and they were going to be thrown out, but I liked them and said I'd take them instead. Been trying to find out who the artist is, but no luck. Below is one of the paintings and the signature below;
Feces Attracts Flies
Ah, but who are the flies and who are the feces?
Would have liked to see them extend the chart to today.
Down 10,000
It was about, oh, I guess two months or so ago my grandma and dad were in town. My grandma had worked at Smith Barney back in her youth and so is quite savvy on the market and so forth. With the housing turmoil my dad asked "how far do you think the Dow is going to go down?"
I said, "Eh, around 10,000."
To which my grandma disagreed. "10,000? Are you sure? I don't think so, that's pretty steep."
Ah, the bad news just keeps rolling in.
I said, "Eh, around 10,000."
To which my grandma disagreed. "10,000? Are you sure? I don't think so, that's pretty steep."
Ah, the bad news just keeps rolling in.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Take That PEG Ratio and Shove It
A quick economics lesson of the day here and that is the PEG ratio.
A lot of people look at a P/E ratio as a means to determine whether a stock is under or overvalued. The price divided by the earnings of a share of stock (thus, P/E) shows how much you're paying in stock price to be entitled to one dollar in earnings. Thus a P/E of 100 means you're shelling out $100 in price for $1 in earnings and a P/E of 4 means you're only paying $4 in price for that same $1 in earnings.
The problem though, is with P/E ratios they don't account for growth. So a company could be making very little now, but if its earnings grow by, say, 500%, then it will be making sizable profits in the future.
This phenomenon was played out in Dotcom P/E ratios in the late 90s. Yahoo for example had a P/E of 571 at its peak in 1999. Obviously nobody was willing to pay $571 for a $1 in earnings, but it was the promise of future earnings growth that warranted such a high P/E ratio.
Thus to account for the prospect of growth they developed the PEG ratio - Price Earnings Growth. The original version discounted the P/E ratio by one year's worth of expected earnings growth. Thus the higher the growth, the lower the PEG ratio and thus the better "deal" you'd get.
However, there's just one minor problem. Stock markets are notoriously optimistic and overestimate growth. An interesting chart on Wikipedia from Robert Shiller shows the correlation between P/E ratios and their 20 year annualized return and it shows (commonsensically enough) that the lower P/E stocks had higher returns.
.png)
This counters, or at least gives reason to question any broker or smooth talking investment banker trying to push or sell the latest stock or technology saying "well, even if it has a P/E ratio of 300, it's still a great deal because of all the future growth that will occur." History has suggested, over various periods of time, we overestimate growth and do not value low P/E ratios as much as we should.
Of course this suggests something very obvious; the less you pay for a stock, the better deal you'll tend to get. I think people would become infinitely better investors if they treated buying stocks like buying gas; you want the price of it as cheap as possible when you buy. It's only when you sell do you want the price to go up.
A lot of people look at a P/E ratio as a means to determine whether a stock is under or overvalued. The price divided by the earnings of a share of stock (thus, P/E) shows how much you're paying in stock price to be entitled to one dollar in earnings. Thus a P/E of 100 means you're shelling out $100 in price for $1 in earnings and a P/E of 4 means you're only paying $4 in price for that same $1 in earnings.
The problem though, is with P/E ratios they don't account for growth. So a company could be making very little now, but if its earnings grow by, say, 500%, then it will be making sizable profits in the future.
This phenomenon was played out in Dotcom P/E ratios in the late 90s. Yahoo for example had a P/E of 571 at its peak in 1999. Obviously nobody was willing to pay $571 for a $1 in earnings, but it was the promise of future earnings growth that warranted such a high P/E ratio.
Thus to account for the prospect of growth they developed the PEG ratio - Price Earnings Growth. The original version discounted the P/E ratio by one year's worth of expected earnings growth. Thus the higher the growth, the lower the PEG ratio and thus the better "deal" you'd get.
However, there's just one minor problem. Stock markets are notoriously optimistic and overestimate growth. An interesting chart on Wikipedia from Robert Shiller shows the correlation between P/E ratios and their 20 year annualized return and it shows (commonsensically enough) that the lower P/E stocks had higher returns.
.png)
This counters, or at least gives reason to question any broker or smooth talking investment banker trying to push or sell the latest stock or technology saying "well, even if it has a P/E ratio of 300, it's still a great deal because of all the future growth that will occur." History has suggested, over various periods of time, we overestimate growth and do not value low P/E ratios as much as we should.
Of course this suggests something very obvious; the less you pay for a stock, the better deal you'll tend to get. I think people would become infinitely better investors if they treated buying stocks like buying gas; you want the price of it as cheap as possible when you buy. It's only when you sell do you want the price to go up.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Jury Duty
I apologize, but I just got jury duty.
Realizing what a farce the judicial system is in America I fully intend to use it as a means to advance a political agenda instead of justice.
HA HA HA!!!!
No, just kidding folks. I'm not a liberal Berkeley commie judge. I actually adhere to morals and integrity.
Regardless, postings will be a little short in the mean time as the juror vat as I like to call it, has no wifi access.
Realizing what a farce the judicial system is in America I fully intend to use it as a means to advance a political agenda instead of justice.
HA HA HA!!!!
No, just kidding folks. I'm not a liberal Berkeley commie judge. I actually adhere to morals and integrity.
Regardless, postings will be a little short in the mean time as the juror vat as I like to call it, has no wifi access.
Thank You Ramirez
The man rocks;
And if you want to get technical, a flea is about 200 times the size of Anwar.
Please, leftists and enviromentalist whackos, e-mail in your thoughts!
(and sorry, unless it is genuinely intelligent commentary you make, it will be thrown in the troll pile)
And if you want to get technical, a flea is about 200 times the size of Anwar.
Please, leftists and enviromentalist whackos, e-mail in your thoughts!
(and sorry, unless it is genuinely intelligent commentary you make, it will be thrown in the troll pile)
"But He Started It!"
Having siblings it was a guarantee I would use the phrase "but s/he started it."
And what angers me about parents is they retort;
"I don't care who started it, I'll finish it."
This is injustice, albeit on a small level.
But that is the key, and as Dennis Prager mentioned, it does matter who starts it.
Thus, imagine my surprise when I found out the 72 hour cease fire between Israel and the Palestinians was broken by none other than....
the Palestinians.
And for all the complications between the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and for all the speculation and the philosophies of why who does what, if there is something I've consistently seen it's that the Palestinians in something nearly 98% of the time start it. I remember once, and in intellectual honesty, the Israelis starting it and where I disagreed with them. But they are heavily outdone in "starting-it-manship" by the Palestinians.
In any case, it's stuff like this that erodes any pity I have for the Palestinians because it's nothing more than outright lying when engaging in a farcical truce only to break it less than a week later. Furthermore, as long as this childish behavior keeps up, they can expect to have a standard of living equal to a one-paltry-25th of the Israelis because nobody will trust them and therefore nobody will ever invest in them. I don't see a Palestinian ETF or indexed mutual fund out there. But I do see an Abu Dhabi/Arab regional one.
Which begets a serious question I tender to the readers out there, why haven't they realized this and what on God's green Earth compels them to keep themselves down like this? Fine, I can understand them blaming Israel and the West for all their woes, but inevitably the Palestinian people have just got to get sick of this and say, "You know what, screw this suicide bombing stuff, I'm going to school to become an engineer and play X-Box."
And what angers me about parents is they retort;
"I don't care who started it, I'll finish it."
This is injustice, albeit on a small level.
But that is the key, and as Dennis Prager mentioned, it does matter who starts it.
Thus, imagine my surprise when I found out the 72 hour cease fire between Israel and the Palestinians was broken by none other than....
the Palestinians.
And for all the complications between the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and for all the speculation and the philosophies of why who does what, if there is something I've consistently seen it's that the Palestinians in something nearly 98% of the time start it. I remember once, and in intellectual honesty, the Israelis starting it and where I disagreed with them. But they are heavily outdone in "starting-it-manship" by the Palestinians.
In any case, it's stuff like this that erodes any pity I have for the Palestinians because it's nothing more than outright lying when engaging in a farcical truce only to break it less than a week later. Furthermore, as long as this childish behavior keeps up, they can expect to have a standard of living equal to a one-paltry-25th of the Israelis because nobody will trust them and therefore nobody will ever invest in them. I don't see a Palestinian ETF or indexed mutual fund out there. But I do see an Abu Dhabi/Arab regional one.
Which begets a serious question I tender to the readers out there, why haven't they realized this and what on God's green Earth compels them to keep themselves down like this? Fine, I can understand them blaming Israel and the West for all their woes, but inevitably the Palestinian people have just got to get sick of this and say, "You know what, screw this suicide bombing stuff, I'm going to school to become an engineer and play X-Box."
Monday, June 23, 2008
Hard Cover or Soft Cover
Odd question for all the Captain Capitalismites out there, but do any of you guys care if I publish the book hard cover versus soft cover? Let me know, have to make a decision here. Any advice from the market would be appreciated.
Cpt.
Cpt.
Hope, Change, Unity and Kirk Watson
Freaking hilarious. Shows the true intelligence and above all the substance of the Obama campaign.
This is pretty funny too.
This is pretty funny too.
It's Because You're a Socialist, Obama, Not Because You're Black
I will preemptively address this and it will be a short post for it truly and really is that simple;
Obama, people who don't vote for you will do so, not because you're black. It's because you're a socialist.
I don't know how many Republicans, Capitalists, Libertarians and other like-minded people who because they advocate low taxes must automatically mean they're racist, would have gladly had Condi Rice as a presidential candidate over John McCain. And I'm adamantly sure that the vast majority of Republicans, Capitalists, Libertarians and other like-minded people who because they advocate low taxes must automatically mean they're racist, would whole heartedly support my presidential nominee; Walter E Williams. And there is of course the likes of Thomas Sowell and Peter Swanson and scores of others who are black and would make better presidential fodder than McCain. And the reason why we support these blacks over you, is because they are pro-capitalist, American loving Americans who are for not just social freedom, but economic freedom as well. Race really has nothing to do with it. We are truly capable of looking at a candidate for their policies and not the color of their skin.
The question is; all your supporters who are going to vote for you just because you're black and couldn't care less about your policies (because you have none except "change" and "hope" and "uniting"), is that not by default technically racist?
Just wondering.
In the meantime I will be voting Libertarian because I am done with the Norm Colemans and the John McCains of this world. Besides Walter E didn't run. Any chance of kidnapping and individual and forcing him to run?
Obama, people who don't vote for you will do so, not because you're black. It's because you're a socialist.
I don't know how many Republicans, Capitalists, Libertarians and other like-minded people who because they advocate low taxes must automatically mean they're racist, would have gladly had Condi Rice as a presidential candidate over John McCain. And I'm adamantly sure that the vast majority of Republicans, Capitalists, Libertarians and other like-minded people who because they advocate low taxes must automatically mean they're racist, would whole heartedly support my presidential nominee; Walter E Williams. And there is of course the likes of Thomas Sowell and Peter Swanson and scores of others who are black and would make better presidential fodder than McCain. And the reason why we support these blacks over you, is because they are pro-capitalist, American loving Americans who are for not just social freedom, but economic freedom as well. Race really has nothing to do with it. We are truly capable of looking at a candidate for their policies and not the color of their skin.
The question is; all your supporters who are going to vote for you just because you're black and couldn't care less about your policies (because you have none except "change" and "hope" and "uniting"), is that not by default technically racist?
Just wondering.
In the meantime I will be voting Libertarian because I am done with the Norm Colemans and the John McCains of this world. Besides Walter E didn't run. Any chance of kidnapping and individual and forcing him to run?
Robert Shiller and Edward Fox; Separated at Birth???
So to make sure the book is all legal and nice I made sure I have permission to use everybody's data for the charts in the book (of which there is no less than 35 charts - how can you not want to buy that book? hmmmmmm....chaaaarts). On of the charts is the S&P 500 P/E ratio and Dr. Robert Shiller of Yale has a great database at his site.
Still, wanting to make sure I did everything correctly I called up the office, got his very nice and sweet assistant Carol to help me out, and boom, got permission.
But when I went to his site, the picture he has up reminded me of somebody who I couldn't put my finger on. Here's his picture;
It wasn't until last night when I was watching "The Guns of Navarone" did I remember who he reminded me of; Edward Fox from the sequel "Force 10 From Navarone."
Or perhaps they are one and the same! And it has been Edward Fox this entire time pulling of his most amazing acting yet as he poses as an Ivy League economist!
Oh, how would the markets react to that!?
Still, wanting to make sure I did everything correctly I called up the office, got his very nice and sweet assistant Carol to help me out, and boom, got permission.
But when I went to his site, the picture he has up reminded me of somebody who I couldn't put my finger on. Here's his picture;
It wasn't until last night when I was watching "The Guns of Navarone" did I remember who he reminded me of; Edward Fox from the sequel "Force 10 From Navarone."
Or perhaps they are one and the same! And it has been Edward Fox this entire time pulling of his most amazing acting yet as he poses as an Ivy League economist!
Oh, how would the markets react to that!?
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Seems I Must Explain Myself
I take the stand that children are expensive, burdensome and not for me.
I get so much trollish hate-posts that it warrants explanation and a lecture.
#1. This is still a free country and if I so decide not to have a child, that is my god damned right. It is not selfish, self-centered or greedy. What is greedy are people who have children because children go well with the drapes and they "always wanted children" but then dump them off at a day care center or have a nanny or grandma raise them because they're too busy with their career.
#2. It is very UNselfish of me not to have a child, because I respect the would be Cpt. Capitalism Jr enough to know I would not be a good father. I would be a reluctant father. And since, unlike too many people today, I refuse to ship my kid off to a day care farm, and would insist either myself or my wife would stay home with the kid, the fact I refuse to have a child only means I respect human life and children enough to know its best I don't bring one into this world under my fathership.
#3. This Darwinian BS that "Oh, Captain, you're just the person we need to breed." BS. If my child is going to be born, I face a paradox. He/she is not going to be a loafer and live off of welfare and the state. They will be just as independent and self reliant a man as I am, under my insistence. However, the irony is that the trend is to teach children dependency and victimhood in school. And as far as I can tell or forecast, that means my offspring will just end up being a host to a generation of parasites by the default fact s/he will be a producer and not a consumer. ie-I don't have faith in the future of this country or society to bring a child into it, simply because I think s/he will just end up slaving away to pay for a bunch of whinny socialist parasites. So you guys go and adhere to this "don't you want your legacy to continue" BS all you want. I'm already a slave enough to the parasites of this nation paying the taxes I do. I'm not putting any innocent human in the same position.
#4. You TRULY sick, twisted greedy effers who demand other people pro-create so THEIR children can SUPPORT YOU via social security????? Seriously, do you not have the capacity to think independently??? Since when did children become mandatory batteries to fund your retirement? Why don't you just stick an IV in them and transfer their blood directly to your bodies? And by the way, how does that, demanding people have children to support you in your retirement, exactly differ from slavery? You sick twisted, pathetic a$$holes. You better pray and hope I don't become president/king because you're the first people I'm gunning after.
Now unless somebody has a great job opportunity for me that will make me infinitely wealthy or reason to think somehow the choice between Barack "The Socialist American Hater" Obama and John "The Socialist American Hater" McCain portends hope for this nation, please do not ask me, let alone demand I pro-create and bring a child into this hell hole. And dare I say it, before you bring another innocent soul into this world, you better think as long as hard as I have on this one before you do too.
Because as far as I can tell, that is the truest sign of love and compassion for a child; Thinking about them before they already exist.
I get so much trollish hate-posts that it warrants explanation and a lecture.
#1. This is still a free country and if I so decide not to have a child, that is my god damned right. It is not selfish, self-centered or greedy. What is greedy are people who have children because children go well with the drapes and they "always wanted children" but then dump them off at a day care center or have a nanny or grandma raise them because they're too busy with their career.
#2. It is very UNselfish of me not to have a child, because I respect the would be Cpt. Capitalism Jr enough to know I would not be a good father. I would be a reluctant father. And since, unlike too many people today, I refuse to ship my kid off to a day care farm, and would insist either myself or my wife would stay home with the kid, the fact I refuse to have a child only means I respect human life and children enough to know its best I don't bring one into this world under my fathership.
#3. This Darwinian BS that "Oh, Captain, you're just the person we need to breed." BS. If my child is going to be born, I face a paradox. He/she is not going to be a loafer and live off of welfare and the state. They will be just as independent and self reliant a man as I am, under my insistence. However, the irony is that the trend is to teach children dependency and victimhood in school. And as far as I can tell or forecast, that means my offspring will just end up being a host to a generation of parasites by the default fact s/he will be a producer and not a consumer. ie-I don't have faith in the future of this country or society to bring a child into it, simply because I think s/he will just end up slaving away to pay for a bunch of whinny socialist parasites. So you guys go and adhere to this "don't you want your legacy to continue" BS all you want. I'm already a slave enough to the parasites of this nation paying the taxes I do. I'm not putting any innocent human in the same position.
#4. You TRULY sick, twisted greedy effers who demand other people pro-create so THEIR children can SUPPORT YOU via social security????? Seriously, do you not have the capacity to think independently??? Since when did children become mandatory batteries to fund your retirement? Why don't you just stick an IV in them and transfer their blood directly to your bodies? And by the way, how does that, demanding people have children to support you in your retirement, exactly differ from slavery? You sick twisted, pathetic a$$holes. You better pray and hope I don't become president/king because you're the first people I'm gunning after.
Now unless somebody has a great job opportunity for me that will make me infinitely wealthy or reason to think somehow the choice between Barack "The Socialist American Hater" Obama and John "The Socialist American Hater" McCain portends hope for this nation, please do not ask me, let alone demand I pro-create and bring a child into this hell hole. And dare I say it, before you bring another innocent soul into this world, you better think as long as hard as I have on this one before you do too.
Because as far as I can tell, that is the truest sign of love and compassion for a child; Thinking about them before they already exist.
Saturday, June 21, 2008
At Least She's Honest
So a friend of mine lives in this mid to late twenties, preppy, cha-chi apartment complex that I call "the breeding grounds." All of 3 years ago you could find a place to park, but as these 20 somethings started meeting other 20 somethings, the parking lot gets fuller and fuller. Then little ones started sprouting out. And now it's impossible to find a parking spot.
To accommodate this demographic increase in the number of parents, the apartment management purchases a subscription to "Parent" magazine and leaves a couple free issues in the atrium. I'm not a parent, not do I care much for children, but I occasionally pick a copy up and peruse. And I do believe there is a Blogging God out there, because I grab this morning's latest issue, opened it up and BAAM!!! The Blogging God (who I shall name Morty) forced the magazine to open to something I've always suspected and was outright scary;
Now, like I said before, I shall never have kids. I've spoken about the rates of return you can realize on a vasectomy, but just how it's so defeatist that "oh, yeah, you pretty much give up your life and couldn't care less about your spouse. Your spouse is just there to make the kid happen, and then after that he/she is more of an annoyance. Sex is a chore and a bore. But, you know, that's life and this sad existence is all worth it because you have a kid." Or "there only is so much love to go around" as if love is in a limited quantity.
B as in B.
S as in S.
If this is a prevalent mentality in society today, then to hell with having kids. Aside from not having a kid be one of the smartest moves you can do financially, this psychological mentality that we're just drones to spit out children and then ignore your spouse means there's a cost to kids beyond finances and it's your life, your soul, your sentientness.
This also goes a long way in explaining when I'm at Target or Best Buy, buying GTAIV, Metal Gear Solid 4, or Army of 2, and I see a mom with her screaming child/children why her face is very somber looking, very depressed and very defeated, drawn out, broken. Lifeless and listless. And why I'm relatively happy knowing I'm going home to play a video game and my only major chore is to clean the toilet and water the garden.
To all the single and kidless economists out there, aspiring, junior, deputy, official or otherwise, go buy yourself and drink and toast one to yourself. Life could be a lot more lifeless.
To accommodate this demographic increase in the number of parents, the apartment management purchases a subscription to "Parent" magazine and leaves a couple free issues in the atrium. I'm not a parent, not do I care much for children, but I occasionally pick a copy up and peruse. And I do believe there is a Blogging God out there, because I grab this morning's latest issue, opened it up and BAAM!!! The Blogging God (who I shall name Morty) forced the magazine to open to something I've always suspected and was outright scary;
Now, like I said before, I shall never have kids. I've spoken about the rates of return you can realize on a vasectomy, but just how it's so defeatist that "oh, yeah, you pretty much give up your life and couldn't care less about your spouse. Your spouse is just there to make the kid happen, and then after that he/she is more of an annoyance. Sex is a chore and a bore. But, you know, that's life and this sad existence is all worth it because you have a kid." Or "there only is so much love to go around" as if love is in a limited quantity.
B as in B.
S as in S.
If this is a prevalent mentality in society today, then to hell with having kids. Aside from not having a kid be one of the smartest moves you can do financially, this psychological mentality that we're just drones to spit out children and then ignore your spouse means there's a cost to kids beyond finances and it's your life, your soul, your sentientness.
This also goes a long way in explaining when I'm at Target or Best Buy, buying GTAIV, Metal Gear Solid 4, or Army of 2, and I see a mom with her screaming child/children why her face is very somber looking, very depressed and very defeated, drawn out, broken. Lifeless and listless. And why I'm relatively happy knowing I'm going home to play a video game and my only major chore is to clean the toilet and water the garden.
To all the single and kidless economists out there, aspiring, junior, deputy, official or otherwise, go buy yourself and drink and toast one to yourself. Life could be a lot more lifeless.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)