No duh.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Arckensaw vs. Arkansas
I was having a discussion with a female friend of mine and was summarily mocked for I mentioned that back when I was all of 6 or 7 years old I thought there were two distinctly separate states;
One called "Arckensaw" and one called "Arkansas."
The reason for my confusion was the obvious spelling of "Arkansas" is not pronounced "Arcken-saw" but "r-kansas."
Did anybody else have this confusion as a child so I can point out to my female colleague that I am not the only one that thought this way in their youth?
One called "Arckensaw" and one called "Arkansas."
The reason for my confusion was the obvious spelling of "Arkansas" is not pronounced "Arcken-saw" but "r-kansas."
Did anybody else have this confusion as a child so I can point out to my female colleague that I am not the only one that thought this way in their youth?
I Forget Just How Small Russia is at Times
For all it's huffing and puffing and invading, there are times I forget that Russia is actually quite a small economy.
Why can't it be more like Brazil or India? Do you ever hear of Brazil invading places, bothering people, producing terrorists? No, they just hang out there in the south, enjoy the weather and produce GDP.
Why can't it be more like Brazil or India? Do you ever hear of Brazil invading places, bothering people, producing terrorists? No, they just hang out there in the south, enjoy the weather and produce GDP.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Kill the Bankers
I was angry before, which prompted me to write my book. But now I am livid. With a potential $1 trillion bill facing the taxpayers, I am at a loss for words to describe my sincere hatred for bankers. And thus, without words, that leaves only actions;
I want to kill the bankers.
I don't mean that in a funny, ha ha, way. I don't mean that in a sarcastic way. I mean that in an old school American, wild wild west, you killed my father-prepare-to-die, deadly serious way. I literally want to grab my gun, get a lot of bullets, find some bankers, hunt them down and kill them. I even know the bankers I would hunt down. I know their names and where I can find them. I would do with a smile on my face. I would enjoy the action of it, I would savor it. I would go home and pour myself a well-earned drink and sleep just as soundly as I ever have, if not, probably better. I would not have one pang of guilt.
Now I know that violence and hate and revenge are officially outlawed in this country. When we get attacked we're supposed to ask what we did wrong. When we get bombed we're supposed to apologize. And when bankers screw us out of $1 trillion, we're supposed to forgive them and get over it and maybe bend over again and to make easier for them the next time around, perhaps spread our butt cheeks.
Not me.
No.
I'm steaming.
And the particular reason why is that bankers are unique because of their hubris and arrogance.
Say you have a deadbeat on welfare. Fine, I have no respect for that individual, I may not really like that individual, but for the most part while they're living off the taxpayer, they're not really living a jet set life style. Bankers on the other hand, insist, almost demand that they live the jet set lifestyle, regardless of whether they produce a profit or not. They drive Beamers, they drive Mercedes, they wear fancy clothes, all to put up the image, all to tell themselves in their minds that they are hot sh!t, whether or not they're actually a good banker. Yet the fact so many of them were so poor at their job that it is potentially going to cost the real working American's $1 trillion shows you their entitlement mentality.
"What? Turn down a loan on account we're ultimately guaranteed by the FDIC and thus the taxpayer and we owe it to the country not to destroy the economy? Why that would get in the way of my commission! And me having the latest in Armani and Trophy Wife apparel is more important than you dumb working schleps! Why, I'm a BANKER, I'm an important guy! I work on Wall Street! I'm not some peon like you!"
Additionally, it is the attitude of the holier than thou crowd of the now-crumbling elite "Bulge Bracket" of Wall Street. I remember many years ago applying to the likes of Bear Sterns and Lehman Brothers only to be turned down solely because I went to a state school and not "the Ivy League." I wasn't a Rockefeller or a Winthrop the III or a Kennedy. I, and presumably the rest of blue collar America, was not "good enough" to work for these firms. Now these firms and their incompetent, moronic blue blood ilk are coming up to us with a cup in their hand for a $1 trillion bail out? These "elites," the "smartest people from the best schools" have effectively caused a recession? They are the bottom of the barrel. They're incompetent. They're losers. They're not good at anything but living off of mommy and daddy, and when they can't produce anything of value, parasiting off the real men and women who work.
Regardless, this mentality these bankers have is the exact same as an entitled socialist, but with the unfathomable arrogance that they're entitled to riches as well at the expense of society and the taxpayer. They are entitled to a fancy I-banking job whether they have the skill for it or not. They are entitled to limitless wealth because of their profession. They are entitled to drive a luxury car, even though pretty much every bankers' beamer out there is paid for with 100% of somebody else's money. It is arguably the epitome of evil and why I seriously would not have any problem killing some bankers.
Of course, the problem is "killing" is "illegal." Much as I (and no doubt some of you) would like to go out with our rifles during "Banker Season," we'd all end up in jail. Thus, I have a solution, that although would not be quite as effective as "The Great Banker Purge of 2008" in fighting moral hazard, I think the effects will be the same as it is worse than death itself;
Tax them.
Tax the living snot out of them.
We know who the bad bankers are. It's not that hard. The Feds are investigating scores of banks and while the criminal bankers have left or been fired, you can still track them down, garnish their wages and make them pay for their mistakes. It is only fair that for once, instead of repeating another S&L bail out where we give bankers another cup of moral hazard, we make them pay, and make the price so dear they never forget. That instead of them parasiting off society, they sleep in their own bed and deal with their own mess. That instead of driving their Escillade around for selling the taxpayers another $40 million worth of worthless CDO's, they drive an old used Chevy Caprice and have to budget, and conserve and feel the constant threat of poverty the rest of us have known, but they never have. I want them to pay the $1 trillion tab, not when they're making $10 million a year in bonus, but when they have to work as a security guard during the 3rd shift for $8.50 and hour.
Of course though, we don't really have a choice because our beloved elected leaders are going to once again bail out the financial system on account of it being "too vital a component to the economy." But bankers beware, if a revolution ever comes and society crumbles, something tells me it won't be rabbit season, or duck season, or Elmer Fudd season.
It'll be banker season.
I want to kill the bankers.
I don't mean that in a funny, ha ha, way. I don't mean that in a sarcastic way. I mean that in an old school American, wild wild west, you killed my father-prepare-to-die, deadly serious way. I literally want to grab my gun, get a lot of bullets, find some bankers, hunt them down and kill them. I even know the bankers I would hunt down. I know their names and where I can find them. I would do with a smile on my face. I would enjoy the action of it, I would savor it. I would go home and pour myself a well-earned drink and sleep just as soundly as I ever have, if not, probably better. I would not have one pang of guilt.
Now I know that violence and hate and revenge are officially outlawed in this country. When we get attacked we're supposed to ask what we did wrong. When we get bombed we're supposed to apologize. And when bankers screw us out of $1 trillion, we're supposed to forgive them and get over it and maybe bend over again and to make easier for them the next time around, perhaps spread our butt cheeks.
Not me.
No.
I'm steaming.
And the particular reason why is that bankers are unique because of their hubris and arrogance.
Say you have a deadbeat on welfare. Fine, I have no respect for that individual, I may not really like that individual, but for the most part while they're living off the taxpayer, they're not really living a jet set life style. Bankers on the other hand, insist, almost demand that they live the jet set lifestyle, regardless of whether they produce a profit or not. They drive Beamers, they drive Mercedes, they wear fancy clothes, all to put up the image, all to tell themselves in their minds that they are hot sh!t, whether or not they're actually a good banker. Yet the fact so many of them were so poor at their job that it is potentially going to cost the real working American's $1 trillion shows you their entitlement mentality.
"What? Turn down a loan on account we're ultimately guaranteed by the FDIC and thus the taxpayer and we owe it to the country not to destroy the economy? Why that would get in the way of my commission! And me having the latest in Armani and Trophy Wife apparel is more important than you dumb working schleps! Why, I'm a BANKER, I'm an important guy! I work on Wall Street! I'm not some peon like you!"
Additionally, it is the attitude of the holier than thou crowd of the now-crumbling elite "Bulge Bracket" of Wall Street. I remember many years ago applying to the likes of Bear Sterns and Lehman Brothers only to be turned down solely because I went to a state school and not "the Ivy League." I wasn't a Rockefeller or a Winthrop the III or a Kennedy. I, and presumably the rest of blue collar America, was not "good enough" to work for these firms. Now these firms and their incompetent, moronic blue blood ilk are coming up to us with a cup in their hand for a $1 trillion bail out? These "elites," the "smartest people from the best schools" have effectively caused a recession? They are the bottom of the barrel. They're incompetent. They're losers. They're not good at anything but living off of mommy and daddy, and when they can't produce anything of value, parasiting off the real men and women who work.
Regardless, this mentality these bankers have is the exact same as an entitled socialist, but with the unfathomable arrogance that they're entitled to riches as well at the expense of society and the taxpayer. They are entitled to a fancy I-banking job whether they have the skill for it or not. They are entitled to limitless wealth because of their profession. They are entitled to drive a luxury car, even though pretty much every bankers' beamer out there is paid for with 100% of somebody else's money. It is arguably the epitome of evil and why I seriously would not have any problem killing some bankers.
Of course, the problem is "killing" is "illegal." Much as I (and no doubt some of you) would like to go out with our rifles during "Banker Season," we'd all end up in jail. Thus, I have a solution, that although would not be quite as effective as "The Great Banker Purge of 2008" in fighting moral hazard, I think the effects will be the same as it is worse than death itself;
Tax them.
Tax the living snot out of them.
We know who the bad bankers are. It's not that hard. The Feds are investigating scores of banks and while the criminal bankers have left or been fired, you can still track them down, garnish their wages and make them pay for their mistakes. It is only fair that for once, instead of repeating another S&L bail out where we give bankers another cup of moral hazard, we make them pay, and make the price so dear they never forget. That instead of them parasiting off society, they sleep in their own bed and deal with their own mess. That instead of driving their Escillade around for selling the taxpayers another $40 million worth of worthless CDO's, they drive an old used Chevy Caprice and have to budget, and conserve and feel the constant threat of poverty the rest of us have known, but they never have. I want them to pay the $1 trillion tab, not when they're making $10 million a year in bonus, but when they have to work as a security guard during the 3rd shift for $8.50 and hour.
Of course though, we don't really have a choice because our beloved elected leaders are going to once again bail out the financial system on account of it being "too vital a component to the economy." But bankers beware, if a revolution ever comes and society crumbles, something tells me it won't be rabbit season, or duck season, or Elmer Fudd season.
It'll be banker season.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Stick It to the Rich
I have a theory that politics, when it really boils down to it, is basically just two groups of people who argue over who should get to consume the production of society. Marx and Obama supporters call it the have's and the have not's. Some would call it the leftists vs. fascists. Others would call it the producers and the parasites. Regardless of what you want to call them, politics as far as I've read and seen throughout history is about one group of people finding a way to take what others have.
But what I find particularly interesting in today's Western democracies is that the "have nots/leftists/parasites" act as if the "haves/nazibushloverfascists/producers" don't already transfer a significant sum of their earnings to the have not group. That they don't get a dime from the richer classes. Or that the rich don't pay taxes at all, they have those always-available "loop-holes," and not only that, but they actively engage in oppressing the poorer classes just for sh!t's and giggles (which I know I do, actually the Republican party has a quota of poor people you must oppress if you want to join the party, you get bonus points if they are of a minority race or religion)
Regardless, what ultimately made me choose sides in this simplified political landscape was one simple thing;
Fact.
Specifically, statistics that show you, among other things, just how much people are taxed and where the government spends the money.
One would think this would be the MINIMUM amount of fiscal stewardship a citizen of a democracy (or republic) would do to determine what is in the best fiscal interests of the country they are ultimately responsible for. Sadly, one cannot attribute that bare minimum of concern for one's country to the majority of Obama supporters because without verifying the facts, they'll just go and knee-jerk response;
"The rich don't pay their fair share."
"The rich use loopholes to avoid paying taxes."
"The rich poke baby koala bears with sharp sticks." (which you also get bonus points for)
When the reality, the cold hard truth of the matter is the rich in the US and practically all western democracies are the most charitable people in the history of the world;
Of course there is more to a political campaign and platform than just fiscal policy. But my question would be would anybody of the lefter leaning ideologies vote for Obama if he said he wasn't going to tax the rich? And on the same coin, would anybody of the righter leaning ideologies vote for McCain if he said he was going to tax the rich?
If you think about it, you'll see just how simple politics is.
But what I find particularly interesting in today's Western democracies is that the "have nots/leftists/parasites" act as if the "haves/nazibushloverfascists/producers" don't already transfer a significant sum of their earnings to the have not group. That they don't get a dime from the richer classes. Or that the rich don't pay taxes at all, they have those always-available "loop-holes," and not only that, but they actively engage in oppressing the poorer classes just for sh!t's and giggles (which I know I do, actually the Republican party has a quota of poor people you must oppress if you want to join the party, you get bonus points if they are of a minority race or religion)
Regardless, what ultimately made me choose sides in this simplified political landscape was one simple thing;
Fact.
Specifically, statistics that show you, among other things, just how much people are taxed and where the government spends the money.
One would think this would be the MINIMUM amount of fiscal stewardship a citizen of a democracy (or republic) would do to determine what is in the best fiscal interests of the country they are ultimately responsible for. Sadly, one cannot attribute that bare minimum of concern for one's country to the majority of Obama supporters because without verifying the facts, they'll just go and knee-jerk response;
"The rich don't pay their fair share."
"The rich use loopholes to avoid paying taxes."
"The rich poke baby koala bears with sharp sticks." (which you also get bonus points for)
When the reality, the cold hard truth of the matter is the rich in the US and practically all western democracies are the most charitable people in the history of the world;
Of course there is more to a political campaign and platform than just fiscal policy. But my question would be would anybody of the lefter leaning ideologies vote for Obama if he said he wasn't going to tax the rich? And on the same coin, would anybody of the righter leaning ideologies vote for McCain if he said he was going to tax the rich?
If you think about it, you'll see just how simple politics is.
Cute Bunny Pictures
Hey, who doesn't like cute bunny pictures.
Thus concludes my break-from-economics-post.
Thus concludes my break-from-economics-post.
Maybe Minnesotans Should Be Put in Charge of Rebuilding the WTC
13 months ago we were playing volleyball and all of the sudden my friends' and my cell phones were going off. Parents were calling us to see if we were alright. Odd it seemed at first, but that's when the highway 35W bridge collapsed.
Well 13 months later the bridge has reopened and now traffic will be seriously alleviated. However, such a quick rebuilding of a major highway over the country's largest river got me thinking;
"Why the hell is it taking so long to rebuild the WTC?"
I've speculated on this before and pointed out that if this was the 1940's, despite archaic technology, those towers would have been rebuilt in the same amount of time it took to rebuild this bridge. Of course political, environmental, insurance and other factors have gotten in the way. But it does present an interesting dichotomy.
It takes a private sector firm 13 months to rebuild a major piece of infrastructure under budget and ahead of schedule. It takes what can only be described as government and political bureaucracy 7 years to build absolutely nothing. If there is a lesson in the perils of government and politics, this is it.
In the meantime, perhaps you New Yorkers out there could use a little consulting help from us hicks in Minnesota?
Well 13 months later the bridge has reopened and now traffic will be seriously alleviated. However, such a quick rebuilding of a major highway over the country's largest river got me thinking;
"Why the hell is it taking so long to rebuild the WTC?"
I've speculated on this before and pointed out that if this was the 1940's, despite archaic technology, those towers would have been rebuilt in the same amount of time it took to rebuild this bridge. Of course political, environmental, insurance and other factors have gotten in the way. But it does present an interesting dichotomy.
It takes a private sector firm 13 months to rebuild a major piece of infrastructure under budget and ahead of schedule. It takes what can only be described as government and political bureaucracy 7 years to build absolutely nothing. If there is a lesson in the perils of government and politics, this is it.
In the meantime, perhaps you New Yorkers out there could use a little consulting help from us hicks in Minnesota?
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Sincere Pscyhological Problems
I don't want to hear about how we on the right "hate." Seems to be the monopoly of the left.
UPDATE
Click on the profile here. Does anybody see what I see?
UPDATE
Click on the profile here. Does anybody see what I see?
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Costs to Fire a Worker
The guy at The Economist who is doing the chartage is on a roll. Here's another good one;
Not that I'm a big fan of corporate America, but if it takes over a year's worth of a German worker's pay to fire them, why set up shop there?
Not that I'm a big fan of corporate America, but if it takes over a year's worth of a German worker's pay to fire them, why set up shop there?
Wow, China Represent!
I'm not sure as I'm not familiar with the characters of the various Asian languages, but I think I might have just entered a 1.3 billion person market. Sincere thanks!
Monday, September 15, 2008
"Behind the Housing Crash - Confessions from an Insider" is Here!
Happy day Junior, Deputy, Aspiring, Official or Otherwise Economists!
After many months of writing (and a coincidental timing with the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the rest of Wall Street), the book is finally here! Behind the Housing Crash – Confessions of an Insider has officially been published and you can get your copy here!
Full of stories guaranteed to make your blood boil, bring shame to the banking industry, and packed full of charty-goodness (35 charts no less!) this has been the single largest project I’ve ever embarked on. I did my best to write a clear, concise, but above all, entertaining book that I hope achieves its aim of explaining what happened, how the housing crash came to be, and why your house is all of the sudden worth $150,000 less than what it used to be.
In any case, as this is self published I need all the help of the junior, deputy, aspiring, official or otherwise economists and Captain Capitalismites out there to tell a friend or 60 about the book. I have no grand delusions of this hitting the New York Time’s best seller list, nor getting on Oprah’s book club, but have set myself the reasonable goal of selling more copies than Nancy Pelosi. If you could please send the link to anybody you know that would be interested in this book or mention it to family and friends that would be grand.
I sincerely appreciate all of your help in the past and all of your readership. And I sincerely hope this book surpasses your expectations.
Cpt. Capitalism
Liberals Don't Adjust for GDP
It's just a common fact; liberals do not adjust for GDP.
They look at nominal numbers and run with it;
"Did you know back in 1872 milk cost 3 cents a gallon. BUT UNDER GEORGE BUSH IT COSTS $3! Bush is in cahoots with Big Milk. Impeach Bush now!"
Of course, maybe that might be a bit extreme, but I have seen such outlandish comparisons in the past that make most economists' heads shake. But this was one where I think we need a lesson in economics;
There is a thing called "Critical Mass" wherein bicyclists in the city clog the main roads to protest the use of cars and advocate the use of bikes. No doubt a more lefter leaning group, and no doubt they cause more carbon to be emitted as they effectively create a traffic jam, but that aside this is just another case of leftists not bothering to have any semblance of intellectual honesty, or perhaps are just plain lazy.
Adjust for GDP people. It's like saying "Bill Gate's has over $1 MILLION dollars in credit card debt! What a big bad debt hog!"
Well, big whoop. He's got $40 billion in assets. You have to compare the amount of debt to what the government (or individual or company or economy) makes. Yes, there is $9.6 trillion in GROSS federal debt (another adjustment I shall ignore for now), but as a percent of GDP that's only 72%.
To compare to yourself, ask how much debt you owe (student, credit cards, mortgage, etc) and divide that by your gross income. Most people would would be well above 100%, probably even 200%.
Now, I do share the bicycle rider's sentiment that Bush has spent too much (though he would contest it was on Iraq and I would contest - with documented proof - it was social security and medicare), but can we just agree to do some simple token, high school economics and adjust for things like inflation and GDP?
They look at nominal numbers and run with it;
"Did you know back in 1872 milk cost 3 cents a gallon. BUT UNDER GEORGE BUSH IT COSTS $3! Bush is in cahoots with Big Milk. Impeach Bush now!"
Of course, maybe that might be a bit extreme, but I have seen such outlandish comparisons in the past that make most economists' heads shake. But this was one where I think we need a lesson in economics;
There is a thing called "Critical Mass" wherein bicyclists in the city clog the main roads to protest the use of cars and advocate the use of bikes. No doubt a more lefter leaning group, and no doubt they cause more carbon to be emitted as they effectively create a traffic jam, but that aside this is just another case of leftists not bothering to have any semblance of intellectual honesty, or perhaps are just plain lazy.
Adjust for GDP people. It's like saying "Bill Gate's has over $1 MILLION dollars in credit card debt! What a big bad debt hog!"
Well, big whoop. He's got $40 billion in assets. You have to compare the amount of debt to what the government (or individual or company or economy) makes. Yes, there is $9.6 trillion in GROSS federal debt (another adjustment I shall ignore for now), but as a percent of GDP that's only 72%.
To compare to yourself, ask how much debt you owe (student, credit cards, mortgage, etc) and divide that by your gross income. Most people would would be well above 100%, probably even 200%.
Now, I do share the bicycle rider's sentiment that Bush has spent too much (though he would contest it was on Iraq and I would contest - with documented proof - it was social security and medicare), but can we just agree to do some simple token, high school economics and adjust for things like inflation and GDP?
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Who Carried Out the 9-11 Attacks
The short answer is Islamic terrorists.
Of course, if you live in an Islamic country and the government does not allow for a free media or you're just biased, then it's the Israelis or the US government (though, this is a popular theory amongst US democrats too).
However, I can easily show those who claim it was the Israelis or the US government are lying through their teeth and are just saying so as mere propaganda and are using something called "Island Hopping Logic."
If you ask them who brought down the Twin Towers, it was Bush or the Jews.
Ask them what they think of Osama Bin Laden and "Oh, he's our hero! Did you see what he did to the Twin Towers!"
You'd be amazed how common this is...or perhaps not.
Another thing that stuck out about this chart is our good Mexican friends to the south. Only 25% of them believe it was Islamic terrorists. Of course, that's why they were all cheering for Osama Bin Laden during a soccer match against the US.
So I don't want the world telling us who they (wink wink) "think" pulled off 9-11. You all know who did.
Of course, if you live in an Islamic country and the government does not allow for a free media or you're just biased, then it's the Israelis or the US government (though, this is a popular theory amongst US democrats too).
However, I can easily show those who claim it was the Israelis or the US government are lying through their teeth and are just saying so as mere propaganda and are using something called "Island Hopping Logic."
If you ask them who brought down the Twin Towers, it was Bush or the Jews.
Ask them what they think of Osama Bin Laden and "Oh, he's our hero! Did you see what he did to the Twin Towers!"
You'd be amazed how common this is...or perhaps not.
Another thing that stuck out about this chart is our good Mexican friends to the south. Only 25% of them believe it was Islamic terrorists. Of course, that's why they were all cheering for Osama Bin Laden during a soccer match against the US.
So I don't want the world telling us who they (wink wink) "think" pulled off 9-11. You all know who did.
Friday, September 12, 2008
McCain vs. Obama at Hot or Not
So what started as an innocent venture of curiosity ended up becoming a bit more involved than I thought it would.
Very simply, all I wanted to do was to see who was hotter during his prime;
John McCain or Barack Obama.
I deemed this somewhat newsworthy as pretty much every Jeff Foxworthy fan is salivating over Sarah Palin and every perpetually-single New York 30 something female is doing the same over Obama. And while looks are complete irrelevant in a presidential race (or at least should be), I recall seeing some pictures of John McCain in his youth and he was nothing short of Cary-Grantish level handsome.
To prove who was the better looking I took two pictures; one of John McCain in his prime and one of Barack Obama in his prime. I faced the problem that if the pictures were too easily identifiable then the screeners at Hot or Not would reject them. Fortunately both made it through and here are the results;
Barack Obama; 7.2/10
John McCain; 9.9/10
Now one would leave it as such and say, "OK, cute story, John McCain is way hotter than Barack Obama, adjusting for prime."
But what happened thereafter was interesting, if not hilarious (and sure to be a boost to the aspiring presidential candidate).
One, John McCain was "invited" (I guess is the term) to become the "Hot or Not Person of the Week." Obama had no such invite.
Two, several girls (all of the age of 20 something) expressed an interest in meeting the young John McCain, though Cindy McCain might have something to say about that. Barack Obama had no such interest (though I will readily admit the girls listed could just be a marketing ploy of the web site, still, none showed up on the Obama site). Regardless, sadly, I hate to break it to those McCain hearthrobs on Hot or Not, but John McCain is married and he is (I think) 72 years old.
Of course, looks are irrelevant when it comes to selecting the president of the United States and this was done largely out of humor and jest. However, while you may not be able to date John McCain, you can vote for him. For while he may beat Barack 9.9 to 7.2 in looks (adjusting for prime), I would surmise he equally, if not, more than trounces him in experience.
Very simply, all I wanted to do was to see who was hotter during his prime;
John McCain or Barack Obama.
I deemed this somewhat newsworthy as pretty much every Jeff Foxworthy fan is salivating over Sarah Palin and every perpetually-single New York 30 something female is doing the same over Obama. And while looks are complete irrelevant in a presidential race (or at least should be), I recall seeing some pictures of John McCain in his youth and he was nothing short of Cary-Grantish level handsome.
To prove who was the better looking I took two pictures; one of John McCain in his prime and one of Barack Obama in his prime. I faced the problem that if the pictures were too easily identifiable then the screeners at Hot or Not would reject them. Fortunately both made it through and here are the results;
Barack Obama; 7.2/10
John McCain; 9.9/10
Now one would leave it as such and say, "OK, cute story, John McCain is way hotter than Barack Obama, adjusting for prime."
But what happened thereafter was interesting, if not hilarious (and sure to be a boost to the aspiring presidential candidate).
One, John McCain was "invited" (I guess is the term) to become the "Hot or Not Person of the Week." Obama had no such invite.
Two, several girls (all of the age of 20 something) expressed an interest in meeting the young John McCain, though Cindy McCain might have something to say about that. Barack Obama had no such interest (though I will readily admit the girls listed could just be a marketing ploy of the web site, still, none showed up on the Obama site). Regardless, sadly, I hate to break it to those McCain hearthrobs on Hot or Not, but John McCain is married and he is (I think) 72 years old.
Of course, looks are irrelevant when it comes to selecting the president of the United States and this was done largely out of humor and jest. However, while you may not be able to date John McCain, you can vote for him. For while he may beat Barack 9.9 to 7.2 in looks (adjusting for prime), I would surmise he equally, if not, more than trounces him in experience.
Who Doesn't Have More Experience thatn Barack Obama?
I will say it once, and then I'll day it again.
If you've baby sat or shoveled poo (which I did at a greenhouse when I was 12, you'd be amazed of all the different types of poo that go into various fertilizers) then you have more experience than Barack Obama. And the reason is simple;
You've then worked in the private sector and one day in the private sector is more real world experience than a decade in government.
This was posted by Fritz on SDA.
If you've baby sat or shoveled poo (which I did at a greenhouse when I was 12, you'd be amazed of all the different types of poo that go into various fertilizers) then you have more experience than Barack Obama. And the reason is simple;
You've then worked in the private sector and one day in the private sector is more real world experience than a decade in government.
This was posted by Fritz on SDA.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
My Angry Response
I made a post two posts below about honoring 9-11. I got enough "sensitive 90's" responses about how killing more of them (terrorists) won't solve the situation and that we lost Vietnam because of this and blah blah blah. And in sheer rage responded.
The good news is this is my blog. And the good news is more people listen and read me than people who disagree. And the good news is I get to decide what's published or not, not some lefty internet trolls. And by God I will post something that is positive and I will defend the fact we kill more terrorists than they kill us because it is important and it damn well means something to me, and I gander a lot of Americans who are sick of the pansy sensitive 90's BS. My rage induced response is below;
My freaking God, no wonder the terrorists are emboldened! What is this pansy ass crap I am hearing? Seriously. If George Patton were alive he'd launch the 5th army against all of you.
Can you none of you just let yourselves enjoy the fact we're killing the bad guys at a rate at six times what they're killing us?
I know we've all been brainwashed to shun violence and shun revenge, but while I still have the slightest bit of testosterone and hatred for the enemy, I'm going to be damn happy we're killing these scumbags faster than they are us.
Jesus freaking Christ. Can the soldiers just get an occasional "thanks for kicking ass"? Can they? Or does there have to be some public-school indoctrinated caveat about the statistics and then some moral qualm about killing evil people?
I will out of sheer piss-offedness no longer post comments on this thread that are anything BUT praise, adulation and gratitude to the success of the military. And the reason why is you can get otherwise elsewhere and I'm sick of hearing "otherwise."
Just cheer, hell, ACKNOWLEDGE the freaking good guy without a godamned string attached once in a while, will ya?!
The good news is this is my blog. And the good news is more people listen and read me than people who disagree. And the good news is I get to decide what's published or not, not some lefty internet trolls. And by God I will post something that is positive and I will defend the fact we kill more terrorists than they kill us because it is important and it damn well means something to me, and I gander a lot of Americans who are sick of the pansy sensitive 90's BS. My rage induced response is below;
My freaking God, no wonder the terrorists are emboldened! What is this pansy ass crap I am hearing? Seriously. If George Patton were alive he'd launch the 5th army against all of you.
Can you none of you just let yourselves enjoy the fact we're killing the bad guys at a rate at six times what they're killing us?
I know we've all been brainwashed to shun violence and shun revenge, but while I still have the slightest bit of testosterone and hatred for the enemy, I'm going to be damn happy we're killing these scumbags faster than they are us.
Jesus freaking Christ. Can the soldiers just get an occasional "thanks for kicking ass"? Can they? Or does there have to be some public-school indoctrinated caveat about the statistics and then some moral qualm about killing evil people?
I will out of sheer piss-offedness no longer post comments on this thread that are anything BUT praise, adulation and gratitude to the success of the military. And the reason why is you can get otherwise elsewhere and I'm sick of hearing "otherwise."
Just cheer, hell, ACKNOWLEDGE the freaking good guy without a godamned string attached once in a while, will ya?!
"Canadians Are Stupid"
First read this;
Then watch this.
Ah yes, the Green party, which is a predominantly leftist party, threatening the freedom of speech.
This must explain why in communist countries you have the right to vote, you just have to vote for the communist party. And in the Green party world you have the freedom of speech, you just have to say what they want you to say.
Stop in and say hello to the Green party of Canada.
ht to SDA.
Then watch this.
Ah yes, the Green party, which is a predominantly leftist party, threatening the freedom of speech.
This must explain why in communist countries you have the right to vote, you just have to vote for the communist party. And in the Green party world you have the freedom of speech, you just have to say what they want you to say.
Stop in and say hello to the Green party of Canada.
ht to SDA.
Old School 9-11 Tribute
What amazes me is that the death tolls of Americans/Allies versus how many of these terrorist scumbags we killed is rarely posted. You don't see it on the news, there's no running tally, it's nowhere near as watched as say the score of a football game, yet it's immensely important, if not the most important thing or measure for the whole war. Because the goal is to kill as many terrorist scumbags as possible.
And for my tribute to 9-11, I don't want to do some candle light vigil, I don't want to do some lets-hold-hands-and-sing-kumbayaa. I just wanted to point out the cold hard truth to all the terrorists who thought it would be a grand idea to kill 3,000 Americans (and the leftists that seemingly cheer them on) that it was the dumbest mistake you've ever made. I just wanted to point out to all the radical terrorist nutjobs out there, who think you've done some amazing thing, that 9-11 was the equivalent to not only shooting yourselves in the foot, but pretty much shooting yourselves in the head. I know the media won't admit it. I know the left and Obama supporters here in America are reluctant, if not ashamed to acknowledge it, but we are not only winning, we are hands down kicking your ass.
Although the data is a year old, US troops have been killing you no-point-to-life losers at a rate of 6 to 1.
You want to do this all day? Fine, we can accommodate that. We can go all night long because it will bring about your end and we fully intend to.
But the larger point is this. Currently 4,155 US troops have died in this war to avenge those we lost on 9-11. And while they look down from above and certainly appreciate the candle-light vigils, and prayers and moments of silence, I think they're sitting next to God on big comfy leather couches with beers and brats watching the game, and are more concerned about the score. And if there's anything putting a smile on their faces, and vindicating they certainly did not die in vain it's to see their buddies kicking ass on the field. They may be out of the game, but those 4,155 took one for the team.
And for my tribute to 9-11, I don't want to do some candle light vigil, I don't want to do some lets-hold-hands-and-sing-kumbayaa. I just wanted to point out the cold hard truth to all the terrorists who thought it would be a grand idea to kill 3,000 Americans (and the leftists that seemingly cheer them on) that it was the dumbest mistake you've ever made. I just wanted to point out to all the radical terrorist nutjobs out there, who think you've done some amazing thing, that 9-11 was the equivalent to not only shooting yourselves in the foot, but pretty much shooting yourselves in the head. I know the media won't admit it. I know the left and Obama supporters here in America are reluctant, if not ashamed to acknowledge it, but we are not only winning, we are hands down kicking your ass.
Although the data is a year old, US troops have been killing you no-point-to-life losers at a rate of 6 to 1.
You want to do this all day? Fine, we can accommodate that. We can go all night long because it will bring about your end and we fully intend to.
But the larger point is this. Currently 4,155 US troops have died in this war to avenge those we lost on 9-11. And while they look down from above and certainly appreciate the candle-light vigils, and prayers and moments of silence, I think they're sitting next to God on big comfy leather couches with beers and brats watching the game, and are more concerned about the score. And if there's anything putting a smile on their faces, and vindicating they certainly did not die in vain it's to see their buddies kicking ass on the field. They may be out of the game, but those 4,155 took one for the team.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
The Effects of the Convention
I am kind of disheartened that there is a "bump" in the polls at all, be it a democrat or a republican convention, just because there was a convention. What it tells me is there is an unacceptably high percent of the population that is taken in by glamor and glitz and ponies and fireworks and nothing important as issues or decisions. Of course, I shouldn't be surprised when an ugly has-been idiotic celebrity with the brain of a mosquito can garnish some significant support amongst the masses, but still it bothers me all it takes is "pretty colors" and "flashy lights" to convince people to vote one way or another.
In any case, I am happy to see a significant bump in McCain's ratings over Obama's. I'm just hoping it has more to do with Palin than the pretty sparklies of a convention.
In any case, I am happy to see a significant bump in McCain's ratings over Obama's. I'm just hoping it has more to do with Palin than the pretty sparklies of a convention.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)