Mr. Short, I believe must be my long lost twin brother.
Older.
More gray haired.
Probably not a salsa dancer.
But my long lost twin brother none the less.
He focuses on Tobin's "Q quotient" whereas I am lazy and just look up a mathematically similar measure over at Dr. Robert Shiller's office, the S&P 500 P/E ratio.
The moral of the stories are the same.
The stock market is overvalued. It always has been since idiotic politicians decided us people were too stupid to know what to do and engaged in the largest and (soon to be) most damaging social engineering project ever - the 401k/IRA/government ordained retirement program.
Let's essentially ordain the stock market as the ONLY means by which you can save for retirement. AND HEY, GUESS WHAT, let's give 300 million Americans a TAX INCENTIVE to throw their money into the stock market regardless of whether or not its a good buy. No, that won't cause a bubble now, will it?
I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but something tells me Wall Street might have had a role in getting this legislation through.
Regardless, it's nice to see somebody older than me (and therefore wiser, because I know how you baby boomers like to dismiss any human without gray hair as a "moron") point out what I've been pointing out since (cripes???) 2006???
But, no, no. You kids go ahead. I'm just an evil, party pooping republican trying to bring everybody's good time down. You throw your money into the S&P 500 when it only has a dividend yield of 1.8% (Herb, point of tax preference duly noted). I'm sure some spectabulous Obama Unicorn will fly over and fart economic fairy dust to overcome all of our economic problems and all of you baby boomers will retire in comfort, as will, of course, all of you Gen X'ers and Gen Y's who believe in social security, medicare and unicorns that fart economic fairy dust.
I shall part, with something that will probably be lost on most of you pinning your hopes on the woefully underfunded 401k plan:
Enjoy the decline!
Tuesday, March 06, 2012
Monday, March 05, 2012
Why "CSR" Won't Ever Work
Corporations, in their idiocy to pander to every possible market segment, failed to think long term what would happen to the business environment if they pandered to communists masquerading as "environmentalists."
While corporations think they're gaining a whopping 2% more market share by paying lip service and platitudes towards "going green," it's a fool's errand because the political forces that forced these corporations to set up CSR departments in the first place never really cared about "the environment." "The environment" was merely a tool for a larger, ulterior motive - socialism.
However, it seems some corporations are done being useful idiots.
While corporations think they're gaining a whopping 2% more market share by paying lip service and platitudes towards "going green," it's a fool's errand because the political forces that forced these corporations to set up CSR departments in the first place never really cared about "the environment." "The environment" was merely a tool for a larger, ulterior motive - socialism.
However, it seems some corporations are done being useful idiots.
Sunday, March 04, 2012
William Johnson is an Overpaid Baby Sitter
Boo, freaking hoo.
Something tells me he doesn't have to worry about health insurance.
Getting mighty tired of adult-children from the suburbs who think this teaching racket is a "tough" job. Just once, just once I'd love to see one of these pansified girly men work a 20 hour shift, or heck, I'd settle for them working the dog shift for 3 months and see if they need a therapist to address their sleeping problems and what the lack of sun does to the human mind.
Bunch of spoiled little children who merely aged past the point of puberty but never grew up or manned up and think government jobs are "tough."
Something tells me he doesn't have to worry about health insurance.
Getting mighty tired of adult-children from the suburbs who think this teaching racket is a "tough" job. Just once, just once I'd love to see one of these pansified girly men work a 20 hour shift, or heck, I'd settle for them working the dog shift for 3 months and see if they need a therapist to address their sleeping problems and what the lack of sun does to the human mind.
Bunch of spoiled little children who merely aged past the point of puberty but never grew up or manned up and think government jobs are "tough."
Crusaderism Consolidated
Had a couple requests for this a while ago. Finally got off my lazy butt and put all these seminars into one consolidated list:
Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD2ofP62KLU
Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ri7euevDADg
Part 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSb3-Z42fb8
Part 4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1_qkf23OiY
Part 5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nwPLaYJ6kw
Part 6 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-jbgzCBNrw
Part 7 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jUrT4S9GAY
Part 8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmP9VnLwzWk
Part 9 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RH22Ts_P7vY
Now look, I know you yahoos out there who read this blog. You'll click on the first link. watch it, then the second, maybe the third and then stop. You miss the good stuff at the end.
So start with Part 9 and work backwards. And yes, the intro on part 1 is long, deal with it.
Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD2ofP62KLU
Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ri7euevDADg
Part 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSb3-Z42fb8
Part 4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1_qkf23OiY
Part 5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nwPLaYJ6kw
Part 6 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-jbgzCBNrw
Part 7 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jUrT4S9GAY
Part 8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmP9VnLwzWk
Part 9 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RH22Ts_P7vY
Now look, I know you yahoos out there who read this blog. You'll click on the first link. watch it, then the second, maybe the third and then stop. You miss the good stuff at the end.
So start with Part 9 and work backwards. And yes, the intro on part 1 is long, deal with it.
Friday, March 02, 2012
Attention All Cappy Cap Lieutenants - You Have a Mission
If you choose to accept it.
Forbes writes an article about a Wisconsin legislator aiming to bring some semblance of shame and responsibility to single parents deeming it a form of abuse or neglect. I wouldn't go so far as deem it "abuse" or "neglect" in today's legal terms, but it is at least damaging and is one of the biggest problems facing the US. Even the wording used said it's a "contributing factor" which I believe is quite accurate (and I believe statistically provable if we correlate divorce and single-parenting with crime, abuse, neglect, etc. etc. - but let's not let facts get in the way).
Of course the author and his readers mocks the Wisconsin legislator, presumably because they've never been brought up in a single family household and write off the damaging effects of single parent households as "bogus" or "hilarious." You know, all you latch-key kids, all you fatherless or motherless children who had to grow up in the 70's and 80's. You're morons if you think divorce or single parents were bad. You should be thankful you were brought into this world by two people incapable of bringing you up under a stable household. How selfish you must be. You want BOTH a mother AND A FATHER? Selfish little brat. Get in the car, I have to drop you off at day care while I get my degree in Cosmetology on the taxpayers' dime.
If there is a call to arms, this is it. Another aging journalist in the echo chamber media writing off and mocking somebody who has taken a politically unpopular stance. A stance for OF ALL THINGS (and here's the irony)
the children.
Not "the chilllllldreeeeeen" like the Wisconsin teachers union hide behind to steal more money from the taxpayer.
Or "the chilllllldreeeeen" like when politicians want to get you to vote for them.
Or "the chilllldreeen" when non-profit outfits like the UN or what-have-you milk you for more money and never seem to end child poverty because, well, their primary goal is employment, not solving hunger.
No, Senator Grothman is actually going to bat for the children and is putting his political career on the line for it. This is the type of guy you want in public office. Somebody who is not a politician, will hold his ground, make unpopular decisions, and is (GASP) altruistic and principled.
Lets see if we can get the old fogies at Forbes to realize there might be a generation or two younger than them that had to deal with their mistakes when they hooked up with somebody that they'd inevitably divorce, but NOT before bringing some innocent children into this world.
You can go make a comment. We'll see as they say over at SDA, "If SDA gets results!"
Oh, and PS - Rick, hope you like cheap nursing homes.
Forbes writes an article about a Wisconsin legislator aiming to bring some semblance of shame and responsibility to single parents deeming it a form of abuse or neglect. I wouldn't go so far as deem it "abuse" or "neglect" in today's legal terms, but it is at least damaging and is one of the biggest problems facing the US. Even the wording used said it's a "contributing factor" which I believe is quite accurate (and I believe statistically provable if we correlate divorce and single-parenting with crime, abuse, neglect, etc. etc. - but let's not let facts get in the way).
Of course the author and his readers mocks the Wisconsin legislator, presumably because they've never been brought up in a single family household and write off the damaging effects of single parent households as "bogus" or "hilarious." You know, all you latch-key kids, all you fatherless or motherless children who had to grow up in the 70's and 80's. You're morons if you think divorce or single parents were bad. You should be thankful you were brought into this world by two people incapable of bringing you up under a stable household. How selfish you must be. You want BOTH a mother AND A FATHER? Selfish little brat. Get in the car, I have to drop you off at day care while I get my degree in Cosmetology on the taxpayers' dime.
If there is a call to arms, this is it. Another aging journalist in the echo chamber media writing off and mocking somebody who has taken a politically unpopular stance. A stance for OF ALL THINGS (and here's the irony)
the children.
Not "the chilllllldreeeeeen" like the Wisconsin teachers union hide behind to steal more money from the taxpayer.
Or "the chilllllldreeeeen" like when politicians want to get you to vote for them.
Or "the chilllldreeen" when non-profit outfits like the UN or what-have-you milk you for more money and never seem to end child poverty because, well, their primary goal is employment, not solving hunger.
No, Senator Grothman is actually going to bat for the children and is putting his political career on the line for it. This is the type of guy you want in public office. Somebody who is not a politician, will hold his ground, make unpopular decisions, and is (GASP) altruistic and principled.
Lets see if we can get the old fogies at Forbes to realize there might be a generation or two younger than them that had to deal with their mistakes when they hooked up with somebody that they'd inevitably divorce, but NOT before bringing some innocent children into this world.
You can go make a comment. We'll see as they say over at SDA, "If SDA gets results!"
Oh, and PS - Rick, hope you like cheap nursing homes.
Weekend Hot Toddies
I didn't know how to spell "Toddies" and, yes, I was too lazy to look it up. However, tomorrow it will be warm enough to do some scouting in my new home and so I shall drive north and potentially west this weekend to scope out some new mountain hikes as well as fossil hunting grounds. In the meantime you WILL read the following links.
Compliance is mandatory.
Conformance is not optional.
You will obey.
No society will ever become great turning away free medical help from Good Samaritans on fanatical religious grounds. I'd like to tell them to "enjoy the decline," but they never ascended as a society, and so cannot enjoy a "decline" because they're already destitute.
Your Little Known History Lesson for the Day. Who knew!?
Good news everyone!
I still say we have an "Open Season" for bankers.
The Scafetta Model seems to have the motive of discovering the truth rather than bilking naive taxpayers addicted to the "Green Religion."
You do not have to lie there and take it. You can do like I did and move to a province that is more hospitable to sanity, profit, progress and reason.
Could Hollywood perhaps make a movie about this? I know I'm asking for crazy stuff here. Because I know we all want to see more Julia Roberts and other aging actresses in more "romantic comedies," but, you know, just for S's and G's make a movie about this.
Couldn't have happened to a more deserving group of incompetent, lazy parasites. Burn, baby, burn!
Hipster jokes.
When only idiots breed, the collective IQ goes down the toilet. That is the abbreviated version of this study. Of course, they can't come outright and say that, but I can. My "g" is Victorian Era Level. Polite, equally high "g" hat tip.
How now Brow Cow? Got what you asked for eh? I'm sure that the billions of years of evolution resulting in "male" and "female" genders in practically ALL animals was just a fluke. And a fluke to be ignored and fought against with no ramifications. Besides, we all know inherent genetic programming is sexist. You should ignore it. Nay, fight it. I'm sure you'll win in the end.
I remember teaching at a community college. I also remember being stupid enough at first to believe I was brought there to teach them. While tech school and vocational school is beneficial to the student, sadly there were so many other programs at the schools I taught it, it was obvious they were just there to make money and take the kids' money. "Cosmetology," "travel and hospitality," "culinary school," these and other "programs" at the schools were nothing more than scams. This only confirms an epiphany I had when I had to tutor a poor student who WAS mentally impaired and was still allowed to attend school - the education industry LOVES mentally impaired or "problem" students, because they can milk more money from that disadvantaged soul.
Don't see Lorax unless you're one of those milquetoast conservatives that like to complain about socialism, but then support whilst incidentally brainwashing your kids.
And finally, today's music therapy major brought to you in part by "Worthless."
Compliance is mandatory.
Conformance is not optional.
You will obey.
No society will ever become great turning away free medical help from Good Samaritans on fanatical religious grounds. I'd like to tell them to "enjoy the decline," but they never ascended as a society, and so cannot enjoy a "decline" because they're already destitute.
Your Little Known History Lesson for the Day. Who knew!?
Good news everyone!
I still say we have an "Open Season" for bankers.
The Scafetta Model seems to have the motive of discovering the truth rather than bilking naive taxpayers addicted to the "Green Religion."
You do not have to lie there and take it. You can do like I did and move to a province that is more hospitable to sanity, profit, progress and reason.
Could Hollywood perhaps make a movie about this? I know I'm asking for crazy stuff here. Because I know we all want to see more Julia Roberts and other aging actresses in more "romantic comedies," but, you know, just for S's and G's make a movie about this.
Couldn't have happened to a more deserving group of incompetent, lazy parasites. Burn, baby, burn!
Hipster jokes.
When only idiots breed, the collective IQ goes down the toilet. That is the abbreviated version of this study. Of course, they can't come outright and say that, but I can. My "g" is Victorian Era Level. Polite, equally high "g" hat tip.
How now Brow Cow? Got what you asked for eh? I'm sure that the billions of years of evolution resulting in "male" and "female" genders in practically ALL animals was just a fluke. And a fluke to be ignored and fought against with no ramifications. Besides, we all know inherent genetic programming is sexist. You should ignore it. Nay, fight it. I'm sure you'll win in the end.
I remember teaching at a community college. I also remember being stupid enough at first to believe I was brought there to teach them. While tech school and vocational school is beneficial to the student, sadly there were so many other programs at the schools I taught it, it was obvious they were just there to make money and take the kids' money. "Cosmetology," "travel and hospitality," "culinary school," these and other "programs" at the schools were nothing more than scams. This only confirms an epiphany I had when I had to tutor a poor student who WAS mentally impaired and was still allowed to attend school - the education industry LOVES mentally impaired or "problem" students, because they can milk more money from that disadvantaged soul.
Don't see Lorax unless you're one of those milquetoast conservatives that like to complain about socialism, but then support whilst incidentally brainwashing your kids.
And finally, today's music therapy major brought to you in part by "Worthless."
Thursday, March 01, 2012
Won't Somebody Please Think of the Chillllldreeeeennnn
I will say it again, because it's true. And we all know how a lot of you out there have a problem with the truth.
The majority of teachers do not care about kids. They use kids and "education" as a means to have an easy job with 3 months a year vacation. And I get mightily sick and tired when I see them cowardly hide behind the "noble crusade of educating the chillllldreeeennnnn" when they're just robbing them blind.
The majority of teachers do not care about kids. They use kids and "education" as a means to have an easy job with 3 months a year vacation. And I get mightily sick and tired when I see them cowardly hide behind the "noble crusade of educating the chillllldreeeennnnn" when they're just robbing them blind.
Help the Captain Out
Greetings Junior, Deputy, Aspiring, Official or Otherwise Economists!
Help the ole Captain out here and if you would be so kind, post the LOCAL talk radio show hosts you have in your local town. You know, the local guy that follows after El Rushbo and Hannity are done.
For example in Minneapolis it's Joe Soucheray and Jason Lewis.
Problem is there's no place on the internet to look it up unless you want to look up and surf to each local market radio web site. So I'm trying to compile a list here.
Many thanks in advance. I do appreciate it.
Cpt.
Help the ole Captain out here and if you would be so kind, post the LOCAL talk radio show hosts you have in your local town. You know, the local guy that follows after El Rushbo and Hannity are done.
For example in Minneapolis it's Joe Soucheray and Jason Lewis.
Problem is there's no place on the internet to look it up unless you want to look up and surf to each local market radio web site. So I'm trying to compile a list here.
Many thanks in advance. I do appreciate it.
Cpt.
Here's a Real Man
That's what I'm talking about. Didn't go to college. Just studied and did it on his own. What I also like is how it was how Eaton corporation, which is just plagued with white collar bureaucracy, with all of its resources couldn't pull off what a man with grit and determination did.
However, I just cringe to think what his daughter is going to go to college for. The irony if she saw her dad, succeed without a college degree and be a self-taught, self-made man, and then she goes and majors in "Communications." God I hope that is not the case.
However, I just cringe to think what his daughter is going to go to college for. The irony if she saw her dad, succeed without a college degree and be a self-taught, self-made man, and then she goes and majors in "Communications." God I hope that is not the case.
Sandy Hingston's Lengthy Post
Permit me some light-hearted sexist joking here:
Q - How can you tell Sandy Hingston's article was written by a woman?
A - Because it's 6 pages long.
Yuk yuk yuk yuk.
Just kidding.
Ms. Hingston, I'm afraid has wandered into the Manosphere. Of course, like most women, she is unaware of the lengthy psy-ops battle that's been going on, and I fear will be ripped to shreds by some of our lieutenants in the Manosphere. However, if you read her writing, she genuinely is asking an honest question and is unaware. Not really condemning men for "not manning up," as much as asking why.
We've been here before with Kay Homiwitz (sp?), so I'll try to be a bit more brief and keep it under six pages, but still address and answer all of her questions, or rather, the questions of the women/girls she cites in her article. The "you" is not specifically referencing Ms. Hingston, but is a general "you" referring primarily to women in general as well as the emasculated men that I also hold accountable for the current environment men in this country face:
1. You destroyed the industrial economy by voting for politicians to over-regulate and make everything green. We all can't be "elementary school teachers" or "social workers" because, unfortunately, somebody actually has to produce the stuff that the economy needs, depends upon and is made of. Sadly, government services seem to be the only thing that is "environmentally safe enough" to be deemed worthy of existing in this economy. Let me know when you're willing to put a president in the office that would let the XL Pipeline through.
2. You've villainized profit, excellence, and risk taking in the economy which are predominantly male traits and are the primary reasons America rose to its economic dominance like it did. You swallowed whole this egalitarian outcome BS instead of egalitarian opportunity. Socialism is here, whether you realize its economic manifestation or not, and that more or less shuts down the economic incentive men have to produce.
3. You've destroyed any incentive men have on a romantic level through feminism and ignoring their needs, if not also villainizing male sexuality, which:
a. Destroys their incentive to find a wife, have kids, and therefore work for a family, which in turn means they only need to produce essentially a third of what they used to, to survive
b. Makes getting married and having a family too risky a venture (which once again forces them to go the easier route of just supporting themselves)
c. All of which means "getting by" with a low paying job, not "manning up" and getting high paying careers.
4. Hey, don't you guys predominantly keep voting to raise taxes? And doesn't that not only take away more money from men who work predominantly in the private sector to pay for your make-work public sector jobs? Let me see, go to school for an engineering degree, make $80,000 gross, $55,000 net and have people hate me because i'm "rich" OR, get a degree in journalism, live at home, gross $30,000, net $25,000 and save my youth and effort and attend an OWS event.
5. You want men to have jobs? Are there any to have? Taxes are so high, as are regulations, that they're driving companies offshore LEAVING NO JOBS! I love 8.6% unemployment/ 15% U6 unemployment! Hey, while we're at it, let's borrow another trillion for social programs and defunct "green" companies and spend more money on an education bubble! If you want men to man up, how about you study some basic economics and vote accordingly to provide the economic environment in which men can man up?
6. What did you think would happen when the first full generation of men raised by single moms hit the dating market? NOW you want "real men?" Sorry, they're all mama's boys. Oh, and the rough and bad boy type you want? Ritalin kind of vaccinates boys against that.
7. "Hey Dad, I remember you going through divorce and seeing you eat out of a can. That must have really sucked! What's that dad? A vasectomy costs $1,000 while divorce and children cost $500,000? Gee, thanks dad! I'm sure glad I learned from your mistakes! I'm never getting married and am going to bang on my drums all day and I'll STILL come out ahead financially!"
I guess I could go on, but it frankly gets tiresome because these girls just don't seem to get it. You ignore men, male psychology and male sexuality, you put the entire focus of society on women and completely ignore the other half of the population. And after 40 years of that men will go away and abandon their male roles. They will become myopic in their approach to sexuality and interacting with women, and they will change their behavior to benefit them the most with the least amount of risk and the highest amount of reward.
The only question I have is instead of speculating about why or complaining, why don't women just go and ask the guys? They'll tell you the answer...or is it women are afraid of the answer?
Regardless, the whole debate though is actually quite moot. The clock cannot be turned back to the 1970's and undo the social changes that were started back then. Additionally, most of the men I know and run into have adapted to the environment that was laid out for them and most of them are happy. It really seems to be the women who have trouble with men staying home, playing video games all day, drinking beer and being Peter Pan forever. I don't think most men have a problem with that all.
Alas, perhaps girls, you could learn something from my boys or at least gain insight into their psychology:
Boys, see if you can finish my sentence:
"Boys, you know what to do. It's time to ________ _____ _______!"
Q - How can you tell Sandy Hingston's article was written by a woman?
A - Because it's 6 pages long.
Yuk yuk yuk yuk.
Just kidding.
Ms. Hingston, I'm afraid has wandered into the Manosphere. Of course, like most women, she is unaware of the lengthy psy-ops battle that's been going on, and I fear will be ripped to shreds by some of our lieutenants in the Manosphere. However, if you read her writing, she genuinely is asking an honest question and is unaware. Not really condemning men for "not manning up," as much as asking why.
We've been here before with Kay Homiwitz (sp?), so I'll try to be a bit more brief and keep it under six pages, but still address and answer all of her questions, or rather, the questions of the women/girls she cites in her article. The "you" is not specifically referencing Ms. Hingston, but is a general "you" referring primarily to women in general as well as the emasculated men that I also hold accountable for the current environment men in this country face:
1. You destroyed the industrial economy by voting for politicians to over-regulate and make everything green. We all can't be "elementary school teachers" or "social workers" because, unfortunately, somebody actually has to produce the stuff that the economy needs, depends upon and is made of. Sadly, government services seem to be the only thing that is "environmentally safe enough" to be deemed worthy of existing in this economy. Let me know when you're willing to put a president in the office that would let the XL Pipeline through.
2. You've villainized profit, excellence, and risk taking in the economy which are predominantly male traits and are the primary reasons America rose to its economic dominance like it did. You swallowed whole this egalitarian outcome BS instead of egalitarian opportunity. Socialism is here, whether you realize its economic manifestation or not, and that more or less shuts down the economic incentive men have to produce.
3. You've destroyed any incentive men have on a romantic level through feminism and ignoring their needs, if not also villainizing male sexuality, which:
a. Destroys their incentive to find a wife, have kids, and therefore work for a family, which in turn means they only need to produce essentially a third of what they used to, to survive
b. Makes getting married and having a family too risky a venture (which once again forces them to go the easier route of just supporting themselves)
c. All of which means "getting by" with a low paying job, not "manning up" and getting high paying careers.
4. Hey, don't you guys predominantly keep voting to raise taxes? And doesn't that not only take away more money from men who work predominantly in the private sector to pay for your make-work public sector jobs? Let me see, go to school for an engineering degree, make $80,000 gross, $55,000 net and have people hate me because i'm "rich" OR, get a degree in journalism, live at home, gross $30,000, net $25,000 and save my youth and effort and attend an OWS event.
5. You want men to have jobs? Are there any to have? Taxes are so high, as are regulations, that they're driving companies offshore LEAVING NO JOBS! I love 8.6% unemployment/ 15% U6 unemployment! Hey, while we're at it, let's borrow another trillion for social programs and defunct "green" companies and spend more money on an education bubble! If you want men to man up, how about you study some basic economics and vote accordingly to provide the economic environment in which men can man up?
6. What did you think would happen when the first full generation of men raised by single moms hit the dating market? NOW you want "real men?" Sorry, they're all mama's boys. Oh, and the rough and bad boy type you want? Ritalin kind of vaccinates boys against that.
7. "Hey Dad, I remember you going through divorce and seeing you eat out of a can. That must have really sucked! What's that dad? A vasectomy costs $1,000 while divorce and children cost $500,000? Gee, thanks dad! I'm sure glad I learned from your mistakes! I'm never getting married and am going to bang on my drums all day and I'll STILL come out ahead financially!"
I guess I could go on, but it frankly gets tiresome because these girls just don't seem to get it. You ignore men, male psychology and male sexuality, you put the entire focus of society on women and completely ignore the other half of the population. And after 40 years of that men will go away and abandon their male roles. They will become myopic in their approach to sexuality and interacting with women, and they will change their behavior to benefit them the most with the least amount of risk and the highest amount of reward.
The only question I have is instead of speculating about why or complaining, why don't women just go and ask the guys? They'll tell you the answer...or is it women are afraid of the answer?
Regardless, the whole debate though is actually quite moot. The clock cannot be turned back to the 1970's and undo the social changes that were started back then. Additionally, most of the men I know and run into have adapted to the environment that was laid out for them and most of them are happy. It really seems to be the women who have trouble with men staying home, playing video games all day, drinking beer and being Peter Pan forever. I don't think most men have a problem with that all.
Alas, perhaps girls, you could learn something from my boys or at least gain insight into their psychology:
Boys, see if you can finish my sentence:
"Boys, you know what to do. It's time to ________ _____ _______!"
The Captain Makes It to the Boston Herald
Happy Day Cappy Cappites!
"Worthless" is starting to show the early signs of the "domino explosion" effect I was hoping it would have (akin, again to a bomb hitting the magazine of a naval ship, causing a chain reaction). People call it "going viral," I like to be a bit more explosive in my descriptions.
We got our first big break at PJMedia with Dr. Reynolds, then his wife also chimed in, and now the Boston Herald.
I want to thank all of you for recommending, referring and link/posting/facebooking/blogging about the book. You have no idea what kind of a feeling it is to think "Wow, I might actually be able to do more than just buy a new AR 15 with this!" I don't dare think about what it would be like if it became successful to the point my house would be paid off, but shucks howdy, it sure is nice to dream about that.
Regardless, whatever you're doing, keep on doing it! Besides, the book REALLY should be in the hands of every high school junior and senior before they head off to college. Please help make that a reality, it can only help the students and the country as well.
"Worthless" is starting to show the early signs of the "domino explosion" effect I was hoping it would have (akin, again to a bomb hitting the magazine of a naval ship, causing a chain reaction). People call it "going viral," I like to be a bit more explosive in my descriptions.
We got our first big break at PJMedia with Dr. Reynolds, then his wife also chimed in, and now the Boston Herald.
I want to thank all of you for recommending, referring and link/posting/facebooking/blogging about the book. You have no idea what kind of a feeling it is to think "Wow, I might actually be able to do more than just buy a new AR 15 with this!" I don't dare think about what it would be like if it became successful to the point my house would be paid off, but shucks howdy, it sure is nice to dream about that.
Regardless, whatever you're doing, keep on doing it! Besides, the book REALLY should be in the hands of every high school junior and senior before they head off to college. Please help make that a reality, it can only help the students and the country as well.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
The Curious Case of the Disappearing NYSE
In what I would consider one of my top 5 economic pieces of this blog I tie the majority of the stock market's movement NOT to profits, earnings or dividends (as it should be) but rather to the volume of retirement dollars flooding the stock market. The ramifications, of course, is "what will happen to stock prices when the baby boomers retire and withdraw their trillions of dollars?"
Economics would tell us "go down" but what's funny is markets are not rational all the time. Matter of fact they can remain quit bubbly for extended periods of time. ESPECIALLY when the market participants (AHEM AHEM, COUGH COUGH - AMERICANS) are addicted to "high asset prices" because it fools them into thinking they don't have to work for a living. Asset prices just magically go up without the necessary production and profits to rationalize the price increases. And this can go on "forever" or at least until the delusional (and lazy, I might add) Americans retire.
We see this today where the dividend yield is still at a historic low going back to 1890 and the PE ratio is still above it's historic average of 15x's. The profits are simply not there to rationalize the lofty prices. However, there is something more amiss going on beyond the simple "retirement dollars flooding market" and it may not be obvious to the naked eye.
Volume.
With the DJIA breaking 13,000 and the economy showing signs of a tepid recovery, you would think the market would be doubly flooded with money. The monies flowing in from automotonic 401k retirement drones AND the new monies flowing in from people with new-found hope that the economy is indeed turning around and America has a future once again.
There's just one problem - the volume isn't there to support it.
If you look at the volume of the NYSE, it's cratering. It's lower than it has been in over a decade
This doesn't jive with the prices we see in the market. In basic economic theory, the more trading volume there is in a market, the higher prices should be in that is shows a demand for those stocks. Additionally, with increased volume comes increased "liquidity" which in itself provides a premium that should translate into higher prices. We are now getting the opposite.
So what is happening?
Well, your humble Captain has a theory.
The reason volume is tanking is because, despite what heavily-spun news you might hear about GDP, consumer confidence, the reality is that the economy still sucks. Unemployment, though down, is still 2 full percentage points above the WORST it ever was under George Bush. If you want to consider the "underemployment" argument, that many people have left the labor force, you could argue unemployment is closer to 11%. Additionally, even with today's revision of 3% RGDP growth, it's nothing compared to the booming quarters we had after most recessions (even the hated, incompetent,evil puppy-kicker GW managed a quarter above 6%). Also delivering a dose of realistic doom to the economy is the massive amounts of debt we have. And finally, unemployment is particularly high amongst the youth, who are not only necessary to bail out older generations via their public pensions, but whose retirement dollars are also necessary to keep the 401k Bubble/Ponzi scheme going as well. But just like the housing market, you need jobs in order to afford a house. And so, I'm sure if you looked at it, a huge reason for the lower volume is the lack of "new blood" entering the retirement/401k market, plus the fact people just don't plain have the disposable income to afford IRA contributions.
While this explains the collapse in volume, it doesn't explain why prices are still so high. And here is the nefarious side of the theory:
Something nefarious is going on.
When you see Apple with a market cap of 1/2 trillion dollars, you start to wonder why Apple is so valuable. And as it turns out it's because hedge funds and mutual funds all want to own Apple. No real financial reason for it, hedge fund managers, mutual fund managers and other incompetent perma-bubble Wall Street dolts like shinny new electrical doo-dads just like their spoiled brat, humanities-majoring children at home in Connecticut do. But what this shows you (or at least alludes to) is that it is institutions, not individuals, that are accounting for the majority of the buying and selling of the stocks. You also throw in electronic trading programs or "computerized trading" and it's no longer real investors with real money, as much as it is a potentially rigged beast of its own trading on itself.
It reminds me of a now-deceased publication called "Lake Minnetonka Magazine." This magazine was basically the socialite magazine for Minneapolis' uber-rich western suburb. Here is where Cargill, Carlson Companies and many more firms are based, as well as the hundreds of trust-fund babies these empires spawned. The magazine itself though was a self-absorbed love fest within itself. Written by the trustfunders about the trustfunders and all the parties they went to and who bought what Italian car or what worthless trophy wife opened up what worthless trinket shop with her hubby's money. Essentially it was a club or an entity that didn't produce anything and when its founder (ahem ahem-Tom Petters) was arrested for what was then the largest fraud in the history of the US (soon to be outdone by Bernie Madoff), the magazine went bye bye (ironically, shortly after, there were a LOT of for sale signs on the prestigious Lake Minnetonka, what handsome, dashing, chiseled motorcycle riding, fossil-hunting, bad-boy economist would have predicted that!).
In short, the stock market is being artificially inflated, if not, limped along, by the sanctimonious (or perhaps, oblivious) yutzes trapped in their own nepotistic, inbred echo chamber called "The East Coast." They trade amongst themselves, they believe that the stock market is a finite, mathematical beast that can be predicted. They have NEVER seen a real stock market crash, as they're perpetually bailed out by Dotcom Bubble after Housing Bubble after QE-LXI Bubble. They are truly oblivious to all the work, toil, labor and entrepreneurialism that gives those worthless pieces of paper (they so love to trade and sell and take commission on) value.
The question is if you wish to join this little clique or social party. Do you want to "hang" with all the fake and plastic of the paper-rich, asset-poor, and soon to be bankrupt class? Then by all means, throw that $16,500 max of your money into an inflated stock market every year. You'll be one of the cool people. But if you're more like me and want to hang out with your non-stab-you-in-the-back buddies at a reasonably priced bar, entertained with good intelligent conversation, and darn fine food, you may want to look elsewhere and hang out where there is real value.
In the meantime, enjoy the decline!
Economics would tell us "go down" but what's funny is markets are not rational all the time. Matter of fact they can remain quit bubbly for extended periods of time. ESPECIALLY when the market participants (AHEM AHEM, COUGH COUGH - AMERICANS) are addicted to "high asset prices" because it fools them into thinking they don't have to work for a living. Asset prices just magically go up without the necessary production and profits to rationalize the price increases. And this can go on "forever" or at least until the delusional (and lazy, I might add) Americans retire.
We see this today where the dividend yield is still at a historic low going back to 1890 and the PE ratio is still above it's historic average of 15x's. The profits are simply not there to rationalize the lofty prices. However, there is something more amiss going on beyond the simple "retirement dollars flooding market" and it may not be obvious to the naked eye.
Volume.
With the DJIA breaking 13,000 and the economy showing signs of a tepid recovery, you would think the market would be doubly flooded with money. The monies flowing in from automotonic 401k retirement drones AND the new monies flowing in from people with new-found hope that the economy is indeed turning around and America has a future once again.
There's just one problem - the volume isn't there to support it.
If you look at the volume of the NYSE, it's cratering. It's lower than it has been in over a decade
This doesn't jive with the prices we see in the market. In basic economic theory, the more trading volume there is in a market, the higher prices should be in that is shows a demand for those stocks. Additionally, with increased volume comes increased "liquidity" which in itself provides a premium that should translate into higher prices. We are now getting the opposite.
So what is happening?
Well, your humble Captain has a theory.
The reason volume is tanking is because, despite what heavily-spun news you might hear about GDP, consumer confidence, the reality is that the economy still sucks. Unemployment, though down, is still 2 full percentage points above the WORST it ever was under George Bush. If you want to consider the "underemployment" argument, that many people have left the labor force, you could argue unemployment is closer to 11%. Additionally, even with today's revision of 3% RGDP growth, it's nothing compared to the booming quarters we had after most recessions (even the hated, incompetent,evil puppy-kicker GW managed a quarter above 6%). Also delivering a dose of realistic doom to the economy is the massive amounts of debt we have. And finally, unemployment is particularly high amongst the youth, who are not only necessary to bail out older generations via their public pensions, but whose retirement dollars are also necessary to keep the 401k Bubble/Ponzi scheme going as well. But just like the housing market, you need jobs in order to afford a house. And so, I'm sure if you looked at it, a huge reason for the lower volume is the lack of "new blood" entering the retirement/401k market, plus the fact people just don't plain have the disposable income to afford IRA contributions.
While this explains the collapse in volume, it doesn't explain why prices are still so high. And here is the nefarious side of the theory:
Something nefarious is going on.
When you see Apple with a market cap of 1/2 trillion dollars, you start to wonder why Apple is so valuable. And as it turns out it's because hedge funds and mutual funds all want to own Apple. No real financial reason for it, hedge fund managers, mutual fund managers and other incompetent perma-bubble Wall Street dolts like shinny new electrical doo-dads just like their spoiled brat, humanities-majoring children at home in Connecticut do. But what this shows you (or at least alludes to) is that it is institutions, not individuals, that are accounting for the majority of the buying and selling of the stocks. You also throw in electronic trading programs or "computerized trading" and it's no longer real investors with real money, as much as it is a potentially rigged beast of its own trading on itself.
It reminds me of a now-deceased publication called "Lake Minnetonka Magazine." This magazine was basically the socialite magazine for Minneapolis' uber-rich western suburb. Here is where Cargill, Carlson Companies and many more firms are based, as well as the hundreds of trust-fund babies these empires spawned. The magazine itself though was a self-absorbed love fest within itself. Written by the trustfunders about the trustfunders and all the parties they went to and who bought what Italian car or what worthless trophy wife opened up what worthless trinket shop with her hubby's money. Essentially it was a club or an entity that didn't produce anything and when its founder (ahem ahem-Tom Petters) was arrested for what was then the largest fraud in the history of the US (soon to be outdone by Bernie Madoff), the magazine went bye bye (ironically, shortly after, there were a LOT of for sale signs on the prestigious Lake Minnetonka, what handsome, dashing, chiseled motorcycle riding, fossil-hunting, bad-boy economist would have predicted that!).
In short, the stock market is being artificially inflated, if not, limped along, by the sanctimonious (or perhaps, oblivious) yutzes trapped in their own nepotistic, inbred echo chamber called "The East Coast." They trade amongst themselves, they believe that the stock market is a finite, mathematical beast that can be predicted. They have NEVER seen a real stock market crash, as they're perpetually bailed out by Dotcom Bubble after Housing Bubble after QE-LXI Bubble. They are truly oblivious to all the work, toil, labor and entrepreneurialism that gives those worthless pieces of paper (they so love to trade and sell and take commission on) value.
The question is if you wish to join this little clique or social party. Do you want to "hang" with all the fake and plastic of the paper-rich, asset-poor, and soon to be bankrupt class? Then by all means, throw that $16,500 max of your money into an inflated stock market every year. You'll be one of the cool people. But if you're more like me and want to hang out with your non-stab-you-in-the-back buddies at a reasonably priced bar, entertained with good intelligent conversation, and darn fine food, you may want to look elsewhere and hang out where there is real value.
In the meantime, enjoy the decline!
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Jessica Olen is More Important Than Her Child
There's not much I can say about this "article," that already hasn't been said over at Dalrock and GLPiggy. However, I will point out one point that was missed:
Children need both fathers and mothers to be brought up effectively in this world. And I get really sick and tired of single parents deciding to have children on their own because THEY want to have children, immediately evidencing how much more important they view themselves over their yet-to-be-born children. I don't like children, but by god, they are innocent little kids and they at least stand a shot before some greedy (or just outright stupid) morons bring them into this world for their own selfish purposes.
Maybe I'm flying at a higher altitude and can see this clearly, but does anybody else see how this is directly tied to the cheap nursing homes that are going to be very popular in the future?
Children need both fathers and mothers to be brought up effectively in this world. And I get really sick and tired of single parents deciding to have children on their own because THEY want to have children, immediately evidencing how much more important they view themselves over their yet-to-be-born children. I don't like children, but by god, they are innocent little kids and they at least stand a shot before some greedy (or just outright stupid) morons bring them into this world for their own selfish purposes.
Maybe I'm flying at a higher altitude and can see this clearly, but does anybody else see how this is directly tied to the cheap nursing homes that are going to be very popular in the future?
Not Made By Liberal Arts Majors
Just another cool thing to add to the nearly infinite list of "Things Not Made By Liberal Arts Majors"
Perhaps they could have a disclosure at the end:
"No Women's Studies majors were hurt during the development and creation of this awesome railgun....because...well...we had no use for them and they weren't around."
Perhaps they could have a disclosure at the end:
"No Women's Studies majors were hurt during the development and creation of this awesome railgun....because...well...we had no use for them and they weren't around."
Why You Shouldn't Listen to Your English Teacher
Kids, very important lesson here today and so I want you to understand this.
Most English teachers are lousy at English.
They only know the structure and logic of the language, they have no ability to speak or write. And they certainly lack the creativity to engage a reader in pretty much anything. Ergo, they are forced to teach a language they're not only fluent in, but to kids who are also fluent in the language. The reason I bring this up is so that you're not concerned if you are only getting "C's" in English. Chances are it's your teacher simply not liking you and using the amorphous nature of English to knock you down a grade or two (notice I used the word "amorphous" and I also flunked out of 7th grade English).
Why do I bring this up? See below, it's a comment from this post here. I don't want people being told by the the "English Profession" they're not good at English. There are negative consequences, consequences nobody has to go through because some 20 something moron who couldn't major in a real subject decides to boost their ego by ripping or nitpicking on others' English ability.
Most English teachers are lousy at English.
They only know the structure and logic of the language, they have no ability to speak or write. And they certainly lack the creativity to engage a reader in pretty much anything. Ergo, they are forced to teach a language they're not only fluent in, but to kids who are also fluent in the language. The reason I bring this up is so that you're not concerned if you are only getting "C's" in English. Chances are it's your teacher simply not liking you and using the amorphous nature of English to knock you down a grade or two (notice I used the word "amorphous" and I also flunked out of 7th grade English).
Why do I bring this up? See below, it's a comment from this post here. I don't want people being told by the the "English Profession" they're not good at English. There are negative consequences, consequences nobody has to go through because some 20 something moron who couldn't major in a real subject decides to boost their ego by ripping or nitpicking on others' English ability.
A college degree was the equivalent of a high school diploma in the Fifties? If only.
My father was born in 1924 in a tiny fishing village — an island in the Chesapeake Bay, actually, remote and isolated from mainland life — and there were maybe 12 graduating seniors in 1942. But Pop was not among them. He quit high school at the age of 16 because he simply could not get a passing grade in English. He served in WWII (survived the entire Battle of the Bulge) and earned a two-year business degree on the GI Bill. But he was so sensitive about what he considered to be his poor grammar, Mom did all of his writing assignments. Pop was good at math, just couldn’t write worth a darn. Or so he thought. He was a cost accountant for most of his working days and always felt inferior to the college grads who were paid more and promoted more often.
So I took it on faith that Pop was a dullard when it came to writing.
My parents went through a horrible divorce in ’72, and went their separate ways. I received a one letter from him when I was a college sophomore, read it, and promptly forgot about it. Pop died in ’76, still a relatively young man.
Then, one day when my wife and I were preparing for a move (this must have been around 1984), I found the letter he had written. And re-read it. And I wondered, who was this man? It was a very well-written letter, in his own bold cursive writing style. By this time, I had been reading National Review for almost twenty years, and had thoroughly digested the writings of William Buckley, Hugh Kenner, James Burnham, Joe Sobran, and the rest of that talented bullpen. I could not kid myself: this was not the writing of a poor writer. This is the writing a thoughtful, sensitive man whose anguish at the mistakes he had made was palpable. It was easily better than typical college-student writing, and technically more correct than my own from a grammatical perspective.
Let me repeat: this was from a high-school dropout.
It seems to me that many of us paid thousands of dollars for a college degree and for the most part received a license to feel entitled.
Oh, and kids, before you head off to college, buy my book. It's worth more than all of your English classes combined, plus it's likely to get banned in your high school.Monday, February 27, 2012
Act of Valor
Sad new Cappy Cappites.
I sat through about 40 minutes of "Act of Valor" and cannot lie - I walked out of the movie.
No disrespect to the fine veterans who starred in the film, I certainly do appreciate what they've done for the country, not to mention the time they spent pursuing something that is not their profession, but the movie was just not my cup of tea.
To be fair, I am not the most patient person as you all know. I am also not the touchy feely type, so again, my judgment is biased. So keep in mind this review is just my humble opinion and if you are the patient, touchy feely type, you may like this movie. But there are some major drawbacks to this film.
First, I'm willing to cut the vets some slack in that they're not actors. But it was still painful for them to read their scripts. I don't believe this was their fault in I believe the director should have just filmed these guys in their natural habitat, hanging out at the local bar as they would in the real world, almost a documentary or reality type show. It would have been much more natural and real. I don't want to see Navy SEALs acting, I want to see Navy SEALs being normal Navy SEALs. Even if it isn't perfectly cinematic.
Unfortunately they force this squeaky clean American pie theme and script that was just so fake. It's "Miller Time" at the bar, there's a bonfire and surfing at the beach with the family, the kids and the spouses are all perfect. There was a glimmer of hope when they mention one of the SEALs who came from Trinidad dirt poor, was a Muay Thai fighter and became a SEAL, and I was like "alright! Tell me more about this guy!" But then they quickly go back to the Perfect-Happy-Fun Family theme. I left the moment once one of the SEALs was saying good-bye to his wife and then bends down to talk to the belly of his wife (because she is pregnant). That was the HUGE snowflake that caused the avalanche and I bolted.
Again, I'm not the touchy feely type.
Second, one of the SEALs is reading letters or "sayings" or something from his father that are interspersed with a spotty subplot going on in the Philippines and Costa Rica. It's touchy feely stuff, no doubt thoughtful and true, but too much touchy feely. I didn't even understand half of what was said as it was almost poetic. It ruined the movie and also created a very jarring effect where we go back and forth from the "picturesque American life" to people getting killed in Costa Rica and back to soothing poetic readings with waves crashing on the beach back to a bus blowing up.
Third, the sheer time spent on developing the background that yes, these are real human beings with real families. These are not just automotonic drones programmed to kill. They are real men and women making real sacrifices. I get that, and agree that this would have to be part of the movie. But not half of the movie. I was already running out of patience with "Man on Fire" in how long it took to develop the relationship between Creasy and the little girl. "Act of Valor" may have actually spent less time on "family development," but it was so painful it felt about three times as long. At least Creasy was teaching the kid how to swim. At least he was an alcoholic. Something slightly entertaining or character developing was going on. Act of Valor was about 40 minutes of watching family videos. Again, I'm not a patient man.
What happened afterwards, I don't know, but I do know I can Netflix it and fast-forward through the first half, essentially turning it into a one hour action flick, or at least I hope the plot thickens and there's some action.
In short, I recommend not wasting your time and money seeing this move in the theater. If you are the touchy feely type and have more patience than the Captain, then maybe Netflix/Redbox it, but I have a hard time rationalizing expending the resources to drive, park, pay and watch this in the theater. OR, perhaps you could use "Man on Fire" or even "Heat" as proxies as to how much "touchy feely" you can tolerate in a movie before you start demanding action. "Man on Fire" redeemed the first part of the movie with the action and plot that followed. "Heat" was "barely" tolerable to me with the amount of interpersonal crap I had to tolerate to see Pacino and DeNiro duke it out with fully-automatic weapons. So if you really liked "Heat" and thought the interpersonal stuff improved the movie, you'll probably want to see this in the theater.
If not, again, benefit from the Captain's experience and save yourself some time and money.
PS- I forgot to mention there was an acoustic guitar on the beach. And you all know how much I associate acoustic guitars with communism.
I sat through about 40 minutes of "Act of Valor" and cannot lie - I walked out of the movie.
No disrespect to the fine veterans who starred in the film, I certainly do appreciate what they've done for the country, not to mention the time they spent pursuing something that is not their profession, but the movie was just not my cup of tea.
To be fair, I am not the most patient person as you all know. I am also not the touchy feely type, so again, my judgment is biased. So keep in mind this review is just my humble opinion and if you are the patient, touchy feely type, you may like this movie. But there are some major drawbacks to this film.
First, I'm willing to cut the vets some slack in that they're not actors. But it was still painful for them to read their scripts. I don't believe this was their fault in I believe the director should have just filmed these guys in their natural habitat, hanging out at the local bar as they would in the real world, almost a documentary or reality type show. It would have been much more natural and real. I don't want to see Navy SEALs acting, I want to see Navy SEALs being normal Navy SEALs. Even if it isn't perfectly cinematic.
Unfortunately they force this squeaky clean American pie theme and script that was just so fake. It's "Miller Time" at the bar, there's a bonfire and surfing at the beach with the family, the kids and the spouses are all perfect. There was a glimmer of hope when they mention one of the SEALs who came from Trinidad dirt poor, was a Muay Thai fighter and became a SEAL, and I was like "alright! Tell me more about this guy!" But then they quickly go back to the Perfect-Happy-Fun Family theme. I left the moment once one of the SEALs was saying good-bye to his wife and then bends down to talk to the belly of his wife (because she is pregnant). That was the HUGE snowflake that caused the avalanche and I bolted.
Again, I'm not the touchy feely type.
Second, one of the SEALs is reading letters or "sayings" or something from his father that are interspersed with a spotty subplot going on in the Philippines and Costa Rica. It's touchy feely stuff, no doubt thoughtful and true, but too much touchy feely. I didn't even understand half of what was said as it was almost poetic. It ruined the movie and also created a very jarring effect where we go back and forth from the "picturesque American life" to people getting killed in Costa Rica and back to soothing poetic readings with waves crashing on the beach back to a bus blowing up.
Third, the sheer time spent on developing the background that yes, these are real human beings with real families. These are not just automotonic drones programmed to kill. They are real men and women making real sacrifices. I get that, and agree that this would have to be part of the movie. But not half of the movie. I was already running out of patience with "Man on Fire" in how long it took to develop the relationship between Creasy and the little girl. "Act of Valor" may have actually spent less time on "family development," but it was so painful it felt about three times as long. At least Creasy was teaching the kid how to swim. At least he was an alcoholic. Something slightly entertaining or character developing was going on. Act of Valor was about 40 minutes of watching family videos. Again, I'm not a patient man.
What happened afterwards, I don't know, but I do know I can Netflix it and fast-forward through the first half, essentially turning it into a one hour action flick, or at least I hope the plot thickens and there's some action.
In short, I recommend not wasting your time and money seeing this move in the theater. If you are the touchy feely type and have more patience than the Captain, then maybe Netflix/Redbox it, but I have a hard time rationalizing expending the resources to drive, park, pay and watch this in the theater. OR, perhaps you could use "Man on Fire" or even "Heat" as proxies as to how much "touchy feely" you can tolerate in a movie before you start demanding action. "Man on Fire" redeemed the first part of the movie with the action and plot that followed. "Heat" was "barely" tolerable to me with the amount of interpersonal crap I had to tolerate to see Pacino and DeNiro duke it out with fully-automatic weapons. So if you really liked "Heat" and thought the interpersonal stuff improved the movie, you'll probably want to see this in the theater.
If not, again, benefit from the Captain's experience and save yourself some time and money.
PS- I forgot to mention there was an acoustic guitar on the beach. And you all know how much I associate acoustic guitars with communism.
I'm Really Important!
I love it when people who have no skills, no talent and nothing to offer society, find other equally worthless people and form committees to promote themselves to some level of prominence in the community. (language warning).
Who in the Patron Saint's Name of Frick has meetings to see how they (the artists) should dictate how they can lead the community? Who says the community wants their input, let alone be "led" by these tyrannical brats?
Actually, now that I think about it, if it just takes a couple spoiled children to decree themselves some kind of "community leader" then I should have the equally undeserved right to declare open season on Hipsters in Brooklyn.
"Everybody grab your AR15's! It's Hipster season!"
"Where do we go Hipster hunting?"
"Brooklyn. I hear the land's teaming with them."
"What do we use for bait?"
"We'll post fliers in the area that we're a major recording label holding auditions looking for acoustic guitar playing girly men who want to sing songs about the injustices of reality and the real world. We'll have them "audition" at a specific time and location. It will be an organic turkey shoot!"
"Wow, I better get more ammo!"
Who in the Patron Saint's Name of Frick has meetings to see how they (the artists) should dictate how they can lead the community? Who says the community wants their input, let alone be "led" by these tyrannical brats?
Actually, now that I think about it, if it just takes a couple spoiled children to decree themselves some kind of "community leader" then I should have the equally undeserved right to declare open season on Hipsters in Brooklyn.
"Everybody grab your AR15's! It's Hipster season!"
"Where do we go Hipster hunting?"
"Brooklyn. I hear the land's teaming with them."
"What do we use for bait?"
"We'll post fliers in the area that we're a major recording label holding auditions looking for acoustic guitar playing girly men who want to sing songs about the injustices of reality and the real world. We'll have them "audition" at a specific time and location. It will be an organic turkey shoot!"
"Wow, I better get more ammo!"
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)