Sunday, September 30, 2012

East Asian Movies

American movies have westerns.  English movies have feudal kings and knights.  The Japanese have samurai.  And the Chinese have their Warring States period.

I am very interested in East Asian culture and movies.  The large, epic, Chinese stories are, particularly, my sort of movie.

I'm no movie critic, and my writing needs a lot of improvement.  But I can at least tell you which movies to look out for.

Seven Samurai

Why not start with one of the all-time classic movies?  

Directed by Akira Kurosawa, this movie has inspired many other movies, including The Magnificent Seven.  Its about a village that is often attacked by bandits.  They decide to hire samurai to defend them from the bandits.  There isn't a large amount of action, it is the strategy, and some drama, that make this movie interesting.

Its rightfully called a great movie, and its worth a viewing.  (It is over two hours long, and it should be.)


A Fistful of Dollars is one of the three movies from Sergio Leone's man with no name trilogy.  (A Fistful of Dollars, For a Few Dollars More, The Good, The Band, and The Ugly)  It was based on Yojimbo.  The story is about a samurai who wanders into a town that is having problems with two rival gangs.  The samurai decides, "In this town I'll get paid for killing.  And this town is full of men who are better off dead."

Another good Akira Kurosawa movie that's well worth watching.  I would argue that its better than A Fistful of Dollars; I always prefer the original.


Another movie starring Toshiro Mfune, and directed by Akira Kurosawa. 

This movie is a sequel to Yojimbo (unless its the other way 'round).  The wandering samurai shows a bunch of kids that its better to side with the ugly, but good guy, rather than the attractive and ambitiously corrupt guy.  The samurai repeatedly shows the kids how they should act and they don't learn until the end.

Very similar to Yojimbo and just as good.


Many people, not me, count this as the best ever Japanese movie.

Another from Akira Kurosawa. This one is based on the story of King Lear.  The daimyo has a falling out with his sons who want to fight each other to take control of their father's territory.

Its a movie that is very highly regarded by many movie critics.  I do not care for it as much as most of the other movies listed here.  I think that its the story and characters that I don't particularly care for.  Its not bad but I'd look elsewhere first.


A classic Japanese movie.

If you've read Taiko, one of my favorite books, then you'd be somewhat familiar with the story of Takeda Shingen.  He was a great general and lord, who died while Oda Nobunaga was beginning to conquer Japan.  His last request was to hide his death from the outside world for three years to give his son time to strengthen his army.  This story is sort of like the one about the prince and the pauper.  Instead of two guys switching places, however, it is about one guy to tries to take the place of his lord.

Also by Akira Kurosawa, also very good, and also well regarded by western movie critics.  But I would prefer to watch any of the first three movies that I've listed here, before this one.

13 Assassins 

This movie is something else.

Its very much like The Wild Bunch as a movie.  Although with a very different plot.  The Wild Bunch was long called, "the bloodiest movie of all time."  13 Assassins is the same way, but with swords and not guns.

Its about a terrible and vicious brother to the shogun.  (I didn't really need to see the armless, legless, toungeless girl.  How did they find the actress? She was nude, and I almost doubt that they used CGI for her appearance.)  Japanese culture prevented this lord's vassels from stopping his viciousness, but all agreed that the country should not have this man in power.  So one samurai volunteered to kill this lord.  He gathered 12 others and used his strategy to corner and attempt to kill him.

The violence is incredible.  And the movie is very striking.  I'm not one for gore or gruesome violence in movies, but this one is very much worth watching.

Three Kingdoms

From Amazon's product description: "In 228 AD, a time when China was plagued by constant war and divided among three kingdoms, a hero arose. Zhao Zilong was a common man who ascended from humble roots to become commander of the army charged with liberating the land from an evil warlord. He led numerous battles of strength and wit, but now he must fight against the impossible to defy the fate of his nation."

Its not bad.  I'd watch it only if you are interested in watching all epic styled ancient Chinese movies. There are better movies if you only have a limited time for them.

Little Big Solider

One of my new favorite movies.  This one stars Jackie Chan.  And like his other movies it is a martial arts comedy.  Before you stop reading here and forget about this movie, let me tell you that this one is good.  The action is good, the story is good.  And while its not laugh out loud funny, it is amusing and you'll guffaw repeatedly.

The story is of a solider, who is good at playing dead, who captures the wounded enemy's general.  He wants to take him to his country for his reward of 5 acres of land and an exemption from all future military service.  The movie follows their travels.

The, more serious, ending is very good.  The whole movie is "marvelous."

The Warlords

A movie starring Jet Li.  He is one of three men who lead a group of bandits in sacking several cities and attempt to become successful generals.  But trouble comes when they become powerful and mix with national politics.

A movie starring Jet Li is always good, but I'd skip this one unless you have a lot of movie watching that you want to do.


A movie about a man who insults and disrespects the Shaolin temple.  But his second in command turns on him and becomes more ruthless than he was.  So the man stays in the temple, and finds himself, or some such baloney.  Then he confronts his former number two.

Its a good movie.  And I wouldn't mind seeing it again.  But there are better movies to watch.

Red Cliff

This movie is pretty interesting.  One army attempts to conquer another.  And there is much debate about strategy and there is quite a large set (or CGI).  The strategy, tactics, and internal struggles are all very interesting.  Just the scale of the movie, and some of the settings, make it well worth watching.

I'd quite like to see it again.

The Warring States

If you've read a modern translation of Sun Tzu's The Art of War, then you may have heard of Sun Pin.  His story is that he is, at least the intellectual, descendant of Sun Tzu.  He also had a great grasp of military strategy.  And this movie is about him.

Its a good movie.  The one sided animosity of Sun Pin's enemy is interesting to watch.  It has a few big battles, but it is otherwise a drama about Sun Pin's life.

I'd recommend it, although rereading the description of Sun Pin in the translated version of The Art of War may be helpful for understanding a big part of the story: the simpleness is all there is.

Jet Li's Fearless

Its one of those "kung fu" movies that is about when to fight.  It is full of fighting scenes and the the hero's evolution of character are both good.

Its a movie like many other "kung fu" movies but this one was made recently and perhaps better due to its higher budget.

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon

This is one of those movies that always seemed to me to be over-hyped and too well liked by the general public.  I saw it a while ago but don't remember it well.  (Not a good sign.  Although, I often reject the things that suddenly become popular with the public, for just that reason.)


I first watched it in college while drinking about half of a bottle of vodka.  And now I don't want to see it without also drinking too much.  Especially while you drink, the bold colors in each of the scenes are great things to behold.  In one scene everyone wears red with a background of autumnal leaves.  In another scene everything is green inside a forest. etc..

The story is about a man who wants to assassinate a general who is trying to become emperor of all of China.

The movie is pretty good; it stars Jet Li.  But it was directed by Quentin Tarantino, who is hardly an easterner.

Its reasonably good.

Ip Man

About the master of master fighter in a city, known for its martial arts schools, in southern China.  The main issue comes when the Japanese invade prior to WWII.

Based on a real guy, who is most famous for being the teacher of Bruce Lee.  It stars Donnie Yen, who is a common leading martial arts actor.  He does not seem as heroic as Bruce Lee or Jet Li, but he is a capable lead.

The movie is pretty good, and has a sequel.

Ip Man II: Legend of the Grandmaster

After the Japanese destroy the city where Ip Man lived in China, he moved to Hong Kong.  And he has to establish himself in a new city.  The climax of the movie is very similar to Rocky IV.  A foreign fighter, this one is British, kills another Chinese fighter during an exhibition fight and Ip Man fights him at the end.

They make a big point about Ip Man being Bruce Lee's teacher in real life.

Both movies are good.

Bodyguards and Assassins

This movie just missed the cut for my highest recommendations at the bottom of this post.

Dr. Sun Yat sen is going to visit Hong Kong to see his mother.  A bunch of pro-democracy activists need to protect him from the anti-democracy assassins.  The loyalty and dedication to their cause makes the movie very watchable.

An excellently entertaining movie.



This movie is really cool.  The opening scene starts with five guys shooting it out inside of an apartment.  And ends with them all patching the bullet holes and helping the one guy and his family move in.  They're a group of friends who now serve different bosses.  Four of them are split between triads (mafia).  They have conflicting orders and go instead out on a job together. 

It was directed by Johnnie To.  I'd rank his movies with those of Akira Kurosawa and Sergio Leone as my favorites.  Although I enjoy watching Mr. To's movies the most, and more sort of appreciate the movies from the other two.

At the end of this post, when I recommend a few of these movies that stick out above the others this one will be featured prominently.


A Hong Kong triad (mafia) has an election every few years for the position of leadership.  The two leading candidates try to sway the influential members to their side.   Action and drama ensues.  I'm not a big Godfather fan, its too well liked by everyone else, so if I want to see a movie about a mob, I'll watch this.

Its really, really good.  Also directed by Johnnie To.

Triad Election

A sequel to Election, this movie is about the next election for this triad.  Almost everyone wants the one guy to become the next boss but he doesn't want to run the illegal operation.  He has to decide if he is going to run this triad.

Its probably as good, maybe even better, than the first one.  But there is one scene that is just too gruesome for my taste.  Think dogs + people in hamburger grinders.  Its not as graphic as a horror movie would be, but it is more graphic than I care to see.

It could very well be better than Election, which I liked a lot, but that one scene is appalling; even though it really adds to the story. 


An old French assassin travels to Macau where his daughter and her husband and son were attacked in their home.  He goes to get revenge against those who attacked his daughter and her family.  But he does not know Macau, and has memory problems, so he hires some locals with their own problems.  His memory problems are so bad that he takes a Polaroid of  everyone who is important so that he can remember who they are and what their names are. 

The story has interesting twists.  And is very different from any other revenge story that I've seen.  I recommend it.  It was also directed by Mr. To.

Mad Detective

An ex-detective with a weird mental issue helps a young detective solve a crime.  The ex-detective sees people as they really are.  He sees cowardly men as boys, and gluttonous thin men as fat, etc.

Also directed by Johnnie To, this movie is quite a bit different to any other detective movie that I've ever seen.   I recommend this movie too.


This movie is about a few guys who steal, I'm not sure what, and many problems follow  them.  It was divided into three parts, each directed by a different famous Hong Kong director.

It was a bit weird.  I watched it only as background while I was doing something else, and I did not understand what or why the things were going on as they were.  I'd like to see it again, if only to figure out what was going on.  Once wasn't enough.

There's a reason one director is used for one movie and not three directors, even of one is Johnnie To.

The Good, The Bad, and The Weird

Weird is right.

In some places its similar to The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, but not really.  It reminds me a bit of Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade, even though this isn't as good.

Its weird, in a sort-of good way.

Those South Koreans may be odd.


Since I would be remiss not to mention Bruce Lee's movies:

watch: Enter the Dragon
watch: Fist of Fury
skip: The Big Boss
maybe: Way of the Dragon


These are the east Asian movies that stick out to me.  I recently saw a long epic movie (two movies, both over two hours) that took place in feudal Siam.  But I don't recollect it well.  For whatever reason, I don't seem to find the east Asian movies from outside China or Japan to be all that appealing.

Jet Li made a lot of reasonably good action movies during the '80s and '90s.  All of Jet Li's movies are at least reasonably good.  I'd be happy to see any of them again.

But of the movies based in east Asia, that I have seen, I'd have to say that the best are:
  • Seven Samurai
  • 13 Assassins
  • Little Big Solider
  • Exiled*
  • Election
*Watch it.  Its very good, even if its trailer does not do it justice:

Saturday, September 29, 2012


I recently read a magazine article about which broadheads are best for shooting deer.  The article concluded by saying that some guys prefer some broadheads and others prefer others.  I thought that this was totally useless.

I've shot about 12 deer with a bow.  The first 8 were shot with a Bear Razorhead.

Bear Razorhead Broadheads
These were the traditional broadhead invented by Fred Bear.  (The picture is of broadheads from 1959, 1960, and 1964.)

My experience with them was to miss my first two shots at deer.  Although the broadhead I shot the second time is still stuck in the then 1" diameter tree that I didn't see and hit instead of the deer.

My third shot at a deer hit a buck in the heart, he did a u-turn and ran about 30 yards.

My fourth shot at a deer hit a buck in the back leg.  He ran in a large arc and I saw a softball sized amount of blood run down his leg.  he went about 80 yards.

My fifth shot at a buck also hit the buck in the back leg, he went 60 yards (I don't recommend hitting the deer there, and I don't know how I did.)

I've shot 3 other bucks in the heart or lungs, and one a bit too far back, with a Bear Razorhead all went less than 60 yards. 

I also shot a fawn with a Bear Razorhead.  I hit both lungs and the deer fell down, got up, and fell down again.

I have recovered every deer that I have ever hit with a Bear Razorhead.  No matter my poor shot placement.

Those broadheads are questioned by some because they have a big flat surface which can "plane," or curve through the air.  This may, perhaps, explain my poor shot placement.

Bear Razorheads have become hard to find.  So I have switched to the standard Muzzy 3 blade.

100Gr. 3-Blade Screw-In  6pk picture
Muzzy 3 blade screw-in
Muzzy Picture

I have hit several bucks with a Muzzy 3 blade.  Of those that I have recovered: two went about 70 yards, one about 50 yards, and one went about 20 yards.  I also hit one in the guts that went 50 yards and bedded for about an hour.  He then got up and disappeared.  I hit a buck, that would have scored around 140 B&C last year, in the front shoulder.  I had blood drops for 70 yards and then they stopped.

I decided to stay with fixed blade broadheads because I do not like the idea of an expandable not expanding.  A fixed blade does not need to expand.

I liked the Muzzy 3 blade because it has three blades and should, therefore, not "plane" while in-flight.

After, just now, reviewing my experiences I am reminded that I am not satisfied with these Muzzys.

Ideally, I think, a broadhead should be:
  • fixed (not expandable) 
  • have 3 blades (to prevent "plane-ing") 
  • have long blades that start at the tip (unlike the Muzzys).
(Having them able to hold an edge should go without saying.)

When I have looked at broadheads in the past it seemed that I could find only two of those three points in any one broadhead.

I will most likely stick with the Muzzys this year, but I would like to find a broadhead that meets all three of my three qualifications.

Friday, September 28, 2012

Ann Coulter on The View

I first became interested in politics thanks to the fun Ann Coulter seemed to be having when debating the left.

I have stopped buying her books when I got tired of hearing how wrong the left is about everything.  (Even though they are.)  She also endorsed Mitt Romney in 2008 and 2012, which I don't care for.

Thanks to a commenter at Althouse I found this video of Ann on The View.

The hosts of the show are mad at Ann for saying things like: "the democrats don't really care about the blacks."  The black members of the panel got mad because they can, "ask their grandmothers who lived through the republican racism." And Ann points out that the republican racism is a myth that we all believe because that is what we have always heard.

Barbra Walters asked why everything that Ann writes is so controversial, and Ann responds that she is trying to correct the myths that we all believe; such as it being the republicans who were racist in the south.  Ann points out that the first black congressmen were republicans, the first black governor was a republican...and she didn't even get to mention, while on the view, that the republican party was founded to be opposed to slavery and a higher percentage of republicans voted for the civil rights act of 1964 than the democrats.

Her point is that when the democrats find an issue they support they claim that the republicans are opposed because of racism, weather or not the issue has any race involved in it at all, like voter ID laws.

I may buy her latest book.  They are always full of ideas that we have been told, and all believe, but are myths.

A Career Not College

I recently heard, on NPR, that 74% of Wisconsin high school students took a college entrance test this year (ACT, SAT).

I wonder if a big problem that we face as a society is that most people's main goal is to send their kids to college.  How many times have you listened to a poor mother talk about all of what she is doing in order to send her kid to a good college.

Why is their goal a good college and not a good career?

For decades we have learned that the way to be successful was to go to college.  And now that is everyone's goal.  We have colleges coming out of our ears.  And a tremendous surplus of college graduates.

We no longer have a respected bunch of citizens who do work without college degrees. 

Bureaus "grow like demon weeds."

It would take Cameron to tell you why this was a
perfectly rational piece of behavior. Mr. Ford, who in
the first place had been persuaded against his judgment,
found a large bureau growing on his premises. He
knew the nature of bureaus. They grow like demon
weeds. If you say, "Cut it down to half size," it will be
obediently cut down; but when you come to look at it
a year later it will be twice as big. The only way to
control it, therefore, is to kill it. And that is what
Sorensen knew. Cameron would add: "Moreover, Mr.
Ford thinks the statistician's facts are dead before they
are written down. He says that by the time anyone has
assembled a large collection of facts on any subject
their value has so changed that they are a record of the
past and useless, even dangerous, as guides to the future.
The only facts he cares about are the facts he
finds as he moves forward."

-page 82-83

Read The Wild Wheel.

Muskie Size

I'd like to tell all of you young muskie fishermen out there that its not a good idea to read fishing magazines or watch fishing shows if you want to get a realistic idea of how big the muskies that are caught are.

I heard this quote once and it makes all the sense in the world:

"All magazines are pictures of things that you can't have."

I bring this up because of how often I hear that someone new to the sport catches a nice fish and then grossly overestimates its weight because everything that he has heard about fish weight is wildly inaccurate.

I often hear that someone I know has caught, say, a 45" muskie.  This is a good fish and one to be proud of.  They then want to guess the weight and invariably guess somewhere around 25 pounds for that fish.  Here we have a case of a guy catching a fish to be proud of and he's led to believe that it weighs ten pounds more than it actually does.  And he'll be disappointed if he hears how much it actually weighs.  Rather than being proud, he ends up disappointed because he has been misled by the fishing media.

Another area for size questions is how amazing it is that many people who are prominent in the sport catch lots of 50 inch muskies and how few 48" or 49" they catch.  This is easily researched in the Muskies, Inc. website, and its amazing how all of these guys have caught all of their fish on the far right side of a natural curve.  Many of them catch lots of 50"s but don't seem to need to sort through the 50 or so 45"-49" fish that the rest of us do in order to catch a 50".  I wonder how they do it.

One more area for concern is that if you look at the pictures of the 50 pound fish that are caught most do not even compare to my dad's 47 pound fish.  They must have gotten poor pictures.

The moral of this story is that if you see an estimated weight next to a picture a fish, or an estimated weight table, understand that those are the weights of fish that have not been weighed in actuality.

Thursday, September 27, 2012

"...did it with his own hands."

"The engine, for one thing. It's going to be an eight cylinder
V engine, as you probably know. For everybody
else, for the Cadillac, it's good enough to cast a
V engine block in two pieces and bolt them together.
That's not good enough for Mr. Ford. He says it has
to be cast all in one piece. Our foundry men kept telling
him it couldn't be done. He said they had to do it.
I think at first he didn't know himself how it could be
done, else he would have told them. That went on for
weeks. Then one day he went into the foundry and did
it with his own hands. Now we've got an eight-cylinder
V engine block in one piece, which is something nobody
else ever had, but what will happen next we don't

-page 71-72

C-Span's Book TV

If you are looking for something to watch for entertainment, or a source for non fiction books, then I recommend checking out C-Span's Book TV.

These are programs that are discussions and talks about books on the weekends.  They are live on C-Span 2 on weekends and holidays.  And past shows are available at

The shows can be very interesting or extremely bad.  But you can find interesting new non-fiction books.

Some things I remember about some of the bad ones were:

-the woman who said, "the opportunity cost is not applicable in this case"

-the man who said, "a deficit is like when you want a Ferrari but can't afford one"

-the caller who said, "but you're too young to have that opinion"

Those are some of the stupid things that I've heard.

They are also some excellent authors on.  I first heard about Burt Folsom (in my blog list) when he gave a talk on one of his books.  His writing and speeches are very good, if a bit too simple, on history and economics.

Another person I heard of thanks to Book TV is Kevin Williamson, whose infrequently posted on blog Exchequer is in my blogroll.  It often goes weeks without a new post and yet it remains on my blogroll; there's a reason for that.

Some of the speakers write better than they speak and some speak better than they write.  And the programs are usually interesting.

Wednesday, September 26, 2012

Obama May Win

I just spent some time talking to my neighbor.  Who is a retired guy.  He says he has voted in every election, but will not this year.  What's the difference between Romney and Obama, anyway?

I realize that the relevant quote is "How did Nixon win? No one I know voted for him."  But I have yet to hear from anyone who wants to vote for Romney, online or in person.

No one is enthusiastic about him, although many people don't like Obama.  How did Romney get nominated?

But its a nice day here; and I'll be hunting deer tomorrow.  Things aren't all bad.

Have I mentioned...

...that you should read The Wild Wheel?

History. Economics. Politics. Philosophy. Manufacturing. Design. Business. ...

They said: "You won't believe it either. There
stands the car in the middle of the floor, nearly finished
so far as we can make out. Every morning the engineers
gather around it, just looking at it, waiting for Ford
to appear. When he comes he reaches inside, rattles
something, shakes his head and says, 'That won't do.
You've got to think of something better than that.' One
of them says, 'Can you think of anything, Mr. Ford?'
He rattles the thing again, walks a little off and comes
back, makes some pencil marks on a piece of paper,
hands it to them and says, 'Try something like that.'
The next morning they gather round the car again, and
when Ford comes in he asks, 'Got it on?' They say,
'Yes, Mr. Ford.' He reaches in, rattles the thing again,
whatever it is, makes a gesture of disgust and says,
'That's worse.' With that he walks off, leaving them
there gazing at the car. It's like that day after day,
with the whole country screaming for the new Ford car.
We don't understand it."

-page 65-66

Is A House Worth The Effort?

I've been wondering if owning a house is worth the effort to maintain one.

(I suppose that I should start by pointing out that I wouldn't care to buy a house now.  At the very least I'd first like to see some sign that Greece has defaulted on its debt and will not pay its creditors.  Or first I'd like to see the U.S. go bankrupt or actually pass a balanced budget.  I suppose that even when the dramatic event that everyone [whose opinion I'd be interested in] seems to think finally comes, then there won't be a spectacular crash or pandemonium.   But instead more of a resignation of being amid another great depression.)

Owning a house, even owning a mortgage, has definite advantages:

-a place to keep your stuff
-a place to do what you want with few-ish limitations
-building equity
-can't get kicked out

There are also many drawbacks to owning a house, or mortgage:

-monthly payments for utilities
-the hassle of arranging utilities
-maintenance of the property
-repairs of the property
-property taxes
-long term commitment
-concern about resale

I find building equity much more appealing than essentially throwing it away.  Even if I were fabulously wealthy I can't see owning a really big house, a big garage would be good, a bigger house means more to clean, maintain, and pay taxes on.

I don't know what I'll decide in the future, but I am struck by how few advantages to owning a house that I could think of.

Tuesday, September 25, 2012

Which Deer To Shoot

We are now into the Wisconsin archery season.  One question to ask yourself every year is, which deer will you shoot?

When you just start out in deer hunting you should shoot the first deer with antlers that you can.  When you start hunting with a bow, you should shoot the first buck that you can.

There are many places where there are restrictions on the minimum size of the bucks that you can shoot.  Some of these rules come from state laws, some from the clubs that own the land, and some from the local peer pressure.

I'm lucky enough to hunt where there are no such minimum size limits. and there are still big deer around (B&C 160 +).  I would even prefer to hunt a place without size limits even if that meant I had fewer big bucks around.  Because I like shooting deer.  If I could, and there were no negative side effects, I would be happy to try and shoot every buck that I have the opportunity to.  And rules are never fun.

However, there are less than desirable results if you shoot every buck.  If you shoot lots of bucks then there will be fewer around next year, when they'll be bigger.  For a long time everyone shot any deer with antlers.  And they considered themselves lucky to do so.  Since most of us have been letting smaller bucks go more, and more big bucks have been shot.  Bucks that would have been shot years ago are now being passed by and we are seeing more big bucks as a result.  When I first started hunting, in 1999, is was common for most deer registration stations to be full of 1 1/2 year old bucks and 3 1/2 year old bucks were not common.  Now the smallest bucks are often bigger than the average bucks that we used to see.

Many times on the hunting TV shows we see the hunter's struggle to decide what to shoot.  If the hunter has an opportunity at a nice buck on the first day they are hesitant to end their trip so early.  It can be the same for us, over the course of a season.  But if you decide not to shoot a buck because it is early in the season, then you'll run quite a risk of not shooting a buck at all.

I have been a great beneficiary of the letting smaller bucks go policy.  I have shot 22 bucks and could because I was allowed to shoot smaller bucks when I was younger.  Even most places with size limits allow people younger than some age to shoot whatever they can to experience it for the first time.

It is much more difficult to shoot bigger bucks, and not just because they are rare or smarter.  But also because rather than just glancing at the deer's head, we now need to study the look of the antlers for a while in order to decide if the buck is big enough.  This means the deer needs to be in position for much longer than he would need to be if we were only looking for a set of horns.

Since we let bucks go now, we each need to decide how big of a buck we will shoot.  It is good to have an idea beforehand.  If you wait until you see a buck to decide if its big enough, then they will often disappear before you make up your mind.

For almost all of us a bigger set of antlers is better than a smaller set of antlers.  Therefore, the biggest set of antlers is the goal we wish to shoot.  But most places will never see a 200" buck.  And there is no point in waiting for a buck that will never arrive.  So what we want is the biggest buck that we have a reasonable chance to get.

My goal each year is to shoot a buck.  But with my increasing personal size limit that is getting harder and harder.  A reasonable goal, I think, is to have an idea of how big the bucks get where you hunt and hope for one at the top end to give you a shot.

Here in central Wisconsin most of us, if we hunt enough, will get an opportunity, or two, at a 3 1/2 year old buck.  Around here that will mean a set of antlers with between a 16" and 19" inside spread.  (Ear tip to ear tip is around 15" on an adult whitetail deer.)  And that buck will score around 120" to 140".

Last year, 2011, I had three opportunities at 3 1/2, or older, bucks.  (Missed with my bow, hit a shoulder blade with an arrow, and missed a standing shot at 8 yards with a rifle.  Pretty poor showing from me.)  This gives me a good idea that if I hunt as much as I did last year, then I'll have an opportunity, or two at a 3 1/2 year old buck.

Think about what you saw last year.  Pick out the top three or four and plan on shooting only one of them if he comes along.  This is a pretty fair size to shoot, it seems to me.

There's no point in waiting for a bigger buck than you'll ever see.  And shooting one of the biggest bucks in the area is always something to be proud of, no matter the deer's size.

If you are just starting out, then shoot the first buck you have the opportunity to.  Regardless of its size, your first few bucks will be more enjoyable even than bigger bucks later.

After you've decided to shoot only bigger bucks, then I suggest moving to shooting only 2 1/2 year old bucks or bigger.  Once you've shot enough of them, you should increase your minimum to 3 1/2 year old bucks and bigger.  After that move your minimum up until you hit the age of the top few deer in your area, even if they only get to 2 1/2 years old where you hunt.

I'd never speak ill of a hunter who shoots any buck with antlers (unless that particular hunter is a dickhead).   Because shooting bucks is fun.

If you want information on where the biggest bucks have been shot in the past, you should check out the QDMA Whitetail Map Guide.

Huffington Post Comments, 9/17/2012 Part V

Last week I left some comments at the Huffington Post.  In the last installment a commenter left a comment saying that she did not want to bother and tell me why, she just wanted to say that I was wrong.

I was just amazed at her last comment.  Amazed to the extent that I don't think that I even need to prove my points.

Sorry, but there's just too many things here that I disagree with and it would take too long to go point by point.  But that's your outlook, so I wish you well in your future. 
I appreciate the fact that it takes time to respond to these comments. But just for my future reference would you mind pointing out which of the points that I made in my last comment that you disagree with?

1. neither party will do what they promise goals are: lower taxes, less gov spending goals are: more spending, higher taxes

4.No republican wants to cut Social Security or Medicare funding (for current seniors)

5."trickle down" has not been proven wrong

6.china, India, and Vietnam have been reducing the control of its government over their people's lives

7.the people of china, India, and Vietnam have been getting happier, healthier, and wealthier since #6.

I would appreciate it if you would just list the numbers for the points that you think that I have wrong.

All the best,



Actually, all of them. 

Forget Buisness School... The Wild Wheel instead.

If experts were needed, they could always be hired,
but no Ford operation was ever directed by a technician.
He always knew too many things that couldn't be
done, whereas a Ford man could do anything because
he didn't know any better. The Ford man's role was
to say to the expert: "Do it anyhow."

-page 47-48

Skip business school and go straight to work (at your own company if need be) and "Do it anyhow."

The Story of Football, America, Rules, and Laws

I just watched Monday Night Football.  (I'll miss the rest of the Packers' games because they'll be playing when I'm deer hunting. deer > football)  If you look you could find all sorts of problems and symptoms of problems with our society.

It was good to have Hank Williams, Jr.'s opening song to start the night.  The show's start seems stupider and blander without it.  He's no longer doing the intro because he was fired for saying something politically incorrect.

The big issue in the NFL today is the strike of the referees.   They are on strike because they want more benefits.  (And, I hear, pay for the games they didn't work while striking.)  We could talk about that strike and how it relates to all other strikes but I would rather focus on the rules the striking officials are supposed to officiate.

The Packers' just lost the game, in a large part, due to bad officiating.   But if they can't overcome bad officiating, then maybe they did not deserve to win.

(For the record I would have stopped watching in 2010.  I did not watch a game until the playoffs when the Packers started rolling.  And I only watched about 3 games in 2011 and 2012.  I watched only because the Packers were the best team in football.)

Let me tell the tale of football.  (And make my first attempt at writing something that means something else.)

The Story of Football, America, Rules, and Laws


Once upon a time football was a game that was becoming more and more popular.

Gradually new rules were added, and old rules were changed to promote the goals of the people who run football.  The fans wanted more scoring, so the rules were changed to promote scoring.  The players want more safety, so the rules were changed to make the game safer.  Every year we get more new rules and more rule changes.  We want more scoring, more safety, and to correct the flaws in our old system.

All along, as we are adding new rules, and changing the old ones, there are problems in football.  Bad calls are made by officials and teams win and lose because of the people calling the rules, not always because of their own effort.  Some rules are unclear.  A catch requires: possession, two feet in bounds (a knee equals two feet), and a "football move."  Year after year we change the rules to make them clearer.  Year after year, we add new rules to promote passing, scoring, and safety.

More and more rules.

We have so many rules we require highly trained and specialized officials to decide who is following them and who is not.  They make bad calls and we add coaches' challenges to have the officials review their work and to correct themselves if they are wrong.

We change our minds each year about what officiating calls can be challenged.  We make limits on when the challenges can take place.  We add third parties to challenge the plays during certain times of the game.  We decide that challenges can only occur so often and intermix the coaches' challenge rules with the rules of the timeouts.  We add new rules for when timeouts, and challenges, can be used with player injuries.

The people say, "we are tired of the challenges interrupting the flow of the game."  We respond, "no challenge break shall last more than one minute."  And, of course, we allow the officials to spend more time than that when they want.  We them to get the call correct, of course.

During the games some are officiated tightly and some more loosely.  The players and coaches change the way they play in order to put them to their best advantage with the officials.

Games are played.

Some are won some are lost.

Somewhere along the way we reached a point where even the people responsible for relaying the games to the fans do not know what all of the rules are.  Somewhere we got to the point where we have rulebooks hundreds of pages long, with technicalities and loopholes.

But the problems don't matter.  All that matters is that we continue to get the people to participate.  They keep showing up, so it doesn't matter if our game is as good as it could be.  It doesn't matter that the game is not as good as it used to be.

We need more rules to advance our goals to make the game better.  Never mind, the fact that our new rules don't achieve their goals.  That just means that we need more and better rules.  "We've learned from the mistakes of the past," we'll say.  "We're just not making the same mistakes again."

At some point the people say, "I've had enough.  I liked the game but I don't even understand the rules anymore.  I wanted to follow along.  I wanted to support my side.  I was willing to buy tickets and special TV packages.  I was willing to play fantasy football.  I was willing to buy the football video games.  I was willing to schedule my time around yours if that was what you wished.

But, that was the last straw.

I liked the game.  I wanted it to work.  I hope that it will again.  But I've lost hope.  I've lost hope that the game will return to a time that was simpler.  I've lost hope that the game will return to the game that attracted me in the first place.

Turn back, it may not be too late.

Turn back to a time when the rules were simple and fair.

Turn back to a time when you were not trying to promote an agenda.

Turn back to a time when the good of the game was your goal.

Turn back to a time when the rules were simple enough that anyone can referee, and there is minimal need for training.

I want the game to survive. I want it to prosper.  I hope that it has great success.  But too often you make the game worse in an attempt to make it better.  One too many times I've seen my team fail.  Not because they were bad.  Because they did not adapt as well to the rules and officials.  Because the rules and officials are different all of the time.  Because the rules are too much to handle.  And despite preparing for your rules and specific officials, they don't know what your rules mean when we head out to play.

Turn back before you've lost it.

You've just lost me."

Monday, September 24, 2012

DDT is Great

Jeffery Tucker, author of two of my favorite books, points out why we have a return of bed bugs.

When the reports of bedbug infestation first came along, it was all rather shocking. Bedbugs had been eradicated, so far as anyone knew, sometime after World War II, in both the United States and Europe. It was a major advance for civilization, a bedbug-free life.
Generations knew nothing of these ghastly creatures that come out at night, inject numbing poison so that you don’t feel them, feast on your blood as you sleep, and then sneak away again in the morning gorged and bloated at your expense.
The reason for the eradication? DDT, the lifesaving insecticide discovered by Swiss chemist Paul Hermann Müller, who received the Nobel Prize in 1948 for having saved millions from malaria. DDT was the miracle drug that gave mankind a fighting chance against its great enemies in the insect world.
Recall that it was insects that carried the diseases that several times wiped out major swaths of the world’s population in the Middle Ages. Gradually over the centuries, as sanitation improved, prosperity arose, the swamps were drained, and medical science discovered the cause of the yellow fever, the plagues diminished and were finally controlled. DDT delivered that final glorious blow, to the wild cheers of a world in love with progress and confident in humanity’s capacity to control its future.
Then sometime in the 1960s, all that began to change. There was a dramatic shift in the philosophy of government and in popular culture. The landmark book that appeared 50 years ago this week was Silent Spring by popular writer Rachel Carson. The purpose of the book was to ban DDT. But there was more going on: the advance of a philosophy that turned everything on its head.
 Banning DDT has caused millions of malaria deaths and the return of bedbugs.

Bourbon for Breakfast

Thanks to C-SPAN's Book TV you can watch an discussion with the author of two of my favorite books.

Bourbon for Breakfast

Its a Jetson's World

I cannot recommend highly enough that you should read at least one of these books.

Buy them:

Bourbon for Breakfast

Its a Jetson's World

Or read them for free (read them to understand why they are available for free):

Bourbon for Breakfast

Its a Jetson's World

I am incapable of expressing my fondness for these two books.  Although I have attempted to express my fondness before.

From the Mises Institute description:

The "problem" with Jeffrey Tucker is that he has been flying under the Austro-libertarian radar for all too long. A tireless worker, but mostly a behind-the-scenes man (apart from his magnificent turn as Nathaniel Branden in Murray Rothbard’s play, “Mozart was a Red”), he has in the past made numerous public contributions from time to time. But now with the publication of Bourbon for Breakfast: Living Outside the Statist Quo, a compilation of many and all of them magnificent shorter writings, he will no longer be able to hide his light under the proverbial bushel.
This book makes a very important contribution to both of his twin loves, libertarian political philosophy and Austrian economics. What he has to say about the economics of water, commerce, technology, police, and jails, are alone worth way more than the price of admission (the book, in keeping with his principles, is available for free on the web, but I urge you to buy as many copies as you can and give them to your friends and family members).
But perhaps his unique contribution to our freedom movement is that he combines these insights of his written in the tradition of Mises, Rothbard and Hazlitt with some very important thoughts on health, manners, food and other such cultural matters. All too many of us (I am as guilty of this as anyone) write and speak as if all there were to life is economics and politics. Not Jeff Tucker, not by a long shot. So, do read him, and carefully, on these two subjects, the core of our philosophy. But, also, study what he has to say about culture. In some ways, these insights of his are just as important. - Walter Block, Loyola University, New Orleans
From federalized showerheads to the libertarian Jetsons, Jeffrey Tucker has written a funny and important book about state meddling, and the possibility of pure freedom. Read Bourbon for Breakfast, and give a copy to everyone you know. It’s a smart, subversive, and devastatingly effective case for liberty. - Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., Chairman of the Mises Institute and editor of

You should seriously read at least one of them.  I've already bought one in order to give it to someone.  Ask me and I'll buy one for you.

Read them!

Huffington Post Comments: Review I

I thought that it would be interesting to reflect on the comment debates that I have had at the Huffington Post over the last few weeks.  I've been commenting and replying for a while, but I think that it is time to look for any trends that have occurred.

In this Part I we will look at all of the names that I have been called, and all of the different ways I have been insulted by my fellow commentators.

Insults and Name Calling from Me:

Insults and Name Calling from My Opponents:

-You do go all over the place, don't you?

- Or are you one of those dreamers who thinks the budget can be balanced with no defense cuts--trust me, so called entitlements for seniors are peanuts compared to what has been spent on the DoD since 2001

-Mouthpiece for the crooks. [the entire reply to one of my comments]

-You seem to be taken in by the Republican grift I see.

-As I said, there is one born every minute, so the Republican "base" will be forever renewed with more suckers. You appear to represent this base well.

-Do you think that you will ever wake up to their grift?

-Uh..Ok. I see you are a deep thinker.

-Finally, Bloomberg is a Republican you nit wit. [Oh, really.]

-And you think that something is privatizing SS (so retirees can watch them vanish in another crash like 2008) and making medicare a system of vouchers.... right. SMDH. Genius plans.

-Oh please do show which banks were nationalized lol, appreciate that.

-Well, sucker, that is because your list does not represent the actual "ideas" of these Republicans.

-Perhaps you should get in touch with this Nigerian prince who is looking for help. He has millions of dollars that he would like to give you, if only he could cut through some government red tape.

-Because trickle down is a joke ! Next question.

-Stop regurgitating the GOP talking points and get some information. Read!

-Freedom?! You are kidding, right?

-Those are only the Republican talking points. The reality is very different as Reich explained so eloquently.

-Yes, you do fail to see.

-LOL. I guess you haven't really read the GOP platform.

-Right??? I wonder how much thought goes into some comments.

-Unless your point is control who learns and who doesn't, which is exactly what it sounds like to me.

-If all teachers decided not to teach, our nation would crumble.  Argue that... [I did.]

-Your're are too late timmy-- people are aready reaping the benefits... you'll have to pry it out of their cold dead hands!!!

-get real.

-go try it and find out

-Wrong. Republicans thinking = no logic just republican spin

-It is amazing how we pick and choose what data and information we want to believe. Well you would have to be that way to swallow the lies that Mitt & Ryan are feeding you.

-The idea of a gilded age nirvana of small government comes from loony rightists inhaling or smoking something they shouldn't.

-Yes, this progressive does indeed smell the sarcasm. Ironic though (you DO understand irony, right?) how the "corruption" you cite doesn't exist.

-Thanks for pointing out the sardonic nature of your comment, because on first read it only seemed steeped in partisan banality.

-(hoping you can read):

-So to you, freedom equals the goal of business but does not equal the right to a decent paying job? In other words the bottom line is more important than human rights and capital will just fly where it can live freely by exploiting desperate human units for labor and consumption. Great!

-That last sentence is a half truth, if not an outright lie. Working class Americans live WORSE than their counterparts in countries with stronger worker protections.

-And you demonstrate your total lack of understanding in one sentence.

-Believe it or not, there's more to it than that. Do some homework.

-I think elTim went with "or not". ;-)

-Is that what rush told you?


-Take a biology class and understand the difference.

-You have the intellectualism of a child

-hello???? It was Obama who got Osama Bin Laden and was told so what by the GOP!Bush said it wasn't a priority!No one is killing babies for God's sake,quit the hyperbole.It just makes you sound foolish.Soon the right will be so much in the minority as to be unable to get into power ever again.Soon.

-If you think that the only women who get abortions and are pro choice are on the left , then you are living in a separate universe.

-Walter Williams? Lol....looks like we got a Libertarian in the house...

News Flash: economic growth and affluence don't automatically result in happiness and increased quality of life.

-Of course what we're talking about is a structural problem that can't be solved by soundbites from competing economic world views, yours from tinfoil hat land, mine from the planet Earth.

-And yes, apart from partisan spin/rhetoric...the economy is appreciably better...that is of course if you judge it by facts and stats.

- I will assume you're asking a genuine question, so I will answer you seriously. Look at GDP, employment, consumer confidence, the unfreezing of credit, manufacturing, construction, corp profits, stock market, and string retail, housing auto, banking recoveries. They all have numbers for Fall '08 vs today. make the comparisons. You'll find your answer. We call 'em facts and stats

-Almost as wealthy as if we re-institutionalized slavery!

Think of how wealthy we'd be if labor was free from those who are inferior to us!

Life was so much better when aren't safe guards in place to protect the basic human rights of the people, like the ability to pay for food and shelter, right?

God bless China.  

-I didn't call anyone mean - your faulty assumption, not surprisingly. I'm just sayin, if you're going to enact laws that affect the poor I think you should actually spend some time understanding that challenges and obstacles to being poor.

-If you don't know the answer to your own questions, then you will be knocked on your feet if you help elect republicans.  Then you will find out along with everyone else who doesn't understand how lower taxes and less government spending hurt.  You will all find out together how much you miss the government programs that the Republicans will cut.  

-Bull pucky!!! The ONLY way that is true is if you blame Obama for the over 4 million jobs that were lost BEFORE his first budget took effect.

-DUE TO TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS!!! THE GOP'S GOD MILT FREEMAN. it has nothing to do with anything obama did or didnt do!! the 'PEOPLE ' WHO VOTED IN THIS CONGRESS IS TO BLAME!!!!!

-Learn to use the google.

-You have created a strawman. You do not know what Democrats believe. Ergo, you are projecting your fears on them. None of that is factual.

-There is your evidence. This is what I am talking about. No one can show you anything. You can't pin the first year on Obama when the free fall was JUST STARTING when Bush was leaving. That's like saying if McCain had won magically the economy would have stopped losing the 800,000 jobs a month. There is no way anyone can honestly believe that. You are a partisan hack.

You ignore evidence when a simple google search "Obama Bush job growth" would have pulled that link. You are willfully ignorant

-I already owned you once and that's why I stopped replying. You ignored my posts and sent me on these ridiculous scavenger hunts. Bush turned a 200 billion surplus into a 1.2 trillion deficit. Tax cuts did not create jobs. End of story. As I said, I already thorough owned you.

-So while the private sector was recovering and adding jobs the GOP and the likes of Ryan were tossing public sector jobs out the back door, just so they could keep unemployment high and blame it on Obama. And those are the guys you want to defend. Whatever.

-Except the facts do not support your claim so no, we cant agree when your opinion is just that and you avoid the facts...typical but facts are facts.

-That's your idea of "responsibility"...really?

-hmmm....thats odd...the stats from OMB and other government sources seem to contradict what you say....oh well...

-You're funny. And ignorant.

-You're not making any sense; you're all over the map here. Try to concentrate on one thing at a time.

-Then you just aren't paying attention to your leadership, like Bachmann, Gohmert, King,.etc, etc, etc.  [editor's note: Who, in the wide world of sports, is Gohmert? and King?]

- The Constitution says we ALL have equal rights. Since Insurance companies have been providing free Viagra for men so they can get women pregnant, how dare you think birth control being also provided is not also important? Stop repeating FOX lies here. We kinow the difference.

-I like the words "unsubstantiated drivel" I 've known a few people quite happy with their SS/Medicare checks. Your 3rd paragraph reads like this to me: &^%)>:@#^&

-It ALL helps, bozos.

-I'll bet you've a whole lot more fear mongering and propaganda where that BS came from?

-How about cutting your pay, elTim, and saying, ":It wouldn't make any difference to you. The Republican, Tea party lies are long ago worn out, and we're fed up with you coming here and repeating them.

-Who the hell do think the "Government" is?  It is US (We the People), and the taxes you whine about are the costs we decide TOGETHER are essential in order to have a decent civilization.   When YOUR lordships (i.e the Crooked Billionaire Club) are given unwarranted degrees of control in our moments of stupidity, then the system becomes a fire-hose of corporate welfare.
"Liberty" is having an equal say in these decisions - because it only make sense to build roads and fight disease and inspect meat and police our streets and promote healthy elk herds and study climate and .....hundreds of other that that you can call, like Jefferson and Madison did, the "General Welfare".

You guys fight and foam at the mouth to make sure we have as little of this freedom as possible - to ensure that Crooked Billionaires can outbuy and sell us in the feudal political market created by the Citizens United decision.  Your side are eager, eager peasants to economic usurpers.
The answer is not to make government smaller - its to widen the base, so no one interest can out-vote you and I.

-No I didn't. Those are your words. [ed note: I doubt it.] 

-what you teacons cannot seem to grasp is that ayn rand and jesus are at mutually exclusive and opposite ends of the spectrum

cognitive dissonance is the only thing that keeps your heads from expl0ding

-Keep telling yourself that. I'm sure your corporate overlords appreciate it. Go right on believing that Mr. Ryan's plan will prevent "government" from "interfering" with -you-, not from interfering with -them-. And please, go right on believing that once our corporate masters are freed from "government interference," they will allow you to "live freely."

-You are welcome. I do not want the kind of "freedom" and "liberty" that the radical Christian right is trying to shove down my throat. I am too old to learn the Goose step.

-If you feel you lack so much freedom and liberty...why not make your life easier and buy an island somewhere and be your own god?

-Why is your side always starting off with a big lie?
You do understand that the size and the cost of government has gone up more under republicans than with dems?
It is a fact. What are some of the ones you complain about the most? The EPA?
Nixon created the EPA to make the people pay for toxic waste clean up of sites polluted by private companies.
Health Insurance? Another Nixon deal.
Down to the last biggest increases in the size and cost of government by your hero GW Bush, remember the department of homeland security? How about medicare part D? If you learn what you are talking about you won't be so ignorant!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-The govenrment could do no worse in your anti-government fantasies and a lot better in my anti-fascist ones.

-Lose your job and get sick. Then post again.

-Bet you're one of those who favors no cuts to the defense budget. OK...why should one American be forced to pay for a junior enlisted person's family expenses for a family he/she could never afford tto support if he/she weren't in the military? Cuts both ways Bunky. just hate those who don't share your country club/libertarian "me first and always" philosophy.

-We don't ned to "confiscate" all of the wealth of the top 1% this year. Don't be stupid. All we need is to return tax rates to what they were during King Reagan's reign year after year for a few years and the deficit will be gone shortly. Use your God given brain elTim164.

-The "framing" of the conversation is less than honest.

-You have no idea what the Democrats are talking about, do you?

-You still have no idea, I'm sure.
- You didn't have any idea about that did you? Or you wouldn't have made the claim.

-So, you're still clueless.

-I'm insulting you because you have adopted a misogynistic view of society that is part of the problem.

-Can't happen to you? Be real.

-I'm making this personal because it's personal. It affects all of us. I have insurance, and you don't.

-You're illiterate, too. I said specifically that their policies are failures. And they are. As for the federal budget, the constitution says that's up to congress . . . Which represents yet another republican failure

-if you don't know

you are not smart enough to be on this thread

or any thread for that matter

-If you think what comes out of your car's exhaust pipe is harmless may I suggest you close yourself up in the garage with the car running.


Well wasn't that a fun trip down memory lane?

Sunday, September 23, 2012

A Most Marvelous Book

As Ford saw it the Model T had but four essentials.
They were the power plant, the frame, the front axle
and the rear axle, all so designed that no special skill
would be required to repair or replace them. Any member
of the male race could take it apart and put it
together again.

Ford's intention was to make the parts first interchangeable
and then so simple and inexpensive that the
owner of a car would never hire a mechanic. The parts
would cost so little that it would be cheaper to buy new
ones than to have old ones repaired, and they could be
carried in hardware shops like nails or bolts.

Those who can remember their Model T days will be
reminded of how they used to take the car apart with a
monkey wrench and pliers, put the used or damaged
parts in a gunny sack, take the sack to the nearest Ford
station where it would be filled with new parts in exchange
for the old—and a slight difference to pay—
then home to put it all together again, with a perfectly
absurd sense of ego satisfaction. More Model T's were
rebuilt in that manner, in barns and sheds and under
the shade tree, than were ever sent to service stations.

-The Wild Wheel

page 58-59

"Entrepreneurial Nation"

Another book talk well worth watching on C-CPAN's book TV.

Entrepreneurial Nation: Why Manufacturing Is Still Key to America's Future

The first 15 minutes, before he gives us his incorrect political views, gives us a new perspective on manufacturing in America.

As I continue to listen, his politics are very wrong.  But the first 15 minutes are very interesting.

His politics are really bad.

...really bad.

Saturday, September 22, 2012

Getting Along With The Other Side

While watching the book talk on The Parties Versus The People, one point that was mentioned was that many people only interact with people who watch the same news, read the same books, and listen to the same music, etc.

The author says that we need to get along with people with different ideas.

I tried to get along with one of the people who I debated on the capitol square on the day of the Wisconsin governor's recall.

We had a reasonable debate.  (My opponent did call me a racist.)

After a while my opponent said that we would not get along.  I said, "Why not? There's a bar right there; I'll buy you a beer."  My opponent recoiled in disgust and said, "no."

I wonder what I could have done to have been more agreeable.

Earlier in the day I debated with a guy.  He got really wound up  and a woman, on his side, told him that I was being a reasonable debater, but he was getting out of hand.  After I debated the woman, and not changing my mind, she told me that she understood why the guy before him got so wound up.  Even though I was debating just like I do online in the Debates in the Comments, about the only response that I got was name calling.

I expect that we will continue to interact only with people who think and act the same way that we do ourselves. 

"The Parties vs. The People"

A video on a book called "The Parties vs. The People: How to Turn Republicans and Democrats into Americans."

Its worth a watch.

He argues, well, against our current party system.

Friday, September 21, 2012

Huffington Post Comments, 9/17/2012, Part IV


I don't believe that either party will do what it says. But the republican goals (that they do make minimal moves towards) of lower taxes, including for the wealthy, and less government is much better than the democratic goals of spending more and more and more and then taxing more and more and more.

No republican wants to cut Social Security or Medicare funding, they want to change it for people currently under 55 to a system that will make each program sustainable into the future.

Could you point to where "trickle down" and reducing taxes have been "proven wrong?

Here is a counter argument for reducing taxes being "proven" wrong:

I admire the fact that China, and India, have gone from having most of their people live in absolute poverty (thanks to government policies similar to that of the democrats) and since reducing the size of the their governments (like republicans advocate) they have seen billions of people increase their life quality, income, and living standards.

For another example lets look at another example:

Countries like China, India, and Vietnam are reducing the control of their governments and are watching the lives of their people improve dramatically. We are increasing the control of government over our lives and are watching our freedoms and lives decrease in quality.


Sorry, but there's just too many things here that I disagree with and it would take too long to go point by point.  But that's your outlook, so I wish you well in your future. 


I appreciate the fact that it takes time to respond to these comments. But just for my future reference would you mind pointing out which of the points that I made in my last comment that you disagree with?

1. neither party will do what they promise goals are: lower taxes, less gov spending goals are: more spending, higher taxes

4.No republican wants to cut Social Security or Medicare funding (for current seniors)

5."trickle down" has not been proven wrong

6.china, India, and Vietnam have been reducing the control of its government over their people's lives

7.the people of china, India, and Vietnam have been getting happier, healthier, and wealthier since #6.

I would appreciate it if you would just list the numbers for the points that you think that I have wrong.

All the best,


Stop Nominating RINOs

Thanks to a post at Althouse, we can see that Scott Rasmussen, of the polling company, thinks that:

"The Republican base is looking for someone like a 21st century Ronald Reagan, who will display his faith in the American people. The Washington Republicans are more comfortable with politicians like George W. Bush, Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney. Though the establishment has dominated the party since Reagan left the White House, the 2012 election could well be the end of the line.

If Romney loses in November, the Republican base will no longer buy the electability argument for an establishment candidate. From the view of the base, the elites will have given away an eminently winnable election. Someone new, from outside of Washington, will be the party's nominee in 2016.

If Romney wins and does nothing to change the status quo, the economy will falter. He will end up as the second straight one-term president, and the nation will desperately be searching for an authentic outsider in 2016.

If he wins the White House, the only way for Romney to succeed will be to side with the nation's voters and throw out the club in Washington. That will be great news for the country but bad news for political insiders on both sides of the partisan aisle."

It would be great of Romney won and actually tried to reduce the size of the government.  But who actually thinks that that will happen?

Perhaps someday we'll nominate a republican for president who actually wants to reduce the size of government.  Let's stop nominating big government republicans.

Amtrack Shrugged

The Antiplanner recently went to congress to testify that the government run Amtrack would be much better if it were privatized.

He then thought that it was "surreal" to watch Atlas Shrugged Part II.

His conclusion:

"In Atlas Shrugged, a man named John Galt convinces all the smart people in the country to “go on strike” until the government fails from mediocrity. Fortunately, such a strike won’t be necessary in real life as the mediocre results of government control will lead to failure all by itself. We just have to hope that there is enough wealth left in the country that we can put it back together."

Economic Policy Debate

Kevin Williamson describes the problem of measuring economic results out of context and when the parts that you should measure are unmeasurable.

Which is why even very smart people, such as Atlantic writers, produce maddening paragraphs, such as this one from Mr. Thompson: “Well into the 1950s, the top marginal tax rate was above 90%. Today it’s 35%. But both real GDP and real per capita GDP were growing more than twice as fast in the 1950s as in the 2000s. At the same time, the average tax rate paid by the top tenth of a percent fell from about 50% to 25% in the last 60 years, while their share of income increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% before the recession.”

All of that is trivially true. The tax code in 2012 is different from the tax code in 1955. Lots of other things are different, too: Japan emerged from the postwar rubble to become a major economic power and then went into gentle decline during the subsequent years, the ruins of Europe were rebuilt, a European monetary union was created and then began coming unglued, Germany was reunited, the Soviet Union was disunited, China began to liberalize its economy, a globalized information economy emerged with India and South Korea winning significant places in it, the Internet became a critical economic reality, the population of the planet more than doubled, worldwide markets were integrated, standardized containerization revolutionized shipping, smallpox was eradicated, life expectancies grew in many parts of the world, U.S. birth rates declined . . . and so on. Telling us that tax rates were X in the 1950s and Y in 2012, while growth was A in the 1950s and B today, tells us something approximating nothing."

another quote:

"In spite of the massive piles of evidence surrounding them, politicians routinely tell us that if we will merely give them the power to do X, then Y surely will follow. The Obama administration predicted that if the stimulus and other policies were enacted, then unemployment would decline to 5.2 percent. (It isn’t 5.2 percent.) Mitt Romney says that if we enact his agenda, the result will be 4 percent growth. Personally, I think that politicians should be goosed with a Taser every time they use the word “percent” in a future-tense sentence. But to be more charitable, let’s instead conclude that such projections should be viewed skeptically.

Unhappily, many economists desire to play kingmaker and therefore lend the prestige of their discipline to the wishful thinking of politics, where arguments are oversimplified to a point that is indistinguishable from dishonesty. They are aided in this by journalists who provide a bridge from the rigorous world of academic research to the standards-free world of political discourse. The result is something like a fairy tale or just-so story. That voters choose to accept such fanciful promises is another piece of evidence that our politics is not rational but ritual."


On another subject, we were taught in business school (big waste of time, money, and effort) to make business plans with projected budgets.  Many wondered how we could come up with a budget before we've even seen one month's numbers.  If you did not include a projected budget, then your grade suffered.  If your budget, for your incredibly stupid company idea, had a projected growth in sales of $5 million each year, then you were complimented on your budget.

Top 6 Places I Want To Visit

1. Hong Kong

When I first discovered Google Maps Street View I spent a lot of time looking at the streets of the cities of the world.  It seems to me that Hong Kong is easily the most interesting.  Look at the view of some of those narrow streets, lined with stores and restaurants.  Its a marvel of how the English left Hong Kong almost completely free.  You can see a bit of China, while only needing to speak English.  Its a world class city built on a small island.  Its small enough that you'd think you could cover the whole place, but dense enough that you'll never see all of it.  I like driving but I'd like to spend more time in a place where driving is limited, just for the experience.  And a city that's based on an island can't limit itself much more to only walking.

2. Inner China

I have a fascination with the far east.  (Although, I don't necessarily prefer Asian women to any other ethnicity.)  I don't know if my interest has come from reading books like: Musashi, Taiko, Jian, Shogun, Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World, Heart of Asia, etc.  Perhaps my interest in China has come from my watching movies like: Hero, Ip Man, Fearless, Red Cliff, Little Big Solider, etc.  Or if my interest comes from the fact that while I was in school, I learned about the history of the western world, and the east was largely forgotten.  It may also be that my interest in economics has made seeing China go from communist to somewhat free an exiting place to see progress made in economics.  Its also probably one of the better places to make money.

I've already seen the major touristy sights in Beijing and Shanghai (although both cities have made great progress and new additions every year).  I'd like to see what the smaller cities in the country of China look like.  The country has dramatic scenery of every variety.  Rice terraces are one thing that I'd love to see.  And all of the culture is so totally different from our own western culture.

3. Brazil

Brazil is another country that was, at least, thought to be a great place to make money as it has moved upwards in wealth.  Other than the socialist government and increase in feminism.  I have not heard much negative news from the country.  Its jungles have always sounded interesting.  The Amazon has also long been a place for fishermen looking for exotic fish. I'd like to catch a peacock bass.

I suppose that I should point out that if I were to travel to a place just for the local girls, Brazilians sound just like the girls I'd like to meet.

If at some point I decide that I want to leave the U.S. permanently, then I think that China and Brazil are the leading contenders.  I may be more interested in the exoticness of China, but the differences from what I'm used to may get to be too much to bear. Brazil sounds like a much more pleasant and relaxing place to live. 

4. The Philippines

I'm not the biggest fan of tropical places (too hot).  But I can't read stuff, like this, from Naughty Nomad and not want to go at least once.  If we know that the girl situation is like it is now; how could a modern man, with the means to do so, not at least check it out?

5. Uganda
One big goal in my life is to shoot an elephant.  Probably around US$60,000 plus at least $4,000 for a rifle, and two may be necessary.  Plus some for the arrangements of shipping the tusks back (which may even be illegal).

Uganda is where many famous professional hunters shot their elephants 100 years ago.  It also allows hunting.

Not a bad review from Naughty Nomad either, well...mostly.

6. New York City

Once the greatest city in the world its probably still "The" city of America.  There aren't any particular things I'd care to see besides a New York pizza and the American Museum of Natural History.  I think that visiting NYC would be more of an obligation rather than a place that I really want to visit.

I just about made plans for a long weekend here, until I discovered that the Wisconsin deer archery season stated a week before I was expecting it to.  Maybe this spring I'll check it out.


I may need to add some of these places to my list; Dad always liked Singapore. And Mauritius is sounding good.

Top 10 Places of Economic Freedom


Economic freedom link found thanks to Right Thinking.


These are the places I want to visit.  Have I left any exceptional places out?

Thursday, September 20, 2012

Huffington Post Comments, 9/17/2012, Part III


Very shortly I will be required to pay for healthcare insurance weather I want to or not.

The new CAFE requirements for new cars will restrict my ability to buy certain cars.

Then there are the 300,000 other pages of rules and regulations (see: U.S. Code) that interfere with things like the with of the stairways in my house, what kinds of gas that I'm allowed to buy, how fast I'm allowed to drive, waiting periods before buying firearms, etc.

I'm not claiming that all of these rules and regulations have come from this administration, but its added to them.

Why is it that many on the left accuse the right of using "talking points" and then frequently say that anyone who disagrees with them gets their info from places like Rush?

Taxes are lower in a large part thanks to Regan, fyi.

Raising taxes is not the same thing as limiting services.

I've listed two specific examples of this administration interfering with our freedom. Can you name one example of one service that the republicans have eliminated in the past 10 years?

I happen to be an unemployed 26 yo white male with a bachelor's degree.

This recession was not caused solely with help from the republicans, the democrats helped.

How can you claim that a country that has regulations on the water flow allowed from our shower heads (see: U.S. Code) suffered from a lack of regulations?


What do you mean healthcare insurance whether you wan it or not? If you don't have health insurance the rest of us have to pick up the bill in case of your illness. If you can't afford health insurance, the government will help you out. What's more fair than that? All civilized countries have universal healthcare, for goodness' sake! The CAFE requirements are not on you.. It is not about your freedom to buy or not gas-guzzlers. It is on the automotive industry to manufacture cars that will burn less gas. What's wrong with that? You will still be able to use and buy used monster trucks, but the new ones will be more environment friendly and fuel efficient. Where is your freedom interfered with? Limiting services is the same as raising taxes because you would have to pay fees for services that were free before so there will be sufficient revenue to lower Romney's taxes. Regulations have been accumulating since the Constitution was written. There haven't been more new ones during this administration than during the others. I am sorry that you can't find a job. Maybe if this obstructionist Congress hadn't blocked the job bills......


In your previous comment you questioned where we've lost freedoms. I gave you an example. Now you argue that that loss of freedom is "fair."

What are you trying to argue: our new healthcare law isn't a loss of freedom or that it is but its fair?

You say that if I get injured and don't have insurance then the government will pay my bills. This is a loss of freedom for those who would end up paying for my bills. This is a problem of socialism, not a problem of a lack of healthcare insurance.

So what if other counties have socialized their healthcare? I thought that your first comment was that we have not lost freedoms and now you are arguing that that loss is a good thing.

Isn't it grand with just the signing of a bill into law the government will make cars use less gas? And with no costs to boot!

If signing a law just, magically I assume, improves things with no costs or bad side effects, then why doesn't the government wave their magic pens and declare an end to poverty?

You said "raising taxes by eliminating services." If you have to pay for your own retirement, then that is not a tax.

How would one of the job bills have improved the economy?

We've tried more government spending before and it has never improved the economy. 


You do go all over the place, don't you? We already pay for your emergency healthcare if you don't have health insurance. If you had, and if you can't afford the premiums the government helps you, we would have to pay much less, since you had prevenive care and insurance in case of emergencies. You don't like the word fair, Ok..... what about logical? What I meant about the cars is that there will be less and less gas guzzlers manufactured. You can still buy whatever is available. I am not talking about your own retirement, I don't even know what you mean by that..... the end of Social Security or Medicare? Wow! And that wouldn't be a new burden, if you have a problem with the word "taxes"...... you really are hung up on semantics aren't you? I am talking about fees and expenses. How would the job bill help the economy? You are kidding, aren't you? And look it up, stimulus and government spending in recession times, does improve the economy. Always has!


Having the government pick up the tab for people who go to the emergency room and cannot pay for it is a problem of socialism, not a problem of a lack of healthcare insurance.

My apologies, if I seemed to have gone from topic to topic. I am trying to argue the case that more government always means worse results, and less government always means better results. (I had figured that since these comments are in response to a generic "Republicans are bad" article, that all political issues are on the table.)

If we are going to continue this discussion, then would you mind listing the subjects that you wish to discuss? I will try and stick only to the subjects that you want to talk about. 

If I am "hung up" on the word taxes, then it is because I would like to have a word's definition mean the same thing every time.  You have used the word "taxes" to mean: the money extracted by the government from the people, and to mean: things that people purchase on their own.

This seems to be a common problem for those of you on the left:

"And look it up, stimulus and government spending in recession times, does improve the economy. Always has!"

Rather than telling you to look up the fact that stimulus spending does not improve the economy, I will look it up and give you a quote.  I doubt that you would trust a quote from someone on the right; how about a quote from FDR's Secretary of the Treasury, on the subject of increased government spending?

"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong … somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. … I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. … And an enormous debt to boot."



And the democrats are owned by unions, especially the teachers unions.

FYI, I'll be voting for Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate. Neither party will do good things.

But my first comment was to defend the republicans because this article's author say that the R position is only good for white males, whereas their positions (if followed) are not different for any race or gender.

I hope that the tea party or the libertarian party is the next party of the right. Let's start with a balanced budget and move forward with a limited government rather than the near unlimited one that we have now.


 Are you saying that unions today have power equal to large corporations and the evangelical movement--that is a joke-it's sad. Take a good look at union membership in the last 30 years-it's down to about 16% of what it once was--they, unfortunately, are on the way out--they overstepped their bounds a long time agao and are paying for it now.

As for your libertarian vote, in my opinion, you're wasting it. The two major parties control who/what gets on ballots. Your candidate may get on ballots in some states, but won't be near to winning in any of them. Maybe in 2016 or 2020, we'll have viable realistic 3rd parties, but not yet. Good luck.

By the way, I doubt you would like what this country looks like if we insisted on balancing the budget in a short time. Unemployment would shoot well above 25%--you guys seem to forget that lots of private sector jobs only exist because of government contracts (Boeing, McDonnell, GE, etc.) Most of California would be out of work. Or are you one of those dreamers who thinks the budget can be balanced with no defense cuts--trust me, so called entitlements for seniors are peanuts compared to what has been spent on the DoD since 2001. Don't forget, in order to balance the budget you would need to pay for Iraq and Afghanistan. Like I said--good luck.

Me: Didn't respond. I have better things to do.

If balancing the budget resulted in high unemployment, then how is that different from our current unemployment and underemployment numbers?  How can anyone be opposed to a balanced budget?



Which republican claims to want higher taxes for "the rest of us"?

By "take away our Medicare" do you mean adjust it for those currently under 55 so that it will be properly funded in the future?

By "rights to abortions" do you mean the "right" to end the life of an unborn person?

Aside from subsides to large companies (which the democrats helped with, and are wrong) what have the republicans given to the wealthy?

How would not raising taxes on the top 1% and attempting to limit government spending "impoverish the rest of us"?


Mouthpiece for the crooks.


Your comment has convinced me to give up my ideals of smaller government.

Pray tell me how I can go about singing the praises of more and more and more government.

I see the light!

What we need is more and more and more regulations! And more and more and more government assistance and subsidies for businesses and anyone else who favors democrats!

Thank you for showing me how wrong I was! 



Let me try again, and you can tell me if I have put any thought into this one, deal?

The republican's stated positions of lower taxes, less government spending, and fewer laws and regulations affecting our lives is race and gender neutral.

A law saying that the same number of women must be involved in a colleges' sports programs, for example is sexist.

A law saying that not hiring a minority or women because of their race or gender is racist.

A law that keeps the taxes the same for wealthy people is not, in any way, racist or sexist.


Are youi asking me to agree or diagreen with your examples of laws? You're not being clear here.

1. I agree
2. I agree3. I agree


The stated goals of the republicans are not racist or sexist, nor is their aim to help one group at the expense of another.

The democrats goals, however, are to divide us by race and gender, to support the notion that one group is oppressing another, and they create laws like Title IX and affirmative action, which are specifically racist and sexist.

If we want everyone to be treated equally, then we need to have the same rules for everyone.



Their stated policies are to have lower taxes and more freedom for everyone.

The democrats had significant power in congress and the white house when many of the handouts for businesses (stimulus) and nationalization of GM, Chrysler, and many banks.

You seem to suggest that you think that republicans are racist and sexist, instead of merely having a different idea for what is best for everyone.

I think the democrats are wrong on essentially everything, but I don't think that that is because they are evil. I think that they should spend more time looking at what has happened to the countries that follow their policies, Greece, Italy, Cuba, etc. and they should spend more time looking at what happens when government gets smaller; look at the advances that China and India have made since deciding to make their government smaller.

Why is it that you think that only "rich white males" will benefit from electing republicans? Why would anyone who is not a "rich white male" support them if that was the case?


I'm sorry, but I just don't believe most of what the Republicans say. Experience has showed me otherwise. They may state these goals but their actual policies are very different. Their policies are geared toward lowering taxes for the rich, and
this is especially ridiculous in this time, because without cutting expense (which they either refuse to say which ones they would cut, or say they want to cut things like Social Security or Medicare), this is a policy for bankrupting the country.
I think the Rebulicans are wrong on essentially everything, and time and time again most of their favorite policies such as trickle down or cutting taxes for the rich to stimulate job growth, have been proven wrong. But instead of learning from history, they just keep promoting these polices which help the upper class (mostly rich white males). And why not look at Germany, which has incredible social programs but is doing very well? I don't think you can use China or India as examples, because they are at a very different stage of development. I would never want to be like them: they don't have many things that make this country great. They have lack of pollution/environmental controls that make their people live in filth, and lack of many of the very freedoms that you say you want in a Republican candidate. It is very ironical that you hold up China as an example of what you admire.


I don't believe that either party will do what it says. But the republican goals (that they do make minimal moves towards) of lower taxes, including for the wealthy, and less government is much better than the democratic goals of spending more and more and more and then taxing more and more and more.

No republican wants to cut Social Security or Medicare funding, they want to change it for people currently under 55 to a system that will make each program sustainable into the future.

Could you point to where "trickle down" and reducing taxes have been "proven wrong?

Here is a counter argument for reducing taxes being "proven" wrong:

I admire the fact that China, and India, have gone from having most of their people live in absolute poverty (thanks to government policies similar to that of the democrats) and since reducing the size of the their governments (like republicans advocate) they have seen billions of people increase their life quality, income, and living standards.

For another example lets look at another example:

Countries like China, India, and Vietnam are reducing the control of their governments and are watching the lives of their people improve dramatically. We are increasing the control of government over our lives and are watching our freedoms and lives decrease in quality.



 Its always good to start with name calling.

The republicans do indeed fall short of their stated goals. And so do the democrats.

How has Obama been doing on his campaign promises?

The stated goals of the republicans are at least good. The goals of the democrats is to take from the rich and regulate everyone.


You seem to be taken in by the Republican grift I see. Aside from the overall grift or long con of the GOP, they have been working hard on their other goal of obstructing Obama and limiting him to one term. Fortunately, the Romney campaign is proving to be very inept and incompetent in this election.

As I said, there is one born every minute, so the Republican "base" will be forever renewed with more suckers. You appear to represent this base well.

Do you think that you will ever wake up to their grift? 


I marvel at the fact that you think the republicans are evil and stupid and yet ignore the fact that the democrats are no better.

Why must it be, since I disagree with your opinions, that I have been mislead by the republicans?

Isn't it possible that we have different political viewpoints because you prefer more government and less freedom and I prefer less government and more freedom?

If I am to "ever wake up to their grift", then I doubt that your name calling and insults are the way to convince me. If your goal is to convince me that I am wrong, then I suggest putting forth facts that support your case, rather than calling me names and insulting my intelligence.



 Yeah, I am. [joking about believing what I say]

I actually want the government to decide when, where, and how I get my healthcare. I also want the government to decide which car I should drive, how fast I can go, and what gas I can put in it.

But what I really want is for the government to decide how large of a soda that I can buy.


Uh..Ok. I see you are a deep thinker.
1. Buy the most expensive health insurance you want. No one is stopping you.
2. Buy any car you want. No one is stopping you.
3. Buy premium gas. The Koch's will love you.

Speed limits are probably a good idea. But go ahead, drive as fast as you like. When you hurt someone, don't complain of the consequenses.

Finally, Bloomberg is a Republican you nit wit. It was his soda idea. 


1. Can I buy healthcare insurance from across state lines? Can I buy healthcare insurance with a low premium and high deductible?

2. The government's new CAFE laws make it much more expensive to buy cars that do not get the government's required mileage. The government has decided that people want to have cars that get higher mileage, so they added some laws that fine car companies that do not meet the government's new requirements.

If the government can solve a problem, like low gas mileage, and with no regard for the consequences, then why don't they create a law that "ends" poverty?

3. I do buy premium gas, my sports car accepts no other.

Bye the way, the government makes more in taxes than the oil companies make in profit on a gallon of gas.

"Finally, Bloomberg is a Republican you nit wit. It was his soda idea."

Thanks for the name calling. The large soda ban is bad regardless of which party the politician who created it belongs to.

And bye the way:

Bloomberg was an independent when he created the soda ban.

"Originally a Democrat, he switched his enrollment to independent in 2008 and, running in 2009 on the Republican and Independence Party lines, he won a third term — only the fourth New York mayor in a century to do so."



I'm a libertarian. But the republican's platform is correct on many issues. Abortion is killing the unborn, lower taxes are better than higher taxes (for anyone), something needs to be done to social security and medicare, etc.

The republicans will not make good on their campaign promises, but neither will the democrats.

And the democrats are opposed to freedom whenever they can be. Are they in favor of an option, not mandatory, union membership? They enforce CAFE laws that restrict which cars can be made. They helped bail out and nationalize several banks, and GM and Chrysler. They are in favor of taxing people more. Etc.

 Jason N

"Abortion is killing the unborn"

Untrue. A fetus is not a child, it can not breathe on it's own. For all intents and purposes, it's more parasite than child.

"lower taxes are better than higher taxes (for anyone)"

Tell that to the S&P, who downgraded our credit for GOP refusal to "increase federal revenues." Americas greatest period of economic expansion came at a time that tax rates for the upper class topped out in the 90% range.

"something needs to be done to social security and medicare"

And you think that something is privatizing SS (so retirees can watch them vanish in another crash like 2008) and making medicare a system of vouchers.... right. SMDH. Genius plans.

"They enforce CAFE laws that restrict which cars can be made."

LMFAO!! You think forcing fuel efficiency is a freedom killer?!? LMFAO!!! Yeah, allowing ourselves to grow increasingly more dependent on foreign sources of oil really helps protect freedom long term, right? WOW!

"Are they in favor of an option, not mandatory, union membership?"

Yes, they are in favor of optional union membership.

"Sen. Nicholas D. Kettle, R-Coventry, announced Thursday he has introduced a "right to work" bill that would make union membership optional for Rhode Island teachers."

"They helped bail out and nationalize several banks, and GM and Chrysler."

Oh please do show which banks were nationalized lol, appreciate that.

"They are in favor of taxing people more. Etc."

Taxes don't take away freedom. Laws banning abortion do. Laws banning gay [His comment ended here.]


I did not say that "A fetus is not a child". What I said was, "Abortion is killing the unborn." What I mean by that is an abortion is the killing of an unborn person. If you would like to use some other term to call the unborn, you are welcome to do so. It does sound much better to call abortion killing a "fetus" rather than a person.

What do you suppose would happen if you asked a pregnant women about her "parasite"?

What makes you think that S&P downgraded our credit because of whatever you are accusing the republicans of?

Isn't it more likely that our credit was downgraded thanks to our enormous debt and yearly deficits?

My compliments on finding one democrat who says that he is in favor of "right to work".

Bank bailouts and nationalizations:

For a description of "bank nationalization"

I notice that you are not arguing against my claim of GM and Chrysler nationalization.

As for you claim of "Taxes don't take away freedom." I would direct your attention to this article which disputes your claim.

An example from the article:

[A person today] "is compelled to give up whatever portion of the fruits of his labors others decide they are entitled to – and how this differs from the slave in the field being forced to pick cotton for the benefit of others . . . . Ask him what he thinks will happen if he declines to hand over the fruits of his labor… . "