by Kevin Williamson
The book talk is on CSPAN's BookTV. Watch it here.
The last time I saw him on BookTV I thought his book and its subject were interesting but I was disappointed when I read the book. I may try again becasue this book could be very interesting.
Rather than go through the whole book talk, I'd like to highlight an early comment.
A recent immigrant from Bangladesh works near Kevin's office and he's noted that she has the same cell phone as the POTUS. He's willing to bet that her children don't go to the same quality of school as the president's kids.
Cell phones and schools, one is run by the government and one is not. Which is better? Which is more egalitarian? Why does anyone want the government to run anything?
Friday, June 28, 2013
Thursday, June 27, 2013
Fight Global Warming!!11!111!!!!
The great success of my first call to Help Fight Against Global Warming! has prompted me to renew the call to save the world!!!!!1111!1!1
10 Ways to fight Global Warming!!!!11!!!
1. Buy a Prius!
2. Buy local!
3. Don't eat meat!
4. Stop using electricity!
5. Buy fluorescent light bulbs!
6. Put solar panels on your roof!
7. Move closer to work!
8. Eat more zucchini!
9. Stop logging!
10. Don't reproduce!
Do your part today, by donating to me so that I can rid the world of one of the most evil plant murderers!!1
10 Ways to fight Global Warming!!!!11!!!
1. Buy a Prius!
2. Buy local!
3. Don't eat meat!
4. Stop using electricity!
5. Buy fluorescent light bulbs!
6. Put solar panels on your roof!
7. Move closer to work!
8. Eat more zucchini!
9. Stop logging!
10. Don't reproduce!
Do your part today, by donating to me so that I can rid the world of one of the most evil plant murderers!!1
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
"Market Failures"
When someone is asked to list the reasons for having a government, then he'll call you names, but after that (if you can get a response) the reasons for having a government include protection from monopolies and protection from "market failures."
Earlier I posted why I don't think monopolies exist, unless the government is operating it.
I'm very convinced that that is the case. For example:
No government: 1
Government: 0
If you hear about economics from people who favor large government, sooner or later you will hear about market failures. The free market has faults, you see.
Wikipedia has a page on market failures.
Opening line:
The first failure looked at is "The Nature of the Market." And the failure example is monopolies. Since we've already dispensed with that, let's move onto failure number two.
Failure two, "Non-excludability":
Something that is controlled by the government and owned by the government is, by definition, the opposite of a free market.
Blaming the market for something over which it has no control makes no sense at all. And so, of course, those who oppose the free market do this all the time. For example, those who oppose the free market blame our current economy on the free market despite the government deciding who can set up businesses, determining how much they can pay their employees, controlling the money supply, and so on.
The third type of market failure is called "externalities."
There is billions of dollars of gold, diamonds, rubies, emeralds, etc. buried in the earth. How much is any of that worth to you? To put it another way, how much have you lost when some guy in India uncovers a ruby? How much worse off are you?
If we wanted that Indian guy to pay "society" for his discovery, to whom would he pay? How much would he pay? If no one has had their limbs broken, or stuff stolen, as a result of his discovery, then why should he pay anything?
Once again we have a "market failure" which is only considered so when you count all of the world's natural resources as public goods. And when they are public goods, how is the free market at fault?
Another externality example mentioned is that of traffic congestion:
How could any example of the "free market" be any more the opposite of such? Maybe if the government owned the companies who make the cars instead of merely owning a huge percentage of their profits? ...oh wait.
Let's try an opposite example: by the logic that traffic congestion is a market failure we can conclude that the fact that we are not forced to buy the specific car the government demands is an example of socialist failure; in other words, there's almost no socialism here, therefore its an example of socialist failure.
By the the logic that concludes that traffic congestion is a market failure, we must conclude that up is down, down is up, right is left, and Eat, Pray Love is the greatest book of all time.
The fourth type of "market failure: is called "The Nature of the Exchange."
Rather than go through all of the points in this type, one part is called "principal-agent problem"
The people who came up with this market failures don't seem to understand how the free market works. They don't understand it and then they criticize the flaws they perceive it to have, even though it doesn't have them.
(Incidentally, one of the Nobel Prize winning economists mentioned in this part of the Wikipedia page is Joesph Stiglitz. He also wrote a book called "The Price of Inequality." I pointed out that his thoughts on the subject are stupid. No doubt his thoughts on market failures are stupid too. )
These enemies of free markets don't realize that this situation is corrected by the free market. If your dentist persuades everyone to get the most expensive option all the time, then anyone who gets a second opinion will discover this and avoid the unscrupulous dentist. When enough patients discover this, he'll lose all his customers or he'll be forced to stop the unsavory recommendations. Get a second opinion and there is no "principal-agent problem."
Rather than go through the rest of the Wikipedia page's points, let's end an already long post.
***
In conclusion, there is no such thing as a "free market failure." All the examples of these failures are actually failures of the government or public failures. These failures come from the exact opposite of the free market, but are, nonetheless, used to criticize it.
The fact that "market failures" are generally accepted as being real things shows how much those who oppose the free market have dictated the thinking of the the general public.
There are no free market failures, there are only government failures which are called "free market failures."
Earlier I posted why I don't think monopolies exist, unless the government is operating it.
I'm very convinced that that is the case. For example:
"In his masterpiece, Antitrust and Monopoly: Anatomy of a Policy Failure, Dominick Armentano carefully examined fifty-five of the most famous antitrust cases in U.S. history and concluded that in every single case, the accused firms were dropping prices, expanding production, innovating, and generally benefiting consumers."Whenever a monopoly exists it is the government that is the monopolist or the government creating rules and regulations so that a favored company can exist as a monopoly.
No government: 1
Government: 0
If you hear about economics from people who favor large government, sooner or later you will hear about market failures. The free market has faults, you see.
Wikipedia has a page on market failures.
Opening line:
Market failure is a concept within economic theory describing when the allocation of goods and services by a free market is not efficient.That page goes through several different types of market failures, and generally has an example for each.
The first failure looked at is "The Nature of the Market." And the failure example is monopolies. Since we've already dispensed with that, let's move onto failure number two.
Failure two, "Non-excludability":
Some markets can fail due to the nature of the goods being exchanged. For instance, goods can display the attributes of public goods or common goods,....Does anyone else find it odd that this "market failure" consists of public goods? Looking at public goods as a market failure is silly becasue where public goods exist the market is controlled by the government, and therefore not "free" and cannot be a "free market failure".
Something that is controlled by the government and owned by the government is, by definition, the opposite of a free market.
Blaming the market for something over which it has no control makes no sense at all. And so, of course, those who oppose the free market do this all the time. For example, those who oppose the free market blame our current economy on the free market despite the government deciding who can set up businesses, determining how much they can pay their employees, controlling the money supply, and so on.
The third type of market failure is called "externalities."
A good or service could also have significant externalities,where gains or losses associated with the product are borne by people who did not sell or purchase the product. In this case, the price mechanism fails to properly account for the true social cost because it differs from the private cost. These externalities can be innate to the methods of production or other conditions important to the market. For example, when a firm is producing steel, it absorbs labor, capital and other inputs, it must pay for these in the appropriate markets, and these costs will be reflected in the market price for steel. If the firm also pollutes the atmosphere when it makes steel, however, and if it is not forced to pay for the use of this resource, then this cost will be borne not by the firm but by society.This idea doesn't seem to understand how the world works.
There is billions of dollars of gold, diamonds, rubies, emeralds, etc. buried in the earth. How much is any of that worth to you? To put it another way, how much have you lost when some guy in India uncovers a ruby? How much worse off are you?
If we wanted that Indian guy to pay "society" for his discovery, to whom would he pay? How much would he pay? If no one has had their limbs broken, or stuff stolen, as a result of his discovery, then why should he pay anything?
Once again we have a "market failure" which is only considered so when you count all of the world's natural resources as public goods. And when they are public goods, how is the free market at fault?
Another externality example mentioned is that of traffic congestion:
Traffic congestion is an example of market failure that incorporates both of these forms of inefficiency. Public roads are common resources that are available for the entire population's use, ...How can someone claim that too many cars, who's designs must meet government regulations, that must be built according to government regulations, which can only be driven by those who meet the government regulations, and can only be driven when abiding by other government regulations which are enforced by government enforcement officers, and which are driven on public roads is an example of a free market failure?
How could any example of the "free market" be any more the opposite of such? Maybe if the government owned the companies who make the cars instead of merely owning a huge percentage of their profits? ...oh wait.
Let's try an opposite example: by the logic that traffic congestion is a market failure we can conclude that the fact that we are not forced to buy the specific car the government demands is an example of socialist failure; in other words, there's almost no socialism here, therefore its an example of socialist failure.
By the the logic that concludes that traffic congestion is a market failure, we must conclude that up is down, down is up, right is left, and Eat, Pray Love is the greatest book of all time.
The fourth type of "market failure: is called "The Nature of the Exchange."
Rather than go through all of the points in this type, one part is called "principal-agent problem"
Common examples of this relationship include corporate management (agent) and shareholders (principal), or politicians (agent) and voters (principal). For another example, consider a dental patient (the principal) wondering whether his dentist (the agent) is recommending expensive treatment because it is truly necessary for the patient's dental health, or because it will generate income for the dentist. In fact the problem potentially arises in almost any context where one party is being paid by another to do something, whether in formal employment or a negotiated deal such as paying for household jobs or car repairs.If you don't trust your dentist, then find another.
The people who came up with this market failures don't seem to understand how the free market works. They don't understand it and then they criticize the flaws they perceive it to have, even though it doesn't have them.
(Incidentally, one of the Nobel Prize winning economists mentioned in this part of the Wikipedia page is Joesph Stiglitz. He also wrote a book called "The Price of Inequality." I pointed out that his thoughts on the subject are stupid. No doubt his thoughts on market failures are stupid too. )
These enemies of free markets don't realize that this situation is corrected by the free market. If your dentist persuades everyone to get the most expensive option all the time, then anyone who gets a second opinion will discover this and avoid the unscrupulous dentist. When enough patients discover this, he'll lose all his customers or he'll be forced to stop the unsavory recommendations. Get a second opinion and there is no "principal-agent problem."
Rather than go through the rest of the Wikipedia page's points, let's end an already long post.
***
In conclusion, there is no such thing as a "free market failure." All the examples of these failures are actually failures of the government or public failures. These failures come from the exact opposite of the free market, but are, nonetheless, used to criticize it.
The fact that "market failures" are generally accepted as being real things shows how much those who oppose the free market have dictated the thinking of the the general public.
There are no free market failures, there are only government failures which are called "free market failures."
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
The Full Rothbard
The Whited Sepulchre discovered an excellent glossary of economic/ political terms.
If I were new to the internet and looking for a username, then "The Full Rothbard," just might be the ticket.
His idea of anarcho-capitalism is what I suspect is the best political theory.
If I were new to the internet and looking for a username, then "The Full Rothbard," just might be the ticket.
The Full RothbardMurry Rothbard's Man, Economy, and State is very interesting, makes all the sense their is about economics, covers economics through every decision that anyone makes, but is a bit of a slow read. I'm still working my way through it.
Many Libertarians are minarchists, which are akin to Classical Liberals, meaning they believe government should be limited to courts, police and national defense. Murray Rothbard claims that this can never happen because government, which is a monopoly, will never in practice limit itself, therefore government itself needs to be a function of competing institutions. Rothbard’s political philosophy is called anarcho-capitalism and arguments based on this theory go The Full Rothbard.
His idea of anarcho-capitalism is what I suspect is the best political theory.
Anarcho-CapitalismAs opposed to the shamocracy we currently have. And upon which Historia Futura Praedicit covers well in another post.
Libertarian and individualist anarchist political philosophy (also known as “libertarian anarchy” or “market anarchism” or “free market anarchism”) that advocates the elimination of the state in favor of individual sovereignty in a free market.
Shamocracy
I use this term specifically to refer to the false choice offered by the oligopoly of the Republican and Democratic Parties in the United States. The two sides appear to offer different philosophies and policies but in the end the march toward an overreaching government that operates above the rule of law at the expense of the citizen continues regardless of who wins a particular election.
If I were going to be a fishing guide...
...I'd need to forget about targeting one species of fish.
I like fishing, but there are way too many negatives that would go along with being a guide.
I wouldn't consider guiding professionally, but if I wanted to make a living at fishing, then what I'd do is:
I'd aim to become familiar with a few bodies of water. Ideally those bodies of water would be close to each other and not too far from a population center (city).
I like many aspects of Madison, WI, and its few lakes would be a good place to be. Lakes Wingra and Waubesa have lots of muskies, Mendota has lots of bass, and Monona has all sorts of fish.
Rather than target one species, which I'd prefer, I'd figure to try and cover those very few lakes. Knowing how to catch each of the species that inhabit a lake would mean that I would not need to look only for clients that want to catch my preferred species. Because of this I could increase my potential client pool to include anyone who wants to fish nearby.
Learning how each species is caught at each stage of the year would also increase my knowledge of fishing for my preferred species.
Rather than use a standard fishing boat, as in an aluminum or fiberglass v-hull, I would think that a modified pontoon boat would be quite a good idea.
Pontoon boats are primarily used by people who drive around a like while sitting down and entertaining friends.
If all of the sides and seats were removed, the pontoon boat would merely be a large floating platform. And a big floating platform would be excellent for fishing off of. Rod holders could decorate the back for when trolling is the way to go. The console (steering wheel holder) could remain just ahead of the rod holders. A big compartment could be sunk between the pontoons for carrying all of the different tackle for each fish species...
Being a fishing guide is not an appealing job. But by using a highly modified pontoon boat and sticking to a small number of local lakes would mean that I could probably get lots of different people to hire me for a day, rather than need to look only for serious fishermen, who likely have their own boat anyway.
(Modifying the boat would be fun too.)
I like fishing, but there are way too many negatives that would go along with being a guide.
I wouldn't consider guiding professionally, but if I wanted to make a living at fishing, then what I'd do is:
I'd aim to become familiar with a few bodies of water. Ideally those bodies of water would be close to each other and not too far from a population center (city).
I like many aspects of Madison, WI, and its few lakes would be a good place to be. Lakes Wingra and Waubesa have lots of muskies, Mendota has lots of bass, and Monona has all sorts of fish.
Rather than target one species, which I'd prefer, I'd figure to try and cover those very few lakes. Knowing how to catch each of the species that inhabit a lake would mean that I would not need to look only for clients that want to catch my preferred species. Because of this I could increase my potential client pool to include anyone who wants to fish nearby.
Learning how each species is caught at each stage of the year would also increase my knowledge of fishing for my preferred species.
Rather than use a standard fishing boat, as in an aluminum or fiberglass v-hull, I would think that a modified pontoon boat would be quite a good idea.
Pontoon boats are primarily used by people who drive around a like while sitting down and entertaining friends.
If all of the sides and seats were removed, the pontoon boat would merely be a large floating platform. And a big floating platform would be excellent for fishing off of. Rod holders could decorate the back for when trolling is the way to go. The console (steering wheel holder) could remain just ahead of the rod holders. A big compartment could be sunk between the pontoons for carrying all of the different tackle for each fish species...
Being a fishing guide is not an appealing job. But by using a highly modified pontoon boat and sticking to a small number of local lakes would mean that I could probably get lots of different people to hire me for a day, rather than need to look only for serious fishermen, who likely have their own boat anyway.
(Modifying the boat would be fun too.)
Monday, June 24, 2013
The Propagation of our Poor Economy & Society Explained
the state taxes men and places men in debt and taxes them again via the inflation tax
if you abolished the fed and ended the irs, women would no longer be able to butthext with abandon.If you don't think your assets would be seized at gunpoint, then let me direct you to the difference between the top and bottom line of you paychecks, for the gun point: see what happens if you don't pay and resist arrest.
ben bernankiferierze et al profit massively off the base female desire for alpha fucks in the butthole and beta bucks, seized at gunpoint, to raise their thug offspring.
the welfare/warfare state is a big wealth-transfer business from men to women, and so naturally the fed funds it, as they must convert their worthless debt into physical property, which they do via feminism/alimony/sexual harrassment cases/welfare, all of which da ebernififiersz get a massive cut of.
the federal reserve created and funded the feminist movement to seize assets form men, while also seizing their future wive’s assess and ebebenrnakifying and deousling them in collegz lzlzozozozolozlzo
-GBFM
Taxes mostly come from those with jobs and pay for those who don't have them, and men have more jobs than women, ergo....
Another Book Update
I've not been writing as much as I should. I am around 40,000 words. I'll likely end up at around 60-70,000.
I keep reconsidering the order of the chapters, and that's affecting how I write them.
As ever, let me know if you think that I've missed anything, and I'll be sure to add it.
New chapter arrangement:
Introduction
1. Who, What, When, Where, Why, How?
2. Whitetail Deer
3. Whitetail Deer Antlers
4. 3 Steps to Shooting Big Bucks
5. Where Deer Live, Generally
6. Where Deer Live Specifically
7. Alternatives to Owning Hunting Land
8. Hunting Without Land or Money
9. Buying A Hunting Property
10. Neighbor Relations
11. Improving Your Property
12. Food Plots
13. Where to Put a Food Plot
14. Food Plot Equipment
15. Creating Food Plots
16. Trail Cameras
17. Hunting Methods
18. Stand Hunting
19. Stand Styles
20. Hang On Stands
21. Stand Recommendations
22. Setting Your Stand Up
23. Stand Positioning
24. Hunting Clothing
25. Hunting Clothing Recommendations
26. Guns
27. Rifles
28. Shooting a Long Gun
29. Rifle Recommendations
30. Cartridges
31. Shotguns
32. Muzzleloaders
33. Telescopic Sights
34. Bows
35. Shooting a Bow
36. Bow Recommendations
37. Bow Accesories
38. Hunting Accessories
39. Where to Spend and Where to Save on Equipment
40. Stealth
41. The Entrance
42. The Hunt
43. The Exit
44. Deer Activity
45. Deer Aging
46. Which deer should you shoot?
47. When should you make your move?
48. Where should you shoot?
49. Blood Trailing
50. Field Dressing
51. Skinning & Butchering
52. Antler Removal
53. Antler Scoring
54. The Tricks to Becoming a Successful Deer Hunter
55. My Hunting Successes (and Failures)
56. Stories
57. Interesting Ideas
Conclusion
I keep reconsidering the order of the chapters, and that's affecting how I write them.
As ever, let me know if you think that I've missed anything, and I'll be sure to add it.
New chapter arrangement:
Introduction
1. Who, What, When, Where, Why, How?
2. Whitetail Deer
3. Whitetail Deer Antlers
4. 3 Steps to Shooting Big Bucks
5. Where Deer Live, Generally
6. Where Deer Live Specifically
7. Alternatives to Owning Hunting Land
8. Hunting Without Land or Money
9. Buying A Hunting Property
10. Neighbor Relations
11. Improving Your Property
12. Food Plots
13. Where to Put a Food Plot
14. Food Plot Equipment
15. Creating Food Plots
16. Trail Cameras
17. Hunting Methods
18. Stand Hunting
19. Stand Styles
20. Hang On Stands
21. Stand Recommendations
22. Setting Your Stand Up
23. Stand Positioning
24. Hunting Clothing
25. Hunting Clothing Recommendations
26. Guns
27. Rifles
28. Shooting a Long Gun
29. Rifle Recommendations
30. Cartridges
31. Shotguns
32. Muzzleloaders
33. Telescopic Sights
34. Bows
35. Shooting a Bow
36. Bow Recommendations
37. Bow Accesories
38. Hunting Accessories
39. Where to Spend and Where to Save on Equipment
40. Stealth
41. The Entrance
42. The Hunt
43. The Exit
44. Deer Activity
45. Deer Aging
46. Which deer should you shoot?
47. When should you make your move?
48. Where should you shoot?
49. Blood Trailing
50. Field Dressing
51. Skinning & Butchering
52. Antler Removal
53. Antler Scoring
54. The Tricks to Becoming a Successful Deer Hunter
55. My Hunting Successes (and Failures)
56. Stories
57. Interesting Ideas
Conclusion
Sunday, June 23, 2013
Friday, June 21, 2013
Huffington Post Comments, 6/21/13
alice sophia
Are you satisfied enough now, GOPers? The GOP can't death spiral fast enough.Me
“How exactly, are the dems better?”
if you cannot tell the diffidence . PLEASE stay away from the voting booth . . .
Me
I notice that you couldn't come up with a reason.
***
CSmith476Hear, Hear.Me
Libertarians, in my mind, also often miss the fact that we are indeed stronger as a community. Is it not worth the requirement of storm shelters to see more human lives saved? Forget the cost in dollars, this "regulation" would save lives easily. Are more neighbors, friends, and family surviving a storm not incentive enough?
By your logic we should mandate 5 mph speed limits, mandatory exercise each day, banning of certain foods...CSmith476
If it saves lives why shouldn't we end all air travel, ban all knives, baseball bats, ladders, and that evil water that some drown in?
Well I suppose one could reduce my argument to something simplistic like that.Me
Of course nuance exists, but in the example at hand, storm shelters, the choice seems clear.
Its not "nuance". Your argument is that we should legally require things that save lives.CSmith476
So why not a law mandating daily exercise?
No, you were making a generalization about of my statement. Extrapolating so short a statement to an entire way of legislating is absurd.Me
What is your argument if not: we should use taxpayer dollars to do things that save lives?***
So, why not mandatory (taxpayer funded) healthy diets for everyone?
dprr
What? The Republicans have the majority, and THEY couldn't vote in enough numbers to pass the bill, and it's the Democrats' fault?Me
What? the democrats control the senate and THEY haven't mustered even one vote for any of Obama's proposed budgets? And its the republicans fault?dprr
What does that have to do with the food stamps vote? Oh, never mind. I see... you are a tea partier, and nothing you say has to make sense. All you can do is copy, paste, and substitute a few words.Me
Go ahead and repeat your brilliance on THIS now. The country is in awe, as indicated by the small percentage of Americans who approve of the tea party.
If your going to answer your own question (incorrectly, I might add), then whats the point of posting the comment?***
Easy123
Timmy please get off the computer until your mom gets home. Pfffffffft***
Me
Hey Obamacare supporters...keep your laws off my body.arglebargle
You're confused. This isn't about Obamacare.Me
How can you say "keep your laws off my body" on one issue but not another?
***
Rick4646
studies have shown higher minimum wage will stimulate our economy more because people spend more money and it's good for everyone...... I know you baggers want to keep people as poor as possible because the people you elect keep trying to pass bills to make it so; but at least look at facts before you post nonsense.Me
Yeah. Yeah. We righties hate the poor! We want them all totally broke so they can buy all the junk we sell them with all of their......oh wait.
***
Me
Hey Obamacare supporters...keep your laws off my body.cats530
Don't worry - no one wants your body, misogynist.[editor's note: notice her user name! LOL!!!!]
Me
Projecting your own insecurities is the first sign of a problem.
Take the time to call someone who is qualified to help you.
Depression hotline: 1-800-273-8255
http://www.dbsalliance.org/site/PageServer?pagename=urgent_crisis_hotline
Good luck on your recovery!
Life's not so bad!
Thursday, June 20, 2013
More Things I Wonder About (My Trip to Lake St. Clair Edition)
Why does buying out of state fishing licenses seem like a means of discouraging tourism?
Why do people, who aren't interested in cars, buy cars other than Honda Civics?
Does anyone, other than the new owners, call the Sears Tower the Willis Tower?
Is commuting into a city like Milwaukee or Chicago worth the commute?
How does one get the job of designing the highway configurations?
Is their a city with fatter uglier people than those in Michigan City, Indiana?
The WI speed limit is 65 and everyone goes 74. The MI speed limit is 70 and everyone goes 70. Since we know that WI cops love giving tickets and MI cops don't, why is this the case?
Why are WI highways surrounded with farm fields and MI highways surrounded by trees?
Why do so many large companies stay in MI?
Why are the roads so big in the northerly Detroit suburbs?
How much would you need to pay me to live in such a suburb? (Quadruple whatever figure you came up with.)
How can so many people afford $50,000 fishing boats?
Why does the lake with more muskies than any other (Lake St. Clair) get so much less fishing pressure than so many other places?
How is a pounder Bulldawg better than a Suick?
If the weight was removed or reduced from such a dawg would it be to buoyant?
Why did the hooks come out, of the four footer I had, right next to the net?
What causes fish to become active at a particular time?
What would we do if muskies didn't try to eat large hunks of plastic, wood, and metal?
What caused my right index finger to swell up?
When was my last tetnis shot?
How do you spell tetenis?
If i was outside every day would I get a lot tanner or just more sunburned?
Is it worth the drive for a lost four footer and a 43 incher?
Why do people, who aren't interested in cars, buy cars other than Honda Civics?
Does anyone, other than the new owners, call the Sears Tower the Willis Tower?
Is commuting into a city like Milwaukee or Chicago worth the commute?
How does one get the job of designing the highway configurations?
Is their a city with fatter uglier people than those in Michigan City, Indiana?
The WI speed limit is 65 and everyone goes 74. The MI speed limit is 70 and everyone goes 70. Since we know that WI cops love giving tickets and MI cops don't, why is this the case?
Why are WI highways surrounded with farm fields and MI highways surrounded by trees?
Why do so many large companies stay in MI?
Why are the roads so big in the northerly Detroit suburbs?
How much would you need to pay me to live in such a suburb? (Quadruple whatever figure you came up with.)
How can so many people afford $50,000 fishing boats?
Why does the lake with more muskies than any other (Lake St. Clair) get so much less fishing pressure than so many other places?
How is a pounder Bulldawg better than a Suick?
If the weight was removed or reduced from such a dawg would it be to buoyant?
Why did the hooks come out, of the four footer I had, right next to the net?
What causes fish to become active at a particular time?
What would we do if muskies didn't try to eat large hunks of plastic, wood, and metal?
What caused my right index finger to swell up?
When was my last tetnis shot?
How do you spell tetenis?
If i was outside every day would I get a lot tanner or just more sunburned?
Is it worth the drive for a lost four footer and a 43 incher?
***
11.5 inch yellow perch last week:
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
Redistributing Wealth
I've been reading Beyond Democracy.
One point made in the book is that democracy includes the redistribution of wealth to the majority of voters. Not all voters will agree with this. (Because they're stupid.)
Some people advocate the outright redistribution of wealth, and healthcare, and so on. They say that its not fair that the rich have more and better.
This book points out that these people only make this point in the confines of modern western countries, not throughout the world.
The GDP per capita in the United States is around $48,000 (questionable source). If you make less than $48,000 and live in America, then redistributing wealth (if done honestly and fairly lol) should raise your annual income to $48,000. You'd be made better off.
If you're honest about improving the lives of the poor by redistributing wealth, then why stop at our country's borders? You should advocate redistribution, or universal healthcare, throughout the world.
The world GDP per capita (another questionable source) is around $12,000. If you make more than $12,000, then redistributing wealth (if done honestly and fairly lol) should lower your annual income to $12,000. You'd be made worse off.
If you advocate redistribution of wealth, or for universal healthcare, or similar, but do not give away all of your annual income over $12,000 to the poor of the world, then you are a hypocrite.
***
Even more oversimplified: Of course Warren Buffet and I should share our wealth equally. No, I don't want to share my wealth equally with the residents of Tanzania.
***
You hypocrites want the wealth of others for yourselves. And you're not even willing to steal it yourself. You'd rather vote for the government to take from those others by force. If they get thrown in jail or killed while resisting arrest becasue they don't want to pay, then what's it to you?
Robbers, muggers, and thieves are honorable compared to those of you who advocate redistribution of wealth or universal healthcare. At least they do the dirty work themselves.
One point made in the book is that democracy includes the redistribution of wealth to the majority of voters. Not all voters will agree with this. (Because they're stupid.)
Some people advocate the outright redistribution of wealth, and healthcare, and so on. They say that its not fair that the rich have more and better.
This book points out that these people only make this point in the confines of modern western countries, not throughout the world.
The GDP per capita in the United States is around $48,000 (questionable source). If you make less than $48,000 and live in America, then redistributing wealth (if done honestly and fairly lol) should raise your annual income to $48,000. You'd be made better off.
If you're honest about improving the lives of the poor by redistributing wealth, then why stop at our country's borders? You should advocate redistribution, or universal healthcare, throughout the world.
The world GDP per capita (another questionable source) is around $12,000. If you make more than $12,000, then redistributing wealth (if done honestly and fairly lol) should lower your annual income to $12,000. You'd be made worse off.
If you advocate redistribution of wealth, or for universal healthcare, or similar, but do not give away all of your annual income over $12,000 to the poor of the world, then you are a hypocrite.
***
Even more oversimplified: Of course Warren Buffet and I should share our wealth equally. No, I don't want to share my wealth equally with the residents of Tanzania.
***
You hypocrites want the wealth of others for yourselves. And you're not even willing to steal it yourself. You'd rather vote for the government to take from those others by force. If they get thrown in jail or killed while resisting arrest becasue they don't want to pay, then what's it to you?
Robbers, muggers, and thieves are honorable compared to those of you who advocate redistribution of wealth or universal healthcare. At least they do the dirty work themselves.
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Guns & Anti-Self Censoring
The Free Northerner pointed out in a recent link post that he rarely self censors. That comment reminded me of a subject that I don't recall anyone writing about; no doubt becasue they'd fear the backlash for doing so.
One of the arguments against the private ownership of guns is the supposed anecdote that, "what do you tell the parent of a child who has accidentally injured someone with a gun?"
How indeed do you speak of such a subject without appearing uncaring or mean spirited?
Its not the time to point out the stupidity of the parents for leaving something dangerous where their kids could reach it. Its not the time to criticize stupid grieving parents when their kid has been injured.
So instead of asking the parents if they leave rat poison next to the Captain Crunch or if its the sharp knife's fault that it was left on the table and then the knife's fault that it cut the kid, let's blame the inanimate object.
It wasn't your fault for being irresponsible, it was the fault of the inanimate, and unthinking, hunk of metal that your kid is injured.
Yes that, it! Its not your fault at all! We'll blame something else to make you feel less bad, and to hell with what is right and just! And to hell with the rights of others! I'll assume that this is the appropriate and morally responsible thing to say in your time of sadness.
The imbeciles that use arguments like this are absolutely vile.
One of the arguments against the private ownership of guns is the supposed anecdote that, "what do you tell the parent of a child who has accidentally injured someone with a gun?"
How indeed do you speak of such a subject without appearing uncaring or mean spirited?
Its not the time to point out the stupidity of the parents for leaving something dangerous where their kids could reach it. Its not the time to criticize stupid grieving parents when their kid has been injured.
So instead of asking the parents if they leave rat poison next to the Captain Crunch or if its the sharp knife's fault that it was left on the table and then the knife's fault that it cut the kid, let's blame the inanimate object.
It wasn't your fault for being irresponsible, it was the fault of the inanimate, and unthinking, hunk of metal that your kid is injured.
Yes that, it! Its not your fault at all! We'll blame something else to make you feel less bad, and to hell with what is right and just! And to hell with the rights of others! I'll assume that this is the appropriate and morally responsible thing to say in your time of sadness.
The imbeciles that use arguments like this are absolutely vile.
Monday, June 17, 2013
The Bane of My Existance
In many jurisdictions, it is illegal to remove or disable a catalytic
converter for any reason other than its direct and immediate
replacement. In the United States, for example, it is a violation of
Section 203(a)(3)(A) of the 1990 Clean Air Act for a vehicle repair shop
to remove a converter from a vehicle, or cause a converter to be
removed from a vehicle, except in order to replace it with another
converter.,[26]
and Section 203(a)(3)(B) makes it illegal for any person to sell or to
install any part that would bypass, defeat, or render inoperative any
emission control system, device, or design element. Vehicles without
functioning catalytic converters generally fail emission inspections.
The automotive aftermarket
supplies high-flow converters for vehicles with upgraded engines, or
whose owners prefer an exhaust system with larger-than-stock capacity.[27]
Summarized by Wikipedia
Summarized by Wikipedia
Friday, June 14, 2013
Huffington Post Comments, 6/14/2013 Update
I left a lot of comments yesterday and got a lot of responses today. I am not interested in responding today. But here are some comments I received this morning:
PhilipTaylor
japhya1
PhilipTaylor
INCREASE IN NATIONAL DEBT LAST 12 YEARS!***
█ 5% Obama
██████████████████ 95% G0P-BU’SH-RY’AN
“How my Republican Party DESTR0YED the American Economy.”
-- DAVlD ST0CKMAN (R), Director of the Office of Management and Budget under President RonaId Rea gan
A MUST READ!
G0P = GAVE $10 TRlLLl0N IN FREE STUFF TO $BILLIONAIRES, RlCH, AND C0RP0RATl0NS IN 8 YEARS CAUSlNG THE CRA'SH OF 2008!
BU’SH-RY’AN-G0P ADDED $9.9 TRlLLl0N to THE NATl0NAL DEBT!
$10 TRlLLl0N ALMOST -- $9.906 TRlLLl0N Added to US DE’BT by RY’AN for 65 DE’BT MAKlNG bills increasing spending or decreased revenues for programs NEVER paid for.
$_2,163,000,000,000 BU’SH Tax Cuts
$_1,468,000,000,000 “FA’KED WARS” - New Defense Spending
$__ 480,000,000,000 New Discretionary Spending - MOSTLY $C0RP0RATE ♜ WELFARE
$__ 262,000,000,000 Medicare Part WELFARE TO BlG PHAR’MA
$__ 196,000,000,000 New Misc. Spending
$__ 189,000,000,000 TARP
$__ 148,000,000,000 BU’SH 2008 - RY’AN’S BlG PU’SH FOR STlMULUS CHECKS
_______________________
$_ 5,000,000,000,000 BU’SH 2001 to 2008 Costs
$_ 4,906,000,000,000 BU’SH CARRYOVER 2009 to 2012 Costs
$_9,906,000,000,000 Total RY’AN Spending = ALMOST $10 TRlLLl0N
██████████████████ 10% DEFlClT % OF GDP 2008 UNDER BUSH
████████ 4% DEFlClT % OF GDP 2013 UNDER OBAMA
████ 2% DEFlClT % OF GDP 2015 CBO Projection
G0P = SO VERY SAD THEY L0ST THElR FRAUD SCAM FOR AU'STERlTY!
japhya1
elTim...because NYC police shot three innocent men. That's why NYC paid out over 30 million dollars for wrongful action/doing regarding this case. Now suck on that...[Another nice guy. I wonder if he thinks I like cops. lol]
Huffington Post Comments, 6/14/2013
Sorry, Chilis, for the delay.
***
John P Miller
brklynivn
News: Arms to Syria
Me
Me
***
John P Miller
Thanks for your analysis of the "scandals" of the Obama administration pushed by the GOP that seem to have no traction with the American people except possibly the IRS one. I thought it was interesting that last week one official from Ohio who described himself as a conservative Republican said he was the one who decided to target the Republican groups for special scrutiny since these groups were new & he wanted to be sure that they evalulated each carefully sinceMe
they were setting a precedent.
If we ignore the opinions of half the country, then everyone agrees with me!pssdov
Wait...doesn't that work both ways?
Liberal "logic" sure is funny!
We just ignore the ignorant opinions of 47%, the number of people who voted Republican. And they don't really have opinions, just what FOX tells them to think.Me
Have you any evidence you support your claim that republican voters have no opinions and only repeat what they're told?***
How do you reconcile your tagline of "No act of kindness goes unnoticed" with your comment accusing the people who vote republican are ignorant sheep only repeating what they're told?
Is it kindness to imply that people are ignorant sheep just becasue they have a different political opinion than you do?
brklynivn
The last thing social conservatives are worried about are the liberties of Americans.Me
As opposed to liberals who aren't worried about the phone record keeping, against ownership of guns, against school choice....
(Note, to prevent the standard follow-up comment I revive when I post a comment like this: I am an anarcho-capitalist.)
[ed note: I correctly predicted that he would call me a name related to my political affiliation.]brklynivn
And when did this all come about - hint - Patriot Act?Me
"Anarcho- capitalist"? You mean tea-bagger.
Both parties are awful on civil liberties.brklynivn
That is one reason I am no longer voting.
If you vote, then you are supporting the scam that is a "choice" between two "different" parties.
Aren't you a pleasant fellow? I hope you're less rude in person.
By "anarcho-capitalist" I mean that I favor capitalism, becasue of the prosperity that has achieved, and think the government is corrupt and awful at everything that it does.
Should I conclude by calling you an insulting name?
Anarchy means one favors disorder above law - that's the definition of anarchy. Anarcho-capitalism basically means unbridled capitalism outside the bounds of any rules or law - you know - like corporatism.Me
Anarchy means no government, not necessarily disorder.***
What do you dislike about "corporatism"? Are the worst aspects of it any different from the evils our government does against us now?
News: Arms to Syria
Me
How do those of you who opposed intervention Iraq and Afghanistan and then voted for Obama feel now?Florin Milea
Poorly.Me
Voting is for suckers.***
Thanks for the honest answer.
Me
How do those of you who opposed intervention Iraq and Afghanistan and then voted for Obama feel now?Rafael Tarnawiecki
Me
Pissed
Thanks for the honest answer.
I apologize for voting for republicans in the past and promise not do do so again.
Will you promise to stop voting for the democrats?
A Thoughtful, Impressive, Well Reasoned, and Well Sourced Critism of Me...
...can be found as an Anonymous comment on my post: Criticisms of Libertarians...Seem to Be Stupid.
The comment, in full:
Well kind sir, I applaud you on your well reasoned criticism. I submit that I am defeated by your wit, and well punctuated criticism.
I thank you for showing me the error of my ways.
But if I may make a simple request? You don't need to be so shy, post with a name (any name) so that I may appropriately let you know how well you have destroyed all of my arguments and convinced me to fully change my world view.
Thanks again,
Tim
P.S. wanker
The comment, in full:
AnonymousJune 7, 2013 at 5:22 PM
you are an idiotDear Anonymous,
Well kind sir, I applaud you on your well reasoned criticism. I submit that I am defeated by your wit, and well punctuated criticism.
I thank you for showing me the error of my ways.
But if I may make a simple request? You don't need to be so shy, post with a name (any name) so that I may appropriately let you know how well you have destroyed all of my arguments and convinced me to fully change my world view.
Thanks again,
Tim
P.S. wanker
Thursday, June 13, 2013
Make the White House a Gun Free Zone
from John Lott's blog:
The Daily Caller has this word about a petition on the White House’s official petition website to make the WH a gun-free zone (see here).
The Daily Caller has this word about a petition on the White House’s official petition website to make the WH a gun-free zone (see here).
Eliminate armed guards for the President, Vice-President, and their families, and establish Gun Free Zones around themGun Free Zones are supposed to protect our children, and some politicians wish to strip us of our right to keep and bear arms. Those same politicians and their families are currently under the protection of armed Secret Service agents. If Gun Free Zones are sufficient protection for our children, then Gun Free Zones should be good enough for politicians.
Three Years of Hate & A Beautiful Anarchy
I just finished concurrently reading two books at once. Three Years of Hate is a collection of blog posts from the now defunct blog In Mala Fide. A Beautiful Anarchy is a collection of stories about life, politics, and economics from the director of Laissez Faire Books.
My decision to review them together comes from their similarities. Both books review several other books. (I now plan to read some of those reviewed, including: one from Hans-Herman Hoppe, Louis-Ferdinand Celine, and Frost's Freedom Twenty-Five.)
More interestingly, both of these books are about life and the authors' dissatisfaction with the way the world now "works."
Three Years of Hate covers our society from the a young man who is unimpressed with various parts of our society. The author has learned that our society doesn't work the way we were told it did, or the way id did for previous generations. The life arc of an American man is no longer to go to school, go to college, get a job, get married and have kids. All aspects of that are corrupted and worse than they were in the past. Schools are more interested in teacher pay than teaching kids. Colleges are interested in maximizing enrollment and not interested preparing students for life after school. The rate of unemployment and underemployment is such that even finding a job is more difficult than it once was. And to round it out, modern girls don't seem to resemble the better women of ages past.
Much of this book seems like a reaction to our crumbling society, and during the early part of the book I wondered if Three Years of Hate might not be one of the books that best describes why many young men are turning away from the direction the rest of society wants to direct us. (Free Northerner has a similar statement about the book Men on Strike.)
This books spends some time criticizing people of nearly all political persuasions, including libertarians, amongst who the author of A Beautiful Anarchy might be considered.
Three Years of Hate criticizes the political ideology of libertarians but I am unconvinced that he is right about that, in part becasue of how well books like A Beautiful Anarchy show off how well the parts of our economy work when they are not interfered with by the government.
The technological progress of our world is astounding. The fact that you can now instantaneously talk to anyone in the world is so amazing, and yet so common that we overlook it.
The two preceding books of A Beautiful Anarchy, Bourbon for Breakfast and Its a Jetsen's World, are even more filled with examples of the greatness possible when people are left to their own devices.
But like Three Years of Hate, they point out the growing danger in our world. This danger corrupts, threatens us, kills us, and forces us to pay for it, while demanding that we agree that its doing all of this for our own good.
Governments are the problem, and they have always been the problem.
Three Years of Hate may be called all sorts of unpleasant names. Its author may be criticized for all sorts of things, but in some ways A Beautiful Anarchy is even more radical.
Three Years of hate will direct you towards why it is best that you enjoy the decline as best as you can, but A Beautiful Anarchy directs you towards questioning why we need any government at all, and indeed points out that the problems in this world are worse than you'd think. Where else will you hear a national currency questioned, the Federal Reserve questioned? Who else criticizes democracy itself?
But rather than the downer that is reading about the bad deal our society is A Beautiful Anarchy points to the good stuff, and then points and laughs at the bad parts.
The most memorable line from either book comes from A Beautiful Anarchy. The author is in Nicaragua and is amazed at how well the black market exchange rate works when it is run by eight year old boys who are exchanging the currencies. Many people think that not having a national currency would be too complicated, and the math would be too difficult. The author wonders if having multiple currencies would increase our math skills up to the level of the Nicaraguan peasant children.
Both of these books cover the problems in this world. They cover several of the same subjects, like Occupy Wall Street. One author participates in a protest and then considers donating to one of the people the protest was against. And the other author spends a chapter pointing out that that the OWS is close to being an important protest that could improve things, but instead they are unable to come up with a consist set of goals, and then those goals that are stated always seem to be goals that would give us more of what has caused most of our problems to begin with.
Both books are interesting.
Read Three Years of Hate to understand why young men are unimpressed with the world our parents have left us. Then learn about some ways to enjoy the time you have.
Read A Beautiful Anarchy to understand that the problem is severe and terrible, and learn where to look for the great works that more fully explain where the problems come from. A Beautiful Anarchy, and its two predecessors, also show us how to improve our lives despite our problems. (The first chapter of Bourbon for Breakfast is about how to "hack" your government regulated shower head for improved performance.)
Two books, both with valuable information.
My decision to review them together comes from their similarities. Both books review several other books. (I now plan to read some of those reviewed, including: one from Hans-Herman Hoppe, Louis-Ferdinand Celine, and Frost's Freedom Twenty-Five.)
More interestingly, both of these books are about life and the authors' dissatisfaction with the way the world now "works."
Three Years of Hate covers our society from the a young man who is unimpressed with various parts of our society. The author has learned that our society doesn't work the way we were told it did, or the way id did for previous generations. The life arc of an American man is no longer to go to school, go to college, get a job, get married and have kids. All aspects of that are corrupted and worse than they were in the past. Schools are more interested in teacher pay than teaching kids. Colleges are interested in maximizing enrollment and not interested preparing students for life after school. The rate of unemployment and underemployment is such that even finding a job is more difficult than it once was. And to round it out, modern girls don't seem to resemble the better women of ages past.
Much of this book seems like a reaction to our crumbling society, and during the early part of the book I wondered if Three Years of Hate might not be one of the books that best describes why many young men are turning away from the direction the rest of society wants to direct us. (Free Northerner has a similar statement about the book Men on Strike.)
This books spends some time criticizing people of nearly all political persuasions, including libertarians, amongst who the author of A Beautiful Anarchy might be considered.
Three Years of Hate criticizes the political ideology of libertarians but I am unconvinced that he is right about that, in part becasue of how well books like A Beautiful Anarchy show off how well the parts of our economy work when they are not interfered with by the government.
The technological progress of our world is astounding. The fact that you can now instantaneously talk to anyone in the world is so amazing, and yet so common that we overlook it.
The two preceding books of A Beautiful Anarchy, Bourbon for Breakfast and Its a Jetsen's World, are even more filled with examples of the greatness possible when people are left to their own devices.
But like Three Years of Hate, they point out the growing danger in our world. This danger corrupts, threatens us, kills us, and forces us to pay for it, while demanding that we agree that its doing all of this for our own good.
Governments are the problem, and they have always been the problem.
Three Years of Hate may be called all sorts of unpleasant names. Its author may be criticized for all sorts of things, but in some ways A Beautiful Anarchy is even more radical.
Three Years of hate will direct you towards why it is best that you enjoy the decline as best as you can, but A Beautiful Anarchy directs you towards questioning why we need any government at all, and indeed points out that the problems in this world are worse than you'd think. Where else will you hear a national currency questioned, the Federal Reserve questioned? Who else criticizes democracy itself?
But rather than the downer that is reading about the bad deal our society is A Beautiful Anarchy points to the good stuff, and then points and laughs at the bad parts.
The most memorable line from either book comes from A Beautiful Anarchy. The author is in Nicaragua and is amazed at how well the black market exchange rate works when it is run by eight year old boys who are exchanging the currencies. Many people think that not having a national currency would be too complicated, and the math would be too difficult. The author wonders if having multiple currencies would increase our math skills up to the level of the Nicaraguan peasant children.
Both of these books cover the problems in this world. They cover several of the same subjects, like Occupy Wall Street. One author participates in a protest and then considers donating to one of the people the protest was against. And the other author spends a chapter pointing out that that the OWS is close to being an important protest that could improve things, but instead they are unable to come up with a consist set of goals, and then those goals that are stated always seem to be goals that would give us more of what has caused most of our problems to begin with.
Both books are interesting.
Read Three Years of Hate to understand why young men are unimpressed with the world our parents have left us. Then learn about some ways to enjoy the time you have.
Read A Beautiful Anarchy to understand that the problem is severe and terrible, and learn where to look for the great works that more fully explain where the problems come from. A Beautiful Anarchy, and its two predecessors, also show us how to improve our lives despite our problems. (The first chapter of Bourbon for Breakfast is about how to "hack" your government regulated shower head for improved performance.)
Two books, both with valuable information.
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
How to Archer
Before I stopped watching TV I liked watching Archer.
So I read How to Archer, which is based off the book.
My review of it:
So I read How to Archer, which is based off the book.
My review of it:
Its mostly the same jokes from the TV show. Jokes meant for TV but in book form is not the best arrangement.Although the chapter on cocktails reminded me that learning more about traditional cocktails could be a cool thing to do.
Skip it.
Nice Guys Finish Last
Some comments by my female coworkers have inspired this post.
Paraphrased and mis-remembered:
Female coworker 1: Some complaint about her husband not being nice enough. (She didn't get a good enough Mother's Day present maybe.)
Female coworker 2: Similar complaint. Where are all the nice guys?
Female Coworker 1: They don't exist.
[End of conversation. Start of my unspoken thoughts.]
Me: There are lots of nice guys. They're the ones you ignore.
Me: Upon further reflection: find a guy significantly less attractive than you are and he'll be as nice as you want him to be.
***
Analogies to explain why nice guys finish last:
For men:
If you say, "I prefer girls with large busts," and a fat girl replies, "My breasts are huge!", then the correct response is, I meant, "I prefer attractive (thin) girls with big breasts."
Similarly, a girl who says, "I want a nice guy," means "I want an attractive guy who also happens to be nice."
A guy can be attractive without being nice. Niceness, or cup size, is secondary.
For girls:
Let's say you're looking to buy a particular dress. (I know modern girls seem to be allergic to this idea of buying, or heaven forbid, wearing a dress, but let's assume for the sake of argument.)
You're likely to have a list of things that you want: in your size, your favorite color, your preferred sleeve type, your preferred length, etc.
It would be very difficult to find one that fits every preference. You're likely to need to sort through lots, and lots in order to find one that checks every box. And then when you do find one it will likely cost a whole lot more than you can afford.
Similarly there you'd need to sort through lots and lots of guys to find one that checks all of your preferences. And when you do find one, unless you meet all of his preferences, he won't be available.
In order to accomplish your goal, in either case, narrowing your list of preferences to "required" and "it'd be nice" means that more dresses, and more men, will fit the bill. The second category cannot be essential or you will not have widened the list of acceptable options.
Now let's say (for the sake of simplicity of argument) that your list of preferences in a man include the categories of: appearance, social skills, income, and niceness. Not a lot of men will meet all of your preferences in every category, but a lot more will meet your preferences in three of the categories, and a lot more will meet them in two of the four.
So, narrow your essential preferences to three of the four.
Which preference category was moved from "essential" to "it'd be nice"?
In my experience niceness is the lowest regarded.
Paraphrased and mis-remembered:
Female coworker 1: Some complaint about her husband not being nice enough. (She didn't get a good enough Mother's Day present maybe.)
Female coworker 2: Similar complaint. Where are all the nice guys?
Female Coworker 1: They don't exist.
[End of conversation. Start of my unspoken thoughts.]
Me: There are lots of nice guys. They're the ones you ignore.
Me: Upon further reflection: find a guy significantly less attractive than you are and he'll be as nice as you want him to be.
***
Analogies to explain why nice guys finish last:
For men:
If you say, "I prefer girls with large busts," and a fat girl replies, "My breasts are huge!", then the correct response is, I meant, "I prefer attractive (thin) girls with big breasts."
Similarly, a girl who says, "I want a nice guy," means "I want an attractive guy who also happens to be nice."
A guy can be attractive without being nice. Niceness, or cup size, is secondary.
For girls:
Let's say you're looking to buy a particular dress. (I know modern girls seem to be allergic to this idea of buying, or heaven forbid, wearing a dress, but let's assume for the sake of argument.)
You're likely to have a list of things that you want: in your size, your favorite color, your preferred sleeve type, your preferred length, etc.
It would be very difficult to find one that fits every preference. You're likely to need to sort through lots, and lots in order to find one that checks every box. And then when you do find one it will likely cost a whole lot more than you can afford.
Similarly there you'd need to sort through lots and lots of guys to find one that checks all of your preferences. And when you do find one, unless you meet all of his preferences, he won't be available.
In order to accomplish your goal, in either case, narrowing your list of preferences to "required" and "it'd be nice" means that more dresses, and more men, will fit the bill. The second category cannot be essential or you will not have widened the list of acceptable options.
Now let's say (for the sake of simplicity of argument) that your list of preferences in a man include the categories of: appearance, social skills, income, and niceness. Not a lot of men will meet all of your preferences in every category, but a lot more will meet your preferences in three of the categories, and a lot more will meet them in two of the four.
So, narrow your essential preferences to three of the four.
Which preference category was moved from "essential" to "it'd be nice"?
In my experience niceness is the lowest regarded.
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
Politics is Becoming Uninteresting
I'm not sure that politics isn't a waste of time. Its not like your vote would accomplish much anyway.
But I have found the issues to be interesting. How, for example, have we had only 8 balanced budgets since 1950?
In any case, I will now attempt the total refutation for any political argument whose answer is supposed to be government.
I realize that this is the following are the sort of arguments that are only convincing to people who think like me (more or less). If we introduce those things called "feelings," then my following arguments won't convince anyone.
Then again, I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything. I'm laying out I'm laying out my political thoughts to explain why I shall be focusing more of my attention elsewhere, because I am cool with my positions as they stand now.
Logical, historical, and anecdotal evidence are the three types of evidence that I can think of right now. (Statistics should be included in "historical.")
Logical Evidence Against Government
I shall be endeavoring to avoid much politics on this blog and avoiding it in real life...to the extent that I am able considering that every aspect of my life has lots, and lots, and lots of rules and regulations directing what I can do, can't do, and how much I can do.
Millions have died thanks to government. How can anyone support such an abomination?
But I have found the issues to be interesting. How, for example, have we had only 8 balanced budgets since 1950?
In any case, I will now attempt the total refutation for any political argument whose answer is supposed to be government.
I realize that this is the following are the sort of arguments that are only convincing to people who think like me (more or less). If we introduce those things called "feelings," then my following arguments won't convince anyone.
Then again, I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything. I'm laying out I'm laying out my political thoughts to explain why I shall be focusing more of my attention elsewhere, because I am cool with my positions as they stand now.
Logical, historical, and anecdotal evidence are the three types of evidence that I can think of right now. (Statistics should be included in "historical.")
Logical Evidence Against Government
- Taxing means that someone thinks that he knows how to spend your money better than you do.
- Regulating means that someone thinks that he knows how to protect you and live your life better than you do.
- Why would you work if you're paid not to?
- There is no way that a centralized organization can know what is best for all of millions, or thousands, or hundreds, or tens, of people better than they themselves.
- What percentage of government employees truly do their jobs with the good of the public in mind for every decision that they make?
- Basic economics (the book too) says that artificial rules and regulations distort and prevent individuals from interacting in their best interests.
- The periods of economic decline, in American history, coincide with massive government growth. (The [un]civil war was about arguing the laws of government. The Great Depression was worsened by the New Deal. Seventies shortages were worsened by government inflation. Our current situation has been worsened by bailouts and "stimulus." etc.)
- Less government West Germany was better than more government East Germany
- USSR was socialist and millions died of politics and/or starvation.
- China was communist and tens of millions died of politics and/ or starvation.
- North Korea is communist and millions have died of politics and/ or starvation.
- Same with Vietnam, Cuba, Ethiopia, etc..
- Sweden went from richer per capita than the U.S. to poorer per capita since becoming socialist. Are they still rioting in Stockholm?
- Various socialist countries in Europe are going bankrupt.
All the above (and more) is all well and good but I haven't personally seen any of the historical evidence. What have I seen personally?
I've been to less government and more prosperous Hong Kong and to more government and less prosperous China.So I'm saying that I'm convinced with these arguments and more of similar ones, that the places with more government are worse than the places with less government.
I've read P.J. O'Rourke's various accounts of what eastern Europe and Russia were like before 1989. I haven't witnessed it but I've asked my dad who was there before 1989:
me: "P.J. O'Rourke says that Eastern Europe was bleak, dreary, depressing, and awful before 1989. Was that true?
dad: "Oh yeah."
I shall be endeavoring to avoid much politics on this blog and avoiding it in real life...to the extent that I am able considering that every aspect of my life has lots, and lots, and lots of rules and regulations directing what I can do, can't do, and how much I can do.
Millions have died thanks to government. How can anyone support such an abomination?
Monday, June 10, 2013
Quote of the Day, 6/10/2013
I pledge allegiance to the supercomputer of the United States of
Data Mining. And to the dictatorship for which it stands, one
nation, under Obama, unencryptable, with tyranny and injustice for
all.
-Mike M
-Mike M
Smallmouth Bass are Cool
Smallmouth Bass 21" (my uncle caught one the same size too):
My dad missing it with the net:
Note to you largemouth bass fishermen: this is about as big as a smallmouth gets. The cold water smallmouth also has a lot more fight in him than any freshwater fish of the same size, particularly the comparably limp largemouth.
My dad missing it with the net:
Note to you largemouth bass fishermen: this is about as big as a smallmouth gets. The cold water smallmouth also has a lot more fight in him than any freshwater fish of the same size, particularly the comparably limp largemouth.
Thursday, June 6, 2013
Cary Grant Movies
The Captain of Capitalism as occasionally pointed out that he is a fan of the movies starring Cary Grant. (Here too.)
Unfortunately for you, he hasn't (as far as I know) elaborated on which of Cary Grant's movies you should watch.
If you're lucky, you may stumble across a blog post pointing out the better movies to watch, and which to skip.
If only there was someone who has watched a fair few of those movies and could point you in the right direction....
Arsenic & Old Lace
A movie with a novel idea. Little old ladies who help lonely old men end their [perceived] problem. With a man who thinks he'd Theodore Roosevelt, thrown in to boot!
Cary Grant is recently married and looking to leave for his honeymoon, when he discovers what his aunts are up to and he spends the rest of the movie trying to manage the situation.
A movie well worth watching.
Charge!!
Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House
If you're looking for a Cary Grant movie to find a lot of wit and amusing lines, then this is it.
Mr. Blandings finds that his New York apartment is too small for his family and he and his wife decide to move to the country. They wind up building a new house and hilarity* ensues.
(*hilarity is a 1940's word, meaning: amusing)
I do wonder about the relationship between Mrs. Blandings and the couple's best friend.
Take note of the prices of things ($10,000 for a new house) and the nature of the world in that time. His daughter's school paper early in the movie is a sign of the doom (feminism) yet to come.
Another good movie.
I was a Male War Bride
A movie who's first half is about a French solider (Grant) and an American solider (don't care) who work together but are constantly fighting each other. If it had ended there I would have liked it fine.
The second half of the movie is not so good.
In the second half, after they decide to get married and move to America, Grant is put through ...situations meant to be amusing during his attempt to move to America as a "war bride."
The "fighting" in the first half of the movie is not bad, and if you like Grant's mannerisms, then the first half of this movie is okay.
Skip it.
The Philadelphia Story
A wealthy socialite prepares for her second wedding while interacting with her first husband (Grant) and a photographer.
Its the movie to see if you want to see the way Grant acts and interacts with others.
Its not the movie I'd watch for entertainment purposes though. Its not my sort of thing.
Indiscreet
This is a movie about an actress in London (Ingrid Bergman) who is looking for a man. Cary Grant appears but it turns out that he's married.
This is the movie I'd watch if I wanted to emulate this actor's mannerisms and speaking. You get to see him start a relationship and direct it exactly the way he wants.
I quite like the surprise ending.
This is a good movie to watch through the lens of Game.
Father Goose
This one takes place in the South Pacific during WWII.
Grant's character wants to be left alone on his boat and to avoid the war. A man in the Navy "persuades" him to station on an island as a lookout for Japanese airplanes.
During the movie her winds up rescuing a teacher and her female students.
An entertaining movie; I like it.
The Bachelor and the Bobbysoxer (sp?)
A painter and his relationship with a female judge and her young sister.
Once again, its a good movie to watch for the Game aspects but not the sot of movie that I'd care to see again.
***
That rounds out all but two of the movies that I'm aware of Cary Grant making. (I don't remember Bringing Up Baby and don't remember the others title.)
It should start you in the right direction for watching movies by Captain Capitalism's favorite actor.
***
BTW Captain, since you and I seem to like many of the same movies (the above, the man with no name trilogy, and Cowboy Bebop), I recommend that you watch Exiled and Little Big Solider.
***
Update: A commenter reminded me of a few more movies: North by Northwest, Charade, and An Affair to remember.
North by Northwest was directed by Alfred Hitchcock and is good. Charade is fine too. And An Affair to Remember is in the running for my least favorite movie ever.
Unfortunately for you, he hasn't (as far as I know) elaborated on which of Cary Grant's movies you should watch.
If you're lucky, you may stumble across a blog post pointing out the better movies to watch, and which to skip.
If only there was someone who has watched a fair few of those movies and could point you in the right direction....
Arsenic & Old Lace
A movie with a novel idea. Little old ladies who help lonely old men end their [perceived] problem. With a man who thinks he'd Theodore Roosevelt, thrown in to boot!
Cary Grant is recently married and looking to leave for his honeymoon, when he discovers what his aunts are up to and he spends the rest of the movie trying to manage the situation.
A movie well worth watching.
Charge!!
Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House
If you're looking for a Cary Grant movie to find a lot of wit and amusing lines, then this is it.
Mr. Blandings finds that his New York apartment is too small for his family and he and his wife decide to move to the country. They wind up building a new house and hilarity* ensues.
(*hilarity is a 1940's word, meaning: amusing)
I do wonder about the relationship between Mrs. Blandings and the couple's best friend.
Take note of the prices of things ($10,000 for a new house) and the nature of the world in that time. His daughter's school paper early in the movie is a sign of the doom (feminism) yet to come.
Another good movie.
I was a Male War Bride
A movie who's first half is about a French solider (Grant) and an American solider (don't care) who work together but are constantly fighting each other. If it had ended there I would have liked it fine.
The second half of the movie is not so good.
In the second half, after they decide to get married and move to America, Grant is put through ...situations meant to be amusing during his attempt to move to America as a "war bride."
The "fighting" in the first half of the movie is not bad, and if you like Grant's mannerisms, then the first half of this movie is okay.
Skip it.
The Philadelphia Story
A wealthy socialite prepares for her second wedding while interacting with her first husband (Grant) and a photographer.
Its the movie to see if you want to see the way Grant acts and interacts with others.
Its not the movie I'd watch for entertainment purposes though. Its not my sort of thing.
Indiscreet
This is a movie about an actress in London (Ingrid Bergman) who is looking for a man. Cary Grant appears but it turns out that he's married.
This is the movie I'd watch if I wanted to emulate this actor's mannerisms and speaking. You get to see him start a relationship and direct it exactly the way he wants.
I quite like the surprise ending.
This is a good movie to watch through the lens of Game.
Father Goose
This one takes place in the South Pacific during WWII.
Grant's character wants to be left alone on his boat and to avoid the war. A man in the Navy "persuades" him to station on an island as a lookout for Japanese airplanes.
During the movie her winds up rescuing a teacher and her female students.
An entertaining movie; I like it.
The Bachelor and the Bobbysoxer (sp?)
A painter and his relationship with a female judge and her young sister.
Once again, its a good movie to watch for the Game aspects but not the sot of movie that I'd care to see again.
***
That rounds out all but two of the movies that I'm aware of Cary Grant making. (I don't remember Bringing Up Baby and don't remember the others title.)
It should start you in the right direction for watching movies by Captain Capitalism's favorite actor.
***
BTW Captain, since you and I seem to like many of the same movies (the above, the man with no name trilogy, and Cowboy Bebop), I recommend that you watch Exiled and Little Big Solider.
***
Update: A commenter reminded me of a few more movies: North by Northwest, Charade, and An Affair to remember.
North by Northwest was directed by Alfred Hitchcock and is good. Charade is fine too. And An Affair to Remember is in the running for my least favorite movie ever.
Wednesday, June 5, 2013
Jane Austen's Books
Girls are no longer being taught whatever it is they need to do in order attract someone to marry.
A commenter on a post from Sunshine Mary used an example from Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice to illustrate a point.
It seems to me that if a girl wants to get married, or just be more attractive to men, then reading classic books like those written by Jane Austen would put them a whole lot closer to being attractive than they are now.
Books by Jane Austen may not exactly be what I'd point to for a girl working on improving her attractiveness, but reading them should put a girl in a much better frame of mind as opposed to reading 50 Shades, or Eat, Pray, Love do.
I actually did not mind reading Jane Austen, particularly: Emma and Pride & Prejudice.
Long ago I was curious about why no girl wanted to talk about such books with me. Now I know. But I would still appreciate a girl who actually preferred classic, or other more unique, books, movies, and music, as opposed to reading, watching, and listening to all the same [expletive deleted] that everyone else does. Or at least, don't be surprised when I don't express any interest in things like whatever is currently on TV.
(If you are going to read classic romance novels, stay far, far, far, far away from Jane Eyre. Further than that even; run away. Jane Eyre is awful.)
A commenter on a post from Sunshine Mary used an example from Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice to illustrate a point.
It seems to me that if a girl wants to get married, or just be more attractive to men, then reading classic books like those written by Jane Austen would put them a whole lot closer to being attractive than they are now.
Books by Jane Austen may not exactly be what I'd point to for a girl working on improving her attractiveness, but reading them should put a girl in a much better frame of mind as opposed to reading 50 Shades, or Eat, Pray, Love do.
I actually did not mind reading Jane Austen, particularly: Emma and Pride & Prejudice.
Long ago I was curious about why no girl wanted to talk about such books with me. Now I know. But I would still appreciate a girl who actually preferred classic, or other more unique, books, movies, and music, as opposed to reading, watching, and listening to all the same [expletive deleted] that everyone else does. Or at least, don't be surprised when I don't express any interest in things like whatever is currently on TV.
(If you are going to read classic romance novels, stay far, far, far, far away from Jane Eyre. Further than that even; run away. Jane Eyre is awful.)
Tuesday, June 4, 2013
Why Politics is a Ruse
In my favorite author's latest book, A Beautiful Anarchy, a few chapters look at the book and movie (or is it a tv series?), The Hunger Games.
Apparently, in The Hunger Games the world exists with a large government that occupies and distracts its populace with games of watching selected young people fight each other to the death.
The rest of the population spends much of its time talking about and paying attention to this event. They think about their guy's chances against another place's guy in this event. They cheer their guy and boo his opponents.
All this is done so that the population will be too distracted to think about the real impediment in their lives, the government that arranges all of this.
A few quotes from a post at Foseti about working for the government:
The presidential election is run more similarly to American Idol rather than an actual situation where we pick the best person to run the executive branch of our government. And as Foseti says, no matter who is elected the people who make the rules will stay right where they are:
***
How much time is spent discussing things like elections and major laws? Why do we, in comparison, ignore the "little" regululaitons that dictate every aspect of our lives?
Like The Hunger Games, politics, and the discussion of politics, is a distraction from the fact that no matter who is elected, no mater what their campaign promises, we will have government laws, rules, and regulations dictating how fast we can drive, how old we must be to buy guns, OSHA laws, EPA restrictions, residency requirements, federal, state, and local taxes, ......
Apparently, in The Hunger Games the world exists with a large government that occupies and distracts its populace with games of watching selected young people fight each other to the death.
The rest of the population spends much of its time talking about and paying attention to this event. They think about their guy's chances against another place's guy in this event. They cheer their guy and boo his opponents.
All this is done so that the population will be too distracted to think about the real impediment in their lives, the government that arranges all of this.
A few quotes from a post at Foseti about working for the government:
We spend inordinate amounts of time and money determining who will occupy short-term elected positions in government. Once there, people make a living thinking about what these politicians should be doing. On the other hand, we spend almost no time thinking about who will permanently occupy the bureaucratic positions that are actually responsible for implementing governance.During the presidential elections we often hear it called a "horse race." Everybody likes his guy, at least becasue he's "least bad," and boos his guy's opponent.
The vast majority of the employees of the government, like me, are unelected and – for all intents and purposes – cannot be fired. Focusing on the 0.0001% of government employees that get elected (obviously!) misses the remaining 99.9999%. Virtually everyone thinks that its possible to "change" government while maintaining 99.9999% of its employees. This belief is obviously retarded.
The presidential election is run more similarly to American Idol rather than an actual situation where we pick the best person to run the executive branch of our government. And as Foseti says, no matter who is elected the people who make the rules will stay right where they are:
When we are taught how laws are made, we’re told something like: someone writes a bill, both houses of Congress vote on the bill, if it passes it’s signed by the President and then it’s law at which point it might be interpreted by the courts.Even if Romney had been elected, how much different would any of the Federal Agencies look? Do you actually think something like the IRS would have been eliminated?
This is correct as far as it goes. However, have you ever asked yourself who that "someone" is who’s writing the bills? Seems like a powerful position, no? That someone is generally unelected and cannot be fired.
The common story also doesn’t go far enough. Regulations are now, by any serious metric, more important than laws. Regulations are written and implemented by agencies, often with little or no judicial oversight. Modern laws aren’t even really laws anymore, they’re just lists of regulations that Congress hopes agencies will implement.
***
How much time is spent discussing things like elections and major laws? Why do we, in comparison, ignore the "little" regululaitons that dictate every aspect of our lives?
Like The Hunger Games, politics, and the discussion of politics, is a distraction from the fact that no matter who is elected, no mater what their campaign promises, we will have government laws, rules, and regulations dictating how fast we can drive, how old we must be to buy guns, OSHA laws, EPA restrictions, residency requirements, federal, state, and local taxes, ......
Monday, June 3, 2013
Abortion
After watching this debate on abortion I think that the point at which life, and a person's rights, begins is an unclear issue.
If you insist on having even a limited government, then one of the laws should be that no one is allowed to harm another. Therefore, deciding when a person "begins" is the point at which his right to not be harmed begins.
A point I liked from the above linked debate is that the point when the unborn can survive without the mother could be important, because that's the point when the unborn stop living at the expense of another.
However, that's an awkward point becasue science changes all the time and abortion laws cannot be changed that frequently.
As far as I can tell the logical abortion law options are:
1. Life begins at conception. No post-conception birth control. Abortions are illegal.
2. Life begins at birth. Abortion is legal until part of the unborn exits the mother. Abortions are legal, partial-birth abortions are not.
I like both options, for different reasons. The imposition on the mother could be considered as the unborn "harming" the mother, but the right to live should be given priority over discomfort and pain.
If you insist on having even a limited government, then one of the laws should be that no one is allowed to harm another. Therefore, deciding when a person "begins" is the point at which his right to not be harmed begins.
A point I liked from the above linked debate is that the point when the unborn can survive without the mother could be important, because that's the point when the unborn stop living at the expense of another.
However, that's an awkward point becasue science changes all the time and abortion laws cannot be changed that frequently.
As far as I can tell the logical abortion law options are:
1. Life begins at conception. No post-conception birth control. Abortions are illegal.
2. Life begins at birth. Abortion is legal until part of the unborn exits the mother. Abortions are legal, partial-birth abortions are not.
I like both options, for different reasons. The imposition on the mother could be considered as the unborn "harming" the mother, but the right to live should be given priority over discomfort and pain.
Sunday, June 2, 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)