Your Kung Fu Is Weak

Creating Wealth

2011-11-07T08:33:00.000-08:00

A Biblical proverb states: “He becomes poorwho deals with a slack (idle) hand;but the hand of the diligent makes rich (produces wealth).” Wealth and riches – the whole worldwants it. The culture of

America

assigns a social status to the abundance of things which you possess. And thereare some who believe that those who are wealthy should pay the bills of thosewho are not. They believe in a transfer of private property from the “rich” tothe “poor.” I put these words in quotes because people by nature define thosewho are rich as people who have more than they do. And those same peopledefining the poor show that they have never been to a third world country.Regardless of what you believe individuals should do with regard to the givingof their property, this nation largely does not know poverty nearly as well asmuch of the world knows it. The poorest among us are rich by comparison. We area rich country. But there are a few simple facts about riches and wealth thatare critical for all to grasp.

Fact#1: Wealth is not money. Money is a medium of exchange. And money is a mediumof exchange because everyone will accept it in exchange for goods or services.Everything has a relative value stated in the medium of exchange, or currency. It is called currency because it is widely (seeminglyuniversally) accepted and circulated from person to person. Currency only hasvalue because everyone agrees that it has value. If you have a million dollarswhile in Manhattan,that can be very useful. If you have a million dollars while in Antarctica, it is of no value because it is not what youwant. You are not wealthy there. Wealth there is having very effective clothingto protect you from the extreme environment and expeditious transportation toget you out of Antarctica and back to warmerlatitudes. Again, wealth is not money. Wealth is having what you need and whatyou want and plenty of it. Money simply lends itself toward the exchange ofcurrency for the goods and services you need and want. If you need or wantthem, they are of value to you.

Fact# 2: Wealth is not a zero-sum game; wealth is created. There is not a fixedamount of wealth in the world, wherein adding one dollar here means it wassubtracted somewhere else. Here is a straightforward example. Not all the goldthat exists in the world has been discovered. So let us just say that there are10 million pounds of undiscovered, unknown gold reserves that exist undergroundon this planet (there is likely much more). That is a nice round number. Ifgold is selling at $1,000 per ounce (another nice round number) and all thisgold is discovered at once, then $160 billion in additional wealth wouldbe introduced into the world’s economic system. This would be gold which didnot previously exist, mind you. Now letus extend that logic to where you and I live. That gold has value becausepeople everywhere want it. Ittherefore holds intrinsic value.People will use dollars or euros or yen (or whatever currency) to buy thatgold. It would be immediately in demand. (Ignore for a moment the fact that theintroduction of that much additional gold into the world market will drive downthe price of gold, because more of it is available and therefore its increasedsupply will drive down its marginal demand.)

Mypoint is that wealth is created byproducing what people want. Ifwhat is produced is wanted, it holds value. Therefore, just like gold can bemined and made available, each of us can likewise produce goods and servicesthat are of value to people around us. The production of those goods andservices creates wealth to the extent they are wanted or in demand.

Thereare a few reasons these concepts are so important. One is because there is anardent movement in our culture to cast those who are the Haves as people who are mean and oppressive and can only have obtainedtheir wealth by unethical means. Conversely the Have-nots are cast as people who are the poor, disenfranchised andotherwise abused by the Haves (last Ichecked, this was called coveting).This line of thinking is the bedrock argument for taking some portion of the propertythat the Haves have and transferringit to the Have-nots, simply becausethey do not presently possess it (and this very act itself would be the obtaining of wealth by unethical means). The logic of this thinking is fatally flawed. Juston one level, who decides where the boundary is between being classified as a Have and being classified as a Have-not? What qualifies those who drawthat boundary to do so? Is the desired outcome that eventually everyone isequally poor? When does private property no longer belong to its owner? Thefundamental presumption underneath this thinking is that additional wealthcannot be created, that it is not possible for everyone to be Haves. The disciples of this line ofthinking could not possibly be more misguided. Most people in most third worldcountries think all Americans are Haves.

Furthermore,those who view the world in this class-warfare mindset (I call it the Philosophy of Envy) demonstrate anignorance of the simple fact that wealth can be created. It is created by theefforts of individuals. However, wealth is not created by all individuals, onlyby the diligent ones and among those who do create wealth, they do so withvarying results. The comparative diligence they apply in their trade often determines the relative value of the goods and services they produce.

Soif we simply let the above proverb instruct us, it tells us plainly that thosewho are relatively idle will eventually lead an existence of shortage. Theywill become poor. It also teaches us that diligence will produce wealth. So itis important for us to grasp the meaning of diligence, so that we may apply itspower. Diligence is simply constancy in effort to accomplish something. It is painstakingattentiveness and persistence in doing anything. The understood assumption isthat what is being done or pursued is of commercial value (that it is worthit). There are very few diligent players of video games. There are no diligentwatchers of soap operas and movies (both of which who devote hours and hourseach day to those activities) who are producing any wealth for themselves forthe time invested.

Themessage is clear: we must all find what we can do that is of value to some market of individuals or organizations. We must diligently apply ourselves in thatpursuit. The more productive we can be, the more wealth we can create. Withineach of us there lies dormant a gold mine of value. For most, that vein ofgold stays undiscovered. It requires prospecting and lots of digging. Itrequires drilling and excavation. When once discovered, it requiresconsiderable effort to process and refine that “gold” into a desirable product.This all requires work. But those skills, gifts, nacks and talents have thepotential for widespread value.

Thetruth is you have a gold mine within yourself. The gold is often buried deepwithin and most likely not developed to maximum potential. This is where hardwork pays off: developing and improving those skills Providence has given to you. Diligence is theminer’s pick and shovel. Diligence is the refining fire. Once our skills arediscovered, extracted and refined, they bring value to the world aroundus.

Wecan create our own wealth. It is never too early, or too late, to start. Thereis no telling how we may bless our world.

Behold leftist economic stupidity

2011-10-31T07:28:00.001-07:00

Behold leftist economic stupidity in a nutshell: Wealth, like acreage, exists in finite supply, so one person’s gain translates into a loss for everyone else. It’s a zero-sum game. Of course, in economics precisely the opposite holds true. Economies grow. They grow because people create wealth. Wealth is creatable because economic transactions produce gains on both sides of the equation: Steve Jobs cannot get rich unless he also enriches the lives of others by offering them products they consider worth more than the price he charges. Why do progressives call themselves progressive, when they think in such medieval ways?

Courtesy of A. Barton Hinkle of the Richmond Times-Dispatch. Love this guy.
Thanks for playing.
:^\

Oh the Taxation of It All!

2010-04-10T08:39:00.000-07:00

As I sit here Saturday morning sipping coffee and eating oatmeal, watching a business news channel, I am frozen in amazement, spoon half way to my mouth. Discussion of a climate tax, of a 20% sales tax, 20,000 additional IRS agents needing to be hired to oversee and collect on the penalty fees which the IRS expects to collect when small businesses who couldn't afford to provide healthcare still cannot afford to provide healthcare, pay this new fee. $2 TRILLION in deficit spending within the first 15 months in office, about FOUR TIMES the deficit run up by the previous administration over its entire 8 years.

The average household's obligation for its portion of the federal government's debt (not state or local bonds or taxes, mind you) is now $72,000. On January 15th, 2009, it was $56,000. That's a 28% increase in the Federal Debt in 15 months flat. Look, does that disturb you? Do you realize that you will have to pay that bill?

This whole dealio has fast approached the need for an intervention. We're there. Right NOW. Right at this Present Moment, as you read this.

November's coming.

Thanks for playing.

=^|

2010-04-08T10:22:00.000-07:00

This says IT ALL!

Thanks for playing!

=^|

The BIG Scam!

2009-11-02T16:01:00.000-08:00

I find it shockingly depressing to have confirmation of what I have for a long time intuitively felt: that SO FEW in this country can actually post a “score” on an EEG test. This tidbit was brought to me today courtesy of a good friend…

Just look at how the stupid car buyer got taken to the cleaners in the recent “Cash For Clunkers” program (and remember once and for all – NOTHING is EVER Free, especially when the government is involved):

If you traded in a clunker worth $3500, you get $4500 off for an apparent "savings" of $1000. However, you have to pay taxes on the $4500 come April 15th (something that no auto dealer will tell you). If you are in the 30% tax bracket, you will pay $1350 on that $4500. So, rather than save $1000, you actually pay an extra $350 to the feds. In addition, you traded in a car that was most likely paid for. Now you have 4 or 5 years of payments on a car that you did not need, that was costing you FAR less to operate than the payments that you will now be making. But wait; it gets even better: you most likely also got ripped off by the dealer. For example, every dealer in LA was selling the Ford Focus with all the goodies, including A/C, auto transmission, power windows, etc. for $12,500 the month before the "cash for clunkers" program started. When "Cash For Clunkers" came along, they stopped discounting them and instead sold them at the list price of $15,500. So, you paid $3000 more than you would have the month before (Honda, Toyota, and Kia played the same list price game that Ford and Chevy did). So let's do the final tally here:
You traded in a car worth: $3500
You got a discount of: $4500
---------
Net so far +$1000
But you have to pay: $1350 in taxes on the $4500
--------
Net so far: -$350
And you paid: $3000 more than the car was selling for the month before
----------
Net -$3350

We could also add in the additional taxes (sales tax, state tax, etc.) on the extra $3000 that you paid for the car, along with the 5 years of interest on the car loan, but let's just stop here. Why increase the pain? So who actually made out on the deal? The feds collected taxes on the car along with taxes on the $4500 they "gave" you. The car dealers made an extra $3000 or more on every car they sold along with the kickbacks from the manufacturers and the loan companies. The manufacturers got to dump lots of cars they could not give away the month before. And the poor, stupid consumer got saddled with even more debt that they likely cannot afford. Obama and his platoon of scam-artists gone Super-Size convinced Joe consumer that he was getting $4500 in "free" money from the "government" when in fact, Joe was giving away his $3500 car and paying an additional $3350 for the privilege. If someone wanted a new car it would have been better to wait for this program to end (like now), sell your (your car) without the sale of your asset being treated as taxable income, and negotiate your new car at normal market prices.

And this is the government leadership that so many citizens STILL want to singularly run healthcare in this country. That’s simply amazing – only insomuch as I did not realize the sheer number of people in this country who are true zombies (the living dead, at least from the neck, up). What else could explain such dangerously misplaced confidence, such empty-headed stupidity?

Thanks for playing. :^/

Things I love to HATE

2009-08-16T18:14:00.000-07:00

OK I admit it. At times, I am a complete HATER. There are some things I simple cannot do anything but Hate. Loathe entirely. Vomit on. Despise. And of course since I cannot (will not?) refrain, the list is coming to you live right now:

1. Kyle Bush - have you ever met such a bigger pansy-waisted little fairy-boy who is apparently still nursing from Mama's paps, who somehow is actually a NASCAR driver?

2. Being woken up in the middle of the night without cause or explanation. Does this require ANY explanation?

3. Cats. They serve NO useful function and could all die and I would be utterly and completely fine with this. The fur. The crapping. The self-absorbed existence. The hairballs. The claws. The failure to perform any useful pet function. Cannot stand them.

4. People who do not work.

5. People who do not work and actually still somehow get paid.

6. People who allegedly "manage" people who do not work and still get paid.

7. Users. People who use other people. People who think that other people exist solely to please and serve themselves.

8. Drama. For all adults, drama should have ended in 5th grade.

9. Reality shows involving skank women, be they former rock star girlfriends, wives of former rock stars, or narcissistic self-absorbed housewives of Wherever.

10. Politicians who advocate a society which abdicates personal responsibility, or who believe that government should be doing for us what we SHOULD BE DOING FOR OURSELVES. I'm going to vomit on this one, I'm telling you.

11. Running out of toothpaste.

12. Worse - running out of toilet paper.

13. Worse still - running out of coffee.

14. Abhorently worse even still - running out of gas. Which leads me to one of the Truly Big things I hate....

15. Stupid people (it's unforgivably stupid to run out of gas).

16. Businesses which telemarket to your home phone.

17. People who ask you to sign a petition to revoke Proposition 8 after the issue of marriage has been settled TWICE by the voters of the State of California. What a hopeless bunch of haters.

18. People who are allowed to vote who are dumber than a bag of hammers, also known as, people who vote who do not even take the time to inform themselves of the candidates and topics at hand.

19. People who do not vote at all. Argh! Drives me up a wall.

20. People in category 19 above who complain about the government. Even WORSE!

21. Waiters and waitresses who interrupt you at least 10 times during your meal when you are trying to have a serious conversation.

22. People who do not control their children. Screaming demanding spoiled children who are WAY OVERDUE for the whipping of their lives. Children who turn into destructive teenage monsters who disrespect their parents. Parents who cluelessly cannot understand why their children are not their friends. Total Clueless Wonders.

23. Liars.

24. Liars whom you know are lying, who if they were in possession of even the cortex of a brain would know that you know they are lying.

25. Getting bled white paying taxes. I HATE taxes. However much I pay it is still WAY TOO MUCH.

26. The size of government. All government. State, local, and especially federal. I cannot think of a single thing they do for me beyond defending the country and delivering the mail, the latter of which any number of companies could do more competently for less cost.

27. Unions, which, in case you don't know, are pretty much the bain of productivity and economic strength. They serve as a shelter for the incompetent, the lazy, the useless, the bloodsuckers, and the green slimy dregs of society. They allow the above described to avoid accountability for results.

28. Stupid drivers. Like female drivers who put make up on and drink coffee and talk on the cell phone while driving.

29. (Sub-category of 28) People who cannot get on the freeway without lots of drama and the taking of other drivers' lives in their hands.

30. Bad breath. Granted, for me, I means keeping Altoids in business, but still, with the existence of Altoids and other products, for one to have bad breath is simply without excuse.

31. Whiners, especially the type at work who start whining the moment others expect them to - you guessed it - work. Oh how I hate whiners.

32. Nepotism. I cannot tell you the quantity of world-class idiots which I have encountered, who hold their position simply because of someone who Daddy knows, or whom their spouse knows, or whatever. They go on, without a single variation, to cause complete trainwrecks in whatever work in which they are involved.

That's it for now. I'm out of breath. I'm sure when I catch my breath, there'll be more. But thanks for playing.

:^\

PS - if you have some things you hate, share.

The Color of Stupid

2009-07-28T23:28:00.002-07:00

Wow, just when you think you have encountered Stupid in every color visible to the human eye, bam! Some idiot shows up with Uninformed Opinions, lowering the definition of Stupid to a whole new level. Most popular case in point, our beloved president: two guys seen doing what looks like a break-in. Police respond. Harvard law professor who broke into his own home - because he what, lost his keys? - is arrested after refusing to show ID and getting semi-hostile with police officer. The professor is a buddy of the POTUS. So Oblama, unappraised of the facts, calls the police officer (and EVERY police officer) "stupid" because he arrested the professor.

Here's the twist. Obama was playing a race card, implying that police officers all do some kind of racial profiling, and oppress the black man. He brought Color to Stupid. In so doing, he insulted every honest, hard-working policeman in the country, men and women YOU WANT TO SHOW UP when you call 911. He called them stupid by virtue of their role.

There's national leadership for you. Actually, what that is is the un-teleprompter-governed blathering of a novice who wants the world to be color-blind while he is the farthest thing from it. What a national embarassment. But, I ask myself on that note: how is today different from any other? Oh yeah, it's not.

Thanks for playing.
:^\

The Big Evil Healthcare Industry!

2009-07-22T21:54:00.000-07:00

OK I have absolutely had enough (again). I've just watched the President's press conference, which was largely centered on healthcare reform and the bill he's trying to ram through Congress.

Look. I'm not stupid. I completely tire of the healthcare industry being painted as the Big Evil Monster who is pillaging the country. I'd be near the front of the line to point out the problems with healthcare in the USA, but for the leader of the country to basically imply that the doctors and the health insurance companies are evil profit takers all out to get our wallets (not that he could ever be grouped with "our," what with a private doctor and all)? Come on. I'd categorize that as Ignorant and Unhinged and Unbelievable.

I'm supposed to believe that the market has no competition, so that's why the government needs to have an option, to force competition and lower costs. The government couldn't compete with a blind man in an archery contest. I'm not stupid. What would happen if the Post Office had competition? They'd be out of business.

I'm supposed to believe that the government is going to bring efficiency and reduce waste and fraud out of healthcare. Like they do with Medicare, right? Like they do with welfare, right? Right. I'm not stupid.

I'm supposed to believe that this healthcare plan will not cost the American taxpayers any additional money. You mean beyond the $650b downpayment? Or do you mean like the multi-trillion dollar expense the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicts it will cost? If I had a frontal lobodomy, I would still not be that stupid.

I'm supposed to be okay with a government plan covering 10 MILLION illegal aliens. No, I will never be okay with government-provided healthcare services to people who have no right to be in my country.

I'm supposed to tear up because 50 million people do not have coverage. But break it down. 10 million are illegal aliens. 19 million can afford it, but CHOOSE NOT to have healthcare coverage. That's 29 million, which leaves 21 million. Many of whom are presently elligible for Medicare. All dry eyes here so far. The problem is massively overstated in this regard. I call that Drama.

Many cry that something should be done. I agree. Something should be done. Hospital associations should stop resisting (via lobbying) the legal specialization of hospitals into value-added process shops. A growing number of hospitals have focused on just key areas, such as hip and knee replacements, have much lower costs than general hospitals (their competition), have extremely lower patient post-op issue rates than their competition, and consequently have a much better value and success rate. It should be allowed nationally for any hospital to specialize in any areas in which it chooses to. The efficiency of such precision medicine for ailments that are predictable in diagnosis and treatment drives down costs and drives up success rates of treatment. There are presently regulatory obstacles to that continuing, courtesy of our nation's two hospital associations, who are resisting change. But wait - yep, there's more.

The pharmaceutical industry should have its federal protection removed or at least paired back. As it is, it is federally protected and allowed to amortize all its research into the cost of new drugs. Those drugs eventually get cloned by the pharm industry in other countries (mainly Israel and India), and they end up in less-regulated markets (like Canada and Mexico) for a small fraction of the charge per pill in US dollars. Change the rules (in some effective way) - open the markets, and watch the costs drop.

Medical liability and tort law needs a big rip and replace. Start making the losers of frivilous lawsuits pay the expenses of the winners, and the number of lawsuits will drop. Take away pain and suffering damage awards from a jury, and put caps on them so hair-brained judges don't continue to feed the legal industry, and medical expenses will drop. I'm sure there's a heck of a lot more bloodsucking lawyer graft going on here, but this is all I am aware of at present.

Reform healthcare insurance law so that it is not illegal for a doctor to offer medical insurance plans directly to his patients (pushing the insurance industry out from in between the doctor and the patient/customer). Yes, that's pretty much illegal in most states. Make it legal. Watch innovative local doctors and doctor groups offer plans that are affordable and creative in meeting the basic healthcare needs of their markets. Costs will go down. Service will go up.

Those are just 4 brief examples of at least 72 or more. You want to reform the healthcare industry? Okay, reform it. Plenty of places to start. But launching a new government healthcare program will be like launching the Titanic. It will hit a glacier of cost explosion and service implosion, shortly after onboarding 100 million new passengers freshly forced from the land of private health insurance, and it will sink them all in an ocean of debt and healthcare disservice. Unnecessary suffering and premature death will ensue on a massive scale. I kid you not.

If you don't believe me, ask yourself this question: can you name one thing the government does effectively, beside collect taxes and defend this nation? Name one. Can you? I didn't think so.

Thanks for playing.

:^/

Abuse of Power

2009-06-12T18:02:00.001-07:00

It's amazing. I have never seen anything like it. Our Transcendent President and his pack of wolves are out on the biggest power grab, the most overt abuse of power that perhaps the office of the President of the United States has ever seen in history. Am I reaching here? You decide.

First we have TARP II (Bush is to blame for TARP I): $754 billion. With that the passing out of favors, control of whole sectors of the economy, and the take over of the auto manufacturers began. No one knew it at first, but now it's quite clear. Take Chrysler for example - secured lenders like the State of Indiana were deprived of their property without due process of law (also known as thievery or private property seizure without just compensation). Bankruptcy court was bypassed and so bankruptcy law protecting secured lenders was skirted, and the UAW (a major Obama ally and campaign funder), which held no meaningful legal equity or debt claim, was made a 55% owner. This is consistent with the Obama agenda to redistribute property. It's just that this time public employee retirement funds for the state of Indiana were bilked to the tune of 29 cents on the dollar. The basic philosophy is, "Take it from others and give to our guys". That works for them. They are so okay with that. Does that work for you? I call that abuse of power. And perhaps you may have no idea how undermining such an action is to the sanctity of private property.

So consider GM. Obama and the knights of his round table give them their requested loan(s). The hook is set. Then after the UAW president gives the order to Team Change, they pull the levers, and cause GM's president to be kicked to the curb. Is any of that constitutional? Nope. Abuse of power.

So consider the Stimulus bill's (hilariously named and insidiously created) Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, SO appropriately acronymed the RAT Board. This board's creation is buried in 1073 pages of law, known generically as the Stimulus bill. It creates a board that is authorized to stop inspectors general from inspecting government program for potential fraud, abuse, and corruption. The language in the law enables them to ask "that an inspector general conduct or refrain from conducting an audit or investigation." Ask yourself, under what circumstances would you want to ask an independent oversight office's inspector general to refrain from conducting an audit or investigation of a government program or government-funded program (insert ACORN here as one type of government-funded program)? Answer: when you have something you wish to hide. Abuse of power.

Sidebar: will we please fire those who voted for this bill, exclusively and particularly for failing to read it in its entirety before making a vote/no-vote choice? Not to mention those crafty slimy power-lusting black widows who have spun this web. Say it with me: "Abuse of power."

Ah, and last but not least, and not even half-told, is yet still another overt move to expand his power footprint on this country (definitely not to be confused with a carbon footprint). Obama has grown fond of appointing a platoon-sized cadre of "czars". His predecessor (W) had set the previous record at four czars. The current and growing list stands below:

Army of Czars:

Drug Czar. Okay I guess I get that. I think this is the pharmacist who gets drugs for all the other czars. Someone is selling some really bad drugs here.
Energy and Environment Czar. The fact that these two topics are - in Team O's mind -closely linked together represents the depth of stupidity in this administration and a guaranteed abdication of any meaningful national energy independence policy. Their whole energy policy is: protect the environment. I think this particular czar graduated from the Seminary of the Church of Environmentology.
Homeland Security Czar. Don't we have a Secretary over that Department?!
Health Czar. Does the Dept of Health and Human Services know about this? What about the Surgeon General? Or is this person the planned viceroy of the new Health Kingdom Obama is trying to make into law, with an associated power grab of 17% of the economy?
Urban Affairs Czar. Um, did we dump the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development? Does this guy sell "protection" ala the Sopranos? What about a Rural Affairs Czar then? Give me a break. More than likely its a political payoff for someone who has a track record of zero.
Regulatory Czar. Huh? Do we need another guy making up regulations? Are the Feds understaffed on those types? Perhaps, this czar exists to aid some of the other czars in their assigned agendas.
Technology Czar. What happened to the Federal Chief Information Officer Barry just appointed?
Government Performance Czar. Outside of the fact that this is an extreme oxymoron, isn't this what the Government Accounting Office does, audit crap?
Border Czar. Isn't there a Border Patrol with a person who already runs that? Is this guy there to let select people in to vote in the next election? I don't get it. Do you?
WMD Policy Czar. Don't we have a policy of "we don't let terrorists get those" already? Have we had any attacks since 9/11? I didn't think so. So is there something deficient in that policy or is he in charge of making it jihadist-friendly?
Intelligence Czar. Do we think appointing someone to that role will cause better coordination among intelligence agencies? Perhaps this will be the person whom Princess Pelosi can designate the new Head Liar of the Intelligence Community?
Car Czar. Oh yeah, this is the guy who is going to be the UAW's enforcer, and work to pummel all auto manufacturers into submission to their will, and to get them even more sweet ownership/equity deals in other auto sector companies.
Pay Czar. And he shall reign over executive compensation of all debtors and servants of the Obama Kingdom (aka, all the banks and all the financial institutions and insurance companies and auto companies that were forced to take TARP money, and as many others as they can try to control). Do they think they have the constitutional authority to dictate pay and compensation? Does that scare you? Does that strike you in any way as the slightest bit wrong, perhaps? Shouldn't the share-holders who own the company be the ones to decide? Are we back to a backyard break-in on our private property rights again?
Great Lakes Czar? Come again? Huh? Are you kidding me? Team Change has slated $475m to "clean up" the Great Lakes, no doubt as a payback to the high priest of the Church of Environmentology.
Cyber Czar. Announced position, but as yet unfilled. This guy is going to rule the cyber-space for Team Change, and cooperate with the Regulatory Czar to prevent any political opponents from using the internet to organize against them.

So this overlay gang of executive hit men are going to execute Obama's rule, satraps ensconced in their perches of freshly minted power. Yet one more in what I promise you will be a long and unmitigated string of abuses of power. That is, until (hopefully) the next election, when enough people have had enough and conservatives hold at least 40 seats in the Senate. At that point someone will finally be able to stop the bus before it runs clean off the cliff of constitutional integrity and faithfulness. So much for solemn oaths to protect and defend the constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help you God. Those were just words. Their value evaporated ten seconds after departing the New Executive's lips.

Thanks for playing. :^\

Using Ize to Destruct the English Language

2009-06-04T10:54:00.000-07:00

Alright, I am going to take a brief reprieve from my anger-filled rantings on political issues, which I know you savor like sweet little baby bell peppers filled with cream cheese. Or not, but anyway (thinly veiled self-affirmation there). Something has been bugging the living crap out of me regarding the slow destruction of the English language. I am not an English language expert. I do, however, know when stupidity and word-abuse is occurring, and this is the linguistic equivalent of child-abuse. It's the use of the suffix -ize, to turn a noun which is turned into an adjective already, into a verb. I'll explain (with the example that makes me realize how ignorant some people are - but intelligence was never a prerequisite for jobs in the news media, and we know they are not prerequisites for jobs in the entertainment industry):

Incentive - noun: something that incites or tends to incite to action or greater effort.

Incent - verb; to do something that incites...(insert the definition above).

--We're okay so far, but here comes the problem--

Incentivize (word used repeatedly on the news) - verb (I differ here because this word is not in any dictionary you pick up that has been printed 5 years ago or early, but you will now find it in online dictionaries, because complete idiots have used this so many times, it is now being considered a word).

It is acceptable to take a noun, like money, put an -ize on the end of it, and make a word that means to turn into money: monetize. Another example is the noun weapon being converted into the verb weaponize. Again, -ize is to turn into.

You would never say adaptivize, or addictivize, or consumptivize, or constructivize, or delusivize. You would say adapt, or addict, or consume, or construct, or delude. So that's why I say these guys have crap for brains, and need some extensive 2x4 therapy to the head. (Now, if you are secretly thinking to yourself, yeah, I would say that, or, I have said that, or, that sounds pretty cool and sophisticated, I think I will use that word in the future to impress people, you are also a candidate for 2x4 therapy to the head.)

I would love for these media buffoons who use make-up words like incentivize (and think they are clever in doing so) to apologize that they repeatedly failed to recognize their murder of the English language. Their crime of popularizing this pretend word causes me to agonize, and provokes within me the desire to cauterize the bleeding extrusions of such disfunctional brains, but I know that will not civilize their dialectal deviance. I remain constrained to only satirize and attempt to ostracize their actions, to theorize on the sources of their obtuseness, while they brutalize the language and antagonize those who care, truly care about its proper usage.

Okay, enough. Thanks for playing. :^/

Can Arnie and the legislature figure this out?

2009-05-23T08:47:00.000-07:00

California's state government budget teeters on the edge of a precipice. Public school elementary and secondary education is a $50 billion section of that $119b budget (which includes a $42b deficit). It is the pink elephant in the room. It is what costs the State the most, and, as the teachers' unions in California would have you believe, it must remain fiscally sacrosanct. Public schools are doing a dismal job, and especially in this state. There is just no factual countervailing argument. And you simply do not reward bad performance with higher pay or funding. The problem is not a lack of funding. In fact, the problem is too much funding, and a reduction in funding will result in a corresponding improvement in eduation. I will explain.

California's taxpayers pay $8594 per student per year for education under this model. Their children get very little in return. The main reason is that the model is bureaucratic and monopolistic. In other words, it is highly inefficient, with an inbelieveably massive, bloated lethargic bureacracy, and it has no competition. There is a simple fix for this. It is not politically easy, but it is simple. Make private education an option of the public funding of education. Offer to all who are legal residents of this state, and the parents or legal guardians of elementary or secondary school students, the option to receive a $5000 voucher per student, per year, to be used at a private school of their choosing. Such a voucher would be used to pay for some or all of a private school education; let the parents/guardians figure that out (this is also known as letting the market decide). For each student that is pulled out of the public school system, and enters into the voucher system, the State would save $3,594. If 20% of the students in the State move into this system, that would save the State $3.6b. The dollar amount does not have to be $5,000, but it has to be reasonable and realistic. Private schools handily provide a consistently dramatically superior education when compared to public schools, and do so at far less per student. So I figure somewhere in the range of $3,500-$5,000 will be sufficient to allow market forces to work, and work they will. This is what will happen.

Poor performing schools and school districts will see their enrollments drop, anywhere from incrementally to dramatically, depending on the aggregate student capacity of alternative private schools in that locality, and on the ability of the public schools and their leadership to dramatically change their organizations, their behaviors, and their cost structures. Some school districts will eventually be forced to consolidate, and to close and sell school properties to reduce and regroup. Private schools (with increased facility demands) and other interests will purchase those properties and repurpose them. Public school teachers unions, instead of changing and responding to market changes, will dig their heels in and try more of the same: demand more money, fight against vouchers with shrill protests, and strike. School districts and county offices of education will be forced to further consolidate, to reduce their administrator-to-student ratios (also known as reducing unproductive payroll), to contract out non-education services like landscaping and facilities management. A byproduct opportunity in this consolidation is that public school districts can simply sell older facilities, and consolidate into newer ones. Instead of having to engage in expensive building retrofits and remodelings, the properties can be sold for cold hard cash.

Meanwhile, the percentage of students in private schools will continue to swell to the available capacity of local private schools, moving more and more funding from public schools to private schools. This increased demand will strengthen the efficiency and effectiveness of the private school "industry" in California. Private school chains and franchises will arise, and the more innovative and opportunistic among them will target weak and ineffective school districts. This will further the demise of ineffective public schools. This will shine a very bright light on the fact that public schools cannot compete with private schools. The "market" will consistently choose private education over public education, because of the contrast in quality. People will vote with their dollars.

The demand for teachers in private schools will steadily climb. Private school teacher pay will incrementally climb, as a direct result of the increased demand. A larger percentage of the better teachers will walk away from the unions, and take jobs with private schools, which will offer more immediate cash rewards such as signing bonuses, performance bonuses, and merit increases. Private school teachers have always worked harder than public school teachers. Some innovative private institutions will offer profit bonuses to their teachers as part of their compensation, giving them a financial stake in the efficiency and effectiveness of that institution. Private schools are not bound by tenure rules and union constraints. If a teacher does not perform, regardless, he or she is subject to disciplinary action and termination.

Test scores will incrementally improve on the whole, but only insomuch as the percentage of private school enrollments swell. This will be simply evidence of the provision of a better education. A better educated student populace will directly result in a correspondingly larger percentage of students pursuing higher education, which will result in a more valuable, competitive, and productive work force, which will result in a stronger state economy, and eventually an incrementally higher tax revenue base for the State's coffers.

So the government will see, over the long run, a tangible benefit to its financial structure, by steadily divesting itself of largely ineffective costs (public education), while taking meaningful steps to bolster the underpinnings of the state's economy: an educated workforce. Like I once heard said, when your outgo exceeds your income, then your upkeep becomes your downfall. Um, that's happening in California. It takes brave and bold steps like this to produce lasting and effective change. I hope Arnie and the legislature can figure this out, but something tells me they will not.

A detailed and thorough analysis of this premise, approached on a national level, can be found here. It has the hard facts, and is worth the read, particularly if you care about this topic.

Thanks for playing.

:^/

July! Julyer!

2009-05-22T14:41:00.000-07:00

My friend sent me a series of jokes about how some students had to use certain words in sentences for an assignment in an English class. One of them was Mexican (my friend is hispanic; I am 1/2 Puerto Rican, so we can traffic in this stuff, laughing at our own kind). When he came to the word July, his sentence was:

"Ju told me ju were going to tha store and July to me! Julyer!"

Too funny! But the accusation can be leveled against someone else now. Someone who has some serious Baby Mama Drama going on. The Baby being Nancy's stack of changing stories and accusations of being lied to by the CIA, and the Mama being, well, Nan herself. The Drama being how can she stand there and lie, accusing the CIA of lying to Congress "all the time" no less. She was briefed. She knew about the water boarding. She didn't protest until she thought she could make political currency of it. Which leads you to what conclusion? She's an unscrupulous, shameless powermonger who exhibits no sense of respect of the Constitution, or of the office she holds, or of the country she rules, or of those who serve and defend it. That's how she sees it; be under no illusions. She doesn't serve the country. The country serves her. She'd be just fine with a crown and a sceptre.

Could you do that? Could you stand in front of the nation and lie? She's not even good at it. It was a World Class performance in fumbling, bumbling, and looking the stooge. And shameful and reproachable as well. She stood up again today and made a statement about everything else, and she took NO questions on the CIA. She asserted her accusation. Even with overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Wow.

How do you do that? I could never conceive of doing such a thing, not and hold my head up in public. This is the big lion in the democratic caucus of the House? This is #3 in line for the Presidency, if Barry is impeached and Joe kicks the bucket? What an empty-headed mannequin, a Hamas-groupie, a queen who thinks the Air Force exists as her personal taxi to San Francisco and back. To her it's all about power, and her mustering it in one fist, it's all about her personal lust for control and worship, it's not about the nation or its security or its best interests. It's not about honor, it's not about owning up to her faults, or providing meaningful leadership. In classic Machiavellian fashion, she will never admit she lied, she will never apologize, and her attacks will grow more outrageous and shrill, or, she'll completely ignore it (if the press lets her) and go on and act like it never, ever happened. And her groupies in The City? Well don't hold your breath waiting for them to vote her out of office.

All I can hope for is that she just keeps doing more of what she's doing. Barely 6 months into a new Congress, and she's leaving a trail of political excrement that will give the conservative movement the best case study in liberal power-lust and shameless behavior it has ever had.

Thanks for playing.

:^/

Strong Financial Discipline? You cannot be serious!

2009-05-07T11:05:00.000-07:00

OK noodle this with me and think about it for a moment. It should take just a moment; if it takes any longer than that, go away and never read my blog again, because, need I say it? Your kung fu is weak.

Let's say, for argument's sake, that your family budget this year is $35,000. However, the hard truth of the matter is that your actual income is only $23,000, but you want to spend $35,000. So, how are you going to do that? Forget how idiotic it would be, for a moment. Since you have a credit card with a $12,000 limit , you are going to charge $12,000 to that card. Yes, it will have interest, and yes, that amount is over one half of what your annual income is, and yes, it will take you an immense amount of time at your income rate to pay that debt off, and (shh! don't tell your spouse) yes, you even fully intent to outspending your income again next year too, and the following year, but hey, you have big dreams so you are going to do this. So, when questioned by your spouse about this intended course of action, and the overt imprudence, ludicrousness, indulgence, irresponsibility, and unhampered consumer-lust of your spending plan, you retort with how you are showing amazingly Strong Financial Discipline. Your spouse waits to hear your explanation.

You present to your spouse, with great conviction, that you are exhibiting heretofore unheardof fiscal austerity by cutting ninety (count them, ninety!) "Venti half-caf with room" cups of coffee annually(!) from your Starbucks budget, which will net a savings the equivalent of $170 dollars, annually. You heard me right, annually. One-hundred, seventy dollars. One-seventy. Dollars. That much. Fiscal discipline. You think your spouse would buy into that? Do you view your spouse as that stupid? How would your spouse respond? Before or after filing for divorce? Exactly.

Well evidently your President of the US of A thinks you ARE that stupid. Because today, the White House has annouced it's fiscal budget for 09-10, which is $3.5 trillion with a T budget, which contains a $1.2 trillion with a T deficit (borrowed, which must be paid back, with interest). To top it off, they are hailing this administration as exhibiting Strong Financial Discipline, but cutting $17 billion in federal spending as part of this exercise in financial suicide.

Hey, if you haven't figured it out, that's the same as you offering an annual savings of $170 on your family's $35,000 annual budget and calling yourself fiscally responsible and disciplined. (I just removed some zeroes to make it easier to grasp.) I do not know what your reaction is to this, but right off, mine is: You're kidding me right? You cannot be serious!

Well guess what? This adminstration is serious about the spending, and they aren't kidding about the plan, and they are hoping you are stupid enough to buy the idea that they are fiscally disciplined. They site the $170 savings while they borrow $12,000 as the proof. Are you that stupid? Tell me you are not that stupid.

Final irony: guess how much federal borrowed spending that is per household? Well let me help. At approximately 116m households in the US, that is about $10,344 borrowed per household. Just shy of the $12,000 credit card debt in our above scenario. Oh, and you and I have to pay it back, with interest. How ya feelin' now? If like me, right now you are torn between looking for the nearest toilet into which to empty the contents of your stomach, and angry enough to call your congressman and senators. So whether or not you toss your cookies into the porcelin recepticle, do call your representatives. They are partially and particularly to blame for this fiscal disaster. I assure you that Feinstein and Boxer are complicit in this budgetary action. And if you think for a moment that this fiscal action is not going to have severe negative repurcussions in the next handful of years, then you are dangerously ignorant of even the most fundamental math. I am talking 2+2=4 math. This is not even economics. This is just plain math.

Thanks for playing

:^\

It doesn't take 17 working synapses to figure this out

2009-05-04T08:08:00.000-07:00

In my state (California), the government is about to go broke. On first examination of that scenario, one might think, oh no! But after a very brief reflection it occurred to me that this is exactly what we need. We have a democratically controlled legislature which has expanded its expenditures and government programs by almost double in 19 years. Revenues, obviously, have not doubled. Hence the $42 billion with a B deficit. The legislature is in need of a collective financial full-blown intervention (you heard of that TV show Intervention, right? With the drug and alcohol abusers? Yeah). They remind me of the girl in that movie Shopaholic. They just can't stop increased spending. And the notion of shrinking spending, shutting down programs, thinning the ranks of government so-called "workers" (there's an oxymoron for you) - it is completely foreign to them. In fact, the current slate of propositions on the May 19 ballot represent behavior analogous to the Shopaholic main character pulling her last usable credit card (which is encased in a brick of ice) out of the freezer, and applying all necessary tools to break that card free from its cryogenic state and resume spending like it was the next needed fix of heroin. Which is pretty much what these propositions are, to this State government.

So in any effective intervention, if you are going to break the addict free from his bondage, you have to permanently separate him from the powers that enslave him. In this case, those enslaving powers are led by the State's teachers' unions (paid 25% above the national average), the correctional officers' union (paid 35% above the national average), and the state service employees' unions (not paid so great, but way way too many of them). These unions have big money, are aggressive lobbyists, and their lobby money and contribution money is the crack that keeps the ho's of our state's legislature enslaved. These unions do not hesitate to use their pimp hand on our legislature.

When I noodle all this for a moment, when I lend about 17 synapses to the problem at hand, I realize that these two won't separate. It's systemic. Which is why I stated at the beginning that going broke is exactly what this state needs. We need a good bankruptcy. This will be the only thing that detonates the link between the unions and the government. A bankruptcy will negate the power of all contracts (as in labor contracts), and put the state into the place where everything is vulnerable, nothing is sacred. It will allow the government to do what it cannot do with these forces looking over its collective shoulder: drastically and permanently change state government's labor contracts and expenditures to align with the harsh reality of its financial situation. It is a needed step, but it is only the first step.

There's much more that needs to happen, and the only way to properly catalog it is to write a book, which was not my intent when I started this post. But just to throw a list out there (since I cannot resist at this point)...

...We need to open up K12 education to private competition in order to change its behavior, through vouchers. Yep, I just dropped the V word. Competition changes behavior, and behavior is our big K12 education problem, not funding. When private schools can deliver a far superior education at a fraction of the expense the state doles out per student, our education problem is not insufficient funding. So, competition changes behavior because it brings this unpleasant kind of accountability. That would be the first issue; the second issue is transparency. Transparency of meaningful performance metrics is the second part of California's K12 problem.

...The lack of transparency and accountability are also the root problems in our correctional system, and our state government at large. If you knew the crap that is going on, you would hit the roof. Opening up the correctional system to competition from the private sector would be a good start too. When a private contractor can function as the steward of a state inmate for materially less than the State can do it, it's time to change the model to drive out the cost. Why not get the Maricopa County Sheriff, and make him the Corrections Czar of California? I think if we did, we would see alot of changes here, changes we would like. Costs would plummet. Return customers would plummet. Crime rates would decrease. You get the idea.

...The third part is we need to give businesses cause to want to do business here. From a cost and regulation standpoint, we are giving businesses left and right plenty of reasons to not want to do business here. And guess what? As a result, they are leaving. That trend only gets reversed when it becomes more attractive to stay here than it does to leave here. If the state wants a growing tax revenue base to fund its operation, it needs an economy, and it's really hard to have an economy with businesses leaving, which means jobs are leaving too. Basic 2 + 2 stuff. At least for you and me.

...The fourth part is budgeting. As long as the State has a spend-it-or-lose it budgeting and spending model, which disallows the carrying forward of budget dollars, the State will continue each fiscal year to empty its checking accounts of all left over funds. That practice rarely results in good investments and a good use of tax dollars. Who does that? You don't behave this way. I don't treat my finances this way. What the heck?

...The fifth piece is retirement. This needs to get scaled back to reality. The main reason so many deadbeats run to the state employment payroll is because after barely working for a period of time less than you and I by about 10 years, they can retire at 55 without having to really do much of anything in the way of saving. As a hard-working tax-payer, how's that grab ya? I am not suggesting we take away the retirement of those that have worked for many years and are now 54 and a half, getting ready to retire. But I am saying drastically change that retirement scale now. Push it to 65, and scale the retirement benefits payout package way back. In fact, why not tie their retirement in a meaningful way to their financial contributions toward retirement so that they only get out something related to what they put in? Imagine that. Real world scenarios. Wow. What'll I think of next?

Alright, enough cataloging for now. I am getting angrier and more hostile as I contemplate this whole mess. So with that said, let's all get back to work. There are alot of able-bodied welfare recipients in this state depending on us, not to mention all the part-time workers otherwise known as government and education employees. You ticked off yet? I am.

Thanks for playing.

:^\

Intending to do away with Your Property

2008-10-17T19:43:00.000-07:00

OK I am TICKED off, so you, Reader, get another Blog posting. I have listened to this JTP, Joe The Plumber, who queried Oblama on his tax plan. I have also listened to Barry O's straight up response to him, which to Barry's credit, clearly states what his intensions are: to take the wealth from Joe, and "spread it around" to others, whose collective (implicit) merit for deserving Joe's wealth is the Sole Characteristic that they do not currently possess it. In other words, Oblama's plan is to take from those whom he deems to "have too much" and because of his own moral superiority and enhanced socially enlightened state, is more worthy than you to choose several important things:

1. He positions himself as able to determine when YOU have earned too much (forget the idea that he has been self-appointed to determine that it's possible that you can earn too much). His focus is not on that you have earned it - that doesn't matter (because Merit doesn't matter and Private Property also doesn't matter to Big O). What does matter is that someone else now doesn't have it (what you earned), and therefore...

2. He also positions himself as more worthy than you to determine who deserves your "excess" wealth (forget the idea that you may not view it as "excess"). Big O will decide How Much is Too Much for you to earn, and he'll take your property, your earnings, and give that to some ones who did nothing to earn it, some ones who added no socially redeeming value to society.

3. He also chooses to Penalize Productivity. In coming out of the closet with this whole notion of "spreading the wealth", he exhibits a fundamental ignorance of the fountainhead of wealth: innovation and creativity undertaken by risk-takers. When you remove incentives from risk-takers, in today's (truly global) economy, you peel off steam and momentum from the Prime Driver of Jobs, Profit, and Growth: innovation.

In short, Oblama's plan is Intending to do away with Your Property (your money is your property, right?). Here's the part that ought to totally creep you out (it ought to creep you out because we have a Historical Record of the abysmal failure of this approach - let me explain...):

The notion of intending to do away with your property (your money) was first served up by one Karl Marx, in the Communist Manifesto, chapter two, Proletarians and Communists, and I quote:

"In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend." (see this link for more details: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/mantwo.asp

You Bet, I reproach you for intending to do away with my property. I reproach anyone who would go after the benefit of my labors, which are for my children, for my household, for my posterity, and for the common good of my world, as I choose to contribute it (I have given hsitorically at least 13% of my income away toward charity, so there's not a contradiction between my speech and my actions). And finally, I reproach anyone who would espouse any tenant of Communist doctrine (the redistribution of wealth is a core doctrine of communism), who would also be President.

If you were on the fence before, I'd think, I'd hope that this clearly stated position, which is impossible to misunderstand ought to seal it for you. Now, it's just an IQ test for you, or perhaps, more objectively, a values test.

One final question: can you think of any example in history, where the taking of marginal income from a high wage earner, and redistributing that money to someone who earns less, is there any historical example of that lower wage earner getting ahead financially because of that action? In other words, has the Government ever helped you become successful financially (I exclude senators and congressmen from this line of questioning)? The answer is no. There is no historical record of somone who is an average or below average wage earner increasing their personal long term wealth, or bettering their circumstances, from a small incremental check. Why? Because those funds are not invested, where they will yield returns for that person. They are consumed (perhaps because of the present economic realities of that person's checkbook). So wow, Big O cannot even be a Smart Communist. A Smart Communist is one who offers to take money from the Rich, and invests it for the rest of us, and gives it to us later, with interest, because he, the Smart One, has more wisely invested your funds than you could ever have done so for yourself (that ought to make you laugh or puke or cry or something; if you nodded on that one, you are too stupid to read my blog - go away and don't come back).

Alright, if I haven't made my point on this whole "spread the wealth" insanity, either I am linguistically inept, or you will never get it. Oh yeah, and VOTE. Even if you vote for Big O, VOTE. It's your civic duty. You do believe in Duty, don't you?

Thanks for playing. :^/

The "Get 'Em All" Economic Policy

2008-10-09T10:56:00.000-07:00

OK first off, readers, I wish to offer my apology for failing to stand up a posting for over 3 months. No excuse. I am committed to doing this much more frequently (doesn't sound like a measurable commitment, I know, I know). Seems that if something intrigues me sufficiently, or if something sets me off sufficiently, I put up a posting. Well, the latter has occurred.

A lot has happened in the last 30 days. 3 presidential-type debates have occurred. 2 trillion in losses have been rung up for investors on Wall Street. 700 billion in taxpayer dollars have been committed - with at best loose conditions and governance - to attempt to fix the commercial credit market, lest it send the economy into a nose-dive. I refuse to look at my 401k statement, lest I do something stupid or panicky. And I am ticked off.

I am ticked at several groups of people. First I am ticked at those who sponsored and passed the Community Revitalization Act, and appended it with financial penalties to banking institutions who failed to loan mortgages to individuals and couples who could not afford it. If you can't afford it, you don't get it. How hard is that? Second, I am livid with those who set up Fannie and Freddie, allowing such a fast-and-loose charter and motus operandi. Who lets a financial institution play such shell games with lousy mortgage portfolios, and call them "securities". Does anyone see the irony in that name besides me? How about "insecurities"? How about "high risk trash debt Paper"? How about "Microwaved crap covered in a chocolate sauce, wrapped in Paper?" How about "Rotten fish and cabbage hash served on Paper?" How about "Trade your cash for used toilet Paper". Third, I am seething with anger against those who oversaw the banking and financial committees in Congress, who either failed to take action, or were even so brazen as to block attempts to rope in Freddie and Fannie via regulation. Fourth, I am beside myself with hostility and frustration over those responsible to nail butts to the wall within the SEC, FDIC, SDIC, whoever, who had the power and authority to do something to stop the fraud wrought by Freddie and Fannie, the insurance companies (AIG), and the banking and investment communities, from repackaging this crap, leveraging the living crap out of it, and calling it an investment, scamming and gaming the World for their own profit. Fifth, I am loaded gun pissed at those lenders, mortgage brokers, and all other purveyors of bad lending advise, bad lending practice, dream-selling pushers of these financially irresponsible loans that were based solely on the bet (and that's what it was, a gamble) that the housing market would sufficiently appreciate to allow them to later get into a real loan that they could afford, while having the house they can't afford now. Lastly, I am angry at all those who think or believe that I as a taxpayer am in any way responsible for the financial stupidity, ignorance, or speculation (it's 90% the latter) of people who are now in default or approaching default on their crap mortgage. Sure, it kills my property value when 5 homes on my long block are bank-owned. Sure, it's financially painful. But why add to that pain by making me pay (and trust you me, I will pay, and so will you) to cover the personal bets of people who could not afford a home mortgage. Is that how it is in this country? We reward the Gamblers, the Scammers, the Stupid, the Irresponsible, the Negligent, and we go to the hard working honest responsible tax base to cover their financial bleeding?

Which brings me to the point of my "Get 'Em All" Economic Policy. There's one easy surefire way for either candidate to win this election: have a Get 'Em All Economic Policy. Proclaim to the nation that you will, upon entering into office, Get 'Em All. You'll get the incompetent or otherwise politically sequestered regulators for failing to do their jobs. You'll get the Freddie and Fannie executives who raped those institutions, get the money back and throw their butts in jail for 20 years at a minimum. You'll burn Fannie's and Freddie's charters, and write new ones, which are built upon the foundations of personal responsibility, and not socialist illusions of home ownership as a right for all. You'll get the bank executives who let their institutions run into the ground, and extract your FDIC account guarantee payouts from their accounts, so the taxpayer burden is relieved. You'll get the insurance and banking and securities execs who gamed these lousy mortgage portfolios into leveraged "securities". You'll throw them in jail, and take it out of their financial portfolios to pay back the taxpayer. And lastly, you will get, call out, and publicly shame every Congressman who was party to this whole national raping, and expose them to the most robust corruption and ethics investigation your administration can muster. In short, you will absolutely make it your quest to start your own Global War on Financial Domestic Terrorists. Because that's what they all are, from Congress, to the Administration, to Fannie and Freddie, their own Frankensteins, to the banking and investment communities, and let us not forget, the millions of stupid idiots who took out loans they could not afford. Get 'Em All.

In closing (I am feeling better already, by the way), let's take a moment to address the American Dream. Both parties subscribe to being champions of the American Dream. However, one party thinks that dream is ok all the way up to $250k. At that point, their policy is Get 'Em All! For those of us who aspire to that kind of income some day, who among us is the kind of dipstick that thinks these people really believe in the American Dream. Only the Stupid Among Us believes that. OK, I'm all better now. But I am still fightin' mad.

Thanks for playing. :^/

Waiting for a Cheeze-It

2008-06-23T23:46:00.000-07:00

OK, it's June. Six ridiculous months since my last posting. Conveniently, I will blame it on the insanity of my work. Because, at times, it is insane. If there was an OFF button I could push, that would terminate the drama, dang, I would sit on that thing. But I can only attribute that line of thinking to wishful thinking, and to chemical analysis of what the heck did someone slip into my coffee.

Sometimes, hopefully I wait. Like my dog, right now. It's way late. I am munching cheeze-its as I write. She's scored a few, so patiently, she waits, regardless of the hour. ANYTHING ANYTIME. For a cheeze-it. That's her policy. One moment of a yummy taste to offset what otherwise has to be a life full of suck and crap. I wait for my cheeze-it, my occasional moment of perhaps some break from the suck, and from the crap. But it all smells the same. Dang, do I sound more bitter and beat than a rented mule or what? What is my deal? How far up my own butt exactly is my head inserted? A foot? Two feet? Who knows? All I know is, my attitude sucks. No one reads this blog so I can post whatever I want here, and no one will read it. Admittedly, I find therapy in that. There's a difference though, between the crap in my dog's life and the crap in mine. She either produces or EATS the crap in her life (the latter of which is unequivocally produces by the local cat, which she loathes beyond description). In my life, there is some crap I produce, but mostly, the crap section appears to be the kind of crap that others produce, that I end up stepping in repeatedly. It's not so acutely torturous that I feel like it's crap I am eating. That'd be the point of termination - of whatever kind of crap is occurring or being experienced. THAT I will not abide in any world.

Granted, reader, this is self-absorbed and meaningless ramble, so thanks in advance for the patience as I do continue. Because this is so workin'for me right now, and I need, truly need something to be workin' for me right now. You know how they talk about how the proverbial crap has hit the fan? Well, right now, it seems as if the collective butthole of life has the runs, and that those runs are hitting and flying through the fan of life , into the atmosphere of my life, with an unbearable stink that would render a horse unconscious. Somehow, I have to find and use my gasmask so as to avoid loss of brain cells that would result from the raw stink of it all. And the unmitigated suck of it all. Oh the suck of it all. I realize that none of this means anything to you, unless of course, you have suck or crap going on. In that case, I know you feel me. Enough said. Thanks for playing . It'd be nice if the score was in our favor, huh?
:^\

Do You Smoke Crack?

2007-12-05T14:46:00.000-08:00

Hey Readers, sorry about being such a slacker in the absence of posts of late. I resolve to change that and get back to weekly, at a minimum. Now to the pressing topic on my mind...

There are several circumstances that occur in my life that cause me to ask one simple question of those I encounter: Do you smoke crack? For example, when you re-org large portions of your entire company, and you expect your customers and employees to be basically done with the transition in 5 working days, do you smoke crack? When you do 60mph in the fast lane, with everyone passing you, and you merge abruptly into the middle lane without looking or signalling, or seeing the car already there, do you smoke crack? When you drive down the freeway, at 5am in the morning, at 78mph, with your car cab lit up by the visor light in front of you because you are busy applying foundation to your overweight face while you don't watch where you are going, do you smoke crack? When you walk your dog in front of my property, and let it pause to take a crap on the edge of my lawn, while I am standing out front, watching you both, and you don't pick it up, and you act surprised when I yell at you as you leave and demand that you pick it up, and look shocked when I get you a bag to pick it up, again, I have to ask, do you smoke crack? When your three (count 'em, three) dogs so small they should be called rats incessantly bark every single solitary time I go into my backyard, yipping and doing sissy-snarls, bouncing off of the fence in micro-aggression, when that happens, and I finally tell them to shut up, and you get offended at me for talking to your dogs since you won't, again, DO YOU smoke crack? I can come up with at least five more examples of this hard evidence that the crack dealers in northern California are clearly making BANK selling their wares to my entire surrounding environs. Sheesh. WHERE oh where is the DEA? Do they still exist?

Strange Restaurants & Kids' Comments

2007-09-26T17:19:00.000-07:00

OK first, sorry for not posting for a while, for all 3 of you that read this (LOL). I guess if I was even a AAA-league blogger, we'd have at least a few thow (I made that spelling up - you know what I mean) reading this. Of course, it'd have to be very regular, and very interesting. So yeah, I have a ways to go. Bethatasitmay, to today's topics...

Strange Restaurants. OK I recently had the chance to be in an ethnically diverse neighborhood, and at this particular strip mall there were some interesting restaurant names, obviously from first generation Americans. Their work ethic is unparalleled, their belief in the American dream inspiring, their sense of marketing and brand-development, absent to the point of hilarious! Let me give you a few examples. This first one is particularly choice, clearly ethnically diverse. So much so, that I figure the proprietors are a Chinese husband and a Hispanic wife. He greets, seats, and serves; she's in back whipping up the specials. The name of the restaurant? Ready for this? Carnitas de Mandarin. I can hear it now. "I'll take the mongolian beef tacos please, fried rice, refried beans, and give me one of those dimsum enchiladas with the hot oil dipping sauce. And for desert? Monkey chimichangas! Oh yeah!" I couldn't even bring myself to walk up and read the menu on the window. I was liable to walk off laughing, and I didn't want to be disrespectful. If I had my own restaurant, I could laugh, but since I don't, I can't, at least not out in front of their gig. I can in front of my keyboard, and that's exactly what I am doing now. Ok, this second one is a bit more muted, still quite funny, but screams an obvious ESL (English as a Second Language) disposition. Ready? Imagine, in a big red colorful lettering, above the front doors to a (sadly) empty restaurant, the words Wonderful Chinese Restaurant. Can you imagine calling 411, and asking for a listing for Wonderful Chinese Restaurant. I can hear the operator coming online, saying, "I'm sorry sir, but we're not permitted or equipped to provide restaurant reviews. There are many restaurants in your area. Can I get a name for the listing you seek?" The other part about this that strikes me as funny is the shameless attempt to convince people that this place is really good, using the name of the place to convince you and seal the deal. "Yeah, I came here because your name says you are wonderful, and wow, that was too compelling to resist. By chance, can I get some mongolian beef tacos to go? Oh wait, that's the place down the street. Sorry." This just cracks me up. You probably just think I am nuts. Onto topic #2.

Kids' Comments. Somehow or another my wife and I got on the topic of kids and their comments. I learned that her daughter (my step-daughter) at an early age, was taught that nobody touches her private parts. All responsible parents teach their kids this. So years ago, when my wife's daughter is all of three years old, and they're in line at the grocery store, my wife is in front of the cart, and her daughter is sitting in it facing the middle-aged man behind her in line. And what does she declare to this complete stranger in a loud, assertive voice, with all the authority a three year old can muster? "NOBODY touches my private parts!" My wife was concurrently mortified and dying laughing right there at checkstand seven. So after that story, I shared my own. She learned about my little brother, probably four at the time, somewhere on isle 12 at the local grocery, Mom pushing the cart. I was busy scanning the isle for things I wanted, grabbing them, and trying to convince my mom to get them. So it was a constant, "No Mark." coming from Mom. Something about my little bro though, he had this weird thing about midgets, but he couldn't pronounce the word. He'd call them midritches. However, at four, he couldn't and wouldn't distinguish between a midget and a dwarf; they were both the same - oddly short people. And they were all proclaimed midritches. So in either case, when there was a "sighting", the same reaction would occur. You probably figured it out already. Behind and approaching Mom, strolling down isle 12, is a dwarf. My bro leans to look past Mom, and sees him. "MOM!" he cries out, trying to get her attention. (I can tell, he's about to pop.) He leans past her and looks again, to be sure. Yep. Then, as usual, he takes a deep breath and starts a pointing, screaming tirade to the world: "MIDRITCH! MOM! A MIDRITCH!! MOM!! MOM!!!" She tries to hush him, starts pushing faster. He screams louder, thinking she does not see what he sees. She hushes him louder, finally covers his mouth as she quickly pushes the cart around the corner. You can still hear his screams under the muffle of her hand. I am almost peeing my pants laughing, following behind, trying not to look at the dwarf who's obvious physical characteristics are being maligned by a fearful four year old. The thought of it still makes me laugh. This is so not-P.C., but I can't help it.

Life is short. My advise is, laugh a lot, and pursue your purpose in life. Oh, and feel free to publish the link to this blog. Or at least leave me a note if you like (or hate) what you read.
Thanks for playing! :^/

Dogs and Crap

2007-09-04T06:36:00.000-07:00

You know what, dogs are great. They possess unbelievably unconditional love and profound loyalty. But they have the oddest, most inexplicable, most stop-it-I'm-gonna-puke reprehensive behavior at times. Take this past Saturday morning for example. I went for a bike ride, and upon coming back into the house, through the garage, I was greeted by my dog. She was excited to see me, and very affectionate. She was licking my hand and my arm, and right after that, I used my hand to push my hair out of my eyes. In an instant, I detected the unmistakeable odor of cat crap. Cat crap. On me. On my arm. From my dog's tongue. I called out to my wife, "Has Lacey (our dog) been outside eating the cat crap, AGAIN?!?" I resisted the urge to puke, ran upstairs, and showered vigorously. Upon finishing my shower, the wife asked me to please shower the dog, as she has tried and cannot get the smell of crap off of her facial hair. (This is all just so completely wrong I can barely even write about it.) So I grabbed the dog, ticked off and grossed out as I was, and just hosed her down in there, did the very best possible to de-feces her.

What kind of dog will not eat her own hi-dollar dog food, but will run outside and dig up and eat fresh cat crap? Honestly? Makes me think I need to reevaluate the quality of this dog food, if she'd pick crap over this. It's just not right, I say. It's bad enough that she'll lick her own butthole, but to eat the output of said orifice, that's incomprehensible. What possible smell could exist in cat crap that triggers something in her (questionably functional) dog-brain, that says, this crap, Lacey, is somethin' you wanna eat, fast, before anyone sees you. It's too good to pass up!

I mean, this isn't the first time. The first time (heck, as far as I know anyway), I was out back with her (she's still a pup, mind you) while she was (supposed to be) doing her business. I turn my head for a minute, then I look back down at her, and I see her trying to wolf something down. Instinctively, since I know there isn't any food out here, I grab the back of her head to hold it still, while I commence fishing out said object with the other hand. Much to my surprise, and after a considerable struggle, I dig the object out, it falls to the ground, and it takes me a disturbing second to realize what it is I have just fought to get out of my dog's mouth, and what is all over my fingers. Cat crap. You can probably at this point imagine the degree of my disgust. My face contorted severely, I jumped up and down while spinning around, all the while crying out in complete disgust. I wanted to chop my hand off and throw it away - for a brief second.

Then, after I was able to gather myself, I ran to the hose and hosed off my hand, and ran the dog into the house (lest she go back after the crap), then went inside to go wash up. She immediately was headed for my wife, to give her a good licking, and I warned my wife just as Lacey was getting in lick-range. We both shared a moment of nausea and disgust at something so vile. Our dog peered up at us happily. In that moment, she brought a whole new meaning to the phrase, "dog breath".

I've pondered it. I can barely figure it out. The only flimsy theory I have is that: a) dogs will eat anything that smells like there might be or might have been food in it, and therefore b) any cat crap with just one piece of unchewed or undigested cat food in it qualifies it under letter a above, because a dog can smell it in the midst of all that crap.

And come to think of it, some people aren't any smarter than my dog Lacey. They hear a bunch of crap, but because one little piece of information in all that crap has the scent of truth in it, they will go ahead and eat all that crap, swallowing absolute manure, spewn forth, not from the buttholes, but from the mouths of fools. Conclusion: people that eat crap are not any smarter than my dog.

:^/

Thanks for playing. Hey! Are you enjoying this blog? Please let me know. Leave a comment. Come back again!

The marine and the insurgent

2007-08-31T11:17:00.000-07:00

I needed a laugh today, so I read this, and thought maybe you do too. This isn't an original, but I believe in promoting public (I almost typed, pubic) health (but I fixed it, obviously, ok...), and my contribution to that end (public health, that is) is to laugh, smile, and share both whenever I can. OK, to our very short story:

A U.S. Marine squad was marching north of Fallujah when they came upon an Iraqi terrorist, badly injured and unconscious.On the opposite side of the road was an American Marine in a similar but less serious state.The Marine was conscious and alert and as first aid was given to both men, the squad leader asked the injured Marine what had happened.The Marine reported, "I was heavily armed and moving north along the highway here, and coming south was a heavily armed insurgent. We saw each other and both took cover in the ditches along the road.

"I yelled to him that Saddam Hussein was a miserable, lowlife scumbag, and he yelled back that Ted Kennedy is a good-for-nothing, fat, left wing liberal drunk."
"So I said that Osama Bin Ladin dresses and acts like a frigid, mean-spirited lesbian! He retaliated by yelling, Oh yeah? Well, so does Hillary Clinton!"
"And, there we were, in the middle of the road, shaking hands, when a truck hit us."

-----------
One more thing: if you want another good laugh, hit the link to the video about Stupid People at the bottom of the posting immediately underneath this one.

Please give feedback - leave a comment (don't make me grovel).
:^/
Thanks for playing.

Service, Running, n People That Are That Stupid - 8/28/07

2007-08-28T13:31:00.000-07:00

OK so here I am in a sheik (wait; is that word Expired? Probably. Is it the right version of that word? Crap!) – ok, a cool restaurant in The City, in between meetings (my vocabulary could do with a remodel, but that’s a separate topic). Alright, so here I am. Waiting. And Waiting. And WAITING. Yeah. Service. What is that. No one here seems to know. It’s 11:45 a.m., mind you; I’d say that’s about lunch time for many folks. I did the math: at least 37% of the population is digestively needy at this shadow of the sun dial. OK so this place is nice, cool, well set up, and there are seven waiters in sight. And five customers, counting me. But my status as "customer" is in question - at least and apparently only in my mind. Not in theirs, not at all. I don't exist. I don't get it. I have been here before so I know the food is good, which is why I came back. So I am sitting and waiting, still, until finally, after ten full minutes have elapsed, I decide, this is enough. If I hadn’t worked so hard to get a stupid parking spot - and by a stroke of extremely good fortune, I nailed a spot right in front of the building - if that hadn't'a happened, I’d be hitting the door about 17 seconds ago. However, after doing a split second inventory of my parking spot, and of my blood sugar issues, I decide to get someone’s attention and ask for some service. What do I get? You already know, don’t you: the same basic lame confused cross-eyed answer of Everyone assuming that Someone had taken care of me since Anyone could but lo and behold Nobody did, so here I sit, no drink, no receptive ear ready to take my order, no nothing. Of course, as good folks, they now fall all over themselves to right this wrong, but how do people remain invisible? I showered; I don’t smell. It can’t be that. I have no superpowers of invisibility. It can’t be that. I can’t get lost in the crowd because, yeah, there isn’t one. Yet somehow seven people wander back and forth past me, repeatedly, people on the payroll mind you, and not a one does jack til I pipe up. Service. Did it die and I missed the listing in the obituaries? At it’s most primal root, Service means at least that I meet your needs. How hard is that to identify, in a restaurant no less? For some, just grasping the concept for this crew is about as hard as flying to Mars. But at this point, I should probably shut up. The food is here, and it is really good. Wontons in a nice broth, spicy, flavorful, delish. Spinach salad with thinly sliced apples, glazed walnuts, dried raspberries, feta cheese, flower pedals (?), a fresh slice of sourdough bread on the side, vinegarette (sp?) dressing. I have to remember to breath between bites. Didn’t realize I was this hungry. It was worth the initial absence of service, I must admit. Park Chow on 7th in SF. Try it.

Which brings me to my next topic: running. Why? Because at this moment, with a nicely contended belly, 40 minutes away from a food-coma (if it was Sunday), the absolute very last thing I want to do is run. And since I am half a block from Golden Gate Park, I have seen my share of runners today. I love to run. I hate to run. I hate to run when I am running, and the only thing that gets me through it is the music in my ears providing a cadence to my running, the die-first refusal to grow fat, and the satisfaction of doing something good for my body (except the knees). I just realized that I have to restate this. I don’t love running. I love having run/ran/whicheverworditis. Afterward, when I am done sucking in air like I have been holding my breath two full minutes, when I am done feeling the pain in my side that’s feels like some Ali Babba terrorist stuck me with a sword, when I am done resisting the urge to throw up everything up to and including the cookies I ate in sixth grade, afterward, I feel pretty good. The leg muscles are tight and sore, in a good way. I probably have endorphins floating through my system, somehow lifting me with an exercised-induced high. After it’s all done, I feel great. More energy, more everything. The sky is bluer, the birds sing sweeter, the flowers are more colorful, the air is cleaner, the bills matter less, the cares of life are more easily ignored. I smell more, feel more, see more. I love having run/ran/whicheverworditis.

Not knowing which word (run vs ran) is the right word makes me feel stupid, but since I am too lazy to look it up, I’ll just use it to transition to a particular example I have in mind of People That Are That Stupid. When I say stupid, I mean dumber-than-a-bag-a-hammers, can’t-spell-my-own-name, can’t-pronounce-my-own-name stupid. That stupid. This particular example…wow. How do you get not one PhD, but two – count ‘em – two PhD’s, then go into a selling job – I could stop there and add a question mark. I will. ? There. (I could actually stop there and make my point. But I will go on.) How do you do that? How do you get 2 PhD’s, then go into selling technology, and you have not one, not two, but three conference calls on a particular large opportunity which you are working on with a business partner. You get two emails from that business partner, both expliciting spelling out what inputs are required from you to win this deal. You are told on three calls what is needed of you. How does that all occur, and four days before the bid is due, you ask, what do you (business partner) need of (Company X aka) me? How do you ask that? How can you not know what is needed of you? After having read the emails, how do you say that you were never told what was needed of you? There were witnesses, on the call, and on the email string. In other words, How Can You Be That Stupid? Conclusion: some people don’t have the brains God gave a goose. My dad, who has a ninth grade education, told me that as a kid. Second conclusion: no amount of education, no quantity nor height of degrees will solve the first conclusion. If you’re stupid, and you have an education, you are now an educated idiot. But an idiot, still. It’s your condition. It Is What It Is. The only reason we didn’t figure it out on the first pass is because you are swallowing all your saliva, and blinking regularly, like a person who has good sense. But no worries. We eventually figure it out. Why? Because we’re not That Stupid. Another statement Dad made (to me once when I said something stupid – I have an excuse: I was young): son, it’s better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you are smart, than to open it and remove all doubt. Regrettably, no number of profound nuggets of Okie wisdom will improve the intellectual horsepower of someone That Stupid.

Wait. Newsflash! A majority of a whole nation, it turns out, is this stupid. You HAVE to watch this youtube entry from France: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxmHEGy7JUU. Do not drink anything while you watch this.

OK, I think it’s all out of my system. What is my deal?
:-/

Thanks for playing.
Hey real quick – one last thing. If you enjoy this, hate it, or have ANY feedback, leave me a comment. Show me a pulse!

The Meaning of Things - 8-27-07

2007-08-27T08:41:00.000-07:00

Greetings, World! The Big Ninja is open for business, er - the business of thought exchange, the business of displaying feats of verbal kung fu wit and strength, the business of dumping random thought flow into my computer to prevent perilous drops in dopamine or seratonin levels, or whatever chemical it is that keeps me on a nice wacky even keel. Perhaps I should have called this spot the Pressure Valve. Hmmm... anyway. So why did I call this blot spot "Your Kung Fu Is Weak"? In a phrase: my little (or rather younger) brother. Has to be among the top 3 hilarious people I know on earth. He drops this line from time to time, at the moment of maximum hilarity, and it just cracks me up. So instead of asking him, Who's the Man? I have adopted the phrase/question: Who's the Big Ninja?

OK so here comes my first random cranial output. Today is one of those days where you just peer longingly into your cup of coffee, and somehow expect or weakly hope for answers to life to reside in the next sip. I have a few different sayings that just seem to bring meaning, or rather explain the absence of meaning, to many things that happen in life:

1. "It is what it is." It's there. You can't really change it. It just happened. You just-have-to-deal. The rules have been laid down. The eggs have been dropped. Unstoppable forces of nature have caused seemingly unpreventable events to occur. It's like when you step in fresh crap. Why did the dog have to crap right here on the edge of my front lawn? Why was I stupid enough to not see it? Where was the stinkin' owner of said canine at the time he/she was pinching off the last terd? Ask all the questions you want, buddy. Ain't gonna do no good. It's there, on your shoe, it smells beyond awful, it's instantly and nastily (is that a word? it is now) worked it's way into every crevace of your tread. You don't even want these shoes any more, it's so nasty. I also refer to this as I2WI2, stated as "I-squared W I-squared". However, there's no verbal efficiency in shortening it at all, so most the time I just revert to saying "It is what it is." I2WI2 is useful for text messaging, but that's about it.

2. "It's all fun and games til the flying monkeys attack." First time I watched the wizard of oz, it was in black and white, and I was perhaps 6 years old. The flying monkeys ruined my sleep for a week or so, maybe more, but I probably blocked that out and don't know it. Creeped me out completely. But isn't life like that? It's all good in da hood until BAM! Something goes crazy! SomeONE goes crazy! The bus comes by while you are standing in the street! Or, you have just lost track of time, and, standing on the curb near the bus stop, you are oblivious to its approach, while someone (who has the bus schedule and) zooms in to push you right into the street at the last second - in front of the bus, as it's doing 35 mph. Whack! You get hammered to crap'n back. Nothing you can do. Coulda been on accident, coulda been on purpose, can't really tell. Things just happen. In other words, the flying monkeys attack.

3. "You know what?" This tee-up phrase is nice-speak for either: a) a preamble to ...hey, clueless wonder, you who can't find your butt with both hands, I with my iron-toed boot am about to help you identify the precise geography of its location, or b) a preamble to ...hey, I really like you, so I want to let you in on something really good about you, or me, or us, or the world, but something really good. In either case, I find that tact, whether possibly wasted on the dullness of the hearer or not, does me therapeutically immense good. And I find that if I am doing good overall, I am a nicer guy, and even when waxing a bit hostile, don't revert to blunt instruments when I have a moment of hostility. Not that you particularly care about me and that and temperment issues. Sorry about the narcissistic moment.

Ok that about raps it up for now. Seems like I am out of gas. Time for another cup of coffee. Like I need the caffeine.

:^/

Thanks for playing.