Friday, August 29, 2014

I think he said layoffs

My first thought after reading this:

Justice Department lawyers working on the case informed him on a Friday call that Lerner’s emails may be on the federal government’s own backup system, but that it would be “too onerous” to recover them.
was: Okay - then there's no point in doing backups.  Which means there's no point in keeping the people who do the backups, or manage the emails, or - well the entire IT department for that matter.   If they can't keep the emails from disappearing the this age of RAID arrays, distributed databases, and cloud backups, then they serve no useful purpose. 

Fire the whole bunch.

But an IRS with no database - how would they keep track of who owe's what?   Eh.  Fire all of them too, but Lois and company need to see the inside of prison and I don't mean the kind with golf courses.

Tuesday, August 26, 2014

Trick questions.

Taryn over at Glamor the single life (h/t Maggie's Farm) Has a video about things girls say to test guys.   She then proceeds to tell men how they should respond. Unsurprisingly, every response is a guarantee that this behavior will continue.  So, I recommend you start immediate NEGATIVE reinforcement.  Put and end to this self sabotaging behavior.

She says: Seriously you don't have to get me anything.  
Correct response:  Fantastic! I was saving up, but now I can get the latest Call of Duty!

She says: So... Do you notice anything different about me?
Correct response:  Yes, you have less money because you spent it trying trying to make yourself feel better.

She says:  Do you think she's pretty?
Correct response:  Hell yes!  Thanks for pointing her out, you just made my day!

She says: Do I look fat in these jeans?
Correct response:  I'm not sure take them off so I have a reference point.

She says: Are you listening to me?
Correct response: ......... silence ......    - unless, you actually were listening, in which case:
Correct response: Not any more.

Girls... here's a thought - try saying what you actually mean, and don't ask questions when you either:
A. Know the answer already.
B. Don't want an answer.

EQUALITY  that's my motto.

Monday, August 25, 2014

Huckabee ByeBye

From Breitbart:

On Friday Fox News host and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) called on conservatives to “stop the fight” over the Common Core standards and, instead, consider the positive effects the nationalized standards might have on students in poor-performing schools.

Seriously?   Anyone republican attempting to cover for Common Core, possibly the worst idea in education since the teachers union, can probably kiss his future Bye Bye. 

The only people actually in favor of that monstrosity are the American Communist Party and their lackeys. 

Sunday, August 24, 2014

Manufacturing Conflict

There is a concept that has been floating around for a while now called Manufacturing Consent.  It was put forward by Noam Chomski and Edward Herman.  I think the idea has merit in some regards but I have some doubts in general.

Yes I think the mass media is consensual part of the propaganda machine of the left. On the other hand, when they report on what the right is saying, and when the right report on the left, it interrupts the propaganda.  It works if you can pick apart the other sides arguments, but it's much harder for he left to pull apart the arguments made on the right, although the not the party line republicans.  There is no doubt that their intent is to push the agenda of one side or the other.  They lie constantly to create the illusion that their chosen agenda is what everyone should want.

What I really see happening is the manufacturing of conflict between the left and right.  I think the reason is fairly simple, if we're fighting with each other we're not looking at the manipulations of the power elite.  Hence the growing divide between right and left.  The left has for a long time viewed capitalism with incredulity.  In the last 30 years, I think a lot of that incredulity is the result of being told we live in a capitalist system, when in fact, since 1913 (or earlier) we've lived in a Crony Capitalist system - entirely NOT the same thing.

Many of the wars that we get involved in make no sense and I believe we are led into them by the same people who use crony capitalism, who seek to destroy the free market, who seek the new world order.   I suspect move of the people in mass media don't even know their helping the cause that's destroying them. This manufactured conflict is I think, it's non an uncommon occurrence. We see it in Race baiters like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Eric Holder, and Barack Obama, men who try to turn every occurrence of black and white interaction into a racial conflict.  We see it in journalist and government support for terrorist, Hamas in Palestine, and Al-Queda in Syria and Lebanon.    I think it even happens on F*ceB00k - huh, yeah I got the idea from reading a an article link from Maggie's Farm concerning "Likes"

Progressives going for the Nanny State, Republicans going for the Corporate State, both supporting wars that amount to colonial aggression under the guise of spreading democracy. Democracy is Mob Rule - why do so many people think that's a good thing?  Look at the riots in Ferguson if you think Mob Rule is a good thing - there's your mob. It's were all mobs go eventually. Without a culture that promotes morals based on a sound philosophy, you end up with situational ethics, which is an oxymoron if I've ever heard one - right up there with Corporate Ethics.

When they start telling you to hate someone for what they say or believe - it's time to start looking to your own beliefs - do they stand up to logic, are they formed from a first level philosophy?  If you look at the base of the Libertarian philosophy - despite all the differences, the basics are pretty much the same:

Individuals own them selves and the production of their efforts.
Coercion is immoral.
Individuals have the right to own property.
Self Defense is a Duty to self and third parties where Coercion is used.

Some would simplify and say, The Non-Agression Principle, and Property Ownership, and I'm okay with that because they lead to self defense, and one can assume self ownership.

If you can't get to where they say everyone should be, from that starting place - or what ever starting place you decided is true, then maybe you should examine their agenda before you join the revolution.

Friday, August 22, 2014

Cosmos again

I've been watching Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey

I've always like Neil DeGrasse Tyson.   Smart guy, articulate, seems to have a sense of humor. I was a little annoyed that he demoted Pluto but he was right.  I really enjoyed the  original Cosmos. The new one is also very good, flashy, but solid and informative.  I've been a bit surprised to see Mr Tyson's opinions on religion not come pouring out unlike another special he did, where he fairly constantly referred to all religions as ignorant superstitions.  Yeah I know that's the standard opinion of virtually every atheist I've ever met.   Those of us who don't care for organized religion and don't like to be preached at by the church, don't much like to be preached at by the other side either.  (I suppose I could be misjudging him on this but it's sure the feeling I got from his other show - The Inexplicable Universe.

One thing I found a little irritating was the time spent on global warming -slightly dates the show doesn't it? It's climate change this week.  It was expressed much as the alarmists would have it, fate accompli, the Science is Settled™.  This global warming episode was preceded by an episode that pointed out a number of scientists who were ridiculed by the "in" crowd, like the fellow who first postulated plate tectonics.  It was followed by this, from the last episode:
Only a few centuries ago, a mere second in cosmic time, we knew nothing of where or when we were. Oblivious to the rest of the cosmos, we inhabited a kind of prison, a tiny universe bounded by a nutshell. 
How did we escape from the prison? It was the work of generations of searchers who took five simple rules to heart.
(1) Question authority. No idea is true just because someone says so, including me.
(2) Think for yourself. Question yourself. Don't believe anything just because you want to. Believing something doesn't make it so.
(3) Test ideas by the evidence gained from observation and experiment. If a favorite idea fails a well-designed test, it's wrong. Get over it.
(4) Follow the evidence wherever it leads. If you have no evidence, reserve judgment.
And perhaps the most important rule of all...
(5) Remember: you could be wrong. Even the best scientists have been wrong about some things. Newton, Einstein, and every other great scientist in history -- they all made mistakes. Of course they did. They were human. 
Does that sound anything at all like Climate Science? You know the Science is Settled™, shut your mouths or we'll send  you to re-education camps, or GitMo or some other very unpleasant place.   No?  Do you suppose it's because it's not Science?  Maybe because it's the religious dogma of the leftist ideology? 

  • What happens when you question them?  They tell you to shut up.  (Rule 1 - FAIL)
  • What happens when you try to do your own analysis?  They try to shut you down by hiding the data (Rule 2 FAIL) 
  • What happens when you compare evidence to theory? They Deny your results - Our Models Tell Us!  The evidence must be wrong! (Rule 3 FAIL)
  • What happens when you ask them to follow the evidence - Prevarication, Obfuscation, Dogma (Rule 4 FAIL)
  • What happens when you bring up rule 5?   Outrage  - DENIER! Off with their heads!   (Rule 5 FAIL)

Must not be Science.

Related: Why there is no Science in Climate Science

Thursday, August 14, 2014

That's just scary.

Apparently a Former NYC police commissioner doesn't approve of tactics used by Ferguson cops.

Okay, the city that brought you stop and frisk, and like to shoot innocent bystanders as much as criminals.   Just for a little perspective....

Crony Capitalism

Possibly, the biggest oversight of our founding fathers was, to not include an article in the constitution regarding the separation of economy and state.  I'm still digging to see if perhaps they didn't actually make a conscious decision to leave the possibility of government interference in the free market.

When I was studying Economics in college, I took a course on government regulation.  My conclusion was that, as a company you wanted regulation - yeah I know, that sounds really wrong.  Keep in mind, that regulators, until fairly recently, didn't bother with little industries, there wasn't really enough voter noise for congress to create new regulatory agencies, and regulations.  Mostly it affects large industries. Here's how it works.

In the early stages of regulation you have a government sanctioned monopoly of some domain.  You are essentially guaranteed a return on investment, more than likely there is  government funds to help you build the business.   The second stage comes from the hiring of the individuals who used to regulate your business or, at minimum putting them on the board of directors.  You now have your Washington insider, who has a serious financial incentive to get additional concessions from the 'new' regulator.  Eventually congress get's involved, usually because of a change in technology, or  a perceived change in the competitive nature of the regulated industry.   Now the regulated corporation sends in the lobbyist, who write bills to favor the company, or industry.  They raise funds for re-election, and in return the bills are passed.  New regulators are appointed, old regulators are given very high paying jobs and put on the board of more companies.   Eventually a previous regulator will split off, and via the campaign finance donations bribery paid, they will be appointed to regulation again, where they with their new insight in to what the company needs, adjust the regulations, selectively enforce, or ignore regulations depending on financial gain to their now future employer.

Sometimes, the push to regulation comes from unions, early on, those regulations were primarily to prevent unscrupulous business operators from forcing workers into unsafe work environments.  That for the most part (not entirely) ended back in the seventies.

In the end, the government who was trying to control the business is in fact, owned by the business. As long as they avoid any monstrously huge public impropriety the politicians will work with them and help them fleece the consumer voter.

AT&T benefited hugely from it's government sanctioned monopoly - the euphemistic deregulation phase, on the surface seemed like a good thing, what it in fact did was create new regulatory conditions on multiple smaller organizations.   Additional opportunities for jobs for regulators, lobbyists, and additional complex regulation that would allow the companies to avoid competition, due partly to the onerous barriers to entry crated by the wall of bureaucratic red tape.

Regulation is used as a giant club which is used to beat potential entrants into the marketplace,  thus stifling competition. The large corporation, a million, or even 100 million dollar legal budget is an asset.  It erects barriers that smaller more efficient, more competitive companies can not scale.

Thus crony capitalism is born.

The last thing a crony capitalist really wants is an elimination of government interference.  There are few if any crony capitalists amongst small business.  That generally only happens if a congress critter leaves office and returns home to start said business, or go to work with a friend and long time supporter.

If you want to see this in operation, take a look at the number of ex regulators working at Monsanto, or Verizon, or AT&T, or .....

Why there is no Science in Climate Science

I keep thinking about the battle between Climate Science™and Deniers™ and wondering why there's so much resistance to an actual scientific approach.  For a while, I assumed it had to do with grant money. If you look at where funding comes from - the governments, you need to wonder why they fund non-science.  Certainly there has been sufficient skepticism from ligament sources that they might consider.   I think the answer lies in the centralization of power.

We've all heard the phrase "Never let a crisis go to waste."  A crisis is the fastest way to institute law and regulation resulting in the increase of centralized power.  Why? A crisis brings fear, and people who are afraid look for someone to protect them, sadly, we've replace family and community with government in that roll. So we have a crisis - apparently manufactured - funded by the government, supported by the liberal media.  But it's being used to enact policy that makes little or no sense.

Thermal solar is the least cost effective form of energy in use for large scale production, wind only works when the wind is blowing at a reasonable velocity,  geothermal doesn't seem to work well enough to gain traction, except perhaps in Iceland.  Photo-voltaic is enormously expensive and only useful at a small scale at present.  Both forms of solar are only effective during the day - fortunately solar covers the largest peak usage around noon, although it's less effective for the secondary peak around 5pm.   Neither wind or solar is a viable power source for virtually half the day.   Wave and Tidal power has a host of issues with maintenance costs and not in my back yard complaints.

So the government is attempting to kill coal because "global warming" at the same time, we're ripping out hydro-electric dams, we can't make progress on nuclear both of which are clean sources.  It seems to me, they're not trying to solve the claimed problem. What it looks like to me is an attempt to make people afraid so they ask for protection, since you can't protect someone from something that doesn't exist, the power mongers need to find policies that appear to do something, while at the same time waisting economic productivity (money). Why? People in debt are slaves to the system, they are put in a position where they need help, creating more dependency.  It's a self reenforcing form of serfdom.

Actual science would ruin all that.

Wednesday, August 13, 2014

A new take on succession

Apparently a very rich liberal and donor to the democratic party thinks the "South" should succeed.

The writer is Guy Saperstein. He’s a major Democratic donor, a part-owner of the Oakland Athletics baseball team, a former President of the environmental organization The Sierra Club, and founder of The Patriotic Millionaires, a group of mega-wealthy Americans who want Congress to raise taxes, according to Media Trackers.

Why?  Apparently the south is holding back the rest of the countries desire to forge ahead with it's progressive agenda.

"For more than 100 years, the South has been dumbing down national politics, tilting the country in a conservative direction, supporting militarism, all while demanding huge financial subsidies from blue states.”

Hmm, that might make for an interesting situation.    I find the remark about dumbing down national politics kinda funny, politicians are constantly making incredibly stupid comments - and - okay I'm biased, but most of them are Democrats - 
Congress "[has] to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it, away from the fog of controversy."  -- N. Pelosi
 Comes to mind. Although there are so many more.

Is it warming or cooling?


“We have been building models and there are now robust contradictions,” says Liu, a professor in the UW-Madison Center for Climatic Research. “Data from observation says global cooling. The physical model says it has to be warming.”

Okay, here's a thought. Stop trying to draw conclusions from questionable data.

When you get problems like this - the solution is to toss ALL of the preconceived theories.  Go back and look at the data collection methods and determine if they are adequate to the problem.  If they are, everyone needs to agree on what the hell that data is.   It's no good if one group sabotages the data to support their preferred Policy.   Let's try SCIENCE.  Why?  well the left is doing policy and calling it science, and the right is pointing out the BIG ASS HOLES in their data and how bad the computer models are that the left has come up with to support their chosen policy.  But who the hell is actually doing science?    There's probably a few, but with all the noise, it' hard to hear what they have to say. 

I think mother nature is going to solve this problem by doing something nobody wants, in a way nobody expects, because she's tired of listening to the constant squabbling....  "Just wait till your father get's home!"

The scientists politicians call this problem the Holocene temperature conundrum. It has important implications for understanding climate change and evaluating climate models, as well as for the benchmarks used to create climate models for the future. It does not, the authors emphasize, change the evidence of human impact  lack of evidence of human impact on global climate beginning in the 20th century.

       What they said  What they should have said

As near as I can tell, the left saw some localized events, Greenland Ice cover melt, receding glaciers, etc and jumped to the conclusion - Global Warming, then went about faking what ever data they thought might get them additional grant money and have been screening PANIC ever since.  Many on the right simply say - There's no warming! And while they seem to have the data on their side, it doesn't explain the melting.

Frankly the data, as it stands, sans serious tweaking to reenforce policy, pretty much says - WE DON'T FRIGGING KNOW.   There are reasons for some of the local phenomena,  that are currently blamed on "global warming".  But if there's no warming - and there doesn't seem to have been any, then we can probably conclude that's not the cause.   Maybe it's time to start looking elsewhere.    Maybe even use real SCIENCE - yeah I know Math is Hard, Science is really hard....

I haven't heard anyone claim the melt data is bogus.   It might be as simple as changes in volcanic activity under the ice, might be something else altogether.    Might be bogus too, although faking a receding glacier might be tough.   Don't know, maybe that's just what glaciers do when they're not getting bigger. 

I'm sort of curious as to why no one actually wants to know the real reason.

Monday, August 11, 2014

Koch brothers

Can't wait to hear what Harry Reid has to say about this:

Koch brothers reach out to Hispanics

Should be pretty amusing.

If you live in Washington - HELP

Hell even if you Don't live here - HELP anyway.

We have two bills I-591  Good, it stops the government from confiscating weapons in a state of emergency.

Bill I-594 - BAD   This is a Bloomberg bill to register guns - which is how they're going to take them away when they declare a state of emergency - say when we have the next earthquake?  Who Knows.

"Ah come on - no one wants to take your guns."   Really?  Are You Serious?  (you realize I can go on like this for hours right?)

Call, write letters, write emails,  send money.    They have 3 MILLION Dollars out there trying to screw us, We have about 1.  They have the media and Bloomberg,  We have the NRA - oh wait, no we don't they seem to be missing in action.


We do have the following

Gun Owners Action League of Washington (DONATE HERE)


And Washington Arms Collectors

Sunday, August 10, 2014

Geek Alert

I'm a bit of a GPS junky, I'm a huge music junky, and I hate phones - yeah that's weird.

So I get this info from my brother about a new heads up Navigation toy that links to your car and your smart phone.   - This is COOL.   And the security dude in me is screaming - Right - nothing could possibly go wrong with this - you've just tied your car's computer into a WiFi and BlueTooth, link between your phone and your car - that's secure... or not.....

I might get one but I'll be bugging Navdy about security if I pre-order, I don't want instructions going to the ODB-II connector with out some assurances.  I don't think there's a lot you can hijack on my slightly older cars - no microphones, no cameras, no auto parking assist or breaking assist.  Doesn't mean it might not trigger the ABS system.  Wonder if you could trigger the Air Bags... - that's scary.   More research.....

Anyway - it doesn't hurt to look -it's a bit of a car nerds toy.  What would be better would be to build this crap into the cars - starting from the Security and working up.

The changing face of shopping - and employment

Bayou Renaissance Man: The changing face of shopping - and employment

I always appreciate Peter's views, well thought out.

I would suggest that if the trend in shopping is rapidly heading toward on-line.  For jobs I would look to the delivery service - UPS, FedX and others.  I know most of my Amazon purchases come either US Mail or UPS - although there are long stretches were everything comes FedX.   Most likely determined by the current contract that Amazon can negotiate.

If I had more faith in the Stock Speculation Market, i would think UPS and FedX would be good bets.  UPS PE ration is not stupidly out of line although it was - yes, I know, no one pays any attention to PE Ratios anymore if they did UPS would never have hit a PE of 97 back in 2qtr of 2013.

Jobs will also be available stuffing junk in boxes at the fulfillment centers, most will be low paying, and probably part time to avoid adding benefit costs to shipping.    Perhaps a better job would to be soliciting money for reviews on Amazon - that happens I suspect more often that anyone thinks - but that's just my cynical self coming to the fore.   The big advantage to reviews for money would be working at home, and since you only need a computer and a net connection - which you'll need anyway to do all your shopping, there is really no overhead - although you can write off your computer, net connection, and office space.    To be fair - purchasing Verified Purchase reviews is perhaps only a little disingenuous - but way more effective.

If indeed the Rich are getting Richer, then it will pay to provide them with Services.   Sadly this usually requires operating in a city, or in one of the exclusive high priced real-estate zip codes.  

Saturday, August 9, 2014

Re-education Camps for Climate Deniers

Here's a shock - a leftwing talking head at MSNBC thinks Republican Climate Deniers should be forced to take an Earth Sciences Course.   - Just Republicans - none of the Democrat Deniers (and there are some).

See the Video Here

Well I'm not a Republican so I'm safe.

Here's a thought - anyone who gets Air Time on Public Air Waves, For Money should have to have a degree in Science to talk about science issues....   (You know, that's an unnecessary qualification - let's just leave it as science) I'm guessing we'd get about a 99% reduction in talking heads.   Although with the current level of grade inflation - and colleges obvious preference for LibProgs - I suspect they'd be granting honorary Masters of Science degrees right and left.

I like it.

Unsurprisingly, the minimum wage hikes going around, have the obvious effect of raising prices. So there's a Cafe in Minnesota that's printing receipts with the price increase spelled out.

The reaction amongst LibProgs is pretty much what you'd expect.   Now obviously, everyone else is doing essentiality same thing - they're just hiding in that line that says BLACK&BLUE BURGER  - instead of 9.00 it would be 9.35  and no one is complaining about those.  What LibProgs HATE is having the consequences of their actions rubbed in their faces.   So obviously it's the Cafe Owners fault, he's an asshat for not just eating the cost increase and joining the ranks of the poor.  Can you imagine owning a Cafe and needing and EBT card because your employees make more than you do?

LibProg Logic dictates fairness - Since the Owner gets all the Risk, it's only fair that the employees should get all the benefits,  gotta share right?

HatTip Maggies Farm and PowerLine

So, what I'd like to see would be a break down of all the cost components.   Can you imagine receipts that showed Labor Cost, Product Cost, Overhead, Government Regulatory Costs, Fixed Costs, and Profit.  

Although if I owned a Cafe I'd probably refuse to do it as it's just a pain in the ass, and you'd need to add a line just to cover the cost of the receipt.

Thursday, August 7, 2014

A little too much truth

I gave up giving to charity years ago.  Too many are corrupt, most of the one's that aren't are inefficient, if they're efficient, they rarely do the things I think need to be done.

Besides the government sticks a gun to my head every year to collect for charity so why should I volunteer more.

If these people are right (and I believe they are) then all that money destined to help the third world, is causing harm, not helping.   I've talked about creating dependance before here.  I view emergency response aid differently - obviously (well to rational person it would be obvious).

Apparently I'm not alone in thinking AID generally does more harm than good. seems to agree.   Corporations seem to be the big gainers when it comes to foreign aid.  That and foreign dictators.

Want some proof - take a look at the micro-loans to women program    I've seen a lot of stories about significant successes here.   Why - small business makes jobs, small business makes economic growth.  Not big business, not governments, not involuntary charity, not the narcissistic kids going abroad to "help".

Israeli Agression

Israeli agression.   I'm hearing that term a lot.  It would seem that the left is in dire need of a dictionary.

Self Defense, is NOT aggression - it's response to aggression.   How do you know which is which.   The side that uses force first - is the aggressor.   I don't care if they're smaller, or not as well armed, or if they're losing - they're still the aggressor.  In this case that aggressor would be Hamas.

You'd think it takes a friggin Phd to figure this out but... Oh wait - these morons all have Phd's

Come to think of it - so do most of the liberal academia professors who are vocally anti-semeitc.  Hmm  Makes you think maybe more education just makes you less capable of logic - then again, with the left being so happy about common core - I suppose it must.

Ethics of Technology

If you ask the question - What if this falls into the wrong hands?  You have two problems.  First your asking a rhetorical question - it's going to fall into the wrong hands, that's a given.  Second is did you ask that question before you made it or after.  If you asked it after... you're too late.

If you're counting on laws to protect us from the consequences of our own actions, you're not paying attention to current events.

Wednesday, August 6, 2014

I could swear they told me it was a right wing conspiracy

You remember the Obama birth certificate argument.  How the left kept telling us it was all a right wing conspiracy.

Okay - So NOW MSNBC believes he's from Kenya.  

These people are impervious to irony.  He's from Kenya - MSNBC just told me.

More Math and a little Deconstruction

Here's a few interesting numbers.

According to this article - we paid out 2 Trillion dollars in benefits.     Let's just see how that works out.

There are 318,600,0000 people in the US - we're adding 1 ever 12 seconds.

If you divide $2T by the population you get $6,277 - Anyone send you a check for 6 grand?

Okay - let's take a look at the "real" numbers From this article

We get a nice breakdown of that $2T bucks

So let's be fair about this - Social Security is - in theory (if not in practice) simply returning money people paid in over the years - yeah we all know it doesn't work that way but at least they paid something for it.  So let's leave that out.
Then there's the Veteran's benefits - Okay - those folks EARNED that so let's take that out too.

Everything else - Entitlement.

The numbers are approximate- some rounded up a tiny bit, others rounded down a tiny bit, for example when I say 144,400,000 it's really 144,393,150  so I'm not trying to hid anything here.

So subtracting out the "earned" benefits we have $1,271,658,000,000 yeah 1.3 TRILLION bucks
Divide by the total population and we get - $3,991 - anyone get one of those checks?  I didn't.

But wait - these are BENEFITS - in theory for "Poor" people, so let's do some more math.
There are 66,000,000 households* that fall equal to or under the "Average Family Income" of about $51,000 so we going to go all the way up to 55,000 - benefit of the doubt you know.   

Those 60,831 families have a total of 144,400,000 people  so  $1.272 Trillion divided by 144,400,000 is:

$19,267  PER PERSON 

I'm pretty sure I'd have heard if people were getting checks for $20K - Since I easily fall into that under $54K range - I know for a FACT I didn't get one.

Which brings up the obvious question - who did?   Must be folks making more than $55K a year - really We need to steal transfer wealth from people so we can  give it to people making more than $55K a year?  Really?

*this data is from Wiki and is 2011.  So it's probably a bit lower than than it should be, but not much.

Tuesday, August 5, 2014

Almost really funny

I normally think of Bill Maher as a progressive blithering idiot - and I'm not being redundant with that statement.   Every once in a while he surprises me and says something I agree with.

His stance on Israel and Hamas.  Excellent. - except the claim that most scientists are atheists - Only atheists believe that (which I find kinda of funny) sure some are, perhaps even the majority (although the numbers I've seen suggest it's closer to half and I'm not sure I trust even those)  Ultimately Religion is a Personal Issue, Science is not, I really don't care if they believe one way or another. I do object to atheists pushing their beliefs on the world as if they were facts - as in - Okay Mr. Atheist, PROVE there is no God - good luck with that - lack of proof does not prove anything.

I agree with his stance on the militarization of the police (Hat tip - Earth Bound Misfit via Borepatch)

Right up to the part where he goes off on Conservatives and the Tea Party - Dude, We're the ONLY people who have been making a point about this - this is the FIRST time I've heard any progressive even mention it.  Just show's he HATES conservatives and will accusing them of not doing things they do, or doing things they don't - with no evidence, and his idiot audience will believe it. 

On the other hand - I'm happy as hell a Progressive FINALLY said something about it in a public forum.  He has a lot of fans so maybe the'll get a friggin half a clue (I have no illusions about them finding a whole clue). 

More things I don't get.

Why are so many Jews Liberals.   Short memories? They like the liberal media treating them as the Nazi Ideal of Jews?   They like having a bunch of brainless Hollywood starts - who incidentally work mostly for them - call war criminals with no right to defend themselves?

Apparently more Jews are becoming conservatives - even a few running as Republicans - I view that as a possible mistake, but I understand the desire to fit into the two party pigeon hole.

Why do scientists support the liberal agenda?   Yeah sure in the short term it's a monetary thing, they know who's buttering their grants bread.  But in the longer run?  They can kiss off following any leads that are not officially approved, and they'll have to pass all their results though their political officer editor.

I know why teachers do - 3 month vacations, tenure - shit even I'd be tempted (not enough but some).

Open Borders

From a libertarian viewpoint I'd like to have open borders - the problem is, I don't live in a libertarian nation.  For open borders to work, we'd need a few things we currently lack, and we'd have to get rid of a few things we have.

First we'd have to do away with all the welfare and other entitlement programs. As people entered the country  they'd need to sign a contract, they'd have five years to learn basic english, file their taxes (of which there would be fewer - for everyone), and not get into trouble.   Not getting into trouble would be easer because we'd get rid of a significant number of laws and regulations.   So, no driving under the influence, no contract violations, no criminal convictions.  End of the five years - you get to take the test for citizenship.  If you pass then you get a green card, and you can now vote.  I don't much care where you came from, although I'd be fairly watchful of folks from countries that are known to support terrorists.

We'd need to have open borders and open trade in a lot of other countries too - if we're the only one, then we're going to have a problem.  We're going to have a huge crime problem as long as there's a minimum wage because there will be a huge unemployment problem, and starving people tend to resort to crime when no other option exists.   If everyone had open borders then people would be able to move freely (although perhaps not cheaply) to where ever the jobs were.   - Yeah we'll we know that's not going to happen.   Did you know that even cheerful little New Zealand has MUCH stricter immigration rules than we do?   Yep.  I can't immigrate to New Zealand if I wanted to, even with two degrees, and no criminal record.   Tool old, yeah age discrimination (and for a very logical reason).  Now if I win the lottery, I might pull it off - and I might add to my education to fit one of their strongly desired skills, but even then I might be too old.  Why?  National healthcare, the last thing they need is a bunch of retired folks coming down and plugging up their healthcare system, having never paid into it.

If you have children - they do not become citizens until you do, or until they can pass the test by themselves.   Then again I wouldn't let children of existing citizens vote until they could pass the test either.   If you can't read english (or brail), then you're not going to qualify for citizen - sorry.  Yeah, I know that seem harsh and possibly somthing-ist.   Here's the thing, we got into the trouble we have because we let a lot of stupid people vote.

You'll notice that I don't mention education in there?  That's because if you want that you'll need to pay for it.   (I'm already getting a headache from the whiners...) The idea a "free education" is a myth.  We're simply spreading the cost of it across a lot of people.   You're kids, will be eligible for vouchers once you pass the exam and get your citizenship.  How's that for incentive?    I'm not convinced we should even have "free" education - although there is a significant argument for the pro side.   Even though I don't have kids, I can see how I benefit from their education (well not the ones they're getting now, but the kind they used to get) that I don't find the tax burden unreasonable, although I'm fairly certain that anyone over the age of 65 has paid enough and should be exempt (no I'm not 65 yet , or even 60).

The point here is that my desire to see the borders locked up has more to do with economics than race, more to do with politics than race.

Saturday, August 2, 2014

Let's do some math

Figures vary depending on where you get them but since I found these at politifact - which has been accused of lefty leanings - well righty leanings too - so what the heck.

The average government employee compensation in  2009 averaged $123,049  that's full benefits.   The average Median individual income for people 25 and older is $32,140 (2005)   so maybe it's a bit higher today but probably not much- same with the government numbers.   

Now,  the average tax rate across all americans has been roughly 17% for a long time - sorry don't have the source right now, I'll keep looking.  But it's the reason people were talking about a 17% flat tax - because no matter what we seem to do with the tax rates, it always works out to about the same revenue / GDP.      So for arguments sake call it 17%

Great so 17% of $32,140 = $5,464

If we divide that government employee's compensation by $5,464 we get 22.5  - so it takes on AVERAGE 22.5 people to support each and every government employee.   Everything else the government spends money on - needs to be paid for by anyone left over.    Think about that for a bit.  Let it sink in.    Are we really getting 22 peoples worth of benefit from any government employee?  - maybe the military but probably not even all of them.  

Keep in mind these are averages- and the years don't match and ....  but it's approximate  call it roughly 20 to 1.  Ask yourself - are they worth it?  When was the last time they actually did something beneficial?  When you were happy to hear from them?

ASSUMING 20 to 1 (lower than calculated)

There are approximately 153,900,000 people in the labor force.  There are approximately 2,800,000 federal employees.   Yeah, that means we have 151,100,000 people paying taxes.   - Wait Government employees pay taxes - Seriously?   Pay them with WHAT?  Oh yeah - taxes - at best it's a figging discount.  That means it takes about 56 million people to Pay for the number of federal employees we have - wait can that be right?   That's like a third of the entire workforce... No, it's even more than a third...

Yes Martha - it's that bad.   It takes over 1/3 of the work force just to pay for the people that are making our lives more difficult.   Who's bright idea was this anyway?   - Oh yeah, government employees.

Stuff that Doesn't Surprise Me

Apparently Harvard has a cheating epidemic

Given the high percentage of cheaters at Harvard, would you hire a Harvard Grad?

Here's a non-surprise - Socialists Cheat twice as much as Capitalists.     Yeah - see above.

Have you ever heard the phrase Culture comes form the top down - This might explain the math scores   Apparently giving your self raises when you have a budge shortfall is Smart™  They pass it to the teachers, the teachers pass it to the kids and Poof  - you get this:

  • Average credit card debt: $15,191
  • Average mortgage debt: $154,365
  • Average student loan debt: $33,607
This is sure no surprise  - California environmental regulations might have issues.... sort of