This girl just drives me nuts.
Update: some discussion of this issue can be found on Female Impersonators
Update: some discussion of this issue can be found on Female Impersonators
Monday, April 28, 2008
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Why Corperate Taxes Aren't Bad
Lets take a hypothetical corporation who is producing widgets. Their widgets cost about $1.00 apiece. The raw materials cost about 50¢ per widget. Labor costs about 30¢ per unit, and other overhead costs 15¢ per unit. This leaves a profit of 5¢ per unit.
Now say that their government has decided to put a 10% tax on all products. The corporation has a choice. They can absorb the 10% tax fully, and make -5¢ profit, absorb part of it, or pass it all on to the consumer. This mostly is based on the concept of price elasticity, that is, how high a company can charge before people stop buying the product.
If the company raises prices, anyone who depends on widgets to make other products have to pay more for raw materials, and pay the tax, so their prices go up. As prices go up, individuals have to pay more, and as profits go down, companies look for ways to cut costs, which ends up being in either jobs or salaries.
If the Widget Corp. was to absorb the tax their workers would suffer from the cost cutting which would have to happen in order for the company to stay in business.
If the consumers are making less and paying more, the end result is that they have to buy less items. This in turn means less sales, and companies have to cut more jobs.
So the next time you complain about how much the "big bad" companies make, and that they need to be taxed more to pay for a nonexistent "free lunch" which everyone wants, remember that lower taxes equates to more investment, higher wages, and more sales, which in the end benefits the whole economy since it creates job growth and opportunity for new businesses.
Now say that their government has decided to put a 10% tax on all products. The corporation has a choice. They can absorb the 10% tax fully, and make -5¢ profit, absorb part of it, or pass it all on to the consumer. This mostly is based on the concept of price elasticity, that is, how high a company can charge before people stop buying the product.
If the company raises prices, anyone who depends on widgets to make other products have to pay more for raw materials, and pay the tax, so their prices go up. As prices go up, individuals have to pay more, and as profits go down, companies look for ways to cut costs, which ends up being in either jobs or salaries.
If the Widget Corp. was to absorb the tax their workers would suffer from the cost cutting which would have to happen in order for the company to stay in business.
If the consumers are making less and paying more, the end result is that they have to buy less items. This in turn means less sales, and companies have to cut more jobs.
So the next time you complain about how much the "big bad" companies make, and that they need to be taxed more to pay for a nonexistent "free lunch" which everyone wants, remember that lower taxes equates to more investment, higher wages, and more sales, which in the end benefits the whole economy since it creates job growth and opportunity for new businesses.
A little Explaination.
Ok, so apparently popular opinion is that I hate feminists, women, African-Americans, homo-sexuals, Mexican-Americans, liberals, foriegners, socialists, communists, minorities, and the 9th circuit court of appeals.
I don't hate any of them. I disagree with many of the listed "-ists." That goes with out saying. Hate is a very strong word, and should not be focused on ANY group. Ever.
Lets address minorities (which should technically be called pluralities soon at this rate.) I have nothing against them as people. A few elements of their cultures may annoy me, or even upset me, but i still support their right to be here (legally) and to express themselves. I am against any of them getting special privileges. I am also against illegal immigration, for a very simple reason. Its illegal, doofus. You wouldn't let someone get away with rape, murder, theft, assault, etc. so should they get be rewarded for breaking this law? That said, the immigration system needs reworking, but that is a different post.
Now socialists and communists, those folks believe in an anarchism of an overly simple, disproven theory. Well, technically socialism is still around and in use, but there is a reason why Europe is moving to the right. Chavez has impoverished Venezuela. Communism failed, epically. The soviets could not make it work, nor could most of Eastern Europe. China is trying to achieve some weird hybrid of capitalism and communism which is destined to fail due to their opposing natures. The bottom line here is that I firmly believe in the merit of free markets.
Feminists, You got picked on lately because you have been visibly annoying. This was actually supposed to be a general post, but the example was reflecting feminists. The next one, I happened to come across, and even with the age, I found some good stuff in there. If you really want to know why you are so easy to pick on though, this guy has a good explanation written. My biggest complaint is the fact that it is a way of trying to secure special privileges. That and the horrible economics behind it. Oh, and according to the U.S. Census Bureau figures, of every 100 women in America, there are only 97 men. In other words, men make up about 49.2% of the population. Women are not a minority in any way, shape, or form.
Above all, liberals make me mad because they have no common sense.
Keep in mind, as much as I dislike what you say, I will always support your right to say it, within reason (obsecenity, for example, is an exception.) I promise, I won't hate you for it either.
I don't hate any of them. I disagree with many of the listed "-ists." That goes with out saying. Hate is a very strong word, and should not be focused on ANY group. Ever.
Lets address minorities (which should technically be called pluralities soon at this rate.) I have nothing against them as people. A few elements of their cultures may annoy me, or even upset me, but i still support their right to be here (legally) and to express themselves. I am against any of them getting special privileges. I am also against illegal immigration, for a very simple reason. Its illegal, doofus. You wouldn't let someone get away with rape, murder, theft, assault, etc. so should they get be rewarded for breaking this law? That said, the immigration system needs reworking, but that is a different post.
Now socialists and communists, those folks believe in an anarchism of an overly simple, disproven theory. Well, technically socialism is still around and in use, but there is a reason why Europe is moving to the right. Chavez has impoverished Venezuela. Communism failed, epically. The soviets could not make it work, nor could most of Eastern Europe. China is trying to achieve some weird hybrid of capitalism and communism which is destined to fail due to their opposing natures. The bottom line here is that I firmly believe in the merit of free markets.
Feminists, You got picked on lately because you have been visibly annoying. This was actually supposed to be a general post, but the example was reflecting feminists. The next one, I happened to come across, and even with the age, I found some good stuff in there. If you really want to know why you are so easy to pick on though, this guy has a good explanation written. My biggest complaint is the fact that it is a way of trying to secure special privileges. That and the horrible economics behind it. Oh, and according to the U.S. Census Bureau figures, of every 100 women in America, there are only 97 men. In other words, men make up about 49.2% of the population. Women are not a minority in any way, shape, or form.
Above all, liberals make me mad because they have no common sense.
Keep in mind, as much as I dislike what you say, I will always support your right to say it, within reason (obsecenity, for example, is an exception.) I promise, I won't hate you for it either.
Friday, April 25, 2008
Whiners
Two Posts today, but its worth it, and the folks over at Female Impersonators are going to hate me for this one even more than the last one.
I found this site on the internet which has a reasonable well-written, scholarly refutation of the feminist movement. It is from Australia, and is a bit dry, but it makes many good points, a few of which I will quote, but I recommend you read the entire article. Feminism, in it's original context, was great. Feminism as it is now, is just a bunch of leftist agitation hiding behind supporting women. Is it no doubt that feminism is usually linked to socialism, which is the hallmark of the greedy, me-first mentality in America today?
Ok, this here is the link to the article, y'all.
A few select of my favorite quotes:
"One of the consequences of feminist antipathy to marriage has been the advent of the permissive society: alternative lifestyles and no-fault divorce laws. Far from enhancing the status of women, a major consequence of no-fault divorce has been the feminisation of poverty: economic analysis indicates that after divorce, the standard of living of fathers and husbands remains the same or improves, while wives and children slip below the poverty line."
"The abortion issue illustrates feminist Fraud No. 2. All the scientific evidence, especially since in vitro fertilisation techniques were developed, indicate that a new human life begins at fertilisation and not at birth. Yet feminists want to be able to dispose of this new life with no more regulation than covers the cutting of toenails. At the same time they claim that to avoid the trauma of abortion, contraceptives should be made freely available, especially to adolescents. But if abortion is of no more consequence than the cutting of toenails, if it is nothing more than the disposal of an unwanted piece of tissue, why is it so traumatic for so many women? After all, one cuts one’s toenails every week — is an abortion different and if so in what way?"
I found this site on the internet which has a reasonable well-written, scholarly refutation of the feminist movement. It is from Australia, and is a bit dry, but it makes many good points, a few of which I will quote, but I recommend you read the entire article. Feminism, in it's original context, was great. Feminism as it is now, is just a bunch of leftist agitation hiding behind supporting women. Is it no doubt that feminism is usually linked to socialism, which is the hallmark of the greedy, me-first mentality in America today?
Ok, this here is the link to the article, y'all.
A few select of my favorite quotes:
"One of the consequences of feminist antipathy to marriage has been the advent of the permissive society: alternative lifestyles and no-fault divorce laws. Far from enhancing the status of women, a major consequence of no-fault divorce has been the feminisation of poverty: economic analysis indicates that after divorce, the standard of living of fathers and husbands remains the same or improves, while wives and children slip below the poverty line."
"The abortion issue illustrates feminist Fraud No. 2. All the scientific evidence, especially since in vitro fertilisation techniques were developed, indicate that a new human life begins at fertilisation and not at birth. Yet feminists want to be able to dispose of this new life with no more regulation than covers the cutting of toenails. At the same time they claim that to avoid the trauma of abortion, contraceptives should be made freely available, especially to adolescents. But if abortion is of no more consequence than the cutting of toenails, if it is nothing more than the disposal of an unwanted piece of tissue, why is it so traumatic for so many women? After all, one cuts one’s toenails every week — is an abortion different and if so in what way?"
'Dr Moens claims that affirmative action programs which involve the setting of targets is a smokescreen behind which preferential hiring takes place, thus shifting the burden of discrimination to a new group:
"The practice ends up by creating new classes of victims by lifting the burden from past group discrimination (women and minorities) to a new group — white Anglo-Saxon males."'
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Hello, Real World?
So, the other day, my girlfriend, my friend, and myself went to a little local restaurant. This menu entry started a conversation about how some people are so quick to claim injury and insult from every little thing. Folks, you know the lesson we need to learn as a society is? Grow a skin! Toughen up! Everyone is NOT out to get you. Don't take everything personal, and learn to pick your battles.
Also, this is cute for you feminists too... Alt+11 my keypad0 is this: ♂. Alt+12 is this:♀. Is that somehow asserting men are superior or something? Having one number-code higher doesn't make me feel special or anything, so why would it make anyone feel insulted?
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Flippin' the Bird?
Did Barack Obama flash Hillary Clinton the one fingered salute? Look at the video, right at 21 seconds. I think he might have. I'm still really not sure, but the reaction seems to be sure of it. I just love how those two are doing all the dirty work for us now, and destroying each other. Come fall, McCain will be so far ahead in credibility.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Art isn't Nice! Art does have to have value to society though!
Woo, final papers are all coming due and I have no time.
The Yale abortion art thing is disgusting. I hope to God she is lying and the school never signed off on it, but I would not be surprised if at least one prof approved the idea. For those of you who don't know what I am talking about, click here.
Honestly, I will argue a strongly pro-baby stance with you all day long, but for those on the dead-baby side, this has to be a setback. It just shows how quickly the jump can go from "mother's life" to "on demand" to "contraception" to finally just being a sick form of "art."
Ladies, I love you, but as a guy something about "that time of the month" is just unappetizing to me. I know its a natural thing, I won't like you less as a person for it or anything like that, but i would prefer to be kept as in the dark about it as possible.
This is not art. Art is a thing of beauty and workmanship which cannot be easily replicated. Art has to have value to society, be it painting, photography, music, theater, sculpture, or anything else. Putting "blood" in a box and making a video of your period is not art, it might maybe be science, but it is not art. Is it provocative, yes, but it has no worth to society. Somebody should ask a couple who have suffered a miscarriage what they think of this, I wish I knew somebody around here I was comfortable asking.
Hoax or real, her project is profoundly disgusting. If a monkey throws it's poo at a wall long enough, somebody will call it art. This is a conversation that could and should have been started in a much better way. If this is a hoax, she would have been better off claiming it was a representation, and if it is real, I consider her a murderer.
Edit: To clarify, I am NOT saying that a womans body is not beautiful, I am saying that a box of blood is not. People should never be considered art, that is dehumanizing.
The Yale abortion art thing is disgusting. I hope to God she is lying and the school never signed off on it, but I would not be surprised if at least one prof approved the idea. For those of you who don't know what I am talking about, click here.
Honestly, I will argue a strongly pro-baby stance with you all day long, but for those on the dead-baby side, this has to be a setback. It just shows how quickly the jump can go from "mother's life" to "on demand" to "contraception" to finally just being a sick form of "art."
Ladies, I love you, but as a guy something about "that time of the month" is just unappetizing to me. I know its a natural thing, I won't like you less as a person for it or anything like that, but i would prefer to be kept as in the dark about it as possible.
This is not art. Art is a thing of beauty and workmanship which cannot be easily replicated. Art has to have value to society, be it painting, photography, music, theater, sculpture, or anything else. Putting "blood" in a box and making a video of your period is not art, it might maybe be science, but it is not art. Is it provocative, yes, but it has no worth to society. Somebody should ask a couple who have suffered a miscarriage what they think of this, I wish I knew somebody around here I was comfortable asking.
Hoax or real, her project is profoundly disgusting. If a monkey throws it's poo at a wall long enough, somebody will call it art. This is a conversation that could and should have been started in a much better way. If this is a hoax, she would have been better off claiming it was a representation, and if it is real, I consider her a murderer.
Edit: To clarify, I am NOT saying that a womans body is not beautiful, I am saying that a box of blood is not. People should never be considered art, that is dehumanizing.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Freedom of the Press. Back Off.
Dutch Filmmaker Geert Wilders made a film called Fitna which portrays Islamic terrorism. Since then various nations and groups have stated their disagreement in various ways. Leaders in Egypt, Pakistan, Indonesia, and the foreign ministers of 27 EU members are among the people who have made statements against this movie. "The Pakistani Foreign Ministry summoned the Dutch ambassador to deliver an official complaint against what it called a "defamatory film which deeply offended the sentiments of Muslims all over the world." (source) Now Indonesia is blocking Youtube, GoogleVideo, MyspaceTV, and other video sites in an effort suppress this film. Rather than confronting Wilder's criticism, the Muslim leaders are blocking him from being heard. Obviously, If they felt the need to block the film, they were afraid of what would happen if people watched it. Who says the government is the authority to tell an individual what they can or cannot watch. Theo Van Gogh was assassinated for his anti-islam film Submission. Anyone who really believes in freedom of speech and press should be rallying behind Wilders. Both these films are blocked by Youtube unless you sign in as a member, certifying that you are 18 years of age or older. Why should adults be blocked from information? It may be insulting to Islam, it may even be untrue, but let the people decide for themselves. Blocking video websites is not the answer.
See the movie here if you have not seen it yet
Story
Story
Story
Story
See the movie here if you have not seen it yet
Story
Story
Story
Story
Sunday, April 6, 2008
Hillary voted for the war
From a fox election article: “I still don’t really like the fact that Hillary voted for the war,” she said.
Does she not realize that Obama was not even in national politics at the start of the war.
Here are the senators who voted against entering Iraq... Daniel Akaka (D-HI Jeff Bingaman (D-NM;) Barbara Boxer (D-CA); Robert Byrd (D-WV); Lincoln Chafee (R-RI); Kent Conrad (D-ND); Jon Corzine (D-NJ;) Mark Dayton (D-MN); Dick Durbin (D-IL); Russ Feingold (D-WI); Bob Graham (D-FL); Daniel Inouye (D-HI); Jim Jeffords (I-VT); Ted Kennedy (D-MA); Patrick Leahy (D-VT); Carl Levin (D-MI); Barbara Mikulski (D-MD; Patty Murray (D-WA); Jack Reed (D-RI); Paul Sarbanes (D-MD); Debbie Stabenow (D-MI); the late Paul Wellstone (D-MN); Ron Wyden (D-OR)
Ironically, Hillary didn't stand with her most liberal partymates and one aisle-crosser.
Edwards voted for it too, but that doesn't stop him and Obama from being buddy-buddy. nor does it stop him from blasting Hillary too. (Link)
All the democratic candidates (both now) have voted for plenty of stupid bills. This one was actually important, and the one who couldn't vote on it should not get a free pass since no-one knows what he would have done.
Somebody, Anybody tell me what good Obama has done for this nation, or even for his state during his time in the Senate.
Does she not realize that Obama was not even in national politics at the start of the war.
Here are the senators who voted against entering Iraq... Daniel Akaka (D-HI Jeff Bingaman (D-NM;) Barbara Boxer (D-CA); Robert Byrd (D-WV); Lincoln Chafee (R-RI); Kent Conrad (D-ND); Jon Corzine (D-NJ;) Mark Dayton (D-MN); Dick Durbin (D-IL); Russ Feingold (D-WI); Bob Graham (D-FL); Daniel Inouye (D-HI); Jim Jeffords (I-VT); Ted Kennedy (D-MA); Patrick Leahy (D-VT); Carl Levin (D-MI); Barbara Mikulski (D-MD; Patty Murray (D-WA); Jack Reed (D-RI); Paul Sarbanes (D-MD); Debbie Stabenow (D-MI); the late Paul Wellstone (D-MN); Ron Wyden (D-OR)
Ironically, Hillary didn't stand with her most liberal partymates and one aisle-crosser.
Edwards voted for it too, but that doesn't stop him and Obama from being buddy-buddy. nor does it stop him from blasting Hillary too. (Link)
All the democratic candidates (both now) have voted for plenty of stupid bills. This one was actually important, and the one who couldn't vote on it should not get a free pass since no-one knows what he would have done.
Somebody, Anybody tell me what good Obama has done for this nation, or even for his state during his time in the Senate.
Friday, April 4, 2008
County Politics
I don't really have the time for a long post, but just let me tell you, if you ever get the chance, get involved in county level politics. It is not a huge commitment. The College Republicans were helping out at the county Linoln-Reagan day dinner tonight, and it was awesome. Alot of local movers and shakers were there. U.S. representative Ray LaHood was the keynote speaker, and Dr. Steve Sauerberg also spoke. (Dr. Sauerberg is running against incumbent Senator Dick Durbin) State Representative Aaron Schock (running to fill LaHood's seat, Lahood is retiring) was supposed to be there, but unfortunately could not. State Representative Dan Rutherford also was in attendance. County level officials such as the sheriff, county clerk, treasure, and others each had a table. It was a very nice event.
The grassroots level is the best place to get involved in U.S. politics, IMHO. This is especially true if you don't want to make a career out of it. It is some pretty cool stuff.
The grassroots level is the best place to get involved in U.S. politics, IMHO. This is especially true if you don't want to make a career out of it. It is some pretty cool stuff.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Ms. Clinton's Common Sense
Hillary Clinton's new 3 AM add is absurd! The first one, about a foreign policy crises was plausible, unlikely, but possible. This newest add is dumb! The U.S. markets are all closed at 3 am. Any person with common sense can say... if its closed, there wont be a crisis.
“Home foreclosures mounting, markets teetering … Hillary Clinton has a plan to protect our homes, create jobs. It’s 3 a.m., time for a president who’s ready.” (Fox)
There is no way in a month of Sundays that the president is going to get a call at 3 am about foreclosure! The economy cannot be regulated by the president anyway.
I'm happy to see McCain mocking this ad.
Then again Hillar-ity has no common sense, she proved that by claiming ignorance about her whoremongering husband.
“Home foreclosures mounting, markets teetering … Hillary Clinton has a plan to protect our homes, create jobs. It’s 3 a.m., time for a president who’s ready.” (Fox)
There is no way in a month of Sundays that the president is going to get a call at 3 am about foreclosure! The economy cannot be regulated by the president anyway.
I'm happy to see McCain mocking this ad.
Then again Hillar-ity has no common sense, she proved that by claiming ignorance about her whoremongering husband.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Sorry Teach, But Not All Christians Rape and Murder.
Story from CA, a school district is being sued for anti-Christian remarks made by a European History teacher. The teacher reportedly told students "What country has the highest murder rate? The South! What part of the country has the highest rape rate? The South! What part of the country has the highest rate of church attendance? The South!” These remarks were recorded on tape by an understandably upset student. Why did a European history teacher need to make these remarks? If he had said "Christianity has a history that includes rape and murder, as in the Crusades." I would not have a problem. Is it embarrassing, yes, but it is also true. The fact these remarks were uneeded shows his bias and goals. People would have been up-in-arms if he had said... "Which world region has the most oppression of women? The Middle East! Which region is responsible for most the most terrorist acts? The Middle East! Which region has the most Muslims? The Middle East!" I see no reason why they should not be upset by the same sort of insulting generalizations about Christianity. Personally I do not feel like this is a proper interpretation of the 1st amendment, but because the 1st amendment has been used to make our schools completely non-religious, the precedent is that this teacher was in the wrong. If the courts find on the side of the school, it will be glaringly unfair in our society where the only reason an atheist lost his suit to remove the pledge of allegiance due to the reference to God was a technicality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)