Friday, July 29, 2011
I can decode Trump:
Real estate mogul Donald Trump said Friday he'd consider running for president — again — if the U.S. economy "continues to be bad: and "if the Republicans pick the wrong candidate."
"I would give it very, very serious thought," he told CNBC. "There are so many people wanting me to do it."
The Trump Organization president did not say on which party line he'd run if he didn't like the Republican candidate.
I supported Obama in the last election, and I want to guarantee him a win in the next election.
Posted by lumberjack at 6:20 PM
I was listening to C-SPAN a few weeks back and couldn't quite believe my ears. It was some sort of meeting or conference in which black leaders were pushing for the repeal of drug laws. (all drug laws, some drug laws? I'm not sure)
Anyway, it was hard to follow their reasoning because I was so taken aback by their attitude. Paraphrasing, the message was: "We need to repeal these racist drug laws because they only exist in order to send black men to prison."
Who is going to be swayed by that argument? This was on the radio but the angry faces were easy to imagine. Half of it was "damn you racist lawmakers." One speaker actually got into statistics on what decriminalization has accomplished in other parts of the world but she was clearly in the minority. The message was that Jim Crow is back.
So what did they expect? I can see picking up some support from some blacks who are eager play the aggrieved card. There are plenty of white people who gravitate towards feeling put-upon as well; it's not a black thing. But what about the majority of the country? Did they expect to convince white people that they had only supported drug laws because they secretly enjoyed putting black men in jail? People know their hearts.
There may be good arguments in favor of decriminalizing some things. The question is whether the laws are a net good -- by discouraging drug use and preventing wasted lives; or a net burden -- by ruining more lives than they save. I don't know the answer. But I know my motivation, and it's not because I want to keep down the black man.
Anyway, I wrote off the whole silly segment. It was just a bunch of people wasting their energies on foolishness. But I couldn't help noticing parallels with something being done on the right.
And here I'm talking about Rush Limbaugh. I know, blasphemy. It's a shame because Limbaugh gets so many things right. But it irks me when he assigns malice to the things Obama, and other liberals do.
Raising taxes at this time is a bad idea. This is a recession, and we'll benefit more from "rich" people keeping and spending their money than we will from the government taking it and spending it for them. It's bad for the country right now. Period. And if you agree, you can make the argument just as forcefully without assigning motives to the president. Rush says that Obama's intent is to break the system, to bring down capitalism and rebuild as a socialist state.
And I just don't think it's so. I think Obama is as wrong as he can be; as wrong as possible without actually being Portuguese.* I think he's fixated on a utopia that can't exist in this world, and I think his efforts to bring it about could bring down much of what we hold dear. Yes, he might break the country that elected him President, but that doesn't mean he realizes that's what he's doing. Hate what he's doing; forget about his motivations.
So I agree with Rush that Obama must be stopped, but I don't think we need to stop him because he's evil; we need to stop him because he's wrong.
*apologies to my one Portuguese reader, I meant to say "French"
photo via Daylife
Posted by lumberjack at 3:45 PM
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Thomas Sowell ok's the Boehner plan:
Many of us never thought that the Republicans would hold tough long enough to get President Obama and the Democrats to agree to a budget deal that does not include raising income tax rates. But they did — and Speaker of the House John Boehner no doubt desires much of the credit for that.
Despite the widespread notion that raising tax rates automatically means collecting more revenue for the government, history says otherwise.
As far back as the 1920s, Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon pointed out that the government received a very similar amount of revenue from high-income earners at low tax rates as it did at tax rates several times as high...
Read the whole thing.
Quick Summary of the bill (new version).
Posted by lumberjack at 11:57 AM
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Here's a quick trick that you can use to impress the ladies:
First - Get the complete text of President Obama's budget/debt-extention plan. Then the text of Harry Reid's plan as well.
Then - Assign every letter a number A=1, B=2, C=3 etc. and add all the numbers in each plan.
Finally - Add Obama's total and Reid's total.
Then ask someone to think of a number between one and ten. They will always pick a number greater than the final Obama/Reid total.
Nobody is sure why this works. The magic of math I guess.
It's been pointed out that this was derived from the old "Assign numbers to the first names of all the women who find Bill Maher attractive" trick. Point taken.
Oh! also math - from NRO, Krauthammer's observation:
I heard it [the president's Monday night speech], I heard the president, as a lot of Democrats like to do, heaping praise on Reagan, saying how reasonable he was about the debt ceiling, quoting Reagan and saying that he increased the debt ceiling 18 times in his presidency.
Well, if you do the math, that means that the average length of increase of the debt limit was less than six months!
Three minutes later, Obama is denouncing the Republicans and the Boehner proposal because it’s six months, which is unconscionable, irresponsible, and reckless. In fact, his argument [is] that he will veto the Boehner bill because… it’s so short.
I’m surprised that nobody in the White House is able, actually, to divide eight by 18.
Posted by lumberjack at 5:51 PM
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Monday, July 25, 2011
Sorry for not having a peep of blogging today. I was busy letting the Medicos invade my personal space.
OK, I'll just blurt it out: colonoscopy! There, I said it. I won't say it again, and you may feel free to change it in your head to "routine check of massive biceps" from here on out. And I won't be describing it, but it's not horrible, and when the men in the long white coats suggest you get one, well you should.
So I'm fine. I actually remember very little of the actual procedure. Strong drugs were involved and I seemed to go from lying on my side, watching my heart monitor, straight into a conversation with Cortez. Yes, Cortez of "I claim this stinkin' desert" fame, but we weren't discussing native peoples, or exploration, or sailing ships. We were discussing parking. Apparently my car wasn't small enough for the space according to the Conquistador.
We walked around the car, me pointing out that I couldn't be any more centered in the space; he "just observing" that the lady in the Miata might have to climb in her passenger door.
"But she's the one who parked too close to the line."
"But the sign says Compact Cars Only."
"So what's a "compact" car?"
"Well not that thing."
"Well I didn't have time to go car shopping and still make my appointment."
And with that, I was in the recovery room. With a hop, skip, and a jump through time, I was on the couch, and there I lay all day. Mostly I've been asleep, halfheartedly trying to summon back the Marquis of Oaxaca so I could finish the dream and justify my parking.
So, I probably should eat something now, happy that I don't have to write anything about that horror in Norway, or the sad story of Amy Winehouse. You don't need input from me on those things anyway. There's nothing really to say.
What you need is a dog video. No, really, I mean it.
Posted by lumberjack at 8:23 PM
Friday, July 22, 2011
Speaking of Salt:
This week a meta-analysis of seven studies involving a total of 6,250 subjects in the American Journal of Hypertension found no strong evidence that cutting salt intake reduces the risk for heart attacks, strokes or death in people with normal or high blood pressure. In May European researchers publishing in the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that the less sodium that study subjects excreted in their urine—an excellent measure of prior consumption—the greater their risk was of dying from heart disease. These findings call into question the common wisdom that excess salt is bad for you, but the evidence linking salt to heart disease has always been tenuous.
This isn't new. There never were any convincing studies that salt was causing high blood pressure. It's true, there are a few salt-sensitive hypertensives, but they are few and far between. Some people are allergic to peanuts, but we don't use that fact to deny peanuts to everyone else.
Course, the consensus that salt was bad for you came about the same way as the warmist consensus -- through politics. People join the parade because well darnit, parades are fun. And what Liberal can pass up an opportunity to 1) posses the truth (even if it's wrong) and 2) tell other people what to do.
Posted by lumberjack at 4:18 PM
Thursday, July 21, 2011
but I came home to a yard full of Japanese mineral scientists who were bidding on rights to extract the salt from my work shirt.
This, by the way, isn't me. I didn't have a sweaty photo of myself so I'm using a googlefind image of one of the young men who are increasingly copying my body-style.
Posted by lumberjack at 5:39 PM
Police in a small town are usedto empty streets in the middle of the night, so one man walking down the sidewalk on Main Street at 1AM was a bit unusual.
The squad car pulled up beside the man, and the policeman rolled down the window and asked where he is going at this time of night.
The man replies, "I am going to a lecture about alcohol abuse and the effects it has on the human body."
The officer then asks, "Really? Who is giving that lecture at this time of night?"
The man replies............ "That would be my wife."
Posted by lumberjack at 12:59 PM
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
You can criticize any plan. The Dems know this; that's why they've been dragging their feet, while taking every opportunity to criticize the Republican plans. If Paul Ryan said he was going to fill up the bird feeder in his yard, you'd have 20 Democrats on the floor of the House explaining how that is the worst possible idea they've ever heard.
But finally president Obama and the Democrats have come up with their own plan. See it here. Study it. Ponder it. Memorize it.
Posted by lumberjack at 12:55 PM
Monday, July 18, 2011
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Saturday, July 16, 2011
Friday, July 15, 2011
They can't name a proposed cut from Obama because there aren't any. So now they'll search the news trying to find anything concrete so they'll have an answer the next time Krauthammer asks for just one example. And still, they'll have no answer.
Posted by lumberjack at 11:22 PM
Thursday, July 14, 2011
"No excuses" -- how noble of you, Ed. Yet absent from both segments was any mention of General Electric, parent company of MSNBC -- in other words, your boss -- paying no federal taxes in 2010.
Can you imagine? You write a book about corporations making money off the government and it's all because you couldn't read a financial statement?
Anyone remember Emily Litella?
Posted by lumberjack at 8:45 PM
It's Google so you'd expect it to be a pretty and interesting flash game. Now the only question is: does it somehow gather information about my light bulb usage or position on gay marriage and transmit it back to a Dr Evil in an underground bunker somewhere.
Posted by lumberjack at 12:12 PM
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Now playing on Uncommon Knowledge: Yuri Yarim-Agaev. They're up to episode 3 in a great discussion of communism. Bonus: pronunciation of "violence". Extra-special bonus, not heard yet: pronunciation of "squirrel". As in, "Boris, use violence on squirrel!"
Posted by lumberjack at 12:07 PM
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
See? He agrees that it would be stupid to raise taxes in while we're still in a recession. Good, but permit me a dumb question: What if we're still in a recession in 2013? Remember the summer of recovery? That was last year. What makes us so sure the recession won't be worse in 2013?
Couldn't we wait until 2012 or 2013 to raise taxes?
video h/t: ricochet
Posted by lumberjack at 12:08 PM
GE's George Jeffrey Immelt on job creation:
"The people who are part of the business sector, the people in this room, have got to stop complaining about government and get some action underway," he told the group. "There's no excuse today for lack of leadership. The truth is we all need to be part of the solution."
The most egregious example is General Electric (GE - news - people). Last year the conglomerate generated $10.3 billion in pretax income, but ended up owing nothing to Uncle Sam. In fact, it recorded a tax benefit of $1.1 billion.
As an small businessman I welcome this advice. I suppose my next move should be to convene a meeting of my accountants and tax lawyers, possibly at the lakeside conference center. Then, we'll plow our tax savings into the economy. Well maybe not plow. Maybe a small shovel would be more appropriate. Or a hand spade. (maybe a large teaspoon)
Sheesh. Thanks for the advice Jeffrey. See, this is part of the problem. Our corporate tax doesn't need to be one of the highest in the world, at 35%. Better would be a 15% rate that is paid by every corporation.
Since Obama wants to improve government regulations, how bout a trade? We drop some of the regulations that prevent drilling for oil, and institute one that prevents heads of corporations that pay no tax from lecturing us on complaining about government.
Posted by lumberjack at 11:33 AM
Monday, July 11, 2011
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Saturday, July 09, 2011
Trying to get the magic back with Hope and Change and Jheri curl.
So the captain is telling us we could have made it past that iceberg; we just weren't going fast enough. He wants to try again. We need to borrow more, stimulate more. No more thank you.
Posted by lumberjack at 11:28 PM
What a well timed video. I was just thinking about how, if Bill Gates owned a time machine in 1985 and was able to visit me here in 2011, he'd be blown away with tech-envy. My computer is faster than anything he'd ever have seen, my cell phone smaller and with more features, and I'd be all in-your-face about getting crushed ice and filtered water from the door of my refrigerator.
This video rightly points out that it is the first adopters who pay for the development of new technology, but refinements and improvements are paid for by the mass sales that are possible once the price comes down. Capitalism works. And it works up and down the income scale. Everyone is better off because computers help in the search for new drugs. Everyone benefits from more efficient engines, and safer cars. Capitalism makes progress possible. (yes, real progressives are Capitalists)
One caution though: Should you ever be visited by a time traveling Bill Gates, don't let him travel back to 1985 with any of your Apple products. An iPad existing in 1985 could set up paradoxes and time-quakes. We'd all wake up tomorrow with personal robots and jet packs, but we'd be married to the wrong people and the Orioles would have a shot at winning the World Series.
(watch the Orioles, if they rise above 5th in the AL East, you'll know that someone's been tampering with time)
Posted by lumberjack at 2:00 PM
Friday, July 08, 2011
I really like Rick Santelli. He's the guy I want sitting at my table when the waiter brings an unamusing bouche. Except not Japanese food; let Rick Santelli loose to criticize a Japanese restaurant and you'd be up to your knees in harakiris.
Say what you mean, Rick.
Posted by lumberjack at 9:30 PM
Thursday, July 07, 2011
A guy goes into a restaurant and is greeted by the hostess, who asks: “Smoking or non-smoking?” “Non-smoking,” he replies.
He is seated and the waiter comes over to his table to take his drink order. “I’ll have a Coke,” he states. The waiter says: “Diet or Regular?” “Um, regular.” “Caffeine or caffeine-free?” “Uh, with caffeine.”
The drink is brought to his table and the guy orders his food. The waiter asks what kind of dressing on the salad, “Italian, French, Thousand Island, raspberry vinaigrette?” He says: “Italian,” and the waiter immediately comes back with “regular Italian or fat-free?” “Regular,” says the man, with a hint of impatience in his voice.
And it goes on, with the steak order: “how do you want that prepared, rare, medium rare, medium, medium well, or well done?” and “how do you want your vegetables: raw, steamed, baked, boiled, blanched or fried?” and “how would you like your potatoes: baked, French fried, or mashed?”
Finally, the poor man has had enough and looks up to heaven and shouts: “I can’t TAKE all these choices!” He then turns his prayer to his patron saint saying: “St. Francis, HELP ME—help me with all these decisions!”
At that moment a big voice comes booming down and says: “Assisi, Xavier or DeSales?”
Posted by lumberjack at 10:35 AM
Wednesday, July 06, 2011
This whole Casey Anthony thing, I dunno... I really haven't been paying attention. I figured early on that this was either an unspeakable tragedy or an unimaginable tragedy, and that's not the sort of thing I'd like to dwell on. Many smart friends and family members are telling me that she was guilty, so I imagine she probably is. But she still has to go before another judge. The Judge. And He knows all and sees all.
By the way, minutes after the OJ verdict came out I remarked to a customer that the next judge wouldn't be so easily fooled. (meaning the next judge would be God) The customer didn't say much but obviously he didn't get what I was saying. Because two years later, when OJ lost in civil court, the customer was astounded that I had even known that there would be a civil trial. "and you called the verdict too"
I acted all humble and mentioned something about wisdom coming with age.
Posted by lumberjack at 12:07 PM
Tuesday, July 05, 2011
It's looking like we may have an historic presidency in the making. Much like the Hindenburg was an historic airship. From the Weekly Standard:
The report was written by the White House’s Council of Economic Advisors, a group of three economists who were all handpicked by Obama, and it chronicles the alleged success of the “stimulus” in adding or saving jobs. The council reports that, using “mainstream estimates of economic multipliers for the effects of fiscal stimulus” (which it describes as a “natural way to estimate the effects of” the legislation), the “stimulus” has added or saved just under 2.4 million jobs — whether private or public — at a cost (to date) of $666 billion. That’s a cost to taxpayers of $278,000 per job...
...The actual employment numbers from the administration’s own Bureau of Labor Statistics show that the unemployment rate was 7.3 percent when the “stimulus” was being debated. It has since risen to 9.1 percent. Meanwhile, the national debt at the end of 2008, when Obama was poised to take office, was $9.986 trillion (see Table S-9). It’s now $14.467 trillion — and counting.
All sides agree on these incriminating numbers — and now they also appear to agree on this important point: The economy would now be generating job growth at a faster rate if the Democrats hadn’t passed the “stimulus.”
Change it back!
Posted by lumberjack at 11:03 AM
Posted by lumberjack at 10:58 AM