Go here to see the understatement of the decade
Go here to see a correlation between the power and prevalence of a certain group and the debt of each state.
Go here to read about the world's worst White Sox fan.
Go here to learn why pollsters find that at least 47% of the electorate will support ANY government spending program.
Go here to read about people who don't have enough rat holes to throw their money into.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
John Stossel on "What Is A Libertarian?"
I used to be a Kennedy-style "liberal." Then I wised up. Now I'm a libertarian.
But what does that mean?
When I asked people on the street, half had no clue.
We know that conservatives want government to conserve traditional values. They say they're for limited government, but they're pro-drug war, pro-immigration restriction and anti-abortion, and they often support "nation-building."
And so-called liberals? They tend to be anti-gun and pro-choice on abortion. They favor big, powerful government -- they say -- to make life kinder for people.
By contrast, libertarians want government to leave people alone -- in both the economic and personal spheres. Leave us free to pursue our hopes and dreams, as long as we don't hurt anybody else.
Ironically, that used to be called "liberal," which has the same root as "liberty." Several hundred years ago, liberalism was a reaction against the stifling rules imposed by aristocracy and established religion.
I wish I could call myself "liberal" now. But the word has been turned on its head. It now means health police, high taxes, speech codes and so forth.
So I can't call myself a "liberal." I'm stuck with "libertarian." If you have a better word, please let me know.
Go here to continue reading.....
But what does that mean?
When I asked people on the street, half had no clue.
We know that conservatives want government to conserve traditional values. They say they're for limited government, but they're pro-drug war, pro-immigration restriction and anti-abortion, and they often support "nation-building."
And so-called liberals? They tend to be anti-gun and pro-choice on abortion. They favor big, powerful government -- they say -- to make life kinder for people.
By contrast, libertarians want government to leave people alone -- in both the economic and personal spheres. Leave us free to pursue our hopes and dreams, as long as we don't hurt anybody else.
Ironically, that used to be called "liberal," which has the same root as "liberty." Several hundred years ago, liberalism was a reaction against the stifling rules imposed by aristocracy and established religion.
I wish I could call myself "liberal" now. But the word has been turned on its head. It now means health police, high taxes, speech codes and so forth.
So I can't call myself a "liberal." I'm stuck with "libertarian." If you have a better word, please let me know.
Go here to continue reading.....
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
South Texas, Afghanistan, and the cost of prohibition
From the Fort Worth Star-Telegram:
MEXICO CITY — As more U.S. states permit medical marijuana, and California considers legalizing cannabis sales to adults, Mexico is voicing irritation at the gap between drug laws north and south of the border and saying it undercuts the battle against Mexico's violent drug cartels.
Mexico Secretary of the Interior Fernando Gomez Mont said last week the U.S. medical marijuana trend was "worrisome" and "complicates in a grave way" efforts to resolve Mexico's soaring drug-related violence.
....More states are permitting medical marijuana use, and New York may become the 15th to do so. California, which pioneered medical marijuana use in 1996, is moving even faster, setting a November vote on whether to legalize personal marijuana possession and allow regulated sales of marijuana to those over age 21. If approved, the move would be the first of its kind in the U.S.
A Mexican historian and commentator, Lorenzo Meyer Cossio, said the government of President Felipe Calderon "feels offended" by the growing trend of U.S. states to allow medical marijuana, or perhaps go further as California may do. Mexican laws against marijuana and narcotics remain tough, the result of U.S. pressure dating back more than half a century, he said.
....Calderon, the head of a center-right party, deployed 50,000 soldiers to the border days after coming to office in late 2006 to combat the cartels, which derive huge profits from marijuana as well as cocaine, heroin and methamphetamines.
....Mexican marijuana production is soaring, according to a report issued Thursday by the Justice Department's National Drug Intelligence Center.
.....Even advocates of the decriminalization of marijuana in the U.S. said they empathize with Mexican leaders, who are deploying troops in a fierce battle with well-armed drug cartels at the urging of Washington.
They are caught in the middle of realities of U.S. consumer demands and American political intransigence," said Stephen Gutwillig, the California director of the Drug Policy Alliance, an advocacy group for alternatives to the drug war.
Gutwillig said he thinks the trend toward allowing medical marijuana in U.S. states, and even the outright decriminalization of marijuana, would eventually weaken the Mexican drug cartels. "Any sort of authorized regulated market for marijuana in the United States cannot be good for the bottom line of criminal cartels," Gutwillig said.
Also from the Star-Telegram:
FORT HANCOCK -- When black SUVs trail school buses around here, no one dismisses it as routine traffic. And when three tough-looking Mexican men pace around the high school gym during a basketball game, no one assumes they're just fans.
Fear has settled over this border town of 1,700, about 50 miles southeast of Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, epicenter of that country's bloody drug war. Mexican families fleeing the violence have moved here or just sent their children, and authorities and residents say gangsters have followed them across the Rio Grande to apply terrifying, though so far subtle, intimidation.
The message: We know where you are.
At schools in Fort Hancock and nearby Texas towns, new security measures and counseling for young children of murdered parents have become a troubling part of the day.
"I have friends with fathers who've been annihilated," said Israel Morales, a junior at Fort Hancock High School. "They just hug you and start crying. It just traumatizes you."
Mexican drug gangs have not fired a single shot in Fort Hancock, and no one has disappeared. But as drug violence continues unabated in and around Ciudad Juarez, residents of Texas border towns fear it will spread their way.
"There's been incidents of school buses followed, and threats to some of the students and threats to some of the staff," Hudspeth County Sheriff's Lt. Robert Wilson said. "It's caused us to really go on high alert."
Schools have installed security cameras and hired an armed off-duty sheriff's deputy to patrol its three campuses for the first time.
Here's Alfred W. McCoy, of the Countercurrents website, on one of our biggest problems in Afghanistan:
In the late 1990s, the Taliban, which had taken power in most of the country, lost any chance for international legitimacy by protecting and profiting from opium -- and then, ironically, fell from power only months after reversing course and banning the crop. Since the US military intervened in 2001, a rising tide of opium has corrupted the government in Kabul while empowering a resurgent Taliban whose guerrillas have taken control of ever larger parts of the Afghan countryside.
This is no better than anecdotal evidence, BUT..... Among my ex-con employees, I've had two who worked on death row (cleaning, etc.). According to them, prison authorities couldn't keep drugs out of death row. Think of the implications.
We're spending billions, incarcerating millions, and creating food for the Big Government machine by insisting on prohibiting something that certain people are going to do, no matter what.
How much worst does the situation in Afghanistan and Mexico have to get before we end the Drug Lords' production monopoly?
MEXICO CITY — As more U.S. states permit medical marijuana, and California considers legalizing cannabis sales to adults, Mexico is voicing irritation at the gap between drug laws north and south of the border and saying it undercuts the battle against Mexico's violent drug cartels.
Mexico Secretary of the Interior Fernando Gomez Mont said last week the U.S. medical marijuana trend was "worrisome" and "complicates in a grave way" efforts to resolve Mexico's soaring drug-related violence.
....More states are permitting medical marijuana use, and New York may become the 15th to do so. California, which pioneered medical marijuana use in 1996, is moving even faster, setting a November vote on whether to legalize personal marijuana possession and allow regulated sales of marijuana to those over age 21. If approved, the move would be the first of its kind in the U.S.
A Mexican historian and commentator, Lorenzo Meyer Cossio, said the government of President Felipe Calderon "feels offended" by the growing trend of U.S. states to allow medical marijuana, or perhaps go further as California may do. Mexican laws against marijuana and narcotics remain tough, the result of U.S. pressure dating back more than half a century, he said.
....Calderon, the head of a center-right party, deployed 50,000 soldiers to the border days after coming to office in late 2006 to combat the cartels, which derive huge profits from marijuana as well as cocaine, heroin and methamphetamines.
....Mexican marijuana production is soaring, according to a report issued Thursday by the Justice Department's National Drug Intelligence Center.
.....Even advocates of the decriminalization of marijuana in the U.S. said they empathize with Mexican leaders, who are deploying troops in a fierce battle with well-armed drug cartels at the urging of Washington.
They are caught in the middle of realities of U.S. consumer demands and American political intransigence," said Stephen Gutwillig, the California director of the Drug Policy Alliance, an advocacy group for alternatives to the drug war.
Gutwillig said he thinks the trend toward allowing medical marijuana in U.S. states, and even the outright decriminalization of marijuana, would eventually weaken the Mexican drug cartels. "Any sort of authorized regulated market for marijuana in the United States cannot be good for the bottom line of criminal cartels," Gutwillig said.
Also from the Star-Telegram:
FORT HANCOCK -- When black SUVs trail school buses around here, no one dismisses it as routine traffic. And when three tough-looking Mexican men pace around the high school gym during a basketball game, no one assumes they're just fans.
Fear has settled over this border town of 1,700, about 50 miles southeast of Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, epicenter of that country's bloody drug war. Mexican families fleeing the violence have moved here or just sent their children, and authorities and residents say gangsters have followed them across the Rio Grande to apply terrifying, though so far subtle, intimidation.
The message: We know where you are.
At schools in Fort Hancock and nearby Texas towns, new security measures and counseling for young children of murdered parents have become a troubling part of the day.
"I have friends with fathers who've been annihilated," said Israel Morales, a junior at Fort Hancock High School. "They just hug you and start crying. It just traumatizes you."
Mexican drug gangs have not fired a single shot in Fort Hancock, and no one has disappeared. But as drug violence continues unabated in and around Ciudad Juarez, residents of Texas border towns fear it will spread their way.
"There's been incidents of school buses followed, and threats to some of the students and threats to some of the staff," Hudspeth County Sheriff's Lt. Robert Wilson said. "It's caused us to really go on high alert."
Schools have installed security cameras and hired an armed off-duty sheriff's deputy to patrol its three campuses for the first time.
Here's Alfred W. McCoy, of the Countercurrents website, on one of our biggest problems in Afghanistan:
This is no better than anecdotal evidence, BUT..... Among my ex-con employees, I've had two who worked on death row (cleaning, etc.). According to them, prison authorities couldn't keep drugs out of death row. Think of the implications.
We're spending billions, incarcerating millions, and creating food for the Big Government machine by insisting on prohibiting something that certain people are going to do, no matter what.
How much worst does the situation in Afghanistan and Mexico have to get before we end the Drug Lords' production monopoly?
Freakonomics: The Movie
Freakonomics, the best-selling pop economics book by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, will soon be coming to a theatre near you.
Or maybe it'll just come to Dallas.
Or maybe it'll just come to Dallas.
Remember the trend of about 5-6 years ago, when concerned Moms would politely ask "Are there any guns in your home?" before they would allow their little Dylan and Joplin to come over and play?
Levitt and Dubner reveal that a swimming pool is 100 times more likely to kill a child than a gun. Then they examing why we worry about guns more than we worry about swimming pools.
The book examines why most inner-city drug dealers live with their mothers.
They authors ask if a child's name can affect his future income.
They look at thousands of standardized test scores, and develop a formula to reveal which teachers cheated to make themselves (and their schools) appear to be succesful.
The book isn't about economics as much as how to think about a problem.
Here's a link to the Freakonomics website.
Their follow-up title, SuperFreakonomics, generated considerable controversy by recommending "Geoengineering" as a climate control solution, instead of requiring people to purchase Big Al Gore's Perpetual Motion Machines. Go here and here for their blog posts on why they dared commit that heresy.
Amazing stuff. Great book. Can't wait to see the documentary. These guys are among the many reasons I started reading economics texts for fun.
Monday, April 5, 2010
Glenn Reynolds on "The Knowledge Problem"
If no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?" -- President Reagan, Jan. 20, 1981.
Economist Friedrich Hayek explained in 1945 why centrally controlled "command economies" were doomed to waste, inefficiency, and collapse: Insufficient knowledge. He won a Nobel Prize. But it turns out he was righter than he knew.
In his "The Use of Knowledge In Society," Hayek explained that information about supply and demand, scarcity and abundance, wants and needs exists in no single place in any economy. The economy is simply too large and complicated for such information to be gathered together.
Any economic planner who attempts to do so will wind up hopelessly uninformed and behind the times, reacting to economic changes in a clumsy, too-late fashion and then being forced to react again to fix the problems that the previous mistakes created, leading to new problems, and so on.
Market mechanisms, like pricing, do a better job than planners because they incorporate what everyone knows indirectly through signals like price, without central planning.
Thus, no matter how deceptively simple and appealing command economy programs are, they are sure to trip up their operators, because the operators can't possibly be smart enough to make them work.
Later on in the essay:
Hayek's insight into economics and regulation is often called "The Knowledge Problem," and it is a very powerful notion. But recent events suggest that it's not just the economy that regulators don't understand well enough -- it's also their own regulations.
This became apparent when various large businesses responded to the enactment of Obamacare by taking accounting steps to reflect tax changes brought about by the new health care legislation. The additional costs created by Obamacare, conveniently enough, weren't going to strike until later, after the November elections.
But both Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and Securities and Exchange Commission regulations require companies to account for these changes as soon as they learn about them. As the Atlantic's Megan McArdle wrote:
"What AT&T, Caterpillar, et al did was appropriate. It's earnings season, and they offered guidance about , um, their earnings."So once Obamacare passed, massive corporate write-downs were inevitable
And there's more:
Obamacare was supposed to provide unicorns and rainbows: How can it possibly be hurting companies and killing jobs? Surely there's some sort of Republican conspiracy going on here!
More like a confederacy of dunces. Waxman and his colleagues in Congress can't possibly understand the health care market well enough to fix it. But what's more striking is that Waxman's outraged reaction revealed that they don't even understand their own area of responsibility - regulation -- well enough to predict the effect of changes in legislation.
In drafting the Obamacare bill they tried to time things for maximum political advantage, only to be tripped up by the complexities of the regulatory environment they had already created. It's like a second-order Knowledge Problem.
Possibly this is simply because Waxman and his colleagues are dumb, and God knows there's plenty of evidence that Congress isn't a repository of rocket scientists. But it's just as likely that adding 30 or 40 IQ points to the average congressman wouldn't make much difference.
The United States Code -- containing federal statutory law -- is more than 50,000 pages long and comprises 40 volumes. The Code of Federal Regulations, which indexes administrative rules, is 161,117 pages long and composes 226volumes.
No one on Earth understands them all, and the potential interaction among all the different rules would choke a supercomputer. This means, of course, that when Congress changes the law, it not only can't be aware of all the real-world complications it's producing, it can't even understand the legal and regulatory implications of what it's doing
He continues:
The bad news is obvious: We're governed not just by people who do screw up constantly, but by people who can't help but screw up constantly. So long as the government is this large and overweening, no amount of effort at securing smarter people or "better" rules will do any good: Incompetence is built into the system.
The good news is less obvious, but just as important: While we rightly fear a too-powerful government, this regulatory knowledge problem will ensure plenty of public stumbles and embarrassments, helping to remind people that those who seek to rule us really don't know what they're doing.
If that doesn't encourage skepticism toward big government, it's hard to imagine what will.
I loved everything about this essay except the last sentence. As long as politicians are promising free healthcare, money, salvation, chickens in every pot, etc., there will be those who believe every word of it.
Go here to read the whole thing.
The contradiction pics came from here and here and here and here.
Economist Friedrich Hayek explained in 1945 why centrally controlled "command economies" were doomed to waste, inefficiency, and collapse: Insufficient knowledge. He won a Nobel Prize. But it turns out he was righter than he knew.
In his "The Use of Knowledge In Society," Hayek explained that information about supply and demand, scarcity and abundance, wants and needs exists in no single place in any economy. The economy is simply too large and complicated for such information to be gathered together.
Thus, no matter how deceptively simple and appealing command economy programs are, they are sure to trip up their operators, because the operators can't possibly be smart enough to make them work.
Later on in the essay:
This became apparent when various large businesses responded to the enactment of Obamacare by taking accounting steps to reflect tax changes brought about by the new health care legislation. The additional costs created by Obamacare, conveniently enough, weren't going to strike until later, after the November elections.
But both Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and Securities and Exchange Commission regulations require companies to account for these changes as soon as they learn about them. As the Atlantic's Megan McArdle wrote:
"What AT&T, Caterpillar, et al did was appropriate. It's earnings season, and they offered guidance about , um, their earnings."So once Obamacare passed, massive corporate write-downs were inevitable
And there's more:
Obamacare was supposed to provide unicorns and rainbows: How can it possibly be hurting companies and killing jobs? Surely there's some sort of Republican conspiracy going on here!
More like a confederacy of dunces. Waxman and his colleagues in Congress can't possibly understand the health care market well enough to fix it. But what's more striking is that Waxman's outraged reaction revealed that they don't even understand their own area of responsibility - regulation -- well enough to predict the effect of changes in legislation.
Possibly this is simply because Waxman and his colleagues are dumb, and God knows there's plenty of evidence that Congress isn't a repository of rocket scientists. But it's just as likely that adding 30 or 40 IQ points to the average congressman wouldn't make much difference.
The United States Code -- containing federal statutory law -- is more than 50,000 pages long and comprises 40 volumes. The Code of Federal Regulations, which indexes administrative rules, is 161,117 pages long and composes 226volumes.
No one on Earth understands them all, and the potential interaction among all the different rules would choke a supercomputer. This means, of course, that when Congress changes the law, it not only can't be aware of all the real-world complications it's producing, it can't even understand the legal and regulatory implications of what it's doing
He continues:
The bad news is obvious: We're governed not just by people who do screw up constantly, but by people who can't help but screw up constantly. So long as the government is this large and overweening, no amount of effort at securing smarter people or "better" rules will do any good: Incompetence is built into the system.
If that doesn't encourage skepticism toward big government, it's hard to imagine what will.
I loved everything about this essay except the last sentence. As long as politicians are promising free healthcare, money, salvation, chickens in every pot, etc., there will be those who believe every word of it.
Go here to read the whole thing.
The contradiction pics came from here and here and here and here.
Two Days Down, Five Days To Go
Two Days Down, Five Days To Go.
Could Wednesday be next ?
End it, don't mend it. Privatize that sucker !
The cool logo came from here.
Could Wednesday be next ?
End it, don't mend it. Privatize that sucker !
The cool logo came from here.
Saturday, April 3, 2010
Dr. Jack Cassell: If you voted for Obama, change for you begins now, not in four years
Wow. Now it's getting personal.
From Hot Air:
One doctor has decided to make his opposition to ObamaCare as public as possible. Dr. Jack Cassell put a sign on his door telling patients who supported the health-care overhaul bill to find another urologist. He’s also stocking his waiting room with information on the problems in ObamaCare — and so far, most of his patients have agreed with him:
“I’m not turning anybody away — that would be unethical,” Dr. Jack Cassell, 56, a Mount Dora urologist and a registered Republican opposed to the health plan, told the Orlando Sentinel on Thursday. “But if they read the sign and turn the other way, so be it.”
Shouldn't everyone just chill out about Obamacare? After all, he rigged it where it doesn't kick in for another four years, after the next presidential election. That's a long way off. And Congress, and unions, and government employees, and congressional staffers, they all have special exemptions. So what is this urologist so....pissed off about?
From Hot Air:
One doctor has decided to make his opposition to ObamaCare as public as possible. Dr. Jack Cassell put a sign on his door telling patients who supported the health-care overhaul bill to find another urologist. He’s also stocking his waiting room with information on the problems in ObamaCare — and so far, most of his patients have agreed with him:
“I’m not turning anybody away — that would be unethical,” Dr. Jack Cassell, 56, a Mount Dora urologist and a registered Republican opposed to the health plan, told the Orlando Sentinel on Thursday. “But if they read the sign and turn the other way, so be it.”
Shouldn't everyone just chill out about Obamacare? After all, he rigged it where it doesn't kick in for another four years, after the next presidential election. That's a long way off. And Congress, and unions, and government employees, and congressional staffers, they all have special exemptions. So what is this urologist so....pissed off about?
PANIC PANIC PANIC PANIC
PANIC ! PANIC ! PANIC !
ABOUT A MONTH AGO, I "MONETIZED" THIS WEBSITE, MEANING THAT I ALLOWED GOOGLE TO POST SOME ADS HERE.
THIS MEANS THAT EVERY MONTH I'LL MAKE ENOUGH MONEY TO BUY COFFEE FOR ONE DAY.
I SWEAR ON A STACK OF BIBLES (KING JAMES VERSION) THAT I HAVE NO CONTROL OVER WHAT ADS APPEAR HERE.
THE AD THAT JUST CAME UP ON YOUR RIGHT, AS OF SATURDAY, APRIL 3RD, WAS AN AD WITH AN EAGLE ON TOP, INVITING READERS TO "LEARN HOW TO JOIN THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE".
DO NOT HIT THAT AD. DON'T DO IT.
UNTIL THE CURRENT MESSIAH TOOK POWER, REPUBLICANS SPENT MORE THAN DEMOCRATS.
DO NOT CLICK ON THAT AD.
YOUR COMPUTER WILL GET VIRUSES AND YOU'LL BE SPAMMED THE REST OF YOUR LIFE.
YOUR COMPUTER WILL BE REGISTERED IN A FEDERAL DATABASE OF PEDOPHILES.
Plus, Republicans are not going to repeal Obamacare.
I apologize for that offensive advertisement on this otherwise charming website.
ABOUT A MONTH AGO, I "MONETIZED" THIS WEBSITE, MEANING THAT I ALLOWED GOOGLE TO POST SOME ADS HERE.
THIS MEANS THAT EVERY MONTH I'LL MAKE ENOUGH MONEY TO BUY COFFEE FOR ONE DAY.
I SWEAR ON A STACK OF BIBLES (KING JAMES VERSION) THAT I HAVE NO CONTROL OVER WHAT ADS APPEAR HERE.
THE AD THAT JUST CAME UP ON YOUR RIGHT, AS OF SATURDAY, APRIL 3RD, WAS AN AD WITH AN EAGLE ON TOP, INVITING READERS TO "LEARN HOW TO JOIN THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE".
DO NOT HIT THAT AD. DON'T DO IT.
UNTIL THE CURRENT MESSIAH TOOK POWER, REPUBLICANS SPENT MORE THAN DEMOCRATS.
DO NOT CLICK ON THAT AD.
YOUR COMPUTER WILL GET VIRUSES AND YOU'LL BE SPAMMED THE REST OF YOUR LIFE.
YOUR COMPUTER WILL BE REGISTERED IN A FEDERAL DATABASE OF PEDOPHILES.
Plus, Republicans are not going to repeal Obamacare.
I apologize for that offensive advertisement on this otherwise charming website.
Jesus tries to make a triumphal entry into Jerusalem. Without a permit.
For the last 6 months, I've been putting my theological training to work by re-examining our deeply flawed Bible translations. Hit this link for a few examples.
Since it is almost Easter, I thought I would translate part of the Gospel Of Mark, Chapter 11, where Jesus makes his triumphal entry into Jerusalem.
1. As they approached Jerusalem and came to Bethphage and Bethany at the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two of his disciples,
2. ....saying to them, "Go to the village ahead of you, and just as you enter it, you will find an ass and a colt tied there, which no one has ever ridden. Untie them and bring them here.
3. If anyone asks you, 'Why are you doing this?' tell him, 'The Lord needs them and will send them back here shortly.' "
4. They went and found an ass and a colt outside in the street, tied at a doorway. As they untied them,
5. .....some people standing there asked, "What are you doing, untying those animals?"
6. They answered as Jesus had told them to, and the people let them go.
7. When they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their cloaks over it, he sat on it.
8. Many people spread their cloaks on the road, while others spread branches they had cut in the fields.
9. Those who went ahead and those who followed shouted, "Hosanna!" "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!"
10. "Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David!" "Hosanna in the highest!"
11. Jesus entered Jerusalem and went to the temple.
12. And then the City Council Of Jerusalem approached him, asking, "Why, Lord, did you not apply for a parade permit? Where was your protective Roman Legion, required to block traffic at major intersections, as per Caesar's statute CDH-30978?"
13. Then the Lord answered him with a parable, saying "In a far country, there was a man who...." but the Lord was interrupted by a woman afflicted with a demon.
14. "Who do you think you are?" said the woman. "A man of your weight riding that young colt ! You are a species-centric monster ! For you disregard the rights of animals, casting demons into herds of swine, and who knows what else."
15. And the Lord began to answer her, saying "Away from me, vile spirit ! I shall name thee PETA, and upon this crock I shall build my...."
16. But before he could continue, a small man approached Jesus, saying "Lord, Lord, did you prepare an environmental impact statement before allowing palm branches to be strewn about the streets of Jerusalem?"
17. And the city officials of Jerusalem turned Jesus over to the Romans, who forced the Lord to complete administrative paperwork and travel about the city for permits for the rest of his days.
18. And many years later, as he died, Jesus let forth a loud cry, saying "Father forgive them, even though they have no idea what they're doing."
Pics came from here and here and here and here.
Since it is almost Easter, I thought I would translate part of the Gospel Of Mark, Chapter 11, where Jesus makes his triumphal entry into Jerusalem.
2. ....saying to them, "Go to the village ahead of you, and just as you enter it, you will find an ass and a colt tied there, which no one has ever ridden. Untie them and bring them here.
4. They went and found an ass and a colt outside in the street, tied at a doorway. As they untied them,
5. .....some people standing there asked, "What are you doing, untying those animals?"
6. They answered as Jesus had told them to, and the people let them go.
7. When they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their cloaks over it, he sat on it.
8. Many people spread their cloaks on the road, while others spread branches they had cut in the fields.
9. Those who went ahead and those who followed shouted, "Hosanna!" "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!"
11. Jesus entered Jerusalem and went to the temple.
12. And then the City Council Of Jerusalem approached him, asking, "Why, Lord, did you not apply for a parade permit? Where was your protective Roman Legion, required to block traffic at major intersections, as per Caesar's statute CDH-30978?"
13. Then the Lord answered him with a parable, saying "In a far country, there was a man who...." but the Lord was interrupted by a woman afflicted with a demon.
14. "Who do you think you are?" said the woman. "A man of your weight riding that young colt ! You are a species-centric monster ! For you disregard the rights of animals, casting demons into herds of swine, and who knows what else."
15. And the Lord began to answer her, saying "Away from me, vile spirit ! I shall name thee PETA, and upon this crock I shall build my...."
16. But before he could continue, a small man approached Jesus, saying "Lord, Lord, did you prepare an environmental impact statement before allowing palm branches to be strewn about the streets of Jerusalem?"
17. And the city officials of Jerusalem turned Jesus over to the Romans, who forced the Lord to complete administrative paperwork and travel about the city for permits for the rest of his days.
Pics came from here and here and here and here.
Barack W. Bush as compared to George Hussein Obama
Long-time Libertarian Party leader Wes Benedict and his staff came up with this gem. It's part of a flyer to take to just about any political gathering - peace walk, Tea Party, NORML rally, anti-war protest, 2nd amendment rally, or 9-12 parade.
Go here for a look at the complete PDF.
The best part of the flyer? Here are the worst disasters of the Barack W. Bush administration, as compared to those of the George Hussein Obama era. Compare each number from the Demoblican period to its counterpart in the earlier Republicrat regime:
Top 10 disasters of the 2009 Obama administration (in no particular order):
1. Cash for Clunkers
2. War escalation in Afghanistan
3. Giant government health care expansion bill
4. Post office loses money hand over fist
5. Stimulus package
6. Expansion of "state secrets" doctrine
7. Big increase in unemployment
8. "Bailout" Geithner as Treasury Secretary
9. Skyrocketing federal spending
10. Huge federal deficits
Top 10 disasters of the 2001-2008 Bush administration:
1. Cash for Car Companies
2. War in Iraq
3. Giant Medicare expansion bill
4. Post office loses money hand over fist
5. Stimulus "rebate" checks
6. PATRIOT Act
7. Big increase in unemployment
8. "Bailout" Paulson as Treasury Secretary
9. Skyrocketing federal spending
10. Huge federal deficits
Go here for a look at the complete PDF.
The best part of the flyer? Here are the worst disasters of the Barack W. Bush administration, as compared to those of the George Hussein Obama era. Compare each number from the Demoblican period to its counterpart in the earlier Republicrat regime:
Top 10 disasters of the 2009 Obama administration (in no particular order):
1. Cash for Clunkers
2. War escalation in Afghanistan
3. Giant government health care expansion bill
4. Post office loses money hand over fist
5. Stimulus package
6. Expansion of "state secrets" doctrine
7. Big increase in unemployment
8. "Bailout" Geithner as Treasury Secretary
9. Skyrocketing federal spending
10. Huge federal deficits
Top 10 disasters of the 2001-2008 Bush administration:
1. Cash for Car Companies
2. War in Iraq
3. Giant Medicare expansion bill
4. Post office loses money hand over fist
5. Stimulus "rebate" checks
6. PATRIOT Act
7. Big increase in unemployment
8. "Bailout" Paulson as Treasury Secretary
9. Skyrocketing federal spending
10. Huge federal deficits
Friday, April 2, 2010
Satan is behind the media attacks on the Pope
From the Catholic News Agency. This did not come from The Onion, National Lampoon, or some other parody site. It came from the Catholic News Agency, in the year 2010, about 300 years after Isaac Newton came up with the Laws Of Motion and 40 years after we put a man on the moon. We stopped treating people for demonic possession about 250 years ago, and I think we're better people for it.
Rome, Italy, Mar 31, 2010 / 11:47 am (CNA).- Noted Italian exorcist Father Gabriele Amorth, commented this week that the recent defamatory reporting on Pope Benedict XVI, especially by the New York Times, was “prompted by the devil.”
That would explain soooo many things about The New York Times, wouldn't it?
Speaking to News Mediaset in Italy, the 85-year-old exorcist noted that the devil is behind “the recent attacks on Pope Benedict XVI regarding some pedophilia cases.”
The devil is not behind the attacks. Priests got behind some 12-year-olds. The Pope got behind the cover-up. There's your problem, Gabriele.
“There is no doubt about it. Because he is a marvelous Pope and worthy successor to John Paul II, it is clear that the devil wants to ‘grab hold’ of him.”
I'm not going to make any bad jokes about priests who "grab hold" hold of little boys. But think of how many centuries this has been going on, and what happened when kids complained about things like this in the past.
Father Amorth added that in instances of sexual abuse committed by some members of the clergy, the devil “uses” priests in order to cast blame upon the entire Church: “The devil wants the death of the Church because she is the mother of all the saints.”
Well, when an organization demands both celibacy and chastity from its all-male leadership, what do they expect? Seriously, can there ever be good results from that policy (which, as far as I can tell, was a fairly late development in the Catholic Church)? Has it ever been different than this? Was there ever a Golden Age of priestly good conduct?
“He combats the Church through the men of the Church, but he can do nothing to the Church.”
The exorcist went on to note that Satan tempts holy men, “and so we should not be surprised if priests too … fall into temptation. They also live in the world and can fall like men of the world.”
Ditto for Presidents, Popes, City Councilmen, and Prime Ministers. Therefore, we should be wary of giving them any more power and control over our lives than absolutely necessary, right?
Rome, Italy, Mar 31, 2010 / 11:47 am (CNA).- Noted Italian exorcist Father Gabriele Amorth, commented this week that the recent defamatory reporting on Pope Benedict XVI, especially by the New York Times, was “prompted by the devil.”
That would explain soooo many things about The New York Times, wouldn't it?
Speaking to News Mediaset in Italy, the 85-year-old exorcist noted that the devil is behind “the recent attacks on Pope Benedict XVI regarding some pedophilia cases.”
The devil is not behind the attacks. Priests got behind some 12-year-olds. The Pope got behind the cover-up. There's your problem, Gabriele.
“There is no doubt about it. Because he is a marvelous Pope and worthy successor to John Paul II, it is clear that the devil wants to ‘grab hold’ of him.”
I'm not going to make any bad jokes about priests who "grab hold" hold of little boys. But think of how many centuries this has been going on, and what happened when kids complained about things like this in the past.
Father Amorth added that in instances of sexual abuse committed by some members of the clergy, the devil “uses” priests in order to cast blame upon the entire Church: “The devil wants the death of the Church because she is the mother of all the saints.”
Well, when an organization demands both celibacy and chastity from its all-male leadership, what do they expect? Seriously, can there ever be good results from that policy (which, as far as I can tell, was a fairly late development in the Catholic Church)? Has it ever been different than this? Was there ever a Golden Age of priestly good conduct?
“He combats the Church through the men of the Church, but he can do nothing to the Church.”
The exorcist went on to note that Satan tempts holy men, “and so we should not be surprised if priests too … fall into temptation. They also live in the world and can fall like men of the world.”
Ditto for Presidents, Popes, City Councilmen, and Prime Ministers. Therefore, we should be wary of giving them any more power and control over our lives than absolutely necessary, right?
The Republicans Won't Repeal Obamacare
Republicans
Won't
Repeal
Obamacare.
Get used to it. The Demoblicans and Republicrats are two sides of the same coin. Hit the links above. Your only hope is to vote for 2nd Party candidates.
The Libertarian Party, the only 2nd Party with ballot access, awaits your vote. We'll kill the bill for you.
Is there any way anybody could read those links up top, and still think a vote for Libertarians instead of Republicrats is a "wasted" vote?
The Greatness of Cafe Hayek
George Mason University economics professor Don Boudreaux of Cafe Hayek has been in rare form lately.
First he talks about a semi-debate he had with "An Unfair Trader". I think Boudreaux had a (very) brief appearance on the Lou Dobbs Protectionist Parade Program, but was cut off before he could make this argument:
Dobbs argued that trade is free only if both parties deal with each other on equal terms — so that, for example, America’s trade with China can never be free unless and until Beijing removes all trade restrictions and stops all subsidies (or, at least, restricts and subsidizes Chinese trade no more than Uncle Sam restricts and subsidizes American trade).
I (and June and Tom) argued that, as good as it would be for Americans and, especially, the Chinese for Beijing to remove such restrictions and to halt all such subsidies, free trade for Americans would be achieved if Uncle Sam abolished all of his trade restrictions and subsidies, regardless of what any other government does.
Dobbs thought that this argument was simply hilarious.
I wanted to ask him (but did not get the opportunity) the following question:
Don Boudreaux: “Mr. Dobbs. Will you buy my shoes – the ones now on my feet. I’ll sell them to you for $100 – a more-than-fair price.”
I imagine that the ensuing conversation would have gone something like this:
Lou Dobbs: “What? What are you talking about? Of course I won’t buy your shoes.”
DB: “Why not? I bought (and read) your book, Exporting America.”
LD: “So….??”
DB: “So you said that trade isn’t free unless both parties are equally willing to buy from the other – and that if party A isn’t willing to buy from party B, then party B harms himself by continuing nevertheless to buy from A.”
LD: “So…..??”
DB: “Stick with me, amigo. I bought something from you. You’ve bought nothing from me – even though I’m here making a sincere offer to sell my shoes to you. You refuse to buy them. Trade, therefore, isn’t free. So clearly I should not have purchased your book; clearly I made myself worse off; clearly you are behaving unfairly.”
LD: ?????
Here's an excerpt from another post where Boudreax tries to make a $5,000.00 bet with White House Budget Manipulater Peter Orszag and then with White House Sickness Socialst Nancy-Ann DeParle about the true cost of the Healthcare Abortion. It's called Spend Your Own Money For A Change:
Based on past performance, I'd say that the Boudreaux money is safe, since government bean-counters couldn't properly estimate the cost of Happy Meals while waiting in the McDonald's drive-through. See: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Iraq, Afghanistan, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, toilet seats, screwdrivers, etc.
Next he links to this great quote from Megan McArdle:
And I’ve watched congressional hearings. There’s no chance that four CEO’s are going to explain the accounting code to the fine folks in Congress; explaining how to boil water would challenge the format.
And last, Dr. B. gives us a video on Frederic Bastiat's "Broken Windows" In addition to being a short little intro to Broken Windows and Things Seen And Unseen, it also proves that Paul Krugman is a silly person.
That's all for today. Skip me altogether, and READ CAFE HAYEK EVERY DAY ! ! !
First he talks about a semi-debate he had with "An Unfair Trader". I think Boudreaux had a (very) brief appearance on the Lou Dobbs Protectionist Parade Program, but was cut off before he could make this argument:
Dobbs argued that trade is free only if both parties deal with each other on equal terms — so that, for example, America’s trade with China can never be free unless and until Beijing removes all trade restrictions and stops all subsidies (or, at least, restricts and subsidizes Chinese trade no more than Uncle Sam restricts and subsidizes American trade).
I (and June and Tom) argued that, as good as it would be for Americans and, especially, the Chinese for Beijing to remove such restrictions and to halt all such subsidies, free trade for Americans would be achieved if Uncle Sam abolished all of his trade restrictions and subsidies, regardless of what any other government does.
Dobbs thought that this argument was simply hilarious.
I wanted to ask him (but did not get the opportunity) the following question:
Don Boudreaux: “Mr. Dobbs. Will you buy my shoes – the ones now on my feet. I’ll sell them to you for $100 – a more-than-fair price.”
I imagine that the ensuing conversation would have gone something like this:
Lou Dobbs: “What? What are you talking about? Of course I won’t buy your shoes.”
DB: “Why not? I bought (and read) your book, Exporting America.”
LD: “So….??”
DB: “So you said that trade isn’t free unless both parties are equally willing to buy from the other – and that if party A isn’t willing to buy from party B, then party B harms himself by continuing nevertheless to buy from A.”
LD: “So…..??”
DB: “Stick with me, amigo. I bought something from you. You’ve bought nothing from me – even though I’m here making a sincere offer to sell my shoes to you. You refuse to buy them. Trade, therefore, isn’t free. So clearly I should not have purchased your book; clearly I made myself worse off; clearly you are behaving unfairly.”
LD: ?????
Here's an excerpt from another post where Boudreax tries to make a $5,000.00 bet with White House Budget Manipulater Peter Orszag and then with White House Sickness Socialst Nancy-Ann DeParle about the true cost of the Healthcare Abortion. It's called Spend Your Own Money For A Change:
So I [Don Boudreaux] challenge you [Mr. Orszag and/or Ms. DeParle] to put your money where your words are. Let’s make a real bet.
Pick any year in the future between 2021 and 2046. Tell me your estimate today of how much Uncle Sam will spend on health care that year. I’ll bet each of you $5,000 that Uncle Sam’s actual expenditures on health care in that year — adjusted for inflation — will be at least 25 percent higher than your estimate.
If Uncle Sam’s health care expenditures in that year are less than 25 percent higher than you project them to be, I’ll congratulate you as I mail you your checks. If those expenditures are 25 percent higher than you project them to be — or more — I’ll contribute my winnings to a private health-care charity, as I predict that the need for philanthropic contributions along those lines will be great.
Do we have a bet?
Based on past performance, I'd say that the Boudreaux money is safe, since government bean-counters couldn't properly estimate the cost of Happy Meals while waiting in the McDonald's drive-through. See: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Iraq, Afghanistan, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, toilet seats, screwdrivers, etc.
Next he links to this great quote from Megan McArdle:
And I’ve watched congressional hearings. There’s no chance that four CEO’s are going to explain the accounting code to the fine folks in Congress; explaining how to boil water would challenge the format.
And last, Dr. B. gives us a video on Frederic Bastiat's "Broken Windows" In addition to being a short little intro to Broken Windows and Things Seen And Unseen, it also proves that Paul Krugman is a silly person.
That's all for today. Skip me altogether, and READ CAFE HAYEK EVERY DAY ! ! !
Thursday, April 1, 2010
On Chinese farmers, Plymouth pilgrims, and property rights.
“Any man worth his salt would fight for his home but only a damn fool would fight for his boarding house.”
-Mark Twain
Here's a story that I first heard in China several years ago. The best online account I've found is on the World Socialist Website (chuckle chuckle). It's about some Chinese farmers who got tired of starving.
On one night in Nov. 1978, 18 villagers of Xiaogang, including (leader) Yan Jinchang, risked their lives to sign secretly an agreement, which divided the then People's Commune-owned farmland into pieces for each family to cultivate.
This was a bold move, as it was seen as "capitalist" and might have led to severe punishment from the government at that time.
Thus, on that secret agreement covered with villagers' seals and red fingerprints, there was a wobbly line saying that "If any word about this is divulged and the team leader is put in prison, other team members shall share the responsibility to bring up his child till he (or she) is 18. "
The original copy of this agreement is now in a museum someplace in China. It had a huge influence. Instead of farming the land together, and putting up with slackers, loafers, regulatory parasites and the other inevitable Socialist baggage, this brave group of Chinese farmers decided that each family would be responsible for a certain section of the land.
That clause about agreeing to care for each others' children was a simple insurance policy. To the best of my knowledge, none of the farmers agreed to care for the families of those who didn't share their risks. In other words, you couldn't waltz into the agreement AFTER losing your head of household. There's not even a hint of Obamacare in this document.
The facts proved that it's worthwhile to take the adventure. Allocating farmland to each household, also known as "household contract responsibility system", fired the locals' enthusiasm for agriculture production, which had been contained in the outmoded planned economy, and helped poverty-stricken locals out of starvation.
That's just what happened when they agreed to stop the collectivist nonsense. Think of what could happen if they'd been allowed to own the land, instead of having it allocated to them by their "leaders".
The grains that a local farmer turned over to the state in the following year almost totaled what he did in past two decades, recalled Yan Hongchang, one of the 18 Xiaogang villagers who initiated the contract system.
Their practice was later supported by Deng Xiaoping, chief architect of China's reform and opening-up drive, and recognized by the Chinese government. Xiaogang has since been labeled as the pace-setter of the nation's rural reform.
Here's a similar story, from the Volokh Conspiracy. This one hits closer to home.
Many people believe that after suffering through a severe winter, the Pilgrims’ food shortages were resolved the following spring when the Native Americans taught them to plant corn and a Thanksgiving celebration resulted. In fact, the pilgrims continued to face chronic food shortages for three years until the harvest of 1623. Bad weather or lack of farming knowledge did not cause the pilgrims’ shortages. Bad economic incentives did.
Time to quote Thomas Sowell for the 10,000th time. Laws and policies should never be evaluated by their stated goals and objectives, but by the incentives they create.
In 1620 Plymouth Plantation was founded with a system of communal property rights. Food and supplies were held in common and then distributed based on equality and need as determined by Plantation officials.
Like we're about to do with healthcare.
People received the same rations whether or not they contributed to producing the food, and residents were forbidden from producing their own food. Governor William Bradford, in his 1647 history, Of Plymouth Plantation, wrote that this system was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. The problem was that young men, that were most able and fit for labour, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense. Because of the poor incentives, little food was produced.
In other words, when the hardest-working, most creative Pilgrims realized that they were working themselves to death for people who didn't want to work as hard? They started Going Galt.
Faced with potential starvation in the spring of 1623, the colony decided to implement a new economic system. Every family was assigned a private parcel of land. They could then keep all they grew for themselves, but now they alone were responsible for feeding themselves. While not a complete private property system, the move away from communal ownership had dramatic results.
This change, Bradford wrote, had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been. Giving people economic incentives changed their behavior. Once the new system of property rights was in place, the women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability.
Once the Pilgrims in the Plymouth Plantation abandoned their communal economic system and adopted one with greater individual property rights, they never again faced the starvation and food shortages of the first three years. It was only after allowing greater property rights that they could feast without worrying that famine was just around the corner.
And what have we learned from this?
Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
The Socialism Kills sign came from here.
The Pilgrims, from here.
-Mark Twain
Here's a story that I first heard in China several years ago. The best online account I've found is on the World Socialist Website (chuckle chuckle). It's about some Chinese farmers who got tired of starving.
On one night in Nov. 1978, 18 villagers of Xiaogang, including (leader) Yan Jinchang, risked their lives to sign secretly an agreement, which divided the then People's Commune-owned farmland into pieces for each family to cultivate.
This was a bold move, as it was seen as "capitalist" and might have led to severe punishment from the government at that time.
Thus, on that secret agreement covered with villagers' seals and red fingerprints, there was a wobbly line saying that "If any word about this is divulged and the team leader is put in prison, other team members shall share the responsibility to bring up his child till he (or she) is 18. "
The original copy of this agreement is now in a museum someplace in China. It had a huge influence. Instead of farming the land together, and putting up with slackers, loafers, regulatory parasites and the other inevitable Socialist baggage, this brave group of Chinese farmers decided that each family would be responsible for a certain section of the land.
That clause about agreeing to care for each others' children was a simple insurance policy. To the best of my knowledge, none of the farmers agreed to care for the families of those who didn't share their risks. In other words, you couldn't waltz into the agreement AFTER losing your head of household. There's not even a hint of Obamacare in this document.
The facts proved that it's worthwhile to take the adventure. Allocating farmland to each household, also known as "household contract responsibility system", fired the locals' enthusiasm for agriculture production, which had been contained in the outmoded planned economy, and helped poverty-stricken locals out of starvation.
That's just what happened when they agreed to stop the collectivist nonsense. Think of what could happen if they'd been allowed to own the land, instead of having it allocated to them by their "leaders".
The grains that a local farmer turned over to the state in the following year almost totaled what he did in past two decades, recalled Yan Hongchang, one of the 18 Xiaogang villagers who initiated the contract system.
Their practice was later supported by Deng Xiaoping, chief architect of China's reform and opening-up drive, and recognized by the Chinese government. Xiaogang has since been labeled as the pace-setter of the nation's rural reform.
Here's a similar story, from the Volokh Conspiracy. This one hits closer to home.
Many people believe that after suffering through a severe winter, the Pilgrims’ food shortages were resolved the following spring when the Native Americans taught them to plant corn and a Thanksgiving celebration resulted. In fact, the pilgrims continued to face chronic food shortages for three years until the harvest of 1623. Bad weather or lack of farming knowledge did not cause the pilgrims’ shortages. Bad economic incentives did.
Time to quote Thomas Sowell for the 10,000th time. Laws and policies should never be evaluated by their stated goals and objectives, but by the incentives they create.
In 1620 Plymouth Plantation was founded with a system of communal property rights. Food and supplies were held in common and then distributed based on equality and need as determined by Plantation officials.
Like we're about to do with healthcare.
People received the same rations whether or not they contributed to producing the food, and residents were forbidden from producing their own food. Governor William Bradford, in his 1647 history, Of Plymouth Plantation, wrote that this system was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. The problem was that young men, that were most able and fit for labour, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense. Because of the poor incentives, little food was produced.
In other words, when the hardest-working, most creative Pilgrims realized that they were working themselves to death for people who didn't want to work as hard? They started Going Galt.
Faced with potential starvation in the spring of 1623, the colony decided to implement a new economic system. Every family was assigned a private parcel of land. They could then keep all they grew for themselves, but now they alone were responsible for feeding themselves. While not a complete private property system, the move away from communal ownership had dramatic results.
Once the Pilgrims in the Plymouth Plantation abandoned their communal economic system and adopted one with greater individual property rights, they never again faced the starvation and food shortages of the first three years. It was only after allowing greater property rights that they could feast without worrying that famine was just around the corner.
And what have we learned from this?
Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
The Socialism Kills sign came from here.
The Pilgrims, from here.
Congressman Hank Johson questions Admiral about Guam tipping over and capsizing
I found this on Denny's site.
Can you imagine how the admiral felt having to take questions from this dolt?
This is Congressman Hank Johnson of Georgia questioning Admiral Robert Willard, who runs our Pacific fleet.
No, this conversation didn't take place on April Fool's Day.
This is not a joke. I repeat, this is not a joke.
Congressman Johnson spends a mere 45 seconds proving that he can read a map. Then he gets to the good part.
Remember the floating islands of the movie Avatar?
Guam is apparently one of those, and is in danger of capsizing.
(If you don't have 2:48 to devote to this, go to the 1:15 mark. But watch the whole thing, please. Especially if you vote.)
Remember, this man is now in charge of your healthcare decisions. You're paying him $174,000.00 per year, plus expenses.
For the rest of the day, don't huddle together in large groups. You might cause us to tip over and capsize.
Can you imagine how the admiral felt having to take questions from this dolt?
This is Congressman Hank Johnson of Georgia questioning Admiral Robert Willard, who runs our Pacific fleet.
No, this conversation didn't take place on April Fool's Day.
This is not a joke. I repeat, this is not a joke.
Congressman Johnson spends a mere 45 seconds proving that he can read a map. Then he gets to the good part.
Remember the floating islands of the movie Avatar?
Guam is apparently one of those, and is in danger of capsizing.
(If you don't have 2:48 to devote to this, go to the 1:15 mark. But watch the whole thing, please. Especially if you vote.)
Remember, this man is now in charge of your healthcare decisions. You're paying him $174,000.00 per year, plus expenses.
For the rest of the day, don't huddle together in large groups. You might cause us to tip over and capsize.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)