The New York Times Should Raise Its Price By 50% Between Now And 2016

How do you get people to purchase more of something?  According to the New York Holy Times, you raise the price. 

How do you make yourself more attractive to employers?  Keep raising your requested wage until someone says "I'll hire you". 

How do you increase employment?  According to the New York Holy Times, you put an added burden on people who purchase labor. 

Good God in heaven.....

Go here.  They've come out with another editorial demanding that the minimum wage be increased by some random amount yet to be determined. 

HOW HIGH SHOULD IT BE? There’s no perfect way to set the minimum wage, but the most important benchmarks — purchasing power, wage growth and productivity growth — demonstrate that the current $7.25 an hour is far too low. They also show that the proposed increase to $10.10 by 2016 is too modest.

You're damn right, there's no perfect way.  There is no way. 

I want to be paid as much as possible for my labor.  Employers want to pay as little as possible.  That varies from person to person, industry to industry, and enterprise to enterprise.  And the last humans on earth that I would want to determine that rate?  The New York Holy Times Editorial Board, Barack Obama, and the U.S. Congress.  The "perfect" rate will be determined by political considerations, not economic ones. 

I'm not going to rant about the racist origins of minimum wage legislation.  (Google the Davis-Bacon Acts.) 

I'm not going to rant about the obvious fact that if your skills aren't worth $10.10 per hour, it'll be illegal for you to work. 

I'm just going to ask the New York Times to raise it's price by 50% between now and 2016.  It will help sales.  600 economists have said so. 

One last thing.....

One of the favorite talking points that these guys like to trot out goes like this....   "If wages had kept pace with productivity, workers would be earning 43.07% more per hour."

Here's their chart.

That's probably an accurate chart. 

The other chart, the one they don't show, reveals that the iPhone in the typical minimum wageworker's pocket, would have cost 3.1 MILLION dollars in 1991. 

Is there anyone who thinks that the world would be better if cell phone prices were in line with worker productivity? 

200 years ago, something like 98% of us had to work on farms.  Food was a massive percentage of everyone's budget.  Do you with that your food costs reflect the increase in worker productivity, just out of fairness? 

God, they make me crazy. 

 

Eric Holthaus vows to stop flying, have no more children, all because of the weather.

I hearby nominate meteorologist Eric Holthaus for a Darwin Award.
 (The Darwin Awards are given to those who remove themselves from the gene pool, sometimes via accidental death by dumbness, thereby ensuring survival of the fittest.) 

Weatherman Eric Holthaus has taken a look at the U.N.'s Climate Change report and vowed to stop flying. 
Actually, that's not the way our friends on the Left speak. 

"I'm committing right now to stop flying."  he Tweeted.  "It's not worth the (harm to the) climate."  

These guys don't vow or promise to do anything.  They're like a trendy restaurant, and are "committed to a smoke-free environment".  Or "committed to ensuring diversity".  They're not promising.  They're just committed to the idea.   

He's also going to get a vasectomy so that no more offspring of his will warm the planet.  This, of course, has prompted numerous wags to suggest that the entire liberal tribe (in the American sense of the word) go therefore and do likewise. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2436551/A-weatherman-breaks-tears-vows-NEVER-fly-grim-climate-change-report.html#ixzz2gC04tmH

I did my part by going to Mr. Holthaus's Facebook page and wagering that he can't stick to his no-fly resolution for five years.  (He's a Wall Street Journal weatherman who flies to conferences and meetings and seminars and crap.  He'll no more stay grounded than Al Gore.)  

As far as the vasectomy goes, that's no one's business but his.  The gene pool does have a way of policing itself, right?  Seriously.  Eric knows how accurate TOMORROW'S weather report is.  He's going to end his branch of the family tree because of something printed by the freakin' United Nations???  A Darwin Award is in order. 

A Climate Change Parable

I was reading some silliness about Global Cooling or Global Warming or  Climate Change on The Guardian's website, and came upon this little parable by someone named CloutPerson.  It beautifully captures why there are so many skeptics and denialists remaining in the reality-based community.

(Another reason for our skepticism is that we all own thermometers.  Read the article in the link.  The author is distressed and bothered because the thermometers aren't agreeing with the theories.) 

Enjoy.  I've changed a few of CloutPerson's obscure British references to equally obscure Texas references, and I've thrown in some helpful pics at the end. 

Here's Mr. CloutPerson's parable.   

I was engaged in my favourite hobby of jumping up and down the other day, when a fellow up-and-down jumper sidled up alongside me and said "Do you realise that jumping up and down will cause the ground to collapse? If we don't stop jumping up and down we'll all fall into an enormous chasm and be killed."

"Really?" I answered. "In that case why are you still jumping up and down?"

"Didn't you hear what I said?" he hissed. "It's known as ground-collapse theory - GCT for short!"

"I heard you very well," I answered. "But you haven't answered my question. I'm still curious as to why you keep jumping up and down if it is going to cause the ground to collapse."

"You fool!" he spluttered. "Don't you realise that 95% of scientists are convinced that GCT is real!"

He pointed. "Look!" I followed his finger, and saw a large group of people. By their appearance you could tell that they were all eminent scientists.  They were wearing white lab coats and were jumping up and down with thick academic studies that proved that jumping up and down was going to cause the ground to collapse.  And yet all of them were jumping up and down with varying degrees of vigor.

"You still haven't answered my question," I said. "Surely if all these eminent scientists are convinced that GCT is real, they would stop jumping up and down."

"Idiot!" he spat out the word. "Stupid, blinkered, denialist!"

"Actually, you still haven't answered my question," I responded mildly. "If I was as convinced of the reality of GCT as you seem to be, and I wanted everybody to stop jumping up and down, then I'd probably stop jumping up and down myself first. Otherwise my argument might seem rather less than compelling -"

"SHUT UP!" he interrupted me with an apoplectic scream, his face contorted with rage and hatred. "It should be a CRIMINAL OFFENCE to deny the reality of Ground Collapse Theory! You're worse than a MURDERER! You should be in JAIL along with all the other RACIST SWIVEL-EYED DAILY HEIL READING NAZI UKIP FACISTS!"

(UKIP is the United Kingdom Independence Party - Libertarian, non-racist, limited government - all the usual insults.  I think the Daily Heil is a reference to London's Daily Mail.  Somebody on that side of the pond, please help us out in the comment field....) 

And with these final words he took his leave, frothing and purple.

"But why are you still jumping up and down?" I called after his disappearing form....

Good stuff, right? 
Earlier this weekend, our Secretary Of State, John Kerry, put on one of his longest of long faces and declared that Climate Change "science" is clear.

"It is irrefutable and it is alarming," Kerry told a climate conference in Majuro in the Marshall Islands in a video address from Washington.
"If we continue down our current path, the impacts of climate change will only get worse."

Here are pics of John Kerry's houses, getaways, beach cottages, mansions, townhouses, and cabins.  If John Kerry wants anyone to believe his bullshit, he needs to stop jumping up and down.
 
Most of the pics came from here. 

This is the Kerry Karbon Footprint in Beacon Hill. 

 

Here's Kerry's small, sensible, ecologically sensible Georgetown residence

 

Fox Chapel, Pennsylvania.  A carbon footprint big enough to negate all the recycling you'll do for the rest of your life. 

 

The little beach cottage in Nantucket. 

 

The Ketchum, Idaho ski getaway

If you believe Kerry's Chicken Little-ism, or Al Gore's, by all means send them money.  Pay for factories to reconfigure to reduce emissions.  Give Gore and Kleiner-Perkins money to plant trees to offset your carbon footprint. I respect your right to be gullible. 

 

But please don't tell anyone that these guys believe a word they're saying.  In a world of people who are now afraid that the ground is going to collapse, they're the ones jumping up and down the hardest.  

ObamaCare Isn't Twerking !!

Here's something from the great Michael Ramirez, making reference to the recent unpleasantness of Miley Cyrus at the Music Video Awards presentation:

 

A strange endorsement from Don Wildmon

Here's a statement from the Faith Leaders Coalition, penned by Don Wildmon, of the Campaign for Decency:

Atlanta, GA - Gingrich Faith Leaders Coalition National Co-Chair Don Wildmon released this statement today:

Perhaps you have heard a rumor that I have changed my support from Newt Gingrich for President to another candidate. I want you to know that is not true. To suggest that I have switched my support is inaccurate.

Without question, this election is the most important in the history of our nation. Our culture has become saturated with corruption and immorality. I firmly believe the future not only of our nation but all of Western Civilization is at stake. Voters in South Carolina will help decide if we can return our nation to its Judeo-Christian roots, or continue to slide down the slippery slope?

In the past, Christian conservatives have split their votes among three or four candidates. This has allowed the moderate-liberal wing of the Republican Party to capture the nomination. It appears we might do the same thing again.

The only way to prevent this from happening is for evangelical Christians to stick together and vote for the same person. I have decided to support Newt Gingrich and I hope you will rally behind him. I believe that the former Speaker of the House is the best qualified electable conservative candidate to make the changes needed in Washington.

If conservatives split their vote three ways, then liberal-moderate candidate Romney is a cinch to win.

I fully realize there are other very good candidates in this race. But if you have not already made a decision, I hope that you will consider Newt. If we will vote as a bloc, we can defeat the moderate-liberals.

No one believes in Global Warming

No one believes in AGW.   Not according to Forbes:

Much was written about the most recent United Nations Climate Change Conference, which was held in Durban, South Africa November 28 through December 9 of this year. However, most commentators gave short shrift to the most important—in a sense, the only—outcome of the meeting. This was, of course, the agreement to hold yet another conference in yet another nice location (Qatar) about a year from now.

The Durban conference was the seventeenth conference of its kind. They have been held annually since 1995 in places such as Geneva (in July 1996) and Bali (in December 2007). Don’t hold your breath for one to be held in Newark, New Jersey, or Fargo, North Dakota.

Good one !  Even better...."I might believe that humans cause global warming when the next UN Climate Change Conference is held via SKYPE." 

The meeting in Durban provided an opportunity for Progressives to make their latest argument that ordinary people should surrender their freedom and hand all money and power over to unelected, unaccountable “experts” like, well, the people at the conference. This is, of course, in order to “save the planet” from “climate change”. (The issue that had for years been called “global warming” was rebranded as “climate change” when the most recent decade’s worth of data proved uncooperative.)

I'm glad other people are starting to Beat The Dead Horse of "warming" vs. "change".  It's been so lonely here, fighting that linguistics battle all alone for so many years....

First, let’s get the known and knowable facts out of the way. Is the climate changing? Yes. One feature of the manifested universe is the impermanence of all things. The climate has changed over time and will continue to change. Is the change good or bad? Like all change, it is both good and bad.

But, overall, is it good or bad? We can’t say. We don’t even have a conceptual framework that would allow us to answer that question, or even to adequately describe how the climate is changing. “Climate” is an abstraction, and all abstractions are untrue (or at least incomplete).

Is human activity causing the climate to change? We don’t know, and there is no way, even in principle, that we can know. It is difficult enough to determine the “what” of climate change. To determine the “why”, we would need to do controlled experiments. And, for this, we would need another planet, identical in every way to our own earth, which we could use as a “control”.

But wait! Isn’t the science “settled”, thus making anyone who questions the climate change “consensus” an anti-intellectual Luddite? No. Nothing in science is ever settled.

This statement is pure, undiluted greatness:  Nothing in science is ever settled.  That's why it is called science and not theology.  "Settled Science" is a phrase created by someone's marketing department. 

“Science” consists of nothing but theories that have not yet been disproved by evidence, but which, in principle, could be so disproved. Even Einstein’s theory of relativity, which has been validated by thousands of experiments and measurements over almost a century, was recently called into question by experiments involving neutrinos that appeared to travel faster than light.

If something is “settled”, it is not science. It is religious dogma, and an assault upon freedom of thought and inquiry.

Yeah.  What he said.  And one of the signs of religious dogma is an effort to prevent people from looking into the origins and fundamental truth of the dogma.  Another is a casting out of heretics, say, shit-canning any editor willing to publish something skeptical of the dogma in a peer-reviewed journal.   Or being willing to accept his resignation when he is shown the tools of the Inquisition. 

But don’t the climate scientists’ computer models prove that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are causing climate change? No. First, no computer model can ever prove anything (see the definition of “science” given above). Second, we do not have the capability to model a system as complex as the earth.

The most any computer model can be is a useful tool. As it happens, all of the computer models that have been developed over the years by climate change proponents have already been invalidated by events that they did not accurately predict. For example, given the fast rising CO2 concentration in the earth’s atmosphere, global temperatures should have gone up much faster than they have over the past ten years. (And, it is not even clear that they have risen at all,)

But...but...but....THE EARTH IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE A FEVER !!!!

So, we don’t know what is really happening to the earth’s “climate”. Even if we did, we could not be sure why it was happening. And, we have no way of knowing whether the change was good or bad for mankind as a whole.

But what of the Progressives’ argument that, because the effects of climate change are potentially so disastrous, we should surrender our freedom and move to a centrally planned world economy managed by experts, “just in case”?

This is known in Voodo Circles as the "Precautionary Principle".  Just in case the planet really is warming, we should buy lots of carbon credits from Al Gore's companies, we should buy indulgences purchase the right to emit carbon through a cap and trade system, we should be required to purchase lots of machinery painted green, and insist that diesel tractors get 15 miles per gallon.  All of which would enrich the Warmists and their donors.  But still, we should be safe, right?  Just in case? 

Two points about this: first, it’s not going to happen. The Progressives will have to content themselves with extracting a few billion dollars per year from taxpayers to fund cushy “research” and “advocacy” jobs, and to hold climate change conferences like the one that just concluded in Durban. Second, the climate change advocates obviously don’t believe in climate change themselves.

My favorite proof is that the Warmists still drive cars, fly in planes, plug in computers, travel about from place to place, and use electricity.  This guy apparently has some other evidence:

You can’t necessarily tell what people are truly committed to from what they say. However, you can always tell what they are truly committed to by how they negotiate. If someone really wants to do something, they will react to a suggestion by engaging it. They will “work with” the suggestion, trying to see how it can help them do what they say they want to do. If someone says that they want to do something but they really have some other agenda, they will respond to a suggestion with an instant, “Yes, but…”

Like, when an employee asks to hop in his car and drive to another factory to pick up a wicket or a sprocket that he must have to prevent a shipment from being late.  I point out that he can rob a wicket or a sprocket from another unit.  Then he mentions some paperwork that need to go to the other factory.  I point out the scanner on my desk which is capable of sending the paperwork over.  Then he leaves in a huff and goes back to work.   
He just wanted to drive to the other factory.  Listen to the radio on the way.  Get out of the heat.  Flirt with the ladies at the other shop.  The wickets, sprockets, and paperwork were an excuse. 

The climate change crowd has been frantically “yes, butting” geoengineering, which involves using technology to control the climate directly. Their efforts in this regard would be hilarious if the stakes in terms of money and freedom were not so high.

It is obvious that even if “climate change” is happening, and even if it is a bad thing, it is not going to be reversed by reducing CO2 emissions. Despite decades of climate change conferences, protocols, and agreements, fossil fuel use has been rising rapidly as people all over the world have adopted free market economics as a way of escaping poverty. So, if anything at all is going to be done about climate change, it will have to be done by “geoengineering”.

Geoengineering is a far more logical response to “global warming” than are efforts to curb CO2 emissions. First of all, geoengineering does not require that our assumption that it is man-made CO2 emissions that are causing the problem be correct. It would work regardless of what was “really” causing global temperatures to rise. Second, there are geoengineering approaches that could cool the earth at a cost of a few billion dollars per year, rather than tens of trillions of dollars per year. And, third, geoengineering does not require that the people of the world surrender their personal and economic freedom.

You can hear them in the background now, can't you?  If we can change the earth's temperature at all, using nothing more than some water and a few miles of Wal-Mart water hose, how will we ever properly punish the capitalists?  How will we make money off non-warming scam?  And most important, how will we retain our incredibly annoying air of self-righteousness? 

Given that geoengineering has the potential to actually do something about the climate change “problem”, the reaction of the climate change crowd to it has been illuminating. They have gone all-out to stop geoengineering experiments from being conducted, and they are doing everything they can to prevent geoengineering from even being discussed.

You're damn right they're going to try to prevent it from being discussed.  Wouldn't you?  Especially if it meant no more trips to Copenhagen, Kyoto, Durban, Bali or even Newark, New Jersey?  They won't even have the money to go to the Motel 6 in Yazoo City.  Think of the downfall....

Climate change proponents recently mounted a desperate effort to stop an experiment in Britain designed to spray 40 gallons of pure water into the upper atmosphere (the so-called SPICE project). Thus far, they have managed to delay the test, and they are arguing that even if the experiment goes ahead, the results should not be made public.

We've been down this road before, with the "Hide the decline" emails from East Anglia U.  There are certain things that the peasants and serfs shouldn't be allowed to see.  Science gets rather unsettled afterwards. 

The Progressives are well aware that their opposition to geoengineering experiments exposes their entire game, which is all about money, power, and central-planning control of people’s lives, and has nothing to do with concern about the earth. Unfortunately (for them), they have no choice. Geoengineering solutions might actually work, but they do not require that Progressives be given taxpayer money to hold lavish conferences in lovely places like Durban, South Africa.

They really do fly to South Africa to discuss how to reduce carbon emissions.  I don't care who you are, you've gotta admit it.  That's funny. 

Bill Clinton thinks Climate Change Deniers make us look like a joke

From Politico:
Bill Clinton turned up the heat on the leading Republican presidential contenders Tuesday, saying their opposition to acknowledging climate change makes the country “look like a joke.”

“If you’re an American, the best thing you can do is to make it politically unacceptable for people to engage in denial” about climate change, the former president said on the first day of the Clinton Global Initiative’s seventh annual meeting in New York City.

“I mean, it makes us — we look like a joke, right?"

Here's the pic of Clinton addressing the Climage Change conference, which I assume he flew to on a green plane powered by green hamsters on recyled treadmills.  I remember the last time he wagged his finger like that, don't you?

Speaking of jokes, here's a U.N. map from about 10 years ago, showing all the places that were supposed to be underwater by now if we didn't give Clinton, Gore, the U.N. and Climate Scientists lots and lots of money.  And set up a carbon credit exchanges through one of Gore's companies.  And stayed home a lot more, unlike Clinton and Gore. 

This is a beautiful map.  I love it more than life itself.  Go here for the original post. 
Speaking of other jokes, here's Clinton's Vice-President, Al Gore, The Goracle Of Music City Tennessee, claiming that THE POLAR ICE CAPS WILL BE GONE BY 2013 if we don't give him and his venture capital firm, Kleiner Perkins, a whole lot of money.  Enjoy.  It's a real knee-slapper, but not as funny as the map.  This is from back in 2008.  Hit the link. 

Finally, here's a post about some crazed Brit named David Parker, at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Berkshire claiming that snow is going to be a thing of the past in England.  Hit the link.  He made this statement in 2000.  The pics of the snowstorms are from 2010, and are hilarious.  Funny, funny, stuff.  Some might even call them a joke.   

Becker, Krugman, and spending other people's money

Nobel Prize winning economist Gary Becker has some more to say about Warren Buffett's assertion that Warren Buffett is undertaxed.... (Buffett is currently in a dispute with the IRS about how much he owes in back taxes, BTW.) 

Warren Buffett has persuaded 68 other billionaires to follow his example and promise to give at least half their wealth to charities. But why hasn’t Buffett proposed also that the very rich make large gifts to the federal government to offset what he considers ridiculously low taxes on their incomes and wealth? My guess is that he and the others who pledged to give away their wealth to charity would have little confidence in how the government would spend such gifts. Buffett, for example, is giving most of his wealth to the Gates Foundation, not to the federal government, and is relying on how this foundation will spend his vast gift. Given this reluctance to make large gifts to the federal government, why should anyone have confidence that the federal government will spend additional tax revenue in a sensible way?

Go here to read Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman's assertion that we need to either print, borrow, or steal enough money to give the government so they can't crank out another stimulus package. 

Can anyone out there name a single instance of wisely spent stimulus money?  Anybody?  Anybody at all? 

Here's a highlight from Krugman's editorial:

Although you’d never know it listening to the ranters, the past year has actually been a pretty good test of the theory that slashing government spending actually creates jobs. The deficit obsession has blocked a much-needed second round of federal stimulus, and with stimulus spending, such as it was, fading out, we’re experiencing de facto fiscal austerity. State and local governments, in particular, faced with the loss of federal aid, have been sharply cutting many programs and have been laying off a lot of workers, mostly schoolteachers.

And somehow the private sector hasn’t responded to these layoffs by rejoicing at the sight of a shrinking government and embarking on a hiring spree.

O.K., I know what the usual suspects will say — namely, that fears of regulation and higher taxes are holding businesses back. But this is just a right-wing fantasy. Multiple surveys have shown that lack of demand — a lack that is being exacerbated by government cutbacks — is the overwhelming problem businesses face, with regulation and taxes barely even in the picture.

No, no, no, no, no.   The United States government is going to spend more this year than it did last year.  They're going to spend more in 2012 than in 2011.  They're going to print or borrow the money to do this. 

ObamaCare is not yet repealed. 

Card Check is not yet dead and buried. 

Our government has not yet taken the suggestions of The Libertarian Party, and gotten the hell out of the economy.  And our government is really, really crappy at intervening in the economy. 

That's enough to make the U.S. a crappy place to do business, or hire people. 

I'm betting that Paul Krugman has made some good investments in his day.  If Congress passes another stimulus package, someone should challenge Krugman to "invest" in the same companies that Pelosi/Boehner/Reid pick for stimulus spending. 

Seriously, can you imagine someone saying "My broker is Barack Obama...and when Barack Obama talks, people listen !"  (This is a 1980's reference.  Sorry for the obscurity.) 

A list of proposed regulations for households. Yours in particular.

Several posts ago, I commented on some of the insane legislative crap coming out of California.  The latest example being the potential requirement that babysitters get 15-minute breaks, meal breaks, workers comp, etc. etc. etc.   

I had often tried to use babysitters as an example of what would happen to hiring in the babysitting field if government got involved.  People would stop hiring babysitters.  I thought it was a totally ridiculous analogy, but of course, there's always California.  California wants to do all of the above, complete with forcing you to bring in a "substitute caregiver" to cover for Babysitter #1's smoke breaks. 

The Coyote Blogger has taken it to a new level.  What would happen if a household had to abide by ALL of the same arbitrary, for-your-own-good, batshit crazy rules that a business has to consider every day?  Would you consider running a household under these terms?  Here's The Coyote: 

I have decided this is exactly the kind of thing California needs. I am tired of average citizens passing crazy requirements on business without any concept of the costs and injustices they are proposing, and then scratch their head later wonder why job creation is stagnant.

I want to propose that California do MORE in this same vein. Here are some suggestions:

• Every household will have to register for a license to conduct any type of commerce, a license to occupy their house, and a license to hire any employees. Homeowner will as a minimum have to register to withhold income taxes, pay social security taxes, pay unemployment insurance, pay disability insurance, and pay workers comp insurance.
• Households should have to file a 1099 for every payment they make to contractors
• All requirements of Obamacare must be followed for any household labor, including payment of penalties for even part-time labor for which the homeowner does not provide medical insurance
• No alcohol may be purchased by any individual without first applying for and receiving a state liquor license
• No cigarettes may be purchased by any individual without first applying for and receiving a state cigarette license
• No over the counter drugs may be purchased by any individual without first applying for and receiving a state over the counter drug license
• No eggs may be purchased by any individual without first applying for and receiving a state egg license
• Any injuries of any type in the household must be reported to OSHA
• Form EEO-1 must be filed once a year to catalog the race and gender of anyone who did any work in the home
• Any time one has a dispute in court with another citizen or an employee, they will now be treated the same as businesses in California, which means that the presumption, irregardless of facts, will be strongly in favor of any employee and against the homeowner, and in favor of any other party in any dispute whose net worth is perceived by the jury as less than the homeowner’s.
• At least once a year the home’s kitchen must be inspected and certified by both the fire marshal and the health department. Any deficiencies must be immediately repaired before the kitchen can be used. All code requirements for commercial kitchens will apply to household kitchens, including requirements for a three-basin washup sink, separate mop sink, and fire extinguishers
• All homes will be inspected once per year for ADA compliance. All parts of the home must be wheelchair accessible, even if there are currently no handicapped residents in residence. Homes more than one-story tall will require an elevator. All counters must be of the proper height, and all bathrooms must have ADA fixtures.
• Each home will be required to prominently display all its required licenses as well as state and federal information posters for workers.
• All homes will be audited at least once every three years to ensure that use taxes have been filed and paid on all out of state Internet purchases
• Material Safety Data Sheets must be on file for all household cleaning products and other chemicals and available for inspection by the fire marshal
• All gas tanks (car, lawnmower, portable 5-gallon) will be treated just like commercial gasoline storage tanks, and require monthly leak / loss reporting. Annually, a complete spill prevention plan must be filed with the state.
• A stormwater discharge plan must be filed annually with the state
• Any dropped thermometer or CFL bulb will require homeholder to call out (and pay disposal costs) of a state hazmat team
• Lifeguards are required at all home pools during daylight hours
• Households should file property tax returns in the same way that businesses must, listing individually every single piece of personal property they own, from their car to their lawnmower to the pink flamingo in the front yard.
• Homeowner must track the number of days any guests stay in their house so they can file and pay lodging taxes on a monthly basis
• Any homeowner who hauls a boat or trailer on US highways must register with the Department of Transportation and receive a DOT number. They must keep full driver logs and maintenance records available for DOT audit and inspection, and every driver must be drug-tested at least once per year.
• All food on pantry shelves must meet all state labeling laws
• At each entrance to the house, a sign warming those entering must be posted warning that certain cancer causing chemicals may be present

Finally, after spending the entire day complying with these rules, the homeowner must read at least 3 posts each day from progressive blogs explaining why anyone who complains about such rules as unreasonable is just a reactionary who doesn’t really know how to run his business very well, and they could certainly do better.

Postscript: Every single item on this list is something my company has been required to do. I am sure I left a bunch out.

Well said, sir.  Well said. 

The Coyote Blog.  Worth reading every day. 

An update on the places where Warren Buffett chooses to invest his money

Read the previous post before you read this bit o' greatness....

Here's some more about Warren Buffett, who says he should be paying MORE taxes, out of fairness !!

But if he (Buffett) were truly sincere, perhaps he might simply try paying the taxes the IRS says his company owes? According to Berkshire Hathaway’s own annual report — see Note 15 on pp. 54-56 — the company has been in a years-long dispute over its federal tax bills.

According to the report, “We anticipate that we will resolve all adjustments proposed by the IRS for the 2002 through 2004 tax years at the IRS Appeals Division within the next 12 months. The IRS has completed its examination of our consolidated U.S. federal income tax returns for the 2005 and 2006 tax years and the proposed adjustments are currently being reviewed by the IRS Appeals Division process. The IRS is currently auditing our consolidated U.S. federal income tax returns for the 2007 through 2009 tax years.”

Americans for Limited Government researcher Richard McCarty, who was alerted to the controversy by a federal government lawyer, said, “The company has been short-changing the tax collection agency for much of the past decade. Mr. Buffett’s company has not fully settled its tax bills from 2002-2009. Yet he says he’d happily pay more. Except the IRS has apparently been asking him to pay more going on nine years.”

The mind recoils. 

On the places where Warren Buffett chooses to invest his money

Zillionaire Warren Buffett has been in the news a lot. 

First, he made worldwide headlines by complaining in a New York Holy Times editorial that he isn't forced to give enough money to our government. 

This is strange.  Anyone wanting to give more money to the government can do so by hitting this link, which gives you some helpful information, plus this address:

Gifts to the United States

U.S. Department of the Treasury

Credit Accounting Branch

3700 East-West Highway, Room 622D

Hyattsville, MD 20782

No New York Times editorials are necessary.  No complaining is necessary.  No righteous posturing is required.  All Mr. Buffett has to do is write a check for the amount he thinks he should be paying, mail it to that address, and his money will be wasted just as quickly as the money that Washington is borrowing from China.  (And if Mr. Buffett wants some publicity and increased stature amongst The Statists, that would do it.  The more rational half of the nation, however, would know that he'd gone stark, raving mad.) 

Or perhaps Buffett just wants other people to pay more money, but not himself.  We'll never know.  You can go here to read an analysis of why Buffett's claims about his tax rate are somewhat misleading.

Here's something else about how Warren Buffett chooses to spend his money, this time from The Wall Street Journal:

Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc. will invest $5 billion in Bank of America Corp., giving the nation's biggest bank a much-needed vote of confidence amid questions about the credibility of its management.What do you think? Will that figure shore Bank of America up adequately for a return to profitability? Is Buffett seizing a golden opportunity, or taking too risky a gamble?

Hmmmm..... This is a strange one.  You can go elsewhere on the internet and read that it isn't just the 5 billion investment that has caused Bank Of America's stock to increase.  It's that Warren Buffett, The Sage of Ohama, has taken a look at Bank Of America, thought about it, and declared BofA to be worthy of his money and his shareholders' money.  If Warren Buffett says it's a good investment, it's a good investment. 

Why would Warren Buffett voluntarily throw money at a risky proposition like a failing bank, but complain about not being forced at gunpoint to give more money to a failing government? 

I think it is because Bank Of America is probably a good investment, and a good use of Buffett's money, and a good use of the money of the investors who trust Warren Buffett. 

The United States Government, under present leadership, is not. 

Money talks, bullshit walks.  Especially if it is Warren Buffett's money. 

Certitude

From the website of Rep. Anthony Weiner....

“Sadly, the Internet is the predator's venue of choice today.  We need to update our strategies and our laws to stop these offenders who are a mere click away....”

IMAO, the texts and sexts and crotch shots that Anthony Weiner sent to various young ladies are nobody's business but his and the young ladies' and Mrs. Weiner's.

But for this Nanny State Buffoon to call for another 50 pounds of internet regulation and ultra-wholesome Big Brotherism while trolling Twitter for _____  ______??  That's unforgivable.  (I've deleted two different alliterative words in those blanks.) 

Anthony Weiner will probably be forced to resign by July, at which point he'll go to work lobbying his friends in Congress for more regulation, more laws, and more handouts.  I can't say this with certitude, but now that he's been taken down several notches, he would probably do less harm as a Congressman than as a lobbyist. 

America the stony-hearted

Neal Gabler has an editorial in the L.A. Times.  It's called "America The Stony-Hearted", and it shows how we've gone from a nation that meekly goes along with whatever ridiculous spending boondoggles the Democrats propose, to a cold-hearted group of selfish bastards.  The closing tag (which Mr. Gabler didn't write) is one of the funniest accidental juxtapositions I've ever read. 

It made me spew Coca-Cola and donuts all over a Firestone Auto Repair center waiting lounge. 

But before we get to the money quote, here's a typical paragraph:

One can see this division in something as simple as the denigration of the term "liberal," the "L" word, with its attendant idea that to be compassionate, caring and tolerant — virtues that had been celebrated, if only via lip service, by most Americans — is really to be mush-minded, weak and, more concretely, willing to give taxpayer largesse to the undeserving and lazy. (This was essentially the argument that some Republicans, such as former Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), used when they sought to deny an extension of unemployment benefits.

The conservatives and libertarians that I know are, as a general rule, generous people.  It's just that the Department Of Health And Human Services, HUD, ACORN and such aren't their charities of choice.  The statists (as a very general rule) that I know?  They seem to think that lobbying to tax the rich is enough to exempt them from charitable giving. 

Folks, lobbying to take money from one person to give it to another, after taking a cut for yourself off the top, doesn't make you virtuous.  I'm a moral leper, but I've got that much figured out. 

Anyway, back to Mr. Gabler's editorial, and the side-splitting tag from the L.A. Times.  Here's the last paragraph. 

But it is to say that this moral reconfiguration has not only changed our politics and our perception of morality; it has changed us. If compassion is seen as softness, tolerance as a kind of promiscuity, community as a leech on individuals and fairness as another word for scheming, we are a harder nation than we used to be, and arguably a less moral one as well. In undergoing a revolution for the nation's soul, we may have found ourselves losing it.

Yeah, blah blah blah.  We should all get out of the way of those who best know how to spend our money. 

And here's the glorious tag line at the end of the editorial, courtesy of the L.A. Times....

Neal Gabler is at work on a biography of Edward M. Kennedy.

Go here to read how much Ted Kennedy gave to charity. 
Go here to read about the Kennedy tax avoidance strategy. 

Nancy Pelosi's district got 20% of the latest ObamaCare© Waivers !

Nancy Pelosi, who once said that "we have to pass the (ObamaCare©) bill so you can find out what's in it"....



Nancy Pelosi, whose statement that "we have to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it" guarantees her an entry in Bartlett's Quotations....  (Remember when The Teleprompter Jesus promised to put all bills on line for five days before a vote?)

Nancy Pelosi, who made the famous ObamaCare© grand entry/victory lap walking into Congress, with her arms linked with those of civil rights legends....



Yes, THAT Nancy Pelosi....

Of the 204 most recent exemptions from ObamaCare©, 20 percent of them ARE FROM HER FREAKIN' DISTRICT !!!!

Gag me with a dirty diaper. Here's The D.C. Caller:

Of the 204 new Obamacare waivers President Barack Obama’s administration approved in April, 38 are for fancy eateries, hip nightclubs and decadent hotels in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s Northern California district.

That’s in addition to the 27 new waivers for health care or drug companies and the 31 new union waivers Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services approved.

Pelosi’s district secured almost 20 percent of the latest issuance of waivers nationwide, and the companies that won them didn’t have much in common with companies throughout the rest of the country that have received Obamacare waivers.

Other common waiver recipients were labor union chapters, large corporations, financial firms and local governments. But Pelosi’s district’s waivers are the first major examples of luxurious, gourmet restaurants and hotels getting a year-long pass from Obamacare.

For instance, Boboquivari’s restaurant in Pelosi’s district in San Francisco got a waiver from Obamacare. Boboquivari’s advertises $59 porterhouse steaks, $39 filet mignons and $35 crab dinners.

Then, there’s Café des Amis, which describes its eating experience as “a timeless Parisian style brasserie” which is “located on one of San Francisco’s premier shopping and strolling boulevards, Union Street,” according to the restaurant’s Web site.

“Bacchus Management Group, in partnership with Perry Butler, is bringing you that same warm, inviting feeling, with a distinctive San Francisco spin,” the Web site reads. Somehow, though, the San Francisco upper class eatery earned itself a waiver from Obamacare because it apparently cost them too much to meet the law’s first year requirements.


The reason the Obama administration says it has given out waivers is to exempt certain companies or policyholders from “annual limit requirements.” The applications for the waivers are “reviewed on a case by case basis by department officials who look at a series of factors including whether or not a premium increase is large or if a significant number of enrollees would lose access to their current plan because the coverage would not be offered in the absence of a waiver.” The waivers don’t allow a company to permanently refrain from implementing Obamacare’s stipulations, but companies can reapply for waivers annually through 2014.

If you're ever feeling queasy and can't quite puke, but really want to get it over with, hit the D.C. Caller link above and read the entire article. 

Here's Ed Morrisey, commenting on the value of ObamaCare© to politicians.  They pass a burdensome law, and then sell exemptions to it:

The odds of one Representative getting 20% of a batch of waivers from the Obama administration as a coincidence seems rather high.  Once again, we have to wonder exactly how waiver applications are judged and approved.  With its high percentage of unions and party leader constituents, this is looking more and more like a mechanism for political payoffs.

Here she is one more time, just in case you still haven't quite tossed up all yer cookies.  When Townhall Protester/Tea Party-types oppose ObamaCare©, it's because they're extremist Nazis.  If Democrats in San Francisco oppose it? 
Here's an exemption.  For the special people. 

Some are more equal than others

Last week, as the Detroit News reported, Obama announced a plan "to 'green' the federal fleet":

"I'm directing our departments and our agencies to make sure 100 percent of the vehicles they buy are fuel-efficient or clean energy cars and trucks by 2015.Not 50 percent, not 75 percent--100 percent of our vehicles," Obama said.

It gets better.....

The News also reports that "some federal vehicles for law enforcement and security purposes will be exempt"--among them "the GM-built Cadillac presidential limousine and other vehicles in the motorcade."

There are always exceptions to the rule.  There are always exemptions. 

Well, you say, there should be some exceptions for things like "The Beast" limo. 

No, not for something like this.  For those of us who see every word from this guy's mouth as hypocritical posturing, there shouldn't be an exception.  If the Green Energy scam is supposed to be about shared sacrifice, then Barack should stay at the White House with Michelle and the girls.  NOT riding around the countryside preaching about Green Energy from the back seat of a car that gets the same miles per gallon as a Tomahawk missile. 

The people who wrote Obamacare gave themselves exemptions. 

"The Beast" limo gets an exception. 

As long as this man has supporters, he will give them, and himself, exemptions.

"Not 50 percent, not 75 percent--100 percent" of the time. 

Claire McCaskill - doing her part to prevent government waste

According to a bunch of Republicans in Missouri, Senator Claire McCaskill never saw a tax that she didn't love:

McCaskill has opposed every tax relief package that passed the Congress over the last five years. Those tax cuts included marriage penalty relief, death tax relief, an increase in the child tax credit and small business tax relief.

Well, those taxes were for the little people, those everyday Americans who don't have to worry so much about their money being wasted.  And let it be known that Senator McCaskill has done her part to prevent government waste. 
I give out an award called "The Whitey" to people who prevent government waste.  But only if they do it by not paying their taxes (the only guaranteed way to ensure government won't blow the money). 

Go here to see a list of previous winners. 

Reverend Al Sharpton, through a spectacular effort of gall and hypocrisy, has already won the 2011 trophy.  The best that Senator McCaskill can do is claim runner-up. 


Here's Hot Air on McCaskill's efforts to take the trophy:

McCaskill has been answering questions about the plane since POLITICO recently reported that she billed taxpayers for a political trip around Missouri. POLITICO also reported that McCaskill spent $76,000 from her Senate budget on trips on the aircraft over the past four years, prompting the senator to refund the Treasury Department more than $88,000 for the cost of the trips plus pilot fees.

McCaskill’s announcement Monday is the latest twist in a political scandal that has dogged her for the past two weeks. The expensive fiasco clashes with her self-made image as a reformer and good-government advocate during her first term in the Senate. McCaskill has now shelled out more than $375,000 in payments to cover the cost the plane flights and back taxes, a series of events the senator herself has called “embarrassing.”

On top of this, McCaskill signed on in February as a co-sponsor of Senate legislation that would fire federal employees if they are “seriously delinquent” in paying their own federal taxes…
“There are people I could blame for this, but I know better. As an auditor, I know I should have checked for myself. I take full responsibility for the mistake,” added McCaskill, Missouri’s former state auditor from 1999 to 2007. “I should have checked the documentation. I should have been asking the questions. I shouldn’t have assumed that somebody was doing it.”

Mistake, my ass.  Senator McCaskill, you were just trying to earn a Whitey.  You registered the plane in Delaware (where you didn't pay taxes on it) before you moved it closer to home in Missouri (where you didn't pay taxes on it.) 
Here's your nomination trophy:

Here's a rather harsh anti-Claire video that the Republicans are going to be throwing down soon.  Don't they understand that the Senator was just trying to put the money to its best use, rather than see it wasted? 



Here's the link to a GENIUS "Claire Air" website.  The in-flight entertainment is outstanding. 

Whatever happened to the anti-war movement?

Reason magazine asks the obvious question....

And from David Boaz:

In October 2007, Obama proclaimed, “I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank.” Speaking of Iraq in February 2008, candidate Barack Obama said, “I opposed this war in 2002. I will bring this war to an end in 2009. It is time to bring our troops home.” The following month, under fire from Hillary Clinton, he reiterated, “I was opposed to this war in 2002….I have been against it in 2002, 2003, 2004, 5, 6, 7, 8 and I will bring this war to an end in 2009. So don’t be confused.”

Indeed, in his famous “the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow” speech on the night he clinched the Democratic nomination, he also proclaimed, “I am absolutely certain that generations from now we will be able to look back and tell our children that . . . this was the moment when we ended a war.”

Today, however, he has tripled President Bush’s troop levels in Afghanistan, and we have been fighting there for more than nine years. The Pentagon has declared “the official end to Operation Iraqi Freedom and combat operations by United States forces in Iraq,” but we still have 50,000 troops there, hardly what Senator Obama promised.

Yeah, and we've got 9 more months to go in 2011.  Who will bomb next, Iran or Pakistan?  I'm voting Pakistan. 

Quotes and actions that will make your Bovine Excrement Meter go into the red

From our Constitutional Law Professor In Chief, back when he was running for office:

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

From Ralph Nader, who thinks it is time for impeachment:

"Why don't we say what's on the minds of many legal experts; that the Obama administration is committing war crimes and if Bush should have been impeached, Obama should be impeached," Nader said in an interview with the anti-war Democracy Now! organization.

Nader's comments came before the U.S. launched military strikes into Libya on Saturday but are among the toughest criticisms Obama has endured from the left.
The consumer advocate participated in an anti-war demonstration outside the White House this weekend, during which over 100 protesters were arrested.

Here are some more anti-invasion quotes from Candidate Obama, from the Verum Serum website:

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.
He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.
I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the middle east, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda.

Well, yeah.  I think we've proven that already.  Here's Hot Air, reminiscing about the last time we saw objectives that were as muddled as those of our Barack 'n' Hillary's Excellent Libyan Adventure:

The American military has the facilities and experience to assume tactical direction of the operation, and that appears to be what has shaken out.  That doesn’t mean we are in charge from the standpoint of policy or strategy.  There is an enormous difference between our public finding out about the command assignments second-hand, through the news media, and the communication practices of the last seven presidents, which were direct, explicit, involved, and responsible.  We haven’t had an administration even close to this coy about the use of force since Lyndon Johnson’s.

Ouch. 
Ok, you remember that scene in "Taxi Driver" when Robert De Niro is on a pay phone in a hallway, and he discovers something that is so painful that the camera has to turn away, shifting its eye away from the humiliation that De Niro's character is going through?  Well, the guys at The Riehl World have re-posted an old Andrew Sullivan piece called "Top 10 Reasons Conservatives Should Vote For Obama".  What they've done to it hurts.  It really hurts.  And like Martin Scorsese, I'm not going to show any of it to you.  You'll have to hit this link if you choose to go there.  It's like watching someone torturing puppies.  You've been warned. 

And finally, here's the U.K. Guardian, via Reason magazine:

Muammar Gaddafi has been handed a "non-negotiable ultimatum" by Barack Obama to accept an immediate ceasefire, pull back from Libyan rebel strongholds and permit humanitarian assistance – or face the full onslaught of UN-endorsed air strikes.
In an attempt to reassure Middle East opinion and his own domestic audience, Obama said the US would help to co-ordinate a no-fly-zone, but not lead an operation that will include French, British and Arab jets.

You probably need one of these by now, don't you?  Don't you wish everyone had purchased one before the 2008 elections? 









Bovine Excrement Meters stolen from here. 

Some tax advice for Stephen King

Here's one of my typing heroes, Stephen King, on the tax code, compliments of a link from Don Surber:

Some of the highlights:

Now you might say, what are you doing up there? Aren’t you rich? The answer is: thank God, yes. Because I grew up poor. I lived in a family where my mother asked donated commodities from a Republican administration and got turned down. That’s where I came from. And you know what, as a rich person I pay 28% tax.

What I want to ask you is why am I not paying fifty?

The answer, Mr. King, is that you have chosen to pay less.  Just like Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, John Kerry, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Michael Moore, Harry Reid all pay less than they could.  Why do they pay less than they could? 

Because none of them are idiots, and because all of them pay accountants to ensure that they pay less. 
Stephen King, unless he's a total idiot, has a tax advisor.  This person works very hard to see to it that Stephen King's money isn't wasted. 

If Stephen King wants to pay more, he can write a check to:

Gifts to the United States

U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 622D
Hyattsville, MD 20782

I think we need some more calls for Civility

From Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit:

The activist is Tabitha Hale, whom Helen interviewed at SmartGirlPolitics a couple of years ago. And you’d think someone from the Communications Workers’ union would know better than to strike someone with a camera. But take a look at the video and you’ll see the angry, yet impotent face of today’s labor movement — right before the punch.



And some commentary from Jim Treacher on the incident.  The reference to "get a little bloody" is a reference to this Bozo who apparently missed The Teleprompter's speech:

This violent creep is with the Communications Workers of America, one of the groups that protested in front of FreedomWorks today, where Tabitha works.
“Get a little bloody.” “Take ‘em down.” Assault a young woman who’s doing nothing but videotaping you. All part of the New Tone.

I know Tabitha. She’s one of the nicest people I’ve ever met. I’m sick of this crap. We get months of “Teabaggers are violent” — hell, years — when in reality, Tea Partiers have been the recipients of violence. Meanwhile, these union guys are ratcheting up the violent rhetoric and now actually assaulting people in broad daylight. Come on, somebody defend this violent jackass. I dare you.

Here's a pic of Tabitha Hale, the girl that he hit.