Showing posts with label bureaucracies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bureaucracies. Show all posts

Monday, December 1, 2014

On PHF's (Potentially Hazardous Foods)

I hope all of you had a great Thanksgiving! 
I know that I did....   6 parties/meals/events, and I gained about 5 pounds. 

Now it's time for a rant. 

My employer, Jukt Micronics, threw a Thanksgiving meal/party for the employees in each shop.  Several of the employees brought additional food from home. 


The main course was something called "Carnitas", which Bing defines as "a dish of Mexican cuisine. Carnitas are made by braising or simmering pork meat in oil or preferably lard until tender. The process takes three or four hours and the result is very tender and juicy pork meat, which is then typically served with chopped coriander leaves and diced onion, salsa, guacamole, tortillas, and refried beans."

Heck yes.  These were some authentic old-school Carnitas.  No one was injured. 


Later on in the week, we had a Supervisor's Lunch.  All food was brought from home by the Supervisors or their spouses. 
Everyone who brought something brought enough to feed about 5 other people. 
It was awesome. 
No one was injured. 


A few days later, I went to Gainesville TX, for the legit Thanksgiving meal with my youngest sister, her husband, and his extended family. 
They cooked almost all of the food.  My mother (that's her with the whitish hair and blue sweater in the Supervisor Lunch picture) did the rest.  That's her again, in the next pic, on the far left at my sister's house. 
She has taught me a deep and abiding love of food, groceries, meals, cooking, plants, animals, spices, and anything else that's edible. 
Once again, no one was harmed....


Thanksgiving night, some friends of mine from a local bar threw something that they call "Friendsgiving". 
It was awesome.  100% of the food was prepared by my friends and their families. 
No one was harmed, although I DID overindulge in bourbon, and have sworn off it for several weeks. 


There was one other event centered around a west-side bar....,
And then another friend of mine threw another party Saturday night. 
Both occasions featured plenty of food from homes. 
No one had his stomach pumped.  (That's a total of 6 Thanksgiving parties, in case you're keeping score....)

So what's my point in all this? 

Here's a letter that my shop received several months ago from the Consumer Health Division of the City of Fort Worth.  It's totally unrelated to Thanksgiving.  We got the letter back in April. 
I've hung onto it for occasions when I'm in a bad mood and want to make it worse.

To: The Woodshop Manager

"Spoke with production manager (Blank Blank) and he stated that female employees do sell sandwiches, Barbacoa (that's Messican BQ) and hot dogs."

"Complaint Confirmed.  Warning issued to all 3 employees.  There was no sign of any PHF's onsite (Potentially Hazardous Foods - prepared from home)."

"One employee admitted they sell about 5 burritos a day."

"Explained to each employee that it was illegal of prepare foods @ home and sell them to the public.  If another complaint happens, a citation will be issued to the individuals selling prepared foods."

Signed - Consumer Health Specialist 

Let me rewrite that letter for you, ok? 

To: The Woodshop Manager, who at this point is now my bitch,

It's painfully obvious to anyone who thinks about it for more than a few seconds that people are quite capable of making good choices about what to eat, what to buy, and whose cooking they trust.   

However, my job gives me the right, and the responsibility, to hassle people about what foods they sell. 

Tens of millions of people consume PHF's (Potentially Hazardous Foods) prepared from home without giving the City Of Fort Worth's Consumer Health Division a kickback money for a food-handler's permit or a license to sell burritos. 

The quality and safety of the food doesn't improve at all as a result of my job, or the kickbacks licenses and permits. 

But if you complain about this visit, my buddies in other City Hall departments will hassle you about your water runoff quality, your factory's air emissions, your habit of parking in the vacant lot next door that's not zoned for parking, or any of the thousands of other niggling little things we could use to make your life miserable. 

So get out of the burrito and barbacoa business, or give me some money. 

Signed - One Of Your Many Lords And Masters

I hope all of you had a great Thanksgiving!!
 

Saturday, October 5, 2013

The U.S. Government's Employment Verification Website Is Down !!

The E-Verify website is closed because of the Federal government shutdown.  
 


Employers in the U.S. are forced to use this system when hiring, mostly to ensure that people are "legal". 

Why does it matter so much where someone's Mom was located when her water broke? The older I get, the more I see this vile website as an instrument of racism. Or am I mistaken in not believing that the lines of latitude and longitude beneath a uterus should define a person for life?  

(And check out these politically correct contortions from the site: "This diverse workforce contributes greatly to the vibrancy and strength of our economy, but that same strength also attracts unauthorized employment.") 

Any bureaucratic drone who is proud of stopping "unauthorized employment" should be laid off permanently. And then sent to Iraq or Afghanistan, to live out the rest of his life as an "unauthorized" non-person in one of the countries that his co-workers have screwed up. 

End of rant. 

Monday, September 23, 2013

ObamaCare in two charts

Here's your first chart, explaining how much your premiums will likely rise.  It was put together by the Society of Actuaries.  (You can go here to read what the sent to the Wall Street Journal editors about our upcoming healthcare debacle.  Good stuff.) 


Here's the 2nd chart, explaining WHY your premiums are likely to rise.  It was put together by some Republican Congressman's staff.  And I bet they had a great time doing it. 


I hope these help.  Don't get sick. 

Tuesday, August 13, 2013

You just THOUGHT you were having a tax holiday

About two months ago, we had a workplace visit from the good people at Homeland Security. 

In addition to keeping you safe from the people pissed off by 60 years of disastrous American foreign policy decisions, military bases, and armies of occupation, the Homeland Security folks are responsible for monitoring and regulating all the import tariffs and quotas. 

The U.S. tariff and import quotas are determined by the same mechanism as most legislation: through bribes. 

The Homeland Security munchkins (3 of them, one was actually flown in from California) were looking at our aluminum products.  If our aluminum extrusions (price tag holders) came in to the country attached to a shelf, we paid one tariff rate.  But if they were not attached to the shelf, we paid a different tariff rate. 

Yeah.  They flew someone from California to Texas to help clear up this matter of national security. 

Here's another example of the system.  Go here to see the FedEx spreadsheet for importing clocks.  Nobody remembers why clocks are imported according to certain rules.  Nobody cares.  The rules are there, and they create jobs for bureaucrats, and these bureaucrats make good donors and foot-soldiers during elections. 

Here's something about the assorted import taxes on your kids' clothing and school supplies.  You could purchase the stuff for less, but you have to support unnecessary bureaucrats instead of supporting the companies, services and friends that you would otherwise choose. 


The people who enforce this have to be paid.  The companies who bring stuff into our collective cage have to pay other people to keep the bureaucrats happy.  Totally wasteful. 

Think of the economic boost of bringing in EVERYTHING at 4%.  It would be amazing. 

Wednesday, July 17, 2013

Our First ObamaCare Meeting

My employer, known on this site as Jukt Micronics, had its first real ObamaCare meetings today. 

Fun, fun, fun.  Lots of Democrats, in Nancy Pelosi's immortal phrase, found out "what's in the bill". 

The good parts, in order.....

1) The rep from the insurance company explained that for the 1st time since 1984, the year of Jukt Micronics' founding, our employees would have to pay for part of their insurance coverage.  Up until The Year Of Obama 2013, we've had 100% of our coverage paid by Jukt Micronics.  That pissed 'em off. 

2) Then they explained that the government (i.e. - The White House) had decided to ignore the law of the land and push back the employer mandate to provide coverage, but did NOT push back the individual mandate to purchase coverage.  The employer mandate doesn't kick in until January 2014.  That pissed 'em off. 

3) Then the poor bastards from the insurance company had to explain that if you didn't purchase their product (or that of a competitor), you had to pay a $95.00 fine, or pay 1% of your income to Obama at tax time.  ($95.00 or 1%.  Whichever is greater.)  And the 1% penalty increases rapidly over the next few years.  That pissed 'em off. 

4) I couldn't help myself.  I asked for some clarification on the pre-existing conditions bidness, the part where insurers can't turn anyone away, and where individuals can sign up for insurance in the ambulance on the way to the hospital, which negates the purpose of insurance.  That pissed 'em off (the insurance reps, not the dumbass Democrats). 

5) They explained that the pre-existing conditions bidness doesn't kick in until January of 2015.  That pissed 'em off. 

You get what you vote for.  Unless, of course, it turns out to be very unpopular.  Then, you get what you voted for, but not until after the November 2014 election cycle. 


Wednesday, June 12, 2013

The Tax Implications Of The X-Men Being Human Or Not Human

The X-Men are not human.  The courts have said so. 


Why would the courts care?

To enjoy this particular situation, one must be aware of the following:

1) Politicians are elected by selling exemptions to the tax code.  Sometimes these exemptions are in the form of exceptions to tariff and quota rules.  Sometimes a rule is put in place to punish a competitor.  

2) This is why our tax code is four million words long, and growing by the day.    

3) Efficiency is good.  Inefficiency is bad.  If all merchandise came into the United States at the same tax/tariff rate, we could eliminate tens of thousands of government jobs and the godawful pensions that go with them. 

4) These wasteful "jobs" will never be eliminated.  There will always be an organized groups for exemptions in their medical device / green energy / children with cooties / American flag / Bibles For The Troops / javelin / coffin handle / Scrabble tile-manufacturing industries.  These groups are more organized than you.  They'll get their exemption, and you'll be taxed to supply enough bureaucrats, lawyers and courts to keep the rules sorted out. 

Now that my preliminary throat-clearing is out of the way, here goes:  
 Toy Biz v. United States was a 2003 decision in the United States Court of International Trade that determined that for purposes of tariffs, Toy Biz's action figures were toys, not dolls, because they represented "nonhuman creatures." This decision effectively reduced the tariff rate by a factor of two.


U.S. law distinguishes between two types of action figures for determining tariffs: dolls, which are defined to include human figures, and toys, which include "nonhuman creatures". Because duties on dolls were higher than on toys, Marvel Comics subsidiary Toy Biz argued before the U.S. Court of International Trade, that their action figures (including the X-Men and Fantastic Four) represented "nonhuman creatures" and were subject to the lower tariff rates for toys instead of the higher ones for dolls. On January 3, 2003, after examining more than 60 action figures, Judge Judith Barzilay ruled in their favor, granting Toy Biz reimbursement for import taxes on previous toys.

To summarize, the taxes on imported (human) dolls are lower than the taxes on imported (non-human) toys.  There's no reason for this distinction, and it would take a dozen Library Of Congress employees to figure out which politician put the distinction in place.  The donor he did it for is probably long-dead. 

It took almost ten years and hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of dollars in expenses to make this toy vs. doll distinction.

Here's just part of one logic behind one of the official rulings.  Go here for the whole thing.  If you can read this without praying for a nuclear strike on D.C., you're not part of the 49% who pay taxes.  
It is Customs position that the intent of the committees in reaching this conclusion is to deny the doll classification to those figures which possess non-human characteristics that are immediately apparent to the casual observer. Where the non-human feature(s) can only be discovered by close examination, the doll classification may be appropriate. The phrase "close examination" may encompass the need to look closely, the need to remove the clothes of the figure, or perhaps even the need of the observer to guess as to whether a feature that appears to be non-human is, in actuality, such a feature. Most angels and devils possess readily apparent non-human features, i.e., halos, large wings, visible horns, pointed tails, etc. -6-


However, if a figure is marketed as an angel or devil, and yet appears human to the casual observer, then, again, the doll classification may be appropriate.

In HRLs 081201 and 089895, issued October 3, 1988 and November 4, 1991, respectively, we classified certain troll figures that were described, in pertinent part, as being pot- bellied, flesh-colored, erect-standing figures, having flat heads with virtually no foreheads, pointed ears, and large, upturned snouts. We noted the guidance provided by the EN, that dolls should "represent" human beings, and cited Webster's Third New International Dictionary (1961), which defines "represent" as meaning "to portray by pictorial, plastic, or musical art: delineate, depict...to serve as the counterpart or image of: typify." In each case, we held that, while certain troll figures may have "resembled" human beings to some extent, it was immediately apparent to the casual observer that the subject figures did not "represent" humans, but rather represented widely recognized non-human creatures, i.e., trolls.

In HRL 085855, issued August 9, 1990, this office affirmed the doll classification of a "Beetlejuice" figure, which represented the ghost character from a popular movie and television show. The doll featured characteristics claimed to be non-human, but which could only be discovered by close examination. We stated that "[i]n order not to be classified as dolls, figures representing...other creatures, must possess appendages and features which immediately, at first glance, identify them as non-human."

Looking to the figures that have been classified as dolls in this case, we note that in most instances, the patent distortions essentially consist of such features as odd skin color, intricate headgear, capes which bear resemblance to wings, weaponry that is uniquely attached to, but is not an integral part of, the body, etc. As noted above, when a figure's non-human features can only be discovered by close examination, the doll classification may be appropriate.
Come quickly, Lord Jesus.  Come quickly. 

This brings us to the related case of Kamar Int’l v. United States, 10 C.I.T. 658 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1986).
That case dealt with whether E.T. the Extraterrestrial dolls represented an “animate” object, which would result in a lower tax rate than for toys in general (the customs classifications have changed a lot over the years, apparently). The Court of International Trade agreed with the plaintiff, despite the United States’ arguments that E.T. was a fictional alien and thus not an animate object. The Court cited as precedent the classification of Star Wars toys as toy figures of animate objects because “as depicted in the movie Star Wars they are living beings endowed with animal life.” Kamar, 10 C.I.T. at 661.
I don't believe that the E.T. case should have been argued as Dolls vs. Toys. 
Dolls vs. some other type of toy woulda been the appropriate discussion. 



Wednesday, March 27, 2013

If you ask me to perform your wedding.

....then this is what you're going to get.  Here's 45 seconds.  Yes, I am ordained through the Universal Life Church!! 



Go here to read the back-story on this bit of Libertarian Party greatness!!  I didn't have video when I wrote the first post.
 

Friday, March 22, 2013

A ruling on the tariffs of Canadian sundials and birdbaths

I hope we can agree on the following statements.

1) The most fair trade of all is free trade.  All fair trade is free, and vice-versa.  If a certain industry or product line gets an exemption, the trade is no longer "fair".
2) Protecting industries from foreign competition merely rewards industry owners.  The net harm to purchasers is greater than the net gain by fat cats and their employees.
3) Congress gets itself elected by selling exemptions to the tax code.  Some of these are to reward contributors, while others are put in place to punish competitors.  Many of these exemptions can still be found, long after the original bribes contributions were paid, lingering around in the U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedule.  Nobody remembers why hamster wheels have a different import tariff rate than coffin handles.  You could turn a team of librarians loose in the Congressional Record for years, and they would fail to discover why javelins and jump ropes enter the country at different tax rates.

Go here and behold some of the tiny subdivisions that these Civil Service Lifers have invented to keep themselves busy and their contributors happy.  Can you imagine any rational excuse for Canadian sundials and Canadian birdbaths to be taxed at a different rate?

This is just one of the hundreds of thousands of queries and rulings that government trolls, hobbits, pygmies and elves churn out every day.  Enjoy.  And then lobby for a flat tariff.  1.5% should work nicely.  Think of the labor savings.  First person to lobby for an exemption gets crucified on the 50 yard line during the next Super Bowl halftime.

******

December 3, 1993

CLA-2-83:S:N:N3:113 892510

CATEGORY: CLASSIFICATION

TARIFF NO.: 8306.29.0000; 9403.20.0010

Ms. Patricia A. Bielaski
Tower Group International, Inc.
128 Dearborn Street
Buffalo, NY 14207-3198

RE: The tariff classification of sundials, plant stands and birdbaths from Canada

Dear Ms. Bielaski:

In your letter dated November 16, 1993, on behalf of Metalcraft Spinning and Stamping, Ltd., you requested a tariff classification ruling.

The merchandise consists of painted aluminum articles on pedestal bases that will be displayed primarily on lawns and in gardens. Three samples were submitted with your request. One is a green sundial measuring approximately 21 inches high with an 11-inch diameter top and a 9-inch diameter base. The sundial is clearly ornamental in nature. The other two samples are plant stands which can be used inside or outside the home. They are designed to rest upon a floor or lawn, and meet the definition of furniture for classification purposes. One stand is green and the other is white. Both measure approximately 27 inches high with a 15 1/2-inch diameter top and a 12-inch diameter base. The plant stand can also function outdoors as a birdbath.

The applicable subheading for the sundial will be 8306.29.0000, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS), which provides for statuettes and other ornaments, of base metal. The rate of duty will be 5 percent ad valorem.

Goods classifiable under subheading 8306.29.0000, which have originated in the territory of Canada, will be entitled to a 2.5 rate of duty under the United States-Canada Free Trade Agreement (FTA) upon compliance with all applicable regulations.

The applicable subheading for the plant stand and birdbath will be 9403.20.0010, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS), which provides for other metal furniture, household. The rate of duty will be 4 percent ad valorem. Goods classifiable under subheading 9403.20.0010, HTS, which have originated in the territory of Canada, will be entitled to a free rate of duty under the United States-Canada Free Trade Agreement (FTA) upon compliance with all applicable regulations.

This ruling is being issued under the provisions of Section 177 of the Customs Regulations (19 C.F.R. 177).

A copy of this ruling letter should be attached to the entry documents filed at the time this merchandise is imported. If the documents have been filed without a copy, this ruling should be brought to the attention of the Customs officer handling the transaction.

Sincerely,

Jean F. Maguire
Area Director

*******

We are paying people to interpret this shit.
Have a good weekend!!

Friday, March 8, 2013

From the people who are about to take over healthcare....

Here's a Justice System Update, courtesy of Instapundit:
Man Left in Solitary Confinement for 2 Horrific Years … for Suspected DUI. “After Steven’s arrest on suspicion of DUI and driving a stolen car, he was placed in solitary confinement because because officers felt he might be ‘suicidal.’ There, he was essentially forgotten about by the legal system. He was given no health care. His toenails grew so long they curled around his feet. He developed bed sores. A fungus grew on his skin after being denied showers. He lost a ton of weight. His hair grew long and shaggy — he looks like he just got off a desert island. He descended into madness. And his dental problems grew so severe that he was forced to pull out one of his rotting teeth by himself. Eventually, after 22 months, Steven was released after all charges against him were dismissed.”

The poor guy is now batshit crazy, but has won 15.5 million in a lawsuit.  

"His mental health has been severely compromised from the time he was in that facility. That continues to be the same. No amount of money will bring back what they took away from him," Matt Coyte, Slevin's Albuquerque-based attorney, said on Wednesday. "But it’s nice to be able to get him some money so he can improve where he is in life and move on."

And the people who were running the prison?  Still employed there.
The people who paid the fine?  The citizens of New Mexico.

Wait until the same mindset takes hold in our intensive care wards.
Go here to read occasional updates on Britain's National Health Service.  
Go hear to read about the recently formed political party opposed to any NHS reforms!  (Kinda like postmen forming a union to retain 6-day letter delivery in Merigold MS in the age of email.)
Hey, anybody can make a mistake, right?  

Sunday, February 17, 2013

Food For The Machine - Anger Management Edition

We worked last Saturday (yesterday) .
One of my temp employees asked if he could leave at 9:30 in the morning.  It seems that he has to go to a series of  court-ordered "Anger Management" sessions on Saturday mornings.

Any time the government mandates that someone do something for his own good, I'm automatically skeptical, so I asked the kid if the meetings were worthwhile.  Here's what he said:
Well, you have to pay this lady $15.00, and then we sit around and smoke for about the first 30 minutes because it never starts on time.  Then this dude comes in and we sit in a circle and bullshit for a while, then somebody tells about how he was in this bar a few days ago and somebody bumped him, and how before the meetings he woulda kicked that dude's ass, but now that he's going to the meetings he didn't.
And we'll all start clappin' and shit, and some other dudes will start crying, and the counselor dude says that's really good and how we all need to keep it up.
You don't have to talk or even be awake.  The main thing is giving that lady $15.00.  
This kid could've spent most of his morning building displays for grocery stores.  Instead, he had to give his time and money to a couple of government lifers.

The more I learn about our government, the greater the likelihood that I'll be going to the Anger-Management sessions.  Sheesh.





Thursday, August 23, 2012

If you've been unsuccessful, you didn't fail on your own

From Mark Perry's Carpe Diem blog.  Read the context (a potential business being strangled by government trolls, hobbits and munchkins) if you get a chance:

Look, if you’ve been unsuccessful, you didn’t get there on your own. If you were unsuccessful at opening or operating a small business, some government official along the line probably contributed to your failure. There was an overzealous civil servant somewhere who might have stood in your way with unreasonable regulations that are part of our American system of anti-business red tape that allowed you to not thrive. Taxpayers invested in roads and bridges, but you might have faced city council members who wouldn’t allow you to use them. If you’ve been forced to close a business – it’s often the case that you didn’t do that on your own. Somebody else made that business closing happen or prevented it from opening in the first place. You can thank the bureaucratic tyrants of the nanny state.


Yep.  They didn't let you build that. 

Friday, August 3, 2012

A Day In The Life Of A Statist. Or A Departmentist.

Someone (with the aid of schoolteachers, The Department Of Education, and the roadbuilders of the Information Superhighway) has written a clever little socialist parable that is making the rounds on Facebook:

This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US Department of Energy. I then took a shower in the clean water provided by the municipal water utility. After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC regulated channels to see what the National Weather Service of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration determined the weather was going to be like using satellites designed, built and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. I watched this while eating my breakfast of US Department of Agriculture inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the Food and Drug Administration.

At the appropriate time, as regulated by the US congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the US Naval Observatory, I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety Administration approved automobile and set out to work on the roads built by the local, state and federal departments of transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issued by the Federal Reserve Bank. On the way out the door, I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the US Postal Service and drop the kids off at the public school.

After work, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads to my house, which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and fire marshall’s inspection, and which has not been plundered of all its valuables thanks to the local police department.

I then log on to the internet, which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration and post on freerepublic.com and fox news forums about how socialism in medicine is bad because the government can’t do anything right. 

-Anonymous Wingnut

It begs for a response, doesn't it?  If the phrase "electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US Department of Energy" doesn't make you break out in fits of giggles, hell, it can't be done.  And then there's the long lists of unnecessary government departments, all staffed with tens of thousands of useless seat warmers, helping this guy get through his day. 

Because if the government didn't provide those services, the private sector could never ever do so.  Is that really what this dude believes?   

Someone called Ipster76 on Reddit wrote a response that goes as follows:

This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the local public power monopoly. After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC regulated channels to see what the latest misleading liberal dominated mass media reports are. I watched this while eating my unhealthy, subsidized corn-byproduct dominated breakfast thanks to the US Department of Agriculture.

Had I written this, I would've put in something about "the US Department of Agriculture - a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto."  But I tend to over-write. 

I then get into my National Highway Traffic Safety Administration used automobile, whose renewed title I was forced to pay an exorbitant amount for when I bought it. I then set out to my job on the roads built by the local, state and federal departments of transportation, passing by groups of 8 or more Union laborers, of which only about 2 are actually doing work at any given moment due to their collective bargaining agreement. I am also forced to slow down or risk being caught and fined by speed cameras implemented by the local government, despite the fact that I am a fully competent driver with no violations on his record, and the highway repairs have yet to be finished after 5 years. I also do not stop to purchase exorbitantly priced fuel from Big Oil subsidized by the Federal Government using legal tender that has lost value thanks to inflationary policies of the Federal Reserve Bank. At some point in the future when I am married with children, I will drop off my kids off at a private school 20 minutes away, because despite my future residence in a decent neighborhood, I am zone for an unsafe public school fraught with gang activity, and staffed by underpaid teachers.

This guy must live on Fort Worth's East Side. 

After work, I drive by the same unproductive union workers in the alleged construction zones, and am again forced to slow down because of the speed cameras. I do not stop by the liquor store, because although I am legally an adult who can vote and serve in the military, I cannot legally purchase alcohol, thus violating my rights under the Equal Protection Clause of Section I, Amendment IIV of the Constitution; however, because I am over the age of 18, it will also remain on my permanent record if I am caught in possession of it. I continue driving my car back to my apartment, which I discover has been plundered of all its valuables. I contact the local Police Department, who make a cursory investigation and fail to find any evidence, because they are too busy fighting the prohibitionist war on drugs under which gang activity has flourished for the past 30 years. I consider smoking some marijuana on my own private property to relax after a long, hard day at work, but I can’t because it has been made illegal by politicians that receive campaign funds from big pharma and the liquor lobby.

I then get on to the internet, which the Federal Government is trying to stifle through regulation and censorship, and proceed to post on r/politics about how libertarians are selfish and that the government needs to be more involved with healthcare.

Well done, sir.  Well done. 

Wednesday, July 25, 2012

The Best Libertarian(-ish) movies

Go here for a good discussion. 

And the correct answer is "Harry Potter And The Order Of The Phoenix". 
Dolores Umbridge IS the Nanny State. 

Wednesday, July 11, 2012

Why I am a Libertarian - Hong Kong

Among the hundreds of reasons that I'm a libertarian is this little essay by P.J. O'Rourke.  It's from "Eat The Rich", a book on economics for the mainstream reader who would otherwise never pick up an economics text.  Parts of it are laugh-out-loud funny. 

 
The essay is about the miracle of Hong Kong.  Hong Kong is full of Chinese people.  They have the same work ethic as China.  Same past experience as China.  Hong Kong has worse land than China; it's just a rock in the ocean.  No natural resources except for the people.  With Hong Kong and mainland China you have a near-perfect subject/control group setup for an experiment....


In the previous century, China went into full-blown Marxist/Commie/Socialism.  Those poor people went through government-induced famines, economic disasters and purges that had body counts ten time greater than that of The Holocaust.  Hong Kong had the good experience of going as Free Market as possible, given the circumstances. 


Time magazine just named Hong Kong the best city in the world for 2012.

This may or may not be related to The Heritage Foundation giving Hong Kong the #1 spot in their index of economic freedom.

And yet, just 70 years ago, Hong Kong and China had almost identical standards of living.  One became a typical socialist shithole while the other prospered.   

(China started liberalizing their economy in the early 80's, but they still have a lot of catching up to do.) 

How did this happen?  By leaving people the hell alone as much as possible.  There were no calls for government to "do something" every time the stock market blipped or someone's puppy ran away. 

Here's P.J., from Eat The Rich:
 

How a peaceful, uncrowded place with ample wherewithal stays poor is hard to explain. How a conflict-ridden, grossly overpopulated place with no resources whatsoever gets rich is simple. The British colonial government turned Hong Kong into an economic miracle by doing nothing.

Hong Kong is the best contemporary example of laissez-faire. The economic theory of "allow to do" holds that all sorts of doings ought, indeed, to be allowed, and that government should interfere only to keep the peace, ensure legal rights, and protect property.

The people of Hong Kong have been free to do what they wanted, and what they wanted was, apparently, to create a stewing pandemonium: crowded, striving, ugly, and the most fabulous city on earth. It is a metropolis of amazing mess, an apparent stranger to zoning, a tumbling fuddle of streets too narrow and vendor chocked to walk along, slashed through with avenues too busy and broad to cross. It is a vertical city, rising 1,800 feet from Central District to Victoria Peak in less than a mile; so vertical that escalators run in place of sidewalks, and neighborhoods are named by altitude: Mid-Levels. Hong Kong is vertical in its buildings, too, and not just with glossy skyscrapers. Every tenement house and stack of commercial lofts sends an erection into the sky. Picture Wall Street on a Kilimanjaro slope, or, when it rains, picture a downhill Venice.

And rain it does for months. Hong Kong in monsoon season has a climate like boiled Ireland. Violent air-conditioning wars with humid heat in every home and place of business, producing a world with two temperatures: sauna and meat locker. The rainwater overwhelms the outgrown sewer system, which fumes and gurgles beneath streets ranged with limitless shopping. All the opulent goods of mankind are on display in an air of shit and Chanel.

It is a filled-in city, turgid with buildings. The Sham Shui Po district of Kowloon claims a population density of more than 425,000 people per square mile-eighteen times as crowded as New York. Landing at Kai Tak Airport, down one thin skid of Kowloon Bay landfill, you can watch women at bathroom mirrors putting on their makeup. You can tell them that their lipstick's crooked.


There is no space in Hong Kong for love or money, at least not for ordinary kinds of either. A three-bedroom apartment in Central rents for 1,000 $/month, but there isn't room in any of these bedrooms to even have sex with yourself. The whole home will be 700 square feet less than ten yards long by eight yards wide, with windows papered over because, outside those windows, a hand grab away, are the windows of the apartment next door. And anything you're going to fix in the kitchen had better be something that can be stood on end-like a banana. This is how middle-class people live. Poor people in public housing will have three generations in a fifteen-by-twenty-foot room.

But when they come out of that room, they'll be wearing Versace and Dior-some of it even real. Hong Kong is a styling city, up on the trends. Truly up, in the case of platform sneakers. You can spend an entertaining afternoon on Hollywood Road watching teens fall off their shoes. Over the grinding hills, in the blood-clot traffic, men nonetheless drive their Turbo 911s.The S-class Mercedes is the Honda Civic of Hong Kong, and for the soccer-mom set, a Rolls and a driver is a minivan.

Jesus, it's a rich city. Except where it's Christ-almighty poor. Hong Kong is full of that "poverty midst plenty" stuff beloved of foreign correspondents such as myself who, when doing a Hong Kong piece, rush from interviews with day-laboring "cage men" in barred flophouse partitions to dinners in the blandly exclusive confines of Happy Valley's Jockey Club, where I could sample the one true Hong Kong luxury-distance between tables. But, those poor are going to get rich. Just ask them. You can call the old lady selling dried fish on the street on her cell phone.

The bippity-beep of cell phones all but drowns the air-conditioner racket. And each time a cell phone rings, everyone within earshot goes into a self-administered frisk, patting himself down to find the wee gadget. You can go weeks without talking to an answering machine, because you're not really dialing a telephone, you're dialing an armpit, purse, shirt pocket, or bikini top.

The cell-phone has to be there, or somebody might miss a deal. Everything is a deal. In a store you ask: "What's your best price?" then "What 's your Chinese price?" and on from there. I was trying to buy a bottle of cognac in a restaurant. The owner produced a brand I'd never heard of for 100$ and a brand nobody's heard of for 80$. I got my friend Annie, who let fly in Cantonese, and we had a bottle of Remy for one dead U.S Grant. I didn't know you were going to bring my sister in here", said the owner. "Hwa-aaah!"

It is a Cantonese exclamation halfway between oi vey and fuhgedaboutit. Which is Hong Kong in a nutshell-a completely foreign city that's utterly comprehensible. It's a modern place, deaf to charm, dumb in the language of aesthetics, caught up in a wild, romantic passion for the plain utilitarian. The only traditional touches are the catawampus walls and whichaway entrances dictated by feng shui, the art of placing things so as to ensure luck and not to disturb spirits. One building in Repulse Bay has an enormous square hole in its middle so that a certain invisible dragon can get from the mountain to the sea. Knowing Hong Kong, it was probably a scam with a paid-off fortune-teller helping architects and construction companies boost their fees. Some of Hong Kong may believe in geomancy, but it was my local bookstore in New Hamphire that had thirteen feng shui titles.

Everything else quaint within reach in Hong Kong has been torn down. Just a few poky colonial government buildings are left. Landfill has pushed the waterfront a thousand feet into Victoria Harbor. Ferry terminals block the water views, and tides are cramped into a raging flume between Central and Kowloon.

The statue in Statue Square is of a business manager, the nineteenth century chief executive of the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank. Behind the square, the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank Building itself rises. Here the local taste for functionalism has been carried to an extreme that arrives at rococo: a massy, looming, steel Tinkertoy of a thing with its whole construction hanging, suspension-bridge fashion, from eight enormous towers. Very functional, indeed, whatever that function is. Maybe to be expensive. It cost a billion dollars to build.

To the west is Jardine House, an aluminium-skinned monolith covered with circular pothole windows-Thousand Assholes, as it's known. To the east is the I.M.Pei-designed Bank of China Tower-all big diagonals and tricky, skinny angles. Its purpose was to be the tallest building in Asia, which it was for about five minutes before being overtopped by Central Plaza a few miles away, and then by twin towers-the tallest enclosed structures in the world-being built at Kuala Lumpur.

A competitive place, Southeast Asia. And it attracts some types that can compete with anything I've seen. I sat at dinner one night between a tough-as-lug-nuts young woman from the mainland who lives in New York and deals in used motor oil-sparkling table talk-and a large and equally adamantine chick from the wrong side of somewhere's tracks in America. I turned to the suicide blond.

"I'm uh arht cunsultunt," she said.

"Come again?"

"Un arht cunsultant."

"That's interesting. Who do you art-consult for?"

She named a large Saudi prince.

"What kind of art does the prince like?" I asked.

"Nineteen-cenchury reuhlist-you know, Uhmerican"

"Any particular artist?"

"Andrew Wyeth"

I'd been under the impression that Andrew Wyeth was still alive-rare in a nineteenth-century artist. And you'd think Hong Kong would be a strange place to look for one of his paintings. But who knows? They shop hard in Hong Kong. Buy hard. Sell hard. They drink hard, too. On Friday nights, police are posted in the Lan Kwai Fong bar district because people have actually been crushed to death during happy hour. Nobody takes it easy in Hong Kong. The only idleness visible is on Sundays, when thousands of the city's overworked Filipino maids come to Central, spread cloths and plastic sheets up and down the sidewalks, and picnic in the least attractive and most heat-baked part of town.

The Filipino maids are Hong Kongese, too. They are in Central because it is practical to get there on the subways, trams, and buses. Hong Kong is a practical place, down to earth, or, rather, down to concrete. The complimentary city guide in my hotel room gave advice on pricing whores and noted, "Some of the conservative hotels don't allow a man to toddle in with a rent-in-bird in the middle of the night. But, as you can imagine there are plenty of 'cheap guest houses'."

In the window of an antique shop, I saw an ivory carving of the familiar row of monkeys:" see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil; but this one had a fourth monkey with his hands over his balls: fuck no evil.

City of hardheads. City of rough tongues. You are a gweilo right to your face, meaning a white goblin or foreign ghost or old devil or any number of other things, according to how it is said (none of the meanings being complimentary)You can give back as good as you get, however(or try to, since gweilos are famously dim).For instance, the Cantonese really cant distinguish ls from rs.

"Ah,you ordered flied lice," said Annie's gweilo husband, Hugh. "That's fried rice, you plick," said Annie.

I met two women who seemed barely into their twenties but were the publisher and the sales manager of a prominent Hong Kong business magazine.

Publisher: "You are really well-dressed."

Sales manager: "For a journalist. We understand you are a popular writer."

Publisher: "In Japan."

City of straight faces. I was looking at some animal figurines representing Chinese astrological signs. The ancient woman behind the shop counter asked, "What year you born?"

"1947"

"Hwa-aaah. Year of pig! Good luck!"

"Oh, 'Good luck! Good luck!'" I said. "That's what Chinese always say to shopping gweilos. Stolen Ming dynasty grave offerings: 'Good luck!' Can of tuna fish: 'Good luck!' Lacoste shirt: Good luck!'"

"Not so!" she said. "Some years bad luck."

"Such as?"

"Year of buffalo."

"Which year is that?"

"This one."

"This one" being 1997.

I had come to Hong Kong to watch the best contemporary example of laissez-faire be surrendered to the biggest remaining example of socialist totalitarianism.

Hong Kong was (and to be fair to its new commie rulers, remains for the moment) socialism's perfect opposite. Hong Kong does not have import or export duties, or restrictions on investments coming in, or limits on profits going out. There is no capital-gains tax, no interest tax, no sales tax, and no tax breaks for muddle-butt companies that can't make it on their own.

The corporate tax in Hong Kong is 16.5 percent of profits. The individual tax rate is 15 percent of gross income. Hong Kong's government runs a permanent budget surplus and consumes only 6.9 percent of gross domestic product (compared with the 20.8 percent of GDP spent just by the federal government in the U.S) The people of Hong Kong have not been paylings of the state. They are owned their own. They have been able to blow it, Dow Jones it, start a sweater factory, hire, fire, sell, retire, or buy a farm (And there actually are some little-bitty farms in the New Territories).

Hong Kong has never had democracy, but its wallet-size liberties, its Rights-of-Man-in-a-purse, have been so important to individualism and self-governance that in 1995 an international group of libertarian think tanks was moved to perhaps overstate the case and claim, "Hong Kong is the freest nation in the world."

Free because there's been freedom to screw up, too. Hong Kong has no minimum wage, no unemployment benefits, no union-boosting legislation, no Social Security, no national health program, and hardly enough welfare to keep one U.S trailer park in satellite dishes and Marlboro Lights. Just 1.2 percent of GDP goes in transfers to the helplessly poor or subsidies to the hopelessly profitless.

Living without a safety net, people in Hong Kong have kept a grip on the trapeze. The unemployment rate is below 3 percent. In America, a shooting war is usually needed to get unemployment that low. The "natural rate" of unemployment is considered to be about 5 percent in the U.S., which rate would cause natural death from starvation in Hong Kong. But they are not dying. Although smoking is the city's principal indoor athletic activity, life expectancy in Hong Kong is about seventy-nine years, compared with seventy-six in the States. And the infant-mortality rate is comparable to our own. This from people who consider crushed pearls, dried sea horses, and horns from the dead rhinos of Tanzania to be efficacious medicine. Even the babies are too busy to die. Economic growth in Hong Kong has averaged 7.5 percent per year for the past twenty years, causing gross domestic product to quadruple since 1975.With barely one-tenth of 1 percent of the world's population, Hong Kong is the world's eighth-largest international trader and tenth-largest exporter of services.

I'm not exactly sure what "exporter of services" means, unless its fly-by dim sum, but, anyway, it's a fine statistic and helped make dinky, terrifying Kai Tai Airport the third-busiest passenger terminal in the world and the second-busiest air-cargo center. And Kai Tak's solitary runway sticks out into a container port that is the world's most busy of all. Hong Kong's per capita GDP is $26,000.Average individual wealth is greater than in Japan or Germany. It is $5,600 greater than what Hong Kong's ex-colonial masters back in Britain have, and is creeping up on the U.S per capita GDP of $28,600.

Besides Americans, only the people of Luxembourg and Switzerland are richer than those of Hong Kong. And these are two other places where capital is allowed to move and earn freely.

True, there has been an "Asian crisis" since the above statistics were compiled. The Hong Kong stock market has flopped. Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, South Korea, and maybe Japan are experiencing depressions. The entire business world of Asia is supposed to be in ruins. But a mere continent wide financial collapse is unlikely to faze the people of Hong Kong.

Hong Kong's economy was destroyed by the Japanese occupation of World War 2, destroyed again by the UN embargo on trade with the Communists in 1951,and almost destroyed a third time by worry about the 1997 handover to China. The territory has been squeegeed by ty-phoons, squished by mudslides, toasted by enormous squatter-camp fires, and mashed by repeated refugee influxes. Hong Kong has no forests, mines, or oil wells, no large-scale agriculture, and definitely no places to park. Hong Kong even has to import water. So in Hong Kong they drink cognac instead, more per person than anywhere else in the world. They own more Rolls-Royces per person, too. So what if there is no space at the curb? They'll hire somebody fresh from the mainland to drive around the block all night.

Why did the British allow this marvel of free enterprise? Why did Britain do so little to interfere with Hong Kong's economic liberty? This is especially hard to answer because, back in London, an ultrainterfering socialist Parliament had taken charge after World War 2.This government would bring the U.K's own economy to a halt like a hippo dropped on a handcart.

Actually, the British did piss in the colonial soup when they could. The crown government held the title to almost all the land in the Hong Kong and the New Territories, and dealt it our slowly to keep sales revenues high. Thus the crowding in a place which, in fact, comprises some 402 square miles of dry ground-enough, in theory, to give everybody a bean-sprout garden. Instead, half the population is stuck in claustrophobic government housing. Then in the 70's,one of Hong Kong's thicker governors, Sir Murray Maclehose, set aside 40 percent of the colony as parkland - cramped comfort to the fellow living in 300 square feet with his wife. Mother, kids, and their Tamagotchi pets.

But the British never tried to install a European-style Pampers-to-June Allyson welfare system in Hong Kong. Maybe the Labour M.P.s were unwilling to invest vast quantities of groundnut scheme-type pinko planning geniuses across the border. Maybe the colonial administrators were overwhelmed by the number of refugees from pinko planning jamming into town. Maybe the mother country was too broke from ruining its own economy in the British Isles. Or maybe the Brits just did not care about pushing social justice down the throats of people who were, after all, only Chinese.

On the other hand, the British were not irresponsible. The "doing nothing" system mentioned at the beginning of this chapter is a relative term. Laissez-faire is not Tanzanian administrative sloth or Albanian popular anarchy.

Quite a bit of government effort is required to create a system in which government leaves people alone. Hong Kong's colonial administration provided courts, contract enforcement, laws that applied to everyone, some measure of national defense (although the Red Chinese People's Liberation Army probably could have lazed its way across the border anytime it wanted), an effective police force (Hong Kong's crime rate is lower than Tokyo's), and bureaucracy that was efficient and uncorrupt but not so hideously uncorrupt that it would not turn a blind eye on an occasional palm-greasing illegal refugee or unlicensed street vendor.

The Brits built schools and roads. And the kids went to school because they knew if they did not, they'd have to hit that road. And the U.K gave Hong Kong a stable currency, which it did totally by cheating-first pegging the Hong Kong currency to the British pound and then, when everyone got done laughing at that, pegging to the U.S dollar at a rate of 7.8:1.Now when there are any money-supply dirty work to be done, Hong Kong can blame everything on Alan Greenspan.

Hong Kong was also fortunate in having a colonial government which included some real British heroes, men who helped of these the place stay as good as it was for a s long as it did.

The most heroic of these was John Cowperthwaite, a young colonial officer sent to Hong Kong in 1945 to oversee the colony's economic recovery. "Upon arrival, however," said a Far Eastern Economic Review article about Cowperthwaite, "he found it recovering quite nicely without him."


Cowperthwaite took the lesson to heart, and while he was in charge, he strictly limited bureaucratic interference in the economy growth or the size of GDP.

(Sorry for the interruption, but I've gotta throw this in....Cowperthwaite famously refused to collect economic statistics, "for fear that I might be forced to do something about them")

The Cubans wont let anyone get those figures, either. But Cowperthwaite forbade it for an opposite reason. He felt that these numbers were nobody's business and would only be misused by policy fools.

Cowperthwaite has said of his role in Hong Kong's astounding growth: "I did very little. All I did was to try to prevent some of the things that might undo it."

He served as the colony's financial secretary from 1961 to 1971.In the debate over the 1961 budget, he spoke words that should be engraved over the portals of every legislature worldwide; no, tattooed on the legislators' faces:

"....in the long run the aggregate of decisions of individual businessmen, exercising individual judgment in a free economy, even if often mistaken, is less likely to do harm than the centralized decisions of a government; and, certainly the harm is likely to be counteracted faster."
Even Newsweek has been forced into admiration: "While Britain continued to build a welfare state, Cowperthwaite was saying 'no': no export subsidies, no tariffs. No personal taxes higher than 15 percent, red tape so thin a one-page form can launch a company."

During Cowperthwaite's "nothing doing" tenure, Hong Kong's exports grew by an average of 13.8 percent a year, industrial wages doubled, and the number of households in extreme poverty shrank from more than half to 16 percent.

"It would be hard to overestimate the debt Hong Kong owes to Cowperthwaite," said economist Milton Friedman. And it would be hard to overestimate the debt Hong Kong owes to the Chinese people who sanctioned and supported what Cowperthwaite was doing or, rather, doing not.

Because Hong Kong did not get rich simply as a result of freedom and law. Economics is easier than economists claim, but its not as easy as that. Chinese culture was a factor in Hong Kong;s success. And yet, almost by definition, Chinese culture must have been a factor in mainland China's failure. Culture is complex. Complexities are fun to talk about, but, when it comes to action, simplicities are often more effective. John Cowperthwaite was a master of simplicities.

Yeung Way Hong, publisher of Hong Kong's most popular Chinese language magazine, Next, has suggested erecting an heroic-scale statue of John Cowperthwaite (To be paid for by private subscription, thank you).

In less than one lifetime, Hong Kong created the environment of comfort and hope that every place on earth has been trying to achieve since the days of homo erectus in the Olduvai Gorge. And Hong Kong's reward? It has been made a "Special administrative Region" of the People's Republic of China.

At midnight on June 30,1997,the British sold six million five hundred thousand souls. No,gave them away. Nearly a Londonful of individuals, supposed citizens of the realm that invented rights, equity, and the rule of law, got Christmas-goosed in July. Hong Kong was on the cuffo, a gimme, an Annie Oakley for the mainland Communists. At the stroke of 12, I was watching TV in my Hong Kong hotel room. The handover ceremony was being broadcast from the hideous new convention center three-quarters of a mile away.

A British military band wearing hats made from Yogi and Smokey and Poo played: "God save the Queen." The Union Jack went south. Prince Charles had just given a little speech. "We shall not forget you, and we shall watch with closest interest as you embark on this new era of your remarkable history." In other words, "Goodbye and bolt the door, bugger you."


Outside, on my hotel-room balcony, the floodlit convention center was all too visible on the harbor front, looking like somebody sat on the Sydney Opera House. Directly below the balcony, a couple thousand not very noisy protesters stood in the rain in Statue Square, looking like somebody was about to sit on them. They were listening to democracy advocate Martin Lee. Mr. Lee was a member of the first freely elected legislature in the history of Hong Kong. And the last. It was unelected at midnight. Mr. Lee was speaking without a police permit. And speaking. And speaking. Every now and then a disconsolate chant of agreement rose from the crowd. Mr. Lee kept speaking. No one bothered to stop him.

Back inside, on the TV, president of China Jiang Zemin was speaking, too-introducing himself to his instant, involuntary fellow countrymen with a poker-faced hollering of banalities in Mandarin.

"We owe all our achievements most fundamentally! To the road of building socialism! With Chinese characteristics! Which we have taken!!!" he said, interrupting his speech with episodes of self-applause, done in the official politburo manner by holding the hands sideways and moving the fingers and palms as if to make quacky-quacky shadow puppets.

The big men on the convention-center podium-Jiang, Prime Minister Li Peng, and Foreign Minister Qian Qichen-seemed to have made their own suit jackets at home. Tung Chee-hwa, the Beijing-appointed chief executive of the new Hong Kong Special Administration Region, came to the microphone next, making pronouncements that combined a political-reeducation-camp lecture ("Our thoughts and remembrance go, with great reverence, to the late Deng Xiaoping)"with a Dick Gephardt speech ("We respect minority views but also shoulder collective responsibility. We value plurality but discourage open confrontation. We strive for liberty but not at the expense of blah,blah,blah.").

This also was said in Mandarin, which is not the native tongue in Hong Kong. In fact, no one uses it there, and having the HK chief executive lipping away in an alien lingo was like hearing an American politician speaking meaningless, bizarre...it was like hearing an American politician speak.

Outside on the balcony again (covering the Hong Kong handover required a journalist to give his utmost-what with AC-chilled binocs fogging in the tropical heat and a minibar running low on ice)? I watched the HMS Britannia pull away from the convention-center dock. A non-descript, freighter-shaped vessel painted white, Brittania looked to be more an unfortunate cruise-ship choice than a royal yacht. It steamed through Victoria Harbour, hauling butt from now foreign waters. On board were the last British governor of Hong Kong, the aristocrat currently known as Prince of Wales, any number of other dignitaries, and, I hope, a large cargo of guilt.

Would the limeys have skipped town if Hong Kong was full of 6.5 million big, pink, freckled, hay-haired, kipper-tucking, pint-sloshing, work-shy, layabout, Labour-voting¡­Well, in that case¡­

Maybe Hong Kong just was not one of those vital, strategic places worth fighting for-like the Falklands. Maybe the Poms only intervene militarily where there's enough sheep to keep the troops entertained.

Why did not the British give back some other island to China. Britain, for example. This would get the U.K. back on a capitalist course-Beijing being more interested in moneymaking than Tony Blair. Plus, the Chinese have extensive experience settling royal-family problems.

Or why did not Britain sell England to Hong Kong? Hong Kong can afford it, and that way anyone who was worried about the fate of democracy in the Special Administrative Region could go live in Sloane Square, and the rest of England could be turned into a theme park.

There's quaint scenery, lots of amusements for the kiddies ("Changing of the Wives") at Buckingham Palace is good), and plenty of souvenirs, such as, if you donate enough money to the right political party, a knighthood.

But, this didn't happen. And the people of Hong Kong (unless they were very rich) were stuck in Hong Kong. Sure, they had British passports. But, these were "starter passports"-good for travel to...Macao.

Of course, they could have gotten passport upgrades. For a million Hong Kong dollars, they could have gone to Toronto. Very fun.

Oh, lets give the limeys a break. It's not as if we Americans gave a damn, either. We could have threatened to stealth-bomber the Red Chinese or, for that matter, Margaret Thatcher when she started gift-wrapping Hong Kong for Deng Xiaoping. We could have told China to go kiss Boris Yeltsin's ass if it wanted to be a most-favoured nation. And we could have handed out 6.5 million green cards.

Imagine 6.5 million savvy, hardworking citizens-to-be with a great cuisine. What a blessing for America. And how we would hate them. Pat Buchanan would hate their race. The AFL-CIO would hate their wage rate. The NAACP would hate their failure to fail as a minority. And, Al Gore would hate 6.5 million campaign contributors who didn't have to sneak pro-free-trade money to the Democratic National Committee anymore but could go right into polling booths and vote Republican.

The surrender of Hong Kong was a shameful moment. But if you missed Martin Lee's soggy peroratition in Statue Square, you might never have known it.

The stock market was still on a swell, up 30 percent from a year before, with bulging, steroidal gains in the so-called red chips, the mainland holding companies promoted by the ChiComs. Trade and foreign investment were at unexampled heights. No one was running from the real-estate market. Tiny condominiums in unglamorous districts were going for $500,000.

A five-day weekend was declared, though no one closed shop. Retail sales were 30 percent to 40 percent above the usual. Important people had flown in from all over the globe. I saw the back of Margaret Thatcher's head in my hotel lobby.

On July 1("Dependence Day," I guess) people who should have known better sent messages of cheer, fulsomely printed in the South China Morning Post:
"China has made important commitments to maintain Hong Kong's freedom and autonomy".-- Bill Clinton

"Hong Kong can be an ever better place in which to live and work."-- Madeleine Albright
"I feel pretty relaxed about it."-- George Bush

 
Skyrockets splattered in the evening skies. The British Farewell Ceremony for 10,000 invited guests had featured not only bands from the Scots Guards, Black Watch, and various other men without pants, but also from Hong Kong Philharmonic Orchestra and (I saw this) a dance troupe with performers dressed as giant deutsche marks, enormous circuit boards, and huge powdered wigs. At the other end of the lifestyle continuum, there was a One Nation Under a Groove 11 p.m to 9 a.m rave.

In between were thousands of parties, from impromptu expat booze-ups in the Wan Chai lap-dancing district to dinners with courses incalculable by abacus at Hong Kong mogul David Tang's China Club.

Here the whole food chain was ravaged, from depth of sea slug to bird's nest height. The China Club is decorated colonial style in big-wallah mahogany, except the walls are covered with Mao-era socialist-realism art, and the waiters and waitresses are dressed as Red Guards. Meaning? I have no idea.

I also have no idea why my hotel kept giving me handover gifts: a bottle of champagne, a coffee-table book about Hong Kong titled Return to the heart of the Dragon (less ominous-sounding in Chinese, I gather), and a silver mug bearing crossed British and Chinese flags, and inscribed:

Resumption of Sovereignty


To China


1 July 1977


Hong Kong

To which I intend to have added:

Bowling Tournament


2nd place
Whimsical handover T-shirts, many making hangover puns, were for sale around the city, as such humorous novelties as "Canned Colonial Air-Sealed before June 30th." I suppose the same sort of things were being marketed in Vienna in 1938: "Last Yarmulke before Anschluss," and so on. Maybe in occupied France, too: "Vichy Water," ha-ha.

There were grumbles in Hong Kong, of course, such as dissidentish shows by artists objecting to censorship, in case there was going to be any.

Martin Lee and his fellow Democratic Party members gave a glum press conference, at which they promised to keep representing their electoral districts, even if they didn't anymore. And a certain amount of fretting in the press was seen, but mostly of the affectless editorial page kind that mixes After Genocide-Wither Rwanda? With After Gretzky-Wither Hockey? Hong Kong on the whole, was awfully darn cheerful.

Why weren't 6.5 million people more upset about being palmed off to an ideology-impaired dictatorship that has the H-bomb? Even one of Taiwan's top representatives in Hong Kong was quoted saying, "As a Chinese person, I think it is a good thing that Hong Kong is coming back to China." Chiang-Kai-shek, please.

There is the colonialism issue.

How did the Chinese of Hong Kong really feel about being ruled by England? It's a complex question. Or, as a number of Chinese people said to me, "no, it isn't." Being an American, an Irish-American to boot, I was maybe, told certain things that the English did not hear. "We hate the English," for instance.

When a Chinese friend said that, I said, "wait a minute was in Vietnam not long ago, and nobody seemed to hate Americans. If the Vietnamese can forgive the Americans for napalm, carpet bombing, agent orange, and what-all, surely you can forgive the English for the odd opium war and some 'Land of Hope and Glory' karaoke"

"It's a different thing," said my friend. "You just killed the Vietnamese; you never snubbed them."

Hong Kong's people are also realists. Calling in to complain on the Larry King Show wasn't going to do much. Thus the tepid response to the handover's endless television and newspaper "streeters", the interviews with random locals: "Excuse me, I understand you're about to get secret police in your neighbourhood. Would you care to tell the world how much you hate Jiang Zemin?"

There are real reasons for Hong Kong's realism. In 1945 the population of the territory was only 1.2 million. Today, the whole city is filled with refugees and children of refugees. Until 1981,Hong Kong had a "touch base" asylum policy where, basically, anyone from the mainland who made it to downtown could stay.

The Chinese who fled the civil war, the communist takeover on the mainland, and the lunatic deprivations and slaughters that followed know that there's only one real safe haven: money.

And they are serious about making it.

Sunday, June 3, 2012

A sincere question about the Fort Worth Federal Aviation Administration Headquarters

My largest warehouse is on Meacham Boulevard in Fort Worth, just down the street from Fort Worth's massive Federal Aviation Administration building. 


They're supposedly in charge of keeping all the planes in the sky for as long as they're scheduled to be in the sky, with landings equalling takeoffs.  They have the most sophisticated security system on our street.  Gated parking with guards, cameras everywhere, and all the other things required to keep terrorists from shutting down our air traffic. 

They do some inspections, write some regulations, and approve some designs. 

They are supposedly vital.  To hear some people (see: Fort Worth Star-Telegram) tell it, we would have chaos if we were to privatize this government agency.  (see: Canada)

The FAA has a massive Washington headquarters, plus Central, New England, Great Lakes, Northwest Mountain, Alaskan, Southern, and Western-Pacific branches in addition to the Southwestern branch, the one just down the street from where I am writing this. 

I have one question. 

If they're so vital and important, why aren't they working on Sunday? 

Hope you're all having a good weekend !! 

Friday, May 11, 2012

Why You Shouldn't Hire Anyone In The United States Of America

Barack Obama has has sent Congress a ridiculous "To Do" List, a ragtag collection of feel-good proposals to help the economy, help the unemployed, and mostly to help Washington bureaucrats. 


All of them would be unnecessary if he'd just do the right thing and resign in disgrace. 

Here's #1 on the list:

Reward American Jobs, Eliminate Tax Incentives To Ship Jobs Overseas: Attract and keep good jobs in the United State sby passing legislation that gives companies a new 20 percent tax credit for the cost of moving their operations back to the U.S. Congress should pay for this credit by eliminating tax incentives that allow companies to deduct the costs of moving their business abroad.


If Congress doesn't vote in favor of this stuff, they'll be known as the "do-nothing Congress".  They're already the "do-nothing Congress".  They haven't passed a budget in more than three years, and for two of those years, they were controlled by Democrats.  Since 2010, the House has been Republican, but the Senate has been Democrat.  And it looks like the Dems still run the show. 

Enough about that.  Here's something from the world of reality.  This is what it's like for an employer in Obama's America:

My employer, Jukt Micronics, runs wood, metal and plastic shops in Texas.  I run a warehouse and shipping operation for them where my employees receive, assemble, and transport products made overseas. 

The total product mix is probably 60% manufactured in the U.S., 40% imported from outside of the U.S. 

Before we started outsourcing, we had about 300 employees in the U.S.  

After we started going overseas to purchase the easy stuff, we grew to 600 U.S. employees.  It's funny how that works, isn't it? 

We've now dropped to about 500 U.S. employees, primarily because of the Thief In Chief in the White House. 

The guy who runs our wood operation, who I'll call "Woodchuck", is a great person.  He is a wood god. 

About a week ago, Woodchuck got a complaint about a nighshift employee sleeping on the job.

Woodchuck checked the video cameras, and sure enough, the dude was driving to remote corners of the wood shop on a forklift, kicking back and catching some serious naps. 

Woodchuck fired him. 

The employee, who I'll call "Snoozy", filed for unemployment compensation, saying that he was unjustly terminated. 

The case actually went to a Texas Workforce Commission hearing.  We were armed with the videos, and expected an easy victory. 

The TWC lifer asked Woodchuck if he ever posted signs in the factory about NO SLEEPING ON THE JOB, or NO SLEEPING ON FORKLIFTS. 

Woodchuck replied that he had not.  (He also doesn't have signs about NO SHITTING ON THE BREAKROOM FLOOR, and NO RAPING EMPLOYEES ON THE SLIDING TABLE SAW). 

Because of this glaring oversight we lost the case.  Jukt Micronics will have to pay for Snoozy's unemployment compensation for up to 99 weeks. 

I'll go to my grave believing that the ridiculous number of people collecting unemployment is a campaign strategy.  Increasing the duration of unemployement compensation is a campaign strategy.  (I've lost some compensation claims that I know I'd have won five or six years ago.  One instance involves firing someone for Indecent Exposure.  There were multiple witnesses to the crime.  And Jukt Micronics now has to pay the perverted sonofabitch unemployment for 99 weeks because I supposedly threatened the guy.) 

If Barack Obama wants to bring jobs back to the U.S., there are some simple ways to do it.  He could make the U.S. a less hostile place for employers.  He could stop rigging the tax code in favor of people who do things that he likes.  He could resign. 

When I get to work today, I'm putting signs up about NO SLEEPING ON THE JOB and NO SLEEPING ON FORKLIFTS, just to be safe.  And I'm going to explain why. 



Anyone who hires someone in the United States is taking a huge, huge risk.