Why aren't businesses hiring? Why don't more people play Blackjack in Oklahoma?

John Stossel has a piece in Real Clear Politics about why businesses aren't hiring.  Here are the high points:

"Corporate profits are soaring. Companies are sitting on billions of dollars of cash. And still, they've yet to amp up hiring or make major investments."

"....The problem today is that the economy is not being left alone. Instead, it is haunted by uncertainty on a hundred fronts. When rules are unintelligible and unpredictable, when new workers are potential threats because of Labor Department regulations, businesses have little confidence to hire. President Obama's vaunted legislative record not only left entrepreneurs with the burden of bigger government, it also makes it impossible for them to accurately estimate the new burden."

"In at least three big areas -- health insurance, financial regulation and taxes -- no one can know what will happen."

New intrusive rules for health insurance are yet to be written, and those rules will affect hiring, since most health insurance is provided by employers.

Thanks to the new 2,300 page Dodd-Frank finance regulatory act, The Wall Street Journal reports, there will be "no fewer than 243 new formal rule-makings by 11 different federal agencies." These as-yet unknown rules will govern lending to business and other key financial activity.
The George W. Bush tax cuts might be allowed to expire. But maybe not. Social Security and Medicare are dangerously shaky. Will Congress raise the payroll tax? A "distinguished" deficit commission is meeting. What will it do? Recommend a value-added tax?
Who knows? But few employers will commit to a big investment with those clouds hanging over our heads."

Let's look at the tax situation using an analogy that I've used before. 

I love to play Blackjack.   

In Vegas, Shreveport, and on cruise ships, Blackjack odds are roughly 51-52% in favor of the house.  That's good enough for me to put my superstitions to the test.  I'll play under those conditions.  

When I lose a hand at a $5.00 table, I lose 500 cents on every five dollars that I've bet.  
When I win a hand, I win 500 cents on every five dollars that I've bet.  Sometimes more if I can hit 21.  

But if you go to Oklahoma casinos to play, they have a rule where you have to lay out a .50 cent chip as a dealer commission for every five dollar bet.  

When you lose a hand at a $5.00 table in Oklahoma, you lose 550 cents on every five dollars that you've bet. 
When you win a hand in Oklahoma, you win 450 cents on every five dollars that you've bet. 

Notice the generic "you" in those previous sentences.   I've never played in Oklahoma, despite it only being a two hour trip.  The house keeps too much of the money.  I don't like those odds. 

When businesses start a new project, roll out a new product, or even try to stay open for another month, they could lose everything.  The could lose 100 cents on the dollar. 
Under the current regime, which wants to make businesses play doctor, mommy, Labor Union antagonist, and Bureaucrat Pension supporter, business owners could still "win" something.  But no more than, say, 50 cents on the dollar if pending legislation is voted into law. 

Earnings much greater than 65 cents on the dollar, according to our President, would put players in the category of "the most fortunate", and expose the business and its owners to higher and higher levels of confiscation. 

That's bad enough to make Oklahoma casinos to look like a good deal. 
Would you put your money at risk with those odds? 

                       **********************
The picture of Uncertainty came from here.  The picture of the Firelake Indian Casino came from here.  The picture of the taxpayer burdened with bloodsucking leeches came from here. 

Ronald Reagan was a fiscal conservative ????

This post is about the funniest 3 word combination in the English language. 

But first, check out this movie trailer.  I WILL see this if it ever makes it to Texas:



There's only one problem. Why are they featuring Republican politicians?  Especially Ronald Reagan? 

Ronald Reagan was able to increase the amount of money coming into the Treasury by using a simple method.  He lowered taxes.  GDP increased as people hid less of their income and put it to work in sensible ways.  It's better to have 15% of a thousand dollars than 85% of a hundred dollars.
 
But under Reagan, our government spent money like, well, like Republicans. 

Here's a chart showing U.S. debt as a percentage of GDP.  It's from Wikipedia, but it roughly follows the info to be found here:

Look at the pink band running from 1981 to 1993, the Gipper/Poppy Bush era. 
Does that look like they believed "Government Is Not The Solution; Government Is The Problem?"

Here's another look at the same data, formatted for entertainment value....

Enough about Reagan.  Here's the Cato Institute's Veronique De Rugy on George W. Bush's spending habits:

During his eight years in office, President Bush oversaw a large increase in government spending. In fact, President Bush increased government spending more than any of the six presidents preceding him, including LBJ. In his last term in office, President Bush increased discretionary outlays by an estimated 48.6 percent.


During his eight years in office, President Bush spent almost twice as much as his predecessor, President Clinton. Adjusted for inflation, in eight years, President Clinton increased the federal budget by 11 percent. In eight years, President Bush increased it by a whopping 104 percent.

One reason offered for these large budget increases is that entitlement programs are growing rapidly. Although Social Security and Medicare spending growth outpaced most other programs in the mid-1990s, spending growth in discretionary programs has accelerated in the last 15 years, especially during Bush’s two terms. Between FY2002 and FY2009, discretionary spending rose 96 percent.

Some argue that federal spending during the Bush years was so high because security needs drove up the budget. It is true that defense spending increased dramatically since the late-1990s, particularly since 9/11 and the beginning of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, nondefense spending increased too. Some also argue that much of the increase in nondefense spending stemmed from increases in homeland security spending. Whether this is true, the overall rapid rise of discretionary spending indicates that, here too, the administration and Congress made no trade-offs in the budget. If the administration and Congress wanted more security spending and wanted to be fiscally responsible, they should have found savings elsewhere in the budget.

President Bush added thousands of new federal subsidy programs during his eight years in office. In 2008, there were 1,816 subsidy programs in the federal budget that spread hundreds of billions of dollars annually to special interest groups such as state governments, businesses, nonprofit groups, and individuals. The number of subsidy programs has grown by 30 percent since 2000 and by 54 percent since 1990.

Here's some more research from Ms. De Rugy, from the November 8th, 2008 issue of Reason magazine.  (Remember, this was written before the current Messiah started his spending spree):
 
"When it comes to out-of-control spending, conventional wisdom says the Democrats are most likely to bust open the coffers. That's why many fear an increased Democratic majority in Congress topped by a Democratic president. And we should be afraid. Democrats are indeed big spenders. Second only to Republicans."
 
She goes on to rank the possible combinations of Republican vs. Democrat control of Congress and the Presidency, going from kinda bad to worse:
 
1) Democratic White House, Republican Congress

2) Republican White House, Democratic Congress
3) Unified Republican or Democratic rule.

You cannot, you will not, get spending under control by electing Republicans.  Until recently, Republicans held all the spending records.  Democrat spending might be sillier, and easier to poke fun at, but by every measurement, until recently, the Democrats spend less money.  If you look at the long term, FREAKIN' DEMOCRATS are the fiscal conservatives ! 

We simply have to start electing Libertarians to high office.  There is no other solution. 

Oh, and the funniest 3 words in the English language? 
Small Government Republican

Paul Krugman couldn't find his way out of a sack

It's Fisking time, boys and girls ! 

I'll be needing a few tools....

Scalpel - thanks.
Laptop - got it.
Righteous Indignation - I've got plenty.
Various Free Market, Libertarian and Christian websites - check.
Copy of Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics (3rd edition) - got it.
Chainsaw - yep.
Metzenbaum scissors - check.

Let the Fisking begin ! 

Paul Krugman, the most drop-kickable of all Statist apologists, has typed up this little beauty for The New York Times:

NOW THAT'S RICH
We need to pinch pennies these days. Don’t you know we have a budget deficit? For months that has been the word from Republicans and conservative Democrats, who have rejected every suggestion that we do more to avoid deep cuts in public services and help the ailing economy.

My time is limited, and I don't have enough time or space to do anything but ask this simple question....  What in the hell does providing "public services" have to do with helping the economy?  Barack Obama has poured more swill and slop into the "public services" trough than any other president who has ever lived.  It has done nothing to help the economy, but it has saved a lot of Obama supporters government jobs.  All of this was done at the expense of the private sector.

But these same politicians are eager to cut checks averaging $3 million each to the richest 120,000 people in the country.

These politicians don't want to cut checks, Paul.  They want to let people keep the money they earned.  The money doesn't belong to the government until the government decides to graciously give some back.  They money belongs to the people who earned it.

What — you haven’t heard about this proposal? Actually, you have: I’m talking about demands that we make all of the Bush tax cuts, not just those for the middle class, permanent.

That's a nice attempt at class warfare.  But consider this:  47 percent of us pay NO income tax.  If taxes (and spending) are ever going to be cut significantly, the cuts will come from the taxes paid by someone other than the lower classes.  (Subject for further review: how many of our super-rich came from the middle and lower classes.  Another subject for further review:  who woke up one day and decided that America has classes?  One more subject:  Should people try hard to change their economic status?  What would be in it for them?)

Some background: Back in 2001, when the first set of Bush tax cuts was rammed through Congress, the legislation was written with a peculiar provision — namely, that the whole thing would expire, with tax rates reverting to 2000 levels, on the last day of 2010.

Paul says that like it is a bad thing.  Also, note the use of the word "rammed".  In Paul's world, Cash For Clunkers, ObamaCare ® and TARP were "passed".  Tax cuts are "rammed". 

Why the cutoff date? In part, it was used to disguise the fiscal irresponsibility of the tax cuts: lopping off that last year reduced the headline cost of the cuts, because such costs are normally calculated over a 10-year period.

Let's define Fiscal Irresponsibility.....How about "failure to reduce spending to reflect income"? 

It also allowed the Bush administration to pass the tax cuts using reconciliation — yes, the same procedure that Republicans denounced when it was used to enact health reform — while sidestepping rules designed to prevent the use of that procedure to increase long-run budget deficits.

Ditto.  Bush spent money like a recovering alcoholic cowboy.  So did Daddy Bush.  So did Reagan.  But they were mere hints of what was yet to come, a series of John The Baptists preparing the way for The Teleprompter Jesus....

Obviously, the idea was to go back at a later date and make those tax cuts permanent. But things didn’t go according to plan. And now the witching hour is upon us.

That's because The Crips And The Bloods The Republicans and Democrats will never, ever voluntarily cut spending.  That's why we need to elect some Libertarians and get back to a two-party system. 

So what’s the choice now? The Obama administration wants to preserve those parts of the original tax cuts that mainly benefit the middle class — which is an expensive proposition in its own right —

Once again Paul reveals his belief that letting people keep their own money is expensive.  MAKING PEOPLE PAY RIDICULOUSLY HIGH TAXES IS EXPENSIVE ! ! !

....but to let those provisions benefiting only people with very high incomes expire on schedule. Republicans, with support from some conservative Democrats, want to keep the whole thing.

Abso-freakin'-lutely.  Keep the whole thing.  Starve the beast.  Federal employees have compensation and pensions anywhere from 50% to 100% better than those found in the private sector.  And from what I've seen, they have about half as much responsibility.  What is so criminal about not wanting to be robbed to support the Lifestyles Of The Rich And Famous?

And there’s a real chance that Republicans will get what they want. That’s a demonstration, if anyone needed one, that our political culture has become not just dysfunctional but deeply corrupt.

The mind recoils.  Paul Krugman won a Nobel in economics.  Next thing you know, they'll be giving Nobels to someone in the last three Democrat administrations, like Obama, Gore, or Carter.  Oh.  Never mind. 

What’s at stake here? According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, making all of the Bush tax cuts permanent, as opposed to following the Obama proposal, would cost the federal government $680 billion in revenue over the next 10 years.

That logic assumes that the super-wealthy will continue to produce income if they know that Obama is going to get more of the (potential) profit. 
But $680 billion....That's the amount of the previous stimulus package, right?  Well, if we don't give 'em the money, they can't redistribute it to their friends, right? 

For the sake of comparison, it took months of hard negotiations to get Congressional approval for a mere $26 billion in desperately needed aid to state and local governments.

Let's not ask why the states needed $26 billion dollars.  We don't want to go there.  Surely California was spending its money responsibly, and isn't on the hook for ridiculous public employee pensions....

And where would this $680 billion go? Nearly all of it would go to the richest 1 percent of Americans, people with incomes of more than $500,000 a year.

Paul, you ignorant slut.  The money wouldn't GO to the richest 1 percent.  It would STAY with them.  They are the ones who are producing the alleged $680 billion.  They would get to spend it in the way that they think best, instead of forking it over to be spent the way George Bush, Mitch McConnell, Nancy Pelosi, or Harry Reid thinks best. 
Also, Paul, I'm betting that you are well paid.  I'm also betting that you have a tax expert go through your taxes, looking for every possible deduction.  I'm just betting that you talk the talk, but don't walk the walk.  

But that’s the least of it: the policy center’s estimates say that the majority of the tax cuts would go to the richest one-tenth of 1 percent. Take a group of 1,000 randomly selected Americans, and pick the one with the highest income; he’s going to get the majority of that group’s tax break. And the average tax break for those lucky few — the poorest members of the group have annual incomes of more than $2 million, and the average member makes more than $7 million a year — would be $3 million over the course of the next decade.

You can also take the same group of 1,000 randomly selected Americans, and pick out 470 of them.  These 470 are paying no income tax. 
You can probably pick out another 330 of them who are government employees or suppliers, and who live off of taxes paid by the top 100. 
What does all this mean? 
It means we have too many people living off of money taken by force.  If you announce that more money is going to be taken for redistribution to Statists, the infamous top 5% is going to start hiding its money.  Wait and see. 

How can this kind of giveaway be justified at a time when politicians claim to care about budget deficits?

Well, because of Texas A&M University, I'm having a budget deficit.  Therefore, I spend less. 

Well, history is repeating itself. The original campaign for the Bush tax cuts relied on deception and dishonesty. In fact, my first suspicions that we were being misled into invading Iraq were based on the resemblance between the campaign for war and the campaign for tax cuts the previous year. And sure enough, that same trademark deception and dishonesty is being deployed on behalf of tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

It is now impossible to cut taxes for anyone except the wealthiest 50% of Americans, dumb ass. 
Speaking of dishonesty, our government is now claiming that we're pulling the combat troops out of Iraq, but we are still going to have 50,000 troops over there, and I think they have guns.  Whassup with that? 

So, for example, we’re told that it’s all about helping small business; but only a tiny fraction of small-business owners would receive any tax break at all. And how many small-business owners do you know making several million a year?

Perhaps it is an aspirational thing.  I don't make several million a year, but I would like to.  I will try harder if I can keep the several million a year, instead of giving more of it to our costly adventures in Iraq, Afghanistan, and California. 

Or we’re told that it’s about helping the economy recover. But it’s hard to think of a less cost-effective way to help the economy than giving money to people who already have plenty, and aren’t likely to spend a windfall.

GIVING THE MONEY?  GIVING THE MONEY?  THE GOVERNMENT ISN'T GOING TO GIVE PEOPLE THAT MONEY ! ! !   THE GOVERNMENT WANTS TO TAKE THE MONEY, AND BLOW IT ON STUPID CRAP ! ! ! 
Paul, please go to "Clues 'R' Us", and get one. 

No, this has nothing to do with sound economic policy. Instead, as I said, it’s about a dysfunctional and corrupt political culture, in which Congress won’t take action to revive the economy, pleads poverty when it comes to protecting the jobs of schoolteachers and firefighters, but declares cost no object when it comes to sparing the already wealthy even the slightest financial inconvenience.

According to The Washington Post, we're spending $25,000 per kid in many public schools.  How much more do you want to blow per classroom, under the heading of  "saving teaching jobs"?  Is there any amount that would be enough? 
So far, the Obama administration is standing firm against this outrage. Let’s hope that it prevails in its fight. Otherwise, it will be hard not to lose all faith in America’s future.

1)  People spend their own money more wisely than 3rd parties spend it. 
2)  Taxes must be taken by force. 
3)  High taxes act as a disincentive to wealth creation.
4)  Make-work jobs, those created by government, eventually run out of money. 
5)  Paul Krugman couldn't find his way out of a sack.

How manly is your drink???

All I'm going to say in my defense is that Michelob Ultra has only 2.5 carbs per serving, okay? 
Before I switched over to Michelob Ultra, the few things I consumed were clustered around the Keith Richards "Hair On Your Chest" axis. 
I got up to 237 pounds before I switched over to Michelob Ultra.  Now I weigh 185.  So there. 
I've never even been aware of the existence "Sophistication" scale running from left to right. 

I was never a frat boy. 
I used to be a lightweight, then I became a heavyweight, mostly from eating rice stuffed inside baked potatoes, wrapped in Texas Toast, and then deep-fried inside a pizza crust. 
That's the ONLY reason I switched to Michelob Ultra, okay?  To lower the carbs.  But it's actually pretty good stuff. 

I drive a Ford F-150 pickup.  I've stared down employees who are rapists, thieves, and convicted felons. 
Michelob Ultra is good stuff.  Especially the Pomegranate Raspberry flavor one.  I've always wondered why bartenders kinda giggle to themselves when I order that. 

I shot a 6-point buck the very first time I went deer hunting.  Top that, Justin Bieber. 

The defective, faulty, erroneous chart came from here.
I also kinda like the Barry Manilow CD where he covers Broadway show tunes, but that doesn't mean anything. 

Let's have more holidays, sick days, vacation days, personal days, and longer lunches for government regulators !

From the always quotable P.J. O'Rourke, on the free market:

"The free market is not an ideology or a creed or something we're supposed to take on faith, it's a measurement. It's a bathroom scale. I may hate what I see when I step on the bathroom scale, but I can't pass a law saying I weigh 160 pounds. Authoritarian governments think they can pass that law—a law to change the measurement of things."

Can't quite wrap your head around that?  Here's some more explanation from Mark Perry's Carpe Diem blog:

Exhibit A: The minimum wage law. A teenager with no work experience steps on a "bathroom scale" that accurately and truthfully measures the market value of (his or her) unskilled labor, and the scale says "$5.00 per hour." Politicians pass minimum wage legislation to rig the "bathroom scale" of labor value to instead produce an inaccurate, false inflated reading of "$7.25 per hour." And they then seem puzzled that more than one out of every four teenagers who is looking for a job is unable to find one, but that's what happens when you "rig" the "bathroom scale."

The picture is also from the Carpe Diem Blog.  Here's Perfesser Perry:

The empty shelves above in Zimbabwe are the result of gov't. imposed price controls, forcing shopkeepers to lower prices by 50% in response to suring inflation that is estimated to be 4,500%.


If the government arbitrarily prices something too high, no one will purchase it  (as in expensive teenage labor).  If the government arbitrarily prices something too low, the shelves will be empty (as in Zimbabwe, where producers and retailers didn't bringing goods to the market when they couldn't make a profit). 
 
The solution?  More holidays, sick days, vacations, personal days, and longer lunches for government regulators.  When they aren't working, they can't hurt anybody. 

Mama Tried

From Reason magazine's "Daily Brickbats" feature.  I don't recommend going there very often, because you'll spend the rest of your day praying for the damnation of the human race. 

In Canada, Shirley Anderson abandoned her son Ken when he was just 15. Over the next 31 years, he says the only times he spoke to her was when she called asking for money. Now, Shirley, 71 is suing Ken and four of his siblings under British Columbia law that requires children to support dependent parents. A court has already awarded her a payment of $10 a month from each child, but she is now seeking $300 to $350 a month from each of them.

Here's The Calgary Herald:

When Ken Anderson was just 15, his mother, Shirley, made it clear: She didn't want him anymore.
Ken's father, a long-haul trucker, had been transferred from Osoyoos, B.C., to the province's Kootenay region. Although their marriage was rocky, Shirley followed, taking second-youngest son Darryl with her.

Ken was left behind. He had plenty of time to think about it as he wiped bug splatter off car windshields and pumped gas at the local station to make a buck. He says he can't even remember how many couches he slept on, or how he kept himself going. He just knows he never got to go to a prom, finish high school or even think about college.

The way he sees it, he never really had a mother.

On Aug. 3 and 4, Ken, now 46, will face off in B.C. Supreme Court against the woman who gave birth to him.

Now there's a family that puts the funk back in dysfunctional. 
The Whited Mama has made it very clear to her children that they will inherit little or nothing.  Whenever she reads of someone "dying penniless", she sees it as a case of perfect timing. 
We've made it clear to The Whited Mama that if she gets to feeble to take care of herself, she can stay in an extra bedroom with 5 dachshunds, a yellow lab, and whatever reptiles The Aggie has brought in. 
So far, she claims to be healthy. 


Here's Mighty Merle Haggard doing "Mama Tried":

The Cypress Bible Institute

I recently interviewed a graduate of The Cypress Bible Institute, also known as The Cypress Bible College, a center for higher learning located in Van, Texas. 

I don't know how The Cypress Bible Institute has flown beneath my radar for this long. 
According to their website, they are accredited:

Cypress Bible Institute is accredited by Shema Israel Christian Ministries International located in Riverside, California, and operates under their Federal Charter.

I could spend weeks going through The Cypress Bible Institute course descriptions.  Here's info from their class on the gospels:

 N-5. An in depth study of the life and miracles of Christ, the disciples, and parables are discussed. Also an in depth study of the four gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are discussed in detail.

As I've stated numerous times on this site, I'm the product of a rural education.  I can confuse the hell out of some subject/verb agreement.  But look at that last sentence, the one beginning with "Also an in depth study...." 
What is the subject of that sentence?  Is it "study" or "Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John"?  Which one(s) are discussed in detail?  Sheesh ! 
This is from an academic course outline, right? 

Here's the description of a course on Bible Standards:

S-39-A This course deals with Bible holiness, concepts of dress, jedwely, hair, the role of women in the church, ministrial authority, and legalism.

Two typos in one sentence.  Perhaps they have a line of ministrial jedwely?  For women who know their subservient role in the church?

Here's the course description from a class on the King James Bible:

Ph-93 This course was written by James Jackson and deals with the origin of the KJV Bible. It shows the superiority of the King James over the other Bible translations.

I wonder if the course covers the well-documented fact that King James was as gay as a barrel of monkeys on nitrous oxide?  (Not that there's anything wrong with that.) 

They have a class called "Predestination":

D-76-2 This course covers the subjects such as the definition of Predestination, Theological Determinism, Free Will in Theology, Calvinism & Predestination, Theological Fatalism, Fatalism, Providentialism, and Divine Providence.

If you fail the class on predestination, it is not a big deal.  God meant for it to happen. 

There is another course with the rather broad name "Ancient Historical Facts". 

Here are three that could be interesting....One of the early problems faced by the early church was that the church wanted to retain the idea of one god.  They also liked the idea of Jesus being divine.  Jesus had also made some oblique references to a being called "The Comforter". 
Preachers and Apostles argued for a while, and came up with the idea of the Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.  All are equal, all are the same, all are distinct, and all are indivisble.)  The idea was tossed around a lot in the third century, and became formal church doctrine after the Council Of Nicea in 325.  The idea has been with us ever since. 
But NOT at Cypress Bible College:

Trinity or Truth

T-19. This lesson shows the error of the Trinity doctrine and presents the truth of Monotheism. Many questions asked by Trinitarians are dealt with in this lesson.

The Truth of The Oneness Doctrine
T-20. This doctrinal course is a rebuttal to a major Trinitarian who has written a book indicating the oneness people are heresy.

Trinity Origin Research
D-46. This course is presented by Dr. Vestal on his research of the origin of the Trinity doctrine. Quotes from major Encyclopedias and Theologians show that the Trinity doctrine is in error. Dr. Vestal also rebuts in writing the theology of Calvin Beisner, and the late Dr. Walter Martin.

Dr. Vestal is probably onto something here, but the rest of Christian history, theology, and hymnology requires one long rebuttal if you throw out the Trinity with the holy water. 

From a course on "God's Astronomy":

D-43. This course covers the true meaning of the 12 signs of the Zodiac . The lesson covers Psalms 19, the 12 signs of the Zodiac in relation to the 12 tribes of Israel, the 12 months on the Hebrew calendar. The planets of our solar system are also discussed.

Then it gets weird.
You can go to Cypress and take a course called "UFO Research And The Bible":

D-48. This course deals with the UFO sightings and uses Scripture to prove their existence. This lesson covers the future UFO invasion of our earth, the cleansing of the 2nd heavens prior to the 2nd coming of Christ at Armageddon. This course is a great eye opener to our generation.

And finally:

Doctor (sic) Thesis

S-65 A thesis is required of your own choosing, thesis must be at least 30 pages in length.

Dang.  30 pages?  Is a Doctorate really worth that kind of effort? 

Obama To Create 17 New Jobs By Resigning And Finally Opening That Restaurant

From John Shuey's Facebook page comes this bit o' brilliance from The Onion:

WASHINGTON—In an effort to counter the highest unemployment rate the nation has faced in a quarter century, Barack Obama announced Monday that he will create 17 new jobs by resigning from the presidency to pursue his lifelong dream of opening a cozy little down-home restaurant just off the Galesburg, IL exit on Interstate 74. "Now is the time for drastic measures, and the several line-cook and serving positions that will be generated by Barry's Place are imperative to getting the economy back on track," said Obama, donning a white apron over rolled-up shirtsleeves.

"The hope is that this bold initiative will demonstrate to other American business owners that it is possible to break the cycle after they somehow get sucked into politics and things snowball so fast that they lose sight of what's really important, like serving people the best slice of pecan pie they've ever tasted at a price that can't be beat." Vice President Joe Biden has reportedly followed Obama's entrepreneurial lead by purchasing a secondhand cologne and condom vending machine that will be installed in the men's bathroom of a Wilmington, DE offtrack betting parlor

The picture of Obama cooking the books came from here. 

High taxes equal high emigration and high deficits

This is from the TaxProf blog, where Paul L. Caron lists the states with the highest tax rates for top earners.  All of these are Blue States that went for Obama, by the way:

1. Hawaii:  11% (income over $400,000 (couple), $200,000 (single))
2. Oregon:  11% (income over $500,000 (couple), $250,000 (single))
3. California: 10.55% (income over $1 million)
4. Rhode Island:  9.9% (income over $373,650)
5. Iowa:  8.98% (income over $64,261)
6. New Jersey  8.97% (income over $500,000)
7. New York:  8.97% (income over $500,000)
8. Vermont:  8.95% (income over $373,650)
9. Maine:  8.5% (income over $39,549 (couple), $19,749 (single))
10. Washington, D.C.:  8.5% (income over $40,000)

Ok, so what? 
Well, this is from the Wall Street Journal.  It's a map showing the migration patterns from state to state. 

With the exception of Oregon, all of the top tax states lost population from 2008 to 2009.  Most of them were already losing population in the earlier time period. 

Entrepreneurs don't like putting money at risk in places where greedy little government munchkins can confiscate more of their increasingly unlikely earnings. 

(Washington D.C. isn't shown on these maps, and would probably be an exception to all trends since it is ground zero for the currently popular porkfests.  Looters are moving there to be a part of the ongoing orgy of stimulus pillaging.)

But don't state governments need more money to operate?  Can't states just increase the tax percentage and have an automatic increase in revenue? 

Here's a map from The Economic Populist, showing each state's budget deficit as a percentage of the state's overall budget:

Hawaii is the only pale outsider among the ten listed by The TaxProf above. All of the other top tax states have a large gap between revenue and spending.  (Granted, a state can "go Reagan" with low taxes and insanely high spending levels and go dark brown on this map.) 
So what does it all mean? 

Be like Texas.  Take less away from people.  Spend less of their money.  You'll probably end up with more people and more money. 

Good Night, Sleep Tight, and don't let The Bed Bugs Bite ! !

The law of unintended consequences is back! 

MYFOXNY.COM - The AMC Empire 25 movie theater complex in the Times Square area shut its doors Tuesday night to deal with a bed bug problem.
AMC said it has been testing and treating its theaters after getting complaints from some patrons about bed beg bites.
The company said it inspected the Empire 25 Tuesday and found bed bugs in an auditorium that had previously tested negative.

Here's an email sent out to the CNN employees working in the Time Warner Center:

August 13, 2010
To: TBS, Inc. Employees
From: TBS, Inc. Human Resources

The Time Warner Center Facilities Department advises that bed bugs have been detected in Time Warner Center. This determination was made after testing was conducted on several floors of the building. In response, Time Warner Facilities is working with pest control providers to address the issue in an environmentally safe manner, and during non-working hours...

There's only one effective, efficient way to get rid of bedbugs.  That would be DDT. 
Our government banned DDT in 1972. 

"To only a few chemicals does man owe as great a debt as to DDT... In little more than two decades, DDT has prevented 500 million human deaths, due to malaria, that otherwise would have been inevitable."
- National Academy of Sciences

I'm sure that our government knows best.  But in the meantime, if you see Wolf Blitzer scratching his privates on camera, you now know the reason why.  CNN can't spray their building with DDT, which, if used properly, is ok to drink in small quantities.  (There used to be a cocktail called the Mickey Slim - Gin & a pinch of DDT.)
 If you see Larry King scratching his privates on camera, it's because he has grown old and forgetful after all those years of throwing softballs to Democrats.
If you see Anderson Cooper touching himself on camera, it's because he thinks there's nothing like the feel of Anderson Cooper.
If Candy Crowley starts scratching herself on camera.....aww....never mind.    I'm not going there. 
Sorry for the digression.  I'm really enjoying the idea of The Castro News Network having a bed bug breakout.  I apologize. 
 
Here are the folks from Reason magazine on the DDT scare campaign:



Can we find a volunteer to sneak bed bugs into the EPA headquarters?

How Beta Males are made

From the "Liberally Lean From The Land Of Dairy Queen" blog:

The Roger Federer Trick Shot, frame by frame

Amazing viral video of Roger Federer playing William Tell.



Here's a slow motion someone did of the shot, from someone who isn't amazed.

Wyndham Wilson, Richard Pazdur, Natalie Compagni Portis, and Jean Grem - Bureaucrats who know more than your doctor

You may have heard of Avastin. 

Last month, an FDA advisory board recommended withdrawing government approval of Avastin as a treatment for advanced breast cancer. The decision betrays a bias that puts costs above treatment, and unless the FDA leadership overrules its own experts, the 40,000 women killed by breast cancer each year will be denied an important clinical option.

From a series of links provided by Instapundit.....

Here's Ann Althouse, quoting the Wall Street Journal:

So here we have government-anointed medical patriarchs substituting their own subjective view of Avastin's risks and costs for the value that doctors and patients recognize. If Avastin is rescinded, thousands of dying women will lose more than proverbial false hope in the time they have left. They will lose a genuinely useful medicine.

And here's Ms. Althouse:

There are death panels. They don't want to be seen as death panels, because to be seen as death panels will undermine their relentless, bureaucratic work. So see them.

Who are they?  Nobody really knows, do they?  They meet in their little rooms, cast their little votes, and then hand down their verdicts predicated on the idea that they know more than your doctor.  Here's Instapundit one last time, on the subject of "naming names":

And name names, which, as I’ve noted before, undercuts the diffusion of responsibility that bureaucrats prefer. In this case, some names are Wyndham Wilson, the chair of the committee, and Richard Pazdur, the FDA’s cancer chief. Also committee members Natalie Compagni Portis, and Jean Grem, both quoted here.

Here's the difficulty, IMAO.....   The government has set up an elaborate series of hurdles that any pharmaceutical company must jump before a new drug is approved for sale in the U.S.     I've read estimates claiming a regulatory cost of one billion dollars per medicine.  Here's one estimate that puts it at 800 million.   Much of this cost is overkill.
Combine this with the elaborate series of hurdles known as Medicare and Medicaid, and you have the perfect storm.  Your health is now in the hands of dueling bureaucracies.   One bureaucracy is charged with ensuring that you are 100% safe, regardless of the cost.  The other is charged with ladling out treatment in an approved, inexpensive manner.  Which side is gonna win?

Back to Avastin.  For the love of God, it is a freakin' cancer medication.  And if you have cancer and your doctor doesn't find a treatment, you are going to die. 
Would it lower the morale of our Bureaucratic Lords And Masters if they simply said "Look, you folks are free to try this medicine.  Hell, you're dying.  The pharmaceutical companies are free to manufacture this medication for the lowest cost possible.  Consider yourselves part of the research.  The medicine can now be produced at a much lower price, as long as it has a red stamp on the lid that says UNREGULATED."

Now, transfer that thinking to all pharmaceutical products.  Transfer that thinking to restaurants, stepladders, florists, beauty salons, and funeral homes. 
If you trust a cabal of bureaucratic hacks more than you trust your doctor, your neighbors, or word of mouth, then you should be free to pay more for the regulated products. 
If not, you should be free to make your own choices. 

Fluffee Talks - NSFW

I don't know who this kid is.
Mike Coyne sent me the link.
He says it so much more eloquently than I ever could.
Go here for more info on the lemonade stand incident. 

From Henry Hazlitt's "Economics In One Lesson", on the economic benefits of government spending

From Henry Hazlitt's classic "Economics In One Lesson", Chapter 4:

There is no more persistent and influential faith in the world today than the faith in government spending. Everywhere government spending is presented as a panacea for all our economic ills. Is private industry partially stagnant? We can fix it all by government spending. Is there unemployment? That is obviously due to "insufficient private purchasing power." The remedy is just as obvious. All that is necessary is for the government to spend enough to make up the "deficiency."

....Everything we get, outside of the free gifts of nature, must in some way be paid for. The world is full of so- called economists who in turn are full of schemes for getting something for nothing.

They tell us that the government can spend and spend without taxing at all; that it can continue to pile up debt without ever paying it off, because "we owe it to ourselves." We shall return to such extraordinary doctrines at a later point. Here I am afraid that we shall have to be dogmatic, and point out that such pleasant dreams in the past have always been shattered by national insolvency or a runaway inflation. Here we shall have to say simply that all government expenditures must eventually he paid out of the proceeds of taxation; that to put off the evil day merely increases the problem, and that inflation itself is merely a form, and a particularly vicious form, of taxation.

A certain amount of public spending is necessary to perform essential government functions. A certain amount of public works-of streets and roads and bridges and tunnels, of armories and navy yards, of buildings to house legislatures, police and fire departments-is necessary to supply essential public services. With such public works, necessary for their own sake, and defended on that ground alone, I am not here concerned. I am here concerned with public works considered as a means of "providing employment" or of adding wealth to the community that it would not otherwise have had.

A bridge is built, If it is built to meet an insistent public demand, if it solves a traffic problem or a transportation problem otherwise insoluble, if, in short, it is even more necessary than the things for which the tax payers would have spent their money if it had not been taxed away from them, there can be no objection. But a bridge built primarily "to provide employment" is a different kind of bridge. When providing employment becomes the end, need becomes a subordinate consideration. "Projects" have to he invented. Instead of thinking only where bridges must be built, the government spenders begin to ask themselves where bridges can be built. Can they think of plausible reasons why an additional bridge should connect Easton and Weston? It soon becomes absolutely essential. Those who doubt the necessity are dismissed as obstructionists and reactionaries.

Two arguments are put forward for the bridge, one of which is mainly heard before it is built, the other of which is mainly heard after it has been completed. The first argument is that it will provide employment. It will provide, say, 500 jobs for a year. The implication is that these are jobs that would not otherwise have come into existence.

This is what is immediately seen. But if we have trained ourselves to look beyond immediate to secondary consequences, and beyond those who are directly benefited by a government project to others who are indirectly affected, a different picture presents itself. It is true that a particular group of bridge workers may receive more employment than otherwise. But the bridge has to be paid for out of taxes. For every dollar that is spent on the bridge a dollar will be taken away from taxpayers. If the bridge costs $1,000,000 the taxpayers will lose $1,000, 000. They will have that much taken away from them which they would otherwise have spent on the things they needed most.

Therefore for every public job created by the bridge project a private job has been destroyed somewhere else. We can see the men employed on the bridge. We can watch them at work. The employment argument of the government spenders becomes vivid, and probably for most people convincing. But there are other things that we do not see, because, alas, they have never been permitted to come into existence. They are the jobs destroyed by the $1,000,000 taken from the taxpayers. All that has happened, at best, is that there has been a diversion of jobs because of the project. More bridge builders; fewer automobile workers, radio technicians, clothing workers, farmers.

But then we come to the second argument. The bridge exists. It is, let us suppose, a beautiful and not an ugly bridge. It has come into being through the magic of government spending. Where would it have been if the obstructionists and the reactionaries had had their way? There would have been no bridge. The country would have been just that much poorer.

Here again the government spenders have the better of the argument with all those who cannot see beyond the immediate range of their physical eyes. They can see the bridge. But if they have taught themselves to look for indirect as well as direct consequences they can once more see in the eye of imagination the possibilities that have never been allowed to come into existence. They can see the unbuilt homes, the unmade cars and radios, the unmade dresses and coats, perhaps the unsold and ungrown foodstuffs. To see these uncreated things requires a kind of imagination that not many people have. We can think of these non-existent objects once, perhaps, hut we cannot keep them before our minds as we can the bridge that we pass every working day. What has happened is merely that one thing has been created instead of others.

We must apply the same reasoning, once more, to get projects like the Tennessee Valley Authority. Here, because of sheer size, the danger of optical illusion greater than ever. Here is a mighty dam, a of steel and concrete, "greater than anything capital could have built," the fetish of photographers, heaven of socialists, the most often used miracles of public construction, ownership Here are mighty generators and power ho whole region lifted to a higher economic level, attracting factories and industries that could not otherwise have existed. And it is all presented, in the panegyrics of its partisans, as a net economic gain without offsets.

We need not go here into the merits of the TVA or public projects like it. But this time we need a special effort of the imagination, which few people seem able to make, to look at the debit side of the ledger. If taxes are taken from people and corporations, and spent in one particular section of the country, why should it cause surprise, why should it be regarded as a miracle, if that section becomes comparatively richer? Other sections of the country, we should remember, are then comparatively poorer. The thing so great that "private capital could not have built it" has in fact been built by private capital -the capital that was expropriated in taxes (or, if the money was borrowed, that eventually must be expropriated in taxes). Again we must make an effort of the imagination to see the private power plants, the private homes, the typewriters and radios that were never allowed to come into existence because of the money that was taken from people all over the country to build the photogenic Norris Dam.

I have deliberately chosen the most favorable examples of public spending schemes-that is, those that are most frequently and fervently urged by the government spenders and most highly regarded by the public. I have not spoken of the hundreds of boondoggling projects that are invariably embarked upon the moment the main object is to "give jobs" and "to put people to work."

For then the usefulness of the project itself, as we have seen, inevitably becomes a subordinate consideration. Moreover, the more wasteful the work, the more costly in manpower, the better it becomes for the purpose of providing more employment.

Under such circumstances it is highly improbable that the projects thought up by the bureaucrats will provide the same net addition to wealth and welfare, per dollar expended, as would have been provided by the taxpayers themselves, if they had been individually permitted to buy or have made what they themselves wanted, instead of being forced to surrender part of their earnings to the state.

The pics for this post came from here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here. 

On the Ground Zero Mosque

A few things to consider about the Ground Zero Mosque....

1) Do the people who want to build the mosque own the land in question?  Or is the landlord willing to let them open a mosque in the existing building? 

2) Will the mosque put anyone in danger? 

3)  Do we want grandstanding politicians involved in decisions about how we can and cannot use private property? 

4)  If you owned a piece of land, would you want its usage to be put up for a vote? 

5)  It is illegal to open a synagogue in many Muslim countries.  Ditto for a church.  Would putting a U.S. ban on mosques help or hurt this situation? 

6)  When you were a kid, did you ever learn the rhyme "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me"?  Does this apply to buildings? 

7)  Has the Islamic Witch Doctor in charge of this stunt already gotten far more free publicity than he deserves? 

8)  Is this a GREAT wedge issue for Republicans who want Americans to worry about tribalism instead of our $14,000,000,000,000.00 debt? 

9)  Which building is more likely to do you harm:  The Federal Reserve Bank in Dallas, or a mosque two blocks away from Ground Zero? 

10)  Does Barack Obama's willingness to get sucked into this issue prove that he is a silly person? 

"T For Texas" - Lynyrd Skynyrd, Jimmie Rogers, Waylon Jennings and Johnny Cash

I've been listening to a lot of Lynyrd Skynyrd for the last week.  Here they are someplace in England, doing Jimmie Rodgers' "T For Texas".  This is pure, undiluted greatness.  This is where the soul of man never dies.  This is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy. 


If that's not enough, here's Mr. Jimmie Rogers (of Meridian Mississippi) doing the tune that he wrote sometime in the 1920's.



And here's Waylon. There's no video, but you should be grateful all the same.


HELLO AMERICA ! ! ! I'M JOHNNY CASH ! ! !



These videos are posted as part of The Whited Sepulchre Outreach Ministry to those who don't get enough good music. 

Food For The Machine

I have an acquaintance named James who just got sent to jail for four months.

James and I have a mutual friend named Judy, who called me yesterday, absolutely frantic. James had already gone to be an Involuntary Guest Of The State, he had no way to prepay four months’ rent on his small garage apartment, and unless Judy could find a way to get the rest of his possessions to a storage facility, everything James owned would either be dumped out on the curb or sold for back-payment of rent.
I was able to help Judy get the remainder of James’s furniture moved to a 10’x10’ storage space that she and another friend had rented. Had those two ladies not been willing to do this, James would have been released from prison owning absolutely nothing.

Think about that for a minute….starting over with a criminal record, and owning nothing. Then think of having to face a plague of counselors, probation officers, parole officers and other leeches, all with their hands in your pockets, trying to collect their Oversight Fees, payments for counseling sessions, payments for drug tests, and other legal rip-offs.

James will probably spend the rest of his life as food for this vile machine, ensuring that some Civil Service lifer is able to collect a good pension at the age of 50.

So what did James do to deserve such treatment?

Did he injure someone with his vehicle, the way Ted Kennedy did, and then leave his victim to drown?
Did he try and fail to blow up some buildings, like Bill Ayers?
Or did he drug and rape a 13-year old, like Roman Polanski?

James didn’t do anything to harm anyone else, the way those three guys did. He's only guilty of doing something that our last three presidents have done.

James was pulled over because of his license plate or inspection sticker was expired. The cops used that as an excuse to rip his car open from bumper to bumper. They finally found an ounce of marijuana and hauled James to jail.
Unlike presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama, or contenders like John Kerry, Al Gore, and Sarah Palin, all of whom have smoked weed, James is in jail.
Unlike Barack Obama, who did cocaine as a teenager, James is in jail.

Chances are, you have voted for at least two of the politicians listed above. Why is it that you don’t hold drug use against presidential candidates and will support them in their efforts to be Leaders Of The Free World, but if a night-shift welder is caught with 4 joints’ worth of marijuana, you believe he should go to prison and then have to spend years explaining himself to, and being monitored by, government munchkins?

We have a higher percentage and a higher raw number of prisoners than any other country on earth. We are devastating the male African-American population for the sole purpose of “saving and creating jobs” in the counseling, drug-testing, prison-building and law enforcement industries.

Mexican drug lords are destroying their country - all for the right to be monopoly drug suppliers for the United States. The parallels between 2010 and our failed 1920's alcohol prohibition experiment are too obvious for even the most dense politician to ignore. Al Capone and a plethora of other gangsters grew wealthy supplying something that everyone wanted. Grandmothers started making their own bathtub gin. Lawlessness erupted around the border – but in this case, it was our border with Canada!

In places where we legalized alcohol, the bootlegger violence stopped. Alcohol usage didn’t skyrocket, it merely moved out into the open again, and there was no sudden increase in alcoholism.

There are only two politicians of note who are willing to go on record stating that they favor marijuana legalization – Republican Ron Paul (TX) and Democrat Jim Webb (VA).
The other politicians no longer have ignorance as an excuse. They aren’t misguided or misinformed, and they aren’t looking out For The Children®.

They are evil.

Unfortunately, the Richland Hills, Texas, City Planning Department hasn't taken any hits

From the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics:

We can now say that the stimulus plan has helped those that it was intended to help, right???

I hope Atlas doesn't shrug

From Wired magazine:

Nick Newcomen did a road trip over 30 days that covered stretches from the Pacific to the Atlantic Ocean. First, he identified on a map the route he would need to drive to spell out the message. He put a GPS device in his car to trace the route he would follow. Then, he hit the road.

“The main reason I did it is because I am an Ayn Rand fan,” he says. “In my opinion if more people would read her books and take her ideas seriously, the country and world would be a better place — freer, more prosperous and we would have a more optimistic view of the future.”

Newcomen, unlike previous GPS artists, actually traveled the lines he traced on the map. He used a GPS logger (Qstarz BT-Q1000X) to “ink” the message. Starting his trip in Marshall, Texas, he turned on the device when he wanted to write a letter and turned off the device between letters. The recorded GPS data was loaded into Google Earth to produce the image above. below:

Now THAT is dedication. 





Read More http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/08/worlds-biggest-writing/#ixzz0wXkYgIPD

Glenn Beck on Gay Marriage

Here's Glenn Beck, in a recent interview on gay marriage.  If Beck has figured it out, can the rest of America be far behind ?

O’REILLY: But let’s take the gay marriage deal. Big ruling in California. You really didn’t cover that much, right?
BECK: Nope.
O’REILLY: Why?
BECK: Because honestly I think we have bigger fish to fry. You can argue about abortion or gay marriage or whatever –
O’REILLY: Do you believe — do you believe that gay marriage is a threat to the country in any way?
BECK: A threat to the country?
O’REILLY: Yeah, it going to harm the country?
BECK: No, I don’t. Will the gays come and get us?
O’REILLY: OK. Is it going to harm the country in any way?
BECK: I believe — I believe what Thomas Jefferson said. If it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket, what difference is it to me?
O’REILLY: OK, so you don’t. That’s interesting. Because I don’t think a lot of people understand that about you.
BECK: As long as we — as long as we are not going down the road of Canada, where it now is a problem for churches to have free speech. If they can still say, hey, we –
O’REILLY: Oppose it –
BECK: — we oppose it –
O’REILLY: Right.
Here they're talking about Canadian ministers who get in trouble with their Human Rights Commissions for using "hate speech" in opposing gay/lesbian marriage.  BECK: — but we’re not trying to kill anybody or trying to –
O’REILLY: In Sweden they have that too. OK, so gay marriage to you, not a big a threat to the nation.

But that's not the best part.  Here's a chart showing approval/disapproval for same-sex marriage.  All of this is from the "Beyond The Beltway" blog, BTW:

Note the bulge in the otherwise smooth line as things come to a head around the 2004 elections, the wide, wide base in 1988, and of course, the tip where things come together in 2010. 
My, my, my, what a big long trendline on gay marriage.   

Dream Big ! !

The Aggie has always taken pride in doing things that others say are impossible, but this stunt took it to a new level.  This is from the Downtown Fort Worth YMCA, where she has worked as a lifeguard all summer:

Reducing taxes on imports - Good. Bush tax cuts - Bad.

From the Associated Press:

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama has signed a bill meant to reduce costs for U.S. manufacturers and help them regain their footing in the shaky economy.


The law would reduce and suspend tariffs (i.e. - taxes) on certain materials U.S. companies must import to make their products. It passed both houses of Congress with bipartisan support.

The president signed the bill into law in a ceremony in the East Room of the White House.

The National Association of Manufacturers says the new law will help create jobs, cut costs for businesses and consumers and boost U.S. exports. The industry trade group says studies show the bill would increase production by $4.6 billion and support 90,000 jobs.

Please allow me to repeat part of that last sentence....Cutting taxes on things that we import will "help create jobs, cut costs for businesses and consumers and boost U.S. exports. The industry trade group says studies show the bill would increase production by $4.6 billion and support 90,000 jobs."


Now, let's apply that same logic and reasoning to ALL imports.  Do you think that would help us prosper?  Would tearing down our current insane protectionist tariffs against sugar and wheat help American families? 

Well, the really long answer is....yes. 

So can someone please explain to me, using little bitty words that I can understand, why it is that Numb Nuts will sign a bill lowering taxes on imported raw material (because that will help the economy and create jobs) but he's wanting to let the Bush tax cuts expire?

Broken Windows - The Video

Here's the final word on Bastiat's "Broken Windows" fallacy.
It doesn't matter if it is Cash For Clunkers, the new Cowboys Stadium, or Obama's Porkulus plan - we're all better off when you can spend your money the way you want to spend it.

The Grate Typo Hunt

From NPR:

Insensed by a "no tresspassing" sign, Jeff Deck launched a cross-country trip to right gramattical wrongs.


He enlisted a freind, Benjamin D. Herson, and together they got too work erassing "errant quotation marks", rectafying mispellings and cutting unecessary possessive' apostrophe's.

The Grate Typo Hunt is the story of there crusade.

In 2 1/2 months, Herson and Deck travelled the perrimeter of the country, exploring towns and city's in search of typo's. They found 437 typo's and were able too correct more than half of them.

Hit the link to reed the rest of there article. 

More controversy surrounding Baylor University and the cult of Aqua Buddha

From Fox News:

U.S. Senate candidate Rand Paul is threatening to sue a magazine following a report that alleges he kidnapped a female friend and tried to force her to smoke marijuana as a college student at Baylor University.


That sentence contains its own rebuttal.  There is no marijuana at Baylor University.  Or anywhere else within 25 miles of Jerusalem On The Brazos. 
GQ Magazine published a report Monday anonymously quoting a woman who claimed Paul and another man came to her house, blindfolded her, and tied her up before trying to force her to "take bong hits" in 1983 when the three were students at Baylor University in Waco, Texas.

Seriously.  Baylor.  Bong hits.  That does not compute. 

The report also alleges that Paul, who is running as the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate in Kentucky, was part of a secret society called the NoZe Brotherhood, which "existed to torment the Baylor administration" through "pranks" and its student-run satirical newspaper.

Paul told Fox News that he "categorically" denies the kidnapping allegation. "This stuff is just outrageous and ridiculous. No, I never was involved with kidnapping. No, I never was involved with forcibly drugging people," he said.

The report continues:

The woman, quoted in GQ, told the magazine that Paul and another member of the brotherhood drove her to a creek after she refused to smoke marijuana and forced her to worship an "Aqua Buddha."

"They told me their god was 'Aqua Buddha' and that I needed to bow down and worship him," the woman reportedly told the magazine. "They blindfolded me and made me bow down to 'Aqua Buddha' in the creek. I had to say, 'I worship you Aqua Buddha, I worship you.'

The picture of Aqua Buddha came from here.