Guarantees

Share

When I was young, my father insisted on gifting us Craftsman brand tools every year, even though we didn’t need them and sometimes couldn’t handle them. Much of what he owned came from that brand, in which he had great confidence, and he wanted us to have the same quality tools he had when we reached adulthood and had need of them. His foresight proved better than he ever imagined, for Craftsman, once known for its lifetime guarantee, changed the provisions of this guarantee as replacement costs mounted and threatened the company’s financial solvency. They’re still good tools, but the guarantee isn’t as good as it once was.

Our politicians in this general election seem to think the Constitution guarantees the populace things that it neither mentions nor empowers our elected officials to promise us. Unlike the bigwigs at Craftsman, these men, of little scope and vision, fail to realize that no guarantee lasts in perpetuity. Nothing great was ever won without sacrifice, and at some point in order to meet these obligations some people will have to sacrifice.

Barack Obama creates rights in the Constitution, forgetting that with rights come responsibilities. The Constitution does not promise us largess or success. Remember that the Nazis promised Mercedes in every garage and Mousollini promised the trains would run on time. The moment government tries to guarantee something, it will fail. Everyone voting for Obama thinks that they will be recipients, that his references to the brotherly obligation in Matthew will bind producers to serve them. Never forget however that his brother lives in a shack in Kenya on $20US/year or that a half-aunt living in a Boston slum hasn’t seen Obama in years. He doesn’t care much about his own family; how could he possibly really care about yours? In the end, he wants to use other people’s money, regardless of his greater capability to serve as benefactor, meaning that to compensate for his reticence many more people will have to pay and they in turn will not receive.

Too many voters buy into the notion of change and the promises of pelf, “that some people have too much and that we need to take from them and give to you, you still expect what? You still expect a grand life. You expect a life of prosperity. You expect greater income; you expect a bigger house; you expect a second car. It's just that you think it's going to come from some politician taking it away from somebody else (Rush Limbaugh).” Why do we expect that? What have we done to deserve it- be born? That was the attitude of the gentry, to inherit by birth and not on merit. Even then, birth inheritance is tenuous at best. Name recognition makes a poor guarantee.

Obama’s economic proposal doesn’t guarantee anything that will last. If you keep taking money from the “rich”, eventually they will stop producing, and then from whom will he steal it? Like McCain said on 27 October, Obama’s more interested in controlling wealth than creating it. He’s not building a better mousetrap; he’s not even interested in building more. All he wants is to reshuffle them so everyone has the same amount.

In the movie “Bruce Almighty”, Bruce makes this same mistake. When he answers prayers of everyone who wants to win the lottery, everyone ends up winning about $5 and they are mad. If you distribute down a guaranteed return to everyone without recognition of merit, nobody ends up with enough to make it worth their while. When Governor Kenny Guinn parsed out our DMV rebates a few years ago, by the time the money was doled out, I received $75, which didn’t even cover the registration on my Dodge Ram, and since I received it just before that registration was due, I just sent it all back. People remember he gave us money back, but I say big deal.

McCain makes a lot of mistakes, but he gets at the point of guarantees very well. Obama promises fairness, but there’s nothing fair about driving our economy into the ground. If he has his way, eventually, the source of funds will go bust, and then everyone is guaranteed buttkiss as return on their investment. What good is a warranty if the company that issued it ceases to exist? What good are government bonds from a country that defaults on its obligations? He’s selling us on whisps of air, and if we rely on such flightiness we will find the entire world choking for breath.

Perception Check

Share

The other day, I made a mistake. I’m not often off the mark, but in this instance, I projected what I wanted to be true upon another person and blurred my perception of this individual over how this individual really is. Although someone may not seem like the type to do something, your experience with people is limited. No matter how close you live to them, you are not in their shoes, and spending a lifetime living with or observing someone doesn’t make you an expert on their personality or character.

True, evidence of character shines through in what we do, but a lot of people actively mask who they truly are. Others project onto other people what they want them to be like. Either way, we find out that person isn’t who we thought them to be, even if they remain true to who they really are. At that point, we express our disappointment when they don’t live up to our expectations, but are our expectations reasonable or based on misconceived notions?

A friend of mine recently gave up trying to date a guy she really liked. He contacted her last week to boast of how he was dating two girls at the same time who knew it and didn’t mind. This kind of wanton disregard for principles of monogamy rightly turned her off, and she turned to me for insight. I told her that she “liked what he wanted you to think he was” and that she saw “the man you wanted him to be”. When I got out of my last serious relationship, I remember her saying all the time about how I changed, whereas I remain the same person today that I always was. Ergo, she must be the one who changed or else I wasn’t what she imagined me to be.

I am who I am. I do not change to please the jury. Are others are you perceive them to be? What empirical evidence do you have that they are how you believe they are? Unless you subject them to myriad of different circumstances to cover as logically as possible the realm of possibilities, you may never know who they are. I scowl at young people who only go out to dinner or to the movies. When they get down to starting a family and establishing a home, other things far removed from those categories become the rule, and they often find themselves incompatible, much to their surprise and chagrin. This is why I advise people to date or court for at least a year, for it becomes harder for someone to maintain a charade over longer periods of time, and the longer you date the more time you spend together doing a variety of things like shopping, cooking, etc., and see how another person handles the minutiae of life.

As people around us change, their perceptions of us change. Many girls I know, because of men they knew who treated them badly, distrust my motives and actions. Although I personally never offended them, what I do reminds them of things that lead to pain and ruin in their life, and those predilections turn them away. I don’t hold them at fault. I think people do the best they can with what they have.

Which segues well into the conclusion. We do not have all the answers, all the information, or all of the options available. People are bound to disappoint you because in our limited confluence of interaction, they may not seem like the type to do certain things. Of course they are- they are human, and if there’s one way humans are consistent, it is that they make mistakes. It’s part of what qualifies you to be human. Human behavior never ceases to amaze me, but then again things are never as they seem. If they don’t have everything, how can they be perfect? If they do the best with what they have, aren’t they being as perfect as possible? I have great expectations, but I also have realistic ones too.

Beat Socialism at the Polls

Share

Since the Governor of Hawaii has now sealed Obama's birth records, the endeavor to disqualify Obama on the basis of his citizenship has met an untimely end. Even if he proves not to qualify for the presidency, what are the odds seriously that he will step down? Said JRR Tolkien, some people believe that: "There is no good and evil, only power, and those to weak to seek it."

The true task for Americans remains as before- don't try to pile on things to change the minds of people who currently support Obama. Appeals to his record, his associations, his past, his lack of credentials and his history will largely fall on deaf ears. For those you can, by all means try to convince them. I have spent some time talking with my boss about the implications of a socialist administration, something not lost on someone from the Phillipines, which is the land of my Boss's nativity. By and large, Obama's supporters are attached to him emotionally- and they will not let us convince them that he is not the Messiah.

The best way to overcome Obama, ACORN, and the rest of the liberal apparatus is to bring out more people to the polls to cast votes who will oppose him. Much of Obama's support in the form of new registration and emotional university crowds will ultimately fail him, as students are not prone to voting on election day. My own sister admitted she didn't have time on Election Day to vote, and my kid brother isn't even registered (sigh). Fortunately for my sister, she can vote early in Nevada.

Grass roots efforts always save the Republic. Ignore Obama's 30 minute tirade tonight. If you love America, for God's sake, get out there and do something. We have another weekend before election day. Spend time talking to people and get them on board with policies that will save the nation. Pick up someone and take them to the polls. Distract your teenage friends whose idealism will rend asunder the institution of liberty ;) (just kidding). Go do something. The politicians do things, but in the end, no matter what you believe it doesn't matter unless you vote.

If you see what I see, if you feel as I feel, then I ask you to join me at the polls on November 4th. Together we will give the world a 5th of November that will never ever be forgot.

Obama’s Vendetta

Share

For my own part, I think that no man in his right mind wants to be the president of the United States. With rare exception, the men who held that office over the last 232 years enjoyed thankless terms of service that we remember by the evil done rather than the good, which lies interred with their bones. Some of them died bereft of everything, having given their last full measure of devotion to that office, subjected to a vicious vichyssoise of vehement verbiage. Naturally, we seek the best man we can to hold the office, but for many reasons, good men rarely run for any office, let alone the presidency. However, Barack Obama craves that office like a drowning man craves air. Why? He must be out of his mind.

The problem with Obama is that he has a vendetta. Obama has repeatedly mentioned that he and his wife believe America to be a mean country, an abusive culture, and a force for oppression. He casts the country as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of fate, a victim of the vox populi now vacant among us. Despite his own rags to riches story, he maintains that America’s best days are in the past, and that you can’t get where you want to be in America without the government’s help. According to his recent statements, limitations on government power keep Americans from progressing. Truth is, that limitation of powers has unlocked in America the potential that lies within any people to reach the stars and actualize their dreams. Whereas Obama sees limitations on power as a flaw, that mankind cannot move forward if government is restrained, in America we move forward for that very reason that our government is restrained. For my own part as well as if I dare say Obama’s, under the Bush Administration we enjoy a greater modicum of peace and prosperity than at any other point in my natural born life. In a matter of merely 232 years despite greater civilizations of longer duration, we came to dominate economically, militarily, and in every other way every other older nation on the face of the globe.

Don’t listen to me. Listen to some other people. Obama says that Government will guarantee opportunity and success for every American under his administration. Rush Limbaugh asked on his program on 27 October, 2008:

How does the government do that? How does the government ensure a shot at success? Isn't that up to us? Isn't it up to our own ambition, our desire? Desire is 80% of achievement. Isn't it up to our own willingness? Government can't ensure a shot. The best thing that government can do for people who wish success is to get out of their way, to remove onerous regulations and high taxes. Get rid of the impediments and then strip away all the punishments after they achieve the success. The government of Barack Obama will not incentivize success at all. It will be just the opposite. It will incentivize doing nothing. It will incentivize laziness. It will provide incentives for anger and class warfare and rage.

Obama’s policies discourage ambition and punish achievement. One of my first ancestors in the New World, Governor William Bradford, observed that in the Plymouth colony many of the colonists opted not to produce because the fruits of all labor went into a general coffer. Socialistic programs like those proposed by Obama that redistribute possessions encourage sloth.

Much of Obama’s vengeance deals with race. He imagines crimes done to him and his brothers, nevermind that the Democrats asked in the primaries if he was black enough because of his mixed race. Rush reported in his 24 October, 2008 broadcast Obama’s own words:

”Because I think of the problems that African-Americans face in this country, we tend to have a sanitized view in the African-American community about what is going on in Africa. And the truth of the matter is is that many of the problems that Africa faces, whether it's poverty, uh, or political suppression, uh, or ethnic conflict, uh, is just as prominent there and can't all be blamed on, uh, the effects of colonialism”. (errors in original)

He’s still bitter, despite the fact that he has no slave blood, about how blacks have been treated. He thinks that Americans are to blame for transporting all the bad things about Africa to this country and that we are a colonial power. Excuse me, but we are the least colonial of all the western world. A visiting post-doctoral professor while I was in graduate school who came from Turkey told me that the reason he liked America is that we never fought a war for the express purpose of taking territory from another nation. This is a nation that consistently sacrifices her best blood and her treasure to serve men distal to us in space and time.

Reverend Wright and William Ayers and Father Pfleger account for the rest of Obama’s victimhood mentality. According to them, the leaders of this nation robbed them of their proper right to govern and waylaid their opportunities for advancement. Obama’s mentors think life should be fair and equal. I ask, like S. Morganstern, where is that written? Note that while Obama’s campaign endorses reparations for a long series of abuses and usurpations the founding fathers made no such demands except to be left alone. Government is not an insurance policy, a safety net, or a security blanket. Safety is the true design and END of government, not success, but Obama like most liberals thinks it should ignore the former and do the latter, ignoring its responsibility and focusing on that to which it has no right whatsoever in any free society.

In retribution, Obama wants to use the United States government and the money earned by its citizens to right every wrong ever perpetrated against any other nation, and against anyone in this nation who’s ever been oppressed, unless of course you’re white. To that end, Obama has to disregard the Constitution. Obama hates the Constitution. He wants to give us a new purpose, a new mission statement. We already have one- it’s in the Declaration of Independence. Obama doesn’t seem to care. In fact, most liberals ignore that document which predates the Constitution and regulates the affairs of men in this nation more than anything else. Like most Marxists, Obama wants to use government to take control. He is after all, bright, and articulate and clean, to quote Joe Biden, his would-be VP. Government, according to the Declaration, does not make men free; our Creator does, but those who seek for power and who love government and regulation always ignore freedom and faith. Said Barry Goldwater of this phenomenon, “Throughout history government has proved to be the chief instrument for thwarting man’s liberty. Government represents power in the hands of some men to control and regulate the lives of other men…”

Obama says America isn’t quite right and that he’s the man to fix it. What, praytell, has he ever actually done to make America better? What legislation has he passed? He has a thinner resume of accomplishments than I do. He just happens to have a better university pedigree. Yet, people line up and fawn over him. The parking lot at this university where I work is full of cars sporting his bumper sticker slogans. They don’t really even know what he stands for; they’re just mad. Like their mentor, they act as if there’s been no progress in this country and as if there’s nothing of good report or praiseworthy about the nation he calls his home. How can a man who hates this country so much be seriously considered as its next president? Said Rush Limbaugh:

Obama, very consistent about America is to blame. Now, he's consistent. He's wrong in practically everything he's voted on and said, but he's consistent with it. He doesn't shock his supporters. He doesn't make 'em scratch their heads. Of course they're not even really listening to the substance of what Obama is saying.

As far as I’m concerned, every senator who has knowingly voted in favor of a measure that is unconstitutional has violated his oath of office and should be kicked out in disgrace.

That being said, why do I support McCain? First off as a codicil, I am not enamored with John McCain. I think he’s an opportunist, but he is by no means a Marxist. Fred Thompson summarized in an advertisement he cut for McCain in South Carolina the reasons why we should support McCain:

“John McCain’s entire life has been devoted to defending those principles that made our country great.”

What about Barack Obama? Well, he and his wife think America is a mean and unfair country. His wife said that with her husband’s nomination she was proud of her country for the first time in her life. Not because they became millionaires off their book sales or when they made great strides as law professors, but only when America nominated him for the highest position of power in the land.

Despite his law degree, Obama knows absolutely nothing about the rule of law. In his own words in 1991 on PBS, he said, “I think we can say that the Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on to this day and that the Framers had the same blind spot.” What blind spot? They did the best any other nation in the history of the world ever has to vouchsafe liberties for its citizens. How can a man who hates the Constitution be expected to uphold it? He cannot in good conscience take the oath of office; he will not defend it; he will manipulate it. Rush Limbaugh said on 27 October, 2008:

Barack Obama was an anti-constitutionalist professor. He studied the Constitution and he flatly rejected it. He doesn't like the Constitution. He thinks it is flawed. Now I understand why he was so reluctant to wear the American flag lapel pin. Why would he?...He looks at the government as something that can do something to people, and he's mad that the Constitution limits the role of government in people's liberty. That's why he's saying he doesn't like here. He doesn't like the idea of liberty, and he wants to change it!

He’s embarrassed to be an American. That’s why he had to go over to Germany to give a speech. That’s why he perpetuates a system of fraudulent contributions on his website, so as to allow foreigners to donate. Have you heard about the man in Gaza making cold calls on Obama’s behalf? No candidate in American history has ever had that kind of foreign endorsement. They were never intended to.

In the midst of unbridled American prosperity, Obama and the other Marxists want to remake America in the image of Europe. As I wrote in my first book, Responsible Liberty, “We do not need a lesson in international diplomacy, ethics, or law. There is not a single country in the world that is like ours, and we cannot learn from them, no matter how similar they may be, how to make this nation succeed.” Europeans, I know from personal experience and from reports, want to be more like we are. There is a good reason why America could not be built in Europe. Anyone who’s read Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith knows why.

Barack Obama’s nomination is historic. It’s historic in two ways: that a man can run a campaign based entirely on race, and that a man who hates the nation can possibly have an iota of chance at wresting control thereof peacefully without a coup. Obama’s campaign rhetoric and the premise on which it is based is as bad as Brutus turning on Ceasar. Said Mark Levin on 28 October 2008:

That a man so clear in his understanding of the Constitution and so opposed to the basic tenants it provides against tyranny and the abuse of power can run for president is shameful enough. If he wins, it’s a disaster.

The only verdict is vengeance, and if Obama wins, he will take out his wrath on everyone.

Damned by the Democrats

Share

Democrat candidates sell themselves on the basis that they care about the little guy, in keeping with historical tradition that dates back to Thomas Jefferson. In truth, at the founding of the Democratic-Republicans under President Jefferson, his friends fought for yeomen farmers and small businesses against the Federalists, who believed in a stronger and centralized government. Anyone who’s read Adam Smith, John Locke, and the platforms of either party however knows that the Democrats as presently constituted stray as far as possible from those inauspicious beginnings, having been waylaid by the Liberal left.

Since the New Deal, Democrat policy favors what DeToqueville refers to as the American Aristocracy- those who do very little to actually earn their money. Among that ilk, one finds a succession of people made rich and famous more by their bloodline than by their actual contributions to society. Anyone who argues this would do well to explain to me as a rebuttal how Charlie Sheen continues to reproduce when he offers little of demonstrable substance towards the betterment of American ideals. She only mated with him for his money; no woman of substance would have that idiotic fop. Every American who casts a vote for a leftist Democrat does so at his own detriment. You have been damned by the Democrats.

The Democrat party touts itself as defender of the downtrodden, yet, they are the ones in effect holding you back from realization of your potential. After the war on drugs, the war on poverty, the war on race, ad infinitum (which would never have been possible without Conservative support), the people the Democrats supposedly aim to aid are no better off than before. They promise to fix your life, but nothing they do is actually calculated to elevate your first estate. Rather, their policies dissuade men from trying, from taking responsibility, and from wresting control of their fate from some faceless and nameless leviathan against whom man must struggle. If you disagree with them, they cast you out and cut you off. Look at Zell Miller.

Democrat policy concerns itself with making people victims and then giving them excuses. Instead of holding the 5% of people accountable who got into bad loans, they hold the other 95% responsible, who already demonstrated themselves as being responsible adults. Barack Obama told “Joe the Plumber” that he was going to tax anyone with aspirations, in direct contradiction to principles established by Adam Smith as fundamental to general prosperity. The yeoman farmers gave us our freedom to begin with; Obama’s policies will eliminate the frequency and power of yeomen farmers, and restore it to the aristocracy.

In order for Democrat elites to maintain power, they must keep people perpetually mad. They tell you “the Man” is out to get you, that you suffer because of things beyond your control. Then, they take control of things, in essence taking people who might otherwise be productive and held them back from their potential, and then they damn all the people who make progress through punitive measures. Nothing is every your fault, and nothing ever changes. I don't care what Obama says. He's not offering the change we need. The yeomen broke free of the barons by asserting freedoms and rights under the Magna Charta and then through economic prosperity. Prosperity and freedom cannot be had any other way. Try to fix one bad choice with another bad choice and you promise nothing useful. Two wrongs don't make things right.

Damnation means to be held back. Democrats hold regular people back from being as smart, as rich, as happy, and as free as they can make themselves. They do this under codewords like “equality” and “for the children”. What about you? How is it just to you to deny you your inalienable rights in favor of someone else’s? How is equality fair? DeTocqueville wrote that you can either be free or you can be equal, but that the two in complete form are mutually exclusive.

Isn’t it about time that a Democrat who really cared about the little people espoused ideas of limited government and individual freedom? That’s what Jefferson touted. Yet the party of the people is peopled by them with pelf who must, according to Adam Smith, keep the yeomen down in order to maintain their power. I seek not for power, but to pull it down, for I rejoice in the freedom of my fellow Americans from bondage and tyranny.

Don’t let the Democrats doom you to damnation. Dig Doug.

Palin’s Hair, Hillary’s Pantsuits and Jon Porter

Share

I grow tired of summations in Obama’s attack ads (which seem to show at a ratio of 10:1 during the few hours I actually watch TV) and those from other Democrats alleging corruption on behalf of spending in the Republican party. Apparently, it’s okay for Democrats to get and spend as much as they want or can. Their theories aren’t working and never will, else the $800 billion bailout would have taken effect already and saved the economy for more than a single session on Wall Street.

Apparently amounts spent by lobbyists only matter if the recipient is a Republican. Throughout this past week, media outlets made a big deal about $150,000 spent on outfits for Palin, and Titus’ ads focus on $300,000 received by Jon Porter who’s been a Congressman for about eight years. If you watch the marquee underneath Titus’ ads, they cite money transfers from 2002-2006, none of which were recent. Furthermore, Porter racked up that sum over an eight year span for an average of $40,000/year whereas in his two years as a Senator, Barack Obama has raked in $300,000 from Freddy Mac/Fanny May alone. Clearly amounts don’t matter. Have we forgotten John Edwards’ $400 haircuts? Or maybe Michelle Obama’s $400 roomservice bill? How can $150000 in wardrobe, makeup, and hair for Palin possibly represent any extravagance? The reports reek of hypocrisy. Rush Limbaugh pointed out on Friday that at least the Republicans pay for Palin’s outfits, as opposed to Hillary Clinton whose came via donation.

Mark Levin pointed out last Thursday about how Obama’s campaign contributions come without any apparent oversight. Apparently a woman donated money from her own account under the business name Americans Against Obama, and they didn’t even bat an eye. Don’t forget the people who report unauthorized charges to their credit cards, but don’t worry, Obama’s team checks after the money comes in for fraud. Obama’s already given back thousands to foreigners and terrorists. They don’t care where it comes from. They’re desperate to get the money so they can spend it getting Barack Hussein Obama elected.

Perhaps the funniest observation came from Limbaugh’s 23 October broadcast. He said, “Ladies and gentlemen, it seems to me that the Republicans will pay thousands of dollars to get women into clothes while the Democrats spend thousands of dollars to get women out of their clothes”. Shows where their priorities lie.

Be careful while trying to point out the mote in my eye that you don’t gouge something out with the beam that is in your own.

Experts: Everything and Nothing

Share

As Rush Limbaugh points out often on his show, the experts are always surprised. Just this morning, I discovered by typing in “experts always surprised” into a Yahoo search, I discovered how experts didn’t expect the frequency of shark attacks, the frequency of earthquakes in the Yucca valley, Arabian response to Israel, and even to scores in Bridge games. For a more exhaustive list, see Intellectual Conservative’s post on the subject. His post focuses on who gets to be an expert, and once I touch on that I’ll focus on what makes a person an expert and what that means for everything else he says.

Media expert selection follows no set bounds. When you hear stories about how “experts predict” or how their predictions didn’t come true, remember that the media does not select the people who know the most about things to be experts. Some of it, like sadly some ballots being cast now, is all about name recognition. Media experts come with two caveats: location and baggage. Like IC points out, it’s logistically more difficult and expensive to talk to someone at the Kennedy Space Center when Challenger exploded when they have someone down the hall at the studio or across the street who once knew someone who worked for NASA, nevermind the contact was a janitor. Everyone in Washington DC, or those proximal when news breaks and they seek opinions, comes with a hidden agenda. Even outside, there’s a desire to have your work and career fostered by your findings. See Robert Spencer’s book Climate Confusion if you have any doubts about that.

Experts know more and more about less and less until they eventually know everything about nothing. You focus in on a certain aspect at the expense of all others, and you usually only study it from one angle. Hans Bonert is a known sodium chloride expert in plants, but he knows very little else about any of the plants in which he studies this particular phenomenon. Out of context, it’s not necessarily useful. Expertise furthermore assumes wrongly that someone knows everything there is to know about a subject, as if mankind were really smart enough for that. We select experts based on perceived accomplishments and good intentions, but we don’t revoke their claims when we find out they don’t have the credentials they claim to have.

While attending college, I had a professor who was sought out by the administration due to his expertise in the plant world. As I came to know this researcher, I realized that he not only did none of the research himself, but that his research was by and large completely useless. He used funding to shotgun a problem and then published all the data he hit, most of which was discontiguous and incongruous without context. Yet, he published gobs and gobs of papers and brought in millions of dollars in research money, so the administration ignored the fact that nothing he produced had any end-user utility.

Earlier this week, my dad took in my guitar for warranty repair/replacement, I having previously dropped by the seller to get help restringing the darn thing. Both in that instance and in this instance, they informed us that the guitar could not be fixed without repair, so they refunded the purchase and let my dad retain the guitar. He came across someone locally online through Craigslist who offered to help people save their guitar for a reasonable price. I am going to plug this guy because he proved himself an expert to me.

If you need guitar help, call DJ at 702-658-0727, and he may be able to diagnose and correct your problem per phone for free.

DJ informed my father that the only thing wrong with our circumstance was that the people at the guitar store were abject morons. Apparently, they’ve gone so far from acoustic guitars in pursuit of noisy rock and roll that they forgot completely how these guitars work. The bridge pins do not actually in and of themselves hold the strings in the guitar. The guitar holds the strings in, which must be kinked and then inserted into slots internal to the guitar, not held down directly by the ends of the bridge pins. I find it highly ironic that people who make their living off of musical instruments don’t know basics like that. I got a free guitar and a refund out of the deal (less the $20 repair guarantee), all because my dad found a REAL expert.

Who decided that just because someone works in a guitar store that he knows everything there is to know? Asinine though this example may be, it clearly illustrates that with a little bit of genuine research, you can solve problems with real solutions and that those identified as experts by some may not be useful to you. Take the advice of experts, scientists, and leaders with a grain of salt. Not everything they say is gospel, and in some cases, none of it’s worth a hill of beans.

Please Stop Sending Viagra Spam; I Do Not Like it, Sam I Am

Share

Normally, I love my gmail accounts, but at my main account that I use the most, the one friends and family know, spam has gotten out of hand. Even more irritating is the type of messages with which my inbox became cluttered- advertisements for erectile dysfunction medication. I'm celibate outside of marriage, for crying out loud, so:

Leave Me Alone!

For the last 24 hours, I just let all the garbage accumulate and garnered 91 pieces of spam. I categorized them and graphed the results, yielding the following:




It's no wonder young people, especially college age students, are obsessed with sex. Every time they open their email, there's a better than 80% chance they'll be beset by spam attesting to their deficiencies and reminding them that they are not participatory therein. If you lob enough rocks at a fortress, the walls will crumble. Google, cut it out. That's not a request.

Look at the other topics. Consumer spending, in the form of software and luxury watch jewelry, coupled with get rich quick schemes appeal to their vanity and lesser natures. We spend money we don't have buying things we don't need to impress people we don't like. Sometimes I miss being without internet because of the continual barrage of advertisements inviting and enticing me to buy crap.

In addition to the viagra spam, there are the ads for internet gambling. What is up with Google letting through so many advertisements for the vice industry? What subsidiaries do they own? I guess the sin tax isn't deterring people from using those things, even in the "bad economic situation" in which we find ourselves.

What the Polls Don't Say

Share

I tracked the electoral college votes based on state popularity polls versus the Dow Jones Industrial average. DJIA values scaled down by a factor of 50 in order to graph in the same range. McCain isn’t far off his July baseline (5%, or statistically insignificant), and Obama’s apparent increase in strength of late (9%) is worth noting though hardly stupendous. The take home message, contrary to media reports, is that McCain and Obama are tracking very near their averages if we ignore the last two weeks.

Consider the average of both candidates, except for the last week, which incidentally coincides with the start of early voting, both Obama and McCain tracked even to their average values, in spite of all the other data. Where they may oscillate in terms of absolute popularity, the assignment of electoral college votes indicates that they basically held the same states without much variation, irrespective of most influences. Both candidates enjoyed a brief surge with the selection of their VP candidates, taking the extra votes not from each other but from undecided states.

The fall of the market coincides with the only time at which Obama appears to have gained any advantage. I am not sure which is causative, if any, of the other, but when Obama finally broke away, the market had fallen 2000 points from its tracking average. During that time, the stimulus package passed, which probably accounts for the loss of value in the Dow, but we cannot discount the effect that Obama’s tax plan will have on business if he wins. Rush Limbaugh said this morning that prominent businessmen he knows are preparing for an Obama victory by laying people off, or targeting them for layoffs, predicting 2009 as the worst year economically in their lifetimes should Obama win.

The media chose to omit the fact that since being nominated, Obama has only really gained any advantage in the last two weeks. If he were as strong and inevitable as the pollsters claim, would he not have opened and maintained an early strong lead? The recent maneuverings and attacks indicate that Obama is running scared, growing desperate, and unsure of how things will turn out. Yesterday, Yahoo ran a story pointing out that the media once published that Dewey defeats Truman, and that by this time in his race, Reagan was down 12% compared to Carter. Polls constitute nothing more than a way to move a story from the editorial page to the front page and project what someone thinks/wants to happen into impressionable minds. This kind of psychological war disheartens, and if it disheartens enough, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Buyer beware.

Raw data:

Electoral college results courtesy Karl Rove

DJIA values courtesy of Yahoo Finance

Another Hybrid...

Share

In conjunction with Dan's question, I ran some numbers on another car, this time Toyota's Camry which like the Saturn Aura comes in gas and hybrid options. The numbers tell the same story. Insurance coverage remains the same, and all details on the Toyota models came from the manufacturer's website.

Toyota	Camry	LE		Hybrid
	Base Cost	$ 22,370.00		$ 28,050.00
	Registration (annual, not depreciated)	$ 424.00		$ 524.00
	Insurance (6 month premium)	$ 586.56		$ 666.49
	Tax (at time of purchase only)	$ 1,733.68	Fuel econ	$ 2,173.88	Fuel econ
	Gas Miles/$	7.00	21	11.00	33
	*assumes $3/gal	10.33	31	11.33	34
	Annual fuel cost
	*assumes 10000/year	$ 1,428.57	city	$ 909.09	city
		$ 967.74	hwy	$ 882.35	hwy
	Hybrid tax credit			$ (1,300.00)
	Monthly payment	$ 427.29		$ 535.79
	Total cost	$ 42,499.53	city	$ 46,851.63	city
	*assumes 5 year ownership term	$ 40,195.38	hwy	$ 46,717.94	hwy
	*assumes 5.5% interest
	Savings for hybrid			$ (4,352.10)
				$ (6,522.56)

Interestingly enough, to buy a Toyota Camry hybrid costs you more than a Saturn Aura hybrid over the comparable model in the five year term, though it is interesting that a Camry regular comes in cheaper overall than an Aura. Keep in mind the insurance data is also calculated for me, and I have ZERO moving violations ever in any state or country and no claims against any insurance company for any reason. Additionally, USAA is exclusive to military and dependents, current and former, so you may get different quotes, especially for different risk tolerances.

To answer Dan's question, I picked the Saturn based on a Yahoo! Autos post to which I no longer seem to have a link rating it as one of the cars that supposedly breaks even. The auto in this example was also on that list. I opted not to use the Toyota Prius because there is no gas version to use as a comparison. Despite the amazing fuel savings of the hybrid in this example, the extremely higher price of the car at time of purchase swallows up most of the savings.

Beyond this calculation, I remind you again that repairing a hybrid costs a lot more. With all of the smart gadgetry they use, it becomes by near impossible to fix the car yourself, meaning that you must pay someone an hourly wage to fix it, which is probably greater than or equal to the cost per hour of you doing the work yourself. A former wingman of my father reported that near the end of his warranty the console in his Prius went out, and the cost to replace it was near on $5000. In the entire time I've driven my Saturn, I have spent $1000 total in parts, and this for a vehicle that is old enough that you expect things to fail, not at 36,000 miles. That means the part costs 1/6th the total price of the vehicle, and it's not something you CAN do yourself, assuming you know how. They make cars so complicated that you have no choice but to throw them away and buy new.

Hybrids are a red herring. Buy one if you care what other people think. I don't give a flying flapjack.

Be who you are and say what you think because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind. --Theodore "Dr Seuss" Giessel

Addendum: 25 Oct, 2008

I found an article on insurance costs that seemed relevant. Shows someone backs me up ;)

Mathematics of Hybrids

Share

Ok, so I finally sat down and did the math to prove that hybrid cars are not a good deal, let alone truly beneficial to the environment.

Information used in this analysis accessed 19 October, 2008 as follows:

• base price, features, etc., on the vehicles themselves obtained from Saturn
• insurance costs and coverages courtesy of USAA
• fuel rebate information courtesy of DOE
  
• auto loan calculation courtesy of Bankrate

Insurance Coverage Details	Limits
Bodily Injury	25,000/50,000
Property Damage	25,000
Uninsured Motorists Bodily Injury	25,000/50,000
Medical Payments	10,000
Extended Benefits	Coverage Declined
Wage Earner Disability Benefits	Coverage Declined
Essential Services Disability Benefits	Coverage Declined
Death Benefit	Coverage Declined
Deductables	100/300
Towing and Labor	Basic

Final calculations produced the following results:

Saturn	Aura	XE		Hybrid
	Base Cost	$ 23,100.00		$ 26,700.00
	Registration (annual, not depreciated)	$ 437.00		$ 500.00
	Insurance (6 month premium)	$ 587.27		$ 643.77
	Tax (at time of purchase only)	$ 1,790.00	Fuel econ	$ 2,069.00	Fuel econ
	Gas Miles/$	7.33	22	8.67	26
	*assumes $3/gal	11	33	11.33	34
	Annual fuel cost
	*assumes 10000/year	$ 1,363.64	city	$ 1,153.85	city
		$ 909.09	hwy	$ 882.35	hwy
	Hybrid tax credit			$ (1,300.00)
	Monthly payment	$ 441.24		$ 510.00
	Total cost	$ 43,140.28	city	$ 47,375.93	city
	*assumes 5 year ownership term	$ 40,867.55	hwy	$ 46,018.46	hwy
	*assumes 5.5% interest
	Savings for hybrid			$ (2,935.65)
				$ (3,850.91)
Both Auras have a 16 gallon fuel tank

As you can see, no matter what over the term of ownership, a hybrid costs you more money. In addition to total final cost, if financed with similar terms (nothing down), it also costs more per month, both in payment and in insurance, despite the fuel savings. The increased costs of registration and insurance eat up all the gas savings since the cost is spread out over time. Plus, to replace any parts of the advanced hybrid technology costs much more (this in part accounts for higher insurance costs), which becomes especially important once the warranty term expires. Increased registration and taxes, occasioned by the higher base cost of the hybrid, eat up the savings in tax credit (unless of course you don't pay taxes at all). While the vehicle may save you money per tank, the overall cost for the hybrid analyzed over the life of vehicle ownership projects higher costs for comparable coverage and usage.

Like I wrote before, hybrids and green technology constitute more of a status symbol than a real solution. People buy them so they can boast that they're doing their part to save the planet. Anyone who buys one and claims they're saving money is an idiot and probably failed at math. It took me all of an hour to access and compute this data. The spreadsheet is available to anyone on request.

Dependent on Perspective

Share

For months and nay even years now, the media and the leadership in Congress (Democrat controlled I might add) has been telling us about the coming/present recession and about how bad our lives are. While I know plenty of people losing their jobs, when I look at my own disposition, compared to previous years, I'm doing better now than ever before. Some of it involves divine intervention, but in many ways I'm better off at almost 30 than at any other time in my life. I just miss my naivete.

In 2005, just before the housing bubble burst, I sold my home for 85% more than I paid for it. I sold because I lost my job and couldn't afford the mortgage and went into a rental arrangement instead, which I continue to this day. The money I made paid off all of my debts and put money in my pocket. Although the next two years were rocky in terms of employment, I eventually landed this nice job, allowing me to save almost 50% of what I earn gross.

True, my 401K and my mutual funds lost some of their value compared to what I invested, but I still have plenty of money socked away in regular banks. True, WaMu went away, but my money there just moved to Chase. I have zero debt and a positive net worth. I'm in my career field doing something I love where there's opportunity for advancement and promotion and where my boss told me I'm one of their MVPs. How many people my age can really say that?

Ironically and irritatingly, the people leveling accusations about the economic plight in which we find ourselves also did quite well during the Bush Administration. Despite the past few years, Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Chris Dodd, Jeremiah Wright, Jesse Jackson, ad infinitum are all better off in total than they were in 2006, thanks to their positions of power that funneled wealth into their coffers at our expense.

They know they can't win this election unless you think you're suffering.

I may not be where I want to be or where I thought I'd be at my age, but I am better off now than I was when Bush originally took office. What really started hurting was the 2006 midterm election when Democrats took control of Congress and gas spiked from $2.40/gal to as high as $4.50 in my area and the stock market fell from 14000 to 8600. Yeah, that indicates strength in economic policy, assuming you had foresight to shortsell everything.

Throughout all my trial periods, my friends marvelled at my ability to talk about how what should be will be when the time is right. I firmly believe things happen for good reason, so if you lost your job, your house, some stock, or anything else, take stock in what you still have and try to learn from the events. Some people only learn by sad experience. Success consists not so much in never falling but in rising each time you fall.

We are not, contrary to popular belief, in as dire a circumstance as people think. Unlike the dubious Carter Administration, we are not under oil embargoes, dealing with 20% unemployment or beholden to 12% interest rates and 9% inflation rates. Yes, 7% unemployment seems bad, but interest rates are still near record lows and the dollar is on the rise (up to 0.74 Euros as of Friday). Gas is on the decline (although I can't understand why I paid $3.19/gal last week if wholesale gas is $1.65/gal), and both stocks and homes are cheap once again like they were before. Never forget that during the Clinton Administration we went through similar straights with the Dot.com bust. Even the fatalities in war today are better than the ones under Clinton. At least we're winning this time, not like Somalia, Bosnia, and the like. Your pension and your home may be worth less, but unless you're looking to retire before 2012, you'll be okay, oh and you can thank the Democrats and Fanny May for devaluing your assets.

If you care about your fiscal future, vote for the people who promise to let you keep more of your money by lowering your taxes. At least then, you'll have some to stick away in that mattress. Godspeed and all my best. It will get better.

Working For Rich People

Share

The other day while shopping at Wal-Mart, a beggar accosted me with bellicose acrimony for some spare change to assuage his hunger. Seeing as I rarely carry cash in any denomination, of course I carried nothing that availed him or warranted his intrusion in my business. As I walked away, I heard him curse under his breath about how much I resembled the orifice through which we pass excrement.

No poor or homeless man has ever offered me anything I need or want. I have given more money away to people than I can account, and sometimes they offer me some trinket, but more often than not there is nothing they can or will do for me about which I care one whit. Yet, Barack Obama wants us to believe in trickle up economics, that if we redistribute money to the have-nots in society that will benefit the whole. Balderdash and hooey, I say.

Consider the ramifications on the well-being of society as a whole if we let rich people keep the money they rightly earn by the sweat of their brow. If I earn $10 million this year and employ 100 people at $60,000 each total compensation, those 100 families have incomes to further spend and generate employment for other people, and with the leftover funds I spend either expanding my business by buying equipment, supplies, raw materials and the like or by expanding my personal livelihood by buying a new car, a TV, or putting in a pool, I likewise create jobs. What happens if you give a homeless man $60,000? He won't spend it on things society needs, that's for darn sure.

Class warfare rhetoric only serves to make us angry at other people who have more than we do. Not that we deserve it, but we envy that which we have not received, one of the greatest sins forbade us by our creator. Thou shalt not covet. Yet, these politicians survive and hold power under the auspices of a covetous chicanery, pitting us against each other. If we all become equally poor, who will build the cars, the TVs, the iPODs, the laptops, and all the other things we love? Nobody will invent them or produce them because it won't be worth their while.

If I want to voluntarily give money to a "needy" person, that right lies with me. If you force me by fiat to do so, that constitutes tyranny, which I resist with every fiber of my being.

Everyone Gets What They Want

Share

I wrote before about people who tell me they want something and then demonstrate by their choices that they want something else. I contend that everyone gets exactly what they want, considering that what they wish for and what they want are not necessarily one in the same.

Everyone has a wish list- things they'd do if and only if their life was different. We send them to Santa, we post them as part of our New Year resolutions, and we project them onto people around us, claiming that those are the things we really want. Yet, invariably, we fail to do certain things and they go forever unreached and unaccomplished.

While talking by telephone with a good friend about a week ago, I explained how I missed her call at 6:30AM because I was out jogging even though it was 48F outside. She seemed astounded and asked me if I still did that. I reminded her that I arise every day at 5:00AM to take care of the two things that are most important to me in my life- tending to my physical health and strengthening my spiritual solidarity. People make time for things that are important to them, and while they marvel at my dedication, they ignore the fact that they are similarly dedicated, albeit to things of dubious value.

By the end of August, I had accomplished every goal I set for the year. I wanted to learn to play the guitar, and I played it for at least 30 minutes every day until I broke some strings and discovered that I needed to pay for repairs in order to restring it (manufacturer's error). I wanted to save $1000/month. I wanted to reach 190lbs. I wanted to take a religion course on Wednesday nights. I wanted to finish my second book. I wanted to learn Spanish. Only the latest remains as yet undone. I got everything I really wanted this year, including a promotion at work, an adjunct teaching position, etc. These things were things to which I set myself, and that's why I accomplished them.

As soon as you decide you really want to do something, you will start actively making decisions that help you arrive there. Most people give up when it gets hard, and they show thereby that what they "want" constitutes more a wish, "if and only if" their life were different. What you wish may be noble, but what you do defines you, not high ideals. Everyone gets exactly what they want, because people make decisions that lead them to arrive where they are.

An old friend bewailed her life months ago and told me that she hated her life and wanted to die. I told her that was poppycock, that she couldn't possibly hate her life because it constituted an amalgamation of active decisions she made to get her where she was. If she didn't like it, she needed to decide to make it different and stick to it. Like most people I help, that desire constituted more talk that true motivation, as she continues to decide things that ultimately exclude the happiness for which she wishes.

You will get everything you really want. Don't whine to me about unfulfilled wishes. It lies within the realm of possibility for anyone to do and be whatever they want, no matter how hopeless, no matter how far. The really ironic thing is that, aside from being alone, I have the life I say I want, the one for which I wish, and that I am one of the most truly happy people I know. Not that I look happy go lucky, because I don't have a lot of things for which people wish, but I like what I have and what I am.

When God finishes judging men and everyone finds himself confined to his fate, every one of us will indeed say, "Thy judgments are just". Murderers will be happy being with other murderers, men of superfluous commitment to Christ when it was convenient will be content outside the presence of God, and those select of God's children who receive exaltation will be completely happy with where they end up. Everyone will finally recognize they got everything they want. Like I said before, you tell on yourself by the choices you make, and the choices you make show me, and verily our Creator, exactly what you truly want, and what really matters to you in the end. Your wish is his command.

As You Vote in November...

Share

As you go to the polls next month, you need think about only three things as you consider all of the candidates, proposals, ballot initiatives, questions, etc.

1. Are you willing to pay extra taxes to fund the proposals of that candidate/issue?
-I never authorize of my own free will and choice a new tax. We have so many other things they can raise taxes on or issue new taxes for without our consent. Just this past summer, the city of Las Vegas raised the cab excise "fee". They can raise DMV registration taxes, property taxes, fuel taxes, utility taxes, etc. We don't need to voluntarily give them more of our money only to have them turn around and exact more from us.
-Some people will make the case for things that we need. If they're so necessary and their benefit so great, then why isn't an entrepreneur out there footing the bill to initiate the movement? Back in Reno, I voted against the property tax increase to fund an animal shelter. Call me inhumane if you like, but I don't want to pay for something we really didn't need since there's already animal control. The same thing is true in Clark County where once again they will ask us this year to raise sales tax to pay for more LVMPD officers. Yet, they have not filled all the vacancies yet created by the previous sales tax increase.

2. Are you willing to trade a modicum of freedom for what the candidate/issue promises?
-Although I'm no fan of the Patriot Act, you must consider what the new encroachments on your liberty promise you in turn. Safety, therefore, being the true design and end of governmen, whatsoever form thereof will seem most likely to secure it with the least cost and greatest benefit is preferrable to all others. At least President Bush did something. Bill Clinton was too busy.
-Any, and I mean any, expansion of the federal government comes at the expense of individual liberty. The Constitution was written to limit the power of the federal government. Before you surrender your sovereignty to them, ask yourself if the Constitution really matters to you.

3. How does the candidate/issue square up with your personal beliefs, values, and norms? Are you comfortable enforcing those cultural elements on everyone else in the nation? Why?
-No candidate perfectly matches everyone's ideals and wants. While we talk all the time about people choosing between the lesser of two evils, consider that BOTH SIDES say that. This means they're not enamored with their nominee either. You pick the person who most reflects what you value to oppose him whose ideals most contrast with yours. If all branches of government are held by the same party, that's bad for the country, because some things we may not want, even from our own party make it through committee and to the floor.
-If you are fed up with having candidates who don't accurately reflect your views, RUN FOR OFFICE YOURSELF. That way, you're destined to get what you want.

If you honestly apply those tests to each section of the ballot, more often than not the country will turn out all right. As I said before, I believe that it is not common for the greater part of the people to desire that which is not right unless they are woefully ignorant or irredeemably wicked. This mental exercise of these questions will cure their ignorance. Their wickedness is up to them.