I love HTML

Jay Nordlinger mentions our fair governor Blanco’s decision to kiss Castro’s butt

Posted at 11:35 am by Johnny B

Advertisements

List of things not to buy at Wal-mart

I love Wal-mart and all, especially how they’re open 24 hours and as such pressure other stores to stay open all night. But, the lovely fiance and I bought apples there the other day…big mistake. Nas-tea! Also, don’t buy the following things from wal-mart:

1. Meat
2. Fish
3. Pecan pie
4. Strawberries
5. Oranges
…everything under the fruit section

Learn from our mistakes. Trust me on this.

Posted at 12:08 am by Johnny B

When Ideology trips over itself

First a story about “our” governor Blanco:


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7147701/

Basically, she opened up trade to Cuba via New Orleans. Supposedly only for sugar and agriculture. Now, since this is Kathleen Blanco, I’m immediately inclined to think she’s making a mistake…bolstering the Cuban gulags with Louisiana sugar and the like. But is trade with Cuba such a bad thing?

This reminds me of a link I caught- I can’t find it now- about a teenage right wing talk show host who has a big hit at Northwestern and was going to dominate the airwaves by aping Rush Limbaugh. “Social Security is in a crisis,” he’d say, or whatever the talking points were. I’ve caught a lot of guys on ClearChannel sound the exact same way. I never felt at home with the Mike Bayham wing of the republican party (Jordan knows what I am talking about). Anyway, I’m sure this kid would say, “Castro is a communist dictator, you can’t trade with him. The Cubans in Miami would riot, etc. He’s evil etc. Cuban missile crisis blah blah blah.

Granted, all that’s true, except for the riots in Miami. Castro is a nasty dictator, and the human rights abuses in Cuba are well documented if not often propagated. But didn’t Reagan argue that sanctions hurt the lower class and secure the ruling class in a country. He did, when he argued against sanctions in South Africa. Now, maybe sanctions “worked” in bringing about change in South Africa and the Balkans, but they clearly aren’t working in the case of Cuba. America has used the stick long enough, it is time to use the carrots. All the carrots Cubans can afford.

This is the same policy Bush/Clinton…Nixon employed towards China. If you can’t beat ’em join ’em. China has it’s share of human rights abuses too, and they are much more an economic and military threat to America than Cuba. Yet since the eighties trade has gone up considerably. Can anyone cite any restrictions place on economic trade to China after Tiananmen Square. I think there were only restrictions on weapons sales, which the Europeans are thinking of lifting. Those blessed ankle biters.

A big doc, just check out the graphs:
http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/library/downloads/keyWorkplaceDocuments/CRS/CRSChinaUSTrade3Oct03.pdf

On one level it makes sense. If a billion disgruntled poor huddled masses get upset enough, they may want to start building ships and tanks. Now, for the most part, they are making cheap and shoddy electronics, shirts, and other crappy trinkets we all buy at Wal-mart, and securing a living doing so. Why can’t we let the Cubans do the same?

Citations on Human Rights abuses pending.

Posted at 09:34 am by Johnny B

What’ll they think of next?

This is a really interesting article about robot receptionists in Japan.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25394-2005Mar10.html

I wonder what the implications would be if they started popping up here in the States? Does anyone know if there is a receptionists union of some kind that would be up in arms over these showing up here?

Speaking of…here’s an interesting little tidbit on Japanese unions.

Posted at 05:47 pm by Logipundit

Big government versus corporate theft?

I’ve been a big fan of privatizing social security, at least reforming it, on the basis that the richest group of people in America are 65 and older. No matter how rich someone gets, they still benefits. I’m sure those old fogies are sending their SS checks directly to the nearest charity. Also, it sucks that people get no return on their initial investment with SS. That is essentially the government stealing from the poor to give to …whomever. So, I like privatization, but why does an American have to invest in the stock market for tax free status. I’ve been burned by the stock market big time. Am I supposed to feel good if my money is yoinked by mutual fund managers and crooked CEOs, rather than the government?

Why can’t I invest my money in other capital and allow the return on that capital to pay for my retirement? Let’s say I save up 3K a year and purchase a lumber yard with a couple of partners. Why can’t I save up my money and do that, say, when I’m forty, instead of giving it to a company managed by people I don’t know?

Posted at 10:53 am by Johnny B

Posted by BP @ 03/09/2005 08:15 AM PST
Three points…

One, income tax is not in the least bit constituitional anyway, and neither is social security, however the former has created a monster that unfortunately needs to be fed, and the latter was a “promise” that was made to seniors 70 years ago that needs to be kept, and the only way to keep it is to get better returns than the one percent that the current fund is getting is to privatize.

Two, you don’t have to put money in AOL, Intel, and Ebay stock to get decent returns. The money can easily be invested in municipal bonds and blue chip stocks and get double or triple the returns that they’re currently getting at very very low risk.

The logic is that your average person doesn’t have the resources or the know-how to put their money to get virtually risk-free decent returns, and since it’s not politically feasible for lawmakers to say…”Hey let’s just get rid of that Social Security thing altogether and let folks invest their own damn money!”, the “lesser of two evils” is the one that’s going to actually keep up with inflation.

Posted by Jordan @ 03/13/2005 05:53 PM PST
U.S. Constitution
Amendment XVI

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

You meant, income tax shouldn’t be constitutional?

Posted by BP @ 03/14/2005 11:10 PM PST
I stand corrected.

Here’s an interesting little history…http://www.wealth4freedom.com/16thHistory.htm

Good line

From the New York Times article on SS:

“Someone said, ‘It’s a steep hill to climb, Mr. President,’ ” Mr. Bush said. “Well my attitude is, the steeper the better. Because when you get to the top, you realize you’ve left a significant contribution behind.”

Sounds like a bookfield quote. Is that from week eight or nine?

Posted at 02:38 pm by Johnny B

tipping point 2

A new one from National Pravda (or is it Palestinian) Radio correspondent Dan Schorr. NPR has been getting funding from Wal-mart lately…perhaps a sign of fascist bias?

Posted at 01:04 pm by Johnny B