Gene Wilder passed away. One of the funniest movies ever made:
2016-08-28
Quote Of The Day
"The attempts to place holding property in the soil—on the same footing
as holding property in man, was most lame and impotent. And the wonder is that anyone could listen with patience to
such arrant nonsense."
Frederick Douglass on socialism.
Quite the defunct anti-humanist ideology to behold.
Frederick Douglass on socialism.
Quite the defunct anti-humanist ideology to behold.
2016-08-23
Statists Begin Attack On Alcohol
Ha, ha You actually thought Prohibition was a thing of the past? Think again. It can and probably make some kind of come back.
Ha, HA! You actually thought government is run by highly efficient academics looking out for our interests?
The sooner you understand it's all about control while excusing this ambition under the guise of 'public health' the sooner you'll stop buying into progressive gibberish and become truly free thinking.
"For decades, beer, wine and liquor producers have been helped by a notion, enshrined in a number of governments’ dietary advice, that a little alcohol can provide modest coronary and other health benefits.
Rapidly, that advice is shifting as health-policy officials around the world scrutinize their previous advice in the light of research pointing to possible cancer risks.
The change is pressuring the alcohol industry in some of its biggest markets, including the U.S., the U.K. and Russia. Its response is as expensive and sprawling as the threat it perceives, including attacking anti-alcohol advocates’ research and working with governments to formulate policy. Alcohol companies are also funding their own research, including a plan by four companies to contribute tens of millions dollars toward the cost of a rigorous study."
Ah, there it is. What better disease to focus on than cancer? Never mind there's no proof (that never stopped them before for *insert righteous cause here*) Here's how it's gonna go down. The government is going to slowly start pulling the same crap they did with cigarettes thus creating a black market (and more crime). And all this will be fully supported by the brain-dead left who will lose their minds on industry research dismissing them because of profits and greed. But here's the kicker. They're all gonna find a way to get their booze and the poor will get screwed.
This is EXACTLY how interventionism and paternalism works.
"...Said Beer Institute President Jim McGreevy, addressing executives at an April conference about the alcohol critics: “We can’t let them gain traction.”
Absolutely.
“There is no safe level of drinking,” U.K. Chief Medical Officer Sally Davies told a British television interviewer."
Fuck off, Sally, you slaver.
What is it with the British and their nannyism anyway?
"The threat to the alcohol industry isn’t as sharp as that faced by tobacco, which shrank due to rapidly changing public attitudes and government policy after it was determined that smoking causes lung cancer, heart disease and other ailments."
It can be sharp hence the need to stop these morons in their tracks.
Smoking has never conclusively been found to cause lung cancer.
And now they're heading down the same deceptive path. It will evolve into 'alcohol causes cancer'.
"...Nonetheless, governments’ alcohol advice matters, even if few would-be bar patrons ever consult it. It filters into policy on liquor taxes, retail-sales hours and advertising restrictions. More subtly, it can inform public attitudes toward drinking. Brewer Anheuser-Busch InBev NV BUD, +0.85% now includes in its corporate risk statement that the WHO seeks to reduce what it calls the harmful use of alcohol by 10%."
Of course they do. And not necessarily in a good way. Nothing worse than a panel of academic researchers fully backed by the potentially violent power of the state.
As for calculating risk, I do the same. I call it the 'Parasite Slider'. Except I go with 5%. You never know what kind of lie they throw at you. In Canada, the Liberals increased costs by at least 3% to my business. But they claim it's good for business looking at their big picture. Their picture is too skewed for my taste.
Last, this is exactly how you slow economic growth. Just put regulatory burdens.
Save this post.
"The near-consensus the industry enjoyed until recently—that light drinking can actually improve health in some ways—dates back to research four decades ago. A California cardiologist named Arthur Klatsky was trying to figure out what lifestyle factors might affect cardiovascular health. In what he says was a surprise, he discovered that light drinkers had fewer heart attacks than abstainers, as well as a lower statistical risk of dying from coronary heart disease.
It “changed the paradigm for studying the effects of alcohol,” according to the Alcoholic Beverage Medical Research Foundation, whose precursor organization at times funded Dr. Klatsky.
In 1995, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services revised its alcohol guidance, eliminating the statements that alcohol had “no net health benefit” and that drinking “is not recommended.”
/Places reader on T.C.'s lap. See how they do it? Re-read carefully.
They're going back to their sham science.
Anyone who listens to 'government guidelines' is a fool for a client - or something like that.
“Science is on our side,” a beer executive told an industry conference the next year. Patti McKeithan of Miller advised convention-goers to start every meeting with legislators by saying that “alcohol can be part of a healthy diet,” according to documents in tobacco-litigation archives, where they can be found because Miller was owned by tobacco company Philip Morris MO, +0.20% at the time.
Now, newer research is once again shifting the consensus.
Science has nothing to do with it. It in the 1920s. It didn't with cigarettes and doesn't with climate change.
It's all about managing vices and virtues. Power that is. They don't need science for that.
"One of the first signs came when WHO officials set out nearly a decade ago to develop a new alcohol policy. They planned to focus on “global burden of disease,” assessing a broad range of possible effects, including indirect ones such as rates of accidents and certain infections.
We're now ONE world now. It's all global, you see? It's complicated.
You can't kick these people in the ass hard enough.
Ha, HA! You actually thought government is run by highly efficient academics looking out for our interests?
The sooner you understand it's all about control while excusing this ambition under the guise of 'public health' the sooner you'll stop buying into progressive gibberish and become truly free thinking.
"For decades, beer, wine and liquor producers have been helped by a notion, enshrined in a number of governments’ dietary advice, that a little alcohol can provide modest coronary and other health benefits.
Rapidly, that advice is shifting as health-policy officials around the world scrutinize their previous advice in the light of research pointing to possible cancer risks.
The change is pressuring the alcohol industry in some of its biggest markets, including the U.S., the U.K. and Russia. Its response is as expensive and sprawling as the threat it perceives, including attacking anti-alcohol advocates’ research and working with governments to formulate policy. Alcohol companies are also funding their own research, including a plan by four companies to contribute tens of millions dollars toward the cost of a rigorous study."
Ah, there it is. What better disease to focus on than cancer? Never mind there's no proof (that never stopped them before for *insert righteous cause here*) Here's how it's gonna go down. The government is going to slowly start pulling the same crap they did with cigarettes thus creating a black market (and more crime). And all this will be fully supported by the brain-dead left who will lose their minds on industry research dismissing them because of profits and greed. But here's the kicker. They're all gonna find a way to get their booze and the poor will get screwed.
This is EXACTLY how interventionism and paternalism works.
"...Said Beer Institute President Jim McGreevy, addressing executives at an April conference about the alcohol critics: “We can’t let them gain traction.”
Absolutely.
“There is no safe level of drinking,” U.K. Chief Medical Officer Sally Davies told a British television interviewer."
Fuck off, Sally, you slaver.
What is it with the British and their nannyism anyway?
"The threat to the alcohol industry isn’t as sharp as that faced by tobacco, which shrank due to rapidly changing public attitudes and government policy after it was determined that smoking causes lung cancer, heart disease and other ailments."
It can be sharp hence the need to stop these morons in their tracks.
Smoking has never conclusively been found to cause lung cancer.
And now they're heading down the same deceptive path. It will evolve into 'alcohol causes cancer'.
"...Nonetheless, governments’ alcohol advice matters, even if few would-be bar patrons ever consult it. It filters into policy on liquor taxes, retail-sales hours and advertising restrictions. More subtly, it can inform public attitudes toward drinking. Brewer Anheuser-Busch InBev NV BUD, +0.85% now includes in its corporate risk statement that the WHO seeks to reduce what it calls the harmful use of alcohol by 10%."
Of course they do. And not necessarily in a good way. Nothing worse than a panel of academic researchers fully backed by the potentially violent power of the state.
As for calculating risk, I do the same. I call it the 'Parasite Slider'. Except I go with 5%. You never know what kind of lie they throw at you. In Canada, the Liberals increased costs by at least 3% to my business. But they claim it's good for business looking at their big picture. Their picture is too skewed for my taste.
Last, this is exactly how you slow economic growth. Just put regulatory burdens.
Save this post.
"The near-consensus the industry enjoyed until recently—that light drinking can actually improve health in some ways—dates back to research four decades ago. A California cardiologist named Arthur Klatsky was trying to figure out what lifestyle factors might affect cardiovascular health. In what he says was a surprise, he discovered that light drinkers had fewer heart attacks than abstainers, as well as a lower statistical risk of dying from coronary heart disease.
It “changed the paradigm for studying the effects of alcohol,” according to the Alcoholic Beverage Medical Research Foundation, whose precursor organization at times funded Dr. Klatsky.
In 1995, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services revised its alcohol guidance, eliminating the statements that alcohol had “no net health benefit” and that drinking “is not recommended.”
/Places reader on T.C.'s lap. See how they do it? Re-read carefully.
They're going back to their sham science.
Anyone who listens to 'government guidelines' is a fool for a client - or something like that.
“Science is on our side,” a beer executive told an industry conference the next year. Patti McKeithan of Miller advised convention-goers to start every meeting with legislators by saying that “alcohol can be part of a healthy diet,” according to documents in tobacco-litigation archives, where they can be found because Miller was owned by tobacco company Philip Morris MO, +0.20% at the time.
Now, newer research is once again shifting the consensus.
Science has nothing to do with it. It in the 1920s. It didn't with cigarettes and doesn't with climate change.
It's all about managing vices and virtues. Power that is. They don't need science for that.
"One of the first signs came when WHO officials set out nearly a decade ago to develop a new alcohol policy. They planned to focus on “global burden of disease,” assessing a broad range of possible effects, including indirect ones such as rates of accidents and certain infections.
We're now ONE world now. It's all global, you see? It's complicated.
You can't kick these people in the ass hard enough.
Quote Of The Day
"Most civilization is based on cowardice. It's
so easy to civilize by teaching cowardice. You water down the standards
which would lead to bravery. You restrain the will. You regulate the
appetites. You fence in the horizons. You make a law for every movement.
You deny the existence of chaos. You teach even the children to breathe
slowly. You tame.
”
—Frank Herbert
Olympic Stats Of The Day
Now that the Olympics in Rio are over how fast will those venues fall into disuse?
What a clusterfuck of taxpayer waste the Olympics are.
Anyway.
I'm not a fan of the per capita medal ratios as a method to prove which country is the *most athletic* for a plethora of reasons and thought to prepare a whole bunch of reasons why but then it took too much time I don't have at the moment.
Sooooo.....
Here are the updated all-time Gold to Silver medal ratios (gold medals divided into of silver and gold medals) among countries. That is, how successful are countries at seizing a gold medal. Gold into total medals in parentheses :
UAE - .1000% (50%)
Panama - .1000% (33%)
Bahamas - .750% (43%)
Cameroon - .750% (60%)
Ethiopia - .710% (42%)
Dominican Republic - .600% (43%)
New Zealand - .590% (39%)
Turkey - .588% (42%)
Georgia - .571% (25%)
India - .563% (32%)
China - 562% (40% gold)
12 - USA - .555% (40% of medals gold)
Russia - .547% (38%)
Morocco - .545% (26%)
Estonia - .542% (32%)
16- Hungary - .540% (12th - 35%)
17- Italy - .534% (13th - 35%)
South Korea - .532% (37%)
Ukraine - .529% (28%)
Thailand - .529% (29%)
Cuba - .527% (35%)
Norway - .521% (36%)
North Korea - 500% (29%)
Lithuania - .500% (24%)
Tunisia - .500% (21%)
Israel - .500% (11%)
Ivory Coast - .500% (33%)
Bahrain - .500% (33%)
Burundi - .500% (50%)
Tajikistan - .500%
Costa Rica - .500%
Pakistan - .500% (30%)
Syria - .500% (33%)
Uruguay - .500% (20%)
Japan - .498% (31%)
Finland - .495% (31%)
Germany - .494% (33%)
Netherlands - .484% (31%)
Croatia - .484% (34%)
Sweden - .481% (31%)
Australia - .478% (30%)
Great Britain - .477% (31%)
Romania - .476% (29%)
Ireland - .474% (29%)
France - .472% (30%)
Czech Republic - .468% (28%)
Switzerland - .465% (30%)
Iran - .462% (26%)
Slovakia - .458% (33%)
Argentina - .456% (28%)
Brazil - .455% (24%)
Kenya - .449% (31%)
Kazakhstan - .444% (26%)
54 - Canada .442% (27%)
Poland - .439% (24%)
Egypt - .438%
South Africa - .439% (29%)
Greece - .434% (28%)
Zimbabwe - .429%
Belgium - .421% (26%)
Spain .417% (30%)
Jamaica .411% (29%)
Austria - .410% (25%)
Venezuela - .400%
Uganda - .400%
Colombia - .385% (19%)
Denmark .375% (23%)
Belarus .373% (19%)
Bulgaria - .371%
Azerbaijan .368% (16%)
Indonesia .368%
Slovenia - 368%
Mexico- .351%
Serbia - .333% (20%)
Portugal - .333% (16%)
Singapore - .333%
Puerto Rico - .333%
Taiwan - .300%
Armenia - .286%
Trinidad - .286%
Nigeria - .273%
Vietnam - .250%
Peru - .250%
Luxembourg - .250%
Latvia - .167%
Malaysia - .000
Namibia - 000
Philippines - 000
Niger - 000
Moldova - 000
Barbados - 000
Iceland - 000
Iraq - 000
Paraguay 000
95 - Lebanon 000
What a clusterfuck of taxpayer waste the Olympics are.
Anyway.
I'm not a fan of the per capita medal ratios as a method to prove which country is the *most athletic* for a plethora of reasons and thought to prepare a whole bunch of reasons why but then it took too much time I don't have at the moment.
Sooooo.....
Here are the updated all-time Gold to Silver medal ratios (gold medals divided into of silver and gold medals) among countries. That is, how successful are countries at seizing a gold medal. Gold into total medals in parentheses :
UAE - .1000% (50%)
Panama - .1000% (33%)
Bahamas - .750% (43%)
Cameroon - .750% (60%)
Ethiopia - .710% (42%)
Dominican Republic - .600% (43%)
New Zealand - .590% (39%)
Turkey - .588% (42%)
Georgia - .571% (25%)
India - .563% (32%)
China - 562% (40% gold)
12 - USA - .555% (40% of medals gold)
Russia - .547% (38%)
Morocco - .545% (26%)
Estonia - .542% (32%)
16- Hungary - .540% (12th - 35%)
17- Italy - .534% (13th - 35%)
South Korea - .532% (37%)
Ukraine - .529% (28%)
Thailand - .529% (29%)
Cuba - .527% (35%)
Norway - .521% (36%)
North Korea - 500% (29%)
Lithuania - .500% (24%)
Tunisia - .500% (21%)
Israel - .500% (11%)
Ivory Coast - .500% (33%)
Bahrain - .500% (33%)
Burundi - .500% (50%)
Tajikistan - .500%
Costa Rica - .500%
Pakistan - .500% (30%)
Syria - .500% (33%)
Uruguay - .500% (20%)
Japan - .498% (31%)
Finland - .495% (31%)
Germany - .494% (33%)
Netherlands - .484% (31%)
Croatia - .484% (34%)
Sweden - .481% (31%)
Australia - .478% (30%)
Great Britain - .477% (31%)
Romania - .476% (29%)
Ireland - .474% (29%)
France - .472% (30%)
Czech Republic - .468% (28%)
Switzerland - .465% (30%)
Iran - .462% (26%)
Slovakia - .458% (33%)
Argentina - .456% (28%)
Brazil - .455% (24%)
Kenya - .449% (31%)
Kazakhstan - .444% (26%)
54 - Canada .442% (27%)
Poland - .439% (24%)
Egypt - .438%
South Africa - .439% (29%)
Greece - .434% (28%)
Zimbabwe - .429%
Belgium - .421% (26%)
Spain .417% (30%)
Jamaica .411% (29%)
Austria - .410% (25%)
Venezuela - .400%
Uganda - .400%
Colombia - .385% (19%)
Denmark .375% (23%)
Belarus .373% (19%)
Bulgaria - .371%
Azerbaijan .368% (16%)
Indonesia .368%
Slovenia - 368%
Mexico- .351%
Serbia - .333% (20%)
Portugal - .333% (16%)
Singapore - .333%
Puerto Rico - .333%
Taiwan - .300%
Armenia - .286%
Trinidad - .286%
Nigeria - .273%
Vietnam - .250%
Peru - .250%
Luxembourg - .250%
Latvia - .167%
Malaysia - .000
Namibia - 000
Philippines - 000
Niger - 000
Moldova - 000
Barbados - 000
Iceland - 000
Iraq - 000
Paraguay 000
95 - Lebanon 000
2016-08-21
Progressives Way Behind The Curve Of Reality
Someone forwarded an article titled "The Culture Of The Smug White Liberal".
It's always interesting to read liberals come to some sort of epiphany already made obvious to others. It's like they live in a shell and when they come out realize 'this is not Pismo beach!'
Moreover, it's immensely startling - despite the fact the author pretty much admitted progressivism (there is no liberalism in the modern Democrat party; just progressive paternalism) has destroyed not just the black community but communities at large - is every single thing she asserts in the article has been already discussed by conservatives (in publications like NRO and The New Criterion), thinkers like Parker, Williams, Friedman and Sowell and, of course (take a bow) libertarians (particularly where gay rights are concerned. The Democrats weren't ahead of that curve and neither is Obama) for decades.
Because of this head start, I believe they've come to be more thought-provoking and refined in their criticisms and are far more adept and willing to offer alternative solutions since they've already identified the problems mentioned in the article. As such, progressives are so behind the curve, they're obsolete and don't even know it.
Ever notice how utterly banal, boring and predictable their *solutions* or interpretations to social, economic (whatever) ills are? It always seems to add up to 'more taxes' or 'more regulations' or calls for more restrictions (e.g censorship) on personal liberties.
Yet, this sort of epiphany is not getting traction for some odd reason. It's hard to truly educate and offer differing views when companies like Google, Apple and Facebook actively suppress free speech by playing censorship games where conservative and libertarian view points are concerned.
Rather, they're taken to uproot, rewrite, and deny history. Stuff like 'The Republicans were liberals!' and 'the right to bear arms means militia!' and 'up is down and down is up!' Then they turn around and quietly wreck the black family by removing choice, espouse eugenics, prolong the depression and continue to create prohibitionist laws to this day (if not alcohol, go after e-cigarettes or sugar or soda for whatever bull shit reason they come up with (ie obesity, climate change etc.).
Um, who are the real 'extremists' again?
***
Small excerpt:
"Suggesting that blacks stop being Democrats or Liberals would be a waste of my time, but what I am suggesting is that we require white liberals to do more than pat us on the head and tell us they know better."
Actually, yes. You should stop being Democrats or NDP/Liberals. They're not liberals - they're progressives. The latter holds not a skeptical view of humanity with a tinge of envy but a highly cynical outlook that demands the government involve itself in almost all matters as managers of our vices and virtues.
The entire progressive structure relies on 'panels of experts' and academics to command in a heavy top-bottom approach fully backed by state power (ie violence).
Progressives are just, pretty much, Marxists by other means.
Liberalism is dead to the extent modern progressives claiming lineage, as I've read once too many times, to The Enlightenment is preposterous.
But classical liberalism and the heritage of The Enlightenment lives in the libertarian ranks.
***
I mentioned deniers of reality.
The left only accept their conception of reality and what they face in the present. They talk of posterity but don't seem to recognize they're demands 'of now' only wreck the future.
Take debt for example. I can't think of a more perfect subject than debt (and banking) that epitomizes the shallow depths of their thoughts on the subject.
Debt is an abstract thought to them in the sense they rack up the debt and then realize they can't repay it ergo they come up with all sorts of arguments trying to convince it's actually good for society to eradicate the debt they incurred of free will.
Free will to charge the card, but greater good to pay for it if you prefer.
Time and again they reveal it's less about the community and collective and always about their personal needs.
In a sense, a debt is 'abstract'. But that existential outlook quickly ends when the person on the other side whom the debt is owed has to face the reality.
Debt finances many things from pensions to homes. Big ticket items are often funded with debt. You just have to make sure you can cover the principal plus the interest rate. It's not a complicated transaction. It only becomes complicated when you don't want to pay it.
So if government or banks were to forgive their debt (an instrument that can be traded. Think bonds. Oh, don't bother explaining the difference between a secured/unsecured bond or callables. That's of little interest to them) it doesn't just disappear. They seem to have some vague idea that banks are profits = gambling schemes.
Someone, somewhere is going to pay for it thus driving the cost of loans to sky rocket. And when that happens, guess what? It's that much harder to buy a car or a home. How? The cost I'm referring to comes in the form of interest and money down. In other words, the lender will ask for 80% of the purchase price while the cost of borrowing goes, for example, from 3% to 10%. And when that happens, their screams for government intervention will intensify.
You can't just 'erase' debt without it having a massive, unseen impact on someone else. And when that impact hits, it shouldn't be left to the government to step in.
Alas, it's all about them. Ironic, no? Given their ideology of the collective that is.
It's always interesting to read liberals come to some sort of epiphany already made obvious to others. It's like they live in a shell and when they come out realize 'this is not Pismo beach!'
Moreover, it's immensely startling - despite the fact the author pretty much admitted progressivism (there is no liberalism in the modern Democrat party; just progressive paternalism) has destroyed not just the black community but communities at large - is every single thing she asserts in the article has been already discussed by conservatives (in publications like NRO and The New Criterion), thinkers like Parker, Williams, Friedman and Sowell and, of course (take a bow) libertarians (particularly where gay rights are concerned. The Democrats weren't ahead of that curve and neither is Obama) for decades.
Because of this head start, I believe they've come to be more thought-provoking and refined in their criticisms and are far more adept and willing to offer alternative solutions since they've already identified the problems mentioned in the article. As such, progressives are so behind the curve, they're obsolete and don't even know it.
Ever notice how utterly banal, boring and predictable their *solutions* or interpretations to social, economic (whatever) ills are? It always seems to add up to 'more taxes' or 'more regulations' or calls for more restrictions (e.g censorship) on personal liberties.
Yet, this sort of epiphany is not getting traction for some odd reason. It's hard to truly educate and offer differing views when companies like Google, Apple and Facebook actively suppress free speech by playing censorship games where conservative and libertarian view points are concerned.
Rather, they're taken to uproot, rewrite, and deny history. Stuff like 'The Republicans were liberals!' and 'the right to bear arms means militia!' and 'up is down and down is up!' Then they turn around and quietly wreck the black family by removing choice, espouse eugenics, prolong the depression and continue to create prohibitionist laws to this day (if not alcohol, go after e-cigarettes or sugar or soda for whatever bull shit reason they come up with (ie obesity, climate change etc.).
Um, who are the real 'extremists' again?
***
Small excerpt:
"Suggesting that blacks stop being Democrats or Liberals would be a waste of my time, but what I am suggesting is that we require white liberals to do more than pat us on the head and tell us they know better."
Actually, yes. You should stop being Democrats or NDP/Liberals. They're not liberals - they're progressives. The latter holds not a skeptical view of humanity with a tinge of envy but a highly cynical outlook that demands the government involve itself in almost all matters as managers of our vices and virtues.
The entire progressive structure relies on 'panels of experts' and academics to command in a heavy top-bottom approach fully backed by state power (ie violence).
Progressives are just, pretty much, Marxists by other means.
Liberalism is dead to the extent modern progressives claiming lineage, as I've read once too many times, to The Enlightenment is preposterous.
But classical liberalism and the heritage of The Enlightenment lives in the libertarian ranks.
***
I mentioned deniers of reality.
The left only accept their conception of reality and what they face in the present. They talk of posterity but don't seem to recognize they're demands 'of now' only wreck the future.
Take debt for example. I can't think of a more perfect subject than debt (and banking) that epitomizes the shallow depths of their thoughts on the subject.
Debt is an abstract thought to them in the sense they rack up the debt and then realize they can't repay it ergo they come up with all sorts of arguments trying to convince it's actually good for society to eradicate the debt they incurred of free will.
Free will to charge the card, but greater good to pay for it if you prefer.
Time and again they reveal it's less about the community and collective and always about their personal needs.
In a sense, a debt is 'abstract'. But that existential outlook quickly ends when the person on the other side whom the debt is owed has to face the reality.
Debt finances many things from pensions to homes. Big ticket items are often funded with debt. You just have to make sure you can cover the principal plus the interest rate. It's not a complicated transaction. It only becomes complicated when you don't want to pay it.
So if government or banks were to forgive their debt (an instrument that can be traded. Think bonds. Oh, don't bother explaining the difference between a secured/unsecured bond or callables. That's of little interest to them) it doesn't just disappear. They seem to have some vague idea that banks are profits = gambling schemes.
Someone, somewhere is going to pay for it thus driving the cost of loans to sky rocket. And when that happens, guess what? It's that much harder to buy a car or a home. How? The cost I'm referring to comes in the form of interest and money down. In other words, the lender will ask for 80% of the purchase price while the cost of borrowing goes, for example, from 3% to 10%. And when that happens, their screams for government intervention will intensify.
You can't just 'erase' debt without it having a massive, unseen impact on someone else. And when that impact hits, it shouldn't be left to the government to step in.
Alas, it's all about them. Ironic, no? Given their ideology of the collective that is.
2016-08-16
Concealed Permit Holders Least Likely To Commit Crimes
No kidding.
Stuff you won't hear in the media about guns much less among progressives and left-wing academics:
“We find that permit holders are convicted of misdemeanors and felonies at less than a sixth the rate for police officers,” the report says. “Among police, firearms violations occur at a rate of 16.5 per 100,000 officers. Among permit holders in Florida and Texas, the rate is only 2.4 per 100,000.10. That is just one-seventh of the rate for police officers.”
Crime Prevention Research Center President John Lott, a noted economist, said the finding is not surprising considering the rigorous process it takes to get a concealed-carry permit.
“The type of person that would go through the process, one in which you can often lose the license for fairly trivial offenses,” Lott told The Daily Signal in a phone interview. “They are reluctant to use the the guns in a wrong way because they have a lot to lose if they do something wrong.”
No surprise here.. Since I've been blogging this is pretty much in line with what I've learned and researched over the years.
Gun control advocates rely on misrepresentation of facts and are deceitful about what their end game is.
Americans should fight to the end defending the Second Amendment. The mere fact the government and progressives want it so bad to the point of revisionism should be enough for skeptical people to protect its rights to bear arms.
***
I submit one small, insignificant but telling assertion about how full of shit people like Bloomberg and his cohorts on the left are.
They're more than willing to go after foods alleged to be bad for people under the guise of protecting them. From sodas to sugar from salt to cigarettes from guns to whatever - they have selected the stuff they don't like.
But ask them to go after coffee, booze and gambling.
Different ball game because A) they fucking love coffee and B) plenty of cronies to protect with alcohol and gambling.
Never mind politics has its fair share of drug users and sexual abusers.
They go after the shit that doesn't affect them.
And even if it does, they have all the connections in the world to avoid or evade them. Think Canadian politicians who don't wait in the the health care queue while convincing the rest of the population it's good for them.
Eat your pablum folks.
I have no problem calling them out for their outright hypocrisy and bull shit.
Stuff you won't hear in the media about guns much less among progressives and left-wing academics:
“We find that permit holders are convicted of misdemeanors and felonies at less than a sixth the rate for police officers,” the report says. “Among police, firearms violations occur at a rate of 16.5 per 100,000 officers. Among permit holders in Florida and Texas, the rate is only 2.4 per 100,000.10. That is just one-seventh of the rate for police officers.”
Crime Prevention Research Center President John Lott, a noted economist, said the finding is not surprising considering the rigorous process it takes to get a concealed-carry permit.
“The type of person that would go through the process, one in which you can often lose the license for fairly trivial offenses,” Lott told The Daily Signal in a phone interview. “They are reluctant to use the the guns in a wrong way because they have a lot to lose if they do something wrong.”
No surprise here.. Since I've been blogging this is pretty much in line with what I've learned and researched over the years.
Gun control advocates rely on misrepresentation of facts and are deceitful about what their end game is.
Americans should fight to the end defending the Second Amendment. The mere fact the government and progressives want it so bad to the point of revisionism should be enough for skeptical people to protect its rights to bear arms.
***
I submit one small, insignificant but telling assertion about how full of shit people like Bloomberg and his cohorts on the left are.
They're more than willing to go after foods alleged to be bad for people under the guise of protecting them. From sodas to sugar from salt to cigarettes from guns to whatever - they have selected the stuff they don't like.
But ask them to go after coffee, booze and gambling.
Different ball game because A) they fucking love coffee and B) plenty of cronies to protect with alcohol and gambling.
Never mind politics has its fair share of drug users and sexual abusers.
They go after the shit that doesn't affect them.
And even if it does, they have all the connections in the world to avoid or evade them. Think Canadian politicians who don't wait in the the health care queue while convincing the rest of the population it's good for them.
Eat your pablum folks.
I have no problem calling them out for their outright hypocrisy and bull shit.
2016-08-15
Regressive $15 Minimum Wage Fortunately Not In The Plans Here
It's been a while since a Canadian politician has made any sense about the economy and business (the Liberals under Finance Minister Morneau have been extremely disappointing on this front) let alone one from Quebec. But lo and behold even statists get something right from time to time.
Don't expect - thankfully - for $15 minimum wage to be coming here anytime soon. As a small business owner, I truly held my breath hoping the nonsense that has gone on in the USA in places like Seattle and San Francisco wasn't coming here. Luckily, I don't have to face the implications of such an arbitrary and counter-productive measure.
"As an economist, what I want is a relationship between the minimum wage and the median wage," he said.
"Whether it is $15, $14, $13 or $17, it depends on the reality of each state, each jurisdiction. The minimum wage in Quebec doesn't need to be the exact same as in Ontario, the United States or elsewhere."
Though a welcomed, it is indeed arbitrary and thus pointless, it's best to remember this is the government and they do still cling to the (antiquated and stale) theory of minimum wage. Here's a thought. Let those jurisdictions determine what that 'minimum' is.
Alas, what they giveth they taketh as I have to remind myself that this is the same bunch that brought in a carbon tax (which is just as negative a measure) and Bill 74.
Don't expect - thankfully - for $15 minimum wage to be coming here anytime soon. As a small business owner, I truly held my breath hoping the nonsense that has gone on in the USA in places like Seattle and San Francisco wasn't coming here. Luckily, I don't have to face the implications of such an arbitrary and counter-productive measure.
"In response, Carlos Leitao told reporters the $15 number was "arbitrary" and that it didn't make much sense.
"As an economist, what I want is a relationship between the minimum wage and the median wage," he said.
"Whether it is $15, $14, $13 or $17, it depends on the reality of each state, each jurisdiction. The minimum wage in Quebec doesn't need to be the exact same as in Ontario, the United States or elsewhere."
Though a welcomed, it is indeed arbitrary and thus pointless, it's best to remember this is the government and they do still cling to the (antiquated and stale) theory of minimum wage. Here's a thought. Let those jurisdictions determine what that 'minimum' is.
Alas, what they giveth they taketh as I have to remind myself that this is the same bunch that brought in a carbon tax (which is just as negative a measure) and Bill 74.
2016-08-14
CBC Drops Ball Big Time With Olympic Boxing
One of my preferred sports to watch at the Olympics is boxing. But this year it seems a little, well, off. I couldn't put my finger on it for a while. Then it hit me. For the first time in a long time there's been a lack of overall Canadian content in boxing. Usually, there's a Canadian somewhere making some noise legitimately aiming for a medal.
Alas, that didn't quite put the finger on it.
And then I realized Russ Anber isn't calling the fights. For some odd reason, the CBC in its infinite wisdom (and I use the term lightly) decided to use an international feed for boxing.
The rest is history. It's just not the same without Anber.
What a shame and comically terrible decision by the CBC.
Alas, that didn't quite put the finger on it.
And then I realized Russ Anber isn't calling the fights. For some odd reason, the CBC in its infinite wisdom (and I use the term lightly) decided to use an international feed for boxing.
The rest is history. It's just not the same without Anber.
What a shame and comically terrible decision by the CBC.
2016-08-13
Bill 74: Quebec One Step Closer To Full Censorship
Quebec continues to feed its tyrannical impulse.
A little-publicized bill that is making its way through Quebec's legislative process has digital-law experts and others worried that the concept of a free and open Internet is being threatened in the province.
Bill 74 includes a provision that seeks to force Internet service providers to block Quebecers' access to online gambling sites that aren't approved by the government.
The province's finance minister says the bill is necessary to protect the health and safety of Quebecers because illegal sites don't apply the same "responsible gaming rules" as sites run by the government and pose a "risk to the population."
Necessary? Carlos Leitao is now just insulting us to our faces with this tripe. What a joke. This is all about Quebec protecting its turf like mobsters do.
Critics say the Internet-censoring legislation — unprecedented in Canada — is a way for Quebec's state-owned gambling authority to block competition and could lead to governments across the country deciding what citizens can and can't view online.
No shit. Voters better come to the realization through cynical crony laws like this one are designed not to protect people but to further the financial needs of the state.
In a province that prevents people from freely choosing access to education in the language of their choice and home to laws that restrict freedom like Bill 22 and Bill, Bill 74 keeps in Quebec's long tradition of anti-liberty behavior.
A shameful, backward law indeed and one in which I hope no province follows. Though I have little hope the Little Red Liberals are not that far off with this sort of thinking.
A little-publicized bill that is making its way through Quebec's legislative process has digital-law experts and others worried that the concept of a free and open Internet is being threatened in the province.
Bill 74 includes a provision that seeks to force Internet service providers to block Quebecers' access to online gambling sites that aren't approved by the government.
The province's finance minister says the bill is necessary to protect the health and safety of Quebecers because illegal sites don't apply the same "responsible gaming rules" as sites run by the government and pose a "risk to the population."
Necessary? Carlos Leitao is now just insulting us to our faces with this tripe. What a joke. This is all about Quebec protecting its turf like mobsters do.
Critics say the Internet-censoring legislation — unprecedented in Canada — is a way for Quebec's state-owned gambling authority to block competition and could lead to governments across the country deciding what citizens can and can't view online.
No shit. Voters better come to the realization through cynical crony laws like this one are designed not to protect people but to further the financial needs of the state.
In a province that prevents people from freely choosing access to education in the language of their choice and home to laws that restrict freedom like Bill 22 and Bill, Bill 74 keeps in Quebec's long tradition of anti-liberty behavior.
A shameful, backward law indeed and one in which I hope no province follows. Though I have little hope the Little Red Liberals are not that far off with this sort of thinking.
2016-08-11
Daily Derp: There Is A Rape Crisis
Just not in the way you think.
Hillary care sooo much for you, she will rape you by having you pay for all the 'free stuff' she promises to give you.
In other words, sigh, as is always the case with progressive Democrat policies, the Middle class will get reamed; as it did with Obamacare.
Democrats aren't that into you.
***
She's also reckless.
***
Ever notice the odd disconnect where people don't care about the plight of people in places like Cuba always generally overlooking their misery (and often actually romanticizing and defending it)? Yet suddenly believe in the concept of the greater good at home thus permitting them to tolerate more government welfare programs?
***
Thinking about the irrational hysteria against building pipeline. I guess it's better to have more port catastrophes?
People who oppose the pipeline and politicians who support it are directly negatively impacting our economy.
***
"Belgium's Prime Minister condemned the attack on Twitter: "I condemn the attack in Charleroi with force."
You tell 'em!
Don't forget the angry emoticon! Grrrr!
***
Excuses, excuses
If you're lazy, you just may be intelligent!
Meh. I was told it could also be related mental disorders like depression.
I tend to procrastinate but I was the kernel kicked off the cob.
I hate eating corn on the cob. The kernels get all stuck in my teeth and then I look like more of an idiot.
***
Every generation thinks itself smarter (and with this particular generation known as millennials, they believe to be more virtuous and righteous) than the last. and if by 35 they haven't figured out they're no different than previous generations, cut 'em loose.
Hillary care sooo much for you, she will rape you by having you pay for all the 'free stuff' she promises to give you.
In other words, sigh, as is always the case with progressive Democrat policies, the Middle class will get reamed; as it did with Obamacare.
Democrats aren't that into you.
***
She's also reckless.
***
Ever notice the odd disconnect where people don't care about the plight of people in places like Cuba always generally overlooking their misery (and often actually romanticizing and defending it)? Yet suddenly believe in the concept of the greater good at home thus permitting them to tolerate more government welfare programs?
***
Thinking about the irrational hysteria against building pipeline. I guess it's better to have more port catastrophes?
People who oppose the pipeline and politicians who support it are directly negatively impacting our economy.
***
"Belgium's Prime Minister condemned the attack on Twitter: "I condemn the attack in Charleroi with force."
You tell 'em!
Don't forget the angry emoticon! Grrrr!
***
Excuses, excuses
If you're lazy, you just may be intelligent!
Meh. I was told it could also be related mental disorders like depression.
I tend to procrastinate but I was the kernel kicked off the cob.
I hate eating corn on the cob. The kernels get all stuck in my teeth and then I look like more of an idiot.
***
Every generation thinks itself smarter (and with this particular generation known as millennials, they believe to be more virtuous and righteous) than the last. and if by 35 they haven't figured out they're no different than previous generations, cut 'em loose.
Quote Of The Day
"I divide my officers into four classes as follows: The clever,
the industrious, the lazy, and the stupid. Each officer always possesses
two of these qualities.
Those who are clever and industrious I appoint to the General Staff. Use can under certain circumstances be made of those who are stupid and lazy. The man who is clever and lazy qualifies for the highest leadership posts. He has the requisite nerves and the mental clarity for difficult decisions.
But whoever is stupid and industrious must be got rid of, for he is too dangerous."
General Freiherr von Hammerstein-Equord 1933
*Read in German accent. Makes it more, erm, poignant.
Those who are clever and industrious I appoint to the General Staff. Use can under certain circumstances be made of those who are stupid and lazy. The man who is clever and lazy qualifies for the highest leadership posts. He has the requisite nerves and the mental clarity for difficult decisions.
But whoever is stupid and industrious must be got rid of, for he is too dangerous."
General Freiherr von Hammerstein-Equord 1933
*Read in German accent. Makes it more, erm, poignant.
2016-08-10
U.S. Politics: Sanders Deserves Criticism; Commies For Hillary
No, Bernie Grandpa Gulag Sanders richly - excuse the pun - deserves to be chastised and shamed for buying a $600 000 home. Personally, good for him - hopefully it wasn't on credit given his debt level woes.
On the scale of things, this is likely his least objectionable thing (progressives naturally pick and choose how they will apply enjoying the fruits of capitalism) given his terrible takes on the economy, creating a behemoth welfare state, and historical appreciation for dictators. In other words, your run of the mill left-winger.
Had his outlook not been one of demonizing capitalism or choice (and yes, his *democratic* socialism is all about taking from the productive classes to hand over to other people) he'd be free and clear of the criticism.
Alas, he did not as he never let up questioning the very system that permitted him to make such a purchase.
Next time don't say insipid things like 'no one needs 23 types of deodorant' to make some esoteric vapid point about consumerism. Especially when you know damn well you break that line of logic in private life.
I mean, who needs a second home, right Bernie? Or, to borrow from Obama, how much is enough?!
***
Speaking of commies.
The Communist Party throws its support behind Hillary.
Naturally.
Their new motto? This time it'll be different!
***
Seth Conrad Rich adds fuel to conspiracy theories about dead bodies in and around the Clinton mafia.
What makes this one especially interesting is that Julian Assange claims he was Wikileaks' DNC insider.
***
Nothing seems to knock Hillary out. Not emails. Not laughing at dead dictators. Not past rape cases. Not crooked foundations. Not Benghazi. Nothing.
She's like a virus. The political equivalent of a Plantar Wart.
***
Boy, no shortage of celebrities weighing in on politics these past few years, eh?
Not sure how much stock and weight to put into an insulated class that likely can't tell the difference between Weber and a Weber.
On the scale of things, this is likely his least objectionable thing (progressives naturally pick and choose how they will apply enjoying the fruits of capitalism) given his terrible takes on the economy, creating a behemoth welfare state, and historical appreciation for dictators. In other words, your run of the mill left-winger.
Had his outlook not been one of demonizing capitalism or choice (and yes, his *democratic* socialism is all about taking from the productive classes to hand over to other people) he'd be free and clear of the criticism.
Alas, he did not as he never let up questioning the very system that permitted him to make such a purchase.
Next time don't say insipid things like 'no one needs 23 types of deodorant' to make some esoteric vapid point about consumerism. Especially when you know damn well you break that line of logic in private life.
I mean, who needs a second home, right Bernie? Or, to borrow from Obama, how much is enough?!
***
Speaking of commies.
The Communist Party throws its support behind Hillary.
Naturally.
Their new motto? This time it'll be different!
***
Seth Conrad Rich adds fuel to conspiracy theories about dead bodies in and around the Clinton mafia.
What makes this one especially interesting is that Julian Assange claims he was Wikileaks' DNC insider.
***
Nothing seems to knock Hillary out. Not emails. Not laughing at dead dictators. Not past rape cases. Not crooked foundations. Not Benghazi. Nothing.
She's like a virus. The political equivalent of a Plantar Wart.
***
Boy, no shortage of celebrities weighing in on politics these past few years, eh?
Not sure how much stock and weight to put into an insulated class that likely can't tell the difference between Weber and a Weber.
On Liberty: Mike Ward Must Appeal
I'm thoroughly disgusted with the decision by the - shudders - Quebec Human Rights Tribunal (an un-elected fascistic board that exists it seems to monitor newly and speciously ordained protected classes or groups) - ordering comedian Mike Ward pay $42 000 in damages to a kid (who by the way claimed to be terminally ill but isn't) known as Petit Jeremy.
Once again, Quebec shows how things ought NOT be where freedom of speech is concerned. Recall, this is the home of Bill 22 and 101 where they, being a sufficiently insecure and somewhat insular lot, fine you for having the temerity to post - gasp! - English words in your place of business.
This is the face of *enlightened* and *balanced* free speech? So we're clear for the overly sensitive minded who think they have an enlightened view on this. That his joke flopped and was in poor taste is irrelevant and inconsequential. What matters is our right to free speech and expression.
This is not a path we want to go down.
Fuck petit Jeremy and fuck any bull shit human rights tribunal.
***
But Quebec is not alone where matters of liberty are concerned.
Take Germany.
I have no idea what's happening there but from afar, it seems to be undergoing some sort of existential inner-civil war and it's not pretty.
Germany is a prime example of a nation unhinged before the gods of political correctness where it will consider prosecuting, fining and/or imprisoning its own citizens for...well, basically bull shit.
"...Thomas Salbey, 57, saw the shooting happening from his balcony in the Bavarian capital on July 22.
In an attempt to stop 18 year old Ali Sonboly from further slaughtering people, he swore at the shooter as he was standing in a car park below...."
"...Now, in a twist of German justice, Mr Salbey is now facing charges for standing up to the killer who shot himself in the head.
Florian Weinzierl, spokesman from the Munich State Prosecutor’s office, confirmed the Munich resident is being investigated."
"...What will be included in the charges remains to be established, as it whether they will be brought forward.
But Mr Weinzierl, suggested they could include “insults to the detriment of the dead.”
/face palm.
Oh FFS grow a pair Germany.
Fuck prosecutor Florian Weinzierl.
Once again, Quebec shows how things ought NOT be where freedom of speech is concerned. Recall, this is the home of Bill 22 and 101 where they, being a sufficiently insecure and somewhat insular lot, fine you for having the temerity to post - gasp! - English words in your place of business.
This is the face of *enlightened* and *balanced* free speech? So we're clear for the overly sensitive minded who think they have an enlightened view on this. That his joke flopped and was in poor taste is irrelevant and inconsequential. What matters is our right to free speech and expression.
This is not a path we want to go down.
Fuck petit Jeremy and fuck any bull shit human rights tribunal.
***
But Quebec is not alone where matters of liberty are concerned.
Take Germany.
I have no idea what's happening there but from afar, it seems to be undergoing some sort of existential inner-civil war and it's not pretty.
Germany is a prime example of a nation unhinged before the gods of political correctness where it will consider prosecuting, fining and/or imprisoning its own citizens for...well, basically bull shit.
"...Thomas Salbey, 57, saw the shooting happening from his balcony in the Bavarian capital on July 22.
In an attempt to stop 18 year old Ali Sonboly from further slaughtering people, he swore at the shooter as he was standing in a car park below...."
"...Now, in a twist of German justice, Mr Salbey is now facing charges for standing up to the killer who shot himself in the head.
Florian Weinzierl, spokesman from the Munich State Prosecutor’s office, confirmed the Munich resident is being investigated."
"...What will be included in the charges remains to be established, as it whether they will be brought forward.
But Mr Weinzierl, suggested they could include “insults to the detriment of the dead.”
/face palm.
Oh FFS grow a pair Germany.
Fuck prosecutor Florian Weinzierl.
2016-08-08
Islamic Terrorism: Get Used To It?
I'm hearing more and more politicians telling their respective citizens to 'get used to terrorism' in their countries.
This is unfortunate as it is disturbing.
No. People shouldn't have to accept 'getting used' to murder and mayhem. The ONE legitimate function of government every single ideology agrees upon is it is the duty of government to protect its citizens in the national interest.
Listening to European leaders from Sweden, Germany, the UK, Belgium, France leaves me unimpressed with their cowardly rhetoric on the subject. While the problem is especially big in Europe, it's by no means isolated to it. We hear similar comments here in North America. The other on CNN Gary Johnson said the same thing which disappointed me greatly.
Strongly worded rebukes are just that: Words. Terrorists don't give a hoot about rhetoric. They respond to action.
Which makes me wonder if government is failing their peoples, will vigilantism be on the rise?
And if civil war does occur, it will unleash the dark side of European civilization in the name of defending itself. History has shown Europe is more than willing to engage in violence.
The sad thing is, it doesn't have to be this way. If only government would just do their bloody jobs.
This is unfortunate as it is disturbing.
No. People shouldn't have to accept 'getting used' to murder and mayhem. The ONE legitimate function of government every single ideology agrees upon is it is the duty of government to protect its citizens in the national interest.
Listening to European leaders from Sweden, Germany, the UK, Belgium, France leaves me unimpressed with their cowardly rhetoric on the subject. While the problem is especially big in Europe, it's by no means isolated to it. We hear similar comments here in North America. The other on CNN Gary Johnson said the same thing which disappointed me greatly.
Strongly worded rebukes are just that: Words. Terrorists don't give a hoot about rhetoric. They respond to action.
Which makes me wonder if government is failing their peoples, will vigilantism be on the rise?
And if civil war does occur, it will unleash the dark side of European civilization in the name of defending itself. History has shown Europe is more than willing to engage in violence.
The sad thing is, it doesn't have to be this way. If only government would just do their bloody jobs.
1984 German Style
Hello Germany. Can you give an account of the acid trip you're currently experiencing? Spare us no details. It would help nations who do not wish to turn into cowards.
Man oh man does Germany loathe freedom or what? I can't make any sense of what they're up to.
Maybe The Beatles can help:
Man oh man does Germany loathe freedom or what? I can't make any sense of what they're up to.
Maybe The Beatles can help:
2016-08-04
Phrases I Hate
Black business.
What, there's a line on the books that reveals 'black profits'?
Business is business just like profits are profits.
What, there's a line on the books that reveals 'black profits'?
Business is business just like profits are profits.
Are You In?
Come on America. Get Gary Johnson to 15% and have a three candidate debate!
What have you got to lose? Seriously.
Hillary or Trump?
Get real.
There has never been a better time to uproot and revamp American politics than now. Americans can truly make a difference by choosing the Johnson option.
Libertarians are disappointed that Johnson has shied away from libertarian principles on some issues and they fear once in power he'll eschew it altogether.
Personally, it's better than nothing. Let the general population see in action how a libertarian leaning politician operates. It's not like there's no track record as his time as Governor of New Mexico shows.
Bill Weld is even less libertarian but I can see why Johnson chose him as running mate. Also experience having governed Massachusetts, he presents a professional account for libertarian perspectives.
Baby steps. People have to be weened off progressivism that is naturally embedded in the psyche.
It'll take some time but first...15%.
What have you got to lose? Seriously.
Hillary or Trump?
Get real.
There has never been a better time to uproot and revamp American politics than now. Americans can truly make a difference by choosing the Johnson option.
Libertarians are disappointed that Johnson has shied away from libertarian principles on some issues and they fear once in power he'll eschew it altogether.
Personally, it's better than nothing. Let the general population see in action how a libertarian leaning politician operates. It's not like there's no track record as his time as Governor of New Mexico shows.
Bill Weld is even less libertarian but I can see why Johnson chose him as running mate. Also experience having governed Massachusetts, he presents a professional account for libertarian perspectives.
Baby steps. People have to be weened off progressivism that is naturally embedded in the psyche.
It'll take some time but first...15%.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)