Customer: I have to say there is no better place to eat than here at McD’s.
McD’s: How can I help you today sir?
Customer: I would like to order a double burger. Make that a meal. You know with fries and a big Coke.
McD’s: (Blows big whistle) Okay you guys! We have another one!
Two big football player sized men come in and place arms on customer.
McD’s: Sir, can you step this way?
Customer: Hey you guys! What are you doing?
McD’s: Pay no attention to those fellows. They are just part of our new national health care force. Please step this way, Sir!
Customer: All I wanted was a meal!
McD’s: I know, Sir. We will get you the meal you need after you step this way.
Customer hesitantly is pulled to back room.
McD’s: Now, Sir, hold your arm out here. We need to take your blood pressure.
Blood pressure so high McD’s man whistles.
McD’s: I gotta tell you Sir. There will be no salt with those fries.
Customer: Hey I am hungry here. What happened to the customer is always right?
McD’s: National Health Care happens! Patience Sir. Just a couple of more measurements and we’ll be through. First, let me put this tape around you. If I can reach around you. What is that? A 37? And you are what- 56 years old?
Customer: I did not come for clothes. I came for a meal.
McD’s: Now you know what the two big guys are for. Settle down. Let’s see. Height is 5’ 10” tall. What was that first measurement? Oh yeah! A whopper! 37 inches. 56 years old.
Looks down at measurements.
McD’s: Your body fat index is 35.9. That may be a record of the day! No way you are getting a double burger and fries. Can we talk diet Coke and maybe a piece of salad?
Customer: I am not sure I like this new national health care.
McD’s: Oh a statement of displeasure with your life? Let me make a quick call on that.
McD’s makes a quick phone call.
McD’s: Okay Sir! I have some good news for you! Since you are over 50 years old and made a statement of displeasure with your life, we are going to give you everything you asked for. Would you like extra salt with those fries?
Customer: I don’t get it.
McD’s: Sir, we are over budget for you already anyway. If you can just step over to the pickup line, we will get your food for you. I do have some good news. The food will be free for you.
Customer: I like free, but I don’t get why.
McD’s: Well I don’t like to say it Sir. This should be between you and your doctor. And, of course, now your fast food server. Anyway, your doctor has prescribed this meal for you. And you can sign right here for getting a meal everyday.
Customer: Everyday?
McD’s: Well, everyday for the rest of your life.
Customer: Wow! Thanks, I think.
McD’s: Here’s your meal, Sir. I threw in a few extra fries and salt with that. Have a nice day.
Customer on his way out muttering to himself, throws meal in garbage and yells at wife:
I am walking home honey! See you in a couple of hours.
McD’s: (to big guys) Hey you guys! I like our new job, don’t you?
Guys: It sure beats working at DMV.
McD’s: For sure. Now we are helping our country with reasonable health care.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Friday, July 24, 2009
The Gates’ Controversy
The President is a slow learner in some areas; in others I admire the fact that he appears to bow to reality and learn from facts. A president of the United States has no business commenting on something criminal especially when he himself admits ignorance of all the facts. It seems evident to me that police officers come a “bit thin-skinned” when it comes to encountering loud abusive behavior.
I had two brothers who served as police officers for some years (in the interest of full disclosure). I also watched police officers casually abuse the homeless years ago. I know fully well there are two sides to each story. What seems evident from the facts that have come out so far is that Gates lost his temper and his cool, evidently calling the officer names and being specifically insulting.
I can sort of see myself in Gates’ position—he is surprised by a stranger in the confines of his own home, a place that should be safe for every homeowner. But he is supposed to be an adult, capable of reigning himself in, not giving himself to ranting diatribes. The policeman was doing his job. What was his job? Protecting the home and property of Gates himself.
Police officers are subjected to casual abuse all too frequently by the lower echelons of our society. The casual abuse often turns to violence or implied harm to the officer himself. I suspect this is why we observe the “thin-skinned behavior” of so many officers. They themselves fear for their safety.
Even if the above observation were not true (as it very probably is), Gates found himself opposing the very man whose job it was to protect his own life and property. Now I think there are two probable outcomes that are bad for Gates, and perhaps bad for fellow professors that live in that neighborhood.
The first problem seems to be one of what I call advertising for criminals. Every burglar in the world now has official notification of open season in this neighborhood. What civic minded neighbor will now call the police when they see a door being broken into?
The second problem is even worse. What policeman will quickly respond to calls from this neighborhood, knowing they might face ridicule from the president of the United States.
Occam’s razor, applied here, seems to draw two easy conclusions, contrary to what our president concluded. Was there sufficient reason for the neighbor to report a possible burglary? Was there sufficient reason for the policeman to want to verify Gates’ id?
It is obvious that the answer is yes to both questions. For either Gates or the president to assume that skin color was a primary inducement is forcing unnecessary conclusions to the event.
Both the president and Gates owe a profound apology to the officer involved. As a country, we have better things to get on to.
I had two brothers who served as police officers for some years (in the interest of full disclosure). I also watched police officers casually abuse the homeless years ago. I know fully well there are two sides to each story. What seems evident from the facts that have come out so far is that Gates lost his temper and his cool, evidently calling the officer names and being specifically insulting.
I can sort of see myself in Gates’ position—he is surprised by a stranger in the confines of his own home, a place that should be safe for every homeowner. But he is supposed to be an adult, capable of reigning himself in, not giving himself to ranting diatribes. The policeman was doing his job. What was his job? Protecting the home and property of Gates himself.
Police officers are subjected to casual abuse all too frequently by the lower echelons of our society. The casual abuse often turns to violence or implied harm to the officer himself. I suspect this is why we observe the “thin-skinned behavior” of so many officers. They themselves fear for their safety.
Even if the above observation were not true (as it very probably is), Gates found himself opposing the very man whose job it was to protect his own life and property. Now I think there are two probable outcomes that are bad for Gates, and perhaps bad for fellow professors that live in that neighborhood.
The first problem seems to be one of what I call advertising for criminals. Every burglar in the world now has official notification of open season in this neighborhood. What civic minded neighbor will now call the police when they see a door being broken into?
The second problem is even worse. What policeman will quickly respond to calls from this neighborhood, knowing they might face ridicule from the president of the United States.
Occam’s razor, applied here, seems to draw two easy conclusions, contrary to what our president concluded. Was there sufficient reason for the neighbor to report a possible burglary? Was there sufficient reason for the policeman to want to verify Gates’ id?
It is obvious that the answer is yes to both questions. For either Gates or the president to assume that skin color was a primary inducement is forcing unnecessary conclusions to the event.
Both the president and Gates owe a profound apology to the officer involved. As a country, we have better things to get on to.
Friday, July 17, 2009
Syllogisms to Ponder
Roosevelt deepened and prolonged the depression.
Obama is following Roosevelt's model.
Therefore, our depression will be deepened and prolonged.
Reagan cut taxes to rid us of depression.
Obama raised taxes to rid us of depression.
One of the two actions must be wrong.
Roosevelt's raising taxes ruined our economy.
Obama is hugely raising taxes.
Therefore Obama will ruin our economy.
People are generally ignorant about economics
They seldom know how to fact check.
The possibility is good that Obama will not be held accountable.
A lack of private investment causes recessions.
Private investment is falling drastically.
Therefore our recession will deepen.
Obama is following Roosevelt's model.
Therefore, our depression will be deepened and prolonged.
Reagan cut taxes to rid us of depression.
Obama raised taxes to rid us of depression.
One of the two actions must be wrong.
Roosevelt's raising taxes ruined our economy.
Obama is hugely raising taxes.
Therefore Obama will ruin our economy.
People are generally ignorant about economics
They seldom know how to fact check.
The possibility is good that Obama will not be held accountable.
A lack of private investment causes recessions.
Private investment is falling drastically.
Therefore our recession will deepen.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Minority Politics
Yesterday I read a column that tried desperately to defend Sotomayor's blatantly racist remark about the superiority of "Wise Latina Women". To know beyond doubt that this remark is intrinsically racist, one only has to substitute "Wise White Male" for Sotomayor's term. Imagine how livid and righteous people would be if someone actually dared to insist that white men were superior.
I laughed at the Democrat's well deserved predicament this past election cycle. Hillary and Obama were fighting over which minority's time had come. In California, voters generally aligned with the philosophy that woman's time had finally come, but to their disgust, they found that they were trumped by a (half) black man. Which leads me to the observation that the only thing worse than the minority parity shuffle is the lack of realization of the idiots running the shuffle. Or perhaps they started a machine that they no longer know how to stop. In any case, it only hurts our country.
Martin Luther King famously talked about a place where children, no matter of what color, could play together without regard to skin color. We will not achieve parity until we are willing to begin judging people by who they are, not what they look like. It seems to me that the Democrats (and many Republicans) just do not get this. It is never a black or a female who deserves the presidency; it is, and will remain, a candidate who convinces voters of his or her ability to lead. Shame on us for thinking anything else!
I laughed at the Democrat's well deserved predicament this past election cycle. Hillary and Obama were fighting over which minority's time had come. In California, voters generally aligned with the philosophy that woman's time had finally come, but to their disgust, they found that they were trumped by a (half) black man. Which leads me to the observation that the only thing worse than the minority parity shuffle is the lack of realization of the idiots running the shuffle. Or perhaps they started a machine that they no longer know how to stop. In any case, it only hurts our country.
Martin Luther King famously talked about a place where children, no matter of what color, could play together without regard to skin color. We will not achieve parity until we are willing to begin judging people by who they are, not what they look like. It seems to me that the Democrats (and many Republicans) just do not get this. It is never a black or a female who deserves the presidency; it is, and will remain, a candidate who convinces voters of his or her ability to lead. Shame on us for thinking anything else!
Sunday, July 05, 2009
An Idea which seems Nonsensical to this Writer
Imagine that you find yourself with a house now mortgaged at twice its approximate real value. Let’s say that you owe 300,000 dollars on a house that is now worth 170,000 dollars. You are stretched to make payments month after month for an asset that is almost 50% devalued. So far, this should not require too much imagination. I know of two families that fit this description.
Now comes the harder part to imagine. Let’s say the housewife decides she knows how to fix the problem. Owing too much money and being stretched is not nice. So she applies for every credit card she can: Visa, Mastercard, and American Express. Let no credit card be unused. Max every card to the limit.
What happens? The poor struggling household that couldn’t find a way to make ends meet finds itself awash in cash. Suddenly there is stimulus everywhere. Goods such as new cars, new furniture and pools are added as opulence dictates. Let no purchase be unattempted.
Of course you see the problem with such a household. (I know of more than one that has followed this pattern.) What is the end of such a household? The interest will eat them alive. I remember many years ago adding my own annual interest on cards—the amount I paid in interest exceeded the cost of a high end desktop computer each year. Needless to say I took steps to stop the profligate usage of cards and have never returned.
So why is our nation any different? When Reagan stimulated the economy, he did so with returning taxes in healthy amounts to the people. When Obama speaks of stimulus, what we need to remember, is that he is doing the exact opposite of Reagan. He is taking the “credit card” and charging ahead. No purchase is too big to be attempted. Banks and car companies, people and their inflated mortgages, health care and government programs—all can be paid for with the trusty credit card.
What will be the outcome? The government will find itself awash, just as the imaginary household above, in all sorts of wonderful, opulent goods. But the piper must be paid in the end. Everything that we are adding now, it seems to me, will have a cost that has to be paid for later. We purchase credit-card prosperity now, but the bill will more than take that away. This must result in higher taxes.
The most alarming item to me in this imagining is that government will become much bigger; the citizen will become poorer by a greater factor because such money will be encumbered with interest. Obama, declaring war on the small businessman, has declared that he will take the taxes only from this group. So this group naturally restrains its spending (no more new business started—unemployment results). But simple math tells us that even if Obama confiscated the entire income of this group he could not pay for his envisioned grandiose schemes. Taxes or inflation (this favorite way for government to increase taxes) is the result.
The whole plan seems, to this homespun economist, to be nonsensical. Unless of course, Obama’s real plan is to grow government. Damn the people! Full speed ahead!
Now comes the harder part to imagine. Let’s say the housewife decides she knows how to fix the problem. Owing too much money and being stretched is not nice. So she applies for every credit card she can: Visa, Mastercard, and American Express. Let no credit card be unused. Max every card to the limit.
What happens? The poor struggling household that couldn’t find a way to make ends meet finds itself awash in cash. Suddenly there is stimulus everywhere. Goods such as new cars, new furniture and pools are added as opulence dictates. Let no purchase be unattempted.
Of course you see the problem with such a household. (I know of more than one that has followed this pattern.) What is the end of such a household? The interest will eat them alive. I remember many years ago adding my own annual interest on cards—the amount I paid in interest exceeded the cost of a high end desktop computer each year. Needless to say I took steps to stop the profligate usage of cards and have never returned.
So why is our nation any different? When Reagan stimulated the economy, he did so with returning taxes in healthy amounts to the people. When Obama speaks of stimulus, what we need to remember, is that he is doing the exact opposite of Reagan. He is taking the “credit card” and charging ahead. No purchase is too big to be attempted. Banks and car companies, people and their inflated mortgages, health care and government programs—all can be paid for with the trusty credit card.
What will be the outcome? The government will find itself awash, just as the imaginary household above, in all sorts of wonderful, opulent goods. But the piper must be paid in the end. Everything that we are adding now, it seems to me, will have a cost that has to be paid for later. We purchase credit-card prosperity now, but the bill will more than take that away. This must result in higher taxes.
The most alarming item to me in this imagining is that government will become much bigger; the citizen will become poorer by a greater factor because such money will be encumbered with interest. Obama, declaring war on the small businessman, has declared that he will take the taxes only from this group. So this group naturally restrains its spending (no more new business started—unemployment results). But simple math tells us that even if Obama confiscated the entire income of this group he could not pay for his envisioned grandiose schemes. Taxes or inflation (this favorite way for government to increase taxes) is the result.
The whole plan seems, to this homespun economist, to be nonsensical. Unless of course, Obama’s real plan is to grow government. Damn the people! Full speed ahead!
Friday, July 03, 2009
Stimulus
Any more stimulus and we will be caught in a depression. Like in Rooseveltan times taxes are not successful in stimulating the economy and Obama will only succeed in making the Leviathan bigger. The literature and studies on the failures of Rooselvelt are so complete that is difficult for me to see why Obama does not see this. Unless, of course, his aim is to grow the Leviathan. In that regard, Roosevelt was eminently successful.
If you are not familiar with the studies showing those failed policies a good book to start with is Free to Choose, by Milton Friedman. Friedman won a Nobel prize in Economics for his analysis of Roosevelt. Too bad they do not seem to include this basic primer in Harvard today.
Declaring war on business was a favorite trick of Roosevelt; getting the folks angry at people who make "too much money" was something he all too often did. In our time, our unwise President declared not only that he was going to tax this high income group which gives most of the jobs that keep America employed, but also he was going to go after all those who were trying to evade their tax responsibility.
Make no mistake. Obama spoke and the stock market listened. Not only did the stock market go into free fall, but also consumers have become tight fisted with their spending because they believe these expenditures will have to be paid for, and the cost to our economy might yet be higher. Thus we have classic a economic depression spiral.
The Obama administration suggests we need more stimulus. I guess that is because it worked so well the first time. Roosevelt never quit trying to "stimulate" our way out of the depression--the depression that we would still be in had not war caused the economic surge out of the spiral.
More taxes will not stimulate the economy--it will stimulate the government, a long term statist goal.
Here is an interesting editorial that paints a grim future:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/03/june_jobs_tell_a_bad_story_97285.html
If you are not familiar with the studies showing those failed policies a good book to start with is Free to Choose, by Milton Friedman. Friedman won a Nobel prize in Economics for his analysis of Roosevelt. Too bad they do not seem to include this basic primer in Harvard today.
Declaring war on business was a favorite trick of Roosevelt; getting the folks angry at people who make "too much money" was something he all too often did. In our time, our unwise President declared not only that he was going to tax this high income group which gives most of the jobs that keep America employed, but also he was going to go after all those who were trying to evade their tax responsibility.
Make no mistake. Obama spoke and the stock market listened. Not only did the stock market go into free fall, but also consumers have become tight fisted with their spending because they believe these expenditures will have to be paid for, and the cost to our economy might yet be higher. Thus we have classic a economic depression spiral.
The Obama administration suggests we need more stimulus. I guess that is because it worked so well the first time. Roosevelt never quit trying to "stimulate" our way out of the depression--the depression that we would still be in had not war caused the economic surge out of the spiral.
More taxes will not stimulate the economy--it will stimulate the government, a long term statist goal.
Here is an interesting editorial that paints a grim future:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/03/june_jobs_tell_a_bad_story_97285.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)