So whats wrong with this?

New Federal Tax Code:

After the first 50,000.00 dollars of income (the monetary payment received for goods or services, or from other sources, as rents or investments). Individuals will be taxed 20%.  (20% is a number I pulled out of a hat).

Fast food = Bad food?

A recent facebook wall conversation linked homeless obesity with fast food.

That started me thinking about Taco Bell. Way back when, they had large pressure cookers and a deli style slicer. The ingredients that came in consisted of dry Pintos, heads of iceberg lettuce, tomatoes, onions etc. They did not open until 11:00, giving the morning crew a chance to prep for lunch. They would cook the meat, pressure cook the beans, slice the veggies and grate the cheese.

This is a far cry from the current fare. So what is the difference?

Fast food is a volume business. With minimum wage laws they need to up efficiency in order to stay viable. They are in a fight for every consumer. With a business model like this they have guys in cubicles crunching numbers and coming up with charts, graphs and figures to lower the cost of business. At the same time you have to maintain a uniformity and quality that makes people desire the product.

A factory that makes the items and a distribution system must make fiscal sense. Which makes fresh food a thing of the past. So more stuff to enhance the taste and degrade the waste.

Some places have bucked the trend; Subway, for instance. I wonder what the profit on a five dollar foot long is really?

Your Government and you.

Recently a friend proposed that the US adopt a law similar to Canada that you cannot lie on the news.

A quick research shows that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) has never evoked the law. I see it as the government passing a law restricting freedom of the press.

So putting the first amendment aside and playing fiction, what would the enforcement of said law entail?

I suppose it could be passive, waiting for a complaint then investigating. Similar to the FCC and bad language. A complaint is filed and someone investigates. Would that mean that each news broad caster would have to keep copies of every broadcast? And for how long? Statue of limitation would have to be set. If some broadcasts are sent to other countries (CNN) that would fall under international law? That means they would need to store all broadcasts forever...

Anyways, the investigator requests the broadcast in question. The station may refuse, at which point the investigator would have to subpoena the broadcast. Seeing as this is Federal law that brings the Courts and Marshall's into the mix. Now they view the broadcast and fact check the complaint. If the broadcast did prevaricate, then they must determine intent.

This would mean having the source material seized as well. Assuming they found the broadcast did knowingly mislead a fine would be levied. The news organization would then either pay up or decide to fight. Then a case built and a hearing date sent. The broadcasters would engage a lawyer and the court battle etc.

My thoughts then go to enforcement. Would the executive branch be able to pick and choose targets?

That is just if it is passive, lets say it is active. The government collects every news cast and reviews it for inaccuracies and intent. Or better still, each broadcaster would have a government employee going over the scripts and fact checking prior to airing....

Yeah, I see why Canada never evoked this...

R or D

Most people's political views are determined by the level of their understanding of economics and finance, and by whether or not they are net contributors to or net beneficiaries of the tax/welfare system. People who pay tax and who realise that "the government's" money is in fact their money, and that others are receiving in benefit what they have worked hard to earn, tend to be more critical of policies that benefit people who are not helping themselves.

People who don't pay tax tend to support generous regimes that benefit them. The Liberals aim appeared to be to get as many votes as possible by affording state benefits to more and more people - hardly a good investment of the US's capital. It has created a culture of entitlement that we would do well to break down if we want to compete and prosper in future.

The work ethic here is unbelievably low.

Republicans Kind of Suck … Which Is Why They Will Win Huge in November

Republicans Kind of Suck … Which Is Why They Will Win Huge in November (Original link)

Because in the Democratic land of epic, mega, ultra, apocalyptic levels of sucking, those who kinda suck are king.

October 20, 2010 - by Frank J. Fleming

This election season has been hard on pundits. The Democrats are going to get massacred in November, and it’s really obvious to pretty much everyone exactly why — which makes writing political commentary like trying to come up with a long-winded explanation for why two plus two equals four.

Here’s my attempt.

Doesn’t it suck when you have a dog that barks all night? Everyone hates that. It’s annoying. It can even drive you pretty crazy if it goes on long enough. People hate that.

Know what also sucks? A zombie apocalypse. That’s when society collapses due to some spreading zombie virus, and most of your friends and family are dead, and you have to scrounge for food to survive while the walking dead threaten you around every corner. People also hate that.

So, we’re all agreed that a barking dog and a zombie apocalypse both suck. Everyone following so far?

Now let’s look at what led us to the political situation we’re in. During the second term of the Bush presidency people just got fed up with Republicans. They were idiots, they were no good at the whole fiscal conservatism thing (which is sort of the whole point of them), we had these wars that seemed to be going nowhere, and the economy was beginning to fail. They sucked, and people were sick and tired of them.

Thus people turned to the Democrats. And Obama.

Let’s just say they also sucked.

AMERICANS: “So, the economy is pretty bad and there’s high employment. You think you can do something about that?”

DEMOCRATS AND OBAMA: “We can spend a trillion dollars we don’t have on pork and stuff.”

AMERICANS: “No … that’s not what we want. We’d really like you not to do that.”

DEMOCRATS: “You’re stupid. We’re doing it anyway.”

AMERICANS: “That’s not going to help us get jobs!”

DEMOCRATS: “Sure it will; millions of them … though they may be invisible. You’ll have to trust us they exist. And guess what else we’ll do: We’ll create a giant new government program to take over health care.”

AMERICANS: “That has nothing to do with jobs!”

DEMOCRATS: “We don’t care about that anymore. We really want a giant new health care program. We’re sure you’ll love it.”

AMERICANS: “Don’t pass that bill. You hear me? Absolutely do not pass that bill.”

DEMOCRATS: “Believe me; you’ll love it. It has … well, I don’t know what exactly is in the bill, but we’re sure it’s great.”

AMERICANS: “Listen to me: DO. NOT. PASS. THAT. BILL.”

DEMOCRATS: “You’re not the boss of me! We’re doing it anyway!”

AMERICANS: “Look what you did! Now the economy is way worse, we’re even deeper in debt, and we have a bunch of new laws we don’t want!”

DEMOCRATS: “You’re racist.”

AMERICANS: “Wha … How is that racist?”

DEMOCRATS: “Now you’re getting violent! Stop being violent and racist, you ignorant hillbillies! And remember to vote Democrat in November.”

So the Democrats sucked. But not just plain old, usual politician sucked, but epic levels of suck where it’s hard to find an analogue in human history that conveys the same level of suckitude. It was sheer incompetence plus arrogance — and those things do not complement each other well. We’re talking sucking that distorts time and space like a black hole.

It’s Godzilla-smashing-through-a-city level of suck — but a really patronizing Godzilla who says you’re just too stupid and hateful to see all the buildings he’s saved or created as he smashes everything apart. Or, to use Obama’s favorite analogy, you have a car stuck in ditch, so you call the mechanic, but the only tool he brings with him is a sledgehammer. And then he smashes your car to pieces and charges you $100,000 for his service. Finally, he calls you racist for complaining. Obama and the Democrats have been so awful, it’s hard for the human brain to even comprehend.

But the Democrats will counter that the Republicans also suck. And while this is true, it’s not really going to help them. As I pointed out before, both a dog incessantly barking and a zombie apocalypse are things that everyone would agree suck. Yet no one during a zombie apocalypse, while hiding out in a boarded up mall, would turn to the other survivors and say, “We don’t want to kill all the zombies; then we’d have to go back to being woken up at night by that annoying dog next door.” But this is the best argument the Democrats can come up with. “Remember how awful the Republicans and Bush were? You hated them. You don’t want to go back to that.” Yes, why would people want to go back to when 6% unemployment was considered high?

People do remember how much the Republicans suck, and they know where it tops out … and that is nowhere near as bad as the Democrats are today. Like with the barking dog, it’s annoying, but you know it’s not going to cause the collapse of civilization as we know it. Not so with the zombie apocalypse; who knows how bad that could get if left to continue? Same with the Democrats and Obama; people have never dealt with anything this horrible their entire lives, and they aren’t that curious to see how much worse it can be.

So the Republicans kinda suck, and that’s why they’re going to win huge this November. Because in the land of epic, mega, ultra, apocalyptic levels of sucking, those who kinda suck are king. Or at least are going to win in a landslide.

Because once the zombie apocalypse is over, the annoying neighbor dog is going to be music to your ears.

For a little while, at least.

Freidrich Hayek

Talking to the Scorpio I know.

In a post WoW online vent chat, I quizzed Shoo about the topics of the day.

1. Should a Mosque be built at ground zero. Seeing as how it is not being built at ground zero, sure.

2. Is president Obama a Muslim? We both pretty much shrugged. My thought is that Clinton was the first black president, so why couldn't Obama be the first Muslim president, in the same vein?

3. Are the above two stories distractions? Yup, media focus on those to the exclusion of other topics.

Shocking proof of global warming!

Give it a couple min to load. It is a changing picture. oooh!

Look at the sea level rising over the last 130 years in La Jolla! Convinced yet?

Radio Plays.

The BBC still produces radio drama's.

Once upon a time, radio was 'the' entertainment of choice. The big broadcast consisted of current events, comedy, drama, etc. Many of the stage performers of Vaudeville found a huge audience, stars were born! Google any of the following folks: Fred Allen, Jack Benny, Victor Borge, Fanny Brice, Billie Burke, Bob Burns, Judy Canova, Jimmy Durante, Phil Harris, Bob Hope, Groucho Marx, Jean Shepherd, Red Skelton and Ed Wynn. The level and degree of talent was Amazing.

I became fascinated with Old-time radio in Jr. High School. I even collected several episodes of The Shadow and Inner Sanctum. Relying upon the imagination of listener made for quite a number of exotic locations and amazing events, all within a tiny studio. One could argue that computer FX has only recently caught up with the ability to conjure that radio had. Stan Freberg, had a commercial in which Lake Michigan was made into a Sundae. Talk about imagination!

Radio has an interesting future. Once a mecca of entertainment, it is now it is largely music on FM and Talk on AM. Is anyone listening?

If you own a radio station, selling ad space has become increasingly difficult. Also, the FCC regulations require you to hire someone just to make sure you are in compliance. It is largely mis-regulated. If you do not own a number of stations, creating a thriving business is nigh impossible in most markets. Add to that the liberal attempt to destroy the AM market that they cannot succeed within.

XM and MP3 are viable alternatives to terrestrial broadcasts, as are webcasts\podcasts. As the technology has moved forward, radio struggles for viability in an ever shrinking niche. Even locally, our radio stations have opted out of using talent and going with pre-packaged single male name radio (Sam, Bob, Jack etc.) with a wide variety format. Which causes me to turn it off more then tune in.

Someone such as myself who had favorite personalities and favorite stations to tune into during those teen to twenty years, I feel a bit sad for the current generations of Ipod zombies. At the same time I do see the advantage to a personal playlist.

Video killed the radio star? No, that misses the mark. Radio needs to evolve or die, if only the government will let it.