Tuesday, September 30

Economic theories

Here are a couple of theories about what brought on this financial crises. They are really the same theory, but one is in written form, and one is in video form. I forget how to put in the link, so i'll just paste it. This first one is the written form, and is courtesy of mrdarius' comment on aras' blog. http://ibdeditorial.com/series11.aspx

This second version is the visual form http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc8oH--o
I'm not going to claim this is the correct theory, or even the theory that i believe. I haven't really made up my mind yet, but it makes at least as much sense as any other theory i've heard. Both are clearly biased for McCain, but that doesn't contradict their arguments, just that they have chosen to highlight good things done by McCain and bad things done by Obama. But blame is irrelevant, more important is whether the arguments are accurate, and if so, what can be done to fix the problem.


I am tired of many bogusities, but there is one in particular that has been bothering. This complaint about executive pay. That in any bail out program we would require limits on executive pay. Because all these companies need billions of dollars, and the government is proposing 700 billion dollars to help them out, so obviously the 25 million the CEO paid himself this past year is the problem. If only he hadn't paid himself that 25 million dollars we wouldn't be having this problem.

I agree that people at the top of companies are often unfairly compensated. They get locked into huge paydays regardless of the performance of the company. they can, and do drive the companies into the ground, costing employees their jobs, stock portfolios, and pensions. And that sucks. But those same executives would be driving their companies into the ground regardless of their own salaries. It is certainly not fair, but who said life is fair, where is that written? It's up to companies/board of directors, whomever to limit the pay they offer to their executives. The problem is that everyone wants to find an executive like steve jobs, without whom apple computers would probably be gone by now. They literally couldn't pay him enough, because he completely turned around that company. It's not the government's place to mandate what companies pay their executives, nor will it be the savior of the economy. it just sounds good to bunch of people who are having a tough time in this economy and find it easy to hate executives who made a lot of money while their company went under.

a related theory is that we can't bail out companies because then they won't learn from their mistakes. Is anyone really that stupid? Does anyone really think that in a few years all these companies will be clamoring to to buy a bunch more subprime mortgages. If nothing else look at the executives of these companies. I don't remember the exact numbers, but the bear stearns chief had stock worth upwards of 2 billion, and after the government "bailed" them out, his stock was worth like 60 million. Some people might say 60 million is still a lot of money, but it's a lot different then 2 billion. Nobody is going to be going into their meetings saying, this is a little risky, but hell, if it doesn't work out the government will take 80 percent of our company, or else help sell us to another company at 5% of our previously value. That's a hell of a bail out.

Monday, September 29

Liberal campus sighting.

Shocking, i know, but there is has been another case of inappropraite political endorsements at a college campus. A Umass, chaplain has been promising students college credits if they would campaign for Obama in New Hampshire. There are 2 disturbing things about this. Obviously, the first is that it is completely inappropriate to even suggest. I'm not sure if the school has the authority to ban a particular clergyman from their campus, but if they do, clearly they should. But possibly even worse than the polical statement, is the fact that there were no credits available. He claimed that an unnamed history prof. would grant the credits, but no prof has claimed responsibility, and the university claims that there was never any such prof, or possibility. I don't put it out of the realm of possibility that a prof backed the plan at one time, and since chickened out, in fact that sounds very much like what a prof might do. But if we are to believe the history department, then this chaplain was promising credits he could not deliver. He was lying to students to trick them into working for a campaign. What if some students had taken up his offer, and been counting on the credits only to learn later that they couldn't get them. That seems particularly cruel, and unreligious to me.

As a brief side note, it's not entirely clear to me what the rules are regarding religions and politcal statements. As part of their tax exempt status, churches are not allowed to undertake certain political stands or statements. I think for example a priest is not allowed to endorse a candidate during a sermon, but i'm sure he is allowed to during the day. If for example this chaplain used a mailing list from church services to contact these students, i don't know what the legality of that would be. I believe i also read that many priests are planning on intentionally violating that rule this year, to try to bring a case to the supreme court declaring the rule unconstitutional.

are you wearing simpsons boxers?

They passed a law in florida making it illegal to wearing sagging pants. Specifically to let your underwear show over your pants i believe was the crime. Theoretically they were not going to imprison anyone for this offense, unless they had violated it many times, but they found someone doing it, who happened to be on parole. Commiting another crime was naturally a violation of his parole, so he was sent back to prison, because his underwear showed on the outside of his pants.

Luckily a freedom loving judge threw out the case. The judge, in one of those truly rare occurence, like a total solar eclipse, had something intelligent to say, "You can have Speedo underwear, which is way less than boxer shorts, and that is perfectly legal, but boxer shorts, with pants over them, is not?." In only all judges, and ideally politicians were so rational, but the existence of the law clearly precludes that possibility.

p.s. people are often able to see my boxers. Even if my pants are at normal level, my boxers are above them, and given that i wear loose shirts if i'm running around, or creating some other silly antics, it would be totally normal for someone to see the top of my boxers. It was especially clear this summer because people commented on my simpsons underwear. Lucky i wasn't spending the summer in FL

Thursday, September 25

You won't do it, do it, you won't do it, do it, do it, you won't do it

I could be wrong, i haven't been following the media spin, but it seems to me that McCain is the clear winner in the what to do about the financial crises sweepstakes. Today he announced that he would postpone all campaigning, remove all his politic ads, and postpone the debate to insure that they could come to a bitpartisan agreement to try to solve the financial problems going on. The democrats are very sore about this. Because they have been beaten. Obama cannot follow suit or he will look like he is weak and incapable of coming up with the idea himself, having to follow McCain's lead. Nor can they claim McCain shouldn't be involved without making themselves look stupid (that's is what they are currently doing.)

Some tidbits from the senate.
1. Earlier this summer Reid critisized McCain for not being around for important votes. No doubt this vote far more important so we would hope that McCain would be there.
2. Reid has made it known, he will not pass this bill without republican support.
3. Senator Casey (D) had this to say "I think if you look at the Republican side, at the McCain campaign and the leadership, I'm not convinced they are working to get their side to the table"
4. And as of last count only 4 republicans were known to support the bill (of the 30 minimum that reid demanded.)

So when McCain comes in and offers to help hammer out a bill, you would think reid would be happy. Certainly if anyone can deliver republican votes it will be McCain, and certainly if there is an issue worth being in washington it is this. No instead Reid chose to critisize McCain, told him not to come to washington, and told him that they have everything under control, and they don't need or want his help. So first mccain isn't doing enough to get republicans to the table, and then when he agrees to come and help, they lambast him for it?

as a brief side note, Reid also claimed a week ago that the senate would go on vacation without addressing the issue, leaving it in the lap of the president. His administration had taken the lead and done everything so far, and yet reid critisized bush for not being around? Clearly bush isn't around because he doesn't want his unpopularity to sink the bill, but it is people he appointed who are doing the work and yet Reid finds it reasonable to critisize him too. If you don't like the plan fine, but don't ridicule someone for not being involved after thye have done everything when you claimed you were going on vacation.

Notes from the campaign:

The best comment of course came from Biden (who else) "When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the princes of greed." He was trying to say that McCain was just talking instead of doing anything. The Hilarious response came from Reason's Jesse Walker "and if you owned an experimental tv set in 1929 you would have seen and you would have said to yourself who's that guy? what happened to president hoover?

The point, beyond the hilarity, is that again he was chiding McCain for not accomplishing anything, so McCain set off to accomplish something.

I'm believe there were similiar remarks from Obama, but i don't remember. What i do know is that Obama has refused to delay the debate and claimed that as president you need to be able to multi-task. First off, when Obama refused to postpone the debate and said he would show up friday, the only thing i could think of was george trying to break up with his girlfriend in seinfeld, and her refusing. this does not require Obama's agreement. If McCain doesn't show up, there is no debate. Obama can refuse to reschedule the debate if he wants, or he can debate himself, but he can't force McCain into a debate.

Secondly this has been described as a once in a century financial disaster, and likened to the great depression. So at a time like this we need multi-tasking? Who says that? After the bombs dropped on pearl harbor did someone come up to roosevelt to ask about financing for education? After the stock market crashed did someone come up to ask HOOVER about public transportation? A lot of people decried the response after hurricane Katrina, wherever people lay the blame, i think we can all agree we would have wanted our leaders focusing on that, and not multi-tasking. Is Obama really going to claim that hosting this debate on friday, is more important then getting financial legislation passed?

Democrats have decried this as a political gimmick. And i agree, it is a gimmick. McCain doesn't really need to be in washington, or suspend his campaign, or skip the debate. He could accomplish anything from abroad that he can from in washington. What the dems are really upset about is that it is such a good gimick. On top of which, they were asking for it. I'm sure if they could go back in time, and have a redo, they would have Obama do this instead of McCain. Obama needs it more, because McCain actually has a history of bi-partansinship that Obama doesn't. But the dems didn't think of it, and now all they can do is attack and make themselves look silly, at least in my eyes.

Tuesday, September 23

I was told, there would be no math.

Word has come out, that the opening skit from this previous week's SNL was at least to some degree thought up by al franken. To what degree he was involved is up for debate, Franken claims that we was just talking to his old friend lorne micheals, and mentioned something off the top of his head, and unbenounced to him micheals passed it on to the writers who came up with the skit. And maybe that's all true, but it's a bad idea anyway. I don't think the skit was over the line or anything, it's exactly the type of skit you would expect from SNL. But whatever Franken's previous profession, he is now running for the senate in MN. and whether or not they are old friends, it's inappropriate to use suggestion of a democratic senator (or candidate) in mocking the the republican nominee on a (presumably) non-partisan show. This looks bad for everyone involved. It looks bad for franken who has been trying to convince minnesota that he's put his comedic past behind him, and it looks bad for SNL/NBC which doesn't want to feed in conservative critism that NBC is in the tank for Obama. I think SNL has been pretty bi-partisan, and in fact i think they helped bush win the election in 2000 with their mockery of al gore, and i don't remember them doing kerry any favors either, but this just looks bad, and was an error judgment.

Beware of the leopard

Some schools have started banning hoodies under the premise that they are too big and clunky, and it is easy for kids to sneak in contraband (ipods, cellphones) in their pockets. Now first off that's silly. Certainly any male could fit an Ipod or cellphone in their pants pockets, so the people that would affect would be females. Possibly their real concern is sneaking guns in, and they don't want to say so publicly, i don't know. But their stated goal is nonsense. What's more important here is that some of the students started complaining, no big surprise. What did the schools, (or at least one administrator) claim as a defense of the rule. This rule has actually been in place for several years, we are just enforcing it now. In what kind of society is that a justification of a rule. I know this may seem like an overbearing rule, but you should keep in mind, we actually passed it several years ago, so... you know... it's just that now decided to enforce it. So what does that mean? people were supposed to complain several years ago? or what? I think this is probably what arthur dent felt like, and equally silly.

P.S. if you are unfamiliar with arthur dent, you are advised to read the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy.

Monday, September 22

you'll have plenty of time to blame people when you're living in a van down by the river!!!

So anyone who has been paying any attention to the news recently will be aware of the current financial struggles. Now what's amazing to me (not really) is how quick people are to lay the blame, and how slowly people are to make any suggestions. Last week Nancy pelosi was asked if the democrats had to share in any of the blame for the troubles the economy was facing, and she boldly said no. This is not at all our fault. this is 100% the republicans fault. I'm paraphrasing, but that's the point. The next day Harry Reid announced that the democratic congress planned on going on vacation without addressing the issue because they had no idea what to do. So i guess if it gets any worse it won't be their fault either, because they weren't even around, they were on vacation. Naturally if the economy starts to do well, it will be there discretion that saved the day.

Obama boldly declared that it was McCain style economic theory that got us into this mess. Luckily he has the solution. What is you ask? well that's a secret. He'll let us know later on what his plan was. After bush has time to tell us his plan. This entire mess was bush's fault, so it's only natural that we should use his plan to fix it, instead of Obama's plan. Presumably we'll find out Obama's plan after we find out about the success of bush's plan. (He probably doesn't want to be on the outs of a losing planning again, after the surge in Iraq, which he railed against, was such a success.)

That isn't to let the republicans off the hook. Granted the democrats (at least from what i've seen) have been more aggressive in playing the blame game, but McCain said he would fire the SEC chairman for being asleep at the switch. Nothing more specific. Nothing he can point to that the chairman did wrong, except now things suck and so he wants to fire someone.

The simple fact is 1, it's everyone's fault. 2 it's nobodies fault. Nobody can even agree on what went wrong, so how are they going to decide whose at fault. I read a couple articles laying the blame squarely at the feet of allen greenspan, possibly the most respected economist in the world. They claim that he left interests rates too low for too long, encouraging to many people to borrow money when they shouldn't have, leading to booming economy for a while, and that now we are reaping the rewards of that. Nobody saw this coming, nobody had any plans for averting this crisis, nobody should be taking credit or handing out blame. The entire government is culpable. Instead of playing the blame game, they should play the much more useful solutions game. Or at least they should, if they weren't too busy running for president, and going on vacation.

Friday, September 19

the red menace

A professor at some dinky college in Colorado assigned his students to write a paper. They were supposed to write a paper contradicting the the image portrayed of her at the republican convention. After assigning the paper, he singled out republicans in in the class and made fun of them while encouraging or at least allowing others to ridicule them as well. That's shocking, i'm shocked. A professor who's liberal? That's truly shocking. the assignment as been revised to include any political figure, and the school is investigating the incident. I just can't get over how shocked i am, because i was under the impression that colleges and professors across the country weren't extreme liberal and biased. well i guess you live and learn.

A new way to throw away money

Good news. There's a new brand of bottled water on the market. It's called tap water. There's a new company that's bottling new york tap water and then selling it. The idea of the founder is that new york tapwater is very good, which he realized after moving to new york from ohio, and it's an insult to import water from other countries to drink. So he wants people to drink bottled new york water. Makes sense to me. And at 1.50 a bottle, we'd be stupid not to buy it.

Thursday, September 18

Down with sexy women!!!

The EU women's rights committee wants to ban all commericials that show women as sex objects are reinforce gender stereotypes. Now the first and probably most important thing to me, is that the majority, if not the vast majority of commercials featuring scantily glad/sexy women are for products FOR WOMEN. those commercials are not targeted towards men. Although those lingerie/perfume/shower gel/shampoo, etc. are for women. Women are supposed to see those beautiful women and think, man if only i put on that perfume i'll look just like that. That's not to say there aren't any target toward men, but these commercials are for women, and they must be working, or else women would stop buying the products, and they would stop making the commercials. As far as gender stereotypes, that's just nonsensical. You can't have any gender stereotypes? So you can't have a male construction worker in an ad for a truck? Or a housewife doing an ad for kids cereal? from now on we need to have female mine workers, and male victoria secret models? quote "Gender stereotyping in advertising straitjackets women, men, girls and boys by restricting individuals to predetermined and artificial roles that are often degrading, humiliating and dumbed down for both sexes." i don't even know what that means. If i see men doing construction on tv, then i'll be straitjacketed into doing construction myself? If girls see shots of a naked women using shampoo, then they'll be tempted to shower naked too? I'm speaking from the perspective of the states, and maybe things are different in the EU, but this just seems silly to me

Wednesday, September 17

I've got meat on the brain.

A new study out shows that not eating meat is possibly not the best thing for your brain. According to said study, people who don't eat meat are 6 times more likely to experience brain shrink as those who do eat meat. This is apparently because of the lack of B12 in a vegetarian diet. Of course the study also found that drinking increases brain shrinkage, as does being overweight. i don't know what that means to you, but what it means to me is as long as i eat enough meat, it will cancel out any damage from drinking or being overweight. I'm going to go eat a big hunk of meat right now. and chase it with a shot of whiskey.

Wednesday, September 10

Baby, it's what's for dinner.

A woman in ohio was sentenced to life in prison for microwaving her baby and killing. She was supposed to have done this after getting into a fight with her boyfriend. This makes no sense to me. There are 2 possibilities, either she didn't do it, in which case she should be acquitted, or she did do it in which case i don't understand why she should be allowed to continue living. I am in every way pro the death penalty. But especially in the case of people who are sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, and double especially for someone who would commit such a heinous act as putting a baby in a microwave. now the state is going to have to support this woman for the next 60 years give or take at a cost of 20,000 a year. Each state spends different amounts on their prisoners, but i think that's a pretty good guestimate, and if anything, low.

I don't think people realize how many people die every day. People die all the time. Twice as many people were murdered in chicago this summer as american soldiers died in Iraq and Afganastan this summer. I don't remember the number, but hundreds of thousands of people (if not more) die every from drunk driving, not to mention the people who's lives are drastically shortened by smoking. If life was really so all fire holy and important it seems to me like we ought to get rid of quite a few things in society before the death penalty. How many people are executed a year/ a thousand? i don't know, but it can't be that many. Not to mention various studies which suggest that executing prisoners actually lowers the death rate by by saving more lives than it costs.

I could understand the cost of keep someone in prison for a long time if we thought that this person was going to be rehabilitated in 10-15 years, and would re-enter society. But if we are agreed that this person is never to re-enter society, then what is the point of keeping them alive at the public's expense? I don't think there should be any prison terms longer than 10 years. If a person isn't fit to return to society after 10-15 years, then i say there's no point in spending the money to keep them alive in prison. Probably most prison terms should be shortened, and those that aren't should just be given the death penalty. Once again, so many people die all the time over such silly things, not being religious myself, adding a few more to the list wouldn't bother me, especially not a woman who microwaved her own baby.

Monday, September 8

A religion by any other name, is still a religion.

Scientologist have been charged with fraud in France. The french are essentially claiming that scientology is a scam created to get people's money. Now i won't contend that it's not a scam, but i will contend that it is no more a scam than christianity, judiasm, or any other religion. Someone spend something like $25,000 on "purification packs" and then later said oh, it was a scam. That's retarted. Religious or not, anybody who spends that kind of money on something knows what they are going in for. If i spent that much money on self help books, i wouldn't sue afterwards when i was still miserable. Same if i spent it on some church. Clearly this woman is suffering from either severe depression, or some sort of mental illness to give up that kind of money for purification. But that doesn't mean that scientology is any more fake than any other religion. And while i believe that the original founder of scientology didn't believe anything, and simply made it up, that doesn't mean that the people who currently practice it don't believe it. I also think that the original founder of mormonism just made it all up. In my book l ron hubbard, and joseph smith aer cut from the same clothe, but because one is more recent, and one is more outlandish, it is a cult and a fraud while the other is a religion? The real solution here would be to stop giving governmental protection/tax breaks to any religion. Permit freedom of religion in that religions are allowed to organize, but none of them are above the government, or above paying taxes. Then there is no need for the government to make a differentiantion between a religion and cult, which is essentially impossible on any non-subjective grounds. if you join willingly, and you give them your money willingly, then you are what is known as a sucker. Don't feel bad, there is one born every minute. But don't cry to the government afterward about how the big bad wolf stole your money. You gave it away. That's you bad. Learn you lesson and don't do it again.

Sunday, September 7

Impaling, the remix

The other major critisism of Sarah Palin that we heard when she was first picked was that John McCain only picked her because she was a woman. And how stupid did McCain think we were that just because he picked someone with a vagina to be his running mate, now we would all vote for him. And furthermore if he was going to pick a woman just for the sake of picking a woman, why didn't he pick someone better qualified (more well known in layman's terms.) This complaint was sung almost entirely by women who, i am fairly certain, were all hillary supporters. At least from those in the media, but i have also heard this complaint from other democrats i know whether they are male or female.

Now there are several levels on which this complaint makes no sense, so we will start with the most obvious. It has been, and had been at that time widely reported that McCain wanted to pick Lieberman as his running mate. Lieberman is a good friend of his, and he felt it would help show that he could reach across the political spectrum. It was also slightly less well reported that his second choice was tom ridge. Now tom ridge and lieberman both have one thing in common, they are pro choice. McCain was told repeatedly by republicans, and eventually possibly by lieberman himself, that it would be an impossible choice. That he would start a fight on the floor of the convention if he tried to nominate a pro-choice VP. So it's clear that McCain did not choose her because of her Vagina, he chose her because she was strongly anti abortion. I'm not saying the vagina didn't factor into the decision at all, i'm sure it did, but it was not the primary deciding factor (unless lieberman has a vagina i don't know about.)

Further complain if he was going to pick a woman just for the sake of picking a woman why didn't he pick a better qualified candidate. Once again this is a null statement. Clearly if he was going to pick a woman ONLY for the sake of picking a woman, he would have picked the most reconizable, highest ranking, most qualified woman. There would be no other criteria other than woman, and then leading member of the party who fit that description. To make both complaints in a single article is not something a reasonable person could do, which is why it is so entirely not shocking that it is exactly what many reporters/columnists/commentators/whatever they call themselves did.

Once again i'm not claiming her sex didn't enter into the equation at all, but such things always enter into the equation. I northerner like Kerry will pick a southerner like edwards to help him in southern states. The vice president is almost always useless, and picked with the hope that he can help generate a a bit of interest in any group of people, whether it is geographical, socio-economic, gender, race, age, or anything else. The pick of Palin has cemented the support of the far right, and the evangelicals because of her strong stance on abortion. Whether or not she brings in a single democratic female she has already brought in far more people just by solidifying the base than biden ever will, and probably more people than any other VP for McCain could have.

I am of the opinion that McCain picked her for 2 reasons. 1 He thought of her like himself, willing to take on the republican party, which she did in alaska, beating a sitting governor in a primary, which i didn't even know was possible, and taking on the oil companies in alaska, which i'm sure are very very powerful. Whether or not people agree about either one of them, i think that's what McCain saw. And 2, it was a hail mary. He couldn't just go with the safe pick like Obama did. He didn't someone to bring new energy and life to the race. Pawlenty was not going to do that. From what i've read in MN newspapers, pawlenty wasn't even going to bring MN. I think that the idea that Palin was picked only for her gender is both inaccurate, and insulting to both Palin and McCain. If he had picked a black VP everyone would be saying he was picked because he was black, or hispanic, or anything other than a white man. Now McCain can't pick anyone except for a white man without being blasted for pandering to the public? It's just silly.

Friday, September 5

No more russian water?

A russian high jumper has been accused by fellow athletes of drinking red bull and vodka at a recent meet in switzerland, and now the governing body of track and field wants an explanation. I don't know what he's going to say, but i think it should go something along the lines of "Hey i'm russian ya doofus." Plus now the meet won't pay his expenses. There is nothing illegal about drinking alcohol and it doesn't break any of the International rules. If i was him i would show up with a bottle of vodka and say You can't seriously want to ban alcohol, it tastes great, makes women appear more attractive, and makes a person virtually invulnerable to criticism. Now he did miss everyone one of his jumps, which is some cause for concern, but even so if he's not breaking any rules you have no cause to fine him, and it seems to me no legal grounds not to pay him for his participation.

Plus if they had been paying attention they would have seen that together with his vodka he was drinking redbull. And as everyone knows redbull givers you wings. So clearly he was just trying to get over the bar using his redbull wings.

Let's go Impaling

It seems to me that the recent criticism of Sarah Palin is truly shockingly sexist. Now for the most part i don't have a problem with so called sexist comments even though i don't deny that there may some sexism involved. When people talked about hilary's pantsuits, and her cleavage, i'm not going to say it wasn't at all sexist, but it was within reasonable limits, at least for me. I think for the most part she got a bad coverage in the media because of their love of Obama, not because she was a woman. Maybe i'm wrong, but i think any man running against obama would have been treated equally shabbily. So now that Palin is a candidate, once i again i don't have a problem when Biden says the difference between him and palin is that she is hot. It's clearly a sexist comment meant to demean her and imply that she is a sexual object while he is a man of politics, almost certainly made subconsciously, and with it's reception of it subconsciously. So that's okay, i don't have a problem with people talking about her hairstyle being 20 years out of date because people talked about edward's hair. It's the exactly the same when people talked about him spending $400 on his hair cut, and talking about her not being stylish enough, but that's fine too. Talking about the actions of family members also not a big problem for me. I think if it was a man whose 17 old daughter was pregnant it would also be a big deal. I'm not saying it should be, or that it's legitimate to talk about, but i don't think it's sexist.

But what really flabbergasts me that people are saying can she really be a vice president with 5 children? Will she have time for her children? When are we living? The 1950s? First off it's just a silly question because the vice president has far fewer responsibilities and much more free time than the governor of alaska, at least historically cheney may be an exception i don't know. So if she can be one she can certainly be the other. But beyond that no man would ever be asked that. As other's have pointed out before me, nobody asked if edwards should still be in the race with his 2 children and a wife stricken with incurable cancer. Nobody asked if Biden should stay in the senate after his wife died in a car accident leaving him to raise 2 children by himself. And yet this woman whose got a husband by her side to help raise their family would she have time to be the vice president? I don't understand how people can say things like that and not be ridden out of town.

Of course on the humorous side of this story is the fact that at least half the people who have been making these sorts of remarks are women. Women who i'm sure were decrying the sexism against hilary, only to now spread it against Palin because they don't like her. And on the other side, all the conservatives who were saying the clinton should just stop whining and man up are now crying sexism against palin. or at least it would be funny if it wasn't true. I'll post some more thoughts on Palin later

Tuesday, September 2

Burger king: the restaurant for millionaires?

So i was at a burger king yesterday and i was looking at their menu and there was something on their menu that costed more than $10. I don't remember what exactly the cost was, just that it exceeded the double digit barrier. It was some sort of fancy hamburger, and i assume included fries and a drink as well. Are they courting a bunch of millionaires? Who is going to spend $10 at a burger king. All i can say is, if i'm going to spend more than $10 at a restaurant for a meal you can bet your bananas i'll be going someplace better than burger king. Sirvydas told me you can go to d'angelos and get one of their sandwiches with a pound of meat in it for 12 dollars. That must be so much more delicious than whatever that burger king sandwich is, it's just silly. I go to fast food restaurants for the same reason i would go to a hooker, to get something cheap and fast, otherwise what's the point.