Exclusive: US removes uranium from Iraq
I patiently await a groveling apology from the entire dextrosphere as well as the MSM and every Democrat except Joe Lieberman.
We now resume with our regularly scheduled silence.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Sunday, July 06, 2008
Friday, July 04, 2008
God Bless America
In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is in the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.
Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The History of the Present King of Great-Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let the Facts be submitted to a candid World.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public Good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing Importance, unless suspended in their Operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the Accommodation of large Districts of People; unless those People would relinquish the Right of Representation in the Legislature, a Right inestimable to them, and formidable to Tyrants only.
He has called together Legislative Bodies at Places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the Depository of their public Records, for the sole Purpose of fatiguing them into Compliance with his Measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly Firmness his Invasions on the Rights of the People.
He has refused for a long Time, after such Dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the Dangers of Invasion from without, and Convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the Population of these States; for that Purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migrations hither, and raising the Conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the Tenure of their Offices, and Amount and Payment of their Salaries.
He has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out their Substance.
He has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislature.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all Parts of the World:
For imposing taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us, in many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond the Seas to be tried for pretended Offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an arbitrary Government, and enlarging its Boundaries, so as to render it at once an Example and fit Instrument for introducing the same absolute Rule in these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with Powers to legislate for us in all Cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our Towns, and destroyed the Lives of our People.
He is, at this Time, transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to complete the Works of Death, Desolation, and Tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and Perfidy, scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous Ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized Nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the Executioners of their Friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic Insurrections among us, and has endeavoured to bring on the Inhabitants of our Frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known Rule of Warfare, is an undistinguished Destruction, of all Ages, Sexes and Conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions we have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble Terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated Injury. A Prince, whose Character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the Ruler of a free People.
Nor have we been wanting in Attentions to our British Brethren. We have warned them from Time to Time of Attempts by their Legislature to extend an unwarrantable Jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the Circumstances of our Emigration and Settlement here. We have appealed to their native Justice and Magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the Ties of our common Kindred to disavow these Usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our Connections and Correspondence. They too have been deaf to the Voice of Justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the Necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of Mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace, Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly Publish and Declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, Free and Independent States; that they are absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political Connection between them and the State of Great-Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of the divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
Signed by ORDER and
in BEHALF OF THE CONGRESS
JOHN HANCOCK,
PRESIDENT.
ATTEST.
CHARLES THOMSON,
SECRETARY.
PHILADELPHIA:
PRINTED BY JOHN DUNLAP.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is in the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.
Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The History of the Present King of Great-Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let the Facts be submitted to a candid World.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public Good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing Importance, unless suspended in their Operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the Accommodation of large Districts of People; unless those People would relinquish the Right of Representation in the Legislature, a Right inestimable to them, and formidable to Tyrants only.
He has called together Legislative Bodies at Places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the Depository of their public Records, for the sole Purpose of fatiguing them into Compliance with his Measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly Firmness his Invasions on the Rights of the People.
He has refused for a long Time, after such Dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the Dangers of Invasion from without, and Convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the Population of these States; for that Purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migrations hither, and raising the Conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the Tenure of their Offices, and Amount and Payment of their Salaries.
He has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out their Substance.
He has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislature.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all Parts of the World:
For imposing taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us, in many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond the Seas to be tried for pretended Offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an arbitrary Government, and enlarging its Boundaries, so as to render it at once an Example and fit Instrument for introducing the same absolute Rule in these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with Powers to legislate for us in all Cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our Towns, and destroyed the Lives of our People.
He is, at this Time, transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to complete the Works of Death, Desolation, and Tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and Perfidy, scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous Ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized Nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the Executioners of their Friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic Insurrections among us, and has endeavoured to bring on the Inhabitants of our Frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known Rule of Warfare, is an undistinguished Destruction, of all Ages, Sexes and Conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions we have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble Terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated Injury. A Prince, whose Character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the Ruler of a free People.
Nor have we been wanting in Attentions to our British Brethren. We have warned them from Time to Time of Attempts by their Legislature to extend an unwarrantable Jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the Circumstances of our Emigration and Settlement here. We have appealed to their native Justice and Magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the Ties of our common Kindred to disavow these Usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our Connections and Correspondence. They too have been deaf to the Voice of Justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the Necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of Mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace, Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly Publish and Declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, Free and Independent States; that they are absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political Connection between them and the State of Great-Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of the divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
Signed by ORDER and
in BEHALF OF THE CONGRESS
JOHN HANCOCK,
PRESIDENT.
ATTEST.
CHARLES THOMSON,
SECRETARY.
PHILADELPHIA:
PRINTED BY JOHN DUNLAP.
Friday, June 13, 2008
Tim Russert
I didn't often agree with him but he was fair. An increasingly rare trait in journalism these days. Fifty eight is far too young to go. Godspeed sir. My thoughts and prayers are with his family.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Obama's "sniper fire"
Some are calling this Obama's Sniper Story but I have to say this is less egregious than hers.
Memory is a relative of truth but not it's twin. In Obama's defense the applause was lukewarm at best which to a politician is the same as silence I guess. The lesson is simple: There's video of everything. Don't go out on that limb unless you're sure.
Memory is a relative of truth but not it's twin. In Obama's defense the applause was lukewarm at best which to a politician is the same as silence I guess. The lesson is simple: There's video of everything. Don't go out on that limb unless you're sure.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
George W. Bush is a moron
and so is John McCain. At least that's what I keep hearing. Every utterance from the President is scrutinized for any possible interpretation that makes him look stupid. McCain is derided for saying Shia when he meant Sunni.
What would the world say if either of them referred to the "57 States" they've visited? There would be unceasing howls from Berkley to Boston and rightfully so.
So what to make of Obama describing his visits to 57 states? Some in the audience laugh but it's clear he's not joking. He goes on to say that he wanted to visit Alaska and Hawaii but his staff couldn't justify it. The fact that this is not news anywhere on the MSM is proof positive that democrats and especially The One will never be subjected to the same cynical eye cast on republicans
What would the world say if either of them referred to the "57 States" they've visited? There would be unceasing howls from Berkley to Boston and rightfully so.
So what to make of Obama describing his visits to 57 states? Some in the audience laugh but it's clear he's not joking. He goes on to say that he wanted to visit Alaska and Hawaii but his staff couldn't justify it. The fact that this is not news anywhere on the MSM is proof positive that democrats and especially The One will never be subjected to the same cynical eye cast on republicans
Thursday, May 08, 2008
Selling Votes
...as only the DNC can.
DNC Superdelegate Puts His Vote Up For Sale
Steven Ybarra Wants $20 Million For His Vote
It's OK though because he wants to spend it onillegal alien voter registration Mexican-American voters. Right. None of that money would be redirected, squandered, stolen or what have you.
DNC Superdelegate Puts His Vote Up For Sale
Steven Ybarra Wants $20 Million For His Vote
It's OK though because he wants to spend it on
Monday, May 05, 2008
Windfall profits
I keep hearing this term. Windfall. Leftists/liberals are enraged by windfall profits. They want to take them away from the recipients and give them to people who will vote for Democrats. As with most things in politics (especially things that annoy liberals) it remains undefined. It is just accepted as fact that any person or entity making a certain amount of money is undeserved or unearned. Since said persons or entities are very wealthy to begin with the government is allowed to take that money in the name of "fairness". They won't miss it after all, they have plenty. I googled for a definition of "windfall" profit. The best I could come up with is this:
Windfall
Main Entry:
wind·fall Listen to the pronunciation of windfall
Pronunciation:
\ˈwin(d)-ˌfȯl\
Function:
noun
Date:
15th century
1 : something (as a tree or fruit) blown down by the wind 2 : an unexpected, unearned, or sudden gain or advantage
Windfall
Definition
Money received which was not expected and not a direct result of something the recipient did
So the definition is that these are profits that are unearned. How they are unearned is not explained. Oil companies are evil. Everyone knows that. They're screwing you and me to make money at the pump. Never mind that oil is the the largest global commodity market in the world. It can't be that. Or taxes. Or the fact that our refinement capacity hasn't grown in 30 years. Or that we have over 50 different blends nationwide that cannot be sold when there's an overage in one area and a shortage in another. None of those things cause high gas prices. Just the Evil Rich Oil Companies.
The other target of liberal ire is financiers who make millions. Except George Soros. He's exempt because he hates Bush. Never mind that he almost singlehandedly destroyed the British pound to make his money and caused immense hardship to a great many Britons in the process. All those sins are washed away because he funds leftist polemics.
Of late we've been hearing about the outrageous amount of money hedge funds and their managers are making. One example this week from from IHT. Excerpt:
Leftist logic would intervene here and say that there's no way anyone could have earned that much money. Nothing he does or can do would be worth that much. The government should take at least 2 billion of that and give it to poor people. After all, who couldn't live on the remaining $1.7 billion? One key factor is that liberals always refer to income being "distributed" rather than earned. This post is an example but DonViti violates the rule by using the phrase "income earners". He will be sent to re-education at Berkley until he learns to use the phrase "income recipients" or "corporate fatcats". We cannot have people talking about earnings as that implies merit. Fairness of earnings is determined by how much the person really "needs". That is, once you are really rich you aren't entitled to earn any more money because you couldn't possibly need it. Whether or not it is fair to take money legally earned isn't the way things are viewed. Anyone who makes that much money must be exploiting someone, somewhere to do so. This logic is never applied to the entertainment industry. Singers, actors and sports stars don't have their earnings questioned. Primarily because they are assumed to be liberals and therefore, good people. Good people with lots of money do great things with it. And they have, somehow earned it. After all, they're famous. Being famous entitles you to riches and makes you immune from criticism regarding wealth. How this is so is beyond me. This too, is an unexplained article of faith. Back to the article:
Emphasis mine. This is the most clear cut admission that class envy drives liberal politics than I've seen in a while. Congress sees someone living lavishly. Enjoying himself. Can't have that. No no no. We need to get our hands on that money. I have votes to buy!
So, taking money from the rich to give to the very rich. Where's the problem? Also, Professor Gabaix outs himself as a "trickle down" guy which is the financial equivalent of being a Flat Earth Scientist to liberals. They can write him off as a moron or a loon based on that last sentence.
What do they do with all that money? Some people think they have a huge pile of it stashed away gathering dust. They never consider that whether they save that money, invest it or spend it, they're creating jobs. Any activity aside from putting it in a pile and burning it, is going to employ somebody. What else do they do with it?
In a fit of mighty restraint, the IHT didn't include efforts to unseat President Bush in his list of philanthropic activities. I imagine there was a blood bath in the editor's meeting over that one.
That last bit is selling Mr. Simons rather short. Who is this guy anyway? Let's check his Wikipedia entry:
He's a remarkable guy. He requires an unprecidented amount of control over the projects he funds. He personally chooses the scientists and requires frequent updates and briefings on their progress. Any project he funds has a maximum of 12% of administrative overhead. The rest goes to research. That money would never have been spent on autism research had the government seized it. It would likely be spent on something named after Robert C. Byrd. Simons is my hero for reasons that my reader(s) will find pretty obvious. We need men like him to fund valuable research that the government does not and will not. Even if he doesn't and wants to spend it on frivolous things, it doesn't matter. Its his money he earned it and he should get to keep it. If people really cared about what is fair and what is just rather than how much people should be allowed to keep we'd all be a lot better off.
Windfall
Main Entry:
wind·fall Listen to the pronunciation of windfall
Pronunciation:
\ˈwin(d)-ˌfȯl\
Function:
noun
Date:
15th century
1 : something (as a tree or fruit) blown down by the wind 2 : an unexpected, unearned, or sudden gain or advantage
Windfall
Definition
Money received which was not expected and not a direct result of something the recipient did
So the definition is that these are profits that are unearned. How they are unearned is not explained. Oil companies are evil. Everyone knows that. They're screwing you and me to make money at the pump. Never mind that oil is the the largest global commodity market in the world. It can't be that. Or taxes. Or the fact that our refinement capacity hasn't grown in 30 years. Or that we have over 50 different blends nationwide that cannot be sold when there's an overage in one area and a shortage in another. None of those things cause high gas prices. Just the Evil Rich Oil Companies.
The other target of liberal ire is financiers who make millions. Except George Soros. He's exempt because he hates Bush. Never mind that he almost singlehandedly destroyed the British pound to make his money and caused immense hardship to a great many Britons in the process. All those sins are washed away because he funds leftist polemics.
Of late we've been hearing about the outrageous amount of money hedge funds and their managers are making. One example this week from from IHT. Excerpt:
Five managers earned more than $1 billion (€630,000 million).
One contributor to the enormous amounts of money hedge fund managers are making is the unraveling of the traditional "2 and 20" method of compensation. For years, funds typically charged 2 percent of the amount invested plus 20 percent of the profits.
Ezra Zask of Lakeville Capital Management, a hedge fund advisory, said some of the bigger hedge funds are now charging as much as 5 percent of the invested principal and 40 percent of the profits.
Some investors are willing to pay higher fees to funds' managers if they show they have consistently beaten the market, Zask said.
One manager — John Paulson of Paulson & Co. — earned $3.7 billion (€2.32 billion) last year, which management consultant Peter Cohan pointed out means Paulson in 2007 made 30 times in one hour what the median family made all year.
Leftist logic would intervene here and say that there's no way anyone could have earned that much money. Nothing he does or can do would be worth that much. The government should take at least 2 billion of that and give it to poor people. After all, who couldn't live on the remaining $1.7 billion? One key factor is that liberals always refer to income being "distributed" rather than earned. This post is an example but DonViti violates the rule by using the phrase "income earners". He will be sent to re-education at Berkley until he learns to use the phrase "income recipients" or "corporate fatcats". We cannot have people talking about earnings as that implies merit. Fairness of earnings is determined by how much the person really "needs". That is, once you are really rich you aren't entitled to earn any more money because you couldn't possibly need it. Whether or not it is fair to take money legally earned isn't the way things are viewed. Anyone who makes that much money must be exploiting someone, somewhere to do so. This logic is never applied to the entertainment industry. Singers, actors and sports stars don't have their earnings questioned. Primarily because they are assumed to be liberals and therefore, good people. Good people with lots of money do great things with it. And they have, somehow earned it. After all, they're famous. Being famous entitles you to riches and makes you immune from criticism regarding wealth. How this is so is beyond me. This too, is an unexplained article of faith. Back to the article:
Driven in part by fees hedge fund managers are making, income inequality in 2007 was at the highest level since 1928, the year before the Great Depression began.
In fact, even among hedge funds the disparity has widened, Cohan said: The top 50 managers make a disproportionate share of the fees earned in an industry that by some accounts has 10,000 funds.
Stunned by news stories about Schwarzman's lavish lifestyle, some members of Congress tried to change laws allowing hedge funds' profits to be taxed as "capital gains," at 15 percent, and not income at a rate more than twice that.
Emphasis mine. This is the most clear cut admission that class envy drives liberal politics than I've seen in a while. Congress sees someone living lavishly. Enjoying himself. Can't have that. No no no. We need to get our hands on that money. I have votes to buy!
Lower taxes notwithstanding, Xavier Gabaix, a finance professor at New York University, said it is not clear whether such gaping inequality is necessarily bad.
Because hedge fund managers make their money by charging fees on investments from rich people, these fees represent the redistribution of wealth from the rich to the very rich, he said.
By contrast, the income inequality plaguing many developing countries represents rich people profiting at the expense of the poor, he said.
Further, Gabaix said the economy may benefit when these managers spend the money they have earned.
So, taking money from the rich to give to the very rich. Where's the problem? Also, Professor Gabaix outs himself as a "trickle down" guy which is the financial equivalent of being a Flat Earth Scientist to liberals. They can write him off as a moron or a loon based on that last sentence.
What do they do with all that money? Some people think they have a huge pile of it stashed away gathering dust. They never consider that whether they save that money, invest it or spend it, they're creating jobs. Any activity aside from putting it in a pile and burning it, is going to employ somebody. What else do they do with it?
Several hedge fund managers have a reputation for philanthropy. According to one report, George Soros — the second-highest-paid hedge fund manager last year at $2.9 billion (€1.82 billion) — has spent $6 billion (€3.8 billion) on philanthropic activities ranging from fighting poverty in Africa to funding universities in Russia.
In a fit of mighty restraint, the IHT didn't include efforts to unseat President Bush in his list of philanthropic activities. I imagine there was a blood bath in the editor's meeting over that one.
James Simons, who took home $2.8 billion (€1.76 billion) as manager of Renaissance Technologies Corp., co-founded the Simons Foundation, which finances education and health projects.
That last bit is selling Mr. Simons rather short. Who is this guy anyway? Let's check his Wikipedia entry:
Autism research
The family's charitable foundation has committed $38 million to find the causes related to autism in recent years, and plans to spend another $100 million in what is becoming the largest private investment in the field of autism research, while Simons personally exerts extraordinary control over where and how his money is spent. Simons has provided DNA from his family for study (his daughter is autistic), and has given assistance in helping solve research problems. When MIT asked for brain research funding, he stipulated that the project focus on autism and include scientists of his choosing.
On June 11, 2003, the Simons Foundation hosted its first "Panel on Autism Research" in New York City, a day-long event highlighting research into the causes of autism, the accurate genomic mapping of autism, and in the study of the biochemical mechanisms that occur in people with autism. Attendees included David Amaral, Dr. Eric Courchesne, Dr. Nathaniel Heinz, Tom Insel, MD, Catherine Lord, PhD, Dr. Fred Volkmar and Dr. Paul Greengard. The Simons Foundation recently gave $10 million to two researchers at the Yale University Child Study Center to study genetic influences on autism.
He's a remarkable guy. He requires an unprecidented amount of control over the projects he funds. He personally chooses the scientists and requires frequent updates and briefings on their progress. Any project he funds has a maximum of 12% of administrative overhead. The rest goes to research. That money would never have been spent on autism research had the government seized it. It would likely be spent on something named after Robert C. Byrd. Simons is my hero for reasons that my reader(s) will find pretty obvious. We need men like him to fund valuable research that the government does not and will not. Even if he doesn't and wants to spend it on frivolous things, it doesn't matter. Its his money he earned it and he should get to keep it. If people really cared about what is fair and what is just rather than how much people should be allowed to keep we'd all be a lot better off.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Daily Roundup
(An unpopular yet continuing feature)
First up, Obama's interview:
Wow. Markets work and we should be rewarding teachers by ability. Hmmm....is he triangulating because he knows Fox's audience or is he for real? I guess we'll find out one way or the other.
I've said nothing about Jose Calderon largely because he's not been in the news and I really know nothing of the man. I wasn't a fan of Vicente Fox but he wasn't all bad. It seems Calderon is doing much that needs to be done and at great cost.
Sounds familiar doesn't it? (In Iraq the IP's are unreliable but the Iraqi Army is not.) Kudos to Senor Calderon, I hope he succeeds.
The anti-war crowd frequently brays that there is no way that Al Qaeda would be in bed with Saddam as he was unislamic and that would make them natural enemies. Likewise they would never collaborate with Hezbollah or Hamas as they are Shia. Yet now we're getting word that Al Qaeda is teaming up with Mookie Sadr to fight the U.S. "But..but..but....how can that beeeeeeee?" I hear them sputter. "They hate each other." Yes but the old axiom of the enemy of my enemy is my friend always applies. People hold grudges and old hatreds do die hard but frequently interests, goals, objectives (call them what you will) usually trump those hatreds. I guarantee that if I offered you enough money you'd make peace with your enemies. This is, of course a losing deal for everybody. Despite Leftist crowing to the contrary, neither Sadr nor AQ is going to win this one. They aren't even going to be able to hold out much longer. Last time Sadr showed his hand he and his boys where crying Uncle inside a day and a half and he fled to Iran with his tail between his legs. The best part of this for us is that it unites the two opposing forces into one front. When we get inside their decision curve it will be on one front. When they have turncoats they will have a much more information to give. They may have the fervor of the righteous but they don't have the doctrine. Or the brains. Or the equipment.
The "Support Our Troops/Bring Them Home" crowd masks their anti-war stance as some sort of concern for the safety and well being of our troops. This one will test that theory. Many moons ago when my brother was stationed at Bragg he was giving me a tour of the base. He wryly pointed out that his office was in a building that had been condemned (due to structural concerns) and due to be demolished and replaced. When the requisite funding dried up the building was "uncondemned" and the structural deficiencies magically vanished. As an officer he was never required to live on post (aside from a short stay in BOQ while looking for a house). Yesterday I read this and today I saw this video:
I'll hold my breath while the anti-war crowd raises their voices in unison to right this wrong. That would be supporting the troops.
Changing the subject to sports...I read this story today which I really like to see. I've talked about sportsmanship before and how I think it's a benchmark to judge people. Stories like this are not seen on a professional level and to a degree I understand but even seeing this on a collegiate level is a welcome thing. More please.
Back to politics...
"Louis said 20 years ago that Zionism, not Judaism, was a gutter religion. He was talking about the same thing United Nations resolutions say, the same thing now that President Carter's being vilified for and Bishop Tutu's being vilified for. And everybody wants to paint me as if I'm anti-Semitic because of what Louis Farrakhan said 20 years ago. He is one of the most important voices in the 20th and 21st century; that's what I think about him. . . . Louis Farrakhan is not my enemy. He did not put me in chains, he did not put me in slavery, and he didn't make me this color." - Jeremiah Wright
Nota Bene:
1. You were never in chains
2. You were never in slavery
3. The melanin in your skin made you that color
What makes this statement so reprehensible is the implication that because Farrakhan is black he is not the enemy. Inversely that must mean that anyone who is white;
1. Put black people in chains or bears responsibility for same
2. Enslaved or is responsible for enslaving black people
3. Is somehow responsible for skin color
My family didn't get here until long after slavery ended. Before that they were in Europe scraping out an meager existence and in no position to employ anyone let alone enslave them. Wright's comments and frankly, ideas are disgusting. They are unAmerican, unChristian and deplorable. Obama was right to disavow him but it will not explain his close, personal relationship with him for over 20 years.
First up, Obama's interview:
OBAMA: Well, I think there are a whole host of areas where Republicans in some cases may have a better idea.
WALLACE: Such as?
OBAMA: Well, on issues of regulation. I think that back in the '60s and '70s a lot of the way we regulated industry was top-down command and control, we're going to tell businesses exactly how to do things.
And you know, I think that the Republican Party and people who thought about the markets came up with the notion that, "You know what? If you simply set some guidelines, some rules and incentives, for businesses — let them figure out how they're going to, for example, reduce pollution," and a cap and trade system, for example is a smarter way of doing it, controlling pollution, than dictating every single rule that a company has to abide by, which creates a lot of bureaucracy and red tape and oftentimes is less efficient.
I think that on issues of education, I've been very clear about the fact — and sometimes I've gotten in trouble with the teachers' union on this — that we should be experimenting with charter schools. We should be experimenting with different ways of compensating teachers that...
Wow. Markets work and we should be rewarding teachers by ability. Hmmm....is he triangulating because he knows Fox's audience or is he for real? I guess we'll find out one way or the other.
I've said nothing about Jose Calderon largely because he's not been in the news and I really know nothing of the man. I wasn't a fan of Vicente Fox but he wasn't all bad. It seems Calderon is doing much that needs to be done and at great cost.
Some 2,500 soldiers and federal police swept into Ciudad Juarez over the U.S. border from El Paso, Texas last month with heavy weaponry and helicopters to quell a surge in drug murders as gangs fight over smuggling routes into the United States.
Soldiers have taken over many security tasks from the often corrupt city police, making dozens of arrests and seizing arms and narcotics but the fight against common crime has apparently suffered.
Sounds familiar doesn't it? (In Iraq the IP's are unreliable but the Iraqi Army is not.) Kudos to Senor Calderon, I hope he succeeds.
The anti-war crowd frequently brays that there is no way that Al Qaeda would be in bed with Saddam as he was unislamic and that would make them natural enemies. Likewise they would never collaborate with Hezbollah or Hamas as they are Shia. Yet now we're getting word that Al Qaeda is teaming up with Mookie Sadr to fight the U.S. "But..but..but....how can that beeeeeeee?" I hear them sputter. "They hate each other." Yes but the old axiom of the enemy of my enemy is my friend always applies. People hold grudges and old hatreds do die hard but frequently interests, goals, objectives (call them what you will) usually trump those hatreds. I guarantee that if I offered you enough money you'd make peace with your enemies. This is, of course a losing deal for everybody. Despite Leftist crowing to the contrary, neither Sadr nor AQ is going to win this one. They aren't even going to be able to hold out much longer. Last time Sadr showed his hand he and his boys where crying Uncle inside a day and a half and he fled to Iran with his tail between his legs. The best part of this for us is that it unites the two opposing forces into one front. When we get inside their decision curve it will be on one front. When they have turncoats they will have a much more information to give. They may have the fervor of the righteous but they don't have the doctrine. Or the brains. Or the equipment.
The "Support Our Troops/Bring Them Home" crowd masks their anti-war stance as some sort of concern for the safety and well being of our troops. This one will test that theory. Many moons ago when my brother was stationed at Bragg he was giving me a tour of the base. He wryly pointed out that his office was in a building that had been condemned (due to structural concerns) and due to be demolished and replaced. When the requisite funding dried up the building was "uncondemned" and the structural deficiencies magically vanished. As an officer he was never required to live on post (aside from a short stay in BOQ while looking for a house). Yesterday I read this and today I saw this video:
I'll hold my breath while the anti-war crowd raises their voices in unison to right this wrong. That would be supporting the troops.
Changing the subject to sports...I read this story today which I really like to see. I've talked about sportsmanship before and how I think it's a benchmark to judge people. Stories like this are not seen on a professional level and to a degree I understand but even seeing this on a collegiate level is a welcome thing. More please.
Back to politics...
"Louis said 20 years ago that Zionism, not Judaism, was a gutter religion. He was talking about the same thing United Nations resolutions say, the same thing now that President Carter's being vilified for and Bishop Tutu's being vilified for. And everybody wants to paint me as if I'm anti-Semitic because of what Louis Farrakhan said 20 years ago. He is one of the most important voices in the 20th and 21st century; that's what I think about him. . . . Louis Farrakhan is not my enemy. He did not put me in chains, he did not put me in slavery, and he didn't make me this color." - Jeremiah Wright
Nota Bene:
1. You were never in chains
2. You were never in slavery
3. The melanin in your skin made you that color
What makes this statement so reprehensible is the implication that because Farrakhan is black he is not the enemy. Inversely that must mean that anyone who is white;
1. Put black people in chains or bears responsibility for same
2. Enslaved or is responsible for enslaving black people
3. Is somehow responsible for skin color
My family didn't get here until long after slavery ended. Before that they were in Europe scraping out an meager existence and in no position to employ anyone let alone enslave them. Wright's comments and frankly, ideas are disgusting. They are unAmerican, unChristian and deplorable. Obama was right to disavow him but it will not explain his close, personal relationship with him for over 20 years.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
A Really Inconvenient Truth
Inconvenient Untruth
There is new evidence of misleading information in Al Gore's Oscar-winning global warming film "An Inconvenient Truth."
ABC News reports one of the most famous shots in the movie — of Antarctic ice shelves — is a fake. The film's visual effects supervisor says the film took the shot from the fictional movie "The Day After Tomorrow," which created it from Styrofoam and scanned it into a computer.
"Yeah, that's our shot," she says. "That's a fully computer-generated shot. There's nothing real in there."
ABC wanted to ask Gore whether it was wrong for a documentary to use a fabricated shot to make a point, but says he did not return their calls.
I can hear it now. "It doesn't matter if the footage is fake! He's trying to make a point you dolt! It speaks to a larger truth even if he's using footage from an alarmist Hollywood thriller."
There is new evidence of misleading information in Al Gore's Oscar-winning global warming film "An Inconvenient Truth."
ABC News reports one of the most famous shots in the movie — of Antarctic ice shelves — is a fake. The film's visual effects supervisor says the film took the shot from the fictional movie "The Day After Tomorrow," which created it from Styrofoam and scanned it into a computer.
"Yeah, that's our shot," she says. "That's a fully computer-generated shot. There's nothing real in there."
ABC wanted to ask Gore whether it was wrong for a documentary to use a fabricated shot to make a point, but says he did not return their calls.
I can hear it now. "It doesn't matter if the footage is fake! He's trying to make a point you dolt! It speaks to a larger truth even if he's using footage from an alarmist Hollywood thriller."
You say LA I say Hell-a
Los Angeles is becoming a "Third World city" with immigrants making up half its workforce, says a new study.
Becoming? Welcome to the party but you're a little late.
A third of immigrants have not graduated from high school and 60 per cent do not speak English fluently, the Migration Policy Institute found.
Let alone the native born anglos who can't speak English properly.
It said this left immigrants ill-equipped to fill California's fastest-growing occupations, such as computer software engineering and nursing. The organisation added that as the so-called baby boomers reach retirement age, a similar pattern will spread across the US.
1. Boomers aren't going to retire any time soon.
2. That pattern will be most pronounced in border states.
Ernesto Cortes Jr, of the Industrial Areas Foundation, a think-tank that specialises on social change, claimed Los Angeles was at a crossroads.
"The question is are we going to be a 21st century city with shared prosperity, or a Third World city with an elite group on top and most on near poverty wages?" he said.
I'm gonna have to go with B. Bill Hicks was ahead of his time.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Corporate greed
These guys are always raising hue and cry about corporate greed. Somehow they missed this one:
Unable to say exactly how it happened, DFL Senate candidate Al Franken acknowledged Friday that his personal corporation wrongly failed to provide employees with workers' compensation insurance in New York for nearly three years.
According to campaign manager Andy Barr, the accountant for Alan Franken Inc. (AFI) who investigated the case for five weeks was unable to figure out "the exact circumstances that led to the oversight."
However, the accountant "has determined that, in fact, AFI was not in full compliance during the period in question," Barr said in a statement. "Therefore, no further attempt will be made to contest the resolved judgment."
New York state officials said Friday that since Franken had paid the $25,000 court judgment entered against AFI last year, they also considered the matter closed.
Not so state Republican Party Chairman Ron Carey, who said Friday that several questions remain unanswered.
"To this day, Al Franken has remained silent" on a number of issues, Carey said at a state Capitol news conference, including how many people he employed and why he didn't respond sooner to the state of New York.
Labor comes to his defense
Labor unions backing Franken in his bid to challenge Republican incumbent Sen. Norm Coleman came to his defense, saying the DFLer had properly addressed the matter.
"He made a mistake, got it investigated, found out he was wrong and did the remedy. What more can you do?" said Ray Waldron, president of the Minnesota AFL-CIO, which endorsed Franken last week.
Unable to say exactly how it happened, DFL Senate candidate Al Franken acknowledged Friday that his personal corporation wrongly failed to provide employees with workers' compensation insurance in New York for nearly three years.
According to campaign manager Andy Barr, the accountant for Alan Franken Inc. (AFI) who investigated the case for five weeks was unable to figure out "the exact circumstances that led to the oversight."
However, the accountant "has determined that, in fact, AFI was not in full compliance during the period in question," Barr said in a statement. "Therefore, no further attempt will be made to contest the resolved judgment."
New York state officials said Friday that since Franken had paid the $25,000 court judgment entered against AFI last year, they also considered the matter closed.
Not so state Republican Party Chairman Ron Carey, who said Friday that several questions remain unanswered.
"To this day, Al Franken has remained silent" on a number of issues, Carey said at a state Capitol news conference, including how many people he employed and why he didn't respond sooner to the state of New York.
Labor comes to his defense
Labor unions backing Franken in his bid to challenge Republican incumbent Sen. Norm Coleman came to his defense, saying the DFLer had properly addressed the matter.
"He made a mistake, got it investigated, found out he was wrong and did the remedy. What more can you do?" said Ray Waldron, president of the Minnesota AFL-CIO, which endorsed Franken last week.
Why did Romney drop out?
Top 10 Reasons Mitt Romney Dropped out of the race:
No. 10: There weren’t as many Osmonds as he thought.
No. 9: Got tired of the corkscrew landings of his campaign plane while under fire
No. 8: As a lifelong hunter, I didn’t want to miss the start of varmint season.
No. 7: There wasn’t room for two Christian leaders in the presidential race
No. 6: I’d rather get fat, grow a beard and try for the Nobel prize.
No. 5: Got tired of wearing a dark suit and tie, and I wanted to kick back in a light colored suit and tie.
No. 4: When his wife realized he couldn’t win the GOP nomination, my fundraising dried up.
No. 2: I took a bad fall at a campaign rally and broke my hair.
No. 1: His campaign relied on a flawed campaign strategy that as Utah goes, so goes the nation.
h/t: Malkin
No. 10: There weren’t as many Osmonds as he thought.
No. 9: Got tired of the corkscrew landings of his campaign plane while under fire
No. 8: As a lifelong hunter, I didn’t want to miss the start of varmint season.
No. 7: There wasn’t room for two Christian leaders in the presidential race
No. 6: I’d rather get fat, grow a beard and try for the Nobel prize.
No. 5: Got tired of wearing a dark suit and tie, and I wanted to kick back in a light colored suit and tie.
No. 4: When his wife realized he couldn’t win the GOP nomination, my fundraising dried up.
No. 2: I took a bad fall at a campaign rally and broke my hair.
No. 1: His campaign relied on a flawed campaign strategy that as Utah goes, so goes the nation.
h/t: Malkin
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Democrat talking point
I've not heard this elsewhere but I'd be hard pressed to think I'm the only one to come up with the idea. If the Government means to bail out Bear Stearns (or whatever lending entities made loans to people who defaulted) why not simply pay off the mortgages and give the titles to the borrowers? Call it "trickle up" economics. The people at the bottom rung keep their houses, Bear gets paid and stays in business. They'd have to spin this carefully to avoid the "rewarding irresponsibility" argument that is sure to follow. YMMV.
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
From the "Heads I win, tails you lose" file
John McCain's reckless machoism.
Is "machoism" even a word? (that's beside the point. Get on with it. -ed)
Anyway...Dana is annoyed with John McCain for not having a protective detail. He's putting himself at risk and blah blah blah. If, however, there was a report touting McCain for availing himself of extra protection the blog post would have read "McCain lives in fear, wastes taxpayer money with unnecessary security" or some such.
Partisanship is boring. Less please.
Is "machoism" even a word? (that's beside the point. Get on with it. -ed)
Anyway...Dana is annoyed with John McCain for not having a protective detail. He's putting himself at risk and blah blah blah. If, however, there was a report touting McCain for availing himself of extra protection the blog post would have read "McCain lives in fear, wastes taxpayer money with unnecessary security" or some such.
Partisanship is boring. Less please.
Banana Republic
No, not that one, this one.
Exhibit A: Nancy Pelosi telling General Petreus what his testimony should be before he gives it.
To wit:
Emphasis added. The legal term for this is subborning perjury and is a felony. Somehow this is legal for Congresscritters. The last line about Sadr is laughable because anyone who's paying attention knows that Mookie's boys got their asses handed to them six ways from Sunday and folded faster than Superman on laundry day.
Exhibit B: Jessie "The Body" Ventura goes on Alex "The Professional Moonbat Conspiracy Theorist" Jones show to dispute the official 9/11 story.
Well, I guess we know why he's "The Body" and not "The Brain". This man was Governor of a State! Maybe Minnesotans would have been better off with Bobby Heenan instead.
Exhibit C: A brief video
Texans should be storming the legislature with shotguns and torches. Considering the disposition of Texans, I'm surprised they haven't. They should review those tapes and expel any member who voted more than once for any reason. Don't bullshit me about necessity or the lack of bathroom breaks. This is not how we do things.
Exhibit A: Nancy Pelosi telling General Petreus what his testimony should be before he gives it.
To wit:
A few days before General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker appear before House and Senate committees to deliver their latest update on Iraq, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi makes clear what she hopes they will not say.
In a news conference together with the chairmen of the House committees on Armed Services and Foreign Affairs, she refers to the recent fighting in Iraq's southern port city of Basra, saying Petraeus and Crocker should not attempt to put a positive spin on events.
"We have to know the real ground truths of what is happening there, not put a shine on events because of a resolution [of the situation in Basra] that looks less violent when it has in fact been dictated by someone [Iraqi Shiite cleric Moqtada] al-Sadr who can grant or withhold that call for violence or not," said Nancy Pelosi.
Emphasis added. The legal term for this is subborning perjury and is a felony. Somehow this is legal for Congresscritters. The last line about Sadr is laughable because anyone who's paying attention knows that Mookie's boys got their asses handed to them six ways from Sunday and folded faster than Superman on laundry day.
Exhibit B: Jessie "The Body" Ventura goes on Alex "The Professional Moonbat Conspiracy Theorist" Jones show to dispute the official 9/11 story.
“How could those buildings fall at the speed of gravity - if you put a stopwatch on them both of those World Trade Center buildings were on the ground in ten seconds - how can that be?”
Well, I guess we know why he's "The Body" and not "The Brain". This man was Governor of a State! Maybe Minnesotans would have been better off with Bobby Heenan instead.
Exhibit C: A brief video
Texans should be storming the legislature with shotguns and torches. Considering the disposition of Texans, I'm surprised they haven't. They should review those tapes and expel any member who voted more than once for any reason. Don't bullshit me about necessity or the lack of bathroom breaks. This is not how we do things.
Thursday, April 03, 2008
Putting an end to polls
*Ring Ring*
I look at the phone and see an 888 number. A familiar number as they have been calling daily for my opinion on various things political.
I made the mistake of answering their questions the first time. It was a lark and I gave some serious and some absurd responses. Stupid me. That put me on the "This Idiot Will Actually Answer Our Questions" list.
*Ring Ring*
Mrs. Duffy: Don't answer that!
Duffy: I'm putting and end to this.
(answers phone)
Duffy: Hello?
Annoying Pollster: Hello sir, I'm doing a survey of voters in Delaware...
Duffy (interrupting): Oh, I can't vote, I'm a convicted felon
AP: Oh....uh...is there anyone else there who's a registered voter?
Duffy: Nope. We're all felons here. (SamnEric blast through the room at a full run and at full volume) And some pre-felons. This is a halfway house for predicate felon single fathers and their and their pre-felon children.
(at this Mrs. Duffy's eyes are as large as dinner plates and she's positively slackjawed)
AP: Oh...uh...OK. Wow. Have a nice night.
Duffy: kthxbye
Mrs. Duffy: I cannot believe you just did that.
Duffy: Why?
Mrs Duffy: They're going to think we're felons!
Duffy: Let's hope so.
Mrs. Duffy: That's not funny
Duffy: Sure it is. Trust me.
Mrs. Duffy: Why not just let it ring?
Duffy: Because then they keep calling and I wouldn't get to torment them.
Mrs. Duffy: I give up.
Duffy: The wise choice. Discretion is the better part of valor
I look at the phone and see an 888 number. A familiar number as they have been calling daily for my opinion on various things political.
I made the mistake of answering their questions the first time. It was a lark and I gave some serious and some absurd responses. Stupid me. That put me on the "This Idiot Will Actually Answer Our Questions" list.
*Ring Ring*
Mrs. Duffy: Don't answer that!
Duffy: I'm putting and end to this.
(answers phone)
Duffy: Hello?
Annoying Pollster: Hello sir, I'm doing a survey of voters in Delaware...
Duffy (interrupting): Oh, I can't vote, I'm a convicted felon
AP: Oh....uh...is there anyone else there who's a registered voter?
Duffy: Nope. We're all felons here. (SamnEric blast through the room at a full run and at full volume) And some pre-felons. This is a halfway house for predicate felon single fathers and their and their pre-felon children.
(at this Mrs. Duffy's eyes are as large as dinner plates and she's positively slackjawed)
AP: Oh...uh...OK. Wow. Have a nice night.
Duffy: kthxbye
Mrs. Duffy: I cannot believe you just did that.
Duffy: Why?
Mrs Duffy: They're going to think we're felons!
Duffy: Let's hope so.
Mrs. Duffy: That's not funny
Duffy: Sure it is. Trust me.
Mrs. Duffy: Why not just let it ring?
Duffy: Because then they keep calling and I wouldn't get to torment them.
Mrs. Duffy: I give up.
Duffy: The wise choice. Discretion is the better part of valor
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
