Dogmatic Slumber

Well, it's been a while since we decided to entertain, inform, and enrage the masses via the tiny soapbox here at YPS. We have been busy. We've been paying lawyers, acquiring children, and once again attempting to find the perfect location for our palatial estate. Real life has interrupted the free content generator, as it so often does.

In any event, the current kerfuffle over what, exactly, the NSA has been doing to everyone with a Verizon account has roused us from our nap. As the scandal widens, and more and more internet traffic appears to run through the servers at the Puzzle Palace, the response has been instructive.

A common thread by serious, no doubt well-intentioned, people has been the old saw about "If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear." This response, in part because it's so common and so misguided, deserves a little more in-depth discussion than my immediate knee-jerk bitter laugh.

A nice man named Harvey Silverglate wrote a book titled Three Felonies A Day. While I encourage you to read it, the basic thrust is simple. The federal criminal code, and the accompanying federal regulations, has become so overbroad, intrusive, and pervasive that you (and everyone else in America) are in violation multiple times a day. My favorite common example is to ask you to go read the labels on a bottle of Pine-Sol or Lysol and find the simple phrase "It is a violation of federal law to use this product in a manner inconsistent with its labeling." So, if you don't read the label on bottle of Lysol and comply with all of the instructions, you have committed a federal crime. Will you be prosecuted? Probably not, as long as you fly under the radar of the feds.

However, once you have come to the notice of one cog of the machine, you run the risk of being ground up by the various pieces working together. You cannot afford to deal with the multitude of federal agencies, each showing up to enforce their little bit of complex and arcane federal law. They will find something, and you will be subject to civil and/or criminal penalties. This has happened to a number of people, and there is very little that can be done about it. All it takes is a 30 second phone call or chance meeting between personnel from different agencies with the comment "Maybe you should look at this guy..." and another agency can pile on.

So when some well-meaning naïf spouts the idea that people who have done nothing wrong have nothing to fear, there's a glaring fundamental error: we've all of us, everyone, done something. Is it worth the feds time to try to harass you about? If you're Joe Average who only sends his mom baby pictures and lolcats, it probably won't happen. But what about engaging in political advocacy? Maybe you decide to form a 501 organization to oppose some governmental action? Why, it may just be time to take a look at your compliance record with all these laws and rules. If it does become expedient to target you, do you honestly think the NSA data won't find its way into the right hands in a high profile case? You have done something illegal and selective prosecution is now the name of the game.

I leave you with the cautionary tale of Joseph Nacchio. Joseph Nacchio used to be the head of telecommunications firm Qwest Communications. He consulted with his legal department and decided he needed a court order to hand over records to the feds, and at the time was the only CEO of a telecom firm to take this stance. Joseph Nacchio was subsequently convicted of insider trading and sent to jail for 6 years and was fined 19 million dollars. If you honestly think there's no connection whatsoever between these events, then there's really nothing more to say.

Except maybe this.

Cliff Diving

So, apparently, spending cuts aren't necessary to stave off the latest fiscapocalypse. We can just jigger tax rates and keep spending and accumulating debt forever!

At least that's what politicians in DC seem to think. Admittedly, I have no great skill in managing a large and disparate nation, but then again, judging from results, the current collection of elected idiots officials don't either. I have, however, seen the results of spending and indefinite debt accumulation on personal finances. The path either ends in bankruptcy, for people who care about the niceties, or what fancy policy-wonk types call 'debt repudiation'. For us low-class folks out in the hinterlands, 'debt repudiation' just means you quit paying the people you owe.

These options aren't the same on a national scale, mainly because sovereigns do not declare bankruptcy. It is now, as always, good to be the king. When you are the king, you engage in debt repudiation. You tell everybody who owes you money to get fucked. Since you, as sovereign, control the courts, police, and army, it makes it a little difficult for your shafted creditors to get much recourse.

I don't think I'd be putting a bunch of money in Treasury securities right now. Even if the Bernanke does manage to hold it all together with currency devaluation (Quantitative Easing Forever!), they aren't a real good bet.

Screw Boston & Chicago & Go Eat some Chick-Fil-A Nuggets or Something

This whole Chick-Fil-A issue has really rubbed me the wrong way. I have no problem at all if individuals choose not to patronize businesses whose corporate philosophies differ with their sincerely held beliefs; my problem is that in both Boston and Chicago, elected officials are using the power of tyrannical government to ban a legal business, simply because these officials disagree with the beliefs of the CEO. I wonder if the people who think this is so wonderful would be so thrilled if a Republican mayor closed down every movie theater in town because he or she didn't want all those communist actors on their movie screens? Let's start burning books...hooray! I mean really, what's the difference?

Ironically, it is this same Boston mayor who has circumvented every established law and code to get a mosque built that many in the area don't want. So the CEO of Chick-Fil-A doesn't like the idea of gay marriage...OK, so do most folks. (For the record, I respectfully disagree with that view.) But, there is no evidence that his company has ever maltreated any gay person. Let's contrast that to the teachings of Islam on homosexuality, which is, well, a death sentence for its participants.

 The mayor of Boston and that retarded ballerina in Chicago are disgusting, hypocritical trolls who should be banned from elective office until they can actually prove to a competent person that they have even a rudimentary knowledge of the United States Constitution.

Of course, I would expect no less pathetic behavior from the open-minded and oh so tolerant left.

Why We're Screwed

J likes to have the TV on in the morning for background noise and a little information. She keeps it tuned to Fox News, because after all, she is a republican. One story they've run a few times is the sad tale of a little company in Kentucky who makes jackets for Air Force One. The Federal Bureau of Prisons was going to compete for the work, and the loss of the contract would put the poor firm out of business. However, the brave business owner complained to the media and his Congressional delegation, and lo! The Federal Bureau of Prisons decided to withdraw from the bid, and the company is saved!

There are so many things wrong with this story it's hard to know where to start. Let's go with an immediate Business 101 level observation: if you are dependent on one customer for your continued existence, you have a problem. Diversify. Find other markets for your product. Find other business avenues to explore. Do something, anything, so if the big customer quits buying from you, you can survive. Frankly, piss-poor business practices alone should ensure Ashland Sales & Service goes bankrupt.

Moving right along, let's discuss the contracting issue. You have no right to have the taxpayer buy your product, okay? If, as it appears was the case, the Federal Bureau of Prisons can provide the item at a lower cost, guess what? I want the Federal Bureau of Prison to provide it. The federal government is not a jobs program. The fed should be trying to be wise stewards of the taxpayers' dime, which means going with lowest-cost bidding. If you ain't the lowest cost, screw you. Compete. Lower your costs. Improve your productivity. Don't whine about how the mean Federal Bureau of Prisons has lower labor costs and it's impossible to do anything. In other words, do your job and don't run to the government to get protection. This is the epitome of special interest: AS&S wants the government to screw over the taxpayer so they can benefit from the decision.

Next up, why in the hell are we buying special jackets for Air Force One, anyway? Unless things have changed, the zoomies get uniforms just like us groundlings did. All the personnel on Air Force have jackets, thoughtfully provided at taxpayer expense. What, they need another just because they fly on the same plane as their boss? Last time I checked, we don't have a palace guard in this country. The President is not the God-Emperor of America, and those blessed with his presence shouldn't get special uniforms. And the man himself? The President does not need a nice pretty flight jacket, and even if he wants one, he makes 400 large a year and should be able to afford one all by his own self.

Strangely, none of this was discussed in the coverage I've seen. These are basic considerations that maybe, just maybe, we should be considering when we decide to spend the government's our money. Instead, everybody's tear-jerking about how the business will go under and people will be unemployed and boo-fucking-hoo. Quit trying to tug on my heartstrings and think for a minute. We are $15 trillion and change in debt, and we have to be a jobs program for jacket manufacturers. We can't get anyone to ask "Why are we buying these jackets? And if we have to buy them, why can't we get them cheaper?" Nobody in the government is empowered to ask these questions but our elected officials, and they don't have the fortitude and willpower to do what's necessary.

And that, boys and girls, is why we're screwed: We have given ourselves the government we deserve.

The Magical Card

Let me begin this post with a simple fact: I have never, in my adult life, possessed a Social Security Card. This is distinct from the actual number, which I have had memorized since high school. In all previous interactions, knowledge of the number has been sufficient. A partial list of the transactions includes enlistment into the Army, enrollment in college, collecting VA benefits, a BATFE explosives license, a Concealed Handgun License, every job I've ever had, several mortgages, and all the other numerous impediments of modern life that require a SSN to navigate. I have managed to make it into my 4th decade of life in this country without ever having the card itself. I kind of figured I didn't really need one at this point.

I was wrong. So I spent my lunch hour a few weeks ago at the Social Security Administration waiting to spend 3 minutes talking to the guy at the SSA about a new card. Yay me! I now have a shiny new card in the mail to verify the number I've been using my entire life.

This came up because of some paperwork I have been filling out with the state of Texas. We all agree that the number I have provided matches the person I claim to be, and that I am, as thoroughly as any of us can tell, the person referenced in the system by that number. All the rest of the paperwork involved has demonstrated beyond any shadow of a doubt the linkage, in the mind of the government, of that number with my physical being. Trust me when I tell you: given the amount of paperwork I have done with the state recently, they'd have figured out if me and my SSN didn't match.

This doesn't really matter. I still have to produce a copy of the actual card, because somewhere it is so written. The card must be produced, and woe unto him with no card. So I now have something I've never before needed. Can't you smell my excitement?

Never Talk

So, Roger Clemens is going to be indicted for perjury over his testimony to the feds. This comes on the heels of the news that former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich (D-Hairhelmet) was convicted of exactly 1 of the 24 counts against him. Coincidentally, the charge he got stuck with was lying to the feds.

I'm no great legal theorist, but the feds have cleverly managed to make talking to them seem like the worst possible option. If they're bound and determined to get you, they simply parse through every statement you've made to them, find one where they have plausible (but not necessarily dispositive) evidence to the contrary, and bingo! Time in a federal penitentiary for you, bucko.

What's more pathetic, in my opinion, is that perjury has become the fall back prosecution when they can't pin anything else on an otherwise innocent victim. No insider trading occurred? Perjury! Can't get the conviction on corruption charges? Perjury! Not enough evidence for steroid charges? Perjury!

Let us also not forget the feds are completely free to lie to you if they think doing so will help them convict you or others. You have a statutory duty not to lie, but they have no such corresponding obligation. You can also be prosecuted for lying, but federal agents won't get sanctioned for anything up to and including accidentally killing you. There's a pretty severe imbalance on the consequences scale going on here.

Given the well-publicized cases lately, I just don't see why anybody talks to the feds at all, let alone voluntarily. Anybody having any contact with the feds should smile cheerfully and invoke their 5th amendment rights. Alternatively, you can pull the "I do not recall at this time" routine. Either way seems preferable to later being prosecuted for perjury.

Withholding Consent

Today, upon browsing through my news links, I was greeted by an op-ed (thanks, matt2) where a former deputy homeland security adviser to President Bush was arguing that governments, of all stripes, must be allowed back doors into communications systems. It included this lovely quote:

governments should not be timid about using their full powers to ensure that their law enforcement and intelligence agencies are able to keep their citizens safe.

Nowhere in the piece does Mr. Falkenrath acknowledge any right of the citizen to keep information from the state. Instead, he makes charming statements like “no provider of information services is exempt from the power of the state” and “governmental intrusion into ostensibly private communications offends liberal sensibilities”.

Mr Falkenrath’s piece would not be so troubling if it weren’t symptomatic of a larger problem. We have long passed the point where public officials recognize any legitimate restraints on the ability of government to do whatever the hell they think is necessary. Falkenrath is applauding the actions of a repressive monarchy in forcing a Canadian company to bow to demands for data access irrespective of any sort of due process or safeguards. He also points out how many in the US government, and I’m guessing himself included, wish similar actions could be taken here. Moreover, he’s not doing this in a backroom conversation with his intel buddies. He’s doing it on the op-ed page of the New York Times. What the hell, who needs the 4th Amendment and the idea that our government is one of limited powers? Not Kenneth Falkenrath. The danger of terrorism and smugglers and human traffickers is so great and so over-whelming we must use any means at our disposal to fight them! The idea that putative public servants who swore an oath to defend the Constitution feel free to advertise publicly their open disdain for same should cause some reevaluation.

However, he’s not alone, or by any means the most severe symptom of the problem. He’s just the guy I happened upon this morning. Examples are numerous and well-documented. We go from congressmen who believe there are no meaningful limits to federal power to courts who agree and to an executive who then acts with impunity, secure in the knowledge no one else in the .gov will disagree with the means even if they object to the ends. Taken all together, I’m led to an inescapable conclusion: the government of the United States is no longer acting in my interests. In fact, most of the actions the federal government takes are detrimental to me and mine.

So, what to do? My first instincts trend towards the simple and bloody. However, absent the willingness towards same from a substantial amount of the populace, any attempt is doomed to failure. It is infeasible, for a number of reasons, to simply pack up and move elsewhere. Another glaring issue with voting with the feet is that everywhere else is worse on many significant issues. Dropping off the grid entirely poses a number of practical problems as well. I firmly maintain the belief that the best way to hide from the government in this day and age is to get lost in the noise. If your data trail looks like every other data trail, you’re not going to get noticed. A lack of a data trail is just as noticeable, in some aspects, as an unusual data trail. So far the only answer I’ve reached is to hide in plain sight and figure out how to avoid getting the grosser excesses of the state aimed in my general direction.

I don’t have answers for some questions, like how little can you comply with the government and still stay off the radar. I also don’t know if the situation yet warrants something more active than civil disobedience and general non-compliance. I’m still working through some of the issues and practicalities, but in general terms, I’m withholding my consent. The government is illegitimate and can piss off.

Ineffective Website Is Ineffective

So, in keeping with all the usual stereotypes of the libertarian gun-nut, it should surprise none of you that I am a fan of conspiracy theories. Not a believer, mind you, but a fan. I've spent long enough out in the weeds with the crazies and the paranoids to have a fairly exhaustive grasp of the subject. For me, it's amateur cultural anthropology to watch the ideas mutate and recombine with new names slotted into the same old ideas.

As I think I've mentioned before, The Con is really a religious belief for the people who truly believe. Conspiracy theories are a way of making sense out of what is an essentially senseless and uncaring universe. Like all religious beliefs, they're hard to argue against. If you present the theorist with the conventional wisdom, they're likely to reply with "that's what they want you to think".

Having said that, I can now present to you a website which authoritatively states what they want you to think. The official US government debunking of various conspiracy theories! Yay!

After all, when you suspect an organization of killing 3,000 people and lying about it to start a war, you're certainly going to believe them when they tell you they didn't. Right?

I'm sure the government wastes more time and money on dumber things, but I'm equally sure very little the government does has a lower probability of success.

Location, Location, Dislocation

So the .gov has been running ads about flood insurance. Perhaps you've seen them? Some guy stands there with a roof floating over his head and explains how he's a home, and homes need flood insurance, and you should buy some flood insurance.

I'll be honest. Flood insurance infuriates me. Well, flood insurance in the abstract doesn't bother me a bit. The National Flood Insurance Program disturbs me greatly. Here's how it works. You pay a pittance to the feds to insure your house. When your house floods, the feds write you a check. This would be all well and good except the premiums the fed takes in don't cover the checks the feds have to write. The advertisements are so the feds can drum up new revenue sources to help cover the losses instead of robbing the general revenue.

I'd be in favor of the program if it were actuarially sound. It's not. Insurance rates aren't based on risk, they're based on politics. Flood insurance rates are set artificially low. Apparently, pricing the insurance accurately would lead to people moving or not getting flood insurance. Either one works for me if we don't bail people out when bad shit happens. Unfortunately, we do.

Any insurance that is subsidized by the government leads people to make stupid choices. In this case, building houses in floodplains. If Joe and Jane Homeowner had to bear the real cost of their flood insurance themselves, we wouldn't see many houses built below sea level in a swamp.

So what do we get instead? We subsidize flood insurance to make it cheaper to build houses on floodplains. So more people build houses on floodplains, thus ensuring more losses when the inevitable flood happens. We've created a lovely feedback loop of bad decisions. When the program blows up fiscally, do we ever start to rethink the initial bad decision of subsidizing insurance? Nope. Our legislators and bureaucrats tweak the margins in a perpetual attempt to keep the game going. Revisiting the initial assumption of providing subsidized insurance never enters the debate.

If you look around, you can see plenty of examples of similar dynamics at work in a lot of federal programs. So we keep throwing money down ratholes, and we're rapidly going broke. I wonder why?

You First, Skippy

So, the somewhat less than lustrous Senator from the great state of Deseret Utah, Orrin Hatch (R-Cupholder) has proposed a law. If you receive any form of government assistance, he wants you to pee in a cup. Orrin is apparently offended by the thought of you low-lifes getting high with tax money.

There are some arguments against this that flow from first principles, but since we've rendered the 4th Amendment into a sad, pathetic joke, I won't go into them. I'll start by pointing out a fact of my misspent youth. During my tenure in the Army, we were regularly asked to take tests to tell if we were on drugs. Tellingly, the people who control the military are not asked to do any such thing. Us guys with the boots on the ground might do something wrong if we were high. The folks deciding where we should go kill people and break things are apparently immune from poor decisions while stoned, since they don't take whiz quizzes.

Additionally, I note Orrin's salary and bennies are paid by the federal government. He's taking taxpayer money, too. It strikes me that to be philosophically consistent, Orrin should pass a bill requiring him and 534 of his closest fellow legislators to take random drug tests. When he steps up and does that, maybe I'll think about supporting drug tests for welfare recipients. In the meantime, if he's not going to require Congress to take a drug test he needs to have a nice hot cup of STFU.

Legitimacy & Stupidity

Some thoughts on the illegitimacy of the state using the state's own rules.

More from Bruce Schneier on the stupidity underlying much of our security.

Good Cop, Bad Cop

Good cop: Adrian Schoolcraft.

Bad cop: Well, these guys, for starters.

Why Congress Is Stupid

Actually, Congress is an emergent system which, by definition, can’t be stupid as it has no consciousness. However, as our fearless congresscritters and other functionaries in and around DC try to manage the business of a vast, unimaginably complex collection of disparate individuals, it’s important to consider the limits of their knowledge. Congress may not be stupid, but Congress does make bad decisions.

One of the reasons why was explained 65 years ago by a guy named Freidrich Hayek. The short version (long version here) is coordination of any complex system requires too much information for any one individual to collect and process in time to make rational decisions which will affect the system. Computers, strangely, made this problem worse because the guy trying make decisions is going to be overpowered by the multitude of computers everywhere else. He can't possibly keep up with the data. It's a simple truth, but one that everybody ignores.

As recent events have proven, Congress can't even keep track of their own information, much less any other information. Congress just passed a 2,300 page bill none of the members had read in its entirety. What effect the bill will have on the 266 volumes of federal law and regulation, nobody yet knows. So, once again, I have to ask: in what universe was passing this bill a good idea?

The Apocalypse Arrived Early

So, I first read last week sometime Social Security was going to pay out more money than was taken in this year. The carrier pigeon from the hinterlands finally arrived in New York, and the Times took notice.

Now we've been blogging about the upcoming death of SS for years. One of my standard talking points has always been a simple bit of math.

1946 + 65 = 2011

In other words, once the boomers retire the system would begin to collapse. I freely admit it's a simplistic way to drive the point home. And it was apparently too optimistic. The end is nigh a year ahead of schedule.

Let me see how this sounds:

DOOM!
DOOM!
DOOM!

It helps if you imagine James Earl Jones doing the reading.

ObamaCare Supporters Are The 3/5ths Who Shouldn't Vote

Well, I think I’ve calmed down enough to have this post not be just an endless tirade of profanity. What the hell, even the morons at io9 have chimed in on health care and how it will prevent possible future dystopias. If they can chime in with their completely asinine nonsense, I figure I’m entitled. However, if you, for whatever misguided reason, supported this monstrosity, you need to shut the fuck up. This is my little lesson to you and why, exactly, you bought a bill of goods with money that wasn’t yours and that you had no right to spend. More importantly, you won’t get what you want and it’ll cost even more than you were told.

So, what shall we tackle first? Let’s try an easy one. All you morons who thought this bill was “revenue neutral” or would reduce the deficit, raise your hands. Got them high up in the air? Good. Now bring it back down, as hard as you can, on top of your pointy little skull. Stings a bit, doesn’t it? It’s only what you deserve for being gullible. The bill will cost more than projected, which means it will be neither revenue neutral nor deficit reducing. I predict this with absolute certainty based on the knowledge that every other national health care entitlement in this country has done so. So, if we’re only off on the cost by as much as we were with Medicare, this goatscrew will cost us all a mere $8.6 TRILLION over the first ten years. Oops. Of course, if we did better on the math this time around, it might only cost us $1.8 trillion. I feel so much better about fiscal responsibility already, don’t you? The cost could be anywhere from double all the way up to 17 times the estimates, based on historical data. I don’t see any deficit reduction with those kinds of errors.

So, let me ask another dumb question. We’re going to give everybody insurance and then we’re going to make preventative care visits free for everybody. So, one might reasonably conclude the demand for health care will go up. That’s usually what happens to the demand for goods when the price drops, in case you were wondering how I deduced this. Is all this extra health care going to magically appear from nowhere? I don’t see any incentives in the bill to provide health care, and I certainly can see more than a few disincentives. So, if your head isn’t still sore from your self-administered beating in the last paragraph, can somebody who supported this crap explain where the actual health care to meet all the new demand is going to come from? I don’t mean the magical insurance talisman you managed to get everybody to pay for, I mean the actual doctors and nurses and facilities and equipment. Any provisions in the bill to address this minor, almost petty, issue? Any at all? Hmm. This might could be a problem.

Now, let’s be real about what this bill does. It’s a huge, brazen attempt to shift the cost of providing health care to anyone but the people actually receiving the care. Why anybody thinks this is a good idea is beyond me, since this usually means otherwise productive resources get wasted. One of the issues here, since a bunch of people apparently spent years taking the short bus to school, is transaction costs. Passing the money around from you to the insurance company to the doctor incurs costs every time the money changes hands. Add the government into the mix, and there’s at least another set (or twelve) of hands the money has to pass through before it gets from you, the recipient of health care, to the doctor, the provider. So, if we initially had a hundred dollars of purchasing power to spend on health care, by the time the money passes through all the hands in a complicated dance of regulatory legerdemain, how much is left? Here’s a hint: less than a hundred dollars.

How much less is the question, isn’t it? Who here thinks throwing government into the mix is going to raise the amount money that actually gets spent on health care? No, instead the money will go to pay salaries of GS-7s to shuffle around your doctor’s request for reimbursement and some other random pieces of paper until they’re all neatly paper clipped together and sent to finance where some other overpaid fed drone will enter the data into the system to send a check for the wrong amount to a different address. All of this activity, by the way, will be lumped under “health care’ in the budget, so “health care” spending will have gone up, despite you actually getting less health care for the same budget.

As an aside, I may start a tattoo shop that tattoos TANSTAAFL and Somebody always pays on peoples’ foreheads. I figure if you dolts see it enough, sooner or later it might just sink in. I figure if you supported the health care reform, you’re almost certainly not imbued with enough understanding to figure out why paying to get self-evident truths tattooed on your forehead is a bad idea. Really, you’re the perfect audience if I could just get a government subsidy for you to give me.

Now, let’s cover a few facts about insurance. This bill includes a version of shall-issue coverage. This means no matter what is currently wrong with you, an insurance company has to issue you a policy if you can pay the premiums. (If you can’t pay, you’ll get a subsidy, so don’t sweat it.) The insurance companies are not allowed to deny you coverage because of your medical history, gosh darn it! Because insurance is vital! And a right! Or some such bullshit. I admit, I don’t understand the deranged fantasy economics that make this a good idea. There’s also no lifetime limit on coverage. So, in our brave new Obamanation you can obligate some company to unlimited expense by buying a policy from them. Now, in a world where ignuts didn’t try to repeal the law of supply and demand, this would mean your insurance would be pretty damned expensive. Right? If I could obligate you to unlimited expense by writing you a check, that check would be pretty substantial, wouldn't it?

Now enter the notion of community rating, which is also in the bill. The insurance company doesn’t get to charge premiums based on the risk of something going wrong with your health. They are forced to charge the same premium to everybody. So if somebody has a really expensive policy while most people have much less expensive policies, guess what happens? The premiums level out until the same amount of money comes in to the insurance company. So for most people, the premium will go up. How special! But that’s okay, because you’ll get money from the gummint to pay for the premiums if you can’t afford them! How much money will this cost the government? Nobody knows! However, I’m going to boldly make a prediction it’ll cost more money than anybody projected, and will break the federal budget. At least, it's working that way in Massachusetts so far, so I've got a pretty good data point for my prediction.

Of course, maybe if we weren’t spending all our money on insurance, maybe some of the money could go towards the actual provision of health care. But I’m guessing none of you supporters understand the concept of opportunity costs. I recommend a primer that can be found here. I think the pull quote is right up front in the third paragraph:

the bad economist pursues a small present good that will be followed by a great evil to come, while the good economist pursues a great good to come, at the risk of a small present evil

Substitute “politician” for “economist” and the result is much the same. Seems like we got a bunch of bad politicians and shitty economists around here setting policy, doesn’t it?

Of course, that’s what got us into this mess in the first place. Short-sighted legislators made a bunch of bad policy decision, and kept piling on more in various misguided attempts to fix the unintended consequences. This kept up until all y’all fools felt Obamacare was somehow a good idea and not a clusterfuck. Let’s review the first law of holes, shall we? If you’re in a hole, stop digging. Likewise, if your well-intentioned, well-meaning government regulations are causing a problem, don’t add on more regulations. You just get more problems. Did this simple concept ever occur to any of you as the administration and his enablers in Congress led you by the nose towards disaster?

Finally, I’d just like to add one more thought: FUCK YOU. You’re so damned terrified something bad might happen and you might have to pay for your own medical care that you feel you have carte blanche to make the rest of us pay for your insurance. You think your desire for something is enough justification to get the government to take it from the rest of us. If the idea that you, and not me, and not the government, are responsible for your life, your health, and your destiny terrifies you that much, go get a lobotomy and have yourself institutionalized. You don’t deserve to walk the earth pretending to be a citizen of a free country. You think like a slave and you act like a slave and you want your master, the government, to protect you from the imagined horrors of the world. Well, guess what? Some of don’t think we’re incapable of facing the world without the government telling us how to manage our lives. Some of us don’t want the shackles you would so willingly place on yourself and everybody else. More to the point, we’re not going to wear them. Don’t think this over. You haven’t won a damned thing.

Think Happy Thoughts

So, I'm trying to keep my mind off of the disaster the donks foisted off on an unsuspecting public last night. It gets me a bit peevish and irritable, which is never good on a Monday morning. Here's what I'm reading that has absolutely nothing to do with monstrously bad policies and blatantly unconstitutional power grabs by a pack of syphilitic dog-felching statist bastards.

Ahem. Anyhow, I have been amused lately by Nairn and his attempts to learn the art of cookery through random items chosen from BBC cookbooks. It strikes me as akin to learning by using a Time-Life series. If you're like me, and have more cookbooks than you can work through in your lifetime with his methods, you might find it especially amusing. Good fun, albeit very British at times.

I've also been browsing Morbid Fashion and The Courtesan Macabre. Lots of shiny pretty pictures of pretty things, useful for not thinking too hard. Not always as pretty, but still cool is the collection of things showcased at Street Anatomy.

When I can post with it being a transcription of someone with Tourette's, we'll get back to health care reform.

The Census

Coming across this little ditty from my friend, Texasbelle, I was reminded that we did indeed receive our Census documents this week. We completed the constitutionally required portion of the document and returned it. This basically means, we wrote the number 2 in the box, folded it up, and mailed it right back to the bureau in our postage paid envelope.

It appears according to 13 USC Chapter 7 we could be in for a little fine for sticking to the letter of the law. We might also have "the Manor" visited by some individual who probably doesn't work the same hours we're in residence. I still don't foresee us providing any information beyond that which the Constitution dictates.

Meditations on Mayhem

So, yesterday I had to show at the courthouse in bustling, scenic downtown Conroe for an abortive attempt at jury duty. Apparently, everybody knew there was not going to be court yesterday except for the dullard who sent all us prospective jurors an email on Saturday. A a result, I basically got a free day off work. Both woo and hoo.

Anyhow, the court is picky about which items you can bring into the building with you. I figured the .45, the pocket knife, and the big multitool were no-gos. I forgot about the smaller implements on my keychain.

The tiny Leatherman that lives on my keychain was unacceptable. I had to walk back to the truck and drop it in the glove box.

On the other hand, (clockwise from left), an Atwood Prybaby, a County Comm Peanut, a Craftsman 4 way screwdriver, and a P-38 were all admitted with no comments or complaints.

Now, I'm not doing anything but making idle speculation here. If I were inclined to commit some form of property damage or injury to personnel during my time in the building, I don't see what the point was. I can inflict as much, if not more, damage on someone with the Prybaby as I can with the Squirt, and I don't need to open it up. Between the three tools and the lighter, I figure there's all the fun you deserve to have in a secured area. I can disassemble just about anything that doesn't require a wrench, and then set the joint on fire.

I am constantly baffled and amazed at the feeble minded nonsense that passes for security in this country. I'm also a tad disgruntled that the county asked me to show up, and then made me empty my pockets of almost everything that might be useful in an emergency. If I'm to be trusted with deciding the fate of my fellow citizens, why won't you trust me with a pocket knife?

Mystery Revealed

So, I now know why the shotguns. The Office of the Inspector General needs to replace their existing shotguns. Futher explanation and commentary can be found over here.

I have but two final thoughts. First off, the OIG uses their shotguns enough to wear them out? I think back to the clapped out Winchesters they gave us when I was a young lad in the military. The rattletrap boomsticks the Army had were wore the fuck out, and still considered usable. Education OIG must have some seriously thrashed shotties. This implies the guns are either older than dirt, like the Army ones. Or else they do a metric assload of training with them. In general, folks, guns are a durable good. You have to do some serious shooting to wear out a receiver. Yeah, you may need to swap out piece parts, but they last a long time.

Secondly, the Inspector General function of federal agencies is concerned with policing themselves. I'd much rather the feds spend their time pointing guns at each other than at the rest of us.

More Beneficience

So, we discussed a few of the .gov's more egregious crimes against the citizenry a while ago. Here's one more to add to the list.

"The government knows it is not stopping drinking by putting poison in alcohol," New York City medical examiner Charles Norris said at a hastily organized press conference. "[Y]et it continues its poisoning processes, heedless of the fact that people determined to drink are daily absorbing that poison. Knowing this to be true, the United States government must be charged with the moral responsibility for the deaths that poisoned liquor causes, although it cannot be held legally responsible."

Want a drink, even though we've made it illegal? Well, go die then. Total body count for the government's poisoning program is estimated to be around 10,000.

People still expect me to believe the government has my best interests at heart.