Golf and Sexual Discrimination

So, as Michelle Wie finally decides to go back and compete against women golfers, it is interesting to address another oddity in women's golf, one that Wie partially exemplifies. Very rarely do young men (early 20's) get a large expectation when they play in a PGA event. Can you name one male teen golfer playing on the PGA Tour? However, that is not the same on the LPGA. With the exception of the senior ladies, how many women are in their mid-to late 30's playing on the LPGA Tour? 2? 3? Maybe? Probably a few more, but nothing spectacular.

You see, the LPGA Tour is filled with young women and even teenagers. Wie is 17 now, but has been playing for a good number of years. Many times, young golfers have to petition the LPGA to have an exemption to join before turning 18. Do you think the same thing is happening on the men's side? Nope.

Now, why? Is it sexism? I can't see that one standing up to scrutiny. However, the men also have, how to say this, not really higher standards, but stricter sort of. See, there is a triple-A league for the PGA Tour, the Nationwide. (Ignore college as both men and women play there.) Thus, unless a teen boy was a phenom, he would be relegated to the Nationwide Tour. But without the minor leagues, many teen girls can only play on the LPGA or they don't play. Now, would that be sexism because there isn't a female minor league? I don't think so. What it does say is that there aren't many high-quality middle age female golfers.

As somewhat proof of my idea, think about it this way. Michelle Wie has no chance to qualify on the men's tour, not because she is such a bad golfer, but because the PGA Tour has a stricter standard because there are so many people who want to play. To put it in other terms, think of it this way. The PGA Tour is harder because it is like a bidding war; the price is essentially skill level and like any bidding war in an auction, the price is higher than if there were more items than buyers. Supply and demand. Hehe. But it is the truth though, supply and demand, rather than discrimination of any kind.

Do I even Need to Say It? Welcome to Media Bias 101

Welcome, thanks for checking out Media Bias 101. There is only one lesson to be learned. The mainstream media is biased. Understand that and you pass. I will give you one more piece of evidence. Are you ready? Here we go.

In this article, see if you can spot the one missing detail. Here we go. Quiz time. What do you say is missing?

Okay, time is up. What is your answer? If you said, "The politician's political party was not specified," congratulations, you passed both the quiz and the class. You see, the corrupt politician was a Democrat. Hmm... Seems kinda funny that after Enron when every possible link to Republicans were made, that a similar corporate failure would not be treated the same. Oh wait, almost tricked you. This is a Democrat; they can do no wrong, other than take kickbacks, right? I mean, even with Enron, nobody in the media wanted to go through the effort to find the donations to Democrats, even though they did exist.

Well, thank you for reading. For those who passed, congratulations. For those who didn't, I am sure there will be another lesson soon.

Microsoft vs. Apple: Who's got the Monopoly?

Now, suppose government enforced the law equally for all companies. (Yeah, like that might actually be something required by law.) Under that logic, would Apple's new iPhone lead to a charge of Apple becoming a monopoly. In this article, there is a quote that would lead someone who was consistent (Hello? Anyone? Am I alone here? Helllloooooo?) to consider Apple a monopoly.

The iPhone can handle phone calls, e-mail, Web browsing, music and videos. There are already cell phones that do those things. What's unusual is that on the iPhone, Apple software is behind all those functions.

So, thinking about it using the same arguments used in the Microsoft case, would Apple be a monopoly? I am hesitant before saying "No." However, should the iPhone be introduced in Europe, Apple might be in trouble since the stricter ruling on Microsoft came from them.

Here is why I am unsure. Now, I can't remember if it was in the U.S. or Europe, but the complaint against Microsoft was that the Windows Operating System had only Microsoft programs, specifically Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player. So would Apple fit this definition? Maybe. You see, the iPhone does not allow direct third-party software, but some can be obtained online.

So, should Apple be worried? I don't know. Then again, going near Europe should worry anybody since they truly are a bunch of nutjobs. Always remember that.

Oh, How I Wish I Could Swear on this Site

I am just shaking my head. I know I have thought I had seen the dumbest headline ever, but BLEEP, they keep coming.

Study links hurricanes to teen smokers

What can I say? Who comes up with this crap? What do you think of when you hear this headline? Probably not what the story is really about, I am betting. I am at a lost, just shaking my head, and dropping some F-bombs. What else can you do? What else?

By the way, I could care less about this story so I don't feel like wasting my time linking to it because then it would be like it was a real news story.

Why Al Gore is an Idiot

I am not a fear-believing pansy. I don't believe that I am in danger from Islamic terrorists nor do I believe that the Sun is suddenly going to explode tomorrow. I also don't believe the lies proclaiming global warming.

Here is what I do believe. I like money. I believe I should keep all the money I earn. I believe people should be free to make their own choices in life, without the pressure from government or quasi-governmental agencies. I believe that unless a group is paying the bills, that group has no right to control a person's life. (As an explanation of this idea, suppose a religious charity was providing for a family, giving them a home and money for food and clothing. As such, with the financial backing, the charity has a right to demand that the family not have cable TV or cell phones. The family gives up certain rights in order to receive money from the charity and there is nothing wrong with that.) I don't believe a group of "concerned citizens" should tell a business that it cannot serve food with trans-fats or that it must outlaw smoking. Now, if they want to pay the bar owner to outlaw smoking, make an offer.

I am pretty rational. I used to keep my computer on all night when I lived in the college dorms. Why? Well, what was my incentive to turn it off? I like being online so that people can send me IM's in the morning hours while I sleep in. I also didn't pay for electricity. (I did end up paying more for living there which is why my A/C was running all summer long. I had to get some benefit out of paying such high rent.) However, when I moved into an apartment where I pay the electric bill, my computer is turned off at night. Why waste the money?

You see, I was persuaded to turn off my computer by economics; I hate spending money. Do you know what didn't persuade me? The idea that I increase my "carbon-footprint" by leaving my computer on. That doesn't work. A carbon-footprint is a buzzword meaning some group will determine what you should and should not do, but they won't give you any money to follow their requirements. The problem is those groups are trying to write laws. And that is where freedom goes out the window. I am not an Al Gore fan. I think the guy is an idiot. But I will go further than name-calling, unlike his ilk. You see, I would rather persuade someone to do something because it benefits them. What is the danger from global warming? What is the benefit from trying to prevent it? Do you know?

Even Al says global warming won't hit for another ten years or so. But, think about this. 30 years ago it was global cooling. How do we know that isn't true? Actually, we don't. Al never wants to let science into the picture, well, unless it is scientists who agree with him. But are they really using science? If I picked out 5 friends, I could probably come up with quite a few "facts" that don't mean anything. For example, depending on who I pick, there would be only white people in the world. See, my 5 friends represent the world and if I don't pick a non-white person, they must not exist. There would be no old people, no children, no handicapped, no rich people. None of these would exist. But am I using science? No friggin' way. 5 people does not the world make. (That is a semi-quote, but I just can't remember who it is by to give them credit.)

And that is where Al Gore's scientists fail. They look at 100 years (at most) and try to say the world is warmer. But, the world is billions of years old. Picking the last 100 years is not any more representative of the Earth's life than my 5 friends represent the United States, let alone the world. However, the environmental Nazis don't care about statistics. They just want to use fear and government to control people.

I guess you could sum up Al Gore in a short sentence. "He is all about money and power." Nothing more, nothing less. And because of his methodologies, he is an idiot.

Pots and Kettles: Enough Said

This quote, from an idiot ethanol lobbyist, says more than he probably wanted to say.

"Hyperbolic rhetoric is being substituted for fact," Bob Dinneen.

Yeah, the head of an ethanol group blaming consumers for lying about food prices increasing due to ethanol production by blaming "hyperbolic rhetoric?"

Do I even have to say it? Isn't ethanol huge because of the "hyperbolic rhetoric" of global friggin' warming? I have nothing; I am just shocked. What the beep? Here is the article.

Bingo?! That is the Big Idea?

So I just watched the TV show "National Bingo Night." This has to be the stupidest show on TV. I can live with the accent on the host, but the Indian guy as the umpire? I guess the old complaint about Apu on "The Simpsons" didn't mean much since this guy has the stereotypical accent. And, he sounds stupid on this show.

Then again, maybe I am not part of the intended audience. Every time a ball is drawn, the guy says, "If it is on your card, mark it off." Umm...is this for Alzheimer's patients or something? Do I really need to be told to mark off a number when playing bingo? I mean, come on. How many old people play bingo every week? Jeez, are we supposed to be stupid and not understand the rules of a very, very, VERY simple game.

I would suggest, eh, don't watch this junk. Well, unless you want to laugh. Then it might be worth the waste of time. Just what we need, another stupid game show. Does Hollywood ever get a new idea? I don't think so.

By the way, the contestants that scream? I would go mad if I was near them. Oh man, that would suck.

An Interesting Idea and Maybe a Well-Written Article

I ran across this article that was linked on one of the many blogs I read about paying kids to get good grades or to read books. I like the idea since I would have made quite a bit of money, even without lying about how many books I read.

Now, I have two comments about this article. First, I appreciate the fact that the author wrote this, and I am directly quoting, "a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, a left-leaning research organization." Now, for some people, this may not look like very much, but to someone like me who pays attention, this is like announcing that some famous world leader has died in office. It is not very usual. You see, while the Brookings Institution is left-leaning, it isn't often described that way. Usually it is just a think-tank. Now, compare that with its right-leaning counterpart, the Heritage Foundation. When that is mentioned, well, when it is, it is always, "The Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank." Even in the same article, you could have both mentioned, Brookings a "think-tank" and Heritage "right-wing." So it is nice to see some mention of the actual policies that Brookings comes up with. Now if only they would either start using "left-wing" or drop "right-wing," all would be good.

My second response to this article is in reference to one of the idiots quoted. How do I know the person is an idiot? Why, their quote points it out. Here is the quote from the article encompassing the direct quote from the idiotic woman.

“It makes me really nervous,” said Maggie Siena, the principal of Public School 150 in TriBeCa. “I suspect paying kids for achievement in any way tends not to work.”

Hmmm...could she be telling the truth? Nah, no way. Okay, time to be obscenely obvious for a second. Kids are like adults, only younger. So it is natural to figure that kids, basing their actions on adult role models, would actually act the same way as adults would to an incentive. Follow that? So now, how would an adult act if they were paid to learn? Would that "tend not to work?" Hmm...yeah, about that. You see, if paying someone for achievement DIDN'T work, then there would be no such thing as performance bonuses or heck, even employment for that matter. Think about a teachers' union. Don't they basically get paid for showing up and trying to teach? What do you think that is? Isn't that paying for achievement? Sure, I know there are probably some really crappy schools out there that pay teachers to NOT show up, but ever hear the teachers' unions complain when those are brought up? Oh, loud and angry does not do it justice.

So, do I think kids would be willing to learn for money? Yep, just as adults learn for money when a job has them take a training class or something. Would there be cheating? Oh heck yeah. But does that mean we shouldn't implement the idea, that the idea is bogus because the possibility for cheating is out there? Yeah, tell you what, if you believe that one, YOU can pay my taxes this year. Cause think about it, how many people cheat on their taxes and yet, we don't abolish the tax code. No, we add to it, in an effort to stop the cheating. So odds are, this program would have controls in place.

Now, if only it wasn't government run, I would get on board right now. However, it is private money, but a public program. And thus, just like the crappy schools it is an attempt to make up for, it probably won't work. But, at least it is an idea.

What an Inconvenient Writer!

So in this uh-humm...article, some idiot is discussing documentaries. Here is a small bit.

Until Gore came along with "An Inconvenient Truth," few Americans, it seems, were aware of the grave threat to our ecosystem posed by global warming. Likewise, until the release of "Fahrenheit 9/11," few Americans were aware that the Bush administration does not always tell the truth.

Yeah, I don't think so. Global warming, not a threat to our ecosystem; the sun, now that is a threat. (If you don't understand and believe the fear mongering Algore, realize that Mars is experiencing global warming. And when was the last time you heard of people on Mars driving SUVs?) President Bush lied because Michael Moore said so? Is this author trying to be credible?

You see, people don't pay to see crap like those two movies because they are just that, crap. I don't need to fall asleep while Algore drones on about something that isn't even real. How the heck would Al know that global warming exists? Think about it. My home in Michigan was covered in ice at one time. Don't you think I am darn glad the Earth warmed up some?

No, this guy is not a credible source. It is people like this author that reinforces the belief that the LA Times is pretty dang worthless. This guy is an idiot. And frankly, it is inconvenient that he is in a position to write for the places he does. That is the real tragedy in this country, people like him, writing crap, and passing it off as "enlightened." No thank you.

Remember, as Joe Friday on Dragnet used to say, "Just the facts, Ma'am." (Okay, so maybe he didn't say it in that way, but that was way before my time.)

Talk About a Stupid Headline

Here is a headline of a story currently on Yahoo!'s homepage.

911 no help as woman dies on emergency room floor

Can anyone else see a problem with this scenario?

Okay, so what is 911 for? Isn't it for emergencies in order to get faster medical or fire or police protection? So what is the problem in this scenario? Oh yeah, she was already AT the dang hospital. Now, having read the whole story, turns out she was in an inner-city hospital that was incompetent and needed to be transferred to another hospital. But wait a minute! This story isn't about how crappy the one hospital was; nope, it is a plea for caring about this woman.

So, yeah, this story is crap. And, it is a blatant attempt to profit off this woman for some political purpose. Thus, in order to not do that, I am not going to tell you to look into the management of the incompetent hospital (and I won't bet you $10 that it is government run). No, I won't ask you if she would be dead now if hospitals were not heavily influenced or run by government.

You see, I have integrity and I CARE about this woman. Oh wait, I am not liberal? Whoops, can't say that then can I?

Okay, imagine if this lady had gone to a hospital where the place had to make a profit, where insurance and Medicare were dirty words. Imagine that hospital without the government mandate that every fool that walks through the door gets treated, even if they can't pay. Now, would she have died? I don't think so, but then again, I don't know the full story. But you know what I do know? Even though there is a law that every schmuck that comes in gets treated, she didn't. Why? Why did the law not work? That is my question. If the law is oh-so-powerful and we need it badly, what went wrong? Could it be that government mandates caused some caring doctor to focus on filling out paperwork instead of treating the sick? Could it be that a doctor were too busy dealing with some kid with sniffles just because "eh, insurance covers it" so the parent brought the kid into the emergency room? Could it be that the lobby was so full of people like that sniffles kid, again there only because insurance covers it, that she was not noticed? Or, could it be that this hospital, in its wonderful mission of helping everybody, even those that can't pay, just didn't have enough money to make sure enough doctors were available when this woman came in?

No, it couldn't be one of those scenarios right? Right?

gulag or Gulag? Do You Know the Word?

In an article on the Internet Movie DataBase website today, there is a story about Bruce Willis kissing Drew Barrymore. In quoting Playboy, the website says this,

"Drew and I are old friends. I hadn't seen her for a long time, and I gave her a kiss. There were other things going on in the room that night that weren't reported, things far racier than my giving Drew a kiss. If it's against the law to kiss a beautiful actress who is a friend of mine, then lock me up and take me to the gulag (prison camp). I'm a single guy, and I'm having a hard enough time in the world of romance without somebody giving me s**t for kissing Drew."

Now, I don't know if this is Playboy or the World Entertainment News Network cited at the bottom, but who needs a refresher on the "Gulag?" (I was going to link to Wikipedia, but unless you are a Russian major, just take my word for what is coming next.) Ok, the term Gulag is actually an acronym for the department in charge of running the Soviet prison camps. In expanded use, it means a generic Soviet prison, mainly used for political dissidents and others who just disappear. Now, the Wikipedia points out that it can also mean a prison camp in other Communist countries, like North Korea.

Ok, so no biggie right? Except why would the author explain the term? (I don't know all the styles, but I always thought editorial comments were made [like this] rather than in parenthesis. Guess I should ask an English major, eh?) And maybe this is a little misunderstanding, but "prison camp" doesn't convey the same sinister connotations that "gulag" does. And, while I don't know what Bruce Willis actually meant, I would suggest that he was referring to the generic Soviet camp, thus being capitalized. (I get that from the sarcasm in his comment. He meant to imply a really horrid prison, not the Hilton Prison. Hehe.)

I guess that is what it comes down to. For all the moaning by people about Paris Hilton going to jail, nobody ever really recalls what the Soviet system was like. For all the complaints about Gitmo, it still doesn't compare to a system run by the Gulag. And, if any Muslims had gone into the Gulag system, I am pretty darn certain that the Koran was not on the reading list cause they didn't have one!

Just something to think about. And remember, today is important. Not only was there a new memorial built for the victims of communism (many more died from communism than in the Holocaust), but today marks the 20th anniversary of this line.

"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

President Ronald Reagan said those immortal words standing in front of the Berlin Wall, but speaking to the millions in the Gulag system, put there for criticizing the government or demanding a better life. Is there anymore appropriate way to end this post? I think not.

Teen Unemployment Rising: Who's to Blame?

So, once again, another article, this one from the Christian Science Monitor. However, this one is better than most, but still lacking in some areas. In the article, the author discusses why teens unemployment is rising. While giving some good answers, there is still some discussion lacking.

Here is my main critique. The author says, "Many, especially in upper- or middle-class neighborhoods, have decided that academic or volunteer activities may look better on college applications." Yeah, that is good, but aren't these kids still missing out? Later in the article, the author mentions how people coming out of college aren't prepared for work. Well duh, come on. How often did the kid not work because "if I volunteer, I can get a scholarship to college!" (Then, how often does the scholarship go to the sports star rather than the oh-so caring student, or the smart ones for that matter?) Businesses need to stop looking at college as a great thing, force the bloody colleges to accept students who work their behind off, and maybe business would be better.

My second critique is that the author mentions this black kid (yep, the author made sure to mention race so I will too, just not the PC crap cause I don't know if he is really from Africa). But wait a minute, the kid is 13. Now, a good author will explain what age group is allowed to work. In Michigan, you have to be 14 to get a non-farm, non-family owned business job. I am assuming in Massachusetts, it must be 13. If not, I think I know why the kid can't find a job.

Now, the author does mention the minimum wage increase even though he does not have to. So next year, when teen unemployment goes even higher, then we can discuss the minimum wage increase. But I don't agree with this guy's economists he talked to. He needs to get out there and talk to an economist who might actually know how a business is run. Government subsidies are not the answer. Let me give you an example. I am going to take $50 out of your wallet and then to be nice, to make sure you can buy a couple movie tickets, I am going to GIVE you $35. Now, aren't I so nice? The way to really get young people into the workforce is to adjust the laws that punish young people. Get rid of the minimum wage and teens will work more. And don't say that we can't get rid of the minimum wage because who would work there. Aren't those the same dang jobs that the illegal immigrants are filling? So, kill two birds with one stone. Eliminate the minimum wage, teen employment rises, and the need for illegal aliens diminishes. Wow!

Now, would you believe that my work experience and college education has gotten me nowhere?

Building as Copyright?

So when does a building deserve the same copyright-style protection as a book or movie? Yeah, I don't know. But when Sony made a video game depicting a cathedral in England, holy wow, did the church get mad.

So in this article, the authors discuss a Sony video game that the Church of England originally wanted banned, but now just wants money. Why? Because in this violent video game, it shows the interior of Manchester Cathedral. (Don't you know, they have honored shooting victims there.)

But wait a minute. Hold on. Isn't this building like, old? When did someone need to get permission to use the interior of a public building? And yes, it is somewhat public as it is a "listed building" (more info here and here). Now, if they were showing the interior of my house and listed it as my house, then maybe there might be a point. If the building had just been completed by a famous architect, maybe the architect might have a point. But a 7th Century cathedral? Come on.

Actually, this is a shakedown. The Church of England has been losing parishioners for some time now. Basically, they just want money. (In other situations, this case would be called extortion.)

Now, here is my main point. What shooting victims could have been honored there? Didn't England ban guns like 10 years ago? Who is shot by a gun anymore? Oh wait, you mean the gun ban didn't actually ban guns? It just stopped good people from having a gun to protect themselves against the bad people that still have guns? No, no, you can't mean that. Gun laws are our friend. The good government wants to make sure nobody has a gun. Too bad they forget to stop the bad guys, eh? So, I ask, what gun victims could be honored in this cathedral? Certainly not people who died 10 years or so ago. They can't be the ones the article is mentioning.

(By the way, as this game is about aliens blowing up stuff, should the U.S. government sue the makers of Independence Day for blowing up the White House in that movie? Oh maybe it is too late, statute of limitations and all. Just a thought.)

cBay Part III: Economics Sorta

Okay, so my last little bit about eBay (unless I think of something else) is more of an economics/finance lesson. Life is full of risk and there are ways to mitigate risk. For example, insurance is the most frequent and best understood risk-mitigation strategy. So what on eBay does the same thing?

If you have ever used the site, you have probably seen the "Buy It Now" (BIN) feature. Sometimes, it is offered with an auction (that is, you can purchase the item at a higher price and avoid the auction until someone bids) or it can be a stand-alone offer, avoiding the auction part automatically and being a normal sale. So, in a normal eBay auction, you may lose, even at the last minute as my prior posts pointed out. But in a BIN scenario, until someone bids, you can purchase the item and make sure you own it. However, it is more expensive at the time. Let me give you an example. Item A has both an auction and BIN component. The auction ends in 5 days and the starting bid price is $0.99 while the BIN price is $24.99. Now, you have a choice. Wait to see if someone bids (ending the BIN feature), see if someone does it buy it, or wait to see how long it will last untouched. Now, if you felt you would be willing to pay $20 for the item, you may not want to BIN. However, because there is a chance that either you will lose the auction or the auction price may go above the BIN price, you might be willing to pay a premium to make sure you own the item. Then again, if you bid, you could win the item for $3.

So this is where risk and risk mitigation comes in. You know you would be willing to spend $20 and for an extra 25%, you could own the item now with no hassle and no worry. But, is it worth it? That is where other information and other factors make an appearance. Odds are, the item you want actually has duplicate auctions going on. (For example, you could be wanting to buy a certain book and find there are 5 copies of the exact book being auctioned off separately.) At this point, you can find out how much the other items are currently going for (remembering always about vultures) and what other options are available. Going back to my other example, if Item A is being offered as a BIN for $19 in another auction, you have a slightly better decision to make, items themselves and other factors being equal.

Lets continue that line, Item A being offered with a BIN of $19. Now, to add some detail, this one also has an auction component, but the starting bid is $4.99 instead, and ending in 6 days. Now, you could always win the other auction for $0.99 or this one for $4.99, but they could both shoot up in price in a few days after someone puts an opening bid out there, removing the BIN, and removing the upper value limit information for a vulture. (To better explain, you and the person who will bid first know that the item is worth $19, but if the BIN price disappears, someone else, without having the option to BIN, might be willing to spend $32 on the item, and thus might actually win the auction by bidding $32 as the maximum as both you and the first bidder realize that is more than you COULD have had it for.)

So now we come to risk mitigation, having a few options, and different risks involved. Just like the real world, this example has become complicated, partly as an illustration and partly to make sure I don't actually have to use actual economic terms to describe the situation as that is beyond my education level. (That doesn't mean I don't know what I am talking about, just that I put it the idea into layman's terms without having the full academia background to explain it to an econ major.) So what are your options? Well, you can bid on either auction, you can BIN from either, or you could bid on the higher BIN and wait to see if you win or someone else buys the other copy now. Yep, a lot of choices, but some are smarter than others. In my scenario, you would be better off BIN for $19 than to try and win either auction for one primary reason. Because in eBay you enter your maximum bid for an item and let eBay bid for you, you would go to the more expensive BIN and bid $20 (having to go to that one because it is more than the other auction's BIN price). But, because this is higher than the BIN of $19, you should just buy the item right now. However, that means you will pay $19 automatically. Could you still win the item for $0.99? Yep, but it is risky. So how much is risk worth to you? If you had more info, like how much similar auctions that have already ended went for, you might decide not to BIN and bid on the cheaper auction component, going up to your $20 max. That way, you will either win the auction for less than you were willing to spend, win the auction for a little more than you could have bought it for, or lose the auction entirely. (What really makes this hard is that because of the time difference, you could end up losing this auction and still be able to buy the item from the other auction, depending on what other people have done.)

So there is your risk spelled out. What do YOU do? Me, I BIN for $19, take my hit, and end up with my item. (Actually, this is something I have just done after losing other auctions at the last minute.) Then again, I am not much a risk-taker. I have never been a haggler. In accounting terms, I like fixed costs rather than variable. In Star Wars terms, I am a Sith as I deal in absolutes, as Obi-Wan says in Episode III: Revenge of the Sith.

So how about you? Do you buy the item or bid for the item? Do you eliminate risk and pay the premium for it or do you take your chances and hope to save some money? What kind of person are you?

The Dumbest Advertising Move Ever!

So while watching Larry the Cable Guy's recent stand-up routine, he starts comparing childbirth to his reaction to eating Hot Pockets. So, a few minutes after talking about being in pain after eating Hot Pockets, guess what ad was the first one played during the commercial break? I seriously could not lie about this. The first bloody commercial was for Hot Pockets. Who is the idiot there? Something would just tell me, if I was the ad wizard for Hot Pockets, don't advertise during a show where a guy says eating Hot Pockets makes you feel bad. Geez...

eBay: Part II

So, once again, I ran into a vulture on eBay, one of those people who bids at the last minute. However, this time, as two people bid in the last 10 seconds, one of them had been the first bidder on the item and then waited after getting outbid, while the other one was a true vulture. In this person's bidding history, the person has bid on 5 items, each only once, and each in the last hour (that is the lowest level of detail eBay provides, but I wouldn't be surprised if this person was always a last second bidder).

It is good and bad though. I am happy the true vulture didn't win, but it does suck that someone who kept bidding, even more often than me, lost. Hopefully that person learns how the vultures work and tries to alter bidding style. And the good thing for me, even though I wanted the two items I have now lost (ignoring the other smaller item I lost at the last minute), I couldn't really afford them anyway. I could have paid for them, but had to go without food or something for a bit to do it. So maybe it is good I lost since I like eating.

Anywho, once again, when bidding on eBay, know your absolute maximum price and bid that, then wait and see if you are the victim of a vulture. (By the way, not to be conspiracy laden or anything, I just wonder how the vultures know someone's maximum price. They must just use the current price and add a certain percentage or something to make sure they win. At least the one vulture lost this time. Hehe.)

eBay: Great for Sellers, Not so Good for Buyers

So if anyone has ever spent time on eBay bidding on an auction, you probably have seen the vulture types. These people tend to bid at the last minute. Now, eBay has this feature where you can put your highest bid in and it will bid up to that amount. Except, sometimes you would be willing to bid up another $3 or so, but you can't since the vulture has come in and outbid you before you have the chance to re-up your bid. They swoop in and take the auction. One thing noticed about them is that they actually haven't bid on the item at any time before hand. In a full week of bidding, these people bid in the last minute. Hmmm...

The other problem with eBay is that generally, it is for people who know how much they are willing to spend and aren't planning on changing their mind. That is what the auto-bid function is good for. It is not good for people like me who sit and try and figure out which auction is the best deal. This leads to another group of bidders, the speculators, the ones that come in, bid up the price, and then take off. I may sit and try and figure out how much the other auction I am interested in might go up to, except that with the speculators, who knows what the price may ultimately be. This type isn't that bad other than the fact that they tend to drive up the price during the last day of an auction or so. This makes estimates of the highest price hard to do.

So, the good thing about eBay is that it is great for sellers. They tend to make more money. But for buyers, eh, realize that if you can get something without having to bid on it, you are better served taking a slight hit and removing the risk of losing the auction. So if bidding on eBay, good luck. And if selling, yeah, you have enough luck with the system as it is. Oh well, at least it is the free-market at work. It would suck even more, for both sides, if eBay instituted government style control. Give me the vultures and the speculators over government rules and bureaucracy any day.

Global Warming as Sarcasm? Now that's Funny!

In this article in the Washington Post, there was one line that was just awesome. The article was about how you knew you were in a bad summer movie with one of the signs being that it was too long. Only, the author decided to make a joke that just made me laugh because it was in the Post, not some conservative newspaper. Here is the line.

You'll be surprised to note that there are glaciers in the parking lot when
you get out. Global warming came and went, and now the new ice age is
here.

That was funny. And unlike other articles where global warming exists, this guy is actually saying not only does warming exist, but so does global cooling. (We were all warned about it in the 1970s, "before the dark times, before the Empire," the Emperor being the inventor of the Internet himself, Al Gore. I love a good Star Wars quote.)

So here's to your favorite bad summer movie, if you can actually afford to go see one, even before Granholm's new tax on movie tickets.

Gasoline, Credit Cards, New Jersey?

In this article from the Home News Tribune, the price of gas at one New Jersey station is 16 cents cheaper if the person pays cash rather than using a credit card. Fair enough, the article mentions why, high fees on credit cards. But I thought this quote was interesting.

The New Jersey gasoline tax-rate exceeds only the tax rates in Alaska and
Wyoming.
Is there a hike in our future?
"Not unless the entire Legislature doesn't want to come back next year," Senate President Richard J. Codey, D-Essex, told Gannett New Jersey

Now that is kind of interesting. New Jersey has the third lowest state gasoline taxes in the nation. (Now that is a surprise!) But look at the quote. A DEMOCRAT talking about how the legislators wouldn't be able to raise the gas tax. No mention of what that added tax revenue would do as other articles focus on. Actually, this is the final few lines from the article, one of the strongest parts of a report.

I have to admit it, this article was well written, well researched, and actually informative about an issue that is so often screwed up. I am impressed.

Now, if only every other idiot reporter could learn from this guy. Man, how sweet would that be? An article talking economics with an actual knowledge of economics, in this case, taxes and business incentives. Alas, maybe in the future.

ABC, The View, same ol', same ol'

Kathy Griffin vs. Rosie. Can you tell the difference? Hint: One is skinny.

Both of these women are idiots. I can't honestly put what they truly are on this blog and not be profanity-laden. Both of these women are nuts and ABC/Disney are a bunch of idiots themselves for putting these people on TV. No wonder people keep fleeing the networks.

Colmes is an Idiot!

Alan Colmes is an idiot. He must have like one of them little ear pieces like that have at the U.N. to feed him questions cause he can't be that stupid? Fred Thompson talked about the U.N. resolutions and Colmes said that wasn't sold to the American people. Well, Alan, I am not paid to follow politics, but I heard about that. What does that say about you? Do you really earn your pay? Yeah, I don't think so.

I don't agree with the U.N and I don't think it should be our justification, but it was discussed. Too bad Alan Colmes is too stupid to remember that bit (or he is just a liberal that only heard WMD).

Fox News vs. New York Times: One Admits Mistake, One Doesn't, Guess Who

So Fox News ran a tape of Dem. John Conyers rather than William Jefferson when talking about Jefferson getting indicted. Ok, mistake and they immediately apologized and corrected themselves, on air, everything. Now compare that with the New York Times. They make a mistake in a front-page, top-of-the-fold story, and if they run a correction, where is it? Oh yeah, buried in the middle of the friggin' paper.

Now, some are calling racism because both Representatives are black, but you know what? Being from Michigan, maybe there wasn't that much of a mistake made. Perhaps Conyers should be checked next for corruption, eh? Not making any accusations, but think about it. Democrat, gotta be corruption right? Oh wait, I said Democrat. If it had been Republican instead, nobody would have said anything in the press right? Alas, too true.

Media Bias, Again....

So, after watching the whole debate, I clicked on the links on Yahoo! discussing the debates. Hmm...why are they describing something I didn't hear? Maybe the candidates did say something about Bush and Iraq, but it wasn't the whole dang debate. Too bad the authors of the articles only listened to maybe 2 minutes of the debate apiece. (Unlike me, they probably sick of it so much they turned it off, much the same way I didn't even watch the Democrats debate on Sunday.) Oh well. Just another worthless article from the AP.

Actually, you know what, AP needs to change their name from Associated Press to Absolutely Pathetic. Much more honest and descriptive.

Thoughts on the third Republican Debate

• Tommy Thompson had the best opening. Sweet!
• Huckabee's opening was pretty good too.
• Yep, the rules went out the window on the first bloody question. Mitt went longer than a minute and then Wolf decided he didn't answer the question, but didn't cut him off.
• Whoever has that stupid buzzer that keeps going off is an idiot.
• Asking Senators about reading the security document on Iraq is kinda stupid. I understand the idea, but it is stupid to ignore all the stuff that they SHOULD be reading.
• McCain still is too uptight and needs to stop his finger pointing until he gets a new suit jacket.
• Sunni and Shia are married to each other?! Are you sure McCain?
• At least Tommy Thompson has some plan for Iraq, even if Wolf won't let him finish since he isn't Mitt or McCain.
• Ron Paul needs to stop his arm waving too.
• Huckabee is only slightly mistaken. Today is the anniversary of Reagan's death, not his birthday, which is Feb. 6
• The question on talking to Iran is interesting. I wonder if the liberals who kept claiming Bush was a lone wolf should be cheering the talks with Iran, even if the leader is a terrorist supporter.
• Would nukes go deep into ground? Eh, at least no one in Iran could use the area for awhile.
• Mitt is too polished. I don't trust him for that (and no, that isn't odd).
• The crackles were lightning? That is odd.
• Nice PR immigration question for Tancredo. Now if he can build on what he did before and get more issues.
• Rudy, Mitt, and McCain....can you tell who the media thinks are the front runners?
• Illegal immigrants don't have a right to STAY in America
• Good job Duncan Hunter telling that idiot questioner that illegal immigrants are taking jobs from Americans, not ones Americans won't do. That question was stupid.
• Screw the 12 million illegal immigrants! Kick the bastards out and then create more green cards to let people in legally.
• A fence in Canada? Eh, let's work on stopping illegal immigration from Mexico first. Then we can figure out if there are problems on the Canada border.
• Ooh, the English language bill...who doesn't want it? John McCain doesn't want it. No, Native Americans in Arizona sovereignty is crap. Johnny, why should the Mexicans respect ours, eh?
• Gilmore welcomes Fred Thompson into the race as does Tommy Thompson. Good deal.
• Whoa, the Rudy - Pontius Pilate link is awesome.
• Great job CNN. They are having problems with lightning? Hahaha. That is funny. Good job.
• Mitt just doesn't work as a conservative. Nope, too bad he has a liberal track record.
• Nice response Huckabee about Creationism. Who are the idiots writing this stupid questions?
• Wolf, thanks for actually listening to Huckabee's response. Oh wait, no you didn't.
• Too bad nobody came out and said that the government shouldn't be in charge of schools.
• Wow, Mitt won't use his Mormon background for political reasons.
• Good job for Ron Paul actually getting a chance to tell people that the federal government shouldn't be in schools.
• Oh goodie. Climate change. Whoop-tee-doo!
• Nope, Rudy, there is no global warming. We can be energy independent by drilling for oil in AMERICA!
• Republicans are with Big Oil? Too bad Democrats are with Big Government! Government gets about 63 cents per gallon, but ExxonMobile gets about 16.5 cents. Who is worse for Americans? Oh yeah, don't forget government regulations.
• McCain, shut up. Big Oil is not making huge profits. Now, some other companies (like carbon sellers), they have huge profits.
• Once again, Ron Paul comes through with another market answer. Too bad he gets on the foreign policy rant again.
• Come on guys, they can't put more money into drilling because CONGRESS WON'T LET THEM! They wanted to drill for domestic oil. They wanted to build more refineries. Hopefully someone will say that.
• Huckabee is getting on Wolf for being an idiot moderator. Very good.
• Don't Ask, Don't Tell was a stupid policy because it made gays different. If Clinton hadn't been a dumb (bleep), this wouldn't be a bloody issue.
• The Democrat debate wasn't last night. Whoops, sorry questioner.
• Tommy Thompson tries comedy and falls flat.
• I agree with Brownbeck saying that we should treat George W. like his father. Also hits at Clinton, but could easily add Carter to that list.
• Tancrado hits out at Bush. Very nice.
• Huckabee gives another good answer. Except, corruption is going unchecked now and Katrina was bungled by the idiot Democrats in Louisiana. Wal-Mart was there, but "wait, big business can't do that."
• Duncan Hunter won't pardon Libby I think. He should be pardoned though while pardoning the CIA spy for outing herself and lying under oath to Congress.
• Tommy Thompson makes a great reference to Clinton.
• Oh great, Larry King and Anderson Cooper while the idiots in New Hampshire get to ask questions.
• CNN should be fined because they are NOT the best political team. This debate is really bad. Lightning causes technical problems, questions that are biased and just plain wrong, now that is "misleading advertising."

Second half, voter questions. At least they aren't Democrats, but who knows if some are really plants to make up stupid questions.

• This lady reporter is a stupid lady. Let the people speak and just shut up.
• The first lady who asked a question, I feel for your loss, but respect your brother for his choice to serve. Don't blame Congress or Bush.
• Brownbeck needed to put his plan out yesterday. He knew this debate was coming. Don't waste time talking about a plan tomorrow, have it out now.
• John McCain, gets up, and walks to the edge. Guess he got the memo that candidates could stand up.
• Hmm...second question is better, sorta.
• Okay, who is the idiot that put a camera guy behind the candidates? Good one Sherlock!
• Oh, I guess only the Big 3 get to stand up as Rudy just did it.
• Global warming is not conservation. Government is the worst land owners. Private conservation groups are better. Gilmore needs to realize that energy policy does not mean anything to conservation.
• Oh whoops, guess all can get up as Gilmore did, even though he isn't part of Rudy McRomney.
• Ok, I disagree with Tancredo on his conservation. Though at least he is willing to put some market forces in conservation. Government just isn't the free market.
• Wow, when did Rudy become a market lover? Nice speech, just wrong candidate.
• Hunter discussing how drugs are made. At least he kind of talks about how Mexico and Spain's lower prices are causing American prices to rise. If we didn't have to subsidize the third world, prices would be lower.
• Okay lady reporter, you are an idiot. They just talked about that dang bloody question. Did she not hear Rudy? Or, is this just a method to introduce another idiot with the stupid socialist health system?
• Since I missed a bit of the last few questions, but when did Rudy decide to play conservative? Soviets are not Islamofacists. Soviets were hesitant to actually fight the U.S. and didn't believe in random acts of violence with no logic behind it.
• Ron Paul missed his chance to promote liberty. Darn. The greatest moral challenge today is the government nanny state taking away rights that our forefathers fought and died for, and that is sad.
• Brownbeck gets his chance to talk his pro-life message. Don't mention Darfur though. We shouldn't be there if we shouldn't be in Iraq.
• Hmm...Romney in Spanish? That is a flip-flop since he wants English. Still not getting my vote. And Romney selling products to China? Hmm..
• Good job Tancredo. No campaigning in Spanish. This ain't Spain!
• McCain speaking Spanish is pandering. He is still an idiot. Migrants aren't bad, but it is the bastards that don't respect OUR rights. And those Hispanic names in our military? They spoke ENGLISH! McCain can go to hell.
• The electrical engineer had a good question about how the candidates differ from current Republicans in power. Let's see how the candidates answer.
• McCain, idiot. He is an earmarker of the worst kind.
• Wolf, shut up. You just changed the question. What a piece of (bleep). The question isn't Bush's mistake; it was how these guys would be different.
• Thompson, good job with the professional spender vs. amateur line.
• Tancredo, good answer.
• Ron Paul, give up the foreign policy. It is getting old. Talk the domestic front where the ideas are liked by conservatives.
• Gilmore basically ignored Wolf and answered the real question. Why have someone in the audience asking questions if Wolf is just going to change it?
• Huckabee, good answer.
• Who cares where people live? They are from New Hampshire right? Does the city matter?
• Tancredo doing good talking about immigration reform. Unlike Ron Paul, the questions are about immigration. When did he say he wanted to outlaw legal immigration? I think Wolf put words in his mouth and Tancredo needs to speak up and correct him.
• Nice answer from Huckabee again. Legal immigration is great.
• Who cares what McCain or Rudy think? They may be the media's front runner, but not the nations. (That would be Fred Thompson actually, the guy not on stage.)
• McCain talking about legal immigration is like Hitler praising the Jews.
• Moderate Republicans are Democrat-lite. I don't care about moderates when it means giving up what it means to be Republican. Stupid question.
• Gilmore touts the libertarian line (actually appealing to those libertarian voters who went for Republicans when they were fiscal conservatives.)
• Governor Terminator is NOT a Republican. Worthless person. The actual problem with Republicans in power now was dealing with moderates and Democrats! Why should anyone let the "Kennedy wing" run the party as Hunter said?
• Mitt, Reagan was a conservative, not an Arnold moderate.
• Eh, I have learned to ignore Rudy tonight.
• Getting that way with McCain as well.

Overall, CNN sucked it up. This was pretty dang worthless. Hopefully Fox News does another debate soon. Once again, CNN showed how debates can be twisted by moderators that are friggin' idiots. Oh sweet, Hannity and Colmes has Fred Thompson on, the actor, not the candidate, in the words of Tommy Thompson.

Al Gore = Smart?! Yeah, In What World?

So in a piece in the Washington Post, Eugene Robinson argues that Al Gore should be President because he is smart and "uses big words, often several in the same sentence." But is Gore really that smart? Well, my friends, nope, no way, keep dreaming.

Here is the biggest example of how dumb Gore really is. So Al decides he wants people to stop using energy and save the planet. So, he does what anybody would do when they have a idea, he goes to Congress and talks to politicians. Mind you, about using LESS energy. Only, Al kinda forgets one teeny little thing to check on. If you were talking about using less energy, wouldn't you like...yeah, I don't know...maybe use less energy yourself? Turns out Al forgot that step. See, his house uses 20 times the energy that the ordinary American house uses, but it ain't 20 times the size. I know, I know, wouldn't we all love a heated pool? But don't you know, heated pools use energy! Lots of it.

I guess maybe strategy should be part of smarts. I mean, come on, Al wants to lecture people to do something that he isn't even doing himself and he doesn't think he will get caught? Can you say "DUMB?"

Well, that was one example, but there are others. This website lists a bunch of Gore screw-ups that tend to be forgotten in favor of Bush screw-ups. Ever notice how whenever Bush mispronounces a word, it is a "Bush-ism" and all over the news? So, here is one great "Gore-ism" just to make a point (quoted directly from the site since it is easier that way).

At an event in Las Vegas on Monday, 09/1800, Gore declared potential breast cancer victims faced "a long waiting line before they could get a biopsy or, uh, or a uh, another kind of, what am I looking for, a sonogram or...." People in the crowd shouted "mammogram."

Yeah, now that would qualify as a "Bush-ism" if he had said it. But, have you ever heard this quote before? Yeah, neither had I before I stumbled onto it. And there are others. Once again, the site sums it up pretty well.

Gore sometimes shows publicly that he lacks Clinton's finesse. Take a reception in Los Angeles last month. It was Gore's moment to shine before donors who ponied up $2.8 million. But he wound up egg-faced when he compared electing a Republican as president to rejecting an Oscar-winning team in favor of the producers of the Hollywood clunker Howard the Duck. One of the evening's hosts, Jeffrey Katzenberg, was a driving force behind Howard the Duck. The crowd tittered.

Now that is funny, especially since I SAW the movie Howard the Duck and it was pretty bad.

So, I guess the question is, "Is Gore smart?" Sorry, please try again. Gore is an idiot. Nothing more, nothing less, just an idiot. And no, he does not have a chance at being President. Gore getting the nomination over Hillary? Who thought that one up?


Hat-tip to EconLog for the Robinson article.