Monday, October 31, 2005
But he's not on Reid's list!
The appointment of the highly qualified jurist, Judge Samuel Alito, does not meet the two primary requirements for a Supreme Court nominee. He is neither a woman nor does his name appear on Harry Reid's list of acceptable nominees, as Harriet Meirs did. President Bush is acting in the height of presumption to suggest that he, rather than Harry Reid, should decide who to nominate to the Supreme Court. We must keep a proper perspective on what is really important here. Judge Alito, graduate of Yale Law School, who has argued a dozen cases before the Supreme Court, edited a prestigious law journal, served as US Attorney, and served 15 years on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, appears to be far too qualified for the job. Both his rich judicial experience and his intellectual credentials are likely to be wasted in a job whose sole purpose is to ignore the Constitution. I demand that Judge Samual Alito step aside and that we bring Harriet back.
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Minimum wage
Wal Mart is calling for an increase in minimum wage.
However, they are not leading the way by raising wages for their own employees.
They hope that a higher minimum wage will result in more people spending more money at Wal Mart.
The minimum wage has been set at $5.15 for about 10 years, and Wal Mart backs an increase to $6.25. Personally, I believe that if we are going to have a minimum wage, it should be indexed to inflation, as should breakpoints in the income tax laws. But let's take a look at the economics of the minimum wage and evaluate if it is a good idea to begin with.
The main proponents of minimum wage, and of increases in minimum wage, are labor unions. They argue for increases, saying "$5.15/hour is not a living wage." That is true. Someone working full time at minimum wage will earn about $10,300 in a year. It is not intended to be a living wage. No one is supposed to support a family on minimum wage. High school kids working summer jobs are the only ones who actually are paid minimum wage.
If you have been working for years and have a spouse and kids and are still being paid minimum wage, its time to develop some skills, maybe take a few courses, and get a new job.
Labor unions want increases in minimum wage not because their members earn minimum wage, but because their salaries are tied to minimum wage, either implicitly or explicitly. Some union contracts define the members' salaries as a function of minimum wage. If the contract says that the workers get two and a half times minimum wage, when Congress raises minimum wage by a dollar, the union members get a $2.50 raise. But even if the contracts are not directly tied to minimum wage, the wage compression caused by an increase in minimum wage will drive union salaries higher. This is why unions favor an increase in minimum wage.
What are the unintended side affects of a minimum wage?
First of all, the minimum wage is an artificial barrier to entry-level jobs. If some particular worker will only provide $5.50 of benefit to an employer, and Congress raises minimum wage to $6.25, that worker will not be employable. That person may just need a year or two of experience to become a more productive employee, but the lowest rung of the ladder has been cut off, making it difficult for him to start the climb to better-paying jobs. If the market price for a certain job is below minimum wage, we have essentially told people who would take those jobs that they can not have a job.
Secondly, the minimum wage is inflationary. By increasing the cost of doing business, some companies will be forced out of business, reducing the supply of goods and services. The other companies will roll the extra cost into the price they charge for those goods or services. The result is that a significant part of the increase in wages is eaten up in higher prices, and does not increase the standard of living of the people it is intended to help.
Third, the minimum wage drives the illegal job market. Thousands of illegal immigrants enter the country every year because they can illegally get a job which pays below minimum wage. The fact that this is desirable indicates that the job pays better than what they could get at home. If employers could legally hire legal workers for these jobs at market wages, they would do so rather than risk hiring an illegal worker. We need a better guest worker program to let people legally enter the country to work in these jobs, but we could also address the problem by eliminating the minimum wage.
The minimum wage drives up costs of doing business. These costs are passed along to consumers in higher prices. It increases unemployment and inflation and creates an illegal labor market. Free market pricing of labor is a more efficient method than government regulation, and results in a stronger economy which provides opportunity for everyone to benefit.
However, they are not leading the way by raising wages for their own employees.
They hope that a higher minimum wage will result in more people spending more money at Wal Mart.
The minimum wage has been set at $5.15 for about 10 years, and Wal Mart backs an increase to $6.25. Personally, I believe that if we are going to have a minimum wage, it should be indexed to inflation, as should breakpoints in the income tax laws. But let's take a look at the economics of the minimum wage and evaluate if it is a good idea to begin with.
The main proponents of minimum wage, and of increases in minimum wage, are labor unions. They argue for increases, saying "$5.15/hour is not a living wage." That is true. Someone working full time at minimum wage will earn about $10,300 in a year. It is not intended to be a living wage. No one is supposed to support a family on minimum wage. High school kids working summer jobs are the only ones who actually are paid minimum wage.
If you have been working for years and have a spouse and kids and are still being paid minimum wage, its time to develop some skills, maybe take a few courses, and get a new job.
Labor unions want increases in minimum wage not because their members earn minimum wage, but because their salaries are tied to minimum wage, either implicitly or explicitly. Some union contracts define the members' salaries as a function of minimum wage. If the contract says that the workers get two and a half times minimum wage, when Congress raises minimum wage by a dollar, the union members get a $2.50 raise. But even if the contracts are not directly tied to minimum wage, the wage compression caused by an increase in minimum wage will drive union salaries higher. This is why unions favor an increase in minimum wage.
What are the unintended side affects of a minimum wage?
First of all, the minimum wage is an artificial barrier to entry-level jobs. If some particular worker will only provide $5.50 of benefit to an employer, and Congress raises minimum wage to $6.25, that worker will not be employable. That person may just need a year or two of experience to become a more productive employee, but the lowest rung of the ladder has been cut off, making it difficult for him to start the climb to better-paying jobs. If the market price for a certain job is below minimum wage, we have essentially told people who would take those jobs that they can not have a job.
Secondly, the minimum wage is inflationary. By increasing the cost of doing business, some companies will be forced out of business, reducing the supply of goods and services. The other companies will roll the extra cost into the price they charge for those goods or services. The result is that a significant part of the increase in wages is eaten up in higher prices, and does not increase the standard of living of the people it is intended to help.
Third, the minimum wage drives the illegal job market. Thousands of illegal immigrants enter the country every year because they can illegally get a job which pays below minimum wage. The fact that this is desirable indicates that the job pays better than what they could get at home. If employers could legally hire legal workers for these jobs at market wages, they would do so rather than risk hiring an illegal worker. We need a better guest worker program to let people legally enter the country to work in these jobs, but we could also address the problem by eliminating the minimum wage.
The minimum wage drives up costs of doing business. These costs are passed along to consumers in higher prices. It increases unemployment and inflation and creates an illegal labor market. Free market pricing of labor is a more efficient method than government regulation, and results in a stronger economy which provides opportunity for everyone to benefit.
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
Proposition 2
On November 8, Texas will vote on a ballot proposition to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. This seems superfluous, as God has already defined it this way. After all, He made marriage, so he certainly has the right to define it. However, with the concerted effort to redefine marriage, explicitly aligning the law to what marriage really is can never be a bad idea. Typically a ballot proposition in an off-year gets 8 or 9% voter turnout. This means that a small percentage of "gay rights" extremists can make a big difference in the vote count. Texans, we need to get out and vote for this proposition in large numbers. Lets send a clear message to any liberal activist judges or legislators who might want to impose their false definition on the voters.
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
Powerball mania strikes
Texas used to be a Powerball state, but no longer. We now have MegaMillions, which is an equally good ripoff. They say that the lottery is a tax on people who are bad at math. Apparently people who are bad at math think that spending $1 on a 1 in 146 million shot at what is claimed to be $340 million is a good deal.
Being good at math, let's run the numbers ourselves.
The smaller prizes, ranging from $3 to $200,000 have a total expected value of just under 20 cents. To break even the grand prize must have an expected value of 80 cents. We know that we won't break even, because the whole point of the lottery is to fund the government. The worst odds in privately operated casinos are around 90 cents on the dollar. To match that, the expected value of the Powerball grand prize would have to be 70 cents.
At first glance, the expected value of the grand prize appears to be $340 million / 146 million = $2.33. However, the real value of the grand prize is about half of $340 million. The winner has the option of taking roughly $164 million now, or getting the full $340 million in 30 annual payments. Either way, the present value is less than half of what they advertise. At $164 million, the expected value of a ticket is still in the money: $1.12.
But of course, Uncle Sam will want his cut. By the time he is done with you, a third of the jackpot will be gone. You will be left with $118 million. Now the expected value is $0.81.
This is right at the break even point. And this is as good as the odds ever get. I must point out that for the odds to get this good, 540 million losing tickets were sold over the last 10 weeks. All those people who are bad at math are responsible for the odds being anywhere close to even in this one drawing.
But it is not as good as it looks even now. We have not yet considered that you might have to split that jackpot two or three ways, or more. With 120 million tickets sold for this drawing, the odds are good that there will be multiple winners. If you do happen to win, there is a 56% chance that someone else won too. There is a 31% chance that you will have to split the jackpot 3 ways or more. On average, a winner will get $78 million after taxes. Taking this into account, the expected value of that ticket is just 73 cents, including the 20 cents from the small prizes.
It would be illegal for any private casino to offer odds this bad.
So why does the Lottery Commission tout the $340 million number instead of what it is really worth: $78 million? It's all marketing hype. The bigger number will attract more ticket sales. More ticket sales mean more profit for the Lottery Commission. Every ticket sold, regardless of the results of the drawing, means a 20 cent profit for the Lottery Commission.
Proponents of the lottery say that it helps to fund beneficial government programs, such as education. After all, who could be against better schools? But at what cost? And from whose pocket? The evidence clearly shows that most lottery revenue comes from people who can't afford to play. For many people who are professional wards of the state, dependent on government for their meager existence, the conditioned response is to look to government as the source of all hope. The lottery acts to maintain the cycle of dependency. Similarly, unskilled, uneducated people in low-paying jobs, the same one's who don't have the mathematical ability to know how bad a deal the lottery is, see the lottery as their only chance to escape their paycheck-to-paycheck existence. These are the products of the public education that the lottery provides.
It is true that some people who can afford to play and do recognize that the system is heavily rigged against them still do play for entertainment purposes. It gives the buyer the chance to dream what she would do if she won. An argument can be made that the jackpot is "big enough" even though the expected value is less than the price of the ticket. After all, $118 million split three ways is still enough to change a person's life. However, for most people, the change is not as positive as they imagined. Many squander their money. Most find friends and relatives distancing themselves, or scheming for how to cash in on the sudden wealth. The case of William "Bud" Post is a great example. Bud had been living on a government disability pension. In 1988, Bud won $16.2 million in the Pennsylvania Lottery. The government immediately took $5 million. Soon after winning, a former girlfriend sued and won a third of his winnings. Bud's brother was later convicted of hiring a hit man to kill Bud and take a share of the winnings. Post used up what was left on fancy vehicles and high-dollar toys. He gave loans to relatives and lost money in investment scams. He soon was deep in debt, with the future lottery payments as collateral. Post now lives on a $450/month government disability pension. Some dream, huh? If Post had not been so bad at math, he might not have played in the first place, or he might have planned wisely, budgeted, and invested the money for long-term growth. He could have gotten by on a mere quarter-million dollars a year for the rest of his life.
If someone has the extra money they can afford to lose, I don't object if they choose to spend a few dollars on the lottery for entertainment purposes. Personally, I can find plenty of more entertaining ways to waste my money.
Being good at math, let's run the numbers ourselves.
The smaller prizes, ranging from $3 to $200,000 have a total expected value of just under 20 cents. To break even the grand prize must have an expected value of 80 cents. We know that we won't break even, because the whole point of the lottery is to fund the government. The worst odds in privately operated casinos are around 90 cents on the dollar. To match that, the expected value of the Powerball grand prize would have to be 70 cents.
At first glance, the expected value of the grand prize appears to be $340 million / 146 million = $2.33. However, the real value of the grand prize is about half of $340 million. The winner has the option of taking roughly $164 million now, or getting the full $340 million in 30 annual payments. Either way, the present value is less than half of what they advertise. At $164 million, the expected value of a ticket is still in the money: $1.12.
But of course, Uncle Sam will want his cut. By the time he is done with you, a third of the jackpot will be gone. You will be left with $118 million. Now the expected value is $0.81.
This is right at the break even point. And this is as good as the odds ever get. I must point out that for the odds to get this good, 540 million losing tickets were sold over the last 10 weeks. All those people who are bad at math are responsible for the odds being anywhere close to even in this one drawing.
But it is not as good as it looks even now. We have not yet considered that you might have to split that jackpot two or three ways, or more. With 120 million tickets sold for this drawing, the odds are good that there will be multiple winners. If you do happen to win, there is a 56% chance that someone else won too. There is a 31% chance that you will have to split the jackpot 3 ways or more. On average, a winner will get $78 million after taxes. Taking this into account, the expected value of that ticket is just 73 cents, including the 20 cents from the small prizes.
It would be illegal for any private casino to offer odds this bad.
So why does the Lottery Commission tout the $340 million number instead of what it is really worth: $78 million? It's all marketing hype. The bigger number will attract more ticket sales. More ticket sales mean more profit for the Lottery Commission. Every ticket sold, regardless of the results of the drawing, means a 20 cent profit for the Lottery Commission.
Proponents of the lottery say that it helps to fund beneficial government programs, such as education. After all, who could be against better schools? But at what cost? And from whose pocket? The evidence clearly shows that most lottery revenue comes from people who can't afford to play. For many people who are professional wards of the state, dependent on government for their meager existence, the conditioned response is to look to government as the source of all hope. The lottery acts to maintain the cycle of dependency. Similarly, unskilled, uneducated people in low-paying jobs, the same one's who don't have the mathematical ability to know how bad a deal the lottery is, see the lottery as their only chance to escape their paycheck-to-paycheck existence. These are the products of the public education that the lottery provides.
It is true that some people who can afford to play and do recognize that the system is heavily rigged against them still do play for entertainment purposes. It gives the buyer the chance to dream what she would do if she won. An argument can be made that the jackpot is "big enough" even though the expected value is less than the price of the ticket. After all, $118 million split three ways is still enough to change a person's life. However, for most people, the change is not as positive as they imagined. Many squander their money. Most find friends and relatives distancing themselves, or scheming for how to cash in on the sudden wealth. The case of William "Bud" Post is a great example. Bud had been living on a government disability pension. In 1988, Bud won $16.2 million in the Pennsylvania Lottery. The government immediately took $5 million. Soon after winning, a former girlfriend sued and won a third of his winnings. Bud's brother was later convicted of hiring a hit man to kill Bud and take a share of the winnings. Post used up what was left on fancy vehicles and high-dollar toys. He gave loans to relatives and lost money in investment scams. He soon was deep in debt, with the future lottery payments as collateral. Post now lives on a $450/month government disability pension. Some dream, huh? If Post had not been so bad at math, he might not have played in the first place, or he might have planned wisely, budgeted, and invested the money for long-term growth. He could have gotten by on a mere quarter-million dollars a year for the rest of his life.
If someone has the extra money they can afford to lose, I don't object if they choose to spend a few dollars on the lottery for entertainment purposes. Personally, I can find plenty of more entertaining ways to waste my money.
Monday, October 17, 2005
New bankruptcy rules
New rules which just went into effect make it harder to declare bankruptcy, and may require people to actually pay back their debts, decry hysterical liberals. So what is wrong with that? Who pays for it when someone borrows money and then declares bankruptcy to avoid paying their debt? We do! The market interest rate includes a risk premium to compensate lenders for the various risks which they entail by making the loan. Default risk is a major part of that risk. If fewer people declare bankruptcy and more people repay their debts, people who do repay their debts will benefit from lower interest rates.
Thursday, October 13, 2005
A better pick
I call on Harriet Miers to withdraw from consideration for Supreme Court Justice. I am sure that Harriet is a very good attorney. However, I see no indication at all that she is qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice, nor do I see any indication that she even HAS a judicial philosophy, let alone, that she has the kind of philosophy that we need on the bench. Why is the President shying away from a fight? This is the perfect chance to let the public see the difference between Republicans and Democrats. Let the Schumers and Kennedies and Reids froth at the mouth and expose their true agenda.
I encourage President Bush to nominate Janice Rogers Brown to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court. She is highly qualified, and has a well-documented judicial philosophy, and she could tear up any liberal who challenged her.
I encourage President Bush to nominate Janice Rogers Brown to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court. She is highly qualified, and has a well-documented judicial philosophy, and she could tear up any liberal who challenged her.
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
Name that Wacko
These days, Senator Ted Kennedy is sounding more than ever like Al Qaeda terrorist Aymen al Zawahiri.
Zawahiri, in a letter to his chief operative in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, wrote:
Compare this to Ted Kennedy, who said
"The Iraq war has been consistently and grossly mismanaged, ... and our troops are now in a seemingly intractable quagmire."
Kennedy's comments are nothing short of treason. Quagmire is more a state of mind than an actual condition. Many times, America has been in a situation where it would have been easy to throw up our hands, declare ourselves to be in a seemingly intractable quagmire, and cut and run, just as Zarqawi is counting on us doing. Thankfully, in most cases we did not cut and run. Freedom is worth fighting for. Defeating the spreading threat of islamofascism as expressed in the letter from Zawahiri is necessary to maintain the freedom of the world. We should be glad that, as our troops encountered heavy resistance on the beaches of France, they did not decided that they were in an "seemingly intractable quagmire", turn around, and go home. They fought on, freed France from the most evil aggressor in history, and eventually defeated him.
Today, our choice is to allow Al Qaeda to establish their "Islamic State" centered in Iraq and spreading to Iran, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Pakistan, Afghanistan, India, Indonesia, Palestine, Israel, France, Germany, England, and the United States. This is their goal. Read it in their own words, if you wish. Or we can continue to fight, continue to oppose this great threat to the Middle East and the rest of the world. All that we need to do to allow evil to prevail is give up and do nothing.
Zawahiri, in a letter to his chief operative in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, wrote:
"Things may develop faster than we imagine. The aftermath of the collapse of American power in Vietnam-and how they ran and left their agents-is noteworthy. Because of that, we must be ready starting now, before events overtake us, and before we are surprised by the conspiracies of the Americans and the United Nations and their plans to fill the void behind them."
Compare this to Ted Kennedy, who said
"The Iraq war has been consistently and grossly mismanaged, ... and our troops are now in a seemingly intractable quagmire."
Kennedy's comments are nothing short of treason. Quagmire is more a state of mind than an actual condition. Many times, America has been in a situation where it would have been easy to throw up our hands, declare ourselves to be in a seemingly intractable quagmire, and cut and run, just as Zarqawi is counting on us doing. Thankfully, in most cases we did not cut and run. Freedom is worth fighting for. Defeating the spreading threat of islamofascism as expressed in the letter from Zawahiri is necessary to maintain the freedom of the world. We should be glad that, as our troops encountered heavy resistance on the beaches of France, they did not decided that they were in an "seemingly intractable quagmire", turn around, and go home. They fought on, freed France from the most evil aggressor in history, and eventually defeated him.
Today, our choice is to allow Al Qaeda to establish their "Islamic State" centered in Iraq and spreading to Iran, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Pakistan, Afghanistan, India, Indonesia, Palestine, Israel, France, Germany, England, and the United States. This is their goal. Read it in their own words, if you wish. Or we can continue to fight, continue to oppose this great threat to the Middle East and the rest of the world. All that we need to do to allow evil to prevail is give up and do nothing.
Condi for President
I officially endorse Condoleezza Rice for President.
In fact, I will withdraw from the race for President if Condi decides to run. I will make myself available as a running mate or a cabinet-level appointment. It would be an honor to serve in the administration of such a great President.
To make it happen, we first need a "Draft Condi" movement to convince her to run. I will be starting a "Condi for President" club in Fort Worth. Similar clubs are springing up from coast to coast. We will work on raising funds, so that she will not start out with a huge disadvantage resulting from her late start.
Can Condi win? You bet! She is already just 3 points behind McCain in several key states with early primaries, and she has not even declared herself to be a candidate. And she may be the best candidate to defeat the great meglomaniac coat-tail rider, Hillary Clinton.
Condoleezza Rice would make an exceptional President. Let's get busy and convince her to run.
For more information, read the book by Dick Morris.
In fact, I will withdraw from the race for President if Condi decides to run. I will make myself available as a running mate or a cabinet-level appointment. It would be an honor to serve in the administration of such a great President.
To make it happen, we first need a "Draft Condi" movement to convince her to run. I will be starting a "Condi for President" club in Fort Worth. Similar clubs are springing up from coast to coast. We will work on raising funds, so that she will not start out with a huge disadvantage resulting from her late start.
Can Condi win? You bet! She is already just 3 points behind McCain in several key states with early primaries, and she has not even declared herself to be a candidate. And she may be the best candidate to defeat the great meglomaniac coat-tail rider, Hillary Clinton.
Condoleezza Rice would make an exceptional President. Let's get busy and convince her to run.
For more information, read the book by Dick Morris.
Saturday, October 08, 2005
The Aristocrats
A few weeks back, the movie The Aristocrats was released. Since then, almost no one has gone to see it. It was promoted as being the dirtiest movie ever made. The movie consists of 100 professional comedians telling the same joke, claimed to be the foulest joke ever told. The punch line of this joke is "The Aristocrats". The joke itself is not funny, per se. The alleged comedic value is in the telling. The raunchier and more vile, the better. The movie proudly features every combination of scatology, incest, perversion, bestiality, necrophilia, pedophilia, mutilation, and so forth that you can imagine, and many more that you could not imagine.
Being eternally dedicated to you, the reader of this fine blog, I decided to do a review of this movie. Normally, this would entail actually going to see the movie. However, in this case I found a perfect way to circumvent this requirement. I simulated the experience in a very realistic manner. I stuck my head into a vat of raw sewage for an hour and a half. This was very much like the actual experience of seeing the movie, but higher in comical value, not quite as disgusting, and as an added bonus, it saved me $6.
So why is it that Hollywood produces rot such as this? It certainly is not because of the great demand. This movie was a flop at the box office. Many theaters didn't show it, and those that did saw attendance far below average. My theory is that there are a certain percentage of people in Hollywood who live in a fantasy world where they really believe that there is some merit in a movie such as this. They are convinced that it is somehow liberating. Liberating from what? I don't know. Personally, I don't think that it is important enough to be outraged over. I find it sophomoric, juvenile, dull, and unimaginative. It is the kind of thing that junior high boys do in the locker room. I think that it is time for Hollywood to grow up and give us quality movies with an engaging plot, character development, and a message which elevates the viewer.
Lawrence of Arabia, anyone?
Being eternally dedicated to you, the reader of this fine blog, I decided to do a review of this movie. Normally, this would entail actually going to see the movie. However, in this case I found a perfect way to circumvent this requirement. I simulated the experience in a very realistic manner. I stuck my head into a vat of raw sewage for an hour and a half. This was very much like the actual experience of seeing the movie, but higher in comical value, not quite as disgusting, and as an added bonus, it saved me $6.
So why is it that Hollywood produces rot such as this? It certainly is not because of the great demand. This movie was a flop at the box office. Many theaters didn't show it, and those that did saw attendance far below average. My theory is that there are a certain percentage of people in Hollywood who live in a fantasy world where they really believe that there is some merit in a movie such as this. They are convinced that it is somehow liberating. Liberating from what? I don't know. Personally, I don't think that it is important enough to be outraged over. I find it sophomoric, juvenile, dull, and unimaginative. It is the kind of thing that junior high boys do in the locker room. I think that it is time for Hollywood to grow up and give us quality movies with an engaging plot, character development, and a message which elevates the viewer.
Lawrence of Arabia, anyone?
Earthquake
A massive earthquake struck Asia today, killing thousands in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan.
The only question is: how will the Democrats spin this to claim that it is George Bush's fault?
The only question is: how will the Democrats spin this to claim that it is George Bush's fault?
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
Gaza civil war
Now that the evil Zionist aggressors have left the Gaza Strip, the Palestinians are faced with a real dilemea: there is no one left to kill. So they have turned to killing one another.
The Gaza Strip, now solely under Palestinian control, is slipping into civil war. However, the media is not picking up on this "insurgency" at all. Why not? Perhaps it is because it proves that giving in to terrorists doesn't lead to peace. It does not provide an opportunity to bash President Bush, but instead illustrates that a proactive anti-terror approach is necessary. Perhaps appeasement is not such a good policy after all.
At least three Palestinians were killed in fierce clashes between Palestinian Authority security forces and Hamas gunmen that erupted on Sunday evening in various parts of the Gaza Strip. PA security sources said the three victims, Ali Makkawi, the commander of the PA Police station in Shati refugee camp, a police officer and a 10-year-old girl, who was run down by a police car, were killed when hundreds of Hamas gunmen attacked the station with rocket-propelled grenades and automatic weapons. They said another 30 people, mostly Hamas members and civilians, were wounded in the confrontations. The attackers also set a number of PA police vehicles on fire.
Earlier in the day, Fatah gunmen shot and killed a taxi driver during a protest against the rising cost of gasoline in the Gaza Strip.In the West Bank, Hamas gunmen shot and killed Hani al-Hilakawi, director of the Al-Fawwar refugee camp west of Hebron.
The Gaza Strip, now solely under Palestinian control, is slipping into civil war. However, the media is not picking up on this "insurgency" at all. Why not? Perhaps it is because it proves that giving in to terrorists doesn't lead to peace. It does not provide an opportunity to bash President Bush, but instead illustrates that a proactive anti-terror approach is necessary. Perhaps appeasement is not such a good policy after all.
Laundering clean clothes
(10-04-2005) Congressman Tom DeLay has started a new business to launder clean clothes. Bring your new shirts or pants to Mr. DeLay's laundry, and you will get them back in exactly the same condition in which you brought them in. An excited customer was asked about the service he had received. "Fresh and clean. Nicely starched. Just like they were when I dropped them off." Laundering clean clothes was once considered a niche market, but has become increasingly popular amongst laundrymats running short on dirty laundry to air.
Yesterday, at the grand opening of the new laundrymat, Mr. Delay said that his new venture was inspired by accusations that he laundered money in a legal transaction. One of his biggest customers is Texas District Attorney Ronnie Earl, who pledged to "bring DeLay down" at a Democrat fundraiser. Calls to Mr. Earl to ask why he launders clean clothes were not returned.
Yesterday, at the grand opening of the new laundrymat, Mr. Delay said that his new venture was inspired by accusations that he laundered money in a legal transaction. One of his biggest customers is Texas District Attorney Ronnie Earl, who pledged to "bring DeLay down" at a Democrat fundraiser. Calls to Mr. Earl to ask why he launders clean clothes were not returned.
Monday, October 03, 2005
The real question
Harriet Miers has been nominated to be a Justice of the Supreme Court. Now begins the confirmation process, in which Senators, political pundits, and the media will investigate every aspect of the nominee: her past, her views, her qualifications. She will be questioned by friends and foes for days on end. Questions such as "Shouldn't Bush have appointed a stranger rather than someone he knows and trusts?" will be debated endless. She will be examined like a bug under a microscope.
But all of this is really unnecessary. In the end, we know all we need to know in order to form our opinion of Harriet Meirs by asking one person: Richard Gere.
Hollywood actor Richard Gere is qualified to speak for the entire world and determine what we think about any topic because he has appeared in Hollywood movies. Richard Gere is a noted authority on whatever he chooses to talk about. Without the input of Richard Gere, we don't know what to think about Harriet Miers. Senators don't know how to vote on Harriet Miers. Richard Gere, we eagerly await the wisdom which only you can impart to us. Please speak for us. Speak for the whole world. Tell us what our opinion is. Without you we are helpless.
But all of this is really unnecessary. In the end, we know all we need to know in order to form our opinion of Harriet Meirs by asking one person: Richard Gere.
Hollywood actor Richard Gere is qualified to speak for the entire world and determine what we think about any topic because he has appeared in Hollywood movies. Richard Gere is a noted authority on whatever he chooses to talk about. Without the input of Richard Gere, we don't know what to think about Harriet Miers. Senators don't know how to vote on Harriet Miers. Richard Gere, we eagerly await the wisdom which only you can impart to us. Please speak for us. Speak for the whole world. Tell us what our opinion is. Without you we are helpless.
Friday, September 30, 2005
Rodney King arrested...again
Rodney King was arrested yesterday for allegedly threatening his daughter and ex-girlfriend with a toy handgun. Police arrived on the scene after his daughter called 911. Officers reported that when they began arrest procedures, that King said, "Aren't you gonna hit me at least once or twice? My three million is almost gone, and I sure could use some more. What does a guy have to do to get bashed up a bit?"
Video captured by King's current girlfriend verify the officers account of the incident.
Video captured by King's current girlfriend verify the officers account of the incident.
Thursday, September 29, 2005
Political witch hunts
Travis Country District Attorney Ronald Earle is the prosecutor who obtained the indictment against House Speaker Tom DeLay yesterday.
Two months ago, Ronald Earle spoke and a Democrat Party fundraiser. He got the biggest ovation of the night when he said "I am the man who is going to bring down Tom DeLay."
And back in May, he was the featured speaker in Dallas for the Texas Values in Action Coalition, a Democratic political action committee. The prosecutor talked about his investigation into Republican corporate contributions and mentioned Mr. DeLay. "This case is not just about Tom DeLay," he told the audience. "If it isn't this Tom DeLay, it'll be another one, just like one bully replaces the one before."
Political analysts said Earle's appearance left him open to questions about his motives.
"It may help Tom DeLay establish his case that Ronnie Earle's investigation is a partisan witch hunt," said Richard Murray, a political scientist with the University of Houston.
"It clearly fuels the perception that his investigation is politically motivated. It was probably not a wise move," said Larry Noble, a former Federal Election Commission lawyer who heads the watchdog group Center for Responsive Politics.
Attorneys who have studied the indictment say that there is no claim of any specific criminal act by Tom DeLay. In fact, the financial exchange which is at the center of the alleged conspiracy was completely legal. The indictment is a partisan political attack, intended to let Democrats throw around words like "conspiracy" and "money laundering."
This is not the first time that Ronald Earle has used his position to launch baseless political attacks. Three times he tried to indict Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. Each time he was laughed out of court. And this is Earle's sixth attempt to indict DeLay.
I predict an acquittal and complete exoneration for Tom DeLay.
Two months ago, Ronald Earle spoke and a Democrat Party fundraiser. He got the biggest ovation of the night when he said "I am the man who is going to bring down Tom DeLay."
And back in May, he was the featured speaker in Dallas for the Texas Values in Action Coalition, a Democratic political action committee. The prosecutor talked about his investigation into Republican corporate contributions and mentioned Mr. DeLay. "This case is not just about Tom DeLay," he told the audience. "If it isn't this Tom DeLay, it'll be another one, just like one bully replaces the one before."
Political analysts said Earle's appearance left him open to questions about his motives.
"It may help Tom DeLay establish his case that Ronnie Earle's investigation is a partisan witch hunt," said Richard Murray, a political scientist with the University of Houston.
"It clearly fuels the perception that his investigation is politically motivated. It was probably not a wise move," said Larry Noble, a former Federal Election Commission lawyer who heads the watchdog group Center for Responsive Politics.
Attorneys who have studied the indictment say that there is no claim of any specific criminal act by Tom DeLay. In fact, the financial exchange which is at the center of the alleged conspiracy was completely legal. The indictment is a partisan political attack, intended to let Democrats throw around words like "conspiracy" and "money laundering."
This is not the first time that Ronald Earle has used his position to launch baseless political attacks. Three times he tried to indict Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. Each time he was laughed out of court. And this is Earle's sixth attempt to indict DeLay.
I predict an acquittal and complete exoneration for Tom DeLay.
Danish Air Force compensates Santa
[Reuters, Sept 29, 7:07 AM ET]
The Danish Air Force said Thursday it paid 31,175 kroner ($5,032) in compensation to a part-time Santa Claus whose reindeer died of heart failure when two fighter jets roared over his farm.
The animal, named Rudolf, was grazing peacefully at the central Denmark farm of Olavi Nikkanoff, when the screaming F-16 jets passed overhead at low altitude in February.
The reindeer collapsed and died, leaving Nikkanoff with the prospect of only one animal pulling his sleigh next Christmas.
He complained to the air force, which agreed to compensate him for the cost of the reindeer and veterinary expenses.
"We got a letter from Santa complaining about his reindeer's death and looked into it seriously," said air force spokesman, Capt. Morten Jensen.
The air force checked flight data and veterinary reports and concluded the planes likely caused the animal's death.
"We're more than happy to pay if it means that children around the world will get their presents," Jensen said.
Nikkanoff said he was satisfied with the compensation and would use it to buy a new reindeer before Christmas.
Editorial comment: I understand that Islamofascists feel the same way about our F-16s as this poor reindeer.
The Danish Air Force said Thursday it paid 31,175 kroner ($5,032) in compensation to a part-time Santa Claus whose reindeer died of heart failure when two fighter jets roared over his farm.
The animal, named Rudolf, was grazing peacefully at the central Denmark farm of Olavi Nikkanoff, when the screaming F-16 jets passed overhead at low altitude in February.
The reindeer collapsed and died, leaving Nikkanoff with the prospect of only one animal pulling his sleigh next Christmas.
He complained to the air force, which agreed to compensate him for the cost of the reindeer and veterinary expenses.
"We got a letter from Santa complaining about his reindeer's death and looked into it seriously," said air force spokesman, Capt. Morten Jensen.
The air force checked flight data and veterinary reports and concluded the planes likely caused the animal's death.
"We're more than happy to pay if it means that children around the world will get their presents," Jensen said.
Nikkanoff said he was satisfied with the compensation and would use it to buy a new reindeer before Christmas.
Editorial comment: I understand that Islamofascists feel the same way about our F-16s as this poor reindeer.
A better way to reduce pollution
The other day I wrote about the economics of buying a Prius to save gas.
I wanted to figure out how much it really costs to reduce pollution, if it is done in the most cost effective manner. I am certain that big companies know how to reduce pollution for the smallest possible price. Companies must buy pollution vouchers. A limited number are auctioned off every year, so the price of the vouchers must reflect industries best estimate of what it costs to reduce pollution. If they could do it cheaper, they would not pay that much for the vouchers, and if it cost more to reduce pollution, the auction price would be higher. There is a web site for people who feel guilty about their car emissions. They can pay for some of these vouchers, which reduces pollution from other sources equal to what their car generates. I believe that this reflects the most cost-effective way to reduce total pollution.
As I said in my blog, the Prius sells for $4,400 more than is economically justified. This premium can only be explained as buying the feel-good illusion that you are doing something good for the environment. But how much CO2 production are you preventing, and what is the cost per pound? The terrapass site says that a Prius produces about 6,000 pounds of CO2 a year, and an average car produces 12,000 pounds. The difference is 6,000 pounds per year. If you drive the car for 8 years, you have reduced emissions by 48,000 pounds. The cost per pound is about 9 cents.
But what if I took that $4,400 and bought vouchers? Currently a voucher for a metric ton of CO2 costs $1.91. Instead of 48,000 of CO2 reduction, I could buy vouchers for 1,754,756 pounds of CO2, at a much better price of 0.08 cents per pound. Instead of eliminating half the emissions of one car, I have eliminated the emissions of 11 full-sized SUVs.
However, I have an even better idea. Buy a Camry instead of a Prius. If you are concerned about the environment, buy one TerraPass. Then put the remaining $4,350 in a retirement account invested in an S&P500 index fund. Put your money to work for you in the greatest wealth-generating machine that ever existed. The benefits will last much longer than any car.
I wanted to figure out how much it really costs to reduce pollution, if it is done in the most cost effective manner. I am certain that big companies know how to reduce pollution for the smallest possible price. Companies must buy pollution vouchers. A limited number are auctioned off every year, so the price of the vouchers must reflect industries best estimate of what it costs to reduce pollution. If they could do it cheaper, they would not pay that much for the vouchers, and if it cost more to reduce pollution, the auction price would be higher. There is a web site for people who feel guilty about their car emissions. They can pay for some of these vouchers, which reduces pollution from other sources equal to what their car generates. I believe that this reflects the most cost-effective way to reduce total pollution.
As I said in my blog, the Prius sells for $4,400 more than is economically justified. This premium can only be explained as buying the feel-good illusion that you are doing something good for the environment. But how much CO2 production are you preventing, and what is the cost per pound? The terrapass site says that a Prius produces about 6,000 pounds of CO2 a year, and an average car produces 12,000 pounds. The difference is 6,000 pounds per year. If you drive the car for 8 years, you have reduced emissions by 48,000 pounds. The cost per pound is about 9 cents.
But what if I took that $4,400 and bought vouchers? Currently a voucher for a metric ton of CO2 costs $1.91. Instead of 48,000 of CO2 reduction, I could buy vouchers for 1,754,756 pounds of CO2, at a much better price of 0.08 cents per pound. Instead of eliminating half the emissions of one car, I have eliminated the emissions of 11 full-sized SUVs.
However, I have an even better idea. Buy a Camry instead of a Prius. If you are concerned about the environment, buy one TerraPass. Then put the remaining $4,350 in a retirement account invested in an S&P500 index fund. Put your money to work for you in the greatest wealth-generating machine that ever existed. The benefits will last much longer than any car.
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
Why rebuild New Orleans?
Louisana's Senators are asking for $250 billion in Federal taxpayers money to rebuild in Louisana. Roughly $40 billion of that is to build better levies and floodgates around New Orleans. All told, almost $200 billion of it goes to the New Orleans area. On a per-capita basis, it works out to $650,000 per New Orleans resident.
I have a few questions about the concept here.
First, where does the insurance settlement money figure into this equation? One would hope that most of the people whose homes and businesses were destroyed have insurance which will pay for the damage. Does the $200 billion only cover the property which was not insured? If so, is that a good idea? People should be encouraged to insure their property, and if the taxpayers are going to bail out those who don't insure their property, why should anyone carry insurance? Living in a flood plain on the coast, below sea level, in the most active hurricane region in the world and not carrying flood or hurricane insurance is not the smartest course of action I can imagine, and I am firmly against requiring responsible taxpayers to pay for the stupidity of irresponsible people.
Secondly, who is going to oversee the use of this money? A vast government handout such as this will invariably draw a large amount of fraud, waste, and corruption. I want to see tight accounting on this money, and extensive crosschecks into the validity of every request for funds. The proposed system looks more like a huge pork distribution than a relief effort. The organization which is slated to manage the money does not include any Federal oversite of the Federal money, and it does not appear to have the resources to prevent abuse. This must be resolved before the first dollar goes out. Otherwise, five years from now the taxpayers will be out a quarter of a trillion dollars with nothing to show for it.
Now we get to the real point of this article. Why are taxpayers in Texas, California, New York, Montana, Illinois, and so forth being asked to pay to rebuild New Orleans? Perhaps we should learn from this disaster that building a city below sea level in the path of repeated hurricanes is a bad idea. If someone wants to build there, by all means, go for it. But don't ask those of us with the good sense to build our house above sea level to pay for the predictable rebuilding and re-rebuilding. Certainly, paying $650,000 per person is not reasonable. Why not pay $200,000 per person, with the stipulation that they build elsewhere?
I have a few questions about the concept here.
First, where does the insurance settlement money figure into this equation? One would hope that most of the people whose homes and businesses were destroyed have insurance which will pay for the damage. Does the $200 billion only cover the property which was not insured? If so, is that a good idea? People should be encouraged to insure their property, and if the taxpayers are going to bail out those who don't insure their property, why should anyone carry insurance? Living in a flood plain on the coast, below sea level, in the most active hurricane region in the world and not carrying flood or hurricane insurance is not the smartest course of action I can imagine, and I am firmly against requiring responsible taxpayers to pay for the stupidity of irresponsible people.
Secondly, who is going to oversee the use of this money? A vast government handout such as this will invariably draw a large amount of fraud, waste, and corruption. I want to see tight accounting on this money, and extensive crosschecks into the validity of every request for funds. The proposed system looks more like a huge pork distribution than a relief effort. The organization which is slated to manage the money does not include any Federal oversite of the Federal money, and it does not appear to have the resources to prevent abuse. This must be resolved before the first dollar goes out. Otherwise, five years from now the taxpayers will be out a quarter of a trillion dollars with nothing to show for it.
Now we get to the real point of this article. Why are taxpayers in Texas, California, New York, Montana, Illinois, and so forth being asked to pay to rebuild New Orleans? Perhaps we should learn from this disaster that building a city below sea level in the path of repeated hurricanes is a bad idea. If someone wants to build there, by all means, go for it. But don't ask those of us with the good sense to build our house above sea level to pay for the predictable rebuilding and re-rebuilding. Certainly, paying $650,000 per person is not reasonable. Why not pay $200,000 per person, with the stipulation that they build elsewhere?
Skeletons in the closet
Everyone has their own skeleton in the closet. You know what I am talking about. Its that dark secret from your past that you hope to take to the grave with you. It is the thing you would never tell even your closest friends, because you are sure they would recoil in disgust and never speak to you again. It is the thing that they dig up when you decide to run for public office to ruin your chances of being elected.
Everyone has one, and right here on this blog, I am going to share mine with you. I am not really sure why I chose to reveal myself in such a public way. Perhaps I hope that the catharsis will purge my soul of the burden of this awful truth. Maybe I just want to defuse the story so that when the media gets ahold of it, it will not ruin my presidential bid. Or could it be that I hope that you will learn from my tale of woe, and change your ways before it is too late for you.
Consider yourself warned. What follows is of a highly offensive and explicit nature. If you are squeamish, read no further. If you don't wish to have your opinion of me shaken, stop now. You have been warned.
And now, without further ado, the skeleton in my closet, the dark undisclosed secret from my past now brought out into the light, the most shameful episode from the hidden recesses of my memory: I went to highschool with two members of the Dixie Chicks.
There. I said it. It is out in the open. If you no longer wish to associate with me, I completely understand. But I feel so much better. They say that confession is good for the soul.
Everyone has one, and right here on this blog, I am going to share mine with you. I am not really sure why I chose to reveal myself in such a public way. Perhaps I hope that the catharsis will purge my soul of the burden of this awful truth. Maybe I just want to defuse the story so that when the media gets ahold of it, it will not ruin my presidential bid. Or could it be that I hope that you will learn from my tale of woe, and change your ways before it is too late for you.
Consider yourself warned. What follows is of a highly offensive and explicit nature. If you are squeamish, read no further. If you don't wish to have your opinion of me shaken, stop now. You have been warned.
And now, without further ado, the skeleton in my closet, the dark undisclosed secret from my past now brought out into the light, the most shameful episode from the hidden recesses of my memory: I went to highschool with two members of the Dixie Chicks.
There. I said it. It is out in the open. If you no longer wish to associate with me, I completely understand. But I feel so much better. They say that confession is good for the soul.
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
Saving gas
With gas prices well above $2/gallon, many people are understandably looking at ways to use less gas. One result is that hybrid cars such as the Toyota Prius are now selling at well above MSRP. I had to wonder if buying a Prius is cost effective.
Let's compare the cost of buying and operating a Prius to the cost of Toyota's other economy car, the Echo. According to Edmunds, the current selling price for a typically equipped Prius is $24,650, or about $5k over invoice. The EPA says that they get 51 miles per gallon in the city and 60 on the highway. Real results are not quite so good in most cases, but we'll use the EPA numbers to be generous. The Toyota Echo, without the pricy hybrid technology, is much cheaper, selling for $13,861 with typical equipment. The EPA says it gets 33 miles per gallon in the city and 39 on the highway. For our comparision, we will assume a mix of city and highway driving, giving the Prius 55 mpg and the Echo 36 mpg. A very heavy driver who puts twenty-five thousand miles on the car each year will use 454 gallons of gas in the Prius or 694 gallons in the Echo. To be generous, let's say that gas is selling for $3/gallon. The 240 gallons saved by the Prius is worth $721. Edmunds shows that the Echo costs $87 more to insure each year than the Prius, and the Prius costs $258 more to maintain and repair than the Echo.
The important question is: how long does it take the Prius owner to recoup his greater initial expenditure through the better gas mileage? The time value of money is an important consideration. If the Echo driver kept the $11,437 that he didn't spend on the Prius in the bank earning a measly 3% and used it instead to pay for the higher yearly cost of gasoline, how long would it last?
According to my analysis, it would take 32 years for the Prius to become cost effective for someone who drives 25 thousand miles a year. By this time, the car would have 800,000 miles on it. Realistically, it will never last half that long. For an average driver who drives 15 thousand miles a year, it will never be cost effective. The interest cost is greater than the gas savings, and he can never catch up. So how much do you have to drive to make it worthwhile in a reasonable time frame of 5 years? To just break even, the answer is 90,157 miles per year, or more than four hours a day at highway speed. Regardless of how much you drive, most cars will never last enough miles for the Prius to be cost-effective.
One might argue that the Echo is a step down from the Prius in comfort. To make it fair, let's compare the Prius against a car which is a step up from the Prius, a Camry LE. I used the actual price that I paid for my Camry in July, along with the EPA gas mileage figures and Edmunds cost to own. If I drove 25,000 miles a year, which I don't, it would take me 11 years to recoup the extra cost of the Prius. At a more realistic 14,000 miles per year, the Prius never catches up.
With the price of gas on the increase, perhaps the higher future price would make the Prius more cost effective. How high does the price of gas need to rise before a Prius become cost-effective in a reasonable amount of time? The price of a gallon of gas would have to be $9.21 to justify the extra cost of a Prius in eight years.
There is a price at which buying a Prius makes sense. To estimate how much the price would have to come down to reach that point, I looked for the sale price of a Prius at which an average driver who drives 15,000 each year would break even after 8 years, compared to a Toyota Camry selling for $18,000. That break even point is $20,240. The current sale price of the Prius would have to come down by $4,400 before it would be more economical than a Camry over an 8-year lifetime.
So why are people lined up to buy their Prius at a price well above MSRP? Economically it makes no sense. It is a feel-good thing. They are buying the warm fuzzy feeling they get from the illusion that they are helping the environment. The reality is that buying a Prius is one of the most expensive ways to reduce emissions.
Let's compare the cost of buying and operating a Prius to the cost of Toyota's other economy car, the Echo. According to Edmunds, the current selling price for a typically equipped Prius is $24,650, or about $5k over invoice. The EPA says that they get 51 miles per gallon in the city and 60 on the highway. Real results are not quite so good in most cases, but we'll use the EPA numbers to be generous. The Toyota Echo, without the pricy hybrid technology, is much cheaper, selling for $13,861 with typical equipment. The EPA says it gets 33 miles per gallon in the city and 39 on the highway. For our comparision, we will assume a mix of city and highway driving, giving the Prius 55 mpg and the Echo 36 mpg. A very heavy driver who puts twenty-five thousand miles on the car each year will use 454 gallons of gas in the Prius or 694 gallons in the Echo. To be generous, let's say that gas is selling for $3/gallon. The 240 gallons saved by the Prius is worth $721. Edmunds shows that the Echo costs $87 more to insure each year than the Prius, and the Prius costs $258 more to maintain and repair than the Echo.
The important question is: how long does it take the Prius owner to recoup his greater initial expenditure through the better gas mileage? The time value of money is an important consideration. If the Echo driver kept the $11,437 that he didn't spend on the Prius in the bank earning a measly 3% and used it instead to pay for the higher yearly cost of gasoline, how long would it last?
According to my analysis, it would take 32 years for the Prius to become cost effective for someone who drives 25 thousand miles a year. By this time, the car would have 800,000 miles on it. Realistically, it will never last half that long. For an average driver who drives 15 thousand miles a year, it will never be cost effective. The interest cost is greater than the gas savings, and he can never catch up. So how much do you have to drive to make it worthwhile in a reasonable time frame of 5 years? To just break even, the answer is 90,157 miles per year, or more than four hours a day at highway speed. Regardless of how much you drive, most cars will never last enough miles for the Prius to be cost-effective.
One might argue that the Echo is a step down from the Prius in comfort. To make it fair, let's compare the Prius against a car which is a step up from the Prius, a Camry LE. I used the actual price that I paid for my Camry in July, along with the EPA gas mileage figures and Edmunds cost to own. If I drove 25,000 miles a year, which I don't, it would take me 11 years to recoup the extra cost of the Prius. At a more realistic 14,000 miles per year, the Prius never catches up.
With the price of gas on the increase, perhaps the higher future price would make the Prius more cost effective. How high does the price of gas need to rise before a Prius become cost-effective in a reasonable amount of time? The price of a gallon of gas would have to be $9.21 to justify the extra cost of a Prius in eight years.
There is a price at which buying a Prius makes sense. To estimate how much the price would have to come down to reach that point, I looked for the sale price of a Prius at which an average driver who drives 15,000 each year would break even after 8 years, compared to a Toyota Camry selling for $18,000. That break even point is $20,240. The current sale price of the Prius would have to come down by $4,400 before it would be more economical than a Camry over an 8-year lifetime.
So why are people lined up to buy their Prius at a price well above MSRP? Economically it makes no sense. It is a feel-good thing. They are buying the warm fuzzy feeling they get from the illusion that they are helping the environment. The reality is that buying a Prius is one of the most expensive ways to reduce emissions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
