American Thinker: The Nazis Were Marxists
A very good summary of why Nazis and Communists are soul mates, despite the baloney pushed by Democrats and academics.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
The best Windows Vista error till date - Newlaunches.com
The best Windows Vista error till date - Newlaunches.com
For those conspiracy minded souls who think Bill Gates is out to get them, comes this gem of an error message on the new Vista machines. (Even if a joke, it's the way Windows often makes me feel.)
For those conspiracy minded souls who think Bill Gates is out to get them, comes this gem of an error message on the new Vista machines. (Even if a joke, it's the way Windows often makes me feel.)
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Recycling Rubbish
Recycling Rubbish
So recycling is not the savior of the world, huh?
When has mandatory action ever lead to efficiencies anyway?
So recycling is not the savior of the world, huh?
When has mandatory action ever lead to efficiencies anyway?
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Read the sunspots
Read the sunspots
Sooo, it is fairer to say that the Earth will have significant global cooling beginning in approximately 2020 than it is to say that the Earth will get unendingly hotter over time. Interesting. Interesting!
Sooo, it is fairer to say that the Earth will have significant global cooling beginning in approximately 2020 than it is to say that the Earth will get unendingly hotter over time. Interesting. Interesting!
Friday, May 04, 2007
American Thinker: The War of Art
American Thinker: The War of Art
This is an interesting juxtaposition about the nature of art in a world of conflict. It deserves more thought than one reading.
This is an interesting juxtaposition about the nature of art in a world of conflict. It deserves more thought than one reading.
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
BREITBART.COM - Edwards: Jesus Would Be 'Appalled'
BREITBART.COM - Edwards: Jesus Would Be 'Appalled'
Jesus would be appalled at our selfishness?!
Let us assume the premise of Edward's statement that Jesus despised poverty.
We must understand that Jesus discussed poverty in the context of Roman-controlled Palestine. The Jewish people were split in many different directions politically. Some were strong supporter's of Herod's then-new lavish temple. Some were offended by it. Some were supporters of the Romans. Some were not. Some were rich. Some were poor.
In a religious context, Jews were expected to follow strict rules as interpretted by the Rabbis and Priests based on Deuteronomy and Exodus. Being a good Jew meant watching dietary rules, female cleanliness, giving sacrifices at Temple, attending many religious observances, reciting set prayers.
Wealth was generated by the priests from these routine behaviors and became wealthy. The Romans gained wealth from a process of tax collection called "tax farming." Wealthy merchants made wealth by doing business, but were seen to be good Jews by follow pre-set practices without any compassion or personal regard for his fellow man.
Skip to today. Some wealthy gain wealth by being unscrupulous and destructive of others. Many wealthy build businesses that systematically provide for the food, shelter, clothing, and entertainment of the masses at low cost. Being wealthy in today's world is not easily connected back to the conditions of wealth and poverty in Jesus's era. He had no Wal-mart, no Shell Oil, no Toyota, no true republic to comment on.
How can Edwards or any critic of modern poverty speak credibly about what Jesus would think? More importantly, how can Jesus's observations be universally applied to all modernity. There is a difference between a person who gets rich from a Ponzi scheme (or a class-action lawyer that wins on questionable science) and a company delivering products and services sought by its customers.
Jesus would be appalled at our selfishness?!
Let us assume the premise of Edward's statement that Jesus despised poverty.
We must understand that Jesus discussed poverty in the context of Roman-controlled Palestine. The Jewish people were split in many different directions politically. Some were strong supporter's of Herod's then-new lavish temple. Some were offended by it. Some were supporters of the Romans. Some were not. Some were rich. Some were poor.
In a religious context, Jews were expected to follow strict rules as interpretted by the Rabbis and Priests based on Deuteronomy and Exodus. Being a good Jew meant watching dietary rules, female cleanliness, giving sacrifices at Temple, attending many religious observances, reciting set prayers.
Wealth was generated by the priests from these routine behaviors and became wealthy. The Romans gained wealth from a process of tax collection called "tax farming." Wealthy merchants made wealth by doing business, but were seen to be good Jews by follow pre-set practices without any compassion or personal regard for his fellow man.
Skip to today. Some wealthy gain wealth by being unscrupulous and destructive of others. Many wealthy build businesses that systematically provide for the food, shelter, clothing, and entertainment of the masses at low cost. Being wealthy in today's world is not easily connected back to the conditions of wealth and poverty in Jesus's era. He had no Wal-mart, no Shell Oil, no Toyota, no true republic to comment on.
How can Edwards or any critic of modern poverty speak credibly about what Jesus would think? More importantly, how can Jesus's observations be universally applied to all modernity. There is a difference between a person who gets rich from a Ponzi scheme (or a class-action lawyer that wins on questionable science) and a company delivering products and services sought by its customers.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
TCS Daily - Why Have a Board of Directors?
TCS Daily - Why Have a Board of Directors?
Nice little article describing the benefits of group decision making over other options. A good little guide for corporate governance. Best used as a start for further study than to jump in and make immediate restructing choices.
Nice little article describing the benefits of group decision making over other options. A good little guide for corporate governance. Best used as a start for further study than to jump in and make immediate restructing choices.
Monday, October 23, 2006
Bennett: Most around world still believe in America - CNN.com
Bennett: Most around world still believe in America - CNN.com
Just a quick thought exercise on the subject of what type of respect do we want to receive from the world at large.
Option #1: The high school quarterback who wins the state championship, has the prettiest and sweetest girlfriend, defends his friends and classmates against bullies, wins senior class president, and is accepted to a Division III school like Williams College -- or my alma mater Washington University in St. Louis.
Option #2: The school brainiac who was accepted to Harvard on full scholarship, can win any chess tournament or puzzle contest, cannot be counted on to stand up for himself or his friends, but is constantly seeking the approval of his classmates.
In my experience, the quarterback exudes confidence and receives loyalty from his peers and is despised by just less than half the class (remember he was elected senior class president).
The brainiac has few friends but probably complains about unfair it is that the quarterback gets all the attention when the brain could beat him in any intellectual challenge.
Which political party would you most closely associate with which person above. No fair, changing the criteria of the persons listed to suit your point of view. That is a separate exercise.
Just a quick thought exercise on the subject of what type of respect do we want to receive from the world at large.
Option #1: The high school quarterback who wins the state championship, has the prettiest and sweetest girlfriend, defends his friends and classmates against bullies, wins senior class president, and is accepted to a Division III school like Williams College -- or my alma mater Washington University in St. Louis.
Option #2: The school brainiac who was accepted to Harvard on full scholarship, can win any chess tournament or puzzle contest, cannot be counted on to stand up for himself or his friends, but is constantly seeking the approval of his classmates.
In my experience, the quarterback exudes confidence and receives loyalty from his peers and is despised by just less than half the class (remember he was elected senior class president).
The brainiac has few friends but probably complains about unfair it is that the quarterback gets all the attention when the brain could beat him in any intellectual challenge.
Which political party would you most closely associate with which person above. No fair, changing the criteria of the persons listed to suit your point of view. That is a separate exercise.
Friday, October 13, 2006
Reid's transaction
My comment on Polipundit this morning:
Forgive me for a simple question from a conservative lawyer (see heckofanidea.blogspot.com to see my viewpoint more clearly).
What is illegal here? Even the AP video noted early in these comments doesn’t show anything wrong. Mind you the choice of words is completely misleading, but the documents discussed don’t suggest anything wrong legally, hold comment on Senate Ethics Rules for a moment.
Reid bought undeveloped land for $400k. He joins a partner in parlaying their two respective holdings into a unified LLC, taxed as a partnership. The partners each “contributed” – term defined by the Internal Revenue Code – their properties as their initial capital contributions to the company. That contribution would be handle by a deed that on its face always looks like a sale because it needs to show the parties and the value of the property for records and tax purposes.
At the IRS level, Reid needs to document his acquisition cost for the property. It is a tax-free transaction, so the value contributed by law must reflect that he is contributing it at its acquisition cost.
The nature of his asset has now changed from being a real estate asset to being intangible personal property in the form of a membership interest in the LLC.
The taxable event then occurs when the combined real estate of the company is sold. The gains are allocated to the company’s members and taxed accordingly.
The only problem that I have heard is that the Senate disclosures did not reflect the new company membership. This is a pretty significant omission.
The consolidation of property and rezoning by definition in development projects adds considerable value to property. When Walt Disney bought his property in Orlando, he bought many, many individual parcels and consolidated them. Don’t you think that Disney World’s land is worth more as one parcel than a bunch of one-acre plots? Which is harder to find?
Reid failed to disclose correctly. This is not a strange cattle-future moment revisited.
UPDATE: After reading AJ Strata, the picture really needs to focus on the stuff leading up to the deeds that I discussed above. The maneuvering to get that point is the real point of interest.
Forgive me for a simple question from a conservative lawyer (see heckofanidea.blogspot.com to see my viewpoint more clearly).
What is illegal here? Even the AP video noted early in these comments doesn’t show anything wrong. Mind you the choice of words is completely misleading, but the documents discussed don’t suggest anything wrong legally, hold comment on Senate Ethics Rules for a moment.
Reid bought undeveloped land for $400k. He joins a partner in parlaying their two respective holdings into a unified LLC, taxed as a partnership. The partners each “contributed” – term defined by the Internal Revenue Code – their properties as their initial capital contributions to the company. That contribution would be handle by a deed that on its face always looks like a sale because it needs to show the parties and the value of the property for records and tax purposes.
At the IRS level, Reid needs to document his acquisition cost for the property. It is a tax-free transaction, so the value contributed by law must reflect that he is contributing it at its acquisition cost.
The nature of his asset has now changed from being a real estate asset to being intangible personal property in the form of a membership interest in the LLC.
The taxable event then occurs when the combined real estate of the company is sold. The gains are allocated to the company’s members and taxed accordingly.
The only problem that I have heard is that the Senate disclosures did not reflect the new company membership. This is a pretty significant omission.
The consolidation of property and rezoning by definition in development projects adds considerable value to property. When Walt Disney bought his property in Orlando, he bought many, many individual parcels and consolidated them. Don’t you think that Disney World’s land is worth more as one parcel than a bunch of one-acre plots? Which is harder to find?
Reid failed to disclose correctly. This is not a strange cattle-future moment revisited.
UPDATE: After reading AJ Strata, the picture really needs to focus on the stuff leading up to the deeds that I discussed above. The maneuvering to get that point is the real point of interest.
Monday, September 25, 2006
Power Line: The fruits of an unserious presidency
Power Line: The fruits of an unserious presidency
I am always troubled when Person A blames Person B for not fixing a problem that Person A "owned."
What do I mean? In British history, in some situations, such as treason, a father found guilty of treason could be deprived of his lands and his title and prevent his son from inheriting either from his father -- a corruption of blood. The son was disinherited by the father's criminal acts.
In modern trust law, that is the law about management of assets of a third person (a trustee contracts with a trustmaker to manage assets for a beneficiary, a third person), the default rule is that a departing trustee's misdeeds can cause the new trustee to be liable. The idea is that the new trustee has an incentive to find out about the departing trustees misdeeds. In practice, the new trustee just gets sued for something with which he had nothing to do.
In a more casual situation, it would be as if a wife were imprisoned for her husband's theft of their neighbor's house. It would be as if a Muslim woman were stoned to death by her family because her neighbor raped her. Neither woman should be punished for the male criminal's actions.
This is an apt equivalence in Clinton and the Democrats blaming Bush for failing to stop 9-11. The Clinton Administration does not cease being responsible for its misdeeds on January 20, 2001, because someone else swore an oath.
The greatest myth in Washington is that a person should be held responsible for all that happens during their watch. That works well if you are standing on a castle wall, watching your enemy's bonfires outside of archery range. It does not work in civil, legal, or bureaucratic situation.
I would have less complaint about this problem if a Constitutional Amendment were passed allowing the President-Elect to submit his Cabinet and subcabinet to the Congress-elect the day after the Electoral College meets -- or even better on January 4th. The Amendment would further give Congress 30 days to review and accept-or-reject. A failure to reject would constitute an approval. That would give the new administration the ability to take control over the bureaucracies in practice by April or May.
As it is, the Cabinet is not in place until summer and does not start exercising real control until autumn with policy consequences starting in full swing until nearly Christmas.
An administration dealing with the Crisis-du-jour has more immediate control: a Ruby Ridge or Waco is clearly within the new administration's control sooner. The control is more of a minor, unit-level logistic and wholly tactical nature.
But what of control of strategy and systemic logistics? These take time and interaction with Congress to implement. How can an administration that must submit a new strategy to Congress be responsible for an action or misfeasance unless and until the whole oversight or legislative process is attempted?
Once we see that Clinton and his supporters are merely replicating the fallacy of the stoning the rape victim, there is little to make of his teenagerish anger except a show for his peers.
I am always troubled when Person A blames Person B for not fixing a problem that Person A "owned."
What do I mean? In British history, in some situations, such as treason, a father found guilty of treason could be deprived of his lands and his title and prevent his son from inheriting either from his father -- a corruption of blood. The son was disinherited by the father's criminal acts.
In modern trust law, that is the law about management of assets of a third person (a trustee contracts with a trustmaker to manage assets for a beneficiary, a third person), the default rule is that a departing trustee's misdeeds can cause the new trustee to be liable. The idea is that the new trustee has an incentive to find out about the departing trustees misdeeds. In practice, the new trustee just gets sued for something with which he had nothing to do.
In a more casual situation, it would be as if a wife were imprisoned for her husband's theft of their neighbor's house. It would be as if a Muslim woman were stoned to death by her family because her neighbor raped her. Neither woman should be punished for the male criminal's actions.
This is an apt equivalence in Clinton and the Democrats blaming Bush for failing to stop 9-11. The Clinton Administration does not cease being responsible for its misdeeds on January 20, 2001, because someone else swore an oath.
The greatest myth in Washington is that a person should be held responsible for all that happens during their watch. That works well if you are standing on a castle wall, watching your enemy's bonfires outside of archery range. It does not work in civil, legal, or bureaucratic situation.
I would have less complaint about this problem if a Constitutional Amendment were passed allowing the President-Elect to submit his Cabinet and subcabinet to the Congress-elect the day after the Electoral College meets -- or even better on January 4th. The Amendment would further give Congress 30 days to review and accept-or-reject. A failure to reject would constitute an approval. That would give the new administration the ability to take control over the bureaucracies in practice by April or May.
As it is, the Cabinet is not in place until summer and does not start exercising real control until autumn with policy consequences starting in full swing until nearly Christmas.
An administration dealing with the Crisis-du-jour has more immediate control: a Ruby Ridge or Waco is clearly within the new administration's control sooner. The control is more of a minor, unit-level logistic and wholly tactical nature.
But what of control of strategy and systemic logistics? These take time and interaction with Congress to implement. How can an administration that must submit a new strategy to Congress be responsible for an action or misfeasance unless and until the whole oversight or legislative process is attempted?
Once we see that Clinton and his supporters are merely replicating the fallacy of the stoning the rape victim, there is little to make of his teenagerish anger except a show for his peers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)