"THE DEMOCRATS are right. There is a class of Americans that doesn't pay its fair share, or anything approaching its fair share, of federal taxes. And now that group is about to get another tax break, thanks to President Bush's proposed stimulus package.
But the Democrats are wrong as to who that group is. The group that doesn't pay close to its fair share is the bottom half of American workers who collectively paid less than 4 percent of federal income taxes in 2000."
This has already been discussed ad nauseum, and frankly I tire of hearing of it, so I won't be sitting around blogging or chatting about it. However, I do plan to take action! I have narrowed my choices for my next vehicle down to the following: Hummer or Escalade ESV. I also plan to be a particularly obnoxious driver of whichever of these I purchase. I am known to be incapable of piloting large vehicles, so this, coupled with my appallingly bad attitude, should make me a force to be reckoned with on the road. And perhaps even off the road, who knows! Anyone who dares cross my path will be summarily run over. Anyone piloting a particularly offensive little fuel-efficient death trap with tricycle tires will be run over, then doused with some of the supply of used motor oil that I'll be carrying in my large vehicle at all times.
You have been warned!
I found this story on obscurestore.com, a collection of interesting news articles from a wide variety of news sources and one of the sites I visit most often.
These 3 paragraphs pretty much sum it up:
Stephen Thomas Manley Jr. of Boonsville told officers that he was southbound on Farm Road 920, with Lundin following closely, when Manley tapped the brakes of his 2000 Dodge to indicate that the trailing motorist needed to back off. That apparently enraged Lundin, Smith said.
Lundin passed Manley, pulled in front of him and suddenly stopped in the road, the DPS said. Manley was forced to halt abruptly, coming within a few inches of Lundin's rear bumper.
Manley rolled down his window, and Lundin attacked the other motorist's car and threw a rock at him, officers said. Manley wasn't seriously injured.
Meanwhile, Welch was northbound on Farm Road 920 when he crested a hill and hit Lundin, who was still outside his car. Welch couldn't take evasive action, Smith said. Lundin's body went through Welch's windshield before it was thrown into the roadway, police said.
So this 20-year old food service worker was in such a hurry to get somewhere that he needed to ride someone's bumper, but had adequate spare time to STOP his car in the middle of the road to terrorize someone who had the nerve to (gasp!) touch their brake pedal?
James Millard Welch Jr., a 54-year-old contractor and driver of the third car, was not charged in Lundin's death, the DPS said.
Of course he wasn't charged. Nor should he be. If by chance Mr. Lundin had life insurance, Mr. Welch should get a check covering the damage done to his vehicle.
Monday, January 06, 2003 Supply, Demand, and the innate ability of the oily ones to misunderstand simple concepts
(To clarify, "oily ones" is my term for the anointed as defined here and which are further expounded on in this book, which I highly recommend reading.)
I must preface by saying that this article is very, very disturbing to me. I would even say unsettling. I have long operated under the assumption that many of the people in this world are unabashedly stupid, and I thought I was okay with that, but it would appear that I have underestimated the stupidity and that it does bother me.
My first question is "why is this dude writing about business matters?" But that will have to go unanswered.
U.S. airlines, desperate for travelers and their dollars, have launched 2003 with fare sales, leaving many to wonder just how an industry begging for financial help can afford to sell tickets at a discount.
Since airlines are "desperate for travelers and their dollars," I will conclude that perhaps airlines are not selling as many tickets as they would like to (ie, that the airlines are desperate for travelers and their dollars). Due to the nature of planes, a plane will cost only marginally more to fly completely full than it would cost with only one passenger aboard. Hence, it behooves the airlines to have as many people on each flight as possible, paying the highest fare they are willing to pay. When flights are not full, the airlines have some options, including:
1. raise the price of tickets
2. lower the price of tickets
3. cancel the flight
Of course, there are other options, such as lowering operating costs (which is, for all practical purposes, impossible) or try to increase revenue via peripheral means, such as drink sales, etc. (not likely to help much).
So, are these "many" people advocating options 1 or 3? I always thought that the idea was to maximize profits. If that can't be done, the next best thing was to minimize losses. This would seem to lead to the conclusion that it's better to sell tickets at a lower price than to not sell them at all. Or perhaps not:
"We've been scratching our head for a long time," said Terry Trippler, an airline consultant in Minneapolis. "You're broke, you're cutting back on capacity and now you're having a sale? You're going to the government, losing all this money and now you are giving away seats? It makes it difficult to generate a whole lot of sympathy."
Last time I checked, having discounts is not the same as "giving away" and I've yet to see a "free" listed as the price of an airline ticket anywhere on the internet. But despite the factual errors, the excerpt above is actually a useful statement. It tells me that airlines are not in the business of trying to generate revenue, but in the business of trying to generate sympathy. This actually explains some things. Also, I've decided to look into becoming an "airline consultant" since I have no skills, and apparently no skills are required.
Increasingly, airlines are betting that a seat sold at a discount is better than an empty seat, and any bit of cash will help offset their significant fixed expenses.
This is in the article, but the rest of the article ignores it.
All in all, this article provides a fascinating look into the utter emptiness that is the mind of so many journalists.....
A crappy beginning to what will hopefully turn out to be a non-crappy week. I noticed about mid-day yesterday that I was getting sick, and it appears that I was quite correct. However, being sick is not on the agenda. Today I will take it easy, but if I'm not better tomorrow, I will begin a highly aggressive get-well program, which will not be pretty. Body, you have been warned...
I believe this article was sent to me in the belief that it would cause me to get riled up, which I suppose is a far from irrational belief. However, I find it quite convenient to have a numbered, concise list of various commie-libs and their commie-liberal babble. I highly recommend checking it out:
As usual, most of the articles at sfgate.com are in need of clarification (on this blog, by me), but due to the (typically) high volume of stupidity there, I am having difficulty deciding which is in the greatest need. So more on that later. Had I a lick of sense, I would have resolved at year's beginning to stop subjecting myself to that mindless drivel, but for some reason I feel compelled to visit that dastardly site a few times a week. But alas.
12:22 PM
