Friday, December 25, 2009
Saturday, December 19, 2009
So it's come to this: a slight, indirect defense of W.
Friends, poor men, countrymen, lend me your beers! Cause I need to kill off the rest of my braincells after my most recent rage induced aneurysm.
As we all know, the U.S. economy is like a fish flopping on the dock right now. It is gasping and flopping. It isn't dead and gone, though, and, if good catch and release practices are used, it will be swimming once again. However, there is still the possibility it could be carved up for a lovely Chinese dish, too.
And, like in any good political crisis, pundits and office holders on "both sides" are blaming one another. As Obama's time in office drew further away from election day, the memories of the conservatives faded. They could not remember that the crisis started under Bush's reign (of terror.) So, they began treating Obama like the new Hoover, and blaming him and his Democratic allies for the recession. Not being a dullard, I never bought into that. I am ot saying they have done some great job responding to it, but they certainly didn't bring it about, they weren't in office yet.
So, naturally, I took a bit of the "other side's" argument to heart. That being, Bush and the Republicans pushed through too much deregulation which allowed these greedy bankers to cut corners and make unstable investments. It makes sense. Bush is a "free marketer" and the investments at the heart of the collapse were investments that could not have been done under old rules.
Now, I don't know if deregulation caused the recession; I know far too little about economics and the banking system to make that claim. It is a good topic for debate, because there are compelling arguments both ways, and discussing and challenging each other on important issues like that is what we should be doing. What I previously thought was indisputable though, is that it was Bush and the elephants that pushed through deregulation. I am sure they did to some degree, it would fit their M.O.
However, I recently read that under the Clinton administration, working with a Republican majority Congress and some turncoat Dems, repealed the Glass-Steagall Act. The act was designed to keep investment and lending banks separate. I have never liked or trusted Clinton, politically, or Democrats in general. And the less said about Republicans the better. But I at least thought there was some sort of guiding ideology to them. Sure, they both work to screw us all over, but in different ways.
I boil over thing of all the liberals out there bashing Bush ( and Regan) for deregulation when it seems it was there beloved Bill Clinton who took a very important and far reaching step in deregulation. I am sure Bush would have done the same repeal if it hadn't already been done, but he didn't do it. It was Clinton. So, let's bash Bush for the treasonous things we know he did, and stop applying blame to him for everything wrong with us now. That makes him a scapegoat, and we all know who famously used scapegoats.
Oops, thread over.
As we all know, the U.S. economy is like a fish flopping on the dock right now. It is gasping and flopping. It isn't dead and gone, though, and, if good catch and release practices are used, it will be swimming once again. However, there is still the possibility it could be carved up for a lovely Chinese dish, too.
And, like in any good political crisis, pundits and office holders on "both sides" are blaming one another. As Obama's time in office drew further away from election day, the memories of the conservatives faded. They could not remember that the crisis started under Bush's reign (of terror.) So, they began treating Obama like the new Hoover, and blaming him and his Democratic allies for the recession. Not being a dullard, I never bought into that. I am ot saying they have done some great job responding to it, but they certainly didn't bring it about, they weren't in office yet.
So, naturally, I took a bit of the "other side's" argument to heart. That being, Bush and the Republicans pushed through too much deregulation which allowed these greedy bankers to cut corners and make unstable investments. It makes sense. Bush is a "free marketer" and the investments at the heart of the collapse were investments that could not have been done under old rules.
Now, I don't know if deregulation caused the recession; I know far too little about economics and the banking system to make that claim. It is a good topic for debate, because there are compelling arguments both ways, and discussing and challenging each other on important issues like that is what we should be doing. What I previously thought was indisputable though, is that it was Bush and the elephants that pushed through deregulation. I am sure they did to some degree, it would fit their M.O.
However, I recently read that under the Clinton administration, working with a Republican majority Congress and some turncoat Dems, repealed the Glass-Steagall Act. The act was designed to keep investment and lending banks separate. I have never liked or trusted Clinton, politically, or Democrats in general. And the less said about Republicans the better. But I at least thought there was some sort of guiding ideology to them. Sure, they both work to screw us all over, but in different ways.
I boil over thing of all the liberals out there bashing Bush ( and Regan) for deregulation when it seems it was there beloved Bill Clinton who took a very important and far reaching step in deregulation. I am sure Bush would have done the same repeal if it hadn't already been done, but he didn't do it. It was Clinton. So, let's bash Bush for the treasonous things we know he did, and stop applying blame to him for everything wrong with us now. That makes him a scapegoat, and we all know who famously used scapegoats.
Oops, thread over.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Friday, December 11, 2009
Friday, December 04, 2009
Friday, November 27, 2009
Sunday, November 22, 2009
It's For the Childeren

Desert Bus for Hope is going on right now. Its part of the Child's Play charity holiday blitz.
Here at the Fringe Element we blog from Wisconsin and Ohio. I have also noticed that most of our readers come from Texas, or that's where you have your proxies. The point is that Child's Play has partner hospitals everywhere and you can give to whatever local children's hospital is in your area.
Go there and donate now.
Labels:
charity,
gamers,
video games
Friday, November 20, 2009
Friday, November 13, 2009
The Friday Bacon
Labels:
Bacon
Friday, November 06, 2009
Friday, October 30, 2009
Thursday, October 29, 2009
The United States Post Office

I think that the Post Office under charges for first class stamps. I am talking about the regular stamps you use to send a single regular letter, or in most cases a bill.
Here is my reasoning: Once, a few years ago, I was spending an evening with friends and we ordered out for sandwich delivery. Upon looking into my wallet I discovered all I had of any value was $2 in cash and four $0.37 stamps. I announced my cash situation to the group and asked if anyone would cover me. One offered to do so, and because I am the kind of person that does not like being in debt (even for $4, and even knowing I will pay it back tomorrow) I asked my friend if he would accept the stamps as payment of the debt. He asked essentially if the stamps were of the current value saying, "I put one of these on a letter and it will get delivered?" I replied, "Yes," and he agreed. So essentially I exchanged $3.48 in value (plus delay and uncertainty and lack of interest) for a $6 sandwich(plus tip).
The next step in my reasoning is what my father always told me about collectibles but extends as a rule to the entire economy. Something is only worth what you can get someone else to pay for it. The inverse of that principle is best exemplified by Starbucks, which has gotten people to pay ridiculous prices for coffee.
If you stop and think to yourself about what the Post Office actually does and their relation to the reality of communications technology, the Post Office really offers a premium service. If you need to get an original physical document or object to another location, that is a premium service given that it is such a rarity. The problem with that is that it is a rarity and if the Post Office raises their prices too much too fast then they will have fewer customers and those customers will be sending fewer things.
I really think the value of a stamp is somewhere between $1 and $2. What actually charging that value would mean to the operations of the Post Office is another matter. Unless situations like the one I described above start becoming common, where stamps are being exchanged as currency for three times their value, I think it is unlikely we will see large increases in the cost of a first class stamp.
Friday, October 23, 2009
The Friday Bacon
Labels:
Bacon
Friday, October 16, 2009
Friday, October 09, 2009
Friday, October 02, 2009
The Friday Bacon
I am sure you have seen this out on the Log Cabin somewhere. Originally a joke, but the visual design of the product is excellent.
Labels:
Bacon,
Log Cabin,
sex,
teh Internets
Friday, September 25, 2009
Friday, September 18, 2009
Friday, September 11, 2009
The Friday Bacon
The Daily Show used this as a punch line several times. I am not sure why bacon flavored mayo is the perfect example of American gluttony. Especially when we have naked jello wrestling.
Labels:
Bacon
Friday, September 04, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)








