Check here for some awesome 360º panoramas from Death Valley plus a few highlights from today’s Orange & White game.
PS - Death Valley looks a “hellUVA” lot better than Scott Stadium where the grass is mostly brown and a good portion of the lower deck is being replaced for being worthless structurally unsound. Pictures will be forthcomoing as I’m able.
PPS - Has Clem gone on a bender? He sure looks awful happy.
I’ve got a few dollars burning a hole in my 0.1% return savings account. So the thought of starting an IRA and making my retirement a bit more comfortable has seemed like a great idea lately.
Now might be a good time.
Wall Street suffered its worst single day in nearly two years Friday, with the Dow Jones industrial average falling 191 points for its third straight triple-digit loss. Deepening concerns over economic growth and higher prices led to the worst week of trading since August.An already uneasy market began the biggest one-day selloff since May 19, 2003, after the Federal Reserve reported drops in manufacturing and other industrial production, and a Labor Department report showed higher oil costs driving up import prices.
The question, is how deep will this valley be? But, I think I’m about to buy in.
Is it possible to hit rock bottom so hard that you can actually bounce right back up to where you were?
And by the way, when you hit rock bottom and stick, talking about your problems may not help.
Orlando Student Charged With Biting Off Classmate’s Ear
A high school student was arrested for biting off part of a classmate’s ear during a fight that started after he was cut off while driving into the school’s entrance.Jonattan Robles, 18, was charged Wednesday with aggravated battery, aggravated assault and possession of a weapon on school property. The ear of 17-year-old classmate David Roshak was reattached at a hospital.
I don’t know what all the hooplah is about. I’ve actually bit a man’s ear off on several occasions. And I’m not proud of it. But it helped me out of many a jam.
One of my former co-workers from my days at the Olive Garden is a big supporter of Patrick J. Buchanan. He generally leaves PJB quotes in his AIM profile.
In actuality, there are some snippets I agree with. For instance, several weeks ago there were a few paragraphs about what is basically global welfare. While we are getting the national welfare program here into a more reasonable form, we continue to dole out billions of dollars to foreign governments so they can take care of their citizens. PJB is against this. In that aspect I agree. There is enough evidence to suggest that investing in countries is significantly more beneficial than granting hand-outs.
Now ol’ Pat answers the question: Is Protectionism Racism? Apparently Steven Landsburg (of whom I have never heard) wrote in Forbes (which I never read) about “Xenophobia and Politics - Why Protectionism is a Lot Like Racism.” Based on Buchanan’s response, it seems that Landsburg believes that denying jobs to workers in other countries, simply because of their nationality, is much like denying a job to an American based on the color of their skin. In some regard, this makes very much sense. Jobs are being denied to someone who is willing and able due to the circumstances they cannot control.
I hadn’t realized until today, that Pat is a big fan of protectionism. He wants to keep jobs in the country for the sake of keeping existing jobs in the country. This is generally accomplished by tariffing imports to the point at which they foreign producer no longer has a competitive advantage or by heavily subsidizing the American industry. So while people maintain their jobs, the price of goods in America increases. Subsequently, as everything costs more, fewer things are purchased. The net result is lost jobs elsewhere. Unfortunately it is difficult to track job losses in this case. In much the same way, it is challenging to show that jobs are created by letting an industry die due to its loss of competitive advantage.
Apparently, Pat is good at backing up his arguments as Don at Cafe Hayek humbly admitted today. But, new research suggests that one of Pat’s big arguments - that economic growth was achieved in the late 1800’s despite large tarriffs - is erroneous. It seems that while tarriffs increased, the number of tarriffs decreased. As such, the actual amount of revenue decreased.
But Buchanan believes that his protectionism is better described as patriotism. He believes that the betterment of Americans is more important than the betterment of foreigners. While I agree, these concepts are not mutually exclusive.
By denying a foreigner’s competitive advantage, you rob him of a liveliehood. To do so you have to actually spend extra money… think of this as an inefficiency tax. This tax is never collected by the government and is never redistributed as welfare. The consumer is losing money unnecessarily, probably uknowingly, at the government’s mandate.
And not only are you spending money on the extra costs of the good you need, you will be taxed to pay for global welfare. That’s right. Remember that once you take away the advantage of foreigners, they lose wealth that is probably meager to begin with. Without incomes, countries tend to have a tough time doing nice things like feeding the citizens. Of course starving nations ask for handouts through various international channels, which they usually receive.
But Mr. Buchanan, you’re opposed to international handouts. I’m fairly certain, Pat, that your Catholic lifestyle and belief system is opposed to letting people starve. Unfortunately you don’t leave much wiggle room for developing countries to, well, develop.
Due to people like Pat, and that damned Ron Reagan, I’ve nearly completely stopped watching MSNBC. Of course, I only watched because it’s the only cable news channel I receive. No cable news is definitely better than bad cable news. So the next time you see Pat on TV, turn the channel.
Addendum: In his second-to-last paragraph, Buchanan states:
If economics professors are so fanatic about free trade, why not eliminate their tenure and import English-speaking economics professors from India at half the pay? For as Landsburg instructs us, “It is plain ugly to care more” about him than a total stranger.
While this (and the Ward Churchill debacle) does raise an interesting question about the administration of tenure on university campuses, it seems to be a weak argument. It is apparent that qualified foreigners find many positions as university professors. Further, professors’ salary and tenure are determined by the university themselves. If the university is satisfied with the transaction, there is no need to downsize. Further still, a foreign, English-speaking economics professor who is qualified would never accept half the pay of an equally qualified colleague. If they do, they are simply cheating themselves out of mucho dinero. That, by definition, is not a qualified economics professor.
There’s an ugly lesson to be learned here. Conservatives can be idiots, too.
