Tuesday
Sunday
New Gridiron Hero--Chris Kluwe
Okay, one of the more hilarious and incisive letters on the subject of gay marriage.
This from Chris Kluwe--punter for the Vikings:
This from Chris Kluwe--punter for the Vikings:
And yes, it just begs to be re-published in it's entirety...
Baltimore Ravens linebacker Brendon Ayanbadejo has spoken out in favor of a Maryland ballot initiative that would legalize gay marriage. Yahoo has published a letter that Maryland state delegate Emmett C. Burns Jr. wrote last week to Ravens owner Steve Bisciotti, urging him to "inhibit such expressions from your employee." This is Minnesota Vikings punter Chris Kluwe's response to Burns.
Dear Emmett C. Burns Jr.,
I find it inconceivable that you are an elected official of Maryland's state government. Your vitriolic hatred and bigotry make me ashamed and disgusted to think that you are in any way responsible for shaping policy at any level. The views you espouse neglect to consider several fundamental key points, which I will outline in great detail (you may want to hire an intern to help you with the longer words):
1. As I suspect you have not read the Constitution, I would like to remind you that the very first, the VERY FIRST Amendment in this founding document deals with the freedom of speech, particularly the abridgment of said freedom. By using your position as an elected official (when referring to your constituents so as to implicitly threaten the Ravens organization) to state that the Ravens should "inhibit such expressions from your employees," more specifically Brendon Ayanbadejo, not only are you clearly violating the First Amendment, you also come across as a narcissistic fromunda stain. What on earth would possess you to be so mind-boggingly stupid? It baffles me that a man such as yourself, a man who relies on that same First Amendment to pursue your own religious studies without fear of persecution from the state, could somehow justify stifling another person's right to speech. To call that hypocritical would be to do a disservice to the word. Mindfucking obscenely hypocritical starts to approach it a little bit.
2. "Many of your fans are opposed to such a view and feel it has no place in a sport that is strictly for pride, entertainment, and excitement." Holy fucking shitballs. Did you seriously just say that, as someone who's "deeply involved in government task forces on the legacy of slavery in Maryland"? Have you not heard of Kenny Washington? Jackie Robinson? As recently as 1962 the NFL still had segregation, which was only done away with by brave athletes and coaches daring to speak their mind and do the right thing, and you're going to say that political views have "no place in a sport"? I can't even begin to fathom the cognitive dissonance that must be coursing through your rapidly addled mind right now; the mental gymnastics your brain has to tortuously contort itself through to make such a preposterous statement are surely worthy of an Olympic gold medal (the Russian judge gives you a 10 for "beautiful oppressionism").
3. This is more a personal quibble of mine, but why do you hate freedom? Why do you hate the fact that other people want a chance to live their lives and be happy, even though they may believe in something different than you, or act different than you? How does gay marriage, in any way shape or form, affect your life? If gay marriage becomes legal, are you worried that all of a sudden you'll start thinking about penis? "Oh shit. Gay marriage just passed. Gotta get me some of that hot dong action!" Will all of your friends suddenly turn gay and refuse to come to your Sunday Ticket grill-outs? (Unlikely, since gay people enjoy watching football too.)
I can assure you that gay people getting married will have zero effect on your life. They won't come into your house and steal your children. They won't magically turn you into a lustful cockmonster. They won't even overthrow the government in an orgy of hedonistic debauchery because all of a sudden they have the same legal rights as the other 90 percent of our population—rights like Social Security benefits, child care tax credits, Family and Medical Leave to take care of loved ones, and COBRA healthcare for spouses and children. You know what having these rights will make gays? Full-fledged American citizens just like everyone else, with the freedom to pursue happiness and all that entails. Do the civil-rights struggles of the past 200 years mean absolutely nothing to you?
In closing, I would like to say that I hope this letter, in some small way, causes you to reflect upon the magnitude of the colossal foot in mouth clusterfuck you so brazenly unleashed on a man whose only crime was speaking out for something he believed in. Best of luck in the next election; I'm fairly certain you might need it.
Sincerely,
Chris Kluwe
Chris Kluwe
P.S. I've also been vocal as hell about the issue of gay marriage so you can take your "I know of no other NFL player who has done what Mr. Ayanbadejo is doing" and shove it in your close-minded, totally lacking in empathy piehole and choke on it. Asshole.
Monday
Jet Skier Breaches $100 Million Security System at JFK
I love this:
Media reports said Casillo had been stranded in the waters of Jamaica Bay after he was separated from a group of friends and his jet ski failed him. He swam several miles to the airport, located in Jamaica Bay in New York City's borough of Queens, the New York Post reported.
Casillo, who the agency said was charged with criminal trespass, would have walked past motion sensors and closed-circuit cameras that make up the airport's state-of-the art, Perimeter Intrusion Detection System. The system is valued at about $100 million, according to the Port Authority.
He entered one of the airport terminals where an airport worker alerted authorities.
OUR BAIL BILL PASSES!!
Yay us.
As the WSJ reports: "According to the lawmakers, their bill was based on a pilot project where the Bronx Freedom Fund was established and posted similar bails for three years. The result was 95 percent returned for every court date and half the cases were dismissed or otherwise resulted in no convictions."
And yes, I remain (proudly) on the board of The Bronx Freedom Fund.
Thanks to Phil Boyle, and Sen. Rivera who have been our champions on this.
Here's a link to the WSJ piece...
Friday
The more things change the more they stay the same...
I was just realizing it's been almost exactly 10 years since I wrote this piece for the NYT, and here we are again, 10 years later, with California on the cusp of a big push to substitute passive death for active death. Meanwhile, three strikes, endemic overcrowding,Draconian sentencing policies and racist enforcement practices remain rampant. Change takes time, of course, but it's a touch depressing how much...
FATAL FLAWS IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
(From May of 2002)
Last week an Illinois state commission charged with examining the fairness of the death penalty released its findings. The commission, composed of 14 prominent citizens -- including nine present or former prosecutors -- recommended more than 80 changes designed to ensure that the death penalty is administered in a just fashion. A slight majority of the commission also declared themselves in favor of abolishing the death penalty entirely.
These recommendations say a lot about the criminal justice system -- the whole system, not just capital punishment. The death penalty has always galvanized public sentiment. And just as horrific crimes have brought cries for justice through death, so the exoneration of death row inmates has become a rallying point for opponents of capital punishment.
But from inside the criminal justice system, the whole debate about the death penalty can sometimes seem like a distraction. The reality is that for every person on death row, there are many more who will die before completing their sentences. They will die alone in their cells or in the prison yard. They will die from jailhouse violence or natural causes hastened by stressful conditions and substandard medical care.
The main causes of these virtual death sentences are three-strikes laws and mandatory minimum sentencing. Because of them, more and more people receive prison terms of 20 or 30 years or life with no chance of parole. In California, there are inmates serving life sentences for petty theft, receiving stolen property or possession of marijuana for sale. All over this country governments are spending more and more money on aging inmates -- creating entire geriatric wards for prisoners no longer able to walk or talk, let alone maim or kill.
Long sentences are not rare. The next case I am likely to take to trial carries a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years to life. Why? Because my client is charged with possessing more than four ounces of cocaine. Just about every public defender I know has a horror story about a client who was the victim of a long mandatory sentence. Almost no one else remembers these prisoners. They do not face the needle or the electric chair, so there is no debate about them.
Because of the complexity and the potential punishment, defendants in death penalty cases are in some jurisdictions afforded better than average lawyers and greater than average resources. Many appellate courts look more closely at a case when the defendant has been sentenced to die. And yet we still make mistakes -- not a few, but many. In Illinois, there were more innocent death row inmates exonerated than guilty ones put to death. There is no reason to think the error rate is any lower in cases that receive less scrutiny.
For all its thoughtful recommendations and groundbreaking work, the Illinois commission runs the risk of focusing too much attention on a small number of cases while ignoring the same problems in the broader criminal justice system. Mandatory sentencing and the continued politicization of criminal-justice issues make it ever harder for defendants, especially poor ones, to get a fair shake. And as we continue to lock people up longer, faster and with fewer safeguards, we run an ever greater risk that justice is routinely not being served.
Thursday
Monday
Monday
Avoid Chase Credit Cards!
Astonishing as it may seem according to a TECHNICAL SUPPORT SUPERVISOR there is NO WAY to download a year's worth of credit card activity on a Chase-issued card. They only make 90 days worth of statements available.
HOW FREAKING STUPID IS THAT?
Makes them useless at tax time and useless for any accounting purposes.
HOW FREAKING STUPID IS THAT?
Makes them useless at tax time and useless for any accounting purposes.
Wednesday
Nasty Georgia Judge Accused of Misconduct Will FINALLY Resign...
The Honorable Amanda Mc. Nasty Williams
Judge Amanda F. Williams was so nasty she once jailed a defendant for using the words baby momma, oh yeah she also detained offenders “indefinitely” without access to lawyers, Well now she's OUTTA HERE...
According to the commission’s 14-count list of charges against her, she sentenced drug-court defendants to “indefinite” detention “until further order of the court.” In one case, she ordered that a defendant be denied any communication.
“Nobody! Total restriction!” she ordered, according to the complaint. “No mail, no phone calls, no visitors.” The complaint says the defendant, who had a history of mental illness, spent 73 days in solitary confinement and tried to kill herself while in jail.
Thursday
Prosecutor fighting charge of rape - SFGate
How much do you love a prosecutor who allegedly rapes a woman while waiting for a jury in a molestation case? Seriously!
This from California:
As Michael Gressett waited for a jury verdict in a molestation trial, the Contra Costa County sex crimes prosecutor had what he called a "nooner," bringing a fellow prosecutor to his Martinez home for intercourse.
What happened next, on May 8, 2008, is the subject of an explosive rape case brought by the state attorney general. It involves a gun and an ice pick, but rests on a simple question that Gressett often asks juries to decide: Was the sex consensual or forced?
This from California:
As Michael Gressett waited for a jury verdict in a molestation trial, the Contra Costa County sex crimes prosecutor had what he called a "nooner," bringing a fellow prosecutor to his Martinez home for intercourse.
What happened next, on May 8, 2008, is the subject of an explosive rape case brought by the state attorney general. It involves a gun and an ice pick, but rests on a simple question that Gressett often asks juries to decide: Was the sex consensual or forced?
Tuesday
Firm stuff...
This from MIPCOM 2011:
The head of the Moralto crime family is dead, 10 years have passed since the denoument of The Firm, and Mitchell McDeere and his family have spent it in the wilderness of the witness protection program. Now they want to rejoin the real world.
The head of the Moralto crime family is dead, 10 years have passed since the denoument of The Firm, and Mitchell McDeere and his family have spent it in the wilderness of the witness protection program. Now they want to rejoin the real world.
Monday
Kids v. Corporations..
This fine op-ed is worth a read. Here's the basic idea:
Throughout history, societies have struggled with how to deal with children and childhood. In the United States and elsewhere, a broad-based “child saving” movement emerged in the late 19th century to combat widespread child abuse in mines, mills and factories. By the early 20th century, the “century of the child,” as a prescient book published in 1909 called it, was in full throttle. Most modern states embraced the general idea that government had a duty to protect the health, education and welfare of children. Child labor was outlawed, as were the sale and marketing of tobacco, alcohol and pornography to children. Consumer protection laws were enacted to regulate product safety and advertising aimed at children.
By the middle of the century, childhood was a robustly protected legal category. In 1959, the United Nations issued its Declaration of the Rights of the Child. Children were now legal persons; the “best interests of the child” became a touchstone for legal reform.
But the 20th century also witnessed another momentous shift, one that would ultimately threaten the welfare of children: the rise of the for-profit corporation. Lawyers, policy makers and business lobbied successfully for various rights and entitlements traditionally connected, legally, with personhood. New laws recognized corporations as legal — albeit artificial — “persons,” granting them many of the same legal rights and privileges as human beings. In an eerie parallel with the child-protective efforts, “the best interests of the corporation” was soon introduced as a legal precept.
A clash between these two newly created legal entities — children and corporations — was, perhaps, inevitable. Century-of-the-child reformers sought to resolve conflicts in favor of children. But over the last 30 years there has been a dramatic reversal: corporate interests now prevail. Deregulation, privatization, weak enforcement of existing regulations and legal and political resistance to new regulations have eroded our ability, as a society, to protect children.
Childhood obesity mounts as junk food purveyors bombard children with advertising, even at school. A recent Kaiser Family Foundation study reports that children spend more hours engaging with various electronic media — TV, games, videos and other online entertainments — than they spend in school. Much of what children watch involves violent, sexual imagery, and yet children’s media remain largely unregulated. Attempts to curb excesses — like California’s ban on the sale or rental of violent video games to minors — have been struck down by courts as free speech violations.
Nelson Mandela has said, “there can be no keener revelation of a society’s soul than the way in which it treats its children.” By that measure, our current failure to provide stronger protection of children in the face of corporate-caused harm reveals a sickness in our societal soul. The good news is that we can — and should — work as citizens, through democratic channels and institutions, to bring about change.
Throughout history, societies have struggled with how to deal with children and childhood. In the United States and elsewhere, a broad-based “child saving” movement emerged in the late 19th century to combat widespread child abuse in mines, mills and factories. By the early 20th century, the “century of the child,” as a prescient book published in 1909 called it, was in full throttle. Most modern states embraced the general idea that government had a duty to protect the health, education and welfare of children. Child labor was outlawed, as were the sale and marketing of tobacco, alcohol and pornography to children. Consumer protection laws were enacted to regulate product safety and advertising aimed at children.
By the middle of the century, childhood was a robustly protected legal category. In 1959, the United Nations issued its Declaration of the Rights of the Child. Children were now legal persons; the “best interests of the child” became a touchstone for legal reform.
But the 20th century also witnessed another momentous shift, one that would ultimately threaten the welfare of children: the rise of the for-profit corporation. Lawyers, policy makers and business lobbied successfully for various rights and entitlements traditionally connected, legally, with personhood. New laws recognized corporations as legal — albeit artificial — “persons,” granting them many of the same legal rights and privileges as human beings. In an eerie parallel with the child-protective efforts, “the best interests of the corporation” was soon introduced as a legal precept.
A clash between these two newly created legal entities — children and corporations — was, perhaps, inevitable. Century-of-the-child reformers sought to resolve conflicts in favor of children. But over the last 30 years there has been a dramatic reversal: corporate interests now prevail. Deregulation, privatization, weak enforcement of existing regulations and legal and political resistance to new regulations have eroded our ability, as a society, to protect children.
Childhood obesity mounts as junk food purveyors bombard children with advertising, even at school. A recent Kaiser Family Foundation study reports that children spend more hours engaging with various electronic media — TV, games, videos and other online entertainments — than they spend in school. Much of what children watch involves violent, sexual imagery, and yet children’s media remain largely unregulated. Attempts to curb excesses — like California’s ban on the sale or rental of violent video games to minors — have been struck down by courts as free speech violations.
Nelson Mandela has said, “there can be no keener revelation of a society’s soul than the way in which it treats its children.” By that measure, our current failure to provide stronger protection of children in the face of corporate-caused harm reveals a sickness in our societal soul. The good news is that we can — and should — work as citizens, through democratic channels and institutions, to bring about change.
Final Draft Sucks...
Don't think I've ever dealt with such a buggy, crappy program--particularly one that is so critical to the process it's designed for. The current snafu: Collabowriter -- a terrific feature in theory, and a useless one in practice. Leaving aside that connecting works about once ever dozen tries and that crashes are commonplace, my favorite new issue: Though both parties are using FD8, we can't collabowrite because we didn't have the same version. Ok, I had 8.01 and she had 8.02. So I had to go through the idiotic process of upgrading, which then requires yet another call to tech support to ACTIVATE all over again. And I suppose if that were it and all was solved, it'd be annoying but forgivable. But of course that doesn't fix the problem because now we don't have the same BUILD number. Are you kidding me? The builds were released two weeks apart.
Every experience I've ever had with this company has been a bad one (which seems odd given that they're in a tiny niche market.)
If only Google would assign a few of their techies to create a decent script writing program and put them out of business...
Tax Me! Says Warren Buffett
What a phenomenal piece
"Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.
If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine — most likely by a lot."
Wednesday
Juliette Joins Us...
Here's how deadline: covered it:
Juliette Lewis has signed on to star in NBC's midseason series The Firm, which stars Josh Lucas in the legal drama based on the film adaptation of the John Grisham novel that had Tom Cruise in the lead role of young lawyer Mitch McDeere. Lewis will play Tammy, the sassy secretary to Lucas' McDeere that was played by Holly Hunter in the movie (she was nominated for a Best Supporting Actress Oscar for that role).
Tuesday
Casting news...
"Callum Keith Rennie has been booked as a series regular on NBC's midseason drama The Firm opposite Josh Lucas and Juliette Lewis. He will play Ray McDeere, the older brother to Mitch (Lucas).
Wednesday
Here's our star...
Josh Lucas To Star In NBC’s ‘The Firm’
Meet television's Mitchell McDeere. Josh Lucas is in final negotiations to play the lead in NBC's midseason drama The Firm, based on the hit Paramount feature starring Tom Cruise as McDeere and on John Grisham's best-selling novel.
Meet television's Mitchell McDeere. Josh Lucas is in final negotiations to play the lead in NBC's midseason drama The Firm, based on the hit Paramount feature starring Tom Cruise as McDeere and on John Grisham's best-selling novel.
Tuesday
Wednesday
Monday
Tuesday
Told You! Don't Give to the Kid's Wish Network!
Once again, Kids Wish Network got ONE STAR from CharityNavigator.org Their efficiency rating was ZERO.
Here's the more recent financial information:
As reader's know, ever since they rudely woke me up one morning to demand money, I've been following this "Charity" which really just seems like a front for the president and the relatives he employs all of whom take home near six figure salaries.
Check out my previous post on this subject HERE
Here's the more recent financial information:
As reader's know, ever since they rudely woke me up one morning to demand money, I've been following this "Charity" which really just seems like a front for the president and the relatives he employs all of whom take home near six figure salaries.
Check out my previous post on this subject HERE
DON'T TRUST Red Line Auto Trans Inc, Chicago Trucking Company, Illinois Freight Shipping Carrier
These guys -- Red Line Auto Trans Inc, Chicago totally ripped me off.
This was a nightmare from start to finish.
They damaged my car which I promptly noted on the bill of lading. Then they asked me to get estimates and promised to make it right. They didn't. They avoided returning my calls, and have spent 8 months giving me the run-around.
DO NOT USE THIS COMPANY UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.
THEY LIED TO ME, AND DID EVERYTHING THEY COULD TO AVOID RESPONSIBILITY.
I have shipped my car across the country three times- this was the only time it was a problem.
Feel free to contact me if you want more information.
Here's their info: MY ADVICE:
DON"T LET THEM SHIP YOUR CAR!
5721 N KIMBALL AVE SUITE A
CHICAGO, IL 60659
USDOT: 1977714
This was a nightmare from start to finish.
They damaged my car which I promptly noted on the bill of lading. Then they asked me to get estimates and promised to make it right. They didn't. They avoided returning my calls, and have spent 8 months giving me the run-around.
DO NOT USE THIS COMPANY UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.
THEY LIED TO ME, AND DID EVERYTHING THEY COULD TO AVOID RESPONSIBILITY.
I have shipped my car across the country three times- this was the only time it was a problem.
Feel free to contact me if you want more information.
Here's their info: MY ADVICE:
DON"T LET THEM SHIP YOUR CAR!
5721 N KIMBALL AVE SUITE A
CHICAGO, IL 60659
USDOT: 1977714
Monday
For Poor Defendants, a Flawed Bail-Bond System
A fine piece of work by the NYT whose criminal justice coverage has improved significantly recently.
For Poor, Bail System Can Be an Obstacle to Freedom
Before George Zouvelos agrees to post someone’s bail, a customer must put up cash, sign a 20-page contract and initial 86 separate paragraphs. Those paragraphs are chock-full of fees: $250 if the defendant misses a weekly check-in; as much as $375 an hour for obscure tasks like bail consulting and research; and unspecified amounts if Mr. Zouvelos, a bail bondsman based in Manhattan, farms out tasks like obtaining court documents or delivering release papers to jail.
Then there are the thousands of dollars that Mr. Zouvelos can charge if he decides to revoke a bond and return a defendant to jail, as he did 89 times during a four-month period last year.
The common perception of how the bail-bond system operates is fairly straightforward: A bondsman bails a defendant out of jail. If that defendant misses a court appearance, the bondsman can “surrender” him — chase him down and haul him back to jail.
The reality is more troubling... Those who are supposed to give poor defendants a shot at freedom while their cases are pending are instead the ones locking them up and disenfranchising them further.
For Poor, Bail System Can Be an Obstacle to Freedom
Before George Zouvelos agrees to post someone’s bail, a customer must put up cash, sign a 20-page contract and initial 86 separate paragraphs. Those paragraphs are chock-full of fees: $250 if the defendant misses a weekly check-in; as much as $375 an hour for obscure tasks like bail consulting and research; and unspecified amounts if Mr. Zouvelos, a bail bondsman based in Manhattan, farms out tasks like obtaining court documents or delivering release papers to jail.
Then there are the thousands of dollars that Mr. Zouvelos can charge if he decides to revoke a bond and return a defendant to jail, as he did 89 times during a four-month period last year.
The common perception of how the bail-bond system operates is fairly straightforward: A bondsman bails a defendant out of jail. If that defendant misses a court appearance, the bondsman can “surrender” him — chase him down and haul him back to jail.
The reality is more troubling... Those who are supposed to give poor defendants a shot at freedom while their cases are pending are instead the ones locking them up and disenfranchising them further.
Saturday
Palin Targeted Giffords
Check this out.
Yep--she was on a list of SarahPac's "targets" marked with a gunsight..
Yep--she was on a list of SarahPac's "targets" marked with a gunsight..
Friday
They Just Make S%$t up: Republicans Reject Cost Estimate of Health Law Repeal
I just love this:
The nonpartisan budget scorekeepers in Congress said on Thursday that the Republican plan to repeal President Obama’s health care law would add $230 billion to federal budget deficits over the next decade.
The new Speaker's response?:
“I do not believe that repealing the job-killing health care law will increase the deficit,” he said.
“C.B.O. is entitled to their opinion,” he said, but he said Democrats had manipulated the rules established for determining the cost of a program under the 1974 Budget Act.
Classic: Republican "belief" vs actual analysis.
“C.B.O. can only provide a score based on the assumptions that are given to them,” Mr. Boehner said. “And if you go back and look at the health care bill and the assumptions that were given to them, you see all of the double-counting that went on.”
But the analysis released by the budget office on Thursday was based on the health care repeal bill that House Republicans introduced on Wednesday. And it highlighted the difficult position that Republicans are in as they try to address what they insist are the top two priorities of voters who elected them in November: cutting the deficit and undoing the health care law.
According to the budget office, those goals are contradictory.
Oops.
Oh and they forgot the slave bit of the constitution yesterday...
The nonpartisan budget scorekeepers in Congress said on Thursday that the Republican plan to repeal President Obama’s health care law would add $230 billion to federal budget deficits over the next decade.
The new Speaker's response?:
“I do not believe that repealing the job-killing health care law will increase the deficit,” he said.
“C.B.O. is entitled to their opinion,” he said, but he said Democrats had manipulated the rules established for determining the cost of a program under the 1974 Budget Act.
Classic: Republican "belief" vs actual analysis.
“C.B.O. can only provide a score based on the assumptions that are given to them,” Mr. Boehner said. “And if you go back and look at the health care bill and the assumptions that were given to them, you see all of the double-counting that went on.”
But the analysis released by the budget office on Thursday was based on the health care repeal bill that House Republicans introduced on Wednesday. And it highlighted the difficult position that Republicans are in as they try to address what they insist are the top two priorities of voters who elected them in November: cutting the deficit and undoing the health care law.
According to the budget office, those goals are contradictory.
Oops.
Oh and they forgot the slave bit of the constitution yesterday...
Thursday
A friend of mine sent this to me...
I have to say I was stunned when a friend of mine sent this to me:
It's by some guy named Porter Stansburry, and it is the sort of tripe that circulates among republicans:
This is why there are no jobs in America
I'd like to make you a business offer. Seriously. This is a real offer. In fact, you really can't turn me down, as you'll come to understand in a moment...
Here's the deal. You're going to start a business or expand the one you've got now. It doesn't really matter what you do or what you're going to do. I'll partner with you no matter what business you're in – as long as it's legal. But I can't give you any capital – you have to come up with that on your own. I won't give you any labor – that's definitely up to you. What I will do, however, is demand you follow all sorts of rules about what products and services you can offer, how much (and how often) you pay your employees, and where and when you're allowed to operate your business. That's my role in the affair: to tell you what to do.
Now in return for my rules, I'm going to take roughly half of whatever you make in the business each year. Half seems fair, doesn't it? I think so. Of course, that's half of your profits. You're also going to have to pay me about 12 percent of whatever you decide to pay your employees because you've got to cover my expenses for promulgating all of the rules about who you can employ, when, where, and how. Come on, you're my partner. It's only "fair."
Now ... after you've put your hard-earned savings at risk to start this business, and after you've worked hard at it for a few decades (paying me my 50 percent or a bit more along the way each year), you might decide you'd like to cash out – to finally live the good life. I know, I know. You put up all the original capital. You took all the risks. You put in all of the labor. That's all true. But I've done my part, too. I've collected 50 percent of the profits each year. And I've always come up with more rules for you to follow each year. Therefore, I deserve another, final 20 percent slice of the business.
So here's my reply to my friend:
I've got a great business proposition for you:
You can start whatever business you like, and keep 100 percent of what you make. Only thing is, if someone screws you on a deal, you don't get to run to the courts, see, 'cause there aren't any. If you want to deliver something to market, you don't get to use my roads. Or my water. If your factory burns down, better call your own folks though where they'll get the water, I'm not sure, but hey--no worries. Also, might need some folks to dig a latrine. Shit begins to stink when it's not burried, and all that sewer stuff--that's for all my other partners. Oh yeah, and when the "Businessman" next door--you know "bubba the ballbreaker" comes and very sweetly asks for your safe...you're on your own pal. Hope you're good with that shotgun. Go forth prosper.
It's by some guy named Porter Stansburry, and it is the sort of tripe that circulates among republicans:
This is why there are no jobs in America
I'd like to make you a business offer. Seriously. This is a real offer. In fact, you really can't turn me down, as you'll come to understand in a moment...
Here's the deal. You're going to start a business or expand the one you've got now. It doesn't really matter what you do or what you're going to do. I'll partner with you no matter what business you're in – as long as it's legal. But I can't give you any capital – you have to come up with that on your own. I won't give you any labor – that's definitely up to you. What I will do, however, is demand you follow all sorts of rules about what products and services you can offer, how much (and how often) you pay your employees, and where and when you're allowed to operate your business. That's my role in the affair: to tell you what to do.
Now in return for my rules, I'm going to take roughly half of whatever you make in the business each year. Half seems fair, doesn't it? I think so. Of course, that's half of your profits. You're also going to have to pay me about 12 percent of whatever you decide to pay your employees because you've got to cover my expenses for promulgating all of the rules about who you can employ, when, where, and how. Come on, you're my partner. It's only "fair."
Now ... after you've put your hard-earned savings at risk to start this business, and after you've worked hard at it for a few decades (paying me my 50 percent or a bit more along the way each year), you might decide you'd like to cash out – to finally live the good life. I know, I know. You put up all the original capital. You took all the risks. You put in all of the labor. That's all true. But I've done my part, too. I've collected 50 percent of the profits each year. And I've always come up with more rules for you to follow each year. Therefore, I deserve another, final 20 percent slice of the business.
So here's my reply to my friend:
I've got a great business proposition for you:
You can start whatever business you like, and keep 100 percent of what you make. Only thing is, if someone screws you on a deal, you don't get to run to the courts, see, 'cause there aren't any. If you want to deliver something to market, you don't get to use my roads. Or my water. If your factory burns down, better call your own folks though where they'll get the water, I'm not sure, but hey--no worries. Also, might need some folks to dig a latrine. Shit begins to stink when it's not burried, and all that sewer stuff--that's for all my other partners. Oh yeah, and when the "Businessman" next door--you know "bubba the ballbreaker" comes and very sweetly asks for your safe...you're on your own pal. Hope you're good with that shotgun. Go forth prosper.
Friday
Fun with tilt shift...
Totally off topic, but just found a cool site which will employ the principles of tilt-shift photography to your own photos. You can find it here
Here's an old photo of mine of Christo and Jeanne-Claude's installation here in NY.
Here's an old photo of mine of Christo and Jeanne-Claude's installation here in NY.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
my controversial book about a day in my life as Public Defender in the South Bronx is finally available for Kindle and Ipad.
