My Truck Still Has Only One Bumpersticker . . .
. . . but I might be persuaded to put this one on the other side:

Found at From My Position, On the Way!
The Smallest Minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities. – Ayn Rand
My Truck Still Has Only One Bumpersticker . . .
. . . but I might be persuaded to put this one on the other side:

Found at From My Position, On the Way!
Why Personal Honor Matters
New Trend In Sacramento: ‘Intentional Foreclosure’
SACRAMENTO (CBS13)
Linda Caoli helps lots of families on the verge of losing their homes, including a single mom working two jobs to pay her mortgage.“She says Linda the house across the street, same model, with more upgrades sold in foreclosure for $315,000!” explains Linda.
Her client isn’t the only one thinking about ditching her house to buy the better deal across the street. A number of realtors CBS13 talked to say it’s already happening.
“Can you imagine if you had a same or similar home and your mortgage was half the price?” asks Linda.
This is how it works. Bob paid $420,000 for his home. Then he notices the house across the street, with more upgrades, and is selling for $315,000.
So Bob, who has pretty good credit, decides to buy the cheaper house. He can’t afford both, so then he walks away from his original home, letting it fall into foreclosure. That will hurt his credit, but he’s willing to take the hit for a more affordable home.
“Is it wrong to steal when you’re hungry? That’s an issue that a lot of people are trying to figure out right now,” says Linda.
Caoli is sympathetic, but she doesn’t endorse the practice of it. Other real estate agents we talked to were far more critical, calling them cheaters. They say the banks take a huge hit when their homes foreclose, and in the end, we all end up paying the price.
I’ve heard of people just walking away from their mortgages when they discover they owe far more than the house is currently worth, but this one is new to me.
There’s a thread at AR15.com on the topic, and here are some of the comments:
The turd here has finally circled the bowl and entered the sewage system.
—
Who cares … the people who continue to play by the rules continue to get the shit end of the stick. If you can find a way to work the system to your advantage, why the hell not?
—
I agree. Being honorable only makes you poor and sticks you paying for the costs of the less scrupulous.
—
I’m not in that situation.
But, I’d be lying if I said I wouldn’t consider it if I was.
I come first. Plain and simple. If I can see a benfit in reducing my bottom line and not fucking myself over, I’m probably going for it.
There is a limit to honor. Especially when illegal aliens get breaks and I don’t.
Anyone who doesn’t see this is a fool.
—
A few months ago I would have said Bob was a piece of shit. Now I see him as smarter than me. The US seems to be on it’s way out as the country that we all know and love. All bets are off in this new country of hope and change.
I concur with the “turd circling the bowl” comment, myself. We’re a far cry now from “I could not love thee, dear, so much, loved I not honor more.”
Who is it that’s going to restore our lost Constitution again?
If you haven’t read it, I will again recommend James Bowman’s Honor: A History, a study of the death of honor in Western culture.
4:10 of Pure Physical Coordination
I just got this by email, and I realize that it was so two years ago, but just DAMN! Turn your sound on.
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8f8drk5Urw&hl=en&fs=1&w=425&h=344]
Synchronized juggling. Now THAT should be an Olympic event!
Right Attitude, Bad Example
I received an email this afternoon from a reader:
I’m just a random reader of your blog. I came across this newspaper clipping in an old album that my mother bought in a lot of antiques. Apparently the owner was a Los Angeles police officer. The clipping is from the LA Examiner, from 1935. I thought it was a great picture, and it kind of drives home how much attitudes towards guns and personal responsibility have changed.
Indeed it does. And it does more than that. James, if you’re ever in Tucson, I’ll be more than happy to take you to the range.
Here’s the picture:

The attitude is correct, but pointing all those guns at the camera? The photographer might have had a remote trigger. I doubt seriously he had a time delay. He was probably standing right behind the viewfinder. Every bang-switch has a booger-hook on it. And at least one of the Chief’s revolvers is loaded. There’s no reason to believe the rest were not. He was a brave (or stupid) man.
Is it any wonder that the rate of accidental gunshot wounding and death has declined (precipitously!) since the turn of the century until now it is at the lowest rate ever recorded – despite the fact that there are more guns in private hands than at any time in history?
The principle is correct, but the photograph? Yeesh.
My how attitudes have changed.
Any Excuse Will Do
In the comments to the previous post, Sarah wrote:
I think the bipartisan Republicans are already finding themselves in the role of Lando, praying the Democrats don’t alter the deal any further.
Which is all the excuse I need to put up THIS:


How Did I Miss This?
I’ve mentioned author Orson Scott Card here before, most recently in October. Card writes mostly Science Fiction, but he also has an intermittent op-ed column called WorldWatch that I check on every now and then. Well, I missed this one, One Party Rule Forever! published in mid-February. (Granted, I was working 65-hour weeks at the time.)
Excerpt:
Obama has set himself up to rig all future American elections, not through any democratic process, but by fiat. Just like a dictator.
Remember how, when the Patriot Act was passed, we were flooded with outraged stories in the press about how Americans’ rights were going to be trampled on?
None of it came true.
But now we have a genuine attack on the roots of the Constitution and the principle of counting only people who can be proven to exist when apportioning the House of Representatives. It’s a naked grab for power. It’s a coup d’etat.
And the so-called freedom-lovers in the Leftist media are absolutely silent about it.
If Bush had put Karl Rove in charge of the Census without so much as asking Congress for permission, the howls and screams would have been deafening. Obama does the identical thing … and the freedom-loving Left is fine with it.
Because they don’t love freedom. They just love having their views prevail, without regard to democracy or human rights.
RTWT.
Quote of the Day
One funny thing about Democrats–the leading ones, anyway–is that they’re pretty much all rich. I mean really rich, not “rich” like you and your spouse together make $250,000 a year, so now you have to pay someone else’s mortgage. – John Hinderaker, Power Line – It Gets A Bit Chilly At Night If You’re One of the Little People
That’s the opening line. It gets better from there.
I’m sort of tempted to ask Professor Reynolds if this seems plausible to him. Does it seem plausible to him — a law professor who is probably paid around 200K a year by the great state of Tennessee to do whatever it is he does while performing what is technically his actual job — that he is “working” five times “harder” (using Wingnuttia’s definition of “hard work”) than a guy roofing houses in San Antonio in July who makes 40K a year? – Lawyers, Guns and Money, Working Hard or Hardly Working?
Now, Paul himself is a professor of law at the University of Colorado, and by all appearances about as socialist as they come, rather than economically illiterate, but really Professor, can’t you do any better than that?
Of course, he precedes this by building a virtual army of strawmen which he then hacks at with great zeal, but here’s the deal:
People get paid based on one thing, primarily: how valuable their skills are to others. Of course, their individual competence weighs heavily in there, too, but there are a lot of people who can do roofing. There’s a somewhat lesser pool of those with the skills required to be law professors.
I, for example, am an electrical engineer. I’m well paid for the area in which I live, but compared to similar electrical engineers in other markets I’m probably average or a bit below-average in base pay. (Tucson doesn’t pay all that well, but I refuse to move to Phoenix, for example.) However, the only reason the office I work at exists at all is because of one guy – an engineer who specializes in a pretty small field, and sits pretty high up in the rankings of that field.
Our home office is in California. When this engineer became available, they hired him in a heartbeat.
But he wouldn’t move to California.
That was OK with the home office. They opened a branch here in Tucson.
For one guy.
We currently have 14 people in the Tucson office. I am thankful every day for the existence of this individual.
But does he work “five times harder than a guy roofing houses in San Antonio in July who makes 40K a year?” That’s not the question. Can the guy roofing houses in San Antonio do the job of this engineer?
That’s the only question that counts. Because if he could, he’d be making the kind of money this engineer does.
And somehow, in Paul Campos’s world, having an ability that perhaps less than 1% of the working population possesses entitles the other 99% to a much bigger chunk of his income.
Campos says that the “wingnuts” paint the argument in terms of “hard work” versus “lazyness” – that rich people are rich because they “work hard” and poor people are poor because they’re “lazy.” This is, apparently, what we believe. (Sound like anyone you know?)
No, Paul. Rich people can be rich for any number of reasons, but quite a few of them got that way by having skills that other people don’t have, and using them. Poor people, the truly poor, generally are that way because of bad decision-making skills. Granted, some get there through illness or bad luck, but tell me why someone making $250k a year who is making their mortgage payment on time should have to fork over a bigger percentage of their paycheck than that $40k/yr roofer in San Antonio? Is he “poor”?
We believe that people should be rewarded according to their worth in the free market, not “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” Because who put you in charge of determining either?
Quote of the Day
I have a name for the bright boys and girls who got us into this- “The Harvard Short Bus.” – commenter “Thrasymachus” at Belmont Club post Then and now
Heh.
Dammit.