(joga 2009)
assume
a sun
a sun, a sun
so soon the sun
a stationary mother mary’s son
now turn off your love light
your work is done
a stationary mother mary’s son
a faraway star will make us reconsider who we are
we’re victims of our solar system
and I was stunned
taken aback
filling in the details as my body went slack
thinking of the wars we might’ve won
now turn off your love life
your work is done
oh so soon, oh so soon the sun
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
taxes
one of the dual certainties of modern existence.
it's what drives pointless political debates. even though most of this debating lumps together two entirely separate questions:
what is appropriate amount of total taxation required to achieve government budget that makes a nation best-off?
how should the tax system that raises this amount be structured?
for both these questions, the cost-benefit analysis must be applied. taxes should equal expenditure and budgets should always balance in present value. that much is simple.
but what makes this equation imperfect is that taxation inherently distorts incentives in the private sector. and this in turn affects the national economy so the optimal tax amount for a government is immediately changed as soon as the private sector is affected by the tax implementation. therefore, tax policy requires a great deal of forecasting.
in the current US model, personal income tax is the chief component of the tax system.
to make things simplest, the US government could eliminate all other sources of tax income. streamlining is usually the best approach. because then it's easier to determine what the optimal rate of taxation really is.
(although i believe that a government should tax consumption instead of income. we'll get to that later)
currently, corporations pay a given percentage of their profit in tax. proponents of this tax assert that this contributes to progressivity in the tax code (as corporate taxes burden high-income individual taxpayers most). but i don't believe a government should aim to make a tax code progressive. even if general redistribution were desirable, it could be accomplished solely via personal income tax (as it is).
i'm against the corporate income tax because of its adverse consequences on the economy at large. these taxes burden corporations with substantial compliance costs (creating an upper-middle class of geeky tax lawyers). the system could be made much simpler with full expensing of investment, but as it is now, corporations must hire teams of lawyers to comply with the IRS tax code.
and a corporate income tax is by definition 'double taxation' as dividends paid to shareholders are already taxed by the personal income tax system.
taxing corporate income perpetuates the myth that corporations pay taxes. but only people can pay taxes. this is an important point often conveniently overlooked by proponents of corporate income tax especially in the age of 'evil wall street'. but the burdens imposed by corporate income tax actually drive corporations to commit evil deeds. to make their accounting less transparent. distorts incentive by encouraging business decisions that lower taxes but are not otherwise profitable/efficient. when every investment has a tax implication, there exists an inherent incentive to cook the books. why not just tax each individual executive's salary at the end of the day? no need to tax the collective. it's like putting a collective toll for volvos on a tollbooth over the individual toll that must be paid.
the estate tax is also bogus. at death, a fraction of your estate (your net worth) is taxed by the government. this only applies to estates above $1.5 million, a small fraction really. and with a good team of lawyers, you can escape the estate tax until you reach around $3 million. but it's still bogus because once you qualify for this tax, half of your estate is taken away upon death.
the main argument for the estate tax is redistribution. by definition, the tax only applies to the wealthiest taxpayers. but the wealthiest taxpayers have already had their income taxed all their life at higher rates than the rest of the schlumps. and after all that, the government comes and takes away half of it?
just like the corporate tax, the estate tax creates an underclass of geeky tax lawyers hired by personal estates. the estate tax code is extremely complicated so that there has become a sprawling market for so-called expert legal bees who can help the wealthy legally avoid the tax with trusts, complicated wills, gifts, government progams (529s), etc. does the world really need this many more lawyers and accountants? it's like how paul lamented that all the beatles power struggles of the 1970s put scores of lawyer children through private schools.
then there's those rich people who simply go illegal in avoiding the estate tax with schemes like overstating charitable donations + giving excessive gifts to friends and family. no different from the owner of a cash business hiding money from uncle sam.
overall the estate tax penalizes savings and rewards spending, a policy that should make any economist worth his/her salt cringe. the relatives of the hardworking rich man who saves all his life are in for the rude awakening, while the hedonistic aristocrat actually has it right when he vows to spend all his money before he dies.
then there's the Pigovian taxes ('sin tax'). these are the ones that really make my libertarian skin crawl. excise taxes on particular goods in excess of what applies generally. at the state level, there's a general sales tax but additional taxes on alcohol, tobacco, gasoline, and various luxury items. at the federal level there is no general sales tax but there is another excise tax on alcohol, tobacco, gasoline, and various luxury items.
i guess this means that the government is attempting to create a disincentive for its citizens to consume alcohol and tobacco (for individual health reasons), gasoline (for collective environmental reasons), and luxury items (figuring that those who buy them are financially secure enough to pay the extra few bucks' tax). sin taxes paint the picture of the government as some sort of omniscient benevolent dictator. but i'm not a fan of paternalistic policy. i like alcohol. i find it to have benefits when used in moderation. and i don't want to pay more money than the free market asks for a bottle of booze because my government doesn't think i should be drinking alcohol. the government doesn't know what's best. i'd argue that cigarettes curb overpopulation and while disastrous for the individual, this is for the good of the collective. the smokers who check out early won't be collecting their social security nor medicare, now will they?
because i know at the end of the day, it's politics (not economics) that determines moral guidelines for the citizens of a nation. who can say for certain whether ice cream is better or worse for a person than alcohol? and once it determines which items to sin tax, a government is implicitly telling its citizens that all other items are 'good for you'.
(*cue black markets*)
then there's social security and medicare taxes. under current policy, these taxes go into dedicated trust funds and 'appear to' fund only the payouts for current recipients of these programs. but in practice, there is no separate 'trust fund' for social security and medicare taxes. this is a myth perpetuated by uncle sam. all tax income is lumped together and used collectively for government expenditure. so this means that your current social security + medicare taxes aren't really protected. i'm all for eliminating social security and medicare and having it be left to the individual to save for retirement (with all the money he saves from not having to pay social security/medicare taxes over the years), but we'll get to this at a later date. or maybe we won't.
how does one design the optimal personal income tax system? there are deductions, exemptions, credits, and myriad features to consider. i believe the tax code should be utterly simplified. as in no deductibility for 'charitable contributions'. true, this feature probably increases charitable giving. but it also requires the government to define what constitutes a 'charity'. and this is one of the major reasons why religious institutions continue to exert such a powerful invisible hand in politics even in this supposedly enlightened age. i say keep the tax code neutral. our founding fathers would probably agree with me here.
the personal income tax code can be progressive (wealth flows from rich to poor), proportional (wealth doesn't flow), or regressive (wealth flows from poor to rich). our current tax code is progressive. tax as a fraction of income increases with income. some, such as steve forbes, call for a flax tax. he has his reasons.
T = tY
(T is total taxes paid)
(t is tax rate)
(Y is total income)
T/Y = t
in a flat tax system, T/Y would be a constant. this is the simplest approach to income tax. and isn't the simplest approach usually right?
but then low-income individuals are hit hardest. so no political pundit with half a heart actually proposes a flat tax system this ruthless. most usually set a 'zero-bracket amount' Z where T = t(Y - Z). therefore, people with incomes of Z or less pay no tax (if you wanted to more explicitly redistribute, you could set policy so that negative tax values equal a government payout). this modified flat tax is actually progressive. it would be better than our current tax code. high marginal tax rates discourage effort + income (why work any harder when uncle sam will just take a larger chunk of your cake at the end of the day?)
there is a well-developed body of economic theory that suggests using consumption as the main tax base. as in, shifting all tax from income tax to sales tax. because taxing the return on savings distorts the relative price of consumption today vs consumption tomorrow. and this is inherently inefficient for any economy.
but taxing consumption is not "progressive" since consumption items would be taxed at the same rates no matter the income of the consumer. so an individual would pay taxes based on how much he consumes, not how much he makes. this makes redistributors nervous. because there seems to be a confusion between 'efficiency' and 'redistribution' as dual ultimate goals of policy. and i'm all for efficiency.
with a across-the-board libertarian overhaul of US government, the level of government expenditure would drop drastically. therefore, the level of optimal taxation would drop equally. if i were able to, US government expenditure would drop to less than 25% of current expenditure. so the effect on tax rates would be equally dramatic.
as it is now, the US tax code creates confusion because it tries to do too much. it affects incentives in housing, charity (deductions for charitable contributions), and even solar energy (sin tax on gasoline)
it's what drives pointless political debates. even though most of this debating lumps together two entirely separate questions:
what is appropriate amount of total taxation required to achieve government budget that makes a nation best-off?
how should the tax system that raises this amount be structured?
for both these questions, the cost-benefit analysis must be applied. taxes should equal expenditure and budgets should always balance in present value. that much is simple.
but what makes this equation imperfect is that taxation inherently distorts incentives in the private sector. and this in turn affects the national economy so the optimal tax amount for a government is immediately changed as soon as the private sector is affected by the tax implementation. therefore, tax policy requires a great deal of forecasting.
in the current US model, personal income tax is the chief component of the tax system.
to make things simplest, the US government could eliminate all other sources of tax income. streamlining is usually the best approach. because then it's easier to determine what the optimal rate of taxation really is.
(although i believe that a government should tax consumption instead of income. we'll get to that later)
currently, corporations pay a given percentage of their profit in tax. proponents of this tax assert that this contributes to progressivity in the tax code (as corporate taxes burden high-income individual taxpayers most). but i don't believe a government should aim to make a tax code progressive. even if general redistribution were desirable, it could be accomplished solely via personal income tax (as it is).
i'm against the corporate income tax because of its adverse consequences on the economy at large. these taxes burden corporations with substantial compliance costs (creating an upper-middle class of geeky tax lawyers). the system could be made much simpler with full expensing of investment, but as it is now, corporations must hire teams of lawyers to comply with the IRS tax code.
and a corporate income tax is by definition 'double taxation' as dividends paid to shareholders are already taxed by the personal income tax system.
taxing corporate income perpetuates the myth that corporations pay taxes. but only people can pay taxes. this is an important point often conveniently overlooked by proponents of corporate income tax especially in the age of 'evil wall street'. but the burdens imposed by corporate income tax actually drive corporations to commit evil deeds. to make their accounting less transparent. distorts incentive by encouraging business decisions that lower taxes but are not otherwise profitable/efficient. when every investment has a tax implication, there exists an inherent incentive to cook the books. why not just tax each individual executive's salary at the end of the day? no need to tax the collective. it's like putting a collective toll for volvos on a tollbooth over the individual toll that must be paid.
the estate tax is also bogus. at death, a fraction of your estate (your net worth) is taxed by the government. this only applies to estates above $1.5 million, a small fraction really. and with a good team of lawyers, you can escape the estate tax until you reach around $3 million. but it's still bogus because once you qualify for this tax, half of your estate is taken away upon death.
the main argument for the estate tax is redistribution. by definition, the tax only applies to the wealthiest taxpayers. but the wealthiest taxpayers have already had their income taxed all their life at higher rates than the rest of the schlumps. and after all that, the government comes and takes away half of it?
just like the corporate tax, the estate tax creates an underclass of geeky tax lawyers hired by personal estates. the estate tax code is extremely complicated so that there has become a sprawling market for so-called expert legal bees who can help the wealthy legally avoid the tax with trusts, complicated wills, gifts, government progams (529s), etc. does the world really need this many more lawyers and accountants? it's like how paul lamented that all the beatles power struggles of the 1970s put scores of lawyer children through private schools.
then there's those rich people who simply go illegal in avoiding the estate tax with schemes like overstating charitable donations + giving excessive gifts to friends and family. no different from the owner of a cash business hiding money from uncle sam.
overall the estate tax penalizes savings and rewards spending, a policy that should make any economist worth his/her salt cringe. the relatives of the hardworking rich man who saves all his life are in for the rude awakening, while the hedonistic aristocrat actually has it right when he vows to spend all his money before he dies.
then there's the Pigovian taxes ('sin tax'). these are the ones that really make my libertarian skin crawl. excise taxes on particular goods in excess of what applies generally. at the state level, there's a general sales tax but additional taxes on alcohol, tobacco, gasoline, and various luxury items. at the federal level there is no general sales tax but there is another excise tax on alcohol, tobacco, gasoline, and various luxury items.
i guess this means that the government is attempting to create a disincentive for its citizens to consume alcohol and tobacco (for individual health reasons), gasoline (for collective environmental reasons), and luxury items (figuring that those who buy them are financially secure enough to pay the extra few bucks' tax). sin taxes paint the picture of the government as some sort of omniscient benevolent dictator. but i'm not a fan of paternalistic policy. i like alcohol. i find it to have benefits when used in moderation. and i don't want to pay more money than the free market asks for a bottle of booze because my government doesn't think i should be drinking alcohol. the government doesn't know what's best. i'd argue that cigarettes curb overpopulation and while disastrous for the individual, this is for the good of the collective. the smokers who check out early won't be collecting their social security nor medicare, now will they?
because i know at the end of the day, it's politics (not economics) that determines moral guidelines for the citizens of a nation. who can say for certain whether ice cream is better or worse for a person than alcohol? and once it determines which items to sin tax, a government is implicitly telling its citizens that all other items are 'good for you'.
(*cue black markets*)
then there's social security and medicare taxes. under current policy, these taxes go into dedicated trust funds and 'appear to' fund only the payouts for current recipients of these programs. but in practice, there is no separate 'trust fund' for social security and medicare taxes. this is a myth perpetuated by uncle sam. all tax income is lumped together and used collectively for government expenditure. so this means that your current social security + medicare taxes aren't really protected. i'm all for eliminating social security and medicare and having it be left to the individual to save for retirement (with all the money he saves from not having to pay social security/medicare taxes over the years), but we'll get to this at a later date. or maybe we won't.
how does one design the optimal personal income tax system? there are deductions, exemptions, credits, and myriad features to consider. i believe the tax code should be utterly simplified. as in no deductibility for 'charitable contributions'. true, this feature probably increases charitable giving. but it also requires the government to define what constitutes a 'charity'. and this is one of the major reasons why religious institutions continue to exert such a powerful invisible hand in politics even in this supposedly enlightened age. i say keep the tax code neutral. our founding fathers would probably agree with me here.
the personal income tax code can be progressive (wealth flows from rich to poor), proportional (wealth doesn't flow), or regressive (wealth flows from poor to rich). our current tax code is progressive. tax as a fraction of income increases with income. some, such as steve forbes, call for a flax tax. he has his reasons.
T = tY
(T is total taxes paid)
(t is tax rate)
(Y is total income)
T/Y = t
in a flat tax system, T/Y would be a constant. this is the simplest approach to income tax. and isn't the simplest approach usually right?
but then low-income individuals are hit hardest. so no political pundit with half a heart actually proposes a flat tax system this ruthless. most usually set a 'zero-bracket amount' Z where T = t(Y - Z). therefore, people with incomes of Z or less pay no tax (if you wanted to more explicitly redistribute, you could set policy so that negative tax values equal a government payout). this modified flat tax is actually progressive. it would be better than our current tax code. high marginal tax rates discourage effort + income (why work any harder when uncle sam will just take a larger chunk of your cake at the end of the day?)
there is a well-developed body of economic theory that suggests using consumption as the main tax base. as in, shifting all tax from income tax to sales tax. because taxing the return on savings distorts the relative price of consumption today vs consumption tomorrow. and this is inherently inefficient for any economy.
but taxing consumption is not "progressive" since consumption items would be taxed at the same rates no matter the income of the consumer. so an individual would pay taxes based on how much he consumes, not how much he makes. this makes redistributors nervous. because there seems to be a confusion between 'efficiency' and 'redistribution' as dual ultimate goals of policy. and i'm all for efficiency.
with a across-the-board libertarian overhaul of US government, the level of government expenditure would drop drastically. therefore, the level of optimal taxation would drop equally. if i were able to, US government expenditure would drop to less than 25% of current expenditure. so the effect on tax rates would be equally dramatic.
as it is now, the US tax code creates confusion because it tries to do too much. it affects incentives in housing, charity (deductions for charitable contributions), and even solar energy (sin tax on gasoline)
Monday, November 9, 2009
maneaters
imagine an african colony settled by 21st century harvard alums. the only requirement was that you had to smoke pot. it'd make no concessions to the common man (that was jim jones' mistake)
the lion didn't evolve because there was no need. he remains the king of the African jungle. lions can still more easily kill a human than a human can a lion, even with all of our weapons at hand.
While lions do not usually hunt people, some (usually males) seem to seek out human prey; well-publicized cases include the Tsavo maneaters, where 28 railway workers building the Kenya-Uganda Railway were taken by lions over nine months during the construction of a bridge over the Tsavo River in Kenya in 1898, and the 1991 Mfuwe man-eater, which killed six people in the Laungwa River Valley in Zambia.
In both, the hunters who killed the lions wrote books detailing the animals' predatory behavior. The Mfuwe and Tsavo incidents bear similarities: the lions in both incidents were larger than normal, lacked manes, and seemed to suffer from tooth decay. The infirmity theory, including tooth decay, is not favored by all researchers; an analysis of teeth and jaws of man-eating lions in museum collections suggests that, while tooth decay may explain some incidents, prey depletion in human-dominated areas is a more likely cause of lion predation on humans.
In their analysis of Tsavo and man-eating generally, Kerbis Peterhans and Gnoske acknowledge that sick or injured animals may be more prone to man-eating, but that the behavior is "not unusual, nor necessarily 'aberrant'" where the opportunity exists; if inducements such as access to livestock or human corpses are present, lions will regularly prey upon human beings. The authors note that the relationship is well-attested amongst other pantherines and primates in the paleontological record.
The lion's proclivity for man-eating has been systematically examined. American and Tanzanian scientists report that man-eating behavior in rural areas of Tanzania increased greatly from 1990 to 2005. At least 563 villagers were attacked and many eaten over this period — a number far exceeding the more famed "Tsavo" incidents of a century earlier. The incidents occurred near Selous National Park in Rufiji District and in Lindi Province near the Mozambican border. While the expansion of villagers into bush country is one concern, the authors argue that conservation policy must mitigate the danger because, in this case, conservation contributes directly to human deaths. Cases in Lindi have been documented where lions seize humans from the center of substantial villages.
Author Robert R. Frump wrote in The Man-eaters of Eden that Mozambican refugees regularly crossing Kruger National Park at night in South Africa are attacked and eaten by the lions; park officials have conceded that man-eating is a problem there. Frump believes thousands may have been killed in the decades after apartheid sealed the park and forced the refugees to cross the park at night. For nearly a century before the border was sealed, Mozambicans had regularly walked across the park in daytime with little harm.
Packer estimates more than 200 Tanzanians are killed each year by lions, crocodiles, elephants, hippos, and snakes, and that the numbers could be double that amount, with lions thought to kill at least 70 of those. Packer and Ikanda are among the few conservationists who believe western conservation efforts must take account of these matters not just because of ethical concerns about human life, but also for the long term success of conservation efforts and lion preservation.
A man-eating lion was killed by game scouts in Southern Tanzania in April 2004. It is believed to have killed and eaten at least 35 people in a series of incidents covering several villages in the Rufiji Delta coastal region. Dr Rolf D. Baldus, the GTZ wildlife programme coordinator, commented that it was likely that the lion preyed on humans because it had a large abscess underneath a molar which was cracked in several places. He further commented that "This lion probably experienced a lot of pain, particularly when it was chewing." GTZ is the German development cooperation agency and has been working with the Tanzanian government on wildlife conservation for nearly two decades. As in other cases this lion was large, lacked a mane, and had a tooth problem.
The "All-Africa" record of man-eating generally is considered to be not Tsavo, but the lesser-known incidents in the late 1930s through the late 1940s in what was then Tanganyika (now Tanzania). George Rushby, game warden and professional hunter, eventually dispatched the pride, which over three generations is thought to have killed and eaten 1,500 to 2,000 in what is now Njombe district.
Man-eater is a colloquial term for an animal that adds humans to its diet. Although human beings can be attacked by many kinds of animals, man-eaters are those that have incorporated human flesh into their usual diet. Most reported cases of man-eaters have involved wolves, tigers, leopards, lions, crocodiles, alligators, and sharks. However, they are by no means the only predators that will attack humans if given the chance; a wide variety of species have also been known to take humans as prey, including the brown bear, black bear, polar bear, sloth bear, chimpanzees, large constricting snakes (especially the Reticulated python, the African rock python, and green anaconda), Komodo dragon, spotted and striped hyenas, dingoes, leopard seals, jaguars, cougars, some species of bony fish like Piranha and Candiru (which is parasitic), goonch catfish and the African army ant.
the lion didn't evolve because there was no need. he remains the king of the African jungle. lions can still more easily kill a human than a human can a lion, even with all of our weapons at hand.
While lions do not usually hunt people, some (usually males) seem to seek out human prey; well-publicized cases include the Tsavo maneaters, where 28 railway workers building the Kenya-Uganda Railway were taken by lions over nine months during the construction of a bridge over the Tsavo River in Kenya in 1898, and the 1991 Mfuwe man-eater, which killed six people in the Laungwa River Valley in Zambia.
In both, the hunters who killed the lions wrote books detailing the animals' predatory behavior. The Mfuwe and Tsavo incidents bear similarities: the lions in both incidents were larger than normal, lacked manes, and seemed to suffer from tooth decay. The infirmity theory, including tooth decay, is not favored by all researchers; an analysis of teeth and jaws of man-eating lions in museum collections suggests that, while tooth decay may explain some incidents, prey depletion in human-dominated areas is a more likely cause of lion predation on humans.
In their analysis of Tsavo and man-eating generally, Kerbis Peterhans and Gnoske acknowledge that sick or injured animals may be more prone to man-eating, but that the behavior is "not unusual, nor necessarily 'aberrant'" where the opportunity exists; if inducements such as access to livestock or human corpses are present, lions will regularly prey upon human beings. The authors note that the relationship is well-attested amongst other pantherines and primates in the paleontological record.
The lion's proclivity for man-eating has been systematically examined. American and Tanzanian scientists report that man-eating behavior in rural areas of Tanzania increased greatly from 1990 to 2005. At least 563 villagers were attacked and many eaten over this period — a number far exceeding the more famed "Tsavo" incidents of a century earlier. The incidents occurred near Selous National Park in Rufiji District and in Lindi Province near the Mozambican border. While the expansion of villagers into bush country is one concern, the authors argue that conservation policy must mitigate the danger because, in this case, conservation contributes directly to human deaths. Cases in Lindi have been documented where lions seize humans from the center of substantial villages.
Author Robert R. Frump wrote in The Man-eaters of Eden that Mozambican refugees regularly crossing Kruger National Park at night in South Africa are attacked and eaten by the lions; park officials have conceded that man-eating is a problem there. Frump believes thousands may have been killed in the decades after apartheid sealed the park and forced the refugees to cross the park at night. For nearly a century before the border was sealed, Mozambicans had regularly walked across the park in daytime with little harm.
Packer estimates more than 200 Tanzanians are killed each year by lions, crocodiles, elephants, hippos, and snakes, and that the numbers could be double that amount, with lions thought to kill at least 70 of those. Packer and Ikanda are among the few conservationists who believe western conservation efforts must take account of these matters not just because of ethical concerns about human life, but also for the long term success of conservation efforts and lion preservation.
A man-eating lion was killed by game scouts in Southern Tanzania in April 2004. It is believed to have killed and eaten at least 35 people in a series of incidents covering several villages in the Rufiji Delta coastal region. Dr Rolf D. Baldus, the GTZ wildlife programme coordinator, commented that it was likely that the lion preyed on humans because it had a large abscess underneath a molar which was cracked in several places. He further commented that "This lion probably experienced a lot of pain, particularly when it was chewing." GTZ is the German development cooperation agency and has been working with the Tanzanian government on wildlife conservation for nearly two decades. As in other cases this lion was large, lacked a mane, and had a tooth problem.
The "All-Africa" record of man-eating generally is considered to be not Tsavo, but the lesser-known incidents in the late 1930s through the late 1940s in what was then Tanganyika (now Tanzania). George Rushby, game warden and professional hunter, eventually dispatched the pride, which over three generations is thought to have killed and eaten 1,500 to 2,000 in what is now Njombe district.
Man-eater is a colloquial term for an animal that adds humans to its diet. Although human beings can be attacked by many kinds of animals, man-eaters are those that have incorporated human flesh into their usual diet. Most reported cases of man-eaters have involved wolves, tigers, leopards, lions, crocodiles, alligators, and sharks. However, they are by no means the only predators that will attack humans if given the chance; a wide variety of species have also been known to take humans as prey, including the brown bear, black bear, polar bear, sloth bear, chimpanzees, large constricting snakes (especially the Reticulated python, the African rock python, and green anaconda), Komodo dragon, spotted and striped hyenas, dingoes, leopard seals, jaguars, cougars, some species of bony fish like Piranha and Candiru (which is parasitic), goonch catfish and the African army ant.
food
i made myself an interesting sandwich last night. thick cinnamon bread with sliced apples + peanut butter inside. try it for yourself. you probably won't be disappointed
Does having fond childhood memories of TGI Fridays make me incurably tacky?
"pies in the sky" anyone?
and those rad phone booths, you could just get lost in them!
For God's sake, TGI Friday's INVENTED the potato skin. That alone makes them worthy of eternal life.
i'm also gonna start buying capri sun and Hi-C again. just for the sugar high. and whatever juicy juice box drinks they make noawadays.
Does having fond childhood memories of TGI Fridays make me incurably tacky?
"pies in the sky" anyone?
and those rad phone booths, you could just get lost in them!
For God's sake, TGI Friday's INVENTED the potato skin. That alone makes them worthy of eternal life.
i'm also gonna start buying capri sun and Hi-C again. just for the sugar high. and whatever juicy juice box drinks they make noawadays.
magic dan
JoGaBot: "I must go running"
Magic Dan: "No you must not"
Magic Dan: "What are your plans for the evening?"
JoGaBot: "Perhaps hitting up a local cafe"
Magic Dan: "A local cafe? With who?"
JoGaBot: "With my lonesome fat ass. There's a place round the corner that makes killer late night milkshakes"
Magic Dan: "Oh boy"
JoGaBot: "I need those dude. I'm wasting away to nothing. I'm bout a buck 30 now"
Magic Dan: "Really? Just haven't been eating? How poor are you, JoGa?"
JoGaBot: "Poor enough to qualify for welfare a couple times over. In some countries, they'd have me put in debtor's prison and whipped profusely. God bless the USA"
(shuffles his feet and gazes round at imaginary audience)
JoGaBot: "But the weight thing puzzles me. Even with the long runs, I've still been eating pizza for dinner every night. 3-4 slices!"
Magic Dan: "It's time to advance to meat"
JoGaBot: (bites fingertips) "Oh dear, but those poor animals!"
Magic Dan: "No you must not"
Magic Dan: "What are your plans for the evening?"
JoGaBot: "Perhaps hitting up a local cafe"
Magic Dan: "A local cafe? With who?"
JoGaBot: "With my lonesome fat ass. There's a place round the corner that makes killer late night milkshakes"
Magic Dan: "Oh boy"
JoGaBot: "I need those dude. I'm wasting away to nothing. I'm bout a buck 30 now"
Magic Dan: "Really? Just haven't been eating? How poor are you, JoGa?"
JoGaBot: "Poor enough to qualify for welfare a couple times over. In some countries, they'd have me put in debtor's prison and whipped profusely. God bless the USA"
(shuffles his feet and gazes round at imaginary audience)
JoGaBot: "But the weight thing puzzles me. Even with the long runs, I've still been eating pizza for dinner every night. 3-4 slices!"
Magic Dan: "It's time to advance to meat"
JoGaBot: (bites fingertips) "Oh dear, but those poor animals!"
unworthy authorities
falling asleep to Timothy Leary's rambling thoughts
(is this the best that acid could produce? he's not even that profound!)
Mister 'Cut n Paste'
(Kanye West and other non-musical techno-producers)
SONNY BAMBOO
(is sonny bamboo a jew? thought so)
Angelo McConnach also known as "Sonny Bamboo" (March 17, 1926 - September 2, 1996) was a New York mobster, club owner, and loanshark who was an associate of the Lucchese crime family
In Martin Scorsese's 1990 film Goodfellas, McConnach is portrayed by Tony Darrow as "Sonny Bunz" and is a dealer of swag. McConnach is shown to be very nervous and timid with the fellow mobsters and his relationship with Paul Vario is not demonstrated at all in the film.
Goodfellas depicts Anthony Stabile, Burke, Tommy DeSimone and Hill socializing at the Bamboo Lounge. DeSimone tells a story of a bank robbery that he helped pull in Canarsie that makes everyone laugh, prompting Hill to comment and say to DeSimone that the fellow mobster is "funny". The easily offended DeSimone then seems to become more and more belligerent as he intimidatingly badgers Hill for an explanation on the harmless comment. The tension mounts although Henry is eventually able to defuse the situation. Then after McConnach confronts DeSimone with having a large bar tab to pay DeSimone becomes enraged at the insult of confronting him in front of his friends, grabbing McConnach by his neck tie and smashing a whiskey bottle on Angelo's head. Many movie critics state as this being one of the most famous scenes in the film. However, this incident is not mentioned in Hill's biography.
'DJ DRAMA'
Tyree Cinque Simmons (born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) is an Atlanta, Georgia-based hip hop artist and the official DJ for Grand Hustle/Atlantic recording artist T.I.
On January 16, 2007 DJ Drama and DJ Cannon were arrested on racketeering charges after a raid of the Atlanta offices of Aphilliates Music Group
I only mention this man's name because he is an alleged friend of my favorite overprivileged suburbian Jewish bullshit artist (of which there are far too many in Jersey-Town). These are the wannabes that keep thug athletes and hip hoppers in business long past their expiration dates.
MGMT video:
Sexy girl cozies up to keyboardist:
(whines:)
'pleaze baby, not while I'm playing my pre-programmed keyboards'
later, while the dynamic duo are pretending to smoke joints on the streets of London...
then off to some dilapidated flat where Pete Doherty is pretending to get fucked up on smack and Amy Winehouse is pretending to chain smoke
just because you have a hard drug addiction and once homo-prostituted yourself for dope dough doesn't give you automatic artistic credibility! Hear that, Pete Doherty? I'm looking at you, Amy Winehouse. Americans are pre-programmed to kiss Brit ass since the days of the Beatles, but remember who we won our independence from, folks! Those were the descendants of the British jerks that religiously persecuted our precious Pilgrims!
(is this the best that acid could produce? he's not even that profound!)
Mister 'Cut n Paste'
(Kanye West and other non-musical techno-producers)
SONNY BAMBOO
(is sonny bamboo a jew? thought so)
Angelo McConnach also known as "Sonny Bamboo" (March 17, 1926 - September 2, 1996) was a New York mobster, club owner, and loanshark who was an associate of the Lucchese crime family
In Martin Scorsese's 1990 film Goodfellas, McConnach is portrayed by Tony Darrow as "Sonny Bunz" and is a dealer of swag. McConnach is shown to be very nervous and timid with the fellow mobsters and his relationship with Paul Vario is not demonstrated at all in the film.
Goodfellas depicts Anthony Stabile, Burke, Tommy DeSimone and Hill socializing at the Bamboo Lounge. DeSimone tells a story of a bank robbery that he helped pull in Canarsie that makes everyone laugh, prompting Hill to comment and say to DeSimone that the fellow mobster is "funny". The easily offended DeSimone then seems to become more and more belligerent as he intimidatingly badgers Hill for an explanation on the harmless comment. The tension mounts although Henry is eventually able to defuse the situation. Then after McConnach confronts DeSimone with having a large bar tab to pay DeSimone becomes enraged at the insult of confronting him in front of his friends, grabbing McConnach by his neck tie and smashing a whiskey bottle on Angelo's head. Many movie critics state as this being one of the most famous scenes in the film. However, this incident is not mentioned in Hill's biography.
'DJ DRAMA'
Tyree Cinque Simmons (born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) is an Atlanta, Georgia-based hip hop artist and the official DJ for Grand Hustle/Atlantic recording artist T.I.
On January 16, 2007 DJ Drama and DJ Cannon were arrested on racketeering charges after a raid of the Atlanta offices of Aphilliates Music Group
I only mention this man's name because he is an alleged friend of my favorite overprivileged suburbian Jewish bullshit artist (of which there are far too many in Jersey-Town). These are the wannabes that keep thug athletes and hip hoppers in business long past their expiration dates.
MGMT video:
Sexy girl cozies up to keyboardist:
(whines:)
'pleaze baby, not while I'm playing my pre-programmed keyboards'
later, while the dynamic duo are pretending to smoke joints on the streets of London...
then off to some dilapidated flat where Pete Doherty is pretending to get fucked up on smack and Amy Winehouse is pretending to chain smoke
just because you have a hard drug addiction and once homo-prostituted yourself for dope dough doesn't give you automatic artistic credibility! Hear that, Pete Doherty? I'm looking at you, Amy Winehouse. Americans are pre-programmed to kiss Brit ass since the days of the Beatles, but remember who we won our independence from, folks! Those were the descendants of the British jerks that religiously persecuted our precious Pilgrims!
'the news'
gaybird sticks his head into hoity-toity Manhattan cocktail party:
'Hey guys, Javier Velásquez just became Prime Minister of Peru!'
(party favor noises / whistles / hollers / confetti / techno music / flashing lights)
'Ummm...'
In order to calm the partygoers, gaybird delivers bad news:
(with overwrought dramatic gestures accompanying key words of announcement)
'Hey guys, at least 43 people were killed in clashes near the Somali presidential palace between Al-Shabaab and the Somali military'
partygoers droop down 'n depressed
'Hey guys, Javier Velásquez just became Prime Minister of Peru!'
(party favor noises / whistles / hollers / confetti / techno music / flashing lights)
'Ummm...'
In order to calm the partygoers, gaybird delivers bad news:
(with overwrought dramatic gestures accompanying key words of announcement)
'Hey guys, at least 43 people were killed in clashes near the Somali presidential palace between Al-Shabaab and the Somali military'
partygoers droop down 'n depressed
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
+(v2).jpg)