Disturbing Google Search

I noticed a hit on my blog from Saudi Arabia and I discovered that I am the number one entry in Google Saudi Arabia under 'Grammer Lesson'. It linked to a blog entry I did last summer on a particularly egregious error in an article.

More recent search results:

I still get a lot of hits from people searching for info on the California textbook issue mentioned a little while back.

Other people have found my blog related to such diverse topics as Ann Coulter, Splenda, the minimum wage, weird habits, and Thomas Sowell.

I get lots of other weird Google hits too but not as weird as some of the hits that you guys have posted. Check your stats and tell me what the strangest Google hit you've got recently.

Getting Desperate

I guess the homosexual lobby is getting desperate to justify their 'lifestyle'.

A recent Canadian study suggests that the more maternal brothers a male has, the more likely he is to be gay. Professor Anthony Bogaert (no mention of whether or not he is gay) with Brock University in Ontario, Canada concluded that a woman's body may see a male baby as foreign and prompts an immune reaction in the woman that somehow turns the boy gay.

Notably absent from the article is any rebuttal to the theory or any journalistic balance that says that the professor might be wrong. I guess they will take any theory they can get to prove to the world that they had no choice in being a homosexual.

I always get in trouble for making this comparison, but I'm going to do it anyway. If a person has a tendency toward violence should his violence simply be tolerated because "that's who he is?" Well, if he maintains control over those predilections then yes, we tolerate him. As soon as he acts on his violent nature we no longer tolerate him and he goes to jail.

No, I'm not suggesting that we lock up homosexuals. It's simply a comparison that demonstrates that just because a person is inclined to be a certain way, does not mean that he has to act on it. The Godless evolutionary crowd doesn't see it that way though except when it's convenient for them. Either we acknowledge in our laws that we are nothing more than creatures of instinct and allow us to live that way or we can make choices and show restraint and maintain an order of civility. History favors the latter.

Another Note To Self

Age 38 + Skateboard = Bad Idea

Thank God I didn't hit my head though. Although it hurts more, at the time it was funnier than finding the soda exploded in my freezer.

I'm ok, I just have a very sore shoulder. And I apologize for not being able to satisfy your morbid curiosity, but there were no pictures of the incident.

A Lucid Moment

The Senate refused to raise the minimum wage today. The Democrats are going resorting to old tricks by pandering to the poor and proposing that the Federal minimum wage be raised $5.15 where it has been since 1997 to $7.25 per hour.

As you may know, the states are allowed to set their own minimum wages. Here in California, the minimum wage is $6.75 per hour. While it's true that it is difficult or impossible to live on that wage in California (or anywhere else), the minimum wage isn't supposed to pay enough to support a family.

The truth is, most jobs pay more than the minimum wage because market forces drive up wages. Those making minimum wage are mostly people who are just starting out in the work force.

Advocates of a higher minimum wage see those workers as a static pool and refer to them that way. They claim that minimum wage workers haven't had a raise in almost 10 years. Well excuse me, but if you've been working for minimum wage for 10 years, you've got some serious problems. A worker increases his marketability through skills and experience. Wages rise according to the value a worker brings to the employer. I have worked for minimum wage before but I don't have to do that now. I've worked for $3.35/hour and I've charged as much as $125/hour for technical services. Why was I able to do that? Because someone was willing to pay me that much for skills and experience I acquired.

Thomas Sowell contends:

The first federal minimum wage law, the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931, was passed in part explicitly to prevent black construction workers from "taking jobs" from white construction workers by working for lower wages. It was not meant to protect black workers from "exploitation" but to protect white workers from competition.

And who do the civil rights leaders complain are the biggest victims of unemployment? It continues to be the blacks. A higher minimum wage, tells employers that they might have to pay more for labor than they believe the market demands. They will either refuse to fill a position, raise prices to compensate for increased labor costs, reduce services and keep prices steady or compensate for the perceived loss in some other way. In the mean time, the least skilled workers are priced out of those jobs with employers opting to hire more skilled or experienced workers since they have to pay more anyway.

Oh, one more thing: Union wages are tied to the minimum wage laws. When the minimum wage goes up so do the wages of union workers across the board. That means that prices directly or indirectly are affected by the higher cost of union labor. In turn, that means that we are artificially paying more for goods and services because of an arbitrary minimum wage floor.

Aren't you happy that our government is here to help?

Note To Self

Do NOT put Berries & Cream Dr Pepper in the freezer overnight.

Hillarity does NOT ensue.

You know... just for your information.

Can I Covet Just This Once?

Dodge Challenger - 2008

There's not much else to say:

Bambi Burgers And Marginal Utility

A buddy of mine got some venison from his friend and grilled a couple of Bambi burgers. That first burger was awesome! It had tons of flavor and tasted just right.

I started in on the second burger. It was still pretty good. About half way in to the second burger, it was getting to be a bit much; a little too gamey.

Ultimately, I just couldn't eat the last couple of bites.

The marginal utility of my Bambi burger was very high to start out with. My enjoyment of the burger was outstanding to start with. The more venison I ate, the worse it tasted; I just didn't enjoy it much at the end.

The same is true with government. The marginal utility of government is high when it is small and restricted. In such a case, government might actually seem 'good'.

As government gets bigger and consumes more of our resources and restricts our rights more we might describe it acceptable but not as satisfying.

Now that our government is huge and out of control, we're generally dissatisfied with the very nature of government to the point that it is downright repulsive.

It is our responsibility to raise the marginal utility of government by restricting how much of it we get. If in fact government is so wonderful, then every aspect of our lives should be governed by a central authority. If it's possible to have too much government then we need to figure out what that balance is and take appropriate actions to put it there.

What is the appropriate scale of government in order to maximize our marginal utility?

My Prediction

In order to foster her image as a moderate, Hillary Clinton will choose Senator John Mccain as her running mate. He's the perfect running mate for her because he can be controlled by the DNC while giving the illusion of being a good Republican.

Yeah, it's going to suck but that's what we'll be stuck with.