This Blog Has Moved!

My blog has moved. Check out my new blog at

Your Ad Here

Sunday, January 31, 2010

Empty Cubicles

At my wage slave job, I noticed something disturbing. About 1/6 of the cubicles are suddenly empty! One of my coworkers quit (or was fired) along with my boss, about a week later. The economy sucks right now, so fired is a more likely explanation than quit. However, I'm not sure.

My coworkers just moved from one floor to the current floor. After the move, every cubicle was filled, which seemed odd. Why move to a new space that's 100% filled to capacity? That question was answered, as 1/6 of the people disappeared.

There must have been some other layoffs, along with my now-ex boss. If this was a mass-layoff, then at least they got a severance payment. If the new boss forces people to quit, they might not get any severance, as someone else commented. It's very easy to fabricate a negative performance review and fire someone. Alternatively, you can be so abusive so that they quit.

As a contractor/consultant, I won't get any severance. I figured that I'll wait to see who is the new boss. I get along well with my current coworkers, but they aren't technically my boss. Most likely, the new boss will fire everyone and hire replacements. He won't do it all at once, but I'm usually the first target. If you're going to unfairly fire people, start with the most skilled people first. Otherwise, the skilled people you don't fire might wind up promoted!

I'm not actively sending out resumes yet. That may change if it's obvious the new boss doesn't like me. I'm pretty good at reading that sort of thing, having been in that situation many times. Besides, I don't want to waste time dealing with scummy headhunters and hiring managers again. If necessary, I'll wait a few weeks/months before finding a new job. My most recent jobsearch only lasted 1.5 months, which was pretty good.

There's one important point. The new boss, if he is a scumbag, won't admit it. He'll say "I'm firing FSK because he's doing a lousy job." If I were a mindless zombie, I might believe him, and be looking for things I did wrong. Sometimes, "The other person is a scumbag!" is the reason you fail. By lying about their reasons, parasites keep the slaves clueless about their manipulations. It's a type of conspiracy. Without being consciously aware of what they're doing, the parasites act to make sure that intelligent slaves have no self-confidence.

The reason I had my first panic attack was that I realized a parasitic boss was doing it on purpose. I thought he was merely incompetent, and needed to be educated. If only he learned, he would be a competent boss. The realization was a shock! Some people are evil, and are doing it on purpose! If my parasitic boss learned anything, it was "How to be evil without getting caught!" rather than "Don't be evil!" Most parasites focus on learning "How can I be a more effective parasite?" rather than "How can I be a true leader?"

I always assumed that evil people had good intentions just like me. They were merely stupid and needed to be educated. THAT IS WRONG! SOME EVIL PARASITES ARE DOING IT ON PURPOSE, FULLY AWARE OF THEIR CRIMES! The classic example of "evil and doing it on purpose" is Bernard Madoff.

Anyway, I'm not actively looking for a new job yet. I'd rather spend the time on my blog. After time spent working, I don't have much leftover energy. Until I start my own business, it's obvious that I'll be subject to the whims of parasites.

My new boss starts on Monday. His first day is exactly 2 weeks after my ex-boss was fired. Presumably, this means they made the decision to hire him before they made the decision to fire my ex-boss. He probably had to give 2 weeks' notice at his job. Plus, they had a lot of bureaucracy and pre-employment background checks. That takes at least a week or two.

I'll see how it goes. He might be competent. He might be a parasite who doesn't mind having me around. He might be evil. I'm getting along well with my other coworkers, but a new boss can mess things up.

My ex-boss had the title of "Vice President". My new boss has the title of "Managing Director", which is one rung higher. That probably means some other people will be hired at the "Vice President" level.

There's one guy I work with mostly, but he isn't technically my boss. He had a weird observation about corporate politics. Two people who have equal titles can work together. Two people with unequal titles can't work together from different divisions. If A has a greater title than B, then A won't deal directly with B. A will contact B's boss, who is a peer to A. If A had a greater title than B, then B can't call A and ask for something. B must ask his boss instead.

There's an abnormally large amount of bureaucracy at my current employer. Ironically, there's less petty political maneuvering than at the startups I worked at. There's so much inefficiency, that people just want to be able to do things. My direct coworkers are thinking "OMFG! FSK can actually do things! I don't have to deal with the other corporate bureaucracy!" instead of "FSK is too competent, I must eliminate him!"

For example, they have a "certified software development process" on the production servers. That also adds a lot of overhead. One person said that he asked for something. The price would have been $2M, and it then would have taken 6-12 months for any changes or bugfixes. He might ask me to write it for him. I don't have the overhead, and it'll probably just take me 2-3 months. Then, if he wants a new feature or bugfix, he can just ask me rather than having to deal with a bureaucracy.

I still find it amusing "There's more stupid political maneuvering at a 10 person startup, than at a huge corporate bureaucracy." I'm so far removed from actual useful work, that it doesn't matter at all. Plus, any skilled parasites probably would choose another employer than my current job. With all that bureaucracy, there are limits to how much a parasite can steal. It's a bizarre way that the State managed to defend itself from evil. Make there be so much bureaucracy, that a skilled evil person would get disgusted and work elsewhere!

Saturday, January 30, 2010

Lotus Notes Sucks!

At my current wage slave job, they use Lotus Notes as their E-Mail client, a really old version. This has been my second job where I was forced to use it.

I noticed that you can tell a lot about a corporate bureaucracy just from the choice of E-Mail client.

I can't imagine anyone voluntarily using Lotus Notes. It's like someone decided "Hey! Let's make an E-Mail client that's worse than Outlook!"

I haven't seen any E-Mail client better than gmail. The good part about gmail is that its anti-spam filter has very few false positives and very few false negatives. When I get my own domain and a Linode, I'm undecided about using gmail or just running my own mailserver.

Friday, January 29, 2010

Yemen is the New Eastasia

Sometimes, The Daily Show and The Colbert Report have interesting observations. Yemen is the new #1 enemy, replacing Iraq on the "Axis of Evil".

The guy who tried to blow up an airplane over Christmas was from Nigeria. Allegedly, he received his bomb and training in Yemen.

There always must be an enemy. Iraq and Afghanistan no longer are suitable enemies. If they are aggressively hyped, then that would be an admission that years of US military intervention was a complete failure.

New enemies must be continually invented. That keeps the slaves scared and complacent. "Global Warming" is a vague poorly-defined problem. "Terrorism" is also vaguely defined. Any disgruntled person who acts violently is a terrorist.

Before that, there was the threat of the Soviet Union. Communism is another vague threat. If you were accused of being a Communist, that's a hard-to-defend accusation. There was the threat of nuclear war. That threat is no longer publicly hyped, although there still are lots of nuclear weapons. Now, "OMFG! We will all die due to global warming!" replaces "OMFG! We will all die due to nuclear war!"

New and powerful enemies must be continually invented. If it's always the same enemy, then the scam is too obvious.

State parasites love powerful poorly-defined enemies. That is an excuse for State parasites to grab more power.

State parasites tell the slaves "You need us, because of this powerful enemy. We know how to deal with them and you're helpless without us."

Thursday, January 28, 2010

Massachusetts Senate Race Fnords

My mother was all excited by coverage of the Massachusetts Senate race. It was a special election to fill Kennedy's seat. In a heavily Democratic state, there was an upset and the Republican candidate won.

Amusingly, the "special election" law was passed to block a Republican governor from appointing a replacement for Kerry, who was expected to be elected President. Without that law, the now-Democratic governor could have appointed a replacement, like occurred in NY to replace Clinton and Illinois to replace Obama.

This result should kill the healthcare "reform" law, which was really a corporate welfare law anyway. The correct answer, "repeal State licensing requirements for doctors", is never mentioned in the mainstream media.

I wonder if the Democrats lost on purpose? Ugly old person vs. charismatic young person is a recipe for failure. Now, an unpopular proposed law can be scrapped. This is a face-saving way for Democrats to end the "healthcare reform" debate.

Democrats and Republicans are false opposites. In 2008, the State propaganda was "The Republicans suck! Vote for a Democrat and things will get better!" Now, the propaganda is reversed, and the Republicans are the "outsiders" promising change and reform.

There's an oscillation. People get disgusted with Republicans and then they vote for Democrats. People get disgusted with Democrats and then they vote for Republicans. It's an illusion. Republicans and Democrats are almost the same, with only superficial differences.

The new crop of politicians have different faces than the now-discredited ones. However, they still all are State parasites. They still are pro-State trolls. Every politician believes "Taxation is not theft!" and "Government violence makes people's lives better!"

Every law and every tax is backed by violence. Otherwise, people would merely ignore the law or tax. That's why politicians are terrorists and parasites. A politician does not personally assault you to enforce the law. If politicians had to violently enforce the law themselves, then they might start noticing their crimes. By having the State thugs and State leaders be separate people, the details are abstracted away from the individual and it's easier to commit crimes.

Politicians help provide the illusion of legitimacy for the State. By having superficial arguments, that provides the slaves with the illusion that someone is advocating for their interests.

Elections are just a circus for the masses. Both candidates are always State insiders/parasites. Mainstream political debate is a distraction from the correct answer, which is "Taxation is theft!"

The Massachusetts election is an evil fnord saying "Those lousy Democrats are punished for making mistakes!" All that happens is one State parasite is replaced with another State parasite. The public face of the State changes, but the same insiders still control things. The 2008 election was the high point for the Democrats. Now, it's oscillating the other way.

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

Pro-State Terrorists

This story is interesting, which you've almost certainly heard about by now. Someone attempted to blow up an airplane over Detroit. The bomb malfunctioned and the other passengers restrained him.

On Dec 26, I was watching CNN in a restaurant . This was the only story they were discussing. They weren't actually saying much. They had a couple of items they kept repeating over and over again.

Naturally, I was thinking "How does this story promote the State? What are the evil fnords?"

One important point is that the State police completely and totally failed. The criminal met all the warning flags police are supposed to look for.

  1. He paid cash for his flight.
  2. He bought a one-way ticket.
  3. He didn't check any luggage.
  4. His visa was expired/revoked, yet he was able to enter the USA anyway.
  5. His father warned US police that his son might be considering terrorism.
  6. He was on the "terrorist watch list".
There's an interesting point about the "terrorist watch list". Over 500,000 people are on the list. That makes it nearly useless. A list with too many false positives won't be taken seriously. (I wonder if I'm on the "terrorist watch list"? I haven't tried flying since I started blogging.)

There are only two reasons that the terrorist failed two destroy the airplane.
  1. The bomb malfunctioned.
  2. The other passengers restrained him, when they discovered he had a bomb.
The second point is interesting. Previously, passengers were taught to be passive against a would-be hijacker or terrorist. The sheep should never try to defend themselves. Now, people know to resist a prospective terrorist, if they're on an airplane.

I was surprised that the suicide bomber didn't try testing the bomb first. Whoever gave him the bomb should have tested it.

The problem with an airplane, compared to other public places, is that the police can't send reinforcements. If there's a terrorist attack in a football stadium, 1000 extra police can get there quickly. On an airplane, there are no reinforcements until it lands.

In this incident, the State police/defense monopoly failed miserably. The incident had several red flags that they're already supposed to be looking for. If the police had successfully foiled the attack, they would have hyped it saying "Look at how awesome we are!"

In a really free market, if you do a lousy job, you lose customers and lose your job. The State police have a monopoly. Some bureaucrats may be scapegoated and fired and replaced with another figurehead. The vast majority will suffer no negative consequences.

In fact, State bureaucrats may get a raise. Via "Problem! Reaction! Solution!", the State police budget may be raised. This gives the very parasites who failed more power and more resources. That is the problem with the State monopoly. When you fail, you can usually get a raise and more resources. When the State fails, the proposed solution always is "Give the State more power!" For example, "The banking system is a mess. Let's give the banksters a couple trillion dollars!"

Paradoxically, a foiled attack promotes terrorism more than a successful one. If he had succeeded, it might have been publicly disclosed as an equipment malfunction.

Al Qaeda "claimed responsibility" for the attack. Of course they will. It's great publicity! Even if they didn't organize it, why not "claim responsibility"? By its decentralized nature, Al Qaeda has no official leaders.

It might have been just one crazy guy who found someone to give him a bomb.

This doesn't really fit Al Qaeda's profile. They probably would have attempted bombing several planes simultaneously. "One crazy guy" sounds like a better explanation.

The criminal probably saw Al Qaeda being hyped on the mainstream media. He was disgruntled. He thought this was his only option.

I saw CNN repeatedly saying "The terrorist will face a judge soon". So what? There will be a fair trial and a fair conviction. That's obvious.

You don't need a secret military tribunal. He's obviously guilty, so it might as well be in a regular court. There will probably be a plea bargain. Even if you're disgruntled with the State, killing complete strangers is pointless.

A foiled terrorist attack, combined with mainstream media hype, increases the demand for government. If Al Qaeda didn't exist, State parasites would have to invent it. There has to be a vague and powerful enemy, so that the slaves are scared and confused.

Osama bin Laden was formerly working for the US government. How many terrorists were actually trained by the US government? State parasites benefit from terrorism, because the reaction is "OMFG! We need the government violence monopoly to protect us!" "OMFG! Terrorism!" sounds true, because there already is a huge terrorist organization threatening everyone, their own government.

More Americans have their lives ruined each year by the IRS, than by Al Qaeda. Most of the people prosecuted by the IRS are small business owners.

Some people think that the World Trade Center attack was an inside job. Politicians exploited the attack to grab more power and more resources. The most likely explanation is the public one. There were some disgruntled terrorists and the State police monopoly had gross incompetence trying to catch them.

A terrorist attack is an excuse for State parasites to claim more power. The immorality of the State police monopoly is not discussed on the mainstream media. In a really free market, if you do a lousy job, you lose your customers.

The "customers" of government are really slaves. They are forced at gunpoint to pay the cost of their own defense and enslavement.

There is no incentive for State police to actually solve the "terrorism" problem. The occasional terrorist attack is an excuse to claim more power and more resources. "OMFG! Terrorism!" is an evil fnord used to justify expanding State power. Paradoxically, the individual terrorists are acting to help the State parasites they're trying to fight.

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

The Fallacy of Corporate Campaign Contributions

The Supreme Court made a ruling that corporate executives may spend the corporation's assets on lobbying. They may not contribute too much directly to candidates, but they may purchase their own ads without restriction.

The pro-State troll reasoning is "They earned that money fair and square with their hard work. They should be free to spend it as they please."

Supreme Court justices are not the protectors of individual freedom. They are pro-State trolls making up excuses to justify an increase in State power. The role of a Supreme Court judge is to come up with plausible-sounding lies justifying the evils of the State. These lies are then sold to the general public as the wisdom of the high priests of the State.

Do you see the scam?

All large corporations receive massive direct and indirect State subsidies. Suppose the executives at a corporation receive a State perk worth $1B, either an explicit grant/bailout or a law that restricts competition. The executives then spend $100M lobbying. This is obviously a scam.

Instead of "They earned $1B with their hard work and spent $100M lobbying.", the reality is "They stole $900M."

It is immoral to receive a perk from the State (directly or indirectly), and then spend some of that stolen money lobbying.

That is the problem with the USA economic and political system. Stealing is more profitable than working and doing something useful. That is the virtuous positive feedback cycle of complete economic collapse.

This article was funny.

Despite a record 2009, Goldman Sachs announced that it had set aside only $16.2 billion to reward its employees.

As it disclosed its results for 2009, Goldman said it made a record profit of $13.4 billion for the whole year on revenue of $45.2 billion.
Do you see the "WTF?" part yet?

The banksters at Goldman Sachs are paying themselves $16.2B in bonuses. The overall profit is only $13.4B, including that $16.2B as an expense. The article makes it sound like "Boo hoo! Those banksters didn't pay themselves that much in bonuses!"

Summarizing, Goldman Sachs' executives are paying themselves more in bonuses than shareholders received in earnings!

All of that is bailout money. There was bailout money explicitly allocated by the Federal government. The bailout of AIG was really a stealth bailout of Goldman Sachs, who was a creditor of AIG. The Fed Funds Rate is 0%-0.25% while true inflation is 20%-30% or more. This is a huge indirect bailout to the banksters. The banksters profit all the time via negative real interest rates. The banksters profit from their State-granted perk of printing and spending new money.

It's all stolen money. Both the bonuses to executives and the profits for shareholders were earned via State violence.

This illustrates the fallacy of buying stock in a bank. A pro-State troll says "If you think Goldman Sachs is ripping off American, you can buy their stock and join them!" The fallacy is that shareholders only get leftovers. The banksters pay the vast majority of the stolen booty to themselves as bonuses and salaries.

As another example, I bought shares of Citigroup and Bank of America, thinking they were safe investments. Executives at C and BAC got bailed out, but I still lost most of my investment.

There was one undisclosed bit in the above calculation. How much did Goldman Sachs' executives and the other banksters spend on lobbying? It is obviously immoral to receive bailout money and then spend some of that money on lobbying. I wonder why that isn't emphasized. Is "lobbying money spent" even disclosed on their balance sheet, or is it lumped in with other legal expenses?

If you earn your money via your own hard work, then obviously you may spend it as you please. If you earn money via State violence, then it's a vicious cycle of corruption when stolen money is spent on lobbying.

The banksters provide no useful service to the rest of society. Their profits are pure theft. It is immoral to steal money via State violence and use the profits on lobbying. That is the problem in the USA. Stealing is more profitable than working and doing something genuinely useful. Without the State violence monopoly, huge criminals like the banksters would not have a profitable extortion racket.

Monday, January 25, 2010

Johnny Lee Wicks

This story is interesting. A 66 year old man with a gun went into a Las Vegas federal building and shot some security guards. The guards then shot and killed him.

If you were abused by State parasites, getting a gun and shooting random people is pointless. Even if you could kill the specific State agents that injured you, they would just be replaced by someone else.

As South Park mentioned, you should not decapitate zombies left and right. Random violence against brainwashed slaves accomplishes nothing.

The mainstream media focuses on the details of what happened. They don't discuss much the important point, which is "Why was he angry?"

He was disgruntled about a decrease in his Social Security check. When he moved from California to Nevada, he lost a extra payment to California residents, due to the higher cost of living there. Nobody ever correctly explained that to him. Maybe that is not the real reason. Maybe that excuse was fabricated to make his concern seem stupid.

The correct answer was not published in the mainstream media. Social Security is one big Ponzi scam. All taxation is theft, including the Social Security tax.

This illustrates the fallacy of paying into a State welfare program. You pay taxes all your life. When you retire, the State parasites default. You can't do anything about it. You're old now!

Social Security is a huge profit center for State parasites. That's the real reason it's "politically untouchable". In every year of its existence, Social Security taxes collected exceeded benefits paid.

There is no Social Security trust fund. The wealth that backs previous Social Security taxes has already been spent by State parasites.

All there is in the Social Security trust fund is a stack of worthless IOUs. There will have to be future tax hikes or future inflation as those IOUs are spent.

The Social Security default will occur via higher inflation, benefit cuts, higher taxes, or a combination of all three. Every Ponzi scam must collapse eventually. Bernard Madoff wishes he were as skilled a criminal as the parasites running Social Security!

Most high-ranking State thugs are parasites. That's why Bernard Madoff got away with it for so long. State enforcers saw that he was a very skilled parasite. Therefore, he must be a decent guy. Bernard Madoff was doing what every other high-ranking State parasite does. He just was too flagrant and too greedy.

This year, there was no Social Security inflation adjustment. Real inflation is 20%-30% or more. This is, in effect, a benefit cut.

Mainstream media coverage of Johnny Lee Wicks contains some evil fnords. He is portrayed as a crazy person without a valid complaint. "Social Security is one big scam!" is not publicly discussed.

Also, the police who stopped him are portrayed as heroes. Therefore, all policemen are always heroes. The police did the right thing by stopping him. However, this story re-emphasizes another important evil fnord. "If you're disgruntled with the State, your only option is to get a gun and kill random State agents." This distracts people from more effective tactics, like agorism.

Wicks also claimed that the Social Security Administration was racist. This is another common evil fnord. Racism is an evil fnord that's used to divide and conquer the slaves. A mindless slave thinks "I'm the victim of racism!" instead of "State parasites are abusing me!" State parasites abuse everyone, regardless of race.

Another interesting bit is that Wicks was a "Tea Party Protester". Via the Strawman Fallacy, therefore all people who think "Taxation is theft!" are evil.

The important point in the story of Johnny Lee Wicks is not "Who did he shoot and when?" The real point is "Why was he so disgruntled that he thought this was his only recourse?" "Taxation is theft!" is never discussed on the mainstream media. "Social Security is one big Ponzi Scam!" is indirectly mentioned, but not explicitly like I say it.

Sunday, January 24, 2010

Did the Banksters Kill James Garfield?

President James Garfield, who was murdered in 1881, is hardly ever mentioned in State brainwashing centers (schools).

Here's some interesting quotes.

He who controls the money supply of a nation controls the nation.

Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce.

Allegedly, the latter was said during his inauguration speech.

This quote is also interesting.

The chief duty of the National Government in connection with the currency of the country is to coin money and declare its value. Grave doubts have been entertained whether Congress is authorized by the Constitution to make any form of paper money legal tender. The present issue of United States notes has been sustained by the necessities of war; but such paper should depend for its value and currency upon its convenience in use and its prompt redemption in coin at the will of the holder, and not upon its compulsory circulation. These notes are not money, but promises to pay money. If the holders demand it, the promise should be kept.

It seems that James Garfield knew that the financial industry was one big scam. Even in 1881 before the creation of the Federal Reserve, a regulated financial industry was forced to operate under corrupt fractional reserve principles.

That quote makes it sound like James Garfield was planning to issue more Greenbacks, like President Lincoln did to finance the Civil War. The banksters are *VERY* hostile to credit-based fiat money directly spent into circulation by the government. Such money does not come with debt-strings attached, and helps people escape the chains of debt slavery. In the present, deficit spending is financed by Treasury Bonds, which are owned by the banksters. The only reason the Federal government doesn't directly spend money into circulation is that contradicts the interests of the banksters.

Even though the banking cartel has a lot of power, they sometimes make a mistake and let someone with a clue become President. James Garfield is an example of such an error. Such mistakes are easily corrected via an assassination. That both eliminates a threat and sends a message to all other politicians, making sure they don't behave too honestly.

There's another interesting thing about these "Presidents were assassinated!" conspiracy theories. Lincoln, Garfield, and Kennedy were all hostile to the interests of the banksters, and all three were assassinated. For each of them, the official State explanation was "It was a lone crazy person responsible for the assassination!" rather than "Insiders killed him to protect their interests!" In the "conspiracy talk" surrounding Kennedy's assassination, people usually debate the mechanics of how Kennedy was killed, rather than "Why was Kennedy killed?"

Some people say that the Secret Service that protects the President is *REALLY GOOD*. The President could not be assassinated unless his security team allowed it. Allegedly, President Kennedy could not have been killed unless it were an inside job.

I wouldn't be surprised if some Secret Service agents were also on the payroll of the banksters. The Secret Service doesn't just protect the President. The Secret Service also spies on the President all the time. The Secret Service helps make sure that the President isn't exposed to any "dangerous" ideas.

If you're one of the insiders working for the banking cartel, it isn't too hard to hire someone to conduct an assassination, and then deny any connection to the banksters.

Given James Garfield's opposition to the banksters, it's not a surprise that he is not discussed at all in school.

Saturday, January 23, 2010

Conan O'Brien vs. Mainstream Media Monopoly

There's an interesting point in the Conan vs. Leno vs. NBC debate. Why doesn't Conan O'Brien start his own TV channel? This is not seriously discussed as a possibility.

This article on the Huffington Post hinted at the answer, but not directly. They were proposing that Conan O'Brien self-publish his show on the Internet. The fallacy is that, going that route, he'll make a lot less than he would on a mainstream media channel.

Self-publishing on the Internet makes sense for an unknown starting out like me. It doesn't make sense for a celebrity with a mainstream media reputation, unless they were discredited via some scandal for telling the truth. The mainstream media creates an artificial shortage of celebrities by hyping some and not others.

Conan O'Brien is viewed as an awesome talk show host because he got to do it for many years on NBC. Other people might have done as well or better, but they don't get the opportunity due to the mainstream media cartel. NBC spent many years promoting Conan O'Brien as a good talk show host. He was given the 12:30 timeslot instead of someone else, partially as a reward for other good work he did. Someone just as skilled, but lacking the opportunity, would not have a chance. The mainstream media State bureaucrats are gatekeepers between an artist and a potential audience. A pro-State troll says "Good, that ensures quality is high!" The reality is that leads to censorship. That leads to shows that cater to the least-common-denominator, rather than shows that target an intelligent audience.

The Internet is changing things. "Self-publish on the Internet!" seems like a good strategy for me. However, I don't have an established reputation as a mainstream media star. The mainstream media probably would be very reluctant to promote me, due to my "radical" (i.e. correct) beliefs. The author of that Huffington Post article was promoting his website Revision3. He probably would be better off hiring and promoting a bunch of skilled unknown artists, rather than paying the huge chunk of money Conan O'Brien would demand.

Another advantage of "Self-publish on the Internet!" is that you might be able to finance your show via ticket sales, rather than relying on the broadcast as your primary source of income. If you can sell 200 tickets a day for $10 each, that's $2k/day or $400k/year (assuming 200 shows per year). That's enough to pay your own salary and a few other people. Some amateur/indie bands are financing themselves by giving away music for free with no DRM, and then selling tickets to live performances.

Why can't Conan O'Brien start the "Conan O'Brien Channel" and get cable corporations to carry it? The answer is that the mainstream media cartel exercises tight control. Most/all new channels are actually owned by one of the big media corporations. They are marketed under separate brands so that the slaves don't notice. On your cable TV package, you see 100+ channels, but fewer than 10 corporations own all of them.

If Conan O'Brien tried to start his own TV channel, then he would have a hard time getting Comcast, Time Warner, Cablevision, etc. to carry it. Why would Comcast carry a new channel that competes with their own programming? It's better to have a monopoly and control all aspects of the content chain. The trend now is for the network, shows, and cable distribution to all be owned/controlled by the same person. Comcast now owns NBC/Universal, in addition to other channels they already own. Ted Turner sold out his network, because he realized that he couldn't compete unless he also owned a cable distribution network.

It's very easy to start a new cable channel when you own the distribution network! Similarly, it's practically impossible to start a new channel when you don't own the distribution network. Why would the cable monopoly carry a channel from an outsider that competes with their own programming?

Most actors, writers, and comedians work as wage slaves. This makes it easy to control them. If they say or do something inappropriate, then they are fired and it's practically impossible to find a new job. I'm particularly surprised that executives at NBC are mad at Conan O'Brien for insulting them. That seems particularly stupid. They're even putting a "non-disparagement" clause in his severance agreement! Some of my biggest scumbag employers had non-disparagement clauses in their employment contracts. Also, scumbag parasites tend to sue you if you publicly say anything negative about them, even if you have no contractual relationship with them.

What are Conan O'Brien's options? He can't go to CBS, who already has David Letterman. He can't go to ABC, who has Nightline and Jimmy Kimmel. The only option is Fox. If Fox wants Conan O'Brien, they aren't negotiating against anyone.

Conan could self-publish on the Internet. The problem with that method is that he would not make as much money, even if he had the same size audience. Advertisers are reluctant to pay as much for an Internet-based show. Self-publishing on the Internet is a good option for someone with no reputation. No mainstream media star has made the transition yet. One way to make the "publish on the Internet" model work is to also sell tickets to the live performance, like many indie bands are doing now.

One problem is that producing a mainstream media program is expensive, due to all the unions. If you self-publish on the Internet, then you would have to eliminate the overhead. Most people would be unwilling to take the risk of staffing their show with non-unionized labor. For example, the minimum salary for the cameraman's union is more than $100k/year. The minimum salary for the Screen Actor's Guild is more than $150k/year. If you aren't unionized, you could hire amateurs looking to get into the industry for less. As usual, minimum wage laws hurt people whose labor is worth less than the minimum wage. Unions in the entertainment industry are a type of minimum wage law. The contract is backed by State violence. If I work for a mainstream media corporation, I have to follow the union contract; I can't set up a separate division that doesn't follow the contract. I could set up my own filmmaking business and sell to the product to the mainstream media corporation, but insiders might be reluctant to promote a filmmaker that they didn't own/control.

All mainstream media corporations are incorporated in a manner that gives insiders control, even though they are publicly traded. If the insider misbehaves, then it's easy to push down the stock share price and arrange for a leveraged buyout.

Via their magic money-printing power, the banksters bought up all mainstream media corporations. With negative real interest rates, any purchase at any price is profitable, as long as you can keep borrowing money. Inflation means that debt has a negative cost. The borrower profits from inflation, when the money is used to buy tangible assets or a State-backed monopoly.

One interesting much-derided character in the scandal is NBC president Jeff Zucker. He's the genius who made the decision to move Jay Leno to primetime. Then, he decided to move Leno back to 11:30 and cheat Conan O'Brien.

The problem is that Jeff Zucker has no useful skills. He is not a writer. He is not an actor. He is not a comedian. How can he tell the difference between a potential hit and a miserable flop? Jeff Zucker is a perfect example of a State parasite.

I was wary of The Jay Leno Show just based on his attitude during promos. Jay Leno had the air of "I'm Jay Leno! Of course I'm successful! Of course my show is awesome!" He was obviously coasting off his past success, rather than trying to make a great show in the present. Moving Jay Leno back to 11:30 might flop, especially if he's against Conan O'Brien on Fox. However, there is a core audience that might appreciate Jay Leno: parasites. Nearly half the population are parasites, and they might like Jay Leno even though he sucks. You can have a profitable show where the target audience are parasites! In fact, parasites are more likely to be fooled by manipulative advertisements. That's why some insiders are angry at Jay Leno. He's an intelligent person who's writing a show that targets stupid people. That's a type of sellout.

Of course, due to the nature of the State, there are very few shows that target intelligent people. The people pulling the strings are usually parasites. They would veto any show that might start the slaves thinking for themselves.

Ironically, Jeff Zucker does not have an MBA or law degree. He rapidly rose though the ranks at NBC via excellent parasite skills.

Jeff Zucker is not someone who could successfully build a business in a free market. He's the classic example of a parasite exploiting a defective system. He rose through the ranks via a crony capitalism process.

This story illustrates it.

Using a combination of moxie and managing upward he jumped to run The Today Show, then sit atop NBC’s entertainment operations, and finally to run the entire NBC operation when Bob Wright retired in early 2007.

Somehow Zucker never got tarred with the failure. Instead, he got the top job, and got out while the getting was good.
Jeff Zucker always took credit for success, while other people always took the blame for failure. That's exactly how a parasitic reality distortion field works.

Jeff Zucker didn't build a successful business himself. Instead, he conned other parasites into appointing him as leader. He's a skilled parasite, like them, so he got the job.

It makes more sense when you realize that Jeff Zucker is an agent for the banksters. NBC is a State-owned monopoly, and Jeff Zucker was appointed to lead that bureaucracy. Jeff Zucker is the beneficiary of crony capitalism.

Jeff Zucker himself cannot write or act in a successful TV show. Via the State, an unqualified bureaucrat/middleman is always making the decisions. Skilled actors and writers have no choice but to work for the State monopoly and scum like Jeff Zucker. Conan O'Brien is thinking/acting like a wage slave and not like an owner.

Jeff Zucker has no useful skills. He has to rely on focus groups to decide what new shows to air. An intelligent person could look at a pilot or look at the team of writers/actors and see which ones to back. By blindly following focus groups, this makes Jeff Zucker blameless when there is failure.

Even though Jeff Zucker failed miserably, insiders at NBC get to keep their State-backed monopoly. Even if NBC went bankrupt, then the banksters would pick different insiders to run NBC for them.

There was another bit that made me think "WTF?" Allegedly, Conan O'Brien reached a settlement with NBC. He will be get a severance payment, and he's free to seek employment with a separate network. As part of the settlement, Conan O'Brien signed a non-disparagement clause. He is barred from saying anything negative about NBC or its incompetent/scumbag executives.

That's a common parasite trick. State parasites make you sign a non-disparagement clause as part of an employment contract or settlement. They might sue you for libel if you publicly criticize them.

For example, if there's a lawsuit over negative drug side-effects, followed by a settlement, the settlement details require that all the evidence in the trial discovery process is sealed. This hides information from other people who may have been injured by the same drug.

Only a corrupt State judge would approve such a settlement. Via non-disparagement clauses and other such tricks, the slaves are prevented from sharing information about evil.

There was another interesting quote. "It isn't about making a good show, it's about money." or "It isn't about making a good show, it's about power and control." In a really free market, you maximize your profit by maximizing the quality of your product. In a really free market, you maximize your power by maximizing the quality of your product. NBC has a State-backed monopoly. There is no free market in the mainstream media. That's why power and money considerations are not related to concerns of "make a great product". The executives at NBC value power and control and CYA more than doing a great job. Insiders at NBC are risking other people's money. They value protecting their jobs more than taking reasonable risks or doing the right thing.

Putting Jay Leno in primetime is an example of a stupid risk, because it should have been obvious that Jay Leno is a washed up loser rather than a great comic. The problem is not "A primetime comedy/variety/talk show is a stupid idea." The problem is "That specific show was lousy." This could work to my advantage if I try to create a comedy/variety/talk show. Nobody else would be trying it, because The Jay Leno Show was a flop! It's just like there were no primetime big money game shows until "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?", and then every network was making game shows again.

There was another interesting bit. Conan O'Brien loses the rights to all the characters he developed. They are owned by NBC. Another comic obviously can't use them, because that would be offensive to the audience. The net result is that those characters can't be used by anyone. This is a spiteful act by NBC. As I've said many time, intellectual property is not property.

If I ever get influential enough to get a mainstream media contract, I should make sure:
  1. There's no non-compete clause preventing me from moving to another network.
  2. Any characters I develop are owned by me or placed in the public domain.
However, I'd probably be eager enough for the contract to accept it. On the other hand, I probably won't be able to get a mainstream media contract until I'm making a decent income self-publishing on the Internet.

Overall, the dispute between Conan O'Brien and NBC illustrates the problems with a non-free market. Conan O'Brien can't start his own competing TV channel, because the mainstream media cartel wouldn't carry the signal. Conan O'Brien has limited choices if he wants to switch networks, with Fox being the only option. Stupid intellectual property laws will prevent Conan O'Brien from using his old characters and sketches. Stupid non-disparagement clauses will prevent Conan O'Brien from publicly discussing how he was mistreated. Jeff Zucker is the classic example of an "empty suit". Jeff Zucker is a State parasite/bureaucrat who himself lacks the skills to create a successful TV show. If Jeff Zucker can't make a successful TV show, then how is he qualified to pick what other shows will succeed and what will fail?

Most actors/celebrities/comedians/writers are wage slaves. They must dance for their corporate masters, or be shut out of the market. The Internet is changing the equation somewhat, but it's still hard to earn a decent salary self-publishing on the Internet.

Even though Conan O'Brien is a good comedian/writer, he still is a wage slave. He's in a bigger cage than most slaves, but he's still a slave.

Friday, January 22, 2010

George Donnelly is Henry Louis Gates

I mentioned this subject before, without specifically discussing George Donnelly's first open-carry confrontation with State police/thugs. I was wondering if reopening the flamewar was a good idea, and noticed that David Z also made a post on the subject.

I'm referring to this incident. George Donnelly was open-carrying his gun. An off-duty policeman asked him for ID. George Donnelly refused. The confrontation escalated and George Donnelly was arrested.

According to State law, a policeman must otherwise suspect you of a specific crime in order to demand ID. However, State law also gives the policeman broad discretion when deciding to arrest someone.

Crimes like "disorderly conduct" or "disobeying the orders of a policeman" give the policeman a lot of discretion. If it turns out that the policeman made a mistake when arresting you, then there's usually no penalty for the policeman unless is was *EXTREMELY* bad police misconduct. George Donnelly isn't friends with State insiders like Henry Louis Gates, so his arrest isn't going to make national headlines.

How effective were George Donnelly's tactics?

Inconvenience to George Donnelly: a lot
Inconvenience to State policeman/thug: zero or negative

The off-duty policeman might have actually have profited by arresting him, because police get paid overtime when they arrest someone and stay on past the end of their shift.

Also, the police want to believe "People who open-carry are a bunch of fruitcakes and homegrown terrorists!" Non-policemen carrying a gun directly threaten the State's core monopoly, its violence monopoly. His coworkers were probably congratulating the policeman "You did a great job handling that fruitcake who was open-carrying!"

Even if they aren't consciously aware of it, State thugs know that open-carriers threaten their core violence monopoly. Plus, open-carriers are more likely to understand "Taxation is theft!"

Regrettably, I can't get a gun permit. First, NYC is incredibly restrictive regarding gun ownership, about as bad as Washington DC. Second, I'm permanently barred from getting a gun permit because I was involuntarily hospitalized with a mental illness. Based on a one-minute evaluation by an incompetent "doctor", I permanently lost my right to ever own a gun. I don't get a trial, nor do I get the right to appeal.

I probably could lie on a gun permit application and nobody would notice. Or, I could tell the truth and challenge it in court once rejected. However, that would require knowing a lawyer who'd represent me for free, or be willing to waste a lot of time representing myself, probably fruitlessly. Ironically, I have less rights than a convicted criminal, who can get pardoned. A criminal at least gets a jury trial.

That's another interesting question? Would it be immoral for me to lie on a gun permit application, in the place where they ask you if you were ever involuntarily hospitalized? It isn't immoral to lie, but it isn't worth the risk of possibly getting caught, especially if I plan to be an advocate for both agorism and that the "chemical imbalance" theory of mental illness is a fraud.

I don't really need a gun anyway. Common criminals shouldn't be a real problem if you're careful, and State police outnumber me. I could always pay someone with a permit to keep an extra gun for me, to be delivered in a SHTF scenario.

I shouldn't worry about common criminals stealing my property and savings! I was already robbed of a huge chunk of my savings via inflation and a declining stock market!

Henry Louis Gates is an "African American Studies" professor, which means that his job is to promote racism. By escalating a minor incident into an arrest, he improves his "academic credibility". Henry Louis Gates psychologically manipulated the white policeman into arresting him.

Similarly, George Donnelly psychologically manipulated the policeman into arresting him. Does getting arrested for open-carrying and refusing to show ID improve your "anarchist credibility"?

I already know that the State is one big scam. I don't need a confrontation with State thugs as proof. Besides, I already was kidnapped and tortured by State murderers.

You should treat the State like you would a crazy person on the subway. Do you:

1. Ignore them.
2. Pick a fight with them.
I choose (1), but apparently George Donnelly would pick (2).

For example, while typing this on the subway, I noticed someone pretending to be homeless begging for change. It would have been pointless to point out that he's a fraud. I would have gained nothing, and I might have been injured. I said nothing.

There is no significant difference between the crazy guy on the subway and a policeman or State thug/bureaucrat. The only difference is that one is acting alone, and the other has many allies and resources. Plus, the State parasite has conned many people into supporting them by giving them money.

If nobody gave money to people begging on the subway, then there wouldn't be beggars on the subway! If nobody voluntarily paid taxes, then the scam would rapidly collapse. The State relies on the voluntary compliance of most people, combined with lots of resources spent cracking down on those who seek freedom. If only a tiny fraction seek freedom, then it's feasible to try and crack down on most/all of them.

This is a very important point. A State thug/bureaucrat should be treated like a dangerous crazy retarded person. You should not seek out a confrontation with such a lunatic. If there is a potential confrontation, you should prevent it from escalating, if possible.

Unless you're prepared to murder the policeman who demands your ID for open-carrying, and then murder/evade the inevitable hunt for you, you have to submit or otherwise defuse a potential confrontation.

Such a confrontation would not be possible in a really free market. If you said "I'm a customer of the FSK police agency!", that would usually be enough. Besides, you wouldn't be allowed in a restaurant in the first place if you were dangerous.

On a strict logical level, George Donnelly was correct. However, the State policeman evaluated George Donnelly's body language after the ID request. George Donnelly's body language was hostility, and the policeman responded with hostility.

It escalated just like on "The Dog Whisperer", when two dogs in an aggressive/dominant mental state meet.

I have sympathy to people who are the victim of State violence. However, you should not intentionally seek/escalate a confrontation.

Pursuing a complaint against the policeman via the State is an obvious waste of time. You have to distinguish between effective resistance and a waste of time and energy.

It seems obviously stupid for George Donnelly filing a complaint against the policeman via the State legal system. What does he expect them to say? "You're right. The policeman acted inappropriately." If you expect that to happen, you really are a fool.

For example, suppose I went to the emergency room and started cursing at the people working there, complaining that the "chemical imbalance" theory of mental illness is a mistake. What do you think would happen? Even though I am right, directly confronting State-licensed thugs is a waste of time.

It's important to encourage effective resistance. It's important to point out when someone picks an ineffective resistance strategy.

If I lived in an open-carry friendly city, and didn't have the legal obstacle to getting a permit, I'd probably get a gun. I wouldn't move just for that. Most big US cities have very restrictive gun control laws.

It isn't worth a confrontation with police over a minor issue. The policeman doesn't have the legal right to ask for ID. If your body language is going to be hostile when the policeman asks, then the confrontation is going to escalate. If you're going to refuse to show ID, you have to *ALSO* make sure that your body language doesn't get hostile. Then, the policeman probably will back down.

George Donnelly was with a gun instructor. The gun instructor was partially responsible. He should have just told the policeman "He's OK. He's with me." and then it probably wouldn't have escalated.

If you're the victim of State violence, then seeking justice in a State court is really stupid. You're free to try. You're a fool if you don't realize that's probably a waste of time. Intentionally escalating a confrontation with State thugs is a waste of time. The State has a lot more resources than you. You'll be wasting a lot of time, while the State thugs collect a paycheck and possible overtime, paid by taxes/theft.

Stupid resistance tactics don't deny they State resources. The State is one big scam, but you have to use proper tactics.

Thursday, January 21, 2010

Healthcare "Reform" Marriage Penalty

This story is interesting. Just like the Federal income tax, the new healthcare "reform" proposal has a "marriage penalty".

If your income is below a certain threshold, you will receive State-subsidize health care premiums. However, the formula penalizes married couples.

For example, suppose two single people earn $25k each. If they get married, then they get a hike in their premium, because it's calculated on a base of $50k. The formula charges the married couple earning $50k more than two single each earning $25k.

Surprisingly, Republicans are not choosing to criticize this aspect of the plan. I thought they were supposed to be super-family-friendly?

The pro-State troll logic justifying the "marriage penalty" was amusing. "If there were no 'marriage penalty', then families with only one working parent get an 'unfair' tax cut." Most people probably wouldn't get married just for a small tax cut. If you get married for a tax cut, that's risky because there are lots of extra State-imposed costs on divorce.

Debating a "marriage penalty" is itself an evil fnord. The correct answer, "All taxation is theft!", is never discussed in the mainstream media or by politicians.

Debating "We should collect taxes fairly!" is an evil fnord. This distracts attention from the real issue. All taxation is theft. The only beneficiaries of taxation are State parasites.

The "marriage penalty" clause of the healthcare reform law is interesting. The whole debate is one big evil fnord. The real reason healthcare is expensive is due to the State/AMA licensing cartel for doctors, and other regulations. The problem is not "too much free market". The real problem is "Not enough free market!" As usual, via "Problem! Reaction! Solution!", there will be a new law/tax that restricts freedom and benefits insiders.

If you actually read the details, the "healthcare reform" law is really a corporate welfare law. The "marriage penalty" clause is merely one minor annoying detail in one big scam.

Wage Slave Update

There was an interesting incident at my new wage slave consulting job. My boss was fired! I still have a job (for now).

My boss was the typical parasitic middle manager. He seemed to be playing the corporate politics game well. The most likely explanation is that my boss' boss has a friend who needs a job. My boss was removed to create an opening.

Usually, I don't get along well with parasites. However, my ex-boss didn't seem to mind that I was competent. He probably was too busy with other things to notice or feel threatened. Another explanation is that, even though he was a parasite, he wasn't skilled enough of a parasite to notice that I was competent and feel threatened. My direct coworkers have the "abused productive" personality type and I'm getting along fine with them.

My coworkers seem to live in a state of continuous fear. They are concerned that some powerful superior will object to something they do, and reprimand/fire them. Now, they're worried about the management change. Interestingly, the least skilled people are the ones most afraid.

I've been laid off enough times that it doesn't bother me. I'm a consultant/contractor, so a short-term assignment won't look bad on my resume. I figure I'll wait and see what happens. I won't have much better information until I see who's the new boss.

I did get some information from my coworkers. They are hiring someone externally, rather than promoting someone. Allegedly, the new boss will hire more people and double the size of the group. That was a red flag to me. The new boss might hire his friends, wait for them to learn the work, and then get rid of the current employees.

It is practically guaranteed that the new boss will be a parasite. I'll probably be forced to find a new wage slave job. I'll wait and see what happens. The economy is lousy now anyway.

Does this potential inefficiency matter? It really makes no difference if the risk reports my coworkers calculate are accurate or nonsense. They're really just evil fnords providing the illusion that someone is watching for problems.

The reality is that my employer has an explicit State-backed monopoly. I can't compete with them, other than creating an agorist financial system. If their risk reports are wrong, then they'll just get a bailout.

It was amusing to tell my pimp/headhunter about the incident. He said "Don't worry! As long as you're doing a good job, they'll keep you!" I'm no longer dumb enough to fall for that. It's irrelevant if I do good work or lousy work, because my corporate employer has an explicit State-backed monopoly. In fact, it might be dangerous to be very skilled, because people would feel threatened by you. Ironically, my coworkers are relatively unskilled parasites, so they don't notice me. A really skilled parasite with connections would work as a hedge fund manager, where he could steal millions/billions of dollars a year. My current coworkers only make their base salary and a small bonus. Bernard Madoff would not work for my current employer. The high level of bureaucracy and corporate controls would make it impossible for him to steal, other than his salary.

Yesterday, my boss' boss was asking everyone for a current resume! That's a sure sign of impending layoffs.

My boss' firing will probably lead to me and many of my coworkers losing their jobs. A replacement probably has already been picked, but won't be announced for a few weeks. If they announce the replacement right away, then it's be obvious "Current boss fired to make room for new guy!" If they wait, have the illusion of interviewing several people, and have a superficially fair search, then it won't look bad if they hire their friend as a replacement.

They have a State-backed monopoly. It makes absolutely no difference if they do a brilliant job or an incompetent job. I do the best job I can, because if I'm going to do something I might as well do my best. (I guess I'm still stupid that way. However, I agreed to work there and I should do my best as long as I'm there. Besides, making an Intranet PHP server is good experience.) Ultimately, it's irrelevant.

The trend looks bad, but I'll wait and see what happens. Maybe I'll be lucky and the replacement boss won't be a parasite or won't desire to eliminate me. I doubt it. Anyway, losing a job has happened enough times for me to not be concerned. My current wage slave job is decent, but not super-awesome. I'll wait and see, but I have low expectations.

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Haiti Earthquake Fnords

This story is interesting. President Obama is spending $100M on earthquake relief for Haiti. It's so easy to be generous with other people's money! Obama is also sending troops and police. If I had a standing army paid via taxation/theft, this is a good opportunity to promote them!

It's one thing to voluntarily contribute to charity. It's another thing to be forced at gunpoint to pay. Besides, a lot of that $100M in aid might disappear as pork.

In an emergency, there is no choice but to rely on the State, due to their monopoly. Faced with a crushing tax burden, people don't prepare for emergencies. When people have a tax burden of 50%-95% or more, there's very little leftover for charitable work.

Would people make contributions to private charities if there were no government? They probably would. It's the usual seen vs. unseen fallacy. You see politicians helping people in emergencies. That's the only option, due to their violence monopoly and economic monopoly.

In the USA, there were a lot of private charities and mutual aid societies, before the growth of government and the Welfare State eliminated them. That's an indication that people would have private charities, that would do all the things that government "beneficially" does, and more efficiently.

Political insiders use charities as tax dodges. If you put your assets in a charitable trust, then you can control them while avoiding taxes. The people who run the trust can pay themselves a nice salary.

The people who are the most publicly active charity donors are those who profit most from State violence. For example, executives at Goldman Sachs set up some high-profile charities recently. If you steal trillions of dollars and give a small amount to charity, does that make it morally acceptable?

Professional athletes are usually required to do charity work, as part of their contract. This helps prove the illusion of legitimacy when State insiders make charitable donations, either as a tax dodge or as a publicity stunt.

It's not valid to say "Look at the good things that State charities do. Look at the good charitable works of State insiders." That's still the seen/unseen fallacy. You don't see the free market alternatives that would exist without the State.

"Obama sends aid to Haiti!" is an evil fnord. It emphasizes people's dependence on the State. It's very easy to be charitable with other people's money! If a criminal uses part of his stolen property on good things, that doesn't magically make him not a criminal.

As usual, whenever you see an issue hyped on the news 24x7 for several days, the key question is "Where's the evil fnord? How does this glorify the State?" The coverage of the Haiti earthquake emphasizes the "need" for the State, because only the State helps people in emergencies. This is an evil fnord, because the State crowds out free market alternatives via taxes. For many things, it's explicitly illegal for people to help themselves without a State permit.

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Bank Tax Fnord

This story is pretty funny. After receiving trillions of dollars of direct and indirect bailouts, the banksters are about to pay themselves huge bonuses for 2009.

In outrage over this excess, President Obama is proposing a tax on banks. Do you see the joke?

The role that banks play in the US economy is that of tax collectors. They banks collect taxes via their State-granted perk of printing/lending new money. Negative real interest rates are a State subsidy to the banksters.

The banksters' profits come from the inflation tax. This tax is collected by banks. Placing a tax on tax collectors is obviously silly.

The proposed 0.15 per cent tax would last at least 10 years and generate about $90 billion over the decade, according to administration estimates.
The proposal is for a 0.15% tax on banks with liabilities over $50B. This is pointless for several reasons:
  1. The cost will just be passed on to customers as higher prices. Instead of getting a mortgage for 5%, you'll get a mortgage for 5.2%.
  2. Banks profit from borrowing at the Fed Funds Rate (currently 0%-0.25%) and lending at 5% or more. A tax of 0.15% is only a tiny slice of this spread. If this tax is imposed, the spread will just get 0.15% wider.
If you use violence to steal, and then give back some via a tax, that doesn't make it morally acceptable. Via this tax, the banksters are giving a very tiny slice of their stolen booty back to the government.

A pro-State troll says "HAHAHA!! Obama is sticking it to those greedy bankers!" The reality is that the banksters themselves probably lobbied for the tax. Overall, this tax is negligible and only will last for a few years. This tax is a great marketing campaign, providing the illusion that the banksters were punished for their excesses. If this tax really restricted the ability of the banksters to steal, then they would have lobbied against it.

At my wage slave job, someone showed me a chart and said "It looks like a bubble is forming in government-backed bonds."

The average person does/should not invest in government bonds. Anyone can buy Treasury debt. Other Federal government debt has similar yields, but is not sold to the general public.

As an individual, you would be a fool to invest in government bonds. With an unleveraged investment, you'll get ripped off by inflation.

When the banksters buy government bonds, they use leverage of 30x-100x or more. They borrow at the Fed Funds Rate, currently 0%-0.25%, and buy longer-term debt yielding 2%-4%. The spread times the leverage ratio is pure economic rent, pure illicit interest arbitrage. Only the banksters may perform this lucrative trade, because only they may borrow at the Fed Funds Rate.

That's how the banksters profited so quickly even thought the economy is lousy. They used the TARP money to speculate in government bonds. This trade was so profitable that they were able to rapidly repay the TARP money plus have huge profits.

The people who benefit from government debt ar the banksters. It is not China's insiders who profit. They have an unleveraged long investment in US Treasury debt. They are getting ripped off by inflation just like the average person who would invest in Treasury debt.

Where do these bank profits come from? There are two sources. First, there is inflation. Second, there is the part of the Federal government's budget for "interest payments on the national debt".

The only way I can get money is by actually working for it. State thugs take this money/wealth via taxes. Then, they spend some of it on "interest payments on the national debt". Does this wealth vanish into thin air? No, it winds up in the pockets of the banksters. When banksters want money, they just print new money and spend/lend it. This magic money-printing power enables the banksters to directly or indirectly control nearly all economic activity.

Comedians/communists/economists say "an upward sloping yield curve occurs naturally in a free market". This is false. The yield curve shape is controlled by the Federal Reserve and the State.

All new money created is demand money, lent out by the Federal Reserve overnight at the Fed Funds Rate. There's an artificial surplus of demand money. This creates the upward-sloping yield curve. This helps banks to profit by borrowing at the Fed Funds Rate and buying longer-dated government bonds.

Why should banks lend to individuals and small businesses when they can lend free Federal Reserve money back to the government for a sure profit? That's why the banksters were able to repay TARP so quickly, even though everyone else is still suffering from the recession.

This government bond trade was so lucrative that the banksters made huge profits without any risk or work at all. Just like in the latter half of the Great Depression, the banksters are making huge profits via inflation, while the productive sector of the economy is struggling.

Even before 1913, with a gold standard, there was an upward-sloping yield curve. That's because a fractional reserve bank fraudulently increases the supply of demand money. This fraud was backed by the State.

The proposed bank tax is an evil fnord. It is designed to distract attention from the real issue, which is the fact that the US financial system is one big scam.

Monday, January 18, 2010

Gold Outperformed the S&P 500, 1997-2009

"Gold Outperformed the S&P 500" is one of the regular posts that I update every year. I'll update my "Real GDP is Decreasing" post when preliminary 2009 GDP data is released. When you consider that the FRN-denominated price of gold went up 28% in 2009 (or equivalently, the value of the dollar went down 28%), while nominal GDP was flat, the US economy continued to crash in 2009.

In 2009, the FRN-denominated price of gold went up 28.2% while the S&P 500 went up 25.7%, including reinvested dividends. I use VFINX on Yahoo Finance as my source for the S&P 500, the "Adjusted Close" column which includes reinvested dividends. I use as my source for the price of gold.

YearS&P 500GoldGold/S&PDiffCum DifAnn Cum Diff
2010$102.67 $1121.5010.922.53%2.53%2.53%
2009$81.67 $874.50 10.7140.29%53.27%23.80%
2008$129.67 $846.75 6.5326.97%91.86%24.26%
2007$123.04 $639.75 5.25.07%115.11%21.11%
2006$106.40 $530.00 4.9814.39%151.07%20.21%
2005$101.55 $444.74 4.38-2.19%161.76%17.40%
2004$91.70 $409.72 4.47-15.75%164.75%14.92%
2003$71.36 $363.38 5.0939.49%250.11%16.96%
2002$91.69 $309.73 3.3826.31%315.27%17.14%
2001$104.23 $271.04 2.66.17%312.23%15.22%
2000$114.61 $279.11 2.44-24.91%277.93%12.85%
1999$94.66 $290.25 3.07-28.08%248.97%10.98%
1998$73.60 $288.70 3.92-32.61%204.90%8.95%
1997$55.26 $287.05 5.19-45.06%75.67%4.11%
1996$44.98 $369.00 8.2-42.12%-23.99%-1.81%
1995$32.72 $387.00 11.83-0.20%-24.84%-1.77%
1994$32.34 $383.25 11.85-11.28%-60.11%-5.26%
1993$29.64 $391.75 13.229.43%-38.06%-2.63%

"Ann Cum Diff" is the relative performance difference between gold and the S&P 500, converted to an annualized rate. (I already have Excel spreadsheets for this. I just update them with this year's data. That makes this post easier to write than it seems.)

This was a relatively good year for the stock market, trailing gold by only a few percent. If you go back to 2000, a gold investment would have outperformed the S&P 500 by more than 10% *PER YEAR*. That isn't 10% total. That's 10% per year, compounded.

You have to go all the way back to 1996 to find a time when a buy-and-hold S&P 500 investment would have outperformed a buy-and-hold gold investment.

Here's a chart that contains the same data as the above table:

Here is the same chart on a logscale. When viewing financial data, a log scale is correct, because you care about the percentage gain and not the absolute gain. Viewed on the logscale, it's still a pretty big discrepancy.

The comedians on the Communism Channel denigrate gold investors at every opportunity. The above charts show that gold has trounced the stock market over the past 10 years, by a statistically significant difference.

"Gold outperforms the stock market!" is logically equivalent to "The stock market does not outperform true inflation!" If you believe "Gold is money!", then this is a matter of definition.

I was very disappointed when I discovered that the stock market is one big scam. I used to follow it closely and track my investments. Now, I realize that I should just buy gold and silver. I haven't yet cashed in my State paper investments for physical metal, but it's on my list of things to do.

The problem is not "a free market discredited the gold standard". The problem is that State violence and State regulations caused the gold standard to fail. The best example of this is Roosevelt's gold confiscation order in 1933. State raids against the Liberty Dollar and E-Gold are a recent example of State violence used to crack down on people who seek monetary freedom.

Compared to the stock market, gold has a higher expected return and a lower volatility. This makes it one of the safest investments. The only problems are:
  1. State regulations make it hard to buy gold and silver. A State-licensed dealer is required to report transactions to the State/IRS.
  2. State regulations make it hard to use gold and silver as money. If you want to use gold and silver as money, you should work off-the-books.
  3. State regulations make it impractical/illegal to operate a warehouse receipt bank.
If I could overcome the above obstacles, I'd convert 100% of my savings to physical metal. "Start a gold/silver/FRN barter network!" and "Start a decentralized agorist banking system!" are two of my favorite agorist business idea.

Why is There a QWERTY Keyboard on my Phone?

Why is there a QWERTY keyboard on my phone? It makes no sense at all. It's too small to touch type. Why not use Dvorak or a phone-optimized keyboard layout?

I noticed another weird bit about my phone voicemail. I can't optimize it like with E-Mail.

I can't set up a list of "preferred" callers who get priority.

I can't "killfile" spammers/telemarketers.

I can't separately sort calls from people I've never heard from before.

I can set up custom ringtones. However, I leave the volume on my phone off. It'd be nice to have the volume turn on *ONLY* when certain numbers call.

I looked on Verizon's website, and I can actually block up to 5 numbers for 90 days. I have to re-enter the block after 90 days. That seems like a braindead crippled way to do it. Then I saw why. Verizon sells "usage controls" for $5/month, which isn't crippled. Blocking spammers isn't worth $5/month. It sucks to buy from a State-backed monopoly!

There's all these little frustrations when dealing with phone companies that don't occur with E-Mail. The reason is that the phone company has a State-backed monopoly. Anybody can write their own E-Mail client.

Sunday, January 17, 2010


There have been lots of "Tea Party" protests lately. There's greater awareness of "All taxation is theft!"

Unfortunately, calling it the "Tea Party" movement seems like a poor choice of name. The protesters are called "teabaggers", which is also a sexual slang term.

Rioting and protesting against taxes is a waste of time. A true agorist would not participate in a riot or protest, because that's calling attention to yourself. An agorist doesn't want to draw the attention of State enforcers.

A riot or protest is a waste of time. When you riot and protest, you're fighting the bad guys on their turf.

The correct behavior is to boycott the Federal Reserve and income tax. You should generate wealth outside the State slave economy. You shouldn't beg your masters for freedom. You should just take it directly yourself.

Saturday, January 16, 2010

Clone Wars Fnord

I've been watching bits of the animated series "Clone Wars". It makes a lot more sense if you interpret the Jedi as the villains and the "separatists" as the heroes.

What's wrong with being a separatist? What right does the Empire have to demand their obedience?

There's one fnord that presents the Jedi as heroes. The Jedi are all humanoids. The rebel army is all robots. If a Jedi kills a robot, that isn't evil. If the rebel soldiers were humanoids, then the Jedi would be evil for killing them.

The Jedi are a complacent and inefficient bureaucracy. The Jedi think they're doing good, but they're just pawns of the future emperor.

There was another episode where there was a moment where the Jedi were portrayed as really evil, but that wasn't emphasized as the main point. The Sith Lord had captured a child with force powers. The Jedi recovered the child. They told they parents that they would take care of the child for them.

The parent protested "How can I be sure that my child will be safe with you?" The Jedi reassured the parents, perhaps with a Jedi Mind Trick. That point wasn't emphasized, but that scene has a hidden meaning that the Jedi are evil.

Anakin Skywalker later slaughtered all the Jedi children. The Jedi broke their promise to take care of the child. That point wan't emphasized there, but when I saw that scene I thought that the Jedi was a scumbag, responsible for the child's future murder.

I joked to my parents and my sister "When I watch 'The Clone Wars', I'm rooting for the Sith Lords!" They got angry. They also told me to not tell anyone else that, lest I be ostracized. My parents don't want me to discuss my free market ideas.

In "The Clone Wars", the Jedi represent the State. That makes the Sith Lords the heroes. I noticed that, in most movies, the villains get all the good lines. The villain can say things that the hero can't.

I wonder if that was an intentionally hidden message in the story, that the Jedi really are the bad guys. The Jedi are a complacent and inefficient bureaucracy. They are totally manipulated by the future emperor. The Jedi represent the State.

Friday, January 15, 2010

Can You Pass a Turing Test?

One important idea from Artificial Intelligence is "Can you design a computer that can hold a conversation, where another person can't tell if it's a computer or another human?"

One reason this is hard is that you need special knowledge in order to properly parse an English sentence. For example, in "broken light bulb", "broken" modifies "bulb", but in "red light bulb", "red" modifies "light".

Another reason this is hard is that most/all humans are completely insane. An intelligent computer would have to also mirror the insanity of humans. For example, most humans believe "taxation is not theft". It's very hard to train a computer to recite pro-State propaganda, and simultaneously otherwise function normally.

If an impartial observer from another planet observed US politics, he might conclude "These are not intelligent lifeforms."

One of my favorite YouTube videos is the one where Jan Helfeld interviews Harry Reid about the income tax. In that video, Harry Reid clearly is failing a Turing Test. Normally, politicians don't do interviews with people who question their assumptions.

It's risky to mention my free-market beliefs, if the person listening is not receptive. For example, I can't go around telling my coworkers at a large US financial institution "You know, the US financial system is one big scam!"

I'm getting pretty good at noticing if someone is freedom-oriented or not. If they're receptive, I'll mention "Taxation is theft!" or "The USA has an unfair monetary system!" If not, I say nothing.

I'm also getting better at noticing "Does this person have the productive or parasitic personality type?" These skills would be really useful as an agorist, so I can avoid Statists.

A State-licensed psychiatrist knows less than nothing about mental health. A State-licensed economist knows less than nothing about really free markets. Their negative knowledge causes them to do evil, as they fraudulently present themselves as experts. They literally know less than nothing.

Most humans don't really qualify as an intelligent lifeform. They are severely crippled by their false beliefs and their pro-State brainwashing. Most human have less than zero knowledge. They can handle everyday tasks like crossing the street and tying their shoelaces, but they fail when thinking about issues of real importance.

Thursday, January 14, 2010

November and December AdBrite Summary

I didn't make a December version of this, because I was busy with my new wage slave job.

According to Google Analytics, I had 5504 Absolute Unique Visitors in November and 5077 in December. That's slightly less than 5763 in October, but people go on vacation for Thanksgiving and Christmas.

I made $6.68 in November and $7.69 in December. My eCPM rates were $0.22 in November and $0.25 in December.

According to Google Reader, I have 117 RSS subscribers. When I used FeedBurner, that number was about 50% of the total. AdBrite doesn't have an "ads in RSS feed" option.

I'm going to need a *LOT* more pageviews in order to seriously consider blogging as a full-time job. I'd need about 1000x more regular readers with those earning rates.

I should expand from blogging to other things. Right now, most of my time is going towards my wage slave job. Vlogging and "promote agorism via standup comedy" seem like the two most promising ideas.

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

Cadillac Plans

This joke is interesting. The latest healthcare "reform" proposal includes a tax on "Cadillac Plans". This tax was in earlier proposals, but "Cadillac Plans" is a new fnord phrase. That makes it sound like "This tax will only affect super-wealthy people."

Plans with annual premiums more than $8500 will be subject to a tax of 40%. The proceeds of the tax will buy health insurance for poor people.

Do you see the scam?

First, $8500 isn't that much. When my COBRA expired, I bought the cheapest available individual policy. The premium was approximately $8500 per year.

Second, and more importantly, the $8500 figure is not adjusted for inflation. Either there's no adjustment, or it's linked to the CPI, which is much less than true inflation.

This is a common State parasite trick. They introduce a new tax. They say "only wealthy people will pay this new tax". Then, a few years later, everyone is paying it. This occurs via a tax hike or indirectly via inflation.

Healthcare "reform" is not true reform. It is corporate welfare adverised as reform.

The "Cadillac Plan" tax is a huge tax hike on all health insurance. Initially, it will affect only expensive plans, but shortly thereafter it will affect all plans.

"Healthcare is too expensive! Let's put a huge tax on it!" is the sort of pro-State troll logic that State parasites use all the time.

The "Cadillac Plan" tax is a huge tax hike. The legal requirement to buy health insurance is a huge tax hike. It's corporate welfare for insurance executives, drug company executives, and doctors.

The whole healthcare "reform" debate is one big evil fnord, both by Republicans and Democrats. The real reason healthcare is expensive is the AMA licensing cartel. This is not mentioned in the mainstream media.

It's wrong to say "The USA free market healthcare systen is failing!" The USA does not have a free market healthcare system, due to the AMA/State licensing cartel and other State regulations.

It's the usual "Problem! Reaction! Solution!" The State causes a problem. The mainstream media overreacts and demands reform. The solution is more State power, which makes things even worse.

The problem with the USA healthcare system is not "Too much free market!" The problem is "Too little free market!"

This story was somewhat pro-State trolling, but it had an interesting point. Doctors complain that patients aren't qualified to evaluate and compare doctors. Therefore, a State monopoly and licensing cartel is needed. The problem is that doctors have no incentive to publish information, precisely because they have a State-backed monopoly. If you call 911, you're taken to the closest hospital based on where you live. There's no market; it's a bunch of gangs parceling out their turf. Also, via tort "reform", incompetent doctors are shielded from liability when they make a mistake. For example, the psychiatrists that mistreated me have no personal liability for their negligence.

Is it a coordinated conspiracy, or is it gross incompetence? Either way it's immoral. I'm not usually fooled anymore, but it's a serious problem that almost everyone else is.

Tuesday, January 12, 2010

The Jay Leno Show Sucked

The original title of this post was "The Jay Leno Show Sucks". Now that it's been officially canned from the 10pm timeslot, I have to use the past tense.

This story is interesting. The Jay Leno Show was getting lousy ratings. There were rumors circulating of its cancellation, which are finally official.

I noticed that "X Sucks" posts tend to do pretty well, especially when the criticism is justified, like with Ruby on Rails or StackOverflow.

That link had an interesting point. Affiliates were forced to go along with the Jay Leno experiment. That illustrates the fallacy of owning a franchise. Technically, affiliates are their own independent business, but they have to do what NBC parent executives demand.

During the Olympic, which are on NBC, The "Jay Leno Show" will be shortened to a half hour and will be after the Olympics. The Tonight Sow with Conan O'Brien will be moved back an extra half hour. Allegedly this change will be permanent.

Conan O'Brien's contract specifies that he is the host of the Tonight Show and that he gets the 11:30 PM timeslot. However, Conan O'Brien's contract allows the Tonight show to be pushed back to 12:05pm. Jay Leno also has a huge multiyear guaranteed contract.

It seems that NBC will have to dump either Conan O'Brien or Jay Leno. It's a waste to pay a huge salary to both of them.

NBC really should move Conan O'Brien to 10pm! I bet he'd get better ratings than Jay Leno did!

In all my wage slave job, I was an "at will employee". It seems that guaranteed employment contracts are abused by parasites who want to coast instead of doing a good job.

I only watched a few minutes of the Jay Leno Show twice. It was lousy enough to make me realize that it's a waste of time. The first episode was heavily hyped and got great ratings. The ratings rapidly tanked because the show sucks.

The problem is not "A 10PM talk show was a mistake." or "A primetime comedy/variety show is a mistake." The problem is that the actual show was lousy.

I could tell by the attitude of Jay Leno during promos that the show would be a complete failure. Jay Leno had the air of someone coasting off his past success, rather than someone really motivated to make a great show.

When Jay Leno was first promoted to Tonight Show host, he had to prove "I'm better than David Letterman!" Now, his attitude is "I'm Jay Leno! Of course my show is awesome!" It doesn't work that way. You have to actually make a good product. Jay Leno is coasting off his past success, rather than making a good show in the present.

When I see garbage like The Jay Leno Show, my attitude is "I could do better than that!" I really should attempt "promote agorism via standup comedy".

I read an article by Ira Glass that said "The key is having good taste. If you can tell the difference between good content and bad content, then you'll eventually succeed. If you're persistent, your performance will match your taste. However, it takes 10 years to become an expert." If you count my time spent blogging, plus analysis of economics I did before that, I'm probably one of the top experts on really free markets.

I shouldn't be concerned about hecklers while performing standup, especially when you see what people post Anonymously on a blog. Being in-person, plus the ability of the audience to read body language, should limit hecklers. I won't know for sure until I try. I doubt a heckler would make a stupid pro-State troll point that I haven't heard before.

Following Ira Glass' example, I try to write a blog that I'd like to have read myself, as I was cracking my pro-State brainwashing. I figured out a lot of things the hard way. It's much easier to have someone else explain something to you than to figure it out yourself.

That's the whole point of science and writing. You benefit from the work of others. That's the value of the Internet. The Internet enables people to communicate directly and bypass State censorship.

State censorship isn't just the mainstream media. It's also schools. The choice to not present Lysander Spooner or Bastiat as required reading in school introduces a huge bias. Nobody notices this bias, because they never heard of Lysander Spooner or Bastiat. Nobody heard of them, because they're never read in State schools/brainwashing centers!

It's a vicious circle that the Internet helps break. "Taxation is theft! Government is a scam!" is not a new idea. The difference is that the Internet allows intelligent people to share information directly. Without the Internet, an intelligent person is dominated by the pro-State troll parasites around them. With the Internet, intelligent people can compare notes. I wouldn't have been able to figure out as much, if I wasn't able to read bits of the truth that other people have discovered. I'm good at filtering the hidden truths from the nonsense.

Censorship occurs in what professors at universities choose to write about. A professor's salary is paid directly or indirectly via the State. Censorship occurs in what politicians choose to discuss.

For example, when politicians discuss healthcare "reform", none of them discuss the damaging effect of the AMA licensing cartel. They're so pro-State brainwashed that they never considered the issue.

Whenever I see garbage like "The Jay Leno Show", my attitude is "I could do much better than that!" Vlogging and standup comedy are on my list of things to try, but it might take 1-3 years. If I vlog or perform under my real name, my wage slave employer might choose to fire me.

The risk is not so much "State thugs will jail me for telling the truth." If that was a real risk, they would have done it when I first started blogging. Besides, it'd be awkward when I started explaining "taxation is theft" to my jailers during my interrogation. The parasitic/bad cop wouldn't listen. It would be a problem if I convinced the productive/good cop! (That's the reason policemen and cultists always travel in pairs. The parasite needs to keep the productive person focused in an evil mental state. The parasite needs the productive person to do his thinking for him.

When I see garbage like "The Jay Leno Show", my attitude is "I could do better than that!" Live performances and the Internet are a way to bypass mainstream media censorship. Vlogging and standup comedy are on my list of things to do, but I can wait a year or two. I'm still making progress on cracking my pro-State brainwashing.

Just because I'm not an overwhelming success yet, as a blogger or agorist, doesn't mean my ideas are stupid! As Ira Glass pointed out, it will take persistence over years to succeed. In the meantime, I have to support myself with a wage slave job, which limits my options. I'm not so much concerned that a State thug will arrest/kidnap/assault/murder me based on my blog. It'd be a problem if my wage slave employer fired me for my free market beliefs.

Moving Jay Leno to 11:30pm and Conan O'Brien to 10pm probably is a decent idea, but executives at NBC probably will be too risk-averse to try it. They're in full CYA mode now for their dumbass move. To hedge, they could give Conan O'Brien the 10pm timeslot only 2-3 days a week. The problem was not "A primetime talk show is stupid!" The problem is that Jay Leno was coasting off his past success rather than focused on making a good show in the present.

Monday, January 11, 2010

Verizon LG enV Touch, Bitpim, and Open Source

Due to my new wage slave job, I have less time available for blogging. My parents are demanding I waste a lot of time entertaining them. I decided to get a PDA-enabled phone, so I could blog on the subway.

I decided against Android, an iPhone, or a Blackberry, because they have an expensive data plan required. The phone is cheap, but you pay for it with the data plan. I decided to get an LG enV Touch from Verizon. It only has a $10/month data plan required, so it's less expensive than the others. I just wanted a PDA I could type on and transfer data to my PC. The others seemed like overkill.

The LG Touch has a keyboard. You can type and save it to a text file. This enables me to work on my blog on the subway. I'm storing it on the phone, so I don't need a wireless signal. I'm not using the wireless data package when typing, but I did get the $10/month plan required to buy the phone. (Since it's a separate computer, I can also blog during slow times at work, without anyone noticing. I haven't done that yet.)

I bought a 2GB memory card. That's required for the PC USB link feature.

However, the notepad feature has a 300 character limit per note. I have 2GB of memory, but a 300 character limit! That's probably due to a lazy programmer using fixed buffer sizes.

It'd be nice if the notepad character limit were increased. Plus, there should be better navigation, like "beginning of line", "end of line", "pageup", and "pagedown" keys.

I found a workaround to the character limit. I put one paragraph per note. I number them, like in an old BASIC program!

There's a PC USB link feature. However, the software provided does *NOT* allow you to transfer the notepad text!

I found a program called bitpim that allows you to transfer the notepad text. Version 1.06 didn't work with my phone (VX11000), but fortunately 1.07 beta worked.

That is amusing. Verizon's software is lousy. Instead, there's an open source program that works. People like their phones, even if Verizon offers lousy support! Obviously, whoever wrote the phone intended for the notepad data to be copy-able. Verizon's software doesn't support that, but it's on the phone in a user-readable directory.

It turns out that Verizon sells separate software for $50 that lets you fully synch your phone. Bitpim probably is still better.

Bitpim seems to give you full filesystem access to your phone. I thought that the OS would be in a protected directory, but it seems you can overwrite that also. I didn't try and I'm not going to try; I just want the notepad/blogging feature. You can also "pirate" apps with bitpim, but I'm not interested in that. I'm only blogging and transferring text files to my PC. I'm using bitpim in "read-only" mode.

This is my first subway-written post. I'm still going to transfer it to my PC and edit/assemble it.

This system seems to be working for me. Line number my posts. Export to bitpim. Bitpim sorts by time. I really should sort by line number (1st line). Export from bitpim to HTML/XML. I should write a program that collates the bitpim output. Now, I'm just using notepad to edit the html and copy/paste to Blogger. Then, assemble the post in Blogger and do some final editing.

I wrote a PHP script to optimize the "assemble by line number" step. Now, my workflow is:

  1. Start bitpim.
  2. Load memos.
  3. "Print as" html.
  4. Save file in appropriate directory.
  5. Run PHP script.
I can 100% optimize this. Bitpim has a "command line" mode where you can directly copy a file from the phone. Then, I can also call the PHP script in command line mode. I can do the whole thing in one step! Plug in phone, run .bat file, then open notepad file with sorted notes! I used bitpim command line mode to transfer the file and then wrote a PHP script to parse out the notes file. My script filters and sorts by line number and removes the line numbers! As a bonus, my PHP script converts from UNIX-style carriage returns ("\n") that the phone uses to Windows-style carriage returns ("\r\n").

Overall, I do recommend the Verizon LG enV Touch (VX11000). It's cheaper than a Blackberry, iPhone, or Android phone. The 300 character limit is *ANNOYING* but I can work around that. First, I wrote a PHP program that collates bitpim's line-numbered XML export into one big text file. Then, optimized it to directly parse the sch\memo.dat file on the phone, downloaded via bitpim. The phone is good enough for my mobile blogging needs, but I needed bitpim to do what I want with my phone. When I next upgrade in 2 years, hopefully I'll have better choices and I'll be sure that I can (1) transfer data to PC easily and (2) write files bigger than 300 characters.

This Blog Has Moved!

My blog has moved. Check out my new blog at