DiscoProJoe

Here's an impersonation satire I just did of CNBC's Larry Kudlow and Jim Cramer. (It's attached to this message as an MP3 file at the bottom.) I'm "bullish" on gold bullion as an investment, and probably will be until about 2015-2020. (A "goldbug" is someone who is bullish on gold.) Here's a few charts to digest. Enjoy!

That's one thing I don't like about the '80s styles: the crazy hair and ugly perms! But the women's outfits are pretty, though.

What's your opinion of the cute, colorful matching outfits from the '80s? I'd love to see women wearing them again! How come women don't wear mid-length skirts and nice stockings anymore? I've always thought of this look as sexy! Check out this picture of Debbie Gibson when she was 17. You may love it; you may hate it. But in my opinion, it goes to show that you can still be fully-clothed, comfortable, and sexy at the same time! Nice legs, huh?

Have you ever heard of social sciences, such as psychology, sociology, criminology, etc.? They form when the core of a former giant star collapses under its own weight and becomes super-duper dense. Gravity is so strong that not even light can escape. You're invoking a theory! I thought you hated theories. If we can't predict what people will do, then why should we trust any significant amount of political power in their hands?

If you ever wish to question anything in life, you have to apply at least some kind of theory. If you don't enjoy thinking abstractly, there really isn't much that you and I can learn from each other. Personally, I enjoy learning theory if I can apply it in some way to my life or my work. Libertarianism (as a theory) has allowed me to understand politics in a way that seems to make the most sense, regardless of whether or not it's popular, or even if libertarian ideas are never implemented. This "theory" has caused me not to waste my time working toward any political causes that, in my opinion, won't make my life better in the long run.

I didn't submit it in any class; I was an opinion columnist for the campus newspaper during my last year at OSU. I wrote for the paper because it was fun and I enjoyed it!

Below is an op-ed piece I wrote for my campus newspaper at Oklahoma State University three years ago when I was a senior, which should intrigue you. Enjoy! -------------------------------------------- The Moral Case for Liberty All right, let's pretend that every welfare program has brought hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. Let's assume Social Security and Medicare have prevented millions of senior citizens from dying of disease and starvation. Let's imagine public schooling has given every poor child an education they otherwise wouldn't get. And let's suppose that infrastructure would not exist if government weren't providing it. How can any of this be moral? How do we justify taking innocent people's money and property from them -- at gunpoint, if necessary -- when they haven't signed any contract agreeing to it? Do the ends really justify the means? Today most of us have come to accept this collective action "for the common good." We feel comfortable that it makes things possible that otherwise couldn't be accomplished. But nevertheless, many of us fail to question the moral premises behind it. If an action enhances the quality of the lives of individuals, it is good. Bad is the opposite. The individual "rights" to life, liberty, and property come from us realizing that if we want to get the most out of life, these rights are necessary. Violating them is immoral because it harms individuals. If one person robs somebody for his own "common good" or hires a hit man, would that be ethical? What if ten people claim to be the government and do the exact same thing? Would that make it any better? What if 1,000 or a million folks initiate force against the individual or pay someone to do so? Where exactly do we draw the line between moral and immoral? The truth is we can't draw it anywhere. Stealing is stealing -- no matter how you look at it. Even in the most dire situation where we must thieve in order to save someone's life, it should be expected that we repay those people afterward unless they waive it off. Moving on, let's pretend that every law concerning drugs, guns, and censorship has made our streets totally safe and 100 percent drug-free. Let's assume the legal-tender laws have sustained the value of our currency and have prevented millions of people from losing their life savings. Let's imagine that every trade and immigration restriction has saved countless American jobs and has kept our culture "pure." And finally, let's suppose every government regulation has abolished all pollution and unsafe factories in the United States. How can any of this be moral, either? As long as an individual, entrepreneur, or property owner hasn't harmed anyone else or made threats, what justification do we have to dictate -- at gunpoint, if necessary -- how and where he should live his life on private property? When we try to force our choices and values on others, isn't this the very essence of evil and tyranny? Doesn't this make us the bad guy? "But no," some will say. "We must do unto others before they do unto us! They surely will hurt someone if left to their own devices." So then if I walk into a restaurant and see a stranger give me a dirty look, what if I think he is going to beat me up? Should I just march over to him and punch him in the face? How could this be ethical? Would it make the situation better or worse? Many citizens constantly complain about various companies overcharging their consumers and underpaying their employees. With today's "energy crisis," many are calling for price controls and a higher minimum wage. Nonetheless, how can it be moral for us to interfere -- at gunpoint, if necessary -- with the prices and wages that people have voluntarily agreed upon? Remember, those companies simply are providing us with gasoline, electricity, healthcare, and jobs. They don't have to do that. They could just shut their doors forever and we'd be dreadfully doomed until other entrepreneurs come along. The main questions this column boils down to are as follows: Do the ends justify the means? Do we have an ethical right to win at any cost -- even if we have to use detrimental and destructive ways to achieve our goals? The answer is clear. Freedom, peace, and harmony within can never be achieved by pointing our guns at individuals who have harmed no one. Aggression is no way for us to promote universal love among our neighbors. So if we snap back into reality and observe the crumbling schools, the polluted landscape, and the skyrocketing healthcare costs, we will soon discover that wrongful means also justify miserable ends.

No, Castro won't. But with free trade, the people there can smuggle things around and buy and sell stuff on a black market. With the embargo, it's much more difficult to do that.

If you didn't agree with what I said, then TOUGH SHIT!!!

Let me add a point of clarification. When a dictator oppresses his own people, those people can't invent as many things and will produce far less than they would otherwise. This includes new life-saving medicines. So when the dictator dies of so-called "incurable" diseases, then he, too, will lose in this "lose-lose" scenario. His people's loss becomes his loss as well. And in the postal service example, the politicians and bureaucrats must contend with lower-quality mail delivery and the resulting less-efficient economy, so in a sense, they also lose out.

Speaking of Cuba, just lift the embargo and allow unilateral free trade. This would give the ordinary Cuban citizens a chance to increase their wealth a little bit more. When that happens, the slightly-stronger citizens there will have a better chance at being able to overthrow Castro. I believe one big reason why Castro has remained in power for more than 40 years is because of the embargo keeping the Cubans more impoverished than they would otherwise be. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Castro has secretly bribed U.S. Presidents for the past 40 years to keep the embargo in place, since it helps keep him in power.

What about all the other 50 dictatorships in the world -- many of whom are more oppressive than Saddam was? Should the U.S. government go after them as well, on a mission to rid the world of evil-doers?

What's wrong with an organization cutting the "fat" and becoming more efficient? When the services get cheaper and better, consumers will have more time and money left in their pockets to spend on other things. This leads to job creation in other industries. Therefore, those postal workers who got laid off should soon find new jobs somewhere else. In other words, it would be a win-win situation for everyone (except politicians and bureaucrats, of course). Besides sports and games, do you believe in a win-win world? Or do you think that one person's gain always equals another person's loss (i.e., a win-lose world)? Just wonderin'.

Hahahahahahaha..........I'm glad I pissed you off, too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D

With this big media frenzy over the whole Janet Jackson Superbowl saga, I bet the French are laughing their asses off at how culturally stupid we Americans are for being offended about the public display of a woman's bare breast. Why are women's bare breasts considered "obscene," but not men's? Don't we see giant cow tits on the Discovery Channel with people milking them? Maybe this whole circus will spark a national debate on this issue. I've also heard that the stage act was planned. Maybe a high-ranking media executive wanted to set off this kind of national debate in order to move the country toward legalization of female bare breasts in public? Who knows....