Why Capitalism Works

(This is a wholly-excerpted essay from P.J. O'Rourke's book Eat the Rich. I have re-read the book multiple times. If you haven't, do so. It is a clear and entertaining insight into various political structures. The following is regarding Hong Kong's reconstitution following World War II.)

How Hong Kong Makes Everything From Nothing
by P.J. O'Rourke

"This essay is excerpted from his book Eat the Rich."

"Hong Kong is the best contemporary example of laissez-faire. The economic theory of "allow to do" holds that all sorts of doings ought, indeed, to be allowed, and that government should interfere only to keep the peace, ensure legal rights, and protect property. ...

Jesus, it's a rich city. Except where it's Christ-almighty poor. Hong Kong is full of that "poverty midst plenty" stuff beloved of foreign correspondents such as myself....

It's a modern place, deaf to charm, dumb in the language of aesthetics, caught up in a wild, romantic passion for the plain utilitarian. ...

Hong Kong was (and to be fair to its new commie rulers, remains for the moment) socialism's perfect opposite. Hong Kong does not have import or export duties, or restrictions on investments coming in, or limits on profits going out. There is no capital-gains tax, no interest tax, no sales tax, and no tax breaks for muddle-butt companies that can't make it on their own.

The corporate tax in Hong Kong is 16.5 percent of profits. The individual tax rate is 15 percent of gross income. Hong Kong's government runs a permanent budget surplus and consumes only 6.9 percent of gross domestic product (compared with the 20.8 percent of GDP spent just by the federal government in the U.S.) ...

Hong Kong has never had democracy, but its wallet-size liberties, its Rights-of-Man-in-a-purse, have been so important to individualism and self-governance that in 1995 an international group of libertarian think tanks was moved to perhaps overstate the case and claim, 'Hong Kong is the freest nation in the world.'

Free because there's been freedom to screw up, too. Hong Kong has no minimum wage, no unemployment benefits, no union-boosting legislation, no Social Security, no national health program, and hardly enough welfare to keep one U.S trailer park in satellite dishes and Marlboro Lights. Just 1.2 percent of GDP goes in transfers to the helplessly poor or subsidies to the hopelessly profitless.

Living without a safety net, people in Hong Kong have kept a grip on the trapeze. The unemployment rate is below 3 percent. In America, a shooting war is usually needed to get unemployment that low. The "natural rate" of unemployment is considered to be about 5 percent in the U.S., which rate would cause natural death from starvation in Hong Kong. ... Economic growth in Hong Kong has averaged 7.5 percent per year for the past twenty years, causing gross domestic product to quadruple since 1975. With barely one-tenth of 1 percent of the world's population, Hong Kong is the world's eighth-largest international trader and tenth-largest exporter of services. ...

Besides Americans, only the people of Luxembourg and Switzerland are richer than those of Hong Kong. And these are two other places where capital is allowed to move and earn freely. ...

Quite a bit of government effort is required to create a system in which government leaves people alone. Hong Kong's colonial administration provided courts, contract enforcement, laws that applied to everyone, some measure of national defense (although the Red Chinese People's Liberation Army probably could have lazed its way across the border anytime it wanted), an effective police force (Hong Kong's crime rate is lower than Tokyo's), and bureaucracy that was efficient and uncorrupt but not so hideously uncorrupt that it would not turn a blind eye on an occasional palm-greasing illegal refugee or unlicensed street vendor.

The Brits built schools and roads. And the kids went to school because they knew if they did not, they'd have to hit that road. And the U.K gave Hong Kong a stable currency, which it did totally by cheating -- first pegging the Hong Kong currency to the British pound and then, when everyone got done laughing at that, pegging to the U.S dollar at a rate of 7.8:1. ...

Hong Kong was also fortunate in having a colonial government which included some real British heroes, men who helped of these the place stay as good as it was for a s long as it did.

The most heroic of these was John Cowperthwaite, a young colonial officer sent to Hong Kong in 1945 to oversee the colony's economic recovery. ... while he was in charge, he strictly limited bureaucratic interference in the economy growth or the size of GDP. ...

During Cowperthwaite's "nothing doing" tenure, Hong Kong's exports grew by an average of 13.8 percent a year, industrial wages doubled, and the number of households in extreme poverty shrank from more than half to 16 percent."

F**k Sexual Harassment, Part 2

"They're real, and they're spectacular!" -Sidra, Seinfeld

"Because from across a crowded room he can't tell you have a great sense of humor." -Lee Jeans print ad

So, are we supposed to look? I'm serious, because I just don't know. Women have them, and they are spectacular. In addition, they have great legs, shapely hips, incredible bottoms, beautiful eyes, and brains. As with a great number of men, some women don't use them to their brains to full capacity. Guess what? I'm not interested. For these vapid creatures, the only thing separating them from a love doll is the squeaker. (In the interest of full disclosure, I don't know if a love doll is equipped with a squeaker. I've never owned one, been in close proximity to one, or purchased one. I did purchase an inflatable sheep once, but it was for a bachelor party in Wyoming.) I'm just not interested if they don't use their brain. God installed the equipment, so you may as well utilize it. A beautiful woman who doesn't use her intelligence is like running a Ferrari on only two cylinders -- fun to look at, exciting to climb into, but ultimately useless. There was a time when I was "less enlightened" that I would test a girl by making her watch an obscure Peter Sellers' comedy. If they asked, "What was that about?", I dumped them. At 18 I had a girl all but promise me a magic carpet ride before the movie began. Following the movie I never called her again. I was an asshole, but at least I didn't take advantage of the feeble-minded.

Not fair?

Well, later I would keep them around long enough to completely torment them. Following my divorce I dated a young lady whom believed saying, "I want to bear your children.", during coitus was excellent pillow talk. It's not. It's a mood killer. It's a boner killer. I believe it reversed the blood flow and sent my little buddy cowering in my abdomen. It was not to be an evening of romance. Did I dump her? Of course not, I had become enlightened . . . and thought she should become also. Our dates now became art films, documentaries on the Irish Republican Army, performances of Mozart's Requiem. I had decided to drive her off by becoming a pretentious asshole. It didn't work. She continued to put up with me. Hell, she followed me around with more vigor. I hadn't awoken her intellectual side, but apparently stirred her inner Bloodhound.

What's an aspiring asshole to do who still has a soul? Break up with the poor girl and allow her the freedom to mix with company who may appreciate her simple nature.

To be kind, I decided upon the George Costanza method of, "It's not you, it's me." I spent over an hour explaining how I was an asshole, she deserved better, that if she stayed with me I'd just try to come up with new ways of violating her. Nothing seemed to work. My attempts at separation only fueled her goal of clinginess. It was a love-fool standoff. She with her puppy dog, nearly cognizant stare, and me with no desire to explore her cave of love again for fear my swimmers would fight their way upstream and spawn. I may not have been showing a great deal of maturity, but I did remember where babies come from and decided my potential offspring should at least be able to tie their own shoes. This potential "partnership" was pulling me to the shallow end of the gene pool where my children would continue to gaze directly into the light, right up to the point the train hit them.

For every thrust of intellectual argument I was stymied by the parry of pure ignorance. I was nearly reduced to explaining that new rules issued by Hogswort didn't allow me to date "Muggles". She would have related to the reference (and probably believed it) but I just couldn't. My soul would have simply said, "Check please." An additional half-hour of discussion and she seemed to get it. We were breaking up, signing off for the last time, pursuing our destinies separately. I was done, she seemed okay, we'd said goodnight, all was right . . . until. She stopped, turned and looked at me and said,

"So, does this mean we can't hangout on Monday?"



(Apparently this has become a 3-part series. Check back as this rant devolved into NOTHING about sexual harassment. It just became about an ass.)

If you want me to pay for your healthcare, show me some respect and break in and steal it yourself. Don't send the government to do it for you.

(The following is an exchange between a friend and myself regarding the upcoming healthcare legislation. Names have been changed.)


[Greta] Because if it weren't for Hansel, I couldn't get insurance. I've tried in the past and been rejected for a couple minor issues. I have no faith in private insurers who are in business for profit, not for people's well being. something needs to change and at least the possibility for some change -- even if not perfect -- is going to be lost here shortly. I have skin in this game. I don't see it as a political issue for politician's political gains, politicians -- who by the way -- are covered by govt. insurance. so are vets, elderly and others who wouldn't want to lose it.

[Darren] I do not disagree with you in principle. Those who are legislating do not have skin in the game, so the policies they are attempting to enact they will not have to live with. Keep in mind, these same individuals do not have to contribute to Social Security, as they are exempt.

But I do not think Government should become the end-all/be-all of our healthcare. Not only do we have the examples from the U.K. and Canada, but I have first-hand experience with Government controlled insurance when I lived in Germany.

[Greta] I don't believe anyone is suggested that. they're just proposing an option to private health care to cover those who fall through the cracks. they've already said, if you like your health care (and you have it), by golly keep it

[Darren] I experienced a back strain that woke me up and brought me to tears. I could no longer resist going to the ER. Where in a US hospital I would have received pain meds, X-rays, and treatment, in Germany they rubbed capsacin on me and said there was nothing else they could do.

If the healthcare bill only provided an option for uninsured, a quasi-private system in the vein of the USPS, I would not be opposed. Unfortunately, the bill is not completely written. It is up in the air. They are asking Congress and the Senate to vote upon an incomplete bill. Some versions have contained a provision to make private insurance illegal. It still contains a fine or jail time for those who chose not to purchase insurance.

[Greta] I'm sorry for your experience. I too was injured in Europe, in France. tore ligaments in my leg. they took care of me w/o a problem. I thought it was amazing. but again, that's socialized care, and that's not what's being proposed here, tho I'd personally would be open to it. BTW, in this country, ER's are only obligated to stabilize you. if you're w/o insurance, private hospitals can then turn you away. I've heard stories about this from the persons it's occured to. most recently, a friend shared a U of U hospital room with someone shuttled from Idaho because they didn't have insurance

[Greta] Darren, that's not true about insurance being illegal. that was a twisted spin

[Darren] No, I read the page myself.The government already has health insurance systems in place. If they want to correct the problem of those unable to obtain insurance, allow them to buy into the same insurance provided to Congress and the Senate. If they can't afford it, allow those who are not already on Medicaid to join. The problem does not require 1300+ pages of legislation.

[Greta] why is everyone unnerved by the quantity of pages?

[Darren] Because more pages allow for more hidden agendas. Most members of Congress and the Senate have admitted they have not read the bill. To vote upon something without looking at it is insane. Would you have purchased your home if you had to review 1300+ pages from your mortgage company?

[Greta] because they're intimated by the number of pages?

not a relevant comparison [mortgage example] ...have to rely on that fact that there are consumer protection laws in place that ultimately minimize the number of pages involved in a home purchase

[Darren] And, I understand pre-existing situations. I am diabetic and had over 14 surgeries from birth to age 19.

[Darren] Not relevant?! You rely upon consumer protection laws?! When the government enacts broad legislation you DO NOT have any consumer protection laws. You are at the mercy of the law.

[Darren] It is our right, nay, our obligation, to question government. To allow unbridled legislation is to give up our liberty. Whether couched under "it will save lives" or "it's for the children", we are at risk of losing liberty every time new legislation is enacted.

F**k Sexual Harassment, Part 1

There is an old joke from the late '80's, "Did you hear Ted Kennedy lost the Senate Spelling Bee? He thought harass was two words."

I don't know why I included this, other than I think it's funny. There are a lot of things I find funny, from Jack Ass to Daniel Tosh. I like comedy that's stupid to surreal. But, collectively as a society, we've lost our sense of humor. Jack Ass was pretty popular when it aired on MTV although it involved a lot of dick jokes and guys getting hit in the balls. When I attended opening night of Jack Ass 2 the audience was equally graced by men and women. There was a lot of cheering and applauds. Everyone seemed to have a good time.

So, why does society accept piss, shit and genital jokes from comedians and movies, but if I say "dick" at work I'm "offensive". It's bullshit! I started to type, "our speech is censored", but that's cliche', and frankly, stupid. We're stifled by a supposed boogy man, our own minds.

To illustrate, last year a student was suspended from Redmond Junior High School for using a phrase oft quoted on NBC's The Office.

According to the report, a student made the (innocent) comment “you need to push it in further.” The offender’s reply: “That’s what she said!”

Of course it's juvenile, but it was said by a juvenile who heard it used on television. Not cable mind you, he wasn't quoting Lady Chatterley's Lover, but a program on network television shown during "the family hour". Nothing the young man said was offensive, except in the context of how the complainant [the teacher] heard it. Was he intending to make an off-color joke? Of course, but his comment did not "harass" anyone.

Sexual harassment began as a way to protect people (primarily women) from unwanted sexual advances in the workplace. The original definition identified sexual harassment as, " . . . the threat of job-loss or other punitive retaliation for not engaging in sexual behavior with a superior." It has now devolved to, " . . . a person feeling uncomfortable in the workplace for a comment or action of another individual." Fuck! That can be anything. Well, anything done by a man.

Oh, right now I have many of you up in arms. "It's not just a maaaannn. That's so sexist." Well, let's examine a scenario:

A man arrives at his workplace wearing a pair of Farah slacks from the 1970's and his shirt open to the third button. Not particular up-to-date look, but hey, he's comfortable. Well, the slacks are tight-fitting and provide an outline of his trouser buddy. A female co-worker goes to her supervisor and complains about the man's unsightly bulge and his exposed chest. The man is called into the office, lectured about inappropriate clothing in the office and given a written warning. This scars his employment record and he loses a promotion. (Of course, his choice of clothing may not have helped simply for it's lack of style, but I digress . . .)

Now, envision a woman in the same office. She arrives wearing pants so tight they appear to be painted on. She is sporting what is euphemistically referred to as "camel toe". Yep, that notorious cleft that says, "I'm not a tranny." In addition to the barely-there pants, she's wearing CFM pumps and a tight, white sweater straining to contain her love pillows. A man in the office feels this is inappropriate (this is a different department, so is not retaliation for the Farah slacks incident). He complains to a supervisor about "Lady Gaga" and feels her dress is creating a hostile work environment. If (and I mean if) he is taken seriously the woman may get a brief mention, in passing, that she may want to "tone it down". This is if the supervisor is male. In which case the complainant will later be ridiculed as a "fag" by the other males and receive hostile looks from the women in the office because he complained about "Barbie". If the supervisor is a woman it is likely he'll be treated as the problem because he was inappropriately staring at "Barbie" and she may not appreciate his leering. He's now the lech as it's his fault he looked.

Before you cry "bullshit", think about it. If I walked up to a manager and said, "Ginger's sexually harassing me by wearing those pants. They're so tight I can tell she's not wearing underwear." I would be the one reprimanded for making sexual comments in the workplace. If I was wearing the afore mentioned Farah's and a woman said, in a loud voice, "Hey, it looks like Darren's cock is about to jump out of his pants!" The remaining women would laugh and, again, I would be the one who would get pulled aside and told my attire was not appropriate for the workplace.

So fuck sexual harassment.

If I tell an off-colored joke, get over it. In private conversations you've told dirtier jokes. If I comment that you have pretty eyes, it was a compliment, not a come-on. If I touch you to get your attention or keep you from tripping, I wasn't groping you. We're not your enemies, simply people trying to get through a work day and make the best of it.

So take a pill, relax, and get laid. We're tired of the complaining.

Misplaced Priorities

(on March 2, 2010 I was contacted by Chelsea Ivie, Shelby's "sister", inquiring about a missing pet. She asked me not to tell Shelby. Well, we don't keep secrets in our home. The following is her letter and my response. I have posted the letter exactly as I received it. All typos and grammatical errors are those of the sender.)

First thank you for caring for my sister I do appreciate it, however I do wish to ask you one thing. Please do not tell my sister that I emailed you please I dont want to stir anything up. I was just wondering if by chance she has brought home a cat by any chance. When my sister gets mad she will do anything to hurt you, well she has caused many problems not only for my parents but for the intermediate family as well, it just so happened that the night of my cousin viewing my cat disappeared from my parent home, I am not accusing her of stealing my cat, however I know that she is mad at me cause I told her not to go to the funeral or viewing cause I did not want her to be embarrassed cause my family would have asked her to leave and would of walked her out. The last time I saw my cat was wed the 17th I have not seen her since. My cat was terrifed of people and she would never leave the porch she was too afraid if she was not on the porch she would be inside, my parents put her outside when they would leave. Please Please let me know if shelby has brought her home I would ask ian but I know he would tell her that I emailed him. If you could give me a call I would appreciate it XXX XXX XXXX again I am not trying to stir anything up or cause a fight I just want to know. Again thank you for caring for my sister.



Dear Ms. Ivie,

Thank you for your letter. My daughter is doing wonderful! As children are a blessing from God, my wife and I could not be more thrilled to have Shelby as a member of our family. She has brought immense joy to our home.

Regarding your inquiry about a cat: no, Shelby has not brought a cat home. On Wednesday, February 17th she was working, so you are incorrect in your assumption she was involved with the missing cat. Although she wanted the opportunity to mourn the loss of a family member, Shelby did not attend. My wife and I felt this to be a selfish request by you and the "family". It is shameful you and the Ivie's were unable to put your disagreements aside long enough to allow Shelby to bury a cousin.

I am sorry for the loss of your pet, but I am more saddened that you are more concerned about losing a cat that you are about losing a sister. You were raised in an LDS home and grew-up learning Christian principles, yet are unable to express forgiveness. Regardless of what Shelby may, or may not, have done she was your family. Your own misspent youth should have been an example. Instead, you and the Ivie's turned your back on her, and continue to reject her now.

Again, my daughter is doing well. She is thriving in an environment where she is loved.

Sincerely,

Darren Somsen

Why Adoption

(This post began as a reply to a friend asking why we want to adopt Shelby. This was my reply.)

Although this statement differs from my typical political opinion, this situation [the desire to legally adopt Shelby] gives me a broader appreciation for those seeking same-sex marriage.

For those who have separated themselves from the politics of gay activism, it is a matter of legally recognized commitment. Katrin and I encountered this while visiting our friends Peter and Dean. During the brief window same-sex marriage was legal in California they chose to marry. They are firmly devoted to one another and were celebrating 15 years together. Their love for each other is obvious and the decision to marry was a confirmation of their commitment to one another. In contrast, their friends Bob and Greg fought very hard against Proposition 8, yet completely reject the idea of marriage. In fact, Bob continuously told them, and continue to tell them, that he doesn't understand why they married. For Peter and Dean it was about their relationship, for Bob and Greg it was about politics.

With this said, why do Katrin and I continue to pursue legal adoption of Shelby even though she is an adult? Because we are a family and want it to be legally recognized. We could draw up a will and name her as Executor, sign limited powers of attorney allowing her to make decisions on our behalf if we are infirmed, but that's not family. Shelby has completed our family. She has opened chambers of my heart I didn't know existed, taught me more patience, and helped me become less selfish. Shelby has been a blessing from God and we love her beyond measure. The legal adoption may seem unnecessary, but to us, it's simply a necessity.

So, has this dichotomy changed my opinion? The laws of this state currently allow for adult adoption and I am thankful for this option. I don't know if I would become an activist if it was not allowed, but I would fight against any group who tried to take this option away from me or anyone else. Adoption is allowed as it is in the best interest of children and families.

Currently same-sex marriage is not allowed. I do continue to believe that marriage is a gift from God bestowed upon a man and a woman. This is why I reject the argument that, "gays are not allowed to marry." No, any man or woman in the U.S. can marry, just not a person of the same sex. Our laws also do not allow plural marriage, marriage between adults and children, marriage to animals, or marriage to objects. The continued deviation of law to bow to very small minorities of the public is a dangerous policy. But with this said, I would not want to take away the legal marriage Peter and Dean share. I would not campaign for same-sex marriage, yet I would not support any group actively fighting against it. I do not know how I would vote if such a proposition was introduced, but I would support the law if the majority voted in favor.