B.S. Footprint

The Road to Serfdom

bsfootprint — Fri, 11 May 2012 15:25:25 +0000

"Smoking Permitted" -- has a lovely ring, doesn't it?

Hey, it's what the people want, right?

All Hail Democracy.

Spotted outside a Denny's restaurant in California's central valley.

Screwed By Google

bsfootprint — Fri, 06 Apr 2012 01:11:46 +0000

Here's why it's a massively bad idea to rely on Google AdSense for revenues if you're an online publisher:

In a nutshell: Google bid on, displayed, and then failed to pay for over $40,000 of advertising space on Hatchlings. They have since stonewalled us for almost a year, locking us out of our accounts, screening our phone calls, ignoring our emails, and making it a living hell to figure out what exactly went wrong.

Google's well-known in publisher circles for pulling this kind of stunt. They cut you off at the knees with no warning, no redress.

Develop multiple revenue streams. Seriously.

Edit 4/27/2012: Added links to other sites discussing problems with Google's "we don't give a shit about you" behavior... (see below.)

Obama's unprecedented stance: Supreme Court shouldn't overturn his crowning achievement

bsfootprint — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 06:30:04 +0000

El Presidente Obama cranks up the spin cycle, preparing for the possible demise of ObamaCare at the hands of the Supreme Court:

"I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," Obama said on Monday. "And I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we've heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I'm pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step."

Let's digest that statement:

"I'm confident

We're off to a bad start already. Confidence is negatively correlated with competence.

Wait. What did I just say? You heard me. The more incompetent you are, the more likely you are to be confident in your abilities. Completely confident.

Let's see what La Wik has to say about confidence:

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which the unskilled suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes.

Actual competence may weaken self-confidence, as competent individuals may falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding. As Kruger and Dunning conclude, "the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others" (p. 1127).

Source: Dunning-Kruger Effect and Unskilled and Unaware

Returning to our regularly scheduled program:

that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law

Unprecedented? Really? The Supreme Court has been striking down legislation as unconstitutional since the early days of the ~~Republic~~ United States. While the SCOTUS has been eerily deferential to Congress when it comes to Commerce Clause jurisprudence since the days of the New Deal, striking down laws for exceeding constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce is hardly unprecedented. Unusual, perhaps. But not unprecedented.

What is unprecedented is the claim that Congress may dictate that a free human being can be compelled to purchase a product as a condition of living. Now that's a radical assertion.

Let's continue, shall we?

that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,"

In the Senate, the bill passed by a party-line vote of 60–39 on December 24, 2009, with one senator (Jim Bunning) not voting.

It passed by a slim margin in the House of Representatives: 219 to 212 on March 21, 2010, with 34 Democrats and all 178 Republicans voting against it.

I'm not sure how a brilliant constitutional professor of President Obama's caliber can call that a strong majority. Perhaps he's implying that only Democrats are democratically elected.

Moving right along...

Obama said on Monday. "And I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we've heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism

Judicial activism is legislating from the bench (making up new laws.) Overturning laws that exceed constitutional authority is what the court is supposed to do.

Let's continue!

or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.

What does he mean by 'duly constituted?' The Court's job is to determine whether the law passes constitutional muster -- whether the law is an exercise of valid, delegated, enumerated power contained within the Constitution, based on the merits of the arguments and evidence presented.

The Commerce Clause is not, and cannot be, a blank check that gives Congress unlimited power to control peoples' lives, despite the bogus jurisprudence since the New Deal. The Supreme Court has recently begun to prune back that tangled mess. Much more is yet to come.

If the Commerce Clause means what President Obama and much of Congress asserts it means, then our federal government has unlimited power to dictate the daily lives of Americans, and the entire Bill of Rights is meaningless. Is it?

Let's finish up. I'm getting hungry.

Well, this is a good example.

No, it's not. It's a crappy example.

And I'm pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step."

There he goes again: he's "pretty confident" -- well, at least he's not completely confident. And that's a good thing.

And having said all that, I suspect that he's merely doing what he does best of late: spinning things in order to gain maximum sympathy votes from his core constituency should the massively bogus ObeyMeCare legislation be struck down.

Questions, Questions

Lucy... you got some 'splainin to do:

A three-judge panel for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday ordered the Justice Department to explain by Thursday whether the administration believes judges have the power to strike down a federal law.

[...]

"Does the Department of Justice recognize that federal courts have the authority in appropriate circumstances to strike federal statutes because of one or more constitutional infirmities?" Judge Jerry Smith asked at the hearing.

Well, well... looks like we have a minor battle between the branches here.

Smith ordered a response from the department within 48 hours. The related letter from the court, obtained by Fox News, instructed the Justice Department to provide an explanation of "no less than three pages, single spaced" by noon on Thursday.

Looks like someone got a remedial homework assignment courtesy of the judicial branch.

Virtue lost

bsfootprint — Sun, 25 Mar 2012 18:04:59 +0000

I'll let you in on a little secret. I despise Obamacare much the same way I despise other nanny-state laws, but a lot more.

I ride motorcycles. Have done so all my adult life, and for a few years before that. I wear a helmet and other protective gear.

I drive and ride in cars. I wear seat belts.

I use a hands-free set on my cell phone while driving.

I did those things long before the 'law'* required it. Because, though I may not be as smart or progressive as some of you, I wanted to take reasonable precautions. Because it was obviously in my best interests. Not because it was good for society.

Virtue was its own reward. It's called rational self-interest.

When legislators and executives passed 'laws' making those personal choices mandatory, judges upheld them, bureaucrats and police enforced them, and 'society' approved of them, my reaction was: fuck you. Fuck you, legislators. Fuck you, Governor. Fuck you, society. Fuck you all.

Fuck you, if you think 'social costs' give you the right to point guns at me and tell me what to do in order to help reduce them. Take your social costs arguments and stuff them straight up your fucking asses.

You created many of those social costs and forced them on virtuous people by expanding government's role in private matters. You made them worse.

Fuckwads.

You're taking us straight to the Depths of Hell or whatever other form of eternal damnation you care to believe in. And if you don't believe in such a thing, you're taking us town the fucking toilet.

After these 'laws' were passed, I continued wearing helmets and seat belts. I bought cars with airbags (what choice did I have?) I still use hands-free sets on my cell phone while driving. Because I want to take reasonable precautions for myself, my family, for loved ones. Oh, and in some cases, because I don't want to get busted. Not because I'm worried about social costs.

But you statists and progressives killed the joy of doing something because it's smart, because it's safer, because it's obviously beneficial. You turned an act of virtue into mere compliance, and in some cases created yet another tool in the vast and ever-expanding arsenal of victimless crimes.

I have health care insurance. I had it before 'Obamacare' was passed into 'law'. I had health care insurance, even though I am not as smart as President Obama, Ms. Pelosi, and the rest of the petty tyrants who supported this abomination.

I will continue to have health insurance after the abomination known a 'Obamacare' takes effect. Until someday I won't.

All you've done by forcing these 'for your own good' 'laws' down our throats is to put nails in your coffin. People who are virtuous for its own sake will despise you, and you lose their respect and support.

Those people may be a tiny minority, and hence you don't give a shit about them since this is, after all, a de facto democracy** (and swaying the masses is what it's all about, right?)–but eventually all you have left to support you are those without innate virtue–those who want something for nothing, who want someone else to carry them, who are willing to trade their liberties for a ~~little security~~ mess of pottage. Those who need to be told what to do, how to live, how to think. Frankly, I can't think of a worse fate.

That minority of virtuous, productive, self-reliant people are the ones who keep this mess from going straight down the crapper. So go ahead and pass another 'for your own good' 'law'. Pass a thousand more.

Kill virtue. Do it. It's what you want, anyway.

Fuck you. Fuck you, Obama. Fuck you, Pelosi. Fuck you, 'progressives'. Fuck you, society.

Footnotes

* These are not laws -- they are perversions of law. Go read Bastiat, and come back when you are ready to have an adult, intelligent conversation about the proper role (and limits) of the law.

** It's actually a Republic, a federation of States, or, at least it was a long time ago. But we moderne Americans like to think of the late great American Republic as a great democracy; who am I to argue with popular opinion? To all you democracy-cultists: You know what you want, and you deserve to get it good and hard.

Contrarian

bsfootprint — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 16:50:50 +0000

Here's a perfect example of why I don't yet see a secular gold bubble:

Last April, I shorted SLV in the face of the great precious metal mania. Everyone wanted silver, Cramer was telling me to buy silver, my precious metals refining neighbors were telling me to buy silver, silver was absolutely going to blast through $50/oz., the banner ads on my browser were telling me to buy silver, Zerohedge was telling me to buy silver, and everyone who owned silver was borderline insufferable with joy. Silver was the world’s greatest hedge to every global problem. So I sold the hell out of silver. One week later SLV lost 25%. link

When my neighbors, relatives, and co-workers are telling me I've got to buy gold, I'll know we're in a secular gold bubble.

Apple (AAPL): Is this another secular bubble?

Now, 11 months later, the world has found another AAPL of its eye. Pun 100% intended. Their iPhone’s cure cancer. Their iPad’s help the blind see (retinal display…seriously?). Their iPod’s have cultured the ignorant. Everyone wants AAPL.

AAPL is easily a $1,000 stock, Cramer is telling me to buy AAPL, every analyst has a buy recommendation on the stock, and according to all valuation metrics (except common sense) it is still cheap. Buy AAPL!

(Source)

So, today, I sold the hell out of AAPL. History repeats and I expect it to repeat two days from now.

Will AAPL tank? Who the heck knows. Maybe this time it'll be different. All I know is, 9 out of 10 sources seem to be yelling "buy AAPL". My inclination is to assume that people who are just now buying AAPL are contributing to the Greed or Delusion stage of a secular mania.

AAPL: Reversion to the mean

If and when the bubble bursts, and AAPL over-corrects, will it drop to $150 before returning to the historical mean? When Apple's stock reverts to the historical mean, will it trade at $300? $250? What is the historical mean price for AAPL?

Disclosure: At the time of writing, the author has no position in AAPL and has no plans to take one in the foreseeable future.

Reason # 2,121,122 why you'll regret sharing your life on Facebook

bsfootprint — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 16:10:13 +0000

Here's another in a long and growing list of reasons why baring all on Facebook is a bad idea.

SEATTLE (AP) -- When Justin Bassett interviewed for a new job, he expected the usual questions about experience and references. So he was astonished when the interviewer asked for something else: his Facebook username and password.
Bassett, a New York City statistician, had just finished answering a few character questions when the interviewer turned to her computer to search for his Facebook page. But she couldn't see his private profile. She turned back and asked him to hand over his login information. More...

Everything you say and do online is public. It's like putting stuff on a supermarket bulletin board, only worse: it's accessible in real time, from anywhere. It was only a matter of time before this kind of crap started. I've always thought people who post personal information to sites like Facebook are asking for trouble, and now we're starting to see just what kind of trouble they were asking for.

As a rule, I'd suggest that you treat online conversations (written under your real name or traceable back to you) this way: Would you like to have that read aloud in a court case? How would it sound to the jury? Remember: Everything you say can and will be used against you.

Obamacare? No, Obey Me Care!

bsfootprint — Mon, 12 Mar 2012 22:39:52 +0000

When Uncle Sugar's footing the bill for health care, will you be shocked when you're told what to eat, how to exercise, and what meds to take?

I thought this might help illustrate the end game of Obamacare. The emphasis is on the word Obey, fading out to the word care.

Remember, folks, he who pays the piper calls the tune. Not too hard to grok, is it?

Buy one for the team!

Here's a super-cool pre-made bumper sticker you can slap on your neighbor's Prius*. Support bsfootprint, and show your stuff! (Available through by zazzle.com.)

Obamacare? No, Obey Me Care! by bsfootprint
Browse other bumper stickers on zazzle.com

Print your own!

And, just to show you what a nice guy I am, here's a free for non-commercial use, downloadable, high-rez version. Print your own, give a few to your soon-to-be pwned-by-Obamacare friends! Use them while you still can!

* With their blessing, of course.

From the student loan frontlines: Let's pretend

bsfootprint — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 16:19:07 +0000

Charles Hugh Smith's take on our Let's Pretend attitude towards higher education:

We also have a "let's pretend" education/student-loan game running: let's pretend college is "worth" the investment, and let's pretend student loans are about education. There are three dirty little secrets buried under the education/student-loan complex's high-gloss sheen:

1. Student loans have little to do with education and everything to do with creating a new profit center for subprime-type lenders guaranteed by the Savior State.

2. A college diploma's value in the real world of getting a job and earning a good salary in a post-financialization economy has been grossly oversold.

3. Many people are taking out student loans just to live; the loans are essentially a form of "State funding" a.k.a. welfare that must be paid back.

We've got a lot of charts that reflect reality rather than hype, so let's get started.

More: Let's Pretend

Facebook wiping

bsfootprint — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 18:36:47 +0000

I just spent the morning removing BS Footprint's presence from Facebook. It felt good.

I'm weary of helping build monster mega-corp web sites. I think I'll spend my time building my own.

Apple's customer fleecing: $1,900 Implied Value per iOS User

bsfootprint — Mon, 05 Mar 2012 21:42:14 +0000

Why is AAPL so wonderfully profitable? This may help explain it:

[ISI Group’s Brian] Marshall makes reference to a note he put out on November 15th of last year, in which he argued Apple’s revenue is secured in the same way as the cable companies, with a high recurring aspect as users buy a “$650 high-end ‘set-top box’ with an ~18-month replacement cycle,” as he characterized it.

Hence, he estimates that the “implied value per iOS user” right now is $1,900.

The first hit's (not quite) free.