Comments by Book Guy (page 9)

I drive around town with my dad to take advantage of the best CD rates. We put 'em away at 12 or 18 month periods generally. Otherwise everything is in mutual funds of a wide variety at Vanguard, Fidelity, similar online houses. I have a simple stock-brokerage account at Fidelity too, but I seldom buy actual shares rather than mutual funds. I'm getting zero from the bank on checking or savings. The Vanguard target-date funds have received a lot of negative scrutiny lately. Not so much because they're bad funds, they're doing fine with OK or good yield and reliability. It's more that they aren't true to the target-dates in their names, they have little to do with cashing out on such-and-so a date. My 401K is one of these but I might shift it. Vanguard has recently started charging a hefty fee for phone-transactions that could be done by internet, and that's pissing me off. Their computer access and online systems are garbage, though their funds seem to be good generally.

How many of these women genuinely have supportive partners, as opposed to, how many simply say that they do, as a smoke-screen against us PL's getting the wrong idea and trying to hook-up with them civilian-style? Maybe all those supposed diamond engagement / wedding rings you see, are all zirconium and perform no function other than being part of their stripper costume, stowed away with the platform heels and the neon g-strings most weekdays.

Mostly my complaint at any clubs I've been to in the last five years is, that there are way too many fat women stripping. Haunches, waggling thighs, monstrously dangly stretched-out tits, calves with cellulite. I like a bit of femininity, I'm not attracted to waif-thin; but I like 'em "spinner" in the sense that they seem to be lithe, supple, gymnastic, maybe the ballerina is the perfect model. Please don't fatten them up even more than current practice!

Some smart investor advice people have said for about fifteen years, since the real-estate bubble of the late 2000s, that the next big bubble that's going to burst is higher education. I see their point, and there have been a few popping actions, but not many. And anyway, why would it matter to investor advice people, since nobody who's reading them is also "investing" in higher-ed institutions. Generally, you can't buy stock in State U in hopes the price goes up so you can sell. But some changes have happened, f.e., the uncovering of really morally corrupt practices at some of the for-profit schools, and the manners in which the move to forgive or reduce student-loan debt has gone more mainstream. But I don't really see a full pop coming. My educational institution (small highly regarded liberal arts college, I graduated in the 80s) went through a rough patch when financial "insiders" convinced the trustees to invest parts of the endowment in dot-coms and similar, which did fine until that bubble burst in the 90s, but over the following two decades the endowment has been quite adequately rebuilt to the point that you can't really see a difference. I think the schools operate outside the typical economic analysis, since they're always able to recoup any shortfall with a single major donor. And that donor won't be making his or her decision on the basis of potential future business factors like whether or not the institution promises to be profitable in the future, they'll be donating on the basis of existing past factors like the fact that the donor got his or her degree from that school. How football figures into this is a bit of a guess. I think the NCAA over-all needs radical re-organization, because it's pretty clear that many college athletes, especially in a few specific sports, are simply in pre-professional programs. The draft, bringing people from college teams to professional teams, for NBA and NFL are essentially the only path into professional play in those two leagues. Baseball and (ice) hockey are different, there actually are minor leagues which act as feeders. I might advocate in favor of a European system, in which most athletes simply quit school at about 15 years old to play in lower-tier soccer leagues, working their way upwards to maybe make the big leagues eventually. With relegation and promotion possible -- good teams move from the minors to the majors, and vice-versa, based on league performance -- there's a constant shit of money and fewer dead-beat franchises. Imagine if the Montreal Expos were so bad they had to play the North Carolina Mud Hens next year. That system might work in North America, we have many many more people who would be roughly capable of playing professional basketball and football at a lesser level, except for the fact that the number of available positions is much too small to accommodate them because the paying leagues only exist at the single top-tier level. We would, then, change college athletes into minor-league athletes. Which is roughly what we are already doing, except we're hypocritical about it. I can see disadvantages to this system, too. America doesn't need yet another generation of unemployables who can't open a spreadsheet, but the great desire to "make it" in pro ball would simply remove many from educational streams. Might be good for them, I dunno, can't guess how bad it would be.

It's a funny mix. Some mostly-Red states are extremely anti-vice-trade -- Mississippi -- while others have excellent strip-club opportunities -- Texas. I can't really put my finger on why one place is good and another is bad 100% of the time. Some mostly-Blue states the same -- California vs Massachusetts. Partly it mirrors the Bible Belt, where Evangelicals hold significant political control. In true Bible Belt areas, strip clubs (and prostitution) are very low-quality to the point of dead. Part of it is simply size -- the Evangelicals predominate in more sparsely populated places like Mississippi or Kansas, whereas better strip-club culture tends to coagulate around major urban areas like Houston or Miami. Usually. Not always, though, f.e. Kokomo Indiana (never been there, feel free to correct me). Good example for Chicago, too. I tried to get to the bottom of some of this a few weeks back, with a thread I started on the subject of what might account for good or bad strip-club culture in a region or city. We didn't really get to any good conclusions, but a few arguments were persuasive to me. Specific jurisdictional (city- or township-level) history was demonstrated to be a significant factor, IIRC.

I did @ilbbaicnl's thought experiment but didn't come up with the proper results. If groceries were illegal and everyone who worked there was thought of as trash, then there would be a very wide range in grocery-store levels of service because the unfettered utterly unregulated free-market would mean every single customer was constantly giving a performance review with his money. As grocery stores would become less and less illegal, they would tend more and more toward the middle in terms of prices and services. On the subject of bigger vs littler women, I personally prefer one type and I know other guys prefer other types. I experienced strip clubs for a LONG time (roughly 1985 to roughly 2020) when large women were simply prevented from stripping. Ever. At all. Only at the sketchiest most desperate places would someone with more-than-average body-fat be allowed to disrobe and dance. Now that is changing. I dislike it, personally, but I have not found it to be a major detriment to my clubbing lifestyle. Some men like the new larger women. So it is possible (though not guaranteed) that the change means, on the one hand, fewer women whom I wish to engage with, percentage-wise; but also means, on the other hand, fewer competitor males engaging with my preferred women. So it would come out about the same. If that's true. It might not be. What I have also noticed, is an increase in UNAPPEALING women. They are unappealing to me for a wide range of reasons, not simply due to larger size. I would like to interview the new customers, who evidently prefer larger women, to find out whether those larger women are also less appealing than most larger women. I cannot judge, since larger is inherently less appealing to me.

I concur, @rickdugan, the ruling isn't (as spun) a change from (a) administrators (a.k.a. bureaucrats) (Executive Branch) to (b) judges (Judicial Branch). As you say, it's more like a change from (a) administrators can do whatever the fuck they please unless you sue the crap out of them over and over, to (b) judges have more oversight over administrators. This has advantages and disadvantages. Obvious advantages. For disadvantages, the slowness and the possibility for contradictions will need to be ameliorated. Biggest problem will be (IMO), that in the absence of clear power-grant, it will be up to Congress to pass a law that makes that clear power-grant, but (as we know) Congress doesn't ever act.

Which statements? They're right there for you to cite, if you have the balls.

@gammanu95 "@book guy Trump never "mounted an armed insurrection against the Houses of Congress in an attempt to overthrow a legitimate election by means of violence." Trump was never part of the riot at the capital. He told people who had attended his really to protest peacefully and patriotically. The group of anarchists and idiots who rioted at the capital was not affiliated with the Trump campaign. Your entire argument is predicted on a lie." You're lying to yourself. Trump requested they go to the Houses of Congress. Trump suggested they arm themselves. Trump attempted to drive to the Houses of Congress to lead them in storming the building. Trump demanded that Mike Pence not certify the election. Trump rallied his riot on purpose. You can watch the films or you can lie to yourself. "We are all going to go down there ..." If you need to lie to protect yourself from the painful cognitive dissonance of admitting your side unpatriotically attacked American peacekeepers and the houses of congress, you're doing a great job. You might make a sensible case that this minor attack isn't within the definition of a real "insurrection" by pointing out (for example) how poorly organized it was, how there were no field generals directing troops to particular attack or defensive positions, how there was no supply depot, not centralized command or communications infrastructure. I'd agree, it's a pretty damn weak insurrection. So I'd simply reply, "OK fine, he organized a minor riot on the Houses of Congress to block an election's certification with violence." But you can't possibly pretend Trump didn't direct it. Watch the films, you idiot. Facts is facts.

@dirtyburt "Not sure how this gives unelected judges power??? Examples please??? It basically takes power AWAY from the unelected bureaucrats making law. " I think you're misunderstanding, by conflating bureaucrats with judges. Under Chevron, deference to the agency was required, so therefore un-elected bureaucrats' decisions were usually upheld by courts. Now, Chevron has been overturned, so judges are no longer required to automatically defer to the agency's bureaucrats. In other words, judges are more in charge. You have equated "judges" with "bureaucrats" when in fact the entire point is to differentiate between the two. Sorry if you understood that distinction, my bad then. Maybe you meant something else?

Personally I'm not sure which is worse to put in charge of administrative decisions, unelected judges and the ultra-slow judicial process piece-meal with varied results across the country, or unelected bureaucrats and the capricious red-tape process heavy-handed with burdensome results across the country. Pick your poison. I disagree with @gammanu95's characterization of what "history shows." It could equally be concluded that "history shows" that conservative judges choose unreasonably restrictive interpretations without sensible regard for the real-world harms they are causing and in total disregard of human rights. A conservative might counter, "they don't have a right to it, if there's not a law against it!" but they would change their tune if they ever had to look at torture being performed on a human ... which is entirely legal and within all strict readings of all USA's laws. There are places for choosing morality over legality, or for interpreting the law more loosely. In fact, that's exactly the biggest advantage of choosing to divest the bureaucrats and invest the judges -- a judge can make a judgment call. Bureaucrats also had to explain themselves and also could have been overturned on appeal. There are elaborate requirements for public input, explanations and rationales, and review. The idea that the bureaucrat "does whatever he wants" is uninformed at best. I don't necessarily side with the bureaucrats in this particular choice, they've been running amok. But claiming they're inherently less responsive or legal than judges is simply false. A judge is more free to pick a SIDE rather than a RULE, which leads to greater unpredictability for future decisions because nobody knows if the first decision has any bearing on future decisions. A bureaucrat was more free to over-regulate and add too many rules, which led to predictability, but of the worst sort -- predictably dysfunctional. Again, pick your poison. With the standards of evidence presently allowing idiotic science in as probative even when it isn't, I think judges are a poor choice with the more scientific disciplines -- nuclear regulation, for example, or airplane traffic control -- but we're probably better off with judges not bureaucrats for some of the more humanistic social-sciences -- housing or education, f.e.. Also, in science-disciplines, Congress generally did a good job of delegating data-determined standards to the agencies, which would not be overturned by the end of Chevron. Millirads of radiation is still an exact number, so, in the nuclear regulatory commission's new interactions with judges, it will be straightforward for the judges to identify and understand specific scientific requirements. However, in the new Housing department's interactions with judges, I ain't got a CLUE what they WERE going on, and now they won't know what direction to try to go on for the future either! I think there will be some upheaval. The entrenched systems aren't going to simply disappear. The bureaucracy is huge (as makes sense for the world's third most populous country) and performs a lot of necessary tasks -- mailing checks, testing tap-water, counting pennies. Throwing it all out wholesale would be throwing out baby and bathwater.

Yah, dang, I wrote or typed a lot of that badly sorry. 11th circuit doesn't "overturn" SC precedent. My last clause should say "while" not "which." My last parenthetical should start "(or ...". Etc. But you get the gist.

The lawsuit isn't about alcohol. The constitutional issue in question here, is the stripper's right to "express herself" under the First Amendment. Her claim is that there exist less restrictive means for Florida to combat human trafficking, and therefore the current plan is unconstitutionally restrictive. It has already been held in a variety of previous cases that any State which wishes to curtail stripping must do so only within the strictest limits set on the curtailment of "fundamental rights", in this case, the right to freedom of speech. A fundamental right can only be curtailed if the law is "narrowly tailored" to bring about a "compelling" government interest (in this case, combating human trafficking, the government claims) AND there is no less restrictive means for bringing about that interest. (I think I got all those quotes right. Don't sue me, just correct if necessary, thanks.) So basically, it has to (1) be a direct link, between (a) no strippers under 21, and (b) less human trafficking, and (2) be the least invasive way to bring that about. Roughly, whatever goes or doesn't go for limiting newspapers, is the same for limiting strippers. I'm not really on board with the idea that newspapers and strippers deserve similar protection. I can vaguely buy the idea, that stripping is sometimes a form of "self-expression" which does have some degree of First Amendment protection. But I find the link very tenuous, at best. Open political discourse about whether we should vote for Biden or Trump isn't often what's rolling off the tip of my tongue in the lap-dance area. Should stripping be considered as fundamental a right as the right for the NY Times to publish the Pentagon Papers (Nixon White House tapes)? Always seemed a rather iffy idea, to me. Anyway, yes, there is indeed a constitutional issue here, self-expression. The courts have held that stripping is lumped in with that. Whether that issue SHOULD be engaged here, is another question. With the current judicial climate, I could see either the 11th Federal Circuit or the SCotUS overturning some precedent and holding more in favor of the government than previously, basically by dissociating stripping from newspapers and political speech a bit more, which still defining it as a TYPE of self-expression but not the MOST PROTECTED type.

I can't find much about this in most legit news sources but I'd like more info. And what is the connection between football and bankruptcy, are we actually making a connection or just making a funny?

@gammanu I thought the reason that "entire government agencies have been mobilized to destroy someone [Trump]" was not "simply because they disagree with his policies or don't like his tweets" but rather, because he mounted an armed insurrection against the Houses of Congress in an attempt to overthrow a legitimate election by means of violence. Silly me, I guess the images of January 6 are fabrications.

@Jascoi finding more and more reasons to keep pounding :)

Regarding the "validity" of the ratings, it's still kinda helpful even if you remember all the necessary statistical and sampling caveats. Just seeing that a club has a lot of positive reviews, at all, accounts for something. Clubs in NJ having a higher number of reviews could simply be representing the fact that they're (more) near to major transit hubs. Pompano, Hallandale, and a few other Miami-related places are doing well in the ratings.

Holy bejabbers, Muddy at 298 reviews in the last 12 months, do you ever sleep?

Further research reveals that this is the Junkyard Bar and Grill in Barnum Iowa, and that their cook Shannon has broken a few toes in the last few weeks but is recovering well. https://www.facebook.com/BarnumJunkyard/ 'Murka!

Smash or pass? Uh no, wait, that's not it, umm ... Pics and vids or it didn't happen. Uh no, that's not it either.

Ski -- but but but ... there IS a right answer isn't there? I mean ... wait ... no, not in the Presidential debate there isn't ... har har makee funnee get it? :)

Interesting, thanks for the info. After the error message, the page refreshes itself and goes where I want it, quite promptly, so I reckon I should just ignore it. I don't know squat about that kind of computer coding.

@skibum I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of the January 6 attempted insurrection. I do dislike the woke riots, as well, and think they need to be addressed more strictly than much current practice, but they weren't generally invading the Houses of Congress in hopes of canceling an election. I can't normalize violent anti-election insurrection. Attempts by Republicans to do so make clear to me how far from decent they have transgressed. I suggest they just admit that some on "their" side are as flawed as some on "our" side, defend the good parts of "their" side, and stop trying to defend the obvious faults. I won't say Biden looks young, you don't say violent insurrections against elections are OK.

@puddy-tat yeah i agree with your assessment of those specifics in response to me. I just threw a bunch out to make examples, didn't try to do anything representative, I'm sure you could think up others. My biggest personal disappointment is the climate change issue. Under many ways of thinking, it's the only one which matters, long-term, at all, but we're essentially ignoring it. https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/002/166/523/59d

I'm not particularly worried either way, actually. I'm worried if the entire Congress goes WITH Trump. I think Trump's first term taught some important actors (the military, various agencies in charge of law-enforcement) that they need to learn to act for the Constitution within their mandate rather than simply abiding by dictates from the Chief Executive. I'm guessing that the "football" issue (the fellow who carries the codes to the nuclear arsenal in a briefcase) has come to mind for everyone. The Joint Chiefs won't allow egregious abuse of power, and I think the FBI, the Justice Department, the Federal Marshals, and several other key departments, are full of honorable people. It will be some chaos, but not an overthrow. IMO. Come back and lambaste me if I'm proven wrong. For example, I've heard through the grapevine, that all members of the Diplomatic corps have had to re-swear their original oaths to the Constitution. Nobody will confirm, can't prove it. What happened, evidently, was that senior State Department people just asked everyone to come in, variously in their various offices, and READ OUT LOUD the whole oath, and swear it again. They all have to take this oath when they first get a job at the State Department. They usually just go through the motions, raiseyerrighthand blah blah. In the past it could be a nice ceremonial occasion especially if people invited family members who also worked at State, but otherwise the oath itself didn't seem to have much consequence. Well, they've re-upped. Someone somewhere got the wise idea, to just make everyone at State (in USA and overseas) reconsider why they do this thing. Are you really honoring your oath? Do you know that you swore to the Constitution, not to the Chief Executive? Did you notice that recently there have been potential conflicts between those two? Are you prepared to actually do the honorable thing? I think that this kind of anecdote suggests, that important people know we have some PEOPLE who are potentially divisive, but we don't need to actually divide the SYSTEM. It's the Comey's and similar actors I'm relying on, here. I'm generally a Democrat voter, but here I'm just putting my trust in honorable conservatives. Not necessarily "Republicans" even though they may identify with that party, especially if it gets them a top job under a Republican administration. Kind of like relying on Pence to certify the election on January 6. I don't like much of what Pence stands for, but he performed his required duties in a sensible way which contributed to the failure of an otherwise attempted violent overthrow of the system. Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, even Paul Ryan, lots of other "RINOs" give me a bit of faith. Personally, I would hope that ALL my Democrats are "DINOs" (Democrats In Name Only). I think there are plenty of people who got into office by means of signing up for the Republican party because that was how you got elected in their region, who probably like the idea of limited government, but probably also really find Trump to be a despicable prick and an obvious opportunist. Well, now I'm on record. If things get worse you can call me an idiot. I've suffered worse. :)