leh-nerd skin-erd

Z is the most infrequently used letter of the alphabet, Q is second. Yet, Q precedes Z, and while Z is extraordinarily efficient (line line line), Q is artistic (ringlet with line pointing to center) and never ending. There’s something here, of this much I am certain. Keep your head on a swivel. Never sit in a well-lit room in the heavy darkness of night without the shades drawn tight. Think people, not systems.

I’m reading a book on brain/mood well-being and the author suggests that “I am” and the words that follow set the stage for what follows in minutes, days, weeks and months thereafter. I realize it’s kind of cheesy and very superficial, but it makes an awful lot of sense.

I guess I can understand that. I hope they respond.

I open up the line to gen pop on Free Phone Friday, which is every other Thursday. Nonetheless, thank you.

No, last night I worked a bit, considered changes to I might want to make to my business, spoke with my youngest son about some real estate investments we’re considering and some that he’s interested in, spent time with my wife and went to bed. Thank you for sharing your point of view. I hadn’t seen you over there, trying to get my attention, yelling about how stupid people are. I appreciate you.

It’s not really that complicated, Doc. People don’t trust government and government officials, generally. That pre-dates Trump by decades, and is one of the reasons people supported Trump. During the Trump years, people who don’t trust government were whupped into a frenzy over claims his election was illegitimate, that he needed to be expelled from office over two silly charges that were false and defamatory. Those people exhibited the same type of paranoia and were as easily manipulated as any we see today into assuming victim status. During the Trump years, Trump supporters correctly realized—-and this is important—-that democrat voters and leaders did not care one iota about the notion of fair outcomes to legitimate elections, and would support anything necessary to remove the legitimately elected President. When Biden won the election, and Trump launched his version of stolen elections, suddenly the masses were told that daring to question our elections is unpatriotic, egregious, wrong and cult-like, often by the same people who exhibited unpatriotic, egregious, wrong an cult-like behavior during the 4 years Trump was in office and the year he was running. I would think Trump supporters fall into a couple categories, generally. There are those who believe the election was illegitimate, that voter fraud, and political manipulation lead to an unfair outcome in 2020. There are those who do not believe they have seen sufficient evidence of fraud and stolen votes, but believe that there are people and organizations that likely have acted inappropriately/illegally and will vote accordingly. There are those who don’t care, know they can’t trust government generally, know what the Dems did in 2015-2023, and will vote for the agenda they support. Finally, there are those who want to move on. As for the litigation, it will be interesting to see what happens. When viewed as a collective, we’ve seen a manufactured allegation of Russian conspiracy/impeachment, a manufactured allegation of wrongdoing involving Ukraine/impeachment, allegations that Trump supported bounties in US Troops, allegations of xenophobia as Trump attempted to secure a border that’s an absolute disaster, a novel attempt to reimagine charges in NYC for a previously deceased investigation, a very difficult to comprehend sudden interest in classified documents where Thunderdome management seemed to be the order of the day for the protected class, a DOJ that selectively leaks to damage one guy’s reputation while locked down like Attica for the other, intelligence agents (those one of the highest ranking dem Senators assured the people would find six ways from Sunday to do a person in) interceding to shape an election, and so on. The lack of trust in government is well earned, however you view it. One thing is certain—it’s going to be an interesting next couple years.

He may have been thinking about the war in the Pacific, circa 1945. Hard to say.

Frig it. Unless @John from Riverside claims it, this may be my new screen name. Lawn Forssman is awesome.

The best ROI will come from forgiveness of the debt, which is why it's so popular. On the other hand, one could question whether or not the ROI was adequate when it doesn't provide sufficient funding for the coursework. Oh yeah, that too. My list wasn't all-inclusive.

As usual, I'll answer, you'll realize you didn't think through your questions, and off we go. What came first? The decision to incur the debt. Some incur $0. Some incur modest amounts. Some incur significant amounts. Some incur excessive amounts. These facts are indisputable, but I encourage you to dispute them. Rising cost or borrowing? The cost of higher education has been rising for decades. The decision to borrow money (from $0 to excessive) is made on an individual level. Some decide to incur $0 debt. Some decide to incur modest amounts. Some decide to incur significant amounts. Some decide to incur excessive amounts. These facts, too, are indisputable, but have at it. I don't believe 'only the wealthy have a shot at a good education', making this a silly question generally, and indicative of the victim mentality I referenced previously. There are many, many, many options for people from humble means to pursue an education. While anecdotal, I know of hundreds, if not thousands of people who attended college and did not come from wealthy families. You're probably getting confused because you're a blue blood, while my people were blue collar. Near as I can recall, I haven't stated that JB "took bribes", and I believe I would remember that. Maybe you have me confused with another poster? Be that as it may, since you asked, I have no idea if JB took bribes. I don't know with certainty that he did anything illegal, crafted policy in exchange for money, or peddled influence to enrich himself, his relatives, or his dopey son. I know an investigation is ongoing, and that members of Congress have stated quite loudly that JB is dirty, and I tend to believe them. On the other hand, he could end up being pure as the driven snow. I think the best course of action is to pursue this matter vigorously and thoroughly, with testimony under oath, and that JB and fam should submit all the financial records requested by the committee. The best thing that can come from this is JB gets a little dinged up and huffy for having to comply, but we find out that he's an OK Joe. It'll be cathartic, you know?

Maybe. Ironically, if all goes as planned, contributing to paying off student loans for the well-heeled debtor class.

Between 2009-10 and 2019-20, those who chose not to incur debt for higher education had zero debt associated with higher education. Those individuals saw a 0.0% increase in their monthly payment of $0.00. You're wrong, as usual, spectacularly so in this case.

We can disagree on this one, that's fine with me. In my opinion, it's absolutely the role of the government to provide for infrastructure and provide for the health and well-being of the less fortunate. That's not to suggest that it's solely the government's job, but it's part of the process in civilized society. The problem is always scale. I start with this concept--paying taxes is the patriotic thing to do, and I have no fundamental problem with a progressive tax burden. I seem to recall you're a flat taxer, and that's fine too, but my problem is that the tax burden is too great, that government spending is out of control, and there literally can never be enough money to be spent, much of it yours and mine. I do not think that income tax in and of itself is a problem. I'll steer clear of any lengthy discussion on Constitutional authority, I'm just telling you the way I see it.

A decision to incur debt.

There is nothing inherently wrong with wealth/income redistribution on the appropriate scale. The problem is always scale, and the democrat party typically looks for ways to push massive amounts of people to rely on the government, expanding government, and wetting its beak along the way. A microcosm of the problem is the current crisis with respect to immigration and NYC. Again, nothing wrong with the notion of providing sanctuary for people in need (other than on Marthas Vineyard, where they need to disappear those people before peak season). However, what quickly became apparent was that there was no consideration as to what exactly that phrase meant. What it turns out it meant was that the good leaders of NYC were completely comfortable with compassion and caring so long as the burden associated with it was carried elsewhere. Thereafter, it took about 15 minutes for the good leaders of NYC to send a clear message that while everyone has a story to tell, it was best that many of these folks tell their story walking. A quick search indicated 43 million people carry student loan debt. It's not a sideline issue, it was a simple yet brilliant political strategy that encourages people to see themselves as a victim, in spite of what boils down in many cases to poor planning, and put some money in their pocket to boot. Money moves people.

Some folks say you don’t answer a door with a pen in your hand.

Seems more likely the allure of student debt forgiveness moved the needle, coupled with the shifting of the tax burden away from the base, to higher income Americans. Universal health care isn’t the sexy beast it was a few years ago. There are lots of people who’ll stay in bed on Election Day thinking their vote doesn’t matter, or based on apathy in general. However, dangle $10,000+, per couple, no questions asked, people will get up for that.

When the appropriate price point was reached.

Would it? This scenario involves the leader of the free world. We would need a deep dive into every aspect of his and the good doctor’s financial records, by an organization capable to that sort of forensic investigation. What you’re suggesting would be a great place to start, and JB certainly has nothing to fear by providing all these records if he’s clean. This is why it’s important to pursue Hunter aggressively. Perhaps if he faced real time in jail, he would consider exchanging information for a reduced sentence. If there’s nothing to share, no harm or foul.

Endocrinologist humor….no you di’int!

Chi, as seen through the eyes of Red. actual photo of Red.

I’m glad you’re learning new things, Red. You could learn some manners from Chi, too, lad. You asked me a dopey question on something that never happened, asked for an opinion on something that ever happened and never will, and I answered using…words. Words seems to trip you and yours up these days. Onward.

Assuming you’re correct, and I don’t assume that, nothing about a simple country lawyer misunderstanding the big city ways of US prosecutors is at all extraordinary.

I think this is a silly question, mostly because the DOJ investigated everyone in Trump’s orbit throughly in the Mueller probe and beyond, with an eye toward bringing charges whenever and wherever possible. Rumor is they tossed Manafort into isolation for his run of the mill crimes, likely to break his spirt. Be that as it may, it’s obvious to any objective person, that like Biden, that Kushner would have been afforded the very best counsel, they would have sought the very best deal, and bent the law to maximum effect for his benefit. Trump would have participated in that, likely would have misrepresented his association with his son’s business ventures, just like Biden did, and you’d have lost your fool mind.

Exactly, the appointment of a Special Counsel is very rare, especially in an average case with an average guy and your average multi-year fed/state income tax evasion gun charge amnesty for the son of a sitting President. No, according to the AG the circumstances became “extraordinary” when the judge felt justice was not served by that particular plea deal. From there, a couple weeks later, Garland decides special handling is required. I understand the concept of serving at the will of the President, but that’s irrelevant here, as is the mindset of anyone described as MAGA. This is a Hunter Biden/Joe Biden quagmire. The rest is a red herring. As for whether or not it makes sense to bring in someone not pre-inclined to offer a benefit-rich deal subsequently scuttled upon review, well that’s exactly the reason to bring in fresh eyes. In fact, that deal was so sweet that any notion of altering it even slightly in favor of the good citizens of the US was flat out rejected by the guilty party. Thanks for the feedback, I appreciate it.