Gromnir

oligarchy gets used hyperbolic and prophetic for the US, but it doesn't make many traditional lists. http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/oligarchy-countries/ the 2014 princeton article gets quoted frequent as support for notion US is deserving to be included, but representative democracy and lack o' any kinda unity 'mongst the US ruling class makes such stuff relative outlier material even if is deserving increasing attention. so the obvious reason why russian's get oligarch label and americans don't is 'cause is still no more than fringe acceptance o' notion the US qualifies as an oligarchy... save for when somebody in the media is attempting to make a point 'bout evils o' the military-industrial complex or wall street or silicon valley or... whomever. makes it more difficult to affix the label when one news outlet is warning 'bout the oligarchs trying to force socialism, unnecessary vaccinations and windmills on an unsuspecting public while others is claiming the oligarchs is pushing bank deregulation and weapon sales to saudi arabia. why no westerners? 'cause democratic institutions and process is excluding western nations from serious consideration o' the traditional oligarch label. however, the label does get applied in south america, mideast, asia and europe with equal verve. so, pretty egalitarian if culturally questionable. am thinking is worth considering US for oligarch status, but reasons why is less frequent than for russian and chinese and venezuelan business folks is hardly shocking and don't appear to have "ethnic connotations," as suggested in the article. somebody else wanna get into subconscious impact o' coding and how western academics cannot be trusted with a definition which almost by necessity excludes the west? *shudder* would rather chew on one o' those light bulbs which makes trump appear orange. *eye-roll* HA! Good Fun!

couldn't help but think o' that scene from blues brothers. what the heck, might as well add rawhide. HA! Good Fun!

well, that is kinda final. you did the roadtrip thing in previous years. is no other town in ca you might see yourself as liking? am understanding you is a teacher and teacher credentials don't just translate 'tween states in all cases, so maybe you feel you is stuck in ca? great recession shows why house ownership ain't the end all and be all o' sound financial planning. even so, doesn't sound like you is supplementing teacher pension with ira and mutual funds and similar in lieu o' property ownership. you already said you is kinda fighting monthly debt. am not being critical; am sympathetic. no doubt you have worried over and considered anything we might suggest. still, you got a rather singular plan for future financial security which depends almost entirely on you keeping your current job indefinite. is no doubt a bit nerve wracking at times. good luck. HA! Good Fun!

listened to entire master o' puppets album before, and wore same socks during, every every football game we played our senior year in high school... for luck. would be hypocritical o' us to mock. HA! Good Fun!

no. buffet said he were having a lower tax rate than his secretary. is an important difference. buffet mentioned how he paid near $2million in fed tax from year 201something-or-other. his overall tax rate were near 15%. am certain you may find actual dates and numbers, but am also certain am close. HA! Good Fun! ps apologies for extreme late edit, but is also worth mentioning that it were obama who mentioned buffet's secretary. obama takes buffet more general comments 'bout low tax rate, and then the President used secretary to illustrate the disparity.

as an aside, am feeling great sympathy for hurl regarding rent. am also in CA and am current renting out two residential homes in a gated community east o' sacramento. one property is ~1600 sqft and the other is ~1900 sqft. both is 3br/2ba 1-stories. rent we collect from both (not each) for the year is under 50k. admitted, am hardly maximizing rent we could collect, but by keeping a bit low am almost certain to have 100% occupancy. meanwhile, the homes we own is increasing in value, as does most such properties. bought the 1900 sqft home for 163k in 2004. is worth ~560k today and is no mortgage... and keep in mind, am actual kinda disappointed by the amount o' growth from the property in question which is why we didn't sell it and am instead keeping as a rental. more than tripling value in 15 years is considered bad. rents situation in the bay area is nuts. the money hurl is forced to functional flush down the drain each month on rents is almost criminal, but such is what the market supports. am actual knowing folks in the bay area who would kill to only need pay ~56k per year on rent. not fun.

the 800k total is a hurdle, but not insurmountable. folks really don't understand compound interest and investment. how much o' the 160k is genuine disposable? let's assume with real belt tightening, you could eek by on 40k, which am knowing is problematic, but why not, eh? baloney sandwiches and live in a hovel. can do it five years? might consider it when you see results. so 120k with additional invest o' 120k per year. assume modest 8% return and semi-annual compounding. resulting return + invest is over 900k in five years. am only using compound interest calculation. am not assuming wacky kinda rot, but am using semi annual. this is how the rich become ultra wealthy w/o even trying. HA! Good Fun!

the trump years has resulted in a misleading impression o' Gromnir positions. am fiscal conservative even by American standards, albeit with a few caveats. for instance, the proposed wealth tax is stoopid. is not stoopid 'cause it is a bad idea to tax the ultra-wealthy. is stoopid 'cause is largely ineffective. the ultra-wealthy typical do not have large taxable income, relative speaking. rich folks don't like taxes anymore than does the middle class, but the rich got far more options for avoiding paying. the ultra-wealthy, for instance, rare earn exorbitant amounts in the way o' income yearly; they don't get a paycheck for going to their 9-5 (7-8 for many o' us) as does the average American. live in the foundation/corporate house and use the foundation jet to fly to wherever is stuff which is trappings o' rich but is not ordinary taxable. fed doesn't tax rich for stuff they own and the rich know how to keep income low. if you wanna tax the ultra rich, capital gains is where you first need make changes. max capital gains rate is 20% on property held over a year. just one issue. heck, business losses being able to apply to personal taxes (and carried forward almost indefinite) is another serious loophole which needs be addressed. the thing is, get up in front o' Americans and explain a rational and effective tax overhaul is not gonna resonate. "tax the rich" is easy to understand and most Americans realize they ain't rich. so sure, tax the rich. am also not in favor o' raising corporate tax rates. most business is not the monolithic organizations we immediate think o' when imagining big companies, which is different from corporation. raise corporate tax rate disproportional hurts smaller business, which is a majority o' corporations btw, but again, explain nuances to voters is ignored in favor o' a message which will resonate. furthermore, warren's plans is too complex and interdependent, and she is too focused on domestic issues. she gots a wonderful complex house o' cards. tax on rich will pay for X, which will raise standard o' living for Y which will... unfortunate, the US political landscape don't make such possible. warren is never gonna get what she wants, not any o' it. every success she achieves would be altered by necessary compromise. her tax on rich, even if it made it through Congress, would not be as she describes, which would necessarily impact her plans for universal health care and student loan forgiveness and would likely have further debt increases and... obama and trump has provided a somewhat distorted perspective o' the Presidency to Americans and europeans. most o' the stuff warren wants to change domestic is requiring Congressional action. we do not have a parliamentary system where our President is head o' the controlling party/parties. we got genuine separation o' powers and even our legislature is further divided. President warren would not be able to wave a magic wand and implement tax changes and universal health care and free educations with student loan forgiveness. look what happened with trump during his first two years. he had BOTH house and senate majorities and he still couldn't get anything done domestic other than a last-minute and cobbled together tax reduction along with appointments o' judges and Justices... and the judges thing is owed to mitch more than any other single politician. oh, and first two years is when most Presidents get their signature programs implemented, 'cause even if a President gets a second term, is first two years o' first term when they historical have most influence with Congress. afterwards, is foreign policy which dominates Presidential agenda. warren is kinda light on foreign policy, other than wanting to get troops home which is, once again, gonna resonate during an election but rare works out as planned. raise fed minimum wage is crude and will hurt as many as it helps, but again, it sounds compassionate and is easy for voters to understand. etc. can go down list o' warren positions and... warren is smart and am agreeing with her regarding the need for bank regulation, 'cause so many people has already forgotten the major causes o' great recession. unfortunate, is too many issues 'pon which we disagree. 'course, as 'tween trump and warren, we would vote warren with recognition that assuming we vote in CA, our vote wouldn't matter save as a way to further inflate the inevitable popular vote fail for trump. popular fail is actual more important than many realize. is precise because trump were relative unpopular that so many in his party were willing to vote against party during all important first two years. as terrible as has been trump's trampling o' the Constitution and his maximization o' american divisiveness, situation woulda' been far worse if trump were elected with the proverbial mandate from the people kinda popular vote. every vote for the democrat opposing trump will weaken trump political even if he manages to get elected again. keep trump as impotent as possible is a good thing. HA! Good Fun!

warren has been consistent solid during all the debates and she hasn't resorted to the cheap theatrics a few o' her fellows. smart and prepared. too bad she is a bit left o' where we feel comfortable voting 'cause she is one o' the few democrats we hasn't been able to genuine criticize, based on performance, at some point during the debates. HA! Good Fun!

carol danver's backstory is a bit o' a mess, but the advantage o' such is the movie folks coulda' taken whatever they wanted from the chaos. missed opportunity. we didn't hate the ww film. however, am gonna admit patty jenkins did something impressive (if oblique) with a protagonist we didn't particular like. i believe in love, and i will prove the depth o' my conviction... by disintegrating you? ww is iconic. am understanding why, given the expectations people had for ww, jenkins didn't wanna humanize what were less a character and more a symbol. ww, as a character, is kinda meh in the movie, but chris pine (an actor we don't particular like btw) was unexpected good. is a ww movie, but is pine's character who grows and is pine's character who gets the heroic sacrifice scene. nevertheless, at no time does pine upstage or diminish ww. patty jenkins and chris pine did a fantastic job with kinda crap material, and while pine ain't the protagonist o' the movie, his is the character which advances the story if not the plot. can't even imagine how risky it were to make pine the emotional driver o' a ww film, of the ww film. never have pine's performance detract from ww were improbable to say the least. 'course the problem for jenkins is now she is stuck with ww as a symbol as 'posed to a character. rey, unlike ww, weren't iconic. didn't even have the comic book baggage o' carol danvers who kinda started as damsel in distress (her powers were functional the result o' proximity to the original captain marvel... grafted onto her along with a portion o' his personality) and evolved in weird and even disturbing ways. rey were a clean slate and writers/directors/actors (actress) coulda' done whatever they wanted. bears repeating, but there has been more than a couple ubermensch male protagonists, so is hardly shocking when a female version appears in 201_. ww handled lack o' character development in the protagonist by creating a surrogate, and challenged seeming unaware audiences by making the surrogate male. again, kudos to jenkins and pine. star wars is doing something similar, albeit a bit less seamless, by using adam driver for same function. and captain marvel? the captain marvel folks didn't bother with the surrogate and was successful even so. regardless, am hopeful is not a trend. women protagonists in these big budget movies deserve to get meaningful parts which has 'em develop as characters and persons. can be a role model and can be aspirational while at the same time having their growth advance story. growth should advance story. HA! Good Fun!

how could the doors not be included... obvious final track. am not even a fan o' the doors and immediate thought o' the song. HA! Good Fun! ps thank god for brexit as it makes the US political situation seem sane by comparison.

sacramento is ~35th most populous city and we no longer have a major afb. lucky us? HA! Good Fun!

guilty o' what? whose standard o' guilt? you gonna leave up to the courts to decide for you? and keep in mind is civil litigation, which means is not guilt which the court would be assigning. am already knowing vol won't care what the nfl decides. legitimacy o' ab preserved messages to the plaintiff don't appear to be a matter o' controversy, which in our mind makes ab, at the very least, guilty o' crimes 'gainst the english language. moreover, am not able to think o' any situation or circumstances when such words would be appropriate. foul. vulgar. crude. vile. if had been Gromnir who sent messages, would we be able to explain self to our grandparents why such messages were anything other than damning? am not sure what is the true north for vol's moral compass, but whenever am unsure, we call up the ghosts o' our grandparents and ask 'em... metaphorical 'course, am not complete loony. grandma would weep. vol is not gonna suggest the plaintiff were possible "asking for it"? 'course not. hope not. and even if the plaintiff were a world class grifter and liar, it wouldn't change what the messages says 'bout ab. unless is proof ab messages is fake, then am o' the opinion ab is already guilty o' being a world-class dirtbag. answering in the affirmative the accusations central to civil suit itself would only have the possible result o' magnifying and cementing such conclusions. answers to questions o' guilt and innocence is rare ending concerns 'bout right and wrong. HA! Good Fun!

our second buick were pure happenstance. have always wanted to work on one o' the gm 455 big blocks. oldsmobile woulda' been our choice for minutiae reasons. just turned out our housekeeper had the le sabre sitting in her garage. she wanted to give it to us if we would get it out off her property as she thought it were junk worthy 'cause o' flat tires and not having been driven for a near a decade. wrote her a check with perhaps an extra zero, just cause. looks a bit like grandpa's cruiser, but sounds like rolling thunder. honestly, is the sound o' those 455s more than anything which kinda captivated us, but were utter coincidence we ended up with a second buick. the 87 grand national... well that is a different kettle o' fish altogether. unusual performance from a v-6 and 'course the unique aesthetic. yeah, it's kinda cartoony. "you can get it in any color you want... as long as it's black," was part o' the original marketing campaign, and it has been labeled the unofficial car o' darth vader for obvious reasons. the over-the-topness is part o' the appeal for us. have never been a buick guy. if anything, am actual a ford truck guy, though has been 'bout a decade since we owned one. just... happened. HA! Good Fun!

LeBron's 'Taco Tuesday' trademark filing denied *eye-roll* HA! Good Fun!

am not gonna link or repost, but we read the complaint which included preserved texts from ab to the plaintiff. crude, vulgar and monumental stoopid. even if there were no federal case, the texts going public would make us a bit angry. weren't a pats fan previous to this, but can't root for them as long as they have ab on the team. doubt anybody in the pats organization cares. the roethlisberger incident is why we stopped rooting for the steelers, and that were hard. in part 'cause have known jack lambert since we were a sprout, we followed the steelers. have always been more o' a fan o' the defensive side o' the game, so would be tough not to appreciate the steelers over the last 50 years, but guys like the bus, dermontti dawson and hines ward were offensive standouts worthy o' weekly viewing even in the post chuck noll era. the roethlisberger incident, when the da all but admitted that he thought ben were a bad guy who had done a terrible thing but 'cause o' realities o' the situation, and his own police functional sabotaging the case, prosecution were not viable, marked the day we stopped rooting for the steelers. could not moral square rooting for a team with ben on the roster. cowboys, chiefs, pats and a few others is current in the same category for us. is impossible for us to ignore. similar, haven't seen a new polanski film in decades. am literal waiting for polanski to die so we may finally see the pianist. read the ab texts. won't change anything for many o' you, but you should know the kinda guy you is cheering for, yes? HA! Good Fun!

f=ma is not your friend in this instance. HA! Good Fun!

Mulvaney pushed NOAA to disavow forecasters who contradicted Trump on Alabama: report 'cause the 2+2=5 nonsense is actual important and shouldn't be forgotten 'cause o' new trump wacky. Trump pushed staff to deal with NOAA tweet that contradicted his inaccurate Alabama hurricane claim, officials say lie is bad enough, but having goons make threats to force support o' the lie is disturbing. terrible but am suspecting neil jacobs is the guy who is gonna be forced to take the heat for this. HA! Good Fun!

had a pony (named alpo) and our family had horses and a mule. never had a donkey. HA! Good Fun!

tires. we got rid o' the x5 'cause we were told if we went with the cheap tire option (needed 2) it would cost us $900. straw-meets-camel's-back. heck, the 97 t&c we use for the dogs could be complete replaced for $1500. 'course complaining 'bout car costs when we got the two buicks which do little save take up garage space and maybe get driven a handful o' times each month is hypocritical or stoopid... not mutual exclusive we s'pose. HA! Good Fun! ps surprising but the 71 lesabre had kinda a joke spare, but as we could easily fit two dead bodies in the trunk, we threw a real tire in there in case we ever get a flat. still have room for at least one corpse; corpse count being the appropriate metric for trunk space after all.

not even 1 day. Antonio Brown accused of sexual assault in suit not gonna rush to judge. regardless, ab is a lightning rod for trouble. not funny.

mojo's cheesesteak with provolone and sauteed mushrooms would be our recommendation... unless you are one o' the many people who understandably has an aversion to adding fungus to their food. HA! Good Fun!

is good reason not to negotiate with terrorists as doing so functional legitimizes terrorism. the thing is, while we were indeed taking a jaundiced view to arafat at camp david, given the decades worth o' bloodshed resulting from that conflict, we tried to keep an open mind. to say 2000 camp david didn't work out is understatement, but even so, given the interminable situation in afghanistan, am not opposed to idea o' negotiations. the taliban at camp david bit, unfortunate, appeared doomed to fail before it ever got started and am not seeing the positives o' a photo op o' failure. wrong people. wrong place. is admitted no right time. HA! Good Fun!

dunno. am not really a burbs guy, and rare make it out o' cook county when we visit, but mojo east would not be far from glendale? am recalling there is a place in naperville which sells "cheesesteaks" w/o specific mentioning philly... though they do use rocky (the boxer and not the squirrel) as their mascot. as such the philly is sorta implied. whiz, provolone, white cheddar and white american. perhaps you found a singular food freak show in the burbs west o' chicago? regardless, doesn't appear to be a chicago thing to do cheesesteaks with mozzarella so much as one place in glendale. heck, there is no doubt a jersey mikes not too far from you and am willing to bet their standard cheesesteak is sans mozzarella. HA! Good Fun!

clinton brought arafat to camp david, and destroyed barak in the process. historical precedent is not favorable, but it does exist. the thing is, even if you paint the most rosy and optimistic portrait o' welcoming the taliban to camp david, you ignore fact that the taliban is a terrorist organization with only a kinda/sorta leadership, which shouldn't be a surprise as is based on cell "organization" as is most terrorists. what possible concessions could trump get from the taliban? even if he managed promises, what would such promises mean from a practical perspective? is not as if trump could impose meaningful sanctions on the taliban and a military option requires far more troops than anybody, no matter how hawkish, would be willing to invest. am generally not favoring diplomacy with terrorists, though "terrorist" likely gets thrown around far too often to make such a position actionable. if everybody you disagree with is a terrorist, and there is no negotiating with terrorists, then diplomacy is pointless save with allies, which is problematic in our estimation. 'course, am thinking terrorist label clear applies to the taliban. even so, am generally not favoring, but if there were signs o' real and possible peace... 2000 camp david were a mistake on multiple levels and with trump being such a student o' history, he would no doubt avoid repeating such mistakes? *groan* a 2019 version with a far more tribal and purposeful disorganized taliban than were the plo is hardly a starting point we would want. maybe trump would be satisfied if he got a very nice letter from... ... is likely the real reason the talks were called off. trump were predictable more interested in the show than in any substantial peace talks, and the taliban doesn't have anybody with enough Star Power to make all the effort worthwhile. HA! Good Fun!