lastkrell

Buy the CD “Thirty Thousand Feet Over China”

Administrator — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 09:16:38 +0000

A CD version of “Thirty Thousand Feet Over China” is finally available. Buy it now.

If you’re not familiar with The Passions, take a listen. Samples are below.

The_Passions_-_Alice’s_Song.mp3
The_Passions_-_Bachelor_Girls.mp3
The_Passions_-_Don’t_Talk_To_Me_(I’m_Shy)_(7′_Version)_[BONUS].mp3
The_Passions_-_I’m_In_Love_With_A_German_Filmstar.mp3
The_Passions_-_I_Radiate_(7′_Version)_[BONUS].mp3
The_Passions_-_Runaway.mp3
The_Passions_-_Skin_Deep.mp3
The_Passions_-_Small_Stones.mp3
The_Passions_-_Someone_Special.mp3
The_Passions_-_Some_Fun_(7′_Version)_[BONUS].mp3
The_Passions_-_Strange_Affair.mp3
The_Passions_-_The_Square.mp3
The_Passions_-_The_Square_(live)_[BONUS].mp3
The_Passions_-_The_Swimmer.mp3
The_Passions_-_War_Song_(7′_Version)_[BONUS].mp3

Regarding the “Welfare freeloaders”

Administrator — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 04:54:49 +0000

There’s a mean-spiritedness about Republicans that I find extremely distasteful. One of the major themes that the conservative types in my office continually harp on is handouts to the drunken crack addicts who live a party lifestyle on my tax dollars. No, they aren’t talking about Washington lobbyists. That’s their description of anyone who receives public assistance, aka WELFARE!. The guys in my office are more outraged at people on welfare, than they are at the financial sector executives who reaped uncounted millions while tanking the economy.

The other day, one of my coworkers was going on and on about how HIS taxes support these Welfare freeloaders he sees in his neighborhood. I got sick of it after a while, so I decided to explain “enlightened self-interest” to Dustin. I’ve reiterated it below.

Okay. For the sake of argument, let’s postulate that there are no good reasons for anyone to be on welfare. They are all lazy bums who won’t work unless we stop subsidizing their freeloading party lifestyle. So we cut off all government subsidies. We’re all happier and better off now. Gee, that was easy!

Oh, but wait. They’re not all working. What’s wrong here? Well, some aren’t employed because of criminal records. Some don’t have any skills for the jobs that are available. Some have disabilities that preclude them from the available jobs. And anyway, there are more unemployed people than there are jobs. Even a lot of the ones who managed to get jobs aren’t earning enough to support themselves.

Those people now get nothing from the government. Without assistance, they no longer have enough money to eat, keep a roof over their head, get medical treatment, etc. Now you have a problem. You’ve got starving, desperate, diseased, homeless people living on the streets of your neighborhood. They’re going to do whatever it takes to survive. If that means breaking into your home to steal food and anything else they can carry away, they’ll do it. If it means cracking your skull open so they can take your lunch and wallet, they’ll do it. If it means dealing drugs or turning to prostitution, they’ll do it. Your neighborhood is dirty and dangerous now. You could petition the city to hire more cops, to keep the homeless in line, but adding police to the force costs a lot of money, so the tax dollars that were going to public assistance now have to go to the police department.

But let’s the homeless are well behaved, and don’t commit any crimes. No extra police are needed. Those people are still going to be camped out on the streets outside your home, starving to death. Tuberculosis, dysentery, and all the other diseases you usually only hear about in news reports, and foreign aid commercials, are going to be rampant among the homeless population in your neighborhood. Unless you seal yourself off from them, it’s just a matter of time before someone in your household catches something. When you take your daughter to the doctor, for her persistent coughing, you learn she has tuberculosis (She probably got infected while riding the bus to school.) On top of that , and everything else, you now have lots of medical bills too.

So, let me ask you, does that sound better than giving less fortunate Americans just enough public assistance money to get by?

[Krell’s note #1: Some especially hard-hearted folks might be tempted to round up all those homeless people and put them in camps. Sorry, but that’s going to cost just as much, if not more, than keeping them on welfare. Short of killing them, or shipping them to another country, you’re not going to come out ahead by cutting off public assistance.]
[Krell’s note #2: Happy people don’t start smoking crack, or drink themselves to death. People who hate the circumstances they are living in are the ones who resort to drugs and alcohol to blot out the pain of their lives. You might want to consider that when looking at the people “living it up” on welfare. Or just try asking yourself this: “Do their lives look so great that I’d trade places with them?”]

Why Progressive Taxation is Patriotic

Administrator — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 03:04:10 +0000

You are probably familiar with this argument against our progressive tax system:
“If I make more money, why should I have to pay a higher percentage of taxes?! Why should I be penalized for being successful?!”

Why should the wealthy pay higher taxes than the poor?
Short Answer: Because the wealthy can afford to pay more, whereas the poor are poor.
Long Answer: If the wealthy could stop being greedy, selfish, heartless bastards just enough to part with a measly few percent more of their riches, the country would be a lot better off, as a whole. It’s not as if the rich are actually going to have to sacrifice and endure hardships because of the difference. Follow me through this example, and you’ll see what I’m talking about.

Let’s say we have a flat tax rate of 10% for everyone.

If you make $100,000 per year, that’s $10,000 in taxes, leaving you $90,000 to live on.
If I make $10,000 per year, that’s $1,000 in taxes, leaving me $9,000 to live on.

The cost of food, utilities, clothing, gasoline, etc. are essentially the same for everyone.
This is the important thing to understand. The cost of living is not proportional to earnings.

Let’s say that it costs $9,000 per year to live in a home, have enough food, get medical care, etc.
I only have $9,000 left after taxes. It takes 100% of my net income to live for a year.
You have $90,000 left after taxes. It only takes 10% of your net income to live for a year.
You can live five times better than me and still have 50% of your net earnings left.

If the cost of living goes up to $9,500, I’m $500 short.
That change in the cost of living is very significant to me.
It means I go hungry, or barefoot, or live on the street.

For you, that $500 rise in the cost of living is not significant. It’s less than 1% of your net income.
You still have way more money than required to live for a year.

You can afford to pay a little more, while I need to pay a little less.

One of the much vaunted values of “REAL America” is offering a helping hand to your neighbors.
That’s why it’s patriotic for wealthy people to pay a little higher tax rate than poor people do.

[Krell’s note: Let’s do a reality check. If you measure your personal income in the Billions or even Millions, you have more than enough money to satisfy anyone’s basic needs. More than that, you can satisfy needs beyond most people’s wildest dreams. There comes a point at which having more money doesn’t make any difference. It doesn’t buy you any more happiness. That when people should say, “I have enough.” If you get to that point, and it’s still not enough to satisfy you, something is wrong with you. Seriously, you should get therapy. You need to find out what inner demons you’re feeding all that cash to, and exorcise them.]

I’m not snobby. I’m just vegan.

Administrator — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 19:15:00 +0000

I declined an invitation to go to lunch with my boss and a couple of my coworkers. I don’t think my boss was happy about it. I would have gone, but the restaurant he chose has no vegan items on the menu. Even the Marinara sauce has meat in it, which is just plain wrong. Since the place is geared toward meat, and is always packed, they have no incentive or inclination to make a special vegan dish for me, so I’m stuck with what’s on the menu (i.e. nothing). My boss knows I can’t eat anything there because I sat next to him, not eating, the first time he took me there. Sometimes I mention it when he invites me along to lunch, but since it never makes any difference, I usually just decline. Sure, I could sit there with a glass of coke in front of me, while everyone else is wolfing down 16 ounce steaks, but from experience, I know that’s awkward. It’s not a significantly better option than declining. At least this way I don’t have to endure the smell of broiled animal flesh.

Krell’s Greatest Musings

Administrator — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 01:50:05 +0000

The posts listed below are the ones I consider my ten best Musings. If you look at nothing else on LASTKRELL.COM, at least read these:

Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer - the Martin Scorsese version
Gilligan’s Island - Season 7
Do you have what it takes to be a fashion photographer ?
Fundamental Principles of the Internet
Who put that crazy idea into your head ?!
Krell’s dubious advice column: Improving your conversational skills, Part 1
Krell’s dubious advice column: Improving your conversational skills, Part 2
Krell’s tips for finding that special someone
CSI: Time Tunnel
My secrets to happier living