Tuesday assorted links


1. That was really hard to predict given the overwhelming success of socialism everywhere it has been tried. I am shocked..that they survived this long.

I eagerly await the #notruescottsman replies.

Well considering that Venezuela was still packed with billionaire businessmen with virtual monopolies on major sectors of the economy...

In any case, I would agree that specifically, state socialism tends to be driven toward corruption and degeneration. Unfortunately, libertarian socialists tend to suck at organizing and actually winning significant victories, and the only current movements that could be considered libertarian-socialist are in Chiapas, Mexico (Zapatistas) and Rojava, Syria (Kurdistan Workers Party).

The historical record shows that socialism only enriches ruling elites. "Like Ponzi schemes, socialism is an evergreen form of fraud, egged on by suckers eager to believe the lies hucksters tell them.” - Instapundit blog.

Hate to break it to you but ruling elites have enriched themselves in all economic and political systems.

Paul Hollander's book Political Pilgrims talked about the way the Left always fixated on the Next Great Socialist Victory. They would rush to endorse whatever the flavor of the month was. But then reality would hit, the murders would begin, and then they would slink off, denying that they had ever been fans.

A belief in "libertarian socialism" seems part of this mythology. They always claim that the Stalinists they are endorsing right now are libertarian. They did with Mao, they did with the Cubans, the Vietnamese, with the Nicaraguans. But they never are. They are always Stalinists and as soon as they are in power they set up Camps and people begin to disappear.

I think the last I personally remember was Eritrea. Apparently their deep commitment to liberalism was an inspiration to us all. How did that work out?

So the Zapatistas are hard to work out as they seem to be a bunch of middle class White kids playing on the internet with other people's lives. But the Kurdish Workers' Party is an unrelenting and vicious Stalinist party. It does not and never has the slightest interest in libertarian values. They have not even waited to come to power before murdering people. I mean direct democracy is fine. As long as Party members are not at every meeting taking notes of who speaks out against The Leader.

But, you know, the Faith Springs Eternal. Facts won't change that.

Mulp, please pick up the phone!

He heard your call and weighed in twice. That's our mulp; he's in a class by himself (I assume that he's a man).

For all the title of the "Republica Socialista Bolivariana". Venezuela is not a textbook case of socialism. The national oil company PDVSA is state run and has been for quiet some time, but pretty much everything else is privately owned and run (like Norway and Saudi Arabia, countries that would not be considered socialist).

The problem with Venezuela and that has been going for at least the 1940's is over-reliance in petroleum, they have very few other exports other than crude oil. There are basically no world calls companies in Venezuela, they rely on imports for a lot of things and the local producers are sub-par. And that has been going on for long time before Chavez and his band of thieves showed up , and took over the country from the two incumbent bands of thieves that have been taking turns on looting the country since the '50s.

There have been Latin American socialist governments for a long time. Their economies may not have done well, but collapses of this magnitude are not typical or predictable. In Bolivia and Ecuador (also governed by 'Bolivarian Socialist' regimes) toilet paper remains readily available.

Vote Bernie: TP Will Remain Available.

Socialism typically works in two locales. Heaven where they don't need it. And, Hell where they already have it.

Their economies may not have done well, but collapses of this magnitude are not typical or predictable

It's true. Socialism generally does not produce booms or busts, but just a constant plodding grind of crappiness. Venezuela's situation was created by being artificially sustained by having oil and high oil prices for a few years, which permitted it's government to go full retard. Usually socialist governments aren't blessed with a natural resource windfall and have to face reality much sooner.

> Socialism generally does not produce booms or busts, but just a constant plodding grind of crappiness.

The soviet union agrees.

This might just be an argument about words.

Until recently, Americans and communists agreed that "socialism" means something very similar to "marxisim". But west Europeans, Australians and Bernie Sanders fans use the word in a broader way that includes even social-democracy.

"constant plodding grind of crappiness"

The Mangyongdae Funfair is much better than the Disneyland. If you disagree, the Dear Leader and Sun of Socialism will nuke you.

Someone should make a painting called "Venezuelan Proverbs" with Chavez devouring a bag of seed corn and Maduro sitting idly in a field of hay while the sun shines. Venezuela was sustained by high oil prices, yes, but its ruin has been exacerbated and accelerated by two very foolish decisions: diverting funds away from the oil sector and into more popular social programs, and refusing to save their oil windfall for a rainy day. At present they couldn't pump more oil if they wanted to because of the state of their oil sector. (Recall that until a few years ago, state-owned PDVSA was a world-class firm; now it is a joke.) Chavismo could have endured a while longer if Chavez and Maduro were just a little smarter.

but collapses of this magnitude are not typical or predictable.

I'm afraid if your economic policy is derived from bets on commodity prices, public spending pukes, and looting private property, some sort of economic disaster is both typical and predictable.

17 years ago, Mark Falcoff offered that Venezuelans were just going to have to learn the hard way that wealth comes from building on skill sets and entrepreneurship, not from natural resource endowments. The lesson is ongoing as we speak.

It's going to get really interesting when the Saudis are forced to learn this lesson.

I think if you had an artificial superintelligence with supreme ethical values doing the central planning, it could work better than capitalism.

For the Venezuelan leadership, not so much.

There's no way any superintelligent AI could keep up with changing demands and preferences and the accompanying churn of creative destruction unless it's monitoring each individuals preference in real time, which effectively amounts to the indirect synthesizing of a capitalist free market.

But why would anyone bother to construct such an AI when you could just let folks do it on there own?

I think an ASI could do it better than the market. Capitalism has its own deadweight loss, just think advertisement trying to grab market share from the competition, or information asymmetry, or predictable marginal irrationalities in consumers and producers, etc.

I want to encourage your blind faith. Indeed, I think we could do away with the consumer altogether.

Skynet, no one said anything about blind faith, "with supreme ethical values" is hardly unconditional.

Hey, Skynet's ethics are unimpeachable!

They just happen to be incompatible with independent organic life.

You could try to convince people that the AI was super ethical and trying to do the best for what people wanted.

It's hard to imagine how it wouldn't become a tool of major political repression and milking people for every last drop of effort and surplus they could be milked for. There are people working on these technologies. Some of them are naive beyond imagination and some are evil beyond imagination. I imagine there is a middle ground there somewhere too.

"It’s hard to imagine how it wouldn’t become a tool of major political repression and milking people for every last drop of effort and surplus they could be milked for."

Major political oppression, probably. But it's doubtful human effort and surplus would even be valuable in an economy where ASI exists. If you place no ethical value on people, what do you still need them for once you control ASI?

Troubling thought. Especially if Nazi-esque types are behind the AI.

I think I read a science fiction novel about that exact scenario.

An ASI could conceivably be better at distributing existing consumer goods, but how would it know which new consumer goods to invent in the future? If you had told the ASI in 1970 to start planning for mass deployment of personal computing devices, what data could you have possibly used to convince it of your position?

I think an ASI could do everything government research and corporate R&D can do, including analyze consumer preferences and innovation use cases.

But how often are important innovations a matter of simply applying better technology to existing product lines, versus inventing entirely new categories altogether? It's not clear to me how an ASI replicating government research and performing consumer surveys would somehow invent iPods, skinny jeans, or Crocs.

Granted, I wouldn't weep for a world lacking two of those 3, but the market was able to identify that niche.

Imagine you have an ASI that talks to everyone all the time. It can ask people questions and people can tell it what they want. It has a supreme understanding of science and technology (including how to make better science and technology). What makes you think it couldn't invent an iPod or skinny jeans? Other than identifying something better? Granted, this might lead to a world where no one needs iPods or skinny jeans ever again, perhaps because other forms of eudaimonia, pleasure induction and philosophical self-actualization are realized and sustained. But then, of course, we wouldn't need markets anymore anyway.

Yeah, Saudi Arabia is doomed to collapse just like Cuba collapsed under socialism in the 70s.

The question is whether the people of Venezuela are worse off than the people of Gabon (oil was more than half government revenue), Republic of Congo, Algeria, Nigeria, just to pick a few.

Oil is absolutely a curse because it's "labor saving" which means it's only a benefit to growth if you have a labor shortage.

The problem in Venezuela is the oil wealth was used to allow the bottom 50% to buy imports just like the top 50% which made local production of goods too expensive.

Now everyone depends on imported goods, even the people who not only never bought imported goods, but did not consume even local goods as substitutes.

It's not that half the people are worse off than 20 years ago, but that everyone is now experiencing what the bottom half experienced every day 20 years ago.

And if the bottom 50% had not been given benefits funded by oil exports and all that benefited only to top 50%, the Obama energy policy that created the global oil glut would have put Venezuela into a crisis just like in various oil patches in the US.

And Saudi Arabia can only barely handle the low oil prices today, and if the low prices continue for another 5 years, Saudi Arabia will be like Venezuela - if Saudi investments need to be sold off, the market prices will fall, "destroying trillions in wealth".

> the Obama energy policy that created the global oil glut

I actually laughed out loud at that. Good one.

PS: It was actually the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

Time is no master of the Obama.

they survived this long.
Only because of the oil. But no reinvestment in oil infrastructure and price 110>40. They're toast.

4. The break-up of the large firms (outsourcing, etc.) coupled with globalization resulted in a large shift of income and wealth to owners from workers. In the past, "trade" was viewed as something that would cost owners of firms not enrich them; hence, trade wars (tariffs and other measures to protect the firms' profits) and sometimes actual wars. When labor is on the losing end of "trade" and owners are on the winning end of "trade", however, we get an entirely different reaction, the "losers" to blame for their own plight; hence, no trade wars or actual wars. Trump speaks for those who feel betrayed by the owners of the firms. Of course, when the shoe was on the other foot the owners demanded protection against unfair foreign competitors. Today, the owners are reaping the benefit of trade (much lower costs). The real story about the recent evolution of trade is how, in a relatively short time, those who benefited from trade shifted so markedly. Indeed, it has occurred so rapidly that economists are still fumbling about looking for explanations.

I thought % of revenue to firm owners was the same now as in the 1950's?

American firms have between $2 trillion and $3 trillion in unreported profits in overseas accounts (according to Forbes). One of the benefits of "trade".

Owners are blaming government and claiming it's not their fault they can't grow as fast as they would have in the 60s.

The problem is government is taking all the money from consumers, because without government, consumers would have infinite spending money.

Dodd-Frank has stolen all the money consumers should have by making it too hard to borrow money. It is absurd that borrowers be required to repay loans instead of getting a government bailout.

Just remember, workers are never consumers, so labor costs suck money out of the economy, and consumers are never workers so they have money to spend based on how much richer the 1% get because of higher profits from cutting labor costs.

without government, consumers would have infinite spending money.

Just like in Somalia or, even more accurately, Zimbabwe--everyman a billionaire(Z$).
Yes I know you're being sarcastic.

...or it could simply be 1) a secular trend of technological innovation gradually rendering more and more human labor obsolete in toto and 2) that a post-industrial, service-based economy is inherently incapable of providing the same broad distribution of wealth and opportunity for upward economic mobility that an in industrial economy is.

#1: Venezuela's largest beer brewer stopped production 2 weeks ago because there are no dollars to import malt. That's a CRISIS.

Yeah, malt is mined only in Scotland and can't be found anywhere else.

Oh, wait, the patents on malt prevent anyone from producing it except Germany...

After all, free trade is when capital is traded for destruction, not when labor cost is traded in goods.

Oil is capital sold to be burned, with labor cost being the smallest possible fraction of the price. Disaster occurs when the price of capital falls to labor costs or below.

#3: It makes me wonder if next time I'll request to talk to kitchen's personnel an tip them instead of servers.

You forgot #maga #trump2016 #trumptrain you miserable bigot.

Really? I'd bet on a clintonite being racist more than a trump guy.

Makes perfect sense.

Isn't Denmark an open economy too? Like, really open?

Isn't the Denmark of today subject to the same economic forces outlined in the essay? If so, why has Denmark been able to get different outcomes then we do?

This. How can someone write something claiming a country can't be like Denmark without explaining why his argument doesn't apply to Denmark itself? Maybe he thinks Denmark is just an idea rather than a place that actually exists.

Denmark is full of Danes.

3. If I'm barely making more than minimum wage, why should I tip a server who is making $40 an hour?

In fact, if I spent 5 years in school and got a decade of experience in engineering to make the theoretical $50 an hour, but in reality only $30 to $40 with all the extra hours at home or travel, why should I tip someone who knows less with only three months experience so they earn $40 an hour? And the server didn't even fix the food or buy the ingredients which was the most important reason for eating out.

Is anyone surprised to find that Mulp is a lousy tipper?

Why should someone earn the wage of an OK engineer for bringing food and filling drinks? And meanwhile others are earning the minimum for back breaking work. It doesn't make any sense to me.

Supply and demand?

I guess, in a sense. But how much of that supply is because people like Skynet go around shaming people who don't give the waitress an hour's wages for bringing a few dishes to the table?

Yes, why should someone earn the wage of an OK engineer for flipping burgers?
Why is the $15 minimum wage movement focused on the wages of workers at fast food joints?

I think it's pretty reasonable to suggest a real minimum wage at the 1965 rate would not be such a bad idea. And, that cities or states can make higher minimum wages to account for cost of living differences, etc.

As for the national minimum wage .. is $15 an hour too high? I'm not sure, but I'm extremely open to the idea that $15 is too high at the national level. For a city like LA or NY? It seems patently reasonable. If a business activity is so low value (or has very low positive networking externalities) that it cannot thrive in LA or NY at $15 an hour, is it really such a bad thing for them to relocate to a place where everything is cheaper?

To pull a number out of my butt, I think a national minimum of $12 an hour would have high potential to benefit low income earners as a group without having notable negative effects (possibly even positive?) on the macroeconomy. I think $15 is a stretch in the present day and age for a national rate. But I do not believe that cleaners, burger flippers, servers, laourers, etc. who serve as the underclass in the greatest of global cities should be living in slums, 3 to a room, etc.

The median per capita income in the U.S. is under $28,000/yr, so you are saying the minimum wage should be the median wage. That is insane. Obviously the "underclass" likes it well enough or they would move somewhere less ridiculously expensive and things would sort themselves out. No one is forcing them to live 3 to a room.

If that was actually what I said, you would be on to something.

What's median income in NY and LA?

I don't tip. And if I get a dirty look, I just tell the server, "Look, I want this country to be more like Scandinavia and I'm starting with how I tip."

Bold, principled stand. Praiseworthy. The additional money in your pocket is merely incidental, not a motivation. I know this because your entire world view is based on caring for others rather than self-interest.

If you're barely making more than minimum wage, why are you eating out?

If I’m barely making more than minimum wage, why should I tip a server who is making $40 an hour? ..
If you're barely making more than minimum wage, why are you(and how can you be)eating out?.

And the server didn’t even fix the food or buy the ingredients.
From this I know you've never waited tables. I have.
The bill is for the ingredients and preparation, the tip for the WORK for serving entitled twits.

You sound like an entitled twit. Someone comes in who earns the same wage as you, and you want free money for doing your job but they do not get free extra money for doing theirs.

Why so much entitlement among servers? In China, it is practically an insult to leave a tip. The mindset is "What? I already got paid to do my job. Do you think I've such a lazy ass that I have to be paid a second time so I actually do it?"

I once had a job where I earned decent tips. It was a full service gas station with propane and natural gas outlets (and regular services) for taxis. My co-worker and I busted our butts and turned an hour wait and the end of taxi drivers' 12 hours shifts into them being able to go for a leak and return with their oil checked and filled if necessary, window washer fluid filled, windows washed, etc., and go home knowing all the basic shift maintenance had been assured. And yet, entitled you, you want as many tips per hour for bringing some dishes as we would get in an entire day for saving several hundred people an hour of their time daily.

Stunning, that you would call someone else entitled. Anyone can do your job, with a little effort and training. We're not talking five star or foreign language service here or anything.

What minimum wage earners can afford to go to restaurants where the wait staff makes $40 an hour?

Ones who take their significant other to a place like that a few times a year.

Although I find the system of tipping to be a really dumb one, it does have one advantage: if you don't want to tip, or are too poor to tip, then don't tip. Or tip 5% or 10% instead of 15% or 20%. Aside from the market for donations, it's one of the very few where the individual household can unilaterally decide how much they're going to pay.

#3. My understanding is that it is common practice for the waitresses to share a portion of their tips with the kitchen staff and bussers.

In one kitchen job I got 1% of sales tacked on. In another I actually got paid a decent wage. I hear of waitresses who share tips with kitchen staff, but it seems rather optional. Some companies also extract a share of assumed tip percentages from wait staff and share it with the kitchen.

Well, these days, most tips are via credit card so the restaurant just divides it up and tacks it onto their paycheck. Pretty easy. Cash tips are more honor system.

I don't think it happens that much. Or, when it does, it's chump change.

I was a busser at Lyon's years back. I never received any tips, or a portion thereof.

Varies by location. When I was a waiter we got paid like $2.00 an hour, and the people of the kitchen were paid based on experience but was significantly more than minimum wage at the time around $5, so we did not share with them. Now the busboy was at minimum wage and it was your responsibility to get to get to the table before he did.

Some companies also extract a share of assumed tip percentages from wait staff and share it with the kitchen.
Some companies also extract a share of assumed tip percentages from wait staff and KEEP IT!

More seriously, not even Denmark can be 'Denmark': I've been reading "The Almost Nearly Perfect People: Behind the Myth of the Scandinavian Utopia", very interesting book (although the author applies "preventive stupidity" to avoid some non-PC conclusions).

Basically, Denmark is the "happiest place on earth" because Danes are full of sh*t: they have the highest rates of cancer and anti-depressant use among OECD countries, among other things, but their culture forces them to claim they are extremely happy if someone asks. The material living standards are quite low (car prices 2 to 3 times manufacutrer's price due to taxes, delivered pizza is $50 etc.), due to low productivity. Some paradize...

The paradizees be playin' pair-a-dice on the corner in 10 years, when Denmark is broke as shit and the last place you'll find a "happy" person. That's for real doe.

I don't have an opinion on Denmark per se, but it makes perfect sense that the happiest country on Earth would be better at diagnosing and treating depression in its citizens.

1) The gotz mad doctors there. They ain't pullin in what our white coats make, don't get me wrong, but they do ok. And universal access to mental health services is all part of that socialist dream, ya heard?

2) U pay doze taxes, you gonna wanna go see dat behavioral health clinic, regardless of whether you depressed. Tragedy of the commons, my man. You gotta be crazy to pass up the free health care--you payin for it already. Next thing you know, bam, you on doze Prozacs. Slippery slope and shit.

"'We have invented happiness,' say the last men. ...Everybody wants the same, everybody is the same: whoever feels different goes voluntarily into a madhouse."

I've read a few pieces in the past that made me question the high cost of Danish happiness. One was a BBC series on the increasing number of fleeing young Danes who, after benefiting from Denmark's lavish social services, went elsewhere after university to live and work to avoid Denmark's high taxes (and presumably the weather). Elsewhere, Sune Rose Wagner, who is one-half of Danish rock group The Raveonettes and who now lives in Los Angeles, has given a few interviews where he laments the crushing uniformity of Danish society and how it isn't particularly conducive to individual and artistic expression. None of which is to say there aren't lessons to be learned from our Danish friends. I just suspect that when Danes lecture us on happiness, some things may be lost in translation.

I find it interesting that collapses of socialist governments is much more common when they are dependent on oil.

What is a country like Cuba doing differently?

Collapses are more common when a country is dependent on oil whether it's a socialist country or not. Being dependent on one big export commodity that can have wild price fluctuations will do that for you.

That tipping article is so dumb. There's no need for some big compensatory scheme here. Just pay everyone a living wage, set the prices based on profit maximization as usual, and don't worry if customers decide to leave tips anyway. No one's all that anti-tipping, they're just anti-having a lower tipped minimum wage.

"Just pay everyone a living wage"

Pretty easy to live on about $6k/yr in America so apparently the current $3/hr minimum wage is fine.

I'm curious how you break down that $500 a month. Say, $300 to share a 1 bedroom apartment with 4 people, $100 for rice, beans and veggies, $20 for your share of the internet bill, $20 for the bare minimum cell phone coverage, and there's $60 left for transportation, so you'll probably have to walk to work most of the time.

If you have zero intentions of having a social life, networking, or going to school, I guess you could scrape by.

Are these the people we should lecture for not having a go at it? Why don't they go to college? (Oh, but if they fail to forecast the right major, which even the world's top economists struggle to do, we should call them retarded.) Why don't they go get a network? (But they can't even afford a coffee).

Am I being overly pessimistic in my budget?

"Am I being overly pessimistic in my budget?"

No, $6,000 is clearly ridiculous unless you already own a house outright, have no outstanding debts and are in excellent health.

Well free housing, free health care. "No outstanding debts" what an outrageous suggestion? Who could possibly achieve such an amazing thing? But who is going to lend to someone who makes $6k/yr?

Cliff, if the statement you are trying to make is, "It may be possible to live decently on $6,000 per year thanks to government programs that I oppose such as the PPACA expansion of Medicaid," then fine.

Section 8 is not, of course, "free" nor is eligible housing always available.

You don't need a PPACA expansion to get Medicaid when you make $6k/yr. I am pretty okay with medical care for the indigent. Of course even without medicaid you can walk into the ER and get treatment in an emergency. I'm pretty okay with BI as well but it's total BS that a "living wage" is $15/hr. That's more than the average wage in many European countries!

$300 to share a 1 BR apartment? You can rent a room in a 4BR house in DC (not one of the high-crime areas) for $300/mo. Otherwise, looks about right. $100/mo is plenty for food if you shop smartly. Take the bus to work, carpool, ride a bike, walk.

Nobody goes to school or "networks". If you want to do those things try getting a job in real life where min wage is $8/hr then you'll have a gross excess. Plenty of ways to socialize without spendinga lot of money. Plenty of people spend most of their time online anyway. Go to a few meetups- it's free.

Plus you get mad gov't subsidies- food stamps, free health care, EITC etc.

In my experience, you don't find opportunities at free events, you find other people who can't afford stuff. Maybe you can network your way into another minimum wage job, or work on ways to start businesses geared towards serving people with little money - with the exception that you also don't have money to start such a business.

Live isn't horrible on the minimum wage. But it's also next to impossible to place yourself in situations where you can work your way up when you haven't got a penny to spare.

Anyways, I checked Craiglist Washington for rental rooms and set the max price at $300. One offer was to share a room with another girl. The rest were weekly prices.

Now, let's consider that some people are raising children on the minimum wage too.


Have you considered that my post is set in a fantasy land where minimum wage is only $3/hr? I don't know about your craigslist skills but my brother has paid this amount for several years so it is not made up. DC is also an expensive city if not NY/LA. Having a child also turns on the free money spigot to full blast.

By the way I make plenty of money and I go to "free events" all the time like various meet-ups. You think only losers go to anything that's free? All the really cool kickball games charge you money to participate?

4 is not based on actual facts https://twitter.com/UpdatedPriors/status/732609629176356864

For most ways of looking at the data, concentration has increased, not fallen.

3. Reading between the lines, the larger problem in this particular case might have been redistributing income from the servers(/bartenders?) to the kitchen staff. Even so it's probably best to think of many waiters as people who prefer the "commission-based" compensation model- if they wanted the steady ~$10/hour paycheck they could do QSR, bank teller, retail clerk, etc.

There is a lot of mocking of the Reverend's comments. But the under class was a problem for Social Democrats. Their solution was sterilization. Virtually every Social Democrat of note endorsed it. Sweden continued to sterilize the racially impure and the "asocial" until the mid-1970s and the program continued until 2011.

In America eugenics was popular in two places - the South and in the Mid-West where there was a lot of settlement from Scandinavia.

So no one has disputed what he has said. On the other hand if Denmark did have a lot of African-origin people, it would not for long because they would have all been sterilized. The modern Social Democratic solution seems to be to pretend that this problem doesn't exist. Or to scream "racism". That doesn't make the problem go away. Still, on the bright side the under class is becoming much more racially diverse these days.

Regarding no 4:

I did a Sailer Test - ctrl-f "immi". No result. The post is okay, but this is a glaring omission. It's also why Denmark cannot be Denmark again.

And yet non-Denmark Denmark is what America should be if it could (it's exactly what "Why America cannot be Denmark" means).

It all went downhill when those damnable Krauts took over Holstein and started pushing out the natives. Secure the southern border!

That made me laugh out loud! But, in all seriousness, you know as well as I that the Europeans had a problem with diversity since before non-European immigration became a thing. It just wasn't brought about by immigration, but by settlers.

Re: #1, Venezuela: I thought the lesson was learned in 1991. But no, mankind never learns. Every generation has its committed ideologues and clueless sheep who think everybody can live off everybody.

#2 The pool of Amish voters is small. Most conservative Anabaptist sects prohibit their members from voting, period. Some which allow local church authority will tolerate it... but voting is seen as a vice and not a virtue by and large. I know, I grew up in one of those sects.

Re: Venezuela

Have you been paying attention?

I have.

#2. I wonder if the Amish have their papers in order to be eligible to vote? I just moved to a new state and it was quite an ordeal to get my new identification and voter registration than it used to be the last time I moved. I was lucky my wife is organized and saved my birth certificate and social security cards. We would've needed a marriage certificate too except she had a passport and was able to substitute it instead.

Comments for this post are closed