You've got to be kidding.

Let's say, "hypothetically," a person with a blood-alcohol level of nearly twice the legal limit and with marijuana in his vehicle speeds down a highway without wearing a seatbelt and while talking on his cell phone. He crashes into a tow truck that's helping a stalled vehicle and dies. Whose fault is it?

Naturally, the bar, the towing company, the tow truck driver and the person whose vehicle stalled must be at fault.

I can, perhaps, understand suing the restaurant that allegedly kept serving the deceased alcohol for more than 3.5 hours--even after he was already intoxicated. (Although is it really the restaurant's fault that the deceased chose to drink and then drive?)

I don't mean to be harsh, but perhaps this apparent unwillingness of the parents of the deceased to blame him for his actions is part of a pattern; perhaps if the deceased had been taught to take responsibility for his own choices, he would have made better ones. And perhaps he would still be alive today.

Why I went "elsewhere" for grad school.

Haven't actually pulled an all-nighter in the library yet (although it may be coming up in a couple days), but I think the idea of "Wake the Library" is great--it's open 24/7 during final exams, and free food is provided in the early morning hours. Check out the pics here!

(I'm probably just proving what a nerd I am by being excited about this. I also still get excited about wearing jeans to Wal-Mart. Although I think the latter proves that I'm scarred for life and not necessarily that I'm a nerd.)

Is it just me?

From the annual report of a Singapore-based company:

Like a prized seashell, [name omitted] is a company in constant evolution for excellence.

I'm not getting the analogy. Seashells evolve? Am I missing something?

Tax for Dummies

I received this via email yesterday. I've no idea whether it was actually written by the economics professor whose name appears at the end. But I think it's worth reading anyway. And perhaps someone could pass it along to the Democrats.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


Because it is tax season. . . Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can
understand.


Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten
comes to $100.


If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like
this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.


So, that's what they decided to do.


The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the
arrangement, until on day, the owner threw them a curve. "Because you are
all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your
daily beer by $20."Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.


The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the
first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what
about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the
$20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that
$20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's
share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to
drink his beer.


So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill
by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each
should pay.


And so:


The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).


Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to
drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare
their savings.


"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed to
the tenth man," but he got $10!"


"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too.
It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"


"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I
got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"


"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get
anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"


The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.


The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down
and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they
discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of
them for even half of the bill!


And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax
system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from
a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they
just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas
where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.


David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia


For those who understand, no explanation is needed.


For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.