Is Pacquiao vs. Mayweather Really Good vs Evil?

The quick answer is no. But the point of this post isn’t to answer that question, but to rebut the argument that “Manny Pacquiao is a shithead, too” because of certain things he’s done in the political arena or things he said.

An article was written by somebody named Diana Moskovitz, who certainly sounds like one of those leftist Jews that think anyone who votes against any government subsidy is evil. Jews are so annoying. (I can say that, Diana, because I am a Jew. Otherwise you’d probably send me to jail for hate speech or something.)

She starts out the article with a fair enough point about Floyd Mayweather, who by all indications is a real schmuck.

The many failings of Floyd Mayweather to follow the basic rules on how to be a good human being are well documented. He’s a serial woman beater who once evicted his father and pleaded no contest to threatening his children. His odiousness speaks for itself.

So fine, Mayweather is an asshole. From what I’ve heard, and seen, and how he presents himself and responds to questions, I can’t stand the guy.

Pacquiao is much more mild mannered, sounds more humble, is clearly religious (that’s not inherently a good thing, religious people scare me sometimes) but for a Jesus guy he is careful not to mention “Jesus” when he invokes God, which is often, and that cozy’s me up to him. If he were to mention Jesus all the time I’d definitely get annoyed.

But then Moskovitz tries to argue that Pacquiao is a “shithead” using very bad examples. Here are the worst of her “examples”.

1) He spoke out against gay marriage. That’s equivalent to threatening your children and beating your wife I guess. I spoke out against. I speak out against all state-sanctioned marriage.

2) He was a mostly absent congressman in his home country. This is a crime? To be an absent congressman? To not participate when the rest of them spend their time telling people how much money to give them and how to run their lives? Halevai all congressman should be mostly absent all the time!

3) He did not step in when some guy got fired after he said that Pacquiao’s basketball career was a joke. Lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack. Who knows what Pacquiao did behind closed doors, and even if nothing, it’s not his responsibility to tell a private company what to do. If badmouthing Manny Pacquiao causes that company to lose revenue, then the person who made that comment should be fired for the sake of the company, and the people in it who may lose their jobs because some other guy insulted the most popular and beloved man in the country. What’s the matter, Diana, you have no empathy for the poor Filipino’s who could have lost their jobs had this guy not been fired or insulting Manny Pacquiao’s basketball career? This is beating your wife and threatening your children?

4) Allegedly mauling a fellow politician – I can’t say anything that bad about mauling politicians. It sounds fun to me.

5) He owes tens of millions in back taxes! That’s a crime! He owes taxes! This is equivalent to beating your wife and threatening your children! Tax avoidance is not only not a crime, it is an absolute good.

6) He “he fought against legislation in the Philippines that would mandate sex education, subsidize contraception, and expand family-planning offerings.” He basically voted against government-funded abortions. Or in even less Orwellian language, he voted against forcing other people who believe abortion is murder to fund the abortions of the sexually irresponsible. Orwellianly stated as “expand family-planning offerings”.

My God the bullshit code is getting more complex by the day.

And that’s evil. When some politicians want you to fund someone else’s abortion, if you say not, you’re a child threatener and wife beater.

The only thing Diana Moskovitz had on Pacquiao was that he cheated on his wife. That is a bad thing. But it is NOWHERE NEAR the disgustingness of Floyd Mayweather.

Raspberry on Temple Mount Makes Shrieking Allahu Akbar Arab Girl Giggle

The girl who I raspberried is to the right of Natasha's head.
The girl who I raspberried is to the right of Natasha’s head.

What a day. We decided to do the impossible and take a whole family of 5 to Har Habayit – the Temple Mount – in the thick of Hol HaMoed Pesach, on the day of the massive Bircat Kohanim. I left for the mikveh at 5am, and we left the house by 6:21am, and found parking by Liberty Bell Park at 7:30. We got to Sha’ar HaMugrabim by 8:15 after making sure all the kids bladder tanks were empty.

By 8:15 the Kotel Plaza was crowded, but nowhere near as crowded as it would be an hour later. There was nobody at Sha’ar HaMugrabim. The Gentile tourists passed us as they always do, while we went through the wringer, as always.

My two girls were really excited because I explained that we were going to Hashem’s house, and almost everyone else was only going up to the door and stopping there. We were going inside. My wife and I explained that when they go to a friend’s house, they don’t just stay at the door. They want to go inside to say hi and play.

The older one asks why they all wait at the door. I say because they are scared of Hashem and think He’ll be mad at them if they go inside. I say there is nothing to be afraid of, as long as you are nice, like at a friend’s house.

We wait for an hour. The 9 month old baby is taking it pretty well, crawling all over the floor picking up pebbles and trying to eat them. The two girls are a bit restless but they’re doing ok. Tanks have been emptied, no peepee emergencies.

The police tell us we are not allowed to eat, so my kids cannot snack. But the guards are allowed to smoke cigarettes right in front of my kids. And eat. They are The State. We are Their Slaves. That’s how IT GOES.

Some secular guy joins us and explains to me that Jews aren’t really allowed to go to Har Habayit “Din Torah” because they’ll get Karet, religious excision, or however it’s translated. I tell him that the way he dresses is assur and he’s getting Karet because he’s dressed like a goy, and is עובר חוקת הגוים. I point to the Haredi kid in the black kaputteh and hat in front of me and say, “He’s OK. You’re not. Dress like him or you’re getting Karet. Din Torah.”

He tries to defend himself and I keep saying Karet Karet Karet, sorry. Nothing you can do. Those clothes, Karet. Eventually he leaves me alone.

The State tells us we are not allowed to go the full route around the Mount. We are only going one gate length to the left and leaving. One guy encourages us to argue with the police up there. I see this as totally futile and will just get them in trouble. If all the sea of Jews hanging around dallying at the Wall decided to join us, then we could do something. But we are only a group of 10, my kids included. Everyone else is staying at the door.

Predictably, the ones that argued got kicked off and banned.

One Jewish lady somehow manages so walk past our guard. She is caught at the top. Our guard is chewed out for letting the woman pass. “If she looks Jewish, you have to stop her! If you don’t know how to do that go home!”

We are finally allowed up after an hour of having goyim step over us. One of them had asked us, “What are you all waiting for?”

“We’re Jews,” I say. “We go to the left.”

The trick to going to Har Habayit is keeping focused on the positive. The positive is, we are The Few. The tiny sliver that will go inside, and thank God for at least that. I’m excited to go up now. We get moving, up the bridge.

By this time, about 9:30am, the Kotel Plaza is totally, absolutely packed. From the Wall all the way back to the stairs, all the way up them, there is no standing room. We lonely souls trot up the bridge, looking down at the sea of Jews all waiting at the wall of the House but dare not go inside. They are afraid. Afraid of God. I am, too. But I have to go in. I don’t get much religious inspiration these days from almost any religious activities. I’ve always been a rationalist, not a mystic. Not so spiritual. But when I go up there I am a religious being. I’m scared, but I know I have to go.

Why is it that everyone asks why we go to Har Habayit and what are you supposed to do up there, but nobody asks why we go to the Wall, and what we’re supposed to do down there?

There’s a picture at my neighbors house of the Kotel. On top, on Har Habayit in the picture, is the completed Beit HaMikdash, as it should be. But there’s something seriously wrong with the picture. The people in the painting are still praying at the Wall, and no one is on Har Habayit itself, in the picture of the future. The Wall obsession, this strange disease, is so prevalent it has infected even our messianic art visions of the future.

We continue up, and I show my kids the sea of Jews below. They oooh and ahhh. We continue up, and the Allahu Akbars begin. As we head left, they get louder. My older daughter on my left, my second daughter on my right, holding each by the hand as the screaming Arab women close in. The baby is on my wife’s back behind me. The girls are a bit taken aback, but they do not cry. I tell them people will scream at them but they will not hurt them. I promise them. They don’t want us to be in Hashem’s house but they will only scream, not hit. They hold my hands tight.

I try to point out the Dome of the Rock to them, the place where Hashem’s House used to be and will be again. The screams of the Arab women are deafening.

I’m not sure if my girls can even hear me. But they do not cry. Neither does Fry, the baby.

At the peak of the screaming, I spread out my arms, still holding my girls’ hands, trying to take up as much space as possible, as if to suck up all the screaming with my body and absorb it, take strength from it, soak it in and have it energize me. I’m starting to like it. In a sort of masochistic way I guess. I want the Allahu Akbars to get louder and they do.

And then I notice a little girl, right on front of me. Just a bit bigger than my 4 year old. She must be either 6 or 7, nothing more than that. The look in her eye is of pure hatred. She’s shrieking. I’m still walking, and the space between us narrows. She’s right in front of me now.

I look at her, I smile.

And I blow her a raspberry.

And she giggles.

And then she continues shrieking.

We take a picture and head off, stepping backwards off Har Habyit, and begin dancing.

Chag Sameach.

Tziv and Daf

Manny Pacquiao, Boxing, Libertarianism, and the Non Aggression Principle

Mayweather vs. Pacquiao

Last week I wrote an article tying in the upcoming May 2 fight between Floyd Mayweather and Manny Pacquiao and the economy. It got 2,000 likes, thank God. I’m not into boxing beyond being a Rocky fan, though admittedly I’m not as much a Rocky fan as my brother is.

$300M is expected to flow through this fight from all sides. It will be by far the biggest boxing event in world history. Floyd Mayweather is undefeated, though a bit cocky. Manny Pacquiao has 5 defeats, he’s a Filipino, a deeply religious guy, and seems more humble. Arguably Pacquiao is the better boxer despite 5 defeats, but we’ll see on May 2. I don’t know who will win, but I’m rooting for Pacquiao.

Since writing that article I became more interested in these two boxers and boxing in general, looking into styles and strategy and what it takes to win a fight. Then I came across a snippet on YouTube of Pacquiao being the subject of a 60 Minutes episode in 2010.

Boxing is fascinating. On its own it’s certainly a violation of the non-aggression principle, but because it is mutually agreed upon beforehand, there is no problem with it. If two guys agree to fight each other under certain circumstances, then the whole thing is voluntary and totally legitimate.

Dr. Walter Block uses the example of “Murder Park” where murder is allowed, which is also fine provided that Murder Park is private property and clearly demarcated with visible and obvious warning to anyone who enters. Breaking into someone else’s property at night with a weapon is also grounds for being killed as well, so while Murder Park sounds sick, it really is the same principle as breaking and entering.

Anyway, watching this 60 Minutes interview I hit something amazing at the very beginning. That is, Pacquiao is so popular in the Philippines that whenever he fights, the ongoing war between the Filipino Army and the Rebels stops because both sides are busy watching Pacquiao fight. 

That’s incredible. It shows the absolute power of the market, the incredible ability of it to stop even vicious wars. When two men are paid to fight for the enjoyment of others, it can stop real, bloody, murderous wars and save lives.

Boxing saves lives. Voluntary fighting saves lives. It’s a fact. There should be more boxing in the world so there can be less wars.

So Mayweather, Pacquiao, please, put on a good show and hopefully you can save thousands of lives on May 2 while wars literally stop to watch you two punch each other. You two deserve all $300M flowing through your bout just for that.

Kahlon’s First Move To Lower the Cost of Living: Raise Taxes

I saw this one coming. If you thought Moshe Kahlon and his Kulanu Party are a group of economic geniuses, it turns out they’re a group of politicians looking for more excuses to take more money away from you. Really, only a politician could think up an idea like raising taxes to make your cost of living go down. Bluntly, it’s saying this: You want to be wealthier? I’ll just take more money away from you and then voila! You’ll suddenly be wealthier. Amazing.

An article out in Calcalist, a hack magazine if there ever was one where they throw jargon at you but nothing makes any sense, says that even before Kahlon goes into the Finance Ministry, the bureaucrats there are busy cooking up a plan to take away tax exemptions on property gains for those who own apartments as investments, and to tax rental apartments.

It’s amazing really. That this is what they think of. Not building more, not freeing up more land, not giving away land to build, not even selling land. Raising taxes.

What will this cause? A lot of people want to say that the tax raise will just be passed down to the renter. It won’t. That’s impossible. Rental prices are what they are not because of taxes, but because of supply and demand of houses.

What will happen, though, logically, is something like this:

The people that buy apartments to rent them out have the capital to do so. They have the savings to make a down payment on the house in order to rent it out. The ones that rent, usually do not have the capital or income to qualify for a mortgage. So they don’t buy houses. And now, even if they could, they’d have to pay taxes on property gains.

So what’s going to happen is that the moderately rich people who can afford a house or two as an investment, will sell them in order to escape the new taxes. But who will buy? The people who can’t afford a mortgage now? Certainly not. The ones who will buy will be the super rich who can afford so many houses that the economies of scale will keep real estate investment profitable only at a higher theshold that only the superrich can afford.

So the landlords scraping a living at modest investments, all that income will now go to the superrich. I have nothing against the superrich unless those riches came from government. I’m just saying that they end up benefiting the most from government intervention like this.

The other alternative would be to make it much much easier for a person who cannot afford a mortgage now, to afford one in order to buy a house. That would mean forcing banks to accept people who make no down payment, and then we’re back where we started at the housing bubble.

So super wealthy real estate owners rejoice. You’re about to get a lot more real estate at a discount. But rental prices ain’t goin down until you INCREASE SUPPLY.



PATHETIC Bank of Greece Soliciting Donations, DO NOT Donate

Let’s do another Orwellian decoding today. “Public Debt” is the Orwellian term. What does it really mean?

A debt is something I’m responsible for because I borrowed money from somebody that I ultimately have to repay. I chose to borrow the money, therefore I repay it either in liquid cash or assets I must liquidate, or if I have nothing, slavery.

What is a “public debt”? When the government takes money away from me by force and threat of violence, and then goes into debt, the debt is only “public debt” because the government has the ability to threaten me to with violence to pay back the debt they incurred using my money, that I never consented to. But because they can kill me if I don’t pay, and the same with everyone else, the debt is considered “public.”

What is it really? It’s government debt. It’s not “public debt”. I have no moral responsibility for this debt because I never consented to it. I’m only responsible for it insofar as the government can force me to pay it. It’s like saying a school bully who steals lunch money from kids and then uses it to incur debt, then says that all the kids he stole money from are now responsible for that debt.

If the bully is unable to beat the money out of his victims, the bully’s creditors will go after the bully. Same case with Greece. If the bully is unable to pay the debt, the creditors go after the bully, not the people the bully stole from. It is in the interest of the victims for the debt to be defaulted on.

So anyway, the Bank of Greece is now publicly soliciting donations for the repayment of its “public debt”.

I cannot think of a worse place to put your ma’aser. DO NOT donate to this cause. It’s so pathetic it’s beyond description.

Here’s the account where you can make donations to the IMF, ECB, ESM, EFSF and all the other bailout funds because Christine Lagarde and Mario Draghi need your charity.

Pathetic. But here’s the info, if you want to participate in bailing out the Greek government.

IBAN: GR 04 010 0024 0000000026132462


Peter Schiff: Stay the Course, Things are About to Get Rough

Peter Schiff’s understanding of economics, while not as good and in depth as Robert Wenzel’s for instance, is still very good when it comes to the end game. Whereas someone like Wenzel is arguably better at spotting more twists and turns within the business cycle, Schiff is good at pounding away at the inevitable.

While Wenzel holds that the Fed will nominally raise rates around September, Schiff holds that they won’t, and at that point, the cat will be out of the bag and everyone will realize that rates will never, ever rise.

Wenzel holds that rates will rise nominally in September, but will not rise fast enough to damper the coming price inflation. I don’t know which one is correct. I lean towards Schiff.

The key takeaway from this is that when spotting a bubble, you either look like a fool before it pops, or you look like a fool after it pops. Right now I, he, and all gold bugs, look like fools. But not for much longer. Bring on the ridicule now. Heap it on. In the end, we will have the last laugh, and it will be a big one.

Here he is, in one of his most powerful video blogs in recent memory, in my opinion.

Varoufakis to Eurozone: Everyone Should Help Pay Greek Debt Through Eurobonds!

Here’s another edition of “How to Explain Politics/Economics to a 4 Year Old”. I haven’t done this, but I may as well now. Economics really is the most important secular subject for people to understand because when some big politico gets up in front of a crowd and starts spouting finance terms, 999,999 times out of a million he’s trying to confuse you while he steals your money and you sit there and nod saying to yourself that it’s OK you don’t understand what he’s talking about because you don’t have a degree in this stuff.

But first, these little snippets are going well, so here’s another one. Varoufakis claimed 2 days ago that “He never gave the finger to anyone. Ever.” After being caught giving Germany the finger. Well, then he must not have hands.

In any case, Bob Wenzel at EPJ is picking up once again with what I figured out back in 2012. Varoufakis’s grand insane scheme for a United States of Europe. He’s couching it in a bunch of technical language about bonds and yields and coupons and agreements and treaties and trying to baffle everyone with his bullshit. Here’s what he wants, why he’s insane, and why this diarrhea of the mouth will certainly get Greece kicked out of the Euro for good. Now I’m sure of it.

How to explain this to a 4 year old (more or less): Let’s say I’m a central bank in my household because I’m the dictator and I have a monopoly over the money supply in my house. I decide what allowance my kids get. Now, one of them spends too much money and he has a bunch of debt he can’t pay. The other one stays in budget. Now, Varoufakis is saying the solution to this is to equalize the debt so both of my kids are now carrying the same debt burden so both of them can have an equal shot at paying it back. How PISSED is the other kid going to be?

That’s what he’s saying.  Instead of Greek bonds he wants Eurobonds. The Eurobonds will be issued by Eurozone governments, so all of them will have the same yield no matter who sells them. So if one country goes crazy into debt, everyone in the Eurozone has to pay that country’s debt. Yeah, I’m sure that’ll go over great with the frugal states. They’ll love it. It’s bond communism on a continental scale. Gross scary evil stuff.

Wow, talk about tragedy of the commons. That means Germany has to pick up all of Greece’s debt and spread pain throughout the rest of the Eurozone just because Greece decided to spend too much on welfare.

No sovereign European government is going to stand for this crap. Varoufakis is a crazy red Leninist nutcase. In a matter of days, Greece is out. Certainly the Germans see right though this Bolshevik insanity.

The contradictions of these people, it just blows my mind. Now someone on a video at The Guardian is defending him using this gem language:

“His point was related to events in 2010 when he was in favor of a Greek default within the Eurozone, but this was taken out of context in order to make it seem as if he was in favor of not paying the debt owed to Germany and giving Germany the finger.”

Do you see how these sophists use one technical term (default) to hoodwink you? A default means that you do not pay your debt. That’s the definition of the word. So how can he be in favor of a default but still be in favor of paying debt?

Let’s take the technical term out and rephrase this iron defense of Varoufakis:

His point was related to events in 2010 when he was in favor of a Greece not paying the debt within the Eurozone, but this was taken out of context in order to make it seem as if he was in favor of not paying the debt owed to Germany and giving Germany the finger.”

Contradiction. Is anyone alive out there? Can anyone hear me?

I’m on fire with movie quotes these days.