NashvilleXY

FT editorial

2009-03-12T05:36:00.001-07:00

Now is the time for a less selfish capitalism

By Richard Layard

Published: March 11 2009 20:02 | Last updated: March 11 2009 20:02

What is progress? The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has been asking this question for some time and the current crisis makes it imperative to find an answer. According to the Anglo-Saxon Enlightenment, progress means the reduction of misery and the increase of happiness. It does not mean wealth creation or innovation, which are sometimes useful instruments but never the final goal. So we should stop the worship of money and create a more humane society where the quality of human experience is the criterion. Provided we pay ourselves in line with our productivity, we can choose whatever lifestyle is best for our quality of life.

And what would that involve? The starting point is that, despite massive wealth creation, happiness has not risen since the 1950s in the US or Britain or (over a shorter period) in western Germany. No researcher questions these facts. So accelerated economic growth is not a goal for which we should make large sacrifices. In particular, we should not sacrifice the most important source of happiness, which is the quality of human relationships – at home, at work and in the community. We have sacrificed too many of these in the name of efficiency and productivity growth.

Most of all we have sacrificed our values. In the 1960s, 60 per cent of adults said they believed "most people can be trusted". Today the figure is 30 per cent, in both Britain and the US. The fall in trustworthy behaviour is clear in the banking sector but can also be seen in family life (more break-ups), in the playground (fewer friends you can trust) and in the workplace (growing competition between colleagues).

Increasingly, we treat private interest as the only motivation on which we can rely and competition between individuals as the way to get the most out of them. This is often counterproductive and does not generally produce a happy workplace since competition for status is a zero-sum game. Instead, we need a society based on positive-sum activities. Humans are a mix of selfishness and altruism but generally feel better working to help each other rather than to do each other down.

Our society has become too individualistic, with too much rivalry and not enough common purpose. We idolise success and status and thus undermine our mutual respect. But countries vary in this regard, and the Scandinavians have managed to combine effective economies with much greater equality and mutual respect. They have the greatest levels of trust (and happiness) of any countries in the world.

To build a society based on trust we have to start in school, if not earlier. Children should learn that the noblest life is the one that produces the least misery and the most happiness in the world. This rule should apply also in business and professional life. People should do work that is useful to society and does not just make paper profits. And all professions – including journalism, advertising and business – should have a clear, professional, ethical code that its members are required to observe. It is not for nothing that doctors form the group most respected in our society – they have a code that is enforced and everyone knows it.

So we need a trend away from excessive individualism and towards greater social responsibility. Is it possible to reverse a cultural trend in this way? It has happened before, in the early 19th century. For the next 150 years there was a growth of social responsibility, followed by a decline in the next 50. So a trend can change and it is often in bad times (such as the 1930s in Scandinavia) that people decide to seek a more co-operative lifestyle.

I have written a book about how to do this and there is room here for three points only. First we should use our schools to promote a better value system – the recent Good Childhood report sponsored by the UK Children's Society was full of ideas about how to do this. Second, adults should reappraise their priorities about what is important. Recent events are likely to encourage this and modern happiness research can help find answers. Third, economists should adopt a more realistic model of what makes humans happy and what makes markets function.

Three ideas taught in business schools have much to answer for. One is the theory of "efficient capital markets", now clearly discredited. The second is "principal agent" theory, which says the agents will perform best under high-powered financial incentives to align their interests with those of the principal. This has led to excessive performance-related pay, which has often undermined the motive to work well for the sake of doing a good job and introduced unnecessary tension among colleagues. Finally, there is the macho philosophy of "continuous change", promoted by self-interested consulting companies, which disregards the fundamental human need for stability – in the name of efficiency gains that are often not realised.

We do not want communism – as research shows, the communist countries were the least happy in the world and also inefficient. But we do need a more humane brand of capitalism, based not only on better regulation but on better values.

Values matter and they are affected by our theories. We do not need a society based on Darwinian competition between individuals. Beyond subsistence, the best experience any society can provide is the feeling that other people are on your side. That is the kind of capitalism we want.

Lord Layard is at the London School of Economics Centre for Economic Performance. He has written 'Happiness' (2005) and co-authored 'A Good Childhood' (2009)

--
Ben Bargagliotti
benbargagliotti@gmail.com
615.545.2941

2007-04-06T16:43:00.000-07:00

In case you missed it, there was an illegal immigrant hyped up on colt 40 and killed two teenage girls. That is the kind of story the O'Reilly Factor producers have wet dreams about. So does O'Reilly make this about the drunk driving? No, of course he jumps on the fact that he is an illegal immigrant.

I can't believe I am posting a youtube where Geraldo Rivera says something I agree with, but here it is. Really, shit like this must make the writers for the Colbert Report furious because they put out a kick ass show every night, but they keep getting upstaged by Poppa Bear.

WorldNetDaily Watch

2007-04-02T17:17:00.000-07:00

My father-in-law sent me this story from WorldNetDaily.

My favorite quote from the article:

Brendan Daly, speaking for Pelosi, told Associated Press that Pelosi was
reluctant to weigh in on the incident without knowing that such a message
would do more good, than harm.
Apparently, that's the measure of Democrat courage to stand up for what's
right: do nothing if they aren't first assured of the outcome.

You see, in a "9/12" world, consequences don't matter. Why think about your actions before you do them, so long as you know that your actions are in step with your ideology? When the write showed the "measure of Democrat courage", she was also confirming that the measure of current Republican courage is doing whatever you want and fuck the consequences.

I understand that being a leader involves making hard decisions when you don't have all the information, but often, the right thing to do is recognizing what your gut is telling you to do, but choosing the path with fewer extremes in possible outcomes.

To give a poker analogy, if you bet your whole stack on a 51-49 proposition, you are technically doing the "right thing", but damn, you're going to have a whole lot of variance. When you have a slight edge, but losing will mean losing your whole bankroll, sometimes it is just better to toss the hand and wait for another opportunity where the outcome is has either greater probability of success, or less devastation in loss.

Rant against America part 1

2006-12-20T19:49:00.000-08:00

I live in the United States, and there is a lot that I like about my country, but there is a whole lot that pisses me off. I'm going to try to break this thought up into several posts.

Every American growing up (and really everyone else all over the world thanks to our pervasive media) is instilled with these beliefs about our country.

1. America is a land of freedom
2. America is a democracy where the "people" are the government.
3. America is a country that stands for goodness around the world.

In some respects, I agree with the above concepts, but in some ways, I think it is obvious that the above are not true.

It is becoming increasing clear to me that our government is a self-perpetuating entity unto itself that needs to answer to a constituancy, but it is not the people. Our government (and by government, I mostly mean our federal government as local and state governments do not have many of the corrupting influences such as a standing army and unlimited ability to borrow money that the federal government has) was founded under the idea that it would be limited to only those activities necessary to allow the citizens to live free and productive lives. The government we have now is much different than that.

1. The President - For anyone to become President, he must raise a lot of money. The money comes from two primary source: industries and special interest groups. The to-be-President (and the President trying to get re-elected) must make certain allegiances to both the industries and the special interest groups. In both cases, the purpose is to get money to run the campaign and votes from those involved with those groups. In the end, the President (from either party) is in the business of meeting the needs of those who put him in office rather than what's best for the country as a whole.

2. The legislators - the legislators are in a similar situation as the President in that they need money and votes and tend to get them from industries and special interest groups. What makes it worse for legislators is that they don't have term limits, so this corrupting relationship often spans decades.

3. The Bureauocracy - this really entails any government body such as the military, any "Department of..." and any "... Administration." These groups live on money, and as such are at the mercy of the legislators and the President to get it. Since the government is the largest employer in our country, our country has little incentive to make any of these things smaller. The problem is that almost every one of these bureaucracies are dead-weight inefficiencies that could be handled either on a smaller scale by the government or completely by private industry. New ones are created all the time, and they are impossible to get to go away.

There are probably more aspects to the above that I could list, but you get the point. All this inefficiency begs the question in my mind of, how could the country that is arguably the richest, most advanced country in the world whose businesses have been so innovative and efficient as to literally take over the world have a government that is the pretty much the perfect example of everything that is detrimental to capitalism and free markets. I will explore my thoughts on that in another post.

2006-11-27T19:10:00.000-08:00

"If you're young and conservative, you have no heart. If you're old and liberal, you have no brains"

The is something my mom has said to me when I start arguing for something she feels is a little too liberal for her.

I like to consider myself an independent. If I have to nail down a title, I am a libertarian (as opposed to a Libertarian). I voted straight ticket Democrat in the last two elections (the only two elections I have voted in), though I'm certainly willing to vote for a reasonable Republican (I like Gingrich and Guiliani, though I'd probably still vote for Gore over either of them).

I consider Atlas Shrugged to be the most influential work of fiction in my life.

I was a finance and economics and accounting double major in college.

I hope all of the above adds up to something of a clear picture of my political-economic views.

That being said, there are a couple of thoughts I have had recently that are interesting and challenging.

1. The Democracy Now podcast from a few days ago (check it out in iTunes) featured an hour long speech by Howard Zinn (author of A People's History of the United States). In it, he makes a strong case against war (for those that have read Zinn, this should come as no surprise). Two subpoints:

a. He spends a good deal talking about how and why governments inherently lie. Despite all the rhetoric about "representing the people" all governments, democratically elected as well as tyrants, are in the business of staying in power. This often leads to keeping secrets and lying. Our government has done it from the beginning. If challenged, I will give examples.

b. Right about the time I was asking myself, "I agree that war is bad, but what about WWII?", Zinn says something to the effect of, "yes, then there was WWII, the war I volunteered for and proudly served as a bombardier. I thought it was the good war, but even that war poisoned everyone involved. It started out as the good guys (the US) versus the bad guys (the fascists), but soon the good guys were acting like the bad guys (firebombing of Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki)." He is right. Our country's history of war is at odds with our history of financial and personal freedom. One will eventually have the end the other.

2. Globalization, outsourcing, and technology have done a great deal of good for the world. The Wal-mart effect has helped everyone in our society and many others (those that buy and produce). Even so, an uneducated person in our country today will find it difficult to have the same economic status as that same person 50 years ago. There are many reasons for this, none malevolent in my opinion, but it is still a tragedy that so much more effort must be expended to achieve the same level of success. I have no answer for this.

Technorati Tags: politics, economics, Atlas Shrugged, Howard Zinn, Globalization, Outsourcing, Democracy Now

Glenn Beck hits a new low

2006-11-16T20:21:00.000-08:00

In case you were wondering how low Glenn Beck could go, he just accused Congressman-elect Keith Ellison, who happens to be Muslim, of being a terrorist. If this were on the Colbert Report, it wouldn't be funny because no one would believe it.

It's not me...it's you

2006-11-05T16:33:00.000-08:00

Wife of pastors take note: if you husband turns out to be a homo, it may be because you let yourself become a disgusting fatass.

Yes, the reason why Ted Haggard "bought crystal meth and threw it away" (I officially deem this to be the new euphemism for being gay) is because his wife "let herself go."

I think I just figured out the origin of the idea that homosexuality is a choice. Once upon a time, there was a prissy little boy who grew up in a repressive household where he taught at home and at church that fags were going to burn in hell. He asked what a fag was, and they told him that they were people who liked other boys. Well, he liked other boys, but he sure wasn't about to tell everyone that he was going to hell!

So the boy grows to be a prissy little man who is smart, organized, articulate, and well dressed (as homosexuals tend to be) and he meets a girl that thinks he is cute. He could take or leave her, but figures he needs a wife in order to get a job as a pastor.

Soon, he is making the rounds with the different sins, and he finally gets to homosexuality. From his perspective, it was a choice: a choice between being openly gay, or being a closeted gay with a wife. So he preaches that being gay is a choice and everyone believes it.

Think about it. What completely straight person believes homosexuality is a choice? To believe that homosexuality is a choice is to be able to look deep inside yourself (assuming you are straight) and say, "I could, under the right circumstances, enjoy being with another man." I'm sure there are a lot of straight people who could own some of that statement, but for the straightest of straight, that statement should chance some minds.

Military newspapers call for Rumsfeld's head

2006-11-05T07:41:00.000-08:00

Wonkette is reporting that the commercial newspapers for the four major branches of the US military are calling for Rumsfeld's resignation. Quote:

Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large. His strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised. And although the blame for our failures in Iraq rests with the secretary, it will be the troops who bear its brunt.

This is not about the midterm elections. Regardless of which party wins Nov. 7, the time has come, Mr. President, to face the hard bruising truth: Donald Rumsfeld must go.

Rummy, it's time to go find some cushy private sector job that is going to pay you too much. Leave our military alone please.

On death and living

2006-11-01T20:17:00.000-08:00

A very close friend of my family is dying of cancer. She is a 50ish mother of two who I have known since elementary school. I went to school with her son since fourth grade and was his roommate for quite a while. I know her.

My mother was dying of cancer many years ago, but she lived.

The question of why my friend's mom is dying of cancer (she may still live, but the odds are slim) and why my mom is still living has probably never been asked specifically, but has been asked in abstract since the beginning of time.

Add in the common view of the JudeoChristian God into the mix, and the question becomes even more difficult (or perhaps the common view becomes more difficult to hold).

I will probably mourn her loss as it will literally be a loss to this world. Her children will lose a mother; her husband will lose his wife; her friends will lose their friend. This world will be different, if ever so slightly in the big picture.

What I will try my hardest to avoid is mourning the loss of a view of God as a being who brings only happiness to those he favors. I try to avoid that belief as, rationally, it doesn't make sense to me. At the same time, I'm not sure I would be able to avoid "blaming" God if my wife or parents were to die tragically.

Ultimately, I want to use this situation to remind me to embrace what is important. I don't have much time left.

2006-10-30T19:45:00.000-08:00

Pollster.com shows that Harold Ford Jr. and Bob Corker are in something of a dead heat coming up to the November 9 elections. I'm not sure why, but Bob Corker has decided that he only wants to make appearances at highly white events with few cameras.

In contrast, Harold Ford Jr. has been making the rounds and kicking ass. Below is a clip of Harold Ford Jr. on Bill Maher.

Also, kudos to Chris Wallace who had Harold Ford Jr. on Fox News Sunday (sorry, couldn't find it on YouTube)and didn't do a political hit job, a la Bill Clinton. In fact, Wallace was extremely fair to Ford while he was on the air (pointing out that they invited Bob Corker, but his hatchet wound was hurting too much that morning to make it on national TV. Has he been on national TV? Don't think so), but he actually tore (former) Sen. Rick Santorum a new asshole in the segment after Ford. In fact, Chris Wallace went so far as to defend Ford's position on gay marriage when Libby Dole tried to do her own political hit job on Ford. Wallace gave Dole and Chuck Schumer "30 seconds on how voter turnout efforts were going to influence the election." Dole took the opportunity to point out that she thought Ford has misrepresented himself, then went on to say that he supported gay marriage and the abortion pill for little girls. That's about as far as she got before Wallace cut her off and actually set the record straight. You heard it here first: Fox was actually fair and balanced for once.

2006-10-30T19:42:00.000-08:00

Still Alive

I am still alive, but have been busy lately. I will post more

Letter to the Editor in the Wall Street Journal

2006-08-16T10:41:00.000-07:00

This was part of a letter to the editor of the WSJ in response to an editorial that advocated not increasing the minimum wage:

As an employer, I never found the increases in minimum wage harmful to my small business. Rather, when wages at the bottom are increased, my experience has been that it has a positive long-term effect. Critics of minimum wage laws completely ignore the factor of labor turnover in small businesses. The lower the wage structure, the greater will be labor turnover. As a small businessman, my costs were very adversely affected when I lost an employee and had to train a new employee. Any person hired at $5.15 an hour is not apt to stay very long. The employee that earns more than the minimum wage will stay longer and be more productive.

Robert A. Steinberg

Baltimore, Md.

Mr. Steinberg, when you had an employee quit because you were paying him or her minimum wage, did you go sit in your office with your head in your hands in despair, whispering, "If only the U.S. Federal Government had increased the minimum wage in time..." You are exactly right in saying that any employee you pay $5.15 an hour will not stay long. Pay them more. You don't need a "Right to Know" poster in the backroom telling you to pay your employees more for you to make the smart business decision.

Bush vs. Bush debate on the Daily Show

2006-08-12T08:10:00.000-07:00

This is probably the funniest bit the Daily Show has ever done, and definately one of the most important. The President Bush vs. Governor Bush Debate:

2006-08-10T19:25:00.000-07:00

Gotta support my man B.J. Novak, Office Space (US) genius. From Sullivan:

No Rivera, you live in a small little place you ass clown

2006-08-09T20:50:00.000-07:00

On Kos:

"Rivera also asserted that Comedy Central hosts Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert "make a living putting on video of old ladies slipping on ice and people laughing" and that they "exist in a small little place where they count for nothing."

Check out the video. Screw you MediaMatters for always have extremely huge uncompressed video files and a slow server. Someone put this on Youtube, please.

The idea that a station that paid its bills for months by having "an important update on the Natalie Holloway case" every fucking night and the guy who every night brings on the craziest motherfuckers he can find so he can make fun of them and say that everyone who isn't a Republican thinks just like that loon can seriously say that The Daily Show makes its living by "putting on video of old ladies slipping on ice and people laughing" in truly an exercise in irony. When Stewart interviews politicians, it is the best interview on TV.

Geraldo, go do everyone a favor and find an apartment building in southern Lebanon to go stand on.

Economical Numbers

2006-08-06T07:39:00.000-07:00

From Marginal Revolution

There are 10^11 stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers.

Richard Feynman, physicist, Nobel laureate (1918-1988)

Thank you George W. Bush, classic tax and spend Christianist mouthpiece conservative.

Nashville Knucklehead on Harold Ford Jr.

2006-08-05T19:50:00.000-07:00

Nashville Knucklehead has a post about Harold Ford Jr. He talks about going to see him and Bill Clinton speak at LP field, but then says something I had to check wikipedia on:

Senior had a long and distinguished career in congress, but that wasn't enough power for the cagey politician. So, through a series of backroom dealings, he became the only man to ever gain the presidency who was never elected to the office in any way.

Harold Ford Jr.'s dad was Harold Ford Sr. The man who was never elected president (other the more recent unelected president) was Gerald Ford. I think he's joking.

Business in Nashville

2006-08-05T19:31:00.000-07:00

As this blog has yet to have a unified theme, I will put forward another completely unrelated topic to perhaps define this space. On an unrelated note, please be kind to X...she doesn't quite know how to make links...she's learning.

X and I both have jobs. That is we both work a lot of hours all year to make money for someone else who in turn will pay us a paycheck every so often to keep us happy. This works out well in certain aspects: it is fairly certain and safe. We get paid the same out every couple of weeks. It doesn't really depend on how well we worked all week, so we don't have any business risk. If the business fails, our personal wealth is not directly affected.

On the other hand, there are some definate downsides, which we have recently experienced. When you are an employee, you never receive enough of what you put into your job, assuming you actually work hard. Your superiors will never recognize the amount of your hard work, and you will never receive as much of the benefit of your hard work as the owners of the business will.

This should lead any rational person to one of two conclusions: you should either take the "Office Space" approach and only work hard enough to not get fired or you should do something where you are the boss.

The first approach definately has benefits, but I think for my personality and hers, this won't work because neither of us can really live our lives in mediocrity. I can't just go half throttle all the time. I would be too depressed.

X and I have been talking about starting a business recently as we have both had something of bad experiences at work. If it was just a problem with our respective employers, I think either of us would just change employers, but I believe our problems are just the realization of the drudgery of being in the rat race. This is not a problem with the company, but of the corporate "career" bullshit culture. We are thinking of picking the lock on the cage and getting out.

X and I have decided to spend this next year to brainstorm and try to find a business that could work. There is no pressure as we would both still have our jobs, but we will be thinking about it all year. I will brainstorm some ideas on here and will be open to any feedback readers have. Hopefully, it will be something that Nashville will like.

2006-08-03T05:33:00.000-07:00

This is one of the many reasons that I love love love dogs!

Elvis' Teddy Bear Leaves The Building The Hard Way
Guard dog rips head off Presley’s $75,000 toy in stuffed-animal rampage

Security guard Greg West and his Doberman, Barney. A $75,000 teddy bear formerly owned by Elvis Presley was one of the bears destroyed when the guard dog went on the rampage on Tuesday.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14154738/

Email posting sucks

2006-08-01T21:00:00.000-07:00

see

Justin Mundie on War

2006-08-01T20:47:00.000-07:00

Justin Mundie is still struggling with war and faith. As usual, the good stuff is in the comments. Ben says

There are worse things than death. Killing someone else to prevent your own death may be one of them.

Justin responds with

What about killing someone to prevent the death of an innocent, Ben? Should we kill to stop genocide in Sudan? Should we kill to stop a madman from harming people in a crowded subway?

I don't necessarily agree with reader Ben here, but I do disagree somewhat with Justin. Whenever the topic of pacifism or non-violence comes up, the one against pacifism tends to use as the basis of their arguments one of two scenarios to disprove the presumably universality of pacifism.

1. A war for which most in the US (or whatever country from which you hail) feels it had the moral high ground (ie The Revolutionary War, WWII).
2. A far fetched situation that few if any will ever experience, but that evokes strong emotions.

The problem with the first is that while you can say, "what about Hitler" all day long, I can say what about War of 1812, US Civil War, Spanish American War, WWI, Korean Conflict, Vietnam Conflict, and the Iraq War II. The problem with this argument is that it assumes that pacifism or non-violence is an all or nothing thing. Why can't I be pacifist, yet reserve the right to support violence in certain circumstances? Those who would call upon bloodly, but probably necessary conflicts to justify needless violence should find a special place in hell prepared for them.

The problem with the second argument is that you are invoking a situation that will probably never happen to support something that is likely to happen. Also, this brings up a deeper, more important issue, and that the problem of speaking for the plight of others who are in circumstances we can't understand. As Dan Gilbert talks about in Stumbling on Happiness, the problem with looking at situations others are in and speculating on how it would feel to be in that situation is that human beings are pretty terrible at taking a set of circumstances and predicting how those circumstances would make us feel if they happened to us.

A good example is the prospect of losing your job. For those of you with jobs, the prospect of losing your job tomorrow is probably pretty scary because your personal experience right now is fixed around the idea that you can count on actually having your job tomorrow. But for someone who does lose his job tomorrow, the reality of losing your job might be shocking at first, but soon after, the prospect of a new job or starting your own business or just being a bum for a while doesn't look so bad.

My point in saying all of this is that as humans, it seems we need to stop by whatever means necessary something that looks really awful to us (the conflicts in the middle east or Darfur), but perhaps Jesus was serious when he said love your enemies. Since we don't know the horror or experience of those in Darfur, but presumably God does, perhaps he has perspective we can't attain.

2006-07-31T15:42:00.000-07:00

Just for future reference.... The Music City Brewer's Fest is a LOT of fun and sells out quickly so next year, get your tickets early!!! We were lucky enough to get to go and had a blast as usual! We met a lot of great people, tried tons of new (new to us) beers, and had great food! Couldn't ask for a better day. Just make sure you wear something that you aren't afraid to get beer spilled on.

War and Peace

2006-07-29T10:25:00.000-07:00

Justin Mundie seems to think that pacifism or non-violence for reasons other than spirituality is irrational. There are two main problems with this line of reasoning from my perspective. First, there is an assumption made that there is a strong case made by Jesus Christ for non-violence. With this idea I agree. By saying that pacifism without the Christian framework to hold it up is irrational is to say that God's calling to us is irrational. Perhaps God asks his people to do things that are actually detrimental to His people, but asks anyways just to see if they will do it, but I tend to be of the opinion that the things God wants us to do he wants us to do because they are ultimately beneficial for us. As a corrollary to this, everything that God wants us to do could be done by someone living a good life in outer Mongolia who has never heard of Jesus Christ because living being good is what we are called to do.

Second, Justin Mundie can't name a pacifist nation that is a terrorist target.

Tennesse Senate Watch - Bob Corker

2006-07-29T10:03:00.000-07:00

Wonkette had this on its site a few days ago. Apparently Bob Corker's daughter is on facebook doing some un-right-wing-Evangelical-Christian -republican things.

Tennessee Senate Ad Watch - Bob Corker

2006-07-29T09:52:00.000-07:00

Apparently Bob Corker is really a Democrat

Several things. First, Tennessee politics has never really followed the typical left-right conventional wisdom. In a conservative state in the South, we have had Democrat governors going back years. The democrat we now have as the governor isn't exactly a stereotypical "tax and spend liberal" as he has actually worked to reduce Tenncare spending in Tennessee (to the disdain of sick freeloaders everywhere). So the idea that Bob Corker can't be a good republican senator because he has worked with democrats is horse shit.

Second, does anyone else find it somewhat strange that it insinuates that if Bob Corker had a love child with any of the male democrats mentioned in the video that the offspring would have been marginally black candidate Harold Ford Jr.?

Music City Brewers Festival

2006-07-29T09:33:00.000-07:00

Today is the Music City Brewers Fest. 2pm to 8pm of all the beer you can drink in Hilton Park downtown Nashville. Good luck getting tickets...it's sold out.

2006-07-26T21:00:00.000-07:00

The greatest benefit of alcohol is the ability to make the end of the day worth going through all the bullshit you have to put up with from 9-5. That is all.

2006-07-26T05:55:00.000-07:00

Wonkette reports that last night on Donny Deutche on CNBC, evil bitch Ann Coulter announced that she believes Bill Clinton is gay. I almost feel like redacting her name and just putting "evil bitch" just so her name won't appear one more time on a google search, but then anyone reading this might be confused about whether I am talking about Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin.

2006-07-26T05:48:00.000-07:00

Grumpy old men having a pissing contest (from Andrew Sullivan)

2006-07-25T20:51:00.000-07:00

I guess everything has a beginning and this is it. I am a young professional male living in Nashville. I am about to be married to X who is a young female professional in Nashville. For the time being, I plan on keeping a vague profile on here until I flesh out a little more the nature of this blog. X will also contribute to this blog and we'll see where it goes.