Archives for March 2006

Indeed, since the
development of the political state, human history is incomprehensible
on any hypothesis other than that people hate and fear their freedom.
On the hypothesis that everyone aspires to freedom, it is difficult to
explain why we are continuously subordinated.

…

We want the
government to guarantee our health, deflect hurricanes, educate our
children and license us to drive; we want to be told what to eat, what
to smoke and whom to marry. We are justly proud of the fact that no
enduring society has ever incarcerated more of its people. Noting that
the policeman has a pistol, a club, a stun gun, a can of pepper spray
and a database that includes us, we feel happy and secure.

Our submission is absolute: We want to be operated like puppets and provided for like pets.

(via Radley Balko, who adds a thing or two)

Takes the top spot on the left-side column.

Click on it. If you truly know and understand the philosophy underlying genuine liberty (only about 1 in 10,000 do), you should enjoy it. If you don’t know, that’s fine. Here’s your chance. Review often. Show it to kids.

If you don’t believe in genuine liberty, then I hope you’re dismayed by the fundamental simplicity of it. Then I hope you die young (painfully).

I was laying in bed ’round 6 a.m. this morning when I heard this:

Male voice: "Yeah. Hi. I’m on the 106th floor of the World Trade Center. We just
had an explosion on the, on the like 105th floor … We have smoke and … it’s pretty bad."

911 Operator: "Sit tight. Do not leave, OK?"

I’m not going to get on anyone’s case, here. I’m confident that 911 operators are well trained, professional, and provide generally good, tried & true advice for most situations most of the time.

But people, 911 operators aren’t accustomed to taking calls from exploding skyscrapers. If you called a 911 operator to tell them that there was an explosion in one part of your house and that it was burning, would they tell you not to leave? No, of course not. Naturally, neither the operator, or anyone, had the slightest inkling that the buildings would come down. They probably reasonably thought that the safest place was to stay put. Then again, the guy was there. The operator wasn’t.

I’m just sayin’. You know, even when someone sounds authoritative, it doesn’t necessarily mean they know what they’re talking about, so you’re never really relieved of your responsibility to think and judge for yourself–to make sure the advice you’re getting is sound, and if not, to advise yourself.

It’s particularly necessary to  keep this in mind in today’s shirk responsibility, blame  someone else, tell-me-what-to-do, "CALL THE AUTHORITIES! … WAIT FOR THE AUTHORITIES!" helpless-victim culture.

The Bulls come out at the last minute and suck away most of my profits for the month. Profit $1,598.60. A 3% return on risk for March.

Preliminaries: February Report Card.

Yea, March was a bit disappointing, especially since I was in Vegas for some fun the Wednesday and Thursday before expiration of the March options on the SPX. I ended up monitoring the market pretty closely until 1pm PST each day. But it’s silly to complain. I got a higher return than most investors average in a month, and but for those last two days, it was mostly like watching grass grow for 5-10 minutes each day. Serious. My trading style requires very little time, attention, or stress for over 90% of the trading month.

Those tense times are fun. It’s a love, hate sort of thing. When my positions are attacked, I get all uptight about it. Then, I analyze, and when I act, I do so swiftly and decisively. Thus far, I’ve always come out not only protecting my ass on each roll of a position, but profiting more. Then, I sit back, light a smoke, and reflect on the combat and resolution.

So, here’s the March positions, and I’ve added dates and action from my February format. "STO" means sell to open; "BTO" means by to open; and when there’s a ‘C’ instead of an ‘O,’ we’re closing the position. Those positions that are open, but not closed, end up expiring worthless, i.e., STC and BTC at $0.

(click image for a clearer view)

As you can see, I’d have loved for my situation from 3/02 on to have just continued through to expiration on 3/16, without those two closing trades for large debits (red ink) you see at the top of the chart on the 15th and 16th. Without those, I’d have finished the month with a profit of $9,696 for a 20% return on risk. If if if… The market is never wrong, folks.

As you can see, I wisely shut down the 1300/1310 call on 3/15 for a debit of about $4,900. The SPX March options settled at 1310, so had I not shut down this position, my loss would have been $10,000. Had I not shut it down when I did, it probably would have taken a much higher debit than it did. So, I lost $5k, right? Well, no. Notice that when I opened the position on 2/16, I did so at a net credit of about $3k. So, my loss is $2k then, right? Well, no. As you’ll see below, I just took that maintenance (risk) and rolled it right into an additional 15 contracts of the 1315/1325 April call on 3/16 for a net credit of about $4,800. So, I didn’t lose anything. I simply delayed my profits for another month.

Here’s how April sits, at the moment, with expiration due for 4/19.

(click image for a clearer view)

Finally, here’s the anatomy of a roll, month by month. Notice I’m not only protecting the original profit of $1,000, but tripling it over the three months of rolls.

(click image for a clearer view)

This trade began at the new year, a 1280/1290 Jan call, and within
minutes of getting filled for a $1,000 credit, the market began
shooting up. Finally, when the SPX was at 1285 a week later, $5k into the money, I
rolled out for a debit of $6.5k, so net, I was down about $5.5k. But,
on the same day, 1/09, I rolled that to two positions, the Feb
1285/1295 for the same 10 contracts, and 5 contracts in the Feb
1300/1310. Total credit on both fills was $7.5k, so, I took a $5.5k net
loss and turned it into a $1,000 net gain after keeping my original
$1,000. And so on. See if you can follow. It currently sits for 12
contracts at the Apr 1315/1325. My guess it that I’ll have to roll this
again, but if I do, I intend to make another $1,000 for my trouble.

See you again next month, and we’ll see how April comes out. Do I get to keep my $20k, or do I have to give it back, temporarily, and wait for a May payday?

A comment, from my last post by Dawn Benko.

With all the energy illegals displayed over the weekend during their
rallies to demand rights they cannot claim, I can’t quite understand
why they can’t use that same energy to change things in their own
countries.

The problem is that you’re drawing false distinctions.

If these so-called "rights" cannot legitimately be claimed by
"illegals" (I assume you are referring to certain "entitlements"), then
they can’t legitimately be claimed by "legals" either. Why? Because
they aren’t rights. You have no right, either directly or
through your gun-and-lethal-syrynge-backed agents, the government, to
be "entitled" to anything of mine–not a single cent or second–that I
don’t voluntarily consent to allow you in gift or trade.

Understand: I’m not defending their snuggling up to the public
teat–with its milk a product of the cannibalization of productive
people in bits and pieces–I’m condemning yours, or if you don’t
yourself partake, your advocacy
for others on the arbitrary basis of their having been born here or survived
some gauntlet-maze set up to get in here that hasn’t a thing to do with
me, my property, or my time.

I’ll not dispute that many of them are just as parasitic as that
class of organisms we have in such native abundance here (most
populating government buildings, by the way). But if this, America, can
rightly be claimed as someone’s "own country," as you put it, then such
can rightly be claimed by anyone who wants to claim it. And I’ll tell
you what: some guy crossing the Rio Grande to work his butt off to
support his family has one helluva lot higher moral right to claim it
than does some bloodsucker bureaubot in some nameless g-office, or one
of those G.I. Joe Stormtroopers who regularly knock down the doors of
innocent people who aren’t hurting anyone.

"America" is a spirit, a culture, an ideal, and most of all, a particular ethic, and it exists all over the world.

"The Stupid Party." That’s what I, and others, call the Republicans (Democrats are "The Dishonesty Party," "The Evil Commies," "The Jerry Springer Party," or whatever else I can think of at the moment; in case you were wondering).

The main reason republicans are so stupid, politically, is that they have accepted each and every commie premise of the left–only, they’ll be "better commies" than the left. I dunno; I suppose they’ll let you make you go to church on Saturday or Sunday (you know, it’s about FREEDOM!). But that’s for another day.

I’ve been blogging a lot lately about the notion that "the law is the law." You know, the idea that if we’re being consistent about it, like those of The Stupid Party insist we must, we should be executing people who, after repeated warnings and citations, continue to habitually and defiantly exceed the speed limit. It is the law, y’know. OK; well, then we should at least lock them up, right? as potential dangers to society? No? OK; then how about deportation?

Look, the clear and observable fact of the matter is that speed-limit laws, as an example, are completely and totally unenforceable. Everyone knows it. Everyone speeds and violates other "traffic suggestions" (my term for them) virtually every day of their lives. Can you begin to imagine what lengths, costs, and restrictions on movement would be required to enforce traffic laws to a point where only an insignificant number of traffic "accidents" could be attributable to their violation, leaving only accidents caused by equipment or bodily malfunction, or inattention/human error? But, that is the cause of most accidents. Traffic rules exist, in part, to redefine the cause. Most people drive according to their own sense of reasonable "feel," except, that is, when they are distracted into trying to understand traffic rules because of fear of enforcement. I’ll also point out that traffic rules that make the most sense (stoplights and stopsigns) are generally observed by most people most of the time–though I have no problem rolling through them at 3 a.m., once I’ve verified there’s no oncoming traffic.

The second is that the U.S. doesn’t control its borders, isn’t going to
control its borders, and probably cannot at any acceptable cost control
its borders, in the sense relevant to the terrorist issue. In 2004, the
most recent year for which I found figures, there were more than eighty
million tourist arrivals in North America, presumably most of them in
the U.S. Anyone with sufficient resources and ability to pose a serious
terrorist threat can get into the country as one of those tens of
millions—he doesn’t have to scramble through a tunnel under the
U.S./Mexican border. And making it a criminal offense to hire illegal
aliens will have very little effect on those aliens who are working for
al-Qaeda. They already have a job.

(emphasis, mine)

That’s a quote from David Friedman, as I segue to the topic of immigration. Guess what? If I had the misfortune to have been born in Mexico to a poor family without a hope in their lives of every climbing out of that "do it tomorrow culture" and parasitic political corruption, you bet your ass I’d be crossing the border in search of trading partners (that’s "get a job" for those of you who don’t really understand what a job is). You know what makes me want to reach through the radio and rip the heads off shit-brained morons like Sean Hannity? When they say crap like I just said–that they’d cross the border too–and then they turn right around and advocate strict enforcement of the borders "because it’s the law."

The border and immigration issue is no more enforceable to a level that makes it any more than an exercise in bureaucratic masturbation than the speed limit is enforceable to a level that makes it any more than an exercise in revenue generation theft.

Here’s what I said the other day, here:

He’s facing conviction and execution for the crime of converting to
Christianity. It’s the law, you know, and as moronic commenters to
other posts on this blog have been pointing out, to obey and enforce
the law is always of paramount concern. As an Afghan Christian, he’s
"ILLEGAL."

Today, via Billy Beck, I get Jay Jardine saying the same thing, only in a far more clever way.

So where on earth does this Rahman character come off thinking he’s above The Law? Look: it says right here that "Afghanistan is an Islamic Republic" and that "In Afghanistan, no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam."

The
document opens with "We The People of Afghanistan" does it not? Surely
Rahman’s squiggy is on there somewhere. Forget all that mystic,
inherent rights B.S. some libertarians will try and sell you on.
Everyone knows that rights are social constructs – We As A Society sit
down at a big table and decide together what rights we are going to
have. So why should Rahman be allowed to shirk his duties as spelled
out in the Social Contract? If he doesn’t like The Law, he’s free to
lobby his elected representatives, start his own political party or
write lots of letters to the editor to try and change people’s
opinions. Otherwise, he should stop his selfish whining and move
somewhere that this kind of behaviour is tolerated (after following the
proper legal procedures to do so, of course).

Indeed.

Can anyone tell me why Rahman is so special that he deserves to continue the lifestyle that goes against the Common Good?

Well, can anyone? As Beck points out, "Now, from the people he is baiting in that, there are no answers." And, "Mostly, understanding gets trampled under some sort of ‘It Can’t Happen Here’ dreamsterism…" Indeed again. Which is why when most people utter thought-stopping assertions such as "it’s the law," what they really mean is that the behavior in question is not something they personally have any interest in–none they’re willing to admit, anyway ("It’s the law" is also a fine refuge for hypocrites, politicians being chief among them.). Yea, well it is happening here. By the letter of the law, every adult in the United States is oftentimes committing some infraction, misdemeanor, or felony of their local, county, state, or federal government without necessarily even being aware of it or wanting or intending to actually do harm to anyone. If you own and operate a business, raise that to the power of a cube.

I recently spoke to this, here. So, you’ve got what you want: Law Enforcement. You’ve got it in spades. Just swing by Radley’s place every day. Want just a few day’s worth? See here. And here. Right here. Now here.

Some days, I don’t know why I bother. You aren’t worth it anymore, you know.

I don’t recall whether or not I blogged about the riots in France last November–I was in San Francisco for the week–and I’m not inclined to search around, but I did follow the goings on pretty closely. I lived in France for a coupla years in the early 90s.

What the hell happened? I read news stories about what’s going on now and I ask myself who are these people? I mean: sure, they’re commies alright–just as are most people here in the U.S., nowadays. But I hadn’t taken them for utterly insane, in a completely-unable-to-function sort of way.

As a legacy of this long tradition, the choice in France now is between
popular legislation — that is, useless legislation — and the street.
Thus the paradox at the heart of the protests: Those who want power
exploit the mobs to maneuver themselves into position, but having
gained power cannot use it to achieve anything worthwhile, lest the
same tactics be used against them. The fear of the mob has created a
cadre of politicians in France who are unable to speak the truth and
thereby prepare French citizens for the inevitable. No one in France —
not one single politician, nor anyone in the media — is willing to say
it: France’s labor laws are an absurdity, and if they are not reformed
at once, France will go under.

(Claire Berlinski. Emphasis, mine. Whole thing, here.)

And yet, you have millions of people up in arms, with striking going on all over the place because some politicians, in a lame attempt to fix the unfixable, are suggesting only that they may eat their cake and have it too, but what they really want is to eat their cake and have everyone else’s too.

It’s the absurdly impossible chastising the merely impossible. Fortunately, reality is never cheated. We have only to wait. I told those morons 15 years ago, you know. Guess what I heard in reply, most often: "Oui, mais, en France, nous avons le système social le plus développé du
monde." The world’s "most developed social system," or not; it aint escapin’ the fundamental requirements of reality, nor ultimate justice.

(link: Hit & Run)

I’ve seen a lot of videos of various robot concepts over the years–on Discovery channel and such–but none I’ve ever seen come anywhere close to this thing.

Go read about it right here. And, if nothing else, you absolutely must check out the video of this guy in action. The key, of course, is four legs, which means that you have at least two feet on the ground at all times–versus the "infinitely" more difficult problem of a two-legger, where you have significant time with only a single foot on the ground. Perfecting this will probably pave the road to a two-legger much faster. That would be my bet.

They also need to come up with a power supply that’s quieter than a reciprocating engine.

(via my bro, in email)

I am on record as having generally applauded the Danish cartoon hubbub. I like to see false idols toppled, particularly since virtually all idols are false. However, so far as I can tell, "free speech" was never at issue there. The newspapers and magazines appeared to be always free to publish or not publish. Deciding against offending someone, for whatever reason, does not mean that you have been "censored," by which I mean: forcibly muffled (typically, by the state).

Andrew Sullivan, in an article called Hey Chef, these guys are killing free speech seems to think that this South Park vs. Scientology ruckus is an issue involving free speech.

And so we are back where we were with the Muhammad cartoons. Someone
somewhere won’t let you see the Scientology episode of South Park. You
can go to the Comedy Central website and view it on the internet — the
last refuge for free speech. But you won’t see it on television. In a
battle between satire and religion, although some deny that Scientology
deserves that moniker, religion wins again.

Take note. Whenever someone says "someone" in this sort of context, it’s because he has no argument. He is essentially claiming censorship of free speech. If so, then who, precisely, is carrying out the censorship and what, precisely, is potentially at risk for defiance?

Well, I loath sloppy, mush-brained thinking just as much as I loath fairy tales taken as literal truths. I also very much dislike diluting the meaning and import of concepts like "censorship." Just because someone refuses to furnish you a bullhorn, stage, and podium–or a television broadcast center–does not mean that they are depriving your of the freedom to speak. Speak all you want, but unless you can come to trading terms with others, you’ll have to finance your own means of getting your message out.

I know for sure that South Park creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker do not have a contract with Comedy Central which provides that they may broadcast anything they want, in spite of the wishes of Comedy Central. I also know for sure that as property of Viacom, Comedy Central has no particular dispensation that allows it to subordinate the wishes of Viacom to that of its own. Paramount Pictures, another Viacom property, is heavily invested in a new film by Tom Cruise, Scientologist. I’ve no idea what the agreement between Cruise’s production company and Paramount is on this Mission: Impossible III deal, but I’m sure that both parties have significant teeth that may be employed in a variety of ways. These are big-money deals with lots at stake.

If Cruise has the clout to motivate someone with whom he’s doing business to not insult and make fun of him over the airwaves, then why shouldn’t he use it? I would. You would.

This has nothing to do with free speech. Nothing. South Park’s creators are absolutely free to say anything they want, or to make cartoons of it. Everyone knows this. What they are not free to do is to use the property of others to distribute their message in ways and means that the owners of that property are not content to permit. It’s as simple as that, and everyone ought to be keeping their powder dry for the day when there’s real censorship to fight.