New Regs

In talking about yet another example of California foolishness, this statement caught my eye:

The rebuilt economy taking shape is based on freelancers working from home. Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey just said his employees could work from home “forever.”

I expect that California, New York and the rest of the Usual Suspects will soon pass regulations that specify that “home offices” will need a special state inspection certificate, require that home offices must have x, y and z facilities, need to show proof of regular cleaning and maintenance… you get the idea.  All, of course, to harass people who just want to earn a living, and work in a manner which suits them.  Why would the government do this, you may ask?

Because they can.

You heard it here first.

Insiders

I see that the Fibbers are investigating a U.S. Senator on suspicion of insider trading:  good.

Burr drew the attention of lawmakers after it was revealed he sold off thousands of dollars worth of stock on February 13—less than a week before the stock market sharply dropped because of the coronavirus pandemic. Most of the shares were in companies like Wyndham Hotels and Resorts and Hilton that took an especially hard hit as coronavirus travel restrictions went into place. Burr’s timely decision to sell netted him between $628,000 and $1.72 million.
More troubling is that Burr’s decision to sell came as his committee was receiving daily briefings on the threat posed by the virus. As such, many speculate the senator may have acted on insider information to protect his assets. If true, Burr could be found in violation of the STOCK Act, which prohibits the use of non-public information for private profit by lawmakers.

For people who can’t understand how politicians can come to Washington as “thousand-aires” and leave as millionaires after getting only a Congressional salary:  this is one of the ways they manage it.

And I don’t care that he’s a Republican, although I wish the Fibbers would go after all these dishonest pricks with the same zeal, regardless of party.

Yeah, I know:  I should be using the word “alleged” and “suspicion of” all over the place.  Let’s just say that I hold elected officials to a higher standard — they should behave circumspectly to avoid even the suspicion of wrongdoing.

What gets me is the stupidity of the action.  Had Burr, or anyone else for that matter, bought the hotel stocks after the price plunged (to be sold later at a profit when the share price rebounded), he’d have made just as much money.  But no:  let’s avoid losses, even paper losses, at all costs.  Greedy fucker.

And if the Fibbers find that Burr’s phone records show that he’d placed the sell orders last year and not right after he had a committee briefing, then I’ll apologize for all the above.  Somehow, though, I don’t think I’ll be apologizing.

Well, That Sucks

Some smart guy at RedState gets all lawyerly on us, and explains why we won’t see the entire Obama crime family administration dangling from the gibbet anytime soon:

We can all agree that the IC and FBI certainly abused their power, but there is no crime listed in the US Code called “abuse of power.”
Although I would like to see them “perp walked” in handcuffs and leg irons in orange jumpsuits and unshaven faces, I don’t think it is in the cards or the law books. It is a shame because we all know they did wrong. The big question is what technically it was they did wrong that would stand up in a court of law.

Reading his whole article, I reluctantly have to agree with him.

Worse yet, I read this after I’d finished my breakfast pint of gin, and I have a cast-iron rule not to have another drink until after noon.

So now, if you’ll excuse me, it’s time to clean a few of my guns.

This Way To The Killing Pits

When banks wonder why everyone in the world thinks that “banksters” should be thrown off cliffs en masse, this would be one of the reasons.

From my bank (First National Poundoflesh, LLC) comes this little snippet:

So let me get this straight, you fucking Shylocks:  you institute a bullshit fee for “low debit card usage” (Ignoring the fact that it’s my money you’re sitting on as it earns interest for you), and then you have the unmitigated gall to post tips on how to avoid the fees?

Why not just eliminate the fee to start off with?

Actually, the reason they encourage use of the debit card is, of course, the transaction fee they levy on the retail outlet each time the card is used.

So if you don’t use your debit card that often, what you should do is buy something small (like pack of gum or a single can of Coke) several times a month.  No low usage charge, and practically nothing to the bank for the transaction fee.  Here’s the math:

Monthly low usage charge:  $8
Ten debit card transactions (to avoid the fee) @ (say) $1.50 ea. :  $15
Transaction fee total (@1.75%):  $0.26 income to the bank.

Add this bullshit to the 25,000 other reasons to hate banks.