GUMMY BEARS FOR DINNER

Posted on | by Ed | 7 Comments on GUMMY BEARS FOR DINNER

Death Valley, CA has one of the (if not the) highest pump prices for gasoline in the Lower 48. On my vacation there in 2004 I distinctly recall staring open-jawed at a Shell sign advertising regular unleaded for $3.20/gal – shocking, given that the rest of the nation was at $2.

Gas stands at $5.16/gal at that same Death Valley Shell station today. Insane, right? Why in the hell does it cost so much? The second comment on the linked video resolves this for us:

Perhaps CA should have less tax.

You could set your watch to right-wing rhetoric, so constant (not to mention grammatically incorrect) it is. Yes, California has the highest gasoline taxes in the nation. State and Federal taxes add up to 62.8 cents. In the example at hand, eliminating these taxes would drop the regular unleaded price to $4.53/gal. For fuck's sake, that's practically giving it away!

Ahh, the "gas tax holiday." I've been to two State Fairs and a Carrot Top show, yet this proposal is the dumbest thing I've ever seen. Everything you need to know about how Hillary Clinton has gone off the rails (and McCain was there to begin with) is encapsulated in this half-assed pander. In fact, to describe it as "off the rails" is too generous; this idea missed the train altogether, sleeping through its alarm after another long night of angrily masturbating to Milton Friedman's Essays in Positive Economics.

The Federal excise tax on gasoline is the same in every state: 18.4 cents per gallon. I drive a 2000 Nissan Sentra with a 1.8L engine. As I drive very little, I fill up once per month with a 12 gallon fuel tank. The Federal tax costs me $2.20 per month. I spend more on gum.

Maybe I'm atypical. Replace me with a person who has an average sedan (15 gallon tank) and drives a ton (weekly fill-ups). This person pays $11.04 per month – on $231 per month of gasoline (assuming $3.85/gal). A "holiday" would reduce this person's costs to $220 per month. For three months. Total savings: $33. Half a tank. Over three months.

That McCain pimps this steaming ball of suck is unsurprising. I'm just embarassed for Clinton at this point, though. Transparent pandering. The amazing thing is that even right wing economists think this is a bad idea. The only people who think it is a good idea are A) people who respond to the phrase "tax cut" like salivating dogs and B) desperate politicians.

So many questions, so few answers. How does this pittance amount to "relief for working families?" How are the Federal Highway Trust funds, upon which Congressional pork relies, to be replaced? What makes anyone think that gasoline producers and retailers will pass the savings on to consumers? More importantly, can anyone point to a single argument or economist willing to state that this isn't a terrible idea? That question has been put to both Hillary and a McCain surrogate:

Clinton: "I'm not going to put my lot in with economists. We've got to get out of this mind-set where somehow elite opinion is always on the side of doing things that really disadvantage the vast majority of Americans."

Carly Fiorina: "No, I can't, but, you see, I don't think it matters. … An American family who is sitting around the kitchen table wondering how they're going to pay for groceries, fill their gas tank, whether they're going to stay in their home, whether or not they can send their kid to college this fall. For them, the economy is in difficulty, and all the theoretical discussion is, sort of, irrelevant."

Translation: two different flavors of Argumentum ad Populum with some anti-Ivory Tower rhetoric (from two people with Ivy League postgraduate degrees) for good measure. Who cares what those eggheads say about the tax – Americans really want it! I suppose that when my 6 year old nephew really wants to eat gummy bears for dinner his argument has about as much merit.

The right loves to use the "liberal nanny state" as a combination Straw Man/insult. If they dislike maternalism, maybe they should stop acting like fucking children. I'm not sure I can think of a non-maternalistic way to put things when forced to explain concepts like "What's popular isn't always right" or "Just because you want it doesn't mean you can have it" or "Don't fill up on Twizzlers." Present an argument or proposal that isn't an adult expression of the childish See-Want-Get-Put in Mouth impulse and maybe my rebuttal will not sound like it is coming from a babysitter.

ED vs. COGNITIVE BIASES, PART 3: MISPERCEIVING RISK

Posted on | by Ed | 3 Comments on ED vs. COGNITIVE BIASES, PART 3: MISPERCEIVING RISK

Let's play a game, courtesy of Nobel Laureate Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky. It's more fun if you answer honestly.
online pharmacy finasteride best drugstore for you

You must pick one of these two choices:

A: A sure gain of $250
B: A 30% chance to gain $1000 and a 70% chance to gain nothing

Now pick one of these two:

C: A sure loss of $750
D: A 70% chance to lose $1000 and a 30% chance to lose nothing

Kahneman and Tversky conducted experiments and found that 84% of respondents in the first scenario chose A, whereas in the second 87% chose D. Classic economic theory (expected utility) would suggest choosing B and D. In the first problem, the expected utility would be A = $250 and B = $300 (30% of $1000). In the second problem, C = -$750 and D = -$700. So why do people get it "right" in the second problem but not the first?

Well, Kahneman and Tversky developed Prospect Theory, essentially replacing Expected Utility Theory, winning fame and fortune in the process. I won't pretend to do it justice here; what it essentially means (note that both men are psychologists, not economists) is that people are risk averse when confronted with gains and risk seeking when gambling with losses. We prefer the sure thing, even though it's smaller, when we can gain ("One in the hand is two in the bush") but are willing to gamble a larger loss for the chance to lose nothing.
buy zovirax online www.adentalcare.com/wp-content/themes/medicare/fonts/engl/zovirax.html no prescription

This is why in the stock market, for example, people sell very quickly when their investments are up (~20% profit) but hold onto bad investments for years, riding them to 80-90% losses in some cases, waiting for things to turn around.

And now the point.

Let's take this out of the realm of economic decision-making and into the realm of social issues. Kahneman and Tversky did. In a second experiment, they ask participants to imagine that a new virus attacks Asia and the CDC must prepare for an outbreak in the U.S. which is predicted (assume for a moment that it can be predicted accurately) to kill 600 people. They have two potential plans, and they conduct opinion polling to see how the public will react. The first test subjects saw these two choices:

A: 200 people will be saved
B: A 1/3 chance that all 600 people will be saved but a 2/3 chance that no one will be saved.

A second group saw different options:

C: 400 people will die
D: A 1/3 chance that no one will die and a 2/3 chance that 600 people will die

72% chose A and 78% chose D. But literally nothing has changed. These are the exact same options, worded differently: 200 live and 400 die in A or C, while there is a 2/3 chance that everyone dies in B and D. Regarding social/moral/political questions like this, framing is stupendously important. Although the odds are the same, "200 people will live" triggers the cognitive bias in favor of certainty whereas "400 people will die" activates risk averse thinking.
online pharmacy augmentin best drugstore for you

So, let's apply this to the deeply-held conviction by McCain, Lieberman, and their followers that we should double down in Iraq. What these people are doing is gravitating toward choice "D" in the last problem: a small chance that things will work out perfectly and a large chance that things will go completely to shit and get far worse. This is preferred to "C", which is cutting our current (and more importantly, certain) losses. It doesn't matter that there's only a 5% chance that Iraq will turn into an idyllic paradise of stability. Our cognitive wiring suggests that even a glimmer of hope is enough.
buy temovate online www.adentalcare.com/wp-content/themes/medicare/fonts/engl/temovate.html no prescription

The average person will take the Hail Mary pass, risking a huge loss for a miniscule chance at total victory, over a smaller but certain loss any day.

WEEKEND BONUS

Posted on | by Ed | 2 Comments on WEEKEND BONUS

Just because.

I happen to know an extraordinarily talented carpenter, and if you have money burning a hole in your pocket (and a hole in your soul that can only be filled with commerce) ask yourself if you need a Triforce cutting board. Or a Space Invaders cutting board. I think you do.

But wait. There's more. As in, floor-to-ceiling modular Tetris bookshelves. Hold on, let me say that one more time: modular Tetris pieces which can be assembled into a bookcase.

online pharmacy buy eriacta online cheap pharmacy

You know you want it.

NPF: TACO TRUCKS

Posted on | by Ed | 7 Comments on NPF: TACO TRUCKS

It's been too long since I have had taco-related content on here.

I'm not fond of Los Angeles. I believe I'm on record as saying it's essentially God's greatest mistake. Its people, by and large, are pretty neat though. It gets some of its local color in the form of mobile taco trucks that primarily serve the sizeable Latino population spread throughout the area. Under the guise of concerns for public safety and sanitation, the city is attempting to ban the trucks. This is considered such a slap in the face to long-time residents that even the New York Times is writing front-pagers about the controversy. And taco lovers from around the country are joining Angelenos in solidarity at SaveOurTacoTrucks.org.

Tacos are street food. They are Poor People Food. They are not something to be dressed up and served in fancy restaurants (although I hate most of the cast, I have unending respect for this guy from Top Chef for refusing, on principle, to make an "upscale taco"). Of course taco trucks, like most mobile food service, present some sanitation concerns. Let's be frank – you're not expecting hospital-quality cleanliness when ordering a taco from a converted school bus. We're adults and we understand what we're buying.

While the local government's actions are cloaked in a lot of language about litter or health and safety concerns, SOTT and many other observers have speculated that it has a lot more to do with large crowds of Latinos gathering in neighborhoods wherever the trucks stop. God forbid a bunch of people mill around a truck and talk in a parking lot or on a street corner. That would upset the delicate beauty of….Los Angeles? The smog-choked, traffic-strangled asshole of the world? Come on.

Much like when Chicago tried to ban Eloteros, I think that the local government involved in this controversy have forgotten a cardinal, 500 year old rule of politics: don't fuck with what people eat.

AAAAAAND….SCENE.

Posted on | by Ed | 3 Comments on AAAAAAND….SCENE.

Boy, I wish this had come out before I wrote today's entry:

"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," Clinton said in an interview with USA TODAY.

Clinton cited an Associated Press poll "that found how Senator Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.

buy keflex online www.orthotrophix.com/news/2022/html/keflex.html no prescription pharmacy

"

I rest my case. It would be an act of charity for someone to stop her before she humiliates herself any further.

buy diflucan online www.orthotrophix.com/news/2022/html/diflucan.html no prescription pharmacy

Stephanopolous and McGovern have abandoned ship.

buy doxycycline online www.orthotrophix.com/news/2022/html/doxycycline.html no prescription pharmacy

buy zithromax online taxmama.com/wp-content/forum/styles/new/engl/zithromax.html no prescription

After hearing things like this, I wonder how many more of her high-visibility supporters are going to flee the proverbial bunker rather than stick around for the fight-to-the-last-man followed by group suicide.
buy strattera online taxmama.com/wp-content/forum/styles/new/engl/strattera.html no prescription

THE BEGINNING OF THE END OF THE BEGINNING OF THE END

Posted on | by Ed | 3 Comments on THE BEGINNING OF THE END OF THE BEGINNING OF THE END

We Americans are not renowned for our attention spans.

Needless to say, this primary season has gone on too long. Way too long to be helpful to anyone. I no longer buy it being helpful to McCain, because it's exhausting what limited attention for politics most Americans have.
https://primeraeyecare.com/wp-content/themes/consultstreet/inc/customizer/custom/temovate.html

It will be harder for him, as well as the Democrat, to get people to pay attention in the general election. Eleven straight months of attentiveness is simply too much to ask.

After our 10th "super Tuesday" and another day of primaries that will "finally settle everything," nothing is settled and this is just going to drag on. Hillary Clinton simply isn't going to quit. Ever. As soon as the Democratic National Committee manages to bring the situation to some resolution (likely with Obama as the nominee) she's just going to start filing lawsuits. She and her surrogates just won't shut up about Florida and Michigan, the states the DNC is trying to disenfranchise.

Let's get one thing straight: MI and FL disenfranchised themselves. 48 states managed to follow the rules. Fuckin' Guam managed to follow the rules. Since Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan (non-Hillary candidates boycotted the race) there's simply no way that the delegates can be seated based on that election. In Florida, no one campaigned. Short of a monumental DNC conspiracy to hand her the nomination, those delegates are not being counted as is.
buy clomiphene online www.parkviewortho.com/wp-content/languages/new/prescription/clomiphene.html no prescription

That point has been made by people smarter than me. What hasn't been noted in the media is the illogic of Clinton's "I'm doing so much better in rural areas" argument. I have so many problems with that, I don't know where to begin.

First we have the borderline racist (yet incredibly common) implication that it somehow matters more what "good ol' salt-of-the-earth" rural Americans think. Like those are the voters that really count. Fuck everyone else….what does the guy in the flannel and John Deere hat say? The media continues to put that forward as the Average Man irrespective of the fact that 80% of the US population now lives in an urban metropolitan area (not a guess. I have the data.) Rural America has plummeted in every Census since 1940. The claim they keep making is that Obama's only doing well because those colored folk in Gary and Indianapolis like him. Maybe that's true, but what are those people? Do they not matter? Are they not American voters?

The simple fact is that the Democratic Party isn't even competitive in any recent election if they can't bank on A) urban voters and B) black and hispanic voters. There are about 3100 counties in the U.S. and Al Gore/John Kerry only won about 500 of them. Only one out of every six counties. Yet Gore won the popular vote and Kerry came very close. Republicans (and Hillary Clinton) do very well where no one lives. Democrats win by turning out en masse in places where people actually live.
buy remdesivir online www.parkviewortho.com/wp-content/languages/new/prescription/remdesivir.html no prescription

Picking up the support of 10,000 stragglers spread across rural Indiana could not matter less in the big picture.

You don't need to be much of a cynic to see through her latest argument in favor of the inevitability of her nomination. "Rural white people like me, and that's more important." Don't even get me started on the electability.
https://primeraeyecare.com/wp-content/themes/consultstreet/inc/customizer/custom/albuterol.html

Let me tell you what hypothetical general election poll questions from March and April of an election year is worth….well, actually, I don't think it's sturdy enough to wipe my ass with.

Watching Lanny Davis on CNN last night (although in fairness any of her surrogates are just as bad lately) was enough to make me puke. The shrill, whiny desperation and entitlement of their demeanor and argument explains everything about why people dislike her. This whole thing is just unfair and a conspiracy against her and the nomination is hers and she deserves it and Obama is some interloper who is stealing it.

I'll say this one last time: the DNC and the superdelegates need to put a stop to this now. It's gone beyond the point where it's hurting the party; now it's simply hurting the entire process. Hillary is not going to stop, ever, until she gets what she believes is hers. They need to do one of two things: relent and agree to give it to her or stop her. We're beginning our fifth month of this process and no remaining primary is going to resolve this. It's time to shit or get off the pot. This can't be left up to the voters. The voters are split. It can't be left up to Hillary, because Hillary is perfectly happy to destroy her party and bring the voting public to a level of disgust that even Bush-Gore couldn't reach. It's time for someone to be the grown-up.

RATIONAL NON-VOTING

Posted on | by Ed | 12 Comments on RATIONAL NON-VOTING

Political scientists widely accept that individuals have no tangible, rational reason to vote. If the decision was made from a pure rational choice perspective, we'd all stay home. A rational choice voting model looks like this:

V = PB – C

V is your net benefit from voting, and you only vote if V > 0. P is the probability of your vote deciding the election, while B is the value of your expected difference between the parties (i.e., if you are a fervent Democrat and loathe the Republicans, B is large). C is the costs of voting – time, information, attention, and so on. Here's the rub: in any reasonably sized electorate, P asymptotically approaches zero. The P*B term, for all intents and purposes, is zero (something like 0.0000000000000001). Since C > 0 (voting is never without some costs) a rational person would never vote.

But people do vote, even though the rational choice model makes sense. This is what political scientists call "the Paradox of Voting." No one should vote, yet lots of people do. The answer lies in Riker and Ordeshook (1968), who revise the model thusly:

V = PB – C + D

It's the same model, of course, with an additional term representing the "expressive" benefits of voting. In other words, you vote because it makes you feel better. D represents a sense of civic duty, the warm and fuzzy feeling you get from supporting someone you like, or the psychological conviction that your vote is helping determine the outcome. D also represents, among more sophisticated voters, an understanding of the free rider dilemma. That is, you recognize that if everyone approached the decision rationally and stayed home, turnout would be zero and therefore one or two individuals could decide the whole election. Translation: you realize that if everyone else is being rational and staying home, it is rational for you to be irrational and vote.

Tuesday was primary day in Indiana, and I did not vote. My "D" term is negative. Not only do I not get a jolly feeling from voting, I actually feel sick when I do it. Psychologically, voting implies that I think this process has any legitimacy or that I accept it as valid. Neither of those things are true. There's an anecdote attributed to the Roman Emperor Hadrian, who was stopped by a poor woman while traveling through the city with his entourage. He told the woman "I don't have time for your problems," to which she replied "Then you have ceased to be Emperor."** I guess you could say all of these people have ceased to be my emperors.

The phrase "rational non-voting" always cracks me up. All non-voting in the American context is rational. Hell, unless you really get a kick out of it, staying home is far more rational than voting. Given the paucity of parties, the universally unappealing candidates, and the oppressive, naked media editorializing which hammers viewers with the reality that Big Money and Big Media and Serious Experts have already decided the outcome, it's a miracle that anyone shows up.

**Suitably chastised, he stopped to talk with her.

ED vs. LOGICAL FALLACIES, PART 20: SLIPPERY SLOPE

Posted on | by Ed | 13 Comments on ED vs. LOGICAL FALLACIES, PART 20: SLIPPERY SLOPE

My research isn't exactly scintillating to the average person.
buy augmentin online buy augmentin no prescription

It's an application of concepts from a physical science (geography) to a social one (political science) in an effort to expand what we know about things like partisanship and voter turnout. Oh, but the last sentence of my dissertation is really interesting: "In conclusion, fire up the gas chambers and start killing people."

According to some people, this is the inevitable conclusion of science. It's also one of the most bleedingly obvious examples of a slippery slope argument that you're likely to see.

Slippery slopes are technically a subset of non causa pro causa fallacies, but they're unique in their incremental approach. A standard NC argument asserts (wrongly) that A causes B.
buy albuterol online buy albuterol no prescription

The slippery slope asserts that A causes B, which in turn causes C, D, and E, which ultimately causes F. The trick is to get the listener to accept the argument by presenting plausible arguments (banning assault rifles opens the door for other kinds of weapons to be banned) contained in an implausible larger argument (banning assault rifles inevitably leads to a ban on all gun ownership).

Cue Ben Stein. Is he ready? I know I just used him last week, but I think he's rested.

Stein: When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers [biologist P.Z. Myers], talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed … that was horrifying beyond words, and that’s where science — in my opinion, this is just an opinion — that’s where science leads you.

Crouch: That’s right.

Stein: …Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.

Crouch: Good word, good word.

And there we have it. "Science" leads to killing people. We start with a harmless idea about the evolution of bacteria and, some indeterminate number of steps later, we're gassing people. The argument leaves many questions unanswered, most likely because Mr. Stein is not very good at making arguments. For instance, can we clarify what "science" is?

online pharmacy buy wellbutrin online no prescription pharmacy

Does geography count? Sociology? Library Science? Second, how many steps are between Librarianship and Genocide? Is there any possibility for intervention before we get to mass murder?

Anton Scalia, dissenting in Lawrence v Texas, approves.

State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding.

There you have it; if a ridiculous, unenforceable "sodomy" law is repealed and we let teh gays butt-fuck with impunity, it's only a matter of time until incest and man-on-llama are legal.**

The implied undercurrent of every slippery slope argument is "Where will this madness end?" It disregards the human capacity to understand subtle differences (i.e., consenting adults having sex versus someone ass-plowing a barnyard animal) because the authors of such arguments likely lack it. In my experience, the best way to destroy a slippery slope is not by pointing out the illogic (too much effort expended on a dunce who probably won't accept your argument anyway) but simply by turning it around. The next time you hear "If gay marriage is OK, why not polygamy or man-on-dog?" feel free to respond with "OK, if you want to play the slippery slope game, if it's legal to ban gay marriage, why not interracial marriage?

online pharmacy buy propecia online no prescription pharmacy

Or inter-religious marriage? WHERE DOES IT STOP?!?!?"

You'll feel dirty, but you did it for the greater good.

**Google image search failed me, but this is where I wanted to post a picture of a very worried-looking llama. Turns out they're relatively unflappable.

AMERICA'S WELFARE QUEENS

Posted on | by Ed | 24 Comments on AMERICA'S WELFARE QUEENS

In my extensive domestic travels behind the wheel of a car, I've noticed something rather curious about small town rural America. The kind of places one finds in, say, rural Alabama or Middle O' Nowhere, Kansas uniformily look like they hit a peak in the 1950s and have been disintegrating ever since. Driving down their depressing "Main Streets" and counting the fire-damaged, boarded-up, and vacant buildings is sobering, and the overall effect is reminiscent more of an abandoned theme park (Idealized Americanaland) than an actual human settlement.
buy dapoxetine online buy dapoxetine no prescription

Here's the curious part. There are inevitably two buildings in the town that aren't decrepit: the Post Office and another building housing a rotating cast of Federal agencies (Bureau of Land Management, USDA, and so on). These neatly-kept, nondescript brick buildings represent the only stable employment and the last remaining reason for the town to exist at all. In other words, if not for Federal dollars, the rural bastions of knee-jerk lower-my-taxes-at-all-costs conservatism would blow away at the next stiff breeze.

It's amazing how largely conservative rural America seems unable to make the connection between tax-and-spend Big Government and their farm subsidies. Or between paying taxes and having a job with the USDA for 40 years. Or between taxes and Air Force base. As these wayward New Deal Democrats ("I was a Democrat until they got all liberal!") have trouble getting the picture, I have made the picture for them:

This image represents the Lower 48** states color-coded by the ratio of how much money they receive in Federal spending to how much the Treasury collects in taxes from that state. For example, Tennesseeans pay 53 per capita in taxes (including all sources of taxation, not just individual).

online pharmacy ivermectin no prescription

buy clomiphene online buy clomiphene no prescription

But the state receives $8107 per capita among all sources of Federal spending annually, giving it a ratio of 1.15 (a buck-fifteen received for every dollar paid in taxes). Tennessee, like 34 other states, is a Welfare Queen.

Using data from 2005*** only 15 states give Uncle Sam more than Uncle Sam gives back. Minnesotans and Delawareans (?) get back less 50 cents of each dollar they pour into the Treasury. On the far opposite end of the spectrum, some states receive three dollars in Federal spending for every dollar contributed. Anyone want to guess what the 15 highest-ratio states tend to have in common?

Yes, many of our nation's backwaters of right-wing hot air are limping along thanks to massive Federal subsidies, both direct and indirect. I shudder to think how bad Mississippi would be if it wasn't getting our cash at a 3-to-1 ratio. Then again, thanks to Trent Lott's mastery of the fine art of pork-barrel politics hidden beneath a shroud of anti-government rhetoric, I'll never have to.

Our national conception of what is "welfare" or a government subsidy is badly in need of revision. The straw man argument claims that welfare is Uncle Sam handing someone a check for doing nothing. Conceived more broadly – not to mention more accurately – government subsidies include every farmer whose lifestyle is supported by taxpayer dollars and every town whose main sources of employment and dollars circulating in the economy are Federal. The angriest invectives often come from towns that would blow away like a tumbleweed without the Air Force base, the Federal prison, the USDA station, the National Park Service regional HQ, or the USGS office. Oddly enough, John Doe seems to define welfare as tax dollars spent subsidizing someone's lifestyle……someone else's lifestyle, that is.

**AK and HI were excluded to simplify the ArcMap image, which needed to be of a manageable yet legible size. Suffice it to say that both states are huge sucking sounds which gobble up tax dollars and send precious little money to Washington in return.

***Source data: 2005 Consolidated Federal Funds report and Current Population Estimate (US Census Bureau), 2005 Total Tax Collections (Internal Revenue Service). Analysis done in ArcMap 9.2 using TIGER files provided by ESRI.

online pharmacy cymbalta no prescription

NPF: THE LAND OF MILK AND HONEY

Posted on | by Ed | 9 Comments on NPF: THE LAND OF MILK AND HONEY

(Note: This week was subpar on account of finals, and I will be making it up next week. Promise.)

What's the quickest way to meet 500,000 Missourians?

Visit Brooklyn.

If you have a lot of friends between 21-30, tell me with a straight face that you do not know the person I am about to describe (or possibly a few dozen of them). It never fails to amaze me how many people consider moving to the latest 21-30 mecca (after they hung a "Sorry hipsters, we're full" sign on Brooklyn in 2003, there was a brief infatuation with San Diego.

buy cipro online bereniceelectrolysis.com/js/framework/js/cipro.html no prescription pharmacy

It's currently Portland.) to be a complete plan virtually guaranteeing unending happiness. I can't say I blame anyone who wants to get the hell out of Indiana or whatever, but the illogic of moving wherever happens to be trendy escapes me. What could possibly work out better than moving somewhere "hot" (read: ass-breakingly expensive, as in $900/month for a closet sized apartment with three roommates) and sitting back to enjoy unadulterated happiness?

Some places are better to live than others.

buy rybelsus online bereniceelectrolysis.com/js/framework/js/rybelsus.html no prescription pharmacy

But your life is your life, and you can't use a U-Haul to make yourself happy.

buy champix online bereniceelectrolysis.com/js/framework/js/champix.html no prescription pharmacy

The "I'm so unhappy, but when I get to Brooklyn everything will be awesome" theory makes very little sense. No, when you get to Brooklyn your life is not going to be like Sarah Jessica Parker on that show I refuse to name. It's going to be expensive as shit, there will be three times as many identically-aged and -skilled people as there are jobs, and your neighbors will be a bunch of dipshits who just moved in from Dayton.

New York is cool. I like visiting. Portland, while wildly overrated, is nice too.
buy neurontin online buy neurontin no prescription

But please, shut the fuck up about how great they are and how you're just about to move there and how great everything will be when you do.
buy singulair online buy singulair no prescription

It does nothing but give me greater pleasure when you end up homeless, living under a tarp on someone's roof, and stealing wireless so you can blog about how great Brooklyn is (true story. seriously.) It ensures that I get a bigger kick out of it when you slink back into town because the best job you could find in Portland involved migrant farm labor (true story. seriously.)

When Chicago was "the" city in the late 19th Century, Mark Twain said "Chicagoans think they are the finest people on Earth when they are merely the most numerous." It applies broadly to any geography-based superiority complex. My life is imperfect and I'll probably be happy to leave southern Indiana, but not so I can become one of the sheep prattling on about how cool it is to live above a bodega that offers the privilege of paying $2.99 for an apple.