Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : 5spl -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KonKilo who wrote (442)	1/8/2003 1:00:14 PM
From: LPS5	Respond to of 2534

Hogwarts Forced To Accept Muggles by Stephen W. Carson January 8, 2003 LewRockwell.com After a protracted legal battle, Harry Potter's school, Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, has been forced by the national government to accept "muggles," people without native magical skill, as students. Looking weary and strained from the long legal battle, the headmaster of the school, Albus Dumbledore, said, "This just doesn't make any sense. We simply don't know how to teach magic to those without native magical skill. This change can only mean the slow destruction of our ability to turn out top class users of magic. This school had an easier time functioning during the Witch Trials of the late 1600s... I never thought I'd miss those days." But critics of Hogwarts had little sympathy for Dumbledore's position. "Of course he would say that," stated the head of NOM (National Organization of Muggles), "He's going to defend the magic-privilege that keeps him and his buddies in their elite positions in society. They have a self-perpetuating magicocracy. The only way that magic skills will become more widespread is for non-magic persons to have access to institutions of magic learning. They're just afraid of the use of magic becoming democratized." To be able to bring in the mandated number of non-magical students, Hogwarts will have to accept applicants with a combined score of -200 on their MATs (Magical Aptitude Tests). A professor at Hogwarts, on condition of anonymity, noted that scores this low mean, "not only does the student have zero chance of mastering the simplest charm, but they actually put off a field of magic resistance that will interfere with the other student's spells." With the admission of non-magical persons to the school, there will be other changes mandated by the government. Quidditch, traditionally played in the air on flying broomsticks, will have to be played on the ground so that non-magic persons can participate. Top players from each of the four student houses of Hogwarts resigned their positions in protest. Ian Smith, Seeker for Hufflepuff house, complained "Quidditch on the ground?! That's just not Quidditch. It'll be totally boring. It'd be more exciting to spend my time brewing potions." Lew Rockwell issued a statement defending Hogwarts as an institution independent of the state and emphasizing the importance of the division of labor and the fundamental role that Witches and Wizards have in the development of civilization. He was quickly denounced by everyone respectable for this, though there was no discernible connection between his statement and their accusations. "What he's really saying is quite clear to anyone who can decode his thinly veiled references. He's a virulent anti-Muggleite who hates America. There's no place for people like him in the democracy of equality and fairness that we're building." read a statement from the Jaffa Institute. ***** Stephen W. Carson [send him mail] works as a software engineer, studies Political Economy at the graduate level at Washington University and works with inner city children in St. Louis through a ministry of his church.

To: KonKilo who wrote (442)	1/8/2003 9:24:27 PM
From: LPS5	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2534

It's a privilege to educate these loathesome collectivists. Message 18410048 Message 18410065 Message 18410172 Message 18410884 Message 18420172 LPS5

To: KonKilo who wrote (442)	1/15/2003 1:40:49 PM
From: LPS5	Respond to of 2534

Why should I apologize for making lots of money? by Larry Paquette (This story ran on page A11 of the Boston Globe on 1/13/2003.) I AM A MEMBER of a small, elite group widely vilified by the press and in letters to the editor. I am an easy target. My sin is that I am in the financial top 10 percent of the country - those making $100,000 or more - the 35 percent tax bracket, a member of the so-called rich. So it is much easier to paint a picture of me with black heart and ice in my veins, cake crumbs all about, as I grow fat on the backs of the downtrodden. However, I feel no need to defend my position. Over the years I have worked hard and earned every dollar of the "obscene" wealth I am accused of "hoarding." What is different about my life and how I came to be here compared with those liberals so willing and anxious to separate me from my compensation? I worked two jobs to put myself through college. While many my age were off to sporting events or dating or cooling off at swim parties on muggy August nights, I was working in a sweltering factory, assembling bicycles until 2 in the morning. I can't say for sure where the bleeding hearts were then, but they were not standing next to me night after night, sweating over that endless assembly line. I look back over the years of struggle and sacrifice and can't count the number of birthday parties, special events, and family gatherings missed because I had to work or finish a special project. I can't begin to tally the number of empty nights or lonely weekends when, instead of spending time with family and friends, I was on a business trip halfway around the world. There is no loneliness like being in a strange country for months, struggling with an unfamiliar language while losing contact with those closest to you. I wonder at how the mind-set of the country has changed, how the work ethic has been corrupted. When I was growing up, the only rule was that success and achievements resulted from, and were directly related to, hard work. You got back in proportion to the effort you put forth. That's the way it has worked for me. How have we changed, then, to an ethic of redistributing the wealth from those who are economically productive to those who refuse to be? Few will acknowledge it, but the message is clear. Reading between the lines of editorials and letters in the newspapers, I can almost hear the chant, ''You have it, I want it, and you owe me.'' I believe in extending a helping hand whenever possible, but I don't believe in lifelong support for those capable but unmotivated. I look at my bimonthly check stub and occasionally can't help but question myself as to why I am working so hard, when federal and local taxes and deductions for Social Security and Medicare devour 50 percent of my earnings. Is it worth the 50-hour weeks, the personal responsibility, the stress? The irrefutable fact is that money withheld and spent on welfare by a confiscatory and inefficient government does not create new jobs. Jobs are created from the dividends and investments made by myself and those far wealthier than me. They result from money put at risk, with a chance for an equitable return commensurate with the risk. New companies, new ventures, new products and new jobs are a direct result of investment exposure. That is the heart of capitalism. I make no apologies for my financial position. I have worked very hard, earned every dollar and hope to continue earning long into the future. Can the same be said for those standing at the intersection of Hard Work and Success, looking for a handout? Larry Paquette is a sourcing manager for a manufacturing company in Fresno, Calif.