Once again a knife-wielding maniac has shown us the way

Good editorial here about all the posturing that is going on in Washington about the current financial problems. Here's my favorite sentence.

You can try to prevent a financial meltdown or you can teach Wall Street a lesson, but you can't do both at the same time.

I agree, and I also think that you can't prevent a financial meltdown if your first priority is, say, getting elected. John McCain said he was suspending his campaign to go to Washington and get this fixed, and I hope I see that happen. But I haven't yet.

It's not that I know what to do about this. I don't. But nobody in Congress has shown me that they know what to do about it, either. I just see a bunch of goons trying to score points by talking about what a crisis this is. Well, if it's a crisis, stop talking to the cameras and go get this fixed. Start taking things a little more seriously.

And in the meanwhile, watch this video.

--ABDUL ALEM

Do I owe Ron Paul money?
Chapter 1: The Gathering Storm

So, this summer, I had a guy subletting in my apartment who is a Ron Paul fan. He spent a lot of time trying to proselytize me, in the fashion of Ron Paul fans everywhere.

This effort was somewhat handicapped because he also believes that the Federal Reserve is a satanic conspiracy engineered by a mysterious group of international financiers, and that the US government was behind the September 11th attacks. This lowered his credibility somewhat.

I should have simply avoided conversation with him. He wouldn't stop preaching, and I couldn't keep myself from arguing with him. But no matter how often (or how strongly) I disagreed with hi, he never got upset or angry. And whenever I thought I had him cornered, he cheerfully switched topics and began anew his attempts to persuade me.

After weeks of attempting to nail him down, I finally got a specific prediction out of him. He believed that the world was on the brink of another great depression, and that we would see this in two ways. First, stock prices would fall. Second, the price of gold would rise. In a year or two, he expected that the price of gold in dollars would converge with the Dow Jones Industrial Average and meet somewhere around three or four thousand.

So, we made a wager. The Dow was then at about 11,000 and the price of gold was almost $1000 per ounce. This left a gap of about 10,000. I said that if this gap closed to 5,000 or less before September 1, 2009, that I would make a sizable contribution to Ron Paul's congressional reelection campaign. (For his part, Bob pledged that if he lost the bet he would refrain from contributing to Ron Paul.)

For the last two months, I have been watching both the price of gold and the Dow Jones. Here are the results so far.

July 21, 2008 - initial measurements
* Dow Jones = 11,467.34 points
* Price of Gold = $960.50
* Difference = 10,506.84

August 21, 2008
* Dow Jones = 11,430.21 points
* Price of Gold = $833.50
* Difference = 10,596.71

September 22, 2008 (no data for 9/21)
* Dow Jones = 11,015.69 points
* Price of Gold = $889.00
* Difference = 10,126.69

So far, it looks like there is no appreciable convergence in these two numbers. The distance between them is about what it was on the day we made the wager.

Of course, the gap could close suddenly. Lots of morons on TV with great hair and undergraduate degrees in communications are talking in grave tones about a terrible lurking danger that will shortly ruin the US economy. But these people have also told me to watch out for Monkey Pox and shark attacks. So I'm watching and waiting, but I'm not buying guns and hoarding gold yet.

Sorry, Bob.

--JOHANN "FNORD" WEISSHAUPT

Hue and cry

I scored 8/100 on this test, and I feel pretty good about that.

--HUMBLE ST. JOE

The last word on Palin

I think I need to lay off the politics for a while. But before I do, here's one last bit about the campaign. If you haven't seen Tina Fey as Sarah Palin, you haven't lived. (Thanks, Dean's World.)

--EL DOLOR

The Deliberator

My sister and I have been talking about the presidential campaign, and she had an interesting critique of McCain and Palin. It's something that I think I have not heard anyone else say. Here it is:

And here's the real thing for me -- she and McCain are both "gut" players. They govern with their guts and their instincts, and everything is right and wrong and there is no grey. And they're not afraid to tick people off to do what they think is right. And I'm tired of that technique. I think we need a more deliberative style in the presidency as well as a more bridge building, working together style. When I hear McCain say "vote for the team that's not afraid to break some china!" I think, the china is already broken. We've already had a china breaker, and that has been a real mess, IMHO.

And this was my reply:

I think you're right about [the personal style of] McCain and Palin, and Obama certainly seems more deliberative. And I'll admit, a little more thinking before acting would be a welcome change. But there are two ways to look at it. One is to say that he is more deliberative. The other is to say that he never does anything.

From what I can see, Obama has virtually no record. And I don't mean that he hasn't been in Washington for very long. I mean that there's very little that we can point out that he has accomplished. Look at this list of all the legislature he ever introduced in the Senate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bills_sponsored_by_Barack_Obama_in_the_United_States_Senate

In four years in the Senate, he has managed to get five pieces of legislation passed-- all of which passed by unanimous consent, without the need for individual Senators to vote yea or nay. Two of these designate a particular day as National Summer Learning Day. One congratulates the White Sox on winning the World Series. One is an obituary for a minister from Memphis. And one recognizes "the historical significance of Juneteenth Independence Day and express[es] the sense of the Senate that history should be regarded as a means for understanding the past."

That's the entirety of what this man has accomplished in the Senate. In this he is like John Kerry, and a lot of other worthless politicians who sit around and enjoy the collegiality of the Senate club without doing much. John McCain gets things done. Even Joe Biden has done some important work in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. But Obama hasn't done anything, despite thinking a lot and talking a lot about how he's going to change the country, and the world.

It's the same if you look at his time in Illinois. What did he accomplish as a community organizer? Here's a pretty critical look at his years there:

http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=ZDQwYmNjMGIxNDYyZGE1ZDNmZTU1MjhmMzA0ZDlmY2M=

But even if you read the most enthusiastic and supportive accounts of his years as a community organizer, you can't find much evidence of him having done anything. There's lots of talk about how it helped him to understand the plight of the urban poor, and understand himself better as well. But I can't find any evidence that these people were better off for his help.

Similarly, as a state legislator, he is most notable for the (surprisingly great) number of times he voted "present."

Deliberation can be good, but the point of it is to make a good decision and then act. I have heard it said of George Washington that he was not a quick thinker but that he always reached the correct conclusion in the end. Obama strikes me as a person who does plenty of thinking and plenty of talking, but just doesn't get much accomplished.

Consider the issue of government waste and corruption. I'm sure Obama is against it, but his record leads me to believe he will get outmaneuvered and steamrolled by Congress. On the other hand, I think McCain will spend days and nights poring over bills to find that pork. Then he'll expose the crooks, and try to kill the bills. Why do I think this? Because that's what he has done for decades in the Senate-- and as president, he will have a much larger audience when he exposes waste, and his veto will count for more than his single Senatorial vote did.

Or consider global warming. Barack Obama introduced the Climate Change Education Act, which never got a vote, even in committee. John McCain-- even if we only look at the time since 2004 when Obama was elected-- has introduced two substantive pieces of legislation, with Democratic co-sponsors, that were extensively debated before being defeated.

It's the same for social security, or illegal immigration, or any other important issue. McCain has written detailed and important legislation, pushed for it, and often got it passed into law. For his part, Obama has given widely-acclaimed speeches, and occasionally introduced a bill that usually doesn't make it out of committee.

Frankly, I'm not too worried about an Obama presidency, even though I disagree with him on policy quite a lot. I'm not worried because I don't think he'll get much done. And maybe that would be a nice change. You might want a quieter time, with a president who serves more as a figure for inspiration, one who uses the bully pulpit more and lets Congress do their work without much executive interference. I'm not sure that's the way it would really work out, but I can see the appeal.

This is not so original, though. I have noticed a lot of people making this critique of Obama, but it's still very convincing-- to me, anyway. And that's what matters in the end. Because my word is LAW.

--JAN DEPAUW

A word of advice

An old friend invited me to join a group on Facebook. The group is called "Sarah Palin, hold a press conference." I ignored it for a few days, but this morning I joined it, just so I could put up a post on their wall.

Here's the post...

Kids, you're setting yourselves up. After Palin got nominated, there were those who painted her as an illiterate neanderthal, so when she gave a good speech, it exceeded expectations and made her very popular.

You're doing the same thing again. She is, of course, going to do a press conference at some point. And the bigger the stink you make about it before it happens, the lower the expectations will be, and the better she will look.

As a your friendly neighborhood Republican, I'm telling you, you're walking into a trap here. She wants you to misunderestimate her. It's strategery.

Watch the videos of her gubernatorial debates and you will see that Sarah Palin is not a pushover who the American people will reject en masse as soon as she gets some tough questions. She's savvy enough to handle herself in an interview and lots of Americans agree with her views.

So, sit back and relax. You'll get your press conference soon enough.

Personally, I can't wait for the first Sarah Palin press conference. I think it's going to be a lot of fun to see her add another trophy to her wall.

--"SUNSHINE" DAVE RAHIMI

Summer movie reviews

So, here's a bunch of movies I saw this summer, and what I thought about them. the better ones are at the top.

WALL-E : What a beautiful movie! If you haven't seen this, don't waste any more time. Find a place where this is playing on the big screen and see it this week. Some people were turned off by the eco-preaching, which I agree was occasionally a bit much.* But it's so sweet, and so beautiful, that it's well worth the few moments of environmental earnestness. I think this is a five star movie, and I plan to buy it.

*(For example, let's pretend for a moment that Americans could be buried in the detritus of our own consumerist culture, and would have to flee to space. But can you see this happening to, say, the Congo Republic? No. So the central premise is ridiculous. We're not going to evacuate the whole planet because of Wal-Mart. But that's how it is for all science fiction-- and if the film is good enough, you just suspend disbelief and enjoy the movie.)

The Dark Knight : Wow! I thought that it was crazy for anyone to try to top Jack Nicholson's iconic 1989 performance as the Joker. But Heath Ledger did what I thought was impossible, and I bet he gets a posthumous Oscar for it. Everyone in this movie is great, even down to William Fitchner's brief appearance as a bank manager. This is another one I am sure I'll buy. Five stars.

Iron Man : Fun, exciting, and smart-- this is the perfect summer flick. Robert Downey Jr. is perfect as Tony Stark, Jeff Bridges is the best he's been in years, and Gwyneth Paltrow is absolutely delightful. It's highly re-watchable. I saw it twice in theaters, and can't wait to pick up the DVD so I can watch it again. It's just fun. I give this one five stars as well.

Hellboy II: The Golden Army : This was my happiest surprise of the summer. I liked the first Hellboy, and wanted to be excited about the sequel, but the trailer didn't thrill me. But I am so glad I went and saw it. This is an old-school fairy tale, full of ethereal wonder and grim terror. It's also really funny. Four stars, and I am going to buy it, unlike the first Hellboy.

Hancock : This one surprised me, too. I went to see Charlize Theron, Jason Bateman, and Will Smith in a comedy about an alcoholic superhero. And I got that. But then it turned dramatic-- and although I would have been happy to have nothing but the laughs, I found myself really sucked in by the drama. It's very ambitious, and I think it mostly works. This one I also think might merit four stars, and if I can find it for seven or eight bucks, I will probably pick it up.

Get Smart : Funnier than I thought, but not as funny as it could have been. I love Steve Carrell, I have a soft spot for The Rock-- and they did provide me with many laughs. There were two things that I didn't love about this movie, though. One is that they made Maxwell Smart surprisingly competent, instead of a bumbling goof like he was on TV. But he still bumbles, and it doesn't always mix well with the competence. Either a smarter spy or a dumber spy would have been more entertaining, I think. The second thing that put me off is that in the climactic scenes in the last twenty minutes of the movie, there were lots of shots that looked cheap and unfinished, like they were footage from a DVD featurette called "The Making of Get Smart," instead the actual movie. It's still worth watching, but I wouldn't buy it. Three stars.

The Incredible Hulk : Not as ambitious as Ang Lee's Hulk, but more fun. Edward Norton is pretty good in this, but the monster himself is just a cartoon. So the big confrontation at the end just didn't interest me. It was just two cartoon monsters, fighting. Meh. If you see it, make sure to watch through the credits for Robert Downey Jr. in a cameo. Tony Stark and the hot Brazilian girls in the first half hour of the movie push this up to three stars. I might watch it again if someone else rented it, but I'm not going to buy it.

The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian : Lots better than the first Narnia movie, but they still have a bad case of Peter Jackson envy. It's a kids' book! You don't have to have gigantic epic battles everywhere. And the monsters are scary enough that I wouldn't take a child under 10 years old to see this. It's not a bad movie, and I might give it three stars. If you haven't seen it yet, it's probably worth renting.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull : Also known as My Gray-haired Father and Some Stupid Aliens Or Something. My brother told me that if you try hard not to think of this as an Indiana Jones movie, it's not bad. I think he's right. It's much more fun if you see it as an imitator, like National Treasure. Except that National Treasure was better. This was more like National Treasure 2: Book of Secrets, which was pretty dumb. I mean, what kind of Indiana Jones movie has cartoon gophers? Seriously! I give this movie two stars out of charity. If someone else has rented it, it might be worth watching to make fun of. It's clearly worse than Temple of Doom. The only question is which sidekick you'd rather see in his own movie-- Short Round or Mutt. (I know how I vote.)

The X-Files: I Want to Believe : I'm genuinely sorry I saw this movie. I can't believe I'm about to type this, but, I wish I had seen Mama Mia instead. If you want to see Scully and Mulder, catch them in the reruns. This one's not worth your time. One star, for David Duchovny's impressive crazy-man beard.

SPECIAL BONUS OTHER MOVIES I SAW BEFORE SUMMER!

Cloverfield : Awesome! This is going to change the way that monster movies are made. Plus, it was short enough that I was wishing for more instead of checking my watch. Good scary fun. Three stars. Worth renting, but you don't need to have it on your shelf.

The Spiderwick Chronicles : Not bad. The best part is the kid who plays twins. But it's hard to sympathize with the protagonists, because they do too good a job playing an unhappy family. Two stars.

So, imaginary readers-- what did I miss? What did you love that I didn't see? What should I put in my Netflix queue? Give me a tip in the comments. Thanks!

--PROFESSOR SMARTY PANTS


(UPDATE 9.10.2008 - I also saw Kung Fu Panda before leaving Happy Valley. Not bad! Three stars, which is a lot more than I expected to give a talking-animal cartoon with celebrity voices.)

So it's come to this: Another link-fest

I've been meaning to blog, but haven't. Sorry, imaginary readers. To make it up to you, here are some of the interesting things I've read lately. I'd like to give credit to the other blogs where I first found them, but they came from all over and I can't remember any more. So, enjoy!

Here are three interesting new technological developments:

* First, here's a new chip that will let an iPod store a half a million songs. Awesome!

* Second, here's a guy who talks about the ways that Web 2.0 technologies could change our society. Neato!

* Last, from Japan, this one is more cringe-inducing than useful. Yikes!


These three articles reinforce my skepticism about environmentalism:

* First-world ethanol may mean third-world starvation.

* The "organic" food you buy in the store is not better for the earth, and might not be better for you, either.

* For the US to meet the carbon-reduction goals of Obama, Clinton, or McCain, we would have to use less energy per person than we did before the industrial revolution.


Some lists which may provide a few minutes of entertainment or distraction:

* A (British) list of the 101 most useful sites on the web. Some of these are quite new to me, but some I couldn't get by without.

* From Esquire, a list of 75 skills a man should know. About a third of these I don't think are necessary at all-- many of them involving alcohol, etc.-- but about a third of these I wish I knew how to do.

* Here's a list of the world’s worst religious leaders from Foreign Policy. I think they could easily double the length of this list without diluting the quality. Or increasing the quality, maybe?

* And finally, a list of the twenty most frightening weapons systems in recent history. Scary!


Anyway, there's lots more to share, but I'm tired of doing this, so I'm just going to stop now and leave you with a video I wish I had made myself.

--PADDY O'PAGAN

Not that there's anything wrong with that

Heaven help us all if the zoobies hear about this.

--FABULOUS J.

Bitter?

So, on Friday, Barack Obama was at a fundraiser in San Francisco. He talked a bit about his chances in Pennsylvania, which hasn't yet held their presidential primary.

In particular he spoke about his chances of appealing to working class white people there. Pennsylvania is part of the old rust belt which has been losing jobs (in certain industries) for the last thirty or forty years.

In Obama's opinion, people here are frustrated that no one in the federal government has been able to reverse this trend. Okay, I'll agree with that. But, he goes further. Frustrated working class white people in Pennsylvania don't know how to say that they are mad at the government, so their frustration comes in other ways. To wit:

"...it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

This is an extremely strange claim, for several reasons. But I'm just going to talk about two. First, it's strange to say that people are too stupid to realize what they're really mad at. I've heard this argument before, and I didn't like it then, either. Why second-guess? How about just listening to what voters say really motivates them?

Trying to win an election is like trying to get a girlfriend. If a girl says she doesn't like me because I am a fat nerd, it might be comforting for me to pretend that the real reason is because she is threatened by my giant IQ, or because she is a lesbian. But she's not. And lying to myself in this fashion only prevents me from making the changes that will make me more attractive. I would expect that the same is true for Obama.

Now there's a second strange thing about this quote. Let's re-examine it. Assuming he's right (instead of vainly deceiving himself), when people get "bitter," they "cling" to the following:

1) guns
2) religion
3) racism ("antipathy to people who aren't like them)
4) xenophobia ("anti-immigrant sentiment")
5) isolationism ("anti-trade sentiment")

Isn't that a strange list? Doesn't it strike you as odd?

I mean, racism and xenophobia are pretty obviously bad things. Isolationism is also a pretty unpopular sentiment in the US these days. And saying that people "cling to guns...as a way to explain their frustrations" doesn't sound like a really positive behavior.

In fact, the logic seems to be the same for each of these: frustration which cannot be expressed properly (and therefore cannot be resolved) finds an outlet through violence or hate. This is pretty classic Freudian psychoanalysis. You're mad at X, but you can't do anything about that, so you attack Y instead.

So, what is religion doing on this list?

Do you "cling to...religion...as a way to explain [your] frustrations"? I don't. And it's really hard for me to believe that anyone who goes to church as often as Obama does would put this forward as a good explanation for religious belief. On the other hand, this sounds a lot like the kind of explanation I have heard from people who have rejected religion, or who have no experience with it. And my guess is that a lot of people in Obama's audience fit this description. But Obama portrays himself as (1) a pretty religious guy and (2) a guy who can bring different people together and help them understand each other. So it's pretty disappointing that all he is doing here is confirming the prejudices of his audience.

Why do I 'cling to religion'? Well, because I believe it's true-- God lives, and he sent his son, Jesus, to pay for my sins. But also because my religious experiences make me feel better. And because my religious principles motivate me to change myself for the better.

Why does Obama go to church? I don't know. But I'm certainly not going to bother asking him, reading what he writes, or listening to what he says. That's for suckers. Instead, I'm just going to assert that Obama is bitter because of the repeated failures of the Democratic party, but he simply hasn't figured out how to explain his frustration yet.

Also, I think he's a lesbian who's threatened by my giant IQ.

--JOHANNES CLERK

(UPDATE 4/13: Senator Obama's latest response, dissected.)