Poetry

Ok, people have wanted to hear my poetry, so here is just a little warmup, just some fluff for you to enjoy before I get to the serious stuff:

You are familiar with the color of roses,

and certainly that of violets.

So I will not denigrate my feelings,

by making a superfluous analogy that could never begin to illustrate the eroticism I feel, towards you.

ctk, 12/08, USA

healthcare

Here is a very sensible - and short - blog entry from the Wall Street Journal (actually, here's the full text, still very short). It basically argues that a potential answer to the U.S. healthcare problem would be to give people access to universal primary care.

Stop the snowball before it gets too big. I wonder how much money would be saved if everyone had access to free checkups by primary care physicians?

For example: My dad was not a healthy eater, and heart attacks run in his family. However, he had health insurance and therefore access to primary care physicians. So when he went for his regular checkups, his doctor would monitor his cholesterol and blood pressure and whatever else; and give advice based on what he saw. And my dad would listen to the advice. Today, my dad is 68 and in relatively good health. But what if he didn't have his regular checkups? What does it cost to have a heart attack in America these days? $50,000? $100,000? Dirk cut his hand on a window and it cost him a few thousand dollars. (Dirk, how much did it end up costing you?)

How many hour long check ups can one get for $50,000?

Which leads to the second point they make: because of income disparity, doctors have more incentive to become surgeons or specialists or anything but primary care physicians. You can make more money curing a serious problem than you can preventing it from happening in the first place.

I see this same issue in the legal field. Lawyers have more incentive to fight than they do to settle. I've seen it firsthand, and I've seen it too many times. Doctors and lawyers should be in their professions to help people; not to tax them. 

Election Wisdom

It's not about influencing the people who vote.

It's about influencing the people who count the votes.

so.....

I'm thinking about writing some poetry. I signed up for this two month writing group at a library near my place, and almost everyone in it (out of 15 people) writes poetry. Fuck it. you know...

here's a question

Why hasn't some rich person built his/her house - or vacation home - to look exactly like the White House?

(front)

(back)

It's either going to be funny or patriotic, or both. 

This morning, Barack Obama announced that Joe Biden will be his running mate. So my question is this: look at the three women in the race, and tell me if they're sitting around in McCain's campaign headquarters right now and talking about the obvious...

Michelle Obama

Jill Biden

Cindy McCain

(they've gotta find a guy with a pretty decent looking wife)

Overrated?

I was already getting tired of hearing about Michael Phelps when I picked up a Redeye the other day and saw a picture of Phelps on the cover with the caption, "GREATEST OLYMPIAN EVER."

If I was the editor of the Redeye, that headline would have been, "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!"

He's not even the fastest swimmer in the world. He is simply the fastest swimmer in certain -- slower -- strokes. Who cares if he's the fastest butterfly stroke swimmer in the world? or the fastest backstroker? or the fastest in all four strokes combined?

Carl Lewis never got to inflate his medal count by winning an extra gold in the backwards 100 meter dash. Can anyone name the fastest side-shuffler in the world?

I can't either.

So why do we give a shit about the fastest butterfly stroker in the world?

Why do we even celebrate the world's fastest swimmer anyway? I'm more impressed by the world's fastest runner. We all should be. I think it's a more important feat.

Does it have anything to do with the fact that the fastest swimmers are always white? And the fastest runners are never white?

I'd advise against wasting your time on this

(taken down to proofread)

It's been a while, version 2

Man, I told myself that I'd post something tonight, I don't care what. And I'm not gonna proofread it.

The 3-piece chicken strip meal at Popeye's sells for $5.59. The 5-piece chicken strip meal sells for $5.99. I found this to be somewhat disconcerting as I prepared to order lunch today. Almost twice as much chicken, for only 5% more?

What does that say about the chicken?

Note to Popeye's corporate: Even if you can do it. Don't do it.

I ended up going with the 3-piece meal.


(Note to readers: I don't treat myself to Popeye's very often, I'm in a regular rotation of Jimmy John's, Chipotle, Corner Bakery and Potbelly) (Although, I HATE Jimmy John's hot peppers. I HATE them. Surprisingly, a couple of cashiers informed me that compliments on their hot peppers outnumber the complaints. But I think that's because people don't have the stones to complain.)


Is anyone reading this addicted to coffee?

Is anyone reading this?


Co-workers look at me with wonder when they realize that I don't drink coffee. Out of eight people, I am the only one who doesn't drink multiple cups per day.

What is necessary to qualify something as "addictive"? People freely admit that coffee is addictive. Cigarettes are addictive. Gambling? Sex? What about money?

Merriam Webster defines "addict" as "to devote or surrender (oneself) to something habitually or obsessively"


Man, is this the bullshit that comes out of me at midnight on a Monday? I need to figure out a way to write stuff at work.


In re; my hair. It's good. I'll look for a picture, but a picture may not do it justice.

the vision

I told Dirk I'd write a blog entry today, but also feel kind of lazy---kind of like watching TV. I can multi-task.

Did you know Drew Carey hosts The Price is Right? I watched my fair share of The Price is Right as a kid, and while I wouldn’t call myself a Bob Barker fan, the show seems strange without him. But besides losing Barker, little has changed since the 80's. The format is the same, set is the same, announcer sounds the same, games are similar, and that peculiar -- do you call it jazz? -- theme music is the same. And Barker's Beauties are still beauties (too buxom to be supermodels, but not buxom enough for rap videos.) Contestants still can’t go over during the first round of price bidding, so the dreaded $1 overbid still occurs, but surprisingly infrequently. I’d bid either $1 or $1-over-someone-else’s-bid every time.

One difference is that contestant pools seem larger and more organized. And Drew Carey couldn't seem less interested as a host. He’s less enthusiastic than Barker, which is odd because Carey is a comedian and I expected him to be joking around a lot, but he’s not. He’s completely deadpan. It's as if the producers instructed him to not be bigger than the show -- which I suppose is what Barker did so well, except he seemed happier to be there than Carey. (A quick scan of the “controversy” section of Barker’s Wikipedia page provides some explanation for this.)

I’m unimpressed by the showcases. The first showcase today: a one-year supply of chocolate, a laptop, and a trailer (like a Winnebago without an engine, so you have pull it with your car.) What if your car doesn’t have a hitch? Not surprised to see the contestant pass on it.

The second showcase: one year of maid service, a living room furniture set (that looks like something from the 80’s), and a hot tub. If someone interested in a hot tub owns enough land to install a hot tub, they probably wouldn’t be in The Price is Right studio audience because they’d either be at work or they’d already own a hot tub. Does a Price is Right hot tub show up in the LA edition of craigslist every week?

Are contestants given an option to take the cash equivalent of their prizes? In this episode a 40-year-old woman weighing at least 200lbs won a pair of off-road motorcycles. And she was thrilled about it.

She was giddy just to be on stage. That curtain could have risen to reveal two logs of un-petrified dog shit and her mood wouldn't have dampened. When she finally realized she was looking at two off-road motorcycles, her smile didn't fade; she just said, "I have two kids."

"How old are your kids?" Carey obligatorily asked.

"19 and 23."

It looked like Carey wanted say, "Take the cash equivalent, trust me."

And did you know that this guy [John O'Hurley] hosts Family Feud? He is an enigma. He was strangely funny on Seinfeld, but after watching him on Family Feud I’m guessing that either he wasn’t acting on Seinfeld or the Family Feud producers have instructed him to stay in character.

On the Fast Money round (where two family members must combine for 200 points to win $10,000) the first guy scored 182, but second guy couldn’t get the final 18! The #1 answers were all fairly obvious, so the second guy guessed almost all the same ones as his brother. For example: the first clue, "Name a topic of conversation that would bore a girl on a date." The second guy smiles and answers, “Sports.” BUZZZZ. The first guy guessed Sports; try again. So he panics and says, “Uhhhhh, weights.”

The rest of his answers were so bad that when they began tallying his score, I was looking back at his answers and thinking, “Maybe he can squeeze out a good chunk of those 18 points with weights."

Commercials during the day all seem to fall into four genres: drugs, personal injury law, for-profit vocational schools, and things that will be illegal in 10 years.

I have fewer than ten channels, but at this moment two of them are airing Judge shows. I watched the first minute of Judge Joe Brown. To introduce the program, they showed a clip of a Plaintiff saying, "My mother wrecked my car when she was drunk and all she can say is Oh Well."

And during Judge Joe Brown, there was a message at the bottom of the screen instructing me to stay tuned for Judge Mathis coming up next. I flipped the channel. (Only because I don't believe they’re real.) (If these were real small claims arbitrations I'd tune in more often. I'd probably find myself in the studio audience once in a while. I’d definitely send them a resume.) (for all you real MF's out there [a link Joseph Wapner’s bio]) (and for the realest of real [a link to Doug Lleweyln’s bio])

Maury Povich is on. This episode features a husband and wife having marital troubles. As I started watching, a solemn Maury was preparing to read the results of a lie detector test that would reveal whether the husband was in love with his wife's mother.

Maury should be the spokesman for Ambien.

I flipped the channel.

The guy who worked security on The Jerry Springer Show now has his own talk show.

Let me repeat that with proper emphasis:

THE GUY WHO WORKED SECURITY ON THE JERRY SPRINGER NOW HAS HIS OWN TALK SHOW.

He really does. [link to the show’s website.] From the commercials the episodes seem to progress in a similar manner: he converses with guests, one of the guests begins exhibiting unruly tendencies, the conversation slowly turns argumentative, and finally the former Springer security guard angrily confronts the villain and kicks him off the set. (So at least they utilize his physicality.) Celebrity is an interesting concept.

(The commercials for the show remind me of the classic Hulk Hogan routine where he gets beaten up for a while, but eventually goes into a frenzied state and becomes impervious to pain and throws the opponent into the ropes and gives him a boot to the face and finishes him off with a leg drop.) (I’ll bet that was the model for this show.)

I flipped to the opening credits to a show called Cheaters. Has anyone seen it? The premise: contact Cheaters if you suspect your significant other of infidelity. Cheaters producers will send licensed investigators to spy on them, and if caught, you'll get to confront the cheater in the act.

The show begins with host Joey Greco delivering a short monologue on the virtues of fidelity. Greco is oddly captivating. Look at the facial expressions on his webpage.  [link to Greco’s website that has since changed.] Cheaters holds itself out to be a serious show, and Greco so carefully straddles the line between genuine righteousness and absurdity that while he’s barely believable, he’s believable.

This is furthered when the announcer introduces today's guest by saying, "Meet Brian, a computer engineer who worries that his wife has found satisfaction from different hardware."

My remote control just breathed a sigh of relief after realizing it will have the next half hour off.

Brian is a ~25 year-old man who has been spending most of his weeks out of town searching for a job. He lives with his wife, mother, and stepfather, and suspects his wife (unemployed) of infidelity. I didn't notice where this takes place; it appears to be a small, semi-southern, semi-urban area -- definitely not a small town; might be on the outskirts of a fairly large city. Brian has a slight southern accent.

Brian is a decent looking guy. I'd guess women might think he's cute rather than hot. He's 5’10-ish, somewhat skinny, decent head of hair (dirty blond, three inches long), unremarkable white man’s features, average dresser. A guy you'd bring home, even though meeting him wouldn't necessarily inspire you to write home.

The wife’s face is blurred out, but we can see her body, and it's not too bad. She certainly wouldn't hear any complaints if she lost 15 or 20lbs, but nothing is necessarily necessary.

(Yes, my descriptions are superficial, but they're not giving me anything in terms of personality)

The first break in the Cheaters investigation comes on the second afternoon when cameras follow the wife to an office building. The picture is unclear, but we see her enter the building and exit a short while later alongside a mustachioed man with an impossible-to-miss mullet. He is wearing a white dress shirt, chinos, and tie; everything fits terribly. They get into his early 90's Ford Taurus and drive to a bar. Nothing physical happens, but the man moves in very close while talking to her.

Eventually they drive back to the office building where she gets in her car and drives home. The mystery man follows her home, as do investigators. Hidden cameras have been set up in the house, but the lovebirds go into an unmonitored room. Commercial break.

I get up to grab some food and come back in time to catch a commercial for the Hoveround Personal Mobility Vehicle [link to the website.] [It’s a motorized wheelchair.] The "drug" genre of daytime commercials can be expanded to: commercials-targeted-towards-the-sick-and-elderly. This commercial takes the extra step of assuring viewers that 1) although you might not think you need a motorized wheelchair, trust us, you do, so at the very least check out our free pamphlet, and 2) if you’re over 65 it's covered by Medicare, so even if you don't like it, it’s ok because it’s free.

(This commercial might also fall into the things-that-will-be-illegal-in-ten-years category.)

Back to the show. On day seven Brian is in Seattle looking for a job and calls home. His wife answers (we can see her from a hidden camera in the house.) After a night of drinking, she is watching TV with the stepfather but claims to be alone. During the call, the stepfather walks over and leans on top of her -- almost completely lies on top of her. We are now told that the mulleted man from Day 2 is the stepfather. After she hangs up the phone, the stepfather picks her up and carries her into the bedroom.

This evidence is enough for Cheaters investigators. They call Brian and show him the videotape.

As soon as Brian sees the first blurry clip of his wife walking out to the car with the poorly-dressed mulleted man, he turns away and says, "Jesus, that's my f*@#ing step dad!"

Before cutting to commercial, they show a preview for the next scene: it is a shot of Brian running into the house and attacking his stepdad without saying a word.

I decide to stick around for the commercials. The first one advertises a service that provides Cash for Gold [link to their website.] The premise is simple: they'll send you a postage paid envelope, you send them your gold, and they'll send you a check.

“It's that easy! All shipping is pre-paid!”

The first testimonial is a woman saying, "I sent in my old gold and I got a check the next week." (And then she laughs)

Another testimonial: a woman talking on her cell phone, "I'm going on vacation next week, and all I had to do was send in my old gold."

One last reminder, "We'll even pay the shipping!"

I waited for a final testimonial that gave a more detailed example, maybe something like, "I just got a check for $70, and all I had to do was send in $8,000 worth of gold!"

But it never came.

A diabetes drug commercial came on, so I got up to refill my water.

The show returns to a shot of Greco, Brian, and the camera crew caravanning to the house.

Greco has a tendency to try emitting an air of authority by overusing formal police-sounding language. At one point during the video of Brian’s wife and stepfather, the stepfather leaves the room to get a beer; and Greco describes it to Brian by saying something like, “Thereupon the suspect momentarily extricates himself from the situation.”

As they ride in the van, Greco calls his investigator on the scene and confirms the location of the suspects. He then explains the situation. Essentially: they're at your house and we're going to surprise them; but in his lexiphanic manner of speaking it takes nearly a minute to explain. 

Soon Brian is flanked by Greco and over a dozen crewmembers as he walks toward his house. Greco instructs, "Ok, everyone remain close together, no one split up." At least three people in the camera crew are carrying home video cameras that fit in the palm of a hand.

The stepfather is lounging on a Lay-Z-Boy and watching TV when Brian enters through the back door and dives at him and takes him down. Brian is able to land a couple of glancing blows before the stepfather gets up and throws Brian to the ground and yells in a heavily accented and terrifyingly deep voice, "YOU CRAZY? WHAT IN THE HELL YOU TRYIN TO DO, BOY?"

Greco explains the situation from a safe distance.

After Brian catches his breath and again lunges for his stepfather, his mother attacks his wife. The stepfather easily tosses Brian to the ground and shouts, "Boy I ain't never laid a hand on you when you were a kid, but if you come at me one more time I'm gonna whoop your ass!"

I was hoping Greco—the consummate grammarian—would interject, “Uh, sorry to interrupt, but by saying you ain’t never laid a hand on him, you’re actually saying that you have laid a hand on him.”

But he didn’t.

Before cutting to a commercial, they show a preview for the next scene. Brian and his stepfather are standing outside, squaring up to fight; as Brian lunges to attack, the commercial begins.

The next commercial:

"Are you receiving monthly settlement checks that just aren't enough to cover your immediate needs? Call Peachtree Settlement Funding now and transform some or all of your settlement payments into cash, today! You see, at Peachtree, money does grow on trees."

While transcribing the opening, I missed the testimonial.

They should just come out and say, "Listen, we're not gonna give you what it's worth, but we can give you something now. And isn't that what you really want? You'll find a way to pay your physical therapy bill in five years; but wouldn’t this commercial look a lot better on a flat-screen TV today?" (They also provide the same service for lottery winnings, life insurance and other annuities)

I'm going downstairs to check the mail. (I’m getting The Sopranos from Netflix.) (I would gladly support an extra .01% federal income tax that goes directly into James Gandolfini’s bank account to keep him from taking other roles. It’s too weird when he makes a cameo in a movie.)

When the show resumes, our combatants are face-to-face in the backyard, less than two feet apart. They bend their knees and get into fighting stances. It’s dark and a light rain is falling. They size each other up. Brian is still in shock over what's happened and shouts, "How can you do this to me? Huh? I can't believe you f@*king did this!!"

Before Brian attacks, the stepdad makes one final -- and surprisingly borderline-reasonable -- argument. He throws his arms into the air, points to the sky and the city in the distance, and shouts, "Hey, it might as well be me, because if it wasn't me, she would have been banging some guy off the streets."

Again, almost a debate worth having, except that by having sex with his stepson's wife, he was also cheating on his stepson's mother. Brian considers the argument for a few seconds and responds by attacking. Both men fall to the grass. The stepdad quickly takes the advantage and stands up. The Cheaters security guards pretend to try breaking up the fight, but don't do much before backing away. Brian jumps up and attacks again and is thrown down immediately. He picks himself up and charges one more time only to find himself on the grass even faster than before. This time he stays down, crawls over to his stepdad, grabs a hold of his leg, and wrestles him down. Brian actually gets on top for a few seconds before the stepdad regains the advantage and has him pinned.

Finally the Cheaters bodyguards step in and separate the two.

After bodyguards release him, the stepdad has hardly taken a second to survey himself before screaming in anger, "GODDAMN! THIS IS A GOOD SHIRT!!" (referring to his black button-down that has been soiled in the action)

The stepdad is so poorly groomed that his "good shirt" comment is nothing short of bizarre. (But in his defense, he's had a haircut since the original blurry footage.)

Brian runs inside to where his mother continues berating his crying wife. The wife turns her attention to Brian and apologizes, insisting that he doesn't understand. But Brian -- probably not in the most conciliatory of moods because not only has his stepfather been sleeping with his wife, but he also pretty much just kicked his ass -- slightly regains his composure and shouts, "WHAT ABOUT THIS DO I NOT UNDERSTAND??"

The mother hurries into the backyard and yells at the stepdad to leave. He climbs into his car and speeds off.

Meanwhile back inside, Brian asks his wife if she knows what makes him most upset. When she can only respond with another apology, Brian says he had originally come home bearing good news: he got the job in Seattle.

His wife makes one final plea, "Lets just go to Seattle and start over. We can start over."

"Start over?" He scathingly replies, "Start over? Get out of here."

At first she appears to think he is speaking figuratively, and doesn't move, so he clarifies, "Get OUT of here!" and starts pushing her out of the house.

She leaves, still crying.

In the end, Brian says he has to do some thinking in the days ahead. He doesn't explicitly rule out reconciliation, but I imagine this’ll be a strange hurdle to clear.

(Man, this blog has really devolved.)

title change 2.0

Ok, that last post doesn't really make much sense (especially given the new title, "Sexual. A Blog.")

I'm changing the title again.

change

I'm changing the title. I don't know why I'm doing it, but I'm doing it. I don't get a chance to think about the title much because when I first bookmarked this blog, it was entitled, "I hope I can change this title later." The title has since changed, yet the name of the bookmark remains.

The new title is right. For now.

It's the appropriate title for today, for tomorrow, for yesteryear. For nether.

A lot of people will come up to you and say, "Fuck you."

"No." you'll reply.

the framers

The Supreme Court listened to a gun control argument for the first time in over 70 years when a District of Columbia resident recently argued that the City's handgun ban violates the Second Amendment. Here's the wording of the Second Amendment:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Those who believe that all citizens have the right to own a gun argue that the Second Amendment guarantees such a right. Those who believe otherwise argue that the Second Amendment does not provide an absolute right; they believe that the Second Amendment is archaic, and was simply meant to clarify another section of the Constitution that presumably gave Congress the power to disarm State militias -- which was very important in the 18th Century because State militias made up a significant portion of the US military.

You can read the entire oral argument here, although I understand if 100 pages of transcribed arguing is not your idea of leisure reading. (I actually kind of enjoyed it.)


The Court must determine whether the D.C. handgun ban violates the Second Amendment. But after reading the transcript, it struck me that more than half of the argument was spent comparing 1780 to the present. Much of time was spent haggling over the meaning of the "well regulated militia" language.

Is it a limiting clause? Does the comma bifurcate the Amendment? Or is it simply there to remind people of one of the many purposes of the amendment? Or perhaps the language was added to honor the militia (an argument that the attorney representing the gun lobby ACTUALLY MADE on page 57.)

This eventually led to a very strange line of reasoning. At one point the attorney arguing on behalf of the gun lobby argued, "the handgun ban serves to weaken America's military preparedness." Then, ~100 words later, he argued that machine guns should be banned because "it's not an arm of the type that people might be expected to possess commonly in ordinary use."

(It didn't make sense to me either)

To resolve his apparent contradiction, he went on to argue that the framers intended for civilians -- if needed for militia duties -- to "bring arms supplied by themselves of the kind in common use at the time." He continued, "So at the present time, if people do not have, or are not recognized by any court to have, a common application for, say, a machine gun or a rocket launcher" their Second Amendment rights do not apply.

However, in the 1700's, he concedes, "the civilian arms were pretty much the sort that were used in the military." (and that is certainly not the case today)

So his argument was that if the U.S. is invaded by a foreign army, civilians are expected to defend themselves with arms of common civilian use (or those suitable for military use in the 1700's.)

Ok, so let's get this straight: if a powerful foreign army has defeated the entire United States Military -- and its full arsenal of machine guns, tanks, fighter jets, bombers, predator drones, laser guided missiles, and weapons of mass destruction -- civilians are expected to take up the defense with handguns and rifles.

What are we going to do with handguns? Melt them down and make machine guns?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a strict anti-gun person. I don't have a strong opinion on the subject either way. But some of these arguments are actually being made in front of the Supreme Court of the United States!!

I understand the general argument of the gun lobby. I really do. If criminals and local police officers are carrying guns, the average citizen should have the right to own one as well.


The Supreme Court's role is to determine whether laws are in accordance with the Constitution. However, the Constitution is vague. It is not an actual body of law as much as it is simply a framework. Yet even today, several Supreme Court Justices insist that their judicial philosophy is based on trying to determine the intent of the Framers. "How would the framers of the Constitution feel about this gun law?"

This theme was the prevalent for the first two thirds of the handgun argument.

How ridiculous did it get? Amongst other things, the argument touched on points such as politics between the federalists and anti-federalists, peasants' rights in 17th century England, the Blackstone Commentaries, Joseph Story, and guns as protection from Native Americans, wolves, bears, outlaws and tyrants.

There was even a short discussion about the English Bill of Rights in 1689 being applicable only to Protestants, and how the Scottish and Roman Catholics were forbidden from bearing arms, which at the time was considered a form of oppression -- thus our citizens will be oppressed if forbidden from bearing arms today.


So back to the original question, what would our Founding Fathers think about this handgun ban?

I don't know, and frankly, I'm not sure I'd base all of my philosophical decisions on the opinion of a group of men who used ink on the Constitution to honor our state militias, but not ban slavery.

Not to mention, they wore long blonde wigs to work every day.

Matt Leinart

I saw this story on the front page of MSN.com today. Not the front of the sports page, but the front of the news section.

Apparently someone is trying to stir up controversy over some recent pictures of Matt Leinart. Here are the two pictures at the center of the controversy.
















The MSN story begins:

Matt Leinart is used to the spotlight. But this is probably something he wishes wasn't so public. (Wouldn't most single guys want these pics to be public?)

The Cardinals' quarterback is in a bit of hot water this week after pictures surfaced on the Internet of the former USC star partying at his Phoenix-area home. (Pun incidental?)

One of the pictures shows Leinart in what appears to be a hot tub with four young women. (What appears to be?)

Another shows him holding a beer bong, with a girl crouching at the other end. (Why not write, "another shows him holding what appears to be a beer bong, with what appears to be a girl crouching on the other end.)

Arizona coach Ken Whisenhunt said Tuesday that he was "disappointed" in the quarterback, according to a report on the Web site of the East Valley Tribune. (But he left out the rest of the quote, Whisenhunt said he was disappointed, but then he went on to say, "A young, high profile, good looking guy like Leinart, with all of that money, in this city, I guess I just assumed he was banging hotter chicks.")


Here, maybe this'll make Leinart seem more normal.

But real men take a beer bong with class.... pinky finger extended.

the yes men

I watched a very funny documentary the other night called The Yes Men. It follows a couple of liberal activists who get into a couple of situations that made me laugh so hard I had to stop and pause the movie.

If you've got NetFlix or something, queue this one up, watch it, and read this post later. If you've seen it, or don't ever plan on watching it, continue reading.


These two guys started a website to spoof the World Trade Organization website. Somehow, their website was often mistaken for the real thing -- to the point where these guys were being asked to make appearances on behalf on the WTO!

So naturally, they made the appearances. One them does all of the public speaking as the WTO rep, and he does it EXTREMELY well. The documentary is worth watching just to see him. He is so perfect for the role that it's difficult to explain.

Here he is on CNBC. Just look at him!

At these appearances, he essentially takes the same positions as the WTO, except he doesn't sugar coat the rhetoric. So it comes off as extreme (or just extremely honest to some.)

For example, my favorite is when he was asked to appear on CNBC's marketwatch for a debate. He poses as a WTO rep named Granwyth Hulatberi (they use great fake names by the way, my favorite was "Kinnithrung Sprat.")

Stances he takes during the debate include: The WTO's key agenda is to privatize education, so your kids won't think the way you do, they will understand why free trade is good, and they will honor the right thinkers like Darwin and Friedman. And might makes right, the rich are right because they have power, and the poor are wrong because if they were right, they'd have power. The problem with liberals is that they rely too much on facts, but protesters against free trade don't understand the theories well enough. Markets are still the answer no matter what. (you really have to watch him say this stuff) For example, a market in human rights violations can allow countries that want to abuse people to buy “Justice Vouchers” from those who don’t.

But, the craziest part, is that no one EVER questions whether this guy is an actual WTO rep. People just find him to be a straight talking free market guy.

Once he was up on a stage in front of an auditorium full of PhD students advocating that free trade would be actually more beneficial to business owners than legalized slavery (because it is cheaper to pay for the laborer's wages in their own country, and that also allows businesses to avoid the stigma of depriving anyone of their "freedom.") In the presentation, he actually crunches some numbers to demonstrate. He finally argues that slavery should have never been abolished because had it truly been a problem, it would have been fixed by the market.


It's very funny, just watching him play the WTO rep is worth it. As far as globalization, I don't really have a stance either way. Even if it seems immoral to some, it's difficult to argue with the fact that people in third world countries choose to work in these sweatshops. No one is putting a gun to their head. The argument will always be that they're better off with our factories there pumping money into their economy. No one is stopping them from passing labor laws, and if they do, large companies can find another country's poor people to work for them. And in theory, this should eventually lead to a truly global market. (which will be a disaster for the US (imho)) I guess I like my economics how I like my coffee, Keynesian.

here's a reason

Here's a reason to vote for Obama (regardless of whether he can do it, at least he's got the right idea)

I remember sitting in finance classes my junior year and constantly asking questions that started with, "Well, couldn't you _____?" and the professor would respond, "Well,,, yes, someone could, but that's illegal."

"But who's going to catch you?"

"Most likely, the SEC."

"Most likely?"

"Ok, does anyone else have a question?"


So finally, one morning that semester in banking class, I decided that finance was not for me. (although I really knew all along, I was guided into that major in the first place)

Here's an interesting yet troubling op-ed from late last year: Ben Stein (yes, Ben Stein) is essentially saying that Goldman Sachs packaged and sold collateralized mortgage obligations (securities that represent claims to cash flows from pools of home mortgages) and at the same time, was shorting the entire industry (betting that the price of the stuff they just sold would go down.)

He also discusses an article written by a prominent Goldman economist who is actively spreading the doomsday propaganda we hear so much of these days, and insinuates that many others with Goldman's interests in mind are doing the same.

Fuck.

I wonder if it's even possible for the government to stop this. The SEC is underfunded (I learned this while trying to apply for a job with them in 2006. When I finally got an HR manager on the phone, she ended up spilling her guts to me. I simply asked "Can I send you my resume?" And she rambled on for 10 minutes about their lack of funding in all areas.) (Ironic that I couldn't get a job with the SEC when I actually believe in their mission.) And their people are underpaid compared to others in the industry. Most people who start out working for the SEC, end up leaving to spend the prime of their career helping companies fight the SEC.

Martha Stewart was put in prison for because of a stock tip that helped her avoid a $45,000 loss. Meanwhile, according to Stein's sources, Goldman Sachs sold roughly $100,000,000,000 worth of mortgage backed securities in the last three years, then shorted the entire industry and watched it crumble.

Is that even possible? (it's more than possible that I'm just missing something here)

The US capital markets have truly separated us from the rest of the world. But like everything else, bad things happen when people start abusing.

Maybe I should apply for a job at Goldman Sachs, they probably need people to count their money.

speech

(sorry, this is kind of dated, I wrote it last week, but proofreading has become an issue)

Barack Obama gave a speech on race last week. I'm assuming the motivation behind it was to address the anti-white/anti-American comments made by his Minister (Jeremiah Wright.) Some of Wright's comments included:

"Who cares about what a poor black man has to face every day in a country and in a culture controlled by rich white people?"

"We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye. We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant. Because the stuff we have done overseas has now brought right back into our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."

Obama could have distanced himself from Wright. He could have simply stated that he disagreed with Wright's comments and put an end to the "controversy." But he didn't.

Although Obama didn't support his Minster's comments - he called them a "profoundly distorted view of this country" - he did not distance himself from Wright either. In fact, Obama defended him. He defended a man who blamed America for 9/11 and referred to attack as nothing more than 'America's chickens coming home to roost.'

Addressing Wright's angry comments, Obama said,

"But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races."

I've heard him make statements like this before and I like it, I think it's sincere. ("Brave", adds Cindy) ("Mature" adds me)

He's actually respecting the intelligence of his listeners.


Remember when Bill Clinton first responded to allegations of marijuana use by saying, "When I was in England, I experimented with marijuana a time or two, and I didn't like it. I didn't inhale and never tried it again."

If that statement was somehow true, wouldn't it be worse than if he was lying? If in fact he didn't inhale, then what was there to not like about smoking marijuana? It certainly wasn't the taste of smoke in his mouth that bothered him. We all know how much he likes cigars.

And what about the fact that by not inhaling, he was wasting somebody else's weed? It's probably safe to assume that the people with whom he was smoking would have enjoyed inhaling the shit that Bill wasted.


back to Obama. Obama seems sympathetic. Not that Hillary Clinton is unsympathetic, but from reading parts of Obama's book and listening to him speak, it seems to come more naturally for him. I wonder how much of that has to do with the fact that he is an extreme minority? (by that I mean although he's black, he's a minority amongst black people in this country because he is not a descendant of west African slaves.) When the racial group to which you belong does not exist, when you are without those who understand your own racial issues, it forces you to examine those of others.


Two tangentially related things:

1) Juice used to work out at Obama's gym. He told me that he's seen Obama lifting weights in a pair of full length spandex pants (Juice, can you please expound on that?)

2) Paul Krugman believes that Clinton's health care plan has much better chance of truly being universal than Obama's. (that was for you HG)


I'm as tired of hearing about all of this "Change" bullshit as everyone else. America's not so bad that we need a candidate campaigning exclusively on a platform of "Change." Constantly hearing about "change" actually makes me want to vote for Nader... again.

But we still rule the world. Obama's minister has a point. If the quest for world dominance was a football game, in 2001 we were up 58-0, and on 9/11 the Islamic extremists kicked a field goal. In response to their FG, our second string QB came in and hastily threw and interception that was run back for a touchdown. But we're still up 58-10.