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.

just in case

For those following the Eliot Spitzer saga, the New York Times is reporting that he is expected to resign.

Here’s a great picture of him from yesterday’s press conference.

Perfect

The company that provided Spitzer with the prostitute - The Emperor's Club - uses a seven tier scale to rate its women. The most coveted women are anointed with the elusive "7 diamond" rating and charge $3,100 per hour for their services. The Emperor's Club website has been shut down, but the Tribune has posted four screen shots from the website to show the difference between a five diamond and three diamond girl. (There is a difference.) Spitzer allegedly paid $4,300 for a 2.5 hour session.

There is something to be said about Spitzer's decision to spend more time with a ~$1,700 an hour companion rather than one of the pricier options. New Yorkers should be proud. Their Governor went out and got more for his money. Who wouldn't want a guy like that in the Governor's mansion? Fiscal responsibility is what the new Democratic party is all about.

Shouldn't this strengthen his position nationally? I thought I'd wake up this morning and read a story about his exploratory committee. I'd almost say that Barack Obama should consider going after Spitzer's endorsement now, while the price is low.

I say "almost" because there is a large could beneath this silver lining. While Spitzer served as the Attorney General of New York, he prosecuted at least two prostitution rings. (I just had de ja vu by the way.) And since an Attorney General has discretion regarding who he prosecutes, voters will correctly label Spitzer as a hypocrite. If you're a poon-hound yourself, show some respect and let the other poon-hounds of New York have their fun. Don't be a hypocrite. Don't be like one of those vocally 'anti-gay' gay guys.

I’m curious to know how much time was spent by US Attorneys and the FBI on the investigation that led to this 55 page, 129 paragraph complaint. Tax dollars well spent. I imagine that a homeless family in New Orleans will be relieved to hear that the federal government is still able to deploy teams of investigators armed with the latest in wire tapping technology to take down an interstate prostitution ring.

This filth is destroying our country!

If prostitution is illegal, shouldn’t pornography be illegal? One woman gets paid for sex. The other gets paid for sex, and for allowing the sex to be videotaped and sold to the general public.

read any good books lately?

I'd love some recommendations.

I've yet to read Mayflower, though I've been meaning to.


Also, anyone see this op-ed? $2 trillion is now the estimated cost of the war.

$2,000,000,000,000

That's two million millions!


By how many votes did Gore lose Florida in 2000?

I remember watching George Bush debate in 2000 and wondering to myself, "How is he gonna trick the middle class and poor white voters?"

It's funny how historically conservative economic policy is much more rooted in Social Darwinism than that of liberals. And yet I'd bet a testicle that a vast majority of those who don't believe in evolution also consider themselves Conservative.

and remember these heros? Here's a press release from the Federal Election Committee website discussing the $630,000 in fines paid by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth for accepting contributions in violation of federal limits (among other things.)

Wow, that's a shocker!! "So those guys were heavily financed under the table by Republican donors? Geez... Who would have guessed that???"

Was it me who once advocated that Dick Cheney be tried for Treason? I think his conduct falls under the "adheres to their enemies" or "giving them comfort... elsewhere" language. I'm sure Bin Laden felt pretty comfortable when the U.S. military decided to stop looking for him and started focusing their efforts on Saddam Husein.

I can just picture someone trying to sell the idea of 9/11 to Bin Laden by saying, "And after you attack their innocent civilians, not only are they not going to come after you with all of their resources, but I believe that the U.S. government will actually invest a huge chunk of their retirement money into searching for a man who actually thinks of you as a threat to him and his regime!"

(See the bottom of this page, one of the least discussed and most interesting 60 Minutes stories I've seen. (interview with Saddam Hussein's Interrogator))

$2,000,000,000,000. And we're using it to KILL PEOPLE.


and the funny thing is, I'm just a moderate.

quick story about a dump I took yesterday

To make a long story short, I actually looked down into the toilet, then looked up at the light and said out loud, "This is going to be a war of attrition."