The Federal Reserve’s Pixie Sticks

Published on April 16, 2009 in Economics and Politics. 3 Comments Tags: , , , , , , .

To demonstrate blame, and show that the Federal Reserve should be held accountable for the current economic catastrophe that has resulted out of the easy credit and money it’s been providing, Peter Schiff (President, Euro Pacific Capital Inc.) uses the analogy, “If a kindergarten teacher passes out a bunch of soda pop and pixie sticks, and then leaves the classroom, who’s to blame for the mess that happens?”

Some huge truth exists at the face value of Mr. Schiff’s words as-is, but I think this goes deeper, and I’ll take a step back to do you one further: Why are kindergarteners running companies to begin with? Any immediate interpretation of Mr. Schiff’s analogy likely leaves this question unanswered, thus allowing the rebuttal, “The problem is that the people who run companies are acting like kindergarteners!” I have heard this argument and equivalents of it — not only in the context of a response to Mr. Schiff’s point; certainly the thought, “Greedy business managers are to blame!!” exists regardless — and yes, it’s true that business owners and managers sometimes can and should be pointed at with blaming fingers. But I do believe that quite a lot of the blame that they usually receive actually belongs with — sing it with me — the Federal Reserve. That is to say, not only is the Fed responsible for distributing candy and soda (or in their case, unsound money and easy credit); it is also very responsible for spreading the reprehensibly infantile mindset that abuses these treats and makes a mess.

Read on.

In literal instances of kindergarteners and candy, the tendency would be to blame the teacher for providing the means (pixie sticks and soda) for the students to make a mess, certainly. However, it wouldn’t necessarily follow, or even likely follow, that the teacher would also be blamed for the mindset of the young students, whatever inspired them to make a mess with the provided treats. One might attribute this to the kids’ parents not bringing them up properly, or more likely, the fact that the kids are young and naïve and “didn’t know any better.” Whatever. The point is, this blame would probably and justifiably be associated away from the teacher. Furthermore, any decent teacher would explain to their students, upon returning to such a mess, “What you did is wrong…I now realize I shouldn’t have left you alone with candy and soda pop…we both learned something today…let’s not let this happen again.” With the Fed, however, the opposite is the case: a destructive mindset is actively promoted, any retrospect after the fact is minimized and justified, and the exact same efforts and strategies are applied again. Lather, rinse, repeat. Chairman Ben Bernanke, for example, justifying printing trillions of dollars and buying up toxic assets, and then telling everybody, “Be confident; our efforts will restore market stability,” as though money that is printed at whim is finally capable of anything other than self-destruction (hint: it isn’t). Only more mess can result, and Ben Bernanke is preaching the contrary and fully aware of what he’s doing. This is a state of mind, and vocalization of it, that is morally akin to that of the school teacher who not only passes out candy to all of the kids in class, but also sticks around to instigate the sugary mess. A kindergarten teacher, standing in front of the chalkboard and shouting, “Throw it around! Smear it all over your faces!! This will all work out!” and then excuses or ignores the ramifications (e.g. the fucking mess) of providing the treats and accompanying bad advice, and does it all over again. …And again, and again.

We are now observing manifestations of such thinking that are messier than ever: a still weakening dollar, falling stocks, depleting bank accounts, closing companies and lost jobs…and the Fed’s cries and cheers are louder than ever: “We are going to print more money! TARP! Bailouts and stimulus packages! Shake your soda even harder before opening it, kids!” as though a reckless monetary policy isn’t a huge part of why this mess exists in the first place (hint: it is), as though the best way to repair a failed system is to reinforce the fundamentally unsound principles on which it is founded (hint: …well, you already know).

Any sane person would warrant such a teacher unfit for their duty, being in charge of a kindergarten class, yet this sort of nonsense and damaging thinking is allowed to go on at a central bank, where entire nation’s economies are dictated and decided, not just one group of kids’ manners, not just whether one group of kids gets cavities.

This won’t do at all.

Just as this kind of destructive mentality is unfit to teach kindergarten, it is unfit to regulate an economy. In fact, I’ll go as far as to say that there exists no place at all for this kind of abuse, and extreme and repetitive incompetence.

It’s time to grow up and wake up, and this Federal Reserve bullshit.

CLICK HERE to support HR 1207: Ron Paul’s bill to audit the Federal Reserve

‘God: A conversation.’

Published on March 2, 2009 in For Writing's Sake, God and Religion and Humor. 14 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , , , .

A week or maybe two weeks ago, some knocking started at a door I was on the other side of. There wasn’t supposed to be any company, so I was pretty stoked. Unexpected knocking can always mean a really good deal on magazine subscriptions. And then the thought arrived, that ‘Penthouse’ probably isn’t the sort of magazine that gets sold door-to-door, as part of any fundraiser. Dang. Even so, maybe ‘Ladies Home Journal.’ Pages from it are also pretty…useful. But I was wrong twice. No porno subscriptions. Nothing for that variety of hobby. Indeed, the man at the door had come to save my soul. My very own Christian.

For sure, I’ve noticed how annoyed or pissed off a lot of people get when an on-duty Christian shows up at their door. I’m no fanatic of the warm flow of holy rhetoric, but I don’t really sweat and clench fists each time I peek through a window blinds slot and see somebody in a gold cross holding a briefcase, ya know? The point, though, is that the religious seem to be doing a worse job than ever when it comes to the marketing and advertising of this supreme and invisible judge’s Judge in the sky. The Master of our fates. I think now would be a pretty good time for that Second Coming of Christ thing. Fake it, even. All that’s really needed to pull it off is a man with charisma and facial hair. Somebody a lot like the guy who sold that laundry bleach stuff, OxiClean. Billy Mays was his name. And that dude convinced everybody with laundry that they would be ground up and woven into sweaters unless they credit-carded vast amounts of OxiClean “within the next 20 minutes.” You remember. You still have some of the OxiClean, even (and you’ll never run out). The Jesus-like wisdom and facial hair of Billy Mays is key. No more door-to-door nonsense, and for sure no more, “Come to our church and give it a chance,” free trials. Both of these can only breed the skepticism, “It’s too good to be true.” Religion needs a Billy Mays and a pricetag. Then anybody could be made to believe.

Save yourself and your soul, only $9.95 a month.*
* $12.95/month after first six months.

God: The infomercial.

But I’m rambling. And by now I’ve already answered the door…

“Hello. What’s going on?”

“I have good news.”

“Oh?”

“You’ve been saved,” the guy says and smiles.

You are already fully aware of how the next couple exchanges went; you’ve heard it all before: “Jesus Christ is a champion…I’m from such-and-such church…can I have a minute of your time?” So we can skip that noise, and begin again at actual conversation. And very sincerely, at first I tried to make it so the talk could end with nobody pissed off, and without any lying promise that I’d check out the guy’s church. A lying commitment is a quick and always peaceful way to end such conversations with one of God’s messengers. But if they later realize you didn’t actually show, they will return to your house. With anger, daggers, and likely a foaming mouth. …More or less.

The guy asks, “So do you believe in God?”

I shrug. “The same God you believe in? Tell me what exactly you mean by ‘God,’ and then I’ll answer.”

As he tightens his fingers around his Bible without really realizing it, “God created man and animals and the entire world…loves us all…we should open ourselves up to Him…live lives He approves of, so we can be with Him forever in Heaven after our time here on Earth.”

“No, sorry. I don’t subscribe to all that.”

“Well, then may I ask what you do believe?” the guy asks.

“I believe all species and types of life have a shared source or origin, or whatever you want to call it, but I think tha-…”

I’m cut off, “And what is that source?” by a criticizing tone that doesn’t expect an answer.

“I don’t know how consciousness or whatever came to be. Actual life and perspective the way most people contemplate it. If that’s what you’re getting at, I can’t be positive. And it doesn’t really matter to me. It’s all good.”

“So, you’re open to the possibility of God, just choosing to ignore it, and not believe? Is that right?”

I believe man created the Biblical God you’re talking and thinking under, and not the other way around. I can’t be sure if there is such a thing as any kind of god, or how specifically any of us got here, but I honestly, very sincerely, can’t swallow the notion that any of us or any of this is the result of a week’s worth of Genesis and magic tricks. No offense meant by ‘magic tricks,’ sorry. What I mean is, everything has been and is still very gradually developing and evolving. We weren’t created the same way a painter makes a picture, and then the art is all done.”

If the guy were a vampire (and maybe he is), then my words were a silver bullet. Or whatever works on vampires. I know garlic does for sure, but spices shouldn’t be included in any analogy. It just sounds stupid. But yea, the guy grew livid instantly. …Speaking of magic tricks.

“Everything is evolving? Evolution??!” the guy yells and asks. “Are you one of those people who think we come from monkeys??”

“No,” I answer.

“What do you mean, ‘No’?”

“Evolution by natural selection, I think is what you’re talking about, it absolutely doesn’t demand that monkeys as we know them now are a precursor to people as we know them now. What do you even mean by ‘monkeys’? Are you asking if I think we come from chimps? Gorillas? Both? A chimp and a gorilla had sex thousands of years ago, and thus the first human? Do you even know what you’re asking?”

I don’t think that you should decide you don’t believe something, before you know what it actually is. Is that unfair?

He sighs with too much effort, “Any kind of monkey. Do you think that our ancestors were apes?”

“I believe what all available evidence points towards, that we share a common ancestor with apes. Like I said, I believe all species and types of life have a shared origin.”

“But you do believe in this THEORY!! of Evolution??!”

Point some fingers at that word ‘theory,’ by the way.

And get bent, everybody who pronounces the ‘theory’ in ‘theory of evolution’ with some kind of upward inflection on it. You know what I’m talking about. “Theory of Evolution,” like they’re the first person to ever stumble into and discover this apparent anomaly, and it’s their duty to spread the insight and good news to all of humanity using their best William Shatner impersonation. It’s not necessary.

“Dude, this conversation is getting terrible,” I say. “What do you mean, ‘believe in’ the theory of evolution? And why are you saying ‘theory’ with a changed tone of voice?”

“The way you look at it, nature and a lot of time is a replacement for God. You believe in it’s power. And it is a belief, because it’s a theory, and not a fact.”

“No. No, no, no. There is nothing to believe in the way you’re talking about belief. No faith or hope required. I do not hope that the genes of which we’re all made don’t replicate perfectly, and that variations at the genetic level gradually develop complexity and more capable animals and organisms. This is in fact exactly how it goes. And theories aren’t inferior to facts; they’re entirely different. Facts are pieces of data. Information. And a theory is an explanation that accounts for facts. A theory is the result of facts that have been successfully put together, it’s right to say. For another example, heliocentrism is also ‘just a theory.’ It’s ‘just a theory!’ that a sun is at the center of our solar system, but I doubt you go around pointing that out, and we do, after all, call our situation a solar system.”

“But if there is no God, then how did life begin?? What does Darwin have to say about that?”

If you have a clue, you’re now saying to yourself, “Evolution deals with the origin of species, not the origin of life.”

What I was thinking, and what I said, simply, “This conversation is over.”

I’d rather concede. Whatever else is going on, absolutely much more important to me than this guy’s regressing madness. I don’t believe in his God. Full disclosure. I apologize. Jesus is not my homeboy.

God: The conversation I don’t feel like having.

What a completely mute point, by the way, “If there is no God, then how did life get here?” An unaimed bullet with nothing inside of it. How did life get here? Nobody is sure how they themselves even ‘got here’ or became ‘alive.’ Any guess could I suppose start with, “My mom and dad had sex,” but what then? Talk of reproductive organs can’t answer anything about how or when you exactly began. When did you actually become aware of yourself, and realize things are going on? You aren’t sure. You can’t answer. Neither can I. And since we’re both unable to answer the simpler question of how our own specific lives even started, a temporary consensus of uncertainty is indeed available to us in discussing this much larger “Where do we come from? How did we get here?” But I know you can’t just stop there and settle. Because surely, by now you’ve already achieved an answer that’s more correct than everybody else’s, and what else is possible is no longer relevant.

God: Better than whatever everybody else believes.

The guy hadn’t actually left yet, by the way.

“Ah! So you don’t want to talk anymore, because I’ve asked a question that science can’t answer?” curious eyebrows inquire.

“I don’t want to talk, because this conversation has become obsolete to me.”

“Obsolete?”

“Yes. I get by without faking absolutely certainty about our situation. I’d rather think or suspend judgment than pretend. And hypothetically, even if some sort of god, any god, does exist, and our lives can be considered gifts from Her: Do you think She wants us to praise Her forever, rather than simply enjoy the present? Would any decent and genuine gift giver really want you kissing their ass all the time for what they’ve done? Would any decent god want infinite praise for what, as far as anyone can tell, only came natural to Her?

“I’m not pretending,” he corrects me. “I have a personal relationship with God, and know who He, not she, is. And I don’t view myself as doing any ‘butt kissing.’ Thanking and being respectful is appreciation. And what difference does it make to you if myself and people like me, we believe in and preach about God’s love? What’s it to you?”

“Gods and religions have resulted in quite a bit more than basic preaching. The case is often made that organized religion has resulted in more murders and wars and oppression than has anything else.”

The guy’s pupils circle the perimeter of his eye sockets and he starts, “First of all, I disagree, and say greed as the biggest source of killing. Also, anything can be used in excess or get abused. Get hit by a bolt of lightning or a livewire, and you’re done for. Yet a paramedic can grab two electrode pads of a defibrillator and press down onto somebody’s chest to stop cardiac arrest. So, is electricity always a dangerous thing? Sorry, but I don’t think religion is unconditionally bad; it’s misused to be that way. And examples of this are everywhere. People have come to my church asking for help to get off drugs, and received it. And it worked. You would probably say any praying and recovering cancer patient is in fact only rambling into the hospital walls they’re surrounded by, but I assure you that there is much more going on than that. About the wars and abortion clinic attacks, and everything else I’m sure you’ve seen: am I to deny that which I truly believe in and love, because you can cite other believers’ abuse? God does exist outside of as-seen-on-TV attacks and bombings.”

God: Electrode pads.

God: Hospital room walls.

God…dammit, I’m convinced the guy had that speech prewritten and practiced.

‘The Dark Knight’

Published on February 19, 2009 in TV and Movies. 2 Comments Tags: , , , , , , .

I’ve heard some stuff. Maybe not a testament to the general consensus, and certainly not thought-out, but I’ve encountered similar versions of this mindset more than a few times, and would like to give the retards who possess it the attention that they deserve.

Here’s an example instead of an explanation of what I’m talking about (from some message board):

Heath Ledger is Overrated

Why on earth is Ledger getting so much praise? before he was dead, no one was talking about this guy. even once the dark knight was announced and we all knew he was playing the joker, everyone said, ‘jack nicholson is the only joker’. but then once he died, before the movie was released, they said this was the ‘performance of the year’ and nonsense along those lines.

The word overrated is itself: overrated. Any use at all is abuse, and you’re a mindless chump. About every time, this word is used when describing something of artistic merit (or alleged merit, I guess, with which the critic evidently disagrees), rendering its application entirely useless.

Saying the Joker in ‘The Dark Knight’ is overrated is to say that the role (two things: the creativity that went into its design, and the skill required to play it the way Heath Ledger played it) isn’t worthy of the received praise. For everybody who’s made something like this statement, or at least agrees with it: (a) you’re a moron, and (b) you’re a moron who can’t see that this is an entirely impossible and purposeless point to try for. There exists NO translation of ‘technical difficulty and invested effort’ to ‘merit of the end result,’ and all you’re essentially saying is, “I do not like the Joker in ‘The Dark Knight’ as much as some other people do.” And that makes you a liar in the first place, but more importantly, you never notice this distinction, and associate your “overrated” statements with a person who has an opinion (e.g. YOU); you make the claim and offer your words as fact, as having some application outside of your own skull. You’re wrong. Shutup.

But let’s have a review (hint: it’s my opinion). Dig this…

‘The Dark Knight’ is piggybacked by its lead villain. Marketed and anticipated through the Joker’s role, and he’s the remaining impression after it all. Every discussion concerning ‘The Dark Knight’ as a whole doesn’t merely include The Joker; it probably surrounds him entirely. Be it amazement, or some asshole liar saying how “overrated” the character is, the Joker, by himself, decides and dictates impressions of the entire film. And it is not necessarily a bad thing that the villain in any movie receives a lot of attention, but it absolutely is a bad thing that the villain (or any one role in a movie that tries to feature many significant roles) overshadows and distracts from the movie itself. And that’s exactly what’s going on here: with ‘Dark Knight,’ you find yourself sincerely rooting for the Joker to win, and when he isn’t on-screen, you’re waiting.

‘The Dark Knight’ is not a bad movie otherwise; it’s okay. My point is that the Joker distracts you from a lot of the otherwise (this movie’s title should be his name). The plot is about average, on par with the caliber of an okay action movie. And make no mistake; that’s what ‘Dark Knight’ essentially is: an okay action movie. It is NOT a superhero movie. There is no epic plot or even super powers. Nothing of the setting seems even slightly fictional or at all contrived. You do not watch ‘Dark Knight’ and feel like an onlooker and outside observer of unreal characters existing in an unreal setting, Gotham City; you feel like you’re watching mostly believable characters existing in present day New York or some other huge urban city you’ve been to or know about. Even Batman himself seems much more like a cop than a superhero, like he’d be more appropriate fighting crime outside of the cape and mask. Superheroes are supposed to slap-down common criminals en route to the big-time villain, and jet from the scene before the cops cuff the crippled and wounded bad guys. What’s supposed to happen is, the cops are losing in some shootout or are unable to catch somebody, and then, “Batman to the rescue!” But In ‘Dark Knight,’ Batman works beside and directly with the cops all the time, thus seeming like a direct report of Gordon, and just a really good cop himself.

Batman is no superhero in this movie.

Further, Bruce Wayne is no Batman in this movie. Instead of the expected, a superhero and his alter ego, two separate people exist. There are two entirely detached entities. The egocentric and chauvinistic nature of Bruce Wayne in ‘Dark Knight’ hugely conflicts with the selflessness and overall attitude towards people and society required to be Batman (or any superhero, since I guess Batman is at least supposed to be one of those). Bruce Wayne and Batman aren’t even similar in this movie. And some might argue that this conflict of identities is accounted for, and represented by the debate Batman faces as to whether he should just retire and give up. Somebody might say, “It’s true; Batman doesn’t have the mind to be a hero, and that exactly is why he thinks about giving up on the whole gig.” And that’s fine, BUT the situation is not presented to us in this manner. Any talk of Batman giving up is due to his realization that he might be causing more harm than good; Batman considers retiring with the people’s best interest in mind and at heart, and his demeanor conflicts with Bruce Wayne’s dickheadedness and ego just the same (cue the spotlight on Bruce as he shows up at a charity that’s in somebody else’s honor, in a private jet, with really, really hot sluts). Bruce is an asshole when his mask is off and he isn’t Batman, and here is the personality that his name should’ve existed through:

harveydent

(Matter of fact, I’ll take an entire actor swap. Is there actually even any dispute as to who has the better Batman chin?)

Politician, Harvey Dent. And he is the man. Sleek. Charismatic. Charming. Determined. Really.

Throughout ‘Dark Knight,’ there exists some huge discrepancies inside Rachel’s (Bruce’s woman) head, as to who she wants to be with, Bruce or Harvey. And I’m really left wondering what any of the confusion is about. Rachel eventually reveals her intent to be with Harvey rather than Bruce, but even so, there is an outward expression of all kinds of uncertainty until then, and it should’ve been a no-contest from the start. I think what I’m trying to say is this: I’m glad Rachel dies in this move. (Spoiler alert.)

A breakdown:

- Heath Ledger’s Joker is great, unlike anything you’ve seen. Harvey Dent is owed a second place trophy as far as characters are concerned, and the movie would’ve truly been improved considerably, had (a) a personality much like Harvey’s been adopted for Bruce Wayne, and (b) Aaron Eckhart played the God damn part. The Batman you get instead is just alright, and unarguably contradicting, both with his unmasked alter ego, and what is expected in a superhero. Rachel flat-out sucks. Other characters are just right: Gordon is a good cop. Alfred is wise. Morgan Freeman is number one in all our hearts (in ‘Dark Knight,’ he’s an inventor and a bad ass called Lucius Fox, but I prefer to call him Morgan Freeman in all of his roles).

- The story is what’s expected: Mayhem and destruction, and something needs to be done about it.

- A certain burn victim towards the end of the movie is fucked more because of CGI than the actual fire, but the movie has mostly great visuals (was incredible in IMAX). The sound is…well, whatever. ‘Hero’ by Nickelback wasn’t featured during the end credits, so it’s all good.

Overall, ‘The Dark Knight’ is worth checking out. Okay storyline (good amount of ass-beatings and stuff blowing up, at any rate). Hot chicks and Christian Bale/Aaron Eckhart (depending on your fancy). And, as I’ve made painfully obvious by now, the Joker is unreal (and absolutely deserving of the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor he’ll probably win in three days, as well as the awards he’s already won).

7.4 out of 10

A Short History of Morals and Ethics

Published on February 11, 2009 in God and Religion and The Rationalizing Man. 3 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , .

Some Christian ammunition is the question, “How could we know right from wrong, if there is no governing presence, nothing to decide what’s right or wrong?” It’s an argument for the existence of God. There are certain rules and there is a certain moral order to everything going on, so somebody or something must’ve ordered everything to go on this way. “Our morals come from God,” they say.

And they’ve got it completely wrong.

Here’s how morals, and the implications of adhering to them could come to be, and how they did. Here’s an idea anybody can fit their head around, and how our ancestors did. Dig this…

Homo sapiens (and cousins of ours which no longer exist) were stomping around on this cooling and disgusting planet between 10,000 and 50,000 years ago. This is about the time that communities and cultures were first really getting started, and falling in-line with what we now understand them to be. Before then, people were using tools and fire, but nobody was really figuring much else out (a harmless combination). And not long after, people had already started painting each other’s faces and making calendars. 10,000 to 50,000 years ago is when we need. And picture this: nasty and primitive versions of us, biting and bashing each other around, taking sexually whatever dirty members of the other gender appeared to have the least lice bugs (or maybe more lice bugs was more appealing, and maybe nobody was picky about their mate’s gender); food was probably scarce and probably fought back (or at least our ancestors fought for it); weather wasn’t understood by anybody. It was fucking chaos. Madness, nonstop and all over the place.

Given this, it isn’t difficult at all to consider that somebody, at some point, realized or thought that there might be a better way to conduct one’s self, and deal with all the predator and lice bug and weather crap. That there’s a better way than fighting and struggling, and dying miserably anyway. You can conceive of a thousand different scenarios that this might’ve first happened inside the context of, all equally likely and possible.

Two cavemen, like usual, were murdering and beating the shit out of each other. Some kind of battle to decide who got to take home and enjoy the rotting mastodon or elephant corpse they both had stumbled into simultaneously enough. Then, an idea. Something was imagined. “Fuck, there is food here for both of us! And if we work together, we can relocate and prepare it more efficiently!” Maybe they didn’t have words like “efficiently” or “fuck,” or any speech other than grunts, but you can see my point without our language. Celestial intervening to the side, it was realized and communicated that there is a mutual benefit to combining goals. Things can get done faster, and with less effort. Something like teamwork. It isn’t hard to think that this realization went on, and was reaffirmed and repeated many times (and long before any alleged 10 Commandments delivery atop Mount Sinai; humans never would’ve made it that far had they been killing each other at every whim before then).

From the start, we’ve been working things out. And ideas like this one are absolutely the foundations for tribes and small societies, how ubiquitous and universal rules — call them morals if you’d like to — were realized and first passed into any kind of legislation. People noticed that they can get more done and generally have a better time doing so if they look out for one another, and they started spreading that message. I’m not finding any question that necessitates a miracle as an answer. It is all that simple, and we are all — still — that capable.

I think a lot of people are confused or get confused, and think they can’t pull apart morals and religion. Mostly (only) because they never have actually tried to think about it this way. And thus, some of the nonsense expressions and conventional wisdoms that get passed around amongst us: “He found God,” with the implications that whoever we’re talking about will correct their wrongs and live a better, more fulfilling life than they would’ve otherwise been capable. Fundamentalist parents that would shit and piss all over themselves (and each other), if they were to learn that their child is dating “an atheist!” Stuff like that.

There’s a fantastic conversation in our history, which begins with French scientist Pierre-Simon de Laplace being asked to come and present his work by the Emperor Napoleon. Laplace developed and wrote a model and book called Mécanique Céleste (Celestial Mechanics), which uses mathematical equations to demonstrate how our solar system operates. Laplace is cited as the first to show all of this. Overwhelmed and confused, Napoleon asks why there is no God portrayed in Laplace’s system, to which Laplace replies, “Je n’ai pas besoin de cette hypothèse.”

He says he doesn’t need it.