One last post today - Jonah Goldberg has a very interesting column today on libertarianism. It's somewhat about cloning and the libertarian argument against the government regulation thereof, but there is also some very interesting stuff in there about the legitimacy of the libertarian argument in general - that libertarians in their zeal to protect individual liberty from government interference sometimes lose sight of (or just ignore) the duty of the individual to protect the integrity and safety of society (irrespective of government). Makes sense to me.
Friedrich Hayek was a brilliant advocate of the insight that law is only one of many cultural institutions which create either a thriving and healthy civilization or a declining and dysfunctional civilization. Language, religion, economics, literature, and (perhaps most of all) the diffuse and largely invisible habits and instincts of a given society — which we cumulatively call "tradition" — are more important and powerful than mere legislation. Hayek noted that "more 'intelligence' is incorporated in the system of rules of conduct than in man's thoughts and surroundings." He meant that we may not even know why we do some things — but that doesn't mean we don't do them for a good reason.
Tradition builds up around healthy institutions. Sometimes it calcifies and makes them like hardened arteries, unable to keep up with the fast pace of modern life. But, just as often, tradition keeps institutions going. It keeps rules necessary for civilization alive long past the lifespan of the individual rule-makers who crafted them. "Tradition," wrote Chesterton, paraphrasing Burke, "is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about."
This is some pretty heady stuff, but well worth the read if you have the time and the patience.
And there most definitely won't be any posts the next couple of days because I will be on the beach and away from a computer. I might go through withdrawal, but I'm sure I'll have plenty to say as soon as I get home.
I also got an email today from someone asking me to rail on SUV's for a while, and dammit, I will, but not today. I have a lot of strong opinions on that subject from both the largest of them ("whorewagons" I call them) to the smallest (what in the hell is the point?). I will write on the subject, probably some night next week.
Joe Klein the guy who wrote Primary Colors, has an AWESOME piece on Slate.com about populism and the Democratic party. I like to rail on populist politics because it just that - politics - and many of the most fundamental populist pillars have no rational basis within the realms of social science and economics. Politicians say these things and support policies like protectionism and progressive taxation just because they want to take advantage of the ignorance of their constiuency and get reelected and not necessarily because they want to do what's best for society. Now I know, this isn't much of a revelation - dishonest politics will always be around and is just a fact of life - but that doesn't mean that I can't still bitch about it, right?
The article is actually intended as a profile and criticism of Bob Shrum and the Democrats inability to get away from populist leanings that don't tend to work away from local elections, and it's clearly written in a style that shows the author is a Democrat who sincerely wants them to get their act straight so that they can start winning. If you'll remember, in spite of all of its insults and unglamorous protrayals, Primary Colors was really a piece of cheerleading in the end - effectively giving the message that Bill Clinton might have been a bad guy, but his heart was in the right place.
But back to the populism...
Even though it's intended as a comment on Shrum and the Dems, it provides some excellent descriptions and historical analysis of just what exactly populism is. And as I am but an amature, this piece describes it much more eloquently than I ever could:
Populism is one of the more romantic and less admirable American political traditions. It purports to represent the interests of the little guy - the people, not the powerful, to use the Shrum-Gore bumper sticker - but more often than not it has manifested itself as a witlessly reactionary bundle of prejudices: nativist, protectionist, isolationist, and paranoid. The central assumption is that the little guy is so aggrieved that he can only be roused to citizenship by an appeal to his basest suspicions. Exploitation and venality are posited as the central fact of American life: The country is being taken to the cleaners by wicked plutocrats.
This rather sour ideology did have one fleeting moment of high-mindedness a hundred years ago. The Populist Party promoted several programs - the progressive income tax, a central banking system with control over the money supply, antitrust regulation - to provide needed controls over an emerging national economy. These were embraced by Theodore Roosevelt’s Republicans and implemented by Woodrow Wilson’s Democrats. But the pure strain of populism has always been a bit too harsh, and too easily hijacked by demagogues, to be very successful politically....
If there is a victorious Democratic model, it is a politician who combines patriotic optimism with the promise to support individual initiative and demand corporate responsibility, as Franklin Roosevelt and Bill Clinton did. Formulations that use the word “against,” as in “the people against the powerful,” just aren’t very successful in America.
Or they’re not successful for very long. Richard Gephardt had a moment of daylight in Iowa in 1988, when Shrum produced a clever ad pounding on Korean imports: We let Hyundais into America scot-free while the Koreans strap nine “different taxes and tariffs” on American cars. This worked because it was Iowa and also because it was Gephardt, who came from a working-class background and had a real affinity for blue-collar protectionism. Shrum’s subsequent adventures in populism haven’t worked as well. In 1992, he put Bob Kerrey in a hockey goal “protecting” American products against unfair foreign competition. And then there was Gore’s sudden populist efflorescence in the fall of 2000. Both flopped. Kerrey later admitted he didn’t believe a word he was saying. Gore’s populism reeked of resentment and neurosis - was it “the powerful” or Bill Clinton he really disdained? The anger was a bit too sweaty and confused for most Americans, who tend not to elect angry presidents.
I found a good story last night in THE ECONOMIST listing and explaining the basic arguments in the human cloning debate. Good stuff and good reporting, but that's just common stuff for the magazine.
The first big blog story that I want to touch on today is the ludicrousy of the television show "Crossing Over with John Edward". I have heard of it before and always thought it sounded kind sketchy, but I never had the opportunity to watch it until last night when I was up late getting ready for this weekend's beach trip. HOLY CRAP! What a load of shit is this show? My God, I thought Miss Cleo was bad, but this show is so much worse.
If you haven't seen it, the premise is simple - people come and sit in the studio audience and this jackass John Edward asks them questions and convinces them that he's able to communicate with people in their life who have died.
First of all, this is really simple people, and I will say it slowly... IT'S... NOT... REAL......... DEAD... PEOPLE... ARE.... DEAD.... AND.... YOU...CANNOT.... TALK.... TO... THEM.... AFTER.... THEY.... DIE......... THAT.... IS.... THE... VERY... DEFINITION.... OF.... THE.... WORD.... "DEAD".
God, how stupid are these people to think it's real? It is so obvious that it's fake - I mean, if he really could talk to dead people, why does he need to ask people questions? Why doesn't he just sit in his room and chat with Abraham Lincoln or Elvis or Hitler and gather all of their secrets and write a book? I am sure that there are some things that dead people could tell him that he could then use to prove his gift. Things like buried treasure for example. I mean, what the hell? How stupid are these people to go into the studio and let him ask a few dumb questions and then start crying when he uses the process of elimination to deduce that their grandfather is named "Bob"? How freaking nuts is this crap?
Luckily, there are a lot of skeptics of the show who have published a lot of stuff on the internet about this show and I found some of it this morning. A particularly good example is this story posted by a guy named Ray Hyman. He says that this is nothing more than an example of "cold reading" which is just a psychic trick that has been around a long time:
Edward claims to have a direct line to the spirit world, but despite being an medium with a direct line to the dead, he seems to always be the one asking the questions. An objective look at the dialogue reveals the techniques of "cold reading." According to Ray Hyman, "'Cold reading' is a procedure by which a 'reader' is able to persuade a client whom he has never before met that he knows all about the client's personality and problems. At one extreme this can be accomplished by delivering a stock spiel, or 'psychological reading,' that consists of highly general statements that can fit any individual." At its best, cold reading gives the subject being read
an assessment uniquely tailored to him or her.
Cold reading relies on three core assumptions:
1) We are all basically more alike than different.
2) Our problems are generated by the same major transitions of birth, puberty, work, marriage, children, old age and death.
3) With the exception of curiosity seekers and troublemakers, people come to a medium/slash cold reader because they need someone to listen to their
problems on love, money, and health.
Edward has the additional benefit of knowing that everyone on his show specifically wants to get in touch with deceased family and friends. He throws out vague bits of bait that could apply to almost any human being and hooks his subjects into supplying him with all of the specific answers.
Yep, that's exactly it. The guy has to ask questions and watch for a reaction or he has no skills at all. Really, it's a lot like no-limit poker where the cards don't matter as much as the people who hold them.
So I was too tired last night to effectively remember the details of some of the stuff that was on the show, but Hyman also includes a awesome example of a reading that occurred on the show back when it first premiered:
The reading dialogues in "Crossing Over" are sometimes hilarious. The centerpiece interview of the first episode is between Edward and actress Linda Dano--who is, through an uncanny synchronicity, star of the soap opera "Another World." Here is a small excerpt:
Edward (continuing on the subject of Dano's grandmother): "I'm getting 'Bo-bo.'"
Dano (perplexed): "Bo-bo?"
Edward: "Like two 'b's. 'b-b'" (Dano is not making a connection with any human she knows.) "Wouldn't be a dog, would it?"
Dano: "Beebee?"
Edward: "Passed?"
Dano: "Yes!" (Dano pauses and a look of amazement passes across her face.) "No! I had a dog named 'Beebee'!"
Edward: "Passed?"
Dano: "You get dogs?"
I almost fell out of my chair when I heard that response. Of course he gets dogs. That might just be because Dano didn't call either of her grandparents "Bubbi"; there's probably no one in her family named Robert, Roberta or Bobbi; and presumably neither Dano, nor anyone in her family cared much for Bobo the Clown.
I'm getting a reading here.... "JE"... hmmm.... I smell something.... it smells really bad... like maybe it "passed" through Beebee one time....
I'm not going to write anything about the news today - I have a few other big topics I would rather cover. The big news stories today are these:
- The Palestinian criminals have left the Church of the Nativity. Most of them were released into the hellhole that is Gaza (essentially a fenced in cage that holds the savage animals living there there), and a few of them were exiled and spread among various countries in the EU. Now, I'm not a diplomat or an expert on international criminal procedure, but what the hell is going to stop these guys from smuggling themselves out of Belgium and back into the West Bank and causing more trouble? Personally, I am of the belief that the Israelis should have just waited them out and let everyone in the damn church get so hungry and tired and wasted to the point that they changed their names to Ahmed Donner and Yasser Lector and then I guarantee they would have gone to jail peacefully.
- In the meantime, I don't think the terrorists in Gaza are going to have much of a vacation as the Israeli army is getting ready to come in clean up the mess there, too. And for those of you who don't think the West Bank offensive wasn't very effective, check out this story.
- Spy Robert Hanssen, one of the wackiest nutjobs to have come along in a long time, is going to prison for life.
A friend of mine at work gave me a suggestion today when I mentioned that some people have been sending me emails about their perception that I'm not writing enough rants and raves and analysis - he suggested that maybe I might want to ask my readers to suggest topics that they want to hear my opinion - suggest topics for a myopic rant, in other words. Sounds good to me.
Now a lot of people, for instance, especially Tony DeWitt and James Blalack for example, have been doing a fine job of suggesting stories to post or otherwise contributing to the content. Please keep doing that - I appreciate it. But if you want to see me go off and write a few paragraphs on something esoteric or obscure or just dumb, then all you have to do is ask.
Traces of anthrax have been detected at the Federal Reserve in Washington. For some reason the BBC has this story but no one else does. That's rather interesting, I think.
I am a little confused by his decision to go to Colorado, but this map clearly shows the beginnings of the smiley face that the mailbox-bomber was beginning to draw. I am fairly impressed with the way he got the eyes to be so round and placed just right. Sure, it's easy to pull out a road map and plot circles, but road maps of different states are usually drawn to different scales and this guy converted the scales just right to make the eyes the same size. Think about it.
The more I think about it, the more impressed I am with his plan. It seems like a rather witty thing to set out and do. Yes, I know that some people were hurt and yes, I know the kid is sick, but it's still pretty witty. Like I said before, just imagine what the news would have been like if he had succeeded in getting most of the mouth drawn - it would have been HUGE news once someone realized what was happening.
There was a settlement in the "Wind Done Gone" paraody case today. I thought it was a very interesting idea for a book when I read about the book a couple of years ago and I would still like to read it someday.
I wasn't really going to write about the bombing in Russia today because there really isn't a whole lot to say about it. I realize that the Russians have been pretty brutal in Chechnya, but Chechnya is a part of Russia just as much as it Nevada or Utah and if a group of Native Americans tried to lead a revolt the U.S. would squash them with heavy military power. Nothing surprising or wrong with that. The people that bombed this parade and purposely killed a lot of children and elderly men are terrorists, pure and simple. That's the very definition of the word.
Nonetheless, as I was reading about this story in the NEW YORK TIMES I noticed the picture and I thought it was an interesting shot. I looked and there is a bigger version over at Yahoo.
Here's a rather interesting story - the World Wildlife Fund has won its legal dispute with the World Wrestling Federation over the initials WWF. From now on the "wrestling" organization will be known as the "WWE".
The grappler's official Website has already been changed to www.wwe.com to reflect the new moniker. The site greets surfers with the headline "Get the F out!" and a story quoting company CEO Linda McMahon explaining that the "federation" has been ejected and that "our new name puts the emphasis on the 'E' for entertainment, what our company does best." (Of course, we always knew wrestling was entertainment, not sport.)
Last year the WWF (the one that loves lions and tigers and claims more than 5 million members around the globe) won an injunction in London preventing the then WWF (the one which showcases two-legged dangerous creatures and claims to attract millions of viewers in 130 countries) from using the WWF logo, even the letters, except under specified circumstances in a limited way in the United States.
The wrestling group, which adopted its WWF logo in 1998, challenged the injunction earlier this year in London's Court of Appeal, but lost to the nature charity, which had been using its WWF trademark since 1968. The critter-friendly group still uses those initials worldwide on its panda logo and its www.wwf.org Website, even though outside the U.S. it has been known as the World Wide Fund for Nature since 1989.
On Monday, McMahon stated on her company's Website that dropping the "F" word from the World Wrestling Federation Entertainment Inc. title had been under consideration since the ruling in February. "The 'Fund' has indicated that although the two organizations are very different, there is the likelihood of confusion in the market place," McMahon noted, adding, "The Fund has indicated it does not want to have any association with the World Wrestling Federation."
Hey - I'm all for truth in advertising, although maybe they should take it a step further and work in some adjectives about small-town hicks, ignorant teenagers, steroids, and guys named Bubba. Actually, I just checked and WWEFSTHITSAGNB.com is still available...
I never think trees should be destroyed unless there is absolutely no alternative, but I also understand concerns about property damage caused by trees planted carelessly or improperly. Nonetheless, it seems like there is a scandal a'brewin here in Houston where some lady chained herself to a tree near her house to keep the homeowners association from tearing it down. Next up, the HOUSTON PRESS will write an expose and side with the homeowners and not the homeowners association. Just watch.
The rules, which will be phased in over the next six months, require the investment houses to provide more detailed disclosures of conflicts and give lawyers and ethics officers at the firms a leading role in acting as gatekeepers between analysts and investment bankers.
Analysts will be required to disclose whether they or their firms hold stock in the companies under review and to provide a detailed rundown of the percentage of all ratings that they have assigned to buy, hold and sell categories. They must provide a chart that plots the historical price movements of a security and indicates those points at which the analyst began and changed ratings and price targets.
The rules bar analysts and members of their households from investing in a company's securities before a public offering if the company is involved in the business sector that the analyst covers. They also impose blackout periods that prohibit analysts from trading in the companies that they follow for 30 days before and for 5 days after they issue a research report.
"These rules are an impressive first step toward educating investors of, and protecting them from, potential conflicts analysts face, realigning the motivations of analysts, and preventing and detecting misconduct," [SEC Chairman Harvey Pitt] said, adding that they did not preclude more rules later. "One of the questions we must ask ourselves is whether these proposals have teeth and bite."
But the rules do not curtail analysts from working for clients of a firm's investment banking arm. Nor do they offer any new legal remedies for investors who believe that they were misled by analysts or give such investors any greater ammunition in court proceedings. Instead, the rules give exchange officials greater latitude to discipline member organizations for conflicts of interest.
There is a very interesting quiz in the latest issue of Esquire - "The Test of Everything" or somesuch name like that. Hopefully I'll find an online version, but for now I would give it my highest reviews and recommend that you go pick it up at the store and check it out sometime. It's cool.
Yes, I know he is a criminal, and yes I know that people were put directly into danger, but here is one of the most interesting stories about the pipe-bomb guy. That dude is creative - I can only imagine just how much press the story would have gotten had they not caught him and a smiley face had started to appear on the maps they show on CNN. Unfortunately he wasn't all too smart to not have realized that talking on his cell phone would give away his location.
Yes, and they also charge you 7.50 just for a dialup connection to the internet, too. Talk about "luxury hotels are faced with an increasingly competitive market" Right.
Here's a good sign - Arafat cracked down on Hamas last night after yesterday's bombings. I don't know how long this will last because he has arrested people before and then released them when it suited his political needs, but we will see.
The arrests of the 16 Hamas members appeared to indicate that Arafat is responding to growing U.S. pressure to take action against Palestinian militants. Palestinian Information Minister Yasser Abed Rabbo said that the Palestinian Authority (news - web sites) "has already taken some measures to control the security situation."
In the past, Palestinian police have temporarily detained Hamas leaders, but then released them soon after. In some cases, it appeared the Palestinians took the moves largely to protect the Hamas leaders from possible Israeli attack.
In the meantime, Michael Kellypens a great editorial in SLATE about the paper trail that points to Arafat's very recent complicity with terrorist attacks.
Indeed. We may, for instance, disagree with the murder of six people and the wounding of 30 others on Jan. 17 at an Israeli girl’s bat mitzvah in the town of Hadera. That is one of the many acts of terrorism directly linked to Arafat’s control in documents found by Israeli forces in Palestinian Authority offices. These documents were organized in a 103-page report released by the Israeli government this week to support Sharon’s position that Israel cannot proceed with partner Arafat.
The New York Times buried its coverage of the report on A10 and sniffed that the evidence did “not appear to show definitively that the Palestinian leader ordered terror attacks.” The Washington Post gave it front-page play but was even more dismissive, treating the Israeli evidence with open disdain. The first “objective” characterization of the material, third paragraph, does not address the documentary evidence at all, but in a contrary slant notes that the report contains “a great many assertions and allegations for which no documentary proof is offered.” In paragraph 12, after three paragraphs of Palestinian officials and lawyers dismissing the evidence as propaganda, the Post reporter offers the first and only judgment supporting the Israeli side: “Nevertheless, some of the material in the report appears potentially damaging to the Palestinians, and could hurt their standing in international public opinion.”
Tony DeWitt wrote in this morning. It's a story about implantable ID chips for humans. I would say that I am not necessarily worried about this.... yet. I think the current use for people with certain medical conditions (Alzheimers) isn't a bad idea and is a legitimate use of the technology, although I can see how some people might see this as a step towards totalitarianism.
Scary. So much for the "you are being too paranoid" crowd.
And now for the final conclusion of this mornings Forrest's Show
As usual, an Arafat comment: Everyone knows that Arafat wants to UN there to use as a tool to his own ends. It's transparent and a given, and he knows everyone with a brain knows, but he also knows that many are brainless (especially in Europe). ;)
What I don't see harped on enough is the hypocrisy with which the "Palestinians" treat the UN. If they'd accepted the partition plan of resolution 181 peacably, they would have saved all the succeeding bloodshed and displacement. But next thing you know, they get 194 passed, and complain about that not being followed. And they continue to try to hijack the UN to their own purposes (so to speak). Consistency would dictate that they deride the UN as a tool that was used against them, rather than try to ban the weapon, but use it, too, which seems to be their philosophy. And, they being weaker, are following it to their doom.
As for Jenin, yes, again, their duplicity is boundless. I still don't understand the extent to which the Europeans are or aren't falling for it, however. (Either the magnitude or the reasoning.)
Ah, one of my favorite topics: traffic enforcement. I'm sure we're in agreement on the ridiculous hypocrisy, draconianism, and pettiness of the statues and enforcement in most states. I know that the worst thing in CA is not just the fine, but how the insurance companies can raise rates based on the point system, which is ridiculous.
I just want to point out some interesting points:
- Everyone should join the National Motorists Association. As far as I can tell, they are the closest thing we have to the NRA for drivers. It's like $35/yr. and there are some benefits. www.motorists.com
- I learned one thing: there are traffic lawyers out there! It may be different in different states, but I got a red light photo-enforcement ticket here and decided I could try to fight it myself, but it's easily worth $175 to have the lawyer I found do it. (Especially when the minimum fine is $271.) The lawyers I talked to claimed a very high success rate, depending on the charge, and why not, they know what they are doing and few people bother to use them. I would gladly pay more to a lawyer than the ticket might cost, just to tell the locality or state "Hey, screw you too, buddy. You are wasting our time and money. Just cause it's legal, doesn't make it right."
I found a good (i.e. cheap and competent, as far as I can tell) lawyer by asking one of the "resident expert" lawyers of the NMA (see above). The ticket is still being continued pending the appeal of a San Diego decision (that the legislature did not envision that the maintenance of the devices would be done by a party with the conflicted interest of getting paid on a per-conviction basis).
One footnote is that a lawyer that actually advertised on the NMA page (i.e. you could see the listing as a non-member) cost twice as much. Digging around for people in the know is always the way to do things.
I guess if you can fight it yourself, that's great, but I thought it was risky, and there was this one defense I thought I had, but it would take too much research... Incidentally, the Nolo Press book "How to Fight Your Ticket in CA" had lots of good readin', not sure how it is for the other states. Nolo Press is a great tool the in the arsenal of our democracy.
Good points all around, and yes, Nolo Press is awesome because they do a very good job of pointing out certain legal concepts that are actually rather simple to understand, but seem intimidating to persons not trained in the law. They sell books and have a great website loaded with information - not just about traffic tickets but everything legal: contracts, tennancy, criminal law. It's pretty obvious to anyone who reads their information that Nolo takes away, somewhat, from the demand for lawyers, at least when it comes to initial consultations and certain actions that are simple and don't require a detailed familiarity with complex legal procedure. Unfortunately, the Texas State Bar also saw this a couple of years ago and decided to sue Nolo under an obscure Texas law decreeing it to be illegal to practice law without a license. They claimed they were doing it for public safety reasons, but in reality it's pretty clear that they were moving to protect the high fee legal practices of the state's lawyers. Nolo defended on free speech grounds (in federal court, I think) and Nolo won. Good deal.
OK, some things just need to be shared with no comments or explanations whatsoever. Here is the first piece of Forrest's one act play, Man in my House (this is long).
Your blog arouses further "thoughts":
Fist of all, I felt we glossed over that bit about how the whole blog thinks I said I loved you or some similar gayness. Let's set the record straight about exactly what happened that hot, muggy, squalid night:
I was in the living room talking to my mother on the phone, which, like the bathroom, we all shared. At the close of our conversation, my mother, like many I'm sure, gave the closing that makes all men uncomfortable, "I love you."
"Um, lovyoutoo", I mumbled quickly. "Bye."
I had no sooner hung up the phone than I noticed that John, who reposed on the aged couch in communication with the TV, had perked up and become agitated.
"What? What did you say, dude?"
"Nothing to you. I was talking to my mom."
"Did you just say you loved me?"
"Dude, don't eavesdrop on my conversations with my mom!"
"You love me?? You LOVE ME??? What is that supposed to mean? Are you gay or something??"
"What? I don't love you, freak-job! I WASN'T TALKING TO YOU!"
"Why did you just say you love me? I just heard you! What the hell is wrong with you??"
"Dude, shut up. When did you start the whole gay hallucination thing? Or should I say 'halluci-gaytion'. Ha, ha, ha!" I laughed triumphantly at my
clever word-play.
"Forrest loves me? How long have you been loving me IN THE SAME HOUSE?
Aaargghh! I feel violated!" He looked around desperately. "I'm going to jump!" John moved toward the open window, which, for lack (or so we thought)
of a heat bilge, we kept connected to the outside breezes, (but ever in vain).
"I'm gonna jump!" he shouted to the benefit of the neighborhood. He thrust one cowboy-booted leg out the window. On the pavement below, nobody gathered
to witness the struggle between life and death.
Things were getting serious. "Wait!" I shouted. "John, I really don't love you! It was all a mistake!"
The intense emotions of suicide had brought a tear to John's eye. "Really?" he asked. "You mean, you don't love me?"
"I don't love you, John. I don't love you at all. I never did."
"You really don't love me?"
"That's right, John. I really don't love you. Really, really."
He sniffed, and his weight shifted back from the certain-to-injure-painfully-but-not-fatally height. "Really? That...that's
the nicest thing anyone ever said to me."
"John, I couldn't not love you more. If anyone ever loved you, it wasn't me. If you were the sun, and I was the moon, you'd never see me in the daytime.
I'd emigrate to a new solar system. I'd even go for a different *galaxy*."
John began looking confused again. I was losing him. "Don't worry," I reassured him. "I could use a worm-hole." But somehow, that still sounded
gay.
"John, if you were the desert, and I was the rain, that would be why you were a desert."
Fond thoughts of aridity back home seemed to revive his hope. "Yeah," he smiled weakly. "That's where I learned to rope cattle and tame rattlers..."
"John, if you were a cello, and I was Yo-yo Ma, I'd kill myself."
"Kill myself..." he echoed dreamily.
"UH, nevermind that one." I started to panic. How could I talk him down?
"John, they say only two things come out of Texas, steers and queers..."
No sooner had I spoken these words than John entered a state of berserk rage and leapt away from the window. "WHAT??" he thundered. "DID YOU JUST MIX UP
TEXAS WITH *OKLAHOMA*?!? Are you SICK boy?! No one that could do that could ever possibly love me!"
He sneered with the utmost dersision. "You really are from LA, aren't you?"
Finally, he collapsed back on the couch, and resumed his athletic voyeurism. (Through the television, not by watching me!)
But the muse in me had awoken, and would not quiet! "John, you ask, do I love you? Well, you tell me about not loving. Do Texans love gun control? Did Booth love Lincoln? Do flies love sanitation?"
"All right," John muttered distractedly. "Next topic."
"Did Saint George love the dragon? Does Batman love the Penguin? Does Arafat love Israel?"
"All right! I get the point. Shut up!"
"John, does the fox love the hounds? Does Clinton love Hillary? Does anyone love smelly armpits?"
"Are you saying I smell?"
"Does the gas station attendant love a chain-smoker? Does Superman love kryptonite? Does Jesus love the Devil? Does the mysophobe love a dirty
toilet?
Finally, my poetic mastery had broken through his self-doubt and despair. John jumped up, roared "SHUT UP YOU LUNATIC!!" and fled into his bedroom.
Symbolically, his closing of the door was futile, for the great cathartic cry that emanated from within signaled to the quiet streets of Cambridge, near and
far, that, at last, he had chosen hope. I had saved not just his mortal coil, but his soul. He was alive!
You may reprint the above in it's entirety. ;) Anyway, I seriously am wondering why you remember me saying I loved you. I sure as s**t don't.
(Either remember, or "love" you).
All right, for organization's sake, I'll make my other points in a seperate email.
-F
PS: I do love you, but only in the form and manner mandated by Jesus. ;)
Amen.
My God, I can see the hate emails now. My hit counter is going to rust from unuse after people start reading this.
Sorry about the lack of posts yesterday. Work is killing me and I'm dealing with some other distractions as well. I have some good stuff to share this morning, so let's get started.
Well bite my tongue! Just as I start bitching about Enron, I read this in the WASHINGTON POST:
California's leaders are hoping that Enron's damning internal documents will strengthen their hand in their legal wrangling with the power industry. They also want the federal regulator to extend price controls on western electricity, which are due to expire at the end of September. But the state's politicians, starting with Gov. Gray Davis, should also fix the market rules that invited Enron's abuses, rather than behaving as though their re-regulation of the electricity market last year represents a long-term solution. The federal energy commission, to its credit, is prodding California in this direction. But Mr. Davis resists.
There is a lot of news this morning about how politicians are starting to get their hands on documents that "prove" that Enron was manipulating power prices in California a couple years ago. I don't know much about the legality of what was done, so, as newspapers tend to simplify and slant the news, I am going to refrain from making a judgment on the situation until I know a little bit more. But regardless of whether or not Enron was unfairly manipulating power prices, the fact still remains that the whole reason there was a crisis was because California's "deregulation" bills set up a situation that wasn't truly market based and had lots of inefficiencies to exploit by the participants in the market. For instance, the article refers to Enron's "riccochet" maneuver:
A second set of strategies involved buying power in the state at capped prices and then selling it for much more elsewhere.
With power costs soaring as the energy crisis developed late in 2000, California imposed price caps that for much of the time set the maximum price for power sold within the state at $250 a megawatt-hour.
But the price limit could easily be defeated by a crafty trader, because it did not apply in surrounding states, where power could be bought and sold at prices up to five times the price cap.
Federal regulators fixed this problem in June 2001, when they imposed broad price restraints throughout the Western United States. But for a time, as federal regulators refused to take action, Enron traders reaped huge profits, the memos from the Enron lawyers indicate.
One approach was to simply take power bought in the state and resell it in a nearby state. A second set of strategies involved buying power in the state at capped prices and then selling it for much more elsewhere.
With power costs soaring as the energy crisis developed late in 2000, California imposed price caps that for much of the time set the maximum price for power sold within the state at $250 a megawatt-hour.
But the price limit could easily be defeated by a crafty trader, because it did not apply in surrounding states, where power could be bought and sold at prices up to five times the price cap.
Federal regulators fixed this problem in June 2001, when they imposed broad price restraints throughout the Western United States. But for a time, as federal regulators refused to take action, Enron traders reaped huge profits, the memos from the Enron lawyers indicate.
One approach was to simply take power bought in the state and resell it in a nearby state. The documents describe this as traders taking "advantage of arbitrage opportunities."
Um... all I can say to that is "no shit". The whole point of an efficient market is that it identifies arbitrage opportunities and closes them with its invisible hand as everyone rushes to take advantage of the opportunity for free money. The fact that Enron traders could do this, and that it was the direct result of the regulatory environment in the state, shows that California's energy "deregulation" was a sham based on poor economic knowledge. That part is a given and still, regardless of Enron's guilt or dishonesty, is the biggest scandal of this whole story. Instead of picking on the people whole took advantage of the situation, I wish the media would focus on the group that created that situation in the first place.
After yesterday's bombings in Israel (there were two - the second one was unsuccessful) Yasser Arafat has announced he is going to crack down on terrorism. Yeah right.
"I have given orders to Palestinian security forces to confront and prevent any terrorist operations against Israeli civilians by any Palestinian party, parallel to confronting any aggression on Palestinian civilians from the Israeli army and Jewish settlers which we all condemn," Arafat said in a statement.
When I got to the office this morning my copy of THE LANGUAGE INSTINCT had been delivered. This is the book that Forrest had recommended that I read in wake of my post on sentence diagramming a couple of weeks ago.
There is an interesting small story this morning about how Germany, in its preparations for World War I, had plans to invade the northeastern United States. I think this is interesting not because of the plans themselves because every country in the world has contingency plans to invade every other country all times. What I find interesting about this story is the insight it provides into the geopolitical motivations behind the plans - namely, that Germany was concerned about growing U.S. power in the world and Kaiser Wilheim was concerned that the U.S. was a potential rival to his imperial plans in the Pacific.
I think it's just a little bit ironic that Seattle Slew died last night, three days after the Kentucky Derby. Just on Saturday they were talking about how he was the last living winner of the Triple Crown (aside from Carl Yastrzemski ha ha).
Also, James Carroll has a great analysis on the less-than-secure nature of Israel proper because of the way that hardliners in the government don't want to wall off the West Bank and thus diminish their claim on the land as a legitimate part of Israel.
Even peoples that are friendly, like, say, the United States and Canada, depend on clearly demarcated borders. The maintenance and protection of those borders are the first duty of government. Doubly so if the neighbor is a potential enemy.
Yet no Israeli government can maintain or protect the border between the West Bank and Israel because it simply does not exist. There are, to be sure, military checkpoints along the vestigial ''green line,'' the borders of 1967, but the real line between the territories now and ''Israel'' is necessarily porous and ambiguous exactly because so many Jewish enclaves are located amid so many Palestinian towns and camps. That many Jewish settlers have valued that ambiguity because it has enabled them to claim more and more Palestinian land only makes their plight ironic.
While I am decidedly pro-Israel, I also feel that the Palestinians are more in the right on the issue of ownership of the West Bank. Certainly, it doesn't necessarily belong to the Palestinians without question and in total, but I feel that the situation today is exacerbated by the attitude of many hardliners that Israel's religious claims on the land trump all earthly and secular conventions for negotiation and compromise. That's an extremely dangerous attitude and a huge cause for some of the current problems, and Carroll rightly points it out.
The local news in New Orleans this morning was just breaking a story about a Catholic priest who was recently identified in a mildly controversial Mardi Gras photo. I don't think the story is that big of a deal save for the current controversy surrounding the Catholic church. What really caught my eye in the AP story is this quote:
Parishioner Richard Luquette said he was troubled by Bouterie's resignation.
"If you are going to judge somebody's dress at Mardi Gras, you must not be from here," Luquette said. "If Jesus came to Mardi Gras, where would he be? I have a feeling he would be right there."
True, but I doubt Jesus would be posing with his gay buddies for a picture. Unless, of course, you believed that jesus actually was gay, but I don't think these guys are Catholic.
Nichol Monaghan would like to share his opinion about yesterday's postings:
I just want to know which you are more addicted to: poker or the blog. I think that, if there was such a thing, you would do nothing all day but try to make money playing hi-lo blog until you had spent all your money and couldn't afford the free internet connection at the library talking high about low subjects competing with other nuts to see who can get it all straight.
I think Nichol is trying to be funny by making a lot of really bad puns here, but he has a point. If I could make money from writing my stupid crap and playing poker, I would do it full-time in a heartbeat.
Things to fix really quickly: I was in a hurry yesterday and I left out the Mr T photo and a link to Bill Safire's column about Yasser Arafat. Sorry about that.
OK, I am back at home. I have never been so glad to be back home in a long time - I hate business trips in general, but this one was just really really hard because it's now Tuesday evening and I still haven't recovered from Saturday night. I have been perpetually hungover since Saturday night. Ugh.
Luckily the flight home was good (First class, baby - OnePass elite finally paid off!) and I made it back here OK. I am going to blog a little bit, then go for a run and go to bed.
So now I have already spent an hour writing all kinds of personal crap that I haven't had a chance to comment on the news. Here is the stuff that should be on "JNN".
- Warren Buffet said that it's a "certainty" that the US will get hit by a terrorist nuclear weapon in the future. I don't know if it's really all that certain, but I do think it's a scary and credible threat.
- Thomas Jefferson's descendents are kicking out the Hennings clan. I don't know what to think just yet on that one.
- Finally someone is paying attention to that nut in Zimbabwe.
- Bill Safire says that it's all about negotiation in the Holy Land. A point I have been saying all along. Apparently there must not be a word for that in whatever language Arafat wants to use to describe what happened at Camp David.
- I didn't catch much of last year's HBO series on the Ravens training camp, mainly because we didn't get HBO then, but now we do and I get to watch the DALLAS COWBOYS all access! Maybe Nate Newton will make a cameo with an automobile trunk full of pot.
BTW, there is a stripper-type looking woman typing email at the computer next to me. She looks really loopy and strung out and is carrying a little lhasa-type dog in her backpack. Hmmm.... I wish my dog would behave as well.
Forrest sent me a very long email this morning that I have not had time to read yet, but it looks like he wrote a one-act play about the time of his little "revelation" back in the Summer of 1994 that he was gay. Once I get a chance to read it thoroughly (probably tomorrow night when I get back into town), I will post it and respond.
In any case, he has asked me to point out, and he is correct, that he never told me he "loves" me. He just said "John, I'm gay" to try and get a reaction out of me.
Judging by the looks of his essay from my hasty little glance at it, I think he is confused about the incident he is referring to and Tony's reaction the night he found out our neighbors in our sophomore dorm were gay and throwing a party that had spilled over into the bathroom we shared with them. Those were the days - good times all around as we witnessed Tony "enforcing" the entrance to our dorm as a hetero only location. Good times.
My friend JJ just sent me this question. I think she has it right - it just sounds awkward - but if anyone has any suggestions, please send them to me:
What is the correct way to say, "Our Aunt Matilda waltzs in Australia and raises kangaroos," when how you really want to say it is, "Greg's and my aunt Matilda waltzs in Australia and raises kangaroos."?!?
The question stems from trying to create the possessive of a formal noun and pronoun -- and not using the "our" option. Can you help?
Back in the years before the blog, I used to write very long ranting emails to my good buddy Forrest. A couple years ago, I think he intended it as a mild insult to recommend the book A CONFEDERACY OF DUNCES to me because apparently he thought that that if I grew a bushy mustache I could become a living version of Ignatius Reilly because I already had crazy rambling writing part down. Of course I use a computer and he used a Big Chief tablet, but let's not quibble.
My point is this though - whenever I come here, I always think of Ignatius Reilly and that book. It's a wonderful book written about a fascinating place from the perspective of someone who actually lives here and doesn't just know New Orleans as an airport and a street full of bars with a freeway connecting the two. Once again I am here and once again I find myself walking down Canal Street and Poydras Street and I see the "lucky dog" hot dog vendors and I think of the book and smile. It's great read - although it starts kind of slowly and is really strange and rambling in places, and even a little bit fatalistic in the end, I would recommend it to anyone. Trust me on this one.
Also - I forgot just how damn Bourbon street stinks. It's been a couple of years when I was last here (on the infamous trip where Canonico met Christine), but damn, it just REEKED with the unmistakable smell of human beings drinking alcohol in a swamp in May. Not that I didn't have a good time, but damn I don't remember it smelling that bad. I can't even imagine what Mardi Gras is like when it's just wall-to-wall people.
Nonetheless, before I hit the poker tables last night, I did make it up and down Bourbon St with Brian O'Rourke and all of the various brokers and counterparties who wanted to by us drinks. I got plenty of free beer, sampled some rather tasty pepperoni pizza (much better than I would have suspected), enjoyed a hurricane, and saw quite a few naked breasts being flashed. What a country!
This is a intended as personal message to Craig Friou although I wanted to share this message with everyone who cares.
Last Friday night we had to cancel poker night because no one wanted to commit to playing. Of course, after we had canceled, then four people called on Friday night and asked if we were still playing because their schedules had freed up, but no poker on Friday night. My poker money was buring a hole in my pocket last night and as I was walking back to the hotel from Bourbon St (note to self - self, you had about 4 more beers last night than the 1 you had budgeted), I decided to walk on down Canal Street to the new casino, which I had never seen or played in before.
So it's 2:00 in the morning and I'm going on about 4 hours of sleep from the party the night before and I find the poker room. They are spreading two games - $1-5 stud and $1-8 Omaha Hi Only. I shrug and sit down in the Omaha game and I have never ever ever ever had an easier time. I love playing Omaha, but I typically can't, or won't, play in cardrooms or casinos because it's usually spread hi-lo and the limits are so high that I don't like risking so much money to keep wading into family pots. (For those of you who don't know what I am talking about, you can drop out now). Omaha is a game that is very easily played badly and with the whole hi-lo aspect involved it can get very expensive to to get drawn down on the river and you're in for $200 because some yahoo with no teeth keeps capping the pot with his A2o.
Well, here is the beautiful part of the game last night - it usually only cost $2 to see the flop and because there was no split involved, everyone is playing with the same cards. It was extremely easy - after all normally, the rule in Omaha is to only draw to the nuts and "meld or fold". Nonetheless, it's hard to read people because you often can't tell which direction they're playing. This game was not like that at all - it was easier because there was only one nut hand and if a scare card came, it was easier to tell when to get out. I just sat there and played any hand that was paired or suited - if the bet got above $4 on the draw I just folded unless I had some monster cards (which didn't come too often). So I call the blinds, the flop comes, and then if I don't have the nuts or a chance at the nuts, I just folded my cards. ALL of the other guys at the table were of the bingo variety - one guy across from me told me that poker "was all luck" and the guy sitting next to me was too drunk to tell the difference between spades and clubs. (I am serious - on one hand he turned over an ostensible low-flush at the showdown and didn't realize that he had 7s3c and that the 3s was on the board - ugh).
So it was very easy - play for the nuts or fold - and I made a little money doing just that. Honestly, it was just like holdem with better winning hands because there were more cards to play with. Nonetheless there was some luck involved - I did see the the "all luck" guy hit AA(AA), 777(7), and (33)33 in the hour I was there - like I said, good hands, but that was ridiculous. His rivered 4A beat my nut straight on one mildly expensive hand and another guy at the other end of the table hit TTT(T) on the river after I had flopped QTT(QQ), but nonetheless, it was a very profitable game. Now I see why Omaha is usually played hi-lo - it puts a little more luck (and therefore poker skill) back into the game.
I would highly recommend playing in this game if you ever come to NOLA and you feel like playing poker. Just be patient there Axl, and it will come to you eventually.
I am a true internet junkie... I am definitely buying a laptop, this proves it. We get a break from the conference this afternoon and the first thing I think is... INTERNET!
Nonetheless, I am more than a little perturbed at the paucity of internet options available at the hotel. It would seem that a hotel as nice as the Intercontinental - an establishment - an international chain - that ostensibly caters to business travelers, does not have a single broadband connection for use by guests. Not even that, but they tried to charge me $7.50 to connect via a dialup modem and then $0.50 per minute to use the computers available in their "business center". I have never stayed at this hotel before, and up to now everything has been first class and very very nice, but they lost a lot of points with me here.
I did end up using the business center though - I borrowed the phone book and looked up the address for the Kinko's. I am sitting in right now. $0.20 per minute, no connection fee and 2 blocks from the hotel.
I am not a big horse racing fan - at least not as big a fan as my brother - but I happened to watch tthe Kentucky Derby yesterday and it was awesome. Great race. The winner led from wire to wire.
There is a good story posted on the NEWSWEEK site today about one of my favorite icons, Barbara Bush. I don't think I can say anything nice about her that doesn't sound like a cliche or soundbite, but I love the woman and I think the world of her - it's a great article about a very classy lady.
The worst part about having parties is that you have to clean up. We still haven't done that yet. Well, we have a little bit. Thanks to everyone who stopped by - we didn't quite make our goal of 200 guests, but we had enough people to float two kegs of beer and everyone seemed to have a good time.
