Thursday, March 29, 2012
Cool Video
This video is very cool. I found it at Bad Astronomy. The video comes from Norway, which looks like a pretty cool place to visit. Just watch it and do not judge me for enjoying stuff.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Happy birthday Sabrina Maree!
Happy birthday to beautiful Penthouse Pet and porn star Sabrina Maree!
Need I say more?
Ancient Aliens Ridiculousness
The last two episodes of Ancient Aliens have been even more idiotic than usual. I love that they use the same six locations/incidents as proof and they just try to reanalyze it each episode. One of these episodes focused on Pumapunku, which is a pre-Incan site in Bolivia. You may recognize it as the place with these giant H-blocks.
Needless to say, Ancient Alien Theorists believe this place was built by aliens. The place was built with immense precision and David Chidress shows us this precision by taking a square and showing how the cuts are exactly 90 degrees. Except, if you watch him, he puts the square against the block and you can see that the square is not even close to being exact. I am not taking anything away from the ancient engineers, but if you are claiming an advanced race made these blocks and they are not 100% exact, I am not buying it.
Speaking of David Childress...who is this guy? He comes off as some expert in archaeology, but unfortunately, he actually has no real credentials. He spent one year at a university. He writes books about this crap and people consider him an expert. Makes me laugh.
Another thing the AAT kept pointing to was the fact that inside these granite blocks, there are holes drilled into them. They claim that these holes must have been cut with some kind of drill from the future. Maybe a hypersonic drill. Do you know why they claim this? When they had an expert look at the cuts, he said there was no evidence of any kind of mechanical tool used, that the markings were typical of some kind of hand tool. Granted, the guy said that he did not think they were made with the known tools of that society at that time.
Naturally, the AAT people came to the conclusion that they must have used something that we do not have yet. Instead of trying to find a reasonable explanation, they went out and said "oh, it must be a hypersonic laser drill from Space Home Depot."
One of the theories regarding how the ancient folks moved these blocks the 10 KM up into the mountains says that the people used trees as rollers. The AAT people say that this is impossible because there are no trees up that high. Umm, this is true, but there are trees near the actual quarry site. It would seem to make more sense to lay the rollers as you go, not backwards. Or you can claim that they were levitated there by aliens. Yep, that makes more sense.
The AAT also claim that the granite is flat, which is proof that it was worked by aliens. I am not a geologist, but I could have sworn that I heard in some science class once that granite can be naturally flat. I have no clue whether or not the quarry where the large stones came from actually is one of those sites that produces relatively flat blocks. However, that would probably be what I would look into.
My favorite part of the episode involved a reconstruction of what the site must have looked like. They theorize that these blocks must have interconnected to either become a landing pad or a launch ramp. Allow me to explain this for a second.
These aliens travel millions of light-years, they have a technology that allows them to basically bend the laws of physics. They either have to create wormholes, which would take an enormous amount of energy, or maybe the discovered something that travels faster than light. Even though these things sound super improbable, stay with me.
They get to Earth and the first thing they do is build a landing port made out of granite. They do not have some kind of material or portable landing pad? Why would they need a launch ramp? If they made it here, would they really need to build a granite launch pad? They would not come prepared?
Another idea is that they used Pumapunku as a base camp. Again, I ask why build such a massive structure? When our military went to Iraq, they did not start building a ziggurat to house the troops. Nor did they start making tents out of animal hides like the Bedouin use. No, they brought their own portable camps with them. You mean to tell me that aliens would not have tents? Or some awesome pop up building?
The reason the H-blocks are no longer in place is because it appears that an earthquake may have hit the area at some point. Or, if you are an AAT: aliens destroyed the site with lasers (or a meteor) before they left. Yet, I would think if they fired some super energy weapon at their own base camp that we would see some evidence. Right? Heat marks on the blocks? What if they used a meteor? I would hope there would be some evidence.
Or maybe there was a cosmic battle and another alien group came and destroyed the base. After they destroyed the base though, they flew back there and picked up all the dead aliens and dropped weapons. The wreckage was cleaned up thoroughly and to this day there is no proof of this epic battle.
The last episode focused on Bigfoot. Yep, Bigfoot. The AAT claim that there is a connection between UFO sightings and Bigfoot. There probably is a connection. Crazy people who think they see Bigfoot, whenever they see a bear, probably identify a plane as an UFO as well.
I was actually somewhat excited about this episode since I actually like watching Bigfoot shows. They are so ridiculous, but they try so hard to be scientific. I will actually give them points for that one. They at least try. The AAT do not even try. They just make shit up.
For example, they claim that Enkido from The Epic of Gilgamesh must have been a Bigfoot. Because he was described as a hairy wild man. Without getting into too much of an analysis of that story, let me just say that Enkido represents the uncivilized aspect of the world around Sumer during that time. Gilgamesh has to go out and try to defeat the wild, yet cannot. Instead he gives Enkido a girl and that tames the wild man.
I honestly did not find too much to really care about the episode. They were grasping at straws. The only really far out theory was that the aliens built the Oregon caves in order to hide Bigfoot. Seems reasonable to me.
The other day when I was at Barnes and Noble I decided to pick up Philip Coppens book, The Ancient Alien Question. I was intrigued as I read the first couple chapters. He basically goes about disproving many of the theories. Then I skipped ahead to his conclusion and he still believes in ancient aliens because of the proof in his book, which like the other "proof" is just misinterpretation.
Needless to say, Ancient Alien Theorists believe this place was built by aliens. The place was built with immense precision and David Chidress shows us this precision by taking a square and showing how the cuts are exactly 90 degrees. Except, if you watch him, he puts the square against the block and you can see that the square is not even close to being exact. I am not taking anything away from the ancient engineers, but if you are claiming an advanced race made these blocks and they are not 100% exact, I am not buying it.Speaking of David Childress...who is this guy? He comes off as some expert in archaeology, but unfortunately, he actually has no real credentials. He spent one year at a university. He writes books about this crap and people consider him an expert. Makes me laugh.
Another thing the AAT kept pointing to was the fact that inside these granite blocks, there are holes drilled into them. They claim that these holes must have been cut with some kind of drill from the future. Maybe a hypersonic drill. Do you know why they claim this? When they had an expert look at the cuts, he said there was no evidence of any kind of mechanical tool used, that the markings were typical of some kind of hand tool. Granted, the guy said that he did not think they were made with the known tools of that society at that time.
Naturally, the AAT people came to the conclusion that they must have used something that we do not have yet. Instead of trying to find a reasonable explanation, they went out and said "oh, it must be a hypersonic laser drill from Space Home Depot."
One of the theories regarding how the ancient folks moved these blocks the 10 KM up into the mountains says that the people used trees as rollers. The AAT people say that this is impossible because there are no trees up that high. Umm, this is true, but there are trees near the actual quarry site. It would seem to make more sense to lay the rollers as you go, not backwards. Or you can claim that they were levitated there by aliens. Yep, that makes more sense.
The AAT also claim that the granite is flat, which is proof that it was worked by aliens. I am not a geologist, but I could have sworn that I heard in some science class once that granite can be naturally flat. I have no clue whether or not the quarry where the large stones came from actually is one of those sites that produces relatively flat blocks. However, that would probably be what I would look into.
My favorite part of the episode involved a reconstruction of what the site must have looked like. They theorize that these blocks must have interconnected to either become a landing pad or a launch ramp. Allow me to explain this for a second.
These aliens travel millions of light-years, they have a technology that allows them to basically bend the laws of physics. They either have to create wormholes, which would take an enormous amount of energy, or maybe the discovered something that travels faster than light. Even though these things sound super improbable, stay with me.
They get to Earth and the first thing they do is build a landing port made out of granite. They do not have some kind of material or portable landing pad? Why would they need a launch ramp? If they made it here, would they really need to build a granite launch pad? They would not come prepared?
Another idea is that they used Pumapunku as a base camp. Again, I ask why build such a massive structure? When our military went to Iraq, they did not start building a ziggurat to house the troops. Nor did they start making tents out of animal hides like the Bedouin use. No, they brought their own portable camps with them. You mean to tell me that aliens would not have tents? Or some awesome pop up building?
The reason the H-blocks are no longer in place is because it appears that an earthquake may have hit the area at some point. Or, if you are an AAT: aliens destroyed the site with lasers (or a meteor) before they left. Yet, I would think if they fired some super energy weapon at their own base camp that we would see some evidence. Right? Heat marks on the blocks? What if they used a meteor? I would hope there would be some evidence.
Or maybe there was a cosmic battle and another alien group came and destroyed the base. After they destroyed the base though, they flew back there and picked up all the dead aliens and dropped weapons. The wreckage was cleaned up thoroughly and to this day there is no proof of this epic battle.
The last episode focused on Bigfoot. Yep, Bigfoot. The AAT claim that there is a connection between UFO sightings and Bigfoot. There probably is a connection. Crazy people who think they see Bigfoot, whenever they see a bear, probably identify a plane as an UFO as well.
I was actually somewhat excited about this episode since I actually like watching Bigfoot shows. They are so ridiculous, but they try so hard to be scientific. I will actually give them points for that one. They at least try. The AAT do not even try. They just make shit up.
For example, they claim that Enkido from The Epic of Gilgamesh must have been a Bigfoot. Because he was described as a hairy wild man. Without getting into too much of an analysis of that story, let me just say that Enkido represents the uncivilized aspect of the world around Sumer during that time. Gilgamesh has to go out and try to defeat the wild, yet cannot. Instead he gives Enkido a girl and that tames the wild man.
I honestly did not find too much to really care about the episode. They were grasping at straws. The only really far out theory was that the aliens built the Oregon caves in order to hide Bigfoot. Seems reasonable to me.The other day when I was at Barnes and Noble I decided to pick up Philip Coppens book, The Ancient Alien Question. I was intrigued as I read the first couple chapters. He basically goes about disproving many of the theories. Then I skipped ahead to his conclusion and he still believes in ancient aliens because of the proof in his book, which like the other "proof" is just misinterpretation.
Weigh-In Wednesday VIII
This morning I stepped on the scale and was happy to see that I was down to 178.8. I know, this is exciting news to everyone. People have actually noticed the weight loss at work, which makes me pretty happy.
Speaking of work, I have some news to share with you. I have been transferred from the Altoona location of The Place That Shall Not Be Named to the Indiana location. I have mixed feelings about the whole thing. I am excited to try something new and the chance to prove myself at a high volume store.
However, I am sad to leave Altoona. The place is not easy to work at, yet I have been there for three years and I have grown to love it there. I enjoy many of the people who work there. Another thing I will is having family members stop there to see me. I highly doubt any of them will just happen to be going near Indiana.
Yesterday was my final day at Altoona, today I start at Indiana. It should be a fun time.
Speaking of work, I have some news to share with you. I have been transferred from the Altoona location of The Place That Shall Not Be Named to the Indiana location. I have mixed feelings about the whole thing. I am excited to try something new and the chance to prove myself at a high volume store.
However, I am sad to leave Altoona. The place is not easy to work at, yet I have been there for three years and I have grown to love it there. I enjoy many of the people who work there. Another thing I will is having family members stop there to see me. I highly doubt any of them will just happen to be going near Indiana.
Yesterday was my final day at Altoona, today I start at Indiana. It should be a fun time.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Kony, Jenna Talackova and Trayvon Martin
What does an Internet campaign to stop an African warlord have in common with a trans woman barred from a beauty contest and a black teenager murdered in cold blood by a vigilante? Simple: they're all symptoms of what may be our biggest problem as a society and a culture.
In each case, we react when presented with an individual example of injustice, but ignore the wider context. We enthusiastically share the Kony video, but does anyone care why people like him can run riot in Africa? Probably the single biggest reason is the poverty of most of the continent, which leaves governments powerless. One of the chief causes of that poverty is the agricultural policy of us, the world's developed nations. The majority of Africans are farmers, but we won't let them export their surplus to us. Instead, we subsidize farmers in the West to over-produce food, which we then dump on the world market, driving African subsistence farmers deeper into poverty. Is this even mentioned in, say, discussions on agricultural policy in the West? Nope. Indeed, most of the people I saw going on about Kony think that buying domestically grown produce and "supporting our farmers" is virtuous.
It's heartening that the Trayvon case has stirred up such an outcry. But most of the questions being asked are secondary or irrelevant. The real question isn't stand your ground laws or whether the shooter should have been arrested. The question is: how have you managed to create an environment where a suburban vigilante makes thousands of 911 calls solely to report black men in his neighborhood, shoots one of them for no reason, and not only avoids arrest but has his story unquestioningly believed by the police, who publicly defend him? The question isn't if a particular law or an individual police officer of department is at fault, or even the moronic question of whether the vigilante in question was a racist. It's how incredibly racist your society has to be for this whole sequence of events to unfold at all.
How does Jenna Talackova tie into this? As empirical proof. I offer you this tweet from the formidable Natalie Reed: "Miss Universe Canada petition got 20,000 signatures, Bill C-279 petition only 280. I really, really, really, REALLY hate humanity right now." Bill C-279 is a trans rights bill that you can read about here. So about a hundred times more people support trans rights than... support trans rights. Again, people think that a given individual shouldn't be mistreated because she's a trans woman, but they won't support a bill to end that mistreatment.
Part of the problem is psychological. As my co-blogger put it: "our brains can't multiply". We can, if we choose,empathize with a single individual, but we're really bad at empathy with a group. But it's more than that. The same reaction comes up all the time, in just about every political discussion; the copyright system, police brutality (especially the American practice of senseless SWAT raids and wholesale murdering of dogs), racism, corruption. Confronted with an individual example, people will decry and condemn it, but balk at any suggestion that there could possibly be a wider, even structural, problem. It goes far beyond sensible caution of sweeping political reforms; it's a wholesale denial of the very possibility that we might live in a society where systemic injustice happens.
In my opinion, it's simply a psychological defense mechanism that protects people from having to ask themselves difficult questions about the world they live in. It's hard to think about big political questions. Much easier to live in a fairy-tale world where society is fundamentally good and sound, and all problems are caused by evil individuals. Makes for better Hollywood movies, too. The problem is that it also leads people to passively condone, or even actively support, policies and structures that directly harm the people that they claim to sympathize with.
In each case, we react when presented with an individual example of injustice, but ignore the wider context. We enthusiastically share the Kony video, but does anyone care why people like him can run riot in Africa? Probably the single biggest reason is the poverty of most of the continent, which leaves governments powerless. One of the chief causes of that poverty is the agricultural policy of us, the world's developed nations. The majority of Africans are farmers, but we won't let them export their surplus to us. Instead, we subsidize farmers in the West to over-produce food, which we then dump on the world market, driving African subsistence farmers deeper into poverty. Is this even mentioned in, say, discussions on agricultural policy in the West? Nope. Indeed, most of the people I saw going on about Kony think that buying domestically grown produce and "supporting our farmers" is virtuous.
It's heartening that the Trayvon case has stirred up such an outcry. But most of the questions being asked are secondary or irrelevant. The real question isn't stand your ground laws or whether the shooter should have been arrested. The question is: how have you managed to create an environment where a suburban vigilante makes thousands of 911 calls solely to report black men in his neighborhood, shoots one of them for no reason, and not only avoids arrest but has his story unquestioningly believed by the police, who publicly defend him? The question isn't if a particular law or an individual police officer of department is at fault, or even the moronic question of whether the vigilante in question was a racist. It's how incredibly racist your society has to be for this whole sequence of events to unfold at all.
How does Jenna Talackova tie into this? As empirical proof. I offer you this tweet from the formidable Natalie Reed: "Miss Universe Canada petition got 20,000 signatures, Bill C-279 petition only 280. I really, really, really, REALLY hate humanity right now." Bill C-279 is a trans rights bill that you can read about here. So about a hundred times more people support trans rights than... support trans rights. Again, people think that a given individual shouldn't be mistreated because she's a trans woman, but they won't support a bill to end that mistreatment.
Part of the problem is psychological. As my co-blogger put it: "our brains can't multiply". We can, if we choose,empathize with a single individual, but we're really bad at empathy with a group. But it's more than that. The same reaction comes up all the time, in just about every political discussion; the copyright system, police brutality (especially the American practice of senseless SWAT raids and wholesale murdering of dogs), racism, corruption. Confronted with an individual example, people will decry and condemn it, but balk at any suggestion that there could possibly be a wider, even structural, problem. It goes far beyond sensible caution of sweeping political reforms; it's a wholesale denial of the very possibility that we might live in a society where systemic injustice happens.
In my opinion, it's simply a psychological defense mechanism that protects people from having to ask themselves difficult questions about the world they live in. It's hard to think about big political questions. Much easier to live in a fairy-tale world where society is fundamentally good and sound, and all problems are caused by evil individuals. Makes for better Hollywood movies, too. The problem is that it also leads people to passively condone, or even actively support, policies and structures that directly harm the people that they claim to sympathize with.
New Laptop Again
I think most of you know about my recent laptop troubles. If not, you can check them out, here and here. Anyways, I sold enough stuff on ebay (mostly comics, but a few other things as well) to go purchase a new laptop. Talk about fun stuff.
I went to Best Buy after work yesterday and looked around for a bit. I only saw one that I liked, but it was the floor model. I decided to go to Staples to see what they had. Everything they had was out of my price range.
So I went back to Best Buy and played with the floor model again. I tested it out a bunch and really liked how it felt. A bunch of the other ones were a pain in the ass to use. I would either not like how heavy they were or how it felt typing with them. I asked the guy (once I was able to find someone) if the floor model was worth purchasing. He said that it still comes from the warranty and that it had only been out for a week. I decided that it was definitely worth the price, so I purchased it.
The guy tells me that it will take 2-3 hours for them to reset it back to factory preferences. They would call me when it was ready. I went to Barnes and Noble to look at a book or magazine before I went to eat at Panera Bread. Well, I got sucked into reading a certain book (do not worry, I will discuss this in another post) and a bunch of magazines. I killed about two hours and then went to eat (without anything to read).
Once I was finished eating, I decided to head to Best Buy to see how much longer it would take. I got another awesome tech guy there. Geek Squad. They should be called the Legion of Uber-Assholes. I have never had a good experience with them.
This is our conversation:
Me: Hey, is my computer ready?
AssBag: Did we call you?
Me: No, but the other guy said it would take about two to three hours.
AssBag: Ugh, let me check. [goes over to computer] Nope, it is only at 11%, we just started it.
Me: Oh, so how long will it take?
AssBag: Probably six or seven more hours.
I went home and kept thinking about how much I hated Best Buy. I mean seriously, that place is the worst. Unfortunately, it is about the only place where you can get any technology. There are no computer stores in this area anymore.
And this is not the first time I have had problems with Best Buy. Probably not the last time either. Anyways, I have a new laptop and I am sitting here typing this from it, so life is pretty good.
I went to Best Buy after work yesterday and looked around for a bit. I only saw one that I liked, but it was the floor model. I decided to go to Staples to see what they had. Everything they had was out of my price range.
So I went back to Best Buy and played with the floor model again. I tested it out a bunch and really liked how it felt. A bunch of the other ones were a pain in the ass to use. I would either not like how heavy they were or how it felt typing with them. I asked the guy (once I was able to find someone) if the floor model was worth purchasing. He said that it still comes from the warranty and that it had only been out for a week. I decided that it was definitely worth the price, so I purchased it.
The guy tells me that it will take 2-3 hours for them to reset it back to factory preferences. They would call me when it was ready. I went to Barnes and Noble to look at a book or magazine before I went to eat at Panera Bread. Well, I got sucked into reading a certain book (do not worry, I will discuss this in another post) and a bunch of magazines. I killed about two hours and then went to eat (without anything to read).
Once I was finished eating, I decided to head to Best Buy to see how much longer it would take. I got another awesome tech guy there. Geek Squad. They should be called the Legion of Uber-Assholes. I have never had a good experience with them.
This is our conversation:
Me: Hey, is my computer ready?
AssBag: Did we call you?
Me: No, but the other guy said it would take about two to three hours.
AssBag: Ugh, let me check. [goes over to computer] Nope, it is only at 11%, we just started it.
Me: Oh, so how long will it take?
AssBag: Probably six or seven more hours.
I went home and kept thinking about how much I hated Best Buy. I mean seriously, that place is the worst. Unfortunately, it is about the only place where you can get any technology. There are no computer stores in this area anymore.
And this is not the first time I have had problems with Best Buy. Probably not the last time either. Anyways, I have a new laptop and I am sitting here typing this from it, so life is pretty good.
Friday, March 23, 2012
Fantasy Baseball Draft Results
A new season is upon us and for once, we actually had people join the league. 16 teams (at one point I was afraid we might have 18 or 20). I know some people have some fears about a league of this size, but allow me to say that it excites me. I just wish that I knew we had this many people from the beginning so we could have discussed adjusting roster sizes. Oh well, always next year. If this is successful though (meaning, highly competitive), then I think we should discuss making this a keeper league and doing it every year. Just a thought. Anyways, on to the draft results.
Allow me to introduce the teams:
Burnett's Eye: Sean (7th place last year)
Oviedo Pseudonyms: Gideon's friend?
academic challenge: Michelle (8th place last year)
Swing'nTheBigStick: Gideon's friend?
Fuck You All: James (3rd place last year)
A Chore to Four!: Ryan (1st place-3x in a row)
DC Buccos: Jason Offord (5th place)
Something Clever: Me (6th place)
Game Changers: Don (JasonI's dad)
Babe Carruth: Gideon's friend?
El Natural: No idea
Smutty Bastards: Dustin (friend of mine)
Big Jacker: David (2nd place last year)
losing in 3rd: JasonI (4th place last year)
Darvishsanity!: Gideon (9th place last year)
Pittsburgh Peas: Pat (11th place last year)
I like the idea of having two divisions. Mainly because it changes things up a little bit. Yahoo divided the league up, and it actually worked out well. Okay, moving on.
Rounds 1-3
As you can see, I had the second pick. Unfortunately, Lindsey's computer would not log into Yahoo for me. I did not get there until the second round. If I had been there, I may have taken Kemp, but most likely I would have went with Pujols or Votto. I truly believe that you really need a first baseman in the first round. Oh well though, Kemp is a fantastic player, but I do not believe he will replicate those numbers.
Unfortunately by the time my second round pick was coming, I just got into the draft and did not get a chance to see who I took. Seriously, I had like 14 seconds left to draft, so I took my boy Giancarlo Stanton. I guess I will have a beastly outfield, haha.
In the third round, I decided to go with Sabathia. I always want one ace pitcher and it seemed like people were going pretty crazy with pitching early on. I hate falling into that trap, but it is hard not to allow it to happen.
During this round, there was only pick that I questioned: Offord took Desmond Jennings in the third round. Was he ranked that high? Or does Offord believe Jennings will have a huge season? I am not making fun of the pick, I just like to know the rationale. For example, I have no clue why Don would want Asdrubal Cabrera that early in the draft.
Rounds 4-6
Once I realized I was not getting one of the big first basemen, I decided to look for Eric Hosmer. He was a nice addition last season and I think he will improve. He could be the kind of guy who breaks into that elite first baseman category. Although, I will not lie, I was starting to bite my nails toward the end of round four. I wanted him in round five, but he was the next player available after Phillips (who I would have taken if JasonI did not take him). It was going to be a huge gamble.
Interesting how an injury can make everyone ignore you. Buster Posey was taken in the second round in many drafts last season. This year I picked him up in the fifth round. That is a nice place for an elite catcher. My next pick was C.J. Wilson. I liked that one as well.
I really like that James was able to get Ian Kennedy in the sixth round. If he regresses a little bit, he might still have as many wins as Wilson or Darvish. If he does not regress, does James have a 20 game winner for cheap?
Rounds 7-9
Here is the pick I liked: Dee Gordon in the 7th round. My point about Asdrubal Cabrera is that he will not replicate last season, but I have a guy who will probably come close to Elvis Andrus numbers. The dude can flat out fly around the bases. I am hoping for 50-60 SBs this season.
I actually did not care for the Gio Gonzalez pick. I have no idea why I took him. I was not really ready to start drafting closers. Although, I did make a huge mistake, I really thought Dustin Ackley would be available in the 10th round. So in the next round I took Freddie Freeman (a nice backup if Hosmer fails-or combine the two of them and they equal Pujols). Unfortunately, Offord swooped in and saw Ackley sitting there and stole him from me.
Round 10-12
At this point, I decided to go for some closers. I went with Marmol in the 10th. Then I took Ogando in the 11th. I am not sure if Ogando will be closing or starting (I thought that I read Feliz will be starting this year). In round 12, I decided to take Moustakas. I figured since I missed out on the really good third basemen (there are like three), that I might as well wait and take Moustakas. I believe in him.
I believe Ryan had the steal of this round by taking Jesus Montero (obviously I believe in him as well).
Rounds 13-15
I took Hellickson here, but in retrospect, maybe I should have taken Neftali Feliz. In the 14th round, I took Allen Craig. I think I will use him as my second baseman. I just hope that he is as good as we all think he is. I decided to take Venters after that. I wanted someone with holds since we use that stat as well.
Offord drafted Bryce Harper and allow me to say kudos. I honestly forgot about him, but then afterwards wished I had drafted him. He will be up at some point, and if he is even 1/10th as good as people think, well Offord has an amazing pick.
Rounds 16-18
These are the fill in rounds. I took Trout and Presley because, well you can never have enough outfielders. And, I think Trout will have a good year. Presley, well I just hope he has an awesome year. Again, Offord had another pick that I really liked: Adam Dunn. He was terrible last year, and I do not think there is any way possible he could be that bad again.
Rounds 19-21
Mayberry might end up being a really good pick for me. I hope that he hits like he did in his limited action last season, I mean one HR every 15 ABs, I will take that...
Rounds 22-23
Eh, Mike Leake. Nothing special there. I took Devin Mesoraco with my last pick. He is my backup in case something happens to Posey. He has the potential to be a 10-15 HR type of catcher. I always like to go way out there with that final pick. I like Pat's pick of Phil Hughes. I actually wanted to take him instead of Leake, but oh well.
I would go ahead and try to project each team like I did last year, but I honestly do not know if I have the time for that sort of thing. Good luck to everyone! Hope we have a fantastic season.
Burnett's Eye: Sean (7th place last year)
Oviedo Pseudonyms: Gideon's friend?
academic challenge: Michelle (8th place last year)
Swing'nTheBigStick: Gideon's friend?
Fuck You All: James (3rd place last year)
A Chore to Four!: Ryan (1st place-3x in a row)
DC Buccos: Jason Offord (5th place)
Something Clever: Me (6th place)
Game Changers: Don (JasonI's dad)
Babe Carruth: Gideon's friend?
El Natural: No idea
Smutty Bastards: Dustin (friend of mine)
Big Jacker: David (2nd place last year)
losing in 3rd: JasonI (4th place last year)
Darvishsanity!: Gideon (9th place last year)
Pittsburgh Peas: Pat (11th place last year)
I like the idea of having two divisions. Mainly because it changes things up a little bit. Yahoo divided the league up, and it actually worked out well. Okay, moving on.
Rounds 1-3
Unfortunately by the time my second round pick was coming, I just got into the draft and did not get a chance to see who I took. Seriously, I had like 14 seconds left to draft, so I took my boy Giancarlo Stanton. I guess I will have a beastly outfield, haha.
In the third round, I decided to go with Sabathia. I always want one ace pitcher and it seemed like people were going pretty crazy with pitching early on. I hate falling into that trap, but it is hard not to allow it to happen.
During this round, there was only pick that I questioned: Offord took Desmond Jennings in the third round. Was he ranked that high? Or does Offord believe Jennings will have a huge season? I am not making fun of the pick, I just like to know the rationale. For example, I have no clue why Don would want Asdrubal Cabrera that early in the draft.
Rounds 4-6
Interesting how an injury can make everyone ignore you. Buster Posey was taken in the second round in many drafts last season. This year I picked him up in the fifth round. That is a nice place for an elite catcher. My next pick was C.J. Wilson. I liked that one as well.
I really like that James was able to get Ian Kennedy in the sixth round. If he regresses a little bit, he might still have as many wins as Wilson or Darvish. If he does not regress, does James have a 20 game winner for cheap?
Rounds 7-9
I actually did not care for the Gio Gonzalez pick. I have no idea why I took him. I was not really ready to start drafting closers. Although, I did make a huge mistake, I really thought Dustin Ackley would be available in the 10th round. So in the next round I took Freddie Freeman (a nice backup if Hosmer fails-or combine the two of them and they equal Pujols). Unfortunately, Offord swooped in and saw Ackley sitting there and stole him from me.
Round 10-12
I believe Ryan had the steal of this round by taking Jesus Montero (obviously I believe in him as well).
Rounds 13-15
Offord drafted Bryce Harper and allow me to say kudos. I honestly forgot about him, but then afterwards wished I had drafted him. He will be up at some point, and if he is even 1/10th as good as people think, well Offord has an amazing pick.
Rounds 16-18
Rounds 19-21
Rounds 22-23
I would go ahead and try to project each team like I did last year, but I honestly do not know if I have the time for that sort of thing. Good luck to everyone! Hope we have a fantastic season.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Oreo Fried Chicken
As a special stoner Cooking bonus, here's a recipe from ImNotU99@yahoo.com combing both friend chicken & Oreos!
2 C. Oreo Ground Oreo Crumbs
1 T. fine ground coffee
2 T. chili powder
2 t. salt
1 C flour
2 eggs
2 T. Water
1 cut up chicken (8 pcs) moistened
salt and pepper to taste
Oil
Heat oil in deep fryer or skillet to 350 or slightly higher, but no more then 375. Constant 350 is the target temp. Combine oreo crumbs (no icing - make a ball out of that and eat it like an apple! :) ), coffee, chili powder and salt in a zip top bag. Salt and pepper chicken, dredge in flour and rest on rack for 30 minutes. Mix egg and water together and dredge chicken first in egg then Oreo mixture and carefully arrange chicken in fryer working in batches if necessary. Fry until done. Serve hot and juicy.
-You can add an optional tablespoon of dark cocoa powder to the flour mixture, if you wish and any preference you may have on dried herbs can be added to the Oreo mixture as well.
- To make extra crispy and a little fluffier texture, add 1/2 tsp baking powder to the flour mixture or use self rising flour.
Enjoy - Just remember where you got it!
Wall Street’s Broken Windows
William K. Black
March 4, 2012
http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2012/03/wall-streets-broken-windows.html
James Q. Wilson was a political scientist who often studied the government response to blue collar crime. The public knows him best for his theory called “broken windows.” The metaphor was what happens to a vacant building when broken windows are not promptly repaired. Soon, most of the windows in the abandoned building are broken. The criminals feel little compunction against petty destruction because the building’s owners evince no concern for the integrity of their building. Wilson took social norms, community, and ethics seriously. He argued that as community broke down fewer honest citizens were active in monitoring and policing behavior. The breakdown in community was criminogenic – it led to widespread serious blue collar crime. He urged us to take even minor blue collar crimes and breaches of civility seriously and to demand that they be contained through social pressure and policing.
New York City’s police strategy embraced “broken windows.” The police increased the priority with which they responded to even minor offenses that upset the community – “squeegee men,” graffiti, and street prostitution. Reported blue collar crime fell in New York City. It also fell sharply in most other cities, which did not implement “broken windows” programs, but Wilson and the NYPD got the credit and popular fame for the sharp fall in reported blue collar crime in New York City. Wilson became one of the most famous blue collar criminologists in the world.
Wilson’s broken window theory remains controversial among many blue collar criminologists. As a celebration of his life and research I offer this discussion of applying “broken windows” theory and policies to elite white-collar crime.
Wilson was strongly conservative. His research focus in criminology was almost exclusively blue collar crime. That was a shame because “broken windows” theory is most compelling in the context of elite white-collar crime and because the application would reveal interesting twists in the theory’s potential. Such an application, however, would have been outside Wilson’s comfort zone. Wilson tended to use the word “crime” to refer exclusively to blue collar crime and his emphasis was on very low status criminals. In a book entitled, Thinking About Crime, Wilson argued that criminology should focus overwhelmingly on low-status blue collar criminals.
This book [does not deal] with “white collar crimes”…. Partly this reflects the limits of my own knowledge, but it also reflects my conviction, which I believe is the conviction of most citizens, that predatory street crime is a far more serious matter than consumer fraud [or] antitrust violations … because predatory crime … makes difficult or impossible maintenance of meaningful human communities (1975: xx).
I am rather tolerant of some forms of civic corruption (if a good mayor can stay in office and govern effectively only by making a few deals with highway contractors and insurance agents, I do not get overly alarmed)…. (1975: xix).
Notice that Wilson’s explanation is antithetical to his “broken windows” reasoning. There are, of course, relatively minor white-collar crimes. Wilson emphasized that it was the willingness of society to tolerate relatively minor blue collar crimes that led to social disintegration and epidemics of severe blue collar crimes, but he engaged in the same willingness to tolerate and excuse less severe white collar crimes. He predicted in his work on “broken windows” that tolerating widespread smaller crimes would lead to epidemic levels of larger crimes because it undermined community and social restraints. The epidemics of elite white collar crime that have driven our recurrent, intensifying financial crises have proven this point. Similarly, corruption that is excused and tolerated by elites is unlikely to remain at the level of “a few deals.” Corruption is likely to spread in incidence and severity precisely because it undermines community and the rule of law and it is likely to grow more pervasive and harmful the more we “tolera[te]” it.
“Broken windows” theory, in the white collar crime context, would lead us to make the prevention and deterrence of consumer frauds and anti-trust violations through prosecutions a high priority because of their tendency to produce a “Gresham’s” dynamic in which businesses or CEOs that cheat gain a competitive advantage and bad ethics drives good ethics out of the markets. These offenses degrade ethics and erode peer restraints on misconduct.
The ongoing crisis demonstrates that anti-consumer frauds are a direct assault on community. Mortgage fraud – and it was overwhelmingly the lenders and their agents who put the lies in millions of liar’s loans – physically and socially destroy community by producing mass defaults, homelessness, and vacant homes.
Taking Wilson’s “broken windows” reasoning seriously in the elite white collar crime context would require us to take a series of prophylactic measures to restore integrity and strengthen peer pressures against misconduct. Indeed, we have implicitly tested the applicability of “broken windows” reasoning in that context by adopting policies that acted directly contrary to Wilson’s reasoning. We have adopted executive and professional compensation systems that are exceptionally criminogenic. We have excused and ignored the endemic “earnings management” that is the inherent result of these compensation policies and the inherent degradation of professionalism that results from allowing CEOs to create a Gresham’s dynamic among appraisers, auditors, credit rating agencies, and stock analysts. The intellectual father of modern executive compensation, Michael Jensen, now warns about his Frankenstein creation. He argues that one of our problems is dishonesty about the results. Surveys indicate that the great bulk of CFOs claim that it is essential to manipulate earnings. Jensen explains that the manipulation inherently reduces shareholder value and insists that it be called “lying.” I have seen Mary Jo White, the former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, who now defends senior managers, lecture that there is “good” “earnings management.”
Fiduciary duties are critical means of preventing broken windows from occurring and making it likely that any broken windows in corporate governance will soon be remedied, yet we have steadily weakened fiduciary duties. For example, Delaware now allows the elimination of the fiduciary duty of care as long as the shareholders approve. Court decisions have increasingly weakened the fiduciary duties of loyalty and care. The Chamber of Commerce’s most recent priorities have been to weaken Sarbanes-Oxley and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. We have made it exceptionally difficult for shareholders who are victims of securities fraud to bring civil suits against the officers and entities that led or aided and abetted the securities fraud. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA) has achieved its true intended purpose – making it exceptionally difficult for shareholders who are the victims of securities fraud to bring even the most meritorious securities fraud action.
The Supreme Court has held that banks and other entities that aid and abet securities fraud are immune from suit by the victims of securities fraud. Only the federal government may sue those that aid and abet fraud. The federal government has cut the number of financial fraud prosecutions by over one-half over the last twenty years even as financial fraud has grown massively. No elite CEO leading a control fraud that helped drive the current crisis has even been indicted. Elite CEOs can defraud with near impunity and become wealthy. Elite white collar fraud is a “sure thing” – the only strategy likely to make a mediocre CEO wealthy and famous.
Because Wilson did not research elite white collar crimes he did not direct his formidable intellectual energies and expertise to the study of who could prevent the breaking of corporate windows and repair those that were broken. This was a great loss because his studies of varieties of police behavior in response to blue collar crime are justly famous among criminologists. The central truth he would have quickly recognized had he thought of seeking to reduce elite white collar crimes is that only the financial regulators can serve as the “regulatory cops on the beat.” The police do not deal with elite white collar crimes. A small cadre of FBI special agents works on elite white collar crimes. There are roughly three special agents assigned to white collar crime investigations per industry in the U.S., so they never “patrol a beat.” They investigate only when someone brings a possible white collar crime to their attention. That means whistleblowers, but it overwhelmingly means criminal referrals from the federal financial regulators. Financial institutions may make criminal referrals against their customers, but they will virtually never make them against their CEOs. Only the regulators can make the thousands of criminal referrals against elite white collar criminals essential to a successful prosecutorial effort against the epidemics of accounting control fraud that drive our worst financial crises. In the lead up to the ongoing crisis we gutted the federal regulators, preempted the state regulators, and appointed anti-regulators to head the agencies. A majority of the U.S. House of Representatives is trying to further gut the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). If we want to stop the criminals who are destroying our economy and our communities by breaking windows on an epic scale the first step is to rebuild a regulatory force committed to serving as the essential “cops on the beat.”
I listened in stunned amazement to the presentations of law professors who specialize in white collar crime and securities law at the two annual meetings that followed the ongoing financial crisis. Virtually every speaker in these sections presented arguments calling for reducing white collar criminal liability and liability for securities fraud. At the time they were speaking, the Justice Department had already ceased prosecuting major firms and the SEC brought a pathetically high percentage of its small number of enforcement actions against tiny firms with fewer than 10 employees.
We have systematically reduced effective peer restraints in our most important controls against financial fraud. Law firms, audit firms, and investment banks used to be professional partnerships. Each partner was potentially liable for any firm misconduct, which maximized the incentive to insist on higher levels of integrity. These firms are now virtually all corporations or limited liability partnerships. The incentive of partners to monitor other partners’ actions to ensure their integrity has largely been lost.
In the elite white collar crime context we have been following the opposite strategy of that recommended under “broken windows” theory. We have been breaking windows. We have excused those who break the windows. Indeed, we have praised them and their misconduct. The problem with allowing broken windows is far greater in the elite white collar crime context than the blue collar crime context. The squeegee guys make tiny amounts of money and are hated and politically powerless. The mediocre financial CEO who engages in accounting control fraud because it is a “sure thing” causes the bank to report record (albeit fictional) profits and becomes wealthy and politically powerful. He uses his wealth to make charitable and political contributions that make him far harder to sanction. He claims that any crackdown on him is “class warfare” by “neo-Bolsheviks.” Incredibly, the Wall Street Journal continues to serve as the cheerleader and apologist for those who become wealthy by breaking windows, communities, and economies.
Wilson warned of blue collar “super predators.” He called them “feral” – wild animals. These criminals are in fact dangerous, but they are odd candidates for the title of “super predators.” Wilson noted that they were disproportionately black and that they were confined almost entirely to the poorest neighborhoods in America where their pickings are poor. Accounting control frauds occupy Wall Street and other financial centers – the richest neighborhoods in the world. Their “take” from fraud is extraordinary. The blue collar criminals that occupied Wilson’s attention late in his career were politically and socially powerless. The fraudulent CEOs that drive our recurrent, intensifying financial crises are wealthy and socially and politically dominant.
Wilson had a fabulous career and added greatly to the policy debate about how to respond to blue collar crime. Our most fitting tribute to him and contribution to his legacy would be to apply his “broken window” theory to the elite white collar crimes and criminals that drive our financial crises. The troubling paradox is that the strongest proponents of “broken windows” theory and policies in the blue collar crime context are the strongest opponents of applying analogous policies in the elite white collar crime context. The Wall Street Journal is the most prominent example of this class-based incoherence.
Bill Black is the author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One and an associate professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. He spent years working on regulatory policy and fraud prevention as Executive Director of the Institute for Fraud Prevention, Litigation Director of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board and Deputy Director of the National Commission on Financial Institution Reform, Recovery and Enforcement, among other positions.
Bill writes a column for Benzinga every Monday. His other academic articles, congressional testimony, and musings about the financial crisis can be found at his Social Science Research Network author page and at the blog New Economic Perspectives.
Follow him on Twitter: @WilliamKBlack
March 4, 2012
http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2012/03/wall-streets-broken-windows.html
James Q. Wilson was a political scientist who often studied the government response to blue collar crime. The public knows him best for his theory called “broken windows.” The metaphor was what happens to a vacant building when broken windows are not promptly repaired. Soon, most of the windows in the abandoned building are broken. The criminals feel little compunction against petty destruction because the building’s owners evince no concern for the integrity of their building. Wilson took social norms, community, and ethics seriously. He argued that as community broke down fewer honest citizens were active in monitoring and policing behavior. The breakdown in community was criminogenic – it led to widespread serious blue collar crime. He urged us to take even minor blue collar crimes and breaches of civility seriously and to demand that they be contained through social pressure and policing.
New York City’s police strategy embraced “broken windows.” The police increased the priority with which they responded to even minor offenses that upset the community – “squeegee men,” graffiti, and street prostitution. Reported blue collar crime fell in New York City. It also fell sharply in most other cities, which did not implement “broken windows” programs, but Wilson and the NYPD got the credit and popular fame for the sharp fall in reported blue collar crime in New York City. Wilson became one of the most famous blue collar criminologists in the world.
Wilson’s broken window theory remains controversial among many blue collar criminologists. As a celebration of his life and research I offer this discussion of applying “broken windows” theory and policies to elite white-collar crime.
Wilson was strongly conservative. His research focus in criminology was almost exclusively blue collar crime. That was a shame because “broken windows” theory is most compelling in the context of elite white-collar crime and because the application would reveal interesting twists in the theory’s potential. Such an application, however, would have been outside Wilson’s comfort zone. Wilson tended to use the word “crime” to refer exclusively to blue collar crime and his emphasis was on very low status criminals. In a book entitled, Thinking About Crime, Wilson argued that criminology should focus overwhelmingly on low-status blue collar criminals.
This book [does not deal] with “white collar crimes”…. Partly this reflects the limits of my own knowledge, but it also reflects my conviction, which I believe is the conviction of most citizens, that predatory street crime is a far more serious matter than consumer fraud [or] antitrust violations … because predatory crime … makes difficult or impossible maintenance of meaningful human communities (1975: xx).
I am rather tolerant of some forms of civic corruption (if a good mayor can stay in office and govern effectively only by making a few deals with highway contractors and insurance agents, I do not get overly alarmed)…. (1975: xix).
Notice that Wilson’s explanation is antithetical to his “broken windows” reasoning. There are, of course, relatively minor white-collar crimes. Wilson emphasized that it was the willingness of society to tolerate relatively minor blue collar crimes that led to social disintegration and epidemics of severe blue collar crimes, but he engaged in the same willingness to tolerate and excuse less severe white collar crimes. He predicted in his work on “broken windows” that tolerating widespread smaller crimes would lead to epidemic levels of larger crimes because it undermined community and social restraints. The epidemics of elite white collar crime that have driven our recurrent, intensifying financial crises have proven this point. Similarly, corruption that is excused and tolerated by elites is unlikely to remain at the level of “a few deals.” Corruption is likely to spread in incidence and severity precisely because it undermines community and the rule of law and it is likely to grow more pervasive and harmful the more we “tolera[te]” it.
“Broken windows” theory, in the white collar crime context, would lead us to make the prevention and deterrence of consumer frauds and anti-trust violations through prosecutions a high priority because of their tendency to produce a “Gresham’s” dynamic in which businesses or CEOs that cheat gain a competitive advantage and bad ethics drives good ethics out of the markets. These offenses degrade ethics and erode peer restraints on misconduct.
The ongoing crisis demonstrates that anti-consumer frauds are a direct assault on community. Mortgage fraud – and it was overwhelmingly the lenders and their agents who put the lies in millions of liar’s loans – physically and socially destroy community by producing mass defaults, homelessness, and vacant homes.
Taking Wilson’s “broken windows” reasoning seriously in the elite white collar crime context would require us to take a series of prophylactic measures to restore integrity and strengthen peer pressures against misconduct. Indeed, we have implicitly tested the applicability of “broken windows” reasoning in that context by adopting policies that acted directly contrary to Wilson’s reasoning. We have adopted executive and professional compensation systems that are exceptionally criminogenic. We have excused and ignored the endemic “earnings management” that is the inherent result of these compensation policies and the inherent degradation of professionalism that results from allowing CEOs to create a Gresham’s dynamic among appraisers, auditors, credit rating agencies, and stock analysts. The intellectual father of modern executive compensation, Michael Jensen, now warns about his Frankenstein creation. He argues that one of our problems is dishonesty about the results. Surveys indicate that the great bulk of CFOs claim that it is essential to manipulate earnings. Jensen explains that the manipulation inherently reduces shareholder value and insists that it be called “lying.” I have seen Mary Jo White, the former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, who now defends senior managers, lecture that there is “good” “earnings management.”
Fiduciary duties are critical means of preventing broken windows from occurring and making it likely that any broken windows in corporate governance will soon be remedied, yet we have steadily weakened fiduciary duties. For example, Delaware now allows the elimination of the fiduciary duty of care as long as the shareholders approve. Court decisions have increasingly weakened the fiduciary duties of loyalty and care. The Chamber of Commerce’s most recent priorities have been to weaken Sarbanes-Oxley and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. We have made it exceptionally difficult for shareholders who are victims of securities fraud to bring civil suits against the officers and entities that led or aided and abetted the securities fraud. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA) has achieved its true intended purpose – making it exceptionally difficult for shareholders who are the victims of securities fraud to bring even the most meritorious securities fraud action.
The Supreme Court has held that banks and other entities that aid and abet securities fraud are immune from suit by the victims of securities fraud. Only the federal government may sue those that aid and abet fraud. The federal government has cut the number of financial fraud prosecutions by over one-half over the last twenty years even as financial fraud has grown massively. No elite CEO leading a control fraud that helped drive the current crisis has even been indicted. Elite CEOs can defraud with near impunity and become wealthy. Elite white collar fraud is a “sure thing” – the only strategy likely to make a mediocre CEO wealthy and famous.
Because Wilson did not research elite white collar crimes he did not direct his formidable intellectual energies and expertise to the study of who could prevent the breaking of corporate windows and repair those that were broken. This was a great loss because his studies of varieties of police behavior in response to blue collar crime are justly famous among criminologists. The central truth he would have quickly recognized had he thought of seeking to reduce elite white collar crimes is that only the financial regulators can serve as the “regulatory cops on the beat.” The police do not deal with elite white collar crimes. A small cadre of FBI special agents works on elite white collar crimes. There are roughly three special agents assigned to white collar crime investigations per industry in the U.S., so they never “patrol a beat.” They investigate only when someone brings a possible white collar crime to their attention. That means whistleblowers, but it overwhelmingly means criminal referrals from the federal financial regulators. Financial institutions may make criminal referrals against their customers, but they will virtually never make them against their CEOs. Only the regulators can make the thousands of criminal referrals against elite white collar criminals essential to a successful prosecutorial effort against the epidemics of accounting control fraud that drive our worst financial crises. In the lead up to the ongoing crisis we gutted the federal regulators, preempted the state regulators, and appointed anti-regulators to head the agencies. A majority of the U.S. House of Representatives is trying to further gut the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). If we want to stop the criminals who are destroying our economy and our communities by breaking windows on an epic scale the first step is to rebuild a regulatory force committed to serving as the essential “cops on the beat.”
I listened in stunned amazement to the presentations of law professors who specialize in white collar crime and securities law at the two annual meetings that followed the ongoing financial crisis. Virtually every speaker in these sections presented arguments calling for reducing white collar criminal liability and liability for securities fraud. At the time they were speaking, the Justice Department had already ceased prosecuting major firms and the SEC brought a pathetically high percentage of its small number of enforcement actions against tiny firms with fewer than 10 employees.
We have systematically reduced effective peer restraints in our most important controls against financial fraud. Law firms, audit firms, and investment banks used to be professional partnerships. Each partner was potentially liable for any firm misconduct, which maximized the incentive to insist on higher levels of integrity. These firms are now virtually all corporations or limited liability partnerships. The incentive of partners to monitor other partners’ actions to ensure their integrity has largely been lost.
In the elite white collar crime context we have been following the opposite strategy of that recommended under “broken windows” theory. We have been breaking windows. We have excused those who break the windows. Indeed, we have praised them and their misconduct. The problem with allowing broken windows is far greater in the elite white collar crime context than the blue collar crime context. The squeegee guys make tiny amounts of money and are hated and politically powerless. The mediocre financial CEO who engages in accounting control fraud because it is a “sure thing” causes the bank to report record (albeit fictional) profits and becomes wealthy and politically powerful. He uses his wealth to make charitable and political contributions that make him far harder to sanction. He claims that any crackdown on him is “class warfare” by “neo-Bolsheviks.” Incredibly, the Wall Street Journal continues to serve as the cheerleader and apologist for those who become wealthy by breaking windows, communities, and economies.
Wilson warned of blue collar “super predators.” He called them “feral” – wild animals. These criminals are in fact dangerous, but they are odd candidates for the title of “super predators.” Wilson noted that they were disproportionately black and that they were confined almost entirely to the poorest neighborhoods in America where their pickings are poor. Accounting control frauds occupy Wall Street and other financial centers – the richest neighborhoods in the world. Their “take” from fraud is extraordinary. The blue collar criminals that occupied Wilson’s attention late in his career were politically and socially powerless. The fraudulent CEOs that drive our recurrent, intensifying financial crises are wealthy and socially and politically dominant.
Wilson had a fabulous career and added greatly to the policy debate about how to respond to blue collar crime. Our most fitting tribute to him and contribution to his legacy would be to apply his “broken window” theory to the elite white collar crimes and criminals that drive our financial crises. The troubling paradox is that the strongest proponents of “broken windows” theory and policies in the blue collar crime context are the strongest opponents of applying analogous policies in the elite white collar crime context. The Wall Street Journal is the most prominent example of this class-based incoherence.
Bill Black is the author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One and an associate professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. He spent years working on regulatory policy and fraud prevention as Executive Director of the Institute for Fraud Prevention, Litigation Director of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board and Deputy Director of the National Commission on Financial Institution Reform, Recovery and Enforcement, among other positions.
Bill writes a column for Benzinga every Monday. His other academic articles, congressional testimony, and musings about the financial crisis can be found at his Social Science Research Network author page and at the blog New Economic Perspectives.
Follow him on Twitter: @WilliamKBlack
Stoner Cooking: Chicken Recipes
http://shine.yahoo.com/shine-food/10-great-recipe-ideas-chicken-193800293.html
Baked Chicken Parmesan
Serves 4| Hands-On Time: 15m | Total Time: 40m
Ingredients 8 thin chicken cutlets (1 1/2 pounds total), kosher salt and black pepper, 1/4 cup all-purpose flour, 2 large eggs, beaten, 2/3 cup bread crumbs, 1/4 cup grated Parmesan cheese, 3 tablespoons olive oil, 1 24-ounce jar marinara sauce, 1 pound fresh mozzarella, sliced
Directions
Heat oven to 400º F. Season the chicken with ½ teaspoon salt and ¼ teaspoon pepper.
Place the flour and eggs in separate shallow bowls; in a third shallow bowl, combine the bread crumbs and Parmesan. Coat the chicken with the flour, then dip in the eggs (letting any excess drip off), then coat with the bread crumb mixture, pressing gently to help it adhere. Heat the oil in a large skillet over medium-high heat. Cook the chicken in batches until golden brown, about 2 minutes per side. Pour the marinara sauce into a large, shallow baking dish. Top with the chicken and mozzarella. -Bake until bubbling and golden brown, 20 to 25 minutes.
Calories per serving: 856
Chicken With Creamy Mushrooms
Serves 4| Hands-On Time: 20m | Total Time: 20m
Ingredients 8 small chicken cutlets (1½ pounds total), kosher salt and pepper, 3 tablespoons olive oil, 1 pound sliced mushrooms, 1/2 cup heavy cream, 1/2 cup goat cheese, 1/4 cup chopped parsley
Directions
Season the chicken with ½ teaspoon salt and ¼ teaspoon pepper. Heat 2 tablespoons of the oil in a skillet over medium-high heat. Cook the chicken in batches until golden brown, about 2 minutes per side. Transfer to plates. Add the mushrooms and remaining tablespoon of oil to the pan and cook, tossing occasionally, until tender, 4 to 5 minutes. Stir in the heavy cream, goat cheese, parsley, and ¼ teaspoon each salt and pepper. Serve over the chicken.
Calories per serving: 454
Moroccan Chicken Salad With Carrots
Serves 4| Hands-On Time: 20m | Total Time: 20m
Ingredients 5 tablespoons olive oil, 8 small chicken cutlets (1½ pounds total), 1 teaspoon ground cumin, kosher salt and black pepper, 3 tablespoons lime juice, 1/4 teaspoon crushed red pepper, 5 ounces baby spinach, 2 cups cilantro leaves, 4 carrots, peeled into strips, 1/2 cup raisins
Directions
Heat 2 tablespoons of the oil in a large skillet over medium-high heat.
Season the chicken with the cumin, ½ teaspoon salt, and ¼ teaspoon black pepper. In batches, cook the chicken until golden brown and cooked through, about 2 minutes per side. Cut into strips. In a small bowl, whisk together the lime juice, red pepper, the remaining 3 tablespoons of oil, and ½ teaspoon salt. In a large bowl, toss the chicken, spinach, cilantro, carrots, and raisins with the dressing.
Calories per serving: 433
Crispy Herbed Chicken Strips
Serves 4| Hands-On Time: 20m | Total Time: 20m
Ingredients 2 cups panko bread crumbs, 1/4 cup chopped fresh dill, 8 small chicken cutlets (1½ pounds total), cut into wide strips, kosher salt and black pepper, 1/4 cup all-purpose flour, 1 large egg, beaten, 3 tablespoons olive oil, 2 Kirby cucumbers, cut into spears, 1/2 cup ranch dressing
Directions In a shallow bowl, combine the bread crumbs and dill.
Season the chicken with ½ teaspoon salt and ¼ teaspoon pepper.
Coat the chicken with flour. Dip in the egg (letting any excess drip off). Then coat with the bread crumb mixture, pressing gently to help it adhere. Heat the oil in a skillet over medium-high heat. Cook the chicken in batches until golden brown and cooked through, about 2 minutes per side. Serve with the cucumber spears and ranch dressing.
Calories per serving: 597
Baked Chicken Parmesan
Serves 4| Hands-On Time: 15m | Total Time: 40m
Ingredients 8 thin chicken cutlets (1 1/2 pounds total), kosher salt and black pepper, 1/4 cup all-purpose flour, 2 large eggs, beaten, 2/3 cup bread crumbs, 1/4 cup grated Parmesan cheese, 3 tablespoons olive oil, 1 24-ounce jar marinara sauce, 1 pound fresh mozzarella, sliced
Directions
Heat oven to 400º F. Season the chicken with ½ teaspoon salt and ¼ teaspoon pepper.
Place the flour and eggs in separate shallow bowls; in a third shallow bowl, combine the bread crumbs and Parmesan. Coat the chicken with the flour, then dip in the eggs (letting any excess drip off), then coat with the bread crumb mixture, pressing gently to help it adhere. Heat the oil in a large skillet over medium-high heat. Cook the chicken in batches until golden brown, about 2 minutes per side. Pour the marinara sauce into a large, shallow baking dish. Top with the chicken and mozzarella. -Bake until bubbling and golden brown, 20 to 25 minutes.
Calories per serving: 856
Chicken With Creamy Mushrooms
Serves 4| Hands-On Time: 20m | Total Time: 20m
Ingredients 8 small chicken cutlets (1½ pounds total), kosher salt and pepper, 3 tablespoons olive oil, 1 pound sliced mushrooms, 1/2 cup heavy cream, 1/2 cup goat cheese, 1/4 cup chopped parsley
Directions
Season the chicken with ½ teaspoon salt and ¼ teaspoon pepper. Heat 2 tablespoons of the oil in a skillet over medium-high heat. Cook the chicken in batches until golden brown, about 2 minutes per side. Transfer to plates. Add the mushrooms and remaining tablespoon of oil to the pan and cook, tossing occasionally, until tender, 4 to 5 minutes. Stir in the heavy cream, goat cheese, parsley, and ¼ teaspoon each salt and pepper. Serve over the chicken.
Calories per serving: 454
Moroccan Chicken Salad With Carrots
Serves 4| Hands-On Time: 20m | Total Time: 20m
Ingredients 5 tablespoons olive oil, 8 small chicken cutlets (1½ pounds total), 1 teaspoon ground cumin, kosher salt and black pepper, 3 tablespoons lime juice, 1/4 teaspoon crushed red pepper, 5 ounces baby spinach, 2 cups cilantro leaves, 4 carrots, peeled into strips, 1/2 cup raisins
Directions
Heat 2 tablespoons of the oil in a large skillet over medium-high heat.
Season the chicken with the cumin, ½ teaspoon salt, and ¼ teaspoon black pepper. In batches, cook the chicken until golden brown and cooked through, about 2 minutes per side. Cut into strips. In a small bowl, whisk together the lime juice, red pepper, the remaining 3 tablespoons of oil, and ½ teaspoon salt. In a large bowl, toss the chicken, spinach, cilantro, carrots, and raisins with the dressing.
Calories per serving: 433
Crispy Herbed Chicken Strips
Serves 4| Hands-On Time: 20m | Total Time: 20m
Ingredients 2 cups panko bread crumbs, 1/4 cup chopped fresh dill, 8 small chicken cutlets (1½ pounds total), cut into wide strips, kosher salt and black pepper, 1/4 cup all-purpose flour, 1 large egg, beaten, 3 tablespoons olive oil, 2 Kirby cucumbers, cut into spears, 1/2 cup ranch dressing
Directions In a shallow bowl, combine the bread crumbs and dill.
Season the chicken with ½ teaspoon salt and ¼ teaspoon pepper.
Coat the chicken with flour. Dip in the egg (letting any excess drip off). Then coat with the bread crumb mixture, pressing gently to help it adhere. Heat the oil in a skillet over medium-high heat. Cook the chicken in batches until golden brown and cooked through, about 2 minutes per side. Serve with the cucumber spears and ranch dressing.
Calories per serving: 597
100 Years of Oreo
The Oreo turned 100 on March 6th. Here's some facts about and recipes using America's favorite cookie...
Source:
http://shine.yahoo.com/shine-food/100-years-oreo-recipes-facts-famous-cookie-194400045.html
Which came first, Oreo or Hydrox? Though both have passionate followings, and Oreos outsell the Kellogg Hydrox sandwich cookie, Hydrox cookies actually came first, in 1908. They were discontinued in 1999, but returned to stores in 2008.
According to Kraft Foods, 84 percent of men and 59 percent of women eat the cookie without twisting it open first.
No one knows who came up with Oreos, or where the name really came from. Kraft Foods' corporate archivist Becky Tousey says that she thinks the name came from combining the "re" in creme and the two "o's" in chocolate. Others theorize that the name comes from the ancient greek word for mountain ("oros") since the cookies were once domed, or the French word for gold ("or") because the cookies once came in golden packaging.
Oreos are available in different flavors outside of the U.S.. In China you can find them in Green Tea, orange/mango, and raspberry/blueberry "Double Fruit" flavors. In Argentina, there's the Oreo Alfajor, with a half-banana, half-dulce de leche flavored filling. In Mexico, people enjoy "Trio Chocolate," with three different types of chocolate in each cookie, and Oreos with a cookies-and-creme filling (that's right -- Oreo cookies with Oreo-cookie filling, so to speak.)
Classic Oreos are 71 percent chocolate wafer and 29 percent creme. After decades of this standard, the company released the Double Stuff in 1975.
There's at least one street named after the cookie: Oreo Way, in New York City.
It takes 59 minutes for a bakery to make an Oreo.
The tiny pattern pressed into the wafer is a combination of 12 flowers (each made of 4 triangles), 37 dots, and 12 dashes. Each cookie also has 90 ridges running along its edges.
Oreo-stuffed chocolate chip cookies:
Bon Appetit magazine calls these "the new cupcake."
2 sticks softened butter
3/4 cup packed light brown sugar
1 cup granulated sugar
2 large eggs
1 tablespoon pure vanilla
3 1/2 cups flour
1 teaspoon salt
1 teaspoon baking soda
10 oz bag chocolate chips
1 pkg. Oreo cookies
Preheat oven to 350 degrees. Cream butter and sugars together with a mixer until well combined. Beat in eggs and vanilla.
In a separate bowl mix the flour, salt and baking soda. Slowly add to wet ingredients along with chocolate chips until just combined. Using a cookie scoop take one scoop of cookie dough and place on top of an Oreo Cookie. Take another scoop of dough and place on bottom of Oreo cookie. Seal edges together by pressing and cupping in hand until Oreo cookie is enclosed with dough. Place onto a parchment or silpat lined baking sheet and bake cookies 9-13 minutes or until golden brown. Let cool for 5 minutes before transferring to cooling rack.
Makes about 2 dozen large cookies.
Triple-chocolate cookie balls
This no-bake treat that looks much more complicated than it really is.
1 pkg. Oreo cookies
1/2 cup milk
1 package JELL-O chocolate instant pudding
12 to 16 Baker's semi-sweet chocolate squares
4 to 8 Bakers white chocolate squares
In a small bowl, make a paste out of the pudding and the milk. Put 36 of the Oreos into a gallon-size zip-top bag and crush them (with a rolling pin or a mallet). Add the crushed cookies to the pudding mixture and stir will. Form the mixture into small balls and place on a wax-paper lined cookie sheet; freeze them for about 10 minutes.
While they're in the freezer, please the semi-sweet chocolate squares in a microwave-safe bowl and heat, stirring often, until melted. Dip the chilled oreo balls into the melted chocolate, place them on a fresh wax-paper lined cookie sheet, and refrigerate or freeze for another 10 minutes.
Melt the white chocolate squares, and drizzle the melted white chocolate over the cookie balls using a fork or a spoon. Return them to the refrigerator to harden briefly before serving.
Makes 40 to 45 cookie balls
Source:
http://shine.yahoo.com/shine-food/100-years-oreo-recipes-facts-famous-cookie-194400045.html
Which came first, Oreo or Hydrox? Though both have passionate followings, and Oreos outsell the Kellogg Hydrox sandwich cookie, Hydrox cookies actually came first, in 1908. They were discontinued in 1999, but returned to stores in 2008.
According to Kraft Foods, 84 percent of men and 59 percent of women eat the cookie without twisting it open first.
No one knows who came up with Oreos, or where the name really came from. Kraft Foods' corporate archivist Becky Tousey says that she thinks the name came from combining the "re" in creme and the two "o's" in chocolate. Others theorize that the name comes from the ancient greek word for mountain ("oros") since the cookies were once domed, or the French word for gold ("or") because the cookies once came in golden packaging.
Oreos are available in different flavors outside of the U.S.. In China you can find them in Green Tea, orange/mango, and raspberry/blueberry "Double Fruit" flavors. In Argentina, there's the Oreo Alfajor, with a half-banana, half-dulce de leche flavored filling. In Mexico, people enjoy "Trio Chocolate," with three different types of chocolate in each cookie, and Oreos with a cookies-and-creme filling (that's right -- Oreo cookies with Oreo-cookie filling, so to speak.)
Classic Oreos are 71 percent chocolate wafer and 29 percent creme. After decades of this standard, the company released the Double Stuff in 1975.
There's at least one street named after the cookie: Oreo Way, in New York City.
It takes 59 minutes for a bakery to make an Oreo.
The tiny pattern pressed into the wafer is a combination of 12 flowers (each made of 4 triangles), 37 dots, and 12 dashes. Each cookie also has 90 ridges running along its edges.
Oreo-stuffed chocolate chip cookies:
Bon Appetit magazine calls these "the new cupcake."
2 sticks softened butter
3/4 cup packed light brown sugar
1 cup granulated sugar
2 large eggs
1 tablespoon pure vanilla
3 1/2 cups flour
1 teaspoon salt
1 teaspoon baking soda
10 oz bag chocolate chips
1 pkg. Oreo cookies
Preheat oven to 350 degrees. Cream butter and sugars together with a mixer until well combined. Beat in eggs and vanilla.
In a separate bowl mix the flour, salt and baking soda. Slowly add to wet ingredients along with chocolate chips until just combined. Using a cookie scoop take one scoop of cookie dough and place on top of an Oreo Cookie. Take another scoop of dough and place on bottom of Oreo cookie. Seal edges together by pressing and cupping in hand until Oreo cookie is enclosed with dough. Place onto a parchment or silpat lined baking sheet and bake cookies 9-13 minutes or until golden brown. Let cool for 5 minutes before transferring to cooling rack.
Makes about 2 dozen large cookies.
Triple-chocolate cookie balls
This no-bake treat that looks much more complicated than it really is.
1 pkg. Oreo cookies
1/2 cup milk
1 package JELL-O chocolate instant pudding
12 to 16 Baker's semi-sweet chocolate squares
4 to 8 Bakers white chocolate squares
In a small bowl, make a paste out of the pudding and the milk. Put 36 of the Oreos into a gallon-size zip-top bag and crush them (with a rolling pin or a mallet). Add the crushed cookies to the pudding mixture and stir will. Form the mixture into small balls and place on a wax-paper lined cookie sheet; freeze them for about 10 minutes.
While they're in the freezer, please the semi-sweet chocolate squares in a microwave-safe bowl and heat, stirring often, until melted. Dip the chilled oreo balls into the melted chocolate, place them on a fresh wax-paper lined cookie sheet, and refrigerate or freeze for another 10 minutes.
Melt the white chocolate squares, and drizzle the melted white chocolate over the cookie balls using a fork or a spoon. Return them to the refrigerator to harden briefly before serving.
Makes 40 to 45 cookie balls
Thirteen sensual aphrodesiac foods to improve your sex life
Thirteen sensual aphrodesiac foods to improve your sex life
Thursday, March 01, 2012 by: JB Bardot
http://www.naturalnews.com/035111_aphrodesiac_foods_love_life.html
Chocolate -- Chocolate works like no other food to stimulate human sexuality. It's delicious, melts on the tongue and has an erotic quality even when not thinking of sex. According to Amy Reiley in her book, "Romancing the Stove: The Unabridged Guide to Aphrodisiac Foods," chocolate helps thin the blood, improve circulation to sensitive parts and strengthen the heart enabling aiding endurance.
Strawberries --Try them dipped in chocolate for the ultimate aphrodisiac experience. There's really nothing that compares with grasping the little green leaves on top of a juicy strawberry dipped in luscious dark chocolate, and placing it between your lover's parted lips.
Espresso --With its pleasingly bitter tang and exotic scent, expressohelps to pump the blood. In her aphrodisiac cookbook, "The New InterCourses," Martha Hopkins recommends espresso for its ability to extend sexual performance and maintain the libido, increasing pleasure even for just a few delicious extra seconds.
Oysters -- Oystershave a long reputation for being a leading aphrodisiac. They're high in protein, low in fat and feel luscious in the mouth. And of even greater importance, they're high in the mineral zinc, says Reiley, an critical nutrient in the production of testosterone.
Asparagus --If it looks like something you're familiar with, it should. The asparagus resembles part of the male body and according to the "Doctrine of Signatures", penned in the 16th century, that which resembles one thing may improve that which it looks like. So, according to the theory, if it resembles a sexual organ, it is meant by nature to aid your sexuality. Even though the Doctrine was merely a theory, it's now known that asparagus is rich in calcium, vitamin E, phosphorus and potassium, offering extra energy to improve sexual endurance and stimulate sex hormones.
Ginger and Cayenne --Both of theseplay a role in the aphrodisiac department by encouraging increased, oxygen-rich blood flow to some of the body's most sensitive areas -- And that translates to greater pleasure.
Rosemary --This delicious herb associated with Aphrodite, the goddess of love, also boosts blood supply and helps increase sensitivity of the skin. Include it in your cooking and sprinkle a few drops of essential oil in the bath.
Bananas -- Bananas are another go-to aphrodisiac food not only because they resemble the male phallus, but because they are high in nutrients that enhance the production of sex hormones.
Basil -- Basil was used long ago by women as a scent of seduction to drive their men wild with desire. It's a strong aphrodisiac and is infused into some perfumes. Use it in a salad, a pesto or just leave some of the fresh leaves around to entice your man.
Pomegranate -- Pomegranate symbolized the love goddess Aphrodite in ancient Greece, notes Reiley. Modern researchers are conducting studies into the affects of pomegranate juice for the treatment of erectile dysfunction.
Truffles -- Trufflesare a great aphrodisiac for the woman in your life. They're rich in amino acids and their scent is similar to that of a male pheromone, or sex hormone.
Grapes -- Grapes areassociated with Bacchus, the Roman god of ecstasy, and are a close contender with chocolate for being the top aphrodisiac. What could be more romantic than being fed peeled grapes, one by one by your lover, and waiting for that juicy, sweet explosion of flavor in your mouth?
Thursday, March 01, 2012 by: JB Bardot
http://www.naturalnews.com/035111_aphrodesiac_foods_love_life.html
Chocolate -- Chocolate works like no other food to stimulate human sexuality. It's delicious, melts on the tongue and has an erotic quality even when not thinking of sex. According to Amy Reiley in her book, "Romancing the Stove: The Unabridged Guide to Aphrodisiac Foods," chocolate helps thin the blood, improve circulation to sensitive parts and strengthen the heart enabling aiding endurance.
Strawberries --Try them dipped in chocolate for the ultimate aphrodisiac experience. There's really nothing that compares with grasping the little green leaves on top of a juicy strawberry dipped in luscious dark chocolate, and placing it between your lover's parted lips.
Espresso --With its pleasingly bitter tang and exotic scent, expressohelps to pump the blood. In her aphrodisiac cookbook, "The New InterCourses," Martha Hopkins recommends espresso for its ability to extend sexual performance and maintain the libido, increasing pleasure even for just a few delicious extra seconds.
Oysters -- Oystershave a long reputation for being a leading aphrodisiac. They're high in protein, low in fat and feel luscious in the mouth. And of even greater importance, they're high in the mineral zinc, says Reiley, an critical nutrient in the production of testosterone.
Asparagus --If it looks like something you're familiar with, it should. The asparagus resembles part of the male body and according to the "Doctrine of Signatures", penned in the 16th century, that which resembles one thing may improve that which it looks like. So, according to the theory, if it resembles a sexual organ, it is meant by nature to aid your sexuality. Even though the Doctrine was merely a theory, it's now known that asparagus is rich in calcium, vitamin E, phosphorus and potassium, offering extra energy to improve sexual endurance and stimulate sex hormones.
Ginger and Cayenne --Both of theseplay a role in the aphrodisiac department by encouraging increased, oxygen-rich blood flow to some of the body's most sensitive areas -- And that translates to greater pleasure.
Rosemary --This delicious herb associated with Aphrodite, the goddess of love, also boosts blood supply and helps increase sensitivity of the skin. Include it in your cooking and sprinkle a few drops of essential oil in the bath.
Bananas -- Bananas are another go-to aphrodisiac food not only because they resemble the male phallus, but because they are high in nutrients that enhance the production of sex hormones.
Basil -- Basil was used long ago by women as a scent of seduction to drive their men wild with desire. It's a strong aphrodisiac and is infused into some perfumes. Use it in a salad, a pesto or just leave some of the fresh leaves around to entice your man.
Pomegranate -- Pomegranate symbolized the love goddess Aphrodite in ancient Greece, notes Reiley. Modern researchers are conducting studies into the affects of pomegranate juice for the treatment of erectile dysfunction.
Truffles -- Trufflesare a great aphrodisiac for the woman in your life. They're rich in amino acids and their scent is similar to that of a male pheromone, or sex hormone.
Grapes -- Grapes areassociated with Bacchus, the Roman god of ecstasy, and are a close contender with chocolate for being the top aphrodisiac. What could be more romantic than being fed peeled grapes, one by one by your lover, and waiting for that juicy, sweet explosion of flavor in your mouth?
Significa 3-21-12
Konformist Book Club Excerpt:
What Revelation Reveals
It is the Bible's strangest book. Even stranger, it was only one of many now-forgotten 'books of revelation'
ELAINE PAGELS
March 2, 2012
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203753704577253611876502848.html
The Book of Revelation is the strangest book in the Bible, and the most controversial. Instead of stories and moral teaching, it offers only visions—dreams and nightmares, the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, earthquakes, plagues and war. In the climactic battle scene, Jesus appears as a divine warrior, Satan is thrown into a pit, and all humans who had died faithful to God reign over the earth for 1,000 years.
The author, John of Patmos, was a Jewish prophet and a follower of Jesus who probably began to write around the year 90 after fleeing a war that had ravaged his homeland, Judea. But his Book of Revelation wasn't unique. At the time, countless others—Jews, pagans and Christians—produced a flood of "books of revelation," claiming to reveal divine secrets. Some have been known for centuries; about 20 others were found in Nag Hammadi, Egypt, in 1945.
So what do the other revelations tell us, and how did John's come to trump the others? Unlike the Book of Revelation, the great majority of the others weren't about the end of the world, but about finding the divine in it now. Many offered encouragement to seek direct contact with God—a message that some early Christian leaders ultimately chose to suppress.
The Revelation of Zostrianos, found in 1945, tells how the young author, tormented by questions and overwhelmed by depression, walked alone into the desert. Finding no place "to rest my spirit," Zostrianos says he had resolved to kill himself. But he says that suddenly he became aware of a being radiating light, who "said to me, 'Zostrianos…have you gone mad?' "
This divine presence, Zostrianos says, released him from despair and offered illumination. Then, Zostrianos says, "I realized that the power in me was greater than the darkness, because it contained the whole light."
Another 1945 find, the Revelation of Peter, similarly opens in a desperate moment. Peter says he was standing in the temple with other disciples when "I saw the priests and the people running up to us with stones, as if they would kill us." Terrified, he says, he heard Jesus tell him to "put your hands…over your eyes, and say what you see." Peter sees nothing. Jesus tells him to do it again. Peter says: "And fear came over me, [and] joy, for I saw a new light greater than the light of day. Then it came down upon the Savior, and I told him what I saw."
Although such revelations might not change outward circumstances—tradition tells us that, just as Peter feared, he was caught and crucified—the Revelation of Peter suggests that what Jesus revealed enabled him to face his death with courage and hope.
These other revelations, written several generations after Jesus' death, were often written by anonymous followers of Jesus under the names of disciples—not to deceive their readers but to show that they were writing "in the spirit" of those whose names they borrowed. Many were probably not written by Christians at all. Some of the revelations drew upon sacred traditions of Egypt and Greece and, in some cases, on the Hebrew Bible. Others included practices similar to Buddhist meditation techniques.
The Secret Revelation of John opens, again, in crisis. The disciple John, grieving Jesus' death, is walking toward the temple when he meets a Pharisee who mocks him for having been deceived by a false messiah. These taunts echoed John's own fear and doubt. Devastated, John turns away from the temple and heads toward the desert, where, he says, "I grieved greatly in my heart."
Suddenly, he says, he saw brilliant light as the heavens opened, and the earth shook beneath his feet. Terrified, John says he saw a luminous presence that kept changing form, and then heard Jesus' voice: "John, John, why do you doubt, and why are you afraid?…I am the one who is with you always. I am the Father; I am the Mother; I am the Son."
The Jesus who appears in the Secret Revelation doesn't look as he does in the Book of Revelation. Instead of a divine warrior leading heavenly armies to "strike down the nations," he appears as the apostle Paul says he saw him—in blazing light and a heavenly voice, and then in changing forms: first as a child, then as an old man, then—and here scholars disagree—either as a servant or as a woman. Through a series of visions and imagery, the Secret Revelation suggests that what is revealed to John is potentially available to all people—or, at least, to all who are receptive to what the spirit teaches.
In the fourth century, bishops intent on establishing "orthodoxy" labored to suppress writings like the Secret Revelation. Although they didn't deny that Jesus was human, they tended to place Jesus on the divine side of the equation—not only divine but, in the words of the Nicene Creed, "God from God…essentially the same as God." Orthodox theologians insisted that the rest of humankind were only transitory creatures, lost in sin—a view that would support what would become their dominant teaching about salvation, offered only through Christ, and, in particular, through the church they claimed to represent.
From the second century, Christian leaders, who saw their close groups torn apart as Roman magistrates arrested and executed their most outspoken members, felt that John's Book of Revelation spoke directly to these crises because it prophesied God's victory over Rome. Such Christians championed this book above the rest. Some challenged other books of revelation, with their more universal visions, calling them illegitimate and heretical.
Throughout the ages, Christians have adapted John of Patmos's visions to changing times, reading their own social, political and religious conflicts into the cosmic war he so powerfully evokes. Yet his Book of Revelation appeals not only to fear and desires for vengeance but also to hope. As John tells how the chaotic events of the world are finally set right by divine judgment, those who engage his visions often see them offering moral meaning in times of suffering or apparently random catastrophe. Many poets, artists and preachers have claimed to find in these prophecies the promise, famously repeated by Martin Luther King Jr., that "the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice."
The Book of Revelation reads as if John had wrapped up all our worst fears—fears of violence, plague, wild animals, unimaginable horrors from the abyss below the earth, lightning, hail, earthquakes and the atrocities or torture and war—into one gigantic nightmare. Yet this worst of all nightmares ends not in terror but in a glorious new world. Whether one sees in John's visions the destruction of the whole world or the dark tunnel that propels each of us toward our own death, his final vision suggests that even after the worst we can imagine has happened, we may find the astonishing gift of new life. Whether or not one shares that conviction, few readers miss seeing how these visions offer consolation and that most necessary of divine gifts—hope.
— Excerpted from "Revelations: Visions, Prophecy and Politics in the Book of Revelation" published by Viking
Kindle Edition $14.99:
http://www.amazon.com/Revelations-Prophecy-Politics-Revelation-ebook/dp/B006LU1O44/thekonformist
Hardcover $16.25:
http://www.amazon.com/Revelations-Visions-Prophecy-Politics-Revelation/dp/0670023345/thekonformist
Audio, CD, Audiobook, Unabridged $22.70:
http://www.amazon.com/Revelations-Visions-Prophecy-Politics-Revelation/dp/0307988260/thekonformist
Audible Audio Edition, Unabridged $21.44 or Free with Audible 30-day free trial:
http://www.amazon.com/Revelations-Visions-Prophecy-Politics-Revelation/dp/B007HI3B9U/thekonformist
A version of this article appeared Mar. 3, 2012, on page C3 in some U.S. editions of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: What Revelation Reveals.
*
Music Video of the week:
Again, by Alice in Chains
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__biilMpnmw&ob=av2e
Why is Alice in Chains the favorite Seattle band of Robalini? This is why...
*
The World’s Top 10 Billionaires
Source: Forbes.com
1. Carlos Slim Helú
Net Worth: $69 billion
2. Bill Gates
Net Worth: $61 billion
3. Warren Buffett
Net Worth: $44 billion
4. Bernard Arnault
Net Worth: $41 billion
5. Amancio Ortega
Net Worth: $37.5 billion
6. Larry Ellison
Net Worth: $36 billion
7. Eike Batista
Net Worth: $30 billion
8. Stefan Persson
Net Worth: $26 billion
9. Name: Li Ka-shing
Net Worth: $25.5 billion
10. Karl Albrecht
Net Worth: $25.4 billion
*
YouTube Film of the Month: The Primacy of Consciousness - Peter Russell
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-d4ugppcRUE
Via Disinfo.com:
Peter Russell explores the problems science has explaining consciousness and proposes that consciousness is not created by the brain, but is inherent in all beings. He shows why mind is more fundamental than matter, and the the key to this shift is the revolution in our understanding of the light.
The excerpted version (10 mins) is at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqSxHzqm1pw
DVD available from:
http://peterrussell.com/store
*
Kool Websites
Dutch Farms
http://www.dutchfarms.com
Welcome to Dutch Farms Inc., where we are proud to offer farm-fresh Dairy, Deli, Meat and Bakery products. We are a family-owned, fourth generation, Chicago-based company with Dutch roots.
The Dutch have always been known for their dairy products …especially wonderful cheese. At Dutch Farms, we offer outstanding cheese, butter and eggs. Try our dairy products in all of your favorite recipes. Soon, you’ll be saying, “I want Dutch Farms!”
TaxSlayer.com
http://www.taxslayer.com
Includes All Major Forms & Schedules:
Authorized e-File Provider
Business Forms (Sch C and F)
Rental Property (Sch E and K-1)
1040EZ, 1040A, 1040
Itemized Deductions
Tuition and Fees Deduction
*
The Original Wrecking Ball: Bruce Springsteen’s “Nebraska”
Ian Crouch
March 6, 2012
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2012/03/bruce-springsteen-nebraska.html
Bruce Springsteen’s seventeenth studio album, “Wrecking Ball,” has landed. It pairs some musical experimentation—tape loops, samples, a bit of rapping (not by the Boss, thankfully, but by the gospel singer Michelle Moore)—with familiar Springsteen lyrical iconography: American flags, steel wheels, shuttered factories, and suitcases packed for a quick escape. Springsteen told Rolling Stone that “the record basically started out as folk music—just me and a guitar singing these songs,” before he began working with producer Ron Aniello on a more eclectic and anthemic sound. In the same interview, Springsteen also said: “This is as direct a record as I ever made. That’s with the possible exception of ‘Nebraska,’ which this record has a lot in common with.”
Let’s see. This January marked the thirtieth anniversary of the recording of “Nebraska,” one of the more mythical events in pop-music history. Over the course of several days at his home in Colts Neck, New Jersey, and armed principally with a guitar, harmonica, and glockenspiel, Springsteen laid down what he thought were demos for a new album that he’d record with the E Street Band. That album never got made; after rehearsals with the full band, Springsteen, his manager, Jon Landau, and others decided that the lyrics—about murder, hard luck, regret, and father-and-son strife—were better served by the low-fi originals. What emerged on “Nebraska” was a hushed, thin, and stark sound, which, because of its provenance, seemed almost divinely inspired. Accordingly, the device that captured the sound, a Tascam Portastudio 144 tape recorder, has become a kind of holy object among fans. The album’s lyrics, meanwhile, seem drawn from a harrowing and unnervingly gorgeous hell right here on earth.
In “Heart of Darkness: Bruce Springsteen’s Nebraska,” a new history of the album, published this past December, David Burke connects its themes to the political and economic climate that marked the early Reagan years. Springsteen has said that Reagan’s election startled him into a newfound political consciousness. Burke quotes a Springsteen interview in which the Boss said that “Nebraska” was about the loss of community and “spiritual breakdown,” times and places when people “just get shot off somewhere where nothing seems to matter.” Among the album’s story songs, murder ballads, confessions, and deathbed laments are plenty of sociological markers. Bad prices have killed the family farm. The bank is about to take the house. Vietnam vets have been screwed from all sides. Someone closed the auto plant in Mahwah.
The economy was lousy in 1982, and it’s lousy today, at least for the people who appear in Springsteen songs. “Wrecking Ball” is also filled with criminals, but they aren’t the outcasts and the misfits that populate “Nebraska.” This time, they are members of the one per cent. And, while “Nebraska” tells plaintive, first-person stories, most of the songs on “Wrecking Ball” are thematic rather than narrative—fables about the capital-letter ideas of Politics, the Economy, and the State of the Union. With its proud liberal populism and wide sampling of the national musical melting pot, “Wrecking Ball” is a big-tent vision of America. It may be an imperfect and deeply unfair place, but it’s still a party. And perhaps a hootenany will help sort things out. (It’s fitting that Obama included the album’s first single, “We Take Care of Our Own” on his campaign playlist on Spotify.)
If “Wrecking Ball” is the big top, then “Nebraska” is the freak show. Burke’s book is informative, but it places too much emphasis on the songs as cultural commentary; they are about something deeply sinister. Sissy Spacek’s affectless narration in the Terrence Malick movie “Badlands” inspired the album’s title track, told from the man’s perspective, which opens: “I saw her standin’ on her front lawn, just a-twirlin’ her baton. / Me and her went for a ride, sir, and ten innocent people died.” The prairie edge continues with the screechy yodel that kicks off “Johnny 99.” And the chilling shriek that ends “State Trooper.” Springsteen was reading Flannery O’Connor at the time. The album is shot through with the real possibility of an evil that transcends circumstance, what O’Connor writes about in the story “A Good Man is Hard to Find”: “Then it’s nothing for you to do but enjoy the few minutes you got left the best way you can—by killing somebody or burning down his house or doing some other meanness to him. No pleasure but meanness.”
“Nebraska” may be an anomaly in Springsteen’s career rather than a signpost. (Stephen Metcalf, writing at Slate, once called it “the only record you can push on the nonbelievers.”) It doesn’t offer signs of hope, redemption, or community. There’s no “we” anywhere in it. It’s nihilistic in its philosophy, and agnostic in its politics. Perhaps most importantly, the album, in its tightly controlled sound and theme, resists the power of Springsteen’s outsized personality and his immense power to entertain. There has often been a dissonance between Bruce Springsteen’s music and the content of his lyrics. It’s why “Born in the U.S.A.”—a deeply anti-American song—gets played at Tea Party rallies. The big political numbers on “Wrecking Ball” may have started as folk songs, and they look serious on paper, but they’ll be heard beneath the bright lights of stadiums, and most likely this fall at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina. “Nebraska,” meanwhile, is about a different kind of politics, and should be heard in the dark.
*
Awesome Technology: The Robo-Cheetah
Fatest robot on four legs at 18 MPH:
http://www.theage.com.au/technology/sci-tech/robocheetah-sets-new-record-as-fastest-robot-on-four-legs-20120306-1uh7m.html
Not-So-Awesome Technology: Pink Slime
AKA Soylent Pink, it's ammonia-treated cow tissues that were added to beef at fast food joints (and even more sinisterly, school lunches) until recently:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/05/pink-slime-for-school-lun_n_1322325.html
*
Netflix Said to Be Aiming for a Cable Partnership
AMY CHOZICK
March 7, 2012
Full Article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/08/business/media/netflix-is-said-to-be-meeting-with-cable-providers.html
Netflix’s chief executive, Reed Hastings, has often compared his company’s Web streaming service to HBO. That comparison is inching closer to reality.
Over the last several weeks, Mr. Hastings and his top lieutenants have met with major cable operators to discuss a way for Netflix to appear on monthly cable bills, according to people who are familiar with the meetings but are not authorized to discuss negotiations publicly.
A partnership with cable providers, along with an ambitious slate of original series, would put Netflix one step closer to competing with premium cable channels, like HBO, Showtime and Starz, that offer original series and movies for a monthly fee.
“To be able to add Netflix to the bill, that might be very powerful, especially as we do more and more original content,” Mr. Hastings said at a Morgan Stanley media and technology conference in San Francisco last week.
“We are more and more a classic cable network,” Mr. Hastings said, adding that partnering with cable providers would eventually be the “logical path.”
A Netflix spokesman declined to comment on discussions with cable operators, but said Mr. Hastings’s comments in San Francisco were “futuristic.”
The nascent negotiations with cable operators, first reported by Reuters, underscore how Netflix has evolved. Once, on the strength of its popular DVD-by-mail service and emerging streaming offerings, the company was viewed as a rival to cable giants like Comcast and Time Warner Cable, the kind that could lead to widespread cord-cutting.
Netflix has stumbled, however, in obtaining rights to stream television shows and movies, and as the company has added streaming subscribers, it has lost subscribers to its DVD service.
At the same time, competitors have emerged. Last month, Comcast began an online streaming service called Streampix. The service is now available to Comcast’s 22.3 million Xfinity subscribers, but the company has the reach to one day expand the service beyond its customer base.
Also last month, Verizon said it would partner with Coinstar’s Redbox on a Web streaming service at a monthly rate of $4.99, compared with $7.99 for unlimited streaming on Netflix. The $79-a-year Amazon Prime service, which also offers shipping and Kindle benefits, has licensing deals with major television networks and movie studios. And Time Warner’s HBO Go, a streaming service available only to HBO subscribers, has been cited by Mr. Hastings as Netflix’s biggest competitor.
Partnering with a major cable operator would instantly increase the number of subscribers to Netflix, which currently has about 21.7 million streaming subscribers in the United States, according to the company...
States of Depression
PAUL KRUGMAN
March 4, 2012
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/05/opinion/krugman-states-of-depression.html
The economic news is looking better lately. But after previous false starts — remember “green shoots”? — it would be foolish to assume that all is well. And in any case, it’s still a very slow economic recovery by historical standards.
There are several reasons for this slowness, with the most important being the overhang of household debt that is a legacy of the housing bubble. But one significant factor in our continuing economic weakness is the fact that government in America is doing exactly what both theory and history say it shouldn’t: slashing spending in the face of a depressed economy.
In fact, if it weren’t for this destructive fiscal austerity, our unemployment rate would almost certainly be lower now than it was at a comparable stage of the “Morning in America” recovery during the Reagan era.
Notice that I said “government in America,” not “the federal government.” The federal government has been pursuing what amount to contractionary policies as the last vestiges of the Obama stimulus fade out, but the big cuts have come at the state and local level. These state and local cuts have led to a sharp fall in both government employment and government spending on goods and services, exerting a powerful drag on the economy as a whole.
One way to dramatize just how severe our de facto austerity has been is to compare government employment and spending during the Obama-era economic expansion, which began in June 2009, with their tracks during the Reagan-era expansion, which began in November 1982.
Start with government employment (which is mainly at the state and local level, with about half the jobs in education). By this stage in the Reagan recovery, government employment had risen by 3.1 percent; this time around, it’s down by 2.7 percent.
Next, look at government purchases of goods and services (as distinct from transfers to individuals, like unemployment benefits). Adjusted for inflation, by this stage of the Reagan recovery, such purchases had risen by 11.6 percent; this time, they’re down by 2.6 percent.
And the gap persists even when you do include transfers, some of which have stayed high precisely because unemployment is still so high. Adjusted for inflation, Reagan-era spending rose 10.2 percent in the first 10 quarters of recovery, Obama-era spending only 2.6 percent.
Why did government spending rise so much under Reagan, with his small-government rhetoric, while shrinking under the president so many Republicans insist is a secret socialist? In Reagan’s case, it’s partly about the arms race, but mainly about state and local governments doing what they are supposed to do: educate a growing population of children, invest in infrastructure for a growing economy.
Under President Obama, however, the dire fiscal condition of state and local governments — the result of a sustained slump, which in turn was caused largely by that private debt explosion before 2008 — has led to forced spending cuts. The fiscal straits of lower-level governments could and should have been alleviated by aid from Washington, which remains able to borrow at incredibly low interest rates. But this aid was never provided on a remotely adequate scale.
This policy malpractice is doing double damage to America. On one side, it’s helping lose the future — because that’s what happens when you neglect education and public investment. At the same time, it’s hurting us right now, by helping keep growth low and unemployment high.
We’re talking big numbers here. If government employment under Mr. Obama had grown at Reagan-era rates, 1.3 million more Americans would be working as schoolteachers, firefighters, police officers, etc., than are currently employed in such jobs.
And once you take the effects of public spending on private employment into account, a rough estimate is that the unemployment rate would be 1.5 percentage points lower than it is, or below 7 percent — significantly better than the Reagan economy at this stage.
One implication of this comparison is that conservatives who love to compare Reagan’s record with Mr. Obama’s should think twice. Aside from the fact that recoveries from financial crises are almost always slower than ordinary recoveries, in reality Reagan was much more Keynesian than Mr. Obama, faced with an obstructionist G.O.P., has ever managed to be.
More important, however, there is now an easy answer to anyone asking how we can accelerate our economic recovery. By all means, let’s talk about visionary ideas; but we can take a big step toward full employment just by using the federal government’s low borrowing costs to help state and local governments rehire the schoolteachers and police officers they laid off, while restarting the road repair and improvement projects they canceled or put on hold.
A version of this op-ed appeared in print on March 5, 2012, on page A19 of the New York edition with the headline: States of Depression.
March 4, 2012
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/05/opinion/krugman-states-of-depression.html
The economic news is looking better lately. But after previous false starts — remember “green shoots”? — it would be foolish to assume that all is well. And in any case, it’s still a very slow economic recovery by historical standards.
There are several reasons for this slowness, with the most important being the overhang of household debt that is a legacy of the housing bubble. But one significant factor in our continuing economic weakness is the fact that government in America is doing exactly what both theory and history say it shouldn’t: slashing spending in the face of a depressed economy.
In fact, if it weren’t for this destructive fiscal austerity, our unemployment rate would almost certainly be lower now than it was at a comparable stage of the “Morning in America” recovery during the Reagan era.
Notice that I said “government in America,” not “the federal government.” The federal government has been pursuing what amount to contractionary policies as the last vestiges of the Obama stimulus fade out, but the big cuts have come at the state and local level. These state and local cuts have led to a sharp fall in both government employment and government spending on goods and services, exerting a powerful drag on the economy as a whole.
One way to dramatize just how severe our de facto austerity has been is to compare government employment and spending during the Obama-era economic expansion, which began in June 2009, with their tracks during the Reagan-era expansion, which began in November 1982.
Start with government employment (which is mainly at the state and local level, with about half the jobs in education). By this stage in the Reagan recovery, government employment had risen by 3.1 percent; this time around, it’s down by 2.7 percent.
Next, look at government purchases of goods and services (as distinct from transfers to individuals, like unemployment benefits). Adjusted for inflation, by this stage of the Reagan recovery, such purchases had risen by 11.6 percent; this time, they’re down by 2.6 percent.
And the gap persists even when you do include transfers, some of which have stayed high precisely because unemployment is still so high. Adjusted for inflation, Reagan-era spending rose 10.2 percent in the first 10 quarters of recovery, Obama-era spending only 2.6 percent.
Why did government spending rise so much under Reagan, with his small-government rhetoric, while shrinking under the president so many Republicans insist is a secret socialist? In Reagan’s case, it’s partly about the arms race, but mainly about state and local governments doing what they are supposed to do: educate a growing population of children, invest in infrastructure for a growing economy.
Under President Obama, however, the dire fiscal condition of state and local governments — the result of a sustained slump, which in turn was caused largely by that private debt explosion before 2008 — has led to forced spending cuts. The fiscal straits of lower-level governments could and should have been alleviated by aid from Washington, which remains able to borrow at incredibly low interest rates. But this aid was never provided on a remotely adequate scale.
This policy malpractice is doing double damage to America. On one side, it’s helping lose the future — because that’s what happens when you neglect education and public investment. At the same time, it’s hurting us right now, by helping keep growth low and unemployment high.
We’re talking big numbers here. If government employment under Mr. Obama had grown at Reagan-era rates, 1.3 million more Americans would be working as schoolteachers, firefighters, police officers, etc., than are currently employed in such jobs.
And once you take the effects of public spending on private employment into account, a rough estimate is that the unemployment rate would be 1.5 percentage points lower than it is, or below 7 percent — significantly better than the Reagan economy at this stage.
One implication of this comparison is that conservatives who love to compare Reagan’s record with Mr. Obama’s should think twice. Aside from the fact that recoveries from financial crises are almost always slower than ordinary recoveries, in reality Reagan was much more Keynesian than Mr. Obama, faced with an obstructionist G.O.P., has ever managed to be.
More important, however, there is now an easy answer to anyone asking how we can accelerate our economic recovery. By all means, let’s talk about visionary ideas; but we can take a big step toward full employment just by using the federal government’s low borrowing costs to help state and local governments rehire the schoolteachers and police officers they laid off, while restarting the road repair and improvement projects they canceled or put on hold.
A version of this op-ed appeared in print on March 5, 2012, on page A19 of the New York edition with the headline: States of Depression.
Bill Maher wants you to forgive Rush
A privileged white guy who makes sexist comments would like us to pardon a privileged white guy for doing the sameMary Elizabeth Williams
Wednesday, Mar 7, 2012
http://www.salon.com/2012/03/07/bill_maher_wants_you_to_forgive_rush
This week in rich, delicious irony: A privileged, middle-aged man known for making sexist, derogatory comments would like America to forgive a privileged, middle-aged man for making sexist, derogatory comments.
After admitting that he does “Hate to defend #RushLimbaugh,” Bill Maher went on to tweet Tuesday, about the radio host: “he apologized, liberals looking bad not accepting. Also hate intimidation by sponsor pullout.” Wait, who looks bad here? My sides, they’re splitting!
Maher, of course, is a professional provocateur, a guy who views himself as an equal opportunity fly in everyone’s ointment. But he’s also the man who recently gave a cool million dollars to Obama’s super PAC and once suggested “don’t ask, don’t tell” be overturned purely “because it will make Rush Limbaugh explode like a bag full of meat dropped from a helicopter.” As such, he no doubt felt uniquely qualified to appeal to the left’s sense of justice. And no doubt there are plenty of talking heads – the ones who erroneously keep insisting that liberals and feminists have no problem with Maher’s track record of offensive remarks – who’d go along with him.
But as a matter of fact, lots of us were revolted when Maher called Sarah Palin a “cunt” and a “dumb twat,” and were grossed out by his ill-timed assessment of Lara Logan’s “intrepid hotness” last year. We actually don’t find sexism adorable just because someone lets Marc Maron on his show.
Maher has, quite rightly, said that “When you are a public figure you’re out there and you’re fodder for comedians to make comments on you.” And when you’re a comic and a genuinely smart guy, you can probably do it without reducing a woman to her genitals. Women can take criticism and satire just fine. It’s the misogyny that gets old.
Moreover, here’s a reminder. Limbaugh’s remarks about Sandra Fluke were not about a “public figure” –- they were about a relatively unknown law student. They were made again and again, dozens of times, over a full three-day period in which he called her a whore and a slut and demanded she post videos of herself having sex. They were followed by a deeply unsatisfying statement that “my choice of words was not the best.” Since then, the marketplace has asserted itself, American style, with both consumers and advertisers deciding what form of conversation they choose to support with their time and money.
Rush Limbaugh may still have a road-to-Damascus moment and express some genuine contrition for his three-day hate binge. But until that time, what we don’t need is another smug, condescending, overpaid white dude telling us to accept a phony olive branch, suggesting that our disgust makes us “look bad.”
Mary Elizabeth Williams is a staff writer for Salon and the author of "Gimme Shelter: My Three Years Searching for the American Dream." Follow her on Twitter: @embeedub.
Wednesday, Mar 7, 2012
http://www.salon.com/2012/03/07/bill_maher_wants_you_to_forgive_rush
This week in rich, delicious irony: A privileged, middle-aged man known for making sexist, derogatory comments would like America to forgive a privileged, middle-aged man for making sexist, derogatory comments.
After admitting that he does “Hate to defend #RushLimbaugh,” Bill Maher went on to tweet Tuesday, about the radio host: “he apologized, liberals looking bad not accepting. Also hate intimidation by sponsor pullout.” Wait, who looks bad here? My sides, they’re splitting!
Maher, of course, is a professional provocateur, a guy who views himself as an equal opportunity fly in everyone’s ointment. But he’s also the man who recently gave a cool million dollars to Obama’s super PAC and once suggested “don’t ask, don’t tell” be overturned purely “because it will make Rush Limbaugh explode like a bag full of meat dropped from a helicopter.” As such, he no doubt felt uniquely qualified to appeal to the left’s sense of justice. And no doubt there are plenty of talking heads – the ones who erroneously keep insisting that liberals and feminists have no problem with Maher’s track record of offensive remarks – who’d go along with him.
But as a matter of fact, lots of us were revolted when Maher called Sarah Palin a “cunt” and a “dumb twat,” and were grossed out by his ill-timed assessment of Lara Logan’s “intrepid hotness” last year. We actually don’t find sexism adorable just because someone lets Marc Maron on his show.
Maher has, quite rightly, said that “When you are a public figure you’re out there and you’re fodder for comedians to make comments on you.” And when you’re a comic and a genuinely smart guy, you can probably do it without reducing a woman to her genitals. Women can take criticism and satire just fine. It’s the misogyny that gets old.
Moreover, here’s a reminder. Limbaugh’s remarks about Sandra Fluke were not about a “public figure” –- they were about a relatively unknown law student. They were made again and again, dozens of times, over a full three-day period in which he called her a whore and a slut and demanded she post videos of herself having sex. They were followed by a deeply unsatisfying statement that “my choice of words was not the best.” Since then, the marketplace has asserted itself, American style, with both consumers and advertisers deciding what form of conversation they choose to support with their time and money.
Rush Limbaugh may still have a road-to-Damascus moment and express some genuine contrition for his three-day hate binge. But until that time, what we don’t need is another smug, condescending, overpaid white dude telling us to accept a phony olive branch, suggesting that our disgust makes us “look bad.”
Mary Elizabeth Williams is a staff writer for Salon and the author of "Gimme Shelter: My Three Years Searching for the American Dream." Follow her on Twitter: @embeedub.
Are Bankers Capitalists?
Thursday, 03/1/2012Bruce Judson
http://www.newdeal20.org/2012/03/01/are-bankers-capitalists-73236
Jamie Dimon says banks are more successful than media companies, but which industry is actually following capitalist principles?
The phrase “Wall Street” is evocative in American culture. For generations, it has referred to the showcase of American capitalism: our financial services system that ensured the efficient use of funds by channeling capital to its most productive use. Indeed, the governing ethos in America is that Wall Street is the heart and soul of our capitalist economy.
As I have written before, capitalism involves four basic principles: absolute responsibility for anything and everything that happens to your company (i.e. total accountability), equal justice under the law, compensation based on the real value created for society, and competition, which involves failure and what is often called creative destruction.
The CEO of JPMorgan Chase, Jamie Dimon, has repeatedly touted the success of his efforts and disparaged critics. Earlier this week he compared compensation in the banking industry to the struggling media world, suggesting that the banking industry was far more successful. In speaking to journalists, according to Bloomberg, he noted, “Worse than that, you don’t even make any money… [while] we make a lot of money.”
Mr. Dimon is right. He and his colleagues are successful. But the real question is this: What are they successful at? By almost any criteria, the banks operate under rules that are so far from capitalism as to be unrecognizable. Let’s take Mr. Dimon’s comparison of the media industry and the banking industry further.
Both industries have been affected by unforeseen events. The Internet has undermined the viability of innumerable media businesses, leading to bankruptcies, changing business models, and intense competition for advertiser and subscriber dollars. In the face of these changes, industry participants have been forced to adapt or die. The forces of creative destruction, which are central to capitalism, have operated with an unforgiving ferocity. Formerly dominant entities have been forced to declare bankruptcy, while new media competitors and business models emerge on a seemingly daily basis.
In contrast, the banks argued that TARP was warranted because the economic tsunami of 2008 was unforeseeable. One of the essential functions of a financial institution is to manage risk. The majority of our large institutions failed entirely in this central responsibility as the economic crisis struck. In effect, many of our leading financial services firms were (and often continue to be) led by such poor businesspeople that if the principles of capitalism were enforced they would be out of business. My friends who are media entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley actually laugh when they hear the “we should not be responsible because this was not foreseeable” claims from the bankers. Every entrepreneur knows that they must make payroll each week or they are bankrupt.
At the same time, no one in Washington seriously believes the too big to fail legislation in Dodd-Frank will ever work. Inevitably, as in the case of AIG, counter-parties will declare that they will suffer irreparable harm if one of our leading banks is allowed to fail. I have come to call this “the Washington wink.” You ask a federal official if too big to fail legislation will work, they dutifully say of course it will. However, the “of course” is inevitably accompanied by a knowing wink.
In another divergence, the government has not subsidized media businesses. The banks may be showing profits, but they are on government life support. These so-called zombie banks can borrow from the Federal Reserve at almost no cost, and a long list of government initiatives have served as additional “stealth” bailouts of the banks. In the absence of this government support, would the banking industry still be successful? If media companies could borrow funds at almost no costs, I suspect their balance sheets and profits would be dramatically enhanced.
Capitalism is built on the idea that compensation and profits reflect the relative contribution an individual or firm makes to the total wealth of a society. Real societal wealth is anything that can be consumed or experienced. Profits are an accounting proxy meant to measure wealth. As I have written before, this proxy has failed miserably with regard to the banking industry. Given the loss of real societal wealth that accompanied the economic crisis as a result of poor bank management, the employment crisis, and the ongoing support the industry needs from the government, there is only one possible conclusion: at this moment the financial services industry is far more of a destroyer of real wealth than a wealth creator.
Meanwhile, media companies don’t profit by repeatedly breaking the law. The lack of enforcement against Wall Street undermines our democracy and capitalism, and is effectively another form of stealth government support for the industry. As noted here, JP Morgan Chase (like several of the large banks) is in the middle of a host of potential scandals. In a true capitalist economy, the government would enforce the law to prevent repetitive malfeasance. The executives leading a firm that repeatedly violated the law would be held accountable by the firm’s board for failure to exercise this basic responsibility to society.
Since the start of the economic crisis, the financial services industry has grown even more concentrated. It’s hard not to regard our largest financial services institutions as effective monopolies. Yet, to my knowledge, no investigation of antitrust issues related to the industry is underway. This is yet another stealth government subsidy. By contrast, in an earlier article I wrote about the misguided Justice Department investigation of e-book pricing, another area that is already suffering badly.
Yes, Mr. Dimon, you are a success. However, I would suggest that the success you so proudly proclaim reflects the loss of two of our nation’s most important values. The first is the failure of individuals and leaders to simply take responsibility for their actions and the actions of their companies. The second is that Wall Street, which should be the heart of American capitalism, has instead become the heart of a dysfunctional system that is destroying the nation’s wealth.
No, bankers are not capitalists. At every turn, they demonstrate that the last thing they want is the return of real capitalism to America.
Bruce Judson is Entrepreneur-in-Residence at the Yale Entrepreneurial Institute and a former Senior Faculty Fellow at the Yale School of Management.
http://www.newdeal20.org/2012/03/01/are-bankers-capitalists-73236
Jamie Dimon says banks are more successful than media companies, but which industry is actually following capitalist principles?
The phrase “Wall Street” is evocative in American culture. For generations, it has referred to the showcase of American capitalism: our financial services system that ensured the efficient use of funds by channeling capital to its most productive use. Indeed, the governing ethos in America is that Wall Street is the heart and soul of our capitalist economy.
As I have written before, capitalism involves four basic principles: absolute responsibility for anything and everything that happens to your company (i.e. total accountability), equal justice under the law, compensation based on the real value created for society, and competition, which involves failure and what is often called creative destruction.
The CEO of JPMorgan Chase, Jamie Dimon, has repeatedly touted the success of his efforts and disparaged critics. Earlier this week he compared compensation in the banking industry to the struggling media world, suggesting that the banking industry was far more successful. In speaking to journalists, according to Bloomberg, he noted, “Worse than that, you don’t even make any money… [while] we make a lot of money.”
Mr. Dimon is right. He and his colleagues are successful. But the real question is this: What are they successful at? By almost any criteria, the banks operate under rules that are so far from capitalism as to be unrecognizable. Let’s take Mr. Dimon’s comparison of the media industry and the banking industry further.
Both industries have been affected by unforeseen events. The Internet has undermined the viability of innumerable media businesses, leading to bankruptcies, changing business models, and intense competition for advertiser and subscriber dollars. In the face of these changes, industry participants have been forced to adapt or die. The forces of creative destruction, which are central to capitalism, have operated with an unforgiving ferocity. Formerly dominant entities have been forced to declare bankruptcy, while new media competitors and business models emerge on a seemingly daily basis.
In contrast, the banks argued that TARP was warranted because the economic tsunami of 2008 was unforeseeable. One of the essential functions of a financial institution is to manage risk. The majority of our large institutions failed entirely in this central responsibility as the economic crisis struck. In effect, many of our leading financial services firms were (and often continue to be) led by such poor businesspeople that if the principles of capitalism were enforced they would be out of business. My friends who are media entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley actually laugh when they hear the “we should not be responsible because this was not foreseeable” claims from the bankers. Every entrepreneur knows that they must make payroll each week or they are bankrupt.
At the same time, no one in Washington seriously believes the too big to fail legislation in Dodd-Frank will ever work. Inevitably, as in the case of AIG, counter-parties will declare that they will suffer irreparable harm if one of our leading banks is allowed to fail. I have come to call this “the Washington wink.” You ask a federal official if too big to fail legislation will work, they dutifully say of course it will. However, the “of course” is inevitably accompanied by a knowing wink.
In another divergence, the government has not subsidized media businesses. The banks may be showing profits, but they are on government life support. These so-called zombie banks can borrow from the Federal Reserve at almost no cost, and a long list of government initiatives have served as additional “stealth” bailouts of the banks. In the absence of this government support, would the banking industry still be successful? If media companies could borrow funds at almost no costs, I suspect their balance sheets and profits would be dramatically enhanced.
Capitalism is built on the idea that compensation and profits reflect the relative contribution an individual or firm makes to the total wealth of a society. Real societal wealth is anything that can be consumed or experienced. Profits are an accounting proxy meant to measure wealth. As I have written before, this proxy has failed miserably with regard to the banking industry. Given the loss of real societal wealth that accompanied the economic crisis as a result of poor bank management, the employment crisis, and the ongoing support the industry needs from the government, there is only one possible conclusion: at this moment the financial services industry is far more of a destroyer of real wealth than a wealth creator.
Meanwhile, media companies don’t profit by repeatedly breaking the law. The lack of enforcement against Wall Street undermines our democracy and capitalism, and is effectively another form of stealth government support for the industry. As noted here, JP Morgan Chase (like several of the large banks) is in the middle of a host of potential scandals. In a true capitalist economy, the government would enforce the law to prevent repetitive malfeasance. The executives leading a firm that repeatedly violated the law would be held accountable by the firm’s board for failure to exercise this basic responsibility to society.
Since the start of the economic crisis, the financial services industry has grown even more concentrated. It’s hard not to regard our largest financial services institutions as effective monopolies. Yet, to my knowledge, no investigation of antitrust issues related to the industry is underway. This is yet another stealth government subsidy. By contrast, in an earlier article I wrote about the misguided Justice Department investigation of e-book pricing, another area that is already suffering badly.
Yes, Mr. Dimon, you are a success. However, I would suggest that the success you so proudly proclaim reflects the loss of two of our nation’s most important values. The first is the failure of individuals and leaders to simply take responsibility for their actions and the actions of their companies. The second is that Wall Street, which should be the heart of American capitalism, has instead become the heart of a dysfunctional system that is destroying the nation’s wealth.
No, bankers are not capitalists. At every turn, they demonstrate that the last thing they want is the return of real capitalism to America.
Bruce Judson is Entrepreneur-in-Residence at the Yale Entrepreneurial Institute and a former Senior Faculty Fellow at the Yale School of Management.