The Rules: a preview

As I've mentioned here once or twice, I'm writing a series of Rules. Things that I think guys should know, but that guys generally aren't smart enough to figure out for themselves. There are quite a few draft copies (in various stages of completion) that have been floated to various people at various times, but the most recent version exists only on my laptop, since I've been working on them pretty much every day. It has become clear to me that I don't want to spend the rest of my life actually working for a living, so I'm trying to finish The Rules up and take a stab at getting published: any sort of royalty check will cut down how hard I need to work, and there's alway the hope of landing some sweet columnist gig.

So. I have a whole bunch of Rules, which average in length at about a long paragraph, and there is also a one-page explanation for each Rule. Here is a sample:

The Snap-Judgment Rule

Within the first few minutes of meeting a guy, a woman has decided whether or not she would sleep with him. Not whether or not she’s going to, but whether or not she would. So try to make a good first impression: if you can get through the first few stages of a conversation in good form, you’ll generally be in pretty good shape.

Note that the way a girl treats you generally has no relation whatsoever to whether she would sleep with you. Girls often save their most bitchy cold-fish behavior for guys that they want desperately.

Explanation: The Snap-Judgment Rule

I know what you’re thinking: something along the lines of ‘no fucking way.’ But the reason for that is differences in the intrinsic programming of the sexes. Guys make little or no differentiation between ‘I would sleep with her’ and ‘I want to sleep with her.’ And when you reach the latter, it’s only a short hop to ‘I will try to sleep with her.’

Doesn’t work that way with girls. They are blessed (or cursed) with the ability to be largely indifferent to whether or not they score with most of the people they would consider scoring with. This is not to say that women are not occasionally bedazzled by members of the male species; that happens too. Pheromones work, and rest assured that at least once over the course of your life, girls you have met just have thought things like ‘Oh My God I Want This Man.’ They simply didn’t act on it, for a variety of reasons, most of them societal. Keep an eye out for the signs. When a girl you just met can’t take her eyes off you. Dilated pupils. If she’s so bold as to actually reach out and touch you. Those are good signs. Don’t take anything for granted, but be aware of the possibility that she finds you sufficiently non-repulsive that she might be willing to go back to your place, even on short notice.

In any rate, you should do your best to be clean and presentable, especially if you’re going into some place where you might meet new members of the female species. Maximize your chances of lightning striking, by simple efforts to make good first impressions, because while history does record instances of women changing their minds about what they want, you don’t want to rely on those kinds of odds. (Talk about an uphill battle.) Much easier to land yourself within the category of ‘acceptable’ right from the get go.

Pay special attention when a girl you just met goes out of her way to throw some abuse at you, or gives you a hard time about something you don’t deserve (or at least, where you don’t deserve a hard time of it from her). In most cases, the girl is just having a bad day, and taking her bitchiness out on you. But in other cases, some pheromone combination involving you has short-circuited her mind back to third grade, where she reserved her ultimate queen-bitch behavior for the boy(s) that she found most interesting.

The really funny part is that whether she’s being a bitch because she’s hot for you, or if she’s being a bitch because she really is a bitch, the right response is to look her in the eyes, smile, and calmly, politely, and with all possible sincerity tell her to fuck off because she’s got nothing you need.

If things go in the right direction from there (and you might be surprised at how quickly they can go right), the sex will be spectacular. If they go in any other direction, you still hold the moral high-ground. Savor both those positions, because neither happens very often.

Socialistic Creep

I made the mistake of watching the news last week, which mistake was compounded by watching the news on a channel noted for it's support of left-wing agendas. But whatever, the press is the press, although I do wish they would at least pretend that they're not spinning the facts to support whatever agenda they and/or their producers have seized up that day.

But in the course of watching, I was subjected to a "news" story about a bunch of liberal attorneys in New York, who are absolutely up in arms about that fact that, on average, women pay 140% more in health insurance premiums than men do. This was portrayed in the "news" story in question as an unspeakable outrage, and efforts were made to parlay this situation into something comparable to legimate gender-issues such as women making less money to do the same job. So, these attorneys were launching a crusade of the "there should be a law" variety to reform health care, and are no doubt doing their best to get such a law in place.

As I was watching this, it suddenly became clear that - regardless of the state of the law - many Americans are not only embracing socialist policies, but are already harboring socialist expectations.

Let's think about this for a second, people. No matter what conspiracy promoters might tell you (and perhaps even believe themselves), the fact that women pay higher higher health-care premiums than men IS NOT the result of a bunch of stogy old insurance honchos sitting in a smoke-filled room, developing a plan stick it to the female of the species. As with so much else in life, until a government steps in and fucks things up, economic policies (including insurance premiums) are based on economic realities.

Women tend to pay higher healthcare premiums. But this is because women also tend to have higher healthcare expenses! Women's plumbing is much more complex than men's and results in all sorts of possible complications, ranging from exotic forms or genitourinary tract TB and cancers to the much more routine development of women having additional medical bills simply because the get pregnant. Men, by contrast, are much simpler and easier to treat. A lot of our plumbing is at or near the surface (a vasectomy is an out-patient procedure that can be done with local anesthesia; cross-reference that to the female equivalent); other than prostate problems, men don't have a whole lot of male-specific problems that might require thousands in bills to treat. Men are much more likely than women to need treatment for topical or traumatic injuries (broken bones, concussions, GSWs, etc.), but those are fairly cheap to treat. Invasive surgeries are what drive the costs of healthcare up more than any other single factor. A man can easily go his entire life and never need surgery. A woman on the other hand, if nothing else, will in many (perhaps even most) cases need a hysterectomy for medical reasons, in addition to minor women-troubles along the way. And again, the biology of child-birth is medically intensive, to put the matter lightly.

That women pay higher health care premiums is directly related to the fact that the insurer providing coverage is - on average - going to have to pay more to keep that woman healthy than they would pay for a man of comparable age and health. Anyone who asserts that men and women should pay the same rates for health care is siezing upon political and gender issues to advocate exceptionally poor financial policies. Saying that women and men should pay the same health care rates is like saying lead and gold should cost the same. I'm all for equality of the sexes, but anyone who things that the sexes actually are the same is fucking kidding themselves.

But, just for moment, lets put aside reason. In the words of George Carlin, WE DON'T HAVE TIME FOR A RATIONAL SOLUTION. So. Shall we make some bets as to what laws are likely to be passed in the near future?

The mantra of communism was "From each according to ability, to each according to need." We all saw how well that worked out. Just how far are we going to go down that path? And are we ever going to stop? Imagine a situation where the only thing we have a lot of are shortages, brought about because many people are not working because they've learned that they don't have to (just display less ability or greater need, and you're golden). Tough for us to imagine, since many (most?) of us are industrious enough to support ourselves, but that was the reality that came to pass in Russia. When we get there, are our politicians going tell people with overwhelming needs "Sorry, you can have no more." Or are our politicians going to tell the people who are working that then need to pay more taxes? They need to work harder, because their neighbor has been unemployed for four years and needs a liver transplant.

But don't worry. Barack was elected. Everything is going to work out now. Y'all can come visit me down in Costa Rica, when you get tired of working all day every day so someone else can have free housing, free healthcare, and a check each month for their "wellfare."

ANATHEM: Places I Thought It Would Go

Let me warn you right now: this is going to be VERY thick. Other than Aaron Kulick and Erik Vieira, I don't know anyone who I expect to read right though this and understand it on the first pass. Most readers will need several readings, and probably a few hours free time on Wikipedia to get the gist.

Now then: I have finished ANATHEM, discussed briefly infra, and was a bit disappointed that Neal Stephenson didn't continue his exposition of theoretical human consciousness to what I thought would be the logical conclusion. To be honest, this post is only going to make a whole lot of sense to people who have both read and understood most or all of ANATHEM, which means that they have (or have gained) at least a passing understanding of quantum theory, specifically relating to the Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI), and also to q-bit processors and the rational decision-making process of the human mind.

But for people who can't get through the book or who need a quick refresher, ANATHEM as a whole is about the intersection of worlds in the MWI, both in terms of physical movement of persons between such worlds, and also the flow of information between those worlds. MWI states that every possible world that can exist DOES, and that the collapse of any probabilistic wave-form into a definite state (whether such collapse is an atom changing it's rotation - or decaying altogether - or you choosing to have chicken instead of steak for dinner) reflects a tacit "branching" of universes, both of which are real and complete. There exists a very nearby parallel cosmos, which exists independent of ours, where the only difference between that universe and ours is the direction of rotation of a single atom in the wood of the desk in front of you. A separate, complete, and independent cosmos exists where each individual atom (or combination of atoms) spins differently. Rationally speaking, those cosmi are located very near to ours, and are visibly identical to ours (since the only difference is the direction of rotation of a few atoms), but each of the cosmi/universes DO exist under MWI, BECAUSE THEY CAN. Such universes are casual domains with each other: each are separate and theoretically independent, but each have limited interaction with each other (as demonstrated by early-model Q-bit processors, where each bit is a one AND a zero, and as discussed by Stephenson under the moniker of the HTW, rays of which permeate all universes). Among the bundle of these universes developing more or less parallel, worlds near ours are more or less indistinguishable, but as you move to steadily more distant universes, more tangible changes appear. Rather than the only difference being the spin of an atom, there are parallel universes where you had something different for dinner last night. Or where you were five minutes late getting home because you chose not to run a light that was turning yellow. In that universe, your lateness in turn resulted in you getting home five minutes after that stray cat walked through your yard, so you didn't scratch it's ears, so you didn't give it milk, and so it and it didn't keep coming back; thus in one universe you have a cat, and in another you don't, based substantially on - among other things - whether or not you ran that yellow light.

But each choice or seemingly random development (i.e.: each collapse of a probability waveform into a determinate state) reflects a slightly different universe, each of which universe exists whole and complete, and mostly separate from ours (but for minor interaction, again as casual domains exemplified by such things as q-bit processors). As differences between universes become more substantial, those universes hypothetically have less and less similarity with our own, with less and less intersection: the domain containing the two universes becomes increasingly casual, until you finally reach universes relatively unrelated to our own, such as, for example, one where you're not really reading this, and where you never lived, because you died of pneumonia as an infant. Or where you were never even born, because you mother died of pneumonia as an infant.

Again, under MWI, every universe that can exist, DOES, AND ALL AT THE SAME TIME. The equation becomes really impressive when you broaden your mind to consider that in addition to all the infinite universes that can exist under the laws of physics we know, there potentially exists distant universes where the laws of physics are slightly different from ours. For example, universes which have even slightly different masses at the time of their respective Big Bangs (which is possible under string theory, based on the possible differences in the vibrations of the many various strings of the universe at the time of the event). Such universes would have different total masses comprising the difference universes, which results in slightly different gravitational constants between those universes, which in turn hypothetically results in such things as light traveling at different speeds in each of those universes. Having a different figure for the speed of light has effects on the total physics of the universe. (Trust me on that.) MWI allows for universes where the laws of physics are different, or at least based on different base constants. Then consider universes where (again, as a result of different competing string theory influences) the Big Bang for that universe happened a few milliseconds (or millennia) before or after the Big Bang in our universe, but which universes have developed along otherwise identical lines. A completely identical universe, except where the timeline has not yet developed any life at all, or where any life has already evolved into pure energy.

In sort, under MWI, everything that is, was, will be, OR MIGHT BE all exists at the same time, running in universes that are more or less parallel, and that are more or less nearby to ours (including limited exchanges of information between casual domains), based on how similar such universes are to ours. As loopy as all this sounds, and as unwieldy a theory it is, as it seems considering that every infinitesimal decision or development reflects an entire new universe, the alternatives to MWI theory (which theories also account for certain particulars of quantum behavior) make even less sense than MWI. ANATHEM discusses all this, including - as above - the possible flow of information and/or matter between those universes, as interaction of casual domains.

With me so far?

In addition to expounding and creating fiction based on MWI, ANATHEM also discusses the nature of human consciousness, particularly vis-a-vis why people worry about some things - for example, a close friend moving away - but don't worry about others - such as our cities being destroyed by pink dragons flying the skies farting nerve gas. The theory offered by Stephenson in ANATHEM is that the human mind is essentially a powerful Q-bit processor (wiki it), which has a hard-wired quantum logic map of the local cosmos as we understand it. When presented with a hypothetical situation ("Might I be killed by nerve-gas farting pink dragons?") the mind compares that possible situation with the quantum map, and more or less instantaneously determines if there is any possible way that the wave-forms (possible decisions and developments) on the logic map we have of our universe might possibly collapse in such a way that dragons might exist/appear and start killing razing cities. Since the realities of our universe, as reflected in the quantum logic map in our minds, are not likely to have that result, we don't worry about them. Such a result is impossible, or at least so improbable as to be unworthy of consideration, much less worry.

On the other hand, when we ask ourselves "Is [this person] going to move to a place where I might never see them again?" our mind determines that the wave-forms on the logic map (and the wave-forms of the universe, by extension) could easily collapse into a pattern where that result becomes reality. We recognize that it is possible, so we worry about friends moving away, with the degree of worry based on all of the factors that might lead to them moving away. When there are more factors indicating someone might move away, our minds (calculating as q-bit processors all possible results that do or might come to pass based on factors on the logic map of the universe we carry) tell us that it is that more likely that the probability wave-form will collapse into a reality where the person DOES, in fact, move away.

In effect, our minds are programmed with a model of reality (and of possible realities). By reference to that model, our mind can determine what we need to worry about (things that might actually come to pass in this universe), and things that we don't need to worry about (things are are impossible or improbable in this universe). In effect, our minds consider all possible developments that might come to pass based on relative constants intrinsic in the universe we occupy, and thereby determine what is and is not likely to come to pass, based on how each hypothetical development fits into our conception of the universe (or, alternately, what is impossible or improbable based on those same constants). In effect, the mind is a vastly powerful Q-bit processor, capable of instantaneously processing vast numbers of variables to determine the probability of any given even coming to pass. (For the record, I'm fighting off a segue into Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, and the implications of the improbability drive in light of the MWI.)

Now, as I was reading ANATHEM, I kept expecting the discourse on the MWI and the discourse on human consciousness to converge. I expected to see the hypothesis that human consciousness and thought is simply the exchange of information between nearby universes, based on the idea of interaction of more or less casual domains. Does our consciousness subconsciously extend into nearby parallel universes (as casual domains), to see what's going on there?

For example: under Stephenson's explanation of human minds as powerful q-bit processors, every calculation is of astronomical complexity, based on a nearly infinite number of variables. Our mind needs to crunch the numbers of the variables to determine the probability of any given result happening. Even a call as to whether we need to fear pink dragons nerve gassing us, which call has very clear results: we don't need to fear them - is an incredibly complex calculation, even when you have Q-bits to work with (since you need enough bits to encompass the equation).

But as Stephenson himself points out, maybe nature has already found an easier way. Under MWI, every possible universe that can exist does, and nearby universes are - hypothetically at least - casual domains. Notwithstanding the plot of ANATHEM, it seems likely that the nearest universes to ours are the ones almost identical to ours, with steadily more and more substantial changes as you move to more distant universes, until you reach a boundary (applicable to today's post in a way that will soon be clear) where those universes no longer contain a counterpart "us." Given the existence of such parallel worlds, and given that most of those nearby worlds include a counterpart of ourselves (usually living a pretty comparable life), isn't the answer to this amazing Q-bit calculation already there for quick reference? Does our mind really need to perform an incredibly complex Q-bit calculation to assess pink dragons? Or can our minds simply perform a subconscious 'ping' of our counterparts in nearby/parallel MWI universes, to the effect of "HEY! Anybody ever see a pink dragon farting nerve gas? No? Alright. I'm not going to worry about it, then."

Since universes near ours are generally pretty similar to our own, and since none of our counterparts in the nearest of those universes has ever seen a pink nerve-gas farting dragon, we can put it out of our mind. We reach a consensus among ourselves in nearby universes, and thus comfortably put so unlikely an event out of our minds. Universes where such things as pink dragons can and/or do exist are different enough from our own that, even if there is a counterpart "us" in that universe, it is so far removed from our own universe that we hardly hear its response to the 'ping.' Although, incidentally, the fact that we can imagine pink dragons at all suggests that such things might exist: If not as leakage of information from distant (yet still casually related domains), where do such tacitly off-the-wall ideas come from? Science doesn't like the idea of ideas spontaneously forming in our heads from nothingness; on some levels, that sort of spontaneous creation seems to violate the laws of conservation of energy.

So, along these lines, I kept expecting Stephenson (or Orolo, or Jad, one of the Thousanders) to offer the idea that our minds are simply in casual (subconscious) contact with our counterparts in many "nearby" MWI universes. Our decision making process doesn't need to crunch amazing numbers with Q-bits, it simply needs to ask our other selves, and look briefly at the Big Picture, to see if any given event is possible or probable. Our ideas, hopes, and fantasies are simply communications from more distant casual domains, bleeding over into our conscious minds in this one as ephemeral concepts (as compared to the realities that they ARE in their distant origin universes).

Now I confess that I really don't know enough about quantum mechanics to really offer this theory as a viable hypothesis for explaining human decision-making and consciousness. But I still think it's a pretty fucking cool idea.

Societal Pressures

I have a niece. Which in part shows that there is a God, because a daughter is EXACTLY the sort of divine retribution my older brother has been earning his whole life. Can't wait for that little girl to get to be a teenager and start making his life hell, and plan to do my part, as Uncle Matt_of_LV. (I bid my time in the meanwhile by counting the months until Adam's son Corbin is old enough for me to give him a drum set for Christmas.) But having a niece - and also having a de facto god-daughter - I'm being exposed to interesting new concepts which relate to the female species, notably the societal pressures that get placed on young girls, and the programming that gets instilled by even simple things like playing with dolls, having tea-parties in the kitchens of play houses, and so forth. My mom in particular rails against the idea of Callie receiving any sort of gifts or toys that perpetuate gender stereotypes.

I think this whole topic dove-tails nicely with my ongoing thoughts on Nature vs. Nurture, which will someday be expanded to include discussions on evolution, epigenetics, and theories of human consciousness based on the Realities described by quantum mechanics (thank you, Neal Stephenson). If you want to hear about any of those topics, let me know; I'm much better about writing when I have people prodding me.

But in any rate, I though my Mom was over-reacting in her fears about Callie being the unknowing recipient of gender-role programming. The simple fact of the matter is the main feminine influence on Callie is going to be the girl's mom (my sister in law) who is distinctly NOT domestic, in any way, shape, or form. Add in that the girl's dad (my brother) is accurately described as the world's most highly educated auto mechanic. When he's not rebuilding classic cars, he does a little business as a doctor of chiropractic medicine, and if he gets bored with that, he's also a licensed radiographic technician. Oh, there's also the rural Oregon lifestyle, complete with heavy doses of outdoorsy stuff, paintballing in the rain, sports, and so on. With my brother as her dad (and with Corbin as her older brother; that boy is like a clone of Adam), Callie is going to grow up knowing how to fix cars, fight using a knife, fight without using a knife, operate heavy machinery, shoot strip and clean anything from a paintball gun though WWII bolt-action rifles and up to modern assault rifles, recite classic cheezy movies from memory (Willow, Major Payne, etc.), build a house, cook steak on a grill, cook steak on a campstove, cook steak on a campfire (Dad will be teaching the cooking skills; mom don't do that so much), play hockey, make effective use of cover during flanking maneuvers, and any other of a thousand things that no little girl would EVER be taught in any sort of society with rigid gender roles.

So, with this situation shaping my world-view, I really wasn't a believer in the idea that societal and/or family pressures are really all that much of a big deal for young girls. Based on the way my family works (which I admit is best described as functionally disfunctional), I thought the concept of girls being pigeonholed into domestic or secondary roles was a dying relic of a thankfully bygone age, and - from a practical point of view - was horseshit.

But as I was cruising Walmart last night looking for accessories for my Halloween costume, I saw things that absolutely, unquestionably confirmed the truth of all those societal programming concerns. Walking through the toy section (I was looking for flashing lights for my sceptre; don't ask), I came across the Barbie section, which initially looked pretty much like the one I used to hurry past on my way to the Thundercats and model airplane aisles at the Toys-R-Us on El Camino at Saratoga. But right next to this traditional Barbie display was what I can only describe as the "My Little Whore" playset.

Barbie herself was at least tacitly "mature." She was not a girl, she was a woman; he had a house, a car, and RV, and so on. But this new section's worth of toys might as well have been designed by Paris Hilton. Rows of dolls, looking and dressing like every dirty-old-man's idea of the teenage (preteen?) slutty tart. Fuck-me skirts - or schoolgirl outfits so small as to be the same thing - high heels, lots of bare plastic skin, and body structures on the dolls that, if translated into a life-size person, would best be described as 'improbable.' Like a group of the highest-class hottest bitchiest freshman sorostitute sluts from your college days, rendered down into 8-inch tall plastic figures. I seriously wondered how much of the sales of those dolls were going to 40-year old male perverts living in their parents' basement.

But that wasn't the worst part. Right next to the boxes of the My Little Whore dolls, there was the My Little Whore DRESS-UP SET, with a complete outfit just like the ones the dolls were wearing. It was a home hobby kit for girls to look like the worst of the tramps you see on MTV. It even included things to clip into your hair (in both blond and streaked blond/red-head colorations) with a narrow braid and poofy hair, so if your own natural hair wasn't enough to scream your pre-teen slut status, you'd still fit in with the rest of the girls; you can dress up just like My Little Whore, and even have the hair as well! For a little extra, you can also get the jewelery set, including the big hoopy earrings and the necklace that says "PRINCESS" on it.

I didn't look at the selling points on the dress-up kit, but it was probably stuff like "Now instead of just PLAYING with My Little Whore Dolls, you can BE someone's My Little Whore Doll!" "All your brother's friends will want to grope you! Your dad's friends too! Lose your cherry today!" Or "You'll move right to the top of the JV team's gang-fuck wish list! And if you get the optional jewelry kit, you can go VARSITY!" Who knows what sort of shit the Paris Hilton clone behind that product line will come up with.

I'm not sure that I have any real point to make about all this, since I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the idea that parents actually buy that sort of stuff for their three to six year old daughters (or at least that's what the sizing label on the dress said). My GOD people! WTF?!! Suffice to say that I am a believer in the idea that society always has and shall continue to work towards forcing people to conform to stereotypes and cultural and gender role. I'm sure a subsequent posting will address whether or not this is a bad thing.

But next time you're in a Walmart, take a quick cruise through the toy section and look at the My Little Whore aisle, right next to the traditional Barbie dolls. YOU WILL BE SHOCKED.

Please God, Save Us From The Crusaders

On the list of human sins, Pride is undoubtedly the most insidious. Especially among men. I've commented here before about how men are biologically programmed to think of themselves as The Star Of The Show. Our lives are an action movie, starring us. Everyone else is supporting cast, and everything else is just props and fluff.

The problem is when that mindset is combined with any amount of power or ability to get results in the real world. It's simply human nature (or male nature, as the case may be), for us to assume that we know best, and that people should do what we tell them to, and that we could live most peoples lives for them far better than they could manage themselves. And when things go wrong, it wasn't our fault. If anything, we should have taken MORE control of the situation, since whatever went wrong was clearly someone else's fault. We're the Star! It can't have been our fault!

This sort of thinking is inherent in the Democratic point of view, which really boils down to government controlling as much as possible of people's lives, to spare them the trouble of doing things on their own that might get them into trouble. (Thinking, for example.) While I can get behind the idea that most people who walk the face of the earth are dolts who benefit greatly from having someone to tell them what to do, I can't be a believer, since I don't do well with people telling me what to do.

Additionally, where people honestly believe that they, as The Star Of The Show, are working for the benefit of some grand cause, they can become oblivious of just how idiotic their position is or becomes. I've posted before about how people are largely incapable of believing that an idea that they hold so dear (such as communism) can be capable of any sort of evil (such as Stalin's murder of millions of his own people), and claim that such reports are merely propaganda against their Chosen Cause. This is much the same thing: regardless of the weight of evidence against them, people acting as The Star Of The Show for the benefit of A Great Cause literally CANNOT be convinced that they're wrong. They are the Star! It's a Great Cause! How could they be wrong?! Haven't you read the script?!!

As an example of this, take Bill Clinton. Talk about a guy who was the star of the show, and not just in his own mind. He was on Letterman earlier this week, talking about how America came into its current financial woes, and what needs to be done. He blames it all on the housing crisis, including on Fannie and Freddie, and even went so far as to admit that what happened was that a lot of loans were given to people with questionable credit. When those people ended up unable to pay the loans, the banking system was saddled with the collective loss, and needed a bailout. That was Clinton's explanation, which I agree with. Of course, he neglected to own up to the fact that Fannie and Freddie knew those loans were going to people were bad credit risks, and that Fannie and Freddie needed to be pressured into making those loans by - notably - THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION. The bad loans that resulted in our economy being fucked were made at the urging of Bill and his cohorts!

But I can forgive him for glossing over his own involvement in the collective screwing of the pooch. I'm still bitter, but it is water under the bridge, and involved a lot more players than he, even if he was one of the primary culprits.

The part that made me gape was what immediately followed his admission that Fannie and Freddie made loans to bad credit risks. His position was that there should have been MORE REGULATION. Specifically, that Fannie and Freddie (and other banks) should have been required to have more capitol on hand to back up possible defaults. In effect, they should have had enough liquid assets on hand to provide a hedge against massive defaults, guarantee the banks' own solvency, and thus ride it out any crisis without needed needing a bailout and/or without fucking the availability of credit.

Frankly, I cannot believe that a man that smart actually said something that incredibly stupid. And I find it even more amazing that people listen to him and agree. Seriously, WTF?

First of all, how exactly were banks supposed to come up with that capitol to back up those loans? Summon it from the sky? Banks are just businesses! They control the flow of money, but not even they are able to make something out of nothing! Where exactly were Fannie and Freddie (and the rest) supposed to come up with billions in capital as a precaution to guarantee solvency in the face of Fannie and Freddie (and the rest) being compelled to make thousands or millions of bad loans? They wouldn't have been able to do it! Money and assets don't come from the sky, not even for banks! The end result is that if Clinton's hypothetical regulations had been in place, and required banks to limit loans to levels that are balanced by a certain amount of capital, THE LOANS TO "SUBPRIME BORROWERS" WOULD NEVER HAVE HAPPENED! Clinton says that the solution to the problem was that the government should have enacted regulations that prevented the banks from granting the loans the government was ordering them to make!

Besides which, the heart of Clinton's position is that banks should not give out so many loans that they would not be able to survive if many of those loans went into default. Well guess what? THAT IS EXACTLY THE BUSINESS MODEL THAT BANKS FOLLOW, EXCEPT WHERE THEIR GOVERMENT STEPS IN AND TELLS THEM TO GIVE MORE LOANS TO BAD CREDIT RISKS! Enacting this regulation is like telling a merchant that he need to sell his wares for more money than he buys them for! Of course, this type of regulation makes perfect sense from a Democratic standpoint, which sees no inherent conflict in (a) We depend on your business, so you must follow sound business practices, and (b) you must soften your business practices, to give your services to people who cannot afford your services. Have I mentioned what happens when governments confuse regulation of wealth with creation of wealth? THINGS DO NOT WORK OUT JUST BECAUSE GOVERNMENT ORDERS IT TO BE SO!

Clinton's position is that the banking system was at fault, because the system could not simultaneously follow the good business sense it exercised of its own accord, and also follow the bad business sense being forced upon it by government! The root of his position: When the admistration decided it knew the mortgage industry better then the mortgage industry, and stepped in to enact bad economic policy, it made a mistake by not enacting ENOUGH bad policy!

People, keep the government out of banking and industry! Stars Of The Show are fun to watch, but there is a reason that Tom Cruise makes his money with his looks instead of with finance or industry! Things work the way they work for a reason, and your politicians and other Stars do NOT know more about business and finance than the professionals who work in business and finance! Do not let their confidence and egos to convince you that a Star actually knows what they're doing! They're actors and politicians ferchristsake! They will play you with those sort of bullshit policies and promises and drama if you let them! They might promise you prosperity and happiness, but if they give you prosperity and happiness you haven't earned, they do it by either borrowing against tomorrow, or by looting someone else in an exercise of Robin Hood economics. If we want to have lasting success and prosperity, the only way to get it is to WORK! No amount of charisma, whether it comes from a guy named Bill or a guy named Barack is going to change that!

Remember, The Star of The Show, be it in a movie or in politics, is just an actor, who doesn't really work for a living. He just puts on a Show, and expects you to pay not only his salary, but also the cost of the Show as a whole!

How much can you afford?

GUEST POST - Shoes in a Shoebox

Regretably, my good friend Drinks-On-The-Job (DOTJ) (Yes, here in blog-space, we all have indian names. In fact, we usually have several each.) is unwilling or unable to post her political thoughts on her own blog, due to her readership being largely liberal democrats who would never forgive her for even remotely questioning His High Holiness Barack Obama. She doesn't want to deal with that, but is just bursting to put her .02 out into the world. Thus, she has asked for me to post her thoughts here, for public review.

Love her though I do, I actually think this behavior by her is a bit funny: she doesn't want to post her thoughts on her own page - access to which is limited to people she expressly invites - but is willing to post here, which is open for anyone in cyberspace to read. But whatever. Without further ado, here is what she has to say:

----------------------------------

I'd like to thank (Hythloday Today) for allowing me to guest post on his blog. My blog is non-political. I have too many liberal readers that would turn it into a FIGHT! and I'm just not willing to go there. So, I've been sitting here... seething over what has happened over the past few weeks politically and wondering... is any one else out there paying attention?

Why is it that The Blessed One (my husband and I's nickname for Nobama) is okay with the government making our health care decisions--FOR EVERY THING except abortion? Why is that the one procedure that is definitely hands off???

Just so I am clear--Colin Powell thinks it's okay to have a President who has no/relatively little experience--but he's concerned about a Veep Candidate who has actually run the largest state in the country for two years plus many years as Mayor (who gives a rats ass if it's a small town... it's still experience)????? In short, lack of experience NOW is better than potential lack of experience LATER if the #1 dies?

[s'cuse me while I go rip my hair out... brb]
[Okay, I'm back.]

Colin Powell is to the Republican Party as Joe Lieberman is to the Democrats. FWIW: I think Lieberman is jinxed for any party that touches him.

I'd like to know if I will have ANY control over my future if/when the Blessed One is elected. Will I be able to make my own health care decisions? Will I still have a job after my company (that has already laid off 1/2 of our workforce in the last year and a half) gets another 10% worth of taxes added on to it? Exactly how many homeless, welfare-taking, lazing around on his/her ass, poor people do I have to adopt in order to "share my wealth?"

Is anyone else worried about electing a President who raised more money in ONE MONTH than the Kerry/Bush campaign season spent combined? $150 million? And who says we as Americans are experiencing tough times? Clearly we have an extra $150 million to give to a candidate who was too GD good to accept public financing.

Does anyone remember reading about political machines in grade/high school? Boss Tweed? Anyone? Hello?... is this thing on?

When the holiday shopping season returns a (+) for most retail shops, will we then realize that we don't need another effing stimulus package? Hell, I don't really know of any other industry we as taxpayers can bail out. Banking? Check. Automobile? Check? Airlines? Did that a while back--Check!!

If a person's character can be judged by the individuals that surround him or her, what does it say about the Blessed One that the following are in his associations: ACORN, Ayers, Rev. Wright, and others who have not come out of the woodwork?

Did anyone read the NYTimes piece on Cindy McCain and just feel disgust? I agree with her lawyer. No one has interviewed Obama's old drug dealer. No one has reported on his Kenyan family ties.

Listen to this: http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/MILWAUKEE-WI/WISN-AM/vm%2010-14%20hour%201%20part%201.mp3?CPROG=PCAST&MARKET=MILWAUKEE-WI&NG_FORMAT=newstalk&SITE_ID=1176&STATION_ID=WISN-AM&PCAST_AUTHOR=WISN,_Milwaukee&PCAST_CAT=Talk&PCAST_TITLE=The_Vicki_McKenna_Show
Most "educated voters" in Harlem thing Palin is OBAMA's RUNNING MATE.

Almost two weeks left until I officially have to get use to seeing the Blessed One behind the REAL SEAL of the President's office. Two weeks. My plan? I'm volunteering my time as a licensed attorney to the McCain camp to sit at a polling place and make sure there are no blatant violations. Beyond that. I guess I'll sit on my hands for the next four years... waiting for me to say "I TOLD YOU SO." In the meantime, the conservative party better get their asses in gear and find a new candidate to get behind... the time is NOW.

Grrr-fully yours,DOTJ

------------------------------------------

Feel free to leave comments on her post, which DOTJ can review at her leisure, but I'd appreciate if you didn't email me directly. Unless you're a hot redhead. Then you're welcome to email me about anything you want.

ANATHEM

Things at the office - while not necessarily 'improved' - have settled down a bit, to the point where I'm willing to go on doing what I'm doing. Which is not really a surprise. The fact of the matter is that, for all my bitching and for all my well-known aversion to anything remotely resembling work, I kind of like what I do, and I know for absolute certain that I would be TOTALLY fucking bored doing anything else with my life. So, while I wouldn't do what I do for free, I probably would do what I do for less money than I currently get paid. Which, I suppose, is about as close as someone of my generation in my position will get to saying that work ain't so bad.

Thus, I am once again relegating to the back-burner my dream of moving to Costa Rica and opening a gift shop and/or legal practice and/or cannabis plantation. We'll just tuck those away for the next time that I need a happy thought to remind me that... Well, just to remind me. And I'll actually be keeping an eye on that back-burner: see infra.

In other news, interesting political developments over the weekend, which I'm not actually going to talk about much, particularly as HT has recently published its first guest post, on that very topic. So, I will remain silent except for noting that my interest was decidedly peaked by Colin Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama. This development will sway the opinions of many borderline Republicans. With a golden-boy from the Republican party breaking rank, many of the semi-conservatives who were already considering Barack based on their support of stem-cell research, Roe v. Wade, and so forth will follow, and vote Blue. This practically guarantees that Barack will be elected President, which in turn suggests that America will be moving considerably towards a socialist/communist nation in the next few years. Thus, we'll keep the Costa Rica contingency plan dusted off and ready for short-order implementation.

But today, I want to focus on literature. Specifically, I am about 600 pages into Neal Stephenson's new novel ANATHEM. It is, without a doubt, the most interesting book that I have ever read in my entire life. Seriously, when I run away to Costa Rica it will be one of the few books that I take along with me, since just about every page has some interesting idea or concept that I could spend several hours thinking about or writing about or considering the implications of. It's Ulysses, but instead of being thick with imagery and unwieldy prose, it's thick with ideas and applications of theories. Not with real in-depth study of those ideas, but with discussing the application and interconnectivity of those ideas. Again: even having not finished it yet, it is the most interesting book I have ever read, and no matter how well or how badly the actualy plot-line might end (the plot is actually not all that interesting, to be honest), the ideas that get kicked around earn the book a place among my all-time greats, among and in some ways surpassing my library of halcyon works. (Illusions, Armor, Small Gods, Atlas Shrugged, Reaper Man, Mimesis, Stranger in a Strange Land, Shibumi, Vampire Lestat, Jonathon Livingston Seagull, and so forth.)

There's only one problem: I don't know anyone who I'm sure is smart enough for me to recommend ANATHEM to them, or who would really be able to have a detailed discussion about the content. Actually, that's a bad choice of words. I know plenty of people who have the raw brain-power to grasp the ideas expressed in the book, but I don't know anyone with a broad enough base of knowledge to read the book without having wikipedia right at their fingertips to look up explanations and derivations of various ideas. There is simply too much in the way of little-known ideas and theoretical science and physics! I don't know anyone who knows enough about that stuff to be able to keep up! The next problem is that Google and/or Wikipedia probably won't help a reader all that much, since the world made up by Stephenson in the book uses different names and terms even for fairly simple things like the Pythagorean Theorem and Occam's Razor, much less more esoteric topics like alternate universe theory, Plato's Cave, Q-bit processors, and so forth. Most readers wouldn't know enough about the subject to know how to craft a wiki search! Just as Dante's Inferno, sans annotations, is little more than interesting imagery (with boring plot-line and lots of jubberish and meaningless names) to people who are not historians and theologians, ANATHEM is simply over the heads of people who don't take at least a passing interest and knowledge in each of practical models of human consciousness, quantum theory and theoretical physics, philosophy, plane geometry, and a bunch of other subjects. (I wonder if Stephenson is planning on publishing an annotated version? Or if he would let me publish one?)


Thus, my library of all-time greats now includes TWO books that I consider to be transcendentially insightful, but which I don't recommend for most people to read. Armor was already on that list. The underlying theme of that book is not a story about interstellar conflict, but of desperation born of hopelessness, and the amazing feats that the desparately hopeless can drive themselves to, consuming themselves in the process. That emptional content is frankly beyond most people's ability (and/or interest) to grasp. (An easy way to test is to ask a reader if they just skimmed over the Jack Crow chapters to get to the next Felix chapter.) But just as the emotional content of Armor is not for the common man, the intellectual content of ANATHEM means that I don't know anyone who I recommend the book to.


There will be further posts relating to and/or inspired by ANATHEM, particularly relating to futher discussion of models of human consciouness, but those will have to wait for another time. Partially because I don't want to write about it right now, but also because the idea hasn't yet fully taken shape in my head. (It really is that big - so to speak - since it potentially touches every crystaline point of knowledge and reality.) I just hope that I'll be able to explain it in a way that will make sense...