The Devil's Moon and other topics

James Call: Expert! Answering your questions with his TOTAL KNOWLEDGE OF ALL SUBJECTS!

Today in the Moon

Reader "Will" asks:

What's with the moon? Why is it sometimes freakin' RED? Also, why does it sometimes look GIANT like it's going to crash into the Earth?

(I may have taken some liberties with Will's exact wording of the question.)

Very good question, Will! I'll tell you why. In a nutshell, the Sun is always shining the full visible spectrum of light on the moon. That's why, on a clear night, the moon looks white: because all the colors (this should be familiar to you Green Lantern fans) are combined into white, and reflected off the moon. Bear in mind one of my favorite science factoids: nothing has intrinsic color, everything is simply reflected light. Smoke some weed and meditate on THAT concept, buckos. Anyways...

The blue/green spectrum of the rainbow consists of shorter wavelengths, and these wavelengths can be filtered out by atmosphere, in much the same way that bass frequencies carry more easily between walls than higher frequencies do (which is why the neighbor doesn't need to turn down their music at night, just their bass, really, though most people don't realize this). So when there's plenty of atmosphere, only the red/orange light reflecting off the moon can filter through to our eyesight.

When farmers are burning the fields to make them fertile again, etc., there's more smoke (atmosphere) in the sky. That's why the blood-red moon is also called the "Harvest Moon". Of course, it should really be renamed the "Failure of Industrialism Moon" because that's what it is these days. You see a lot of Harvest Moonage in NYC, LA, and other large metropolitan areas, because all the emissions from congestion are creating more atmosphere and filtering out the blue/green light.

In short, the more red moons we see, the more pollution we are living amidst!

NOW: why does the moon appear to be so fucking HUGE somethings? This is a simple matter of perspective. The moon is always, to our eyesight, the same size. However, when it's up in the sky, we compare it to the field of the sky, which is quite vast. Therefore, the moon appears small and less significant, something we could easily blow up with nuclear missles to test our manhood as a species. On the other hand, when the moon is rising over the horizon, we may compare it to nearby buildings, trees, etc., which is why it appears berserkly huge at times.



And that, my friends, is your science for today. Please bear in mind the "Harvest Moon" should be differentiated from the "Blue Moon," which you see standing alone, and the "Poison Moon," which you laugh in the face of.

Today in Declining Birth Rates

Hey, two days after I posted my blog, look what All the News that's Fit to Print is reporting on!

Today in Finally Some Good News for the Obama Administration

Whoa, hey, the jobless rate finally DECLINED! In July! From 9.5% to 9.4%!

BREAK OUT THE CHAMPAGNE.

Certainly a sign that everything works perfectly in our system and that health care reform, cap and trade, and financial regulation are all completely unnecessary. I'm sure CNBC would agree with me.

Sorry We Have No Blog Today ♫

Too much headache, too little time to comment. Real briefly:

Today in Health Care Reform

Paul Krugman catches some flak over criticizing Rasmussen Reports for underestimating public support for health care reform. Unfortunately, while Krugman is right 90% of the time, Rasmussen also is, and on this score, Rasmussen wins. It's one of the most accurate pollsters out there. And public support for health care reform is pretty low.

"John Boehner of Sector 2814. You have been chosen for your ability to instill great fear."

No Baby Boom, No Cry and other nonsense

James Call: Expert returns to discuss all the latest issues, plus shit that's just plain pissing him off!

Today in Shamelessness

So apparently, some woman on the Taconic Parkway, Diane Schuler, got plastered on vodka and high on pot, and then got in her car, resulting in an accident that took the lives of her daughter, 3 of her nieces, and 3 other innocent people. The NY Daily News plastered a big ol' picture of Schuler on their front page, with the headline "HOW COULD SHE".

Now, one has to ask: if Schuler has any conscience at all, any shred of human feeling in her heart, won't she be living in a personal hell for the next many years? She should never have done what she did, and she should pay the legal price, but unless she's a complete sociopath, the crushing guilt of such an incident is going to be very apt punishment for what she's done.

Is it REALLY necessary for the Daily News to plaster her face on the front page of a paper that is read by millions of New Yorkers, and seen by millions more? Does that serve any productive fucking function? When there are SERIOUS issues afoot - health care reform, rising joblessness, the dangerous situation in Afghanistan - the Daily News is going to waste very expensive front page publication time lambasting some woman who has to live with her grief for the rest of her life anyways?!?!

The people who publish and edit the Daily News should be hacked to death by machetes.

Today in Malthusianism

Reader "Lindsey" asks:

It seems many folks I know are having a baby or have recently adopted a dog. Despite generalized frustration, depression and an economy in shambles, it seems affection is a currency in these-here harsh-times. Do you think that the current economic crisis will spawn a neo-baby boom? Are there any stats available about the current birth rate in the US, and if so, how does it compare to the post-war boom? What are your thoughts? additionally, do you foresee any dystopic/Swiftian implications with this possible neo-baby boom?

To answer, in brief: no, yes, favorably, I'll tell you, and no.

First off, the last recorded data point, around October 2008, indicates a very slight decline in the US fertility rate. After a "baby boomlet" in 2006-2007, births are down slightly. And bear in mind, that's nine months after February 2008, when the recession/depression was just in its first phase. It's continuing full steam ahead, so one would expect the birth rate to decline further.

Now, the poorly educated tend to have more children than the well educated, and we certainly have more jobless folks these days. But these are the newly poor: many are bright enough to use birth control, and in this country, most aren't mainline Catholics anyways. So I would not expect these newly poor to be cranking out the kids. On the contracy, I think the fertility rate will decline further, as people (wisely) decide not to have kids whom they cannot provide for.

Here's a pretty succinct article on the matter.

It's probably for the best that our national birth rate declines. First of all, this is mostly the white birth rate. Latinos and blacks will continue to have a higher fertility rate for the time being, which will level the social playing field a bit. Although, honestly, I'd go for everyone's fertility level declining: we do not need more children in this country. Part of what allows America to enjoy the opulence it does is that the individual American consumes a much larger portion of world's wealth than he/she generates. It's why we're hated across most of the globe, after all. And it's why we have such nice tennis shoes.

That being said, even if we were to experience a doubling in population, from roughly 300 billion to roughly 600 billion people, I still wouldn't worry. This is an incredibly affluent country, and we can take it. The problem is the division of the allocation of resources within the population, not the overall size of the population. The only dystopian effect I could envision is if unemployment hit something like 20% for several generations, leading to a rise in fertility amongst the immobile poor. That would lead to a Mexico-like situation, which nobody wants. But still, hardly an India-like situation.

Honestly, I expect the overall birthrate to decline. Few formerly middle class families are going to want to bring children into the world in this day and age. I could be wrong, but I'll put money on that.

Reality is more frightening than dystopia, of course...

Today in Super-Depressing Crap

MUUUUUUUUUUUUUCH more frightening, negative future-wise, is the slow decline of the American income standard. Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, anyone? Read the article at the link. You'll be sad, er, glad you did.

Grant Morrison vs. Alan Moore and Republican Mobs vs. Civilized People

James Call: Expert, having blown his "month of sobriety" pledge (after a week of sobriety) with drinks last night, is a bit hungover, and therefore will mostly be providing links and brief commentary today. But he's back on the wagon now, so expect more productivity soon!

Today in Very Good but Still Overestimated Comics Writers

You may have heard that Marvel Comics has acquired the rights to "Marvelman," a character made famous by Alan Moore's revisionist, dystopian run on the character in the 1980s in "Warrior" magazine. For those of you not in the know, Moore is the author of Watchmen, V for Vendetta, and From Hell, amongst other works, all of which are top-notch, and none of which have been made into especially good movies. League of Extraordinary Gentlemen is in fact an actively terrible movie, although the comics are excellent.

As good as Moore's writing is, when discussing him, many comics fans tend to go a bit overboard, praising Moore as the One True God who can do no wrong, against whom all other comics writers "epically fail". Moore's definitely up there, but there a lot of great comics writers floating around: Dave Sim, Charles Burns, Robert Crumb, Joe Sacco, just to name a few.

Another great writer who is a tad overhyped is Grant Morrison, known for his work on the "X-Men," "Batman," and "Doom Patrol," as well as numerous independent projects: The Filth, We3, and more. Both Moore and Morrison consistently produce "hits". Four times out of five, reading a Moore or Morrison comic, especially a superhero comic, is going to be the equivalent of watching a good hollywood flick, like Die Hard or Back to the Future, and so forth.

Still, rarely is a comic from either writer going to change your life or broaden your intellectual horizons, unless you haven't read ANY literature whatsoever. Every "big concept" that Moore and Morrison touch on have been done to death by authors of books you were assigned in high school, or at least college, long before. Still: judging by a lot of comics fans' praise of the two writers, said fans haven't been doing a lot of fancy book larnin'.

Given the excessive level of praise for the two writers, I therefore find it highly amusing to read a young Grant Morrison rip Alan Moore a new asshole.

Today in Health Care Reform

Well, it's August recess time, so it's time for the GOP to hit the campaign trail and just constantly tear into health reform, screaming "socialism," while Democrats in turn tear into insurance companies, which should be good tit-for-tat.

Except Democrats play nice and Republicans play dirty, so don't expect this to be an even brawl. The chief GOP tactic? Mobs! Bring disruptive little mobs to town hall meetings where Dem legislators are trying to explain health care reform, and ruin them by just screaming the whole time. It worked during the 2000 recount down in Florida, where screaming mobs intimidated the recounters... why not use this tactic to ruin health care reform?

It's gonna be a long, and shitty, 5 weeks.

Sir Thomas More and Ollie Cromwell

James Call: Expert here, fighting his window-less office headache with another round of questions from our readers!

Today in Whether Corporations Are Good, Neutral, or Evil

I wanted to just quickly follow up on Geoff's question because I didn't get to over the weekend.

In a nutshell: corporations are driven by the profit motive. They are indifferent to the greater good, and thus often create negative externalities, including pollution, products that cause obesity, etc. However, corporations that manufacture goods have two conflicting interests: they want to lower wage costs, on the one hand, which lower the purchasing power of the consumer (never forget that the worker = the consumer! Most Americans seem to, for some reason...), and yet, at the same time, they want to raise the purchasing power of the consumer, so they can consume more (and more expensive) goods!

This has led in large part to the growth of debtor culture in our country, wherein people live off their mortgages, credit cards, etc., while high-paying jobs are destroyed and/or replaced by lower-paying jobs overseas. This allows for a high consumption rate and a low wage policy...

...until, of course, the house of cards collapse, and we're left here. One would think that saavy corporations of the future would push for a 1940s-1970s scenario, with higher union membership (and thus higher wages/benefits), to recreate a solid consumer culture. But, of course, corporate thinking can be as entrenched as any other kind of thinking - for instance, is it rock and roll without sex and drugs? - and therefore, I wouldn't expect this change overnight.

Still, corporations CAN be made into productive, if not "good" entities. And I'd certainly argue that corporations can do what saintly "small business" cannot. I'd rather shop at a Barnes and Noble than most smaller bookstores, I have to admit. And I'd rather buy my soap from whomever makes Ivory or Dove than rely on some boutique, ne c'est pas?

However, financial institutions do not necessarily provide a productive function. They provide a speculative function. If they can be made to bet conservatively, then they greatly aid productive corporations, but if they engage in destructive speculation, then there's no other way to put it: they are BAD.

A big step towards making them behave better might be the reinstitution of the Glass-Stegall act, or something like it. More on that if you kids would like to hear.

And as always, I hope you're reading your Paul Krugman.

Today in Oliver Cromwell and Sir Thomas More

Reader "Damian" asks the following question: "It's not really a question... I just want you to explain to me Oliver Cromwell and how he relates to the other cromwell in the movie 'man for all seasons' about Thomas More, are they related?"

They are NOT related. I forget who the Cromwell in Man for All Seasons is, but Sir Thomas More was a contemporary of Henry VIII (you know, the fat man with all the wives, who started his own fucking church because the Pope wouldn't give him a divorce), and Oliver Cromwell was of course the Lord Protector of the Commonwealth, who overthrew Charles I, monarch #4 after Henry VIII.

Thomas More wrote "Utopia" and was a big ol' Catholic, and this led to problems for him. The Pope would not annul Henry VIII's marriage to Catherine of Aragorn (Henry wanted a male heir which Catherine could not produce, and he was always nailing other chicks, too), because the Pope was being held hostage (true!) by Charles/Carlos V of the Hapsburgs, who was kinda the man at the time - he controlled Spain and Austria, and let's not forget that this was back when Spain was at the height of its New World power - and Catherine was Carlos' aunt.

So Henry was like "F this!" and, after being excommunicated, made it the law of the land that Catholicism, in England, was OUT, and Anglicanism, which is just like Catholicism except lame*, was IN. But Sir Thomas More was a true believer, and so, boom, off with his head. Probably served him right for being a hater against England's Protestants, pre-Henry's excommunication.

By the way, Sir Thomas More and Martin Luther's letters to each other are hella vulgar and LOL-worthy and some dude or gal put 'em on wikipedia, so check 'em out.



* a note: Anglicanism these days is amongst the more benign organized branches of Christianity, so much so that many very conservative African congregations are weighing whether or not to cut themselves off from the Church of England. But it is still lame because what's the point of Catholicism without a Pope? oh well...

Oliver Cromwell was a much more imposing figure. Roughly 100 years after More's time. Cromwell was basically a military guy and a member of Parliament when Parliament got in a spat with Charles I over its prerogatives. Charles was like, "Shut up, I'm the king, leave me along, see you in 11 years," and Parliament grew some cojones and rounded up their own army which took it to Charles, resulting in his execution. This is how the Commonwealth of England was born (not the same as today's Commonwealth, which includes Canadians).

The Parliament ruled for a little bit while Cromwell went and just killed the beejeezus out of folks in Ireland, which was still Catholic (oops) even when the rest of England had Anglicanized it up, and was harboring the exiled royalists. While Cromwell was gone, Parliament dicked around as parliaments are wont to do, and when Cromwell get back, he shut the place down by force, and the Protectorate came to be, with Cromwell declared Lord Protector... for LIFE! He had more power than Charles I ever had.

Thankfully, he eventually died, and his son Richard lost power so quickly they called him "Tumbledown Dick". And then the monarchy came back, under Charles II, but this was a much more mellow monarchy, with Parliament being an almost-equal member of government, so I suppose just like you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs, you probably can't make a model for American Representative Democracy without an Irish Genocide or two.

Corporations: Like an Angry Dog, Useful But Best Watched

Reader "Geoff" writes an excellent question that more or less stumps the "expert" today.

Been reading through your blog, must say I'm a fan! Here's my questions:

Especially during the recession, we keep hearing how awful large corporations are, and how their recklessness and greed has brought unspeakable harm to taxpayers. From finance to the auto industry, even the food industry, everyone seems to be in it for a buck at the expense ... Read Moreof everyone else. Are there any rays of corporate hope out there? Any large, for profit companies who have maintained business ethics, remained transparent when dealing with consumers and have generally not been evil? Or is capitalism really this bad...

Well, ok. It is the way of James Call: Expert to smarmily summarize the answers to questions about which a lot can be written. So I'm going to do just that.

In terms of our current crisis, which is a big one, the truth is that most corporations are actually just fine. Or rather, no worse than usual. Corporations, after all, allow economies of scale that tend to raise our standard of living and employ buttloads of people.

I would argue, and many Keynesians and socialists would as well, that our severely crippled Labor situation in this country is the big problem, NOT the size and scope of corporations per se.

One needs to distinguish between Finance and Industry. Finance has been out of control, and is the "villain" of our current times. People tend to get up in arms and conflate auto manufacturers, for example, with big finance. The two are extremely different. Big Auto actually manufactures a product that is sold on the market. Maybe it doesn't do so very well, and maybe we should be relying on mass transit instead of the automobile now that it's the 21st century for fuck's sake, but still, until the government steps up and invests seriously in mass transit on a national scale, which it seems to lack the will to do, we're still going to need cars. Therefore, the auto manufacturers are making something we need. And employing people at pretty decent wages to do so. I'd consider the Big 3 auto manufacturers, as flawed as they are, "useful" and even "not evil".

Not so much Finance. Of course, without loans from banks business couldn't run. But Finance has been involved in a series of escalating shell games for decades now, essentially one financial institution at a time combining assorted loans and selling them to OTHER financial institutions, and claiming a profit. They aren't actually -producing- anything, they're just shuffling loans around.

And they're also -mixing loans up-, so that the good cannot be distinguished from the bad. So now ALL the major financial institutions essentially have money in every aspect of the economy, rather than having more limited portfolios. This is why institutions become "too big to fail".

So the challenge of our times to is to make financial institutions, moreso than other corporate entities, specifically: 1.) More transparent, and 2.) Smaller, so that when they fail, they don't pull down the whole fucking economy with them.

I could go on, but honestly, there's a much better source for easy-to-understand financial and economic analysis on the internet, and it's The Baseline Scenario, which I read daily, and has great introductory articles on how modern finance, and our economy as a whole, works. Still, in a nutshell: regardless of the very-difficult-to-follow complexities of finance, it all kind of boils down to a shell game and a ponzi scheme played with the entire economy as the stakes.

Finance used to be fine when it was regulated, and the government explicitly forbid severe gambling with the lifeblood of the economy. I can get into this further, later, if you'd like... I'm trying to keep this short and simple.

One last point on finance: It used to be a much smaller portion of our overall economy. Financial earnings in 2007 constituted 40% of GDP, I believe, but don't quote me on that. Used to be in the ballpark of 10-15% back in the 50s-70s.

As for whether corporations are evil, in general? I'd have to say that the corporation is geared towards maximizing profits for the shareholders, and that social concerns, externalities, etc., simply don't matter to the corporation, and that is why the government must IMPOSE such considerations on large corporations. This seems to be true across the board. I'm flummoxed to think of an example where this is not the case.

That's not to say that Google, General Motors, General Electric, Lockheed Martin, etc., can't be useful. It is to say, however, that whether or not they're Good for Society is of no concern to the shareholders, and that's why they have to be closely watched, and swatted down upon occasion.

Even a worker-owned company like Saturn (which I wish I knew more about, honestly) still produces cars, which may not be in the best long-term interests of society, right?

I'm rambling at this point. It's an excellent question and I wish I had a more concrete answer. If you take away anything from this blog post, make it this: at this point in time, the corporations that make your cars and computers, despite the sheer amount of oil they consume, or the companies that manufacture your tennis shoes, despite the child labor they may be employing, are less destructive to the world than Finance, which has us all by the nuts and really seems to care not one jot.

My Top 5 Congresspeople, and Luthor vs. Cheney vs. Corleone

Welcome back to James Call: Expert, where today we have some questions! Again from reader "Damian". Who is this mysterious seeker of knowledge???

Who are your top 5 congresspeople?

What a good question! It's pretty easy to answer this one right off the top of my head.

1. Representative Barney Frank

Barney Frank is just fucking AWESOME. He is, without question, one of the funniest dudes in the legislature, period. He has made numerous guest appearances on Fox News, where he gives those fuckers better than he gets. He is loud, brash, consistently funny, and openly gay, with a "Yeah I'm fucking gay, deal with it assholes!!!" attitude, which is, to my heterosexual ears, the best way to go about it. Not only that, he's very progressive from your average American standpoint on fiscal regulation. He gives a bit politically, but he seems to know who the bad guys are and how to corral them up. Along with Sen. Chris Dodd (not one of my faves, but still, not bad), he has produced fairly progressive, strong, proposals for regulation of the financial sector, which have, of course, been watered down by the Obama administration. :(

Conclusion: Barney Frank is like the gay Guy Gardner of Congress. He's funnier than a good number of stand-up comics, and in fact, if he had a stand-up routine, I think I would pay up to $50 to see that shit.

2. Representative Dennis Kucinich

Dennis Kucinich is Our Hero, the only Real progressive in a sea of phonies. Bill Clinton declared the party of FDR dead a long time ago, but Kucinich didn't seem to get the memo. It's easy to figure out what's wrong in American politics, but rarely do we hear articulated what is right. The media decided early on that Kucinich was not a viable Presidential candidate, but go back and watch the primary debates from the past 2 elections and ask yourself which candidate you'd vote for, which one is saying the right thing. Obama may be the official Hope candidate, but Kucinich really is the candidate of someone who wants this country to be the Best it can be, to stand up for liberty and justice for all. To stand up for the working man. Sounds corny, but it's true. It's too bad he's written off without a hearing.

OH, plus, his wife is steaming hot, and like 6 foot something. Whereas Dennis is this real small eccentric. Gives us single idealist males hope for the future.

Conclusion: Kucinich represents the best strand of American political thought, and so therefore, naturally, nobody listens to him.



3. Speaker Nancy Pelosi

Nancy Pelosi is not without the taint of corruption, just like all powerful politicians are. However, she's on our side, and she DOESN'T PUT UP WITH SHIT. While Harry Reid putters around in the Senate, Nancy gets her way every damn time. She is also happy to play the bad guy, which is refreshing, since President Obama (understandably, perhaps) isn't. We'll see how health care reform, cap and trade, and all the other major issues shake down, but if it wasn't for Pelosi, a strong progressive option might not even be on the table.

Recently, Cindy Sheehan, who was an awesome demonstrator and hero of sorts during the Bush years, ran against Pelosi out in California. Look, it's understandable from a purist liberal viewpoint why one would object to Majordomo Pelosi and go with Sheehan, or someone more "clean". But come on, she's a fucking warhammer, and she's on our side on the major issues. I'd never vote for Sheehan over Pelosi, much like I'd never launch a Senatorial campaign against this guy...

4. Senator Chuck Fucking Schumer

Schumer unseated D'Amato, who was a fairly notorious and powerful Republican pig, out here in New York about a decade ago, and he's kicked ass ever since, the Machiavellian way. Naturally he's largely in the pocket of the hedge funds, which is, of course, very depressing. But he has positioned himself, as LBJ did, as the only man who can tell powerful interests how it's going to be, because after all, he is their defender. He represents Wall St. in the Senate, but he's also consistently for notably stronger regulation of finance, to a pretty surprising extent given his financial backing. And when he talks, finance has to listen. He's a strongman and he's got that evil look on his face that makes you think ice runs through his veins and that he wrestles snakes for fun. My kinda guy.

Conclusion: Pelosi and Schumer aren't saints, far from it. But they're badasses who don't put up with any bullshit, typically very canny legislators, and they're on our side. I'd hate to run into either of 'em in an alley.



Senator Bernie Sanders

Finally, I have to go with Bernie Sanders, who is a fucking SOCIALIST. And OUT socialist. Forget being gay, that's like calling yourself a communist!!! He is an independent from Vermont who caucases with the Dems, but in the end analysis, he's a socialist. That's even better than Kucinich! His AFL-CIO rating is 100%, which is a very good thing.

Conclusion: Vermont is the best state in the union.

Who would win in a fight: Lex Luthor, Dick Cheney, or Michael Corleone?

WOW! What a battle. This is a real tough one, so let's assess each of the participants.

Lex Luthor

Luthor is a genius inventor and a very wily schemer. He has no problem acquiring a bunch of kryponite or even inventing a kryptonite variant of his own, fusing it into some insane battle armor, and going toe-to-toe with Superman or Darkseid or any other insanely powerful beings, yet at the same time, he prefers to destroy his foes through intrigue and wiles.

Still, his ego is his downfall. Luthor, like Doctor Doom and plenty of other villains we can name, wants to concieve THE most treacherous plot imaginable. He wouldn't just walk into a room and shoot Superman dead. No, he'd have to dangle his superiority in front of his victim and gloat for a bit first, leading his plots to become unnecessarily weighed down by convolutions, and thus, vulnerable to exingencies. This is why he's bested time and time again, despite often having basically insurmountable advantages.

Dick Cheney

Dick Cheney, moreso than Luthor and just as much as Corleone, is willing to bide his time for DECADES to attain his goals. He simply never goes away and never loses sight of his ultimate objectives. And he has a big leg up over any opponents by allying himself with the most powerful facet of modern society - the military/industrial complex. By being on this side of history, he guarantees himself rock-solid support and far more resources than his opponents. Further, he is a saavy wielder of these resources. And his moral clarity and total lack of insight allow him to sleep at night while preparing torture plans during office hours.

Still, Cheney has one critical, Machiavellian weakness: he does not make himself beloved by the public. It must be said he is a plain-dealing villain. The public perception of heroism, which Luthor often has, is a huge boost to the schemer, who is able to operate in the night so much more effectively than someone who actively inspires distrust, as Cheney does, and who seems to actually revel in it. Because of his outwardly evil persona, there will ALWAYS be someone watching Dick Cheney, which limits his operations considerably.

Michael Corleone

Finally, we come to Michael Corleone, a man who took up the mantle of his father and brought himself, without tears, to a position totally unlike himself, never once looking back. Willing to kill his own brother in cold blood. A man to whom no-one can ever truly be close. Willing to expand his business and his empire using conventions that the old guard would consider shameful, off-limits. And yet, not a man who makes a scene. Corleone tends to pick battles he knows he will win, and he doesn't yap off about it or need public victories to satiate his ego. He walks softly and carries a big stick.

He also eliminates his enemies all at once, not piecemeal.

And that is why MICHAEL CORLEONE is the winner of this epic battle. Because the schemes of Luthor are too convoluted, and the schemes of Cheney are not well-hidden. But Corleone's hand cannot be seen in his actions, and his has no ego to satiate; his ego was killed with his soul years ago, when he adopted his father's role (much to his father's dismay, sadly, which is why the Godfather is such a great flick).



Still: what a fucking battle!!!

Where's Ya Plan At?!? and Sally Floyd

Welcome back to James Call: Expert!

Today in Health Care Reform

Well, since Baucus still hasn't moved his plan out of the Finance Committee, even though everyone knows what's in it, more or less, Pelosi and Hoyer in the House have decided that -they- can't move -their- bill, and might not do so before the August recess.

That's going to mean the Dems will have no plan to hype during the August recess, whereas the GOP will be able to spend extra time railing against "socialism," and folks, they're ahead in the polls...

More predictably great writing by Nate Silver on the subject today, definitely a "Must Skim" even if you don't want to read the whole thing, and I also strongly encourage you check out David Leonhart's article in the NY Times on why we have to tax health benefits is also revealing, although I don't see why we don't just -mandate- a fee-for-results rather than fee-for-service system (which is what we have now, wherein doctors prescribe expensive and often pointless treatments in order to rake in the scrilla, as opposed to earning money for actually fixing people's health).

Reading about health care reform everyday makes me nauseous.

Today In Housing Figures

Apparently the decline in housing costs is ending. Could be illusory, though. This is probably good for the economy, although the housing bubble was a big part of what got us in this mess in the first place, so...

Today in Comic Books

Reader "Damian" asks "Hey what the hell ever happened to Sally Floyd?"

Sally Floyd was this alcoholic chick reporter who had had a miscarriage who debuted in this "Decimation" mini-series, in which she interviews mutants who have lost their superpowers as a result of "M-Day" (wherein mutants lost their superpowers. You can google it. It was big shit.).

She was a fairly relatable protagonist at the time, but unfortunately her next appearance was in the severe hit or severe miss "Civil War: Front Line," in which Sally accosts Captain America, who was leading the resistance against a Patriot Act-like "Superhero Registration Act," for being out of touch with America by not having a myspace, and not supporting Bushism, essentially.

Paul Jenkins, who scripted this scene, got a lot of flack for Sally's extremely vacuous argument, although honestly, I found her vacuuity alarmingly similar to much of what I hear from my fellow Americans, and therefore, not unrealistic. Still, it did make the character look (cue Larry David voice) pretty, pretty, pretty stupid.

Next, Sally popped up as a reporter at the Front Line newspaper, which veteran Daily Bugle ex-reporter Ben Urich (the feller who figured out that Daredevil was Matt Murdoch, back in the day) founded in opposition to Dexter Bennett's The DB! (which took over from J. Jonah Jameson's Daily Bugle). Or maybe he founded it in response to some anti-Spider Man editorial of JJJ's... I can't remember, and it really doesn't matter. The point is, Front Line is the Marvel equivalent of the Village Voice, I guess, with The DB! being more like the NY Post.

And that's what Sally Floyd is up to. I can't remember if she's working on anything specifically herself these days, and really, who cares?



Sally Floyd is still, as far as I know, hungover.

More Shitty Health Care News and the Metal Men

Welcome back to James Call: Expert. For the record, I'm not really an expert in anything, just a cranky guy with the NY Times and a blog. Rock on!

Today In Health Care Reform

SUMMARY: The Baucus health care bill sucks and is a political loser.

Well, looks like Max Baucus moved the Senate bill out of the Finance Committee, so we know what it will look like.

It should cost less than $1 trillion, but it includes no public plan and no mandate for employers to purchase health insurance for their employees. It DOES, however, provide an individual mandate, so that you, the consumer, have to buy health insurance. And some, but not all, employers are required to offer subsidies to you to help you buy your health insurance: but only up to 300% of the poverty level, or $32,490.

In other words, if you're earning more than $32,490 a year, you won't get a dime to buy health insurance, oh, and by the way, there's no public plan, meaning no cheap alternative to the private plans floating around. So if you're like most people, earning around $50k a year, you now -have- to buy health insurance, but it's not going to be any cheaper than it is today.

Oh and hey, by the way, with the employer mandate not present but subsidies now offered, a lot of employers are going to drop their traditional insurance plans.

This bill sucks donkey dick, and is estimated to cover only 16 million uninsured.

Now throw the public option and employer mandate back in, and the total cost of the bill comes to about $1.024 trillion. However, it now covers 37 million uninsured. But of course, you're now over the mystical 1 trillion USD price point.

Funny how these "bipartisan" assholes didn't worry about the 1.3 trillion USD pricetag for the Bush tax cuts, which generated a miniscule amount of economic activity (about 30 cents to the dollar).

Meanwhile, Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer aren't getting the House plan out there this week. But when they do (next week?) they better damn well have a public plan and an employer mandate in there.

Dems are placing a losing bet on bipartisanship, given that the result of bipartisanship is something like the Baucus bill. Good ol' Nate Silver puts it pretty damn well:

** Just to underscore this point: when it scored a similar bill, the CBO estimated that 15 million people would lose their employer-provided coverage. Most of these people are likely to be lower-to-middle income persons with somewhat tenuous employment situations, a group that tends classically to be swing voters.

Now, how are those 15 million people going to feel about health care reform when they find out that:

a) Although the bill was supposed to guarantee access to health insurance, they've in fact lost theirs;
b) They're required to buy an expensive, private plan on their own, or to pay a fine;
c) They're probably not getting any government assistance;
d) They certainly don't have any Medicare-like alternative to fall back upon;
e) All of this cost the country about $1 trillion dollars.

You think those 15 million people are going to vote for the Democrats again, like, ever?

Today In the Taliban Kicking Our Ass

Here's why the Taliban is kicking our ass. From the NY Times front page. Emphasis mine.

"About four dozen landlords [from the Swat valley in Pakistan, scene of recent heavy fighting] were singled out over the past two years by [Taliban] militants in a strategy intended to foment a class struggle. In some areas, the Taliban rewarded the landless peasants with profits of the crops of the landlords. Some resentful peasants even signed up as the Taliban's shock troops."

Don't fight a land war AND a class war in Asia, folks.

Today in My Foot

There's something wrong with my foot. I think I may need a new pair of business shoes. It's all sore on one side. I sort of think I should soak my feet in warm water at night, except my mom used to do that and I think that would be kind of weird. I also had blisters up the wazoo this weekend, but then, I did a lot of walking.

Today in Last Night's Dreams

More violent nightmares, this time involving a snake that I had to capture. One of my ex-girlfriends was there. Other details hazy.

Today In Comic Books

To get the taste of Zero Hour out of my mouth, I went back and read some of the "Showcase Presents: The Metal Men" book which I still haven't finished, but which totally rocks.



Marvel and DC have published a lot of these "Essential" and "Showcase" volumes, affordable black and white reprints of comics from the Silver Age (the late 50s through the 60s) with more than 20 comics in one volume for less than $20. This is a great deal for completists and nerds.

It has to be said, the Marvel Essentials hold up a lot better over time. Some are completely pointless - don't waste your money on Essential Ms. Marvel; Ms. Marvel has always been boring and pointless - but many of them are actually borderline-essential for the comic book reader. Kirby's Fantastic Four, Ditko's Spider Man and Dr. Strange, and Claremont's X-Men spring to mind. Lots of other good ones, too.

DC's Showcase editions are far more ridiculous. Try reading the Showcase Superman, Green Lantern, or Flash. Try it. I dare you. That shit was just completely ridiculous. These characters have all been revamped to be "serious," but while you can take Spider Man vs. Doctor Octopus somewhat seriously, there is no way in hell you can take the Flash vs. Killer Cloud seriously. Or Superman flying around with a lion's head instead of a human head. Try it.

Of course, some of the fun is in the total absurdity of these early Silver Age comics, but I digress.

The Metal Men Showcase edition is a different deal. Metal Men isn't really a superhero comic. It's a sitcom starting a bunch of robots (the Metal Men) with faulty "responsometers" built by the sexist Dr. Will Magnus. They do fight bad guys, but the point of the comic is in the interaction between the characters, especially Platinum, aka Tina, and Dr. Magnus.

See, Tina has a faulty responsometer and thinks she's a real girl, and Dr. Magnus knows she's "just a crazy robot who thinks she's a woman!" But Tina is always cooking him dinner, and crying, and doing other traditional hypersensitive-woman stuff that just drives Dr. Magnus nuts. And Dr. Magnus (who smokes a pipe, like a Real Man) in turn talks to Tina like men of that era talked to women, i.e., in a meanspirited and demeaning manner. But sometimes he does slip up and call Tina a woman (not a robot) and despite his sexist and anti-robot attitude, he does have a tender spot for her, and always rebuilds her with a "faulty" responsometer whenever she melts down fighting a giant robot or creature made of living chemicals, etc. Needless to say: comedy ensues.

While those two are the star of the show, there's also plenty of yuks from the mercurial (ha ha ha) Mercury, who's convinced he's better than the other Metal Men, and the insecure Tin, who is, in classic corny Hollywood fashion, far braver than he acts.

The linework, by Ross Andru, is great - the Metal Men are very expressive, moreso, I'd say, than characters drawn by Gil Kane or Ditko or Kirby or any of the biggies. And since it's pretty damn hard to take the concept of the Metal Men seriously from the get-go, it's much easier to enjoy the whole shtick, whereas those other old superheroes are supposed to be noble, actual heroes, in some regard.

Definitely worth your $15, but impossible (and unnecessary) to read in one sitting, as there is no over-arching story arc, just a bunch of Tina trying to get Dr. Magnus to take her out on a date, and Mercury bitching about the other Metal Men. OH, and giant robots from other planets.

Today's Recommended Download

"Requiem for Adam" by Terry Riley. Scary stuff! But interesting to listen to.

UPDATE: Today in People Are Fucking Illiterates

Just read this. It's only 3 paragraphs long.

A Brand New Day for James Call Expert (BND for JCE)

Wow! It's been a long time since I updated this thing, and tried switching to the podcast format, which was difficult to keep up with week after week, especially with only a handful of devoted and lovely listeners. Being stuck in the toil and drudgery of this office, I'm going back to the blog, and hopefully I'll be keeping this sunnovabitch updated daily.

The format's going to be a little different: y'all can email me questions which I will comment on, but if I don't get any questions, I'm going to plow ahead with a few default categories.

Today In Healthcare Reform

SUMMARY: People incorrectly think that the government is going to take over their individual health care, and that it's going to cost a lot of money. Both points are wrong, but that's the new conventional wisdom, and that's why health care reform is most likely doomed.

There isn't actually any new news today, Monday July 27, but in terms of "current affairs," as it were, I think you can mark healthcare reform as either "completely doomed" or "severely fucked".

Nate Silver at Five Thirty Eight thinks the August recess may actually provide a cooling down period for the news cycle, allowing it to shift to some other topic (maybe another slieugh of celebrity deaths, hopefully) and for the "the government is going to take over your healthcare" meme to die out. But as smart as Mr. Silver is, I think he may be suffering from Hopeful Democrat Syndrome, which afflicts all of us from time to time, and may be overestimating the intelligence of the American Public.

Health care reform was favored by a majority of Americans, but now, according to Rasmussen Reports (tied with Quinnipac as the nation's most reliable pollster), a narrow majority opposes health care reform, for the classic (incorrect) reason: that the government is going to "take over" health care, and take away your insurance (provided you have it, which fewer and fewer people do each year). It is irrational, but the power of Fear is greater than the power of Hope.



Let's get one thing straight: the only thing the Public Option will do for you is
lower your health care costs. It's a government-run program that competes with private plans. Your health insurance, if you have it, is not going to be "taken" from you. However, if the public plan, comparatively, kicks fucking ass compared to your expensive private insurance plan, then you might indeed switch over to the public option. And if enough people switch, that might mean the end of your insurance company.

And you know what? Fuck your insurance company.

If your insurance company wants to shape up and insure the sick as well as the healthy, and charge you a cheaper premium, well then, great. Good for them. If they're incapable of offering a better deal than the government, though, one has to ask: do they deserve to live? Isn't the spirit of capitalism that the weak and inefficient die out?

Another fallacy that's floating around and gaining credence - in fact, this is the dominant belief, even amongst seemingly intelligent people (who need to read a bit fucking more... if you have a spare half hour a day and an internet connection, the NY Times is online for FREE) - is that health care reform is really, really expensive: more expensive than doing nothing. It's going to lead to higher taxes, and, well, nobody wants that.

TRUE, except that right now your business is most likely paying for your health care. And because your business is paying for that, it is NOT giving you that money in the form of raises. Instead, you're getting health insurance. So: lift that burden from business by offering a public plan, and your business now has extra money to raise your salary. You pay more taxes, but you earn more money, as well.

Of course, really, the rich need to pay more taxes than the middle class for this to work. This, again, is anathema to a lot of folks, who fail to realize that the rich, especially the ultra-rich, are a pernicious class who should be taxed on general principle, the principle being to stop them from using their money to perpetuate a perenially stratified society. But I digress...

One benefit to the wage-tax (price) spiral outlined in the scenario above is that it is inflationary - just what the doctor ordered given our current deflationary spiral. That's another huge fallacy that's floating around and seems to have credence these days: that inflation is a huge threat. Inflation is the LAST thing we need to be worried about right now. The precise opposite is true: deflation is out of control, as people purchase fewer things, businesses have less money, which leads to them cutting jobs and wages, which leads to fewer purchases, etc.

Alright, I've already rambled on enough. The point is: Kent Conrad and Max Baucus, and the Blue Dog/"moderate" Democrat Senators in general, are your new enemies, for life, and they are the problems, not Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, no matter what the assorted dipshits of the world might tell you.

Today In Obscure Comic Books You Really Don't Have to Read

Other than Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and Uncle Scrooge, I didn't really read comic books as a kid (comic strips, that's a different story). I actually got into the habit of reading Marvel comics in my early/mid-20s, aided by the notorious Dr. Damian Lanahan-Kalish. It all started innocently enough, with Brian Michael Bendis' Daredevil and a little X-Men on the side, but years later, my habit is totally out of control, as I read around 15 comics weekly, mostly stuff from Marvel (Spider-Man, the X-Men, the Hulk, etc.) and DC (Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, etc.).

It's part of hipster nerd catchet to read comics, so I can do so without any outward shame, but one does have to have to draw the line somewhere, and one's knowledge of "continuity" can only go so far before one has to recognize that one has a problem. "Continuity," in comic book lingo, refers in essence to the minutiae of where a comic book character is at any point in time, what their status is, whether they're good or evil, still going by Green Latnern or perhaps Warrior, etc.

I think I've reached my personal line in the sand with DC's now out-of-continuity but once-upon-a-time-very-important "Zero Hour".



I have almost Zero positive things to say about Zero Hour, but let me synopsize.

The whole thing starts at at Vanishing Point, which is a physical space station-esque facility at the literal end of time. Time doesn't move there (somehow). That part of the story is fine - Vanishing Point is a totally valid, cool, sci fi concept. It doesn't even matter that Rip Hunter (or some other dude named Hunter?) has been done up to look EXACTLY like Cable, who, you will see if you google, is one of the most ridiculous comic book characters of all time, or that the other protagonist present is the completely forgettable Waverider, who can ride the waves of time but still manages to never know what the hell is going on.

It's when you find out who the first villain of the piece is that the story begins to diminish in value in terms of how you, the reader, are spending your time. That villain would be Extant, who is - get this - a combination of one form of Waverider, plus the heros Hawk and Dove, but not normal, mainline Hawk, but a Hawk who knows that in the future he will become the villain Monarch, and seems just, uh, totally OK with that prospect.

Have you ever heard of Hawk and Dove? No, right? Or if you have at least heard of them, do you give two shits about them? I'm gonna guess "no" again, right? Then why in God's name would you care about a villain who is the combined, future form of both these characters? Unless you were, of course, given one, by cohesive writing. But Zero Hour doesn't bother with trivialities such as "establishing character" or "contextualizing story elements for the reader". Nope, it just plunges full steam ahead, as Extant begins destroying time, for some reason - both the past, and the future.

Of course, Extant isn't the REAL big baddie. That would be Hal Jordan in his Parallax guise. Hal Jordan, formerly Green Lantern, has gone all hella evil, and now exists in a somewhat Evil God-like state. But hey, check it out, he wants to atone for what he's done in the past by destroying the universe and recreating it as a kind of paradise. For this, he needs Extant (reason unclear).

He actually succeeds in the Destroying the Universe part of his plan, but then who shows up to stop him but Superman, Green Arrow, Green Lantern, etc.: the Good Guys. But hey, get this... the Good Guys are trying to STOP Parallax. He's already destroyed the freakin' universe, but Superman puts his foot down: "No, Jordan!!! You can't play God!!! You're not God!!!"

Hey Superman: THE UNIVERSE IS FREAKIN' DESTROYED. Hal Jordan here wants to at the vert least create -a- universe. Wouldn't that be nice? And he has the power to create one without genocides, without war, without every unnecessary death and ounce of suffering that's even gone down. But in your book, that's Wrong. Because Good Guys Don't Play God.

It is the ultimate expression of soppy, moralistic, DC superhero writing, and a big part of the reason why there are just as many Punisher and Wolverine fans as there are Superman fans these days. LET HIM RECREATE THE DAMN UNIVERSE, SUPES. Please.

Anyways, needless to say, Parallax gets taken down, and then something happens - can't remember what, and who cares - and the universe gets recreated. Mind you, before he's taken down it's quite unclear that this is at all possible. At the end of the day, everything goes back to normal, with a few small exceptions, which are now completely irrelevant, as two later Reality Altering events have occurred ("Infinite Crisis" and "Final Crisis"), rendering "Zero Hour" moot.

Oh, and the Spectre and Metron are involved.

My conclusion: don't read this, even if you're a continuity obsessed nerd, like I am. It just doesn't matter at this point to any of the characters involved, it makes little to no sense, all the characters are written in a vaguely irritating and absolutely unlikeable manner, and they dressed Rip Hunter up to look like fuckin' CABLE.

For a much more gratifying Pathetic Nerd experience, read this article on Legend of Zelda continuity.

Today's Recommended Download

Make sure you have a copy of "Chase Me" by Confunkshun in your music collection. Might I also recommend, also by the woefully underrated Confunkshun, "Ffun" and "Got to be Enough". I even have a soft spot for the incredibly syrupy "Love's Train".

Today In Last Night's Dreams

Last night I had totally crazy dreams. It started out with my looking for a new apartment, I'm pretty sure, in this mythical part of town that's supposed to be Oakland, I guess? Except it looks nothing like Oakland. In any event, I can't remember most of the dream, except that at one point the Black Widow (a Marvel character) died an especially gruesome death, eviscerated by a madman with a butcher knife. I saw the whole thing in real time, and woke up sweating and horrified.

Good Time to Buy Property?

James Call: Expert. Smart! Sassy! Government employed!

Reader "Mandy" asks: Should poor people like myself start investing in property now that prices are down? Or is now the worst time to apply for a loan?

In a word, nope. Don't invest yet. Home prices have not hit bottom. They should be hitting total rock bottom most likely in 6 months. The question is, will you have a job in 6 months? Maybe if these central banks get their shit together this weekend and the TED spread narrows, businesses will stay afloat. But don't count on having a job 6 months from now if you're working in a non-essential business sector.

However, yeah, soon... 3-9 months from now... good time to invest in home prices if you got that sort of money. ESPECIALLY in places like the suburbs of LA or the Bay Area, parts of Boston, etc. Those property values eventually will rise again. Don't bother with Podunk nowhere exurbs in Missouri. We're not likely to see a return to full value for those properties until inflation causes literally every commodity and property to rise in value.

As for applying for a loan... I'm not sure you're going to get a loan. Banks are loathe to lend to each OTHER, let alone you. If your credit is top notch and your income is considerable, go for it, but like I said, wait a few months.

This is a fantastic time to invest in oil, though! That will go straight back up as soon as this credit crisis begins to resolve. Far quicker than real estate.

RECOMMENDED READING: I would stay away from most conventional investment magazines and websites for the time being. They helped get us into this mess. Stick with the economist, the NY Times, the WSJ, more clinical sources. Check out the "Naked Capitalism" blog and follow the links around.

Turkic is a language group

Reader "Alex" comments:

Turkic is basically a language group, not an ehthicity - thouhg mnay groups are ethnically close as well, of course.. an unreltaed but culturally intersting note: took Aidan to the nearby park to play baseball.. local Kurds ( large population in nashville, since we're so close to Kirkuk) were having their post-ramadan Eid feast/party/pinic.. a group of 30-40 year-oldish men set out a nice rug on the grass and sat, crossed-legged and played some sort of vicious gambling game , with much earnest and loud discussion... all we needed were a winged Bulls and some water-wheels, et voila! Kurdistan!

True true. That's because the "Turks" who come out of the Caucasus quickly interbreed with the assorted groups they subjugate. I'm sorry if I didn't make that point more clearly in my earlier post... and it's true! Those Kurds don't fall far from the Assyrian tree. Same region, after all. Very ancient bloodlines course through these conquered peoples. Unfortunately, they're all YHWH/God/Allah worshippers now and have turned away from the ancient Gods. Oh well, a boy can dream.

What those Kurds are doing in Nashville, I really don't know, however. And why are there so many Armenians in LA? Someone explain that to me.

RECOMMENDED READING: I know I already mentioned The Great Game series by Peter Hopkirk, but let me just endorse it again, along with The Cartoon History of the Universe vols. 1 and 3 specifically.

Fouding of Germany

James Call: Expert! He isn't getting laid, because he's writing this blog! But he is still smarter and better than you. And all his opinions and facts are 100% accurate.

Reader "Damian" asks: When and how did Germany become a country?

Oh man, what a great question! Germany's unification is one of the most ass-kicking unifications of all time, and features one of my favorite practitioners of realpolitik, ladies and gentlemen, let's get a big round of applause for... OTTO. VON. BISMAAAAAAAARK!

Ok, so, back in the day, Northern Germany was the big nastay Kingdom of Prussia. Berlin was the Prussian capital, I'm pretty sure, and Prussia also stretched all the way out to Bonn (future Western German capital). In the Seven Years War, in which Frederick the Great invaded neighboring Saxony, Prussia kicked the asses of Russia, France, Austria, and Sweden, all at the same time. This marked Prussia as the military badasses of Europe for the next century and a half. Oh, except when they totally got their clocks cleaned by Napoleon Bonaparte, but that's a story for another time.

Point is, post-Napoleon, the old Holy Roman Empire (don't even BOTHER trying to understand that nonsense) was dissolved and a "German Confederation" was in its place. Problem is, these assorted Krauts really didn't have too much in common. The Prussians and the Frissians and the Bavarians were like Californians, Nevadans and Coloradoans. I.e., similar, but they'd hardly say that about each other. The Bavarians in particular were known for their foul manners and low breeding. These people didn't like each other so much.

But what these little states all had in common was that they were tired of being pushed around by France, Austria, etc. They were also the "workshops of Europe," really the birthplace of modern industrial development (along with England the U. S. of A.). During the tumult of the mid-19th century, communism was born here! Karl Marx was a German through and through, the good kind, the intellectual who called for states to be abolished and the workers to run the world. Sigh. A girl can dream, can't she?

But little dinky worker's revolts don't build big countries like Germany. Nope, modern warfare builds countries! So when Wilhelm I of Prussia named Bismark Chancellor in 1862, what did Bismark do, other than rapidly modernize the military and start laying down rail (later VERY important)? He started invading his neighbors.

In three successive wars, Prussia kicked the ass of the Austrians, the Southern German states, and France. Definitely the coolest war was the Franco-Prussian war of 1871. This was the first war to really rely heavily on rail (discounting the US Civil War, of course). While the French relied on traditional infantry and cavalry, the Prussians used railways to quickly reach the front - and managed to conquer all of Northern France, including Paris.

Of course, Bismark wasn't a barbarian, and that's what makes him so great. He let Paris go free and most of France return to the French. In exchange, he got recognition of a whole new country: Germany.

And that's how Germany was born! Iron and blood! That, and Bismark's top-notch ability to build alliances and take down ONE enemy at a time: Austria, then France, etc.

Germany was KEPT ALIVE by Bismark's crazy mad diplomacy skillz. He was able to make the peace with both Russia and Austria, to keep Germany's traditional enemy, France, isolated (Bismark was only on good terms with newly-unified Italy, as well as Britain).

Of course, when Kaiser Wilhelm II got the helms of the state, he totally disregarded Bismark's advice and was all "We can take on France and Russia at the same time! Get out of here, Otto!" Which any Risk player can tell you is a totally asinine strategy to pursue, but that's what he did, and then we got WWI, and then we got the Nazis, and then we got WWII, and then we got Kraftwerk, and I guess it's all good, but Wilhelm II should have listened to Bismark... maybe France would be owened by Germany today.

p.s.: Don't get me wrong though, Bismark was virulently anti-worker and wanted to completely crush the socialists, something he was not able to do, as vigorous socialist and communist parties and movements continued in Germany well up into the 1930s, when they were finally snubbed out by the Nazis.

RECOMMENDED READING: Play some Castle Risk! Try basing yourself in Germany and keeping yourself alive against both Russia and France. It can't be done. Or read any military history of the 19th and/or 20th century. They're all say the same thing.

Nukes and the Prisoner's Dilemna

James Call: Expert! Smarter than you! Also handsome!

Reader "Amy" requests: "explain the prisoner's dilemma and comment on whether you think the USA is increasing the risk of nuclear war by having WMD. "

Oh, the prisoner's dilemma. A great dilemma, one of my faves.

Ok, the premise of the dilemma is this: two people are arrested, and throw in jail. They alleged committed or were planning a crime together. The police separate them, and offer each a deal: if you testify against the other prisoner, you go free and he/she stays in jail. If NEITHER of you testify, you both stay in jail for a little bit, but eventually go free. But if you BOTH testify, the jail term is longer.

Classic game theory shit, nice thing to teach schoolchildren. Sets you to to understand "nuclear deterrence" and "mutually assured destruction" (MAD). MAD basically states that if you're facing down a person with nukes, and vice versa, one of you is going to have to be batshit insane to launch a nuclear attack, because that will end all life on Earth forever, and no one wants that. The point of war is to win, not for everyone to lose.

Thankfully so far nukes haven't gotten into the hands of people who literally want to blow up the Earth. But they will, one day, if we don't get rid of them.

Look at Hitler. During his "downfall," he wanted Germany itself to burn. Kill 'em all, and let God sort 'em out. Imagine if he had had nukes! That would have been it for the Earth, potentially. He was genuinely crazy enough to use them. Most world leaders are NOT, but that's why I keep saying you should read Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. It CAN happen here, ladies and gentlemen.

But assuming no madmen are around, MAD works very well. Imagine if there had been no nuclear deterrence during the Cold War!!! Holy fuck, that would have been awesome!!! It would have been the bloodiest, and largest, land/sea/air war of all time. World War III! That would have ruled so hard.

But the pinko commie rats didn't want to blow up the Earth, nor did the yankee imperialist swine. That's why the Cold War wasn't really a "war" at all, it was a gentleman's agreement to divide up the Earth between two "opposing ideologies" (questionable at times).

However, since nukes are so freaking powerful, you really don't need too many to achieve MAD conditions. Let's look at today's nuclear powers. For good measure, let's include those who are unofficial or former nuclear powers. So that gives us: the US of A, China, Russia, India, Pakistan, France, England, Israel, Nouth Korea, and South Africa. Soon to include Iran (yay, go Persia!). Now, let's say each of those powers has 10 hydrogen bombs. That's a total of 110 hydrogen bombs, discounting Iran. That's MORE than enough to create pollution so severe that mankind is almost totally eliminated. Let's crank it up to, say, 30 bombs per world power, and you have enough destructive force + radiation to end life on Earth. Period.

So where the WMD issue becomes a problem is when you exceed the MAD threshold. I'm not sure how many thousands of nukes we have left in this country, but we do have thousands: more than enough to destroy the Earth many times over. Now let's say we get sloppy and let a few nukes slip - you can sell those fuckers for a pretty penny.

Now one of those nukes ends up in the hands of a suicide bomber.

OOPS!

And that's the problem with the prisoner's dilemma/MAD... that you can go too far with it. Most of our nukes, I maintain, were built with profit, rather than strategic, motives in mind. There's money to be made in selling missiles to the government. But eventually, when central governments melt down - like the USSR's, like Pakistan's often does - nukes get loose. And then you REALLY have to track them down. It's one thing for North Korea's petty dictators to have a bomb. But what about the Taliban? Can you imagine that shit?

But keep deterrence levels manageable, and they're excellent: look, so far, no WWIII. If we ever figure out how to "defeat" nuclear weapons, you can expect another serious land/sea/air war. Hopefully, this won't happen in our lifetimes. Nor will the madmen getting the bomb. But that's a more likely scenario: it's all just a matter of time.

RECOMMENDED READING: I would just watch Dr. Strangelove over and over. Also, anything on Henry Kissinger, a master of nuclear deterrence theory.

Is global warming manmade?

Welcome to James Call: Expert. I am smarter than you and I'm going to tell you how it is. Shut up and listen.

Reader "Amy" asks: "is global warming man made?"

Yes.

Does the Earth have natural heating and cooling cycles? Yes, of course. However, they occur over HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS.

Meanwhile, the increasing pace of icecap melting directly correlates to the amount of man-made carbon in the air. Carbon traps heat and melts shit and fucks us up. It's well documented.

The "scientists" who dispute this are crackpots and/or paid off by special interests. It's that simple.

EDIT: Ha ha, reader "Liz" informs me that I shouldn't refer to the scientists who dismiss the manmade nature of global climate change (not warming ... I just prefer to use "warming" 'cause I was raised with it) as "crackpots," or even paid off. And it's true, I'm being a little harsh. After all, the Earth does seem to heat up significantly and cool down about every 100,000 years, and the last time it was really hot was about 100,000 years ago. Nonetheless, the significance of the change within ONE CENTURY, which is a blip in terms of the Earth's timeline, would seem to indicate that the large amount of carbon in the air, belched out by indsutry, has heated our world significantly.

But that's not to say that everywhere is just going to get HOT, which is the problem with the term "global warming". Global Climate Change is the correct term, because what's really going to happen is the weather is going to get more intense.

RECOMMENDED READING: Any basic science textbook. Plus, watch "Nova".

On Energy

Reader "Adam" writes:

While your right that transportation, communications and basic utilities infrastructure in this country, much of which has been steadily decaying since the depression, are desperately in need of updates and repair, I don't see how you can endorse the use of atomic power. Even if you ignore the possibility of nuclear catastrophe (which is certainly plausible given the complete lack of government oversight, rampant corruption and incompetence in America) atomic power plants have never been efficient. They generally end up losing money and require government bailouts. Obtaining and refining uranium takes a lot of energy. So does transporting and storing the resulting toxic waste. Atomic power plants cost hella money to build and can only be used for a limited amount of time before they need to be replaced. Unlike power from solar, wind, tidal (etc) sources which are essentially limitless and cause little to no environmental destruction. These would not require the centralized corporate monopolies that currently control our public utilities. Of course these technologies aren't efficient enough yet to support our decadent American lifestyles, but if we spent a fraction of what we spend securing the last of the world's fossil fuels on "alternative" power sources, we'd be way closer to weaning ourselves off these power sources which are fast becoming completely obsolete. Yeah, Obama says he's all for atomic power, but he also supports offshore drilling, ethanol and the mythological "clean coal" all of which will be environmentally disastrous and wont do dick in the long run for our "fuel crisis".

Well, you're quite right. Nuclear waste disposal is a serious issue. I still stand by nuclear as a quality alternative to clean coal, which would indeed be a disaster, and especially ethanol, which is already a disaster in some ways.

And that's the real problem with Obama, in my view: he's already in the pocket of Midwestern agricultural interests who want us to rely on 2:1 (output to input) corn ethanol, when 6:1 Brazilian sugar ethanol is readily available... and besides, ethanol PERIOD shouldn't be used, it's a pollutant just like oil, and solar and wind are coming of age.

I disagree about the monopoly issue, though: it's never too late to start cornering the market on solar and wind. After all, both solar and wind will require a vast new upgrade of the national energy grid to be efficient. Such a massive undertaking will require the power and coordination of the federal government. And the federal government can be very easily swayed by a few wealthy individuals. After all, that's by and large how the oil industry came to power: wildcatting, followed by local monopolies, followed by larger monopolies with government influence.

I think this the most likely future of the solar and wind industries. However, I'd rather have clear energy monopolies than dirty energy monopolies. And monopolies -can- be regulated in a way that decentralized energy perhaps cannot.

What I'm trying to say is, in the course of setting up the energy grid, solar/wide/tidal monopolies will probably come to be, simply due to how the access to gov't game is played.

RECOMMENDED READING: The whole sleiugh of oil industry books I've mentioned, but especially The Prize by Daniel Yergin. The Economist is a great place to read about the new energy industry, but bear in mind they take a very free-market-booster approach, so read between the lines. And there's so much reading on how monopolies are born and come to influence gov't that I really don't know where to begin. Revisit your American Pageant or whatever and read the bit about the breakup of Standard Oil back in, what, 1911? I think it's 1911.

Summing it Up: Late September

Ok! As we move into a whole new month for James Call: Expert, I'm going to quickly sum up what's come so far. Some of you have noted that my posts are a bit long and maybe difficult to follow. So just read THIS post... I'm about to break it all down into soundbytes for y'all.

What caused our financial meltdown?

Years of no oversight of finance, the growth of finance as a portion of our entire economy, all of us counting on our homes and credit cards instead of, say, earning a healthy wage, and this fucking sleight-of-hand chop-chop BS called "CDOs" in which really bad loans were bundled with good ones to look fantastic. And the heavy reliance on finance heavy hitters, even old, respectable ones, on said BS.

Is John McCain's little "suspending his campaign" gambit gonna work?

I (sort of) called it - it did not. It just made McCain look stupid. Like everything else these days.

Who won the debate?

I was more or less right about this too. After all, I am very, very smart, and better than you. The debate was not a game changer. Obama is now said to be the winner of the debate, based on the visuals. Only racism can stop Barack now... or maybe an attack on Iran?!? That would fucking ROCK.

What is the best starting class in 2nd Ed. Dungeons & Dragons?

The cleric. Good balance of fighting abilities and the "cure light wounds" spell. Also, a great angle around which to base a character.

Is the "Invisible Hand" a borderline theological concept?

Yeah. It's a handy thing to toss around at cocktail parties, but the mofos who take this shit without any grains of salt sound like Communist Party functionaries. Or, hardcore Catholics, I guess.

How has insta-polling affected our politics?

By making the candidates less "stern leader"-like and more "pandering buffoon"-like. But good pols still understand the importance of "staying the course". Notice the hit Obama took when caving on FISA, for instance.

Assorted ridiculous questions

The Dove is just a glorified Pigeon. It's an Angel Rat with Wings.

Are we headed towards super fun Nazi time?

Probably not. But who knows, we could get Obama '08 and if he turns out to be Jimmy Carter II, Palin in '12, and lord knows that would be terrifying, would it not? But we didn't go (all out) Nazi under Dubya, so I still sort of believe in America.

Do we really need this bailout?

Yep, to keep business running. But it sucks. At this point, it truly is a "crap sandwich". It's a terrible fucking bailout. Can we please just nationalize this shit like they do in civilized countries?

Jews in Georgia? And ... UZBEKS?!?

Jews are everywhere! Especially the former Soviet Union. And, yeah, Uzbeks. Weird. Gotta a wicked sweet name for their ethnicity: "Uzbek". It just rolls off the tongue.

...And with that all said on done, please, BRING ON THE QUESTIONS!

Still angry at having to work as a file clerk,
James Call
Expert

Central Asian Trivia Time

James Call: Expert here! Back with some very fun questions from reader "Erin". Standard Disclosure: Please bear in mind that there are way more "expert" folks out there than I! But they're not as good drinking buddies.

Georgian Jews?!?

That's right baby, Georgian Jews. Now I don't know the exact history of Georgia's Jews, although I'm pretty fucking certain that a healthy dose of them were frontline Bolsheviks back in the days, because Stalian and a lot of the other first-gen Bolshies were straight outta Georgia, and the Jews, with a long history of often radical intellectualism, tended to go for things like "the overthrow of a feudal autocracy by the vanguard party of Communist revolution" all the time. In fact, it's fascinating to look at the early Zionists and see how thematically close it was to various strains of communist thought.

But, while I don't know the internal migratory history of the USSR very well - and there was a fuckload of it, while Stalin and others were all "Hey, Siberia needs more starving Azeris," etc., I'm willing to bet a lot of those Georgia Jews go all the way back to the good old days of the Khazars.

(p.s.: Turns out I was totally wrong about my first guess. I thought it was the nearby Uighurs, who converted to Manichaeism back in the day. Let's not even go THERE, girlfriend.)

The Khazars were your basic horseback riding fun loving subertribe/kingdom back in the day, back around, oh, 900 AD, I want to say? Back when Russia was around but way before Peter the Great made it into that familiar shape we've all come to know and love - The Russians used to be centered around the Principality of Moscow and a few other towns, and didn't really become a force to be reckoned with until they starting fucking the Ottomans (today's "Turks") around the 14th and 15th centuries.

Anyways the Khazar down there were doing their Turkic thing, just trying to stay alive, and of course you always had your Christians, Jews, and Muslims trading with these assorted Turkic groups, located as they were between China (rich), Persia (pretty rich), Byzantium (also pretty rich), and Europe (piss poor but featuring some handy crap such as woolens, etc). And apparently some notable Khazar military figure named Bulan starting banging this Jewish broad, and next thing you know he's all, "Fellow Khazars! Let us embrace this fantastic faith centered around a Holy Land that is way the fuck far away from us and has nothing to do with our lifestyle up here!"

And the other Khazars were all, "Hold on, cowboy," so Bulan convened a sort of grand argument between Jewish, Christian, and Islamic notables. And they all made their points about how great their YHWH-centered religions were, but in the end of the day the conversion probably came down to money and geopolitics, such as they were: The Christians could offer trade with the shitty Christian world (well, Byanztium would have been handy), the Muslims could do Arabia and Persia (muuuuuuch better), and the Jews could do ... drum roll please ... BOTH!

Because ever since the Christians came to power in Rome, the Jews have occupied a weird position of being the Chosen People let also flawed, and all throughout Rome up through the period of Islamic ascension and the rise of the Middle Ages, Muslims and Christians have alternately persecuted Jews and used them as go-betweens. Besides, Jews have tended throughout their history to be great world travelers and traders... there were plenty of Jews in the T'ang Dynasty of China, for instance...

So the Khazars went Jewish, and presumably did alright for themselves, although, where the hell is Khazarstan today? They are still out there, somewhere, you can bet your tuckus.

So I don't know if those Jewish Khazars, close as they were to where Georgia is today, are related to Georgia's Jews, but I wouldn't be surprised.

Next question!

now, i am also curious about the uzbeks, since the very best meal i had all summer was at the uzbeki restaurant....

Uzbeks Uzbeks Uzbeks... I got Uzbeks on my mind. I don't know much of the history of Uzbeks specifically, except it's important to note all these types are basically Turks. Not Turks from Turkey... it's a weird distinction... the most famous Turkic groups of all time have to be 1. The Mongols, 2. The Ottomans, and probably 3. The Seljuks, although there's so many other bitchin' Turkic groups. Fuck, the Afghans used to be Turks; they're just Turks who settled down.

You may note that a Mongol looks nothing like an Ottoman. That's because the Turkic groups were small, horseback riding types. They were always great conquerers, and to a lesser extent, traders, but once they actually conquered something, they had to intermarry to really dominate a place. And that almost never worked out for 'em. You can't hold down China, Persia, or Asia Minor very long. Their ancient and far-out cultures will always reassert themselves above barbarism.

Anyways, Uzbeks, I assume they're pretty old at this point. I DO know a bit about modern Uzbek politics, though, and it's great fun.

First off: ever hear of the "Northern Alliance"? They were our proxy in the invasion of Afghanistan (our invasion, not one of the other invasions). They consistented to a large extent of Uzbeks and Tajiks, from Uzbekistan and Tajikstan, natch. They were not Pastun like the rest of the country and therefore couldn't really do squat without the help of NATO. They also do not rule the country today. Although they got the opium supply flowing again, after years of Taliban repression of the drug trade. PHEW! Those illegal opium dollars are very convenient for helping our intelligence agencies purchase small arms for paramilitary groups.

Also, Uzbekistan is totally filled with natural gas, and part of the Project for a New American Century clique's New American Century totally included this ridiculous 1,000+ mile pipline to go from Uzbekistan through Afghanistan and then through PAKISTAN to the Indian Ocean. Ha ha ha! That's like say, "Hey, I live next to three crackhouses, I wonder if I can run my laundry line through all three of 'em" and expecting nothing to go wrong. Here, check out this map:



Gotta admit I'm not too up on the last few years of coup-related activity in Uzbekistan. I know they have the standard "radical Islamic student" problem that pretty much all those countries have. Remember: the age of the horseback conquerer is over, so Central Asia's a pretty sad place now. It's where Russia meets Islam meets China, with some Americans (who are on course to get kicked the fuck back to the Western hemisphere where we belong) mixed in.

I also know that Islam Karimov was the dictator of Uzbekistan for many years, and now it's some other guy. It's your basic post-Soviet totalitarian dictatorship.

I finally, I know that "Trans-Caspian Pipeline," to bring natural gas to the Indian Ocean for Exxon or whatever, is toast. It's a "pipe dream" you might say. HA HA HA! Since we've so royally boffo'd everything in Afghani- and Paki-stan these last few years, the Uzbeks have thrown down with their old overlords the Russians, and will be supplying their natural gas to our pals in the Kremlin from here on out.

And that's all I know about the Uzbeks. I should go get some Uzbek food too, I bet there's hella good lamb involved.

RECOMMENDED READING: For easy and VERY entertaining reading, start with Larry Gonick's Cartoon History of the Universe vol. 3. All of you should read all three volumes of this anyways. It's your defacto primer for the history of man. I am dead serious. And it's funny as hell. Also strongly recommended: The New Great Game by Kleveman Lutz. Sooooooo wickedly good. A few years old at this point, but really explains the hell out of the struggle for power in Central Asia, which is a large part of the impetus for our invasion of Afghanistan in the first place. It's all about the pipelines, baby! Also, check atimes.com out ever so often. They're great for this sort of coverage (it's short for "Asia Times Online"). Oh, and here's some online book which looks really good and from which I fact-checked my Khazar/Judaism info (glad I did that! I would have had Manichaen egg on my face! Would have been ashamed to show myself at Columbia U. parties, etc.) http://books.google.com/books?id=t-SSqtsGaGwC&pg=PA293&lpg=PA293&dq=uighur+judaism&source=web&ots=KmhC6l7NZT&sig=cvbd8FGz3DXq1Cho6T1VHz4GuU8&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPP1,M1 ... Mom, Dad, I want this book for Christmas.

Do we really need this bailout?

Welcome back to James Call: Expert. Standard disclosures: I am not truly an expert, I just know more than you (maybe). And I do not proofread or fact check this thing unless called on it. Because I don't have the time.

Today reader "Mike" asks:

Do we really need this bailout?

It's a good question! The answer is "yes," because investment has frozen up. In essence, banks have all moved their resources into treasury bonds, and the yield is way down. I have to admit here I can't really keep my numbers straight in my head. I have been reading in the Times and online that the yield on these bonds, since everyone is going there, is about 0%. I.e., it's the modern day of equivalent of taking your money out of the bank and sticking it under your mattress. But then, the 30-year treasury is still at 4%ish. But... that's 30 years to hold on to that shit.

BTW, if my prior posts on this subject were too long winded for you to read: DO NOT WITHDRAW YOUR MONEY. The FDIC protects your deposit. For real.

Banks are so risk-averse that they're buying madd treasuries and that means there ain't no cash for nothing else. Your deposit is safe but the money from the banks to the businesses you work for is not. I saw the apocalyptic "3 million jobs lost in 6 months" figure from some economist, who I hope was just trying to scare us, 'cause, Jesus Christo. But payrolls are gonna be cut, big time.

We need to inject capital into the banks to get liquidity going again. This is what we did in the New Deal; it worked. It worked slowly, over time, but it did work. We also need to root out the toxic assets and get some oversight crankin' so we're not "throwing good money after bad".

Now - the big question is - what kind of bailout do we need. I'll just try to keep this short. I read a real eye-opening post on "naked capitalism" (google that shit) yesterday, basically calling for the nationalization of the banks. Not in the real rabble-rousing commie way, but, just as a business proposition for the government. That's, in essence, what Sweden did, I believe - took over the banks, sold off the crap, and eventually sold the bank back, earning a profit for the government. I think. They may have retained shareholder interest in the banks... I'm not sure.

The Dodd/Frank/Paulson plan, which has been replaced with the "Crap Sandwich" plan full of GOP horseshit, was along these lines. While the banks wouldn't be seized outright, the government would receive equity shares in the banks it bailed out. In essence, should these banks become healthy in the future, we (the people, as through our government, in theory) make cash on the deal. Again, probably 10 years down the line, but it could be worse.

Some of that money (20% of profits made) was gonna go to affordable housing - but, you know, "affordable housing" = "public housing" = "negroes" and also = "socialism", so the House GOP totally flipped out and axed that provision.

This "naked capitalism" post, and I don't want to overtly plagirize here, but it basically said, since the FDIC already insures deposits up to $100,000, why not just lift that cap and make the FDIC insure everything. Then get the FDIC, the FBI, and whomever in to investigate and inventory everything. I mean every fucking bank. And the ones that are solid get a little slap on the wrist for diddling around with CDOs but do get to retain their banks, while we sell off their toxic assets over time... and the banks that are up shit creek, the government completely takes over, sells crap off and restructures the bank, and then auctions it off, but not to the same people who had run the bank into the ground in the first place (the government can seize failed banks and run them on its own terms via the bank bridge facility of the FDIC, introduced back in the S&L days - a great provision!).

This plan also really doesn't require taxpayer funds. It just requires the Fed to put up a huge chunk of cash as a good-faith jesture. Again, this cash doesn't enter circulation unless it's really called for. Now, I suppose this is a terrible idea if the banks are just fucked fucked fucked beyond our wildest beliefs. But, I don't think they are... right? The real problem with this plan is it's political aspect - it's temporary bank nationalization, really really solid and good for our democracy, but "socialism" nonetheless. People hate that crap in this country, residual Cold War culture BS. Same with a single-payer system for health care: should be done, but is "socalistic" and therefore we're gonna get some watered-down compromise, maybe, someday.

No matter how it's done, the bailout is needed. And it's gonna suck, as taxpayers, to do this shit. But if we just buy up the bad assets and let these banks off the hook for bad behavior, restoring their credit in the process, then we really are "socializing risk and privatizing profit" like everyone is saying to sound all smart. HOWEVER, if we sell the bad assets and then retain at least partial government ownership of these institutions, then the whole financial sector - which has come to dominate, and on several ocassions royally fuck our economy up - will now be earning money for the people.

That's not to see the people can't spend their profit on dumb crap like tax cuts for the rich or bunker-busting nuclear missiles, but, hey, it's a start.

I would oppose total nationalization because that probably does discourage "innovation" and "risk taking" blah blah blah blah blah, but partial nationalization would be a great deal, because these banks will still want to make money, even if they have to share some of it with the government (direct via shareholder stakes, as well as taxes). A bunch of whiners will cry over the lost money, but it'll still be an assload of money. If someone buys me a car, for free, but says I have to share it with my cousin out on Long Island too, do I really whine about that shit? It's still a free car.

In short: yes, bailout needed, but needed for the future is a sizeable direct federal government stake in our financial institutions, no matter how commiefied that may seem. This will cost a lot right now, but if done right, can earn us profits sort of for good, until some rich fookers get rid of it in when Jenna Bush is elected President or whatever.

RECOMMENDED READING: Track down that "naked capitalism" post. Keep up with Krugman's blog at the NY Times website. Really consider giving Wall St by Doug Henwood a shot. I wish I knew more about Sweden's bailout history, and our own shoddy S&L past. It's on the list, for sure... P.S.: GREAT article in politico today about why the bill failed. Read it! http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/14108.html