That Film About Money
by tristero
A friend of mine, James Schamus, spent his summer vacation making two hilarious, brilliant, and deeply unsettling films about the bizarre subject of modern money. They are not to be missed:
That Film About Money, Episode 6 of We The Economy
The Second Part of That Film About Money, Episode 7 of We The Economy
Much about our very weird country is revealed in the process. Enjoy (if that’s the word)!
by tristero
From a book review by Rob Nixon of The Human Age by Diane Ackerman
The 21st-century rise of the Anthropocene [the “Human Age”] as a unitary-species story coincides with a trend toward rising inequality, between the haves and the never-will-haves. In America, we call this the second Gilded Age, but in nations as diverse as China, Ireland, India, Spain and Nigeria, the idea of the human is also fracturing economically. In 2013, the world’s 85 wealthiest individuals had a net worth equal to that of our planet’s 3.5 billion poorest people. Since 1751, a mere 90 corporations, primarily oil and coal companies, have generated two-thirds of humanity’s CO2 emissions. That’s a serious concentration of earth-altering power.
When [author] Ackerman uncritically quotes the futurist Ray Kurzweil’s prediction that “by the 2030s we’ll be putting millions of nanobots inside our bodies to augment our immune system, to basically wipe out disease,” this reader was prompted to ask: Pray tell, which “we” would that be? The facts are that in 2014 the number of forcibly displaced people has topped 51 million, the highest figure since World War II. Yes, technological innovation will prove critical in the battle to adapt to the hurtling pace of planetary change, but let’s acknowledge that we’re doing a far better job of encouraging innovation than distributing possibility.
(Emphasis added.)
Somewhat apropos, see this unbelievably sad story, too. Truly inexcusable.
by tristero
Can we all agree that letting a 9-year old fire an Uzi is a really nutty idea?
A Nevada gun range today defended having children fire automatic weapons despite the fatal accident at a nearby shooting range that occurred when a 9-year-old girl was unable to control the powerful recoil of an Uzi she was shooting.
Firing an automatic weapon teaches children the difference between their video games and the real thing, Bill Regenhardt, spokesman for The Range 702, told ABC News.
“It’s an eye opener for them to see the difference: this is not a toy, this is not a plastic Wii gun. It’s heavy, you have to really be mindful of what it does… A lot of times it’s an eye opener for the parents as well,” Regenhardt said.
For the most part, Regenhardt says that after their first time with automatic weapons, children get hooked.
“The reaction is, ‘I’d like to do this again, I’d really like to do this again,'” he said. From there, they encourage the children to take classes.
Granted, there are a lot of individuals in our species, and statistically it makes sense that a small fraction of them will be both bats hit bonkers and unspeakably amoral opportunists, like the person quoted above). What makes no sense at all is that this madness is reported as if it were just one more point of view without even a token quote from anyone in the reality-based community.
The problems’s not that people are crazy; some people always are. It’s that crazy people – Tea Partiers, creationists, and people who give 9 year olds weapons of mass destruction to play with – are treated by the media as if their opinions are sane.
UDATE: Sigh.
Same As It Ever Was
by tristero
Scientific American, September, 1914
People are so suspicious about wars nowadays. One wonders even if patriotism isn’t rather stupid. One has the preliminary thrill; there is flag-wagging, the blast of a trumpet, the glorious traditions of the Fatherland, and then this vague but persistent vision of a fat, beady-eyed financier lurking in the background. We have been sold so many times, one becomes wary. One could fight wholeheartedly in a war for the end of war, but in no other sort of war whatever.
Ah, yes, the war to end all wars. One hopes that whomever wrote this realized that the notion of a war to end all war was just one more cynical sales pitch. Unlikely, sorry to say.
.
by tristero
Of all the dreadful things Richard Nixon did, I think this is the worst:
Nixon’s newly revealed records show for certain that in 1968, as a presidential candidate, he ordered Anna Chennault, his liaison to the South Vietnam government, to persuade them refuse a cease-fire being brokered by President Lyndon Johnson.
Nixon’s interference with these negotiations violated President John Adams’s 1797 Logan Act, banning private citizens from intruding into official government negotiations with a foreign nation.
Published as the 40th Anniversary of Nixon’s resignation approaches, Will’s column confirms that Nixon feared public disclosure of his role in sabotaging the 1968 Vietnam peace talks.
Indeed he should have. Traitor is not too harsh a word to put on this action.
Miserable Failure
by tristero
There were were very reliable rumors, circulating for years, that Bush sought the presidency of the United States for one reason only: to sweeten his resume so he could get his actual dream job: baseball commissioner.
The mind boggles at the amount of incompetence Bush could bring to bear on a job he actually gave a shit about. But once again, Bush failed:
[Rob Manfred] was chosen Thursday by the league’s owners to succeed Bud Selig as commissioner, one of the most powerful positions in sports.
Adding, I have no idea how good a commissioner Manfred will be. But it’s hard to imagine he could do a worse job than the man who gave us two failed wars, US-sanctioned torture, a botched Katrina recovery, etc etc etc etc etc etc…
Iraq Is Also Clinton’s War
by tristero
Hillary Clinton was one of the 29 Democratic senators who voted to authorize that baloney [Iraq] war.
It seemed very clear to me at the time that Clinton was going to vote for it not because she personally agreed with it; she probably thought it was a bad idea, privately. Rather, it seemed that she had determined that, politically, the war was unstoppable, that Bush had enormous popular support, and therefore there was no reason to fight a battle that could only be lost, no matter how obviously nutty Bush’s plans were to most of the world.
I was so freaked out that I did something I hadn’t done since college: I joined a protest outside Clinton’s Manhattan office. No dice. Then, I emailed every single person I knew to send me a letter opposing the war. I printed them all out and overnight fedexed them to Clinton’s office in DC.
In addition, Michael Moore circulated a petition that read in part:
We call on the Democrats in Congress to oppose a war on Iraq, to vote “No” to Bush’s war cries. We pledge to never again vote for any Democratic member of Congress who supports George W. Bush’s war against Iraq. To the Democrats in Congress, we give you fair warning: You are either with us, or you are fired.
I signed this petition without hesitation. But nothing I, nor anyone else could do, could get her to change her mind. After the vote, in response to my letter-writing campaign, I received a form letter filled with gobbledygook and some of the most twisted rationalizations I have ever read.
And the war came.
I should state the obvious. Clinton is clearly brilliant and a master politician, both assets for an American president. Also, I am under no illusions that politicians as ambitious as the Clintons think like me, i.e. in terms of principles rather than opportunities to obtain power. No one who is in serious contention for the presidency thinks otherwise.
That said, there are limits. By voting for the Bush/Iraq war resolution – and only in the most technical sense was that not a blank check approval of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the Whole Sick Crew’s war plans – Clinton supported what is obviously – and was so at the time – one of the most dangerously stupid policy decisions any American president ever made.
I did not support Clinton in 2008 for the presidency. As for 2016, unless there is a serious chance that a Republican would beat her, I will honor my signature on Moore’s petition.
.
by tristero
On the South Rim plateau, less than two miles from the park’s entrance, the gateway community of Tusayan, a town just a few blocks long, has approved plans to construct 2,200 homes and three million square feet of commercial space that will include shops and hotels, a spa and a dude ranch.
Among its many demands, the development requires water, and tapping new wells would deplete the aquifer that drives many of the springs deep inside the canyon — delicate oases with names like Elves Chasm and Mystic Spring. These pockets of life, tucked amid a searing expanse of bare rock, are among the park’s most exquisite gems.
It’s a terrible plan…
[Also, l]ess than 25 miles to the northeast of Tusayan, Navajo leaders are working with developers from Scottsdale to construct a 1.4-mile tramway that would descend about 3,200 feet directly into the heart of the canyon. They call it Grand Canyon Escalade.
The cable system would take more than 4,000 visitors a day in eight-person gondolas to a spot on the floor of the canyon known as the Confluence, where the turquoise waters of the Little Colorado River merge with the emerald green current of the Colorado. The area, which is sacred to many in the Hopi and Zuni tribes, as well as Navajo people, would feature an elevated walkway, a restaurant and an amphitheater.
Opposition, which is furious, includes a group of Navajos who accuse the developers of tricking fellow tribesmen into supporting the project with misleading presentations. While the developers argue that the entire project would lie within the reservation, the park service suggests that it might intrude into the park and would not be allowed. Whichever is the case, the project would be a travesty.
The park’s superintendent, David Uberuaga, who says he spends a majority of his time battling developers and other threats to the park, says the proposal represents “a real and permanent” danger because it “will change the landscape for all future visitors.”
Behind the second idiocy is a developer and “political consultant” named Lamar Whitmer:
[Whitmer] was accused by local newspaper columnist Robert Leger a few years back of using public comment time at the meetings for “over-the-top” attacks against politicians who didn’t share his views.
Whitmer, a political consultant, is perhaps best known for helping the city’s strip clubs overturn legislation that would have banned lap dances in 2006…
Back in 1991, Whitmer made headlines when he was accused of pocketing $40,000 in per diem expenses in one year as head of the Maricopa County Sports Authority. [He was acquitted.]
Charming…
.
Contra Sam Harris
by tristero
PZ Myers says it. Condemning Israel for its outrageous actions in no way translates into an endorsement of obscene atrocities committed by Hamas. There is no one standing on moral high ground in this and Harris is very, very wrong.
Take That, F. Scott Fitzgerald!
by tristero
Fitzgerald once said, “Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me.“
Not so fast. Some new, fascinating research suggests that actually, genetically, rich and poor aren’t so different after all.
According to a study released this week by geneticists at Cornell University, substantial evidence indicates that rich people and poor people—disparate populations long thought to be entirely unrelated—may have once shared a single common ancestor. “After conducting careful DNA analysis, our research team was taken aback to discover that the wealthy and the working class actually have a considerable number of genetic similarities,” said study co-author Kenneth Chang, adding that despite the disparity between the modern-day affluent and low earners in terms of behavior, appearance, and lifestyle, numerous genetic markers revealed that their predecessors may have once lived beside one another without any noticeable differences.
I know, it does sound incredible, almost like a fake news story, but it is hard to argue with a news source as credible as The Onion.
However, if poor and rich once actually did live side by side with few noticeable differences – it is clear from the article that Dr. Chang is merely speculating and has no empirical data – that was a very long time ago. Today, when rich and poor share an apartment building, we deem it not only socially acceptable but essential for there to be separate entrances.
.