Political Judo Flip

I was listening to Keith Olbermann on my daily walk home, and listened as Olbermann described the last Clinton-Obama debate. He used the term "political jujitsu"(I'm not kidding). He used phrases such as striking your opponent when they least expect it and letting your opponent strike you and use that momentum to gain control. As I didn't see the debate I saw in my head Obama and Clinton not debating politely on serious issues, but rather fighting in Mortal Kombat.

I suppose this primary is much like the end of well-matched fight in Mortal Kombat. Hillary Clinton is the dizzy, defeated fighter. She whirls around aimlessly as the program demands "Finish Her!" I guess after Tuesday we'll know what Obama did. Did he lolligag and lose the fight, or did he pull out her spine (or some other cool finishing move), and hear the words, "You Win Rayden, er..I mean Obama." I guess you can just call it...Political Ninjitsu! *POW*
Read more...

Terrorists in the Senate!

What kind of terrorist is this?

A terrifying terrorist! Are you terrified?



How about now?


BOO!


No, it's not John McCain...It's Achmed, The Dead Terrorist. With all these terrorists running around our Senate, who knows, perhaps he'll run for President too!
Read more...

Human Behavior in a Free Market

I just read an article that says that 45 percent of economists believe that we are headed for a recession, the other 55 don't believe that we will have a recession, more of a "relatively muted" downturn. I suppose most people would read this and wipe that sweat from their brow and say phew! that was close. I remain my ever-cynical self though. The worst part about this report is to know whether these future predictions will come true. They could be absolutely correct, but they could be absolutely wrong.

The reason I say this is in the name of praxeology (study of human behavior). To try and predict what millions of people are going to do tomorrow is impossible, even with a copious amount of data. What that data indicates is the past performance, which is no indicator of the future. Data analysis, especially in economics, is sketchy at best. The best that economic indicators can do is say, "if all things remain the same, this curve can predict the future." What economic analysis cannot predict, no matter how hard they try, is the anomaly of shocks. These can be as small as a new trend pushing the market in an unexpected direction or as large as planes flying into buildings, precipitating what was a simmering recession in 2001.

Who could have predicted in July, that in August we would see the beginnings of the latest credit crunch? What about a Hurricane that would destroy much of the city of New Orleans? Who could have predicted in August 2001 that one month later this country would suffer the worst terrorist attack in its history? It is shocks like these that make economic prediction at best an expensive preoccupation and at worst a horribile misguidance.

The beauty of the free market is the sheer inability for anyone to predict collective action in any reliable way. Just look at the stock market. With all our technology and brain-power, we still can't figure out when those shocks are going to occur, and which way a company's value is going to go from day to day, much less from year to year. Don't be taken so quickly by economists' prediction, the free market is not so easily lassoed.
Read more...

Why Nerds will Always Win

Recently, there was a book review in The Economist about nerds and why they are important. It brought up some good points about "nerds" and "jocks." One point was that it was essential that the ones people call "nerds" know that as time goes by, things do get easier. As a nerd myself, this would have been nice information to have as I suffered the slings and arrows of childhood ridicule. I do realize that now that I am probably better off than most of those kids who focused their attention on breaking down others rather than studying and bettering themselves. Most importantly, I realized that the statement that things get better with time is inevitable. Nerds will always overcome. Why? Because of their big brains, and I think I can prove it.

When comparing jocks and nerds, one notices the most obvious difference: physicality. In high school and sometimes in college, jocks will push around the nerds, for a variety of reasons. The reasons do not matter, what matters is that jocks will lose their greatest gift far sooner than nerds ever will. Physical strength and prowess inevitably fade with time. Strength increases, peaks and then declines. It is the destiny of all who rest all their mantel on physical ability. Even the greatest of athletes are lucky to have their abilities past age 35. The average career in the NFL, which houses some of the most physically fit athletes, is a paltry five years. What then? What happens after the glory of athleticism fades? What is the fate of those who pushed others around, what is the fate of the bully?

When watching "Bowling for Columbine," (which I absolutely despised) Michael Moore was interviewing Matt Stone from "South Park" fame. Although the movie itself was better suited as a frisbee than a real documentary, Stone said something profound enough for me to remember after most of that drivol faded away. To paraphrase, he said if only there was some way to tell these kids (when discussing the Columbine massacre) that there is so much more after high school and those who ridiculed them would be in the same town in 20 years selling insurance, there wouldn't be so many shootings at these schools. I'm at a point in my life where I can really say that is true. While jocks and ridiculers' talents fade, the brain and intelligence will increase as long as you're learning. That's why nerds will always win.

As their strength fades, ours grows. At some point in everyone's life, they will have to depend on their brains more than their brawn. For those who have not honed their learning skills, and focused only on destroying others, the time will come when they will have to use their intelligence. If there is none, then Matt Stone is right, in 20 years they'll be managing a fast-food restaurant or selling insurance. Always know, what goes around comes around and those who gave it will always get it in the end.
Read more...

51% No More

Last night, I saw Jon Stewart on Larry King Live. He said something that seems to resonate through this primary season and probably through November when we annoint the new president. He was dwelling on what was so wrong with the Bush administration and the way it governed. I will have to paraphrase, so please pardon me if there are any errors.

Stewart had said that both George Bush and Dick Cheney were looking for a "51% government," in other words, ruling for the constituency and no one else. When this is considered, he doesn't seem to be too far from the truth. We saw Republicans blatantly turn their back on their principles from 2000 to 2006 when they were punished by losing their seats in both houses. I seem to remember the conservative appeal of small government and fiscal responsibility. I suppose these were great ideals until the Republicans held both the presidency and the majority vote in Congress.

We saw a surplus in 2000 go to an over $9 trillion dollar debt today (check out the progress). Fiscal responsibility? Last I checked, spending on credit (at least to this ridiculous extreme) is not responsible. It's about as irresponsible as I can imagine.

What about that small government, libertarian-minded ideal that was touted so hard through the Reagan years? Does anyone remember the Department of Homeland Security? To make something smaller, you normally shrink it, right? Maybe I'm confused, but adding an entire department to the government doesn't make it smaller, or does it? I don't know.

The appeal of the prospective candidates, Obama and McCain is their willingness to turn their back on party politics for the greater good. To be fair, this has been shown more for John McCain than for Barack Obama. What has impressed me about both men is their ability to listen to both sides and make a wise decision. The polarity we see today is not a result of listening to both sides and making wise decisions. This country can only move forward when reason and flexibility are traits of our head of state. Thankfully, with either candidate, we can say that that is true, at least in 2009 it will be.
Read more...

The Broken Paradigm

As I watch these Democratic primaries, much like a housewife watches her soaps, the drama continues. Unfortunately, it looks like this drama is beginning to end. I read in Reuters that now Sen. Clinton is "ridiculing" Obama as all talk and no substance. She's posted attack ads, accused him of plagiarism and now she says he has no substance. This led me to think about the ideas of paradigms and why, barring some miracle, Hillary Clinton will not get the Democratic nomination.

It's as simple as looking at the candidates. Senators Clinton, Obama, McCain: which one doesn't belong? The one that isn't being touted for their appeal to independent voters. That's right, Hillary Clinton is your winner, or in this case your loser. The way she is running her campaign, reminds me of how political races have been won (at least in my memory) in the past. It's not about how I am qualified, it's how my opponent isn't qualified. It's attacking, quite simply that wins races. Johnson did it to Goldwater with a simple allusion to nuclear war (never mind the real war Johnson was running in Vietnam). George W. Bush did it with John Kerry, in addition to a brutal attack on Kerry's command experience, now more famously known as "swiftboating." Hillary Clinton is now trying the same thing, the problem is that it appears that Americans have become smarter, we've moved on.

In addition to his "lofty rhetoric" Obama does have specific plans. It's as easy as looking on the internet. There is substance as well as talk. Attack ads show an old paradigm that doesn't appear to be working anymore. Just ask any business that produces obsolete products, they don't sell; apparently neither does Hillary.
Read more...

The "Inevitable" Machine Creaks

So, I hear that Hillary Clinton has had a hierarchical shake-up in her campaign. Apparently, according to CNN, the campaign has been sending mixed messages to different states, they don't know who's in charge. Sounds pretty bad. After seeing that report, something dawned on me that might tell me how this election might fare.

This most recent news, coupled along with news that Sen. Clinton had to loan her own campaign $5 million, has not fared well for the former First Lady. While these shake-ups and stop-gaps are dotting the Clinton campaign, it seems that the Obama campaign can't even spend all the money he has gotten. On the same day that Clinton disclosed her investment, it was revealed that Senator Obama had raised $3 million, not only in one day, but all on the internet. These things don't seem to bode well for Hillary Clinton.

If anyone remembers how she started this race, it was clear and dominant. She lead national polls (she still does today, but not by near as much), and was seen as a somewhat inevitable pick for the Democratic nominee. That may be why her campaign looks like it's faltering now. Early in the race, where money was plentiful, it probably wasn't that important who was in charge at the campaign or how the money was spent. Nobody expected a long primary campaign. I think with these news bits, it's showing that the Clinton campaign is faltering at a protracted campaign. The first assumption of economics is the scaracity of resources. Everything will run out at some time. With the last two nights handing Barack Obama every state voting, whether it's a caucus in Nebraska or Louisiana, one might expect that resources are running out for Sen. Clinton.

I hope the Clinton campaign can figure something out. The way Obama craziness is spreading, they may not have much more time left.

Read more...