Wisdom of Planet Earth

I had this passing thought when I first watched the Planet Earth series. It's stuck with me, so I thought I might share it. I not only learned details of obscure environments around the world, I also gathered a better understanding for the purpose of life (not my life, but life in general). Animals are not for me. More specifically, animals were not created solely for the human race. This may seem simple, but it's something I subconsciously believed before. I came to this conclusion after realizing how many different species there were that I'd never heard of. Then I realized if I'd never heard of them in 2009, most people had never heard of them for thousands of years. If it's true that most animals (and fish, stars and planets, etc) were not even realized by humans, then they can't exist solely for us. But most people already think that.

Why Catch 22?

But it could have been Catch-18. This was Heller’s original title - and his title throughout all the long years of composition, from 1953 to 1961. However, just before the book was published Leon Uris produced his novel Mila 18. Heller’s publishers, Simon and Schuster, thought two books with ‘18’ in the title in one year was one book too many, and suggested a change.

That's from the blog How books got their titles. Here are some other interesting ones:

• Alice’s Adventures Under Ground
• Wha's That Noshin' on My Laig? (a comedy?)
  
• the novum testamentum
• Mere (not trivial) Christianity
• A Four and a Half Years’ Battle Against Lies, Stupidity and Cowardice: A Reckoning with the Destroyers of the Nazi Party Movement (sounds like a John Stossel special)

Some of these titles are so common place it odd to think they could ever have been different. Then again, if they were different, they would be familiar too, just differently, and I would still feel weird. Is that a catch-22? How about a catch-18?

Random Act of Kindness or the Facebook Fairy?

My old GPS has been broken for a while and I've been putting off buying a new one. My wife and I are heading to Washington D.C. for our anniversary, so she posted this in her facebook status:

can you rent GPSs? we need one for the weekend...

24 hours later I receive a package with a new GPS inside. Now either someone went above and beyond nice and bought us a new GPS (I've narrowed the list down to a few) or Facebook gifts just got a lot better. So if you recently sent me a GPS, let me know, or Mark Zuckerberg is getting a thank you letter.

Economics of *this post is not yet rated*

Here's a collection of blue topics discussed through the lens economics:

• economics of bedding female colleagues
• economics of prostitution
• economics of wives vs. prostitutes
• economics of an ugly boyfriend
• economics of Mark Sanford cheating (audio)

*some of these are callous, but I found them all educational

Car Czar Cronyism

No one is particularly happy with the government holding a controlling stake in General Motors, but its hard to know exactly what problems will arise. Here's one, good old fashion cronyism:

The latest self-appointed car czar is Massachusetts's own Barney Frank, who intervened this week to save a GM distribution center in Norton, Mass. The warehouse, which employs some 90 people, was slated for closure by the end of the year under GM's restructuring plan. But Mr. Frank put in a call to GM CEO Fritz Henderson and secured a new lease on life for the facility.

Mr. Frank's spokesman, Harry Gural, says the Congressman discussed, among other things, "the facility's value to GM." We'd have thought that would be something that GM might have considered when it decided to close the Norton center, but then a call from one of the most powerful Members of Congress can certainly cause a ward of the state to reconsider what qualifies as "value." A CEO who refuses the offer can soon find himself testifying under oath before Congress, or answering questions from the Government Accountability Office about his expense account. To that point, Mr. Henderson spent Wednesday with Chrysler President Jim Press being castigated by the Senate Commerce Committee for their plans to close 3,400 car dealerships. Every Senator wants dealerships closed in someone else's state.

Imagine a world where car dealerships are stay open not because of profitability, but because of political connection. We are in that world. Then again, at least our housing market isn't government run.

Can Robin Hood Predict a Recession?

Remember the undead's correlation with hard times? Well it looks like Robin and his not-so-merry men do too:

My colleague Binyamin Appelbaum noticed something interesting yesterday: Robin Hood movies are tied to recessions. We're talking here about the adult Robin Hood movies. So set aside "Men in Tights" and the Disney cartoon. Instead, look at first major Robin Hood film, "The Adventures of Robin Hood". Release date? 1938. Similarly, "Prince of Thieves" came out in 1991, another recessionary year. And I ran a quick Google search: Sure enough, there's another Robin Hood movie slated for May of 2010.

Finding Your Lost Wallet

I recently lost my wallet and if you know me that should come as no surprise. Although I've gotten better as I've moved farther into adulthood, I still rarely keep cash in my wallet for this reason. But instead of what not to have in your wallet, maybe I should focus on what you should have in your wallet:

Richard Wiseman, a psychologist, and his team inserted one of four photographs behind a clear plastic window inside, showing either a smiling baby, a cute puppy, a happy family or a contented elderly couple. Some wallets had no image and some had charity papers inside.

Hundreds of wallets were planted around the city and the result was that the

baby photograph wallets had the highest return rate, with 88 per cent of the 40 being sent back. Next came the puppy, the family and the elderly couple, with 53 per cent, 48 and 28 respectively. At 20 per cent and 15, the charity card and control wallets had the lowest return rates.

My niece and nephew just got upgraded from the fridge to the wallet.

The Most Libertarian Superhero

I recently found out that the Green Lantern is making a run for the mayor of Washington D.C. He is even running against Spider-Man, Superman, Batwoman and The Atom. Although these heroes have proven themselves qualified in saving lives, I'm not so sure they would get my vote in an political election. So then who would a self respecting comic book nerd libertarian want as his mayor?

The obvious choice is Batman. By taking the law into their own hands vigilantes are inherently libertarian, but Batman is most famous for this. This can be clearly seen in my favorite Batman comic to date: All Star Batman and Robin the Boy Wonder by Frank Miller. You can also see his anti-government roots in my favorite comic of all time Red Son. Here Batman rises to stop a power hungry soviet Superman (trust me its worth reading). There even seems to be an economic incentive in Batman/Bruce Wayne's actions:

At times, the Batman movies even hint at the possibility that big businessmen actually have a self-interested incentive to help provide the public good of reducing violent crime. After all, they stand to lose a lot of profit if high crime rates reduce investment and drive away their customers and skilled workers. Precisely because of the vast size of his firm, Wayne has less incentive to free ride on the crime-fighting efforts of others in providing the public good of crime control. He will capture enough of the benefits of crime-fighting to justifying investing in it, even if he has to pay a very high proportion of the costs himself.

However, if you take a closer look you realize Batman is more of an fringe conservative than a libertarian. He is regularly breaking up shipments brought into Gotham that have not been regulated by the city. He is a staunch advocate for limiting drug use and gambling. And most importantly, his solution to the problem of crime is not better laws, but better politicians. "I believe in Harvey Dent" is the mantra of the most recent Batman film. This sounds more like an an Obama fan than a libertarian to me.

The second obvious answer comes from another recent film, The Watchmen. Rorschach is the moral voice of the series. He will, in his own words, "Never compromise. Not even in the face of Armageddon." Even the DC characters he was based on, Mr A and The Question, seem to lean libertarian. There is even a hint of the importance of personal choice written in his journal:

Dog carcass in alley this morning, tire tread on burst stomach. This city is afraid of me. I have seen its true face. The streets are extended gutters and the gutters are full of blood and when the drains finally scab over, all the vermin will drown. The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout "Save us!"... and I'll look down and whisper "No." They had a choice, all of them. They could have followed in the footsteps of good men like my father or President Truman. Decent men who believed in a day's work for a day's pay. Instead they followed the droppings of lechers and communists and didn't realize that the trail led over a precipice until it was too late. Don't tell me they didn't have a choice. Now the whole world stands on the brink, staring down into bloodly Hell, all those liberals and intellectuals and smooth-talkers... and all of a sudden nobody can think of anything to say.

However, whereas Batman was a long term optimist, hoping one day to hangup his cape and cowl, Rorschach seems to think man is corrupted to a point of hopelessness. But libertarians are optimists. We see how much life has improved, we see the silver lining of hard times, and we certainly don't see Harry Truman as a role model.

Although I am big fans of Batman and Rorschach, their love of freedom pales in comparison to the most libertarians superhero, V. Like our previous heroes he's a little crazy, but his insanity drives him to an anarchist libertarianism unspoiled by traditional conservatism. He has a defense of terrorists that only our founding fathers could appreciate. And he able to do what all libertarians dream to do, influence the people to stand up and take back the liberty they deserve:

Good evening, London. Allow me first to apologize for this interruption. I do, like many of you, appreciate the comforts of every day routine- the security of the familiar, the tranquility of repetition. I enjoy them as much as any bloke. But in the spirit of commemoration, thereby those important events of the past usually associated with someone's death or the end of some awful bloody struggle, a celebration of a nice holiday, I thought we could mark this November the 5th, a day that is sadly no longer remembered, by taking some time out of our daily lives to sit down and have a little chat. There are of course those who do not want us to speak. I suspect even now, orders are being shouted into telephones, and men with guns will soon be on their way. Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, and in your panic you turned to the now high chancellor, Adam Sutler. He promised you order, he promised you peace, and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent. Last night I sought to end that silence. Last night I destroyed the Old Bailey, to remind this country of what it has forgotten. More than four hundred years ago a great citizen wished to embed the fifth of November forever in our memory. His hope was to remind the world that fairness, justice, and freedom are more than words, they are perspectives. So if you've seen nothing, if the crimes of this government remain unknown to you then I would suggest you allow the fifth of November to pass unmarked. But if you see what I see, if you feel as I feel, and if you would seek as I seek, then I ask you to stand beside me one year from tonight, outside the gates of Parliament, and together we shall give them a fifth of November that shall never, ever be forgot.

Economics of The Economist

In a time when print media is going the way of beepers, The Economist is holding its own:

Unlike its rivals, The Economist has been unaffected by the explosion of digital media; if anything, the digital revolution has cemented its relevance. The Economist has become an arbiter of right-thinking opinion (free-market right-center, if you want to be technical about it; with a dose of left-center social progressivism) at a time when arbiters in general are in ill favor. It is a general-interest magazine for an ever-increasing audience, the self-styled global elite, at a time when general-interest anything is having a hard time interesting anybody. And it sells more than 75,000 copies a week on U.S. newsstands for $6.99 (!) at a time when we’re told information wants to be free and newsstands are disappearing.

But why?

The Economist prides itself on cleverly distilling the world into a reasonably compact survey. Another word for this is blogging, or at least what blogging might be after it matures—meaning, after it transcends its current status as a free-fire zone and settles into a more comprehensive system of gathering and presenting information. As a result, although its self-marketing subtly sells a kind of sleek, mid-last-century Concorde-flying sangfroid, The Economist has reached its current level of influence and importance because it is, in every sense of the word, a true global digest for an age when the amount of undigested, undigestible information online continues to metastasize. And that’s a very good place to be in 2009.

True, The Economist virtually never gets scoops, and the information it does provide is available elsewhere … if you care to spend 20 hours Googling. But now that information is infinitely replicable and pervasive, original reporting will never again receive its due. The real value of The Economist lies in its smart analysis of everything it deems worth knowing—and smart packaging, which may be the last truly unique attribute in the digital age.

And you thought blogging wouldn't last.

Safety and the Law of Unintended Consequences

In a recent post I showed how child safety laws are based on their cost and benefits. Here's a John Stossel piece on whether bike helmets are worth the cost:
If parents have such a hard time assessing risk for their own children, how much better can politicians assess the risk for millions of Americans?