write what you hate
"...another variant on the old chestnut of writing what you know. There are numerous sensible folks out there that have pointed out that writing what you know should not be literally interpreted as writing about your life or about your exact experiences. A broader and more useful interpretation is to use your emotional experiences to help drive your characters. And here’s where I come to the crux of writing what you hate. Hatred and anger are emotions like any other. They may be ugly and very not nice, but they are real. Everybody feels it (whether they admit it or not). Everybody has different pushbuttons that set them off–and most often we’re not in a position to really do anything sensible to blow off steam. So what am I to do with all this pent up angst and fury? Well, I’ll tell you. I’m going to go vilely murder someone. On paper of course."
Done. Fuck croutons. Little pieces of shit-sellout soulless stale bread:
"As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him" John 13:27
Fuck, there isn't anything I hate more. Sure, terrorists and communism and the Yankees, but we're (arguably) taking care of all those things. Nothing, unfortunately, is being done about the fucking cataclysm that is the crouton. No one has said anything to start what is a very necessary war - until now.
All great military strategists followed one of the most ancient principles of war, Sun Tzu's "Know Your Enemy." General Macarthur read Mein Kampf and all of his other enemies' books so as to better understand how they'd make decisions. The most brilliant modern day strategist, Robert Greene has this to say from 33 Strategies of War:
"The target of your strategies should be less the army you face than the mind of man or woman woman who runs it. If you understand how that mind works, you have the key to deceiving and controlling it. Train yourself to read [croutons,] picking up the signals they unconsciously send about their innermost thoughts and intentions...by finding your opponents' psychological weaknesses, you can work to unhinge their minds."
Two important goals: Firstly, figure out who or what nation is the puppetmaster behind the atrocity of the sheer existence of the crouton. Secondly, we've got to get inside the heads and figure out exactly what they want. And so, I've done some of the preliminary research and analysis on these fuckers.
Wiki Croutons:
"The word crouton is derived from the French croûte, meaning 'crust.'"
No surprises there. Cheese-eating surrender monkeys fucking up the name and packaging and presentation of something that was fine as it was (bread), along the likes of water (now bottled and named and exploited) and...crepes (toss whatever the fuck you want in some dough.)
"A crouton is a small piece of sautéed or rebaked bread."
What the shit does rebaked mean? What was wrong the first time around? Some jackass french bakery owner who couldn't manage his business well enough (because he didn't want to do any work) had a shitload of bread left over, so he decided to cube it up, dunk it in some olive oil and spices, toss it the oven, and dupe everyone into thinking it was a brilliant complement to a salad. Fuck you, frenchman.
"A dish prepared à la Grenobloise has a garnish of small croutons along with brown butter, capers, parsley, and lemon."
Only pretentious assholes hold croutons in any reasonable regard. The rest of those garnishes in that "a la gremlins" nonsense are legitimate upgrades for your food. They come in a form thats been altered only once, not having undergone so many metamorphoses that it's totally unrecognizable from its original form. Spending money on croutons whether on your salad or by actually purchasing them, you are making a blatant statement that you are so affluent with so much discretionary income that you can buy stale, dry, worthless bread - aka trash. Fuck you, you elitist prick.
"Nearly any type of unsweetened bread, in a loaf or pre-sliced, with or without crust, may be used to make croutons."
See, a blatant statement about how worthless croutons are. In econ, scarcity increases value. The less of something there is, the higher the price, the more work and resources you're willing to commit to glean whatever utility you desire from it. Steak over burgers for example. You pay more for a nicer cut of beef that's not processed, you spend more time and effort marinating and cooking it to your desired specifications, and you generally regard steak with higher standards and an understanding that you'll enjoy it more than a burger. Not croutons. "...nearly any time of unsweetened bread" - no fucking variety or originality or important characteristics distinguish them. The unique, specialized, highly valued breads from which they came no longer matter. It's all the same shit in crouton form, and accordingly tastes like its valued. As shit.
So what's to be done? The tricky part is that these things survive better than roaches. Most food - that is, nourishing, soulful and essential food - has to be stored in some particular fashion to preserve taste and freshness. Not croutons. Stale, dry, decrepit, and worthless - that's how the crouton is supposed to be - it can't go bad. Makes storage pretty easy.
"Monseuir Pierre, we 'ave no more plastic bags or refrigoration space for ze croutons!"
"Fuck off, boy. Can't you see it is noon and I 'ave finished working for 'ze day?! Don't bother me with your petty problems, or you'll have to go be unemployed with 'ze other nine percent of ze country. Throw ze croutons in the stable with ze donkeys. We'll say ze 'orrible smell is a new flavor!"
Remind me not to try writing fiction. Whatever, the point is, fuck croutons, they're worthless. If your bread is stale, give it to a homeless shelter. Ship it off to North Africa. Throw it the fuck away. Do not buy into this uppity fad that's been around for decades too long. I'm declaring war on croutons, and in this war we are like Sith Lords, we only deal in absolutes. You're either with us and for the proliferation of a croutonless world, or you're against us and will be dealt with accordingly. The choice is yours.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Shitty Days
Sometimes, no matter how hard you try, everything around you goes to shit. You try to remind yourself how temporary all of this is - how in the grand scheme letting the little things get to you is just a total waste of time - but still, rising above the fray is not a skill easily acquired.
Religious folk and alcoholics resort to the Serenity Prayer:
"God, give us grace to accept with serenity the things that cannot be changed, courage to change the things that should be changed, and the wisdom to distinguish the one from the other."
Cute. But if you're a badass you go to the awesomeness that is Marcus Aurelius:
"...when jarred, unavoidably, by circumstances, revert at once to yourself, and don't lose the rhythm more than you can help. You'll have a better grasp of the harmony if you keep going back to it..."
Seriously, read The Meditations and you'll be able to handle any shit that comes your way. But, there is truly no better pick-me-up than what's below. (Safe for work, unless of course your boss is gay or a chick - their panties will melt and they can't be held responsible for their actions in the subsequent fits of passion.)
Religious folk and alcoholics resort to the Serenity Prayer:
"God, give us grace to accept with serenity the things that cannot be changed, courage to change the things that should be changed, and the wisdom to distinguish the one from the other."
Cute. But if you're a badass you go to the awesomeness that is Marcus Aurelius:
"...when jarred, unavoidably, by circumstances, revert at once to yourself, and don't lose the rhythm more than you can help. You'll have a better grasp of the harmony if you keep going back to it..."
Seriously, read The Meditations and you'll be able to handle any shit that comes your way. But, there is truly no better pick-me-up than what's below. (Safe for work, unless of course your boss is gay or a chick - their panties will melt and they can't be held responsible for their actions in the subsequent fits of passion.)
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
The Economics of the Caped Crusader
Notice the awesome product placement Chase bank – middle left. Outstanding work, you capitalist whores. (click to enlarge)
Batman - greatest superhero of all time. And don't argue that shit about the X-Men who live in a parallel universe don't fit into our concept of "time." Batman is the greatest superhero of all time, space, and any combination of any other dimensions you want to mention. Everyone knows that he's the only superhero who could reasonably exist in our world - no radioactive spiders, or a sun-enhanced biological makeup, or some fucked up HGH that turns you green. Everything about Batman is entirely reasonable and could occur in our reality. He also happens to be an economist.
The favored definition of economics is Lionel Robbins' "the science which studies human behaviour as a relationship between ends and scarce means which have alternative uses." So what do you do when you're Bruce Wayne and your fortune is more than you could reasonably spend in a lifetime? You simply dedicate your mind and body to perfecting those skills which make you a superhero. He is, in every regard, a pragmatic economist. He efficiently allocates the scarce resources he has available to enhance what he’s determined to be his comparative advantages; ultimately in what manner he deems he can add value to the world. Economists talk about societal gains all the time, where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. When each entity allocates all its resources to its comparative advantage, the resulting synergy does more for society than if each acted individually. Batman has determined his competitive advantages and plays to them accordingly. A necessary corollary to this is to have effectively defined your own personal value system.
"The only person who can truly persuade you is yourself. You must turn the issues over in your mind at leisure, consider the many arguments, let them simmer, and after a long time turn your preferences into convictions." - Milton Friedman.
He has "Bruce Wayne," his father’s namesake and fortune, to which he models himself as the dimwitted billionaire playboy. While perhaps slightly condemned for his hedonistic lifestyle, he is well-known and praised as one of Gotham's great philanthropists. There are two distinct business/econ thoughts on philanthropy; first the Milton Friedman version that corporations have a responsibility to their shareholders - that money should go right back to the board members and reinvested in the business itself. With the excess money, new jobs and businesses and opportunities can be created, and those provide better long-term societal gains than simply throwing one-time sums of money at people. On the other hand, you have Freeman's stakeholder theory as well as M.E. Porter's competitive advantage of philanthropy; both generally state that excess wealth ought to go back to the surrounding community, aiding in building public works and structures. Porter recommends strategic giving, putting the corporation in a positive light. Say Wayne Enterprises creates a grant or scholarship for aspiring engineers, the hope would be that the recipient get his degree and seeks employment with WE. The stakeholder theory advents corporate responsibility and charity, essentially investments in the surrounding functional communities. Then of course, jackasses like Ted Turner argue that you should do both, donate one-time sums and create new jobs and companies, but the argument is long and boring so read about it somewhere else. Essentially, you could argue that Bruce Wayne is a Keynesian and Batman is of the Chicago School of Economics.
So what do you do when you really have all those resources, and want to spend them on what you believe in? Well, first, you have to clearly understand and define your convictions. The young BW realizes how wrong he was in seeking revenge on his parents' murder, but it took Rachel's slap on the face and his long exile to truly realize his beliefs. So what are they? Well it’s clear that Batman believes in freedom, fairness, opportunity, pursuit of happiness, all that cool shit - founding father’s style. Rights to a fair trial. Incorruptibility – he sees the inherent flaws of the police system and therefore creates the Batman persona as a way to separate himself in his vigilante fashion. He understands the nature of incentives and that most people act in their own self-interest - the very nature of crime. He believes in justice and accountability. When Batman first came about it was in a comic book line called "Detective Series." A detective is an economist whose convictions and values lie in fighting crime, adhering to those principles of justice and all that other shit we mentioned earlier.
Last quick thoughts, the democratic government we (and supposedly Batman) consent to inherently has those checks and balances we learned about in elementary school civics classes - the notion of accountability from different angles being absolutely necessary to arrive at the best solution for the greater good. Unfortunately, this practice is incredibly inefficient. Batman is private sector - he doesn't adhere to those checks and balances, he acts on his own strategy without oversight. And so, growing technology – the true definition of private sector, and a fundamental part of the consumption function (I know it's Keynesian, but it represents the overall health of a nation; the best technological innovation always happens in the private sector)- Batman has in spades better than the gov’t funded police.
One of the fundamental economic problems of cities, specifically regarding crime rates, is limited policing. Guliani is renown for fixing this in New York by greater policing and the CompSTAT system. Batman does the same shit in Gotham - only with his own cash, technology, and ability. Everything about Batman, right down to the very style of his martial arts (whatever crazy form of jiu-jitsu they called it, its based on using agility and your opponent's strength against him rather than brute force,) reflects an exceptional, intuitive understanding of economics. Use your resources effectively, play to your comparative advantages, and do all of it within your defined set of values. And just be a downright badass. Have a lot more to say, but this is a start. Go see "The Dark Knight."
More reading:
Batman Wiki
Stakeholders and Shareholders
Older awesome article likening Batman's crusade to Baghdad - the attraction of lunacy
Batman - greatest superhero of all time. And don't argue that shit about the X-Men who live in a parallel universe don't fit into our concept of "time." Batman is the greatest superhero of all time, space, and any combination of any other dimensions you want to mention. Everyone knows that he's the only superhero who could reasonably exist in our world - no radioactive spiders, or a sun-enhanced biological makeup, or some fucked up HGH that turns you green. Everything about Batman is entirely reasonable and could occur in our reality. He also happens to be an economist.
The favored definition of economics is Lionel Robbins' "the science which studies human behaviour as a relationship between ends and scarce means which have alternative uses." So what do you do when you're Bruce Wayne and your fortune is more than you could reasonably spend in a lifetime? You simply dedicate your mind and body to perfecting those skills which make you a superhero. He is, in every regard, a pragmatic economist. He efficiently allocates the scarce resources he has available to enhance what he’s determined to be his comparative advantages; ultimately in what manner he deems he can add value to the world. Economists talk about societal gains all the time, where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. When each entity allocates all its resources to its comparative advantage, the resulting synergy does more for society than if each acted individually. Batman has determined his competitive advantages and plays to them accordingly. A necessary corollary to this is to have effectively defined your own personal value system.
"The only person who can truly persuade you is yourself. You must turn the issues over in your mind at leisure, consider the many arguments, let them simmer, and after a long time turn your preferences into convictions." - Milton Friedman.
He has "Bruce Wayne," his father’s namesake and fortune, to which he models himself as the dimwitted billionaire playboy. While perhaps slightly condemned for his hedonistic lifestyle, he is well-known and praised as one of Gotham's great philanthropists. There are two distinct business/econ thoughts on philanthropy; first the Milton Friedman version that corporations have a responsibility to their shareholders - that money should go right back to the board members and reinvested in the business itself. With the excess money, new jobs and businesses and opportunities can be created, and those provide better long-term societal gains than simply throwing one-time sums of money at people. On the other hand, you have Freeman's stakeholder theory as well as M.E. Porter's competitive advantage of philanthropy; both generally state that excess wealth ought to go back to the surrounding community, aiding in building public works and structures. Porter recommends strategic giving, putting the corporation in a positive light. Say Wayne Enterprises creates a grant or scholarship for aspiring engineers, the hope would be that the recipient get his degree and seeks employment with WE. The stakeholder theory advents corporate responsibility and charity, essentially investments in the surrounding functional communities. Then of course, jackasses like Ted Turner argue that you should do both, donate one-time sums and create new jobs and companies, but the argument is long and boring so read about it somewhere else. Essentially, you could argue that Bruce Wayne is a Keynesian and Batman is of the Chicago School of Economics.
So what do you do when you really have all those resources, and want to spend them on what you believe in? Well, first, you have to clearly understand and define your convictions. The young BW realizes how wrong he was in seeking revenge on his parents' murder, but it took Rachel's slap on the face and his long exile to truly realize his beliefs. So what are they? Well it’s clear that Batman believes in freedom, fairness, opportunity, pursuit of happiness, all that cool shit - founding father’s style. Rights to a fair trial. Incorruptibility – he sees the inherent flaws of the police system and therefore creates the Batman persona as a way to separate himself in his vigilante fashion. He understands the nature of incentives and that most people act in their own self-interest - the very nature of crime. He believes in justice and accountability. When Batman first came about it was in a comic book line called "Detective Series." A detective is an economist whose convictions and values lie in fighting crime, adhering to those principles of justice and all that other shit we mentioned earlier.
Last quick thoughts, the democratic government we (and supposedly Batman) consent to inherently has those checks and balances we learned about in elementary school civics classes - the notion of accountability from different angles being absolutely necessary to arrive at the best solution for the greater good. Unfortunately, this practice is incredibly inefficient. Batman is private sector - he doesn't adhere to those checks and balances, he acts on his own strategy without oversight. And so, growing technology – the true definition of private sector, and a fundamental part of the consumption function (I know it's Keynesian, but it represents the overall health of a nation; the best technological innovation always happens in the private sector)- Batman has in spades better than the gov’t funded police.
One of the fundamental economic problems of cities, specifically regarding crime rates, is limited policing. Guliani is renown for fixing this in New York by greater policing and the CompSTAT system. Batman does the same shit in Gotham - only with his own cash, technology, and ability. Everything about Batman, right down to the very style of his martial arts (whatever crazy form of jiu-jitsu they called it, its based on using agility and your opponent's strength against him rather than brute force,) reflects an exceptional, intuitive understanding of economics. Use your resources effectively, play to your comparative advantages, and do all of it within your defined set of values. And just be a downright badass. Have a lot more to say, but this is a start. Go see "The Dark Knight."
More reading:
Batman Wiki
Stakeholders and Shareholders
Older awesome article likening Batman's crusade to Baghdad - the attraction of lunacy
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Journalism's Fall
I can't help but think back to a paper I wrote my freshman year in journalism class commending W&B for their superior investigative reporting skills without a raw sense of anguish at my naivete. Sure, they brought down the President by exposing the "truth" to the public and government. They sent the country into turmoil, which hadn't even began to recover from the Vietnam crisis, and shook it's faith in the oval office. But they were not detectives, they were scavengers. They fiendishly scrounged off the stupidity of those who were too inept to understand the value in keeping your mouth shut. And their "investigative reporting skills" do not differ or amount to much more than that of a bulk magazine salesman.
Nixon did his best to protect those who were working on his behalf and to better his political career. He was simply taking care of his own. This is not to say Nixon was a great President. It wasn't by coincedence that he was crowned Tricky Dick. Nixon's inconsistencies in Vietnam screwed this country six ways from Sunday. However, morally, he maintained credibility. Nixon should be known as the man who went down without betraying those were loyal to him. And yet he met his political end at the hands of two who were only concerned with climbing the ladder to a Pulitzer, despite the guise of morality they published under.
Locke and Pope would be ashamed. Hearst, the founder of "yellow journalism", would be giddily watching his money pile up. The face of journalism has become uglier since this mid-70s phenomenon. Now journalists and "truth seekers" seem to carry a sense of childish vindication in their articles. They think the system is always broken, the good-natured senator is a criminal because he enjoys women and booze. Let me save you a headline story, everyone has flaws and skeletons in their closet. It is not the job of journalists to habitually beat this point into the ground over and over again. Do your job; report the facts as they are relevant to the public and do not speculate. If this is too great a burden, change your name to Sam Spade, get a detective's license, and stop the charade.
Traditional print is on the way out - losing to weblogs, regular television news is passed over for the Colbert Report and comedians - mainstream media is dead. Mainstream journalism's fall is a good thing - maybe now we can actually get closer to some untempered truth.
Nixon did his best to protect those who were working on his behalf and to better his political career. He was simply taking care of his own. This is not to say Nixon was a great President. It wasn't by coincedence that he was crowned Tricky Dick. Nixon's inconsistencies in Vietnam screwed this country six ways from Sunday. However, morally, he maintained credibility. Nixon should be known as the man who went down without betraying those were loyal to him. And yet he met his political end at the hands of two who were only concerned with climbing the ladder to a Pulitzer, despite the guise of morality they published under.
Locke and Pope would be ashamed. Hearst, the founder of "yellow journalism", would be giddily watching his money pile up. The face of journalism has become uglier since this mid-70s phenomenon. Now journalists and "truth seekers" seem to carry a sense of childish vindication in their articles. They think the system is always broken, the good-natured senator is a criminal because he enjoys women and booze. Let me save you a headline story, everyone has flaws and skeletons in their closet. It is not the job of journalists to habitually beat this point into the ground over and over again. Do your job; report the facts as they are relevant to the public and do not speculate. If this is too great a burden, change your name to Sam Spade, get a detective's license, and stop the charade.
Traditional print is on the way out - losing to weblogs, regular television news is passed over for the Colbert Report and comedians - mainstream media is dead. Mainstream journalism's fall is a good thing - maybe now we can actually get closer to some untempered truth.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Korea at Night
Below is a really cool satellite image of Korea (North and South) taken at night. It serves as a great visual comparative example of the wealth and health of a nation whose embraced capitalist and democratic policies, with that of a nation without such freedoms. There's hundreds of comparative statistics from population, birth and mortality rates, caloric intake, GNP per capita, and even physical stature of the citizens of each country. (S. Koreans average like half an inch taller than their grass-eating counterparts.)The societal health statistics of the overall South Korean nation absolutely dwarf those of the N. Korea.
You may hear that that tiny speck of light in the North is the nation's capitol of Pyonyang, but we've done our research and discovered that it's actually Kim Jong-Il sitting on a pile of nukes, in a very well-lit room, masturbating to his own reflection - as a string quartet plays The Red Flag.
You may hear that that tiny speck of light in the North is the nation's capitol of Pyonyang, but we've done our research and discovered that it's actually Kim Jong-Il sitting on a pile of nukes, in a very well-lit room, masturbating to his own reflection - as a string quartet plays The Red Flag.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
On the Title
I first came across this song in Jimmy Buffet's novel A Salty Piece of Land, where the ex-pat, cowboy, and patron of the Church of Mark Twain named Tully Mars hears it during an idyllic spring break scene with a gorgeous girl (half his age and out of his league) just before he finds himself very much "…an innocent bystander, stuck between a rock and a hard place.” Since the album Excitable Boy came out nearly a decade before I was born, my knowledge of Warren Zevon never went further than "Werewolves of London;" a song I discovered a kid listening to the oldies station on a trip home from visiting my grandparents. It was awesome, a dude howling and singing about "Werewolves of Thunder;" sounded like it could be one of my Saturday morning cartoons at the time. Only when I revisited the song in college did I learn the real lyrics in all their macabre, hysterical, and culturally-observant brilliance. Isn't it strange though? Something can be clear and ordinary one moment, but at another point in your lifetime, your entire outlook changes – you realize the provincial nature of your youth. Time, observation, and experience drastically alter perspectives.
So, as we argued and discussed various ideas for what would be the title of this blog, I realized that I'd been listening to that solution every morning before I started my day. It fits precisely with what this blog means to address. Here's a guy, presumably pretty young, who’s had some experiences but craves even more, and despite having no malicious intent, he finds himself in these ridiculous situations which require at least one, but more likely some combination of the three catholicons he requests. That's the intended content and demographic of this blog: half-cocked, gambling adventurers who have some experience but know there's so much more to understand and discover about the world. And, like the song's protagonist, we learn that nearly all the worldly troubles and their respective solutions can be viewed through the clear metaphor of “lawyers, guns, and money.” His issues are commonplace – we all find ourselves in situations that make us feel like victims, but with dutiful observation and disciplined, logical thinking, we can see how those outcomes are results of our own actions, whether or not we meet our intended consequences.
The three catholicons:
"Lawyers," already with the convenient stereotype of bottom-feeding scumbags, represent a variety of concepts to address: reading, writing, and interpretation (and too often misinterpretation,) forms of government, political ideologies, and the fine art of negotiation.
"Guns" serves to cover the innate human affinity for competition. Competition erupts into a thousand different forms – war, strategy, winning, losing – and knowing when to quit. Power exists as the backbone of all conflict in the world – great or small, human beings naturally struggle for dominance and control.
“Money,” as the most omnipresent of the three, money inextricably ties all of the three together at some level or another. Discussions of economics, capitalism, finance, power, resources, et al. will pervade every dimension of this blog.
Look at the world through the prism of the three perspectives above. Consider this a call-to-arms; when the content of these posts inspire any questions, thoughts, or comments, post them or e-mail us. Discuss, argree, argue - whatever your thoughts, share them. Above all, enjoy and be entertained.
So, as we argued and discussed various ideas for what would be the title of this blog, I realized that I'd been listening to that solution every morning before I started my day. It fits precisely with what this blog means to address. Here's a guy, presumably pretty young, who’s had some experiences but craves even more, and despite having no malicious intent, he finds himself in these ridiculous situations which require at least one, but more likely some combination of the three catholicons he requests. That's the intended content and demographic of this blog: half-cocked, gambling adventurers who have some experience but know there's so much more to understand and discover about the world. And, like the song's protagonist, we learn that nearly all the worldly troubles and their respective solutions can be viewed through the clear metaphor of “lawyers, guns, and money.” His issues are commonplace – we all find ourselves in situations that make us feel like victims, but with dutiful observation and disciplined, logical thinking, we can see how those outcomes are results of our own actions, whether or not we meet our intended consequences.
The three catholicons:
"Lawyers," already with the convenient stereotype of bottom-feeding scumbags, represent a variety of concepts to address: reading, writing, and interpretation (and too often misinterpretation,) forms of government, political ideologies, and the fine art of negotiation.
"Guns" serves to cover the innate human affinity for competition. Competition erupts into a thousand different forms – war, strategy, winning, losing – and knowing when to quit. Power exists as the backbone of all conflict in the world – great or small, human beings naturally struggle for dominance and control.
“Money,” as the most omnipresent of the three, money inextricably ties all of the three together at some level or another. Discussions of economics, capitalism, finance, power, resources, et al. will pervade every dimension of this blog.
Look at the world through the prism of the three perspectives above. Consider this a call-to-arms; when the content of these posts inspire any questions, thoughts, or comments, post them or e-mail us. Discuss, argree, argue - whatever your thoughts, share them. Above all, enjoy and be entertained.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)