The Present in Plain Text

Knappster and Sky Captain: Is the World Big Enough?

Tom Knapp has a snippet from his review of Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow up on his site. This being one of the few movies I went to see in the theater last year, I can feel almost qualified to talk about it.

I remember walking out thinking, "This was an agreeable way to pass a couple of hours." I would have enjoyed the thing so much more had Gwynneth Paltrow hit one right note in her performance. I found her just obnoxious and uninvolving, which really detracted from the refreshing work by Jude Law. She looked completely out of her depth with the process. The Story (in the Robert McKee sense of the word) was constructed just fine, the problem lay in the interpretations of the characters and their motivations. This film is proof positive that you can do everything right, up until the moment you cast your leads. If one of them doesn't work, the whole thing comes crashing down. Paltrow and Law had zero chemistry which nullified any tension when Angelina Jolie showed up.

Ultimately, I'll look back on this film the same way I look back on Tron, with a little nostalgia and an example of how the medium got pushed just a little bit further. Between this film and the upcoming adaptation of Philip K. Dick's A Scanner Darkly by Richard Linklater et.al. the line between live-action and animation will be smeared out just that little bit more.

Sky Captain? It won't insult you, the visuals are astounding (if a little over-the-top), and the pace is very good. For a first-time director and a ground-breaking process it's remarkably self-assured. But, honestly, this is the first I've thought about the movie since I walked out of the theatre.

Now, the Incredibles? Well, let's just say that I don't understand how that didn't get a Best Picture nod.

Ta,

More on the House of Carnivores

Having discussed some aspects of the paleo-diet previously, I'd like to follow-up a little.

The fascinating part is that we put our dogs on a Bones and Raw Food (BaRF) diet years before we made the switch. The immediate improvement in the health, smell, breath, attentiveness and happiness of our pups, and subsequently, our cats was too dramatic to ignore.

Honestly, my oldest cat, Friday, who is about to turn 16, should be dead, and I had given her up as such 4 years ago when she had constant bronchial problems and surface infections. She currently has bad allergies, a hyper-active thyroid, and bad kidneys but she manages to still go outside and do what she wants. She doesn't move like a 16 year old cat. Her son, Behemoth, 15, a maine-coon mix, is going to live forever, unfortunately, he looks exactly like he did when he was 2, the ageless wonder, really.

The real story is the dogs, whose health (especially their teeth and skin) were so good we convinced our vet to switch her animals over to the raw diet.

Proof positive that dogs should not eat corn. We adopted Random (a Border Collie/Beagle cross, or Border Beagle, who has since been killed) from Gainesville Pet Rescue as a puppy, maybe 8 weeks old. They gave us a 5 pound bag of high-quality dog food (it might have been Nutro-Max or Eukanuba, I don't remember or care), which we told them we wouldn't need. They insisted we take it, saying that (though they disagreed with our choice, and nearly wouldn't give us the dog) we should switch him over slowly so that he wouldn't throw up and have it be traumatic. Capt. Charity Vain and I rolled our eyes but finally looked contrite enough when we said, "Okay, we will," that they let us take the little guy home with us.

This was a sunday, which, at the time was "Veggie Day", meant Pheobe got fed a mush made of leftover veggies, chicken liver, whole milk yogurt, and a little meat. Not Phoebe's favorite, she never liked Veggie Day, which we don't do anymore as it is really unecessary. But, be that as it may, for Random's first meal we gave him a little bit of kibble and poured some of the Veggie Mush over it and left him to it on the back porch. 5 minutes later I hear, "Tom! Come here," in that leading, litling contralto that can only be my wife. I get up from the computer, walk down the hall and see her standing over Random's bowl, smirking. Little Random is sitting next to his dish, looking up expectantly, his little tail wagging. I look down to see a whole bowl full of Doggie Kibble with all of the Veggie Mush neatly licked off of it.

Needless to say we fed him more all evening long, and he was very happy. Never once did that dog touch that kibble. The next night his dinner was a couple of chicken wings.

When we adopted Benedict from Alachua County (a story I will relate in it's entirety one day), he was emaciated and worm-ridden. When he walked into the house I handed him a piece of pork neck, which he went out of his mind for. The dog had never had a bone in his life, but he knew what to do with that piece of pig, let me tell you. Two minutes later I introduced him to Phoebe and it was love at first site. I think this might be why Bennie is such a happy dog today. In twenty minutes he went from On-Death-Row to a home with good food and a hottie.

Now he had the same life as his new-found pop.

Ta,

The Anarchist's Diet Revisted

For those regular readers (all 3 of you) who understand that I am a hard-core Libertarian this will come as absolutely no shock to you that I am a professed anarchist, believing the only thing government is competent at is killing people. Everything else it is either abysmal at or 'just-barely-qualified' for.

We all have our little pet government projects that we think are at some level reasonable uses of tax-payer funds, even the libertarians (and most of my friends are to a great extent are, or are conscious of how far they have to go and are willing to work towards that goal). For a good friend in south Florida it is the NOAA and their value during Hurricane Season. I have a soft spot for the property claims aspect of county Property Appraiser Offices, and wish to think they do a passable job of categorizing and keeping up with the changes in ownership of real estate. Capt. Charity Vain, having worked in various county agencies manipulating and dealing with official property records has since shattered my naive notion of this.

One area that for years was unquestioned and, with the rise to prominance of various low-carb diets, is now under serious scrutiny is the Food Pyramid and the recommended Healthy Diet. For those who have no idea just how little that well-intentioned government guideline has screwed up our society I urge you to do a google search or two using the keywords 'paleo diet', 'neanderthin', 'celiacs disease' for a start.

There are a number of myths out there that if you spend 5 minutes thinking about them will change your entire view on what you should and should not be eating:

1) All calories are created equal. *bzzt* Thanks for playing. Promulgated by 'nutritionists' until hoarse, and repeated by doctors who have no real training in the area, this concept is complete nonsense. Carbohydrates, Fats and Proteins are all vastly different molecules, and even without my background in chemsitry it should be obvious that the body is going to process these things in different ways.
2) Ketosis, burning fat, is dangerous -- Insanely false. Ketosis is only dangerous in the presence of high blood sugar, the kind experienced by diabetics (who got that way from eating too many simple sugars ... *hint*), is also not ketosis, but ketoacidosis.
3) We are Omnivores, not primarily carnivores -- Also false, if we are Omnivores, then it is only because Omnivores are a sub-set of Carnivores. It is true that at certain stages of development children need a high carbohydrate diet, but that is provided by the mother via milk. Milk she produced by eating protein and fruit. The fact that we can comsume (and at times need carbohydrates in our diet) does not mean that we need to EAT Fruits or Grains. The Inuit serve as a shining example of a people who are healthy and happy living on just animal flesh. The body converts proteins to carbohydrates on an as needed basis.
4) Vegetarians live longer than Meat-Eaters -- Also false. There has been a correlation determined between diet and longevity but it is not the lack of meat in the diet that is the determining factor. It is caloric level. Low caloric intake implies a longer potential lifespan.
5) Soybeans are fit for human or animal consumption. Absolutely one of the most viscous lies ever promulgated by both the producers and the government agencies that do their bidding. If ever there was a clear example of the horror of government-corporate collusion (okay, the military/industrial complex, them too) it is this relationship. Soybeans are poison. The greatest irony is that the very argument used to turn people off from eating meat, namely injesting hormones, is one of the biggest reasons not to eat soybeans. Ignore the hypocrisy, just take your soma and stand over there.

This is by no means meant to be conclusive or definitive. The lack of references come from the sheer off-the-cuff nature of this entry. Capt. Charity Vain will probably pipe up (please do) and add to this in a much more meaningful way. This is mostly what I've gleaned from her research into the subject over the past 2 years. I just needed something to talk about this afternoon.

Also, make no mistake, I love carbs! But, I also know that eating them will kill me. I gave up smoking. I sleep much more regularly, and have lost 30 pounds (with another 20 to go at a minimum) since I turned 30, so I look at the occassional hamburger with bun the same way I view the odd cigarette I puff on (but don't inhale)... just something I'll pay for over the next couple of days.

I will tell y'all one thing though. I love my diet. Bacon and eggs for breakfast every morning and somehow, after nearly 2 years, I'm not bored at all with it. Maybe that's because I keep adhering to my first rule of eating...

Nearly anything you eat can be improved by the judicious addition of bacon.
... if it can't be improved by bacon, then apply sour cream.

Tonight for dinner? Blackened Dead Water-buffalo Steak, a hunk of Organic Garlic Cheddar Cheese and a glass of The Dalmore.

Ta,

References:
The Protein Power Life Plan
Neaderthin
Active Low-Carb Forum

Lord Condi, Release Her! [Sen. Boxer]

This entry from "Let's Try Freedom" is a hoot.

Presumably she said this just before professing her love for President Bush....

"As you wish"

Ta,

P.S. This triple sub-reference brought to you by the letter Grr.

"Oooh, Monkey Time!"

Well, Here's Hoping the Second Half is Better Than the First.

Wx Plotter Fun Tests - Fatal Quiz (aka Death Test): " "

Well, that 8 years more than my dad got. He always wanted me to have a better life than he did.

Ta,

I prefer the Term Geek Myself

Next up... When will I die... I know y'all can't wait!!

Ta,

The Econoclast's Journey to the Dark Side is Complete

The ever-interesting Eclectic Econoclast has a link to an article by the Marginal Revolution's Tyler Cowen who attempts to think like an Austrian economist for a little bit, and, for once, actually makes some sense: Monetarists are a really strange group of people, because they are, at heart economists who don't believe in the first law of economics. You might have heard of it... the Law of Supply and Demand. BTW, I was going to link to the Wikipedia for a description of this law, but the first sentence was so monumentally stupid it could only have been written by a Marxist. The Law of Supply and Demand does not assume perfect competition of the type described therein, it is simply an outgrowth of the statement that all actors in a given economy are purposeful.

But, back to monetarists. Oh they talk a pretty good game about a great many topics, but they somehow, though, don't believe that that Law applies to money, and this is both their downfall philosophically/analytically and the fulcrum by which they vaulted into power after the first repudiation of Keynesianism took place with the Bretton Woods agreement and later with Milton Friedman's advice to president Reagan. BTW, Keynesians are not economists anymore than snake oil salesmen are potatoes.

As far as the Econoclast's comments are concerned, the recent reactions by the Fed to raise interest rates are, yes, wholly in-keeping with Austrian analysis of the situation. So, John, if that works for you.... Come on in, the water's fine, we promise not to bite (too much).

The cost of money has been too low (real interest reates [Fed Rate - CPI] are/have been sharply negative) for there to be continued desire on the part of foreign central banks to buy debt issued by the U.S. Treasury, because, even though central bankers are complete imbeciles(see the Weekly Wisdom of the Mighty Mogambo [WWotMM]), they don't like to lose money on their investments any more than I do.

One of the key things to keep in mind when discussing central banks is that they do not set interest rates, they only guide interest rates with the rate at which they themselves print money. There is a distinct difference. When there is no demand for the money a particular bank prints, they have to make it scarce in order to raise it's price (rate of interest). It is my contention that the Fed is allowing the rate of interest for borrowing dollars to rise because they have no other choice. Demand for the dollar is very low, as evinced by the Worst Chart in the History of Man. Austrian Business Cycle Theory has successfully predicted this situation. [Aside: the current correction in the $USD is a technical one at best. Any breakdown below .800 on that chart is a disaster.] The central bank has printed so much money previously that the distortions of price have, inturn, created so much mal-investment of real capital and so much debt that there is no more demand for the money. We tend to call this "Pushing on a String" -- The Fed can print all the money they wish to spur economic activity, but if there are no buyers, well, what then? The Law of Supply and Demand rears it's ugly head once again.

We in the U.S. have been bailed out repeatedly by other central banks (namely China and Japan) but that has to end at some point. The Japanese have been at Zero-bounded interest rates for a decade, and, despite the best efforts of the Bank of Japan to debase the Yen, the gross mal-investment evident in the 1980's Japanese economy has finally been worked off. The Chinese have used a monetarist idea - the currency peg - to leverage an enormous work force into a global powerhouse. With new markets strengthening all over the Pacific Rim the Chinese dependence on selling their goods to debt-ridden Americans will be over soon. When they loosen up that currency peg, allowing the Renminbi to float, that will be the death knell for the US Dollar in the short term.

So, for Mr. Cowen, who stated in his post that if he believed in the Austrian Business Cycle he would buy US T-Bill shorts, I would exhort him to do the more rational and time-tested thing, which is to buy gold. Monetarist theory states that gold cannot do well with rising interest rates (with gold and the dollar in competition the theory goes, the higher interest rates go the more attractive the dollar and the less attractive gold), which doesn't fit the actual data at all. Gold's legendary run in the 1970's came with rising interest rates, while it suffered a brutal Bear Market all during the 20+ year Bond Bull Market (low interest rates). Furthermore, there's no time-dependance, greeks, noise, swing-traders, or other nonsense in gold, just a commodity whose value is at minimum the cost of it's production. And, by gold I do not mean that junk they sell on Comex, but the real thing. Physical coins in your possession, with a dog, a gun, and a good bottle of scotch to protect them, is the only rational and purposeful reaction to the noise of the current marketplace.

I do, however, recommend, if the Dollar survives the next 5 years, and if, you bought and held onto the gold I advised you to buy today, that when interest rates hit their peak.... you buy 30-year T-bills and then live like a king off the stupid amount of interest they will generate you until you are much older and wiser than you obviously are today.

Ta,

Central Planning in a Nutshell

From missneworleans, Laurie Anderson's desk calendar comes this little load of pith that has so many implications:

A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of fools.

There are days when I wish I was that succinct.

Ta,

All Your Souls Are Belong To Us!!

In a follow-up to an article posted at LRC last week, Sgt. Kevin Benderman has further clarified his position as to why he no longer wishes to kill any more human beings. In my mind, he didn't need to do so, as he made his point quite emphatically the last time, but unfortunately, some people need to hear things multiple times before they believe it or accept it.

So, everyone, say it with me now:

Killing other human beings is wrong.

You will notice that there are no exceptions here, no equivocations. There is always the case for self-defense, but as others have pointed out, killing under those circumstances is of dubious moral standing. One may feel justified in doing so, but that doesn't make it right. I've stated on multiple occassions (not here, mind you) that I wish I could be a pacifist relative to someone wanting to steal from me or harm my family, but, "I'm just not that enlightened." I applaud Sgt. Benderman's desire to apply his philosophy in his life, to embody the axiom, "Talk is cheap, whiskey costs money,' and I find it despicable, and oh so predictable, that he is now facing 7 years imprisonment for wanting to do so.

The state/military must attempt to make an example of him, otherwise he may infuse others with similar feelings but lesser characters to do likewise (One can only hope, to be honest). By the president's own words, Sgt. Benderman is no longer worthy of our respect:

A few Americans have accepted the hardest duties in this cause - in the quiet work of intelligence and diplomacy ... the idealistic work of helping raise up free governments ... the dangerous and necessary work of fighting our enemies. Some have shown their devotion to our country in deaths that honored their whole lives - and we will always honor their names and their sacrifice.

Of course, this comes from a man who has never actually seen combat or killed someone with his own hands, save picking up a telephone. And, while it would be unfair of me to say or even think that the president does not feel some amount of grief or shame at the violence and death he has personally ordered, I cannot absolve him of the cowardice of doing so safely tucked behind the most elaborate security apparatus the world has ever seen; the very existance of which negates his claim that he is serving the cause of peace and freedom.

I refuse to go into the president's illogic or hypocrisy, so much of it is self-evident. 99% of his speech makes absolutely no sense to an affirmed individual, one who has thrown off all illusions of collectivism. I am not a country, or a state or a community. I may be a part of these things but they do not define me, I define them. Ergo, the assumptions and presumptions of the power-crazed President are completely indefensible both philosophically and morally. Whatever. The point is moot. Guns will be pointed at those who refuse to drink the Kool-Aid, because remember in the new America, "You are either with us, or against us." The definitions of 'with us' and 'against us' are, of course, made by those who would do the gun pointing. So, therein lies the problem for myself and Sgt. Benderman.

Compare now, if you will, the president's words above with Sgt. Benderman's:

Why should I not help another human being that needs what I can help them with? I have ignored that for far too long. I have turned my head when the homeless person asks for a little help. I have taken advantage of others when I should have been offering a hand up. I have done things in my life that I am not proud of. I have not lived a perfect life so I do not claim to have the authority to tell anyone else how to live his or hers.

Here is a man who presumes no longer to speak for anyone other than himself, who sees himself in a context he can control. His place in history is defined by the things he does, not but what he would like to be.

I do not presume to understand military law or the contract the Sgt. Benderman signed with the U.S. Government when he entered their service, but it seems odd to me that the stance he is taking is unique, and that it has not been dealt with in ways other than court-martialing and jail-time in the past. He has made the terrible mistake of making is known publicly that he desires no longer to shoot people the president has deemed unworthy of life, and for that he, most probably, will pay a terrible price. Violence begetting more violence.

This was just the begining.

Ta,

The Libertarian Food Pyramid

First off, Brad Edmonds (the author of the article linked above) is one funny bastid. He doesn't write for LRC as often as he used to earlier in the sites' history but the daily perusal of LRC's front page has always started with a quick scan for his name, and, if found, clicked-through immediately.

That said, he's been writing mostly about food and the government's involvment in it thereof for the past couple of years non-stop, and has even written a book on the subject. The procurement of which is just one of many unfulfilled promises I've made to Capt. Charity Vain.

Basically, the Libertarian Food groups are:
1) Meat
2) Fat
3) Salt
4) Hot Peppers
5) Alcohol

Yeah, that pretty much sums up my diet, which is augmented only by some good cheese and bowlfuls of whole nuts. He rightly points out that most of these foods (which are the backbone of a truly healthy diet) has been the subject of so much hand-wringing, legislation, capital-misdirection (drug development costs to treat unproven problems and attendant medical costs thereof), and badly-written verbiage on the part of government and the various groups of busy-bodies it caters to.

For those who don't share Mr. Edmonds and my love for Hot Peppers (and I am recent (less than 10 years) convert to this holy of holies, and probably would still be considered a Pepper-Eater in Training [PEiT]) check out this absolutely priceless paragraph:

Almost nobody rails against hot peppers. That’s unfortunate, because I might enjoy them even more if someone told me not to. But I can’t really imagine enjoying them more than I do already. Red Louisiana hot sauces are great on everything. I embarrass myself regularly by asking for hot sauce in the nicest restaurants. Perhaps food heat is addictive – it makes you release pleasure and pain-killing neurotransmitters, much like tobacco and chocolate. I’m an addict, and will remain so, unapologetically, until death. If I get ulcers and can’t take the heat any longer, I’ll get a medical degree and invent the first artificial stomach.

Let me know if you're going to need research capital to get started with that, Brad. But, you'll first have to cook me dinner!! Like I said, a damn funny man, and one I hope one day to shake hands with.

Ta,