Bubbles, What If They Are Not Preventable?

Experts have proven time and time again unable to detect economic and financial bubbles until after they burst, at which point it's too late. It seems the "next bubble" is always different enough from prior bubbles that nobody is sure what it is.

Because of this, we need a financial version of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. As long as economic growth is positive, the fed should set aside some of the nation's money for the Strategic Monetary Reserve. This will allow a sufficient stimulus package the next time we get ourselves into a jam. And it will keep politicians' fingers out of the pot.

King James was "Liberal Media"?

I hope this is a hoax. If not, it is the ultimate in right-wing nutbaggativity. The Conservapedia Bible Project wants to change the parts of the Bible that they don't like.

Here's some quotes (taken as of 1/2/2009). My comments are marked with ">>>":

"The Conservative Bible Project is a project utilizing the "best of the public" to render God's word into modern English without liberal translation distortions."

"Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations."

"But the third -- and largest -- source of translation error requires conservative principles to reduce and eliminate."

>>> Requires? I'm sure that's what the recipe stated.

"Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias"

"Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms to capture better the original intent;[5] Defective translations use the word "comrade" three times as often as "volunteer"; similarly, updating words that have a change in meaning, such as "word", "peace", and "miracle"."

>>> Re: "using powerful new conservative terms to capture...". Hire a marketing firm while you are at it. "It's the new improved Conservative Coke, bubblier and bible-ier than ever!"

"Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction[6] by using modern terms for it, such as "gamble" rather than "cast lots"..."

>>> What, you never casted lots in Vegas?

"Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning"

>>> Like, "My dear followers, your jobs will be outsourced to the Huns, who work 40% cheaper".

"Exclude Later-Inserted Inauthentic Passages: excluding the interpolated passages that liberals commonly put their own spin on, such as the adulteress story"

>>> The evidence for removal appears to be nothing more than "it doesn't fit the same style". So, if it's conservative-leaning and it doesn't fit the same style, then keep it. If its liberal and it doesn't fit the same style, then toss it. It would be fairer to cast lots.

"Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word "Lord" rather than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord God."

>>> Oh those talkative ancient liberals! It's all Greek to me. Literally. The strategery of making the pie higher hurts my belly.

"... identify faulty pro-liberal terms used in existing Bible translations, such as "government", and suggest more accurate substitutes..."

>>> Maybe the Romans collected "Texas" instead of "taxes". It's all just a Big Liberal Typo.

"... identify conservative terms that are omitted from existing translations, and propose where they could improve the translation..."

>>> Hmmm, I think I'll insert "waterboarding" right.....here!

"Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." Is this a corruption of the original, perhaps promoted by liberals without regard to its authenticity? This does not appear in any other Gospel, and the simple fact is that some of the persecutors of Jesus did know what they were doing. This quotation is a favorite of liberals, although it does not appear in the earliest and best manuscripts of the Gospel of Luke. It should not appear in a conservative Bible, because in point of fact Jesus might never had said it at all."

>>> There's a lot of stuff that comes and goes in the early manuscripts. This appears to be same biased filtering as described above under the adulteress item: keep the suspicious conservative passages but not the suspicious liberal passages.

"Socialistic terminology permeates English translations of the Bible, without justification. This improperly encourages the "social justice" movement among Christians. For example, the conservative word "volunteer" is mentioned only once in the ESV, yet the socialistic word "comrade" is used three times, "laborer(s)" is used 13 times, "labored" 15 times, and "fellow" (as in "fellow worker") is used 55 times."

>>> "Why, we are not slaves, but merely volunteers. We like the whipping, it kills our fleas." And, how is volunteerism part of the Adam Smith model? This whole statement is disturbing on many levels. What is this "justification" they speak of?

"...the ensuing debate would flesh out -- and stop -- the infiltration of churches by liberals pretending to be Christian, much as a vote by legislators exposes the liberals..."

>>> You guys miss Joe McCarthy, don't you? Maybe YOU guys are the "pretenders", Senator Craig-style.

"...this would debunk the pervasive and hurtful myth that Jesus would be a political liberal today..."

>>> Yeah, Jesus couldn't possibly be liberal. Therefore, the Bible must be WRONG. Logic! Let's just change it; make it in OUR image. We are the Creators now. Lets elect ourselves as profits.....oops I meant prophets, while we are at it. After all, the Mormons got away with it.

Common Sense is Not Common

Lately conservative pundits are using the term "common sense" an awful lot, and the term is rubbing off on their followers. Recently I was debating the proper steepness of the "inequality curve" to provide necessary motivation to work harder and better. Slightly higher taxes on the wealthy will allegedly make them unmotivated.

The right-winger argued that the curve has to be pretty steep; that is, heavy inequality is necessary in order to provide sufficient motivation by his view. I argued that perception of social ranking is largely relative to position (ranking among near-peers) and thus a slightly shallower curve will not kill motivation. Observations of animal behavior tend to bear this out, forgive the pun.

The right-winger then said, "Well, it's common sense that you need a steep curve" (paraphrased). I then argued that it's not common sense. We really won't know for sure without some kind of careful study of human economic behavior. I cannot cite any clear-cut direct studies that back my position and neither could he. However, my point is that common sense is not sufficient to answer such questions. (I'm sure there are plenty of indirect studies that both sides could use as ammunition.)

Not having a definitive answer from science and statistics, I can at least agree to respect somebody with the steep curve opinion if they do the same with my opinion. However, this particular right-winger insisted that "common sense" backs the steep curve view and those who don't share it are somehow brainwashed by the "left-wing media" or "commie professors". In other words, exposure to these evil entities allegedly washed away my common sense.

It turned into the usual shouting match over who is more brainwashed. But in retrospect, I believe it to be yet another manifestation of the right's anti-intellectualism. Scientific and statistical studies and processes are not to be trusted by the right. Thus, common sense, or at least their version of it, is more reliable in their view, and thus given special rank. Who needs science when you have ol' Uncle Jesse to hand down "common sense"? Probably while cleaning his shotgun.

Palin Jumps the Occupied Shark

Quote from ABC News:

"I disagree with the Obama administration on that," Palin told Walters. "I believe that the Jewish settlements should be allowed to be expanded upon, because that population of Israel is, is going to grow. More and more Jewish people will be flocking to Israel in the days and weeks and months ahead...

So, if we in the US crank out too many kids and decide we all want to live in Canada, then we should be allowed to just go there and make it part of the US, regardless of what Canada wants, because we are making it "grow"???

Unfairly Blaming Obama for Deficit

A chart in a New York Times online article shows that Obama's policies contributed only about 12% to the current federal budget deficit. The rest, roughly 88%, is caused by a roughly-even mix of the recession itself (lower tax revenues) and Bush's policies. And this is ignoring the fact that a stimulus package was based on mainstream economic advice. (As I pointed out earlier, China has shown that sufficient stimulus plans work.)

Another break-down of the deficit can be found at Think Progress.

A Red on Blue State Blues

A conservative was bragging that the recession hit blue states the hardest, implying it was because liberals don't know how to run things.

I then pointed out that one cannot have a significant real-estate bubble in places where nobody wants to live. That quieted him up nicely.

Sex in the Bible City: Conservative Logic Misfire

I encountered a conservative the other day who was posting a printed rant about how an Obama appointee once approved "sexually explicit" books for school libraries. A companion then pointed out that the Bible also has some rather salacious passages, including rape and incest.

This caught the Con off guard. He was a deer caught in the headlights of the SUV of Logic heading straight his way. After fumbling around for a while, he finally came up with a half answer: "It's the context and intent that makes the difference. The Bible is to teach moral and spiritual lessons, and those sexual stories are part of those lessons."

I then replied, "But isn't it possible that library books you are ranting about also have moral lessons?".

He then stated, "I don't know, I didn't read them".

"Then how do you know they put sex in a poor context or have bad intent?" I asked.

He then mumbled something like, "If they were written by liberals, then they are probably of ill intent."

Thus, the truth comes out: conservatives don't want to necessarily ban sex from library books, but want to ban books written by liberals. This is done in the guise of "protecting the children from sex". It's liberals they want to protect the children from, not sex. Con moral platitudes are often a disguise for something else.