30 September 2008

How to Crash the Stock Market

I'm no economist. I do have a blog. And a surplus of bullshit. So, when Wall Street needs a bailout and the government won't come through, I think I'm just the man for the job.

This is a simple case of supply and demand. I have plenty of bullshit, and Wall Street needs a lot of it. Easy. That's why they call it a bull market. But why, you might wonder, does Wall Street need bullshit? I'm glad you asked!

You see, although I'm a bullshitter and not an economist, it doesn't mean I don't understand a few things about how economies work. Like that supply and demand bit up there. The reason Wall Street needs bullshit is because Wall Street makes most of its money on things that are completely made up.

In theory, all exchanges are ultimately about the movement of goods and services. But goods and services don't tend to increase over time just because you want them too. Holding onto two apples will not eventually gain you 0.05% of an apple.*

Interest on loaned money, however, does start to add up. So, whenever somebody asks you for money, you can gather some interest as they pay you back. Where does interest come from? Nobody is really sure, but recent studies suggest a mixture of the the light from the twinkle in Ronald Reagan's eyes and Karl Marx's tears.

And with all this extra money laying about, there's only one thing to do with it: gamble! I don't mean slots or poker or keno. I mean the good stuff, like what other people might do with their interest. Is someone else lending money to people who want to buy houses but who are not likely capable of paying back what they owe? Why not go ahead and bet on how well that's going to turn out? You won't know if you're a winner until some lights flash by and someone rings a bell.

As you can see, Wall Street has run dangerously low on bullshit. If they were real capitalists, they would simply invent a new way to make money. Wall Street needs some fresh bullshit. So, when all you investors are ready to get yourselves back in the game, you come see me.



*Does not apply to bunnies.

24 September 2008

How to Bail Out an Economy

Is your economy on the fritz? Mine sure is! Here are some easy steps to bail it out:

1) Get together about $700 billion of money that doesn't belong to you. You're going to need it for step 2.

2) Buy as much shit as you can. Just buy. Don't even look at the price, don't think about the reasons for buying one thing and not another, just buy, buy, buy. This is the key to keeping economies going!

3) Learn French, because you're kind of a socialist now.

Or, if you're the escapist type, just go watch this video of the undeniably awesome Enterprise from the upcoming Star Trek film.

14 September 2008

How to Vote

What is politics about? If you said "issues," you are very wrong.

Politics is about image which is why I'll probably vote for Obama. Palin is hotter but I don't want to listen to her talk for four years. Obama is captivating, even if he never says anything. It's possible he could fuck everything up completely if elected, but at least I wouldn't mind hearing him talking about it. Let's face is, Bush fucked a lot of things up, including most of his sentences.

I know you idealists are silently insisting that politics ought to be about issues. I'm not convinced of that either. Doubtless you have not come across this opinion piece in which the author argues that Palin stands by her convictions and Biden does not. I know that you come to meatiocrity to get my warped perspective on the very opinion pieces you do not come across.

In this article, the argument is that Palin is anti-abortion and proved it by having a baby with Downs Syndrome while Biden has claimed that he believes life begins at conception but has legislated for abortion rights. Therefore, Biden must not stand by his convictions.

I'm perfectly willing to believe Biden is a scumbag. No doubt for every child Sarah Palin has, Joe Biden has done a line of coke off a hooker's ass. What I'm about to suggest is more of a thought experiment.

What if Biden was standing by his convictions? What if he believed that national government had no right to legislate something for which state governemnts ought to be responsible? His conviction that life begins at conception is tempered by his conviction that for America to remain free, states must decide certain matters. Again, obviously not Biden's stance. The point is, the possibility exists that on any given issue, a politician might have more than one conviction to consider, even with all corruption aside.

So, when I suggest that politics is not about issues what I mean is that any given issue has behind it at least one other issue. The author of the cited article may agree with Palin's stance on the issue of abortion; do they also agree with her stance on the role of the national government in legislating these matters? Another point then, is that the issues that politics are supposedly about are in some ways secondary to the nature and philosophy of government itself.

And if we're going to be voting for something superficial anyway, I'm picking the candidate who best represents the way in which I'd like to be entertained. Obama '08!

10 September 2008

Weekend Update

For the next five weeks, I expect to be pretty busy. You should expect new posts only on the weekends. You should not expect Norm Macdonald to read the fake news to you. That is all.

07 September 2008

Wiki Wiki Wha?

One of the best features of the internet is feeling more powerful than you actually are. Anybody who has read a comments section knows this. I recently experienced this phenomenon myself when I site a had never seen or known about existed at the very moment I needed it.

Facing a slow week in religious news I could make fun of, I assumed that an entirely Christian version of Wikipedia existed. So, I typed in"wikichristian.com," which of course didn't work. But then I tried "wikichristian.org" instead. Bingo!

You'd think a religion with a strong emphasis on fellowship and community would work pretty well with the concept of a website to which the entire community can contribute. As it turns out , most of the "articles" contain little to no "content." Interestingly, "God's Word to Women" contains no less than 100 lessons.

What's most disturbing, however, is that it seems that "God's Word to Women" is essentially the only content on the entire site. Otherwise, it contains mostly outdated translations of the Bible, and Easton's Bible Dictionary. I did find one article on doctrine which probably should have contained only a link to Wikipedia's article on it.

Why, then, does wikichristian exist? Actually, that's about the only question. Answer in the comments. Also, a non sequitur.

04 September 2008

Get Revived, Bitches

I guess all you googlers out there are really interested in increasing your church membership. As it turns out, using the same techniques as internet pornographers isn't the only way to do it! (And that was totally not any kind of euphemism!)

This new technique merely requires you to build up an apocalyptic army of end-times zealots. Awesome! It's like commanding a horde of locusts, only not a literal horde of locusts, or even a horde of locusts that metaphorically refers to the armies of Assyrian oppressors.

You say the concept of a holy army that is also an army of locusts is too obscure for you? Well, then, you can't be in the army. That's your problem right there.

I get the sense that you're not so keen on the idea of being part of the ultimate generation (penultimate if you're an old-timer) of holy folks with pitch forks (and guns) who are not merely intended to defend the faith (boring!), but actively and aggressively force it on the world, in order to show the love of Jesus Christ.

Are you really going to tell me you don't want to be a part of that? Are you crazy?

Wait, you aren't one of those "intellectuals" are you, what with your "thinking" and "degree in biblical theology?" Because if you were, I'd probably have to condemn you to hell right on the spot, or kick you in the face with my totally hard army boot. Anyway, you're not wearing glasses, so I guess you must be okay.

It's good to hear you're starting to get on board with us here, because obviously you want to increase church membership. And I think you're beginning to realize that the best way to do it is through violence and by being batshit insane.

Oh, I almost forgot! If you sign up for the end-times army today, you get the serpent seed doctrine as well. Yeah, turns out Eve totally got it on with the Serpent and that's where Cain and all the intellectuals came from. And that's why we have to convert them by oppressing and maybe gunning them down.

Yeah, just sign right here. We'll also need a blood sample, just to check for purity, you know, son of Cain and all that. The guns are that way.

01 September 2008

The Not-Very Political Post: The Anti-Cheney

Of all the people you might expect to be classified as an Anti-Cheney, who was the first to jump into your head?

Was it Sarah Palin, the risky under-experienced GOP veep pick from Alaska?

Was it Joe Biden, an almost perfect Democratic doppelganger of our snarling sub-command-in-chief?

Was it Barack Obama, the effervescent upstart Democrat whose rhetorical insistence on being a sort of neo-Kennedy indicates the possibility of his implementing the same atmosphere on Capitol Hill Cheney reacted so strongly against in the first place?

Was it John McCain, of all people, the Maverick whose media openness is a sharp contrast from Cheney's secrecy?

Was it E) none of the above?

The Anti-Cheney I'm thinking of is Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. And it's not because of some left-over Cld War sentiment in which Putin might be a dirty Commie bastard. It's because once upon time, both Putin and Cheney went into the woods and on returning, had shot something.

The difference, of course, is that Cheney had shot a dude in the face, and not in a macho, action-hero way. Evidently it was accidentally. Even if it wasn't, it was lame, and the only reason we liked him even remotely more after the incident is because it was such a comedy gold mine.

Putin, on the other hand, shot an endangered tiger with a tranquilizer in order to save a television crew. So, points for shooting something. Points for it not being your friend. Points for saving lives. Points for actually not killing an endangered species. Points for helping measure its fucking fangs afterward. Basically, points all around.

Now, I agree that both these guys are basically dickheads. That's a given. But one of them is decidedly more awesome. Sadly, it's not the one which would make America proud. Fair play to you, former Soviet Union.