It’s pronounced “Eye-gor” now

Wednesday, October 31st, 2012

The canonical Igor of pop-culture is Dr. Frankenstein’s hunchbacked assistant — who does not exist in the original novel, and who isn’t named Igor in the movie:

Dwight Frye’s hunch-backed lab assistant in the first film of the Frankenstein series (1931) is the main source for the “Igor” of public imagination, though this character was actually named “Fritz”. The sequels Son of Frankenstein (1939) and The Ghost of Frankenstein (1942) featured a character named “Ygor”, played by Bela Lugosi; this character, however, is neither a hunchback nor a lab assistant, but an insane blacksmith with a broken neck and twisted back. He reanimates the Monster as an instrument of vengeance against the townspeople who attempted to hang him for graverobbing. He survives a near-fatal gunshot and appears in the next film, in which his brain is placed in the Monster’s body.

Universal Pictures would actively cement the idea of the hunchbacked assistant to the “mad scientist ” in the Frankenstein film series House of Frankenstein (1944) with J. Carrol Naish playing a hunch backed lab assistant named Daniel.

In the 1933 horror film Mystery of the Wax Museum, “Ivan Igor” is the name of the mad wax museum curator. The film was remade as House of Wax in 1953, but the name “Igor” was given to the curator’s henchman (played by a young Charles Bronson) rather than the curator himself. Not a hunchback, the character is deaf and mute, and is portrayed as an unconditionally devoted servant.

The name Igor, by the way, derives from the Norse name Ingvar, that was brought to ancient Rus by the Norse Varangians. Igor (son of the Varangian chief Rurik) conquered Kiev.

Disney Acquires LucasFilm

Tuesday, October 30th, 2012

The Walt Disney Company has agreed to acquire Lucasfilm Ltd. for $4 billion:

“Lucasfilm reflects the extraordinary passion, vision, and storytelling of its founder, George Lucas,” said Robert A. Iger, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of The Walt Disney Company. “This transaction combines a world-class portfolio of content including Star Wars, one of the greatest family entertainment franchises of all time, with Disney’s unique and unparalleled creativity across multiple platforms, businesses, and markets to generate sustained growth and drive significant long-term value.”

“For the past 35 years, one of my greatest pleasures has been to see Star Wars passed from one generation to the next,” said George Lucas, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Lucasfilm. “It’s now time for me to pass Star Wars on to a new generation of filmmakers. I’ve always believed that Star Wars could live beyond me, and I thought it was important to set up the transition during my lifetime. I’m confident that with Lucasfilm under the leadership of Kathleen Kennedy, and having a new home within the Disney organization, Star Wars will certainly live on and flourish for many generations to come. Disney’s reach and experience give Lucasfilm the opportunity to blaze new trails in film, television, interactive media, theme parks, live entertainment, and consumer products.”

George Lucas owns 100 percent of LucasFilm, by the way.

Here’s the real news though:

Star Wars Episode 7 is targeted for release in 2015, with more feature films expected to continue the Star Wars saga and grow the franchise well into the future.

Disney already owns Pixar and Marvel.

The Castle of Otranto

Tuesday, October 30th, 2012

In 1988, James Cawthorne and Michael Moorcock included The Castle of Otranto, generally considered the first gothic novel, on their list of influential fantasy books. I mentioned this last year, but I just got around to reading the novel — and it really isn’t very good. In fact, it reads like a bad Shakespeare pastiche, full of star-crossed lovers, long-lost relatives, comic-relief servants, and a few apparitions.

I do believe Walpole did introduce one now-cliché trope though: the door that opens for no apparent reason, followed by a sudden draft that snuffs out the light.

Actually, a quick search reveals — brace yourself — a TV Tropes page devoted to the novel, another describing the genre and naming its prominent authors, and another listing all the genre’s tropes. Apparently they consider Otranto the trope-codifier for the haunted castle.

Lessons Learned from Red Bull Stratos

Monday, October 29th, 2012

Former Air Force Pararescue Jumper Nathanael Morrison shares some lessons learned from the Red Bull Stratos jump:


  • Why did the balloon not level off but instead accelerate in the final phase? The lab coats will tell us more but Helium has the second most thermal conductive gas in the world so it may be that as the temperatures and solar radiation in the stratosphere increased the gas continued to expand while encountering exponentially less air resistance. That it critical to further high altitude research.
  • We can easily achieve Mach 1 without any physiological or anatomical issues. What about Mach 2?
  • We now know how to make space and pressure suits that withstand supersonic airspeeds without tearing from our bodies. This is caused when the air pressure exerted on the fabric exceeds the tensile strength of the threat and fabric. This information will be very helpful to the military aviation community.
  • We have truckloads of up to date atmospheric data that will help weather and aviation agencies in numerous applications.
  • We understand how giant balloons behave. We have never launched a balloon that large before. A lot can go wrong and we learned a lot about how to make new balloons to go even higher.
  • I’m not a scientist but I know a number of them and they assure me that the sheer volume of information collected from the capsule and the suit is invaluable.


  • Pressure suit. The advancement to the space and flight industries is huge. A suit manufactured for 121K performed perfectly at 128K. We can now make one for 150K or higher. Those suits can be worn by the pilots and crew of the next generation of reconnaissance aircraft.
  • Capsule. With the basic design completed and fully tested, larger capsules can be built for a wide variety of purposes. The design features will be used in the next generation of air and spacecraft.
  • Balloon. The balloon used is of the standard high altitude balloon design type. It’s just bigger. Now we know how the largest atmospheric balloon in the world behaves. That will help us make bigger ones to go higher, thus increasing our range and capability. There should also be some new research to make a stronger balloon because they are very fragile.
  • Cameras. The cameras used were astonishing. We watched this event in HD from the edge of space! Cameras do not perform well in cold or high altitude environments. The ability to build a camera and high data compression broadcast system is amazing. Consider the fact that with NASA we get only a little very low quality footage and rarely live. When these experiments were first done the film was still on… well… film! The cameras on the ground we able to see 130K feet which is remarkable. That seems like a very nice surveillance system to me. A camera that can see 24km? WOW! And I haven’t even mentioned the optical tracking stuff that is years ahead of what the military has. Well, at least that we know about…
  • Communications Systems. All we know is that they worked like a charm and took three years to develop. I would love to know more and the implications are obvious. I would love to know if it was a line of sight system of a SATCOM system or something else. I know of some technology that is in production that is just scary, but no word on this new system.
  • Commercial tracking systems. The Stratos team used a wide array of compact and micro tracking equipment. They always knew the exact coordinates of Baumgartner and the capsule. They knew the altitude, wind speed, capsule speed, jumper speed, O2 saturation, air density, air pressure and so much more. The Stratos jump was one amazingly precise operation! That sort of micro tracking package can be used in an unlimited variety of applications world wide.
  • Parachute. The parachute used was designed for tandem operations. It has a drogue chute, a main canopy and a reserve canopy. However, a normal tandem drogue is set over the main canopy low on the jumper’s back. This one was set over the shoulders. As a parachute instructor I am dying to learn more about this new system! It was built this way to further reduce the possibility of spinning out of control. For those of us in the parachute and aviation world, this is very exciting.


  • Transcontinental personnel delivery. Imagine if you will a large capsule with a 4-man SOF team that goes aloft in Germany. At 135K the team exits in wing sleds and crosses the sea to land in Syria. That used to sound crazy to me. Not any more… I am quite sure that with a little work we could drop people from Main and reach Europe with little effort.
  • Transcontinental aerial gliders. Building on the previous idea, imagine a large glider with 60+ men hoisted to that altitude for the same mission type. I have this vision of the Aliens movie and again, 2 weeks ago it seemed silly. Not anymore.
  • Modern day floating bases. Could you have a floating missile base manned by 4 people at 100K? Seems plausible now… As do a very wide variety of defense and surveillance systems. It’s the same type of deterrent as a submarine to many lesser countries.
  • That Star Trek stunt. You just saw the early development of that stunt and capability.
  • Higher shuttle bail out altitude. Currently if there is a problem at a given point in flight the astronauts are supposed to chop the engines and glide down to 50,000 feet before attempting a bail out maneuver that has never been adequately tested and is assumed to not work anyway. Now that minimum bailout altitude can be pushed to 130-150K and use a better bail out system. (Yes, I am well aware that the shuttle program has recently been retired)
  • Better astronaut/cosmonaut recovery and rescue capability. The current bail out and recovery procedures are a sham. No one expects to live through them. They have never even been realistically tested. This experiment proves that a conventional form of bail out is indeed possible and a reality. Astronauts can go into orbit knowing that at the very least they can cut the engines and get out anywhere below 150K.
  • Better pressure suits for high altitude pilots. We are still using the old 1960’s suits. Pilots would love to get into something modern and rated for Mach 1.24!
  • Better bail out methods for high altitude pilots. High altitude aircraft like the U2 use capsule ejection systems. Now the technology exists that makes a bail out at 70K an easy reality.
  • Better safety for space tourism. It’s real. The technology has been proven. NASA is already contracting them. This will help them design better bail out and recovery procedures.
  • A 150-200K jump. The ease with which the Stratos team pulled off 128K leads me to believe that a much higher jump is in the near future. A few equipment tweaks and we’re there!
  • Transcontinental high altitude flight. The design of the Stratos capsule will be the number one design reference for the next generation of high altitude aircraft. The dreams of high altitude supersonic commercial flight just got a lot closer to reality.
  • Spacecraft design. Commercial companies are subcontracted to build space hardware. As such, new revolutionary spacecraft designs will use the Stratos capsule for reference and inspiration.
  • High altitude tourism. Why not? A lot of people would pay for that.


  • Extreme Sports. The folks at Red Bull Stratos believe that a new extreme sport is right around the corner. They think 50K skydiving is going to become a reality. And why not. They already have the capability to do it easily. That sort of thing would drive some very extreme innovation.
  • The open ended unknown. The original jump was a part of the space program and led to the current space suit designs. That type of research has given us so many things from Velcro to Post-it notes, to tang and thousands more every day items. Who can say how many new everyday items were just created and tested?


11 feet and 8 inches tall

Monday, October 29th, 2012

Big signs and flashing yellow lights alert drivers that the railroad trestle at Gregson and Peabody streets in Durham, North Carolina is 11 feet and 8 inches tall. A local man named Jürgen Henn has decided to record all the tall trucks ignoring the signs:

Is a Pocket Gun Enough?

Sunday, October 28th, 2012

Gun nuts often ask, Is a pocket gun enough? Karl Rehn ran an experiment with his concealed-carry class based on the three seconds or less course of fire, which is based on the “average” gun fight:

  • Hands at sides, gun concealed, take one step to the left as you draw, three shots to the body at three yards.
  • Hands at sides, gun concealed, take one step to the right as you draw, three shots to the body at three yards.
  • Ready, two shots to head at three yards.
  • Hand on gun, draw and shoot one-handed, three shots to body at three yards.
  • Hand on gun, step left or right, draw and shoot two-handed, three shots to body at seven yards.
  • Ready, one shot to head at seven yards.
  • Hand on gun, draw and shoot one-handed, two shots to body at seven yards.
  • Gun in non-dominant hand (only), in ready position, three shots to body at seven yards.

Each string has a three-second par time.

He compared how his class did with a full-size pistol and with a back-up gun:

A total pool of 18 students shot the test with primary and pocket guns, during and after the pocket gun course. The pool included those with very little shooting experience, intermediate level shooters, and a few IPSC/IDPA Master class level competitors. The detailed data, shown in the chart on the next page, includes some interesting trends.

Shooters classified as “low skill” had passed the Texas CHL shooting test, but had no training or practice drawing from concealment or in other defensive pistol skills. This group did not attend the pocket gun class, and were given limited instruction in safe drawing technique prior to taking the test. For this group, the average difference in scores was significant (20 points).

Shooters classified as “medium skill” had taken at least one defensive pistol course, or had IPSC or IDPA match experience, or both. The average performance loss was 10 percent, with students shooting passing scores (over 90 points) with their primary guns, but falling short with the pocket guns. Two shooters, each using a pocket gun with a trigger very similar to their primary gun, scored the same (+/- 1%) with both guns, but failed to reach the 90 point goal with either.

Shooters classified as “high skill” had taken more than one defensive pistol course in the last year, or were regular competitors in shooting sports. These shooters had an average skill loss of less than 3%, with all but one shooter passing the test with both guns. None of these shooters had done any practice with their pocket guns in the past year prior to attending the pocket gun class.

Highly skilled shooters aced the test with either pistol — because the test was too easy for them, I argued (there, but moderated into the ether), not because they shoot just as well with either pistol:

I love the fact that you ran an experiment with a decent number of shooters of various skill levels.

I would like to clarify though that your test — because it relies on a generous three-second par time, rather than a shot-timer, and “good enough” shots at short range — masks the difference in effectiveness between full-size pistols and back-up guns in the hands of highly skilled shooters. They were able to ace the test even with a handicap.

If you’d used a shot-timer combined with IPSC scoring — points per second — or IDPA scoring — time plus a half-second penalty per point down — then you probably would have seen a much bigger margin between the highly skilled shooters’ scores with a full-size pistol and a back-up gun.

We the Sheeple

Saturday, October 27th, 2012

The latest Freakonomics podcast, We the Sheeple. opens by interviewing Bryan Caplan on The Myth of the Rational Voter:

You know, if you’re a successful politician, you know you don’t succeed by figuring out what’s really going on in the world and trying to explain it to people. You need to find out what people what to hear and then tell it to them. That’s what you see in debates. That’s what you see voters, successful politicians instinctively are trying to read people, trying to read their faces, what does this person want me to say to him, and that’s how they win.


Friday, October 26th, 2012

Iron Man 3 pits our hero against one of his classic enemies from the original comics, the Mandarin — a Fu Manchu knock-off who has mastered alien technology and harnessed it in a number of rings he wears.

Naturally the studio cast Ben Kingsley in this role — to avoid problems.

If you go back and read the original novel, The Insidious Dr. Fu-Manchu, the villain is a worthy opponent — foreign, certainly, and sinister, but not a silly caricature. The movie versions and derivative characters though…

Chicago’s Street Gangs

Friday, October 26th, 2012

Chicago’s street gangs are legendary:

Mayor Rahm Emanuel has taken criticism for Chicago’s skyrocketing homicide rate which stands this year at a shocking 19.4 per 100,000 residents. This is roughly triple the murder rate in New York City, is worse than in perennially crime-ridden Oakland and is within shouting distance of  war-torn Afghanistan and Mexico, which are fighting vicious insurgencies. Even for Chicago, the current level of street violence is unusually brazen.

Chicago has always taken an ambivalent attitude toward it’s enormous, 100,000 strong, network of rival street gangs. Traditionally, part of the social fabric of Chicago’s ethnically divided wards, Chicago’s street gangs were far better organized and more ruthlessly disciplined than street gangs elsewhere, which allowed them a limited entree into participation in local politics. The Chicago Outfit from Al Capone’s day on controlled the votes in the old 1st Ward, ran several near suburbs like Cicero and recruited especially brutal sociopaths from the Forty-Two gang; the legendary Mayor Richard J. Daley in his youth had been a thug for the Hamburg Athletic Club, the Democratic Party’s election-time enforcers in the 11th Ward. In more recent decades, the Black P. Stone Nation/El Rukns were Federal grantees and a number of powerful street gangs today use the Black United Voters of Chicago as a front group and cut-out to make deals with local politicians and swing aldermanic races.

However disturbing the status quo may have been in Chicago, it is potentially changing for the worse. Much worse.

How much worse?

The city may be nearly 2,000 miles from Mexico, but the country’s drug cartels are so deeply embedded in Chicago that local and federal law enforcement are forced to operate as if they are “on the border,” according to Jack Riley, special agent in charge for the Chicago Field Division of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).

The Mexican cartels have made the strategic decision to stay in the background, because they don’t want to incite a federal response to international terrorism.

Everyone Becomes a Threat

Thursday, October 25th, 2012

Free entry is not always good, and monopoly is not always bad, Hans-Hermann Hoppe argues:

Free entry and competition in the production of goods is good, but free competition in the production of bads is not. Free entry into the business of torturing and killing innocents, or free competition in counterfeiting or swindling, for instance, is not good; it is worse than bad.


Since man is as man is, in every society people who covet others’ property exist. Some people are more afflicted by this sentiment than others, but individuals usually learn not to act on such feelings or even feel ashamed for entertaining them. Generally only a few individuals are unable to successfully suppress their desire for others’ property, and they are treated as criminals by their fellow men and repressed by the threat of physical punishment. Under princely government, only one single person — the prince — can legally act on the desire for another man’s property, and it is this which makes him a potential danger and a “bad.”

However, a prince is restricted in his redistributive desires because all members of society have learned to regard the taking and redistributing of another man’s property as shameful and immoral. Accordingly, they watch a prince’s every action with utmost suspicion. In distinct contrast, by opening entry into government, anyone is permitted to freely express his desire for others’ property. What formerly was regarded as immoral and accordingly was suppressed is now considered a legitimate sentiment. Everyone may openly covet everyone else’s property in the name of democracy; and everyone may act on this desire for another’s property, provided that he finds entrance into government. Hence, under democracy everyone becomes a threat.

Consequently, under democratic conditions the popular though immoral and anti-social desire for another man’s property is systematically strengthened. Every demand is legitimate if it is proclaimed publicly under the special protection of “freedom of speech.” Everything can be said and claimed, and everything is up for grabs. Not even the seemingly most secure private property right is exempt from redistributive demands. Worse, subject to mass elections, those members of society with little or no inhibitions against taking another man’s property, that is, habitual a-moralists who are most talented in assembling majorities from a multitude of morally uninhibited and mutually incompatible popular demands (efficient demagogues) will tend to gain entrance in and rise to the top of government. Hence, a bad situation becomes even worse.

Historically, the selection of a prince was through the accident of his noble birth, and his only personal qualification was typically his upbringing as a future prince and preserver of the dynasty, its status, and its possessions. This did not assure that a prince would not be bad and dangerous, of course. However, it is worth remembering that any prince who failed in his primary duty of preserving the dynasty — who ruined the country, caused civil unrest, turmoil and strife, or otherwise endangered the position of the dynasty — faced the immediate risk either of being neutralized or assassinated by another member of his own family. In any case, however, even if the accident of birth and his upbringing did not preclude that a prince might be bad and dangerous, at the same time the accident of a noble birth and a princely education also did not preclude that he might be a harmless dilettante or even a good and moral person.

In contrast, the selection of government rulers by means of popular elections makes it nearly impossible that a good or harmless person could ever rise to the top. Prime ministers and presidents are selected for their proven efficiency as morally uninhibited demagogues. Thus, democracy virtually assures that only bad and dangerous men will ever rise to the top of government. Indeed, as a result of free political competition and selection, those who rise will become increasingly bad and dangerous individuals, yet as temporary and interchangeable caretakers they will only rarely be assassinated.

How Would a Georgist Single Tax Work in Monopoly?

Wednesday, October 24th, 2012

The history of Monopoly, the board game, is surprisingly political, as it was originally meant to illustrate Henry George’s half-socialist, half-capitalist idea that we should have a single tax on land — on the unimproved value of the land.

Bryan Caplan recently taught his sons how to play Monopoly, so he naturally asked, how would a Georgist single tax actually work in Monopoly?

Without improvements, even Boardwalk only yields a rent of $50. So a full-blown Georgist Single Tax would collect just $50 per landing. If the owner maximally improves the property by erecting a hotel, he’d get to keep $1950 ($2000–$50) a pop — 97.5% of the value. Despite the game’s Georgist origins, almost all of the value comes from improvements.

Is something fishy going on? In Georgist terms, no. Houses and hotels should definitely count as “improvements.” After all, the more you tax houses and hotels, the lower players’ incentive to build them. A non-gamer might imagine that players will always build as many houses and hotels as they can afford. After all, each house only costs $200 — a sum players can usually more than recoup as soon as the next player lands on Boardwalk. If you’re a gamer, though, you’ll quickly realize that things aren’t so simple. Buildings lose 50% of their value if you ever have to sell them, so you have a strong incentive to keep a decent amount of cash in hand.

Does Monopoly reveal a fatal flaw in Georgism? Not at all. (For the real fatal flaw, see my paper with Zac Gochenour). The reason why a Single Tax on the unimproved value of Boardwalk generates so little income is that the game artificially fixes a bizarre package of relative prices. A real estate market where (a) Boardwalk with nothing brings in $50 in revenue, (b) Boardwalk with a hotel brings in $2000 in revenue, and (c) a hotel only costs $1000 to build, simply wouldn’t be stable in a free market. Competing developers would bid up the rent of Boardwalk with nothing, bid down the rent of Boardwalk with a hotel, and/or bid up the price of houses.

The right lesson to draw is simply that despite its creator’s didactic motive, Monopoly is a bad way to grasp the essentials of Georgism. In a truly Georgist game, unimproved rents would be enormous, and improvements would be priced at marginal cost.

The Phantasmagorical Four

Wednesday, October 24th, 2012

Mike Sterling presents The Phantasmagorical Four — the Fantastic Four, as if they came from the pen of H.P. Lovecraft:

Professor Richards leaned forward at his desk, studying intently the papers laid out before him. After a few minutes of this quiet contemplation, he sat up, his wooden chair creaking at the movement. He looked over his shoulder at me, as if just now remembering that he had an assistant, one that had been waiting patiently for the good professor to finally turn his attentions to him. “My apologies,” Richards said, though his tone did not sound apologetic at all. “I am currently attempting to unwrap a particular historical puzzle, and have need of my volume of Egyptology.”

I inferred from this statement that he intended for me to fetch this book for him. Though I have spent little time in Richards’ personal study, I had no trouble spotting it amongst the many shelves burdened with books of science and history, both well-studied and obscure. It was a thick tome, discolored by age and resting on a shelf just barely out of my reach. I turned away from the professor to find the stepping stool or ladder that he must have somewhere nearby to facilitate the retrieval of books stored at such an inconvenient height. However, oddly enough I found none immediately evident, but my curiosity regarding this discovery was interrupted by….

What could I call it? A sense? A “feeling,” like the sort one would have when another person is peering intently at you, and you know for certain that you are being so rudely stared at even without directly confirming it yourself. This, however, was not the weight of another’s intense observation I felt upon me. This was the feeling that something was behind me, not approaching me, but passing by, twisting and serpentine, splitting through the air with haste. I saw nothing of what it was, frozen briefly by the sensation, staring blankly at a crowded row of books only a foot or two away. I heard nothing, save for what sounded for all the world like the hard cover of a book briefly scraping along a high and distant shelf.

Just as suddenly as the feeling had come upon me, it was gone; and, the spell broken, I spun around to try to determine what had just occurred unseen behind my back while I had vainly looked for a ladder that wasn’t there. Professor Richards was still seated in his chair, as if he’d never left it, and it creaked again lightly now as he once more leaned forward over his desk. It was not to study his papers, I saw to my surprise, but rather to read the book of Egyptology, the very one that had been sitting on the shelf moments before. I thought perhaps it was simply a twin of the volume, maybe one that Richards had stored in a desk drawer and removed unheard, but a quick glance upward revealed that the book that was once there, was no longer.

I tried to form the words, to ask the professor how he had done it, but as I was even drawing the breath to speak, Richards turned away from his studies only long enough for a terse “That will be all.” I found my need to question wither away, replaced by a relief at having reason to depart.

Middle Earth is coming to America’s diner

Tuesday, October 23rd, 2012

Middle Earth is coming to America’s diner. That is, Denny’s is launching a Hobbit tie-in menu:

Menu items include 11 breakfast, lunch and dinner items such as “Hobbit Hole Breakfast,” “Frodo’s Pot Roast Skillet,” “Gandalf’s Gobble Melt” and the “Build Your Own Hobbit Slam,” which includes limited-time items such as “Shire Sausage.”

I assume they serve elevenses all day.

Much Ada About Nothing

Tuesday, October 23rd, 2012

Celebrating Ada Lovelace Day last week was much Ada about nothing. Julian Sanchez says:

I love the idea behind Ada Lovelace Day: Celebrating the neglected contributions of women in science and technology in order to encourage young women to pursue careers in stereotypically male fields where, all too often, a “boys club” environment continues to reign. But I really wish this effort could pick a better mascot than Ada Lovelace, a figure of no real importance to the history of computing, whose fame rests largely on her one and only paper, which regurgitated and popularized the ideas of a man.

Lovelace is frequently hailed as the “first computer programmer,” which is true in approximately the same sense that William Shatner is the “first starship captain.” That is: Lovelace published an algorithm written for her by Charles Babbage, which could have computed a sequence of Bernoulli numbers on Babbage’s never-constructed Analytic Engine. The original ideas in the paper are Babbage’s, and the paper — a translation from French of an Italian mathematician’s lecture on the Engine, followed by a much lengthier series of explanatory notes — was written with his close collaboration.

How to Reboot the US Government

Monday, October 22nd, 2012

Mencius Moldbug gives a rather rambling talk on how to reboot the US government: