The latest episode of South Park, Margaritaville, points out the uncanny resemblance between macroeconomics and religion.
Macroeconomics as Religion
Friday, March 27th, 2009The Highs and Lows of the Great Zucchini
Friday, March 20th, 2009Gene Weingarten tells the fascinating tale of the highs and lows of the Great Zucchini, the most popular and successful children’s entertainer in the DC area — who shows up disheveled, with no costume and a few beat-up old props, but who leaves the toddlers literally convulsing with laughter:
The show lasted 35 minutes, and when it was over, an initially skeptical Don Cox forked over a check without complaint. The fee was $300. It was the first of four shows the Great Zucchini would do that Saturday, each at the same price. The following day, there were four more. This was a typical weekend.Do the math, if you can handle the results. This unmarried, 35-year-old community college dropout makes more than $100,000 a year, with a two-day workweek. Not bad for a complete idiot.
The Great Zucchini has mastered a brand of humor squarely aimed at toddlers:
Even before they respond to a tickle, most babies will laugh at peekaboo. It’s their first “joke.” They are reacting to a sequence of events that begins with the presence of a familiar, comforting face. Then, suddenly, the face disappears, and you can read in the baby’s expression momentary puzzlement and alarm. When the face suddenly reappears, everything is orderly in the baby’s world again. Anxiety is banished, and the baby reacts with her very first laugh.At its heart, laughter is a tool to triumph over fear. As we grow older, our senses of humor become more demanding and refined, but that basic, hard-wired reflex remains. We need it, because life is scary. Nature is heartless, people can be cruel, and death and suffering are inevitable and arbitrary. We learn to tame our terror by laughing at the absurdity of it all.
This point has been made by experts ranging from Richard Pryor to doctoral candidates writing tedious theses on the ontol-ogical basis of humor. Any joke, any amusing observation, can be deconstructed to fit. The seemingly benign Henny Youngman one-liner, “Take my wife… please!” relies in its heart on an understanding that love can become a straitjacket. By laughing at that recognition, you are rising above it, and blunting its power to disturb.
After the peekaboo age, but before the age of such sophisticated understanding, dwells the preschooler. His sense of humor is more than infantile but less than truly perceptive. He comprehends irony but not sarcasm. He lacks knowledge but not feeling. The central fact of his world — and the central terror to be overcome — is his own powerlessness. This is where the Great Zucchini works his magic.
The Great Zucchini actually does magic tricks, but they are mostly dime-store novelty gags — false thumbs to hide a handkerchief, magic dust that turns water to gel — accompanied by sleight of hand so primitive your average 8-year-old would suss it out in an instant. That’s one reason he has fashioned himself a specialist in ages 2 to 6. He behaves like no adult in these preschoolers’ world, making himself the dimwitted victim of every gag. He thinks a banana is a telephone, and answers it. He can’t find the birthday boy when the birthday boy is standing right behind him. Every kid in the room is smarter than the Great Zucchini; he gives them that power over their anxieties.
Clearly the Great Zucchini has a talent:
“In the beginning, I had almost no clients,” he said, “and I would sit at a table like this in a place like this, and if a mom would be walking by with her 3-year-old, I would pretend to be talking on my cell phone. I’d say, ‘Yeah, I do children’s parties geared for 3-year-olds!’ And a lot of times, the mom would stop, and say… ‘You do children’s parties?’”When he first started, he found out what other birthday party entertainers were charging — roughly $150 per show — and upped it by $25. That worked; it seemed to give him agency. After a while, his weekends were so crammed with parties — seven or eight, every weekend — he felt overwhelmed. So, applying fundamental principles of economics, he decided to thin his business but not his profits by raising his prices precipitously — from $175 to $300. It turns out that the fundamental principles of economics are no match for the fundamental desperation of suburban parents. He still was doing seven or eight shows a weekend.
Weekdays, he mostly haunts places like this, drinking coffee and tending to his cell phone. It rings a lot. It’s ringing right now.
“Hello. Yes. Okay, sure, what date are you looking at?”
He flips open the tattered appointment book that is always with him. He’s got dates penciled in as far into the future as October.
So, he clears six figures, working two days a week, and his clients come to him from word of mouth; he doesn’t even have to work to sell his services.
On the down side, he turns out to be a compulsive gambler who can’t hold onto any of that easy money. He understands toddlers, because he really is on their level.
Pride and Prejudice and Zombies
Friday, March 20th, 2009
You got your Regency romance in my zombie apocalypse!
You got your zombie apocalypse in my Regency romance!
It’s two great tastes in one — Pride and Prejudice and Zombies:
Pride and Prejudice and Zombies features the original text of Jane Austen’s beloved novel with all-new scenes of bone-crunching zombie action. As our story opens, a mysterious plague has fallen upon the quiet English village of Meryton — and the dead are returning to life! Feisty heroine Elizabeth Bennet is determined to wipe out the zombie menace, but she’s soon distracted by the arrival of the haughty and arrogant Mr. Darcy. What ensues is a delightful comedy of manners with plenty of civilized sparring between the two young lovers — and even more violent sparring on the blood-soaked battlefield as Elizabeth wages war against hordes of flesh-eating undead. Complete with 20 illustrations in the style of C. E. Brock (the original illustrator of Pride and Prejudice), this insanely funny expanded edition will introduce Jane Austen’s classic novel to new legions of fans.Jane Austen is the author of Sense and Sensibility, Persuasion, Mansfield Park, and other masterpieces of English literature.
Seth Grahame-Smith is the author of How to Survive a Horror Movie and The Big Book of Porn. He lives in Los Angeles.
(Hat tip to a horrified Yana.)
God Exists, and He’s Mormon
Tuesday, March 17th, 2009
The Mormon-Galactica connection is well established — and intentional. The Mormon-Watchmen connection? Not so much:
Creation: According to Hopkins, the Mormon God is a creator in the same sense that I am the creator of this article or that Van Gogh is the creator of Starry Night. God may be an organizer, a planner, an architect, a genius, but he does not create things from nothing (“ex nihilo”). Likewise, Dr. Manhattan can manipulate matter on a grand scale, but he is only reorganizing what is already there.Omniscience: Hopkins argues that there is “a vast difference between classical theism and Mormonism on the subject of how God knows the future” because “classical theism views God…as being outside of time and space. From this vantage, he can supposedly see any point in time he chooses.” Dr. Manhattan shares this in common with the God of Mormonism: Even though he can perceive time more fully than most humans, he is part of time. Manhattan calls himself a puppet who can see the strings, but he is much more than that.
Omnipresence: The Mormon God is not subject to the same limits that humans are but he is not everywhere at once. That’s also a pretty good description of Dr. Manhattan.
Change: Hopkins calls the idea held by “classical theists” that God is unchanging “demonstrably unbiblical” and definitely un-Mormon. Mormonism posits an ever-evolving God, not at all unlike Dr. Manhattan.
Corporeality: With the exception of the Incarnation, traditional Christianity insists that God is “spirit” only. Mormonism disagrees. Hopkins insists that if man is made in the image of God, then God must have a corporeal form. So far as I can tell, there’s nothing in the book of Mormon about God having blue skin and a symbol of hydrogen burned onto his forehead, but you never know.
Ricky Gervais and Elmo
Thursday, March 12th, 2009Ricky Gervais and Elmo play off each other remarkably well, as these outtakes demonstrate:
Going to the Movies has Become a Political Act
Thursday, March 12th, 2009
Shannon Love read and enjoyed Watchmen back in college — when he was “still a lefty” — and he enjoyed the visual style of the new film, but he has to conclude that going to the movies has become a political act:
Most of what I did not like about the movie, came from places where the movie needlessly diverted from the book. Nixon in the movie is a bloodthirsty buffoon. In the book, he’s Nixon but he lashes back at G. Gorden Liddy for suggesting a first strike, and we last see him sitting under Cheyenne mountain with his hands on the “football” with the nuclear launch codes, clearly dreading he might have to use them. In the movie, he plans a preemptive strike at a specific hour which sets the clock the heroes must race against.[Minor spoiler] The other deviation clearly results from the desire of the writers and directors to gratuitously inject present day leftist tropes into the movie for no other reason than political propaganda. In the movie, Ozymandias/Adrian Veidt confronts a group of stereotypical corporate executives (all older white males in business suits) who complain that Veidt’s new energy technology will give away energy for free and thereby disrupt their corporate empires. Veidt castigates them and tells them that he intends to break the world’s “addiction” to oil. Of course, that scene doesn’t occur in the book. Nobody used such a silly metaphor (do we talk about people being addicted to oxygen?) at a time when the energy crisis had just ended.
More tellingly, in the book, there were no more internal combustion cars! In one the most iconic scenes in both the book and the movie, Dan Dreiberg leaves the home of the original Nite Owl, Hollis Mason and passes by a sign that says “Obsolete Models a Specialty”. Hollis Mason lives above the auto mechanic shop he used to run and the sign is the sign for his shop. In a later flashback, we see Mason at his retirement party in the early sixties. He tells the super-superhero Dr. Manhattan, that he plans to retire and fix cars, because cars are more simple than people. Dr. Manhattan tells him that cars will be even more simple soon because he is using his power to synthesize elements to create vast amounts of cheap lithium which will make electric cars practical. By the time of the book’s present-day, 1985, no one drives internal-combustion engine cars except antique collectors. In the book, the sign refers to the obsolete internal combustion engines. The sign symbolized that Hollis had been rendered obsolete not only due to the rise of the super-powered heroes who made his mere mortal fisticuffs seem ridiculous, but also by the concomitant shift in technology that made his skills as a mechanic useless.
Hollis is the everyman of the story. When superheroes render him obsolete as both a hero and a mechanic, it shows how they render all other ordinary humans obsolete.
In the movie, no major plot element required the oil “addiction” rant. At best, the writers make a minimal one-line attempt to imply that Veidt is hiding his grander scheme behind an alternative-energy project. So, having Veidt rant about the “addiction” to oil was just a clumsy injection of leftist politics that required tossing out one of the most powerful images of the original book! I winced when I saw this gratuitous and vainglorious mutilation of the original. I knew that Alan Moore was a big lefty, and I expected that the movie would contain the leftist tilt of the book, but I got really disgusted at the gratuitous deviations. They did it for no other reason than the commandment of post-modernist morality to exploit any and all personal power for political ends. They had a captive audience and that created an obligation to engage in a little bit of indoctrination.
I really resented paying someone to rant hysterically at me about technological matters which they clearly don’t understand. I find myself growing more and more resentful of the way that leftist intellectuals use their power over our culture’s stories to glorify themselves and their ideas while smearing everyone else.
Shakespeare Scholar Identifies True Portrait of the Bard
Monday, March 9th, 2009
For years we have all known what Shakespeare looked like, because a copy of Martin Droeshout’s engraving of him appeared in just about every copy of the bard’s works — but that engraving was from seven years after Shakespeare’s death, when his First Folio was published.
Now a Shakespeare scholar has identified the original portrait on which the engraving was based:
The painting has languished for centuries outside Dublin at Newbridge House, home base of the Cobbe family, where until recently no one suspected it might be a portrait of the Bard. Three years ago, Alec Cobbe, who had inherited much of the collection in the 1980s and placed it in trust, found himself at an exhibition at the National Portrait Gallery in London called “Searching for Shakespeare.” There he saw a painting from the Folger Shakespeare Library in Washington, D.C., that had been accepted until the late 1930s as a portrait of Shakespeare from life. Looking at it, Cobbe felt certain the Folger painting was a copy of the one in his family’s collection. He asked Wells, an old friend, for his help in authenticating it.

The two men arranged to have the Cobbe painting subjected to a battery of scientific tests — tree-ring-dating to determine the age of the wood panel, X-ray examination at the Hamilton-Kerr Institute at Cambridge University and infrared reflectography. The tests produced convincing evidence that the panel dated from around 1610 and was the source for the Folger painting, among others. Wells is now sure of it. “I don’t think anyone who sees [the Cobbe painting] would doubt this is the original,” he says. “It’s a much livelier painting, a much more alert face, a more intelligent and sympathetic face.”It also matters that the Cobbe painting seems to have been copied more than once. (Wells believes the famous Droeshout engraving was made from one of these copies and not the Cobbe original.) In addition to the Folger, there appear to be three other versions, all from the 17th century. “It suggests that this is someone who was famous enough that there was a demand for copies,” says Wells. “We have a fascinating reference in a play from 1603 in which there is the character of a young man who was obviously a fan of Shakespeare. He quotes bits of Romeo and Juliet and is rather foolish. And he says the line: ‘Sweet master Shakespeare, I have his picture in my study at the court.’ That also shows that there was likely to be a demand for his portrait.”
Saturday Morning Watchmen
Friday, March 6th, 2009Watchmen too dark for your kids to enjoy? Then show them Watchmen as a Saturday-morning cartoon:
Why TV Lost
Wednesday, March 4th, 2009Paul Graham explains why TV lost:
About twenty years ago people noticed computers and TV were on a collision course and started to speculate about what they’d produce when they converged. We now know the answer: computers. It’s clear now that even by using the word “convergence” we were giving TV too much credit. This won’t be convergence so much as replacement. People may still watch things they call “TV shows,” but they’ll watch them mostly on computers.What decided the contest for computers? Four forces, three of which one could have predicted, and one that would have been harder to.
One predictable cause of victory is that the Internet is an open platform. Anyone can build whatever they want on it, and the market picks the winners. So innovation happens at hacker speeds instead of big company speeds.
The second is Moore’s Law, which has worked its usual magic on Internet bandwidth. [1]
The third reason computers won is piracy. Users prefer it not just because it’s free, but because it’s more convenient. Bittorrent and YouTube have already trained a new generation of viewers that the place to watch shows is on a computer screen. [2]
The somewhat more surprising force was one specific type of innovation: social applications. The average teenage kid has a pretty much infinite capacity for talking to their friends. But they can’t physically be with them all the time. When I was in high school the solution was the telephone. Now it’s social networks, multiplayer games, and various messaging applications. The way you reach them all is through a computer. [3] Which means every teenage kid (a) wants a computer with an Internet connection, (b) has an incentive to figure out how to use it, and (c) spends countless hours in front of it.
This was the most powerful force of all. This was what made everyone want computers. Nerds got computers because they liked them. Then gamers got them to play games on. But it was connecting to other people that got everyone else: that’s what made even grandmas and 14 year old girls want computers.
After decades of running an IV drip right into their audience, people in the entertainment business had understandably come to think of them as rather passive. They thought they’d be able to dictate the way shows reached audiences. But they underestimated the force of their desire to connect with one another.
Facebook killed TV. That is wildly oversimplified, of course, but probably as close to the truth as you can get in three words.
The barometer of a society’s virtue
Monday, March 2nd, 2009Watch money, Francisco d’Anconia warns, because money is the barometer of a society’s virtue:
When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion — when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors — when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you — when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice — you may know that your society is doomed. Money is so noble a medium that is does not compete with guns and it does not make terms with brutality. It will not permit a country to survive as half-property, half-loot.
[...]
When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, ‘Who is destroying the world? You are.
That is Francisco d’Anconia of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, which is a bit of a countercyclical asset:
Sales of Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” have almost tripled over the first seven weeks of this year compared with sales for the same period in 2008. This continues a strong trend after bookstore sales reached an all-time annual high in 2008 of about 200,000 copies sold.“Americans are flocking to buy and read ‘Atlas Shrugged’ because there are uncanny similarities between the plot-line of the book and the events of our day” said Yaron Brook, Executive Director at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. “Americans are rightfully concerned about the economic crisis and government’s increasing intervention and attempts to control the economy. Ayn Rand understood and identified the deeper causes of the crisis we’re facing, and she offered, in ‘Atlas Shrugged,’ a principled and practical solution consistent with American values.”
Legendary Comics Writer Alan Moore is a Bitter, Old Hippy
Sunday, March 1st, 2009
Legendary comics writer Alan Moore is a bitter, old hippy:
But, like I say, it was the 1960s. Most of the comic fans I met at the time were 14- or 15-year-old proto-hippies, as was I. They were very interested in the progressive spirit of the time.So, those were the agendas that we were following then. We thought it would be a great idea if comics could be recognized as the wonderful medium that we secretly knew them to be. And when I say “we,” I’m talking about the 50 actual people who turned up at those early conventions, which was pretty much the sum total of everybody in this country [England] who’d ever heard of American comics. But back then our agenda was this progressive notion that, wouldn’t it be terrific if people were to get involved with comics who could make them more adult, more grown up, to show the kind of themes they were capable of handling? So this was the agenda that, 20 years later, I was still following toward the end of my first DC run.
At the time I thought that a book like Watchmen would perhaps unlock a lot of potential creativity, that perhaps other writers and artists in the industry would see it and would think, “This is great, this shows what comics can do. We can now take our own ideas and thanks to the success of Watchmen we’ll have a better chance of editors giving us a shot at them.” I was hoping naively for a great rash of individual comic books that were exploring different storytelling ideas and trying to break new ground.
That isn’t really what happened. Instead it seemed that the existence of Watchmen had pretty much doomed the mainstream comic industry to about 20 years of very grim and often pretentious stories that seemed to be unable to get around the massive psychological stumbling block that Watchmen had turned out to be, although that had never been my intention with the work.
Watchmen as Sacred Text
Friday, February 27th, 2009
Comic geeks consider Watchmen a sacred text:
John Hodgman
Author, More Information Than You Require
“The movie can be good as long as it appreciates that it has no reason to exist. And yet I think Watchmen deserves an homage, and I’m hopeful because Zack Snyder is making it.”Joss Whedon
Creator, Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Dollhouse
“It’s a comic book about pop culture as viewed through a comic book, so I didn’t see the point of making a movie. But I saw the trailer, and it looked phenomenal.”Brian K. Vaughan
Creator, Y: The Last Man; Writer, Lost
“I’ll go see it if it doesn’t feel like a betrayal of what Alan Moore wants. But it’s like making a stage play of Citizen Kane. I guess it could be OK, but why? The medium is the message.”
Mermaid dream comes true thanks to Weta
Thursday, February 26th, 2009
Double-amputee Nadya Vessey’s mermaid dream has come true thanks to Weta, the special-effects shop famous for its work on The Lord of the Rings:
The suit was made mostly of wetsuit fabric and plastic moulds, and was covered in a digitally printed sock. Mermaid-like scales were painted by hand.Mr Taylor said not only did the tail have to be functional, it was important it looked realistic. “What became apparent was that she actually physically wanted to look like a mermaid.”
Everything is so amazing and nobody is happy
Wednesday, February 25th, 2009Everything is so amazing and nobody is happy, Louis C.K. says:
The Perfect Enemy
Wednesday, February 25th, 2009Suppose you were a screenwriter, David Foster suggests, writing a movie for a progressive American and European audience, and you needed the perfect enemy for them to rally against:
Oh, and one other thing. The year in which you are given this assignment is 1999.
You will clearly want your enemy to share many of the characteristics of the Nazis — disrespect for human life, wanton cruelty, a love of apocalyptic violence. But to make the enemy particularly awful from the standpoint of your target demographic, you will want to emphasize certain aspects of its belief system.
Members of your demographic usually have strong beliefs about women’s rights. So, your enemy must have a particularly disrespectful belief set, and a violent behavior pattern, towards women. Similarly, your demographic is generally favorable toward gay rights… so the enemy must advocate and practice the suppression, torture, and killing of gays. Your demographic is generally nonreligious and often hostile toward religion… so, make sure the enemy includes a large element of religious fanaticism. Members of your demographic talk a lot about “the children” — so make sure your enemy uses children in particularly cruel ways.
Had you created such an enemy for your screenplay in 1999, you would have surely felt justified in assuming that it would achieve its intended reaction with your target demographic.
It didn’t work out that way, though.
The enemy I’ve described is, of course, the one that we currently face in the form of radical Islamic terrorists and their associated rogue states such as Iran. In real life, not in the movies.
But the members of the demographic I specified have been strangely reluctant to engage in wholehearted condemnation of this enemy (observe, for example, the endless excuse-making, for and even glamorization of, Palestinian terrorism), and even more reluctant to join with their fellow Americans for its defeat. Indeed, it seems that many journalists, entertainers, writers, and college professors have such strong feelings of fear and/or contempt for the majority of their fellow Americans that these greatly overshadow any concerns about terrorist fanatics and terrorist states with nuclear weapons.
I was not expecting him to then cite science-fiction grand-master Poul Anderson:
In Poul Anderson’s 1972 SF story “A Chapter of Revelation,” God stops the movement of the sun across the sky. (Technically, He does this by slowing earth’s rotation period to a value identical with Earth’s year.) The reason for the miracle is to demonstrate His existence to the world, thereby encouraging people to prevent the nuclear war which is about to occur.
Anderson describes the initial reaction to the miracle:
The pilgrimages by torch to the Ganges, by candlelight to the Western Wall and the Mosque of Omar, by furnace-like sunlight to Our Lady of Guadalupe, were not frantic in any true sense of that word. They were awesome: men, women, children by the millions flowing together and becoming a natural force.
A theology student, in conversation with a scientist, offers the view that “…today we’re so far gone into spiritual savagery that nothing except the most primitive, public sort of demonstration could touch us”… to which the scientist replies “As if we’d flunked quantum mechanics and been sent back to roll balls down inclined planes?”
Very soon, people begin to use the miracle to justify whatever belief systems they already hold. A Russian scientist (remember, this was written in 1972) suggests that “The requirement of minimum hypothesis practically forces us to assume that what happened resulted from the application of a technology centuries beyond ours. I find it easy to believe that an advanced civilization, capable of interstellar travel, sent a team to save mankind from the carnage threatened by an imperialism which that society outgrew long ago.”
The Chairman of the Chinese Communist Party suggests that it was all about the intersection of Marxism and ESP: “The mind of man may have tremendous abilities, once liberated from the blinkers of the past. More than a third of the contemporary human race is guided by Marxism; more than half this number has for more than a generation been under the tutelage of wholly correct principles. Thus, the massed concentration of the peace-loving peoples may well have triggered cosmic energies to produce those events which have halted the imperialists in their bloody track and thrown them wallowing back into the basest superstitions.”
In the U.S., extreme right-wing evangelists use the miracle to prove that their vision is the correct one. Radical Black Power advocates do the same: “‘What He really stopped was this rich man’s war that was getting started when the bombs of white Amerika’…he formed the K with his fingers, a gesture that had become his trademark — ’struck our Chinese brothers. The rich man’s war on the poor, the white man’s war on the black, the brown, the yellow, the red.’”
Moralists assert that the miracle was a warning about moral degeneration: “Satan’s agents continue to gnaw like rats at the heart of faith, morality, and society. These atheists, evolutionists, free-love swine, boozers, tobacco smokers, dope fiends still try to hide from us the plain truth of God’s word as revealed in the Holy Bible.” The Joint Chiefs of Staff propose a preemptive attack on China — ”I keep thinking of Jehovah the Thunderer,” says their spokesman, “ — the Crusades — Don John at Lepanto, saving Christendom with sword and cannon..”
Basically, just about everyone responds to the miracle by reinforcing whatever belief systems they already had, and the world slides into further chaos, with riots, coups d’etat, and cross-border military attacks. The story is a beautiful description of confirmation bias on a very large scale.
The attacks on 9/11 were a “primitive, public” demonstration like the stopping of sun in Anderson’s story, albeit a demonstration which was intentionally brutal rather than benign. But even with an enemy that seems custom-designed to be appalling to “progressives,” and with the most primitive and public demonstration imaginable, confirmation bias has, for many proved far stronger than evidence.
