Twittering Teabagger

The first and probably only arrest due to a combination of teabagging and twittering.

by the way

Happy Maiden Day everyone.

Movie Time

A few new movies I am anxious for:

Caprica, a direct to DVD prequel to Battlestar Galactica. I was just released and now at the top of my DVD queue. Basically the pilot for an upcoming series for SciFi channel (I think Syfy is rediculous).

Ridley Scott and Leonardo DiCaprio for Brave New World. Appears to be on the shelf for another year or two, but it could have potential. There's been some lackluster classic scifi adaptations before but if anyone could redeem the theme it would probably be those two.

unreality TV

One of my pet peeves is movies and tv shows that try to be all scientific but do a poor job of it. One of the worst offenders, in my opinion, is the movie Signs.

(spoiler alert)

So after a long struggle to find the aliens weakness, at the end of the movie they discover the aliens can be defeated with plain old water. Very dramatic and exciting as they spray water at them all and they die from it. What is wrong with this picture? I'll tell you. The aliens are out and about roaming the earth throughout most of the movie without protective gear. As you may or may not know, the air you breathe contains water vapor. It's called humidity. Would the aliens really be done in by water, then wouldn't the water vapor in the air kill them too? Or condensation? Or just a human touch would harm them from the sweat on your skin. It does not make sense, so you must acquit.

The reason I bring this up is because there was some logical inconsistencies last night on 'Chuck', which I usually enjoy watching. Not to be mistaken, the episode was still pretty good, but it just had a few issues that a minimum of thought should have led the writers to think twice about making it seem more plausible.

One of the 'good guys' was being held in the 'bad guys' underground bomb shelter. The general on the 'good' side decided to call in an F-16 airstrike. The main characters then were in a race against time to save their friend before the airstrike killed them all.

After sneaking in and getting to their hostage friend, the bombs started falling. I know it is TV, but the explosions from an F-16 airstrike that were supposed to take out an underground bunker were barely bigger than a hand grenade with a little more smoke and fire and sparks. Not the type of thing you would imagine would destroy an underground bomb shelter constructed as a secret fortress by the resourceful bad guys. How these puny explosions were supposed to take out an underground bomb shelter is hard to imagine. Aren't bomb shelters designed to withstand bombings? Especially bombings that look like they wouldn't leave craters more than a few inches deep.

To make matters worse, when the bombs start falling, the heroes proceed to flee the bomb shelter and make a mad dash for their mid-size sedan and drive away. Somehow they weave their way through the falling mini-bombs and get the the car and escape. I would think, if you are in an underground bomb shelter when bombs start falling, you would stay in it not run out into the open. Call me old fashioned, but a bomb shelter just seems like it would be the safest place to be when bombs are falling. Especially puny little ones. Somehow the F-16 squadron "missed" them as they ran away.

sob stories from the new entitlement program

Maybe I am not empathetic enough, but none of these 3 stories I read makes me feel the slightest bit concerned. I just wanted to laugh at all of them. Maybe slap them upside the face and say hey welcome to the world the rest of us live in where you can't spend millions a year if you are not gainfully employed. Where being successful is something that happens when you are good at something and use those skills to do something that makes money for your employer. A world where a fancy house comes after you work hard and save money, not before just because you deserve it.

The first one to catch my eye was from Ben Stein. Supposedly it is in praise of imparting honest values and self-sufficiency to his child. It reads more like a lament about how tough it can be to have to worry about money when you are making none. Not that that should be an excuse to live a lifestyle that is less than luxurious. That just isn't for Ben Stein and the people he knows. they deserve to enjoy the finer things in life. Just because his friends or child may not actually make any money per se, that should not stop them from spending it like they do should it?

Then there is this one from the NYT, which came on the heels of Obama floating the idea of limiting executive pay at bailed out banks to a paltry half million a year. Which really is not enough to live on in New York. As the article asks, can you really expect a successful bank executive to take public transport? Could they really maintain the confident cocksure air that is expected of someone in such a lofty position if they had to ride with the plebes on the train? The writer of the article thinks not. After the mortgage and co-op fees, nannies, private schools, cheuffers, private security, charity galas and the associated fancy clothing, personal trainers, Brooks Brothers suits, $250 an hour tutors, and, of course, the frozen hot chocolates, that half a mil is all but gone. These extremely successful people need to keep up a certain lifestyle to fit in and it would be just so inconvinient and embarrasing to have to give any of that up. These people are successful and deserve the things that go along with that success, even if Uncle Sam and the taxpayer have to help out a bit to get them through a rough spot for a while.

Lastly, there is the resignation letter from Jake DeSantis here, he wrote an open letter to AIG informing them of his decision to quit. He is just so upset about the mean things people have said about the bonus payment AIG made to him and some others that he has to get out. Even though he deserves the 3/4 million bonus he was promised he would receive after working for a year at a $1 annual salary, he has decided to give it away since he saved a lot during the few previous years and has enough that he doesn't need it that bad. I am not sure in what way he thinks he worked for a $1 annual salary, when the whole time he was promised by contract the $3/4 million payment. It sounds more like you are working for 3/4 of a million salary to be delivered as a deferred payment, what is the logical reasoning that makes you think this situation can be classified as working for $1 a year?

He does make a good point when he makes the analogy:None of us should be cheated of our payments any more than a plumber should be cheated after he has fixed the pipes but a careless electrician causes a fire that burns down the house.

The only thing I would change up is to have the plumber receive giant kickbacks on every house for a few years for looking the other way on the electricians shoddy work which is what caused the house to burn down. Then, the plumber gets paid $742,000 to sort through the way all those houses burned down and help supervise their reconstruction all paid for by the federal government.

I find it extremely hard to believe that someone as high up in the AIG organization as he was, "head of business development for commodities," would not be aware of the financial shenanigans going on there. Iin that way his cries of innocence ring hollow.

A common thread in these and many other writings about the financial crisis and the compensation in the financial industry, is the sense of entitlement. We achieved the American Dream™! We worked hard and went to good schools and therefore deserve to make gobs of money and live a certain lifestyle. I can't really speak for each individuals specific merits, but hte unmistakable theme comes through that for whatever reason some have given themselves, they are entitled to a certain lifestyle, and even if they may not actually be successful in business or the business they work for is not successful, since they worked hard or came from a priveledged background, they deserve to get paid lots of money.

One lesson I see in the whole crisis is that the oft heard term 'too big to fail,' is too big. If any business makes bad decisions and takes actions that cause it to fail, it should fail.

While I am ranting, executives that fail should not get paid as if they are great, no matter how smart they are and what school they went to. If you drag a company down and get canned how is it sensible to give them a huge payment on the way out, the golden parachute?

Maybe some of the people like the resignation letter guy should be less upset about the furor over their lavish payments and more upset about the fraudulent money grab that permeated their industry and which now the taxpayer is being forced to subsidize. The common folk who lost almost half of their meager savings are supposed to feel pity for people like him who, if they are as intelligent as they think they are, must have been aware of the fraud going on, and directly or indirectly benefited from it and want to continue doing so when the fed is giving them a lifeline.

as grass roots as american idol

Maybe you have heard about the tea parties planned for tomorrow. Promoted as a grass-roots uprising (oxymoron anyone?) it appears they are the brainchild of two DC lobbying groups run by conservative heavyweights Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey, oh and FOX News. How are rallies planned and promoted by a huge TV network and DC lobbying groups, with pre-coverage more ubiquitous than octo-mom possibly considered grass-roots? I guess if the teevee says it enough it must be so.

Jesus died for your sins, Peter Green did too much acid for your listening pleasure

Take a look at this one too

Paper and corporate welfare

From a transportation bill meant to reduce the use of fossil fuels, paper companies have perverted its intent to obtain windfall payments from the government. The bill appropriated payments for using mixtures of fossil fuels and non-fossil fuels. Ostensibly intended to encourage users of fossil fuels to mix in various other fuel types, some paper companies have done the opposite. Traditionally they used a by-product of their process as fuel to make paper, they have now added some diesel to the mix to qualify for the 'mixed fuels' incentive. THe funniest part from this article is when a paper company spokesperson was asked about the ethical nature of this, their response was "It is what it is"