atomic_fungus (atomic_fungus) wrote,
atomic_fungus
atomic_fungus

#996: Okay, NOW it's a national crisis.

On one of the opinion pages of the Chicago Sun-Times there's an op-ed piece from Salon which discusses the impending DEPRESSION!!! which is unavoidable unless we elect Barak Hussein Obama in November.

(I assume, anyway. I didn't really read it; I was reheating some goulash for breakfast and just flipped through the paper while waiting for the microwave to finish.)

The thing which caught my eye--the phrase which led to today's post title--is this lovely bit of slug text:

"Real estate values are plummeting in the Hamptons."

I think I know what the guy is trying to say. He's trying to indicate how dire the mortgage crisis is by indicating that even rich people are being effected by the bursting bubble. I think his theory is that, in the Great Depression, rich people got hit first.

But that ignores an important fact: only some rich people took it up the exhaust pipe in the Great Depression--the ones who were overextended, the ones who didn't get out before that bubble burst.

Stocks went down across the board but the smart rich people, who owned more stock than paper (ie didn't trade much on margin), were very nicely positioned to buy the dirt-cheap stuff, take a loss on the stocks from companies which failed, and make it all up when the market recovered and their remaining stocks appreciated.

The Great Depression started, in part, because of the bursting of a bubble in the stock market value; and like that, the bursting real estate bubble is causing some people--who are badly positioned--to lose their shirts. And those people have to sell stuff, and some of them live in the Hamptons.

The fact that "real estate values are plummeting in the Hamptons" doesn't mean we're all screwed. It's just doom and gloom from the usual suspects.

I'm much more worried about what the ethanol subsidy is doing--and is going to do--to both food and energy prices over the next 18 months, to be honest. The US government is paying certain people to burn food, which is never a good idea. By itself it wouldn't be so much of an issue, but couple it with the housing meltdown and I think we'll have a serious problem on our hands.

And what is the writer's suggestion?

1) Stop coddling the rich. Tax the fuckers.
2) Enhance social spending--bolster the "safety net".
3) Clamp down hard on Wall Street.

...in other words, typical liberal "solutions" that will end up doing a lot more harm than good. As I said, generally speaking, "B. Hussein Obama FTW".

* * *

Bwaa ha ha ha ha ha!

* * *

Democrats are unhappy with the idea of Republicans using a time-honored Democrat primary tactic. Of course they are. It's only fair for Democrats to do it. If liberalism were analyzed the way sports are....

"Do no evil" is relative. The only way you can make Google not do something it wants to do is to sue it. Asking nicely? Screw that, it would cost too much for Google to accede to "nice" requests.

Corn hits $6 per bushel. Because of increased demand for corn, we're using it up faster than we can grow it. Corn is food! Stop burning food!

Global temperatures have been steady since 1998.

Check me on this:

1) Global warming is caused by man-made carbon dioxide.
2) Global temperature has not risen in a decade.
3) Man-made carbon dioxide has continued to increase.

...am I missing something? We're told that we have to limit our carbon emissions to save the planet from runaway global warming, yet while China has been vying to displace the US as the world's greatest producer of carbon dioxide, the temperature of the planet has remained stable.

Why--if the correlation between man-made carbon dioxide and global warming is so freaking strong--would the temperature increase stall for a decade when serious cuts in emissions have not even begun to be made?

If someone says, "Well, there are mechanisms we don't understand," and then adds that "global warming is definitely taking place," why the hell don't people make the logical deduction that these people don't know what the fuck they're talking about?

There's not anything wrong with not knowing, except that these people don't admit that they don't know! They pronounce that man-made global warming is real, it is happening, and we must cripple our economies in order to prevent it--and then when you ask them how they know, they start with the handwaving, the smoke, and the mirrors.

*sigh*

* * *

Saw the season premiere--the final season!--of Battlestar Galactica last night. This morning I had a refrigerator moment. Avoid this section if you don't want to see spoilers.

Saul Tigh can't be one.

Well, no--he can, I suppose. But I fail to see how they can get away with it. Check me on this:

1) Adama knew Tigh when they were young
2) Tigh and Adama fought together during the first war against the toasters
3) There were no "human-type" cylons during the 1st war; the bio version wasn't invented before the end of the war.
4) All the other bio-type cylons are young.

...well, except the type played by Dean Stockwell. But since we know nothing about "the original" one except what we see on screen, he could have been "emplaced" at any time without causing any trouble whatsoever. I'm talking about things whcih are all things we've seen "on-screen".

Saul Tigh's existence is confirmed by Will Adama--he knew him "'way back when"--and there's no way he could have been "inserted" into Colonial society unless the writers have some trick up their sleeves.

The "first seven" don't know who the "final five" are, except for the "Six" currently sitting in Galactica's brig.

I can only come to one conclusion: They did it while they had him in detention on New Caprica. Somehow. How, I don't know; and judging by what I've seen of the show, the bio-cylons we've seen don't have any input into the "big picture", so I have no idea how this could have come about and still remain within the canon as shown to the TV viewer.

Bear in mind, I have cultivated a "pure" experience with this show, the same as I've done with various other SF shows: I haven't gone looking for fan sites, I haven't looked at the "official web site", and I am considering only what I've seen in the actual TV show itself as broadcast to be "canon". I haven't even looked at the "web extras" or "deleted scenes" they advertised.

The tagline for next week's ep says, "ALL WILL BE REVEALED" but I don't believe that. I guess we'll see.

END SPOILERS

All this being the case, though, this is the first time I've had a serious "refrigerator moment" with this series. I know others have analyzed the thing to death and come up with all sorts of major plot holes--and that's fine for those who enjoy doing that sort of thing--but this is the first one I've really noticed, and that's actually bothered me enough to devote time thinking about.

For the most part I just figure, "It's TV; they can't do SF right. Babylon 5 was a fluke," and let it go at that, and that lets me enjoy the show.

...also on SF next week, The Sarah Jane Stories. A Doctor Who spinoff.

You know, some years ago, I saw a tape of K-9 And Friends at Suncoast Video and snatched it, and I watched part of it. I never did watch the entirety of the thing; I had other things to do and it kind of fell by the wayside, much the same way the incomplete Doctor Who episode "Shada" did. I have it, too, but only watched part of it. *sigh* I suppose I ought to dig 'em out and watch 'em, fan that I am. The funniest part of that was being able to recite the dialogue of the one part of the episode they used in "The Five Doctors"....

Anyway, I always thought that Sarah Jane Smith deserved her own show. I think she deserved it long ago, when she was much younger (and hotter) than she is now. In her last episode, "Eldrad", she was t3h hawt, and she's always been pretty high up on my list of "hot assistants".

Her inclusion in the 2005 season of DW was a pleasant, and welcome, surprise, even if it did make Rose's whiny bitch-ass boyfriend whine about being a "tin dog". I'm looking forward to seeing this new show.

...and new eps of DW start a week after that. BBC Network kept diddling around with the schedule, and kept showing the same freaking episodes over and over again, so I didn't even try to watch the show there. I knew SF would be showing it, and waited.

* * *

Romana: I do so love the spring. All the leaves--the colors.
Doctor: It's October.
Romana: (dryly) I thought you said we were coming here for "May Week".
Doctor: I did. But May Week's in June.
Romana: I'm confused.
Doctor: So was the TARDIS.

Heh.
Subscribe

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 0 comments