Jesus For President? I'd Rather Vote For Optimus Prime

Hilarious post. Some of my favorites are:

Pros and Cons of the Top 20 Democratic Presidential Candidates

7.

OPTIMUS PRIME

Pro: Size; power; ability to emit short-range optic blasts.

Con: Potential attack ad: "Sometimes Optimus Prime is a robot, other times a truck. Which is it, Mr. Prime? America deserves a leader that doesn't transform whenever it's convenient."

13.

BONO

Pro: Knowledgeable about global health issues; everyone seems to like him; Joshua Tree album.

Con: Too busy hugging everyone to actually execute the duties of office; no one likes the sound of "Vice President the Edge" or "Secretary of Health and Human Services Larry Mullen Jr."; the whole "Zoo TV" thing.

16.

JESUS CHRIST

Pro: Could draw some initial interest from the Christian right until they research his actual positions in a deeper way; likable; strong leadership qualities.

Con: Unkempt; pretty far left; messianic complex.

Just think how much we could cut out of our defense budget with Optimus Prime as President. No terrorists would even think about attacking us...

Jesus could help with environment problems...if he could change that whole water into wine thing to water into...clean water.

No comment on Bono.

We Should Have Launched A Pre-Emptive War On GDP

What is the biggest threat to our country, or maybe the entire world? Is it terrorism? No. Global warming? No (unless your a penguin). Venezuela and the reemergence of socialism (did it ever really leave?)? No.

Is it....GDP? YES! Especially if you live in the third world, and every development strategy that has been forced upon your poor country has been solely focused on the unceasing growth of this meaningless figure. When the majority of your economy is agrarian, barter-based, or completely informal, what does the value of all "final goods and services produced in a country within a certain time period" (in the words of Mankiw) matter? With no real relevance to quality of life, the fanatic pursuit of GDP growth has led to negative growth in many countries, while those who have succeeded in increasing their GDP see little of the newly created wealth distributed to those who need it the most (and who probably do most of the work). Instead of launching a preemptive war in Iraq, we should have launched a preemptive war on stupid social welfare measurements. It probably would have cost less then a trillion dollars, and it probably would have resulted in a lot more good (and a better political word image). breathe

What really got me going on this topic was reading a post about China and how their country has grown at a fantastic pace (using GDP measurements). What many China-fearers forget is that the majority of the country still lives in abject poverty and have seen no real improvements in quality of life in the last 20 years (unless toxic rivers and polluted air count as improvements).

Politicians Are Idiots

Probably one of the funniest posts that I've read in a while. Thanks to Tim Haab for saying things that I've wanted to say for a while in a much more articulate and entertaining way. There is really nothing else for me to say other than "go read it".

Forgive, Don't Forget

Roland Martin wrote a great article about Congressman Paul's comments about the Iraq War during this weeks GOP debate. Here are some excerpts:

"As Americans, we believe in forgiving and forgetting, and are terrible at understanding how history affects us today. We are arrogant in not recognizing that when we benefit, someone else may suffer. That will lead to resentment and anger, and if suppressed, will boil over one day"

"At some point we have to accept the reality that playing big brother to the world -- and yes, sometimes acting as a bully by wrongly asserting our military might -- means that Americans alive at the time may not feel the effects of our foreign policy, but their innocent children will"

Hmm...he might be on to something here. I never thought that our actions (murder, occupation, exploitation) could come back and actually work against us. Maybe they really don't "hate our freedom". Maybe they have a legitimate reason for being angry (though in no way justifying horrendous attacks on innocent people).

If you couldn't tell I'm being a bit sarcastic here.

Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one (not really, but I feel like I'm amongst the minority) who sees through all the fear-inducing rhetoric or flat out propaganda that ceaselessly dehumanizes Middle Eastern people. If anything, many Middle Easterners probably yearn for freedom more than Americans, since we have come to take our basic freedoms for granted. Don't forget that freedom (in a political sense) is different (but not necessarily better or worse) in different places. I would like to point out that the Koran has supported the right for women to vote since the inception, and many Middle Eastern countries have had women presidents or prime ministers. Now, I know they have many issues with womens rights and equality, but look how long it took the United States to allow women to vote, and we have not yet had a women president.

Is There Anything We Won't Patent?

It seems like everyone wants to stake a claim on anything that could possibly make them a dollar, and mankind has found a new industry where nobody has yet laid claim: yoga. Wait, isn't yoga an ancient spiritual practice, created and passed down through generations of Indians? How could any one person or corporation own yoga? To the most simple-minded person, this may seem impossible, but we live in a new world - a world where biotech companies scour the earth in search of pieces of DNA to claim and Monsanto is busy patenting the very source of the worlds food. Soon companies will own the very foundation of life, as well as the seeds to grow the food necessary to sustain those lives. Well as ridiculous as the idea of patenting DNA is, surely nobody could patent yoga. Yet, a recent NYT Op-ed shows that the law has once again defied logic, and thousands of patents for yoga and related products have been issued by the U.S. patent office.

My issue with this is where does it end? Are all rituals or traditions open for patents and copyrights. Could I patent a prayer? Or maybe the patent only designates certain techniques or physical actions, as would apply to specific yoga poses. Would that allow me to patent the "jumpshot" or maybe baseballs pitching motion? Should I receive royalties every time a pitcher throws a strike? No? Then why should researches have to pay to study the breast cancer gene or why should poor farmers pay for seeds that have been created naturally for thousands of years? Privatization and patent protection may have certain benefits, but a line must be drawn when the private ownership acts to the detriment of the public good.

Comparative Advantage

So I’ve been reading a lot lately on trade topics - especially fair trade. Many people buy these products hoping to make this world a better place, while lifting a weight off their own backs (which are covered in sweatshop-produced garments colored with animal-tested dyes, no doubt). As much as I enjoy my fair trade cup of tea every morning (mmm…taste like justice), it would taste much sweeter if I had a strong understanding of the real economics behind it. The fair trade movement surely has its detractors. Why are they so angry about this seemingly philanthropic new business endeavor. Are they afraid more socially conscious consumers may begin unearthing the true evils that are inherent in many of todays consumer products and corporations? Maybe these “market interventions” will “decrease efficiency” (decrease profits?) or restrict the “invisible hand” from most efficiently allocating goods and services among rational consumers. I’m starting to sound like an economics textbook. Somebody please stop me…

During my research, I naturally stumbled across the topic of comparative advantage, most famously espoused by David Ricardo. This got me thinking about sweatshops and how comparative advantage played into that. I came to the conclusion that the comparative advantage of third world workers in sweatshops is their cheaper labor! Now, that is no illuminating discovery, for I think many people would agree that that is exactly what their comparative advantage is. But by restating that assertion in a different light will clarify my problem with this conclusion. What we are truly saying is that these people have a comparative advantage in being less productive. They have a comparative advantage in being poor, thus commanding lower wages. Is this really a comparative advantage? They are so desperate and undernourished that they will work for next to nothing and that is their comparative advantage against us? I don’t see how this would hold up. Maybe one day if I am a real economist (a.k.a. lose my soul) I will understand, but until then, I will continue to question.