Maybe the Bailout Isn't So Bad...

I've noticed that there are a lot of misconceptions about the Wall Street Bailout bill that's making it's way through congress, and I'd like to put a few of them to rest. I'm not suggesting that the bill is a good thing, mind you. I'm no economist, and frankly I don't think I'm the best person to make that call. I just think it's a good idea that people get their facts straight before they jerk their knees and make angry calls to congress.

It's Not a Handout

Congress isn't giving money to these ailing companies. Rather, it's buying all the investments no one else will touch. This means the government should make some of its money back. The investments are unsellable junk because they're expected to lose money, not because they're totally worthless.

So yeah, the government will probably be taking a loss on the purchase, but the question is: how much of a loss? That's impossible to tell. Hell, it's even possible they could make some money of the deal. One thing's for sure, though: the government will not be losing all 700 billion dollars it's pumping into the banks.

It's Not About Mortgages

Not directly, anyway. Sure, investing in a bunch of worthless loans is what got us into this mess, but the fact that a bunch of folks may be facing foreclosure is not the problem. The problem is, because so much money is sunk into these poor investments (which could've been poor investments of any kind, it just happened to be sub-prime mortgages in this case), banks don't have credit to give out anymore. This will put a stop to growth in the private sector as businesses can no longer use loans to expand, and will hurt many industries that sell very high value items (like cars) because consumers can no longer take out loans. This is the problem the Bailout is trying to correct.

It's Not Meant to Line the Pockets of Fat Cats

Which isn't to say it won't, of course (though new versions are being pushed to eliminate any so-called 'golden parachute' clauses, which would reward higher-ups for incompetence). However, the bill is meant to rescue the companies, not the people. Remember, these companies run our country's financial infrastructure (see the credit problem mentioned above). It's in our best interests to keep them running. If we simply let them flop, the same thing may happen to our economy.

I'm not saying the Bailout is the best, or even the only solution, but whenever people talk about how we need to kill the bill because it's corrupt through and through, and only meant to make the rich richer, I cringe a little. That's just not the case. Call your senator if you must, but think about it a little first.

Electoral College Maps from 1900 to 1972

It's interesting to note how geographical preferences have changed over time, not to mention that we apparently used to vote for third parties!

The Top 5 Most Isolated Places to Live

#5 - Svalbard

An archipelago located off the northern coast of Norway, the climate here is sure to scare away most. This place is home to nearly as many Polar Bears as it is people, and residents and visitors are in fact required to carry rifles while traveling in case one of the cuddly things acquires a taste for human flesh.

In fact, this place is so remote, the Norwegian government decided to locate its "Doomsday Vault" there, filled with enough seeds to restart civilization in case something really serious goes down. Basically, they're working on the assumption that Svalbard is so far out of the way, things will still be ok there even if everything else has been totally obliterated.

Still, with a population close to 3,000 people, Svalbard is child's play compared to some in terms of isolation.

#4 - The Kerguelen Islands

The Kerguelen Islands, also known as Desolation Island, is located about midway between Africa and Antarctica. Aside from being cold and lonely, it's notable for being the only bit of land that's antipodal to any of the lower 48 United States. In other words, if you were to drill a tunnel through the center of the earth starting in the lower 48 States, this would be the only place you could get to that wasn't ocean (you'd have to start your tunnel in northern Montana, too).

With a winter population of around 70, living there full time could get pretty lonely, but there's still plenty to do! The island's economy is based mostly off of research, but you can also raise sheep, read books at the library, work out at the gym, drink in a pub, or even die horribly in a hunting accident, as one poor sap chose to do in 2000.

#3 - The Pitcairn Islands

Coming in at number three, the Pitcairn Islands prove that you don't have to go somewhere cold to be isolated. Located near Tahiti, these islands are a tropical paradise doomed to isolation due to their tiny size and a geography that limits travel to small boats. It was settled in 1790 by the mutineers of the H.M.S. Bounty and a few Tahitians they kidnapped. The current population of 48 people are their descendants.

The Pitcairn Islands were in the news briefly due to allegations of sexual abuse in the guise of forced marriages. Girls allegedly as young as 7 were married off by the command of the community's strict 7th Day Adventist leaders. Of course, rape and incest are only two of the many things that place Pitcairn culture solidly outside of the mainstream. Even today, the word "nigger" is not an insult there, but a common given name to people of African ancestry.

#2 - Alert

Alert is located in Nunavut, Canada, on the northern tip of Ellesmere island (which itself is a pretty isolated place, boasting a total population of 146). It was originally in Inuit settlement, which means that yes, people lived there before there were heaters and mass-produced long underwear.

Now, it's mostly there for the weather station and monitoring laboratory run by the Canadian government. With a permanent population of 5, that's pretty much the only reason you'd want to go there. Unless, of course, you just wanted a little time to yourself.

#1 - Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station

If you really want isolation, there's no place better than Antarctica. And if you really want isolation, there's no place better in Antarctica that right smack dab on the south pole. With a year-long population of around 80, Amundsen-Scott actually has a fairly large population compared to some of the other places on this list. However, given how far away this tiny pocket of humanity is from anyone else, it still takes the cake as most isolated.

The place is so isolated that folks start to get a little stir crazy living there. Last Christmas, two men had to be airlifted out of the base due to what was described as "drunken Christmas punch-up", and what is known everywhere else as a crazy fucking party. In fact, one of the men was so injured that he had to be shipped to New Zealand. That's right, he had gotten beaten up so badly that he had to leave the continent. Just goes to show what extreme isolation can do to the mind.

How To Make a Nickname for Your Sweetheart

It's simple word matching really. The form is: a noun used as an adjective, and a noun. The important thing to remember, the nouns used as adjectives are different than the plain old nouns. Make sure you don't confuse the two, or you'll end up with terrible nickname abortions like "butt-angel".

Also, the first noun is merely used as an adjective, it is not in an adjective form. "Sugary-tits" sounds like some kind of disease. You want your sweetheart to know that you believe her breasts are actually made out of sucrose.

To help, here's a handy chart containing both parts of your new cutesy nickname. Mix and match as you please!

First Noun	Second Noun
Sugar	Pie
Honey	Lips
Muffin	Butt
Angel	Britches
Doll	Baby
Sweetie	Face
Lord	Ungulat
Baby	Kins
Shave-and-a-haircut	Two-bits

Polling Isn't Just Dumb, It's Dangerous

I got a call the other day asking me to take a political survey, and on a whim I actually agreed. It started with all the boilerplate questions you'd expect: what party are you affiliated with, how likely are you to vote, what is your age, gender, ethnicity, etc. Then, I was asked briefly about who I would most likely vote for in the upcoming "big" elections, like (obviously) the race for president, as well as my state's Senate and Gubernatorial races. Being an avid reader of pretty much everything I can find on the internet, I had actually formed opinions related to these questions, and was able to answer confidently and accurately. Hooray! Unfortunately, things got a little hairy after that.

Despite the fact that I'm a bit of a news junkie, I'm ashamed to admit that I know virtually nothing about the race for my state senate. I don't think I'm alone in saying that, what with all the exciting news about the upcoming national elections, I've decided to ignore local ones.

After all, It's local news. Just because it's election related doesn't mean it'll be any more exciting than the other local stuff, like, "Area Man Befriends Duck."

Fortunately, the pollsters realized that this would be the case for most respondents, and rather than asking me my opinion of the candidates directly, they asked me if various statements about the candidates made me more or less likely to vote for them.

It was stuff along the lines of "Candidate A says he will fight for the education of our children. Does this make you more or less likely to vote for him?"

Now, the important thing to note here is that the above statement isn't just a dumb example, it's indicative of how vapid all these statements were. Not one of them really told me anything about policy. "Candidate A is for fighting crime." "Candidate B wants to clean up the environment." "Candidate A will fight corruption in government." "Candidate B wants to hug all children, everywhere."

I'm about to trot out that old chestnut about how politicians will say anything to get elected. If you're generic enough, any feel good statement can apply to whatever policy you might have. The pro-toddler hunting politician can make it sound like he does it for the children if he has the right PR guy. Everybody knows this, so I only mention it to say that it was eye-rollingly obvious that the pollster was reading me statements that came directly from campaign headquarters.

After I got off the phone, I started to wonder: If I was being polled about meaningless feel-good statements rather than actual policy points, what exactly was the poll trying to measure? Does it really do a politician any good to hear that most Americans are for education? Or against corruption in the government? Of course not. But the fact remained, I had just taken a poll that was apparently testing for just that.

Then I realized, this poll wasn't about positions at all. It wasn't even some partisan hatchet job. The statements were about both candidates, and they described both with empty niceties. No, the only thing this poll was really measuring was which empty nicety was most effective. The candidates wanted to know how they could get the most votes without saying anything at all. That's kind of scary, if you think about it. My story may be anecdotal, but it does seem to me that the focus of politics in the States has shifted away from presenting the best platform, and moved toward manipulating the voters.

I said the statements didn't sway me in either direction. I wonder how many others answered that way. Anyone?