Sarah Palin's Presidential Ambitions

Will Sarah Palin run for President? That's one of the most intriguing questions in politics today.

Here's my definitive, unequivocal answer: yes and no.

Actually, that's my definitive, unequivocal answer to the question: "Does Sarah Palin want to be president?"

To understand Sarah Palin's presidential ambitions, it's important to understand two things:

1. Sarah Palin does not want the problems and headaches that come with being president of the United States. She doesn't want to have to make tough decisions. She doesn't like being held to a strict schedule. She doesn't have a lot of personal discipline.

2. Sarah Palin is really, really ambitious, and loves the fame, power, glory and, most of all, the attention that would come with being president.

Sarah Palin wants to be famous, and loves having lots of adoring fans. She would love nothing more than almost being president.

Consider how well the 2008 campaign worked out for her. She spent two months flying around the country on someone else's dime, rallying the troops, and establishing her brand. She didn't have to make a single difficult policy decision. The fact that McCain failed was largely laid at his feet. So Palin got lots of attention with very little responsibility. She would have loved being vice president. Vice presidents don't do much. Talk about a job with glory, attention and power, but very little responsibility.

Almost all politicians in a democracy - Democrat and Republican - understand that politics in a democracy is about enlightened self-interest. You have to be able to cooperate with people who disagree with you - at least occasionally - as well as compete with them. But that only applies if you want to accomplish something within the legislative system. Sarah Palin has zero interest in passing legislation. She therefore has zero interest in cooperating with people who disagree with her, and every intention of simply competing with them - or just criticizing them. She doesn't just have no interest in cooperating with Democrats who disagree with her. She also has no interest in cooperating with Republicans who disagree with her. This is unfortunate for most other establishment Washington Republican politicians, because it means that the day may come when acting in her own best self-interest means acting in a way that is contrary to the best interests of the party. Which she will do without hesitation.

The 2012 campaign presents her with a conundrum: she doesn't really want to win, but she wants all of the attention that she would get from a presidential campaign. Her ideal 2012 experience would be for her to campaign vigorously for president, and then lose in the primaries in a way that allows her to blame the Washington establishment for her failure. Her problem is that the person with the best chance of serving as her foil is Mitt Romney, who is a weak candidate.

But her solution is simplicity itself. All she has to do is be herself, because she will inspire her fans, continue to piss off Democrats of all stripes, and alienate independents and moderate Republicans. Traditional presidential campaign theory says that candidates must campaign in the primaries to win over the base, but be prepared to move to the center in the general election. But because Sarah Palin has no interest in winning the general election, she has no interest in preparing to move to the center. She can do whatever she wants to stir up her base, because that's all she wants to do. If she keeps her fans' fires of devotion going, but alienates enough centrist/mainstream/moderate Republicans that she doesn't get the nomination, she still comes out ahead. If she does ultimately get the nomination, she can continue to inspire her most loyal followers without worrying about convincing any moderates or Democrats to vote for her, because she ultimately doesn't really want to be elected president. We're talking about a woman who would love nothing more than to have yet more reasons to claim being a martyr.

Sarah Palin doesn't even really care whether or not the GOP wins the presidential election. She might even prefer Obama winning a second term, because it gives her a perfect foil. If Romney is elected, she can stay on the sidelines and be critical of him if she doesn't consider him conservative enough. But eventually most Republicans would get tired of her. But if Obama wins, she can keep presenting herself as channeling the base's frustrations.

What's wonderfully, deliciously ironic about this - at least from the perspective of a liberal Democrat - is that Sarah Palin is the perfect embodiment of conservative Republican capitalist ideology. She is motivated entirely by her own self-interest.

But it's also unfortunate for Sarah Palin, because, while none of those Washington Republicans are as good looking as her, many of them are smarter than her. And there are lots of them. And they have lots and lots and lots of money. Sarah Palin can keep this charade going unless, at some point, she makes a complete and utter fool of herself. At that point, the likes of Karl Rove might be able to diminish her influence on the party; they might be able to contain the damage she does in the future. But at that point, the damage to the GOP will have been done.

And Sarah Palin will have millions in the bank.

Obama, Israel, and the Arab Spring

So I watched Obama's speech on the Middle East. Many commentators seem to have focused on his comments on Israel, bluntly making it clear that the US favors a two-state solution. Nothing terribly unusual there; it's been clear for a while that will be required for a solution to this problem. He also spoke at length about the Arab Spring, and the hopes for democratic change. Again, doesn't seem very far out of the norm for a speech by an American president. Republicans, of course, attacked him for allegedly bailing on Israel. Part of this is appealing to hardline Israelis, hard of this is appealing to conservative Christians, and part of this is just a need on their part to attack Obama. More of the same.

But I haven't seen any commentary (although it's entirely possible that I missed it) on how the Arab Spring has completely changed the calculus in the Mideast, and how Obama grasps the importance of that. The Israeli-Palestinian issue has seemed intractable; both sides are dug in, neither trusts the other, and neither seems willing to compromise. But the Arab Spring has changed the debate, because it relieves a great deal of pressure on the Arab side of the equation. Corrupt Arab dictators have used Israel as a distraction; they've demagogued about Jews as a way of distracting their people from their own failings as leaders. The fact that many of them have access to oil wealth as a means of bribing their populations into complacency has, of course, been a big help.

But, as Lincoln said, you can't fool all of the people all of the time. Some of the countries undergoing transformation in the Mideast will become stable, secure democracies. Some won't. Some may very well see one dictatorship replaced with another. The best historical precedent that I can think of is what happened in with the dissolution of the Soviet empire in 1989. East Germany was absorbed into West Germany, and the Central European states are free, while some in the Caucasus are not. The same will probably be the case in the Arab world; some countries will make a successful transition to democracy, some won't.

But those that do, it can be reasonably hoped, will flourish. And with that flourishing will come, again it is to be reasonably hoped, a lessening of the pressure to blame Israel and the Jews for the problems of Arabs. It won't be easy, but it's been done before.

Netanyahu and his Republicans allies don't see things this way. Hardline Israelis, at this point, just don't have a lot of faith in the ability of Arabs to become peace-loving neighbors. It's not hard to understand why they think that. But it's also not hard to understand that they can not afford to think that very much longer. Likud will be very reluctant to negotiate. And, of course, there are more than a few Jews in Israel who believe that the land is there by divine right. There are also a fair number of fundamentalist Christians and Jews in this country who agree with that. In this respect, the interests of conservative Israelis and conservatives Republicans are aligned.

Their interests are also aligned in the sense that they want to see Obama fail. In Netanyahu's ideal world, a Republican wins in 2012, and he gets to spend another few years resisting pressure from around the world to compromise on a two-state solution.

But a key difference between Netanyahu and Republicans is that Bibi isn't stupid, and he doesn't have a fallback option. If Mitt Romney doesn't become president, he'll still be a rich, comfortable American. What is at stake for Netanyahu is the survival of the state of Israel. Republicans don't mind a state of permanent war; it keeps the defense contractors happy. Israelis know that, ultimately, it is not sustainable. But right now, they are also scared that, if they give an inch, the Arabs, like Hamas, will take full advantage of their weaknesses, and destroy them. This is why the Arab Spring is so important: it provides a glimmer of hope that peace may, in fact, be a viable option. Hardline Israelis are still very skeptical of this, for very good reason. But the whole point of Obama's speech was to take that tiny flowering of hope, that smidgen of optimism, and make it grow. That is, after all, his specialty.

Obama and Netanyahu do not like each other, and they don't really trust each other. But they do respect each other. Each is a very smart man, and each is a brilliant politician. The key difference between Netanyahu and his Republican allies is that Netanyahu, in the long run, doesn't care whether or not Obama is reelected. But he does care a great deal the survival of the state of Israel, and he knows that peace is required for that. Republicans also want the survival of the state of Israel, but they also prefer a mindset that encourages Americans to be afraid of terrorists, so the Pentagon budget stays at its absurd levels. But what is most important to Republicans is delegitimizing Obama. If Obama can convince Netanyahu that he can at least make progress towards peace, he can split Likud and the Republicans. It won't be a wide split, but Obama can make it clear that their interests are not as solidly aligned as it seems they are today. Besides, Obama also knows that there are lots of American Jews - most, actually - who are liberal Democrats, and therefore agree with him. Part of the purpose of his speech was to mobilize them to be on his side. Obama has a chance of convincing Netanyahu to work with him, because Netanyahu respects Obama's political abilities. Obama's chief of staff was a Jew from Chicago. Rahm Emanuel is one of the toughest politicians in America, and he worked for Obama. Many Republicans look at Obama and see an effete liberal intellectual. Netanyahu does not make that mistake.

The possibility of achieving peace between Israelis and Palestinians seems almost impossible to achieve. But a year ago, if you had said to anyone in the world that Hosni Mubarak would be overthrown by mobs in the streets of Cairo, you would have been laughed at. And if, in 2003 you had said that a black guy with a Muslim name who was an obscure state senator in Illinois would become president of the United States in 2008, every single person in the world would have thought you were crazy.

Every single person in the world except for two: Barack Obama. And Michelle Obama.

Obama: The Anti-Reagan

I haven't posted here in a long, long time, but a friend texted me that Obama is losing him. Time to get back on it.

Obama is the anti-Reagan. The superficial contrasts are obvious, apart from the skin color; Obama is a young president; Reagan was our oldest. Reagan came from the heartland, Obama literally from the geographical fringe of the country. Reagan was a movie star; Obama is a policy wonk. Reagan had a long history with both America and the conservative movement long before he became president; Obama sprang into Democrat consciousness literally overnight with one speech. They had similar family backgrounds, both from dysfunctional or non-traditional families of modest means. But where Reagan was divorced and a famously distant father, Obama is a devoted family man, with zero skeletons in his closet.

It is on policy political strategies where the differences are, of course, most important. The policy differences are obvious, although the argument could be made that Obama shifted closer to Reagan after he was elected. On the other hand, just about any president could be accused of changing in ways that make their constituencies uncomfortable.

But what was gone unnoticed and unremarked - probably because it's very difficult to tell - are the stylistic and strategic differences. Both, of course, are excellent public speakers, but the similarity basically ends there. Reagan had three basic beliefs: lower taxes, smaller government, and a strong defense. He believed in capitalism and the basic goodness of the American people. That was pretty much it.

Obama's political philosophy cannot, on the other hand, be reduced to a slogan, and he's barely tried to do so. He believes in the broad spectrum of liberal ideas; feminism, civil rights, gay rights, empowering the poor, protecting the environment, etc. The closest he's come to a tag line of late is "Winning The Future," which translates into a very poor choice of acronym, and which seems to be fading quickly. In 2008, he was all about hope and change, the epitome of nebulous campaign promises. It's hard to pin Obama down to specifics, either in terms of policy or even tenets of his ideology. Many of his supporters are uncomfortable with this, because it looks like he's waffling, or not making a commitment, or compromising too early or too often.

The other great contrast between Reagan and Obama is in terms of political strategy. Reagan would outline a basic goal, give uplifting but vague speeches, challenge his opponents directly, and refuse to compromise. But then he would compromise at the last minute, declare victory, and move on, so it looked like he won. This is one reason conservatives idolize him. They buy into the myth that he was a rigid ideologue, when he was also very much a realistic, pragmatic politician.

Obama is famously willing to compromise, and constantly reaching out to his political opponents, trying hard to reach consensus, broker deals, make sure everyone is involved in the process. Again, many of his supporters are uncomfortable with this approach, because it looks like he's compromising when he doesn't have to, or he's letting his opponents dictate parts of the agenda.

But the most important difference between Reagan and Obama - and this is where Obama beats Reagan, hands down - is that Obama is an absolutely masterful political tactician. Obama is very good at seeing the big picture politically, and defining a successful strategy. Hillary Clinton learned this too late - the 2008 campaign was a great strategic success. Obama and his team mapped out how they were going to win, followed the plan, and won.

But what is almost impossible for the public to see is how good Obama is with political tactics. His work on gay rights is the best illustration of this. He campaigned on ending the ban on gays serving in the military. For a long time, it looked like he wasn't doing much to advance that cause, and his supporters were grumbling. He had set up a commission to look into it, and the commission was set to issue its report in early December, 2010. That would be after the election, but before the new Congress took office. The results of the commission's study therefore would not be released in time to be an issue in the election, but they would be released in time for Congress to act on them.

I don't remember exactly how repealing the ban went down. It happened between Christmas and New Year's, when the American public is not paying much attention to politics. There was some kind of parliamentary maneuvering going on, but the Democrats got enough Republicans on board to make it happen. I think some of the Republicans who voted for it were about to retire, so they could "vote their conscience." I seem to recall Joe Lieberman being a strong advocate of it.

I have roughly the same perspective on his actions on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). There isn't much Obama can do on this. It's not going to be repealed by Congress any time soon. Obama's position on gay marriage is "evolving," which is a very politically convenient way of not making a commitment for it, but not rejecting it either. That may even be true. But it's a classic politician's finesse - he doesn't want to piss of his gay supporters by coming out (sorry, couldn't resist) against gay marriage, but he's also aware that there are many independents and conservatives who are strongly against it. So he had his Attorney General come out with a hair-splitting position - the Dept. of Justice will not defend part of it in court, but they will continue to enforce it. I'm not quite sure how it works, and I work for a law firm.

It's all very confusing.

Which is exactly the point.

The fact that these processes - of repealing the ban on gays in the military, and challenging DOMA - were confusing is part of Obama's political strategy. Republicans had a hard time finding a point to challenge repealing the ban on gays in the military, other than the vote itself - which took place at the end of a lame duck session. Who would argue against a commission set up to study the issue? Now that the law has been passed, the Pentagon still has to draw up plans for implementation. Once it's official, most gay members of the military will probably come out slowly. The whole process is long, drawn out, and involved lots of people besides Obama himself - Bob Gates at the Pentagon, Harry Reid in the Senate. It's an incendiary issue, but Obama's process - long, bureaucratic, mostly behind the scenes - obscured the opportunities for heated rhetoric, and therefore diffused the anger. There is time between when the debate happened, when the law passed, and when it's implemented, giving the American people time to adjust to the issue.

But homosexuals in the military will be a fact of life by November 2012, and Barack Obama will take the lion's share of the credit. He'll tell his gay supporters that he delivered on a key campaign promise.

We see the same thing in DOMA. Obama's DOJ is not defending it, but is enforcing it. The DOJ informed Congress that it could DOMA in court if it wanted to, but that, of courses, puts the pressure to do so on John Boehner. I can barely follow it, and I work for a law firm. But it's a win-win for Obama. If DOMA is partially overturned, he will declare victory, but claim that it was a decision by a court. If he doesn't win, he can claim that he tried, but that it's either the fault of Republicans, or a court. Tactically, it's great. But it's very difficult to understand unless you are a hardcore political geek.

One problem with this approach is that while it confuses his opponents, it also confuses his supporters, even those who are smart and fairly politically savvy, like Matt Damon and other celebrities. This article explains why he and other celebrities are disillusioned. Unfortunately for both Obama and his supporters, it's in the media's best interest to play up how disappointed Obama fans are. But this particular article is both incredibly sloppy and clearly intent on playing up the disappointment. The picture of Matt Damon shows him scowling, to accentuate the point that he's unhappy. But the wall on the background reads "TIFF," or Toronto International Film Festival. That takes place in September. Since then, Matt Damon has been nominated for an Oscar, and photographed dozens, if not hundreds, of times. He's generally a very upbeat guy. But they somehow managed to find a picture of him looking unhappy.

Barbra Streisand is quoted as being unhappy that Obama didn't use executive privilege to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell. The quote is from some time "in December," i.e. before Congress repealed it. I think we can safely assume that Barbra Streisand is now happy with Obama's strategy to repeal DADT given that THE STRATEGY ACTUALLY FRICKIN' WORKED. Matt Damon is not happy about testing kids in schools. Neither am I, but that's a product of the Bush administration, and Obama has not been able to undo it. Jane Lynch is disappointed that Obama has not been able to do anything about gay marriage. The quote from her is from early January, again, well before Obama ACTUALLY DID SOMETHING ABOUT GAY MARRIAGE.

Other celebrities who are unhappy with Obama about a particular issue include Hugh Hefner, Spike Lee, and Robert Redford. You know what? Give me 10 minutes, and I can find a whole bunch of celebrities who are unhappy with Obama. There were lots of liberals unhappy with Clinton. Lots of conservatives grumbled about Reagan. That's the nature of politics. As someone (I think Maria Cuomo) said, you campaign in poetry, and you govern in prose. The nuts and bolts of actually governing are always less exciting, and infinitely more frustrating, than the campaign. Obama waits a long time to move before he does so. But in the process, he's refining his plans and laying the groundwork. Which is difficult, if not impossible to see. But absolutely necessary.

What's the best possible evidence that Obama moves quickly? This is a man who went from being an Illinois state senator to being president of the United States in four years.

There is one more similarity between Obama and Reagan: both of them were seriously underestimated by their opponents. And, occasionally, their supporters.

Defending Derivatives and Responsible Financial Innovation

I'm a big fan of making bets on opening weekend box office grosses - that's the raison d'etre of my other blog, TEQP-HSX. I've used real money on Intrade, although not for a while. So I was very excited about Cantor Exchange, the real-money spin-off of the Hollywood Stock Exchange. Cantor works just like HSX, except that the stocks have a shorter lifespan, and there is real money involved. The securities on Cantor are technically derivatives, and, as such, trading them has to be approved by the Commodities and Futures Trading Commission. A great explanation of the potential benefits from Richard Jaycobs, president of Cantor, can be found here.

Most of the debate around trading in futures based on box-office receipts has revolved around technical questions, such as whether or not such contracts could be manipulated, how they would work, etc. There hasn't been much examination of the philosophical issues. That's what I am going to look into.

The core issue is innovation. Trading in box office receipts represents financial innovation. I'm not surprised that the major studios are opposed to it; this is the same industry that fought the VCR all the way to the Supreme Court. They were worried that machines that gave people the ability to watch movies at home would cut into their revenue; those machines are now a major source of that revenue. I can understand their initial opposition to VCRs - at the time, the idea that videotapes would generate lots of money for the studios seemed absurd. The lesson is that we don't know what the future holds, but that it's a usually a good idea to err on the side of more innovation, rather than less.

There's a saying in the movie business that movies are a great art form, but a terrible business. Consider: every movie is effectively a completely new product, almost a new company. Studios invest millions of dollars in products that can technically last forever, but really have a shelf life of a couple of months. Every product has to be completely different from, and yet very similar to, every other iteration of the product that has come before it.

Movie studios and movie theaters have come up with many different ways to control the chaos and hedge against the uncertainty of this wonderful and maddening business. Studios take out insurance against various kinds of calamity. They look for franchises, so they can make several movies that are fairly similar, and therefore likely to generate predictable returns. They use famous stars and directors who can dependably "open" a movie. They follow trends and jump on bandwagons. They test-market potential audiences. They scour film festivals for undiscovered gems that they can buy cheap, hoping for a hit. Theater chains build multiplexes, so that if one movie is not successful on a given weekend, they have others that are. They charge astronomical amounts for junk food.

All of these trends and business practices represent different instances of innovation, except sequels, which have been around since the Iliad and Odyssey. Each of these also has its downside; stars can be expensive, and many eventually lose their allure for audiences. Many sequels are not as good as the original. Many movies based on books or TV shows are not as good as the property they were based on. Trends burn out. Failure is inevitable with any widespread innovation. But learning from failure is part of what fosters further innovation.

I've read the statement by the MPAA before the CFTC on why they think these derivatives are a bad idea. I don't know whether or not all of the terrible consequences that they predict from trading in box office futures will come true. Nobody knows. That's the beauty of democracy: we experiment, and, if we're wrong, we change.

There is one aspect of this debate of which I am confident: this represents - and I realize that, given the current economic environment, this may sound almost like a contradiction in terms - responsible financial innovation. Our current economic crisis was brought about in large part because of irresponsible financial innovation. But box office derivatives are very different from exotic financial instruments like CDO's. First, CDO's are extremely opaque and obscure - most people had never heard of them before 2008, and even many sophisticated financial professionals have no idea how they work. Box office numbers, on the other hand, are public information; there are few pieces of financial information more widely available to the public. It's also very simple: that's why there are hundreds of thousands of players on HSX. There are some risks, but there are regulatory structures in place to deal with those risks that raise ethical or legal issues. Again, I don't know whether or not those structures will be adequate to address the risks and contain bad behavior. No one knows. What we do know is that those regulations, rules, and institutions can be adjusted and changed. Given the public nature of the information and the simplicity of the securities, I am confident the US government can handle the challenges of regulating these securities. The total value of the market will be a fraction of the market value of a single large company. It will not necessarily be easy to police this market, but it certainly won't be impossible.

At the end of the day, there is only one reliable way to make money in the movie business: make good movies. The problem, of course, is that no one - other than Pixar - has really figured out how to do that on a consistent basis. Some people are better at it than others - those are the ones that get to do it again. The market rewards those who make good movies. A market in box office futures will have the same effect: it will reward people who make and invest in good movies, and it will punish people who make and invest in bad movies. It will also have the opposite effect: it will punish people who bet against good movies, and it will punish people who invest in bad movies.

The movie studios have legitimate concerns, particularly about piracy and market manipulation. But the best defense against both of those is the same: make good movies. Seeing a movie at a movie theater is still a great entertainment value. Actually, I'd like to qualify that: seeing a good movie at a movie theater still is, and always will be, a great entertainment value. Markets in box office derivatives will be vulnerable to rumors. But so are all securities markets. The best defense against rumors is, once again, the same thing. Many, many very successful movies - from Jaws to Titanic and even the remake of The Karate Kid - have suffered from rumor, innuendo, and just bad analysis. The Karate Kid was a remake of an 80's movie at a time when the audience was supposed to be hungry for originality and tiring of remakes. It opened on the same weekend as The A-Team, which was also a remake of an 80's entertainment property. Both movies were predicted to open between $30 and $35 million. The A-Team opened at $26 million. The Karate Kid opened at $56 million. No one - not even the studio - had any idea it was going to do that well. But the optimists (I, unfortunately, was not among them) made a killing. The best way to manipulate this market is to make a good movie.

Trading in box office futures represents responsible financial innovation that rewards people who make and invest in good movies. For that reason, I think they should be approved.

Bloomsday and Bloody Sunday

There are a lot of things going on right now that I am interested in - Obama's speech last night, the Lakers about to crush the Celtics in the NBA Finals, the World Cup, the sort-of failure of The A-Team at the box office. But I noticed an interesting convergence of Irish historical moments today. June 16 is Bloomsday, the day that Ulysses takes place: June 16, 1904. Which is the day that Joyce went on his first date with Nora, his wife.

Tim Rutten, in the LA Times, reminds us of a great line: "History is a nightmare from which I am trying to awake." This is eerily appropos of the second moment in Irish history that is being dealt with - not merely observed - today. The British government released a report about Bloody Sunday, the day in 1972 when British soldiers opened fire on unarmed civilians. That unleashed "the Troubles," the years which saw 3,000 people die in sectarian violence.

This is the nightmare from which we are trying to awake. In America, it is hard for us to comprehend differences between two branches of Christianity as being so violent as to cause thousands of deaths. We have, in a sense, awoken from that nightmare.

We have also awoken from a nightmare that afflicted Joyce, that of censorship. The link above in the title of his masterwork goes to Amazon, where you can buy many different copies of this book, and lots of other books about Joyce. That wasn't always the case: it was initially banned in this country.

Every culture needs something to be good at, something that its people take pride in, something that they are better at than other peoples, other countries. For the Irish, this is literature. Novels, plays, poetry - the Irish are genius at creating art with words. Joyce personified this: what he gave the world was a beautiful but difficult work, a spectacularly gorgeous and challenging ode to his hometown of Dublin. He challenged himself, he challenged his readers, he challenged other artists.

What the British government has done today is to rise to a challenge, one that it imposed on itself: the challenge to live up to its own ideals. The United Kingdom demanded of itself that it hold itself accountable for its own failures. That is an extraordinarily difficult task. It was also extraordinarily necessary.

I'm going to end this post by quoting Ulysses, because I've read it. I've been to Dublin, and even read the first chapter in the tower where it takes place. I'm only going to quote one word, but it's the most famous word in the book, the one everyone who finishes it remembers, because it's the last word:

"Yes."

Mark Kirk: Stupid AND Ironic

Mark Kirk is a Republican Representative from Illinois who is caught up in a minor scandal about lying about his military record. Not a huge deal, except that he's running for Senate, and lying about your military record is the kind of thing that raises questions. It's more an issue of stupidity than out-and-out venality.

The specific issue is whether or not he was recognized as "Intelligence Officer of the Year." He wasn't, but his unit was. Sort of a fine distinction, but also something that anyone who has ever written a resume should get right.

Here's the irony: it's a stupid mistake about being "Intelligence Officer of the Year." So the fact of the scandal kind of repudiates the fact of the award.

The moral of the story is: don't make stupid mistakes about awards that have the word "intelligence" in the name of the award.

Salsa Classes at Hope!

Movies and Criminals

I was watching a collection of Ocean's 11 clips when I realized why I like a particular genre of movies. I like romantic comedies, and within that genre, I really like romantic comedies with a criminal element, like Grosse Pointe Blank, The Thomas Crown Affair, or A Fish Called Wanda.

Watching this video from Ocean's 11, it occurred to me that what criminals and filmmakers have in common is that they both have to be very creative. They both have to think outside the box. At least the kind of criminals played by George Clooney and Brad Pitt have to think like this. Criminals, by definition, are challenging the system, albeit for the wrong reasons. But they also have to pretend to be part of the system. Just like people making movies, criminals have to walk a fine line between fitting in, being like everyone else, and doing something that no one else has thot of. Entrepreneurs are the same way, which is also a reason why I like that class of people, as well.

It's not the most emotionally healthy or morally or politically correct analogy. But it sure is fun.

Star Wars question

I just watched Stars Wars, Episode IV, A New Hope . I was in a Barnes & Noble, and I happened to see the DVD on sale. I realized I don't actually own it, so I figured I should buy it (you can too, on Amazon - Star Wars Episode IV - A New Hope (1977 & 2004 Versions, 2-Disc Widescreen Edition)).

I noticed something that I've never noticed before. They come out of the trash compactor looking a little damp, but they dry off very quickly, and suddenly they don't look like they came out of a trash compactor. Not a big deal, because Luke and Han were wearing those presumably watertight stormtrooper outfits. Chewie is a Wookie, we can't really tell if there's a big difference in how he looks. But even in the first moments out of the trash compactor, Princess Leia looks great, as she always does. Makeup perfect, hair tightly coiled in those buns. At this point, she has been captured by Imperial stormtroopers, tortured and interrogated by Darth Vader, and seen her planet blown up. She has had just about the worst day ever. Yet there are no smudges anywhere on her face, and her perfectly white tunic thingy is still perfectly white. You would think that at the very least she would have been crying, after seeing her all those people die on her planet. But no, no running mascara for the Princess!

Here's my question: Did Princess Leia use the Force to keep herself looking that good, in the midst of all that trouble? Was that her special gift? We know that the Force was strong in her, being the daughter of Darth Vader and the twin sister of Luke. Is this why she never needed a lightsaber?

Also, we never really learn how the Rebel Alliance got the plans to the Death Star. We do, however, know that Princess Leia was involved in stealing those plans. If she could use the Force to keep herself looking great walking out of a trash compactor, did she use it in other ways we don't know about? Wink, wink, nudge nudge. Is this the hidden history of Princess Leia? Is this REALLY why Han comes back to save Luke? Did Leia plant some seeds in his mind before he left the rebel base?

Just curious about that.

Can't Resist This One - "What Is A Philosopher?"

The New York Times introduces a new column/blog/something-or-other today by the name of "The Stone," and apparently it is a forum for philosophical discussion. Way to go, NYT!

The first column asks the question, "What is a philosopher?" Good way to start!

Here's my first take at an answer: a philosopher is someone who realizes how incredibly stupid it is to ask a question like "What is a philosopher?" because there are a million different answers, almost all equally meaningless.

Here's my second take at an answer: a philosopher is someone who can't resist trying to answer the question "What is a philosopher?" because his or her answer might be that one-in-a-million answer that is the most interesting and not entirely meaningless. Not "right," because in philosophy, there is no "right" answer, just more or less interesting ones. An "interesting" answer to a question, at least by philosopher standards, is one that provokes the listener into thinking more about both the question and the answer.

Here's my third take at an answer. This is a paraphrase of a quote from Franklin Roosevelt. He used the world "radical," not philosopher, but it's a fun take on it nonetheless: "A philosopher is someone with both feet planted firmly in the clouds."

Here's my fourth take. This one is rather cynical: A philosopher is someone who is paid to be professionally confused for years at a time.

Here's my fifth take, again rather cynical: A philosopher is someone who is professionally uninterested in making decisions.

Actually, four and five are not great answers, because it is entirely possible that someone could meet either or both of those criteria and not be anything close to a philosopher. But it was fun to write those sentences.

Sixth take. There are limits to questions. There are limits to what can be known merely by thinking. A philosopher is someone who is aware that these limits exist, and may even be vaguely aware of where they are, and completely ignores them.

Here's my final attempt to answer the question "What is a philosopher?": a philosopher is someone who understands this analogy: doing philosophy (not necessarily "studying" philosophy) is like driving a Ferrari: 99 times out of 100, it's either largely pointless, not worth the extra effort/cost, or potentially fatal. But that 1% of the time, there is nothing like it in the world.