Bedtime Routine (in the style of Tumblr)

WHEN IT GOES WELL:

I start to think that

and I get all

WHEN IT GOES BADLY:

I feel like

Why do I even bother to show up?

and I want to say

Comic book suggestions bleg

First, a confession: I don't buy comics. I know, there goes my street cred. By 'comics,' though, I mean regular monthly issues of ongoing series. I prefer stand-alone graphic novels, limited series, or trade paperbacks (the comics industry term for volumes collecting a single story arc, usually of 4 to 8 issues, from an ongoing series).

That started to change around this time last year. For the first time. I decided I really wanted to pick up a series as it comes out rather than waiting for the collected volume: Hellboy in Hell #1!

Hellboy is such a great character. As Anung Un Rama, he was born to be the harbinger of the world's destruction and leader of the armies of hell, a monstrous Dark Age villain. Instead, Hellboy prefers to be more like a Golden Age hero, simple and chaste and uncomplicated... if he can get away with it. It's a great dynamic.

I also love Mike Mignola's art. It's difficult for me to explain why; aesthetic preferences aren't something I understand very well, even in myself. But something about the sharp angles, the extremes of light and dark, and the moody scenery really draw me in.

I bought the first four issues, and am excited to pick up #5 tomorrow!

At first, I thought this was the only comic that could convince me to pick up the regular issues. Then I heard about Sandman: Overture. For those of you that don't know, The Sandman was a series written by Neil Gaiman from 1989 to 1996, and is one of the best ongoing comic series ever made. I read the entire collected volumes through the public library last year, and it blew me away. When I heard that Gaiman and artist J.H. Williams III were writing a new 6-issue bimonthly series starting in October, there was no way I wasn't going to pick it up.

I've picked up a few other stray issues here and there trying to find more regular comics to follow, but so far nothing I've wanted to spend $3 or $4 on every month. A tight budget and specific tastes will do that, I suppose. Aquaman has a new writer at the end of the month, and I already know I like the artists, so I'll be trying that out, but beyond that I'm not sure where to look next.

Most of my current collection of trade paperbacks are from the 1980s--Alan Moore, Frank Miller, Mike Grell--and a few others with deep writers like Mark Waid. I like Paul Dini and Bruce Timm's Batman animation (but who doesn't?). I like Darwyn Cooke. I'm more of a DC guy than Marvel, although I really liked Chris Claremont's and Joss Whedon's X-Men and J. Michael Straczynski's Thor. The Walking Dead is fantastic, at least in collected form.

The point of all this, my friends, is that I'm looking for another monthly to pick up in December. I'd like to hear from any of you who have tried out recent titles. What are your favorites, and why? Know of anything that sounds like it would be my style? I'd like to try it out. Help me catch up to the new century in comics!

Fear the (Baby) Boom and Bust

The people running this site, "The Can Kicks Back," suggests that economic inequality, government and student debt, and median income stagnation all have the same root cause: essentially, it blames the baby boomers.

Normally, when confronting broad, sweeping arguments like this one, my instinct is to discredit the over-the-top claims with actual data. In this case, though, it's actually kind of hard to argue with.

First of all, we have the fact that Baby Boomers did not have the same mentality of thrift as their parents; it's not all that surprising, given that their parents lived through the Great Depression and Second World War, and they didn't. Nevertheless, you can see the generational shift in the data:

The graph measures savings as a proportion of current-dollar per-person income, from 1929 to 2012. Not surprisingly, there's a huge drop during the Great Depression, suggesting that people were using most of their income to feed themselves. Then there's a big, huge jump during the Second World War. Partially that was enforced by government rationing, partially it was social pressure to support the war effort, and (I suspect, although I'd need more data to back this up) partially it was rebuilding savings that had been depleted during the previous decade.

But what's important for this argument comes after that. There's a gradual rise in the share of income saved after the war, but that rise flattens out beginning in the late 1960s--when the first Baby Boomers are entering the workforce. The last of the Baby Boomers started entering the workforce in the early 1980s, and we see a drop in the savings rate at that time, followed by a downward trend (perhaps related to the retirement of the Boomers' parents). The discrete jump up in 2008 is most likely related to current-dollar incomes falling faster than savings can respond.

In short, it is at least a plausible theory that Baby Boomers significantly consumed out of their parents stored wealth without replenishing it.

One possible response to depleting stores of wealth, especially when planning for retirement, would be to consume less; another would be to simply borrow against future earnings. The latter category is a better description of the Baby Boomer strategy.

Forbes makes the case that the current system of government entitlement spending (which the Baby Boomers are starting to draw as benefits) pays out far more than the recipients ever payed in:

Senator Tom Coburn (a physician in private life) has estimated that the average American couple contributes approximately $110,000 to Medicare over their working careers and receives over $330,000 of Medicare benefits. On Feb. 20, USA Today cited Urban Institute data pegging those same figures at $88,000 and $387,000, respectively. There are differing estimates of the size of the gap, but clearly Medicare suffers from an unsustainable funding deficit.

The conservative estimate is that Boomers will be drawing $3 for every dollar payed in. If this were a long-term investment that might not be bad; but Medicare isn't an investment, it's a pay-as-you-go system ultimately funded by taxes. It's a system in which Boomers give up a dollar in taxes during their working years, and receive $3 in new taxes (or borrowing against future taxes) later.

According to Thomas Firey, a commentator at Cato, it doesn't get better when we look at Social Security:

In contrast, the Boomers will get a bargain. When they entered the workforce in the late 1960s, they paid only 6.5 percent of their earnings to Social Security and nothing to Medicare. For about half of their working years, the Boomers paid 10 percent or less to Social Security and less than 1.25 percent to Medicare. Only from 1990 on, when the Boomers had earned paychecks for a quarter-century, did they start paying 12.4 percent to Social Security and 2.9 percent to Medicare — the same percentage we Gen-X/Yers have paid our whole lives.

That’s the Boomers’ bargain: They’ve paid less of their earnings into Social Security than we Gen-X/Yers, yet they’ll receive more in benefits than we will and we’ll pick up the tab.

So when Baby Boomers complain to me about how they've paid a lot of taxes and have earned their government payouts, I have trouble keeping my cool. To be fair, Boomers have accomplished some major gains for America during their time in charge. Boomers presided over the rise of civil rights and feminism, essentially extending the benefits of their position to many who had previously been cut off from the wealth created by their parents.

But it doesn't help that the Boomers complaining about how high their taxes (and, tellingly, the extension of rights to those they consider undeserving or immoral) have been are consistently living in states that, on net, are heavily subsidized by others:

New York transferred over $950 billion to the rest of America's fiscal union from 1990 to 2009. But relative to the size of its economy, Delaware made the biggest contribution, equivalent to more than twice its 2009 GDP.

So if you are a Baby Boomer in Oklahoma or South Carolina complaining about your taxes, you could always do the ethical thing: First, refuse two-thirds of your medicare dollars and (a bit under) half of your Social Security dollars; then, call your representatives and tell them to give Texas, California, and Minnesota back their tax dollars. I won't be as upset as the "The Can Kicks Back" people if you don't, but until you're willing to do, don't expect any sympathy from me.

(The title of this post comes from the legendary Keynes/Hayek rap battle.)

All our Heroes are Pyrrhus

That crunching sound is the new meta-narrative
crushing your nostalgia.

A while back I blogged about the summer blockbuster, Man of Steel. Jessie asked for a follow-up:

I want a post about people's oddly consistent reaction to how many extras died in this movie.

To really address this topic, I think we need to look more broadly at action and adventure movies. [I should mention at this will be a spoiler-filled post for any movies that come up, and that I will be talking about some movies I haven't seen.] Two movies this past summer have been particularly  criticized for their portrayal of successful attacks of mass destruction: Man of Steel and Star Trek Into Darkness. Tor.com has a recent post discussing the new perspective on warfare portrayed in these films:

The most disturbing thing to me about both Star Trek: Into Darkness and Man of Steel was the collateral damage in both films and the rather blasé treatment that it received. [...]

We’re not reminded often enough that thousands have died in drone strikes in Pakistan over the past 9 years. It’s not stressed that over a hundred of those deaths were children. They are not important to the narrative.

That narrative tells us that these things happen, that sometimes mistakes are made. That in order to protect our security and get the bad guys, sometimes innocent lives are lost. They’re unfortunate accidents. Incidental. It’s the cost of our freedom.

The whole post is worth reading, and I agree that these films highlight a major difference in the way we tell action stories now compared to previous decades. But I think it misses a critical detail of the destruction in these movies, and therefore a critical part of the narrative they create.

The incredible levels of destruction don't happen to civilians in the enemies country / planet. They happen here. When San Francisco and Metropolis are decimated, the movies are not making a reference to deaths overseas. Not to be completely cliché, but it really is all about 9/11.

Now, action movies have always required a certain degree of collateral damage, both to prove the situation is serious and to motivate the heroes to fight back. Often a close friend of the hero has to die in order to justify the heroes being callous about slaughtering the enemy; as Mark Millar would say, "It’s just a horrible act to show that somebody’s a bad guy."

What, a fiendish mustache isn't enough?

But mass destruction was typically been restricted to disaster movies or has taken place before the heroes get a chance to fight back. In both cases, a fair amount of attention was paid to the fallout, and the heartache of massive losses of life and property were kind of the point.

I think that changed after 9/11. Consider the first X-Men movie, which came out in 2000 and featured the villains almost killing all of the world's leaders. In the end we had one dead senator and a broken torch on the Statue of Liberty. In contrast, the third X-Men movie came out in 2006, and resulted in dozens or hundreds of death, and the complete destruction of an equally iconic national landmark, the Golden Gate Bridge. Some of this is a matter of sequels escalating, but I think there's something different here than what we see going from Die Hard in 1988 to Die Hard with a Vengeance in 1995. The process has continued over time, with city-wide destruction the heroes are powerless to prevent in 2012 in The Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises.

What people have been commenting on the most, though, is not just the level of destruction, but the fact that the heroes don't even make it a priority to try. These days, movie action heroes have accepted their inability to save large numbers of people, and the filmmakers want the audience to play along. We almost don't notice until we are looking at long-standing franchises like Star Trek and Superman, where we've seen the heroes fight and overcome these sorts of world-destroying dangers before with far less collateral damage.

So what does this say about us? Again, I don't think it's about our drones killing civilians. It's about the fact that our real-life heroes--the soldiers, political leaders, police officers, firefighters, etc--couldn't do much except get out of the way while the iconic monument of the World Trade Center towers collapsed. They helped after the fact, but they were powerless to prevent the tragedy. That's the new narrative I see: not just that heroes don't always prevent collateral damage, but that heroes can't prevent it, and we shouldn't expect them to.

Gone are the days where Superman can conveniently discover the power to turn back time if the villain succeeds in sinking the West Coast and killing Lois Lane. This time, the best we can hope is that Superman uses whatever is at his disposal to stop Zod from making it worse, even if it requires him to kill. Even the most powerful on-screen hero must accept that they are sometimes powerless, because the audience needs to accept that our off-screen heroes are sometimes powerless.

this is what victory looks like in the 21st century

The backlash this year might mean this is changing. As the narrative has escalated what our heroes can't do, we've also gotten further removed from 9/11. We might finally be reaching the stage where it's not enough to see the side of good win only by sacrificing much of what the hero protects (Man of Steel & Star Trek Into Darkness). Or it could be that the new narrative has run against our nostalgia for these franchises and the narrative won. Only time will tell.

Friday Links

Actually, this is a pretty good idea.

The new Archbishop of Canterbury wants to help not-for-profit credit unions put payday lenders out of business:

I said to him quite bluntly, ‘We’re not in the business of trying to legislate you out of existence, we’re trying to compete you out of existence’.

He’s a businessman, he took that well.

Test scores are bad at predicting performance at Google... but probably not for the reason you think:

Google likely doesn’t have much variability among those hired with respect to test scores and grades. And when there is no variability, there is no correlation with anything. [Furthermore,...] If someone is hired despite their lower test scores, it usually means some compelling compensating characteristics made that person look like a good bet. That is why the correlation between a valid selection instrument and job performance can be dramatically depressed when only looking at the hired sample.

Finally, here's a pinterest page that blurs the line between pop culture and fine art.

In Post-Soviet Russia,

photo captions you!

Stephen Fry thinks the UK should boycott the Sochi Olympics:

At all costs Putin cannot be seen to have the approval of the civilised world.
He is making scapegoats of gay people, just as Hitler did Jews. He cannot be allowed to get away with it. I know whereof I speak. I have visited Russia, stood up to the political deputy who introduced the first of these laws, in his city of St Petersburg. I looked into the face of the man and, on camera, tried to reason with him, counter him, make him understand what he was doing. All I saw reflected back at me was what Hannah Arendt called, so memorably, “the banality of evil.” A stupid man, but like so many tyrants, one with an instinct of how to exploit a disaffected people by finding scapegoats. Putin may not be quite as oafish and stupid as Deputy Milonov but his instincts are the same.
- See more at: http://www.stephenfry.com/2013/08/07/an-open-letter-to-david-cameron-and-the-ioc/single-page/#sthash.dkpUsBXV.dpuf

At all costs Putin cannot be seen to have the approval of the civilised world.
He is making scapegoats of gay people, just as Hitler did Jews. He cannot be allowed to get away with it. I know whereof I speak. I have visited Russia, stood up to the political deputy who introduced the first of these laws, in his city of St Petersburg. I looked into the face of the man and, on camera, tried to reason with him, counter him, make him understand what he was doing. All I saw reflected back at me was what Hannah Arendt called, so memorably, “the banality of evil.” A stupid man, but like so many tyrants, one with an instinct of how to exploit a disaffected people by finding scapegoats. Putin may not be quite as oafish and stupid as Deputy Milonov but his instincts are the same.
- See more at: http://www.stephenfry.com/2013/08/07/an-open-letter-to-david-cameron-and-the-ioc/single-page/#sthash.dkpUsBXV.dpuf

 At all costs Putin cannot be seen to have the approval of the civilised world.

He is making scapegoats of gay people, just as Hitler did Jews. He cannot be allowed to get away with it. I know whereof I speak. I have visited Russia, stood up to the political deputy who introduced the first of these laws, in his city of St Petersburg. I looked into the face of the man and, on camera, tried to reason with him, counter him, make him understand what he was doing. All I saw reflected back at me was what Hannah Arendt called, so memorably, “the banality of evil.” A stupid man, but like so many tyrants, one with an instinct of how to exploit a disaffected people by finding scapegoats. Putin may not be quite as oafish and stupid as Deputy Milonov but his instincts are the same. 

Read the whole thing. He makes an interesting case. George Takei has made a similar call.

On the opposite side is many Olympic athletes. Not too surprisingly, people who have worked for years and may only make it into the Olympics once don't want them to be cancelled or boycotted. "The Olympics are not a political statement," said openly-gay figure skater Johnny Weir.

I can see both arguments here. I lean towards favoring the relocation idea. What do you think?

At all costs Putin cannot be seen to have the approval of the civilised world. - See more at: http://www.stephenfry.com/2013/08/07/an-open-letter-to-david-cameron-and-the-ioc/single-page/#sthash.dkpUsBXV.dpuf

At all costs Putin cannot be seen to have the approval of the civilised world. - See more at: http://www.stephenfry.com/2013/08/07/an-open-letter-to-david-cameron-and-the-ioc/single-page/#sthash.dkpUsBXV.dpuf

At all costs Putin cannot be seen to have the approval of the civilised world.
He is making scapegoats of gay people, just as Hitler did Jews. He cannot be allowed to get away with it. I know whereof I speak. I have visited Russia, stood up to the political deputy who introduced the first of these laws, in his city of St Petersburg. I looked into the face of the man and, on camera, tried to reason with him, counter him, make him understand what he was doing. All I saw reflected back at me was what Hannah Arendt called, so memorably, “the banality of evil.” A stupid man, but like so many tyrants, one with an instinct of how to exploit a disaffected people by finding scapegoats. Putin may not be quite as oafish and stupid as Deputy Milonov but his instincts are the same.
- See more at: http://www.stephenfry.com/2013/08/07/an-open-letter-to-david-cameron-and-the-ioc/single-page/#sthash.dkpUsBXV.dpuf

At all costs Putin cannot be seen to have the approval of the civilised world.
He is making scapegoats of gay people, just as Hitler did Jews. He cannot be allowed to get away with it. I know whereof I speak. I have visited Russia, stood up to the political deputy who introduced the first of these laws, in his city of St Petersburg. I looked into the face of the man and, on camera, tried to reason with him, counter him, make him understand what he was doing. All I saw reflected back at me was what Hannah Arendt called, so memorably, “the banality of evil.” A stupid man, but like so many tyrants, one with an instinct of how to exploit a disaffected people by finding scapegoats. Putin may not be quite as oafish and stupid as Deputy Milonov but his instincts are the same.
- See more at: http://www.stephenfry.com/2013/08/07/an-open-letter-to-david-cameron-and-the-ioc/single-page/#sthash.dkpUsBXV.dpuf

At all costs Putin cannot be seen to have the approval of the civilised world.
He is making scapegoats of gay people, just as Hitler did Jews. He cannot be allowed to get away with it. I know whereof I speak. I have visited Russia, stood up to the political deputy who introduced the first of these laws, in his city of St Petersburg. I looked into the face of the man and, on camera, tried to reason with him, counter him, make him understand what he was doing. All I saw reflected back at me was what Hannah Arendt called, so memorably, “the banality of evil.” A stupid man, but like so many tyrants, one with an instinct of how to exploit a disaffected people by finding scapegoats. Putin may not be quite as oafish and stupid as Deputy Milonov but his instincts are the same.
- See more at: http://www.stephenfry.com/2013/08/07/an-open-letter-to-david-cameron-and-the-ioc/single-page/#sthash.dkpUsBXV.dpuf

Some Comic Creators Don't Want Your Money

Gail Simone will go Red Sonja on the next
fool who says comics aren't for women.

Not if you're a woman, that is. A group of well-known comic creators made comments at a panel discussion about how women are neither the target audience nor the protagonists of superhero stories, and to the extent they're in the stories at all horrifying things that happen to them aren't that big a deal.

I'll give you a second to finish your epic eye roll.

Here's Gerry Conway, known for creating the Punisher and killing-off Gwen Stacy, among his accomplishments:

I think it’s a mistake to sort of, like, pigeonhole superheroes, or to add so much to superheroes that you’re missing the fact it’s a genre within itself. It’s like saying, ‘Why are there no medieval stories about female knights?’ Because there was only one, you know, Joan of Arc. … It’s an inherent limitation of that particular genre, superheroes.

How the guy who invented Punisher doesn't know that these stories are made up, and therefore can be whatever people want, is really beyond me.

We also have Mark Millar, who wrote one of my favorite comics, Superman Red Son:

The ultimate [act] that would be the taboo, to show how bad some villain is, was to have somebody being raped, you know? [...] I don’t really think it matters. It’s the same as, like, a decapitation. It’s just a horrible act to show that somebody’s a bad guy.

Wait, what? If it's the same as a decapitation, why not use decapitation? Just to mix it up, keep the frivolous violence from becoming stale? I think Laura Hudson (@laura_hudson) responded best: 

If you don't understand how a rape scene is different from non-sexual violence, psychologically and culturally, you shouldn't be writing one. That's not just going to affect your writing, it's going to contribute to a culture where rape is endemic, misunderstood and even tolerated.

Now, I like darker & edgier comics. I've been known to enjoy Frank Miller, Alan Moore, Mike Grell, and a host of others. But if you're not going to treat the darker subject matter with the seriousness the topics deserve, it's not edgy. It's tawdry.

Finally, there's this gem from Todd McFarlane, creator of Spawn (Image comics represent!):

[...] the odd character that is a minority that works is the one that is just a good strong character. They've tried to do minority characters and bring that label and that surrounding [debate] into it. You're aware that you're reading a minority comic book. I think it's wrong.

Crap, all this time they've been trying to make female and minority characters, and they forgot that they have to be good characters, too! It's a good thing we have McFarlane to clue us in. Seriously, though, the implication is that a straight white male character is inherently more likely to be a good character. It might be the case that it's easier for straight white male writers to do a good job with straight white male characters. But to suggest, even slightly, that this has anything to do with the limitations of minority characters and not the limitations of the straight white male writers is pretty ridiculous.

Sometimes I'm a little embarrassed to be a fan of superhero comics.

Humanities and Uncertainties

Thanks. We'll try.

John Horgan at Scientific American has some thoughts about the intellectual contribution of the humanities and social sciences. His basic thesis:

In your science, mathematics and engineering classes, you’re given facts, answers, knowledge, truth. Your professors say, “This is how things are.” They give you certainty. The humanities, at least the way I teach them, give you uncertainty, doubt and skepticism.

This is one of the major objectives of the courses I teach, in statistics and economics. In economics, I want students to realize that when they (or anyone else) suggests there is a simple, easy to understand solution to a major problem the world is facing, it is going to be wrong. We don't have the information to reach easy answers, and in general the easy answers aren't there to be found in the first place. I like to quote Thomas Sowell: "There are no solutions, only tradeoffs."

In statistics, I want students to think in terms of probability rather than certainty, and realize that we can be confident in our beliefs while still being willing to learn. I like to quote Oliver Cromwell: "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken."

I also agree with Horgan that science education is increasingly dogmatic, and this is a major problem. Science educators have gotten so frustrated with 'evolution is just a theory' that they fight back with the same fundamentalism, insisting that science gives us things we totally, definitely know for sure:

[...] science if properly taught should incorporate skepticism. But science is becomingly increasingly dogmatic and arrogant in our era, which is why we need the humanities to foster a healthy anti-dogmatism.

So if the humanities are teaching students to be more questioning, and to be comfortable in a world of uncertainty, then more power to them. It's nice to have allies.

Comics of the gods?

Complex morality / theology? Check.

Jonathan Ryan has a series of blog posts about DC's current crossover event, Trinity War (part 1, part 2, part 3).

This “event” contains a TON of profound discussion points. How did evil get into the world? What is the cure? How does God play into all this? How will people, including super people, deal with all the implications of it? How can evil have a destructive affect even among those trying to do “good”? [¶] This is what I love about Geoff Johns, the writer of this series. He is not afraid to go after theological and philosophical discussion.

Now, I have to confess that I haven't been reading this series. I'm not as awestruck as some by Geoff Johns (although I do agree that team books are where he does his best work), and I've not gotten into DC's new 52 much. But the post was enough to get a pastor friend of mine interested in reading the series, so you might find it worth the read. I do appreciate that Ryan considers comic-book crossovers to be major cultural events:

You know what I don’t get? I don’t understand how major religious sites have NOT done many stories about this comic book run. I’m really gobsmacked by it. This is a huge cultural event that is addressing MAJOR theological issues. And…..barely a peep.

They've certainly got Ryan's number, and probably a lot of others, too. The best comics I've ever read were fun and action-packed on the one hand, but dealt with deep, complex themes and moral issues on the other. Good comics should be able to do both (as should good comics movies, which is why I'll take The Dark Knight over Iron Man any day). According to Ryan, "What we have is a full on theological debate going on in a comic book; Sin’s destruction, corrupting affects and how it affects the whole world." Bring it on.

Gender-Flipping the Argument

Why isn't this man in the army?

Here's an amusing list of the ten reasons men shouldn't be ordained, apparently based on an older list related to women's suffrage. My personal favorite is number six:

6. Men are too emotional to be priests or pastors. Their conduct at football and basketball games demonstrates this.

 I may turn the topic of gender-flipping into a regular feature here. It's quite insightful.

David Brooks argues with conservatives

A conservative for
immigration reform

David Brooks has a new op-ed in the New York Times:

This could be a tragedy for the country and political suicide for Republicans, especially because the conservative arguments against the comprehensive approach are not compelling.

After all, the Senate bill fulfills the four biggest conservative objectives. [...]These are all gigantic benefits. They are like Himalayan peaks compared with the foothill-size complaints conservatives are lodging. 

The conservative objectives he mentions are encouraging economic growth, shrinking the national debt, reducing illegal immigration, and avoiding demographic collapse. Read the whole piece. Brooks' piece reminded me of Corny Collins' line from the movie Hairspray:

Velma, isn't this where it's all heading anyway? Now you can fight it, or you can rock out to it!

Good show. Good coffee. (and a couple mentions of donuts, too)

A video of all the mentions of pie and coffee from a TV classic, Twin Peaks:

"They don't need the good news because they don't get the bad news." Nope.

Your kids are not Gollum in this story.

The quote in the title comes from this comment by Steve McCoy. Steve McCoy has been in the spotlight lately for a recent tweet. McCoy wrote "Tell your children they are broken. Deeply broken."

Now, I get what McCoy is trying to emphasize here. We all have a sinful nature from birth. Because it is so fundamental, he wants everyone to know this. He wants them to know it as early as possible because, in his view, anyone who doesn't properly embrace this bad news cannot properly appreciate the good news of the Gospel.  I get it. Most of my experience with Christian communities (beginning in high school) has been with people who agree with his theological point. I happen to agree with his theological point, myself.

But I am dead set against his prescription. (more below the jump break)

Make Your Choice

You don't know what you want.
Luigi know what you want.

Is there such a thing as too much choice? Some critics of the consumer-centric society think so, and have made their case strongly in TED talks, newspaper editorials, research papers. Author Matt Ridley thinks our own personal experience should dispel this notion:

Now, I don’t know about you, but last time I was offered blue-cheese, Ranch, French or thousand-island dressing for my salad, I don’t remember having a panic attack, or even needing therapy at all. I don’t generally find my heartbeat racing or my palms sweating as I contemplate the rows of different brands of toothpaste on the shelves. And I am rather relieved at having been allowed the choice of whom to marry. There are poor teenagers in Indian villages who have none of these choices: I do not envy them.

I'm glad Ridley is never overwhelmed with fast food options. But if the game is to consult our own experience, I have to make my confession: I have felt a bit paralyzed at the thought of selecting the wrong kind of hamburger before. Although I sympathize with the idea that having too many options is almost always better than too few, A part of me has to side with comedian David Mitchell on this one:

Are there instances where you would prefer to have your choices narrowed for you? Or would you always prefer more control?

A Return to Blogging

Superman Returns?

After a few years without blogging on this page, I've decided to return. My intention is to put up links to articles, blog posts, and videos I find interesting. I'll also post my own thoughts on topics of interest from time to time. I'm planning to deal less with economics-related topics; I'll be leaning more heavily on topics like education, truth claims, mechanics and mystics, comic, and other fun tags from my new label cloud. (If you really want to hear my econ commentary, head over to my more academic blog, Subliminally Unemployed.)

As the first return post, I'll offer a movie review (poster provided) complete with spoilers below the jump break. But before I do, let me open this post with a request for requests: whether you're returning to this blog with me or starting it new, what would you like me to write about? Any articles you'd like me to comment on or share? Post your requests in the comments, and welcome to Metadoxy!