Howard Stern vs. Amanda Peet

By The Lost Motorcyclist, March 2011

Amanda Peet is an American actress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanda_peet

What caught my attention was a youtube video posted where Howard Stern blasted her for several full minutes. After listening to the rant, I was curious as to the reason or the context of the rant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zur0PR_-gPo

Early on in the speech, Howard says "They go on there and they clearly have nothing to talk about". An ironic statement, in my opinion.

In case you don't know who Howard Stern (the radio Shock Jock) is, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_stern.

"In May 1987, Stern recorded five television pilots for Fox when the network planned to replace The Late Show hosted by Joan Rivers.[65] The series was never picked up; one executive having described the show as "poorly produced", "in poor taste" and "boring".[66] Stern hosted his first pay-per-view event on February 27, 1988 named Howard Stern's Negligeé and Underpants Party."

also

"In February 1991, Stern released Crucified by the FCC, a collection of censored radio segments following the first fine issued to Infinity by the FCC over alleged indecency.[69] He released a third video tape, Butt Bongo Fiesta, in October 1992 that sold 260,000 copies for a gross of over $10 million."

Howard's approach is soft (or hard) core porn mixed with racist hatred, and a determined campaign to say things that normal people keep to themselves. He also feels that he is some kind of crusader for free speech, and a supporter of lesbian rights. Most women who appear on his show have to get naked and do things to him. So that's a sum up of Howard Stern.

Now why does he take offence at Amanda Peet's appearance on Letterman??? It seems that his own beautiful model wife appeared on Letterman earlier, and didn't do so well. So Howard decided to attack another person appearing on Letterman and Amanda Peet was at the wrong place at the wrong time. For one, apparently her parents were rich. Obviously that would not be enough for a rant like this, lots of people are born rich, and I don't hold it against them. I don't even hate Howard for making $10,000,000 of "Butt Bongo Fiesta". But the key point for Howard was when Amanda got into a fit of giggles and could not clearly state the concept of the movie she was promoting at the time. When Letterman asked her to set up the clip from the movie, she said "Now sell, Amanda, sell" and "Clearly I don't belong here". Then got into a fit of giggling, where Dave tried to fill in the background for her. So actually in a way I kind of see Howard's point, that she did not do a very good job of "selling" the movie.

But here is the point of view of a guy who lives in a more real world than Howard Stern. In Howard Stern's world, famous movie actresses take off their clothes when he tells them to and act out his fantasies on TV and radio. This, so far anyway, has never happened to me or anyone I know. I personally would be OK with being in the same room as Amanda Peet, and if she were to giggle uncontrollably at one of my jokes, I would not be offended. Even if the giggling was totally fake. And I bet a lot of guys I know would be the same way. But then I never have been paid ten million for doing a tape called Butt Bongo Fiesta, either. So my standards are pretty low.

Now let's assume I am the typical guy going to see a movie. How do you, as an actress in the movie, sell that movie to me? Well for starters, forget about telling me that the movie is about "An old Grandmother that people are waiting for her to die so they can get her apartment." There is no way you can say that to make me want to see that movie. On the other hand, if Amanda Peet is fun to watch on Letterman, and is laughing and maybe a little nervous, I might be tempted to go, especially if Mary Ann (who would never want to hear Howard Stern in a million years) want to see it too.

So I have watched Amanda Peet in a few movies, example "Saving Silverman" where she is truly a quite unlikeable person, and maybe Howard is confusing her character onscreen with her own personality. Or maybe she refused to appear naked on his show. Or maybe something else set him off.

Howard makes his fame by saying whatever comes into his mind, and his combination of profanity laced, hate filled rants, mixed with his profanity filled sexual musings seem to appeal to a lot of Americans, and many Canadians too. But I would not call it "having something to say" as much as it is simply pushing the boundaries of good taste. On David Letterman's Late Show, you have to appeal to a wider audience, and do it with taste and style. It seems to me Amanda Peet is about as entertaining as anyone, and way more entertaining to me than Howard Stern's own appearances on the talk shows to promote his satellite radio network.

Here is the offending video, (Peet on Letterman) and the selling of the movie starts at 4:40

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sg_2XkgIRYU

And as a counterpoint, here's Howard's wife on Letterman, probably the original trigger for Howard Stern's hate filled rant. Somehow, Howard does not come off sounding as good as he thinks he is. Anyway, that's what I think. His wife also happens to look a little bit like Amanda Peet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpxpEKLb_Ic

Picture: A frame grab of Amanda Peet's face from My Damn Channel featuring comedian David Wain in a Wainy Days sketch.

Form Follows Function (Sometimes)

By The Lost Motorcyclist, March 2011

There is an old quote that most people have heard "Form follows function". It's famous and has been argued about often. I want to discuss this idea only in relation to motorcycles, but you can go to Wikipedia for the long version.

This idea came about in the 1800's when technology changed so much that it no longer made sense to design things to look like they had always looked. The particular case was the skyscraper, made of steel beams rather than historic stone.

People have always been reluctant to accept new technology unless it looks like the old. For a thousand years after the invention of pottery, most pots were designed with a fake basket weave molded on the outside. Actually, I see in Google that such patterns are still popular today. Now I always thought this was just because people liked the look of the primitive technology of basket weave, but apparently at least one expert claims it was because early pottery was made in basket molds.

http://www.ehow.com/facts_5505662_primitive-pottery-making.html

Anyway, to bring this back to motorcycling, if we were to get serious about "form follows function", we would stop putting cooling fins on the engines of water cooled motorcycles. My Kawasaki Vulcan 900 is one of many examples of this, but I will confess that I like the look of the cooling fins. So maybe I am not a really hard core FFF'er.

At it's most extreme level, even a colour other than black would be non-functional. So money could be saved by painting every bike black, like Henry Ford did with the Model T. His phrase was "You can have any colour you like as long as it's black". And many motorcycle enthusiasts claim black is the only real colour for some motorcycles, and all motorcycle clothing.

One of my pet peeves is the disappearance of the fenders on motorcycles. We all know the function of the fender is to control the spray off the wheels. But what if you live in a place where there is no rain, like California? Even in Canada, if you never go out to the donut shop when it's raining, you don't need fenders. In either case, you may want a bike with no fenders. Also, manufacturers are very quick to pick up on any styling trend that saves them money, such as providing bikes with no fenders. This annoys me because I do end up riding in rain from time to time, and many bikes have fenders that are too short or narrow. On bicycles, fenders mostly disappeared some time in the seventies, but motorcycles are covered by laws about much of their design, including the need to provide fenders. Now the manufacturers are pushing the limits of these laws in two ways. The law usually only says how far down the fender needs to go at the back. So a tiny fender is mounted at exactly that height, but it does not cover the upper part of the tire. BMW GS bikes often use this trick. Another trick is to simply make the fender as narrow as possible, much narrower than the tire. One example of the narrow fender is the Kawasaki Versys, but I'm sure there are others. Back in the sixties, this argument about fenders was already starting, and Honda made bikes for the American market with smaller fenders than in the European market. (Example the original CB350.) That's because Europeans tended to use motorcycles for transportation, while in America they were mostly for recreation.

Another FFF issue, but much less controversial is the "Soft tail" look. Motorcycles with rear suspensions, including springs and shock absorbers, became popular in the fifties. But long after rear suspensions became universal, Harley Davidson decided to build a bike that looked like it had no rear suspension (like the old ones). By this time, old bikes with no rear suspension were starting to be called "hard tails". So the Harley model with the hidden rear suspension was called the "soft tail". Kawasaki also picked up this idea with my Vulcan 900.

When discussing function, we often disagree on what exactly the function is supposed to be. For example, the law might say the function of a muffler is to make the motorcycle quiet. But the owner might say the opposite, that the function of the exhaust is to wake up drivers and save lives. To the manufacturer, there is no real function to a muffler, and I'm sure they would like to drop it all together to keep the price down. If form really did follow function, then the motorcycle would come with no muffler, and let the owner add whichever one they want. But the law (which serves the wider public) is written to prevent this. It is impossible for you to order a new motorcycle from the dealer with your choice of muffler on it. However, the way the law is written now, as long as you pay for the original quiet muffler, the dealer can put on any muffler you like. But still, the the law is written well enough that the manufacturer cannot put on a cheap muffler just to satisfy a noise test.

Picture: New Ducati Diavel with rear fender according to "Form Follows Letter of the Law". Arrow points to gap in the rear fender coverage that was not specifically mentioned in the law. The front fender is also too short to be of much real use. (preventing spray in front of the headlight and riders face)

Cornering Clearances Again

By The Lost Motorcyclist, March 2011

Another critique of cornering style, this time a sportbike. In an earlier blog, I mentioned that sportbikes usually test their limits on a track. But apparently there are places where sportbike riders gather to test their limits on paved public roads. This particular corner is on Mulholland Drive in Los Angeles, and it looks like a well equipped film crew has set up shop to capture the freaky moments. The filming is steady, sharp, well centred, from an excellent angle. Although I am not a pro myself, filming live action like this is not easy, so I think the film crew really know their stuff.

I am not a professional rider either, but it seems to me the rider once again has made several mistakes. One mistake is testing the limits on a public road, although this time he was lucky to not hit an oncoming car. Also, when you know you are testing the limits, jeans are not the best pants to wear, and I don't know about the workboots either - I guess most of the budget went on the bike.

I wrote about scraping floorboards on cruisers in this blog.
http://lostmotorcycles.blogspot.com/2011/01/dragging-floorboards-keeping-up-with.html

The point I was trying to make was that the Harley rider was leaning one way, the bike leaning the other, which forced the bike to run out of ground clearance earlier than if the rider had been leaning with the bike. (or more than the bike)

It looks like this sportbike rider has done the same thing in a sound video that you can follow almost frame by frame.

In the video, I think trouble starts with the body position, the rider is leaning right, forcing the bike to lean more to the left to make the corner. Although the sport bike actually has a lot of clearance, he is going a bit fast on a slow corner. Apparently a lot of videos of crashes are filmed here, which apparently does not slow down the riders much. If anything it makes some of them go faster.

Just before the bike gets out of control, you hear a little scrape. It's not too bad and the rider gets it back under control, and leans the bike back into the corner, and then there is another louder scrape, but this time the rear wheel is being levered off the pavement, and you can hear the engine speed up when this happens. Now traction at the rear is lost, and the back end begins to slide. But almost immediately the bike comes more upright again and the back wheel rubber hits the ground a bit sideways, then gets traction. This stops (or slows) the sliding, but by now the top end of the motorcycle is not leaning over far enough to remain in balance and centrifugal force, or momentum keeps the top of the bike and the rider going, while the bottom (the rubber and wheels) are slowing down drastically.

A motorcycle flipping over like this is called a "High side". That's where the rider is thrown over the top of the bike. A low side happens when the rider simply falls to the ground on the same side that he is leaning. The nice thing about a low side is that you don't fall very far, and I don't think you would slide as far either. I'm not sure about that, never seen any scientific studies, my reasoning is that with a low side, the rider slows down with the bike as the rubber slides away, with highsides the rider departs kind of like a catapult without benefiting from riding the slowing bike to the ground first. Quite often, you can get the rider lowsiding first, and after the rider gets off, the bike itself may still highside (or flip over) as it skids along with no rider.

If you want to see a movie where there is absolutely no possibility of a low or a high side, check out this humorous short film. "Vicious Cycles"

Picture: A frame capture from the Mulholland video, just before losing it.

Prosperity Lake, Fish Lake Controversy in Cycle Canada

Although I have writing this blog from the point of view of a motorcyclist, you can easily see that I have not restricted myself to writing only about motorcycling. Because I do not believe that motorcyclists should stick to talking only about motorcycling, and should sit down and shut up about everything else, such as the environment, hypocrisy, lies, and deliberate distortions in the news media. I could have separated the the blog into two, one for only motorcycling and one for everything else, but I did not, and of course that somewhat restricts my readership. Not that it makes much difference to me as it is a non commercial blog anyway.

Today I was quite impressed that Cycle Canada seems to agree with that attitude. In my new April 2011 issue, it came to my attention that Cycle Canada had written an opinion about the environment in March 2011, because one of their readers, John Northey of Port Moody, B.C., wrote in to complain about it. Forgive me, I did not notice it when I read the March issue last month, or if I read it I sure don't remember. John Northey wrote a letter to the editor, complaining that Neil Johnston (the author of the Cycle Canada piece about Prosperity Lake) "broke away from a ride experience to create a political polemic, which has no place in your publication. I am certainly not averse to controversy in Cycle Canada, as long as it relates to items about motorcycles and motorcycling. Johnston may have some experience with mining, but that does not give him latitude to make judgments when others with vastly more technical capability remain hard at work to resolve environmental issues in the Prosperity and Fish Lake situation."

This was the answer by the editor (Neil Graham)

"It stuns me that, as a man who expresses great affection for B.C. wilderness, you would so easily leave the region's future for others to decide. To have written a piece about Fish lake and not to have delved into the controversy would be a sacrilege - as well as shoddy journalism. And these "others" that you speak about, with "vastly more technical capability", wouldn't happen to be members of the Liberal Party of B.C. or employees of Taseko mining, would they? Before we are motorcyclists, we are citizens of this land, and sometimes it means standing up and exposing hypocrisy and double-speak. --Ed."

I say thumbs up to Cycle Canada on two counts. One, the courage to stand up and speak on a controversial issue, that is not normally covered in motorcycle magazines. Second, for the judgment to speak out on something that is worth speaking out for. I would actually not be very pleased if they spoke out against the environmentalists on this. I feel that we are already getting an overdose of right wing corporate propaganda in the media.

But that does bring us to another issue. If Motorcycle Magazines (or blogs) are going to start giving opinions on politics, religion, and the environment, which opinions should they give? Wouldn't it be better if they left it up to right wing or left wing bloggers, or the National Post or MacLean's magazine? In a perfect world, where we were not bombarded with propaganda from corporations and hatemongers, I would think that motorcycle magazines should avoid anything but motorcycling topics. But in a world that is gradually slipping into the corporate mindset (example, believing the mining company's promises that there would be no pollution), we need more and more people willing to take this kind of action, before it's too late. Already, large numbers of people have their heads in the sand about out economy slowing down, about oil resources depleting, about overpopulation and pollution, and global warming. I don't want Cycle Canada to become like my Greenpeace magazine, but say enough for us to know that they don't have their head stuck in the sand too.

Short Trips vs. Long Trips

I am wondering if short, local trips can be as interesting as long trips to faraway places. I am going to qualify that as motorcycle trips, because that's the kind of trip I like the best.

It's easy enough to say "it's all in the mind", and you can be just as interested by any place you go, near or far. While that's true enough if you can convince yourself, what does it sound like to other people you talk to in everyday life?

I like to hear about travel stories, and I like telling my own stories when the opportunity arises. I have found a few websites on the internet that have collections of motorcycle adventure stories, such www.Advrider.com. I can spend quite a bit of time reading through these stories, even though they are typically amateur efforts with no professional editing (like a published book or magazine might have). I also have to wade through quite a bit of back and forth commentary by other forum members, and although that's not too bad by itself, some people repeatedly repost the same pictures and text along with their replies, and sometimes have very little to add to what has been said (except for their long rambling signatures that tend to resemble the Gettysburg Address.) After a while you sometimes feel like it's hard slogging to follow the original story.

I don't mind telling my own motorcycle travel stories. Occasionally I find a person who has some interest. But most of the time it's not something other people are interested in, even for other motorcyclists. Travel is a broad topic, and most people are not that interested in adventure travel. I think it usually comes down to "Where are you planning to go, or where have you been recently?", to which you name the country or whatever, and the other person says "Been there, nice place." (or) "Need to go there." (or, more rarely) "My God why would you ever go there???", and the conversation is over.

I'll admit I am a bit like that myself. I like to hear stories especially about places I would like to go, or have been to. I prefer to hear about places further away or more difficult to get to. Although I have a little more patience than the average in hearing details about the trip, I also sometimes find travel stories a bit boring.

While most people are probably not interested in how you hacked your way through the Darien Gap, I can assure you there are even fewer who want to hear about your trip to Simcoe, Ontario. Well, not just Simcoe, any place less than 1000 km away is thought to be unworthy of telling about. So in that way, local trips will never be as inherently interesting as longer trips, barring some kind of amazing event, like being abducted by aliens in Burford. The fact that Tim Hortons' in Port Dover has a new kind of donut will bring only the slightest spark of interest, probably feigned anyway. Even if you are the most amazing, hypnotic, mesmerizing story teller.

But putting aside the patronizing attitudes toward your adventurous ride to Port Dover, can you have an experience similar to riding on the Baja Peninsula of Mexico? In Mexico, the flora and fauna will be different, the climate will be different, the language will be different, let's face it, a lot of differences except the sun and moon in the sky and the level of oxygen in the air you breathe.

But do many people pay any attention to the different birds and plants? There are birds right here in Ontario that are pretty amazing, if you happen to spot them. Granted, most people can tell a saguaro cactus or a palm tree from a pine or maple. Other than that, knowledge is a bit thin.

What about landmarks like the Eiffel Tower or the Statue of Liberty? Mostly I just look at them and try to take a picture like the ones in the post card, except with me in it. Increasingly this is possible in Photoshop without ever visiting the places.

What a lot of people really like about travelling, if they would admit it, is not having to prepare meals (Obviously I'm not talking about campers and motor homers.) And the excuse to do something stupid: "I need to do this, because I'm on vacation!". Well there, I can assure you that you don't need to leave the country to go to restaurants, even Mexican ones, or to do something stupid. Although, if you desperately wanted to stick your arm in a shark's mouth, you may have to go south for that experience. And if you do end up in jail, you can't beat Canada for a warm, welcoming experience.

Picture: That's my Honda CD175 "Every ride's an adventure", in Ontario last summer with some weird giant grass beside the road. And that's also a Honda CD175 forty years ago in Sierra Leone with some weird giant grass beside the road.

Long Distance Motorcycling Without Too Much Pain

By The Lost Motorcyclist, February 2011

I had started to write about long distance riding comfort, but then I realized the topic was too big for a single blog. So I'm going to deal with just one aspect of comfort, which is avoidance of body pain. So I'm not dealing with staying dry and warm, which is a huge topic all by itself.

I am actually writing about normal motorcycles, although the picture is of a special home built recumbent, which may or may not be comfortable, since I never tried it. Offhand, I would bet it is not as comfortable as a well set up regular bike for 1000 km days. Also you should wear a helmet.

There are many forms of pain, some of which only affect certain people. For example I found out that riding with certain types of bladder stones can cause severe pain every time you go over a bump. And different people have various aches and pains that can be made worse by some types of motorcycles. Obviously I can't deal with all the individual problems, so I am going to hit the most common forms of motorcycling pain. Butt burn being the most well known.

Butt burn, as the name suggests, is a burning sensation in the butt that you get from sitting on most motorcycle seats. The best stock seat I ever had was my '92 BMW K1100LT. I could sometimes go 1000 km before it started to hurt. Other bike seats might go only about 200. But I have no idea why it worked so well. It wasn't particularly big, or soft or anything. It just felt comfortable for a long time. One idea I had was that maybe because my knees were pressed tight against the fairing, my rear end didn't try to move forward or back over bumps in the road, but I never was able to confirm the "zero butt shear force" hypothesis.

You can prolong the comfort of any seat by moving around to different positions. It's better if you start doing this before it hurts, because moving around doesn't seem to cure butt burn once it starts.

I don't have a lot of scientific data on this, it is more of "seat of the pants" idea, but wearing leather motorcycle pants seems to help a lot in prolonging rear end comfort. They may be worth up to an additional 200 km over whatever seat comfort range you normally have.

Aftermarket seats cost a lot of money and I don't know how good they work, but an Airhawk air-filled seat pad can help too. I would rate mine as an additional 300 km. over the bare seat. That works out to about $0.50 per kilometer, on your first long day. (They cost about $150)

If butt-burn is under control, the next item for me is wind noise. A lot of people don't care about this too much, but if you do ride long distances on motorcycles, without earplugs, sooner or later your ears are going to start getting sensitive to loud noises. That is a permanent condition, unlike butt-burn. So to avoid it, you might want to try some good foam ear plugs. These days they are available all over the place. In Canada, Mark's Work Wearhouse has them quite cheap. Just be aware that you will tend to ride faster with ear plugs, because they make you feel like you are going slow when you first start wearing them. Watch the speedometer.

I guess this next one is not exactly pain, it's kind of the opposite. Vibration in the handlebar can make your hand go numb. This is very hard to predict, I didn't know from one ride to the next if it was going to happen. But the BMW four cylinder motor did not have a counterbalancer or rubber mounting, and that bike made my hand go to sleep more than any other bike. By comparison, it has only happened two times on my Vulcan 900, which is a twin but has a front rubber engine mount, and a counterbalancer. By counterbalancer I mean counterweights on a shaft that rotates in the opposite direction to the crank. Apparently this is the only way to cancel primary and secondary vibrations, short of building a straight six engine. These counterbalancers, if the bike has them, are always mentioned in the brochures under features.

If you already have a tingling handlebar and a numb hand, you can try taking one hand off the bar and shake it out. Or you can try shaking it out while holding the bar. Both remedies are equally dangerous as far as I'm concerned. Manufacturers try to smooth the bars with bar-end weights. These are fixed weights and only work at specific frequencies. You may want to try changing the weight (either a bit heavier or a bit lighter to see if it helps your particular situation. Even my 6 cylinder CBX had bar end weights, although the engine itself was very smooth.

Now for back pain. This is usually for older people, but who knows? Back rests are not such a great idea because motorcycles pitch forward and back like a rocking horse, and if you didn't know that already, you will once you install a backrest. On a smooth road they are OK, though. Another solution is a kidney belt. I'm not sure why they are called kidney belts, unless they stop you from drinking beer. But usually they provide some lumbar support, and that really helps the lower back, without the disadvantage of slamming you in the kidneys over a rough road, like a backrest would. Anyway, on a rough road, you should be able to lean forward and avoid contact with the backrest.

If you have neck and shoulder pain, it could be because your helmet is too heavy or poorly balanced on your neck. Or it could mean you have a windshield which is directing a reverse current of air onto your helmet (also called back pressure), forcing you to use a small group of muscles on the back of your neck and shoulders. I had this pain for years, and now it's gone. I cured it by getting a windshield that I could retract until I had wind in my face again. Now I have a different bike with a non-retractable windshield, but for some reason the pain has not returned.

I know other people who have pain in their wrists, and pain in their knees. I can't say much about that, because I seem to be OK there so far. But I imagine the solution there might also be moving around a bit, if you can. I generally like to find at least three comfortable and safe alternate seating positions that I can take occasionally to give the standard position a break. And usually I will do this with no traffic around on straight roads.

I wear a full face helmet with a visor, which prevents the pain of bugs, rocks and raindrops on my face at 100 kph. Goggles may also work if you don't hit the bee right on your nose. By the way, I also have been hit by rocks on the foot and leg and knuckles, and had a bee go up my sleeve and sting me. There is also the pain of going down and sliding on the road, but I don't call that "long distance motorcycle riding".

You may have a motorcycle that is simply not designed for comfort. I would be concerned about extremely low handlebars and high footpegs on some sport bikes, for example. Although I see some people with bikes like this that do ride long distances. It just goes to show that comfort is an individual thing.

Finally, your clothing, boots or helmet may cause pain. If they do, you have bought some bad clothing, because they are not supposed to hurt. Get rid of them, or fix them. What's that you say? You can't, because comfortable clothes are not stylish enough? If that's what you think, you are probably not the type of person who rides motorcycles long distances. And I mean that in the nice way.

Picture: recumbent motorcycle, AKA Feet Forward or FF from http://members.core.com/~flyboy/index.html

America is Rich: So Simple a Caveman Could Understand It

I have found a right wing forwarded email explaining why America is rich. I thought it was worth examining, because so many people have wrong ideas about wealth inequality. It is titled "So Simple a Caveman Could Understand it."

Since the Caveman version is really kind of long and rambling, I will try to edit it down to a manageable size, and then explain it so that a Teabagger can understand why it does not work.

Basically, this is a forwarded email explanation of why America is great and rich, in a way that it is easily understood by the conservatives or libertarians that have not taken a degree in economics. This explanation is not so easily understood by liberals, especially those who have travelled abroad and/or have some further education in how a country's economy works.

By and large, the answer given in the email is that America is capitalistic. Every other economic system is doomed to failure. And anything but pure unadulterated capitalism is also doomed to collapse. To quote from the forward:

"So we're off on a little all-American road trip, this time to figure out why our economy, when sick, is stronger than anyone else's, when healthy. To see if we can figure out how 300 million strangers, all the troublemakers and upstarts from every nation in the world, can come to one vast continent, be given more freedom than any people before or since, and manage to become the most prosperous, powerful, tightly-knit nation in history. And how come we invent everything, too? Must be something in the water out there."

----------------------------------------------------
I have to take issue with two things here: One is that some of those strangers were brought over unwillingly to the USA and forced to work under the lash, for no pay, to make the white slave owners rich. Two: is that the land the slave owners forced the slaves to work on was stolen from the Indians. And please, Americans did not invent everything, there were also trains, guns, and sailing ships. Invented by non-Americans. But that last point is not that important, so go on.

--------------------------------------------------

"I believe that there are three elements -- just three -- that we mix in just the right ratio to perform our national alchemy. Look around you at the rest of the world. Those who use none of these ingredients are disasters, basket cases, failed states where misery and poverty crush the life out of what is almost an indomitable human drive to create, to nurture, and to prosper."

"Stop guessing. Sorry, but it's not God, Guts and Guns. The Arabs have God, the Russians have Guts and the Colombians have Guns -- you want to live there?"

The first of these three pillars has several names: private property, the free market, enlightened self-interest. But the first essential element of the American Trinity, and the hardest to come to grips with, is Capitalism.

"Where you stand on the political spectrum, what you think of rich and poor people, and what you think about rich and poor nations and how they should act in the world, comes down, in my mind, to one single issue, and one only: Can wealth be created, or can it only be redistributed?"

------------------------------------
So this is an interesting question, I suppose. What is wealth? Is wealth gold, or paper money? Or is wealth land, or is wealth natural resources such as oil, water, buildings, tools, weapons ????
--------------------------------------

If you believe, as I do, that wealth can be manufactured out of thin air, then there is no limit to the amount of wealth you can amass. And since you are creating it out of thin air, there is no moral onus on making money -- you work hard to create it and have stolen from no one. There is an expression for this: you earned it.

-----------------------------------
OK I got that one wrong. I found in Wikipedia that

"wealth is is context-dependent and there is no universally agreed upon definition. Generally, economists define wealth as "anything of value" which captures both the subjective nature of the idea and the idea that it is not a fixed or static concept."

Now obviously there are different ways to define value. For one thing, anything that is a necessity of life has value. Its exact value is determined roughly by how important it is to life, and by how scarce it is. Next, a more loose definition of value is "whatever people are willing to pay you for what you have". Obviously this is harder to pin down. Just try to auction off Justin Bieber's hair on eBay, and you'll see what I mean.

I am not that keen on things that only have value because of what other people are willing to pay (Bieber's hairs, diamonds, gold bars, paper money, GM Stock) and I have a lot more faith in things that have more inherent value (farmland, real estate, a house, tools, an education). Mind you, even for things that have inherent value, we often determine that value simply by what others are willing to pay. But if the entire economy was to collapse, which would you rather have? Survival skills, or Bieber's hair? Real Estate, or shares of Bank of America?

I suspect that most wealth that can be generated out of thin air has little or no real inherent value. Even if it is a really good idea like the wheel, or fire, or sliced bread, the idea itself is unlikely to reward the inventor. For sure any wealth generated out of thin air is not going to be stuff like tools, land, or shelter. So now lets continue with the right wing economics lesson for cavemen.

---------------------------------------------------

"Wealth can be created from thin air by human ingenuity and hard work."

---------------------------------------------------
I guess this was written before the 2008 global economic meltdown that debunked derivatives, and mortgage back securities. They were classical examples of wealth being created out of thin air. Unfortunately when wealth is created out of thin air it sometimes goes poof back into thin air. This happens so frequently in economics that there's even an economic term for it. It's called a "Bubble". Apparently every generation has to relearn this lesson again. Returning to the other lesson>>>
-------------------------------------------

[The anger of Anti-imperialist protesters can be attributed to].. having chosen to believe that there is only so much wealth in the world, and that rich people and rich nations gain and maintain wealth by stealing prosperity from the weak.

This is so idiotic, so demonstrably false, that you really have to wonder why we are having this discussion.

The idea that the United States can steal 10 trillion dollars a year from dirt-poor nations that don't produce anything of value is absolutely insane, and yet, and yet, we hear it again and again and again from the professionally outraged who must be obtuse beyond human understanding to keep making such an absurd lie the basis of their entire philosophy.

-------------------------------------------------------

Wait a minute, did I read "dirt poor nations don't produce anything of value"??? Isn't oil valuable? What about diamonds, gold, bauxite (aluminum ore), iron ore, rare metals, cocoa, coffee (second largest world trade item after oil), bananas, beans, hardwood trees, fish, and many others. All of these things are produced in dirt poor nations, and wind up in rich nations without the common people in the dirt poor nations seeing much benefit from it. It even seems like the more valuable resources that are found in dirt poor nations, the more the poor people actually suffer (environmental degradation, wars for the resources, toxic air). Then what about the sweat shops producing Nike running shoes. You may consider their work to also be of no value, just like you ignored the work of the slaves, but it has value in a way. It is human effort being expended into an enterprise where there is no reward, just work for survival. There are so many questions that can be raised about this inequality of pay between rich and poor countries. But the lesson is not over yet, so for the sake of argument let's go on with "wealth is produced out of thin air":

--------------------------------------------------------------

If we can prove that our core tenet is correct, that wealth is limited only by imagination and the desire to work hard, then not only does the left's economic theory come crashing down like a Statue of Lenin, but their entire view of US power has to be fatally flawed, as well.

Get this through your heads, you socialist ninnies! There is not a big, limited pot of wealth that is filled with the Magic Sweat of Authentic Third World Laborers, that America uses its military to steal from when we run out of wealth here at home.

Here's something even the dimmest hippy protester / poet should be able to wrap his mind around:

You buy a legal pad: $1.29
You steal a Bic pen from the counter at Kinko's: free.
You write the script for Weekend at Bernies 3: Bernie's Revenge!: free.
You hire someone to type it: $30.00
You have Kinko's print 5 copies: $62.20
You mail the 5 copies: $7.82
5 idiots in Hollywood love the idea: free
They enter a bidding war: free
You get a check for: one... million... dollars!

So let's see... that's $1,000,000, minus the $101.30 in expenses... uh... that means... You, the village idiot, have just raised the Gross Domestic Product by, uh, one million freaking dollars, and have made a personal profit of $999,898 dollars and 69 cents.

Where did the $999,898.69 come from? It came from thin air! You created it, out of nothing. You added value to the stock of paper and ink you started with. From the monumental talent you possess, the gift of intellect, the pen that made Shakespeare weep with envy, you have created WB3. You've given millions of people two hours of side-splitting hilarity, for which they will part with $8.00... and you have created wealth. What's more, when you go and blow it all on the pointless material crap that makes life so much fun, you'll be bringing in a little extra for the Sea-Doo distributor, the BMW dealer, the girls at Cheetahs in Las Vegas, and all the others. Not to mention putting -- I dunno -- maybe half a million freaking dollars into welfare, Social Security, Medicare, the National Endowment for the Arts and the world's first fusion-powered, laser-armed, flying stealth submarine, the USS George W. Bush.

You did not have to steal $999,898.69 from a farmer in Angola.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

OK Here's where the lesson starts to get a little heavy handed. I don't know about you, but this is not the tone that my teachers took with me when I was in school. And I hope that I do not take that tone to others.

So to go over the business case that proves wealth is unlimited: I write a script to a movie, and it sells for one million dollars. Forget the price of copies at Kinko's, obviously these costs are so small we can just forget them. However there may be some costs that are substantial, that we have neglected to mention. What are they? An education, where you learn to write properly. And the leisure time to absorb all kinds of interesting ideas, that you can then translate into a clever script. (Do not expect a kid who has worked in a sweat shop all his life to write a movie script. OK maybe if it was a movie about sweat shops???) The education, and the leisure lifestyle, do they have a value? OK, more. What about a legal system that protects your copyright, and forces the big studios to pay you what the script is worth. Any value there? And what about the luck of being born in a country where millions of people can pay $8 each for a movie, and have the time to go and see it.

I suspect that first of all, the movie script is not something with real inherent value, it is more of a "Bieber hair" type of thing, the type of thing you cannot base a real economy on. It's a sideline, a quirk, an amusement. I'm not saying some people don't get rich through this kind of luck, just that it is in fact a zero sum game. Money comes out of other people's pockets (the ones who pay to see the movie), and into yours. This type of transaction also happens when you win the lottery, but I would not base my national economy on it. Because this type of transaction is the very definition of "redistributed wealth". Voluntary redistribution, to be sure, but still redistribution of the same total amount wealth. Yes, it may count toward increasing the Gross National Product, but if it does (I'm not sure about that), it is only because of the way that the GNP is calculated. Your million dollars has in fact made the movie goers a million dollars poorer (all together).

So, core tenet remains unproven. Time to stop, and we have not even found out what the other two pillars of wealth are yet.

By the way, writing a script for "Weekend at Bernie's III" for $1,000,000 does not count as working hard. I just wrote 600 blogs in three years for a total sum of $0.00. Per dollar, I bet I worked a lot harder at writing, but no riches.

Picture: 1982 Far Side panel by Gary Larsen from this blog about cavemen:
http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/7093