I gave him my money and now he won't give it back!

Banks, who are foreclosing left and right, have started complaining that they shouldn't have to stop doing it just because they might not have the right paperwork, or might not have the legal right to foreclose on that house, or (in at least one case) because the homeowner does not in fact even have a mortgage*. Why? Well, because these people borrowed money and lapsed on their payments!

So here's a hypothetical:

Say I have a cousin. His life is kind of a mess - he's marginally employed in a shitty retail job, he spends most of his paycheck on beer. To make ends meet he's got nine credit cards, all with significant outstanding balances. He's lost some money in the past gambling and buying lottery tickets. Basically, he's kind of a loser, and clearly has no idea how to manage his money.

This cousin comes to me one day and asks if he can borrow a thousand dollars. I've got a good job and can pay my bills and still tuck a bit away each month in savings. But my cousin comes to me and says he found a great deal on this used car - it runs great, really, it's a fantastic buy - and he needs me to lend him a thousand bucks. I say: Sure, but you've got to repay this, two hundred bucks a month for five months. Great, he says, and he takes the check and off he goes. He buys his new car. A few months later he loses his job because he came in late one too many times and got fired, so no more paychecks, so he stops repaying me.

Who's at fault here?

Obviously: yeah, the cousin's a loser and needs to get his act together. Dude should stop drinking and smoking, concentrate on holding down a steady job and maybe spend his booze-and-smokes money on some classes at the community college instead, to pick up some useful skills. He knew he couldn't repay me, not at the rate that I wanted, and so he shouldn't have taken the loan on those terms. But I'm the real idiot here, for giving away my money to someone who obviously did not have the means to repay it. It's my money. If I want to give it away - hand my cousin a check as a gift, rather than a loan - I'm free to do so. But if I want to loan someone my money, then it's up to me to make some effort to do so only to those who at least look like they'll be able to repay it. If someone's not earning much and is already up to their eyeballs in debt and you know this, but you loan them money anyway - well, you're kind of a moron.

So do the homeowners who tried to live beyond their means and buy houses they couldn't afford bear some culpability in our current economic disaster? Absolutely. You're responsible for living within your means, and if you spend more than you have you have to deal with the consequences.

But ultimately, it's the banks who decide who they give their money to. They, too, made a bad call, and my sympathy for them is...limited. If you loan someone a bunch of money without a reasonable belief that they can and will repay it, you're a moron.

And there's more to it too: some people were actively and intentionally misled about the terms of their mortgage. Some people I'm sure could afford their homes before the economy collapsed and they lost their jobs. Some people could afford their homes before they got sick and couldn't afford their medical bills, or had to take reduced hours at work to care for a relative.

So are individual consumers at fault? Sure, in plenty of situations. They took out a loan they couldn't repay; now there are consequences. But are the banks blameless victims in this? Sure, if by "blameless victims" you mean "suffering the consequences of a situation they created themselves".

*For an excellent, brief explanation, read this: http://www.observer.com/2010/wall-street/foreclosure-fiasco-and-wall-streets-shrug

Movie review: Red

When I first saw the preview for this a couple months ago, it made me giggle and really really want to see it, because it looked like everything an action movie should be: lots of stuff blowing up, lots of gunfights, some witty dialogue, and just a whole lot of fun.

Red totally lived up to that.

First, the really good that I knew would be good: Helen Mirren! Helen Mirren, in a white evening gown, with a really big gun! Morgan Freeman! Morgan Freeman as an old retired assassin!

Next, the surprisingly good: Bruce Willis as a bored retiree is, as it turns out, kind of awesome. He's aged pretty well, which I think is part of what made it work so well. The cinematography was actually really good - the film is (very loosely) based on a comic book, and the opening of the film captured that really well. The fight scenes were all pretty goofy but in a good way. John Malkovich was, I thought, incredible in his role as a crazy man. There was a relationship between a woman and a somewhat older man which was handled surprisingly well - it wasn't a Creepy Old Man, and it wasn't some old dude just banging a young blonde or anything.

The meh: The pacing is a bit off, I think - I'm not sure exactly how, but it could've been a bit better.

All together, there's not much to say about it but this: If you're looking for two hours of witty dialogue, fun gunfights, and an overall stupid plot carried by incredibly talented actors (actors of the caliber which action movies can't often get), go see Red. If you're looking for an engaging story or something that will make you think, go see something else (then, at some other time, see Red, because it's just so much *fun*).

Attn: media. Re: everything you say sucks

1. Please please please please PLEASE stop referring to it as "global warming." The 80's called, and would like their cut-rate science reporting back. If you call it "global warming" then people - who are by and large morons who get their news exclusively from CNN and FOX - will experience cold days and decide it's all untrue. Meanwhile, 98% of climatologists and the majority of other scientists are holding their heads in their hands weeping. Call it climate change, because for all practical purposes, that's what we are experiencing: our climate? It's changing. QED.

2. When a man and a woman love each other very much, they may do an adult thing. This might result in a zygote. A zygote is the product of a sperm fertilizing an ovum, or egg. This is called a zygote. It is not a fetus. Once that cell begins to divide, it is still not a fetus, but it is an embryo. It will remain an embryo for eight weeks. Then, eight weeks after fertilization, it becomes a fetus. Understand? Up to eight weeks post conception, it is not a fetus.

3. There are some vaccines that still do contain thiomersal. Assuming a typical vaccination schedule for a child in the United States, these are not given within the first two years of life, if at all. Thiomersal is not used in any routine early-childhood vaccinations.

3a. There is no evidence - none, whatsoever - that thiomersal causes autism. It was removed from most vaccines as a preventative measure, not because there was any evidence at all that it causes any sort of developmental delays.

3b. Autism rates have increased even since thiomersal has been phased out, which is fairly compelling evidence that thiomersal does *not* cause autism.

4. Autism rates have likely not actually increased; *diagnosis* rates have. This is because up until quite recently, anyone who showed markedly delayed or different mental development was labeled as sub-standard and chucked into an asylum to waste away. It is a good thing that we don't do this any more. It does not mean that we have a plague of any sort.

5. Those disease parents are refusing to vaccinate their children against kill people, every year. They are not common problems in the United States because for decades we have had highly effective vaccination programs. After the Soviet Union broke up, there was a tremendous dip in vaccination rates in the former Soviet nations, and by 1998, 5,000 people - five thousand - had died of diphtheria. This year, since parents have stopped vaccinating their children, pertussis (whooping cough) has killed ten children in California. Rotavirus - my favorite - is still a major cause of death in the developing world and kills half a million children every single year. Young children are fragile; childhood vaccinations are specifically designed by very smart people to protect them.

6. There is minimal, if any, scientifically accepted evidence that any of the following work to heal humans of conditions or diseases: acupuncture, acupressure, anything involving energy fields or auras, aromatherapy, chiropractic, faith healing, crainosacral therapy, any sort of homeopathy, reiki, or anything else that has not been tested under controlled, clinical settings.

6a. If someone claims to be able correct poor eyesight using anything other than physical reshaping of the eye, they are lying.

7. Assuming you are reasonably healthy to begin with, here is what you need to do to remain healthy:

i) WASH YOUR HANDS. Diseases in the western world are, by and large, spread by someone's hand coming in contact with their juices (usually mucus or saliva), touching something else, and then you repeating the process. If you wash your hands with soap and water frequently, you will dramatically increase your chances of not getting sick.

ii) Eat food. Not processed food products. Eat whole grains and fruits and vegetables. Drink lots of water. If something has to clarify that it is a "product" on the label, it's probably not terribly nutritious. Moderation is key here: you don't need to always eat healthy, but don't always eat crap.

iii) When you are tired? Sleep. When you are hungry? Eat. When you are *not* hungry? Don't eat.

iv) Seriously, wash your goddamn hands.

v) Exercise. You don't need to run five miles a day. You do need to use your body once in a while. Go for a walk every other day. Take the stairs instead of the elevator. Go up to the mall and window-shop the entire length.

vi) Don't binge drink. Don't smoke. Don't drive drunk or set your head on fire or anything like that.

7) Here's the thing: teenagers want to have sex. This is an absolute biological fact - once human beings hit sexual maturity, they want to have sex. Some of them will act on these urges. If these teenagers have been provided with comprehensive, honest information about the risks and safety precautions of responsible sexual activity, they will have safer sex. If they are told "don't have sex because then bad things will happen," then they will still have sex and more of them will wind up with STDs and/or pregnant.

7a) No, really: teenagers *will* have sex. Short of locking them in solitary confinement for their entire teenage years, nothing can change this. And this is nothing new - Romeo was maybe sixteen; Juliet is not yet fourteen years old.

8) We landed on the moon. There is no question about that. No one assassinated Princess Diana; she was the victim of a drunk driver. There are no aliens on this planet, reptilian or otherwise. The Denver airport is not part of some vast conspiracy about anything. Freemasons are pretty much a bunch of old white guys who still want to hang out in a no-girls-allowed clubhouse.

This is just weird and creepy and kind of gross

I've decided that I'm not going to see "The Social Network" despite the fact that it was written by Aaron Sorkin. This is because it's a film about Mark Zuckerberg, who A) is still quite alive and running the company featured in "The Social Network" and B) had nothing to do with the making of the movie. Making a film adaptation of a still-living guy's autobiography, with his blessing? Sure, go for it ("Catch Me If You Can" is kind of awesome, actually). A historical film in which still-living people are portrayed, but aren't really about the people so much as what they were doing? Sure. Making a movie about someone who's dead, without the blessing of their surviving family? A little weird, but at least the dude's not going to be seeing someone else disguised as him on movie posters. Maybe it's because I'm kind of a crazy privacy person, but the idea of it just skeeves me out.

So there's that - creepy, in my opinion, so I won't see the movie. I'm not outraged over it or anything.

Then there's this:

"Channel 4 is to show a drama-documentary based on what would happen if Prince Harry were taken prisoner while serving in Afghanistan.

The 90-minute film, called The Taking of Prince Harry, features contributions from former hostages and intelligence experts.

It includes scenes showing the prince, played by actor Sebastian Reid, being held behind enemy lines while negotiations are carried out to free him."

...

So, uh, some people sat around in a conference room somewhere in London and said, "Hey, let's make a movie depicting some guy who's grandmother is famous getting captured and tortured by terrorists," and...other people agreed that that was a good idea? This is like Saw franchise style torture porn meets mindless celebrity nonsense meets pure, astonishingly poor taste.

I mean, it's one part just bizarre ("What would happen if the youngest son of a man who's mother holds a position of ceremonial importance gets kidnapped?" is not, as far as I'm aware, one of the burning questions of the day), one part just weirdly invasive (again, the "Hey, uh, we're gonna make a movie about you, just fyi" thing), and two parts grossly insensitive ("Hey, let's depict our soldiers getting taken as hostages, just for kicks!" is kind of morally dubious, IMO, and "Hey, marginally-famous-guy! Look at what could have happened when you were in Afghanistan!" is just...creepy).

I mean, for god's sake: have some dignity. Hire some hack to whip up a script in which a prince goes off and serves in the Overseas Conflict du Jour and gets captured and there can be a heroic rescue or escape or tragic death or whatever. Do not give said character the same name as an actual living prince who has served in the Overseas Conflict du Jour, and do not hire an actor who looks like said actual living prince. Ta-Da! You've got your cheaply-made generic made-for-TV movie, and now you're only vaguely tasteless, not Incredibly Fucking Creepy.

Seriously. There are people who get paid significant amounts of money who think this is a good idea. At least creepy, invasive movies aren't just American!