Did they even read it?

The movie 'Preadators' opens this July, it's the 4th (?) installment of the franchise. This is the movie poster for it:

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Image - moviefone.com (click to enlarge)
 

The tagline caught my attention, it says:

"They are the most dangerous killers on the planet.

But this is not our planet."

I'm no english major, but this doesn't appear correct. Shouldn't it be:

"They are the most dangerous killers on THEIR/OUR planet.

But this is not THEIR/OUR planet."

or, even better:

"They are the most dangerous killers on EARTH.

But this is not EARTH."

If I'm right, how does something like this get passed and approved? Does it speak to the quality of the movie itself? Only time will tell...

A Rose by any Other Name, Would Smell Like...???

The venue formally known as Nissan Pavillion will now be known as Jiffy Lube Live.  I wonder, did Nissan pull out, or did they get out bid by Jiffy Lube? Or, was the offer by Jiffy Lube a standing offer, and the economy pushed them to accept the offer?  I also find it interesting that just the name alone makes the venue seem cheap, even with out going there.

image from: http://www.nissanusa.com/

image from: http://www.jiffylube.com/

The venue is still the same, it just has different logos advertisements. But why is it that we think Nissan is OK, but Jiffy Lube isn’t? How about the Snagajob.com Pavilion just outside of Ricmond? I don’t think I would even visit the website, Snagajob.com in the first place, let alone go to their Pavilion. OK, maybe if I had front row tickets to Pearl Jam…

But then again, I wonder about other business sponsorships that are taken seriously, like Michelin Stars. These are ratings given by the tire manufacturer, rating restaurants all over the globe. Apparently, if you have just one star, it means you’re a very good restaurant, and you can get up to three, and it’s taken very seriously. But, why or how is a tire company any kind of expert in the culinary world? (Maybe this has something to do with it?)

Companies also try to pass off an inferior product, and use its good name to do so. Toyota did this, I believe, with their Camry line of cars (if not their entire line). About 2 years ago, I was in the market for a car, and test drove the Camry, partly because I knew of Camry, and thought they were very good cars. When I test drove the ‘08 model however, I thought it was a piece of junk. It was underpowered, small, and felt cheap – like it was made of plastic. I ended up buying a Honda Accord instead. It has since turned out that my feelings were justified, with the recent gas pedal issues Toyota has been having. I also love my Accord.

The point is that brand names have value for a company, and companies use that value in different ways. Nissan meant quality, and it transferred to the venue (or vice versa); while Jiffy Lube doesn’t, or hasn’t yet. Michelin has worked very hard to earn the respect it garners from their Michelin Guides (interestingly because of how difficult it is to earn even one star, at least in part). Lastly, it seems Toyota relied too heavily on their good name, and now they’re paying for it.

Broken Healthcare Fallacy...

Didn't blog the last couple of weeks, had a paper and a take home exam due.  Apologies (to the NO people who are reading...)

I randomly listened to Adam Bold's Mutual Fund Show (an investment advice show sponsored by his company, The Mutual Fund Store, of which he is the founder) from last Saturday (5/15/10). In it, he had a caller who was a banker that asked what he thought the impact of the recent passage of the Obama Healthcare Plan would be on the economy. Mr. Bold seemed to think the impact would be positive.


I won’t argue with him about whether he’s right or wrong, it would be tough to tell either way. However, I will take issue with his justification why he thinks this. He said that, implying that even if the HC plan were bad for the economy, it would be OK because of all the jobs they would be creating in the healthcare industry. I’m pretty sure this is a pretty cut and dry case of Frédéric Bastiat’s Broken Window Fallacy.

In it, Bastiat showed that it is incorrect to look at broken windows as good for the economy, because it “creates” jobs for the glaziers (window repairmen). On the whole, yes the glazier is up a job, but the shoemaker that has his window broken is down what he would have bought with that money had the window not been broken. (The name of the piece is That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen )

In this case, the broken healthcare and then the supposed influx to fix it is what is seen. The healthcare we had and the output that would be otherwise used is what is not seen.

Why did they attack us again?

An exclusive interview from WTOP with a former Al Qaeda insider says that Osama Bin Laden had no idea that the US would retaliate the way that they did. Quote:

"What happened after the 11th of September was beyond their imagination, " says Benotman, who adds that al-Qaida thought the U.S. was a "paper tiger."

He continued...

Benotman attributes al-Qaida's overconfident attitude to the United States' response to al-Qaida attacks on its in embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania in 1998.

Zawahiri, according to Benotman, expected only a missile attack.

"When they attacked the embassies in East Africa, they estimated the U.S. launched 75 cruise missiles and eight people got killed. So they said this time, maybe they will launch 200 and they laughed about this."

This revelation flies in the face of the common perception that Western globalization or US foreign policy is why we were attacked on 9/11, or that diplomacy will resolve our issue with Islamic extremeism.  In fact, non-engagement escalate attacks far beyond what would otherwise be. I'm not saying that the global economic environment or American intervention doesn't play a role.  But given this, it's not a good argument for not confronting treats as they arise.