The Dilbert Blog

Proof of God

When you publish your e-mail address, you hear from a lot of interesting people. Some time ago I got a message from a guy who said something about having a four-sentence proof of God. I must have replied that I’d like to see it. Anyway, he sent it. I deleted the message months ago, but I keep getting reminded of the proof. It went something like this:

Proof of God

1. It is impossible for one person to see reality through the eyes of another.

2. By definition, a reality you can’t enter via any form of transportation is another dimension.

3. You comprise 100% of your dimension, because no one else can share exactly your perception.

4. If you are the entire universe within your dimension, you are God by definition, since you are everything within your own dimension.

Then he said that other people are really your perception of other dimensions, or Gods. You can see a representation of the other Gods, looking like people, but you can never experience their reality.

He went on to explain that if I send a message from my universe to yours, it always gets scrambled along the way. Sometimes it is mildly distorted, and sometimes entirely altered, as you’ve seen in my recent posts, but it is never exact.

How could you test this theory to see if it’s true? For one thing, you could verify that most messages you send out are misunderstood by the recipient. (Check) And there’s no doubt that no one sees reality the way you personally experience it, and never can. (Check)

Another thing you might look for is the number of non-interfering experiences. By that I mean, how many times is your perception of something completely different from everyone else’s perception, and the contradiction is never noticed? For example, if you and I see a dog in the park, and I come away remembering it as brown, and you remember it as white, it makes no difference if we never discuss that dog for the rest of our lives.

99.999% of what you experience is never verified with anyone else’s experience.  And that’s not even counting the times you are asleep. Only occasionally do our perceptions collide. Have you ever heard a friend (another God) tell a story in which you participated, only to think “It didn’t happen that way”? That’s because all memories are personal, and to a large extent manufactured. Your reality is truly your own.

So according to “some guy on the Internet,” you are a god.

Cognitive Dissonance (or not) Update

After my recent post on Bill Maher’s show Real Time, and his interview with the author of the book “Cool It,” Bjorn Lomborg, I got a lot of interesting reactions. But first, some corrections.

I referred to Lomborg as an economist because that’s how he was introduced on Real Time. Apparently he’s famous for organizing economists to get their views, he’s got a background in statistics, and he was Director of Denmark’s Environmental Assessment Institute. But he’s not an economist. He’s more like a guy who organizes experts, gathers their views, and develops a point of view from that. If an informed opinion requires input from multiple fields, say science, economics, statistics, and alternative energy, no one can be a complete expert without mastering all of those fields. I don’t know if such a person exists.

Also, many of you pointed out that my example of cognitive dissonance wasn’t so much cognitive dissonance as one of many other possible labels. Some of you are probably right. But I don’t know which ones, and cognitive dissonance seems to me like a close enough diagnosis, so I’ll keep using it.

But here’s the most interesting part. My blog on how Bill Maher and his panelists misunderstood Lomborg has caused a new round of cognitive dissonance. I have now been labeled a supporter of Lomborg’s arguments simply because I said I understood what he said on a TV show. Check this out. It’s somewhat jaw-dropping:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/28/21480/1840

I always wondered why Al Gore never defended himself from the attack “He said he invented the Internet.” What he did is get funding for the Internet before most people had even heard of it. I thought he could have easily turned the attacks into a positive with something like, “I never used the word ‘invent,’ but I did play a big role in funding the creation of the Internet before anyone else in Congress saw its potential. That’s the sort of vision you need in a president.”

But he didn’t take that path. He rolled over and took a beating. Now I understand why. Once a misunderstanding gets out of the bottle, there is no fixing it. He didn’t have a chance. I think he knew it.

Almost as Funny as a Turd

Yesterday I asked you to suggest a punch line for a Dilbert comic that was better than “Sometimes the best you can do is move the turd to another pocket.” I promised I’d tell you what I had come up with on my own, so you can compare your entries to mine.

Here’s mine: “Sometimes the best you can do is move the hairball to another pocket.”

It’s not nearly as funny as turd. But it can get published. Did anyone top it?

Turd is the Word

Being a syndicated cartoonist isn’t as glamorous as people imagine. For example, the other day I spent about an hour trying to come up with a word as funny as turd. Ultimately, I failed.

It all started with a comic I drew with this third panel. (Click to enlarge.)

This comic has at least two problems. One is that it uses a word I can’t get published. The other is that the boss’s line is so perfect I can’t convince myself it is original. Did I read or hear that line someplace in the past? It sure sounds like something someone would have already said. Google came up empty, but it might be something that a colorful person from my past used to say.

Intuitively, I knew there was no other word in the universe that would be as funny as turd. Even other words that mean the same as turd would fall short, and be equally impossible to publish.

Eventually I came up with a replacement word, and that’s what will run in a month or so. It’s not nearly as funny as turd, but it was the best I could do. I wonder if you can top it. Let’s see.

I’ll give you a little wiggle room. There are two rules for your submission:

1. Keep the boss’s first words, “Sometimes the best you can do…”
2. Complete the sentence with a funny expression of utter futility.

If I like your suggestion better than my own, and it’s not filthy, I might use it. I’ll tell you mine tomorrow, so it doesn’t get in your head and make this harder today.

I know some of you are already thinking about “arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.” That won’t be a winner.

On the Other Hand

Anything you learn changes your brain. That’s the point of learning. And different types of learning strengthen different parts of your brain. For example, learning math changes your brain in a different way from learning art, or learning to juggle.

I studied economics in college. One thing I’ve noticed is that other people who have studied economics tend to think a similar way. Some of the similarity is probably because it takes a certain kind of person to be interested in economics in the first place. But I’m convinced that the study of economics changes brains in a way I can identify after about five minutes of conversation. In particular, I think the study of economics makes you relatively immune to cognitive dissonance.

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

The primary skill of an economist is identifying all of the explanations for various phenomena. Cognitive dissonance is, at its core, the inability to recognize and accept other explanations. I’m oversimplifying, but you get the point. The more your brain is trained for economics, the less it is susceptible to cognitive dissonance, or so it seems.

The joke about economists is that they are always using the phrase “On the other hand.” Economists are trained to recognize all sides of an argument. That seems like an easy and obvious skill, but in my experience, the general population lacks that skill. Once people take a side, they interpret any argument on the other side as absurd. In other words, they are relatively susceptible to cognitive dissonance.

Recently I saw the best case of cognitive dissonance I have ever seen. It was on Bill Maher's show, Real Time, which I love. Bill was interviewing Danish economist Bjorn Lomborg, who has a book about global warming, called "Cool It." The economist made the following points clearly and succinctly:

1. Global warming is real, and people are a major cause.

2. When considering the problems that global warming will cause, we shouldn't ignore the benefits of global warming, such as fewer deaths from cold. 

3. The oceans rose a foot in the last hundred years, and the world adapted, so the additional rise from global warming might not be as big a problem as people assume.

4. Developing economical fossil fuel alternatives is the only rational solution to global warming because countries such as China and India will use the cheapest fuel, period. If only the developed countries who can afford alternatives change their ways, it’s not enough to make a dent in the problem.

The Danish economist’s argument doesn't fall into the established views about global warming. He wasn't denying it is happening, or denying humans are a major cause. But he also wasn’t saying we should drive hybrid cars, since he thinks it won’t be enough to help. He thinks we need to make solar (or other alternatives) more economical. That’s the magic bullet. His views don’t map to either popular camp on this issue, and it created a fascinating cognitive dissonance in Bill Maher (a fan of hybrid cars) and his panelists. Here are their reactions after the interview:

Rob Thomas said the interview "...confused the shit out of me." (Yet the economist was completely clear and communicated well.)

Salman Rushdie said, jokingly, that what he heard was "There's no connection between smoking and lung cancer." By that he meant the author was denying that fossil fuels contribute to global warming. (The economist said exactly the opposite, and clearly.)

Bill Maher said, "...20 years later, this guy is going to say, 'You know what? Yeah, there is global warming." (The economist already said exactly that during the interview. In fact, his entire book is based on global warming being true and hastened by fossil fuels.)

You can see the full transcript for yourself here. The interview is about 60% into the show.

http://billmaher.com/?page_id=209

Bill Maher is a brilliant guy, whether you agree with his views or not. Salman Rushdie is brilliant too. I don’t know about Rob Thomas, but he looks bright enough. Why couldn’t these three people hear anything the economist was saying? It looks to me like a classic case of cognitive dissonance . They literally couldn’t recognize that the economist was on their side because he suggested considering both the positive and negative effects of global warming.

I know I harp on this topic too much. But I do think that understanding cognitive dissonance, especially when it happens to you, is the only way to understand the world.

You can see this phenomenon on this blog on a regular basis. If I say Iran has a legitimate economic reason for building nuclear reactors, because experts agree Iran is running out of oil, it will be interpreted as anti-semetic. If I say the evidence for evolution that is available to me personally, as a non-expert, looks sketchy, it is interpreted as an argument for creationism.

In summary, if you ever plan to use the phrase “on the other hand,” be sure to wear your Kevlar underpants.

Homo Erectus

I was reading an article about the little hobbit-like creatures discovered in Indonesia. I couldn’t help notice that the article uses the abbreviation “H. Erectus” instead of the full name Homo Erectus. This is presumably to prevent jokes about why we don’t see any of them around these days.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1230409.htm

I’m crossing my fingers that someday scientists will discover one of these hobbit carcasses encased in amber or whatever-the-hell would allow us to snatch some DNA and clone them. Since they aren’t human, I think cloning would be legal. And although they have heads the size of grapefruits, scientists believe they were smart enough to use tools and hunt tiny elephants. That spells one thing: Hobbit butlers.

I want to be able to order a hobbit butler from a magazine and have it delivered in a box with air holes. My hobbit butler would always wear a tiny tuxedo, mostly for the cuteness. I’d call him Max, because of the irony factor, since he would be so tiny.

Max wouldn’t be bright enough to install a new computer network, or big enough to drive a car, so his utility would be limited. But he’d be perfect for playing ring toss. I’d have him stand at attention on the other side of the room and train him to yell funny things when I got a ring over him, such as “You are the best ring tosser of all times, you magnificent and gigantic bastard!” Best of all, he could pick up the rings and bring them back. If you think I would ever get tired of that, you don’t know me.

For Halloween, I’d get Max a winged monkey costume and dress up as the Wicked Witch. You can’t tell me that wouldn’t win some sort of prize. And I’d make him knock on doors and get candy. He’d clean up.

I might also get a dog so Max could ride it like a horse. When I wanted a Diet Coke from the fridge, Max would ride the dog to the kitchen and get it. Would I ever get tired of that? Not likely.

I’d never have to find the remote control again, because I would use Velcro to attach it to Max’s head. When I wanted to watch TV, I would just whistle and he’d run over and face the TV.

I’m sure there are more uses for a hobbit butler, but none come to mind. What would YOU do with a three-foot tall Homo?

Penis Jokes

Yesterday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad went to Columbia University and asked Israel to bomb his country. At least that’s how it sounded to me. Meanwhile, the President of Columbia hurled personal insults at the leader of a soon-to-be-nuclear power and strengthened their reasons for wanting us dead. I wonder if those guys had tense conversations with their wives later that night.

Wife: “Mahmoud, you flaming elf turd, did you just give our enemies political cover to annihilate our country?”

Amadinejad: “Okay, so sometimes I say the wrong thing at the wrong time. Big deal. How about coming over here and giving me some scarf.”

And who was the smartest person involved in yesterday’s events? George Bush. Criticize him all you want, but sometimes even a blind squirrel finds a nut. He shrugged off the whole controversy about Ahmadinejad’s visit to Columbia and let the Iranian President shoot himself in the foot. Well played.

The most entertaining part of Ahmadinejad’s speech is trying to figure out what the Hell is happening in his tiny bearded skull. The things he says that sound crazy, stupid, or ignorant can also be interpreted as routine political talk. In this country, we expect our politicians to say whatever plays well with voters, no matter how preposterous. You can never be sure what professional liars are thinking. So here are my best guesses about Ahmadinejad.

1. Ahmadinejad said Iran doesn’t have gay people. There is zero chance he believes that. He just wanted to change the subject. I interpret that as acknowledgment that Iran is executing homosexuals. (I don’t approve of that, in case you wondered.)

2. Ahmadinejad acknowledged that the holocaust happened, but thinks it is unfair that the holocaust skeptics in Europe are prosecuted whereas skeptics on other issues are not. I believe that’s his true opinion now, whether or not he was a holocaust denier in the past. If he didn’t believe the holocaust happened, he’d have no reason to stop denying it now while he’s openly skeptical about the cause of 9-11.

3. I think Ahmadinejad is genuinely skeptical that Bin Laden accomplished 9-11 all by himself. I don’t think it’s crazy to ask whether some dark forces in the U.S. and Israel had the means and the warped motive to help with the logistics, even if only in some small support way. Ahmadinejad lives in a country whose government was once overthrown by the U.S., so I can understand him being genuinely skeptical. And it plays well back home.

4. Ahmadinejad didn’t respond directly to questions about wanting Israel wiped off the map. But he said Iran isn’t building nuclear weapons and has no need for them. In other words, he ruled out nuking Israel. I believe the leadership in Iran isn’t collectively crazy enough to nuke Israel. And I don’t think Ahmadinejad knows of any other realistic way to wipe Israel off the map. It sounds like politics and wishful thinking to me.

5. I think Ahmadinejad is lying when he says Iran isn’t building nuclear weapons. They have the means and the motive (defense). It’s in their best interest to have nukes, and they always have the option to give them up, and allow inspectors, if America masses troops on the border.

While I think it’s highly unlikely that Iran would ever nuke Israel, either directly or by proxy, the odds are not zero. In my opinion, Ahmadinejad’s speech at Columbia, plus Iran’s support for Hezbollah give Israel a legitimate reason to attack Iran in self defense. I think Ahmadinejad knows that, and is taking a calculated risk that any attack on Iran would be limited in nature and cause Israel to lose international support.

Likewise, Ahmadinejad didn't deny Iran is helping Iraqi insurgents kill Americans. That's a legitimate reason for the United States to support an attack on Iran. It's a separate question as to whether an attack on Iran is in America's best interest.

I wasn’t planning to blog on this topic, but my hit count went through the roof yesterday thanks to the various groups mustering their forces of darkness to misinterpret what I wrote and screech at me. (Thank you!)

DMD

What Qualifies as a Mental Problem?

This post will come off sounding argumentative, but I don’t intend it that way. It’s based on a genuine curiosity. After reading the comments to my posts for the past few days, it’s clear that people fall into some interesting categories. This made me wonder who gets to decide when a certain way of thinking qualifies as a genuine mental problem.

For example, as many of you noted about your fellow posters, a common way of thinking goes like this:

“If you think Jack the Ripper was a doctor in his day job, and you think doctors are positive role models, you must support Jack Ripper and celebrate the killing of women. Die, you woman-hater!”

Is that a form of mental problem, or does the fact that it describes how the majority of the population forms political opinions make it good mental health by definition? That’s a serious question.

Suppose we give this way of thinking a name. Let’s call it ripperitis. Sometimes labeling things is enough to change how we deal with them. Perhaps having a name for the condition will allow scientists to get funding to find a cure. I hope so, because it would give me something new to say to end political debates.

“Well, Bob, based on your rant, I’d say you have a bad case of ripperitis. I hear they’re working on a pill that lets people like you appreciate the complexity of arguments.”

And then Bob would say, “If you think drugs are such a great idea, why don’t you go marry a cocaine dealer in a civil union?”

Sorry I Confused You

In reading the comments to my post yesterday, I see that many of you were confused about my positions. Evidently all of you are brilliant, so I assume the problem is on my end. With your indulgence, allow me to clarify.

1. I am not happy that Hitler killed your relatives.
2. I do not support the killing of Americans
3. I do not support nuclear annihilation of Israel
4. I do not support the stoning of virgins in Iran
5. I believe the holocaust happened

I also don’t argue there’s a moral equivalence between Iran and the United States, or Israel and the Palestinians, or anyone and anyone else. Groups pursue their own perceived self interest. Arguing relative morality is an idiot’s game. Pointing out similarities in policies, and shaking the box, is good clean fun.

Next, I believe that if Iran is in fact helping Iraqi insurgents harm Americans, it’s an act of war, and a legitimate reason for attacking Iran in some fashion. That doesn’t mean it’s in the best interests of the United States to do so, but I would view it as legitimate.

Likewise, if the Iranians really are developing a nuclear weapon with the intent of using it on Israel, and there was some way to confirm that other than suspicious translations of speeches, then attacking Iran makes perfect sense, and I would support it completely. My problem is that I keep seeing patterns:

1. Iraq is helping Al-Qaeda
2. Iraq has weapons of mass destruction
3. Al-Qaeda is operationally non-functional
4. The surge is working
5. Iran is helping Iraqi insurgents kill Americans

I believe there’s a good chance Iran is helping Iraqi insurgents kill Americans, simply because it might be in their perceived best interest to do that. But I’d be an idiot to believe it simply because the government told the media it was true and the media told me. You can only fool me five or six dozen times before I start getting suspicious.

I think Iran would be foolish to let matters in Iraq unfold without trying to influence it. It’s in their best interest to meddle. That doesn’t mean I support it. I prefer they didn’t. But it’s not a realistic option. I presume the dark forces on our side are making sure any Iranian offenses are being met with consequences, and I’m all for that.

I also support Israel’s actions in pursuit of its self-interest. I’d be a hypocrite to do otherwise, since I also support the United States, despite what it did to the Native Americans a few hundred years ago. At some point you have to release on the past and accept the present realities. Israel won. It isn’t going anywhere.

If Israel had an enemy that it could make peace with, then I might feel different. But it doesn’t, so Israel’s best interests dictate keeping the neighbors too economically weak to purchase expensive weapons, and to control as much territory as possible. I don’t begrudge any country that makes rational decisions in support of its own safety. I don’t even begrudge Israel’s influence on American foreign policy. I respect them for how well they do it.

Still, the bulk of my sympathies are with whatever group suffers the most, regardless of how much of the problem is their own damned fault. To feel otherwise would be inhuman. Sometimes it feels as if the Palestinians are only one Gandhi away from fixing their problems. But he’d need to be bulletproof.

Here’s your hypothetical question of the day: If it ever happened that America attacked Iran because of alleged nukes, and later confirmed it had no nuclear weapons program, and we discovered that the administration knew it all along, would it be in the best interest of the citizens of the United States to overthrow their government?

A Feeling I'm Being Had

I was happy to hear that NYC didn't allow Iranian President Ahmadinejad
to place a wreath at the WTC site. And I was happy that Columbia
University is rescinding the offer to let him speak. If you let a guy like
that express his views, before long the entire world will want freedom
of speech.

I hate Ahmadinejad for all the same reasons you do. For one thing, he
said he wants to "wipe Israel off the map." Scholars tell us the correct
translation is more along the lines of wanting a change in Israel's
government toward something more democratic, with less gerrymandering.
What an ass-muncher!

Ahmadinejad also called the holocaust a "myth." Fuck him! A myth is
something a society uses to frame their understanding of their world, and
act accordingly. It's not as if the world created a whole new country
because of holocaust guilt and gives it a free pass no matter what it
does. That's Iranian crazy talk. Ahmadinejad can blow me. 

Most insulting is the fact that "myth" implies the holocaust didn't
happen. Fuck him for saying that! He also says he won't dispute the
historical claims of European scientists. That is obviously the opposite of
saying the holocaust didn't happen, which I assume is his way of
confusing me. God-damned fucker. 

Furthermore, why does an Iranian guy give a speech in his own language
except for using the English word "myth"? Aren't there any Iranian
words for saying a set of historical facts has achieved an unhealthy level
of influence on a specific set of decisions in the present? He's just
being an asshole.

Ahmadinejad believes his role is to pave the way for the coming of the
Twelfth Imam. That's a primitive apocalyptic belief! I thank Jesus I do
not live in a country led by a man who believes in that sort of
bullshit. Imagine how dangerous that would be, especially if that man had the
launch codes for nuclear weapons. 

The worst of the worst is that Ahmadinejad's country is helping the
Iraqis kill American soldiers. If Iran ever invades Canada, I think we'd
agree the best course of action for the United States is to be
constructive and let things sort themselves out. Otherwise we'd be just as evil
as the Iranians. Those fuckers.

Those Iranians need to learn from the American example. In this
country, if the clear majority of the public opposes the continuation of a war, our
leaders will tell us we're terrorist-humping idiots and do whatever they
damn well please. They might even increase our taxes to do it. That's
called leadership.

If Ahmadinejad thinks he can be our friend by honoring our heroes and
opening a dialog, he underestimates our ability to misinterpret him.
Fucking idiot. I hate him. 

Proof of God’s Existence

Readers have complained that I keep posting on stories involving penises. Apparently that is not highbrow enough for some of you. Well, unlike some authors, I listen to my readers. So today I am elevating the discussion.

Did you hear that scientists discovered a new use for men’s balls? Apparently they are loaded with stem cells.

http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/09/20/2039030.htm?section=world

This is great news because stem cells have potential to help against many health problems. For example, men’s balls might someday help with their strokes.

If you have balls, you have probably looked at them and wondered aloud “What else can I do with them?” Until now, their utility was limited to the following:

1. Producing sperm and male hormones
2. Target for projectiles
3. Sexual stimulation
4. Impersonating Alan Greenspan

Now it turns out that if you have balls, they might save your life. And this is proof of God’s existence. Allow me to explain.

If it can be shown that our existence is clearly an intentional joke, I think we can rule out evolution. The evidence was already starting to tilt in that direction, but this news about balls clearly pushes things over the line.

Which of these statements sounds the most like an intentional joke on humans?

1. You can cure diseases using your toenail clippings.
2. You can cure diseases using your hair.
3. Hey goober, here’s your life-saving stem cells. They’re in your balls!

Do you seriously think we got to this place by random mutations?

900-pound man

In the news, firefighters in Lansing, Michigan used a forklift to remove a 900-pound man from his home.

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/14147898/detail.html

First, let me say I have a policy against making fun of overweight people. I am not superstitious, and do not believe in will power. Every moist robot has a different program. This particular 900-pound man has Prader-Willi Syndrome, and that makes him feel hungry all the time. I give him a pass.

Still, there is plenty of humor to be found in this story.

My favorite part is the nurse who called firefighters because, in her professional opinion, the 900-pound man “needed medical help.” Kudos to her. A lesser nurse might have missed the signs.

The man’s brother believes the 900-pound man used his credit card to have food delivered. I wonder how the delivery guy felt. I don’t mean to be cruel, but in that situation, is there any way to NOT feel like Han Solo visiting Jabba the Hut? And how do you hand a pizza to a 900-pound guy? I’m no hero; I think I’d toss the food in his general direction, scream like a little girl, and jump out the second-story window. That’s how I roll.

And what is up with the pizza place that presumably delivered to him five times a day? Did it ever concern them that their Customer of the Month was two pizzas away from forming a black hole? Maybe it all happened gradually and it snuck up on them.

One of the neighbors was interviewed by the press. Her name is Cresha Outlaw. That’s right, her name is Outlaw. WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH LANSING, MICHIGAN????? I’m not finding anything in this story that is making me want to visit.

This is the sort of publicity that makes it hard to recruit firemen. It’s a noble profession, but there’s nothing good that happens after your boss says, “Kenny, get the forklift and a tarp.”

Movies and Dilbert

Did you ever wonder why movies are too long? I’ve heard the theory that it’s because directors have too much power compared to the past, when the studio could order them to edit a movie. A top director these days has the contractual right to final edit, and the director isn’t likely to lop off the 30 minutes of boredom that took him a month to create. Brains don’t work that way. He’ll convince himself that every minute of his work is essential. If the studio wants him to make another blockbuster for them, they will agree.

And why is there so much violence in movies? A study done in 2005 showed that G-rated movies are 11 times more profitable than R-rated movies, yet the industry cranks out 12-times more R-rated movies.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/07/news/newsmakers/dove_movies/index.htm

Why is that? It’s obviously not because the public wants more R-rated movies. A theory I’ve heard is that directors are trying to win Academy Awards, and G-rated movies rarely win. Screw the public.

For the past 18 months, my syndication company, United Media, and I had been negotiating with a major movie studio to do a Dilbert movie. They wanted to do it. We wanted to do it. A top director wanted to do it. We even agreed on price. But that wasn’t enough to get it done, for reasons that have already appeared in a Dilbert comic. (I can’t tell you which one.)

So the movie rights for Dilbert are available. And I got to wondering how an investor – either a studio or a private movie investment company – would view the prospects of a Dilbert movie. Maybe you can help.

Keep in mind that most movies don’t make money. The prospects for any particular movie are worse than the odds of, for example, a technology startup company.

Still, did anyone think the first Spiderman movie would lose money? There are some movie ideas that are clearly exceptions. You know in advance that moviegoers young and old will enjoy watching Spidey jump around. With a top director and a good script, it was a relatively safe bet.

It’s the same with X-men, Batman, Superman, The Fantastic Four, The Simpsons Movie, Southpark: Bigger, Longer and Uncut, and even Garfield. I’ve fairly sure they all made money, and it didn’t take a genius to predict they would. They are clearly exceptions.

Does Dilbert fall into that category?

First, Dilbert has the potential to appeal to all ages. It has workplace themes for adults, and talking animals for the kids. And the rating could be G or PG, the most profitable type.

Second, Dilbert has lots of name recognition, which seems to have a huge impact on success. Personally, I would have watched Spiderman even if the reviews hadn’t been excellent. The Garfield movie got terrible reviews, and I’ve watched it twice, because it’s rated G and the kids love it. I haven’t watched The Simpsons Movie, but I will, despite tepid reviews. The brand gets me there.

Third, imagine the product placement potential for a Dilbert movie. That’s becoming a larger part of the overall profitability of a film. What better way is there for a technology company to introduce a new gadget than to have Dilbert use it first in a movie? Viewers wouldn’t find it too obnoxious because you expect Dilbert to have the latest gadgets.

Then there’s the curiosity factor. If you knew the theme of the movie involved Dilbert finding a girlfriend, for example, wouldn’t you automatically wonder how that would work out? Or how about a theme where we see the origins of Dogbert? Did you ever wonder how he got the way he is? When you know the characters, those sorts of stories make you curious even if you aren’t a huge Dilbert fan.

Best of all, comedies are generally shorter than dramas. A Dilbert movie would probably be about 90 minutes. That’s totally bladder friendly. I’d be lying if I said I didn’t make movie theater decisions on that basis.

One big question is whether a Dilbert movie would be traditional animation, CGI, or live actors. I think live actors is the way to go, with CGI for Dogbert, Catbert, and other talking creatures. That allows you to have star power for the main characters, and it differentiates it from the old animated Dilbert TV show.

The plot I imagine involves an origin of Dogbert as a talking dog. It’s Dilbert’s first day of work, after college, and he causes an accident in the technology lab that releases something into the water supply. The pollutant starts to change regular dogs and cats into talking animals over the course of the movie. So Dogbert would be a regular dog in the beginning, with no glasses, but be walking upright before long. From there on, talking animals would just have jobs like regular people, and none of the human characters would give it much thought.

Tell me you wouldn’t watch that.

If you know any wealthy people who want to invest in a Dilbert movie, e-mail me at scottadams@aol.com.

[Correction: It has been pointed out to me that The Simpsons Movie got good reviews.]

[Clarification: The Dogbert origin story would be a "B" story, meaning it's not the plot of the movie. It's something that develops at the same time and "interferes" with the main plot. And it would only make sense with a movie that used live actors, because it allows you to go from the normal to the extraordinary in a gradual way and take the audience on the ride. For a fully animated movie, I wouldn't do a Dogbert origin B story.]

[Counterpoint: Some say the Dilbert movie has "already been done," and it's called Office Space. Quick, name a movie that hasn't already been done. How about a movie with fighting? How about a love story? Maybe a sports movie? Monsters? Cowboys? They've all been done.]

Suing God

Did you read about the Nebraska state senator who is suing God to make a point about frivolous lawsuits?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20827350/

Your first reaction might be that God has infinite resources and could mount a perfect defense. But I think God would stay out of the details, as usual, and end up with a public defender. This presents the very real possibility that God could lose the case.

I sure hope it goes to trial. Imagine how interesting that would be. First, how do you select a jury of God’s peers? Compared to the Almighty, even Buddha is just a guy who should use the stairs more often. The entire jury would end up being doctors who sometimes play God, and arborists, who can, sort of, make a tree, if they have acorns. That’s the best you can do.

What happens when you call God to the stand? Does he have to take an oath and promise to tell the truth “so help me me”? I don’t see how that could be anything but awkward.

I think the judge would hold God in contempt because all of his answers would seem to be smart alecky.

Lawyer: “Where were you on the night of the tornado?”

God: “Um, everywhere. Same as always. Go to Hell. Seriously.”

God doesn’t use money, so you’d have to sue him for a small portion of his infinite powers. I’d take the power to heal and only use it on myself, so sick people aren’t always pestering me. That would be great during cold season. I’d never wash my hands again.

Me: “Cough, cough, COLD BE GONE! Aaaah, better.”

God’s public defender wouldn’t be able to claim his client didn’t perform the acts of God for which he is accused. I mean, they’re acts of God, ferchrissake. And the defender can’t prove his client wasn’t there. He’s everywhere. God has a well-documented history of smiting humans, the motive, and the opportunity. That’s a strong case.

The only defense that could work is insanity. The public defender would have to prove God is inconsistent in his thinking. You might think that argument is easy to make, but God would be good under cross-examination.

Lawyer: “Do you love people.”

God: “Yes.”

Lawyer: “Then why am I hung like a frozen caterpillar?”

God: “Well, I’m not wild about lawyers. But you said ‘people.’”

Freshly Squeezed O.J.

In the news, O.J. Simpson is in jail for trying to reclaim some items in Las Vegas that an alleged thief stole from him. If O.J. is found guilty of asking a thief to return his belongings, he could go to jail for 30 years.

I assume O.J. is kicking himself for not killing everyone in the room, covering himself in their DNA, and going golfing. You have to stick with what works. What the Hell was he thinking?

This incident should be good for the reputation of Las Vegas. They pride themselves on being a place where activities that are normally immoral or illegal are encouraged. In Las Vegas, you can gamble all day, have sex with a stranger, and, apparently, steal her watch. In Las Vegas, it’s illegal for her to ask you to return it.

Unfortunately for O.J., his old attorney Johnny Cochrane has passed away. He’s the one who coined the phrase “If the glove doesn’t fit, you must acquit.” In my opinion, that rhyme freed O.J. I recall reading a study that says people perceive things that rhyme to be more persuasive than things that don’t. Who will create the new rhyme that sets O.J. free? I have a few suggestions.

“If he reclaimed his own shit, you must acquit!”

“If he didn’t get rough, you must uncuff!”

“If he has a bad knee, you must set him free!”

That’s why I’m not a lawyer. Do you have anything better?

Kabbalah

A number of celebrities, notably Madonna, are embracing a religion called Kabbalah. Celebrities I say! That is all the endorsement I need. I decided it was time to look into it.

I started with Wikipedia. Here’s what I learned about Kabbalah:

1. It’s all very confusing.
2. No one is quite sure what it is, including the people doing it.
3. Old dead people are somehow to blame.
4. Mastering Kabbalah gives you insight into God, as far as you know.

To master Kabbalah, first you must learn to understand a special language called gobbledygook. For example, in Kabbalah-talk, the definition of tzimtzum goes like this:

“The act whereby God contracted his infinite light, leaving a void into which the light of existence was poured. The primal emanation became Azilut, the World of Light, from which the three lower worlds, Beriah, Yetzirah and Assiyah, descended.”

I’m sure you had the same reaction I did when I read about tzimtzum: “I must renounce my current beliefs and dedicate my life to Kabbalah!”

You and I have a lot of work to do. Personally, I don’t know my Assiyah from my elbow. But I figure it won’t be hard to learn because most of it is just common sense. For example, the Neshamah Yeseira is the “supplemental soul” that a Jew can experience on Shabbat. In other words, “duh.” I knew that.

My only concern is that Kabbalah might give me insight into God and I’ll find out some things I really didn’t want to know. I mean, what if I find out God likes squirrels more than he likes me? Sooner or later I’m going to hit a squirrel with my car and I’ll never again feel comfortable going outside unless I have a lightning rod strapped to my hat.

What would be the most disturbing thing you could find out about God?

Hornier Than a…

Did you see the story about the German guy with two penises? He lost his original equipment in an accident, so doctors built him a new one. Later, he decided to upgrade, but doctors left the previous one until the new one took root, so to speak.

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1315211.html

When his wife saw the new one, she packed her bags and left him. This raises many questions about what made the wife so mad. There are many possibilities.

I’ll always remember a conversation I overheard at the gym years ago. An unhappy wife was bitterly complaining to a friend that her husband bought a boat without talking to her first. Apparently wives need to be told everything. So I guess one possibility is that the husband didn’t consult his wife before spending their retirement savings on a third pecker that looks like Frankenstein’s month-old banana.

Another possibility is that the man said something inappropriate when he showed his wife his two penises. One can imagine many wrong things to say. Here is a partial list.

1. So, anyhoo, when is your sister coming out to visit?

2. The little one is for you.

3. I’m already a two-fisted drinker, so this just seemed right.

4. I bought the deluxe unicorn option. The next one goes on my head.

5. No more rest breaks for you, beeatch.

6. Maybe the doctors can give you two headaches so we’re even.

7. Now it will feel like throwing TWO pencils down a hallway.

Another possibility is that the man created his own penis design and it had some features that didn’t please his wife. Again, one can imagine many wrong design choices:

1. Bottle opener option

2. Anything with a face

3. A tattoo that says, “Hello Kitty!”

My point is that there were many ways to handle this situation wrong. You can see how a guy with one big head and two little ones might make the wrong choice.

Dilbert and Chess

The other day I was pre-autographing a box of squeezable Dilbert characters at my restaurant. We buy them with the restaurant information printed on their backs, as promotional items for potential banquet customers. (Yes, I pay for the squeeze toys.)

Anyway, as customers and employees were lusting after them, I lined them up for optimal viewing and noticed something interesting: They map perfectly into chess pieces. Check out this picture.

Imagine Asok the Intern instead of Catbert.

Here's how I see it mapping:

Alice = Queen. The most powerful and capable piece.

Boss = King. He’s in charge, but largely helpless.

Dilbert = Rook. He moves in a straight path. Dilbert’s head shape and bumpy hairline even resemble a rook.

Bishop = Wally. He always has an angle, and he has a little bald head.

Dogbert = Knight. It’s the sneakiest chess piece. You never see it coming. And it’s the only animal.

Pawn = Asok the interns. He’s small and powerless and expendable.

I played some chess as a kid. When I created Dilbert, was I subconsciously influenced by the chess characters? Would any random group of six characters have a good chance of mapping to chess pieces? Is this just a routine coincidence? Is it more evidence I am a hologram programmed by my past self, and I reused code? Are the chess pieces based on some sort of universal archetype that I instinctively tapped into?

Beats me. I just think it’s freaky.

Since I know you’ll ask, the squeezable Dilbert characters are just about the coolest Dilbert-related items ever. They have that inexplicable x-factor thing where you can’t keep your hands off them. You can get them at Amazon.com, without printing on their backs.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/104-9918651-8252729?%5Fencoding=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=toys&field-keywords=Parle

Or order direct from the company, Parle, if you want your company name on the back.

http://parle.com/frameset.html

Or book a banquet at my restaurant and get a signed one for free. Just ask. www.eatatstaceys.com. (The web site will be redesigned in a few weeks. We’re working on it.)

Gifted or Defective

I was flipping through the channels last night and came across Justin Timberlake giving a concert. He’s a hugely successful artist. People all over the world love him. He’s sold tens of millions of CDs. This presented me with a mystery.

To me, Justin Timberlake sounds like a shockingly untalented guy with a lot of musical training. Why do I perceive him that way when millions of his fans do not?

One explanation is that I have excellent taste in music while the people who buy his albums do not. Yay for me! I am musically gifted and superior despite my inability to play an instrument!

The other explanation is that I am mentally defective. I was born without whatever gene would allow me to take pleasure in this particular type of art. Since so many people have the capacity to enjoy his music, it must be normal to like it. I am nothing but defective and abnormal.

I see this situation every day, but I’m usually on the receiving end. People e-mail or leave comments in various blogs telling me that Dilbert sucks, despite the fact it’s in 2,000 newspapers, in 65 countries, with 20 million Dilbert books and calendars sold. I admire the self-esteem of the people who look at the incompatibility between my commercially successful art and their sense of humor and conclude there’s something terribly wrong with me.

The e-mail I have NEVER received goes like this: “I do not enjoy Dilbert, but since many people do, I assume the problem is on my end. Something is wrong with me and I am just writing to let you know I am defective.”

This is one of those “everything you need to know about human beings” situations. Any incompatibility between a human and the world is seen as proof that the world is screwed up. If a politician wants to give ME a tax break, he’s a visionary. If he wants to give YOU a tax break, he’s a frickin’ thief.

Describe the last time you disagreed with a popular opinion, about anything, and concluded that the problem is with you?

Windmills and Economics

The other day I blogged about an idea for creating farms of Stirling engines to generate power in the desert, and financing them through individual investments in each engine. Predictably, I got a lot of comments that fell into one of these categories.

1. It will never work.

2. Someone is already doing it.

Here’s the best example of someone doing something like it, which I am copying from a comment from Prashanth J.

---- Begin comment ----

Scott,

Well presented but this is exactly what Suzlon, the wind energy firm in India does. This firm operates in Europe and U.S. as well.

http://www.suzlon.com/

This is how it works:

1. The company sets up the wind turbines in places where there is plenty of wind blowing to generate electricity and have them connected to state electricity grids.

2. Individual investors can buy a wind turbine which costs about 200 thousand dollars.

3. Banks finance the investor to buy the turbine.

4. Since the Indian government has a rule that at least 10% of the state electricity consumption has to come from renewable energy resources, state electricity boards buy electricity from Suzlon.

5. The returns which come from this turbine electricity generation is almost 30-40% more than the bank installment the investor has to pay. So the investor starts to make profit from the very first month.

6. The Suzlon owner, Tulsi Tanti, has made a huge fortune in around 10 years. He is one of the richest men in world according to Forbes.
http://www.forbes-global.com/lists/2006/10/QD9Q.html

It's a win-win situation for all and earth.

I am with you. We have a proven idea.

---- End of comment ----

Now all we need is a desert where it gets windy at night, so we can put a windmill on top of a stirling engine and share infrastructure.

This sort of economic model, plus the story about the guy who discovered a way to burn seawater for energy, makes me think our worries about energy are overblown.

Here’s the link for the seawater guy. It’s amazing.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iT1KAi6UEPN8LqZlvLnfsxP7ToKw

Update: The two criticisms I am hearing in the comments to this post are:

1. Windmills and Stirling engines aren't the big answer because you'd need to store their energy for the times when they don't produce.

2. Burning seawater by exposing it to radio waves is nothing but a potentially more efficient way to use electricity to create hydrogen.

Hydrogen can be stored. Problem in #1 is solved.

While I share the skepticism that burning seawater can produce more energy than it takes to create the radio waves, the comparison should be to coal or oil, not a perpetual motion machine. It takes a lot of energy to drill for oil, transport it, and refine it into gasoline. Same with turning coal into liquid fuel. But those aren't perpetual motion inventions.

Is my comparison wrong?

Study Hints That Brains are Involved in Thinking

As a watcher of all things media, I am always impressed when a PR person makes a huge story out of nothing. A good example is the recent press about research showing how liberals and conservatives have different brains.

http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/237131/

This ground-breaking study shows that the brain is somehow involved in decision-making. At the risk of sounding braggy, I already knew that. I’d be willing to bet – and here I am going out on a limb – that on average, people who love to play bingo have different brains than people who design computer chips. And cowards have different brains from extreme sports lovers, and so on. How much researching does it take to discover “duh”?

But “duh” is not how the story got spun all over the media. During this time of presidential elections, the story turned into “Scientists prove conservatives are simple-minded.”

I’m guessing this is how the process went down: The scientists (usually liberals) report their findings to their university bosses (usually liberals) who call their public relations people (usually liberals) to sex up this story and feed it to the media (usually liberals). There wasn’t much to slow it down.

Still, you have to give props to the PR person who put the lipstick on this turd. Someone earned his or her money this week. Nice work.

We live in a strange time in human history. Every time a scientist discovers that child molesters or geniuses or musicians have different brain structures, the public gasps at the suggestion that the brain is involved in thinking. What were the other hypotheses? Souls? Elbows?

Thanks to the persistent superstition of free will, it still qualifies as big news that the brain is a moist machine. And by that I mean it is big news to conservatives. Liberals saw it coming.

Update:

I haven't done this in a while, but I had to promote the following comment from DuggleBogey to the end of this post:

"Is this not just saying that "all conservatives are not idiots, but all idiots are conservatives?"

Giant Penises Save the Planet

Have you ever heard of a Stirling engine? According to Wikipedia, they look like huge male genitalia.

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

I mention this only because these huge penis engines can save the world by being placed in deserts and used to create cheap electricity from the heat of the sun.

http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/news/2005/11/69528

As you can see from the story, big companies are building Stirling engine farms to capture the sun’s energy more effectively than photovoltaic panels. This could work, but it’s not the economic model that will set us completely free. Let me tell you what is: Giant penis engine co-op investments.

Let’s say the next president of the United States fast-tracks the following concept: Any company can buy a bunch of land in the desert, and start building Stirling engine farms that connect to the country’s electrical grid. The genius part of my idea is that individual investors can own one specific penis engine and the profits from it. The organizer of the venture just rents the space and provides maintenance, insurance, administration, and installation for the devices.

This economic model is much better than having it all done by big companies. People want to help the country become energy independent, and they are frustrated that big corporations don’t seem to be doing enough to make it happen. However, if you told me I could own my own clean energy generator, and make money too, almost guaranteed, I’d be all over it. I’d feel like I was helping the country and sticking it to the big oil companies and terrorists at the same time. You couldn’t build these penis engine farms fast enough to satisfy investor demand.

And here’s the best part. The organizing company for these energy farms would provide real-time data on the performance of your penis engine, direct to your computer, so it could show your profits as they happen. When it’s night in the desert, your profit counter slows to zero. When the sun comes up, it starts spinning with dollar signs.

How fucking cool would that be?

Investing is fun, but you rarely get to see the money being made in real time, without any serious risk of loss. Unlike stocks, your profits would never reverse direction. As long as the sun comes up, your counter starts spinning and your bank account fattens.

The organizing company could also provide video of the penis engine farm so you can watch your investment, and see that it is being maintained. If my counter stops spinning, I want to check the video and see that it’s because the maintenance crews are washing down the solar dish.

The power of this idea is in the psychological impact. I can invest in Southern California Edison, and get a piece of their action for the penis engine farms they are building, but it wouldn’t feel as real. I wouldn’t get the same charge as owning my own physical penis engine and watching the meter run.

The reason so many people recycle is, in my opinion, because it’s such a tangible act. Every time you carry your empty bottles and used newspapers to the curb, you feel like a good citizen. If you could accomplish the same benefit to the Earth through some sort of purely financial transaction, compliance would be much lower. People want immediate feedback that their good acts are helping the world.

Huge penis engines are the answer. The government would have to clear a bunch of red tape, in all likelihood, and probably need to fund some infrastructure to connect the desert penis farms to the national power grid, but it’s all doable.

I say it’s time to erect some penises. Who’s with me?

Basic Instruction, Part 8

In my ongoing reality series, I continue advising Scott Meyer on how to become a syndicated cartoonist. Most recently, I asked Scott to try drawing some strips with three panels and fewer words. That’s the formula for successful syndication in newspapers because newspapers traditionally avoid buying anything else.

Every writer seems to have a natural rhythm. For example, I’ve never written a funny single-panel comic despite numerous efforts. Scott’s natural rhythm seems to be a longer, wordier format than you see in typical newspaper comics. But he and I both thought it was worth testing that assumption.

Here’s a comic that Scott created primarily to test the newspaper size and word count.

I like it, but not as much as his longer form. Compare it to his archive on http://basicinstructions.net/

Still, his short form is funnier than 90% of what you’ll see in the funny pages today, including Dilbert. (I just checked dilbert.com. Today’s Dilbert wasn’t my best work.)

Is being funnier than 90% of other comics enough to be syndicated? The answer is yes, definitely, if the comic is “about something,” such as marriage, or the workplace, or kids, etc. Without that extra demographic hook, it’s a tougher sell. Dilbert wouldn’t have made it without the workplace angle.

Or does it make more sense for Scott to stick with the longer and funnier format and try to grow it online while also trying to convince newspapers to change their ways? You can fit a square peg into a round hole if you have a big enough hammer, but new cartoonists don’t have big hammers. There’s a first time for everything, but it’s a tough sell.

Some of you will say Scott should stick to the long form, keep his artistic integrity, and live a modest life with a modest income. I’ll respect that advice from anyone who quit his job as a high powered lawyer, donated his assets to charity, and found happiness as a barista at Starbucks.

Next step, I arranged for Scott to get some expert advice from my syndication company, United Media. What would you advise United Media to tell Scott?

1. Keep developing Basic Instruction in the short form.
2. Try to sell the long form to newspapers.
3. Team Scott with another artist to do the drawing.
4. Add a theme hook to the strip. Make it “about something.”
5. Distribute the long form online only.
6. Pass.

Keep in mind that syndicates only launch about two strips every year, and they have thousands of submissions to choose from. I doubt any submissions will be as funny as Basic Instructions (99% are dreadful) but some could be easier to sell.

Absence of a Thing

In my ninth grade science class, the teacher told us that heat was essentially energy. I raised my hand and asked, “If heat is energy, what is cold?” The teacher said, “Cold is the lack of energy.”

I always remember that because, like coldness, the lack of something often feels like its own something. In art, for example, the use of empty space can be just as important as the stuff you see.

Recently I was wondering if life as a rock would be superior to life as a conscious entity. My first reaction was no, because a rock has no capacity to enjoy itself. This made me wonder if happiness is nothing more than the absence of pain, which a rock has.

In the end, I decided I’d rather be me than a rock, because the rock isn’t conscious of its lack of pain. So forget about the rock, but I think there might be some merit to the idea that happiness is nothing more than the absence of pain.

Perhaps you think that sitting around pain free would not be enough to make you happy. It would be boring and unfulfilling. And it’s hard to be happy when you are bored and unfulfilled. But boredom and lack of fulfillment are types of pain. Imagine sitting around doing nothing while having no tinge of boredom, or lack of purpose, or loneliness, or any other discomfort. I think it would feel like happiness.

The ideal happy creature would be a rock with consciousness. It would have no discomfort and no goals beyond eroding.

This explains why I don’t fear living to the age of 140. The common, and I believe incorrect view, is that it’s impossible to be happy when you are that old. Your body would be a mess, and you’d have no capacity to go out and do the things that make people happy. But I’m counting on a big demographic bubble of old people to have lots of political clout. The first thing we oldsters will do is get rid of drug laws for people over 100. We’ll argue that all the reasons for drug laws don’t apply at that age. We won’t be driving cars or damaging our careers. We’ll just be sitting in rocking chairs and staring out the windows. All we will want is to be pain-free, like rocks.

We’ll probably have a name for that condition, such as getting “stoned.”

Worst Gang Ever

In the news, a gang of neo-Nazis was arrested………………..in Israel.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070909/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_neo_nazis

The gang recorded their violent crimes on video. This is a good idea in case you’re not doing enough to get caught and prosecuted. One of the gang members says, “Heil Hitler” on the video. His lawyer will have to ask to move the trial to Iran so his client can get a fair trial.

I wonder how you even find a lawyer who can defend a guy for supporting Hitler in Israel? I’ll bet there are plenty of lawyers volunteering to do the job, but I’m guessing they don’t plan to mount the most rigorous defense.

Lawyer: “Here, you might want to use this to practice being in jail.”

Neo-Nazi: “A broomstick?”

Lawyer: “Try eating chili peppers and spitting on it first.”

I try to imagine the moment before this gang was formed. I don’t know how much alcohol you have to consume before suggesting maybe you should form a neo-Nazi gang in Israel, but I have to think it’s a lot. Whoever was selling beer to these guys is the real victim. His sales are going to take a hit.

Osama Placebo

Osama released a new video. Analysts are wondering how his beard turned from grey to black. I guess his healthy lifestyle is paying dividends.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20649227/site/newsweek/

I assume this new video is from the real Osama because a fake would do a better job matching the beard.  In other words, the real Osama looks too fake to be an actual fake. This raises an interesting question: How hard would it be for the CIA to create a fake Osama who looks more real than the real one?

I don’t think it would be hard. A Hollywood special effects team could pound one out in a week. Then you just need to get the other intelligence agencies to say the voice is authenticated. Bam.

The first video of the fake Osama could be one of his typical wandering diatribes against capitalism and infidels and blah, blah, blah. Once the public, especially the terrorist cells with no direct contact back to the base cave, start to believe he’s real, you can begin to sprinkle in new topics and nudge the terrorists in whatever direction you like. Remember, there’s no such thing as a story too ridiculous when you’re talking about people who believe suicide is a good way to get laid.

By the third or fourth video, Osama could be telling his followers to tattoo “Al Qaeda” on their foreheads to show their devotion and lack of fear. He could explain that martyrdom has many levels, with death being the best payoff in virgins, but lots of opportunity for virgin action short of death. For example, you could just wound yourself and still get hand action from one virgin.

Within a few weeks, all the terrorists would end up in emergency rooms with tattoos on their foreheads and semi-martyr erections. Then you just arrest them, handcuff them behind their backs, and tell them the punchline, which goes like this:  “By the way, that one virgin was you. And you had your chance in the ambulance on the way over”

U.S. Open Update

On Wednesday, my wife and I watched a U.S. Open tennis match in Arthur Ashe Stadium. You have never seen anything like it, unless you have been lucky enough to see an ant wrestle with a crumb. That’s what it looked like from our cheap seats. Obviously I am exaggerating, because the tennis match involved two players, not one. Two ants wrestling with crumbs is obviously twice as good as one.

We left after a few minutes because my wife got dizzy from the height (really).

You might wonder why I didn’t invest some of my Dilbert money in better tickets. Well, that’s a long story involving my sloth, ignorance, poor memory, wishful thinking, bad timing, and a few other personality defects that I might be intentionally forgetting. Apparently I will not be in charge of “ticket getting” for our next event.

On Monday night, however, we had good tickets, thanks to a friend of a friend. But we also had a spare set of ant-with-crumb tickets I had purchased before the better ones became available. The bad tickets were $36 apiece, and it was a Roger Federer match, so we figured we could just sell them to some ticketless fan on the way in. No point in wasting good ant-with-crumb tickets.

This created a dilemma.

Scalping is a crime within 1,500 feet of the entrance, as the signs clearly proclaimed. But we aren’t so good at estimating distance. We walked until we were approaching the Pennsylvania border, just to be on the safe side, and were surprised that no one was there waiting to buy ant-with-crumb tickets. But maybe we walked in the wrong direction, we thought. Perhaps there was a mob of ticketless people closer to Vermont. But by then we were exhausted and unsure we could even make it back to the entrance without a helicopter rescue. Eventually we decided we had a good reason to waste perfectly good tickets.

We found our seats in the loge section, behind a young man with an exceptional head. When he sat upright, we had a perfect view of the court. But when he leaned forward, as he preferred to do, his head seemed to grow to the size of a sperm whale, obscuring half of the court. We marveled at the impossibility of it all, and discussed our options.

One option involved moving to other seats and hoping the rightful owners didn’t show up. This didn’t work for me because I knew I would be feeling like a criminal all night. It was bad enough that I almost scalped tickets within the gravitational field of Earth; I couldn’t handle being a seat trespasser too.

The other option was to ask the young man to sit up straight for the entire match. But how reasonable is that? I decided it was better than trespassing. I tapped on his shoulder and explained the situation, leaving out the colorful “head like a sperm whale” descriptor. The young man readily agreed to sit upright, and did.

This created a new problem.

I like to lean forward when I watch tennis matches. But I couldn’t because I had just asked the guy with the sperm whale head not to. Let me tell you, when you can’t lean forward in your seat, that’s when you want it the most. It was forbidden fruit. I became obsessed with trying to find moments when the guy in front of me was unlikely to turn sideways and notice me with his peripheral vision. I think Roger Federer won the match, but that’s not the part I will remember for the rest of my life. I’ll only remember the day I couldn’t lean forward with impunity. I suspect the guy with the sperm whale head will also remember the day a stranger told him there was only one acceptable way to sit in his seat.

Anyway, I wish someone would just invent some sort of device that would display sporting events while you sat on your own couch. I think it would catch on.

New York City Subway

This week I am in Manhattan, living like a New Yorker. I have learned many things about the city. Today I will teach you how to ride the subway.

First, when you drop part of a cookie in the subway station, the five second rule does not apply. That cookie is dead before it hits the ground.

Second, when someone with a badge throws you on the ground, puts your arm behind your back, puts his knee on your neck, and yells, “DO NOT RESIST! DO NOT RESIST!” you should not resist. I learned this by watching. I also learned that you are not supposed to watch. You are supposed to “KEEP ON MOVING!”

To ride the subway, you must purchase a card with a magnetic strip. You learn this by observing other people “in the know” swiping their cards as they enter the turnstile. There are many options for what type of card you might want for particular purposes, and no apparent posted instructions. Luckily, you can ask for guidance from a helpful person who is behind thick glass. This transaction involves mumbling, rushing, condescension, the supposition that you are a moron, much evidence to support that assumption, and eventually the exchange of money for a little card that may or may not have some application for riding the subway.

Once armed with your little card, you swipe it on the turnstile. This is a frightening experience because there are at least nine wrong ways to swipe a card in a turnstile. I discovered all of them as a line of impatient New Yorkers formed behind me. I was holding the card the right way, and swiping it in the right direction, but as a uniformed guard eventually showed me, there is also something about the speed, trajectory, and possibly your state of mind that is also necessary for the turnstile to accept the card.  I don't know how many times the turnstile has to reject you before the guy with the badge puts his knee on your neck and starts yelling “DO NOT RESIST!” but I am sure I was close to the limit.

Once you are on the subway, you must find a seat next to a person you judge least likely to drool on you, rob you, or start a conversation. My wife picked a guy who eventually fell asleep and slumped on her. I picked a guy who was muffin-topping into my seat and listening to an iPod. We felt blessed with our choices.

Next comes the wondering if you are heading in the right direction. There is one sign in each subway car showing the names of stations along the line. This sign is printed with tiny lettering so only the people sitting directly below it can read it. I didn’t want to risk losing my sweet seat next to the muffin-top guy so I relied on listening to the conductor announce the stations. The announcements sound like Charlie Brown’s teacher on Quaaludes, approximately this: “Muwa muwa muwa.” I assume the conductors have the option of speaking in some language that humans can understand, but that is not their way. So we defaulted to the “get off when most other people get off” method of navigation. This worked well traveling from Grand Central Station to the US Open tennis match in Flushing. To travel to any other destination, you have to become a native, either intentionally or because you can’t figure out how to get to the airport.

Atlantis

I love the idea of the lost city of Atlantis because it fits so well into an alternate theory of human origins. In the alternate theory, the first life on Earth was an alien settlement. The aliens built a scientific base station in Atlantis and used their advanced technology to create all the other life forms. Imagine it was illegal to do DNA experiments on their home planet, so they came to Earth and built dinosaurs and pandas and different humanoids and plants just to see what happened.

Perhaps they were looking for the ultimate physical form so their own future generations could survive in hostile climates. Maybe some of the dinosaurs, such as the t-rexes, were highly intelligent. They didn’t use tools because they had no need for them. When they got hungry, they just ate smaller, slower dinosaurs and pooped them out in the forest later. It would be the perfect life.

Or maybe they built different creatures just for the purposes of competition. They would pit one type of creature against another and see who won. The rest of the plants and animals were just food for the gladiator animals and experiments that didn’t work out.

The Atlantis hypothesis explains the big jumps in evolution, and why creatures seem to have common parts, such as birds and dinosaurs. The aliens reused the designs they liked. Maybe some features, such as the exact shape of antlers, were more accidental than planned, because DNA manipulation was as much art as science.

Then something happened to the city of Atlantis. Either it was destroyed in a natural disaster or abandoned on purpose. Now it’s at the bottom of the ocean someplace.

This doesn’t answer the question of who created the aliens in the first place, so it allows the possibility of God. It just pushes him back one level. I like the Atlantis hypothesis because it makes everyone uncomfortable, explains everything here on Earth, and you can’t disprove it. That’s as good as it gets.

I'm sure someone wrote a science fiction book on this exact topic, but I didn't read it.

Odds of Being Shat Upon

I’m with my wife in New York City this week. Yesterday we walked to Central Park and did tourist activities, spending about five hours outdoors. I had on my sunscreen and my baseball cap. Walking back to the hotel, I removed my hat for the first time all day because it was warm and I expected to be in the shade of buildings all the way back to the hotel.

Within five seconds, a bird shit on my head.

His aim was phenomenal. He hit me in the center of what my unkind friend refers to as my “pink yarmulke.” From the bird’s view, that must have been an irresistible target.

I give the bird credit. It was an impressive load. That bastard must have been eating French fries in the park all day and saving it up for the right moment. The main tonnage hit the top of my head, but there was plenty left over for my shirt and arm. I didn’t see what kind of bird it was, but judging from the result, it was probably an ostrich. I’m also not ruling out pterodactyl, flying cow, or UFO full of aliens with dysentery. My point is that any volume of crap seems large when it’s on your head.

I cleaned up as well as I could, and walked to the hotel while wondering about the odds of being shat upon within that 5-second period of removing my hat. I saw about ten thousand people that day, and I was the only one covered with shit and cursing the sky. Let’s say there were 22 million people in the New York metropolitan area. I’m guessing no more than a million got crapped on. So that’s 1-in-22 right there, or .0455. And I was outside for 5 hours before I removed my hat, so that’s 204,000 seconds of protection compared to 5 seconds hatless, or .00002451. And since both the “crapped on” and “hatless” conditions had to happen at the same time, I multiply those two odds and get a .000001 chance of getting shat upon within 5 seconds of removing a hat.

I slept through statistics class, so that’s probably wrong. I just know it was unlikely, and it’s further evidence my life is nothing but a holographic program written by my long-dead self. This is exactly the sort of clue I would leave myself.

The US Open is this week, and some of the tennis pros are staying at the hotel where I’m at. A nice lady working in the lobby was complaining to me that she keeps missing her chance to get an autograph from Andy Roddick. She doesn’t follow tennis, but since Andy is famous, that was enough to want his signature. So if you will excuse me, I have to go do some work until I am famous enough for that lady in the lobby to want my autograph, and for the birds to give me some respect.

Fossils – Still Bullshit

The biggest reaction I ever got from this blog was when I stated my opinion that the evidence for evolution is bullshit. Thanks to recent news, it’s time to make that case again, but this time more clearly.

I confess that my writings on this topic in the past have been difficult to comprehend because so much cognitive dissonance kicks in when the average person encounters this topic. This time I plan to fix that by stating my points as clearly as possible.

First, when I say “the evidence for evolution is bullshit,” I’m NOT saying any of the following:

1. Evolution isn’t a scientific fact.
2. All evidence for evolution is false.
3. God created the earth.

What I’m saying is that the evidence for evolution that is available to the casual person of interest, including most students, is simplified to the point of being misleading, false, or useless. In other words, the popular argument for evolution is bullshit, independent of the underlying reality of evolution or the evidence available to experts in the field.

This article on the new complexities of the human evolutionary tree makes my case better than I do.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20070902/sc_livescience/humanfamilytreenowatangledmessybush

I remember learning in school about the neat line of human descent and wondering how we can be so sure about that from the relatively few fossil discoveries. It looked like bullshit to me. And now we have a better idea that it was. Some of the most basic so-called facts of human evolution were wrong, it seems. Tools were used before brains got bigger, we walked upright at the same time we did a lot of tree swinging, etc.

Proponents of evolution will angrily argue the following points that I will acknowledge first just to piss them off:

1. Science is dynamic and revises itself. That is its strength. Yay, science!
2. Revising details of evolution doesn’t mean evolution didn’t happen.
3. There is a mountain of good information for evolution.
4. Scott Adams is not a trained scientist. That’s why he doesn’t understand evolution.
5. The stuff in that article has been known to scientists for a long time.

That’s all true, I’m sure. It also has nothing to do with my point. My point is that the average non-scientist has been fed a diet of suspicious evidence for evolution for decades. And much of it turns out to be bullshit. It smelled like bullshit and it was.

My best guess for why scientists get to see the good evidence and non-scientists see bullshit is because we wouldn’t have the training or brains to understand the good stuff. So scientists in the know have two problematic choices when trying to defend their views on evolution:

1. Provide no evidence and let the masses believe God created the universe and scientists are idiots.
2. Simplify the evidence to the point of being bullshit so the gullible masses will buy it.

When you factor in the simplifications the media adds to the mix, and the uncorrected errors in textbooks, the honest errors of interpretation, the rare but publicized frauds, and the scientists looking to make names for themselves by discovering missing links, it would be a frickin’ miracle if the evidence I see for evolution wasn’t bullshit. The system virtually guarantees it.

You don’t need to give me links to web sites that “do an excellent job of answering all your questions.” I’ve been there. They don’t address my point in this post. All they do is point out that scientists themselves have convincing evidence for evolution that non-scientists don’t understand. I’m not debating that point in this post.

My other argument about evolution is that time is an illusion, which makes evolution nothing but a point of view with some utility, and not a feature of reality. But that’s a different argument.

Next Post

My next post will be Monday morning.