I really like Don Boudreaux’s post analogizing biological creationists to what he calls “Social creationists”.

Naive minds believe that social order must be created, planned, the result of intention. These minds worry that without such conscious guidance, the result will be either chaos or an order that is inferior to one that is planned and consciously crafted. In contrast, sophisticated minds understand that social order is largely “the result of human action but not of human design” – and that highly complex, productive orders that offer maximum prospect for widespread human flourishing are those that are least infected with efforts to centrally craft social order.
…
Social creationists are members of that species of juvenile thinkers who regard conscious, central direction by a wise and caring higher human authority as necessary for all social order – not only for the foundation, but for all, or much, of what the foundation supports.

Economic central planners are prime examples of social creationists. In their view, government must not only create and enforce law (society’s foundation), it also must plan the course of the economy (society’s superstructure) – for example, which good and services to produce, and how to produce these.

Boudreaux isn’t confusing a dispute about what actually happened in biology with one about what works best in society. He’s pointing out a similar failure by many in both realms to appreciate how successful an unguided process can be with the right processes at work.

I just got back from seeing The Aristocrats.

Go see it!!!

It’s laugh-out-loud funny. Although, I suspect that different people will laugh at different moments.

Superficially, it’s a documentary about a dirty joke. It’s been told for many years, but mostly just among comedians. The joke involves the description (or presentation) of a “family act” to a talent agent. The act itself involves tremendous obscenity, and the details can change with each telling. When the dumbfounded talent agent asks what the act is called he’s told “The Aristocrats”.

It’s not a funny joke in itself. It has a minor humorous element of the outrageous incongruity between the contents of the act and the title, but that’s not really very funny. It’s really a meta-joke. What’s funny is the way the joke is told; the creativity of the comedian trying to be as outrageously obscene as he can without getting boring; the fact that he’s actually saying these things out loud and they’re making you (and others) laugh, etc.

But the movie isn’t really about the joke.

The movie is really about comics. It’s great to watch and listen to these geniuses who understand the human condition and how to manipulate people’s emotions and expectations as well as any novelist.

It’s great!

The performers are fantastic. Follow the link above to see their names.

Like many others, I have to take particular notice of Gilbert Gottfried who told a version of the joke at a Friar’s Club roast of Hugh Hefner shortly after 9/11. When his original 9/11 oriented joke was met with disapproval (“Too Soon!”), instead of backing down and becoming milder he launched into “The Aristocrats” and had the crowd (mostly comedians) rolling. It showed that tapping into this deep area of consciousness, where we try to protect ourselves from our fears, can bring us together in powerful ways.

I can’t wait to buy the DVD, which I understand will have a lot of footage that had to be edited out of the film.

P.S. If you’re not sure if you can handle the joke, you might want to check out this South Park version of the joke which is in the movie and is about as obscene as any version there. If you can appreciate it, then you’ll love the movie.

John Tierney has written another great Op-Ed for the NY Times.

This time it discusses the War on Drugs, and the “meth epidemic” in particular.

Kudos to the NY Times for promoting diversity and including Tierney’s sensible columns among all of those other ones.

Here’s a very cool elaborate, self-referential Australian beer commercial.

Apparently, it’s best viewed with Internet Explorer.

I can’t put it better than Will Wilkinson did, so go read his post.

Apparently Karen Tandy, head of the DEA, is boasting of hampering the efforts of drug legalization advocacy groups through the arrest of Marc Emery. She seems to think that opposing government drug policy is akin to terrorism.

If President Bush is actually competent to serve in his office, and takes his oath to protect and defend the constitution seriously, he will fire her immediately.

We’ll see.

I don’t have very much to say about John Roberts because, like everyone else, I don’t know very much about what kind of a justice he’ll be.

I’m tentatively optimistic because “Juan Non-Volokh” and Orin Kerr from the Volokh Conspiracy seem pleased with the nomination. On the other hand, I’m somewhat disturbed that he represented the states in their anti-Microsoft suit. I’d hope he wouldn’t have represented them if he thought they were engaging in an injustice, but I’m not sure what he thought or how he chose his clients.

What seems really odd, though, is that nobody seems to know what he thinks about major politically-charged legal issues; even people who really know him well. It’s as though he decided long ago that he wanted to be on the Supreme Court and avoided saying anything to anybody that might hurt his chances.

As Gene Healy expressed it:

Great grades, stellar resume, nice posture, nice smile, no doubt a firm handshake. But where he stands on anything is anyone’s guess. What we’ve got here is a guy who, apparently, was genetically engineered and grown in a vat for the sole purpose of getting past the Senate Judiciary Committee.

I almost got into a traffic accident on the way to work yesterday.

It was raining, and I was almost there, and cars ahead of me came to a stop for some reason (not at the intersection). It took me a while to realize that the car in front me was completely stopped and I wouldn’t be able to stop in time if I tried to do it gradually, so I pressed harder on the brake and went into a skid.

I really really really didn’t want to hit the other car, but at that point it was out of my hands and up to physics. I was just a passenger. What probably took 1 second seemed much longer.

Fortunately, my car stopped just inches short of contact, and (fortunately as well) the car behind me was able to stop without hitting mine. No damage was done, except to my nerves. My heart was racing for a while.

I’m not sure why I’m blogging this, other than perhaps to remind people to maintain safe distances and speeds based on the conditions. I know I’m going to be more conscious of it for a while, at least, and perhaps others can benefit from my event, rather than have worse ones of their own.