Hi Bob!

"THEY UNVEILED A BOB Newhart statue in Chicago? ... well, I'm sure it was very impressive ... wait, what happened? ... all of Michigan Avenue flooded? ... mmm hmm ... Good Lord .... well, I'm sure they had the scuba gear ready ... oh, I see ... herding cats .... White Sox promotion ... OK. Goodbye, Howard!"

America and Discontent

WE ARE GRATEFUL to Sasha Castel for bringing to our attention a particularly horrid little book which spreads gross mistruths about the United States and American culture. This vile little volume, entitled "Culture Shock! USA" contains enough distortions, half-truths and outright falsehoods to rival an edition of Pravda from the Thirties. We borrow from Ms Castel some of the more egregious examples:

From Page 86: "The American dinner has fallen under medical disapproval due to its high cholesterol content. The meal typically consists of a large piece of meat, ketchup, vegetables with butter, potatoes (fried or with butter), and a sweet dessert."

From Page 19: "The Puritans would not have smiled on the conspicuous consumption of today, but they would have admired the unrelenting effort that goes into the acquisition of goods. Americans have much greater admiration for businessmen than most other peoples do. An Englishman who has made enough money may well be happy to retire to his country home. The American only wants to go on making more money, driven as much by the Puritan work ethic...as by the desire for more money."

From Page 24: "Expect also to find innumerable exceptions to any of my claims about Americans. Just as not every Japanese is hard-working and deferential to superiors, nor every Chinese devoted to family, not every American is ambitious, patriotic, money-grubbing or even unsophisticated."

This last one particularly annoyed us, as we have this thing against comparing the United States with Gomorrah.

Anyway, Ms Castel has noted many more examples, and she understandably writes that even a quick look at this book prompted her to become enraged. We are not amused either, although we note the publisher is based in Oregon, and we suspect that might have something to do with it. (Hey, if you had spent a weekend in Eugene on business, you'd feel the same way).

Now, we admit our first reaction upon reading these awful excerpts was a feeling that turnabout was fair play; but on reflection we felt such a reaction was patently unfair. After all, it would not be fair to blame the Europeans for a work that is entirely American. However, because we are concerned that Europeans might read this book and draw erroneous conclusions from it, we encourage Europeans to read plenty of U.S.-based blogs -- like, say, ours -- to get a full understanding of American life.

Upward and Onward

OVER AT SAMIZDATA, Dale Amon has posted some interesting excerpts from court filings in a, well, novel property-law case.

It would appear that Gregory Nemitz, a resident of Carson City, Nev., has laid claim to the asteroid of Eros (Asteroid No. 433), which orbits the Sun at an average distance of some 146 million miles. Mr Nemitz has come up with the idea of setting up a colony on Eros to exploit its mineral wealth -- and if the idea is to work, the developer must have ownership of the rock in its entirety.

(Yes, it is amazing that we allow people to file such lawsuits -- although, as we understand it from Mr Amon, the idea is to force the property-law issue and not the claim. That said, we would note Mr Nemitz's case is now before the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, after a U.S. District Court slapped it down. Given the Ninth Circuit, we are half-expecting to read in the papers that Mr Nemitz has been awarded ownership not just of Eros, but half the asteroid belt).

Anyway, the Government's defense in this case is that Mr Nemitz cannot own Eros. It cites the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, which forbids national Governments from appropriating celestial objects or otherwise making claim to them. Therefore, it reasons, Mr Nemitz is -- to use the legal term -- Shit Out of Luck. Furthermore, it is Most Certainly Not going to pay the $20 parking fee which he charged it for letting the Shoemaker craft land on Eros some years back.

As you can see, Mr Nemitz has been clever in planning all this out. A pity he put the cart before the horse.

For we do fear his plan falls short in a few key areas -- the most important being that he cannot enforce his claim. For that matter, none of the various people who have attempted to claim extraterrestrial land over the years can enforce their claims. This is, quite simply, because they can't get to the properties in question, and no Government has jurisdiction in these areas.

Yet what happens when either or both of those two conditions no longer holds? That to us is the real interesting question.

We would submit a lot of these legal issues will be based -- at least at the outset -- around the old squatters-rights concept. It is true this could lead to a situation one step short of anarchy: if some idiot tries to evict an honest citizen from his moon condo, because of a "title" to the land issued in 1955, the idiot may just get his space helmet filled with buckshot. But it does not have to be that way (and for a lot of examples why, see the work of Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto).

After all, what if a link was made between property-improvement and its titling? We don't see why such a system could not be established in future to deal with land and property claims in outer space, whether through Governments based in space (in 1000 years, they might exist) or through Earth-based Governments which had made the sensible decision to scrap the Outer Space Treaty and open the last frontier up to development.

Jersey, and Beyond the Blogosphere

WE ARE QUITE PLEASED to announce that Simon From Jersey, our great friend whom we have known since the third grade, has started his own blog. All Loyal Rant Readers are, as such, directed to visit Simon's blog, "Sick Day," on a regular basis for insightful and funny commentary on sports, current events, and plenty of other stuff.

As proof of Simon's wit, we note that for the most part, we stole the title for this entry from the subject of an e-mail which he sent us announcing the endeavor. So venture forth and read it. We will permalink it shortly, and are excited about reading his work on a daily basis.

Rant Statement on Celebrity-Related Discord

By HARRIS SCHWED
Financial Rant

HAMILTON, Bermuda -- Benjamin Kepple's Daily Rant Inc., an Internet content provider based here, today issued the following transcript from a conference call discussing celebrity-related matters:

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

Mr KEPPLE, Chief Executive Officer: Good morning! Thanks, everyone, for your time. We know you're busy.

ANALYSTS: Good morning!

Mr KEPPLE: We have joining me today Quinn Quimbley, our vice president of sales and marketing, as well as senior vice president of finance Ted Hamilton. First, we'll deliver some short remarks, and then open the floor to questions.

After careful consideration, the Company has determined the entertainment industry's top performers have contributed to a general rise in discord among certain segments of the North American market. We understand that while only a fraction of these performers are responsible for this phenomenon, the result has been a general upward tick in negativity directed towards celebrities as a whole, and a significant increase in negativity vis-a-vis this fraction. The Company, after performing due diligence and thorough analyses of these data, sees fit to offer guidance that while there may be some risk, perhaps even high risk, of economic consequences for the aforementioned performers, the general effects upon the Company's activities will range from negligible to considerable, and that on the upside.

ANALYST: What?

Mr HAMILTON: Twenty -- percent -- margin!

ANALYSTS: YIPPEE!

Mr HAMILTON: Good gravy, folks, we mean the pot is clean! People can't get enough of all these crazy celebrity shenanigans! It's unbelievable! We've got rising indicators across the board!

Mr QUIMBLEY: I just bought a boat!

(EXCITED CROSSTALK)

ANALYST: Sir, this is Pieter Henrie with Land o' Shinar plc. What's this mean for the future of The Rant's celebrity coverage?

Mr QUIMBLEY: We see coverage on this front holding about steady, perhaps a slight increase over the next quarter. A thorough analysis of our past content shows no heated condemnation of celebrity antics, but rather a detached bemusement with it all that still makes our points. We will continue avoiding comment on these pronouncements of theirs. However, we believe the increased interest among certain market segments will drive revenues related to this sector higher.

ANALYST: A question for Mr Hamilton, if I may. Sir, this is Mark McAdoo from CuttlefishSpork Dominion. Do you see any expansion in terms of your labor force?

Mr HAMILTON: Did I mention we're having a stock buyback next quarter?

ANALYSTS: YIPPEE!

Mr HENRIE: I'll get my bonus. I'LL GET MY BONUS!

Mr QUIMBLEY: Everybody SAMBA!

(EXCITED CROSSTALK)

Mr McADOO: Um, you didn't answer my question.

Mr HAMILTON: Oh. Yes. Right. Well, Mark, as you know, we've always maintained high staff levels both here at our Bermuda headquarters and in our satellite offices, particularly in Grand Cayman, Hong Kong, and the Isle of Man. Plus, as you know, we recently established an office in Liechtenstein to further pursue our integration plans with our European distribution arm.

Mr McADOO: You still didn't answer my question.

Mr KEPPLE: Ha, ha! Mark, that's just a polite way of saying, "No, and you must be insane for wasting your one question on that." Next question, please.

ANALYST: Mr Kepple, this is Herbert Jones with ASK GmbH, and ...

Mr KEPPLE: Oh! How are things at Achtung Schnell Kauf?

Mr JONES: Fair to middlin'. Anyway, sir, how did the Company arrive at these conclusions?

Mr KEPPLE: Well, we gave considerable thought to this matter, especially given our past product lines, but we do think we arrived at a satisfactory conclusion to the question at hand.

We knew going into it that we cared little for what celebrities thought about such matters, as we had already made up our minds long before they came out with public pronouncements on this or that issue. Further, we knew that our sources of information -- namely, everything from Government reports to essays from respected writers -- proved better-sourced when compared with the one-off statements which these celebrities presented as gospel. The end result was we had no reason to even pay attention to these celebrities' opinions on anything, thus leaving us free to "enjoy the music," as the kids say.

Mr HAMILTON: Speaking of, I've got a Bose stereo in MY Lamborghini!

(EXCITED CROSSTALK)

Mr JONES: So these opinions were nullities, in your view?

Mr KEPPLE: Well, no, that's far too harsh. Our point is simply that people don't generally form their opinions based on what a celebrity thinks. Obviously, if a celebrity has truly studied an issue carefully, reading up on it and perhaps calling some of the experts on both sides, their opinions on that issue -- provided they are reasonably formulated -- could sway us. For instance, plenty of musicians have written eloquent articles about the business practices of the recording industry, which we have read with interest.

Mr JONES: Do you think celebrities' opinions change people's minds?

Mr KEPPLE: Not particularly. They're behind the curve. Well, except for Bono. But he was clever -- he picked an issue few people care about, and studied up on it. So whether one agrees with him or not, you have to at least give him a bit of respect for bringing up debt relief. As for whether celebrities should offer up these opinions in the first place ... hey, that's their business. It's their business, of course, that will prosper or suffer as a result.

ANALYST: Mr Kepple, this is Scalawag McGillicutty of Harpoon Hedge and Pequod. Does this mean you'll cut back on criticizing celebrities' actions?

Mr KEPPLE: Oh, God, no!

Mr McGILLICUTTY: Thank God for that.

Mr KEPPLE: Good Lord. The very idea! No, we can assure you that we'll continue being right bastards when it comes to the quickie marriages, inappropriate public behavior, and general stupidity. Oh, and by the way, we're going to float some long-term debt soon. Any takers?

Mr McADOO: WE'LL DO IT!

OTHER ANALYSTS: US! PICK US!

(EXCITED CROSSTALK)

Mr KEPPLE: Well, thank you all for joining us today, and -- ah -- yes, we'll talk regarding the subordinate debentures. No, we don't know if they'll be callable yet. What? Two percent? Heh. Try one.

Thank you all, and good morning.

(END TRANSCRIPT)

Personal Economy, Revisited

RECENTLY, WE WERE SUBJECTED to a bit of good-natured teasing from a colleague at work regarding our personal economy. This colleague, who is a Baby Boomer, gleefully informed us that we would suffer grievous harm from paying the costs of his old-age medical care, and so on. Some might say this was particularly uncharitable, but we would disagree. After all, we knew the flip side to this argument: that if we do end up paying for our colleague's care, it will be because the cost of it first bankrupted him. Further, since skilled nursing home care costs between $40,000 and $100,000 per annum if one has assets to pay for it, it will bankrupt most of his generation.

So we were glad to have this conversation, because it got us thinking about our own personal economy once again. As we do not relish the cheapest option for our later years -- that is, to conveniently die in our late sixties -- we realized that we had best start planning for the future something fierce. The questions facing us deals with how to do this.

Now, as an American, we know that should things not go as we expected, our social-safety net will ensure that we enjoy a subsistence-level exsistence. That would not be a fun life, but it does beat lying in a gutter and starving to death. Our goal, though, is to have fun in our golden years while ensuring our eventual children do OK for themselves too.

This clearly means we will work for the rest of our lives, but as we enjoy what we do, we don't see any difficulty with that. Mr and Mrs Kepple, although "retired," live active and healthy and productive lives which pretty much ensure they will live to 110 years of age. So if they can do it, we can too. Besides, the whole retirement thing seems old-fashioned, unless one works in heavy industry. So as a young person, we can appreciate that people operate that way -- different generations think differently, after all -- but it's just not our thing. (Additional things that are not ours include golf, vacation cruises, annuities, and whole life insurance).

So assuming we work until the age of sixty full-time, and then proceed to an active but "semi-retired" lifestyle, how can we assure we have a great deal of fun and live in our neat modern house out in the desert, where we will enjoy the sun and mild winters free of sinus troubles?

Well, saving. Saving a lot. Not spending money on fancy vacations and plasma television sets and expensive doodads and luxury items. Ensuring we always have a positive cash flow. That's for starters, and we already do a lot of that. However, our conversation today made us realize that we have to take a more pro-active stance on this.

So we've decided to do a few things.

The first is to ensure that we attempt to maintain our current standard of living as long as possible. By that, we mean that as our income grows in future, we plan to touch as little of it as possible. So on the day we get our next raise, we are going to march straight into the Human Resources office of our employer and demand -- yes, demand -- a revised 401(k) application form, increasing our contributions to take in ALL of the wage increase. That way, we will a) prevent the Government from taking some of our wage hike in tax and b) save more, because we won't even see it. If we do this enough, we'll eventually max out on the bloody thing and enjoy a wicked amount of tax-free growth.

The second thing we will do is start saving more out of our own pocket. We know that when we have money, we are prone to spending it, so we plan to establish a Roth IRA (finally) with direct deposit. This way, we can save our allowable $3,000 per annum and not miss a cent -- and more importantly, we won't be able to get at it without an amazing amount of hassle and annoyance. And that's just one method of savings where it is easy to put money into something, but a pain in the ass to get it out.

So, basically, we plan to save ourselves from ... well, ourselves. We do believe there is something to that whole idea.