I’d just like to state for the record that the “Who could have known?” defense about the housing bubble and its possible effects is a poor one, and is historical revisionism both to avoid criminal prosecution by financial elites and to ensure that their behavior is allowed to occur again.

I’ve seen people I like and respect assert that no one could have known what would happen as a result of the collapse of the housing bubble and the corrupt mortgage market – which means, of course, that they did not know.

However, financial experts – and specifically those perpetrating the worst of the fraud – knew very well what the likely effects were. No, no one could have known nor given a precise chronology of the future disaster, but that the inevitable crash was likely to cause widespread economic carnage was extremely, extremely well-known in the financial industry.

Those responsible just did not care because the bonuses has already been paid out.

I was telling people as early as 2005 that the housing bubble was going to burst, and though I did not then guess the full scope of its effects, I knew it would be very bad. No one wanted to hear that, of course.

And you can bet if I knew – I who have no inside contacts, not that much special knowledge, and am little-concerned with all of that – then experts definitely knew.

But the “hoocoodanode” defense did keep the “important” people out of jail, and the regular people (most of whom didn’t know) thoroughly snookered, so it was a complete success.

Most often when a film is both booed and applauded, the boos come from members of the audience who don’t want their film to to conform too much to the real world. Thus when any sense of reality intrudes – as the real-life dialogue coaching being integrated into the film itself – they automatically hate it.

And of course when a film doesn’t hew to the conventions of Hollywood happily-ever-after, a large portion of the audience despises it straight away, too.

I suspect though I have not seen it yet that this film is too real for many in the audience, in the sense that Johansson actually approached real, unknowing men and asked them to get in her van. That and the other bits of reality incorporated into the film unsettles the weak-minded, I think. Of course it is designed to unsettle, and those elements are what might make this film great.

Can’t wait to see it.

When authors and musicians condemn piracy, they like to believe – for some reason – that 100% of that is lost sales.

In reality, probably less than 1% of pirated material represents a lost sale. I’d guess somewhere around 0.25% or so, but I can’t find any good formal studies.

If I were an author, I’d only hope my work would be widely pirated. For budding authors especially, exposure is far more important than anything else.

When motherfuckers start paying me to look at ads, I might consider it.

Until then, I won’t see any ads on the computer I paid for, viewed on the monitor I paid for, on the internet connection I paid for, in the dwelling I am paying for.

That websites have not or cannot find a way to monetize themselves that works better than ads is not my problem. Just because you want me to look at your ads is not my problem. Your busted-ass business model is also not my problem.

If every website in the world disappears because ads are being blocked, so be it. Ads are a plague and should not be viewed by anyone.