What part of "unprecedented" was unclear?

I tried to comment on a Salon.com piece by Andrew Koppelman on the supposed lies by the opposition to Obamacare. I signed up, linked the account with facebook, but it says only social media-linked accounts can post comments. [shrug] Since it won't publish it there, I'll put it up here.

This is what I wrote, starting with the author's quote in italics:

I have not been able to find even a hint of the constitutional objection before Obama’s election, even though mandates have been proposed, mainly by Republicans, since the early 1990s.

"Such a mandate was, of course, a significant infringement on individual choice and liberty. As the Congressional Budget Office noted, the mandate was "unprecedented," and represented the first time that a state has required that an individual, simply because they live in a state and for no other reason, must purchase a specific government- designated product." Mike Tanner, Cato Institute, January 2008.

Now, this doesn't specifically mention "constitution," but that a federal government body called the mandate "unprecedented" in Romneycare might be a key reason literature challenging its legitimacy isn't bountiful. Indeed, states generally have wider berth in this area thanks to their general police power (as well as the Tenth Amendment.) That some Republicans used to back an unconstitutional measure on the federal level should be no surprise and is hardly an argument that it must have been constitutional then. An abstract concept that becomes policy that is immediately challenged seems the natural order of things. The dearth of law review articles that address a non-existent federal law shouldn't be at all surprising.

Granted, I work at Cato, but it took all of two minutes for me to find that quote. If this is the quality of his research, his book should have all the depth and nuance of a DNC press release.


bellum medicamenti delenda est

Shoot the Messenger

Jim Moran is my congressman. I am not a big fan, and--if I were in a better frame of mind--I'd probably think he goes over the line of acceptable things old white guys can say here, but that's not why I'm writing. I'm writing not as his constituent, a black man, or a libertarian. I'm writing this as a copy editor. Indeed, my beef isn't with Moran--it's with whomever wrote this travesty of a transcription:

"He just seems clueless not that he has climbed abroad ship. He's climbed this latter of opportunity that was constructed by so many of his ancestors' sweat, sacrifice, blood, you know they did everything they could for his generation to be successful. But now that he's climbed abroad ship, instead of reaching down and steadying the latter, he wants to push it off. 'I'm up here. If you're not with me, too bad.' And President Obama, fortunately, is the kind of guy that says 'I was very fortunate to get where I am and I'm going to spend my life trying to steady that latter of opportunity by reducing college tuition and training our workers, trying to get a decent job for everybody. Making sure that while I'm African-American, it really doesn't matter. What matters is my commitment to public service, my love for this country and I'm going to leave a constructive legacy,'" he said. (italics mine)

TWO "abroad" ships? THREE "latters" of opportunity? This copy is so bad I can't even get mad at Moran. I need some aspirin. (click to embiggen)

HOUSEKEEPING: For those of you looking for something more substantive from me, I'm in the editing process of an essay I wrote about libertarians and the Confederacy. I hope to get it up at Libertarianism.org late this week or early next week. -jpb


bellum medicamenti delenda est

Just for Fun Friday: When She Broke English

Yesterday, a wonderful and awful thing happened: this piece of overwrought high middle school scribbling was published over at Thought Catalog. It's not just that it's bad -- it's that it is so terrible that one has to wonder if it's actually satirical commentary on the state of American education. A sample:

When she closed her eyes sometimes she could smell him, his pungent body odor, the way she possessed it when their blushing bodies rubbed together in awkward embrace, her soft fleshy thigh against his, his flushed chest against her beating breast. She remembered most the heavy weight of his naked body when he shuddered against her, relaxed his muscles, and eased into her torso, those rare moments where the whole world fell away and they became nothing more than each other, an ugly fleshy mass of hair and limbs that was her primal perfection. Then they would sit for hours, nude, absorbed in nothingness, and those were the moments she loved best. She would feed him cheese on crackers and he would turn to her with an expression of complete surprise; it was in those moments that it seemed like he had only just laid his eyes on her for the first time, and while he was momentarily absorbed in a rapt wonderment she would gorge herself on his love.

The unintended consequences of abstinence only sex ed: torso sex. With cheese and crackers.

I could go on for hours, but you really should just read it in its entirety. Additionally, I highly recommend the dramatic reading of this literary monstrosity, as performed by Ms. Emily Crockett:



Remember kids: don't play Mad Libs with a thesaurus. It's not a toy.

Have a good weekend!

bellum medicamenti delenda est

The DEA, Charlie Sheen, and Caged Animals

Last week, WaPo ran a story about how the murderous drug cartels in Mexico are now targeting children. As I've noted before, the cartels there are particularly brutal--decapitations, genital mutilation, and mass graves have become standard operating procedure--so that they've moved on to killing children cannot really be all that surprising:

A Chihuahua state police commander was attacked as she carried her 5-year-old daughter to school two weeks ago. Both died of multiple gunshot wounds.

In February, assassins went hunting for a Ciudad Juarez man, but the intended target wasn’t home, so they killed his three daughters instead, ages 12, 14 and 15

In March, a young woman was bound and gagged, shot and left in a car in Acapulco. Her 4-year-old daughter lay slumped beside her, killed with a single bullet to her chest. She was the fifth child killed in drug violence in the resort city in one bloody week.

 Awful, but not surprising.

What was surprising, to me anyway, was the DEA chief's reaction in the story:

“It may seem contradictory, but the unfortunate level of violence is a sign of success in the fight against drugs,” said Michele Leonhart, head of the Drug Enforcement Administration. The cartels “are like caged animals, attacking one another,” she added. (emphasis added)

Tens of thousands of drug war murders in the last four years alone is "success" in a Charlie Sheen sort of way: epic denial of cocaine-fueled violence and humiliating failure, egged-on and financed by self-important sadists who watch from afar.

DEA: Duh, winning.

As for the rhetoric, the cartels aren't caged animals--they are businessmen (and women) who are afforded no property rights. They are rich--Forbes list rich--because drug prohibition makes easily grown plants expensive. Yes, it takes a cold, sociopathic brutality to commit such heinous acts, but history is replete with people of all walks of life committing acts of unspeakable butchery. The animal comparison is unfair to the Mexican people because it depicts them as something different from us--something beneath us--so the horror of their daily lives can be so crassly characterized by the American government as "success."


It makes one wonder who the real "animals" are.


bellum medicamenti delenda est.

The Wrong Way to Put Up Street Signs

This is a No Left Turn (during rush hours) sign at 10th and Massachusetts, NW here in D.C.. Out of context, it may seem rather innocuous -- helpful, even.

However, it's facing southward...on a one way street going south. The sign should read "Wrong Way."

And People Wonder Why Libertarians Assume Government Incompetence

As you probably remember, after 9/11, the newly-created Department of Homeland Security and its head Tom Ridge suggested to the country--with a straight face and no irony--that should there be a chemical or biological attack on the United States, every prepared American would have duct tape to seal themselves in their homes.

Duct tape. (Audio NSFW)

As Lewis notes in the link above, during the Cold War, the powers-that-be told kids to hide under their school desks in case of a nuclear attack. Let that sink in: to defend against the force of nature that powers the Sun and all the stars in the sky--the enormous and unfathomably hot titanic balls of fire--the government said "get under wood."

But as illustrated in the graphic below, this Cold War-era PSA provided an even dumber suggestion--I know, I didn't think it was possible either.  Check out #4:

Apparently, newsprint and anything under it is impervious to nuclear fallout.

SAVE THE NEWSPAPERS!!!

(Thanks to Tim Andrews for the link.)

Partnership for a Drug-Free America Subsidizes Pro-Drug Use Author

Imagine my surprise to see an ad from the Partnership for a Drug Free America next to a blogpost by my former colleague Jacob Sullum (Click to enlarge):

For those of you that may be unaware, several years ago, Jacob wrote an excellent book entitled "Saying Yes: In Defense of Drug Use."

I'm all for reaching out to new audiences, but I'm doubt too many Hit and Run readers are going to flip their stance on drug prohibition because a banner ad told them that drugs are, like, ya know, bad.

But hey, if they want to give money to reason, more power to them! Maybe AHIP will start buying ads on Cato@Liberty next to Michael Cannon's posts on insurance company welfare "health care reform."

Where I've Been

I am acutely aware of my recent blogging drought. It isn't for lack of desire or material, believe me. Rather, I have been making a concerted effort to focus my research and, consequently, my writing on a narrower range of topics. (I was also on vacation.) This will never be a simple, one or two topic blog, but my writing has been inconsistent and, at times, too reactionary. The insta-comment is inherent to the nature of blogging, but I've noticed that my reaction and desire to get a comment out right away has compromised my analysis, even in the short term. Part of this process of focus has also forced me to reevaluate my writing style and the aims of this blog.

As far as I know, I have two primary audiences that read this blog with any regularity. The first was my primary intended audience when I started this blog back in 2007: the everyday "real" American that is too busy being a productive member of society to pay attention to much of what goes on in Washington and, probably, someone who doesn't have a sophisticated or fully flushed-out political ideology. (Perhaps a preconceived and probably right-leaning political allegiance, but without the ability to distinguish Burke from Rousseau.)

The second audience is a small number of colleagues and counterparts in the DC area: wonks, for lack of a better term.

Most of what I have written on this blog is of little interest to wonks: they know it already. My analysis, whether one agrees with it or not, tends to be simple-to-digest and more concerned with principle than  nuanced policy argument. As I try to make my transition into the established DC wonkatariat, I need to address issues that make them think, instead of making them simply nod or roll their eyes.

Thus, going forward, the intent of this blog is to integrate more nuanced policy arguments into my writing without getting too far into wonkspeak and talking beyond the people from whom this blog--and my original column at the IDS that shared its name--was originally intended. I know that, at times, I will fail one audience in favor of the other, but I hope to minimize those failures and develop my own voice that bridges the large divide between the place I come from and the place I am today.

Comments always welcome.

JPB

NB: I don't necessarily at all stand behind some of what I wrote when I was at the IDS. The transition from life-long Republican to small "L" libertarian was a process that was in its infant stages the year I was at the paper.

Me Email Pretty Someday

A friend of mine just sent me the subject line of an email she received promoting continuing online education (name X'd out):

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Edulocate News <newsletter@edulocate-news.com>
Date: Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 7:10 AM
Subject: XXXXX, are online classes are right for you
To: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

FAIL.

Strictly Speaking

Strict liability is bullshit.

An ex-soldier handing in a found sawed-off shotgun faces five years in an English prison for illegal possession of a firearm. Of course, he only possessed it in order to get it off the streets and turn it into police:

A former soldier who handed a discarded shotgun in to police faces at least five years imprisonment for "doing his duty".

Paul Clarke, 27, was found guilty of possessing a firearm at Guildford Crown Court on Tuesday – after finding the gun and handing it personally to police officers on March 20 this year.

The jury took 20 minutes to make its conviction, and Mr Clarke now faces a minimum of five year's imprisonment for handing in the weapon.

In a statement read out in court, Mr Clarke said: "I didn't think for one moment I would be arrested.

"I thought it was my duty to hand it in and get it off the streets."

The court heard how Mr Clarke was on the balcony of his home in Nailsworth Crescent, Merstham, when he spotted a black bin liner at the bottom of his garden.

In his statement, he said: "I took it indoors and inside found a shorn-off shotgun and two cartridges.

"I didn't know what to do, so the next morning I rang the Chief Superintendent, Adrian Harper, and asked if I could pop in and see him.

"At the police station, I took the gun out of the bag and placed it on the table so it was pointing towards the wall."

Mr Clarke was then arrested immediately for possession of a firearm at Reigate police station, and taken to the cells.

The story goes on to say that Mr. Clarke's intent is irrelevant because gun possession is a "strict liability" offense, meaning that no matter how one comes into possession of a banned item or substance, or whether or not one had mens rea--criminal intent--he is technically guilty.

This is doubly frustrating because he faces "at least" five years in prison. Like some gun and other criminal offenses in the United States, Mr. Clarke is poised to lose five years of his liberty for doing the right thing because of mandatory minimum sentencing laws.

One-size-fits-all laws are pernicious. While most of these laws were crafted to bring uniformity and fairness to criminal sentencing--consistency , generally speaking, is a good thing--they become inflexible barriers to true justice in many cases. As I have said before, judges should be allowed to assess the facts of any given case to bring about a just conclusion to a criminal matter. Statutory constraints like "strict liability"--particularly when coupled with mandatory minimum sentences--cross the line from proper legislative decisionmaking into what should be exclusively judicial purview. Stripping judges of their ability to judge mitigating factors--or, in this case, undisputed facts that should have led to immediate dismissal--can result in the state committing crimes against its citizenry.

While I'm not familiar with the English criminal justice system, given that America's common law is a direct descendant of English common law, there has to be some executive or other official that can issue a pardon for this man. They should issue that pardon immediately, in addition to an apology.

Last year, I wrote a piece for reason on mandatory minimum sentences as they applied to ex-(and hopefully future) NFL star Plaxico Burress, that can be found here. Also, in today's WSJ, the feds are rethinking mandatory minimum policy. Let's hope (against hope, probably) that they get this right, at least on a federal level.

Terrorists Foiled Plot for "Darwin Award" Immortality

At least the foiled terror plots are getting more entertaining. From the DOJ press release:

First, the superseding indictment charges Daniel Patrick Boyd, aka "Saifullah," and Hysen Sherifi with conspiring to murder U.S. military personnel, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1117. The superseding indictment alleges, among other things, that in furtherance of this agreement, Boyd undertook reconnaissance of the Marine Corps Base located in Quantico, Va., and obtained maps of the base in order to plan an attack on Quantico. According to the superseding indictment, Boyd possessed armor piercing ammunition, stating it was "to attack the Americans." A conviction for conspiring to violate Title 18, United States Code, Section 1117 has a maximum penalty of imprisonment for any term of years or life, and/or a $250,000 fine, followed by five years of supervised release.

Let me repeat that: the plot was to, among other things, storm the sprawling military complex full of gung-ho Marines in Quantico, Virginia. I've been there. It's in the middle of nowhere. It is a place that is perfectly suited for "Surviving the Game," and these idiots were gonna walk right into it voluntarily, guns blazing.

I saw a Marine veteran interviewed about the plot on the news last night. I don't know if the reporter was that naive or just playing straight man, because the vet looked rather incredulously at the him when he asked why a handful of self-trained nitwits attacking a base full of Marines was, in the vet's words, a "bad idea." He tempered himself by saying (paraphrasing) "because [the terrorists] would get their brains blown out."

I've never served in our armed forces, and I have nothing but respect for those that do so don't take the following the wrong way: having met my share of Marines, I don't think it's any stretch to say that hunting down a merry band of shit-brained terrorists on the grounds of Quantico would brighten more than a few of their days. I, obviously, don't want to see any of our servicemen hurt. But I just find it unlikely the Marines would have any trouble whatever dispatching Boyd and his crew of bearded misfits, with a tad bit of glee to boot.

To wit, instead of life in prison, maybe they should be sentenced to be dropped into the middle of Quantico with a couple rifles and a "good luck, dumbass" from the USMC.

Headline reference here. And no, for the love of reason, I am not remotely serious about attacks on military bases.

Perhaps the Most Preposterous Thought Ever Printed in the New York Times

And that is saying something.

But, without further ado, I present to you the unfathomable Thomas Friedman:

There is only one thing worse than one-party autocracy, and that is one-party democracy, which is what we have in America today.

One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages.That one party can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century. It is not an accident that China is committed to overtaking us in electric cars, solar power, energy efficiency, batteries, nuclear power and wind power. China's leaders understand that in a world of exploding populations and rising emerging-market middle classes, demand for clean power and energy efficiency is going to soar. Beijing wants to make sure that it owns that industry and is ordering the policies to do that, including boosting gasoline prices, from the top down...Our one-party democracy is worse.

For some reason, when I think of China and green automobiles, I think of this:


'Benevolent' dictatorship/autocracy beats the deliberative process of democratic republics because, dammit, those people can get things done!

Just don't look at the man behind the curtain jailing, censoring, beating, and executing untold numbers of dissenters, choking-off less desirable political content on the internet, forcing abortions on families, and only allowing markets to flourish in certain geographic locations while so many people still live in the countryside without basic amenities those contemptible and inefficient free nations have had for, oh, about 100 years.

There aren't words in our language strong enough to describe the abject imbecility of this column.

H/T: John Tabin and Matt Welch

more on this by Will Wilkinson and Kenneth Anderson.

Funding Something Does Not Make It Viable

For those who believe the government needs to "invest" in green technologies, let's see what bipartisan consensus in this area has yielded so far:

The biofuels revolution that promised to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil is fizzling out.

Two-thirds of U.S. biodiesel production capacity now sits unused, reports the National Biodiesel Board. Biodiesel, a crucial part of government efforts to develop alternative fuels for trucks and factories, has been hit hard by the recession and falling oil prices.

The global credit crisis, a glut of capacity, lower oil prices and delayed government rules changes on fuel mixes are threatening the viability of two of the three main biofuel sectors -- biodiesel and next-generation fuels derived from feedstocks other than food. Ethanol, the largest biofuel sector, is also in financial trouble, although longstanding government support will likely protect it.

Earlier this year, GreenHunter Energy Inc., operator of the nation's largest biodiesel refinery, stopped production and in June said it may have to sell its Houston plant, only a year after politicians presided over its opening. Dozens of other new biodiesel plants, which make a diesel substitute from vegetable oils and animal fats, have stopped operating because biodiesel production is no longer economical.

Basically, it's been a disaster. So, what's the solution? More government funding, duh:

Critics of the biofuels boom say government support helped create the mess in the first place. In 2007, biofuels including ethanol received $3.25 billion in subsidies and support -- more than nuclear, solar or any other energy source, according to the Energy Information Administration. With new stimulus funding, this figure is expected to jump. New Energy Finance Ltd., an alternative-energy research firm, estimates that blending mandates alone would provide over $33 billion in tax credits to the biofuels industry from 2009 through 2013.

Not all biofuels may be worth the investment because they divert land from food crops, are expensive to produce and may be eclipsed by the electric car. One fact cited against biofuels: If the entire U.S. supply of vegetable oils and animal fats were diverted to make biodiesel, production still would amount to at most 7% of U.S. diesel demand.

Producers and investors now are pushing for swift and aggressive government help. Biodiesel makers are lobbying to kick-start the delayed blending mandates immediately and extend biodiesel tax credits, which expire in December.

The organization (i.e., government) that routinely compounds bad investments by 'infusing' more 'investment' is trying to take over more and more of our economy. And, now officially in the OED under the term chutzpah, people with straight faces are still using the term "fiscal responsibility" when talking about this administration's economic plans.

H/T Jonathan Adler

FAIL

The teacher who ran my middle school chess club (yes, I have ALWAYS been a geek.) got this from a Ft. Wayne major chain's supermarket. I won't say which one, but damn:

I am at once terribly amused and saddened by this.

My Idea for a New Constitutional Amendment

Amendment XXVIII: A minimally informed Congress, being necessary to preserve liberty for its citizens, all employees of this Federal Government, elected to office, duly appointed, or otherwise hired, shall be required to take a fundamental civics class and pass an exam on the functions, powers, and limits of this government, and shall be required to retake and pass the exam on an annual basis. Failure to pass this exam at any time, refusal to adhere by said limits, and otherwise violate oaths of office requires immediate and permanent removal from office and all emoluments therefrom shall be irrevocably denied.

Of course, I'm not being serious, but stuff like this does make you wish there was some sort of minimum threshold of constitutional understanding that rule- and lawmaking government agents of this country maintained:

In what may prove to be her most controversial remarks to date, Democratic Rep. Carol Shea-Porter on Tuesday defended Washington’s efforts to reform the American health care system by telling a talk radio caller, “The Constitution did not cover everything.”

Shea-Porter serves on the House Education and Labor Committee, one of three committees in the House with jurisdiction over health reform.

The Club For Growth had this to say:

Someone should bring to Shea-Porter's attention that things not covered in the Constitution are prohibited, not available. You know, it's that whole "enumerated powers" thing. She should brush up on the document she swore to defend by reading this. She should pay close attention to the 10th Amendment, too.

HT: Mary Katharine Ham

Liar, Liar...

Joseph Califano's lies in this video are so horrendous that, for a moment, I thought he was trying to self-immolate:



The fact that Atlantic put this interview on their "Ideas" blog is an insult to anyone who has ever had a cogent thought.

I'll break down the things that made my head hurt the most so I can go about the business of enjoying my weekend without wanting to scream:

First, Califano begins by conflating causation and correlation--perhaps the laziest of all argumentative fallacies. Because a criminal uses drugs does not mean he is a criminal because of drugs, nor is his criminal behavior necessarily influenced by whatever drug he's on. Furthermore, teen pregnancy comes from teen sex. They don't have sex because they are high, they have sex because they are teenagers. And the homeless bit is so farcical it barely merits address, but the pervasive problem with the homeless--and if you've spent any time in DC, you'd notice this--is mental health issues. (If I was crazy and homeless, I'd get high too.)

Second, we can't legalize "for the kids" cliché is not only tired, it's a lie. In high school, it was easier for me to get the prohibited substance--marijuana--than it was for me to get the legal but age-restricted regulated drugs--cigarettes and alcohol. It was for several reasons I chose pot over alcohol at the time, and the ready availability of pot was chief among them. If you really care about the kids, (assuming that any 16 year old getting high is a terrible thing) legalize it and regulate it.

Third, the title of the video, "Not your father's marijuana," and Califano's argument about potency is misleading and much ado about nothing. As my former colleague Jacob Sullum wrote in his (very good) book, "Saying Yes: In Defense of Drug Use":

[C]ommonly heard assertions that marijuana is ten to forty times as powerful as it used to be are based on spurious comparisons with small samples of low-grade Mexican marijuana seized in the early seventies. These samples were not representative of the marijuana available at the time, and it appears that they decayed before they were tested.* Since 1980 or so, when the federal government began testing broader samples and using better storage methods, the average THC content of confiscated marijuana has gone up and down within a range from around 2 percent to 4 percent.*

[*citations in original, omitted here]

As Jacob notes also: even if it is stronger, who cares? It's no more dangerous to be stoned on better weed than it is on shitty weed--and the danger of occasional marijuana use in and of itself is non-existent.

Fourth, marijuana is not physically addictive--despite what NIDA says.** Developing a marijuana habit--even an unhealthy one--is not addiction. It's just a bad habit and, ultimately, a poor lifestyle choice. I've known hundreds of pot smokers in my life--and still do--and only a few have ever developed what I would consider to be a bad marijuana habit. Two in particular come to mind: one is one of my closest friends who lost a lot of memories of our childhood; the other is a former girlfriend with other chemical dependence issues. Their drug use took a toll on our respective relationships and it pained me greatly to see them retreat into their green baggies all the time, with at least one of them high nearly every moment they were conscious. Califano's point about memory loss and the oft-run ads about lethargy and low motivation are, indeed, true--among problem users. The vast majority of marijuana users, however, never have nor ever will fall into this category. Because of these experiences, I know better than to say that marijuana is harmless. But Califano's (et al.) use of worst-case scenarios to demonize a comparatively safe drug is infuriating self-serving propaganda.

I'm not going to directly address his economics numbers, but given the abuses already listed, I find many of them very suspect--to be polite.

My anger is not about Califano's position, per se. I believe strongly in debate and wouldn't reflexively stifle the pro-drug war message from a forum such as this. But this was not a debate, and outside of the fact that the interview took place at the Ideas Festival, there was nothing resembling an new or even rational "idea." It was, frankly, a bunch of lies. You can be pro-drug war without resorting to lies, and if you're going to give the interview, then at least challenge the subject or delve into the issue. Not every interview given deserves to be shown, and softballing questioners letting some political hack spew such patently false garbage to hock his book is not journalism. The blog editors at the Atlantic should be ashamed of themselves for even hinting this nonsense as an "idea" worth merit by giving it space on their site. I was shocked to watch something so out-of-touch with reality and so blatantly awful from one of my favorite publications.

On a personal note: if thinking as sloppy as Califano's is your brain on sobriety, I'll take the drugs, thanks.

**UPDATE: NIDA says "In 2004, more than 298,317 people entering drug treatment programs reported marijuana as their primary drug of abuse, showing they needed help to stop using." No, it shows that almost 300,000 people went to a program, it doesn't say if they went there voluntarily or asking for help. I couldn't imagine that a kid put there by his freaked out parents, or convict, or someone trying not to get fired for a positive drug test would possibly go to treatment center. What could make NIDA exaggerate a problem? What would make Califano exaggerate drug problems?(Hint: scroll down to where it says "government funding.")

For what it's worth, Bob Saget doesn't seem to think it's addictive either. (Link NSFW)

There Are Dodges...

And then there are dodges. Check this AP Reuters headline:

Obama aide: "Hard to know" if 2009 recovery certain

My sources say no.

Seriously. Is it certain? If the answer is "not sure," then the answer is "NO, IT IS NOT CERTAIN."

I blame the headline writer, because the AP Stylebook is perhaps the single most ridiculous and nonsensical book ever written and anyone forced to use it is invariably dumber for ever having consulted it. (I have looked at it twice and my IQ dropped by 12 points.)

UPDATE: It seems my AP consultation has bitten me in the ass. Turns out, the story is from Reuters. That said, I stand by my position on the AP Stylebook and my implication that this headline is absurd and an abuse of language.

AIG Wife Speaks Out

Wow.

Sent to London on a 2 to 3 year commitment, half a house left in storage in CT, we have been here 'indefinitely' for 11 years pushing 12. We were unable to press for anything more than the ex-pat package we were given at the beginning and lost even housing support after the first 5 years.Our housing costs rose to 5 times what we paid in Connecticut. The salary did not.

Raises were only given in the 'bonus'. So imagine having to pay 5 times your mortgage or rent on your current salary with the promise of the rest of your compensation to come once a year, in December. How do you leave that job?

Do you leave in December and disrupt your children's education? Well, not without a very good reason.

Do you leave at the end of the school year and essentially throw away 6 months of under compensated work? Not likely.

- Oh and, a percentage of your paycheck you will be forced to 're-invest' in the company for 5 years before you will see it.

[...]

Since January 2008 [my husband] has been working with Congressional auditors and investigators and the FBI to compile evidence on the deals and dealings of the people responsible, most particularly [his boss] Joe Cassano.

Then the government and AIG parent lied to us. My husband had been asked to, and signed an agreement to stay for the next 2 years. In October we were told that all the prior compensation we had been forced to 're-invest' in AIG was gone and would never ever be paid to us EVER no matter whether the company ever made any more money ever again.

It was a body blow. It was what we had worked 15 years for. It was our children's education, our retirement, the down payment on a house (we own nothing). Can you feel it? That's the draining away of hope.

But one bone was thrown - we were assured that the 'retention payments' (remember we're still on a 15 year old salary that's never risen so this is actually the bulk of our annual compensation)
would be paid.

Assured by Cuomo, the Federal Government and Liddy, the CEO of AIG. So he went back to work for another 6 months.

They paid us part in December - I suppose I should have smelled a rat, but that's that 20/20 hindsight thing. It was nice, we'd planned on no Christmas as we didn't expect the money until March. So the boys got to pick out something they really wanted and we had a nice Christmas.

The year before they had moved our payment from December to March. Yes, we had budgeted for 12 months and it suddenly turned into 15. Could you do that? Go 3 months without getting paid. Amazingly we managed.

We waited worried that the March payment might not come, despite the assurances. We counted the days until the transfer was to be made, checking the FX rate, wondering what the final number would be that we would live on and try to rebuild the children's education fund with - retirement fund will have to wait.

And then our government betrayed us, painted us as thieves and threw our co-workers in Connecticut to the mob. No one ever approached anyone at FP to re-negotiate those contracts and everyone currently screaming about them knew what they contained in October if not in January.

The Democrats can demonize the rich all they like, but the fact of the matter is that when you punish people unfairly, innocent, decent, hardworking people get hurt.

Lesson: Hope a loud plurality of Americans doesn't get upset at you, lest the government comes to exact its misplaced vengeance upon you.

From: New York magazine blog.

Taking Santelli's Bullet

As a longtime fan of the Daily Show, I have considerable tolerance for Jon Stewart when he crosses the line from satirist into pseudo-pundit--but going after Jim Cramer was just weak.

For those who don't know, there has been a spat rising between the two in recent days, both using their considerable media wherewithal to publicly criticize one another for whatever reasons TV personalities feel they should. (My guess is ratings.) I think most of it stemmed from this clip last week:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

CNBC Gives Financial Advice

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things w/ Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Jim Cramer

I understand that Rick Santelli backed out of his appearance on DS, which probably chapped Stewart's ass a little, but Cramer is just a personified straw-man. The clip above is supposed to demonstrate the purported hypocrisy of Santelli, yet the DS staff manages to catch everyone in on CNBC looking the fool except Santelli.

I'm sorry, but anyone who gets market advice from a mass media outlet deserves a certain loss in returns. C'mon--Cramer is a cartoon. People really looked to a TV character with millions of viewers for long-term investment advice? Who does that????

So yes, Jon, you punked out a guy who is famous for making a spectacle of himself. Your spot yesterday was an excellent piece of gotcha-Monday morning quarterback journalism--like we need more of that.

Stick to the jokes, Jon.

Nationalized Citibank

Audio NSFW:

The New F***ing Citibank - watch more funny videos

Hat tip: Allison Gibbs