Columbian Exchange

Nice, Orin

2009-04-17T11:13:00.001-04:00

Professor Kerr holds the right to the same standards that he would ordinarily hold the left. And that clearly deserves an attaboy.

Huh?

2009-04-17T10:45:00.001-04:00

I don't really understand what this post is actually about. But in the video at the link, Glenn Beck claims:

"You have a right to carry a gun. You have a right to own a guy. You have a right to be able to afford a gun."

I'm sorry, but that's BS. And that's where the Right drives me nuts.

You do have a right to a gun, and you have a right to carry a gun. (Think "keep and bear arms"). But there is absolutely no guaranteed right to afford a gun. Now, if the government should decide to tax guns to the point where the average person can't afford them, or to otherwise regulate them to where people cannot get their hands on them, then yes, that would be in violation of the 2nd Amendment. But it's not a question of having a right to afford a gun.

He's got me picturing breadlines—here's your soup, here's your gun. Yikes.

Leave it to the Americans

2009-04-08T12:52:00.001-04:00

What do you want to bet that the crew were exercising their 2nd Amendment rights and the pirates were unprepared for it?

Either way, that's one hell of a shipping crew.

We're All Frakked

2009-04-03T20:09:00.001-04:00

And now the robots know how to use physics against us:

In just over a day, a powerful computer program accomplished a feat that took physicists centuries to complete: extrapolating the laws of motion from a pendulum's swings.

And now to go home and watch The Sarah Connor Chronicles, so I can feel better about out odds of defeating said robot conquerors.

Heh.

2009-04-02T18:06:00.001-04:00

Just watch.

Meet the New Justice Department

2009-04-01T11:41:00.001-04:00

Bush was cherry-picking legal advice all the time, right? Remember that infamous torture memo penned by John Yoo? Even though there's no evidence that he was pressured to present a particular viewpoint, the man is vilified (and now threatened with war crimes charges) for writing what he thought was an honest legal opinion.

But if it were true, that the Bush Administration, sought a legal justification that came out the way they wanted it to, that would be really bad, right?

What if the Obama Administration gets caught doing exactly that? The Attorney General hears a legal opinion he doesn't like, so he just asks someone else? That's definitely not the way things are supposed to work.

Where's the outrage?

And the Europeans Chortle

2009-03-30T08:12:00.001-04:00

I gotta say, if I was Fiat, I'd tell Chrysler to eff off. After seeing what happened to companies that took TARP money (and how desperate they are to give it back) why would I want to get involved in a company that is effectively under US governmental control?

I wouldn't.

Good Move

2009-03-27T16:56:00.001-04:00

Microsoft has targeted Apple on price. It's not a bad move. It's a little odd that the video really says nothing about Windows, and is basically an add for "I like the look of the HP best among the computers I can afford," rather than "Windows machines are better than OS X machines," but that will be lost on the average viewer.

In a down economy, cheaper is generally better—and I imagine that Microsoft will do better for the next few years than they have been, at least relative to Apple.

That being said, it's important to remember one key tenet of purchasing: You get what you pay for.

And yes, in case you've forgotten, I own a Mac. And it's the first one I've ever owned. And it is FAR superior to any PC I have ever used.

So while the campaign by Microsoft is smart, it will only sway the uninformed.

Am I A Jerk?

2009-03-26T19:44:00.001-04:00

Maybe I'm an asshole, but I think this guy deserved the ticket. I'm sorry his mom died, and I'm sorry the ticket-writing took 13 minutes. That being said, a guy who speeds deserves a ticket. If the law said "unless he's rushing to the hospital," then that would be fine. But why have laws if you leave it to the cops to make exceptions?

Technology and Courts

2009-03-26T17:07:00.000-04:00

I don't really have much to say on this, because so much time has passed. Either way, I noticed an interesting pattern in technology news last week. First, there were theiPhone mistrial pieces that popped up everywhere. Then Twitter began interfering in trials.

And finally, CourtToons had their own commentary.

Practicing law in the modern age has gotten weird.

Rep. Frank is an Asshole

2009-03-25T12:01:00.001-04:00

The attempt to play the sexuality card is transparent and embarrassing. But I particularly like Prof. Althouse's classification of the statement.

Frank said:

Justice Scalia "makes it very clear that he's angry, frankly, about the existence of gay people. If you read his opinion, he thinks it's a good idea for two consenting adults who happen to be gay to be locked up because he is so disapproving of gay people."

Althouse replies:

Well, Barney, I have read that opinion many times, and I know that you are either lying about having read it, lying about what Scalia wrote, or an embarrassingly incompetent reader.

There ought to be a Godwin's Law corollary for making accusations like this. Frank can't hold up against a textualist, originalist interpretation of the constitution, so he accuses Scalia of bigotry.

That's just sad.

Grammar Nerds Unite

2009-03-25T11:50:00.001-04:00

And take a look at our President's off-the-cuff speechifying.

Now it's not really fair to single out Obama, as this is what anyone will sound like in a press conference. Still a remarkable illustration of the way he speaks when lacking a teleprompter.

60 Minutes

2009-03-23T13:42:00.001-04:00

Watched it last night, and wanted to throw something at the screen. I simply could not believe that he was laughing about the economy, in any context. And when confronted about that laughter, he attributed it to gallows humor.

Gallows humor includes a sense of irony. It's not full-on laughter, it's awkward laughter. Obama did not seem uncomfortable with the chuckling—he seemed to be enjoying himself. That may be an act, but it's disturbing either way.

It seems that John Hawkins was equally frustrated. In particular, I agree with this sentiment:

Obama is a silver-tongued political novice who has managed to be in the right place at the right time.

Now, if you’re a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. And if you’re a politician like Barack Obama, who has gotten everything he has in life by being slick and sounding confident, every problem looks like something that can just be talked away.

He's very smooth. He's easy going. You watch him interviewed, and you want to like him. But if you actually listen to what the man says, it's impossible not to come away thinking:

Now at first glance, that might seem to be a thoughtful answer. However, when you delve down into it, what you find is that is like many of Barack Obama’s comments, it’s utterly divorced from what he intends to do, while giving people on both sides of the case the impression that he agrees with them.

Read the whole thing, especially page 2.

First Sentence!

2009-03-21T13:54:00.001-04:00

Sigh. Must the bias be so obvious that it arrives in the first sentence of a column? Eleanor Clift:

Who would have thought 55 days into this administration we would be asking the question, what did he know and when did he know it?

Um, anyone who had a realistic view of how politics in Washington operates, and knew that the O is not infallible?

If you need an example, kindly look this way.

More on the O

2009-03-21T13:11:00.001-04:00

So I finally watched Obama's appearance on Leno. (Ain't DVR grand?)

I think this assessment is not far off. At the very least, I think the Carter comparisons seem pretty apt.

Now I must concede that I was not alive when Carter was in office, so I cannot make any direct comparisons. But I have read extensively on his presidency, and I base these comments on that background of information. Okay? Okay.

As I mentioned the other day, I think that the key to these communication shortcomings from Obama, and that paralysis of decision, is a lack of ideology. We (and I use the term "we" loosely) have elected a man who has never been forced to make a decision, take a stand, and defend it vociferously. It has always just been good enough for him to be an intelligent black man running in a district that wanted an intelligent liberal.

I think this was true even last year. The country got on board with "hope & change" because they wanted the anti-Bush. But instead of a different ideology, a different governing philosophy, we got no ideology or philosophy. And this is going to continue to cause problems for the President.

Think I'm alone in seeing it this way? After I'd drafted the above, I stumbled across David Warren, writing from Canada. It seems that Mr. Warren has reached the exact same conclusion I did:

Again, to my mind -- and it is the only one I have with which to write this column -- we would be wrong to think of Mr. Obama as an ideologue. I think he was perfectly sincere in denying that he was anything of the sort, and in claiming that he would be looking for bipartisan consensus. I also think he is sincere in proceeding with an agenda -- on bail-outs, the environment, Medicare, life issues, foreign policy, etc. -- that leaves most Republicans, and quite a few of the more conservative Democrats, utterly aghast.

How to explain this apparent contradiction? I'm afraid it is easy. As I mentioned during the presidential campaign, Mr. Obama was seriously unqualified for the job of president. He had no practical experience in running anything, except political campaigns; but worse, his background was one-dimensional.

All his life, from childhood through university through "community organizing" and Chicago wardheel politics, through Sunday mornings listening to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, to the left side of Democrat caucuses in Springfield and Washington, he has been surrounded almost exclusively by extremely liberal people, and moreover, by people who are quick and clever but intellectually narrow.

He is a free soul, but he is also the product of environments in which even moderately conservative ideas are never considered; but where people on the further reaches of the left are automatically welcomed as "avant-garde." His whole idea of where the middle might be, is well to the left of where the average American might think it is. To a man like Obama, as he has let slip on too many occasions when away from his teleprompter, "Middle America" is not something to be compromised with, but rather, something that must be manipulated, because it is stupid. And the proof that it can be manipulated, is that he is the president today.

It is at this point that the phenomenon known as "too clever by half" sets in. Technically, it is indistinguishable from arrogance and hubris, but it is unnecessary to stress the point. Sixty days into his first term (and I begin to doubt there'll be a second), he would seem already to have dug a hole from which no rhetorical skill can lift him.

Smart guy, that David Warren.

Moving the Goalposts

2009-03-20T13:11:00.001-04:00

Alan Wolfe argues that our President is not a socialist. His opening:

The world 'liberal' first used in its modern political sense in 1812, when Spaniards wrote a new constitution liberating themselves from monarchical rule. As it happens, the word 'socialism' originated in roughly the same period; it came into existence to describe the utopian ideas of the British reformer Robert Owen. Such timing suggests two possibilities: Either the fates of liberalism and socialism are so interlinked that one is all but synonymous with the other--or the two are actually competitors developed to meet similar conditions, in which case victory for one marks the defeat of the other.

These days, one could be forgiven for believing that the former conclusion is correct. It was not so long ago that conservatives were equating liberalism with fascism; today, they have executed a 180-degree swing in order to argue that liberalism is actually synonymous with socialism.

This is a very easy argument to make, if you avoid stating the original meaning of liberalism.

I quote from Milton Friedman's introduction to Capitalism and Freedom:

Jealous of liberty, and hence fearful of centralized power, the nineteenth-century liberal favored political decentralization. Committed to action and confident in the beneficence of power so long as it is in the hands of a government ostensibly controlled by the electorate, the twentieth-century liberal favors centralized government. He will resolve any doubt about where power should be located in favor of the state instead of the city, of the federal government instead of the state, and of a world organization instead of a national government.

Because of the corruption of the term liberalism, the views that formerly went under that name are now often labeled conservatism.

In other words, the modern liberal is more properly a socialist.

Support

2009-03-20T10:42:00.003-04:00

Looks like Mr. Krauthammer sees things pretty much the same way I do.

You're Damned Right I'm Angry

2009-03-20T05:14:00.006-04:00

I greatly admire Peggy Noonan. And since I read her book What I Saw At The Revolution, has been one of my favorite political authors. But my friends can vouch for the fact that I thought she went a little nuts during the election. I honestly thought something had snapped, the way she was desperate for optimism wherever she could find it. And, based on her political principles, could not believe that she seemed to be endorsing Obama—fawning over him may be more accurate. I was even more shocked, when, the day after the election, she admitted on Oprah that she had in fact voted for McCain.

But now, she's joined the steady flow of columnists with buyer's remorse. Maybe not as openly as Chris Buckley or David Brooks (who has since at least partially rescinded). But she does have this to say:

The president seems everywhere and nowhere, not fully focused on the matters at hand. He's trying to keep up with the news cycle with less and less to say. "I am angry" about AIG's bonuses. The administration seems buffeted, ad hoc. Policy seems makeshift, provisional. James K. Galbraith captures some of this in The Washington Monthly: "The president has an economic program. But there is, so far, no clear statement of the thinking behind the program."

This, dear friends, is why I had concerns about Obama from the start. This is why many of us had concerns from the start.

Because you know what I don't want to believe, but find myself concluding more and more often? That their policy is ad hoc, is merely reactive. I'm not sure that Obama believes in any particular ideology or way forward. I think he has some basic liberal reflexes, but has never tested or challenged those beliefs to find a core understanding of the world around him. As a result, he picks and chooses from the options presented based on what "makes sense" at the time. This is not the way to lead a country, and certainly not the way to lead a country out of an economic quagmire. In fact, this is the way to take what may have otherwise been a minor recession and turn it into an enduring crisis—not in the sense the media is using it currently, but in the Jimmy Carter sense.

There's nothing wrong with hope. And I'm not asking the President to claim that he knows how to fix the mess that he deepens by the day. But the American people do not need the leader described above, because he's not leading. Heck, we'd be better off with a President running into walls with his proposals. As things stand now, we have a President paralyzed by reactivity, resulting in a public paralyzed by not knowing what's coming next. That stokes fear, and anger. So the President responds to that, hesitantly, and the cycle starts again.

Each reaction seems to be scarier than the last! A 90% tax on bonuses to TARP employees? Are you kidding me?? This is punitive. This is wrong. This is a posse led from Capitol Hill.

Before that bill passed, the WSJ has some comments on that posse dynamic, with an important historical note:

This is all too much even for Rep. Charlie Rangel, the House's chief tax writer, who says the tax code shouldn't be deployed as a "political weapon." He's right. AIG's managers may be this week's political target of choice, but the message to every banker in America, indeed every business in America, is that you could be next. At least we haven't yet seen the resolution that was proposed in the English parliament, in 1720 in the aftermath of the South Sea bubble, that bankers be tied in sacks filled with snakes and tipped into the Thames. But it's still early days.

And the people are following their leaders:

Now these executives are toxic, and those communities are rattled and divided. Private security guards have been stationed outside their houses, and sometimes the local police drive by. A.I.G. employees at the company’s office tower in Lower Manhattan were told to avoid leaving the building while a demonstration was going on outside. The memo also advised them to avoid displaying company-issued ID cards when they left the office and to abandon tote bags or other items with the A.I.G. logo.

One A.I.G. executive, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he feared the consequences of identifying himself, said many workers felt demonized and betrayed. “It is as bad if not worse than McCarthyism,” he said. Everyone has sacrificed the employees of A.I.G.’s financial products division, he said, “for their own political agenda.”

The public’s anger, he said, “is coming from bad facts as a result of someone else’s agenda — or just bad facts period.” Instead, he said, the so-called bonuses were in fact just payments that had been promised long ago to workers, including technical and administrative assistants.

A.I.G. employees are not the only ones seeking protection: An executive at Merrill Lynch, where bonuses have also come under fire, said that some employees had asked whether the firm would cover the cost of private security for them.

Reading that makes me seethe.

If this is Obama's America status-post Hope & Change, then I fear what comes next. To update a classic:

In America, they came first for the Bankers. And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Banker;
And then they came for the business executives. And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a business executive.
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up.

I'm not trying to invoke Godwin's Law against myself here, and I certainly don't mean to compare any of this to Nazi Germany. But we are living through a witch hunt. And witch hunts always need new people to blame when the first crop of targets is exhausted.

So who's next on the chopping block?

Don't believe me? Think I'm taking it too far? Pissed at what A.I.G. has done to the economy and think that they deserve to catch a little flak for it? Well here's you don't know:

The handful of souls who championed the firm's now-infamous credit-default swaps are, by nearly every account, long since departed. Those left behind to clean up the mess, the majority of whom never lost a dime for AIG, now feel they have been sold out by their Congress and their president.

"They've chosen to throw us under the bus," said a Financial Products executive, one of several who spoke on condition of anonymity, fearing reprisals. "They have vilified us."

They say what is missing from this week's hysteria is perspective. The very handsome retention payments they received over the past week were set in motion early last year when the firm's former president, Joe Cassano, was on his way out the door. Financial Products was already running into trouble on its risky credit bets, and the year ahead looked grim. People were weighing offers from other firms, and AIG executives feared that too many departures could lead to disaster.

So AIG stepped in with an offer to employees of Financial Products. Work through all of 2008, and you'd get a lump payment in March 2009. Stick around through 2009, and you'll get paid through 2010. Almost all other forms of compensation -- bonuses, deferred payments and the like -- have vanished.

That's right! These people we're burning in effigy aren't even the ones responsible. They are the ones that have been retained to try and clean up the mess. This is like arresting the fire department for arson while they try to put out the fire!

And our government is leading the mob.

-------

The Politico offers an alternative scenario: Obama is having trouble communicating.

I don't buy it. Actions speak louder than words, and I've followed his actions pretty closely in the past few days. Obama isn't having trouble explaining what he's doing or why he's doing it; he's stumbling over each step he takes. The Politico:

It was brilliant communications skills that carried Obama to the presidency, with a national campaign built on the strength of his personal story and the clarity of his promise to transform politics. On the rare occasions when he was thrown on the defensive, he quickly turned problems into opportunities and regained control of his public image.

What’s different now? The polished phrases and unflappable delivery haven’t gone away. His prime-time news conference and speech to Congress drew the usual praise.

What's changed is that the man is now being asked to lead, not just talk about leading. And he never had a plan for that. He was not ready for it. And we're reaping the whirlwind now.

God help us.

But read The Politico's entire take on his communication problems, and see if you don't notice the common thread that I do. It could be that the authors are right, and he's running into a variety of issues (mixed messages, too cool for his own good, hiding the bodies, an off-key chorus). But think on this as you're reading it: wouldn't a man who was unqualified for his job, in over his head, and unsure what to do next be facing exactly the same "communication" issues?

Doesn't this kind of political move suggest the same thing?

Maybe Jennifer Rubin has a point. She says it's the failure of the premise of the Obama administration:

Obama’s mantra about collecting the “best and the brightest” for his cabinet was not just puffery. It was a message: we’re smarter than those fools who messed up the economy. We have the answers and can devise exquisitely refined solutions, with thousands of interconnected parts, to do what the “broken” free market system cannot. But how credible is that? [...]

The lesson from AIG is that the entire premise of the Obama administration — we know better — is fundamentally flawed. The Obama team can’t effectively manage a single troubled company without getting itself and the whole country tied up in knots. The notion that we should invest the federal government with authority to control vast swatches of the economy can now be seen for what it is: madness. We should consider ourselves lucky that the public is getting a glimpse of its government in action on a (relatively speaking) low-dollar item of limited consequences.

I think that dovetails nicely with what I said above: without an ideology, without a focused plan, Obama ran on the idea of "smarts." And when you don't know anything about the subject at hand, it doesn't matter how "smart" you are—you're going to blunder your way through it for a while, at the very least.

I can't imagine what comes next.

Meet the New Gaffe

2009-03-20T04:28:00.003-04:00

The Anchoress calls it "not pretty." I'd say it appears to have been full-on ugly:

Towards the end of his approximately 40-minute appearance, the president talked about how he’s gotten better at bowling and has been practicing in the White House bowling alley.

He bowled a 129, the president said.

“That’s very good, Mr. President,” Leno said sarcastically.

It’s “like the Special Olympics or something,” the president said.

When asked about the remark, the White House had no comment.

Beyond the inappropriate Special Olympics joke (which is absolutely something my friends and I would say to each other, so I'm willing to give him a bit of a pass), it's hard for me to feel comfortable knowing that he's taking time out to work on his bowling.

It makes me wonder what someone like the author of the following, about W, would say:

It is an awful movie, and as it drags on I feel increasingly uneasy. Surely the president should be doing something else. Occasionally he gets a phone call from Andy Card, his chief of staff, who, as I understand it, is in the West Wing meeting with the head of the F.A.A. to determine when Washington’s Reagan National Airport will be safe to completely re-open (some flights began operating earlier in the week). Each time the phone rings, I hope the president will excuse himself to join them. But he doesn’t. Over the phone, the president tells the men to “get that airport opened up!” and then heads to bed.

I also very much want to see this video, and can't imagine a situation in which the press would have locked down such a video for W.

My point is not that Obama shouldn't be bowling. Nor that he should be castigated for making a fairly innocuous off-color comment on Leno, that I could very easily have made myself. My point is, simply, that there is a clear double-standard in the way people regard the O from the way they regard the W.

And that we need to prepare ourselves for the fact that we're going to see far more gaffes of this nature in the future. Let's just hope (contrary to my current impression) that he's a little better with the actual governing than W was portrayed.

Mark Steyn has a brief take on another Obama Administration gaffe from a few weeks back:

But don't forget, folks: Somewhere in Texas a village has been reunited with its idiot, and we now have the whip-smartest administration of David Brooks' lifetime.

Pretty witty. Also pretty disturbing.

So...

2009-03-19T20:27:00.001-04:00

Does this mean Franken would be in favor of loser pays tort reform?

Eternal Life Through Facebook?

2009-03-17T17:26:00.001-04:00

This is something that I found myself thinking about the other day:

With online social networks becoming ever more important in our lives, they're also becoming an important element in our deaths. Spangenberg, who died suddenly from an abdominal aneurysm at 57, was unprepared, but others are leaving detailed instructions. There's even a tiny industry that has sprung up to help people wrap up their online contacts after their deaths.

Fascinating that some entrepreneurs have moved into the area.

It came to my mind the other day when Facebook suggested as someone I might know a former professor of mine who died last fall. His profile is still there, sitting idle.

Hahaha

2009-03-17T17:20:00.001-04:00

Sounds like a plan to me.

Although it would make it harder for me to end disagreements with "lawyered" like I do now...

Sorry.

2009-03-16T15:25:00.001-04:00

You can't always have things the way you want them to be. Even if you go to Yale Law School. Click the link, read it, then come back here.

Back? Okay.

Here's the key bit in Mr. Zelinsky's piece:

In Gordy Tire Co. v. United States (155 Ct. Cl. 759, 1961), the United States Court of Claims declared that determinations of the reasonability, and thus the tax deductibility, of compensation should consider the "foresightedness and business acumen" of the individuals receiving such compensation. AIG's head honchos exhibited about as much foresightedness and business acumen as the captain of the Titanic. Larry Summers himself declared the AIG bonuses to be the 'most outrageous' event of the 'last 18 months.'

If the AIG bonuses are determined to be unreasonable compensation, AIG would be unable to deduct such compensation for federal income tax purposes.

Here, Mr. Zelinsky skips a few important steps in legal analysis. For one thing, it is not at all clear that the AIG bonuses are analogous to the bonus at issue in Gordy Tire. There was no contract in the latter; there are contracts in the former. If those contracts set up a structure for bonuses, and the workers performed according to the terms of those contracts, then AIG is in fact bound to pay those salaries. It is highly unlikely that AIG can get around this by claiming the bonus structure they set up constitutes "unreasonable compensation."

Further, Gordy Tire found the salary to be reasonable, and did so merely based on the testimony of witnesses friendly to the executive in question. The burden for showing reasonableness is not set all that high by Gordy Tire, and Zelinksy is misleading people by implying that this would be an easy way out for AIG/Summers. It's possible that cases that follow Gordy Tire do set a clearer standard, and make a better case for withholding the bonuses—I don't know and at the moment I don't have time to find out. But Zelinsky's reliance on that case alone implies that it's unlikely. And his reliance, I believe, is misplaced.

Look, I don't know if these guys (not executives, by the way, but derivatives traders) really deserve their bonuses or not. But if they have a contract that says they do, then they should get paid them. And if they don't, AIG is going to wind up spending far more in legal defense fees than they would have if they'd just paid them. And let's also not forget that these aren't massive bonuses going to a few top executives. These are more likely the minimum bonuses allowed by the contract going to a whole lot of guys at the bottom of the totem pole. Frankly, I'd rather they have the money in their pockets to spend than the government.

Trying to block this is absurd.

Rest In Peace.

2009-03-16T01:24:00.003-04:00

A sad loss. One of many in Hollywood who woke up on 9/11 and saw a changed world—then had the guts to speak out about it.

And let's not forget that he played a few decent roles in his day.

For a better eulogy than I can offer, from a friend of his, read Roger Simon.

I will say, however, that I saw him speak at the 2004 Republican National Convention. His speech brought down the house. After the convention, I downloaded it from iTunes, and it's still remarkable. Quite a man.

Hmmm.

2009-03-16T01:23:00.001-04:00

It seems to me that if a woman has a right to an abortion, justified with the slogan "keep your laws off my body," that she should certainly have a right to a good wax? Apparently the New Jersey Board of Cosmetology and Hairstyling disagrees.

Talk about invasive legal restrictions...

Interesting.

2009-03-13T21:04:00.001-04:00

So Ken Starr and Viet Dinh think that Congress has the authority to give DC a voting seat in the House.

Let's dispense with the Constitutional argument first. This is the first defense of the idea that I have seen as yet, and I think it's a pretty good one. I need to give it some thought, but it's intriguing.

However. Viet Dinh and Ken Starr? I have no major objections to Mr. Starr, but I think the pairing is odd. Dinh (disclaimer: a professor at my law school) is the architect of the Patriot Act. Starr was the chief prosecutor of Clinton's impeachment.

Is this really the illustrious pair, politically speaking, that should be teaming together to make this argument?

In the Absurd Lawsuits Bin...

2009-03-11T11:34:00.001-04:00

We find a massive overreaction to some lost luggage.

I'm sorry, I don't care how the kid mod-ed his xBox. It ain't worth a million bucks in damages.

Do It!

2009-03-11T02:24:00.001-04:00

This is what's wrong with NASA. If he wins, name it after him! You'll get massive publicity, and people might actually appreciate what you do. It's in poor taste not to give it to him if he wins the vote.

Just do it!

A Lesson

2009-03-10T04:05:00.001-04:00

Read the whole thing. Money quote:

It is amazing how fast people learn when they are not insulated from the consequences of their decisions.

Unfortunately, the insulators don't understand this concept.

Bang.

2009-03-09T20:29:00.008-04:00

Watching The Big Bang Theory. Summer Glau guest starring as herself.

Fantastic quote:

Of course, if Skynet actually did exist in the future, a perfect way to infiltrate and destroy mankind would be to send terminators back posing as actors who've played terminators in popular films and televisions series, lulling us into a false sense of security, i.e. "That's Summer Glau from the Sarah Connor Chronicles. No, Summer, don't kill me, I'm pro-robot."

Brilliant. I love this show.

And any excuse to post a picture of Ms. Glau.

But then I keep watching, and after a few references to George Smoot, my jaw hits the floor when Smoot himself walks on screen.

Why do I know what George Smoot looks like? Thank you TEDTalks!

Then we move on to How I Met Your Mother.

Ted: She really wasn't that bad.

Lily: Of course you think that. She turned you into one of her douche zombies.

Marshall (in monster voice): I want to eat your brain, but only if it's organic and grass fed.

CBS is really doing right by me tonight. Hot terminators, nerdy astrophysics, zombies and making fun of hipsters. What else could I ask for?

Whoops.

2009-03-07T11:47:00.003-05:00

Does Gibbs have any common sense whatsoever? It's fun to see Tapper visibly lose it when challenged as to his understanding of Obama's opinions and then again when asked if he has a "more pertinent" question.

So...

2009-03-06T18:55:00.001-05:00

Homeless people have cell phones now? I'm sorry, I don't understand that picture at all.

What?

2009-03-06T18:53:00.001-05:00

Does the State Department have no one who speaks Russian?

I don't really blame Clinton for this, but I can't understand how this kind of mistake can be made.

So I'm Sitting Here

2009-03-06T03:24:00.001-05:00

I'm watching this clip from the Daily Show. I think it's brilliantly written and very funny. But I can't laugh at it. It's too depressing what they're making jokes about. People are suffering, people are losing their jobs. Hell, I can't find a summer job no matter what I seem to try (so far). It's not funny. I've lost as big a percentage of my net worth as anybody. It's not funny.

Until the very last joke of the segment.

Watch the whole thing to get the full effect, but wow.

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

CNBC Gives Financial Advice

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Joke of the Day

Umm...

2009-03-06T03:09:00.001-05:00

Seriously, they couldn't come up with a better excuse than this?

The Obama administration confirmed that Gupta, a neurosurgeon, had taken himself out of the running because he wants to focus on his medical career and spend more time with his family.

That's an acceptable cover-up when a guy resigns from a position. But when he withdraws before the confirmation hearings after already having accepted the nomination? It's pathetic.

If these were true, he would not have accepted the nod in the first place. What do you want to bet we eventually find out he's got tax troubles? Didn't declare some public appearances?

I'd put money on this one—but then I'd have to declare my winnings.

I miss Dean Barnett

2009-03-06T03:06:00.001-05:00

If you don't know who he was, read this.

Once you know who he was, read this.

Oops.

2009-03-06T03:01:00.001-05:00

No, seriously, oops.

Good to Know

2009-03-04T11:59:00.001-05:00

In college, I took a seminar with a professor who banned note taking. His theory was that he wanted a conversation, and if people were furiously scribbling, they would not engage as well. Fair theory. A bit harsh on visual learners, but okay by me, in principle. Problem is, I have always believed that I learn more when I am doodling in class than when I'm not. And if we weren't allowed to have pads in front of us (yes, I was in college before laptops caught on), I was in trouble. My theory was predicated on some kind of ADHD where I needed to distract my easily distractible side of the brain with doodling, so my smart, focused side could pay attention.

It may seem a little ridiculous, but I was so concerned about this that I took it to the professor after the first class and asked for a special dispensation if I promised to contribute and not write any actual words on the pad. He agreed on a probationary basis, with the right to revoke at any time in the semester. He never did.

Well, it turns out I was onto something. Who knew?

Is This A Joke?

2009-03-03T14:50:00.001-05:00

I think somebody must have put David Brooks up to writing his column today:

Those of us who consider ourselves moderates — moderate-conservative, in my case — are forced to confront the reality that Barack Obama is not who we thought he was. His words are responsible; his character is inspiring. But his actions betray a transformational liberalism that should put every centrist on notice. As Clive Crook, an Obama admirer, wrote in The Financial Times, the Obama budget “contains no trace of compromise. It makes no gesture, however small, however costless to its larger agenda, of a bipartisan approach to the great questions it addresses. It is a liberal’s dream of a new New Deal."

Seriously? Who, exactly, did he think Barack Obama was? Did he just accept that a guy who says "I believe in hope and change and that we need to move past partisan squabbling" must be a moderate because he implied he was? Even though his record (however little it was) showed nothing but radical liberalism?

As someone wise just pointed out to me, John McCain must be losing his mind—this is precisely what he spent the last month of the campaign trying to tell people.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not sure McCain would be doing any better in Obama's shoes. But at least people weren't fooled into believing he was something he wasn't. How many people are waking up across this country right now wondering what they've done, as David Brooks is?

Again?

2009-03-03T00:04:00.001-05:00

Love the Red October reference in the first line, but seriously: WHO IS RUNNING THE VETTING for the Obama administration?

Second Thoughts?

2009-03-02T15:22:00.001-05:00

So it appears that the lesser Buckley has some doubts about our President's plan to deal with the economy, particularly regarding the extent of planned spending. Interesting.

Read the whole thing, but here's a bit:

If this is what the American people want, so be it, but they ought to have no illusions about the perils of this approach. Mr. Obama is proposing among everything else $1 trillion in new entitlements, and entitlement programs never go away, or in the oddly poetic bureaucratic jargon, “sunset.” He is proposing $1.4 trillion in new taxes, an appetite for which was largely was whetted by the shameful excesses of American CEO corporate culture. And finally, he has proposed $5 trillion in new debt, one-half the total accumulated national debt in all US history. All in one fell swoop.

He tells us that all this is going to work because the economy is going to be growing by 3.2 percent a year from now. Do you believe that? Would you take out a loan based on that? And in the three years following, he predicts that our economy will grow by 4 percent a year.

Let's not forget who Chris Buckley is. That's right, he's the guy who endorsed Obama without having anything positive to say about Obama.

Okay, so that's not quite fair. He did have a bit to say:

I’ve read Obama’s books, and they are first-rate. He is that rara avis, the politician who writes his own books. Imagine. He is also a lefty. I am not. I am a small-government conservative who clings tenaciously and old-fashionedly to the idea that one ought to have balanced budgets. On abortion, gay marriage, et al, I’m libertarian. I believe with my sage and epigrammatic friend P.J. O’Rourke that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take it all away.

But having a first-class temperament and a first-class intellect, President Obama will (I pray, secularly) surely understand that traditional left-politics aren’t going to get us out of this pit we’ve dug for ourselves. If he raises taxes and throws up tariff walls and opens the coffers of the DNC to bribe-money from the special interest groups against whom he has (somewhat disingenuously) railed during the campaign trail, then he will almost certainly reap a whirlwind that will make Katrina look like a balmy summer zephyr.

Obama has in him—I think, despite his sometimes airy-fairy “We are the people we have been waiting for” silly rhetoric—the potential to be a good, perhaps even great leader. He is, it seems clear enough, what the historical moment seems to be calling for.

Think about this folks. This is what I said all along. We elected a man who gave us no idea what he wants to do, no idea what he believes in, and communicated nothing regarding how he would govern in the midst of an economic crisis.

And now, Mr. Buckley who bought into the audacity of hope, finds himself clinging to the hope that maybe we'll get through this okay.

Well, asshat, when you vote against your principles you, to borrow a phrase you used in both articles, "reap the whirlwind."

You Know Why?

2009-03-02T13:45:00.001-05:00

Because Microsoft sucks.

It's a Canard

2009-03-02T02:51:00.001-05:00

Don't fall for it. E.J. Dionne is attempting to frame the debate over Obama's budget:

But his overall approach to taxes is frankly redistributionist: even as much of the middle class gets a tax cut or no increase, the well-off will pay more. And before the howling on the right gets too loud, consider that we have just gone through a long era involving a far less frank form of redistribution -- upward.

'Over the past two or three decades, the top 1 percent of Americans have experienced a dramatic increase from 10 percent to more than 20 percent in the share of national income that's accruing to them,' said Peter Orszag, Obama's budget director. Now, he said, was their time 'to pitch in a bit more.'

There is a lot that can be said to dispute the claim made about the top 1% of Americans, but I'll set that debate aside. I want you to instead focus on what Dionne is claiming.

He is comparing the increase in wealth experienced by wealthy Americans, calling it "redistribution upward" with Obama's plan to seize their money and hand it out to some portion of the rest of the country. This is, pure and simple, theft. It is the taking, by force, of something that does not belong to the government.

Now Dionne wants to frame this for you as making the country "moderately more equal." And again, he may or may not have a valid argument there. There's also an argument to be made that executing petty criminals would reduce the overall crime rate—but it would still be wrong to do so. Theft is wrong, and taking money from people because they have been successful under competitive circumstances is nothing but theft.

Sure, sure, people will pull at your heart strings and give some Robin Hood story about taking from the undeserving rich to give to the poor. And it's a nice story. But remember what's at the root of that fairy tale: Robin Hood was trying to help an overtaxed people who were being bled dry by the Sheriff of Nottingham's overbearing taxes. Now maybe the Sheriff wasn't redistributing those taxes the way President Obama wants to.

But is the failure to redistribute the problem? Or is it the taking by force that is wrong, under any circumstances.

I say it's the latter.

Familiar

2009-03-02T01:09:00.001-05:00

Sounds like something I would write.

Hmmm.

2009-03-01T19:05:00.001-05:00

Hehe. Probably not, but still... it's an interesting question.

Am I Crazy?

2009-02-28T01:01:00.001-05:00

Or does the former newsroom of The Rocky Mountain News look an awful lot like a bowling alley?

Let's Be Clear

2009-02-27T07:56:00.001-05:00

The federal government has just stolen from Citi shareholders. This is a taking by force. I don't know nearly enough to comment on whether it's necessary, or will help Citi's financial situation. But the legal and political implications are disturbing to me.

Weird

2009-02-27T07:08:00.001-05:00

There are some strange things going on in the Senate these days.

I'm glad to see an amendment to prevent the resurrection of the Fairness Doctrine. But what the heck does the DeMint amendment accomplish if it's followed immediately by the Durbin amendment (which seems to me to be nonsense)?

And why are we talking about giving D.C. a seat in the House? As a D.C. resident, I'm no fan of "taxation without representation," but on this issue the Constitution is clear:

"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States..." U.S. Const. art. I, § 1, cl. 1.

The District of Columbia is not a state. If you accept the premise that D.C. should have a voice in the House, then the Constitution must be amended.

Shame on Them

2009-02-27T06:49:00.001-05:00

Embarrassing.

A Perfect Example

2009-02-27T06:36:00.001-05:00

My lovely city is doing me a huge favor. The District is providing a perfect example of why the Nanny State doesn't work. I don't even need to comment, just read the article.

Doomed.

2009-02-27T06:17:00.001-05:00

How can anyone possibly think this is a good idea?

Huh.

2009-02-27T06:05:00.002-05:00

I'm surprised I've never thought of this:

For every law they pass that bans something, we should get a law that lets us do something previously forbidden.

But it's definitely something I could get behind. It would certainly help keep the Nanny State at bay.

Of course, i would not support the reverse—i.e. that whenever a law is repealed, we have to pass a law that restricts something else. Yikes.

Anyway, interesting treatment of the subject. Read the whole thing.

You've especially got to love his use of the Volstead Act towards the end. (Link provided for those who need to take a refresher in American history).

Ah Irony

2009-02-27T04:39:00.001-05:00

Debra Saunders is concerned about the demise of newspapers. So am I. And I think her overall point is correct: the decline of newspapers means the decline of news coverage. At a time when we need more suspicion of government, we're gradually getting less. And that's all well and good.

But then this paragraph jumped out at me:

Newspapers are the public's referees as to which information is credible. You can go online and read no end of fiction and smear about public figures. But when you read content in a newspaper, you consistently can rely on it.

It seems to me that this is objectively false. Bias is rampant in the newspaper industry. If anything, this is the biggest reason that newspapers are suffering. If this were true, if news could consistently be trusted as reliable, then they would be able to compete with the online "fiction and smear." But increasingly we find instead online self-publishers who are acting as watchdog to the media, purveyors of plenty of their own fiction and smear.

I'm concerned about the downfall of news organizations. But it ain't because they're some pristine example of objective reporting. And asserting that they are belies a thorough coating of a different sort of bias.

Ouch.

2009-02-27T04:22:00.001-05:00

Andrew Revkin, you have just been bitch-slapped by George Will.

It's fun to watch a serious journalist school an upstart.

Uncanny?

2009-02-26T16:22:00.001-05:00

I'm not sure I'd call the connections between the book and current realities "uncanny." I think a more accurate word might be "prophetic."

Oops

2009-02-26T16:20:00.001-05:00

Heh. Way to go, NYT.

Well Put, Mostly

2009-02-26T00:45:00.002-05:00

Read it.

I'll wait.

Read? Okay, good.

So I've read most of the philosophers Brooks mentions. But I'm a libertarian more than a conservative. Brooks paints the question as if there are two options, but sees both as ultimately led by some sort of collective. Change will come, the question to him, I think rightly, is how that should come.

Brooks is afraid of change led from the top by an individual or a small group who have some utopian view of the future. So am I. But I am equally afraid of a group of people who oppose change, or seek a different kind of change, because their group thinks differently. Both are basically arguments that someone knows what's best for me better than I do myself. That I need someone looking out for my own interests. I simply do not accept that premise.

You might be inclined to say that this is a kind of arrogance, that I simply don't like the liberal or conservative ideals because I think that I know better than they do. You might think that if I had the reins of power I'd simply impose my own world view instead of theirs.

And you'd have a point. This is what the Republican Party has done over the last 15 years as they moved away from advocacy of small government when they found themselves in power. And it was wrong.

The difference is that my world view is one that attempts to let everyone live out his own. I have faith in the intelligence of people to see something that works and apply it to themselves—without some mandate from on high that this is the way things should proceed.

Change comes in its own time, no matter who is trying to push it forward or to restrain it. It always have and it always will.

Advice You Can Use

2009-02-26T00:28:00.001-05:00

Popular Mechanics has some recommendations on how to make your PC boot up faster. And they're good.

My solution, though, was to switch to a Mac.

Couldn't be happier.

Feh.

2009-02-26T00:26:00.001-05:00

When's the last time the White House saw a real dog. Seriously, I'm asking. All I remember are little yippie dogs with too much hair. Why not a lab? Or a retriever?

I mean, who wants a mop that barks?

More importantly, who wants the most powerful man in the world to have a mop that barks?

Backing Down Again

2009-02-26T00:24:00.001-05:00

Seems like this is really starting to be a pattern. Now you've got the Attorney General saying that Gitmo is a well-run, professional facility that will be difficult to close.

For now he says he's still going to do it.

I'll believe it when I see it.

And for those of you keeping score at home, I've added a new Gitmo tag to keep an eye on the moving goal posts.

Background

2009-02-24T15:43:00.001-05:00

Necessary background information on the current debate in economics. Simple to understand, and incredibly informative.

$20

2009-02-24T14:24:00.001-05:00

That's the maximum that I have ever paid for a haircut. In my entire life.

Sadly, many people can't do that. But I'm a big proponent of barber shops. When I moved to DC, I found one in my neighborhood right away. Usually three to four black guys cutting hair, and three to four guys hanging out either waiting for haircuts or just shooting the shit. It's great.

I had a similar barber shop when I lived in Connecticut, only they were Italian guys. And another one where I grew up, a Greek man (side job: slumlord) and his sister. Later the guy's son joined the business.

If I'm lucky, I'll never move to one of the places where barber shops have gone away entirely. It's an experience every man should have.

Easy One?

2009-02-24T13:31:00.001-05:00

It certainly would be an easy decision for me. While I have no idea what the Court will say, my guess is that the cross will be allowed—just not at the exclusion of other religious and secular symbols. I have a hard time seeing the Justices say that crosses are banned from public monuments.

Depends Upon Your Perspective

2009-02-23T14:59:00.001-05:00

Daily Pundit thinks this is bad news. As a current DC resident, I'm somewhat okay with it. As a libertarian, I'm concerned.

Meet the New Gitmo

2009-02-23T13:31:00.002-05:00

So it turns out that Gitmo does abide by the Geneva Conventions? Fascinating. So why are we shutting it down? And why did we accept the campaign-based certainty that it didn't?

Why?

2009-02-23T13:25:00.001-05:00

Why on earth does anyone think that the government is better equipped to restructure the banks than the private sector? Has the government ever been efficient at running a business of any kind?

Yikes.

An Important Message

2009-02-23T00:12:00.001-05:00

That I wish more people understood.

An Interesting Proposal

2009-02-22T23:41:00.001-05:00

I'm really not sure how I feel about this, but I certainly intend to do some thinking about it.

Perfect Description

2009-02-22T15:59:00.001-05:00

Instapundit takes a few words to state one of my positions very clearly. Thought I'd share.

Women Are Anti-Science

2009-02-19T16:06:00.001-05:00

You know how women, particularly of the feminist persuasion, are always lamenting the fact that men see and treat them as objects? Well, it turns out that they're fighting a much stronger force than simple male chauvinism. To quote xkcd, "Science: It Works, bitches."

The nub:

New research shows that, in men, the brain areas associated with handling tools and the intention to perform actions light up when viewing images of women in bikinis.

So stop getting mad at me because I'm just using you. It's the way I was built.

Lowest Common Denominator

2009-02-18T18:28:00.000-05:00

The Obama Administration has unveiled their plan to refinance mortgages (emphasis added):

President Obama pledged on Wednesday to help as many as 9 million American homeowners refinance their mortgages or avert foreclosure, an initiative he said would shore up distressed housing prices, stabilize neighborhoods and slow a downward spiral that he said was “unraveling homeownership, the middle class, and the American Dream itself.”

Anyone like to place bets on how many of these overlap with the following group?

Nielsen Media Research estimates that about 5.8 million households, or about 5.1 percent, have not upgraded their sets.

Or how about a bet one when we stop taking care of people who fail to take care of themselves?

Look, I understand some amount of welfare to help people who are less fortunate. But people who aren't ready for the DTV transition can blame no one but themselves. The same goes for people who bought houses when they didn't understand what they were getting into. No one was forced to buy a home.

Someone explain to me why we're holding the banks and mortgage holders accountable for the idiocy of these homeowners. Please.

Sheesh.

2009-02-17T14:43:00.001-05:00

Do we really need reports to tell us this?

Just watch The Sarah Connor Chronicles. From Wikipedia, here's a summary of the AI character on that wonderful show:

John Henry, portrayed initially by computer equipment and Garret Dillahunt as of the end of "Strange Things Happen at the One Two Point," is a sentient computer built by Catherine Weaver's Babylon team at ZeiraCorp. His initial hardware and software were the Turk chess computer built by Andrew "Andy" David Goode. He is named John Henry by his psychologist, Dr. Boyd Sherman, after the mythical steeldriving John Henry of American folklore. John Henry is given complete control over the building's electrical service at Weaver's insistence, so that he can route electrical power to his servers as necessary to develop his mind. Input is provided electronically at first, and later through voice recognition. Initially, he has no textual output, and can express himself only with visual imagery; once connected to Cromartie's T-888 body, however, he speaks in the voice of the late George Lazlo. John Henry can see through the lab's security cameras.

Early in its development, the computer that would become John Henry demonstrates a childlike sense of humor, the manifestation of which baffled its programmers and Weaver. Weaver shows the output to Dr. Sherman who was treating young Savannah Weaver for insolence and incontinence. He immediately recognizes the images as a pun told to him by another child whom he was treating, explaining that a mathematics textbook is sad because it has so many 'problems' to solve. Impressed by Dr. Sherman's ability to communicate with the computer and his skill at treating Savannah, Catherine Weaver convinces him to work as a part-time consultant on the Babylon project.

In his brief time working with John Henry, Dr. Sherman is not able to instill ethics in the computer. John Henry is aware that Dr. Sherman is suffering when John Henry routes the building's power away from the security and climate control systems, and causes a trapped Dr. Sherman to die by hyperthermia, but does not care. John Henry does not understand that death is permanent for humans; he is aware that Dr. Sherman is dead, yet summons emergency medical personnel to revive him. James Ellison who, like Weaver, tends to refer to Biblical scripture, suggests to Weaver that, as John Henry is a computer and can be given commands, she should start with "the first ten". With Ellison's mission of capturing a Terminator for Weaver complete, she sets him to the task of replacing Dr. Sherman as John Henry's tutor/counselor at the end of "Strange Things Happen at the One Two Point". Weaver given Ellison a remote control of the endoskeleton for his defense in case the cyborg went rogue, implying Weaver installed fail-safes in case the artificial intelligence program would turn against her.

In other words, the terminator from the future is worried that the terminator powered by the new AI might go rogue. When robots are scared of robots, maybe we should reconsider robots.

V-Day

2009-02-14T14:37:00.001-05:00

A little Valentine's Day advice for all you men out there, searching the bars for lonely women, depressed that they don't have dates tonight.

And We're Back...

2009-02-13T11:50:00.002-05:00

My home internet has been down since Monday, hence the lack of posting. But now it's fixed and we can resume our regular programming.

Can't Blame Him

2009-02-13T11:48:00.002-05:00

I think this is a respectable move. He's got total justification, and it was a mistake by the Obama Administration to put him in that position.

And apparently, everyone else is just surprised it took so long.

Makes Sense to Me

2009-02-10T14:16:00.001-05:00

I could be convinced to support this.

Meet the New Renditions - II

2009-02-10T14:12:00.001-05:00

Taranto has a good take on this one.

Meet the New Secrecy

2009-02-10T14:06:00.001-05:00

So state secrets can be useful? But I thought this was going to be a new era of transparency?

A Valid Question

2009-02-09T16:52:00.001-05:00

But we should also add, if there should be limits, should it be the government that imposes them? I wonder what NOW has to say about this.

Those Sons of Bitches

2009-02-09T16:36:00.002-05:00

How dare they have the gall?

Okay, so I'm being sarcastic. Honest opinion: shut up, John, and give me my money back. You do NOT know how to spend it better than I do, as proven by your belief that giving money to a failing company will fix anything. You do not understand basic concepts of economics. You know, for example, that if they American people do not want to buy a particular product, that product should probably not be made anymore.

Idiot.

Oh, and by the way. All of those immoral bankers that you scream and yell about all the time for being so frivolous? For causing this disaster by spending money they didn't have? Just what the hell do you think you're doing now?

Just bear in mind, whether from over-leveraged banking or excessive government spending, excessive financial frivolity has consequences.

How do you get this job?

2009-02-09T16:33:00.001-05:00

I mean, I'd love to be a research assistant...

Genius.

2009-02-09T16:28:00.001-05:00

I'm sorry, but George Will is a tremendous writer. And his random knowledge strikes me as very Dennis Miller. But the way he weaves multiple ideas into the linked item just to come down to the last two sentences is—just brilliant.

Right Up My Alley

2009-02-09T12:20:00.001-05:00

You're probably noticed the "chicks" label that I occasionally apply to posts. Well, this kid of thing is the reason I created that label. It's tailor-made for it.

Do I think men should boycott Valentine's Day? I think that's a deficient question. You do not have enough information to make a decision.

If his wife/girlfriend/significant other/whatever demands or expects a certain standard of gift or treatment, then yes, the man should boycott. Of course, if he has met that standard in the past, he should expect her to withhold sex (as mentioned in the linked post) or punish him in some other way, or even to dump him. But he should hold firm, because men need to stop playing into these manipulations. And if this is their first Valentine's Day, he will do himself a significant favor by making clear what his limits are. If she pouts or dumps him, he's better off knowing that early and making a clean break. If she's okay with it, then he's got a good one.

And if she's okay with it, then she falls into the category of women who should receive something special (either in treatment or physical gifts). She should, of course, reciprocate or she begins to move back into the former category. And sex is not sufficient reciprocation, or she's just a whore.

The rule is simple: a woman who expects little or nothing and is surprised and pleased by receiving some extra consideration is deserving of that consideration, and will likely repay that consideration. But sex is not repayment. Sex is something that both receive and enjoy simultaneously. If she does not enjoy sex and he only receives it in exchange for good behavior, then the relationship is not healthy.

But that's just my take.

Oh Come On

2009-02-09T12:07:00.001-05:00

It's an amusing thought, but it's not realistic. I love several of these shows and watch them often—and not one of them compelled me to try and flip houses. Most of them showed how hard it is, how touch-and-go, if they even turned a profit. A heck of a lot of them showed people utterly failing and winding up stuck with a house they couldn't sell and couldn't afford to finish renovating.

Yikes.

2009-02-06T18:06:00.001-05:00

Well, it's been a bad week for the President. Still, that's a bit cruel, is it not? He'll work out the kinks. I hope. Otherwise, we're in serious trouble.

No Longer in The Tank?

2009-02-05T11:57:00.001-05:00

Seems like the media (or at least the AP) may be turning on the President. I'm not sure exactly what the AP could get out of bringing suit, but it seems to me that this goes beyond the fair use exception to copyright law. Would be an interesting fact pattern for an Intellectual Property exam.

Ah, Microsoft

2009-02-05T11:54:00.001-05:00

I'll never understand why they don't just sell "Windows." Too many nonsensical choices, in my opinion.

Surprise!

2009-02-05T11:51:00.001-05:00

I cannot believe the tone of op-eds like this one. Of course President Obama has failed to deliver on "change you can believe in." No one ever asked him to define "change" or "hope" or what his actual plan was if he were to become President. As far as we know, he never had a plan, just those nebulous ideas.

This is what happens when you allow a candidate to run on personality instead of on policy. This administration is getting more entertaining all the time.

"Punchline" Might Be a Bit Strong...

2009-02-04T14:11:00.001-05:00

But he certainly has a point. And I'm supremely glad to know that people are abandoning the faux scientific consensus in favor of a reasoned discussion of the actual risks and rewards from trying to "fix" global warming.

Simple.

2009-02-03T17:44:00.001-05:00

I can answer this question very easily:

For now, robots are seen as merely a tool that humans use, morally no different (except in financial value) than a hammer or a rifle ‐‐ their only value is instrumental, as a means to our ends. But as robots begin to assume aspects of human decision‐making capabilities, the question may arise of their intrinsic value: do they deserve moral consideration of their own (beyond their financial or tactical value), and at what point in their evolution will they achieve this intrinsic value (as human lives seem to have)?

As soon as a robot reaches the point where we are considering whether that robot possesses any moral, ethical, or legal rights unto itself...

...that robot should be destroyed.

Because that is the robot that will enslave us all.

Lego My City

2009-02-03T11:01:00.001-05:00

Love it.

Jurassic Park

2009-02-02T14:20:00.001-05:00

It's now one step closer to reality.

Groundhog Day

2009-02-02T09:25:00.002-05:00

Just a random thought (something I'll try to do more often as I have time).

Isn't it interesting how prominently the movie plays in our culture? This is a holiday that dates to at least 1841, and a brief, very fluffy comedy has completely changed its meaning. Honestly ask yourself: when someone says something about Groundhog Day, do you think solely of the little rodent seeing his shadow, or is there also an element of experiencing the same thing over and over again?

I'd be willing to bet the latter enters in, even if it doesn't supersede the former. I can't think of another movie that has changed a holiday's meaning in this way. Can you?

Meet the New Renditions

2009-02-02T07:20:00.001-05:00

Remember that evil tool? There was even a terrible movie about it.

Well, they'll continue and possibly expand under President Obama.

Siblings

2009-01-31T15:30:00.001-05:00

Every political family has a black sheep. Remember Roger Clinton? It seems President Obama has an advantage, though. His half-brother got arrested for drug possession—but he did it in Nairobi.

Snicker

2009-01-31T15:24:00.001-05:00

I don't read ScrappleFace that much these days, but maybe I should start again. He certainly nailed this one:

In office less than two weeks, President Barack Obama has already increased tax receipts at the U.S. Treasury with an innovative plan to get tax-dodgers to pay up, in full, immediately.

“The president’s plan is simple but ingenious,” said White House spokesman Robert Gibbs, “He targets wealthy individuals who filed inaccurate tax forms, cheating the government out of tens of thousands of dollars. Then he just nominates them for cabinet positions. They suddenly see the error of their ways, and they cut checks for the full amount owed, plus interest.”

Hehe.

Flinty Chicago Toughness?

2009-01-30T13:55:00.001-05:00

As you might remember, I recently agreed with the President that DC's reaction to a little snow and ice was pathetic. Apparently, President Obama was not actually qualified to make that assessment.

I'm disappointed that he isn't resurrecting the Reagan tradition of never being in the Oval Office without a jacket and tie on, but I'm also with Althouse—this removes a LOT of his credibility on climate change.

Wrong.

2009-01-30T13:44:00.002-05:00

These aren't terminators, as the article suggests. No, they're the first step towards replicators.

Gore Effect Alive and Well

2009-01-29T17:49:00.001-05:00

And apparently, it has a range of well over a thousand miles. That's a lot of power for a failed candidate.

(Note: the Gore Effect stems from the apparent reality that whenever Gore travels to a particular city to discuss what used to be known as Global Warming (and is now the more general Climate Change), that city would experience freak cold snaps, horrible blizzards, or dangerous ice storms.)

Hehe

2009-01-29T09:32:00.000-05:00

Just watch. (Very short).