Uncategorized

Alamedia asks:

I have here a special, economics-type query which I direct to Brad DeLong, among others. Here’s the thing: I have known many investment bankers in my day. Hell, I’m related to plenty of investment bankers, even if only by marriage. Many of these men are stand-up guys, fun to be with, always up for smoking a few bowls and playing golf. Others are asshole blowhards. Mmm, more of the latter, probably. All of them, however, have the same basic character type, which I will call "Chet". Chet is a hail-fellow-well-met sort, …. Chet is tall, probably tan, and has big white teeth like a mouthful of chiclets. If Chet does not play golf, it is only because he has ascended into the super-Chetosphere and plays polo. Chet is a member of country clubs, and has a thin wife, and two adorable kids, etc. etc. … Finally, Chet has an incredibly high opinion of himself. He is confident to the point of arrogance, but friendly, outgoing. There is one thing Chet is not, ever, in my experience, and that is particularly bright. Really. Not an intellectual powerhouse, is where I’m going with this. Not, in all likelihood, able to perform complex mathematical operations. Given that this is so, I have a few questions.

Alamedia then goes on to ask a series of questions, each of which essentially boils down to, "why is an idiot like Chet so successful?" 

Brad DeLong responds by stating (if I may paraphrase) that the reason why an idiot like Chet makes so much money is because Chet really isn’t an idiot.  And that’s true, so far as it goes.  Yet, though I fully endorse DeLong’s answer, there’s a little bit more to it.  Speaking as one who swims among the Chets — heck, who may even be a self-hating, closeted Chet — there are four further reasons that explain Chetdom.

If you have a drum, you may wish to begin rolling it now.

Read more

by Charles

It’s no secret that I’m not a Democrat and I don’t subscribe to most of their positions on issues.  Nevertheless, the Democrats have done damn little to sell their ideas to me or to the American public.  And that’s a serious problem.  Ideas and ideals should be the coin of the realm in politics and political parties.  The 2004 shutout in the presidency and House and Senate should have been a clear message that different methods need be tried. 

But so far, that same old bus is being ridden on that same old route, with the same old results.  Harry Reid’s body has been invaded by the spirit of Tom Daschle.  Barbara Boxer has become the Senate version of Jim McDermott. And like a virgin vigorously protecting her maidenhead, Nancy Pelosi says "no" all day long.  The prevalence in the Democratic Party is obstruction and opposition, not "we have a better plan", followed by actually spelling out what that better plan is.  The Democrats continue to be the "No Party" instead of the "Better Ideas Party".  Republicans propose, Democrats oppose.  Instead of "ask not what your country can do for you", it’s another round of Fight Club.  Instead of EFK (Everyone For Kerry), the moveon.orgers repeatedly called for ABB.  What is animating and energizing the liberal activist wing seems to be the fight itself, not the platforms and guiding principles and ideals they should be fighting for.  At least, that’s how I see it.

Many liberals will of course say that they do have better ideas.  Fine.  Then sell them.  Prioritize them.  Maybe it’s just me, but I’m not persuaded by hearing just opposing arguments without hearing what the better plan is.  John Kerry kept saying he had better plans, but he failed to spend more time and money communicating them.  The fact is that his better plan for Iraq wasn’t much different than the one Bush already had in place.  Maybe his secret plans were better, but sadly they were kept secret.  His better plan on Social Security was basically no plan. 

Don’t believe me on all this?  That’s OK, since I don’t expect liberals to believe me anyway.  But believe James Carville and Paul Begala:

Read more

Kevin Drum reminds me (yet again) why he’s my favorite liberal of the blogosphere:  "The answer to wingnuttery is not equal and opposite wingnuttery."

UPDATE:  And Tacitus reminds me (yet again) why he’s one of my favorite conservative bloggers:

I could at this point go on a tear about how Saudi Arabia really is our primary enemy in the region, with Pakistan being tied with Iran for second place, but it’s a familiar enough warblog theme that has the virtue of being entirely correct, and the vice of being utterly futile.

Hmm; I must be in good mood this morning, with all this handing out of praise left and right.  Don’t worry; it’ll pass.

UPDATE 2:  I should clarify that the title of "favorite liberal of the blogosphere" may, by law, only be bestowed only on non-ObWi bloggers.  That is, Hilzoy, Ed, et al. are ineligible — otherwise, the competition wouldn’t be fair!

Read more

From CNN:

“Hundreds of people have been killed by government soldiers in the wake of violent anti-government protest in the eastern Uzbek city of Andijan, Russia’s Interfax news agency report human rights monitors as saying.

A U.N. official and news reports said Saturday that Uzbeks fled to neighboring Kyrgyzstan as well toward the Kyrgyz cities of Osh and Jalal-Abad.

The violence began Thursday when a group of local citizens angry about the arrest of several prominent business owners stormed the prison where they were being held.

At one point, about 10,000 protesters gathered in the city center to demand the resignation of Uzbek President Islam Karimov and his government, who are allies of the United States. The president’s office described them as criminals and extremists. (…)

Interfax quoted Saijakhon Zainabitdinov, head of the Andizhan human rights group Appeal, concerning the death toll.

“Government troops opened fire on civilians on Friday evening and hundreds of people died. At dawn today, the dead bodies were taken away on five vehicles — three Zil dump trucks, one Ural heavy truck and one bus. All of the vehicles were filled with bodies,” Zainabitdinov said.”

The demonstrations have reportedly spread to the nearby city of Ilyichevsk, where refugees are trying to flee across the border to Kyrgyzstan.

Read more

by von

… if President Bush nominated Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit (aka "The Easy Rider," aka the "#1 Superhottie of the Federal Judiciary," aka "the high-flying conservative of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals") to the Supreme Court?  Smart, sincere, intellectually honest, decidedly non-theocratic — obviously, pretty much everyone would have some sort of beef with him.  Which would be a kinda cool thing.

By the bye, I agree with Professor InstaPundit:  if Democrats really wanted to mess things up, they’d start floating names of conservative jurists who they’d pinky swear to down like Maker’s Mark at Delilah’s on punk rock Monday.  Folks with unimpeachable credentials and a moderate/independent streak.  Kozinski would have to be at the top of that list; so would Judge Posner of the Seventh Circuit (though he’s getting a little long in the tooth).

Indeed, if I may offer some unsolicited (and perhaps unwelcome) advice:  take a lesson from Ali.  When you’re fighting Big George Foreman, the correct response is rope-a-dope.

UPDATE:  Rilkefan and Bernard Yomtov argue — not unpersuasively — that I’m full of crap.  As Yomtov states (emphasis mine):

I suspect that also, and that [a] sub rosa list [of acceptable conservative canidates] has been provided to Bush sotto voce. I also think, in contrast to von, that Bush is more likely to name someone from the list if it is not publicized. If it were public he would be seen as caving in to the Democrats. This way he can make a show of moderation, if he wants to, without looking weak.

Read more

I took a short trip to Las Vegas at the end of last week.  It was a over-needed vacation, and thus a moderate disappointment.  You know what I’m talking about.  You’re so desperate to get away, to have a moment to sleep in and drink too much (or, if you already drink too drink much, to feel less guilty about it), that you pour your hopes and dreams and all that good stuff into the idea of a vacation, but which the vacation itself can never match.

The somewhat-highlight of the trip was Zumanity, which was considerably less shocking than it wanted to be.  Or maybe exactly as shocking as it wanted to be.  It’s so hard in these days of diminished expectations and quickie transgressions to tell when someone is trying to be shocking (and failing) or trying only to seem shocking, so as not to actually shock.*

In the balance of my time** — which is to say a whole lot of it — I played blackjack.  Alone as often as not, because the group we traveled with were primarily Crapheads and my wife got distracted early in the trip by a Monopoly gambling game (it was tremendously fun in her defense).

I like blackjack, because the "right" way to play requires the memorization and consistent application of a set of impossibly complex rules (and exceptions to those rules).  Always hit a soft 17; hit a 12 if the dealer shows a 2-4, and maybe against a 5 (but not a 6); split almost any pair if the dealer shows a 5 or 6 (but never split 10s), etc.  You know the drill — or, you now know enough that you don’t want to know the drill. 

They’re comforting, those rules.  They provide a semblance of control — but only a bare semblance, because I’m never sure if I remembered the rule right  (what do I do with a pair of sixes against an ace, again?).  A game that allows you to enjoy the guilt of failing to live up to its standards:  It’s American, just like baseball and apply pie.

(I lost, not a lot, but enough.)

So, I’m back:  A little refreshed, a little poorer, and a little sunburned.  And this is your vacation open thread.  Tell us where you’re going next (or just been); give us a recommendation or two.  But tell us, most of all, where you want to go.

Read more

by hilzoy

For about a week I have been thinking that I should try to write something on the bankruptcy bill that’s currently being considered in Congress. I did research, I collected links, but I couldn’t figure out how to get around one crucial problem: I don’t know anything about bankruptcy law, and I try not to write about things I don’t understand. Luckily, however, Josh Marshall has created a new blog devoted to this subject, and turned it over to someone who does understand it: Elizabeth Warren of the Harvard Law School. She’s the author of the recent study that showed that over half of bankruptcies are due in part to medical emergencies. (The study was described in this NY Times article.)

Warren’s take on the bankruptcy bill:

“The bill is more than 500 pages long, all in highly technical language. But the overall thrust is pretty clear:

• Make debtors pay more to creditors, both in bankruptcy and after bankruptcy, so that a bankruptcy filing will leave a family with more credit card debt, higher car loans, more owed to their banks and to payday lenders.

• Make it more expensive to file for bankruptcy by driving up lawyers’ fees with new paperwork, new affidavits, and new liability for lawyers, so that the people in the most trouble can’t afford to file.

• Make more hurdles and traps, with deadlines that a judge cannot waive even if someone has a heart attack or an ex-husband who won’t give up a copy of the tax returns, so that more people will get pushed out of bankruptcy with no discharge.

• Make it harder to repay debts in Chapter 13 by increasing the payments necessary to confirm in a repayment plan, so that more people will be pushed out of bankruptcy without ever getting a discharge of debt.

There are people who abuse the system, but this bill lets them off. Millionaires will still be welcome to use the unlimited homestead exemption. And if they don’t want to buy a home there, they can just tuck their millions of dollars into a trust, a “millionaire’s loophole” that lets them keep everything—if they can afford a smart, high-priced lawyer.

I don’t get paid by anybody on any side of this fight. I just think it isn’t fair.”

More resources and discussion below the fold.

Read more

–Sebastian

I don’t know enough about Indonesia to understand why this would happen, but it can’t be good that the leader of the conspiracy beind the Bali bombing is getting a slap on the wrist of 30 months in prison. 

Muslim cleric Abu Bakar Bashir should spend the rest of his "miserable life" in jail, says Opposition Leader Kim Beazley.

Bashir was sentenced to two-and-a-half years jail yesterday after a court in Jakarta found him guilty of conspiracy in the 2002 Bali bombings that killed 202 people, including 88 Australians.

Mr Beazley said a life sentence would have been more adequate and the Australian government should do all it could to extend the jail term.

"This man should spend the rest of his miserable life in jail and the Australian government should be doing what it can to put pressure on for an appeal to extend his sentence," Mr Beazley told reporters in Sydney today.

"He has been convicted of a conspiracy that involved the killing of a large number of Australians and others and Indonesians.

"People who do that should spend their lives in jail."

But Mr Beazley did not blame the Indonesian government for the lenient sentence.

"I think the Indonesian government is as horrified as we are," he said.

Is this a case of judicial intimidation or other pressure being exercised by the terrorist group?  Is something else weird going on?  Is Indonesian conspiracy law really weak?  I can’t tell from the reports, but whatever the problem is, it is disturbing. 

Read more