Feb 5, 2011

Norman blew into the room, talking to a young woman who was working on being haggard. "This is awful, wretched. I'd say it was crap, but crape is useful. You can put it on crops. It's fertilizer, it grows things. And it's natural." His round face was in a sort of vibrato of disgust. "There's nothing more ogranic than crap. so give me something is at least crap. Not that I haven't put crap on the air, right, Doug?"

"I think yesterday's show qualifies," said a guy with a roundish face, a doughy face, beard that didn't look likeoneof those ten-blade razors.

"I took a clip home and my wife put it on the tomato plants." Said a younger guy.

"And rememebr," Wexford said to the young woman. "I am a horrible human being. The worst in the world. Right Doug?"

"Well, I've never met Idi Amin," he said. "Or Pol Pot. Not to mention Mao."

"Or Hitler," the younger guy said. "Oh, wait a minute, you are Hitler."

Wexford slammed his heels together so violently the young woman gave a start, and she and the two men burst in laughter, edgy laughter.

"Vhat do you mean, that I am not the vurst person in the world."

"Well, that is the worst accent," I said.

"You mock das Fuher?" he said.

"You've been doing that accent for like ... " I had to do the math in my head.

"Silence, schwein!" he shouted. "Zat is de state secret! Jon, you asshole, it's so good to see you again."

The thing was, he hadn't changed much. An advantage of being round and round-faced. Thinning hair, smally, beady vicious eyes; a look of bemusement at the horror and wonder of the world; fair skin, small mouth; heavy, but the heavy of a tackle, a farm boy, a heavy that could throw you through a wall if he wanted to, or needed to; a crackle about him; there was a power substation in my neighborhood when we were growing up, a green metal shell amid some pine trees; and he exuded that. I could half-imagine the humming around him, and the voltage. You just didn't know when you were going to be shocked.

###

"Do you carry a gun?"

"Of course," He astonished my by grabbing the waistband of his pants and pulling it, reach down into his pants, and pulling up a semi-automatic pistol."

"Glock nine millimeter."

"Chrissake!"

"That's the best kind of holster," he said.

"For god's sake, keep your hand off the trigger."

"Don't worry," he said. "And ... " He reached into his jacket pocket and pulled out a gun so small it looked lke a toy. "North American Arms makes these. Twenty-two magnum."

"Two?"

"Gotta have backup," he said. "Always have backup."

Letterman must go?

Time to fight back?

This is our line in the sand. Letterman MUST BE FIRED NOW!!!

Live long -- but not too long

Kaus:

As a Boomer, I must say I find it hard to believe we will stand for it--aren't we the vainest generation in history that wants to live forever, etc.? Don't we want the full might of the American medical-industrial complex dedicated to devising expensive breakthrough treatments that will prolong the lives of our friends and us? I know I do



Of course the young have always wanted the old to shuffle off to Buffalo as soon as possible.

But I disagree that we Boomers (I'm 58) want to live forever. Our narcissism, vanity and hedonism work against our infantile desire to rule the cosmos -- and live forever.

That is, we want to live -- but as we always said, really live. Sitting in poopy diapers as we drool on our bingo cards in some nursing home that smells of disinfectant -- that's not our thing.

We want to live, but only as long as we can live well -- sky-diving, hitchhiking to Katmandu, etc., to the very end.

But that could work with the Obama vision.

Instead of cash for clunkers, the government could sponsor "Harleys for the Gray-Haired." Give everyone over 55 a motorcycle. We boomers could continue our pursuit of kicks. And it would reduce gas usage. And after awhile, it would reduce the number of people alive and qualified for Medicare.

A similar effect could be obtained by giving Boomers free skydiving and bungee-jumping lessons, etc.

For those continuing their spiritual quests, the government could give away free trips to far away lands where there's great religious ferment. The Swat Valley of Afghanistan, for instance.

Or Woodstock parties. Only now three days of sitting in the mud and rain and ingesting powerful chemicals would again reduce the Medicare rolls.

And didn't Aldous Huxley, before he got into LSD, see this very clearly?

Bad moon rising

Worse than the '70s? I remember the '70s. Yoiks.

We can expect rapidly rising prices and much, much higher interest rates over the next four or five years, and a concomitant deleterious impact on output and employment not unlike the late 1970s.

Health care

Thus guy provides a really excellent look at what's looming.

For instance,

1. People in high cost areas (e.g., New York City, Boston, South Florida, Chicago, Los Angeles) would get much bigger subsidies than those in low cost areas (e.g., much of the rest of the country, especially in rural areas). The subsidies are calculated as a percentage of the “reference premium,” which is determined based on the cost of plans sold in that particular geographic area.

   The House bill outline is not specific on this point. I would not expect it to be – this is something you can tell only from legislative language.

###

In other words, Utahns would subsidize people on the Upper East Side of New York, Beacon Hill in Boston, or the Gold Coast of Chicago.

Also, government just can't be business.

It's like when Michael Jordan tried to be a baseball player -- they're just two different things.

Or, for those who detest sports metaphors, like when Pierce Brosnan "sang" in Mama Mia.

Every time you hear how the government is going to make a unionized automaker a success, try (if you dare) picturing Pierce Brosnan singing.

GM's Achilles heel

Kaus has the best "what's wrong with this picture" insights:

Maybe all these words have meaning to insiders that's not apparent to outsiders. But it sure looks like 1) Some union locals are holdouts in GM's campaign to get rid of inefficient work rules. (The power of union locals, even in the face of the UAW national leadership, has always been a problem when it comes to streamlining work practices); 2) Under the new agreement, the work rules haven't "been removed." Rather, the parties have pledged to complete the tooth-pulling process of negotiating their demise by the end of the year. It's a target, not a fait accompli. And what happens if that target isn't reached (as, apparently, the earlier targets weren't reached)? The deal doesn't say.

ONE more point:

When, oh when, with management have more leverage? Are these autoworkers going to quit en masse and go work somewhere else?

If management can't put the hammer down now, it never will. So GM (and Chrysler) will fail.

more on cars

The General Motors bailout only delays an inevitable crash

Details, details

Very informative post on GM. Writer is pessimistic, but sees ways deal could work.

Productivity is still lower in U.S. plants of U.S. firms that it is in U.S. plants of foreign-based firms. As a result of high compensation costs per worker and low productivity, it appears that labor cost per vehicle produced will still be uncompetitive with the transplants.

Bennett and the mood

Joe Pyrah is on to some things.

But what about the assessment that Utah won't go too far right?

I can't claim to be any expert on the moods and attitudes of Utah. Still, it seems to me that Utah is not necessarily what it appears on the surface.

Look at what Marxists might call the objective situation: General Motors nationalized! The banks cowed and cowering. The health system next.

I'll just mention Iran and North Korea having/working on nuclear weapons.

So the situation, from a conservative point of view, is desperate, tea parties or not.

So is Bob Bennett a guy for such a time?

Forgive the martial metaphor, but in the military there's a time for desk generals and a time for fighting generals. Grant, Sherman, Patton, Billy Mitchell -- these guys are just trouble in peace time, and what good are they then? But in war time ...

If you don't like martial metaphors, think of the difference between entrepreneurs and managers, or inventors and technicians.

So is a "peacetime" senator right for the times?

Conservatives would say no. They might say -- so what good is dickering in D.C? So the government only owns 65 percent of GM rather than 70 would be significant? Big deal!

Hard to say what's going on, in Utah or nationally. Or whether it can get 50 percent of the vote.

Still, are we in one of those watershed times? And can Bennett or other standard-issue Republicans survive?

But, however, can Shurtleff or others beat him? Can't beat something with nothing.

Drill, Sarah, drill!

We can save the economy. If we only try!

From IBD:

... it was thought that Chukchi's waters northwest of Alaska's landmass held 30 billion cubic feet of natural gas.

Today, Science magazine reports that the U.S. Geological Survey now finds it holds more than anyone thought — 1.6 trillion cubic feet of undiscovered gas, or 30% of the world's supply and 83 billion barrels of undiscovered oil, 4% of the global conventional resources.

Well, which is it?

From Atlantic, on North Korea:

... Washington will have no choice but to deal with him directly, rather than merely as one party among several in the multilateral talks that have characterized negotiations with North Korea since 2003.

BUT

Now is not the time for unilateral threats. The disaster in Iraq should be foremost in our minds when dealing with North Korea. And that means, hard as it may be to swallow, working with Beijing.

Health care, the bottom line

From Kausfiles:

Why don't Democrats instead push to provide everyone with health care using the argument that ... everyone needs health care? ... Just a thought

So ... everybody needs food. So have the government be in charge of providing food!

Ooops, it's been tried, with not so good results. (Google "Communism, famimes")

I hurry to add that Kaus makes good points. There's no arbitrary percentage of national income that should or should not be spent on health.

And there is huge waste -- even conservatives admit that.

But who decides? And how?

The key element is what's productive. Good health care could be productive.

Bad health care ... Like, say, Medicare ...

Painful truth on spending

Note more media incompetence, if not outright fraud, in reporting much-touted health care saving:

Turns out that's not what the groups said at all. In their letter to Obama, they promised to "do our part to achieve your Administration's goal of decreasing by 1.5 percentage points annual health-care spending growth rate -- saving $2 trillion or more." Of course, their part of that savings may be significantly less than the full $2 trillion. The groups offered no further specifics. And, anyway, there would be no way to enforce such a hazy commitment.

Real states rights

Calling the Patrick Henry Caucus.

The climate scam

Big Business wants to prey on you.

Success

Just interesting:

The market seems to want C.E.O.’s to offer a clear direction for their companies. There’s a tension between being resolute and being flexible. The research suggests it’s more important to be resolute, even at the cost of some flexibility.

The second thing the market seems to want from leaders is a relentless and somewhat mind-numbing commitment to incremental efficiency gains. Charismatic C.E.O.’s and politicians always want the exciting new breakthrough — whether it is the S.U.V. or a revolutionary new car. The methodical executives at successful companies just make the same old four-door sedan, but they make it better and better.

Wat's happening?

Older column, but very relevant:

Eventually, economists came to understand that vast numbers of individuals and businesses throughout the economy don't make exactly the same mistakes simultaneously unless something has changed the rules of the game. Government isn't always responsible--bubbles can occur on their own, as they have over the centuries--but systemic errors usually result from government policy.

What happened in housing

Good analysis of the bust. The main culprits: the Fed and Congress.

Illustrating the Fed's failure is this graph showing the national median housing price ratio to the median annual income. For more than twenty years, this ratio moved in a narrow range between 2.9 and 3.1. This range held through several recessions, wars and expansions. Beginning In 2001, the ratio climbed to 3.3, peaking in 2006 at 4.6. This can only be described as a stunning increase for this long used indicator of housing affordability.

More on Europe's decline

The bigger the state, the smaller its people.