Magnifisyncopathological

Government plans massive Citigroup rescue effort

Analysts consider Citigroup the most vulnerable among the major U.S. banks -- especially after it failed to nab Wachovia Corp., which was bought instead by Wells Fargo & Co. That was a missed opportunity for Citi to gets its hands on much-needed U.S. deposits that would bolster its cash position.

Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Again, this was linked-to from Yahoo!'s front page.

Why are more mistakes popping up?

Posted by drizzten at 08:17 AM | Permalink

I've noticed more and more basic English grammar errors in Associated Press and other wire services stories. More annoying, they've all been in front-page articles on Yahoo. For example:

Dems expect Big 3 to show they're worth helping

With the survival of a major manufacturing at stake, a top adviser to President-elect Barack Obama warned the companies that there is little the government can do without a viable plan to retool and restructure.

Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

My reading is jolted every time I run across little bits like that. I know I've made mistakes on this blog and elsewhere, but when your job is to catch them...c'mon folks.

Posted by drizzten at 04:01 PM | Permalink

Just posted this in the comment section of the Hit & Run post on Professor McPherson:

Though it is important to note the relevance of Professor McPherson's status as a state employee and to remember the prerogative of a legitimate private employer to set the standards for his or her employees, I sincerely cheered upon reading this op-ed.

Mandatory, lowest common denominator training is annoying and presumptuous. There are some of us out there who know how to properly behave around others who aren't in our immediate social circles. Basic presumption of innocence for someone without a record or an allegation ought to count for something.

That these policies are often defended with arguments abhorrent to defenders of a free society is bad enough. The real burn is in the organization's (whether statist or private) refusal to certify that it did not currently suspect Professor McPherson of harassment. It's sad because it implies they do and it's sad because it shows how desperate organizations are to avoid these aggressively sensitive civil (and in some places, criminal) lawsuits. Some of those lawsuits have grounds, some of them don't. However, it is often enough just to bring the suit in order to stain reputations and attack market value.

Then again, he's publicly attacking a central tenant of modern politics. He clearly isn't concerned about how most people will think of him...

"The sham of sex harassment training" is the first piece of commentary published in a mainstream news outlet that had me openly cheering as I read it.

This guy is flipping the double intellectual bird at the heart of modern political mythology. He's probably unemployable in all of the worst firms now. I hope someone with some spare capital and a functional mind takes advantage of this opportunity and offers Professor McPherson a job or a university chair somewhere.

Posted by drizzten at 08:24 PM | Permalink

I've been hard on Megan "Jane Galt" McArdle in the past. She's bad on negative externalities, was wildly off regarding the $1 trillion Iraq war, and misidentified the ethics around the CEO pay debate.

However, this is too good for me to ignore:

But whatever your feeling about government intervention in the economy, or the correct level of income inequality, I think there's one thing we can all agree on: for the world to get better, things that don't work have to fail.

She is wrong regarding a consensus agreement (and in some of her suggestions at the end of her post), but she's very much right that failures must be allowed to fail. Hopefully, the people involved with those failures will learn something from their failures and apply it in the future. Workers might not simply assume they will always have a job with a company presumed to be immortal. Management might not design products people don't want. Stockholders might pay more attention to investment fundamentals. Suppliers might do a better job forecasting future demand for their contractors' products.

Screwing up opens the door to improvement. The more you protect people from experiencing the fruits of their mistakes, the less likely they'll learn from them.

Posted by drizzten at 04:32 PM | Permalink

This car was parked next time mine last night.

This was displayed in the rear window.

There are a number of ways to interpret this. The three I think that are most likely are:

• This person is against the $700 billion bailout bill proposed by Bush's Republican administration and believes a coherent strategy to fight back is to support Democratic Party candidates.
• This person is against Bush and his plans in general and believes a coherent strategy to fight back is to support Democratic Party candidates.
• This person blames Bush for the situation that gave rise to the need for a bailout bill and believes a coherent strategy to fight back is to support Democratic Party candidates.

There are some distinctions here worth nothing, but I think there is no doubt this person thinks more Democrats in power are the solution.

Of course, there are just 212 small problems with that.

74 Yeas, 25 Nays

Akaka (D-HI) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Biden (D-DE) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Byrd (D-WV) Cardin (D-MD) Carper (D-DE) Casey (D-PA) Clinton (D-NY) Conrad (D-ND) Dodd (D-CT) Durbin (D-IL) Feinstein (D-CA) Harkin (D-IA) Inouye (D-HI) Kerry (D-MA) Klobuchar (D-MN)

Kohl (D-WI) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (ID-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) McCaskill (D-MO) Menendez (D-NJ) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-NE) Obama (D-IL) Pryor (D-AR) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Salazar (D-CO) Schumer (D-NY) Webb (D-VA) Whitehouse (D-RI)

I still consider Lieberman a Democrat, so he counts here. That makes 40 D's voting for the bailout. Only 10 Democrats (and Sanders) voted against. You'll also notice a few Presidential candidates and other Democratic heavy-hitters in that list. From the other side, 34 Republicans voted for the bailout and 15 voted against. The bill would have died in the Senate without either party's support, but it is clear that Republican Senators were a bit more likely to vote against it than Democratic Senators.

263 Yeas, 171 Nays

Abercrombie Ackerman Allen Andrews Arcuri Baca Baird Baldwin Bean Berkley Berman Berry Bishop (GA) Bishop (NY) Boren Boswell Boucher Boyd (FL) Brady (PA) Braley (IA) Brown, Corrine Capps Capuano Cardoza Carnahan Carson Clarke Cleaver Clyburn Cohen Cooper Costa Cramer Crowley Cuellar Cummings Davis (AL) Davis (CA) Davis (IL) DeGette DeLauro Dicks Dingell Donnelly Doyle Edwards (MD) Edwards (TX) Ellison Ellsworth Emanuel Engel Eshoo Etheridge Farr Fattah Foster Frank (MA)

Giffords Gonzalez Gordon Green, Al Gutierrez Hall (NY) Hare Harman Hastings (FL) Higgins Hinojosa Hirono Holt Honda Hooley Hoyer Israel Jackson (IL) Jackson-Lee (TX) Johnson, E. B. Kanjorski Kennedy Kildee Kilpatrick Kind Klein (FL) Langevin Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Lee Levin Lewis (GA) Loebsack Lofgren, Zoe Lowey Mahoney (FL) Maloney (NY) Markey Marshall Matsui McCarthy (NY) McCollum (MN) McGovern McNerney McNulty Meek (FL) Meeks (NY) Melancon Miller (NC) Miller, George Mitchell Mollohan Moore (KS) Moore (WI) Moran (VA) Murphy (CT) Murphy, Patrick

Murtha Nadler Neal (MA) Oberstar Obey Olver Ortiz Pallone Pascrell Pastor Pelosi Perlmutter Pomeroy Price (NC) Rahall Rangel Reyes Richardson Ross Ruppersberger Rush Ryan (OH) Sarbanes Schakowsky Schiff Schwartz Scott (GA) Sestak Sires Skelton Slaughter Smith (WA) Snyder Solis Space Speier Spratt Sutton Tanner Tauscher Thompson (CA) Tierney Towns Tsongas Van Hollen Velázquez Wasserman Schultz Waters Watson Watt Waxman Weiner Welch (VT) Wexler Wilson (OH) Woolsey Wu Yarmuth

My, that's a lot of House Democrats. Lookit how many Important People are in that list. The final tally was 172 "yes" Democrats and 63 "no" Democrats. Republicans voted 108 to 91 against it in the House. Again, the bill couldn't have passed without Republican support, but it's clear the Democrats voted more in favor of the bill than against it.

So, 212 Democrats voted for the $700 billion bailout bill. That constitutes the vast majority of Democrats or Democrat-type congresspeople.

I was actually wrong about the ways to interpret that person's sign. There is another option, one I think is the most likely.

• He or she is just an ignorant gawddamn partisan idiot.

This is all the more annoying because this person is right to hate, oppose, or question the wisdom of the bailout.

Unfortunately, because he or she is an ignorant gawddamn partisan idiot who wants people to vote and vote Democratic, I have no doubt that this opposition arises from the application of the the principles behind the bill rather than the principles themselves. Taxation, redistributionism, protectionism, statism...if I had sought this person out and questioned him or her regarding these ideas, the answers would have been entirely mainstream.

I bet the dumbass voted for Obama/Biden, whose names are on the Senate bailout list above.

Posted by drizzten at 10:10 AM | Permalink

"The market can't be trusted."

"Too much economic freedom results in unplanned chaos."

"Better outcomes demand government intervention."

"An unbridled economy means the unworthy are unjustly rewarded."

"It takes too long for your economic theories to punish poor performers."

And on and on. Statists trot out all kinds of pragmatic arguments against free markets. Self-interest is inefficient, environmentally harmful, and sends money to the wrong people.

Well, how much is your damn GM stock worth now? The individuals who make up the market have decided automakers are not on track. They are bloated and tied down with products people no longer want. Payrolls and benefits are getting cut, merger talks are flying around, and market capitalization is at historic lows. And not just recently; this has been a regular news feature for quite some time.

"The market has spoken" as some of my less-than-precise fellow travelers might say.

So what do They want?

TO SAVE THE AUTO INDUSTRY!

I know they don't appreciate the irony because everything is ironic in a system this profoundly dysfunctional. They just stopped paying attention.

Democrats bitch and moan about the harmful practices and products of an industry that can't make a dollar to save its life. For better or for worse, the Big Three have failed in their task to produce vehicles people want to buy. Their failure is manifest and complete. They took too long to shift production from trucks, SUVs, and standard sedans. They ignored the demographic bombs waiting in their union-privileged pension and health care plans. They misdiagnosed consumer demand and failed to forecast like the capitalists they pretended to be.

Therefore, they deserve to crumble so better management can take over and do something useful with their assets.

Right? End of story? The (nominally free) market works as described by so many tirelessly patient advocates such as myself?

Nope.

Gotta bail them out. Gotta tax us so they can survive. Gotta perpetuate organizations that clearly are not up to the task of responsible existence.

Is there any doubt that the furious contradictions will have any impact on these thieves and liars?

Sure there'll be "strong conditions" on the cash. Socialism will grow at a slightly faster pace, but when unions, companies, and state are all on board you can be sure everyone will get their own little outs as the situation demands them. Definitions too stringent to include these wasteful corporate beasts in the handout program? Redefine "viability"!

How's that vote for change goin'?

Posted by drizzten at 11:37 AM | Permalink

Yeah, I know approximately A HISTORIC NUMBER OF AMERICANS have already DONE PATRIOTIC DUTIFUL THINGS and will certainly ignore me and the quoted below, but I don't care. Reading shit like this is irritating.

Or, in other words:

Voting is like choosing your next meal from the tank of a portable toilet behind the downtown bus station.

-Kent McManigal

As I traveled this morning to my place of work, in an attempt to lead a productive life and earn my living, I saw the endless parade of people wearing those popular "I Voted" stickers on their lapels. And this morning I finally realized why those adhesive badges are colored red. When you vote, you have the blood of coercion, violence, war, theft, and illegitimate rule on your hands. It is more than an endorsement of a particular candidate or party, it is an endorsement of a system that rules over us all with an iron fist. It is a plea to the school bully to not take all of your lunch money, but just to steal a certain percentage of it. And it bends the rules of morality to assume that when 49 people out of 100 say something is wrong - it is, and when 51 say it is right, it is.

-Rob Sieg

I know a lot about why they're going to do this, and I do not know how to illuminate it without their taking insult at all of it, no matter how supplicant I might be in the presentation.

At one point in a discussion about it, it was proposed that we should all "agree to disagree". That horrible old cop out.

I didn't ask what would happen if I disagreed with the United States Government, or the massed opinion of people who are going to vote tomorrow.

-Billy Beck

I suggest that we exercise this right not to participate. It is one of the few rights we have left. Nonparticipation sends a message that we no longer believe in the racket they have cooked up for us, and we want no part of it.

-Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

Why do people think an idea that would be ludicrous on the market makes sense in politics? Why do people continue to regard as saviors those whose record shows unfailing support for activities few of us practice on our own, such as plunder and war? If we want change for our betterment, we will turn to the realm in which we are sovereign and reject political solutions altogether.

-George F. Smith

From this day forward I will do my best to refrain from imposing my will on my fellow human beings. Instead, when I feel strongly about something I will seek to persuade them while also keeping my mind open to the persuasive arguments of others. To this end I commit to doing the hard work necessary to develop my own emotional intelligence to the point where I have achieved complete mastery of my emotions. If ever I should fail to live up to this high standard I will not beat myself up. Instead I will have the courage to admit it and to seek to correct the situation.

I will lead by example and be a force for positive change in the world by working to reduce conflict, alleviate suffering and increasing the joy of my fellow human beings.

In the great tradition of passive resistance pioneered by the likes of Gandhi and Martin Luther King I resolve to peacefully withdraw my support for the democratic system. I will not vote and I will not cooperate with any government except when forced to do so by the armed force of the state.

-Alex Ryan

I'll continue to vote occasionally against taxes or in local elections where a few votes can make a difference, but I will never vote to give someone the immense power that is illegitimately vested in the Presidency.

-Lance Adams

I don't vote because I see no reason to participate in the collective anointing of someone who will violate property rights and end up killing innocent people, when my vote doesn't even have the slightest chance of influencing the outcome.

-Bob Murphy

The electoral landscape has as many rotten boroughs as the mortgage or "real" estate one. If your vote is for one of the two approved parties (sometimes three in non-U.S. parliamentary democracies), it’s bundled and counted, and if not, it’s tallied in a cluster of votes which are given only nominal status. Usually this is performed as some kind of musical chairs routine, where your vote bundle gets something called a "seat" if your team has played the game correctly. If you want to dissent, your vote bundle is not given a seat, but your group can tell each other with grave faces that you’ve "done" something to "change" things. Let’s be clear about this. Most votes for change are bundled and thrown away. From this fact you might guess that voting is merely useless, but that isn’t the case. Your vote for alternative candidates is useless but not your vote for the system. Your vote is useless for change but powerful for stasis – it ratifies the system and sends a strong message that you think it’s okay to have a dynamic where any vote for change is tossed out. Don’t kid yourself. Your deed in the voting booth isn’t merely useless, it’s pernicious.

[...]

When people ask me what I have against democracy, I assume they mean other than its long history of bloody foreign adventures or other than the fact that its best forms are always complicit with totalitarian regimes, or other than the fact that it arises in slave states like 18th-century America or ancient Greece, or other than that it pretends to authenticate the self by sending it as a degraded proxy elsewhere to cede authority to people who are usually dumber than oneself and always less scrupulous, or that its rituals of affirmation and allegiance are too embarrassing to watch on TV even with the sound turned off, or that it’s too embarrassing to contemplate the image of one’s otherwise intelligent friends watching things called "debates" as if their irony somehow buffers them from the idiocy. So maybe they mean, other than the obvious. Do the Made in China stickers all over their apartments count as something other than the obvious? Do we need Hannah Arendt to tell us that democracy is merely a stage on the way to totalitarianism? Here’s what you get in a democracy: until December 31st of this year, the label "Made in Canada" can legally be affixed to apple juice grown in China by Chinese people using Chinese apples and reduced to concentrate in China, on the basis of its having water and a container added to it at the Canadian end [Clark Hoskin, Edible Toronto, Fall, 2008]. You can learn everything you need to know about democracy’s self-deceptions from that word "Made." Statist self-deception is constitutive, not incidental.

-David Ker Thomson

I don't vote, and don't expect I ever shall. Being even one-scintillionth responsible for placing the unbelievable and unspeakable powers of the current U.S. government in the hands of any of the people seeking it strikes me as irresponsible in the extreme. Besides, as everyone knows, those who vote have no right to complain about the outcome.

-Brian Doherty

Posted by drizzten at 02:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)