A principle is just a high-minded excuse to do the wrong thing.
Congress must act immediately to limit the damage of this radical decision, which strikes at the heart of democracy.
That's from the NYT editorial on the S. Ct. decision.
Were they giggling when they wrote that?
And the editorial concludes,
The real solution lies in getting the court's ruling overturned. The four dissenters made an eloquent case for why the decision was wrong on the law and dangerous. With one more vote, they could rescue democracy
So what exactly are you suggesting here, NYT editors? That Obama should revive Roosevelt's court-packing scheme? Or are we supposed to pray for the death of one of the Evil Five? Or... take more drastic measures?
They could have just ended with,"We are fucked."
Well, yeah.
Somebody somewhere pointed out yesterday that unlimited corporate political spending can be even more effective and much less visible on the local and state levels. They will buy your town. And when the lone progressive on the city council, with 50k and a bunch of environmental activists, looks around at his seven colleagues each financed with a million from Exxon and supported by a million in media buys and another million to bring in outside groups and lawyers and realizes that Exxon is not yet touching its lunch money...
she will dream of Provence like me.
But, but, but freedom of speech!
Honestly, this decision isn't freaking me out that much. Maybe I'm in denial, maybe it's outrage fatigue, maybe I've just given up on our institutions and so this seems almost incidental, but I'm not that bugged by it.
But I do think this country's completely fucked, and I invite all those people who made fun of me for saying that a few months ago to suck it.
But seriously, with the Dotel signing, I'm feeling pretty good about the Pirates. Could win 75 this year, maybe 80 with a little luck.
It is a glorious thing to watch the emancipation of the poor corporations. They have been forced to make their owners wealthy, night and day, without vacation or 40 hour work weeks. But now at least their voices can be heard.
Honestly, this decision isn't freaking me out that much. Maybe I'm in denial, maybe it's outrage fatigue, maybe I've just given up on our institutions and so this seems almost incidental, but I'm not that bugged by it.
This bothers me almost as much as watching GWB get re-elected in '04. I feel like it is a game-changer of that scale.
Possibly more of a game-changer.
Certainly more of a game changer than signing Dotel.
I'm at McManus levels of gloom right now. The investor class is going to have such a lock on the public discourse that we will be reduced to the kind of pseudo-democracy that Russia has. Either Bob or John once used the term "feudalization" to describe the direction they want to take the economy. We are headed there.
At the very least it is now senseless to argue about healthcare reform. The insurance companies will be able to undo anything in the next election cycle.
Huh. I'm less depressed by this because I think that any prior regulation was almost completely ineffective. While the decision sucks, I doubt our public discourse will in practice be any more corrupted than it is now. I'm not sure if this makes me a cynic or a pollyanna.
This shows how big an issue it is that the Democrats totally wimped out on the Employee Free Choice Act this year. Unions are the progressive counterpart to corporations, and they are dying. If we had a healthy union movement you could counterbalance this.
The investor class is going to have such a lock on the public discourse that we will be reduced to the kind of pseudo-democracy that Russia has.
The obvious solution is to scare the investor class. I'm more unhappy about the AIG shit, the bailout first-reform 2nd plan, and the fact that it took a Brown win before Bernanke's re-appointment became less than a lock than I am about nearly anything else that doesn't involve PA liquor sales laws. I think a bit of sabre rattling there would work wonders.
Unions are the progressive counterpart to corporations, and they are dying. If we had a healthy union movement you could counterbalance this.
If we had better chickenwire on our henhouse, it wouldn't matter that the foxes were on steroids.
The insurance companies will be able to undo anything in the next election cycle.
See, this is why I'm not freaking out. There are already plenty of loser Dems who are making HCR nigh impossible. But what can AHIP possibly do between now and November to create a 60 vote majority for overturning HCR (if, by some miracle, the Dems get it done)? Even in the longer term, I just don't see that much power accruing to corporations.
But, mostly, it's that I already think our gov't is almost completely dysfunctional. This probably lowers the chances of things getting better, but since those chances were already 50:1 against....
Dave Johnson explains how now corporations are required to violate anti-bribery laws in order to fulfill their fiduciary duty to shareholders, and how easy it would be to prosecute, in theory.
Even in their heyday, I seriously doubt that unions had the kind of cash that today's corporations have sloshing around.
Democracy only works if half the people know what's good for them. If sensible votes are really so fragile, the US is screwed. Maybe so, but I don't see this as especially critical; election advertising is an epiphenomenon.
Not meaning to sound like a jerk, the news has been quite depressing lately, and this decision won't make things better.
but since those chances were already 50:1 against....
That still better than the Pirate's chance of breaking .500.
Yeah, there aren't any multinational unions. And by "any" I mean "any that are allowed to exist in the US".
My interests aren't represented by unions either.
And now that Dubai no longer looks like a safe investment in which to park all that oil-money...
21 "If sensible votes are really so fragile, the US is screwed."
Hi, I'm Scott Brown and this is my truck.
24: Me neither. I guess I sort of hope for balancing regardless.
The investor class ...
It's not the investor class, it's the CEO and Board of Directors' class. Investors have essentially zero practical effect on the actions of corporations - that's why CEO and Board compensation is so obscene.
US Corporations bend over backwards to comply with the FCPA, to their considerable disadvantage. Campaign contributions or funding think tanks and ads on one hand, and stuffing money in a suitcase to buy business on the other are different acts, should be labelled and treated differently.
The FCPA does something real to help keep other governments clean, it's an example of the US doing something right.
28: That reminds me of the website I dreamed of starting back when B of A stock went worthless on me while everybody in charge still got bonuses. I was going to create "ProxyFuck.com" and let small investors pool their shares and give their proxy to whoever had the best plan to make an impediment with the proxy.
I'm less depressed by this because I think that any prior regulation was almost completely ineffective.
As I understand it, you could do unlimited issue advertising already but you couldn't mention any candidates by name, and you couldn't coordinate your media strategy with a candidate you supported. Those are significant steps.
... let small investors pool their shares and give their proxy ...
Which works only for those who directly own their shares. For many (most?) small investors the shares are held through a mutual fund. That's certainly what I do, with most of my investments, to diversify and spread the risk.
At this point we have a de facto, although not de jure, direct conflict of interest between shareholders and Boards of Directors. If, for example, the Board wanted to fund campaign contributions and advertising in order to further limit minority shareholder rights, I don't see any way of stopping them.
32: I know that. Vanguard has done far better than I have at stock marketing and I now own very little actual stock. The idea was more along the lines of making a stink than having an immediate impact. I'm not sure if it is easier to make a stink with 100,000 shares (assuming this is still a trivial ownership stake) than 1 share.
It's not hard to avoid the worst-run industries or worst-run companies, except as components of whole-market index funds.
Activist shareholder funds usually attack especially badly-run companies in the hope of displacing management in order to sell assets. Usually when the company as a whole is worth less than the underlying asset, and usually with borrowed money. It's useful to have some of this activity, but it's no more heroic than the typical class-action scam. Millbrook is an example of a fund that does a lot of this.
That still better than the Pirate's chance of breaking .500.
LOOK IT'S ALL I HAVE NOW SO SHUT UP.
Oh, regarding corruption, government contracting in the US, though far from perfect, is really pretty clean compared to every other place that I know anything about, and it's a biig part of the economy. US shenanigans I know about are through minority-owned set-asides
I'm with LB on this. The decision is profoundly stupid as a matter of constitutional law -- and, depending on how the Courts treat corporate-speech rights in other cases, could have more serious, and worse, consequences -- but basically all the decision does is return us to the year 2000 world of campaign finance law. And I think generally that campaign finance reform is massively overrated as a means of getting to progressive politics -- corporate spending on political campaigns or on issue ads is about 230th on the list of the ways that corporate interests dominate society and politics.
I agree that the -- inexcusable -- failure to pass EFCA is a much bigger deal if your concern is building progressive politics.
This bothers me almost as much as watching GWB get re-elected in '04.
Yeah. Well, here's a little music appropriate to the mood.
DIE MOTHERFUCKER DIE MOTHERFUCK KILL FOOL
Heartened by the court's view that corporations have the same free-speech rights as citizens, opponents of campaign finance restrictions think the time is ripe to press the justices to go still further and do something not allowed since the robber-baron bribery scandals of a century ago: let corporations and unions give money directly to candidates.
"If all speakers are going to be treated the same, why wouldn't a corporation be able to make a contribution to a candidate" just as individuals and political action committees can? asked Jim Bopp, a conservative lawyer involved in several lawsuits that have scaled back campaign finance rules over the past few years, including the one decided Thursday.
Bopp thinks the conservative-leaning court might even go for a case arguing that donors should be able to give as much money as they want to a candidate: "You certainly have some justices who say that the contribution limits cannot be imposed at all."
Perhaps political parties will no longer be needed, except for candidates who opt out of the corporate finance system.
I reiterate my call to dissolve the senate of states and convene a senate of corporations.
I think I've said it before, but what the heck: The practical effect of conservative policies is aristocracy at home and empire abroad. Everything else is details.
I think we should go all the way with corporate personhood. Not only should corporations have the right to make unlimited contributions, they should be allowed to vote and run for office. Also they should be subject to the death penalty, imprisonment, and all the rest if they violate the law. Make the board of directors personally liable for criminal acts committed by the corporation.
Make the board of directors personally liable for criminal acts committed by the corporation.
This would be a goddamn transformative miracle.
See, togolosh is with me.
On the question of trying corporations, when convening a jury of their peers, need they be in the same industry, e.g. Mobil and BP for Exxon, or should they simply have similar market capitalization, e.g. Monsanto and GE?
I haven't read much about the decision, but tentatively I think it's great news, since it might move people away from fairly meaningless "supply side" restrictions on donations, in favor of the demand side solution, public financing. I don't think it would be as difficult as say health care to achieve. Arizona has it. That would be a real game changer. I don't see how this is a game changer. Corporate cash is already de facto fairly unrestricted, and the transparency doesn't achieve anything, all the corporate whores still get reelected with 70% until they retire.
our man Jamie had a funnier take: http://bloodandtreasure.typepad.com/blood_treasure/2010/01/and-i-for-one-welcome-our-new-viking-hegemon.html
44: Togolosh has it right. Full personhood for corporations. That would also grant other persons the justifiable homicide defense when that other person dumps toxic shit in the water or in the kid's cereal.
28
It's not the investor class, it's the CEO and Board of Directors' class. Investors have essentially zero practical effect on the actions of corporations - that's why CEO and Board compensation is so obscene.
This is not entirely true. On specific issues like expensing of stock options shareholder votes have had an impact. Shareholder resolutions restricting political contributions might have a chance.
Re 45, that's already something close to what the law already is, in practice. If you're on a BOD and have knowledge of a crime by the corporation, you will be doing time.
I think that supply-side campaign finance reform has basically been a giant waste of time and energy. For starters, most progressive legislation long predate campaign finance reform, which strongly suggests that what matters is building networks of power, not tinkering mildly with election spending rules. But even if it hasn't been, this decision doesn't change the rules that much -- political campaigns will now look like they did in the year 2000. Not that big a deal.
I'm more worried about the decision's potential to undermine other aspects of the regulatory state, like consumer protection, antitrust, and securities laws. It's possible to smuggle a lot of economic-libertarian bullshit into the Constitution via the first amendment, and maybe we'll see some of that, though I don't think it's too likely.
political campaigns will now look like they did in the year 2000
In the year 2000, the only Democrats elected president in my lifetime to that point were Jimmy Carter squeaking out a 50.1% win in the wake of Watergate, and Clinton, who won twice with less than 50% (including as an incumbent) thanks to Ross Perot's windmill-tilting. You're not comforting me.
50: Shareholder resolutions restricting political contributions might have a chance.
Not likely. All things being equal, the company with the ability to bribe lawmakers with political contributions is going to have better prospects than the company that does not. Hence, it will have a higher stock price. Hence, no critical mass of shareholders is going to vote to restrict political contributions for the simple reason that doing so would reduce the value of their stock.
53
Not likely. All things being equal, the company with the ability to bribe lawmakers with political contributions is going to have better prospects than the company that does not. Hence, it will have a higher stock price. Hence, no critical mass of shareholders is going to vote to restrict political contributions for the simple reason that doing so would reduce the value of their stock.
This is overly pessimistic. An index fund could support such resolutions for all companies without hurting itself. It is in the interest of the shareholding class as a whole to restrict bribes as otherwise the politicans will grab all the money.
54: It is in the interest of the shareholding class as a whole to restrict bribes as otherwise the politicans will grab all the money.
I disagrees here. Bribing politicians is relatively inexpensive, and is probably one of the most cost effective ways that companies can increase their value.
55
I disagrees here. Bribing politicians is relatively inexpensive, and is probably one of the most cost effective ways that companies can increase their value.
This is shortsighted. Politicians won't stay cheap if bribery is unrestricted. Sports team owners like salary caps, a bribery cap makes sense for the same reason.
55 I remember some top Silicon Valley guy in the late nineties who'd just gotten involved in lobbying saying he was amazed at how cheap it was to buy politicians.
Politicians won't stay cheap if bribery is unrestricted.
That's true only if there's no restriction on what a politician can do with the money. But corporate donations are still donations to a politician's campaign fund, which means that the marginal utility of extra corporate cash will at some level diminish quite quickly. That is, once business interests donate enough to a politician to handily crush any opponent, there's little incentive for the pol to demand more. The only circumstance in which the seller's market you hint at here will obtain is one in which there are opposing corporate interests at stake in a particular election.
But those Silicon Valley guys are used to paying over a million for a standard three bedroom house. They might not know what cheap is.
I think we are probably better off just auctioning off senate seats directly, and using the proceeds to pay down the deficit.
58
... That is, once business interests donate enough to a politician to handily crush any opponent, there's little incentive for the pol to demand more. ...
This isn't true. Politicians with extra campaign cash can give it to other politicians thus piling up the favors owed needed to actually do things.
61.last: But if the floodgates are opened, then pretty much anyone can get access to enough money to be competitive (I read recently that the threshold for "competitive" is surprisingly low - for a House seat in a normal media market, something like $100k* gets you basically as far as $1M - it's enough to be able to operate, buy some ads, hand out yard signs, etc.). Every shit district in this country has enough business interests to get any viable candidate to a decent campaign kitty.
* maybe more, but in the low 6 figures
I'll say this: my biggest immediate concern about this is that, from what I've read, there'll be no accountability in all this - it will be super-easy to launder corporate money, so that Senator X can get $5M from the Puppies and Ice Cream PAC, and there's no way - at all - to trace who gave it to the PAC. That would be a serious problem for anything even resembling accountability.
51 - It's like you think that Saint John McCain was somehow unserious about his soi-disant signature issue.
62
If that is true then there is nothing to worry about, the Democrats can get enough money to be competitive.
62: Is that 'competitive in an open seat' or 'competitive against an incumbent'?
the Democrats can get enough money to be competitive.
s/b indistinguishably corrupt from Republicans.
A million for a three bedroom in a nice neighbourhood? That is cheap.
67
s/b indistinguishably corrupt from Republicans
They aren't already?
I'm pretty sure there were more posts here about Guanatanamo when Bush was president than after. I hesitate slightly to draw particular conclusions from that fact. But it outrages me similarly to this decision.
No, James, they're not. The Republicans are entirely bought and paid for, while the Democrats are, eh, let's call it 75%.
Politicians won't stay cheap if bribery is unrestricted.
Shearer is right historically. Successful corrupt systems are self regulating, and people who get too greedy for their position in the scheme of things get stomped good style. This is because in successful corrupt systems the people who elbow their way to the top usually have a long view and don't want to ruin it for their kids.
Also, if American politicians are cheap now, they'll probably stay cheap, because their corporate paymasters won't see any mileage in upping their bribes when they can just get somebody else in instead. If this is the way it's going to go, you can either fight it or find the work rounds. Should you prefer the latter, I recommend concentrated study of British politics in the 18th century, which was enormously successful for everybody (except the common people).
"Get place and wealth, if possible with grace; if not, by any means get wealth and place." - Pope
To clarify, Unfogged not posting about it doesn't outrage me, the thing itself does.
As it should. I really have to get off my ass and write more posts. Come to think if it, I suppose that involves not getting off my ass.
75: I'm surprised that horrible duck face gets so much play.
Apparently the horrible-duckophile community is larger than we knew.
concentrated study of British politics in the 18th century
One thing that I enjoyed about the Patrick O'Brien novels was how the politics were so overt in the services. Even had serving line officers as MPs.
Is that 'competitive in an open seat' or 'competitive against an incumbent'?
Oh, open seat. But money doesn't actually make that big a difference in a race against an incumbent - they need to be endangered on the merits for money to matter at all. IOW, you can outspend an incumbent and still get spanked if s/he hasn't pissed anyone off/has a favorable partisan environment. But if the incumbent's in trouble, then you only need to cross a certain threshold, albeit a higher one.
The funny thing is that publicly owned corporations basically suck at being corporations. Aside from the ones that are literally pulling money out of the ground, they are all long-term failures.
81: Cite?
Not being snarky; I've just never heard this asserted before, and so I'm curious to hear more.
83: I don't have a cite, but I've been told (by ponies) that most public corporations stagnate long-term, while the juggernauts tend to be privately owned -- then they go public, everyone gets rich, and they start to suck too. There's some scholarship on this being due to the divorcement of ownership from responsibility and the drive to maximize quarterly profits. Energy companies don't really fit into this framework.
... they are all long-term failures.
Nonsense. Lots of corporations have prospered for hundreds of years. There's GM, and US Steel, and Montgomery Ward, and Sears, Woolworth's, and lots more. IBM has been around since they were making wall clocks in the 20s and they're still a leader in office equipment.
It makes intuitive sense, though, that where boards are basically competing with other boards to make people want to own their companies on a very short term basis, that they would have to do whatever they can to maximize profits that very instant, and that this would lead to some stupid long term decisions.
There's GM
This is a more subtle form of irony than I would have expected.
"been around" sure. But if you look at, say, IBM's performance over the past 50 years (to say nothing of GM's or Sears's) are you impressed? They aren't creating wealth very efficiently, if that's what they are supposed to be doing.
Pfizer seems to be doing okay.
I should add, as an addiitonal exception, companies who have been able to engineer complete market failures in their sectors.
Sorry. I thought that every company on that list was either gone into bankruptcy or a tiny shell of its former self. I intended it as irony.
I am saddened that this thread remains on topic when we could be bitching about the horrors of duck face.
I think the tendency of corporations to stagnate over time has less to do with being public or private, and more to do with the overall maturity of the markets they are competing in. Most companies of any size were the real go-getters when their market was new and expanding, then settled into mediocrity when their industry matured and their market stabilized and they were the fat incumbents who had been fortunate enough to survive. The long slow decline phase can take decades. But it seems to me that those are factors independent of being a publicly held company.
90: That's what I thought, but IBM kind of confused me. They still have a bit of life left in 'em.
90: So that's why the Monty Ward catalog hasn't been coming lately. I've had to cut fiber from my diet because today's shorter catalogs just don't last so long.
90: and I will apologize for my obtuseness. Apologies all around!
As someone who works with IBM software daily, I can avow that they do a great job of making huge sums of money out of terrible products. The key to their success it their market - bloated stagnant public corporations incumbent in their sector.
Hey, bitching about IBM still pays the larger portion of Buck's salary. Don't go implying that IBM's on its last legs -- it's got to stick around at least until Newt's out of college.
OTOH, I haven't slept in around 20 hours, so.
92: I can agree that there are other factors that can lead to a company's decline, but I don't think it's true that a mature market necessarily entails reduced performance. I can't think of a reason why it should.
I can avow that they do a great job of making huge sums of money out of terrible products.
Buck's comment on some particular line of IBM servers: "You can find better, but you can't pay more!"
85.
Limited liability via shareholding is old and stable, originating in Amsterdam. (Need ships, capital is locked up in Batavia) A really concise overviw is North's Art and Commerce in the Dutch Golden Age, maybe someone here recommended it initially? Absolutely wonderful book, nice thumbnail summary of the Dutch economy. Better than Schama IMO.
Anyway, maybe there's a post-WWII US argument for this, but I don't see it. The upside of being publicly traded is access to capital, against the centrifugal forces you correctly point out. Creating a legal entity that lasts for many decades is just not that important as long as there are low barriers to entry for new companies.
96: Right, the truth is that, in many sectors of the U.S. economy, all we have are bloated public corporations. They won't die right away; they'll just do a shitty job and make less money and create fewer jobs than their foreign counterparts.
...and then there's Apple, which keeps dying and rising phoenix-like from the ashes.
85: I think limited liability misses the point. There are limited liability private companies. The issue I'm alluding to - and I'm sure you could find better explanations elsewhere - is the effect of fluid ownership on long-term corporate decision making.
99: No low-hanging fruit. A new product or service can make a shitload of money because people want it and there isn't a lot of direct competition. Once the market is mature, there's more head-to-head competition and it drives down profit margins.
That's the argument as I understand it, anyway.
103: I used to wonder how, but now that I've gotten my hands on an iPod Touch, I really want one for myself. Does anybody know a big corporation that would pay me $300 + 8% tax (I won't sell-out unless I get the 16G one)? I'd be willing to vote however they wanted and I live in a swing state.
and rising phoenix-like from the ashes. incredibly stylish packaging
I've wondered about the department at Apple where they keep the genius cardboard-box designers. Do packaging designers dream of being hired at Apple?
Creating a legal entity that lasts for many decades is just not that important as long as there are low barriers to entry for new companies.
Assuming there were low barriers to entry and that the turgid public companies would not try to sabotage new entrants, I wouldn't think this is right. A lot of costs go into starting something new, and in dealing with the detritus of the old. What is the benefit of undertaking these costs?
The thing about duckface is that socializing now has (for kids) an intermittent element of posing for someone's camera. It's really striking behavior, based on my highly scientific sampling of glancing at kids in bars-- flirting via camera is not new, but it used to be a bigger deal.
Do packaging designers dream of being hired at Apple?
And do Android designers dream of electric boxes?
105: Right, but shouldn't competition drive the mature sector to being better, rather than more turgid? Even if individual companies' profit margins decrease, the entire sector's margins shouldn't.
108 s/b: I still wouldn't think this is right
Even if individual companies' profit margins decrease, the entire sector's margins shouldn't.
I can't really see how the sector's margins can diverge from the average margin of the companies in the sector. Is there something obvious I'm missing?
Dammit. Not that it was a funny joke anyway, but in 110 "Android" s/b "Droid".
No, I think 111 was dumb. I guess what I should have said is that even if margins go down in a mature market, you would expect to see more innovation out of a mature sector due to the competitive effect if there weren't some other factor at work, and I don't think that's the case.
What is the benefit of undertaking these costs?
How much does it cost to get rid of an entrenched corps of managers? Ineffective senior management is a huge liability. Starting from nothing is better than starting in a hole, which is the position of a new idea in a bureaucracy, unless it's a senior manager's idea.
Long-term decision making is important only if you have capital assets that are long-lived and profitable throughout their lifetime. If the expected profitable lifetime of allocated capital is short, who cares if the brief revenue stream is independent and market funded, or if it's a division of a larger entity?
116: I guess I'll concede your point on getting rid of managers, but a new company also has to attract qualified people from somewhere - attracting good managers seems like an equally important cost.
Is your second point that if the revenue lifetime is extremely short, who cares if the method of ownership requires extremely shortsighted decision-making? I guess that's true, but I can't think of a revenue life-time that would be short enough to make that type of decision-making most effective. Are there public companies designed to fail in 5 years?
116 also fails to take into account that what types of products to create and sell is itself a corporate decision. Quarterly reporting requirements might skew companies away from marketing long-term products and towards short-term ones. Is that a good thing?
A new manager will try to do something useful instead of protecting established turf-- ability is less important than effort, the actor less important than the role and its script.
For how many years was it profitable to make vacuum tubes? What about VCRs?
The useful lifetime of many research techniques in biotech is less than 20 years. I certainly don't know all the answers, but rapid turnover of technologies is one driver, I think.
The other line of reasoning that makes sense to me is Coase's transaction-cost approach to evaluating when cooperation is beneficial.
105: Right, but shouldn't competition drive the mature sector to being better, rather than more turgid?
Jeez, insensitive much?
I don't think it's true that a mature market necessarily entails reduced performance. I can't think of a reason why it should.
LB has kind of already gotten there, but: in a new market, growth comes along with the growth in the market - anyone who's in on the ground floor benefits from initial growth. As the market transitions from new to developing, the good companies out-compete their peers and take over their market share, thus growing. But, once a market's mature, there's the same basic amount of product being sold, a modest number of competing companies, and the easy (and even moderately hard) innovation has already happened. In steel, basically all the tech happened during Carnegie's adult lifetime. The next innovations were the basic oxygen process and the electric furnace, which came after WW2 - for 50+ years, there were no avenues for competing with USS and Bethlehem other than marginal efficiencies (which aren't enough to unseat an established market leader) or lower input costs (which turned out to be, more than anything, Brazilian labor).
All during that timeframe, USS can only grow by expanding the market (steel soda cans) or swallowing peer competitors (which isn't economically efficient or financially rewarding anyway - it's nominal, not real, growth). Theoretically a company can continue to be a major innovator - USS could have developed the BOP or gone quickly into electric furnaces - but in practice it's hard: there's tons of legacy costs, managerial inertia, and capital investment is going into new markets with greater growth opportunities (I doubt that USS could have raised a $billion in new capital in 1952 by announcing that they were going to scrap all their existing plants and move to a new tech).
Again, sorry about the failure of the [irony] tag.
I keep thinking of companies that used to be huge, and are now more or less gone, or at least have some serious problems. Ling-Tempco-Vaught. RCA. Rubbermaid. Douglas aircraft. Pan-am. TWA. AT&SF. AOL-Time Warner. Apparently GE is still in business, but I'm not sure what they actually produce. PP&G claims to be still around.
But somehow the brands I look for, the companies I have some affection for (other than Apple) all seem to be foreign, or new, or both. Toyota. Sony. Makita. What this country seems to be good at producing are behemoth companies resting on legacies (IBM?) or innovative business arrangements: mergers and acquisitions, CDOs.
Sorry, I'm just hating America today.
119: I don't see how Coase figures into this. The rule doesn't matter?
122.3: Actually, at least some innovation still comes from small American companies; the problem is that they're more likely to get swallowed by the old behemoths. To wit, I'd rather have a DeWalt tool than a Makita any day of the week, and twice on Sundays, but DeWalt was bought by Black & Decker 10+ years ago, and isn't nearly as strong as they used to be - in '95 they were simply the best* power tools available, now they're good, but not definitively better. It comes back to the M&A model of American corporate dominance, which you rightly deride.
* in their relevant segment
Theoretically a company can continue to be a major innovator - USS could have developed the BOP or gone quickly into electric furnaces - but in practice it's hard: there's tons of legacy costs, managerial inertia, and capital investment is going into new markets with greater growth opportunities.
Right, in practice it's hard because - among other reasons - companies are competing for capital based on quarterly profits. If you wanted to create a company that kept innovating, you would try to keep it private or put something in the by-laws requiring reinvestment in the company.
124: Is there a good American ladder manufacturer?
Greenwald doesn't seem to mind the decision all that much. Also, don't complain about it leading to bad results cuz that's just like what conservatives do when the court disagrees with their position!
For how many years was it profitable to make vacuum tubes? What about VCRs?
The reason these products stopped being profitable was that someone invented a better technology. I can't see why, as a company, you wouldn't want to be creating that new technology yourself rather than ultimately being defeated by it or trying to suppress it, other than that you can't keep a sufficient inflow of capital while also investing substantially in long term goals.
Theoretically a company can continue to be a major innovator - USS could have developed the BOP or gone quickly into electric furnaces - but in practice it's hard:
That's the problem. Innovation is hard. It's always a safer bet to stick with what you've done than to look for better ways, new products. And it always eventually fails. Pharmaceutical companies claim to be big innovators, but they're really not. IBM, Microsoft and their ilk haven't had a new idea since 1957. GM, still producing cars and trucks for the 60s.
on preview: Yeah, I too was thinking of DeWalt. Ridgid is the other one that's going that way. Ridgid vacuum cleaners and Ridgid boomboxes?? Puhleeze. Black and Decker produces crap.
Actually, this is a big problem in academia as well-- many people invest years learning some technique to solve a problem, solve the problem (or worse, don't, showing that the tool or the data are too weak to address the real question), and then have an allen wrench in a world of screws.
GE makes turbines. High-performance jet engines are not easy to make, at all. Chinese jets use Russian turbines, mostly, they can't make their own. Yet. Intel is an American company. So is Genentech, as well as all of the companies that have made pyrosequencing a reality. Roundup is an extremely clever way to profit from an apparently unprofitable and expensive technology. Retail brands are not especially important, mostly. Except cameras and typewriters, those were nice machines.
Coase's theorem establishes when employing someone makes more sense than contracting with them. APplies to divisions within a copmany vs independent entities as well.
127 Conservatives complain that bad decisions are the result of politics affecting 'impartial' originalist judicial reasoning, while good decisions are true to the only-right-reading of the constitution. Progressives say that all decisions are affected by values and politics, and they damn well should be good ones rather than bad ones.
I can't see why, as a company, you wouldn't want to be creating that new technology yourself rather than ultimately being defeated by it or trying to suppress it,
I blame Thomas Kuhn. Manufacturing and product innovation is like new scientific theories. Until the old farts who believe in the old products and processes die, you just can't change. Sunk psychologicl costs, or some such.
pwned by 130. Oh well.
on a sorta related note: the stock markets plummetted again today. I blame the MA election.
To belabor what may be obvious, but I didn't make explicit in 121: In a new/growing market, huge growth and profitability numbers are possible. In a mature market, growth of any kind is hard to come by*, and profits tend to be steady - USS made steady profits of, I dunno, 5% (+ inflation) a year for 50 years, which is fine, but doesn't attract the investment dollar that autos, aircraft, or electronics did over that time period.
Arguably, a privately-run enterprise has the twin benefits of A. realizing every bit of marginal improvements (0.1% extra profit doesn't make USS suddenly more attractive than IBM ca. 1940, but it makes a private owner happier), and B. having investors who benefit greatly from moderate but steady profits (a player of stocks only needs one big quarter to do well and move on; a business owner needs every quarter to be profitable). But I don't know that there are a lot of examples of long-running, privately-held companies that really provide useful counterexamples to MH Schneider's long list of failed and faded public corps.
* and can be counterproductive, if growth is pursued at the cost of profitability - see, again, Apple
put something in the by-laws requiring reinvestment in the company.
Carnegie was notorious among his fellow owners for reinvesting everything in Carnegie Steel - those guys didn't get super-rich until Gould created USS. Probably not a coincidence that very little innovation happened after USS was formed - a massive amount of capital left the business and entered the pockets of the original investors.
130: How long has Intel been publicly traded? 20 years? Genetech and its competitors are obviously even younger. In any case, innovating is difficult. It just appears that the pressure to please ownership on a quarterly basis makes it more difficult, as innovation requires significant long term investment.
Greenwald also claims
What is overlooked in virtually every discussion I've seen over the last 24 hours is how ineffective these campaign finance laws are. Large corporations employ teams of lawyers and lobbyists and easily circumvent these restrictions; wealthy individuals and well-funded unincorporated organizations are unlimited in what they can spend. It's the smaller non-profit advocacy groups whose political speech tends to be most burdened by these laws. Campaign finance laws are a bit like gun control statutes: actual criminals continue to possess large stockpiles of weapons, but law-abiding citizens are disarmed.
Ok, so why was it the corporations and not the non-profit advocacy groups who made the big push to get existing campaign finance law overturned? If the campaign finance system as existed favored the big corporations and kept the smaller groups down, you'd think the big corporations would be all for it - the way they've supported regulations that hurt small producers in the past. It's not always the case that organizations and individuals are able to identify and know their own interests, but this argument needs some more evidence.
At the very end he gets to public financing. Sure, that's a great idea. Better than some of the ideas about matching funds systems that, in their love of small donors, don't seem to realize that by tying participation to contribution they're advocating a sort of property qualification for (effective) voting. But is the route to public financing really going to go through unlimited corporate spending?
I also blame the stock market.
If you're buying stock the old fashioned way * then that extra .1% makes a difference. If you're willing to pay the present discounted value of the future predictable revenue stream, which you will receive as dividends, then every .1% helps.
But if you're gambling on the next new hot thing - radio, TV, disk operating systems, ISPs - then that .1% is nothing next to the 10,000% you can capture buy buying early and selling at the top of the bubble.
* an old fashioned way which was talked about when I was young, but which I don't believe ever actually existed.
The discussion of long-term success reminds me of the late Steve Ross' remark about Nabisco:
"Some genius invented the Oreo. The rest of us are just living off the dividends."
Genetech and its competitors are obviously even younger.
Genentech went public in 1980.
142 cont'd: And it was founded in 1976.
Okay, so if lots more money is going to be pouring into campaigns from corporations - where is it pouring into? That's clearly going to be a growth industry.
140: Sometimes, I take two dividend checks and put them in the same envelope for a Double-Stuffed.
144: I don't think its a given that lots more will be pouring in, at least in the short term. They are going to be able to spend more efficiently (i.e. before the election, with less weasel lawyering).
In unrelated news, when your navigation instructor tells you that a certain waypoint on your hiking route has a package of Double-Stuffs concealed under a cairn, he is lying.
Well, that's still a shift, from lawyering (sorry, guys!) to something else. TV? Yard signs? Magic vote-attracting rocks?
148: Did you have to dig through the cairn to find the lie?
150: Hope is, like Steven Seagal, hard to kill.
81 et al
The funny thing is that publicly owned corporations basically suck at being corporations. Aside from the ones that are literally pulling money out of the ground, they are all long-term failures.
It's like you guys never heard of creative destruction .
151: It would have been no more difficult, and much less cruel, to say there were hidden Hydrox cookies.
Hope is, like Steven Seagal, hard to kill. the thing with feathers
144
Okay, so if lots more money is going to be pouring into campaigns from corporations - where is it pouring into? That's clearly going to be a growth industry.
Broadcasters. There are only so many prime time ad slots before an election.
148: Are you absolutely sure it was the right cairn? Possibly more finely honed navigational skills would have led you to the Oreos.
155: Remind me to up my Netflix. Specter is on the ropes and has two reasonably well-funded opponents.
156: A lot of cairns look alike! I got lost badly lost so badly lost I had to sit down and tell myself not to panic confused only like once, OK?
A lot of cairns look alike!
Racist.
Actually, come to think, what exactly are you doing, and is it right around NYC? Sally did some orienteering kind of thing on a school trip once and was delighted, but I'm not really sure how to get into it around here -- googling left me confused. Is there some NY area school or club, and is it the kind of thing that would have kid/teen stuff going on?
162: Oh, wow. Yeah, that's over Sally's head for a while.
162: How does wiping with leaves help you navigate?
It avoids that distractingly itchy sensation you get if you don't wipe? That can really kill your focus.
164: Leaving a trail of soiled leaves behind you helps to retrace your steps.
166: I guess birds won't eat the trail like with "Plan Breadcrumb."
161: The school has conducted some less-hardcore programs for schoolchildren, but it is pretty hardcore just to get there. For the kid-tween-early-teens age, there may be orienteering/hiking-specific programs, but glancing at NOLS and Outward Bound don't turn up anything directly on point. Nearby, there's Tom Brown, but I doubt he offers anything for kids. There are some NY/NJ orgs listed here, and places like Paragon have bulletin boards and staff who might know of something specific, but they might also just recommend the Girl Scouts, and I don't know much about the GSs in NYC, though I do know some people in the Boy Scouts.
...though I do know some people in the Boy Scouts.
Let's all just take the low-hanging fruit comments as read, shall we?
Oh, wow. Yeah, that's over Sally's head for a while.
"Moooom, do I hafta gooo?"
"Yes! Urban living has made you soft, my child. It's time for you to learn how to really live. And if you don't make it back, then I guess we learned something else, didn't we?"
Q: What is most likely to cause the most trouble for an infantry platoon?
A: a 2nd Lt. with a map and a compass.
How does wiping with leaves help you navigate?
It doesn't, but it does make you eager to get the hell out of the wilderness.
||
I raised my hand, but Obama never called on me, probably because there were a thousand people there and I was way in the back. I'm pretty sure most of the questioners were not plants, because the questioners were weird, awkward, and sincere.
Almost every question went like this: "I have a problem. It is really complicated and you can't figure out what is going on from my quick fragmented account. Can you help me." Obama's replies would go like this: "Obviously, I can't address your particular situation, so let me talk about policy issues related to your issue and my staff will talk to you after the meeting."
I think Clinton could have played this room better. He could show empathy for the person before passing the buck on their specific problem and then wonking out.
Sample problems:
My child has lead poisoning, and I've phoned the EPA, but they can't help me.
I own a company that trains truck drivers, and my students aren't getting Federal financial aid any more.
I have a patent--and let me advertise all the things it can do--but my intellectual property rights are not being respected overseas.
I'm trying to set up a factory, and I need a loan. Also, GM is sitting on an important turbine patent that I need.
The last guy, I think, was hoping Obama would whip out a checkbook right there.
|>
Looks like we are going to see Alvin and the Chipmunks, the Squequel tonight. But I am concerned because I have not seen the first chipmunks movie. HOW WILL I KNOW WHATS GOING ON????
174: I think that was also a question asked of the president at the town hall meeting.
Did anyone ask Obama why he thinks the post-election conversation has been all about him?
I'm impressed at how self centered that list of questions is. Nobody really gives a shit about justice or international affairs or the massive structural problems facing the country. Its all about "what can you do for me?"
Never mind healthcare or politics, here's something that just made me laugh:
Among the experiments you've conducted, what's your favorite?
The wallet study. We dropped 200 or so wallets, and tried to see if certain types of content would make people more likely to return them. That was funny, in part because it turns out dropping wallets is an absolute nightmare. It's a social psychology nightmare, because you have to drop them quite a distance from one another. You don't want someone walking down the street, finding five wallets. So you have to walk about half a mile between each drop, and timing that by 200, it turns into quite a drawn-out study.
And then you discover how difficult it is to drop a wallet these days. You drop a wallet, and you walk off, and then there's someone behind you going "excuse me, you dropped this wallet." And you're, kind of, "Back off, it's science. Put it back exactly where I dropped it."
And the drop zones are very carefully calculated, so that they're not too close to bins and letterboxes, so you've got to walk around the block and drop it again, and if the same person sees you, they think you're insane. So those things were quite good fun. I dropped one wallet, and sort of stood nearby to see if anyone picked it up. A policeman came along, picked it up, looked at it, walked over to a litter bin and dropped it inside.
Reading it in the Eddie Izzard voice somehow makes it even funnier.
Why was the outcome of "person immediately giving you back the wallet unopened" eliminated from the research design?
Anyway, a few months ago, I found five forty dollars. The guy I'm sure dropped it didn't want to claim it, probably in denial that anything could have fallen out of his wallet. Or maybe it was counterfeit. I split it with a classmate who was also in line with me at the time and spent my 20 on groceries.
Why was the outcome of "person immediately giving you back the wallet unopened" eliminated from the research design?
Because they wanted specifically to see what people did in cases where the owner of the wallet was not in sight.
Ian Welsh on the SCOTUS decision.
So, my advice to my readers is this.If you can leave the US, do. Most of the world is going to suffer over the next decades, but there are places which will suffer less than the US: places that have not settled for soft fascism and a refusal to fix their economic problems. Fighting to the very end is very romantic, and all, but when you're outnumbered, outgunned, and your odds of winning are miniscule, sometimes the smartest thing to do is book out. Those who came to America understood this, they left countries which were less free or had less economic hope than America, and they came to a place where freedom and opportunity reigned.
That place, that time, is coming to an end. For your own sake, and especially for the sake of your children, I tell you now--it is time to get out.
180: Sure, but if your question is what chances do you have of getting your wallet back if you drop it somewhere (in general, rather than in one specific situation), eliminating what appears to be the most common situation of dropping it in view of someone else who sees it's yours, doesn't seem like the best design.
I have not read Witt's link. I guess I should, but it's on the Freakonomics blog and anyway, I stupidly signed up for a Saturday class and need to stop procrastinating and do the reading. (The instructor kindly amended the syllabus two days before class to add multiple readings.)
but if your question is what chances do you have of getting your wallet back if you drop it somewhere
Sure, but that's not the question. They were looking at what features of the wallet made people more likely to return them.
Oh never mind. It was a test of wallet finders, not a test of wallet droppers.
Let me get that argument straight: Because, 30 days before an election, corporations can air ads on TV explicitly endorsing a candidate (as opposed to "call Senator X and tell him to stop murdering cute puppies" ads, which they were always free to run) we're living in a facist state? But we weren't on Monday? And we weren't in 1999 when the rules were exactly what they are now? Come on.
172: I thought you were making reference to the work of the noted evolutionary proctologist Koffi N. Ema and his theory that bipedalism, because of the inter-check chaffing, requires opposable thumbs as the only way to get clean enough for ambulatory comfort.
187:Well I think we are in a fascist state because of the complacency, compliance, and corruption of our intellectual elites. But it is a complex question.
Now I have to go tell Lemieux that yesterday's decision was no big deal. He has written at least 4 pieces about it.
But I think he is mad at me already, so why don't you go tell him?
75, 76: The OKCupid profile pics thing -- of course I had to go see what a "duck face" was. Imagine my surprise at finding no mention of it at the link in question. It must be the flirty-face.
I got a third of the way through that article before deciding that since the age range of most of the charts is 19-32 -- or rather, 31 -- OKCupid is a very, very specific place. I'd somewhat known that, but still. 31?
If you're over 31, your life is over. Everyone knows that. 3 more years until social death for me!
192: Go get my denture cream and be quiet.
People over 31 do their online dating on paper.
Or via blog, or downright email discussion list. Email! None of this web 2.0 crap.
||
The derivation claims to be different, but can this really be a coincidence?
Becksting: Texting after one too many fine imported lagers
|>
194, 195: Every heterosexual couple over the age of 40 started dating after he stood outside her place with a boombox held over his head?
Or a drunken encounter at somebody's party.
Music from an elevated boombox is more romantic as a hypothetical future event than as an actual past event. The Dobbler effect, they call it.
197: Well, there was throwing pebbles at the window, anyway. Also this thing called the telephone. Parties and whatnot. You know. The occasional morse code.
199: But now-a-days, you'd have to buy ear buds with 25 yard cords to even have the possibility.
200: And bangs lifted so they would hit the top of the door frame. I'm not sure why, but the bigger the bangs, the better your odds.
202: I beg your pardon. Some of us have dated for more than the short span of years in which big bangs were the thing. Maybe six-pack abs will go out of style one of these days. Maybe cleavage will.
Does anybody even have a boombox these days? (I do, two even, but I they're for private use only.)
.--. .- .-. ... .. -- --- -. / ..- .-. / ... . -..- -.--
you know it, Parsi.
Some of us have dated for more than the short span of years in which big bangs were the thing.
Next you'll be telling me that acid washed jeans and Reeboks are out.
Maybe cleavage will
Has cleavage (or the seductive hiding of it, with a fichu or the like) ever been out of style?
Acid washed jeans are out. Reeboks are, I think, out. Sorry, man. North Face is in. Tevas are out. I cannot speak to Birkenstocks.
Halford, I don't know if I should look that up.
Dude, acid washed jeans and Reeboks are totally back in.
Tevas are out.
Nobody can take my Chacos from me.
Halford, I don't know if I should look that up.
Aside from this, I'm all out of ideas.
210: Search "Morse code translator" instead. Back in my day, we used to have to send messages in Morse all the time, so I don't need the translator.
208: Crap! I suppose tight jeans and stilettos are back in too. Cowl neck sweaters?
If we're going to do this, can we at least reintroduce the black turtleneck and beret as well?
Thank you Robert Halford. That kind of thing works a charm.
Crack, Pantera, and Bud Dry are also making a comeback, in my basement.
We never had "Bud Dry Money." We drank Old Milwaukee and used the cases for furniture until we had enough to return for a new case.
Cowl neck sweaters?
In a bouclé knit, of course.
173 is interesting.
Cowl neck sweaters
In the latest animated Scooby-Doo series, they've really done a lot to make Velma fill her sweater much better than back in the old series.
Also Daphne, while still a spoiled rich girl, now she can kick ass and doesn't fall into traps set by the rest of the team.
When The Economist did a wallet dropping test with a few hundred francs and a card with address and phone number in a whole bunch of developed countries, Switzerland came out last in returns with money. Even more amusing, all the returns came from non-Swiss poor migrant workers.
As a kid I once found a wallet in a highway restaurant stop parking lot with a whole bunch of money. My parents got the staff to page the name, and the good Swiss burgher couple was in shock at getting it back. They did insist on giving us ten percent. That's the law and the Swiss are very law abiding, at least when you have their name and there are a bunch of witnesses around.
Beer money? Cheapest way of getting drunk is plastic bottle liquor. Cheap wine wasn't much of a stretch either. Back in the early nineties in college you were able to get Romanian and Bulgarian wines for three bucks a bottle. Only had to pour it into the sink once.
Something called Boone's Farm served the same purpose as Bulgarian wine. I never could drink it unless I was drunk already, but I remember it costing like five bucks a bottle. Only hobos drank cheaper wine.
173 is interesting.
I heard the last half hour of the Ohio town hall meeting on CSPAN radio -- the last couple of questions that Rob describes. I admit was waiting to hear the next questioner introduce himself as Professor Chalk, with a hostile question about Guantanamo or something.
It was pretty clear that the Ohioans given airplay were concerned primarily about jobs and the economy, in any case, as well as the extent to which government programs might be of help. Interesting, yes.
How's New Jersey, MC?
Something called Boone's Farm served the same purpose as Bulgarian wine
I highly doubt that Boone's Farm wine is anywhere near the most economical way to get drunk. Not that I don't enjoy a good bottle or four of that apple wine hooch now and again.
If you're going to put an ab shot in your Okcupid profile, just make sure it's not digitally enhanced, or people will "take things into their own hands" to knock you down a peg.
There was also the guy who just wanted to shake Obama's hand, and the guy who'd written him a poem.
Over here it's the case that if you can afford the initial set up costs, and you don't care about taste too much, really quick turnover homebrew's the second cheapest way to get drunk.
The cheapest is home distilled spirits.
223: Maybe it was more than that, but it couldn't have been that expensive. I remember getting beers that were less than $4/six pack, but I could be wrong on that also.
219 -- Oddly enough, I have a directly contrary anecdote. When I was in Geneva, I went to a Saturday Night public dance/party sponsored by some neighborhood association in the Vielle Ville and lost my wallet while drunk. The next morning (Sunday) the wallet was returned to my door by a member of the neighborhood group, who had, within 10 hours on a weekend (a) figured out who I was and (b) learned somehow the exact address of my dorm, which I'd been living in for three weeks. All the money was there. I was like, God Bless You, creepy small surveillance state.
So, wrong again, Economist!
I was always partial to a 40 oz bottle of Mickie's Fine Malt Liquor. I cannot recommend the 64 oz bottle of Mickie's Ice.
How's New Jersey, MC?
Well, apart from the political corruption...it's great! I love it here, I truly do. I used to have such a negative perception (or rather, misperception) of New Jersey...I suppose from hearing snide comments about "which exit?" and also perhaps from visiting probably the worst IKEA in the country (in Elizabeth?). But I'm very glad we made the move. And our town has not one but two independent bookstores, so.
I don't think I've ever had malt liquor. It just never came up.
231: How many people do you know with nicknames for their abdominal muscles?
Yes, very much so. This was during the Escalade. "ainisi perit les ennemis de la Republique de Geneve!"
A friend of mine once chugged 40 oz of Colt 45. Unfortunately, it was a 45 oz bottle. Those last 5 oz just wouldn't stay down.
Maybe it was more than that, but it couldn't have been that expensive.
No, it is cheap. It just isn't that alcoholic. If I chug a bottle I can get a slight buzz for about 10 min.
You people with your Boone's Farm and your beers that were less than $4/six pack are making me sick to my stomach just in the reading. There was some beer referred to as "green death" that friends in high school used to drink when they knew perfectly well that they expected to pass out around the fire, but I can't for the life of me recall what it was.
231: And our town has not one but two independent bookstores, so.
Excellent. Glad to hear it. You were silent for long enough that I was beginning to wonder.
Cheap wine is normally the cheapest way to get drunk here (excepting the homebrew, of course), except for when there's stupid specials on the C/a/n/t/e/r/b/u/r/y Draught* or the cheap liquor.
Annoyingly, there's an MP from around here who really wants to get rid of cheap alcohol, and it kind of pisses me off. I know it's selfish and immoral and all, but fuck it, I want my NZ$7 bottle of plonk.
* Handy tip: any NZ beer with Draught in the name is going to be, er, rough around the edges.
237: I drink perfectly nice beer now.
Chocolate cauldrons and marzipan vegetable soup. I loved Escalade as a kid. (The city was saved from the evil Catholic Savoyard forces by a properly diligent Calvinist housewife, la Mere Royaume, cooking for her family in the wee hours. She heard the treacherous papist enemies scaling the walls and dumped her family's dinner on them. The screams of the scalded soldiers raised the alarm and the city of Calvin was saved.)
How many people do you know with nicknames for their abdominal muscles?
Well, as a matter of fact...actually, it's a matter of mere conjecture, but: the other day I got my hair cut, and hair stylist guy struck me as someone who might have that sort of nickname. He told me his mother goes to Atlantic City almost every weekend to play the slot machines, and he also asked me if I wanted to "know the real meaning of F-U-C-K" (and then proceeded to give me an unbelievably nonsensical explanation of the origin of this term). God I love this place.
Can pwnage be securitized and resold?
Perirent. In my defense, my English sucks, too.
On preview: mad dog 20/20 will do the trick cheaply, with bonus insane violence thrown in.
229: we had 40oz Friday in college--bring your Olde English to multivariable calculus, drink when prof was writing on the board.
Well, apart from the political corruption...it's great!
Until the rabbis come for your organs.
Or so the mullahs would have you believe.
Or was that NY? Anyway, occasionally check that your Mary Catherine parts are still undetached.
Until the rabbis come for your organs.
Hey, it's not organ theft, it's "matchmaking".
Wasn't that shocking?!
Matchmaker, matchmaker bring me a match
I'll bring the steel
You bring the groom
Slender and pale
Bring me a kidney for I'm longing to be
Healthy for all to see
So, what, you guys got tired of the mob? Normal corruption not good enough for you?
Or was that NY?
I think there was a Brooklyn connection. So: both NY and NJ. Just like the Sopranos!
But Jersey is not just for mobsters, I hasten to add.
New Jersey is for gamblers hooked to oxygen tanks, from what I've seen.
drink when prof was writing on the board
I drink when the students are looking down, taking notes.
Aw, I was supposed to go out drinking tonight, but my companion was too moody to leave the house, so I am sitting at home, stone sober, braiding my hair. Yes, I am braiding my hair.
But she's braiding it like a rock star!
Alternately, she's braiding it like Milton!
Or, possibly, like Milton's Satan!
I don't think there's any such thing. I've tried about five different arrangements, and I always end up looking like Heidi.
You could always drink at home while braiding the hair.
The drink options here are slim, but I decided that was the best course of action, now that I've tired of braiding. Campari.
On the wallet-losing thing, someone recently found eekbeat's wallet outside a café around 90th Street and Central Park West, googled the Virginia driver's-license address (her parents'), and called the listed Virginia phone number for that address. Wallet made its way back to eekbeat's NYC school later that afternoon. Yay, NYC.
On the malt-liquor thing, a band I played in went through a Sparks-drinking phase I remember not fondly.
259: My hair is way too short to braid.
I just found myself sitting here thinking "is midnight too late to start drinking? the internet will tell me!" And lo, it has.
The advantages of being back from Europe: fresh bottles of Calvados and bison-grass vodka. My parents always supply with booze when I see them.
262 At least you have hair you could in theory grow out and braid. My braiding days are permanently over.
I think a lot of my bad habits can be alleviated by just starting later in the day. Midnight is a fine time for a first drink!
I am drinking and watching Conan O'Brien make fun of NBC.
is midnight too late to start drinking?
It's never too late, though it's almost always later than you think.
Standpipe, are you Btock-style?
267: The exit-interview thing is pretty good.
264: Can I go see your parents? I'm unfamiliar with bison grass vodka, but I loves me some calvados.
Sadly, just daydreaming about being Brock-style.
Midnight is a fine time for a first drink!
So I have concluded! Though I feel somewhat guilty, because I'm in a celebratory mood after a week that went surprisingly well in many ways, but then there's that whole "collapse of American democracy" thing looming in the background.
It's hard to get a buzz from port, because the alcohol is precisely offset by the sophistication.
The same is not true of Nyquil.
You'll all just have to trust me that I hdon't have a probalem.
275: That's why port is a late-in-the-day drink, silly.
Because the end of the night is the time to be sophisticated?
As the adage goes: starboard before port, you come up not short; port before starboard, snargly smickelby smarboard.
272 I got sick of Calvados for a while since my parents kept buying it for me. So they didn't for a couple years and now its the ideal winter drink again. The advantage of actually visiting them rather than seeing them in Poland is that I can get anything I want at dirt cheap prices. The UN dipliomatic store is nice.
The collapse of democracy is a great reason to drink. Poles drank like crazy during martial law. Also more fucking - 'it's past curfew' is as good an excuse as there is for staying the night.
The thread veered off topic ages ago, but: in other news of creeping corporatism, we have a special election going on. At issue are two tax measures referred by the state legislature, one of which would raise the corporate minimum tax from $10 (yes, $10) to $150. The most recent poll shows momentum for the "no" side, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if both go down (the other raises the rate on household income over $250,000). Oregonian lurkers, and even perhaps others, might like to see this cost-benefit analysis.
Also, lecture completed, delivered. Am now drinking a pleasant Aglianico.
The insane violence is not a bonus. It is inherent.
bison-grass vodka
Oh man am I jealous. I had some of that a few years ago, and while I wouldn't want to drink it all the time, it's awesome.
Re: the collapse of American democracy, my modest proposal is that the US finally abandon all of that emulation-of-the-ancients toga-party res publica stuff, and return to some sort of parliamentary system, and maybe even join the Commonwealth as a post-post-colonial partner or something like that. Give up the principle of judicial review in exchange for the principle of parliamentary supremacy, in other words. Yes, admittedly you would have to pledge yourselves the humble and obedient servants of a ridiculously archaic Crown, but on the other hand: imagine Scalia and Thomas rendered powerless and even irrelevant at one bold stroke!
(And this blog was so much better when Emerson was here to tell me what's wrong with what I just wrote above).
Wait, aren't you Canadian? Isn't that like, the founding idea of your country?
Wait, aren't you Canadian? Isn't that like, the founding idea of your country?
return to some sort of parliamentary system
One in which no Americans had direct representation? Or an American one that never existed?
It makes sense that RobertRobert would double-post.
Maybe we could just join Canada and become the 11th province.
291: We could become the Canadian federal territory "Sumavut".
Let's just merge with Canada and give each of the Canadian provinces two senators plus another four Canadian wide ones to represent the distinctive interests of Canada.
285 Hope you had the real stuff and not the artificially flavored version you can sometimes get in the States. The real stuff is illegal.
287-88: Guilty as charged. There really isn't a founding idea of Canada, I think, because there never was a dramatic founding/foundational moment, more a gradual and boringly civil and as yet incomplete break away from the Mother. But "peace, order, and good government" would be the default, I guess.
289: No, no, you could have direct representation, sure. Westminster doesn't really want to have to give a shit, and much of that monarchical shit is just for the tourists, anyway. The thing is to get an elected parliament that can tell the appointed-to-life-tenure judges where to get off.
Westminster doesn't really want to have to give a shit, and much of that monarchical shit is just for the tourists, anyway.
Yeah, unless some rogue wants to prorogue something, THEN the governor-general wields her mighty power.
The real stuff is illegal.
Hmm. Apparently because it contains something called coumarin that is banned as a food additive. But what does "banned as an additive" mean? If it's naturally part of the bisongrass, why is it an "additive"?
It sounds like you would have to drink half a liter of it on a daily basis for an extended period for it to be dangerous.
Alternatively, you could go the other route and think statehood. Two senators (plus at least one congressperson) from each of the following: Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Palau, Marshall Islands, and The Federated States of Micronesia.
I believe it exists as an additive but it is also naturally found in a number of plants, one of them being the favorite food of Polish bison - hence the name.
Oh, and Washington, DC, but that may require a constitutional amendment, so maybe less easy.
294: I had it at a Russian restaurant in Montreal. (And this was prior to 1999, which is apparently when the artificially-flavored version came on the market.)
Something else bison-related: I was under the impression that there was once an animal known as the American buffalo which was not the bison and has been extinct for a long time. But Google doesn't seem to be supporting this. Did I just make it up?
Oh, and Washington, DC, but that may require a constitutional amendment, so maybe less easy.
Because Puerto Rican statehood is easy?
303: I haven't checked the polls on it recently. I should do that. It used to be about 50/50, among Puerto Ricans.
Moreover, I thought we'd disabused ourselves of the possible awhile ago, hater.
I believe it exists as an additive but it is also naturally found in a number of plants, one of them being the favorite food of Polish bison - hence the name.
But given that Wikipedia tells me it also occurs in chamomile, which the FDA doesn't ban, it seems that it isn't always banned when naturally occurring in some ingredient of food. But it is when that ingredient is bisongrass. There must be some further subtlety to what the FDA does and does not prohibit.
I was shocked to find out that there are bison in Europe (in the section about Romanian bears in this great book.. I always thought that was one of the supposedly utterly weird organisms that the early European explorers of North America were baffled and awed by, like the turkey and the redwood.
Although it should really be called the "zimbru", which is much snappier name than "wisent".
The American bison and the American buffalo are the same thing. Or so says An/drew Isen/berg, I'm pretty sure.
303: I haven't checked the polls on it recently. I should do that. It used to be about 50/50, among Puerto Ricans.
Apparently it's more than half who prefer statehood now, so maybe it's easier than I thought. I'm remembering the possibly-skewed version of Puerto Rican politics I heard from a former roommate four or five years ago.
The American bison and the American buffalo are the same thing. Or so says An/drew Isen/berg, I'm pretty sure.
And every source that I'm finding on Google. Wacky! This is one of those things I've "known" since I was, like, eight, so I have no idea where I formed the misconception that the buffalo was an extinct species.
My cursory search for Puerto Rican statehood suggests there exists a movement against it from people in the already admitted states. In part because Puerto Ricans tend to speak a different language. Fucking fuck balls. Assholes. Learn Navajo or Creole; then we'll still not talk language restrictions.
Gah, this is one of my pet peeves of language politics.
I have no idea where I formed the misconception
My son's second-grade teacher? Early this year, she told his class that the buffalo and bison were different creatures. I happened to be volunteering that day, and I just sat there, uncomfortable and unsure of what to do next as she went on and on. (I did nothing; it's her classroom.) Anyway, I think it's a common misconception.
Learn Navajo
I tried. It didn't go well. Cheyenne seems much easier, though still I'm not very good at that one either.
Or so the bison would have you believe.
There are those who say that buffalo refers to an old world animal and bison refers to a new world one. That could easily be confused for saying that buffalo and bison are different animals in North America.
... and I'm spending entirely too much time trying to figure out this whole coumarin thing. The FDA website appears to say it's only banned when added directly or in the form of tonka beans, so it's somewhat puzzling why the bisongrass vodka is prohibited.
There are those who say that buffalo refers to an old world animal and bison refers to a new world one.
But there's a European bison that looks a lot like the American one. And then there are the Asian and African buffaloes that look nothing like the European or American ones.
And then there are the Asian and African buffaloes that look nothing like the European or American ones.
That's the distinction I learned (with bison substituted for buffalo in the Euro-American context, but with buffalo referred to as "common" usage.)
I don't have particularly strong feelings on the terminology.
If Europeans already had a species of buffalo/bison, why did they have to import a different kind for cheese-making?
The American camel and the American elephant are extinct. I recall reading that they found the bones of an American elephant in a meteor crater in Texas. The internet seems not to know about this.
There was a European water buffalo, Bubalus murrensis, which is extinct. So apparently the "current buffalo are bison and the actual buffalo are extinct" factoid is true in Europe.
Apparently there was an animal called the "bison priscus" which was the common ancestor of both the american bison and the wisent.
I was taught that "buffalo" properly referred to the cape buffalo or Asian creature, and bison was the "proper" term for the American creature, which had a weird Polish cousin. The scientific name for the American creature is Bison Bison, which is pretty sweet.
And then there's Buffalo, NY, which is just a corruption of "beau fleuve." Buffalo buffalo buffalo bison bison.
My new favorite example of Pleistocene megafauna is the Dire Wolf.
I hope no one went to bed hoping to wake up to insightful and on-topic comments.
At least monthly, I take my 2 year old to see a giant wall of dire wolf skulls. This is one of the great treasures of Los Angeles. She calls it "dire wolf skull wall."
The screams of the scalded soldiers raised the alarm and the city of Calvin was saved
And yet when they celebrate a similar story about the Derry apprentice boys they're damned as oppressors.
/troll
286. You could happily join the Commonwealth without swearing alliegeance to the ridiculously archaic crown. Do you imagine people in the Republic of India do this much? (Whether the Commonwealth would let you in is another question.)
In fact, joining the Commonwealth is surprisingly easy --- you don't even have to have put up with British colonisation these days, which rather makes me think what's the point, to be honest.
(Did you know that Republics used to have to leave the Commonwealth when they became Republics then apply to be re-admitted? This was how they suspended South Africa* once: it got rid of the Queen and applied for re-admittance, and India and a bunch of others said uh no.)
* could be wrong & don't quote me.
what's the point, to be honest.
I've often wondered. Yet Mozambique was really keen to get in (they did), and both Israel and Palestine have factions who want to parlay the Mandate into membership. Is there some advantage I don't know about?
I dunno. In the early sixties it looked like it might become something like what the EU became, but that was scunnered by some British politicians playing for the racist vote, and the EU happening.
These days, I think it gets you a better hearing in London & Canberra & Delhi &c; I think Commonwealth nationals get visa stuff easier*; and, of course, you get to go to CHOGM. Oh, and the Games.
* When I went to Malaysia, having an NZ passport was a benefit. If I was looking to work there, I reckon it would have been a big help. But, on the other hand, Indian (?) nationals didn't get the same commonwealth treatment.
Mozambique was also sort-of about France, wasn't it? A kind of, well fuck you, there are other post-colonial-relic games in town?
334. I must have missed that. I think Portuguese ex-colonies get a lot of preferential treatment in Lisbon, but then again, who cares?
Through some weird twists of fate, I worked briefly doing fundraising for a senior House Democrat in charge of regulating a crucial industry . . . And the idea that these firms are throwing money at lawmakers is dubious. If that's true, how come I hardly ever got my calls returned? And I listened in during call time, which is when the legislators would call lobbyists for donations. I didn't hear any deals being made . . . I think to a large extent, donations are a kind of Pascalian wager . . . We don't really think this will work, but it's worth $10,000 a year on the off chance that it might get our side a hearing when some really bad legislation is coming down the pike. And there is alot of really bad legislation that hurts not only businesses but more importantly consumers . . . Look at the credit card bills that were recently passed. They didn't hurt the banks, they hurt credit card users. Same for the overdraft fees issue. Now you're going to be paying for your checking account.
Let's just merge with Canada and give each of the Canadian provinces two senators plus another four Canadian wide ones to represent the distinctive interests of Canada.
This misses the point that one of the biggest benefits of joining Canada is that we get to get rid of the Senate.
Bison grass vodka is lovely, and I really wish I'd bought more of it when I was in Poland. Anyone visiting me from Poland should always feel free to bring me a bottle.
||
If I were a woman and rich, I'd pay big bucks for these. Most of the rest of the line as well, but especially those.
|>
I didn't mean to kill the blog. Sorry.
Everyone's too busy staring at legs in stockings to comment.
in the section about Romanian bears in this great book.
Ned is right - that is such an awesome book.
And the idea that these firms are throwing money at lawmakers is dubious.
I have another (and more serious) proposal: term limits for Supreme Court justices. Would this be even remotely possible?
It really bothers me that Roberts is going to sit on the Court for decades (he's only in his 50s, right?), pretending to judicial modesty and restraint and etc while actually behaving like a wild-eyed radical in the service of his pro-corporate ideology.
339: Those are really great. If I had an extra €40 lying around, I'd get the black ones with weather clouds.
here is alot of really bad legislation that hurts not only businesses but more importantly consumers . . . Look at the credit card bills that were recently passed. They didn't hurt the banks, they hurt credit card users. Same for the overdraft fees issue. Now you're going to be paying for your checking account.
Shearer has an ally on his lonely outpost of Unfogged conservatives.
347
Shearer has an ally on his lonely outpost of Unfogged conservatives.
Actually I didn't oppose the new regulations:
It appears a law imposing new regulations on credit card issuers will be passed soon. I generally approve of restraining businesses (and others) from taking advantage of idiots as long as this can be done without imposing excessive costs on sensible people. Being sensible I pay my credit card balance in full every month. The new law doesn't appear likely to raise my costs significantly so is unobjectionable in that sense. On the other hand I don't think it actually does all that much to protect idiots from themselves. That would require more significant and controversial measures like interest rate limits, higher minimum payments and the like.
339: Or if you were less restricted by societal gender norms and willing to spend limited funds in frivolous ways.
Those are really weird stockings. I didn't see any candycane ones. That would be cool.
I think I would go irremediably in love with anyone I saw wearing those stockings.
What if she had those stockings and an XKCD t-shirt?
That beard video is great.
It is! I just sent it to a bunch of folks.
I'm most strongly attracted to toplessness, so I'm safe from that particular problem.
356 was to 354, but 355 may also work.
What if she had those stockings and an XKCD t-shirt?
First, one must attempt to discern whether she is wearing the xkcd t-shirt ironically. If not, then she is an xkcd fan and must be scorned. If so, then she is an annoying hipster and must be scorned.
Given that either way the result is scorn, why need one make the determination in the first place? Embrace laziness.
Of course the answer is that scorn is never just scorn, but scorn for something in particular. But perhaps we needn't be so fastidious.
Would a Garfield t-shirt be better?
A Dinosaur Comics or MS Paint Adventures t-shirt would be better.
I knew a girl who wore a Pokey the Penguin t-shirt a while ago. But she also rode a unicycle.
omg omg omg. I didn't even know there were Pokey the Penguin shirts.
Those are nice stockings. I have a pretty good collection of oddly-patterned legwear, but nothing quite that excellent.
What about Garfield Minus Garfield?
267 - C just asked me a couple of hours ago if the Unfoggedtariat had any opinion on the COnan O'Brien situation.
366: This is what happens when you go up against a baby boomer.
366: I only watch Nick Jr., Sprout (does anybody have Nina's phone number), and "How It's Made."
does anybody have Nina's phone number
If only Dragon Tails could suck just a bit less.
The Poop is wrong to link to a (forbidden) picture of Steve Burns as an example of unsexy children's hosts. He's a cutie, even if he had to dress like a five-year-old.
366: I have been oddly compelled by Conan's last week, and sympathetic to Conan, despite the fact that I've never before thought he was funny at all. This may just be because I've always thought ill of Leno. And without any of the personalities, in the abstract, Conan got screwed.
369: I love that she was one of the Technical Virgin actors. That was hilarious.
Conan made fun of soccer too much, though. Bastard.
I haven't watched any late night TV other than Comedy Central in years.
I liked Craig Kilborn better. But he's been replaced by some foreigner.
Late night talk shows, I mean. I watch plenty of late night TV.
COnan who? $45 million settlement, eh?
That form of late-night variety show patterned after the Tonight Show (or Dick Cavett) has been unfunny for quite a while, so it's odd to see how much of a hoohaw there is about it. NBC's and/or Leno's behavior was uncool, but I confess it's a little hard to get worked up over it. It's a little as though Barney got into a beeg beeg fight with Pee-Wee Herman or something.
It's more amusing to consider how ridiculous NBC was to think that moving Leno to 10 p.m. 5 nights a week would be just a grand idear.
376 not to 375. Mr. Stewart is a fine replacement.
366: I don't see anything wrong with profiling Cimmerians, and subjecting them to extra security scrutiny.
On a related note: I'm gonna be a Neilsen family. When I got their postcard I turned my TV on for the first time since last summer, flicked through the channels, and turned it off again. It's going to be a remarkably dull diary. But, as a white person, it's culturally important that I have a TV, even if I don't watch it.
Wait, so everyone's happy again now? I can't keep up with this.
I spent last night watching avant garde theatre and performance art, so I don't expect anyone in the rest of America gives a shit about what I think.
But if they did, I would tell them to hassle Starbucks about this Kati Moore case.
From the link in 369:
My son and I have been enjoying this program on entirely different levels.I had the same experience with Hi-5. Good Lord.
If not, then she is an xkcd fan and must be introduced to teo.
Wait, so everyone's happy again now?
You mean about ... stuff? Well. When I got home I engaged my roommate in 10 minutes of discussion about the oral arguments in the Citizens United Supreme Court case that I'd just listened to on CSPAN radio; after 10 minutes he cut me off to say that he had to go sit down because his back hurt.
Happy again now? Not really. Though I must say that those S.C. arguments were interesting.
On a related note: I'm gonna be a Neilsen family.
If this had been posted a few years ago, I would have offered to pay you a substantial hourly rate for watching Veronica Mars. I'm sure there's some current overzealous fanbase you can exploit to profit from this.
And now 369 has led me to video clips of this woman saying things about "a kind of exercise where you put your body in different positions that make you feel good". Who would have thought children's television could evoke such lascivious thoughts?
I spent last night watching avant garde theatre and performance art, so I don't expect anyone in the rest of America gives a shit about what I think.
I bet you don't even own a tv, what's more.
I didn't know you liked Veronica Mars, essear. We miss that show terribly, even though it did ultimately slip a bit.
I'm gonna be a Neilsen family. [...] It's going to be a remarkably dull diary.
You actually fill out a diary? I thought they put a monitoring device on your TV -- no idea where I got that notion.
We just received in the mail some Consumer Research Center thing (marked "Official") addressed to "The Main Grocery Shopper". Maybe I should fill it out.
The lady on the telephone said it would involve a diary. My week will be in early February. I got the postcard, then they called to ask if I'd do it. When I said yes, she said they'd send the diary.
Unless, of course, it's actually a NSA surveillance device cleverly disguised. Frankly, after Buffy ended, there was just no joy in TVville anymore.
Are you sure that the Consumer Research Center isn't the name of a store in Bangor, and they meant to send it to a Maine shopper?
I think I may have tried to watch Veronica Mars (it was boradcast, not cable, right?) but found it too intellectually challenging.
For some reason, this post title has started making me think of a Mazzy Star song when I read it.
I didn't know you liked Veronica Mars, essear.
This is like "You were in China, M/tch?", right? Because I have mentioned it here once or twice.
390: Maine? It says on the reverse of the envelope that I may win up to 2500$ in prizes if I respond by March 1st! Exciting.
It, let's see, wants to know which brands I buy, where the household buys them (Target? Walmart?), whether .. uh, how often I use certain over-the-counter drugs, whether we have certain health problems, whether we own or plan to own in the next 12 months a motorcycle or a swimming pool, what we read, and, interestingly, how often we have discussed brand name products in certain categories with friends or family.
Does that include conversations with pretend internet friends? Since when are Receipts Recipes brand name products?
The whole thing seems to be focused on how green-ish you are, how reliant you are on on OTC medications for sleeplessness and so on, whether you're nutritionally aware, and so on.
Sometimes I don't know whether giving people information is actually a worthwhile endeavor.
382: I had the same experience with Hi-5.
Word.
I don't know about your survey, parsimon, but I had an awesome time with the University of Michigan/Thompson-Reuters consumer confidence survey.
Of course, there the naked capitalism isn't quite so extreme -- in theory, the public is still getting some of the benefit of the research, so you're not doing it all for some corporation's shareholders.
My levels of geekdom may not exactly be representative, however. Behold my new favorite blog: All Things Census.
Sometimes I don't know whether giving people information is actually a worthwhile endeavor.
Anything that makes marketing more effective has to make America stronger, right?
In unrelated news, I went to the grand opening of the Organizing for America office. First we heard from someone who wanted us to donate money for Haiti. About a half hour's plea. Then from the kid who's in charge of OFA, telling us (a) his interpretation of the MA election result; and (b) how important volunteers are. Another 20 minutes or so. Then from the old guy who's been a minor official of the Democratic Party of NM since dirt was invented, asking us to donate money to the Democratic party.
Then I left. What a waste of time. An hour and a half, more or less, spent being asked for money and hearing inspirational messages. There was cake and donuts, but I couldn't get to them.
I doubt the survey in hand is remotely targeted to the more interesting consumer confidence information you mention there.
This thing actually isn't about naked capitalism as much as it is about marketing.
398 to 396, of course.
397: People would do better to offer something other than cake and doughnuts, both of which are uninteresting to me.
What's with that? Why does everybody think that cakey sweets are surely just what everybody is pleased to dig into?
Inasmuch as better targeted marketing means that I hear less about products I have absolutely no interest in, I suppose I am in favor of it. The TV just tried to sell me Just for Men Touch of Gray. My hair isn't gray, so dyeing it back partially brown just isn't an option for me. If I must be shown an advert, I'd prefer it be for something I might want.
I did a long California survey where I was very strongly for expanded children's health insurance and supported tax increases to pay for it*. I assume the survey organization was calling from some planet that doesn't understand what's possible in California politics, although that was summer 2008 and maybe they thought there'd be enough change in the legislature. The survey took so long - 30 minutes or so for a "10" or so minute process - that I've turned down every subsequent request (never heard what the issues where).
*I was lukewarm on a soda tax, possibly out of misguided self-interest as a soda drinker. I would support such a tax now, but would prefer programs to be funded out of more general taxes. I was also lukewarm about the cigarette tax, but not as lukewarm.
More strongly support a soda tax now, that is. I didn't come out against it.
Just stop watching tv, Otto. It speaks to people besides you. If you want to be spoken to only directly and personally, switch to whatever online form of watching gathers all your information.
I'm not sure what that does to pluralism and cosmopolitanism, of course.
Back when I watched Simpsons re-runs regularly, I learned from tv that Bad Boys Bail Bonds is a good service because momma wants me home.
Plus, when I am marketed to directly, it feels like someone really, truly cares.
404: Momma is tired of losing her pin money on bail bonds. Next time the Jets win, yelling "Wooo" will be sufficient.
405: Wait until you see Proctor and Gamble's new "Cut-off our ear for customers" promotion.
404: There you go. There are also people needing Touch of Grey for Men, and Cialis, and those with cleaning questions, whether it's the kitchen floor or the laundry.
All kidding aside, I still take prime-time tv's advertisements to be informational. I wouldn't really want us all to be so cordoned off from one another that we enter into "let them eat cake" territory, or find the middle-class housewife's concerns unfathomable, or ... any number of other things.
Well, we all know this: it's a feedback loop between what the media feeds us, which is targeted to what we want to hear [plus manipulation and expansion], and what we somehow might independently be interested in, so what they feed us more of. You don't get out of it by seeking a more appropriate-seeming feed: you just take yourself out of the wider loop. It's a little like burying your head in the sand.
408:It's a little like burying your head in the sand.
Mmph mmph mmmph? Mmph mmph.
Televised commercials create community among viewers. Subvert the atomizing intent of the market and even own a tv!
Hey everybody, it's "Ball Gag Day" at the McManuses!
410: I have the structure of an argument, I feel.
Should I extend this to the positive civic aspects of public transportation, or would that be going too far?
We have a water cooler at work but we don't discuss TV commercials very much when we stand around it; usually it's just "So, when are you going to graduate?" or "Listen to the latest reason I am frustrated with my adviser."
Call the levee en masse transit!
There are arguments along the lines of "consumption as resistance" but the having-things-both-ways view that talk about people's flexibility to act within structures seems more reasonable, even the the whole structure-agency thing seems kind of intractable.
I can no longer write coherent sentences.
If we could have an exception for diet soda, I'd be down with a soda tax. I'm a diet coke and (to a lesser extent) cherry coke zero addict. I would hate for the price of my fix to go up too much.
||
It's taken me two days to get through Berube's deep sarcasm on CT. As often when he does this, I go from "Oh, the snark it is too much" to "Damn, that's funny" and back again.
At the moment it's just funny in a delightful way.
|>
417: Modulo the extra "the", 416 was imdistinguishable from the apparently more coherent examples of that sort of prose to me, you Sokal you.
Meanwhile, three stops into my latest trip on public transit, I am feeling no more connected to my community. I'll give it time, though.
Because I have mentioned it here once or twice.
Oh, so you have. The thing is, I'm not really here all that much. And I never read the archives*.
* Under the previous regime, this was a problem, I guess. But things have gotten slacker lately.
I wouldn't really want us all to be so cordoned off from one another that we enter into "let them eat cake" territory, or find the middle-class housewife's concerns unfathomable, or ... any number of other things.
I can think of better ways to connect with others.
416: To the extent that I understand what you mean, this: the whole structure-agency thing seems kind of intractable is really the thing, I agree.
Further: the having-things-both-ways view that talk[s] about people's flexibility to act within structures -- yeah, there's a lot to be said about this, for and against, and it's probably not good blog fodder.
The extra "the" was supposed to be "though"; also, "views" but that's at least back in typo territory.
Anyway, I really wanted to find the Berube thing funny, but found it very well done and depressing instead.
Incidentally, are there still any sociologists around here anymore? I've been coming across "structuration" lately and it seems to be bordering on "you keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means" territory, but I really don't know the relevant theory to know if the theory is relevant.
f.a., have you read Marx recently? Because your misgivings about "structurizing" -- or whatever the hell -- is reminding me that I think the way the word "historicize" commonly gets used might be another such case. But I haven't read Marx in almost twenty years, and I'm pretty sure that's where the word is properly used. Or not. Oh well.
But I have to go woo a prospective graduate student*, so I'll take your answer off the air.
* Since both you and teo have forsaken our program, we've had to turn elsewhere. Sorry.
424.2: It was this line that for some reason made me burst out laughing:
The appointment of Maulana Ron Karenga as Secretary of Education was a warning sign, followed swiftly by "Operation Blackout," the Obama Administration's plan to stack the federal judiciary with ACORN-approved attorneys and underqualified campaign workers whose only interview question was "what is it about Barack Obama that makes you want to serve him?"
This is still making me laugh well for some reason.
I have not, nor have I ever been a member of the Communist party, if that's what you're asking. Also, haven't read Marx in a long time, or read anything but the manifesto. Was he the first to come up with "historicize"?
Structuration is a portmanteau of "structural" and "micturition", typically applied to situations where the local effect of a complex of social institutions is qualitatively similar to getting peed on.
If I was in sociology or some such field, my trademark unbearable affectation would be to use lots of verbs that are just nouns with "en-" attached to the front.
Standpipe, the qualitative effect of being peed on is not determinate enough for that experience to shed light on this "structuration."
Which term does seem just annoying, but who knows. I wish I'd studied more sociology.
My acts of enverbment are designed to disensconce the reader from her placid mental encocoonment. The enstructurement of habitual enhabitation closes our eyes in a surprising plethora of situations.
"Historicize" comes from verbizing "historicity," which comes from de-Germaning "Geschichtlichkeit."
"plethora" is inexcusable there, ned.
But, that's where the ethanol is kept.
I will gladly enplethora my opponents against me if it enflights their minds on wing, parsimon.
I knew as soon as I hit post that I should have rephrased that.
Your pretensions academic talents are wasted in the scientific field, ned.
I have a tv set, but I don't have the ability to watch tv on it. I can watch tv shows that are in my Netflix instant queue, however, and tv shows that are available on the internet. This strikes me as being near the best of all possible cheap worlds.
If you want to be spoken to only directly and personally, switch to whatever online form of watching gathers all your information.
Yeah, but related to this: if you spend too much time in the rather dark regions of the net, you start to think "no one really disagree with me all the time, they're just trollin'." And then you stop caring if they're earnest, ironic, or just trollin'. The death of affect: I'm ok with this.
But I have to go woo a prospective graduate student*
On a Saturday night? This sounds like a whole different caliber of wooing than I got as a prospective grad student.
And it gets a Google hit on Jstor. I feel Sokaled. (I feel so kaled?)
"encocoonment" is pretty good. Enjoyable.
I admit it! Good work, ned!
Wasn't Laocoon encocooned, in a sense?
446: Only in a rather limited sense.
I have no idea what work "situations" is doing in ned's 434. It's just sitting there, spinning its wheels.
446: sure. In the same sense that ROTP is about a raccoon eating a macaroon.
387: Actually, I quite enjoy owning a television. I don't have cable or a digital tuner, however, so I only use it to watch foreign films on VHS and DVD.
Actually, the reason I don't have cable is not because of a dearth of enthusiasm for the programming, but rather a surfeit. Of enthusiasm. Whenever I have cable I find myself continually getting sucked in to various marathons, and thus waste all my leisure time learning about one-hit wonders and such.
ROTP
Return of the Pedi? (Revenge of the Pith?)
Run of the pill?
450: Sure, Natilo, first it's ned with the "plethora," now you with the "dearth."
Actually, though -- our cable here has been more or less out for about a month now, and it's resulted in my roommate reading not just a Pynchon novel, to my great surprise, but now also a Michael Chabon novel I passed on to him just in case he was needing something. Reading anything lengthy is very unusual for him.
My wife keeps trying to get me to read Michael Chabon and I keep having vague intentions of doing so.
It's just sitting there, spinning its wheels.
Don't hate the player, hate the free play of the signified.
425:
Wikipedia confirms my suspicion that "structuration" comes from Anthony Giddens, who was aiming towards some kind of unified field theory of society. Interesting that it's being revived. Where are you running into it, fake accent?
456: That needs to go on a t-shirt. You should text it to someone so they can send it to TFLN.
I read a Chabon novel for a month once. I believe it was a Sunday.
Far be it from me to endearth your enthusiasm for foreign films, Natilo, but aren't most of the classics helmed by sexists or at best naively enconsciousnessed bourgeois?
Natilo, are we related?
I thought of you, by the way, when I read Justice Thomas' concurring opinion in Citizens United. Read it if you haven't -- I swear you'll hear violins.
enconsciousnessed
That is a true abomination of a word.
Fortunately it gets zero Google hits...for now. 461:
455: This was just The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay, the only thing of his I've read. It's not very challenging; an enjoyable, absorbing read. Probably pretty easy to pick up and read if it's already in the house. It remains memorable.
459: Oh, for sure. But it's often so over the top that it's easier to deal with than the soft sexism of Hollywood expectorations.
460: You'd have to ask my mom. 'Cause she's the genealogist in the family.
I find recent Google results for "triple-consciousnessed", "dual-consciousnessed", and "multi-consciousnessed" all used seriously. But the word "consciousnessed" on its own seems to only appear in this 1879 treatise by Malcolm Guthrie, often called the "father of incomprehensible faux-meta-scientific academic pontification".
463: I was just being snarky. All I've read is the Jews-with-swords book. Did not think much of his stylistic choices. And the ending was pretty trite. Of course, some of the anarchist performance art I saw last night was so extraordinarily cliched that I was tempted to walk out. But I was so exhausted that I just sat there waiting for the real out-of-town performance art to begin. (It was Rebecca Nagle of Baltimore. I highly recommend her, even if you don't usually grok performance art.)
463: I'm certain we have all of his novels in the house. Lately (since say 2004) I've been reading mostly non-fiction. I went through a spy novel phase before that. Ludlum is very good, but after the first three books they all start to seem the same. I like the one with the secret Nazis the better than the Borne ones.
460.1 to 450. This might not be genetic.
466: I'll try to keep the name - Rebecca Nagle - in mind. I see performance art sorts of things around here from time to time, but as you know, it's really hard to tell except via word of mouth whether something's going to be a complete waste of time.
Yeah, she's just finishing up her current tour, but judging by her website she does a fair amount of stuff there in town.
Interesting that it's being revived
I'm not sure if it's being revived - the stuff I'm reading is mostly not new work, but from the 90s (though the people using it then appear to still have been using it five to ten years later). I don't know when (en)structuration(ment) went into decline, but it might have still been big when it got picked up. I'm not sure what field I'd say the work is in; the concept is being used to talk about the transmission of information in society across space and time (or "space time distanciation" or something).
On the OP -- is it too late for the OP? -- I skimmed some today. I lean towards a Black view of the First Amendment, and I have to say that what Justice Stevens called the 'glittering generalities' of the majority opinion rang with me. I don't like the end result, but putting out a film about a candidate seems to me to be within the FA.
I'm not as shocked by the idea of non-humans being protected by the bill of rights as some folks. Should the Army be allowed to quarter troops at some commune in NM, just because it's titled in an association? Or in the halls of an NYC co-op building? If Weyerhauser sued the Sierra Club for 10 million, shouldn't the latter be allowed to demand a jury? Can the government go into the Sierra Club's office without a warrant, and grab everything? Should the government be allowed to seize software belonging to some little start up, pay nothing for it, and just give it to Microsoft?
I haven't read much of Stevens' opinion, and maybe he'll turn me a bit. I don't like government restrictions of political speech very much though. Even when it's the speech of people/things I don't like at all.
I haven't seen anyone objecting to the narrower ruling that the Hillary movie should have been allowed.
473: I thought that got canned because conservatives were unhappy that James Brolin was playing the title character.
Jesus. Tonight is a fiasco. Neither child is making things easy right now. One has a cold, leading him to a comprehensive snot/breathing-related freakout. The other just hasn't yet acquired a circadian rhythm yet.
Frustrating, tiring.
Above ("raccoon with macaroon") "raccoon" probably should have been something like "poltroon". ROTP=Remembrance of Things Past.
a comprehensive snot/breathing-related freakout
I hate those. So much panic, so little ability to shut the mouth and blow out at the same time.
It's okay, Moby. Keep trying; you'll get it eventually.
ROTP=Remembrance of Things Past.
Ah. All would have been clear if "macaroon" had been "madeleine", but then the rhyme would have been lost.
Oh, good, Yahoo is telling me that Senators are telling the admin that Bernanke will get a second term. Yayyy dems.
I'm not as shocked by the idea of non-humans being protected by the bill of rights as some folks. Should the Army be allowed to quarter troops at some commune in NM, just because it's titled in an association? Or in the halls of an NYC co-op building? If Weyerhauser sued the Sierra Club for 10 million, shouldn't the latter be allowed to demand a jury? Can the government go into the Sierra Club's office without a warrant, and grab everything? Should the government be allowed to seize software belonging to some little start up, pay nothing for it, and just give it to Microsoft?
None of that involves speech. (pt 2 of this post is on this objection.)
The third amendment just says "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law." If a coöp is an entity that can own a building, then there had better be a way for it to grant or withhold consent to soldiers being quartered in its building—but I don't see why that should have any further consequences.
But then, as I said at the home for the heteronomous, I don't see why, at this point, corporations can't vote, so obviously my grasp on the issues is infirm.
Speaking of fucked up, this from the Supreme Court's opinion in Wellons v. Hall, earlier in the week:
Petitioner Marcus Wellons was convicted in Georgia state court of rape and murder and sentenced to death. Although the trial looked typical, there were unusual events going on behind the scenes. Only after the trial did defense counsel learn that there had been unreported ex parte contacts between the jury and the judge, that jurors and a bailiff had planned a reunion, and that "either during or immediately following the penalty phase, some jury members gave the trial judge chocolate shaped as male genitalia and the bailiff chocolate shaped as female breasts"
Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito have no problem sending this defendant to the executioner.
Yeah, the lawyers tried to find out: The juror who allegedly "gave the penis to the judge," App. C to Pet. for Cert. 36, was "hostile and refused to talk," id., at 37; one "refused to talk about the trial," id., at 36; another "did not want to talk about the case," id., at 37; and one "conferr[ed]" with his wife who then "slammed and bolted the door," ibid. Of those jurors who were willing to talk at all, one admitted to being "concerned that she might say something that would be used for a mistrial," id., at 35, and none admitted to knowing how or why the jury selected its "gifts," see id., at 35-36, 37. (Implausibly, Justice Alito suggests that Wellons' lawyers may not have asked how or why the jury selected its "gifts," post, at 3, though he bases that speculation only on the fact that no questions appeared in the proffer of facts.) Rather, the jurors discussed other matters and did so in the briefest of terms. All told, "everything that Petitioner ... learned," App. C to Pet. for Cert. 38, filled only a few sheets of paper, see id., at 35-36, 37. Moreover, the subjects that the jurors did discuss may very well support Wellons' view that his trial was tainted by bias or misconduct. For example, one interviewee "was surprised" that a fellow juror had been allowed to serve on a capital trial, given that her sister had been murdered by a man after he completed serving a life sentence. Id., at 36.
||
Totes just heard my roommate having sex, presumably after the date she went on tonight.
On the one hand, yay! sex! especially for a going-through-a-divorce friend who's been in a rough patch.
On the other hand, whoa, that's definitely people having sex, and I feel like my hearing it is oddly intrusive in some way. Weird.
On the third hand, the cats are freaking the fuck out about not being allowed in the room.
|>
You should remove your ears as a sign of respect.
It's a little as though Barney got into a beeg beeg fight with Pee-Wee Herman or something
Pee Wee was on Conan the other night. He is now even more surreal since he looks all of his 50+ years.
Laocoon encocooned is a good false palindrome.
On the child snot issue: that came up in a thread once, but my search terms haven't been able to extract it from the hoohole.
In other news, tonight I heard Bohuslav Martinu's orchestral piece inspired by the P-47. Interesting.
The P-47 Thunderbolt fighter aircraft, that is.
On the child snot issue: that came up in a thread once, but my search terms haven't been able to extract it from the hoohole.
It may have come up more than once, but here's one.
That's the one. This, upthread, is what I had in mind.
492: I just searched on google for instances of "baby's nose" on Unfogged.com, which was admittedly my fourth or fifth try, because I'm wide awake and can't sleep. (Note to self: If you're going to be the night's DD, drinking three Diet Cokes is inadvisable, even if you feel kinda tired.)
CC-I think that corporations should be able to take the 5th then too.
Grover Norquist wants a government small enough that Wal Mart can strangle you in a bathtub. John Roberts agrees.
The more I think about it, the more I want to start a major campaign for the rights of corporations to gay marry ordinary human persons. It should specifically be a marriage between a human person and a corporate person, so no one can argue that the corporation's right to marry is satisfied by his ability to enter into a corporate merger.
496: Just keep your hands off Exxon; we're engaged!
I guess I should amend the above: they both also want a government large enough to waterboard me in said tub, and prevent me from having gay seckxs in there.
Sick children are better at stopping any seckxs than government of any size.
they both referred to Grover Norquist and John Roberts, not my kids. Though I bet Grover and John would ruin the mood just as much as a crying baby in the crib.
497: You aren't worried about Exxon's incredibly close relationship with Mobil?
I want to get back to how awful a decision this is. The law overturned may only be from 2002, but the precedents go back to the Teddy Roosevelt administration.
The goal of Bush and his cronies was always to return America to the "Golden Age" of the late 19th century, when the Barons of Industry controlled the everything, and the working people put in 12 hour days seven days a week. They've really won with this one.
Next up: declaring anti-trust laws unconstitutional.
483, 485: Wow. Bad facts.
From reading the opinions, the dissenters have a respectable technical argument that the Court shouldn't have remanded without hearing the case on the merits. I'd go so far as to say they have a better argument than the Court does.
But of course things like wanting to leave in place a severely irregular death sentence on the basis of a respectable technical argument, with no indication that any of the dissenters would have lifted a finger to fix the problem (for example, by actually hearing the case on its merits), are what make the conservative faction of today's federal judiciary so very special.
Next up: declaring anti-trust laws unconstitutional.
Followed by: declaring child labor laws an unconstitutional interference with freedom of contract.
I don't have a problem with the device of a legal fiction for a specific and limited purpose. It's when people start to reify the fiction that I begin to worry.
501: A relationship requires trust, Rob. Exxon says they wouldn't dream of merging. It would be like incest.
496: My first thought on realizing the enormity of Citizens United was to agitate for the rights of corporations to take communion.
Bless me father, for I have sinned: I have stolen over 5 billion Big Macs since my last confession. Robble.
re: 467
re: spy novels. Alan Furst is very good, or he was until he decided it was easier to use a strict formula for his books [the last few have been well written but are, essentially, all versions of each other or one of his earlier works]. His early spy novels are fantastic.
Daniel Silva's "An Unlikely Spy" is a good one.
I'm trapped under a baby, with only Internet to entertain me, and you people are letting me down completely. Bring on the dancing girls! Bring on the arguments about analytic philosophy!
Here's something to consider. Did the fact that Prince write a fight song for the Vikings cause God to side with the Saints? You know, the way that God destroyed Haiti for making a pact with the devil? I'm a little concerned because I found myself singing "1999" to the baby yesterday.
We're all off reading Supreme Court decisions.
Congratulations on the baby, Walt! Each time I saw the announcement here, I was reading hours after the fact, but I take the opportunity to offer congrats now. Hope all is going well for Mrs. Someguy.
If lite fare is still wanted, here:
- further to Stanley's 486, I applaud his feeling that his hearing of the roommate having sex is oddly intrusive on his part. I was once overheard in such activities by a roommate, who then left a nasty note on the kitchen counter the following morning to say that this was just Too Much, just too much, and she just was ... beside herself or something. All I could do was grimace and write an apologetic reply.
- Years later, I've woken up, this morning, with a teeny, nascent zit on my face. O that's odd. This usually only happens when I've eaten something like chips or french fries, which I have not done in this case. Maybe I should wash my pilllowcases.
- If that's not enough to natter on about: remember my mom's house, now owned by my brother and myself, and now rented out to my cousin? Said cousin has not paid the rent for two months. He phoned last month to apologize profusely, generally abase himself, promise that he would make it up this month, with interest if need be, and so on.
This month is, of course, mostly past. In the meantime, I've talked to my aunt, his mother, about other matters, and heard from her that he'd been laid off. He had not disclosed this fact.
Here's the question: of course I need to call the cousin in order to say, "Yo, 'sup? Rent?" And given that he's a relative, and his step-father is my mom's brother, who grew up in the very house that his stepson is now 'renting', I will not be throwing the young man out this instant, of course not. But: should I tell my aunt and uncle (his mother and stepfather) about this? They seem to think that think that everything's cool.
Here you go, Walt. Obligatory video link for parents of new babies (you too, TJ). Yay, babies!
Pars, I think it's fair to tell the cousin that he needs to be up front with you. Like, dude, you're family, you can and should let me know what's going on. And if he doesn't make good on his promise, you wouldn't be out of line mentioning it to his parents.
How urgent is it to get some or all of the rent? Is there a mortgage on the house that needs to be paid with that money or something?
514.2: Mm. Yeah. It wouldn't be out of line, but it might seem to them to be a transfer of responsibility from the son/cousin to them. Which isn't right.
The whole thing is weird. My mom had given a helping hand to members of that family in an ongoing way, more power to her endeavors, a freakin' saint she was, but it's beginning to feel as though I've inherited that relationship as well as the house/estate.
On the other hand, they all do a lot to take care of things up there. I think I have to suspend any standard sense of contractual (in this case rental) obligation in favor of the familial relationship that's actually in place.
I'm tempted to barter some of the rent down: my cousin can finish the ceiling on the 2nd floor in exchange for a month's rent. I can do that for a few months' worth of rent, not for much more.
515: It's not extremely urgent. The fairly small remaining mortgage is covered in other ways. The property taxes on a lakeside property are rather high, however. I can let it slide for another few months, max, before the estate just needs the income.
I'm just going to have to bring the rest of the family (aunt and uncle) in on this news.
514: My 4 year old must never hear that song. She already complains that the baby sleeps too much.
517: That's wise. Just be honest with your family that you can't afford to carry the load on taxes/mortgage forever.
And I must say: Goddammit! At least one friend has been whispering in my ear: you should probably just sell the house. To which the answer is just NO. I'll be damned if I let the tribulations of that branch of the family force me sell the place. If we do that, it will be my and my brother's decision, after having made a damn good try of keeping it in the family, for reasons that I hope are obvious to all members. This should not be that hard. I'm doing my best. I need some cooperation.
From the link in Weman's 48:
There you go: get a consortium of sovereign wealth funds to buy up the US political classes. There can't be that many actual opportunities available right now given the state of global markets that can be as good value as prime, tasty, succulent hand-crafted organic American legislation, carved up for your enjoyment in smoke free rooms.
Then you tranche those suckers up, get some corrupt political handicappers to label even the crap ones as "sure bets" and some ball-bearing manufacturer in Wichita ends up unknowingly buying a bunch of Alan Keyes.
I would knowingly pay to own Alan Keyes. It is a tragedy he can run in only one election at a time.
I'm glad if I had to be called a racist that it was you, Stanley.
The goal of Bush and his cronies was always to return America to the "Golden Age" of the late 19th century....
First thing we do, we kill all the steampunks.
On the other hand, whoa, that's definitely people having sex, and I feel like my hearing it is oddly intrusive in some way. Weird.
Suck it up. People have sex, they make some noise. Why is it different from if she had a cold and you could hear her blowing her nose a lot? If you're too sensitive for this, don't share accommodation.
Parsi, does this guy have a track record of being deceptive about his situation? From what you say, I'm guessing not. In which case it's important you make him level with his parents now, before it becomes a habit that he goes into denial about bad stuff. Because they'll get hurt too.
In other news, tonight I heard Bohuslav Martinu's orchestral piece inspired by the P-47. Interesting.
Better or worse than Sir William Walton's Spitfire Prelude and Fugue?
http://www.rhapsody.com/sir-william-walton/spitfire-prelude-and-fugue-sinfonia-concertante
Why is it different from if she had a cold and you could hear her blowing her nose a lot?
Those were the sex noises, OFE.
I think Stanley was objecting to her tendency to shout "Touchdown, Brett Favre!"
Between the shouting and the snot, it was a really extravagant affair.
Between the shouting and the snot, it was a really extravagant affair.
It's true. They were both apparent veterans of doing "nasal".
I may have already told this story, but what the hell: A friend of mine walked in on his roommate and GF having sex. Awkward enough as is, but compounded greatly by the fact that the roommate was wearing a Burger King paper crown and bellowing "Who's the King?"
If you told it before, I missed it and am ever so glad you repeated it. That is hilarious.
"Who's the King?" s/b "Hail to the King, baby!"
If only she'd been wearing a DQ paper hat or something.
533 helped a lot with a crappy Monday morning. Thanks.
Then the Colonel could come in and stage a coup. Like Qaddafi.
533: Hmmm, somewhat similar to this from American Beauty:
Buddy Kane: [Carolyn is having sex in a motel room with the Real Estate King] Do you like getting nailed by the King?
Carolyn Burnham: Yes, your majesty!
Better or worse than Sir William Walton's Spitfire Prelude and Fugue?
Better, in that it's a loud relentless orchestral thing that does manage to give a sense of a big engine. Wouldn't go out of my way to hear it again, but once, for science, it's worth it. Plus, it's called simply "Thunderbolt P-47," which enlivens the program page.
People have sex, they make some noise.
Sometimes they make enough noise to be theatened with jail.
526: Parsi, does this guy have a track record of being deceptive about his situation? From what you say, I'm guessing not.
Oh -- no, I don't think so. His parents know he's now jobless, just not necessarily that he's not paid his rent (but I could be wrong about this). I think he's deeply embarrassed.
But I've relaxed about this somewhat now. There's no reason I can't be completely upfront with all parties, up to and including the fact that my hands will have become tied after a few more months, and we're just going to have to find a paying renter, about which I feel awful, etc.
542: Is he the kind of person who really can successfully do useful in-kind repairs as you suggested above? If he can, I'd approach him about it sooner rather than later, being clear about dollar values/months or fractional months of rent for each project -- "Seems like you're having trouble with the rent; paying it in kind would work for me, and would save me some trouble having the work done". If that can bring him back up to level, and maybe with a month or two to think about moving, you get the house fixed up and he doesn't have to feel like a schmuck about cheating his cousin.
543: Yep, he's very good at such things, and one of the reasons it was great to have him there is that he'd done quite a bit of great work for my mom before she died, so he's invested in the house (loves it, I believe).
As I mentioned upthread, I can arrange for a trade of labor for rent for a few months, but really not much past the spring. Hrm, unless I liquidate a few assets, which would require my brother's agreement. Here's the thing: taking care of the work that needs to be done would basically render the place rentable to someone who can pay more than my cousin is (or isn't). He'd be upgrading the place in order to price himself out of it. A delicate situation.
We'll see.
What I was thinking of as the issue was the difference between "You're three months behind, and there's five months of work to do on the house. If you do that work, you can stay another two months, rent free, and then we'll talk about whether you can scrape up the next month's rent somewhere, or whether you're moving out then." and "You're six months behind, and there's five months worth of work to do on the house. Do the work, move out now, and pay me a month's rent."
The first deal is a family kind of way to work things out, and could leave everyone feeling well treated. The second, on the other hand, is kind of ugly, and probably ends up with your cousin moving out without doing the work. But the difference between being able to offer the first deal and only being able to offer the second is doing it fast.
The devil is in the details, of course, and only you know what they are. But moving quickly will give you more options to work things out to everyone's benefit.
545: Understood. I resist bringing the rest of the family into it, but one of the most important pieces of work that needs to be done can't be done by my cousin alone. It's a group project (the dock is falling into the lake, and needs to be shored up and repaired, which is a big operation that they're all, in tandem, capable of doing, but it's not necessarily something that can be bartered for my cousin's rent, unless I make the rest of the family complicit in that).
So, yes, it's complicated. I just need to talk to them all. Let's give this topic a rest. If I could continue to finance my cousin's residence in the house through this year, I'd do it.
Understood, and butting out now.
