CBS poobah Leslie Moonves apparently did not specifically rule out hiring Jon Stewart to replace Dan Rather. Drudge ran a picture, suggesting this means that Stewart might be hired.
But, here is something everyone appears to have missed. NOWHERE did Moonves specifically rule out hiring K. G. Mungowitz to replace Dan Rather. (See?) Coincidence? I think not. This means that I have about the same chance as that preening dickhead Stewart of getting Rather's chair. I can't wait.
Tuesday, January 18, 2005
Monday, January 17, 2005
I wanna be a cowboy, baby....
I don't read Dem Underground much, but (see #10) they did nail this.
Hard to tell that story from something on "The Onion." BTW: Today is Kid Rock's birthday. Martin would be so pleased.
Speaking of Democratic Underground--here is IMAO's description:
DU is actually a digital bulletin board and not a blog. It was started by Shannon Daughty of the University of Georgia as psychological experiment of what happens when a number of people suffering for diagnosable paranoid delusions interact online. So far, results are inconclusive.
Hard to tell that story from something on "The Onion." BTW: Today is Kid Rock's birthday. Martin would be so pleased.
Speaking of Democratic Underground--here is IMAO's description:
DU is actually a digital bulletin board and not a blog. It was started by Shannon Daughty of the University of Georgia as psychological experiment of what happens when a number of people suffering for diagnosable paranoid delusions interact online. So far, results are inconclusive.
Q-o'-d-w-III: Sophie's Choice...Not
"On the subway, Peter asked, 'Shouldn't we consider having triplets?' And I had this adverse reaction: 'This is why they say it's the woman's choice, because you think I could just carry triplets. That's easy for you to say, but I'd have to give up my life.' Not only would I have to be on bed rest at 20 weeks, I wouldn't be able to fly after 15. I was already at eight weeks. When I found out about the triplets, I felt like: It's not the back of a pickup at 16, but now I'm going to have to move to Staten Island. I'll never leave my house because I'll have to care for these children. I'll have to start shopping only at Costco and buying big jars of mayonnaise. Even in my moments of thinking about having three, I don't think that deep down I was ever considering it." -- Amy Richards, an abortion rights advocate, describes her decision to kill two of her babies, leaving her with a single baby, instead of having triplets
(From John Hawkins' quotelist)
I think when people talk about "the life of the mother" as a justification for abortion, they don't mean that going to Costco is the same as death. I don't often find Michelle Malkin interesting, but here is some follow-up.
BONUS: A new definition of liberal, from Steve Margolis, through Newmark's Door. That Steve...
(From John Hawkins' quotelist)
I think when people talk about "the life of the mother" as a justification for abortion, they don't mean that going to Costco is the same as death. I don't often find Michelle Malkin interesting, but here is some follow-up.
BONUS: A new definition of liberal, from Steve Margolis, through Newmark's Door. That Steve...
Tough Act to Follow. Apparently.
Remembering MLK.
Jesse Jackson does the fire and brimstone thing.
Excerpt from the AP story:
"You can be out of slavery and out of segregation and have the right to vote and starve to death without access to capital and industry," Jackson said.
He added, "You got the birthday. But do you have the legacy? The legacy is to fight for jobs, justice, health care, education and end to war."
"It's easy to admire Dr. King," Jackson told the 650 people at the church. "It's a challenge to follow him."
Apparently actually following the good Dr. is in fact such a challenge that the Rev. gave up some time ago. Running a "Pay me or I'll call you racist" extortion racket is a full time job.
Bill Cosby, by contrast, is angry. Angry at Detroit.
Cosby urged Detroiters to "march against" the problems facing the city.
"Get up. Do something," urged the 67-year-old Cosby. "Get up. Remove this reputation. You've got a reputation and it stinks."
Cosby has been traveling across the country in the past few months, speaking to predominantly black audiences about the need for personal responsibility and better parenting skills in African-American homes.
"The poverty and victim pimps will tell you, you don't have time to go out to the schools" to demand a better education for your children, Cosby said.
"Poverty and victim pimps"? I think he means Jesse Jackson.
What is the legacy of Dr. King? What should we do?
Jesse Jackson does the fire and brimstone thing.
Excerpt from the AP story:
"You can be out of slavery and out of segregation and have the right to vote and starve to death without access to capital and industry," Jackson said.
He added, "You got the birthday. But do you have the legacy? The legacy is to fight for jobs, justice, health care, education and end to war."
"It's easy to admire Dr. King," Jackson told the 650 people at the church. "It's a challenge to follow him."
Apparently actually following the good Dr. is in fact such a challenge that the Rev. gave up some time ago. Running a "Pay me or I'll call you racist" extortion racket is a full time job.
Bill Cosby, by contrast, is angry. Angry at Detroit.
Cosby urged Detroiters to "march against" the problems facing the city.
"Get up. Do something," urged the 67-year-old Cosby. "Get up. Remove this reputation. You've got a reputation and it stinks."
Cosby has been traveling across the country in the past few months, speaking to predominantly black audiences about the need for personal responsibility and better parenting skills in African-American homes.
"The poverty and victim pimps will tell you, you don't have time to go out to the schools" to demand a better education for your children, Cosby said.
"Poverty and victim pimps"? I think he means Jesse Jackson.
What is the legacy of Dr. King? What should we do?
Wednesday, January 12, 2005
Q-o'-d-w-II: Two...um...Three....Amongst our weapons!
"Despite all of this stupid bullsh*t that the Republican National Committee, or whatever the f*ck they call them, that they were saying that they're all angry about how two of these ads were comparing Bush to Hitler? I mean, out of thousands of submissions, they find two. They're like f*cking looking for Hitler in a haystack. ...George Bush is not Hitler. He would be, if he f*cking applied himself." -- Margaret Cho at a MoveOn Award Ceremony
This was at an awards ceremony, mind you. And, notice that after saying there were only two quotes comparing Bush to Hitler, she immediately added a third. At a public awards ceremony. I like everything about that.
(From John Hawkins' quotelist)
Bonus: bluechristmas video. You will laugh. I think. Margaret Cho has an excellent part. And Santa sees Moby when he's sleepin'.
This was at an awards ceremony, mind you. And, notice that after saying there were only two quotes comparing Bush to Hitler, she immediately added a third. At a public awards ceremony. I like everything about that.
(From John Hawkins' quotelist)
Bonus: bluechristmas video. You will laugh. I think. Margaret Cho has an excellent part. And Santa sees Moby when he's sleepin'.
Wal Mart: When Employment Costs $$$
You probably don't have to be an idiot to write for the NYRev of Books. But it apparently helps. Read this:
With its deliberate understaffing, its obsession about time theft, its management spies, and its arbitrary punishments, Wal-Mart is a workplace where management's suspicion can affect the morale of even the best employees, creating a discrepancy between their objective record of high productivity and how they come to regard their performance on the job as a result of their day-to-day dealings with management. This discrepancy helps keep wages and benefits low at Wal-Mart.
One of the most telling of all the criticisms of Wal-Mart is to be found in a February 2004 report by the Democratic Staff of the House Education and Workforce Committee. In analyzing Wal-Mart's success in holding employee compensation at low levels, the report assesses the costs to US taxpayers of employees who are so badly paid that they qualify for government assistance even under the less than generous rules of the federal welfare system. For a two-hundred-employee Wal-Mart store, the government is spending $108,000 a year for children's health care; $125,000 a year in tax credits and deductions for low-income families; and $42,000 a year in housing assistance. The report estimates that a two-hundred-employee Wal-Mart store costs federal taxpayers $420,000 a year, or about $2,103 per Wal-Mart employee. That translates into a total annual welfare bill of $2.5 billion for Wal-Mart's 1.2 million US employees.
Wal-Mart is also a burden on state governments. According to a study by the Institute for Labor and Employment at the University of California, Berkeley, in 2003 California taxpayers subsidized $20.5 million worth of medical care for Wal-Mart employees. In Georgia ten thousand children of Wal-Mart employees were enrolled in the state's program for needy children in 2003, with one in four Wal-Mart employees having a child in the program.[9]
That is an excerpt from Simon Head's review of Wal-Mart: Template for 21st Century Capitalism? edited by Nelson Lichtenstein (Papers presented at a conference on Wal-Mart held at the University of California, Santa Barbara, April 12, 2004.) New Press, forthcoming in 2005.
ATSRTWT.
Here is what I said, before.
Now? I say this:
The criticism seems to be that WalMart pays less than the "market" price for workers. But...um...wages ARE a market price.
So, you can't depress wages below their market price. it makes no sense to say that, unless you are big enough to be a monopsony employer, and WalMart is hardly a monopsonist. Baseball was a monopsonist, under the reserve clause. But how could you monopsonize the market for unskilled retail employees?
Whatever wages are, that is the market price for labor. that is what a wage is.
Now, you *can* depress wages below a wishful thinking level of pay, which we call the poverty line. But literally thousands of people, from all over the world, try every day to enter the U.S. to get a piece of that "poverty". The fact is that our poverty level is set very VERY high by world standards. I'm not talking about small, homogeneous countries with tiny little educated populations like Sweden or Denmark. I mean big countries, China, India, Russia. Our wages are very high, even for poor people.
If you liberals want to pile on a lot more welfare payments, as a matter of political choice, then okay. But don't tell me that this is a "cost." We make a political choice to subsidize poor people, perhaps to ensure that there will be lots of poor people who might vote Democrat, since apparently no employed person can bring themselves to pull the D lever. (Sure, that doesn't count college profs. I meant "gainfully employed.")
The wage thing is self-correcting. We built a welfare system that pays people for not working. then we prop up wages. then we allow "illegal" immigration (nudge, wink) that drives wages down. Then we BLAME COMPANIES FOR PAYING THOSE MARKET WAGES. Why not blame the immigration policy, and the welfare system? Companies are just doing the rational thing. Why would they pay more than market wage? WHY WOULD ANYONE PAY MORE pay more than market price, for a car, for example?
The allegations about unpaid overtime are a bit much: enforce the law. But there is no logical connection between enforcing an existing law (overtime) and the point that people think they are making about WalMart, that market wages are somehow "too low," and that this is then an indictment either of the market, or WalMart. Sure, Marx thought there was a connection, too. But there is no logical connection. Only an emotional one, created by academics and life-arrangers who, having never themselves worked, think that working must be icky.
With its deliberate understaffing, its obsession about time theft, its management spies, and its arbitrary punishments, Wal-Mart is a workplace where management's suspicion can affect the morale of even the best employees, creating a discrepancy between their objective record of high productivity and how they come to regard their performance on the job as a result of their day-to-day dealings with management. This discrepancy helps keep wages and benefits low at Wal-Mart.
One of the most telling of all the criticisms of Wal-Mart is to be found in a February 2004 report by the Democratic Staff of the House Education and Workforce Committee. In analyzing Wal-Mart's success in holding employee compensation at low levels, the report assesses the costs to US taxpayers of employees who are so badly paid that they qualify for government assistance even under the less than generous rules of the federal welfare system. For a two-hundred-employee Wal-Mart store, the government is spending $108,000 a year for children's health care; $125,000 a year in tax credits and deductions for low-income families; and $42,000 a year in housing assistance. The report estimates that a two-hundred-employee Wal-Mart store costs federal taxpayers $420,000 a year, or about $2,103 per Wal-Mart employee. That translates into a total annual welfare bill of $2.5 billion for Wal-Mart's 1.2 million US employees.
Wal-Mart is also a burden on state governments. According to a study by the Institute for Labor and Employment at the University of California, Berkeley, in 2003 California taxpayers subsidized $20.5 million worth of medical care for Wal-Mart employees. In Georgia ten thousand children of Wal-Mart employees were enrolled in the state's program for needy children in 2003, with one in four Wal-Mart employees having a child in the program.[9]
That is an excerpt from Simon Head's review of Wal-Mart: Template for 21st Century Capitalism? edited by Nelson Lichtenstein (Papers presented at a conference on Wal-Mart held at the University of California, Santa Barbara, April 12, 2004.) New Press, forthcoming in 2005.
ATSRTWT.
Here is what I said, before.
Now? I say this:
The criticism seems to be that WalMart pays less than the "market" price for workers. But...um...wages ARE a market price.
So, you can't depress wages below their market price. it makes no sense to say that, unless you are big enough to be a monopsony employer, and WalMart is hardly a monopsonist. Baseball was a monopsonist, under the reserve clause. But how could you monopsonize the market for unskilled retail employees?
Whatever wages are, that is the market price for labor. that is what a wage is.
Now, you *can* depress wages below a wishful thinking level of pay, which we call the poverty line. But literally thousands of people, from all over the world, try every day to enter the U.S. to get a piece of that "poverty". The fact is that our poverty level is set very VERY high by world standards. I'm not talking about small, homogeneous countries with tiny little educated populations like Sweden or Denmark. I mean big countries, China, India, Russia. Our wages are very high, even for poor people.
If you liberals want to pile on a lot more welfare payments, as a matter of political choice, then okay. But don't tell me that this is a "cost." We make a political choice to subsidize poor people, perhaps to ensure that there will be lots of poor people who might vote Democrat, since apparently no employed person can bring themselves to pull the D lever. (Sure, that doesn't count college profs. I meant "gainfully employed.")
The wage thing is self-correcting. We built a welfare system that pays people for not working. then we prop up wages. then we allow "illegal" immigration (nudge, wink) that drives wages down. Then we BLAME COMPANIES FOR PAYING THOSE MARKET WAGES. Why not blame the immigration policy, and the welfare system? Companies are just doing the rational thing. Why would they pay more than market wage? WHY WOULD ANYONE PAY MORE pay more than market price, for a car, for example?
The allegations about unpaid overtime are a bit much: enforce the law. But there is no logical connection between enforcing an existing law (overtime) and the point that people think they are making about WalMart, that market wages are somehow "too low," and that this is then an indictment either of the market, or WalMart. Sure, Marx thought there was a connection, too. But there is no logical connection. Only an emotional one, created by academics and life-arrangers who, having never themselves worked, think that working must be icky.
Monday, January 10, 2005
Democracy is a Means, Not an End
You can find a longer than usual examination of the issues of democracy on Liberty Fund's EconLib.
Enjoy. But don't flame me. I'm in Key West for ten days, and I'm already a little burnt.
Enjoy. But don't flame me. I'm in Key West for ten days, and I'm already a little burnt.
Wednesday, January 05, 2005
Division of Labour
I was asked, and happily agreed, to join the Division of Labour stable. So I'll be writing one or two longer pieces per week for them.
My first post over there is on a familiar subject.
Exerpt:
ATSRTWT....
As a bonus...some gentle readers suggested that "you can't blame a politician for being a prostitute" would be better than the dog and garbage thing. But I think that's wrong. For one, the comparison defames prostitutes. Politics is the oldest profession. Second, in prostitution, it is the hooker who gets screwed. In politics, it is the customer.
My first post over there is on a familiar subject.
Exerpt:
Why is it that Americans don't seem to trust government? We have less regulation than most countries, and the argument "private citizens know better than government what to do with their money" seems persuasive to many. Why? Why not shining, happy people?
The answer is very old, and it involves answering a question with a question, or maybe two: As Jouvenal, in his sixth satire, asked, "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who will guard the guardians?)." Plato, in the Republic, has Socrates and Glaucon give this exchange, "Surely the guardian is the last man in the world who should be allowed to get drunk and not to know where on earth he is!" "That would be ridiculous. A guardian to want a guardian himself!". My other question/answer, then is this: why is it that people on the left, and many people in other "developed" nations, DO trust government?
ATSRTWT....
As a bonus...some gentle readers suggested that "you can't blame a politician for being a prostitute" would be better than the dog and garbage thing. But I think that's wrong. For one, the comparison defames prostitutes. Politics is the oldest profession. Second, in prostitution, it is the hooker who gets screwed. In politics, it is the customer.
Monday, January 03, 2005
Quote-o-de-week: week 1
I'll try to come up with best quote I can, most days. Not necessarily topical, but meaningful in some trivial way. That's what quotes are for.
From John Hawkins' quotelist:
"Not only are we going to New Hampshire ... we're going to South Carolina and Oklahoma and Arizona and North Dakota and New Mexico, and we're going to California and Texas and New York! And we're going to South Dakota and Oregon and Washington and Michigan. And then we're going to Washington, D.C. to take back the White House, Yeeeeeaaaaaargh!" -- Howard Dean in the Iowa concession speech that was the final soliloquy in a farce of many acts.
(BONUS: The "Crazy Train" remix, and others....)
From John Hawkins' quotelist:
"Not only are we going to New Hampshire ... we're going to South Carolina and Oklahoma and Arizona and North Dakota and New Mexico, and we're going to California and Texas and New York! And we're going to South Dakota and Oregon and Washington and Michigan. And then we're going to Washington, D.C. to take back the White House, Yeeeeeaaaaaargh!" -- Howard Dean in the Iowa concession speech that was the final soliloquy in a farce of many acts.
(BONUS: The "Crazy Train" remix, and others....)
Canada's Four Horsepersons of the Apocalypse
In preparing for some radio work in Canada (okay, it's a mercy appearance, with Charles Adler, who feels sorry for me), it struck me that this has been a big year for Canadian women. It struck me after reading Linda Williamson, actually. So I picked the four women who have had the biggest impact on Canadia politics. One could quarrel with my choices, of course, but...
So, here are Canada's Four Horsepersons of the Apocalypse for 2004....
Carolyn Parrish: She stomped a George Bush doll, with boots (she had the boots, not the doll). On TV, on CBC-TV, in fact. Of course, the Missasauga (That's west of Toronto, just west of Etobicoke, actually) MP also critiqued the "coalition of idiots" Bush was leading in Iraq. Linda claimed that CP's real achievement was not getting ink for pounding Bush, but rather for finally getting Paul Martin (who kicked her out of caucus after much "Oh, my-ing") to make a decision on something. HE FIRED HER. I would say that this is a real achievement, but there is a deeper achievement to credit Ms. Parrish with. She hates Americans, but she sometimes talks to one, like Dorothy here. It seems clear that Carolyn Parrish is a loud-mouthed, impolite, unscrupulous self-promoting cretin. In other words, her real achievement is that SHE HAS BECOME an American, in spite of claiming to hate them.
Judy Sgro: Canadian Immigration Minister. Ms. Sgro's chief of staff, Ihor Won, who is now on "stress leave" (I think this is like the Witness Protection Program, but for government officials), apparently offered "special access" to several owners of strip clubs when he met them at their establishments to discuss the importation of foreign exotic dancers. One of the club owners, Terry Koumoudouros, president of the House of Lancaster in Toronto, had donated $7,928 to the Liberal party. This is a terrible embarrassment for trade and immigration-conscious Canada, because it means that either (1) homegrown Canadian women are so cold that they won't take off their clothes, or (2) if they do, customers wish they hadn't. I predict a new "strip at home" initiative in the Parliament, with special emphasis on keeping out those cheap foreign strumpets.
Sheila Fraser: Canadian Auditor General and national hero for the investigation breaking open the Adscam scandal -- she is having second thoughts! When she released her November audit, Fraser worried her quest to expose government waste may have had the "unintended consequence" of tarnishing some hard-working, honest public servants. As Linda Williamson put it, "C'mon Sheila, don't waffle on us! We have politicians for that!" As Kgrease would put it, "C'mon, Sheila, don't go all Canadian on us! You don't HAVE to be nice all the time! Those rat bastards deserved it. And, won't you please, PLEASE run for MP from the Missassauga riding?"
Adrienne Clarkson, the "Governor General." Americans, of course, are asking "What is a Governor General"? Of course, Americans also often ask, "How can I find my bum with both hands?" The Governor General represents the "Queen's interests" in Canada (in the U.S., there are some who would say that this is done by Key West, but I'm not one of them, of course). Ms. Clarkson's lavish "cirumpolar" trip caused outrage in cost-conscious Canada: it cost $5.3 just for a ...well...a circumpolar trip. Plus, Clarkson's budget had nearly doubled since she became Governor General in 1999, going from $11 million to $19 million. Madame Clarkson did make matters a bit worse for herself when she stridently resisted efforts to trim her budget. Kgrease's thoughts? This woman is supposed to represent the Queen's interests in Canada, and now you are mad at her for spending like the Royal Family? You ought to congratulate her, and encourage more inbreeding in the GuvGen's 1 Sussex Drive mansion (though I'm not sure that more inbreeding is possible).
Prime Minister Paul Martin: You've had a tough year with the ladies, man. Hope it goes better in 2005. Maybe you could get a testosterone transfusion from Carolyn Parrish, who seems to have more than she needs.
So, here are Canada's Four Horsepersons of the Apocalypse for 2004....
Carolyn Parrish: She stomped a George Bush doll, with boots (she had the boots, not the doll). On TV, on CBC-TV, in fact. Of course, the Missasauga (That's west of Toronto, just west of Etobicoke, actually) MP also critiqued the "coalition of idiots" Bush was leading in Iraq. Linda claimed that CP's real achievement was not getting ink for pounding Bush, but rather for finally getting Paul Martin (who kicked her out of caucus after much "Oh, my-ing") to make a decision on something. HE FIRED HER. I would say that this is a real achievement, but there is a deeper achievement to credit Ms. Parrish with. She hates Americans, but she sometimes talks to one, like Dorothy here. It seems clear that Carolyn Parrish is a loud-mouthed, impolite, unscrupulous self-promoting cretin. In other words, her real achievement is that SHE HAS BECOME an American, in spite of claiming to hate them.
Judy Sgro: Canadian Immigration Minister. Ms. Sgro's chief of staff, Ihor Won, who is now on "stress leave" (I think this is like the Witness Protection Program, but for government officials), apparently offered "special access" to several owners of strip clubs when he met them at their establishments to discuss the importation of foreign exotic dancers. One of the club owners, Terry Koumoudouros, president of the House of Lancaster in Toronto, had donated $7,928 to the Liberal party. This is a terrible embarrassment for trade and immigration-conscious Canada, because it means that either (1) homegrown Canadian women are so cold that they won't take off their clothes, or (2) if they do, customers wish they hadn't. I predict a new "strip at home" initiative in the Parliament, with special emphasis on keeping out those cheap foreign strumpets.
Sheila Fraser: Canadian Auditor General and national hero for the investigation breaking open the Adscam scandal -- she is having second thoughts! When she released her November audit, Fraser worried her quest to expose government waste may have had the "unintended consequence" of tarnishing some hard-working, honest public servants. As Linda Williamson put it, "C'mon Sheila, don't waffle on us! We have politicians for that!" As Kgrease would put it, "C'mon, Sheila, don't go all Canadian on us! You don't HAVE to be nice all the time! Those rat bastards deserved it. And, won't you please, PLEASE run for MP from the Missassauga riding?"
Adrienne Clarkson, the "Governor General." Americans, of course, are asking "What is a Governor General"? Of course, Americans also often ask, "How can I find my bum with both hands?" The Governor General represents the "Queen's interests" in Canada (in the U.S., there are some who would say that this is done by Key West, but I'm not one of them, of course). Ms. Clarkson's lavish "cirumpolar" trip caused outrage in cost-conscious Canada: it cost $5.3 just for a ...well...a circumpolar trip. Plus, Clarkson's budget had nearly doubled since she became Governor General in 1999, going from $11 million to $19 million. Madame Clarkson did make matters a bit worse for herself when she stridently resisted efforts to trim her budget. Kgrease's thoughts? This woman is supposed to represent the Queen's interests in Canada, and now you are mad at her for spending like the Royal Family? You ought to congratulate her, and encourage more inbreeding in the GuvGen's 1 Sussex Drive mansion (though I'm not sure that more inbreeding is possible).
Prime Minister Paul Martin: You've had a tough year with the ladies, man. Hope it goes better in 2005. Maybe you could get a testosterone transfusion from Carolyn Parrish, who seems to have more than she needs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)