the crux of my problem with capitalism

It's like that Al Pacino quote in The Devil's Advocate,

Let me give you a little inside information about God. God likes to watch - he's a prankster. Think about it. He give man instinct. He gives you this extraordinary gift, and then what does He do? I swear for His own amusement, His own private, cosmic gag reel, He sets the rules in opposition. It's the goof of all time. Look but don't touch. Touch, but don't taste. Taste, don't swallow. Ahaha. And while you're jumpin' from one foot to the next, what is he doing? He's laughin' His sick, fuckin' ass off! He's a tight-ass! He's a SADIST! He's an absentee landlord! Worship that? NEVER!

In order for capitalism to work, you have to weight the incentives appropriately with respect to the outcomes. You don't want rogue traders? Penalize them so they are ruined, no the company (e.g., Barings). Although I am heartened to see that the dehumanizing corporate machine can still be damaged/destroyed by the actions of a single human being, for it signifies that all is not yet lost, it doesn't have to be like this. (That the dehumanizing corporate machine played a role in motivating them to hide their losses longer, and probably also tinged their feelings with more maliciousness than the news media will report, is a debate for a much longer entry.)

There is a very simple reason why corporate types never "learn": you want companies in dangerous industries to be safe and stop killing people? Set the financial incentives such that death carries such an unwieldy burden that companies will avoid it at literally any cost. Want people to stop polluting? Make it financially inconvenient. Since corporations are legally bound to seek profit, only those incentives that damage their profits (existing, or the ability to generate more) will be heeded. Stop treating inconveniences as "externalities" or think that lifecycle analyses are attempts to boil the ocean - if you penalize for noncompliance, it shall be done!

It is that simple.

complaint department, ground floor

I can't imagine what the denizens of an autocratic island paradise could possibly have complained about. Actually, the complaints sound like something out of high school, which might actually be a pretty good argument for the style of life there.

we heart Pakistan

Does this article ever give me confidence in our "allies" in Pakistan:

Kidwai said any decision on using a nuclear weapon would rest with the 10-member National Command Authority chaired by the president, "hopefully by consensus but at least by majority." The decision would be conveyed to the Strategic Plans Division and then through the military chain of command.

Kidwai acknowledged that two Pakistani nuclear scientists had met with Osama bin Laden in Kandahar, Afghanistan, during the rule of the Taliban regime. But a three-month investigation held after the Sept. 11 attacks on America had cleared the two men and established "nothing dangerous had happened."

So not only does it only take six (6) Pakistani officials to decide to launch a nuke, these same officials don't believe that meeting with Osama bin Laden constitutes danger! Seriously, what the fuck?

was it all slimy when it arrived?

snail mail earns its nickname!

So they can take the time to calculate a snail's trek, but they can also die flying to an air safety meeting? Does not compute!

Fans of information conveyance methodologies, rejoice!

awesome!

Awesome: redux! (this is also cool - another take on the below)

"Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know."

Hemingway quotes.

Agree: "All good books are alike in that they are truer than if they had really happened."

Yes! "That is what we are supposed to do when we are at our best - make it all up - but make it up so truly that later it will happen that way."

Me too: "All my life I've looked at words as though I were seeing them for the first time."

Concur: "All our words from loose using have lost their edge."

Disagree: "All modern American literature comes from one book by Mark Twain called Huckleberry Finn."

weeping

I felt extremely sympathetic to the plight of our nation's insurers when I read how they've struggled in the wake of 9/11 and Katrina. I mean, how terrible is this?

The loss ratio for property-casualty insurance companies, or the percentage of premiums paid out to policyholders as benefits, was 54.6 percent last year, according to the study, up from 53.3 percent in 2006 but far below the 75 percent level of the late 1980s.

The study — based on insurance industry data and companies' financial reports — estimates that the insurance industry's net income after taxes in 2007 will be $65 billion, down from the record $67.6 billion set in 2006 but above 2005's $48.8 billion.

I can understand how emotional someone can get over those numbers.

"The absence of any major storm or earthquake has allowed insurers to post two modestly profitable years. But it wasn't long ago, 2004 and 2005, when our industry suffered record natural-catastrophe losses," Marc Racicot, president of the American Insurance Association, said in a statement.

Certainly our incompetent government is partly to blame for this travesty.

Insurace companies have received about $4 billion in subsidies, the report says, since the federal Terrorism Risk Insurance Act took effect in November 2002 after insurers' costs from the Sept. 11 attacks hit $32 billion. The backstop under the act, in which the government agrees to reimburse insurers up to $100 billion in the event of another attack by foreign terrorists, was extended for another seven years under legislation enacted by Congress last month and signed into law by President Bush.

I mean, on top of all of this you have completely frivolous claims - how is one to cope? I'm surprised the insurers even stay in business.

No Wonder They Hate Us: Part 151,000 (and counting)

This is definitely a lowball estimate. I mean, some of the people trying to count the death toll ended up in the morgue!

Oh, and no matter the tactics, remember: Iraq isn't just a pure numbers game, it's about winning the hearts and minds of the broader Muslim community. We can achieve that simply by our disregard for international treaties and conventions, which illustrates that we have bigger guns (dicks) than any other nation and we are more willing (gay) to shove said weaponry down any opposition's throats (die, sandniggaz, die!).

My favorite tidbits:

To Jordan's offense [um - shouldn't that be "defense"?]
Maj. Kris Poppe, Jordan's attorney, said he argued that Jordan "faced these very serious charges for a long period of time, that he had been found not guilty of any offense related to the abuse of detainees, and that he had a stellar record."

Yes, that is significant because as we all know the statue of limitations is a very important matter in torture - just ask those 80-something Nazi war criminals how grateful they are that the minds of the world have forgotten their acts.

Rowe agreed. [no shit] "In light of the nature of the offense that Jordan had been found guilty of committing and the substantial evidence in mitigation at trial and in post-trial matters submitted by defense counsel, Rowe determined that an administrative reprimand was a fair and appropriate disposition of the matter," Joanna P. Hawkins, a military spokeswoman, said in a statement.

I mean, how serious of an offense is offending a suspected terrorist? It ranks right below a raspberry and just above giving someone's tongue a paper cut if I recall my CIA world torture guidebook correctly ...

Jordan: 'I'm gratified and glad'
"I'm still a little bit shocked by it all, but I'm gratified and glad that Gen. Rowe saw it for what it really is," he said. "I don't know if any officer needed to be held accountable, but I obviously don't believe it should have been me."

Obviously, since the accountability of decision-makers for horrible decisions is what makes Bush so popular in the US. Why shouldn't it be the same for the rest of the world - being so envious of our 'freedoms' after all, they should be ecstatic! Aren't all mens hearts and minds created equal in the eyes of our vengeful Christian God?

I've got yer ABM treaty right here!

Any wonder why Putin's anti-Western posturing is so popular among the majority of Russians? To wit:

Clinton did not venture into the Middle East to bring his stature to bear on negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians until his second term. His administration refused to submit the UN Kyoto Protocol on climate change for ratification and did not support the new International Criminal Court. But Clinton's charm and persuasion helped to shield America from criticism.

The Bush administration continued these policies, using a much blunter tone. It unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty it signed with the former Soviet Union in 1972, which forbade the testing and deployment of a ballistic missile defense system. It signed a pact with India, supporting its nuclear weapons program, which further undermined the nuclear nonproliferation treaty.

Yet when President Vladimir Putin of Russia suspended participation in the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe last month, there was an outcry by the United States and the Europeans. They cast Putin as a potential spoiler of the post-Cold War order, ignoring what Washington had done earlier.

So far, neither Republican nor Democrat candidates have suggested returning to the ABM treaty.

holy tubs of lard, Batman!

How can people be so dumb? We're not sheep, we're cud-chewing cows. A couple highlights.

"Many obesity studies have shown that, in developed countries, the less educated you are, the more likely you are to become obese." = you're dumb

"She couldn't explain why her weight had got to this extreme point, but suggested to me that being born premature may have been a factor." = you're fucking stupid. Here's an explanation: you consumed more calories than you expended. It ain't yo momma's fault, it's fucking YOURS!

it's all downhill from there

LMFAO!

Lip service to South Africa’s new kissing law:
Teens express outrage with public displays of affection

"We're young. We need to experiment," Natalie Winston, 12, said before the protest here. "When you're 21, you're old already, and ugly."

Obviously this naive young lady has never seen a porn film (and should, post-haste!). Or underwear models. Or women in general, lol. I love the added insult of "and ugly," at the end, that's really high class!

bredia mainwashing

What are the odds? How can people be so seriously paranoid?

again, the myth of the liberal media

I could go on for many pages, but this example sums up the argument nicely:

Thus, in 1994, Time celebrated the Republican victory in the midterm elections by putting a herd of charging elephants on its cover. But its response to the Democratic victory of 2006—a victory in which House Democrats achieved a larger majority, both in seats and in the popular vote, than the Republicans ever did in their 12-year reign—was a pair of overlapping red and blue circles, with the headline "The center is the place to be."

Remember George W. and his "mandate"? Bush won essentially by one state (Ohio, which I believe could have easily been rigged). In contrast, when Clinton was unquestionably demolished Dole in 1996 for re-election (supposedly as the Republicans were surging in popularity), he never made the same type of grandiose statement about the power vested in him.

This is why I always feel like the Democrats play nicer/more humbly at politics than (and get burned harder for it by) the Republicans. I also find it ironic that Republican candidates of extremely dubious experience (Reagan) are touted as heroes, yet candidates like Clinton (and Obama especially) are consistently questioned about their experience. Why isn't the same standard applied to the likes of Mitt Romney - what experiences make him any better suited for President than Clinton? Than Obama? Because he wants to 'double' Guantanamo? Morons.

Of course, the conservative counter-argument is that the ones in power shouldn't gloat, lest they reveal their power and suffer the wrath of the misled public. But wait, do the Reps take their own advice? See above.

Managers can innovate

and this proves it!

Another example, possib leavin' fun near.

No further proof needed - this discussion is closed.

A dead mouse is a joke!

Seriously! Just laugh it off. What is wrong with people?

Apparently a lot more than I ever would've imagined, lol!

Putin as 2007 Man of the Year? Indefensible!

I think that Time's choice is not entirely indefensible in principle, but it is as a choice for this year. The choice is supposed to represent the person who's made the most impact this year. Putin has done absolutely nothing this year to distinguish himself as a leader (besides be a prig at the G8). Maybe next year, if he hands over the reigns of power smoothly and Russia's recovery continues, then maybe he'd be deserving. But the award is supposed to be about the most impactful person of 2007, and the longer you stretch out the analysis of Putin's reign to support the choice, the less impressive the evidence for this year becomes.

That being said, I think the reason he was chosen is that the Times decision was more superficial than the article makes it appear. For starters, 2005's selection was "you" (pandering) and 2006's was philanthropists (ooh, tough one). To the mass-market audience that reads Time, selecting Gore would've been too similar a theme to 2006's do-gooder winners. Nevermind the fact he made an Oscar-winning documentary about temperature and also won the Nobel prize - that's sooo, like, summertime. Hello! Nobody thinks about melting ice caps in wintertime - it's too cold!

Also, in choosing two positive groups, Time felt it was, well, time for something new, something a bit racy, something that would make its readers feel politically aware ("boy, I've been hearing a lot of things, you know, here and there about Russia recently, but I never knew how big the changes inside really were!") and, at the same time, appeal to the readers who were tired of all the easily-justified choices. Because Putin's Russian has been in the press a lot this year (not as much in the US, but enough to leave that faint impression in people's minds), it was the simplest calculated, just-controversial-enough, choice.

What Would Dennis Miller Pun?

Sir,

I dare say that I nearly did soil myself reading this.

So true it's sad.

The Onion did this one for the Dennis Millulz!

(apparently, a lot of Onion readers would understand his jokes!)

what's next, the royal reality show?

It could be titled "touched by a monarch." Er, wait a tick ...

stewpeed munkeez!

Ha! But I challenge thee, ape, to write the collected works of Shakespeare ... in the original dialect! Mwuahahaha! Speaking of petty, Pavlov-esque experimentations with primates ...

Holiday Incentives
Bah-humbug! Instead of giving to a worthy cause, wouldn't it be more of an incentive if non-comliance meant you funded Al Qaeda instead? I guess in a way a certain type of non-compliance already would - if you chose to drive instead of walk, carpool, or take some other, less-GHG-intensive form of transit (haha, the writer of that site is from Michigan!)

Alas, we can't explicitly link oil money to terrorism, that'd be a discussion too long for our fragile little minds, not to mention wholly unpatriotic!

curr - iculum
On a related note, I should've attended college here! Apparently their entire academic life revolves around Orwell's classic, 1984.

?tekram eerf

Appears to be more effective than a fence!

However, Pearce is quite wrong in ascribing Arizona's potential recovery to the existence of a "free market" system. If it were truly free, you wouldn't need reactive labor laws specifically targeting illegal immigrants - you'd allow anyone who could work to work and let the wages dictate who belongs here and who doesn't. That'd be closer to a free market solution, but we Americans are too free of intelligent thought to actually implement such a solution, even though it'd likely have the same result.