If you're into pension reform, this book might be interesting:
http://www.amazon.com/US-Pension-Reform-Lessons-Countries/dp/0881324256
I haven't read it, so if you do, let me know if it's worth a look-see.
"And if an epitaph be my story, I'd have a short one ready for my own: I had a lover's quarrel with the world." -- Robert Frost
Monday, April 13, 2009
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Intel's Founder on America's Future
Fantastic article from the NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/business/12immig.html
“We are watching the decline and fall of the United States as an economic power — not hypothetically, but as we speak,” said Craig R. Barrett, the chairman of Intel.
I've sued Intel before, so I don't agree with everything it says or does, but Mr. Barrett knows of what he speaks. The fact that politicians are not heeding intelligent entrepreneurs like Mr. Barrett means our political system is broken. Politicians seem to be incapable of educating their constituents about the benefits of immigration. Part of the problem is that media outlets, which used to have substantive political discussions, such as FDR's fireside chats, have moved away from being an educational tool. In addition, the media's shock-value brand of journalism has diluted America's capacity for intelligent analysis.
When the Internet came on the scene, it seems that traditional media outlets ditched intelligent commentary and analysis in favor of "Do whatever it takes to look at me" journalism. Prior to the Internet, for example, reality television--where a loudmouth or superficial person was vaulted to celebrity status--was a small portion of mainstream media. (MTV's "The Real World" was really the only major reality show for years.) In contrast, today's media items are designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator (e.g., Octo-mom) to attract readers. In an age of video games, the Internet, text messaging, and numerous other entertainment options, mainstream media resorted to bottom-feeding to get eyeballs. As a result of so much information--most of it devoid of any real analysis--the public gets little news that has any real substance. If you assume that mainstream media is an important pillar in keeping a country on the right path, the media's declining standards should frighten you.
Speaking of pillars, the New York Times has been a beacon of light throughout America's history. It was responsible for the seminal case of NYT vs. Sullivan, which affirmed a newspaper's right to publish controversial new reports without fear of litigation. Here is one of my favorite parts of the opinion:
Those who won our independence believed . . . that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government. They recognized the risks to which all human institutions are subject. But they knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies; and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones. Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence coerced by law - the argument of force in its worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed."
Now ask yourself: are Octo-mom, Madonna's adoption efforts, and Lindsey Lohan's romantic exploits what America's founders contemplated when they talked about our duty to have "robust" political discussions? To wit: the top stories on Yahoo's main portal right now are about a ship captain's rescue; Obama's dog; Lohan's hair; and cable TV bills. Go back and re-read Mr. Barrett's comment above.
Oh, the decline of an empire.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/business/12immig.html
“We are watching the decline and fall of the United States as an economic power — not hypothetically, but as we speak,” said Craig R. Barrett, the chairman of Intel.
I've sued Intel before, so I don't agree with everything it says or does, but Mr. Barrett knows of what he speaks. The fact that politicians are not heeding intelligent entrepreneurs like Mr. Barrett means our political system is broken. Politicians seem to be incapable of educating their constituents about the benefits of immigration. Part of the problem is that media outlets, which used to have substantive political discussions, such as FDR's fireside chats, have moved away from being an educational tool. In addition, the media's shock-value brand of journalism has diluted America's capacity for intelligent analysis.
When the Internet came on the scene, it seems that traditional media outlets ditched intelligent commentary and analysis in favor of "Do whatever it takes to look at me" journalism. Prior to the Internet, for example, reality television--where a loudmouth or superficial person was vaulted to celebrity status--was a small portion of mainstream media. (MTV's "The Real World" was really the only major reality show for years.) In contrast, today's media items are designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator (e.g., Octo-mom) to attract readers. In an age of video games, the Internet, text messaging, and numerous other entertainment options, mainstream media resorted to bottom-feeding to get eyeballs. As a result of so much information--most of it devoid of any real analysis--the public gets little news that has any real substance. If you assume that mainstream media is an important pillar in keeping a country on the right path, the media's declining standards should frighten you.
Speaking of pillars, the New York Times has been a beacon of light throughout America's history. It was responsible for the seminal case of NYT vs. Sullivan, which affirmed a newspaper's right to publish controversial new reports without fear of litigation. Here is one of my favorite parts of the opinion:
Those who won our independence believed . . . that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government. They recognized the risks to which all human institutions are subject. But they knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies; and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones. Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence coerced by law - the argument of force in its worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed."
Now ask yourself: are Octo-mom, Madonna's adoption efforts, and Lindsey Lohan's romantic exploits what America's founders contemplated when they talked about our duty to have "robust" political discussions? To wit: the top stories on Yahoo's main portal right now are about a ship captain's rescue; Obama's dog; Lohan's hair; and cable TV bills. Go back and re-read Mr. Barrett's comment above.
Oh, the decline of an empire.
Law Enforcement Deporting U.S. Citizens
American law enforcement appears to be intentionally deporting U.S. Citizens:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/mistaken_for_illegal_i
I am too stunned right now to have any intelligent comments.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/mistaken_for_illegal_i
I am too stunned right now to have any intelligent comments.
Michael Lewis on Iceland and its Financial Collapse
Why you never, ever want to tick off a great writer--especially not someone as good as Michael Lewis:
Maybe because there are so few Icelanders in the world, we know next to nothing about them. We assume they are more or less Scandinavian—a gentle people who just want everyone to have the same amount of everything. They are not. They have a feral streak in them, like a horse that’s just pretending to be broken.
Lewis castigates the entire Icelandic male race in explaining the country's financial collapse. You can read the full Vanity Fair article here.
Maybe because there are so few Icelanders in the world, we know next to nothing about them. We assume they are more or less Scandinavian—a gentle people who just want everyone to have the same amount of everything. They are not. They have a feral streak in them, like a horse that’s just pretending to be broken.
Lewis castigates the entire Icelandic male race in explaining the country's financial collapse. You can read the full Vanity Fair article here.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
NYT on Law Firms Coping with the Recession
The NYT (April 4, 2009, Adam Cohen) had an article on the legal profession and the recession:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/opinion/02thu4.html?em
For years, law school tuition rose along with big-firm salaries. Between 1990 and 2003, the cost of private law schools rose at nearly three times the rate of consumer prices. The average graduate now leaves with more than $80,000 in debt...
More schools may follow the lead of Northwestern, the first top-tier law school to offer a two-year program.
Astute readers can see that the high debt load and the length of most legal study programs are related. The third year of law school is usually unnecessary, unless students participate mainly in clinics or other programs that provide practical experience. My third year, I worked part time in a law firm. By year three, most law students are finished with their core bar classes and are spending most of their time looking for jobs or working. How much are they paying for this privilege of looking for work, interning for free, or working part-time? About $40,000 for some private law schools.
I have always said big law firms were pyramid schemes. At some point, all pyramid schemes collapse under their own weight. You can only get so top-heavy before something gets crushed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/opinion/02thu4.html?em
For years, law school tuition rose along with big-firm salaries. Between 1990 and 2003, the cost of private law schools rose at nearly three times the rate of consumer prices. The average graduate now leaves with more than $80,000 in debt...
More schools may follow the lead of Northwestern, the first top-tier law school to offer a two-year program.
Astute readers can see that the high debt load and the length of most legal study programs are related. The third year of law school is usually unnecessary, unless students participate mainly in clinics or other programs that provide practical experience. My third year, I worked part time in a law firm. By year three, most law students are finished with their core bar classes and are spending most of their time looking for jobs or working. How much are they paying for this privilege of looking for work, interning for free, or working part-time? About $40,000 for some private law schools.
I have always said big law firms were pyramid schemes. At some point, all pyramid schemes collapse under their own weight. You can only get so top-heavy before something gets crushed.
Reason #3745 to Be a Libertarian
This video makes my blood boil. Bruce Babbitt is an idiot. First, he talks about retaliating against an employee for creating more transparency into his department; then, he refuses to answer any questions about how his department is using taxpayer funds. Didn't we fight a war to get away from people who acted like high and holy kings?
Update: Babbitt has not been Secretary of Interior since 2001. It's an old video.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Molly Ivins on Camille Paglia
I have to confess, I like reading Camille Paglia. When it comes to sheer entertainment value, she can't be beat. Molly Ivins on Camille Paglia is hilarious:
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~erich/misc/ivins_on_paglia
One fashionable line of response to Paglia is to claim that even though she may be fundamentally off-base, she has ``flashes of brilliance.'' If so, I missed them in her oceans of swill.
Ouch. If newspapers want more readers, they need more writers like Mike Royko and Molly Ivins. May they rest in peace.
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~erich/misc/ivins_on_paglia
One fashionable line of response to Paglia is to claim that even though she may be fundamentally off-base, she has ``flashes of brilliance.'' If so, I missed them in her oceans of swill.
Ouch. If newspapers want more readers, they need more writers like Mike Royko and Molly Ivins. May they rest in peace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)