A little flotsam and a little jetsam

Victorian posy of pansiesMy husband was working on a Word document that needed to have paragraphs and subparagraphs numbered.  As I’m sure you know, if you start inserting paragraph numbers without creating distinct styles, Word takes on a life of its own, and starts generating multiple styles.  Eventually, every paragraph in my husband’s document was numbered either 4 or 5, and each numbering had a different format.  Since I enjoy word processing, my husband asked me if I could fix it.  He confidently expected it would be a three or four minute job.  Thirty-minutes later, I was still working on it.  It turned out that the document was so horribly coded I couldn’t fix it.  Instead, I had to strip it to basic text and then re-code.  The point of this is that some things cannot be fixed.  They are so profoundly ill-conceived or damaged that they have to be scrapped and started from scratch.  So it is with Obamacare:  It is so dreadful, corrupt, and dysfunctional at every level that it cannot be fixed.

I was raised by a narcissist and can tell you, both from my experience and from having read up on the subject, that narcissists lack a sense of privacy.  Or, more accurately, they lack a sense of your privacy.  Their sense of their own privacy is highly developed.  But if your parent is a narcissist, you are not allowed any physical or mental realms into which they are barred from intruding.  They own you.  To the extent that Leftist ideology has a great deal in common with malignant narcissism, it’s scarcely surprising that Leftists don’t have a problem with turning you inside out and making you their own.  You are not a stand-alone individual; you are a subset of the narcissist’s own grandiose sense of self.

Dennis Prager says most of what needs to be said about the appalling judicial decision in Colorado that threatens to send a man to prison for refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

Do you remember Lee Iacocca?  Dan Akerson, GM’s CEO does not.  Pity.

Let’s be clear.  The historical St. Nicholas, on whom Santa Claus is based, was as a Greek from the region that is now Turkey.  He was Caucasian, although he probably had a swarthy complexion.  That’s fact.  Santa Claus is a 19th century American construct.  He’s pretend, so people can pretend him to be whatever the heck color they desire.  My imaginary Santa Claus is a pleasant turquoise, just because I like it that way.  This whole debate is as ridiculous as the notion that Jesus is a fair-haired, blue-eyed Northern European.

Spengler talks about what “land for peace” really means in the Middle East (or anywhere, for that matter).

Economic collapse and bailout predicted in 2001

I was doing some research for a post I’m planning, and came upon an articled entitled “The optimal design of Ponzi schemes in finite economies” which Utpal Bhattacharya wrote in 2001 and published in 2002.  The summary reads as follows:

As no rational agent would be willing to take part in the last round in a finite economy, it is difficult to design Ponzi schemes that are certain to explode. This paper argues that if agents correctly believe in the possibility of a partial bailout when a gigantic Ponzi scheme collapses, and they recognize that a bailout is tantamount to a redistribution of wealth from non-participants to participants, it may be rational for agents to participate, even if they know that it is the last round. We model a political economy where an unscrupulous profit-maximizing promoter can design gigantic Ponzi schemes to cynically exploit this “too big to fail” doctrine. We point to the fact that some of the spectacular Ponzi schemes in history occurred at times where and when such political economies existed—France (1719), Britain (1720), Russia (1994), and Albania (1997).

If the language I’ve highlighted sounds familiar, it should, because it accurately predicts both the economic collapse and the bailout mentality that followed. Someone give Bhattacharya a Nobel Prize for economics, because he nailed it.

One can only wonder now if it was pure happenstance that things played out as they did, or if rational actors were gambling on the bailout Bhattacharya predicted.

Interview with Jim DeMint

John Hawkins is right:  this is a blockbuster interview with Jim DeMint, and one that adds new dimensions to the Republicans’ refusal blithely to sign onto the plan Bush and the Democrats are floating.  If true, it also does not reflect well on Bush, who has always shown himself to be a principled man, even if his principles led him in the wrong direction.