Smug Bastard Cabal

...The Second Time as Farce (and yes, I know that's a Marx Quote)

Why does this little scheme remind me of Marie Antoinette's peasant cottage

The AIG Fiasco: The Fallout

And, so, it begins. My call is to look for AIG to realize another huge loss in the first or second quarter. Those resignees aren't going to just disappear, and right now a lot of hedge fund managers are wondering just where to target on AIG's book. They're about to find out all they need to know.

But, AIG is only one company. Surely, the rest of the financial system trusts the administration! They certainly won't shy away from doing business with a government willing to overturn contracts at whim!

Update: For a little color on the resignations, you may want to read one of the actual resignation letters. I don't think I've ever felt quite so ashamed of my govenment as I do now.
Hat Tip: Instapundit

Perhaps One of the More Observant and Chilling Things I've Seen on the Net

In response to this article from Charles Krathammer, Instapundit responds:

Of course we are. Because to our governing class, polls are more real than
reality. And consequences, like taxes, are for the little people.

Sadly, to our governing class, I'll add all too much of the general public. And he's exactly right. The elevation of what people think above what actually is in decision-making is perhaps the surest recipe I can think of for collapse. We seem to be living in Atlas Shrugged.

On Ed Liddy of AIG

I think this post has it about right. I mean imagine sitting in this guy's shoes. You've been a successful CEO. You've reached the pinnacle of the business world. Now, you've gone into retirement so as to enjoy the fruits of all of your hard work. You managed your company well. Certainly, it didn't get into the mess so much of the country's financial system is in. Now, it's your chance to sit back and enjoy yourself, maybe work on getting that ulcer and heart condition you've built up over so many years under control. Instead, nope you've been called in to fix one of the worst screw-ups in the entire financial system. You aren't doing it for the glory. Hell, no one will remember you, except as the company's mortician. You aren't doing it for the money. Hell, you're set for life, already. No, you're doing it either for your country or because it's the right thing. You agree to take this nightmare of a job. For $1 a year. Now, for a host of reasons (contractual agreement, preservation of your workforce, etc.), you make the decision to keep a set of bonuses in place. None of them are going to you. You're just getting your measley $1 a year. And the money was a set of payouts agreed to years ago to keep staff on board during the good times. But you're pretty sure you're covered. Hell, Congress just passed a law saying that you're allowed to pay out this money. And what reward do you get for your efforts and sacrifice, the pricks in Congress call you up for a public grilling and scorning. Bear in mind that these are the same pricks who held other execs up for using the same private jets that they use and played no small part in creating the financial mess in the first place. What would be your reaction?

Personally, I'd applaud Mr. Liddy if he went Galt on their asses.

Sloppy, Sloppy Thinking

ThinkProgress is denouncing Rep. Zach Wamp for arguing that healthcare is a privilege rather than a right. Without actually going through the bother of making the case that it is so, ThinkProgress' sneering expects the reader to assume that healthcare is, in fact, a right. Actually, both Rep. Wamp and ThinkProgress are both wrong here. Healthcare is neither a right nor a privilege, but a service. A right is a moral concept delimiting the extent of human interaction. To say that someone has a right to healthcare is to say that they have the right to demand others provide him with such care. But, fundamentally, there's no more reason to say people have the right to demand others provide them with healthcare than there is to say that they have a right to demand others provide them with food, housing, dry cleaning, or intimate services. But, neither is it appropriately a privilege. To the extent that there is a willing buyer and a willing seller for such services, it really isn't much of anyone else's business that the transaction take place.

If You Want Just a Little Hint of Why the Markets are Tanking for Obama...

You need look no further than this little comment from the Obamasiah:

"The stock market is story of like a tracking poll in politics. It bobs up and down day-to-day,“ Obama said. ”And if you spend all your time worrying about that, then you’re probably going to get the long-term strategy wrong.“...“What you’re now seeing is a profit and earnings ratios get to the point that buying stocks is a good thing if you have a long-term perspective on it,”

No wonder he went into a career in community organizing rather than taking a job on Wall Street. If he doesn't understand the concept of a price-earnings ratio, not a "profit and earnings ratio", and thinks that the 18% decline in the S&P realized since he took office is just "up and down day-to-day", the banks no doubt told him to take a fly leap.

So, Who's the Rube Again, David

David Brooks has an article up in the Times decrying just how far left the Obama administration is. He makes a couple of semi-interesting points. But, one comment sticks out:

Moderates now find themselves betwixt and between. On the left, there is a president who appears to be, as Crook says, “a conviction politician, a bold
progressive liberal.” On the right, there are the Rush Limbaugh brigades. The
only thing more scary than Obama’s experiment is the thought that it might fail
and the political power will swing over to a Republican Party that is currently
unfit to wield it.

With all due respect to Mr. Brooks, I think he might want to be a little more reticent in judging the fitness of conservatives to weild power. Mr. Brooks may be surprised at the leftward slant of the Obama administration. But the very "Limbaugh brigades" that he deems himself fit to look down on predicted that the administration would behave this way before Obama was elected president. To my mind, political judgement should be one of, if not the, primary criteria by which we judge the fitness of particular political actors to weild the levers of power. And on this criteria, Mr. Brooks has seems demonstrably less fit than the "Limbaugh brigades".

Well No Shit Sherlock, Warren

Did you try considering this possibility when you backed a socialist for president?