Some time ago we discussed Bank of America purchasing Merrill Lynch, and the question on the table was whether BofA had gotten a bargain or a headache. Today we know they got a headache, and they were encouraged to acquire that headache by the federal government, according to today’s Market Place Morning Report, where they mention the logic behind BofA also receiving an addition $20 billion. Is this the extent of ML’s exposure? Well that we still don’t know.
Author: Eliot Lear
And yet more WSJ crap: “MN Recount was unconstitutional”
Once again, the WSJ is moderating away any criticism. Another example is a whine about how the statewide recount somehow compares to what happened in Florida in 2000. Nonsense in so many ways, not the least of which would be remedy. There may be one area in common, which is that the U.S. courts probably shouldn’t have jurisdiction in a state matter.
It is my recollection as well that The US Supreme Court had said that the decision should not be cited as precedent. While I can’t find the statement, the obvious logic was that the Supreme Court was under the gun for a decision where the electors had to meet, which is not the case here. A decision under pressure often leads to bad law and charges of partisanship. While I would accuse the Wall Street Journal of such partisanship with incessant and inane attacks against seemingly any and every Democrat, I do not so charge the court. However, the logic behind the decision is questionable, based on their starting point as to whether or not they even had jurisdiction to intervene.
The Latest WSJ Inanities
I am actually a fan of the Wall Street Journal, and have subscribed for the better part of 25 years, either in paper or electronic form, since the day my economics professor, J.J. Seneca, handed out discount cards in class. Their reporting gets right down to the heart of an issue, without reiterating all sorts of basic information from yesterday’s news story.
However, I have never been a fan of their editorial page, as it is too far to the right for the son of a teacher and life-long Democrat. Friday’s editorial by Stephen Moore, recounting all the glamour of the Ayn Rand days (something Alan Greenspan did in his biography), is no exception. As the free market melts around us because it was not properly regulated, here we have a guy whining about both past and present economic stimulous packages on the table. The sheer lack of humility exhibited by the article is appalling. When Alan Greenspan can admit that he was wrong, the Wall Street Journal seems incapable of allowing for the possibility that Libertarian methods might not be the only path to salvation.
This follows up a previous article in which the WSJ claimed that the New Deal had failed. Failure is in the eye of the beholder, and simply putting food on the table in the 30s was considered quite an accomplishment. Perhaps this is why FDR was elected four times.
But this isn’t the worst of the WSJ’s latest crimes. Last year they added a feature where readers could comment on stories by simply clicking on a comment tab. More recently that tab has disappeared from political editorials. So go ahead and comment on a factual story, but please save your disdain for their snobbish opinions for somewhere else. How very Murdoch-esque.
Mind you, I don’t know if a New New Deal is the right approach. But I guess I’m just a little more chastened than these guys.
Who needs an opposition party? We’ve got Democrats
As long as I could recall, we Democrats have prided ourselves on being the “Big Tent” party. This probably stems from a combination of deft political maneuvering by FDR and a singular hatred of the Republicans after the stock market crash of 1929. The downside of the big tent is that nobody inside agrees on much. Here is an article by Peter Baker and David Herszenhorn of the New York Times that talks about how allies in the U.S. Senate are criticizing President-elect Obama and his team about a stimulus package that they claim looks a little too much like trickle-down economics. Everyone agrees that we need more jobs created. Even Republicans! But nobody agrees on how to go about it. President Bush was the darling of the party (not to mention their leader), and was able to set the agenda. But he certainly did that with a lot of support from Republican congressional leaders. Obama doesn’t seem to be doing the same.
This does not bode well for the next administration. If Democrats form a circular firing squad, as they did in 1994, we can expect a Republican Congress just two years from now.
And so now I’m on Facebook
Having staved it off for years I’ve finally joined Facebook. Here are a few initial thoughts:
I was disappointed that the only authentication method offered was old fashioned passwords. We are still as an industry struggling with making the leap to a better means. And it’s not like there are none out there. OpenID and Infocards can no longer be considered new. A question for a future blog entry might be why these technologies are not succeeding. Indeed just this week SlashDot.Org ran a story about how OpenID is losing ground.
There is a whole different set of social rules on Facebook, and I don’t know what they are. For instance:
- One of my friends wanted to add detail about my previous employment experience, which is something I wasn’t prepared to do myself. And so I refused. Have I offended him? I don’t know.
- My initial “note” indicated that I don’t do much with FaceBook, and that people should see my blog. This elicited a long discussion, not involving me. If I don’t reply, have I offended?
Why is Facebook even necessary? Isn’t this what we want the Internet to be in general? Why should this form of communication be limited to one site? For one, people are tired of spam on the Internet and so they are looking for an email replacement. Beyond that, having one’s own web server is a royal pain in the ass. But moreover, the comment I got more than once was that a blog is isolating. Why is that? What makes this blog isolating as compared to Facebook?