The Graduate Too

It's remarkable how rarely treasured insights from "The Analysts" are called into question. It happened in the NYT with reference to "Up," a forthcoming Pixar film:

With “Ratatouille,” analysts fretted about whether moviegoers would go to see a movie about a rat in the kitchen. They did. With “Wall-E,” people feared the lack of dialogue would bore children. It did not.

As noted in the article, those films banked box-office business of a quarter-billion dollars. Each. Yet it seems the asshats still control the dialogue and, by extension, the purse-strings:

“We doubt younger boys will be that excited by the main character,” he wrote, adding a complaint about the lack of a female lead.

Indeed. We are also Quite Concerned that there is a 17% defect in the sass-back quotient and absolutely no fart jokes. How can you possibly even market a film like that?

Astonishingly, Disney (absolute and unchallenged kings of scarcely animated, direct to DVD cash-ins) even puts some pushback on the side of the creative out there:

“We seek to make great films first. If a great film gives birth to a franchise, we are the first company to leverage such success. A check-the-boxes approach to creativity is more likely to result in blandness and failure.”

That's the best statement I've seen come out of Disney since this comment:

We don’t make movies to make money, we make money to make more movies.
Walt Disney

That sentiment, however, is clearly too much to hope for.

Poll to Poll

Ladies and gentlemen, the nearly Vice President of these United States:

Of the $288 million that Palin doesn't want, $170 million would go to education, including money that "would go for programs to help economically disadvantaged and special needs students." Other programs affected include "weatherization, energy efficiency grants, immunizations, air quality grants, emergency food assistance, homeless grants, senior meals, child care development grants, nutrition programs, homeless grants, arts, unemployment services, air quality, and justice assistance grants."

Indeed, we don't want to go stimulating those folks or those programs. Next thing you know, Alaskans would be spending less on their energy bills with potentially devastating impact on the OPEC nations...

The John Erwin Act of 2009

Based off the warm reception the recent AIG retention bonuses have received, I forsee no problem at all for Fannie and Freddie's upcoming round of same.

Here's what it's going to take. First, enact the previous post. Up it to 200%, just to be sure, and include any corporation receiving bailout or TARP monies. Funny how the UAW had to reopen their contracts lest the world surely end, but the millionaires: not so much.

Second, an example needs to be made. Ceterum censeo AIG esse delendam. Starting immediately, AIG shall be taken into bankruptcy. The still very valuable and profitable insurance branch: sold off...on the condition that all its related executives must not be retained beyond six months. Their jobs are over. The dread CDS unit: what's sellable is sold. As to the rest of it, the various counterparties will be approached, and workarounds "negotiated." I'm pretty sure their attidues will soften once the default swap is going to yield a) something -or- b) zero (with the attendant and required revelation on the old balance sheet). What's not unwindable or proves unsellable is held by a resolution trust-style operation and eventually sold. Everyone, and I mean everyone currently employed by AIG that makes above $100,000/yr: goes on the fucking breadline. You can safely fire everyone not in the insurance unit starting tomorrow. And you furthermore ensure that they are not legally employable by any company or proxy of said company that is receiving or received bailout or TARP funds.

Then we wait and see which CEO wants to start off the next round of bonuses for all the hard work and genius. Things have changed. Dramatically. These fucktards just refuse to accept it.

And, media, can we quit with all the "Masters of the Universe" crap? It was foolish and obviously quite sad when times were good. Now it's just pathetic.

100%

Resolved: There shall be a 100% tax on all bonuses, remunerations, inducements, extras, fees, and any other income not classified as "regular" (tax code here) on all employees of AIG for fiscal years through and including 2010.
Resolved: Regular incomes in excess of $50,233.00 shall be taxed at 50% in each of those years for any employee of any institution receiving TARP funds. This shall include all meals, airline flights, club memberships, cars or car services, homes, and any other indirect income received as part of an overall "compensation package" by any individual so employed.

The fucking end. Are you listening, Congress?

Are we really meant to believe that retention bonuses for the very same fucking idiots that crushed the global markets are absolutely required to keep these same "best and brightest" around long enough to fix what they hath wrought? Unbelievable.

We were doing it before we had a name for it

One Kimber VanRy was ticketed to the tune of $25 for sipping a beer on his stoop (not a party, not a nuisance, just sitting out there quietly enjoying a beer in the great urban out-of-doors).

Clyde Haberman reports on the long-term outcome of that event while simultaneously showing us how serious journalism is done:

[VanRy was sitting on] the short stoop of the four-story co-op building on Sterling Place in Prospect Heights, Brooklyn, in which he owns an apartment. The stoop is set well back from the curb, but does not lie behind a gate, as some other stoops on that block do.

There Mr. VanRy sat, on what was private property — minding his own business, working his BlackBerry and nursing a beer. For the curious, it was a 12-ounce bottle of Sierra Nevada.

Twist top or crown cap?

Anywho:

Last week, a judge tossed out the case on a technicality. The matter had dragged on too long, he said.

For Mr. VanRy, the victory was less than satisfying. Larger questions about stoop sitting and sipping were not addressed.

Agreed.

I can only assume editors cut out the explanation of Mr. VanRy's fucked up last name capitalization schema. Perhaps he's big into R (or perl, perhaps) and wanted his name to reflect a delightful air of utterly random and insanity-making camel-casing conventions. Haberman does mention:

Neighbors drinking beer on their front steps get these “quality of life” summonses, but not people sipping wine at New York Philharmonic concerts in Central Park or knocking back frozen daiquiris at summer movie screenings in Bryant Park.

Rest assured, these people will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.

Insect Authority and 9/11

Has there been any greater boon to / more effective accelerant thrown upon the eternal flame of Insect Authority than that of the pervasive fear, uncertainty, and doubt that 9.11 implanted and Bush et al. carefully husbanded and amplified? Today's example comes from the New York Times, where a fellow was (legally) photographing the subway in action at a particularly godforsaken stop somewhere in the Bronx:

“[...]According to the rules of conduct, we are allowed to take pictures,’ ” Mr. Taylor said. “I showed him the rules — they’re bookmarked on my BlackBerry.”

Rule 1050.9 (c) of the state code says, “Photography, filming or video recording in any facility or conveyance is permitted except that ancillary equipment such as lights, reflectors or tripods may not be used.”

Then a police sergeant arrived.

“He tells me that their rules and the transit rules are different,” Mr. Taylor said. “I tell him, ‘If you feel I’m wrong, give me a summons and I’ll see everyone in court.’ The sergeant told them to arrest me.”

[...I've found the quickest way to an arrest is pointing out a policeman's error in this way; but anyway...]

[Taylor] got a batch of summonses.

The first was for “taking photos from the s/b plat of incoming outgoing trains without authority to do so,” abbreviating “southbound platform.” It cited Rule 1050.9 (c).

The second was for disorderly conduct, which consisted of addressing the officers in an “unreasonable voice.”

And the third was for “impeding traffic” — on a platform that is about 10,000 square feet. “I don’t know if you can impede traffic with 15 people per hour coming on the station,” Mr. Taylor said.

(Emphasis added.)

So, the man here is illegally arrested and held, charged with a bunch of nonsense entirely designed to prevent him from ever asking a question again (nothing here is meant to see to the public safety or even the grudging enforcement of some law that everyone involved in the situation might agree is outdated or silly; this is pure intimidation, and was premeditated intimidation at that: guy asks too many questions, guy goes to jail and subsequently has to appear in court as many times as possible. That all these charges will likely be dropped is immaterial to the officer; the entire punishment is the combination of intimidation and inconvenience.).
And just how many people get arrested for "impeding traffic" or some variant of same every year? Millions? I personally know several in vaguely similar circumstances: police can't actually charge them with anything, and the soon-to-be-arrested know it and have used that knowledge against The Authorities, so they're going downtown for, uh, impeding traffic! Six weeks later, the charge is dropped by a dumbfounded judge, probably at a cost not too far off the $1,500/minute quoted in the piece.

This same pattern extends everywhere, it would seem. I've been questioned by security for looking at a building. From the outside (but on their property, by God, which, to their mind, more than likely extends several feet into the street as well). It seems no structure is sufficiently innocuous to avoid Fort Knox level security measures and potential deportation to Gunatanamo for anyone so much as even slightly stepping out of line. Only when we all decide to start fighting each and every one of these incidents like Mr. Taylor did here will we ever make any progress.

This has all happened before...

Chart of the day (from here). So then, 1929 it is. I guess we can all look forward to 2028 when things really get going again...

On the plus side, the article closes with this tidbit:

It is going to be a buying opportunity of the century.

At least we've got that going for us. That and the long awaited chance to start stockpiling yer gold.