Scalia Examined September 30, 2010March 18, 2017 ON THE COVER OF THE ROLLING STONE Seriously. Read the interview. If you’re a discouraged Obama supporter, I think you’ll be encouraged. If you were never a supporter, you just might have second thoughts. WATCH THE PRESIDENT AT THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN Candidate Obama turned out 21,000 students at the University of Wisconsin in 2008, in the frenzy of his campaign (the 17,000 Rachel mentions, plus an overflow venue of 4,000 more). Well, guess what? He turned out 26,500 on the same campus earlier this week. Watch the clips. MARCHES ON WASHINGTON I don’t think the President is speaking at either of these, but these marches themselves could speak volumes. Can you make one or both? This Saturday, One Nation, Working Together (as described here)? And October 30, Jon Stewart’s Rally to Restore Sanity? Try. Working together, sanely, is just what we need to do. JOB CREATORS WANT THEIR TAXES RAISED Nearly two-thirds of those with income above $250,000 favor a tax hike to help get the country back on track, according to a survey I cited yesterday. I neglected to link to the Wall Street Journal story that was my source. It concludes by quoting a venture capitalist unconcerned by the prospect of tax hikes. ‘What will change my investment decisions,’ he says, ‘is if I see an economy doing better, one in which there is demand for the goods and services my investments produce. I am far more likely to invest if I see a country laying the foundation for future growth.‘ Got that, Joe Scarborough? ADAM COHEN TAKES ON ANTONIN SCALIA Justice Scalia thinks women are not protected by the 14th Amendment, only blacks and George W. Bush. Read it here, in Time: Justice Scalia Mouths Off on Sex Discrimination By ADAM COHEN – Wed Sep 22, 10:10 am ET Leave it to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia to argue that the Constitution does not, in fact, bar sex discrimination. Even though the court has said for decades that the equal-protection clause protects women (and, for that matter, men) from sex discrimination, the outspoken, controversial Scalia claimed late last week that women’s equality is entirely up to the political branches. “If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex,” he told an audience at the University of California’s Hastings College of the Law, “you have legislatures.” To anyone who has followed Justice Scalia’s career, his latest provocative statement shouldn’t come entirely as a surprise. It’s been more than four years since he answered a reporter’s question about his impartiality in religion cases with an under-the-chin hand gesture that some commentators said was a Sicilian obscenity. (A Supreme Court spokeswoman insisted the gesture was “dismissive” but not obscene.) And it’s been about as long since Justice Scalia called his refusal to recuse himself from a case about Vice President Dick Cheney’s energy task force – after he had just gone on a duck-hunting trip with Cheney – the “proudest thing” he has done on the court. But Justice Scalia’s attack on the constitutional rights of women – and of gays, whom he also brushed off – is not just his usual mouthing off. One of his colleagues on the nation’s highest court, Justice Stephen Breyer, has just come out with a book called Making Our Democracy Work: A Judge’s View, which rightly argues that the Constitution is a living document – one that the founders intended to grow over time, to keep up with new events. Justice Scalia is roaring back in defense of “originalism,” his view that the Constitution is stuck in the meaning it had when it was written in the 18th century. Indeed, Justice Scalia likes to present his views as highly principled – he’s not against equal rights for women or anyone else; he’s just giving the Constitution the strict interpretation it must be given. He focuses on the fact that the 14th Amendment was drafted after the Civil War to help lift up freed slaves to equality. “Nobody thought it was directed against sex discrimination,” he told his audience. Yet, the idea that women are protected by the equal-protection clause is hardly new – or controversial. In 1971, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that they were protected, in an opinion by the conservative then Chief Justice Warren Burger. It is no small thing to talk about writing women out of equal protection – or Jews, or Latinos or other groups who would lose their protection by the same logic. It is nice to think that legislatures would protect these minorities from oppression by the majority, but we have a very different country when the Constitution guarantees that it is so. And the fact that we have a very different country now from the days of the Founding Fathers is why Justice Scalia is on the wrong side of this debate. The drafters could have written the Constitution as a list of specific rules and said, “That’s all, folks!” Instead, they wrote a document full of broadly written guarantees: “due process,” “freedom of speech” and yes, “equal protection.” As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes explained almost a century ago, the Constitution’s framers created an “organism” that was meant to grow – and to be interpreted “in the light of our whole national experience,” not based on “what was said a hundred years ago.” The Constitution would be a poor set of rights if it were locked in the 1780s. The Eighth Amendment would protect us against only the sort of punishment that was deemed cruel and unusual back then. As Justice Breyer has said, “Flogging as a punishment might have been fine in the 18th century. That doesn’t mean that it would be OK … today.” And how could we say that the Fourth Amendment limits government wiretapping – when the founders could not have conceived of a telephone, much less a tap? Justice Scalia doesn’t even have consistency on his side. After all, he has been happy to interpret the equal-protection clause broadly when it fits his purposes. In Bush v. Gore, he joined the majority that stopped the vote recount in Florida in 2000 – because they said equal protection required it. Is there really any reason to believe that the drafters – who, after all, were trying to help black people achieve equality – intended to protect President Bush’s right to have the same procedures for a vote recount in Broward County as he had in Miami-Dade? (If Justice Scalia had been an equal-protection originalist in that case, he would have focused on the many black Floridians whose votes were not counted – not on the white President who wanted to stop counting votes.) Even worse, while Justice Scalia argues for writing women out of the Constitution, there is another group he has been working hard to write in: corporations. The word “corporation” does not appear in the Constitution, and there is considerable evidence that the founders were worried about corporate influence. But in a landmark ruling earlier this year, Justice Scalia joined a narrow majority in striking down longstanding limits on corporate spending in federal elections, insisting that they violated the First Amendment. It is a strange view of the Constitution to say that when it says every “person” must have “equal protection,” it does not protect women, but that freedom of “speech” – something only humans were capable of in 1787 and today – guarantees corporations the right to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections. Cohen, a lawyer, is a former TIME writer and a former member of the New York Times editorial board. Case Study, his legal column for TIME.com, appears every Wednesday Tomorrow: Kiwifruit – and Something Positively Thrilling
The Rich Get Richer It's The GOP's #1 Priority September 29, 2010March 18, 2017 ON THE COVER OF THE ROLLING STONE My favorite part of the interview: ROLLING STONE: What do you think the Republican Party stands for today? THE PRESIDENT: Well, on the economic front, their only agenda seems to be tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. If you ask their leadership what their agenda will be going into next year to bring about growth and improve the job numbers out there, what they will say is, “We just want these tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, which will cost us $700 billion and which we’re not going to pay for.” Now what they’ll also say is, “We’re going to control spending.” But of course, when you say you’re going to borrow $700 billion to give an average $100,000-a-year tax break to people making a million dollars a year, or more, and you’re not going to pay for it; when Mitch McConnell’s overall tax package that he just announced recently was priced at about $4 trillion; when you, as a caucus, reject a bipartisan idea for a fiscal commission that originated from Judd Gregg, Republican budget chair, and Kent Conrad, Democratic budget chair, so that I had to end up putting the thing together administratively because we couldn’t get any support – you don’t get a sense that they’re actually serious on the deficit side. ☞ There it is, folks. And the irony is, at least one survey showed nearly two-thirds of the folks who make more than $250,000 a year think they should pay more to help meet the nation’s crisis. It’s called responsible citizenship. Or, perhaps, ‘love of country.’ THE RICH GET RICHER – ESPECIALLY AFTER TAX In 1979, high-income folks were certainly doing better than the rest of Americans – which is exactly how it should be. A society where achievers and risk takers and savers don’t fare better than slackers and squanderers is a society that can’t possibly thrive. But just how much better should the high-income folks live? (And whom should we paying the high income to: mortgage brokers or master teachers?) You can say ‘the free market will make these decisions best if left to its own devices’ – look how well it functioned in setting the right prices for residential real estate and rewarding those who packaged sub-prime mortgages – but whatever your view, it’s still interesting to consider the facts. According to this from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, there has been a big shift in favor of the best-off since 1979. . . . the average middle-income American family had about $9,000 less after-tax income in 2007, and an average household in the top 1 percent had $741,000 more, than they would have had if the 1979 income distribution had remained. . . . Fully two-thirds of the income gains in the last economic expansion (2001-2007) flowed to just the top 1 percent. This is not a healthy sign for a society. As Professor Thaler urges, we need to decide whether we want to promote still-greater inequality (by extending the high-income tax cuts) or lean against this trend. Each year the average millionaire gets about $125,000 from the Bush tax cuts, according to the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. Now seems to be a good time to say enough is enough. Should we conclude that the top 25 hedge fund managers – who collectively earned $25.3 billion in 2009 – are producing so much value for society that we shouldn’t tax them back at the old Clinton/Gore rates? Coming: Kiwifruit and Something Positively Thrilling
Accomplishments To Be Proud Of And Two Marches To Attend September 28, 2010March 18, 2017 TTT Chris Brown: ‘I’m a seller of TTT on today’s merger announcement. After 24% in 19 days, it is no longer the exceptional value that it was. May still be on the cheap side, and the formal announcement of a regular cash dividend will probably help the stock when it comes, but nonetheless, I’m a seller. Company may continue to do well long-term, especially if CEO executes well, but most likely scenario near-term is sideways.’ ☞ Chris sent this email yesterday morning when the stock was closer to $7.50 that the $7.16 at which it closed. So if you sell, you might put your order in a little higher, ‘good ’til canceled.’ And remember, it only seems lower than the $7.90 or so we paid to buy it, because (whether you sell or not) you’ll shortly get the dividend worth $1.90 as described Friday. DA/DT The White House remains determined to repeal ‘Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell’ this year, in line with the goal set by the President in his State of the Union. I think it will happen. The President has a good record of taking on very difficult things and getting them done in the face of unprecedented partisan opposition. To wit . . . PIPEDREAMS COME TRUE . . . this from the Washington Post: The Obama administration’s pipe dreams By Ezra Klein The White House held a conference call [Sept 17] for Elizabeth Warren and various bloggers and writers. Most of it was what you’d expect, but Warren did mention that Rep. Barney Frank once told her that getting a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was a “pipe dream.” I think some people will see that as a mark against Frank, but he was right, at least judging by Washington’s record over the previous 20 or 30 years. In fact, a lot of the Obama administration’s accomplishments were [seen as] pipe dreams. A near-universal health-care system? Why would Obama and the Democrats succeed when Truman, Nixon, Carter, and Clinton had all failed, and politicians as adept as FDR and LBJ refused to even make the attempt? They’ve seen the numbers, right? The health-care industry is bigger now, and richer, and there are no more liberal Republicans. There’s no way. A $787 billion stimulus? Yes, it was too small. But everything Washington does is always too small. And within the confines of that stimulus, the Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress managed to make a host of long-term investments that would’ve been considered huge accomplishments in any other context, but are largely unknown inside this one. Huge investments in green energy, in health information technology, in high-speed rail, in universal broadband, in medical research, in infrastructure. The Making Work Pay tax cut. The Race to the Top education reform program. No recent president has invested in the country on anything like that level. The fact of financial reform is less impressive given the fact of the financial crisis, and readers know that I’m skeptical about the final design of the bill. But the consumer protection agency really is an important addition that might not have been included if the White House was occupied by a different team. There are the smaller items that, in any other administration, would be seen as achievements. Menu labeling in chain restaurants. The Independent Payment Advisory Board to bring down Medicare costs. Ted Kennedy’s SERVE America Act. [Tobacco regulation! Credit card reform! Lilly Ledbetter!] And then there’s what didn’t happen: The financial system didn’t collapse. Henry Paulson, Ben Bernanke and George W. Bush deserve some of the credit for that — though they also deserve some of the blame for not preventing the crisis in the first place. But as Ben Smith says, TARP, which was begun by Bush and implemented by Obama, is probably one of the most successful policies in American history — and it’s also one of the least popular. The Obama administration is also unpopular, though still more popular than the Democrats or Republicans in Congress. Many of its achievements — notably health-care reform and the stimulus — are similarly unpopular. That makes it difficult for the administration to run the midterm campaign that would’ve been the natural extension of this record: We have fulfilled almost all of the major promises we made in the 2008 election, and we’re the most accomplished White House in a generation. Those things are true, of course. And I think that the labor market will eventually recover, and the health-care reform plan will cover 32 million people and make the system better and more secure for a lot of people beyond that, and Obama, like Reagan before him, will be considered an extremely successful president despite struggling with his popularity in the early years of his first term. But for now, that kind of popularity is, well, a pipe dream. And the Obama administration is left running on exactly the record it hoped and promised to have in 2008, but without the level of economic recovery and thus popularity that would’ve helped convince the American people to deliver a favorable initial review. MARCHES ON WASHINGTON Can you make one or both of these? This coming Saturday, One Nation, Working Together (as described here)? And October 30, Jon Stewart’s Rally to Restore Sanity? Try. Working together, sanely, is just what we need to do.
Linda v. Ben Which Of Them Do YOU Find More Persuasive? September 27, 2010March 18, 2017 “THE JOB CREATORS” Answer me this, my billionaire friends: If tax cuts for the best off are so great for the economy, why did we create no new net jobs since enacting them? We’ve had these wonderfully low rates for a long time now. They don’t seem to have created jobs. Conversely, if the higher Clinton-era rates on income above $250,000 were such job killers, how did we manage to create 22 million net new jobs after they were enacted? Give . . . me . . . a . . . break! And stop talking about the struggling small businesses and family farms that won’t be able to hire new workers. In the first place, how many small businesses or family famers do you know these days making more than $250,000? In the second place, if you do know some, please note that the new tax rates will take just a little of their income above $250,000. Most of the excess, quite rightly, they get to keep. But in the third and main place, why on earth would a small business or family farmer not hire a needed worker to help meet demand? Meeting demand makes you money. Failing to meet demand costs you money. And what about demand? The guy making $500,000 a year or $10 million a year is not likely to cut back on consumption if his income taxes taxes go up. And he’s certainly not going to stop investing for fear of having to pay 20% on his capital gain instead of today’s 15% – what, and put his money in a 1% savings account instead? Or in 3% Treasuries that are then taxed at the 39.6% rate? Should we really keep trying the “trickle down” thing, figuring that if we can just build enough yachts and mansions – rather than give average homeowners a tax-credit for weatherizing their homes – our economy will start to hum again? In a sense, we are talking butlers versus teachers. And sure, let me stipulate that this is an oversimplification to make the point, but still. One way, you have some more tax revenue to help states keep teachers in the classroom; the other way, you fire the teachers so that the most fortunate among us might have the added funds to hire (or not have to fire) a butler. Either one is a job, but which better serves the broader interest? And will someone please tell me why Eisenhower is not branded a communist for the 90% top federal tax rate he felt was needed to begin shrinking the National Debt relative to the size of the economy as a whole? Kennedy lowered it to 70%, but were Nixon and Ford communists for keeping it there? It should never be set that high again. But for the Republicans to make their central idea protecting the top 2% from the eminently successful Clinton/Gore era tax rates – this is the core of their pledge! – is so jaw-droppingly irresponsible and economically wrong-headed one can even hold out hope that the “bottom 98%” might finally say, “enough” and vote Democrat. CALLING OUT BEN STEIN I am actually something of a Ben Stein fan. And Steve Schwarzman and I have been friends for 40 years. But when Schwarzman likens Obama’s tax proposal to the Nazis invading Poland, or Ben Stein goes on national TV to say he feels as though he’s being unfairly punished – well, it’s a bit much, don’t you think? Take a minute to watch Linda McGibney call him out on this week’s CBS Sunday Morning. And pass it on. THE PLEDGE The main thing is that it pledges to go backwards. Who would want more of the Bush years? Who wants to be trapped in a job for fear of losing his health insurance? (And who cares where the Guantanamo prisoners are imprisoned? It’s all about playing to fears, as if no U.S. prison is secure enough to hold them.) So I hesitate even to detour through the weeds, because even if it were accurate, the Pledge would be a terrible prescription for America. Still, it may be worth noting, as factcheck.org has, the Pledge is misleading: The Republican “Pledge to America,” released Sept. 23 . . . declares that “the only parts of the economy expanding are government and our national debt.” Not true. So far this year government employment has declined slightly, while private sector employment has increased by 763,000 jobs. says that “jobless claims continue to soar,” when in fact they are down eight percent from their worst levels. repeats a bogus assertion that the Internal Revenue Service may need to expand by 16,500 positions, an inflated estimate based on false assumptions and guesswork. says Obama’s tax proposals would raise taxes on “roughly half the small business income in America,” an exaggeration. Much of the income the GOP is counting actually comes from big businesses making over $50 million a year. [Like multi-billion-dollar hedge funds with just a few employees. – A.T.] For details on these and other examples please read on to the Analysis section. . . . Coming This Week: We WILL Repeal DA/DT … Kiwifruit … and Something Positively Thrilling!
That’s Some Pledge September 24, 2010March 18, 2017 THE REPUBLICAN PLEDGE TO AMERICA We pledge to borrow yet more hundreds of billions of dollars from the Chinese to continue the tax cuts on income over $250,000. We pledge to halt infrastructure spending, because the best way to put people back to work is to leave them unemployed as our bridges collapse. We pledge to be as much like Herbert Hoover – and as little like FDR – as we can. The way to inspire confidence in our future is go deeper into debt, let our infrastructure decay, lay off teachers, police and fire fighters. More to follow. THE BIG LIE: “I WANT YOUR MONEY” This is a movie that the right wing will be inflicting on the nation shortly. It is designed to shift even more wealth and power to the already exceptionally wealthy and powerful. David Durst: “You know what the funniest part of that trailer is? The counter on top showing ‘our ever growing national debt.’ When Ronald Reagan entered the White House our national debt was 0.9 trillion dollars. That’s right: LESS than 1 trillion. Between 1980 and 1992 the Republicans (Reagan and Bush) ramped up ‘our ever growing national debt’ from less than $1, to $4.5 TRILLION dollars. Almost a 500% increase. I don’t remember a single Republican saying a word about our national debt then? Do you?? Then we had 8 years of a Democrat (Clinton) and the national debt increased from $4.5 trillion to $5.9 trillion [but shrank relative to the size of the economy as a whole). That’s a 31% increase in 8 years for the Democrats vs. a 500% increase in 12 years for the Republicans. Next we had good old GWB for 8 years and guess what happened? The debt more than DOUBLED again — from $5.9 trillion to $12.3 trillion. So once again, a Republican President with Republican Senate and House of Reps exploded our national debt. And now we have a Democrat back in the White House – and all of a sudden, the Republicans are SCREAMING bloody murder about the debt. They ran up the National Debt from less than 1 to more than 12 trillion dollars AND they left us with an economy that’s almost as bad as the great depression. And NOW they are worried about the debt?” ☞ This movie is designed to misinform and manipulate the man on the street struggling to make ends meet. It aims to persuade him to vote against his own interests. Boy, is it slick.
Imagine Peace September 23, 2010March 18, 2017 SHUCK-A-KHAN Sarah Johnson: “Maybe this is yet more proof I’m not a guy! My shucking method is as follows (works on ALL shellfish): Locate MetroCard, go to Grand Central Station and walk down the ramp to the Oyster Bar. Sit at marble counter and order. Eat when shucked shellfish arrives. Added benefit? I get to watch someone else do hard work perfectly. I love to observe a job well-done!” Eddie B.: “As a lifelong clammer I have tried many different ways to shuck bivalves. Here’s my favorite: Take an old-style can opener, the kind with a point on it that punches triangular openings in cans. Insert it into the hinge at the backside of the clam. Push firmly while rotating it slightly along its long axis (like you’re drilling back and forth). The tip will work its way into the hinge and eventually the edges will force the shells (valves) apart. Insert the clam knife, or even a butter knife, and scrape the two adductor muscles holding the shells together. Enjoy. Your smashing method certainly works, but you lose the liquor and don’t end up with presentable shells. Also, 5 minutes on the grill will pop ’em right open. Brush with a dab of whatever you like (butter, garlic, salt) and roast for another couple of minutes.” MORE MUNGER Skip Sherrod: “You write, ‘He [Munger] is one Republican who favors keeping Social Security just as it is.’ How anyone could favor keeping Social Security ‘just as it is’ is beyond me. The idea was actuarially unsound from the get go and in its present form will be financially unsustainable for future generations. Those I.O.U.s in the Social Security Trust Fund may be counted as assets, but we can’t pay benefits with them. Lord knows there have been enough impending Social Security crisis warnings issued to choke a goat.” ☞ Well, when a super-no-nonsense self-made Republican billionaire takes this view, I’d suggest you not dismiss it out of hand. The Clinton budget “surpluses” George W. Bush told us were “our money” that we should demand back as tax cuts (mainly for the best off among us) were in large measure not surpluses at all, but cash to be set aside for the Trust Fund. Not as in securities as Merrill Lynch, but as a strong national balance sheet, with low National Debt, that would allow the debt to rise as needed, somewhat, to meet these obligations. Hence President Clinton’s parting theme, as he handed the surplus to his successor: “Save Social Security First.” Meaning: before you spend the surplus on other things, like wars of choice, or squander it on tax cuts for folks who are getting by just fine already. Instead, the Republicans did squander it. Hugely imprudent, huge problem, and I hate that enough Democrats went along to allow it – but tax cuts, once proposed by the chief executive, are very hard to vote against. All that said, my guess is that Charlie Munger’s off-the-cuff “just as is” wouldn’t preclude a little tinkering around the edges other type I’ve written about in the past. That’s all it would take to get the benefits in line with the demographics. (1) I’d keep 62 as the age for early retirement. But, where currently the full-benefits retirement age rises one month per year to 67 in 2027, I would let it keep rising to 69 in 2051. (Hey: “Seventy is the new fifty-five.”) (2) Where the 6.2% tax rate you and your employer each pay drops to zero on wages above a certain cap, I’d have it drop to 1% instead. Annoying, but not a killer. (And worth paying so that grandma – much as we love her – doesn’t have to move in.) (3) I’d keep raising benefits with inflation. But for higher-income recipients, I’d calculate those benefits based on price inflation, not wage inflation, in years when prices rose slower than wages. Bang: you’re done. A bit of pain around the edges, with plenty of time to prepare for it, and the Social Security problem is solved. CLINTON GLOBAL INITIATIVE – IMAGINE PEACE Perhaps the best session was this one you can watch with President Clinton moderating a panel with the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority, the Israeli President, and the Crown Prince of Bahrain. BILL CLINTON ON JOBS And, as suggested earlier this week, take a few minutes to watch what President Clinton had to say after the Daily Show ran out of time last Thursday – this is the part that only the studio audience (and now you, via the web site) got to see – two 8-minute clips.
Molluskation September 22, 2010March 18, 2017 DON’T ASK/DON’T TELL What a disappointment to fall just shy of the 60 required votes. But with the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the House of Representatives, a majority in the Senate, 64% of the Republican electorate and 80% of Democrats all favoring repeal – and with a Federal Disrtrict Court just having ruled the current law unconstitutional – I think we’ll find a way to have open service sooner rather than later. Stay tuned. TTT This one only seemed to drop yesterday. Suggested here earlier this month, TTT is now trading ‘ex-dividend,’ meaning that anyone who buys it now will not get the imminent dividend, which in this case is not cash but, rather, a quarter share of KHDHF for each TTT share. So at 6.80, your shares are really worth 6.80 plus 1/4 of 7.60, or about 8.70. I’m holding on. SHUCKING LIKE A GUY Finally! Last Wednesday, we microwaved corn: Zap, shuck, eat. Today (how much corn could a dumb cluck shuck if a dumb cluck could shuck corn?) we turn to clams. SHUCKING LIKE A GUY Here’s how you’re supposed to shuck clams. Simple, elegant – and I totally couldn’t get it to work, so I invented my own method: Be sure to buy cherrystone clams. They’re big and delicious and a third the price of oysters. Little Neck clams are just annoying. There’s a reason they’re called little. Maybe if you’re a seagull they fill the bill*, but not if you’re a human. Be sure they are all happy. The way to know is that they are tightly shut. If someone tries to sell you a clam that’s already open, and possibly smelly, it’s likely a clam that’s passed on to his or her reward. Take no chances. Clean the shells (“with a stiff brush,” say all the guides) because there could be bacteria on the outside that could infect an open wound, like the one you could inflict on yourself trying to open them. And now you are ready to shuck the first one. Wrap it in a dish towel of some sort . . . “Not my towels!” Charles shouts from the next room. Grab a heavy skillet . . . “Not my cast iron skillet!” Charles has now appeared for emphasis. Wait for Charles to leave and strike the towel flatly, with authority. [Important: you are not trying to smash the clam, just shuck it. A hammer is too specific; a flat skillet is perfect.] Remove any large pieces of shell, open the now completely acquiescent clam (far too dazed to feel any pain) and enjoy. That’s it. Before eating a clam, be sure its liquor is clear, not milky. ALTERNATE MOLLUSKATION Here’s how you steam them. Mmmm, mmmm! No shucking required. But you could also freeze them – just a little, for less than an hour, so their muscles go numb (again, don’t worry: for them it’s like getting stoned) – and they should open enough on their own for you easily to insert the shucking knife as demonstrated by Legal Seafoods’ head chef in the very first link, above. Or you could do the really smart thing and arrive at the Ocean Grill bar Sunday through Thursday night at 9:30pm, after which the oysters, clams and shrimp are shucked to order, half price. *Da BUM bum.
Bill Clinton on Jobs Don't Miss It September 21, 2010March 18, 2017 MUNGER John Kasley: “You write, ‘And he’s 86? Amazing.’ Meh. Maybe not so amazing. You’d never be deliberately unkind (after all, what would your mother think?). There is, however, just an outside chance that people might think that you think that as we age we are unable to do anything but sit on a park bench complain about pains, and drool on our zippers. Munger is the paradigm of ‘use it or lose it’ mental agility.” ☞ Good point. (Sorry, Mom.) Did you see Thursday’s New York Times profile of the sitting Wichita federal district court judge who, at 103, remains clear as the liquor of a properly shucked clam? May I call THAT amazing? KETCHUP, ETC. Howard Tiersky: “You write, ‘Just because ketchup turns brown and is a couple of years past its expiration date doesn’t mean it’s not basically fine…’ My company actually produced an entire web site on the topic of how long you can really keep different foods (often much longer than you’d think). Helps people save money and avoid waste.” ☞ That said, I was surprised to encounter an open, ancient, unrefrigerated jar of peanut butter that had, indeed, gone bad. It so spooked me that, against all my better instincts, I recently tossed – without even opening to sample – a container of yogurt best bought by October 19, 2007 that I found at the back of our refrigerator. It was probably fine, but I had been shaken. THE MIDDLE-CLASS TAX CUT IS FOR RICH PEOPLE TOO Peter Kaczowka: “The so-called middle-class tax cut is a tax cut for everyone, on the first $250,000 of income. If I get a raise that puts me over $250,000 a year (as if), I don’t lose that tax cut. I get it no matter how much I make. It’s a universal tax cut, a tax cut for all.” ☞ Pass it on. THE CLINTON GLOBAL INITIATIVE BEGINS TODAY Read about it here. (The central thesis: CGI seems actually to get more done than the U.N.) Watch its sessions here. BILL CLINTON ON JOBS And take a few minutes to watch what President Clinton had to say after the Daily Show ran out of time last Thursday – this is the part that only the studio audience (and now you, via the web site) got to see. It’s actually split in two parts, as you’ll see. Don’t miss the second part either.
Charlie Munger At 86, Why Worry About Being Politically Correct? September 20, 2010March 18, 2017 SHUCKS Bumped again. But again something more important has come up. And no, I don’t mean Jon Stewart’s October 30 Rally To Restore Sanity or Stephen Colbert’s fiendish and simultaneous March to Keep Fear Alive – though we have in fact booked our $117 four-star Priceline hotel room for both. Rather, Shucking Like a Guy has been bumped for . . . WARREN BUFFETT’S PARTNER CHARLIE Stephen Willey: “Here is a two-hour interview with Charlie Munger. I didn’t regret a minute spent watching. By his own admission, Charlie is a Republican, but his solutions to the current crisis could have been mistaken for your own.” ☞ Thank you for this. Fantastic. And he’s 86? Amazing. Charlie and Warren have been business partners since they were mere multi-millionaires. They are generally regarded as two of the most – if not in fact the two most – astute, level-headed capitalists in the world. Skip the introductions. The actual interview starts 8 minutes in. I like the part (about 27 minutes in) where he praises the selection of Elizabeth Warren and suggests that she may not be tough enough on the financial industry. And the part a few minutes later where he comes out against tax cuts but advocates “the biggest infrastructure program you ever saw” – with special emphasis on becoming energy independent via the sun. He is one Republican who favors keeping Social Security just as it is. But don’t think he’s a squishy liberal – he thinks Costco does more good for the world than the Rockefeller Foundation. He thinks ill of my hero Al Gore. He thinks we’re hugely fortunate both parties worked together to bail out the banking system – that things would have been unimaginably bad if they hadn’t. He thinks you should avoid gold (“even if it works, you’re a jerk”). I’ve long knocked gold, too (how is society enriched by digging for more of something whose principal value lies in its scarcity?), but Charlie ups the ante – and makes me feel a bit guilty about my own fairly recent and reluctant holding in GLD, up 36% since first suggested. May need to rethink. He’s a multibillionaire contrarian who thinks Singapore may have been the best political system, at least for its situation, of any in the world (as he explains in answer to the last student’s question) . . . . . . and he lives by Rudyard Kipling’s classic poem, “If.” I assume you know it, but just in case: If you can keep your head when all about you Are losing theirs and blaming it on you, If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you, But make allowance for their doubting too; If you can wait and not be tired by waiting, Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies, Or being hated, don’t give way to hating, And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise: If you can dream – and not make dreams your master; If you can think – and not make thoughts your aim; If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster And treat those two impostors just the same; If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools, Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken, And stoop and build ’em up with worn-out tools: If you can make one heap of all your winnings And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss, And lose, and start again at your beginnings And never breathe a word about your loss; If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew To serve your turn long after they are gone, And so hold on when there is nothing in you Except the Will which says to them: ‘Hold on!’ If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue, Or walk with Kings – nor lose the common touch, If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you, If all men count with you, but none too much; If you can fill the unforgiving minute With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run, Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it, And – which is more – you’ll be a Man, my son! ☞ If you think Charlie Munger may be possessed of more wisdom than Sarah Palin or Mitch McConnell . . . yes, or even Joe Scarborough . . . if you are willing to listen to a Republican capitalist who thinks the current Republican leadership has its economics all wrong . . . who has thought hard about how terrible economic times made Hitler’s rise possible . . . who remembers the Depression . . . then settle back and listen to him for a couple of hours. If only everybody would.
The Job Creators September 17, 2010March 18, 2017 “We can’t let the people who’ve been hit hardest by this recession and who we need to create the jobs that will get us out of it foot the bill for the Democrats’ two-year adventure in expanded government.” – Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, arguing to extend the Bush tax cuts on income above $250,000 a year It is objectively true. Most people are doing fine. They still have jobs. Sure, maybe their retirement plan balances are down, but if they were $80,000 and now $60,000 – or their home has declined $100,000 in value – well, all told, they’re down $120,000. But if you’re rich, you might have seen your net worth drop by $10 million! Or $500 million! So don’t whine to me about $120,000. To wit: (ChattahBox Political News)—Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) knows which side his bread is buttered on. Yesterday the Minority Leader delivered an impassioned speech on the senate floor, supporting tax cuts for the richest Americans. He reminded his colleagues that our country has been hit hard from a deep recession. And who in America has been suffering the most? The rich. What about the poor and middle class who have lost their homes, lost their jobs and are now making weekly trips to food banks to feed their families? You know, the same people who Republicans have attacked as lazy hobos? No, sorry. According to McConnell, people making over $250,000 a year are “the people who’ve been hit hardest by this recession.” . . . ☞ They’ve been hit the hardest – and (we are constantly told) they are the job creators. Why would we tax the golden goose? But hang on. When Clinton came into office and raised the top income tax rate from 31% to 39.6% (but lowered the capital gains rate from 28% to 20%), unemployment went down. From 7.5% when he was elected to 4% when he left. Despite the tax hike, the job creators somehow managed to create 22 million jobs over Clinton’s eight years. Yet when Bush took office and slashed rates on the best off – from 39.6% to 15% on dividends, from 20% to 15% on capital gains, from 39.6% to 35% on ordinary income – unemployment went up. The job creators went on strike, creating almost no net new jobs. So why would going back to the Clinton rates hurt job creation? Democrats support targeted tax cuts to help small business (and even, when it makes sense, targeted help for big business – like the help we gave GM). The Obama Administration has been all over this. And Democrats totally support seeding vibrant new 21st century industries – see yesterday’s Time excerpt. But borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars to give all those at the top tax breaks? It makes no sense. From politicalcorrection.org: . . . expiration of the Bush tax cuts would only affect roughly 3 percent of small business owners — a fact that Boehner conceded yesterday — and McConnell has been blocking a bill to help small business owners since July. Blocking a bill to help small business. But borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars to continue Bush’s tilt toward those best off? That is a Republican must. Monday (sorry, I thought the above was more important): Shucking Like a Guy