Paul Krugman demands one miiiiiiilion dollars!

I’m still a couch potato, box of tissues close at hand. So I’m watching stuff my Tivo thought I might want to see, which happened to include the old Bond film Thunderball.

And I found myself thinking about inequality.

You see, there’s a scene early in the movie when the minions of SPECTRE, the evil conspiracy, are shown reporting on their profits from dastardly activities. And the numbers are … ludicrously small. I know that’s a running gag in Austin Powers, But it’s true, it’s true!

Even the big one — demanding a ransom for two stolen nuclear warheads — is 100 million pounds, $280 million. Adjusted for inflation, that’s about $2 billion — or one-eighth of the Goldman Sachs bonus pool.

It’s just an indicator of how huge top incomes have become that what were once viewed as impressive numbers, the kind of thing only arch-villains might demand, now look trivial.

via krugman.blogs.nytimes.com

Yankees fans: Classy!

Talk radio, Twitter and various reports are all wondering this morning: Did the Phillies land Cliff Lee partly because his wife was abused by Yankees fans?

There were cups of beer thrown in her direction, spitting from a balcony above her, and a variety of shouted obscenities during the American League Championship Series, as her husband's Texas Rangers defeated the Bronx Bombers to head to the World Series.

"The fans did not do good things in my heart," Kristen Lee told USA Today. "When people are staring at you, and saying horrible things, it's hard not to take it personal."

via philly.com

Cliff Lee's camp denies this had anything to do with him signing in Philadelphia instead of New York. And I believe it: After all, if you're looking to avoid crude, crass and obnoxious fans -- well, signing in Philly wouldn't actually be the way to do that.

Are your chakras aligned, punk? Well, are they?

If it's good enough for Clint Eastwood, it's probably good enough for the average American soldier. But persuading thousands of troops with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after serving in Iraq and Afghanistan that the answer is to spend their days following the transcendental meditation mantras of the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi may prove a hard sell.

Eastwood joined an array of celebrities to launch Operation Warrior Wellness today at the behest of David Lynch.

Some studies say that about one third of soldiers coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan suffer PTSD. Lynch's own foundation plans to teach 10,000 transcendental meditation (TM) techniques.

In a reflection of the scepticism about the claimed benefits for TM by some academic and medical studies, Eastwood was also keen to dispel any notion that it should not be taken seriously.

"I'm a great supporter of transcendental meditation," he said. "I've been using it for almost 40 years now. It's a great tool for stress ... especially considering the stress our men and women of the armed forces are going through. There's enough studies out there that show that TM is something that could benefit everybody."

via guardian.co.uk

You know, if transcendental meditation helps soldiers mitigate the effects of PTSD, God bless 'em is all I can say. Still, it's always disconcerting to see Clint Eastwood go against type. I want to think of him as a mellowing, stoic proto-fascist dirty cop.

All I want for Christmas is some new 'Doctor Who'

When Doctor Who lands in the nation's living rooms on Christmas Day it is traditional for a succession of baddies to follow. This year, however, his foe won't be Daleks and Cybermen – but an extremely hungry, flying shark.

And if that isn't unlikely enough, the shark features in an adventure that takes Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol for its inspiration and involves the Doctor trying to save a ship of 4,000 passengers from certain death.

"If you're going to do a Christmas Day episode, which is based on the principle that the audience have had a selection box for breakfast and are probably drunk, then you have to move it on a bit – because a normal episode of Doctor Who wouldn't be enough," joked lead writer Steven Moffat after a special preview screening last night.

The show marks Matt Smith's first Christmas Day special as Doctor Who. "I've always wanted to do a Doctor Who Christmas special. It's wonderful, It's been wonderful," he told fans. The episode also stars Michael Gambon as the scrooge-like Kazran Sardick, the singer Katherine Jenkins – and of course the Doctor's companion Amy Pond.

via guardian.co.uk

A question for my lawyer friends out there

Adam G. Ciongoli, the general counsel of a big insurance company, argued a case before the Supreme Court last week. But he was not representing his employer. Indeed, he was not representing any client at all.

Mr. Ciongoli was there because neither the prosecution nor the defense was willing to support a particularly harsh sentencing decision from the federal appeals court in St. Louis. The Supreme Court had appointed him to defend the decision because no one else would.

The court uses that odd procedure roughly every year or so. It is a great honor for the lawyer involved, but it raises questions about whether the court is engaged in a kind of judicial activism in shaping the case before it.

The adversary system generally allows the parties to decide which issues to present. And the Constitution says that federal courts should decide only actual cases and controversies.

via nytimes.com

I've spent some time around the law, but I'm no lawyer. But this heretofore-unknown-to-me practice does raise a question about the law, then: If the Supreme Court *actively appoints lawyers to argue cases that have nobody arguing them* how could it ever justify the dismissal of a case based on "standing"?

I ask this, because there's a theory floating around that the U.S. Court of Appeals will dismiss the Proposition 8 case for lack of standing -- the governor and attorney general of California won't defend the measure, so a private group has stepped forward to do so. The argument is that group, not being the state, lacks the standing to defend the measure. So the court could dismiss the case, letting Prop 8 be overturned in California -- but letting the Supreme Court avoid the thorny question of gay marriage rights in the Constitution.

Which might sound like a swell "half a baby" compromise to those interested in limiting judicial activism -- but again, if the Supreme Court can appoint people to argue the cases that (essentially) it wants to hear, wouldn't dismissal based on standing be more a political move than a legal one? What am I missing?

It's possible that most terrorists aren't that smart

STOCKHOLM — Two days after a bomber killed himself and slightly wounded two people in a commercial district here crowded with Christmas shoppers, investigators offered glimpses of a suspect who, in the pattern of other Islamist terrorists, moved unobtrusively between Europe and the Middle East as he prepared to martyr himself, only to botch the operation in a manner that suggested a clumsy do-it-yourself attack.

via nytimes.com

Speculators Bet On Madoff Case

The lawsuits filed by the trustee seeking money for Bernard L. Madoff’s fraud victims may be a blow for the defendants — but they are catnip for an obscure breed of Wall Street traders speculating on the outcome of the enormous Madoff bankruptcy case.

In recent months, hedge funds and other investment firms have been quietly contacting Madoff victims whose loss claims have been approved by the trustee, Irving H. Picard. These funds — specialists in beaten-down assets known as distressed securities — are offering to buy those claims immediately for cash, but at a sharp discount from their face value.

via dealbook.nytimes.com

Is it wrong to hope that somehow, everybody loses?

Obama: Passive on DADT

This afternoon, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs refused to say that President Obama would call on the Senate to stay in session until it brought up the stand-alone measure to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. In a series of passive replies to the Washington Blade’s Chris Johnson and the Advocate’s Kerry Eleveld, Gibbs didn’t directly urge the Senate to consider the measure, but said, “our hope is that the Senate will take this up again and we’ll see this done by the time the year ends.” “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and DREAM, along with government funding, are all in a basket of issues that are likely to come after” START, he argued earlier in the press briefing.

via wonkroom.thinkprogress.org

Now, maybe the administration is working furiously behind the scenes to get the DADT repeal done during the lame duck. But this certainly *looks* like, once again, the president doesn't have the heart to fight very hard or very visibly for a liberal priority.

Just sayin'.

Cliff Lee's return to Philadelphia brings me a step closer to complete betrayal of the Kansas City Royals

I want to stay a Royals fan. I don't know why I still want to be a Royals fan -- something about not turning your back on who you are and where you come from, I guess.

But Lordy, people, it's tough to stay strong when you live in a place where the major-league team just beat out the New York Yankees for the most-coveted free agent in baseball. A pitcher I really loved during his first go-round here. 

I know, I know: Big-market and small-market disparities. It's still way more fun to root for a team whose objective is "let's try to win the World Series next year" instead of "maybe we'll be ready for above-.500 baseball in 2012 if everything pans out juuuuuuust right."

I'm trying to stay loyal, Royals. But the Phils are making it real hard. I might even buy my son a Phillies baseball cap.

The rank, ugly hypocrisy of the Wall Street Journal

As the Virginia case shows, ObamaCare really does stretch the Commerce Clause to the breaking point. The core issue is whether the federal government can order individuals to do anything the political class decides it wants them to do. The stakes couldn't be higher for our constitutional order.

via online.wsj.com

You know, I'm not a huge fan of the individual mandate. And I should be against ad hominem attacks. But I'd take this rhetoric from the Wall Street Journal a lot more seriously if they didn't *regularly* publish John Yoo, who is of the opinion that the president has the right to violate treaties, order a child's testacles crushed and suspend the First Amendment in a time of war if he so chooses. This paper has regularly given its imprimatur to the idea that there are no limits when a president doesn't want there to be.

Oh, I'm sorry, let me rephrase that. The paper has regularly given its imprimatur to the idea that there are no limits to the federal government's power when a Republican president doesn't want there to be.

The Wall Street Journal's fidelity to liberty and Constitutional order isn't just suspect -- it's laughable. The hypocrisy is too thick to bear.

Me @Macworld: Politico launches iPad app

Politico has launched its iPad application, joining a growing list of news publications to refashion their content for Apple’s tablet device.

The Washington D.C.-based political news publication quietly launched the app last Friday, and was advertising the program Monday afternoon on its Website. The app sports three pages of headlines from Politico, but—other than font-size choosing and social-media sharing—offers few additional features for users.

via macworld.com

Time to make an Al Gore joke

In the 21st century, the security of nations will depend increasingly on the security of natural resources, or “natural security.”  Countries around the world rely on the availability of potable water, arable land, fish stocks, biodiversity, energy, minerals and other renewable and nonrenewable resources to meet the rising needs and expectations of a growing world population. Yet the availability of these resources is by no means assured.  This report - authored by  Christine Parthemore and Will Rogers - points to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Mexico and Yemen as examples of how natural security challenges are directly linked to internal stability, regional dynamics and U.S. security and foreign policy interests.

via cnas.org

It's interesting to me that the American military -- as a group, about as conservative and GOP-oriented a collection of humans as you'll ever find -- is preparing for and thinking about what climate change will mean for America's national security. What do they know that their civilian friends don't?

Only Republicans can cry in public

Rep. John Boehner sat down with Lesley Stahl for a 60 Minutes interview that aired Sunday, but the most talked-about part of the interview wasn't anything the future House speaker said (although the fact that he "rejects the word 'compromise'" got a few headlines), it was what he did - cry. For the second time since election night, the minority leader choked up with the cameras rolling.

via slatest.slate.com

I've got to say, if Barack Obama teared up in a televised interview, Republicans would never let us hear the end of it. There's nothing wrong, in my opinion, with showing strongly felt emotion. Remember when National Review/CNBC/Big Government's Larry Kudlow lamented Obama hugging Rahm Emmanuel at a press conference? "It did not send a message of American power and forcefulness." Kudlow fretted -- probably with a purpose.

Everybody's having a laugh today at Boehner's tears. But nobody is really trying to make the case that American prestige is threatened by them. It's a double-standard -- a fairly small one, as they go, but still.

Winners and losers

Exciting news from Wall Street! Thanks to low-interest rates and an influx of capital from the Fed's emergency lending program and the Troubled Asset Relief Program, Bloomberg reports that 2010 is on track to be the second most-profitable year in Wall Street history. "Even if this quarter only matches the third, [Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup and Morgan Stanley's] revenue will top that of any year except 2009," reporter Michael Moore writes.

via slatest.slate.com

Victor Davis Hanson: Still very, very wrong about Iraq

So there were plenty of reasons, not counting fear of WMD, for Congress to have wanted to remove Saddam — and indeed a majority of Democratic senators, including Harry Reid, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton, and sizable numbers of House Democrats voted for the resolutions. The administration erred in hyping one or two writs concerning WMD, and today the result is that we have completely forgotten the congressional authorizations in late 2002 and their rather long litany of Saddam’s transgressions — which had earlier led Bill Clinton to push through a regime-change authorization of his own (the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998).

via nationalreview.com

For those interested in re-fighting the debate leading to the invasion of Iraq, it must be remembered that the Bush Administration hyped WMD as a reason for going to war because, really, it was *the* necessary and sufficent condition to get the American people's backing for the invasion. Even after 9/11, were Americans ready to start a land war in the Middle East over the no-fly zone? Over violations of UN sanctions? I'll wager not. The Bush Administration was able to go to war because it persuaded the American people *that their safety was endangered* by not acting before Saddam surely would. The Bush Administration was wrong. The war was, and continues to be, an unjustifiable disaster.

Is Atrios right about health reform?

I'm no constitutional scholar like Ann Coulter, but given my good enough for a blogpost understanding of this I actually don't think it's insane to rule that the individual mandate is unconstitutional.

via eschatonblog.com

He might be. It's obviously pretty easy for us liberals to gripe about legislation that falls short of perfection, but the individual mandate looks uglier and uglier as time goes on. I know, from a policy standpoint, why health reform advocates thought it was needed -- to prevent healthy people from gaming the new system and staying out until they needed it to spend money. But it seems like the act, as passed, was designed to alienate as many voters as it made happy. If it goes down in judicial flames, it will be yet another generation (at least) before Democrats have a bite at this particular apple.

Me @Macworld: VoodooPad comes to iOS

A desktop program that lets users create personal wikis has made its debut as an application for the iPhone and iPad.

VoodooPad for iOS, an offering from developer Flying Meat, made its debut last Friday in Apple's App Store.

via macworld.com

Mr. Mom Chronicles: An update

I've finally figured out one key tool to working/parenting at the same time: the baby gate. I confine kid to his room and let him play in there while I'm writing. It's a small apartment -- his doorway looks out into the living room, where I work. So if he needs anything, he just has to peek out and ask. We're still together, but he's not trying to climb around in my lap while I try to make turn developer-speak into English for Macworld's readers. Very helpful.

Moose the Mooche

Pandora is giving me The Dirty Dozen Brass Band version of this song this morning:

On Social Security, Bernie Sanders gets support from the right

Here’s another problem: Does anyone think that Congress will be able to hold this “one-year” holiday on a portion of Social Security taxes to just one year if unemployment, come Christmas 2011, is still closer to 10 percent than to 5 percent? Politically, it’s going to be hard for members of either party, ahead of an election, to start taking more cash out of people’s paychecks.

via nationalreview.com

That's Nicole Gelinas writing at National Review -- and it's pretty much the same point that Bernie Sanders made during his Friday Filibuster: the payroll tax holiday is going to feel pretty nice this coming year, I'm certain, but if it remains a permanent feature of the tax landscape -- and it's going to be difficult to reinstate -- well, that will do more to undermine Social Security than all the failed privatization plans put together. If Nicole Gelinas and Bernie Sanders can agree on this point, who is left to disagree?