Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for February 18th, 2009

This is terrific news.

Around three months before the elections, I had listed the possible re-imposition of the fairness doctrine as one of the downsides of an Obama victory. Now that Obama has categorically ruled out that option, I think it is safe to strike it off from my list of fallouts.

Read Full Post »

The Crapola network has the scoop.

Read Full Post »

They say rightly that truth is stranger than fiction.

So Muthalik and his gang of goons beat up women at pubs because they deem the activity is against Indian culture. This sets off similar acts of violence and vandalism by other Hindu right-wing groups. One of their victims, a fifteen year old girl, is so traumatized by the incident that she commits suicide.

What next? At the very least, you’d expect legal action against the perpetrators, right? But this is India, where miracles happen everyday, only in a bad way. Instead of directing its ire at the bad guys, a Mangalore local court directs the police to file a FIR against the Union minister Renuka Chowdhury for her statement comparing these incidents to the acts of the Taliban.

The whole thing beggars belief. The first news report I read on the matter didn’t mention the law that Ms. Chowdhury had allegedly violated (and for the life of me I couldn’t figure it out); so I scoured around some more. Finally I found it:

…directed the police to register the FIR under section 153 A (Promoting enmity between different groups) and B (Imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integration) and 505 (Statements conducive to public mischief) IPC and also to submit the investigation report before March 20,

The only thing more WTF than the act of the local court is this terrible set of sections under which the FIR was filed. There are ridiculous laws and  then there are ridiculous laws. In the theater of the absurd, anything is possible — and if the results are mostly tragic, hey that’s life!

Read Full Post »

Alex Tabarrok makes a good point:

Notice how the term nationalization confuses the issue.  First, it suggests government ownership of the banks which would indeed be a disaster.  People in favor of free markets will rightly want to avoid any such outcome but ironically it’s the current situation of “wait and see,” and “protect the banker,” which is likely to lead to an anemic recovery and eventual government ownership.  Second, it confuses people on the left who think that nationalization is a way to insure that taxpayers get something on the upside.  That idea is a joke – there is no upside.  Taxpayers are going to have to pay through the nose but the critical point is that the taxpayers must pay the depositors whom they have guaranteed not the banks.

The debate so far has been framed between a “bailout” and “nationalization.” But the public rightly sees the bailout as a way to protect bankers and thus we get pressure for government ownership, which has already happened in part through government control over banker wages.  Bankruptcy in contrast is a normal free market procedure, it emphasizes that the firm has failed and current management should be removed.  Framing the issue in this way, for example, makes it clear that only the depositors should be protected and under reorganization there should be no control over wages on future management (wages are going to have to be high to get anyone to take on the task).  Finally the idea of bankruptcy makes it clear that the goal is to get banks solvent, under new management, and back under private control as quickly as possible.

Read Full Post »

 

Monday morning at 9000 feet

Monday morning at 9000 feet

Sorry for the poor photo quality. Conditions were not exactly amenable for good picture-taking.

Read Full Post »