The Big Think

October 17, 2009

Yup

Filed under: Humor and Fun — jasony @ 9:37 am

Morning

by Billy Collins
Why do we bother with the rest of the day,
the swale of the afternoon,
the sudden dip into evening,

then night with his notorious perfumes,
his many-pointed stars?

This is the best—
throwing off the light covers,
feet on the cold floor,
and buzzing around the house on espresso—

maybe a splash of water on the face,
a palmful of vitamins—
but mostly buzzing around the house on espresso,

dictionary and atlas open on the rug,
the typewriter waiting for the key of the head,
a cello on the radio,

and, if necessary, the windows—
trees fifty, a hundred years old
out there,
heavy clouds on the way
and the lawn steaming like a horse
in the early morning.

via

My feeling exactly. Thanks, Daniel

All Quiet on the Leftern Front

Filed under: Politics — jasony @ 12:00 am

Today the Obama administration’s “pay czar” demanded that Ken Lewis, Chairman of the Board of Bank of America, work for free. The “czar,” Kenneth Feinberg, pressured Lewis not only to forgo all remaining compensation for 2009, but to repay the $1 million he has already received this year. Lewis acquiesced, saying that “he felt it was not in the best interest of Bank of America for him to get involved in a dispute with the paymaster.” I’m sure he was right about that.

Response to this outrage has been surprisingly muted. In my view, it is hard to imagine anything more un-American than a “pay czar” empowered to order businessmen to work for free.

The main point here is not sympathy for Mr. Lewis, although I am, in fact, sympathetic to him. He is about to retire and will receive a substantial retirement package–only, perhaps, because the pay czar lacked jurisdiction to negate it. But the idea of empowering the federal government to dictate businessmen’s compensation based on political favoritism is absolutely chilling.

This episode illustrates the problem perfectly. Lewis took on the federal government by testifying that Fed chief Ben Bernanke and Henry Paulson, a Democrat who was then Secretary of the Treasury, bullied him into committing what was, in effect, an egregious violation of the securities laws. Bank of America was due to close on its purchase of Merrill Lynch, and Lewis knew that Merrill’s value was plummeting. Lewis testified under oath that Paulson and Bernanke threatened to fire the entire management and board of Bank of America, including Lewis, if Lewis backed out of the Merrill deal or communicated to the bank’s shareholders what a bad deal the purchase had become.

So, according to Lewis, the federal government forced him to violate his duty to his shareholders in order to advance the government’s objectives. The feds were unhappy with Lewis’s blowing the whistle on their actions, which I believe would have been criminal if carried out by private citizens. Bernanke, at least, denied Lewis’s version of events.

So Lewis took on the feds, and now he’s paying the price. The Obama administration has taken away his entire salary for 2009. Political payback, or just a coincidence? In a banana republic, you never know.

via

If true, the implications of this article are truly frightening. When GWB was president, several left-leaning friends were aghast that conservatives were blind to how the administration was “shredding the constitution” and “trampling on individual rights”. I’ve been distressed to see how quiet the left has been the past few months when government has become, if anything, even more willing to do things that would have been unthinkable a generation ago.

One might take a certain amount of schadenfreude in a fat cat having his payday retroactively rescinded by a non elected government “czar”- something that is a flagrant example of an ex post facto order. But what’s the saying?They came for the business owners and I said nothing…

Why is it okay for the government to step in and disallow a lawfully negotiated payday (obscene though it might have been)? It was lawfully negotiated, and Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution is ironclad about this. Answers like “well, it’s the taxpayer’s money” don’t cut it either, since the bailouts (which were forced on Lewis) never included any stipulations that he work for free. I would be interested to hear a rational defense of this, but I can’t think of one.

Why is the left so quiet? Why is the media?

Powered by WordPress