This picture speaks for itself, I know. But because I believe in two part harmonies, let me speak for it also. This is the greatest photo portrait in the history of human existence. It is also a picture of me in my dorm room in the fall of 1996. Your task is to identify how many 90's elements there are in this record and comment accordingly. This photograph will soon be on display in the National Archives; the curator thanks you in advance.
some part of me wishes we can return to a barter economy. my socks for your pencils, or whatever. at least i would be able to understand how it works.
as the economy sank further and further, i took up reading the wall street journal, which i'd only associated with alex p keaton up to that point. the journal manages to synthesize complicated concepts like CDOs in a couple of sentences, while the times can barely explain leverage. moreover, the journal consistently includes sexy details like "On Tuesday, Mr. Buffett says, he was sitting with his feet on his desk in Omaha, drinking a Cherry Coke and munching on mixed nuts, when he got an unusually candid call from a Goldman Sachs Group Inc. investment banker. Tell us what kind of investment you'd consider making in Goldman, the banker urged him, and the firm would try to hammer out a deal."
nonetheless, i enjoyed (?) reading this two-parter in the times from michael lewis and david einhorn on the state of the financial markets. indeed, this is an uncertain time; so much of what we'd assumed was real turned out to be spectacularly illusory. although it is much too easy to reduce this debacle into the usual for-profit bad, public service good dichotomy, we discovered that the two worlds are rather intertwined and, sadly, the destruction of the former has infected the latter. we all lose.
in any case, i am completely fascinated by this madoff thing. the family drama - i don't believe for a second that his sons weren't involved; the sheer breadth - literally six degrees of kevin bacon; those mysterious women (make sure you click on the link here) i once read about in vanity fair and vaguely envied despite their equine features - was their dad involved somehow or is it all just coincidence?
our justice system showed its best side, as it let a man who, in his own words, perpetrated (okay fine, allegedly) a $50 billion fraud traipse around lexington avenue like nothing happened. then the prosecutors thought better of it and decided upon house arrest. THEN, yet another shonda:
The disgraced financier Bernard L. Madoff tried to hide at least $1 million in watches and jewelry from government investigators and should have his bail revoked and sent to jail immediately, federal prosecutors told a judge Monday afternoon.
more impressively, the sons turned the father in!
Last week, Mr. Madoff’s sons, Andrew and Mark, received three packages, containing valuable jewelry and watches, as well as inexpensive items like cufflinks and mittens, according to a person briefed on the contents of the packages. Within a few minutes of receiving the packages, Mr. Madoff’s sons called the law firm of Paul, Weiss, which is representing them, to tell them about the packages, this person said.
guess they've lost their fear of being left out of the will.
and what did congress do? hold yet another hearing, of course. as usual, it was chock full of pithy condemnations and self-righteous anger. here's an idea - do something about it. and that "something" shouldn't be "give away all of our money to a bunch of guys who made more last year than i will in several lifetimes." oh what do i hear? a legislator is coming to our rescue?
Perhaps, one lawmaker suggested, the term “Ponzi scheme,” named after the Italian immigrant who engineered the huge pyramid-investment scheme of the early 20th century, should be declared obsolete and replaced by “the Madoff scheme.”
yes...that's the solution.
sometimes i think to myself, will i ever stop being cynical? isn't it just an easy out? but this unfathomable failure of public trust - how is it that we are giving money, our hard-earned money to vikram pandit? to lloyd blankfein? don't you think hank paulson would've noticed if $750 billion had gone missing during his tenure at goldman? after all, it might have prevented him from amassing an $800m fortune. is it trite to be angry about this at this point? i'd much rather the government give my money to the guy i saw taking a shit in broad daylight on 8th street a few months ago or some welfare queen so she can buy that cadillac she's been eyeing. this entire meltdown has only proven that i haven't been cynical enough.
there is a breathtaking thought.
in parting, to the girl who farted TWICE on the machine next to me at the gym: not cool, man.
oh well, i'm glad kenneth found something to do during the writers' strike.
anyway, this post on abovethelaw is really annoying. reminds me of all those jerk republican parents who told me in high school, "you may be a democrat now, but wait til you earn your first paycheck!" hey guess what? still not republican. okay fine, so i still can't vote. touche.
i have somehow managed to refrain from blogging about this ridonculous lawsuit. i mean, where to begin? the plaintiff is a judge, for chrissake. have some dignity, please. not to dwell on the obvious, but do some people really have this much time on their hands or are they deranged enough to believe this type of a claim is meritorious? and the judge presiding over this case - how can she (he?) let this go on for two years?? i don't remember much from law school, but common sense tells me roy pearson should be disbarred or disciplined at the least.
anyway, some people in dc took a brief respite from their megalomania to attend a benefit to raise money for the chungs, whose legal fees are somewhere above $83,000. [Ed note: read the comments on that post. some real gems out there.] i went to their fundraising website and realized omg, daniel dae kim donated at least $250! um afterelton, it's time to move him up your list.
speaking of pants, i don't know if anyone's noticed this story, but this shit is just a disaster.
"the smartest you'll ever laugh?" i'm glad you asked: this!
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
i think gawker hates columbia bc they always seem to have an article like that every few days. granted, they've also ragged on yale (and deservedly so).
you know, come to think of it, i knew a guy at columbia who went on welfare for a summer bc he wanted to know what it felt like.
and i also remember unfortunate displays of douchebaggery like this one...
Hey, I need to blog again. I know. Parents were in town Christmasweek, and then 'Pockets and I flew back east for a wedding in Pittsburgh/to see if my new niece/nephew had arrived on the scene, but that's no excuse: Benazir was assassinated/bumped her head; Pakistan devolved into a riotous and blood-spattered free-for-all (which led to the destruction of, among other things, my aunt's car...while she was driving it); The Wire season premiere dropped On Demand; Mike Huckabee became the would-be-nominee for a bit, then started to talk about things not related to our Lord and Savior/love handles; Giuliani became irrelevant; and Will Smith secretly converted to Scientology (which makes him still more electable than Romney). Also, Happy New Year! Here's to hoping that nuclear holocaust/impending Chinese colonization/bird flu/Britney-LiLo-Winehouse's inevitable group overdose and-or suicide pact decides to put off plans till '09 at least.
i have somehow managed to refrain from blogging about this ridonculous lawsuit. i mean, where to begin? the plaintiff is a judge, for chrissake. have some dignity, please. not to dwell on the obvious, but do some people really have this much time on their hands or are they deranged enough to believe this type of a claim is meritorious? and the judge presiding over this case - how can she (he?) let this go on for two years?? i don't remember much from law school, but common sense tells me roy pearson should be disbarred or disciplined at the least.
what is more nauseating than the tagline
