Where Fun Comes to Die

And he’s right, of course (all irony aside). Read here.

Although most effervescent wine in the United States is known as Champagne, the French Champagne cartel is trying to convince the American public that true Champagne is only produced in the French region of Champagne.

The Office of Champagne USA has launched an online and print advertising campaign called ‘Unmask the Truth’, aimed at asking consumers to support name protection.

The United States passed a law in 2006 prohibiting the future use of the label Champagne for wines made outside the Champagne region, but allowed those currently using the term Champagne to continue.  Not good enough for the French.  They’re calling for those similarly outraged to speak out and sign a petition.

Regarding the probable success of the Champagne campaign, Sharon Castillo, head of the Office of Champagne said:

We are optimistic, but do not expect results overnight. American consumers are increasingly demanding accurate wine labels and we stand with them.

Really?  American consumers are demanding that Champagne only come from one tiny little region in France?  I doubt that.  Next thing you know, the Germans will be on our case about hamburgers and frankfurters.  What’s next?  White Russians only from Russia?  Peking duck only from Bejing?   Not likely.  The French may have pouted their way into getting Champagne recognized as a legitimate mark in the European Union, but this is America: land of the free, home of the brave.  I think the only “concession” Americans would consider regarding Champagne is labeling ours “American Champagne.”  After all, there is some precedent – right, American Indians?

The Los Angeles Times reports on a new portable home for the homeless:

Until a few weeks ago, he dozed on a thin mattress in the open air. Now he beds down in a snug mobile shelter called an EDAR (short for Everyone Deserves a Roof), a covered contraption that looks like the offspring of a shopping cart and a pop-up camper.

“This is one of the greatest damn gifts you could ever give to anybody,” he says.

Lawyers spoil the party:

Meanwhile, lawyers are sorting out legal issues. Will municipal codes allow users to park their units anywhere? What about constitutional questions and not-in-my-backyard complaints?

Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Irvine School of Law, said police fear the units could constitute dwellings where inhabitants would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. In that scenario, police would need warrants to search EDARs, which could become havens for drug use or prostitution. Chemerinsky maintains that cities could allow the units in designated public places as long as users consented to be searched, much like travelers entering an airport.

Anticipating the economics argument:

Does the EDAR enable homelessness by making it more bearable? No, he insists.  “Why is the EDAR not regressive?” he said. “Because it is not nearly as good as a shelter bed. There’s no pretense it’s as good as permanent or temporary brick-and-mortar housing.” But it is, he says, “infinitely better than a damp cardboard box.”

Actually, EDAR would encourage homelessness at the margins because it improves the quality of homeless life without increasing the costs.  Who would ever choose homelessness just because of EDAR?  People already “choose” homelessness (although many arguably do not) because it is better than their other alternatives: whatever would be considered one step above homelessness.  Because EDAR increases the value of homelessness without increasing the costs, we would expect some people one step above homelessness to go fully homeless.  The argument about EDAR not being as good as a shelter bed ignores its selling points – independence, portability, and a feeling of ownership.

Just because EDAR enables homelessness does not make it undesirable.  If EDAR enables child prostitutes living with their pimps to leave that lifestyle and become “homeless” living in an EDAR, we might feel fine about that.  Also there is no indication that just because EDAR may incentivize people one step above homelessness (child prostitutes) to become fully homeless, it would likewise incentivize people two steps above homelessness (child runaways) to become one step above homeless (child prostitutes).  So EDAR would only increase the number of fully homeless, not increase the number of people at risk to homelessness.

I’m just flabbergasted.  Even from CNN, which is so ridiculously left, it makes me (admittedly left-leaning myself) queasy, has this clip on their front page today.

Someone, please, anyone, let me know why this is still an issue.

Ever since it broke, the Blagojevich story has been weighing heavily on my heart. It’s not the corruption that bothers me. Blagojevich was right when he said that a Senate seat is “an [expletive] valuable thing,” (especially these days, when the government is throwing about hundreds of billions of dollars like a Macy’s parade Santa throwing out candies), and wanting to capitalize on valuable things is human nature. That’s not to condone it, but the basic impulse is understandable. Besides, it’s Illinois. People would become confused and frightened if the politicians didn’t steal. There’d be human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together…mass hysteria! 

The corruption is distasteful, but to me it’s not the scariest thing about the story. The scary thing about the story is the fact that Governor Blagojevich was so bad at crime. When you know that you are the target of a corruption investigation, you should not openly plan criminal conspiracies over the phone or in your office. When picking a target to shake down, you should pick easier targets than President-Elect Obama, Warren Buffet and Bill Gates. Anyone who’s watched The Sopranos or The Wire should be able to figure this stuff out. I don’t like the fact that a state governor, who should be a relatively sophisticated and saavy lawbreaker, doesn’t bother to take the precautions that two-bit coke dealers know to take. If a man can’t even solicit a bribe properly, how can we expect him to manage an entire state government?

Investors buy U.S. debt at zero yield:

In the market equivalent of shoveling cash under the mattress, hordes of buyers were so eager on Tuesday to park money in the world’s safest investment, United States government debt, that they agreed to accept a zero percent rate of return.

Investors accepted the zero percent rate in the government’s auction Tuesday of $30 billion worth of short-term securities that mature in four weeks. Demand was so great even for no return that the government could have sold four times as much.

The news sent a sobering signal: in these troubled economic times, when people have lost vast amounts on stocks, bonds and real estate, making an investment that offers security but no gain is tantamount to coming out ahead.

“The last time this happened was the Great Depression, when people are willing to accept no return on their money, or possibly even a negative return,” said Edward Yardeni, an independent analyst. “If people are so busy during the day just protecting the cash they have, it’s not a good sign.”

Many investors are seeking safety because they believe that the economy is in its worst recession since the Depression. Rather than inflation, which was a worry for some a few months ago, many are now worried about deflation, or falling prices.

“That group of investors has to invest in something,” said Max Bublitz, chief strategist at SCM Advisors. “They don’t have the luxury of saying, ‘I will stick it in the mattress.’ “

Whoa.

There’s a heated discussion occurring online surrounding President-Elect Obama’s citizenship, and unfortunately it’s not got the attention of the mass media.  For me, it only speaks to the alarming trend that I noted as I was working in the Obama HQ, answering calls from around the world – that people really do have obsessive qualities.  It’s perhaps the funniest conspiracy theory that I have heard in a while, though the feeling of humor quickly turns to one of embarassment…

I had a conversation with one caller during the campaign who wanted proof of Obama’s birth by means of his birth certificate.  I directed him to our fact check page, on which a scanned version of the legitimate document was posted.  He then said, well if Obama’s father isn’t American, than neither is Obama.  I corrected him on that fact, as well as pointed out that even if Obama was born outside of the country, he would still be considered a citizen because his mother was a citizen.   He not only said he thinks that is absolutely wrong, but that even if it were the law, McCain would have an exception because he was born to military parents.  I again corrected him and stated that our nation does not have a special class of citizenry for the military.  That although definite exception has existed historically, under the law, our citizens are equal…  and the conversation turned downright silly.  I even had to make a comparison – we may not like that the speed limit is 55mph and that it’s our right as Americans to speak out against it, but we still must conform to that law.  This gentleman agreed, but still thought that in Obama’s case, regardless of the law, he should not be allowed to run for office.

Yes, embarassment…  For those that just don’t quite get it.

Thankfully the Supreme Court is not taking part in this discussion.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/08/supreme-court-rejects-appeal-over-obamas-citizenship/

Liberals voice concerns about Obama

I’ve had hopes that Obama would be true to the moderate, market-friendly side of him that so many of his U of Chicago backers promised would shine through. I think the fact that many Liberals are upset at his tack thus far is proof that he’s at least begun to sail in that general direction. This is good news.

Fox Television is planning a new television program tentatively titled, “Smile, You’re Under Arrest.”  The show features law officers setting up elaborate sting operations to lure criminals with warrants:

“It is a reverse Punk’d,” says Fox President of Alternative Entertainment Mike Darnell. “Instead of the worst day of your life and then a joke at the end, this is the reverse. This is the best day of your life, and then we arrest you.”

The show exploits humanity in ways similar to those depicted in post apocalyptic films such as Mad Max :

One of three set-ups just shot in Arizona features the cops luring a criminal to a movie set with the promise of making him an extra and paying him a couple hundred dollars. An elaborate film set is staged and filming begins on a faux movie. The set-up continues as the director then gets mad at the lead actor, fires him and replaces him with the law-breaking extra.

The scene escalates with the fake director introducing the mark to a supposed studio mogul and continuing to create this dream-comes-true sequence. Finally, all the participants are revealed as officers of the law, and the criminal is apprehended (before signing waivers to let the footage be used in the show).

Other scenarios include a fake fashion shoot where the subject thinks he is about to become a supermodel and another in which the mark becomes an auto racer, a set-up which ends when a police car comes up behind him on a race track to pull him over.

Producers rationalize the exploitation:

“If it were a regular person you’d feel bad for them, but they are all wanted by the law,” Darnell says.

If I were a regular person, maybe I would feel guilty tivo-ing the entire series…

Today U.S. automakers go back to Congress asking for a handout.  In hopes of currying favor with lawmakers, the auto workers union has decided to make its own paltry concessions.  Under the headline, “Auto Workers Give Up Notorious Featherbed“:

The union is suspending its most ridiculed perk, called the JOBS bank. That program, set up as part of a contract agreement reached between Detroit’s Big Three and the union decades ago, pays auto workers 85% of their pay while furloughed. Some workers reported for years to meeting rooms where they would sit and wait for an assignment or be sent to clean public parks. All the while, they would get paid most of their wages.

The JOBS bank had the effect of paying some employees 85% of their wages for years of unemployment.  The inefficiencies of such an approach are astounding.  Not only are we paying people for doing nothing (the perverse incentives of which were previously discussed here), as the article notes:

By making labor a fixed cost, it altered their manufacturing strategy. For most of the past 10 years, the car companies preferred to discount models with big rebates rather than cut production, because they had to pay workers no matter what.

The union is complaining that it had to make any concessions at all:

Because of the environment we’re in, we face difficult challenges.  I use to cringe from the word ‘concessions.’ But that’s what we did. The important thing is to secure these jobs.

Really?  Is that the most important thing?

Meanwhile, U.S. automakers have upped their bailout price tag from $25M to $34M.  Their previous attempt to solicit money from the government was laughed out of Congress for not explaining how the money would be used to slim down operations and make them competitive with their foreign counterparts when their labor costs are $18 more an hour than Toyota‘s.