The White Sox Secret: Straussian Philosophy

The Weekly Standard had this parody today. I enjoyed you, you may too.

-Mr. Alec

Bernanke

You know this guy is qualified when Paul "I Fucking Hate Everything Bush Touches" Krugman gushes about the guy.

Here is what he had to say (I am going to post most of the column because I know most people can't read the New York Times op-eds anymore):

By Bush administration standards, the choice of Ben Bernanke to succeed Alan Greenspan as chairman of the Federal Reserve was just weird.

For one thing, Mr. Bernanke is actually an expert in monetary policy, as opposed to, say, Arabian horses.

Beyond that, Mr. Bernanke's partisanship, if it exists, is so low-key that his co-author on a textbook didn't know he was a registered Republican. The academic work on which his professional reputation rests is apolitical. Moreover, that work is all about how the Fed can influence demand - there's not a hint in his work of support for the right-wing supply-side doctrine.

Nor is he a laissez-faire purist who believes that government governs best when it governs least. On the contrary, he's a policy activist who advocates aggressive government moves to jump-start stalled economies.

For example, a few years back Mr. Bernanke called on Japan to show "Rooseveltian resolve" in fighting its long slump. He even supported a proposal by yours truly that the Bank of Japan try to get Japan's economy moving by, among other things, announcing its intention to push inflation up to 3 or 4 percent per year.

Last but not least, Mr. Bernanke has no personal ties to the Bush family. It's hard to imagine him doing something indictable to support his masters. It's even hard to imagine him doing what Mr. Greenspan did: throwing his prestige as Fed chairman behind irresponsible tax cuts.

All of this raises a frightening prospect. Has President Bush been so damaged by scandals and public disapproval that he has no choice but to appoint qualified, principled people to important positions?

O.K., seriously, many economists and investors feared that Mr. Bush would try to place a highly partisan figure in charge of the Fed. And even before the revelations surfaced about cronyism at FEMA and elsewhere, there was widespread concern that Mr. Bush would try to select a John Snow type - a businessman whose only qualification is loyalty - to run monetary policy. The naming of Mr. Bernanke was a sign of Mr. Bush's weakness, and it brought a collective sigh of relief.

Obviously I'm pleased, too. Full disclosure: Mr. Bernanke was chairman of the Princeton economics department before moving to Washington, and he made the job offer that brought me to Princeton.

So should we all feel confident about the economic future, assuming that Mr. Bernanke is confirmed? Alas, no.

This isn't a comment on Mr. Bernanke's qualifications, although there is one talent, important in a Fed chairman, that Mr. Bernanke has yet to demonstrate (though he may have it). Mr. Greenspan, for all his flaws, has repeatedly shown his ability to divine from fragmentary and sometimes contradictory data which way the economic wind is blowing. As an academic, Mr. Bernanke never had the occasion to make that kind of judgment. We'll just have to see whether he can develop an economic weather sense on the job.

No, my main concern is that the economy may well face a day of reckoning soon after Mr. Bernanke takes office. And while he is surely the best politically possible man for the job (all the other candidates I would have been happy with are independents or Democrats), coping with that day of reckoning without some nasty shocks may be beyond anyone's talents.

The fact is that the U.S. economy's growth over the past few years has depended on two unsustainable trends: a huge surge in house prices and a vast inflow of funds from Asia. Sooner or later, both trends will end, possibly abruptly.

It's true that Mr. Bernanke has given speeches suggesting both that a "global savings glut" will continue to provide the United States with lots of capital inflows, and that housing prices don't reflect a bubble. Well, soothing words are expected from a Fed chairman. He must know that he may be wrong.

If he is, the U.S. economy will find itself in need of the "Rooseveltian resolve" Mr. Bernanke advocated for Japan. We can safely predict that Mr. Bernanke will show that resolve. In fact, Bill Gross of the giant bond fund Pimco has already predicted that next year Mr. Bernanke will start cutting interest rates.

But that may not be enough. When all is said and done, the Fed controls only one thing: the short-term interest rate. And it will be a long time before we have competent, public-spirited people controlling taxes, spending and other instruments of economic policy.

-Mr. Alec

Miers and Krauthammer

The funny thing about Miers withdrawing her nomination is that she did precisely what columnist Charles Krauthammer had said she should do a week before. The Washington Post summarizes what Krauthammer said and what his response to the withdrawl was:

It was Krauthammer who offered the White House last Friday what he called "the perfectly honorable way to solve the conundrum" by using a refusal to turn over Miers's internal memos as a fig leaf for withdrawing her Supreme Court bid -- which is precisely what she did.

"I guess she reads my column," the Washington Post and Fox News commentator said yesterday. "All that was missing was the footnote."

Ouch.

-Mr. Alec

McConnell

Judge Michael McConnell, although an originalist is widely considered to be a prolific scholar. To me he seems like the best of what Bush could stand to offer at this point (especially because he clearly has a ravenous right-wing group to appease this time around). David Brooks even prominently featured him in his now famous Pre-Roberts "Pick a Genius" column him. He had this to say about McConnell:

Look, for example, at how Michael McConnell, who is often mentioned as a possible Supreme Court nominee, has already influenced American life through sheer force of intellect. First as a professor and now as a judge, McConnell has out-argued those who would wall off religion from public life. He's a case study of the sort of forceful advocate of ideas you have a chance to leave the country as your legacy.

McConnell (whom I have never met) is an honest, judicious scholar. When writing about church and state matters, he begins with the frank admission that religion is a problem in a democracy. Religious people feel a loyalty to God and to the state, and sometimes those loyalties conflict.

So he understands why people from Rousseau and Jefferson on down have believed there should be a wall of separation between church and state.

The problem with the Separationist view, he has argued in essays and briefs, is that it's not practical. As government grows and becomes more involved in health, charity, education and culture issues, it begins pushing religion out of those spheres. The Separationist doctrine leads inevitably to discrimination against religion. The state ends up punishing people who are exercising a constitutional right.

In one case, a public high school allowed students to write papers about reincarnation, but a student who wrote on "The Life of Jesus Christ" was given a zero by her teacher. The courts sided with the teacher. In another case, a physiology professor at a public university was forbidden from delivering an optional after-class lecture at the university titled "Evidences of God in Human Physiology," even though other professors were free to profess any secular viewpoints they chose. Around the country, Marxists could meet in public buildings, but Bible study was impermissible.

McConnell argued that government shouldn't be separated from religion, but, as Madison believed, should be neutral about religion. He pointed out that the fire services and the police don't just protect stores and offices, but churches and synagogues as well. In the same way, he declared in congressional testimony in 1995, "When speech reflecting a secular viewpoint is permitted, then speech reflecting a religious viewpoint should be permitted on the same basis." The public square shouldn't be walled off from religion, but open to a plurality of viewpoints, secular and religious. The state shouldn't allow school prayer, which privileges religion, but public money should go to religious and secular service agencies alike.

McConnell's arguments have had a profound effect on court decisions. In the '70s and '80s, Separationists were ascending. But in the past decade, courts have returned to the Neutralist posture McConnell champions.

In short, McConnell is a perfect example of how a forceful advocate — a person who can make broad arguments on principle and apply them in practical ways — can have a huge influence on the law. This is the sort of person any president should want to nominate for the Supreme Court.

Unfortunately it seems McConnell may have killed any chance of ever being able to get confirmed when he said this (via Volokh):

if McConnell were to be nominated, his opponents would have such a good (albeit unfair) soundbite against him that I'm not sure that he could survive it. He wrote, in discussing the 1954 case of Bolling v. Sharpe, that "[t]he suggestion that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits segregation of public facilities is without foundation." Balkin, ed., What Brown v. Board of Education Should Have Said, p. 166. The view that the Fifth Amendment does not prohibit discrimination by the Federal Government is a perfectly respectable originalist viewpoint, though, as I discuss in a recent Georgetown Law Journal article, I believe that originalists have vastly exaggerated the perceived problems with Bolling specifically, and more generally with the idea that the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause includes an antidiscrimination principle (indeed, I believe that Bolling was arguably more justified in terms of text and history than its companion case, Brown v. Board of Education).

But regardless of how plausible, sincere, or even correct McConnell's view of the Fifth Amendment and Bolling is, I'd hate to be on the receiving end of a People for the American Way ad stating that "Bush nominee Michael McConnell believes that the federal government may establish Jim Crow, segregated schools." Or, "McConnell believes that the federal government is allowed to discriminate based on race, sex, or ethnicity." Either such ad, while not exactly fair, would be accurate.

Well, so much for that then. And it is truly a shame, it means that we will probably get stuck with a pre-programed "conservative" who would simply be confirmable, as opposed to a unique legal mind (something that would stand to benefit everyone on the Supreme Court). This of course, may have been why the lackluster Harriet Miers was nominated in the first place, to avoid a situation where someone actually smart could have been "Borked."

Oh well, life goes on. But something to consider.

-Mr. Alec

Fitzmas

Today Fitzmas did not quite live up to what we could all of hoped (Rove did not get indicted, but did not not get indicted). Regardless the heat is on the White House. We'll see what ends up happening.

-Mr. Alec

Economic Literacy

If this seems more formal that usual that is because it should be. I am starting to write columns for the University of Chicago Maroon. We'll see how it goes. In the meanwhile, enjoy:

By far the busiest day of my summer internship with my district’s congresswoman was when I had to man the phones directly after Hurricane Katrina. But surprisingly, many of the calls had little to do with the federal government’s inept handling of Katrina. The area of consternation was instead with the spike in gas prices. Every call started with a constituent reporting outrageous gas prices and demanding that something be done. I would respond by giving them lip service about the Congresswoman weighing her options: the usual.

But I wanted to tell them so bad was the truth. That there is nothing that can be done about rises in gas prices and in fact it is a sign of a healthy economy. This of course would have fallen upon deaf ears (as it did the one time I gave it my best shot). The sad fact is that an overwhelming swath of the American population has no concept of what determines prices and how detrimental government intervention can be.

Despite America’s eminent position in the pantheon of market economies, the populace is woefully ignorant of economics. The irony though, is that despite “the economy” constantly topping polls of what matters most to voters, many would not know economics if it smacked them in the face.

What voters seem to mean by “the economy” is a host of things; some related to economics, but none compromising any sense of the concept of “the economy.” Most prominent would be matters like the unemployment rate or balance of the budget.

Of course the voter is not entirely to blame. Candidates have no problem capitalizing on the fears (or in the case of the balanced budget, creating fears to capitalize on) of the electorate. The best example of this during the 2004 election was the political debate about free-trade, a matter settled long ago amongst economists. Despite the consensus on its merits by those actually qualified to look at such things, John Kerry fearlessly ignored his economic advisors and spouted protectionist/pro-union rhetoric. This is not to say that Republican stances on farm tariffs or tax-cuts deserve any merit. The point is that if a politician is using the word economy, it’s to scare voters they know are ignorant of what their economic advisors have told them.

But this would all be a non-issue if the country knew a thing or two about economics. The only thing stopping legitimate economic debate on issues like gas prices, trade, or Wal-Mart is a brief foray in introductory economics. Many states now require High School students to graduate with knowledge of American civics. This is a good thing; we want voters to understand what checks and balances are. But aren’t the laws of supply and demand just as necessary for the American electorate to be making an educated decision? In a world in which the Federal Reserve Chairman is arguably the most powerful position in government, basic economic literacy ought to far exceed its present lackluster state.

Get to know this man

We'll be seeing a lot of him over the next couple of years. Oh and by the way he has the most powerful position in government.

-Mr. Alec

Syria's involvement in the Hariri assasination

Something tells me conservatives will lay off on the UN this week after a UN commission had this to say:

It is the Commission’s view that the assassination on 14 February 2005 was carried out by a group with an extensive organization and considerable resources and capabilities. The crime had been prepared over the course of several months. For this purpose, the timing and location of Mr. Rafik Hariri’s movements had been monitored and the itineraries of his convoy recorded in detail.

Building on the findings of the Commission and Lebanese investigations to date and on the basis of the material and documentary evidence collected, and the leads pursued until now, there is converging evidence pointing at both Lebanese and Syrian involvement in this terrorist act. It is a well known fact that Syrian Military Intelligence had a pervasive presence in Lebanon at the least until the withdrawal of the Syrian forces pursuant to resolution 1559. The former senior security officials of Lebanon were their appointees. Given the infiltration of Lebanese institutions and society by the Syrian and Lebanese intelligence services working in tandem, it would be difficult to envisage a scenario whereby such a complex assassination plot could have been carried out without their knowledge.

...

It is the Commission’s conclusion that, after having interviewed witnesses and suspects in the Syrian Arab Republic and establishing that many leads point directly towards Syrian security officials as being involved with the assassination, it is incumbent upon Syria to clarify a considerable part of the unresolved questions. While the Syrian authorities, after initial hesitation, have cooperated to a limited degree with the Commission, several interviewees tried to mislead the investigation by giving false or inaccurate statements. The letter addressed to the Commission by the Foreign Minister of the Syrian Arab Republic proved to contain false information. The full picture of the assassination can only be reached through an extensive and credible investigation that would be conducted in an open and transparent manner to the full satisfaction of international scrutiny.

That is about as vehement as the UN gets. It will be interesting to see how the UN responds, if it sits on its hands then it may very well prove to conservatives yet again, their feelings on the UN.

But I think one thing is important to note: that no action would have been possible without the international community seeing a legitimate source concluding what the UN did today. The UN deserves credit when it is due.

Here, here,

Mr. Alec

Rove and Libby

I don't want to jump the gun on this one and start celebrating before I should, so I will be very stealth. If an indictment is actually handed out, expect much much more.

First the New York Times said this today:

As he weighs whether to bring criminal charges in the C.I.A. leak case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special counsel, is focusing on whether Karl Rove, the senior White House adviser, and I. Lewis Libby Jr., chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney, sought to conceal their actions and mislead prosecutors, lawyers involved in the case said Thursday.

Among the charges that Mr. Fitzgerald is considering are perjury, obstruction of justice and false statement - counts that suggest the prosecutor may believe the evidence presented in a 22-month grand jury inquiry shows that the two White House aides sought to cover up their actions, the lawyers said.

Second, ever having read this, it has been my dream for Karl Rove to get what is coming to him. Here’s the beef of my rage:

But no other example of Rove's extreme tactics that I encountered quite compares to what occurred during another 1994 judicial campaign in Alabama. In that year Harold See first ran for the supreme court, becoming the rare Rove client to lose a close race. His opponent, Mark Kennedy, an incumbent Democratic justice and, as George Wallace's son-in-law, a member in good standing of Alabama's first family of politics, was no stranger to hardball politics. "The Wallace family history and what they all went through, that's pretty rough politics," says Joe Perkins, who managed Kennedy's campaign. "But it was a whole new dimension with Rove."

This August, I had lunch with Kennedy near his office in Montgomery. I had hoped to discuss how it was that he had beaten one of the savviest political strategists in modern history, and I expected to hear more of the raucous campaign tales that are a staple of Alabama politics. Neither Kennedy nor our meeting was anything like what I had anticipated. A small man, impeccably dressed and well-mannered, Kennedy appeared to derive little satisfaction from having beaten Rove. In fact, he seemed shaken, even ten years later. He quietly explained how Rove's arrival had poisoned the judicial climate by putting politics above matters of law and justice—"collateral damage," he called it, from the win-at-all-costs attitude that now prevails in judicial races.

He talked about the viciousness of the "slash-and-burn" campaign, and how Rove appealed to the worst elements of human nature. "People vote in Alabama for two reasons," Kennedy told me. "Anger and fear. It's a state that votes against somebody rather than for them. Rove understood how to put his finger right on the trigger point." Kennedy seemed most bothered by the personal nature of the attacks, which, in addition to the usual anti-trial-lawyer litany, had included charges that he was mingling campaign funds with those of a nonprofit children's foundation he was involved with. In the end he eked out a victory by less than one percentage point.

...

When his term on the court ended, he chose not to run for re-election. I later learned another reason why. Kennedy had spent years on the bench as a juvenile and family-court judge, during which time he had developed a strong interest in aiding abused children. In the early 1980s he had helped to start the Children's Trust Fund of Alabama, and he later established the Corporate Foundation for Children, a private, nonprofit organization. At the time of the race he had just served a term as president of the National Committee to Prevent Child Abuse and Neglect. One of Rove's signature tactics is to attack an opponent on the very front that seems unassailable. Kennedy was no exception.

Some of Kennedy's campaign commercials touted his volunteer work, including one that showed him holding hands with children. "We were trying to counter the positives from that ad," a former Rove staffer told me, explaining that some within the See camp initiated a whisper campaign that Kennedy was a pedophile. "It was our standard practice to use the University of Alabama Law School to disseminate whisper-campaign information," the staffer went on. "That was a major device we used for the transmission of this stuff. The students at the law school are from all over the state, and that's one of the ways that Karl got the information out—he knew the law students would take it back to their home towns and it would get out." This would create the impression that the lie was in fact common knowledge across the state. "What Rove does," says Joe Perkins, "is try to make something so bad for a family that the candidate will not subject the family to the hardship. Mark is not your typical Alabama macho, beer-drinkin', tobacco-chewin', pickup-drivin' kind of guy. He is a small, well-groomed, well-educated family man, and what they tried to do was make him look like a homosexual pedophile. That was really, really hard to take."

This would seem preposterous if the same type of thing had not happened in the McCain-Bush primary when whisper campaigns questioned McCain's mental capacity having been tortured during Vietnam and also accused McCain of fathering an illegitimate interracial child that was often at campaign appearances. The child was actually adopted from Mother Teresa's orphanage in Bangladesh.

Finally Rove may get his comeuppance. We can all only wish.

-Mr. Alec

Creepy...

Something tells me I will see this picture many times over the next year.

-Mr. Alec

Happy Birthday

It is our Chief European Coorespondent, Kevin Tierney's birthday today (notice that this blog's Tierney has a head that is actually connected to his neck, as opposed to this Tierney). He is finally 13, congratulations Tierney.

By the way, here is an excellent bio of Mr. Tierney.

Happy Birthday,

Mr. Alec

No Child Left Behind Falls Short

One of my favorite quotes comes from the economist Robert Lucas. I have heard it in a couple of different ways, but the jist of it is, "Once you begin studying the problem as to why some are rich and others poor it is difficult to think seriously about any other issue in economics." Lucas eventually ended up founding a new (and intuitively dubious) school of macroeconomics, namely "rational expectationism." Regardless, the main thrust of his academic career has been that nothing is more important than human capital. I tend to whole-heartedly agree, which is why today's news on testing results is so unfortunate:

The first nationwide test to permit an appraisal of President Bush's signature education law rendered mixed results on Wednesday, with even some supporters of the law expressing disappointment.

Math scores were up slightly but eighth-grade reading showed a decline, and there was only modest progress toward closing the achievement gap between white and minority students, which is one of the Bush administration's primary goals. In many categories, the results indicated, the gap remains as wide as it was in the early 1990's.

By some measures, students were making greater gains before the law was put into effect.

Obviously this is something that we are going to have to give some time (though I was not saying that this summer, but I do stand by all my assertions in that entry) to see if NCLB is working or not.

I truly hope that a couple of bad years will not prompt aimlessly righteous Democrats to dismantle all the good ideas of NCLB for no other reason that retaining the Teacher's Union vote. We'll just have to wait and see.

-Mr. Alec

PS I think I should get bonus points for being the only person not to make fun of NCLB with the title of this post.

Symmetrical Privacy

Lior Strahilevitz, a University of Chicago Law Professor, had some really unique things to say about how we could approach privacy more constructively in this country. I am so sick and tired of the perpetual debate about people complaining about wanting to have more privacy and others bitching about security, efficiency, and a host of other factors that may or may not trump a "right to privacy."

My weariness is what inspiried my affection for this column. Check it out, but here is the beef:

Symmetrical privacy is simply the idea that individuals or entities may access my private data, but if they do so, I am entitled to know what they are up to. Symmetrical privacy is not a core feature of American privacy law, with the exception of case law and several statutes governing criminal searches, but I would argue that this principle has great appeal as a method of resolving many contentious information privacy issues. If an employer, identity thief, health insurer, or credit card company wants to access my credit report, at least let me know about it. If someone makes a FOIA request for government documents that reveal something about me, I should be notified of this request by the government. If someone goes to Fundrace.org or a similar site to see which political candidates I have donated to, I have no right to stop them from doing so, but I ought to have the right to be informed of their snooping. Symmetrical privacy might or might not be a solid foundation for a social networking site, but it seems to me that it is an excellent starting point for the law’s treatment of private information.

I likee.

-Mr. Alec

Rationalizing the most ridiculous (I'm Back)

Sorry, I have been very busy lately. My schedule went to hell and now I am playing catch-up in new classes, but that is no excuse! I should be able to get back in the blogging groove, so do not despair.

With that said, my ridiculous thing of the day is this:

A man got a prison term longer than prosecutors and defense attorneys had agreed to -- all because of Larry Bird.

The lawyers reached a plea agreement Tuesday for a 30-year term for a man accused of shooting with an intent to kill and robbery. But Eric James Torpy wanted his prison term to match Bird's jersey number 33.

``He said if he was going to go down, he was going to go down in Larry Bird's jersey,'' Oklahoma County District Judge Ray Elliott said Wednesday. ``We accommodated his request and he was just as happy as he could be.

``I've never seen anything like this in 26 years in the courthouse. But, I know the DA is happy about it.''

But if that is not ridiculous enough for you, here is Steven Levitt economically justifying Torpy's decision:

If Eric Torpy discounts the future at 20% a year, spending three years in prison 30 years from now is equivalent to spending an extra 1.35 days in prison in present value terms. In other words, under the assumption of a 20% discount rate, this guy should be willing to trade being free now for 1.35 days for adding an extra 3 years on the end of the term. It is amazing how discounting works. (The calculation is .8^30 to figure out how much a day in prison 30 years from now is worth in present value terms.)

So, this isn’t such an expensive way to honor Larry Bird after all. My guess is that getting the national headlines was worth it to him. Maybe Larry Bird will even send him an autographed copy.

Damn economists, always rationalizing everything (god I love it). And on the topic of rational/selfish action, Gary Becker (Levitt's partner in crime) had this to say about Hurricane Katrina contributers:

The impulse toward goodness, in fact, varies according to circumstance. In an experiment by economists at the University of Chicago, the University of Maryland, the University of Nevada at Reno and East Carolina University, residents of Pitt County, N. C., were asked to contribute to a center to study natural-hazard mitigation, as a response to the devastation caused by Hurricanes Dennis and Floyd in eastern North Carolina.

Economists found, unsurprisingly, that people were much more likely to contribute when their donations entered them into a lottery in which they could win several hundred dollars. But they also found that contributions of white men rose by a similar rate when beautiful white women were asking for money.

In most altruistic acts, there is something in it for the giver. "At one level, altruism has a selfish component to it," said the economist Gary Becker, a pioneer in the analysis of altruistic giving.

People get several things from acting altruistically. There's the enlightened self-interest: the needy may feel they are more likely to receive help when they themselves are in trouble. Then there's the inner glow that comes from acting according to one's ideals: be it giving to needy children or to church on Sunday. Having a good deed made known also has its glory, as well as avoiding the stigma of not contributing when everyone else in the congregation, alumni association or social club has.

Cool stuff.

Back in Black,
Mr. Alec

Bizareness

So today I was making my regular runs through the blogosphere and stumbled upon Steven Levitt's latest. His post was just a brief reference to a Malcolm Gladwell article (the popular journalist/sociologist who brought us The Tipping Point and Blink) in the latest New Yorker. The article is about Ivy League admissions policies, it is very interesting (turns out the reason colleges started asking for essays and letters of recommendations was to keep Jews out), but it features this tidbit that Levitt posted:

In the wake of the Jewish crisis, Harvard, Yale, and Princeton chose to adopt what might be called the “best graduates” approach to admissions. France’s École Normale Supérieure, Japan’s University of Tokyo, and most of the world’s other élite schools define their task as looking for the best students—that is, the applicants who will have the greatest academic success during their time in college. The Ivy League schools justified their emphasis on character and personality, however, by arguing that they were searching for the students who would have the greatest success after college. They were looking for leaders, and leadership, the officials of the Ivy League believed, was not a simple matter of academic brilliance. “Should our goal be to select a student body with the highest possible proportions of high-ranking students, or should it be to select, within a reasonably high range of academic ability, a student body with a certain variety of talents, qualities, attitudes, and backgrounds?” Wilbur Bender asked. To him, the answer was obvious. If you let in only the brilliant, then you produced bookworms and bench scientists: you ended up as socially irrelevant as the University of Chicago (an institution Harvard officials looked upon and shuddered).[Emphasis added]

So this naturally led to a flurry of comments that I decided to partake in. It would have been normal had Tucker Max (a University of Chicago alum) not began to comment. You will probably find it amusing to check out the comments, much Ivy League bashing and Tucker Max. Does it honestly get better than that?

So that is about the most exciting thing that has happened to me in the blogosphere yet. Here’s to many more.

-Mr. Alec

The rich keep getting richer

How the hell do you consistently earn double digit returns, annually? I just can't comprehend it.

-Mr. Alec