The Schmucks on the Left go "Quack, Quack, Quack."

In an attempt to be slightly less biased, good readers, I present something that nearly made me punch out my computer monitor. Here's Michael Moore, shame-shame-shaming people for being unfairly (or dishonestly?) upset about Bernie Madoff's fleecing thousands of clients.

We're clearly in one of those historic, game changing years: up is down, red is blue and black is president. Aside from Obama himself, no person will provide a more iconic face of this end-of-capitalism-as-we-know-it year than Bernard Lawrence Madoff.
Which is too bad. Yes, he stole $65 billion from some already quite wealthy people. I know that's upsetting to them because rich guys like Bernie are not supposed to be stealing from their own kind. Crime, thievery, looting -- that's what happens on the other side of town. The rules of the money game on Park Avenue and Wall Street are comprised of things like charging the public 29% credit card interest, tricking people into taking out a second mortgage they can't afford, and concocting a student loan system that has graduates in hock for the next 20 years. Now that's smart business! And it's legal. That's where Bernie went wrong -- his scheming, his trickery was an outrage both because it was illegal and because he preyed on his side of the tracks.

What Moore is conveniently omitting here is that while Madoff had plenty of high-profile celebrity clients, many of Madoff's victims also entrusted him with the finances of charitable organizations-- meaning, that, actually, Mike, thanks to trickle-down financial rape-onomics, once again the people that wound up getting screwed actually were the little guys who benefited from services provided by those organizations. Way to stick it to the man.

Had Mr. Madoff just followed the example of his fellow top one-percenters, there were many ways he could have legally multiplied his wealth many times over. Here's how it's done. First, threaten your workers that you'll move their jobs offshore if they don't agree to reduce their pay and benefits. Then move those jobs offshore. Then place that income on the shores of the Cayman Islands and pay no taxes. Don't put the money back into your company. Put it into your pocket and the pockets of your shareholders. There! Done! Legal!

What does any of this actually have to do with the Madoff scandal? He wasn't an employer. He didn't have "jobs" that he could move offshore. He didn't even have a company! I think Mike's mind is retrograding back to his first film and replaying 20-year-old rants about GM shutting down its factory in Flint. News flash, Mike: not everything is about you and your ever-so-precious pet causes.

Next Mike turns, as all good bullies do, to blaming the victims.

And what of Madoff's clients themselves? What did they think was going on to guarantee them incredible returns on their investments every single year -- when no one else on planet Earth was getting anything like that? Some have admitted they did have an inkling "something was up," but no one really wanted to ask what it was that was making their money grow on trees. They were afraid they might find out it had nothing to do with gardening. Many of Madoff's victims have told investigators that, over the years, they have made much more than the original investment they gave Bernie. If I buy a stolen car from the guy down the street, the police will take that car from me regardless of whether I knew it was stolen. If I knew it was stolen, then I go to jail for receiving stolen property.

Perhaps a fair point, but it seems really easy to kick these people now that they're down and bankrupt. (Incidentally, given that all involved lost money, I'm not sure how you would even start figuring out who owes who "reparations".) Also, while they should have perhaps been slightly suspicious of just how much they were making, by all accounts, Madoff's reputation for years had been that of a financial wizard. There did not seem to be any apparent reason to doubt him.
This rant is particularly odious because Moore is totally discounting that many of Madoff's targets were part of the Jewish philanthropic community for decades, people trying to do the right thing and help others, who went with Madoff because he exploited that communal trust placed in him. For Moore, there are no real victims here. He would rather chatter on about how everone had it coming in an attempt to make some unclear, angry point about how rotten capitalism-- and, by association, anyone that has anything to do with it-- is.

You're a shmuck, Mike. Madoff was a vulture who screwed over thousands of well-meaning clients. If you want to chuckle at the misfortune of the rich, I guess that's your perrogative. But don't act like the only ones to suffer are banking executives or rich celebrities who can afford it. The Elise Wiesel Foundation is obliterated. Spielberg's Wunderkinder Foundation is probably dead in the water. These are just two examples of private charities whose primary goal was to help people, and now because of a mistake in judgment and a greedy, predatory, immoral scumbag, they can't. If you want to laugh at that, then I feel sorry for you.

Earth to Everyone: Can we PLEASE rise above this crap?

News flash to this asshole: you are an asshole, you are not funny, you are being counter-productive to your community and your party, and did I mention you're an asshole?

On the other hand, memo to outraged conservatives:

Can you imagine if someone were to hang an effigy of Barack Obama in a mock lynching. Imagine the outcry that would occur and the worldwide media attention it would get.

It's happened. Repeatedly. And I at least, hadn't heard about it. The fact that so many conservatives seem to be phrasing their comments like you suggests they didn't, either.

However, kudos to liberal bloggers and media pundits like Olbermann for denouncing this jackass as the tool he is. By the same token, kudos to conservatives across the blogosphere for denouncing this madness and reminding us that the way to deal with political disagreements in this country is to VOTE.

Reading some of these responses actually makes me feel better about politics. It's encouraging to hear people recognize that there are people behind the politicians, and despite all the crap being thrown back and forth, it's heartening to see people acknowledge that as much as we disagree, we do not wish each other ill-will.

Let's all please remember this as we move forward.

P.S. Malkin does deserve a shout-out for keeping her nose to the grindstone on this wacko. But I wonder if we'll see retractions from bloggers who blamed this on "Democrats attacking anyone who disagrees with them."

Hat-tip: Jill @ Writes Like She Talks.

You're Kidding, Right?

I read this a few days ago and it made me want to blow something up:

The sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products at drug stores would be illegal in San Francisco if an ordinance introduced this week by Mayor Gavin Newsom wins approval.
The proposed law is designed to curb tobacco sales at stores where pharmacists work, but would not apply to big box businesses such as Costco or to grocery stores. The ordinance is just one of a series of measures supported by the mayor intended to promote healthy living among San Francisco residents, said Newsom spokeswoman Giselle Barry.

"The spirit of this is that pharmacies are places people go to get better," she said. "They shouldn't be selling products that cause cancer."

Clearly this woman hasn't stepped inside a Walgreens or Rite-Aid anytime soon. Drug stores are NOT where you to go get healthy; in many areas, they are a substitute convenience store. A quick perusal of one this morning showed, in addition to a pharmacy (which is only open about 2/3rds of the daily operating hours), toys, greeting cards, shampoo, toothbrushes, makeup, a photo-printer, small household electronics (anyone need a rice cooker?), and even a small grocery section- chips, candy, cookies, eggs, milk, soda, sandwiches, and so on. If the standard is now, "where you go to get better", they had better start pulling that beef jerky. Last I checked that stuff had no nutritional value whatsoever.

It gets better, I mean worse:

The legislation says that “through the sale of tobacco products, pharmacies convey tacit approval of the purchase and use of tobacco products.”

Yeah, they also tacitly approve of subtly making you feel ugly by selling you overpriced crap to cover your pimples, and of course eggs, which may or may not play havoc with your cholesterol. Run for the hills!

Public Health Department Director Mitch Katz, who would oversee the enforcement, said it is a “conflict of interest” for pharmacies to sell tobacco products. In some cases, he said, people go to the stores to buy medication to treat health complications brought on by smoking.

So the hell what? Should we ban stores from selling food "just in case" someone with a food addiction happens to walk through the doors?

Luckily, some people recognize this for the plain old foolishness that it is. Unfortunately, they're identified as smokers, so you've been pre-trained to dismiss anything they have to say.

Shamilla Jensen, who had purchased a pack of cigarettes from a Walgreens on Market Street, called the proposed law “silly.”
“Isn’t this a country that touts our freedom?” she said. “Why can’t someone be free to go to Walgreens and buy a pack of cigarettes or not buy a pack of cigarettes?”

Good point. We should really ban our troops from smoking while overseas. Not only is it contrary to their mission (stay alive), I'm pretty sure we're also obligated to "liberate" those poor Iraqis from their cultural addiction to tobacco. Let's start by destroying any hookah we can find. I'm sure that will build goodwill.

And just in case some of you think that this nuttiness is a purely West Coast phenomenon...

Others are on the same track. Bills are pending in New Hampshire, Illinois and Tennessee to bar pharmacies with walk-in clinics from selling tobacco, and a bill in New York would apply to all pharmacies, including those in big stores such as Wal-Mart.

"Pharmacies are places we go to get healthy," says Assemblyman Sam Hoyt, author of the New York proposal. "It just seems inappropriate that on the other hand, they sell something that kills."

Hey, they're even using the same talking points. How cute.

On the plus side, though, we get to hear funny alarmist talk from smoking advocates:

"We're seeing a real trend in which fewer and fewer stores want to be associated with the harm caused by cigarettes," says Matt Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. As fewer stores sell cigarettes, he says, "the cultural norm becomes not smoking."

That doesn't necessarily happen, says Gary Nolan, national spokesman for Citizens Freedom Alliance, a group that defends smokers rights and the free market.

Smokers won't stop but will be driven to a black market run by smugglers, he says.

I smell a new movie in the works- The Hardy Boys and (Cigarette) Smuggler's Cove.

Coming this summer.

Democrats can be Asshats, too.

I try to be even-handed. Usually I fail, more often due to lack of time or interest. But I certainly deplore it when Democrats act badly- particularly since it gives ammo to Republicans.

So let me briefly weigh in on the following issues:

- Don Imus. World-class jackass. Possible misogynist, racist, and general dislikeable douche. IMO, didn't deserve to get fired. Or at least not by coercion through popular outrage. By the same token, wasn't apparently smart enough to help himself avoid it.

Comedians and commentators interviewed over the past several days offered numerous explanations for why Mr. Imus failed the funny test so spectacularly this time, after years of dealing in the same kind of material.
For one thing, they said, the danger was more acute for his show because it confused the kinds of expectations that humor needs to succeed. While Howard Stern’s guests, for example, tend to follow the stripper-bum-drunk-fallen-celebrity continuum fairly closely, Mr. Imus made his name by making his show a forum for serious thought and serious thinkers.
“It really is about expectations when you get down to it,” said Larry Wilmore, a longtime comedy writer who is a correspondent on “The Daily Show With Jon Stewart.” (He is billed as the show’s “senior black correspondent” though he is also its sole black correspondent, and he often uses raced-based humor.)
“I mean you just can’t say, ‘So let’s talk about what’s happening to the economy this week, and up next, nappy-headed hos!,’ ” he said. “People get confused.”
He added that while Mr. Stern and many other white comedians trafficking in race-and-gender-based humor — Sarah Silverman, Sacha Baron Cohen — make it clear to one degree or another that they are playing a role, Mr. Imus has presented himself more or less as Don Imus, a craggy-faced contrarian in a 10-gallon hat.
And while he might have been trying to sling street lingo for its discordant comic effect — as if to say, “Isn’t it ridiculous to hear this coming from a guy who looks like me?” — he was not able to pull it off. Instead, it seemed merely provocative, another sop thrown to his more Neanderthal fans, the kind he has been throwing for years.
“I have a mathematical equation for all this,” said Mr. Wilmore. “White guy plus black slang equals comedy. But here’s where the equation breaks down. White guy plus black slang minus common sense equals tragedy.”
“I think he failed comedically more than anything else,” he added.
As many people have remarked, he also fumbled badly in choosing a target for his joke — a specific and sympathetic target, a come-from-behind women’s basketball team that had just lost a tough championship game. He did not level his lampoon at all black people or all women or, alternately, the kinds of supposedly bulletproof figures used for target practice by the comedy world all the time — politicians, reality-show contestants and celebrities like, for example, Jennifer Lopez.
“That kind of humor works pretty well from below, when you are blasting people who are powerful and rich and who can’t be hurt much,” said Victor Raskin, a professor of English and linguistics at Purdue University and an editor of the International Journal of Humor Research. “But here, it doesn’t work, racist or not.”
Or as the Harvard scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr., put it: “If he had decided to parody the hip-hop world or whomever he got this lingo from, then maybe that would have been funny. But I think his primary goal was to elicit shock, not to make people laugh.”
Some people interviewed suggested that Mr. Imus’s career might have had at least a slim chance of survival if he had parried the attacks by simply being really funny, instead of making the customary rounds of repentance and apologia.
Mr. Kelly cited the example of Ms. Silverman, who was criticized for using an epithet offensive to many Asian-Americans in a joke during “Late Night With Conan O’Brien” in 2001. She never apologized and even worked the incident itself into a new comedy bit that continued to use the word — in essence, defending her comedy with comedy (though many viewers were not placated and will never find the joke funny).
Mr. Wilmore said that instead of apologizing Mr. Imus probably “should have said, ‘You know, it’s hard out here for a pimp.’ Or something like that. Say something really funny.”
“It’s his job to remind people that he’s irreverent, and he’s a satirist,” he added. “I certainly would have done that. I’d have tried to entertain my way out of it.”

While I don't think Imus deserved to get fired, from a strategic point of view, his responses all but ensured he'd get canned. This is not to say I'm opposed to people apologizing when they've done wrong, but the trend seems to support folks who act like Ann Coulter- if you refuse to acknowledge you did anything wrong, you've got a better shot of weathering the storm. The real blame here is less on Imus and more on whatever idiots he's got giving him advice, and letting folks like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson (I'm not a fan) control the discourse. Incidentally, lest anyone start ranting about how it's just the left that wants to control speech, I offer you this gem from FOX. Conversely, here are a few examples of liberals who still believe in free speech. Not conclusive, but not to be ignored, either. Ironically, Rosie O'Donnell defended Imus' right to be a jackass, but her enemies at FOX and elsewhere have used the Imus incident as another weapon to beat her over the head with. Interesting. Some more analysis here and here.

Of course, let's also not forget that while we're all wanking off about Imus, real problems in the black community are still getting ignored. Put some of that righteous anger to some good use for a change. Take home message- at the end of the day, free speech good, national distractions bad.

- On the other side of the coin- no, I don't agree with Rosie O'Donnell's 9/11 comments, hopefully for obvious reasons. However it occurs to me that the Fox News crowd is beating this story to death. Yes, Rosie has a following, but there seems to be little indication that her legions of fans are becoming recruited into the 9/11 truth movement or other such nonsense.

- Duke Rape Case. I paid no attention to this. I have much more interesting things going on in my life. However, it looks like Nifong took America for a ride and the media swallowed it whole. Not cool. Throw the book at him. (I'm not fond of ambush journalism, though, but that's a personal thing.)

- And of course, there's Congress being a bunch of dill-holes. Hey guys, I know that compared to the Republicans' last spending jag, you guys are still in the chump change range, but this really doesn't look good (oh yeah, and you're wasting our money). Combine this with your post-election muzzling of the Republicans, and we really aren't off to that good a start. Traveling on Congressional business (when it's ACTUALLY business) is fine. Five-star resorts? A bit much. Throw us idealists a bone and rise above this stuff a little.

Hat-tip: Boker Tov, Boulder.