No fraud going on hereabouts, no sir

One hardly knows where to begin with this one:

Bob Greifeld, the chief executive of the Nasdaq stock market, admitted under oath that he did not understand how to calculate gross profit margin, one of the most rudimentary formulas in business accounting.

The admission is humiliating for Mr Greifefld, an MBA graduate who is in the thick of a hostile bid to take over the London Stock Exchange, one of the most significant moves of his career.

I’m not sure which this is a worse condemnation of, the Nasdaq, the American education system as a whole or the business schools. Anyone who lauds the stock markets as some sort of fabulous capitalist tool should first be punched in the face, then forced to read the linked article.

It also raises some very hard questions about the legitimacy of those ridiculous CEO compensation packages. The stock market is primarily one of the many means of elevating the managerial class above the genuinely productive classes, one has to cling pretty desperately to theory in the face of all the evidence to insist that it has anything to do with genuine capitalism.

One does wonder how this math wizard got that plum job. Please, please tell me that Wall Street doesn’t have its equivalent of the casting couch… brrrrrrr.

Anyhow, gross profit margin = (total revenue – cost of sales)/total revenue. It’s not exactly rocket science. I’ve learned better than to assume what will happen, but in a rational world, Nasdaq futures would be heading south on Monday.

5th Annual Warblogger vote

John Hawkins’ is collecting the votes again. Here’s mine:

1) The Funniest Blog

1. The Dilbert Blog. 2. Fraters Libertas. 3. The Reaper’s Hairball (aka BaneRants). 4. Feministe. (Hey, unintentional humor counts too.) 5. The Original Cyberpunk’s Ranting Room.

2) Best Designed Blog

They pretty much all suck from a design perspective. One of the many reasons I just stick with the standard Blogger template. No vote.

3) Most Missed (The best blog that’s out of business now)

Sixteen Volts. I don’t know what his deal was or why he quit, but I liked it even though he now repudiates everything. Honorable mention: The Dark Window. I miss my nemesis and still have not found an adequate replacement for lo, these many moons.

4) Best Original Reporting By A Blog

Got to be Powerline. Honorable mention to Captain Ed.

5) Best Blog Round-Up Site (Best website/blog to go to see the
top/most interesting stories in the blogosphere for the day)

1. Icerocket. 2. Technorati

6) Favorite Columnist Who’s Not A Blogger

1. Fred Reed. 2. John Derbyshire. 3. Pat Buchanan. 4. Ramesh Ponnuru. 5. Thomas Sowell.

7) Least Liked Columnist Who’s Not A Blogger

1. Maureen Dowd. 2. Susan Estrich. 3. John Podhoretz. 4. Ben Shapiro. 5. The Gay Mustacio

8) Favorite Political Website That’s Not A Blog

WorldNetDaily. Still weird, sadly not as good as it’s been in the past, but you still find interesting pieces there that you just won’t find anywhere else. And I’m not talking about my column, but rather Jack Cahill, Joseph Farah and the original reporting. Honorable mention to NRO, the trashy twosome of J-Pod and K-Lo notwithstanding.

9) Favorite Left-Of-Center Blogger

1. John Scalzi, Whatever. 2. Charles Stross 3. Scott Adams, The Dilbert Blog.

10) Most Annoying Left-Of-Center Blogger

Amynda of Pandagon.

11) Most Annoying Right-Of-Center Blogger

Michelle Malkin. Hands down.

12) Most Overrated Blog

1. Powerline. 2. Daily Kos. 3. Michelle Malkin. 4. Instapundit. Don’t get me wrong, Powerline is great, especially if you’re in the mood for serious politics as sport. But it’s not reinventing the brass pole, okay?

13) Best Linker

Instapundit. That’s what he does. He does it well.

14) The Best Original Content For A Blog

Zapata King… just kidding. Bulletproof Pimp. Evangelical Outpost. There isn’t enough original content out there, including here. Although I like to think that the ebooks mitigate that somewhat.

15) Best Blog Overall

NRO’s The Corner. I wish it wasn’t usually dominated by Three Monkey Republican grooming each other and that they were more willing to engage in serious intramural scrimmaging, but nevertheless, it’s the best, most reliably entertaining blog I read on a regular basis.

Safe, secular and single

I don’t think most men need to worry about marrying a serial husband-killer, but this commenter at Dr. Helen’s blog offers some good advice anyhow:

As I see it, the objectives for any young man these days should be as follows:

1. Make absolutely 100% certain that at least until you are in your early/mid thirties, you don’t get married, don’t get any woman pregnant and if whatever legal jurisdiction you are in has or gets palimony laws, you don’t get involved in any ‘relationship’ with a woman whereby she can lay claim to your assets or future income.

2. Get your career on track

3. Live abroad for a while – if you don’t do it in your twenties, you probably won’t do it until you retire, if at all.

4. While you’re living abroad, get a foreign passport and bank account. Choose a country that is not overly compliant with your current jurisdiction and if possible make sure the bank account is non-interest bearing so you don’t have to declare it on you tax forms. Never transfer money to or from that account.

5. Never go near a woman who is a feminist, a divorcee, claims she has been abused or is otherwise weird or has a victim mentality.

I’d add one more point:

6. Unless you are religious or want children, don’t even consider marriage. Seriously, there are tremendous potential costs and comparatively few potential benefits for men in marriages without those two elements, given that so few women now view marriage as a prerequisite to a full and intimate relationship. And given the current child support laws, even the motivation of wanting children is unreliable. If you’re only popping the question because she’s pressuring you, well, all I can say is enjoy your slide into Gamma Male Hell.

While there are women who aren’t self-centered sociopaths ready to unleash the full fury of the man-hating “legal” system on you, they are generally the sort of traditional, religious women who won’t cohabitate or engage in a faux marriage relationship in the first place. It’s really not all that hard to distinguish the gems from the gorgons… always listen carefully to your friends and family’s opinions, it’s much harder to fool those who don’t aren’t being provided with a constantly reinforcing endorphin-reward loop.

It’s hard to imagine a single reason to marry a woman who isn’t a believing and practicing Christian, (unless I was Jewish, Muslim or whatever). Well, I suppose there’s the whole heiress/rich girl game henceforth to be known as the “Federline”, but unless she’s worth a lot more than you are financially, why would you bother? More importantly, how can you afford to dare?

Brownshirts for a Brown America

Remember, these are the same people who insist that immigration won’t change America for the worse:

Violence erupted at a Michigan law school Thursday when protestors tried to block a speech by Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo. Police were called after protestors pulled a fire alarm prior to the speech on immigration policies. There were at least three violent incidents with protestors targeting student backers of the event, Tancredo, R-Littleton, said today.

“One was spit on, one was kicked, and one was punched,” Tancredo said in an e-mail. “Tires were also slashed.”

Michigan State University College Republicans and Young Americans for Freedom sponsored the event. Tancredo went to Michigan State University College of Law as part of a visit to the state to talk about immigration. He leads the group that opposes legal status for illegal immigrants.

Pro-immigrationists believe it is racist to oppose the continued importation of Mexicans, Central Americans, Arabs and other non-Europeans. Maybe so, but even if that is the case, it’s obvious that racism can only be a small part of the equation because it is wildly nonsensical to imagine that allowing tens of millions of people from authoritarian, illiberal cultures will not change their new residence in ways that cause it to resemble the place from which they came.

This is why Washingtonians, Oregonians and Arizonians protest the Californication of their states. Are they being racist in resenting this predominantly white immigration? Of course not! It is the same reason that Southern conservatives despise liberal white Northerners who move South to escape the high taxes, high costs and intrusive government of the “blue states”, then in their inability to understand cause-and-effect, perversely seek to recreate the very conditions they previously fled.

It is obvious that immigration can only be a limited good. If it was an unqualified good, then who would complain if 300 million Chinese communists decided to emigrate and settle in California next year. The true question is this: how much is too much? Based on the evidence, the USA and Britain are far past the too-much point already.

The fact that those who prefer to argue through violence support Brown America is further evidence that the immigration invasion is a deadly threat to both the abstract idea of America and the continuance of its once-soliid social structure.

The logical equation is simple. Brown America will either be the same as White America, or it will be different. History and the existing evidence strongly suggest it will be different. If it is different, then this prompts the question if it will be stronger, wealthier and more free or weaker, poorer and less free.

I shall leave that to the reader to decide.

Protecting the gang

This sure sounds like free speech to me…. NWA had it right from the start:

Police and prosecutors are worried that a Web site claiming to identify more than 4,000 informants and undercover agents will cripple investigations and hang targets on witnesses.

The Web site, WhosaRat.com, first caught the attention of authorities after a Massachusetts man put it online and named a few dozen people as turncoats in 2004. Since then, it has grown into a clearinghouse for mug shots, court papers and rumors.

Federal prosecutors say the site was set up to encourage violence, and federal judges around the country were recently warned that witnesses in their courtrooms may be profiled online.

So, it’s fine for them to publicly post information about on everyone they’d like to cast in a negative light, but free speech must be destroyed in order to let them do their job of looking busy after the fact… I mean, “to protect and to serve”.

It is customary to add, “but of course, most police are fine individuals, blah blah blah.” Forget that. I’m sure there were nice individuals in the Red Guards too. The police are liittle more than a Praetorian Guard, corrupt, self-serving and lawless, slavishly devoted to the revenue-collection in all its perverse forms. The country doesn’t need them, private security guards do all of the actual protecting that is demanded and every community would be better off to fire them all and replace them with a combination of private security services and armed citizens.

Of course, without them, we’d also have to hire someone to assassinate guys about to get married and ninety-two year-old women in the comfort of their homes.

While there are no comprehensive statistics available on police shootings due to the stubborn refusal of these “public servants” to own up to the full extent of their fabulous, public-serving activities, if one assumes that the 1976 figure of 373 fatal police shootings in America has not increased, it still represents 3.3 percent of the 11,350 American gun killings in 2005.

UPDATE: Tim Lynch points out the different way in which police shooters and peon shooters are treated:

Yesterday, NYT columnist Bob Herbert observed (subscr. required) that the cops involved in the shooting death of Sean Bell have still not been questioned by internal affairs detectives. Compare that situation with a John Q. Citizen who claims to have shot someone in self-defense. The cops want to question John Q. as soon as possible — especially before he “lawyers up,” as they say on TV. By the same logic, internal affairs investigators should want to quickly question cops who are involved in questionable shootings.

The rules vary from one jurisdiction to the next, but police unions push to postpone the hour in which an officer-suspect must meet with detectives after a shooting. In Maryland, there is an incredible 10-day rule in effect.