quick bs

I was thinking about buying this t-shirt for the Fourth of July,

Here's a close-up of the label. 

...


Speaking of China, here's a disturbing Vanity Fair article about Chinese state sponsored hacking.

I like Vanity Fair, but one thing that kind of rubbed me the wrong way---something Aaron considers a barometer for publications---was the depth of their Royal family coverage.

Although, I must admit, I've developed a weird interest in the Royal Family because I feel like it would be a pain in the ass to be Prince William. Every time I see pictures of him he's constantly being shuffled from ceremony to ceremony. He's always got a straight face, or maybe a forced smile. He probably has to cheese-dick more than anyone on Earth. Imagine how jealous he must be of his prep school friends who live comparable lives in terms of wealth, but can go out and get drunk without worrying about paparazzi.

And how about this picture of his wife and the Canadian Prime Minister?

The motherfucker looks like he wants to lean in for a kiss.

And then tack on this picture?

Maybe William should keep an eye on the old man---he didn't become Prime Minister of Canada by not being charming.

...


Speaking of stuff I recently read, here is something I wrote three years ago:

It's funny how conservative economic policy is much more rooted in Social Darwinism than that of liberals. And yet I'd bet a testicle that a vast majority of those who don't believe in evolution also consider themselves Conservative.

And here is Ryan Lizza's plagiarism of that line from his article on Michele Bachmann in week's New Yorker:

It is a peculiarity of the current political moment that a politician with a history of pushing sectarian religious beliefs in government has become a hero to a libertarian movement.

Ok, maybe he didn't consciously plagiarize---after all it's been three years since he read my line. (His version is funnier. But in my defense, mine was originally just a comment I left on someone else's blog cut and pasted onto mine because it was so fucking profound.)

I feel like New Yorker profiles on Republican politicians are all similar: they're either negative or---at best---only slightly negative. But for some reason---by some miracle of Republican stupidity---New Yorker reporters always get intimate access to the politicians. In this case Lizza was one of six reporters allowed to fly with Bachmann on her private jet.

How does that happen? What do Bachmann's people imagine the end result to be?? (are they hoping that negative coverage from the New Yorker legitimizes her?)

Here's the basic formula for every Republican profile in the New Yorker:

1) anecdote about reporter meeting the politician
2) short background on parents and childhood
3) short descriptions of moderate right wing influences in adolescent years
4) description of entry into politics
5) detailed descriptions of extreme right wing influences in early adult years
6) random inconsistent / crazy / stupid things they've said
7) explanation of politician's current take on past extreme right wing influences
8) short description of one good thing the politician has done
9) descriptions of the terrible things they're likely to do if elected
10) back to the original anecdote

Don't get me wrong. I LOVE these articles. I read the Boehner article twice (and I thought they actually took a somewhat neutral stance on him---if I had to sum it up in one sentence, it would be, "Look, he's a pro-business Republican and he's got more hands in his pockets than an American wearing cargo pants on a Roman subway, but he's not necessarily a terrible person.")

But that's the best case scenario. Worst case is something like this Bachmann article that pretty much says she's a dumb fanatical liar who might actually be crazy enough to believe she can win a Presidential election by looking as pretty as she can while never straying from the most generic Tea Party rhetoric---which is a fusion of libertarian/borderline-anarchic economics and conservative Christian social policy---and she's only made it this far because no one has taken her seriously.

...


Speaking of Bachmann. There is controversy over this picture of her on the cover of Newsweek because it makes her look crazy.

The headline "The Queen of Rage" probably doesn't help.

Great picture though. I'd love to hear the photographer's story about discovering it.

...

But media is just slanted on the right. The Wall Street Journal is no stranger to extreme and poorly written op-ed pieces; this one from yesterday might be the dumbest op-ed I've ever read.

And not only did that pile of shit somehow find a way to get itself published in the Journal, but it's actually the most read and e-mailed article on their website. I guess that says something about the state of our fucking political discourse.

Healthcare

A few Sundays ago my dad awoke feeling nauseated. My mom assumed it was a hangover from the six tequila shots he drank night before---probably the most he’s drank in my lifetime---but my dad disagreed. My dad drinks once or twice a week, but rarely more than two beers, so he has probably forgotten the pain of a real hangover. As a result he checked his blood pressure that morning and found it was higher than normal and decided to visit his primary care physician.

His PCP referred him to a specialist, and the specialist told him he had suffered a minor heart attack. My dad couldn't believe it.

My dad has never had a heart attack, but the heart-attack-conducive temperament runs in his family. And although he has improved his diet and takes a cholesterol lowering medication, he wasn't exactly exercising regularly and eating grilled chicken salads every night either, so the possibility of him having a heart attack at 70 wasn't completely unreasonable. (But to this day, he insists he didn’t have one.)

The specialist suggested inserting a stent into one of my dad’s arteries to keep it clear and prevent future heart attacks. He recommended my dad stay at the hospital overnight and undergo a simple outpatient procedure (requiring only local anesthetic) the next day.

My dad was skeptical, but the doctor strongly recommended the stent, as did my mom---who may have just wanted the peace and quiet of having my dad out of the house for 24 hours---so he agreed. My dad stayed at the hospital that night and had the procedure the next day. He has been fine ever since, and has even started exercising regularly.

My dad's hospital bill was $120,000, and since he’s 70, it was covered by Medicare.

According to the CIA factbook (which I highly recommend for random perusal) our GDP per capita is $47,000. For the sake of extreme oversimplification, let's say the average retired American made $50,000/year, paid 12% payroll taxes and worked for 45 years. And lets say payroll taxes were split 50/50 between Medicare and Social Security. And lets give him the $50k salary for all 45 years to adjust for inflation.

If we assume my dad is an average American, he contributed $135,000 to Medicare in his life. Add a $150/month premium for the last five years, and his lifetime contribution is still only $149,000. And thanks to the wonders of modern medicine---the effectiveness of which has been accelerated by our readiness to pay top dollar for it---he has a long retirement full of modern medicine consumption ahead of him.

I read an article last week citing studies suggesting that doctors tend to overuse stents. I'm not suggesting that my dad's doctor unnecessarily gave him a stent, but the $120,000 price tag on the operation probably didn’t dissuade him.

The threat of malpractice litigation should ensure that a doctor won’t do anything that may potentially harm my dad. But what about doing something that is unlikely to harm him, but is also unnecessary?

No one in our case is complaining. If the stent decreases my dad's chances of a heart attack by .01% without any adverse effects, then my dad, me, the doctor, the nurse who works for the doctor, the hospital, the stent manufacturer, the steakhouse next door to the stent manufacturer’s office, the former owner of the doctor’s new lake house, the attorneys for all parties, the accountants for all parties, and everyone else through whom this money passes are all glad he has it.

Is perceived productivity the same as productivity?

Big Tobacco (and a quick note)

The Justice Department wants tobacco companies to use print and television ads to admit that smoking causes a multitude of health problems. These are some the DOJ's proposals for what those admissions should be:

"We falsely marketed low tar and light cigarettes as less harmful than regular cigarettes to keep people smoking and sustain our profits"

"For decades, we denied that we controlled the level of nicotine delivered in cigarettes. Here's the truth, we control nicotine delivery to create and sustain smokers' addiction, because that's how we keep customers coming back."

"A federal court is requiring tobacco companies to tell the truth about cigarette smoking. Here's the truth: ... Smoking kills 1,200 Americans. Every day."

Pretty serious stuff.

A few weeks ago, our Pakistani cab driver told us he'd never had a sip of alcohol in his life. Why? Because since childhood he was taught that it was addictive.

But he also told us he used to smoke four packs of cigarettes a day. No one had told him that they were addictive.

How did he quit? Cold turkey. He said he was physically ill and unable to work for two months after he quit, but has been fine ever since.

Two months!!

Imagine if the tobacco industry ceased to exist. At least 30,000 Americans are employed by big tobacco, plus there'd be a huge loss in tax revenue. But then healthcare costs would probably drop significantly. It's a weird slippery slope in the sense that if the government is going to get into the business of healthcare by forcing people to buy health insurance, then non-smokers like myself are not going to want to be in the same risk pool as smokers who will have a much greater likelihood of needing costly treatments for lung cancer at a relatively young age (nor would I want to be in the same pool as people who are obese, etc.) (Ok, I don't want to get started on this because I don't really know what I'm talking about.)

One more thing about smoking: Cindy and I listened to a sales pitch from a life insurance saleswoman a couple of years ago (because Selena got a job there and this woman was training her), and when it came time to assess our health before giving us a rate quote, the saleswoman asked us only one question:

Do you smoke cigarettes?

That was the ONLY health related question she asked!!

There was a rate for smokers, and there was a rate for non-smokers. (We'd also have to take a physical, but the saleswoman said that the results of the physical were unlikely to affect the rate anywhere near the answer to the smoking question.)

(We didn't get the life insurance. The rate of return wasn't anything special -- they didn't even tell us the actual rate, they just showed us the cash flows, I had to calculate the rate myself -- it basically seemed like a way to hedge against a potential tax increase that would hit an IRA/401k when it comes time to withdraw (or for those of us who don't have much in a pre-tax retirement account, we're not hedging as much as we'd simply be betting that tax rates will increase by putting our after-tax income into an investment vehicle that won't get taxed when we withdraw)) (does that sound right?)

...

quick note:

I heard about this on the radio the other day and I had to see it to believe it.

Click on the link. Trust me.

How does that happen?

Look at Clinton's face from the :26 - :31

Emanuel is Allowed on the Ballot

I agree with today's Supreme Court decision on residency. It is nearly impossible to argue that our residency requirement was intended to keep a candidate like Rahm Emanuel off the ballot. (here's my 1,500 analysis from yesterday)

However, I take issue with the tone of the majority opinion as well as that of most op-ed’s I’ve read on the matter. According to the Supreme Court majority, the Appellate court “tossed out 150 years of settled residency law”, and “what it means to be a resident for election purposes was clearly established long ago, and Illinois law has been consistent on the matter since at least the 19^th Century.”

These statements are false.

The Illinois statute at the center of this controversy lists two requirements for a candidate’s eligibility to run for office: 1) the candidate must be a “qualified elector of the municipality” (meaning he is allowed to vote in the municipality) and 2) the candidate must have “resided in the municipality at least one year next preceding the election” (this is the section in dispute)

The meaning of “resides in” – that was affirmed today – is that residency requires, 1) physical presence, and 2) an intent to remain in that place as a permanent home. Once residency is established, the test it no longer physical presence but rather abandonment. The presumption is that residency continues, and the burden of proof shifts to the contesting party to show that residency has been abandoned. (Meaning Rahm Emanuel had established residency in Chicago prior to leaving for DC, and anyone contesting his eligibility is required to prove he had no intention of returning to Chicago – that he had “abandoned” his residency.)

However, if this interpretation of the residency requirement “was clearly established long ago, and Illinois law has been consistent on the matter since at least the 19^th Century” then the Supreme Court should also take issue with our State Legislature.

In 2007, Senator Dave Luechtfield introduced an exception to the residency requirement. The exception – which was approved unanimously – provided that a person is exempt from the one-year requirement if his/her residency is interrupted by active duty in the military.

When presenting the bill to the General Assembly, Senator Luechtfield said, “A situation occurred in my district where an individual was in Iraq… he came back, wanted to run for municipal office, but did not meet the one year residency requirement. This would simply allow them to come back to the same district, same ward, and run as if they had been there.”

If Illinois law establishing residency was as well settled as the Supreme Court presumes it to have been, then why on Earth would our legislature add an exception to it that is completely redundant?

Under no circumstances would military servicemen who left the state temporarily while on active duty, be accused of abandoning their residency according to our 150 year old “clearly established” law. So why would Senator Luechtfield and his brethren feel the need to add an exception for them?

Perhaps because the law wasn’t so clearly established.

Explaining the Technicalities of the Rahm Emanuel Appellate Court Majority Opinion in under 1,500 words

Disclaimer – This post will only focus on the details of the majority’s statutory interpretation. I am ignoring case law because the two sides disagree vehemently on it (the majority found it contradictory and not controlling, the dissent found the opposite.) The newspaper articles I read on the decision only explained its general conclusions, but I wanted to see how the court came to its conclusion, so I read the opinion. This post summarizes the guts of that opinion. (Not everyone will consider this pleasure reading)

Disclaimer 2 – I have no opinion on who should be Chicago’s next mayor.

Disclaimer 3 – The sections in italics are my own tangents and were not discussed in the opinion

Background –

Rahm Emanuel was born in Chicago and lived in the city for most of his adult life, he also represented the Illinois “fightin” Fifth District – which includes the north side of Chicago – in the U.S. House of Representatives. In January of 2009, Emanuel moved to Washington D.C. to serve as White House Chief of Staff and rented out his newly vacated Chicago home to a third party (but left many belongings in the basement.) In October of 2010 Emanuel resigned as Chief of Staff and moved back to Chicago to run for Mayor. He is currently polling at 44% (double that of his nearest opponent.)

Emanuel’s candidacy was challenged on the grounds that he is not a Chicago resident. The relevant statute is Illinois Municipal Code section 5/3.1-10-5, which states the following:

“A person is not eligible for an elective municipal office unless that person is a qualified elector of the municipality and has resided in the municipality at least one year next preceding the election…” (emphasis added)

Emanuel’s supporters essentially argue, “Of course he’s a resident. He was born and raised in Chicago, owns a home in Chicago, pays taxes in Chicago, intended to return to Chicago, and he only left Chicago temporarily to serve our country.”

Emanuel’s opponents’ response is, “We don’t disagree with what you say, but the law says he’s not eligible to run for mayor because he didn’t live in Chicago during the year preceding the election. And the law is the law.”

Emanuel’s opponents first argued their case to the Chicago Board of Elections and lost. They then argued to a Cook County Circuit Court and lost again. Finally, they argued to the Illinois Court of Appeals and won. So as of this writing, Emanuel is not allowed on the mayoral ballot because he violates the requirements of the Illinois Municipal Code. (Emanuel appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court – which is expected to rule on the case soon.)

The Majority’s Analysis –

The Illinois Municipal Code lists two requirements for a candidate’s eligibility: 1) the candidate must be a “qualified elector of the municipality” (meaning he is allowed to vote in the municipality) and 2) the candidate must have “resided in the municipality at least one year next preceding the election” (this is the section in dispute)

The requirements to be a “qualified elector” are listed in a separate election law statute, and are as follows: the person must 1) have resided in the election district for the 30 days preceding the election, 2) be a US citizen, and 3) and be 18 or older.

There is an exception to the 30-day residency requirement in the election law statute stating that (I’ll paraphrase) “No elector shall be deemed to have lost his/her residence in any election district in this State by reason of his/her absence on business of the United States.” (emphasis added)

Emanuel’s service as White House Chief of Staff qualifies as “business of the United States.” Therefore, the majority recognizes that he meets the requirements of being a “qualified elector.”

However, the second part of the Municipal Code states that in addition to being a qualified elector, the candidate must have “resided in the municipality at least one year next preceding the election.” And as we know, Emanuel did not live in Chicago during the preceding year.

There is an exception – listed in the Illinois Municipal Code itself – which states that a person is exempt from the one year requirement if his/her residency is interrupted by active duty in the military. Emanuel’s service as White House Chief of Staff does not fall under this exception.

Can Emanuel use the “business of the United States” exception to get out of the one year requirement? Probably not.

The “one year” requirement was added to the Illinois Municipal Code to further limit the “qualified elector” requirement. It extends the residency requirement from 30-days to one year, and it narrows the exception from any “business of the United States” to only “active duty military service.”

A look at the legislative intent of the military exception – added in 2007 – shows that when presenting the exception to the General Assembly for a vote, one of its co-sponsors explained, “A situation occurred in my district where an individual was in Iraq… he came back, wanted to run for municipal office, but did not meet the one year residency requirement. This would simply allow them to come back to the same district, same ward, and run as if they had been there.”

This insinuates that the soldier who went to Iraq could not use the “business of the United States” exception in the election law to avoid the “one year” requirement in the Illinois Municipal Code – which is why this Senator felt he needed to carve out a new exception for military personnel.

Does the fact that the Senator didn’t use the “business of the United States” language in his military exception mean he consciously meant to narrow the exception and exclude federal government employees like Emanuel? Or does it mean he simply wanted to add an exception for the military personnel in his district and didn’t give any thought to the “business of the United States” language in the election laws? (i.e. lazy drafting)

Or is it possible that the “business of the United States” in the election law exception was meant to apply to the one year requirement, which is why the municipal code takes the trouble to reference the “qualified elector” rule rather than simply saying the candidate has to be 18 or older and a U.S. Citizen?

To further its point, the majority attempts to determine the legislature’s meaning of the word “resided” as it was used in the Illinois Municipal Code by analyzing its use of the words “resides” and “resident” in the military exception. As you recall: the language of the Illinois Municipal Code was: “has resided in the municipality at least one year next preceding the election.” And the controversy is over what they mean by “resided.”

Does Emanuel’s owning of a home and intent to return suffice as “resided”? Not according to the majority’s reading.

The majority believes that “resident” was used in the exception to describe legal residency, whereas “resides” was used to refer to having a physical presence (especially given the Senator’s explanation.) The exception is broken down into three parts. I’ll paraphrase them, but use the words “reside” and “resident” in context:

1 – If a person is a resident of a municipality prior to active duty, and

2 – if that person resides outside the municipality during active duty, then 

3 – if that person returns to the municipality upon completion of duty, then the time during which the person resides outside the municipality is deemed to be time that the person was a resident of the municipality for purposes of this statute.

If the definition of “resided” in main provision of the Illinois Municipal Code (“has resided in the municipality at least one year”) can be derived from the way that “resides” is used in the military exception, then it means that the candidate must have an actual physical presence in the city for the year prior to his candidacy. (A flaw in this reasoning could be that the exception was drafted by a different legislature long after the original rule was written.)

Another consideration of the majority was the legislative intent of this – or any – “reside in” requirement. The majority cites a 1901 Illinois Supreme Court opinion stating that the “reside in” requirement exists to ensure “that those who represent local units of government shall themselves be component parts of such units.” It further states that the “reside in” requirements “can only be truly served by requiring such representatives to be and remain actual residents of the units which they represent… A mere constructive resident has no better opportunities for knowing the wants and rightful demands of his constituents, than a non-resident, and is as much beyond the wholesome influence of direct contact with them.”

No surprises there. The legislature just wants the representative of a district to actually live there so he/she has a stake in its well-being.

My Conclusion –

There certainly isn’t any doubt that Emanuel is from Chicago, cares about Chicago, and fully intended to return to Chicago upon completion of his service as White House Chief of Staff. So does that mean he should be allowed on the ballot because he complies with the spirit of the law? Would not allowing him on the ballot be nothing more than the strict application of a legal technicality?

It is difficult to argue that the Illinois Municipal Code’s residency requirement was written to keep candidates like Emanuel off the ballot. But for many, it is just as difficult to say that a Court should have the right to expand the interpretation of such a clearly written statute. (Although, that happens every day.)

I think the Supreme Court will overrule the Appellate Court’s decision, but it will be interesting to see how they do it. Will they cite the case law from the lower courts used in the dissent? Or will they simply set the precedent themselves and expand the definition of “resides in”? 

I just got a job as Rahm Emanuel's deputy political advisor!

When asked by a local reporter, mayoral candidate Rahm Emanuel would not commit to sending his children to Chicago Public Schools if elected mayor.

"I'm going to make that decision with Amy as a parent," Emanuel said. "And I know very well, having met people throughout the city -- I'm not saying what I'm going to do. But it's a decision I'm going to make with my wife and my family. And that's how I'll make that decision. I think the people of the City of Chicago will appreciate that."

He rambled in that manner for almost a full minute. His inability to answer -- or even gracefully dodge -- the question was nothing short of embarrassing. And even more troubling was that it raised concerns about whether he could handle similar questions if elected mayor.

The Emanuels have 3 children, Zach, Ilana, and Leah, who are all school-age.

Opponent Gery Chico, who served as President of the Chicago School Board, attempted to take advantage of Emanuel's gaffe by pointing out that he personally attended CPS and that his kids did as well.

"There is something to be said for leading by example and having a personal stake in the system you seek to reform," Chico said. "I would never tell a parent what decision to make for their own child, but personally, I wouldn't feel comfortable asking parents of more than 400,000 public school students to do something I wouldn't do myself."

I first heard this story on Chicago public radio, and later saw that it was picked up by the local papers and TV stations.

What a terrible blunder by Emanuel. By answering the question the way he did, he opened the door for Chico make a self righteous comment and look good to undecided voters.

After reading this story, I contacted Rahm Emanuel's campaign manager Scott Fairchild and told him that I can do a better job of prepping Rahm for difficult questions. After taking a look at my resume, Fairchild immediately called me into his office for an interview.

After a long interview with Fairchild, I met with Emanuel, and when our conversation ended, Emanuel stood up and extended his hand. As we shook, he said, "Cyrus, I'd like you to be my deputy political advisor."

I gladly accepted the offer.

My first order of business was for Rahm to make up for his public schools gaffe. I immediately arranged a press conference and paid a reporter $5 to ask Rahm whether he planned on sending his kids to a Chicago public school.

After Rahm had fielded a few questions, my reporter stood up and asked, "Mr. Emanuel, if you are elected Mayor, do you plan on sending your kids to Chicago public schools?"

Rahm smiled and looked down at him and said, "That's a good question, and I think it's a question that needs to be addressed because Gery Chico is insinuating that I am unfit to be Mayor because I send my children to private school."

Then Rahm looked up into the cameras and said, "Gery, one of the reasons I'm taking this job is because I want to fix Chicago's public schools. Right now, Chicago public schools are in terrible shape, and they've been this way for a long time -- I know it, you know it, and everyone in this great city knows it. One of my primary goals as Mayor will be to improve the quality of Chicago public schools -- improve them to a point where a man of my financial stature would consider sending his children to a Chicago public school. Because frankly, as things stand today, guys like me aren't sending their kids to Chicago public schools."

"And here's a question for you Gery: since when has the Mayor of a city been required to live like its poorest citizens? What's next? Do you want me to move into public housing projects? Should I fire my driver and start taking buses to work with the heathens? Should I start shopping at Aldi? Should I make my wife get a job cleaning houses?"

"Gery, I don't see why a leader needs to have a personal stake in the system he seeks to reform. I'd like to improve Chicago's homeless shelters; does that mean I have to live in one? President Obama supports the war in Afghanistan, but do you think he's going to make Malia join an Army infantry platoon after she graduates from high school?"

"And let me tell you something Gery, the irony is that I shouldn't expect a guy like you to understand any of this -- or any of the other complex issues facing our city -- because after all, you're a product of these shitty public schools. They haven't prepared you for the rigors of an intellectual life. And you haven't had enough success in your 25 years in the private sector to afford to send your children to private schools. Whereas I went to a good public school on the North Shore, and earned enough money in two years of private sector work to send my children to private school."

"You know what? I've had enough of politicians constantly pandering to the middle class and saying that they want to 'preserve' our middle class. I'm sick and tired of hearing about 'middle class this' and 'middle class that.' What about the upper class? What about our forgotten upper class? Our founding father's weren't middle class, and neither am I. And that's why I plan on lifting the citizens of this great city into America's upper class!"

The room full of reporters broke into a wild applause and standing ovation.

"Thank you, thank you." Emanuel said with his arms extended in the air and flashing peace signs.

...

This morning I received a call from Gery Chico's campaign manager, the conversation went like this:

Me -- Hello?

Caller -- Name your price.

Me -- What?

Caller -- You heard me.

Me -- Who is this?

Caller -- You know who this is.

In Defense of Tony Hayward

Former BP CEO Tony Hayward has been bashed repeatedly for the following quote in which he compared his loss to that of Gulf coast residents whose lives have been effected by the recent oil leak:

"We're sorry for the massive disruption it's caused to their lives. There's no one who wants this thing over more than I do, I'd like my life back."

On it's own, this quote may seem a bit insensitive, however -- as usual -- the media has sensationalized the story by taking Hayward's words out of context. I have obtained videotape footage of Hayward's remarks and have posted them below in their entirety:

"We're sorry for the massive disruption it's caused to their lives. There's no one who wants this thing over more than I do, I'd like my life back. I understand that many fishermen are no longer able to work, and their lack of business will have a ripple effect throughout much of the Gulf Coast economy. But lets be honest here. We're talking about a bunch of guys who are about to get a few months off from having to drag their asses onto some fucking skiff every morning in the blistering heat and pull shrimp out of saltwater for 12 hours a day. I'm sure they could use a little break. And remember: three months from now these assholes are going to stumble over to their mailbox in a drunken stupor at 2:00 in the afternoon and find a check payable to my company compensating them for their losses. So you go and ask every one of these fishermen, man to man, and I promise you this, they're not counting down the days til this is over.

Meanwhile, ever since this bloody oil leak, I've been down here in this fucking heat, answering questions from dumbass reporters -- who are trying to make me look like an asshole -- while I'm trying to do damage control on the PR front by rubbing elbows with a bunch of non-English speaking, pickle-juice drinking rednecks who are going sue my company regardless of how much ass I kiss down here. (And although most people in this part of America will tell you that they speak English, trust me, they're not speaking the King's. I can't even leave my hotel room without an interpreter.)

Look, I'm a fucking businessman, ok. I didn't cause the bloody explosion. So don't blame me. Do you know what I do?

I decide which multi-billion dollar corporations BP is going to buy next. I talk to Presidents and Prime Ministers and Kings and Czars and dictators about how much we're going to pay them to drill on their land. Do you really think I had any idea what was going on on some little piece-of-shit oil rig off the coast of Bumblefuck Louisiana? 

You know what I did the night before the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon? I was in Moscow with Vladdy Putin and eating caviar off a mother of pearl spoon and cutting steak with a diamond knife while deciding who the next President of the United States will be. Then I was sipping vodka with Roman Abramovich and Vagit Alekperov in a nightclub surrounded by every goddamn Russian beauty pageant contestant from this century. 

I've bedded the most beautiful prostitutes in the world, I've eaten the finest foods ever to be eaten, and I've sailed on the fastest / most luxurious yachts ever built. Listen, I've blown off women to whom you would give your life. And now I'm stuck in fucking Buttcum Mississippi eating gumbo and drinking shitty coffee, pretending like I give a fuck about what happens to this local economy.

Listen, I've lost a whole helluva lot more than you. I've lost more in BP stock than all these fucking fishermen and hotel owners combined. And what about lost income? You think some other company is going to want to bring me in as their CEO after this? You think I'm going to be giving motivational speeches to a bunch of over-fed and under-sexed middle managers at corporate golf retreats after this? 

And on top of all that, I've got every goddamn tree-hugger this side of the prime meridian coming up to me and complaining about oil getting on the Pelicans and dolphins and other endangered species.

Hey, I've got a question for them:

WHEN WERE GUYS LIKE ME SUPPOSED TO START GIVING A FUCK ABOUT PELICANS?

Do I look like the type of guy who gives a shit about animals? Do I have long hair, and wear a hemp necklace and Birkenstocks and have an "Obama for Change" bumper-sticker on my Prius? Do I smell bad? Do you see me begging you for money to help save the environment? Do I look like the type of asshole who reads the New Yorker for it's fiction and poetry? Did you mistake me for the guy you saw shopping in the vegan section of Whole Foods with a joint and a copy of In Defense of Food hanging out of my backpack? 

Look, I don't know of any Pelicans or Sea Turtles that spend their money at the pump. How about this: show me a dolphin behind the wheel of a Chevy, and I'll make sure that BP tries to save as many of those fucking fish as possible.

(And I know that dolphins are considered mammals, but I'll tell you what: they look a lot like fish, and they certainly taste a lot like fish.)

And listen, I've done crazier things on a lazy Tuesday mid-morning than you'd do on the last night of your life. (Trust me)

I spend my days making power moves in the boardroom, and I spend my nights making power moves in the bedroom. Seriously: you should see the things I do in a bedroom. You wouldn't even understand why I'm doing the things I do, but trust me, when you've done all that I've done, it's simply the next logical step. 

And any time that I'm not spending in a boardroom or a bedroom or in one of the finest eating or drinking establishments on Earth, I'm sitting in a Swiss bank getting a pedicure and counting my money. 

I'm not used to slumming it out here with the heathens.

And I'll tell you what: I know exactly how all of these fishermen and hotel owners could have prevented this tragedy from happening to them. 

Do you know how all of these fishermen and hotel owners could have prevented this tragedy from happening to them? 

They could have studied hard in school and become CEO's of major oil companies. You know, I was reading this book the other day -- maybe you've heard of it -- it's called "On The Origin Species", and it was written about 150 years ago by a guy named Chuck Darwin, and it taught me about this little concept that they teach in your schools called Natural Selection, and in case you don't know what that means, it means that only the strong survive. And last I checked, I'm pretty fucking strong. And last I checked, I'm still in the mood to fucking survive.

You want BP to fire me? Listen brother, BP can fire me all it wants. In fact, I wish to what you call God that BP would fire me. You know what I'll do the day after I get fired? I'll fly my Lear 85 in to Charles de Gaulle, take a stretch straight to Allain Ducasse, eat a piece of Kobe straight off the live heifer, drink the coldest bottle of Clos Du Mesnil they've got, and then have a fucking eight-ball and a half dozen Viagra sent to my suite at Meurice and let the fucking fun begin! (pun INTENDED)

So relatively speaking, I have lost a whole helluva lot more than some fucking toothless asshole who happens to own a little three-room bed and breakfast in Cuntlip Alabama who's bitching about not serving as many fucking sausages this summer as he's used to because a little bit of oil happens to be leaking into the huge fucking Gulf. People piss in the Gulf every goddamn day, and I don't hear anyone bitching and moaning about that! Why don't we pull them off their boats and drag them into court and blame them for everything that's wrong with this fucking world? Ok? So lets just get this fucking shit over with because I want my goddamn life back."

So obviously although I think Hayward's comments were a bit extreme and somewhat insensitive, I guess I understand the point he was trying to make. (but for the record I completely disagree with it)

Insulted

This week, for the first time, I was insulted by a Redeye column. (The Redeye is a smaller free edition of the Chicago Tribune, targeted towards younger readers)

On Wednesday the Redeye printed a column entitled "Would you buy an oven from Obama?" It was written by Robert Tong, and since I had never seen anything of his in the paper before, I expected his first piece to be something thoughtful. Instead, I got little more than a rant about the recent healthcare bill filled with highly charged right wing idioms like, "it'll cost you some freedom", and that the bill represents "socialism at it's best."

I was kind of insulted. This brand of extreme rhetoric is something I would expect to hear from Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh. But the Redeye? The Redeye is supposed to cater to young Chicagoans. I'd expect to be treated with more respect.

The debate over healthcare presents economic, scientific and philosophical issues that should not be addressed with broad statements that dismiss efforts to socialize medicine as an evil government takeover. If the current bill is so clearly wrong – as Mr. Tong suggests – then why do so many learned and well meaning people respectfully disagree on the subject? If 67% of the country is opposed to the bill – as Mr. Tong suggests – then why did a man who essentially ran on a platform of universal healthcare far more radical than what has recently passed get elected President in a landslide election?

Do not mistake me for a left wing zealot. A decade ago I considered myself conservative and now consider myself moderate. I am certainly not an unwavering proponent of universal healthcare. The U.S. is much larger than countries like France and Denmark where such systems seem to work; our rich are richer, our poor are poorer, our bureaucracies are bigger, and sharing wealth is not an ideal with which most Americas have been brought up.

There are several sound arguments against socialized medicine, and I respect those who make them. I respect a healthy and wealthy person who simply asks why they should contribute an amount proportionate to their wealth, when instead they should contribute an amount proportionate to their risk. I respect someone who expresses concern that an entity run by the federal government will not operate as efficiently as ones being run for profit.

However, it is also safe to say that our current system of private healthcare does not work as well as it should. For example, this Monday my friend returned to the U.S. from Bangalore India, where he underwent surgery on his neck because he couldn’t afford to have the procedure in the U.S.

And it’s not as if my friend had just been released from prison and didn't have health insurance. My friend is an attorney for a Fortune 500 company with a comprehensive health insurance plan. However, his insurance company simply refused to pay for the procedure – a procedure that every specialist with whom he met recommended. Instead, his insurance company only offered to pay for an alternative procedure that all of the specialists suggested he NOT undergo because it would limit his mobility for the rest of his life. And in making this decision in the face of a great deal of medical evidence, the insurance company cited a clause in his policy specifically stating that they were under no obligation to adhere to the advice of doctors when making their decision.

I am not informed about healthcare issues to a degree where I feel comfortable giving a published opinion on the idea of socialized medicine. However, I do feel comfortable saying that when you reduce such a serious issue to an inflammatory and ill-informed column like what I read Wednesday morning, not only do you sensationalize the issue, but you trivialize it.

Mr. Tong is certainly entitled to his opinion. However, as a Chicagoan, all I ask of my local paper is honest discourse. Like Thomas Paine once said, “The only thing worse than an uninformed electorate, is a misinformed electorate.”

(Ok, Thomas Paine didn’t actually say that, I just thought it would sound more authoritative coming from Thomas Paine than it would from me (given my last post.))