Greg Mankiw's indispensible economic blog excerpts a WSJ article...

Suppose that groceries were supplied in the same way as K-12 education. Residents of each county would pay taxes on their properties. Nearly half of those tax revenues would then be spent by government officials to build and operate supermarkets. Each family would be assigned to a particular supermarket according to its home address. And each family would get its weekly allotment of groceries - "for free" - from its neighborhood public supermarket.

No family would be permitted to get groceries from a public supermarket outside of its district. ...

... quality of public supermarkets would play a major role in families' choices about where to live. Real-estate agents and chambers of commerce in prosperous neighborhoods would brag about the high quality of public supermarkets to which families in their cities and towns are assigned.

... thoughtful souls would call for "supermarket choice" fueled by vouchers or tax credits. Those calls would be vigorously opposed by public-supermarket administrators and workers.

As for the handful of radicals who call for total separation of supermarket and state --- well, they would be criticized by almost everyone as antisocial devils indifferent to the starvation that would haunt the land if the provision of groceries were governed exclusively by private market forces.

Huh!

I had heard public schools described as the most socialized part of American life but this comparison makes it extra-clear!

Posted by: Open Blogger at 05:08 PM | Comments (149)
Post contains 252 words, total size 2 kb.

This is the Neil Gaiman one, supposedly a "game-changer." Some nonsense about the Doctor's "Wife."

Based on what I've heard of this episode, I can tell you the basic plot -- Mike Huckabee's running for President.

On BBCAmerica. There's always a rebroadcast. When? I told you, there's always a rebroadcast. It's on like 10 hours a day.

Posted by: Ace at 05:06 PM | Comments (54)
Post contains 63 words, total size 1 kb.

Will he declare?

I already told you he would, you dummies.

As I said, it was up in the air, and unlikely. Good to see I was right -- yet again.

(Oh shut up, you don't come here to read correct things, you come here to read interesting things.)

Posted by: Ace at 04:01 PM | Comments (625)
Post contains 55 words, total size 1 kb.

Four stars out of four.

Since this movie is a home run, this will be a much shorter review. "Everything works and everything is funny, often hilarious" is the quick take-away.

Another quick take-away is that when your chief source of frustration is that the audience is laughing so much you're missing the tail-ends of exchanges, or when you want the movie to be over because you're a little tired of laughing, well, that's a success.

The trailers for this movie are very deceiving, in several good, or at least not bad ways.

1. The trailers make this look like a genial girl-comedy romantic comedy. Maybe the heroine will trip in front of her Romantic Interest once; ha-ha. Oh and then she'll have some kind of Comic Misadventure after which she has a Realization and gives a Speech.

It's not that kind of movie. It's a comedy-comedy, not a girly romantic comedy. There's a romantic component, of course, but this is a comedy-comedy, full out for laughs.

I am not sure whether, before writing the script, Kirstin Wiig and her partner (also a woman; I forget her name) actually said to each other, "We're going to make a full-out gonzo boy comedy-comedy and if we have to we'll out-raunch them too, just to prove we can do that to." But even if that's not what they said, that's what they wound up doing.

This movie is lot more raunchy than I expected. I don't think it's over-the-top, but I did expect a PG-13 movie. This is not PG-13. This is R.

A lot of comedies lately start with the gross-out part. They decide they need one of those -- "We need something the teenagers will be talking about two weeks after opening weekend!" -- and that material is often as forced and disgusting-for-the-sake-of-disgust as the whole cynical, corporate decision that animated that choice would suggest.

Bridesmaids does have one of those extended toilet-humor sequences -- but it is well prepared (you know it's coming before it's coming, so that it's almost a relief when the horror begins), and then so well-executed (perfectly edited just quickly enough so that you get the funny but it cuts away before you're grossed out) and well-conceived (it does a lot of stuff you weren't expecting, not just the obvious stuff that flows from the basic premise) that I can't call it a cynical move.

Maybe it was cynical in their first conception, but damn if they didn't ultimately turn it into something worthy of the famous Watercooler Buzz.

I won't say what it is; that's what other reviewers are for.

In addition to that sequence, there's just a general level of consistent profanity and funnily-frank sexual talk, and I think there's a little the Medium Is The Message in that, because I do think it is a little funnier just because girls are doing it. But I think it would be funny anyway.

So, as far as rating: R for strong language, simulated (silly) sex, adult themes and situations, and bathroom humor.

If that's a deal-breaker, don't see it; but for my money, the movie generates such good feelings that none of this feels terribly shocking.

2. The trailer is remarkable, looking back, for having the restraint to not give away the movie's funniest stuff. One of the funniest lines in here (in a truly Epic Fear-of-Flying Freakout) could have been in the trailer, as it's not dirty or profane at all, just hysterical, but they saved you a little something-something for the actual movie.

Gee, that's a novel idea.

If you thought the trailer was funny but worried "Oh well there are all the jokes, nothing left," nope. Plenty, plenty left.

3. The trailer is also deceptive in suggesting that an event in the movie will be the main focus of the film. Sorry to be vague; I don't like spoiling stuff. The movie takes an unexpected and appreciated left-turn on that -- I like when movies sometimes surprise you and don't just do the obvious.

On the downside, I was looking forward to that event, no matter how obvious and by-the-numbers it was. Ah well. They make up for it.

As for flaws, well, not many. Kristin Wiig does not behave maliciously in the movie at all; in only one sequence is she selfish, and it's not really malice at work -- she's having what in a serious movie would be termed a nervous breakdown. But this is a comedy, so we just call it "zany freakout."

But the point is, she is a walking disaster area. Everything she tries to do for her friend's wedding, she screws up, horribly, indelibly.

But at the end, there's just a brief scene (happily brief) where Everything Is Now Okay Because We The Filmmakers Said So. I don't know if I buy that; in many of these Social Catastrophe movies, there comes a point at which, even though we know as an audience the hero/heroine meant no harm, we also understand that in real life, their various ruinations would destroy their relationships beyond the point of plausible repair.

For example, in Meet the Parents -- anyone really believe that Robert DeNiro would really all of a sudden accept Ben Stiller as a son-and-law?

But that's a typical problem, and besides, it tends to point out that the movie has really, really delivered on the Social Catastrophe element before the "We're all friends again" scene. Besides, we want a happy ending, and you've got to wrap this up at some point, so -- who cares, is what I'm saying.

Kristin Wiig's character is in a very low state at the beginning of the movie, and goes progressively lower throughout it. She's flat-broke, as her dream business of a cake shop has gone bankrupt, and she lost her boyfriend, who split on her when business went bad. Add to that the stress of her best friend becoming successful, and engaged, well before Wiig will ever be, and her best friend apparently preferring her own new best friend, and, well, the poor girl goes a little batty and acts increasingly erratically.

Now, the whole movie they were setting up a Recovery Moment when she'd put everything in her life right. I think they probably filmed this... and then cut it out, figuring it was too forced, and decided, oh, let's be more realistic: Not everything needs to be All Better Now at film's end.

If so, that's probably a good choice, but I did leave the film wondering, "Wait, 90% of her life is still in the crapper, so where's my super-happy-ending-montage?"

Is that a flaw? Barely, I guess.

The last thing isn't really a flaw at all, just further evidence that the movie's working wonderfully. They develop eight characters very well -- Wiig's heel of a booty-call non-boyfriend (John Hamm, very good), her new possible flame (a wonderfully played cop), and four of the six bridesmaids.

Two of the six have much less screentime and no real character arc, and that's too bad, because they're both funny women. (One is the blonde from Reno 911, the other is the unspeakably cute and daffy Erin from The Office.)

But they just couldn't give everyone a full story; the movie's packed as it is. So I guess it's just a sign that it's a good movie when one criticism is "I wanted more from the decidedly secondary characters."

Really good movie. I hate giving out four stars but I can't think of anything to improve on, and it was the funniest movie I've seen since Superbad (and I think before that, really).

Will be huge, by the way. The ticket-buying audience is apparently primed for a good comedy; the theater I saw it in was packed at 2 pm in the afternoon. So you might want to look at a midweek showing.

Some really dicey toilet and sex material, but really done with a lot of good spirit and heart. Just a great time.

And I'm already wanting it be released on DVD so I can hear those lines I missed the first time.

Oh, I have to tip a bias: I love Kristin Wiig so I'm predisposed to liking this. In addition, though, my expectations were very middling -- as I said, I expected a cute-and-sorta-funny girl movie.

So, I had low expectations, which were, obviously, greatly exceeded. Since I'm giving it a rave (and so are most of the critics), I don't know if you'll have that advantage.

Ah: It won't be huge -- it only made $7 million last night, second behind Thor, which is in its second weekend.

The theater I was in had it only one screen -- that would explain why it was so packed.

So it won't be huge, but since, I guess, it is on a limited number of screens but people are seeing it, expect some crowded houses.

The Trailer: Since some never heard of this movie, here's the trailer.
more...

Posted by: Ace at 01:40 PM | Comments (349)
Post contains 2244 words, total size 13 kb.

I know I'm breaking the blog rules by reading the blog before posting, but I just wanted to throw an extra knowledge log on the fire about what we're seeing down in Louisiana. A quick shout-out to 1LT J.T. Gabler, LA National Guard/ Army Corps of Engineers for his technical assistance in writing this- during the oil spill, he was the commanding officer on-scene in Plaquemines Parish, and you probably saw him interviewed during the TV time... he got a lot of air time in that time period.

Anyway, this is the first time Morganza has been opened since 1973. The Mississippi River, if not diverted, is predicted to get within about six inches of the tops of the levees in New Orleans and Baton Rouge, which causes all sorts of unpleasantries ranging from putting a lot of pressure on the levees to preventing shipping traffic from transit (ships can't get under bridges, power lines, cross-river pipelines, etc.) to the potential flooding of seven of the nation's gasoline refineries.

The Morganza Spillway is located roughly 40 miles northwest of Baton Rouge, at river mile 280. The official flow of water necessary to consider opening it is 1,500,000 cubic feet per second. Water will not flow into the spillway if open unless the river is well above flood stage.

Below the fold, a graphic and some more information...
more...

Posted by: Open Blogger at 01:39 PM | Comments (81)
Post contains 634 words, total size 4 kb.

Unfortunately, the decision will consign thousands of square miles and the people who live there to flooding.

The decision to open the spillway was triggered when the riverÂ’s flow rate reached 1.5 million cubic feet per second and rising at Red River Landing. Those conditions occurred Friday afternoon, prompting corps officials to announce the spillway would be opened within 24 hours.

This morning, white caps from the churning river lapped at the top of the nearly milelong 125-bay spillway control structure. On the protected side, a small amount of water could be seen seeping through.

...Once the spillway is opened, flooding up to 25 feet deep is expected along a 20-mile-wide, 150-mile-long swath of the Atchafalaya River basin, putting about 25,000 people and 11,000 structures in harmÂ’s way.

Unbelievable.

I should also note, this isn't an isolated problem. There's been catastrophic flooding along the Mississippi and throughout the Midwest. I hope any morons in the area are doing ok.

Update: First spillway to be opened at 3pm central time.

Posted by: DrewM at 10:41 AM | Comments (364)
Post contains 203 words, total size 1 kb.

Worth reading, but this is particularly good:

[T]the El Paso speech featured two other staples: the breathtaking invention and the statistical sleight of hand.

“The [border] fence is now basically complete,” asserted the president. Complete? There are now 350 miles of pedestrian fencing along the Mexican border. The border is 1,954 miles long. That’s 18 percent. And only one-tenth of that 18 percent is the double and triple fencing that has proved so remarkably effective in, for example, the Yuma sector. Another 299 miles — 15 percent — are vehicle barriers that pedestrians can walk right through.

Obama then boasted that on his watch 31 percent more drugs have been seized, 64 percent more weapons — proof of how he has secured the border. And for more proof: Apprehension of illegal immigrants is down 40 percent. Down? Indeed, says Obama, this means that fewer people are trying to cross the border.

Interesting logic. Seizures of drugs and guns go up — proof of effective border control. Seizures of people go down — yet more proof of effective border control. Up or down, it matters not. Whatever the numbers, Obama vindicates himself.

He may be a "RINO," but that is a nice catch.

Obama insists upon himself.

He really does.

Posted by: Ace at 08:57 AM | Comments (194)
Post contains 220 words, total size 2 kb.

Huckabee emailed supporters yesterday about tonight's episode of "The Decision".

Looks like he's planning on taking his talents to Ames, Iowa.

I will look forward to speaking with you soon and once I fulfill my sworn obligation to Fox, I will be free to discuss things that I can't now due to promises to them and to some possible legal considerations of the announcement.

Many friends have said, "how can we help you in the decision?" My answer has consistently been, "Pray that I have clarity." I have it and will share it Saturday night during the show. Please be patient if I don't respond immediately to an email because I expect that once I pull the trigger Saturday night, things will get even crazier, as if that's possible.

I'm not sure how saying, "I'm not running, tune in next week for another show. Just like we've been doing for about 3 years now" would make things "even crazier". Also, what would the, "possible legal considerations" of the status quo be?

You know who this benefits? I wish I did.

On the other hand.

"He's not going to run, " Ed Rollins, Huckabee's 2008 national campaign chairman tells FOX. " Rollins, who with other members of the Huckabee inner circle, was in charge of setting up a potential campaign operation, emotes a sense of frustration.

"About a week ago he broke off communications which tells me he's not going to run," Rollins says gruffly. "It was different this time around. I always told him it was his decision, and no one else's. I have always told him, If you don't have the fire in the belly, don't get into the race ."

Another member of Huckabee's inner circle, who has known the former Arkansas governor since the 90's confirms Rollins description, but says Huckabee has not spoken to him directly.

"He would have made a great president, but I am not despondent about it," he says. "I've known him for years. He knows what he is doing."

The one thing I am pretty sure of is, either way this will be the highest rated episode of Huckabee ever.

BTW- When does FNC tell Palin to decide one way or the other? Are they giving her me leeway because she's the more popular and valuable to them than Huckabee, Gingrich and Santorum. Or...do they already know what she's (not) going to do?

Via Ben Smith

Update [ace]: Since DrewM., quite understandably, also does not read this blog, it falls to me to say I told you so.

Posted by: DrewM at 08:22 AM | Comments (142)
Post contains 442 words, total size 3 kb.

There's a great interview with investor Stanley Druckenmiller in the weekend edition of the Wall Street Journal. And by "great", of course I mean he agrees with me.

I haven't read a whole lot of people who resist the "ZOMFG we have to raise the debt ceiling now or we're all gonna die!!!" message coming out of the administration, but the mere fact that it's the drumbeat of the left should give you pause. It sure does for this guy:

Mr. Druckenmiller is puzzled that so many financial commentators see the possible failure to raise the debt ceiling as more serious than the possibility that the government will accumulate too much debt. "I'm just flabbergasted that we're getting all this commentary about catastrophic consequences, including from the chairman of the Federal Reserve, about this situation but none of these guys bothered to write letters or whatever about the real situation which is we're piling up trillions of dollars of debt."

Bingo!

The House GOP needs to go to the mattresses on this and force the donks to make real structural changes that reduce the deficit and debt in exchange for any temporary increase in the debt ceiling.

Here's what I'd hold out for if I was Boehner:

• Taking total government outlays for FY 2012 back to pre-spendulus levels


• Making any temporary debt limit increase ratchet down automatically based on CBO projections


• Eliminating a sacrosanct government department (Ed, Energy, Ag - pick one) just to show we're serious

It's the weekend, so I didn't grab the excellent DOOM! SluShop to headline this post, but you'll recognize the theme. Holding the spendthrifts' feet to the fire with the debt ceiling ... which is why the damned thing was created in the first place ... is really our last, best chance to stave off disaster. We've been kicking the can down the road for decades; we've reached the end of that road.

Changing the things that are killing us long-term - Social Security, Medicare and, coming soon to a theater near you, Obamacare - requires winning the White House, 61 solid votes in the Senate and holding a majority in the House. There's probably nobody reading this that remembers a time when conservatives had all these, if we ever have. (Note: any dipshit that trots out "8 Years Of Bush-Cheney" is required to immediately submit an application to clerk for Miguel Estrada on the U.S. Court of Appeals.)

But as Rahm Emanuel so kindly pointed out, you should never let a crisis go to waste. In this case, bumping up against the debt ceiling is creating precisely the kind of crisis it was intended to, and we hold all the cards for once. If I'm gonna be called a hostage-taker anyway, the debt limit makes a mighty good hostage. more...

Posted by: andy at 06:48 AM | Comments (73)
Post contains 765 words, total size 5 kb.

How many of you know all the verses to the "Star-Spangled Banner"? Verse 3 is particularly obscure -- my church dropped it from their hymnal 25 years ago -- because, as originally written, it referred to those pesky, invading British in unflattering terms. And since we've been best buds with them for most of the last 200 years, it really is a bit out of date.

Except that it's not, especially not after 9/11. It has a whole new meaning, now. And with the abrupt termination of Bin Laden two weeks ago, it is more appropriate than it has been since, well, 1814 or so. This is what should be sung before baseball games for the rest of the season, or at least on 9/11/11:

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battleÂ’s confusion,
A home and a country, should leave us no more?
Their blood has washed out their foul footstepsÂ’ pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave,
OÂ’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Right atcha, Usama. Have a great Saturday, everyone. ..fritz..
(blogging from 32,000 ft on my way home from NYC)

Posted by: Open Blogger at 05:50 AM | Comments (43)
Post contains 234 words, total size 1 kb.