Later On

The review itself is fascinating, so the book must be a great read. Take a look:

The Snowball: Warren Buffett and the Business of Life
by Alice Schroeder

A review by Michael Lewis

There is now a long shelf of books about Warren Buffett, but this is the first time he has gone to any trouble to add to it. Reportedly Buffett now regrets his decision — he has apparently put some fresh distance between himself and his official biographer. If so, it’s not hard to see why. Alice Schroeder is a former Morgan Stanley research analyst, able to understand and to explain Buffett’s money-making, but she declined to confine herself to the business at hand. She has sought to describe Buffett’s psychological landscape as clearly as his financial one. For the reader, the results are pretty terrific — there are not a lot of 838-page narratives that leave you wanting more — but for Buffett they are no doubt upsetting.

Over his long and admirable career, the famous billionaire has been shockingly honest about who he is and what he does. Now along comes this first-time author who insists on seeing his pleasant honesty and raising it, painfully. Even worse: she’s a woman! Buffett has a long and happy history of admitting attractive, intelligent women into his life, which Schroeder describes without mentioning how neatly she fits into the pattern. These women have invariably felt the need to shelter and to protect their man, and to subordinate their own needs to his — until now. Buffett should have known better: you should never completely trust a writer. Especially if she is any good.

Read the rest of this entry »

Interesting:

Source: Reuters, May 19, 2009

A class-action lawsuit charging major tobacco companies and a public relations firm with a "decades-long campaign of deceptive advertising and misleading statements" can proceed, ruled the California Supreme Court. The suit is being brought against cigarette makers Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds and Lorillard, and the PR firm Hill & Knowlton. The suit was originally filed in 1997, but changes to California’s class-action requirements put its status in question. The recent ruling affirms that the case can proceed as a class-action suit, with "only a handful of plaintiffs leading the suit" required to "show proof of damage and deception, not all plaintiffs in the suit."

Mike Lillis in the Washington Independent:

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner appeared before the Senate Banking Committee today to discuss the Wall Street bailout, but Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) wanted to talk about the auto industry instead. There was good reason for Brown’s concern. Not only are Detroit’s automakers hemorrhaging cash, ditching dealerships and laying off employees, but recent reports indicate that the Big Three are devising ways to clip costs further by exporting more labor and importing more vehicles.

In light of that news, Brown wanted to know whether the White House, which has already given billions of dollars to Chrysler and General Motors to keep them alive, was putting pressure on those companies not to close plants in the United States just to open cheaper ones in China and other developing world nations.

There was a firestorm in this country when we give billions to banks and they paid huge bonuses [but] you haven’t seen anything yet for what’s going to happen if we put billions into auto companies and they shut down plants in this country and open plants in China at a dollar an hour — or less.

Are you pushing back on the auto industry on their restructuring? Is the government representing taxpayers and representing workers and communities pushing back on their including anything like this plan to shut down plants the United States and move them abroad and open production and open plants and produce and sell back here?

You already know you’re not going to like Geithner’s answer. “It’s a difficult balance,” he began…

The president’s objective is to try to make sure that we help facilitate a restructuring that will leave this firm in existence, save it from bankruptcy, allow it to operate over time as a viable company without government support.

That’s what we’re trying to do, and we’re doing exceptional things to try to make that possible. But I do not believe that we can do that and also be involved in making detailed decisions about how they run their business and how they do that. And that’s the balance we’re trying to strike.

Though Geithner declined to mention it aloud, it appears that Brown — indeed, the whole of U.S. manufacturing — will be forced to confront the long-emerging reality that, in a globalized economy, viable companies are those that pay as few salaries as they possibly can in the United States. Even if those companies have been rescued by the same middle-class taxpayers soon to lose their jobs as a result of the shift.

In many ways the debate is simply a reiteration of the age-old tension between management and labor — a tension mitigated by the underlying realization that neither could exist without the other. The difference here is that the symbiotic nature of that relationship ends once its cheaper to export the labor component.

Indeed, Brown recognizes the dynamic, pointing out that GM’s argument is that, in order to save American jobs, it must slash American jobs. Of course, now we’re not talking about the same jobs.

Wall Street bailout, indeed.

Daphne Eviatar in the Washington Independent:

In an attempt to counter some of the more bizarre and fantastical claims being made about the Uighur prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, lawyer Sabin Willett writes a persuasive rebuttal in the New York Daily News today to those opposing his clients’ release by claiming the Uighurs are not only dangerous terrorists but, as former GOP House Speaker New Gingrich charged, “smashed a television” because it depicted “women with bare arms.”

It’s “[a]nother lie,” Willett wrote, a partner at the law firm of Bingham McCutcheon. “Just a flat-out falsehood, based on air. It never happened.”

Since news broke that the Justice Department was considering the release of the Uighurs, Willet writes, “the most astonishing stories began to circulate” about their alleged connections to terrorism, even though courts had specifically rejected those claims, the Bush Justice Department had specifically told a federal judge that they had no evidence that the men were dangerous, and the military in 2004 and 2005 had approved their release to civilian populations.

The truth is that five Uighur companions from Afghanistan have lived peacefully among civilian populations in the capitals of Albania and Sweden for three years now.

But the problem extends beyond the Uighurs.

There are about 60 men at Gitmo, like the Uighurs, who are neither enemies nor criminals in anyone’s estimation. No law justifies their imprisonment. They have been held in a military prison for longer than any real enemy of the country was ever held before. So what are we going to do about them?

We could free them, Willet suggests, because “in this country we just don’t capture and imprison people without a legal reason.” Or, “the hell with them. They stay there forever. And I really do mean forever. … We don’t seriously think that a hysterical smear campaign about jihadism, Sharia law, and ETIM [the East Turkestan Islamic Movement, another terrorist group Republicans have claimed they belong to] is going to persuade some other country that they are just peachy for its civilian populations, do we?” He continues:

If that’s our view, we need to be honest with ourselves about our American values. We are fine with holding people in a prison forever, without any legal basis. [...]

We talk a lot in this country about freedom. But talk is cheap. If we follow the House’s actions [the GOP bill titled "The Keep Terrorists Out of America Act"], then we may care about security, but we don’t give a damn about freedom.

I made a very nice white-bean soup yesterday, quite simple: simmer the beans with a whole jalapeño, which I removed when the beans were close to done. I then added a chopped onion, a chopped jalapeño sausage, and some pieces of smoked pork neck. I simmered that a while. Very tasty. The jalapeño, since it was whole, didn’t make the soup spicy, but did add some depth of flavor.

When I saw the recipe in the title, I was thinking the color rather than the fruit, which put me off, but in fact the recipe, from The Wednesday Chef, sounds very good:

Orange Pork Ragout with Beans

Yields 4 servings

1 cup Yellow Indian Woman beans, rinsed
2 tablespoons extra virgin olive oil
1 pound boneless pork shoulder, in 2-inch chunks
1 medium-size onion, finely chopped
3 cloves garlic, minced
1 red bell pepper, cored, seeded and finely chopped
1 teaspoon smoked Spanish paprika
1/4 teaspoon ground cloves
Grated zest and juice of 1 orange
1 1/2 cups dry red wine
3 branches fresh rosemary
Salt and freshly ground black pepper
Small pinch red chili flakes
2 tablespoons finely chopped flat-leaf parsley

1. Place beans in a saucepan, cover with water by 2 inches, bring to a boil, cook 2 minutes, cover and set aside to soak 1 hour.

2. Meanwhile, heat 2 tablespoons oil in a 4-quart casserole and brown pork without crowding over medium-high heat. Remove. Add onion, garlic and bell pepper. Sauté over low heat until soft. Stir in paprika, cloves and zest. Stir in orange juice and wine, scraping bottom of pan. Return pork to pan. Set aside until beans have finished soaking, then drain beans and add. Add rosemary, black pepper and chili. Bring to a simmer.

3. Cover and simmer 2 to 3 hours, until beans are tender. Add water occasionally, if needed. Season with salt. Leave in casserole for serving or transfer to a serving dish. Scatter parsley on top before serving.

For full flavor, read the original post.

An email from the AFL-CIO:

Intimidation and Harassment.

Threats and Surveillance.

Interrogation and Retaliation.

All standard tactics in the employer anti-union playbook, and during the past decade we’ve seen these tactics used more and more often.

In a study released this week, Kate Bronfenbrenner, director of Cornell University’s School of Industrial and Labor Relations, documents this in detail — including the increase in corporate tactics to interfere with, block and delay workers’ attempts to form unions, and the ineffectiveness of current labor law to protect and enforce workers’ rights in the election process.

The study, "No Holds Barred: The Intensification of Employer Opposition to Organizing," examines more than 1,000 union-representation campaigns and finds that "intense and aggressive" tactics to block workers’ freedom to form unions are becoming more commonplace.

We need your help to make sure every senator and representative in Washington, D.C., reads this new study. Click here to share this study today.

Here are a few highlights (or lowlights) of the study:

• During union campaigns, bosses threatened to close plants 57 percent the time and threatened to cut wages and benefits 47 percent of the time.
• In more than 60 percent of union campaigns, workers are forced to attend mandatory one-on-one sessions with supervisors and are given anti-union messages or interrogated about their support for a union.
• The number of employers using 10 or more identified coercive tactics to intimidate and harass workers has doubled.
• When employees actually win an election to form a union, 52 percent still have no contract a year later, and 37 percent are without a contract two years after they voted to join a union.

Want to learn more? Click here to read the full study. (pdf)

Don’t forget. Make sure to share this study with your senators and representative.

In solidarity,

Marc Laitin
AFL-CIO Online Mobilization Coordinator

By this time in a week, I will have been in the air for a couple of hours, on my way to The Son’s wedding. The week I’m gone will see little or no posting. I hope I don’t lose my entire readership as a result. On the bright side, it will give my readers a chance to look through the "Useful Knowledge" page and perhaps browse among some old posts.

Very nice fragrance and very nice lather from the shaving soap—thanks in part to the Rooney Style 2 Finest. The 1940′s Gillette with a well-used ASCO blade did another very smooth shave—the more I use the ASCO blade, the more I like it. And, of course, a wake-up splash of Floïd aftershave kicks off the day quite well. Now to go get my first 16 oz of black tea to prepare for the flight.

Happened across an old clipping from The Week, which got it in turn from Men’s Health:

• Schedule some tea time. Begin drinking 20 ounces of black tea daily a week before your trip. According to the National Academy of Sciences, it causes the body to secrete two to four times more interferon, strengthening the immune system.
• Eat and drink properly. Hydration is key, as is figuring out the right preflight meal. Before flying, eat a protein-packed meal, such as a burger, to avoid nausea. Drink 64 to 80 ounces of water per day. Limit alcohol, caffeine, and other diuretics, and avoid in-flight coffee and tea, which are usually made with a jet’s tank water.
• Talk to your doc. An airplane’s reduced air pressure and lower oxygen levels can result in headaches, nausea, and dizziness. Before departing, consider asking your physician for acetazolamide, a drug that helps your body metabolize more oxygen. Taking 250 milligrams twice a day after traveling can relieve those symptoms.

A hamburger is more fat than protein. How about a couple of hard-boiled eggs instead? And taking the acetazolamide AFTER traveling doesn’t make sense to me. I plan to take one the night before I leave, and then the morning and evening of the trip. It’s just a day, so taking more the following day (when I am under regular pressure and oxygen levels) doesn’t seem necessary.

I am not a physician. If you decide to follow the above advice, it’s at your own risk.

Jay Newton-Small writes in Swampland:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has had a tough week — much of it her own making. But in looking at the substance of the accusations, it increasingly looks like she was right. Porter Goss was careful to parse his words in the conditional future tense when talking about what, exactly, he and Pelosi were briefed on in September 2002:

Today, I am slack-jawed to read that members claim to have not understood that the techniques on which they were briefed were to actually be employed; or that specific techniques such as "waterboarding" were never mentioned.

And Senator Richard Shelby also carefully avoided saying he’d been briefed on EITs that had already been used, saying only that he’d been told about the techniques. And “purported” isn’t exactly a strong word – it’s a synonym of suggested or claimed. From his statement:

As Vice Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in 2002, Senator Shelby was briefed by the CIA on the Agency’s interrogation program and the existence of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EITs). To his recollection, not only did the CIA briefers provide what was purported to be a full account of the techniques, they also described the need for these techniques and the value of the information being obtained from terrorists during questioning.

Bob Graham, who was theoretically in the room with Shelby, says he has no recollection of the meeting at all – this from a man who famously details his every waking minute. Perhaps the most astonishing response has been from the CIA Director Leon Panetta, who basically said: Don’t trust our records. Which begs the question: what other issues have they kept questionable records on?

But all of this has been lost in the GOP sturm und drang, led, by – of all people – Pete Hoekstra and Newt Gingrich. Yes, Pelosi needs a serious lesson in public relations but it increasing looks like there’s nothing wrong with her memory.

I don’t get it. They’re imprisoned. Shouldn’t they be called “prisoners”? Being detained normally means that you’re held up for a while—maybe an hour. These people have been in prison for six years. Haven’t they earned the right to be called prisoners? Or is “detainee” part of the Newspeak we’re supposed to learn.

Spencer Ackerman:

Two Democratic senators who are apparently unafraid of jailing Guantanamo detainees in civilian prisons in their states: Dianne Feinstein of California and Carl Levin of Michigan. Ali Frick of ThinkProgress and Josh Rogin of CQ report.

This is amazing:

Each round is fired electronically: "fire by wire," I guess you would call it. From the video, it doesn’t seem to have much recoil. Via The Firearms Blog.

Via Lifehacker, this little add-on.

Actually, I don’t know, but I’d love to. Wolfram Alpha was no help, Google was no help. Anybody know?

I’m talking about maximum-security Federal prisons, not medium- or low-security prisons (e.g., prison farms). The real stuff, like Ft. Leavenworth.

UPDATE. Thanks to EP (see comment below):

Those are the most recent data. What it doesn’t show is how quickly the escapees were caught—generally they don’t get far before they’re picked up. The table is from this PDF.

The cleaning ladies were here today, and I’m luxuriating in a spotless apartment. It won’t last, but it’s nice while it does. I’m also greatly enjoying the spy thriller I’m reading. Check out the author Olen Steinhauer at your local library.

Froomkin today:

Here’s one thing that hasn’t changed in the Obama era: Republicans are still able to come up with scare tactics that turn Senate Democrats into a terrified and incoherent bunch of mewling babies.

It’s hard to imagine anything more ridiculous than the suggestion that bringing some of the terror suspects currently incarcerated in Guantanamo to high-security prisons in America will pose a threat to local communities.

It is nothing more than a bogeyman argument, easily refuted with a little common sense. (Isn’t that what prisons are for?) But that’s assuming you don’t spend your every moment living in fear of Republican attack ads questioning your devotion to the security of the country. Or that you have a modicum of respect for the intelligence of the American public.

Ah well. Old habits die hard, I guess. And Senate Democrats apparently remain an easily frightened bunch, after eight years of faint-hearted submission.

Here’s a question. Democratic congressional leaders ostensibly want to close Guantanamo, which they recognize has become the ultimate symbol of the Bush administration’s violations of human rights. They acknowledge that keeping it open only makes the country less safe — and that any number of the detainees there have been imprisoned sometimes cruelly and often under false pretenses, for as long as seven years. So they want all the detainees there to — what? Vanish? Die? How do they expect any other country to take custody of anyone if we refuse to do it ourselves?

Worrying about releasing prisoners here is one thing. But refusing to even consider putting them in our prisons is nonsense. It it tantamount to insisting that Guantanamo stay open.

But as Shailagh Murray writes in The Washington Post: "Under pressure from Republicans and concerned about the politics of relocating terrorism suspects to U.S. soil, Senate Democrats rejected President Obama’s request for funding to close the Guantanamo Bay prison and vowed to withhold federal dollars until the president decides the fate of the facility’s 240 detainees…

"As recently as last week, Senate Democrats had hoped to preserve a portion of Obama’s Guantanamo funding request. But their resolve crumbled in the face of a concerted Republican campaign warning of dire consequences if some detainees ended up in prisons or other facilities in the United States, a possibility that Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has acknowledged." …

Continue reading.