Overheard in the office

So, apparently a co-worker needed a different option for bus routes, because the one they were using just wasn't working out. Doing their due diligence, they researched all of the routes that had stops near their home, focusing exclusively on the "express" routes, instead of the "local" routes.

I overheard the following "rant" this morning:

So I was checking out the 2X, because it's supposed to be an "express", but it takes forever to get downtown. It picks up in my area, goes all the way out to the airport, and then heads downtown. Then on the way back, it leaves downtown, goes all the way out to the airport AGAIN, and then heads to my stop. Seriously. Why are they calling that an Express route?

According to the transit provider, the 2X route is called the "Airporter" or "Airport Express", with buses every 20 minutes that provide service to the Airport.

I just had to shake my head and walk away.

Further thoughts on Dr. Warren

On Wednesday, I wrote about why I thought Dr. Warren's ideas are wrong.

This morning, I had a further thought. An epiphany, if you will.

Now, again, this is probably rather naive and simple-sighted of me, but the irony of the situation amuses me to now end.

In part of the 2009 interview with Dr. Warren that I did not quote, she said:

HINOJOSA: So, how is it possible? We were all upset about these big bonuses and all this executive pay. And it’s right back—this is like deja vu all over again.

WARREN: Yeah. This one, I have to say, truly amazes me, that these folks who are supposed to be the smartest folks in the room, believe that they can take taxpayer money and save their businesses from complete destruction, and still continue to reward themselves as if—they had earned it all. It’s as if they don’t understand the world changed when you had to take money from the taxpayers to stay alive.

HINOJOSA: But did the world really change for them?

WARREN: Well, evidently not. And—I think what that means is that we really have to change this one now, again, by statute. I’m sorry, I—I was really a believer. “The market will heal itself, everything will correct here,” at least on executive pay. Because no one would be so foolish as to think, “I’ll take taxpayer money and then, while people are unemployed, I will lard my—myself with—with pay.”

For her, one of the most egregious actions was that executives continued to get big paychecks, and that bonuses were paid out, even though these companies received TARP and other bailout funds.

But what were the companies supposed to do? As I recall, they were contractually obligated to pay out those bonuses. Yes, most of the executives and traders returned them, or donated them to charity, due to public pressure and shaming, but the companies had no choice in the matter. Had the not paid those bonuses, they would have been subjected to employee lawsuits, which would have cost them even more money.

I mentioned irony earlier, and here's where I find it. Dr. Warren wants to control executive compensation for companies that received federal funds, and thinks that the bonuses shouldn't have been paid. There is already a free-market process in place for that. It's called bankruptcy. Had those banks been allowed to go into bankruptcy, the courts could have voided the employment contracts, thus eliminating the employee bonuses. The courts could have restructured the compensation packages for all of the employees involved. Any expenditures require the approval of the appointed trustee (if there is one) and the court.

However, that's not good enough for the socialist and progressive members of our society. Free-market corrections aren't "social justice", whatever that means. Instead, the answer is always more government, more regulations, and more control.

We see where that has pushed this country.

Fruit of the poisoned tree

(h/t David Monroe)

So, if he was such an evil, horrible, disgusting man, why are you using his products?

Shouldn't boycotts start at home?

I need a new Irony Meter

So, let me get this straight.  Your current claim to fame is running a website that releases insider information, often obtained illegally.  And now, when the shoe is on the other foot, you don't like it so much?

According to the Australian:

Bjorn Hurtig, Mr Assange's Swedish lawyer, said he would lodge a formal complaint to the authorities and ask them to investigate how such sensitive police material leaked into the public domain. "It is with great concern that I hear about this because it puts Julian and his defence in a bad position," he told a colleague.

"I do not like the idea that Julian may be forced into a trial in the media. And I feel especially concerned that he will be presented with the evidence in his own language for the first time when reading the newspaper. I do not know who has given these documents to the media, but the purpose can only be one thing - trying to make Julian look bad."

So, what happened to the desire for transparency?  From an interview I found online:

L: The ideology behind WikiLeaks is to enable transparency, or is there more of a thought behind it than that?

JA: There is. Our goal is justice. Our goal is to have a just civilization. That is sort of a personal motivating goal. And the message is transparency.

(emphasis mine)

The phrase "hoist with his own petard" comes to mind.