Occupy makes their own documentary:
More than 2 million without power after last night storm’s. (If you’re reading this, you aren’t one of them.)
And it’s still so hot. It was 90 degrees at midnight last night.
Local weather kept saying it was supposed to be clear tonight, but the MASSIVE storm that struck D.C. area tonight was clearly headed our way on the weather radar and shortly after midnight, they finally agreed we would get hit. Finally, it’s here. Not as bad as D.C., thank God, where they had 80 mph winds and hail.
Lots of D.C. friends without power tonight, although they’re bravely carrying on with the Twitter. The power company says it will take “days” to get it back on. How the hell will they survive in this heat?
Via Ryan Chittum at CJR, a good look at how our elite sees the rest of us:
CNBC’s John Carney finally heard an idea that intrigued him at the Aspen Ideas Festival: Ending universal suffrage:
His argument had two parts. The first was that some people simply are not ready for democracy. They have no functional conception of the state in their minds, much less an understanding of representative, deliberative democracy. Some are so poor that they can be bribed to vote this way or that for “five dollars,” he said. The application of the principle of universal suffrage was not a recipe for successful government in these circumstances, the speaker argued…
This pretty much runs against the grain of everything decent and serious people think. In fact, in a place like Aspen — which is dominated by progressives of various sorts — it felt like he was standing athwart history yelling “Go back!”
There’s something truly gross about the elite gathering in Aspen, of all places, at the behest of The Atlantic, of all institutions, to talk about how some people are too stupid to vote (a notion advanced by the Wall Street Journal editorial pages last week).
— Here’s the headline of Agnes Crane’s Reuters Breakingviews column:
Libor rigging look like victimless crime
If somebody was making money off this, somebody was losing money. It’s a zero-sum game. The argument, I suppose, is that it’s “victimless” if you steal relatively small amounts from large numbers of people (emphasis mine):
The numbers just don’t look large enough to matter. In one documented example, a derivatives trader put in a request to lower the input for three-month Libor, among the most popular benchmarks for floating rate debt, and it dropped by half a basis point, 0.005 percentage points. Libor was 5.365 percent at the time. Borrowers would hardly notice the difference.
That was the point, wasn’t it?
Remember, it was the “smart” people who got us into this mess. They’re the ones who shouldn’t be allowed to vote.