URLs du Jour


  • The NYT editorial writers have a deep and abiding faith in regulation.

    • Yesterday, they opined that "Congress still has done nothing to protect Americans from a terrorist attack on chemical plants." But it turns out that the only method of "doing something" acceptable to the NYT is to subject the chemical industry to new onerous regulations; invoking "security" is just a cynical cover. Angela Logomasini at CEI's Open Market blog shows that the NYT is largely following the Greenpeace line on this issue.

    • This followed Sunday's editorial looking with alarm at the meltdown of the Amaranth hedge fund, bemoaned "largely unregulated" hedge funds generally, and concluded—you'll never guess—"regulators need to act now."

      Michael Giberson injects some reality into this hysteria at the Knowledge Problem blog. Even the $6 billion dropped by Amaranth was about one-half of one percent of the total assets held in hedge funds. And if there's one financial area where people go in with eyes wide open to risk, it's hedge funds.

    • And today, the editorializers are positively spittle-flecked over current legisative proposal HR5092, which would marginally cut down the regulatory power of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives with regards to gun dealers.
      House sycophants of the National Rifle Association are aiming this week to hobble the federal government's power to revoke the licenses of rogue gun dealers who arm the underworld.
      It's probably worth pointing out that this is a pretty shameless ripoff of a Brady Campaign press release on HR5092:
      H.R. 5092 would make it virtually impossible for ATF to shut down rogue gun dealers, including those who repeatedly violate federal law.
      If you want to see the NRA's take on HR5092, that's here.

    Regulation: if you're the New York Times, there's nothing it can't do.

  • Wikipedia article du jour: Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo. Really. (Via MargRev.)