March 2008

You are browsing the site archives for March 2008.

Random shots around the web:

I just received a copy of A Splendid Exchange: How Trade Shaped the World by William J. Bernstein. He’s got a website, and he’s apparently a fan of Windypundit because he comped me a copy of the book. (I guess this blogging thing is finally starting to pay off.)

A Splendid Exchange looks like it’s going to be a history of long-distance trading, from a time when only luxuries and valuable tools were traded, to our present day, when bums sleeping on park benches are kept warm by clothing made on other continents.

I read a little of the book tonight, and it looks like it’s going to be fascinating read, but not a quick one. It’s so packed with details and stories that blasting through it would be overwhelming. I’ll probably keep it in my backpack and read a few pages whenever I have a chance.

Here’s an interesting local law:

The same week millions of people across the world are encouraged to turn off non-essential lights for 60 minutes during the second annual Earth Hour, the Village of Homer Glen is being honored for adopting one of the most comprehensive lighting ordinances in the state.

The ordinance limits how much light a business can generate based on lumens, a measurement of emitted light. It also mandates that lighting fixtures must have shields or other means of directing light downward. Laser lights, flashing lights, searchlights and other intrusive lighting are prohibited.

My libertarian instinct is to rebel against this. Grocery stores, factories, warehouses, parking structures, bars, car dealerships—all these places have distinct lighting requirements, and I can’t imagine that the people who crafted this ordinance are smart enough to get them all right. No one’s that smart.

Also, part of the justification for this ordinance is to save energy—as if people need government prodding with these prices.

On the other hand, the ordinance’s backers also justify it as reducing light scattered into the sky, making it easier for people to see the stars. At least that’s a genuine externality: If my use of light on my property impairs the stargazing abilities of other people on the their propery, then I’m imposing a cost on them that I’m not paying for.

More generally, if I shine a light into your property that impairs your enjoyment of it, isn’t that legitimately something that could be regulated? Air pollution, noise pollution…light pollution?

Anyone else know what to make of this?

If you are a prosecutor, it’s possible you found this because I’m a potential juror and you were Googling my name. I already wrote something like this in response to a question on Mark Bennet’s blog, so I might as well spell it out here. (And yes, I’m in kind of a bad mood.)

This argument is going to be more emotional than logical, but when it comes to describing and predicting my own behavior, there are times when my reason is slave to my passion.

I understand that as a juror I have a role to perform, and that it’s important to do it well and with integrity. I’m supposed to obey the judge, listen to the evidence, and follow the law.

I can assure you, I’m going to try. For whatever it’s worth, the only time I was a juror on a criminal case, we voted to convict, and I was one of the people who reached that conclusion early and helped convince others.

That said, you should know that I believe in my heart that it is wrong to punish people for crimes that have no possible victims. My position is a bit nuanced, but to a first approximation you can safely assume that I don’t believe it’s right to punish people for gambling, prostitution, drugs, or many other things that might be called “vice.”

If you allow me on a jury in, say, a drug case, this puts me in something of a quandary. I want to do my duty, but I feel that under some circumstances doing my duty will lead to an immoral result. I truly don’t know what I would do in most cases.

To save you the trouble of reading my entire blog, however, I might as well warn you that there is clearly some point at which I would balk. There is some point at which I would nullify, voting to acquit even if the law and evidence clearly indicate guilt.

It is my firmly held belief that much of the War On Drugs is, to be blunt, evil—as evil as witch burnings and slavery and Kristallnacht.

Some of this evil is done by prosecutors, who seek to obtain horrible punishments for the most minor of crimes. (If you prefer to blame the legislature, go ahead. It’s just as bad either way when it comes in front of a jury.) Exhibit A in the list of prosecutorial horrors is the case of Richard Paey, wheelchair-bound father of three, sent to prison for 25 years for forging his prescriptions for painkillers.

Would it have been wrong for the jury to nullify in that case? If so, does that mean you believe Paey deserved his harsh sentence? If he didn’t deserve it, how is it right for the jury to be presented with a chance to stop it and do nothing?

Maybe you think Richard Paey and other perpetrators of vice got the sentence they deserved. Then let’s try an example of a different sort: Denmark Vesey. In Charleston in 1822 he was the leader in a conspiracy of thousands of slaves to rise up, temporarily seize the city, and then grab ships in the harbor and sail away to freedom. The uprising was disrupted before it could start, and the leaders were put on trial. Vesey and 34 others were convicted and hanged.

There was never any chance a Charleston jury would nullify, but if it had, would that have been wrong? Should slaves be executed for insurrection against their masters? If not, then why would it be wrong for a jury to stop the executions despite the law?

Unless you are truly devoid of moral reasoning, there must be some level of unjustness at which you will abandon the law to avoid complicity in unconscionable evil. I haven’t been in a position to find out where that limit is for me, but at the moment I write this, I suspect it is within the bounds of our War On Drugs.

If you place me on a jury and ask me to do what Paey’s prosecutor asked his jury to do, I’d like to think I’d have the moral courage to nullify. And if asked to justify my nullification, I would say that I nullified because the law did not allow me to have you jailed for your cruelty.

So if you want to consign someone to a horrible fate for a crime that harms no one, and you don’t want me to nullify, don’t ask me to take part in your foul deed. Do it without me.

Random shots around the web:

 (Hat tip: Austin Criminal Defense Lawyer)

We just passed the fifth anniversary of the start of the war in Iraq, and the staff of Reason magazine have been looking back to 2003 to review their positions on the war in Iraq then and now. I figure I might as well go on the record about where I stood then and where I stand now.

Back then, I knew I didn’t know enough to have a well-informed opinion (and I was still new enough to blogging to let that stop me), so I wrote very little about the invasion except for a tongue-in-cheek strategy suggestion. I was hardly a war booster, but if pressed I would have said that invading Iraq was probably a good thing.

To start with, getting rid of Saddam Hussein was a great idea. He was a tyrant and I say death to tyrants.

There were those who opposed the invasion on the grounds that Iraq was a sovereign nation which we had no right to invade. I had a simple answer to that: The only legitimate governments are democracies. Any government which is not of, by, and for the people is not a government we should respect. Dictators are the moral equivalent of gangsters, and Saddam Hussein was no more the legitimate ruler of Iraq than John Gotti was the mayor of New York.

What give us the right? I think everyone has the right. You don’t need anybody else’s permission to free someone from tyranny. (You wouldn’t want to free someone against their will, of course, but in the absence of a clear and uncoerced statement to the contrary, I think it’s safe to assume that people want to be free.)

Then why not invade some other dictatorship such as Iran, Syria, or “our friends” the Saudis? I wouldn’t have a moral problem with overthrowing any of those governments, but an illegitimate government only keeps it from being immoral to invade, it doesn’t mean we have to invade.

Just because we believe people would be better off if we invaded, doesn’t mean it’s our duty as a nation to do so. Even back then, it was clear that an invasion would have a cost in blood and treasure, and we owe it to our soldiers and our taxpayers not to squander what they give us on wars that do not serve our national interest. We should only invade Iraq, I thought, if it also served a legitimate national interest.

That’s where the weapons of mass destruction came in. Keeping such weapons out of the hands of terrorists was a clear matter of national security.

Then there’s the oil. Protesters can chant “no blood for oil” all they want, but that doesn’t change the fact that American civilization will crumble if we don’t get oil. The safety of our oil supply is a matter of national security as well, and if invading Iraq and setting up a free democracy will help stabilize the region, all the better.

I thought invading Iraq would serve a confluence of interests. A successful operation would

  • overthrow a tyrant
  • eliminate Iraqi weapons of mass destruction
  • free the Iraqi people
  • spread democracy in the middle east
  • help stabilize the region
  • safeguard our oil supply

But if an invasion is such a great idea, why wasn’t I a war booster?

Well, although that list makes the invasion sound like a terrific idea, there’s one very important point I left out which concerned me very much at the time: Invading Iraq and accomplishing the items on that list is only a good idea if it actually works.

The problem was, I knew far too little about the middle east, the Bush administration, and modern warfare to make many confident predictions. I was sure the initial invasion would sweep the Iraqi army from the battlefield, but when it came to picking up the pieces afterward, I had no idea what would happen.

The best I could figure out is that it all depended on the Iraqi people. If they welcomed us as liberators and enthusiastically started the hard work of building a free democracy, everything would be fine. But if they cooperated with an organized guerilla resistance movement, we’d be stuck in an ugly situation for a long time.

The best I could do was listen to what all sides were saying and decide who made the most sense. The Bush Administration had Colin Powell and access to everything our intelligence agencies knew about the middle east.  The anti-war crowd had Hollywood celebrities and giant paper-machete heads, and they seemed to think that insulting George Bush for not approving the Kyoto agreement was a compelling argument against the war. (I’m simplifying a bit.) Also, the anti-war crowd had been wrong every step of the way in Afghanistan.

At the time, I still believed that, whatever their faults in other areas, the Bush administration was serious about national security. Also, without free speech the Iraqi people couldn’t tell us what they would really do if we invaded, but I figured our intelligence agencies had the assets and capability to make some really good guesses.

So, I figured the invasion would probably be successful, and therefore it was probably a good idea. I didn’t love the idea, but I thought evertything would turn out better in the end.

Once the war was underway, as I expected, we quickly accomplished the first goal of overthrowing Saddam Hussein.

Troublingly, the second goal, destroying the weapons of mass destruction, proved to have been unnecessary.

As the war dragged on, we went backwards on the last two goals, stabilizing the region and safeguarding our oil supply. As for the middle two goals, I’m not sure if what the Iraqis have now can really be called freedom, and I don’t think we’ve impressed the Muslim world with the benefits of democracy.

Even after the war started to go bad, the question that kept nagging at me was “Would the world have been a better place if Saddam was still in charge in Iraq?” The answer, I thought, was “no.”

But here we are after five years of violent confict and Iraqis are still dying, Iran is emerging as an unopposed power in the region, and the enemy has learned a lot about how to fight us. I’m beginning to think it’s a no-win situation, and our best move is to admit it and cut our losses.

Of course, given my track record on this subject, it’s just as likely that the resistance is going to collapse next month, the Iraqis will begin to build a working society, and the liberals will gain power in Iran.

It’s probably better if you don’t pay attention to a thing I say.

There’s no way this could possibly go wrong:

The FBI has recently adopted a novel investigative technique: posting hyperlinks that purport to be illegal videos of minors having sex, and then raiding the homes of anyone willing to click on them.

Undercover FBI agents used this hyperlink-enticement technique, which directed Internet users to a clandestine government server, to stage armed raids of homes in Pennsylvania, New York, and Nevada last year. The supposed video files actually were gibberish and contained no illegal images.

A CNET News.com review of legal documents shows that courts have approved of this technique, even though it raises questions about entrapment, the problems of identifying who’s using an open wireless connection–and whether anyone who clicks on a FBI link that contains no child pornography should be automatically subject to a dawn raid by federal police.

CNET is a tech news site, so they spotted the first thing I thought of:

There’s no evidence the referring site was recorded as well, meaning the FBI couldn’t tell if the visitor found the links through Ranchi or another source such as an e-mail message.

If that’s true, then the FBI has no proof of why someone followed the link or what they thought it would get them. Anybody could have found one of those links and posted it to another web site with a misleading message such as “click here to see playful kittens.”

Or imagine you’re reading a forum or some blog comments, and you read a message that says “Oh my god, does this look like child porn to anyone?  Should we tell someone?” Can you be sure you wouldn’t reflexively click the link before thinking about it? Have you ever clicked a link by accident when you selected a window?

Anyone who followed one of those links could get raided by the FBI. That’s a scary thought.

To be fair, in the case described in the CNET article, the posts by the FBI were very explicit about what was supposedly at the other end of the link, and the FBI servers recorded 5 clicks to 3 different files over a six hour period from the same IP address. That’s more than just one reflexive click or a mousing error.

Nevertheless, this seems like a dangerous direction to take law enforcement.

(Hat tip: Crime & Federalism)

Everybody’s still talking about Obama’s speech on race, so I might as well put in my two cents. Was it self serving? Of course. He’s a politician in an election year. But I mostly thought it was damned good.

Too many politicians, when confronted with embarassing statements by a friend, will either dissemble—“I didn’t know”, “that’s out of context”, “you’re just bringing this up to attack my candidacy”—or else throw their friend under a bus.

Obama did neither. He denounced Pastor Wright’s inflammatory rhetoric, but he didn’t abandon him. That’s how real people do it. That’s how I do it.

One of my friends is a bit of a racist, to the point where she will occasionally drop the N-word into our conversation. I don’t like it when she gets that way, but there’s not much I can do to change her mind, and I’m not going to kick her to the curb just because her behavior is sometimes distasteful. You just don’t do that to friends.

Only someone with obscene political ambitions would choose friends based on how good they’ll look in an election year. I think pretty much the same thing goes for pastors.

(Actually, that’s another issue. Most people don’t choose a pastor, they choose a congregation. Churches serve a social function as well as a religious one, and the pastor is only part of the package. I imagine there are days when people listening to Wright’s sermon just role their eyes at the things he goes on about. That’s part of the fun.)

Obama’s larger message about race relations in this country sounded pretty good too. Basically, he pointed out that there’s been an ongoing struggle over race since this country was founded, that things have been improving steadily, and that people of all races have genuine reasons to be angry or fearful about the process. Then he called on everyone to put aside fake election-time racial issues—who said what, what did they mean, and who’s outraged by it—and focus on the real problems we all face together. Only he said it better than I did.

It was a message of conciliation and unity, but I also think he was very politely warning his opponents: In a battle of words over whether the friends of white or black candidates are more racist, the white folks are going to lose.

Still, it was nicely done. Instead of spouting slogans, Obama treated his audience as adults who could understand the nuances of friendship and community and politics and race.

It also doesn’t hurt that I agreed with almost everything he said. But “almost” leaves room for a couple of problems. The first one is here:

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze – a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many.

Why is it that so many political liberals hate corporations? This just seems terribly misguided to me. Corporations are the mechanism by which we can quickly, efficiently, and voluntarily aggregate the resources of thousands of people toward a common goal. Without them, we’d be a third-world nation. They are the engines of our national prosperity.

I’m not saying that corporations don’t end up doing some really bad things, but that’s because they are run by people, and people sometimes do bad things.

Also—and this is one of the key policy differences between liberals and libertarians like me—most of the really bad things done by corporations are only possible because some government is helping them. Corporations like Pfizer or Target can’t take people’s land by eminent domain, only governments can do that. Corporations can’t force anyone to do anything, except with the help—or at least the acquiescence—of governments.

Those lobbyists and special interests Obama talks about wouldn’t be able to dominate Washington if our congressmen and president weren’t so eager to let them. Before blaming the business world, Obama should clean his own house.

The second problem with Obama’s speech is here:

This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn’t look like you might take your job; it’s that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.

There are at least three problems with that sentence. First, there’s nothing wrong with making a profit. If it weren’t for profits, nobody would invest in corporations, and they wouldn’t employ people to make stuff.

Second, corporations don’t switch to overseas factories to make a profit. They switch to overseas factories to lower their cost of production. If they’re lucky, they might be able to keep some of the savings and make a profit—at least for a little while—but usually they are forced by competition to pass their savings on to consumers. That’s because their competition is also lowering costs with overseas production, and if they didn’t lower prices to match, they’d lose their market share and go out of business. Corporations ship jobs overseas to lower consumer prices so they can stay alive.

The third problem really stinks up Obama’s speech. He’s allowed his anti-corporate obsession to corrupt his egalitarian impulses. When corporations “ship our jobs overseas,” they give them to other people, people who in most cases need them more than we do. Apparently those other people don’t count in Obama’s calculus.

At the start of his speech, Obama makes a point of mentioning that his father was from Kenya. Obama supports increased immigration, so I guess it would be okay with him if Kenyans came here to work in an American factory. So why would it be wrong for an American company to bring the factory to the Kenyans?

I’ve been trying to make sense of what the Federal Reserve has been doing with Bear Stearns. My usual source for smart thinking about financial issues, Kip Esquire, is so far silent, so I’m trying to figure this out myself. It’s not going well.

The argument against government bailouts of private businesses is that it’s a bad idea for the government (even in the form of the Federal Reserve) to rescue a corporation that’s in trouble. It sets a bad precedent, creating what economists refer to as a moral hazard.

A lot of big financial institutions are thought to be “too big to fail,” meaning that their failure would have such severe repercussions that the federal government would have to step in to save them. This insulates the institution’s investors from the inherent risk of investing, encouraging them to invest more money in riskier ventures than would normally be wise. This leads to more failures and more government help.

My usual prescription for this problem is some tough love: The government and the Fed should let Bear Stearns bleed to death as a lesson for others. If this sets off the expected chain reaction of bank failures, it will be bad for the economy, but it might be worth it to discourage future risky behavior by investment banks.

As I learn more about the Bear Stearns bailout, however, I’m beginning to doubt my gut reaction because Bear Stearns isn’t really being bailed out in the usual sense. Instead, it’s being sold to J.P. Morgan Chase at a huge discount. It had a market value on Friday of $3.5 billion, but J.P. Morgan is only paying about $240 million. In other words, the owners of Bear Stearns lost 93% of their investment. (That’s just the loss over the weekend. If you look back a couple of weeks, the loss rises to 99%.) That ought to be enough to discourage future investment in absurdly risky assets.

On the other hand, it looks like the Fed will be securing their loan to J.P. Morgan by essentially taking over some of Bear Stearns’ portfolio. Since that porfolio consists of mortgage-backed securities, does this mean that the Fed will be holding the mortgages on people’s homes? Does this mean that the Fed will be in a position to foreclose on people’s homes? Do you think those people will be screaming to their congressmen about this?

I guess what it comes down to is that I’m suspicious of the Fed’s involvement, but I don’t quite know how to think about it. 

As is often the case, a lot of women are getting hurt by the Spitzer scandal.

My wife feels particularly bad for Spitzer’s wife Silda. Aside from cheating on her, Eliot Spitzer also seems to be dragging her to all his humiliating press conferences. As Maggie Gallagher puts it:

No animal would plan for its mate as exquisite a humiliation as Eliot Spitzer inflicted on his wife, Silda Wall Spitzer, Monday afternoon in broad daylight, in front of us all.

I don’t have a lot of hope for the public morality. I don’t suspect this is the last time a man entrusted with high office will descend into a sex scandal, or even break the law (as Eliot Spitzer did) to get what he wants…

But can we at least end this barbaric practice of dragging your wife before the cameras while you confess your shameful guilt? If she wasn’t there in the hotel room when you did your crime, don’t ask her to do your time.

The practice began relatively innocently as something an accused man might do when he denied the allegations . A man’s wife at his side showed that she, at least, believed the guy when he said he did not do it.

It was former New Jersey Gov. James McGreevey, I believe, who began the modern practice…of parading the little wife before the cameras to hold your hand as you confess your guilt. The goal is to get the shell-shocked wife to demonstrate to the public that the offense is forgiveable. If his wife forgives him, how mad can you be?

But the practice requires a man to turn the best instinct of his wife—to unite behind the family in crisis—into an instrument of her own public humiliation.

My own sympathy for Silda Spitzer is somewhat diluted by my dislike of her husband. The man is a self-aggrandizing jerk who enjoys hurting other people to further his career. If that’s the kind of guy she wanted to marry, it makes her a bit difficult to feel sorry for. On the other hand, she probably didn’t see this coming.

I feel sorry for the ladies at the Emperor’s Club. They thought they were going to make some money doing a disreputable job but eventually get out clean. Now, however, they’ll probably all be dragged through the papers.

Spitzer’s girl in Washington, “Kristen,” has now been identified as Ashley Alexandra Dupré, and journalists are scouring the earth for more information about her. If you want to see what she looks like, the Smoking Gun has pictures. Apparently, she’s an aspiring musician. Or at least she was. From now on, however, she’ll be known as governor Spitzer’s hooker.

Then again, I could be completely wrong. Maybe this isn’t a devastating personal setback. Our standards of propriety for celebrities have changed. She could make a lot of money posing in Penthouse or Hustler right now, and there’s probably a book deal in her future. Heck, there’s probably a reality television show with Paris Hilton on Spike TV in her future if she wants it.

Her MySpace page is still up, and her song has been played by 3 million people, which is more than most musicians get. The comments she gets from her friends are almost all heartwarmingly supportive, and maybe even a little bit envious.

The mess Ashley Dupré finds herself in is the result of the choices she made, but like Mrs. Spitzer, she probably didn’t see this coming.

There are three other women who didn’t see this coming, Spitzer’s three daughters, but unlike Silda and Ashley, they had no choice in the matter. No choice at all.

Poor girls.

There have been some rumors that New York Governor Eliot Spitzer is trying to bargain with the feds over his involvement with a prostitution ring. Apparently, he’s offering to resign the governorship in return for a walk on the charges.

This is wrong for two reasons:

First, it’s not much of a punishment. Thousands of men arrested as prostitution patrons and money launderers are already not a state governor. If the feds give Spitzer a walk, shouldn’t all those other guys get a walk too?

Second, as Mike at Crime & Federalism points out, it’s none of the federal government’s business. Eliot Spitzer was put in the governor’s office by the people of New York, and it’s not up to the U.S. Justice Department to change that. Using the threat of prosecution to force him out of office is little more than blackmail and extortion. I hope the feds are better than that.

Update: Spitzer just resigned. Never mind.

I’m still riding high on the Elliot Spitzer hooker scandal. What a tool.

Note that I didn’t call it a sex scandal. That the governor of New York was having sex with these women is not the problem. (Mrs. Spitzer might have a different opinion.) No, the problem is that he was hiring hookers. To be more specific, he was hiring them in violation of the law. He even owed them money.

As a libertarian, I think that if consenting adults want to trade sex acts for money, no legitimate government purpose is served by stopping them. However, just because I’m in favor of legal prostitution doesn’t mean I approve of its illegal forms.

The folks who run illegal prostitution rings are probably not doing it because of their strong libertarian sensibilities. They’re doing it because they want to make money, and they’re willing to break the law to do so. In fact, the whole operation ends up taking place outside the law, which places everyone involved outside the protection of the law. And if New York is anything like Chicago, that means this prostitution ring is under the control of organized crime.

That’s a huge problem for a government official, especially one who has had law enforcement duties, such as Elliot Spitzer in his former position as New York State Attorney General. Once he had had a few dates with the ladies of the Emperor’s Club, they owned him. They could threaten to blow up his career at any time by going public.

(That might expose a few of the ladies to prosecution, and maybe even a couple of people running the ring, but it wouldn’t touch anybody higher up.)

It’s possible that a high-class escort service that has clients able to pay $1000 per hour wouldn’t ever engage in blackmail. Their reputation for discretion might be so valuable that it’s not worth risking. Why resort to extortion when clients pay them millions of dollars per year of their own free will?

Still, think about what it means that the top prosecutor in the state of New York owed money to the mob and regularly did business with them.

As a Manhatten ADA, he went after a Gambino labor-racketeering operation in 1992. But then he went into private practice for a few years before taking the New York Attorney General’s office in 1998. In that role, he focussed on consumer issues and business fraud. None of the notable cases on Spitzer’s Wikipedia page involved organized crime. Why not?

As Attoney General, he would have been in position to decide which cases are worth further investigation…and which ones would be shut down. If I worked in the New York AG’s office right now, I’d be asking everyone there if Spitzer shut down any cases that were still good.

Interestingly, during his term as Attorney General, he did actually prosecute cases against two prostitution rings. Why those two? Could he have been eliminating the competition as a favor to someone?

Really, I have no idea what was going on in the New York AG’s office, or whether any mob figures ever had a friendly conversation with Spitzer about his entertainment expenses. This is all just speculation. As far as I know, the FBI court documents only cover his time in the Governor’s office, so it’s possible he was clean while he was the Attorney General. But I doubt it.

I don’t really care if a politician has sex outside his marriage (that’s between him and his wife), and I don’t care that he paid women for sex (that’s between him and them), but I do care if he’s doing favors for the mob.

Oh my.

According to the New York Times, New York Governor Elliot Spitzer has just been—as they say—“linked” to a prostitution ring…which I assume means he was fucking a bunch of hookers.

Normally, I wouldn’t care at all. I don’t normally give a damn care what consenting adults do with their time and money.

However, Elliot Spitzer does care what consenting adults do. As New York Attorney General, he prosecuted a couple of prostitution rings. He’s also gone on a number of grandstanding crusades, often stretching the interpretation of New York law to prosecute people for business practices that had been considered legal for decades. He’s also threatened to go after people who criticize him. Even by politician standards, he’s kind of a scumbag.

So I’m torn. I don’t believe hiring prostitutes makes him a bad guy, but I don’t like him, but the reasons I don’t like him aren’t illegal, but hiring prostitutes is. So I’d like to see him take a big hit for this. But I’ll feel guilty for enjoying it.

Update: And I feel really guilty for mentioning that according to court files, Client-9 (the FBI code for Spitzer in the affidavit) was described by the Emperors Club booker as someone who “would ask you to do things that, like, you might not think were safe…” I gotta admit, I’m hoping for embarassing details. Let’s just say I’m kind of hoping to see Elliot Spitzer’s name in the same sentence with words like “scat”, “golden shower,” and “she-male.”

I woke up last night and had to leave the bed and move to the couch to get some sleep because my wife was snoring like a motherfucker.

Later, I drove my wife to a bead store that was gettin’ its ass out of the business so she could take advantage of the fucked up prices.

Meanwhile, I drove over to the Container Store. When the sales assistant came ’round, I almost told her to step off, but she had heart, so I bought that shit. Then I hollered at my wife that I was comin’ to get her.

On our way back, we got stuck behind a slow-ass cocksucker in a sports car. “Learn to drive that shit, motherfucker!” I yelled, but that boy had no sense in him.

We stopped for lunch, and I left the waiter a good tip because he earned it like a motherfucker.

Now I’m all up in here with my dick in hand, waiting for some 8 o’clock television.

It’s the final episode of The Wire, and I think I’m in the right mood for it.

Update: And it’s down.