You are the reason why the CEO makes so much more than everyone else. When they assume the position, they become the public face of the company. That means that they give up a substantial amount of their privacy and put their reputations on the line. Then, when things go wrong, they take the blame, and are subjected to the public rants and raves and angry opinions of thousands and thousands of people just like you. And that's not mentioning the possibility of very public legal actions and Congressional investigations that they may be subject to.

Its the same reason movie stars make so much more money than everyone else. In essence, they are both selling their privacy for a substantial sum of money. I guess the issue is not so much that nobody else can do what they do - though there is certain necessary skills and knowledge associated with the position - but rather that nobody else is willing to assume the position, and all of the liabilities, that come with it.

Perhaps it was different years ago, before iPhones and YouTube and 24 hour news/opinion channels. Things have changed, though.

...this blog sought to sharply and objectively connect the dots between trends in finance, culture, trade, energy, and immigration, in an effort to illuminate and explain this "globalization" thing to its readers. Admirably, it largely succeeded, creating a unique and insightful portrait of these currents and how they interplay and react with each other. Eschewing ideology, How The World Works simply sought to lay out the facts of global interconnectedness.

Sadly, the blog I describe above is no more. Ever since the financial crisis, Mr. Leonard has abandoned the evenhanded position he had for so long admirably maintained, and simply utilized this space to opine against economic schools he has little understanding of, to loudly trumpet any and every financial move Mr. Obama makes, and to offhandedly dismiss anyone who criticizes him on this front. As far as I am concerned, this blog should no longer be called How The World Works. It should be re-titled, plainly and simply, "Andrew Leonard's Blog." Because that, Mr. Leonard, is what this blog has devolved into - your own shrill opninion, nothing more, nothing less.

....that the TARP funds that are underwriting the whole plan were Congressionally authorized for use expressly for the financial industry, and that use of them for purposes other than that is, in fact, in violation of the Constitution.

All sarcasm aside, you also fail to address that second point - that the Constitution authorizes Congress to allocate federal money, and that it is unconstitutional when the executive branch spends it in ways that it hasn't been authorized to.

P.S.: I have never read Atlas Shrugged. I'm a non-fiction guy.

.....it remains unconstitutional for the executive branch to spend money on things that it hasn't been Congressionally authorized to spend on. It may not be socialism, but it certainly remains constitutionally dubious. The fact that the Supreme Court chose to turn a blind eye to this should give all of us pause.

...and I thought his response to Palin was even funnier.

Sorry Kate, but the best comedy is usually "mean spirited" and "wholly inappropriate." Its also frequently quite sexist.

And no, there is not anything "systematic" about it. Good comedy is antinomian and anarchic in nature - which is why it is one of the only forums where being "mean spirited" "wholly inappropriate" and "sexist" is OK.

That's the beautiful thing about comedy, the way it can take our fears and anxieties and, for just a moment, turn them upside down.

Still, as Dr. Jonathan Fielding of the Los Angeles County Department of Health told the Los Angeles Times, "I don't know of any other industry where people are subjected to that kind of risk.'

How about circus performers who do highwire and trapeze acts without the benefit of a net?

How about Siegfried and Roy, who work with live, full grown tigers wearing nothing but silk blouses for protection should the tiger, as Chris Rock would say "go Tiger"?

How about Evel Kinevel (sic?), who almost died jumping his motorcycle over the fountain at Caesars Palace in the 70s? Couldn't he have found something less dangerous to jump over?

How about Johnny Knoxville, who very nearly took a live rocket to the chest while performing his "big red rocket" skit for the second Jackass movie.

The common thread that binds all of these people whose jobs require them to regularly submit themselves to significant risk of death and dismemberment, often without the benefit of commonsense protective measures, is that they are performers whose job is to provide a thrill for their audience. And, unfortunately, those commonsense protective measures make the performance not as thrilling or exciting for the audience to watch. The performers themselves take on these daredevil roles voluntarily - they could all have gotten boring office jobs if they wanted to - because they love delivering the thrill just as much as the audience enjoys being thrilled.

Such is also the case with regard to porn performers and condoms.

...but it bears mentioning that a government inforced condom mandate, as the Aids Healthcare Foundation appears to be advocating, would certainly run afoul of the First Amendment. In as much as the material itself would be subject to constiutional protection - and not deemed obscene - the right of the producer, and of the performer, to voluntarily produce sexually explicit material sans condom ought to be covered by freedom of speech.

If the condom is visible in the material, how does it not have an impact on it as expressive material?

If all parties are voluntarily consenting to take part in producing it, what grounds does the state have - other than obscenity - to restrict the speech in question in this way?