That said, it seems that prepaid cellphones (or "burners") don't just make it "a little easier" for drug dealers. They make it a whole lot easier.

I tend to skew libertarian on privacy issues, and I'm on the side of people who are appalled by Congress' recent decision to grant telecoms amnesty for breaking the law. However, I'm not against the idea of wiretaps on principle--provided the traditional legal requirements are met (e.g. signed affidavit). Prepaid cellphones that require no user information make it nearly impossible to conduct telephone surveillance on actual criminals who employ them.

I'm fairly certain Mr. O'Hehir was being ironic there...

This is exactly what Colin Powell was talking about when he endorsed Obama.

Well, the correct answer is, [s]he is not a[n] [atheist], [s]he's a Christian. [S]he's always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, what if [s]he is? Is there something wrong with being a[n] [atheist] in this country? The answer's no, that's not America.

Nice post, King. Hope you don't mind my pasting a link to Joe Posnanski's SI column from earlier today. I think Buck O'Neil deserves a mention when this subject is discussed, and the column is pretty great.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/joe_posnanski/11/05/sports.politics/

I agree with Simon!. The whole debate over whether this country is center-left or center-right is not a debate at all--it is just talking head bullshit.

Some people hold social views that skew to the left on balance, some hold views that skew to the right. But historically, US presidential elections tend to be decided on the state of the economy. If a supply-sider is in the White House, and unemployment is down, and the Dow is soaring, people are going to stick with the Republican incumbents. If the economy is worse than it's been in 30 years (see: right now), people are going to take it out on the incumbent party. This is why sometimes Democrats get elected and sometimes Republicans get elected.

This election did not swing Obama's way because of gay marriage or abortion, and GW wasn't re-elected in 2004 because of the religious right. The whole center-left center-right thing is a stupid non-starter that means nothing.

Scorpio69er posted the link to this in the comments section of your Michael Lewis post.

My favorite part is when Stein et al. are all recommending financials at what were, according to them, ridiculously cheap levels. (If only I would've bought Merrill @ $76/share!!! How can these people continue to give anyone advice???)

I love the contrasting views concerning Merrill between two of the subjects of your recent posts.

Ben Stein in this video:

Merrill is an “astonishingly well-run company."

Steve Eisman in Michael Lewis' Portfolio article:

"We have a simple thesis," Eisman explained. "There is going to be a calamity, and whenever there is a calamity, Merrill is there." When it came time to bankrupt Orange County with bad advice, Merrill was there. When the internet went bust, Merrill was there. Way back in the 1980s, when the first bond trader was let off his leash and lost hundreds of millions of dollars, Merrill was there to take the hit. That was Eisman's logic - the logic of Wall Street's pecking order. Goldman Sachs was the big kid who ran the games in this neighborhood. Merrill Lynch was the little fat kid assigned the least pleasant roles, just happy to be a part of things. The game, as Eisman saw it, was Crack the Whip. He assumed Merrill Lynch had taken its assigned place at the end of the chain.

Your contributions to sports journalism are appreciated and sorely needed. I'll be looking forward to every one of your columns that much more now.

The Broncos got "smoked" by the Raiders. The Jets lost in overtime on a 57 yard field goal by Janikowski. Now, any kind of loss to the Raiders is at least somewhat embarrassing. But I watched that game, and "smoked" is certainly not the word.

Also, the Jets are an "elite" team, not just a "legitimate playoff contender" (last week's column). J-E-T-S and so forth!

Signed,

John "Unbiased" N.

Long Island, NY

P.S. I'm cocky now. Not a good look for a long suffering Jets fan. Cutler throws for 500 this weekend.

You effing rule, Andrew

Great matchup: For both teams, a win means the playoffs and a loss means elimination.

Slight correction: a win for the Dolphins means playoffs, but the Jets need either the Patriots or the Ravens to lose in order to have a shot.

This pisses me off too. There is no excuse for the kind of ignorance bragged about by guys like Murray Chass. Further, the New York Times and other papers that publish those kinds of articles should be ashamed of themselves. Granted, it is not world peace. But it should be journalism.

That is all

I don't think Andrew is pointing to Cramer as a credible voice on the economy (indeed, in the past Andrew has pointed out his tendency to "ignore [Cramer's] crystal-meth hopped-up ramblings"). Rather, he is expressing his bemusement at the ridiculously hyperbolic 180 the guy has done on Geithner. Three months ago, Cramer was ranting about how Geithner makes him "sick" and how he would be a "total disaster" as Treasury Secretary. Now, he believes Geithner has the potential to be the next Alexander Hamilton. It doesn't get much crazier than that.

...I sat down with Fleck and Boden in Park City, Utah, for a brief conversation about the A's chances (abysmal last year; microscopically better this year)

You should check out Baseball Prospectus' 2009 projections. They've got the A's finishing 1st in that shitty division with a 84-78 record.