The New Republic

It’s a bit sad. Until this article, I didn’t know about non-Chapter-11 bankruptcy. I didn’t even know there were other types of bankruptcy. I used to watch evening news and I don’t remember them ever mentioning any other type. So in my mind, I equated “bankruptcy” with Chapter-11-style “declare bankruptcy but continue operating”. I’m sure I’m not alone in that respect.

I think that’s where all the anti-GM-bailout sentiment comes from. Why bail out General Motors when they can file Chapter 11 bankruptcy and continue operating as normal? Well, as the article points out, because it’s likely that GM will have to file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy—closing up shop and liquidating assets. That would be a nightmarish scenario. (via Paul Krugman)

The Guardian

As has been said by Randy Pausch and many others, luck is where preparation meets opportunity. Perhaps I should pick up Gladwell’s book and give it a read? (via Daring Fireball)

Salon

The lolcats, the Internet’s most famous felines, may be hilarious. But in their yearning, I see nothing less than the tragedy of the human condition.

San Jose Mercury News

When will schools get a bailout?

Bloomberg

[Lehman Brothers CEO Richard Fuld's] failure to save Lehman, after rescuing it three times before, is a story about how the most indomitable man on Wall Street became addicted to leverage and intoxicated with the power it brought. It is a tale about the inability to repair a financial model wrecked by a lack of limits and transparency, a story pieced together from interviews with former Lehman executives and outsiders familiar with the firm. Isolated, surrounded by acolytes and unaware of the rivalries tearing his firm apart, Fuld was too prideful to accept the fast-eroding value of the empire he had built, too slow to cut a deal.

Ars Technica

$40 synthesizer software for the DS. I’m tempted to get it just for the heck of it…

That line is from the pastor’s introduction preceding Obama’s speech on Martin Luther King Jr. Day at Ebenezer Baptist Church. It remains my favorite speech by far, even though I think it has been pushed out of people’s minds by Obama’s follow-up speech on race given to the whole country. With Obama’s victory on Tuesday, that intro—given when Obama was a mere U.S. Senator and presidential candidate—is even more true today.

It is important to remember why Obama makes us proud though. It is not just because he came from humble beginnings and went on to go to Harvard Law School, become a State Senator, yadda yadda yadda. It is also the honest, intellectual, and inclusive approach to problem solving that he has been able to maintain through his meteoric rise in politics.

It came through loud and clear in his speech at Ebenezer where on the one hand, he condemned demagogues for dividing people and setting them against each other; and on the other, he implored the congregation to take notice of the prejudice that lives within their hearts and minds: “And yet if we are honest with ourselves, we must admit that none of our hands are entirely clean.”

And so with great jubilation, I watched the networks call the election for Obama from the gym’s TVs. And so with great sadness, I read that California’s Proposition 8 (gay marriage ban) passed a few hours later.

If we are truly on our way to looking past race, why are we still so hung up about sexual orientation? On that historic election night, did we complete the hail mary pass only to have it called back by a penalty?

What irritates me the most is that my parents, some of my friends, and some of my coworkers think there are legitimate reasons to support Prop 8. As far as the state is concerned, marriage is a contract between two individuals that grant certain advantages. There should not be any restriction on who can enter that contract. To limit state-sponsored marriage to heterosexual couples because you believe marriage is between a man and a woman oversteps the separation between church and state. To repeat, for the state, marriage is only a contract. Just because most people attach additional meaning to marriage does not change that.

Perhaps the solution is for the state to butt out of marriage altogether. That way people can define “marriage” however they want.

(Interesting side note: another coworker takes it a step further. He thinks that the state should not limit marriage to monogamist relationships or the state should not be involved with marriage at all. Discuss.)

New York Times

How could subprime mortgage defaults turn into a global crisis affecting everyone from multinational banks to local governments? Read on.

The Atlantic

Kinda makes you want to pack an extra Hezbollah flag for your next flight. Or perhaps carry on a couple bottles of “saline solution”.

Salon

Literally the shittiest article I’ve read in a long time. ;)