This is totally gonna kick ass on the newstand!
The other day I was walking home along the Drive, and, as I walk pretty snappily, I was passing saunterer after saunterer. If they can put fast and slow lanes in the swimming pool, why can't they put them on the sidewalk for god's sake? Instead we have the morass lane, the poleaxed tourist lane, the distracted lovers' lane, and the fat lazy grampa in a scooter lane all rolled into one. And, because it's the 21st Century and nobody grows up anymore, we have the skinny grampa on a motorized skateboard or Segway lane as well. It's all I can do not to kick them into traffic.
So I was walking down the street, enjoying the sunshine and the feeling of the wind as it whipped past my shoulders at high speed. And ahead, I saw what I refer to as an "ambulatory landscape feature" ie someone walking more slowly than I. He was dressed all in camo, from his head to his foot, and you could tell, heavy weight on his style he did put. A manpurse of nylon he had slung on his back, and his pants were so low I do swear I saw crack. His boots, how they clompéd, his laces untied. You could tell this fat mofo was a man of some pride.
As I passed, I deliberately bumped into him.
"Sorry," I said. "Didn't see you there."
I don't think he got it.
Asexual reproduction is alive and well and living in Park Slope, because, frankly, nothing else could explain why all these people have children when, it is quite clear from their emails, none of them have had sex so far this century.
An excerpt from Gawker: 
It’s all pleasantly, kookily amusing, right? Not quite. In summarized form, yes, it’s amusing enough. But we had a chance to read the entire exchange — stretching on for days, with charges of political correctness and anti-political correctness, sexism and stereotyping — and we’re much less amused. The whole thing is after the jump; prepare to be intrigued, amazed, disgusted — and quite certain you could never, ever be paid enough to move out there.
The whole sordid drama is available here, if your life does not already contain enough inferior and pretentious people to whom you can condescend.
A tip of the hat and ten-tentacle salute to Cryptome for this positively exquisite post. Once in a great while, an article comes along that vindicates every drunken, paranoid midnight conversation you ever had. For some of us, this is it: How to distinguish between Capitalists and Crooks.
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
Consumer Benefits and Harms:
How Best to Distinguish Aggressive, Pro-Consumer Competition From Business Conduct To Attain or Maintain a Monopoly
SUMMARY: The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) will hold a series of public Hearings to explore how best to identify anticompetitive exclusionary conduct for purposes of antitrust enforcement under section 2 of the
Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 2. Among other things, the Hearings will examine whether and when specific types of conduct that potentially implicate section 2 are procompetitive or benign, and when they may harm competition and consumer welfare. [ie we know it's illegal, but we're going to decide whether or not we like it anyway; suck it, bitch]… To begin, the Agencies are soliciting public comment from lawyers, economists, the business community, consumer groups, academics (including business historians), and other interested parties [ie individuals, the polar opposite of monopolies] on two general subjects:
(1)The legal and economic principles relevant to the application of section 2, including the administrability of current or potential antitrust rules for section 2, and [ie does what we have work for you?]
(2) the types of business practices that the Agencies should examine in the upcoming Hearings, including examples of real-world conduct that potentially raise issues under section 2.[you tell us what we have your permission to look at]
With respect to the Agencies' request for examples of real-world conduct, the Agencies are soliciting discussions of the business reasons for, and the actual or likely competitive effects of, such conduct, including actual or likely efficiencies and the theoretical underpinnings that inform the decision of whether the conduct had or has pro-or anticompetitive effects. The Agencies will solicit additional submissions about the topics to be covered at the individual Hearings at the time that each Hearing is announced.[provided the theory is pretty enough, we're open to much anything; at the FTC, the obscure economic theorist is king!]
The Agencies encourage submissions from business persons from a variety of unregulated and regulated markets, recognizing that market participants can offer unique insight into how competition works and that the implications of various business practices may differ
depending on the industry context and market structure. [all monopolies are equal, but some are more equal than others] The Agencies seek this practical input to provide a real-world foundation of knowledge from which to draw as the Hearings progress. Respondents are encouraged to respond on the basis of their actual experiences.[Because we don't trust our researchers to do this work; they're all goddam Democrats!]
raincoaster 