Wiki-interesting

As you know, I'm an avid Wikipedian. It has often been noted that Wikipedia is basically a summary of all the information you can find on a given topic by Googling the topic. Very rarely do Wikipedians venture into book research in writing their articles.

I would thus say there are some similarities between Wikipedia and Anders Behring Breivik's 2083: A European Declaration of Independence. Although the media has mainly called it a "manifesto," Breivik (who Anglicizes his name as Andrew Berwick in the document) refers to it as a "Compendium." I think "Compendium" is a more accurate description. Like a good Wikipedia article, it is basically a compilation of the best source material he could find by Googling certain topics. A Wikipedia article has to paraphrase that material (to avoid copyright issues), but Breivik basically just cuts and pastes that material into a 1500-page Word document.

Ah, the lazy 21st century, when even our wacko murderous nutjobs can't be bothered to pen their own manifestos and instead rely on Control-C.

Can You Forget Old Norway?

Well, as the son of a Norwegian Canadian, the whole terrorist business in Old Norway is especially sad.

Anyhow, enjoy this song about the Norwegian diaspora (half in Norwegian, half in English). The performers are an act called Duo Scandinavica. The male performer, Jim Nelson, is from Drammen, which also happens to be the home city of one of my great-great-grandmothers.

Actually, I think that's a model CVS hired to play a pharmacist for its annual report

I've been trying to figure out of if I think CVS is a well-run company or not. Mainly because since CVS is so ubiquitous that I visit one every day or two. (For the record, there are 7,200 CVS retail outlets in the U.S. and last year, CVS Caremark had $96.4 billion in net revenue.)

I've noticed that they have been buying progressively smaller plastic bags over the last several months. These bags are seriously so small that they're barely functional. But maybe that's a sign that CVS is saving money this way and that's smart. And certainly, they're not paying a penny more for labor than they have to. The workers at the CVS near my apartment have to be the slowest, most incompetent retail employees I have ever encountered. Again, maybe that's a sign they're holding their costs down appropriately. It's not like the terrible service stops me from going there.

I did a bit of Googlework on the company, and here's what I found out. From their last annual report: in 2010, CVS shares returned 7.9% to shareholders, vs. a 12.8% return average for the S&P 500. So, not a great return. In their annual report, the letter from the CEO and president say that that result is "unacceptable." On the other hand, they led the industry in same-store sales growth in 2010 (+2.1%)

On a sidenote, I always think it's interesting to compare pharmacies in the U.S. vs. pharmacies in Canada. In the U.S., pharmacies like CVS seem to have expanded to compete against convenience stores like 7-Eleven. The Canadian pharmacy chains, like Shoppers Drug Mart or London Drugs, followed a different model. They have a more upscale feel than U.S. pharmacies - SDM usually has a perfume counter, like at a department store, and London drug sells high-end electronics.

Regulate in Favor of Me

Seeing this today, I was reminded that, while I generally oppose invasive government regulation, I do favor re-regulating the airline industry.

Now, I don't say this necessarily for altruistic purposes. I actually think that the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 was good for consumers. Sure, there are a ton of bad things with air travel today, but air travel is a LOT more accessible to an average member of the middle class than prior to deregulation act.

(On a sidenote, if you haven't read it, I highly recommend Thomas K McGraw's Prophets of Regulation, which won the 1985 Pulitzer Prize for History. McGraw profiles four intellectuals who are incredibly important in the history of industry regulation in the U.S., one of whom is Alfred E. Kahn, who oversaw airline deregulation under President Carter. On a side-sidenote, I once again reiterate my position that Carter was not really that liberal. On a side-side-sidenote, I loved my trip to the Jimmy Carter Presidential Library and Museum in January.)

But, anyhow, for purely selfish reasons, I want re-regulation. It might hurt the average guy, but, on this topic, I say, screw the average guy. More expensive flights, so be it. If it were up to me, we'd take all of those planes with three seats on the left and three seats on the right of the aisle, I would mandate that they have to replace them with bigger seats, so only two seats on each side of the aisle. (See photo.) I'd mandate meals on every flight longer two hours. I'd ban charging extra for checking bags. I'd ban overhead bins (there are few things in life I hate more than people who hold up flight boarding with putting their hugeass bags in overhead bins). (See photo.)

I also favor massive, widespread use of eminent domain to double or triple the number of runways in the country. NIMBY be damned. Boo hoo - "I lost my house and got fair compensation" - how awful. Our delays are all caused by the fact that runways are so tightly scheduled that weather problems anywhere in the country disrupt the entire system - it's nuts.

Royal Wedding Bells

Scour the world, and you'll probably never find a schmaltzier statue than the statue of the Queen of Hearts and her Dodi erected by Mohamed Al-Fayed in the basement of Harrods in London. Of all the weird things to come from Diana's death, that was no doubt the weirdest.

Well, with Prince William of Wales finally proposing to Kate, I guess the circle is unbroken, and what Diana and Dodi could find only in a statue in the Harrods basement will hopefully be found by Wills and Kate in Anglesey where the newlyweds intend to live (say what you will about Prince William of Wales, but he seems to take the "of Wales" part of his name considerably more seriously than his father ever did).

But remembering the death of Di has only fed into my rampant Nineties Nostalgia, which has lately seen me revisit the O.J. trial via Frontline and the Clinton impeachment via Dean Gormley's fascinating tome on the subject. (Sidenote: did anyone else notice that Ken Starr is now the President of Baylor? Also, remember when there was all that talk about making Baylor an evangelical equivalent of an Ivy League school and how that totally fizzled?) And of course, nothing has cheered me up of late more than revisiting Joycelyn Elders and her wacky ideas.

Anyhow, wanting to revisit Princess Di, as a crucial part of 1990s weirdness, but not wanting to revisit the funeral (too sad) or the Martin Bashir interview (too weird - and at any rate superseded by Bashir's interview with Michael Jackson the next decade).

So, I humbly submit this clip from the shortlived 1996 ABC Dana Carvey Show. (Probably an underrated show, but Carvey was sort of old hat by then. But look at the all-star cast: Steve Carell, Bill Chott, Stephen Colbert, Elon Gold, Chris McKinney, Heather Morgan, Peggy Shay, Robert Smigel, and James Stephens III. And the writers: Charlie Kaufman, Louis C.K., Jon Glaser, Dino Stamatopoulos, Spike Feresten, Stephen Colbert, Steve Carell and Robert Carlock.

Or if you want something more in bad taste.

Jones v. Clinton - Thirteen Years Later

As you know, I love John Paul Stevens and recently attended his homecoming dinner, hosted by the CBA at the beautiful Stevens Hotel, where he grew up.

Stevens authored the unanimous opinion in Clinton v. Jones. Clinton's lawyers in that case had argued that if Paula Jones (pictured being punched in the face by Tonya Harding) were allowed to proceed with her civil sexual harassment claim against Bill Clinton, then future presidents might be subject to vexatious civil litigation that would distract them from their presidencies. Stevens rejected this argument, writing that "in the more than 200 year history of the Republic, only three sitting Presidents have been subjected to suits for their private actions. . . . If the past is any indicator, it seems unlikely that a deluge of such litigation will ever engulf the Presidency. As for the case at hand, if properly managed by the District Court, it appears to us highly unlikely to occupy any substantial amount of petitioner's time."

I think the last thirteen years show that this is probably a correct assessment. As much as the left hated George W. Bush, to the best of my knowledge, he was never subjected to any vexatious civil litigation. And as much as the right hates Barack Hussein Obama, I'm not aware of any lawsuits looming that threaten to derail his presidency. The fact of the matter is that Bill Clinton had a background that, for a president, was pretty unique and pretty checkered.

Just a minute

It was not six weeks ago that Bristol Palin was saying that Levi Johnston is a "stranger to her".

Now they're getting married?

This is a little hasty, which has been the problem with their relationship all along. Will this wedding actually take place? The world (not to mention all the gay guys who subscribe to Playgirl) wait with baited breath.