Samizdata

The Great International Petroleum Exchange Uprising was noted here earlier, and plans for a T-shirt commemorating the event are in the works.

The Onion does not always crack me up like it used to, possibly because it grows more and more difficult to effectively satirize an increasingly bizarre world. But this piece, Housemates Reject Third-Roommate Debt-Relief Plan, is just devastating. They manage to sneak in a reference to virtually every conceivable critique of the IMF, from both the left and the right, from moral hazard to environmental degradation. They even address the topic of “conditional” loans whose conditions have nothing to do with improving debtworthiness or economic performance:

Although the donor roommates supplied additional aid in the months that followed, the AMF placed strict conditions on the loans. These conditions were designed to accomplish three goals: to prevent corruption and misuse of funds, to ensure that the monies were spent wisely, and to reduce third-roommate economic isolationism, integrating the debtor’s personal economy more fully into the interdependent apartmental community.

“We only asked for three things, man,” Huygens said regarding the structure of the loan. “First, that Chad quit partying so much. Second, that he open a checking account so he can budget his cash. And third, that he bring his kickass stereo system out of his bedroom and into the living room where we can all enjoy it. It was only fair.”

The only way this could have been improved upon might have been to lampoon the “debt for nature” swap; Chad’s debt might be forgiven in exchange for certain herbal products, for example.

Well done, gentlemen. More like this, please.

I have received this letter from an Iraqi concerned citizen, who wishes to remind U.S. voters of the historic importance of their choice on November 2.

Dear voter,

I am an elderly man. Under the Clinton administration I had an excellent well-paid job. I took many vacations and had several holiday homes. Since President Bush took office my life has completely changed, and in every respect for the worse.

I lost my job.

I lost both my sons in the terrible Iraqi war. I lost my homes. I lost my medical insurance. In fact, I lost practically all of my possessions and found myself homeless.

Adding insult to injury, when the authorities found me living in bestial conditions, far from helping me, they arrested me.

I shall do whatever Senator Kerry wishes to ensure that a Democrat is returned to the White House next year. Bush must go!

There. I thought that all Americans would like to know what a man of my years thinks of the Bush administration.

Thank you for taking the time to read this letter.

Best wishes,

Saddam Hussein

[thanks to the French libertarians for forwarding this to me from this blog.]

After a hard day of wearing a new butt-crease in my chair in our conference room refereeing various committees drafting policies and procedures, allow me to unburden myself of a few pet peeves regarding the use and abuse of the English language:

“Utilization” and “utilize” are a blot on the English language. They are polysyllabic abominations spawned by the regulatory/consulting complex, suffering, as well it should, from an inferiority complex that renders it too insecure to use the perfectly good word “use.”

“Literally” is never used to mean literally. Rather, it is universally used to mean “figuratively,” its exact opposite (e.g. “He literally tore my head off for utilizing bad data in my report”).

Serial commas, by contrast, are God’s gift to careful draftsman, and are scorned only by those too illiterate to comprehend that they do, in fact, serve a purpose.

When, and why, did people stop using two spaces after periods? For that matter, when, and why, do people use apostrophes before every single frickin’ terminal “s” regardless of whether it is possessive? Or should that be irregardless of whether it is possessive?

No peeve too petty, that’s our motto. Readers are, of course invited to submit their own peeves in comments.

The old saying is that “dog bites man” is not news, but “man bites dog” is.

Well, how does “dog shoots man” fit in?