Newmark's Door

How some rich people go broke, accompanied by a nice story of one who almost did but who's now fine, George Foreman.

A summary of the career and prospects of wannabe Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney. For me, it's a plus that he succeeded in the private sector before entering politics.

A perspective on the Duke lacrosse case that I had not seen before: "Duke's Reichstag Fire".

Two on cars:

"The Ten Most Beautiful Cars of All Time". Rich patrons of the Door should consider giving me a copy of the Rolls.

If you ever wondered why it seems like all U.S. police cars are Ford Crown Victorias, here's the answer.

Nice return on an investment: man gave $100 to Northwestern in 1866 and in exchange got free tuition for himself, his children, and  his descendants.

As gasoline prices continued to plummet, making Americans happier, I said to my wife: "Just wait. Somebody will claim that it's a conspiracy by Big Oil to help their Republican friends".

We didn't have long to wait.

Speaking of oil and gasoline, Charles Krauthammer describes a war-with-Iran scenario that has the price of oil leaping to $100 or $150/barrel, and then going much higher if the Iranians close the Straits of Hormuz.

There's no sign I can discern in the oil futures that the market is worried about this.

But suppose one takes Mr. Krauthammer's scenario seriously. And futher suppose that one was entertaining spending a few bucks trying to hedge his investment portfolio against the possibility. What would be the best hedge? Or, maybe, it isn't worth thinking about too long? Buy LEAP calls on Exxon/Mobil, or LEAP puts on QQQQ, and be done with it?

This is an well-argued piece in any case, but as a previous critic of Leon Kass's pro-death stance, I especially enjoyed "A Conservative Case for Immortality".

George Will's column last week on Wal-Mart drew raves throughout the conservative blogosphere. If you missed it, it's here. Key 'graph:

Liberals think their campaign against Wal-Mart is a way of introducing the subject of class into America's political argument, and they are more correct than they understand. Their campaign is liberalism as condescension. It is a philosophic repugnance toward markets, because consumer sovereignty results in the masses making messes. Liberals, aghast, see the choices Americans make with their dollars and their ballots and announce -- yes, announce -- that Americans are sorely in need of more supervision by . . . liberals.

Less noted, perhaps, but also good is Peter Z. Grossman's, "It's Not Wal-Mart, Stupid; How About Important Issues?" Conclusion:

All of this is not to say that Wal-Mart is run by saints or mainly for the public interest. The company undoubtedly does displace community businesses and surely some of its workers don't feel they get a fair deal. But unless the company is clearly breaking the law, which no one alleges, I don't see what the Democrats think they can accomplish.

Indeed, a larger question raised by the Democrats' anti-Wal-Mart campaign is this: What can (or should) politicians do to a company they don't like? Clearly, in the case of Wal-Mart, the answer is nothing. Should Congress make Wal-Mart pay higher wages (even though its pay is already well above the minimum)? Should legislators require Wal-Mart, and Wal-Mart alone, to offer more benefits?

With so much to be done in this country, so many real problems to address, the Democratic Wal-Mart bashers are doing a real disservice not to the company but to America's voters who deserve a debate on more pressing issues.

I haven't used it, but if you need to prepare Word or Excel documents cooperating with other people, Live Documents looks interesting.