We have tickets for early December. My mother, curse her retired, free-time-for-line-waiting soul, saw it twice at the Public, and says it's the greatest show ever.
My guess: Treasury agreed the currency should be more inclusive but then decided they didn't want people thinking they were caving to DFHs. And Hamilton is the only non-president on a commonly used bill.
Speaking of, why don't more people carry Franklin. Adjusted for inflation, it's worth about what a twenty was worth when I was born. I don't remember back that far, but I remember people having $20s not long after that.
God, this. It pisses me off that they would pull this move. I can't believe I agree with Ted Fucking Cruz on something.
3: because ATMs are more common now, so it's easier to not carry so much money?
You would think the Treasury would have more respect for the first Treasury Secretary.
Yeah, 6 is the craziest aspect.
The whole thing is such bullshit.
Always loved the 1920's cars on the back-side picture of the Treasury building.
Since the redesign I've half forgotten what the old portraits looked like.
He already has a city in Ontario named after him. What higher honor could he want if he weren't too dead to want an honor?
I was debating what show to see tomorrow afternoon, thought about Hamilton, went with Fun Home.
Manhattan ATM spit a $50 at me today, poor MA machines only do $20s.
Looking at the Hamilton, Ontario Wikipedia page just now, I notice that it doesn't appear to have lost population as Great Lakes industrial cities in the US have.
We have at least one commenter from there.
8.1 gets it exactly right.
10.2: They know you might want to get a hot dog and a soda.
Taking Andrew Jackson off the currency and replacing him with Tubman would work the crackers and the angry andropausal white male vote into an absolute lather. Treasury probably guesses that losing Hamilton will be less of a big emotional deal to most Americans.
Dropping Hamilton is *bullshit* and dropping Jackson would be a mitzvah.
Andrew Jackson is TERRIBLE and definitely should go. Hamilton is not only far superior but also rather dishy (though the old $10s had a handsomer pic than the new ones). I like having his mug in my wallet.
The article is stupid. The Treasury Department announced months ago that the reason they were replacing Hamilton instead of Jackson was that the $10 was due for a redesign sooner than the $20. See question 3 of the linked FAQ.
Frankly I think this is stupid, because you'd think they could just change the redesign schedule (especially since the redesign is to prevent counterfeiting and I can't imagine the $10 gets counterfeit more than the $20), but it IS a reason.
Lazy journalists; can't be bothered to Google the Treasury FAQ.
Also, clearly Jackson is terrible and should go, and clearly Hamilton is at least interestingly good and bad and should stay.
Lazy journalists; can't be bothered to Google the Treasury FAQ.
Meh, I thought the last sentence communicated that they were focused on which denomination was getting redesigned, and not which current honoree was being demoted.
Hamilton was damn smart too. Wasn't Jackson on the $20, because he didn't ever want to see a bill larger than a twenty or something.
Jackson is horrible on so many levels (Trail of Tears etc.), but he actively set back finance in this country by forcing the close of the Second Bank of the United States - so we had no decent monetary policy until the Federal Reserve came in. That's something you wouldn't think Treasury would be in support of.
Rosa Parks has become a consensus candidate (named by at least four Republican primary candidates), which cracks me up. Her cover story has remained so solid it's been canonized. I remember how surprised I was when I first learned that she wasn't actually an old lady, and that she knew precisely what she was doing, and that she had an organization behind her that knew precisely what they were doing.
19: ?? To me, this doesn't communicate that:
Instead, according to Lew's announcement, it will be the $10 that will get a redesign, and so it's Hamilton that has to go.
To me, this doesn't communicate that
Does so! Does so infinity! No, seriously, the implication of "and so" is that the denomination is targeted, bummer for Hamilton, not "time to get rid of Hamilton, which one is he again?"
Oh FFS.
She shot her mom with a pellet gun; doesn't count. And what parent hasn't deserved a shot with a pellet gun sometime?
It's not a school shooting if the only person shot is your relative. Even if it is at a school, it's domestic violence.
"if the only person shot" s/b "if the only person shot at". Obviously, attempts count for this.
Let's have some standards here, unlike baseball or cycling where they just give records to whoever took the best drugs.
School shooting as a competitive sport does seem like the direction we're heading lately.
It's only competitive if you practice.
Also, if my neighbor has, once again, not taken down his Sukkot after the holiday, can I call his rabbi on him? I don't know which one that might be. Maybe there's a "a shanda fur die goy" hotline?
I don't think there's any problem with leaving a sukkah up once the holiday is done. It'll fall down eventually; they're designed to be flimsy.
That's not an improvement. If it blows down the street, somebody still has to pick it up.
If that happens I think you're justified in calling his rabbi.
Or the city, I guess, since it probably violates some ordinance or other.
Maybe, but if they aren't making the gentiles remove junk cars from the parking lane, they probably care even less about somebody's front yard.
I was thinking if it ended up in the actual right-of-way of the street.
Alexander Hamilton: kiss-up, kick-down elitist asshole. I'd take Gerald Ford on the ten ahead of him.
Replace all of those guys with pictures of beautiful places (the National Parks would work; avert your gaze from the deferred maintenance, please), historic sites, or kittens. The cult of the founders is pernicious and makes the country worse.
When I was a kid, I genuinely thought Andrew Jackson (who I knew just as the guy on the $20) was somehow related to Michael Jackson. In conclusion, we should put Michael Jackson on the $20.
Chewbacca on the ten. You heard it here first.
So, are you in an unspecified mountain town?
That's not an improvement. If it blows down the street, somebody still has to pick it up.
Write an op-ed complaining in the local paper. Title: "I'm going to get you, Sukkah"
According to question 7 in that Treasury FAQ, Hamilton was once on the $1000, but replaced Jackson on the $10. Jackson moved to the $20, replacing Grover Cleveland. Cleveland went to the $1000, and I guess is still there because they stopped printing them.
We could put Garfield on the twenty but then we'd have to pay Jim Davis
It seems to me that the Treasury department could satisfy both liberals and conservatives by:
1) Removing Jackson from the 20 and replacing him with Tubman (or whoever the favored candidate is).
and
2) Replacing the current portrait of Hamilton on the 10 with a picture of Hamilton shooting Burr.
More inclusivity for the left, more guns for the right. Everyone wins.*
*Except Burr, but he already lost once anyway.
Burr won by conventional standards.
50. You could put Garfield on the 20 and then take him off again, leaving it blank. Davis doesn't take money from Garfield minus Garfield as far as I know.
IDP: The reason Hamilton, Ontario's population seems steady is that it incorporated its 'burbs (Stoney Creek, Ancaster, etc.) a few years ago.
IDP: The reason Hamilton, Ontario's population seems steady is that it incorporated its 'burbs (Stoney Creek, Ancaster, etc.) a few years ago.
52: Akc! I got it backwards. Burr shooting Hamilton works even better.
Don't provoke the Burr conspiracists.
da:
Thanks for that, and for showing up after my oblique reference to you yesterday.
As I've said before, I'm an expat from a country that no longer exists. In fact, George Grant's Lament for a Nation describes the last election I witnessed, Pearson's triumph with the NDP over Diefenbaker in '63.
I read that provocative book—Grant knew that defending Dief was weird— as anticipating by 30 years Lasch's Revolt of the Elites
If there is a Hamilton, Ontario meet-up, I will be there. Unless it is inconvenient.
Or if I haven't renewed my passport yet.
I'm not willing to spend for the cheaper passport-light that only works for North America. I'd rather pay full fare to pretend I might travel somewhere actually interesting even if it is unlikely I will go further than Toronto.
I've been interested by the success of Hamilton. In the Heights was a fun, definitely new thing on Broadway with music that wasn't the most memorable/accomplished. Hamilton has apparently been impossible to get tickets to since it was in previews. Actually I heard this weird little mini-musical on NPR by Lin Manuel Miranda about a high school get getting entrapped by an undercover agent that I thought was kind of terrific in its way so really I should give Hamilton a listen.
I have vague memories of a cartoon with a little girl and a friendly monster named Hamilton. Or maybe there was a pig named Hamilton and the monster was called something like "Beast." Anyway, it was very earnest and dull, so I'm assuming it was Canadian.
Further to 10: Bill Gates sat in front of us at the show. I thought about testing the hypothesis that he won't pick up a $100 bill because he makes so much money that it's a waste of time for him to do so. But I only had the two $50s from the NY ATM.
What'd you think? Sadder than you expected, or only as sad?
62: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/528/the-radio-drama-episode
As sad as expected but also had some personal resonance that perhaps I'll explain in a future presidential discussion or meetup. No I am not gay.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
I think it must have been NYC where I started to take out cash in denominations that would get me something other than a $50 - basically, no $50 or $100 withdrawals. It reminds of when I visited Italy pre-Euro and quickly learned that it's really hard to break a 100,000 lire bill, especially earlier in the morning.
Do ATMs usually give you $50s and $100s? Seems unnecessary. Over here the highest denomination you ever get from them is £20 (c. $28); taxi drivers and such will take them, but they'll be sarcastic about it. If you want a £50 you have to go to a bank and wait while they call the Secret Intelligence Service. (OK, not quite true, but not far off.)
ATMs in Ireland almost always give just 50s which is actually annoying - I'd prefer a range of bills, so say if you take out €100 you'd get 50,20,20,10. Again the fact that everyone has 50 is the bane of taxi drivers' lives.
I've several times got into taxis on the continent and the guy has started the conversation by saying "No 50s!" In Ireland I rarely take them except at the airport, where it's not such a big deal, but the same reaction wouldn't shock me.
UK ATMs usually dispense a mixture of 20s and 10s; sometimes they take the demographic into account- I know of one in studentland which only gives 10s and 5s, but that's uncommon. All €50s is out of order.
Yeah, the only time I've ever got a 50 quid note was at a bank counter.
Most places in the U.S. just do $20. Some ATMs will also give you a $10, which I like, but it's not common, and usually it will only be one ATM at a given branch (at least around here).
Not sure where f.a. was that he was getting 50s. I think the only time that ever happened to me was near Grand Central.
ETE ATMs seem to give out large denominations (EUR CHF). Far larger than I feel comfortable using. I like twenties and tens, not fifties and one hundreds. The idea of trying to use a five hundred is laughable, but it must happen; I have seen signs saying that the merchant won't take them.
ATMs in Switzerland gives out gigantic denominations. But everything costs gigantic amounts, so it's less surprising.
Speaking of US cabinet secretaries...
The NYT has a piece today headlined Spying Case Against U.S. Envoy Is Falling Apart, and Following a Pattern.
In it, the authors (or one in particular) make sure to get in a few jabs at Clinton. And the piece make an explicit judgment that Clinton mishandled classified information. Jaysus!
The offending paragraphs (italics mine):
Over the years, the stories of American officials mishandling classified information have at times seemed as peculiar as they were serious. John P. O'Neill, a counterterrorism specialist for the F.B.I., once lost a briefcase full of government secrets in a Florida hotel. Samuel R. Berger, the national security adviser to President Bill Clinton, stole classified documents from the National Archives and hid them under a construction trailer. As attorney general, Alberto R. Gonzales took material about the nation's warrantless wiretapping program home with him.
One C.I.A. director, John M. Deutch, stored classified information on his home computer. Another C.I.A. director, David H. Petraeus, shared his highly classified journals with his mistress, then lied to the F.B.I. about it. Hillary Rodham Clinton used a private email system when she was secretary of state that investigators say contained classified information, although Mrs. Clinton and the State Department say the information was not marked as classified.
The punishment for mishandling classified information has varied wildly. Mrs. Clinton has not been charged with wrongdoing. Mr. Berger pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor. Mr. Deutch received a pardon from Mr. Clinton and was never charged. Mr. Gonzales and Mr. O'Neill were not charged. In the most recent case, the Justice Department allowed Mr. Petraeus to plead guilty to a misdemeanor, despite strong objections from investigators. That deal was so contentious that the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, personally appealed to the attorney general, Eric H. Holder Jr., and said that Mr. Petraeus's crimes warranted felony charges, according to two government officials involved in the case. F.B.I. agents are still angry about that decision and say it set a standard that will make it harder to bring cases in the future.
I saw that article and almost wrote a letter to the editor. I was going to check if those authors were involved in the "target of a criminal investigation" fiasco.
Heh. Same guys. Michael Schmidt and Matt Apuzzo.
Yeah, the same team. They're good at this too. They just slide it in there. Bit by bit it just adds to Clinton's "guilt" and what everyone "knows".
Judging by twitter, this is Michael Schmidt's baby.
Failure was better off as an orphan.
80: I saw that article and almost wrote a letter to the editor.
Do it. Dean Baquet was on the CNN show Reliable Sources this morning addressing the NYT's troubling reporting on Clinton related matters, and managed to spin the tremendous number of retractions the paper has felt the need to publish as a positive matter: No, they're not a sign that we're biased or that we rush to print too quickly! In fact it shows that we're more responsive to public correction than ever before: in the past, you see, we might not even have realized that our reporting was in error. Now, we listen to our readers.
So call him on it. This is the only link I can find to an overview of the interview: it's a right wing outfit, so it highlights a different angle, and doesn't include in its selected transcript the final portion of the interview in which Baquet makes his "retractions are good!" argument, but there's a link to the video.
I screwed up the link in 79.
It should be to: www.nytimes.com/2015/10/11/world/asia/spying-case-against-us-envoy-is-unraveling-and-following-a-pattern.html
It ran on the front page of the Sunday paper.
5: If you stand for nothing, Burr, what will you fall for?
OT: According to my phone, which has no reason to lie, I just walked 18 miles in 9 hours.
I don't think I got $50 bills in NYC more than once or twice, but NYC is also one of the few places I've been where you can get $10 bills, which I prefer to getting all 20s, so I was getting into the habit of taking out $50 instead of my usual $60, which usually gave me all 20s.
I haven't been to Europe for about a decade now, but I was pretty much always trying to minimize ATM fees so I'd take out a largish amount when arriving in a country, which could lead to some enormous or enormous-looking* bills.
*I think the exchange rate in Italy meant that 100,000 - 200,000 lire was somewhere between $15-30. I was there when the dollar was on a big rise against European currencies, and I don't remember the amounts exactly.
The bank down the street has at teller-assist ATM which is where some remote person will video chat with you. They don't have any in-person tellers there. I wanted a bunch of small bills to have around to pay babysitters, allowances, etc so I asked virtual teller if I could have 100 ones and 20 fives. And they came out of the wall next to me! Which makes me wonder why they can't just keep regular ATMs stocked with those too.
During hyperinflation people make the mistake of burning paper currency instead of taking the much more efficient step of insulating their walls with it.
I'm trying to decide if I should eat a whole bag of tater tots.
I always get $50 out of an ATM and I always (100% of the time) get two $20s and a $10. I'm not sure I've had a $50 in my wallet in my entire life.
I've always pictured you as a money clip sort of guy.
I don't think I've ever broken a $50 or a $100 in a store. I've either deposited it or, once, exchanged it with someone who had 20s. I don't remember why I did that but that was a legitimate transaction, I'm sure.
One of the ATMs near me gives a $50 as its generic "fast cash." I usually go to a different one, which doesn't.
Kobe only gets hundreds when he goes to an ATM, of course.
My bank lets me pick what my fast cash option is, but they insist I take it from my own account.
"I decided no. Getting old sucks."
Ate all but one, then?
I didn't even put them in the oven.
Anyway, I decided that no matter how hungry I was, I shouldn't eat dinner and then eat 2 pounds of potatoes and grease on top of it.
I got $100 out of a PNC ATM at the casino and it gave me a $100 bill. Fortunately, there was a bill breaker machine right next to it, which made it a delightfully convoluted process. I assume the $100 bills make more sense if you're getting out $5k+ at a time, which might not be rare.
The casinos also presumably want you to exchange the whole hundred, even if you're not taking out any more than that.
For some reason airport cash machines always seem to delight in giving you the largest denomination possible, which you then can't get the taxi drivers to accept or any of the shopkeepers to change. Or maybe that's just me.