No Guaranties

Complaining Commies:

Treasuries fell for the first time in three days as Asian and European stock gains sapped demand for the safest assets and China’s Premier Wen Jiabao said he’s concerned about the safety of U.S. government debt.

Ten-year notes headed for a weekly decline as Japan and China signaled they will take additional measures to boost their economies. China, the U.S. government’s largest creditor, is asking "the U.S. to maintain its good credit, to honor its promises and to guarantee the safety of China’s assets."

So lemme see if I get your drift, Jiabao... Just as foreign governments have been doing for decades, you buy a butt-load of U.S. T-bills in what amounts to a long-term hedge against our debt, thereby profiting from our chuffing economy. Now that stocks are having a small rally, you want to start whining about "assurances"? Caveat emptor, motherfucker.

Here's your security: we buy your crap. Now shut up and go find some more innocent people to run down in tanks, you pinko bastard.

---

EDIT: On a wild tangent, I hate the English language. It's a mish-mash of French, Old Angle, Latin and whatever else we can shoehorn into a sentence. For example, when I first posted this article, I titled it "No Guarantees". Something didn't seem quite right, however, as "guarantee" is actually the transitive verb form of "guaranty". So, the plural would logically be "guaranties," right? A little Googling, and here's the verdict from The Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage:

The distinction...once was that the former [guarantee] is the verb, the latter [guaranty] the noun. Yet guarantee is now commonly used as both n. & v.t.

In practice, guarantee, n., is the usual term, seen often, for example, in the context of consumer warranties or other assurances of quality or performance. Guaranty, in contrast, is now used primarily in financial and banking contexts in the sense "a promise to answer for the debt of another." Guaranty is now rarely seen in nonlegal writing, whether in G.B. or in the U.S. Some legal writers prefer guaranty in all nominal senses.

Guaranty was formerly used as a verb but is now obsolete as a variant of guarantee, v.t.

Well, that's clear as mud -- and I still don't know for sure the commonly accepted plural form. In the spirit of liberalism, I'll change it and go with -ties.

Let's not even open the can of worms labeled "Possessives".

Have I mentioned lately that I hate the English language? Im starting tu simpathize with thos waky Simpl Langwich peepl. (Not really; it nearly took me longer to write that last sentence than it did the rest of the article combined. Still, though...)

---

EDIT #2: AAARRRRRRRGGGGH! Not five minutes after posting the first edit above, I was reviewing a contract, (yes, actual work; go figure), when I came across this sentence: "Subcontractor shall provide a full warrantee on materials and workmanship for a period not less than one calendar year, measured from..."

Okay, now clearly "warrantee" is a noun that refers only to the recipient of warranty, correct? Well, everybody agrees on that one, it seems... except Princeton University:

3. a written assurance that some product or service will be provided or will meet certain specifications [syn: guarantee]

Grrr... So the bastardized noun "guarantee" cross-contaminated "warranty" to make "warrantee"?!

That does it; I'm goin' on a killing spree.