Sometimes I get tired of thinking & writing about "heavy" stuff. Maybe that's why I would never make a good politician, as I simply can't live political stuff 24/7/365. Today is one of those days, and while part of me would love nothing better than to talk about the "Tea Baggers", the rest of my is simply too tired to even consider it.
Tired. I am rather tired at the moment. My legs are killing me, and it was extremely difficult to get in my workout at the gym this afternoon. I guess I should be glad that I got it in anyway, but still I am paying for it at the moment. At least my right arm isn't feeling too bad today. Man, getting old isn't all it's cracked up to be. The fact that I tend to be always on the move during the day and I that I don't sleep enough (either in quantity or quality) probably doesn't help all that much.
Okay, I've now written two paragraphs, and about what? That I'm old and creaky? Cue Christian Bale saying
"Good for yooouuuuu".
So what I am really thinking? Well while not at front of mind, I have been thinking a lot lately about how I have this perception of walking on this very narrow pipe of sanity. Maybe that sounds horribly dramatic, but note that I said "pipe" and not "tightrope". You know, it's like that Stealer's Wheel song, "Stuck in the Middle with You"...
Clowns to the left of me
Jokers to the right
...except it's not clowns or jokers that are on either side of my pipe. Now before I say anything else, I don't want to imply that my existence is in any way worse than that of anyone else, because it's not. In fact I'm a privileged human being, having a relatively healthy (all be it creaky) body, a healthily imaginative mind, and marvelous children. I also live in the greatest country of in the world, a place where anyone can be anything.
Clue "God Bless America" (by Kate Smith).
Anyway, I've always found that I walk this fine line of sanity. I have more than enough parental genetic predisposition (from both sides) to probably file my disability claim now, but I've never been one for taking the easy way out anyway. Besides, rather than giving me an excuse to wallow in the mis-aligned neurons that most likely inhabit my head, the stresses of sanity have instead been this irresistible source of motivation to me. In a way it's my grand, life-long, on-going "F__k You!" statement to the universe. As that great American poet and crack-head Bobby Brown once said...
...that's my prerogative
...and he was right. There is absolutely nothing I can do about, for example, the history of alcohol abuse that seems about as common to my genetic code as blue eyes are in the DNA of most Swedes. But I've chosen to simply not drink. There is nothing I can do about, for example, the cynicism and negativity that resides to this day in my family, but I can chosen to wake up every day as early as I can and attack the day like it's my last. Maybe it will be, but hell, I'm going to go on my feet.
In the end it all comes down to this: the tension that has existed with me for all these years has been the one thing that has not only helped me keep my sanity, but it has helped me grow as a person.
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Response to Comment: The Fallacy of Too Big To Fail"
Preface
NEPArtisan was kind enough to comment on my posting on "Too Big To Fail", so I thought I'd add a few thoughts in reply via a separate posting.
Before I write anything else, I want to thank specifically Tom & generally anyone who stops by to read this stuff. I don't write this to entertain, amuse, enlighten or enrage anyone except me; to the extent that anyone reads this stuff and find it interesting, well that's probably more of a compliment than I actually deserve.
So on to the posting. I'm letting Tom's comments stand as-is, with my responses noted in dark red italic text.
************************
The "too big to fail" moniker may be a political buzz term, but it isn't undeserved.
Your argument that irresponsibility is the problem is indeed accurate, but when banks become mega in size and scope, the likelihood of fraud sets in.
I disagree with the premise. There are plenty of smaller businesses in general and banks specifically that engage in fraud all the time. The fact they don't make the news (be in "regular" or business) is simply a function of media/public interest, and I've never read a credible piece of evidence that shows a correlation between size and propensity for graft/fraud/wrong-doing. You could argue that larger organizations are sufficiently complex that it's easier to disguise fraud, but I could then argue that smaller organizations are less scrutinized, so what they lack in complexity is made up in anonymity.
The size of a company is directly relative to the damage it could do if fraud is perpetrated.
Yes, but I could substitute the word "company" for any "organization" and the same would be true. In other words, your point is not unique to for-profit companies in general or the financial services industry specifically. See my reference to Microsoft, below.
In a capitalistic system, greed is an oft-rewarded virtue and taking advantage of either lax regulation or confusing financial products, etc. is further enabled by size. Obfuscation and purchasing power (i.e. lobbying, lawyers, etc.) grow with company size as well.
GREED - Well first, greed is not a virtue, it's technically a vice. It's easy to get caught up in the Bernie Madoff's and AIG's of this world, and for sure every organization has it's share of greed-heads and villains. Note the word "organization". I could argue that greed was the driver of one of the worst judicial scandals in US history, right in our backyard (with judges Chiav & Conn); was that greed perpetuated as a result of organizational size? No, it wasn't the court that was greedy, it was the judges.
FINANCIAL PRODUCT COMPLEXITY - In my opinion three things drive the complexity of financial products in the US:
1 - The sorry state of the US Tax Code.
Want to know why many products are overly complex? Honestly...and I say this as someone who is fairly progressive when it comes to social issues...it's because successive Presidents and Congresses (both Republican and Democratic) have use the Tax Code as a tool for social engineering. If you want to use the power of taxation to create change, then one of the by-products is going to be an incredibly complex tax code. This, in turn, makes financial products much more complex, as they must live within the system. It also creates a cottage industry in the "how to pay less in taxes" business, which both individuals and corporations take advantage of all the time.
2. Litigation.
Right or not, many financial institutions feel compelled to create incredibly complex products & documentation in order to satisfy any and every potential legal challenge. Lawyers in Congress write laws so that only lawyers outside of government can interpret them so that litigation attorneys can take advantage of them when someone might be harmed in some fashion.
3. Society is Complex
Finally, we simply live in a complex society. For example...we all want to be able to download MP3s from the Internet, but yet how many of us actually understand the process by which that music is made available & how the artists, music companies, distributors, etc all make money? That's just one example in a small pocket of our society; multiply it by 1000 if you want to get into the guts of how money flows in this country. Maybe the Amish have it right, but the reality is that we have collectively created in incredibly complex society.
SCALE OBFUSCATION, etc. - Yes, scale can create opportunities for graft, but it doesn't create that graft. It's also not unique to corporations. For example, it's fair to say that there is graft and wrong-doing in the Department of Defense, but yet is Congressman Kanjorski claiming that it should be broken up, lest it fail and throw the country into disarray?
When these companies engage in fraud (only two people have been charged in the crisis, and both were acquitted by the way) the impact is exacerbated by their market share.
Would the same argument be made if Microsoft were found to have perpetuated an act of fraud? Talk about too big to fail! According to Marketshare.com, Microsoft is used as the operating system on something like 92% of the world's computers. The potential failure of Microsoft could be catastrophic (for example, MS produces a virus patch a month for it's operating systems...if it were gone, that would disappear, exposing millions of computers to hackers and viruses), but yet "too big to fail" is being applied as a remedy to companies in the financial services sector. Now why would that be?
{pause}
Here's why: because right now it's SEXY to beat on the financial services industry. They are today's boogie-men, just like some other industry was 5 years ago. What's more, Congressman Kanjorski is guilty of at least being disingenuous, as he has received more than his share of money from this same industry he is demonizing.
Hence, "Too big to fail". Sure, you could say something like "So big that systemic corruption causes financial meltdown" but the former label sounds better.
It's isn't "big" or "corporations" that create greed and graft, it's people.
I've worked in the financial services industry for 21 years, and for most of that time I've had a Pennsylvania Insurance License & Securities Industry registrations. I've seen a lot over these years, from people that were/are some of the brightest human beings on the planet to others who should be selling used cars in Nannicoke for a living. What I haven't seen is a systemic pattern of evil behavior perpetuated because companies happen to be large. That's one of the reasons why "too big to fail" bothers me.
Another reason? I work for a large financial services company that did not receive TARP money, one that has not engaged in systemically fraudulently behavior, one that has managed assets in a conservative manner for more than 125 years. Yet, my employer...simply by virtue of it's size...could end up being negatively impacted by "too big to fail" legislation. Why? Because it is big.
Tom, I agree that there is fraud in the financial services industry, but I don't agree that organizational size is a cause. That kind of logic seems (as I've noted before) designed to be a smoke-screen to hide the real issue: a history of regulatory failure in the industry. Think about it: Is it logical to potentially punish companies like Met Life and Prudential because of the failings of companies like AIG and The Hartford (for example)? That would be like the US government punished every person of Saudi Arabian decent for the actions of the 911 terrorists.
A final example: probably the worst example of industry fraud was perpetuated by Bernie Madoff, a man who founded a firm that was actually fairly small in overall size relative to this industry. Yet Madoff literally "made off" with enormous sums of money. What failed there? In my opinion Madoff symbolized the real issue: namely that many segments of the industry are largely self-regulated.
What really should be done? Congressman Kanjorski and others who advocate for "Too Big To Fail" legislation should, in my opinion, spend their energies to craft a regulatory structure that is more independent and rigorous. Let's stop letting the industry largely police itself. That will most likely not happen for a variety of reasons, including the fact that discussions about SRO's (Self Regulatory Organizations) don't make for very good sound bytes...hell, I don't think that the public at large even knows that this industry largely polices itself.
NEPArtisan was kind enough to comment on my posting on "Too Big To Fail", so I thought I'd add a few thoughts in reply via a separate posting.
Before I write anything else, I want to thank specifically Tom & generally anyone who stops by to read this stuff. I don't write this to entertain, amuse, enlighten or enrage anyone except me; to the extent that anyone reads this stuff and find it interesting, well that's probably more of a compliment than I actually deserve.
So on to the posting. I'm letting Tom's comments stand as-is, with my responses noted in dark red italic text.
************************
The "too big to fail" moniker may be a political buzz term, but it isn't undeserved.
Your argument that irresponsibility is the problem is indeed accurate, but when banks become mega in size and scope, the likelihood of fraud sets in.
I disagree with the premise. There are plenty of smaller businesses in general and banks specifically that engage in fraud all the time. The fact they don't make the news (be in "regular" or business) is simply a function of media/public interest, and I've never read a credible piece of evidence that shows a correlation between size and propensity for graft/fraud/wrong-doing. You could argue that larger organizations are sufficiently complex that it's easier to disguise fraud, but I could then argue that smaller organizations are less scrutinized, so what they lack in complexity is made up in anonymity.
The size of a company is directly relative to the damage it could do if fraud is perpetrated.
Yes, but I could substitute the word "company" for any "organization" and the same would be true. In other words, your point is not unique to for-profit companies in general or the financial services industry specifically. See my reference to Microsoft, below.
In a capitalistic system, greed is an oft-rewarded virtue and taking advantage of either lax regulation or confusing financial products, etc. is further enabled by size. Obfuscation and purchasing power (i.e. lobbying, lawyers, etc.) grow with company size as well.
GREED - Well first, greed is not a virtue, it's technically a vice. It's easy to get caught up in the Bernie Madoff's and AIG's of this world, and for sure every organization has it's share of greed-heads and villains. Note the word "organization". I could argue that greed was the driver of one of the worst judicial scandals in US history, right in our backyard (with judges Chiav & Conn); was that greed perpetuated as a result of organizational size? No, it wasn't the court that was greedy, it was the judges.
FINANCIAL PRODUCT COMPLEXITY - In my opinion three things drive the complexity of financial products in the US:
1 - The sorry state of the US Tax Code.
Want to know why many products are overly complex? Honestly...and I say this as someone who is fairly progressive when it comes to social issues...it's because successive Presidents and Congresses (both Republican and Democratic) have use the Tax Code as a tool for social engineering. If you want to use the power of taxation to create change, then one of the by-products is going to be an incredibly complex tax code. This, in turn, makes financial products much more complex, as they must live within the system. It also creates a cottage industry in the "how to pay less in taxes" business, which both individuals and corporations take advantage of all the time.
2. Litigation.
Right or not, many financial institutions feel compelled to create incredibly complex products & documentation in order to satisfy any and every potential legal challenge. Lawyers in Congress write laws so that only lawyers outside of government can interpret them so that litigation attorneys can take advantage of them when someone might be harmed in some fashion.
3. Society is Complex
Finally, we simply live in a complex society. For example...we all want to be able to download MP3s from the Internet, but yet how many of us actually understand the process by which that music is made available & how the artists, music companies, distributors, etc all make money? That's just one example in a small pocket of our society; multiply it by 1000 if you want to get into the guts of how money flows in this country. Maybe the Amish have it right, but the reality is that we have collectively created in incredibly complex society.
SCALE OBFUSCATION, etc. - Yes, scale can create opportunities for graft, but it doesn't create that graft. It's also not unique to corporations. For example, it's fair to say that there is graft and wrong-doing in the Department of Defense, but yet is Congressman Kanjorski claiming that it should be broken up, lest it fail and throw the country into disarray?
When these companies engage in fraud (only two people have been charged in the crisis, and both were acquitted by the way) the impact is exacerbated by their market share.
Would the same argument be made if Microsoft were found to have perpetuated an act of fraud? Talk about too big to fail! According to Marketshare.com, Microsoft is used as the operating system on something like 92% of the world's computers. The potential failure of Microsoft could be catastrophic (for example, MS produces a virus patch a month for it's operating systems...if it were gone, that would disappear, exposing millions of computers to hackers and viruses), but yet "too big to fail" is being applied as a remedy to companies in the financial services sector. Now why would that be?
{pause}
Here's why: because right now it's SEXY to beat on the financial services industry. They are today's boogie-men, just like some other industry was 5 years ago. What's more, Congressman Kanjorski is guilty of at least being disingenuous, as he has received more than his share of money from this same industry he is demonizing.
Hence, "Too big to fail". Sure, you could say something like "So big that systemic corruption causes financial meltdown" but the former label sounds better.
It's isn't "big" or "corporations" that create greed and graft, it's people.
I've worked in the financial services industry for 21 years, and for most of that time I've had a Pennsylvania Insurance License & Securities Industry registrations. I've seen a lot over these years, from people that were/are some of the brightest human beings on the planet to others who should be selling used cars in Nannicoke for a living. What I haven't seen is a systemic pattern of evil behavior perpetuated because companies happen to be large. That's one of the reasons why "too big to fail" bothers me.
Another reason? I work for a large financial services company that did not receive TARP money, one that has not engaged in systemically fraudulently behavior, one that has managed assets in a conservative manner for more than 125 years. Yet, my employer...simply by virtue of it's size...could end up being negatively impacted by "too big to fail" legislation. Why? Because it is big.
Tom, I agree that there is fraud in the financial services industry, but I don't agree that organizational size is a cause. That kind of logic seems (as I've noted before) designed to be a smoke-screen to hide the real issue: a history of regulatory failure in the industry. Think about it: Is it logical to potentially punish companies like Met Life and Prudential because of the failings of companies like AIG and The Hartford (for example)? That would be like the US government punished every person of Saudi Arabian decent for the actions of the 911 terrorists.
A final example: probably the worst example of industry fraud was perpetuated by Bernie Madoff, a man who founded a firm that was actually fairly small in overall size relative to this industry. Yet Madoff literally "made off" with enormous sums of money. What failed there? In my opinion Madoff symbolized the real issue: namely that many segments of the industry are largely self-regulated.
What really should be done? Congressman Kanjorski and others who advocate for "Too Big To Fail" legislation should, in my opinion, spend their energies to craft a regulatory structure that is more independent and rigorous. Let's stop letting the industry largely police itself. That will most likely not happen for a variety of reasons, including the fact that discussions about SRO's (Self Regulatory Organizations) don't make for very good sound bytes...hell, I don't think that the public at large even knows that this industry largely polices itself.
Friday, February 5, 2010
Gays in the Military
I come into this issue with two basic thoughts:
To my first point, I always find it interesting that there are those who are opposed to a "big, intrusive" government but yet have no problem with that same government legislating morality. It's as if we have some people who mouth "small government" but actually want a big government, well as long as that big government extols certain values that they believe. As for me, I want a government that does what it's supposed to and stays the hell out of my personal life. To that end, one of the things the government is supposed to do is defend our borders. If someone want to help defend those borders...and they meet the physical and mental requirements for that kind of thing...then why should we care what their sexual orientation is?
Oh, but what if a male soldier "hits on another man"? Well the military already has rules in place to deal with that kind of thing between heterosexuals, so it seems to me that they could be applied in homosexual instances as well.
It's time to end legalized discrimination against gays in the military. I understand that some will be uncomfortable with this at first, however some were uncomfortable when President Truman racially integrated the military in 1948 and yet hindsight clearly teaches us that was the right thing to do. It seems to me that this the right thing to do as well.
- It's not the federal government's business to know what someone does in the privacy of their own bedroom.
- The arguments against gays in the military (morale, unit cohesion, etc.) sound an awful lot like the arguments used against racially integrating the military half a century ago.
To my first point, I always find it interesting that there are those who are opposed to a "big, intrusive" government but yet have no problem with that same government legislating morality. It's as if we have some people who mouth "small government" but actually want a big government, well as long as that big government extols certain values that they believe. As for me, I want a government that does what it's supposed to and stays the hell out of my personal life. To that end, one of the things the government is supposed to do is defend our borders. If someone want to help defend those borders...and they meet the physical and mental requirements for that kind of thing...then why should we care what their sexual orientation is?
Oh, but what if a male soldier "hits on another man"? Well the military already has rules in place to deal with that kind of thing between heterosexuals, so it seems to me that they could be applied in homosexual instances as well.
It's time to end legalized discrimination against gays in the military. I understand that some will be uncomfortable with this at first, however some were uncomfortable when President Truman racially integrated the military in 1948 and yet hindsight clearly teaches us that was the right thing to do. It seems to me that this the right thing to do as well.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Repeating: The Fallacy of "Too Big To Fail"
I saw another reference to "Too Big To Fail" in a local blog (link here) which of course goaded me into another tirade. Maybe the blog author will post my long-winded comment. In the event that he doesn't, I thought I'd do a small dump here.
The big issue with "Too Big To Fail" is that it is a sound-byte solution to the wrong problem. The issue isn't the size of a company, the issue is a lack of effective risk management and regulation. What many people don't know is that the Securities and Exchange Commission basically outsources financial services industry regulation to the industry itself. The concept is that of the "Self Regulatory Organization", which is a fancy way of saying "fox guarding the chicken coup".
Of course politicians love "Too Big To Fail" because it sounds good. Who isn't against those "big bad insurance companies/banks/etc."? However admitting that there have been decades of ineffective regulation is not exactly a win for Washington DC politicians, especially those who are well entrenched.
Don't buy the fallacy of "Too Big To Fail".
The big issue with "Too Big To Fail" is that it is a sound-byte solution to the wrong problem. The issue isn't the size of a company, the issue is a lack of effective risk management and regulation. What many people don't know is that the Securities and Exchange Commission basically outsources financial services industry regulation to the industry itself. The concept is that of the "Self Regulatory Organization", which is a fancy way of saying "fox guarding the chicken coup".
Of course politicians love "Too Big To Fail" because it sounds good. Who isn't against those "big bad insurance companies/banks/etc."? However admitting that there have been decades of ineffective regulation is not exactly a win for Washington DC politicians, especially those who are well entrenched.
Don't buy the fallacy of "Too Big To Fail".
Qualification/Explanation: Lobbying vs Campaign Contributions
In an earlier post I used the term "lobbying" quite a bit in a way that was basically interchangeable with the notion of making campaign contributions. It was brought to my attention that these are distinctly different activities, to which I'd like to respond in the following manner:
Now that's a qualified "bull$hit", in that for small campaign contributions, I do believe that there is a distinction between the two activities. For example, I could donate $10 to Paul Kanjorski's campaign*, and that would be a distinctly different activity than visiting him to express my displeasure with the whole ridiculous "too big to fail" nonsense he spews (which would be a form of lobbying...quite ineffective...but lobbying never the less).
Now let's take the case a large corporation that can direct large sums of money towards a particular candidate's PAC, campaign, etc. Anyone out there expect that this money is coming without strings attached?
In a nutshell here's the difference: You and I, as individuals, can financially support a candidate without the expectation that we will actually get anything from that candidate that will personally impact us. Corporations (or unions, or trade groups) contribute specifically because they expect to get something out of that "expression of free speech". As a result, I'd argue that for a large organization, lobbying and campaign contributions are intertwined in a way that makes them inseparable.
(*) For the record, I would just as soon pry my eyeballs out with rusty spoons than donate to Congressman Kanjorski's campaign. However since I can spell "Kanjorski" I decided to use his name for the example.
Bull$hit!
Now that's a qualified "bull$hit", in that for small campaign contributions, I do believe that there is a distinction between the two activities. For example, I could donate $10 to Paul Kanjorski's campaign*, and that would be a distinctly different activity than visiting him to express my displeasure with the whole ridiculous "too big to fail" nonsense he spews (which would be a form of lobbying...quite ineffective...but lobbying never the less).
Now let's take the case a large corporation that can direct large sums of money towards a particular candidate's PAC, campaign, etc. Anyone out there expect that this money is coming without strings attached?
In a nutshell here's the difference: You and I, as individuals, can financially support a candidate without the expectation that we will actually get anything from that candidate that will personally impact us. Corporations (or unions, or trade groups) contribute specifically because they expect to get something out of that "expression of free speech". As a result, I'd argue that for a large organization, lobbying and campaign contributions are intertwined in a way that makes them inseparable.
(*) For the record, I would just as soon pry my eyeballs out with rusty spoons than donate to Congressman Kanjorski's campaign. However since I can spell "Kanjorski" I decided to use his name for the example.
Something of a Legal Roundup
Torturing Kittens
Yes, mutilating kittens is wrong. It's wrong to use 14 gauge needles to pierce their ears and necks, and it's wrong to tie string around their tails so tightly that it causes them to fall off. Hell, a jury even said so.
Story Link Here.
It's often been said, but I've found this to be true: anyone capable of this kind of animal cruelty is capable of far worse. Let's hope that there is a sufficiently long jail sentence to go along with this madness. Oh, and I'm not shedding a tear that the individual in question can no longer have pets. Too bad. This "person" should have thought of that before torturing the kittens.
One final thought: some of NEPAs enlightened crowd (via postings to the Scranton Times article) have claimed that what was done to those kittens was no worse than having an infant's ears pierced. I was being sarcastic in that last comment, which is apparently something I'm gaining a reputation for these days. Anyway, that kind of thought...comparing the kittens to infants...would be true if stupid parents also tied strings around the fingers of their babies in order to have one or more digits fall off. Case closed.
Relations with a Mentally Retarded Woman is Deemed Consensual
Story Link Here.
Yes, according to a jury, it is possible to have consensual sexual relations with someone having the mental capacity of a 9 year old. Never mind the fact that in Pennsylvania the actual age of consent is 16 years old, as apparently that's subject to a kind of legal "your exact words" test, at least as far as the jury was concerned. Look, I wasn't there so I can't claim any insight other than what I read. However I do have some experience working with mentally handicapped individuals (having spent my holidays and summers working for Keystone Community Resources when I was in college), and it seems pretty clear to me that the prosecutor was right in this case: the lady in question doesn't understand what sex, marriage or pregnancy are, let alone be able to consent to any kind of "relationship".
Maybe I'm way off base here, but this just seem so very, very wrong.
Yes, mutilating kittens is wrong. It's wrong to use 14 gauge needles to pierce their ears and necks, and it's wrong to tie string around their tails so tightly that it causes them to fall off. Hell, a jury even said so.
Story Link Here.
It's often been said, but I've found this to be true: anyone capable of this kind of animal cruelty is capable of far worse. Let's hope that there is a sufficiently long jail sentence to go along with this madness. Oh, and I'm not shedding a tear that the individual in question can no longer have pets. Too bad. This "person" should have thought of that before torturing the kittens.
One final thought: some of NEPAs enlightened crowd (via postings to the Scranton Times article) have claimed that what was done to those kittens was no worse than having an infant's ears pierced. I was being sarcastic in that last comment, which is apparently something I'm gaining a reputation for these days. Anyway, that kind of thought...comparing the kittens to infants...would be true if stupid parents also tied strings around the fingers of their babies in order to have one or more digits fall off. Case closed.
Relations with a Mentally Retarded Woman is Deemed Consensual
Story Link Here.
Yes, according to a jury, it is possible to have consensual sexual relations with someone having the mental capacity of a 9 year old. Never mind the fact that in Pennsylvania the actual age of consent is 16 years old, as apparently that's subject to a kind of legal "your exact words" test, at least as far as the jury was concerned. Look, I wasn't there so I can't claim any insight other than what I read. However I do have some experience working with mentally handicapped individuals (having spent my holidays and summers working for Keystone Community Resources when I was in college), and it seems pretty clear to me that the prosecutor was right in this case: the lady in question doesn't understand what sex, marriage or pregnancy are, let alone be able to consent to any kind of "relationship".
Maybe I'm way off base here, but this just seem so very, very wrong.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Johnny Depp & Roman Polanski, Follow-Up
It was brought to my attention that perhaps Johnny Depp really meant that Roman Polanski is not one of these...an alien predator from another planet. Admitted child rapist? Yes. Evil alien predator from another planet? No. And who says that consensus is dead?
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Johnny Depp & Roman Polanski
I heard about this on Howard Stern this morning...
Johnny Depp: Roman Polanski Not A Predator
I'm sorry, but someone who admits to pumping a 13 year old girl full of Roofies and then repeatedly rapes her IS A PREDATOR. Think about it, if this doesn't constitute being a predator, then what the hell does?
Remember two things here:
...a 13 year old is not capable of consenting to sexual relations
...Polanski admitted to the actions
This whole case makes my blood boil. Why is Johnny Depp defending Roman Polanski? Who the hell knows. My best guess is that it's the whole "cult of celebrity" thing at work. You know, this is the notion that because Polanski is famous the act of raping a 13 year old is somehow diminished is some bizarre way. Note that Johnny Depp (and Roman Polanski) don't deny that a 13 year old was raped.
Polanski belongs in jail for the rest of his miserable life. I don't care how famous he is, who wonderful his marriage is, how beautiful his children are; raping a child makes you a sick, disgusting, predator.
Johnny Depp: Roman Polanski Not A Predator
I'm sorry, but someone who admits to pumping a 13 year old girl full of Roofies and then repeatedly rapes her IS A PREDATOR. Think about it, if this doesn't constitute being a predator, then what the hell does?
Remember two things here:
...a 13 year old is not capable of consenting to sexual relations
...Polanski admitted to the actions
This whole case makes my blood boil. Why is Johnny Depp defending Roman Polanski? Who the hell knows. My best guess is that it's the whole "cult of celebrity" thing at work. You know, this is the notion that because Polanski is famous the act of raping a 13 year old is somehow diminished is some bizarre way. Note that Johnny Depp (and Roman Polanski) don't deny that a 13 year old was raped.
Polanski belongs in jail for the rest of his miserable life. I don't care how famous he is, who wonderful his marriage is, how beautiful his children are; raping a child makes you a sick, disgusting, predator.
Corporate Rights
Now that the United States Supreme Court has basically affirmed that corporations enjoy free speech rights (see a very good summary of the recent case HERE), it got me thinking: What other "right" should corporations now enjoy?
How about the right the bear arms? Sure, many companies employ armed security (my employer does, although they are not the security guards you see when you enter the building), but why stop there? Perhaps corporations should be allowed to have their own militias. Sounds crazy? I don't know that it's much crazier than the notion that a corporation as free speech rights.
Here's why I am adamantly opposed to this ruling: If speech were like water flowing through a pipe, then money is like the pressure that the water is under. My voice...my speech (and yours as well) is like a drip on the head of your elected representatives. The voice of a corporation, supported by large sums of money, is like a fire hose pointed at your elected representative. Tell me, which will get noticed?
I know, some will claim "but unions and liberal special interest groups...", which is a difficult argument to counter until you think back to my water analogy. One single Fortune 50 company probably earns in a given year an amount equal to several of the treasuries of the largest unions in this country. Now I am not what you would consider a union supporter (that's an understatement), but let's just keep things in perspective. Unions can never compete with for-profit special interests in the lobbying arena, as they simply lack the resources. The real truth here is that un-muzzled corporations can easily out-spend other special interest groups. Sure, shareholders have a say in all of this (which is the argument that the Limbaugh's of the world would probably make), but I highly doubt that most corporate stockholders:
1. Know how much their companies spend on lobbying
2. Care how much their companies spend on lobbying
I speak from experience, as I own many shares of my employer's stock and I have no clue as to where this information could be found. The business of a corporation is to make money for its shareholders, so if a (now) legal activity like lobbying helps in that regard, then you could make the case that there is nothing wrong about it. The "wrong" part is that corporations are legally allowed to do this in the first place; failing to use all legal means to maximize profit actually runs counter to the nature of a for-profit corporation.
Look, some may not want to admit this, but the reality of this situation is that money (in volume) is what influences elections in this country. My voice is a whisper...add it to yours it may be a chorus...but now corporations have a much more powerful megaphone. Let's see who gets heard.
How about the right the bear arms? Sure, many companies employ armed security (my employer does, although they are not the security guards you see when you enter the building), but why stop there? Perhaps corporations should be allowed to have their own militias. Sounds crazy? I don't know that it's much crazier than the notion that a corporation as free speech rights.
Here's why I am adamantly opposed to this ruling: If speech were like water flowing through a pipe, then money is like the pressure that the water is under. My voice...my speech (and yours as well) is like a drip on the head of your elected representatives. The voice of a corporation, supported by large sums of money, is like a fire hose pointed at your elected representative. Tell me, which will get noticed?
I know, some will claim "but unions and liberal special interest groups...", which is a difficult argument to counter until you think back to my water analogy. One single Fortune 50 company probably earns in a given year an amount equal to several of the treasuries of the largest unions in this country. Now I am not what you would consider a union supporter (that's an understatement), but let's just keep things in perspective. Unions can never compete with for-profit special interests in the lobbying arena, as they simply lack the resources. The real truth here is that un-muzzled corporations can easily out-spend other special interest groups. Sure, shareholders have a say in all of this (which is the argument that the Limbaugh's of the world would probably make), but I highly doubt that most corporate stockholders:
1. Know how much their companies spend on lobbying
2. Care how much their companies spend on lobbying
I speak from experience, as I own many shares of my employer's stock and I have no clue as to where this information could be found. The business of a corporation is to make money for its shareholders, so if a (now) legal activity like lobbying helps in that regard, then you could make the case that there is nothing wrong about it. The "wrong" part is that corporations are legally allowed to do this in the first place; failing to use all legal means to maximize profit actually runs counter to the nature of a for-profit corporation.
Look, some may not want to admit this, but the reality of this situation is that money (in volume) is what influences elections in this country. My voice is a whisper...add it to yours it may be a chorus...but now corporations have a much more powerful megaphone. Let's see who gets heard.
Monday, February 1, 2010
The Touching Story of Oscar the Cat
I found this story both fascinating and touching, truly worth 5 minutes out of your day to read.
Oscar the Cat Predicts Death
Now the cheap-n-easy thing to do here is to make some kind of ghoulish comment, but that's not how I see this. Instead, this animal is probably more compassionate than most humans are, precisely when compassion is needed the most: at the time of death.
Here's to you Oscar for doing your important work so very well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)