"This indictment was not the most powerful work of the most intelligent people"
-Rick Koerber
While the fancy conference room may not have been the most appropriate place to explain to people that you didn't defraud them out of money, Rick Koerber's message was clear. He will be pleading "Not Guilty" to Federal charges.
Mr Koerber accused several Government officials of misconduct and "conducting a personal vendetta" against him. Mr Koerber appears to believe that government investigators need to have proof of malfeasance before conducting an investigation. Mr Koerber has recorded or is in the possesion of several recordings of officials stating to him or others that the government did not have proof of wrong doing, but didn't like what he was doing.
According to Mr Koerber Government officials communicated suspicion of a Pyramid/Ponzi schemes, before the indictment. This helped cause FranklinSquires collapse in addition to the melting real estate market.
He dismisses the media's obsession with Mark Shurtleff's supposed breakfast meeting stating, "Why a private citizen, asking to meet with an elected representative is ever, in any circumstance, innappropriate is a mystery to me."
Mr Koerber states he is ready to meet the accusations in court, and only time will tell how this will play out.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Government in action (inaction)
It is fascinating to me that severely important topics seem to be shelved until they become a crisis. Healthcare and Social Security are good examples of this. We have been hearing that the healthcare and Social Security costs for quite some time now, but still have yet to see any major changes. The problem with the Congress is that it rewards inaction. It is a very plush and privileged existence to be a Congress person. It's not something that people are willing to risk losing. Congress has an amazing reelection rate. This is much more amazing when you consider its approval rating sunk below 20% within the last year. Congress has an amzing 20% approval and and a 94% re-election rate. To me these numbers are saying, "I hate the job that Congress is doing, but they are there until they die or are arrested." If a congress person wants to advance politically then all of their previous legislation will be brought up against them (this is also why Governers tend to do well. They don't have a voting record). One politician who tried to put through legislation to help prevent child molestation was accused of teaching kindergardners about sex etc. It can become truly nasty. Therefore there is very sstrong incentive to keep your head down, and do as little as possible.
So passing a controversial bill, no matter how beneficial, seems to be an almost impossibility. It is amusing to me that how much people are concerned with one party controlling the House, Senate, and Presidency with a large majority. It amuses me because even though people think that the majority will march us as far to the left as they can, the reality is quite different. We can be petty and ignorant and whine that the difference between a free capitalist society, and a dreadful Stalinist Socialist Regime is a 3% income tax hike. People will and are doing that now. In reality, the Democratic Congress and Senate aren't very willing to make themselves future targets, and while things indeed will change it will be far less dramatic than people who thrive on fear for ratings will have you believe.
So passing a controversial bill, no matter how beneficial, seems to be an almost impossibility. It is amusing to me that how much people are concerned with one party controlling the House, Senate, and Presidency with a large majority. It amuses me because even though people think that the majority will march us as far to the left as they can, the reality is quite different. We can be petty and ignorant and whine that the difference between a free capitalist society, and a dreadful Stalinist Socialist Regime is a 3% income tax hike. People will and are doing that now. In reality, the Democratic Congress and Senate aren't very willing to make themselves future targets, and while things indeed will change it will be far less dramatic than people who thrive on fear for ratings will have you believe.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Torture
There has been a lot in the news lately about torture. It appears that everyone has split themselves into one of two groups.
1. Torture in ANY form is NEVER acceptable.
2. It is acceptable to water board terrorists.
While most people will just go with their gut reaction on this. I like to think things through. There are two major things to deliberate over here.
1. What is torture?
2. Is torture effective?
If water boarding is torture and it is not effective the easy answer is "don't do it"
If water boarding is not torture and is effect the easy answer is "do it"
If water boarding is not torture and is not effective. "probably shouldn't do it"
If water boarding is torture and is effective "we have a conundrum."
1. People have been saying that water boarding is not torture. I have never experienced it so I am not able to make a personal judgment. When we think about torture the more graphic methods come to mind, someone being cut or physically damaged. I always think of the James Bond movie where they cut out the seat and hit his testicles with a rope. Water boarding is not as physical, per se, so the confusion is understandable. My first inclination was that it is torture. The reason for this is you are doing it, because you trying to extract information. It must be very unpleasant if you believe it will "crack" or "break" someone who is very set in their beliefs. Not willing to go on pure speculation I looked around and researched past occurrences, and water boarding has happened a lot more than I thought. In World War II Japanese soldiers water boarded American soldiers. They were convicted of torture. In the Vietnam War soldiers water boarded North Vietnamese soldiers. They were court-martialed. It seems that all precedence points to water boarding being torture.
2. Is torture effective? This is going to be debated a lot over the next little bit. This question makes me think of Jack Bauer yelling, "Where's the bomb!!??" When is it morally okay to torture? Is it ok to save 1,000,000 lives? 1,000? 10? 1? This, however, IS NOT THE ISSUE. Remember we need to know if it is effective before we BEGIN to be concerned by this. Most evidence points towards torture not being effective. People will lie or give false information to make the pain go away. The question "Should we torture to save X lives?" is irrelevant until we have definitive proof that torture is effective.
So currently I am sitting on some viewpoints.
1. Water boarding is torture. I believe that it causes sufficient mental duress to be defined as torture, and in the past, the United States has agreed with me.
2. Torture is not the most effective questioning method. Torture is not guaranteed to provide useful information, and I believe that if everyone knows that America tortures, it will cause more harm than good. I believe that torturing someone to prevent a nuclear attack is more the subject of Fiction than Non.
1. Torture in ANY form is NEVER acceptable.
2. It is acceptable to water board terrorists.
While most people will just go with their gut reaction on this. I like to think things through. There are two major things to deliberate over here.
1. What is torture?
2. Is torture effective?
If water boarding is torture and it is not effective the easy answer is "don't do it"
If water boarding is not torture and is effect the easy answer is "do it"
If water boarding is not torture and is not effective. "probably shouldn't do it"
If water boarding is torture and is effective "we have a conundrum."
1. People have been saying that water boarding is not torture. I have never experienced it so I am not able to make a personal judgment. When we think about torture the more graphic methods come to mind, someone being cut or physically damaged. I always think of the James Bond movie where they cut out the seat and hit his testicles with a rope. Water boarding is not as physical, per se, so the confusion is understandable. My first inclination was that it is torture. The reason for this is you are doing it, because you trying to extract information. It must be very unpleasant if you believe it will "crack" or "break" someone who is very set in their beliefs. Not willing to go on pure speculation I looked around and researched past occurrences, and water boarding has happened a lot more than I thought. In World War II Japanese soldiers water boarded American soldiers. They were convicted of torture. In the Vietnam War soldiers water boarded North Vietnamese soldiers. They were court-martialed. It seems that all precedence points to water boarding being torture.
2. Is torture effective? This is going to be debated a lot over the next little bit. This question makes me think of Jack Bauer yelling, "Where's the bomb!!??" When is it morally okay to torture? Is it ok to save 1,000,000 lives? 1,000? 10? 1? This, however, IS NOT THE ISSUE. Remember we need to know if it is effective before we BEGIN to be concerned by this. Most evidence points towards torture not being effective. People will lie or give false information to make the pain go away. The question "Should we torture to save X lives?" is irrelevant until we have definitive proof that torture is effective.
So currently I am sitting on some viewpoints.
1. Water boarding is torture. I believe that it causes sufficient mental duress to be defined as torture, and in the past, the United States has agreed with me.
2. Torture is not the most effective questioning method. Torture is not guaranteed to provide useful information, and I believe that if everyone knows that America tortures, it will cause more harm than good. I believe that torturing someone to prevent a nuclear attack is more the subject of Fiction than Non.
Friday, April 17, 2009
It's the Circle of Life
I turn on the news to find one of the more interesting headlines I have seen in years.
"Protesters Teabagging White House."
.......ok, I guess that's one way of showing your displeasure.
All joking aside it is interesting to see the other side protesting now. The most amazing thing to me is how similar it seems. We saw a lot of protests during President Bush as Anti-War etc, and now we have the other side in an Anti-Tax protest. Other than the themes the protests are strikingly similar. It almost makes me wonder if all the protests are done by the same group. The most important thing I guess is that they feel that their opinions are heard. I have a few concerns about the current protests.
1. If you make less than a six figure income your taxes will go down. I can't imagine that the upper class are outside in the rain with signs. Don't they hire people to do that for them? The only explanation is A they make more than 250,000 a year, B they are delusional enough to think they will make that soon, or C they don't understand what they are protesting.
2. Wasn't this the same group of people that said if you don't support the President you can leave the country? If you are going to disagree with the Government that's fine. You have every right to do so. You cannot, however, dismiss another group's arguments as "unpatriotic" simply because they disagree with the current administration, and then disagree yourself a few months later.
3. Isn't the right the party of fiscal responsibility? Isn't the right the party of smaller government? I used to think so. After presiding of amazing deficits and expansions of powers, I think its safe to assume that the small financially responsible government the right invokes is a dream at best and an outright lie at worst. When your expenditures exceed your income you can do one of two things:
A Increase income.
B Decrease expenditures.
That's it. Those are the only options, EVER. Unfortunately, there are few major ways to reduce spending. The largest possible cuts are into Military, Health care, and Education. It is political suicide to touch any of the three. It is misleading and destructive to think that a lot of money is wasted on "pork". A planetarium could be considered "pork" by one group and "downtown revitalization" by the other. The problem is that because "pork spending" is harped on so much even though it is a small percentage. This encourages people's mistrust and dislike of all things related to government. One of the best ways to cut waste would be to switch to a flat tax system, but that probably won't happen. (I am not advocating flat tax, but its potential to reduce waste and simplify taxes is staggering).
So its difficult to cut spending. One of the solutions the current administration is implementing is to repeal the Bush tax cuts. Increasing the top bracket from 36% to 39%. This was the tax level during the Clinton administration. You can dislike it. You can argue with it. You can protest it. You can even "Teabag" the White house. You can do all of these things because of the wonderful and free country you live in.
(although you are protesting wasteful spending by wasting tea????? really??)
"Protesters Teabagging White House."
.......ok, I guess that's one way of showing your displeasure.
All joking aside it is interesting to see the other side protesting now. The most amazing thing to me is how similar it seems. We saw a lot of protests during President Bush as Anti-War etc, and now we have the other side in an Anti-Tax protest. Other than the themes the protests are strikingly similar. It almost makes me wonder if all the protests are done by the same group. The most important thing I guess is that they feel that their opinions are heard. I have a few concerns about the current protests.
1. If you make less than a six figure income your taxes will go down. I can't imagine that the upper class are outside in the rain with signs. Don't they hire people to do that for them? The only explanation is A they make more than 250,000 a year, B they are delusional enough to think they will make that soon, or C they don't understand what they are protesting.
2. Wasn't this the same group of people that said if you don't support the President you can leave the country? If you are going to disagree with the Government that's fine. You have every right to do so. You cannot, however, dismiss another group's arguments as "unpatriotic" simply because they disagree with the current administration, and then disagree yourself a few months later.
3. Isn't the right the party of fiscal responsibility? Isn't the right the party of smaller government? I used to think so. After presiding of amazing deficits and expansions of powers, I think its safe to assume that the small financially responsible government the right invokes is a dream at best and an outright lie at worst. When your expenditures exceed your income you can do one of two things:
A Increase income.
B Decrease expenditures.
That's it. Those are the only options, EVER. Unfortunately, there are few major ways to reduce spending. The largest possible cuts are into Military, Health care, and Education. It is political suicide to touch any of the three. It is misleading and destructive to think that a lot of money is wasted on "pork". A planetarium could be considered "pork" by one group and "downtown revitalization" by the other. The problem is that because "pork spending" is harped on so much even though it is a small percentage. This encourages people's mistrust and dislike of all things related to government. One of the best ways to cut waste would be to switch to a flat tax system, but that probably won't happen. (I am not advocating flat tax, but its potential to reduce waste and simplify taxes is staggering).
So its difficult to cut spending. One of the solutions the current administration is implementing is to repeal the Bush tax cuts. Increasing the top bracket from 36% to 39%. This was the tax level during the Clinton administration. You can dislike it. You can argue with it. You can protest it. You can even "Teabag" the White house. You can do all of these things because of the wonderful and free country you live in.
(although you are protesting wasteful spending by wasting tea????? really??)
Monday, April 13, 2009
Wicked
My wife dragged me to the musical Wicked over the weekend. She has been a Wizard of Oz fan for a long time, I guess, and a fan of musicals for about as long so I was pretty much destined to see it.
It turned out to be really good. I think we enjoyed it for very different reasons, but I did enjoy it. To be honest I did a lot of theatre in high school and went to school on a theatre scholarship my first semester of college, so its not brand new to me. I still have been much more a fan of straight plays than musicals in general.
As I was saying Wicked was really good, strangely enough it reminded me of Spamalot. Not because they are similar in any way, but because I really liked Monty Python as a kid, and they happened to make a great musical out of it. For my wife Spamalot is my Wicked and vice versa.
The reason that I enjoyed the show is because it has a lot to do with one of my favorite subjects. Good vs Evil. By Good vs Evil I don't mean man dressed in white saves the day from the mustached black clothed villain. It is more of a war of concept and an exploration of "Good". The show explores the Wizard of Oz story from the Wicked Witch of the East's perspective. It turns out the WWE was driven towards "evil" and was trying to be good after all, but the wizard is much better at publicity. It isn't a new concept. Richard the Lionhearted was probably a terribly poor king and Richard III probably wasn't that bad, but to the winners go the History books.
I guess the reason I like stories like this is because they reinforce the "Don't believe everything you hear" message. It's important to examine motives when evaluating information. People are always going to be motivated by unrelated external factors that are going to twist their message or perspective. That doesn't mean that all information is bad, merely that a lot of things need to be taken with a grain or two of salt.
So I enjoyed the musical, and would recommend it highly to anyone who enjoys theatre.
It turned out to be really good. I think we enjoyed it for very different reasons, but I did enjoy it. To be honest I did a lot of theatre in high school and went to school on a theatre scholarship my first semester of college, so its not brand new to me. I still have been much more a fan of straight plays than musicals in general.
As I was saying Wicked was really good, strangely enough it reminded me of Spamalot. Not because they are similar in any way, but because I really liked Monty Python as a kid, and they happened to make a great musical out of it. For my wife Spamalot is my Wicked and vice versa.
The reason that I enjoyed the show is because it has a lot to do with one of my favorite subjects. Good vs Evil. By Good vs Evil I don't mean man dressed in white saves the day from the mustached black clothed villain. It is more of a war of concept and an exploration of "Good". The show explores the Wizard of Oz story from the Wicked Witch of the East's perspective. It turns out the WWE was driven towards "evil" and was trying to be good after all, but the wizard is much better at publicity. It isn't a new concept. Richard the Lionhearted was probably a terribly poor king and Richard III probably wasn't that bad, but to the winners go the History books.
I guess the reason I like stories like this is because they reinforce the "Don't believe everything you hear" message. It's important to examine motives when evaluating information. People are always going to be motivated by unrelated external factors that are going to twist their message or perspective. That doesn't mean that all information is bad, merely that a lot of things need to be taken with a grain or two of salt.
So I enjoyed the musical, and would recommend it highly to anyone who enjoys theatre.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Oh well.
I tend to avoid Apple products.
I distantly remember being in grade school and working on an Apple II. That was my only experience with Apple computers for a long time. Later on, when I was old enough to by my own computer I gravitated naturally towards a PC. I like putting together my own computer. It saves a lot of money, and then in a year or so if one component is lagging behind, I like being able to rip it apart and replace it. With my current computer I have replaced RAM twice, the video card once, and will probably add a hard drive, and as much as I am upset about the 3ghz processing wall, its nice that my computer doesn't become obsolete after a day.
Apple is probably great for those who don't like ripping apart computers, and would pay extra for something that works well without having to be fixed.
Then they made the Ipod.
I had purchased an Mp3 player before they were very popular. To give an idea of the time period I was deciding between a Mp3 player and a Sony Minidisc player. My first Mp3 player had 512mg of memory. If i remember correctly that translated to about 20-30 songs. I thought it was awesome. I just popped my favorite songs on there, and I was good to go.
The other day I succumbed, and got my first Ipod. Eventually I believe that phones will have capacity to replace Mp3 players, and I was telling myself I was waiting for that. I also enjoy listening to a few podcasts, and never realized how easy it was to do on iTunes.
So now I have an Ipod. I would say that I was hip, but I think I'm about six years too late. I love the stupid thing. It works perfectly. Is ridiculously small and cool, and iTunes is really nice. Jerks.
So AGAIN I learn to not judge everything before you know what you are talking about. I was a hypocrite because I made a judgment on Ipods and iTunes before I actually used one. I thought I would hate iTunes because I hate Quicktime.
I still don't think I would ever buy an apple computer. I like customizing my PC too much. Besides, being a PC user I know that if Apple has a really great idea Microsoft will be copying it within a year or so, but I do love that little Ipod. (seriously the thing is almost too small.)
I distantly remember being in grade school and working on an Apple II. That was my only experience with Apple computers for a long time. Later on, when I was old enough to by my own computer I gravitated naturally towards a PC. I like putting together my own computer. It saves a lot of money, and then in a year or so if one component is lagging behind, I like being able to rip it apart and replace it. With my current computer I have replaced RAM twice, the video card once, and will probably add a hard drive, and as much as I am upset about the 3ghz processing wall, its nice that my computer doesn't become obsolete after a day.
Apple is probably great for those who don't like ripping apart computers, and would pay extra for something that works well without having to be fixed.
Then they made the Ipod.
I had purchased an Mp3 player before they were very popular. To give an idea of the time period I was deciding between a Mp3 player and a Sony Minidisc player. My first Mp3 player had 512mg of memory. If i remember correctly that translated to about 20-30 songs. I thought it was awesome. I just popped my favorite songs on there, and I was good to go.
The other day I succumbed, and got my first Ipod. Eventually I believe that phones will have capacity to replace Mp3 players, and I was telling myself I was waiting for that. I also enjoy listening to a few podcasts, and never realized how easy it was to do on iTunes.
So now I have an Ipod. I would say that I was hip, but I think I'm about six years too late. I love the stupid thing. It works perfectly. Is ridiculously small and cool, and iTunes is really nice. Jerks.
So AGAIN I learn to not judge everything before you know what you are talking about. I was a hypocrite because I made a judgment on Ipods and iTunes before I actually used one. I thought I would hate iTunes because I hate Quicktime.
I still don't think I would ever buy an apple computer. I like customizing my PC too much. Besides, being a PC user I know that if Apple has a really great idea Microsoft will be copying it within a year or so, but I do love that little Ipod. (seriously the thing is almost too small.)
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
AIG Bonus money
Anger is an interesting emotion. It always seems to be the one we turn to when things don't go as planned. If we are confused that makes us angry. If we are afraid it makes us angry. If we don't get what we want it makes us angry. The problem is that anger always must have a target. If one of your friends tells you they are pissed off your natural reaction is to "at what?". Often times we don't really understand whats going on so we pick our easy targets the government, society, kids these days etc.
Currently people are angry with the economic situation we are in, and because no one understands the economy we are on the lookout for someone to blame. Enter AIG bonus money. "How outrageous it is that they pay people at AIG bonuses, how dare they?" We yell in our newly found righteousness. This anger is misdirected as it often is. AIG should be able to pay bonuses and here is why.
AIG is a business, and one desperately in need of competent employees. Why would anyone choose to work at AIG if there was no possibility of a bonus? Why would you not just find a job elsewhere? (assuming you can)Expecting people to do more for less money is a difficult task. (As far as I am aware only public education has been able to do that.)
AIG was bailed out. Lets think about that for a moment. When a ship was sinking you would do your best to scoop out as much as possible, so you had time to plug any holes. The ship was not towed to the dock and torn apart for scraps if it had been "bailed out". The government had some very difficult choices. Basically it could
1. Do nothing.
2. Take over the company
3. Bail out the company.
Being afraid that AIG's collapse would severely damage the market, we chose to bail them out. In essence we said "Yes AIG you screwed up, but instead of killing you or taking control, we are going to let you fix yourself.
This next reason might scare some of you. You have been warned.
AIG didn't do anything wrong. I know, scary huh? "NOTHING WRONG!?" you shout. They almost destroyed the free market. Yep, but they didn't. What it all comes down is that AIG exploited a loophole and made a ton of money before being bailed out. That is what companies do. Make as much money as possible, and exploit legal loopholes. Corporations are legally obligated to make as much money for their shareholders as possible. That doesn't mean that corporations are evil. Far from it. Without corporations we wouldn't have 99% of the conveniences and goods we enjoy today. That is simply the nature of capitalism. To make as much money for yourself as possible, and by looking out for yourself the invisible had raises everyone, mostly.
So thats why I am not mad at AIG for paying out bonuses. I honestly don't think I can be mad at them for anything they did. They were merely playing the business game that all companies do. If you are still mad thats fine. I hope you don't read this and change your opinion without question. I hope you research this a little for yourself.
Currently people are angry with the economic situation we are in, and because no one understands the economy we are on the lookout for someone to blame. Enter AIG bonus money. "How outrageous it is that they pay people at AIG bonuses, how dare they?" We yell in our newly found righteousness. This anger is misdirected as it often is. AIG should be able to pay bonuses and here is why.
AIG is a business, and one desperately in need of competent employees. Why would anyone choose to work at AIG if there was no possibility of a bonus? Why would you not just find a job elsewhere? (assuming you can)Expecting people to do more for less money is a difficult task. (As far as I am aware only public education has been able to do that.)
AIG was bailed out. Lets think about that for a moment. When a ship was sinking you would do your best to scoop out as much as possible, so you had time to plug any holes. The ship was not towed to the dock and torn apart for scraps if it had been "bailed out". The government had some very difficult choices. Basically it could
1. Do nothing.
2. Take over the company
3. Bail out the company.
Being afraid that AIG's collapse would severely damage the market, we chose to bail them out. In essence we said "Yes AIG you screwed up, but instead of killing you or taking control, we are going to let you fix yourself.
This next reason might scare some of you. You have been warned.
AIG didn't do anything wrong. I know, scary huh? "NOTHING WRONG!?" you shout. They almost destroyed the free market. Yep, but they didn't. What it all comes down is that AIG exploited a loophole and made a ton of money before being bailed out. That is what companies do. Make as much money as possible, and exploit legal loopholes. Corporations are legally obligated to make as much money for their shareholders as possible. That doesn't mean that corporations are evil. Far from it. Without corporations we wouldn't have 99% of the conveniences and goods we enjoy today. That is simply the nature of capitalism. To make as much money for yourself as possible, and by looking out for yourself the invisible had raises everyone, mostly.
So thats why I am not mad at AIG for paying out bonuses. I honestly don't think I can be mad at them for anything they did. They were merely playing the business game that all companies do. If you are still mad thats fine. I hope you don't read this and change your opinion without question. I hope you research this a little for yourself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)