Always Is Greedy

AIG will be receiving thank you notes from countless politicians (and possibly a few fruit baskets as well) for giving them something to yell about that all their constituents can agree with.  I refer, of course, to the news that they've been forced - forced, I say - to pay the very employees who drove the company under "retention bonuses".  According to the latest reports 73 people received more than (cue Doctor Evil) "One Million Dollars."  One person received 6.4 million dollars; seven received more than 4 million dollars each.  That's just a bonus.  One designed to make these people stay!

And apparently 11 people left anyway!  Some retention bonus!

I'm shocked - Shocked! - to find that amazing amounts of money are being paid to executives (everybody who isn't a clerk or a teller in these kinds of companies is an executive) for no particularly good reason.  This is a symptom of a larger problem of executive compensation - boards of directors have an inflated sense of the importance of the "superstar" executive and are willing to pay ridiculous sums - win or lose - to get them.

Unfortunately, that's not the scary part.

Several U.S. Senators, including Senator Charles Schumer and Senator Harry Reid have vowed to get that money back from these (as yet) unnamed AIG scum via very specific changes to the tax code.  And that worries the Dickens out of me.

While I can see no justification whatsoever for AIG paying these people these extravagant boni, and these people helped bring down not only the AIG holding company but contributed to our current global economic crisis, they didn't, well, break any law.  That we know of.

The thought that Congress could create a tax law designed to extract money from 73 (or slightly more) specific people should give us all pause.  It's extortion at best.  If they succeed, then we can truly believe that no man's life, liberty, or property, is safe while the Congress is in session.

It's the equivalent of a fine imposed when someone hasn't actually broken a law, nor had a trial, nor had any right to appeal.  It's a special tax tailored to NOT conform to any notion of equal protection.  Created AFTER the money has been "earned".  And that's only if they do it right.  If they do it wrong (and, seriously, what do you think are the odds of Congress doing it right?) it goes much broader, affecting who knows who, with who knows what impact.

Do we really want Congress to have that authority?

March 18 update:  According to AIG's current CEO, Edward Liddy, the people who created the credit default swaps that have been so damaging to AIG (and others) are no longer employed by AIG and did not receive retention bonuses.  In response to his statement, I provisionally retract the statement "the very employees who drove the company under".

Nobody ever asks what I think is the important question

Today I happened to view a discussion (it was billed as the Miller Center Of Public Affairs National Debate Series, but the participants themselves said their positions differed so little that it was more a discussion) on infrastructure, especially in line with the economic stimulus package.  It was moderated by Robert MacNeil, and featured the governors of Pennsylvania and Skynet ... sorry ... California, and two experts in the field.

Overall, the discussion was reasonable, but I found myself constantly questioning certain statements that were allowed to pass unchallenged - for instance:

The statement was made that there wasn't enough link between usage and charges, and (when asked) that this was evidenced by the gasoline tax:  the federal rate has not changed since the early 1990s, and apparently many states have reduced their gasoline taxes over that time.  What was not said was what that tax should be and what was the basis for that claim.  A great many things are significantly cheaper today than they were in the early 1990s (just as a great many things are more expensive).

The statement was made that the US should invest in a high speed rail system, and that it was the only major industrial country that has not.  France's high speed rail was given as an example.  I've been on French trains, and they're very nice and relatively convenient.  I'm entirely in favor of high speed trains.  That said, where do they propose that the American high speed rail system go?  Have they noticed that France has a population of about 65 million in an area of 260,000 square miles, while the US has nearly 5 times the population and nearly 15 times the area, or that the distance between Calais and Marseilles is 665 miles - 80 miles closer than Houston is to El Paso?  A line between New York and Los Angeles - a very busy air travel route - would be substantially more expensive than any French line - with the possible exception of the Chunnel.

The statement was made that there should be a master infrastructure plan (perhaps a series of 5 year plans, but that's just my interpretation) for the US and that the decisions be taken out of the hands of the politicians.  This is an amazing thing for a state governor to say, and I have to ask: suppose that plan, based on the priorities of the country and a clear examination of all the options, didn't include anything for your state?  I have to believe that any truly comprehensive, prioritized plan must exclude some states - suppose California and Pennsylvania were two ofthose.  Would you still be willing to support it?

What's love got to do with it?

There's been a lot of talking (and shouting and suing) about the topic of "marriage" lately, and I dare say there will be more to come.  

It appears to me that a lot of people are talking right past each other on this topic, and I'm convinced that part of this is because they're not always talking about the same thing.  "Marriage" has meanings in at least 4 different contexts, and while these overlap they're not identical.  The 4 contexts are:

1. Individual/emotional: the choice of individuals to "join their lives together", "dedicate their lives to each other", "blend their families", and similar sentiments.
2. Social/societal: the way that people and organizations treat people they consider married, single, and various states in the continuum.  This also includes various expectations for proper behavior once married.
3. Religious: The mystical joining of individuals, typically as ordained by the appropriate deity or deities, surrounded by ceremonies and prayers, carrying with it various supernatural risks and allowing certain benefits.
4. Legal: A binding contract which carries with it tax consequences, legal rights, responsibilities, and termination clauses.

When someone says (as some have) something to the effect of, "it's none of ....'s business whom I marry," is that true?  In the individual context, I suppose it could be.  Every other context, though, has the need for someone else to recognize the marriage an provide some sort of approval.  That gives the organization (society, church, government, whatever) some ability to define what it means to be married, under what conditions they will recognize that marriage (and in some cases, stop recognizing it), and how the "married" people will be treated compared to "unmarried" people.

The rights, privileges, responsibilities, and treatment that go along with marriage are based on custom and precedent (even when codified into law) - so arbitrary and mutable.  They exist because people agree (more or less) that people who meet a particular definition of marriage should be treated a particular way.

In the legal context in most of the states of the United States, marriage is a permanent contract between precisely one living human man and precisely one living human woman, severable by court action or death of one party.  There are a number of restrictions above this (minimum age, closest relative, health checks, etc.) but these vary significantly by jurisdiction and have changed significantly over time.  The precisely one human man and one human woman, until very recently, was the same everywhere in the US and could be argued to be key components of the definition of marriage.  If so, any attempt to change the mix can be seen as redefining it.

Redefining marriage carries with it two issues:

• There are constituencies that want other changes to this basic definition.  Why should marriage be permanent?  Why not time box it - perhaps with an option to automatically renew?  Why should it be limited to precisely one man and one woman?  And that whole human thing....
• The rights, privileges, and responsibilities pertaining thereto are subject to question. What may have been widely accepted for one definition may no longer have quite the same support with another

Stem Cells

President Barack Obama has signed an executive order which allows federal money to be used to fund research that uses embryonic stem cell lines that were established after August 9, 2001.  From a pure research angle, this is a good thing - I have to believe that over the last 8 years 7 months and a day there should have been advances that would make for far better stem cells.  Yet this is apparently controversial - Mr. Obama was keen to put conditions on this, and others have claimed ethical issues exist.

I do understand why Mr. Bush, given his convictions, made the compromise he made.  And indeed, under the Bush administration there actually was federally funded embryonic stem cell research - my understanding is that under previous administrations (including Mr. Clinton's), no such funding was provided.   But that's neither here nor there.

I suppose it might trouble some if human embryos were created in vitro for the express purpose of using them to create stem cells.  Yet few people seem too concerned with the number of excess embryos created incidental to providing infertile couples or people who choose not to use natural insemination with the joys of bearing and rearing children.  These embryos will be stored until such time as they are either implanted or become inviable - if the latter, they are destroyed.

There are scads of embryos in this frozen limbo (a "scad" is a unit somewhere between an "oodle" and a "bazillion"), most likely far more than ever will (or should) be allowed to grow to adulthood.  According to some, if one of these "excess" embryos were to be used to create stem cells, why, that would be murder.  If they were all frozen until no longer viable, well, that's a tragedy but life moves on.

Which makes me wonder - why does society put up with the demand of some to have children at any cost?

On Sexting

The local news has been discussing "sexting".  This is the practice of people taking pictures of themselves in various states of nudity and sending them to their real or imagined boy/girlfriends, typically to their phones.  Apparently this is becoming a popular practice among high school students, and this is a problem.

The problem, of course, is that the subjects of these pictures are frequently below the age of consent.  Possession of these pictures is criminally punishable under child pornography laws.  These laws are typically broad in scope but swift and sure in punishment.

In a recent incident, a school official confiscated a cell phone a (underage) student used in class contrary to school policy.   In attempting to turn off the phone, the school official ran across naked pictures of other students.  Several students have now been charged - not with child pornography but with contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

But this raises a hypothetical (and I want to stress this) situation.  Suppose a 16 year old girl were to take such a picture with her cell phone.  Suppose further she were to accidentally send the picture not to here boyfriend - who would, naturally, view it and pass it around to his chums - but to an adult man.  This man might be an acquaintance, but given the nature of both e-mail and telephones it could quite easily be a complete stranger.

How much trouble is this (hypothetical!!!) man in, and what should this man do?  Should someone find that he was sent this picture, what defense could he realistically mount?  Would prosecutors stop at child pornography charges, or would there be an attempt to prove statutory rape?  Should the man notify the girl of the error, or would this be seen as a creepy come on (not to mention used in court to prove a relationship)?  Should the man notify the police - or would that be just begging for a life on the sexual predator list?

If you're under the age of consent and if you choose to send someone a nude picture of yourself, please, please don't misdial.

I almost always enjoy reading Walter Williams's columns in the newspaper. He writes clearly, and his columns are usually well reasoned and insightful. I find I agree with him on many things, and for most of the rest I understand why he holds the position he does.

With one exception.

Mr. Williams will, on occasion, make an impassioned case that attempts to regulate smoking are communist, a taking of private property without just compensation, and quite possibly a sign of the ultimate decline in American civilization. Mr. Williams argues that the market should decide for itself and that the people at large (and their elected representatives) have no business telling the owner of private property to prohibit smoking - an admittedly legal activity.

Mr. Williams is not alone in making these arguments. These might be good arguments if, in fact, this were the ONLY otherwise legal activity that government prohibited inside a business or club. Is it?

Well, no. Businesses are regulated, sometimes fairly heavily regulated. There are all kinds of legal activities - including those that arguably are constitutionally protected rights - that are simply verboten in a business setting. Let's take a couple of examples:

• It's perfectly legal to drink alcohol indoors. It's legal to give alcohol to your (of age) friends. Unless you're in a business! Restaurants need a special license to sell alcohol. Depending on local law, without that license a restaurant can't sell it to you, give it to you, or let you drink it on premises - even if you bring in your own (a Côtes du Rhône goes nicely with a Big Mac).
• It's perfectly legal to choose to only associate with members of your own group (race, church, school, and so on). Don't try to rely on that when you make your hiring decisions, though.
• Mating .... no, let's not go there.

So why smoking should be any more sacrosanct than any other activity that is regulated in the world of business is beyond me.

I live in a state which (mostly - there are exceptions) limits its regulation of tobacco. This is a reflection of tobacco's status as a major cash crop and a strong association of tobacco farming with strong family values and good honest work out in the sun (cue the Stephen Foster songs). Yet even here, about 3 out of 4 adults do not smoke. On average more than half the adults in most settings don't smoke and get no benefit from those who do. One might reasonably think that there would be no need to regulate smoking - that businesses would accommodate the needs of the majority of their customers and employees and that more than, say, half of restaurants, bars, and other businesses would have gone completely non-smoking long before now (the notion that a business can be partially non-smoking is almost always an oxymoron). Are they?

Well, no. Not without laws and the threats of further laws. In fact, based on experience businesses would far rather cater to their smoking patrons than to the non-smokers.

My question to those who say there are plenty of businesses who cater to non-smokers - name them. And, by the way, let's not worry about the national fast food chains and Applebees.