The back of this uni-ball 0.5 mm package reads:
Endorsed by:
Frank W. Abagnale,
SECURE DOCUMENT EXPERT
...and then repeats in French and Spanish.
Brilliant.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
An Unexpected Celebrity Endorsement
in categories:
economy,
entertainment,
journal
I knew that the 2002 film Catch Me If You Can was based on a true story. I knew that Frank Abagnale, its protagonist, went legit after the events portrayed there. Yes, he consults for the FBI. But apparently the whole truth of his professional career is more mundane, as I learned after my wife returned from the convenience store the other day: he also endorses pens.
The back of this uni-ball 0.5 mm package reads:
Endorsed by:
Frank W. Abagnale,
SECURE DOCUMENT EXPERT
...and then repeats in French and Spanish.
Brilliant.
The back of this uni-ball 0.5 mm package reads:
Endorsed by:
Frank W. Abagnale,
SECURE DOCUMENT EXPERT
...and then repeats in French and Spanish.
Brilliant.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Prop 8 and the Catch-22 for Conservatives
in categories:
values
California's Proposition 8, overturning gay marriage in the state, is in court once again. This time, it's in federal district court -- no doubt as a step on the way to the Supreme Court. It strikes me that this case pits social conservatives against Libertarian conservatives.
To the extent that anti-gay-marriage forces prevail, they will be supporting the precedent -- previously established by the California Supreme Court -- that a simple majority can strip legal protections from a minority. Don't think this precedent could ever be used outside the context of gay marriage? Wake up.
To the extent that they fail, they will establish a federal precedent for the recognition and protection of same-sex marriages. If the court goes this way, it may well try to craft a very narrow ruling. It will fail. In this case too, interest groups will run with the ruling and do all they can to expand its scope.
To the extent that anti-gay-marriage forces prevail, they will be supporting the precedent -- previously established by the California Supreme Court -- that a simple majority can strip legal protections from a minority. Don't think this precedent could ever be used outside the context of gay marriage? Wake up.
To the extent that they fail, they will establish a federal precedent for the recognition and protection of same-sex marriages. If the court goes this way, it may well try to craft a very narrow ruling. It will fail. In this case too, interest groups will run with the ruling and do all they can to expand its scope.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Give My Banker a Bonus
A year ago, we were outraged that bankers were collecting huge bonuses while their companies were in the toilet. "Bonuses should be tied to performance!", we cried, secretly pleased to hear how business-savvy we sounded.
Since then, the banking business has picked up. Yes, many of those companies are only here today because we all invested heavily in them. But my retirement account is up 25% for the year. That's not because the government bought stock in the banks; it's because everyone else bought stock in the companies my account is invested in. We're still complaining! "How dare those bankers take bonuses, just because their companies are doing well. We got them where they are today!"
Yes, we did. We invested money in the banks because we wanted them to succeed. They have. We wanted them to pay out bonuses when they're doing well, not when they're doing poorly. They're doing well. So I say: sit down, calm down, and cut them some slack.
The fundamental question is, do you want the government setting compensation levels for private companies or not? To the extent that our tax dollars paid for voting shares of the bailed-out banks, we already have a say in what executives get paid. To the extent that our government bought non-voting shares, we don't. Those are the rules everyone plays by, public investors and private, in every industry, in good times and bad. Let us run our country according to consistent law, not self-righteous outrage.
Since then, the banking business has picked up. Yes, many of those companies are only here today because we all invested heavily in them. But my retirement account is up 25% for the year. That's not because the government bought stock in the banks; it's because everyone else bought stock in the companies my account is invested in. We're still complaining! "How dare those bankers take bonuses, just because their companies are doing well. We got them where they are today!"
Yes, we did. We invested money in the banks because we wanted them to succeed. They have. We wanted them to pay out bonuses when they're doing well, not when they're doing poorly. They're doing well. So I say: sit down, calm down, and cut them some slack.
The fundamental question is, do you want the government setting compensation levels for private companies or not? To the extent that our tax dollars paid for voting shares of the bailed-out banks, we already have a say in what executives get paid. To the extent that our government bought non-voting shares, we don't. Those are the rules everyone plays by, public investors and private, in every industry, in good times and bad. Let us run our country according to consistent law, not self-righteous outrage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)