It is tough to know where to start - or if to start -choosing to write a blog, that is.
This blog corner has been pretty quiet for a while - and for good reasons. Other matters have taken precedence.
Fortunately, the most important - the eyesight of my wife - seemingly has made a turn for the better, praise God, after several months of painful treatment and an accompanying fear for both of us that she might lose her sight in the right eye.
All other things that normally arouse this Irishman seem to pale in comparison to that of the need for good health as we become an aging commodity.
Sports and politics continue to remain an easy target with which to vent the kind of anger that has inspired many previous blogs.
But, the Pirates had a great season - until recently the Penquins have been playing well - and both Pitt and Penn State continue to field football teams - even if in a difference universe than teams from Alabama and Ohio - and my adopted Florida State football team makes most of us Floridians proud.
Probably best if you did not express that sentiment in a local bar down here as, like in Pennsylvania, the state football team rivalries are fierce.
The Steelers? Like this old guy, they are suffering from age creeping up on them, and draft picks that fail to achieve the early success level of stock picks from Warren Buffett - or even Jimmy Buffett, for that matter.
Politics? I used to say about New Jersey and Philadelphia the best thing that could happen to this country would be if we discovered a huge eruptive fault line around both, causing them to drift mercifully out to sea.
I now include Texas in my quest to have this one proud state join the latter pair so as to provide all of us with reason, hope, and some signs of sanity.
Ted Cruz and The Tea Party - (not to be confused with one that had Mary Jane and Sniffles as attendees) has started to resemble your rude Uncle Cosmo, who at Thanksgiving dinner continued to ignore your pleadings to pass the mashed potatoes and stuffing.
But, none of the above has been the greatest impediment to my writing a blog recently.
There has been an increasing awareness on my part of the importance for the functioning of the apostrophe/quote key - which my keyboard currently lacks - and which also has given me pause about eating chips and sandwiches while I type. This simple tool of typing has suffered the same abuse from me as the quote, exclamation point - and dash keys.
That I have been able to write an entire blog without the presence of the former is cause for celebration to this old guy who saw it as a challenge - not a calamity.
Now if I can just apply that same positive reasoning to the likes of subjects such as sports and politics - I may also be well be on the road to recovery.
See you soon.
Monday, October 28, 2013
Thursday, September 12, 2013
THE LOST GENERATION
We seniors have become the "lost generation". We didn't intend it to end that way.
In the last three weeks my wife and I have lost a money clip, a credit card, and a checkbook. Today we lost the dog - in the house.
It is kind for folks to say, "You didn't lose them, you misplaced them." It's also kind of people to say, "You're not fat - you're fluffy."
Truth be known, since becoming a senior I've lost many things - only a few that I've recovered as Blanche Dubois would say, "through the kindness of strangers."
I've discovered there are a lot of honest people down here who continue to turn in - untouched - my material possessions. Most of these losses were due to my fondness of wearing my shallow pocket Nike basketball shorts.
There are some things we can do to avoid a loss - or even being lost. The GPS helps. Even movies. Since watching Henry Fonda in Golden Pond I have never again walked in the woods by myself.
To avoid losing the car, I now make it a point when entering a large shopping mall with several entrances and exits to memorize the display as we enter the store. I also store my computer passwords in a convenient location that I sometimes remember.
I have even convinced my petite wife of the wisdom in her carrying a six foot flag when we go shopping so I can see her over the high shelves. Many a time we've located each other by the use of our cellphones, unless, of course, I forget to get mine out of our car.
You may laugh at the shopping center example but one get's tired of going back out to the car to see if she got frustrated at searching for me - checked out - and is now sitting in the cool air-conditioning with the dog while she awaits my return from God knows where.
I'm still looking for that "perfect" clapper for my car keys and my cellphone. Yeah, it's great to just dial my cell number from another phone - but I often forget the number.
The cushions on my couch and recliners have been turned over more frequently than my dear Irish mother in her grave.
I've lost some of my hair, most of my teeth, a high percentage of my hearing, and the ability to go and return from the restaurant bathroom in under 5 minutes.
Sadly, what I haven't lost is those extra pounds, my need for shoes with Dr. Scholl inserts, and my overwhelming insistance on using my dry irish humor in the middle of conversations. This leaves most people, friends as well as strangers, with a puzzled look on their face or their mouth hanging open.
My greatest "lost' concern is that, despite all my precautions, I fear I'm losing my mind.
Fellow seniors - feel free to join me.
In the last three weeks my wife and I have lost a money clip, a credit card, and a checkbook. Today we lost the dog - in the house.
It is kind for folks to say, "You didn't lose them, you misplaced them." It's also kind of people to say, "You're not fat - you're fluffy."
Truth be known, since becoming a senior I've lost many things - only a few that I've recovered as Blanche Dubois would say, "through the kindness of strangers."
I've discovered there are a lot of honest people down here who continue to turn in - untouched - my material possessions. Most of these losses were due to my fondness of wearing my shallow pocket Nike basketball shorts.
There are some things we can do to avoid a loss - or even being lost. The GPS helps. Even movies. Since watching Henry Fonda in Golden Pond I have never again walked in the woods by myself.
To avoid losing the car, I now make it a point when entering a large shopping mall with several entrances and exits to memorize the display as we enter the store. I also store my computer passwords in a convenient location that I sometimes remember.
I have even convinced my petite wife of the wisdom in her carrying a six foot flag when we go shopping so I can see her over the high shelves. Many a time we've located each other by the use of our cellphones, unless, of course, I forget to get mine out of our car.
You may laugh at the shopping center example but one get's tired of going back out to the car to see if she got frustrated at searching for me - checked out - and is now sitting in the cool air-conditioning with the dog while she awaits my return from God knows where.
I'm still looking for that "perfect" clapper for my car keys and my cellphone. Yeah, it's great to just dial my cell number from another phone - but I often forget the number.
The cushions on my couch and recliners have been turned over more frequently than my dear Irish mother in her grave.
I've lost some of my hair, most of my teeth, a high percentage of my hearing, and the ability to go and return from the restaurant bathroom in under 5 minutes.
Sadly, what I haven't lost is those extra pounds, my need for shoes with Dr. Scholl inserts, and my overwhelming insistance on using my dry irish humor in the middle of conversations. This leaves most people, friends as well as strangers, with a puzzled look on their face or their mouth hanging open.
My greatest "lost' concern is that, despite all my precautions, I fear I'm losing my mind.
Fellow seniors - feel free to join me.
Wednesday, September 4, 2013
REPUBLICANS IN RETREAT
Bill O'Reilly apologized? Get out of here!
Yep, he did. He apologized for the erroneous comment that no Republicans had been invited to the Washington 50th anniversary celebration of Martin Luther Kings speech.
I admire O'Reilly that he apologized. I am also amazed he did not accurately report something that could easily have been discovered by due diligence and appropriate research.
I am neither a fan nor critic of O'Reilly - a strong supporter of almost anything Republican - and I only occasionally tune in to his broadcasts.
I will admit wondering if O'Reilly - at a time that the Republican Party is reported to be desperately seeking supportive votes from the black community - many of whom were widely represented at the Washingon event - has now dug in to determine why none of the Republican invitees chose to attend?
Those invitees are reported to include the two living former Republican Presidents, John McCain their last unsuccessful presidential candidate, and John Boehner the leader of the do nothing branch of Congress - the House Of Representatives.
The two ex-Presidents in the Bush family may get a pass based on stories about their recent physical health problems. But, surely there had to be somebody in a "high" position who was willing to represent the GOP.
I'm probably wrong about this memory thing with which I'm struggling. Am I correct that it was McCain who was all in on the Syrian strike - and now decided he has reservations.
That waffling may even apply to our prez who now appears to have rethought whether or not he actually established the much discussed "Red Line"
Please read friend Harry's recent blogs about lying: http://harry2335.blogspot.com/
At some point you have to ask yourself, "What the Hell is wrong with the thinking of our politicians?"
Yep, he did. He apologized for the erroneous comment that no Republicans had been invited to the Washington 50th anniversary celebration of Martin Luther Kings speech.
I admire O'Reilly that he apologized. I am also amazed he did not accurately report something that could easily have been discovered by due diligence and appropriate research.
I am neither a fan nor critic of O'Reilly - a strong supporter of almost anything Republican - and I only occasionally tune in to his broadcasts.
I will admit wondering if O'Reilly - at a time that the Republican Party is reported to be desperately seeking supportive votes from the black community - many of whom were widely represented at the Washingon event - has now dug in to determine why none of the Republican invitees chose to attend?
Those invitees are reported to include the two living former Republican Presidents, John McCain their last unsuccessful presidential candidate, and John Boehner the leader of the do nothing branch of Congress - the House Of Representatives.
The two ex-Presidents in the Bush family may get a pass based on stories about their recent physical health problems. But, surely there had to be somebody in a "high" position who was willing to represent the GOP.
I'm probably wrong about this memory thing with which I'm struggling. Am I correct that it was McCain who was all in on the Syrian strike - and now decided he has reservations.
That waffling may even apply to our prez who now appears to have rethought whether or not he actually established the much discussed "Red Line"
Please read friend Harry's recent blogs about lying: http://harry2335.blogspot.com/
At some point you have to ask yourself, "What the Hell is wrong with the thinking of our politicians?"
Monday, August 26, 2013
DRUNKEN SEX AND THE PAUSE BUTTON
Psychologist Dr. Phil McGraw, recently posted a "tweet" asking the question: "If a girl is drunk, is it OK to have sex with her? "
The tweet apparently outraged quite a few people according to the Huffington Post, which more and more is starting to resemble TMZ.
Although Twitter, a media tool, has been abused many, many times by celebrities, athletes, and just about anybody else who has no brain pause button, this tweet by Dr. Phil made perfect sense to me.
I'm apparently in the minority once more.
Reactions from McGraw's "twitter tweets" included one individual who questioned whether he had just forgotten about Steubenville and what happened there to a girl who was raped while drunk. There were several more in that vein and by now his question has probably gone viral - for all the wrong reasons.
The question was removed from Dr Phyl's Twitter page due to the irate response - and that's a shame.
After the question was posed, the remainder of the message stated: "Reply yes or no to drphyl#teensaccused." He clearly was soliciting opinions on the subject of accountability - which appears to be holding on by it's fingertips..
Texan therapist Dr. Phil is extremely well trained and has clearly earned his spurs, but, to confuse his therapeutic TV approach and the issues addressed to actual in-depth analysis would be foolish.
To the man's credit, he says as much during his show - (still listed in the entertainment section of your local newspaper) usually prescribing more comprehensive client based counseling by credentialled experts as a necessary follow-up.
My daughter Beth recently sent me an interesting column by LZ Granderson, a CNN contributor and a senior writer for ESPN. One quote in particular seemed to fit well with this blogs subject matter.
"We don't teach accountability, we don't expect accountability, and I'm not sure we even know what accountability looks like anymore. Some of us have become so addicted to pointing fingers at others for all the wrong that happens in our lives that self-assessment has become synonymous with blaming the victim."
I truly believe Dr. Phil's "tweet" was an attempt to try and determine just how many in our male population still don't get it when it comes to drunken sex.
Unfortunately, his question - limited by 34 characters - inspired irrational rants and raving by many individuals who apparently have no pause button in either their brain or their fingers.
Probably just a coincidence, right?
Sunday, August 11, 2013
THE LAZY SUSAN AND THE CATBIRD SEAT
Back in the 60's and 70's we all went to each others homes - and ate the hosts' veggies and dip with relish (pun intended if it included those miniature weiners).
We did that - sitting at various positions around the coffee table - courtesy of something called a "Lazy Susan" that, if lucky, you could spin around to get at your favorite hors d' oeuvres.(spelling optional) But clearly, the best seat was in the middle of the couch fronting the coffee table - and within easy reach of the food.
Even now, upon arriving at someone's home, I immediately scope out the couch. It's still close to the goodies and usually provides the best view of the game du jour too.
This also describes what goes on in Washington every two years.
A life long Republican, I initially welcomed the Tea Party. I honestly believed it was something positive that would help our staid GOP - maybe even be the source of a Third Party. I believed we needed fresh blood and it was time to replace some of of our "elder statesmen" - retiring their powdered "Whigs" in the process.
Dad said, "You got to be careful what you wish for." He was right - I was wrong. The Tea Party scares the hell out of me.
Let's take the budget crisis as an example. The Republicans have agreed to work with the Democrats on the budget. That is, if they will agree to "drop-kick" Obamacare.
Mike Lee, a Republican Senator from Utah, wrote a lame rebuttal to an editorial column in USA Today chastizing some Republican politicians for threats the editors described as "having a temper tantrum."
The reason for USA Today's editorial umbrage was apparently that the Republicans - in all their wisdom - have once more threatend to shut down the government, a position the newspaper calls both "dumb and delusional".
Lee's position? "We should use Congress' power of the purse to deny funding for this unfair (Obamacare) law. Congress controls the power to appropriate funds, so defunding Obamacare is simple."
One reader echos my sentiments when he writes in the Letters Reply section: "His (Lee) "the sky is falling" approach to wanting the Affordable Care Act defunded is similar to some who opposed Medicare before and after LBJ signed it into law."
Look, there's nothing wrong with being a member of the "opposition party".We are clearly a country without a rudder, whose citizens desperately want and need more responsible leadership from both sides of the aisle.
However, the image I come away with is that the Republicans are simply fighting for the seat on the couch with the best access to the "Lazy Suzan."
If they keep up with this foolishness - it's doubtful they're going to make it to author and humorist James Thurber's "catbird seat" in 2014.
We did that - sitting at various positions around the coffee table - courtesy of something called a "Lazy Susan" that, if lucky, you could spin around to get at your favorite hors d' oeuvres.(spelling optional) But clearly, the best seat was in the middle of the couch fronting the coffee table - and within easy reach of the food.
Even now, upon arriving at someone's home, I immediately scope out the couch. It's still close to the goodies and usually provides the best view of the game du jour too.
This also describes what goes on in Washington every two years.
A life long Republican, I initially welcomed the Tea Party. I honestly believed it was something positive that would help our staid GOP - maybe even be the source of a Third Party. I believed we needed fresh blood and it was time to replace some of of our "elder statesmen" - retiring their powdered "Whigs" in the process.
Dad said, "You got to be careful what you wish for." He was right - I was wrong. The Tea Party scares the hell out of me.
Let's take the budget crisis as an example. The Republicans have agreed to work with the Democrats on the budget. That is, if they will agree to "drop-kick" Obamacare.
Mike Lee, a Republican Senator from Utah, wrote a lame rebuttal to an editorial column in USA Today chastizing some Republican politicians for threats the editors described as "having a temper tantrum."
The reason for USA Today's editorial umbrage was apparently that the Republicans - in all their wisdom - have once more threatend to shut down the government, a position the newspaper calls both "dumb and delusional".
Lee's position? "We should use Congress' power of the purse to deny funding for this unfair (Obamacare) law. Congress controls the power to appropriate funds, so defunding Obamacare is simple."
One reader echos my sentiments when he writes in the Letters Reply section: "His (Lee) "the sky is falling" approach to wanting the Affordable Care Act defunded is similar to some who opposed Medicare before and after LBJ signed it into law."
Look, there's nothing wrong with being a member of the "opposition party".We are clearly a country without a rudder, whose citizens desperately want and need more responsible leadership from both sides of the aisle.
However, the image I come away with is that the Republicans are simply fighting for the seat on the couch with the best access to the "Lazy Suzan."
If they keep up with this foolishness - it's doubtful they're going to make it to author and humorist James Thurber's "catbird seat" in 2014.
Tuesday, August 6, 2013
IT'S STILL ABOUT WHAT'S RIGHT.
Were you statisfied with the outcome of the first OJ Simpson trial? How about the debacle involving Roger Clemons? Do you believe that A-Rod will beat the rap in this latest matter?
Do you believe Lance Armstong will ever do any jail time for what he did - including his law suit against a man who clearly was just trying to save a great sport - and whom Armstrong - and his attorneys - attacked as if , the accuser - not Armstrong was the bad guy?
If you weren't don't waste your time in reading anything more.
This is a difficult subject for a blog. The reason being is that if we had done anything wrong to the extent that the defendants "might' have done - and we could afford their services - we would have run - not walked - to secure the services of the attorneys defending them . That is, if we, had the financial resources- to hire them.
Yeah, that would be a bundle - one heckuva lot more than the government and the MLB or the federal government would apparently be willing to pay an equally intelligent group of attorneys to prove their case.
You see, what we do with our adulation of athletes is to give so many of our heroes a "get out of jail free" card. What about the ones - the majority - who are not cheating?
Do you remember what it was like to have to stay after school in detention because the kid who threw the spitball at the teacher was unwilling to admit his guilt - and because we didn't want to be a (fill in the blank).
We so desperately want to have these athletes whom we have rushed toward or possibly stood in line to get an autograph - maybe even for both ourself and our kids - perhaps on a signed paper or piece of clothing - a tee shirt or out of desperation, even a bra - whatever, from whom we are willing to accept almost any outrageos behavior as long as they continue to represent our sports team - with whom we non-athletes, wannabees, or has-beens vicariously claim we have some association with that specific athlete - or team.
While we do this we have the gall to make our kids change their clothing if their shirt or blouse celebrates the latest rap artists of the day - some of whom are allowed to use the N-word in impunity - without fear of repudiation..
And, when they ( our jock heroes) do wrong - as often will happen with athletes who see our adulation as that "get out of jail free card" - our first response to someone like an A-Rod is to blame the authorities - and not the athlete.
If a legal defense team is able to prevail and keep their client our of jail - (read A-Rod) it may not be a win-win proposition for either the law - or our society..
It's not only the prosecution who are so convenient for us to blame for failing to fulfill our latent desire to punish someone - it's us.
Maybe it's time for someone in authority to hire and pay adequately bright prosecuter attorneys with equal skills - to try these cases and teach our kids "it's not right to do wrong."
I truly believe fair and effective jurisprudence was never meant to be a tug of war decided by which team could effectively hire the best ringer. In my opinion it's still about what's right and what's wrong.
For all of the athletes who are accused of doing wrong in this recent scandal - only one, A-Rod, has decided to attack the system.
Why? Because due to our adulation and willingness to support paying him an outrageous salary - in a vain attempt to find a hero who is not as tainted in our eyes as those predecessors who we are sure doped up - he can afford to do so.
How in the name of everything that is holy can we call this "justice"?
Forget about the price of the expensive shirt you no longer are proud to wear but reluctantly are now willing to throw in the trashbin . What about the value system we need and want to teach our kids and grandkids?
Let's face it. There's a lot of blame to go around here.
Do you believe Lance Armstong will ever do any jail time for what he did - including his law suit against a man who clearly was just trying to save a great sport - and whom Armstrong - and his attorneys - attacked as if , the accuser - not Armstrong was the bad guy?
If you weren't don't waste your time in reading anything more.
This is a difficult subject for a blog. The reason being is that if we had done anything wrong to the extent that the defendants "might' have done - and we could afford their services - we would have run - not walked - to secure the services of the attorneys defending them . That is, if we, had the financial resources- to hire them.
Yeah, that would be a bundle - one heckuva lot more than the government and the MLB or the federal government would apparently be willing to pay an equally intelligent group of attorneys to prove their case.
You see, what we do with our adulation of athletes is to give so many of our heroes a "get out of jail free" card. What about the ones - the majority - who are not cheating?
Do you remember what it was like to have to stay after school in detention because the kid who threw the spitball at the teacher was unwilling to admit his guilt - and because we didn't want to be a (fill in the blank).
We so desperately want to have these athletes whom we have rushed toward or possibly stood in line to get an autograph - maybe even for both ourself and our kids - perhaps on a signed paper or piece of clothing - a tee shirt or out of desperation, even a bra - whatever, from whom we are willing to accept almost any outrageos behavior as long as they continue to represent our sports team - with whom we non-athletes, wannabees, or has-beens vicariously claim we have some association with that specific athlete - or team.
While we do this we have the gall to make our kids change their clothing if their shirt or blouse celebrates the latest rap artists of the day - some of whom are allowed to use the N-word in impunity - without fear of repudiation..
And, when they ( our jock heroes) do wrong - as often will happen with athletes who see our adulation as that "get out of jail free card" - our first response to someone like an A-Rod is to blame the authorities - and not the athlete.
If a legal defense team is able to prevail and keep their client our of jail - (read A-Rod) it may not be a win-win proposition for either the law - or our society..
It's not only the prosecution who are so convenient for us to blame for failing to fulfill our latent desire to punish someone - it's us.
Maybe it's time for someone in authority to hire and pay adequately bright prosecuter attorneys with equal skills - to try these cases and teach our kids "it's not right to do wrong."
I truly believe fair and effective jurisprudence was never meant to be a tug of war decided by which team could effectively hire the best ringer. In my opinion it's still about what's right and what's wrong.
For all of the athletes who are accused of doing wrong in this recent scandal - only one, A-Rod, has decided to attack the system.
Why? Because due to our adulation and willingness to support paying him an outrageous salary - in a vain attempt to find a hero who is not as tainted in our eyes as those predecessors who we are sure doped up - he can afford to do so.
How in the name of everything that is holy can we call this "justice"?
Forget about the price of the expensive shirt you no longer are proud to wear but reluctantly are now willing to throw in the trashbin . What about the value system we need and want to teach our kids and grandkids?
Let's face it. There's a lot of blame to go around here.
Thursday, July 25, 2013
THE PROBLEMS WITH RISK/REWARD
Here's to your favorite politician - ball player- and the guy or gal who is investing your pension money. Hopefully, they understand the principle of risk/reward (R/R) as well as their assumed responsibility to the rest of us.
I truly believe in the risk/rewards - if applied correctly. It's a time worn familiar concept that asks one to employ both affect and cognitive (both their conscience and their brain) as they ask themself : "Is the reward worth the risk?"
We see R/R demonstrated early on by young children. Most kids are pretty good at deciphering the difference between right and wrong behavior. However, some - despite knowing the difference - are willing to take the risk and "test the system". If we fail to teach them there are punishment consequences - we're going to be drinking a lot of wine during our child raising days.
The principle of R/R is as old as dirt and includes various disparate risks - some historical: Charles Carroll of Carollton, confirmed his disrespect for King George, by affixing his signature to "The Declaration of Independence" in bold cursory -address included - then declaring: "They cannot mistake me now!"
R/R has many biblical roots too. To cite just one, in the The Book of Daniel - Chapter 3 - three individuals: Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego successfully took on King Nebuchadnezzar's worship practice edict by volunteering to enter his fiery furnace to prove faith in their God. This worked too.
But, what if R/R is apparently not as risky as one might think?
Frequently, we read about various people on Wall Street who pursue and often achieve spectacular monetary gains (reward) despite the inherent possibility (risk) that they and their families may face temporary major disgrace and - huge fines.
Apparently, what they don't fear, is going to jail - a powerful deterrent to most of us as we weigh the pros and cons of our actions (pun intended).
Two recent examples.The hedge fund SAC Capital Advisers, founded and managed by Richard Cohen - one of the wealthiest people in our country -was recently indicted by the SEC for insider trading in a huge case.
Cohen, the guy in charge, was indicted for "administrative charges" (translation: loose supervision), but the "civil" action did not accuse him of "insider trading". No jail time.
If Cohen was knowledgable of the insider trading activity - as is widely suspected due to his position in the firm as well as the industry - but is not indicted on insider-trading charges - could you reasonably conclude this might well be a classic example of successful "risk-reward" activity?
The above is not unusual in how the SEC is dealing with so-called "white collar crime." They recently successfully took on a low level executive at Goldman Sachs and he was found liable for fraud after a two week trial in Manhattan. That's the good news.
The bad news? The SEC negotiated a $550 million civil settlement with Goldman Sachs but did not charge senior executives with anything.
Some in the industry claim, "It was an implicit bargain between banks and regulators in which the SEC did not charge senior executives of banks, such as Goldman, if the company was willing to pay a large settlement to help recoup investors losses."
One law professor said, "They gave up the office boy instead." A spokesman for a non-profit that advocates for financial reform stated, "They're laughing in the executive suites of Wall Street."
So, why did nobody go to jail - the assumed risk part of R/R?
A Columbia Law School professor may have the answer: "They (the SEC) never would have gotten the $550 million if they had gone after senior executives."
The reasoning is that the senior executives would have had the SEC tied up in court for months or years and one assumes their employer would have paid their legal bills.
In a recent blog I reported the SEC plans to get tougher on financial fraud. That's tough? What do you have to do wrong in that business in order to get jail time?
The moral? Kids - just like grown ups - will do the damnedest things if they know the consequences of their actions will receive little or no punishment. Just pray those kids don't end up on Wall Street.
But, then again, maybe by then the SEC will finally get it together.
I truly believe in the risk/rewards - if applied correctly. It's a time worn familiar concept that asks one to employ both affect and cognitive (both their conscience and their brain) as they ask themself : "Is the reward worth the risk?"
We see R/R demonstrated early on by young children. Most kids are pretty good at deciphering the difference between right and wrong behavior. However, some - despite knowing the difference - are willing to take the risk and "test the system". If we fail to teach them there are punishment consequences - we're going to be drinking a lot of wine during our child raising days.
The principle of R/R is as old as dirt and includes various disparate risks - some historical: Charles Carroll of Carollton, confirmed his disrespect for King George, by affixing his signature to "The Declaration of Independence" in bold cursory -address included - then declaring: "They cannot mistake me now!"
R/R has many biblical roots too. To cite just one, in the The Book of Daniel - Chapter 3 - three individuals: Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego successfully took on King Nebuchadnezzar's worship practice edict by volunteering to enter his fiery furnace to prove faith in their God. This worked too.
But, what if R/R is apparently not as risky as one might think?
Frequently, we read about various people on Wall Street who pursue and often achieve spectacular monetary gains (reward) despite the inherent possibility (risk) that they and their families may face temporary major disgrace and - huge fines.
Apparently, what they don't fear, is going to jail - a powerful deterrent to most of us as we weigh the pros and cons of our actions (pun intended).
Two recent examples.The hedge fund SAC Capital Advisers, founded and managed by Richard Cohen - one of the wealthiest people in our country -was recently indicted by the SEC for insider trading in a huge case.
Cohen, the guy in charge, was indicted for "administrative charges" (translation: loose supervision), but the "civil" action did not accuse him of "insider trading". No jail time.
If Cohen was knowledgable of the insider trading activity - as is widely suspected due to his position in the firm as well as the industry - but is not indicted on insider-trading charges - could you reasonably conclude this might well be a classic example of successful "risk-reward" activity?
The above is not unusual in how the SEC is dealing with so-called "white collar crime." They recently successfully took on a low level executive at Goldman Sachs and he was found liable for fraud after a two week trial in Manhattan. That's the good news.
The bad news? The SEC negotiated a $550 million civil settlement with Goldman Sachs but did not charge senior executives with anything.
Some in the industry claim, "It was an implicit bargain between banks and regulators in which the SEC did not charge senior executives of banks, such as Goldman, if the company was willing to pay a large settlement to help recoup investors losses."
One law professor said, "They gave up the office boy instead." A spokesman for a non-profit that advocates for financial reform stated, "They're laughing in the executive suites of Wall Street."
So, why did nobody go to jail - the assumed risk part of R/R?
A Columbia Law School professor may have the answer: "They (the SEC) never would have gotten the $550 million if they had gone after senior executives."
The reasoning is that the senior executives would have had the SEC tied up in court for months or years and one assumes their employer would have paid their legal bills.
In a recent blog I reported the SEC plans to get tougher on financial fraud. That's tough? What do you have to do wrong in that business in order to get jail time?
The moral? Kids - just like grown ups - will do the damnedest things if they know the consequences of their actions will receive little or no punishment. Just pray those kids don't end up on Wall Street.
But, then again, maybe by then the SEC will finally get it together.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)