Sexting

The news

It seems one 18 year old Phillip Alpert was convicted of sending a naked photo of his 16-year-old girlfriend, a photo she had taken and sent him, to dozens of her friends and family after an argument. Mr Alpert was charged with child phonograph and pleaded no contest and is now on the Florida's sex offender registry. Mr Alpert expresses some disbelief noting that he is now on a list with child molesters and rapist. His attorney, Larry Walters, commented "Sexting is treated as child pornography in almost every state and it catches teens completely offguard because this is a fairly natural and normal thing for them to do. It is surprising to us as parents, but for teens it's part of their culture."

Common sense

The girlfriend was 16 years old. That is she was a minor, a child, not an adult. Mr Alpert was 18, that is an adult. Despite Mr Alpert's immaturity in sending his girlfriend's nude photo he is, in fact, an adult and is, in fact, ghilty of child ponography. Immaturity is not a defense under these circumstances.

Even more disturbing is attorney Larry Walters who regards sending a nude photo of a 16 year old girl as a "fairly natural and mormal thing" and "part of their (youth) culture." Now, I don't know Mr Walters but I'm inclined to reasonably believe that he is rather older than 18. That is, he is clearly an adult arguing that the behavior is acceptable and excuseable. Given that kind of adult example is there any wonder that young people act as they do?

Common sense suggest that there is more than simple child penography. It is adults that should be responsible for setting the standard rather than excusing the behavior. It is adults that should provide the ethical framework and guidence that teaches 16 year olds that is is not OK to send their boyfriend a nude photo. It is adults that should teach an 18 year old that it is not OK to get angry and send a nude photo of their 16 year old girlfriend to others.

Dear Congress, Please Grow Up

Today on the news we were treated to several senior congressional spokesmen declaring a) their outrage over the AIG and other bonuses paid for by bailout money, and b) their anger at being blamed for passing the law that allows the bonus payments noting they they, the congress, was deceived and pressured to pass the law with the amendment.

Congress's argument is sophomoric to the point of being simply dumb. They argue that some 535 congressmen were unable to understand the language and consequence of the law they passed. Now, if that's true then we have 535 really inept congressmen. While, I'd certainly grant that some, perhaps many, of our congressmen are not "the brightest bulb in the socket," there re a number of very capable congressmen in the 111th congress. So to argue that Congress understand is simply outrageous.

There were a few congressmen that noted that the bill was so complex and they were under such pressure to pass it that they didn't have time to study it. If that's the case them I am apparently suppose to believe that our able congress thinks it's OK to pass enormously expensive bailout bills that they don't understand/haven't studied/didn't read/etc. Now if that's true then there is, in my opinion, something fundamentally wrong with the way congress is organized and managed. Since our elected congressmen are responsible for organizing and managing Congress it follows that they are at best inept and at worst incompetent. That line of argument is, in my opinion, every bit as outrageous as the first.

The problem with today's noise out of congress is that that no matter who did what to whom, no matter where the finger of blame is pointed, ultimately Congress passed the bill. Ultimately Congress is responsible for the bill. Pointing the finger elsewhere is simply childish and right now the US needs an adult Congress not business as usual.

Just some common sense.

Mr Dodd have you no shame!

So here's the latest on Sen Dodd's excuses for his misbehavior.

A defiant Sen. Chris Dodd defended his actions on bonuses for AIG executives Friday as news surfaced that a senior company executive was returning his $6 million bonus.

Sen. Chris Dodd admitted to CNN this week that he added bonus legislation to the stimulus bill.

Dodd said he was misled on the issue of bonuses for AIG executives. He claimed he would not have drafted key legislative changes allowing the bonuses to move forward if he knew the purpose of those changes.

Meanwhile, a senior AIG executive said through a company spokesman that he will return his $6 million bonus. The executive, Doug Poling, is returning the money "because it's the correct thing to do," said Mark Herr, an AIG spokesman.

Dodd, a Democrat from Connecticut, said officials at the Treasury Department led him to believe that the changes added to the $787 billion economic stimulus bill shortly before its final passage were merely "technical and innocuous" in nature.

So Mr Dodd didn't do it, then he did it but the treasury made him do it (you'll understand my amazement at the notion that anyone can make the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee do anything), now he's angry and he's been mislead. And, of course, according to the mislead Mr Dobb the changes were "technical and innocuous," never mind the millions they cost the taxpayer.

This last is really priceless. Lets see, presumptively as chairman of the Banking Committee, Mr Dobb is suppose to be competent and, one supposes, has sufficient staff to ensure that he understands the bills he's responsible for. So when Mr Dobb says he was mislead one can only assume that he is either incompetnet or such a poor manager that his staff is out to lunch. In either case, Mr Dobb should be replaced at least as chairman of the Banking Committee where given the pending next round of banking bailouts I'm inclined to the common sense notion that the country really could use someone who knows what they are doing and is in control of their staff.

Of course, I suppose, it is possible that Mr Dobb was bought and paid for by the very industry he is suppose to help regulate on behalf of the people of the country.

So which seems most likely. Mr Dobb is incompitent, corrupt, or both? Hm. What does common sense suggest to you? Oh, and does "technical and innocuous" ryme with "porky little ammendments?"

C. Dodd - Perhaps it's time to hold people accountable

Senator C. Dodd has been in the news lately in the matter of the AIG bonuses. Herewith a chronology of events courtesy CNN and others:

• June 13, 2008 - From the Wall Street Journal to the Associated Press, the national media were reporting Friday that U.S. Senator Christopher Dodd received favorable mortgage rates from a highly controversial mortgage company (Countrywide Mortgages).
• Sept 23, 2008 - Sen. Dodd notes in Senate banking committee hearing 'Too much power to the Treasury'.
• March 17, 2009 - Christopher Dodd , Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee and recipient of $280,000 in campaign contributions from AIG, adamantly denied that he had anything to do with the clause in the stimulus bill that allowed the AIG bonuses to go forward.
• March 18, 2009 - Hardball with Chris Matthews - Chris Dodd got over $100,000 from AIG. Barack Obama got over $100,000 from AIG. John McCain got almost $60,000 from AIG. Hillary Clinton running for the presidency got almost $40,000. Max Baucus, the top Democrat on Finance, got $25,000. Joe Biden, the VP, got $20,000.
• March 19, 2009 - Senate Banking committee Chairman Christopher Dodd told CNN Wednesday that he was responsible for language added to the federal stimulus bill to make sure that already-existing contracts for bonuses at companies receiving federal bailout money were honored. AIG's derivatives branch is in Dodd's home state. Many of the bonuses in question were awarded to executives at that branch. But in the written statement, Dodd said he had no idea the legislation would impact the company.

It rather reminds me of when young children get caught doing something they shouldn't. First you deny and lie. When that fails you blame someone else. Mr Dodd is a sterling example of what a senior US Senator should be - NOT.

So here's the short version Mr Dodd, Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, took a sweetheart mortgage from Countrywide Mortgage, but hey, it's just business as usual, and the Senate does nothing by way of censure. Then a couple of months later Mr Dodd says the treasure has to much power. Then Mr Dodd denies that he was responsible for the amendment that allowed the outrageous AIG bonusus. Then he says he is but the treasury made him do it.

Common sense suggests that a Senator on the payrole of AIG having conducted himself in this fashion should be impeached. Failing that, he should be censured. He should certainly not be re-elected.

Just some common sense.

Mr Obama and the Financial Industry

Yesterday, Mr Obama was on the news. He was giving a speech in what appeared to be a town meeting like venue. During his speech he spoke to the need for the government to rescue banks. To make his point he noted that if the local bank failed, the FDIC would step in guarantee the deposits (this isn't strictly true but that's another issue) clean things up and sell the bank so that the depositors would not be especially bothered (that's also not true as anyone who has ever had money in a failed bank can testify, but that's also another issue). Mr Obama then went on to note that when a big bank such as Citi, Band of America, or Wells Fargo got in trouble it was a much different matter. He noted that such large institutions control some 70% of the US financial services market. Consequently, they are to big to be allowed to fail.

Mr Obama is both right and wrong in this matter in my opinion.

First, I'd note as someone that from time to time has studied these and other banks for a living, that they in fact control rather more than 70% of the US banking marketplace. Depending on what one considers they may represent up to 90%! Mr Obama significantly underestimated the market share of these institutions.

Second, I agree with Mr Obama. Any institution that controls even 10% of a nations banking market is, indeed, to big to fail.

Third, Mr Obama entirely missed the really important issue. Should any single financial entity be allowed to control so large a share of a countries financial markets that they are to large to fail? A close related question is, should decisions about a countries financial markets be in the hands of a small (in the US read less than a dozen) number of CEOs?

My answer to both questions is a resounding no. Further, I'd note that not so long ago in the US it was not legal for banks to be remotely as large as they have become in the last dozen years. Laws that were passed after the depression to avoid just such concentration of financial control were changed some years ago so that a handful of large banks, read CitiBank, Band of America, Wells Fargo, WAMU, and a handful of others could engage in nationwide banking. Subsequently, these large institutions went on a merger binge and became the superlarge institutions they are today. In addition, they became, as Mr Obama notes, 'to large to fail'.

In the US, banking is part of the free market. While that's not true in all democracies a free market banking system has in general worked reasonably well. We have banking crisis of one sort or another every dozen or so years generally driven by greed overcoming common sense and inadequate regulation. But we survive them and life goes on. But while banking is a free market activity, it is not 'free market' in the sense that say the local pizza shop is. Banking involves the nation's well being and is, quite appropriately, subject to significant state and federal regulation.

Perhaps it's time to restore appropriate banking regulation. To cause banks that are 'to large to fail' to be split up and required to do business in a marketplace where if they make bad decisions and fail 'we the people' in the form of the federal government spending tax dolars don't bail them out and don't pay bonuses to executives who are clearly incompetent.

Just a thought really. Just some common sense.

Medical cost part 2

My cold continued for some days and I finally decided to go see the doctor. It was, simply put, a classic example of why medical cost are high.

Part 1 - People involved 2 - 9AM call the doctor to schedule an appointment. Call Lahey. Get in call queue. Listen to advertisements for Lahey. Operator answers. Tell her I need to schedule appointment. Get sent to scheduling queue. Listen to more advertisements for Lahey. Doctor's scheduling nurse answers. Explain to her that I need to see doctor. She takes my name and callback number.

Part 2 - Total people involved so far 3 - Nurse calls back 2 hours later. My physician is not available so I agree to see someone else.

Part 3 - Total people involved so far 4 - Drive to Lahey. Park in their new 'pay to park' garage. Something about the notion is singularly offensive, but I've decided to put up with it. Go to doctor's office. Stand in line 15 minutes waiting for receptionist to deal with 3 people in front of me. By now I'm feeling very bad and wondering just how long I can stand up. Eventually see receptionist. Give her the copay. Wait in waiting room for 45 minutes after the scheduled apointment.

Part 4 - Total people involved 5 - Nurse eventually comes out and shows me to examining room. Leaves.

Part 5 - Total people involved 6 - Second nurse comes in. Takes my tempature and blood oxygen. Surprisingly, doesn't take my blood presure. Nurse leaves.

Part 6 - Total people involved 7 - About 10 minutes later doctor comes in and examines me. Perscribes different antiboitic.

Part 7 - Total people involved 11 - Drive to pharmacy. Stand in line. Get to head of line. Turns out it's the wrong line. Redirected to different line. Stand in line and turn in perscription. Clerk hands perscritption to one of pharmist. Pharmist fills perscription and puts perscription in tray. Third clerk picks up perscription. Pay for perscription. It is now 4PM.

So lets recap. In order to schedule an apointment, be seen, and get a simple perscription filled it takes 7 hours and involves 11 people! It set me to thinking about the way things worked 20 years ago when I saw a private practice physician. I'd call his office, speak to his nurse, and get scheduled. At the apointed hour I'd go to his office and be shown to an examination room. I'd see the doctor. He write a perscription. I'd take it to a small pharmacy (since driven out of business by a large chain pharmacy) give the perscription to the pharmacist. The pharmacist would fill it. I'd pay and leave. People involved 4. Lesson - complicated systems are both inconvient and expensive.

Shamrock Financial and Deceptive Promotions

Yesterday we received a letter about the “Economic Stimulus Act 2008.” The letter had an official government look about it. So much so that my wife showed it to me asking if I knew about the program. Here's a direct quote from the letter.

The Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 has allowed the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) to temporarily broaden lending policies to assist mortgage holders and promote economic stimulus.

Status:

Our records indicate that you have not yet called to confirm eligibility for your property at ... . It is important that you contact us toll-free 1-888-477-4438 within 3 days of receiving this notice.

The letter sounded and rather looked like a government letter. However down at the bottom of the page in rather smaller type was the following:

This offer is being made by Shamrock Financial Corporation who is not affiliated with your current lender. It is not an agency of the government nor is it affiliated or associated with HUD/FHA. This is not a government form. This is not a commitment to make a loan. ...

So what I have from Shamrock is a) deceptive but b) legal. Should it be legal?

A bit of checking finds that Shamrock is one of those credit vultures that solicit the unwary with doubtful credit offers managing, but only just, to stay within the letter of the law.

The letter got me to wondering. Why is it that companies like Shamrock that are arguably part of the problem can continue with business as usual why the country deals with the aftermath of their previous dealings? Isn't it time that we put back the stricter regulations that helped protect consumers from such companies? Of course that would be common sense, a rather uncommon quality in government.