Bonus Mania

The AIG bonus story has gotten plenty of press over the last few days - and rightly so. The idea that a company in "need" of billions in tax payer subsidies is also handing out millions in bonuses, justifiably angers taxpayers.

But truthfully it's just too easy to jump on the "bonuses are ridiculous" band wagon at this point. I'd like to look at this from a slightly different, although equally critical, angle. How did AIG executives not understand the public relations nightmare these bonuses would create?

These folks must have been watching the news when the president publicly decried these very kinds of bonuses a few months ago. They must have been paying attention when the million dollar office refurbishing played out in the media. They must understand that it's no longer the high flying 1990's - right?

It looks like the wall street sense of entitlement is even stronger than I imagined. Even looking at this issue strictly from a business perspective, how did AIG executives fail to notice the reputational hit the company would take when word of bonuses leaked out? Did they think it wouldn't leak? (That just seems naive.) Did they assume it would just blow over? (That's just stupid.)

In the end, the decision to hand out millions in bonuses probably points to incompetence at the helm of this company. Since the American taxpayer is handing over her hard earned money to this lot, can we at least put someone in charge who knows what they are doing?

Can You Tell Me How to Get....

Ricky Gervais gives us some new insights in to Elmo.

Watch Your Tone!

I'm in danger of becoming all religion all the time this week, but I want to drop another post on the topic.

I had an interesting exchange with a friend today about the tone (among other things) of my criticisms of faith here. She feels that my tone is too harsh in addressing difficult issues like faith. Naturally I disagree.

I've come across this issue before, and I think the last thing we need in the debate over faith vs. atheism is more deference to faith. (Here's an interesting discussion of this issue.)

I don't understand why opinions about the existence of god should be treated with any more respect than opinions about - say - politics. We regularly see public exchanges about political ideals that border on fist fights, and while you occasionally hear about changing the "tone in Washington", I've never heard anyone say that one side or the other of the political spectrum is entitled to deference and respect just because.

Yet I hear that argument all the time when it comes to "faith." Why is that? What is it about believing in god that entitles the believer to more respect or deference than any other opinion? It makes very little sense. If the believer can back up his beliefs, and wants to engage in a debate about it, he should welcome my challenge even if it comes in strong terms.

The "watch your tone" argument is particularly annoying in light of the tone that so many believers take with atheists. I'm not suggesting they should tone down their rhetoric, I can take it, but when a former president of the US has said atheists shouldn't be considered citizens; and when states still have laws on the books (although unenforceable) keeping atheists from holding office, maybe believers should take as good as they give.

Hey - I'm not really that harsh anyway. Now George knew how to be harsh.

What If God Disappeared!

Would we even recognize the world anymore?

Grand Ole Phuckups

(via)

Cali Gets Sane?

A California state legislator has proposed legalizing marijuana to help deal with that state's budget shortfall. This makes so much sense its silly. Setting aside the fact that pot possession and use never should have been illegal in the first place, and legalizing it allows adults to make decisions for themselves, this makes fiscal sense.

Check out these stats. Turns out that pot is California's largest cash crop by a wide margin. Pot comes in at $14 billion per year. Remarkably the number two cash crop in Cali is fruits and vegetables, at a meager $5.7 billion per year. That difference is staggering, and speaks to just how popular marijuana is.

Tom Ammiano, the legislator proposing the law, estimates that pot would bring a billion dollars per year in to the state's tax coffers. Given that the state has a $42 billion dollar revenue shortfall right now, seems like the state could use the money.

But think about the savings this kind of law would bring with it. Enforcing marijuana prohibition in California alone costs $170 million per year. Each of the 1,500 estimated prisoners in California jails for pot offenses cost $40,000 per year. All in all, that's a lot of savings.

I hope California seriously considers passing this law. Maybe if the rest of the country sees that the world doesn't end when pot is legal, they will consider legalization as well. Maybe then we can the start turning back the tide on the costly and unjust "war on drugs."

Worlds Apart!

Sometimes you just need a shot by shot remake of Journey's Separate Ways video!

Enjoy.